Richard L. Oliver

Whence Consumer Loyalty?Both practitioners and academics understand that consumer loyalty and satisfaction are linked inextricably. They al-so understand that this relation is asymmetric. Although loyal consumers are most typically satisfied, satisfactiondoes not universally translate into loyalty. To explain the satisfaction-loyalty conundrum, the author investigateswhat aspect of the consumer satisfaction response has implications for loyalty and what portion of the loyalty re-sponse is due to this satisfaction component. The analysis concludes that satisfaction is a necessary step in loyal-ty formation but becomes less significant as loyalty begins to set through other mechanisms. These mechanisms,omitted from consideration in current models, include the roles of personal determinism ("fortitude") and socialbonding at the institutional and personal level. When these additional factors are brought into account, ultimate loy-alty emerges as a combination of perceived product superiority, personal fortitude, social bonding, and their syn-ergistic effects. As each fails to be attained or is unattainable by individual firms that serve consumer markets, thepotential for loyalty erodes. A disquieting conclusion from this analysis is that loyalty cannot be achieved or pursuedas a reasonable goal by many providers because of the nature of the product category or consumer disinterest. Forsome firms, satisfaction is the only feasible goal for which they should strive; thus, satisfaction remains a worthypursuit among the consumer marketing community. The disparity between the pursuit of satisfaction versus loyalty,as well as the fundamental content of the loyalty response, poses several investigative directions for the next waveof postconsumption research.

For some titne, satisfaction research has been "king."Spawned by the widespread adoption of the market-ing concept, efforts to align marketing strategy with

ilic goal of maximizing customer satisfaction have been pur-sued in earnest by product and service providers. Reporteddata show that, in 1993, postpurchase research, "largely in-cluding customer satisfaction work." accounted for one-third of revenues received by the largest U.S. research firms(Wylie 1993, p. S-1). Subsequent data (Higgins 1997) con-tirni (he trend, showing that the number of firms that com-missioned satisfaction studies in 1996 increased by 19% and25% in the United States and Europe, respectively.

Yet cracks in the satisfaction research dynasty are be-ginning to appear. Calls for a paradigm shift to the pursuit ofloyalty as a strategic business goal are becoming prominent.Some writers in particular have deplored the popularity of"mere satisfaction studies." For example, Deming (1986, p.141) was among the first to state that "It will not suffice tohave customers that are merely satisfied." More recently,Jones and Sasser (1995, p. 91) comtnented that "[m]erelysatisfying customers that have the freedom to make choicesIS not enough to keep them loyal," and Stewart (1997, p.112), in his article entitled "A Satisfied Customer Isn'tEnough." suggested that the assumption that "satisfactionand loyalty move in landem" is simply incorrecl.

Richard L, Oliver Is Valere Blair Potter Professor of Management (Market-ing). Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University. Hethanks the three anonymous Special Issue reviewers for their helpful com-ments, the Center for Service Marketing at Owen, and the Owen Dean'sFund for Faculty Research. This article has benefited from discussionswith various people, including Michael D. Johnson, Gerry Linda, MarshaRichins. and Sanjay Sood. The author further acknowledges insightsgained from association with the Harley-Davidson corporate Harley Own-ers Group (H.O.G.) and the Nashville, Tenn,, Chapter H.O-G.

Perhaps the greatest proponent of the "satisfaction isn'tenough" camp is Reichheld (1996), who coined the term"the satisfaction trap." Citing an impressive array of evi-dence from Bain & Company, he notes that, of those cus-tomers claiming to be satisfied or very satisfied, between 65and 85% will defect. Moreover, in the automobile industry,in which 85% to 95% of customers report that they are sat-isfied, only 30% to 40% return to the previous make ormodel. Thus, it would appear that satisfaction research is astepchild of the 1970s, an anachronism whose time has past.This may be, but the analysis in this article suggests thatmany firms and industries should be content to pursue"mere satisfaction" as their goal.

The Shift to Loyalty Strategies

A shift in emphasis from satisfaction to loyalty appears to bea worthwhile change in strategy for most firms becausebusinesses understand the profit impact of having a loyalcustomer base, as demonstrated by the figures provided bythe associates of Bain & Company. Reichheld (1996; Reich-held and Sasser 1990) has summarized these data, reportingthat the net present value increase in profit that results froma 5% increase in customer retention varies between 25 and95% over 14 industries. Moreover, others have noted thatthe relative costs of customer retention arc suhstantially lessthan those of acquisition (e.g.. Fornell and Werncrfelt 1987).

With these exceptional returns to loyalty and the con-comitant emphasis firms should devote to loyalty programs,why are defection rates among satisfied customers as highas 90%? And what can be done about it? The answers tothese questions rely heavily on a greater understanding ofthe role of customer satisfaction in loyalty, other nonsatis-faction determinants of customer loyalty, and their interrela-tionships. In short, it is time to begin the determined studyof loyalty with the same fervor that researchers have devot-ed to a better understanding of customer satisfaction.

Journal of MarketingVol. 63 (Special Issue 1999), 33-44 Whence Consumer Loyalty / 33

In pursuit of this goal, it would seem unnecessary tostate that satisfaction and loyalty are linked inextricably andthat this relation is asymmetric. Although loyal consumersare most typically satisfied, the aforementioned data showthat satisfaction is an unreliable precursor to loyalty. Thisobservation raises two questions: {!) What aspect of the sat-isfaction response has implications for loyalty? atid (2)What fraction of the loyalty response is due to this satisfac-tion component? In addition, this task of more fully ex-plaining the loyalty response requires that other determi-nants of loyalty be identified. The possibilities include manyother usage-related phenomena, including attitudelike con-cepts and social forces. In this sense, satisfaction becomesonly one input to loyalty behavior, thereby allowing consid-eration of nonsatisfaction determinants.

An inquiry into the relevant literature shows that the sat-isfaction-loyalty relation is not well specified. Six of themany and diverse possible associations of satisfaction andloyalty are shown as panels in Figure 1. Panel I entertainsthe elementary assumption that satisfaction and loyalty areseparate manifestations of the same concept, in much thesame way that early total quality management promoters as-sumed that quality and satisfaction were identical pursuits.Panel 2 suggests that satisfaction is a core concept for loy-alty, without which loyalty cannot exist, and that it anchorsloyalty. Panel 3 relaxes the nucleonic role of satisfaction andsuggests that it is an ingredient of loyalty but only one of itscomponents. Panel 4 suggests the superordinate existence of

FIGURE 1Six Representations of Satisfaction and Loyalty

Satisfactionis one with

Loyally

Satisfaction^̂ ^

Ultimate Loyalty-• ~~,Loyalty

(5) (6)

ultimate loyalty (which will be discussed subsequently), ofwhich satisfaction and "simple" loyalty are components.Panel 5 is true to the preceding statement that some fractionof satisfaction is found in loyalty and that that fraction ispart of, but not key to, the very essence of loyalty. Finally,Panel 6 suggests that satisfaction is the beginning of a tran-sitioning sequence that culminates in a separate loyaltystate. This situation also suggests that loyalty may becomeindependent of satisfaction so that reversals in the satisfac-tion experience (i.e., dissatisfaction) will not influence theloyalty state. One intent of this article is to suggest which ofthese schemes is most appropriate in light of the conceptuallogic to be presented. A reasonable manner by which to be-gin this process is to provide defmitions of the two conceptsand examine their correspondence.' , ;

Definitions

There are many definitions of both satisfaction and loyaltyin the literature; a perusal of these reveals, however, thatthey are process definitions. That is, they define what con-sumers do to become satisfied and/or loyal. For example,satisfaction has been defined as an "evaluation of the per-ceived discrepancy between prior expectations... and the ac-tual performance of the product" (Tse and Wilton 1988, p.204; see also Oliver 1980). Generally, loyalty has been andcontinues to be defined in some circles as repeat purchasingfrequency or relative volume of same-brand purchasing(e.g., Tellis 1988). Of note is a definition crafted by New-man and Werbel (1973), who defined loyal customers asthose who rebought a brand, considered only that hrand, anddid no brand-related information seeking. All these defini-tions suffer from the problem that tbey record what the con-sumer does. None taps into the psychological meaning ofsatisfaction or loyalty.

In Oliver (1997), satisfaction is defined as pleasurablefulfillment. That is, the consumer senses that consumptionfulfills some need, desire, goal, or so forth and that this ful-fillment is pleasurable. Tbus, satisfaction is the consumer'ssense that consumption provides outcomes against a stan-dard of pleasure versus displeasure. For satisfaction lo affectloyalty, frequent or cumulative satisfaction is required sothat individual satisfaction episodes become aggregated orblended. As will be argued here, however, more than this isneeded for determined loyalty to occur. The consumer mayrequire movement to a different conceptual plane—in alllikelihood, one that transcends satisfaction.

In accord with this distinction, loyalty has been definedquite differently. In a modification of Oliver's (1997, p. 392)definition, to include the act of consuming, loyalty is de-scribed here as

a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronizc a pre-ferred product/service consistently in the future, therebycausing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchas-ing, despite situational inOuences and marketing effortshaving the potential to cause switching behavior.

'The analysis to be presented is intended to apply to consumergoods and services, not to the personal relationships in business-to-business markets. The relationship hterature is vast and involvesmany additional variables, such as power dependencies, that wouldrequire coverage beyond the intended scope of this discussion.

34 / Journal o1 Marketing, Special Issue 1999

Oliver (i997. p. 392) proceeds to describe ihe consumerwho "fervently desires to rebuy a product or service and willliave no other." At still another level, he posits a consumerwho will pursue this quest "against all odds and at all costs."These latter conditions define ultimate loyalty.

The "Rationality" of Loyalty?

Why would a consumer appear to be so naive, unaware, orfervent that he or she would seek out one—and only one—branded object or brand set^ to fulfill his or her needs? Thisis a pertinent question because the present era of globalcompetition seemingly would enable the consumer to move10 better alternatives as soon as they materialized. Productimprovements, refinements, and innovations are now accel-erating to the point that the increasing level of new productintroductions is predicted to be at record levels (see Cooper1993, p. 4). In addition, authors have noted the decline or"erosion" of the loyal segments of companies' consumerbases (e.g.. East and Hammond 1996). What this means is(hat, for a consumer lo become and remain loyal, he or shemust believe that an object firm's products continue to offerIhe best choice alternative. Moreover, he or she must do thiswhile naively shunning communications from competitivelinns and <Hher innovators that argue that the loyalist's con-sumable is no longer the most efficient, lowest priced, of thehighest quality, and so forth.

Although a response to the irrationality argument will beprovided, it remains true that consumers exhibit loyalty, thatfirms with loyal customers benefit handsomely, and thatthose firms that can attain a loyal customer base will wish todo so. To put this consumer display of loyalty in perspective,an historical overview of previous attempts at explaining thepsychological loyalty response is in order. The following re-view and elaboration of Oliver (1997) traces prior frame-works of consumer loyalty to the present.

Previous Conceptualizations ofLoyalty

Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) have explored the psychologi-cal meaning of loyalty in an effort to distinguish it from be-havioral (i.e., repeat purchase) definitions. Their analysisconcludes that consistent purchasing as an indicator of loy-alty could be invalid because of happenstance buying or apreference for convenience and that inconsistent purcbasingcould mask loyalty if consumers were multibrand loyal. Be-cause of these possibilities, the authors conclude that itwould be unwise to infer loyalty or disloyalty solely fromrepMjtitive purchase patterns without further analysis.

The further analysis needed to detect true brand loyaltyrequires researcbers to assess consumer beliefs, affect, andintention within the traditional consumer attitude structure.More specifically, all three decision-making phases must

^Brand-set or niuilibrand loyalty exists when a consumer findstwo or more brands equally acceptable or perfectly substitutable soihat they are purchased and used interchangeabiy. An examplewouid be breakfast cereals. As in the loyaity definition, the sameconceptual logic appiies to single as lo multibrand loyalty. It is rec-ognized that this is a simplifying assumption, and funher work isencouraged in this area.

point to a focal brand preference if true brand loyalty exists.Thus, (1) the brand attribute ratings (beiiefs) must be prefer-able to competitive offerings, (2) this "information" mustcoincide with an affective preference (attitude) for thebrand, and (3) the consumer must have a higher intention(conation) to buy the brand compared with that for alterna-tives. Unfortunately, relatively little elaboration of thisattitude-based framework has emerged (cf. Dick and Basu1994).

Loyalty Phases

Oliver's (1997) framework follows this cognition-affect-conation pattern but differs in that he argues that consumerscan become "loyal" at each attitudinal phase relating to dif-ferent elements of the attitude development structure.Specifically, consumers are theorized to become loyal in acognitive sense first, tben later in an affective sense, still lat-er in a conative manner, and finally in a bebavioral manner,wbich is described as "action inertia."

Cognitive loyalty. In the first loyalty phase, the brand at-tribute information available to tbe consumer indicates tbatone brand is preferable to its alternatives. This stage is re-ferred to as cognitive loyalty, or loyalty based on brand beliefonly. Cognition can be based on prior or vicarious knowledgeor on recent experience-based information. Loyalty at thisphase is directed toward the brand because of this "informa-tion" (attribute performance levels). Tbis consumer state,however, is of a shallow nature. If the transaction is routine,so that satisfaction is not processed (e.g.. trash pickup, utilityprovision), the depth of loyalty is no deeper than mere perfor-mance. If satisfaction is processed, it becomes part of tbe con-sumer's experience and begins to take on affective overtones.

Affective loyalty. At the second phase of loyalty devel-opment, a liking or attitude toward the brand bas developedon the basis of cumulatively satisfying usage occasions.This reflects the pleasure dimension of the satisfaction defi-nition—pleasurable fulfillment—as previously described.Commitment at this phase is referred to as affective loyaltyand is encoded in the consumer's mind as cognition and af-fect. Whereas cognition is directly subject to counterargu-mentation, affect is not as easily dislodged. The brand loy-alty exhibited is directed at the degree of affect (liking) forthe brand. Similar to cognitive loyalty, however, this form ofloyalty remains subject to switcbing. as is evidenced by thedata that show that large percentages of brand defectorsclaim to have been previously satisfied with their brand.Tbus, it would be desirable if consumers were loyal at adeeper level of commitment.

Conative loyalty. The next phase of loyalty developmentis the conative (behavioral intention) stage, as infiuenced byrepeated episodes of positive affect toward tbe brand. Cona-tion, by definition, implies a brand-specific commitment torepurchase. Conative loyalty, then, is a loyalty state thatcontains what, at first, appears to be the deeply held com-mitment to buy noted in tbe loyalty definition. However, thiscommitment is to the intention to rebuy tbe brand and ismore akin lo motivation. In effect, the consumer desires torepurchase, but similar to any "good intention." this desiremay be an anticipated but unrealized action.

Whence Consumer Loyalty / 35

Action loyalty. Study of the mechanism hy which inten-tions are converted to actions is referred to as "action con-trol" (Kuhl and Beckmann 1985). In the action control se-quence, the motivated intention in the previous loyalty stateis transformed into readiness to act. The action control par-adigm proposes that this is accompanied by an additionaldesire to overcome obstacles that might prevent the act. Ac-tion is perceived as a necessary result of engaging both thesestates. If this engagement is repeated, an action inertia de-velops, thereby facilitating repurchase.

Note the correspondence between the two action controlconstructs, readiness to act and the overcoming of obstacles,and the loyalty definition presented previously. Readiness toact is analogous to the "deeply held commitment to rebuy orrepatronize a preferred product/service consistently in thefuture," whereas "overcoming obstacles" is analogous to re-buying "despite situational influences and marketing effortshaving the potential to cause switching behavior" (Oliver1997, p. 392). This latter notion of ignoring or deflectingsuitors is a critical aspect of subsequent analysis.

Thus, completing the preceding cognitive-affective-conative frameworks with a fourth, or action, phase bringsthe attitude-based loyalty model to the behavior of interest,the action state of inertial rebuying. Cognitive loyalty fo-cuses on the brand's performance aspects, affective loyaltyis directed toward the brand's likeableness. conative loyaltyis experienced when the consumer focuses on wanting to re-buy the brand, and action loyalty is commitment to the ac-tion of rebuying. As noted, little work has appeared to cor-roborate or refute this extended perspective. This isunfortunate, because the weaknesses of these four loyaltyphases require specification if marketers are to protect theirloyal customer base. Two different sources of such weak-ness are discussed next.

Obstacles to LoyaltyConsumer idiosyncrasies. Some aspects of consumer

consumption are antithetical to loyalty. For example, vari-ety seeking frequently has been cited as a trail that will not

permit loyalty to develop until there is no variety lo sam-ple. This will he particularly true at the cognitive and eventhe conative level. Until the variety-seeking consumerreaches action inertia, the lure of new experience will betoo tempting to ignore. Many product and service providersfall into this pattern (e.g., dining establishments) and findIhat even their regular clientele will try new and differentalternatives.

Other reasons for apparent consumer disloyalty includemultibrand loyalty, withdrawal from the product category(e.g., smoking cessation), and changes in need. This lastphenomenon can occur in two different forms. In the first,the consumer matures, and new needs supplant the old, Forexample, as a child grows, the toys and games played withchange to match the child's developmental phase. In the sec-ond form, which was alluded to under the topic of consumerrationality, a competitive innovation fulfills the consumer'sneeds more efficiently, or so it may seem. Although it is al-so possible that the consumer's needs have changed, so thatthe competitive offering is now the logical choice, competi-tive messages frequently tout the ability of a product to ful-fill needs better. This takes the discussion to the role ofswitching incentives.

Switching incentives. Previously, it has been suggestedthat true loyalty is, in some sense, irrational. Competitorscan (and do) take advantage of this position, engaging con-sumers through persuasive messages and incentives with thepurpose of attempting to lure them away from their pre-ferred offering. These verbal and physical enticements arethe obstacles that brand or service loyalists must overcome.As may be evident at this point, the easiest form of loyaltyto break down is the cognitive variety; (he most difficult isthe action state. Thus, the cognitive-to-action loyalty se-quence brings the analysis closer to the emergence of fullloyalty but still fails to satisfy the definition of ultimate loy-alty because each phase is subject to attack.

The four-stage loyalty model has different vulnerabili-ties, depending on the nature of the consumer's commit-ment, which are summarized in Table I. Cognitive loyalty

TABLE 1Loyalty Phases with Corresponding Vulnerabilities

Stage Identifying Marker Vulnerabilities

Cognitive Loyalty to informationsuch as price, features,and so forth.

Affective Loyalty to a liking:"I buy it because I like it.'

Conative Loyalty to an intention:"I'm committed to buying it.'

Action Loyalty to action inertia,coupled with theovercoming of obstacles.

Actual or imagined better competitive features or price throughcommunication (e.g., advertising) and vicarious or personal experience.Deterioration in brand features or price. Variety seeking and voluntary trial.

Cognitively induced dissatisfaction. Enhanced liking for competitive brands,perhaps conveyed through imagery and association. Variety seekingand voluntary trial. Deteriorating performance.

Persuasive counterargumentative competitive messages. Induced trialcoupons, sampling, point-of-purchase promotions). Deterioratingperformance. ' ' '

[e.g..

Induced unavailability (e.g., stocklifts—purchasing the entire inventory of acompetitor's product from a merchant). Increased obstacles generally.Deteriorating performance.

36 / Journal of Marketing, Special Issue 1999

is based on performance levels, whether functional, aes-thetic, or cost-based, and is thereby subject to failings onthese dimensions. For example, in the area of services, ithas been shown that deteriorating delivery is a strong en-hancement to switch (Keaveney 1995). Price, in particular,is a powerful competitive weapon for commonly purchaseditems (Kalyanaram and Little 1994; Sivakumar and Raj1997). Thus, cognitive loyalty is actually "phantom loyal-ty," because it is directed at costs and benefits, not thebrand.

At the next level, affective loyalty can become suscepti-ble to dissatisfaction at the cognitive level (Heide and Weiss1995; Keaveney 1995; Morgan and Dev 1994), thereby in-ducing attitudinal shifts (Oliver 1980). A concurrent effectof dissatisfaction observed in the literature is the increasedattractiveness of alternative suppliers (Ping 1994; Samban-dam and Lord 1995). Thus, affective loyalty is first subjectto the deterioration of its cognitive base, which causes dis-satisfaction, which then has deleterious effects on thestrength of attitude toward a brand and, hence, on affectiveloyally. It is also possible for competitive communicationsto use imagery and association to enhance the image of al-ternative brands while degrading the image of the presenthrand.

Although conative loyalty brings the consumer to astronger level of loyalty commitment, it has its vulnerabili-ties. A consumer at this phase can weather some small num-ber of dis.satisfactory episodes (Oliva, Oliver, and Macmil-lan 1992), but the motivation to remain committed can beworn down by barrages of competitive messages, particular-ly if they enhance the perceived severity of experienced dis-satisfaction. In addition, competitive product trial resultingfrom samples, coupons, or point-of-purchase promotionsmay be particularly effective, because the consumer hascommitted only to the brand, not to avoiding trial of new of-ferings. Thus, the conatively loyal consumer has not devel-oped the resolve to avoid consideration of competitivebrands intentionally.

At this juncture and perhaps before action loyalty mani-fests itself, the firm has achieved "product superiority." Thefirm has engendered enhanced liking, or even an establishedpreference, for its brand because of the quality (information)and continued ability to satisfy. In addition, the consumer iscnmmiUed to its repurchase in the future. However, the con-sumer has not reached the state of resistance, resilience, andthe overcoming of obstacles necessary for ultimate loyaltyto emerge. This is even more true in today's economy be-cause of the plethora of seemingly superior alternatives thatassault the consumer's senses.

On reaching the action phase of brand attachment, how-ever, the consumer has generated the focused desire to re-huy the hrand and only that brand and also has acquired theskills necessary to overcome threats and obstacles to thisquest. This consumer would be expected to "tune out" com-petitive messages routinely, engage in effortful search forthe favored brand, and possibly even shun the trial of com-petitive brands. Marketers with action-loyal segments neednot expend great sums on retention because, theoretically,tlieir consumers are governed by inertial repurchasing.Aside from deteriorating performance, which is a potential

switching inducer at all stages, only insurmountable un-availability would cause such a consumer to try anotherbrand.

With the emergence of the action phase, it appears thatthe formula for loyalty largely has been crafted. The action-loyal consumer has a deep commitment to repurchase, somuch so that behavior may be guiding itself in some habit-uated manner. But it is the province of competition to gainconsumers" attention so they hear its communications. Onemajor strategy by which this is accomplished, common in allloyalty phases, is the creation of dissatisfaction with the cur-rent brand. The role of satisfaction in loyalty formation anddefection now can be specified more fully. In the same waythat satisfaction is a building block for loyalty, primarily atthe affective loyalty stage, dissatisfaction is loyalty'sAchilles tendon; here is where the competition can strikethrough the creation or facilitation of dissatisfaction.

Why has emphasis shifted to dissatisfaction creation asa competitive weapon if the role of satisfaction is just oneof many in the loyalty development process? An answer tothis question relates to the well-known disproportional in-fluence of negative information (e.g., Mizerski 1982).This phenomenon has been found in the context ofdisconfirmation-based satisfaction models for which re-search shows that a unit of negative disconfirmation has amuch greater effect on dissatisfaction than does a unit ofpositive disconfirmation on satisfaction (Anderson and Sul-livan 1993; DeSarbo et al. 1994). This is the bane ofsatisfaction-based loyalty: The satisfaction concept itself,in the form of competitively induced dissatisfaction cre-ation, can be a switching incentive. There must be more tothe attainment of ultimate loyalty.

New Issues in Loyalty Generationand Maintenance

Three new perspectives on customer loyalty are proposed,stated as questions: (I) Can the consumer elect to be self-isolated from competitive overtures so that competitive in-formation is blocked or screened? (2) Can the consumer hesocially integrated in a "village" that envelops and directsthe consumer's choices in a satisfying way? and (3) Can theconsumer effect a self-identity that corresponds only to theselected brand and its community, in the manner of religioussects adopting a unique lifestyle (e.g., the Amish)? These is-sues speak to the "community" of loyalty, singularly in thecase of self-isolation, communally in the case of the village,and both in the case of a preclusive lifestyle.

Dimensions of the Framework

The framework in Table 2 illustrates the dimensions onwhich these new issues are based. The vertical dimensionrefiects the degree of individual fortitude, or the degree towhich the consutner fights off competitive overtures on thebasis of his or her allegiance to the brand and not on the ba-sis of marketer-generated information. Despite the artificialbreak in this continuum into high and low categories, loyal-ty commitment develops along ihe advancement of stages inthe prior model. At the lowest levels of fortitude, the con-sumer has only brand-related information. At the highest

Whence Consumer Loyalty / 37

TABLE 2Four Loyalty Strategies

Individual Fortitude Low

High

Community/Social

Low

Product superiority

Determined self-isolation

Support

High

Village envelopment

Immersed self-identity

levels of fortitude, the consumer has developed the actioninertia discussed previously, as well as a fierce defenseagainst competitive encroachment that approaches blindfaith.

The horizontal dimension of Table 2 illustrates lowand high phases of community and social support. Here,the community provides the impetus to remain loyal be-cause either it is enticing in a passive sense or it proac-tively promotes loyalty. This dimension is crossed withthat of individual fortitude, so that the high-high cell con-tains the apex of loyalty and the low-low cell contains theweakest case of more vulnerable loyalty, basic productsuperiority.

Product superiority, the weakest form of loyalty in thisnew framework, has been discussed previously in cogni-tive, affective, conative, and, to some extent, action terms.This reflects the traditional view of loyalty as resultingfrom high quality and/or product superiority, which are be-lieved to generate a strong sense of brand-directed prefer-ence. At some point in the cognitive-affective-conative-action chain, the consumer will cross the threshold fromlow to high consumer fortitude. The perspective taken here,however, provides further conceptual content in the highfortitude (and low social support) cell. In addition to theconsumer's desire to rebuy on the basis of superiority, thisframework suggests that be or sbe also will wish to rebuyon the basis of determination or determined self-isolation.That is, the consumer desires an exclusive relation with thebrand and does not wish to be "courted" by other brands.

The low fortitude, high social support cell, labeled"village envelopment," is analogous to the popular con-cept of "it takes a village." The consumer is sheltered fromoutside influences, nurtured in the use of selected and pro-tected brands, and provided integrated and routinely up-dated consumption systems. Although this cell is dis-cussed in greater detail subsequently, the commoncomputer platform and networking environment supportedby most businesses is an example of this concept. The dis-tinguishing feature here is that the consumer is a passiveacceptor of the brand environment.

Finally, the immersed self-identity cell contains thecombined influences of fortitude and social support. Theconsumer intentionally has targeted the social environmentbecause it is consistent with and supports his or her self-concept. In effect, the consumer immerses his or her self-identity in the social system of which the brand is a part.This is a synergistic situation and is self-sustaining. Theconsumer fervently desires the product or service associa-tion, affiliates with the social setting knowing that it will be

supportive of this association, and, at the limiting extreme,is rewarded by the social system for his or her patronage.Religious institutions are good exemplars of this situation,though other secular social settings are equally illustrative,such as fan clubs and aiumni organizations.

The defining characteristics of these new perspectivesare not directly under the control of management, but theycan be facilitated by it. They go beyond the cognitive-affective-conative-action sequence because they tran-scend it. They tap into the socioemotiona! side of loyalconsumption and closely access its meaning, as is dis-cussed next. Recall that the low-low cell has been dis-cussed previously as cognitive-affective-conative-actionloyalty.

Self-Isolation as a Sustainer of Loyalty

Crossing the threshold from a belief in product superiorityto brand-directed determinism and personal fortitude is asomewhat nebulous process. The transitioning mechanismis not well understood, even for areas in which determin-ism is frequently observed (e.g., romance, religion, poli-tics). For now. it may be instructive to begin with the endstate of this dimension and focus on the ultimate bond asingle consumer can make with a product or service provi-sion. In this way, insights into lesser forms of fortitude andthe transition states may become evident. Recall thai,when in this state of fortitude, the consumer has selectedone and only one brand to repurchase continuously. He orshe is immune from competitive overtures, cannot beswayed from determined repurchasing, defends the brandfiercely, and probably promotes the brand to others withsome fervor.

When a consumer voluntarily removes him- or herselffrom competitive overtures, effectively tuning out persua-sive arguments to switch, he or she has achieved a state nolunlike the concept of love. Love has many manifestations,but in the present context, the variant of interest is the loveof consumables (Ahuvia 1992; Fournier 1998). In dis-cussing this in the context of consumption, the sensual com-ponent of the phenomenon can be put aside to concentrateon two other aspects: adoration, or focused attention, andunfailing commitment.

Adoration. It is an aspect of love that alternatives to thelove object are not processed. Miller (1997, p. 758) reportsthat there is "no better predictor of relationship failure thanhigh attentiveness to alternatives." In marketing, this samephenomenon has been observed in two studies in the contextof channel relationships and automobile selection (Ping

38 / Journal of Marketing, Special Issue 1999

1994; Sambandam and Lord 1995). Other insights from therelationship literature include the observations that partnersfind their relationship better in an idealistic sense than com-parable other relationships, that the outcomes they currentlyreceive are perceived as better than they could obtain else-where, and that the alternatives to the present situation areless desirable, even when the current state of affairs is lessihan ideal (e.g., Murray, Holmes, and Griffin 1996).

This poses the issue of what a love-type attachment isin the realm of consumables. Ahuvia (1992) addresses thisarea. Referring to this exemplar of love as "object love,"Ahuvia finds still further similarities to relationship litera-ture. Specifically, love objects provide need and want satis-faction; a sense of natural fit; and emotional outcomes, in-cluding thrill, excitement, passion, sentiment, contentment,and relaxation. In addition, some forms of object love in-volve admiration based on virtue; an engrossing experienceof a continuing nature; self-sacrifice, including the person-al costs of acquisition, maintenance, and so forth; and a.sense of enduring attachment. Many and varied examplesof consumable love were mentioned by the respondents inAhuvia's ,study, including music, travel, clothing, pets, andfood.

Other examples in the consumer domain include prod-ucts of the "cherished heirloom" variety. Such heirlooms,treasures, collectibles, and items of irreplaceable worth(e.g.. photographs) are known to have greater value in own-ership than in acquisition. It would seem that their unique-ness is the object's bond to the consumer. The consumerdotes on these items and receives imagined doting in re-turn. In much the same way that some pets give unqualifiedlove, so does the object, for it exists solely for the owner'spleasure.

For marketers of products, especially those marketingcommodities as opposed to, say, major durables, this as-pect of loyalty may be elusive. The more common theitem and the more the degree to which replacements areexact duplicates of the original, the less likely loyalty is toemerge (Dowling and Uncles 1997). As has been suggest-ed, object love is observed more frequently for posses-sions that can "love back," such as pets, collectibles, art-work, and some fashion items. Habitats qualify here, as intlic hearth as representative of a home, as do prized andunique possessions (e.g., a piece of antique furniture).Jewelry sellers invoke this notion, because their wares fre-quently are sold us family treasures to be passed on toheirs.

For consumables that fall between commodity status andthose that love back, it may be that simple brand identifica-tion serves some lesser but important function in a loyaltyresponse. This aspect of loyalty suggests that consumersmay derive some psychic "romance" (as opposed to love)from identification with the brand. The symbolism of thecorporate logo should imply lo others a certain uniquenesspossessed by the consumer and not by others. For some, thisidentity is discretionary, such as when a Mason's hat is wornin the lodge. For others, the identity is meant for all to see atall times. The ultimate display of this is a tattoo, a timelesssymbol of identification.

Unfailing commitment. Discussions on commitment canbe found in many areas of study in which people form at-tachments. For example, it has been observed that commit-ment is the most common dependent variable used in buy-er-seller relationship studies (Wilson 1995). In general,commitment is an implicit or explicit pledge of relationalcontinuity. In a sense, it transcends even conative and actionloyalty because it exists at a conscious level and is a goal inand of itself Beyond the desire of reacquiring a preferred—or even coveted—object, a consumer also can desire to becommitted to that object. As was discussed previously,conative commitment emerges from a prior liking, whereaslove-generated commitment results from a true affection (asopposed to the attitude form of affect) for the product or ser-vice. This latter type of commitment is adoration- ordevotion-based and maintained, in part, to stave off thesense of loss experienced when loved ones are missed.

It is proposed that this is one reason for the loyalty dis-played toward human or humanlike consumables. Commit-ment to sports or entertainment celebrities would seem tofollow this pattern, as would the popularity of personifiedanimals and other objects (e.g., the Pillsbury Doughboy).The phenomenon is also common among children, becausethey are known to form strong attachments to dolls, stuffedanimals, animal-like objects (e.g., Barney. Kemiit, Disneycharacters), and clothes (e.g., a favorite hat). Some objectsof an inanimate nature acquire this stature, as when a con-sumer claims that he or she "loves my car" (Belk 1988).Many automobile owners even give proper names to theircars.

At this point, the discussion has considered only an in-dividual in isolation committed to a brand and, in effect, be-coming a more determined naive loyalist. Picture this singleconsumer, acting alone, deriving immense love and psychicincome from the cherished brand. Put this scene in suspen-sion for the present and imagine another consumer, an aim-less wanderer with no brand preference, engaging in hap-penstance consumption. What would happen if this secondconsumer chances on a social environment with built-inpreferences? Might this consumer's gaze be directed towardbrands the collective finds satisfying? And if so, what effectwill this have?

The Social Organization: The ViliageIn its pure form, the village is a social alliance in which theprimary motivation to become loyal on the part of each con-sumer is to be one with the group, and the primary motiva-tion of the group overseers is to please their constituency. Inthis situation, the consumer becomes a (willing) participantbecause of the attention provided by its members. In the lim-iting case, the product/service is not the consumable. Rather,it is the camaraderie provided by the social organization.Good examples of this are senior citizen organizations, Website chat rooms, lodges, travel clubs, and card clubs. LocalHarley-Davidson H.O.G. (Harley Owners Group) chaptersparticipate in various benefits, including highway trashpickups, for this purpose. The exact nature of the philan-thropic activity is secondary to the group camaraderie.

This concept goes by many names in various literaturebut is perhaps best exemplified as a "consumption commu-

Whence Consumer Loyalty / 39

nity" (Friedman, Vanden Abeele, and De Vos 1993), basedon Boorstin's (1973) notion tbat individuals feel a sense ofcommunity when they share the same consumption valuesand behaviors (see Schouten and Me Alexander 1995). Notethat Boorstin's perspective is a somewhat weaker form ofthe social collective envisioned here, because he assumesthat the mere knowledge of shared consumption is sufficientlo generate a consumption community. Thus, it appears thatthe social dimension of the proposed framework, similar tothe fortitude dimension, is a continuum.

Implicit in the concept of the consumption community isthat it encompasses both a sense of belongingness and whatGoodwin (1997) refers to as "communality." She distin-guishes communality from several other close relatives, de-scribing it as resembling a friendship that is marked bynonessential conversation, disclosure, and helping behavior.Thus, in the social consumption village, the consumer sub-mits to the judgment and recommendations of the group col-lective voluntarily and willingly. This subjugation is per-formed for the rewards of membership and to reap thefriendships and protectiveness of the collective.

There are many examples of this in the consumer envi-ronment. Residential communities for the elderly are exem-plars, as are military posts (e.g., the commissary). In the for-mer case, many consumption activities are preselected forresidents, such as tours to locations of interest. Other exam-ples include educational facilities (e.g., school lunchroomprograms), the Greek fraternity and sorority system, medicalfacilities, managerial services that coordinate office envi-ronments, scouting, and cooperatives of all varieties. Pro-ducers with unique product lines that require proprietary ac-cessories (Apple Computer, until recently), buying clubs(Sam's), and goal-oriented programs (Weigbt Watcbers) areotber examples. In all manifestations of the consumptioncommunity, the loyalty exhibited stems from two primarysources: brand exposure and repetition and the apparent en-dorsement by the collective.

In the absence of a contained environment, marketerscan approximate this concept with the notion of family.Consumers everywhere can be contacted with literature thatrefers to buyers of like products as family. General Motors'(GM) Saturn division used tbis concept when it had a first-year "reunion" for all buyers of Saturn vehicles. Harley-Davidson bosted a 95th anniversary in 1998, organizing fivemajor routes tbroughout the United States by wbicb Harleyriders converged on Milwaukee, tbe corporation's home,More than 100,000 bikers participated, all of whom are partof the Harley family. Other marketers use status themes,such as Holiday Inn's Priority One Club and airline Execu-tive Clubs, to achieve the same effect.

For product and service categories with less family tooffer, loyalty programs (see Dowling and Uncles 1997) mayprovide the same sense of participation. Modeled afterfrequent-flyer strategies, loyalty programs are designed toreward repurchasers with extra product (e.g., flights) or sup-plementary goods and services. Such programs are nowcommon and offered by credit card issuers, retailers, andeven automotive manufacturers (e.g., the GM card). Analy-ses of the success of these schemes show weak excess loy-

alty effects, though some have demonstrated substantial re-turns (Sharp and Sharp 1997).

individual and Social integration: Fuiiy BondedLoyaity

The final cell in Table 2 represetits a blend of personal iden-tity with the cultural milieu surrounding the consumable.This situation is distinguished from the previous example ofthe village because, in this case, the cultural/social environ-ment may assume a passive or stationary, though enticing,role. The eonsumer is drawn to the consumable environ-ment, as opposed to the situation in which the environmentdefines consumption for the consumer, though this occurs aswell. The main distinguishing feature of this cell is that theconsumer finds a "natural match" with both the consumableand its environment.

This is a particularly healthy situation for the firm be-cause the product/service is embedded inextricably withinsome portion of the consumer's psyche, as well as his or herlifestyle. The consumable is part and parcel of the con-sumer's self-identity and his or her social identity. That is,the person cannot conceive of him- or herself as whole with-out it. At the extreme, the object is present intensionally andextensionally. The consumer would say that the object is"part of me" and that it is an "extension of me" (sec Belk1988). He or she lives it. Strong examples include religioussects and cults, though consumables in the more ordinaryconsumption domain are candidates, as follows.

Common examples include products, services, and evenimages supported by fans with various levels of group iden-tification. Sports teams, music groups, well-known enter-tainers (e.g., Elvis), alma maters, political organizations(e.g., Ross Perot's United We Stand America), and activityand lifestyle themes (e.g., skiers. Generation Xers) qualify.Typically, even including fan clubs, the identity of the con-sumer is not known to the team, artist, or so forth. The allureof the larger consumption icon is sufficient to hold the con-sumer to the loyalty state. Fans are known to go to greatlengths to support their icon, from extensive travel to specialuniforms (e.g., Star Trekkics) to head gear (e.g., parrothcads[Jimmy Buffett], cheeseheads [Green Bay Packers]) topainted bodies. Otber forms of display insignia include lo-gos on outerwear, badges, bumper stickers, and affinity(credit) cards.

Two excellent examples of tbis immersed self-identitystrategy come from Hariey-Davidson and Winnebago, amanufacturer of recreational vebicles (RVs). These firms,through their corporate programs, support local clubs andrallies. Harley-Davidson manages its program with the co-operation of its local H.O.G. chapters, which require metn-bership in the corporate H.O.G. organization. Winnebagoclubs are managed similarly, though members literally canlive the Winnebago lifestyle in their Winnebago, some re-siding and traveling to rallies and other locations in their RVyear-round. Members receive roadside service, insurance,and even mail forwarding support from affiliation with theclub.

This ends the discussion of loyalty influences beyondthe cognitive-to-action framework. A consumer's willing-

40 / Journal of Marketing, Special Issue 1999

ness Co rebuy or repatronize cannot reach ultimate extremesuntil he or she is willing to adore and commit unfailingly(i.e.. love) to a product or service. Beyond this, the neces-sary additional adhesion stems from the social bonding of aconsumption community and the synergy between the two.In essence, the consumer wants to be loyal, the social orga-nization wants him or her to be loyal, and as a result, the twomay become symbiotic. These are stringent criteria for thefirm that wishes (o have a loyal customer base. A reasonableand rhetorical question then is: What companies will be ableto attain this state?

The Domain of Loyalty:Is It Accessible to All?

A fully immersed self-identity (the high-high cell in Table2), as an ultimate loyalty state, cannot be achieved by allmarketers. This requires product superiority at the mini-mum, plus customers who can become determined defend-ers of the brand, plus a supportive social environment. Ifihese requirements are unattained or unattainable, the deptbof tbe loyalty state becomes more sballow and precarious.

What does it take to bring all these into being? Tbere arefive essential criteria. First, tbe product must be of someunique configuration that makes it desirable (i.e., superior).Second, a profitably sized segment of the firm's customersmusl find it desirable in tbis manner. Third, tbe consumablemust be subject to adoration, at least in the eyes of the firm'spotentially loyal consumers. Fourth, the product musl havethe capacity lo be embedded in a social network, for if afirm's consumers cannot be networked at least perceptually,they cannot feel that they are part of a village. Fifth, thecompany must be willing lo expend resources to create, pop-ulate, and maintain the village. This does not have to be apbysical or even electronic (e.g., Internet) village but ratbercan be maintained ihrougb communication at tbe corporateor local levels, as in tbe Winnebago and Harley-Davidsonexamples. Eacb of these criteria is discussed in greater de-tail next.

Can the firm achieve and maintain product uniquenessor superiority in the face of aggressive competition? If not,the basic building block of cognitive loyalty is missing, and(he firm must rely on fallback strategies such as low price.Particularly susceptible are firms in rapidly growing indus-tries in wbicb product innovation is rampant. Tbe currentelectronic online industry is one such example.

Are the finn's major market segments likely to be loy-al? Tbis is an individual difference issue that has not beenbroached here. Evidence cited in Oliver (1997) suggeststhai consumers arc not necessarily loyal to, for example,food and household products. Major durables were nol in-vestigated. As noted, commodilylike items are not goodcandidates for loyalty programs, though Chiquita, Sunkist,Perdue, and Columbian coffee have made strides in thisarea. In light of ihe material presented here, however, it isperhaps best to suggest they have engendered preference,nol loyalty.

Is the object or service "lovable?" Is it one for which aconsumer can become a devoted defender of the branded

consumable? Many commentators on the American automo-bile experience have referred to the country's "love affairwith ihe car." Some Americans still love their cars, takepride in ownership, pamper them, and so forth. Belk (1988)cites many examples of objects tbat are cberished; memora-bilia are high on the list. If consumers can be conditioned loadore and commit unfailingly to the use of a brand, this di-mension of loyalty can be cultivated.

Can a social network be put in place that brings con-sumers in as family? Many manufacturers have attempted todo this. Some begin, find the strategy costly, and drop it. Forexample, Saturn waited until 1999 for its second reunion af-ter the first in 1994; the loss of a "reunion effect" on buyersin the intervening years is unknown. Chrysler's Jeep divi-sion has "Jeep Jamborees'" at which Jeep owners try theirskills at four-wheel driving, but communications about theseevents from the eorporate office are irTeguIar.

Finally, can the personal zealotry of brand fascinationand a supportive social network be merged? Fan clubs at-tempt this, and some succeed. In many cases, independentorganizations take this opportunity and exploit il. Organiz-ers of Trekkie conventions, Elvis impersonation contests,the Wally Byam Caravan Clubs (Airstream RVs), and col-lector's clubs (e.g.. Barbie dolls) are examples. At tbe cor-porate level, serious planning and researcb must be under-taken to identify tbe truly loyal and find a mechanism tobring them together under a corporate umbrella.

What if any of these conditions are unattainable or notattained? The potential for ultimate loyalty erodes in thesame order in which it develops. As the ability to bond a so-cial network with the consumer's lifestyle cannot beachieved, as the social network possibilities are nol avail-able, as the ability for some consumers to love the productor service provision is absent, and as the product's ability tosustain superiority or uniqueness fails, so does the potentialfor loyalty. To the firm that cannot find a loyalty angle, sat-isfaction is the best for which it can hope. This satisfactioncan be quality-based or. at ibe extreme minimalist position,price-based. In the end. loyalty will be unavailable lo many,and efforts thai "throw money at" loyalty programs aredoomed to fail. Tbese firms should be content to pursuemere satisfaction.

What Is the Relation BetweenSatisfaction and Loyalty?

Previously, six plausible relations, shown graphically in Fig-ure I, were suggested lo link satisfaction and loyalty. It isnow time to discuss the appropriateness of each in light ofthe evidence offered. Panel 1, which suggests that satisfac-tion and loyalty are two manifestations of the same concept,is dismissed easily. From ihe definitions proffered in Oliver(1997) and the many avenues ofdiscour.se presented here, itshould be clear that the two concepts are distinct. Satisfac-tion is a fairly temporal postusage state for one-time con-sumption or a repeatedly experienced state for ongoing con-sumption that retlects how the product or service hasfulfilled its purpose. From the perspective of the firm, satis-faction is delivered to the consumer. Loyalty, in contrast, is

Whence Consumer Loyalty / 41

an attained state of enduring preference to the point of de-termined defense.

Panels 2 and 3 suggest that satisfaction is an essentialingredient for the emergence of loyalty. The first arguesthat satisfaction is "core," the second only that it is neces-sary. There is merit to these perspectives, because no pos-sibility discussed here entertains loyalty developmentwithout early or concurrent satisfying episodes. Even in thevillage concept, it is presumed that the "menu" that is of-fered to the constituents is satisfying or, at least, satisfac-tory. Excepting those villages with severe exit barriers(e.g., cults), members would express dissatisfaction orleave the group if aspects of its consumption system wereunsatisfactory. Although satisfaction may not be a core el-ement of loyalty, particularly after loyalty bas been estab-lished, it is difficult to entertain loyalty development with-out satisfaction. The endurance of loyalty is another matter,however.

Panels 2 and 3 diverge from the discussion presentedhere in terms of the degree lo which loyalty totally en-compasses satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction is contained en-tirely within loyalty). It is simple to demonstrate commonconsumption situations in which satisfaction exists with-out loyalty (a satisfying meal, regardless of the entree)and loyalty exists without satisfaction (unequivocal blindfaitb, "my country, right or wrong"). In tbis sense. Panel5 is more accurate, in that it shows satisfaction and loy-alty in an overlapping posture, but tbe percentage ofoverlap is small in relation to the content of each con-struct. However, Panel 5 fails on the criterion of the in-dependence of satisfaction and loyalty for the situationsdescribed.

This leaves Panels 4 and 6, the first of which suggeststhat a superordinale concept, ultimate loyalty, encom-passes both satisfaction and loyalty. For the same reasonsdiscussed lor Panels 2 and 3, the containment element ofthis description can be dismissed, but the notion of ulti-mate loyalty as superordinate can be endorsed. In the at-titude theme of loyalty, tour forms of lesser loyalty—cog-nitive, affective, conative, and action—were entertained.In their own way, these are variants of loyalty. It is notuntil fortitude develops that ultimate loyalty becomespossible.

This leads the discussion to Panel 6, in which satisfac-tion becomes transformed into loyalty mucb like a caterpil-lar becomes transformed into a butterfly. After tbis meta-morpbosis, tbe two creatures are not the same and sharevirtually no common characteristics except for their biolog-ical origins. This is truly an extreme position, for it suggeststhat loyalty never can return to mere satisfaction. Oliva,Oliver, and MacMillan (1992) have empirically suggestedthai there is a threshold at which loyalty can revert to dis-satisfaction in the face of repeatedly unsatisfactory purchaseepisodes. What has not been shown is Ibe case in wbicb loy-alty reverts to (positive) satisfaction and the consumer be-comes open to competitive advances.

The reason for the ambivalence regarding which con-ception is most accurate is that, even with the perspectivetaken here, there remain variants of loyalty. In addition to

the cognitive-to-action sequence, there are different degreesof loyalty, depending on how many of the synergistic factorspresented here are involved. Ultimate loyally is supportedby tbe convergence of product, personal, and social forces,and the consumer displaying this state has logical, personal,and communal loyally sustainers. At the same time, compe-tition is thwarted easily by these same forces. The social en-vironment insulates with a buffering mechanism and is theconsumer's fortress, the personal fortitude factor acts as theconsumer's shield, and the product's superiority maintainsthe logic mechanism—in effect, the consumer's weaponry.

Removing any of these lowers the consumer's resistanceto competitive persuasion. Loyalty supported only by the so-cial environment enables the consumer to look beyond itsborders, in much the same way that children can look be-yond the neighborhood and family unit from which they de-veloped. Loyalty supported only by fortitude is susceptibleto relapses such as self-doubt, second tbougbts, competitiveonslaught, and repetitively unpleasant dissatisfactory expe-riences. As discussed throughout this article, loyalty sup-ported only by product information is subject to competitivecounterinformation.

Thus, Panel 6 comes closest to the perspective takenhere, except that satisfaction does not transform into loy-alty as much as it is a seed that requires ihe nurturance ofsun, moisture, and soil nutrients. These are the analogiesto personal determination and social support. Withoutthese additional factors, satisfaction, similar to the seed,stays dormant. The consumer remains satisfied but doesnot grow beyond that state. Even a flash of sun or wa-ter—sucb as ibe flash of delight—will not begin ihetransformation process. When the seed sprouts, il willgrow if the requisite factors are there. Only the full-grown version contains the "health" necessary to fight offall comers.

Is Brand Loyalty an Anachronismof the 1990s?

Before discussing the research directions suggested by theissues raised here, it would be of interest to explorewhether current economic conditions frustrate the emer-gence of loyalty. Much of this argument relies on the "ir-rationality of loyalty" position discussed previously.Greater regional and global competition, price competi-tion, and market fragmentation are cited as reasons "ratio-nal" consumers will be swayed to patronize the product orservice with a preferred (lower) price, better features, ormore personally customized features as competitors' prod-ucts are introduced to the market. Lacking frotn these rea-sons are elements that would cause consumers lo prefer tobe loyal.

For example, a defense of loyalty can begin by referringto a basic instinct of human nature to be loyal. Loyalty is no-ble. It suggests that a person has conviction, trust, and fi-delity. But this aside, maintaining loyalty is easy; it is thetried and true. Consumers weary of consuming can repur-chase without great effort, provided the eonsumable has nolchanged for the worse. ,

42 / Journal of Marketing, Special Issue 1999

Thus, the forces arguing for waning loyalty are counter-balanced by those favoring loyalty. Loyalty behavior is in anapparent state of equilibrium. This is evidenced by a recentstudy by Dekimpe and colleagues (1997). in which theyfound, at least in the categories studied, that there is vari-ability around the loyaity response, as there is for any hu-man behavior. In essence. loyalty is as viable a strategy as itever was. Its attainability for individual firms is not a con-stant, however, and fimis are encouraged to study their po-sition and options in the pursuit of this goal.

Research Directions for the FutureI'oslconsumplion investigators will find that several issuesthat require both initial exploration and greater resolutionawait study. These issues involve the fundamental meaningof loyalty, its attainability, and its link to revenues net of theinvestments firms must make to ensure successful loyaltyprograms. Each is discussed in turn.

What is Loyalty?Pa.st researchers had assumed that loyalty could be de-scribed sufficiently by patterns of repeat purchasing. Thisnotion was put to rest when multibrand and attitude-basedmodels were proposed, which lead to the now popular cog-nitive-affective-conative representation of brand commit-ment. Although not well researched, action inertia has beensuggested as a fourth loyally stage. In addition, this discus-sion has proposed behavior states that transcend this some-what logical motlel. In essence, consumers can becomenear-zealots on ihe basis of adoration and devotion and canbe placed in self-sustaining .social environments that rein-force their brand determination. Questions arise, as follows:

•What portion of consumers in general are inherently loyal.disloyal, or ambivalent? Whai are Ihe determining character-istics of these stales? Do consumers express loyalty different-ly across product and service categories?

•If. as suggested here, satisfaction and loyalty are divergentcoticepts. whai constitutes ihcir overlap? Alternatively, whatpanel in Figure I best describes iheir correspondence?

•Ht)w is the action-loyal siaie attained? Is \l simple inertia, ordocs it have clear behavioral antecedents?

•What is lortiitide? Is \i a combination of adoration and com-miiment. as suggested here, or docs it consist of other content?

•What IS the transitioning mechanism between action loyaltyand fortitude? How docs a consumer move from one state toIhe other, and how can firms facilitate this?

•What are ihe options for constructing a consumptioncoinmtinity or village? How strong are the bonds in a"lainily" in which consumers might not have face-to-facecontact?

•What is the role of repetition and mere exposure in loyalty ina consumption community?

•What additional synergistic effects are garnered when forti-tude and community combine? Are these effects additive orsynergislic?

Is Loyalty Attainable for individual Firms?Several issues have been raised in the context of the attain-ability of loyalty stales. Generally, these relate lo the ability

and willingness of firms to institute loyally programs thatconsist of a village-lype networking of consumers and tbedegree to which this same consumer base contains potentialdevotees of the product or service. These questions wereposed in the context of individual firms and industries. Thequeries that follow are offered to researchers in the hope thatgeneralizations will be forthcoming as starting points forfurther research programs:

•What product and service categories are most adaptable to thefortitude and village concepts?

•Does itidustry structure play a role in loyalty developmentamong its members?

•Is the rate of innovation a factor in loyalty for individualfirms in industries with varying levels of innovativeness?

•Do management experience, strategy, and resourcefulnessplay roles in loyalty programs?

•Can management identify its loyal segments through meansother than repeat purchase patterns?

•Can management cultivate loyalty through the mechanisms offortitude and community? What are the nature and variants ofsuch programs?

is Loyaity Profitabie to Ail?Work by associates at Bain & Company has suggested thatIhe returns to loyalty are in double-digit categories. Thesefigures, however, speak more to retention than to psycho-logical loyalty states. Although there is an unquestionablecorrespondence between the two. there are situations inwhich individual consumers do not have the opportunity orneed to reconsume but remain loyal nonetbeless (e.g.. alum-ni). Further insight on the effects of such passive loyalty areneeded. In addition, the Bain figures do not address the costof loyalty programs beyond tbe apparent role of satisfactorypurcbasing. Tbere remain tbe costs of ultimate loyalty, asdiscussed here in the form of maintaining the synergy of vil-lage and fortitude.

•What are the costs, respectively, of various loyalty strategies.including satistaclion. product superiority, fortitude, commu-nity, and their synergy?

•Do these strategies engender different returns in relation totheir costs?

•Are there quantifiable benefits to passive loyalty, such asword of mouth and recommendations?

•Are loyally programs best managed in-house or contracted out?•Do loyalty programs have reciprocal internal eftects. such asfeedback on employee morale?

•Can loyalty be affected as a secondary result of improvingemployee morale generally?

•What are the determining characteristics, more generally, of

returns to loyalty?

It appears that there is much to he known about themuch-lauded but little understood concept of loyalty. Withthis in mind, it is hoped that the knowledge base of loyaltywill be extended in the same way that satisfaction work hasprogressed to current levels, Ironically, further strides inmanagement's understanding of loyalty may pose new is-sues and questions for satisfaction work, thus bringing thesatisfaetion-Ioyalty conundrum full circle.

Whence Consumer Loyalty / 43

REFERENCESAhuvia. Aaron (1992), "For the Love of Money: Materialism and

Product Love," in Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materi-alism, Floyd Rudmin and Marsha Richins, eds. Provo, UT: As-sociation for Consumer Research, 188-98.

Anderson, Eugene W. and Mary W. Sullivan {1993), 'The An-tecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction forFirms." Marketing Science, 12 (Spring), 125-43.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self,"Journal of Consumer Research. 15 (September). 139-68.

Boorstin, Daniel J. (1973), The Americans: The Democratic Expe-rience. New York: Random House.

Cooper, Robert G. (1993), Winning at New Products: Acceleratingthe Process from Idea to Launch, 2d ed. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Dekimpe, Marnik G.. Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, Martin Mel-lens, and Piet Vanden Abeele (1997), "Decline and Variabilityin Brand Loyalty," International Journal of Research in Mar-keting. 14 (December), 405-20.

Deming, W. Edwards (1986), Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for AdvancedEngineering Study.

DcSarbo, Wayne S., Lenard Huff, Marcelo M. Rolandelli, andJungwhan Choi (1994), "On the Measurement of PerceivedService Quality: A Conjoint Analysis Approach," in ServiceQuality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Roland T,Rust and Richard L. Oliver, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, 201-22.

Dick, Alan S. and Kunal Basu (1994), "Customer Loyalty: Towardan Integrated Conceptual Framework," Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 22 (Winter). 99-113.

Dowling, Grahamc R. and Mark Uncles (1997), "Do CustomerLoyalty Programs Really Work?" Sloan Management Review,38 (Summer), 71-82.

East. Robert and Kathy Hammond (1996), "The Erosion ofRe peat-Purchase Loyalty," Marketing Letters, 1 (March),163-71.

Fornell, Claes and Birger Wemerfelt (1987). "Defensive MarketingStrategy by Customer Complaint Management," Journal ofMarketing Research, 24 (November), 337-46.

Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Develop-ing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal ofConsumer Research. 24 (March), 343-73,

Friedman. Monroe. Piet Vanden Abeele, and Koen De Vos (1993)."Boorstin's Consumption Community Concept: A Tale of TwoCountries." Journal of Consumer Policy. 16(1), 35-60.

Goodwin, Cathy (1997), "Communallty as a Dimension of ServiceRelationships." Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (4),387-415.

Heide. Jan B. and Allen M. Weiss (1995). "Vendor Considerationand Switching Behavior for Buyers in High-Technology Mar-kels." Journal of Marketing. 59 (July), 30-43,

Higgins, Kevin T. (1997), "Coming of Age: Despite GrowingPains, Customer Satisfaction Measurement Continues toEvolve," Marketing News, 31 (October 27). I. 12.

Jacoby. Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Jones, Thomas O. and W, Earl Sasser Jr. (1995), "Why SatisfiedCustomers Defect," Harvard Business Review, 73 (Novem-ber/December), 88-99.

Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy and John D.C. Little (1994), "An Em-pirical Analysis of Latitude of Price Acceptance in ConsumerPackage Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (Decem-ber), 408-18.

Keaveney. Susan M. (1995). "Customer Switching Behavior inService Industries: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Market-ing. 59 (ApTi\),l\-%2.

Kuhl, Julius and Jurgen Beckmann (1985), "Historical Perspec-tives in the Study of Action Control," in Action Control: FromCognition to Beliavior. Julius Kuhl and JUrgen Beckmann. eds.Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 89-100.

Miller, Rowland S. (1997), "Inattentive and Contented: Rela-tionship Commitment and Attention to Alternatives," Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (October).758-66.

Mizerski, Richard W. (1982). "An Attribution Explanation ofthe Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Informa-tion," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December).301-10.

Morgan. Michael S. and Chekitan S. Dev (1994), "An EmpiricalStudy of Brand Switching for a Retail Service," Journal of Re-tailing. 10 (FaW). 261-H2.

Murray, Sandra L.. John G. Holmes, and Dale W. Griftm (1996),"The Benefits of Positive Illusions: Idealization and the Con-struction of Satisfaction in Close Relationships," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 70 (January), 79-98.

Newman, Joseph W. and Richard A. Werbei (1973), "MultivariateAnalysis of Brand Loyalty for Major Household Appliances,"Journal of Marketing Research. 10 (November), 404-409.

Oliva, Terence A.. Richard L. Oliver, and Ian C, MacMillan(1992). "A Catastrophe Mixlel for Developing Service Satisfac-tion Strategies." Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 83-95.

Oliver, Richard L. (1980), "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedentsand Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions," Journal of Mar-keting Research, 17 (November), 460-69.

(1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Con-sumer. New York: irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Ping, Robert A.. Jr. (1994), "Does Satisfaction Moderate the Asso-ciation Between Alternative Attractiveness and Exit Intention ina Marketing Channel?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing5aV/)Cf. 22 (Fall), 364-71.

Reichheld, Frederick F (1996). The Loyalty Effect. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

and W. Earl Sasser (1990). "Zero Defections: QualityComes to Services," Harvard Business Review, 68 (Septem-ber/October), 105-11.

Sambandam, Rajan and Kenneth R. Lord (1995), "Switching Be-havior in Automobile Markets: A Consideration-Sets Model."Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (Winter),57-65.

Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander (1995), "Subcul-tures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers,"Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June). 43-61.

Sharp. Byron and Anne Sharp (1997), "Loyalty Programs andTheir Impact on Repeat-Purchase Loyalty Patterns," Interna-tional Journal of Research in Marketing. 14 (December),473-86,

Sivakumar, K. and S.P. Raj (1997), "Quality Tier Competition:How Price Change Influences Brand Choice and CategoryChoice." Journal of Marketing, 61 (July), 71-84.

Stewart, Thomas A. (1997). "A Satisfied Customer Isn't Enough,"Fortune, 136 (July 21), 112-13.

Tellis. Gerard J. (1988). "Advertising Exposure. Loyalty, andBrand Purchase: A Two-Stage Model of Choice," Journal ofMarketing Research, 25 (May), 134—44.

Tse. David K. and Peter C. Wilton (1988), "Models of ConsumerSatisfaction Formation; An Extension." Journal of MarketingResearch. 25 (May), 204-12.

Wilson. David T (1995). "An Integrated Mode! of Buyer-SellerRelationships." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.23 (Fall), 335^5.

Wylie. Kenneth (1993), "Customer Satisfaction Blooms: Rivalry atTop Gvows." Advertising Age, (October 18), SI-S5.

44 / Journal of Marketing, Special Issue 1999