Brand equity is very important to marketers of consumer goods and services. Brand equity facilitates in the effectiveness of brand extensions and brand introductions. This is because consumers who trust and display loyalty toward a brand are willing to try to adopt brand extensions. While there have been methods to measure the financial value of brand equity, measurement of customer‐based brand equity has been lacking. Presents a scale to measure customer‐based brand equity. The customer‐based brand equity scale is developed based on the five underlying dimensions of brand equity: performance, value, social image, trustworthiness and commitment. In empirical tests, brands that scored higher on the customer‐based brand equity scale generally had higher prices. Discusses the implications for managers.

One of the most unexamined assumptions marketing firms have made in recent years is that satisfaction alone will guarantee customer loyalty. Our research questions this assumption. We explored the correspondence between customer satisfaction and loyalty, and found as many as half of the “satisfied” customers to be predisposed to switching service suppliers. This satisfaction‐loyalty gap reflects the fact that different components of service quality drive satisfaction versus loyalty. Satisfaction is driven more by “technical quality” (the quality of the work performed) than by “functional quality” (how the service work was delivered); however, once satisfaction is achieved, loyalty is driven more by functional than by technical quality. This is the pattern of influence for a “low contact” (where customers’ direct contact with service providers is absent or marginal) service. For a “high contact” service, the pattern of influence is exactly the reverse. Of significant importance to service managers, the paper explains the dynamics of loyalty versus satisfaction and derives their managerial implications.

No abstract

Examines the effects of service quality on customer satisfaction from two distinct methodological perspectives. Specifically, a study utilizing a sample of international private banking customers is conducted wherein service quality is operationalized via two distinct and well‐known measures – SERVQUAL and Technical/Functional Quality. These two service quality measures are subsequently compared and contrasted as to their ability to predict customer satisfaction. To further assess the validity of these findings, two moderators of the service‐quality/customer‐satisfaction relationship are introduced and evaluated. Finally, this research examines the potential utility of employing separate measures for customer satisfaction from the perspectives of both technical and functional aspects of the service delivery process. Overall, our findings are of importance to service managers as they strive to identify efficient and effective approaches for improving quality. The paper explores the theoretical and practical insights of the findings, including potential strengths and limitations of current service quality models with regard to their ability to define and explain the quality/satisfaction relationship.

No abstract