Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
-
Upload
slaheddine-dardouri -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
Transcript of Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
1/18
http://rme.sagepub.com/(English Edition)
Recherche et Applications en Marketing
http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/205157071002500401
2010 25: 7Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)William Sabadie
Because You're Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association Franaise du Marketing
can be found at:Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)Additional services and information for
http://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Dec 1, 2010Version of Record>>
by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://-/?-http://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7.refs.htmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://-/?-http://www.sagepublications.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/4/7http://rme.sagepub.com/ -
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
2/18
Researchers and marketing professionals propose
placing the customer at the heart of the firms preoc-
cupations. From a historical perspective, the place
occupied by the customer has grown with increasedmarket competition, more consumer information and
pressure from consumer movements (Cochoy, 1999,
2002; Ughetto, 2002). Thus, customers could believe
that firms do everything in their power to avoid
disappointment and enchant consumers day after day
(Firat and Venkatesh, 1995). This feeling is reinfor-
ced by corporate advertising. Schwarzkopf knows
that every woman wants to be treated like a queen
and LOral systematically reminds us that were
worth it.Recognizing the existence of customer status
means believing a firm has certain obligations toward
the latter (Sarbin and Allen, 1968). In addition, this
status entails behavioral standards such as considera-
tion (Sahlins, 1972). Yet, in practice, we can see that
satisfying all customers is not an end in itself: in
Recherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 25, n 4/2010
Because Youre Worth It:
A Study of the Consumer Status Concept
William Sabadie
Professor
Universit de Lyon
CoActiS
The author wishes to thank Sonia Capelli for her sound advice and invaluable support.He can be reached at the following e-mail address: [email protected]
RESEARCH
ABSTRACT
Relationship marketing is built on the reciprocity principle: companies offer special treatment and rewards to their customers
in order to encourage a better relationship. This study examines the impact of these efforts (staff attention and privileged
offers) as symbols of the customers position within the hierarchy established by the company. After defining and measuring the
Customer Status Concept within the context of the cell phone industry, the results are used to demonstrate, with a population of
gym club users, the influence of perceived status on the quality of customer relationships.
Keywords: Status, customer relationship, loyalty.
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
3/18
order to maximize profits, it is sometimes preferable to
concentrate on pleasing certain customers. Customer
equity management is based on an economic concep-
tion: the firm is willing to make an effort, but only
for customers who are worth the trouble. This means
abandoning certain customers, as well as calculating
and supporting the cost of their disappointment
(Wagner, Hennig-Thurau and Rudolph, 2009).
Consequently, marketing principles require the firm
to rank its customers according to importance,
understood here as the real or potential profits they
represent. Ranking is used to define the nature and
level of efforts granted to earn the loyalty of each
customer. Also, the principle of reciprocity requires
that customers be aware of the efforts made by the
firm in order to reward it in turn through their pur-
chases (Bagozzi, 1995). For example, the telecomfirm Orange explains this mechanism on its French
website: Today, placing your trust in us is even
more rewarding: collect points and win numerous
prizes in return for your loyalty to Orange. Thus,
studies conducted in the field of relationship marketing
show that the firms efforts, special attention and per-
sonalized services, for example, positively influence
the quality of its relationship with customers
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Palmatier et al., 2006).
A large number of studies show that investments in
relations increase consumer trust and commitment,
which in turn influence consumer attitudes and there-
fore the firms performance (Garbarino and Johnson,
1999; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh, Singh
and Sabol, 2002). However, Palmatier et al. (2006)
demonstrate, through a meta-analysis, that invest-
ments in relations can also influence the firms per-
formance directly. These results encourage further
research in order to discover new variables involved in
the process that links the firms efforts to influence
relationships and its performance. Thus, Palmatier et
al. (2009) show that the consumers feeling of grati-
tude is a mediating variable that contributes to theprocess. Similarly, this article proposes that an indivi-
duals perception of his position in the customer ran-
king system also plays a role. This ranking system is
sometimes clearly expressed by the firm (Visa
Premier and Gold Card status in the banking sector, for
example). In this case, Drze and Nunes (2009) have
shown that position in the customer ranking system, or
status, influences whether customers feel they are
special. They show that an increase in the number of
privileged customers in the highest strata dilutes the
perception of special status, while adding a lower
level reinforces this perception. However, to our
knowledge there have been no studies of the indivi-
duals perceptions of his rank when customer status
is not clearly indicated by the firm. Yet, the nature
and degree of effort, even the absence of effort,
should provide clues that the customer can use to
judge how he is considered by the firm.
This is why this study examines how customers
interpret marketing initiatives designed to influence
them in order to determine their status, or the customer
status concept (CSC). The main goal is to test the
mediating role of the CSC on the link between rela-
tionship building efforts on the part of the firm and
customer attitudes.
This article comprises three parts. First, we pre-
sent the fundamentals of the CSC. Second, we pro-pose a research model in order to understand the
antecedents and consequences of the CSC. Third, we
present the results of a study designed to construct a
measurement tool for the CSC and test our research
hypotheses with cell phone and gym club customers.
The results show the role of the CSC as a mediating
variable in the relationship between the companys
efforts (special treatment and privileges) and the qua-
lity of the relationship.
THE CUSTOMER STATUS CONCEPT (CSC)
Consumer experiences offer an opportunity for
customers to evaluate how they are considered by a
firm. For example, privileges granted under a loyalty
program or how problems are handled serve as sym-
bols of customer importance. Thus, Drze and Nunes(2009) have shown how the hierarchical structure of a
loyalty program, i.e., the number of levels and the
number of customers in each class, influences the
customers perception of his special status. Wagner,
Hennig-Thurau and Rudolph (2009) observe that a
customers demotion has a greater influence on
loyalty than promotion to a higher level. In a B-to-B
context, Ivens and Pardo (2004) show that the
impression of being an important customer positively
influences intentions to pursue the relationship. More
William Sabadie8
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
4/18
generally, the more special the customer feels the
more loyal he will be (Frankwick, Porter and Crosby,
2001) and the more he will recommend the firm
(Price and Arnould, 1999). These studies underline
the role of the customers position in the firms explicitranking system.
It is therefore important to specify the mecha-
nisms likely to explain the role of the CSC and to
define the concept.
The fundamentals of customer ranking
Marketing recognizes the interest of ranking cus-
tomers for two reasons: the customers profitability
and expectations of uniqueness. First, current and
future levels of a customers spending incite the firm to
make more or less of an effort to reward him.
According to contemporary exchange theory (Blau,
1963), both parties consider their costs and benefits.
Adams equity theory (1965) shows that feelings of
fairness result from the principle of internal equity:
the balance between costs and rewards. Customer
rewards consist, particularly, in all efforts granted by
the service provider (for example, personalized ser-
vice). According to the principle of external equity,
the customers impression of fairness also results
from comparing his own cost/reward ratio with thatof other customers.
Second, ranking is a way of meeting individual
needs for uniqueness and superiority. The relational
approach to exchanges (e.g., MacNeil, 1980) consi-
ders benefits to be more identity-related and emotional.
Brewer (1991) suggests that the individuals quest for
social identity aims to satisfy, simultaneously, the
need for assimilation and differentiation. On the one
hand, we must consider the customers need for the
service provider to comply with behaviors inherent in
the customer/supplier role-play (courtesy, forexample). Thus, Gwinner, Gremler and Bitner (1998)
emphasize the importance of recognition, which is
understood as a sign of respect and membership in a
specific social group, to explain customer loyalty.
Respect is a key variable in relational exchanges. The
term respect denotes both a positive feeling of
esteem for a person and specific actions and conduct
representative of that esteem. It is therefore both a
condition for the transaction to take place and a
means for the parties to assess how they are valued
(Pharo, 2001). In the organizational sphere, Lind and
Tyler (1988) and Tyler and Lind (1992) underline the
importance of feelings of consideration and respect
for others. According to Folger and Cropanzano
(1998), people desire to be valued and esteemed byothers [...]. Among other things, this would include a
sense of dignity and the respect of ones peers.
On the other hand, the firm must consider the
need to differentiate customers (Snyder and Fromkin,
1980). Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954)
suggests that individuals evaluate their own abilities by
comparing themselves to others. People need to
believe they are superior to others (Taylor and
Brown, 1988), and comparisons with less privileged
individuals can increase self-esteem (Wills, 1981).
Leary et al. (1995) define self-esteem as the feeling of
being accepted or rejected by the other party of atransaction. In the context of commercial relations,
privileges must be perceived by the customer as sym-
bols of his importance for the service provider.
Brocks commodity theory deals with the psycholo-
gical effects of scarcity. In this context, exclusive
offers are valued more because possessing rare com-
modities provides feelings of personal distinction or an
impression of uniqueness (Brock, 1968).
Definition of status
Chappuis and Thomas (1995) define status as a
position within a hierarchy fostered by a given social
group that implies specific behaviors and roles. Each
party knows how to act according to the status and
behavior of the other party and vice versa (Solomon et
al., 1985; Sahlins, 1972). In the field of marketing,
customer ranking is based on segmentation accor-
ding to the value of each customer for the firm. Also, it
is the firms efforts that allow the customer to appre-
ciate the value he has in the eyes of the firm and hisposition within this hierarchy. He can base his judg-
ment on the reciprocity principle, according to which
loyal customers are rewarded by efforts on the part of
the firm (Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Ganesan, 1994;
Huppertz, Arenson and Richard, 1978; Houston and
Gassenheimer, 1987; Bagozzi, 1995; Palmatier et al.,
2006).
The CSC is defined in this study as the indivi-
duals perception of his position within the firms
customer ranking system; this position is reflected
Because Youre Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept 9
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
5/18
in the level of consideration granted to him due to
his value.
Status is therefore not envisaged as membership
of a formal category defined by the firm, as in the
work of Drze and Nunes (2009) and Wagner,Hennig-Thurau and Rudolph (2009). Instead, it is the
customers perception, based on the service provi-
ders efforts. These efforts are symbols of the custo-
mers importance. The latter interprets the firms
actions in order to define his place in the customer
hierarchy.
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF THE CSC
The object of this article is to examine the media-
ting role of the CSC between the firms efforts and
the quality of the relationship. A mediator is a
variable that is used to explain the process by which
one variable influences another (Chumpitaz and
Vanhamme, 2003). We want to know to what extent
the CSC can contribute to explaining the process by
which the relational efforts of the service providerare effective, or not. In other words, a share of the
influence of the firms efforts on the quality of the
relationship should involve the CSC. Studying the
quality of the relationship as a variable predicted by
the efforts of the service provider is consistent with
studies conducted in the field of relationship marketing
(Palmatier et al., 2006). The quality of the relation-
ship can be considered a global judgment of the rela-
tionships strength (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999).
Some studies consider quality to be a multi-dimen-
sional concept (e.g., Kumar, Scheer and Steenkamp,
1995). While debate persists as to the exact number of
dimensions, a consensus has been reached concer-
ning the importance of satisfaction, commitment and
trust. Thus, a higher quality relationship should go
hand in hand with a higher level of satisfaction and
loyalty intention. In this study, the quality of the rela-
tionship is understood mainly through its conse-
quences: word-of-mouth intention, loyalty intention
and satisfaction. There are several reasons that justify
the choice of an aggregate concept of relationship
quality rather than a separate study of each of its
dimensions. First, the concepts of satisfaction,
loyalty intention and recommendation intention are
generally highly correlated (Appendix A2) and have
been aggregated in previous studies (e.g., De Wulf,Odekerken-Schrder and Iacobucci, 2001). Second,
the validity of the quality-satisfaction-repeat pur-
chase intention-profit causal chain has been demons-
trated in various theoretical and empirical studies
(Anderson, Fornell and Lehmann, 1994; Rust,
Zahorik and Keiningham, 1995; Hennig-Thurau,
Gwinner and Gremler, 2002) and is not the object of
this study. Third, while the concepts are distinct,
respondents have difficulty differentiating them and
tend to consider them in the same way (Crosby,
Evans and Cowles, 1990). Finally, trust was not
selected as an indicator of relationship quality
because we preferred to use this concept to characte-
rize the credibility of the service providers loyalty
building efforts. Indeed, according to the reciprocity
principle, the consumer is under psychological pres-
sure to reward the efforts of the firm in order to avoid
feelings of guilt (Becker, 1986; Dahl, Honea and
Manchanda, 2005). Yet, the efficiency of investments
in relationships depends on the motivations the
consumer attributes to the firm (Palmatier et al.,
2009). Trust, particularly its moral dimension, is
based on a mechanism for attributing qualities, cha-racteristics and/or intentions to a partner. Thus, inte-
grity involves attributing genuine motivations to a
brand in terms of keeping its promises concerning
the conditions of the transaction, in other words the
honesty of its discourse in general (Gurviez and
Korchia, 2002, p. 47). Trust is therefore viewed as
moderating the influence of the firms efforts on cus-
tomer attitudes. It cannot be considered an endoge-
nous variable.
Two types of antecedents are distinguished,
according to whether the firms efforts aim to show
consideration for the customer within a
customer/corporate relationship (non-exclusive per-
sonalization) or within a customer/customer relation-
ship (exclusive personalization). Non-exclusive per-
sonalization concerns the attention granted by the
firm to each of its customers. The firm does not distin-
guish a particular customer from others, but demons-
trates its interest in satisfying his expectations.
Exclusive personalization consists, on the contrary,
in the firm making special efforts to demonstrate the
William Sabadie10
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
6/18
importance of a particular customer compared to
others.
Non-exclusive personalization
Non-exclusive personalization covers different
notions such as individualized and adapted offers or
special attention of staff (Salerno, 2005). In a B-to-B
context, Frankwick, Porter and Crosby (2001)
demonstrate that the level of attention granted by a
salesperson (responses to expectations or complaints,
for example) is correlated with the level of the CSC.
The authors propose a research protocol designed to
link perceived customer status with real efforts by the
firm. They use the concept of salesperson-customer
relationship status, supported by a categorical mea-
sure, to characterize the strength of ties between the
two parties. Thus, top ranking customers are in
contact with a salesperson capable of making customer
policy decisions and advising them without referring to
a supervisor. Customers ranked in second place are
in contact with a dedicated salesperson, but who can-
not make decisions about customer policy. On the
third level, customers are not in contact with a dedica-
ted salesperson and sales staff is not involved in defi-
ning customer strategies. Finally, orphan custo-
mers do not have relations with sales staff. Researchon service quality also shows the influence of inter-
personal relations, and in particular attention granted to
customers, on satisfaction. The understanding
dimension refers to the level of consideration and
individual attention granted and efforts made by the
firm to understand consumers (Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry, 1985). This is why our first
research hypothesis postulates that the attention cus-
tomers receive positively influences the CSC.
H1: The CSC mediates the link between attention
granted to the customer and the quality ofthe relationship.
Exclusive personalization
According to Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995), rela-
tionship marketing is based specifically on the
consumers need for differentiation. Salerno (2001)
emphasizes that the notion of exclusiveness covers
several similar aspects: privileged service, special
treatment, exceptional attention, perks, unexpected
attention and services not available for others
(Bhattacharya, Rao and Glynn, 1995; Berry, 1995;
Gwinner, Gremler and Bitner, 1998). Preferentialtreatment is defined as a consumers perception of
the extent to which a retailer treats and serves its
regular customers better than its nonregular custo-
mers (Gwinner, Gremler and Bitner, 1998; De Wulf et
al., 2001). In the service sector, Bitner, Booms and
Tetreault (1990) and Price, Arnould and Tierney
(1995) show that special attention and small perks
are an important determinant in satisfaction and
memorable experiences. In France, Salerno (2005)
and Collin-Lachaud and Sueur (2008) show that spe-
cial attention influences customer satisfaction in ban-
king and retailing, respectively.
H2: The CSC mediates the link between the per-
ception of benefiting from privileges and the
quality of the relationship.
The links described above are summarized in
Figure 1.
Previous studies present perceived sincerity of
advertising as a key element in consumer apprecia-
tion (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Goldsmith,
Lafferty and Newell, 2000; De Pechpeyrou, Parguel
and Desmet, 2006). Sincerity is presented as adimension of perceived credibility (Eisend, 2006).
The customer feels that the service provider is not
trying to deceive him. Indeed, customers formulate
judgments concerning the service providers motives
(Friestad and Wright, 1994). Thus, Boulaire (2003)
demonstrates that birthday cards sent by firms are
sometimes perceived as calculated gestures designed to
create a feeling of indebtedness. Sincerity of the
firms intentions therefore seems to be a condition
for effective marketing initiatives (De Pechpeyrou,
Parguel and Desmet, 2006). In questioning the since-rity of the offer, the consumer can consider that he is
not really valued, but merely reaping the benefits of the
relationship. For example, text messages sent by cell
phone carriers promoting special offers for loyal cus-
tomers are often perceived as mass marketing initia-
tives. Therefore, they do not contribute to a feeling of
differentiation for the consumer. The service provi-
ders efforts to improve the quality of the relationship
will only be effective if they are perceived as sincere.
Because Youre Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept 11
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
7/18
H3: The more the service providers initiatives
are perceived as sincere, the more attention
granted to the customer positively influences
his perceived status.
H4: The more the service providers initiatives
are perceived as sincere, the more the per-ception of benefitting from special privileges
positively influences the customers percei-
ved status.
H5: The more the service providers initiatives
are perceived as sincere, the more the custo-
mers perceived status positively influences
the quality of the relationship.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Fields of study
An exploratory study, alternating qualitative
interviews and investigations, was conducted in the
cell phone sector. Most customers subscribe for per-
iods of 12 to 24 months. This relationship is there-fore highly representative of the reciprocity principle
since carriers make considerable efforts to attract
new customers and establish a long-term relationship
in order to recover the cost of these investments.
Moreover, since the market has reached maturity and
the number of cell phone users has reached a critical
level, competition is fierce. Relationship building
tools are used to keep the most profitable customers
and increase consumption (e.g., offering points
toward gifts or free minutes, developing the range of
services). A confirmatory study was conducted
among customers with gym club membership in
order to test the validity of the measurement tools
and confirm our hypotheses with a more diversified
population. This type of service enabled us to exa-
mine the influence of staff attention on quality of the
relationship. Gym club members benefit from perso-
nalized service in the form of a progress report, an
exercise program and coaching with a trainer. These
fields of study are relatively homogeneous since they
are based on a subscription system, have a young
customer base and offer services with significant
value in terms of image.
Research design
The research design included four phases. In the
first phase, two focus groups were conducted with
students enrolled in a Masters in Management. From
these interviews, there emerged elements likely to
capture the CSC and its associated semantics. Two
scenarios in the cell phone sector, one negative and
one positive, were presented, one after the other. The
negative scenario described a situation in which
the participants cell phone carrier proposes an
exceptional offer designed to reward customer
loyalty. This offer is much less attractive than a similar
one proposed by an independent reseller. The posi-tive scenario describes an identical situation, but the
deal offered by the carrier is better than the one pro-
posed by the independent reseller. For each scenario,
the respondents had to answer the following question
individually and in writing: What words would you
use to describe how your cell phone carrier considers
you? In a second stage, each respondent read his
answer aloud to the group and discussed it.
These interviews revealed that respondents inter-
preted the service providers intentions toward them
William Sabadie12
Attention
Privileges
CSC
Quality of the
relationship
Figure 1. The mediating role of the CSC
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
8/18
(Friestad and Wright, 1994). First, the firms actions
led respondents to assess their rank in the customer
hierarchy: They think I am a very good customer,
They think I am an important customer compared to
I am just another customer, I have little value;another customer will replace me.
Second, the offer is assimilated as an effort to
reward the customers past and future loyalty. On the
one hand, the past relationship is evoked for the
negative scenario: They feel no gratitude toward
me, Loyalty is poorly rewarded. Imbalance in the
relationship can lead to feelings of injustice: I feel I
have been treated unfairly and betrayed. On the
other hand, for the respondents, the service provider
makes efforts according to the customers future
value in the positive scenario: They are trying to
earn my loyalty because I interest them, I am a big
customer; they know I will advertise their services.
Conversely, when the scenario is negative, the com-
mercial dimension of the relationship is emphasized: I
am only considered for my commercial value, for my
wallet, They think Im a cash cow, a way to make
more money, I am just another customer number
that brings in money.
Third, beyond commercial value, the respondents
interpreted the way they are considered as a person:
They think Im stupid, a fool, They couldnt care
less about me; they take me for a fool.The second phase consisted in calling on five
members of the French Marketing Association and
asking them to examine items created after the quali-
tative interviews and a review of the literature. These
experts were asked to sort items according to the
nature of the concept (CSC, service provider efforts,
other), to confirm the quality of the wording and
make suggestions concerning the relevance of
conceptual associations. Seven items were selected
for CSC: This firm seems to think I am not an inter-
esting customer, This firm thinks I am an impor-
tant customer, This firm has no respect for me,
This firm thinks I am an ordinary customer, This
firm thinks of me as a partner, I am more of a num-
ber than a customer for this firm, For this firm, I
am more of a friend than a customer.
A third phase consisted in collecting data via a
self-administered questionnaire. The study was
conducted with 203 students in undergraduate pro-
grams and continuous education courses who were
questioned on their relations with their cell phone
service provider. The final sample consisted in 60%
women and 40% men with an average age of 24.
Only cell phone subscribers were considered because
subscriptions offer more opportunities to assess custo-
mer relations. The average subscription fee was bet-ween 21 and 31 per month and respondents had
been with their service provider for 24 months on
average. The items were developed using theoretical
and empirical studies on the subject. The items
concerning perceptions of special treatment were ins-
pired by the work of Gwinner, Gremler and Bitner
(1998) and Salerno (2001). Sincerity of actions was
measured with the scale used in a previous study by
De Pechpeyrou, Parguel and Desmet (2006). The
work of Ivens and Pardo (2004) and Frankwick,
Porter and Crosby (2001) also contributed to measu-
ring the CSC. This was enriched by the results of the
qualitative study as well as the work of Gwinner,
Gremler and Bitner (1998) and Price and Arnould
(1999) on the strength and nature of ties within com-
mercial relationships. The quality of the relationship
was measured with items traditionally used to mea-
sure overall satisfaction, word-of-mouth and inten-
tion to pursue the relationship (e.g., Price and
Arnould, 1999). This pilot study allowed us to refine
the validity of existing scales and construct a scale
for the CSC.
Finally, a fourth phase consisted in collecting anew set of data from 200 gym club customers using a
questionnaire that was administered face-to-face.
Variable levels of attention granted by staff were
added to the model to reflect the personal dimension of
the relationship. The items were from the work of
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) on service
quality. The final sample consisted in 56% women
and 44% men with an average age of 29. Only gym
club members were considered in order to remain
consistent with the exploratory study. The average
membership period was 10 months. Confirmatory
factor analyses were used to test the unidimensionality,
reliability and internal validity of the variables
(cf. Appendix A3). We applied a bootstrap method
with 200 resamplings preformed with Amos software
(version 7.0). The measurement model presents satis-
factory goodness of fit: 2/dl = 3.2, GFI = 0.92,AGFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96 and RMSEA =
0.05. The reliability of the scales is satisfactory with
values for Jreskogs rho greater than 0.75. Their
validity is confirmed because each latent variable
Because Youre Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept 13
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
9/18
explains more than 50% of the variance with its
items (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The standardized
factor loadings are greater than 0.50 (p = 0.01),
which indicates good convergent validity (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988; Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991).
Discriminant validity is also satisfactory. The wea-
kest value of the square root of the AVE for each factor
is greater than the strongest correlation between
dimensions (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), except for
the tandem quality of the relationship-sincerity. An
additional analysis was therefore performed in which
the items of these two concepts were merged into a
single latent concept. This last model obtained lower
fit indices (2/dl = 4.42, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86,CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.96 and RMSEA = 0.08). The
value of 2 indicates that fit is better when the two
variables are distinct (140.4 compared to 167.8). Wecan therefore confirm the discriminant validity of the
concepts. However, their correlation led us to inter-
pret the results of analyses of moderation with care
and to discuss the direct influence of perceived since-
rity on the quality of the relationship.
Results of the study
The structural model was tested in the context of
the second dataset concerning gym club services.This choice was motivated by three reasons. The first
argument is methodological in nature. Churchill
(1979) recommends confirming a scale with a different
sample than the one used for the exploratory study.
Second, the first dataset was collected from students
while the second set was from a more heterogeneous
population. Third, the field of gym clubs allowed us to
integrate interpersonal relations as an antecedent ofthe CSC. This was not possible in the cell phone sector
because interactions with service staff usually occur
when the customer encounters a problem.
Estimations of standardized coefficients, t-values and
statistics of goodness of fit are presented in Table 1.
On the one hand, privileges and attention granted
to the customer contribute to explaining his CSC (R2 =
0.45). The CSC has a significant influence on quality
of the relationship ( = 0.16,p < 0.05). The link bet-ween attention granted by staff and quality of the
relationship remains significant despite introduction
of the CSC in the model. Attention has a particularlystrong influence in that it contributes to explaining
the CSC ( = 0.48,p < 0.01) as well as quality of therelationship ( = 0.60,p < 0.01). Therefore, the CSCpartially mediates the relationship between attention
and quality of the relationship. However, the link bet-
ween perceived privileges and quality of the relation-
ship vanishes when the CSC is introduced in the
model. The CSC completely mediates the link bet-
ween privileges and quality of the relationship.
Therefore, hypotheses H1 and H2 are confirmed. In
the end, the influence of attention granted by staff onquality of the relationship is much stronger than the
influence of other variables. In fact, to its direct coef-
ficient of 0.60 we must add its influence via the CSC
William Sabadie14
Table 1. Estimation of the models structural parameters
Implied relationship Standardized coefficients t-value R2
Privileges CSC 0.47 5.70 0.45
Attention CSC 0.48 6.21CSC Quality of the relationship 0.16 1.99 0.48
Attention Quality of the relationship 0.60 7.04
Privileges Quality of the relationship 0.09 ns
2/dl = 1.77GFI = 0.92
Fit indices for the model: AGFI = 0.89
TLI = 0.96
CFI = 0.96
RMSEA = 0.06
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
10/18
(0.16 x 0.48 = 0.08) and compare this to 0.16 for the
CSC and 0.075 for privileges (0.16 x 0.47).
The impact of perceived sincerity was examined
through a multi-group analysis of its effects on the
general model and on each link (Jaccard and Wan,
1996; Ping, 1995; Baron and Kenny, 1986).
Therefore, the data were split in half according to the
criterion of the median (MedianSincerity = 3.6). The
Chi-square difference test was used to test the
influence of this moderating variable on the general
model. The global fit of the model for the two sub-
samples (weak sincerity and strong sincerity of
actions) is satisfactory (2/dl = 1.34, GFI = 0.89, CFI =0.96, TLI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.04). This model
was compared to a model where all the links were
constrained to equality in the two sub-samples. The
model with constraints on the factor loadings shows asignificant difference for 2 at a threshold of 5%(free= 171.14 (128) <
2constrained = 180.92 (132)).
We can therefore confirm the moderating effect of
perceived sincerity. This effect should be specified
by testing each of its structural links (cf. Table 2).
However, the CSC completely mediates the link bet-
ween the service providers actions and quality of the
relationship when the firms acts are perceived as sin-
cere. Hypothesis H5 is confirmed. However, we
should be careful in interpreting these results as per-ceived sincerity and quality of the relationship are
strongly correlated (corr = 0.58,p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION
These results confirm the theoretical frameworkof the study. The CSC contributes significantly to
explaining the quality of the relationship ( = 0.16,p
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
11/18
by the firm contribute equally to explaining the CSC
(attention = 0.48 and privileges = 0.47; R2 = 0.45).
Service companies therefore have two alternative or
complementary strategies they can use to influence
the CSC. First, attention concerns the quality ofinteractions with service staff. Therefore, efforts at
listening, following up on inquiries and personalizing
services contribute to the customers assessment of
his position in the firms customer ranking system.
These efforts also result from the firms desire to dif-
ferentiate itself from competitors by offering greater
attention to customers. Gym club customers benefit
from special attention at the start of the relationship. A
diagnostic of their physical abilities and the creation of
a fitness program offer an ideal opportunity to build a
personalized relationship. Therefore, 80% of respon-
dents had favorable assessments of the quality of
relations with staff. This assessment contributed to
explaining why 50% of customers believed they
enjoyed special status. Moreover, 86% evaluated the
quality of the relationship positively. However, it is
important to note that some gym club members could
have a functional orientation rather than a social one
(Sabadie and Prim-Allaz, 2005) and therefore not
appreciate the attention of a coach due to their expert
level, for example.
Second, privileges follow a different logic as the
idea is to differentiate target customers from others.Thus,Nature & Dcouverte offers customers exclu-
sive deals and privileges if they join the retailers
loyalty program. These special deals are adapted to
customer seniority. The results of this study show
that the service companys initiatives to convince
customers that they benefit from privileged status
have only a minor influence on quality of the rela-
tionship. Moreover, the CSC plays an important role in
the process underlying this relationship since it com-
pletely mediates it. Special attention contributes to
feelings of recognition and belonging to a select
group of customers (Collin-Lachaud and Sueur,
2008). Yet, perceived sincerity conditions the effi-
ciency of strategies based on privileges. Therefore, it is
difficult to satisfy the need for recognition through a
loyalty program if it is not explicitly selective (Drze
and Nunes, 2009). It is this selectivity that demons-
trates the reality of privileged status for the customer.
Only 18% of gym club members believed they were
the object of privileged offers. Thus, the weak
influence of privileges on quality of the relationship
could be explained by the generalization of services
offered to all members. Therefore, access to services is
not exclusive enough to convince customers that they
benefit from special status. In the context of a stra-
tegy based on exclusive personalization, a servicecompany should make sure the customers impres-
sion of distinction is strong. On the one hand, this
means selecting a limited number of customers and
communicating on the selection process. For
example, Axa insurance proposes that its best custo-
mers join its Club Distinction in order to enjoy
exceptional privileges. Account managers are in
charge of selecting the best customers for the pro-
gram. Membership is not permanent. On the other
hand, this strategy implies proposing exclusive ser-
vices and exceptional advantages to target customers.
Customers who join Axas Club Distinction benefit
from long-term advantages (special deductibles for
car or homeowners insurance in the event of an acci-
dent, for example) and other occasional privileges
(free admission to museums). However, it is impor-
tant to point out that some customers are not interested
in exclusive offers because it is more important for
them to feel they belong to a group (Salerno, 2001). In
addition, revoking privileges for certain customers
can be highly risky for service companies (Wagner,
Hennig-Thurau and Rudolph, 2009).
Exclusive and non-exclusive personalization ini-tiatives can compliment each other. Indeed, while
Axas Club Distinction offers exclusive advantages,
the firm also promotes relations between the custo-
mer and his account manager. Moreover, not all firms
can capitalize on a strong, high-quality relationship
between service staff and customers. To remedy this
problem, retailers likeNature & Dcouverte propose
dedicated helplines for member customers. They also
propose establishing ties with other loyalty club
members during specific events. Thus, the social
dimension of the relationship can involve service
staff or other customers and be based on the idea of
exclusivity.
The importance of the CSC in corporate-custo-
mer relationships leads us to reflect on its implica-
tions in terms of social justice. From an instrumental
perspective, the sentiment of justice, qualified as dis-
tributive, is based on perceived fairness (Adams,
1965). In the context of this study, the level of attention
and privileges can be assimilated to compensation
and this compensation can be compared to customer
William Sabadie16
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
12/18
efforts (particularly in terms of price). This comparison
of efforts and compensation is similar to the process
used to define the concept of value. It allows us to
consider the CSC as a dimension of an exchanges
value (Aurier, Evrard and NGoala, 2004; Holbrook,1999). More generally speaking, the CSC results
from an assessment of fairness when the individual
compares the firms practices with existing social
standards. For example, discourteous behavior or dis-
crimination based on gender or race is particularly
hurtful for the customer as they exclude him from a
social group. This line of reasoning can be broadened
to the extent that marketing strategies tend to
increase the level of service a customer believes he is
entitled to. Thus, any disappointment can be interpre-
ted as a transgression of the social rule that classifies
customer satisfaction as a top priority for businesses.
Examples are not lacking where reality contradicts
this myth. Yield management techniques, for
example, have led customers to observe discrimina-
tion that is not based on loyalty, but on maximum
profits for the firm.
Finally, these results show that perceived since-
rity is a key determinant in quality of the relation-
ship, exerting both a direct and indirect effect. On the
one hand, the correlations table provided in
Appendix A3 shows sincerity is the variable that is
the most strongly correlated with quality of the rela-tionship (corr = 0.58,p < 0.01). On the other hand, it
moderates the influence of the CSC on quality of the
relationship. The customer does not only assess the
benefits he can obtain through relationship marketing
programs, but also the underlying objectives of the
service companys offer (e.g., Boulaire, 2003). This
observation encourages the inclusion of perceived
sincerity in research on the effects of relationship
marketing.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to answer three ques-
tions. The first concerned customer perceptions of
their status in cases where there is no explicit or offi-
cial customer hierarchy established by the firm. The
construction of a parsimonious measurement tool
allowed us to assess the CSC. The results of this
study demonstrate the interest of a qualitative
approach in evaluating relationship marketing initia-tives. It would be appropriate, for example, to consider
the CSC in order to gain a clearer understanding of
how loyalty-building efforts influence customer
behavior (e.g., Bolton, Kannan and Bramlett, 2000;
Yi and Jeon, 2003; Lewis, 2004). The CSC is an
intangible advantage, and therefore one that is difficult
to imitate, which managers could use to improve
relationship quality. The second question concerned
the process of creating the CSC. Exclusive and non-
exclusive personalization initiatives were both effective
in the situations studied. However, our results
demonstrate the interest of a strategy based on rela-
tionships between service staff and customers and
the skepticism of the latter as to the real nature of the
exclusive privileges they receive. The third question
dealt with the influence of the CSC on relationship
quality. Our results show that the CSC should be
considered an explanatory variable of relationship
quality in addition to staff attention and privileges,
which are the most commonly used variables. The
main limitations of this study concern its exploratory
nature. The field selected for our research did not
allow us to definitively confirm or refute our hypo-theses, and the modest size of our sample encourages
further tests of our conceptual model on a larger
scale. Moreover, only customer perceptions were stu-
died. It would be interesting to analyze these percep-
tions while examining the nature of initiatives offe-
red by the firm.
The characteristics of the relationship between cell
phone carriers, or gym clubs and their respective custo-
mers, raise the problem of the studys external validity.
For example, most customers, and the entire sample in
this study, are bound by the duration of their member-
ship or subscription plan. In the cell phone sector, it
has only recently become easier to change service pro-
vider, and customers are not always aware of these
new conditions. These fields allowed us to study a
depersonalized relationship associated with mass mar-
keting, on the one hand, and a more individualized
relationship that was more sensitive to interpersonal
interactions, on the other. Nevertheless, the CSC scale
must be confirmed in a context where strong ties are
more likely to be established.
Because Youre Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept 17
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
13/18
This study paves the way for future research on
several levels. First, it is necessary to further analyze
the mechanisms involved in creating the CSC and its
consequences. On the one hand, the antecedents of
the CSC could be enriched. For example, Salerno(2001) emphasizes the multitude of personalization
schemes and their influence on customer expecta-
tions, depending on whether they rely on exclusivity or
not. Perceived sincerity of advertising could be lin-
ked to the mechanisms used by the service company -
mass marketing or not, for example. DeWulf,
Odekerken-Schrder and Iacobucci (2001) show how
frequency and personalization of communication ini-
tiatives, preferential treatment and rewards for
loyalty can influence the customers perception of
the firms efforts to improve relations. Study of the
CSC according to the nature and importance of the
service companys efforts would be an interesting
subject for future research. On the one hand, the
consequences of the CSC encourage clarification of
its role in the causal chain between satisfaction, trust
and loyalty intention. Collin-Lachaud and Sueur
(2008) highlight the positive link between special
attention and the attitudinal and behavioral compo-
nents of loyalty, while the results of this study show
the mediating role of the CSC. More generally, the
CSC should be placed within a complex network of
variables likely to characterize the quality of a rela-tionship. While it has not been conceptualized in this
study, our results show the influence of perceived
sincerity on the CSC and relationship quality. This
paves the way for additional, complementary studies
specifying the role of sincerity and the means of
influencing customer perceptions. Furthermore, stu-
dying the role of the CSC in atypical events such as
service incidents (Hart, Heskett and Sasser, 1990)
could demonstrate the links between this variable
and the customers feelings of fairness. Indeed, mar-
keting literature has devoted relatively little attention to
lack of consideration for customers and its effects on
relations with the service firm (Wagner, Hennig-
Thurau and Rudolph, 2009; McColl-Kennedy et al.,
2009). Yet, Pharo (2001) underlines the importance
of considering feelings of disrespect, which he des-
cribes as a powerful vector for aggressive behavior:
The experience of disrespect, which is in itself an
injustice, has perhaps an even greater causal effect
than the experience of other forms of injustice as one
can suffer more from the disrespectful character of
poor treatment than from the treatment itself (p. 9).
McColl-Kennedy et al. (2009) show how service
incidents can spark consumer rage and particularly
violent behavior toward the service company. Thus,
marketing research on handling service incidents andcomplaints emphasizes the need to restore the custo-
mers impression of fairness (Hart, Heskett and
Sasser, 1990; Sabadie, Prim-Allaz and Llosa, 2006).
Tax et al. (1998) have shown how important compo-
nents of procedural and interactional justice (simplicity
of dealing with claims, speed of response or staff
efforts, for example) are in this context. Yet, justifica-
tion of their importance has been limited to exami-
ning the costs for the customer of solving the pro-
blem (frustration and wasted time, for example). The
idea of considering components of fairness as signs
of customer status has never been studied, even
though this has often been cited in organizational
literature (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler and Lind,
1992). In fact, components of fairness aim to specifi-
cally improve feelings of consideration for the vic-
tim who needs to be valued and esteemed by others
(Folger and Cropanzano, 1998).
In addition, it would be appropriate to study the
CSC from a longitudinal perspective. Houston and
Gassenheimer (1987) associate the principle of reci-
procity with social distinction. Thus, the more the
relationship offers opportunities for reciprocal contri-butions and compensations, the more social distance is
reduced. Conversely, if one party believes it has not
been compensated for its contributions, social dis-
tance can increase until the relationship is broken off.
These hypotheses could be tested by linking the
efforts of the service provider (objective status) to the
evolution in status perceived by the customer
(Frankwick, Porter and Crosby, 2001) in a B-to-C
situation. From a psychometric standpoint, a categori-
cal measure of the CSC could be envisaged in a way
that is consistent with the process of social categoriza-
tion (Tajfel, 1978) and with the aim of simplifying
the respondents task.
Finally, the efforts of service companies to encou-
rage the emotional attachment of their best custo-
mers, and even their identification (Battacharya, Rao
and Glynn, 1995; Fournier, 1998), raise the question of
the CSC in terms of identity. Indeed, the aim of the
service firm is to get customers to identify with a
group (in this case the firm and its loyal customers). In
exchange, customers benefit from belonging to the
William Sabadie18
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
14/18
group, which reinforces their self-esteem (Tyler and
Lind, 1992). Yet, by identifying himself with the
loyal customers of a firm, the customer also runs the
risk of losing his identity if he is excluded from the
group (Lind, 2001, pp. 61-63). Wagner, Hennig-Thurau and Rudolph (2009) show that demotion of a
customer within the hierarchy of a loyalty program
influences his loyalty intentions more than a promo-
tion. Similarly, the CSC can be strongly deteriorated
when an individual observes that he has been treated
differently from the other members of a group he
identifies with. For example, Salerno (2001) shows
that this feeling of belonging to a group of customers
negatively influences expectations of special pro-
ducts and privileged services. Indeed, while exclu-
sive offers meet the need to feel unique, they inter-
fere with the need for belonging to a social group.
The feeling of belonging to a given group of custo-
mers can explain why some customers reject offers
that tend to symbolically distance them from their
reference group. In addition, future research should
specify the level of expectations in terms of status
and the consequences of the CSC on relationship
quality depending on whether customers identify, or
not, with the service company and a given group of
customers. This question could be particularly
important when the service firms offer contributes to
the individuals social identity (Belk, 1988;McCracken, 1986; Richins, 1994).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Adams J.A. (1965), Inequity in social exchange, in
Berkowitz (ed.) advances in Experimental social psy-chology, New York:Academic Press, 2, 267-299.
Anderson E. and Weitz B. (1992), The use of pledges tobuild and sustain commitment in distribution channels,
Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 1, 18-34.Anderson E.W., Fornell C. and Lehmann D. (1994),
Customer satisfaction, market share and profitability:findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, 58,53-66.
Anderson J.C. and Gerbing D.W. (1988), Structural equationmodeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3, 411-423.
Aurier P., Evrard Y. and NGoala G. (2004), Comprendre etmesurer la valeur du point de vue du consommateur,Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 19, 3, 1-20.
Bagozzi R.P. (1995), Reflections on relationship marketingin consumer markets, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 23, 272-277.Baron R.M. and Kenny D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-tions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173-1182.
Baugnet L. (1998),Lidentit sociale, Paris: Dunod.Becker L.C. (1986), Reciprocity, New York: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.Belk R.W. (1988), Possessions and the extended self,
Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 2, 139-168.Berry. L.L. (1995), Relationship marketing of services
growing interest, emerging perspectives,Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 23, 4, 236-245.
Bhattacharya C.B., Rao H. and Glynn M.A. (1995),Understanding the bond of identification: an investiga-tion of its correlates among art museum members,Journal of Marketing, 59, 4, 46-57.
Bitner M.J., Booms B.H. and Tetreault M.S. (1990), Theservice encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavo-rable incidents,Joumal of Marketing, 54, 71-84.
Blau P. (1964), Exchange and power in social life, NewYork, John Wiley & Sons.
Bolton R., Kannan P.K. and Bramlett M.D. (2000),Implications of loyalty program membership and ser-vice experiences for customer retention and value,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 1,95-108.
Boulaire C. (2003), Marketing relationnel, la carte danni-versaire revisite, Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 18, 1, 43-63.
Brewer M.B. (1991), The social self: on being the sameand different at the same time, Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
Brock T.C. (1968), Implications of commodity theory forvalue change, in A.G. Greenwald, T.C. Brock and T.M.Ostrom (eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes,New York, Academic Press, 243-275.
Chappuis R. and Thomas R. (1995), Rle et statut, Paris,Presses Universitaires de France.
Chumpitaz Caceres R. and Vanhamme J. (2003), Les pro-cessus modrateurs et mdiateurs : distinction concep-
tuelle, aspects analytiques et illustrations,Recherche etApplications en Marketing, 18, 3, 67-100.
Churchill G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing bettermeasures of marketing constructs, Journal ofMarketing Research, 16,1, 64-73.
Cochoy F. (1999), Une histoire du marketing, Paris, LaDcouverte.
Cochoy F. (2002), Les figures sociales du client, Sciences dela Socit, 56.
Collin-Lachaud I. and Sueur I. (2008),Attentions spciales etperformances des programmes relationnels, DcisionsMarketing, 51, 17-26.
Because Youre Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept 19
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
15/18
Crosby L.A., Evans K.R. and Cowles D. (1990),Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonalinfluence perspective,Journal of Marketing, 54 (July),68-81.
Dahl D.W., Honea H. and Manchanda R.V. (2005), Three Rs
of interpersonal consumer guilt: relationship, recipro-city, reparation,Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 4,307-315.
De Wulf K., Odekerken-Schrder G. and Iacobucci D.(2001), Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration, Journal ofMarketing, 65, 33-50.
Drze X. and Nunes J.C. (2009), Feeling superior: Theimpact of loyalty program structure on consumers per-ceptions of status, Journal of Consumer Research, 35,April, 890-905.
Eisend M. (2006), Source credibility dimensions in marke-ting communication - a generalized solution, Journalof Empirical Generalizations in Marketing, 10, 1-33.
Festinger L. (1954), A theory of social comparison pro-cesses,Human Relations, 7, 2, 117-140.
Firat F. and Venkatesh A. (1995), Liberatory postmoder-nism and the reenchantment of consumption, Journalof Consumer Research, 22, 3, 239-67.
Folger R. and Cropanzano R. (1998), Organizational jus-tice and human resource management, Thousand Oaks,California, Sage Publications.
Fornell C. and Larcker D.F. (1981), Evaluating structuralequation models with unobservable variables and mea-surement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1,39-50.
Fournier S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: develo-ping relationship theory in consumer research,Journal ofConsumer Research, 24, 4, 343-373.
Frankwick G.L., Porter S.S. and Crosby L.A. (2001), dyna-mics of relationship selling: examination of changes insalesperson-customer relationship Status, Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, 21, 2,135-146.
Friestad M. and Wright P. (1994), The persuasion know-ledge model: how people cope with persuasionAttempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June),1-31.
Ganesan S. (1994), Determinants of long-term orientation inbuyer-seller relationships,Journal of Marketing, 58, 2,1-19.
Garbarino E. and Johnson M.S. (1999), The different roles ofsatisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer rela-tionships,Journal of Marketing, 63 (April), 70-87.
Goldsmith R.E., Lafferty B.A. and Newell S.J. (2000), Theimpact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibilityon consumer reaction to advertisements and brands,Journal of Advertising, 29, 3, 43-54.
Gurviez P. and Korchia M. (2002), Proposition dunechelle de mesure multidimensionnelle de la confiancedans la marque, Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 17, 3, 41-61.
Gwinner K.P., Gremler D.D. and Bitner M.J. (1998),Relational benefits in services industries; the custo-
mers perspective, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 26, 2, 101-114.
Hart C., Heskett J. and Sasser W.E. (1990), The profitable artof service recovery, Harvard Business Review, 68(July/August), 148-156.
Hennig-Thurau T., Gwinner K.P. and Gremler D.D. (2002),Understanding relationship marketing outcomes,Journal of Service Research, 4, 3, 230-248.
Holbrook M.B. (1999), Consumer value: a framework foranalysis and research, Routledge interpretative marke-ting research series, New York.
Houston F.S. and Gassenheimer J.B. (1987), Marketingand exchange,Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 3-18.
Huppertz J.W., Arenson S.J. and Richard H.E. (1978), Anapplication of equity theory to buyer-seller exchangesituations,Journal of Marketing, 15, 2, 250-260.
Ivens B.S. and Pardo C. (2004), Les clients comptes clssont-ils vraiment traits diffremment? Le point de vuedes clients, Recherche et Applications en Marketing,
19, 4, 3-22.Jaccard J. and Wan C.K. (1996), LISREL approaches to
interaction effects in multiple regression, ThousandOaks, Sage Publications.
Kumar N., Scheer L.K. and Steenkamp J.-B. (1995), Theeffects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers,Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (February), 54-65.
Leary M.R., Tambor E.S., Terdal S.K. and Downs D.L.(1995), Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: Thesociometer hypothesis, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 68, 518-530.
Lewis M. (2004), The influence of loyalty programs andshort-term promotions on customer retention, Journalof Marketing Research, 43, 3, 281-292.
Lind E.A. and Tyler T. (1988), The social psychology ofprocedural justice, New York: Plenum.
Macneil I.R. (1980), The new social contract, YaleUniversity Press.
Marion G. (2003), Apparence et identit : une approchesmiotique du discours des adolescentes propos deleur exprience de la mode,Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 18, 2, 1-29.
McColl-Kennedy J.R., Patterson P.G., Smith A.K. andBrady M.K. (2009), Customer rage episodes: emo-tions, expressions and behaviors,Journal of Retailing,85, 2, 222-237.
Morgan R.M. and Hunt S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust
theory of relationship marketing,Journal of Marketing,58 (July), 20-38.
Palmatier R.W., Jarvis C.B., Bechkoff J.R. and Kardes F.R.(2009), The role of customer gratitude in relationshipmarketing, Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 1-18.
Palmatier R.W, Dant R.P, Grewal D. and Evans K.R.(2006), Factors influencing the effectiveness of rela-tionship marketing: a meta-analysis, Journal ofMarketing, 70, 4, 136-153.
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. and Berry L. (1985), A concep-tual model of service quality and its implications forfuture research,Journal of Marketing, 49, 4, 41-50.
William Sabadie20
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
16/18
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. and Berry L. (1988), SERV-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumerperceptions of service quality,Journal of Retailing, 64,1, 12-40.
Pechpeyrou P., de Parguel B. and Desmet P. (2006), Valeur et
sincrit perues dune promotion multi-mcanismes,Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 21, 4, 25-39.Pharo P. (2001), La logique du respect, Paris, Du Cerf.Ping R.A., Jr. (1995), A parsimonious estimating technique
for interaction and quadratic latent variables, Journalof Marketing Research, 32, 3, 336-347.
Price L.L. and Arnould E.J. (1999), Commercial friend-ships: service provider-client relationships in context,Journal of Marketing, 63, 4, 38-56.
Price L.L., Arnould E.J. and Tierney P. (1995), Going toextremes: managing service encounters and assessingprovider performance,Journal of Marketing, 59, 2, 83-97.
Richins M.L. (1994), Valuing things: the public and private
meanings of possessions, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 21, 3, 504-521.
Rust R., Zahorik A. and Keiningham T. (1995), Return onQuality (ROQ): making service quality financiallyaccountable,Journal of Marketing, 59, April, 58-70.
Sabadie W. and Prim-Allaz I. (2005), Orientation relation-nelle sociale et autonomie : facteurs explicatifs duchoix des modes de contact?, 1reJourne de rechercheAFM sur la gestion de la relation client dans les activitsde service, IAE de Lyon, http://iae.univ-lyon3.fr/iris/actes.html
Sabadie W., Prim-Allaz I. and Llosa S. (2006),Contribution des lments de gestion des rclamations la satisfaction : les apports de la thorie de la justice,
Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 21, 3, 47-64.Sahlins M. (1972), Stone age economics, Chicago: Aldin,
Atherton, Inc.Salerno A. (2001), Une tude empirique des relations entre
personnalisation, proximit dyadique et identit declientle,Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 16, 4,25-46.
Salerno A. (2005), Le rle de la qualitdes pratiques depersonnalisation dans la squence valeur satisfaction fidlitla banque, 1resJournes Iris sur la gestion dela relation client dans les activits de service, IAE deLyon, http://iris.univ-lyon3.fr/actes.html
Sheth J. and Parvaliyar A. (1995), Relationship marketing inconsumer markets: antecedents and consequences,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 4,255-271.
Snyder C.R. and Fromkin H.L. (1980), Uniqueness: the
human pursuit of difference, New York, Plenum Press.Speed R. and Thompson P. (2000), Determinants of sportssponsorship response, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 28, 2, 226-238.
Steenkamp J.B. and van Trijp H. (1991), The use of Lisrel invalidating marketing constructs, International Journalof Research in Marketing, 8, 4, 283-299.
Sirdeshmukh D., Singh J. and Sabol B. (2002), Consumertrust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges,Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 15-37.
Tajfel H. (1978), Social categorization, social identity andsocial comparisons, in Henri Tajfel (ed.),Differentiation Between Social Groups, Cambridge,U.K.: Academic Press, 61-76.
Tax S.T., Brown S.W. and Chandrashekaran M. (1998),Customer evaluations of service complaint expe-riences: implications for relationship marketing,Journal of Marketing, 62, 60-76.
Taylor S.E. and Brown J.D. (1988), Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mentalhealth, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 2, 193-210.
Tyler T.R. and Lind E.A. (1992), A relational model ofauthority in groups, Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, 25, 115-191.
Ughetto P. (2002), Figures du client, figures du prestataire, inCochoy (ed.), Les figures sociales du client, Sciencesde la Socit, 56, 99-113.
Wagner T., Henning-Thurau T. and Rudolph T. (2009),
Does customer demotion jeopardize loyalty?, Journalof Marketing, 73 (May), 69-85.
Wills T.A. (1981), Downward comparison principles insocial psychology, Psychological Bulletin, 90, 2, 245-271.
Yi Y. and Jeon H (2003), The effects of loyalty programson value perception, program loyalty and brand loyalty,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 3,229-240.
Because Youre Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept 21
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
17/18
Appendix A1. Scenarios used in the qualitative study
William Sabadie22
Negative scenario:
You want to change your cell phone. You contact your carrier who makes a
proposal that he presents as an exceptional offer because it is reserved
for only 100 customers and is designed to reward your loyalty (3 years): a
Nokia 5200 cell phone worth 100 for only 55 and the possibility of
allowing one of your friends to take advantage of this special offer, provi-
ding he/she signs up for a 24-month subscription.
The following week, you walk past the window of a PhoneHouse shop
and see a special offer for the Nokia 5200 at only15. You find out you can
take advantage of this offer without changing your current plan.
Positive scenario:
You have broken your cell phone after only two months of a 24-month
subscription. Your insurance does not cover your phone and your
contract does not allow exchanges. You contact your carrier who makes a
proposal that he presents as an exceptional offer because it is reserved
for only 100 customers and is designed to reward your loyalty (3 years):A
Nokia 5200 cell phone worth 100 for only 25 and the possibility of
allowing one of your friends to take advantage of this special offer, provi-
ding he/she signs up for a 24-month subscription.
After shopping around, you realize it is impossible to own a Nokia 5200 forless than75 due to its technical features and recent launch on the market.
Appendix A2. Correlations of items constituting relationship quality
Satisfaction Loyalty intention Word-of-mouth intention
Satisfaction 1 0.630(**) 0.704(**)
Loyalty intention 1 0.626(**)Word-of-mouth intention 1
**The correlation is significant at a level of 0.01 (bilateral)
-
8/11/2019 Because You'Re Worth It a Study of the Consumer Status Concept
18/18
Appendix A3. Measurement model
Because Youre Worth It: A Study of the Consumer Status Concept 23
Status 0.79This firm thinks I am an ordinary customer
(-)
0.741
This firm seems to think I am not an interesting customer (-) 0.858
This firm thinks I am an important customer 0.689
Exclusive personalization: Privileges 0.88This firm treats me better than other customers 0,672
I am granted more consideration than most customers 0.809
I am entitled to special treatment 0.947
This firm makes me a member of a privileged group 0.759
Non-exclusive personalization: Staff attention 0.85The staff grants you personalized attention 0.839
The staff cares about serving you better 0.885
The staff is always there to help you 0.716
Quality of the relationship 0.86Globally, I am satisfied with the services of my
gym club
0.818
I think I will continue to use the services of my
gym club in the future
0.751
I would recommend my gym club to someone who
asked for advice
0.860
Sincerity of actions 0.75The offers proposed by this firm are sincere 0.763
The marketing campaigns this firm addresses me
are credible
0.762
This firm is not trying to trick me 0.735
Table of correlations between concepts
Status Privileges Attention Quality rel. Sincerity
Status 0.55*
Privileges 0.23 0.64
Staff attention 0.31 0.04 0.65
Quality of the relation 0.24 0.06 0.46 0.68
Sincerity of actions 0.36 0.08 0.45 0.58 0.50
* The vc are shown on the diagonal