Content uploaded by Nischay Kumar Upamannyu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nischay Kumar Upamannyu on Feb 24, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN:2321-1098
274 | P a g e
EFFECT OF BRAND IMAGE ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION & LOYALTY
INTENTION AND THE ROLE OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BETWEEN
BRAND IMAGE AND LOYALTY INTENTION
Dr. Nischay Kumar Upamannyu*, Dr. Shilpa Sankpal**
Prestige Institute of Management, Airport Road, Gwalior
Prestige Institute of Management, Airport Road, Gwalior
Abstract
The Purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of brand image benefit on customer satisfaction and Loyalty
intention directly and indirectly based upon hypothetical model in the current study for a cosmetic brand (Fair lovely) at
Gwalior (M.P) in India. The measures were reconstructed and re-standardized to make it suitable for the purpose of the
study. Numbers of factors were identified through exploratory factor analysis for all the variables. The results of multiple
regression revealed that there is a strong positive relationship between brand image and loyalty intention, While, the
relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty intention was found to be less weak. This indicates that there might
be a mediation effect of customer satisfaction between brand image and loyalty intention. For evaluating the mediation
effect Sobel test was applied and the result of the Sobel test was found to be positive. Hence, a mediating effect of
customer satisfaction was found between Brand Image and Loyalty Intention. The measure of brand image was
constituted of Functional, Social, Symbolic, experiential and appearance enhance. A survey was carried out on 200
respondents. The results also indicated that overall satisfaction does influence customers' loyalty which implies that
marketers should focus on brand image benefits to achieve customer loyalty.
Keywords:
Brand Image, Satisfaction, Loyalty, Brand Strategy, Color Cosmetic product
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Council for Innovative Research
Peer Review Research Publishing System
Journal of Social Science Research
Vol.3, No.2
editor@jssronline.com
www.cirworld.com, www.jssronline.com
ISSN:2321-1098
275 | P a g e
Introduction
Brand Image, Customer satisfaction and Loyalty intention constraint are considered as very powerful weapons in the field
of marketing. This constraint has been studied previously also respectively in the abroad and within the nation also. The
current study also focuses on Brand image, Customer satisfaction & loyalty intention. Even though, these constraints are
used as a marketing benchmark for the company outcome & performance (Bennett & Rundle-Thiele, 2004).
Brand Image is the perception of the customer which is perceived by customers while buying commodity and service but
brand image cannot be treated as a benchmark or guarantee for giving satisfaction to the customer. it is likely to be said
that customer satisfaction can be considered as the powerful tools in the marketing by which an image of an organization
which is perceived by customers. If the customer is having satisfaction certainly it will have a strong effect on brand image.
Furthermore, it is generally said and believed that a satisfied customer is more likely to display loyalty behavior, i.e.
repeats purchase and willingness to give positive word of mouth (Taylor, 1998; Bennett & Rundle-Thiele, 2004; Schultz,
2005).
Brand image is perception of customer which is persuaded while buying the commodity. It has been observed through
extensive review that there is significant strong positive relationship between brand image and loyalty intention. According
to the Vazquez-Carrasco and Foxall (2006) social, confident and special brand/ product image has a positive impact on
loyalty intention, if the customer received high social benefit from the salesperson then he will be more loyal with a
salesperson (Reynolds and Beatty 1999) . Customer satisfaction is also an indicator of customer loyalty and it is
considered that if a customer is satisfied so customer would surely be loyal to the particular brand. But this concept has
been tested in the current study directly or indirectly. But through the previous study it was found that customer
satisfaction one of the main reasons of the customer to be loyal to the brand or the company. The current study has been
conducted in context of cosmetic brand and this cosmetic brand is very famous among the economic class customer. The
name of the used cosmetic brand is Fair lovely.
Here, it was tried to find out the effect of customer satisfaction on Brand Image and also on customer loyalty intention
respectively. The current study also throws a light on direct effect or indirect effect of brand image on customer satisfaction
and indirect effect of Brand Image on loyalty intention via customer satisfaction and direct effect of Brand Image on loyalty
intention. The selecting Cosmetic brand is always a very serious affairs for the customer because if the selection of
cosmetic brand do not give the expected outcome to consumer, consumer would not prefer and never repurchase those
cosmetic brand‟s products. Therefore the benefits of brand image are perceived by the customer always, whether the
customer is male or female. It has no effect because both class customers keep good awareness in the context of the
outcome of cosmetic product. Hence, Brand image is a very serious affair of the cosmetic product and the customer will
take each & every step to buy a cosmetic brand seriously.
Image is defined as the sum of all thoughts, associations of ideas which are connected with the person to a particular
product, brand, company, person... A brand image is how the consumers perceive the brand (Aaker 1996, 69). Aaker
(1991) explained that brand image is a set of associations which might not even reflect the objective reality. Arnold (1998)
said that brand image refers to the way in which certain groups decode all of the signals resonating from the product or
service. Brand image is having various benefits toward the organization Functional, Symbolic, Social, Experiential and
Appearance enhances. All though the current study will disclose the casual & effect relationship between brand image
benefits and customer satisfaction and loyalty intention in the context of the cosmetic brand. It is being seen that the
market of cosmetic has become so competitive after introducing various new brands in market by major players such
Hindustan Univer lever Ltd, etc., Levon, Ponds, Lux and so on.
It is also a non- ignorable issue that the men and female both are now prospect for the cosmetic brands. Cosmetic brand
used to attract only female but now, time has completely changed. Male & Female are being targeted by cosmetic brand.
Having understood extensive growth or market opportunities, new entrants are also penetrating market using various
kinds of pricing strategies, sales promotion, advertising (Electronic, Pring and Voice medium). Therefore, it is important to
companies and manufacturers to be focused on product differentiation from their competitors on the bases of brand image
benefits. In today‟s society, beauty and physical attractiveness are constantly emphasized as desirable and admirable
characteristics.
1.1 Conceptual Framework
1.2 1.1.1Brand image
Image is defined as the sum of all thoughts, associations of ideas which are connected with the person to a particular
product, brand, company, and person. Brand image is the overall impression in consumers‟ mind that is formed from
all sources. Consumers develop various associations with the brand. Based on these associations, they form brand
image. An image is formed about the brand on the basis of subjective perceptions of association‟s bundle that the
consumers have about the brand. Volvo is associated with safety. Toyota is associated with reliability.
ISSN:2321-1098
276 | P a g e
Brand image is nothing but an organization‟s character. It is an accumulation of contact and observation by people
external to an organization. It should highlight an organization‟s mission and vision to all. The main elements of a positive
brand image are- unique logo reflect an organization‟s image, slogan describing the organization‟s business in brief and
brand identifier supporting the key values.
1.1.1. Customer Satisfaction
Customer Satisfaction is a comparison of expectations versus perceptions of experience. Customer satisfaction (CS) is a
measure of the degree to which a product or service meets the customer's expectations. Customer Satisfaction is a
measurement or an indicator of the degree to which customers or users of an organization‟s product or services are
pleased with those products or services. Customer satisfaction differs depending on the situation and the product or
service. A customer may be satisfied with a product or service, an experience, a purchase decision, a salesperson, store,
service provider, or an attribute or any of these three.
1.1.2. Loyalty Intention
Customer loyalty is the key objective of customer relationship management and describes the loyalty which is established
between a customer and companies, persons, products or brands. The individual market segments should be targeted in
terms of developing customer loyalty. For different reasons for loyalty should be promoted: Psychological, Economic,
Technical/functional, Contractual.
1.2. Review Of Literature
1.2.1. Brand Image
Reynolds (1965) investigated that "an image is the finding of mental exercise based on few selected
impression among the flood of the total impression and it is developed through creative process of the
organization. Keller (1993) explored that an image benefits can be classified into functional, experiential and
symbolic benefits. Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, (1986) found that A company or its product/services which
constantly holds a favorable image by the public would definitely gain a better position in the market,
sustainable competitive advantage, and increase market share or performance. In addition, several empirical
study findings confirmed that favorable image will lead to loyalty, brand equity (e.g. Co, 2003; Kandampully
&Suhartanto, 2000; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 1998), purchase behavior and brand performance (Faircloth, Capella,
&Alford, 2001; Biel, 1992; Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993, Hsiehet al., 2004, Roth, 1995).
Customer Satisfaction
Churchill and Surprenant, (1982), explained that Customer satisfaction is as expectation before purchase and perception
about performance after purchase, The expectancy disconfirmation paradigm suggests that consumers are satisfied when
the product perform better than expected (positive disconfirmation), dissatisfied when consumers' expectations exceeded
from actual product performance (negative disconfirmation), and neutral satisfaction when the product performance
matches expectations (zero disconfirmation/confirmation) (Oliver, 1980; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Oliver & Sarbo,
1988; Bearden & Teel, 1983) .
Oliver (1980) identified that satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of the disconfirmation of consumer expectation. A
positive disconfirmation leads to customer satisfaction and a negative disconfirmation leads to customer dissatisfaction.
Kumar, Kee and Manshor (2009) explored that high quality of service can result in high customer satisfaction and
increases customer loyalty. Thus customer satisfaction is the outcome of service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry
1988, Naeem & Saif 2009),
Customer Loyalty Intention
Oliver (1997) defined customer loyalty as "a deep held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service
consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational
influence sand marketing efforts that have the potential to cause switching behavior". Brand loyalty can be operationalized
either based on behavioral, attitudinal or composite approach (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). Behavioral loyalty has been
considered as repeat purchase frequency (e.g. Brown, 1952) or proportion of purchase (e.g. Cunningham, 1956), while
ISSN:2321-1098
277 | P a g e
attitudinal brand loyalty referred to “stated preferences, commitment or purchase intentions of the customers"(Mellens et
al., 1996).
Jones & Sasser, (1995), found that Intention to repurchase can be measured by asking consumers about their future
intentions to repurchase a given product or service.
Relationship between brand image and loyalty intention
Vazquez-Carrasco and Foxall (2006) found that the social, confident and special brand/ product image has a positive
impact on loyalty intention, if the customer received high social benefit from the salesperson then he will be more loyal
with a salesperson (Reynolds and Beatty 1999) .
Relationship between brand image and customer satisfaction
Na, Marshall, and Keller (1999) explored that the image cannot be measured, for the measurement of image must include
the measurement of customer perception about the product image and brand image this implies the importance of brand
image on customer satisfaction. Reynolds and Beatty (1999) summarized that customer may be more satisfied with the
salesperson if he received high social and functional benefit from the salesperson's side.
Relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty intention
Number of authors has revealed in this study that there is positive relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty
intention (e.g. Ismail, Hasnah, Ibrahim, & Isa, 2006; Da Silva & Syed Alwi, 2006; Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Chiou et al.,
2002; Bloemer & Ruyter, 1998: Yang & Peterson, 2004) . If the customers are satisfied with the product then he will like to
repurchase intention (Bennett & Rundle-Thiele, 2004) .
Objective and Hypothesis
Objective of the study
To re-standardize & modified measure of brand image, customer satisfaction and loyalty intention.
To identify the factors underlying brand image, customer satisfaction and loyalty intention
To establish the cause & effect relationship between Brand Image, customer satisfaction and Loyalty intention
To find out the mediation effect of customer satisfaction between brand image & Loyalty intention using the Sobel test.
To open new vistas further research
Development of hypothesis
H01: There is no effect of Age as demographic variable of user of fair lovely on customer loyalty intention.
H02: There is no effect of Gender as demographic variable of user of fair lovely brand on customer loyalty intention
H03: There is no effect of Qualification as demographics variable of user of fair lovely brand on customer loyalty intention.
H04: There is no effect of Income as demographics variable of user of fair lovely brand on customer loyalty intention.
H05: There is no cause & effect relationship between Brand Image, Customer satisfaction and brand image in context of
fair lovely brand.
H06: There is no mediation effect of customer satisfaction between brand image and loyalty intention.
Research Methodology
The study was Casual in nature and the survey method was used for data collection. Sample design consists of the size of
population, sample element, sampling size and sampling techniques. Population of the current study was all the
customers of the cosmetic brand (Fair lovely) Sector at Gwalior region for this study.
Sample
Individual customers in the age range of 18 to 60 years old were selected for the study. Respondents of the current study
were having different Income level, Qualification and Most of them 68 percent were females and the rest were males. An
individual customer was treated as element of study. In all 300 questionnaires were distributed and out of them 257 were
received. Finally 248 questionnaires were selected as 09 were not filled properly.
3.2. Measures
The responses were collected on a Likert type scale of 1 to 5 for all the variables. The measures were tested for reliability
and validity. Content validity of measures was established through a panel of judges before using the measure for
collecting data for the study.
3.2.1. The construct of Brand Image measure was modified according to the requirement of the current study and it was
assessed through the five item scale of adopted from the research of The items (…..) used for measuring the emotional
and social benefits were adapted from Sweeney and Soutar's (2001) scales, whereas symbolic benefit measurement was
ISSN:2321-1098
278 | P a g e
taken from Tsai (2005). Question 1 and 3 adopted from Del Rio, Vazquez, and Iglesias (2001) and these items were
adjusted in order to fit with the context of cosmetic product. A total of 15 questions on brand image benefits were asked
and the respondents responded on a scale which ranged from 1 for "strongly disagree" to 5 for "strongly agree". Measure
of Brand Image include Experience of Fair & Lovely brand makes me feel good, Experience of Brand Fair & Lovely makes
me feel, Experience of Brand Fair & Lovely increases my frequency of use, Experience Brand of Fair & Lovely gives me
pleasure, Use of Fair & Lovely brand prevents me from looking cheap and another brand, Use of Fair & Lovely Brand
enhances the perceptions that I have a desirable lifestyle, Use of Fair & Lovely Brand helps me to better fit into my social
group, Fair & Lovely Brand helps me feel accepted, Fair & Lovely Brand helps me feel accepted , Fair & Lovely Brand
improves the way I am perceived by others, Fair & Lovely Brand X performs as it promises, Fair & Lovely Brand makes
me beautiful, Fair & Lovely Brand can be dependable for use, Fair & Lovely Brand provides a solution to my
expectations, Fair & Lovely Brand makes a good impression of me on other people, Fair & Lovely Usage of brand is
effective to my needs than other brands. In the current study, the value of Croanbach alpha was found 0.878 (see table
no. 1).
3.2.2. Customer satisfaction was assessed the five-item scale taken from (Hair et al. (2006). The cronbach‟s Alpha for the
scale was reported as 0.791 in the previous research and in the current study it was reported as 0.750 (See table no 2).
The measure of customer satisfaction include I think that I did the right thing when I used this brand, believe that using this
brand is usually a very satisfying experience, I am very satisfied with my decision to use this brand, My choice to use this
brand has been a wise one, This brand does a good job of satisfying my needs.
3.2.3. Loyalty Intention was assessed the five-item scale taken from (Hair et al. (2006). The cronbach‟s Alpha for the scale
was reported as 0.816 in the previous research and in the current study it was reported as 0.750 (See table no 3). The
measure of Loyalty Intention includes This brand X is my first choice, I intend to continue using this brand in the future, I
am more likely to repurchase this brand in the future and I will encourage friends and relatives to use with this brand.
Results and Discussions
Reliability of Brand Image Benefit
The reliability was computed by using PSW 18. Software .The Croanbach alpha reliability test was applied to check the
reliability coefficients were computed for all the items in the questionnaire.
Table no :1- Reliability
Construct
No.
Constructs Name
Reliability
Items User
in the
construct
1
Brand Image
0.878
15
2
Customer Satisfaction
0.783
5
3
Customer Loyalty Intention
0.776
4
Universally, Reliability value is considered good as if it is found more than 0.7. it can also be seen In the current study that
reliability value of all the construct were found more than the standard value in the current study. Croanbach‟s reliability of
all the constructs were mentioned above in the table no:1 that The Croanbach‟s alpha reliability of Brand Image was found
to be 0.878, reliability for Customer satisfaction was found to be 0.783 and reliability for Customer loyalty intention was
found to be 0.7776 .
2.1. Factor Analysis
4.2.1. Factor of Brand Image
Kaiser meyer olkin measure of sampling adequately indicated KMO value of 0.895 meaning thereby that the sample size
was good enough to treat the sampling data as normally distributed
Table No:2- KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.895
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
1173.152
Df
105
Sig.
.000
ISSN:2321-1098
279 | P a g e
Bartlett‟s test sphericity which tested the null hypothesis that the item to correlation matrix based on the responses
received from respondents for brand image of Fair lovely was an identity matrix. Bartlett‟s test was evaluated through Chi-
square test having Chi-square value 1173.152 which is significant at 0.000 level of significant, indicating that null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore it is clear that the item to item correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and the data
were suitable for factor analysis.
4.2.2. Principal Component Analysis of Brand Image
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied on the Brand Image data collected on the cosmetic product. The PCA
with Kaiser Normalization and Varimax Rotation converged on Four factor after five iterations.
Table No:3-Principal Component Analysis
Factor name
Initial
Eigenvalue
Variance
Loading
value
Statement
Workolic
5.585
15.730
0.731
0.693
0.633
0.542
0.514
provides a solution
to my expectations
good impression
dependable for use
makes me beautiful
Joyness
1.173
14.844
0.767
0.740
0.523
feel delighted
feel good
frequency of use
Fashion
1.084
14.668
0.744
0.714
0.589
looking cheap
desirable lifestyle
gives me pleasure
Commitment
1.029
13.896
0.780
0.574
0.539
0.515
perceived by others
performs it promises
feel accepted
my social group
4.2.3. Factor Analysis of Customer satisfaction
Kaiser meyer olkin measure of sampling adequately indicated KMO value of 0.782 meaning thereby that the sample size
was good enough to treat the sampling data as normally distributed.
Table:4- KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.782
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
353.978
Df
10
Sig.
.000
Bartlett‟s test sphericity which tested the null hypothesis that the item to correlation matrix based on the responses
received from respondents for Customer satisfaction in context of Fair lovely brand. Bartlett‟s test was evaluated through
Chi-square test having Chi-square value 353.978 which is significant at 0.000 level of significant, indicating that null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore it is clear that the item to item correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and the data
were suitable for factor analysis.
4.2.4. Principal component Analysis
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied on the Customer satisfaction of Fair Lovely Brand data collected on the
cosmetic product. The PCA with Kaiser Normalization and Varimax Rotation converged on single factor after three
iterations.
Table :5- Principal Component Analysis
Factor
name
Initial
Eigenvalue
total
Variance
Loading
value
Statement
Customer
satisfaction
2.711
54.213
.794
785
makes me feel delighted
gives me pleasure
increases my frequency of
ISSN:2321-1098
280 | P a g e
.772
.746
.558
use
makes me feel good
prevents me from looking
cheap and another brand
4.2.5. Factor Analysis of Loyalty Intention
Kaiser meyer olkin measure of sampling adequately indicated KMO value of 0.740 meaning thereby that the sample size
was good enough to treat the sampling data as normally distributed.
Table :6- KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.740
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
281.448
Df
6
Sig.
.000
Bartlett‟s test sphericity which tested the null hypothesis that the item to correlation matrix based on the responses
received from respondents for Customer Loyalty Intention was an identity matrix.
Bartlett‟s test was evaluated through Chi-square test having Chi-square value 281.448 which is significant at 0.000 level of
significant, indicating that null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore it is clear that the item to item correlation matrix is not an
identity matrix and the data were suitable for factor analysis.
Principal component Analysis
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied on the Customer Loyalty Intention data collected on the cosmetic
product. The PCA with Kaiser Normalization and Varimax Rotation converged on Single factor after three iterations.
Table No:7- Principal Component Analysis
Factor
name
Initial
Eigenvalue
Total
Variance
Loading
value
Statement
Loyalty
Intention
2.411
60.266
.840
.806
.765
.685
makes me feel delighted
increases my frequency of use
makes me feel good
gives me pleasure
4.3. UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS
Univariate ANOVA was applied to evaluate the effect of Age, Qualification, Gender, and income as fixed factor on
Customer loyalty intention as the dependent variables.
Table No:8 - Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F
df1
df2
Sig.
1.412
56
191
.046
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + AGE + QUALIFICATION + GENDER + INCOME Test the null hypothesis
that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
To select appropriate Post Hoc test Levene‟s test of equality of error variances was applied that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across group was tested using F test. the valve of „F‟ was found to be 1.412 which is
significant 4.6% level of Significance; indicating that Null hypothesis is rejected at 5% level of level significance. Since the
ISSN:2321-1098
281 | P a g e
No. of groups for the dependent variable are very large (5*4*4*4),the error variance of the dependent variable was in any
case likely to be unequal and post hoc tests that are available and suitable for equal variance across group were used.
Table No: 9- Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable:LOYALTYINTENTION
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
348.085a
10
34.808
2.324
.013
Intercept
9135.484
1
9135.484
609.830
.000
AGE
56.573
3
18.858
1.259
.289
QUALIFICATION
130.571
3
43.524
2.905
.035
GENDER
40.984
1
40.984
2.736
.019
INCOME
18.460
3
6.153
.411
.745
Error
3550.351
237
14.980
Total
47544.000
248
Corrected Total
3898.435
247
a. R Squared = .189 (Adjusted R Squared = .121)
The univariate ANCOVA model fit is indicated by adjusted R square which has the valve of .121 for the current
model. Corrected model has been tested for best fit using „F‟ test having value of 2.324 which is significant at 1.3%
level of significance indicating that the model with the demographic variables as fixed factors and loyalty Intention as
dependent variable is looking good fit.
H01: There is no effect of Age as fixed factor of Loyalty intention.
The effect of Age as fixed factor is tested through F value of Two-ANOVA. „F‟ Value was found to be 1.259 which is
significant at 28.9% level of significance, which is significant at 5% level of significance. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is not rejected that indicating that there is no effect of Age as fixed factor on loyalty intention.
H02: There is no effect of Qualification on Loyalty Intention
The effect of Qualification as fixed factor is tested through „F‟ value of Two- ANOVA. The „F‟ value was found to be
2.905 which is significant at 3.5% level of significance; which is significant at 5% level of significance. Therefore, the
null hypothesis is not rejected that indicating that there is significant effect of Qualification as fixed factor on loyalty
intention.
H03: There is no effect of Gender on Loyalty Intention
The effect of Gender as fixed factor is tested through „F‟ value of ANOVA. „F‟ Value was found to be 2.736. Which is
significant at 1.9% level of significance; which is significant at 5% level of significance? Therefore, the null hypothesis
is not rejected that indicating that there is significant effect of Gender as fixed factor on loyalty intention.
H04: There is no effect of Income on Loyalty Intention
The effect of Income as fixed factor is tested through „F‟ value of ANOVA. „F‟ Value was found to be 0.411 which is
significant at 74.5% level of significance. Which is significant at 5% level of significance, therefore, the null
hypothesis is not rejected that indicating that there is no effect of Income as fixed factor on loyalty intention.
4.4 Regression Analysis
H05: There is no cause and effect relationship between Independent variable (Brand Image and Customer
Satisfaction) on dependent variable (Loyalty Intention).
A Multiple regression analysis was applied to investigate the cause and effect relationship between Customer
satisfaction and Brand image.
ISSN:2321-1098
282 | P a g e
Table No:10- Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
dimension0
1
.673a
.452
.448
2.95173
a. Predictors: (Constant), CUSTOMERSATISFACTION, BRANDIMAGE
Multiple regression analysis was applied to establish the cause and effect relationship between Brand Image and
Customer Satisfaction were taken as independent variable and Loyalty Intention was treated as the dependent
variable.
The result of the model summary indicates through Adjusted R square value which was found to be .448, indicating
that brand image and customer satisfaction both are having 44.8 % variance on Loyalty Intention.
Table No: 11- ANOVAb
Model
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
1763.819
2
881.910
101.221
.000a
Residual
2134.616
245
8.713
Total
3898.435
247
a. Predictors: (Constant), CUSTOMERSATISFACTION, BRANDIMAGE
b. Dependent Variable: LOYALTYINTENTION
The goodness fit for the model was tested using ANOVA and the F value was found to be 101.221 which was
significant at 0.000 level of significance, indicating that the model is showing highly fit.
Table No:12- Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
.521
.925
.563
.574
BRANDIMAGE
.217
.021
.594
10.282
.000
CUSTOMERSATISFACT
ION
.112
.052
.123
2.134
.034
a. Dependent Variable: LOYALTY INTENTION
The contribution of individual independent variable was evaluated through computation of Beta value for the
independent variable Brand Image is 0.594, which was tested through T-value which was to be 10.282 which is
significant at 0.00% level of significance. The contribution of Individual independent variable was evaluated through
computation of Beta value for the independent variable Customer Satisfaction is 0.123 with t-value which was found
to be 2.134 which was significant at 3.4% level at 5% level of significance, indicating that Brand image and Customer
Satisfaction contribute significantly to the Loyalty Intention. But the contribution of customer satisfaction was found to
be a little bit weak, Which indicates that there might be a mediating effect of customer satisfaction on brand image
and loyally intention. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected indicating there is strong and positive cause and effect
relationship between brand images, customer satisfaction on loyalty intention.
Sobel Test For Mediation
Sobel test was applied to evaluate the mediation effect of customer satisfaction between Brand Image and Loyalty
intention. Sobel test was applied in the current study because there was a little bit weak contribution of customer
ISSN:2321-1098
283 | P a g e
satisfaction on loyalty intention was found through t-value. The result of t-test in respect of customer satisfaction was
found to be significant on customer loyalty intention but it was found to be little bit weak therefore it seems that there
must have been mediating between customer image and customer loyalty intention and there for the sobel test was
applied in the current study.
H0 6: There is no mediation effect of customer satisfaction between brand image and loyalty intention.
Table No:13- Sobel test
Input
Test
Test
Statistics
Standard
Error
P. Value
A
5.16
Sobel test
1.96354667
0.29432456
0.04958269
B
.112
Araian test
1.92874926
0.29963459
0.053762
Sa
1.08
Goodmen
test
2.00029808
0.28891694
0.04546809
Sb
.052
The result of the sobel test was tested by Test of statistics and P-value. The value of T-statistics was found to be
1.96354667 which is significant at P-value. which was found to be 0.049588269 level of significance. This is
significant 5% level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected; indicating that there is significant
mediating effect of customer satisfaction on brand image and loyalty intention.
Managerial Implication
The identification of brand image benefits of the branded product will help practitioners to establish effective
marketing strategies. It is very important to understand brand image dimension judgments from customers' point of
view, and whether these image dimensions are parallel to their perceptions, expectations, needs and goals. Knowing
this, may assist managers to develop a marketing strategy based on consumers' perceptions and meanings of the
product.
With regard to satisfaction and loyalty, it is important for companies to measure customers' satisfaction in order to
analyze their product or service image performance and whether their satisfied customers are willing to recommend
their branded product to others as well as having the intention to purchase their product/services in the future.
Finally, in order to create a successful brand, marketing managers should be more devoted on building brand image,
customers' satisfaction and brand loyalty as part of their branding strategy. By maintaining and strengthening the
brand images and values, it will hopefully position the brand positively in the minds of consumers.
CONCLUSION
The current study can be concluded in such manner that the strong relationship was found between customer
satisfaction and brand image; surprisingly, the result of the current study do not support the generation perception
that customer satisfaction may crate the loyalty intention in the absence of Brand image, therefore, the marketing
manager must understand that first of all, they need to build a good brand image neither they should try to create
customer satisfaction nor expect that customer satisfaction may create loyalty intention.
Current study also reveled that there is a very strong and positive relationship between customer satisfaction and
loyalty intention in the presence of the brand image only so it should be very important and powerful marketing
strategies. First focus should be on brand image than satisfaction and loyalty intention.
ISSN:2321-1098
284 | P a g e
References:
Aaker D. A (1991), “Managing brand equity, capitalizing on the value of a brand name”, New York: The Free Press.
Amine A. (1998), “Consumers' true brand loyalty: The central role of commitment”.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6(4), 305–319.
Andreassen T.W. ; & B. Lindestad (1998), “Customer loyalty and complex services:theimpact of corporate image on quality,
customer satisfaction and loyalty for customerswith varying degrees of service expertise”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Bennet R. & S. Rundle-Thiele (2004), “Customer satisfaction should not be the only goal”. Journal of Service Marketing, 18(7),
514–523.
Biel A. L. l, (1992), “How brand image drives brand equity”. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(6), Special edition, RC-6-RC-12
Brown G. H.; (1952), “Brand loyalty-fact or fiction”? Advertising Age, 23, 53–54
Buttle F. (1996) SERVEQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. European journal of marketing, 30(1) 8-32
Churchill G.A. ; C. Jr and Surprenant (1982), “An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction'', Journal of Market
Research, No. XIX, November, pp. 491- 504.Cunningham R.M.; (1956), “Brand loyalty-what,where,how much”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol.39, November-December, pp. 116-38.
Cunningham R. M.; (1956). “Brand loyalty – What, where, how much”? Journal of Marketing, 34(1), 116–28.
Day G. S. ; (1969). “A two dimensional concept of brand loyalty”. Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 29-35.Faircloth J.B.; L. M.
Capella & B. L. Alford (2001). “The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity”. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 9(3), 61–74.
Ghobadian A. ; Speller & Jones 1994, “Service quality:oncept and model”, International journal of quality and reliability
management”, vol. 11 no. 9 p. 43-66.
Gupta A. ; J.C McDaniel & S.K. Herath (2005). “Quality Management in Service Firms: Sustaining Structures of Total Quality
Service. Managing Service Quality”,
Hennig-Thurau T.; & A. Khee (1997). “The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer satisfaction: A
critical reassessment and model development”. Psychology and Marketing, 14(8), 737–764.
Heskett J.L. ; W.E. Jr Sasser & L.A. Schlesinger (1997).”The Service Profit Chain: How Leading Companies Link Profit and Growth
to Loyalty, Satisfaction, and Value”. New York: The Free Press.
Hsieh M. H; S. L. Pan & R. Setiono (2004), “Product-, corporate-, and country-image dimensions and purchase behavior: A multi
country analysis”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 251–270.
Ismail I.; H. Hasnah, D. N. Ibrahim & S. Mohd Isa (2006). “Service quality, client satisfaction, and loyalty towards audit firms” .
Perceptions of Malaysian public listed companies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(7), 738- 756.
Jacoby, Jacob and Chesnut Robert W. (1978), “Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management”, New York, NY: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Jacoby J. & R. W. Chestnut (1978). “Brand Loyalty: Measuring and Management”, New York: john Wiley.
Jones T. O. ; & J. W. E. Sasser. (1995). “Why satisfied customers defect”. Harvard Business Review, 73(6), 88-99.
Kandampully J. & Suhartanto D.; (2000). “Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: The role of customer satisfaction and image”.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(6), 346–351.
Keller K. L., (1993);” Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Kotler P. (2001); “A framework for marketing management”. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kumar M. ; F.T Kee, & A.T. Manshor (2009). “Determining the Relative Importance of Critical Factors in Delivering Service Quality
of Banks: an Application of Dominance Analysis in SERVQUAL Model”. Managing Service Quality, 19(2), 211-228.
Levesque T. ; & G. McDougall (1996). “Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail banking”. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 14(7), 12-20.
Mellens M. ; M. G. Dekimp, & J. B. E. M. Steenkamp (1996). “A review of b rand- loyalty measures in marketing”. Tijdschrift voor
Economie en Management, XLI, 507–532.Na W. B.; R.Marshall., & K. L. Keller (1999). “Measuring brand power: Validating a model
for optimizing brand equity”. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(3), 170–184.
Oliver R.L. ; (1997), “Satisfaction: Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer”, McGraw- Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver R.L. ; (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions'', Journal of Marketing
Research, No. XVII, November, pp. 460-69.
ISSN:2321-1098
285 | P a g e
Oliver R.; & R. Rust (1997) “Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial Insight,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (3): 311-
337.
Parasuraman A. ; L. L. Berry and V. A. Zeithaml (1988). SERVQUAL: “A multiple-item scale for measuring Consumer perceptions
of service quality”. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12.
Park, C; Jaworski, Whan ; J.Bernard & J Deborah, Maclnnis (1986), “Strategic brand concept image management”. Journal of
marketing, 50(4) October, pp.135-145.
Park C. W.; B. J.Jaworski, & D. J. Maclnnis (1986). “Strategic brand concept-image management”. Journal of Marketing, 50(4),
135–145.
Reynolds K. E. ; & S. E. Beatty (1999). “Customer benefits and company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in
retailing”. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 11–32.Reynolds W. H. ; (1965). “The role of the consumer in image building”. California
Management Review, 7(3), 69-76.
Schiffman L. G.; & L. L. Kanuk(2004). Consumer behavior (8th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Stevenson W. ; (2002). “Production and Operations Management”. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vazquez-Carrasco R.; & G. R. Foxall (2006). “Influence of personality traits on satisfaction, perception of relational benefits, and
loyalty in a personal services context”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13(3), 205–219.
Yi Y. ; (1990), “A critical review of consumer satisfaction'', in Zeithaml, V.A. (Ed.), Review of Marketing, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 68-123.
Wilkie W.; (1986). Consumer behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R., & Jenkins, R. L. (1983).
“Modeling consumer satisfaction processes using experience-based norms”. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(3), 296–304.
Zeithaml V. & Bitner M (2003) “Service Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm”, McGraw Hill, New York.
