Your customer is satisfied. So why does the next order go elsewhere?

AI summary: A satisfied B2B account does not automatically buy again. Satisfaction evaluates past performance, while a new order depends on the current need, purchase opportunity, available alternatives, procurement policy, decision makers, perceived value and associations with future relevance and risk. Investigate separately what the customer appreciated, what new task exists, which suppliers are considered, what meanings are attached to each and who makes the decision. Combine account records, interviews, suitable association research and observable buying behaviour. Then test a targeted change without inventing results or promising guaranteed revenue growth.

A customer may truly be satisfied with your work. Not merely polite, not strategically evasive, but genuinely satisfied. You delivered what you promised. The team responded to questions and the work was completed competently. But that evaluation does not establish what the customer's organisation will need tomorrow. Some service contracts renew annually. Other projects are one-off investments. A later expansion may be owned by a different department. A CRM interface can display all three as 'satisfied active account', even though their realistic possibilities for repeat business are completely different.

Sales organisations frequently collapse three concepts into one. Satisfaction is an evaluation of the experience or delivered performance. Loyalty can refer to an attitude of preference and commitment or to a pattern of repeat selection. Repurchase is actual behaviour within a defined opportunity to buy again. A customer can remain fond of your approach while having no appropriate project this year. Another customer may renew because a contract or integration arrangement makes switching difficult, despite declining satisfaction. The same invoice can therefore reflect very different mechanisms.

This distinction is supported by empirical research. Mittal and colleagues synthesised research in 2023 and found positive average associations between satisfaction and outcomes such as retention, recommendation and spending, but the relationship differs by outcome, market and measurement design. [2] The observed link can also differ when researchers measure intentions rather than actual behaviour. Mittal and Kamakura examined the particular difficulty of linking survey satisfaction to observed repurchase. [1] Neither finding says that satisfaction is irrelevant. Both challenge the assumption that a single score can explain what a specific customer will do next.

Consider the sentence: 'They are happy, so they will call when they need us.' It rests on a belief held mainly by the seller: our previous work will speak for itself. The customer's reality may be that the next requirement sits outside your perceived area of expertise, a new procurement manager hardly recognises your brand or ordering through an established group supplier is administratively easier. The value of the previous project has not disappeared. It has failed to become relevant to the new decision.

That suggests a better opening question: For which future task should this customer think of us, and what would make that a justified choice? Not every account should purchase more. But a suitable buying opportunity should be identified before lack of repeat business is labelled disloyalty.

Repeat business can be blocked by the need, brand meaning, relationship, decision process or operational execution. The categories below are competing hypotheses, not permanent buyer personalities. Each must be checked against the account's actual situation.

Several mechanisms may operate together. An account can recommend your company for maintenance while choosing a competitor for a strategic transformation. That need not be inconsistent. Perhaps 'careful contractor' is a stronger association than 'digital transformation partner'. Alternatively, the competitor may genuinely have superior functionality. The latter cannot legitimately be explained away as a psychological error.

The meta-analysis by Blut and colleagues separates relational, procedural and financial switching costs and their associations with repurchase intentions and behaviour. [6] Pick and Eisend likewise show that perceived switching costs vary by context and that their relationship with switching can be weaker than managers expect. [9] Neither publication supports a universal formula for trapping accounts. Their practical value lies in distinguishing relationship meaning from actual purchasing conditions.

Ask a buyer to rate a successful project and you activate memories of that project: responsiveness, agreements, people and delivery quality. Ask the same buyer which organisation they would trust with a larger upcoming transformation and entirely different associations may become relevant: scale, continuity, digital integration, governance, reputational exposure or financial risk. Someone can sincerely give two very different answers.

It helps to separate absolute evaluation from relative preference. 'We give supplier A eight out of ten' does not establish whether supplier B is rated higher for the new job. Research by Keiningham and colleagues on share of wallet suggests that relative assessments against the alternatives a customer uses can be more informative about spending allocation than the absolute satisfaction score alone. [8] The study covers multiple sectors and does not supply a prediction formula for one B2B account. It does, however, expose the danger of treating NPS or CSAT as a complete loyalty model.

There is also a timing difference. The previous six months may have been about reliable service delivery, while the next eighteen months are focused on reducing costs or introducing a digital operating standard. What the organisation values has shifted. If the follow-up conversation focuses only on 'Was everything satisfactory?', it confirms a relationship with the past without exploring the next problem.

Preference should be examined for a specific decision. It is not a permanent trait of a business account. An organisation is not one person with a single memory and desire. Operations, IT, procurement and budget owners can have different decision tasks at different moments. This does not justify reducing stakeholders to stereotypes. It requires establishing what each person must decide and what evidence they actually need.

Lam and colleagues examined value, satisfaction, loyalty and switching costs in a B2B service setting. [3] These concepts may interact, but they are not interchangeable. Morgan and Hunt's commitment-trust theory similarly distinguishes relationship commitment and trust as important elements of ongoing exchanges. [4] A warm personal connection is valuable, but it does not constitute permission to assume future spending.

The first engagement may have been a small pilot. One manager had authority and the cost of a wrong decision was contained. The second contract may cover several sites, a multi-year programme or an operational standard. Now the purchasing risk is larger, additional people are involved and procurement rules may apply. The simple word 'again' disguises a genuinely different buying process.

The reverse also happens. The first purchase required extensive evaluation, but subsequent orders have become routine. A planner simply needs a product code, valid contract and quick ordering route. If your repeat purchase process requires a new meeting, a revised quote and multiple approvals while a competitor can be selected from an approved online catalogue, the issue may be administrative friction rather than a shortage of goodwill.

Analyse three layers separately. First, the need: is there another suitable task and does your offer actually address it? Second, the meaning: what is your company associated with in this new context? Third, the route: is there a decision owner, authorised budget, approved supplier record and functional ordering process? Mixing these layers creates confident but inaccurate sales stories.

Longitudinal research into B2B contract renewal shows that drivers of satisfaction and renewal can change over time. Williams, Ashill and Naumann follow customer relationships for several years and highlight the limitations of treating one cross-sectional measurement as a permanent account characteristic. [5] That matters whenever a sales dashboard is treated as a forecast of next year's business without considering new stakeholders, requirements and economic conditions.

The implication is straightforward: an absence of new orders is not always a lost deal. For a project supplier, there may be no repeat demand for years. That situation is fundamentally different from a customer who normally buys replacement materials monthly but suddenly moves the orders to a competing supplier.

When a satisfied account buys elsewhere, the easy explanation is that a competitor was cheaper. Sometimes that is true. Yet a competitor can also be more recognisable as the right partner for a new strategic priority, closer to the specification process or already integrated into the organisation's approved systems. The winner is not necessarily the supplier with the most friendly relationship. It may be the supplier who is easiest to defend at the moment of decision.

A company with a strong 'low cost' association may still lose when a failed project would disrupt an entire operation. A premium supplier may offer more complexity than a modest task requires. The customer's real risk needs to be examined rather than guessed. Selecting a group-standard vendor may be a rational route to compatibility and lower operational overhead, not an expression of fear or irrational habit.

Relationship quality itself has several components. Rauyruen and Miller investigated B2B loyalty through relationships with supplier employees and with the supplier organisation, alongside trust, commitment, satisfaction and service quality. [7] A popular account manager may therefore represent an asset without having created an equally resilient organisation-wide supplier preference. If that individual leaves, little knowledge may remain with the customer.

The remedy is not to invent capabilities. Make demonstrated expertise, delivery standards, documented performance and relevant service processes accessible to people who were not involved in the original project. The customer should be able to assess the organisation independently of a friendly personal relationship. And where a competing solution is in fact better, understanding that outcome is more useful than attempting to manipulate the customer's perception.

A CRM can capture contracts, contacts, orders, quotes and renewal dates very well. But a green status flag does not prove repeat business. Nor does six months of silence necessarily establish resistance. A project may have been postponed, a stock policy may have changed or the previous sponsor may have moved to another organisation.

A useful account dashboard therefore includes purchase eligibility, buying rhythm, contract obligations, current stakeholders, supplier status, reliable category spend where available, and grounded reasons for won or lost future assignments. Missing data should be marked 'unknown', not treated as proof of loyalty or disloyalty.

Be careful with predictive claims. A 'churn score' based on a few subjective CRM labels may perform poorly, especially where a portfolio contains only a handful of large accounts. A model can easily confuse account size with risk or use stale information to prioritise the wrong people. Processing individual stakeholder data also raises privacy and governance questions. Research should improve the account decision, not create unaccountable personal profiles.

This case is entirely fictional. The company, people, customer decisions and all possible outcomes are illustrations, not a Neurofactor client study. No performance numbers or measured effects are claimed.

Imagine a technical service company called Helder Maintenance. A distribution company hired it to inspect a building and deliver a maintenance programme for one site. The facility manager is pleased. The work was timely, the documentation clear and no unresolved complaints remain. During the evaluation he says that working with the team was a pleasure. In the CRM, the account is marked as a strong follow-up opportunity.

Six months later, a similar requirement arises at a second site. Yet no request arrives. The sales director assumes that the price is too high and proposes a discount email. But that is just one explanation. Perhaps the facility manager has changed roles. Perhaps the second location now falls under central purchasing. Perhaps the customer needs a provider able to combine maintenance with digital building-data integration. Perhaps the entire project has been delayed. None of these possibilities has been established.

In the hypothetical investigation, the sales team first checks whether a current need exists and who actually owns it. They then explore what the organisation remembers about the previous project and which suppliers are considered for the new one. A possible hypothesis is that the customer associates Helder Maintenance with 'reliable practical execution' but not with 'group-wide technical standardisation'. This is not a research finding. It is an interpretation that must be tested. The company may also genuinely lack digital integration capabilities, in which case better messaging would be misleading.

Three untested concepts are considered. A - Relevance: explain which verifiable capabilities apply to the new task, without claiming work the company cannot perform. B - Confidence: provide specific evidence of quality control, documentation and continuity for new stakeholders, not imaginary certificates. C - Buying simplicity: show a clear purchasing contact, scope requirements and procurement information without fake urgency. These are design hypotheses. None is a tested winner.

Suppose further enquiries reveal that the second location will not be upgraded until next year. Then there was no order to recover. Suppose a preferred-supplier contract applies. The team must decide whether a future tender is realistic. But if the buyer has a live decision and does not consider Helder Maintenance despite being satisfied before, an association question becomes relevant: why does a good supplier fail to enter the mental shortlist for a new task?

A credible investigation does not stop at attractive slide decks. It specifies the business question, the evidence the customer needs, the actual eligibility to buy and what observable behaviour would count as improvement. The useful outcome might be more qualified invitations. It might also be a decision to stop pursuing an account that has no suitable demand.

Step 1 - Define the actual outcome. Does the business want contract renewal, recurring orders, expansion, cross-selling or a second independent project? Define when a repeat purchase could realistically happen. An account without an eligible opportunity should not automatically enter the same risk category as a customer who has moved a routine order to a rival. Select the primary and supporting measures before starting.

Step 2 - Check the conditions for purchasing. Review demand, budget, procurement rules, tender schedules, approved supplier status, available capacity and operational restrictions. Can this customer buy from you now, and could you deliver? A missing supplier registration needs procedural attention, not an implicit association study. A product that no longer meets the customer's technical requirements needs improvement, not more persuasion.

Step 3 - Reconstruct the previous value realistically. Document what was actually delivered, to whom, under what conditions and how satisfaction was assessed. Separate perceived service from verified performance and original expectations. Confirm that the satisfaction score came from someone whose opinion is relevant to the new decision.

Step 4 - Map the new decision and buying group. Identify the job, consequences of failure and criteria of users, procurement and budget owners insofar as they genuinely matter. Do not turn professional functions into fixed psychological types. Establish who can approve the next contract and which process must be followed.

Step 5 - Study spontaneous and relative associations. Before showing a leading list of attributes, ask which suppliers come to mind for the new requirement and why. Explore how your company and alternatives are linked to concepts such as suitable, trusted, expert, easy to work with, future-ready or expensive. If a validated association task adds value, use it cautiously. Reaction times do not predict individual accounts' future purchases with certainty.

Step 6 - Determine the proof needed for the new task. Is the missing element an integration test, demonstrable capacity, independent reference, implementation plan, whole-life cost comparison or assurance about continuity? Distinguish what the customer does not know from what they do not believe and what the supplier cannot truthfully provide. Do not invent evidence to support a desired association.

Step 7 - Design an intervention for the diagnosed mechanism. If the account considers the supplier reliable for maintenance but not capable of a new digital project, an appropriate action might be a documented technical use case or a qualified conversation with the new project owner. Specify the task, hypothesised mechanism, intended evidence and possible downside. Change the relevant decision input, not several unrelated marketing elements at once.

Step 8 - Test real behaviour using a fair comparison. Monitor shortlist inclusion, qualified follow-up requests, actual tenders, contract renewals and suitable repeat orders. Use randomised or carefully designed comparative studies where practical. In complex B2B sales, randomisation may be difficult; record changes in account mix, market conditions, effort and timing. State uncertainty rather than claiming a causal effect from one large contract.

Step 9 - Examine the outcome after the next order. Evaluate delivery, margin, complaints, voluntary renewal and whether the new contract truly meets the new task. A rushed cross-sell can look like a success and still damage the relationship. Preserve information on cases where declining an unsuitable opportunity was the better decision.

The purpose of the protocol is to align sales, marketing and research on a specific decision. It does not assume that every missing order is caused by a mental association. It makes room for a finding that may be commercially uncomfortable: the need does not exist, the contract is inaccessible or the current offer is simply the wrong solution.

An association study becomes useful only when it changes a business decision. For every meaningful phrase, record the new customer task behind it, the factual evidence that could justify the claim, the person who needs that evidence and the later action you can observe. 'Trust' then becomes a precise question, such as whether a new procurement owner has enough information to approve you for a new project.

This is a diagnostic matrix, not a conversion guarantee. A customer without a new requirement cannot be made to buy through perfect associations. A customer whose needs have shifted to a technology your organisation does not support may correctly favour someone else. The model helps identify when better evidence is useful and when the product or commercial structure must change.

It also prevents a common trap in sales coaching: treating every negative answer as an objection that must be overcome. A buyer who cannot substantiate the expected operational benefit is doing their job. A buyer whose supplier policy prohibits an off-contract purchase is not necessarily expressing distrust. The goal is to support an informed decision with relevant evidence, not to eliminate justified doubts.

1. Identify the customer's next task. Do not limit your account plan to whether the previous delivery was satisfactory. Understand the projects, recurring activities and strategic priorities likely to generate a genuine requirement. Allow the plan to say 'no current opportunity'. This avoids mistaking sales inactivity for a psychological barrier.

2. Separate retrospective satisfaction from future preference. Ask about the service already received and independently ask which suppliers would be considered for a particular upcoming task. A high score on the former should not be used as a substitute for the latter. Where feasible, compare against real alternatives and the criteria of the current decision.

3. Make relevant competence recognisable. Generic claims such as 'professional' and 'customer-focused' may be pleasant but uninformative. Explain which work you can reliably perform, under what conditions and with which limitations. A reputation for strong execution can support a subsequent decision, but it does not establish every capability a wider programme may require.

4. Keep defensible evidence of the value delivered. Document outcomes, operating conditions, service standards and actual customer benefits when they are verifiable. Do not turn flattering statements into technical proof. Obtain appropriate consent before identifying the client or sharing confidential outcomes. A real but context-specific testimonial does not establish universal performance.

5. Make the account relationship transferable. Do not place all customer understanding in a single salesperson's private network. Provide appropriate and authorised documentation, clear ownership of contacts and a structured handover when people change jobs. New procurement stakeholders should have a fair way to discover what the earlier engagement achieved. Respect confidentiality and the limits of personal-data processing.

6. Remove genuine friction from reordering. Keep ordering codes, authorised supplier status, contract terms, invoicing details and delivery addresses current. A missing purchase order reference can be a larger barrier than an unattractive brand impression. Do not equate easy repeat ordering with automatic renewal under obscure or unfair conditions.

7. Investigate alternatives without defensiveness. Ask what makes a competing supplier attractive for this particular task. Is it price, service coverage, technical integration, an approved purchasing route or a stronger recent example? Take valid advantages seriously. Calling the customer's decision irrational because it disadvantages your offer is not a sound use of behavioural research.

8. Contact the customer at the relevant decision point. An automatic monthly 'just checking in' email may add little. A genuinely useful conversation when an inspection cycle, project phase or purchasing renewal approaches can be better timed. Let the customer's circumstances, permission and preferences determine the cadence rather than an arbitrary CRM reminder.

9. Propose a suitable next step without manufacturing urgency. The next useful action might be a minor replacement, a separate technical review, a new project or no purchase. Present the options with transparent cost and scope. If the core product has failed to meet a previous need, do not conceal that failure inside a cross-sell recommendation.

10. Measure appropriate repeat business and what happens after it. An answered email, booked meeting and favourable score are leading signals, not completed repeat orders. Track qualified buying opportunities, purchases, renewals, relevant account spend, margin and later customer outcomes. Choose a primary measure that reflects the service and contract type.

These ideas are not universal tactics. A distributor supplying standard consumables may chiefly need availability and a smooth ordering process. A complex industrial-service provider may need strong evidence of organisational fit and delivery risk. The criterion is not the number of account interactions. It is whether the buyer can reasonably include you in their next decision.

A genuinely relevant follow-up is also valuable to customers who ultimately choose someone else. It can clarify requirements, reduce wasted evaluations and expose where your organisation should improve. That is more sustainable than forcing every conversation to produce an opportunity record.

At Neurofactor, the business question should determine the research method. If the client cannot reorder because its project is complete, brain measurement is not the right response. If several happy accounts consistently fail to recall a supplier for the next type of project, spontaneous association and mental availability become plausible subjects of investigation.

Qualitative interviews reveal how customers remember the relationship, what the next task involves and which evidence new stakeholders require. They are useful for challenging the sales team's assumptions. Yet an interviewee may offer a socially agreeable explanation, fail to remember a purchasing constraint or lack access to the current procurement decision. Statements must therefore be checked against processes and behaviour.

Explicit association research can examine meanings and expectations systematically. For example, does a supplier evoke 'maintenance', 'integration', 'strategic advice', 'cost efficiency' or 'risk'? An appropriately designed implicit association task may add information about relative links between a brand and selected concepts, but its validity, reliability, stimuli and scoring must be defensible. Reaction times do not read thoughts and do not reliably predict an individual company's next order by themselves.

Eye tracking may be useful when buyers examine supplier portals, catalogues, technical documents or evidence within an online procurement journey. It can reveal whether a critical section was actually seen. It cannot establish whether a price was perceived as fair or whether a person trusts a supplier. Pair gaze data with task observation, understanding and realistic choices.

EEG may help investigate time-related neural responses to carefully controlled stimuli. It does not produce a direct measure of 'loyal corporate account' or reveal why an organisation did not issue a purchase order. Many retention problems are better investigated first with account records, conversations and behavioural observation. Advanced measurement should earn its place by resolving a genuine uncertainty that simpler methods cannot address.

Pay attention to privacy. Mixing identifiable responses with account histories can create unnecessary risks, particularly when personal profiles are built around a few procurement decision makers. Use aggregated and purpose-limited data wherever practical, establish a lawful basis when personal data are processed and communicate the research purpose clearly. The objective is a better organisational decision, not covert profiling of buyers.

One more methodological boundary is crucial: do not collapse 'attention', 'positive affect', 'liking', 'trust', 'consideration', 'intent' and 'actual purchase' into a single number. Every one of these constructs describes something different. A rigorous report states which variable was measured, what remains uncertain and which intervention has not yet been evaluated.

Many conversations end with 'Are you satisfied?' or 'Anything else I can help with?' Neither question is inherently wrong. They simply reveal little about the next buying decision. Someone can answer positively without having a current project, a budget, visibility of competitors or authority to approve a new agreement.

Try beginning with the business context: What has changed in your organisation since our last engagement? Then ask: For which future problems would you consider us, and for which would you not? The second part matters. If the customer does not associate your firm with a particular technical capability, that may be a valid boundary. The next question becomes Who will be involved in the new decision, and what must they be able to demonstrate internally?

Do not automatically classify every answer as a sales objection. If the buyer says the proposed integration is unavailable, establish whether that is factually correct. If the project has no approved funding, ask when a realistic review will occur rather than manufacturing urgency. If a preferred-supplier agreement exists, verify whether an alternative evaluation is permitted and worthwhile.

Another question exposes the association directly: If we were not already in your supplier database, what would make you think of us today? 'For emergency repair work' is a different answer from 'For designing our next group-wide operating standard'. These are meaningful indications of the supplier's position in the buyer's mind, but they remain hypotheses until triangulated with actual choices and criteria.

Keep clear records of what the customer confirmed, what the account manager inferred and what has not yet been established. Treating those categories as the same thing is a common way to create false confidence. The value of the follow-up lies in a shared, evidence-based understanding of whether another suitable buying opportunity exists.

There are many situations where a customer does not reorder and it would be misleading to present the problem as psychological. The original project is finished. The organisation has a budget freeze. The relevant site has closed. The required certification is absent. A tender has been awarded through a lawful central process. The supplier lacks a necessary product feature or a competitor genuinely fits better. None of these facts can be corrected by a more positive brand narrative.

Satisfaction itself may also have been overinterpreted. Perhaps the score came from one friendly contact, while actual users experienced unresolved problems. The interview may have taken place before the new system was in daily use. Or an eight-out-of-ten rating may be high only because the buyer has never compared alternatives. Verify whose judgment was collected, when and by what measurement procedure.

Scientific research provides useful concepts, not a universal instruction to increase repeat purchasing. The meta-analysis by Szymanski and Henard shows that the observed relations involving satisfaction depend partly on study and measurement characteristics. [10] Mittal and colleagues find positive average relationships with retention, recommendation and spending but substantial heterogeneity. [2] The B2B contract study by Williams and colleagues concerns particular longitudinal settings, not every distributor, software provider or construction firm. [5]

Avoid the temptation to make switching difficult as a substitute for becoming valuable. Suppliers can create procedural friction, opaque agreements or artificial dependency, potentially retaining spending without improving preference. Switching-cost studies help disentangle such mechanisms, but they do not justify locking a customer into an unsuitable offer. [6][9]

A sound commercial strategy accepts that some customers need nothing right now and others rationally choose a competitor. Research must permit those conclusions. Otherwise every study simply produces another story in which the vendor is always right and buyers merely need more persuasion.

The phrase 'repeat business' can hide very different behaviours. Renewing a subscription, ordering replacement materials, extending work to another facility and commissioning an unrelated new project are not identical. A revenue increase may reflect higher prices instead of stronger preference. Define which behaviour matters, who has a realistic opportunity to perform it and over what period.

A useful measurement system begins with eligible accounts: customers who could genuinely purchase the relevant product or service again in the observation window. Among them, measure actual appropriate repeat purchases, time to next order, share of relevant category spend when reliable information exists and outcomes after delivery. Do not silently include a customer with no new need as a lost repeat purchase.

Then examine the potential mechanisms: spontaneous supplier recall for the new task, shortlist inclusion, perceived relevance, credibility of supporting evidence, purchasing approval and continuity after personnel changes. These are explanatory signals, not the ultimate commercial outcome. An improved association score without improved decisions or relevant buying behaviour does not prove business impact.

If there are enough comparable accounts, a randomised trial of an improved evidence-led follow-up may be possible. B2B samples are often small, however, and contracts differ greatly. In an observational comparison, account size, timing, buying opportunities, procurement rules and changes in market conditions must be reported. A seemingly impressive conversion change driven by a single unusual order is not necessarily a repeatable effect.

Evaluate the outcome after the transaction as well. Was the work appropriate, delivered competently and profitable without generating avoidable customer harm? A client may order additional work to repair a previous failure. That contributes to turnover but is hardly a desirable form of loyalty.

A strong account dashboard therefore keeps satisfaction, future purchasing opportunity, associative positioning, actual repeat order and customer outcome after purchase separate. The distinctions support better decisions without inventing a mysterious composite loyalty score that hides causal uncertainty.

A satisfied account may be genuinely satisfied and still buy nothing further. There may be no current need. A new contract may involve different stakeholders, requirements and risks. A competitor may be more suitable. Or a favourable association with yesterday's service may not have been connected to a credible meaning for tomorrow's work.

The right response is not automatically another discount, another check-in email or another target for satisfaction surveys. Determine first whether an eligible buying opportunity exists. Then investigate the new task, relevant decision makers, real alternatives and the evidence required to become a justified choice again. Evaluate a targeted change using behaviour that matters.

The customer does not buy again because you were good yesterday. They buy again when you are the right choice for what they need next. That is how satisfaction becomes valuable information without being confused with guaranteed revenue.

Evidence note: These publications study different contexts, measures and outcomes. The B2B studies are particularly relevant, but none establishes the effect of a specific intervention in an individual Neurofactor account. The Helder Maintenance case is illustrative only.

• Your proposal makes sense. But who is willing to sign their name to it?
• Your product page says everything. Except what visitors need to make a choice.
• Associations in sales: why interested customers still do not buy