IMPACT OF CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ON SATISFACTION, BRAND IMAGE AND LOYALTY: A STUDY IN A BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS CONTEXT. Abstract.

Transcription

1 ASAC 2007 Ottawa, ON Ramesh Venkat Sobey School of Business Saint Mary's University IMPACT OF CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ON SATISFACTION, BRAND IMAGE AND LOYALTY: A STUDY IN A BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS CONTEXT Abstract The impact of customer experience on customer satisfaction and brand image was studied in a business-to-business context. Survey data obtained from 140 customers of a leading manufacturer were analyzed using PLS. Customer experience was found to have a strong impact on overall satisfaction and brand image and a stronger impact on overall satisfaction compared to attribute-level satisfaction. Introduction Customer satisfaction in the business-to-business context has been the focus of study for many years (e.g., Golicic, Broyles and Woodruff 2003; Ruekert and Churchill 1984; Schul, Taylor and Pride 1985; Patterson, Johnson and Spreng 1997). Businesses tend to evaluate their purchases more formally than do consumers (Golicic, Broyles and Woodruff 2003). They often have objective criteria for evaluating vendors as well as performance of products (Bendixen, Bukasa and Abratt 2004; Hutt and Speh 2001). The expectation-disconfirmation framework for studying satisfaction in the business-to-consumer area has been extended to business-to-business context by many researchers (e.g., Golicic, Broyles and Woodruff 2003; Patterson, Johnson and Spreng 1997). The disconfirmation model is based on the view that customer satisfaction is the result of a comparison between some pre-purchase standard and perceived post-purchase performance of the product or service (Oliver 1999). We have seen extensions of this model in the business context, where, for instance, situational factors such as uncertainty or the importance of the product have been included in the satisfaction-loyalty model (Wangenheim 2003). We also know that the evaluative criteria used by business customers can often be different from the ones used by consumers to judge product performance (Patterson, Johnson and Spreng 1997). Situational variables such as decision complexity and individual variables such as stakeholding can affect customer satisfaction in business-to-business settings (Patterson, Johnson and Spreng 1997). Inter-organizational relationships can also influence business customer satisfaction (Golicic, Broyles and Woodruff 2003). In this paper, our current understanding of the satisfaction and loyalty formation process in the business-to-business context is extended further by exploring two factors that are not addressed in the business-to-business satisfaction-loyalty literature. First, there is evidence that corporate or brand image affects the overall evaluation of a service in a consumer context (e.g., Grönroos 1984; Andreassen and 101

2 Lindestad 1997), but the impact of brand image on satisfaction and loyalty in a business-to-business context has not been examined. This gap is addressed in this paper. Second, this paper explores the impact of customer experience on satisfaction, brand image and loyalty. A lot has been written about the importance delivering memorable customer experiences in a business-toconsumer context (e.g., Author 2006; Carbone 2004; Schmitt, 2003; Shaw and Ivens 2002; Smith and Wheeler 2002), but there is no formal examination of this construct in a business-to-business setting. Interesting conceptual work linking customer experience to loyalty has recently emerged (Mascarenhas, Kesavan and Bernacchi 2006), but empirical verification of the role of customer experience in the satisfaction-loyalty context is still lacking. Customer experience involves direct or indirect interaction between the customer and the company (brand) across one or more touch points along the purchase cycle (from pre-purchase to purchase and post-purchase). Customer experience is not just the product usage experience, but it also includes other interactions between the company and the customer (e.g., advertisement, sales, installation, Web site, call centre and so on). Customer experiences, whether orchestrated by the company or not, will lead to cognitive as well as affective responses, which affect satisfaction and loyalty (Author 2006). In this paper, the impact of customer experience on both satisfaction and brand image is explored. The impact of brand image on satisfaction and loyalty is explored. The traditional notion is that business purchase and post-purchase evaluation tend to be more formal and there is less room for emotions. Customer experience and brand image capture more affective than more objective reaction from customers. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses The conceptual model (see Figure 1) included attribute importance, attribute satisfaction, customer experience, overall satisfaction, brand image and loyalty. The details of the model and the hypotheses are described in this section. Attribute Importance and Attribute Satisfaction In customer satisfaction research it is common to measure attribute importance and attribute satisfaction to identify gaps where the organization can improve its performance (Allen 2004; Mittal, Katrichis and Kumar 2001). Instead of using expectations, in this study attribute importance was measured. Importance can be viewed as a surrogate of expectations. Importance rating is easily understood by managers and is used in purchasing decision process by businesses. Overall satisfaction has been conceptualized as a function of attribute-level satisfaction (Patterson et al. 1997, Spreng, MacKenzie and Olshavsky 1996). Attribute satisfaction is a subjective judgment based on the attribute performance (Oliver 1993). Attribute satisfaction judgments can be viewed as minisatisfaction judgments, as opposed to the overall satisfaction judgment which is a global judgment toward the product or service. It is likely that attribute importance will influence attribute satisfaction, and possibly overall satisfaction. In both cases, the directionality is uncertain. Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant relationship between attribute importance and attribute level satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant relationship between attribute importance and overall satisfaction. 102

3 Customer Experience As described earlier, customer experience involves a cognitive and/or emotional response which is the result of a variety of interactions between the firm and its customer. Businesses are deemed to evaluate their purchases more formally, which is perhaps why previous research has focused on product or service "use experience" (e.g., Bennett, Härtel and McColl-Kennedy 2005; Stan et al., 2002) as opposed to the entire "customer experience", which is something that occurs along every stage of the customer cycle from pre-purchase to post-purchase and may include interactions that go beyond the product itself. Figure 1 Conceptual Model On the other hand, there is more of an allowance made for consumers to be less critical and objective in their evaluation of products or services. For instance, a consumer's image of the brand can influence his or her satisfaction with the brand (e.g., Grönroos 1984; Andreassen and Lindestad 1997). A report by Forrester Research, which examined how well firms delivered customer experience, found that business-to-customer firms did a much better job than business-to-business firms (Forrester Research 2003). Businesses marketing to consumers seem to have embraced the concept that a superior customer experience (not just a superior product usage experience) is critical to building customer relationships (Smith and Wheeler 2002). More recent research by Forrester shows that B2B firms are realizing the importance of customer experience and are taking steps to improve their customer experience (Forrester Research 2006), which makes the study of customer experience in a B2B context timely. Wind (2006) has argued that the lines between B2B and B2C are blurred, which requires a rethinking of marketing in the business context. There is a growing recognition that organizational buying behaviour includes a rational as well as an emotional component (Lynch and de Chernatony 2004; Wind 2006). 103

4 Customer experience is an evaluation that is likely influenced by the usage experience, which is captured by attribute satisfaction. In turn, customer experience is likely to contribute to the brand image, where a positive customer experience will likely enhance the brand image. Customer experience is also likely to positively influence the overall satisfaction judgment. Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 3: Attribute satisfaction will have a significant positive effect on overall satisfaction, with higher (lower) attribute satisfaction leading to higher (lower) satisfaction. Hypothesis 4: Attribute satisfaction will have a significant positive effect on customer experience, with higher (lower) attribute satisfaction leading to higher (lower) customer experience. Hypothesis 5: Customer experience will have a significant positive effect on brand image, with higher (lower) customer experience leading to higher (lower) brand image. The concept of total customer experience is one that involves delivering (1) superior and differentiated value and (2) creating a memorable experience at every touch point, which involve physical moments, emotional moments and value chain moments (Mascarenhas, Kesavan and Bernacchi 2006). If customer experience is merely emotionally engaging, that alone cannot lead to loyalty in many product categories, especially in the business-to-business arena. Delivering value is a critical to the notion of total customer experience. When the customer experiences superb value combined with an emotional or physical moment that is memorable, there is a greater likelihood of such an interaction creating greater overall satisfaction and loyalty. The literature on brand loyalty views customer experience as a critical driver of loyalty (e.g., Mascarenhas, Kesavan and Bernacchi 2006; Woodside and Walser 2007). Brand Image Hypothesis 6: Customer experience will have a significant positive effect on overall satisfaction, with higher (lower) customer experience leading to higher (lower) overall satisfaction. Hypothesis 7: Customer experience will have a significant positive effect on loyalty, with higher (lower) customer experience leading to higher (lower) loyalty. Brand image (or corporate image in some cases) has not had a prominent role in the satisfactionloyalty literature. One conceptualization of corporate/brand image is that it creates a halo effect on overall satisfaction. Brand image is the representation of the brand in the customer's mind and it includes symbolic meanings associated with the brand (Keller 1998). Image is developed through past experience and exposure to marketing communications, word-of-mouth etc. (Andreassen and Lindestad 1997). This view has been used in the European Customer Satisfaction Index, where brand image influences both expectations and satisfaction (ECSI Technical Committee 1998). Another perspective, the one that is adopted in this paper, is that brand image is actually influenced by the customer's overall satisfaction. A positive (negative) personal experience leads to high (low) satisfaction, which in turn leads to a positive (negative) brand image. This approach has been adopted by the Malaysian Customer Satisfaction Index (Abdullah, Husain and El-Nassir 2001). The context of this study involved a company which did not do any advertising and had grossly under-invested in brand building. Such a situation is not uncommon in business-to-business markets. In such cases, brand image is formed based on direct experience with the company and its products. The typical marketing activities that drives brand image (Andreassen and Lindestad 1997) were absent or insignificant in this case. It, therefore, made sense to view brand image as a consequence of overall satisfaction, rather than as a cause of satisfaction. Finally, brand image or brand reputation is known to be driver of brand loyalty (Cretu and Brodie 2007; Selnes 1993; Zins 2001). 104

5 Hypothesis 8: Overall satisfaction will have a significant positive impact on brand image, with higher (lower) satisfaction leading to higher (lower) brand image. Hypothesis 9: Overall satisfaction will have a significant positive impact on loyalty, with higher (lower) satisfaction leading to higher (lower) loyalty. Hypothesis 10: Brand image will have a significant positive impact on loyalty, with higher (lower) brand image leading to higher (lower) loyalty. Methodology A leading supplier of an electronic device to businesses participated in the study. A survey of their customers was conducted to gather data for this study. An invitation to participate in the study was sent to a list of 1000 customers, which was generated randomly from their customer base of nearly As an incentive two PDAs were to be given away to two participants based on a lucky draw. The first invitation was followed two weeks later by another which contained a "thank you" and "reminder" message. The survey was completed by participants online. When participants completed and submitted the survey online through their browser, a new Web page opened and provided them the option of being considered for the lucky draw. If participants wished to be included in the draw, they had to complete a second short online form and provide their name and contact details. This form was not stored in the same database as the survey data and anonymity of responses was thus guaranteed to participants. The questionnaire included measures of the following: (a) past purchase history (b) attribute importance and attribute satisfaction (c) overall satisfaction (d) customer experience (e) brand image and (f) company profile. The questionnaire also contained other measures which are not used in this paper. The measures used in this paper are presented in Appendix 1. Results A total of 84 invitations bounced back due to incorrect address or other reasons. A total 140 respondents completed the online survey, which provided a response rate of about 15%. The data were analyzed using the Partial Least Squares method. PLS was chosen for several reasons. While covariance structure modeling (or LISREL modeling) is appropriate for testing conceptual model by examining discrepancies between the theoretical and empirical covariance matrices, PLS which estimates latent variables as linear combinations of manifest variables, allows for maximizing the variance between the exogenous and endogenous variables. Therefore, PLS is more appropriate for studying structural relationships (Fornell & Bookstein 1992) and is more appropriate for analyzing relationships among variables in exploratory models (Chin 1998). SmartPLS 2.0 was used to conduct the data analysis. Measurement Model The strength of the measurement model was examined by looking at item reliabilities, as well the convergent and discriminant validity of constructs. As shown in Table 1, all constructs had composite reliabilities higher than 0.7, which is an indication of adequate reliability (Hulland 1999). Convergent and discriminant validity were examined using the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct, which was greater than the prescribed minimum of 0.5 in every case. The composite 105

6 reliabilities for all constructs were above prescribed Cronbach's alpha for all constructs were above 0.7, expect loyalty (0.56), however the composite reliability for loyalty was 0.76 which is considered adequate. Also all measures loaded higher on their intended constructs than on other constructs. 106

7 Table 1 AVE and Reliabilities Construct AVE 1 Composite Reliability Cronbach's Alpha Brand Image Customer Experience Attribute Importance Loyalty Attribute Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction AVE is the average variance extracted. Convergent and discriminant validity were examined using the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct, which was greater than the prescribed minimum of 0.5 in every case. The composite reliabilities for all constructs were above prescribed Cronbach's alpha for all constructs were above 0.7, expect loyalty (0.56), however the composite reliability for loyalty was 0.76 which is considered adequate. Also all measures loaded higher on their intended constructs than on other constructs. Discriminant validity was examined using the procedure described by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The square root of AVE for each construct is greater than the correlation between that construct and other constructs. However, the correlations between brand image and customer experience as well brand image and overall satisfaction are a cause for concern. See Table 2 for results. Brand Image Customer Experience Attribute Importance Loyalty Attribute Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction Table 2 Correlation of Constructs Diagonal values are square-root of AVE (Hulland 1999). Structural Relationships PLS does not offer goodness-of-fit indices similar to LISREL and there are no direct tests for assessing the significance of parameter estimates. Therefore, bootstrapping method was used to compute the t-values of the path coefficients. The values in Table 3 were estimated using 500 bootstrapping runs. The R 2 values for the constructs were as follows: Attribute Satisfaction (0.2644), Customer Experience (0.3082), Overall Satisfaction (0.8156), Brand Image (0.8581), and Loyalty (0.1701). These values indicate a strong predictive power for the model. 107

8 Table 3 Significance of Path Coefficients Bootstrapping Results Path Original Sample Std. T-Value Sample Mean Error Att. Importance Att. Satisfaction d Att. Importance Satisfaction a Att. Satisfaction Customer Experience d Att. Satisfaction Satisfaction b Brand Image Loyalty a Customer Experience Brand Image d Customer Experience Loyalty a Customer Experience Satisfaction d Satisfaction Brand Image d Satisfaction Loyalty c a = Not Significant, b = Significant at p<0.05, c = Significant at p<0.01, d = Significant at p< Figure 2 PLS Estimates 108

9 As shown in Figure 2, Attribute Importance did not have a direct effect on Overall Satisfaction. The path from Customer Experience to Loyalty is negative, but not statistically significant (see Table 3). Brand Image did not significantly affect Loyalty. Therefore, hypotheses 2, 5 and 7 were not supported. The rest of the hypotheses were supported. As anticipated both Customer Experience and Attribute Satisfaction significantly influenced Overall Satisfaction. Customer Satisfaction also had a significant positive impact on Brand Image, as anticipated. Loyalty is influenced only by Overall Satisfaction and any effect of Customer Experience is mediated by satisfaction. Overall, the results support the notion that customer experience, and not just attribute performance or attribute satisfaction alone, should be considered in business-to-business contexts. The results are discussed in the next section. Discussion and Conclusion Customer experience was influenced by attribute satisfaction and overall satisfaction was significantly influenced by both attribute level satisfaction and customer experience, as predicted. Satisfaction had a strong positive impact on loyalty as well as brand image, as anticipated. But contrary to expectations, brand image had no impact on loyalty. Customer experience also influenced brand image as predicted, but it did not have a significant impact on loyalty (the negative coefficient is not significant). Attribute importance affects attribute level satisfaction (confirmed by hypothesis 1), but not overall satisfaction. The lack of support for hypothesis 2 means that an attribute's perceived importance, without taking into account the perceived performance on that attribute, does not directly affect overall satisfaction. The insignificant link between Brand Image and Loyalty is surprising. At the same time, when one considers the fact that this study was set in a business-to-business context, there is likely rationale for this finding. Loyalty in business markets is likely more driven by product performance and value (which is captured by the satisfaction measures) and less likely to be dependent on a more subjective construct such as brand image. This is not to suggest that brand is unimportant in business markets, but only that it may not directly influence loyalty. There is very little empirical research on customer experience itself. The literature in this area supports the notion that customer experience will not only affect perceived satisfaction, but also loyalty. The lack of support for hypothesis 7 means that the effect of customer experience on loyalty is not direct, but is mediated by customer satisfaction. There are some interesting implications for this research. Customer experience did emerge as an important variable in determining overall satisfaction. Customer experience had a stronger impact on overall satisfaction than did attribute level satisfaction. Business-to-business companies cannot just focus on objective product or service quality or performance, but need to take into account the entire customer experience. The customer experience measures used in this study focus on ease of doing business with the firm (customer-oriented business processes, ability to traverse multiple channels), how well the firm anticipates and responds to customer needs, and how well the employees treat the customers as well as an overall "feel good after encounter" measure. 109

10 These are not the typical considerations in business-to-business buying or selling, especially for complex technical products such as the one that the company which participated in the study sells. The fact that decisions are made by human beings in buying organizations, makes attention to customer experience in business-to-business settings relevant and important. Customer experience does not seem to directly affect loyalty, but only through satisfaction. The R 2 for loyalty was acceptable, but it was lower than R 2 values of other constructs. This suggests that loyalty is hard to predict. In business-to-business future purchases are likely to be influenced by perceived value of offerings at the time of purchase and not entirely on satisfaction with past purchases. This is especially likely when switching costs are not very high, which is the case in this industry. In terms of the measurement model, loyalty had good composite reliability (over 0.7), but the cronbach's alpha was weak. Loyalty measures such as advocacy or willingness to recommend were not used. Instead, price premium (Aaker 1996) was used along with a measure of commitment (whether customers buy solely from this manufacturer). While it is likely that brand image does not influence business-to-business loyalty, a more robust measure of loyalty is perhaps needed to fully understand the impact of brand image on loyalty. Some of the limitations of this study include the fact that only a single industry setting was studied. Discriminant validity for most constructs was adequate. However, there correlations among constructs are high in some cases. Future research in this area can address the measurement issues and use a larger sample. Due to the exploratory nature of this research, PLS was deemed appropriated. Future research can use LISREL, which makes more stringent assumptions regarding the data. It is interesting to note that all the customer experience measures loaded on a single factor, making it a unidimensional construct. Due to the constraints in the study setting (such as limited time available from participating managers), a compromise regarding the length of scale were made. A more comprehensive scale for customer experience is required. As Wind (2006) and others have argued, the lines between business-to-business and business-toconsumer markets are increasingly blurred. Many business-to-business firms are now employing marketing techniques borrowed from their business-to-consumer counterparts. Firms like HP, GE and other who operate in both markets, are employing their consumer marketing know-how in their business markets. The finding that business-to-business customers do not entirely based their objective assessment of the product, suggests it is time for business-to-business marketers to update their marketing practices. 110

11 Appendix 1 Measures Used in The Study Construct/Item Brand Image (strongly agree/disagree 10-point scale) Compared to other brands, is of very high quality. products have characteristics that are unique compared to other brands. products stand out from other brands in the category. is a dependable company. We trust. Customer Experience (strongly agree/disagree 10-point scale) We can expect a consistently good level of service from no matter the channel we use (face-to-face, Internet, telephone). When doing business with, we can easily switch channels (face-to-face, Internet or telephone) without any problems. employees are empathetic to our problems and concerns. We find that s business processes are designed to serve the customer. This company seems to anticipate problems before they occur. Interaction with during a purchase or service situation is always pleasant. I always feel good after an encounter with an employee. It is easy to do business with. always makes an effort to understand customer needs. Attribute Importance (very important/unimportant 7-point scale) Product Performance Price Product Quality Customer Support Loyalty How frequently do you purchase products from companies other than? If a competitor matches product features, how low will the competitor's price have to be before you consider switching from? If increased its price, at what level of price increase would you no longer consider buying from? Attribute Satisfaction (very satisfied/dissatisfied 7-point scale) Product Performance Price Product Quality Customer Support Overall Satisfaction (strongly agree/disagree 10-point scale) has exceeded our expectations. has proven to be superior to its competition. Loading We are highly satisfied with the product(s) we have. Note: Measures for attribute importance/satisfaction were identified based on the literature as well as knowledge of how customers in this industry made purchasing decisions. The loadings reported here are based on PLS estimates. 111

12 References Aaker, David A., Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY, Abdullah, Mokhtar, Nooreha Husain & Amjad D. El-Nassir, "Theory and Development of National Customer Satisfaction Index: The Malaysian Index of Customer Satisfaction," The 6 th TQM World Congress, Saint Petersburg, (2001), Allen, Derek R., Customer Satisfaction Research Management, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Andreassen, Tor Wallin & Bodil Lindestad, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(1), (1997), Bendixen, Mike, Kalala A. Bukasa & Russell Abratt, "Brand Equity in the Business-to-Business Market," Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), (2004), Bennett, Rebekah, E Charmine E.J. Härtel & Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, "Experience as a Moderator of Involvement and Satisfaction on Brand Loyalty in a Business-to-Business Setting," Industrial Market Management, 34(1), (2005), Carbone, Lewis P., Clued In: How to Keep Customers Coming Back Again and Again, Financial Times Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Chin, Wynne W., "The Partial Least Square Approach to Structural Equation Modeling," in Modern Methods for Business Research, ed. G.A. Marcoulides, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Chiou, Jyh-Shen & Cornelia Droge, " Service Quality, Trust, Specific Asset Investment, and Expertise: Direct and Indirect Effects in a Satisfaction-Loyalty Framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), (2006), Cretu, Anca E. & Roderick J. Brodie, " The Influence of Brand Image and Company Reputation Where Manufacturers Market to Small Firms: A Customer Value Perspective," Industrial Marketing Management, 36, (2007), ECSI Technical Committee, "European Customer Satisfaction Index: Foundation and Structure for Harmonized National Pilot Projects, ECSI, Fornell, Claes & Fred L. Bookstein, "Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory," Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), (1982), Forrester Research, "B2C Tops B2B in Customer Experience Management," State of Customer Experience Series, (December 2003). Forrester Research, "B2B Firms Zero in on Customer Experience," B2B Marketing Effectiveness Series, (August 2006). Golicic, Susan L., S. Allen Broyles & Robert B. Woodruff, "A Conceptual Look at the Influence of Relationship Structure on the Disconfirmation Process in a Business-to-Business Context," Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 16, (2003),

13 Grönroos, C., Service quality: the six criteria of good perceived service quality, Review of Business, 9, (1988), Hulland, John, "Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies," Strategic Management Journal, 20, (1999), Hutt, Michael D. & Thomas W. Speh, Business Marketing Management, 7 th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Keller, Kevin Lane, Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Lusch, Robert F. & Stephen L. Vargo, "Multiplex Retailers versus Wholesalers: A test of the Total Value of Purchasing Model," International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 28(8), (1998), Lynch, Joanne & Leslie de Chernatony, "The Power of Emotion: Brand Communication in Business-to- Business Markets," Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), (2004), Mascarenhas, Oswald A., Ram Kesavan & Michael Bernacchi, "Lasting Customer Loyalty: A Total Customer Experience Approach," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(7), (2006), Mittal, Vikas, Jerome M Katrichis & Pankaj Kumar, "Attribute Performance and Customer Satisfaction Over Time: Evidence from Two Field Studies," The Journal of Services Marketing, 15(4/5), (2001), Patterson, Paul G, Lester W Johnson & Richard A Spreng, "Modeling the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction for Business-to-Business Professional Services," Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 25(1), (1997), Oliver, Richard L., "Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Based of Satisfaction Response," Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), (1993), Oliver, Richard L., "Whence Consumer Loyalty?" Journal of Marketing, 63, Special Issue, (1999), Ruekert, Robert W. & Gilbert Churchill Jr., Reliability and Validity of Alternative Measures of Channel Member Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 21(2), (1984), Schmitt, Bernd H., Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, Relate, The Free Press, NY, Schul, Patrick L., Taylor E. Little Jr., & William M. Pride, Channel Climate: Its Impact on Channel Members Satisfaction, Journal of Retailing, 61, (1985), Selnes, Fred, "An Examination of the Effect of Product Performance on Brand Reputation, Satisfaction and Loyalty," European Journal of Marketing, 27(9), (1993), Shaw, Colin & John Ivens, Building Great Customer Experiences, Palgrave MacMillan, UK,

14 Smith, Shaun & Joe Wheeler, Managing the Customer Experience, Financial Times Prentice-Hall, London, UK, Spreng, Richard.A., Scott B. MacKenzie, & Richard W. Olshavsky, "A Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction", Journal of Marketing, 60, (1996), Stan, Simona, Kenneth R. Evans, Jeffrey L. Stinson & Charles Wood, "Critical Customer Experiences in Professional Business-to-Business Service Exchanges: Impact on Overall Customer Response to Service Providers, American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 13, (2002), Venkat, Ramesh, "A Framework for Customer Experience Management," ASAC Proceedings, Banff, Alberta, 26, (June 2006). Wangenheim, Florian v, "Situational Characteristics as Moderators of the Satisfaction-Loyalty Link: An Investigation in a Business-to-Business Context," Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 16, (2003), Wind, Yoram (Jerry), "Blurring the Lines: Is There a Need to Rethink Industrial Marketing?" Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(7), (2006), Woodside, Arch G. & Martin G. Walser, "Building Strong Brands in Retailing," Journal of Business Research, 60(1), (2007), Zins, Andreas H., "Relative Attitudes and Commitment in Customer Loyalty Models: Some Experiences in the Commercial Airline Industry," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(3), (2001),