1

Customer Satisfaction, Share of Wallet and Customer Loyalty

Is this the key to growth?

Author: John Edwards

Macquarie University

9 June 2013

=========================================================================

INTRODUCTION This paper compares and contrasts the two research articles published by Cooil (2007) and

Kumar (2013), on the subject of customer satisfaction, share of wallet and customer loyalty.

Cooil examines the effect of customer characteristics on the relationship between

satisfaction and share of wallet, in a 5 year longitudinal quantitative study of 4,319 Canadian

households based on their banking relationship. Kumar, in contrast, reviews the existing

literature to highlight the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. Kumar

develops a range of generalisations (not hypotheses as in the Cooil study), and makes

recommendations for further research, largely based on his own research.

As Cooil and Kumar both acknowledge, satisfaction is a multidimensional concept which has

been extensively viewed differently by many scholars around the world. After an extensive

review of literature on customer satisfaction, share of wallet and loyalty by Kumar and cited

by Cooil in his study, two main views emerged on the satisfaction-loyalty relationship. The

first perspective considers satisfaction as the main driver of customer loyalty (Cronin, 2000;

Fornell 1992; Hallowell 1996; Heitmam, 2007; Mittal and Kamakura 2001; Olsen 2007;

Szymanski and Henard 2001).

2

The second view considers that customer satisfaction may positively influence customer

loyalty but it is not sufficient to form loyalty (Kim, 2004; Oliver 1999; Olsen, 2007; Reichheld,

2000; Suh and Yi, 2006).

Many industries have become a battle ground for a share of the customer’s wallet.

Relationship marketing programs are important tools for driving customer retention in

many industries, including banks, telecommunications, insurance airlines, credit card

companies, retail and hotel chains are all focusing on obtaining more products, services,

accounts from their existing customer base (Perkins-Munn, 2005).

The goal of these programs is to enhance and reinforce customer relationships by offering

high value services and products to profitable market segments (Kumar and Shah, 2004).

This paper focuses on two main dimensions of loyalty, namely attitudinal loyalty and share

of wallet, and their relationship. Attitudinal loyalty reflects the consumer’s psychological

attachment towards a particular provider or brand (Oliver, 1999), whereas share of wallet

reflects the consumer’s brand level spending within a product category (Baumann, Burton

and Elliot, 2005). An understanding of the attitudinal component of loyalty is crucial since it

has been shown to be linked to enhanced word-of-mouth recommendations (Reichheld,

2003), and ultimately to customer profitability (Reinartz and Kumar, 2002).

METHODOLOGY

The methodology use by the authors was determined by their research questions and

approach. Due to the differences in research questions and aims, two different

methodology approaches were adopted.

3

In Cooils’ case, his aim was to conduct a longitudinal study of the impact of changes in

customer satisfaction on changes in customers share of wallet and determine the

moderating effects of key variables such as: age, income, education, expertise, and tenure.

Cooil collected data from a Canadian National panel study over 5 years, where 10,000

households were surveyed annually, on all financial products of their banking institution.

He ended up using a large sample size of 4,319 households with 12,249 observations.

The authors applied a two-level linear latent class regression model to predict annual

changes in the share of wallet per Canadian household with each financial institution.

To test the conditional percentile changes in satisfaction, the Likert scale units were

adopted on a 4 point semantic scale (satisfied to a dissatisfied customer).

In Kumar’s article in the Journal of Retailing, he and his co-authors review the existing

literature on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Interestingly, while this was a very ranging

literature review on this topic, and thus not specific to retailing, this article got published in

a Journal of Retailing. His focus was on analysing the literature on customer satisfaction in

explaining and predicting customer loyalty. The methodology was all qualitative in nature,

and as one of the world’s top marketing scholars, his analysis and recommendations, will be

accepted. Lesser known scholars need to adopt a more scientific and rigorous quantitative

evidence to reaffirm their argument.

No hypotheses were developed, which is common for any research-based academic paper,

but a list of ten empirical generalisations, to further guide the reader on further

understanding and researching this topic.

4

THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND DISCUSSION

The theoretical background into customer satisfaction, share of wallet and loyalty is

incorporated with an extensive review of the literature and discussion of the findings of the

Cooil (2007) quantitative study in the Canadian retail banking sector and Kumar’s (2013)

review study. While many of the articles the authors used and cited are commented on in

this paper, there are also some relevant publications not sited, but important to the

understanding of these topics, and are specifically noted in this section.

According to Mittal and Kamakura, customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction is one of the

core marketing concepts, which can be held responsible for any competitive advantage an

organisation can have (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001).

As Kumar and his colleagues noted in their extensive literature review, published in 2013,

many companies around the world monitor customer satisfaction on a continuous basis in

order to promote quality and make their companies more market oriented and competitive

(Fornell, 1992). A significant amount of resources are dedicated by companies to improve

their customer satisfaction. This is because satisfaction indicates the general health of the

organisation, its future prospects, and provides companies with many benefits including

forming customer loyalty, preventing customer churn, reducing marketing cost, and

enhancing business reputation (Fornell, 1992). Kumar acknowledges that many researchers

have investigated the link between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty along with its

impact on the profit of organisations (Reichheld, 2003).

5

However, Kumar inquires more and reviews the current literature to ask the following

research questions:

R1: Do we really know about the customer-satisfaction-loyalty link?

R1: Is customer satisfaction a good predictor of loyalty?

R1: Is it really worth investing in customer satisfaction is an effort to improve loyalty?

Cooil examines share of wallet, rather than retention or loyalty. There is a relationship

between these concepts but they are classified as different constructs in the literature. He

develops seven hypotheses to test in his research:

H1: The relationship between a change in customer satisfaction and a contemporaneous change in

current share of wallet is positive.

H2: The positive relationship between changes in share of wallet and changes in satisfaction depends on

the baseline satisfaction levels and differs by customer segment.

H3: The impact of a change in customer satisfaction on change in share of wallet increases with the

consumer’s age

H4: The impact of a change in customer satisfaction on change in share of wallet decreases with the

consumer’s income level.

H5: The impact of a change in customer satisfaction on change in share of wallet decreases with the as

the consumer becomes more educated.

H6: Higher levels of expertise are negatively associated with a change in share of wallet, after the effects

of other moderators are adjusted for.

The impact of a change in customer satisfaction on change in share of wallet decreases with higher

levels of consumer response.

H7: The impact of a change in customer satisfaction on change in share of wallet decreases with an

increase in the length of relationship between the consumer and the company.

Cooil highlights the importance of satisfaction in continuous buyer’s relationship (Oliver

1980). Pertinent to Kumar’s article published in the highly rated Journal of Retailing, but not

presented in his study, Ganesan (1994) found that a retailer’s satisfaction with past

outcomes is significantly related to the retailer’s long-term orientation. Similarly, in a retail

sales setting, Swan and Trawick (1981) found that satisfaction determines a customer’s

anticipation of future behaviour to patronise a retail store. Further, Ping (1993) found that

satisfaction is positively associated with re-purchase intentions in a service setting.

6

Also, both Cooil and Kumar discovered and reported, many scholars have researched on the

impact of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty in many different settings. For example,

Patterson and Spreng (1997) found a positive relationship between satisfaction and re-

purchase intentions in a consulting firm. Cronin and Taylor (1992) found a positive

relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in four different service

industries. Taylor and Baker (1994) reported a positive relationship between customer

satisfaction and loyalty in a context of long distance communication. However several

important studies were missed by Cooil and Kumar, which address satisfaction constructs as

contained multiple facets in the setting of maintaining buyer relationships.

Scholars have studied where the “satisfaction” focus lies; is it satisfaction with the

salesperson and/or satisfaction with the firm? (Oliver and Swan, 1989). In the business-to-

consumer context, these authors found that future intention to deal with the same

salesperson when purchasing their next car was a function of satisfaction with the

salesperson.

Thus, satisfaction with the dealer was associated with increased product satisfaction. Other

authors found that satisfaction with the salesperson was associated with word-of- mouth,

increased share of purchase, satisfaction with the company, and increased loyalty to the

salesperson Reynolds and Beatty (1999). Also, scholars undertook research to explore the

factors predicting customer loyalty in retail banking in the short and long term (Baumann,

Burton, Elliott and Kehr, 2007). This is very relevant to the Cooil research, which focused on

the Canadian retail banking market measuring the relationship between customer

satisfaction and share of wallet.

7

Also worth noting is the effect of customer’s satisfaction with the salesperson on buyer

relationship has received less attention in the business-to-business (B2B) setting. Within a

business-to-business (B2B) service context, “If a buyer is not satisfied or committed to the

salesperson, then he/she may begin the process of searching for a new supplier” (Bove &

Johnson, 2001).

As Cooil and Kumar both acknowledge, satisfaction is a multidimensional concept which has

been viewed differently by different researchers. Homburg and Gierin (2001) explicate that

satisfaction can be perceived on different levels, e.g. satisfaction with the product itself,

satisfaction with the sales process, and satisfaction with after sales service.

Satisfaction with the product includes consumer’s evaluation of the product performance,

satisfaction with the sales process includes interactions between sales personnel and

consumers, and satisfaction with after sales service includes quality of service and the

experience with the service provider. Also, the majority of research examines satisfaction on

a product level, and less attention has been given to areas like brand, store and sales

personnel (Carpenter and Fairhurst, 2005).

As noted by Cooil, but not Kumar, many scholars have defined satisfaction based on Oliver’s

(1980) paradigm. That is, satisfaction is the notion of the consumer comparison between

the expectation and performance (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). If the consumer is able to

compare between expectation and performance, it is called manifest satisfaction (Bloemer

and Kasper, 1995).

8

However, in some situations it could be quite difficult to compare or the consumers might

not be capable of forming expectations, evaluating performance, and comparing the two as

independent elements. In that situation, satisfaction is defined as latent satisfaction, which

is the result of an implicit evaluation (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995).

Both Cooil and Kumar explained in their articles that the satisfaction response can be

broken down into cognitive and affective components (Homburg and Gierin, 2001). When

consumers form pre-consumption expectations by observing the product or product

attributes performance and compare the performance with prior expectation, forming

perceptions, and compare those perceptions with expectations, cognitive satisfaction takes

place (Oliver, 1993). This cognitive element also includes equity and attribution; whereas,

the former is consumer perceived fair treatment and the later is consumers’ attribute

favourable outcomes to themselves, while unfavourable to others (Oliver, 1993).

On the other hand, affective component of satisfaction is based on post-purchase attributes

and includes positive affect on consumption and negative affect on consumption (Yu and

Dean, 2001).

These scholars explain the positive affect on consumption as success, whereas, the negative

affect on consumption as failure. These affects also include emotional components such as

happiness, surprise or disappointment (Yu and Dean ,2001).

Other authors mention that one of the major issues in the satisfaction research is that many

researchers concentrate on cognitive elements and do not include the affective component

of satisfaction (Strauss and Neuhaus, 1997).

9

However, as Kumar notes in his literature review, satisfaction is often viewed as a

cumulative satisfaction which reflects customers’ general impression of a product or service

performance (Homburg and Gierin, 2001; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). Cumulative

satisfaction includes multiple components such as product satisfaction (quality, price, or

brand name), interpersonal satisfaction (the salesperson trustworthiness, knowledge,

understanding customer, or after sales service), and performance satisfaction (delivery,

orientation, installation, or training) (Homburg and Gierin, 2001). Other scholars consider

cumulative satisfaction to be a better predictor of economic performance, behaviour and

customer loyalty (Olsen, 2007).

The current literature review by Kumar and cited by Cooil highlights numerous studies

concentrating on the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty (Homburg and Gierin

2001; Lam, 2004; Mittal and Kamakura 2001; Olsen 2002, Suh and Yi 2006; Szymanski and

Hernard 2001; Yang and Peterson 2004; Yu and Dean 2001). For example, scholars have

found that moving customers to a higher level of satisfaction helps to develop long-term

loyalty (Jones and Sasser, 1995). Similarly, other authors have found satisfaction to be a

leading factor in determining loyalty (Rust and Zahorik, 1995).

So after an extensive review of literature on customer satisfaction, share of wallet and

loyalty by Kumar and cited by Cooil in his study, two main views emerged on the

satisfaction-loyalty relationship.

10

The first assessment considers satisfaction as the main driver of customer loyalty (Cronin,

2000; Fornell, 1992; Hallowell, 1996; Heitmam, 2007; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001; Olsen,

2007; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). This group of scholars think that satisfaction positively

affects loyalty, willingness to recommend, and word of mouth. Satisfaction affects future

customer’s choices, which in turn leads to improved customer retention and ultimately

these customers want to continue their relationship and stay loyal to the company because

they are satisfied (Heitmann, 2007).

The second view considers that customer satisfaction may positively influence customer

loyalty but it is not sufficient to form loyalty (Bove & Johnson, 2001; Kim, 2004; Oliver 1999;

Olsen, 2007; Reichheld, 2000; Suh and Yi, 2006). According to these scholars, loyal

customers are satisfied but this satisfaction does not universally translate into loyalty and

the direct effect of satisfaction on loyalty varies among industries (Olsen, 2007). It is

reported by some researchers that even a loyal, satisfied customer is vulnerable to

situational factors such as competitors’ coupons or price cuts, therefore, satisfaction is not

likely to be the sole and reliable predictor of loyalty (Reichheld, 2000; Suh and Yi, 2006).

Therefore, the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is not

simple and straightforward because it is strongly influenced by the characteristics of the

customer such as variety-seeking, age, and income (Homburg and Gierin, 2001).

11

The complexity of the satisfaction-loyalty relationship is illustrated by: “Ultimate loyalty can

totally encompass satisfaction; satisfaction and loyalty can overlap, or satisfaction does not

transform to loyalty and can exist without it”, Oliver (1999). Overall, researchers agree that

when customers are completely satisfied, they are less likely to defect or switch, which

makes them loyal to the company (Strauss and Neuhaus, 1997).

There is an evident shift in the marketing arena from product-centric to customer-centric,

where the focus is more on building long term relationship with the customer rather than a

single transactional based relationship (Reinartz & Kumar, 2000). As a result of this, many

companies are exploring which customers are willing to share a greater piece of his or her

wallet (Keiningham, Perkins-Munn and Evans, 2003).

Share of wallet is defined as the total spending of a customer on a particular product of a

company in comparison to that of the spend on competitor’s product (Garland 2004). The

empirical research conducted on share of wallet appears to confirm the positive link

between customer satisfaction and share of wallet across various industries. Researchers in

different industries have found a positive relationship between satisfaction and share of

wallet for the following industry segments: fleet trucking (Perkins-Munn, 2005),

pharmaceutical (Perkins-Munn, 2005), institutional securities (Keiningham, 2005), processed

metals (Bowman and Narayandas, 2004), hotels (Noone, Kimes and Renaghan, 2003), banks

(Baumann, Burton, and Elliott, 2005; Garland, 2004; Mittal,2004), grocery retailing (Magi

2003; Silvestro and Cross, 2000), and apparel (Huff, 2002).

12

Share of wallet is considered an important indicator of the firm’s performance In the current

literature reported by Cooil and Kumar. Cooil, in his five year research study into Canadian

retail banking industry, argues that changes in customers’ levels of satisfaction are meant to

correspond with changes in customers’ share of wallet allocations. However, a lot of

research examining the relationship between satisfaction and share of wallet has

disregarded time-based effects and has relied almost exclusively on cross-sectional data,

resulting in complications in the estimations of the impact of changes in satisfaction on

share of wallet, over time.

Many researchers have tried to find out the background of share of wallet (Magi 2003;

Keiningham, Perkins-Munn and Evans 2003). For example, some scholars used customer

satisfaction as a forerunner of share of wallet (Magi 2003; Keiningham, Perkins-Munn and

Evans, 2003). Some scholars believe affective commitment plays a vital role in finding

customers’ contribution to the company (Verhoef 2003). Some authors highlight shopper

characteristics (Magi, 2003); product and service quality features (Odekerken-Schroder,

2003); loyalty programmes (Magi, 2003), and some scholars have investigated the role of

direct mail on customer share of wallet (Verhoef, 2003).

Cooil reports that share of wallet has been measured by either consumer own reports

(Odekerken-Schroder, 2003; Magi, 2003), or by using consumer own reports in combination

with a firm’s customer data (Verhoef, 2003).

13

Interestingly, other authors compared self-reported measures of share of wallet with

measures of repurchase intentions and concluded that self-reported measures may not be

reliable (Keiningham, Perkins-Munn and Evans, 2003).

In contrast to the Cooil’s Canadian bank study, which used regression model to predict

changes, other scholars used a multi-variant factor analysis model to predict share of wallet

(Du, Kamakura and Mela, 2005). They used the firm’s internal customer data with external

data; the internal data came from a bank, a sample of whose customers were also surveyed

about their business in ten different product categories at competing financial service

providers. Total outside balances and holdings in each category fulfilled the external data

requirement.

They modelled customer share of requirement in each of the ten categories, which were

then used to predict total share of wallet. Reviewing this from a retail industry perspective,

share of wallet refers to the share of a customer’s business that is obtained by a particular

retailer in a category (Magi, 2003). Cooil in his article explains that customers have divided

their share of wallet into multiple retailers. For example, most grocery shoppers have a

primary or focal store in which they make a large share of their purchase. However, the

extent to which they use other stores routinely, and consequently the share they devote to

the focal store, is known to vary widely (Kim and Lee, 2010).

14

This is why, retailers emphasise the importance and significance of share of wallet because

they need to know how their customers divide their category purchases across competing

stores and how they can increase their share of total category spending and patronage

(Meyer-Waarden, 2007). This important finding wasn’t mentioned in Kumar’s literature

review article.

As noted by Cooil, share of wallet has been constantly used by researchers to operationalise

loyalty behaviour (Bowman and Narayandas, 2004). However, Cooil argues the relationship

between share of wallet and customer satisfaction is a major research issue, because

previous studies (as referred to earlier) report a positive link between satisfaction and share

of wallet. This clearly contradicts the widespread recognition that high levels of customer

satisfaction do not necessarily translate into high levels of loyalty behaviour (Chitturi,

Raghunathan and Mahajan, 2008). One recent study concluded that 80% of customers who

switch retailers and brands classify themselves as satisfied (Arnold, 2005). These arguments

from the academic literature bring up some interesting questions. For example: Why do

satisfied customers share a portion of their wallet with another company or brand?

How can this separation of customers’ share of wallet be prevented? Kumar and Cooil didn’t

explain or cite the current marketing literature which explains how these questions are

being managed by organisations. Organisations need to focus more on creating a higher

level of emotional bond with their customers in order to sustain a steadfast loyalty. This is

due to the awareness and improvement in customers’ knowledge, as customer satisfaction

per se, is no longer adequate and organisations need to focus on other methods to keep

customers for a long time, to acquire a major share of their wallets (Kim and Lee 2010).

15

However, it is also revealed by Cooil that the relationship between share of wallet and past

experience is moderated by the differing characteristics of customers segments. Scholars

have studied the relationship between satisfaction and share of wallet, examining the

impact of different organisational buyer groups (Keiningham, Perkins-Munn, and Evans,

2003). Their findings show that the relationship between satisfaction and share of wallet

varies considerably by buyer group and that the relationship is nonlinear.

In a similar manner, other scholars also found that customer characteristics affect share of

wallet allocations in retail banking (Baumann, Burton, and Elliott, 2005). Additionally, other

authors have studied the moderating role of different customer characteristics on

customers’ share of wallet in retail settings (Kim and Lee, 2010). Their results suggested that

emotional loyalty is positively related to share of wallet and that some demographic and

situational customer characteristics moderate this relationship. Furthermore, education,

duration of relationship, and type of product also plays significant moderating roles on

share of wallet.

Interestingly explaining the customer characteristics and their impact on share of wallet,

Kim and Lee found that different level of customers’ education influence the customers

share of wallet differently. That is, low-education customers shop and spend more than do

high-education customers. Similarly, another characteristic with the moderating role they

investigated was relationship duration.

16

They confirmed the moderating role of the relationship duration of customers on share of

wallet hence concluding that the long term customers are more profitable for the

organisation by sharing a larger portion of their wallet.

Not mentioned by Cooil and Kumar, but relevant to this topic, is the theory of reason action

(Ajzen, 2002). Specifically, a person’s former behaviour can explain his or her actual

behaviour, which means that customer will prefer to buy at the same company they bought

from on pervious purchase occasions, even though they might perceive other retailers as

providing the same benefits (Vogel, Evanshitzky and Ramaseshan, 2008). Customers

preferring the same retailer or the same brand means, they prefer to share their wallet with

that particular retailer or brand, confirming the impact of behaviour on share of wallet.

This is due to the psychological commitment to prior choices and customers’ desire to

minimise their cost of thinking (Corstjens and Lal, 2000). This psychological commitment is

called the inertia effect (Vogel, Evanshitzky and Ramaseshan, 2008). They argue that this

inertia effect is rational because it helps customers achieve satisfactory outcomes by

simplifying the decision-making process and saving the costs of making decisions, hence

making them share a piece of their wallet automatically and without conscious thought

(Vogel, Evanshitzky and Ramaseshan, 2008).

Some other scholars call this sharing of wallet with a particular organisation, a habitual

behaviour (Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml, 2004). Their research shows that 40% to 60% of

customers buy at the same organisation (share the wallet) because of habit.

17

Also argued is that share of wallet is a key indicator of customer value, and hence a critical

component of loyalty (Baumann, Burton and Elliott, 2005). These scholars in their banking

study reveal that satisfaction is the key predictor of share of wallet. Customers feel

comfortable in sharing their wallet when they discover that a particular brand or company

fits their personality or character, because brands have a deep cultural meaning developed

by the consumption and the use of the brand (Holt, 2003). In this case, the customer’s

switching costs are high as both the cultural and personality fit are lost on switching brands.

Therefore, customers prefer to stay with the organisation (share their wallet) and commit in

a continual relationship (Johnson, Herrmann and Huber, 2006).

CONCLUSIONS Both Cooil (2007) and Kumar (2007) authors contribute to the academic field of customer

satisfaction, share of wallet and customer loyalty, but in different ways.

Cooil argues that customer satisfaction is a fundamental determinant of long-term

consumer behaviour, and the satisfaction-loyalty association, if sustained, will lead to higher

firm performance.

His five year retail banking quantitative study in Canada from 2001 to 2005 indicates a

positive relationship between changes in satisfaction and share of wallet.

Other areas Cooil could research to enhance his quality paper, would include investigate the

share of wallet behaviour in retail banking between different cultural groups, Western

based and the Chinese (Baumann, Hamin and Tung, 2012).

18

Also, applying the same approach to different industries and to business-to-business

relationships would be recommended. The segmentation variables used in the study – age,

income, educational, expertise and tenure could be expanded as companies use a variety of

characteristics to segment their customer base (eg, product value and volume).

In contrast, Kumar’s extensive “qualitative” review of academic articles on the satisfaction-

loyalty relationship suggests the customer satisfaction main effect is indeed weak and that

customer satisfaction, by itself can hardly change customer loyalty in any significant way.

Kumar advocates companies to focus resources to high value or potential high value

customers, to reward and satisfy. Interesting to note with Kumar’s “directions for future

research”; he states his own research in the paper for prospecting studies. These self-

citations, where an author cites (continually in this case) his or her own previously published

work, questions the authors motives on whether his own self-citing are different from those

of citing others (Swales and Feak, 2012). In an era when citations are becoming increasingly

important in the evaluations of academic standing, these self-citations are controversial.

Finally, the impact of the Global Financial Crisis (CFC) was not mentioned in any of Kumar’s

literature reviews.

Leading scholars have written extensively on the turbulent impact of the GCF on brand

loyalty, customer satisfaction and share-of-wallet in all countries (Baumann & Valentine,

2009).

19

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32. Arnold, M.J., Reynolds,K. Ponder,N. and Lueg, J. (2005), “Customer Delight in a Retail Context: Investigating Delightful and Terrible Shopping Experiences,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (8), 1132-45. Baumann, C.& Valentine,T (2009). Marketing in Focus. The Global Financial Crisis. Pearson Publishing. Baumann, C., Burton, S. and Elliott, G. (2005), 'Determinants of Customer Loyalty and Share of Wallet in Retail Banking', Journal of Financial Services ..

Baumann, C., Burton, S., Elliott, G. & Kehr, H. (2007), Prediction of attitude and behavioural intentions in retail banking, IJBM. Baumann, C., Hamin,H. and Tung, R.L. (2012), Share of wallet in Retail Banking: A comparison of Caucasians in Canada and Australia vis-à-vis Chinese in China .

Bloemer, J.M.M. and J.D.P. Kasper (1995). The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16.

Bove, L. L., Johnson, L. W., (2001). Customer relationships with service personnel: Do we measure closeness, quality or strength? Journal of Business Research 54 (3), 189-197. Bowman, Douglas, and Das Narayandas (2004), "Linking Customer Management Effort to Customer Profitability in Business Markets", Journal of Marketing .

Carpenter, J.M., Moore, M. and Fairhurst, A. (2005). Consumer Shopping Value for Retail Brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9(1), 43-53

Chitturi, R. Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008), “Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic and Utilitarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing. Cooil, B. Keiningham, T. Aksoy, L. and Hsu, M. (2007), “A longitudinal analysis of customer satisfaction and share of wallet: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing.

20

Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000). Building Store Loyalty through Store Brands. Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 2000). Cronin, J.J and Taylor, S.A., Measuring Service Quality. (1992). A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of MarketingVol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 55-68 Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., & 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

Du, R., Kamakura. W. and Mela C. (2007), "Imputing Customers' Share of Category Requirements,” Journal of Marketing, 72, 2 (April), 94-113.

Fornell, Claes (1992), "A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience," Journal of Marketing, 56 (January), 6-21.

Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of Long-term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships” Journal of Marketing (April): 1-19.

Garland, B. (2004). The impact of administrative support on prison treatment staff burnout: An exploratory study. The Prison Journal, 84, 452−471.

Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and profitability International. Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(4), 27-42. Heitmann, M., Lehmann. D., and Herrmann A.(2007). Choice Goal Attainment and Decision and Consumption Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research: Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 234-250.

Holt, D.B. (2003). What becomes an Icon Most? Harvard Business Review, 3, 43-49.

Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty – An empirical analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 43-66.

Huff, Lois. (2002). “Apparel specialty stores: A year to forget,” Chain Store Age 78(8), A14-A15.

Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A. and Huber, F. (2006). The Evolution of Loyalty Intentions.

Journal of Marketing: Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 122-132.

21

Jones, T. and Sasser, W.(1995). Why Satisfied Customers Defect. Harvard Business Review,

November 1995

Keiningham, T.L.,Vavra, T.G., Aksoy,L.,and Wallard, H. (2005). Loyalty myths: hyped strategies that will put you out of business--and proven tactics that really work. Wiley.

Keiningham, T.L., Perkins-Munn T., and Evans, H. (2003), “The Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Share of Wallet in a Business-to-Business Environment,” Journal of Service Research, 6 (August), 37–50.

Kim, H-Y., & Lee, M. (2010). Emotional loyalty and share of wallet: A contingency approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(5), 333-339

Kim, M. K., Park, M. C., & Jeong, D. H. (2004). The effects of customer satisfaction and switching barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile Telecommunication Services. Telecommunications Policy, 28, 145–159.

Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2004). “Building and sustaining profitable customer loyalty for the 21st century”. Journal of Retailing, 80, 317-330.

Kumar, V., Dalla Pozza, I., Ganesh, J. (2013). “Revisiting the Satisfaction-Loyalty Relationship: Empirical Generalisations and Directions for Future Research”. Journal of Retailing.

Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer Value, Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Switching Costs: An Illustration from a Business-to-Business Service Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (3), 293-311.

Magi, A.W. 2003. “Share of wallet in retailing: The effects of customer satisfaction, loyalty cards and shopper characteristics.” Journal of Retailing. 79(2): pp.97-106.

Meyer-Waarden, L. 2007.”The effects of loyalty programs on customer lifetime duration and share of wallet “. Journal of Retailing 83 (2): 223-236. Mittal, V. and Wagner K. (2001), “Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effects of Customer Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (February), 131–42.

22

Mittal, V., Kamakura, W. A., & Govind, R. (2004). Geographic patterns in customer service and satisfaction: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 68, 48−62. Odekerken-Schroder, G., De Wulf, K. and Schumacher, P. (2003), Strengthening outcomes of retailer-Advances in Consumer Research ,Volume 201 consumer relationships, the dual impact of relationship marketing tactics and consumer personality”, Journal of Business Research, 56, 177-190

Oliver, R.L. (1980). "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions." Journal of Marketing Research 17 (September): 460-469.

Oliver, R.L. and Swan.J.E (1989). "Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach." Journal of Marketing 53 (April): 21-35.

Oliver, R.L. (1993). "Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response." Journal of Consumer Research 20, 418-430.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.

Olsen, S. O. (2002), “Comparative Evaluation and the Relationship between Quality, Satisfaction, and Repurchase Loyalty,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 240–49. Olsen, S.O. (2007), “Loyalty: the role of involvement and satisfaction”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 1–28. Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), “Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-17.

Perkins-Munn, T., L. Aksoy, T. L. Keiningham, and D. Estrin (2005), “Actual Purchase as a Proxy for Share of Wallet,” Journal of Service Research, 7 (3), 245–56.

Ping, P. (1993), "The Effects of Satisfaction and Structural Constraints on Retailer Exiting, Voice, Loyalty, Opportunism, and Neglect," Journal of Retailing, 69 (Fall), 320-352.

Reichheld, F.F. (2003).“The only number you need to grow.” Harvard Business Review.

Reichheld, F.F. (2000) “Loyalty Rules! How Today’s Leaders Build Lasting Relationships.” Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

23

Reinartz, W. J. and Kumar, V. (2000), “On the Profitability of Long-Life Customers in a Noncontractual Setting: An Empirical Investigation and Implications for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (October), 17–35 Reinartz, W.J.and Kumar, V. (2002). “The Mismanagement of Customer Loyalty,” Harvard Business Review, 80 (7), 86–94. Reynolds, Kristy E. and Sharon E. Beatty (1999), “Customer Benefits and Company Consequences of Customer-Salesperson Relationships in Retailing,” Journal of Retailing, 75 (1), 11–32. Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. and Keiningham, T.L. (1995), ``Return on quality (ROQ): making service quality financially accountable’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, April, pp. 58-70. Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N., Zeithaml, V.A., (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing 68 (1), 109-127.

Silvestro, R. and S. Cross (2000). "Applying the service profit chain in a retail environment." International Journal of Service Industry Management 11(3): 244.

Strauss, B., Neuhaus, P. (1997), The qualitative satisfaction model, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(2), 169-88.

Suh, J., & Yi, Y. (2006). When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyalty relation: The moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 145-155.

Swales, J. and Feak, C. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. 3rd edition Swan, John E. and Trawick, I. Fredrick (1981), "Disconfirmation of Expectations and Satisfaction with a Retail Service," Journal of Retailing, 57, 49-67

Szymanski D.M. and Henard,D.H. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others, Journal of Marketing Research. Taylor S.A .and Baker TL .(1994). An Assessment of the Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Formation of Consumers’ Purchase Intentions. J. Retailing 70(2): 163 - 178

24

Verhoef, Peter C. (2003), “Understanding the Effect of Customer Relationship Management Efforts on Customer Retention and Customer Share Development,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (October), 30–45. Vogel, V., Evanshitzky, H., Ramaseshan, B.(2008).Customer equitydrivers andfuture sales. Journal of Marketing. 72, 98–108.

Yang, Z., Peterson, R.T., (2004). Customer Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty: The Role of Switching Costs. Psychology & Marketing. 21(10), pp. 799-822 Yu, Y. T., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(3), 234-250. Zeithaml, V.A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 67 - 85.