ZIJMR

ZENITH
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.2 Issue 7, July 2012, ISSN 2231 5780
ANALYSIS OF CELL-PHONE MARKET IN INDIA FOR EXTRACTING NEW DIMENSIONS OF CONSUMER BRAND LOYALTY MEASUREMENT
DR. PRAFULLA ARJUN PAWAR*; UMESH RAMCHANDRA RAUT**
*Associate Professor, Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA), University of Pune, Pune 411007, (M.S.) India. **Research Fellow, Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA), University of Pune, Pune 411007, (M.S.) India.
ABSTRACT Building a strong and healthy brand is not an easy task, marketers always tries to develop a strong brand in the mind of existing as well as potential consumers. Not only many definition and conceptual framework developed by the researcher of this area but there is different views regarding the meanings and measurement of brand loyalty. In the todays branding word it is also a challenge to measure the brand loyalty of consumer. The purpose of the present study is to find out some new measures for brand loyalty amongst cell phone consumers. The Indian cell-phone users have become very much savvy towards extra features that a mobile phone can provide. They are never satisfied with the phone they own and thus look towards a better one available in the market, due to that kind of consumer behavior it is tough task for the cell phone marketers to search the factor associated with brand loyalty of cell phone. This study demonstrates out some factors for measuring the brand loyalty of cell phone consumers, and meaning of brand loyalty in the mind of consumers. Finding of this study offers significant implication for the seller of cell phone. KEYWORDS: Brand, brand loyalty, brand loyalty measures, cell-Phone, brand preference, brand recommendation. ______________________________________________________________________________
www.zenithresearch.org.in
INTRODUCTION In the 21st century branding has huge importance for the development of organization not only in the manufacturing sector but also in the services sector. Now a days consumers thinking goes beyond the product, and they demanded more than product due to this, manufacturers transfer its marketing activities from product development to building a strong brand(s). The opinions in support of loyalty are easy to understand. Loyal customers are frequently purchase the same brand, they have higher customer retention rates, commit a higher share of their category spending to the firm, and are most likely to recommend others to become customers of the firm.1,2,3.
114
ZENITH
Producer sold a goods or commodity to fulfill our core or basic need like thirst, hunger or energy. These products did not have any identification mark of them. Therefore, historically, most producers were unbranded. The first step towards branding a commodity is to package it. The company enhances the value of the commodity functionality. Branding started formally when craftsmen put trademark on their products to protect them against inferior quality or painters started signing their art works and so on. Many years ago David Ogilvy says that: A Brand is the consumer's idea of a product. A brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or the combination of these, that identifies the maker or seller of the product or services 4. In others words, brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of seller and differentiate them from those of competition5. BRAND LOYALTY With the help of literature we are trying to present the comprehensible idea of brand loyalty. Many researchers in the field of branding and marketing construct a term of brand loyalty continuously. Brand loyalty is a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, causing repetitive same brand or same-brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior 7. The American Marketing Association defines brand loyalty as: 1. The condition in which a consumer generally purchases the same manufactureroriginated product. 2. The degree to which a consumer consistently purchases the same brand within a commodity class. Much of the research on brand loyalty has been developed from the marketers view and focused on the value of customer loyalty to the firm and how loyalty should be managed. Less work has been done on the consumer side asking why and how consumers become loyal and remain loyal to brands8. According to Aaker brand loyalty reflects how likely a customer will be to switch to another brand, especially when that brand makes a change, either in price or product features. David Aaker also suggests that brand loyalty leads to brand equity, which leads to business profitability. Aaker divides brand equity into five major asset categories: brand name awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, brand loyalty and other proprietary brand assets9. Baldinger argues that to be a dominator in the marketplace, a firm needs only product volume. To be a profitable market dominator, a firm needs brand loyalty10. Even just a few years ago, many companies believed that brand loyalty was just something packaged goods
115
ZENITH
people do. Today, even in non-marketing focused businesses like electronics, business-tobusiness, hotels, airline travel, finance, and even mainframe computers, firms are adopting the principles of brand loyalty management. Aaker identifies brand loyalty as a key determinant of brand choice and brand equity11. He notes that the brand loyalty of the customer base is often the core of a brands equity. If customers are indifferent to the brand and will buy with respect to features, price, etc., there is likely little equity. Researchers have done lots of research on single dimension and two-dimensional approach of brand-loyalty audit. In two-dimensional approach, they divided brand loyalty into attitudinal brand loyalty and behavioral brand loyalty. Attitudinal brand loyalty means the consumers psychological commitment to repurchasing the brand, whereas behavioral brand loyalty is concerned with the action of repurchase.12, 13, 14. Brand and customer loyalty is a buyers overall attachment or deep commitment to a product, service, brand, or organization15. The loyalty concept is similar in meaning to relationship commitment, which is described by the relationship marketing literature as an enduring desire to be in a valued relationship16. Loyalty manifests itself in a diversity of behaviors, the more common ones being recommending a service provider to other customers and repeatedly patronizing the provider17. Loyalty is a major finder of longterm financial performance of firms18. This is particularly true for service firms where increased loyalty can substantially increase profits19. Service organizations center on achieving customer satisfaction and loyalty by delivering better value, an underlying source of competitive gain20. For service firms the challenge is identifying the critical factors that determine customer satisfaction and loyalty21. There are many advantages of brand loyalty. According to Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman the interest in brand loyalty derives from the value that loyalty generates to companies in terms of: 1. A substantial entry barrier to competitors, 2. An increase in the firms ability to respond to competitive threats, 3. Greater sales and revenue, and
4. A customer base less sensitive to the marketing efforts of competitors.22 Further, Rowley identifies the benefits of brand loyalty as: 1. Lower customer price sensitivity, 2. Reduced expenditure on attracting new customers, and 3. Improved organizational profitability23. Caudron, however, argue that the ever-increasing proliferation of brands, price competitiveness, and the strength of own label brands have all worked to drive down brand
116
ZENITH
loyalty24. It has been suggested that a loyal customer is an oxymoron in todays market place. Research has shown that there is a 50 percent chance that a consumer will switch from their normal brand to a competitors brand, which is on promotion, and furthermore that two thirds of shoppers claim to always compare prices before choosing a product 25. Repeat customers are valued customers. And much of consumer behavior is repetitive. Panel data investigations have identified periodic patterns in consumer purchase and consumption26, 27. For example, considerable inertia-like repeated purchases of the same brands are evident across different shopping episodes28. Self-report studies of the items consumers purchase reveal a similar pattern of repetition 29. By estimates from these studies, a substantial proportion of consumer purchases are repetitive. The importance of understanding repeated patronage is illustrated by brand performance data. Market researchers have noted that repeated patronage has long-term financial and brand performance advantages, including increases in market share for a brand, customer lifetime value, and share of wallet30, 31. These relationships between repeated purchasing and marketing outcomes highlight the importance of understanding the psychological factors that promote repeated purchasing. By understanding these psychological processes, marketers may leverage important brand outcomes32. What is the psychology behind the repeated purchase or consumption of a particular brand? The traditional answer invokes brand loyalty or some other positive brand relationship. When people develop a fondness for particular brands and form attachments to them, these favorable evaluations lead to repeated purchase and consumption. Often, people repeatedly purchase and consume out of habit33. BRAND LOYALTY MEASURES Marketers believe that many of the personality, psychological or socioeconomic predictor variables are of little significance in predicting brand loyalty or buyer behavior 34. Repeat purchase behavior is an axiomatic term which simply refers to the degree to which consumers re-buy the similar brand in any equal-length period of time many marketers consider repeat purchase as an indictor of brand loyalty35. In contrast, the term brand loyalty is a complex construct that is regarded as manifesting both psychological elements (e.g. brand commitment) as well as behavioral patterns (purchasing sequence) by researchers located in the deterministic school36, provide a classification of empirical loyalty measures and review their comparative Reliability, validity and sensitivity. Unfortunately, this review proves inconclusive37. Evolution of the conceptualization and measurement of brand loyalty can be classified into many phases. In earlier days, too much concentration had been positioned on the previous history of brand loyalty study on operational measurements with technique leaning models, emphasizing well-defined arithmetic models such as Bernoulli, Markov chain or linear learning models38. The study done by Andreassen, T. W. and Lindestad, B. ( 1998 ) implies that loyalty measurement must comprise customers attitudes rather than repeated purchase behavioral pattern merely .But at the same time attitudinal measure is also insufficient for measuring loyalty. Therefore, researchers had measured customer loyalty by incorporating
117
ZENITH
behavioral and attitudinal measures simultaneously40.Hammond (1996) mentioned that behavioral loyalty is the consumers tendency to repurchase a brand, revealed through behavior that can be measured and which impacts directly on brand sales41.However subsequent analysis revealed weak relationships with the previously mentioned measurement methods, and conceptual problems due to experimenter subjectivity and lack of clear criteria for distinguishing between loyal and non-loyal brands42. The above branding literature has acknowledged that there is a need for brand loyalty research to relate and extract different loyalty measures. This research focuses on finding some new measures of for brand loyalty with the help of previous brand loyalty measures. CELL PHONE MARKET OF INDIA The usage of mobile services in India has entered to nearly all economic and social sectors. Penetration rate of cell phones in India has reached a remarkable level. According to the Department of Telecommunications of India, there were 346.9 million wireless telephones in India as of December 2008443. The loyalty ranking show that the mobile phone manufacturer achieved second rank in the year 2011, this presence shows the importance of brand loyalty in cell phone44. India is one of the major contributors of mobile phone market. India is now the worlds second largest mobile with 262 million users. Around 10.16 million users were added in March 2008. It has become more of a craze and it is doubtful whether mobile phones are used what they are made for. The unbounded use of mobile phone for its features has increased its market potential. Its not just about making or receiving a call but much more than that. The growth that has been on a fast track is expected to remain so and as of now it is also moving towards the rural areas. The Indian users have become very much savvy towards extra features that a mobile phone can provide. They are never satisfied with the phone they own and thus look towards a better one available in the market. Any large phone retailer will have a variety of different models on display. Currently, Nokia is believed to have a huge share in the market. The others include Samsung, LG and Apple phones. Though many of these feature filled phones are quite expensive, there are other phones available which are less expensive in comparison due to the competition prevailing in the market. We can find a new mobile phone in the market every 4 days and no doubt we get influenced to own it. Mobiles have taken such a toll over the mass as well as the market that fixed landline phones are hardly to be seen. This has accounted fixed line owners to get into the prepaid market. Like most other countries India too is leading towards a growing mobile phone market45. The Indian cellular services market is projected to reach $24 billion by the end of 2009, recording a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 35.6 per cent, consulting firm Gartner has announced. The firm also said that the Indian cellular services market had
118
ZENITH
recorded the highest growth in Asia Pacific and Japan region in 2004 with a CAGR of 67 per cent. It has also predicted that the Asia Pacific and Japan cellular services market would reach $225 billion in 2009, with a CAGR of 6.2 per cent from 2004, and that the Indian cellular market would account for 11 per cent of the overall Asia Pacific and Japan market by 2009.According to Gartner, by 2009, the Indian market will increase cellular penetration levels to 30 per cent, netting more than 300 million connections. Overall penetration and market opportunity will increase, but with thinner margins, it said. The firm advises operators to prepare themselves to work in business environments where ARPU levels are expected to be as low as $5 per month in the next 18-24 months. Operators will struggle to find a balance between yield (income/earnings/margin) and growth to fulfill growth expectations, it added. "The cellular industry is a mass market phenomenon that relies on economies of scale. Time to market advantage is critical and favors those who follow aggressive network expansion. In the forthcoming years, the capability and capacity to invest in penetrating semi-urban and rural markets will be important determinants for increasing market share and creating sustainable businesses in the Indian cellular marketplace," said Kobita Desai, principal analyst, Asia Pacific for Telecom at Gartner46. The latent demand for cellular telephones in India is estimated to be $1,146.6 million in 2010. The distribution of the latent demand (or potential industry earnings) in India, however, is not evenly distributed across regions. Maharashtra is the largest market with $155.9 million or 13.60 percent, followed by Uttar Pradesh with $133.0 million or 11.60 percent, and then Gujarat with $94.4 million or 8.23 percent of the latent demand in India. In essence, if firms target these top 3 regions, they cover some 33.43 percent of the latent demand for cellular telephones in India47. According to the survey, brand loyalty is weak Blackberry users. Only 48% of respondents said Blackberry, they may continue to use the Blackberry maker RIM (Research in Motion) device. As 63% of mobile phone users said they would continue to choose the currently used mobile phone brands, so competition for other mobile phone brands, the market wants to squeeze more and more difficult. Of course, the opportunity still exists. If a company released a truly remarkable mobile phone, it will undoubtedly shake the mobile phone market, and test the users mobile phone brand loyalty48. While the significance of brand loyalty has been familiar in the marketing text for at least three decades, the conceptualization and empirical validation of a brand loyalty measures for the cell phone context has not been addressed. We are trying to develop a research objective for this study to understanding the brand loyalty of cell phone consumers. This research also aims to develop some important factors which will measures the brand loyalty. RESEARCH QUESTION The above review of the literature point out that further research is required in the brand loyalty with the consideration of different products and it shows a research gap for the further research in the area of brand loyalty measurements. For this research we consider the brand loyalty with cell phones. In Indian its generally noted that the huge market of
119
ZENITH
cell phone, the consumers of cell phone looking for the more than product, they are visited on cell phone communities frequently, they are try to develop a relationship with cell phone, and no doubt presence of large number of brands in the cell phone. This all things create an interest to study the brand loyalty with the consideration of cell phone brands. The objective of this research is to find some new brand loyalty measures on the basis of pervious branding literature, and to analyze the major factors responsible for brand loyalty. RESEARCH METHOD AND INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT Structured questionnaire was developed to collect data. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The questionnaire contains total 20 questions. The first section of the questionnaire consisted of 5 questions and was used to measure the respondents brand loyalty towards preferred brand in cell phone. This section also contained the 10 statement which measures brand loyalty on a five-point Likert-type scale with a response format from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). The statements were adopted from (Strategic Brand Management by Kevin Lane Keller, 2001) and the scale (seven-point Likert scale) has been validated in numerous studies on branding research. In the second section of the questionnaire, five questions were included to know the demographic profile of respondent. The content validity of the questionnaire was assessed through examination by experts in the area. Initial changes were made to clarify or delete some statements according to recommendations or comments of the experts. The study sample consist of 288 consumers, aged 18-40 from Pune city. Data collections were implemented with convenience samples of respondent from Pune city. A structured questionnaire was distributed to 300 respondents, out of these 292 questionnaires returned, 288 qualified questionnaires were used for the data analysis after eliminating those surveys completed incorrectly or missing too many questions, for example, missing more than half of the items in a scale, for a response rate of almost 96 percent. Data analysis was done using SPSS Version 17. RESULT Table 1.0 shows the demographic characteristics of responded. Almost 81% of responded was male and 19% was female. A total of 73 per cent of respondents were between 18 and 35 years of age, whereas In addition, 76 per cent of respondent are employed and almost 12 per cent were self-employed. Table 1.1 shows that sample adequacy it is 0.510. The sample adequacy is more than 0.5. Its shows that the moderate range of sample adequacy. Significance level show that the high level of significance for this factor analysis. On basis of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value we can say that the data support the use of factor analysis and suggest that the data may be grouped into a smaller set of underlying factored. In the present study we obtained "an approximate chi-square 1074.256 with an observed significance level which is 0.00. We can conclude that the strength of the relationship among the variables is strong and appropriate for factor analysis.
120
ZENITH
The table 1.2 shows that the factor extraction value, the factor exaction value for the every variable is more than 0.5 except If this brand were not available, it would make little difference to me if I had to use another brand, and I will pay more for this brand its value are 0.196 and 0. 244. Communalities represent the proportion of the variance in the original variables that is accounted for by the factor solution. The stranded value of extraction is 0.5. The all table provides the output of the factor analysis is obtained by requesting the Principle Component Analysis (PCA). We get the output in Tables 1.1, 1.2 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, (the final statistics) comprises the communality for all 10 variables and the Eigen values of all factors which have Eigen values of 1 or more than 1 (in this case, we have assumed that only extracting factors having Eigen value 1 or more) The output of the factor analysis is obtained by requesting the Principle Component Analysis (PCA). We get the output in Tables 3 (the final statics) comprises the communality for all 10 variables and the Eigen values of all factors is 1. Table 1.3 noticed that there are 3 factors, which have an Eigen value of 1 or more than 1. The last column in the table (cum. Pct.) shows that the 4 factors extracted together account for 61.580 % of the total variance. This is a good deal because with only 3 factors (reducing them from 10) we have lost only 38.420% of the information content, while almost 62% is retained by the 3 factors extracted out of the 10 original variables. The following table shows the output of Factor Analysis: TABLE II: Variables I buy this brand whenever I can. I know all things about this brand. I always recommend this brand to others. I feel this is the only brand of this product I need. I would go out of my way to this brand. I consider myself loyal to this brand. I buy as much of this brand as I can. OUTCOME OF FACTOR ANALYSIS Loading in rotate component matrix 0.826 0.870 0.670 0.716 0.851 0.624 0.730 Brand Preference Brand Need
Naming of Factor Brand Recommendation
121
ZENITH
This is the one brand I would prefer to buy/use. If this brand were not available, it would make little difference to me if I had to use another brand.
0.782 0.196 (Communalities) 0.045, 0.432, 0.088 (Rotate Component Matrix) Excluded from factor analysis
I will pay more for this brand
0.244 (Communalities) 0.460, 0.090, 0.158 (Rotate Component Matrix)
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION Emergent and sustaining the brand loyalty is the major face in the persistent competition marketplace. As literature shows that brand loyalty is a multidimensional construct. After having strong theoretical foundation this study tries to find some measures for brand loyalty amongst cell phone customers. The purpose of this research is to provide some voluble factors for the identification of brand loyalty and measurements of brand loyalty, for the execution of this objective the present research provide three different factors with relation of brand loyalty. This study shows, the large number of cell phone consumers thinks that, brand recommendation, brand need and brand preference leads brand loyalty. In cell phone market brand loyal customer not ready to pay more for the brand. The present research will help full to the cell phone marketers for creating and building a strong cell phone brand in the cell phone market. The present study provides the practical measures for measuring the brand loyalty of cell phone consumers. 1.0: SELECT CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY SAMPLE Characteristics Gender Value Male Female Age Group 18-25 25-35 Frequency 232 56 123 89 Percent 80.56 19.44 42.70 30.90
122
ZENITH
35-40 More than 40 Income group Less than 1 Lac 1 Lac to 3 Lac 4 Lac to 6 Lac 7 Lac to 10 Lac More than 10 Lac Occupation Student Employed Self employed 1.1 KMO AND BARTLETT'S TEST Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. ChiSquare DF Sig.
45 31 43 147 74 12 12 36 218 34
15.63 10.77 14.94 51.04 25.70 4.16 4.16 12.5 75.70 11.80
.510 1074.256 45 .000
1.2: COMMUNALITIES
Extraction I consider myself loyal to this brand. I buy this brand whenever I can. I buy as much of this brand as I can. I feel this is the only brand of this product I need. .486 .740 .794 .692
123
ZENITH
This is the one brand I would prefer to buy/use. If this brand were not available, it would make little difference to me if I had to use another brand I would go out of my way to this brand. I know all things about this brand. I always recommend this brand to others. I will pay more for this brand Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
.798 .196 .749 .842 .616 .244
1.3: TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Compon ent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tot al 2.91 3 1.91 3 1.33 2 .995 .918 .675 .539 % of Varian ce 29.135 19.126 13.320 9.951 9.176 6.749 5.391 Cumulat ive % Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Tot al % of Varian ce 29.135 19.126 13.320 Cumulat ive % Tot al % of Varian ce 24.458 18.893 18.229 Cumulat ive % 24.458 43.351 61.580
29.135 2.91 3 48.261 1.91 3 61.580 1.33 2 71.531 80.707 87.456 92.846
29.135 2.44 6 48.261 1.88 9 61.580 1.82 3
124
ZENITH
8 9 10
.405 .196 .115
4.048 1.960 1.146
96.894 98.854 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
1.4
Component Matrix Component 1 2 .540 .492 .047 .642 .552 .146 .431 .401 3
1.5: Rotated Component Matrix Variables 1 .312 .826 .468 .086 .102 .045 .101 .870 Component 2 .007 .085 .207 .716 .420 .432 .851 .275 3 .624 .225 .730 .414 .782 .088 .121 .098
Variables
Loyal toward Brand Regular Buyer Maximum quantity Buyer Fulfill the Need First Preference Little difference for other brand Use own way Well know about Brand
.063 .663 .573 .489 .646 .210 .559 .819
.437 Loyal toward Brand .242 Regular Buyer .681 Maximum quantity Buyer .200 Fulfill the Need .275 First Preference .362 Little difference for other brand .500 Use own way .098 Well know about Brand
125
ZENITH
Recommended Others Pay more
.639 .218
.310 .442
.333 Recommended Others .040 Pay more
.670 .460
.394 .090
.107 .158
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 3 components extracted.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
126
ZENITH
REFERENCES 1. Reichheld, F.F., and W. E. Sasser Jr. Zero Defections: (1990): Quality Comes To Services. Harvard Business Review. 68, 5, 105-11. 2. Zeithaml, V.A. (2000): Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic worth of Customers: What We Know and What We need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 1, 67-85. 3. Keiningham T. L., B., Cooil, and L., Aksoy. Andreassen Tor W., Weiner, J. (2007): The Value of different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation, and share-of- Wallet. Managing Service Quality. 17, 4: 361-384. 4. Kotler, Armstrong, (2008), principle of Marketing, Dorling Kinderley(ndia)Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi: 211-224. 5. Aaker, David A. (1995), Building Strong Brands. The Free Press. New York: 1-13. 6. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Leonard Lodish (2000), Towards a System for Monitoring Brand Health from Store Scanner Data, MSI Working Paper, Report No. 00-111. 7. Oliver, R. L. Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing. 63 (Special issue): (1999): 3344. 8. Schultz, D.E. and Bailey, S. (2000), Customer/brand loyalty in an interactive marketplace, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 5/6, 41-52. 9. Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, the Free Press, New York, NY. 10. Baldinger, A. (1996), Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and behavior, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 22-34. 11. Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, the Free Press, New York, NY. 12. DeWitt, T., D. T. Nguyen, and R. Marshall. (2008): Exploring Customer Loyalty Following Service Recovery: The Mediating Effects of Trust and Emotions. Journal of Service Research. 10 (3): 269281. 13. Bandyopadhyay, S. and M.Martell. (2007): Does Attitudinal Loyalty Influence Behavioural Loyalty? A Theoretical and Empirical Study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 14 (1): 3544. 14. Rundle-Thiele, S. and R. Bennett. (2001): A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets. Journal of Product and Brand Management. 1 (10): 2537.
127
ZENITH
15. Oliver, Richard L. (1999), Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63 (October), 3344. 16. Morgan, R.M., and S.D. Hunt. (1994): The Commitment-TrustTheory of Relationship Marketing? Journal of Marketing. 58, 20-38. 17. Fornell, C. (1992): A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience? Journal of Marketing. 56, 1, 6-21. 18. Jones, T. O., and W. E. Sasser Jr. (1995): Harvard Business Review. 73, 6, 88 99. 19. Reichheld, F.F. (1993): Review.71, 2, 64-72. Why satisfied customers defect.
Loyalty-based Management. Harvard Business
20. Woodruff, R.B. (1997): Customer value: the next source of competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences. 25, 2, 139-53. 21. McDougal, H.G., and L. Terrence. (2000): Customer Satisfaction With Services: Putting Perceived Value Into The Equation. Journal of Services Marketing. 14, 5, 392- 410. 22. Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J. (2001): Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 35, No. 11-12, 12381258. 23. Rowley, J. (2005): The Four Cs of Customer Loyalty, Marketing Intelligence and Planning. Vol. 23, No. 6, 574- 581. 24. Caudron, S. (1993): Brand Loyalty: Can it be Revived? Industry Week. April 5th. Vol. 242, No. 7, 11-13. 25. Pressey, A. and B. Mathews. (1998): Relationship Marketing and Retailing: Comfortable Bedfellows? International Journal of Customer Relationship Management. June- July, Vol. 1, Issue1, 39-54.
26. Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1991). New Brands and the Existing Market, Journal of the Market Research Society, 33 (4), 28599. 27. Khare, Adwait, and J. Jeffrey Inman (2006). Habitual Behavior in American Eating Patterns: The Role of Meal Occasions-link, Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 567575. 28. Seetharaman, P.B. (2004). Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach, Marketing Science, 23 (2), 263271.
128
ZENITH
29. Bettman, James R., and Michel A. Zins (1977). Constructive Processes in Consumer Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (2), 7585. 30. Baumann, Chris, Suzan Burton, and Greg Elliott (2005). Determinants of Customer Loyalty and Share of Wallet in Banking, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 9 (3), 231248. 31. Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C., Gerald J. Goodhardt, and T. Patrick Barwise (1990). Double Jeopardy Revisited, Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 8291. 32. Wirtz, Jochen, Anna S. Mattila, and May Oo Lwin (2007). How Effective Are Loyalty Reward Programs in Driving Share of Wallet? Journal of Service Research, 9 (4), 327334. 33. Leona Tam, Wendy Wood, and Mindy F. Ji. (2009),BRAND LOYALTY IS NOT HABITUAL handbook of brand relationship, 43-62. 34. JAGDISH N. SHETH; Measurement of Multidimensional Brand Loyalty of a Consumer. 35. Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1988) Repeat-Buying Facts, Theory and Applications, London: Charles Griffin. 36. Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty: towards an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(2), 99113. 37. Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978) Brand Loyalty, New York: Wiley Management Series. 38. Jagdish, N., Sheth, C. and Whan, P. (1974) A theory of multidimensional brand loyalty, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 449 459.) 39. Andreassen , T . W. and Lindestad , B .(1998) Customer loyalty and complex services , International Journal of Service Industry Management , Vol. 9 , No. 1 , pp. 7 23 .)
40. Hallowell, R.; (1996) the relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability: An empirical study, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 27 42. 41. Hammond, K., R. East, and A. Ehrenberg. Buying More and Buying Longer: Concepts and Measures of Consumer Loyalty. London: London Business School, 1996. 42. MEASURING MULTI-BRAND LOYALTY Jerry C. Olson, Pennsylvania State University Jacob Jacoby, Purdue University
129
ZENITH
43. <http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/06/mobile-phone-penetrationin-india/>accessed on 17th January 2012 44. http://www.brandkeys.com/awards/leaders.cfm> accessed on 17th January 2012 45. < http://epublish.in/general/growing-mobile-phone-market-india > accessed on 13th October 2011. 46. < http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/01cell.htm > accessed on13thOctober 2011. 47. Professor Philip M. Parker, (2009): The 2009-2014 Outlook for Cellular Telephones in India: ICON Group International, Inc., 1-30. 48. <http://www.ixwebhosting.mobi/survey-shows-that-iphone-users-brand-loyaltyamong-the-first-mobile-phone-users/> accessed on 17th January 2012.
130

ZIJMR

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ZIJMR

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ZENITH

Naming of Factor Brand Recommendation

I will pay more for this brand

0.244 (Communalities) 0.460, 0.090, 0.158 (Rotate Component Matrix)

.510 1074.256 45 .000

.798 .196 .749 .842 .616 .244

29.135 2.44 6 48.261 1.88 9 61.580 1.82 3

.405 .196 .115

4.048 1.960 1.146

96.894 98.854 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

.063 .663 .573 .489 .646 .210 .559 .819

Recommended Others Pay more

.333 Recommended Others .040 Pay more

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 3 components extracted.

Loyalty-based Management. Harvard Business

También podría gustarte