Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing.
http://www.jstor.org
PeterC. Verhoef
of
the
Effect
Understanding
Customer Relationship
Managemen
Efforts
on
CustomerShare
Development
Scholars have questioned the effectiveness of several customer relationshipmanagement strategies. The author
investigates the differentialeffects of customer relationshipperceptionsand relationshipmarketinginstrumentson
customer retentionand customer share developmentover time. Customerrelationshipperceptionsare considered
evaluations of relationshipstrength and a supplier'sofferings,and customer share development is the change in
customer share between two periods. The results show that affective commitmentand loyaltyprogramsthat provide economic incentives positively affect both customer retentionand customer share development, whereas
directmailingsinfluencecustomer share development. However,the effect of these variables is rathersmall. The
results also indicatethat firmscan use the same strategies to affect both customer retentionand customer share
development.
30/ Journal
of Marketing,
October
2003
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 67 (October 2003), 30-45
LiteratureReview
CRPsand CustomerBehavior
Table 1 providesan overview of studies thatreportthe effect
of CRPs on customerbehavior,and it describes the dependent variables,the design and context of the study,the CRPs
studied, and the effect of CRPs on behavioralcustomerloyalty measures(which can be self-reportedor actualobserved
loyalty measures).Table 1 shows that the results of studies
that relate CRPs to actual customerbehaviorare mixed.
Hypotheses
CRPs
ConceptualModel
Figure 1 shows the conceptualmodel. In this model, I consider customer retention and customer share development
between two periods (T1 andTo) as the dependentvariables,
which are affected by CRPs and RMIs. Because I consider
customerretentionand customer share developmentas two
separate processes, relationshipmaintenance and relationship development, the underlyinghypotheses of the model
explicitly predictthat differentconstructsof CRPs, and different RMIs influence customer retention and customer
share development.The rationalefor this distinction is that
a customer's decision to stay in a relationshipwith a firm
may be differentfrom his or her incrementaldecision to add
or drop existing products.Consistentwith this notion, Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas (2001) argue that customerretention is not the same as customer share, because two firms
could retainthe same customer.Reinartzand Kumar(2003)
suggest thatrelationshipdurationand customershareshould
be considered as two separatedimensions of the customer
relationship. Bolton, Lemon, and Verhoef (2002) propose
thatthe antecedentsof customerretentionmight be different
from the antecedentsof cross-buying behavior.I explicitly
addressthese differences in the hypotheses.
The inclusion of CRPs as antecedentsof retention and
customer share development is based on relationshipmarketing theory, which suggests that CRPs affect behavioral
customerloyalty. I includedRMIs because a successful cus-
with
with
satisfaction
of
relationship
customer
onof
effect
Additional
Results/Comments
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+),
Perceptions
(Effect)
Loyalty
Included
depends
orientation
Effect
(+),(-) (+)
Quadratic
(+)
(+)
(0)
by
and
service
mediated
age
enhanced
age
positively
important
important
consumer
enhanced
by
aresatisfaction
are
differences
differences
satisfaction
usage
equity
satisfaction
of
expected
of equity
satisfaction
relationship
satisfaction
firms
firms characteristics
relationship
of
of by
Effect
future affects
Effect
other
othermoderated
by Payment
payment
Performance
EffectPerformanceEffect
(+)
(+) (+), (+)
(0)
(+)
(+) (0)
(+), (0),
(+)
equity
quality
equityequity
quality
Benefits
Relationship
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
commitment
commitment
Commitment
Commitment
Service
payment
payment
payment
Behavioral
card
card services
brands
visitors
Contextindustries industries market
market
Retailing
Retailing
Channels
Credit
Car
associationCredit
Car
Professional
Entertainment
1 CRPs Study
entertainment
Grocery
Theater
Financial
Various Various
Telecommunications
Telecommunications,
of
on
TABLE
Effect
on
Design
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
StudiesStudy Experiment
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
of
and
and
and
Overview
(1994)and
and
and and
(1996)
(2001)
Johnson
and and
(2001)
Studies Sullivan
Lemon (2000)
(2001)
(1997)
(2000)
Hunt Berry,
Franses,
Kamakura(2002)
of
(1999)
(2000)(1998)
and
and Kumar, OdekerkenWhite, and Kannan,
Kannan,
(1999)
(1993)
(2001)
(1999)
Summers,
and
and
Hoekstra
Tsiros Wulf,
Bowman AcitoBolton Bramlett
Winer
Schri6der,
Bramlett
Macintosch
Lockshin
lacobucci
Verhoef,
Mittal,
Bolton
Narayandas
Zeithaml,
Bolton,
Bolton, and
Parasuraman
Mittal Lemon,
De
Examples
Gruen,
Anderson
Morgan Garbarino
Loyalty
share
intentions
Purchase
Behavioral
Measurement
Self-Reported
Customer
retention
relationship
and/or
duration
Customer
Observed
usage
Service
Cross-buying
Effect on customer retention.Given the previous definition of affective commitment,it might be expected that this
type of commitmentaffects customerretentionpositively.In
line with this, researcherswho relate commitment to selfreportedbehavior,such as purchaseintentions,usually find
that commitment positively affects customer loyalty (e.g.,
Garbarinoand Johnson 1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994).
However,the appearanceof such an effect has recentlybeen
questioned (Gruen,Summers,and Acito 2000; MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, and Ahearne 1998). Despite this, I hypothesize
the following:
H1:Affective commitment positively affects customer
retention.
Effect on customer share development. Relationship
marketingtheory posits that because affectively committed
customers believe they are connected to the firm, they display positive behavior toward the firm. As a consequence,
affectively committedcustomersare less likely to patronize
other firms (Dick and Basu 1994; Morgan and Hunt 1994;
Sheth and Parvatiyar1995). In other words, committedcustomersare more (less) likely to increase(decrease)theircustomer share for the focal supplierover a period of time.
H2:Affectivecommitmentpositivelyaffectscustomershare
development
overtime.
Satisfaction
PaymentEquity
/ 33
Efforts
Customer
Relationship
Management
of
effect
rates
effect
effect
programs
positiveeffect
Results
No
purchase
on
Short-term
convincing
loyalty Positive
No
retention
usage
on
effect
No
effect
service
and
Positive
card
Study
brands
Grocery
Context
Retailing
design
Design
Loyalty
StudyPanel
direct
survey,
onuse
Retailing
Airlines
data
on
use
survey
Credit Retailing
on
survey
treatment
panel
program
perceptions
perceptions
programs
Longitudinal
loyalty
data,
data,
perceptions Aggregated Cross-sectional
preferential
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Behavioral
2 on
RMIs
TABLE
of
share,
share
purchase
Measure
shares
service
data
share
intentions
penetration,
purchase
buyers
customer
usage
retention,
Effect
empirical sole
CustomerNo
Customer
Loyalty
on
average Purchase
Aggregated
Aggregated
frequency,
Customer
Studies
(1987)
(2001)
(1997)
(1997)
and
Uncles
Sharp
StudyShoemaker
and and
Odekerken-Schrider,
lacobucci
and
and
Wulf,
Sharp
Dowling
Bawa De
mail
RMIDirect
Lemon Bramlett
(2001)
and
(2000)
(2000)
lacobucci
Odekerken-Schrider,
Zeithaml,Kannan,
and
Wulf,
Rust,
Bolton,De
programs
Loyalty
34/ Journal
of Marketing,
October
2003
FIGURE1
Conceptual Model
CRPs
RMIs
Satisfaction
Paymentequity
H3
Ha
H1
/H2
H6a
CustomerretentionT, To
Loyaltyprogram
H6b
A CustomershareT, TO
IH5
Directmailings
Affectivecommitment
ControlVariables
CustomershareTo
age To
Relationship
Typeof servicepurchased
TO
Accordingto this reasoning,customerswith betterprice perceptions are more likely to decrease customer share over
time. Second, as is satisfaction,a customer'spaymentequity
is based on the customer's awareness of the prices of services or productspurchasedfrom the focal firm in the past
(Bolton, Lemon, and Verhoef2002). However,the prices of
additionalservices or productsfrom the focal suppliermight
be different from the currentlypurchasedservices or products. Therefore,a high payment equity score may not indicate that the customer will purchase other products or
services from the same supplier.As a consequence, I do
not expect payment equity to affect customer share
development.
RMIs
Bhattacharyaand Bolton (2000) suggest that RMIs are a
subset of other marketinginstrumentsthat are specifically
aimed at facilitating the relationship,and they distinguish
between loyalty or reward programs and tailored promotions. In addition, RMIs can be classified according to
Berry's (1995) first two levels of relationshipmarketing.At
the first level (Type I), firms use economic incentives, such
as rewards and pricing discounts, to develop the relationship. At the second level (TypeII), instrumentsinclude more
social attributes.By using Type II instruments,firms attempt
to give the customerrelationshipa personaltouch.
In this study,I focus on two specific Type I RMIs:direct
mailings and loyalty programs.Direct mailings usually are
personallycustomizedoffers on productsor services thatthe
customer currentlydoes not purchase.In most cases, price
discounts or other sales promotions(e.g., gadgets) are used
to entice the customerto buy. I focus on direct mailings that
are a "call to action"ratherthan only a reinforcingmechanism for the relationship(e.g., thank-youletters). The loyalty programI include in the study is a rewardprogramthat
providesprice discountsbased on the numberof productsor
services purchasedand the length of the relationship.
Direct Mailings
Direct mailings have some unique characteristics:enablement of personalized offers, no direct competition for the
attentionof the customer from other advertisements,and a
capacity to involve the respondent (Roberts and Berger
1999). Because direct mailings focus on creatingadditional
sales, I do not expect them to influence customerretention.
Moreover,the datado not enable me to relatedirectmailings
to customerretention.
Effect on customershare development.There are several
theoretical reasons direct mailings should positively influence customersharedevelopment.First, direct mailings can
create interestin a (new) service and therebylead to a final
purchase(Robertsand Berger 1999). Second, the personalization affordedby direct mailings may increase perceived
relationshipquality,because customersare approachedwith
individualizedcommunicationsthat appeal to their specific
needs and desired manner of fulfilling them (De Wulf,
Odekerken-Schriider, and Iacobucci 2001; Hoekstra,
Leeflang, and Wittink 1999). Third, according to the sales
promotionsliterature,the short-termrewards(i.e., price discounts) offered by direct mailings may motivate customers
to purchaseadditionalservices and thus increase customer
share.In supportof this claim, Bawa and Shoemaker(1987)
report short-termgains in redemptionrates of direct mail
coupons. I hypothesize the following:
Hs:Directmailingspositivelyaffectcustomersharedevelopmentovertime.
Loyalty Programs
Effect on customer retentionand customer share development. There are several theoretical reasons the rewardbased loyalty programbeing studiedshouldpositively affect
both customer retention and customer share development.
First, psychological investigationsshow that rewardscan be
highly motivating(Lathamand Locke 1991). Researchalso
shows that people possess a strong drive to behave in whatCustomerRelationshipManagementEfforts135
ResearchMethodology
Research Design
I combined survey data from customersof a Dutch financial
services company with data from that company's customer
database.I used a panel design, displayedin Figure2, to collect the data. I collected the survey data at two points in
time: To andT1. I used the first (To)surveyto measureCRPs
of the company, customer ownership of various insurance
FIGURE 2
Panel Design
DatafromCustomerDatabase
Startof
Relationship
T0
0
(Survey1Among
Customers)
T1
(Survey2 Among
CustomersInterviewed
in Survey1)
361Journal
of Marketing,
October
2003
CustomerSurvey DataCollection
At To, customer survey data were collected by telephone
from a randomsample of 6525 customersof the company.A
quotasamplingapproachwas used to obtaina representative
sample. I received datafrom 2300 customers(35% response
rate). After those responses with too many missing values
were deleted, a sample size of 1986 customersremained.At
T1, I again collected data from those customers, except for
those who left the company between To and T1. In the second data collection effort, 1128 customers were willing to
cooperate (65% response rate). To assess nonresponsebias
at T1, I tested whetherrespondentsand nonrespondentsdiffered significantlywith respect to customershare at To.A ttest does not reveal a significantdifference (p = .36). Thus,
I conclude that there is no nonresponsebias.
Measurementof CRPs
For the measurementof CRPs (i.e., affective commitment,
satisfaction, and payment equity), I adaptedexisting scales
to fit the context of financialservices. For the affective commitmentscale, I adapteditems from the studies of Anderson
and Weitz (1992), Garbarino and Johnson (1999), and
Kumar,Scheer,and Steenkamp(1995). To measuresatisfaction, I adapted Singh's (1990) scale and added four new
items. Finally, I based the payment equity scale on items
adapted from Bolton and Lemon's (1999) and Singh's
(1990) studies.
To assess construct validity and clarify wording, the
original scales were tested by a group of 12 marketingacademics and 3 marketingpractitionersfamiliarwith customer
relationships.Subsequently,the scales were tested by a random sample of 200 customersof the company.On the basis
of interitem correlations,item-to-total correlations,coefficient alpha, and exploratoryand confirmatoryfactor analysis, I reducedthe set of items in each scale.1
11follow SteenkampandvanTrijp's(1991) proposedmethod,
factor
using exploratoryfactoranalysisand then confirmatory
constructs.
analysisto validatemarketing
Validationof CRPs
The final measuresare reportedin the Appendix.The scales
for commitmentand satisfactionhave reasonablecoefficient
alphas.For paymentequity,I reporta correlationcoefficient
of .49, which is not considerablyhigh.2 However,note that
the reportedcomposite reliabilities of all scales are sufficient (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). I applied confirmatoryfactor
analysis in Lisrel 83 to furtherassess the quality of the measures (Jdreskogand Sorbom 1993), and I achieved the following model fit: X2= 217.4 (degrees of freedom [d.f.]) =
51,p <.01), X2/d.f.= 4.26 (d.f. = 1,p < .05), goodness-of-fit
index = .98, adjustedgoodness-of-fit index = .97, comparative fit index = .98, and root mean squareerrorof approximation = .04. These fit indexes satisfy the criteriafor a good
model fit (Bagozzi andYi 1988; Baumgartnerand Homburg
1996). A series of X2difference tests on the respective factor correlationsprovided furtherevidence for discriminant
validity (Andersonand Gerbing 1988). On the basis of these
results, I summed the scores on the items of each construct.
The means, standarddeviations, and correlationmatrix are
shown in Table 3.
Measurementof DependentVariable
An often-used method of measuringcustomer share is asking customersto reportthe numberof purchasesof the focal
brandthey normallymake (Bowman and Narayandas2001;
De Wulf, Odekerken-Schrider,and Iacobucci 2001). In this
study, I sought a more objective measure. In line with the
conceptualizationof customershare,I define customershare
of customeri for supplierj in category k at time t as
21 reportcorrelationcoefficientratherthan Cronbach'salpha
becauseI usedonlytwoitems.Cronbach's
alphais designedto test
theinteritemreliabilityof a scaleby comparing
everycombination
of eachitemwithall otheritemsin the scaleas a group.Because
thereis no groupwithwhicheachitemcanbe comparedin a twoitem scale (onlythe otheritem),Cronbach's
alphais meaningless
for two-itemscales.It mightalsobe arguedthatone of the single
itemswouldbe bettersuitedfor measuringthe constructfroma
content validity perspective. To check this, I also estimated the
TABLE 3
Means (Standard Deviation) and Correlation Matrix Independent Variables
Mean
X1 Commitment
X2 Satisfaction
X3 Paymentequity
X4 Directmail
X5 Loyaltyprogram
X6 Log customer share To
2.96
3.75
3.41
3.51
.30
-.152
(.77)
(.44)
(.56)
(2.12)
(.46)
(.66)
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
1.00
.37**
.14**
.01
.09**
.12**
1.00
.21**
.02
.14**
.09**
1.00
.01
.03
.06*
1.00
.56**
.48**
1.00
.53**
1.00
*p < .05.
**p< .01.
CustomerRelationship
Efforts/37
Management
(1)
Numberof services
in categoryk
purchased
at
supplierj at timet
Customersharei~j~k,t=
Numberof services
in categoryk
purchased
fromall suppliersattimet
Analysis
The theoreticaldistinction between customer retentionand
customersharedevelopmenthas implicationsfor my analysis. As a result of this distinction, I use a dual approach.I
firstestimatea probitmodel to explain customerretentionor
defection for the remainingsample afterTo (N = 1677). Second, I use a regression model to explain customer share
developmentover time for the customers who remain with
the company.A serious issue with this type of approachis
that the explanatoryvariablesexplaining customerretention
also explain customer share development. As a consequence, the regression parametersmay be biased (Franses
and Paap 2001). I apply the Heckman (1976) two-step procedure to correct for this bias. Using this procedure, I
include the so-called Heckman correction term (or inverse
Mills ratio) in the regression model for customer share
development.This correctionterm is calculatedby means of
outcomes of the probit model for customer retention.This
modeling approach is also known as the Tobit2 model
(Fransesand Paap 2001). Because the inclusion of this correction term may cause heteroskedasticity,I apply White's
(1980) method to adjust for heteroskedasticity.Another
issue with the approachis that restrictingthe sample in the
customersharedevelopmentregressionmodel to remaining
customersmight restrictthe potentialvariancein the dependent variable,thus affecting the estimationresults.To assess
whetherthis is true, I calculatedthe standarddeviationsfor
the restricted and unrestricted sample. The differences
between standarddeviationsin customersharedevelopment
are small: .10 for the unrestrictedsample, including defectors, and .09 for the restrictedsample. In the empiricalmodeling, I furtherassess this issue by estimatingthe customer
share development model for the unrestrictedsample and
comparingthe results with those of the restrictedsample.
Because I am interestedin the changes in customershare
over time, I use a difference model to test the hypotheses
(Bowman and Narayandas2001). In line with the literature
on marketshare models, the difference between the logs of
customer share at T1 and To (CSo, CS1) is the dependent
variablein the regressionmodel. This variablecan be interpreted as the percentagechange in customer share over the
measuredperiod.
In both the probit model for customer retentionand the
regression model for customer share development of the
customers who remain with the company,I use a hierarchical modeling approach.I include the past customerbehavior
(3)
HypothesisTesting
CustomerRetention
Approximately6.4% of the 1677 customers in the sample
defected duringthe period of the study.3I reportthe estimation results of Equation3 in Table4. The first model (which
only includes controlvariableswith respect to past customer
behavior)explains approximately17%of the varianceand is
significant(p < .01). The coefficients of the includedcontrol
variables intuitively have the expected signs. Customers
with high prior customer shares and lengthy relationships
are less likely to defect. Furthermore,the ownership of a
coinsurance, damage insurance, car insurance, and/or life
insuranceproducthas a positive effect (p < .05). In the second model, including CRPs, McFadden R2 increases by
approximately1%(p = .06). Only affectivecommitmenthas
a significant,positive effect (p < .01) on customerretention,
in supportof H1. I found no effect for either satisfactionor
paymentequity.These results do not supportH3 or H4. Following Bolton (1998), I also explored whetherrelationship
age moderates the effect of satisfaction. The estimation
resultsindicatethatthe interactiontermbetween satisfaction
38 / Journalof Marketing,October2003
TABLE4
Probit Model Results for Customer Retention (N = 1677)
Variable
Model 1
(z-Value)
Model 2
(z-Value)
1.66
.34
.11
.12
.78
.36
1.02
1.68
.33
.11
.12
.78
.33
1.01
Hypothesis
(Sign)
Constant
Log customer share To
Log relationshipage
Coinsurance
Damage insurance
Car insurance
Lifeinsurance
Perceptions
Commitment
Satisfaction
Paymentequity
H1(+)
H3(+)
H4(+)
RMIs
Loyaltyprogram
H6a(+)
McFaddenR2
AdjustedMcFaddenR2
Likelihoodratiostatistic
(d.f.)
Akaikeinformationcriterion
*p< .05.
**p<.01.
(5.10)**
(2.23)*
(2.32)*
(1.21)
(4.13)**
(2.97)**
(4.00)**
Model 3
(z-Value)
1.58
.30
.09
.11
.74
.33
1.00
(5.03)**
(2.13)**
(2.14)*
(1.22)
(4.06)**
(2.70)**
(3.99)**
.21 (2.66)**
-.21 (1.52)
-.03 (.26)
(4.58)**
(1.89)
(1.79)
(1.04)
(3.92)**
(2.72)**
(3.95)**
.20 (2.58)**
-.22 (1.63)
-.03 (.30)
.38 (2.02)*
.168
.165
127.64**
(6)
.384
and relationshipage is significant(c = .28; p = .01), in support of the idea that relationshipage enhances the effect of
satisfaction. In the third model, with the loyalty program
included,McFaddenR2 increasesby approximately1%(p <
.05). I found the loyalty programto have a significant,positive effect (p < .05), in supportof H6a.
.178
.173
135.20**
(9)
.383
.184
.179
139.68**
(10)
.382
FIGURE3
Customer Share Development (N = 918)
500
400
300
200
100
0
-.25
.00
.25
.50
.75
CustomerRelationshipManagementEfforts/ 39
TABLE5
Regression Model Results of Changes in Customer Share (N = 918)
Variable
Model 1
(t-Value)
Hypothesis
(Sign)
Constant
Heckmancorrection
Log customershare To
Coinsurance
Damage insurance
Car insurance
Legal insurance
-.44
.06
-.17
.02
.14
.04
.03
Perceptions
Commitment
Satisfaction
Paymentequity
H2(+)
H3(+)
H4(+)
RMIs
Loyaltyprogram
Directmailing
H5(+)
H6(+)
R2
AdjustedR2
F-value
(6.84)**
(.90)
(9.97)**
(3.83)**
(6.35)**
(2.69)**
(1.15)
Model 2
(t-Value)
Model 3
(t-Value)
-.46 (7.09)**
.07 (1.27)
-.19 (10.3)**
.02 (3.92)**
.15 (6.52)**
.01 (2.29)*
.03 (1.16)
-.52 (7.80)**
.10 (1.48)
-.20(11.0)**
.02 (3.26)**
.14 (6.09)**
.04 (2.52)**
.03 (1.16)
.03 (2.55)*
.00 (.01)
-.01
(.85)
.03 (2.58)**
-.00 (.21)
-.01 (.66)
.04 (2.22)*
.01 (2.31)*
.10
.10
16.95**
.11
.10
12.21**
.13
.12
11.72**
*p < .05.
**p< .01.
.88).
5Notwithstandingthis result, I also used two approachesto correct for possible endogeneity. The first approachapplied instrumental variablesusing two-stage least squaresin the estimationof
a system of two equations (Pindyck and Rubinfeld 1998). I used
two sociodemographicvariablesas instrumentalvariables:income
and age. I selected these variablesbecause they are often included
in CRM models (Verhoefet al. 2003). The estimationof this model
results in the same parameterestimate for direct mailings (.04);
however, this parameteris only marginally significant (p = .10).
The second approachestimateda system of equationsin which two
separateequations are estimated:one with customer share development as a dependentvariable and the other with the numberof
direct mailings as a dependent variable. With this approach,the
effect of direct mailings remained significant (p < .05); however,
the parameterestimate decreasedfrom .04 to .013. On the basis of
these analyses, I conclude thatendogeneity of directmailings does
not affect the hypothesis testing.
AdditionalAnalysis
MediatingEffectof CommitmentS
In the relationship marketing literature, there has been a
debate about the mediating role of commitment (Garbarino
and Johnson 1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994). In this study,
commitment may mediate the effect of payment equity and
Conclusions
Summaryof Findings
In this article, I contributedto the marketingliteratureby
studying the effect of CRPs and RMIs on both customer
retentionand customersharedevelopmentin a single study.
The objectives of this article were twofold. First, I aimed to
understandthe effect of CRPs and RMIs on customerretention and customer share development. Second, I examined
whether different variables of CRPs and RMIs influence
customer retentionand customer share development.Using
a longitudinalresearchdesign, I relatedCRPs and RMIs to
actual customerretentionand customer share development.
An overview of the hypotheses, those that were supported
and those that were not supported,is provided in Table 6.
For the remainderof this discussion, I focus on the notable
findings.
TABLE 6
Hypothesis
(Sign)
Effect
Support
Hypothesis
(Sign)
Effect
Support
Affective
commitment
H1(+)
Yes
H2(+)
Yes
Satisfaction
H3(+)
0; positively
moderatedby
relationshipage
No
No effect
Yes
Payment
equity
H4 (+)
No
No effect
Yes
No effect
N.A.
N.A.
H5(+)
Yes
H6b(+)
Yes
Antecedents
Direct
mailings
+
Yes
Loyalty
H6a(+)
program
Notes:N.A.= notavailable;
thiseffectcouldnotbe estimatedbecauseof datalimitations.
CustomerRelationshipManagementEfforts/ 41
42/ Journal
of Marketing,
October
2003
Second, if firms strive to maximize customershare,creating affectively committed customers using a loyalty program and sending direct mailings that provide economic
incentives are recommended.However,the short-termpositive effects of such approachesare rathersmall. This might
supportthe claim of expertsof CRM thattryingto maximize
customerretentionand customersharedevelopmentis difficult. However,this does not mean that firms should not use
such strategies.In the long run, the positive effects of such
strategies may be larger. The short-term small positive
effects of these strategies on customer retention and customer share development could result in larger positive
effects in the long run as a result of the positive effects of
past customerbehavioralvariables,such as relationshipage
and priorcustomershare.
Third, my analysis suggests that, in general, firms can
use the same strategiesto affect customerretentionand customer share development.Fourth,a principle of CRM is to
focus efforts on the most loyal customers.However,improving share for loyal customers is much more difficult,
because they have a greatertendency to reduce their shares
in the future.
Research Limitations
This study has the following limitations: First, it is conducted for one company in the financial services market.I
chose the financial services marketbecause it is an important segment of the economy and because thereis a long tradition of customerdata storagein this market,which makes
it relativelyeasy to collect behavioralcustomerloyalty data.
However, the financial services market has some unique
characteristics. Customers purchase insurance products
infrequently,and as a result changes in customer share are
not observedas frequentlyas in otherindustries.Because of
relatively high switching costs, switching behavior is not
common. These characteristicsmay have limited the variance in the customer share development measure. These
characteristicsmay also explain some of the results and
may, to some extent, threaten the generalizability of the
results. Thus, there is a need to extend this study to other
markets, especially markets in which more switching is
observed.
Second, although the study applied a longitudinal
research design, the causality question remains difficult.
Because of the dynamic nature of customer relationships,
multiple measurementsin time (includingchanges in CRPs)
are needed in the model.
Third, modeling the effect of RMIs is ratherdifficult,
particularlyif the RMIs are self-selected or based on customers' purchasebehavior.In the loyalty programI studied,
customerscan choose whetherto become a member.It could
be arguedthat customers who expect to purchasenew services are more inclined to join. I chose not to correctfor this
in the analysis at this time. Furtherresearchcould develop
models to correctfor possible endogeneity of the RMIs.
FurtherResearch
Furtherresearchshould focus on the following issues: First,
the results show that the effect of CRPs and RMIs on customer retention and customer share is not large. Perhaps
other variables, such as service calls or sales visits, are
important antecedents. In addition, competing marketing
variables, such as competitive loyalty programsand direct
mailings, have not been included here. Further research
could investigate the effect of these variables. A second
avenue for furtherresearchis the effect of RMIs on CRPs
and in turn on customerbehavior.A simultaneousequation
approach, with an appropriatetest for mediating effects,
would be necessary to addressthis issue. In this respect, the
interactionsbetween CRPs and RMIs could also be investigated. Finally, furtherresearchcould develop decision supporttype models (using dataavailablein customerdatabases
and data from questionnaires)that would demonstratethe
impact of variousCRM strategies.
Appendix
Descriptionof Scales for
Perceptions
Commitment (Cronbach's Alpha [CA]= .77;
Composite Reliability [CR] = .78)
I am a loyal customerof XYZ.
Because I feel a strong attachmentto XYZ, I remain a customer of XYZ.
Because I feel a strongsense of belonging with XYZ, I want
to remaina customerof XYZ.
Satisfaction (CA = .83; CR = .83)
How satisfied (1 = "very dissatisfied"and 5 = "very satisfied") are you about
*thepersonalattentionof XYZ.
*thewillingnessof XYZto explainprocedures.
*theservicequalityof XYZ.
*theresponding
by XYZto claims.
*theexpertiseof thepersonnelof XYZ.
withXYZ.
*yourrelationship
*thealertnessof XYZ.
Payment Equity (r = .49; CR = .88)
How satisfied (1 = "very dissatisfied"and 5 = "very satisfied") are you about the insurancepremium?
Do you think the insurancepremium of your insurance is
too high, high, normal,low, or too low?
CustomerRelationshipManagementEfforts/ 43
REFERENCES
Anderson, Erin and BartonWeitz (1992), "The Use of Pledges to
Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution Channels,"
Journal of MarketingResearch, 29 (February),18-34.
Anderson, Eugene W., Claes Fornell, and Donald R. Lehmann
(1994), "CustomerSatisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden,"Journal of Marketing,58 (July),
53-66.
and Vikas Mittal (2000), "Strengtheningthe SatisfactionProfit Chain,"Journal of Service Research, 3 (2), 107-120.
and MaryW. Sullivan (1993), "TheAntecedentsand Consequences of CustomerSatisfactionfor Firms,"MarketingScience, 12 (Spring), 125-43.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural
Equation Modeling Practice: A Review and Recommended
Two-StepApproach,"Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-23.
Bagozzi, RichardP. and YoujaeYi (1988), "On the Evaluationof
StructuralEquationModels,"Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 16 (Winter),74-94.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological
Research,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
(6), 1173-82.
Baumgartner,Hans and ChristianHomburg(1996), "Applications
of StructuralEquationModeling in Marketingand Consumer
Research,"InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing,13
(2), 139-61.
Bawa, Kapil and RobertW. Shoemaker(1987), "The Effects of a
Direct Mail Coupon on Brand Choice Behavior,"Journal of
MarketingResearch, 24 (November),370-76.
Berry, Leonard L. (1995), "RelationshipMarketingof Services:
GrowingInterest,EmergingPerspectives,"Journalof theAcademy of MarketingScience, 23 (Fall), 236-45.
Bhattacharya,C.B. andRuthN. Bolton (2000), "RelationshipMarketing in Mass Markets,"in Handbookof RelationshipMarketing, JagdishN. Sheth andAtul Parvatiyar,eds. ThousandOaks,
CA: Sage Publications,327-54.
, HayagreevaRao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), "Understandingthe Bond of Identification:An Investigationof Its Correlates Among Art Museum Members,"Journal of Marketing,
59 (October),46-57.
Bickart, BarbaraA. (1993), "Carryoverand Backfire Effects in
MarketingResearch,"Journal of MarketingResearch,30 (February),52-62.
Blattberg,RobertC., Gary Getz, and JacquelynS. Thomas (2001),
Customer Equity: Building and Managing Relationships as
ValuableAssets. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.
Bolton, RuthN. (1998), "A Dynamic Model of the Durationof the
Customer'sRelationship with a Continuous Service Provider:
The Role of Satisfaction,"Marketing Science, 17 (Winter),
45-65.
-, P.K. Kannan,and Mathew D. Bramlett(2000), "Implications of Loyalty ProgramMembershipand Service Experiences
for CustomerRetentionand Value,"Journal of the Academyof
MarketingScience, 28 (Winter),95-108.
- and KatherineN. Lemon (1999), "A Dynamic Model of
Customers' Usage of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and
Consequence of Satisfaction,"Journal of MarketingResearch,
36 (May), 171-86.
, - , and Peter C. Verhoef (2002), "The Theoretical
Underpinningsof CustomerAsset Management:A Framework
and Propositionsfor FutureResearch,"ErasmusResearchInstitute in ManagementWorking Paper No. ERS-2002-80-MKT,
ErasmusUniversity,Rotterdam.
Bowman, Douglas and Das Narayandas (2001), "Managing
Customer-InitiatedContacts with Manufacturers:The Impact
on Share of Category Requirements and Word-of-Mouth
44 / Journalof Marketing,October2003
CustomerRelationshipManagementEfforts/ 45