Journal of Services Marketing

A crossindustry comparison of customer satisfaction

G. Ronald Gilbert Cleopatra Veloutsou

Article information:
To cite this document:
G. Ronald Gilbert Cleopatra Veloutsou, (2006),"A cross#industry comparison of customer satisfaction", Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 298 - 308
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040610679918
Downloaded on: 01 December 2014, At: 22:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8645 times since 2006*
Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Rade B. Vukmir, (2006),"Customer satisfaction", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 8-31
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09526860610642573
G. Ronald Gilbert, Cleopatra Veloutsou, Mark M.H. Goode, Luiz Moutinho, (2004),"Measuring customer satisfaction
in the fast food industry: a cross#national approach", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 Iss 5 pp. 371-383 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040410548294
John T. Bowen, Shiang#Lih Chen, (2001),"The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction", International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 Iss 5 pp. 213-217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110110395893

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 532276 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A cross-industry comparison of customer

satisfaction
G. Ronald Gilbert
College of Business Administration, Florida International University, North Miami, Florida, USA, and

Cleopatra Veloutsou

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to identify service satisfaction measures that can be used across industries.
Design/methodology/approach The paper attempts to identify empirically core characteristics of customer satisfaction ratings across six industries
based on the ratings of 10,835 respondents within the USA. The industries included are banking and finance, retail, government, grocery stores,
hospitality/sports, and restaurants.
Findings The paper finds that banking and finance and hospitality/sports entertainment were rated highest by their patrons. Those dealing with
government, general retail and moderately priced fast food restaurants received lower service satisfaction ratings. Differences were also found among
respondent characteristics (i.e. age, gender, education and ethnicity/race).
Research limitations/implications The study sample was selected from organizations readily available to the research team. Future studies based
on systematic random samples would enhance the generalizability of the findings.
Originality/value The results provide a basis from which cross industry benchmarking and the identification of best practices can be captured and
used by practitioners.
Keywords Customer satisfaction, Measurement
Paper type Research paper

and across industries that meets the needs of managers of the

business units they control. The use of measures that can be
validly applied in a timely manner across stores representing a
variety of industries could facilitate the improvement of a
conglomerate of service outlets in commonly shared business
locations such as neighborhood shopping centers, business
associations, and the like.

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction
This paper seeks to identify measures that can be used across
industries for purposes of assessing customer service
effectiveness. Such will enable business owners, managers,
decision makers and other researchers to identify best
practices in customer service design. By doing so, decision
makers may further improve services to their customers and
gain competitive advantage.
The most widely employed models used for cross industry
analysis are the American and the European Customer
Satisfaction Indexes (ACSI and ECSI). These two annually
produced indices provide measures of large businesses within
and across industries. Reports generated by the ACSI and
ECSI do not provide ratings by specific stores within a given
company. Thus, in terms of their providing feedback to
decision makers of specific stores within a company on a
timely basis, these types of cross industry assessment tools are
impractical.
There is a need for the development and use of a simpler,
speedier, and more practical method to assess service
satisfaction in a standardized manner both within industries

Background
It is well established that satisfied customers are key to longterm business success (Kristensen et al., 1992; Zeithaml et al.,
1996; McColl-Kennedy and Schneider, 2000). Companies
that have a more satisfied customer base also experience
higher economic returns (Aaker and Jacobson, 1994; Bolton,
1998; Yeung et al., 2002). High consumer satisfaction leads to
greater customer loyalty (Yi, 1991; Anderson and Sullivan,
1993; Boulding et al., 1993) which, in turn, leads to future
revenue (Fornell, 1992; Bolton, 1998). Organizations having
superior service quality have been found to be market leaders
in terms of sales and long-term customer loyalty and retention
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Boulding et al., 1993; Eklof
and Westlund, 2002). Because of this, organizations
competing in similar market niches are compelled to assess
the quality of the services they provide in order to attract and
retain their customers.
Customers expectations are derived from their own
accumulation of contacts with services provided them in all
walks of life. From such contacts customers accrue a
generalized service expectation or standard based on their
day-to-day history as customers. It is from the accumulation
of these service experiences that customers establish personal
standards and use them to gauge service quality. Intuitively,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm

Journal of Services Marketing

20/5 (2006) 298 308
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]
[DOI 10.1108/08876040610679918]

298

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

they could create idiosyncratic standards of service across

industries in terms of their requirements from the tangible
and intangible dimensions of the services (Gronroos, 1984;
Nicholls et al., 1998). That is, they might have different
expectations in how they may be treated and the personal
service they may expect as a customer at a banking institution
than how they are likely to be treated at a concession stand at
a sports event. This may include expectations of both the
quality of the service setting and the personal service received.
It is important to assess the relative service quality provided
customers not only within industries, but across industries to
identify best practices and benchmarks to facilitate the
transfer of highly desired practices to less customer service
oriented industries, the central purpose of this paper.

were more distant in time between the service encounter and

the customers rating.
Some researchers may use a single item measure to capture
service satisfaction (i.e. Yuksel and Rimmington, 1998;
Leisen and Vance, 2001). However, it is generally accepted
that customer satisfaction measurement is a complex
construct, and the use of multi-item scales is preferred, as
such provides greater insight about consumer satisfaction
from the perspective of the consumer than is possible from a
single item measure, per se. Multi item measures can provide
empirically based levels of scale reliability that are not possible
with a single item measure. Therefore, multi-item measures
describing various aspects from which consumer satisfaction
may be derived are preferred in order to help explain the
construct of service satisfaction in a valid way (Nunnally,
1967). Brief reviews of some of the more dominant
approaches to measuring customer satisfaction are presented
below.

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

Organization of the paper

The paper provides a brief review of some of the relevant
approaches that have been used for the measurement of
customer satisfaction. It then discusses different views that
have been developed in relation to the transferability of
satisfaction measures across industries and outlines the
research questions addressed in this investigation. The
methodology used for the collection of the primary data is
then outlined. In the findings section, customer ratings are
reported based on statistical differences found while
controlling for the possible effects of customer age, gender,
education, and ethnicity/race, for such have been reported to
influence customer satisfaction ratings (Gagliano and
Hathcote, 1994; Tucker and Adams, 2001; Gilbert, 2003).
The concluding section addresses the study limitations,
managerial implications, and recommendations for further
research.

Confirmation-disconfirmation approach
This method is based on a comparison of the customers
expectations versus what the customer actually experienced
(Yuksel and Rimmington, 1998). A tool of particular note is
the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI), which is widely used
in the USA (ACSI) and Europe (ECSI). It has been
extensively applied (Fornell et al., 1996; Anderson and
Fornell, 2000; Martensen et al., 2000; Dermanov and Eklof,
2001; Fornell, 2001; Eklof and Westlund, 2002; Yeung et al.,
2002). The CSI scores pertaining to customer satisfaction
function as intangible economic indicators, and are used to
monitor the financial viability of companies, industries and
international trade unions (Anderson and Fornell, 2000;
Fornell, 2001). They serve as gross assessments of the
viability of large economic blocs in the USA and Europe.
The CSI method is based on predictive models that are
comprised of prior customer expectations, perceived quality
based on the customers post service assessments, and the
customers perceived value (product versus price) which lead
to the creation of a customer satisfaction index (CSI) score
ranging from 0-100. The post service assessments are
completed by telephone and are comprised of the
customers ratings on three criteria: overall quality,
reliability, and meeting the customers needs. The national
CSIs measure the quality of goods and services as
experienced by those who consume them. An individual
firms CSI represents its served markets (i.e. customers)
overall evaluation of the total purchase and consumption
experience, both actual and anticipated (Anderson and
Fornell, 2000).

Measurement of consumer satisfaction

The importance of measurement of customer service is well
established in marketing and management literature. Yet,
there is no universally accepted method or measurement scale
that exists. Indeed, the measurement of consumer behavior
and customer satisfaction is more exploratory in its
development rather than a precise, exact science. There are
several theories pertaining to the best method to assess
customer satisfaction. Among the more dominant, (but not
inclusive of all theories associated with customer satisfaction
measurement) include the expectancy-disconfirmation
approach, the performance-only approach, the technical and
functional dichotomy approaches, the service quality versus
service satisfaction approach, and the attribute importance
approach (Gilbert et al., 2004). Furthermore, there are
variations in the way that satisfaction is measured in terms of
scales used, format of the questions and the data collection
methods (Wilson, 2002).
In general, it is agreed that customer satisfaction
measurement is a post-consumption assessment by the user
about the product or service gained (Churchill and
Surprenant, 1982; Yuksel and Rimmington, 1998). Also,
there is a general agreement that the closer the assessment is
to the actual service encounter, the more accurate the
assessment of the service quality, itself. As stated by Mittal
et al. (1999), attributes that are experienced closer to the time
of the customers final evaluation tend to influence the
customers overall ratings more than do those attributes that

Performance-only approach
This method measures service features related to transitionalspecific service satisfaction (both technical and functional).
One such performance approach method reported in the
literature is the Customer Satisfaction Survey (Gilbert et al.,
1997; Nicholls et al., 1998). The instrument measures
customers satisfaction immediately following a service
episode. It includes technical and functional transitionspecific features, as well as service quality and service
satisfaction measures. It consists of two measures that were
empirically derived through factor analysis applications:
satisfaction with personal service (SatPers) and satisfaction
with the service setting (SatSett). Each of these two factors
299

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

was validated from a cross section of industries within the

USA. The two are generic to most industries rather than
specific to any one industry, meaning they could possibly be
applied to assess service quality in most cross industry
settings. Essentially, these two measures were focused on the
customers personal reaction to the service delivery and to
the environment in which it is delivered. The measures are
based on the perceived quality of service and product features
experienced in the service encounter much like the
SERVPERF model (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).

190 companies, and government agencies. In their analyses

across various industries, the researchers often argue that their
model, their scales, and their measurement seem to be
sufficiently flexible for application in different industries
(Grnholdt et al., 2000), and that customer expectations have
negligible impact on the formation of satisfaction (Martensen
et al., 2000).
There are other examples using less complicated measures
than that of the CSI, wherein it is possible for practitioners to
apply more real time, cross industry customer satisfaction
indicators. Some studies reported in the literature revealed
that the same measures could be used to capture satisfaction
for sectors with certain similarities. Nicholls et al. (1998) were
able to compare hospitality-oriented and sports-oriented
businesses using the identically same customer satisfaction
measures. Additionally, in their exploratory research, Nicholls
et al. (1998) investigated measures that might be used to
gauge customer satisfaction in five public and five private
sectors, and their findings revealed promising cross industry
applications. Furthermore, McDougall and Levesque (2000)
investigated the role of the service quality promise, the
perceived value, and the relational service quality (the
delivery) in the determination of customer satisfaction in
four service sectors. Their investigation revealed that all of
these determinants were found to have statistically significant
effects on overall service satisfaction.
On the other hand, the findings of some researchers are less
supportive of the efficacy of cross industry customer
satisfaction comparisons (Winsted, 1999; de Ruyter and
Wetzels, 2000; Bebko, 2000; Dermanov and Eklof, 2001).
Their findings suggest that consumers assessments of service
quality can be idiosyncratic to specific service industries.
Hence, it could be suggested that the use of the same scale to
measure the level of satisfaction with various service offerings
is not advisable, since the dimensions that are evaluated by
the consumers during such an analysis of service offerings
may vary among the services, themselves.

Overall satisfaction
Jones and Suh (2000) suggest that two distinct types of
consumer satisfaction exist the transaction specific and
overall satisfaction. Transaction specific satisfaction is related to
a specific encounter with the organization, whereas overall
satisfaction is a cumulative construct summing satisfaction with
specific products/services of the organization with various other
facets of the company (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). The
overall rating resembles a more general attitude the customer
has toward the specific products or services provided by the
organization. It is more like a stored evaluation in ones memory
than an on-the-spot evaluation. Such an overall impression is
relatively stable over time and less sensitive to question order
effects or other transition specific reactions on the part of the
customer (Auh et al., 2003).

Cross-industry satisfaction measurement:

the pros and cons
Practitioners and theorists alike have expressed interest in
cross industry applications of customer service measurement
(Naylor and Bardi-Kleiser, 2002; Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002),
while others have focused on customer satisfaction
measurement across national boundaries (Frazer-Winsted,
1999; Crotts and Erdmann, 2000; Spreng and Chiou, 2000;
Chen-Yu et al., 2001). Practitioners have much to gain by
finding ways to compare customer satisfaction across
industries and cultures, for they could not only gauge
performance within their industries, but from such measures
they could also identify superior practices that attract
customers in other industries. By doing so, they may be
enabled to expand their understanding, working assumptions,
and ability to satisfy the customers (potential and current)
whose satisfaction they rely on to remain in business.
Some argue that it is very difficult to develop a reliable and
valid measure to capture satisfaction in all industries (Wilson,
2002). Yet, others contend that there is a great need for such a
measure for purposes of continuous benchmarking and
improvement. Indeed, practitioners need to have universally
accepted scales to measure user satisfaction across industries,
for such standardized measures will enable them to gauge the
relative effectiveness of their own organization when
compared with the performance of their competitors. Such
benchmarking is a continuous process of measuring the
practices of practitioners own organizations against those of
their toughest competitors, as well as with those recognized as
leaders of other industries (Black and Gregersen, 1999).
The ACSI and the ECSI have been developed to aid
practitioners in their need for information they can use to
gauge the performance of their organizations within and
among specific industries. The CSI conducts annual analyses
of customer service quality in at least 35 separate industries,

Research problem
As indicated in the review of the above studies, there appear
to be identifiable schools of thought in relation to the
measurement of customer satisfaction across industries. One
school proposes that the same, reliable and valid measures
could be used in all contexts (across industries and across
national boundaries). Some identified with this school of
thinking suggest that given that the industries under
investigation and the customer base have certain similarities,
the same measurement can be used across industries.
However, the antithesis of the pro cross- industry
measurement school suggests that the formation of
satisfaction is so highly dependent on unique organizational
contexts that generic measures are not useful, and specific
measurements should be developed to capture the construct
every time that one attempts to examine customer satisfaction
in a given service situation.
Hypotheses
Based on the different views expressed by researchers in the
past, this study aims to test two relevant research hypotheses:
H1. Specific measures can be used across various service
industries to capture the level of customers satisfaction
with services provided.
300

H2.

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

The application of such measures will reveal no

differences in the level of satisfaction consumers
experience across service industries.

their willingness to participate in the survey when requested

to do so by those trained interviewers who approached them.
Responses were considered invalid cases if the respondents
ratings did not vary, i.e. having answered every statement the
same (i.e. answered with all 5s or all 1s, or the like). In
such cases, they were deemed invalid and were removed from
the sample. Likewise, if a respondent did not fully complete
the survey (i.e. failed to respond to more than 10 percent of
the 18 statements in the survey), the survey was not included
in the analysis.
The sampling procedure was based on a systematic
probability sampling approach one of the most prevalently
employed types of sampling techniques. The sampling
objective of the researchers was to secure a degree of
economic efficiency within a short time period while
attempting to attain representativeness through systematic
sampling of available customer service establishments
representing the six industries included in this study. Once
the sampling was initiated at each service site, the surveyors
employed a skip interval approach when selecting the
customers to be included in the sample. This procedure
ensured sufficient randomness in the sample to approximate a
known and equal probability of any person in the population
being selected into the sample. Note: no precise record was
kept pertaining to the percent of customers who declined to
complete the questionnaire or failed to respond to the
questionnaire in a valid manner. Based on discussions with
members of the survey teams, it is estimated that about 20
percent refused to complete the survey or were omitted
because of their inability to answer the questionnaire due to
language or reading handicaps. It is estimated that less than 5
percent of the questionnaires were invalidated due to
incomplete responses. (In the future, accurate records of
these rejection rates will need to be kept and reported.)
In this study, 10,993 customers were sampled representing
six industries: nanking and finance (16 banks and credit
unions, n 3; 230); retail (eight stores, n 876); government
service (16 state, local and federal agencies, n 2; 111);
grocery stores (nine establishments, n 1; 724); hospitality
(ten cruise ships, sports and entertainment establishments,
n 1; 755); and restaurants (16 restaurants and fast food
establishments, n 1; 297).
Within the banking and finance industry were a credit
union and established banks having branches where
customers walked in to make their transactions. The retail
sample included typical stores such as office or home depot,
car rentals, sports clothing and equipment outlets, and the
like. The government industry included federal, state and
local public organizations such as social security, department
of motor vehicles, and planning and zoning that served end
user customers who had direct personal contact with the
government agencies as recipients of service. The grocery
store industry included typical large grocery chain stores. The
hospitality industry included organizations such as
thoroughbred horse racing establishments, arcades, and
cruise ship lines. The restaurants consisted mainly of fast
food establishments such as McDonalds, Burger King, and
the like, as well as some other moderately priced steak houses
and family owned cafes.
Four demographic characteristics of the respondents were
also captured. They include age (1 # 40, 2 40 and over);
gender (1 male; 2 female); education (1 , two years of

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

Methodology
Data collection instrument
The Customer Satisfaction Survey (Gilbert et al., 1997) is the
preferred approach to measure satisfaction in this study. This
is because of its greater reliability and validity compared to the
disconfirmation approach where the difference between the
customers expectations and quality perceptions are estimated
(Bou-llusar et al., 2000; Parasuraman et al., 1996). When
measuring across five public and five private sector industries,
the findings of Nicholls et al. (1998) revealed that the SatPers
factor was reported to have a Cronbach reliability alpha of
0.89 while the SatSett factor had a reliability alpha of 0.74.
Convergent validity r correlations with an overall statement of
customer product and service satisfaction were 0.77 and 0.65,
respectively. The two measures from this instrument appear
to be well suited as a starting point to measure customer
satisfaction across a broader, more diverse and larger set of
industries.
The Customer Satisfaction Survey employs a five-point
Likert-type rating scale (1 strongly disagree; 5 strongly
agree) and consists of 18 statements. A total of 17 of these
statements address service and product features, and the 18th
statement is a criterion statement pertaining to overall service
quality. (Tests for convergent validity are accomplished by the
measurement of the association between variables 1 through
17, and the factors derived from them, and the criterion
statement.)
The multiple option, polar adjective type scale was used in
this study for purposes of increasing the power of
measurement. Binary (agree/disagree) scales that are
sometimes used in customer satisfaction tools, impede
measurement precision, validity, and predictive power of the
findings, and are likely to be poor (Anderson and Fornell,
2000). Examples of statements in the Customer Satisfaction
Survey that the customer respondents were asked to indicate
the extents to which they disagree or agree include:
The place is neat and clean.
The employees treat me as a valued customer.
There is easy access to the organizations services.
They take time to understand my needs.

Data gathering procedure

Trained interviewers and supervised graduate and
undergraduate students were employed to administer the
Customer Satisfaction Survey to patrons of business and
government organizations representing six different
industries. The organizations were based primarily in Dade
(Miami) and Broward (Fort Lauderdale) Florida, with some
limited sampling from a government agency in Denver,
Colorado, and a large banking and finance organization in the
Sacramento, California area. The agencies selected in the
sample were based on convenience and availability. The
surveys were administered in these agencies to randomly
selected patrons immediately after they had completed their
service encounter. No monetary incentives were given to the
respondents. Respondent participation was based solely on
301

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

college; 2 two years of college and above); and ethnicity/

race (1 non-Caucasian; 2 Caucasian).
Table I reveals the distribution of age, gender, education
and ethnicity/race among the six industries analyzed.
Significant differences in demographic characteristics
among the respondents in all six industries were found to
exist by age, gender, education, and ethnicity/race. The data
indicate that the respondents from the restaurant and retail
industries were younger than the others. Females were
notably more likely than males to represent the sample from
the retail industry, while males were more highly represented
in the hospitality/sports industry. Those consumers in
restaurant, hospitality/sports, and retail industries tended to
have lower education, while those in banking and finance,
government, and grocery store industries tended to have
higher education. In terms of ethnicity/race composition, nonCaucasians tended to be more highly represented in all but
the hospitality/sports industry. Thus, these differences in
demographic composition by industry were viewed to be
important to be analyzed in terms of any mediating effects
they might have on differences in ratings identified by
industry on each of the two customer satisfaction measures.

Table IV, identifies differences in respondent customer

satisfaction ratings on the two measures, SatPers and
SatSett that exist within the Customer Satisfaction Survey.
The univariate analysis (ANOVA) without accounting for
demographic differences reveals significant variation among
the six industries based on the ratings received from their
customers. The ratings by those in the banking and finance
industry were higher than all others in both SatPers and
SatSett. The ratings attributed to hospitality/sports were also
higher than most others on both of these measures. The
customers of government agencies tended to rate their
satisfaction with personal service and with the service
setting lower than all others. Customers in the retail
industry also tended to rate their satisfaction lower than did
most others.
The differences identified by the ANOVA statistical tests
may be a result of biographical differences of the respondents
rather than as a result of the industry, per se. As revealed in
Table I, the study samples for each industry varied based on
the demographic characteristics. Such differences captured by
the ANOVA application may not be a result of true differences
in customer service satisfaction by industry type, for the
ratings may be influenced by the asymmetrical demographic
features associated with each industry. Thus, MANOVA and
MANCOVA statistical applications were administered to
assess the difference in respondent ratings by industry when
controlling for age, gender, education and ethnicity/race.
Table V reveals the results from the MANOVA and
MANCOVA applications. It identifies the estimated adjusted
means for each industry after accounting for the rating
differences associated with the four demographic
characteristics.
The MANCOVA analysis identified significant differences
by industry among the ratings of the two factors when
controlling for respondent age, gender, education and
ethnicity/race
(Wilks
L 0:914,
F 10;000 69:11,
p , 0:001). The differences identified by the Bonferroni
post hoc tests revealed the following variations in ratings on
the SatPers measure of customer satisfaction: Banking and
finance was rated higher than all others (p # 0:001). Retail
was rated higher (p # 0:001) than government, about the
same as grocery stores, and lower (p # 0:001) than hospitality
(p # 0:030) and restaurants (p # 0:014). Government was
rated lower than each of the others (p # 0:001). Grocery
stores was rated higher than government (p # 0:001) and

Findings
Although the scales used in this paper have been taken from
the literature, before employing them for comparative
purposes their reliability in this specific context has to be
determined. The Cronbach alpha of the SatPers is 0.91, while
the value for the SatSett is 0.78. They are both in excess of
the 0.70 benchmark. In Tables II and III, the reliability of the
scales is confirmed by the Pearson inter-correlation of the
items included in this scale, which are all positive, high and
significant at a 0.001 level. Furthermore, the item-to-total
correlation for all items is very close or higher than the
suggested 0.50 benchmark (see Bearden and Netemeyer,
1999). All items contribute to the robustness of the scales,
since the removal of any of these items will reduce the value of
the Cronbach alpha. The same analysis was performed for
each sector under investigation and produced similar results.
The factors were found to be equivalent within each industry
as well as across the industries that were included in the study
sample. Thus, H1 was accepted.
Table I Demographic characteristics of the study sample by industry
Age

Gender

< 40
Industry
Banking/finance
Retail
Government
Grocery
Hospitality/sports
Restaurants
Chi square
DF
p

$ 40
%

1,526 51.1
593 68.4
1,187 63.7
899 56.6
827 48.8
920 73
299.54
5
, 0.001

Male

1,463
274
676
689
868
340

48.9
31.6
36.3
42.4
51.2
27

1,621 54.8
380 44.0
1,044 50.7
794 50.3
1,051 60.6
619 49.6
87.19
5
,0.001

Education
Female
n
%

1,336
484
1,016
786
683
629

302

45.2
56.0
49.3
49.7
39.4
50.4

<2 years
n
%
631 47.7
503 58.1
830 47.4
756 47.7
893 53.1
695 55.1
50.68
5
,0.001

$2 years
n
%
693
363
920
829
788
566

52.3
41.9
52.6
52.3
46.9
44.9

Ethnicity/race
NonCaucasian
Caucasian
n
%
n
%
1,073 61.9
698 81.0
1,195 67.9
911 57.7
699 40.2
872 69.5
543.06
5
,0.001

660
164
565
669
1,041
383

38.1
19.0
32.1
42.3
59.8
30.5

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

Table II Evaluation of the satisfaction with the personal service scale

Pearson correlation
3
4

2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Provider courtesy
Timely service
Competent employees
Easy to get help
Treatment received

0.70
0.70
0.67
0.70

0.65
0.67
0.63

0.70
0.70

Item-to-total correlation

Cronbach alpha if item deleted

0.68

0.80
0.75
0.79
0.78
0.77

0.89
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89

Item-to-total correlation

Cronbach alpha if item deleted

0.50
0.60
0.68
0.60

0.78
0.73
0.69
0.73

Table III Evaluation of the satisfaction with the service settings scale

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

2
1.
2.
3.
4.

Convenient operating hours

Neat and clean place
Security within the organization
Security outside the organization

Pearson correlation
3
4

0.45
0.42
0.38

0.56
0.45

0.63

lower than banking and finance (p # 0:001). Hospitality/

sports was rated lower than banking and finance (p # 0:001)
and higher than retail (p # 0:030) and government
(p # 0:001). Restaurants was rated lower than banking and
finance (p # 0:001) and higher than retail (p # 0:014) and
government (p # 0:001).
Post hoc tests were also conducted on the ratings of the
SatSett measure based on each of the six industries. Banking
and finance was rated higher (p # 0:001) than four of the five
other industries. When compared to hospitality/sports, the
banking and finance industry was also rated significantly
higher, but the difference between the two was not as strong
(p 0:039). Retail was rated lower than banking and finance
(p # 0:001) and hospitality/sports (p # 0:001). Retail was
rated higher than government (p # 0:001). Government was
rated lower than all other industry types (p # 0:001). Grocery
stores was rated lower than banking and finance (p # 0:001)
and hospitality/sports (p # 0:001). It was rated higher than
government (p # 0:001). Hospitality/sports was rated higher

Table IV Analysis of variance of customer ratings by industry

Industry
Banking and finance
Retail
Government
Grocery stores
Hospitality/sports
Restaurants
Total
Df
MS
F
P-value

SatPers
SatSett
Sample size Mean SD Sample size Mean SD
3,158
4.40
876
3.79
2,090
3.54
1,703
3.92
1,745
4.08
1,263
3.98
10,835
4.01
5
199.44
286.49
,0.001

0.77
0.77
0.97
0.92
0.74
0.80
0.89

3,158
4.31
875
3.92
1,986
3.66
1,697
4.00
1,529
4.14
1,257
3.89
10,467
4.03
5
115.15
197.64
, 0.001

0.72
0.69
0.84
0.85
0.70
0.76
0.80

Note: Means are based on a 1-5 Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree to

5 strongly agree)

Table V Differences in ratings by industry when controlling for respondent age, gender, education and ethnicity/race
SatPers
Industry
Banking and finance
Retail
Government
Grocery stores
Hospitality/sports
Restaurants
Total

SatSett

Sample sizea

Adjusted meanb

Sample sizea

Adjusted meanb

1,238
854
1,494
1,535
1,433
1,206
7,760

4.23
3.88
3.39
3.92
4.00
4.01
3.91

1,238
854
1,494
1,535
1,433
1,206
7,760

4.21
3.96
3.55
3.99
4.12
3.91
3.96

Notes: a Sample shrinkage from Table II is mainly due to an inability to ask about the respondents demographic characteristics, as the managers of some of the
organizations that were involved in the study were concerned about customer reactions to them a privacy issue; b Adjusted means calculated at means of
covariates (age, gender, ethnicity/race, education); Means are based on a 1-5 Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree)

303

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

(p # 0:001) than all other industries except banking and

finance. When compared to banking and finance, it was rated
lower (p # 0:039). Restaurants was rated lower than both
banking and finance and hospitality/sports (p # 0:001). It was
rated higher than government (p # 0:001).
The lower ratings identified by government organizations
need to be placed in perspective with the type of customers
they generally serve. As identified in their study of customer
service in government, Gilbert et al. (1998-1999) measured
service satisfaction among different types of government
customers labeled as direct buyers, clients or captives. Their
findings reveal that when customers of government agencies
have limited choice (i.e. clients or captives to their
government suppliers) in terms of where they can get the
service or product they need, the service is much like the
lower results identified in this study. However, when
government organizations operate in a more competitive
environment where their customers are able to behave as
direct buyers, and have the opportunity to choose the
government supplier or go elsewhere within a free and open
market, the direct buyer type government customer rates the
government agency equally as good (if not better) than its
private sector counterparts. Agencies in the USA federal
government that serve direct buyers would include agencies
such as the General Service Administration, US Office of
Personnel Managements training centers, US Parks service,
or NASA weather photographic services or like organizations
where customers can either purchase their services or go
elsewhere for the products or services they seek.
From the discussion above it is confirmed that H2 is
rejected.

pertinent to most of the industries that were included in the

study sample. In this study, such data were not recorded.
The study findings are also limited by the small sampling of
industries. Samples from local, state and federal governments
would add to the generalizability of the findings as they
pertain to government service satisfaction. Also, the study
should have included a broader array of service industries, for
such would add to the usefulness of the findings.
While the factors derived from the survey instrument were
originally established from a broad range of industries, their
accuracy could be further assured by systematically retesting
them within each of the industries included in this study.
Furthermore, added analysis could help identify specific
behaviors and best practices in the organizations that were
rated exceptionally high so that others could gain added
insight about cause-effect relationships in situations where
service quality has been found to excel.

Study inferences
Service organizations that are highly dependent on the
satisfaction of their customers need to establish standards
from which their own customer satisfaction performance can
be compared and improved on a continuous basis. It is
important that such organizations not only benchmark
themselves against the best practices in their own industries,
but that they also transcend their own market niches and
identify best practices among industries outside of their own
competitive areas. By doing so, they can not only make
incremental improvements based on learning from others
within their industries, but they can also make quantum leaps
in how they serve their customers by seeing how service is
constructed and delivered by organizations working under
different assumptions and business paradigms then their own.
It is the expectation of the authors of this study that this
research effort provides a methodological orientation and
some preliminary findings that may be useful to others
interested in learning about cross-industry service quality.
Two research hypotheses were tested: H1 specific measures
can be used across various service industries to capture the
level of customers satisfaction with services provided; and H2
the application of such measures will reveal no differences in
the level of satisfaction consumers experience across service
industries.
With regard to H1, the study provides a basis from which
practitioners can measure the performance of the
organizations they manage, and obtain near real time
feedback that they can use to improve the personal service
and the service settings of their stores or work locations. In
terms of H2, the data analysis indicated that customer
satisfaction does differ across industries, and that both the
banking/finance and hospitality/sports industries seem to
please their customers more than the other industries
analyzed in this research undertaking.

Study limitations
Among the greatest limitations of this study sample is that the
selection of the organizations representing the various
industries was not based on systematic randomization.
Although the sample sizes are relatively large, much more
representative data from each of the six industries are needed
in order to support the generalizability of the study findings.
More accurate accounting of rejection and decline rates of
customers surveyed is needed, for such information would
shed added light on the potential bias of the sampling process
used in this data gathering procedures employed in this study.
Were there specific groups that tended to decline the
invitation to complete the survey more than others? Were
the interviewers more likely to gain the cooperation of certain
types of respondents more than others? Did the use of the
predominantly English version of the survey inadvertently
serve to omit those whose first language was Spanish, Creole
or Portuguese (languages often preferred by some of the
potential customers in the study sample)?
The use of trained students to gather most of the data used
in this study was the most convenient alternative for the
principal investigators. However, although the students were
trained in data gathering methods, they were not always
closely supervised, and such should be more systematically
adhered to in future, follow-up studies.
The sampling failed to capture information pertaining to
the time of day or day of the week the data were gathered.
Thus, it was not possible to match specific sampling times
with customer service rating differences. The need for
capturing time of day and day of week is especially

Practical implications of findings

Managers use of customer satisfaction measures to improve
organizational performance has become an imperative in
todays business environment. Satisfaction with service quality
is related to bottom line results. Sophisticated indices are
being developed to assess the quality of service of large, multiproduct companies, industries and economic markets. Indices
304

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

such as the ACSI and ECSI are engaged in broad based

assessments of customer satisfaction. However, they are not
likely to provide the type of information on a timely or useful
basis as is needed by managers of business enterprises
functioning in highly charged, rapidly changing niche markets
like the international fast food industry. Thus, there remains a
need to provide individual store managers scientifically based
means to gauge the service quality of their own operations
within their own unique market niches on a real-time basis,
and in highly practical ways. The use of such measurement
tools could help store managers find new ways to gain and
retain customers through their own continuous improvement
practices.

offering name brand quick food services such as Kentucky

Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, Miami Subs,
McDonalds, Burger King, Nathans Hot Dogs, Dunkin
Donuts, and other well known products that customers
associate with other industries. Shopping malls also bundle
retail with fast food restaurants. The offering of these
products at such multi service outlets may, indeed, change the
customers expectations of the products and services they
have traditionally associated with these well known name
brands. That is, is the shopping experience at Kentucky Fried
Chicken or McDonalds offered at a multi service gas station
center or a shopping mall equivalent to the products and
services that are expected and experienced at the same
franchises when they are functioning independently and when
the shopper comes in solely for a single fast food service or
product? If the customers accumulation of experiences of
service quality at service stations has been less than that of fast
food establishments, then the expectations of the service
quality of franchises such as Kentucky Fried Chicken may
also be lowered. Thus, the overall customers expectations of
Kentucky Fried Chicken may be lowered because of the lower
quality of service experienced at a quick service gas station.
The change in perceived service quality may be influenced by
the lowered (or raised) customer expectations associated with
the core industry where the services of merged industries are
offered. Today, United Air Lines serves food wraps prepared
by Bennigans restaurants. The quality of service and food on
United Airlines may well affect customer loyalty and more
generalized expectations of the Bennigans food chain. Rather
than permit less effective service oriented industries to
dominate the service offering, practitioners may want to
borrow from the practices of industries that are superior, and
use them to improve the service quality of the integrating
industry without lowering the standard of the products that
they are integrating. Could Bennigans enable United Airlines
to improve their services? Could Dunkin Donuts help change
the quality of service of gas stations? This would seem to be
another reason practitioners would opt to learn about service
satisfaction across industries and use such knowledge to
improve customer service in the systems they manage.

Quicker, just-in-time assessments for store managers

The application of the SatPers and the SatSett measures can
aid managers to assess the service quality of their own
establishments compared to others in their specific industries
in a timely and useful manner. Periodic and repetitive
sampling of customers assessments of the service quality of
their businesses can enable managers to apply statistical
process control and Motorolas six sigma techniques
(Messina, 1987; Reichfield and Sasser, 1990) to improve
the quality of their products and services and facilitate the
continuous improvement within their organizations.
Multiple stores comparisons within the same
organization
Some companies may have several geographically dispersed
stores operating within the same industry. Applications of
measures such as SatPers and SatSett at each store location
can enable managers to gain insight about the relative service
and product quality of each specific store they manage. This
would enable them to gauge the reliability of their service
quality at each store and pinpoint where the greatest
opportunities for improvement may exist, store by store.
Such measures would also make it possible for managers of
multiple stores to identify best practices that can be replicated
elsewhere among their internal business units.
Insights about government and private sector practices
Government is charged with the expectation that it deliver
products and services equally as well as the private sector. The
current American presidential administration has set as its
agenda the reform of federal agencies. It promotes more
customer focus and market-driven approaches in the manner
in which it conducts its business, and as a result Citizens
will recognize improved service, and performance and citizen
satisfaction will increase (US OMB, 2002, p. 14). The
findings from this study that relate to service satisfaction with
government agencies provide important insight into the
relative friendliness of government service delivery systems
used to meet the needs of its public.

Summary and conclusions

The perception of customer service quality has well been
demonstrated to be key to customer retention and the longterm financial success of most organizations. Yet, consumer
satisfaction is derived from the customers comparison of the
customers actual experience with a service episode contrasted
with the customers service expectation. Such expectations are
derived from both ideal and comparative standards what
should service be and what can the customer realistically
expect based on what the customer has previously
experienced. Ultimately the answers to these two questions
are idiosyncratic they are uniquely defined from person to
person, contact by contact.
It is known that service quality varies within industries, and,
because of this, organizations competing in similar market
niches are compelled to monitor both the practices of their
competitors and their own behavior in order to attract and
retain their customers. Unlike marketing experts and business
strategists, most customers do not cognitively classify their
service experiences and service expectations based on
particular market niches. Rather, they accumulate a

Integrating services and products from different

industries
Today, organizations identified with specific industries are
merging with other high name recognition organizations that
have been traditionally identified with other industries to
facilitate one stop shopping at more centralized locations. For
example, multi service gas stations are growing into multi
service centers that cater to the needs of having broader needs
be met. Some gas (petrol) stations and toll plazas are now
305

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

generalized service expectation or standard based on their

day-to-day history as customers.
This study has attempted to provide added insight into the
significant variance in service quality from the eye of the
customer. It also sharpened the focus on some types of
industries that seem to do better than others.
The study has surfaced some evidence that service
satisfaction may also vary as a result of customers
biographical characteristics. While the causes for such
differences are not known, such differences in satisfaction
may be indicative of an unequal level of service quality that is
provided those in some industries or organizations. Indeed,
organizations are charged with the obligation to be culturally
competent, and the data may indicate that more needs to be
done to assure that this organizational obligation is realized.
The implications of analysis of cross industry satisfaction
ratings hold great promise for measuring the service quality of
service outlets such as neighborhood shopping centers,
consisting of multiple industries, best in class-type
benchmarking, development of industry specific standards,
and user friendly methods for managers of business
enterprises to gauge the quality of their services and
products to further their own continuous improvement
efforts. Quite possibly the study has also helped identify an
important area for future research in consumer behavior that
merits added attention.

influence on purchase intentions, Total Quality

Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 719-24.
Chen-Yu, J., Hong, K. and Lee, Y. (2001), A comparison of
determinants of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction with
the performance of apparel products between South Korea
and the United States, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 62-71.
Churchill, G.R. and Surprenant, C. (1982), An investigation
into determinants of customer satisfaction, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 19, November, pp. 491-504.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service
quality: a re-examination and extension, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Crotts, J. and Erdmann, R. (2000), Does national culture
influence consumers evaluation of travel services? A test of
Hofstedes model of cross-cultural differences, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 410-9.
de Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2000), Customer equity
considerations in service recovery: a cross-industry
perspective, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 91-108.
Dermanov, V. and Eklof, J. (2001), Using aggregate
customer satisfaction index: challenges and problems of
comparisons with specific reference to Russia, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 12 Nos 7/8, pp. 1054-63.
Eklof, J. and Westlund, A. (2002), The pan-European
customer satisfaction index programme-current work and
the way ahead, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 8,
pp. 1099-106.
Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction
barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
Fornell, C. (2001), The score of satisfaction, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 120-1.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M., Anderson, E., Cha, J. and Bryant,
B. (1996), The American customer satisfaction index:
nature, purpose and findings, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60,
October, pp. 7-18.
Frazer-Winsted, K. (1999), Evaluating service encounters:
a cross-cultural and cross-industry analysis, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring, pp. 106-23.
Gagliano, K.B. and Hathcote, J. (1994), Customer
expectations and perceptions of service quality in retail
specialty stores, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 60-70.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M. (1999), The different roles
of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer
relationships, Journal of Marketing, April, pp. 70-87.
Gilbert, G.R. (2003), Is business mistreating Americas
model minority?, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
August.
Gilbert, G.R., Nicholls, J.A.F., Roslow, S. (1998-1999),
Measuring public sector customer service satisfaction,
The Public Manager, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 21-5.
Gilbert, G.R., Roslow, S. and Nicholls, J.A.F. (1997),
Customer satisfaction with personal service and the
service setting, Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 20.
Gilbert, G.R., Veloutsou, C., Goode, M.M.H. and
Mountinho, L. (2004), Measuring customer satisfaction
in the fast food industry: a cross national approach,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 371-83.
Grnholdt, L., Martensen, A. and Kristensen, K. (2000),
The relationship between customer satisfaction and

References
Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson, R. (1994), The financial
information content of perceived quality, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 191-201.
Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (2000), Foundations of the
American Customer Satisfaction Index, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 869-83.
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M. (1993), The antecedents
and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms,
Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-43.
Auh, S., Court-Salisbury, L. and Johnson, M. (2003), Order
effects in customer satisfaction modeling, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 19 Nos 3-4, pp. 379-400.
Bebko, C. (2000), Service intangibility and its impact on
consumer expectations of service quality, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 9-26.
Bearden, W. and Netemeyer, R. (1999), Handbook of
Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for Marketing and
Consumer Behaviour Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications in
Cooperation with the Association for Consumer Research,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Black, J.S. and Gregersen, H.B. (1999), The right way to
manage expats, Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 52-61.
Bolton, R.N. (1998), A dynamic model of the duration of
the customers relationship with a continuous service
provider: the role of customer satisfaction, Marketing
Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. (1993),
A dynamic process model of service quality: from
expectations to behavioural intentions, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 30, February, pp. 7-27.
Bou-llusar, J.C., Camison-Zornoza, C. and Escrig-Tena, A.B.
(2000), Measuring the relationship between firm
perceived quality and customer satisfaction and its
306

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

loyalty: cross-industry differences, Total Quality

Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4-6, pp. S506-14.
Gronroos, C. (1984), A service quality model and its
marketing implications, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Jones, M. and Suh, J. (2000), Transaction specific
satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an empirical analysis,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 2/3, pp. 147-69.
Kristensen, K., Dahlgaard, J.J. and Kanji, G.K. (1992), On
measurement of customer satisfaction, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 123-8.
Leisen, B. and Vance, C. (2001), Cross-national assessment
of service quality in the telecommunication industry:
evidence from the USA and Germany, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 307-17.
McColl-Kennedy, J. and Schneider, U. (2000), Measuring
customer satisfaction: why, what, and how, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 883-9.
McDougall, G. and Levesque, T. (2000), Customer
satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the
equation, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5,
pp. 392-410.
Martensen, A., Grnholdt, L. and Kristensen, K. (2000),
The drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty: crossindustry finding from Denmark, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4-6, pp. S544-53.
Messina, W.S. (1987), Statistical Quality Control for
Manufacturing Managers, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P. and Tsiros, M. (1999), Attribute-level
performance, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions over
time: a consumption-system approach, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 88-96.
Naylor, G. and Bardi-Kleiser, S. (2002), Exploring the
differences in perceptions of satisfaction across lifestyle
segments, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 343-51.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Nicholls, J.A.F., Gilbert, G.R. and Roslow, S. (1998),
Parsimonious measurement of customer satisfaction with
personal service and the service setting, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 239-53.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1996), The
behavioural consequences of service quality, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.
Reichfield, F.F. and Sasser, W.E. Jr (1990), Zero defections:
quality comes to services, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68
No. 5, pp. 105-11.
Spreng, R. and Chiou, J. (2000), A cross-cultural assessment
of the satisfaction formation process, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 7/8, pp. 829-39.
Tucker, J.T. III and Adams, S.R. (2001), Incorporating
patients assessments of satisfaction and quality:
an integrative model of patients evaluations of their
care, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 272-87.
US Office of Management and Budget (US OMB) (2002),
The presidents management agenda, available at: www.
whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/pma_index.html
Wilson, A. (2002), Attitudes towards customer satisfaction
measurement in the retail sector, International Journal of
Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 213-22.

Winsted, K. (1999), Evaluating service encounters: a crosscultural and cross-industry exploration, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring, pp. 106-23.
Yeung, M., Chew-Ging, L. and Ennew, C. (2002),
Customer satisfaction and profitability: a reappraisal of
the nature of the relationship, Journal of Targeting,
Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 24-33.
Yi, Y. (1991) in Seithmal, V.A. (Ed.), Review of Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2002), Measurement of tourist
satisfaction with restaurant services: a segment-based
approach, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 52-68.
Yuksel, A. and Rimmington, M. (1998), Customersatisfaction measurement, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 60-7.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996),
The behavioural consequences of service quality, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.

Further reading
Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, W. (1999), Linking
perceived service quality and service loyalty: a multidimensional perspective, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 33 Nos 11/12, pp. 1082-106.
Cross, T.L., Barzan, B.J., Dennis, K.W. and Isaacs, M.R.
(1989), Towards a Culturally Competent System of Care.
A Monograph on Effective Services for Minority Children who
are Severely Emotionally Disturbed, Vol. I, Georgetown
University Child Development Center, Washington, DC.
Dehisten, F. (2003), Avoiding the customer satisfaction rut,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 73-7.
Lorenzo, M.K., Pakiz, P.B., Reinherz, H.Z. and Frost, A.
(1995), Emotional and behavioral problems of Asian
American adolescents: a comparative study, Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 197-212.

Corresponding author
G. Ronald Gilbert can be contacted at: Gilbert@fiu.edu

Executive summary and implications for

managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article
in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of
the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Good companies know that finding out what their customers
think of the service they provide matters and matters a lot.
Feedback about whether or not expectations are being met is
crucial for managers. To say that satisfied customers are key
to long-term business success may be a statement based on
worthy research, but it is also a blindingly obvious one, as is
the finding that organizations which have superior service
307

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction

Journal of Services Marketing

G. Ronald Gilbert and Cleopatra Veloutsou

Volume 20 Number 5 2006 298 308

quality are market leaders in terms of sales and long-term

customer loyalty.
Knowing that is the easy bit. The hard bit is finding out just
what your customers think, and the even harder part is trying
to find out how their opinions match those of competitors
customers. To make the problem even tougher, managers also
have to be aware that customers tend to have different
expectations for different experiences.
For instance, they might have a different expectation of
having a Starbucks coffee in a retail store than buying one at a
gas station. If the experience at the gas station is good or bad,
does the nature of the service encounter count as a plus or
minus for the coffee company or the fuel station? Similarly, if
you are served up a well-known branded snack on an airline,
does the airline go up or down in the customers estimation
depending on the snack or vice versa?
And if customers have different expectations of the quality
of service they might get at bank than at a concession stand at
a sports event, why?
It is a complicated subject and no wonder that there is no
universally accepted method or measurement scale that exists.
Indeed, the measurement of consumer behavior and customer
satisfaction is more exploratory in its development rather than
a precise, exact science. Yet the importance of measurement
of customer service is well-established in marketing and
management literature.
What is needed is a simple, fast and accurate way of
assessing service satisfaction in a standardized manner both
within and across industries that meets the needs of managers
of the business units they control. G. Ronald Gilbert and
Cleopatra Veloutsou say: The use of measures that can be
validly applied in a timely manner across stores representing a
variety of industries could facilitate the improvement of a
conglomerate of service outlets in commonly shared business
locations such as neighborhood shopping centers, business
associations, and the like.
There are, of course, the widely used American and the
European Customer Satisfaction Indexes (ACSI and ECSI),
both produced annually, but impractical in terms of providing
the timely and specific feedback needed by managers of
business enterprises functioning in highly charged, rapidly
changing niche markets like the international fast food
industry. The central purpose of the paper is to assess the
relative service quality provided, not just within industries,
but also across industries, so the best practices and

benchmarks that are identified can be transferred to

organizations which have lower standards.
Assessing the opinions of nearly 11,000 customers of
banking and finance, retail, government, grocery stores,
hospitality/sports and restaurant service providers, Gilbert
and Veloutsou concluded that specific measures can be used
across various service industries to capture the level of
customers satisfaction with services provided, the
consequence being that cross-industry benchmarking and
the identification of best practices can be captured and used
by practitioners.
Unlike marketing experts and business strategists, most
customers do not cognitively classify their service experiences
and service expectations based on particular market niches.
Rather, they accumulate a generalized service expectation or
standard based on their day-to-day history as customers.
There remains a need to provide individual store managers
with scientifically based means to gauge the service quality of
their own operations within their own unique market niches
on a real-time basis, and in highly practical ways. The use of
such measurement tools could help them find new ways to
gain and retain customers through their own continuous
improvement practices.
The application of satisfaction with personal service
(SatPers) and satisfaction with the service setting (SatSett)
measures can aid managers to assess the service quality of
their own establishments compared with others in their
specific industries in a timely and useful manner. Periodic and
repetitive sampling of customers assessments of the service
quality of their businesses can enable managers to apply
statistical process control and Motorolas six sigma techniques
to improve the quality of their products and services and
facilitate their continuous improvement.
The implications of analysis of cross industry satisfaction
ratings hold great promise for measuring the service quality of
service outlets such as neighbourhood shopping centers,
consisting of multiple industries, best in class-type
benchmarking, development of industry specific standards,
and user friendly methods for managers of business
enterprises to gauge the quality of their services and
products to further their own continuous improvement efforts.
(A precis of the article A cross-industry comparison of customer
satisfaction. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

308

Downloaded by Telkom University At 22:18 01 December 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Xianghui Peng, Rebecca Scott, Victor Prybutok, Anna Sidorova. 2014. Product quality vs service quality in the mobile industry:
Is there a dominant driver of customer intention to switch providers?. Operations Management Research 7, 63-76. [CrossRef]
2. Somjit Barat, John E. Spillan. 2014. An Exploratory Study of Customer Satisfaction in a Community Bank. International Journal
of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management 3:3, 15-32. [CrossRef]
3. Ibrahim Taylan Dortyol, Inci Varinli, Olgun Kitapci. 2014. How do international tourists perceive hotel quality?. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:3, 470-495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Mathetha Mokonyama, Christoffel Venter. 2013. Incorporation of customer satisfaction in public transport contracts A
preliminary analysis. Research in Transportation Economics 39:1, 58-66. [CrossRef]
5. Nai-Hua Chen, Stephen Chi-Tsun Huang, Shih-Tung Shu, Tung-Sheng Wang. 2013. Market segmentation, service quality, and
overall satisfaction: self-organizing map and structural equation modeling methods. Quality & Quantity 47:2, 969-987. [CrossRef]
6. P. Gonzlez-Redondo, P. Garca-Domnguez. 2012. Typification and characterisation of the pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) game
farms in Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 10:4, 1005. [CrossRef]
7. Ieva Meidut, Michail Litvinenko, Artras Aranskis. 2012. Logistics Cooperation: Integrated Logistics Services. Verslas: teorija
ir praktika 13:4, 343-351. [CrossRef]
8. Millissa Fung-Yi Cheung, Wai-Ming To. 2012. How does customer motivational orientation affect satisfaction?. Journal of
Financial Services Marketing 17:2, 135-147. [CrossRef]
9. Ling Zhao, Yaobin Lu, Long Zhang, Patrick Y.K. Chau. 2012. Assessing the effects of service quality and justice on customer
satisfaction and the continuance intention of mobile value-added services: An empirical test of a multidimensional model. Decision
Support Systems 52:3, 645-656. [CrossRef]
10. Mamoun N. Akroush. 2012. An empirical model of marketing strategy and shareholder value. Competitiveness Review 22:1, 48-89.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Amjad A. AbuELSamen, Mamoun N. Akroush, Fayez M. AlKhawaldeh, Motteh S. AlShibly. 2011. Towards an integrated
model of customer service skills and customer loyalty. International Journal of Commerce and Management 21:4, 349-380.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Hong Qin, Victor R. Prybutok, Qilan Zhao. 2010. Perceived service quality in fastfood restaurants: empirical evidence from
China. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 27:4, 424-437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Lars Silver, Bjrn Berggren. 2010. The Close Relationship Strategy Corporate brand development in banking. Journal of Brand
Management 17:4, 289-300. [CrossRef]
14. Hong Qin, Victor R. Prybutok. 2009. Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in fastfood restaurants.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 1:1, 78-95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Liz Gill, Lesley White. 2009. A critical review of patient satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services 22:1, 8-19. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
16. Linda C. Ueltschy, Michel Laroche, Paulo Rita, Claudia Bocaranda. 2008. A PanEuropean Approach to Customer Satisfaction:
An Optimal Strategy?. Multinational Business Review 16:3, 41-72. [Abstract] [PDF]
17. Albert Graf, Peter Maas. 2008. Customer value from acustomer perspective: acomprehensive review. Journal fr Betriebswirtschaft
58:1, 1-20. [CrossRef]
18. Udechukwu Ojiako, Eric Johansen, David Greenwood. 2008. A qualitative reconstruction of project measurement criteria.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 108:3, 405-417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Somjit Barat, John E. SpillanAn Exploratory Study of Customer Satisfaction in a Community Bank 111-127. [CrossRef]