Bus 485 Final Report.dochygth

8/3/2019 Bus 485 Final Report.dochygth

1/31

Abstract

This study will propose a conceptual framework which will investigate the importance ofcustomer satisfaction to brand equity Nandoos in Bangladesh. It will be a co relational study

which will depict the correlations among variables relationships among the variables. To test the

framework and structural equation modeling techniques will be applied to the data collected

from 20 customers of the restaurants. The researchers will use SPSS as the statistical software.

Introduction

The world famous South African Nandoos is in Dhaka as the first franchise obtained by MGH

Restaurants Private Limited. Nandoo's has been running in Bangladesh since 2007. The first

restaurant was opened in Dhanmondi area.Now there also an outlet in Gulshan & many other

places. It is running there as a franchised business. All of the outlets in Bangladesh sell halal

foods. Currently it is operated in the prominent locations of Dhaka and Chittagong.

Today there are signs of Nandoos life over the world& Nandoo's is spreading like wild fire

around the world. Nandoo's believe their flame-grilled Peri-Peri Chicken, is the best in the world.

To keep their promises to customer they always serve excellent flavor & quality food. The

customer who likes nandoos chicken they enjoy the same test wherever they are in the world.

Nandoos is an up scale restaurant targeting the upper middle class, the high and elite class.

Nandoos is famous for its peri-peri Chicken, which is marinated by a sauce with perfect blend of

flavor and fire. It is now here in Bangladesh to give our guests the Nandoos taste of the peculiar

mingles of herbs, spices, lemon and vinegar. Nandoo's is a casual dining restaurant group

originating from South Africa with a Portuguese/Mozambican theme. In 1987, Nando's operates

in 30 countries on 5 continents. Nando's specializes in chicken dishes with both lemon and herb,

medium, hot or extra hot Peri-Peri marinades in some countries; Nando's has other flavor options

like mango and lime or Mediterranean. Nandoo's manufactures a range of sauces which are sold

in Nandoo's restaurants and in supermarkets. They include Peri-Peri sauces, marinades, cooking

sauces and a Peri-Peri. Nando's has locations in Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Botswana,


2/31

Canada, Cyprus, Fiji, India, Ireland, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius,

Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Singapore &many other countries. In

this study we assess the relative importance of many of the known understanding to customer

loyalty, including brand equity. Hence, in the current study, the researchers intend to examine

whether there are relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction, trust, and customer

loyalty in Nandoos in Bangladesh or not.

Purpose of the Study

The purposes of this research paper are to find out the influences of brand equity on customer

loyalty. For this purpose this research are conducted on customer ofNandoos in Bangladesh.

This has lead to the development of following hypothesis.

The rationale behind developing five hypotheses is that satisfaction, value, change, effect &

brand trust combine develop brand equity. The method of inquiry is basically primary in nature

as the researcher of this paper used a purchased list deriving from licensing information for

recently purchased equipment. It was also the source for their sampling.

Finally this research paper will allow people to better understand the relationship between brand

equity & trust with both behavioral & attitudinal forms of customer loyalty. Our research paper

deals with the importance of brand equity & trust are consistently the most important to both

behavioral & attitudinal form of customer loyalty.

Statement of the problem

This research paper tries to find out the appropriate relationship between brand equity &

customer loyalty. More elaborately it tries to find out the impact or influences of satisfaction,

value, resistance to brand effect, trust &brand equity or perception of customer loyalty.

2 | P a g e


3/31

Review of literature

Satisfaction

Brand management is an area of increasing importance to marketers today as organizations are

moving toward attempts to communicate the complex and intangible messages of brand

management strategies (Davis, 2000; Goodchild and Callow, 2001). One of the many interesting

questions facing todays brand managers concerns how to develop a better understanding of the

appropriate relationship between constructs such as brand equity and customer loyalty,

particularly in relation to the myriad of known antecedents to customer loyalty in the marketing

literature.

It is important to understand Loyalty because in a business scenario understanding loyalty

means understanding customers better which is and should be a prime objective for everyorganization Taylor (2004, p 217). Another very important aspect is that loyalty is an elusive

concept. We all think we know what we mean when we talk about a loyal customer. But, when

we are asked to explain our thoughts dry up and we fall back on generalizations and

assumptions. However, this elusive concept must be understood by the organizations so they can

make their customers think that there is no superior or preferable supplier of goods and services

than their respective organizations. And, if they are to reach this state, they need to develop some

definitions and identify the factors that contribute to making a customer loyal.

Taylor (2004), Celuch and Goodwin for instance investigated the importance of brand equity to

the development of the loyal customer. In doing so they reviewed the usual antecedents to

loyalty which is basically satisfaction, value, resistance to change, affect and finally trust. Taken

individually these antecedents do not create loyalty. Plenty of research and practical experience

says that customer satisfactions do not make loyal customers. But its also true that dissatisfied

customers are less likely to become loyal. Similarly, value (however we define it) does not

always make a contribution to loyalty. Loyalty, in many ways, is an irrational and emotional

concept.

In this context Taylor (2004, p 217) et al. are right to advise that marketers should look beyond

customer satisfaction. They should focus on integrated marketing strategies that foster brand

equity and trust in the customer base which ultimately support customer loyalty programs. At the

3 | P a g e


4/31

same time, marketers should try to get away from seeing loyalty promotions as an exercise in

sales pushing.

If we look into each variable individually then we will see that loyalty is a sophisticated

construct. Oliver (1999b, p. 33) asserts that it is time to begin the determined study of loyalty

with the same fervor that researchers have devoted to a better. Oliver suggests that ultimate

customer loyalty is a function of perceived product superiority, personal fortitude, social

bonding, and their synergistic effects. His arguments generally support the assertion that

measures of loyalty that are constrained only to repurchase considerations fail to capture the

richness of the loyalty construct. The movement from purchase loyalty (e.g. repurchase

intentions) toward more holistic conceptualizations of the loyalty construct appears supported in

the emerging literature. Keller (1998) acknowledges that brand loyalty has historically often

been simplistically measured behaviorally simply via repeat purchase behaviors.

However, he also acknowledges that customer loyalty can be viewed more broadly than reflected

by simple purchase behaviors. Baldinger and Rubinson (1996) suggest that the use of loyalty

definitions that include both attitudinal and behavioral components will be superior in terms of

their predictive ability to conceptualizations of loyalty that are purely behaviorally based.

Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) recently proposed a model of brand loyalty that suggests that

purchase loyalty tends to lead to greater market share, while attitudinal loyalty leads to higher

relative brand pricing. Morgan (2000) similarly suggests that the term loyal can be interpreted

in different ways, ranging from affective loyalty (what I feel) to behavioral loyalty (what I

do). Narayandas (1998) and

White and Schneider (2000) propose laddering models that appear consistent with this emerging

orientation. Consequently, we operationalize customer loyalty in the current research as a

function of both behavioral (i.e. purchase intentions) and attitudinal loyalty.

Satisfaction is unique from other closely related concepts such as quality, loyalty, and

attitude [2], and has been hypothesized in the literature to have a direct influence on customer

loyalty (Mittal and Lassar, 1998; Oliver, 1997) and repurchase intentions/behaviors (Kumar,

2002; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). We test the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty in

our research to ascertain whether the relationships identified in previous studies can be supported

4 | P a g e


5/31

in an industrial setting when simultaneously considering all of the relevant constructs in a single

research model.

Customer satisfaction is becoming an increasingly salient topic in many firms and in academic

research (Sderlund, 1998). Anderson et al. (1994) affirmed that satisfaction is a post

consumption experience which compares perceived quality with expected quality.

Correspondingly, Oliver (1996) defines satisfaction as an emotional post-consumption response

that may occur as the result of comparing expected and actual performance (disconfirmation), or

it can be an outcome that occurs without comparing expectations

On the other hand, some previous researchers have explained customer satisfaction in terms of

expectation. They define if expectations are exceeded by performance; satisfaction is generated

(Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Bearden & Tell, 1983; LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983). Equally,

Buswell (1983) identified customer satisfaction as a combination of five key attitudes. Those are

knowledge of staff, communications, expertise of staff, willingness to lend and branch design.

Consequently, Berry, Zeithaml, and Parasuraman (1985) argued that customer satisfaction can be

defined as the attributes of search, experience, and credence. Yi (1990) believes customer

satisfaction should mean evaluation, symbolizing a type of consuming experience. Avkiran

(1994) recognized customer satisfaction by customer conduct, credibility, communication, access

to teller services.

Simultaneously, according to Anderson and Fornell (1994), customer satisfaction is the term

which may lower the chance of customers being driven away due to the poor quality of products

or services. Fornell (1992) noted that the more satisfied customers are the one that are greater in

their retention while, Anderson and Sullivan (1993) added that satisfied customer would intend

to repeat purchase which would enhance organizations profitability. In association with this

Jones and Sasser (1995) acknowledged that completely satisfied customers are those who are

much more loyal than merely satisfied customer

Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky (1996), alternatively, defined satisfaction as the emotional

reaction to a product or service experience. Oliver (1997) defined satisfaction as the customer's

fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service

itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption- related fulfillment.

5 | P a g e


6/31

The most common interpretations reflect the notion that satisfaction is a feeling which results

from a process of evaluating what was received against that expected, the purchase decision

itself and the fulfillment to needs or want (Armstrong & Kotler, 1996: Berkowitz, Kerin, Hartley,

& Rudelius, 1999). Kotler (1999) also noted that satisfaction is a function of perceived

performance and expectations which identifies feelings of a person resulting from comparing a

products perceived performance in relation to his or her expectations.

Wong (2000) believes that a customers total satisfaction is an emotional perception. Evaluation

is based on the customers reaction from using the product or service. Customer satisfaction then

is a total satisfaction that leaves a good perception. The perception of this wholeness is very

similar to the meaning of customer value package brought up by Fredericks and Salter (1995).

The customer value package includes: price; product quality; service quality; innovation; and

corporate image. Moreover, Martensen, Grnholdt, and Kristersen (2000) also discovered that

expectation, product quality, and corporate image are three facilitating factors in ensuring

customer satisfaction.

Hackl and Scharitzer (2000) have identified customer satisfaction as economic goals and have

considered customer satisfaction as a prerequisite for customer retention and loyalty, and

obviously that tend to help in realizing economic goals like profitability, market share, return on

investment.

Sureschandar et al. (2002) introduced different approach of customer satisfaction and defined

customer satisfaction as multidimensional construct. According to Bitner and Zeithaml (2003),

satisfaction is the customers evaluation of a product or service in terms of whether that product

or service has met their needs and expectations. The researchers reveal that satisfaction can as

well be viewed as contentment, pleasure, delight, and relief. Thus they noted customer

satisfaction as a dynamic and moving target that may evolve over time, influenced by variety of

factors.

Guenzi and Pelloni (2004) use the following definition of satisfaction in their study: Overall

satisfaction is the consumers dissatisfaction or satisfaction with the organization based on all

encounters and experiences with that particular organization (Bitner & Hubbert, 1993). Fe and

6 | P a g e


7/31

Ikova (2004) added that the perception of the word satisfaction influences the activities which we

conduct to achieve customer satisfaction.

Boselie, Hesselink, and Wiele (2002) defined satisfaction as a positive, affective state resulting

from the appraisal of all aspects of a firms working relationship with another firm. Thisdefinition purported that satisfaction (understood as affective) can be contrasted with an

objective summary assessment of outcomes thereby forming a target-performance comparison

mechanism. Therefore, the appropriate definition of customer satisfaction for this study would

be the one by Boselie et al. (2002).

Value

In spite of the attention devoted to this concept, the term value has proven to be a difficult

concept to gain a handle upon for marketers (Oliver, 1999a). Cronin et al. (1997) states that there

is little disagreement on the conceptualization of value in the marketing literature as value. Such

conceptualizations tend to focus on what is relatively perceived as received versus given up

in a marketing exchange (see the following studies for examples supporting this

conceptualization: Blackwell et al., 1999; Brady and Cronin, 2001; Carmon and Ariely, 2000;

Cronin et al., 2000; Kumar, 2002; Sharma et al., 2001; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Zeithaml,

1988). However, such conceptualizations of value appear incomplete given Holbrooks (1999)

more holistic conceptualization/typology of the construct. Oliver (1999a) recently addressed this

issue by suggesting that the traditional conceptualization of value identified above has been

largely constrained to the self-oriented, reactive, and extrinsic cell in Holbrooks typology.

Oliver (1999a) asserts that value is indeed a unique construct from satisfaction and quality. He

proposes a nomonological net model depicting satisfaction and value as existing both prior to

consumption as well as post-consumption. He envisions these constructs as coexisting and

influencing one another, as well as outcome variables such as loyalty, as consumers make

consumption judgments across time. He suggests that such a conceptualization is not inconsistent

with the traditional conceptualization of value in the service literature, only that such a

conceptualization ignores the other dimensions of Holbrooks typology. As such, value is

traditionally modeled as subordinate to the formation of loyalty judgments.

7 | P a g e


8/31

Resistance to change

The next variable in our research model involves resistance to change. The extant literature

generally accepts that commitment is central to relationship marketing (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).

Gilliland and Bello (2002) propose a model that attempts to link commitment to trust and loyalty

by envisioning trust as an antecedent to calculative commitment and loyalty commitment.

Pritchard et al. (1999, p. 334) define commitment as . . . the emotional or psychological

attachment to a brand. These authors extend considerations of commitment by arguing that

resistance to change is the root tendency of commitment as well as the primary evidence of

commitment. These authors further present evidence that resistance to change is a key antecedent

to loyalty.

Organizational change is an empirical observation in an organizational entity of variations in

shape, quality or state over time (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995), after the deliberate introduction

of new ways of thinking, acting and operating (Schalk, Campbell and Freese, 1998). The general

aim of organizational change is an adaptation to the environment (Barr, Stimpert and Huff, 1992;

Child and Smith, 1987; Leana and Barry, 2000) or an improvement in performance (Boeker,

1997; Keck and Tushman, 1993). This definition encompasses many situations that should be

distinguished by applying certain dimensions to establish typologies of change. We will refer to

the scope of change, because it is one of the most used variables in literature to design change

typologies. That way, changes can be defined along a continuum starting in lowscope or

evolutionary changes to high-scope or strategic ones. With the aim of making the use of this

dimension (scope) easier, we will describe both extremes of the continuum, but we should

always keep in mind that real changes are not a pure type but a mixture. First, we will describe

evolutionary, incremental, or first order changes. These are small changes that alter certain small

aspects, looking for an improvement in the present situation, but keeping the general working

framework (Blumenthal and Haspeslagh, 1994; Goodstein and Burke, 1991; Greiner, 1972;

Levy, 1986; Mezias and

8 | P a g e


9/31

Glynn, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1989; 1990). The second type of changes are strategic,

transformational, revolutionary or second order ones. They are radical transformations, where the

organization totally changes its essential framework (Blumenthal and Haspeslagh, 1994; Ghoshal

and Bartlett, 1996; Goodstein and Burke, 1991; Marshak, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1989,

1990), looking generally for a new competitive advantage (Hutt, Walker and Frankwick, 1995)

and affecting the basic capabilities of the organization (Ruiz and Lorenzo, 1999).

Affect

Affect represents a construct that is known to operate in general marketing models such as

studied herein, and represents . . . an umbrella for a set of more specific mental processes

including emotions, moods, and (possibly) attitudes (Bagozzi et al., 1999, p. 184). Oliver (1997)

identifies the role of affect in general models of customer satisfaction. Mattila and Enz (2002)

present results identifying that customers evaluations of service encounters correlate highly with

their displayed emotions during the interaction as well as post encounter mood states. Kim et al.

(1998) present results suggesting that affect can influence consumer attitudes even in the absence

of product beliefs. Bagozzi et al. (1999) provide a discussion of the role of emotions in

marketing that helps frame the incorporation of affect in the current research. These authors

assert that emotions are ubiquitous throughout marketing. They are known to influenceinformation processing, mediate responses to persuasive appeals, measure the effects of

marketing stimuli, enact goal-directing behaviors, and serve as ends and measures of consumer

welfare. However, these authors further assert that an area neglected by marketers is the role of

emotions in marketing exchanges and relationships. The current research attempts to fill this void

by modeling emotions as part of our research model.

Trust

Fukuyama (1995, p. 26) defines trust as . . . the expectation that arises within a community of

regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of

members of that community. Fukuyama argues that the technological revolution will make trust

9 | P a g e


10/31

ever more important in understanding business behaviors like marketing. Marketers have been

interested in trust for some time, however, based on a more focused definition: Trust is defined

as a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence (Mooreman et al.,

1992, p. 315). These authors hypothesize that trust is an antecedent to commitment (also see

Morgan and Hunt, 1994). However, specifically where trust might fit in a relatively

comprehensive model of customer loyalty remains unresolved. Hart and Johnson (1999) argue

for seeking total trust in a manner similar to TQM initiatives. As such, they see trust as

mediating the satisfaction l loyalty relationship. Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000) present a model

suggesting that trust is an antecedent to satisfaction (which in turn is subordinate to loyalty). This

model of trust as an antecedent to loyalty is supported by the work of Chaudhuri and Holbrook

(2001) in their model explaining brand loyalty (also see De Ruyter et al., 2001). Sirdeshmukh et

al. (2002) most recently present evidence that value mediates the trust l loyalty relationship. De

Ruyter et al. (2001) present evidence that trust and attitudes play important roles in competitive

advantage in service. Given the myriad of evidence, and our desire to ascertain the relative

importance of our exogenous antecedents to loyalty via standardized loadings, we model brand

trust simply as an antecedent to loyalty in our research model.

In business studies, trust has been found to be important for building and maintaining long-term

relationships (Geyskens, Steenkamp, Scheer, and Kumar1996; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, &

Camerer, 1998; Singh & Sirdeshmukh, 2000). According to Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande

(1992), trust is the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence. This

definition is in accordance with early research (Meyer 1981), which associated trust with a

confidence in the others intentions and motives.

Lewicki and Bunker (1995) defined trust three different types of investigations: first, as an

individual characteristic, second, as a characteristic of interpersonal transactions, and finally, as

an institutional phenomenon i.e., business to business or business to consumer context.

Fukuyama (1995) defines trust as the expectation that arises within a community of regular,

honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of members of

that community. He further argued that the technological revolution will make trust ever more

important in understanding business behaviors like marketing.

10 | P a g e


11/31

Morgan and Hunt (1994) conceptualized trust as existing when one party has confidence in a

partners reliability and integrity. Moreover, the authors also proposed that communication was

an antecedent of trust, along with shared values and lack of opportunistic behavior in

interpretation of the construct in their seminal study of the commitment-trust theory of

relationship marketing.

Anderson and Narus (1990) postulated that, if one party believes that the actions of a third party

will bring positive outcomes to him, trust could be build. Doney and cannon (1997) added that

the third party also must have some ability to continue to meet its obligations within the cost-

benefit relationship. Therefore, the customer should not only perceive positive outcomes but

also believe that these positive outcomes will continue in future.

Bhattacharya, Rajiv, Timothy, and Madan (1998) offer a more generalizable and integrative view

of trust that recognizes three key aspects: first, trust is not a simple expectation, rather it can

embodyan expectation, second, the degree of trust is related, statistically, to the magnitude of

this expectancy, and finally, the strength of the trust will be related to the uncertainty, or

precision, the individual has in his trust. Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner (1998) suggested trust as

a relational benefit. More specifically, they proposed trust as a confidence benefit rated highly

by customers in long-term relational exchanges with service firms.

According to Lau and Lee (1999), as one party trusts another and develop positive behavioral

intentions towards the other, when customers trusts brands they also form positive buying

intentions towards those brands. Trust is sometimes conceived of having two components,

performance, or credibility trust and benevolence trust, as Ganesan (1994) pointed out in a

business-to-business context.

On continuation of the previous definitions, Garbarino and Johnson (1999) demonstrated trust as

a driver of customer behavioral intentions building long-term relationship with the service

provider. According to Chatura, Ranaweera, and Prabhu (2003), customers trust can be viewed

in his/her service provide reliability, deeds and tasks which undertaken for the benefit of

customers.

11 | P a g e


12/31

Therefore, the appropriate definition of trust for this study would be the one that would

encompass the trust in individual, business-to-business, and business-to-customer levels in

commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Hence, the current study will use the

definition of Morgan and Hunt (1994) to define trust.

Brand equity

Our final construct involves brand equity. Aaker (1991, p. 15) defines brand equity as:a set of

brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from

the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firms customers. Keller (1998,

p. 45) argues that brand equity is unique from customer loyalty, and can be defined as: . . . the

differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that

brand. He argues that a brand possesses positive customer-based brand equity when customers

react more favorably to a (brand identified) product and the way that it is marketed as compared

to when it is not. Brands can also possess negative customer-based brand equity, expressed when

consumers react less favorably to the marketing activities associated with a brand, as compared

to an unnamed or fictitious named version of the product. Keller (1998) further states that one of

the characteristics of brands possessing strong brand equity is stronger brand loyalty. This

position appears consistent with that of Aaker (1991) who argued that brand loyalty could be

considered both a dimension and an outcome of brand equity.

According to Beerli et al (2002), loyalty has been, and continues to be defined as repeat

purchasing frequency or relative volume of same-brand purchasing. This, Oliver (1999)

considered as an inadequate definition. He posits that most definitions of the concept in the

literature suffer from the problem that they record what the consumer does, and none taps into

the psychological meaning of loyalty. He thus defined loyalty as: . . . a deeply held commitment

to rebuy or repurchase a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby

causing repetitive, same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and

marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour. Jacoby and Kyner (1973)

from a different perspective saw loyalty as the biased (i.e. non-random) behavioural response

12 | P a g e


13/31

(i.e. purchase), expressed over time, by some decision-making unit, with respect to one or more

alternative www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 4, No. 1; January 2011

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 231 brands out of a set of such brands.

This means that it is necessary to distinguish between exclusivity and loyalty and a function of

psychological processes which involves the evaluation of different alternatives using specific

criteria. Thus in the view of Day (1969); Jacoby and Kyner (1973) and Berne (1997), loyalty is a

concept that goes beyond mere repurchase behaviour as it presents two perspectives - behaviour

and attitude, with all leading to commitment. Accordingly the combination of these two

components enables us to distinguish two types of customer loyalty

Relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty

During past decades, customer satisfaction has frequently been advanced to account for customer

loyalty (Oliver & Linda, 1981; LaBarbera, & Mazursky, 1983; Anderson & Fornell, 1994;

Oliver, 1996; Jones & Suh, 2000). In a number of cases a positive link has been observed

between customer satisfaction and loyalty (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Fornell, 1992; Rust &

Zahorik, 1993; Taylor & Baker, 1994). Indeed, this link is fundamental to the marketing

concept, which holds that satisfying customer needs and wants is the key to repeat purchase

(Kotler, Armstrong, & Cunningham, 2002). There is a common assumption in the literature that

satisfaction is likely to increase loyalty as there is a link between these two variables (Bolton,

1998; Oliver, 1980; Page & Eddy, 1999; Patterson, Johnson, & Spreng, 1997). For instance,

studies conducted by Cronin and Taylor, (1992) in service sectors found that customer

satisfaction has a significant positive effect on purchase intentions in all four sectors.

Pragmatic research findings offer robust evidence of positive relationship between customer

satisfaction and behavioural intentions (Oliver, 1999; Bitner & Hubert, 1994). The

disconfirmation-of-expectation paradigm (Oliver, 1980) argues that customer loyalty (e.g.

Repurchase intentions, willingness to provide positive word-of-mouth) is a function of customer

satisfaction. Similarly, Anderson and Sullivan, (1993) found that stated repurchase intentions

are strongly related to stated satisfaction across product categories. Researchers in the

13 | P a g e


14/31

professional services area have also suggested that customers of business services tend to remain

with the same provider if continually satisfied (Davidow & Uttal, 1989; Woodside, Wilson, &

Milner, 1992)

In general, past research has demonstrated that satisfaction is strongly associated with re-

purchase intentions (Bitner, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Dabholkar & Thorpe, 1994; Fornell,

1992; Patterson, 1995). Hart and Johnson (1999) have added that one of the conditions of true

customer loyalty is total satisfaction. They argue that the presence of satisfaction reflects a

relationship commitment and loyalty.

Further support for a view that the effects of customer satisfaction on loyalty are different

depending on the level of satisfaction is offered by Jones and Sasser (1995). Basically, they

stated that the relationship is non-linear, and that the relationship is subject to different patterns

depending on the product in question. That is to say, when the number of alternatives of a

service is high, the satisfaction-loyalty link is strong. Thus, it may be assumed that the form of

the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty is different at different levels of

satisfaction.

On the contrary, there is little evidence that the theory has been tested in call centers. An

exception is the study by de Ruyter and Wetzels (2000), which tested the impact of customers

repurchase behaviors on customers satisfaction and trust, using a sample from the mobile

telecommunications industry. They found that both customer satisfaction and trust were

significantly related to the customers repurchase intention to call again, suggesting that

customers responses to service encounters lead to dimensions of loyalty.

In a recent study, next to trust, satisfaction has been brought forward as a precondition for the

development of long-term customer loyalty (Pavlou, 2003). For instance, in a recent work on online

settings, a positive link has been observed between customer satisfaction and loyalty. Preference and

favorable attitudes presume customer satisfaction, which is generally considered as a major driver of

loyalty (Cho, Im, Hiltz, & Fjermestad, 2002; Gummerus, Liljander, Pura, & Van, 2004).

As a consequence, there is a consensus amongst practitioners and academics that customer satisfaction

and service quality are prerequisites of loyalty (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Gremler & Brown, 1997).

Hence, it can be concluded that there is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and

14 | P a g e


15/31

customer loyalty. Conversely, it may be assumed that the form of the relationship between customer

satisfaction and loyalty is different at different levels of satisfaction.

The relationship between value and customer loyalty

Value is an essential factor to be customer loyalty.The concept of value is connected with quality

and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction, quality, and value have often been identified as

predominant causes of buying behavior.Value has its root in equity theory, which considers the

ratio of the consumers outcome/input to that of the service providers outcome/ input (Oliver &

DeSarbo, 1988). The equity concept refers to customer evaluation of what is fair, right, or

deserved for the perceived cost of the offering (Bolton & Lemon, 1999). Perceived costs include

monetary payments and nonmonetary sacrifices such as time consumption, 802 YANG AND

PETERSON energy consumption, and stress experienced by consumers. In turn, customer-

perceived value results from an evaluation of the relative rewards and sacrifices associated with

the offering. Customers are inclined to feel equitably treated if they perceive that the ratio of

their outcome to inputs is comparable to the ratio of outcome to inputs experienced by the

company (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988). And customers often measure a companys ratio of

outcome to inputs by making comparisons with its competitors offerings. Customer value is the

fundamental basis for all marketing activity (Holbrook, 1994, p. 22). And high value is one

primary motivation for customer patronage. In this regard, Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol(2002) argue that customer value is a superordinate goal and customer loyalty is a subordinate

goal, as it is a behavioral intention. According to goal and action identity theories, a

superordinate goal is likely to regulate subordinate goals. Thus, customer value regulates

behavioral intentions of loyalty toward the service provider as long as such relational exchanges

provide superior value (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002, p. 21). Prior empirical research has identified

perceived value as a major determinant of customer loyalty in such settings as telephone services

(Bolton & Drew, 1991), airline travel, and retailing services (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Chang

and Wildt (1994) report that customer-perceived value has been found to be a major contributor

to purchase intention. In light of the preceding discussion and findings

The relationship between Resistances to change and customer loyalty

15 | P a g e


16/31

Resistance to change is an essential factor to be customer loyalty management of resistance is the

key for change success or failure. By resistance to change we understand any phenomenon that

hinders the process at its beginning or its development, aiming to keep the current situation.

Therefore, we will establish a similarity between the concepts of resistance and inertia. Literature

offers many studies with sources of resistance to change. This paper follows the five-group

classification of Rumelt (1995), completing it with other authors contributions. In the empirical

research, our theoretical list has been supported by our investigation of Spanish companies

undergoing a change process.

Furthermore, our research has also allowed us to order the importance of the ources of resistance

to change. Later, we have distinguished how they affect changes ccording to their scope, that is o

say, how they affect evolutionary and strategic hanges. We arrived to the conclusion that

esistance to change is generally higher in trategic changes than in evolutionary ones. ooking

closer at the results, it is fundamental to note that the source of esistance identified as most powerful for

any type of change, dealing with the existence f deep-rooted values, is also one of the sources that

presents the highest differences etween evolutionary and strategic changes. Moreover, four more of the

top anked verall resistance factors present high variations when considering change as volutionary or

strategic. These factors are the different interests among employees and anagement, communication

arriers, organizational silence, and apabilities gap. This onclusion leads to the suggestion that these are he

most significant issues managers eading a strategic change process should be aware of.

The relationship between Resistances to change affect and customer loyalty

Kim et al. (1998) present results suggesting that affect can influence consumer attitudes even in

the absence of product beliefs. Bagozzi et al. (1999) provide a discussion of the role of emotions

in marketing that helps frame the incorporation of affect in the current research. These authors

assert that emotions are ubiquitous throughout marketing. They are known to influence

information processing, mediate responses to persuasive appeals, measure the effects of

marketing stimuli, enact goal-directing behaviors, and serve as ends and measures of consumer

welfare. However, these authors further assert that an area neglected by marketers is the role of

16 | P a g e


17/31

emotions in marketing exchanges and relationships. The current research attempts to fill this void

by modeling emotions as part of our research model.

The relationship between Trust and customer loyalty

A number of researchers have advocated that trust is fundamental in developing customer loyalty

(Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Those who are not willing to trust a vendor in

a competitive marketplace are unlikely to be loyal. The importance of trust in explaining loyalty

is also supported by numerous authors such as Lim, and Razzaque (1997), Garbarino and

Johnson (1999), Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000), and

Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002).

Chow and Holden (1997) studied the relationship between trust and loyal buying behavior and

found positive impact of trust in explaining to customer loyalty. Moreover, they found that trust

is a significant antecedent to not only attitude toward the product, but also to buyers loyalty.

Swan, Bowers, and Richardson (1999) found that trust positively affects favorable customer

attitudes, purchase intentions, and purchase behaviors. Based on a review of the concept of trust

within marketing channels, Geyskens, Steenkamp, and Kumar (1998) developed a casual model

of antecedents and consequences of trust and found strong support for trust as a mediator in

explaining customer loyalty.

Trust is sometimes conceived of having two components, performance, or credibility trust and

benevolence trust, as Ganesan (1994) pointed out in a business-to-business context. Numerous

authors have also suggested the existence of an effect for credibility trust on loyalty (Chaudhuri

& Holbroook, 2001; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). Recently, however, Singh and Sirdeshmukh

(2000) and Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) have argued strongly for a component of trust that may

contribute to explaining loyalty.

In a recent study, for example, Corbitt, Thanasankit, and Yi (2003) suggests a strong positive

effect of trust on loyalty to telecommunications firms. Dwayne, Pedro Simoes Coelho, and

Alexandra Machas (2004) further elaborated that in a business-to-consumer context, the

components of trust may be strong in determining loyalty.

17 | P a g e


18/31

Relationship between Brand Equity and customer Loyalties

Loyalty based on inertia, where a brand is bought out of habit merely because this takes less

effort and the consumer will not hesitate to switch to another brand if there is some convenient

reason to do so. That is, the consumer is buying the same brand, not because of true brand

loyalty, but because it is not worth the time and trouble to search for an alternative; and True

brand loyalty, which is a form of repeat purchasing behavior reflecting a conscious decision to

continue, buying the same brand, must be accompanied by an underlying positive attitude and a

high degree of commitment toward the brand.

Several factors have been identified to influence customer loyalty. As Beerli et al (2002) pointed

out, there has been a growing interest in recent years in analysing the factors influencingcustomer loyalty especially in marketing of services. Among such variables that influence

customer loyalty includes customer satisfaction and switching costs (Oliver, 1999; Berne, 1997;

Bloemer & Kasper, 1995; Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Boulding et al., 1993; Bloemer

& Lemmink, 1992) In a review of customer defecting patterns, Reichheld et al. (2000) found 60-

80% of customers who defect to a competitor said they were satisfied or very satisfied on the

survey just prior to their defection. Also, Arasil et al (2005) showed that the switching cost factor

directly affects loyalty, and has a moderator effect on both customer

satisfaction and trust. Therefore, it plays a crucial role in winning customer loyalty. In short, it is

a quasi moderator. However, switching cost was measured as a uni-dimensional factor. It was

realised that switching costs contain psychological, financial and procedural sub-dimensions.

Also, customer relationships and switching costs concurrently enhanced customer loyalty.

Moreover, it has also been found that as customers perceptions of switching costs increase, the

longer they remain with a particular service supplier (Aydin & Ozer, 2005; Patterson,

2004). In addition, some other factors contributing to customer loyalty include customer

relationships management strategies, corporate image, communication, and complaint handling.

Zins (2001) posits that corporate image of the service provider is, along with service quality and

customer satisfaction, a powerful and illustrative component for explaining future customer

loyalty. Nguyen and Leblanc (2001) demonstrate that corporate image relates positively

18 | P a g e


19/31

with customer loyalty in three sectors (telecommunication, retailing and education). The same

relationship is demonstrated by Kristensen et al. (2000) for Danish postal services and by Juhl et

al (2002) for the Danish food retailing sector. As pointed out above, corporate image stems from

all of a consumers consumption experiences, and service quality is a function of these

consumption experiences. Hence, antecedents of customer loyalty and customer perception about

service quality directly affect the perception of corporate image.

Questions and Hypotheses

H1. There is a relationship between satisfaction and customer loyalty.

H2. There is a relationship between value and customer loyalty.

H3. There is a relationship between change and customer loyalty.

H4. There is a relationship between affect and customer loyalty.

H5. There is a relationship between brand trust and customer loyalty.

H6. There is a relationship between customer loyalty and brand equity.

19 | P a g e


20/31

Development of Conceptual Framework

Figure: Conceptual Framework of Research Variable and their Relationships.

20 | P a g e


21/31

Operational Definition

Measured Variables Operational Definitions

Customer Satisfaction Will be operationally defined by Boselie. (2002).

Value Will be operationally defined by Oliver (1999).

Resistance to changeWill be operationally defined by Pritchard et al. (1999, p.334)

Affect Will be operationally defined by Oliver (1997)

Trust Will be operationally defined by Morgan and Hunt (1994).

Brand equity Will be operationally defined by Aaker (1991, p. 15)

Figure: Operational Definition of Measured Variables

21 | P a g e


22/31

The Research Design Methods and Procedures

The Research Design

The graphical representation of the proposed framework (Figure1) presented the outline and

constitution of relationships among the set of measured variables. This figure is supported by

questions and hypotheses. this section has discussed the methods employed the purpose of the

study is to measure correlations among variables.

Here the study explored the relationship between satisfaction, value, resistance to change, affect,

trust and brand equity within the context ofNandoos in Bangladesh. Research that studied the

relationship between two or more variables is known as co relational study. So researcher have

chosen co relational research to find out the appropriate answers to the research questions and to

test the hypotheses. The model (Figure 1) also supports this type of design. Here customer

satisfaction, value, resistance to change, affect, and trust and brand equity are being considered

as independent variables and behavioral/attitudinal loyalty is being considered as a dependent

variable. The research found out relationships between the measured variables.

Sampling:

Unit:

To investigate research questions, researchers gathered information from different customers of

Nandoswhich is situated in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Who have already taken their services. All theparticipants had given a letter from the researchers explaining the context of the research focus.

All participations participated voluntarily. If the participants wanted to withdraw, they were free

to do so at any time.

22 | P a g e


23/31

Size:

The researcher collected information from only 20 respondents of the customers ofNandoos.

The study will be conducted only in Dhaka city due to time and budget constraints. The

researcher provided 20 questionnaires to each of the respondent to know their opinion about the

service quality of. Nandoos

Procedures:

The researcher used nonprobability sampling to collect information. They used purposive

nonprobability sampling to know the characteristics or experiences, attitudes, perception of

participants. Here, researcher selected participants randomly. they piched up respondendents

randomly to know about their experiencs in Nandoos

Survey instrument:

To collect data the researcher did questionnaire survey among 20 respondents ofNandos. The

questionnaire survey is the most effective method for this study to collect data. It is not possible

to conduct personal interview because of time limitation. Questionnaire survey was the most

appropriate one for this study. Structured questionnaires were used in the research to collect data

from the customers. In the questionnaire, there were five objects, they are: satisfaction, value,

resistance to change, affect, trust, brand equity.

Pilot test of questionnaire

The researchers planned to conduct a pre examination to evaluate the questionnaire for accuracy

of the survey. The researchers selected 5 customers who are to conduct the pilot testing. The

researchers used only 5 respondents in pilot test because of the time limitation.

23 | P a g e


24/31

Data collection:

The researchers will collect data from primary sources to explore research questions. To collect

data from the primary sources, the researchers will use the questionnaire survey method. This

method is used in surveys to collect data from primary sources. Here, the researcher will

distribute the questionnaire among the customers of Nandoos. Through this method, the

researcher will be able to collect large amounts of information within short time and lower cost.

Possibly the current research is a unique for Nandoos. So secondary sources of data will not be

available for the study. But for supporting the literature review the researchers will use

secondary data. Therefore, the researchers require primary and secondary data to study the

research questions and literature review.

Data Analysis

Limitations of the Study

This study is limited by a numbers of factors. Firstly, the sample population is limited in terms of

its size and composition. First of all, the researchers have limited access to the related literature

review due to lack of journals available on the measured variables. As a result, researchers have

limited resources to deal with. Second, data collection is restricted in an area of Dhaka city only,

which may fail to represent the factual scenario of the relationship between measure

variable.

Time was a major limitation of the study as a limited it was given to conduct the study.

Literature review is not enriched due to time limitation.

24 | P a g e


25/31

Significance of the Study

The present study is noteworthy in various aspects. First of all, a previous study was conducted

on some of the measured variables (service quality, customer satisfaction, trust, and customer

loyalty) in Thailand in 2005. It was not used in the Indian subcontinent like Bangladesh.

Furthermore, previous research attempted to discover the relationship between service quality

and the customer loyalty in Thailand. The proposed study investigates whether correlations exist

between service quality, value, customer satisfaction, trust, customer loyalty and brand equity in

Nandoos in Bangladesh market. This research attempts to identify the determinants of

customer loyalty towards restaurants organization Nandoos in Bangladesh. This research will

reveal whether consumers make repurchase decisions based on simple heuristic factors such as

customer satisfaction, trust, brand equity and service quality. A further issue will be addressed

by this study, what are the factors driving consumer loyalty towards restaurants organization

Nandoos in Bangladesh . Hence, the present study will enhance the limited research on the

effect of service quality, customer satisfaction, trust, on customer loyalty towards restaurants

organization Nandoos in Bangladesh.

The present study will aid the Nandoos management to enhance better understanding about the

existing customer needs and wants and always recalls the 20/80 rule (which is 20% loyal

customers bring 80% revenue for the company). Therefore, from the companys perspective

they would come up with new ways to satisfy the existing customers for example improving

service quality (which is another measured variable in this study). In addition to it, ultimately it

will push the customer for repeat purchase, to become regular users i.e., to become the loyal

customer for Nandoos. This research also help or assist Nandoos to enhance their

understanding of the actual employee service quality to the response of their work environment.

25 | P a g e


26/31

Reference

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,

The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P.U. (1999), The role of emotions in marketing,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 184-206.

Baldinger, A.L. and Rubinson, J. (1996), Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and

behavior, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 22-34.

Bandalos, D.L. and Finney, S.J. (2001), Item parceling issues instructural equation

modeling, in Marcoulides, G.A. and Schumacker, R.E. (Eds), New Developments and

Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 269-

96.

Blackwell, S.A., Szeinbach, S.L., Barnes, J.H., Garner, D.W. and Bush, V. (1999), The

antecedents of customer loyalty: an empirical investigation of the role of personal and situational

aspects in repurchase decisions, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 362-75.

Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), Customer orientation: effects on customer service,

Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 241-51.

Carmon, Z. and Ariely, D. (2000), Focusing on the forgone: how value can appear so

different to buyers and sellers, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 360-70.Chaudhuri, A. (1999), Does brand loyalty mediate brand equity outcomes?, Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 136-46.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), The chain of effects from brand trust and brand

affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65

No. 2, pp. 81-93.

Clarke, G. (2001), Confirming satisfaction as an attitude within the service-buying process,

Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 111-23.

26 | P a g e


27/31

Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), Assessing the effects of quality,

value, and customer satisfaction o consumer behavioral intentions in service environments,

Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.

Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K., Brand, R.R., Hightower, R. Jr and Shemwell, D.J. (1997), A

cross-sectional test of the effect and conceptualization of service value, The Journal of Services

Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 375-91.

Davis, S.M. (2000), Brand Asset Management: Driving Profitable Growth through Your

Brands, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

De Ruyter, K., Moorman, L. and Lemmink, J. (2001), Antecedents of commitment and trust

in customersupplier relationships in high technology markets,Industrial Marketing

Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 271-86.

Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Gilliland, D.I. and Bello, D.C. (2002), Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect of

calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distributions channels,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 24-43.

Goodchild, J. and Callow, C. (2001), Brands: Visions & Values, John Wiley & Sons, New

York, NY.

Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), Relational benefits in services

industries: the customers perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26

No. 2, pp. 101-14.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data

Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hart, C.W. and Johnson, M.D. (1999), Growing the trust relationship, Marketing

Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 8-19.

Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.) (1999), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research,

Routledge, New York, NY.

27 | P a g e


28/31

Hu, L-t. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure

analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6

No. 1, pp. 1-55.

Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing

Brand Equity, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kim, J., Lim, J.-S. and Bhargave, M. (1998), The role of affect in attitude formation: a

classical conditioning, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 143-

52.

Kumar, P. (1999), The impact of long-term client relationships on the performance of

business firms, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 4-18.

Kumar, P. (2002), The impact of performance, cost, and competitive considerations on the

relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intent in business markets, Journal of Service

Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-68.

Lasser, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring customer-based brand equity,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.

Mattila, A.S. and Enz, C.A. (2002), The role of emotions in service encounters, Journal of

Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 268-77.

Mittal, B. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase

behavior: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. XXXVIII No. 1, pp. 131-42.

Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998), Why do customers switch? The dynamics of

satisfaction versus loyalty, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-94.

Mooreman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992), Relationships between providers

and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations, Journal

of Marketing Research, Vol. XXIX, August, pp. 314-28.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship

marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.

28 | P a g e


29/31

Morgan, R.P. (2000), A consumer-oriented framework of brand equity and loyalty,

International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 65-78.

Murphy, K.R. and Myors, B. (1998), Statistical Power Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, London.

Narayandas, D. (1998), Measuring and managing the benefits of customer retention,

Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 108-28.

Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, The McGraw-

Hill Company, Inc., New York, NY.

Oliver, R.L. (1999a), Value as excellence in the consumption experience, in Holbrook,

M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, NewYork,

NY.

Oliver, R.L. (1999b), Whence consumer loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, Special

Issue, pp. 33-44.

Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D.R. (1999), Analyzing the commitment-loyalty

links in service contexts, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-

48.

Raines-Eudy, R. (2000), Teachers corner: using structural equation modeling to test for

differential reliability and The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty.

Steven A. Taylor, Kevin Celuch and Stephen Goodwin Journal of Product & Brand

Management

Volume 13 Number 4 2004 217-227, 224. validity: an empirical demonstration,

Structural Equation

Modeling, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 124-41.

Reicheld, F.R. and Schefter, P. (2000), E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the Web, Harvard

Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 105-14.

Sharma, A., Krishnan, R. and Grewall, D. (2001), Value creation in markets: a critical area

of focus for business-to-business markets, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp.

391-402.

29 | P a g e


30/31

Sheth, J.N. and Parvitiyar, A. (2000), Toward a theory of business alliance formation, in

Sheth, J. and Parvitiyar, A. (Eds), Handbook of Relationship Marketing, Sage Publications, Inc.,

London, pp. 303-23.

Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000), Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer

satisfaction and loyalty judgments, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No.

1, pp. 150-67.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in

relational exchanges, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.

Strauss, B. and Friege, C. (1999), Regaining service customers: costs and benefits of regain

management, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 347-61. Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar,

G.N. (2001), Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple-item scale, Journal of

Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-20.

Taylor, S.A. (1997), Assessing regression-based importance weights for quality perceptions

and satisfaction judgments in the presence of higher order and/or interaction effects, Journal of

Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 135-59.

White, S.S. and Schneider, B. (2000), Climbing the commitment ladder: the role of

expectations disconfirmation in customers behavioral intentions, Journal of Service Research,

Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 240-53.

Zeithaml, V. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model

and synthesis of evidence,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

30 | P a g e


31/31

31 | P a g e

Documents

Bus 485 Final Report.dochygth