Antecedents of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study in Mobile Telecom sector
Introduction
The telecom network in India is the fifth largest network in the world meeting up with global standards. Presently, the Indian telecom industry is currently slated to an estimated contribution of nearly 1% to India’s GDP. The Indian Telecommunications network with 110.01 million connections is the fifth largest in the world and the second largest among the emerging economies of Asia. Today, it is the fastest growing market in the world and represents unique opportunities for multinational companies in the stagnant global scenario. The total subscriber base, which has grown by 40% in 2005, is expected to reach 250 million in 2007. The wireless technologies currently in use are Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA). There are primarily 9 GSM and 5 CDMA operators providing mobile services in 19 telecom circles and 4 metro cities, covering 2000 towns across the country.
Looking at the cut throat competition which the industry is facing it can be said that today the industry that seems to be more interested in forming permanent relationships with its customers is telecommunication industry. For the past few years companies within the industry have been operating within the environment of digital convergence, which could be defined as ‘the dynamic approach or partial integration of different communication and information based market applications. In this context it is debated whether telecommunication and media companies are confronted with a new competitive landscape characterized by increased complexity and dynamics. This development would suggest a need for change in the strategic alignment of these industries. It is leading to new thinking from all sides away from a transaction orientation towards a relationship orientation. The focus of activities is no longer solely on competing for new customers, but also on securing the loyalty of existing ones. The underlying view behind this is that the costs of attracting new customers are several times higher than those of securing the loyalty of a company’s existing customers. Increased complexity and dynamics of converging environment call for increasing brand loyalty. Satisfied customers are highly likely to be the loyal customers but in many situations it is doubtful to assume that customer satisfaction will lead to customer loyalty (Gale 1997, Reicheld 1996). So our endeavor is to search for factors other than satisfaction which might increase the customer loyalty.
Literature Review
Customer loyalty is difficult to define. In general, there are three distinctive approaches to measure loyalty namely -behavioral measurements; attitudinal measurement; and composite measurements.
The behavioral measurements consider consistent, repetitious purchase behavior as an indicator of loyalty. One problem with the behavioral approach is that repeat purchases are not always the result of a psychological commitment toward the brand (TePeci, 1999). For example, a traveler may stay at a hotel because it is the most convenient location. When a new hotel opens across the street, they switch because the new hotel offers better value. Thus, repeat purchase does not always mean commitment.
Attitudinal measurements use attitudinal data to reflect the emotional and psychological attachment inherent in loyalty. The attitudinal measurements are concerned with the sense of loyalty, engagement and allegiance. There are instances when a customer holds a favorable attitude toward a hotel, but he/she does not stay at the hotel (Toh et al., 1993). A guest could hold a hotel in high regard, recommend the hotel to others, but feel the hotel was too expensive for him/her to use on a regular basis. The above approaches measure loyalty uni-dimensionally.
The third approach, composite measurements of loyalty, combine the first two dimensions and measure loyalty by customers’ product preferences, propensity of brand-switching, frequency of purchase, recency of purchase and total amount of purchase (Pritchard and Howard, 1997; Hunter, 1998). The use of both attitude and behavior in a loyalty definition substantially increases the predictive power of loyalty (Pritchard and Howard, 1997). The two-dimensional composite measurement approach has been applied and supported as a valuable tool to understand customer loyalty in several fields, such as retailing, recreation, upscale hotels and airlines (Day, 1969; Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Backman and Crompton, 1991; Pritchard et al., 1992; Pritchard and Howard, 1997). Based on Coyne (1989), there are two critical thresholds affecting the link between satisfaction and loyalty. On the high side, when satisfaction reaches a certain level, loyalty increases dramatically; at the same time, when satisfaction declined to a certain point, loyalty dropped equally dramatically (Oliva et al., 1992). So a following hypothesis must be verified:
The more the customer satisfaction, more is the loyalty that will be attached by him towards that particular brand.(H1).
Relationship marketing has received increasing attention from both academics and practitioners due to the potential benefits for both firms and their customers (Colgate and Danaher, 2000). Due to the potential benefits a body of literature has emerged indicating that investment into a relationship may be one reason consumers stay with their service provider. For example, Gwinner et al. (1998) argue that consumers will commit themselves to establishing, developing, and maintaining relationships with a service provider that provide superior valued benefits. They discovered that consumers receive many benefits from developing relationships and that these benefits could be classified into confidence, social, and special treatment benefits. Gwinner et al. (1998) found that even if a consumer perceives the core service attributes as being less than optimal, they may remain in a relationship if they are receiving important relational benefits.
Berry and Parasuraman (1991) also suggest that effective relationship-specific investments increase customers’ dependency because they raise the costs of switching to competitors. By switching to a competitor, the customer would lose the benefits from the relationship-specific investments not readily available from the competitors.
Jones et al. (2000) also discovered an indirect empirical link between interpersonal relationships and repurchase intentions. This link suggested that, in situations of low customer satisfaction, strong interpersonal relationships positively influence the extent to which customers intend to repurchase. These results suggest that relationships do act as a barrier to switching. These relationships create psychological swithching barriers. Lot of researchers have been done in this context. The basic idea behind all the researches has been that once the relationships have been formed the cost of swithching the transaction partner becomes higher ( Lee and Cunningham 2001). So the change barriers exert a positive influence on the customer and help in retaining loyalty. This concept comprises of psychological, sociological and economic factors. For instance the frequent flier miles programmes have created reciprocal economic change barriers (Crawford 1990). So the customer loyalty increases with the increase in socio psychological change barriers. So based upon the above literature we propose the following hypotheses:
The higher the experienced socio-psychological change barriers the more satisfied the customer will be with that service provider (H2)
The higher the experienced socio-psychological change barriers the more loyal the customer will be with that service provider (H3)
Higher the pericieved economic change barriers the less satisfied the customer is with that service provider (H4)
Higher the pericieved economic change barriers the more loyal the customer is with that service provider (H5)
Now, it’s interesting to evaluate the psychological effects on customer Loyalty. Primarily psychological factors, such as the congruence between the brand image and the customer’s image, may result in change barriers. Personality construct has been used to be seen as a brand image component consisting of human characterisitics in a brand (Aaker 1997). So congruence between the brand image and customer’s image may result in change barriers (Wilson and Mummallaneni 1986).
So higher a customer’s self-congruity with his mobile service provider, the higher the perceived socio-psychological change barriers.(H6).
Numerous studies call for direct effect of self congruity on customer loyalty (Aaker 1997, Batra et al 1993, plummer 1984) so the higher a customer’s self congruity is with his service provider; the more loyal he is with that service provider (H7)
Furthermore, the apparent attractiveness of rival products and services has been shown to be a central determinant of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty(Dick and Basu 1994). This relationship can be deduced from the definition of the customer satisfaction construct as the result of the comparison between expectations and performances. On that basis, the following two hypotheses has been proposed by the model.
The more attractive the customer of a mobile company considers rival products and services to be, the less satisfied he would be with the performance of his brand.(H8)
The more attractive the customer of a mobile company considers rival products and services to be, the less loyal the customer will be towards his brand.(H9)
It is clear that more the customer trusts a brand the more loyal he will be towards that brand. The trust construct is variously defined as: “a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word of another can be relied on”(Rotter, 1967) “the extent to which a person is confident in, and willing to act on the basis of the words, actions, decisions of others” (McAllister, 1995); and, uniquely in the consumer domain, “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function”(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Furthermore, not to control for the effect of brand trust could result in attributing excessive importance to satisfaction in developing a customer base committed to the brand when, according to the commitment-trust theory (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), trust is a key variable in the development of an enduring desire to maintain a relationship in the long term, for example with a brand. In this sense, Garbarino and Johnson (1999) have demonstrated that satisfaction and trust play different roles in the prediction of the future intentions for low and high relational customers.
The consideration of trust in the brand domain derives some important and interesting implications. First, the adaptation of an inherent quality of interpersonal relationships (i.e. trust) in the relationship between the brand and the consumer implies that the brand possesses some characteristics that go beyond its consideration as a mere product. This idea is far from new because the perspective of the brand as a person has already been proposed by authors such as Aaker (1991), Chernatony and McDonald (1998) and Fournier (1998), and qualitative researchers working for advertising agencies and consulting firms (e.g. Blackston, 1992).
Second, viewing the brand as the consumer’s partner in a long-term relationship implies that, at a broader level of abstraction and as a logical extension of the research on impression formation, the everyday execution of marketing plans and tactics can be built as behaviours performed by the brand acting in its relationship role (Fournier, 1998). That is, all decisions and activities carried out constitute a set of behaviours enacted on behalf of the brand.
Finally, brand trust represents the recognition that brand value can be created and developed with the management of some aspects that go beyond consumer’s satisfaction with the functional performance of the product and its attributes (Aaker, 1996; Lassar etal., 1995). This same idea is pointed out by Blackston (1995), Gurviez (1996), and Heilbrunn (1995) for whom the study of trust could offer an appropriate schema to conceptualise and measure a more qualitative dimension of brand value. This dimension includes other characteristics and qualities of the brand that also have meaning and add value to the consumer. In this same sense, Ambler (1997) conceptualises brand value as a function of the existing relationship between the consumer and the brand, trust being one of the most important ingredients in this relationship.
So higher the brand trust higher the brand loyalty (H10);
The higher the brands trust higher the customer satisfaction (H11).
Perhaps now more than ever before, for virtually any product or service available, from computers to beer, from appliances to pizza, consumers can choose from a variety of increasingly similar offerings, regardless of brand name (Frankel and Phillips, 1986; Gralpois, 1998; Rogers, 1998). Across product categories, consumers face the task of searching for, evaluating and differentiating among a plethora of comparable products that may be capable of satisfying the consumer’s needs to a greater or lesser degree.
Further, customer satisfaction is an important component of most consumer decision making, and a consumer who makes a poor decision – that is, fails to effectively differentiate among competing product alternatives – faces the problems of dissatisfaction, cognitive dissonance, and/or a variety of associated risks (i.e. financial, safety, social, psychological). From a marketing perspective, such consumer decision-making failures and the resultant discomfort could result in the erosion of a product’s brand equity and, ultimately, the loss of relational exchanges with customers. Brand parity is observed when a customer doesn’t seem to find any unique towards a particular brand or that he feels that there isn’t any differentiating factor as such in a particular brand.
According to Dick and Basu (1994) attitudinal differentiation is a prerequisite for a high relative attitude. If the consumer is unable to differentiate among alternatives and/or sees no or very few differences among alternatives, relative attitude will be low with absence of true loyalty as a consequence. This view is supported by Muncy (1996) who emphasizes that in the absence of perceived differences between brand alternatives it will be difficult to build brand loyalty. Dick and Basu (1994) further argue that relative attitude is at its highest on condition of high attitudinal strength.
Greater the brand parity, the lesser will be the brand loyalty. (H12)
There has been considerable debate on whether brand reputation and customer satisfaction are the same constructs by researchers like Y.Yi (1990). The majority of dominant view in literature points that attitude towards the brand i.e. brand reputation is a more long-run and overall evaluation than the satisfaction construct (cronin et al 1992; Bolton et al 1991; Westbook et al 1978). Ziethaml (1988)and Shapiro (1983) suggest that the perceived quality of a product or service is related to reputation associated with the brand name. In services the brand appears to be more often connected to the reputation of the company rather than individual products or services.
Customer satisfaction is a post choice evaluative judgment of a specific transaction (Cronin et all 1992; Westbook et al 1978) Fornell (1992) suggests that satisfaction can be assessed directly as an overall feeling. In addition he points out that customer have an idea about how the product or service compare with an ideal norm. Fornell (1992) examined 27 different businesses and found strong correlations between satisfaction and loyalty in the range of 0.17 (department stores) to 0.66 (television broadcasting). Cronin and Taylor (1992) found strong correlations between satisfaction and loyalty.
However the relationship between the satisfaction and loyalty is expected to be dependent upon the characteristics of the focal products or services. According to Selnes (1993) the studies by Fornell et al, and Cronin et al did not control for brand reputation. Thus the observed effect between satisfaction and loyalty may be due to brand reputation. In situation where the customer can’t evaluate the quality of services or products the reputation of the brand is expected to operate as an indicator of core product quality, thus brand reputation can affect the customer satisfaction as well as brand loyalty.
The stronger the brand reputation, greater will be the customer satisfaction (H13)
The stronger the brand reputation, greater will be the brand loyalty (H14).
With the help of the following literature analysis we conceptualize the model which is given in figure 1.
Figure 1 : The Hypothesized Model
Empirical study:
We got 2000 contact numbers, with billing address, customer names, and email addresses (1734), of customers using postpaid services from period of April 2006 till June 2007 from three major telecom players namely Airtel, Hutch (now Vodafone), and Reliance telecom. All the respondents were contacted by email, 5 reminders through mail; each respondent had to be contacted through phone thrice, there we got 386 valid responses. Out of which found 290 completely filled questionnaires. Finally we selected 254 respondents; 36 questionnaires were rejected as they contained the responses which were not rightly filled. A questionnaire using 5 point scale for all the variables to be tested was prepared based upon the scales shown in table 1.
Table1. The measures for the constructs used in study
Construct Item Scales used
Customer Loyalty (1) Willingness to recommend brand used
(2) Response to critical review of brand used
,
(3) Probability to stay with current brand Cziepel and Gilmore 1987; Guseman 1981, Dick and Basu 1994, Johnson et al 1997, Narayandas 1997
Customer Satisfaction (1) Overall Satisfaction
(2)Expectancy disconfirmation
(3) Performance vs. the customer’s ideal product or service ASCI by Fornell et al 1996
Brand reputation Brand Popularity, brand equity Zeithaml 1988, Shapiro 1983
Economic Change barriers Barriers Index for subjective appraisal of expenses related to a switch of the Service Provider Huber et al 2000
Attractiveness of Rival Products (1) Appraisal of rival products and services Perfect Fit
(2) Adjustment of expectations
(3) Adjustment of performance evaluation Huber et al 2000
Self-Congruity** Index for Self-Congruity 15 brand personality dimensions from Aaker 1997; Sirgy et al 1991
Brand Trust (1) Brand Honesty
(2) Altruism
(3) Reliability Hess 1995
Brand Parity (1) Uniqueness (2) Differentiation Batra and Sinha 2000
Socio-Psychological Change Barriers (1) Trust in Service Provider
(2) identifications with Service Provider
(3) Personal contact with Service Provider employees,
(4) Competent support of Service Provider Colgate and Lang 2001; Jones et al 2002
**Table 2: self congruity index
Difference 1 Absolute difference referring to the sincerity dimension
Diff_1= mean_sincerity_brand – mean_sincerity_ human I
Difference 2 Absolute difference referring to the excitement dimension
Diff_2= mean_excitement_brand – mean_excitement_ human I
Difference 3 Absolute difference reffering to the competence dimension
Diff_3= mean_competence_brand – mean_competence_ human I
Difference 4 Absolute difference reffering to the sophistication dimension
Diff_4= mean_sophistication_brand – mean_sophistication_ human I
Difference 5 Absolute difference referring to the ruggedness dimension
Diff_5= mean_ ruggedness _brand – mean_ ruggedness _ human I
Table 3. Overview of Cronbach’s Alpha for each construct
Construct Item Cronbach’s Alpha
Customer Loyalty (1) Willingness to recommend current brand
(2) Response to critical review of current brand
(3) Probability to stay at current brand 0.81
Customer Satisfaction (1) Overall Satisfaction
(2)Expectancy disconfirmation
(3) Performance vs. the customer’s ideal product or service 0.79
Socio-Psycho Barriers (1) Trust in Service Provider
(2) identifications with Service Provider
(3) Personal contact with Service Provider employees,
(4) Competent support of Service Provider 0.91
Eco. Change barriers. Barriers Index for subjective appraisal of expenses ——
Attractiveness of Rival Products (1) Appraisal of rival products and services
(2) Adjustment of expectations
(3) Adjustment of performance evaluation 0.75
Self Congruity. Index for Self-Congruity ——
Brand Trust (1) Brand Honesty
(2) (2) Altruism
(3) (3) Reliability 0.87
Brand Parity (1) Uniqueness (2) Differentiation ——
Brand reputation Brand popularity, brand equity 0.79
Cronbach’s alpha and exploratory factor analysis was carried out for all latent variables to identify the measurement models (table 3.). Further the confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for all latent variables (hair et al. 1998). In order to calculate the fit indices that explained the relationships between the hypothesized paths among the latent constructs, AMOS 4.0 SEM procedures (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) was used. The present study used the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) algorithm to determine the fit indices. Accordingly, the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were reported as the absolute fit measures. According to Byrne (2001), absolute fit measures should be used for comparison between the hypothesized model and an absence of any other model. The other measures which were also reported were the, IFI, NNFI and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). These indices indicated a comparison between the hypothesized model and the model with maximum constraints. Finally, the normed chi-square value was also used as an acceptable measure of fit.
According to Hair, Andersen, Tatham, and Black (1998), the recommended fit values for GFI, TLI, NFI, and CFI are ≥ 0.90. Likewise, while an RMSEA of 0.0 indicates perfect fit, values that are less than 0.07 are considered as good fits. Finally, the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit (AGFI) measures were also reported for this study. We can see the overview of the parameters and their global and local fit indices in tables 4and 5.
Table 6 provides the summary for the tested model.
Table 4: Global fit indices of the constructs’ measurement models
Construct item RMSEA GFI AGFI CFI IFI NNFI
Customer Loyalty (1) Willingness to recommend current brand
(2) Response to critical review of current brand,
(3) Probability to stay at current brand 0.078 0.95 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.89
Customer Satisfaction (1) Overall Satisfaction
(2)Expectancy disconfirmation
(3) Performance vs. the customer’s ideal product or service 0.081 0.94 0.86 0.92 0.94 0.91
Socio-Psychological Change Barriers (1) Trust in Service Provider
(2) identifications with Service Provider
(3) Personal contact with Service Provider employees,
(4) Competent support of Service Provider 0.011 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.91 0.87
Economic Change barriers Barriers Index for subjective appraisal of expenses related to a switch of the Service Provide ——- —— —— —— —— ——
Attractiveness of Rival Products (1) Appraisal of rival products and services Perfect Fit
(2) Adjustment of expectations
(3) Adjustment of performance evaluation 0.012 0.89 0.78 0.93 0.92 0.91
Self-Congruity Index for Self-Congruity —— —— —— —— —— ——
Brand Trust (1) Brand Honesty(2) Altruism (3) Reliability 0.079 0.93 0.85 0.94 0.91 0.86
Brand Parity (1) Uniqueness (2) Differentiation ——- ——- ——- ——- —— ——
Brand reputation Brand Popularity, brand equity 0.091 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.93 0.91
Table 5. Local fit indices of the constructs’ measurement models
Construct Item Completely
standardized
loadings t-values Squared multiple correlation Construct reliability
(cronbach’s alpha) Avg. variance explained
Customer Loyalty (1) Willingness to recommend current brand
(2) Response to critical review of current brand
(3) Probability to stay at current brand 0.71
0.69
0.67 6.12
3.69
4.51 0.69
0.66
0.59 0.81 0.67
Customer Satisfaction (1) Overall Satisfaction
(2)Expectancy disconfirmation
(3) Performance vs. the customer’s ideal product or service 0.57
0.76
0.71 2.69
3.41
7.01 0.61
0.51
0.74 0.79 0.59
Socio-Psycho Barriers (1) Trust in Service Provider
(2) identifications with Service Provider
(3) Personal contact with Service Provider employees,
(4) Competent support of Service Provider 0.76
0.51
0.66
0.71 3.67
2.35
3.01
5.71 0.81
0.39
0.64
0.67 0.91 0.71
Eco. Change barriers. Barriers Index for subjective appraisal of expenses ——- —— —— —— ——
Attractiveness of Rival Products (1) Appraisal of rival products and services
(2) Adjustment of expectations
(3) Adjustment of performance evaluation 0.71
0.56
0.64 3.17
2.89
3.21 0.71
0.55
0.63 0.75 0.78
Self Congruity. Index for Self-Congruity —— —— —— —— ——
Brand Trust (1) Brand Honesty
(2) (2) Altruism
(3) (3) Reliability 0.44
0.51
0.63 2.01
3.11
4.09 0.61
0.59
0.62 0.87 0.59
Brand Parity (1) Uniqueness (2) Differentiation ——- ——- ——- —— ——
Brand reputation Brand popularity 0.49 6.01 0.71 0.79 0.44
Table 6. Summary of Path Analysis for Complete Sample
hypotheses construct Standarised
Coefficient t-statistics result
H1 C. satisfaction — customer loyalty 0.59*** 6.82 selected
H2 Soc.psch. change .barriers. —- Customer Satisfaction 0.26** 3.22 selected
H3 Soc.pschc.barriers —– brand loyalty 0.11 0.89 rejected
H4 Economic change barriers —— customer satisfaction -0.44*** -4.57 selected
H5 Economic change barriers — brand loyalty 0.19 1.01 rejected
H6 Self-congruity — Soc.psch. change barriers 0.53*** 6.64 selected
H7 Self-congruity — brand loyalty 0.17 0.57 rejected
H8 Att. Riv. Prod. — customer Satisfaction -0.43*** -4.52 selected
H9 Att. Riv. Prod. — brand loyalty -0.24** -3.14 selected
H10 Brand trust — brand loyalty 0.33*** 3.99 selected
H11 Brand trust — customer Satisfaction 0.27** 3.26 selected
H12 Brand parity —- brand loyalty -0.16 0.74 rejected
H13 Brand reputation. —-Customer satisfaction 0.36*** 4.11 selected
H14 Brand reputation. — Brand loyalty 0.41*** 4.42 selected
Note: ** and *** show the 5% and 1% level of significance respectively.
FIGURE 2: RESULTS FOR COMPLETE SAMPLE
Summary of findings
Table 6 provides the summary of the discovered causal relationships. It becomes clear from the findings that the brand loyalty of cell phone consumers is determined by a number of direct and indirect factors. The salient results of the study are discussed in the following section.
Undoubtedly customer satisfaction exerts a positive and significantly high influence on the brand loyalty. The customer satisfaction hence is one of the prerequisites for keeping brand loyal customers. The reputation of the brand in general has an impact on the brand loyalty and customer satisfaction.
Trust is at the center of customer relationship phenomena, and is the key to understanding relationships of a personal character. In fact, misunderstanding and misplacement of trust has led to an anemic knowledge of customer-brand relationships, misapplication of investment, and the inability to accurately assess returns.
Although satisfaction is the indicator of perceived brand performance, trust is an acknowledgment of brand motivation. It’s the powerful idea that a brand has its customers’ best interests in mind, and that it’ll do whatever it takes to make them happy. Trust lives in the dissatisfied customer happily marching into a favorite store, fully expecting a swift and peaceful resolution; it is absent in the dissatisfied customer anticipating conflict and aggravation. When customers believe in a given brand, they no longer worry about the undue advantage taken when their guards are down. Consequently, as in human relationships, they may engage in deeper commitment.
The attractiveness of rival products has a stronger effect on customer satisfaction, as compared to brand loyalty. The negative value for this construct shows indicates that in order to improve the customer satisfaction, marketers have to present those cues for their brands which show the distinct superiority of their services over the rivals.
There are other indirect effects on brand loyalty which occur via construct of customer satisfaction. The findings reveal that socio-psychological change barriers exert a considerable effect on customer satisfaction. There is an indirect connection between socio-psychological change barriers and brand personality. The high value for the relationship between self congruity and socio-psychological change barriers proves that the socio psychological change barriers are determined to a large extent by the brand personality of the service provider. So we can say that greater the self-congruity , higher the person identifies with the brand, so higher the socio-psychological change barriers, which inturn results into high value for customer satisfaction, which affect the brand loyalty.
Further a stronger negative effect of economic change barriers is depicted on customer satisfaction as compared to brand loyalty. Rather there is no significant and direct impact of economic change barriers on brand loyalty. When the costs of switching brand are high for the customer, there is a greater probability that the customer will remain loyal in terms of repeat purchase behavior, because of the risk or expense involved in switching and because of the accompanying decrease in the appeal of other alternatives (Wernerfelt,1991; Selnes, 1993; Klemperer, 1995; Ruyter et al., 1996). However, if loyalty is defined as true loyalty, the relationship between this construct and the switching costs is not so simple. For example, it might easily be that the customer repurchases, but due to his dissatisfaction, he does not recommend the service provider to others.
Conclusion
The hypothesis results and path analysis shows that model is perfect fit. The first implication is that the brand loyalty is not driven by internal quality improvements but also by more traditional marketing activities familiar to marketing managers.
Apart from the customer satisfaction attractiveness of rival products and services, brand reputation, and brand trust exert a significant direct effect on brand loyalty. The high coefficient for the brand reputation suggests that marketers should focus on relationship marketing activities which enhance the brand reputation. So marketers should maintain ongoing relationship with the customers through segmented programmes and through good feedback to their customers.
Brand trust is one of the important indicators so the results imply that the brand managers should undertake activities related to cause related marketing, societal marketing etc. so that the brand relationships are indicative of the brand as a social being. The results also imply that customer satisfaction is an important prerequisite for creating loyal base of customers
The results further indicate that rather than solely concentrating on customer satisfaction brand managers should concentrate their marketing efforts on staying as attractive as rival service providers. The indirect effect of self- congruity on brand loyalty implies that brand managers should create a distinctive and unmistakable brand image that is congruent with the inner motives of their customers.
References:
Aaker, J.L. (1997) ‘Dimensions of brand personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34,August, pp.247-356.
Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, NY: The Free Press.
Ambler, T. (1997) ‘How much of brand equity is explained by trust’ Management Decision, Vol. 35, pp. 283-292
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999) Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.
Byrne, B. M. (2001) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hair, J.F.H., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992) ‘Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 3. pp. 55-68.
Fournier, S. (1998) ‘Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No.2, pp.343-73
Fornell, C. (1992) ‘A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish Experience’ Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 1 January, pp. 6-21.
Gralpois, B. (1998) ‘Fighting the illusion of brand loyalty’, Direct Marketing, Vol. 61, pp.62-65.
Frankel, B. and Phillips, J.W. (1986) ‘Escaping the parity trap’, Marketing Communications, pp.93-100
Rogers, D. (1998) ‘Brewers test ways to keep consumers loyal to brands’, Marketing, pp.18..
Jacoby, J., Kaplan, L.B. (1972) ‘The components of perceived risk’, in Venkatesan, M. (Eds),Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, College Park, MD, pp.382-93
Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets. Oxford :Butterworth Heinemann.
Lassar, W., Banwari, M., Sharma, A. (1995) ‘Measuring customer-based brand equity’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, No.4, pp.11-9
Blackston, M. (1992), ‘Observations: building brand equity by managing the brand’s relationships’, Journal of Advertising Research, May/June, pp.79-83.
Blackston, M. (1995) ‘The qualitative dimension of brand equity’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 35, pp.RC-2-7
Gale, BH. (1997) ‘Satisfaction is not enough’, Marketing News, vol. 18.
Gurviez, P. (1996) ‘The trust concept in the brand-consumers relationship’, in Berács, J., Bauer, A., Simon, J. (Eds),EMAC Proceedings Annual Conference, pp.559-74.
Heilbrunn, B. (1995) ‘My brand the hero? A semiotic analysis of the customer-brand relationship’, in Bergadaà, M. (Eds),EMAC Proceedings Annual Conference, pp.451-71.
Oliva, T.A., Oliver, R.L.and MacMillan, I.C. (1992) ‘A catastrophe model for developing service satisfaction strategies’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp.83-95.
TePeci, M. (1999) ‘Increasing brand loyalty in the hospitality industry’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11, No.5, pp.223-9.
Toh, R.S., Hu, M.Y. and Withiam, H. (1993) ‘Service: the key to frequent guest programs’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34, No.3, pp.66-72.
Pritchard, M.P., Howard, D.R. (1997), ‘The loyal traveler: examining a typology of service patronage’, Journal of Travelers Research, Vol. 35, No.4, pp.2-11.
Pritchard, M.P., Howard, D.R.and Havitz, M.E. (1992) ‘Loyalty measurement: a critical examination and theoretical extension’, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 14, pp.155-64..
Day, G.S. (1969), ‘A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 9, pp.29-35..
Hunter, V.L. (1998) ‘Measure customer loyalty for complete picture of ROI’, Business Marketing, Vol. 83, pp.18.
Jacoby, J.and Kyner, D. (1973), ‘Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10, pp.1-9.
Backman, S.J.and Crompton, J.L. (1991) ‘Differentiation between high, spurious, latent, and low loyalty participants in two leisure activities’, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 9, pp.1-17.
Garbarino, Ellen and Mark S. Johnson (1999) ‘The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships’, Journal of Marketing, Vol.63, 70-87.
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998) ‘Relational benefits in services industries: the customer’s perspective’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No.2, pp.101-14.
Berry, L.L, Parasuraman, A. (1991) Marketing Service: Competing through Quality. The NY: Free Press.
Dick, A.S and Basu, K. (1994) ‘Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, No.2, pp.99-113.
Jones, M.A, Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S. (2000) ‘Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in services’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No.2, pp.259-74
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) ‘The chain of effects form brand trust and brand effect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No.2, pp.81-93.
McAllister, D.J. (1995) ‘Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp.24-59
Reichheld, F.F. (1996) ‘Learning from customer defections’, Harvard Business Review, March- April: 55-69.
Rotter, J.B. (1967) ‘A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust’, Journal of Personality, Vol. 35, No.4, pp.651-65
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994) ‘The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp.20-38.
Muncy, J.A.(1996) ‘Measuring perceived brand parity’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 411-17.
Selnes, F. (1993), ‘An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and loyalty’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 19-35.
Klemperer, P. (1995) ‘Competition when consumers have switching costs: an overview with applications to industrial organization macroeconomics and international trade’, Review of Economics Studies, Vol. 62, October, pp. 515-39.
Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Bloemer, J. (1996) ‘On the relationship between perceived service quality and behavioral intentions: a cross-sectional perspective’, in Bera´cs, J., Bauer, A.and Simons, J. (Eds), Proceedings 25th EMAC Conference, Budapest.
Shapiro,C. (1983) ‘premiums for high quality products as returns to attitudes’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 98, No.4. pp. 659-79.
Wernerfelt, B. (1991) ‘Brand loyalty and market equilibrium’, Marketing Science, Vol. 10, pp. 229-45.
Westbrook, R. A. and Oliver, R.L. (1991) ‘The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 84-91.
Wilson, D and Mummalaneni, V (1996) ‘Bonding and commitment in buyer-seller relationships, a preliminary conceptualization’, Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 1, pp. 33-58.
Yi,Y. (1990) ‘A critical review of Consumer satisfaction’, in Zeithhaml, V. (ed), Review of Marketing , American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 68-123.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), ‘Consumer perception of price, quality, and value: a means end model and synthesis of evidence’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.
