the journey from loyalty to brand advocacy

The journey from Loyalty to

Brand Advocacy

University of Amsterdam

MSc in Business Administration

Master Thesis

Author: Adriana Frasin

Student number: 6140491

Supervisor: Prof. A.C.J. Meulemans

Co-reader: Prof. J. A. Tettero

Brand Advocates 2016

A. Frasin


A. Frasin

Contents

Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Statement of Originality…………………………………………………………………………………….4

Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

Keywords………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Chapter 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….8 Subchapter 1.1. Chapter Overview Subchapter 1.2. Context and motivation of the thesis Subchapter 1.3. Research questions Subchapter 1.4. Research objectives Chapter 2. Theoretical research: Literature review……………………………………………..12 Subchapter 2.1. Introduction Subchapter 2.2. The link between Perceived Quality and Satisfaction Subchapter 2.3. The concepts of Trust and Commitment Subchapter 2.4. Loyalty as a key concept Subchapter 2.5. The concept of WOM? Subchapter 2.6. What is Brand Advocacy? Subchapter 2.7. What is a Super Promoter? Subchapter 2.8. Conclusion Chapter 3. Empirical Research: Design and Methodology……………………………………26 Subchapter 3.1. Research Method Subchapter 3.2. Questionnaire Design Subchapter 3.3. Data Collection Chapter 4. Empirical Research: Data Analysis……………………………………………………32 Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………….43 List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………45 List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………….45 List of References…………………………………………………………………………………………..46

Appendix A: Survey Design……………………………………………………………………………..53

Appendix B: Survey Results…………………………………………………………………………….66


A. Frasin

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Adriana Frasin, who declares to take full

responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no

sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in

creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of

completion of the work, not for the contents.


A. Frasin

Preface

As part of my MSc in Business Administration, I have written this paper focused on

Super Promoters and Brand Advocates mainly because I am big admirer of people with

passion, people with enthusiasm and people who do not shy away from sharing it with

the world. These are the dreamers, the change makers, the influential and the thought

leaders in their social circles. Also, as a marketer, I am conducting my job daily with the

consumer’s needs at heart, and investigating the stages that he/she is passing through

towards the status of Brand Advocate, has helped me tremendously in figuring out how

to target them.

My thesis is dedicated to my mother, to whom I am extremely grateful and forever in

debt, for being by side during my decision to study abroad, for supporting me

emotionally during the times I have started balancing school and work. She has been

my role model, my inspiration and my #1 fan. As well, I give thanks to my sister and to

my best friend, for cheering me up and encouraging me to finalize the paper and

graduate.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Meulemans, who has shown great support and

outstanding flexibility throughout the time that I was writing this thesis. I am thankful

for giving me the chance to work with him and for all the good advice he has shared

with me. The process has been long, due to the fact that I have been working more

than 50 hours per week, at the same time with my studies. But the moment has come

to close another chapter of my life, at least for some time: the student years.

On this closing note, I am looking forward towards a world where consumers are not

only satisfied with the products that brands develop for them, but actually thrilled and

delighted, sharing their excitement and spreading their happiness with people around.


A. Frasin

Keywords:

satisfaction, trust, commitment (affective, normative, continuance), loyalty (behavioral and attitudinal), enthusiasm, WOM, willingness to recommend, repurchase intentions, customer retention, brand preference, consumer advocacy, brand advocacy, evangelism marketing, market mavens, opinion leadership, co-creation, social influence, C2C engagement, NPS, Super Promoters

Figure 1. Brand advocacy word cloud


A. Frasin

Executive Summary

“What causes consumers to become enthusiastic and affectively committed advocates

on behalf of their preferred brands?” is the central question of this paper.

At first glance, it might seem that all that product/service providers have to do is to

create satisfied customers. But eventually, the drivers of the various types of loyalty

behaviors will assert more influence on the process of becoming brand advocates. If we

start with first time customers – they have to be satisfied with the product they

purchased, have to trust its brand and become committed to it. If they would

recommend it to their family and friends, according to the NPS methodology, they would

be considered loyal to the brand.

This paper aims to investigate and pin point the constructs that mediate the journey and

transformation of loyal consumers into brand advocates, or Super Promoters, via means

of a survey which was sent to a database of Philips promoters, Senseo owners who

registered their product and had the highest NPS scores of 9 and 10. 200 responses

were returned, enabling an analysis that used simple logistic and multiple regressions to

probe the influence that a selected set of variables have on the Super Promoter status.

The survey probed their satisfaction, trust and commitment with the Senseo brand,

asked them to self-assess their enthusiasm towards the product or to answer socio-

demographic inquiries. It also tested their influence in their network in terms of opinion

leadership and market knowledge (mavenism), which the theory considered critical pre-

requisites for becoming Super Promoters or brand advocates.

The results show that the hypothesized model with trust, affective commitment and

market knowledge mediating the relationship between satisfaction and Super Promoter

status was supported. Furthermore, market knowledge appears to be especially

important in the path of becoming a Super Promoter.


A. Frasin

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Chapter Overview

The study encompasses 5 chapters (see Figure 2), which are based on a pre-research

on available literature and online information on Brand Advocacy by using a set of

keywords depicted in the word cloud above (see Figure 1).

Chapter 1 sets the ground basis of this paper by defining the context of the study, the

objectives and the research questions.

To compliment the introduction, Chapter 2 provides an extensive overview on

academic literature and introduces the concepts of NPS and Super Promoters from the

business managerial world.

Chapter 3 explains how empirical research was started by collecting data via a

questionnaire, designed to survey a set of loyal consumers on their self-assessment of

various constructs the literature review has introduced.

Chapter 4 includes the data analysis which shows the relationships between these

constructs and supports the hypotheses.

Chapter 5 closes the research with conclusions and recommendations for further

research and for managerial implications.

Figure 2. Chapter overview

Pre-research:

Information on

Brand

Advocacy by

using different

keywords

Chapter 1

Goals and

research

questions

Research

Model

Chapter 2

Theoretical

Framework

Chapter 3

Empirical

Research

Data

Collection

Questionnaire

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Chapter 4

Analysis

Satisfaction

Trust

Commitment

Market knowledge

Advocacy


A. Frasin

1.2 Context and Problem Statement

The Consumer Relationship Lifecycle (MCorp Consulting, 2011) has been used as a

starting point, in order to place the topic of the research in the context of the customer

buying decision process. The relationship between the last three touchpoints,

constituting the Post-Purchase section, is further explored.

Figure 3. Consumer Relationship Lifecycle (MCorp Consulting, 2011)

Every company has developed relationships with its stakeholders - suppliers, employees,

partners, media, the government, etc. - who have a high impact on the company’s

ability to retain customers and grow. Not all companies manage to handle these

relations in a constructive way that would reach a large key audience, would draw them

closer by building their loyalty, would drive retention, WOM and referrals and would

create advocates of the brand. All of these, while growing year after year. The

touchpoints presented in Figure 1 are steps which companies are struggling to identify

and improve.

When having a closer look (see Figure 3) to the post-purchase stages – Satisfaction,

Loyalty and Advocacy – the strength of the relationship intensifies as the consumer

further advances the path towards becoming an advocate. As the consumer discovers

that the performance of the service/product meets expectations, he will need even more

a branded experience which is delivered in a consistent manner, where trust, price and

performance are key determinants of his loyalty. Many consumers will not move beyond

loyalty. But those who do become advocates will be the engine of growth and will


A. Frasin

provide countless benefits through their active and enthusiastic recommendations of the

company’s products/services.

1.3 Research Objectives

The research objectives are two-fold and they aim at contributing something new on the

topic of brand advocacy to the existing body of literature and to offer tools to the

marketers to identify and recruit brand advocates:

First, enriching the academic literature with the concept of Super Promoters,

another name for Brand Advocates, understanding their journey and triggers

from being loyal to becoming a Super Promoter

Second, proposing a method of identification, design a new instrument for

selecting them and identifying the Super Promoters from a pool of loyal

consumers, in order to build a strong army of well-equipped brand advocates

that a brand can employ in broadcasting its message

1.4 Research Questions

The central question examines what causes loyal consumers to become enthusiastic and

affectively committed advocates on behalf of their preferred brands.

“What causes consumers to become enthusiastic and affectively committed advocates

on behalf of their preferred brands?”

1. What criteria, according to the Super Promoter methodology

(Vogelaar, 2011) could be used to classify Super Promoters as such,

by selecting them from a pool of loyal consumers?

2. Can the Super Promoter status be explained a proposed mediational

customer advocacy model, including Satisfaction, Trust, Affective

Commitment and Market Knowledge (see Figure 4)?


A. Frasin

(a) How does Satisfaction predict Super Promoter status?

(b) How does Satisfaction predict each of the other mediators: trust, affective

commitment and market knowledge?

(c) What is the relationship between each of the moderators and Super

Promoter status?

(d) Are the 3 variables Trust, Affective Commitment and Market Knowledge

mediating the relationship between Satisfaction and Super Promoter

status?

(e) Which one of them is a better predictor of Super Promoter status?

Figure 4. Mediational customer advocacy model

Satisfaction Brand Advocates

Trust Affective Commitment

Market Knowledge

Antecedent Variables Mediators Consequence


A. Frasin

Chapter 2 – Literature review

2.1 Introduction

Companies start to understand more and more that long term, sustainable competitive

advantage that enables growth is connected to their ability to attract, retain, sustain and

nurture the customer base (Anderson, Fornell and Mazvancheryl, 2004; Gruca and Rego,

2005; Rego, Billet and Morgan, 2009). To measure their performance, companies are

looking at customer-based metrics such as trust and commitment (Bansal, Irving and

Taylor, 2004; Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Palmatier et al., 2006; Verhoef, 2003),

service quality perceptions (Zeithaml, Berry and PArasuraman, 1996), brand experience

(Brakus, Schmitt and Sarantonello, 2009), brand-consumer connections (Fournier et al.,

1998; Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001), consumer identification (Ahearne, Bhattacharaya and

Gruen, 2005), customer equity (Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml, 2004), etc.

This thesis aims at providing a framework that reflects the customer engagement

process from the prospective stage to the partnership stage, with all its underlining

mediating variables like satisfaction, loyalty, trust, affective commitment, positive WOM

and advocacy. The research tries to capture which drivers the company has to mediate,

in order to transform a prospective customer into an advocate of the brand or even a

partner in co-creation.

From a strategic perspective, the template developed allows scholars and managers to

fully understand how these behaviors are intertwined and to examine the descriptive

and causative analysis of the relations between the components of the model and how

strong their correlations are, if any.

Chapter 2 gives a theoretical overview on all the variables employed in the research

topic. It starts by building on the definitions of Perceived Quality & Satisfaction, Trust &

Commitment and Loyalty in order to identify what is missing in the literature and to

select the most appropriate research questions for the present study. These three


A. Frasin

concepts are seen as the main antecedent drivers that finally create Brand Advocacy

through the mediation of positive WOM.

2.2 The link between Perceived Quality and Satisfaction

Perceived quality is defined as the result of the comparison that a customer makes

between the expectations about a product or a service and the perception of how that

product or service has been performed (Caruana, 2002; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and

Berry, 1994). Perceived quality is considered a core customer-based brand equity factor

because it has been associated with the willingness to pay a price premium, brand

purchase intent and brand choice (Aaker, 1991).

Satisfaction is one of the most studied constructs in the history of marketing

scholarship (Fournier and Mick, 1999; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). Advocacy is a key

consequence of positive evaluations of the service (Anderson, 1998; Swan and Oliver,

1989; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Anderson shows in his study that delighted customers are

more likely to give recommendations than those who had a more neutral satisfaction

evaluation.

The link between perceived quality and satisfaction has been strongly supported

by several studies (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Cronin, Brady and Hult, 2000; Olsen, 2002),

but it has also been theoretically questioned (Henning-Thurau and Klee, 1997; Pappu

and Quester, 2006). Oliver (1997) demonstrated that perceptions of high quality lead to

brand loyalty because it is the basis of consumer satisfaction. Cronin and Taylor (1992)

assess a few models and conclude that perceived quality leads to satisfaction. Lee and

Back (2008) similarly found empirical evidence supporting this relationship in the

branding context.


A. Frasin

2.3 The concepts of Trust and Commitment

Trust and Commitment have been identified as the most important concepts in the field

of relationship marketing (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In the same article, the authors

define trust as the level of confidence that the consumer has in the reliability and

integrity of the company, level which is achieved when expectations are fulfilled and the

quality of the service is consistent. Commitment is usually defined as the extent to

which an exchange partner desires to continue a valued relationship (Moorman et al.,

1992), as an attitude towards the act of maintaining a relationship with a partner

(Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003). At its core, commitment consists of three distinct

components: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative

commitment (Meyer et al., 2002).

Affective commitment has been defined as the extent to which a customer identifies

with and feels a positive attachment for a partner (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003;

Gruen et al., 2000). The affective commitment is the psychological attachment, based

on loyalty and affiliation of one exchange partner to the other (Bahttacharaya, Rao and

Glynn, 1995; Gundlach, Achrol and Mentzer, 1995).

Continuance commitment is defined as the extent to which a customer feels bound

to a relational partner (Bansal et al., 2004; Fullerton, 2003; Gruen et al., 2000) whereas

normative commitment is defined as the construct to which a customer feels

obligated to do business with a partner (Bansal et al., 2004; Gruen et al., 2000).

To further underpin the hypotheses of this thesis, it has been found that commitment

positively affects loyalty (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).

Amongst the findings of Fullerton’s study (2011) is the one that demonstrates that the

degree to which customers will become advocates depends on the components of

commitment. Thus, consistent with the previous literature on the topic, Fullerton finds

that affective commitment is the strongest and most significant determinant of customer

advocacy, but also that normative commitment has a considerable influence (Fullerton,

2003; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2007).


A. Frasin

2.4 Loyalty – as a key concept

Brand loyalty can be defined as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a

preferred product/service in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand

purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to

cause switching behavior” (Oliver, 1999, p.34). Dick and Basu (1994) propose that

customer loyalty is the result of psychological processes and has behavioral

manifestations and should therefore incorporate both attitudinal and behavioral

components.

The relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty has been the focus of a study

that investigates the effects of satisfaction and commitment on loyalty (Gustafsson,

Johnson and Roos, 2005). Jones and Sasser (1995) argue that satisfaction does not

necessarily lead to behavioral brand loyalty.

To measure loyalty, Reichheld (2003) has proposed the Net Promoter Score, an 11

points scale tool that ascertains customer’s loyalty towards certain products with one

simple question: “Based on your experience with this product, how likely are you to

recommend your <branded> product to a friend, relative or colleague?” Based on the

answers to this question, the consumers can be categorized as “Promoters”, “Passives”

or “Detractors”. The Net Promoter Score, NPS in Figure 5, is calculated by taking the

percentage of customers who are Promoters (score 9 to 10) and subtracting the

percentage of Detractors (score 0 to 6).


A. Frasin

Figure 5. NPS formula

If Reichheld is right in his assumption that willingness to provide recommendations is

the strongest indicator of customer loyalty, then it is important to consider all drivers of

advocacy, beyond mere satisfaction.

2.5 The concept of WOM

Word of mouth has suffered some alterations from the initial definition in which Arndt

(1967, p.190) sees WOM as “oral, face to face communication between a perceived non-

commercial communicator and a receiver concerning a brand, a product or a service

offered for sale”. Twenty years later, Westbrook (1987, p.261) defines it as “informal

communication directed at other consumers about the ownership, usage or

characteristics of particular goods and services and their sellers”. Another 20 years later,

Word of Mouth Marketing Association, founded in 2005, defines WOM as “consumers

providing information to other consumers” (WOMMA, 2008). All definitions convey WOM

as an organic, natural, inter-personal communication about brands, products or services

that can be either positive or negative.


A. Frasin

In the past, as stated above, WOM has been viewed from the classic perspective of two

individual customers talking about a brand. This view appears incomplete today because

different customers affect each other in many ways, sometimes even unknowingly. A

broader view brings Customer-to-Customer (C2C) interactions in the spotlight, as the

transfer of information from one customer or a group of customers to another customer

or group of customers in such a way that influences their preferences, their purchasing

decision and even the way they interact with others in the future (Libai et al., 2010).

Companies have tried to influence the C2C interactions with the help of tools such as

WOM agent campaign, viral marketing, buzz marketing or even referral reward

programs (Godes et al., 2005).

WOMMA classifies WOM in two categories: organic WOM, that occurs naturally,

without the company’s intervention and amplified WOM that occurs when campaigns

that target creation or acceleration of WOM in new or existing communities, are

designed by marketers (WOMMA 2008).

WOM plays an important role in shaping recipients’ attitudes and intentions (Brown and

Reingen, 1987; Harrison-Walker, 2001; Keaveney and Parthasarathy, 2001; Libai, Muller

and Peres, 2009) as “WOM and especially personal recommendations have long been

more powerful than media advertising in driving both trial and repeat purchase

behavior” (Ostrom et al., 2010, p. 23).

Verlegh et al. (2008) answer the question of why do customers engage in WOM by

putting forward four reasons: product enthusiasm, self-presentation, helping consumers

and helping the firm. These motives appear similar to the ones Dichter (1966) and

Sundaraman et al. (1998) found, but at a smaller scale.

McKinsey (2010) signals how important trust and influence are in WOM propagation:

“marketers may spend millions of dollars on elaborately conceived advertising

campaigns, yet often what really makes up a consumer’s mind is not only simple, but

also free: a word-of-mouth recommendation from a trusted source”. Also they suggest

three approaches towards WOM marketing: a consumer’s direct experience with a

product or service – experiential WOM, a consumer exposed to traditional advertising


A. Frasin

passes on the message – consequential WOM and a marketer that uses celebrity

endorsement – intentional WOM.

Figure 6. WOM process (McKinsey, 2010)

McKinsey (2010) points out in the process illustrated in Figure 6 that in order for a

company to have a strong equity, fewer messages should be sent in terms of volume,

by close/trusted, influential people that point out relevant key buying factors based on

their own experience.

The positive effects of the antecedents of WOM, such as satisfaction, loyalty, service

quality, commitment, trust and perceived quality are well established in the literature

(de Matos and Vargas Rossi, 2008). The level of Satisfaction has an influence on

repurchase intentions and recommendation intentions (Bearden and Tell, 1983; Maxham

and Netemeyer, 2002a, b; Oliver, 1980; Ranaweera and Prahbu, 2003; Richins, 1983).

Loyalty is hypothesized as an antecedent of WOM because when customers are more

loyal to a given provider, they are also more likely to give positive recommendations, to

have greater motivation to process new information about the company and to have

stronger resistance to being persuaded by contrary information (Dick and Basu, 1994).


A. Frasin

Empirical studies have demonstrated that perceived quality is a relevant predictor of

WOM (Bloemer et al., 1999; Boulding et al., 1993; Harrison-Walker 2001; Zeithaml et

al., 1996). The positive relation presented in these studies demonstrates that the higher

the service quality, the higher the WOM activity. Customers with higher commitment

levels will have a greater likelihood of spreading positive WOM, being stimulated by a

high satisfaction condition. The study of de Matos and Vargas Rossi (2008) reveals that

commitment is the main correlate of WOM, followed by perceived value, quality, trust,

satisfaction and loyalty. Also the study points out that the influence of loyalty on WOM is

significantly higher when looking at actual repurchase behavior than when looking at

intentions. Another finding shows that satisfaction has a stronger relationship with

positive WOM than loyalty does and reinforces the notion that satisfied customers are

not necessarily loyal (Matos et al., 2007; Reichheld, 1994).

The antecedents of WOM were presented in order to give a better overview on what

triggers the process of word-of-mouth. This present study will attempt to find positive

links between satisfaction, loyalty, trust and commitment when seen as antecedent

variables of WOM, leading to Brand Advocacy.

Further research is needed to investigate which are the success factors of future WOM

communication, what are the conditions under which consumers make

recommendations, does WOM work equally well in all industries and products, how

reliable and valuable is electronic-WOM and is its effect similar to the one of traditional

WOM’s.

2.6 What is Brand Advocacy?

“The driving force behind brand evangelism is that individuals simply want to

make the world a better place. Evangelism is about selling your dream so that

other people believe in it as much as you do”

Guy Kawasaki, Chief Evangelist, Apple Computer, Inc.

Why do people give enthusiastic recommendations to their friends, family, colleagues

and acquaintances and what triggers them to become reliable advocates of the brands


A. Frasin

they prefer? These questions have received consistent interest from many scholars over

the years.

Throughout the researched literature, advocacy has been labeled as customer reference,

evangelism marketing, C2C engagement, social influence and it has been correlated in

one way or another to opinion leadership or market mavenism (Stokburger-Sauer and

Hoyer, 2009).

According to Anderson (1998), Brown et al. (2005), Swan et al. (1989) advocacy is one

of the consequences of customer satisfaction. Advocacy has been defined as the

willingness of the customer to give strong recommendations and praise to other

consumers on behalf of a products or service supplier (Hill et al., 2006; Harrison-Walker,

2001). Companies are measuring more and more the willingness to recommend as a

perceived consequence by the consumer of the performance and evaluation of the firm

(Reichheld, 2006). It has even been forwarded the fact that the willingness to

recommend is a much bigger proof of loyalty than willingness to repurchase, because

people enthusiastically recommend products or services to others when they have

strong feelings of trust and commitment towards the brand (Mazzarol et al., 2007;

Reichheld, 2003).

It is clear that customers become advocates of the brand when they are systematically

pleased with level of service provided (White and Schneider, 2000). Advocacy is a kind

of behavior in which consumers who are actively and attitudinally loyal to the brand

engage (Bodet, 2008; Bontis et al., 2007; Ganesh et al., 2000). These consumers act as

endorsers towards the brand because they are comfortable recommending the product,

brand or service provider to the people they care for (Fullerton, 2003; Wangenheim and

Bayon, 2004). However, source credibility is crucial for a message to be effective and it

often depends on the sender being perceived as credible, believable, competent and

trustworthy (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). Besides credibility, one of the most important

characteristics of a recommendation is its independence. The more positive the maker is

rated, the more positively is his recommendation received (Röthlingshöfer, 2008).

Fullerton (2010) has found in his study that affective commitment, described in the

previous section, is the most significant determinant of consumer advocacy and that


A. Frasin

normative commitment also plays a positive and supporting role. This comes to support

why the satisfaction alone, which is still a direct driver of customer advocacy (Fullerton,

2010), does not lead to forms of positive WOM and does not always result in advocacy

in the absence of affective or normative commitment.

The brand advocacy is about creating a mission and a brand experience that are so

inspiring to consumers that they become committed to a company and share their

enthusiasm with others (Meiners et al., 2010). What makes brand advocacy so powerful

today is the connection of the most powerful old means of persuasion, word-of-mouth,

with the newest one, the social network (Fetherstonhaugh, 2009). The company has to

take into consideration three main factors: the need of a good and successful product,

being a strong brand that has emotional relationship with consumers and has a brand

community and the creation of an open and transparent corporate and marketing

communication that integrates the customer in the marketing process, gains their trust

and generates long term relationship marketing (Meiners et al., 2010).

C2C engagement studies have given considerable attention to people with substantial

social effects on others, sometimes labeled as opinion leaders, influentials, influencers

or hubs (Goldenberg et al., 2006; Goldenberg et al., 2009; Watts and Dodds, 2007). The

role of people with such characteristics should be further explored, especially the

mechanisms they use and the magnitude of their social influence in online and offline

environment interactions.

In their study about consumer advisors, Stokburger-Sauer and Hoyer (2009) identify the

drivers of market mavenism and opinion leadership and point out that consumer with

tendencies towards these two traits represent powerful forces in the marketplace due to

their influence on the buying decisions of the other consumers. The authors point out

that these individuals are more or less satisfied than other consumers and they can be

categorized according to their need for variation or to their product category

involvement. The conclusions of their study show that opinion leaders possess superior

knowledge and can be a valuable construct in the co-creation process for a company.

The same findings, when exploring the motives of WOM, were reached for the

personality characteristic of market mavenism by Feick and Price (1987).


A. Frasin

According to Lusch and Vargo (2006), customer co-creation involves “the participation in

the creation of the core offering itself. It can occur through shared inventiveness, co-

design or shared production of related goods.” Clearly, behaviors such as making

suggestions to improve the consumption experience, helping and coaching service

providers and helping other customers to consume better are all aspects of co-creation

and consumer engagement.

The concept of brand community has received both academic attention from scholars

(Fullerton, 2010; Kozinets, 2001; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001) and managerial practice,

from P&G with its Tremor consumer advocacy panel or from Harley-Davidson. The

emergence of brand related customer communities as a unique type of social network

has still to be researched in terms of how customers affect each other and create new

forms of relationships with brands (Libai et al., 2010).

According to Figure 7, Kotler’s (1997, p.157) Customer Development Process, the

customer follows a step by step process from the moment he is just an element of the

market until he becomes a partner. The starting point is everyone who might

conceivably buy the products (suspects). A part of these suspects are considered by the

company prospects that it hopes to transform into first-time customers and if the is gap

between his quality expectations and the actual perceived one is small or inexistent,

their repurchase intentions will materialize and they will become repeat customers and

eventually clients, with whom the company will master the customer relationship

management. The challenge is now to transform these clients into members and then to

advocates who will enthusiastically recommend the brand others. After identifying them,

the last step is to turn them into partners and co-create tailored products and services

with their help. It is important to mention though, that at any given step of the process

the customer can become inactive or can defect.


A. Frasin

Figure 7. Consumer Development Process (Kotler, 1997)

In the attempt of integrating the above described concepts in Kotler’s Customer

Development process, the framework in the present study could incorporate the

following hypotheses for further study (see Figure 8):

- Perceived quality and satisfaction links First-time customers and Repeat

customers.

- Loyalty links Repeat Customers to Clients

- Trust and Affective Commitment links Clients to Advocates

- Co-creation links Advocates to Partners

First-time customers

Repeat customers

Clients Advocates Partners

Suspects

Prospects

Disqualified prospects

Inactive or ex-customers


A. Frasin

Figure 8. A conceptual framework for the process of engagement

2.7 What is a Super Promoter?

In his book, The Super Promoter (2011), Rijn Vogelaar introduces the concept of the

Super Promoter as someone who personifies the power of enthusiasm, shares the

enthusiasm and infects others with it, customers who make recommendations and bring

new customers in, employees who get really involved and change the work

environment, members from the public who stand up to defend something they believe

in, or people acting behind the scenes to ensure sales growth, building a good

reputation or creating more effective management.

In this study, the following definition of the concept will be used:

Super Promoters - Highly satisfied customers who share and wear their enthusiasm and

influence other people by spreading it around, through offline and online media.

First-time customers

Repeat customers

Clients Advocates Partners

Inactive or ex-customers

Perceived quality

Satisfaction Loyalty

Trust & Affective Commitment

Co-creation


A. Frasin

The concept of the Super Promoter is built on three pillars: Enthusiasm, Sharing and

Influence. Enthusiasm is a result of experiencing new and exciting products, of having

a positive surprise after receiving unexpected excellent service, of authenticity without

advertorial hoax, of an open and honest company attitude towards its customers.

Sharing can be done spontaneously with active WOM, passively when prompted or by

copycat behavior: explicit invitation – making a recommendation or implicit invitation –

radiating enthusiasm. Influence can be attained by reciprocation, when the Super

Promoter makes recommendations to his social environment and expects his

environment to return the favor when chance permits it, by being committed and

consistent in opinions and behaviors, by social proof, when following the herd is a safe

choice and it simplifies decision making, by being liked and having charisma, the

influence increases and the Super Promoter is taken seriously by his own crowd of same

age, social class and attitudes, by having a certain degree of formal authority by virtue

or responsibilities, by having the perception of urgency, when people are more easily

persuaded and they take any advice as a hot tip.

2.8 Conclusion

When looking at all these constructs, we ask ourselves what causes consumers to

become enthusiastic and affectively committed advocates on behalf of their preferred

brands? At first glance, it might seem that all that product/service providers have to do

is to create satisfied customers. But eventually, the drivers of the various types of loyalty

behaviors will assert more influence on the process of becoming brand advocates.


A. Frasin

Chapter 3 – Empirical Research: Design and Methodology

3.1 Research Method

The empirical study was started with some observations, followed by formulation of the

hypotheses. In order to investigate the proposed hypotheses and to show the strength

of the relationships between them, a survey method was put in place. The survey model

was tested on customers of Philips Senseo, using as a source an internal NPS database.

They were asked to respond to a series of questions ranging from self-assessing their

level of influence in a group, their level of satisfaction with the product, the actual state

of their enthusiasm towards the product to answering socio-demographic inquiries.

The primary purpose of this study was to address the research question: How do

consumers become enthusiastic and affectively committed advocates for their preferred

brands? This study tested a newly proposed model of customer engagement that

examines how other variables move customers through the Kotler’s Customer

Development Process to become strong brand advocates.

Model and Hypotheses

This study examines how loyal customers (satisfied first-time and repeat customers)

transform into Super Promoters (i.e., advocates and partners for the brand). Past

research documents the connection between satisfaction and customers’ loyalty, and

later advocacy on behalf of the brand (Gustafsson, Johnson and Roos, 2005). Once a

customer is loyal, his or her likelihood of becoming an advocate may be shaped by

developing trust and affective commitment that motivate sharing behaviors. This

motivation, combined with a strong knowledge of the market, may drive customers to

be extraordinary supporters of the brand. The present study tests a model of the

customer process, where trust, affective commitment, and market knowledge mediate

the relationship between customer satisfaction and Super Promoter status (see Figure

9).


A. Frasin

Figure 9. Mediational customer advocacy model.

3.2 Questionnaire Design

Participants

Customers who purchased a Philips Senseo®, who previously registered their product

on the Customer Care web portal, and had responded to other questionnaires sent by

the company received an invitation to participate in the study. They were already

classified as loyal consumers (i.e. promoters with an NPS score of 9 and 10 in the Philips

database). Two hundred customers chose to participate and completed the survey.

Within the 200 participants, age ranged from 25 to 90 years old (M = 59.28, SD =

12.68), and gender was almost equally represented, with 45% (90) male participants

and 55% (110) female participants. The majority of participants had completed MBO

(56, 28%), followed by LBO/VMBO/MAVO (36, 18.0%), HBO (Bachelor; 36, 18.0%), and

HAVO/VWO (28, 14.0%). Some participants have only completed Geen/Basisschool (6,

3.0%), while others had completed WO (Master, PhD; 7, 3.5%). Almost all of the

participants either were currently unemployed (67, 33.5%) or had a vocational

occupation (63, 31.5%). While income levels ranged from less than €9,999 per year to

more than €100,000 per year, the most common income levels were €20,000 to €29,000

(26, 13.0%) and €30,000 to €39,999 (27, 13.5%).

Only loyal customers were included in the sample, as indicated by their ratings of how

likely they were to recommend Philips Senseo® to their friends, family, co-workers, and

Satisfaction Brand Advocates

Trust Affective Commitment

Market Knowledge


A. Frasin

acquaintances on a scale from 0 (extremely unlikely) to 10 (extremely likely).

Responses to this item were scored similarly to Net Promoter Score introduced by

Reichheld (2003), with consumers categorized as “Promoters” if they rate

recommendation likelihood as a 9 or 10, “Passives” with ratings of 7 or 8, or

“Detractors” with ratings from 0 to 6. All of the participants had NPS of 9 or 10, which

classifies the entire sample as Promoters (i.e., loyal customers). Past research has

highlighted the importance of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in generating loyal

customers (Gustafsson, Johnson, and Roos, 2005). Thus, concurrent validity of

participants’ NPS was demonstrated by high satisfaction (M = 3.70, SD = 1.26), trust (M

= 3.95, SD = 1.00), and affective commitment (M = 2.64, SD = 1.27) ratings, with the

majority of respondents giving agree or strongly agree ratings for trust (67%) and

satisfaction (61%).

Measures

Participants completed a 40-question online survey. First, participants provided their

background and demographic information, including their name, gender, date of birth,

highest level of education completed, profession, income level, email address, and

telephone number. They also responded to several items about their attitudes and

behaviors, to be used only for a descriptive profile of Super Promoters. Specifically,

participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with several

statements using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Examples of the questions include, “People ask me about information on new products,

places to shop, sales, or discounts,” “I can easily convince other people of my ideas,”

and “I am seen by others as an enthusiastic person.” They also selected the statement

that described them best among three options: “I take decisions based on my feelings,”

“I take decisions based on facts,” and “I take decisions by consulting other people.”

They also provided information about their online and social networks (e.g., average

amount of hours spent online, number of contacts in their mobile phone, and number of

contacts on their social media accounts).

Sharing behaviors were measured using items asking about how and when participants

shared their enthusiasm about the Philips Senseo® with others. Specifically, they were

asked: (a) With whom do you share your enthusiasm about your Senseo? (b) In which


A. Frasin

of the following situations have you recommended your Senseo? (c) Where you share

your enthusiasm about Senseo on the internet? and (d) their agreement with the

statement “I often share my opinions with others.” The sum of the number of different

groups of people, number of situations, number of online locations, and rating of

agreement indicated the participants’ degree of sharing behaviors (with missing values

replaced with 0 to permit the calculation of a sum).

Using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, participants rated

their agreement with the statement, “The quality of my Philips Senseo® meets my

expectations,” as measure of satisfaction, and, “I believe the brand Philips Senseo® is

trustworthy and keeps its promises,” as a measure of trust. To measure enthusiasm,

participants were asked if they are “more or less enthusiastic about [their] Senseo than

when [they] started using the product” (with less enthusiastic scored as -1, just as

enthusiastic scored as 0, and more enthusiastic scored as 1), and their level of

agreement with the statements, “I like talking about new products with my friends,” and

“I am seen by others as an enthusiastic person” (both scored on a 5-point Likert scale

from strongly disagree to strongly agree). The sum of 3 item responses indicated

enthusiasm level. All missing responses were replaced with a value of 0 to permit the

calculation of a sum for enthusiasm.

Three types of commitment were measured, affective, normative, and continuance,

using participant agreement ratings with 3 statements: “I feel emotionally attached to

the brand Philips Senseo,” “I am satisfied with my Philips Senseo because of its features

(design, ease of use, speed of preparation),” and “I have the feeling that Philips Senseo

is the only brand I can buy when I want to buy a coffee machine”), respectively. Only

the rating for affective commitment was used in this study, as normative commitment is

conceptually redundant with customer satisfaction, and continuance commitment is not

relevant to the theoretical examination of the behavior and characteristics of Super

Promoters.

Opinion leadership (a component of influence) was measured by the sum of the ratings

for 8 items: “People ask me about information on new products, places to shop, sales,

or discounts,” “People think of me as a good source of information when it comes to


A. Frasin

new products or sales,” “I am a person who knows a lot about products and likes to help

people by sharing this info with others,” “In a group, I am often the central point,” “I

can easily convince other people o my ideas,” “In discussions about Philips Senseo, I

convince my friends of my ideas,” “Out of all these people, what percentage do you

think would/did by a Senseo, following your recommendations?” (coded as “0” for less

than 1% and “1” for 1% or more), and “Do you think you would/did play an important

role in other people’s decision to buy a Senseo?” (coded “0” for did not play a role and

“1” for played a role in at least one person’s decision). All missing responses were

replaced with a value of 0 to permit the calculation of a sum for opinion leadership.

Market knowledge (another component of influence) was measured by the sum of the

ratings on 3 items: “Compared to my circle of friends, I am very likely to be asked about

coffee machines,” “In general, I talk to my friends about coffee machines,” and “When I

talk about coffee machines, I give a great deal of information. All variables, together

with their respective questions, are summarized in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Overview of the variables employed in the survey

SatisfactionThe quality of my Philips Senseo® meets my expectations

TrustI believe the brand Philips Senseo® is trustworthy and

keeps its promises

CommitmentI feel emotionally attached to the brand Philips Senseo®

I am satisfied with my Philips Senseo® because of its features (design, ease of use, speed of preparation)

I have the feeling that Philips Senseo® is the only brand I can buy when I want to buy a coffee machine

Loyalty (NPS score)How likely are you to recommend Philips Senseo® to your

friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances?

Enthusiasm

Sharing/WOM

Influence/Opinion Leadership

Influence/ Market knowledgeI like talking about new products with my friends

I am seen by others as an enthusiastic person

Are you more or less enthusiastic about your Senseo® than when you started using this product?

Where do you share your enthusiasm about Senseo® on the internet?

In which of the following situations have you recommended your Senseo®?

With whom do you share your enthusiasm about your Senseo®?

People ask me about information on new products, places to shop, sales or discounts

How did you become a Senseo® owner?

People think of me as a good source of information when it comes to new products or sales

I am a person who knows a lot about products and likes to help people by sharing this info with others

In a group I am often the central point

I can easily convince other people of my ideas

I often share my opinions with others

In discussions about Philips Senseo®, I convince my friends of my ideas

Out of all these people, what percentage do you think would/did buy a Senseo®, following your recommendation?

Do you think you would/did play an important role in other people’s decision to buy a Senseo®?

Compared to my circle of friends, I am very likely to be asked about coffee machines

In general, I talk to my friends about coffee machines

When I talk to my friends about coffee machines, I give a great deal of information


A. Frasin

3.3 Data Collection

Participants received an email inviting them to participate in the study, with the link to

the survey online. The introductory page of the survey explained to the participants the

purpose of the study, the estimated time needed to participate, and noted the risks and

benefits of participation before asking if they were willing to participate. People who

agreed to participate were presented with the survey items. After completing the survey

item, participants received a debriefing statement.


A. Frasin

Chapter 4 – Empirical Research: Data Analysis

To summarize again the double purpose of this thesis study, the 2 main questions ask

about a set of criteria that would enable companies to identify the Super Promoters from

their database of loyal consumers and investigate the mediational relationship between

satisfaction, trust, affective commitment and market knowledge in relation with Super

Promoter status.

1. What criteria, according to the Super Promoter methodology

(Vogelaar, 2011) could be used to classify Super Promoters as such,

by selecting them from a pool of loyal consumers?

2. Can the Super Promoter status be explained a proposed mediational

customer advocacy model, including Satisfaction, Trust, Affective

Commitment and Market Knowledge (see Figure 4)?

(a) How does Satisfaction predict Super Promoter status?

(b) How does Satisfaction predict each of the other mediators: trust, affective

commitment and market knowledge?

(c) What is the relationship between each of the moderators and Super

Promoter status?

(d) Are the 3 variables Trust, Affective Commitment and Market Knowledge

mediating the relationship between Satisfaction and Super Promoter

status?

(e) Which one of them is a better predictor of Super Promoter status?

To answer the first question and establish the Super Promoter status, a classification

method that depended upon the three pillars established by past research has been

used: enthusiasm, sharing, and influence (Vogelaar, 2011). A participant was considered

a Super Promoter if he or she was in the top 25% of scores for each of the three

constructs of enthusiasm, opinion leadership and sharing. A total of 12% (24


A. Frasin

respondents out of the total of 200 participants) met the criteria for this category. These

people were coded with 1, while the rest of the respondents with 0 (Table 1).

Table 1. Super Promoter classification table

]

Observed Predicted

SuperPromoter Percentage

Correct .00 1.00

Step 1 SuperPromoter

.00 162 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 .0

Overall Percentage 87.1

a. The cut value is .500

To answer the second question, together with its underlying sub-questions, by using

Baron & Kenny’s (1986) approach to mediational analysis, direct mediation effects were

tested in four steps:

logistic regression analysis with satisfaction predicting Super Promoter status,

regression analyses with satisfaction predicting each of the mediators, including

trust, affective commitment, and market knowledge,

logistic regression analyses with each of the mediators predicting Super Promoter

status, and

multiple regression analysis with satisfaction, trust, affective commitment, and

market knowledge predicting Super Promoter status.

First, Table 2 shows a binary logistic regression established satisfaction as a significant

predictor Super Promoter status, χ2(1) = 6.016, p = .014 (-2 Log Likelihood = 137.034,

Cox & Snell R2 = .032, Nagelkerke R2 = .059). People with higher levels of satisfaction

were more likely to be Super Promoters (B = .497, SE = .224, Wald (1) = 4.913, p =

.027). The model with satisfaction alone predicts 87.1% of the Super Promoter statuses

correctly.


A. Frasin

Table 2. Satisfaction as a predictor of Super Promoter status

Chi-square df Sig.

Step 6.016 1 .014

Block 6.016 1 .014

Model 6.016 1 .014

Model Summary

Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square

1 137.034a .032 .059

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for

EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1a Satisfaction .497 .224 4.913 1 .027 1.644 1.059 2.552

Constant -3.880 .967 16.108 1 .000 .021

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Satisfaction.

Second, simple regressions demonstrated that satisfaction significantly predicted each of

the mediators, including trust in Table 3 (β = .711, t(1)¬ = 13.65, p < .001), affective

commitment in Table 4 (β = .334, t(1)¬ = 4.78, p < .001), and market knowledge in

Table 5 (β = .205, t(1)¬ = 2.80, p = .006). People with higher levels of satisfaction

tended to have higher levels of trust, affective commitment, and market knowledge.


A. Frasin

Table 3. Dependent Variable: Trust

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 1.821 .164 11.094 .000

Satisfaction - The quality of

my Philips Senseo® meets

my expectations

.571 .042 .711 13.650 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Trust - I believe the brand Philips Senseo® is trustworthy and keeps its promises

Table 4. Dependent variable: Affective Commitment

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 1.382 .278 4.965 .000



my expectations

.339 .071 .334 4.775 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Commitment (Affective)

Table 5. Dependent variable: Market Knowledge

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 5.730 .661 8.666 .000



my expectations

.474 .169 .205 2.800 .006

a. Dependent Variable: MarketKnowledge


A. Frasin

Third, further logistic regressions examined the relationship between each mediator and

Super Promoter status. Trust in Table 6, χ2(1) = 12.257, p < 001 (87.0% correct

classification), affective commitment in Table 7, χ2(1) = 7.367, p = .007 (87.0% correct

classification), and market knowledge in Table 8, χ2(1) = 42.092, p < .001 (91.2%

correct classification) significantly predicted Super Promoter status. People were more

likely to be Super Promoters if they have higher levels of trust (B = .998, SE = .333,

Wald (1) = 8.975, p = .003), affective commitment (B = .477, SE = .182, Wald (1) =

6.909, p = .009), or market knowledge (B = .564, SE = .108, Wald (1) = 27.311, p <

.001).

Table 6. Trust as a predictor of Super Promoter status

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1

Step 12.257 1 .000

Block 12.257 1 .000

Model 12.257 1 .000

Classification Tablea

Observed Predicted


Correct .00 1.00


.00 161 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 .0





EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1a Trust .998 .333 8.975 1 .003 2.714 1.412 5.215

Constant -6.146 1.512 16.531 1 .000 .002

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Trust.


A. Frasin

Table 7. Affective commitment as a predictor of Super Promoter status


Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1

Step 7.367 1 .007

Block 7.367 1 .007

Model 7.367 1 .007


Observed Predicted


Correct .00 1.00


.00 161 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 .0





EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1a Commitment .477 .182 6.909 1 .009 1.612 1.129 2.301

Constant -3.296 .620 28.259 1 .000 .037

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Commitment.


A. Frasin

Table 8. Market Knowledge as a predictor of Super Promoter status


Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1

Step 42.092 1 .000

Block 42.092 1 .000

Model 42.092 1 .000


Observed Predicted


Correct .00 1.00


.00 168 2 98.8

1.00 15 9 37.5





EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1a MarketKnowledge .564 .108 27.311 1 .000 1.758 1.423 2.173

Constant -7.078 1.120 39.911 1 .000 .001

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: MarketKnowledge.

Lastly, the final step in the mediation analysis was a logistic regression including

satisfaction and all three of the mediators. The hypothesis that trust, affective

commitment, and market knowledge would mediate the relationship between customer

satisfaction and Super Promoter status was supported. Satisfaction significantly

predicted Super Promoter status in the first model, which excluded the mediators, but

was no longer a significant predictor once the mediators were added to the model.

A logistic regression with satisfaction and trust predicting Super Promoter status in Table

9 (χ2(2) = 12.203, p = .002) found that satisfaction was fully mediated (determined by

comparing the significance of the predictor without the mediator in the model, B = .497,

SE = .224, Wald (1) = 4.913, p = .027, to the significance of the predictor with the

mediator in the model, B = -.015, SE = .275, Wald (1) = .003, p = .955).


A. Frasin

The lack of significance of satisfaction as a predictor when affective commitment (χ2(2)

= 9.743, p = .008, B = .344, SE = .232, Wald (1) = 2.199, p = .138) and market

knowledge (χ2(2) = 44.724, p < .001, B = .225, SE = .235, Wald (1) = .920, p = .337)

were in the model are evidence of full mediation for those variables, as well.

Trust (B = 1.007, SE = .418, Wald (1) = 5.790, p = .016), affective commitment (B =

.373, SE = .190, Wald (1) = 3.837, p = .05) and market knowledge (B = .562, SE =

.113, Wald (1) = 24.872, p < .001) remained significant predictors of Super Promoter

status, further supporting their roles as mediators.

Table 9. Satisfaction and Trust as predictors of Super Promoter status


Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1

Step 12.203 2 .002

Block 12.203 2 .002

Model 12.203 2 .002


B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 1a

Satisfaction -.015 .275 .003 1 .955 .985

Trust 1.007 .418 5.790 1 .016 2.737

Constant -6.114 1.507 16.466 1 .000 .002

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Satisfaction, Trust.


A. Frasin

Table 10. Satisfaction and Affective Commitment as predictors of Super Promoter

status


Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1

Step 9.743 2 .008

Block 9.743 2 .008

Model 9.743 2 .008



Step 1a

Satisfaction .344 .232 2.199 1 .138 1.411

Commitment .373 .190 3.837 1 .050 1.452

Constant -4.351 1.001 18.898 1 .000 .013

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Satisfaction, Commitment.

Table 11. Satisfaction and Market Knowledge as predictors of Super Promoter status


Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1

Step 44.724 2 .000

Block 44.724 2 .000

Model 44.724 2 .000



Step 1a

Satisfaction .225 .235 .920 1 .337 1.253

MarketKnowledge .562 .113 24.872 1 .000 1.753

Constant -7.800 1.381 31.897 1 .000 .000

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Satisfaction, MarketKnowledge.

To examine whether one of the mediators was more or less influential than the others, a

multiple logistic regression included satisfaction and all of the mediators together in

Table 12, rather than in separate analyses, χ2(1) = 48.099, p < .001 (-2 Log Likelihood

= 93.264, Cox & Snell R2 = .234, Nagelkerke R2 = .431). The model predicted 88.3% of

the Super Promoter statuses correctly. As with the regressions with the individual

mediators, satisfaction was fully mediated (B = -.105, SE = .320, Wald (1) = .107, p =


A. Frasin

.743) by trust (B = .838, SE = .479, Wald (1) = 3.065, p = .080), affective commitment

(B = -.188, SE = .245, Wald (1) = .588, p = .443), and market knowledge (B = .578, SE

= .122, Wald (1) = 22.525, p < .001).

Although trust, affective commitment, and market knowledge all significantly predicted

Super Promoter status when examined alone, trust and affective commitment were no

longer significant predictors when all three of mediators were in the model. When the

mediational effects of trust, commitment, and market knowledge were combined,

market knowledge was the strongest mediator, above and beyond the effects of the

other mediators.

Table 12. Satisfaction, Trust, Affective Commitment and Market Knowledge as

predictors of Super Promoter status


Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1

Step 48.099 4 .000

Block 48.099 4 .000

Model 48.099 4 .000

Model Summary

Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R

Square

Nagelkerke R

Square

1 93.264a .234 .431

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.


Observed Predicted


Correct .00 1.00


.00 150 6 96.2

1.00 15 9 37.5




A. Frasin



Step 1a

Satisfaction -.105 .320 .107 1 .743 .901

Trust .838 .479 3.065 1 .080 2.313

Commitment -.188 .245 .588 1 .443 .829

MarketKnowledge .578 .122 22.525 1 .000 1.782

Constant -9.649 1.904 25.671 1 .000 .000

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Satisfaction, Trust, Commitment, MarketKnowledge.


A. Frasin

Chapter 5 – Conclusions and recommendations

Academic implications The hypothesized model with trust, affective commitment, and market knowledge

mediating the relationship between satisfaction and Super Promoter status was

supported. Satisfaction did not predict Super Promoter status, once the mediators were

accounted for. Rather, high satisfaction predicted higher levels of trust, commitment,

and market knowledge, which then predicted Super Promoter status. These findings

suggest that the transformation from loyal customer to Super Promoter takes more than

just satisfaction. Although satisfaction has been linked to advocacy in past research by

Anderson (1998), Brown et al. (2005), Swan et al. (1989), this study demonstrates that

loyal customers’ satisfaction contributes to their development of strong trust and

affective commitment to the brand, along with knowledge about the market. The

combination of high levels of trust, affective commitment, and market knowledge

encourages them to become Super Promoters. Managers today are in need of a different

method to measure how content their consumers are, besides only satisfaction or

market share. They need to measure their enthusiasm in a more accurate way, to make

sure the consumers are returning, they are happy and they share their positive feelings

with people around, recruiting more consumers.

Further, market knowledge appears to be especially important in the path to becoming a

Super Promoter. Market knowledge gives the consumer the title of market maven –

he/she can influence others’ opinions and behavior via the information possessed.

Managerial implications Advocates are incredible creators of reliable information and they influence opinions and

purchases of their friends. They love to help others, but they also like to be recognized

for it. They talk about their preferences, they are making decisions based on feelings or

reason and are willing to solve problems. They will be thankful you asked, appreciative

you have connected with them further and grateful for ongoing support and respect. A

company can look for them, give them exclusive membership to an advocacy platform,


A. Frasin

offer them content that they can share with their audiences or use their knowledge for

co-creation purposes.

Future research Some limitations of the present study that come to mind might be that the paper has

been using a small sample size of only 200 respondents. As well, by selecting only loyal

customers opportunities might be missed in investigating what the passives (customers

with an NPS score of 7 or 8) need to become Super Promoters. Also, there is no

objective, established measure for classifying Super Promoters at this moment in

academic literature, no psychometrically-sound measures for satisfaction, or the rest of

the mediators. The analysis examines the direct effects of mediation, but not the indirect

effects. Another limitation of the study is that all responses given to the questionnaire

are based on self-perceived attitudes, rather than more objective measures. It appears

that a longitudinal design would be more appropriate for examining transformation or

changes from loyal customers to Super Promoters.

More research is needed to investigate which are the success factors of future WOM

communication, what are the conditions under which consumers make

recommendations, does WOM work equally well in all industries and products, how

reliable and valuable is electronic-WOM and is its effect similar to the one of traditional

WOM’s.

In the attempt of integrating the concepts in Kotler’s Customer Development process,

the framework in the present study can incorporate the following hypotheses for further

study (see Figure 8): Perceived quality and satisfaction links First-time customers and

Repeat customers; Loyalty links Repeat Customers to Clients; Trust and Affective

Commitment links Clients to Advocates; Co-creation links Advocates to Partners.


A. Frasin

List of Figures:

Figure 1. Brand advocacy word cloud Figure 2. Chapter overview Figure 3. Consumer Relationship Lifecycle (MCorp Consulting, 2011) Figure 4. Mediational customer advocacy model Figure 5. NPS formula Figure 6. WOM process (McKinsey, 2010) Figure 7. Consumer Development Process (Kotler, 1997) Figure 8. A conceptual framework for the process of engagement Figure 9. Mediational customer advocacy model Figure 10. Overview of the variables employed in the survey

List of Tables:

Table 1. Super Promoter classification table Table 2. Satisfaction as a predictor of Super Promoter status Table 3. Dependent Variable: Trust Table 4. Dependent variable: Affective Commitment Table 5. Dependent variable: Market Knowledge Table 6. Trust as a predictor of Super Promoter status Table 7. Affective commitment as a predictor of Super Promoter status Table 8. Market Knowledge as a predictor of Super Promoter status Table 9. Satisfaction and Trust as predictors of Super Promoter status Table 10. Satisfaction and Affective Commitment as predictors of Super Promoter status Table 11. Satisfaction and Market Knowledge as predictors of Super Promoter status Table 12. Satisfaction, Trust, Affective Commitment and Market Knowledge as predictors of Super Promoter status


A. Frasin

List of References

Aaker, D. A., (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalising on the value of a brand name. The Free Press, New York.

Ahearne, M., Bhattacharaya, C. B., and Gruen, T., (2005). Antecedents and Consequences of Customer–Company Identification: Expanding the Role of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 3, 574 –585.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., and Mazvancheryl, S. K., (2004). Customer Satisfaction and Shareholder Value. Journal of Marketing 68 (October), 172 – 185.

Anderson, E., (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research 1 (1), 5–17.

Arndt, J., (1967). Role of product related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research 4, 291–295.

Bansal, H., Irving, G., and Taylor, S., (2004). A three-component model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (3), 234–250.

Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A., (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173-1182.

Bearden, 0. W., and Teel, J. E., (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 20, 21-28.

Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H., and Glynn, M. A., (1995). Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museum Members. Journal of Marketing 59 (October), 46–57.

Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., and Wetzels, M., (1999). Linking perceived service quality and service loyalty: a multi-dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing 33 (11/12), 1082-106.

Bloemer, J., and Odekerken-Schroder, G., (2007). The psychological antecedents of enduring customer relationships. Journal of Relationship Marketing 6 (1), 21–43.

Bodet, G., (2008). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: two concepts, four constructs, several relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (1), 156–162.

Bontis, N., Booker, L., and Serenko, A., (2007). The mediating effect of organizational reputation on customer loyalty and service recommendation in the banking industry. Management Decision 45 (9), 1426–1445.


A. Frasin

Boulding, B., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., and Zeithaml, V., (1993). A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Marketing Research (February), 7-27.

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt B. H., and Zarantonello, L., (2009). Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?. Journal of Marketing 73 (May), 52- 68.

Brown, J. J., and Reingen, P. H., (1987). Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (3), 350-362.

Brown, T., Barry, T., Dacin, P., and Gunst, R., (2005). Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word of mouth intentions in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (2), 123–138.

Caruana, A., (2002). Service Loyalty: The Effects of Service Quality and the Mediating role of Customer Satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing 36 (7), 811-828.

Chiou, J. S., and Droge, C., (2006). Service Quality, Trust, Specific Asset Investment, and Expertise: Direct and Indirect Effects in a Satisfaction-Loyalty Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (4), 613-627.

Cronin, J. J., and Taylor, S. A., (1992). Measuring service quality: A Reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing 56, 55-68.

Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., and Hult, G.T.M., (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing 76(2), 193–218.

Dichter, E., (1966). How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works. Harvard Business Review, (November-December), 147-166.

Dick, P., and Basu, K., (1994). Customerl oyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Academy of Marketing Science Journal 22 (2), 99–113.

Feick, L. F., and Price, L. L., (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of market information. Journal of Marketing 51, 83–97.

Fetherstonhaugh, B., (2009). The 4Ps are out, the 4Es are in, retrieved July 22nd, 2012, from http://www.ogilvy.com/On-Our-Minds/Articles/the_4E_-are_in.aspx.

Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., and Mick, D., (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review 76 (January–February), 42–51.

Fournier, S., and Mick, D., (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 63 (special), 5–23.

Fullerton, G., (2010). Creating advocates: The roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

Fullerton, G., (2011). Creating advocates: the roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18, 92-100.


A. Frasin

Ganesh, J., Arnold, M., and Reynolds, K., (2000). Understanding the customer base of service providers: an examination of the differences between switchers and stayers. Journal of Marketing 64 (3), 65–88.

Garbarino, E., and Johnson, M., (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing 63 (2), 70–87.

Godes, D., Mayzlin, D., Chen, Y., Das, S., Dellarocas, C., Pfeiffer, B., Libai, B., and Sen, S., (2005). Marketing Letters 16 (3), 415-428.

Goldenberg, J., Barak, L., Muller, E., and Peres, R., (2006). Blazing Saddles: the Early and Mainstream Markets in the High-tech Product Life Cycle. Israel Economic Review 4, 85–108.

Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehman, D. R., and Hong, J. W., (2009). The role of hubs in the adoption process. Journal of Marketing 73(2), 1-13.

Gruca, T. S., and Rego, L. L., (2005). Customer Satisfaction, Cash Flow, and Shareholder Value. Journal of Marketing 69 (3), (July 2005), 1-130.

Gruen, T., Summers, J., and Acito, F., (2000). Relationship marketing activities, commitment and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of Marketing 64 (3), 34–49.

Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., and Mentzer, J. T., (1995). The Structure of Commitment in Exchange. Journal of Marketing 59 (January), 78-92.

Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., and Roos, I., (2005). The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention. Journal of Marketing 69 (October), 210–18.

Harrison-Walker, J., (2001).The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research 4 (1), 60–75.

Harrison-Walker, L. J., (2001). The Measurement of Word-of-Mouth Communication and an Investigation of Service Quality and Customer Commitment as Potential Antecedents. Journal of Service Research 4, 60-75.

Hennig-Thurau, T., and Klee, A., (1997). The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer retention: A critical reassessment and model development. Psychology and Marketing 14 (8): 737–764.

Hill, S., Provost, F., and Volinsky, C., (2006). Network based marketing: identifying likely adopters via consumer networks. Statistical Sciences 21 (2), 256–276.

Jones, T. O., and Sasser, W. E., Jr., (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard Business Review 73, 88-100.


A. Frasin

Keaveney, S., and Parthasarathy, M., (2001). Customer Switching Behavior in Online Services: An Exploratory Study of the Role of Selected Attitudinal, Behavioral, and Demographic Factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29 (4), 374-390.

Kotler, P., (1997). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International, 9th. Edition, 157.

Kozinets, R., (2001). Utopian enterprise: articulating the meanings of Star Trek’s culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1), 67–88.

Lee, J. S., and Back K. J., (2008). Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Management 29 (2)

Libai et al., (2010). Customer-to-Customer Interactions: Broadening the Scope of Word of Mouth Research. Journal of Service Research

Libai, B., Muller E., and Peres, R., (2009). The role of within-brand and cross-brand communications in competitive growth. Journal of Marketing 73 (3), 19-34.

Lusch, R. F., and Vargo, S. L., (2006). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory 6 (3), 281–288.

Matos, C., Henrique, J., and Rossi, C., (2007). Service recovery paradox: a meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research 10(1), 60-77.

Matos, C., Celso, A. de, and Vargas Rossi, A., (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Maxham, J. G. I., and Netemeyer, R. G., (2002a). A longitudinal study of complaining customers' evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal of Marketing 66(4), 57- 71.

Maxham, J. G. I., and Netemeyer, R. G., (2002)b. Modeling customer perceptions of complaint handling over time: The effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent. Journal of Retailing 78(4), 239-252.

Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J., and Soutar, G., (2007). Conceptualizing word of mouth activity, triggers and conditions: an exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing 41 (11/12), 1475–1494.

McKinsey (April 2010). A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved July 22nd, 2012, from https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/A_new_way_to_measure_word-of-mouth_marketing_2567.

MCorp Consulting, Consumer Relationship Lifecycle, retrieved July 22nd, 2012, from http://www.mcorpcx.com/understanding-touchpoints-customer-relationship-lifecycle.


A. Frasin

Meiners et al. (2010). The Renaissance of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: A 'New' Standard in Twenty-First Century Marketing Management?!. International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research 3 (2), 79-97.

Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L., (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 20–52.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., and Deshpande, R., (1992). Relationships between buyers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (3), 314–328.

Morgan, R., and Hunt, S., (1994). The commitment – trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (2), 20–38.

Muniz, A., and O’Guinn, T., (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (4), 412–432.

Oliver, R. L., (1999). Whence consumer loyalty?. Journal of Marketing 63, 33-34.

Oliver, R. L., (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer, New York: McGraw Hill.

Olsen, S. O., (2002). Comparative Evaluation and the Relationship between Quality, Satisfaction, and Repurchase Loyalty. Academy of Marketing Science 30 (3), 240-249.

Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W., Burkhard, K.A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., Demirkan, H., and Rabinovich, E., (2010). Moving forward and making a difference: Research priorities for the science of service. Journal of Service Research 13 (1), 23.

Palmatier, R., Dant, R., Grewal, D., and Evans, K., (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing 70 (4), 136–173.

Pappu, R., and Quester, P., (2006). A consumer-based method for retailer equity measurement: Results of an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (5), 317-329.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L., (1994). Reassessment of Expectations As A Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research. Journal of Marketing 58 (Jan), 1, 111-124.

Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T., (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ranaweera, C., and Prabhu, J., (2003). The Influence of Satisfaction, Trust, and Switching Barriers on Customer Retention in a Continuous Purchasing Setting. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14 (3/4), 374-395.

Rego, L. L., Billet, M. T., and Morgan, N. A., (2009). Consumer-Based Brand Equity and Firm Risk. Journal of Marketing 73 (November 2009), 47–60.


A. Frasin

Reichheld, F., and Markey Jr., R. G., (2000). The loyalty effect – The relationship between loyalty and profits. European Business Journal 12(3), 134.

Reichheld, F., (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review 81 (December), 46–54.

Reichheld, F., (2006). The microeconomics of customer relationships. Sloan Management Review 47 (2), 73–78.

Richins, M.L., (1983). Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study. Journal of Marketing 47 (Winter), 68-78.

Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., and Zeithaml, V. A., (2004). Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to focus Marketing Strategy. Journal of Marketing 68, 109-127.

Shi, M., and Verlegh, P., (2005). The Firm’s Management of Social Interactions.

Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., and Hoyer, W. D., (2009). Consumer advisors revisited: What drives those with market mavenism and opinion leadership and why? Journal of Consumer Behavior.

Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K., and Webster, C., (1998). Wordof-Mouth Communications: A Motivational Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research 25, 527–531.

Swan, J., and Oliver, R., (1989). Post purchase communications by consumers. Journal of Retailing 65 (4), 516–563.

Szymanski, D., and Henard, D., (2001). Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29 (1), 16–35.

Verhoef, Peter C., (2003). Understanding the Effect of Customer Relationship Management Efforts on Customers Retention and Customers Share Development. Journal of Marketing.

Verlegh et al., (2008). What drives Word of Mouth: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective. Advances in Consumer Research 35.

Vogelaar, R., (2011). The Super Promoter. The power of Enthusiasm, Palgrave Macmillan.

Wangenheim, F.,and Bayon, T., (2004). Satisfaction, loyalty and word of mouth within the customer base of a utility provider: differences between stayers, switchers and referral switchers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 3 (3), 211–220.

Watts, D.J., and Dodds, P.S., (2007). Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation. Journal of Consumer Research 34(4), 441-458.

Westbrook, R., (1987). Product/consumption based affective responses and post-purchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3), 258–270.


A. Frasin

White, S., and Schneider, B., (2000). Climbing the commitment ladder: the role of expectations disconfirmation and on customers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Service Research 2 (3), 240–253.

WOMMA (2008). An Introduction to WOM Marketing with Definitions, retrieved July 22nd, 2012, from http://www.womma.org/wom101.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., and Parasuraman, A., (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 31–46.


A. Frasin

Appendix A: Survey Design

Page: 1

You and Your Senseo®

Dear Senseo® owner,

Thank you for purchasing Philips Senseo®!

Now that you have had time to use it, we'd love to know more about you and what Senseo®

means to you!

Would you mind taking 10 minutes to complete this survey? Just imagine the smell and taste of the coffee your Senseo makes and answer our questions.

Because we value your opinion, we would like to give you the best experience with our products.

Thank you and we look forward to hearing your opinion.

To open the survey please click on the link below.

Kind regards,

Philips Consumer Lifestyle

Start

Page: 2

You and Your Senseo®


A. Frasin

First, we would like to find out a little more about you:

1.

Please indicate your name:

2

Please indicate your gender: *

Man

Woman

3.

What is your year of birth? *


A. Frasin

4.

To what extent do you agree to these general statements?

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

I like talking about new products with my

friends

People ask me about information on new

products, places to shop, sales or discounts

People think of me as a good source of information when it comes to new products

or sales

I am a person who knows a lot about

products and likes to help people by sharing this info with others

5.

To what extent do these sentences apply to you?


In a group I am often the central point

I can easily convince other people of my ideas

I often share my opinions with others

I am seen by others as an enthusiastic person

6.

What describes you best?

I take decisions based on my feelings

I take decisions based on facts

I take decisions by consulting other people


A. Frasin

7.

Looking at coffee machines, to what extent do you agree to the following statements?


Compared to my circle of friends, I am very

likely to be asked about coffee machines

In general, I talk to my friends about coffee machines

When I talk to my friends about coffee

machines, I give a great deal of information

Part 1/7

Page: 3

Let's move further with some questions related to you and your Philips Senseo:

8.

How likely are you to recommend Philips Senseo® to your friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances? *

0 Extremely unlikely

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely likely


A. Frasin

9.

Tell us in a few words what makes you enthusiastic about Philips Senseo®?

10.

With whom do you share your enthusiasm about your Senseo®?

My close circle of friends

My family

People at work

Everyone I meet

My Facebook contacts

My Twitter followers

My blog readers

Other:

With no one

11.

In which of the following situations have you recommended your Senseo®?

In pub/bar/restaurant conversations

At (birthday) parties

At work

At home

During sporting activities

On the internet

Other circumstances?

I haven't recommended


A. Frasin

12.

Where do you share your enthusiasm about Senseo® on the internet?

On Hyves

On FaceBook

On LinkedIn

On Twitter

On MySpace

On Flickr

On YouTube

On Foursquare

On blogs

On forums

On Amazon

Other:

I don't share anything on the Internet

Part 2/7

Page: 4

13.

How did you become a Senseo® owner?

By my own choice

Following others' recommendation

My partner has bought it

I received it as a gift

14.

Are you more or less enthusiastic about your Senseo® than when you started using

this product?


A. Frasin

More enthusiastic

Just as enthusiastic

Less enthusiastic

15.

Can you tell us why?

16.

In the last 6 months, how many times have you recommended Philips Senseo®?

17.

Out of all these people, what percentage do you think would/did buy a Senseo®, following your recommendation?

18.

Do you think you would/did play an important role in other people’s decision to buy a

Senseo®?

Yes, because people generally ask for my advice

Yes, because I communicate in a convincing way

Yes, because I give advice even if not asked for

Yes, because people see I own one

Yes, because:

No

Part 3/7

http://thesistools.com/sys/overview.php?ln=en&userID=112031&formID=213527&questionID=1667566


A. Frasin

Page: 5

Below you can see some statements other people have made in relation to Senseo®. We would like to see how much you agree with each of them.

19.

How strongly do you agree with the following statements?


I believe the brand Philips Senseo® is trustworthy and keeps its promises

The quality of my Philips Senseo® meets

my expectations

I feel emotionally attached to the brand

Philips Senseo®

I am satisfied with my Philips Senseo® because of its features (design, ease of use,

speed of preparation)

I have the feeling that Philips Senseo® is

the only brand I can buy when I want to buy a coffee machine

In discussions about Philips Senseo®, I

convince my friends of my ideas

Part 4/7



A. Frasin

Page: 6

20.

Did you show or explain to other people how Philips Senseo® works (design, ease of

use, taste of coffee) ?

Yes, in conversations

Yes, when friends are visiting my home

Yes, via mobile phone

Yes, via internet (movies, images)

Yes, other ways:

No

21.

If yes, what were the positive points people made?

22.

If yes, what were the negative points people made?

23.

If yes, what were the questions people asked?

24.

Is there anything Philips should do differently to make more and more people

appreciate Senseo?


A. Frasin

Part 5/7

Page: 7 25.

What are three brands, no matter what product, that you are biggest fan of?

1.

2.

3.

26.

What could Senseo® learn from them?

27.

Do you own any other Philips products besides Senseo®? If yes, please mention which ones.

Yes:

No

Part 6/7



A. Frasin

Page: 8

Almost at the end! Please tell us more about you, by answering the final questions.

28.

On average, for how many hours/week do you surf the Internet for personal activities (excluding time spent reading and writing emails)?

29.

How many contacts do you have in your mobile phone?

1-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-250

251-500

500+

30.

How many contacts do you have on your social media accounts?

Hyves:

FaceBook:

LinkedIn:

Twitter following (contacts you are following):

Twitter followers (contacts following you):


A. Frasin

31.

What is your highest level of education?

WO (Master, PhD)

HBO (Bachelor)

HAVO/VWO

MBO

LBO/VMBO/MAVO

None/ basic education

32.

How would you describe your current employment status?

1. Niet werkzaam 2. Boer of tuiner

3. Eigenaar van een bedrijf 4. Vrij beroep

5. Hoger beroepsniveau

6. Middelbaar beroepsniveau 7. Lager beroepsniveau

33. What is your annual gross income?

1: < €9.999 Euro per year

2: €10.000 – €19.999 per year

3: €20.000 – €29.999 per year

4: €30.000 – €39.999 per year

5: €40.000 – €49.999 per year

6: €50.000 – €59.999 per year

7: €60.000 – €69.999 per year

8: €70.000 – €79.999 per year


A. Frasin

9: €80.000 – €89.999 per year

10: €90.000 – €99.999 per year

11: €100.000 per year or more

99. Prefer not to answer

34.

In the future can Philips contact you again and ask for your opinion to help

improving our products?

Yes

No

35.

Would you have any objections if we re-contact you by email? If not, please provide

us with an email address on which we can reach you.

No objections, my email address is

Yes, I object

36.

Would you have any objections if we re-contact you by phone? If not, please provide

us with a phone number on which we can reach you.

No objections, my phone number is

Yes, I object

37.

Do you have any questions or comments?

Finish questionnaire


A. Frasin

Appendix B: Survey results

Frequencies

Statistics

Sharing Enthusia

sm

OpinionLeaders

hip

N Valid 200 200 200 Missing 0 0 0

Mean 7.10 6.63 17.90 Std. Deviation 3.409 1.783 5.545 Percentiles 25 5.00 6.00 14.00

50 7.00 7.00 18.00

75 9.00 8.00 21.00

Frequencies

Statistics SuperProm

oter

N Valid 200

Missing 0

SuperPromoter

Frequency Percent

Valid Perce

nt

Cumulative

Percent

Valid .00 176 88.0 88.0 88.0

1.00 24 12.0 12.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Logistic


A. Frasin

Regression

Case Processing Summary

Unweighted Cases N Percent

Selected Cases

Included in Analysis

186 93.0

Missing Cases

14 7.0

Total 200 100.0 Unselected Cases 0 0.0 Total 200 100.0

Dependent Variable

Encoding

Original Value

Internal Value

.00 0 1.00 1

Block 0: Beginning Block

Classification Table

Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00


.00 162 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 0.0





A. Frasin

Step 0 Constant -1.910 .219

76.221

1 .000 .148

Variables not in the Equation

Score df Sig.

Step 0 Variables Satisfaction 5.274 1 .022

Overall Statistics 5.274 1 .022

Block 1: Method = Enter


Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1 Step 6.016 1 .014

Block 6.016 1 .014

Model 6.016 1 .014

Model Summary

Step -2 Log

likelihood Cox & Snell R

Square

Nagelkerke R

Square

1 137.034 .032 .059

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-

square df Sig.

1 .967 3 .809

Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

SuperPromoter = .00 SuperPromoter

= 1.00

Total

Observed Expected Obser

ved Expect

ed

Step 1 1 13 13.540 1 .460 14

2 24 23.679 1 1.321 25


A. Frasin

3 23 22.899 2 2.101 25

4 54 53.004 7 7.996 61

5 48 48.878 13 12.122 61


Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00


.00 162 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 0.0




95% C.I.for

EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1 Satisfaction

.497 .224 4.913 1 .027 1.644 1.059 2.55

2

Constant -3.880 .967

16.108

1 .000 .021

Regression

Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered

Variables Removed Method

1 Satisfaction - The quality of my Philips Senseo® meets my expectations

Enter


A. Frasin

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estim

ate

1 .711 .506 .503 .710

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df

Mean Squar

e F Sig.

1 Regression

93.814 1 93.81

4 186.31

1 .000

Residual 91.643 182 .504

Total 185.457 183

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardize

d Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant)

1.821 .164 11.094 .000

Satisfaction - The quality of my Philips Senseo® meets my expectations

.571 .042 .711 13.650 .000

Regression


A. Frasin





Enter

Model Summary



ate

1 .334 .111 .106 1.203

ANOVA


Mean Squar

e F Sig.

1 Regression

32.985 1 32.98

5 22.796 .000

Residual 263.342 182 1.447

Total 296.326 183

Coefficients

Model


Standardize

d Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant)

1.382 .278 4.965 .000


A. Frasin


.339 .071 .334 4.775 .000

Regression





Enter

Model Summary



ate

1 .205 .042 .037 2.889

ANOVA


Mean Squar

e F Sig.

1 Regression

65.438 1 65.43

8 7.842 .006

Residual 1493.744 179 8.345

Total 1559.182 180


A. Frasin

Coefficients

Model


Standardize

d Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant)

5.730 .661 8.666 .000


.474 .169 .205 2.800 .006

Logistic Regression



Selected Cases


185 92.5

Missing Cases

15 7.5


Dependent Variable

Encoding

Original Value

Internal Value

.00 0


A. Frasin

1.00 1



Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00


.00 161 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 0.0





75.666

1 .000 .149


Score df Sig.

Step 0 Variables Trust 9.763 1 .002




Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1 Step 12.257 1 .000


A. Frasin

Block 12.257 1 .000

Model 12.257 1 .000

Model Summary

Step -2 Log


Square

Nagelkerke R

Square

1 130.515 .064 .119


Step Chi-

square df Sig.

1 .470 2 .790



= 1.00

Total


ved Expect

ed

Step 1 1 16 15.800 0 .200 16

2 33 33.563 2 1.437 35

3 65 64.503 7 7.497 72

4 47 47.134 15 14.866 62


Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00


.00 161 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 0.0




95% C.I.for

EXP(B)

Lower Upper


A. Frasin

Step 1 Trust .998 .333 8.975 1 .003 2.714 1.412

5.215

Constant -6.146 1.512

16.531

1 .000 .002

Logistic Regression



Selected Cases


185 92.5

Missing Cases

15 7.5


Dependent Variable

Encoding

Original Value

Internal Value

.00 0 1.00 1



Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00

Step 0 .00 161 0 100.0


A. Frasin

SuperPromoter

1.00 24 0 0.0





75.666

1 .000 .149


Score df Sig.

Step 0 Variables Commitment 7.350 1 .007




Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1 Step 7.367 1 .007

Block 7.367 1 .007

Model 7.367 1 .007

Model Summary

Step -2 Log


Square

Nagelkerke R

Square

1 135.406 .039 .073


Step Chi-

square df Sig.


A. Frasin

1 1.648 3 .649



= 1.00

Total


ved Expect

ed

Step 1 1 45 45.297 3 2.703 48

2 31 31.016 3 2.984 34

3 48 48.482 8 7.518 56

4 27 24.801 4 6.199 31

5 10 11.405 6 4.595 16


Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00


.00 161 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 0.0




95% C.I.for

EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1 Commitment

.477 .182 6.909 1 .009 1.612 1.129 2.30

1

Constant -3.296 .620

28.259

1 .000 .037

Logistic Regression




A. Frasin

Selected Cases


194 97.0

Missing Cases

6 3.0


Dependent Variable

Encoding

Original Value

Internal Value

.00 0 1.00 1



Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00


.00 170 0 100.0

1.00 24 0 0.0





80.607

1 .000 .141


Score df Sig.

Step 0 Variables MarketKnowledge 39.981 1 .000


A. Frasin




Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1 Step 42.092 1 .000

Block 42.092 1 .000

Model 42.092 1 .000

Model Summary

Step -2 Log


Square

Nagelkerke R

Square

1 103.119 .195 .370


Step Chi-

square df Sig.

1 6.764 6 .343



= 1.00

Total


ved Expect

ed

Step 1 1 22 21.900 0 .100 22

2 26 26.689 1 .311 27

3 27 26.344 0 .656 27

4 25 23.951 0 1.049 25

5 15 15.785 2 1.215 17

6 26 26.424 4 3.576 30

7 13 15.348 6 3.652 19


A. Frasin

8 16 13.559 11 13.441 27


Observed

Predicted


Correct

.00 1.00


.00 168 2 98.8

1.00 15 9 37.5




95% C.I.for

EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1 MarketKnowledge

.564 .108 27.31

1 1 .000 1.758 1.423

2.173

Constant -7.078 1.120

39.911

1 .000 .001

the journey from loyalty to brand advocacy

Documents