Brand loyalty and its measurement Literature review andmethodology.
Brand loyalty and its measurement
Literature review and methodology
Submitted by:
Sumedha (53)
Sidhartha Samal (107)
Contents
Background.........................................................................3
Nature of Loyalty..................................................................5
Product Involvement/Brand loyalty link .....................................9
Classification of Brand loyalty Measures..................................10
Consumable goods markets.....................................................10
Durable goods markets............................................................11
Services markets.....................................................................12
Models of Measurement of Brand Loyalty..................................13
Arjun Chaudhari and Morris B. Holbrook's Model.........................13
Spiros Gounaris and Vlasis Stathakopoulos's Model....................15
James H. McAlexander,Stephen K. Kim & Scott D. Roberts Model..17
Conclusion..........................................................................19
References..........................................................................20
Background: The concept of Brand loyalty has been defined in a number of ways by different academics and practitioners. Brand loyalty has been largely defined and measured in either behavioral or attitudinal terms (Mellens et al., 1996). Most researchers agree that loyalty is a very complex construct (Javalgi and Moberg, 1997) and most utilize the composite definition of brand loyalty which was originally proposed by Jacoby (1971). According to Jacoby's concept definition brand loyalty can be defined as:
The biased (non-random) behavioral response (purchase) expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of brands and is a function of psychological processes. Brand loyalty has not, however been uniquely defined and operationlised in the marketing literature. For example, brand loyalty has been defined as a repeat purchase, preference and commitment, and as retention and allegiance. Brand loyalty has also been defined as a special case of programmed decision making when customers adopt a decision strategy of giving all or most of their patronage to a particular brand. '(Runyon 1980p. 355). Lawrence defined loyalty to a new brand as four purchases in a row (Lawrence, 1969,pp.137-144). However Blattberg and Sen used a proportion of purchases rather than a sequence as an indication of loyalty to national and private label brands (Blattberg & Sen, 1976, pp.34-35). Yet to consider a consumers sequence of purchases as an indication of their loyalty towards a brand may be misleading. 'Repeat purchase of the brand may not represent commitment, it may merely represent acceptance of the brand.' (Assael, 1998,p.134). Indeed repeat purchase may also occur in a monopoly situation as well as when little choice is available.
Brand loyalty has been viewed from three different, albeit complementary, perspectives, namely: the behavioral, the attitudinal and the reasoned action perspectives. More specifically the behavioral perspective has conceptualized brand loyalty in terms of repeated purchases (for example, Cunningham and Kahn et al.). In fact several models have been proposed in the literature in order to study brand loyalty from the behavioral perspective, the Dirichlet model being one of the most prominent. These approaches model the consumers' faithful enactment of a promise to consistently purchase only one brand, although they fail to model the reason(s) behind this behavior. One possible insight could be found in the attitudinal perspective in conceptualizing loyalty. According to this perspective, brand loyalty consists of a strong internal disposition towards a brand leading to repeated purchases. As such the attitudinal approach conceives brand loyalty based on stated preferences, commitment, or purchase intentions. Attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty are positively correlated. The theory of reasoned action states that the consumers behavior may be influenced by social pressures, thus explaining how a consumer's brand attitude may be unfavorable, while the consumer repeats the purchases of a particular brand. In such a case the consumer's brand loyalty would be superficial. According to the reasoned action paradigm - based on the theory of reasoned action, introduced by Fishbein - brand loyalty is conceived as a notion that is dependent on normative influences (such as influences deriving from social peers). These influences, in turn, are reflected in the behavioral consequences of loyalty. According to this view, one may hold a favorable attitude towards a brand but still not purchase it because of not being able to afford it, a partner disliking the brand, or for many other reasons. Such an individual, although having never actually purchased the brand, promotes it in public, recommends it, and compels others to buy it. This situation is similar to the theoretical discussion by Oliver of the loyalty phrases, and particularly the cognitive phase, where loyalty is based merely on 'brand benefit' and not on brand experience.
The importance of brand loyalty has been recognized in the marketing literature for at least three decades (Howard and Sheth 1969, p.232). Brand loyalty is infact a part of the Basic model of the consumer behavior. Aaker (1991) has discussed the role of loyalty in the brand equity process and has specifically noted that brand loyalty leads to certain marketing advantages such as:
* Reduced marketing costs
* More new customers
* Greater trade leverage
In addition, Dick and Basu (1994) suggest other loyalty-related marketing advantages, such as:
* Favorable word of mouth
* Greater resistance among loyal customers to competitive strategies
Brand loyalty gives sellers some protection from competition and greater control in planning their marketing programs.' (Kotler, 1994,p.448). A significant proportion of the consumer preference choices can also be explained by brand loyalty. It has been researched that recruiting a new customer can be five times more costly than selling to an existing one. A base of loyal customers will be advantageous for an organization as loyalty can be capitalized on through strategies such as brand extension and market penetration. Finally a large number of loyal customers is an asset for a brand, and has been identified as major determinant of brand equity (Dekimpe et al., 1997). While most loyalty research has focused on frequently purchased consumer goods, the loyalty concept is also important for industrial goods (vendor loyalty), services (often referred to as services loyalty in marketing literature) and retail establishments (store loyalty).
A review of the loyalty literature has revealed that the measurement of brand loyalty is different for consumable, durable and services markets. This difference is largely attributable to the difference in market characteristics, namely brand switching, purchase frequency, appropriateness of loyalty types for measurement, share of category, proportion of sole buyers, commitment, intention to purchase, perceived risk, inertia, habit, satisfaction and involvement. The categories of consumables, durables and services are mutually exclusive categories as the market characteristics differ between each market type.
Nature of loyalty: There are many competing opinions about the nature of loyalty. One of the most interesting debates on this topic is that between William Neal , president of SDR inc- a marketing research firm and Randall Brandt, researcher at burke inc. In his June 5, 2000 article in marketing news "When measuring loyalty satisfactorily, don't measure CS" Neal says "Loyalty is a behavior. If I purchase in a product category 10 times in one year, and I purchase the same brand all 10 times, I am 100% loyal. If I purchase the brand only five out of 10 times, I am 50% loyal. It's that simple. It doesn't matter whether I am exhibiting that loyalty because I'm truly dedicated to the brand, or it has some performance characteristic that I want or need, or whether I don't have a choice in the matter. I exhibit behavioral loyalty. And that is the point-loyalty is a behavior." Literature reviews suggest that 3 attitudinal and behavioral elements can measure loyalty: product satisfaction, recommendation intention and repurchase intention. Neal suggests all three may measure satisfaction. Pointing to their intercorrelation, he says they "usually are measuring the same thing-- satisfaction with the product or service." This implies a reflective measurement model shown in Figure 1 where all three items "reflect" (arrows pointing outward) a single underlying latent construct: customer satisfaction. "
Neal goes on to say that satisfaction may not always result in loyalty. He says "Value drives loyalty, not satisfaction. Satisfaction is a necessary but not sufficient component of loyalty. If I am not satisfied with my experience with a brand, I won't consider that brand again unless I don't have a choice in the matter. However, just because I am highly satisfied with a brand's performance doesn't mean I will necessarily repurchase that brand at the next opportunity. It simply means it will probably be in my consideration set. I will evaluate the brands in my consideration ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Neal goes on to say that satisfaction may not always result in loyalty. He says "Value drives loyalty, not satisfaction. Satisfaction is a necessary but not sufficient component of loyalty. If I am not satisfied with my experience with a brand, I won't consider that brand again unless I don't have a choice in the matter. However, just because I am highly satisfied with a brand's performance doesn't mean I will necessarily repurchase that brand at the next opportunity. It simply means it will probably be in my consideration set. I will evaluate the brands in my consideration set in terms of how valuable they are to me-that is, given my preference structure for that product category, I'll pick the brand that offers me the best value" To this Brandt, a respected authority himself gives a rebuttal in "attitude does matter" . He says that loyalty is not behavior alone. He states, "we take a position that is strongly opposed to the one offered by Mr. Neal." Unlike Neal's behavior-only view, Brandt states his firm's position-- loyalty is "reflected by a combination of attitudes and behaviors." Brandt goes on to defend the three specific items by noting that while correlated, the measures are not redundant. Scoring highly on one does not necessarily mean scoring highly on all. But, says Brandt, scoring highly on all is an indication of being a "secure customer." Brandt says the three items can serve as leading indicators of a variety of actual behaviors surrounding loyalty (e.g., repeat purchase, customer retention) once an association has been established empirically." So we have different opinions about the nature of loyalty. We also have competing opinions about appropriateness (or lack thereof) of measurement with the three items: satisfaction, recommend and continue. What does literature have to say about the nature of loyalty: is it attitudinal or behavioral? The attitude and behavior perspective seems to have prevailed in the literature as early as the 1970s. Indeed in 1969, George S. Day, a pillar in the field, argued that loyalty involved both attitude and behavior. Other early theorists also promoted this view (e.g., Richard Lutz and Paul Winn). The classic text is probably Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management, published by Wiley. In fact that was an exhaustive review of existing literature on the topic of brand loyalty, including Jacoby's own work in the early seventies. Based on that, a well reasoned conceptual definition of loyalty was put forth that included both attitudinal and behavioral components.
Another take on the Neal-Brandt debate is "Loyalty - attitude, behavior, and good science" by Doug Grisaffe . He suggests that a reasoned conceptual definition of loyalty
should include both attitudinal and behavioral components. In research using survey methodologies, intent to repurchase can tap the behavioral component of loyalty. As a behavioral intention, this is distinct from pure attitude and has been argued in attitudinal theories to be a precursor of subsequent behavior. That is not to preclude use of truly behavioral measures however. Actual repeat purchase behavior certainly can be used to capture the behavioral component of loyalty. But he says that something like psychological attachment to a product/brand/service might actually reflect attitudinal loyalty. intent to recommend and satisfaction cannot capture the attitudinal part of loyalty because Intent to recommend is a behavioral intention, not a measure of attitudinal loyalty and like repurchase intent, it is a causal outcome of favorable attitudes, not a direct measure of them. There is a growing body of research that indicates loyalty is developed in ways that are more dynamic and complex than reflected in the common "satisfaction builds loyalty" models (Fournier 1998; Oliver 1999; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). Investigations that focus on the experiences associated with product use (or consumption) have been especially influential by uncovering important variations in the loyalty equation As customers repurchase and use products, new and unanticipated benefits (and, sometimes, costs) that have an impact on both satisfaction and loyalty may be revealed. Ownership and/or use may lead to interactions with the product, marketers, and other customers that influence impressions of functionality and yield important personal and social meanings that can bear upon satisfaction and the nature and strength of loyalty (Price, Arnould and Tierney 1995; Fournier 1998; Fournier and Mick 1999; Oliver 1997, 1999).
In a provocative paper with implications for both theory and practice, Garbarino and Johnson (1999) find that, in some situations, overall satisfaction has no significant influence on future purchase intentions. Building upon prior work that examines the developmental processes of relationship formation, they find that for customers who exhibit a strong relationship with a company, trust and commitment supplant satisfaction as drivers of loyalty. They conclude that the management of satisfaction is most effective for developing loyalty among customers that are not inclined toward establishing enduring relationships. In their exploration, McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) observe that brand community - a "specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among users of a brand."- can situate the consumer in a "complex web of relationships" (p. 39). McAlexander and his colleagues broaden the conceptualization of relevant community members to include fellow customers, the brand itself, the products as experienced by the customer, and, at various levels, the marketing institutions responsible for producing, distributing, and communicating about the products. They note that it is through consumer experience that the existence and benefits of brand community relationships unfold. Of particular importance to the current research is their observation that these relationships can develop synergistically, strengthening interpersonal ties, and enhancing appreciation for the product, the brand, and the facilitating marketers in ways that integrate customers into the brand community and that bear upon loyalty. They observe that the social bonds built through brand consumption may have implications for loyalty and brand equity.
Product involvement/brand loyalty link: The central premise of the literature examining the relationship between loyalty and product involvement is that consumers who are more involved with a particular brand are also more committed and hence more loyal to that brand. High involvement has also been suggested as a precondition to loyalty. Indeed, some authors have argued that the cognitive definition of brand loyalty represents commitment and therefore involvement with the brand. 'Involvement is a general term that can be defined as the degree of personal relevance of an object or product or service to a customer.' (Sheth, Mittal, Newman 1999, p.361). A high involvement may lead to extensive information search and if the consumer is satisfied with the product, it might lead to repeat purchases and ultimately brand loyalty. Whereas low involvement may lead to exposure and brand awareness and then possibly to brand habits. This is a level of loyalty where the consumers are satisfied; they are more habitual buyers and so find no reason to change. In the former situation of high involvement, as the repeat purchase increases, it may be that a search about alternative brand decreases. Thus the levels of loyalty may be determined by the fact the buyer is satisfied and there is a switching cost (cost of searching) to change the brand.
In this regard 'a study by J. Walter Thompson, a large advertising agency, found that brand loyalty is highest when consumers are personally involved with the brand and find the purchase risky.' This may specially occur when brand is a source of self-identification. (Assael, 1998, p.133). Therefore apart from the level of perceived risk, the customer's satisfaction over the performance of the brand can also influence their loyalty towards it. The general convention in the literature appears to be that one's involvement in a product class is directly related to one's commitment (or loyalty) to a brand within that product class. Furthermore, the more focal a product class is to an individual's ego or sense of identity, the stronger the psychological attachment he/she will exhibit to a particular brand within that product class. Conversely, the more peripheral the product class is to the individual's ego, the lower the attachment to the brand. One reason for this is that a consumer exhibiting a low involvement in a given product category would more probably have a large consideration set and therefore his or her brand commitment would be low. Hence, brand switching would be more frequent compared with another consumer for whom this product category is highly involving. This suggests that consumers with smaller consideration sets of highly involving products would also exhibit higher brand commitment. This view, however, is also rather simplistic, relying on the size of the consideration set rather than the actual relationship between the constructs. Surprisingly, few empirical investigations have been conducted in this area. The complexity of the relationship between product involvement and brand loyalty, coupled with the use of inappropriate measures, appears to have obscured research.
Classification Of Brand Loyalty Measures: Brand loyalty can be classified into three groups based on market type, namely consumable goods markets including FMCG or consumables, durable goods markets, and service markets. Each market type is discussed in more detail below with reference to loyalty. Finally, the markets are categorized according to transaction value, frequency of purchase, end use, level of involvement, supplier source and purchase process.
Consumable goods markets
Much of the work in the marketing literature has been concentrated on consumable markets. A consumable goods market includes fast-moving consumer goods such as toothpaste, detergents, cereal, ice-cream and business to business markets where goods are consumed, such as office stationery. Numerous studies have been conducted to examine determinants of loyalty in goods (Cunningham, 1956; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978; Tranberg and Hansen, 1986) and the most effective ways of building loyalty for goods. Brand loyalty research in consumable markets has typically focused on behavioral measures of loyalty such as share of category requirements (commonly referred to as proportion of purchase measures) and allegiance, or length of time spent with the brand. Consumable markets exhibit the characteristics of divided loyalty, which is commonly referred to in marketing literature as multi-brand purchasing. The reasons for multi-brand purchase are varied:
* Customers may brand switch to seek variety.
* A sales promotion may alter purchase patterns i.e. if a competing brand is offered at a substantial discount, this may reduce the risk enough for a buyer to switch brands temporarily to trial the alternative. (Blat berg and Nelson, 1989)
* Lack of availability of preferred brand can influence the purchaser to buy a brand they would not normally purchase.
* A single purchaser buying on behalf of the household this means that the purchaser is not necessarily the end-user and the product they purchase may be used by more than one individual.
* Low involvement levels of repeat purchasing.
* The purchase transaction amount is usually low. (Kotler, 2000).
Habitual behavior: Behavioral loyalty in consumables goods markets is often the outcome of habitual behavior and is typically the outcome of low involvement in the product purchase. While the initial purchase may be high involvement for some products such as shampoo or headache tablets, subsequent purchases appear to become habit and this leads some researchers to believe that there is little, if any, decision making occurring. This suggests attitudinal measures would be of little use for practitioners marketing brands that are purchased out of habit where the market is stable. If however there are changes in the market such as a new entrant, legislation or technological improvements, the purchaser is more likely to engage in decision making, thus breaking the habitual nature of the purchase.
Durable goods markets
The second category of markets that will be discussed is durable goods markets. This type of market has received less attention in the marketing literature and as a consequence there is little discussion in the marketing literature on the purchasing behavior and hence loyalty in durable markets. A durable good is a manufactured product capable of a long, useful life, such as furniture, household appliances and motor vehicles. Durable goods are those that survive many uses (Kotler, 2000). This means that once the customer purchases the goods, he/she is temporarily out of the market for that good until it needs replacement. A durable goods market includes goods such as consumer washing machines, and the business to business fax machine market. Purchasing in a durable good market is expected to exhibit the following characteristics:
* Buyers do not frequently switch back and forth between competing brands.
* In any given time period, buyers are sole loyal or perhaps dual loyal. That is, brands enjoy 100 per cent of share of category requirements e.g. one Canon Fax in a household.
It may be that durable goods markets may look like fast moving consumer goods markets if a sufficiently long period of panel data were collected (Sharp and Wright, 1999). However, the period of interest, for example 50 years for washing machines, would be too long to warrant collecting (useful) data.
Services markets
Compared with loyalty research on goods, studies on brand loyalty in service markets are less numerous. For some years, marketers have been studying the differences between goods and services (Berry, 1980) and assert there are four characteristics that differentiate goods and services, namely inseparability, intangibility, heterogeneity and perishability (Berry, 1980; McGuire, 1999). A service market would include consumer services such as air travel, hairdressing, legal services and business to business markets such as accountancy services and telecommunications. The characteristics of service markets are:
* Since services are intangible and heterogeneous, most consumers will perceive higher risk in services than in goods. According to Cunningham (1956) as perceived risk increases, the likelihood of loyalty to one brand increases. Research demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between perceived risk and brand loyalty. This is also supported by research into risk (Cunningham, 1956). The implications of high-perceived risk on brand loyalty are that purchasers of services tend to be less likely to brand switch in order to minimize the perceived risk.
* Once again buyers typically do not share purchases for a product, e.g. Hairdressing or accounting services, among a repertoire of brands and are hence sole loyal. That is, customers typically have 100 per cent share of category with a given brand.
* Relationships form a crucial part of the ongoing relationship between the service provider and customer. Consumers may be more likely to remain loyal after they have established a relationship with their service provider.
* The difficulty in evaluating the quality of services makes brand loyalty more likely in service markets as customers become familiar with one service
* Loyalty in (some) service markets reflects inertia.
* The role of affect in brand loyalty is very important (Caldow, 1998). In particular the construct of satisfaction plays a key role in determining future patronage of the service provider.
Models of Measurement of Brand Loyalty: The different models of measurement of brand loyalty are given below. These models are based upon some research and some hypotheses that the researchers had assumed.
) Arjun Chaudhari and Morris B. Holbrook's Model: This model explored the relationship among brand trust, brand affect, and brand performance outcomes (market share and relative price) with an emphasis on understanding the linking role played by brand loyalty. Besides the effects of two general product-level, category-related control variables (hedonic and utilitarian value) on brand trust and brand affect and the effect of twp brand-level control variables (brand differentiation and share of voice) on market share and relative price were also examined. The following model was used by them.
Model of Brand Loyalty and Brand Performance
They proposed that brands high in consumer trust and affect are linked through both attitudinal and purchase loyalty (also among consumers) to greater market share and premium prices in the marketplace.
The various hypotheses were:
H1: Brand trust is positively related to both (a) purchase loyalty and (b) attitudinal loyalty
H2: Brand affect is positively related to both (a) purchase loyalty and (b) attitudinal loyalty
H3: Market share increases as purchase loyalty increases
H4: Relative price increases as attitudinal loyalty increases
Finally the conclusions that they arrived at were that higher brand trust and brand affect, working through higher purchase loyalty to the brand, leads to sales-related brand outcomes such as market share. It was also concluded that brand trust and brand affect, working through attitudinal loyalty, lead to premium-related outcomes such as higher relative prices in the market place. There was also evidence from the study that brand trust and affect are only indirectly related to market share and relative price through their combined impacts on purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty, respectively. Thus the roles of brand loyalty in general and of its attitudinal and purchase related aspects in particular are critical in understanding the contrasting brand performance outcomes.
2) Spiros Gounaris and Vlasis Stathakopoulos's Model: An empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty was done by them in 2003. They conceived brand loyalty as comprising of three dimensions namely emotional attachment, purchasing behavior and social influences. They identified four generic types of brand loyalty - no loyalty, inertia loyalty, premium loyalty and covetous loyalty.
Conceptualization of loyalty based on the three dimensions
The four types of brand loyalty were characterized as follows:
* No loyalty - No purchase at all, and a complete lack of attachment to the brand. Also no social influences to be even cognitively loyal to a brand.
* Covetous Loyalty - No purchase but, the individual exhibits a very high level of relative attachment to the brand and a strong positive predisposition towards the brand, which is developed from the social environment.
* Inertia loyalty - An individual although purchasing the brand, does so out of habit, convenience or for some other reason, but not as a consequence of emotional attachment to the brand or a real social motive.
* Premium Loyalty - An individual exhibits a high degree of relative attachment to the brand, a high instance of repeat purchases, and appears to be highly influenced by social pressure.
Conceptual model of the research
One of the major findings of this study was that customer retention could be achieved only through fostering premium loyalty. Further premium-loyalty buyers were also found to contribute to word-of-mouth communication for the brand, as was also the case with covetous loyalty. Inertia loyalty was an inferior form of loyalty which not only deter consumers from purchasing a substitute/competing brand that is conveniently available at the moment of decision making but also didn't resulted in any word-of-mouth communication. Premium loyalty was particularly found to be important for sustaining sales and market share while covetous loyalty was important for companies attempting to establish or sustain a particular image for their brand. Companies with inertia-loyal customers need to redesign their marketing strategy in order to differenciate their brand and build a more specific and identifiable brand identity.
3) James H. McAlexander, Stephen K. Kim & Scott D. Roberts Model: The study conducted by James H. McAlexander, Stephen K. Kim & Scott D. Roberts explored the relative contribution of brand community integration (BCI) to the customer loyalty equation. Prior work that focused on branded goods (i.e. Jeep, Macintosh, and Saab) had indicated that the concept of brand community integration can provide marketers with fresh insights into building loyalty. It hadn't, however, examined the relative roles that satisfaction and brand community can play in building loyalty. The focus was on people engaged in the consumption of an experientially oriented service.
Conceptual Model of Brand Community integration, Satisfaction and loyalty
A. Less Experienced Group
B. More Experienced Group
H1(a) General satisfaction is associated positively with customer loyalty for less experienced relationship-oriented consumers.
H1(b) General satisfaction is not associated with customer loyalty for the more experienced relationship-oriented consumers.
H2: Brand community integration is associated positively with satisfaction for (a) less experienced relationship-oriented consumers and (b) more experienced relationship-oriented consumers.
H3: Brand community integration is associated positively with brand loyalty for (a) less experienced relationship-oriented consumers and (b) for more experienced relationship-oriented consumers.
In H1 it was proposed that the effect of satisfaction on customer loyalty differs between the less experienced group (significant effect) and the more experienced group (non-significant effect). In H2 and H3 it was also maintained that brand community integration is related positively to satisfaction and loyalty for both the less experienced group and the more experienced group. Tying these hypotheses together, it was anticipated that brand community integration has both a direct effect and indirect effects through satisfaction on customer loyalty for the less experienced group, but that the indirect effect of BCI through satisfaction wanes with the accumulation of additional experience. For that reason, it was expected that it was only the main effect of BCI that drives customer loyalty for the more experienced group. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:
H4(a): Satisfaction mediates the effect of brand community integration on customer loyalty for the less experienced relationship oriented consumers.
H4(b): Satisfaction does not mediate the effect of brand community integration on customer loyalty for the more experienced relationship oriented consumers
The findings suggested that customer satisfaction has a positive effect on customer loyalty in the less experienced group, but its effect in the more experienced group was insignificant. Therefore, H1(a) and H(1b) were fully supported. As far as the effects of brand community integration on satisfaction was concerned the estimation results indicated that satisfaction is associated positively with brand community integration for both the less experienced as well as the more experienced, in support of H2 (a) and H2 (b).The model estimation results also suggested that integration in the brand community is associated positively with customer loyalty for both the less experienced and more experienced as was hypothesized. Thus, H (3a) and H (3b) were supported and the direct effect of brand community integration on customer loyalty was positive for both groups. The total effect of brand community integration on customer loyalty was also calculated to unravel the indirect effect from the direct effect. Therefore, the hypothesis H4 (a) was also fully supported. The hypothesis H4 (b) was also found to be true. The findings challenged the accepted assumption that to build loyalty one must focus on managing customer satisfaction. As Oliver (1999) contends, satisfaction is of greatest importance among inexperienced customers. Loyalty creation, however, is an evolutionary process driven by experience. With experience, customers have the opportunity to develop the additional and meaningful connections of brand community that can provide a strong bond that affects satisfaction and loyalty. The possibility of building the type of loyalty that can come from the bonds of brand community provides impetus for managers to carefully consider the creation and maintenance of a suitably supportive service-delivery environment. As a marketing challenge, providing that supportive environment requires attention to the holistic consumption experience. The conceptualization of brand community provided marketers a model from which they could identify the relevant elements of brand community and gauge success in fostering those relationships.
Conclusion: It can be concluded from the literature review that loyalty for a brand varies across markets and across industries. Consideration of multiple types of loyalty would actually be helpful for marketing practioners. Customer satisfaction is regarded as the most viable strategy for increasing brand loyalty. Ideally, brand loyalty research should incorporate both attitudinal and behavioral measures, as they are both complementary aspects of the one construct. In consumable markets where the market is stable and where there is high switching and low involvement and risk, behavioral measures are appropriate for predicting future brand loyalty levels. However where the market is not stable, there is a propensity towards sole brands and there is high involvement and risk, then attitudinal measures could be used. As there are higher incidences of sole loyalty in both service and durable markets, attitudinal loyalty measures may be better predictors of future behavioral loyalty, and hence market share, levels. By incorporating loyalty measures and considerations into marketing strategies, managers will be able to achieve a more effective overall marketing performance. But it is essential that the right measures are selected or we will find ourselves setting objectives founded on misleading research.
References:
William D Neal." When measuring loyalty satisfactorily, don't measure CS "Marketing News. Chicago: Jun 5, 2000
D.R Brandt "Attitude does matter" Marketing News, August 14, 2000
Doug grisaffe "Loyalty - attitude, behavior, and good science" Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior
James H McAlexander, Stephen K Kim, Scott D Roberts. "Loyalty: the influences of satisfaction and brand community integration" Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.
Fournier, Susan, "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationships Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, March 1998
Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook, "The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty," Journal of Marketing, April 2001
Garbarino, Ellen, and Mark S. Johnson "The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships," Journal of Marketing, April 1999
McAlexander, James H., John W. Scheuten, and Harold F. Koenig, "Building Brand Community," Journal of Marketing ,January 2002
Pascale Quester, Ai Lin Lim "Product involvement/brand loyalty: Is there a link?" The Journal of Product and Brand Management.
Cunningham, R.M. "Brand loyalty - what, where, how much?", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34, January-February, 1956
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. "Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 1994
Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Rebekah Bennet "A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets". The Journal of Product and Brand Management. Santa Barbara: 2001
Blattberg, R.C. and Neslin, S.A. "Sales promotion: the long and the short of it", Marketing Letters, 1989
Sharp, B. and Wright, M., "There are two types of repeat purchase markets", 28th European Marketing Academy Conference, Institute of Marketing, Humboldt University, Germany. 1999
Richard D. Czerniawski and Michael W. Maloney, "Creating Brand Loyalty"
Spiros Gounaris and Vlasis Stathakopoulos, "Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: An empirical study" Journal of brand Management, April 2004
Choong Lyong Ha, "The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty" Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol 7, 1998
