LEADER 05544 am 22006373u 450 001 9910297051303321 005 20170821191518.0 010 $a3-653-03515-5 035 $a(CKB)2670000000533890 035 $a(EBL)1632177 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001082401 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11587133 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001082401 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11098500 035 $a(PQKB)11341350 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1632177 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000533890 100 $a20140312h20132013 uy 0 101 0 $ager 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aLoyalty schemes in retailing $ea comparison of stand-alone and multi-partner programs /$fNicolas Hoffmann ; sponsored by the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business ; cover design, Atelier Platen 210 1$aFrankfurt am Main, Germany :$cPL Academic Research,$d2013. 210 4$dİ2013 215 $a1 online resource (297 p.) 225 1 $aForschungsergebnisse der Wirtschaftsuniversita?t Wien,$x1613-3056 ;$vBand 61 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a3-631-63880-9 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and indexes. 327 $aCover; Table of Contents; Index of Tables; Index of Figures; 1. Introduction; 1.1 Problem Definition; 1.2 Research Objective; 1.3 Structure of This Paper; 2. Loyalty; 2.1 Definition; 2.1.1 Historical Development of the Loyalty Definition; 2.1.2 An Attempt at Pinpointing the Terms; 2.2 Exploring the Emergence of Loyalty; 2.2.1 Classifying the Reasons for Loyalty Formation; 2.2.2 The S-O-R Model as a Way Out; 2.2.3 Conclusion; 2.3 Customer Loyalty Schemes and Loyalty; 2.3.1 Predominantly Positive Evidence; 2.3.2 Predominantly Negative Evidence; 2.3.3 Possible Explanations for the Mixed Results 327 $a2.3.4 Reflection3. Loyalty Schemes; 3.1 Definition; 3.2 Historical Development and Current Spread; 3.3 Types of Loyalty Schemes; 3.3.1 B2C vs. B2B; 3.3.2 Stand-Alone vs. Shared vs. Coalition; 3.3.3 Within Sector vs. Across Sector; 3.3.4 In-House vs. Outsourced Administration; 3.3.5 Target Group; 3.3.6 Open vs. Closed; 3.3.7 Member Limit; 3.3.8 Reward Structure; 3.4 The Value of Data; 3.4.1 Data Mining; 3.4.2 A Look at Retailing and Market Basket Analysis; 3.5 Characteristics of Loyalty Schemes; 3.5.1 Benefits; 3.5.2 Drawbacks; 4. Coalition Schemes; 4.1 Scheme Types 327 $a4.1.1 Retail-Oriented Coalitions4.1.2 Airline Coalitions; 4.1.3 Other Variations; 4.2 Differences to Stand-Alone Programs; 4.2.1 Advantages; 4.2.2 Disadvantages; 4.3 Success Factors; 4.4 Impact, Spread, and Customer Perception; 4.5 The Next Evolutionary Step?; 5. Empirical Study Design; 5.1 Study Configuration; 5.1.1 Qualitative Component; 5.1.2 Quantitative Component; 5.1.3 Overview of the Subjects of Study; 5.2 The First Stage of Developing a Conceptual Framework: A Look at Satisfaction; 5.3 Theoretical Reference Points; 5.3.1 Motivational Theories; 5.3.2 Transaction Cost Theory 327 $a5.3.3 Social Exchange Theory5.3.4 Learning Theory; 5.3.5 Theory of Perceived Risk; 5.3.6 Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; 5.3.7 Other Theories; 5.4 Finalizing the Conceptual Model and the Hypotheses; 5.4.1 The Relationship between Loyalty Program Membership, Store Satisfaction, and Loyalty; 5.4.2 The Effect of Shopper Characteristics; 5.4.3 The Influence of Competing Loyalty Program Memberships; 5.5 Construct Operationalization; 5.5.1 Store Satisfaction; 5.5.2 Loyalty; 5.5.3 Economic Shopping Orientation; 6. Empirical Study Results; 6.1 Sample Description and Data Cleansing Processes 327 $a6.2 Extended Descriptive Statistics6.2.1 Demographic, Socio-Economic, and Other Shopper Characteristics; 6.2.2 Loyalty Cards; 6.2.3 Satisfaction and Loyalty; 6.2.4 Purchase Behavior; 6.2.5 Common Loyalty Program Member-Specific Items; 6.2.6 Remaining Coalition Scheme-Specific Items; 6.2.7 Remaining Stand-Alone Scheme-Specific Items; 6.3 Main Model Test; 6.3.1 Reliability and Validity; 6.3.2 Hypothesis 1; 6.3.3 Hypothesis 2; 6.3.4 Hypothesis 3; 6.3.5 Hypothesis 4; 6.3.6 Hypotheses 5a + b; 6.3.7 Hypothesis 6; 6.3.8 The Multi-Partner vs. Stand-Alone Comparison; 6.4 Qualitative Study Roundup 327 $a7. Conclusion 330 $aTo expand existing literature on loyalty schemes, the impact of stand-alone vs. multi-partner programs on customer loyalty was evaluated. In addition, the effects of store satisfaction, membership in competing programs, as well as various shopper characteristics were tested. Therefore, interviews were conducted with loyalty executives and a survey was carried out with 1,150 German customers of two fuel station chains. Stand-alone programs were found to outperform multi-partner schemes in their ability to trigger behavioral loyalty (e.g. share-of-wallet), attitudinal loyalty, and positive word- 410 0$aForschungsergebnisse der Wirtschaftsuniversita?t Wien ;$vBd. 61. 606 $aCustomer loyalty 606 $aConsumer satisfaction 606 $aRetail trade 615 0$aCustomer loyalty. 615 0$aConsumer satisfaction. 615 0$aRetail trade. 676 $a658.8/343 700 $aHoffmann$b Nicolas$f1983-$0944907 701 $aPlaten$b Atelier$0944908 712 02$aWirtschaftsuniversita?t Wien. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910297051303321 996 $aLoyalty schemes in retailing$92133259 997 $aUNINA