Transcript 行銷努力、企業品牌權益、企業信任與顧客忠誠度關係

The Relationships among Marketing Forces, Industrial Brand Equity,
Trust, and Customer Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Taiwan Lumber
Import Market
Tse-Wen Hsieh, Tsui-Ying Huang, and Jun-Yen Lee
Presented by Jun-Yen Lee, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Bio-industry
& Agribusiness Administration
National Chai-Yi University, Taiwan
Email:[email protected]
1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The importance of customer loyalty.
Can the marketing forces lead to customer loyalty?
What are the mediators in this relationship?
Objectives
To understand the relationships of marketing forces, industrial
brand equity, trust, and customer loyalty.
To explore the mediating effects of industrial brand equity and trust
between marketing forces and customer loyalty.
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
1.
of a brand relative to
Marketing forcesSuperiority
:5
Ps
alternative products
Ability to identify the brand
Kotler (1999) ；McCarthy (1960) ；Booms and Bitner(1981)
2. Industrial brand equity: brand awareness and brand
quality.
Moral responsibility
and positive
Technical capabilities
and skills
Keep promises
to the other
Mudambi (1997) ；Allard intentions
et al. (2005)
3. Trust: one company’s expectation of the other company’s
competence, goodwill, and behavior.
Sako (1992) ；Anderson and Narus (1990) ； Moorman et al. (1993) ；
Morgan and Hunt (1994)
4. Customer loyalty: repeated purchases of the brand.
Oliver (1997)； Rubinson (1996)；Simeon Chow (1997) ； Chaudhuri
and Holbrook (2001) ；Taylor(2004)
3
MODEL
The proposed research model
Trust
Taylor(2004)
H2
H6
H5
Marketing
forces
Customer
loyalty
H1
H4
H3
Aaker(1991)
Allard et al.(2005)
Brand
equity
4
MODEL
Rival model
Marketing
forces
Trust
H7
H8
Customer
loyalty
H9
Brand
equity
5
METHOD
•
•
•
Samples：259 companies
Survey method: questionnaire sent by mail and e-mail
Data analysis method: Structure Equation Modeling
(SEM)
Mail
E-mail
Total
Sent
159
100
259
Responses
62
12
99
Follow-up returns
Response rate (%)
Valid questionnaire
25
38.2％
89
6
EMPERICAL RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Characteristics
Items
Frequencies
Job position
1. CEO
2. Purchase manager
3. others_____
27
43
19
Sales/yr
1. less than $5 million (or U.S. $
170 thousands)
2 $5million~$10 million
3. More than $20 million
12
15
13
49
Operating term
1. less than 10 years
2. 11~15 years
3. 16 ~20 year
4. More than 21 years
18
17
22
32
1. Less than 5 years
2. 5-10 years
3. 10-15 years
4. 15 years
12
18
14
45
Work experience
Respondent
status
7
EMPERICAL RESULTS
Reliability and validity analysis
1. Reliability ：
Constructs
Cronbach’s α
Marketing forces (4 Items)
0.903
Industrial brand equity (4 Items)
0.890
Trust (3 Items)
0.749
Customer loyalty (5 Items)
0.892
8
EMPERICAL RESULTS
2. Validity ：
– Content validity
– Construct validity ：Validating by the confirmatory factor
analysis( CFA)
9
EMPERICAL RESULTS
Construct validity analysis
1. Brand equity :
ˇ
ˇ
2. Marketing forces：
ˇ
ˇ
CMIN/DF=0.043 , GFI=1.000 , CFI=1.000 , RMSEA=0.000
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
CMIN/DF=0.877 , GFI=0.941 , CFI=1.000 , RMSEA=0.000
10
3. Trust:
EMPERICAL RESULTS
4. Customer loyalty
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
CMIN/DF=0.157 , GFI=0.999 , CFI=1.000 , RMSEA=0.000
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
MIN/DF=0.742 , GFI=0.987 , CFI=1.000 , RMSEA=0.000
11
EMPERICAL RESULTS
5. Construct validity analysis for whole constructs
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
MIN/DF=1.470 , GFI=0.840 , CFI=0.944 , RMSEA=0.073
12
EMPERICAL RESULTS
Goodness of fit and Hypothesis tests
1. The proposed research model
MIN/DF=1.470 , GFI=0.840 , CFI=0.944 , RMSEA=0.073
13
EMPERICAL RESULTS
2. Modified model-ModelⅠ
MIN/DF=1.460 , GFI=0.840 , CFI=0.944 , RMSEA=0.073
14
EMPERICAL RESULTS
3. Modified model- ModelⅡ
MIN/DF=1.521 , GFI=0.835 , CFI=0.937 , RMSEA=0.077
15
EMPERICAL RESULTS
4. Modified model- ModelⅢ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
MIN/DF=1.515 , GFI=0.834 , CFI=0.937 , RMSEA=0.076
16
EMPERICAL RESULTS
5. Rival model
et1
et2
et3
.57
.68
.69
TRUST35
TRUST36
TRUST37
.75
.83
.83
.82
.62
ep1
PRICE
ep3
.37
mf
.23
.48
ecl .90
LA2
cl
LA4
.54
.55
.59
.54
.60
.66
.44
be
ep4 PROMOTIO
.84
↓
.90
.19
.36 .79
PLACE .60
ep2
LA1
trust
PRODUCT
.87
LB2
.80
eca2
.31
eca3
.35
ecb2
.30
LB4
.86
.76
.75
.61
BA1
BA2
BA3
BA4
eb1
eb2
eb3
eb4
↓
.56
ecb4
.78
.71
↓
eca1
ㄨ
MIN/DF=1.929 , GFI=0.796 , CFI=0.886 , RMSEA=0.103
17
EMPERICAL RESULTS
Research hypotheses
Hypotheses
Descriptions
Standardized estimates
Path
Proposed
research model
ModelⅢ
H1:
Marketing forces has a direct positive
mf cl
effect on customer loyalty.
0.353**
------------
H2:
Marketing forces has a direct positive
mf trust
effect on trust.
0.469＊＊
0.617＊＊＊
H3:
Marketing forces has a direct positive
mf be
effect on industrial brand equity.
0.603＊＊＊
0.642＊＊＊
H4:
Industrial brand equity has a direct
positive effect on customer loyalty. be cl
0.478＊＊＊
0.640＊＊＊
H5:
Trust has a direct positive effect on
customer loyalty.
trust cl
0.096
0.252＊＊
H6:
Industrial brand equity has a direct
positive effect on trust.
be trust
0.178
-----------18
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
-Hypothesis tests show that marketing forces has a direct positive
effect on industrial brand equity and trust.
-Also, trust and industrial brand equity has a direct positive
effect on customer loyalty, respectively.
-Industrial brand equity and trust are the mediating factors
between marketing forces and customer loyalty.
-Industrial brand equity has higher effect on customer loyalty
than trust has.
-To increase wood raw material buyers’ loyalty, the suppliers
should build brand equity and customer trust.
19
Thank you!
20