Customer Win Back Role of Attributions and Perceptions in Customers 2

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.
(2016) 44:218240
DOI 10.1007/s11747-015-0453-6
ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Customer win-back: the role of attributions and perceptions

in customers willingness to return
Doren Pick 1 & Jacquelyn S. Thomas 2 & Sebastian Tillmanns 3 & Manfred Krafft 3
Received: 9 January 2014 / Accepted: 28 May 2015 / Published online: 16 June 2015
# Academy of Marketing Science 2015
Abstract Interest in customer reacquisition has increased as

firms embrace the concept of customer relationship management. Using survey and transactional data from defected subscribers of a publishing company, we investigate how defected
customers evaluate their propensity to return to the company
prior to any win-back offer. We introduce a new variable for
relationship marketing, general willingness to return (GWR),
and show that it is strongly and positively related to the actual
return decision and the duration of the restarted relationship.
Combining attribution theory elements with existing win-back
explanations, which focus on economic, social, and emotional
value perceptions, provides a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the GWR to a former relationship. Importantly, we learn that regardless of whose fault it is, if
the reasons for the relationship termination can change or are
preventable and the firm can control those changes, then the
defected customer has a higher general willingness to return to
the former relationship. Also, we show that the duration of time
absence before relationship revival moderates the impact of
* Manfred Krafft
m.krafft@uni-muenster.de
Doren Pick
doreen.pick@fu-berlin.de
Jacquelyn S. Thomas
thomasj@mail.cox.smu.edu
Sebastian Tillmanns
s.tillmanns@uni-muenster.de
1
Freie Universitt Berlin, Boltzmannstr. 20, 14195 Berlin, Germany
Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University,

P.O. Box 750333, Dallas, TX, USA
Institute of Marketing, University of Mnster, Am Stadtgraben

13-15, 48143 Mnster, Germany
GWR on second relationship duration. Furthermore, we demonstrate that satisfaction prior to defection and the length of
time absence provide a reasonable basis for distinguishing
defected customers who differ in their GWR. By applying
our findings, we derive recommendations for firms on how to
position marketing communications to recapture defected
customers according to their general willingness to return.
Keywords Customer relationship management . Relationship
revival . Consumer attributions
Introduction
Win-back, or customer reacquisition, is the process of revitalizing relationships with customers with whom the company
has failed to maintain an active relationship (Thomas et al.
2004). As reacquisition becomes a more prominent part of a
firms customer marketing strategy, it is important to understand the mechanisms that drive customer return and assess
the process with relevant metrics. Consequently, metrics that
are analogous to the popular measures applied to customer
acquisition or retention have been extended to the win-back
context. For example, Bsecond lifetime value^ (SLTV), defined as the expected LTV of a customer who has returned to
a former relationship, has been discussed as a valuable metric
for targeting and assessing the quality of a recaptured customer (Griffin and Lowenstein 2001; Stauss and Friege 1999;
Thomas et al. 2004). Using SLTV as an objective, Thomas
et al. (2004) present a two-stage econometric model to develop a pricing strategy for recapturing lost customers. In addition to SLTV, there is a long history in direct marketing for
firms to use recency, frequency, and monetary value (RFM)
models when determining who to target for reacquisition or
repurchase (e.g., Elsner et al. 2004; Hughes 1996) or to
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240
determine the allocation of marketing expenditure on customers (Reinartz and Kumar 2000).
A common strength of all of these metrics is that they are
objective assessments of customers past behaviors, or objective predictions of future behavior and economic value, based
on past interactions with a firm. Additionally, a notable limitation of these measures is that they do not reflect or measure
the customers cognitive state or disposition at defection, nor
the development of a return decision. This distinction highlights an opportunity to consider the behavioral and cognitive
aspects of customers as they progress from defection to an
actual return decision.
A review of the customer win-back literature shows that
research has focused on the defection intention or decision
(e.g., Capraro et al. 2003), has taken the firms point of view,
has focused on the conceptual aspects of winning customers
back (e.g., Reichheld and Sasser Jr. 1990; Stauss and Friege
1999), has considered customers return intentions (Tokman
et al. 2007) and the classification of revocable relationships
(Roos 1999), has investigated customers perceptions of specific win-back offers or activities (Homburg et al. 2007;
Tokman et al. 2007), and has paid attention to behaviors after
win-back (Thomas et al. 2004). In general, these streams of
research reveal that researchers usually choose to address a
specific phase of the customer defection to win-back process.
Unifying these disparate examinations of customer win-back,
we posit that customer win-back can be conceptualized into
stages that represent the interplay between external customer
actions, internal customer processing, and firm actions toward
the customer. This approach is particularly relevant for contractual relationships where customer defection can be determined by firms. To frame this research, we present the following stages of win-back:
Stage 1: customer defection decision and relationship
termination
Stage 2: customer rationalization of the defection decision
Stage 3: win-back offer extended
Stage 4: customer processing of win-back offer
Stage 5: customer return decision
Stage 6: second lifetime relationship
We seek to expand research that relates to customers rationalization resulting from internal processing of the defection decision (stage 2). In this research on contractual relationships, the defection involves an action and some involvement
on the part of the consumer. Thus when rationalizing the decision, customers might evaluate the effort involved with the
relationship termination and also consider their willingness to
return independent of a win-back offer by the firm. This contemplation reflects their affinity to return after a defection.
This reasoning is in line with the theory of cognitive dissonance that argues that individuals generally assess former
219
decisions and their implementation and might revise a prior

decision. Accordingly, in this study we focus on the willingness to return without a given win-back offer by the prior firm.
In order to support our assertions and findings we also examine actual outcomes (i.e., stages 5 and 6). To our knowledge,
the re-examination and rationalizing that occurs in stage 2
represents an opportunity in the literature that warrants additional research. Through this research, we will demonstrate
how insights at this stage 2 can form future firm actions and
potentially enhance the probability of successful win-back.
Rationalizing defection and relationship revival

Consumer perceptions reflect the consumers understanding
or interpretation of a situation or information. Thus perceptions inform how the consumer rationalizes the defection decision before any (potential) win-back offer is provided. While
focused on a different stage of the process, Tokman et al.
(2007) study the drivers of consumers perceptions of the
value of an actual win-back offer. Specifically, these authors
leverage the theory of social capital to explain how consumers
think about reacquisition actions. This theory describes an
individuals sense of obligation to an organization, which is
based on past experiences with the organization, and special
treatment received from them (Coleman 1990). Tokman et al.
(2007) maintain that this social capital influences consumers
when they evaluate a win-back offers value. They find that
while the characteristics of an offer affect consumers perceived value of a win-back offer, the perceived importance
of the service and the social capital in the customerfirm relationship moderate consumers value perception. Thus, these
authors research demonstrates that value perceptions are critical in the reacquisition process.
Similar to Tokman et al. (2007), Homburg et al. (2007)
investigate relationship revival activities. Their research is distinct in that it references equity theory to explain consumers
perceptions of revival activities and links this to actual revival
performance. According to equity theory, individuals evaluate
outcomes and inputs of both the relationship partners and seek
a balanced relationship (Adams 1963, 1965). These authors
empirically demonstrate that a perception of equity or fairness
affects customer satisfaction, which is ultimately linked to
customer win-back. Their analysis also shows that customer
characteristics (e.g., age and variety seeking) and relationship
characteristics (e.g., the duration of the relationship prior to
termination) also predict the actual relationship revival.
Thus, using different theories, Tokman et al. (2007) and
Homburg et al. (2007) investigate how consumers interpret
actual win-back actions, finding that consumers consider the
value and equity of a win-back offer. Interestingly, the notion
of value perception has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct in other literature (Sheth et al. 1991a,
220
b). Sweeney and Soutar (2001), for example, believe that several dimensions of value may be simultaneously considered.
While their context is not specific to customer return or winback, these authors focus on how consumers assess an actual
product on the basis of the following value dimensions: quality, emotional value, price, and social value. They find that
each dimension affects a persons willingness to buy. However, the emotional value dimension has a particularly strong
effect on willingness to buy. Their findings are consistent with
Gassenheimer et al.s (1998) argument that asserts that economic and social values are both critical for successful exchange relationships.
Jointly, all of these research streams suggest that the study
of how consumers rationalize the possibility of rejuvenating
past relationships could be enhanced by investigating
economic-oriented value perceptions in the same framework
as social- or emotional-oriented value perceptions. Attribution
theory, which focuses on how individuals evaluate or assess
circumstances, has also been suggested as a possible theoretical framework that might explain defected customers propensity to reactivate former relationships, (e.g., by how customers attribute their defection reasons to the firm or themselves, i.e., locus) (Homburg et al. 2007).
In this research, we make use of these suggestions by
integrating different theoretical perspectives. Specifically,
we integrate attribution theory and prior theories on customer win-back into a systematic study, using both survey and
transactional data from defected subscribers of a publishing
house, and test the appropriateness of our theoretical framework. Theory combination is therefore an important aspect
of our research. However, since we primarily focus on the
neglected effects of attribution theory on customers willingness to return, phenomena identified in other theoretical concepts such as equity theory will be addressed only to a
limited degree.
This research differs from prior work on switchback intentions in that we do not examine intentions in light of a specific
win-back offer (i.e., stage 4). Instead, we focus on consumers
willingness to return prior to a potential win-back attempt or
specific offer (i.e., stage 2). We refer to this attitude as a
defected clients general willingness to return (GWR) to a
former supplier, which is independent of expectations of a
specific offer from such a firm. Specifically, we define GWR
as the unconditional willingness of a customer to return to a
former supplier.
While there clearly is an overlap between GWR and measures of intentions, we posit that GWR is distinct from traditional constructs of customer intention, namely repurchase
intentions, revisit intentions, and loyalty. First, an important
distinction of the GWR measure is that it pertains to the
revision of a previously established decision, which may or
may not be the case with a measure of intention to repurchase.
This is a significant distinction because changing a prior
decision, which was contractually binding in our case, is more

involving than stating a desire or intention to continue a prior
behavior such as repurchase. Thus, one can conceptualize intentions as a broad concept and GWR as a specific concept
that is highly relevant for contexts in which a customer must
actively revise a prior decision or behavior.
Additionally, unlike GWR, measures of repurchase and
revisit intentions often capture only the current relationships
and thus are void of the defected customers perspective.
GWR is also distinct from loyalty measures because loyalty
often relates not only to purchase-related behaviors but also to
WOM (e.g., Zeithaml et al. 1996) and entails multiple cognitive sentiments and behavioral actions that may or may not be
in response to firm actions. Thus, GWR is a measure of a
specific disposition that is relevant for customers who have
explicitly terminated their relationship.
Understanding the rationalization of defected customers
and investigating their disposition or GWR to a former relationship has several benefits. Specifically, if firms know the
drivers of GWR, they might be better able to influence those
drivers and increase the odds of customer return. For example,
some customers might return without any win-back offer but
are more interested in an apology and thus this knowledge can
help to reduce investments in win-back activities. Related to
this, by understanding defectors rationales and their motivating factors, firms can more effectively design win-back activities. We further elaborate on this in our section on managerial
implications. Understanding how customers differ in their
willingness to return could allow firms to prioritize customers
for reacquisition activities. Thus, this paper advances marketing theory and practice in three key areas:
(1) We propose the new construct, GWR, and show that it is
strongly and positively related to both aspects of revival
performance of firms, i.e., return decision and second
relationship duration. This construct can be used to measure a defected customers general propensity to return
and thus assist firms in targeting customers for reacquisition and developing win-back offers.
(2) We provide evidence for several antecedents of GWR to
a prior contractual relationship and show how the duration of time absence moderates the relationship between
GWR and second relationship duration. This is very relevant for managers in optimizing marketing win-back
measures.
(3) By integrating theoretical explanations, we demonstrate
the importance of defected customers perceptions and
attributions on their GWR that drives their return behavior. Applying the results from our model we provide
distinct implications for customer groups that differ in
their status (prior satisfaction and duration of time absence). For managers, these insights can help to refine
and target win-back marketing communications.
Drivers of general willingness to return

Economic value perceptions
Two main economic arguments have been suggested in the
context of customer win-back. The first relates to customers
perceptions of switching costs when changing providers (or, in
terms of this research, reactivation costs) (Ping 1993; Sharma
and Patterson 2000). The perception of reactivation costs might
emerge in a variety of monetary or non-monetary ways. For
example, returning to a former relationship might necessitate
the termination of a current relationship, spending time, money,
and cognitive effort. Furthermore, defectors might rationalize
that reactivating a former relationship is risky due to the fear
of incurring additional costs if the relationship once again fails.
Accordingly, we suggest that if defected customers perceive the
costs of reactivating a relationship as high, it is unlikely that they
would be willing to return to their former supplier. Thus, we
assume that the costs of reactivating a former relationship decrease customers general willingness to return.
The attractiveness of alternatives has also been conceived
as an economic consideration in the context of how consumers
assess the equity of alternatives. Specifically, the attractiveness of alternatives refers to customers perception of the degree to which the products or services that competitors offer
are more interesting, beneficial, and valuable. Several studies
indicate that the attractiveness of alternatives drives customers decisions to maintain or leave a relationship (e.g.,
Sharma and Patterson 2000; Bansal et al. 2005; Pick and
Eisend 2014). Accordingly, a lack of attractive alternatives
could stimulate defected customers willingness to return to
their former supplier. Hence, we suggest that the attractiveness
of the alternatives that competitors offer decreases customers
general willingness to return.
Emotional and social value perceptions
Prior literature has also suggested that commitment, switching
experiences, and variety seeking are central drivers of customers intention and behavior (Garbarino and Johnson
1999; Homburg et al. 2007; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995;
Snchez-Garca et al. 2012). We assert that affective commitment, switching experiences, and variety seeking are reflections of consumers assessments and perceptions of an emotional or a social value that they derive from relationships.
Although we focus on the emotional and social components
of variety seeking and switching experience, we have to emphasize that they also entail some economic facets, such as
risk and benefit considerations.
In the context of our study, affective commitment can be
defined as defected customers emotional attachment to a supplier. It has been empirically shown that commitment is one of
the main drivers of intention to repurchase (Johnson et al.
221
2006), of retention (Verhoef 2003), or of the propensity to

leave a firm (Morgan and Hunt 1994). If a former relationship
with a supplier was emotionally important for customers, this
commitment may exacerbate or ignite post-relationship dissonance, since these customers behavior (i.e., defection) and
attitude (i.e., commitment) do not fit (Thomas et al. 2004).
Applying this line of thought to our study, we argue that customers who perceive themselves as strongly and affectively
committed to a former supplier would be more willing to
return in order to eliminate or reduce the cognitive dissonance
resulting from their defection.
Lam et al. (2010) propose that customers switching decisions might be based on sociopsychological rather than functional utility. Accordingly, an important facet of social value
perceptions is the extent to which consumers have accumulated switching experiences over time. Switching experiences are
intensive if customers have often changed suppliers. Additionally, by accumulating these experiences, customers are believed to have obtained greater knowledge and expertise of
the quality of suppliers in the marketplace (Burt 1997). In
general, the more experienced consumers are with switching,
the lower they might perceive the risks related to dealing with
a product, service, or person. Thus, consumers with more
switching experiences may feel more confident about their
behavior when terminating their current relationships and
returning to their former suppliers. Accordingly, consumers
are more likely to return to their former relationship if they
have switching experience.
Finally, emotional value perceptions are also reflected in
customers tendency toward variety seeking. Prior research
argues that satiety with a product can lead to variety seeking
behavior on subsequent purchases (Inman 2001). Interestingly, variety seeking is considered a major driver of customers
tendency to abandon relationships, even if those relationships
are satisfactory (Bansal et al. 2005). In general, variety seeking affects customer loyalty negatively. However, this generally negative effect of variety seeking (Homburg et al. 2007)
changes in the context of defected customers. For defected
customers, their former supplier can become attractive again
if it can demonstrate new or Bnovel^ differentiated products or
services. Accordingly, Snchez-Garca et al. (2012) find that
variety seeking customers develop higher revisit intentions in
the long run (in a non-contractual setting). Since customers
who are prone to variety seeking search actively for new offers, a former supplier can again become relevant and thus
customers are more willing to return.
Attribution theory
How consumers make attributions can affect their perceptions,
rationalization of the defection decision, and propensity to
reactivate former relationships (Homburg et al. 2007). Attribution theory describes people as rational information
222
processors whose causal inferences influence their attitude

and behavior (Bettman 1979; Weiner 2000). To date, attribution research has been applied to help understand the drivers
of customers attitudes and behaviors in their current relationships (e.g., customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth) (Tsiros
et al. 2004) but, to the best of our knowledge, not to contractual relationships with a prior firm.
Attribution theory suggests that judgments are based on
three major dimensions of causal attributions: locus, stability,
and controllability (Weiner 1985).
Locus The locus of causality is the consumers perception of
where the responsibility for an incident lies. From a customer
perspective, this involves answering the following questions: Is
defection due to a factor outside the customer, such as competition or the former supplier (external locus), or due to the
customer (internal locus)? There is evidence that attribution to
an external locus leads to lower loyalty intentions toward the
former supplier (Wagner et al. 2009). Therefore, customers who
perceive and rationalize the defection as company-related, such
as a service failure, should have a lower willingness to return.
However, research also indicates that people tend to be
biased by attributing their own failings to external factors
(e.g., Folkes 1988). Once a relationship has been terminated,
the expectation is that defected customers will generally avoid
attributing the relationships termination reasons to themselves. This might also hold true in cases where the firm has
no locus on the defection reasons. In addition, as customers
perceive that they have power or influence, it can be argued
that customers expect a company to deal with their defection
reasons in its customer orientation strategy, or customer retention strategy. And, if a business relationship takes a negative
development, customers are more likely to externalize the
reasons to their provider than to themselves, also known as
the self-serving bias (Heider 1958). Additionally, arguments
from cognitive dissonance theory further emphasize that customers will attribute the reasons for their defection to external
objects rather than to themselves (Festinger 1962). Therefore,
companies may be seen as mostly responsible for customer
defection. For example, the firm should have lowered product
prices if the customers did not have the financial resources to
maintain their subscription. Thus, when defection occurs, the
resulting rationalization can lead to a negative attitude toward
the firm due to the necessity to terminate the relationship.
Consequently, we offer the following hypothesis:
H1: The more customers perceive the causes of defection as
the former suppliers fault (external locus), the lower
their willingness to return to this prior relationship.
Stability Stability refers to the perception that the circumstances of a relationship termination will either be fairly
permanent (stable), or relatively temporary (unstable). Stable

outcomes are presumed to reoccur in the future, while unstable conditions create uncertainty about future outcomes. If
customers perceive the major reasons for their defection as
rather permanent and unchangeable, i.e., stable over time,
their willingness to revive a former relationship with a supplier will be low (Folkes et al. 1987; Homburg et al. 2007).
This reasoning can be expanded: if customers defection is
attributed to an own locus (e.g., a low budget for buying a
product or service) or external locus (e.g., the prices of the
supplier are perceived as too high) and these reasons are
perceived to be stable, customers willingness to return will
be low. Therefore, in both situations, the willingness to return is expected to be low. The underlying reason for this is
that customers find no changes in the companys offerings
and there is consequently no improvement in the relationship value. Their return would represent losing emotional,
cognitive, and social value in their relationship with the
former supplier. While the proposed directional relationship
between stability and GWR is reasonable, establishing the
link between stability and GWR is important because its
significance reveals whether defectors are predisposed to
reevaluating their defection decision early on in the return
process and not simply after an offer is made. A lack of
significance would suggest that defectors are less open to
reexamining the conditions that lead to their defection and
may only be open to reexamination after a win-back offer is
made. Under these circumstances, the offer and its perceived
value becomes the focal point and increases the importance
of the actual offer in the win-back process. Therefore, we
hypothesize about stability to formally establish the link to
GWR and propose the following:
H2: The more customers perceive the circumstances of defection as stable (stability), the lower their general willingness to return to this prior relationship.
Controllability Controllability is a third dimension that

needs to be analyzed with regard to customer attributions.
The causes of defection can involve choice (controlled), or
are constrained and/or non-volitional (uncontrolled). From a
customers point of view, the perception of whether a supplier
could control a cause, or prevent its consequences, is pivotal
for their attitude and behavior (Wagner et al. 2009). For example, it can be argued that customers will be relatively more
willing to reactivate a former relationship if the causes of their
defection are under the suppliers control (Folkes et al. 1987).
With such a controllability perception, a defected customer
might expect that the firm is able to prevent and change aspects that refer to the defection reason (e.g., price). If these
aspects are changed, the customer will be more willing to
return. Hence, we hypothesize:
223
H3: The more customers perceive the causes of defection as

being under the control of the former supplier (controllability), the higher their general willingness to reactivate this prior relationship.
In summary, the synthesis of the antecedents to general
willingness to return that are derived from attribution theory
dimensions, as well as from economic, emotional, and social
value perceptions, serves as the perceptual model in this research. Supplementing our perceptual model, we also develop
a transactional model of actual return behavior. The purpose of
the transactional model in this research is to demonstrate the
link between GWR and actual return behavior of defected
customers. By establishing this linkage we can support the
use of GWR as a crucial measure in the win-back process.
Figure 1 depicts the perceptual and transactional models.
The next section hypothesizes about the factors that impact
actual return behavior. This set of hypotheses will be tested in
our transactional model.
Drivers of customer return behavior

General willingness to return
Because people seek consistency in their attitudes, intentions,
and behavior (see Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), we expect that
GWR will be linked to actual return behavior. By investigating

the relationship of GWR with two types of customer behavior,
we respond to the concern that attitudes or intentions may not
always be related to the behavior of customers. More specifically, in our study we investigate whether general willingness
to return is related to both, the actual return to the former
relationship and the duration of the reactivated relationship.
We therefore hypothesize:
H4: General willingness to return has a positive effect on (a)
the actual return to the former relationship and (b) the
duration of the second relationship.
In our transactional model, we relate measures from our
survey to actual customer behavior before and after the survey.
Time absence after the survey is the measure of the amount of
time elapsed from when a defected customer was surveyed
and his/her return to the firm. A long time absence after the
survey suggests that the customer might be doubtful or facing
impediments to returning. Additionally, these customers may
evaluate benefits and costs of a potentially renewed relationship more thoroughly. However, if a customer returns after
such a long consideration time, it suggests that the impediments or possible cognitive dissonance may have been satisfactorily resolved after sufficient efforts were exerted. Given
the efforts required to get to the favorable return decision, one
might expect that the customers may be more convicted in
Explaining general willingness to return

(Perceptual model)
Economic value perceptions

Reactivation costs
Attractiveness of alternatives
Emotional and social value

perceptions
Affective Commitment
Switching experiences
Variety seeking
Perception of behavior: Attribution

Theory
Locus
Stability
Controllability
Differentiation variables
Satisfaction
Time absence before the survey
General
willingness to
return
Customer
win-back
Time absence
after the survey
Second
relationship
duration
Relationship characteristics
Number of trial subscriptions
Number of regular subscriptions
Relationship duration before
defection
Explaining customer return behavior

(Transactional model)
Fig. 1 Research framework containing the perceptual and transactional model
224
their return decision and as a result the second relationship

duration would be longer than if the return process was shorter
and the return process was easier. We therefore state:
H5: Time absence after the survey has a positive effect on
the duration of the second relationship.
The effect of GWR on customers actual return behavior
might be attenuated by the temporal distance between customers expression of their GWR and their actual return
behavior. In a similar vein, Mittal and Kamakura (2001) claim
that there is likely an attenuation of the relationship between a
satisfaction rating and the repurchase behavior of a customer
as the time lag increases.
Following from the argument that the length of time absence after the survey is an indicator of the efforts necessary to
return to the former relationship, then one might expect that
the length of the time absence might moderate the association
of GWR with second relationship duration. We have argued in
H4b that GWR is positively related to second relationship
duration. However, when defectors have a high GWR, a longer time absence after the survey reflects a contrast to the
defectors return propensity and therefore could indicate a
deep reconsideration process. Though this finally leads to
returning to the supplier, doubts can remain, leading to average durations of second lifetime.
This same argument can apply to the case when defectors
have a low GWR and a long time absence. Specifically, the
decision of low GWR defectors to recommit after a long time
absence may reflect thoughtful reconsideration and result in
stronger convictions about this reversal of the decision and a
longer second lifetime. Therefore we hypothesize:
H6: Time absence after the survey and before relationship
revival moderates the impact of general willingness to
return (GWR) on second relationship duration such that
the effect of GWR is attenuated when the duration of
absence after the survey is long.
Transactional model control variables

Our first control variable in the transactional model is customer satisfaction prior to defection. Homburg et al. (2007) and
Tokman et al. (2007) find empirical support for defected customers who were satisfied with a prior relationship being more
likely to revive this relationship. Moreover, Tokman et al.
(2007) find that satisfaction interacts with some antecedents
of switch-back intentions (e.g., price attitude) and not with
others (e.g., service benefits). Thus, customer satisfaction
can be considered one of the most important factors in a customer retention strategy. Nevertheless, even the most satisfied
customers might defect for reasons beyond the firms control,
or even that of the customers themselves (Ganesh et al. 2000).

For example, the customers financial situation might have
changed, or there is simply no longer a need for a firms
products and services. Furthermore, customers might defect
because a competitors specific offer might generate greater
benefits. In specific contexts such as internet or cable TV
providers, clients may defect because services by the current
provider are not available in their new location. Accordingly,
some studies question the link between customer satisfaction
and customer retention (Jones and Sasser Jr. 1995), or cannot
verify this empirically (Verhoef 2003).
Ganesh et al. (2000) propose that customers who switched
from their former supplier for reasons other than dissatisfaction are less likely to have negative attitudes and feelings
toward this supplier. Accordingly, we expect that customers
who were satisfied with their former relationship are more
likely to return and stay for a longer period of time.
The second control variable is the recency of the last
purchase. This is considered one of the most important measures in customer relationship value estimation (Reinartz and
Kumar 2000; Neslin et al. 2013). Neslin et al. (2013) find that
recency (i.e., time since last purchase) is negatively related to
purchase probability. Thomas et al. (2004) find empirical support that the probability of recapturing a defected customer
lessens with the time being absent. However, Tokman et al.
(2007) find that time absence has no significant direct effect
on switch-back intentions. Nevertheless, in the context of
defected contractual relationships, a former suppliers chance
of retrieving customers is higher as long as the customer does
not enter into an alternative contract.
The third control variable is relationship duration prior to
defection. Some studies find that relationship duration is positively related to the social and financial bonds between the
customer and the firm (e.g., Chiu et al. 2005; Reinartz and
Kumar 2003), and could increase positive behavioral intentions (van Birgelen et al. 2006). In spite of the termination of a
relationship, customers with a long relationship duration
might specifically feel they have a bond with their former
supplier. Processes and interactions learned in a previous relationship with a firm might support customers return decisions. Furthermore, lapsed customers with long prior relationship durations might be relationship prone and thus have longer second relationship durations.
Given that our research context is for subscriptions (i.e.,
contractual relationships), we attempt to account for the consumers prior use of trial and regular subscriptions. Trial subscriptions are a common means of customer acquisition in the
publishing industry (Picard and Brody 1997). These subscriptions might be highly attractive due to reduced prices or reduced contract durations. Accordingly, customers might feel
more flexible and therefore return more easily in the near future.
In line with the social exchange theory, customers who often
make use of trial subscriptions might have a higher likelihood
of returning to a relationship because they might feel an obligation to give the firm something back (Bagozzi 1995). Accordingly, these customers might subscribe for a longer period
of time and thus have longer second lifetime durations.
One can also argue that customers with a long history of
defecting from and returning to regular subscriptions might
get used to the processes of canceling and renewing their subscriptions. Accordingly, these customers should have much experience with switching suppliers. In accordance with our assumptions about switching experience in our perceptual model,
we expect that customers who are highly experienced with
switching or renewing their contracts have a higher probability
of returning to their former relationship after they have
defected. Given these contextual considerations, we introduce
number of prior trial subscriptions and number of prior regular
subscriptions as control variables in our transactional model.
Methodology
Data collection
To test our research hypotheses, we surveyed subscription
customers of a publishing house that sells a variety of romance novels in Germany. A survey of 600 regular romance
readers found that they mirror the general population in terms
of age, education, and marital and socioeconomic status
(Thurston 1983).
Specifically, we surveyed customers who had canceled
their subscriptions and had been inactive for at least
12 months. The firms database contained about 25,000
defected customers, from which we drew a random sample
of 6411 individuals. We sent each individual a questionnaire
and incentivized their participation by offering them an opportunity to win one of 20 vouchers worth EUR 20 for a purchase
from a major retailer. Two weeks after our initial mailing,
reminder postcards were sent to the non-responding defectors.
Those who responded after our reminder postcard were
marked as late respondents. A comparison between the early
and late respondents regarding all the key variables indicated
that they were similar (p>.10). Accordingly, non-response
bias does not seem to be an issue in the study.
A total of 748 questionnaires were returned, yielding a
response rate of 12%. After eliminating 205 surveys due to
incomplete answers and removing three participants as outliers in the subsequent cluster analysis, we achieved a final
sample of 540 respondents. We are aware of higher response rates in other study contexts and attribute this to
the home mailing procedure and the specific context of
defected customers in our study.
Of these respondents, 99.6% were female and 56% were
married. Our participants mean age was 40 years (range: 17
to 82 years), and the median annual household income was
225
EUR 12,000 to EUR 18,000. Because our sample is not representative of the German population in gender and income,
our findings may not be generalized to the overall population.
However, this is not unusual as magazine subscriptions are
typically targeted to specific customer groups.
In addition to our survey data, we obtained transactional
data about the surveyed customers from the cooperating
publishing house. Hence, we were able to derive whether
our respondents actually returned and when they did, the
duration of their second relationship. Information on two
surveyed customers in the cooperation partners database
was missing. Hence our transactional model accounts for
538 out of 540 customers we examined in the perceptual
model. We also obtained transactional data from 789 customers who did not receive the survey but did defect in the
same manner as the customers who did participate in our
survey in order to account for a potential measurement bias.
Despite our attempt to rigorously collect both survey data
and post-defection transactional data from defected customers, the product category of this research presented a
natural limitation. This limitation is a result of the fact that
some customers could purchase the novels at retail locations
without a subscription. While executives of the publishing
house judged that the impact of the retail sales on the subscription sales were minimal, we acknowledge this as a
potential limitation of our data.
Statistical analysis overview
To test our hypotheses, we took several steps in our statistical
analyses. First, in order to deeply understand the value of integrating attribution theory with existing theories on customer
return and win-back, we sought to identify differences in
defected customers that may blur interesting insights. Thus we
decided to perform a cluster analysis to account for heterogeneity among defectors. Second, we tested the proposed antecedents of the general willingness to return with regression analysis
(perceptual model). Finally, we set up regression models to
derive how the general willingness to return related to the actual
return of defected customers and, if they did return, how long
they maintained the relationship (transactional model).
Perceptual model
Measures and validation
With the exception of a measure for GWR, we made use of
established measures, which we either applied directly or
adapted for our survey. Details about the exact items, their loading, the construct composite reliability, and the source of the
scale are described in the Appendix. All the scales were assessed
using a seven-point Likert scale. Their respective means, standard deviations, and correlations are provided in Table 1.
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.13*
4.29
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.03
6.16
*p<0.05 (two-sided)
Standard Deviation
13. Trial subscriptions

14. Regular subscriptions
15. Prior relationship duration
16. Second relationship duration
Mean
1.66
1.70
0.03
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.91
0.09*
0.10*
0.37*
0.22*
9. Reactivation costs
0.27*
10. Attractiveness of alternatives 0.05
Transactional measures
11. Time absence before the survey0.12*
12. Time absence after the survey 0.03
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.13*
3.62
0.04
0.18*
8. Controllability
0.11*
0.42*
0.08
0.04
0.11*
0.22*
0.07
0.15*
0.05
0.45*
4. Variety seeking
5. Switching experiences
6. Locus
7. Stability
0.03
0.04
0.51*
0.17*
0.25*
0.39*
2. Prior satisfaction
3. Affective Commitment
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Constructs
1. General willingness to return
Variables
Table 1
1.54
0.14*
0.01
3.91
0.04
0.13*
0.14*
0.08
0.12*
0.26*
0.08
0.39*
0.13*
0.17*
1.53
0.19*
0.21*
0.19*
0.00
3.91
0.17
0.06
0.13*
0.38*
0.13*
0.12*
0.16*
0.13*
0.05
0.06
0.39*
0.25*
0.37*
1.21
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.08
1.66
1.53
0.10*
0.09*
0.11*
0.05
3.91
0.06
0.03
0.19*
0.00
0.05
0.20*
0.05
1.81
0.04
0.09*
0.06
0.02
3.23
0.03
0.50
0.23*
1.17
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.07
2.22
0.08
0.03
1.22
0.06
0.04
0.12*
0.05
2.58
0.07
0.01
10
277.86
0.04
0.15
0.14*
0.04
970.30
0.02
11
312.86
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.10
256.78
12
0.91
0.46*
0.34*
0.10
0.85
13
0.75
0.65*
0.10
0.66
14
1,151.11
0.07
738.54
15
972.44
631.02
16
226
General willingness to return As far as we know, there are

no established scales that measure defected customers general and unconditional willingness to return to any former
supplier. Consequently, we developed new items by
reviewing the extant literature and interviewing experts from
marketing science and practice. Additionally, executives and
experts from the publishing house evaluated our items and a
pretest was undertaken with students. The final scale contains four items that cover defected customers propensity to
reactivate a relationship and their general willingness to reverse their former decisions. The scale indicated a strong
composite reliability (0.92).
Time absence Since we investigated customers who defected
from a subscription, we were able to determine each customers exact time of defection and, consequently, the time
of absence as the lag between defection and the timing of
our survey.
Measure validation All the items loaded strongly (average
loading=0.84) on their respective constructs. We applied a
confirmatory factor analysis to separately validate our measures. Only scales with more than three items were analyzed
to obtain identified models. With the goodness of fit indices
(GFIs) above 0.99, they were excellent. The standardized
root mean square residuals (SRMR) were below 0.06, thus
indicating a good model fit.
We applied Harmans single factor test to control for common method bias in our measures (Podsakoff and Organ
1986). To conduct that test, we used an exploratory factor
analysis to estimate a model with all items for our ten latent
constructs. We obtained several factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1. The largest factor accounted for less than
19% of the variance.
Furthermore, we applied Lindell and Whitneys (2001)
marker variable assessment technique (see Bagozzi 2011).
For that purpose, we identified a marker variable which we
deem to be conceptually unrelated with the scope of our
study. Specifically, we used the item BTo how many friends,
acquaintances, and family members do you pass on romance
novels, novels, and books for reading?^ (1=nobody; 5=
more than five) as a marker variable. All bivariate correlations remained statistically significant after we controlled for
the marker variable. Accordingly, these results indicate that a
common method bias is very unlikely.
227
found satisfied and dissatisfied customers as two distinct types

of defectors (e.g., Ganesh et al. 2000; Tokman et al. 2007).
This finding suggests that differentiating between levels of
satisfaction among defectors might contribute to a better understanding of the customers internal processing of the defection decision. Further, Ganesh et al. (2000) maintain that understanding the differences in attitudes toward a firm might
provide crucial insights into how to design an effective customer retention program.
The passage of time may also reveal that customers return
to a previous provider (Thomas and Sullivan 2005), or adapt
to a new supplier. Accordingly, we leverage satisfaction and
time absence as clustering variables to account for heterogeneity in defected customers in our perceptual model.
Regression procedure
To investigate the antecedents of customers willingness to
return (perceptual model), we conducted an ordinary least
square regression. The dependent variable of our regression
was the general willingness to return (GWR). The variance
inflation factors did not exceed a value of 1.81. Accordingly,
multicollinearity was not an issue. On applying the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, we did not find evidence that
the residuals were not normally distributed. Using the SPEC
option in SAS, we found heteroscedastic errors in respect of
our overall regression model. Consequently, we derived
heteroscedasticity-consistent (White) standard errors, which
proved not to affect any regression parameters level of significance. To compare the effect sizes of our regression variables across and within the clusters, we derived elasticities
at the point of mean; these elasticities represent the percent
effect that any change in the independent variable has on the
dependent variable (Pindyck and Rubinfeld 1991; see our
results in Table 4).
Transactional model
Our study partly relies on transactional measures from the
cooperating publishing houses customer database (transactional model). In addition to the transactional data from
customers who received our survey, we also gathered transactional data from defected customers who did not receive
our survey.
Measures and validation
Clustering approach
From a managerial perspective, it is appealing to differentiate
between different segments of defected customers since
groups of lapsed customers are assumed to be heterogeneous
(Bogomolova 2010). Prior research has considered satisfaction and time absence in the context of customer win-back and
Relationship duration Relationship durations before defection were measured as the length of the customers subscriptions before their defection, whereas the second relationship
duration (transactional model) represents the length of their
subscriptions after the customers return to their former relationship. On average, the 538 survey participants had a
228
subscription length of 739 days before their defection. Of

these participants, 293 defectors returned for an additional
average period of 632 days. The customers who did not receive the survey had an average subscription length of
815 days before the survey and 620 days after the survey. Both
measures of relationship duration did not differ significantly
among the surveyed and non-surveyed customers.
Number of trial and normal subscriptions This measure
accounts for the number of trial and normal subscriptions customers had throughout their total customer lifetime before
defection. In contrast to normal subscriptions, trial subscriptions lasted for only 2 months.
Last brand The publishing house issues romance novels
with different brands. We therefore included the last brand that
a customer subscribed to before defection as a control variable
in our transactional model. In addition, we added an additional
dummy variable if a customer was subscribed to more than
one brand at the time of defection.
Regression procedure
We set up the transactional model to link our perceptual model
to the long-term actual behavior of defectors. This model investigates whether the surveyed defectors from the perceptual
model returned and the length of the subsequent relationship
duration if they did return. We applied a logit model to derive
what drives customers to return to their former relationship.
Conditional on returning, a censored normal regression was
used to explain the drivers of the second relationship duration.
Even though our transactional model covers a time period of
more than 7 years after the survey, some customers were still
active at the end of the observation period. Censored normal
regressions allow observations to be censored at different
points. Hence, customers with an ongoing relationship at the
end of the observation period were treated as right censored.
Results
Perceptual model clustering results
We used prior relationship satisfaction and time absence before
the survey as cluster variables in a three-stage clustering procedure in accordance with the approaches used by e.g., Homburg et al. (2008). Hence, we removed three outliers from the
dataset, which were identified by single linkage clustering and
by PROC FASTCLUS of SAS. We identified four clusters of
defected customers prior satisfaction and time absence before
survey (see Fig. 2). The number of clusters was determined by
using the cubic clustering criterion (Sarle 1983) and the
pseudo-F statistic (Calinski and Harabasz 1974) in
combination with Wards (1963) hierarchical clustering algorithm. Both criteria implied a four-cluster solution. We also
derived ten subsamples, each of which contained two-thirds
of the sample, and found strong support for a four-cluster solution. To assess the generality of the cluster solution, we performed as cross-validation procedure as proposed by McIntyre
and Blashfield (1980) and found stable results according to
Rands (1971) index (0.84) which ranges from 0 to 1 (perfect
agreement). We performed a post hoc comparison of the means
to characterize clusters derived from the cluster analysis. Table 2 shows our results.
Based on our post hoc comparisons of the means and findings from cluster-wise regressions (see Table 4), we define
defectors in cluster 1 as migrant birds with a medium satisfaction level and a long time absence (n=110). This label is in
line with a high level of variety seeking among the defectors in
this cluster, which indicates that these customers might return,
e.g., for exciting new products. However, it might take some
time to recover these former relationships as these defectors
have a low level of GWR.
In cluster 2, the respondents seem to be committed but
unsure with high satisfaction levels and a medium time absence (n=212) but the shortest second lifetime duration. Furthermore, these defectors appear to have a high level of affective commitment and GWR to their former relationship. Notably, they have the highest level of switching experience but
their evaluation of competitive alternatives has the lowest level
among all clusters.
The respondents in cluster 3 are rather disillusioned with
low satisfaction levels and a medium time absence (n=81).
This is evident from the high means on the attribution theory
elements. In particular, these customers reveal very high
means in locus, stability, and controllability indicating that
they believe that the firm is to blame for the defection, the
defection reasons are stable (i.e., not likely to change), and
the firm can control the reason for defection (see Table 2,
Post-hoc Comparison of Means). The GWR for this cluster
is also very low.
Finally, in cluster 4, the defected customers can be labeled
as remorseful, and are characterized by a medium satisfaction
level and a short time absence (n=137). The return to the firm
seems likely since reactivation costs are low, the client feels
responsible for the termination (internal locus) and is not interested in variety seeking. These defectors may also be more
likely to return compared to defectors in clusters 1 and 3 based
on their mean GWR.
Perceptual model regression results
We estimated regression models for the aggregate data and by
cluster to test our Hypotheses 1 to 3. First we estimated the
regressions without the attribution theory variables. We refer
to this as our Bbaseline^ model. In order to measure the
229
Time Absence
adj. R2
High
Medium
Cluster 1 (0.333)
Migrant birds
1. Commitment (0.466)
2. Stability (-0.376)
3. React. Costs (-0.186)
4. Controllability (0.155)
Cluster 2 (0.249)
Committed but unsure
1. Commitment (-0.331)
3. React. Costs (-0.219)
4. Controllability (0.085)
Cluster 3 (0.460)
Disillusioned
2. React. Costs ( -0.392)
3. Switch.exp (-0.235)
4. Controllability ( 0.210)
Cluster 4 (0.381)
Remorseful
3. Alt. Attr. (-0.211)
Low
Low
Medium
High
Prior Satisfaction
Fig. 2 Elasticities of significant variables explaining the GWR of clusters 1 to 4
Table 2
Profiles of clusters 1 through 4 (Post-hoc comparison of means)
Percentage of Observations
Active cluster variables

Time Absence before Survey
Prior satisfaction
Regression variables
General willingness to return
Affective Commitment
Stability
Locus
Reactivation costs
Controllability
Attractiveness of alternatives
Variety seeking
Transactional data (descriptive)
Returnees
Time absence after survey
Second lifetime duration
1
Bmigrant birds^
20%
(n=110)
2
Bcommitted but unsure^
39%
(n=212)
3
Bdisillusioned^
15%
(n=81)
4
Bremorseful^
25%
(n=137)
0.84c
0.87b
0.51b
0.93c
0.51b
0.61a
0.19a
0.89b
0.156a,b
0.050b
0.039a
0.081a
0.029a
0.181b
0.052a
0.070a,b
0.157b
0.146b
0.243b
0.117a
0.166a
0.142a
0.077b
0.077a
0.143a
0.068b
0.359a
0.673a
0.424b
0.886b
0.749b
0.054b
0.281b
0.376b
0.010a,b
0.112b
0.062b
0.101a
0.202a
0.199a
0.296a
0.005a,b
0.058a
0.236a
47 (43%)
188.47
618.74
124 (58%)
275.94
529.95
41 (51%)
299.54
592.34
81 (59%)
245.44
812.44
Means within a row that have matching superscripts are not significantly different (p<0.05) on the basis of Waller and Duncans (1969) multiple-range
test. If variances across clusters were not homogeneous, we performed a Games-Howell test and marked the associated constructs with a superscript .
The lowest means are designated with a superscript a; the next highest with b, and so on. Italic means highlight the lowest means; bold means represent
the highest level. Cluster and regression variables were standardized by range
230
contribution of the attribution theory to our perceptual models

already established theoretical framework from previous research, we added these variables to the baseline model and
then re-estimated each regression. With respect to all of the
five estimated models (i.e., our overall model (n=540) and the
four clusters), we found strong support for the regression model including the attribution theory variables. Specifically, the
change in the adjusted R2 ranging from 0.077 to 0.182 (see
Table 3) indicates that the attribution theory variables increase
the explained variance in GWR. Further, a comparison of
different information criteria, the partial F-statistics, and likelihood ratio tests suggest that including attribution variables
improves the model fit substantially.
Thus, we defer to the results from the model with attribution theory variables for the remainder of our discussion.
Table 4 presents the parameter estimates for each model,
whereas Fig. 2 highlights the elasticities of the significant
variables by cluster. There are substantial differences across
clusters that support our decision to use satisfaction and time
absence before the survey as segmentation criteria.
Attribution theory variables We postulated that the locus of
causality (firm-based) would have a negative impact on the
GWR. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find support for
the locus of causalitys effect. It was only significant in the
aggregate model (=0.05, p<.05). Interestingly, in the aggregate model, the locus of causality had a positive relationship
with the GWR. While the locus is one of the weaker effects, it
suggests that even though defectors attribute the reasons for
their defection to the former supplier (external locus), they can
be positively disposed to return to the relationship. Thus, we
do not find support for H1. We explain this with the psychological effect of evaluating a defection reason. Accordingly, if
Table 3
Model
a firm is to blame for defection, it is easier for customers to

express their return willingness to themselves or to others
because they have done nothing wrong (no self-blame).
Like the locus, the stability of the defection reasons was
hypothesized to have a negative impact on the GWR. We
found that H2 is supported from the results in all five
models. The strongest negative influence was found in cluster 3 (=0.73, p<.001) (low satisfaction, medium time absence) and cluster 4 (=0.47, p<.001) (medium satisfaction, low time absence). Notably, the elasticity of stability in
cluster 3 was the strongest effect we found for any variable
across all the models.
Finally, with respect to controllability, we find support for
our third hypothesis which argues that when the defected customer perceives the causes of defection as under the control of
the former supplier, the defector will have a higher willingness
to return to a prior relationship. This is an important finding
that can seem counter intuitive. One might expect that defectors adopt a negative disposition toward the firm because the
relationship ended and the firm could have controlled the outcome. However, our finding suggests that a defector maintains
some affinity and is open to revival before a win-back offer is
made, when he feels as though the firm can influence the factors that caused the defection. Cluster 4 (medium satisfaction,
low time absence) is the only cluster in which controllability is
not associated with the GWR.
Thus, the different effects we detect across clusters
can be very useful for managers to target their customer
revival activities.
Economic value perception variables Perceived reactivation costs were expected to influence the GWR negatively.
For most of our models, we can confirm this assertion. The
Goodness-of-fit statistics
Sample Size R2
Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2 AIC
Partial F 2 Log-Likelihood -2 Log-Likelihood
BIC
131.5
32.79*
1386.9
7.63*
9.74*
7.98*
7.76*
275.4
541.6
192.0
387.6
A. Attribution theory excluded

Overall
540
133.6
0.235 0.228
Cluster 1 110
0.268
Cluster 2 212
0.191
Cluster 3 81
0.347
Cluster 4 137
0.228
B. Attribution theory included
24.81
48.07
25.83
23.64
0.233
0.172
0.304
0.199
Overall 540
Cluster 1 110
Cluster 2 212
0.350 0.341
0.382 0.333
0.277 0.249
0.113
0.100
0.077
Cluster 3 81
Cluster 4 137
0.514 0.460
0.418 0.381
0.156
0.182
215.9 213.6 35.8* 31.46*

37.41 33.82 7.81* 6.20*
65.89 63.09 9.73* 8.05*
43.74
56.21
AIC Aikaike Information Criterion, BIC Bayesian Information Criterion

*p<0.001
22.13
45.72
22.89
21.09
39.52 9.52* 8.24*

52.95 11.48* 13.87*
1298.5
256.8
517.7
88.4*
18.6*
23.9*
168.1
314.6
23.9*
73*
0.00
0.00
7.28***
Intercept
Affective commitment
0.35
0.12
0.38
0.10
0.19
0.09
0.04 0.98
0.05 0.11
0.04 2.31*
0.07 0.19
0.04 1.96*
0.05 0.05
0.04 8.23*** 0.40 0.29
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; *** p<0.001 (one-sided)
=Elasticities. White standard errors
0.04
0.09
0.08
0.33
0.01 0.06
SE
Cluster 2
t
0.17
0.05 0.13
SE
Cluster 3
t
0.37
0.10
0.11 0.06
1.73*
0.12 0.03 0.09 0.36
0.04
0.09 1.25
0.15 0.07
0.09 2.10*
0.14 0.12
0.10 0.56
0.04 0.13
0.09 3.36*** 0.38 0.24
0.06 1.11
0.08 0.05 0.09 0.57
0.08
0.07 1.87*
0.08 0.19 0.09 2.09*
0.21
0.08 1.60
0.07 0.02 0.07 0.29
0.03
0.07 3.72*** 0.27 0.42 0.10 4.20*** 0.73
0.08 1.55
0.03 0.06 0.51
0.08 0.12 0.64
0.08 4.71*** 0.47 0.27 0.06 4.27*** 0.33 0.16 0.10 1.67*
0.16
0.08 1.13
0.10 0.00 0.07 0.03
0.01 0.03 0.08 0.43
0.05
0.09 2.06*
0.19 0.30 0.07 4.30*** 0.22 0.28 0.07 3.85*** 0.39
0.09 1.08
0.08 0.03 0.07 0.49
0.02 0.26 0.09 2.83**
0.24
0.01 0.08 0.09 0.89
Attractiveness of alternatives0.02 0.04 0.43

0.02
Reactivation costs
0.23 0.04 6.09*** 0.21
0.11 0.04 2.66**
0.08
0.00 0.03
0.30 0.04
0.17
Variety seeking
Controllability
Locus
Stability
SE
-0.16 0.08 1.92*
Cluster 1
b
0.12 0.08
SE
Cluster 4
t
1.43
0.09
0.05
0.13
0.44
0.06
0.35
0.24
0.12
0.15
0.03
0.09 1.02
0.09
0.07 0.72
0.04
0.11 1.18
0.07
0.07 6.43*** 0.47
0.08 0.75
0.07 4.82*** 0.39
0.09 2.77** 0.21
0.09 1.4
0.12
0.11 1.39
0.10
0.03 0.10 0.31
0.04 8.65*** 0.42 0.46 0.08 5.48*** 0.57 0.32 0.07 4.80*** 0.39 0.29 0.10 2.79**
0.30
0.35 0.08 4.37*** 0.41
0.04 0.41
0.01 0.09 0.09 0.96
0.07 0.00 0.08 0.04
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.47
0.04
0.17 0.10 1.76*
0.11
0.04 6.62*** 0.16 0.19 0.09 2.15*
0.13 0.32 0.07 4.47*** 0.17 0.29 0.08 3.81*** 0.29
0.23 0.10 2.37** 0.12
0.04 3.72*** 0.12 0.17 0.09 1.91*
0.14
0.06 0.07
0.93 0.04 0.36 0.10
3.60*** 0.32 0.32 0.12
2.71***
Variety seeking
0.01 0.04
B. Attribution theory included
Affective commitment
0.36
Attractiveness of alternatives0.02
Reactivation costs
0.26
0.17
Intercept
SE t
0.00 0.04
Overall
Parameter estimates and elasticities of the determinants of general willingness to return
A. Attribution theory excluded
Parameter
Table 4

231
232
exception is in cluster 4, where reactivation costs have no

significant impact on the GWR. Reactivation costs show the
highest negative impact on the reactivation willingness in
clusters 3 (=0.39, p<.001) (low satisfaction, medium time
absence) and 2 (=0.22, p<.001) (high satisfaction, medium
time absence).
Based on previous research we posited that the attractiveness of alternatives negatively impacts the GWR. Except for
cluster 4 (=0.21, p<.01), we could not find support for this
position. The significant impact in cluster 4 may relate to the
short time absence of this group such that customers who have
defected recently may seek out alternatives and still find them
novel and attractive. For other segments it seems that defected
customers have a propensity to return regardless of alternative
offers. Importantly, one can infer from the lack of significance
that teasing apart the defectors cognitive state before and after
the exposure to offers is important because of potential differences in the consumers cognitive state. Additionally, this
finding supports the distinction between win-back stages 2
(customer rationalization of the defection decision) versus 4
(customer processing of win-back offer).
Emotional and social value perception variables We find
that affective commitment is statistically significant and has a
positive relationship with GWR in all of the models. Based on
the elasticities, the highest impact of affective commitment on
the GWR is found in cluster 1 (=0.47, p<.001) (medium
satisfaction, long time absence) and in cluster 4 (=0.39,
p<.001) (medium satisfaction, short time absence). Cluster 3
shows a lower impact (=0.16, p<.05) (low satisfaction, medium time absence). These outcomes may suggest that affective commitment has a stronger impact among customers who
were more satisfied prior to defection.
We further argued that switching experiences have a positive impact on the GWR. We cannot completely support this
position due to mixed results in the five models. In the overall
model (=0.08, p<.01) and in cluster 3 (=0.24, p<.01), we
found that it has a significant positive influence on the GWR.
Variety seeking was expected to have a negative impact on
GWR. However, we found no support for this claim. The
contrast between our finding and prior research may relate to
the fact that the propensity to seek variety captures a consumer
sentiment that is directed toward a known offer or alternative
whereas GWR is a measure of affinity which precedes an
offer. A relationship that may be more consistent with prior
research may be the impact of variety seeking on the consumers evaluation of a specific offer (i.e., stage 4 of the
win-back process).
Transactional model results
Our transactional model comprises a logistic regression to
model whether customers returned to their former
relationship and a censored normal regression to explain

the drivers of the second lifetime duration. Table 5 reports
the results from our transactional model. We used one-tailed
tests whenever we hypothesized a direction. Otherwise we
applied two-tailed tests.
To account for a potential measurement effect, we analyzed our transactional model for both, surveyed and nonsurveyed customers. Even though some of the effects of the
brand that was subscribed to before defection differed with
regard to the level of significance, the effects of all other
measures remained the same. We thus conclude that it is less
likely that our results for surveyed customers are biased by a
measurement effect.
The main focus of the transactional model is to demonstrate
the effect of GWR on actual return behavior while controlling
for other influences. This approach is similar to the procedure
by Homburg et al. (2007). Consistent with the focal argument
of this research (H4), general willingness to return showed a
positive impact on the win-back (=0.17, p<.05) and the
relationship duration after returning to the former relationship
(=266.84, p<.001). This confirming finding emphasizes our
reasoning that firms should try to better understand a customers willingness to return to a relationship prior to extending any offers. Importantly, one might also infer from these
results that it is not simply the actual win-back offer that drives
revival performance.
We aimed to generate additional and novel insights by
carefully examining direct and interaction effects of time absence before and after the survey. Time absence before the
survey neither had an effect on whether a customer returned
nor on the second relationship duration. Furthermore, time
absence after the survey (i.e., the time between survey and
return) did not reveal a significant positive effect on the second relationship duration (=0.50, p>.05). Thus, H5 is not
supported. This reveals that time absence, taken in isolation,
does not drive customer return behavior directly. However,
time absence after the survey did reveal a negative moderating
effect on the effect of GWR on second relationship duration
(=0.50, p<.05). To interpret the moderating effect, we
followed the approach recommended by Aiken and West
(1991) and compared the simple slopes for time absence after
the survey for the 0.1 percentile (131 days) and the 0.9 percentile (504 days). When time absence after the survey was
short, the effect of GWR was significantly more influential
(simple slope=201.76, p<.05) but when time absence after
the survey was long, the effect of GWR on second lifetime
duration was not significant (simple slope=16.05, p>.05).
Thus, as the length of time absence after the survey increases,
returning defectors that have a low GWR have second relationship durations that are not statistically different from the
durations of high GWR returnees. Hence, H6 is supported.
Also notable in the transactional model, overall satisfaction
with the prior relationship showed no effect on the actual

Table 5
233
Logistic regression and censored normal regression explaining revival performance

Return
b
Intercept
General willingness to return (GWR)
Prior satisfaction
Time absence before the survey
Time absence after the survey
GWR x Time absence after the survey
Second relationship duration

SE
0.33
0.17*
0.14
0.00
SE
0.55
0.10
238.54
266.84***
267.60
70.45
0.10
0.00
34.93
0.07
0.50
0.50*
68.67
0.23
0.31
0.24
Relationship duration before defection

Number of trial subscriptions
0.00
0.84***
0.00
0.17
0.02
23.60
0.06
75.85
Number of regular subscriptions

Brand subscribed to before defection (categorical)
0.33
0.19
54.49
108.64
Several Brands
1.58*
0.78
32.95
280.93
Brand 1
Brand 2
0.44
0.19
0.38
0.43
255.86
59.52
159.65
176.04
Brand 3
0.57
0.43
113.51
179.89
Brand 4
Brand 5
Brand 6
0.84
1.83*
1.48**
0.47
0.72
0.47
845.71*
113.28
723.67*
359.78
208.61
329.21
538
292
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; *** p<0.001

Robust standard errors
return decision (=0.14, p>.05) and the relationship duration

after returning (=34.93, p>.05). Similarly, the relationship
duration before defection appeared to show no effect on either
the return (=0.00, p>.05), or on the second relationships
duration (=0.02, p>.05). We find that the number of trial
subscriptions in which customers were enrolled before their
defection showed a strong positive effect (=0.84, p<.001)
on whether they returned but not on how long they stayed in
the relationship afterwards (=23.60, p>.05). The number
of regular subscriptions neither showed an effect on the return
decision (=0.33, p>.05), nor on the relationship duration
after returning (=54.49, p>.05).
relationship evaluations indicating their propensity to revise a

previous decision and return to a firm from which they have
defected. Importantly, identifying GWR and understanding its
impact shows that actual return behavior is NOT simply a
reflection of the firms offers that are extended to revive the
relationship. Rather, GWR is a major driver of relationship
revival and potentially instrumental in designing and targeting
revival offers to defected customers. Thus, our finding that
GWR impacts actual return behavior is not only a critical
support for the usage of our GWR measure and our research
findings, but it also is a notable contribution to the existing
knowledge in customer win-back research as will be explained in the following.
Discussion
Theoretical implications
This research investigates the perceptions and rationalizations

of defected customers in order to understand the factors that
influence their revival of former relationships. An important
characteristic of the current research is that we investigate the
customer evaluations prior to any of the firms win-back actions. We refer to the disposition of the consumer at this stage
as the consumers GWR, or general willingness to return to
their former supplier. The investigation of such a variable is of
interest because it can reveal customers overall affinity and
Combining theories improves our understanding of customer willingness to return Given that customer win-back is
arguably one of the least researched areas of CRM, integrating
theories and then testing the applicability of hypotheses derived from those theories contributes to a better understanding
of this important field of research. In detail, we draw upon a
theory that has not been applied in a customer win-back context (i.e., attribution theory) and compare our model to a baseline model that reflects individual theories that are focused on
234
value perceptions and which have been shown to relate to

customers return decisions.
When comparing the models without attribution variables
(i.e., the baseline models) with the respective models with
attribution variables, we see a substantial improvement of
the explanatory power and model fit (see Table 3). This suggests that consumers willingness to reinitiate former relationships is only partially explained by their perceptions of the
relationships value (economic or social value) and, thus, emphasizes the value of integrating attribution theory propositions in research as requested by Homburg et al. (2007). By
summarizing the findings we derive from investigating attribution theory in this context, we gather the novel insight that
the defectors rationalization for leaving and consideration to
return can be characterized as follows: Regardless of whose
fault it is, if the reasons for the relationship termination can
change or are preventable and the firm can control those
changes, then the defector has a higher general willingness
to return to the former relationship.
While attribution theory adds to our understanding of the
win-back process, we acknowledge that all of the theoretical explanations help explain customers willingness to
return. However, the following is a logical question: does
one theory consistently explain the top factor(s) that have
an impact on the GWR? Our empirical analysis of customer segments suggests that one dominant theoretical framework does not explain customers perceptions,
rationalizations, and subsequent motivations for revitalizing
a relationship. However, if we were to focus on the most
important factor that affects reactivation, we find that
stability, a variable derived from attribution theory, has
the greatest influence (i.e., elasticity) on reactivation if (1)
the consumer has a low level of satisfaction or (2) if the
defection occurred recently (i.e., a short time absence before survey) (see Fig. 2). Thus, it is important to defected
customers who are considering a return to know that things
can change. For another subset of defectors (i.e., moderate
to high satisfaction and less recent defection), the most
influential factor is affective commitment, which reflects
consumers perception of the emotional value. This factor
is associated with the theory of social capital (Mathwick
et al. 2008). The importance of commitment is consistent
with prior research that finds that perceptions of emotional
value have a great impact (Sweeney and Soutar 2001).
The impact of time absence on gwr and second relationship performance Time absence plays an important role in
relationship revival. For those who have had a recent defection (i.e., short time absence before the survey), their general
willingness to return is driven mostly by how the consumers
rationalize the permanence (i.e., stability) of their reasons for
defection. This is not the case for those who have been
absent for a while. The contrast is seen by comparing
clusters 1 and 4 in Fig. 2. Both of these clusters report a

medium satisfaction level prior to defection. Yet, by tearing
apart the duration of their time absence we can see that the
top two drivers of GWR among the more recent defectors
(cluster 4) are first stability and second affective commitment (elasticities are -0.437 for stability and 0.392 for commitment). For the defected customers who have been absent
for a long time (cluster 1), the impact is the exact opposite
(elasticities are 0.466 for commitment and -0.376 for stability). Thus, over time, a defectors mindset shifts, leading to
different motives driving his/her willingness for relationship
revival. Hence, theory integration helps to better understand
the return propensities for defectors who have been absent
for varying lengths of time.
Another important and novel finding from our analysis is
the moderating effect of time absence after the survey on the
relationship between GWR and the second relationship duration. Such a moderating effect goes beyond direct effects
identified by attribution theory or any value perception theory. Yet, one can conjecture that high GWR defectors might
establish a longer second relationship if they return and that
the reverse is true for low GWR defectors, particularly if the
return happens shortly after the survey and possibly with
less contemplation. However, the fact that a low GWR defector can behave similar to a high GWR defector if enough
time passes before the second relationship ensues is an interesting new finding. It suggests that firms should carefully
consider the timing and how aggressively they pursue defectors. Allowing time to Bheal a wound^ or for contemplation
can improve the quality of the second relationship in terms
of its duration.
Explanations of customers willingness to reactivate a relationship may not align with crm practices From the
firms perspective, CRM research has focused significantly
on customers economic value (see, e.g., Gupta et al. 2006).
Monetizing customers and measuring their lifetime value
have been the guideposts of many of the recommendations
that firms have received (e.g., Blattberg et al. 2001). When
firms think about customers second lifetime value, they
generally consider incentives that they could offer the customer to reactivate their relationship. From a companys perspective these incentives translate into costs while they add
to the perceived economic value of a relationship from the
customers perspective.
However, our research, which is undertaken from a customers perspective, offers an interesting contradiction to
the firms thinking: on the whole, consumer perceptions
of economic value are less important for their willingness
to return than perceptions of emotional value (see Table 4).
The only case in which this is not true, is in the low
satisfaction cluster. In this group (cluster 3), perceptions
of the economic value are the second most influential
factor, but a distant second behind the most influential factor of stability (elasticities for stability are -0.73, and -0.39
for perceived reactivation costs).
Based on these results, and the economic practices that
firms typically use to win customers back, firms could very
easily focus on the wrong activities, namely those that do
not drive the GWR. For example, a firm may focus on
devising promotions and economic incentives to recapture
valuable lost customers who have switched suppliers, when
the defected customers may actually be more concerned
with the bonds that they had with their former supplier, or
with special treatments that they previously received (Lam
et al. 2010; Tokman et al. 2007). A recent study supports
this rationale by finding that the efficacy of some marketing
activities such as advertising are quite low and even negative
in the long term (Ataman et al. 2010).
General willingness to return is a relevant and measurable
win-back metric Our focal measure, GWR, is new in the
CRM research domain. Prior research in this domain
accounted for demographics (e.g., the duration of the relationship prior to defection), emotion-based customer characteristics such as customers overall satisfaction prior to their
defection (Homburg et al. 2007), and their intentions to reactivate a (non-contractual) relationship given a specific
win-back offer (Tokman et al. 2007). To our knowledge,
prior research has not fully investigated the rationalization
and disposition of defected customers prior to any win-back
offer. While the GWR concept has similarities to the concept
of consumers affinity for a firm, product, or brand, we
emphasize that a key distinction between GWR and general
intention is that GWR measures the inclination to revise a
prior decision without any firm offered incentives. Thus
GWR is not a broad measure of repurchase intentions but
instead it is a specific measure of a customers disposition
toward relationship revival.
Managerial implications
Leveraging GWR and its antecedents to position win-back
communications Because the consumers defection reasons
can influence GWR and win-back performance, effective
marketing communications should address the consumers
concerns. The antecedents to GWR and how they vary
across customer groups can help CRM managers to position
their win-back communications. For example, if controllability is a key explanation for a specific customers GWR, a
firm could approach such a defected customer with a statement that communicates, Bthis incident can be prevented.^
With such a statement, the firm is tapping into the customers perception that it can change the situation for the
235
better. If stability drives the consumers GWR, the firm can

position its marketing communications so that the former
customer knows that Bthings have changed.^ Consumers
who emphasize that commitment to their relationship affects
their willingness to return could be approached with marketing communications that acknowledge that Bthe relationship
is important^ or Bis valued.^ This type of remark would
resonate with consumers who have an emotional connection
to the firm. In contrast, marketing communications directed
at defected customers who focus on factors that drive the
economic value of the relationship would require a differently positioned message. For example, customers who are
driven by reactivation costs would want a message from the
firm that communicates that Bcoming back can be easy^ or
Bis not expensive.^ To implement this, for example, in contractual relationships, a firm can offer a pre-printed contract,
or a sufficient number of customer touchpoints for contract
renewal. These examples show that knowledge of the
drivers of the GWR can help a firm position its win-back
communications.
Interestingly, one way to characterize these themed
talking points is based on whether they are grounded in
a rational appeal (i.e., a persuasive message that focuses
on facts and product/service attributes), or in an emotional
appeal (i.e., a persuasive message that taps into the consumer sentiment and emotional or social value derived
from the exchange). Given the theories that we examine,
this is an appealing characterization, because it is consistent with the emotional and subjective aspects of some of
our GWR drivers (e.g., affective commitment), as well as
with the more objective or fact-based aspect of our drivers
(e.g., reactivation costs).
We present a simplified demonstration that only focuses
on the top drivers of GWR in each cluster to apply the idea
of a rational communication appeal versus an emotional
communication appeal to our specific clusters. First, we note
that clusters 1 and 2 differ with respect to the intensity of
their effects, but are similar with respect to the relative importance of the factors that affect GWR, i.e., affective commitment and stability. Consequently, the main theme behind
marketing communications for these clusters would be the
same. Specifically, the theme should combine a strong emotional appeal that perhaps emphasizes loyalty and commitment. Settings that highlight families, parents and children,
or good friends interacting together are examples that may
be appropriate because they typically evoke a strong sense
of commitment. Within these contexts, a marketing communication may refer to statements such as: BWe value our
relationship and are committed to doing what it takes to
make it work.^ Through this type of statement, the firm
addresses the clusters emotional bond with the relationship
236
and their perception that the circumstances leading to their

defection can change.
In contrast to clusters 1 and 2, a marketing communication targeted at cluster 3 (Bdisillusioned^ customers) should
possibly comprise a far more rational appeal, because the
top two factors associated with this clusters GWR are (1)
stability and (2) perceived reactivation costs. The firm may
consider citing facts or statistics pertaining to the reasons for
the defection having been minimized or eliminated, and that
revitalizing the relationship will not be risky or costly. Thus,
a message theme that communicates Bthings have changed
and we can make it easy for you^ might motivate them to
consider returning to a relationship. A firm may try using
the familiar phrase Bunder new management^ for these types
of consumers. Using significant price promotions or financial incentives to stimulate return are also reasonable marketing tactics that may resonate with this cluster.
Finally, cluster 4 (the Bremorseful^ customers, medium
satisfaction and short time absence) values the relationship,
but is most concerned with whether the factors that caused
their defection have been addressed (i.e., stability). Therefore, a rational appeal may be most persuasive and resonate
with these customers. Elaborating on the specific details of
changes is consistent with the idea of presenting a rational
appeal, and could strengthen the message. Examples of plausible changes that the firm may want to communicate are: a
new web site, a new (re)ordering system, or a new distribution partner. Hence, a message theme that communicates
Bthings have changed and our relationship with you is
important^ may motivate these customers to reactivate a
relationship.
In summary, these examples show that by knowing and
understanding the key factors that drive the GWR, firms can
tailor specific messages that have a higher chance of resonating with defected customers. Notably, these examples can be
easily linked to the theoretical frameworks that were investigated in this research. Further, the examples and frameworks
that we presented align easily with the concept of a rational
versus an emotional message appeal, which is a concept used
to guide firms marketing communications.
Clustering defected customers for win-back Practitioners
rely upon various methods and variables for segmenting
current customers. Adding to this practice, this research
demonstrates the value of clustering defected customers
based on combining metrics that capture their relationship
before and after their defection. Specifically, we show that
the time elapsed since the relationships termination and
before the survey along with a customers satisfaction level prior to the termination can delineate between defected
customers who vary in their general willingness to return
to prior relationships (see Table 2). The time elapsed can

easily be measured in a contract setting, as is the case
with this research. In non-contractual settings statistical
models can be used to predict lifetime durations and from
that estimates of time absence can be derived. Thus, time
absence is a practical clustering measure for defected
customers.
Customer satisfaction has repeatedly been linked to customer retention (e.g., Mittal and Kamakura 2001), and numerous firms frequently measure this at an individual level
(Reichheld 2003). Although many firms may presume that
all defectors are dissatisfied, we show that this is not necessarily the case (see Table 2). Thus, we posit that satisfaction
prior to defection is also an appropriate clustering measure to
consider for defectors. In this research, the measure was taken
after the defection and thus did not require a survey of an
entire customer database.
Combining these two metrics to form clusters reveals an
interesting group of defected customers whom some managers may have difficulty understanding or identifying. For
example, if the firm were to only use satisfaction as a clustering variable, they would likely combine clusters 1 (Bmigrant
birds,^ long time absence) and 4 (Bremorseful,^ short time
absence) because they have the same level of satisfaction. This
would be detrimental from a managerial implementation perspective because, as our research shows, these two clusters are
motivated by very different factors.
The time since the last purchase, which is analogous to our
time absence before the survey variable, is a common metric
that database marketers use for targeting (Hughes 1996). If our
time absence variable were used without the satisfaction variable, firms would find it hard to differentiate consumers in
cluster 3 (low satisfaction) and cluster 2 (high satisfaction).
Managerially, this could also cause significant problems when
implementing a win-back campaign because commitment is
the biggest driver of cluster 2s GWR, while commitment is
only the fifth most significant driver of cluster 3s GWR. In
general, the relative importance of the factors that drive GWR
differs greatly from the least satisfied to the most satisfied
clusters. Thus, the customer satisfaction level is an important
profiling factor for firms to consider when developing a winback strategy.
Proxy measurement Given the high level nature of many
of the constructs in our study, firms may try to use proxy
variables from their customer database that mirror those
constructs. By using such proxies, managers can avoid
conducting large scale surveys. For example, because they
also had relationships with other suppliers, one might deduce that customers with high degrees of variety seeking
behavior and switching experience are characterized by
short prior relationship durations. This is also reflected in

Table 1, where prior relationship duration is negatively
associated with variety seeking and switching experience.
Thus, prior relationship duration might serve as a good
proxy measure for variety seeking and switching
experience.
Relying solely on transactional measures might be insufficient when searching for proxy measures for e.g., attributional variables. Nevertheless, with the availability of rich
data, managers might even be able to identify customer
characteristics or individual behavior, such as complaints,
interaction with frontline employees, or social media conversations that strongly correlate with constructs such as prior
satisfaction, locus, stability, or controllability. The importance of measuring complaints to gain substantial insights
into the quality of the relationship has been highlighted in
several studies (e.g., van Oest and Knox 2011). Nevertheless, firms need to be aware that most customers do not
complain (e.g., Voorhees et al. 2006). Hence, customers
should be stimulated to raise their complaints (e.g., by asking customers for their defection reasons during relationship
termination). Additionally, service employees often dispose
of in-depth knowledge of customer attitudes. Thus, their
feedback and evaluation of attributional variables might
serve as another proxy measure.
Firms may also find that they need to consider alternative variables for deriving clusters. Previous customers can
be segmented based on time absence and satisfaction prior
to defection to target them with specific win-back offers.
Both of these factors have been shown to be relevant for
customer reacquisition (Homburg et al. 2007; Thomas et al.
2004; Tokman et al. 2007). As we show in Fig. 2, in our
study only extremely low or high levels of these two factors had to be known to identify the four clusters. So even
if, for example, satisfaction is not known, proxies such as
product returns or customer complaints could suffice for the
purpose of segmentation. Our study also emphasizes the
benefits of collecting customer satisfaction scores or proxies to be able to effectively segment defected customers for
win-back purposes.
Conclusion and limitations

Our research explores the perceptions and rationalizations
of defected customers to gain a deeper understanding of
their willingness to return to a contractual relationship
with a firm. While we are confident that our surveybased research generates novel preliminary insights into
effects of attitudes and intentions on relationship revival,
we are aware of its incremental contribution to our field
237
and therefore encourage future research to conduct neuroscientific studies to validate or qualify our findings on the
outcomes of the internal mental workings of customers.
We further suggest conducting experimental studies to
broaden our knowledge on the impact of concrete winback offers (besides pricing issues) on customer return
behavior. Further, experimental studies might also help to
further enlighten the cognitive processes that a defected
customer goes through while forming her or his general
willingness to return.
Our theoretical framework and empirical findings can
provide managers with very specific guidance and suggestions on how to segment defected customers and
engage them through specific communication messages.
Hence, additional research on proxy measures will be
helpful to translate the high level constructs studied in
this research into actionable insight. Future studies
might also consider the important revenue, cost, and
profit implications of new customer acquisition and retention vis--vis win-back of former clients. Finally, future research might also reveal how characteristics of a
prior relationship other than prior satisfaction or affective commitment might influence customer responses toward the firm.
While we are not aware of any win-back activities by
the firm before the survey, the possibility of this is a
potential limitation of this research. We also note that
the subscription context is another potential limitation to
the generalizability of this research. It would be fruitful
if the theoretical framework presented here were to be
examined in a non-subscription context and contexts
that have a higher risk associated with the purchase
(e.g., prepaid legal service or medical insurance) than
the one studied in this research (i.e., novels, media
content).
Another possible limitation of this research is the
ratio of women to men in the data sample. The study
participants were mostly women. It is possible that attitudes could differ if the sample was more balanced. For
example, Melnyk et al. (2009) find that men are more
loyal to groups (e.g., companies), whereas women tend
to be more loyal to individuals, such as certain service
employees.
Despite the potential limitations and several ways to
extend this study, this research can be viewed as a catalyst to expand our knowledge of customer reactivation.
Specifically, this research contributes to the literature by
expanding our theoretical knowledge about customer revitalization and provides recommendations that are highly relevant to practitioners responsible for managing
customer relationships.
238
Appendix
Table 6
Measurement items (1=I do not agree at all to 7=I fully agree; r=reverse coded)
Constructs and items
Loadings
Composite reliabilities
Prior Satisfaction (Maxham III 2001; Ping 1993, 1995):

As a whole, I am satisfied with the products and services offered by your publishing house.
In general, I am pretty satisfied with my relationship with your publishing house.
Overall, you and your staff treated me fairly.
How satisfied are you with the quality of our performance?
Affective Commitment (adapted from Ganesh et al. 2000):
0.82
0.91
0.88
0.87
0.93
The relationship I shared with your publishing house was very important to me.
Since the termination of my subscription, I still feel very committed to your publishing house.
Variety Seeking (Van Trijp et al. 1996):
0.90
0.90
0.89
I enjoy taking chances by trying out unfamiliar companies, products/contracts to provide variety to my life.
I like trying things out that I am not familiar with.
I always try something different.
I like to try something I am not very sure of.
I enjoy trying out new products.
Switching Experiences (Burnham et al. 2003):
0.85
0.89
0.86
0.80
0.83
0.93
I occasionally try new subscriptions from competing publishing houses.

In the past, I often switched between different subscriptions.
I occasionally try other subscriptions.
Locus (Tsiros et al. 2004):
0.87
0.83
0.89
0.90
Your publishing house is responsible for my decision to terminate the relationship.

Your staff is responsible for my decision to terminate the relationship.
The strategies and orientation of your publishing house are responsible for my decision to terminate the relationship.
Stability (Russell 1982):
My reasons for terminating the relationship are
Permanent/temporary
Changeable/Unchanging (r)
Stable over time / variable over time
Controllability (Hess et al. 2003):
My reasons for terminating the relationship are
Controllable by your company.
Preventable by your company.
Reactivation costs (adapted from Ping 1993):
I think the costs in time, money and effort to return to the publishing house would be high.
Overall, I could lose a lot if I return to your publishing house.
Returning to your company is too risky/insecure for me.
It is too complicated to renew my former subscription with you.
Returning to your publishing house is too cumbersome to me.
Attractiveness of alternatives (Ping 1993):
Products and services available from alternative publishing houses offer exactly what I need.
Overall, alternative publishing houses would benefit me more than your publishing house.
I am interested in many publishing houses.
Other publishing houses provide a bigger assortment of subscriptions than your publishing house.
Other publishing houses keep me better informed about attractive offers.
General willingness to return:
I am generally willing to return to you (publishing house) and to close a new contract.
I am generally willing to revise former decisions.
In the future I would like to close subscriptions with your publishing house again.
The renewal of my former relationship, e.g., a new subscription, is very probable/ not very probable.
0.87
0.90
0.89
0.92
0.86
0.76
0.85
0.86
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.59
0.62
0.81
0.86
0.83
0.86
0.83
0.82
0.89
0.83
0.70
0.91
0.77
0.89
0.86
0.92
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology 2 (pp. 267299). New
York: Academic.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ataman, M. B., Van Heerde, H. J., & Mela, C. F. (2010). The long-term
effect of marketing strategy on brand sales. Journal of Marketing
Research, 47, 866882.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1995). Reflections on relationship marketing in
consumer markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 23, 272277.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Measurement and meaning in information systems
and organizational research: methodological and philosophical
foundations. MIS Quarterly, 35, 261292.
Bansal, H. S., Taylor, S. F., & James, Y. S. (2005). BMigrating^ to new
service providers: toward a unifying framework of consumers
switching behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 33, 96115.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer
choice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Blattberg, R. C., Getz, G., & Thomas, J. S. (2001). Customer equity:
Building and managing relationships as valuable assets. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Bogomolova, S. (2010). Life after death? Analyzing post-defection consumer brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 63, 11351141.
Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching
costs: a typology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 109126.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42, 339365.
Calinski, T., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics, 3, 127.
Capraro, A. J., Broniarczyk, S., & Srivastava, R. K. (2003). Factors
influencing the likelihood of customer defection: the role of consumer knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
31, 164175.
Chiu, H.-C., Hsieh, Y.-C., Li, Y.-C., & Lee, M. (2005). Relationship
marketing and consumer switching behavior. Journal of Business
Research, 58, 16811689.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Elsner, R., Krafft, M., & Huchzermeier, A. (2004). Optimizing
Rhenanias direct marketing business through dynamic multilevel
modeling (DMLM) in a multicatalog-brand environment.
Marketing Science, 23, 192206.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: a review and new directions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 14, 548565.
Folkes, V. S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J. L. (1987). A field study of
causal inferences and consumer reaction: the view from the airport.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 534539.
Ganesh, J., Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2000).
Understanding the customer base of service providers: an
examination of the differences between switchers and stayers.
Journal of Marketing, 64, 6587.
239
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 63, 7087.
Gassenheimer, J. B., Houston, F. S., & Davis, J. C. (1998). The role of
economic value, social value, and perceptions of fairness in interorganizational relationship retention decisions. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 322337.
Griffin, J., & Lowenstein, M. W. (2001). Customer winback: How to
recapture lost customers - And keep them loyal. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gupta, S., Hanssens, D., Hardie, B., Kahn, W., Kumar, V., Lin, N., &
Sriram, N. R. (2006). Modeling customer lifetime value. Journal of
Service Research, 9, 139155.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley.
Hess Jr., R. L., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. M. (2003). Service failure and
recovery: the impact of relationship factors on customer satisfaction.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 127145.
Homburg, C., Hoyer, W. D., & Stock, R. M. (2007). How to get lost
customers back? A study of antecedents of relationship revival.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 461474.
Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: a taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72, 133154.
Hughes, A. M. (1996). The complete database marketer - Second generation strategies and techniques for tapping the power of your customer database. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.
Inman, J. (2001). The role of sensorySpecific satiety in attribute level
variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 105120.
Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2006). The evolution of
loyalty intentions. Journal of Marketing, 70, 122132.
Jones, T. O., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect.
Harvard Business Review, 73, 8899.
Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to
brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: a social
identity perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74, 128146.
Lindell, M., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method
variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 114121.
Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C., & de Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. Journal of Consumer Research, 34,
832849.
Maxham, J. G., III. (2001). Service recoverys influence on consumer
satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth, and purchase intentions.
Journal of Business Research, 54, 1124.
McIntyre, R. M., & Blashfield, R. K. (1980). A nearest-centroid technique for evaluating the minimum-variance clustering procedure.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 15, 225238.
Melnyk, V., van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2009). Are
women more loyal customers than men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and individual service providers. Journal of Marketing,
73, 8296.
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent,
and repurchase behavior: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 131142.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust-theory of
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 59, 2038.
Neslin, S. A., Taylor, G. A., Grantham, K. D., & McNeil, K. R. (2013).
Overcoming the Brecency trap^ in customer relationship management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 320337.
Picard, R., & Brody, J. (1997). The newspaper publishing industry.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pick, D., & Eisend, M. (2014). Buyers perceived switching costs and
switching: a meta-analytic assessment of their antecedents. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 186204.
Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1991). Econometric models and
economic forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
240
Ping, R. A. J. (1993). The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints
on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal
of Retailing, 69, 320352.
Ping, R. A. J. (1995). Some uninvestigated antecedents of retailer exit
intention. Journal of Business Research, 34, 171180.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of
Management, 12, 531544.
Rand, W. M. (1971). Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering
methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66, 846850.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard
Business Review, 81, 4654.
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1990). Zero defections: quality
comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68, 105111.
Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2000). On the profitability of long-life
customers in a noncontractual setting: an empirical investigation
and implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1735.
Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2003). The impact of customer relationship
characteristics on profitable lifetime duration. Journal of Business
Research, 67, 7799.
Roos, I. (1999). Switching processes in customer relationships. Journal of
Service Research, 2, 6878.
Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: a measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42, 11371145.
Snchez-Garca, I., Pieters, R., Zeelenberg, M., & Bign, E.
(2012). When satisfied consumers do not return: variety seekings effect on short- and long-term intentions. Psychology
and Marketing, 29, 1524.
Sarle, W. S. (1983). Cubic clustering criterion. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (2000). Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and experience as moderators of relationship commitment
in professional, consumer services. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 11, 470490.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). Relationship marketing in consumer
markets: antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 23, 255271.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991a). Consumption values
and market choice. Cincinnati: Thomson South Western.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991b). Why we buy what
we buy: a theory of consumption values. Journal of Business
Research, 22, 159170.
Stauss, B., & Friege, C. (1999). Regaining service customers: costs and
benefits of regain management. Journal of Service Research, 1,
347361.

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived
value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of
Retailing, 77, 203220.
Thomas, J. S., & Sullivan, U. (2005). Managing marketing communications with multichannel customers. Journal of
Marketing, 69, 239251.
Thomas, J. S., Blattberg, R. C., & Fox, E. J. (2004). Recapturing lost
customers. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 3145.
Thurston, C. (1983). The liberation of pulp romances. Psychology Today,
April, 1415.
Tokman, M., Davis, L. M., & Lemon, K. N. (2007). The WOW factor:
creating value through win-back offers to reacquire lost customers.
Journal of Retailing, 83, 4764.
Tsiros, M., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (2004). The role of attributions in
customer satisfaction: a reexamination. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31, 476483.
Van Birgelen, M., de Jong, A., & de Ruyter, K. (2006). Multi-channel
service retailing: the effects of channel performance satisfaction on
behavioral intentions. Journal of Retailing, 82, 367377.
Van Oest, R., & Knox, G. (2011). Extending the BG/NBD: a simple
model of purchases and complaints. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 28, 3038.
Van Trijp, H. C. M., Hoyer, W. D., & Inman, J. J. (1996). Why switch?
Product category-level explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 281292.
Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship
management efforts on customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing, 67, 3045.
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., & Horowitz, D. M. (2006). A voice from
the silent masses: an exploratory and comparative analysis of
noncomplainers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34, 513527.
Wagner, T., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Rudolph, T. (2009). Does customer
demotion jeopardize loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 6985.
Waller, R. A., & Duncan, D. B. (1969). A bayes rule for the symmetric
multiple comparisons problems. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 64, 14841503.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236244.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548573.
Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 382387.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral
consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 3146.
Copyright of Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science is the property of Springer

Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Customer Win Back Role of Attributions and Perceptions in Customers 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Customer Win Back Role of Attributions and Perceptions in Customers 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Customer win-back: the role of attributions and perceptions

Abstract Interest in customer reacquisition has increased as

Freie Universitt Berlin, Boltzmannstr. 20, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University,

Institute of Marketing, University of Mnster, Am Stadtgraben

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

decisions and their implementation and might revise a prior

Rationalizing defection and relationship revival

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

decision, which was contractually binding in our case, is more

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

Drivers of general willingness to return

2006), of retention (Verhoef 2003), or of the propensity to

processors whose causal inferences influence their attitude

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

permanent (stable), or relatively temporary (unstable). Stable

Controllability Controllability is a third dimension that

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

H3: The more customers perceive the causes of defection as

Drivers of customer return behavior

GWR will be linked to actual return behavior. By investigating

Explaining general willingness to return

Economic value perceptions

Emotional and social value

Perception of behavior: Attribution

Explaining customer return behavior

their return decision and as a result the second relationship

Transactional model control variables

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

or even that of the customers themselves (Ganesh et al. 2000).

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

13. Trial subscriptions

Descriptive statistics and correlations

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

General willingness to return As far as we know, there are

found satisfied and dissatisfied customers as two distinct types

subscription length of 739 days before their defection. Of

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

Fig. 2 Elasticities of significant variables explaining the GWR of clusters 1 to 4

Profiles of clusters 1 through 4 (Post-hoc comparison of means)

Active cluster variables

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

contribution of the attribution theory to our perceptual models

a firm is to blame for defection, it is easier for customers to

Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2 AIC

Partial F 2 Log-Likelihood -2 Log-Likelihood

A. Attribution theory excluded

215.9 213.6 35.8* 31.46*

AIC Aikaike Information Criterion, BIC Bayesian Information Criterion

39.52 9.52* 8.24*

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; *** p<0.001 (one-sided)

=Elasticities. White standard errors

0.12 0.03 0.09 0.36

0.01 0.08 0.09 0.89

Attractiveness of alternatives0.02 0.04 0.43

-0.16 0.08 1.92*

0.03 0.10 0.31

Parameter estimates and elasticities of the determinants of general willingness to return

A. Attribution theory excluded

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2016) 44:218240

exception is in cluster 4, where reactivation costs have no

p<0.05; p<0.01; p<0.001 (one-sided)

p<0.05; p<0.01; p<0.001