Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/21952
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWILLEMS, Kim-
dc.contributor.authorLEROI-WERELDS, Sara-
dc.contributor.authorSWINNEN, Gilbert-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-05T10:42:38Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-05T10:42:38Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Service Management, 27 (4), p. 591-618-
dc.identifier.issn1757-5818-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/21952-
dc.description.abstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to profile grocery retailers in terms of seven value types based on Holbrook’s value typology; to link these value types to three key outcomes (i.e. satisfaction, repurchase intention, and word-of-mouth); and to evaluate the impact of the retail format on performance and importance of the seven value types. Design/methodology/approach – For each retail format, the authors administered a consumer survey, resulting in an aggregate sample of 392 respondents. The authors used partial least squares structural equations modeling to test the relationships between the value types and key outcomes (i.e. importance) and ANOVAs to examine cross-format differences between latent variable scores of the value types (i.e. performance). Findings – The three retail formats included in the study perform differently on Holbrook’s value types (e.g. non-discounters excel in terms of aesthetic value and play, compared to hard and soft discounters). Furthermore, this study reveals that the strategic importance of each value type depends on the key outcome (e.g. whereas efficiency is the main source of satisfaction, play mainly drives the other two outcomes). Research limitations/implications – The authors randomly assigned respondents to one of the three retail formats irrespective of their personal preference or patronage. To conduct value-based segmentation, respondents should evaluate either their preferred format or all supermarkets. Practical implications – This study offers positioning advice to retail managers, according to their format and strategic objectives. Originality/value – Unlike previous research, this paper provides a cross-format comparison of retailers based on a three-dimensional value typology and its key outcomes.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.subject.othersatisfaction; customer value; word-of-mouth; retail formats; Holbrook typology; repurchase intentions-
dc.titleThe impact of customer value types on customer outcomes for different retail formats-
dc.typeJournal Contribution-
dc.identifier.epage618-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage591-
dc.identifier.volume27-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatA1-
dc.description.notesWillems, K (reprint author), Vrije Univ Brussel, Dept Business, Fac Econ & Social Sci, Brussels, Belgium. kim.willems@vub.ac.be-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1108/JOSM-11-2015-0364-
dc.identifier.isi000382559400007-
item.contributorWILLEMS, Kim-
item.contributorLEROI-WERELDS, Sara-
item.contributorSWINNEN, Gilbert-
item.validationecoom 2017-
item.fullcitationWILLEMS, Kim; LEROI-WERELDS, Sara & SWINNEN, Gilbert (2016) The impact of customer value types on customer outcomes for different retail formats. In: Journal of Service Management, 27 (4), p. 591-618.-
item.accessRightsRestricted Access-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.journal.issn1757-5818-
crisitem.journal.eissn1757-5826-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
10.1108@JOSM-11-2015-0364.pdf
  Restricted Access
Non Peer-reviewed author version787.98 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

13
checked on Sep 3, 2020

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

29
checked on Apr 22, 2024

Page view(s)

112
checked on Sep 5, 2022

Download(s)

68
checked on Sep 5, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.