Content uploaded by Marco Ieva
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marco Ieva on Sep 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Customer experience in retail banking:
what touchpoints matter for customer loyalty?
Dr. Marco Ieva, University of Parma
Prof. Cristina Ziliani, University of Parma
The availability of new online channels has led to an explosion in the number of
different touchpoints. This is putting pressure on retailers to design omni-channel
Customer Experiences (CE). To develop CE, practitioners have started to adopt
Customer Experience Management (CEM), that is a firm-wide management
approach for designing CE (Homburg, Jozić, and Kuehnl 2015). The final goal of
CEM is achieving long-term customer loyalty by designing and continually
renewing touchpoint journeys (Homburg, Jozić, and Kuehnl 2015). Hence, it is
key to measure the role of each touchpoint within the customer journey and its
contribution to develop the relationship between the customer and the company
(Baxendale, MacDonald and Wilson 2015). To date, however, few studies have
performed comparisons among touchpoints and no study has explored the relative
touchpoint contribution to customer loyalty. The present study addresses this
issue and focuses on the reach and the relative contribution of touchpoints to
customer loyalty in a multichannel retail banking setting. Touchpoint
contribution to loyalty is evaluated separately by considering reach - i.e.
customer exposure to each touchpoint in the period of reference - and positivity -
i.e. the valence of the customer’s affective response to each touchpoint (Kahn &
Isen 1993). By means of a survey on almost five thousand consumers this study
aims to provide an examination of the relative importance of twenty-two
touchpoints in contributing to customer loyalty to retail banks. Our findings
suggest that thirteen touchpoints out of the twenty-two analysed play a significant
role for customer loyalty to the bank in terms of reach, positivity or both.
Findings reveal relevant managerial implications. Special focus should be
devoted, in terms of investment and effort, to a specific set of offline and online
touchpoints to enhance their potential to achieve long-term customer loyalty
within an omni-channel perspective.
Keywords: customer experience; customer loyalty; touchpoints; retail bank.
Introduction
The availability of new online channels has led to an explosion in the number of
different touchpoints (Pantano and Viassone 2015), - i.e. the number of verbal or
nonverbal incidents a person perceives and consciously relates to a given firm or brand
(Duncan and Moriarty 2006) - within the customer journey. New touchpoints are
putting pressure on retailers to design an omni-channel Customer Experience (CE)
(Verhoef, Kannan, and Inman 2015). “CE is the evolvement of a person’s sensorial,
affective, cognitive, relational, and behavioural responses to a firm or brand by living
through a journey of touchpoints along pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase
situations…” (Homburg, Jozie, and Kuehnl 2015, 8). A seamless experience across
online and offline touchpoints will deliver a stronger overall CE (Lemon and Verhoef
2016).
To develop CE, practitioners have started to adopt Customer Experience
Management (CEM) (Homburg, Jozić, and Kuehnl 2015). The CEM framework is a
firm-wide management approach for designing CE. The final goal of CEM is achieving
long-term customer loyalty by designing and continually renewing touchpoint journeys
(Homburg, Jozić, and Kuehnl 2015). However, the (re)design of customer journeys
forces companies to choose how they should allocate investment and efforts across
touchpoints (Court et al. 2009). Hence, it is key to measure the role of each touchpoint
within the customer journey and its contribution to develop the relationship between the
customer and the company (Baxendale, MacDonald, and Wilson 2015). Few studies
perform comparisons among touchpoints: the topic of touchpoint journey and
touchpoint effectiveness remains largely unexplored (Lemon and Verhoef 2016).
Moreover, no studies focus on the relative contribution of touchpoints with respect to
customer loyalty, which has been regarded as the ultimate objective of CEM (Homburg,
Jozić, and Kuehnl 2015). Therefore, providing a linkage between touchpoints and
customer loyalty has been recently included as a key element of the updated research
agenda for CE (Lemon and Verhoef 2016).
The present study focuses on the reach and the relative contribution of
touchpoints to customer loyalty in a multichannel retail banking setting. Touchpoint
contribution to loyalty is evaluated separately by considering touchpoint reach - i.e. the
exposure to each touchpoint in the period of reference - and touchpoint positivity - i.e.
the valence of the customer’s affective response to each touchpoint (Kahn and Isen
1993). By means of a survey on almost five thousand customers, this study aims to
provide a holistic examination of the relative importance of twenty-two touchpoints in
contributing to customer loyalty to retail banks.
Our findings suggest that thirteen touchpoints out of the twenty-two analysed
play a significant role for customer loyalty to the bank in terms of reach, positivity or
both. Results provide guidance for banks, service providers and retailers on how to
improve their CEM and their investment allocation across touchpoints. In the following
sections, we review key literature on the topic, present the methodology for the study,
show findings, and discuss implications for practice as well as research directions.
Theoretical background
CE develops throughout all touchpoints encountered during the service delivery process
(Jüttner et al. 2013). This study adopts a broad definition of touchpoints, including all
verbal or nonverbal incidents a person perceives and consciously relates to a given firm
or brand (Duncan and Moriarty 2006). This definition is wider than the definitions of
channel or media touchpoints as specified respectively in Neslin et al. (2006) and in
Sundar et al. (1998). Touchpoints have been classified into four main groups (Lemon
and Verhoef 2016): brand owned touchpoints, partner owned touchpoints, customer
owned touchpoint and social/external touchpoints. Even though this classification
entails some overlap across the defined categories, it helps companies identify which
touchpoints they can own or influence and which are not under their control. Most
academic research on touchpoints has focussed on a category of touchpoints in
isolation, i.e. on a group of similar touchpoints involved in a part of the customer
journey (Baxendale, MacDonald, and Wilson 2015). For instance, many studies have
analysed the role of touchpoints in the online setting, which is characterized by higher
availability of data at the individual level (e.g., Li and Kannan 2014; Xu, Duan, and
Whinston 2014). Such studies employ attribution models and provide insights on some
portions of the customer journey. However, further studies are needed to complement
these findings with a wider perspective on the relative role of each touchpoint within the
customer journey.
The present study considers a wide range of touchpoints, and includes
touchpoints that have been ignored in previous studies (i.e., loyalty programs). The role
of touchpoints is evaluated in terms of reach and positivity. Touchpoints might reach
different customer segments. Reaching consumers in the right segment with the right
message is essential for media placement (Romaniuk, Beal, and Uncles 2013).
Romaniuk, Beal, and Uncles (2013) found that touchpoints such as television
advertising, gift-pack, in store displays/promotion and outdoor advertisements reach the
average category and brand user, in a grocery setting. Social media and word of mouth
skew the heavy category and brand users. Frequency of exposure to touchpoints may
also differ across customer segments and has been found to influence brand attitudes
(Cambpell and Keller 2003) and brand consideration changes (Baxendale, MacDonald,
and Wilson 2015).
Positivity of interactions with touchpoints is a key aspect that should be
measured to evaluate the importance of touchpoints in the customer journey
(Baxendale, MacDonald, and Wilson 2015). Positivity, which is the valence of the
affective response to a touchpoint encounter, has been shown to have an impact on
spending and repeat purchase intentions (Arnold and Reynolds 2009). In fact, affect
coming from an experience with a touchpoint is believed to be embodied in the
customer’s evaluative response (Westbrook and Oliver 1991), influencing future brand-
related cognitions (Baumeister et al. 2007). Baxendale, MacDonald, and Wilson (2015)
have evaluated the impact of multiple touchpoints in terms of frequency and positivity
on brand consideration changes. Brand consideration has been defined as the extent to
which the customer would consider buying the brand in the future (Roberts and Lattin
1997) and it is closely related to purchase intention. They show that frequency and
positivity of interactions with touchpoints influence brand consideration changes.
However, their study leaves unexplored the issue of the relative contributions of
touchpoints to customer loyalty, which is the ultimate goal of CEM (Homburg, Jozic,
and Kuehnl 2015). Other studies show that positivity is associated with satisfaction
(Westbrook and Oliver 1991) and commitment (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava
2000), that have been identified as drivers of customer loyalty (e.g. Shankar, Smith, and
Rangaswamy 2003). A positive experience with a touchpoint could be a significant
predictor of customer loyalty.
The conceptualization of loyalty ranges from a behavioural approach - defining
loyalty as repeated purchase behaviour and probability of product repurchase (Lipstein
1959; McConnell 1968) - and a cognitive approach - highlighting the attitudinal
dimensions of loyalty (Lalaberba and Marzusky 1973) As customer loyalty includes
multiple dimensions rather than the sole purchase intention (Ngobo 2016; Gremler
1995) previously mentioned findings on brand consideration cannot be extended to it.
Although it is a challenging task, it is key to identify critical touchpoints
throughout the customer journey, that are most influential on the relevant customer
attitudes and behaviours (Lemon and Verhoef 2016). This could lead to a better
theoretical understanding of the customer journey and it would help practitioners to
improve design and measurement of customer experience and related investment in
retailing and consumer services. Drawing from the abovementioned theoretical
background, we argue that both the reach and the valence of the affective response to a
touchpoint may explain customer loyalty toward a company. Hence, we formulate the
following research questions:
RQ1: How do the audiences reached by different touchpoints compare in terms
of customer loyalty to the company?
RQ2: Does touchpoint positivity contribute to customer loyalty to the company?
We address these questions in the retail banking context, which is undergoing a
fast-digital transformation.
Methodology and results
To answer the above research questions data were collected by means of an online
cross-sectional survey conducted in one European country by means of the Nielsen
consumer panel. The panel includes 6,233 subjects over 14 years old. Among these,
4,963 complete responses were collected from subjects who own a bank account. We
asked respondents to answer the survey with reference to the bank that attains the
highest share of their wallet for financial activities. A list of 22 touchpoints was
identified with reference to retail banking by considering and integrating lists of
touchpoints employed in previous studies (e.g., Romaniuk, Beal, and Uncles 2013).
Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of interaction with each touchpoint in
the previous three months on a single Likert-scale item (7-point scale) anchored by
“never” and “very often”. Touchpoint reach was computed as a dummy variable from
touchpoint frequency, assuming value equal to one in case of touchpoint exposure in the
period of reference. Touchpoint frequency has been further transformed by employing
its natural logarithm: it is assumed that communication wears out through over-
exposure (Bass et al. 2007). Positivity was measured by means of the single Likert-scale
item “How did it make you feel about the retailer?” on a 5-point scale anchored by
“very positive” and “very negative”, from Baxendale, MacDonald, and Wilson (2015).
This variable was then re-centered around zero and if the participant did not report any
interactions with a touchpoint (i.e., frequency is zero), positivity was imputed as zero as
well, following the procedure from Baxendale, MacDonald, and Wilson (2015). The
touchpoint list was randomized per each respondent to avoid any order bias in the
responses. We also cleaned the data to ensure that careless responses were identified
and removed from the analysis. Loyalty to the bank was measured by means of the 7-
point Likert-scale from Zeithaml and Barry (1996), which was developed by the authors
within a behavioural-intentions battery. The scale has been adapted in order to be
referred to the bank of reference and has been proved to be reliable as its Cronbach’s
Alpha is equal to 0.91.
We run two OLS regression models with clustered standard errors taking into
account that observations nested within the same family are not independent. As a
matter of fact, customers belonging to the same family might influence each other as far
as their experience with the relative bank is concerned. We clustered standard errors for
the 2834 families to which respondents belonged to. In the first model (Model 1) loyalty
to the bank was regressed on touchpoint reach included at the single touchpoint level. In
the second model (Model 2) loyalty to the bank was regressed on touchpoint positivity,
and touchpoint frequency was included as a control variable – both touchpoint positivity
and frequency were included at the single touchpoint level. VIF values were below or
equal to 3 for both models, thus multicollinearity was not a concern. Socio-demographic
information per each respondent was also available and it has been included in both
Model 1 and Model 2 in terms of several control variables. Standardized coefficients
were computed in Model 2 and compared to highlight the relative importance of each
touchpoint in terms of positivity. Analyses were conducted by means of SAS 9.4. Table
1 shows descriptive results as far as touchpoint reach, frequency and positivity are
concerned. ATM machine, bank branch, bank associates and bank website display the
highest reach, frequency and positivity. Model 1 (see Table 2), shows that touchpoints
reach has a significant relationship with loyalty to the bank for 9 touchpoints.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics on reach, frequency and positivity across touchpoints
Variable
Reach
Frequency
score
Positivity
score
TV and cinema advertising
23%
1.60
0.02
Radio advertising
18%
1.44
0.01
Newspaper advertising
23%
1.56
0.01
Customer magazine
15%
1.39
0.01
Direct mailing
56%
2.74
0.20
Billboards
21%
1.51
0.01
Online advertising
24%
1.64
0.02
Social networks
14%
1.37
0.02
Bank website
67%
4.04
0.68
Bank branch
67%
3.21
0.48
Special events
16%
1.44
0.04
ATM machine
79%
4.37
0.78
Branch associates
64%
3.15
0.57
Word of mouth
27%
1.70
0.06
E-mailing
41%
2.30
0.17
Loyalty program
18%
1.49
0.02
Mobile app
33%
2.39
0.31
Special promotions
15%
1.40
0.01
Mobile messaging
36%
2.14
0.20
Customer service
45%
2.33
0.32
Customer satisfaction
surveys
23%
1.58
0.05
Telemarketing
13%
1.32
-0.01
N=4963
Table 2. Model 1: customer loyalty to the bank regressed on touchpoint reach and
control variables
Variable
Coefficient
Clustered
standard
error
Intercept
3.6851
0.1378
REACH
TV and cinema advertising
0.0439
0.0658
Radio advertising
-0.1836*
0.0737
Newspaper advertising
-0.0253
0.0645
Customer magazine
0.0057
0.0762
Direct mailing
-0.09
0.0472
Billboards
-0.0156
0.0661
Online advertising
0.0267
0.0595
Social networks
0.0812
0.0825
Bank website
0.2296***
0.0497
Bank branch
-0.1686**
0.054
Special events
0.1257
0.0772
ATM machine
0.0657
0.0561
Branch associates
0.0798
0.0547
Word of mouth
0.4837***
0.0578
E-mailing
0.2202***
0.0505
Loyalty program
-0.0115
0.0702
Mobile app
0.291***
0.0516
Special promotions
0.0519
0.0755
Mobile messaging
0.0636
0.051
Customer service
0.1864***
0.0479
Customer satisfaction surveys
0.1449***
0.062
Telemarketing
-0.4755***
0.0823
Number of household
members
-0.041
0.0227
Age
0.0032*
0.0014
Affluency (Low)
-0.0264
0.079
Affluency (Low-to-average)
0.0009
0.0675
Affluency (Average-to-high)
0.0316
0.0615
City (Very small)
0.2374**
0.0725
City (Small)
0.2284**
0.0719
City (Medium)
0.2314**
0.0808
Gender (Female)
-0.0653*
0.031
*p<.05; **p<.01;***<.001 High affluency and large cities are employed as a term of reference for
respectively, affluency and city.
Results for RQ1: Out of twenty-two touchpoints, the reach of the following six
touchpoints is positively related to loyalty to the bank: bank website, word of mouth, e-
mailing, mobile app, customer service and customer satisfaction surveys. On the other
hand, the reach of the following three touchpoints is negatively related with loyalty to
the bank: bank branch, telemarketing and radio advertising.
Table 3 shows results as far as Model 2 is concerned: when controlling for
touchpoint frequency, positivity has a significant relationship with loyalty to the bank as
far as 9 touchpoints are concerned.
Table 3. Model 2: customer loyalty to the bank regressed on touchpoint positivity and
control variables
Variable
Coefficient
Clustered
standard
error
Standardized
coefficient
Standardized
coefficient rank
Intercept
3.5067
0.1439
POSITIVITY
Positivity
ranking
TV and cinema advertising
0.0347
0.0414
Radio advertising
0.0516
0.0446
Newspaper advertising
0.0518
0.0429
Customer magazine
-0.1155*
0.0484
-0.0318
9
Direct mailing
0.1302***
0.0271
0.0712
6
Billboards
-0.0646
0.0446
Online advertising
0.0505
0.0406
Social networks
-0.0191
0.0561
Bank website
0.1647***
0.0273
0.1100
3
Bank branch
0.2123***
0.0288
0.1359
2
Special events
0.032
0.045
ATM machine
0.268***
0.0256
0.1791
1
Branch associates
0.1364***
0.03
0.0899
5
Word of mouth
0.1236***
0.0356
0.0485
8
E-mailing
0.1081***
0.0325
0.0523
7
Loyalty program
-0.093
0.0465
Mobile app
0.037
0.0357
Special promotions
0.0155
0.0475
Mobile messaging
0.0593
0.032
Customer service
0.1942***
0.0307
0.1078
4
Customer satisfaction
surveys
-0.0193
0.0433
Telemarketing
-0.0606
0.0483
FREQUENCY
TV and cinema advertising
0.0208
0.0719
Radio advertising
-0.0827
0.0823
Newspaper advertising
0.0459
0.0752
Customer magazine
0.046
0.079
Direct mailing
-0.0548
0.044
Billboards
-0.0083
0.075
Online advertising
0.0084
0.0628
Social networks
0.245**
0.0846
Bank website
-0.0032
0.0424
Bank branch
-0.1962***
0.0537
Special events
0.0771
0.0802
ATM machine
-0.1841***
0.0442
Branch associates
0.0017
0.0561
Word of mouth
0.4669***
0.0569
E-mailing
0.1113*
0.0498
Loyalty program
0.0758
0.0728
Mobile app
0.1492**
0.0518
Special promotions
0.0412
0.0788
Mobile messaging
-0.0073
0.05
Customer service
-0.0046
0.0511
Customer satisfaction
surveys
0.1072
0.0684
Telemarketing
-0.3895***
0.091
Number of household
members
-0.0141
0.0187
Age
0.0004
0.0013
Affluency (Low)
-0.0258
0.0647
Affluency (Low-to-
average)
-0.034
0.0565
Affluency (Average-to-
high)
-0.0488
0.0519
City (Very small)
0.152***
0.0586
City (Small)
0.1242*
0.0579
City (Medium)
0.1215
0.0654
Gender (Female)
-0.0971***
0.0284
*p<.05; **p<.01;***<.001 High affluency and large cities are employed as a term of reference for
respectively, affluency and city.
Results for RQ2: Nine touchpoints out of twenty-two are significantly related to
customer loyalty as far as positivity is concerned: ATM machine, bank branch, bank
website, customer service, branch associates, direct mailing, e-mail, word of mouth,
customer magazine.
Discussion and conclusions
This study compares the relative importance of different touchpoints in their
relationship with customer loyalty to the bank. Results on almost five thousand
respondents show that only thirteen out of the twenty-two touchpoints considered in this
study are significantly related to customer loyalty. This reveals that it is important to
measure the role of touchpoints at the individual touchpoint level to avoid mis-
attribution or dilution of the relative touchpoint contribution.
The study shows that six touchpoints reach those customers who display higher
loyalty to the bank: bank website, word of mouth, e-mailing, mobile app, customer
service and customer satisfaction surveys. As most of these are “brand-owned”
touchpoints, banks might have higher control and flexibility to develop and manage
cross-up selling strategies through these touchpoints. Word of mouth is a touchpoint
that is not controllable by the company, but banks should devote efforts to closely
monitor it: word of mouth reaches high loyal customers and - as it will be discussed
below - also contributes positively to customer loyalty. On the other hand, three
touchpoints reach customers who display lower loyalty to the bank: radio advertising,
bank branch and telemarketing. Bank branch may reach customers whose behavioural
loyalty is only driven by location convenience. A customer could use a bank branch
close to his house or office just for convenience and not because he/she appreciates the
service. Telemarketing might be specifically addressed to reach customers that are at
risk of churn. Knowing what touchpoints reach different audiences help companies to
avoid duplication of investment. At the same time, knowing what touchpoints have
higher overlap points managers’ attention to what set of touchpoints should be
thoroughly orchestrated to always look and feel consistent and connected to customers.
Eight touchpoints contribute positively to customer loyalty to the bank: ATM
machine, bank branch, bank website, customer service, branch associates, direct
mailing, e-mailing and word of mouth. Out of this list, the top seven contributors in
terms of positivity are all “brand-owned” touchpoints. Both physical and digital
touchpoints are present among the most important touchpoints: this provides evidence
on the need for banks and financial companies to embrace an omni-channel perspective
across touchpoints in order to manage customer experience in an effective way. The
customer magazine is the only touchpoint that shows a barely significant negative
relationship between positivity and loyalty to the bank. This finding should be
complemented with additional evidence in order to provide conclusive results on the
role of customer magazine. It is also interesting to focus on the touchpoints that do not
contribute to customer loyalty, such as Tv advertising. Given the high amount of
investment devoted to Tv, banks might consider shifting some funds from Tv to other
touchpoints that are related to customer loyalty.
Fourth, it is interesting to compare each touchpoint in terms of reach and
positivity. Only four touchpoints can both (i) reach loyal customers and (ii) contribute
positively to customer loyalty: bank website, word of mouth, emailing and customer
service. Interestingly, while bank branch reaches customers displaying lower loyalty, its
relationship with customer loyalty to the bank is positive. Hence, the bank branch could
be a key touchpoint for customer retention as it allows to reach customers displaying
lower loyalty and it provides a positive contribution to customer loyalty. Mobile app,
customer satisfaction surveys, direct mailing and bank associates can reach loyal
customers but do not seem to contribute to their customer loyalty. From our results, we
might hypothesize that customers reached by these touchpoints already display high
levels of customer loyalty. Generally, consumers who already hold a very positive
attitude are more likely to move down the scale or stay where they are rather than
further increase their opinion (Baxendale, MacDonald, and Wilson 2015). Hence, this
might explain why these touchpoints contribute less to increase customer loyalty.
The results of this study have implications for marketing strategy in retail
banking. First, banks should be concerned with the specific reach of each touchpoint,
both in terms of number and type of customers reached. This could help them to address
the right message through the right touchpoint to the right audience and to better
evaluate the relative customer response. Second, special focus should be devoted, in
terms of investment and effort, to a set of both offline and online touchpoints to enhance
their potential to achieve long-term customer loyalty within an omni-channel
perspective. In particular, three touchpoints - website, emailing and mobile app - that
have been found to reach highly loyal customers and positively contribute to store
loyalty should receive attention and investment to provide an integrated consistent CE.
Their digital nature allows for this and makes them precious to CEM for the customer
data collection. Third, the ATM is the most important touchpoint both in terms of reach
and positivity: this should guide banks to focus on the quality of experience with this
touchpoint by conducting marketing research and developing improvements. Fourth,
promotional activities, both in terms of loyalty programs and special promotions have
been found not to matter in terms of frequency nor positivity. This should lead banks to
think about redesigning or innovating promotional activities to better match their related
objectives in terms of customer relationship management.
This study entails two main limitations. First, customers self-selected themselves
in the interaction with touchpoints. This issue is relevant when assessing the
relationship between touchpoint positivity and customer loyalty to the bank: self-
selection and reverse causality do not allow to draw causal inference statements on the
effect of positivity on customer loyalty. Second, even though surveys are commonly
employed for academic and practitioner studies on touchpoint interactions (e.g.,
Romaniuk, Beal, and Uncles 2013), respondents might find hard to remember the
experience with touchpoints they had some time ago (Wind and Lerner 1979). Future
studies should estimate the relative impact of different touchpoints on customer loyalty
and discover synergies across touchpoints by adopting different research designs.
Further research is needed on the identification and profiling of customer segments
based on exposure to touchpoints, rather than medium or channel preference (e.g.,
Konus, Verhoef, and Neslin 2008). Comparing and coupling a touchpoint-based
segmentation with the classic demographic segmentations could provide academic and
managerial insights on how to effectively segment consumers in an omni-channel
scenario.
References
Ahluwalia, R., R. E. Burnkrant, and H.R. Unnava. 2000. “Consumer response to
negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment.” Journal of Marketing
Research 37 (2): 203-214. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.2.203.18734.
Arnold, M. J., and K.E. Reynolds. 2009. “Affect and retail shopping behavior:
Understanding the role of mood regulation and regulatory focus.” Journal of
Retailing 85 (3): 308-320. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2009.05.004.
Bass, F. M., N. Bruce, S. Majumdar, and B.P.S. Murthi. 2007. “Wearout effects
of different advertising themes: A dynamic Bayesian model of the advertising-sales
relationship.” Marketing Science 26 (2): 179-195. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0208.
Baxendale, S., E. K. Macdonald, amd H.N. Wilson. 2015. “The impact of
different touchpoints on brand consideration.” Journal of Retailing 91 (2): 235-253. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.12.008.
Baumeister, R. F., D. V. Kathleen, C. N. DeWall, and L. Zhang. 2007. “How
Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct
Causation,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11: 167–203. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033.
Campbell, M. C., and K.L. Keller. 2003. “Brand familiarity and advertising
repetition effects.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 292-304. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1086/376800.
Court, D., D. Elzinga, S. Mulder, and O. J. Vetvik. 2009. “The Consumer
Decision Journey,” McKinsey Quarterly, (3): 96–107.
Duncan, T., and S. Moriarty. 2006. “How integrated marketing communication’s
‘touchpoints’ can operationalize the service-dominant logic.” Chap. 18 in The service-
dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions edited by Lusch, R. F., and
S. L. Vargo, 236-249. Armonk: Sharpe.
Gremler, D. D. 1995. “The effect of satisfaction, switching costs, and
interpersonal bonds on service loyalty” Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Homburg, C., D. Jozić, and C. Kuehnl. 2015. “Customer experience
management: toward implementing an evolving marketing concept.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 1-25. doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0460-7.
Jüttner, U., D. Schaffner, K. Windler, and S. Maklan. 2013. “Customer service
experiences: Developing and applying a sequential incident laddering
technique.” European Journal of Marketing 47 (5/6): 738-769. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561311306769.
Kahn, B. E., and A. M. Isen. 1993. “The influence of positive affect on variety
seeking among safe, enjoyable products.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (2): 257-
270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/209347.
Konuş, U., P.C. Verhoef, and S. A. Neslin. 2008. “Multichannel shopper
segments and their covariates.” Journal of Retailing, 84 (4): 398-413. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.09.002.
Lalaberba, P., and D. Marzusky. 1973. “A longitudinal assessment of consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process.” Journal of
Marketing Research 20: 393-404. doi: 10.2307/3151443.
Lemon, K. N., and P.C. Verhoef. 2016. “Understanding customer experience
throughout the customer journey.” Journal of Marketing 80 (6): 69-96. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420.
Li, H., and P.K. Kannan. 2014. “Attributing conversions in a multichannel
online marketing environment: An empirical model and a field experiment.” Journal of
Marketing Research 51 (1): 40-56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0050.
Lipstein, B. 1959. “The dynamics of brand loyalty and brand switching”
in Proceedings of the fifth annual conference of the advertising research foundation,
101-108. New York: Advertising Research Foundation.
McConnell, J. D. 1968. “The development of brand loyalty: an experimental
study.” Journal of Marketing Research, 13-19. doi: 10.2307/3149788.
Neslin, S. A., D. Grewal, R. Leghorn, V. Shankar, M. Teerling, J.S. Thomas,
and P.C. Verhoef. 2006. “Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer
management.” Journal of Service Research 9 (2): 95-112. doi:
10.1177/1094670506293559.
Ngobo, P. V. 2016. “The trajectory of customer loyalty: an empirical test of
Dick and Basu’s loyalty framework.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1-
22. doi:10.1007/s11747-016-0493-6.
Pantano, E., and Viassone M. 2015. “Engaging consumers on new integrated
multichannel retail settings: Challenges for retailers.” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 25: 106-114. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.04.003.
Roberts, J. H., and J. M. Lattin. 1997. “Consideration: Review of research and
prospects for future insights.” Journal of Marketing Research 406-410. doi:
10.2307/3151902.
Romaniuk, J., V. Beal, and M. Uncles. 2013. “Achieving Reach in a Multi-
Media Environment.” Journal of Advertising Research 53 (2): 221-230. doi:
10.2307/3151902.
Shankar, V., A. K. Smith, and A. Rangaswamy. 2003. “Customer satisfaction
and loyalty in online and offline environments.” International Journal of Research in
Marketing 20 (2): 153-175. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(03)00016-8.
Sundar, S. S., S. Narayan, R. Obregon, and C. Uppal. 1998. “Does web
advertising work? Memory for print vs. online media.” Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 75 (4): 822-835. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909807500414.
Verhoef, P. C., P.K. Kannan, and J.J. Inman. 2015. “From multi-channel
retailing to omni-channel retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel
retailing.” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2): 174-181. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.005.
Westbrook, R. A., and R. L. Oliver. 1991. “The dimensionality of consumption
emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction.” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (1): 84-
91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/209243.
Wind, Y., and D. Lerner. 1979. “On the measurement of purchase data: surveys
versus purchase diaries.” Journal of Marketing Research 39-47. doi: 10.2307/3150872.
Xu, L., J.A. Duan, and A. Whinston. 2014. “Path to purchase: A mutually
exciting point process model for online advertising and conversion.” Management
Science 60 (6): 1392-1412. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1952.
Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1996. “The behavioral
consequences of service quality.” Journal of Marketing 31-46. doi: 10.2307/1251929.