* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based
Multi-level marketing wikipedia , lookup
Target audience wikipedia , lookup
Brand ambassador wikipedia , lookup
Food marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Brand equity wikipedia , lookup
Guerrilla marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing channel wikipedia , lookup
Marketing strategy wikipedia , lookup
Customer experience wikipedia , lookup
Product planning wikipedia , lookup
Integrated marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Digital marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing plan wikipedia , lookup
Viral marketing wikipedia , lookup
Multicultural marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing research wikipedia , lookup
Neuromarketing wikipedia , lookup
Green marketing wikipedia , lookup
Advertising campaign wikipedia , lookup
Street marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing mix modeling wikipedia , lookup
Direct marketing wikipedia , lookup
Target market wikipedia , lookup
Customer satisfaction wikipedia , lookup
Consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Global marketing wikipedia , lookup
Youth marketing wikipedia , lookup
Sensory branding wikipedia , lookup
Customer engagement wikipedia , lookup
Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Graduate School of Management, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia Abstract Purpose – This paper sets out to provide a step towards simplifying and shortening loyalty surveys for marketers and to summarise and to categorise more than 30 survey-based loyalty measures administered in previous academic surveys. Design/methodology/approach – This research took a step back from theory to re-define the concept of loyalty. An exploratory perspective using two service markets was taken to examine a broad range of survey-based loyalty measures. Findings – The results of this research provide support for the more recent view that there are different ways in which customers can be loyal. The results of this research suggest that attitudinal loyalty could be the most important dimension for marketers to monitor. The exploratory method selected in this research suggests that dimensions of loyalty may include propensity to be loyal, behavioural intentions, complaining behaviour, resistance to competing offers, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty. Practical implications – There are important managerial implications arising from this research. First, loyalty should be considered as more than one thing. Second, this research has provided a step towards consolidating a wide range of survey-based loyalty measures that exist in the academic literature, helping to simplify loyalty measurement for marketers. This research paper provides a guide of the better survey-based measures by identifying “pure” measures of loyalty for marketers. Marketers will be able to better understand what type of loyalty a measure captures. Originality/value – Valuable for marketers who can be helped to simplify and shorten their surveys by better understanding what type of loyalty a survey measure captures and which measures may be most appropriate for their needs. Keywords Customer loyalty, Customer retention, Attitude surveys, Service industries, Australia Paper type Research paper aggregate or brand level (Rundle-Thiele and Maio Mackay, 2001). There has been no attempt to analyse survey-based measures at the individual or customer level. An important rationale for the present study is to deepen our understanding of loyalty by exploring loyal qualities across two different service contexts to enable generalisation across service markets. Services and retailing are important contexts because services are the largest sector of most Western economies. For example, services now account for more than 75 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Australia according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au). Australian service industries are part of the world business community. The trend in Australia towards successful accreditation from international bodies including ISO9000 (www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.openerpage) highlights the relevance and similarity of Australian services to international standards thus the findings from this study are globally applicable. This paper focuses on exploring a broad range of loyalty measures (detailed in Table I in the next section of this paper) that have been used previously in the literature in two contexts, both of which can be classified as services. An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article. Introduction It is commonly accepted in the marketing discipline that it is far cheaper to retain an existing customer than it is to attract a new customer (Reichheld, 1993; 1996) and that loyalty can be linked to company growth (Reichheld, 2003). Given the importance of loyalty to marketers there is a large body of literature concerned with loyalty, a concept, which has also been referred to as retention (Rust and Zahorik, 1993; Narayandas, 1999; Eriksson and Vaghult, 2000) and commitment (Beatty and Kahle, 1988; Ulrich, 1989; van Birgelen et al., 1997). The marketing literature is concerned with both the conceptual definition and measurement of loyalty. The loyalty literature contains a multitude of measures. There have been few attempts to consolidate the plethora of survey based loyalty measures. In 2001, Rundle-Thiele and Maio Mackay analysed nine loyalty measures at the The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister Literature review The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm Since loyalty was first defined there has been a great deal of debate about the construct. The crux of these discussions largely centres on: identifying whether loyalty is a behavioural or attitudinal phenomenon; defining attitudinal and Journal of Services Marketing 19/7 (2005) 492– 500 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] [DOI 10.1108/08876040510625990] The constructive comments provided by the reviewers of earlier versions of this manuscript are appreciated. 492 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 Table I Summary of loyalty measures used in previous research Origin in the literature Complaining behaviour Make negative comments about this wine retailer to friends and family Discourage friends or family from using this wine retailer for their wine needs Post your complaint on the internet if you are dissatisfied Behavioural intention I would buy wine from this wine retailer for a dinner with friends I would buy wine from this wine retailer for a work dinner If I urgently needed a bottle of wine I would buy it from this wine retailer In the future I intend to buy more wine from this retailer (de Ruyter et al., 1997; Bloemer et al., 1999; Price and Arnould, 1999; Ganesh et al., 2000) (Bloemer et al., 1999) (Bloemer et al., 1999) (Dubois and Gilles, 1999) (Dubois and Gilles, 1999) (Dubois and Gilles, 1999) Use this wine retailer for most of your future wine-purchasing needs Use this wine retailer the next time you need to buy wine Word of mouth Recommend this wine retailer to friends and relatives Resistance to competing offers items If this wine retailer raised the price of my favourite wine I would still continue to be a customer of this wine retailer Buy wine from this wine retailer even if a magazine had a highly critical review of them Pay 5 per cent more for wine from this wine retailer Stay with this wine retailer even if there was a small difference in price Purchase wine from this wine retailer regardless of price Buy wine from this wine retailer even if another retailer offered better features Attitudinal loyalty items I am strongly committed to buying wine from this wine retailer Purchasing wine from this retailer would be good versus bad Purchasing wine from this retailer would be favourable versus unfavourable Purchasing wine from this retailer would be positive versus negative Purchasing wine from this retailer would be likely versus unlikely Behavioural loyalty items What percentage of your total wine purchases are with this retailer? Approximately, how long have you purchased wine from this wine retailer? I considered other wine retailers when I last bought wine When I last bought wine this wine retailer was my first choice (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1999; Ganesh et al., 2000; Bowen and Chen, 2001; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Homburg and Giering, 2001; Huber and Herrman, 2001) (de Ruyter, 1997; Nijssen et al., 2003) (Soderlund, 1998; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Odin et al., 2001) (Bloemer et al., 1999; Narayandas, 1999; Price and Arnould, 1999; Ganesh et al., 2000; Bowen and Chen, 2001; Butcher et al., 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001; Homburg and Giering, 2001; Huber and Herrman, 2001; Yu and Dean, 2001; Bove and Johnson, 2002; Nijssen et al., 2003) (de Ruyter, 1997; Bloemer et al., 1999; Price and Arnould, 1999; Ganesh et al., 2000; Odin et al., 2001) (Narayandas, 1999; Odin et al., 2001) (de Ruyter, 1997; Narayandas, 1999; Yu and Dean, 2001) (de Ruyter, 1997; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Yu and Dean, 2001) (Narayandas, 1999) (Narayandas, 1999) (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1999; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Knox and Walker, 2001) (Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997; Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Bennett, 2001; Bove and Johnson, 2002) (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Bennett, 2001) (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Bennett, 2001) (Mooradian and Oliver, 1997; Narayandas, 1999; Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Jones and Suh, 2000; Bennett, 2001; Nijssen et al., 2003) (Cunningham, 1956; Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997; Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001) (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001) (Soderlund, 1998) (Lee and Cunningham, 2001) Propensity to be loyal items Rarely introduce new brands to my friends and family Rarely take chances by buying unfamiliar brands even if it means sacrificing variety Would rather wait for others to try a new brand than trying it myself Would rather stick to well-known wine retailers when purchasing wine (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Bennett, 2001) (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Bennett, 2001) (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Bennett, 2001) (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2000, 2002; Bennett, 2001) 493 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 behavioural representations of loyalty; and discriminating between additional dimensions of loyalty and understanding the interrelationships between them. brand. To put this in context think about a consumable product that you commonly purchase such as baked beans or a newspaper. Do you feel attached to a can of baked beans or a newspaper? There would be few who would agree that they are attached to a can of baked beans or a newspaper. Yet, when asked if you repeatedly purchase a brand of baked beans or a newspaper you may answer yes. This loyal behaviour is also of interest for marketers. We can now acknowledge that loyalty may be one or a combination of attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. Yet this may still provide a limited view of loyalty. Therefore, this paper suggests that loyalty should be defined as: Traditional views The evolution of the loyalty concept is illustrated in Figure 1. The concept of loyalty first appeared in the 1940s. In its earliest days loyalty was proposed as a uni-dimensional construct, which was related to the measurement perspective taken by the researcher. Two separate loyalty concepts evolved. Namely, “brand preference” (Guest, 1944, 1955) which was later referred to as attitudinal loyalty and “share of market” (Cunningham, 1956), which was later referred to as behavioural loyalty. Nearly 30 years after loyalty first appeared in the academic literature researchers (e.g. Day, 1969) proposed that loyalty may be more complex and that it may comprise both attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. This bi-dimensional concept has since been combined and referred to as composite loyalty (e.g. Jacoby, 1971). The composite definition of loyalty has become the basis for much loyalty research that has since been undertaken (for examples see Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Bloemer and Kasper, 1995; Bennett, 2001). The composite definition of loyalty considers that loyalty should always comprise favourable attitudes, intentions and repeat-purchase (see Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Some researchers (see Oliver, 1999) suggest that loyalty evolves and that there are stages of loyalty. This paper suggests that loyalty is not necessarily a series of hierarchical stages, and should not be considered to always comprise favourable attitudes, intentions and repeatpurchase. This paper suggests that marketers should not think of loyalty as a series of stages performed in sequence, as proposed by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) and subsequently by Oliver (1999). Customers may exhibit or possess different degrees of loyalty across the loyalty different types of loyalty. The state or quality of being loyal, where loyal is defined as a customer’s allegiance or adherence towards an object. Loyalty is the key to the longevity of any brand and one type of loyalty, namely word of mouth has recently been correlated with company growth (Reichheld, 2003). A useful starting point to examine what constitutes loyalty is to summarise the range of survey-based loyalty measures that have been used in previous studies. Table I uses logical partitioning (see Hunt, 1991 for a discussion on classification approaches) to categorise measures used in previous research into loyal qualities or states. It is possible that each and every customer has loyalty qualities or states in varying degrees, and that customer’s have a different mix of loyalty qualities or states. Marketers can activate different loyal states or qualities in different ways. For example, word of mouth behaviours may be encouraged through reward programs while attitudinal loyalty may be encouraged through emotive advertising. This research suggests that the dominant views on loyalty remain too narrow. Old views of loyalty need to be expanded to encompass a far broader range of loyal states and qualities to benefit both customers and marketing managers. Table I illustrates that a wide range of loyalty measures have been inconsistently applied across many different loyalty studies. Word of mouth is the most commonly used measure of loyalty and Reichheld (2003) has demonstrated that word of mouth measures correlate to company profits and growth. According to Reichheld (2003), word of mouth is a strong indicator of loyalty and growth because when customers recommend your service they are putting their reputation on the line. Table I illustrates that intention to purchase and likelihood of purchase are the second most commonly used measures of loyalty in the academic literature. The loyalty concept needs some consensus and clarity. The purpose of this paper is to explore the dimensions of loyalty using existing measures of loyalty to deepen our understanding of loyalty. The analysis undertaken in this paper will be largely concerned with exploring the factorial structure of the loyalty concept and the “purity” of survey measures of loyalty. The specific research question to be addressed in this paper is: RQ1. What dimensions of loyalty exist in the literature? The present view In 1994, Dick and Basu subsequently identified the need to define the different manifestations of composite loyalty as separate dimensions. Following Dick and Basu’s (1994) conceptual model multi-dimensional views of loyalty emerged in the literature (for examples see Zeithaml et al., 1996; Bloemer et al., 1999; Narayandas, 1999; Yu and Dean, 2001). Future views In a personal sense loyalty is a feeling or an attitude of devoted attachment and affection. This feeling of loyalty tends to imply that a person feels an obligation to persevere with a personal relationship through good and bad times. A commercial setting involves a subtle change for the term “loyalty”. One of the main reasons for this change is customers can persevere in a commercial relationship without a feeling or an attitude of devoted attachment. These loyal behaviours demonstrate that the customer has faith in the Figure 1 The loyalty construct (1950-1990) Methodology Factor analysis methods generally attempt to determine which sets of observed (measured) variables sharing common variance-covariance characteristics define constructs 494 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 (Schumacker and Lomax, 1996). The technique of exploratory factor analysis will be used in the present study to explore the dimensions of loyalty. The most distinctive feature of exploratory factor analysis is that a detailed model relating loyalty to the measures is not specified in advance and the number of loyalty dimensions is not determined before the analysis (Bollen, 1989). When defining a new concept exploratory factor analysis should be used to assess the dimensionality of the construct and to assess the appropriateness of the selected measures (Hair et al., 1998). Such endeavours are not truly confirmatory and as a result exploratory factor analysis is more relevant to this research. Therefore, exploratory factor analysis will be used in this research to explore the dimensionality of the loyalty construct using existing loyalty measures. Mailing lists for 2,500 members of wine clubs and 2,500 insurance customers were purchased. Funding constraints did not permit data collection in other product categories nor did it permit selection outside of the service markets analysed and this provides an opportunity for future research. An additional list comprising 1,000 names was provided for the wine retail study by a sponsoring organisation. A total of 3,500 wine retail questionnaires were mailed. Questionnaires were mailed to 2,500 respondents in the insurance context. Questionnaires were accompanied with a reply-paid envelope and mailed to respondents in each context. The initial section sought to determine whether respondents had purchased in the category of interest in the past 12 months. Respondents who had purchased from the category of interest in the past 12 months were asked to proceed with the questionnaire. Following the initial section, respondents completed questions relating to loyalty followed by demographic questions. The optimal response rate for a consumer mail survey is between 20 per cent and 40 per cent (Green et al., 1988). Of the surveys returned 726 wine retail customers met the prequalifying criteria, which represents an optimal effective response rate of 21 per cent. In the insurance context 314 customers met the pre-qualifying criteria, which represented a less than optimal effective response rate of 13 per cent[1]. The technique of comparing early and late respondents was used to examine non-response bias for both the wine retail and insurance samples. Comparing waves of early and late respondents on a range of demographic characteristics (see Armstrong and Overton, 1977 for a discussion of this technique) revealed no significant differences ( p . 0.05) for both the wine retail and insurance surveys, suggesting that non-response bias may not be a problem. For the purposes of data analysis any survey that did not have all items completed were removed. A total of 670 cases were analysed. dimensions of loyalty had an eigenvalue greater than 1 and these six dimensions explained 59.37 per cent of the total variance for the loyalty construct. The results of the exploratory factor analysis will be presented in two tables. The first table, Table II reports which factors each loyalty measure has loaded on. The second table, Table III summarises how much of the variance is explained by each factor and the eigenvalues used to identify the number of loyalty factors in the EFA. Definitions of the dimensions are also reported in Table III because EFA is most efficient when the factors can represent conceptually defined definitions (Hair et al., 1998) The EFA results support that there are six types of loyalty. The loyal qualities identified in the EFA are attitudinal loyalty, behavioural intentions, resistance to competing offers, propensity to be loyal, complaining behaviour and behavioural loyalty. Considering loyalty as more than one thing is important for marketers. Marketers seeking to maintain or improve customer loyalty should use more than one loyalty measure to benchmark and monitor the different types of loyalty. Considering loyalty as more than one thing can provide guidance for marketers seeking to develop marketing programs to build loyalty. For example, a problem would exist if a marketer found that propensity to be loyal was high but the remaining types of loyalty were low. This would indicate that improvements in marketing programs were required in order to build loyalty to the service. Pure measures More than one half of the survey-based loyalty measures used in this survey loaded on more than one loyalty factor. Loadings greater than or equal to 0.3 on more than one factor are termed cross loadings. Cross loading suggest statements are not “pure” measures as they are measuring more than one construct. The “impure” measures are represented in Table II in italics. If marketers are prepared to consider that loyalty is more than one thing it is important for marketers to use “pure” measures of loyalty. “Pure” measures of loyalty are known to represent one and only one thing. Table III shows that the first factor, termed attitudinal loyalty, explains 30 per cent of the total variance. This may suggest that attitudinal loyalty could be the most important dimension for marketers to monitor. The variance of the second factor, termed resistance to competing offers, is 10 per cent of the total variance; while the variance of the third factor through to sixth loyalty factors was between 6 per cent and 4 per cent for each of the remaining four factors. Conclusions and future directions This research took a step back from loyalty theory to re-define the concept of loyalty. An exploratory perspective using two service markets was taken to examine a broad range of surveybased loyalty measures that had been used in the literature. Exploratory results suggest there may be at least six types of loyalty, many of which have been used previously in academic research. The use of multiple dimensions in loyalty assessment will improve the explanatory potential for both marketing managers and academics. There is value in considering the types of loyalty and in specifying these types. In other words, loyalty is more than one or two combined things. Results and discussion Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the combined insurance and wine retail samples to obtain the highest respondent per measure ratio to minimise the chances of overfitting the data. The number of respondents analysed was 670, which exceeds the acceptable 10 respondents to 1 measure (Hair et al., 1998). According to Hair et al. (1998) using the latent root criterion, which is commonly referred to as the eigenvalue, for establishing the cut-off number of dimensions is most appropriate when there are 20 to 50 measures. Six possible 495 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 Table II Exploratory factor analysis rotated factor matrix Attitudinal loyalty Purchasing insurance from this company would be good versus bad Purchasing insurance from this company would be favourable versus unfavourable Purchasing insurance from this company would be positive versus negative Purchasing insurance from this company would be likely versus unlikely Consider new products that this company may offer in the future? Purchase insurance from this company regardless of price Pay 5 per cent more for insurance from this company Buy insurance from this company even if another insurer offered better features If this company raised the price of my policy I would still continue to be a customer of this company Recommend this company to friends and relatives Stay with this insurance company even if there was a small difference in price I am strongly committed to buying insurance from this insurance company I would not obtain quotes from another insurance company Buy insurance from this company even if a magazine had a highly critical review of them Use this company the next time you need to buy insurance? I would buy insurance from this company for a new car If I urgently needed insurance I would buy it from this company How likely are you to use this company for most of your future insurance needs? Renew your policy with this insurance company How likely are you to use this company for other financial services you may require? Rarely take chances by buying unfamiliar brands even if it means sacrificing variety Would wait for others to try a new brand rather than trying it myself Rarely introduce new brands to my friends and family I would rather stick to well-known companies when purchasing insurance Complain about this company to friends and family in social situations? How likely are you to discourage friends or family from using this company for their insurance needs? How likely are you to post your complaint on the internet if you are not satisfied? When I renewed insurance this brand was my first choice I considered other insurance companies when I last bought insurance Approximately how long have you been a customer of this company? What percentage of your total wine purchases are with this company? Resistance to competing Behavioural Propensity to Complaining Behavioural offers intentions be loyal behaviour loyalty 0.884 0.244 0.205 0.860 0.266 0.260 0.849 0.303 0.252 0.762 0.246 0.372 0.496 0.403 0.777 0.742 0.688 0.212 0.271 0.354 0.315 0.294 0.307 0.414 0.299 0.684 0.628 0.215 0.587 0.305 0.560 0.492 0.262 0.364 0.282 0.722 0.716 0.215 0.644 0.260 0.627 0.561 0.238 0.226 2 0.332 0.452 2 0.316 0.849 0.783 0.765 0.675 2 0.372 0.747 2 0.364 2 0.240 0.746 0.656 0.788 0.406 2 0.576 0.456 0.206 0.387 Note: All measures in italics cross load on more than one dimension and are considered to be impure measures 496 2 0.416 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 Table III Summary of EFA loyalty factors Eigenvalue Variance explained (%) Attitudinal loyalty 9.267 30 A customer feeling or a customer attitude of devoted attachment and affection towards the service brand or retailer Yes Resistance to competing offers 3.113 10 Customer immunity to or protection from competing offers (Hozier and Stern, 1985; Zeithaml et al., 1996; Walker and Knox, 1997; Narayandas, 1999; Ganesh et al., 2000) Yes Behavioural intentions 1.950 6 Attitudes towards purchasing the brand (Sharp et al., 1997) No Propensity to be loyal 1.611 5 Propensity to be loyal relates to the characteristics of an individual customer, and is defined as a characteristic of the consumer (Raju, 1980). In other words, a tendency to be loyal Yes Complaining behaviour 1.335 4 Expressions of dissatisfaction or disapproval (Bennett et al., 2003) Yes Behavioural loyalty 1.127 4 The consumer’s tendency to repurchase revealed through behaviour which can be measured and which impacts directly on brand sales (Hammond et al., 1996) Yes Factor Definition Pure measures measurement for marketers. Marketers will be able to better understand what type of loyalty a measure captures and which survey measures may be better measures. Loyalty is more than attitudinal and behavioural loyalty The results of this research do not support the commonly accepted definitions of loyalty. The results of this research provide support for the presently-held view in the loyalty literature that customers can be loyal in different ways. This may suggest that loyalty is not a sequence of stages. The exploratory method selected in this research suggest that dimensions of loyalty may include propensity to be loyal, behavioural intentions, complaining behaviour, resistance to competing offers, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty. Future research is required to confirm the loyalty dimensions identified in this research. Simplifying loyalty measurement This paper provides a starting point to simplify and shorten surveys for marketers. This paper does not advocate the use of complex multi-dimensional measures rather this paper suggests that loyalty may be more than one thing. As a result loyalty may need to be measured using one measure for each loyalty factor[2]. This paper recommends that marketers and academic researchers alike identify “pure” measures of loyalty for use in surveys and that up to six loyalty measures are used to assist marketers to benchmark and monitor the different types of loyalty. Impure measures The exploratory factor analysis results indicate that 16 (out of a total 31 analysed) statements are not pure measures of loyalty. These statements measure more than one type of loyalty. This is important because it is difficult to interpret findings when we can’t clearly define what we are measuring. Marketers can confidently use pure (plain text in Table II) measures when measuring loyalty. A framework to synthesise loyalty findings This research provides a base for the synthesis of loyalty findings by providing the ability to more clearly understand what loyal quality or state is being captured by a given measure. Pure measures offer the clearest guidance for marketers concerned with marketing programs to maintain or build loyalty. For example, a market survey has identified that resistance to competing offers is high while attitudinal loyalty is low. A pure measure of resistance to competing offers indicates that customers are willing to purchase regardless of price. Armed with this knowledge a marketer may increase price to compensate for initiatives such as emotional advertising to build attitudinal loyalty. Is loyalty context-specific? Sharp et al. (2003) distinguished between three different types of service markets, namely free choice, renewal markets – where one and only one service can be used and finally, tenure – where the service continues until actively terminated. The insurance and wine retail contexts offer contexts that can be sufficiently contrasted as insurance is a renewal service and wine retail is a free choice context which presents an avenue for future research. Researchers need to compare and contrast loyalty in different service marketers. Notes 1 It is possible the pre-qualifying criteria of purchase in the last 12 months may have been too strict and that renewals in the past 12 months may have been more appropriate as not all customers purchase insurance from new insurers each year. 2 This is similar to Reichheld (2003) who indicates there is a managerial need for simple and short instruments to measure important marketing concepts such as loyalty. Managerial implications There are important managerial implications arising from this research and each implication will be discussed in turn for the reader. First, loyalty should be considered as more than one thing. Second, this research has provided a step towards consolidating a wide range of survey-based loyalty measures that exist in the academic literature, helping to simplify loyalty 497 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, August, pp. 396-402. Beatty, S.E. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), “Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behaviour relationship: the impact of brand commitment and habit”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1-10. Bennett, R. (2001), “A study of brand loyalty in the businessto-business services sector”, School of Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, p. 258. Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiel, S.R. (2000), “Attitudinal brand loyalty: personality trait or brand specific?”, Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference Proceedings, Gold Coast, Australia. Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S.R. (2002), “Measuring attitudinal brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 193-209. Bennett, R., Bove, L., Dann, S., Drennan, J., Frazer, L., Gabbott, M., Hill, R., Lawley, M., Matear, S., Perry, C., Sparks, B., Summers, J., Sweeney, J., Ward, T. and White, L. (2003), Services Marketing: A Managerial Approach, John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd., Milton. Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1999), “Customer loyalty in high and low involvement settings: the moderating impact of positive emotions”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 315-30. Bloemer, J.M.M. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1995), “The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 311-29. Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (1999), “Linking perceived service quality and service loyalty: a multidimensional perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 11/12, pp. 1082-106. Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Bove, L.L. and Johnson, L.W. (2002), “Predicting personal loyalty to a service worker”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 24-35. Bowen, J.T. and Chen, S.-L. (2001), “The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 213-17. Butcher, K., Sparks, B. and O’Callaghan, F. (2001), “Evaluative and relational influences on service loyalty”, International Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 310-27. 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. Cunningham, R.M. (1956), “Brand loyalty – what, where, how much?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 116-28. Day, G.S. (1969), “A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 29-35. de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Bloemer, J. (1997), “On the relationship between perceived service quality, service loyalty and switching costs”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 436-53. Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-58. Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113. Dubois, B. and Gilles, L. (1999), “A situational approach to brand loyalty”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 657-63. Eriksson, K. and Vaghult, A.L. (2000), “Customer retention, purchasing behaviour and relationship substance in professional services”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 363-72. Ganesh, J., Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2000), “Understanding the customer base of service providers: an examination of the differences between switchers and stayers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, July, pp. 65-87. Green, P.E., Tull, D.S. and Albaum, G. (1988), Research for Marketing Decisions, Prentice-Hall International Editions, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Guest, L. (1944), “A study of brand loyalty”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 16-27. Guest, L. (1955), “Brand loyalty: twelve years later”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 405-8. Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall International, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hammond, K., East, R. and Ehrenberg, A. (1996), “Buying more and buying longer: concepts and measures of consumer loyalty”, working paper, London Business School, London. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), “Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66. Hozier, G.C. Jr and Stern, D.E. Jr (1985), “General retail patronage loyalty as a determinant of consumer outshopping behaviour”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 32-46. Huber, F. and Herrman, A. (2001), “Achieving brand and dealer loyalty: the case of the automotive industry”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 97-122. Hunt, S. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science, South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Jacoby, J. (1971), “A model of multi-brand loyalty”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 25-31. Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs repeat purchase behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10, February, pp. 1-9. Jones, M.A. and Suh, J. (2000), “Transaction-specific satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-59. Knox, S. and Walker, D. (2001), “Measuring and managing brand loyalty”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 111-28. Lee, M. and Cunningham, L.F. (2001), “A cost/benefit approach to understanding service loyalty”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 113-30. References 498 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 Macintosh, G. and Lockshin, L.S. (1997), “Retail relationships and store loyalty: a multi-level perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 487-97. Mooradian, T.A. and Oliver, J.M. (1997), “‘I can’t get no satisfaction’: the impact of personality and emotion on postpurchase processes”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 379-93. Narayandas, D. (1999), “Measuring and managing the benefits of customer retention”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 108-28. Nijssen, E., Singh, J., Sirdeshmukh, D. and Holzmueller, H. (2003), “Investigating industry context effects in consumerfirm relationships: preliminary results from a dispositional approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 46-60. Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Florence, P. (2001), “Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 75-84. Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence customer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 33-44. Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), “Commercial friendships: service provider: client relationships in context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 38-57. Raju, P. (1980), “Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics and exploratory behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 272-82. Reichheld, F.F. (1993), “Loyalty and the renaissance of marketing”, Marketing Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 10-21. Reichheld, F.F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Reichheld, F.F. (2003), “The one number you need to grow”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 88-99. Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Bennett, R. (2001), “A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-37. Rundle-Thiele, S.R. and Maio Mackay, M. (2001), “Assessing the performance of brand loyalty measures”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 529-46. Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A.J. (1993), “Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 193-215. Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996), Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Sharp, B., Rundle-Thiele, S. and Dawes, J. (1997), “Three conceptualisations of loyalty”, paper presented at the Australia New Zealand Marketing Educators Conference 97, Department of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne. Sharp, B., Wright, M. and Goodhardt, G. (2003), “Purchase loyalty is polarised into either repertoire or subscription patterns”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 7-20. Soderlund, M. (1998), “Customer satisfaction and its consequences on customer behaviour revisited”, International Journal of Services Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 169-88. Ulrich, D. (1989), “Tie the corporate knot: gaining complete customer commitment”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 19-27. van Birgelen, M., Wetzels, M. and de Ruyter, K. (1997), “Commitment in service relationships: an empirical test of its antecedents and consequences”, paper presented at the 26th European Marketing Academy Conference, Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry. Walker, D. and Knox, S. (1997), “New empirical perspectives on brand loyalty: implications for market segmentation and equity management”, paper presented at the 26th European Marketing Academy Conference, Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry. Yu, Y.-T. and Dean, A. (2001), “The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 234-50. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioural consequences of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46. Further reading Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R. and Homer, P. (1988), “The involvement-commitment model: theory and implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-67. Executive summary and implications for managers and executives This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present. Marketers commonly accept that it is cheaper to retain an existing customer than to attract a new one. Customer loyalty is key to the longevity of a brand and can be linked to company growth. Loyalty, also known as customer retention and commitment, first appeared as a marketing concept in the 1940s. Two loyalty concepts evolved: “brand preference”, or attitudinal loyalty; and “share of the market”, or behavioural loyalty. Subsequently, these two concepts were merged into “composite” loyalty, which considered that loyalty should always comprise favourable attitudes, intentions and repeat purchase. Some researchers later came to the view that loyalty evolves and that there are stages of loyalty. “Pure” and “impure” measures of loyalty In the context of two services – wine clubs and insurance – Rundle-Thiele analysed 31 types of loyalty that had been used in previous studies. The author discovered that 16 of these measured more than one type of loyalty and therefore were not “pure”. “Pure” measures offer the greatest guidance for marketers concerned with marketing programmes to maintain or build loyalty. The author suggests that there may be six “pure” types of loyalty: 1 attitudinal loyalty – a customer feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection towards the service brand or retailer; 2 resistance to competing offers – customer immunity to, or protection from, the offers of competing firms; 499 Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures Journal of Services Marketing Sharyn Rundle-Thiele Volume 19 · Number 7 · 2005 · 492 –500 Because customers can be loyal in different ways, the author concludes that loyalty is not necessarily a series of stages performed in sequence, and that it should not be considered always to comprise favourable attitudes, intentions and repeat purchase. Customers may exhibit or possess different degrees of loyalty across different types of loyalty. monitor the different types of loyalty. Considering loyalty as more than one thing can provide guidance for marketers seeking to develop marketing programmes to build loyalty. For example, a problem would exist if a marketer found that propensity to be loyal was high but the remaining types of loyalty were low. This would indicate that improvements in marketing programmes were needed in order to build loyalty to the service. Marketing managers should consider the types of loyalty that exist and specify these types. In this way, marketers will be better able to understand what type of loyalty a survey measure captures and which measures may be most appropriate for their needs. This can help them to simplify and shorten their surveys. Benchmark and monitor the different types of loyalty Marketers seeking to maintain or improve customer loyalty should use more than one loyalty measure to benchmark and (A précis of the article “Exploring loyal qualities: assessing surveybased loyalty measures”, supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.) 3 4 5 6 behavioural intentions – attitudes towards purchasing the brand; propensity to be loyal – the individual customer’s tendency to remain loyal to the brand; complaining behaviour – expressions of dissatisfaction or disapproval; and behavioural loyalty – the customer’s tendency to repurchase, revealed through behaviour that can be measured and that directly affects brand sales. 500