Customer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty

SN Bus Econ (2021) 1:86
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-021-00088-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Customer satisfaction and brand loyalty to electronic home

appliances in Bangladesh: the contingent role of brand
trust
Md. Uzir Hossain Uzir1 · Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid1 · Ishraq Jerin1 ·
Ahmad Shaharudin Abdul Latiff1 · Ramayah Thurasamy2
Received: 3 October 2020 / Accepted: 11 May 2021 / Published online: 27 May 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
Abstract
In Bangladesh, customers are accustomed to electronic home appliances due to fam-
ily structure, higher income levels, and technological affiliation. The huge customer
base, increasing demand, emerging markets, acute competition among the brands,
and changing customer behaviour are remarkable; nevertheless customer satisfac-
tion and loyalty are not static, and are somewhat changeable. The lack of extensive
research on satisfaction and loyalty in this context is the motivation for this research.
This study attempted to inspect the role of customer satisfaction and its predic-
tors on brand loyalty and the role of brand trust in these relationships. The study
was conducted in Dhaka, Bangladesh, with 486 respondents. The structured sur-
vey questionnaires were selected using the shopping mall-intercept sampling tech-
nique, where measurements were adapted from the literature. Elementary analyses
were done using SPSS, and hypotheses were tested using PLS-SEM. The findings
reveal that customer satisfaction fully mediates the impacts of the product’s func-
tional quality, customer perceived value, and customer-brand experience on brand
loyalty; and various levels of brand trust signify customer satisfaction and loyalty
relationship. The research framework was supported by the stimulus–organism–
response theory, where product quality, customer value, and experience are success-
ful stimuli, and satisfaction and brand trust are strong organisms. Marketing stimuli
expose loyalty to the brand through the satisfaction and trust organism. The practis-
ing managers might concentrate on satisfaction by developing home appliances to
make them loyal to the brand and build customer trust on that brand to strengthen
this relationship. The findings signify contextual and methodological contribution.
Keywords Customer satisfaction · Brand loyalty · Brand trust · Electronics home

appliances · Bangladesh · Mall intercept sampling · Quality of service · Brand
experience
* Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid

abu.bakar@putrabs.edu.my
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Vol.:(0123456789)
86 Page 2 of 35 SN Bus Econ (2021) 1:86
JEL Classification M31
Introduction
A brand is a valuable intangible asset and a conspicuous differentiator from com-

petitors (Chung et al. 2013). Brand loyalty is a traditional marketing idea for build-
ing and maintaining a long-term customer relationship (Mabkhot et al. 2017) and
is a basis for the continued profitable growth (Razak et al. 2019) but is compli-
cated (Yang et al. 2017). As a strength of a brand, loyalty is achieved over time
amid goodwill and name recognition (Vitez 2021). Due to brand-loyal customers, a
company increases their sales with a greater margin compared to competitive brands
(Yousaf et al. 2012). Thus, brand loyalty has become a pivotal point for practition-
ers, academics, and marketing researchers to show their unimpeded interest (Chino-
mona 2016).
Khamitov et al. (2019) mentioned that brand loyalty is an outcome of many fac-
tors. Firstly, brand loyalty is an aftermath of the customer-business relationship
(Yang et al. 2017). Due to the rapid changing of the marketing environment (Kotler
2017), businesses face a tough challenge to ensure customer value (Shamsudin et al.
2018b) and their satisfaction (Hassan and Shamsudin 2019).
A highly recognisable brand’s success depends on the delivery of a high qual-
ity and high-performance product by retailers to attract and retain loyal customers
(Gürbüz 2008). A loyal customer affects others such as family members, friends,
relatives, and peer groups to purchase the same or similar products from the same
brand (Ghazzawi and Alharbi 2019; Herhausen et al. 2019; Uzir et al. 2020a, 2021)
and contributes to higher sales and business profit (Razak et al. 2019). A loyal cus-
tomer who trusts their favourite brand spends more on a purchase (Shamsudin et al.
2018b). S/he is not concerned by a price increase (Gerpott and Bicak 2016), is even
ready to pay a higher price (Iwashita et al. 2011), and does not switch to competi-
tors’ brands (Aw et al. 2019; Yan et al. 2019).
According to Ahmed et al. (2017), it requires investing less to retain an existing
customer than attracting new customers; losing a customer to a competitive brand
causes reduced sales and profit (Khamis and AbRashid 2018). Therefore, brand
loyalty is the backbone of any firm’s financial success (Rita et al. 2019). Customer
brand loyalty benefits the organisation with life-long profit generation and access to
funds (Hamzah et al. 2016); business growth and expansion (Adams et al. 2019);
provision of higher dividend for shareholders; and with maximisation of share-
holder assets (Lee et al. 2020). This present study focussed on consumer electronic
household appliances (both brown and white goods) and their brand loyalty. These
appliances include televisions (TVs), fridges, fans, air conditioners, geysers, wash-
ing machines, water heaters, coffee makers, pressure cookers, dishwashers, light-
ing bulbs, ovens, micro-ovens, irons, rice cookers and sewing machines. Electronic
items are available everywhere (urban, rural) and both the rich and the poor due to
technological advancement. Every family uses these essential electronic home appli-
ances and household durables for comfort. This increased market contributes to a
SN Bus Econ (2021) 1:86 Page 3 of 35 86
country’s economy significantly and ensures the employment opportunities for mil-
lions of citizens; more importantly, for many women in the country.
Bangladesh is a fast growing country economically and is an attractive place for
direct foreign investment (Ziauddin 2019). Besides, Bangladesh government has
declared this country “digital Bangladesh” (tribunenewsparer.com). Around 170.48
million people live in Bangladesh (Countrymeter 2020), and with this large popula-
tion, rapid economic growth, and technological development there are sources of
adopting and using electronic products for the population’s daily lives. This large
population spends above USD 130.00 billion annually with a growth rate of 6% per
annum. According to a study by BCG (2015), it is assumed that the middle class and
affluent c lass would be around 34 million by 2025.
Multinational companies occupy a significant market share in the South Asian
consumer durable market. Several studies found that in the South Asian market, the
consumer durables market is very competitive; both local and foreign companies
are striving to capture their market share in these countries (Surya and Maala 2018;
Sathya et al. 2019). According to DataBD website (DataBD 2020), consumer elec-
tronics consist of four major categories: televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners,
and other household appliances (including kitchen appliances, washing machines,
and microwaves). This consumer electronics market size is large (USD 1.38 billion
as of 2017), and ever-expanding with the market size growing at a 15% rate per
annum (Industrial Policy 2016). The proportion held by the prominent market cat-
egorises are: televisions—USD 414.22 million (30%); refrigerators—USD 549.11
million (40%); air conditioners—USD 164.57 million; and other home appliances—
USD 251.41 million. The report also showed that the Business Confidence Index
(BCI) of Bangladesh is 32.57 on the scale of − 100 to + 100. It suggests that, on
average, electronics businesses are optimistic regarding their business performance.
It indicates future growth of a business.
A primary research report conducted by Light Castle demonstrated the rise of the
market and forecasted the growth. Based on the year 2020, the growth is estimated
of 29% (TV), 29% (refrigerators), 45% (air conditioners), and 30% (other home
appliances) for the year 2022 (DataBD 2020). Similarly, based on the year 2018,
the growth forecasted is 69%, (TV), 60% (refrigerators), 138% (air conditioners) and
69% (other home appliances) for the same year, 2022 (DataBD 2020). The growth
indicated future usage of electronic home appliances. According to another report,
the current industry forecast is for growth of 15% in customer durable goods like
home electronics. The study intended to measure how the brands (company) manage
the increasing demand and harvest their market share and profit with goodwill. This
vast market, ever-changing consumer behaviour, customer demand and increasing
spending, and extreme competition necessitate customer attachment to the brand.
Customer brand loyalty is not static, with it being somewhat volatile. Murugan and
Krishnan (2006) demonstrated this in their study of customer-brand choice in the
Indian refrigerator market where they discovered that the electronics market is vola-
tile, with the customers tending to switch brands.
Similar to brand choice, customer satisfaction is not stable in the electron-
ics market. Due to the entrance of new brands (specially, Chinese brands) in the
market, the customers deviate from the old brands to new brands. Therefore, it
becomes significant to the marketers to understand the tendency of the customer,

their satisfaction, and loyalty to a brand. Customer satisfaction and loyalty to a
brand increase sales; hence, they are the source of revenue, the basis of successful
business operations and long-term profitability. Not much attention has been paid
by marketing managers, academia or practitioners to this existing gap regard-
ing physical products (electronic home appliances) and customer-brand loyalty.
Therefore, there is a necessity to explore this gap in electronic home appliances.
According to HofstedeInsights (2020), in the Uncertainty Avoidance Index
(UAI) and long-term orientation index (LTOI), Bangladesh is a normative soci-
ety. Bangladeshi society prefers to maintain the time-honoured custom and tradi-
tions with social norms and views social changes with suspicion. As many local
and foreign companies are operating their businesses in this high density country
and the usage of electronic home appliances has increased, they try to retain their
customers and increase the market share by attracting new customers. Brand loy-
alty is prominently a means of maximising revenue and profit.
Brand loyalty is established on customer satisfaction (Oliver 1997) and brand
trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). Brand trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook
2001), value for money (Sureshchandar et al. 2002), customer satisfaction (Olsen
2002), quality of service (Sharif 2016) and brand experiences (Sharif 2016) are
deemed vital determinants of brand loyalty. Services associated with electronic
(physical) products such as delivery services and installation services are essen-
tially significant (Shamsudin et al. 2019). Keshavarz and Jamshidi (2018), Gir-
itlioglu et al. (2014), and Ayo et al. (2016) found that better service satisfies the
customers. The study explained the research framework based on S–O–R theory
where perceived quality (both product and service), perceived value and brand
experience are shown as the stimuli that proceeded to satisfaction or dissatisfac-
tion (as an organism). This satisfaction or dissatisfaction instigates whether a
customer will react positively (purchase and repurchase) or negatively (avoid the
brand).
This current research is significant in that it measures the customer-brand loyalty
to electronic home appliances which might support the stimulus organism response
theory and its assumption in physical products. Data collected from individual users
and buyers of electronic appliances represent a large population in Bangladesh and
other developing countries. The finding adds value to marketing managers’ planning
and strategies for further decision-making and to academia’s knowledge domain.
This paper continues with the literature review, hypotheses development and
research framework. Later, methodology and data analysis are presented, followed
by a discussion. The study concludes with recommendations and implications of the
study.
Literature review
This section reviews the literature on constructs and developing the conceptual
framework of the study.
Brand loyalty
Oliver (1999) defines brand loyalty as “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or re-
patronise a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing
repetitive same brand or same-brand set purchasing, despite situational influences
and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour”. Firstly,
the authors brought the definition of brand into the discussion to have a better
understanding of brand loyalty. In 1960, American Marketing Association (AMA)
defined a brand as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them,
intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and dif-
ferentiate them from those of competitors”.
Brown (1953) defines brand loyalty as the frequency of a repeat purchase. Cun-
ningham (1956) mentioned three mathematical aspects of brand loyalty: net custom-
ers lost and gained; net number of individual purchases; and market share. Olson
and Jacoby (1971) perceived brand loyalty as a statistical view and a mathematical
view (percentage and number of purchase) in similar or a bit more advanced tone.
Day (1969) considered brand loyalty from a behavioural point of view, which is
identical to that of Sheth and Park (1974). They explained as positively biased emo-
tive, evaluative and/or behavioural response tendency towards a brand.
Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) expressed brand loyalty as “the overt act of selective
repeat purchasing based on evaluative psychological decision processes”; and Ros-
siter and Percy (1987) presented brand loyalty as “repeated purchases of the same
brand over time and a favourable attitude towards a brand”. Aaker opined firstly that
brand loyalty was “the attachment that a customer has to a brand” (1991); and sec-
ondly that it was “a critical dimension of a brand” (1992).
Wilkie (1994) believed there were two aspects of a brand, namely psychological
(a favourable attitude toward a brand) and behavioural (consistent purchase of the
brand). Mellens et al. (1996) assumed brand loyalty as “stated preferences, com-
mitment or buying intentions of the customers”. Kotler and Keller (2009) defined
loyalty as “the commitment to re-patronise or repurchase a preferred product or ser-
vice”. Supporting this definition, Uddin (2013) explained that if a customer buys
products from the same brand systematically, it is said this individual has loyalty
to that brand. His research in Bangladesh on electronic home appliances found that
due to acute competition in the electronics home appliances market, firms shift from
product concept, production concept or selling concept to marketing concept or the
relationship concept. Those firms establish marketing philosophy to tap into the
customers and strengthen the customer relationship. In this alignment, Eshghi et al.
(2007) mentioned that marketing philosophy is based on creating customer value,
satisfaction and loyalty. They added that loyalty is expressed through an attitude to
repurchase from the same brands. Fournier et al. (1998) mentioned that a collec-
tive approach of brand loyalty would help them to understand as it is “an integral
component of customer-brand relationships”. Moreover, Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001) gave a technical explanation of brand loyalty as “a degree of dispositional
commitment considering unique value related to the brand”. Interestingly, Yoo and
Donth (2001) defined brand loyalty from a different angel such as “the tendency
to be loyal to a focal brand, which is demonstrated by the intention to purchase the
brand as a primary choice”; and Lam et al. (2010) stated that brand loyalty is “a
deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronise a preferred product/service consist-
ently”. Compared to recent years, Kabiraj and Shanmugan (2011) defined brand loy-
alty as “a conscious or unconscious decision, expressed through intention or behav-
iour, to repurchase a brand continually”.
According to Rajput et al. (2012), a brand builds a psychological image in con-
sumers’ minds that leads a potential buyer to an actual buyer or control consumer
behaviour to build a relationship between company and user (customers). Therefore,
a brand is a relationship where the consumers express their consuming feelings on
a particular product or service. The study on brand loyalty evolved over the period
with the touch of various scholars, practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.
Customer satisfaction
The important role of customers in any business organization is admitted all over the
World. Accepting this role, the famous retailer Marshal mentioned that “Customer
is king”. Every business organisation has the primary objective to create a utility to
satisfy its existing customers and draw new and potential customers (Murali et al.
2016). Therefore, customer satisfaction is a critical concept in cutting-edge market-
ing ideas and practise. This modern marketing thought accentuates offering satis-
faction and contentment to their consumers and users for increasing profitability in
return. Therefore, customer satisfaction has become a priority to the management to
meet consumers’ requirements (Yi and Nataraajan 2018). Thus, customer satisfac-
tion is a strategic imperative for all competitive businesses to survive in the market
(Yi and Nataraajan 2018).From the concept, customer satisfaction is an aspect of
customers’ psychological attitude or mood, and a firm necessarily focuses on this
emotional state (O’Dwyer and Gilmore 2018; Feng et al. 2019). Shamsudin et al.
(2018a) defined the causal definition of satisfaction as a trade-off between before
and after consumption or usage of a product. Historically, Cardozo (1965) pioneered
the measures of satisfaction. He showed that product quality, overall purchase expe-
riences, and expectations influence customer satisfaction (Ehsani and Ehsani 2015).
Satisfaction also refers to the “perceived discrepancy between prior expectation and
perceived performance after consumption—when performance differs from expecta-
tion, dissatisfaction occurs” (Oliver 1980).
Product quality
Product is a physical object or intangible service, which satisfies an individual’s

need (Kotler and Armstrong 2018). A product belongs to (is an element of) a com-
pany’s brand; and the company utilises a logo or a symbol to identify its own brand
(Bresciani and Del Ponte 2017). Kotler (2012) mentioned that “a brand implies a
relationship between a product and a customer. It connotes the quality and associ-
ated services of a product that a customer expects from a company”. This product’s
attributes and characteristics and its associated services explain product quality.
Aaker and Jacobson (1994) defined product quality as “the customer’s perception
of the overall quality or superiority of the product or service concerning its intended
purpose, relative to alternatives”. In short, product quality is regarded as “fitness for
use” or “conformance to requirement” (Russell and Taylor 2006). Furthermore, the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines product quality “as the
ability to satisfy the customer and market” (Lakhal and Pasin 2008). Brunsø et al.
(2005) suggested the critical view of product definition from two different stand
points: objective quality and perceived quality. Shamsudin et al. (2019) defines
objective quality of a product as customers’ perception of how well a company’s
products meet expectations. According to Aaker (1991), perceived quality is “a
result of consumers’ subjective judgement on a product” (Aaker 1991). However,
this research emphasises a combined aspect of product quality—objective quality
and perceived quality.
Electronic home appliances are a high technology-based product. Customers or
users consider advanced product capability and its significance critically in the top-
notch technology market (Al-Kwifi et al. 2020).
Quality of service
Lewis and Booms (1983) opined that “quality of service is a measure of how well
the service level delivered matches customer expectations”. Delivering quality ser-
vice means conforming to customer expectations consistently (Tsoukatos and Mas-
trojianni 2010).
The increasing usage of electronic home appliances has deeply affected the after-
sales service market. After-sale service drew the attention of both researchers and
marketing managers. A company can maintain a long-term customer relationship
by confirming an effective after-sales service (Shaharudin et al. 2010). O’Dwyer
and Gilmore (2018) and Gligor et al. (2019) mentioned that service is the intangi-
ble value offered to customers. This study used the quality of service to mean the
service that a company provides during the purchasing and installation of a prod-
uct (electronic items) and after-sale service (delivery service, installation service,
and repair service). As electronic items need some assistance to be associated with
functioning and maintenance (Bei and Chiao 2006), this study denotes the quality of
service as service for functioning and maintaining physical products such as instal-
lation, repairing, and after-sale service (Uzir et al. 2020a).
After-sales service is a term that is widely used during the sale of an elec-
tronic item. To customers, after-sale service means “field service” (Simmons
2001) or “technical support” (Agnihothri et al. 2002) or “product support activi-
ties” (Lele and Karmarkar (1983) or “customer support” or “operative activities”
for physical (Gaiardelli et al. 2007). Rigopoulou et al. (2008) illustrated these
services as being “the transport/delivery to clients, the installation, the product-
related training, the hotline and advice by the help desk, any repairing service
and even the recycling process”. Corresponding to the view of Rigopoulou et al.
(2008) regarding the quality of service related to physical electronic products, the
study has focussed on two aspects: delivery service quality and installation ser-
vice quality. These aspects are also relevant to home appliances; thus, the study
adapted delivery service and installation service. The delivery service means
activities involved in delivering the appliances to the client’s house. It includes
packing quality, documentation of purchase (receipt, warranty card, prospectus,
etc.), kindness, reliability, and the expertise of the delivery personnel. It is an
assessment of how well a delivery service conforms to the client’s expectations
from the showroom to the customers’ house. For electronic home appliances,
delivery service quality is gauged by how smoothly and efficiently the products
reach their destination.
Similarly, installation service means the accuracy, appropriateness, and timeli-
ness of proper installation of appliances. Some expensive appliances need proper
installation and maintenance to avoid damage. Customers expect some usage
guidelines from the technician, and expect them to demonstrate how the appli-
ance is to be used. These guidelines, inclusive of usage and caution and alert-
ness, are crucial for the users and are the service benchmark. With proper instruc-
tions and guidelines, technicians can satisfy and uphold the image of the brand.
For usability and operations, it is gauged on how smoothly these products are
installed, and how well customers are shown the usage directions.
Customer perceived value
Woodruff and Gardial (1996) stated that perceived value is “what a customer desires
from product and service”. Holbrook (1994, 1999) defined customer perceived value
as “an interactive realistic preference experience”. Similarly, Liljander and Strand-
vik (1993) illustrated that perceived value is “the ratio of perceived benefit and per-
ceived price”. In the same way, many scholars put their efforts into defining and
conceptualising perceived value. Oliver (1999) added a new aspect to determine
perceived value. His classic definition stated that “value is the positive function
of what is received (benefit or service) and negative function of what is sacrificed
(money)”. Other scholars such as Chen and Dubinsky (2003) opined that “perceived
value is a customer’s perception of the net benefits gained in the exchanged for the
cost incurred in obtaining the desired benefits”. Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-
Bonillo (2006) found that there were four types of perceived value namely “value
is a low price” (Oliva 2000); “value whatever a customer wants in a product” (Hunt
and Morgan 1995); “value as the quality the customer gets for the price s/he pays”
(Fornell et al. 1996); and "value what the customer gets for what s/he gives” (Oli-
ver 1999; Holbrook and Corfman 1985; Holbrook 1994, 1999; Chen and Dubinsky
2003). Vandermerwe (2003) presented a realistic view of perceived value as a ratio
of the value a customer receives consuming a product, and the value s/he expects
before consuming it. Perceived value is the state of fulfilment of what they expect
from a product or service and what they actually gain (Carroll et al. 2002). This is a
familiar construct in the field of service marketing. Moorthy et al. (2018), Keshavarz
and Jamshidi (2018) and Thielemann et al. (2018) recently used perceived value in
their researches. Some scholars find customer perceived value as a stable factor to
forecast a customer’s buying behaviour (Carroll et al. 2002).
Customer brand experience
Brand experience is gradually becoming a focus among marketing researchers (Qua-

ratino and Mazzei 2018). The construct “customer-brand experience” first came to
light with Pine and Gilmore (2000) and Brakus et al. (2009). They defined brand
experience as “subjective, internal consumer responses (sensation, feelings, and
cognitions, and behavioural responses), evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part
of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments” (p.
53). They explained the spectrum of brand experience in its “strength and inten-
sity”, “positive or negative”, or “short-lived or long-term relationship” on consumer
behaviour. Customer brand experience is a vital and significant construct and is
separated from other brand constructs such as brand image, brand attitude, brand
attachment, etc. (Brakus et al. 2009; Schmitt et al. 2014; Thompson et al. 2006).
Brakus et al. (2009) proposed the brand experiences of four types: sensory, affec-
tive, intelligent and behavioural. Similarly, Schmitt and Rogers (2008) proposed
another five different types of brand experience: sense, feel, think, act and relate.
Brand experience is a concept or construct with an emotional relationship and is a
factor of feelings, cognitions, sensations, and behavioural responses stimulated by
brand. Like developed brands such as Apple’s iPhone, Body Shop, Harley-David-
son, Disney theme parks, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba, among others, companies
produce and design their products to be more attractive, which ensures a memorable
experience for customers (Schmitt and Rogers 2008). Huang (2017) specified that,
as a marketing strategy, the company focuses on customer acquisition more than on
customer experience over functional benefit.
Brand trust
In a complex social structure or an organisational issue, one individual needs to have

faith in others’ effectiveness, efficiency, and willingness (Rotter 1967). Trust is all
about an exchange of partner’s reliability and integrity for mutual benefits (Mor-
gan and Hunt 1994). In brief, trust is an expectancy that an individual can rely on
a word, promise, or a statement (verbal or written) of another individual (Rotter
1967). At first, brand trust was defined as “the confidence that one will find what
is desired from another, rather than what is feared” (Deutsch 1973). According to
Erikson (1953), “trust is the central ingredient in the healthy personality”. From an
individual level to group, family, society, organisation, or government level, trust
is essential, and the essence of strong relationships (Redl and Wineman 1951).
Other scholars, Delgado-Ballester et al. (2003), defined brand trust as “the confi-
dent expectations of the brand’s reliability”. In business, trust is a contemporary and
logical construct in relationships (Kundu and Datta 2015). Hunt and Morgan (1996)
further added that brand trust and commitment as intangible assets are imitable, and
are difficult to be transacted and replicated. Hanaysha and Abdullah (2015) cited
Hunt and Morgan (1996) belief that brand trust is a unique asset that is earned with
collective effort and hardship to attain sustainable competitive advantage (Hanaysha
and Abdullah 2015).
Trust has received much attention from scholars in several disciplines such as
psychology (Rempel et al. 2001), sociology (e.g., Lewis and Weigert 1985), and
economics (e.g., Gambetta 1988); and in more applied areas like management (e.g.,
Barney and Hansen 1994) and marketing (e.g., Dwyer et al. 1987; Morgan and Hunt
1994). However, in more applied areas such as management and marketing (e.g.,
Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Alemán 2001) trust is considered a bridge
between buyer and seller. According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust is the key
construct in a brand for developing a long-term relationship with customers.
Stimulus–organism–response (S–O–R) model
The S–O–R model describes the relationships among the stimulus, organism, and
response. The model is useful in explaining human behavioural tendencies like
why some people get anxious when asked to speak in front of a large audience. In
contrast, some others feel excited about the same. This study’s theoretical founda-
tion is grounded based on the application of the S–O–R paradigm by Mehrabian
and Russell (1974). However, the stimulus–organism–response framework was
originally rooted in environmental psychology (Manthiou et al. 2017) and extended
from Stimulus–Response (S–R) theory in behaviourism (Moore 1996). The original
model of behaviourism study discovered that the learning process occurred through
the combination of stimulus and response of animals’ simultaneous reaction. From
S–R perspective, such resulting behaviour can arise as provoked by certain stimuli
without an intervention (thinking and feeling, for instance) (Schreuder et al. 2016).
Based on this ideology, consumers may respond differently to the given cues based
upon their internal primary emotional reaction. Chen and Yao (2018) stated that the
S–O–R Model envisages customer reactions to marketing cues. Thus, researchers
and marketing managers explain the complex reactions and choice of marketing
cues to understand customers better. In this study, perceived quality (both product
and service), perceived value and brand experience are the stimuli that propel sat-
isfaction or dissatisfaction (as an organism). This state of satisfaction or dissatisfac-
tion leads to the final reaction (positive or negative) as a response. Customer’s posi-
tive approach or negative prevention as a response to the stimuli show final reaction,
i.e., either loyal to the brand or avoidance of the brand.
Hypothesis development
The direct effect of product quality on customer satisfaction
In marketing, satisfaction is customers’ feelings, either pleasure or disappointment is

stemmed from product performance or/and their expectation (Nayebpour and Bokaei
2019). The well-established relationship is supported by many authors and research-
ers (Russell and Taylor 2006). Product improvement, quality development, and
research and development are continuous activities. Jakpar et al. (2012) researched
the relationship between product and quality and found a significant association
between a customer’s product quality and satisfaction. Similarly, Gök et al. (2019)
and Hamzah and Shamsudin (2020) found a significant relationship between prod-
uct quality and customer satisfaction among mobile users. Uzir et al. (2020a, 2021)
conducted their different studies on electronic home appliances and unearthed that
functional quality and its performance satisfy the customers in populated and devel-
oping countries. These findings contribute to formulating the following hypothesis:
H1: Product quality has a significant and positive effect on customer satisfaction.
The direct effect of quality of service on customer satisfaction
Ayo et al. (2016) illustrated that satisfaction is an outcome of perceived quality.

They further added that quality of service is positively and significantly related to
satisfaction. Mmutle (2017) placed emphasis on quality of service. With similar
views, Ishizaka et al. (2019) explained satisfaction that it is evaluated by the degree
to which customers meet their expectation with the service they received (Ishizaka
et al. 2019). Electronics products hold some risks or complexity. Therefore, Cronin
et al. (2000) and McDougall and Levesque (2000) mentioned that customers are sat-
isfied with safe and good products. Chinomona et al. (2013) researched the retail
sector, and along with Bapat (2017), discovered that service and satisfaction are
significantly associated. The remarkable studies proved the significant relationship
between quality of service and consumer satisfaction (Ehsani and Ehsani 2015). The
study adopted the delivery service and installation service associated with electronic
home appliances. Quick and timely delivery of appliances without any damage or
peril satisfies the customers. Similarly, an efficient technician can easily conquer the
mind of customers by the proper and safe installation of the appliance. These per-
sonnel’s good behaviour, proper usage instruction, guidance, and response to tel-
ephone enquires makes a difference when compared to other companies. Another
study on the service quality of restaurant business in Nigeria showed service qual-
ity confirms fast food liking among customers (Uzir et al. 2020b). Similarly, their
results contributed to this significant relationship (Kant and Jaiswal 2017; Oh and
Kim 2017; Keshavarz and Jamshidi 2018). Therefore, the second hypothesis was
formulated as follows:
H2. Quality of service has a significant and positive effect on customer
satisfaction.
The direct effect of customer perceived value on customer satisfaction
Chen (2010) and Chen and Chen (2010) signify customer value by mentioning that
the higher customer value maximises customer satisfaction (Chen 2010; Chen and
Chen 2010). Customer satisfaction has been empirically proven in many studies
(Uddin and Akhter 2012) and is influenced by perceived value. In his research on
electronic home appliances in Bangladesh, he found that customer perceived value
of electronic appliances signifies household users’ satisfaction. Very recently, Uzir
et al. (2020a, 2021) had similar findings of perceived value on satisfaction in the
home appliances market. In mobile phone users, Fazal and Kanwal (2017) claimed
that customer value impacts customer satisfaction. Ayo et al. (2016) supported this
significant relationship. Therefore, the study formed the following hypothesis:
H3. Customer perceived value has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
The direct effect of brand experience on both satisfaction and brand trust
A customer with a positive brand experience tends to have a positive emotional and
mental contentment with this brand (Yu and Yuan 2019). Davras and Caber (2019)
and Hirata (2019) opined that a customer with a positive experience would be sat-
isfied. Similarly, Gligor et al. (2019) stated that brand experience affects customer
happiness. If a customer obtains value from the brand experience, s/he will obtain
satisfaction (Meyer and Schwager 2007). There is a highly positive correlation
between experience and satisfaction. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) discovered a
positive relationship between perceived brand value and brand trust. Conversely, Yu
and Yuan (2019) and Razak and Shamsudin (2019) expressed a similar opinion that
the higher positive experience from these repetitive purchases instigates the custom-
ers’ tendency to trust the brand more. Therefore, we can posit that:
H4: Customer brand experience has a significant and positive effect on customer
satisfaction.
The direct effect of customer satisfaction on brand loyalty
Customer satisfaction is a significant predictor of brand loyalty. Therefore, satisfac-

tion has an impact on loyalty (Fernandes and Moreira 2019). Past studies found that
customer satisfaction is significantly related to customer satisfaction (Chen 2008;
Tsai et al. 2007) and leads to repurchase and increased profitability (Nayebpour and
Bokaei 2019) because satisfied customers tend to patronise the brand continuously.
In the physical product apart from intangible service, Ledikwe et al. (2019) reaf-
firmed that the tangible product’s satisfaction and brand loyalty are highly related.
Mantey and Naidoo (2017) contributed to the body of knowledge that customer
satisfaction leads to brand repurchase and, eventually, brand loyalty. Similarly, the
findings of other authors Bakar et al. (2017) and Makanyeza and Chikazhe (2017)
confirmed the consistent result regarding this significant relationship. As loyalty is
measured by customer satisfaction (Shuv-Ami 2016) the study proposed the follow-
ing hypothesis:
H5: Customer satisfaction has a significant and positive effect on brand loyalty.
Customer satisfaction as a mediator
Pourdehghan (2015) researched physical products for mobile phones in Iran, pre-
senting a conceptual framework in which brand loyalty and precursors were tested.
Among others, product quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction, and cus-
tomer satisfaction is a predictor of brand loyalty. Customer satisfaction and product
quality were strongly associated, and in the same way customer satisfaction had a
significant effect on brand loyalty. Satisfaction also found a successful mediator in
the study of Chinomona (2013). He showed that satisfaction was in the relationship
of quality of service and brand performance and brand loyalty in the retail indus-
try. He discovered that the satisfaction of retail customers strengthened this quality
of service and brand trust relationship. Chinomona et al. (2013) worked on another
study in South Africa on brand experience, satisfaction, and brand attachment in a
single framework. Brand experience is the predictor of satisfaction, and similarly,
satisfaction is an antecedent of brand attachment.
In the context of this current research, the attitudes might be emanating from a
positive evaluation of product quality, quality of service, perceived value and cus-
tomer experience, which in turn leads to satisfaction and trust (Chinomona et al.
2013). Marketing practitioners realised the importance of how customers experience
a brand because their experience is a critical issue to design a marketing plan for
physical products and intangible services (Chattopadhyay and Laborie 2005). Sahin
et al. (2011) mentioned that customer’s prior experience with a particular brand has
a significant effect on brand selection for future purchases. From the first purchase,
a customer forms an attitude toward the brand. This initial evaluation of a brand
is the pre-evaluation of repurchases. Supporting the assessment, Erciş et al. (2012)
mentioned that brand loyalty is formed through a customer’s experience of repeat-
edly purchasing a product of a specified brand over a period (Erciş et al. 2012). In
the past Voss et al. (2010) and Beerli et al. (2004) had suggested that satisfaction is a
key predictor of brand loyalty.
Electronic home appliance companies use several stimuli to draw customers or
assess customer understanding of products. Better quality appliances in terms of
their functionality, performance, size, shape, colour, risk-free, and environment-
friendly is the most considered issue for the customers and users. They invest money
to buy such appliances, especially TV, fridges, washing machines, air conditioners,
lighting bulbs, ovens, and kitchenware, for long time use. The customers always
compare the performance and service (benefits) with their spending (cost). This ratio
between cost and benefit is a potent stimulus for their satisfaction and next purchase.
Similarly, the customer’s usage experience builds either a positive or negative
attitude or impression regarding the brand or company. Positive attitude strengthens
the customer attachment to the brand; and acts as a motivator of repurchase. These
factors play the role of external stimuli for the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the
customers. As customer satisfaction is a psychological attachment or contentment
of customers derived the perceived quality, value, and experience, this attachment
functions in the customers’ internal mind-set. The outcome of the inner excitement
or contentment is expressed as a reaction or response. Satisfaction comes with a
positive response in the form of intention to repurchase of an electronic home appli-
ance. It is recommended that others buy from a particular brand, and a response may
be a behavioural aspect to rebuy and be loyal. Based on extant literature review, the
study postulated the following hypothesis:
H6: Customer satisfaction mediates the relationship of product quality, quality of
service, perceived value, and brand experience with brand loyalty.
Brand trust as a moderator
Customer may have faith (trust) in either company or products. Customer–brand

relationship results in satisfaction and loyalty. Customers do not buy products
unless they have trust in either the products or the company. Trust is defined as
“the belief of the parties (consumer, organisation, product) in a transaction and
the risks associated with assuming and acting on such beliefs” (Lau and Lee
1999). Hanaysha and Abdullah (2015) emphasised the high expectations and
possibility that customers expect a brand to generate favourable outcomes. Trust
is used as a moderator in various disciplines such as human resource manage-
ment (Innocenti et al. 2011; Jiang and Probst 2019) and social science (Moon
et al. 2017), among others. In marketing, trust or corporate trust or brand trust
has likewise been used. Trust is built on the amassment of social and institutional
relationship, which acts as a lubricant in social friction and cooperation (Putnam
2000; Adler and Kwon 2002). If a person has reliability or faith at a higher level,
they will undertake more responsibly and vice versa (Moon et al. 2017).
Lau and Lee (1999) mentioned that trust is the confidence that dispels the risk
associated with the brand from the customer’s minds. Erdem and Swait (2004)
opined that for trust and trustworthiness between parties, there is a good and
mutual understanding of motives and that predictability must exist. Mayers et al.
(1995) offered a guideline on building customer trust of a brand. Therefore, brand
trust ensures a symbol of the security that motivates customers to have confi-
dence in the brand. Newell and Goldsmith (2001) emphasised that brand trust
creates credibility to purchase and further repurchase indicating brand loyalty. As
a customer spends money to buy an appliance, s/he might rely on the product or
brand to meet the physical requirement and mental ease. To maintain and build
this trust, the company needs to look after the customers’ requirement by provid-
ing a quality product and rendering satisfactory service. Having such confidence
motivates the customer to be loyal to the brand and act as re-purchaser and re-
users of those products. Therefore, the level of faith a customer possesses will
indicate the likelihood of loyalty the customers will show in a future relationship
(purchase relationship). Therefore, the study proposed the following hypothesis:
H7:The positive relationship between satisfaction and loyalty will be stronger
for those with high brand trust compared to those with low brand trust.
After an extensive literature review, the study reached a proposed framework
to be investigated empirically (Fig. 1). This model stood on two levels: (a) inde-
pendent variables—product quality, quality of service, customer perceived value,
and customer-brand experience where customer satisfaction is the dependent var-
iable; and (b) customer satisfaction as the independent variable and brand loy-
alty as the final dependent variable. The model contributing to the moderating
effect of brand trust explained the various levels of brand trust and its interact-
ing effect on the CS and BL relationship. This conceptual model was buttressed
with the stimulus–organism–response theory to be validated through a theoretical
perspective.
Fig. 1 Research framework
Research methodology
Population and sampling technique
The population of the study was from Bangladesh, who purchased and was using
electronic home appliances. This study interviewed individual household members
living in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh. For this study, 486 respondents par-
ticipated with accurate and complete questionnaires. Data was collected from a total
of 40 shopping malls, electronics showrooms, stadium markets, best buy centres,
company’s outlets, or other display centres located in 12 major areas in Dhaka. The
respondents were selected by convenience sampling (Saunders et al. 2016) using
the mall-intercept technique (Bush and Hair 1985; Bruwer et al. 1996) for market-
ing customer data. A shopping mall intercept is an inexpensive technique to gather
individual, personal, accurate, and high-quality data (Fam et al. 2019). The research
asked every alternative person coming to visit showrooms or centres to partake in
the survey. Refusal by the potential respondent led to the next possible respondent.
A potential respondent who agreed to participate in this survey was provided a ques-
tionnaire to interpret the study’s objective and were assured of confidentiality per-
taining to their identity and the data collected. Each afternoon for a period of seven
days various centres were visited for data collection. Maximum respondents were
available on Friday and Saturday (weekend). The interviews were conducted from
mid-afternoon until 7 p.m.
Among them, 67% were male, and 33% were female, which indicated males were
dominant in purchase-decisions in Bangladesh. In the age category, most of them are
from the age of 25–35 years (65%), which mirrors the young Bangladesh population.
Moreover, 30% of respondents had college education (12 years of schooling), and
29% obtained a graduation degree. In the occupation category, 34% were homemak-
ers; and one third (33%) were serving private organisations. Regarding individual
monthly income, 36% of respondents earned BDT 20,000.00 and below, and 31%
earned an amount in between BDT 20,001.00 to BDT 40,000.00 per month. This
data revealed that around two-thirds of the respondents earned up to BDT 40,000.00
{equivalent USD482.00 only}.
In total 97% of respondents had a television at their home, followed by light/
bulbs (90%); fan (89%); rice cooker (80%); pressure cooker (77%); iron (77%); and
fridge (75%). These various electronic home appliances were of either local brands
(82.79%) or foreign brands (85.47%). They preferred foreign brands to purchase and
use. The study also found that these appliances were from various brands (compa-
nies); among those brands, RFL/Vision, Sony, LG, Samsung, Walton, Panasonic,
Philips/Transcom, Sharp, Minister, and Toshiba are in the top ten. Among the top
ten, three brands are local, and seven brands are foreign. It indicated that 70% of
respondents were using foreign brands, and only 30% of respondents are using local
brands.
Measurement and instrument
The study adopted a self-administered questionnaire with 35 items among seven var-
iables (product quality: 4; quality of service: (a) delivery service: 3, (b) installation
service: 4; customer perceived value: 4, customer-brand experience: 4, customer sat-
isfaction: 5; brand loyalty: 6; and brand trust: 5). Quality of service is second order
with delivery service and installation service. The variables were adopted from the
literature- brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Dwivedi 2015); customer
satisfaction (Dwivedi 2015; Sekaran and Bougie 2009; Walls 2013); product qual-
ity (Parasuraman and Grewal 2000); quality of service (Rigopoulou et al. 2008);
perceived value (Walls 2013); customer-brand experience (Brakus et al. 2009); and
brand trust (Veloutsou 2015). Five-point Likert scale was used to measure all the
items, where ‘1’ represented as ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘5’ specified ‘strongly agree’
with the suggestion of Hair et al. (2017b) and Ramayah et al. (2018). Some other
authors likewise used a 5-point Likert scale in their studies (Hassan et al. 2020; Al
Halbusi et al. 2020). The questionnaire had three sections: (a) specific questions
(Likert-scale items); (b) demographic questions, and c. electronic home appliances
and brand-related questions.
Common method bias (CMB) test
Common method bias exists if the principal constructs are significantly and highly
correlated (r > 0.90) (Nitzl (2016). This study found the correlation among all the
constructs to be less than 0.90. Another way to test the CMB is by the occurrence
of a VIF greater than 3.30, which is proposed as an indication of pathological col-
linearity and an indication that common method biases may contaminate the model.
In this study, the highest VIF is 3.249, which is less than the threshold value of 3.30
(Kock 2015; Adedeji et al. 2020). Therefore, this study is free from common method
biases.
Result
This study applied SmartPLS version 3.2.0 to analyse the data. As suggested by Hair
et al. (2017a), the study used a PLS-SEM two-step procedure. Step one includes a
measurement model or outer model before structural relationships (Henseler 2017);
and in the second step the structural (inner) model is used for assessment of relation-
ships (hypotheses) between constructs (Ramayah et al. 2018; Hair et al. 2020).
Measurement model
The measurement model is formed to assess the reliability and validity of indica-
tors and constructs (Hair et al. 2017a) through convergent validity and discriminant
validity. Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) assure internal con-
sistency of items, and average variance extracted (AVE) confirms convergent valid-
ity (Hair et al. 2017a). Fornell-Larcker criterion, cross-loadings, and especially the
HTMT ratio of correlations can be used in discriminant validity. Ramayah et al.
(2018) proposed guidelines for assessing validity of measurement model: internal
consistency via composite reliability (CR) > 0.7; indicator reliability via indicator
loadings > 0.7 and significant at least at the 0.05 level; convergent validity via AVE
> 0.50; discriminant validity via cross loading; Fornell and Larcker correlation and
Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) as proposed by Henseler et al. (2015). HTML
threshold value is 0.85 (Kline 2011) or 0.90 (Teo et al. 2008) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Measurement model

Table 1 Construct reliability and validity

Constructs Cronbach’s Composite reli- Average variance VIF
alpha (CA) ability (CR) extracted (AVE)
Cust Sat Brand loyal
Brand Loyalty 0.916 0.937 0.750

Brand Trust 0.912 0.938 0.792 1.561
Cust Brand Exp 0.857 0.913 0.777 1.303 1.352
Cust Per Value 0.912 0.938 0.790 1.625 1.686
Cust Sat 0.936 0.959 0.887 1.738
Quality Service 0.865 0.899 0.598 1.480
{Delivery SQ} {0.829} {0.898} {0.745} {1.436}
{Install. SQ} {0.873} {0.922} {0.798} {1.436}
Product quality 0.907 0.941 0.843 1.860
Table 2 Discriminant validity via Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Brand loyalty
2. Brand trust 0.693
3. Cust brand Exp 0.273 0.368
4. Cust per value 0.338 0.387 0.414
5. Cust sat 0.785 0.618 0.359 0.408
6. Product quality 0.386 0.368 0.482 0.618 0.515
7. Quality service 0.246 0.257 0.443 0.546 0.251 0.539
Tables 1 and 2 showed that Cronbach’s alpha values, composite reliability val-
ues, AVE, cross loading, Fornell and Larcker ratio and HTMT criterion meet the
required condition (Ramayah et al. 2018). Therefore, convergent and discriminant
validity approved the measurement model; and there was no objection about multi-
collinearity issues (VIF < 3.33).
Structural model
A structural model is evaluated for the hypothesis test once the measurement model
is established with validity and reliability (Urbach and Ahlemann 2010). Hair et al.
(2017a) affirmed the PLS structural model in critical criteria: the significance of
path coefficients, coefficient determination (R2), effect size (f2) and predictive rel-
evance (Q2). In this structural model, R2 for brand loyalty was 0.607 (moderate), and
customer satisfaction was 0.262 (weak) (Henseler et al. 2009) (Fig. 3).
Table 3 showed the path coefficient, t-value, and p value of this study result.
The relationships of product quality, customer perceived value, and customer-
brand experience with customer satisfaction were significant. Moreover, the
Fig. 3 Structural model
Table 3 Path coefficients and hypothesis testing

Paths Beta St error T value p value BC-CI Decision Q2 Effect size
Lower Upper
PQ → CS 0.359 0.081 4.414 0.000** 0.204 0.501 S 0.104

(Weak)
QS → CS − 0.082 0.074 1.121 0.263 − 0.212 0.075 NS 0.006 (NE)
CPV → CS 0.167 0.081 2.060 0.040* 0.004 0.320 S 0.226 0.022
(CS) (Weak)
CBEx → CS 0.147 0.067 2.197 0.028* 0.000 0.275 S 0.021
(Weak)
CS → BL 0.517 0.061 8.416 0.000** 0.394 0.636 S 0.448 0.463
(BL) (Strong)
BT → BL 0.257 0.051 5.007 0.000** 0.160 0.347 S 0.175
(Weak)
BT*CS → BL − 0.076 0.035 2.157 0.031* − 0.143 − 0.007 S
S support, NS non-support
**p < 0.01
*p < 0.05
relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty was also significant.
Thus, hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 5 were supported. The relationship between quality
of service and customer satisfaction was insignificant; accordingly, hypothesis 2
was not supported.
Mediation effect of customer satisfaction
In the analysis of mediating customer satisfaction, this study used the bootstrapping
method. This method ascertained the mediating effect (indirect) of customer satis-
faction in the relationship of independent variables (product quality and quality of
service, customer perceived value, and brand experience) and the dependent vari-
able (brand loyalty). Preacher and Hayes (2008) initially suggested this bootstrap-
ping technique as a tool for investigating the indirect effects of different variables. It
is also relevant in obtaining accurate results while calculating the confidence inter-
vals (CIs) of indirect relationships, as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). In this
study, 5000 subsamples bootstrapping in bias-corrected confidence interval (BC-CI)
at 95% provided the following results (Table 3) as bootstrapping is a powerful tool
to test indirect effect (Hayes 2009; Williams and MacKinnon 2008). From Table 3,
it was found that customer satisfaction has a mediating effect between product qual-
ity (Beta = 0.185, p value = 0.000, lower band = 0.098 and upper band = 0.286), cus-
tomer perceived value (Beta = 0.086, p value = 0.045, lower band = 0.009 and upper
band = 0.181) and customer-brand experience (Beta = 0.076, p value = 0.029, lower
band = 0.006 and upper band = 0.141) with brand loyalty. Hence, customer satisfac-
tion has a full mediating effect on relationships. Since product quality, quality of
service, customer perceived value, and brand trust have no direct relationships with
brand loyalty, they have an indirect effect on brand loyalty in the presence of cus-
tomer satisfaction (Table 4).
Moderation of brand trust
The product-indicator approach using PLS-SEM was applied in this current study to
detect and measure the interacting (moderating) effect of brand trust (Beta = − 0.076,
p value = 0.031) on the relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loy-
alty (Henseler and Chin 2010). This relationship was found statistically significant.
Brand trust strengthened the positive relationship between customer satisfaction and
brand loyalty, which is presented in Fig. 4 for better understanding.
The present research evaluated predictive relevance technique as recommended
by Hair et al. (2010). The cross-validated redundancy for the endogenous vari-
ables—brand loyalty and customer satisfaction—was 0.449 and 0.229, respectively,
which are larger than zero (Fornell and Cha 1994).
Table 4 Mediation of customer loyalty

Paths Beta T value p values 95% BC-CI Total Mediation
Lower band Upper band
PQ → CS → BL 0.185 3.762 0.000 0.098 0.286 0.185 Full

QS → CS → BL − 0.043 1.134 0.258 − 0.112 0.038 − 0.043 NS
CPV → CS → BL 0.086 2.007 0.045 0.009 0.181 0.086 Full
CBEx → CS → BL 0.076 2.196 0.029 0.006 0.141 0.076 Full
Fig. 4 Moderating effect of 5

brand trust on CS and BL 4.5
4
3.5 Moderator
BL
3
Low BT
2.5
2 High BT
1.5
1
Low CS High CS
Discussion
The current study examined product quality, quality of service, customer per-
ceived value, customer-brand experience on customer satisfaction, and onward cus-
tomer satisfaction on brand loyalty of electronic home appliances in Bangladesh.
The study also investigated the interacting effect of brand trust on the relationship
between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. The findings revealed that prod-
uct quality has a positive and significant impact on customer satisfaction. This find-
ing is consistent with Lin et al. (2018) and Gök et al. (2019). Product quality is the
functionality and conformance of the product that serves the purchasers and users
satisfactorily. People purchase electronic home appliances of their favourite brands
for their convenience. In Bangladesh, customers focus on product durability, usabil-
ity and design, colour shape, and physical outlook. Products should be easy to use,
convenient and fit for use.
Users of electronics items gain satisfaction from the product’s functionality, its
design, shapes, colour, durability, etc. if their lives become easier and more com-
fortable. Besides, these items are expected to be safe and hassle-free. Fridges, air
conditioners, and other kitchenware are widely used in a family; and people expect
these appliances to be environment-friendly and eco-supportive because they are
now very environment-conscious. Customers are also supporters of energy saving.
These electronics appliances are to be energy saving and natural resource preserva-
tion. Therefore, customers expect product quality as having these features built-in
household appliances, which attract customers and are elements of their satisfac-
tion. Hence, product quality appraises customer satisfaction (Hamzah and Shamsu-
din 2020; Gerdt et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019). This finding supports the S–O–R
theory assessment that product quality as a stimulus stimulates customer satisfaction
(internal emotion).
The second hypothesis of the study was the impact of service quality, i.e. service
of delivery people and installation service of technicians of electronics products had
a significant effect on customer satisfaction. This hypothesis was not supported in
this study of electronic home appliances; and the finding is not consistent with previ-
ous studies such as Bapat (2017) and Keshavarz and Jamshidi (2018). This relation-
ship is rare because the customer may fear that the installation and delivery service
may increase the price in Bangladesh as it is obvious that many electronic appli-
ances require after-sales services, especially, large, and heavy items and technical
appliances (Smart TV, air conditioners, washing machines, fridges, electric lights
and bulbs, kitchenware, etc.). Firstly, these costly items are to be safely delivered to
buyers’ home and properly installed for usage operation. In this study, it was found
that satisfaction does not depend on this after-sales service.
In Bangladesh, customers can carry their products on their own or hire a local
carrier to bring them home; they do not want to wait for delivery. Many times, it
is found that … was too late or delivery was delayed. Customers and their family
members sometimes lose their patience waiting for a smart TV to be quickly deliv-
ered, air conditioners to be installed instantly because they have made an emotional
investment in these products. Therefore, they arrange their own carrier or hire a local
carrier for a reasonable fare who can deliver quickly. The customers may also think
of reducing the cost. They may have a fear that the company may impose a higher
delivery charge. In Dhaka city, customers experience heavy traffic jam. To save time
and hassle, they arrange their own transport facility.
Similarly, some customers can install these appliances by themselves as they
have sufficient technical knowledge and skill. Or they may save money by hiring
a local technician for a lesser charge as they may think that the company will take
a longer time to install: local technicians may install quickly, safely and at a rea-
sonable cost. Some customers think that the company may charge a higher amount
in both cases—delivery and installation. Considering after-sales service and charge
amount associated with those after-sale services will increase the product price, they
customers do not find after-sale service insignificant in Bangladesh. According to
S–O–R theory, though after-sales service is a strong stimulus, this study found it has
a different story.
The study included the third hypothesis that the relationship between customer
perceived value and customer satisfaction is significant (Zeithaml 1988) and thus,
was accepted. The higher customer value leads to maximise customer satisfaction
(Chen 2010). Customer satisfaction is empirically proved in many studies (Tsai et al.
2007; Chen 2008; Uddin and Akhter 2012; Fazal and Kanwal 2017). Bangladeshi
customers expect that these useful appliances are of reasonable price and will serve
for a long period. Their comparative assessment of their spending, and the quality
and performance of the electronic appliances either delight them or fail to satisfy
them. If the value is higher, it indicates that customers are satisfied and perceive that
they have won the purchasing these items. Also they may consider that their spend-
ing has been of value and has brought the expected the benefits. The higher the per-
ceived value the greater the customer satisfaction and the lesser perceived value, the
more dissatisfaction. The study found that their assessment of product performance
and service is greater than their prior expectation. According to S–O–R theory, per-
ceived value is a strong cue to customer satisfaction, which is similarly found in
electronic home appliances in the Bangladesh context.
The study’s fourth hypothesis was the relationship between customer-brand expe-
rience and customer satisfaction, which was significant and therefore supported. A
customer with a positive brand experience tends to have a positive emotional and
mental contentment with this brand (Yu and Yuan 2019; Davras and Caber 2019;
Hirata 2019; Gligor et al. 2019). Customers buy and use electronic home appli-
ances like TV, fridges, washing machines, kitchenware, air conditioners, etc. During
purchasing and using these items, customers gather practical experience or form an
attitude about these appliances. A positive impression and attitude drives the cus-
tomers to better and more positive experience, encouraging them to purchase the
same brand or recommend others to buy this particular brand.
In contrast, a negative impression may cause dissatisfaction, and this dissatisfac-
tion will reflect through avoiding this brand and discouraging others from buying.
Therefore, the existing or past experience will act as a stimulus for future purchases
of the particular brand. Therefore, there is a highly positive correlation between
experience and satisfaction. The S–O–R model buttressed this finding.
The fifth hypothesis pertaining to customer satisfaction and brand loyalty was sig-
nificant, and accordingly supported. This finding is consistent with previous research
(Bakar et al. 2017; Makanyeza and Chikazhe 2017; Murali et al. 2016; Fernandes
and Moreira 2019). Ledikwe et al. (2019) confirmed that the tangible product’s sat-
isfaction and brand loyalty are closely related. The satisfied customers of TV, fridge,
washing machines, fans, electric lights and bulbs, and other household equipment
purchases agree to purchase similar products from similar brands or repurchase. As
satisfaction is a psychological state of a customer and it can only be realised when
this mental state’s outcome is expresses either as a positive or negative response. In
the human mind, satisfaction acts as an organism (the internal process of decision-
making). Satisfied customers will respond by forming the intention to purchase or
by actually purchasing. Sometimes, they will share their satisfaction, positive expe-
rience, and product attribute to others (family, relatives, friends, colleagues, etc.)
and recommend them to purchase this particular brand. This positive response or
reaction is the ultimate outcome of those stimuli (perceived quality, experience, and
value) internally processed through satisfaction. S–O–R theory arguably explains
this relationship that is evident in this study of electronic home appliances in the
Bangladesh context.
One contributory hypothesis of the study was to investigate the intervening effect
of customer satisfaction on the relationship between marketing stimuli (perceived
service, experience, and value) and long-term customer attachment with the brand
(loyalty). The finding showed that marketing stimuli have a positive and significant
effect on customer-brand loyalty in the presence of customer satisfaction. That is,
satisfaction is a successful organism to strengthen the relationship between stimuli
and loyalty. In this study, satisfaction fully mediated these relationships. It implies
that if customers are not satisfied, they will not be loyal to the brand. Those cus-
tomers who are happy, purchase and use electronic home appliances will show a
positive attitude to the brand and/or will purchase. In marketing, accidental buying
or single buying does not mean customer loyalty. Therefore, satisfaction is a strong
mediator (organism) in electronic home appliances in the Bangladeshi context.
One of the study’s major contributions was to test the moderating effect of brand
trust on the relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. The study
found that brand trust’s moderating effect is significant and indicates that customers
having a higher level of trust in brand or product are more likely to be loyal than one
having less trust. The customers of electronic home appliances must trust the brand
for a future purchase and repeat purchase. Customers purchase or expend money
not only on a product but also on their trust. Once trust is established, an individual
customer will act as an ambassador of the brand. S/he will intend to or continue to
purchase and recommend others to purchase. The higher the level of trust in brand,
the greater the level of potentiality to be loyal. Thus, brand trust acts as an organism
that has a strong reaction of output (loyalty).
Conclusion
The study’s objective elaborated numerous contributions with the goal of boosting
the theoretical understanding and managerial implication of the electronic home
appliance industry. The primary contribution was to show the importance of brand
loyalty in the electronic home appliance market. To the best of the researchers’
knowledge there is limited research on brand loyalty in slow-moving physical prod-
ucts like electronic items. In Bangladesh, this research is one of only a few studies in
which brand loyalty was investigated for home appliances.
Managerial implications
Customer and brand need a strong relationship since this relationship is the anteced-
ent of brand loyalty. The study results suggested that customer satisfaction has a
strong relationship with brand loyalty. Therefore, managerial actions should focus
on enhancing the level of customer satisfaction through the quality of the product.
The company should focus on continuous product development based on customer
needs. Electronic home items are being added with new features and new models.
National and international issues related to saving the environment and preserving
natural resources should be taken into account. In the product development stage,
there must be confirmation that products are safe and environmentally friendly: they
must not pollute the environment and must have energy-saving features. The practis-
ing managers should consider these issues in their daily, monthly, and yearly plan
and promote and advertise to make the customers about it.
Electronic appliances need after-sales service in the form of delivery and instal-
lation services. However, in this study, it was found that customers are not inter-
ested in receiving those services. It happens in Bangladesh because of the fear that
these services will increase the price of appliances. There is another perception that
although these services are allegedly free, there may be a hidden cost. The market-
ing and brand managers must confirm that these services neither increase the appli-
ances price nor have a hidden cost because Bangladeshi people are price-concerned
customers, or purchasers are afraid of delayed delivery. Therefore, managers can ini-
tiate faster and safer home appliances by arranging the company’s delivery vehicles
because customers and family members feel emotion while purchasing. They want
their belongings to be at home immediately as installation service enables appli-
ances to be functional and usable.
For this reason, the company may manage their own technicians or make an
agreement with the third party so that immediately after selling the appliance techni-
cians can install the appliances and guide the users regarding ‘how to use’ steps or
process. It must be confirmed that this service will not increase the product price,
and installation service will be accurate, damage-free, and quick. Managers can
alternatively provide an online service or telephone service to solve minor problems
that customers frequently encounter.
Once their perception of this comparison between expectation and benefit is posi-
tive, there is a strong possibility that they will be loyal to the brand. In the case
of electronic home appliances, this comparison and perception is the usual. There-
fore, with continuous product development, the company should have a strategy to
assess customer perception. Management can offer an assessment programme for
the customers, form an online customer group or community, or arrange or set com-
pliant boxes in showrooms, display centres, or provide an e-mail address where they
can send their opinions, comments, assessments, or recommendations. Customers
are satisfied and become loyal if they have a positive attitude toward a brand based
on previous experience (buying experiences and usage experiences). The practis-
ing managers can regularly select some customers and consider their opinions and
those of their friends and family members. The company should publicize the com-
pany’s goodwill and take some steps regarding social responsibility, customers’ wel-
fare, and advertisement of environment-friendly products to build a strong trust of
the brand of electronic items. Marketing managers need to consider the marketing
research data on customer satisfaction, trust, and related information that reflect its
components. These components lead to brand loyalty and financial outputs (Velout-
sou 2015). This study conceptualised brand loyalty in both the attitudinal and behav-
ioural approaches in a combined manner (Menidjel et al. 2017). This study is con-
firmatory; the analysis was done with the confirmatory structural model to prove the
hypotheses.
Theoretical implications
Other researchers might want to replicate the study in other countries and cultural
contexts, such as a large population in a developing country. This study contributes
to its findings to the current body of knowledge in the context of slow-moving con-
sumer durables in several ways. The outcomes provide a better understanding of the
determinants of brand loyalty. Customer satisfaction is a contributory driver of brand
loyalty in electronic home appliances in Bangladesh. This satisfaction stems from
product quality, customer value and experience. The findings would add a feather
to the S–O–R model’s nest in the electronic appliance market because product qual-
ity, customer value, and experience have been successfully retested with customer
satisfaction.
In contrast, quality of service (namely after-sales service) does not impact the
relationship with satisfaction. It showed that the quality of service is never signifi-
cant with respect to satisfaction. It depends on the customer’s perception of the ser-
vice; and signifies that in developing and populated countries where people are not
rich they expect the core product. Therefore, quality of service and its insignificant
relationship with satisfaction is an addition to the S–O–R model.
Another theoretical contribution has been recognised through the test of the mod-
erating effect of brand trust. It is significant that the various levels of brand trust a
customer conceives influence the satisfaction and loyalty relationship. This finding
contributed to the brand trust’s knowledge domain with a significant interacting role
and S–O–R theory as a successful organism. It is also significant to observe that
customers’ satisfaction plays a vital role in identifying the effect of product quality,
customer value, and their experience on loyalty. Like other studies, customer satis-
faction fully bridges the relationship between stimuli and response in home elec-
tronic appliances in developing populated countries.
From the methodological contribution perspective, the study used a large sample
(n = 486), applied the shopping mall-intercept technique to choose the right and rep-
resentative respondents, and utilized the latest and effective statistical tool to analyse
data (SmartPLS 3.3 version). Contextually, the study is significant for populated and
developing countries. Many middle income developing countries people have a mid-
dle-of-the-range purchasing capacity and the mid-level education; therefore people
are being introduced to new technological advancement. Consequently, researchers
can replicate this framework to determine customer satisfaction and loyalty in such
situations.
Thus, those companies that manufacture consumer durables like TV, fridge,
washing machines, etc. and those firms that market and sell these products should
consider the key role of satisfaction in developing trust and building loyalty. Such
firms should concentrate on investment in customer satisfaction activities. This
study’s findings must conceptualise and evaluate quality (product and service), cus-
tomer perception and experience, and its influence on customer satisfaction. As the
study used the S–O–R model, the electronic home appliance industry assumed that
stimuli such as perceived quality, perceived value, and brand experience cover the
customer needs and triggers satisfaction. In the end, satisfied customers become
loyal customers by responding to those cues. The study contributed to this theory.
Limitations of research and recommendation for future directions
Like other research, this study has several limitations. These shortcomings were cat-
egorised as the sampling procedure, and to methodological and theoretical choice.
The sample and the sampling technique might be different. In the methodology
aspect, data were collected from purchasers and users of multiple home appliances.
Respondents use different types of home appliances from different brands. They
may have several home appliances for their daily use, and these items are better for
their respective purposes (TV, refrigerators, washing machine, fans, etc.). Therefore,
they were confined to only one or two choices, and in all cases, respondents could
not express their choice. The research offered a vital insight into understanding the
issues associated with brand loyalty of electronic home appliances. The study cov-
ered brand loyalty, customer satisfaction, and brand trust of the physical electronic
products used daily in every household. However, the study proposed some other
study areas for future research. Primarily, future studies could investigate other met-
ropolitan cities in Bangladesh other than Dhaka. Secondly, future research could
employ brand loyalty separately. Thirdly, future studies could add repair service,
cash back service, online customer service, replacement service and/or discount ser-
vices. Fourthly, a longitudinal research on customers could be conducted to explore
their loyalty when purchasing electronic products over time. Fifthly, future studies
could utilise covariance-based equation modelling (CB-SEM) to confirm the future
model’s theoretical assumption.
Author contributions MUHU: conceptualisation, methodology, data analysis, writing—reviewing and

editing; ABAH: conceptualisation, methodology; IJ: writing and analysis; ASAL: conceptualisation; and
RT: methodology, data analysis, reviewing and editing.
Funding The research received no grant.
Data availability The data can be made available on request.
Code availability The methodology is a simple process using the SPSS Software and Partial Least Square
Software where no coding is used.
Declarations
Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest or competing interest of any kind.
Ethical approval Putra Business School, Learning Liaison department headed by Wan Nadiah Wan Daud,
the Director, Reference: PBS/PhD/PBS18123252 dated 13 January, 2020. As this article is the part of
Thesis of the Principal Author Dr. Md. Uzir Hossain Uzir.
Informed consent In the cover letter of the questionnaire, the researchers declared the study’s purpose,
sought the permission of their participation, assured the confidentiality of their information provided, and
sought their permission of publication in journals, magazines, and periodicals. In all segments of informed
consent, the individual participants spontaneously agreed and filled out the questionnaires.
References
Aaker DA (1991) Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name. The Free Press,
New York
Aaker DA, Jacobson R (1994) The financial information content of perceived quality. J Mark Res
31(2):191–201
Adams P, Bodas Freitas IM, Fontana R (2019) “Strategic orientation, innovation performance and the
moderating influence of marketing management.” J Bus Res 97(January 2018):129–140
Adedeji BS, Ong ST, Uzir MUH, Hamid ABA (2020) Corporate governance and performance of
medium-sized firms in Nigeria: does sustainability initiative matter? Corp Governance Int J Bus
Soc 20(3):401–427
Adler PS, Kwon S-W (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manag Rev 27(1):17–40
Agnihothri S, Sivasubramaniam N, Simmons D (2002) Leveraging technology to improve field service.
Int J Serv Ind Manag 13(1):47–68
Ahmed S, Tarique KM, Arif I (2017) Service quality, patient satisfaction and loyalty in the Bangladesh
healthcare sector. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 30(5):477–488
Al Halbusi H, Jimenez Estevez P, Eleen T, Ramayah T, Uzir MUH (2020) The roles of the physical envi-
ronment, social servicescape, co-created value, and customer satisfaction in determining tourists’
citizenship behavior: Malaysian cultural and creative industries. Sustainability 12(8):3229
Al-Kwifi OS, Ongsakul V, Farha AKA, Zafar AU, Karasneh M (2020) Impact of product innovative-
ness on technology switching in global market. EuroMed J Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EMJB-11-2019-0143
Aw EC-X, Flynn LR, Chong HX (2019) Antecedents and consequences of self-congruity: replication and
extension. J Consum Mark 30(1):102–112
Ayo CK, Oni AA, Adewoye OJ, Eweoya IO (2016) E-banking users’ behaviour: e-service quality, atti-
tude, and customer satisfaction. Int J Bank Market 34(3):347–367
Bakar JA, Clemes MD, Bicknell K (2017) A comprehensive hierarchical model of retail banking. Int J
Bank Market 35(4):662–684
Bapat D (2017) Impact of brand familiarity on brands experience dimensions for financial services
brands. Int J Bank Market 35(4):637–648
Barney JB, Hansen MH (1994) Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J
15(S1):175–190
Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182
BCG (2015) Bangladesh: the surging consumer market nobody saw coming [Online]. https://www.bcg.
com/ publi catio ns/ 2015/ bangl adesh- the- surgi ng- consu mer- market- nobody- saw- coming. aspx.
Accessed Jan 2020
Beerli A, Martin JD, Quintana A (2004) A model of customer loyalty in the retail banking market. Eur J
Market 38(1/2):253–275
Bei L-T, Chiao Y-C (2006) The determinants of customer loyalty: an analysis of intangible factors in
three service industries. Int J Commer Manag 16(3/4):162–177
Brakus JJ, Schmitt BH, Zarantonello L (2009) Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty? J Mark 73(3):52–68
Bresciani S, Del Ponte P (2017) New brand logo design: customers’ preference for brand name and icon.
J Brand Manag 24(5):375–390
Brown GH (1953) Brand loyalty-fact of fiction. Trademark Rep 43:251
Brunsø K, Bredahl L, Grunert KG, Scholderer J (2005) Consumer perception of the quality of beef result-
ing from various fattening regimes. Livestock Product Sci 94(1–2):83–93
Bruwer JDW, Haydam NE, Lin B (1996) Reducing bias in shopping mall-intercept surveys: the time-
based systematic sampling method. S Afr J Business Manag 27(1 & 2):9–16
Bush AJ, Hair JFJ (1985) An assessment of the mall intercept as a data collection method. J Mark Res
22(2):158–167
Cardozo RN (1965) An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. J Mark Res
2(3):244–249
Carroll J, Howard S, Peck J, Murphy J (2002) A field study of perceptions and use of mobile telephones
by 16 to 22 year olds. J Inf Technol Theory Appl (JITTA) 4(2):49–61
Chattopadhyay A, Laborie J-L (2005) Managing brand experience: the market contact audit. J Advert Res
45(1):9–16
Chaudhuri A, Holbrook MB (2001) The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand per-
formance: the role of brand loyalty. J Mark 65(2):81–93
Chen C-F (2008) Investigating structural relationships between service quality, perceived value, satisfac-
tion, and behavioral intentions for air passengers: evidence from Taiwan. Transport Res Part A
Policy Practice 42(4):709–717
Chen Y-S (2010) The drivers of green brand equity: green brand image, green satisfaction, and green
trust. J Bus Ethics 93(2):307–319
Chen C-F, Chen F-S (2010) Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions
for heritage tourists. Tour Manage 31(1):29–35
Chen Z, Dubinsky AJ (2003) A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: a prelimi-
nary investigation. Psychol Mark 20(4):323–347
Chen CC, Yao JY (2018) Telematics and informatics what drives impulse buying behaviors in a
mobile auction? The perspective of the stimulus–organism–response model. Telematics Inform
35(5):1249–1262
Chinomona R (2013) The influence of brand experience on brand satisfaction, trust and attachment in
South Africa. Int Business Econ Res J (IBER) 12(10):1303–1316
Chinomona R (2016) Brand communication, brand image and brand trust as antecedents of brand loyalty
in Gauteng Province of South Africa. Afr J Econ Manag Stud 7(1):124–139
Chinomona R, Mahlangu D, Pooe D (2013) Brand service quality, satisfaction, trust and preference as
predictors of consumer brand loyalty in the retailing industry. Mediterr J Soc Sci 4(14):181–190
Chung JY, Lee J, Heath RL (2013) Public relations aspects of brand attitudes and customer activity. Pub-
lic Relat Rev 39(5):432–439
Countrymeter (2020) Bangladesh population: quick facts about the population of Bangladesh [Online].
https://countrymeters.info/en/Bangladesh. Accessed 20 May 2020
Cronin JJJ, Brady MK, Hult GTM (2000) Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfac-
tion on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J Retail 76(2):193–218
Cunningham RM (1956) Brand loyalty-what, where, how much. Harv Bus Rev 34(1):116–128
DataBD (2020) Consumer electronics [online]. https://databd.co/profiles/industries/profile-consumer-
electronics. Accessed 20 May 2020
Davras Ö, Caber M (2019) Analysis of hotel services by their symmetric and asymmetric effects on
overall customer satisfaction: a comparison of market segments". Int J Hosp Manag 81(May
2018):83–93
Day GS (1969) A two dimensional concept of brand loyalty. J Advert Res 9:29–35
Delgado-Ballester E, Luis Munuera-Alemán J (2001) Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty.
Eur J Mark 35(11/12):1238–1258
Delgado-Ballester E, Munuera-Aleman JL, Yague-Guillen MJ (2003) Development and validation of
a brand trust scale. Int J Mark Res 45(1):35–54
Deutsch M (1973) The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. Yale University
Press, London
Dwivedi A (2015) A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyalty
intentions. J Retailing Consumer Services 24:100–109
Dwyer FR, Schurr PH, Oh S (1987) Developing buyer–seller relationships. J Mark 51(2):11–27
Ehsani Z, Ehsani MH (2015) Effect of quality and price on customer satisfaction and commitment in
Iran auto industry. Int J Service Sci Manag Eng 1(5):52–56
Erciş A, Ünal S, Candan FB, Yıldırım H (2012) The effect of brand satisfaction, trust and brand com-
mitment on loyalty and repurchase intentions. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 58(October):1395–1404
Erdem T, Swait J (2004) Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. J Consumer Res
31(1):191–198
Erikson EH (1953) Growth and crises of the ‘healthy personality.’ In: Kluckhohn C, Murray H (eds)
Personality in nature, society and culture, 2nd edn. Knopf, New York
Eshghi A, Haughton D, Topi H (2007) Determinants of customer loyalty in the wireless telecommuni-
cations industry. Telecommun Policy 31(2):93–106
Fam K-S, Brito PQ, Gadekar M, Richard JE, Jargal U, Liu W (2019) Consumer attitude towards sales
promotion techniques: a multi-country study. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 31(2):437–463
Fazal O, Kanwal S (2017) Determinants of brand loyalty: a case study of Asian mobile phone users.
Int J Sci Res Publ 7(12):181–191
Feng T, Wang D, Lawton A, Luo BN (2019) Customer orientation and firm performance: the joint
moderating effects of ethical leadership and competitive intensity. J Bus Res 100(July):111–121
Fernandes T, Moreira M (2019) Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and brand loyalty: a com-
parative study between functional and emotional brand relationships. J Product Brand Manag
28(2):274–286
Fornell C, Cha J (1994) Partial least squares. In: Bagozzi R (ed) Advanced methods of marketing
research. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 52–87
Fornell C, Johnson MD, Anderson EW, Cha J, Bryant BE (1996) The American customer satisfaction
index: nature, purpose, and findings. J Mark 60(4):7–18
Fournier S, Dobscha S, Mick DG (1998) The premature death of relationship marketing. Harv Bus Rev
76(1):42–51
Gaiardelli P, Saccani N, Songini L (2007) Performance measurement systems in after-sales service:
an integrated framework. Int J Bus Perform Manag 9(2):145
Gambetta D (1988) Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations. B. Blackwell, New York
Gerdt S-O, Wagner E, Schewe G (2019) The relationship between sustainability and customer satis-
faction in hospitality: an explorative investigation using eWOM as a data source". Tour Manage
74(December 2018):155–172
Gerpott TJ, Bicak I (2016) Telecommunication service choice and use among migrants: the case of
German–Turkish consumers. Comput Hum Behav 61(August):584–596
Ghazzawi A, Alharbi B (2019) Analysis of customer complaints data using data mining techniques.
Procedia Comput Sci 163:62–69
Giritlioglu I, Jones E, Avcikurt C (2014) Measuring food and beverage service quality in spa hotels: a
case study in Balıkesir, Turkey. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 26(2):183–204
Gligor D, Gligor N, Maloni M (2019) The impact of the supplier’s market orientation on the customer
market orientation-performance relationship. Int J Prod Econ 216(October):81–93
Gök O, Ersoy P, Börühan G (2019) The effect of user manual quality on customer satisfaction: the
mediating effect of perceived product quality. J Product Brand Manag 28(4):475–488
Gürbüz E (2008) Retail store branding in Turkey: its effect on perceived quality, satisfaction and loy-
alty. EuroMed J Bus 3(3):286–304
Hair JF, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R, Tatham R (2010) SEM: an introduction. A global perspec-
tive. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education, London
Hair JF, Babin BJ, Krey N (2017a) Covariance-based structural equation modeling in the Journal of
Advertising: Review and recommendations. J Advert 46(1):163–177
Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Thiele KO (2017b) Mirror, mirror on the wall: a com-
parative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. J Acad Mark Sci
45(5):616–632
Hair JFJ, Howard MC, Nitzl C (2020) Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using con-
firmatory composite analysis. J Business Res 109:101–110
Hamzah AA, Shamsudin MF (2020) Why customer satisfaction is important to business? J Undergrad
Social Sci Technol 2(1):1–14
Hamzah MI, Othman AK, Hassan F (2016) Moderating role of customer orientation on the link between
market oriented behaviors and proactive service performance among relationship managers in the
business banking industry. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 224(August 2015):109–116
Hanaysha JRM, Abdullah HH (2015) Strategic effects of product innovation, service quality, and relation-
ship quality on brand equity. Asian Soc Sci 11(10):56–72
Hassan S, Shamsudin MF (2019) Measuring the effect of service quality and corporate image on student
satisfaction and loyalty in higher learning institutes of technical and vocational education and train-
ing. Int J Eng Adv Technol 8(5):533–538
Hassan MM, Jambulingam M, Alagas EN, Uzir MUH, Halbusi HA (2020) Necessities and ways of com-
bating dissatisfactions at workplaces against the job-hopping generation Y employees. Glob Bus
Rev 0972150920926966
Hayes AF (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Com-
mun Monogr 76(4):408–420
Henseler J (2017) Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation mod-
eling. J Advert 46(1):178–192
Henseler J, Chin WW (2010) A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between
latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Struct Equ Model 17(1):82–109
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR (2009) The use of partial least squares path modeling in interna-
tional marketing. In: Sinkovics RR, Ghauri PN (eds) New challenges to international marketing
(Advances in International Marketing), vol 20. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp
277–319
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in vari-
ance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135
Herhausen D, Kleinlercher K, Verhoef PC, Emrich O, Rudolph T (2019) Loyalty formation for different
customer journey segments. J Retail 95(3):9–29
Hirata E (2019) Service characteristics and customer satisfaction in the container liner shipping industry.
Asian J Ship Logistics 35(1):24–29
Holbrook MB (1994) The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the consumption experi-
ence. In: Rust RT, Oliva RL (eds) Service quality: new direction in theory and practice. Sage Pub-
lications, Thousand Oaks, pp 21–71
Holbrook MB (1999) Introduction to customer value. In: Holbrook MB (ed) Customer value: a frame-
work for analysis and research. Routledge, New York, pp 1–28
Holbrook MB, Corfman KP (1985) Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides
again. Perceived Qual 31(2):31–57
HofstedeInsights (2020) Compare Countries [Online]. Available: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/
product/compare-countries/. Accessed May 2020
Huang CC (2017) The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of brand love and trust.
Manag Decis 55(5):915–934
Hunt SD, Morgan RM (1995) Gaining competitive advantage theory of competition. J Market 59(2):1–15
Hunt SD, Morgan RM (1996) The resource-advantage theory of competition: dynamics, path dependen-
cies, and evolutionary dimensions. J Mark 60(4):107–114
Innocenti L, Pilati M, Peluso AM (2011) Trust as moderator in the relationship between HRM practices
and employee attitudes. Hum Resour Manag J 21(3):303–317
Ishizaka A, Quintano A, Labib A, Apostolakis A (2019) Do five-star hotel managers know their custom-
ers’ priorities? An AHP-Prioritised scorecard study. EuroMed J Bus 14(2):137–167. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EMJB-03-2018-0020
Iwashita M, Shimogawa S, Nishimatsu K (2011) Semantic analysis and classification method for cus-
tomer enquiries in telecommunication services. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24(8):1521–1531
Jacoby J, Chestnut RW (1978) Brand loyalty measurement and management, Wiley, New York
Jakpar S, Goh S, Johari A, Myint K (2012) Examining the product quality attributes that influences cus-
tomer satisfaction most when the price was discounted: a case study in Kuching Sarawak. Int J Bus
Soc Sci 3(23):221–236
Jiang L, Probst TM (2019) The moderating effect of trust in management on consequences of job insecu-
rity. Econ Ind Democr 40(2):409–433
Kabiraj S, Shanmugan J (2011) Development of a conceptual framework for brand loyalty: A Euro-Medi-
terranean perspective. J Brand Manage 18(4–5):285–299
Kant R, Jaiswal D (2017) The impact of perceived service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction:
an empirical study on public sector banks in India. Int J Bank Market 35(3):411–430
Keshavarz Y, Jamshidi D (2018) Service quality evaluation and the mediating role of perceived value and
customer satisfaction in customer loyalty. Int J Tourism Cities 4(2):220–244
Khamis MDF, AbRashid R (2018) Service quality and customer’s satisfaction in Tanzania’s Islamic
banks. J Islamic Market 9(4):884–900
Khamitov M, Wang X, Thomson M (2019) How well do consumer-brand relationships drive customer
brand loyalty? Generalizations from a meta-analysis of brand relationship elasticities. J Consum
Res 46(3):435–459
Kline R (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications Inc., New
York
Kock N (2015) Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. Int J e-Col-
lab (IJEC) 11(4):1–10
Kotler P (2012) Kotler on marketing. Simon and Schuster, The Free Press, New York
Kotler P (2017) Philip Kotler: some of my adventures in marketing. J Hist Res Market 9(2):203–208
Kotler P, Armstrong GM (2018) Marketing mix: selected chapters from. In: Armstrong G (ed) Kotler P.
Principles of marketing, Pearson
Kotler P, Keller KL (2009) Marketing management, 12th. Pearson Publication Inc., Prentice Hall
Kundu S, Datta SK (2015) Impact of trust on the relationship of e-service quality and customer satisfac-
tion. EuroMed J Bus 10(1):21–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-10-2013-0053
Lakhal L, Pasin F (2008) The direct and indirect impact of product quality on financial performance: a
causal model. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 19(10):1087–1099
Lam SK, Ahearne M, Hu Y, Schillewaert N (2010) Resistance to brand switching when a radically new
brand is introduced: a social identity theory perspective. J Mark 74(6):128–146
Lau GT, Lee SH (1999) Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. J Mark-Focus Manag
4(4):341–370
Ledikwe A, Roberts-Lombard M, Klopper HB (2019) The perceived influence of relationship quality on
brand loyalty: an emerging market perspective. Afr J Econ Manag Stud 10(1):85–101
Lee CMJ, Che-Ha N, Alwi SFS (2020) Service customer orientation and social sustainability: the case of
small medium enterprises. J Bus Res 122(January):751–760
Lele MM, Karmarkar US (1983) Good product support is smart marketing. Harv Bus Rev 61(6):124–132
Lewis RC, Booms BH (1983) The marketing aspects of service quality. Emerg Perspect Services Market
65(4):99–107
Lewis JD, Weigert AJ (1985) Social atomism, holism, and trust. Sociol Q 26(4):455–471
Liljander V, Strandvik T (1993) Estimating zones of tolerance in perceived service quality and perceived
service value. Int J Serv Ind Manag 4(2):6–28
Lin Y, Liang B, Zhu X (2018) The effect of inventory performance on product quality: the mediating
effect of financial performance. Int J Qual Reliab Manage 35(10):2227
Mabkhot HA, Shaari H, Salleh SM (2017) The influence of brand image and brand personality on brand
loyalty, mediating by brand trust: an empirical study. J Pengurusan (UKM J Manag) 50:71–81
Makanyeza C, Chikazhe L (2017) Mediators of the relationship between service quality and customer
loyalty: evidence from the banking sector in Zimbabwe. Int J Bank Market 35(3):540–556
Mantey NO, Naidoo V (2017) Interplay between air passengers’ service quality, satisfaction, loyalty and
loyalty programmes in South African owned airlines. Acta Commercii 17(1):1–9
Manthiou A, Ayadi K, Lee S, Chiang L, Tang L (2017) Exploring the roles of self-concept and future
memory at consumer events: the application of an extended Mehrabian-Russell model. J Travel
Tour Mark 34(4):531–543
Mayers RC, Davies JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organisational trust. Acad Manag
Rev 20(3):709–734
McDougall GH, Levesque T (2000) Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the
equation. J Serv Mark 14(5):392–410
Mehrabian A, Russell JA (1974) An approach to environmental psychology. The MIT Press,
Massachusetts
Mellens M, Dekimpe M, Steenkamp J (1996) A review of brand-loyalty measures in marketing. Tijd-
schrift Voor Economie en Management XLI(4):507–533
Menidjel C, Benhabib A, Bilgihan A (2017) Examining the moderating role of personality traits in the
relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. J Product Brand Manag 26(6):631–649
Meyer C, Schwager A (2007) Understanding customer experience. Harv Bus Rev 85(2):116
Mmutle T (2017) Customers’ perception of service quality and its impact on reputation in the hospitality
industry. North-West Univeristy, Potchefstroom
Moon S-G, Jeong SY, Choi Y (2017) Moderating effects of trust on environmentally significant behavior
in Korea. Sustainability 9(3):415
Moore JF (1996) The death of competition: leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems.
HarperBusiness, New York
Moorthy K, T’ing LC, Na SA, Ching CT, Loong LY, Xian LS, Ling TW (2018) Corporate image no
longer leads to customer satisfaction and loyalty: a Malaysian perspective. Int J Law Manag
60(4):934–952
Morgan RM, Hunt SD (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J Mark
58(3):20–38
Murali S, Pugazhendhi S, Muralidharan C (2016) Modelling and investigating the relationship of after
sales service quality with customer satisfaction, retention and loyalty—a case study of home appli-
ances business". J Retail Consum Serv 30(May 2016):67–83
Murugan MS, Krishnan J (2006) “Influence on brand choice behaviour” the Icfaian. J Manag Res
5(8):20–25
Nayebpour H, Bokaei MN (2019) Customers satisfaction by fuzzy synthetic evaluation and genetic algo-
rithm (case study). EuroMed J Bus 14(1):31–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-11-2017-0041
Newell SJ, Goldsmith RE (2001) The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility.
J Business Res 52:235–247
Nitzl C (2016) The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management
accounting research: directions for future theory development. J Account Lit 37(December):19–35
O’Dwyer M, Gilmore A (2018) Value and alliance capability and the formation of strategic alliances in
SMEs: the impact of customer orientation and resource optimisation. J Bus Res 87(June):58–68
Oh H, Kim K (2017) Customer satisfaction, service quality, and customer value: years 2000–2015. Int J
Contemp Hosp Manag 29(1):2–29
Oliva RA (2000) Brainstorm your e-business. Manag Market 9(1):55–57
Oliver RL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J
Mark Res 17(4):460–469
Oliver RL (1997) Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the consumer. Irwin-McGraw-Hill, New York
Oliver RL (1999) Whence consumer loyalty? J Market 63(4 Suppl1):33–44
Olsen SO (2002) Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and repur-
chase loyalty. J Acad Mark Sci 30(3):240–249
Olson JC, Jacoby J (1971) A construct validation study of brand loyalty. Proc Annu Conv Am Psychol
Assoc 6(Pt. 2):657–658
Parasuraman A, Grewal D (2000) The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: a research
agenda. J Acad Mark Sci 28(1):168–174
Pine BJ, Gilmore JH (2000) Satisfaction, sacrifice, surprise: three small steps create one giant leap into
the experience economy. Strategy Leadership 28(1):18–23
Pourdehghan A (2015) The impact of marketing mix elements on brand loyalty: a case study of mobile
phone industry. Market Brand Res 2(1):44–63
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indi-
rect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(3):879–891
Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon and schuster,
New York
Quaratino L, Mazzei A (2018) Managerial strategies to promote employee brand consistent behavior.
EuroMed J Bus 13(2):185–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-02-2017-0008
Rajput N, Kesharwani S, Khanna A (2012) Understanding consumer behavior in an organized retail sec-
tor: Indian apparel industry. Innov Mark 8(2):17–24
Ramayah T, Cheah J, Chuah F, Ting H, Memon MA (2018) Partial least squares structural equation mod-
elling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0. An updated and practical guide to statistical analysis. Pear-
son, Singapore
Razak AA, Shamsudin MF (2019) The influence of atmospheric experience on Theme Park Tourist’s
satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysia. Int J Innovat Creat Change 6(9):10–20
Razak AA, Shamsudin MF, Aziz JRMA (2019) The influence of atmospheric experience on Theme Park
Tourist’s satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysia. Int J Innovat Creat Change 6(9):30–39
Redl F, Wineman D (1951) Children who hate: the disorganization and breakdown of behavior controls.
Free Press, New York
Rempel JK, Ross M, Holmes JG (2001) Trust and communicated attributions in close relationships. J
Pers Soc Psychol 81(1):57
Rigopoulou ID, Chaniotakis IE, Lymperopoulos C, Siomkos GI (2008) After-sales service quality as an
antecedent of customer satisfaction. Manag Service Qual Int J 18(5):512–527
Rita P, Oliveira T, Farisa A (2019) The impact of e-service quality and customer satisfaction on customer
behavior in online shopping. Heliyon 5(10):e02690
Rotter JB (1967) A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust 1. J Pers 35(4):651–665
Russell RS, Taylor BW (2006) Operation management: quality and competitiveness in a global environ-
ment, 5th edn. Wiley, New Jersey
Sahin A, Zehir C, Kitapçı H (2011) The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on building
brand loyalty; an empirical research on global brands. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 24:1288–1301
Sánchez-Fernández R, Iniesta-Bonillo MÁ (2006) Consumer perception of value: literature review and a
new conceptual framework. J Consum Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Complaining Behav 19:40
Sathya P, Rethinapriya S, Balasundhari S (2019) A study on customer satisfaction towards selected whirl-
pool home appliances with special reference to Pattukottai. Int J Res 8(2):521–526
Saunders MNK, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2016) Research methods for business students, 7th edn. Pearson
Education Limited, London
Schmitt BH, Rogers DL (2008) Handbook on brand and experience management. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham
Schmitt BH, Brakus J, Zarantonello L (2014) The current state and future of brand experience. J Brand
Manag 21(9):727–733
Schreuder E, van Erp J, Toet A, Kallen VL (2016) Emotional responses to multisensory environmental
stimuli: a conceptual framework and literature review. SAGE Open 6(1):2158244016630591
Sekaran U, Bougie M (2009) Research methods for business: a skill building approach. Wiley, Hoboken
Shaharudin MR, Yusof KMM, Elias SJ, Mansor SW (2010) Factors affecting customer satisfaction in
after-sales service of Malaysian electronic business market. Can Soc Sci 5(6):10–18
Shamsudin M, Nurana N, Aesya A, Nabi M (2018a) Role of university reputation towards student choice
to private universities. Opcion 34(16):285–294
Shamsudin M, Razak A, Salem M (2018b) The role of customer interactions towards customer satisfac-
tion in theme parks experience. Opcion 34(Special Issue):546–558
Shamsudin M, Esa S, Ali A (2019) Determinants of customer loyalty towards the hotel industry in Malay-
sia. Int J Innovat Creativity Change 6(9):21–29
Sharif MA (2016) Electronic word of mouth: investigating the influence of electronic message source
credibility, message appeal and brand equity on consumer purchase intention. City Univ Res J
6(1):151–165
Sheth JN, Park CW (1974) A theory of multidimensional brand loyalty. ACR North Am Adv 1:449–459
Shuv-Ami A (2016) A new market brand equity model (MBE). EuroMed J Bus 11(3):322–346. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-05-2015-0025
Simmons IG (2001) An environmental history of Great Britain: from 10,000 years ago to the present.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
Sureshchandar G, Rajendran C, Anantharaman R (2002) The relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction—a factor specific approach. J Serv Mark 16(4):363–379
Surya K, Maala R (2018) A study on consumer perception in Kamadhenu home appliances Hosur. Int J
Curr Eng Sci Res (IJCESR) 5(4):87–93
Teo TS, Srivastava SC, Jiang L (2008) Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. J
Manag Inf Syst 25(3):99–132
Thielemann VM, Ottenbacher MC, Harrington RJ (2018) Antecedents and consequences of perceived
customer value in the restaurant industry: a preliminary test of a holistic model. Int Hosp Revew
32(1):26–45
Thompson CJ, Rindfleisch A, Arsel Z (2006) Emotional branding and the strategic value of the doppel-
gänger brand image. J Mark 70(1):50–64
Tsai W-H, Lin TW, Chen S-P, Hung S-J (2007) Users’ service quality satisfaction and performance
improvement of ERP consultant selections. Int J Bus Syst Res 1(3):280–301
Tsoukatos E, Mastrojianni E (2010) Key determinants of service quality in retail banking. EuroMed J Bus
5(1):85–100
Uddin MB (2013) Investigating the relationships between customer satisfaction, behavioral intentions,
and customer loyalty of electronic household products. Afr J Manag Res 21(1):49–68
Uddin MB, Akhter B (2012) Customer satisfaction in mobile phone services in Bangladesh: a survey
research. Manag Marketi J 10(1):20–36
Urbach N, Ahlemann F (2010) Structural equation modeling in information systems research using par-
tial least squares. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 11(2):5–40
Uzir MUH, Jerin I, Al Halbusi H, Hamid ABA, Latiff ASA (2020a) Does quality stimulate customer
satisfaction where perceived value mediates and the usage of social media moderates? Heliyon
6(12):e05710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05710
Uzir MUH, Nimfa DT, Lawal IT, Hamid ABA, Latiff ASA, Wahab SA (2020b) Does service quality
ensure customer satisfaction in Mr Bigg’s, Nigeria? Interciencia J 45(2):285–325
Uzir MUH, Hamid ABA, Latiff ASA (2021) Does customer satisfaction exist in purchasing and usage of
Electronic Home Appliances in Bangladesh through interaction effects of Social Media? Int J Bus
Excell 23(1):113–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2019.10024965
Vandermerwe S (2003) Customer-minded growth through services. Manag Service Qual Int J
13(4):262–266
Veloutsou C (2015) Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-
moderator effect of brand relationships. J Consum Mark 32(6):405–421
Vitez O (2021) What is the importance of brand loyalty. Available: https://www.infobloom.com/what-is-
the-importance-of-brand-loyalty.htm. Accessed 10 Feb 2021
Voss GB, Godfrey A, Seiders K (2010) How complementarity and substitution alter the customer satis-
faction–repurchase link. J Mark 74(6):111–127
Walls AR (2013) A cross-sectional examination of hotel consumer experience and relative effects on con-
sumer values. Int J Hosp Manag 32:179–192
Wilkie WL (1994) Consumer behavior, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Williams J, MacKinnon DP (2008) Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indi-
rect effects in complex models. Struct Equ Model: A Multi J 15(1):23–51
Woodruff RB, Gardial SF (1996) Know your customer: new approaches to understanding customer value
and satisfaction. Blackwell Publishers Inc., Cambridge
Yan R, Zhang KZ, Yu Y (2019) Switching from hotels to peer-to-peer accommodation: an empirical
study. Inf Technol People 32(6):1657–1678
Yang K, Yang H, Chang W, Chien H (2017) The effect of service quality among customer satisfaction,
brand loyalty and brand image. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering
and engineering management (IEEM), Singapore, IEEE, pp 2286–2290
Yi Y, Nataraajan R (2018) Customer satisfaction in Asia. Psychol Mark 35(6):387–391
Yoo B, Donth N (2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity
scale. J Bus Res 52(1):1–14
Yousaf U, Zulfiqar R, Aslam M, Altaf M (2012) Studying brand loyalty in the cosmetics industry. Log-
Forum 8(4):327–337
Yu X, Yuan C (2019) How consumers’ brand experience in social media can improve brand perception
and customer equity. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 31(5):1233–1251
Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis
of evidence. J Mark 52(3):2–22
Zhang J, Zhang J, Zhang M (2019) From free to paid: customer expertise and customer satisfaction on
knowledge payment platforms. Decis Support Syst 127(March):113140
Ziauddin M (2019) While economies slow for its South Asian neighbors, Bangladesh is hitting record
growth rates. Diplomat
Authors and Affiliations
Md. Uzir Hossain Uzir1 · Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid1 · Ishraq Jerin1 ·
Ahmad Shaharudin Abdul Latiff1 · Ramayah Thurasamy2
Md. Uzir Hossain Uzir
mduzir.phd_mkt18@grad.putrabs.edu.my
Ishraq Jerin
ishraq.phd_mgt18@grad.putrabs.edu.my
Ahmad Shaharudin Abdul Latiff
shaharudin@putrabs.edu.my
Ramayah Thurasamy
ramayah@usm.my
1
Putra Business School (PBS), University Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400 Seri Kembangan,
Selangor, Malaysia
2
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Minden, 11800 Penang, Malaysia

Customer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SN Bus Econ (2021) 1:86

Customer satisfaction and brand loyalty to electronic home

Keywords Customer satisfaction · Brand loyalty · Brand trust · Electronics home

* Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid

JEL Classification M31

A brand is a valuable intangible asset and a conspicuous differentiator from com-

becomes significant to the marketers to understand the tendency of the customer,

Product is a physical object or intangible service, which satisfies an individual’s

Customer perceived value

Customer brand experience

Brand experience is gradually becoming a focus among marketing researchers (Qua-

In a complex social structure or an organisational issue, one individual needs to have

Stimulus–organism–response (S–O–R) model

The direct effect of product quality on customer satisfaction

In marketing, satisfaction is customers’ feelings, either pleasure or disappointment is

The direct effect of quality of service on customer satisfaction

Ayo et al. (2016) illustrated that satisfaction is an outcome of perceived quality.

The direct effect of customer perceived value on customer satisfaction

The direct effect of customer satisfaction on brand loyalty

Customer satisfaction is a significant predictor of brand loyalty. Therefore, satisfac-

Customer satisfaction as a mediator

Brand trust as a moderator

Customer may have faith (trust) in either company or products. Customer–brand

Fig. 1 Research framework

Population and sampling technique

Measurement and instrument

Common method bias (CMB) test

Fig. 2 Measurement model

Table 1 Construct reliability and validity

Brand Loyalty 0.916 0.937 0.750

Table 2 Discriminant validity via Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT)

Fig. 3 Structural model

Table 3 Path coefficients and hypothesis testing

PQ → CS 0.359 0.081 4.414 0.000** 0.204 0.501 S 0.104

Mediation effect of customer satisfaction

Moderation of brand trust

Table 4 Mediation of customer loyalty

PQ → CS → BL 0.185 3.762 0.000 0.098 0.286 0.185 Full

Fig. 4 Moderating effect of 5

Limitations of research and recommendation for future directions

Author contributions MUHU: conceptualisation, methodology, data analysis, writing—reviewing and

Funding The research received no grant.

Data availability The data can be made available on request.

Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest or competing interest of any kind.

Authors and Affiliations

You might also like