Rebekah Bennett

Customer satisfaction should not be the only goal

The authors address the nature of the relationship between evaluative satisfaction and loyalty. Recent research suggests that this relationship is not linear and uni-directional but curvilinear, mediated by several interacting situational and psychological variables (Oliver, 1999). If, however, both attitudinal loyalty and satisfaction are conceptualized as latent, internal constructs, then it may be that they are formed simultaneously, not sequentially. While there is some evidence for divergence between emotion-laden satisfaction and loyalty, there is little evidence in the literature on the divergence of evaluative satisfaction from loyalty. The authors address and resolve questions raised by prior research by examining empirically, within a business-to-business context, that evaluative-satisfaction and loyalty are associated but different constructs. The results of structural equation modeling indicate that satisfaction and loyalty have divergent validity. Thus, the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is not necessary, but dependent upon situational and psychological factors.

A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets

Seeks to enhance our understanding of the suitability of loyalty measurement techniques by proposing a classification of brand loyalty based on varying market types. Distinguishing between market types is important because the very nature of markets indicates that the measures used to capture loyalty should be very different. This paper, in effect, argues against a single brand loyalty measure for all market types. Marketing practitioners wishing to predict future levels of loyalty would need to use different loyalty measures. 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 attitudinal measures may be better predictors of future behavior in such cases.

Cross-cultural differences in consumer decision-making styles

This article compares consumer decision‐making styles between Singaporeans and Australians. Utilising Hofstede’s framework, the paper argues that cultural dimensions influence consumer decision making styles. It is essential that managers understand cross‐cultural consumer decision‐making styles to make strategic decisions or effectively handle members of these nationalities. Marked differences were found between the two populations for: brand consciousness, innovativeness and overchoice confusion. The results suggest that some consumer decision‐making styles differ due to consumers’ cultural values. Managerial implications and future research directions are discussed.

A comparison of Australian and Singaporean consumer decision-making styles

It is important to understand the differences and similarities between cultures as they influence consumer attitudes and behaviours (Aaker and Maheswaran 1997). Most research in customer behaviour, however, is primarily focused on western cultures which are characterized as individualistic, low in uncertainty-avoidance, masculine, short-term oriented and low in power-distance (Hofstede 201; 1980). There is little research that directly compares consumer behaviour in both western and eastern cultures. Any research that has been done tends to use student samples and not real consumers. This study examines cultural differences between Singapore and Australia, as two key trading partners in the Asia-Pacific which have been shown to have different cultural values (Hofstede 1980). The findings show support for consumer behaviour differences in brand-consciousness, innovativeness, and confusion by overchoice decision-making styles.