1 / 38

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAND IMAGE, SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAND IMAGE, SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY. BY STEPHEN L. SONDOH JR @ JUDE. Overview of brand image.

faith
Télécharger la présentation

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAND IMAGE, SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAND IMAGE, SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY. BY STEPHEN L. SONDOH JR @ JUDE

  2. Overview of brand image • Researchers have highlighted several important issues pertaining to the increased interest in brand image in marketing (Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986; Gardner & Levy, 1957; Bennett & Rundle-Thiele, 2005; Nandan, 2005; Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Graeff, 1996; Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Roth, 1995; Barich & Kotler, 1991). • Brand image is crucial since it plays a significant role in influencing consumer decision making. • According to Hsieh, Pan and Sentiono (2004), a “successful brand image enables consumers to identify the needs that the brand satisfies and to differentiate the brand from its competitors and consequently increases the likelihood that consumers will purchase the brand” (p. 252).

  3. Overview of brand image • A company or its brand, which constantly holds a favorable image by the publics/consumers, would definitely gain a better position in the market, have a sustainable competitive advantage, and an increase of market share or performance (Park et al., 1986; Martinez, Polo & de Chernatony, 2008; Salciuviene, Lee, & Yu, 2007). • Empirical findings have confirmed that a favorable image (i.e. brand, services, store/retail) will lead to loyalty(e.g., Koo, 2003; Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998; Sondoh et al., 2007; Sondoh, 2009; Hung, 2008), brand equity (Faircloth et al., 2001; Biel, 1992; Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993),overall satisfaction (Palacio et al., 2002; Sondoh et al., 2007; Sondoh, 2009), brand purchase behavior (Hsieh et al., 2004), brand extensions(Aaker & Keller, 1990), brand performance (Roth, 1995), and brand preference (Salciuviene et al., 2007).

  4. Overview of brand image cont. • Aaker (1991) noted that brand’s image generates value to the company and its customers in terms of assisting consumers to process or retrieve information, differentiating the brand, generating reasons to buy, creating positive attitudes and/or feelings towards the brand, and providing a basis for extensions. • Brand image is vulnerable to threats such as negative word of mouth, poor reputation, or even ignorance regarding the needs and expectations of consumers (Dichter, 1985; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001; Hsieh & Li, 2008) which can easily destroy the company or brand image. • Management must take a serious action if their existing or potential customers have incorrect or negative perceptions towards their company or its product’s image (Barich & Srinivasan, 1993).

  5. Cont. • Barich and Kotler (1991) strongly suggested that companies should identify their image strengths and weaknesses, and take action to improve those poor or negative images (p. 95). • The image of a brand, company and store are not static (Martinez & de Chernatony, 2004; Keller, 2000; Oh, 1995). • The brand’s image is subjected to change over a period of time, this is the consequence of several changes and adjustments. • e.g., changes and modification of branding strategies and policies, in consumer perceptions, the effects of operating in a competitive situation or in the market environment (Martinez & de Chernatony, 2004; Oh, 1995; Kapferer, 1992). • Marketing managers should evaluate the brand’s image on a regular basis to identify what changes may have occurred over a period of time (Oh, 1995; Barich & Kotler, 1991; Barich & Srinivasan, 1993).

  6. Overview of Brand image cont. • In previous studies, brand/store/retail image has been conceptualized and operationalized in several ways • Researchers have operationalized image, based upon consumers’ perceptions of attributes (e.g., Koo, 2003; Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000; Burt & Carralero-Encinas, 2000); brand benefits/appeals (e.g., Hsieh et al., 2004; Roth, 1995; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Salciuviene et al., 2007; Hung, 2008); or brand personality (e.g., Aaker, 1997; Malhotra, 1981; Faircloth et al. 2001; Da Silva & Syed Alwi, 2006). • Measuring image based on the aforementioned studies helps guide managers to identify/diagnose the strength and weaknesses of their brand as well as understanding consumers’ perceptions towards their product and services, consumers’ expectations and overall attitudes towards their brand.

  7. Definition of Brand Image • There is lack of consensual agreement concerning the definition of brand image in the literature (Poiesz, 1989; Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Keller, 1993; Hsieh et al., 2004; Martinez & de Chernatony, 2004). • Reynolds (1965) stated that “an image is the mental construct developed by the consumer on the basis of a few selected impressions among the flood of the total impressions; it comes into being through a creative process in which these selected impressions are elaborated, embellished, and ordered” (p. 69). • This definition emphasized the cognitive or psychological elements of image (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990).

  8. Definition of Brand Image • Reynolds and Gutman (1984) noted that image can be defined and conceptualized in terms of: • (1) the general characteristics of a product (e.g., ‘decaffeinated coffee’), feelings, or impressions derived from thinking about a product (Jain & Etgar, 1976); • (2) consumers’ perceptions of products (Marks, 1976); • (3) beliefs and attitudes (James, Durand, & Dreves, 1976); • (4) brand personality (Martineau, 1958); and • (5) linkages between characteristics and feelings/emotions (Oxenfeldt, 1974).

  9. Definition of Brand Image • Biel (1992) described brand image as “a cluster of attributes and associations that consumers connect to the brand name”. • Kotler (2001) defined brand image as a “set of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person holds regarding an object”. • Keller (1993) defined brand image as “a set of perceptions about a brand as reflected by brand associations in consumer’s memory”. • Aaker (1991) defined brand image as “a set of associations, usually organized in some meaningful way and referred brand associations are anything linked in memory to a brand”.

  10. The Conceptualization of Brand Image • Brand image conceptions started in the mid 1950s and practically it turned out to be a central aspect in consumer behavior research. • Most academics and practitioners have been inspired by the classic article written by Gardner and Levy (1955), entitled, “The Product and the Brand”. • Their greatest contribution was to crystallize the notion of brand image (Levy, 1959; Keller, 1993; Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). • Gardner and Levy (1955) proposed that “a brand name is more than a label employed to differentiate among manufacturers of a product. It is a complex symbol that represents a variety of ideas and attributes. It tells the consumers many things, not only by the way it sounds (and its literal meaning if it has one) but, more importantly, via the body of associations it has built up and acquired as a public object over a period of time” (p. 35).

  11. Gardner & Levy (1959) conceptualization of brand image • This conception of brand image reflects the idea that “consumers buy brands not only for their physical attributes and functions, but also because of the meanings connected with the brands” (Levy & Glick, 1973). • Levy (1959) further explained that: • If the manufacturer understands that he is selling symbols as well as goods, he can view his product more completely. He can understand not only how the object he sells satisfies certain practical needs but also how it fits meaningfully into today’s culture (p.124). • The ideas of Gardner and Levy (1955) and Levy (1959) clearly delineated the importance of symbolic meaning of product or brand in consumer decision making. However, these authors did not provide any information on how to measure the symbolic nature of the brand.

  12. Park et al. (1986) brand image concept • Park, Jaworski and MacInnis (1986) introduced the brand concept management strategy. • A brand concept involves a firm selection of a specific brand meaning that relates to the underlying consumer needs whether they are functional, symbolic, or experiential needs. • Functional benefits refer to “those needs that motivate consumers to search for products that solve consumption-related problems” (p. 136), such as “reliable, efficient, practical or convenient” (Lawson & Balakrishnan, 1998). • Symbolic benefits relate to “desires for products that fulfill internally generated needs for self-enhancement, role position, group membership, or ego-identification”. • Experiential benefits refer to “a brand designed to fulfill consumers’ desires for a product that provides sensory pleasure, variety, and/or cognitive stimulation” (Park et al., 1986, p. 136).

  13. Keller (1993) brand image concept • Keller (1993) conceptualized brand image as “a perception about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumers’ memory”. • He suggests that “brand associations” are comprised of brand attributes, brand benefits, and overall brand attitudes. • To Keller (1993), attributes are “those descriptive features that characterize a product or service--what a consumer thinks the product or service is or has and what is involved with its purchase or consumption” (p. 4). • Attributes can be classified into product-related attributes and non product-related attributes. • From Keller’s perspective, product-related attributes are the “ingredients necessary for performing the product or service function sought by consumers” (p. 4). • Product related attributes include the physical composition of the product. • Keller (1993) describes non product-related attributes as “external aspects of the product or services that relate to its purchase or consumption” (e.g., price, packaging or product appearance information, user and usage imagery).

  14. Keller (1993) brand image concept • As for benefits, these are considered as “the personal value consumers attach to the product or service attributes -that is, what consumers think the product or service can do for them” (p. 4). • Keller (1993) notes that these image benefits can be classified into functional, experiential and symbolic benefits. • functional benefits are related to “the intrinsic advantages of product or service consumption and usually correspond to the product related attributes”. • Experiential benefits are “what it feels like to use the product or services and usually correspond to the product related attributes”. • Symbolic benefits are associated with the underlying needs for social approval or personal expression and outer-directed self-esteem, which correspond to, or are related to, non-product related attributes (Keller, 1993, p. 4).

  15. Customer Satisfaction • Customer satisfaction plays a major role in contributing to the improvement of profitability, increasing market share, reinforcing repurchase behavior, retaining customers, building and maintaining customer loyalty, and instilling commitment (Evan & Lindsay, 1999). • As a consequence of today’s competitive environment, homogeneity of consumers’ perceptions of product quality as well as more sophisticated consumers put companies in a challenging situation. • Thus, it is crucial to measure customer satisfaction as a means to identify whether products or services currently meet customer needs, to identify possible areas of improvement and to track current trends(Evan & Lindsay, 1999).

  16. Customer Satisfaction According to Evan and Lindsay (1999), measuring customer satisfaction would help a company to: • (a) discover customer perceptions on how well the business is doing in meeting customer needs, • (b) compare a company’s performance relative to competitors, • (c) discover areas for improvement, both in design and delivery of products and services, and • (d) track trends to determine if changes actually result in improvements (p. 197).

  17. Definitions of Customer Satisfaction • Giese and Cote (2000) comprehensively reviewed the customer satisfaction literature from 1969 to 1997. • There is no general agreement on the conceptual definition of satisfaction that was proposed by previous researchers. • The inconsistency of previous customer satisfaction definitions was due to: (1) disagreement as to whether satisfaction is a cognitive or an emotional evaluation construct, and (2) whether satisfaction is an outcome or a process(Yi, 1990; Giese & Cote, 2000).

  18. Definitions of Customer Satisfaction(COGNITIVE RESPONSE) • Customer satisfaction has been defined as “the buyer's cognitive state of being adequately or inadequately rewarded for the sacrifices he has undergone” (Howard & Sheth, 1969, p. 145). • This conception of satisfaction focuses on the cognitive response and the outcome evaluation stemming from consumption experience (Yi, 1990). • Tse and Wilton (1988) noted that satisfaction is “the consumer’s response to the evaluation of the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations (or some norm of performance) and the actual performance as perceived after its consumption” (p. 204).

  19. Definitions of Customer Satisfaction (AFFECTIVE RESPONSE) • Most researchers agree that customer satisfaction is an emotional response construct. • For example, Oliver (1981)defined satisfaction as “an evaluation of the surprise inherent in a product acquisition and/or consumption experience. In essence, the summary psychological state resulting when the emotion surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with the consumer's prior feelings about the consumption experience” (p. 27). • Westbrook and Reilly (1983) described satisfaction as “an emotional response to the experiences provided by and associated with particular products or services purchased, retail outlets, or even molar patterns of behavior such as shopping and buyer behavior, as well as the overall marketplace” (p. 256).

  20. Definitions of Customer Satisfaction(AFFECTIVE RESPONSE) • Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins (1987)conceptualized satisfaction as “a feeling developed from an evaluation of the usage experience” (p. 305). • Oliver (1997) described satisfaction as “the consumer's fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under- or overfulfillment” (p. 13). • The abovementioned definitions emphasize the consumer’s affective response towards the product and the consumption experience, which is an important aspect of customer satisfaction.

  21. OVERALL SATISFACTION VS. ATTRIBUTE SATISFACTION/TRANSACTIONAL SATISFACTION • Overall satisfaction (or cumulative satisfaction) is “the customer’s feeling in response to evaluations of one or more use experiences with a product” (Woodruff, 1997, p. 143). • Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994) described overall satisfaction as “an overall evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experience with a good or service over time” (p. 54). • Oliver (1993) views attribute satisfaction as “the consumer’s subjective satisfaction judgment resulting from observations of attribute performance” (p. 421). • Based upon these two conceptualizations of satisfaction, it is apparent that they differ in terms of conceptualization point of view and the operationalization of these constructs.

  22. Overall satisfaction VS. ATTRIBUTE SATISFACTION • For example, Spreng, Mackenzie and Olshavsky (1996) measured attribute satisfaction based on whether the customers are satisfied with each of the product attributes (i.e. versatility, picture quality, and picture sharpness). • Overall satisfaction was measured by asking the respondents to evaluate all of their use experiences that they have had with a product. Their results showed that attribute satisfaction significantly influenced overall satisfaction. • The findings of their study is consistent with Oliver’s (1993) study, which showed that attribute satisfaction had a positive influence on overall satisfaction in both automobiles and course evaluation samples.

  23. Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction • Previous studies have examined the influence of expectations(e.g., Oliver, 1980; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982), disconfirmation(e.g., Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980; Bearden & Teel, 1983),performance(e.g., Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Tse & Wilton; 1988), and equity(e.g., Swan & Oliver, 1991; Tse & Wilton, 1988; Szymanski & Henard, 2001) on the development of customer satisfaction.

  24. Expectations and expectancy disconfirmation • It is important to understand the underlying concept of expectations since it has influence in terms of how consumers perceive, and evaluate particular products, services, attributes or performance (Oliver, 1980). • A consumer could form an expectation regarding future consumption experiences from several sources such as through advertisements, word of mouth, product observation, and previous usage experiences (Olson & Dover,1979) . • Expectations have been viewed as predictive beliefs or pre-purchase perceptions about a product (Olson & Dover, 1979; Oliver, 1980; 1997; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988)that serve as a comparison standard or reference point against which product performance is judged (Oliver, 1980; Bearden & Teel, 1983).

  25. Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction • Based upon this perspective, customer satisfaction is the result of a comparison process between a consumer’s expectations of products/services and the actual experience/perceived performance (Oliver, 1980). • Some studies found that expectations have a positive effect on consumer satisfaction (e.g., Churchill & Surprenant, 1982, for non-durable products; Oliver, 1980; Bearden & Teel, 1983). • In contrast, other studies have failed to demonstrate these effects (e.g., Churchill & Surprenant, 1982, for durable products; Westbrook, 1987, for cable TV; Spreng & Olshavsky, 1993).

  26. Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction • The expectancy disconfirmation paradigm concept suggests that disconfirmation occurs when there are differences between perceived performance and expectations. • Customers are satisfied when product performance is better than they expected (positive disconfirmation occurs). • Customers are dissatisfied when their expectations exceeded the actual product performance (negative disconfirmation occurs), • Neutral feeling of satisfaction (confirmation occurs) reflects when the product performance matches expectations (Oliver, 1980; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988; Bearden & Teel, 1983).

  27. Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction • Several studies found that disconfirmation influences the formation of customer satisfaction (e.g., Bearden & Teel, 1983; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988). • Szymanski and Henard (2001) conducted a meta-analysis study of 50 empirical studies related to customer satisfaction. They found that on average, equity and disconfirmation are strongly related to customer satisfaction. • In contrast, some studies revealed that disconfirmation has no significant effect on satisfaction (e.g., Churchill & Surprenant, 1982, for durable product; Spreng & Olshavsky, 1993).

  28. Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction • Researchers have explored other determinants of customer satisfaction such as: • Perceived performance(Anderson et al., 1994; Tse & Wilton, 1988; Oliver & DeSarbo; 1988), Affect/emotion(e.g., Oliver, 1993), • Perceived service quality(e.g., Chiou et al., 2002; Sivadas & Baker-Prewitt, 2000; Bei & Chiao, 2001; Yieh et al., 2007; Aga & Safakli, 2007; Caruana, 2002), • Perceived product quality(e.g., Yieh et al., 2007; Bei & Chiao, 2001), perceived value (e.g., Yang & Peterson, 2004; Caruana & Fenech, 2005;), • Consumer relationship benefits(e.g., Reynolds & Beatty, 1999) • Retail/store image(e.g., Martenson, 2007; Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998) • Firm/corporate image(e.g., Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998; Cengiz, Ayyildiz, & Er, 2007), Brand image (e.g., Sondoh et al., 2007; Sondoh, 2009). • The higher the customer’s perception of product performance, product/service quality, value, image, and relational benefits, the more the customer will be satisfied with both the company and product/services/brand.

  29. Gap and issues: The relationship between brand image, satisfaction and loyalty • Researchers have examined the relationships between image, satisfaction and loyalty in the retail (e.g., Koo, 2003; Chang & Tu, 2005; Martenson, 2007) and service industry (e.g., Bloemer et al., 1998; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998; Hung, 2008; Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000; Cengiz, Ayyildiz, & Er, 2007; Lewis & Soureli, 2006), but there are a limited number of studies focusing on product markets • The impact of image on satisfaction requires a more complete validation, since some contradictory results are found in image literature (Palacio et al. 2002). • Similarly, Bloemer et al. (1998) point out that the literal relationship between image and loyalty remains a matter of debate.

  30. Gap and issues • In a study of retail store image, Bloemer and de Ruyter (1998) found that image towards the store has an indirect effect on store loyalty through store satisfaction. In contrast, Bloemer et al. (1998) found that image has an indirect impact on loyalty through perceived quality but not through customer satisfaction in a retail bank context. • Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000) found that the image attributes and image holistic have significant effects on customer loyalty in the hotel setting. Similarly, Koo (2003) found that some of the store image attributes have direct impact on store loyalty, while the impact of store satisfaction on store loyalty was not significant.

  31. Gap and issues • Several studies found that satisfaction mediates the relationships between perceived service quality and customer loyalty (e.g., Caruana, 2002; Bei & Chiao, 2001; Chiou & Droge, 2006) and between perceived value and customer loyalty (e.g., Caruana & Fenech, 2005; Yang & Peterson, 2004). • However, studies attempting to determine the mediating role of satisfaction on the relationship between image and loyalty have been inconclusive (Koo, 2003; Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998; Bloemer et al., 1998). • Although the findings above showing the relationship between image, satisfaction and loyalty are inconclusive, it is important to note that the multidimensional construct of store image, bank image, higher learning institutions and automobile images differ from each other as they each have unique characteristics of image attributes which cannot begeneralized to other products or service categories. • Therefore, the effect of image on customer satisfaction and loyalty stills need to be further validated in other product or services categories.

  32. Gap and issues • In terms of operationalization of the image construct, most researchers measure the image construct based on consumers’ perceptions of attributes (e.g., Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998; Koo, 2003; Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000). • Na, Marshall, and Keller (1999) on the other hand, argued that “image cannot be measured by attribute measurements alone but must include measurements of consumers’ perceptions of the value and benefits attainable from using the brand” (p. 171). • Despite the efforts toward examining the relationship between brand image, satisfaction and loyalty, there are limited studies that incorporate both image based attributes and benefits as a construct of brand image and also consider how these two concepts of images effect the level of customers’ overall satisfaction and loyalty intention, especially in the product market industry.

  33. Modification of research conceptual framework • Brand Image • Image Attributes • Price-value for money • Brand reputation • Brand origin • Advertising credibility • Channel Reputation • Sales personnel • Product Ingredient • After-sales services • Image benefits • Functional • Symbolic • Social • Experiential Overall Satisfaction Loyalty Intention Moderator • Personality Type • Compliance-social conformity • Aggressive-dominance • Aggressive-defiance • Dwelling Areas • Urban/Rural

  34. Regression Analysis of Brand Image with Loyalty Intention

  35. Regression Analysis of Brand Image with Overall Satisfaction

  36. Regression Analysis of Overall Satisfaction and Loyalty Intention Note: Significant levels: **p < 0.01

  37. The effects of the dimensions of Brand Image on Overall Satisfaction and Loyal Intention Hypothesis relationship: + denotes positive relationship

  38. Mediating effect of overall satisfaction

More Related