Evolving relationships through the use of self-service technologies: relationship and transaction oriented customers Abstract Business to business relationships have long been considered essential, however Johns (2012) indicated that when using self-service technologies, the old way of thinking no longer applied. Through exploratory, qualitative research, research has recently highlighted two customer segments in a B2B customer setting: transaction oriented customers and relationship oriented customers. More research was called for, to understand the segments in more depth. This paper analyses both segments of customers and determines the essential considerations for each. The quantitative study with a large sample of Australian business bank customers (n = 1367) has highlighted a greater understanding of the two customer segments, based on three research hypotheses. Initial analysis of the data has been conducted. Research has indicated that transaction-oriented customers are surprisingly more committed to their banking relationship, but primarily relationship-oriented customers hold a greater impression of their bank s brand. This is possibly because transaction-oriented customers simply care less than relationship-oriented customers. Furthermore, as the expectations of relationshiporiented customers are greater, they may feel more disappointed by their service provider and seek an alternative. Further research should explore these findings in more depth and in other industries. 1
Introduction Self-service technologies can be used to enhance customer service (despite limited staff involvement), for customers to get answers, pay bills, track delivery times (Bitner et al., 2002) and undertake other services which do not require staff involvement. Organisations are introducing self-service technologies rapidly for three major reasons: to reduce costs, increase customer satisfaction and loyalty and to reach new customer segments (Bitner et al., 2002). Self-service technologies are increasingly being utilised in business (Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom and Brown, 2005) due to people being increasingly time poor and a drive towards cost savings for the organisation. While increasing customer loyalty is aligned with the objectives of Relationship Marketing, reducing costs is simply an organisational driven initiative and may not serve the interests of the customer. Furthermore, although time savings lead to cost savings for organisations this is only apparent if the self-service technologies are adopted (Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom and Brown, 2005). This means organisations must give customers no choice (potentially decreasing satisfaction) or encourage use of the technology by ensuring customers use the technology efficiently and having them feel there is support if anything goes wrong. Introducing self-service technologies can create benefits such as lower costs, improved efficiencies, return on investment, customer reach, accessibility, time savings and control (Gallagher, 2002) and retain an existing customer base (Kimball and Gregor, 1995). A driving factor for the use of self-service technologies is also to standardise services, previously affected by the employee and customer interface (Quinn, 1996), which impacts on service encounters. Little examination has considered what impact this has on customer satisfaction levels (Joseph, McClure, Victoria and Joseph, 1999), particularly within the business-to-business context. This paper explores the impact of technology in business to business relationships. A quantitative study has been undertaken to expand on the qualitative study conducted by Johns (2012). Two business customer segments - relationship-oriented and transaction-oriented customers have been explored. Self-service technologies Although there are benefits to using self-service technologies, customers often prefer to deal with humans with some services (Marr and Prendergast, 1993). Further exploration of different customer types is necessary (Johns, 2012), as it will provide businesses an increased understanding of how to meet customer requirements. It is evident that information technology has altered the way business is conducted over the past two decades (Meuter et al., 2005). With the introduction of self-service technologies, consumers are required to carry out transactions themselves; they are responsible for their own satisfaction (Meuter and Bitner, 1997; Bendapudi and Leone, 2003) and as a result organisations have had to effectively train customers to be co-producers. Turning the customer into a co-producer of a service has become evident where the customer participates in value creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) such as checking out a library book, booking a hotel room online, undertaking online investment trading and internet banking. Most new self-service technologies are internet enabled and in many industry sectors, such as travel, corporate banking and professional services, proprietary self-service technology systems are developed (Pujari, 2004) to most effectively meet the needs of customers and the organisation. Technology allows customers and staff to provide more efficient services either directly or even from a distance. These changes have resulted in customers being more involved in 2
service delivery (Bitner et al., 2002). In the business-to-consumer literature, it is apparent that customers tend to have a more positive perception of self-service technologies when they believe the service will be delivered faster than in a face-to-face context (Weatherall, et al., 1984; cited in Joseph, et al., 1999). Personal customers tend to prefer a choice of method from self-service technologies through to face-to-face contact (Selnes and Hansen, 2001). In the business-to-business literature, however, self-service technologies are viewed as a threat to relationships and less useful than dealing with an organisation face-to-face and it is reported that given the choice, business customers prefer face-to face contact (Bhappu and Schultze, 2006). In a self-service context, value is co-created with the customer and therefore the firm makes a value proposition which is either accepted or not by the customer. If accepted, value is developed with the customer (Lusch et al., 2006); raising the question as to whether or not marketing should become a consulting function over anything else (Lusch et al., 2006). The internet can be utilised to enhance relationships; however, it is also possible that technology could have a negative effect on relationships if the strategy applied is not appropriate (Parasuraman, 1996). For example, when considering self-service technologies, previous work has indicated that customers tend to be frustrated by the attitude of their service provider when a self-service technology failed. Service providers have also ignored their customer, denied responsibility for failure, blamed the self-service technology manufacturer and blamed the customer (Pujari, 2004). Even when a customer errs, or if the technology fails or is poorly designed, customers do not appreciate the use of technology. On the other hand, if it is superior to dealing with a human being, or assists them in a difficult situation, customers prefer to utilise self-service technologies (Bitner et al., 2002) because of the ability to save time. Literature on the use of technology within a business-to-business context has examined innovation adoption (Rogers, 2003), building relationships online (Archer and Yuan, 2000), technology acceptance (Davis et al., 1989) and the impact on technology on consumer behaviour (MacDonald and Smith, 2004). As stated by Pujari (2004: 203), however, there is an urgent need for understanding SST encounters in the wider context of technology based service delivery systems. Johns (2012) highlighted two key customer segments through qualitative research: transaction and relationship oriented customers; however further research is necessary to understand these segments in detail. To do this, three hypotheses, therefore, were proposed, based on the extant literature: Hypothesis 1: Transaction oriented customers are less committed to their bank than relationship oriented customers Hypothesis 2: Transaction oriented customers are less satisfied with their bank than relationship oriented customers Hypothesis 3: Relationship oriented customers are more likely to perceive a more positive brand personality for their business partner than transaction oriented customers Method To explore the hypotheses, a survey was developed. This was sent out online to a panel of respondents. Wherever possible, previously utilised and tested scales were used, to enhance reliability and validity. Table 1 indicates the scaled used, either in full, or partially, to contribute to the survey instrument. 3
Table 1 Scale dimensions and authors Dimension Author/s Innovativeness Leavitt & Walton, 1975 and 1988 Investments in consumer relationships De Wulf, Oderkerken-Schroder and Iacobucci, 2001 Commitment to the brand Yoo, Donthu and Lee, 2000 Commercial friendship perception Price and Arnould 1999 Commercial friendship perception Evans et al 2000 Initial analysis of the results, conducted in Excel, has provided some key findings, presented in this paper. Further analysis of the data in SPSS will provide more detailed insights. Results Table two provides a general overview of the sample. Respondents were all business customers from a wide range of industries, organisation sizes and personal demographics (age, income, occupation etc). Table two: overview of the sample Sample Sample size or proportion Overall sample size n = 1367 Male 51.8% Female 46.1% Transaction oriented 1000 Relationship oriented 281 When considering all the respondents, it was possible to see some trends in the results. Respondents indicated importance in trusting the banking (57%) and the banking industry (45%) and customer service from the bank s staff (44%). A reliable bank web page was very important (53%) and innovation was very important to 23% of respondents (and important to 36%). Just 21% of respondents felt that a relationship with the bank manager was important. The majority of respondents did not feel that their bank was superior in terms of technological innovation (53%), customer service (43%), product quality (53%), trustworthiness (48%) or relationship focus (51%) the majority felt that they were the same as other banks. In other words, there was a perception that all banks are just the same. These responses were followed by superior and very superior. Very few, however, felt that they were inferior or very inferior. The majority of respondents banked with the Commonwealth Bank (25.2%). Only 5% banked with St George Bank, 7% with a building society/credit union, 3% with Bendigo Bank and just 2% with the 100% online bank, ING. 16% of respondents banked with ANZ, 13% with NAB, 13% with Westpac. 85% of respondents used just the one bank, while 15% utilised two or more. The main reason for this was access to additional sources of funds (35%) followed by a special offer from the bank for signing up (30%) and security reasons 4
(28%). On average, 70% of banking was conducted online, 26% conducted face to face and 7% of banking was conducted by telephone. Relationship oriented vs transaction oriented business customers The main objective of this research was to explore the two customer segments. When considering the key findings, statistically significant differences were found between relationship-oriented and transaction-oriented customers on several dimensions. Firstly, relationship-oriented customers valued an interpersonal relationship with their bank manager and also valued customer service, which would be expected. Trust of the bank and a reliable web page was important to both customer segments. Most interestingly was the statistically significant difference between the two segments likelihood to change banks in the next 12 months: 8% of relationship-oriented respondents were likely to change banks, compared with just 4% of customer-oriented respondents. Relationship-oriented gave a more positive brand-personality assessment, compared with transaction-oriented customers on all dimensions (reliable, hard-working, secure, intelligent, technical, corporate, successful, leader, daring, exciting, imaginative, unique, up to date). Discussion This preliminary analysis has made a contribution toward answering the research hypothesis. Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: Transaction oriented customers are less committed to their bank than relationship oriented customers Hypothesis 2: Transaction oriented customers are less satisfied with their bank than relationship oriented customers Hypothesis 3: Relationship oriented customers are more likely to perceive a more positive brand personality for their business partner than transaction oriented customers Supported? Comments No Although relationship oriented customers were more positive about their bank s brand and their relationship with their bank, transaction oriented customers indicated a greater level of commitment. Yes - somewhat Yes Satisfaction levels were measured through the reported brand image, commitment to the relationship and other measures. On some measures, there was a strong statistical difference between the two customer segments, however as commitment to the relationship was strong for the transaction-oriented customers, satisfaction appears evident to some degree. The results strongly indicated a positive impression of the bank s brand from the relationship-oriented customers and a much weaker impressions of the bank s brand from transaction-oriented customers. This did not affect commitment. As indicated above, transaction-oriented customers appeared less satisfied with their bank 5
than relationship-oriented customers, however, this did not negatively impact on commitment. In fact, transaction-oriented customers mostly appear more satisfied. This could be because transaction-oriented customers are less invested in their banking relationship; therefore they are happy to maintain their current banking relationship, regardless of satisfaction. Similarly, relationship-oriented customers prioritise customer service and therefore are more likely to notice problems than the easily-satisfied transaction-oriented customers. Further research This quantitative study has uncovered some interesting findings and further analysis of the data is required. Furthermore, it is evident that further research can be conducted. Although the findings are limited in discussion, further analysis can provide a greater understanding about the relationships between particular variables and greater insight into managerial and theoretical implications. Johns (2012) stated that it would be useful to predict which category customers fell into, however the present research did not uncover this. Further research, therefore, should take the findings from the two studies and consider a predictive model. The findings in this paper are applicable to the Australian banking industry. Further research could explore these findings in other contexts. The analysis has indicated that transactionoriented customers are more committed to their banking relationship, but primarily relationship-oriented customers hold a greater impression of their bank s brand. This could be because the expectations of relationship-oriented customers are greater. Implications for managers arise from these findings. Firstly, managers must be aware of the differences between customer types and different service delivery preferences of each of the customer types. Secondly, customer satisfaction varies, based on customer type, and organisations must seek to enhance customer value offerings to all customers. Acknowledgements: The author is grateful for the funding received from her University s Early Career Researcher Grant to support the data collection 6
Reference List Bendapudi, N. & Leone, R. (2003) Psychological Implications of Customer Participation in co-production, Journal of Marketing, 67, 14-28. Bhappu., A., & Schultze, U. (2006) The Role of Relational and Operational Performance in Business-to-Business Customers' Adoption of Self-Service Technology, Journal of Service Research, 8:372 Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L. & Meuter, M. L. (2002) Implementing successful self-service technologies, Academy of Management Executive, Academy of Management, 16, 96-119. Gallagher, J. (2002) Balancing between High-Tech & High-Touch, Insurance & Technology, 27, 22-27. Kimball, R. & Gregor, W. (1995) How Distribution Is Transforming Retail Banking- Changes Leading Banks Are Making, Journal of Retail Banking, 17, 1-1. Lusch, R. & Brown, J. (1996) Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels, The Journal of Marketing, 19-38. Marr, N. & Prendergast, G. (1993) Consumer Adoption of Self-Service Technologies in Retail Banking: is expert opinion supported by consumer research? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 11, 3-10. Meuter, M., Bitner, M., Ostrom, A. & Brown, S. (2005) Choosing Among Alternative Service Delivery Modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies, Journal of Marketing, American Marketing Association, 69, 61-83. Johns, R., 2012, Relationship Marketing in a self-service context no longer applicable?, Journal of Relationship Marketing Joseph, M., Mcclure, C., Victoria, A. & Joseph, B. (1999) Service quality in the banking sector: the impact of technology on service delivery, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 182, 191. Parasuraman, A. (1996) Understanding and leveraging the role of customer service in external, interactive and internal marketing, Paper presented at the Frontiers in Conference, Nashville. Pujari, D. (2004) Self-service with a smile? International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15, 200-219. Quinn, J. (1996) The productivity paradox is false: information technology improves service performance, Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 5, 71-84. Selnes., F., & Hansen, H. (2001) The Potential Hazard of Self-Service in Developing Customer Loyalty, Journal of Service Research, 4: 79. 7
Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2004) Evolving to a new Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68, 1-17. 8