corporate image, loyalty, and commitment in the consumer travel industry

Journal of Marketing ManagementVol. 28, Nos. 5–6, May 2012, 568–593

Corporate image, loyalty, and commitmentin the consumer travel industry

James E. Richard, Victoria University of Wellington, New ZealandAnnie Zhang, wwwins Consulting Shanghai, China

Abstract This article examines the impact and interrelationship of corporateimage, satisfaction, and commitment on customer loyalty in the travel industry. Acorporate image–commitment–loyalty model was developed and tested. Partialleast squares (PLS) was used to test the direct and indirect linkages betweenthe four variables, and an alternative model was proposed. The tourism andtravel industry is highly price sensitive and competitive with low levels ofcustomer loyalty. Customer loyalty is a valuable asset in highly competitivemarkets, and understanding factors affecting customer loyalty is important totravel agencies who are seeking ways to maintain a strong customer base. Theresults of a mail survey conducted in New Zealand indicate that corporate imagehas a positive significant influence on customer commitment and customersatisfaction. Affective commitment is the focal point in the relationship andcontributed most in predicting customer loyalty. The influence of customersatisfaction, on the other hand, contributed a much smaller effect. The keyimplications for travel agencies are build strong emotional bonds with customersand improve corporate image through trust and service delivery.

Keywords travel; tourism; loyalty; commitment; corporate image; PLS

Introduction

The travel agency role, as the intermediary between the travelling public and travelcarriers and suppliers, is under siege (Hatton, 2004). Travellers are increasingly usingonline information and booking services; suppliers, airlines in particular, are pursuingonline ticketing strategies in order to reduce costs, cut travel agency commissions, andprovide increased value to customers (Porter, 2001; A.D. Smith, 2004; Zhou, 2004).The impact of the Internet is forcing travel agencies to change their business approachfrom a product-oriented to a service-oriented sales model (Connon, Thyne, & Deans,2007; Huang & Chiu, 2006). This change in business focus and use of technologyallows travel agencies to use their existing customer base to market their services

ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online© 2012 Westburn Publishers Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.549195http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.549195

http://www.tandfonline.com

Richard and Zhang Image, loyalty, and commitment in the travel industry 569

better and engage in maintaining and enhancing the relationship with customers inorder to improve customer loyalty and remain profitable.

In the context of the tourism and travel industry, there has been limited researchpublished related to corporate image and customer loyalty (Andreassen & Lindestad,1998; Petrick & Backman, 2002). This study addresses this gap and contributesto the business-to-consumer (B2C) services literature by considering the effectof corporate image on customer commitment and retention in the travel serviceindustry.

To develop the thesis that corporate image does affect customer loyalty, this paperproceeds as follows. The next section introduces the importance of relationshipmarketing in the services industry and reviews the literature with respect tocorporate image, customer satisfaction, commitment, and customer loyalty. Theextant literature is then used to develop a corporate image–commitment–loyaltymodel. The predictive value of the model is then tested using partial least squares(PLS). The analysis of the results is followed by a discussion of the contributions ofthe study, including managerial implications, research limitations, and future researchsuggestions.

Importance of relationship marketing in service industries

A number of authors suggest that an emphasis on the 4P marketing mix is nolonger the dominant marketing logic and that relationship marketing may bea more appropriate new paradigm for marketing thought, theory, and practice(Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Grönroos, 1989, 1990; Gummesson, 1994; Vargo &Lusch, 2004). Relationships can be complex and are believed to exist along atransactional–relational continuum, with one extreme including ongoing, long-termbusiness and social interactions, and the other end-point viewed as simply one-timesingle transactions (Grönroos, 1994, 1995; Li & Petrick, 2008). The importance ofrelationship marketing in the service industries has been discussed at length (Coviello,Winklhofer, & Hamilton, 2006; Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990; Grönroos, 1995,2000). However, benefits to the firm are thought to accrue in the form of protectingthe customer base by creating product differentiation and barriers to switching,while improving profits (Dwyer et al., 1987; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). AlthoughBerry (1995) suggests that customers find relationship marketing attractive becauseof its potential to reduce risk, increase recognition, and impart prestige, relationshipmarketing is not necessarily appropriate for all types of service businesses in allstages of their business life cycle and may even be counterproductive (Covielloet al., 2006; Day et al., 2004; Reinartz & Kumar, 2000). Yet the advantages ofrelationship marketing can be impressive: improved understanding of customerrequirements, gaining the ability to customise and tailor solutions; reducing choice,thereby simplifying the buying task; reducing information processing; lowering risk;and maintaining psychological and cognitive comfort and consistency (Sheth &Parvatiyar, 1995).

One of the key benefits of relationship marketing comes from the continuingpatronage of loyal customers who display decreased price sensitivity over time witha concomitant decrease in marketing costs, reduced overall costs, and partnershipactions on the part of those customers (Bowen & Shoemaker, 1998; Reichheld,1996). These loyal customers are less likely to switch to a competitor solely because of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3

570 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 28

price, and make more purchases than comparable non-loyal customers (Reichheld &Sasser, 1990).

The nature of travel purchase

Travel and leisure activities are considered as either high- or low-involvementpurchases, depending on the activity itself or the level of social, financial, orpsychological risk (Liang & Wang, 2007; Reid & Crompton, 1993). The level ofconsumer involvement ranges along a continuum from low to high depending onthe importance to the participant’s ego, self-esteem, self-concept, values, or needs.High-involvement activities include: spending more time searching for informationand alternatives; utilising more complex decision making; and considering greaterperceived attribute differences (Reid & Crompton, 1993; Warrington & Shim,2000).

Package tours (an extensive and expensive experiential event) are considered highinvolvement, complex in nature, characterised by high monetary costs and infrequentconsumption, with quality attributes that are difficult to evaluate (Andreassen &Lindestad, 1998). Vacation travel (VFR, visiting friends and relatives, or simply agetaway) is generally less complex and involving, more frequent, but also difficultto evaluate qualitatively (Asiedu, 2008; Moscardo, Pearce, Morrison, Green, &O’Leary, 2000). Business travel is primarily work related and may include a breakfrom routine, but is generally less complex and less personally engaging.

A number of studies found that product involvement in general positivelyinfluenced customer satisfaction and relationship marketing (De Wulf, Odekerken-Schroder, & Iacobucci, 2001; Dick & Basu, 1994; Gordon, McKeage, & Fox, 1998;Liang & Wang, 2007). Skogland and Siguaw (2004) established that the type of travel(business or leisure) influenced aspects of involvement and loyalty, while dimensionsof involvement (e.g. price comparison, self-image, need for recognition, and riskreduction) positively influenced attitudinal loyalty. However, involvement was shownnot to be related to overall satisfaction.

Although some research has shown that commitment follows from purchaseinvolvement (Beatty, Homer, & Kahle, 1988), others have demonstrated thatinvolvement and commitment are not related and are different entities (Traylor,1984; Warrington & Shim, 2000; Zaichkowsky, 1986).

Customer loyalty

Customer loyalty can be expressed as ‘a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronise a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causingrepetitive same-brand or same brand set purchasing, despite situational influences andmarketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviours’ (Oliver, 1999,p. 34). Much of the initial loyalty research emphasised the behavioural dimension ofloyalty, measuring outcome characteristics, and ignored consideration of what wenton in customers’ minds (Jacoby, 1971; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). This behaviouralaspect of loyalty research (brand loyalty) focused on share of market, identifyingthe consumer’s sequence of purchase, the proportion of purchase devoted to aspecific brand, and the probability of purchase (Cunningham, 1956; Frank, 1962;e.g. Lawrence, 1969; McConnell, 1968; Tucker, 1964). However, Day (1969, p. 36)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


suggested that ‘there is more to brand loyalty than just consistent buying of the samebrand. Attitudes for instance’.

Jacoby (1971) explored the psychological meaning of loyalty and provided aconceptualisation of brand loyalty that incorporated both a behavioural and anattitudinal component. The extent of brand repurchase over time became the keyobservable factor measuring consumer behavioural loyalty. Brand preference, on theother hand was thought to reflect attitudinal loyalty and has been measured bysingle-scale items, multi-scale items, or psychological commitment properties (i.e.the beliefs, feelings, and intentions) that result in the consistent repurchase of thesame brand over time (Day, 1969; Ha, 1998; Selin, Howard, Udd, & Cable, 1988).Attitudinal loyalty is characterised by a psychological predisposition (i.e. a preferenceand commitment) toward a brand and manifests itself through lower sensitivity toprice (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). There is an argument that attitudinally loyalconsumers willingly pay more because they perceive unique value in the specific brand(Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978; Reichheld, 1996), while others suggest that it is intensivebrand and attribute comparisons by the consumer that leads to the strong brandpreference (Fitzgibbon & White, 2005).

This traditional view of loyalty, focused on brand preference (attitudinal) and shareof market (behavioural), is reflected in six necessary and sufficient conditions offeredby Jacoby and Kyner (1973, p. 2):

Brand loyalty is (1) the biased (i.e., nonrandom), (2) behavioural response (i.e.,purchase), (3) expressed over time, (4) by some decision making unit, (5) withrespect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and (6) is afunction of psychological (decision-making, evaluative) processes.

This conceptualisation of loyalty has been used over the years in the work on loyalty(Dick & Basu, 1994; Goldberg, 1981; Lutz & Winn, 1974), although R.P. Morgan(1999) suggested that the term ‘loyal’ can be interpreted in different ways, rangingfrom affective loyalty (what I feel) to behavioural loyalty (what I do). Rundle-Thiele(2005) in her exploration of loyal qualities in the insurance and wine retail marketsfound that attitudinal loyalty alone explained 30% of the variance found in the data.

Another aspect of loyalty identified in more recent years is cognitive loyalty, whichis viewed as a higher level dimension and involves the consumer’s conscious decision-making process in the evaluation of alternative brands before a purchase is made(Caruana, 2002). In 1996, Gremler and Brown extended the concept of loyalty tointangible products, incorporating three specific components: purchase behaviour,attitude, and cognition. They defined service loyalty as: ‘The degree to which acustomer exhibits repeat purchasing behaviour from a service provider, possesses apositive attitudinal disposition toward the provider, and considers using only thisprovider when a need for this service exists’ (p. 173).

Customer loyalty therefore expresses an intended behaviour related to theservice or the company, reflecting the likelihood of (a) service contract renewal,(b) customers changing patronage, (c) customers providing positive word of mouth,and (d) customers complaining (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998).

Bloemer and Kasper (1995) studied two other aspects of loyalty: true loyalty andspurious loyalty (the latter being due to an inertia effect). They found that true loyaltyimplies (in addition to repetitive purchasing) a true commitment to the brand. Oliver(1999) concluded that, to detect true loyalty, researchers need to assess consumer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


beliefs, feelings, and intention within the traditional consumer attitude structure.He further suggested that true loyalty only exists when (a) brand attributes arepreferred over comparable offerings, (b) the information available corresponds withan emotional (attitudinal) preference for the brand, and (c) the buyer has a greaterintention to purchase the brand in comparison to the available alternatives.

Within the tourism domain, destination loyalty, also defined as tourist attachmentto a destination, is considered to be composed of unique and universal characteristicsrelevant to individual destinations, which can be developed overtime (e.g. familytraditions) (Lee, 2001). There is a growing body of relationship marketing researchattempting to define and understand destination loyalty better with respect to tourismand tourist destinations (Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Fyall, Callod, & Edwards, 2003;Huang & Chiu, 2006). Huang and Chiu (2006) propose that destination loyaltydepends on trust, satisfaction, destination safety, cultural experiences, and convenienttransportation (Chen & Gursoy, 2001). However, Fyall et al. (2003) suggest that thetype of relationship marketing required to build destination loyalty is unsuitable andtoo complex to develop easily between travel agencies and consumers because eachdestination has unique characteristics.

Corporate image

Although there is some confusion, in the academic literature, between the concepts ofcorporate reputation, corporate image, and corporate brands, the focus of this articleis the corporate image (Abratt & Mofokeng, 2001; Balmer & Gray, 2003; Dowling,1988; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001). Since no universally acceptable definitions currentlyexist, the following definitions will be used in this paper. Corporate reputation is thestakeholder’s overall estimation of the company performance over time. A corporatebrand is a symbol that encompasses a set of customer expectations and providesa valuable resource to the company, based on a sustainable, competitive advantage(Balmer & Gray, 2003; Gotsi & Andriopoulos, 2007).

Corporate image (sometimes referred to as corporate brand image) has beendescribed as the overall impression left on the minds of customers, as a gestalt and asan idiosyncratic cognitive configuration (Gray & Balmer, 1998; Mazursky & Jacoby,1986; Zimmer & Golden, 1988). Although dynamically interrelated with corporatereputation (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001), corporate image is dependent upon a person’sbeliefs, feelings, ideas, and impressions, and is aided by the information providedby the company (communications), as well as managerial attitudes, behaviour, andphilosophy (Dowling, 1986). The image is built up over time, translated from thecompany’s identity (what the organisation is), and firmly leveraged off the firm’sreputation (Abratt & Mofokeng, 2001).

Grönroos (1982) argued that image is of extreme importance to service firms andis to a great extent determined by customers’ assessment of the services they receive.However, early research on corporate image focused mostly on manufacturers andretail, with little work reported on customers’ image assessment in services. Morerecently, however, Nguyen and LeBlanc (1998) have argued that, since services areintangible yet based on performance, a better understanding of the components ofcorporate image will help management improve the competitive performance of thefirm. Similarly, Andreassen and Lindestad (1998) concluded that for complex andinfrequently purchased services, corporate image rather than customer satisfactionwas the main predictor of customer loyalty. These findings by Andreassen and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Lindestad (1998) challenge the traditional view that customer satisfaction is theprimary route to customer loyalty, although it appears that the effect of corporateimage on customer loyalty may be mediated by customer satisfaction (Bloemer &de Ruyter, 1998; Hart & Rosenberger, 2004; Koo, 2003; McAlexander, Kim, &Roberts, 2003).

Selnes (1993) showed that the company’s overall reputation is highly influentialon customer loyalty when managing services or product-service industries. Heconcludes that communications and managerial behaviour may be more importantwhen customers have limited ability to appraise the product or service. Each serviceencounter provides the customer with the basis to develop a cumulative image of thefirm, and the perceived corporate image should affect behavioural intentions suchas customer satisfaction and loyalty (Cöner & Güngör, 2002; Johnson, Gustafsson,Andreassen, Lervik, & Cha, 2001; Keller, 1993; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,1988).

Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction can be viewed as ‘the customer’s response to the evaluationof the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations (or some other normof performance) and the actual performance of the product as perceived afterits consumption’ (Tse & Wilton, 1988, p. 204). This definition reflects that(dis)confirmation arises from discrepancies between prior expectations and actualperformance.

Selnes (1993) noted that customers may be loyal because they are satisfied withthe supplier or product brand, and thus want to continue the relationship. Schultzand Bailey (2000) contend that customer satisfaction is a good way of developingand measuring customer loyalty because a satisfied customer tends to remain moreloyal to the brand or the product than an unsatisfied customer; and in the shortterm, marketers can measure various forms of customer behaviour, such as customerconsistency (i.e. the number of times a customer buys in a certain time period) andlongevity (i.e. the time period over which a customer buys the particular product orbrand).

Results from a number of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty studiesindicate that the level of customer satisfaction has a directly positive effect on loyalty(e.g. Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998; Bloemer, de Ruyter, & Peeters, 1998; Caruana,2002; Chumpitaz & Paparoidamis, 2004; R.E. Smith & Wright, 2004; Zins, 2001).However, a number of authors argue that mere satisfaction is not enough to keepcustomers loyal (Deming, 1986; Reichheld, 1996; Stewart, 1997); other mechanismsalso need to be considered (Oliver, 1999). One such mechanism is commitment; thefuture of buyer–seller relationships depends on the commitment made by the partnersto the relationship (R.M. Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Commitment

According to Bowen and Shoemaker (1998, p. 15) commitment is ‘the belief thatan ongoing relationship is so important that the partners are willing to work atmaintaining the relationship and are willing to make short-term sacrifices to realizelong-term benefits’. Short-term sacrifices could be monetary or non-monetary, andthe long-term benefits would be future business with customers and positive word of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


mouth by customers. McAlexander et al. (2003) noted that for customers who exhibita strong relationship with a company, trust and commitment supplant satisfaction asdrivers of loyalty.

A number of different types of commitment exist in the organisationaland business-to-business (B2B) literature (e.g. Fullerton, 2003; Gounaris, 2005;Tellefsena & Thomas, 2005). However, two types of commitment have beendistinguished in the literature and are salient: affective and calculative commitment(Johnson et al., 2001; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Both types have been found tobe relatively stable attitudes and beliefs about the relationship, but stem fromdifferent motivations. Affective commitment is non-instrumental and is motivated bya generalised sense of positive regard for, and attachment to, the brand or supplier,and the desire to continue the relationship because he or she likes the brand orsupplier and enjoys the relationship (Buchanan, 1974; Konovsky & Cropanzano,1991). Thus affective commitment serves as a psychological or emotional barrier toswitching (Johnson et al., 2001).

In contrast, calculative commitment is instrumental, based on more rationaland economical aspects of the relationship (Johnson et al., 2001). It results froma calculation of costs and benefits, which is detached from the context of therelationship itself (Allen & Meyer, 1991). Calculative commitment stems froman anticipation of high termination or switching costs associated with leaving therelationship, forcing the customer to remain loyal due to economic considerations(de Ruyter, Wetzels, & Bloemer, 1998; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), and is also referredto as continuance commitment (Fullerton, 2003). Both affective and calculativecommitment have been found to mediate the effect of customer satisfaction oncustomer loyalty (Johnson et al., 2001). The importance of calculative commitmenthas been demonstrated primarily in the B2B environment and as a measure of churnwithin highly competitive services (Gounaris, 2005; Gustafsson, Johnson, & Roos,2005).

The relationship between corporate image, customer satisfaction, andcommitment remains controversial in terms of the impact of corporate imagedirectly on customer loyalty versus the impact of corporate image on customerloyalty through customer satisfaction. Based on the literature review and theobjectives of the current study, this research focuses on clarifying the relationshipsbetween corporate image, customer satisfaction, commitment, and customer loyaltywithin the tourism industry, and travel firms in particular.

Conceptual model and measurement

The measurement variables used in this research were adapted from existingmarketing scales and consisted of seven-point Likert-type scales. Appendix A providesthe measurement items themselves along with the response anchor points.

Corporate image

Corporate image, including environmental and personnel attributes, are consideredto have a positive direct effect on customer loyalty (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998;Cöner & Güngör, 2002; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998; Parasuraman et al., 1988; Selnes,1993). Customers who perceive service quality over repeated service encounters have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


an overall favourable image of the firm, and this image helps form an emotionalattachment (Aaker, 2004). Corporate image in this research is operationalised asoverall corporate and branch image perceived by customers, including corporatereputation compared to other companies. Measures for corporate image wereadapted from Johnson and Gustafsson (2000) and Johnson et al. (2001).

Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction in this research is operationally defined as the extent to whichcustomers express overall satisfaction towards the travel agency; specifically, thegap between the travel agency’s performance and (a) that of the customers’ idealtravel agency and (b) customers’ expectations. Satisfaction with a travel destinationhas the potential to influence the travellers’ perception of the experience and ofthe travel agency relationship (Huang & Chiu, 2006). Martilla and James (1977)indicate that satisfaction is related not simply to performance expectations, butalso to judgement of performance. Oh (2001) and Ryan and Hutton (2002) alsosuggest a relationship between the salient attributes, as defined in the mind ofthe tourist and satisfaction, to the extent that measures of tourist satisfaction tendto be more positive due to the tourist’s personal and emotional engagement inthe trip.

In order to reduce any possible cross-contamination between satisfaction withthe travel destination and the travel agent, the questionnaire focused on thetravel agency’s performance and interactions rather than the travel destinationand customer experience. Customer satisfaction was measured using items adaptedfrom Johnson et al. (2001) and Fornell (1992). In particular, the items used wereseven-point Likert-type scales, with anchors shown in brackets:

1. How would you describe your overall feelings about your interactions with thistravel agency? [very dissatisfied–very satisfied]

2. Compared to the ideal travel agency in your mind, the performance of this travelagency was [much worse–much better]

3. Compared to your expectations, this travel agency’s performance was [muchlower–much higher]

Commitment

The travel consumer is not generally dependent, trapped, or restricted whensearching for, or using, travel agencies (Fullerton, 2003). Therefore commitment inthis research is operationalised as the likelihood of customers staying mainly becausethey like being associated with the travel agency, enjoy the relationship, and havepositive feelings towards the travel agency. Commitment was measured by adaptingthe scale from Kumar, Scheer, and Steenkamp (1995).

Customer loyalty

Customer loyalty in this research is operationalised as the likelihood of the customersto say positive things about the travel agency, recommend it to others, and encourage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


others to purchase services from the travel agency, and the likelihood of the customersto consider the travel agency as the first choice when they need to purchase travelservices and to be willing to do more business with the supplier in the future.Destination loyalty was not considered in the model, since loyalty to the agencywas the dependent variable, not the destination or the travel itself. Customerloyalty was measured by adapting scale items from Zeithaml, Parasuraman, andBerry (1996).

Hypothesis development

The research model utilised in this study is illustrated in Figure 1. Corporate imageis expected to play an important role in both attracting and retaining customerswhen competing services are perceived as virtually identical on performance,price, and availability (Lovelock, 1984; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998). Johnson et al.(2001) argued further that perceived corporate image should affect behaviouralintentions such as loyalty. Consumer perceived corporate image is observed to havea positive direct effect on the customer loyalty (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998;Cöner & Güngör, 2002; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998; Selnes, 1993). Thus the firsthypothesis is:

H1: The corporate image of a travel agency is positively related to customer loyalty to thetravel agency.

However, other studies suggest that the effect of corporate image on customerloyalty is mediated by customer satisfaction (Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998; Hart &Rosenberger, 2004; Koo, 2003; McAlexander et al., 2003). Therefore, the secondhypothesis is:

H2: The corporate image of a travel agency will have an indirect impact on customerloyalty through customer satisfaction with the travel agency.

Figure 1 Research model.

CustomerLoyalty

CorporateImage

CustomerSatisfaction

AffectiveCommitment

H1+

H2+

H3+

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Affective commitment is considered to mediate the effect of customer satisfactionon customer loyalty (Johnson et al., 2001). Thus the third hypothesis to betested is:

H3: Customer satisfaction with a travel agency will have an indirect impact on customerloyalty through affective commitment.

Method

Data collection

The sampling frame for this research consisted of individuals with a NewZealand postal address who purchased services from travel agencies within the last12 months. These individuals were considered major domestic customers of NewZealand travel agencies. New Zealand residents were selected as the populationof interest, since New Zealanders enjoy travelling nationally and internationally;more than 42% of New Zealanders (1,733,210 people) travelled overseas in2004 (Statistics New Zealand, 2004). Wellington was selected as the location forsampling because the researcher was located in this city (convenience sampling)and Wellingtonians are considered representative of New Zealanders in general (seeTable 1) (Statistics New Zealand, 2003). Wellingtonians represented 12.4% of theNew Zealanders travelling overseas in 2004, second only to Auckland (StatisticsNew Zealand, 2004).

Data were collected using a self-administered mail survey. Due to fundingconstraints and time limitations, a sample of 300 individuals was randomly drawnfrom the Wellington White Pages telephone book. Each of the 300 selectedindividuals was sent a personally addressed envelope, which included a cover letter

Table 1 Comparison of Wellingtonians to New Zealand population.

New NewWellington Zealand Wellington Zealand

Age Annual income15–64 67.0% 65.3% <$30,000 57.5% 63.9%65+ 11.1% 12.1% $30,001–$70,000 29.7% 25.6%

>$70,000 8.0% 5.1%Education FamiliesNo qualification 21.9% 27.7% Couples with children 43.2% 42.1%High school 39.1% 40.1% Couples without

children38.8% 39.0%

Post high school 39.0% 32.2% One parent 18.0% 18.9%Ethnicity Household spendingEuropean 80.9% 80.1% Food $7,375 $7,004Maori 12.5% 14.7% Housing $10,234 $10,159Pacific peoples 7.9% 6.5% Housing operation $6,057 $5,472Asian 6.8% 6.6% Transportation $8,570 $7,358Other 0.9% 0.7%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


explaining the reason for the survey and the survey questionnaire itself. Within theallotted two weeks, a total of 96 responses were returned, and 52 questionnaireswere considered useable (based on the criteria of having used a travel agency in thelast 12 months). A total of 39 responses were not eligible as the respondents had notused a travel agency in the last 12 months. The usable response rate was 17.3%, butthe low response may, in part, be due to the survey recipient not having used a travelagency within the specified time frame.

Sample description

The sample included a broad spectrum of individuals, aged from 18 to more than55 years of age. The greatest number of respondents (38.5%) were 55 years andover. Females comprised 44.2% of the useable responses. A total of 15% of therespondents had an annual income between $60,000 and $69,000, while the samepercentage (15.4%) indicated they had incomes less than $20,000. The majorityhad some form of postgraduate degree (26.9%) or diploma (25%). The data werenormally distributed in age, gender, education, and annual income.

Results

SmartPLS (Partial Least Squares) software was used to analyse the data (Ringle,Wende, & Will, 2005). The strength of PLS for this study is its robustness withsmall sample sizes and not requiring a strong theoretical basis compared to otherstructural equation modelling (SEM) techniques (Chin, 2000; Chin, Marcolin, &Newsted, 1996; Hulland, 1999). A two-stage SEM approach was utilised: first, themeasurement model was examined for discriminate and convergent validity andreliability; second, the theoretical model and hypotheses were tested using the resultsof the structural model (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).

Measurement model

Items used to measure the constructs customer satisfaction, corporate image,customer loyalty, and affective commitment were highly reliable with all theCronbach’s alpha >.85 (see Table 2), demonstrating acceptable convergent validity(Hair, Andersen, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Nunnally, 1967; Peter, 1979; Tompson,Barclay, & Higgins, 1995).

Table 3 indicates acceptable discriminant validity based on the AVE criterion(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Based on the results of these measures, the measurement

Table 2 Summary of measurement model quality–convergent validity.

Number Composite Cronbach’sof items AVE reliability alpha

Affective Commitment 3 .790 .918 .87Corporate image 4 .802 .924 .88Customer loyalty 3 .828 .935 .90Customer satisfaction 3 .944 .971 .94

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Table 3 Discriminant validity results using AVE approach.

Corporate Customer CustomerCommitment image loyalty satisfaction

AVE .790 .718 .811 .842Affective Commitment .889Corporate image .662 .847Customer loyalty .881 .697 .901Customer satisfaction .574 .633 .670 .917

model indicates acceptable levels of reliability and validity; the next step is to assessthe structural model.

Structural model

The structural model shown in Figure 2 represents the original research modeland includes the path coefficients, t-values, and variance explained (R2) for eachendogenous construct. The results indicate that the direct relationship betweencorporate image and customer loyalty is not significant (p < .100). Thus H1 is notsupported.

As shown in Table 4 the indirect relationship between corporate image andcustomer loyalty is positive and significant (β = .490; t = 4.968, p < .001), whichmeans the influence of corporate image onto customer loyalty is through customersatisfaction. Thus H2 is supported.

The relationship between customer satisfaction and affective commitment ispositive and significant at p < .001 and the link between affective commitment andcustomer loyalty is also positive and significant at p < .001, which means affectivecommitment does transmit the causal effect of customer satisfaction onto customerloyalty. Therefore, H3 is supported.

Figure 2 Initial structural model path coefficients.Note: t-statistics shown in parentheses; ∗∗∗p < .001, ∗∗p < .010, ∗p < .05, ns = notsignificant.

CorporateImage

CustomerLoyalty


AffectiveCommitment

R2

.401

R2

.330

R2

.822

H1+

H2+

H3+

.110(1.791)ns

.203(3.235)**

.692(11.766)***.574

(6.483)***

.633(7.257)***D

ownl

oade

d by

[V

icto

ria

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ellin

gton

], [

Dr

Jam

es E

. Ric

hard

] at

13:

09 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013


Table 4 Total effects.

Path Standard Sig. levelcoefficient error t-statistics two-tailed

Affectivecommitment→Customer loyalty

.692 .059 11.766 p < .001

Corporate image→Affective commitment

.364 .094 3.850 p < .001

Corporate image→Customer loyalty

.490 .099 4.968 p < .001

Corporate image→Customer satisfaction

.633 .087 7.257 p < .001

Customersatisfaction→Affective commitment

.574 .089 6.483 p < .001

Customersatisfaction→Customer loyalty

.600 .069 8.737 p < .001

The structural equation model shows the indirect effect of corporate image oncustomer loyalty through (a) customer satisfaction, and (b) customer satisfaction andaffective commitment (i.e. affective commitment is a mediator). Table 4 shows thatthe direct effect of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty is much weaker (.203)than the indirect effect through affective commitment (.397). Thus it can be deducedthat the effect of corporate image on customer loyalty is leveraged primarily throughaffective commitment.

Alternative model

Based on the results of the original model, an alternative structural model wasconstructed and is illustrated in Figure 3. The alternative model reflects two notablechanges: (a) the direct relationship between corporate image and customer loyaltywas deleted and (b) a path was added between corporate image and affectivecommitment. This latter path alteration is consistent with theory that image (orbrand) can affect the impression and favourableness towards a firm, as suggested,for example, by Aaker (2004), Parasuraman et al. (1988), and Zimmer and Golden(1988).

As shown in Figure 3 and Table 5, the results provide support that the indirecteffect of corporate image on customer loyalty is mediated more by affectivecommitment, since the indirect effect is stronger (β = .649) than the original model’snon-significant direct effect (β = .110).

Similarly, the direct relationship between corporate image and affectivecommitment (β = .506) is stronger than the relationship between these two variablemediated by customer satisfaction (β = .160). The path coefficients indicate thataffective commitment has a large and meaningful influence on customer loyalty(Bollen, 1989; Cohen, 1988; Pedhazur, 1982). Both corporate image and customersatisfaction work through affective commitment to positively influence customerloyalty.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Figure 3 Alternative structural model path coefficients.Note: t-statistics shown in parentheses; ∗∗∗p < .001, ∗∗p < .010, ∗p < .05.

CorporateImage

CustomerLoyalty


AffectiveCommitment

R2

0.403R2

0.816

R2

0.4830.740(16.696)***

0.506(5.962)***

0.635(6.936)*** 0.252

(2.257)*

0.246 (3.729)***

Table 5 Alternative model – total effects.

Path Standard Sig. levelcoefficient error t-statistics two-tailed

Affectivecommitment→Customer loyalty

.740 .044 16.696 p < .001

Corporate image→Affective commitment

.667 .050 13.347 p < .001

Corporate image→Customer loyalty

.649 .056 11.525 p < .001

Corporate image→Customer satisfaction

.635 .092 6.936 p < .001

Customersatisfaction→Affective commitment

.252 .112 2.257 p < .05

As Table 6 indicates, the model fits the data well, accounting for 81.6% of thevariance found in the customer loyalty construct (Falk & Miller, 1992). The Q2

measures are all positive and similar across omission distances, indicating acceptablepredictive relevance and stable model estimates (Fornell & Cha, 1994; Geisser, 1974;Stone, 1974).

Discussion

This study was aimed at investigating the effect of corporate (brand) image oncustomer commitment and retention in the consumer travel service industry. Tothe best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first published study to developand empirically test the feasibility of a corporate image–commitment–loyalty modelwithin the travel service industry. This study should be particularly helpful to agencypractitioners and firms attempting to retain customers in this highly competitiveindustry.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Table 6 Alternative model – Q2 and R2 blindfolding results.

Omission distance= 7 Omission distance= 17Communality Redundancy Communality Redundancy

Construct R2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2

AffectiveCommitment

.483 .544 .356 .549 .362

Corporateimage

.525 .525 .512 .512

Customerloyalty

.816 .581 .588 .578 .644

Customersatisfaction

.403 .633 .272 .629 .324

Table 7 Summary of hypotheses results.

Hypothesis ResultH1: The corporate image of a travel agency is positively related tocustomer loyalty to the travel agency.

Not significant

H2: The corporate image of a travel agency will have an indirectimpact on customer loyalty through customer satisfactionwith the travel agency.

Significant

H3: Customer satisfaction with a travel agency will have anindirect impact on customer loyalty through commitment.

Significant

As Table 7 indicates, H1 is not supported, implying that the corporate image ofa travel agency is not directly related to customer loyalty. This result agrees withfindings from a study in the mobile-telephone market (Aydin & Özer, 2005), butis inconsistent with a number of previous empirical studies (e.g. Andreassen &Lindestad, 1998; Cöner & Güngör, 2002; Hong & Goo, 2004; Johnson et al.,2001; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998; Selnes, 1993). The discrepancy may be partlyinfluenced by the previous studies not taking into account the potential impact ofaffective commitment, and for the most part focused on recurring non-travel businesstransaction firms (i.e. accounting, retail, bus, and rail) or infrequent complex travelpackages (e.g. tour packages). In the case of travel agencies, these results indicatethat corporate image has an indirect effect on customer loyalty through affectivecommitment and customer satisfaction. H2 is supported, which indicates corporateimage significantly influences customer loyalty through customer satisfaction, whichis consistent with the literature (Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998; Hart & Rosenberger,2004; Koo, 2003; McAlexander et al., 2003).

It is also apparent from the results that affective commitment plays a strongmediating role between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, providing supportfor H3. The variation in customer loyalty is explained more by affective commitmentthan by customer satisfaction. The results correspond to the claims of Reichheld(1996) and Oliver (1999) that ‘satisfaction isn’t enough’. Reichheld (1996) notes thatof those customers who claim that they are satisfied or very satisfied, 65–85% willdefect. Moliner, Sánchez, Rodríguez, and Callarisa (2007) found satisfaction witha travel agency to be the primary variable affecting the overall relationship with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


the travel agency. Customers feel satisfaction because of the positive confirmationbetween prior expectations and actual performance (Mohr, 1982). However, theresults from this study suggest that mere satisfaction isn’t enough to keep thecustomers loyal; building an emotional attachment is more important (Jones &Sasser, 1995). Oliver’s (1999, p. 33) statement that ‘satisfaction is a necessary step inloyalty formation but becomes less significant as loyalty begins to set through othermechanisms’ may hold true in this case: affective commitment is apparently one ofthe other mechanisms. Affective commitment enhances loyalty.

The results of the alternative structural model exemplifies that affectivecommitment is the focal point in the service relationship. The path coefficient (directrelationship) between customer satisfaction and affective commitment becomes lesseffective than in the original model (β = .252 versus β = .574) when corporateimage and affective commitment are directly linked. Although there appears to befew relevant empirical studies exploring the corporate image–affective commitmentrelationship, the nature of the relationship can be explained. Corporate image as atype of brand association (i.e. organisation-related association) builds brand equityand is an indicator of service quality (Aaker, 1996; Campo & Yagüe, 2008; Keller,1993). Satisfied customers who have an enjoyable association with a specific travelagency are more likely to recommend that agency to friends (Gounaris, 2005).Crosby and Johnson (2001) noted that non-customers who are psychologicallycommitted to a brand may represent being more receptive to appeals, placing thebrand in their consideration set, and exhibiting a tendency to buy the brand whenthe next choice situation arises, while current customers are more likely to exhibitloyalty behaviours (e.g. more frequently repeat purchasing and providing positiveword of mouth).

Managerial implications

Travel agencies attempting to improve customer loyalty should try to build strongemotional bonds with customers (i.e. through trust and service delivery), ratherthan merely concentrate on customer satisfaction improvement (Gounaris, 2005).As Deming (1986, p. 141) states: ‘it will not suffice to have customers that are merelysatisfied’; customers can easily switch travel agencies if there are no psychologicalattachments. The customer not only needs to feel satisfied because of a high perceivedquality, which fulfils or exceeds their expectations, but needs to perceive someform of positive association with the agency (Bitner & Hubbert, 1994; de Ruyter,Bloemer, & Peeters, 1997; Johnson et al., 2001). To this end, travel agenciesshould consider devising and implementing strategies and tactics that reward valuedcustomers through the perception of enhanced levels of product and service, anddifferentiate their corporate image (Lacey, Suh, & Morgan, 2007).

Second, emphasis should be placed on improving the image of the corporation,as corporate image can support or undermine the value that customers believethey are getting (Abdullah, Al-Nasser, & Husain, 2000). Services, such as travelconsultancy, are generally purchased and consumed simultaneously, and typicallyrequire direct human contact; customers and employees interact with each otherwithin the organisations’ physical facility (Bitner, 1992). Managing the corporateimage involves ensuring and maintaining the firm’s reputation. The appropriateimage can be communicated through brands, logos and graphic design, missionstatements, slogans, office layout, and media relations. To project a consistent and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


positive corporate image, employees should be trained and motivated (Gray &Balmer, 1998). Thus it is important for the practitioners to emphasise the qualityof the service delivery and the professionalism of the employees to reflect a strongand consistent brand image and to reinforce the positive association (Bitner, 1992;Campo & Yagüe, 2007).

Third, non-related product attributes of the brand, such as brand personality, andusage imagery (including a significant online presence) should be developed (Aaker,1996). These attributes will become associated with, and consequently influence,the brand or corporate image (Keller, 1993). It is important for travel agenciesto understand the associations used by customers to formulate their brand image,develop brand attitude and intention to use a branded service. The key areas toconsider when building a service brand include: (a) service delivery, designed toenhance the employee–customer interaction, and provide maximum benefit to thecustomer; (b) price, designed to provide high customer perceived value; and (c)communication consistency in advertising, publicity, and word of mouth (O’Cass &Grace, 2003). A well-established brand personality has been said to enhanceemotional ties with the brand, increase preference and patronage, and develop trustand loyalty (Biel, 1992; Siguaw, Mattila, & Austin, 1999).

Limitations

Notwithstanding the findings of this research, several limitations need to be noted.First, the sample size was relatively small (since 40% responses were not eligible),which limits the generalisability of the findings. Further investigation over a largersample and across a number of travel and tourism firms would be appropriate inorder to demonstrate the generalisability of the model. PLS is a predictive SEMtechnique and provides an excellent basis for developing theory and explainingcomplex relationships, but is not as robust as covariance-based SEM techniques indemonstrating causality or testing hypotheses (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982; Tobias,1995). Second, inferring causal relationships based on cross-sectional data can beproblematic, especially for research on customer loyalty, which is present overa relatively long term (Hong & Goo, 2004). Third, the number of antecedentswas purposely limited to three in order to ascertain the theoretical aspects of themodel. However, other researchers have identified a number of additional variablesinfluencing commitment and loyalty, which should be tested within the corporateimage framework (e.g. Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Doney & Cannon, 1997; Laceyet al., 2007; R.M. Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

It is also possible that satisfaction with a tourism product (e.g. the tour packageor destination) may confuse satisfaction with the travel agency in the respondents’answers. However, Moliner et al. (2007) showed that the key variable in consumer–agency relationships was satisfaction with the travel agency, not satisfaction with thetour package. Given these findings and the fact that there was no explicit requestfor destination information or consideration by the respondent, satisfaction with thetravel product was not considered to affect the survey results substantially.

Future research

The outcomes of this study suggest additional opportunities for future research. Anunderstanding of the relationship between loyalty, corporate image, involvement, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


type of travel (e.g. tour package, VFR, or business) would be beneficial to the travelindustry. Larger samples provided by specific services agencies would provide moreuseful data from which to understand customer loyalty better in the tourism andtravel industry. The investigation of additional antecedents to commitment within theservice industry and how that commitment is achieved, developed, and maintainedis of theoretical and practical interest to academics and practitioners. Moreover, therelationship between corporate image and commitment needs to be further explored,in order to consider the aspects of corporate image that positively affect affectivecommitment. A longitudinal study is also suggested in the future for this model,since it conceptually assumes a sequential, temporal order of causality (Hong & Goo,2004).

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.Aaker, D.A. (2004). Leveraging the corporate brand. California Management Review,

46(3), 6.Abdullah, M., Al-Nasser, A.D., & Husain, N. (2000). Evaluating functional relationship

between image, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty using general maximumentropy. Total Quality Management, 11(4–6), S826–S829.

Abratt, R., & Mofokeng, T.N. (2001). Development and management of corporate image inSouth Africa. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 368–386.

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1991). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuanceand normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1),1–18.

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrialchannel dyads. Marketing Science, 8(4), 310–323.

Andreassen, T.W., & Lindestad, B. (1998). Customer loyalty and complex services: The impactof corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varyingdegrees of service expertise. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(1),7–23.

Asiedu, A. (2008). Participants’ characteristics and economic benefits of visiting friends andrelatives (VFR) tourism – An international survey of the literature with implications forGhana. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(6), 609–621.

Aydin, S., & Özer, G. (2005). The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in the Turkishmobile telecommunication market. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 910–925.

Balmer, J.M.T., & Gray, E.R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972–997.

Beatty, S.E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L.R. (1988). The involvement–commitment model: Theoryand implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149–167.

Berry, L.L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services – Growing interest, emergingperspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 236–245.

Biel, A.L. (1992). How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(6),RC6–RC12.

Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers andemployees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.

Bitner, M.J., & Hubbert, A.R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versusquality: The customer’s voice. In R.T. Rust & R.L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: Newdirections in theory and practice (pp. 72–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bloemer, J.M.M., & de Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relationship between store image, storesatisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 499–513.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Bloemer, J.M.M., de Ruyter, K., & Peeters, P. (1998). Investigating drivers of bank loyalty:The complex relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction. The InternationalJournal of Bank Marketing, 16(7), 276–291.

Bloemer, J.M.M., & Kasper, H.D.P. (1995). The complex relationship between consumersatisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2), 311–329.

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Bowen, J.T., & Shoemaker, S. (1998). Loyalty: A strategic commitment. Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 12–25.Buchanan, B., III (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers

in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 533–546.Campo, S., & Yagüe, M.J. (2007). The formation of the tourist’s loyalty to the tourism

distribution channel: How does it affect price discounts? The International Journal ofTourism Research, 9(6), 453–464.

Campo, S., & Yagüe, M.J. (2008). Tourist loyalty to tour operator: Effects of price promotionsand tourist effort. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 318–326.

Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role ofcustomer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 811–829.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brandaffect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2),81–93.

Chen, J.S., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences.International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(2), 79.

Chin, W.W. (2000). Partial least squares for researchers: An overview and presentation ofrecent advances using the PLS approach. Retrieved 24 April, 2007, from http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/icis2000plstalk.pdf

Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., & Newsted, P.R. (1996, December 16–18). A partial least squareslatent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a MonteCarlo simulations study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. Paper presented at theSeventeenth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Cleveland, OH.

Chumpitaz, R., & Paparoidamis, N.G. (2004). Service quality and marketing performance inbusiness-to-business markets: Exploring the mediating role of client satisfaction. ManagingService Quality, 14(2/3), 235–248.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, HJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Cöner, A., & Güngör, M.O. (2002). Factors affecting customer loyalty in the competitiveTurkish metropolitan retail markets. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,2(1), 189–195.

Connon, N., Thyne, M., & Deans, K.R. (2007). Corporate travel procurement: Theclient/agent relationship. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 6(1), 93–108.

Coviello, N., Winklhofer, H., & Hamilton, K. (2006). Marketing practices and performanceof small service firms: An examination in the tourism accommodation sector. Journal ofService Research, 9(1), 38–58.

Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: Aninterpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68–81.

Crosby, L.A., & Johnson, S.L. (2001). Branding and your CRM strategy. MarketingManagement, 10(2), 6–7.

Cunningham, R.M. (1956). Brand loyalty – What, where, how much? Harvard BusinessReview, 34(1), 116–128.

Day, G.S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research,9(3), 29–35.

Day, G.S., Deighton, J., Narayandas, D., Gummesson, E., Hunt, S.D., Prahalad, C.K., et al.(2004). Invited commentaries on ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’. Journalof Marketing, 68(1), 18–27.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3

http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/icis2000plstalk.pdf




de Ruyter, K., Bloemer, J., & Peeters, P. (1997). Merging service quality and servicesatisfaction: An empirical test of an integrative model. Journal of Economic Psychology,18(4), 387–406.

de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Bloemer, J. (1998). On the relationship between perceivedservice quality, service loyalty and switching costs. International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, 9(5), 436–453.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumerrelationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(4),33–50.

Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.

Dick, A.S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework.Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 22(2), 99–113.

Doney, P.M., & Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–sellerrelationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.

Dowling, G.R. (1986). Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management,15(2), 109–115.

Dowling, G.R. (1988). Measuring corporate images: A review of alternative approaches.Journal of Business Research, 17(1), 2734.

Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer–seller relationships. Journal ofMarketing, 51(2), 11–27.

Falk, R.F., & Miller, N.B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of AkronPress.

Fitzgibbon, C., & White, L. (2005). The role of attitudinal loyalty in the developmentof customer relationship management strategy within service firms. Journal of FinancialServices Marketing, 9(3), 214–230.

Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience.Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 6–21.

Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F.L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLSapplied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.

Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. In R.P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advanced methods inmarketing research (pp. 52–78). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Frank, R.E. (1962). Brand choice as a probability process. The Journal of Business, 35(1),43–56.

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research,5(4), 333–344.

Fyall, A., Callod, C., & Edwards, B. (2003). Relationship marketing: The challenge fordestinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 644–659.

Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1),101–107.

Goldberg, S.M. (1981). An empirical study of lifestyles correlates to brand loyalty behaviour.Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 456–460.

Gordon, M.E., McKeage, K., & Fox, M.A. (1998). Relationship marketing effectiveness: Therole of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 15(5), 443–459.

Gotsi, M., & Andriopoulos, C. (2007). Understanding the pitfalls in the corporate rebrandingprocess. Corporate Communications, 12(4), 341–355.

Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A.M. (2001). Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. CorporateCommunications, 6(1), 24–30.

Gounaris, S.P. (2005). Trust and commitment influences on customer retention:Insights from business-to-business services. Journal of Business Research, 58(2),126–140.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Gray, E.R., & Balmer, J.M.T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation.Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695–702.

Gremler, D.D., & Brown, S.W. (1996). Service loyalty: Its nature, importance and implications.Paper presented at the QUIS V: Advancing service quality: A Global Perspective. Proceedingsof the American Marketing Association, Chicago.

Grönroos, C. (1982). Strategic management and marketing in the service sector. Helsingfors,Finland: Swedish School of Economics.

Grönroos, C. (1989). Defining marketing: A market-oriented approach. European Journal ofMarketing, 23(1), 52–60.

Grönroos, C. (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The marketingand organizational behavior interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 3–11.

Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a paradigmshift in marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 2(1), 9–29.

Grönroos, C. (1995). Relationship marketing: The strategy continuum. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 23(4), 252–254.

Grönroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship mana-gement approach (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Gummesson, E. (1994). Making relationship marketing operational. International Journal ofService Industry Management, 5(5), 5–20.

Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satisfaction,relationship commitment dimension, and triggers on customer retention. Journal ofMarketing, 69(4), 210–218.

Ha, C.L. (1998). The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty. The Journal of Productand Brand Management, 7(1), 51–61.

Hair, J.F., Jr., Andersen, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis(5th ed.). Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hart, A.E., & Rosenberger, P.J., III (2004). The effect of corporate image in the formation ofcustomer loyalty: An Australian replication. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(3), 88–96.

Hatton, M. (2004). Redefining the relationships – The future of travel agencies and the globalagency contract in a changing distribution system. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2),101–108.

Hong, S.-C., & Goo, Y.J.J. (2004). A causal model of customer loyalty in professional servicefirms: An empirical study. International Journal of Management, 21(4), 531.

Huang, H.-H., & Chiu, C.-K. (2006). Exploring customer satisfaction, trust and destinationloyalty in tourism. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 10(1),156–159.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: Areview of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

Jacoby, J. (1971). A model of multi-brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 11(3),25–31.

Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R.W. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and management. New York:Wiley.

Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D.B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal ofMarketing Research, 10(1), 1–9.

Johnson, M.D., & Gustafsson, A. (2000). Improving customer satisfaction, loyalty, and profit:An integrated measurement and management system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L., & Cha, J. (2001). The evolutionand future of national customer satisfaction index models. Journal of Economic Psychology,22(2), 217–245.

Jones, T.O., & Sasser, W.E., Jr. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard BusinessReview, 73(6), 88–99.

Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as apredictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5),698–707.

Koo, D.-M. (2003). Inter-relationships among store images, store satisfaction, and store loyaltyamong Korea discount retail patrons. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 15(4),42–71.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., & Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (1995). The effects of perceivedinterdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3),348–356.

Lacey, R., Suh, J., & Morgan, R.M. (2007). Differential effects of preferential treatment levelson relational outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 9(3), 241–256.

Lawrence, R.J. (1969). Patterns of buyer behavior: Time for a new approach? Journal ofMarketing Research, 6(2), 137–144.

Lee, C.C. (2001). Predicting tourist attachment to destinations. Annals of Tourism Research,28(1), 229–232.

Li, X., & Petrick, J.F. (2008). Tourism marketing in an era of paradigm shift. Journal of TravelResearch, 46(3), 235–244.

Liang, C.-J., & Wang, W.-H. (2007). Customer relationship management of the informationeducation services industry in Taiwan: Attributes, benefits and relationship. ServiceIndustries Journal, 27(1), 29–46.

Lovelock, C.H. (1984). Positioning the service organization in the marketplace. In C.H.Lovelock (Ed.), Services marketing (pp. 133–139). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lutz, R.J., & Winn, P.R. (1974). Developing a Bayesian measure of brand loyalty:A preliminary report. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association,Chicago.

Martilla, J.A., & James, J.C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing,41(1), 77–79.

Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2),171–194.

Mazursky, D., & Jacoby, J. (1986). Exploring the development of store images. Journal ofRetailing, 62(2), 145–165.

McAlexander, J.H., Kim, S.K., & Roberts, S.D. (2003). Loyalty: The influences of satisfactionand brand community integration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(4),1–11.

McConnell, J.D. (1968). The development of brand loyalty: An experimental study. Journalof Marketing Research, 5(1), 13–19.

Mohr, L.B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Moliner, M.A., Sánchez, J., Rodríguez, R.M., & Callarisa, L. (2007). Travel agency

relationship quality. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 537–540.Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing.

Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.Morgan, R.P. (1999). A consumer-oriented framework of brand equity and loyalty. Journal of

the Market Research Society, 42(1), 65–78.Moscardo, G., Pearce, P., Morrison, A., Green, D., & O’Leary, J.T. (2000). Developing a

typology for understanding visiting friends and relatives markets. Journal of Travel Research,38(3), 251–259.

Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (1998). The mediating role of corporate image on customers’retention decisions: An investigation in financial services. The International Journal of BankMarketing, 16(2), 52–65.

Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.O’Cass, A., & Grace, D. (2003). An exploratory perspective of service brand associations. The

Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4/5), 452–473.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management, 22(6),617–627.

Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? [Special issue]. Journal of Marketing, 63,33–44.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.

Pedhazur, E.–J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Peter, J.P. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices.Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6–17.

Petrick, J.F., & Backman, S.J. (2002). An examination of the construct of perceived valuefor the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1),38–45.

Porter, M.E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 63–78.Reichheld, F.F. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits, and lasting

value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Reichheld, F.F., & Sasser, W.E., Jr. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard

Business Review, 68(5), 105–111.Reid, I.S., & Crompton, J.L. (1993). A taxonomy of leisure purchase decision paradigms based

on level of involvement. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 182–202.Reinartz, W.J., & Kumar, V. (2000). On the profitability of long-life customers in a

noncontractual setting: An empirical investigation and implications for marketing. Journalof Marketing, 64(4), 17–35.

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS (Version 2.0 beta). Hamburg, Germany:University of Hamburg.

Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005). Exploring loyal qualities: Assessing survey-based loyalty measures.The Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6/7), 492–500.

Ryan, C., & Huyton, J. (2002). Tourists and aboriginal people. Annals of Tourism Research,29(3), 631–647.

Schultz, D.E., & Bailey, S. (2000). Customer/brand loyalty in an interactive marketplace.Journal of Advertising Research, 40(3), 41–52.

Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Selin, S.W., Howard, D.R., Udd, E., & Cable, T.T. (1988). An analysis of consumer loyalty tomunicipal recreation programs. Leisure Sciences, 10(3), 217–223.

Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation,satisfaction and loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 27(9), 19–35.

Sheth, J.N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). Relationship marketing in consumer markets: Antecedentsand consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 255–271.

Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J.R. (1999). The brand-personality scale. Cornell Hoteland Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48–55.

Skogland, I., & Siguaw, J.A. (2004). Are your satisfied customers loyal? Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 221–234.

Smith, A.D. (2004). Information exchanges associated with Internet travel marketplaces.Online Information Review, 28(4), 292–300.

Smith, R.E., & Wright, W.F. (2004). Determinants of customer loyalty and financialperformance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 16, 183–205.

Statistics New Zealand (2003, May 30). Wellington Region Community Profile. RetrievedMay 12, 2007, from http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/commprofiles.nsf/printing/CFB22015B114BDDFCC256D31007AD5EE

Statistics New Zealand (2004, September 21, 2006). Overseas trips by New Zealanders: Table3.04 New Zealand resident departures ranked by country of main destination. RetrievedSeptember 5, 2005, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/tables/tables-tourism-2004.htm

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3

http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/commprofiles.nsf/printing/CFB22015B114BDDFCC256D31007AD5EE

http://www.stats.govt.nz/tables/tables-tourism-2004.htm

http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/commprofiles.nsf/printing/CFB22015B114BDDFCC256D31007AD5EE


Stewart, T.A. (1997). A satisfied customer isn’t enough. Fortune, 136(2), 112–113.Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of

the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111–147.Tellefsena, T., & Thomas, G.P. (2005). The antecedents and consequences of organizational

and personal commitment in business service relationships. Industrial MarketingManagement, 34(1), 23–37.

Tobias, R.D. (1995). An introduction to partial least squares regression. SUGI 20:Proceedings, 1–8. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from http://support.sas.com/techsup/

technote/ts509.pdfTompson, R., Barclay, D.W., & Higgins, C.A. (1995). The partial least squares approach

to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and uses as an illustration. TechnologyStudies: Special Issue on Research Methodology, 2(2), 284–324.

Traylor, M.B. (1984). Ego involvement and brand commitment: Not necessarily the same.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1(2), 75–79.

Tse, D.K., & Wilton, P.C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension.Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 204–212.

Tucker, W.T. (1964). The development of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(3),32–35.

Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal ofMarketing, 68(1), 1–17.

Warrington, P., & Shim, S. (2000). An empirical investigation of the relationshipbetween product involvement and brand commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 17(9),761–782.

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 4–14.Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service

quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.Zhou, Z. (2004). E-commerce and information technology in hospitality and tourism. New

York: Clifton Park.Zimmer, M.R., & Golden, L.L. (1988). Impressions of retail stores: A content analysis of

consumer images. Journal of Retailing, 64(3), 265–293.Zins, A.H. (2001). Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models: Some

experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, 12(3/4), 269–294.

Appendix A. Construct measurement items used in the survey

Measurement items and questions – seven-pointLikert-type scales Latent variableaffast Even if I could, I would not drop this travel agency

as my travel agency, because I like beingassociated with it. [strongly disagree–stronglyagree]

Commitment(affective)

affejy I want to remain a customer of this travel agencybecause I genuinely enjoy the relationship I havewith it. [strongly disagree–strongly agree]

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3

http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts509.pdf

http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts509.pdf


Appendix A. (Continued)

Measurement items and questions – seven-pointLikert-type scales Latent variableaffpos My positive feeling towards this travel agency is a

major reason why I continue buying travelservices from it. [strongly disagree–stronglyagree]

imgbrh The image of the branch office of the travel agencyyou used was [very unfavourable–veryfavourable]

Corporateimage

imgfrd In general, what do your friends or relatives sayabout the image of this travel agency? [veryunfavourable–very favourable]

imgoth Compared to other travel agencies available to you,the image of the travel agency you used was[much more unfavourable–much morefavourable]

imgovl How would you describe your overall perceptionsabout corporate image of this travel agency?[very unfavourable–very favourable]

loycon I will continue to buy travel services from thistravel agency in the next few years [not at alllikely–extremely likely]

Customerloyalty

loyecg I will encourage friends and relatives to dobusiness with this travel agency. [not at alllikely–extremely likely]

loyfst I consider this travel agency to be my first choice tobuy travel services [not at all likely–extremelylikely]

loypos I will say positive things about this travel agency toother people. [not at all likely–extremely likely]

loyrec I will recommend this travel agency to someonewho asks my advice of travel agency. [not at alllikely–extremely likely]

satexp Compared to your expectations, this travelagency’s performance was [much lower–muchhigher]

Customersatisfaction

satfel How would you describe your overall feelings aboutyour interactions with this travel agency? [verydissatisfied–very satisfied]

satidl Compared to the ideal travel agency in your mind,the performance of this travel agency was [muchworse–much better]

Anchor points used in survey shown in brackets.Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3


Appendix B. Initial measurement model loadings

Measurement Affective Corporate Customer Customeritems commitment image loyalty satisfactionaffast .853 .493 .705 .446affejy .958 .600 .894 .581affpos .850 .673 .762 .491imgbrh .504 .863 .571 .452imgfrd .532 .766 .545 .540imgoth .656 .856 .689 .579imgovl .536 .899 .568 .561loycon .790 .672 .909 .541loyecg .789 .599 .877 .574loyfst .820 .634 .899 .471loypos .801 .613 .879 .690loyrec .829 .672 .955 .631satexp .521 .555 .574 .936satfel .546 .612 .631 .878satidl .508 .572 .560 .937

About the authors

James E. Richard is senior lecturer in marketing at the School of Marketing andInternational Business, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. His teachinginterests focus on marketing strategy, Internet marketing, direct marketing, andrelationship marketing. His PhD involved research into CRM, RM, and the use oftechnology. His main research area is in the field of the use of technology in marketingand marketing education. He is currently working on research in the value of Internetads, Internet word of mouth, and the relationship between brand image and charities.James is currently director of the Victoria International MBA programme located inHong Kong. Prior to working in academia, James gained considerable marketingmanagement experience in Canadian, US, and New Zealand business-to businessmarkets, notably in the telecommunications sector.

Corresponding author: James E. Richard, Victoria University of Wellington, School ofMarketing & International Business, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand.

T +64 4 463 5415E [email protected]

Annie Zhang is currently a Web Planner at wwwins Consulting based in Shanghai,China. She is responsible for developing digital marketing strategies for clients,including: communication strategies, Website strategies, and digital campaigns.Annie’s postgraduate dissertation focused on the relationship between travel agenciesand consumers.T +86 159 21504838E [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on],

[D

r Ja

mes

E. R

icha

rd]

at 1

3:09

20

June

201

3

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

corporate image, loyalty, and commitment in the consumer travel industry

Documents