4.4 Article

A longitudinal examination of customer commitment and loyalty

期刊

JOURNAL OF SERVICE MANAGEMENT
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 75-100

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/JOSM-01-2013-0025

关键词

Customer loyalty; Financial services; Longitudinal; Customer commitment; Panel survey data; Segmentation methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - This study aims to provide the first longitudinal examination of the relationship between affective, calculative, normative commitment and customer loyalty by using longitudinal panel survey data. Design/methodology/approach - Repeated measures for 269 customers of a large financial services provider are employed. Two types of segmentation methods are compared: predefined classes and latent class models and predictive power of different models contrasted. Findings - The results reveal that the impact that different dimensions of commitment have on share development varies across segments. A two-segment latent class model and a managerially relevant predefined two-segment customer model are identified. In addition, the results demonstrate the benefits of using panel survey data in models that are designed to study how loyalty develops over time. Practical implications - This study illustrates the benefits of including both baseline level information and changes in the dimensions of commitment in models that try to understand how loyalty unfolds over time. It also demonstrates how managers can be misled by assuming that everyone will react to commitment improvement efforts similarly. This study also shows how different segmentation schemes can be employed and reveals that the most sophisticated ones are not necessarily the best. Originality/value - This research provides the first examination of models for change in customer loyalty by employing survey panel data on the three-component model of customer commitment (affective, calculative, and normative) and considers alternative segmentation methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据