Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Francis Buttle
is Professor of Managment (marketing, and customer relationship managment) at
Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney. Francis
has nearly 30 years' experience in marketing management, education, consultancy and
research. He has lived and worked on three continents: Europe, Australasia and North
America and has published nearly 200 items, including three books. His most recent
book is an edited volume on the theory and practice of relationship marketing. He is
currently writing one book on CRM, and co-authoring another on Hospitality
Marketing. He has degrees in management science, marketing and communication.
His PhD is from the University of Massachusetts. His teaching and research interests
include customer relationship management, customer retention, service quality and
management in service industries. He is on the editorial boards of several journals
including the European Journal of Marketing, the International Journal of Customer
Relationship Management and the Journal of Marketing Management. He was a judge of
the ®rst international CRM Industry Awards. He has consulted for some 30 companies
and government agencies and joined Macquarie Graduate School of Management in
August 2001.
Jamie Burton
is the Littlewoods Post Doctoral Fellow at Manchester Business School. He completed
his PhD at Manchester Business School in 2001, having won the Yorkshire Water
doctoral scholarship. His research involves relationship marketing, loyalty and
development of a quality model for `product-dominated' industries that incorporates
product and image quality.
Abstract
There is a general consensus that customer loyalty to service providers is not solely
Keywords:
dependent upon their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. However, the identi®ed
Service failure,
antecedents of loyalty remain, at best, highly speculative. The aim of this extensive
sevice recovery,
literature review is to give some understanding of the nature of customer loyalty and the
justice perceptions, antecedent effects of service dissatisfaction.
customer value, The research reviewed suggests that customer loyalty is an attitudinal state, re¯ecting
customer loyalty, value, trust and commitment within supplier±customer relationships. Satisfaction is one
customer exit of several antecedents of loyalty. A key in¯uence on loyalty is the offer of unique value-
delivering advantages not provided by competitors. Thus ®rms need to develop positive
Francis Buttle
Macquarie Graduate
value-based exit barriers to achieve loyalty. When service failures occur, the recovery
School of Manage- process is likely to have a greater impact on loyalty than the original service failure. The
ment, Macquarie Uni- key to successful recoveries was found to be the customer's perception of `fairness'.
versity, Sydney, NSW
2109, Australia
Recovery programmes must get it right ®rst time. Customers who remain dissatis®ed after
Tel: +61 (2)9850 8987 a complaint has been handled are more dissatis®ed than if no recovery attempt had been
Fax: +61 (2)9850 9019 made. Dissatisfaction and customer satiation are major causes of a customer's exit. The
e-mail:
francis.buttle@
solution to customer satiation is dynamic value creation. Collection and monitoring of
gsm.mq.edu.au customer data is needed for success and two-way communication is vital.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 217
Francis Buttle and Jamie Burton
218 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Does service failure in¯uence customer loyalty?
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 219
Francis Buttle and Jamie Burton
220 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Does service failure in¯uence customer loyalty?
et al. (1996) suggest that a single genuine failed service encounter, response to
failure can lead to further complaint on failed service, competition, ethical
other issues: a `halo effect'. problems and involuntary switching.
All except competition and involuntary
DISSATISFACTION Ð THE SILENT switching are directly controllable by
MAJORITY the service provider. Forty-®ve per cent
Even if a service ®rm adopts a policy of of switches were due to failure in only
recovery not all dissatis®ed customers one of these eight areas Ð the most
will give them the chance to recover. common being core service failures,
Many simply take their custom pricing and service encounter failures.
elsewhere (Blodgett et al., 1995). High As a consequence of service failure, 75
percentages of dissatis®ed customers do per cent of customers had told at least
not complain: 70 per cent (Jamieson, one other person, although only 7 per
1994, p. 12); 96 per cent, of whom 63 per cent told the original service provider,
cent defect (Diamond, 1999 and and 85 per cent had switched. Dawe
Michelsen, 1999). Studies suggest that (2000) reveals that the consultancy
only 4 to 10 per cent of customers will eLoyalty has identi®ed a `churn
give ®rms the chance to correct a service checklist' ranging from the obvious
failure (Zemke, 1994; PA Consulting, service failures Ð for example, staff
2000). Goodman and Ward (1993) and rudeness and product failure Ð to more
Cash (1995) report that the majority of relationship-orientated issues including
complaints fail to reach the attention of failure to recognise customers as
senior management. Many consumers individuals or to adapt services to their
will feel that there is no point in speci®c needs. Keaveney's (1995) study
complaining as they perceive a low also con®rmed that even satis®ed
likelihood of complaint success, or customers switch service providers Ð
cannot be bothered with the effort and the main reasons being convenience,
cost of complaining. In competitive competitor actions or price. Reill (1997)
industries these customers are likely to suggests that 14±15 per cent of
exit, and engage in negative WOM switchers do so because their complaint
(Blodgett et al., 1993; Etzel and was not handled satisfactorily.
Silverman, 1981; Fornell and Wernerfelt,
1987; Spreng et al., 1995). DEFECTION MODEL
Stewart (1998) identi®es three dyadic
DEFECTION descriptors of customer exit Ð
Goodman and Ward's (1993) study for revocable or irrevocable, complete
the US Of®ce of Consumer Affairs termination or reduction of patronage,
suggests that for every ®ve customers and mutual or unilateral exit. Her
who encounter a problem, one will be review of research into exit behaviour
lost for good. Non-complainers were suggested that exit is a process whose
found to be the least loyal customers Ð nature is best captured by CIT and is
even more disloyal than complaining dependent upon a trigger activating the
dissatis®ed customers whose problems exit process. Stewart (1998) cites
were not resolved. Keaveney (1995) Andreason's (1988) claim that
conducted a study of 500 service consumers only take action over a third
customers using a critical incident of their problems and that 60 per cent of
technique (CIT). She identi®ed over 800 this action would be voice as opposed to
service-®rm behaviours that caused exit. She lists a number of possible
customers to switch service providers. explanations: exit may only occur where
These issues were coded into eight dissatisfaction is extreme, customers
general categories: pricing, may see exit as a last resort, and, if a
inconvenience, core service failure, relationship is of suf®cient quality,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 221
Francis Buttle and Jamie Burton
222 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Does service failure in¯uence customer loyalty?
Action Scenario
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 223
Francis Buttle and Jamie Burton
of customers whose problems are solved and competitors is the key to loyalty.
buy again' (KPMG, 2000). `Only 4% of Loyal relationships, where ®rms are
dissatis®ed customers typically ef®ciently monitoring and collecting
complain. Yet, by being able to solve information about customers, give ®rms
problems effectively, 80% of customers the ability to anticipate consumers' future
will stay, and by solving problems fast needs, allowing them to surprise and
and effectively, 95% will stay, sometimes delight customers. Delight reinforces
becoming more loyal' (PA Consulting, loyalty, thus the key is the dynamic
1999). Geller (1997) identi®es 14 momentum involved in remaining ahead
elements important in achieving of customers' needs (Oliva et al., 1992).
customer loyalty. The most signi®cant of
which are the quality/value of the REACTIVATING CUSTOMERS
product and service, the impression or Geller (1997) suggests that customer
image portrayed, the dynamism of the databases should be explored and
organisation, communication and scrutinised to determine whether
achieving the unexpected for customers. customers might be considering
Fredericks and Salter (1995) simplify defection. Johnson (1994) stresses the
these issues further, suggesting that importance of knowing a customer's
customer loyalty is determined by the repeat sales ratio (the average interval
perception of value offered by the between purchase occasions). He
marketer. They identi®ed ®ve main claims that customers have a `reverse
components of the CVP: price, product horizon' just past the repeat sales ratio,
quality, service quality, innovation and beyond which they will be lost to
image. Their model suggests that competition if they are not re-activated.
customer perceived value is in¯uenced KPMG (1999) see the development of
both by individual customer tools to identify at-risk customers as one
requirements and characteristics, and by of the critical defensive marketing issues
the nature of the business environment. for successful businesses of the future.
Loyalty is thus not directly controllable
by the marketer. To their list might be CONCLUSIONS
added other elements of the CVP: It is widely believed that achieving
process, people, physical evidence, excellent service performance is vital for
customer communication, brand and the survival of service organisations.
reputation. Kandampully (1998) cites Dif®culties in achieving consistent
Zeithaml and Bitner's (1996) claim that service quality, even where
customers will remain loyal if the relationships with customers have been
perceived value they receive is relatively successfully developed, mean that
greater than that of competitors' organisations may need to use service
offerings. Loyalty is a reward given to recovery strategies. The ®rm must
®rms that consistently identify and act create a powerful belief that, if
upon latent, unexpressed, customer customers complain, they will receive
needs. Firms that ensure they have justice. There is scope for research into
accurate two-way communication with how service recovery techniques affect
customers will be better positioned to dissatisfaction and subsequent
adapt their offers (Schneider, 1997). behaviour/attitude.
`Companies will never encourage a In conclusion, customer loyalty is
relationship with a customer by thought to be dependent upon customer
consistently getting addresses wrong or perception of value. This will depend in
opening their communication with Dear part upon customers' level of
Homeowner/Occupier' (Rowell, 1998). satisfaction with current service but also
Kandampully (1998) concurs that how well the supplier is innovating and
being one step ahead of customer needs anticipating their next need. Customers
224 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Does service failure in¯uence customer loyalty?
Outside
Yes
zone of
tolerance?
No
No
Yes
Feel
Service evaluation
satisfied?
loyalty
. repeat buying Feel
behaviour justice?
. attitude
Negative
No voice and
exit
behaviours
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 225
Francis Buttle and Jamie Burton
226 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817
Does service failure in¯uence customer loyalty?
Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 217±227 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 227