EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES ON BRAND LOYALTY

 

Humna Hanif

Celeste Rodrigues

 

Abstract

Brand loyalty is based on customer decision involvement; in this study we show the relationship between promotional activities and loyal customer to specific brands. We have examined the relationship between the customer purchasing pattern and brand loyalty and how loyal customer are likely to switch brands because of promotional activities in the service industries. Our research shows how frequently loyal customer switch brands according to the positive situations like promotional activities. Situational factors influence loyal brand customers, factors like brand loyalty, brand decision involvement, brand satisfaction, brand identification, self-congruity, service value and brand involvement. A questionnaire covering a sample size of 300 people who frequently use food service brands. Our respondents being adults of all ages who frequently order food. The main variables used in the study are borrowed from a previous research and further tested for validity and reliability among one moderated variable. We used SPSS to conduct a reliability analysis with the help of Cronbach’s Alpha to test the variables and further tested the model in AMOS. The study examines how promotional activities impact brand loyal customers; it will be beneficial to those brands who would want to retain their customers in the long term. They may also know how promotional activities influence the buying pattern of customers. Brand loyalty, promotional activities, customer loyalty, and customer decision participation.

Keywords: Brand loyalty, promotional activities, customer loyalty, and customer decision involvement.

Introduction

 

Overview and Background

 

Customers cherish brands (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012)also, advertisers thus contribute a lot of exertion and assets in making their brands engaging and effective (De Chernatory , McDonald, & Wallace , 2012) An individual known as Nanette Brown, with more than 25 years of active participation , expresses that, “If you aren’t focusing on your customer’s needs at each point of interaction, you risk frustrating your customers and driving them away” (Wenxia & Kelley, 2017)A self-situated client thinks about the connection from their own perspective (Sheth, 1976)Customer motivations affect purchase intentions, (Forster, Higgins , & Idson, 1998)the discoveries in this article may encourage organizations to focus on solidification exercises, with the goal that they can enhance their administration offerings, which thus ought to enhance clients' fulfillment and loyalty (Moorman , Zaltman , & Deshpande, 1992).

 

Esteem isn't simply made by the organization and its accomplices; it is dependably co-made by the association and its clients through communications and trades (Vargo & Lusch, 2008).Correspondence likewise is a predecessor of duty in collaborative connections portrayed by collaboration and trust (Anderson & Narus , 1990)There exists no expansive concurrence as for the parts of client encounters that requires evaluation, estimates and the association relationship between client encounter and other more settled propelling structures. (Fatma, 2014), the center estimation of a label lies in working up its dedication. Label unwavering quality empowers customers to detach a particular brand from others. (Susanty & Kenny, 2015). Making brand commitment is essential to keep up a whole deal customer relationship (Cha , Yi , & Baggozi , 2015).

 

Compelling associations have better resources and limits, which empower them to convey offerings more profitably that in the long run, give better an incentive to customers (Timothy & Nee, 2017) Key client results like informal verbal exchange. (Scheofer & Diamantopoulos, 2008)Customers who are more item arranged will appreciate such cooperation’s (Angell, Megicks, Memery, Heffernan, & Howell, 2012)Client to-client cooperation (CCP) can be immediate or because of the minor nearness of different clients (Luck & Benkenstein, 2015)Recognize disappointing encounters to be altogether identified with negative experiences with different clients (Harris, Davies, & Baron, 1997)discovered a positive connection among CCP and fulfillment with the buying procedure (Joana, Patricia, Lélis, & Kenny, 2017).

 

Customer brand distinguishing  can be developed after some time by reliably arranged and very much planned marketing activities (Yi, Qimei, Ruby, Yonggui, & Atilla, 2017)Earlier research demonstrates that brand group individuals continually utilize the images and implications of brands to build their individual characters (Arnould & Craig, 2005)the motivational systems that drive group mark building practices, group practices, are basic in building a solid brand, Understanding this component is imperative since the recognizable proof is frequently connected with great brand promotion. We address the reasonable worries with reference to how distinguishing proof among mark group individuals can be encouraged (Press & Eric, 2011) (Schau, Albert, & Eric, 2009)our exploration examines the procedure that prompts shoppers or brand group individuals to relate to a brand. (Yi, Qimei, Ruby, Yonggui, & Atilla, 2017).

 

Brand commonality was observed as a critical element impacting label recollections. (Choi , Sung , & Hairong , 2013)Advertisers hope to impact intellectual, full of feeling, and cognitive purchaser results, including brand remarkable quality, mark review, mark acknowledgment, mark demeanor, mark decision or buy expectation (Balasubramanian, 1994). Brand recognition will help in making new acquainted connections about data and fuse them into viably existing memory structures with fewer efforts. (Lang, 2000). Brand commonality prompts a rapid acknowledgment of a brand (Machliet & R, 1988). Brand nature influences promoting adequacy in view of the affiliation a brand inspires a customer memory (Campbell & Kevin, 2003).

 

An organization passes on its picture as a motivating force to two agents and opens with consistency under an umbrella term of corporate correspondence. (Shelby, 1993) Marketing is a guarantee made by a company, and publics see mark esteem in view of how well the guarantee is kept. (Doo Syen, 2016)Eventually adding to consumer loyalty and the achievement of a company (Segal-Horn, Chematony, & Drury S, 2003).

 

Regardless of the expanding significance of understanding the customer eagerness to take an interest in mark restoration developments, a few special cases incorporate (Dion & Mazzalovo, 2016) (Narvanen & Goulding, 2016)To better comprehend the components that drive customers' inspirations/states of mind to take an interest in mark restoration developments, we acquire from the writing of the useful bases of perspective (Davari, Iyer, & Guzman, 2017)what's more, they fill in as the learning capacity that enables purchasers to sort out and structure data about an item/product (Grewal, Mehta, & Kardes, 2004)Earlier writing has utilized the expression "versatile offering" to reference the demonstration of coordinating a deal system to customer needs (Weitz, 1981)The utilization of versatile offering can positively affect purchaser reactions. The utilization of versatile offering can positively affect consumer reactions (Ramsey & Sohi, 1997).

 

Problem Statement

 

        Dealing with consumer behavior, characterized essentially as "make a strong consumer relation”, (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016, p. 69)Bond created once a purchase is made (or experience) from a label (Lariviere, Keiningham, Cooil, & Aksoy, 2014).Client relation is to encourage responsibility regarding the brand (Lariviere, Keiningham, Cooil, & Aksoy, 2014)Brands secure implications through a dynamic procedure of social accord, including mass promoting, the mold framework, and reference gatherings (McCracken, 1986)The brand administration theory highlight the significance of making and managing connections to prevail in the target market (Torelli & Rodas, 2017)In trade theory, most scientists comparably assume that fulfillment is an antecedent to, (Arezoo, Pramod, & Francisco, Determinants of brand resurrection movement, 2016). The exchange of client experience and responsibility (Arezoo, Pramood, & Francisco, 2017)regardless of the expanding significance of understanding the customer readiness to take an interest in brand restoration developments, there is  literature around there (a few exemptions incorporate) (Narvanen & Goulding, 2016)To better relationships, the elements that drive customers' inspirations/view to take an interest in brand restoration developments, we obtain from the research that the utilitarian basis of states of mind (Arezoo, Pramod, & Francisco, 2016)Brand fulfillment indicates to a client's contentment towards a label, in light of a number of experiences with specialist organizations (Olsen, Reporchase loyalty, 2007)Happy consumer have a tendency to be less value touchy, less affected by contenders' advancements and more faithful to organizations, contrasted with a disappointed consumer(Dimitriades, Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service organization, 2006)This research did not focus on attributes or situational impacts (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011)as well as consumer situational reactions (Sierra, Heiser, & McQuitty, 2009)might assume a directing part in the utilization assessment process (Soon- & Seonjeong, 2017)

        

        As we can see in the above statement that it is not examined yet how situations affect brand loyalty and customer purchasing pattern, so we are conducting further research on attributes that can determine customer loyalty on different situations that can influence consumers to be loyal towards a brand.

 

Objective

 

        This analysis is conducted for the purpose of evaluating the connection between brand loyalty towards brands in different situations. This research will show why a customer switches brands according to the situation and how frequently it is done, and after that customer is satisfied or not. How a situation is created and at which time customer think it’s time to change a brand. Our study is on positive situations like promotion price, we will check how frequently price impact on the customer to try a new service, it can be other factors like sale, attractive advertisement, a new brand or influence group. The study shows that how a loyal customer is influenced by these factors. In this research we work on a relationship between brand recognition, self-congruity, service value and its impact on brand participation and brand decision attachment, furthermore we also check the influence of a brands participation in assisting a customer’s decision as well as brand involvement on brand contentment and brand loyalty, moreover we add moderating variable and check its impact on IVs and DVs. Moderating variable is situational variable, which directly impact on a relation of IVs and DVs and we major that impact in this research, and how customer involvement changes because of new service or new brand in a market.

 

Literature Review

 

 

Brand Loyalty

 

        “Brand loyalty refers to a customers’ commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service reducing their switching behavior”  (Oliver R. , Whence Consumer Loyalty, 1999)

Brand loyalty is a way where purchase your brand frequently and is loyally to your brand, customer prefer your brand over other brand and suggest other to purchase it, a trust factor is generated between brand and customer.

 

Brand Satisfaction

 

        “Brand satisfaction refers to a customer’s overall satisfaction toward a brand, based on all encounters with the service provider” (Olsen, 2007).”

           

 When customer is content they are not so price conscious and they are ready to pay some extra money for that particular brand because of the satisfaction which they get through that particular brand, when customer is satisfied they give less attention towards competitor product and they somehow they become brand loyal because of their satisfaction.

 

Brand Decision Involvement
 

“Brand-decision participation refers to “customers’ interest taken in making the brand selection” (Mittal & Lee, 1989)Customer attention can be explained as brand involvement which is when a customer’s attention is drawn towards a certain brand and their products. Also the amount to significance given to a certain brand is known s brand involvement. (Zaichowsky, Conceptualizing and Measuring the Involvement Construct in Marketing, 1984) A brands responsibility is to satisfy wants of any customer and look into what the customer demands to be satisfied. (Sierra, Heiser, & Mcquitty, 2009)A customer’s buying power can be referred to brand involvement (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

Customer Brand Identification

 

“Customer involvement refers to the interest a consumer finds in a product class” and assisting in a making a choice of brand refers to “customers’ interest taken in making the brand selection”

(Mittal & Lee, 1989) Customer identify brand through it features, some customer prefer brand according to their class circle, and only identify those brand which belong to their class, brand which identify and select also impact on their buying decision and the customer remember those which they see frequently or which have easy name.

 

Self-Congruity

 

“The individual-state of customer involvement represents individuals’ own behaviors (Laaksonen, 1994) self-congruity explains the individual-state approach” (Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982). Self-congruity refers customer own experience or perceive value is similar to brand when they purchase it. They give more value to that particular brand or service which is similar with their own previous experience or they believe.

 

Service Value

 

“Service value explains various service components that shape customers’ perceptions of value – a trade-off between what customers receive and what they give up” (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

Service value include various components, which brand have to fulfill, service should remain same which is very difficult do, value is which customer pay for service, service is expertise which brand provide to their customer, it is intangible and consumable.

 

rand Involvement

 

“Brand involvement is related to brand itself, focusing on whether the brand meets customers’ consumption goals” (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

The interest which show customer towards the brand at the time of purchasing and purchase it, and keep every update of it and the brand which customer is involved it also impact the purchase decision of a customer and through this involvement customer might become loyal toward a brand.

 

Promotional Activities

 

 “Acknowledge that in the marketing context, promotion traditionally includes advertising, personal selling, public relations and various forms of Promotional Activities” (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

Brands do promotional activities to get attention of customer and to make the customer loyal and also to engage customer in different promotional activities which help customer to remember the brand whenever they make purchase decision 

 

Advancing client esteem has been a key strategy that prompts client devotion (Eid, 2015)

 

The relationship between Brand Involvement and Brand Loyalty

 

The relationship between brand loyalty and brand involvement is supported by the involvement commitment model. (Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1988) A company’s performance is precisely connected to brand loyalty as in the service industry consumers are the main stakeholders. (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017) Brand loyalty is influenced by different levels of involvement by customers. (Hochgraefe, Faulk, & Vieregge, 2012)Through consumption customers recognize their self-concepts because of a brands symbolic nature. Hence, at the point when customers are involved it is anticipated that they have a tendency to have higher brand dedication, proposing the hypothesis. (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

H1: There is a positive connection between Brand Involvement and Brand Loyalty

 

The relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement

 

The measure of time, vitality and assets given for the buying procedure by clients are clarified by contribution. Generation and utilization in the administration of the service industry as if they connection were a characteristic of inseparability, customers also tend to take equal part in the service delivery process, (Chen & Raab, 2014) hence importance is given to encouraging customers’ personal relevance.

High involvement alongside with the decision process show how satisfied customers are with their decisions (Russell-Bennett, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote, 2007) between the customer and a service provider it serves as shared responsibility. (Sierra, Heiser, & Mcquitty, 2009)

 

H2: There is positive relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement

 

The relationship between Service Value and Promotional Activities

           

      The relationship linking service worth and promotional activity while focusing on the promotional activity is an important role which needs to be moderated. Publicizing, individual offerings, advertising and other different types of promotional activities acknowledge the marketing context and how promotion traditionally takes place. (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

H3: There is positive a relationship between Service Value and Promotional Activities

 

The relationship between Self Congruity and Brand Involvement

 

        The psychological based approach for client inclusion is clarified by client mark recognizable proof. This clarifies the mental connection between an object (question) and an individual (person). A customer’s connection of perceiving, feeling, valuing or any other psychological connection that shows his/her belongingness to a brand is all referred by a customer’s identification of a brand. (Olsen, 2007) Customer–brand recognition, individuals defining their self-concepts connected to brands are all in support of social identity theory. (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Client mark distinguishing proof significance that is upheld by researchers gives a superior comprehension of brand administration. (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008) Those clients who speak their personalities and impart by identifying to brands are self-congruity customers.  (Cha, Yi, & Bagozzi, 2015). Customer’s evaluation of a brand can be impacted by the level of recognition of a customer’s brand. (So, King, Sparks, & Wnag, 2013) When they have an abnormal state of brand recognizable proof and are fulfilled by the brand customers have a tendency to be glad or proud. (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008). Based on a connection between brand identification and customer involvement (Stokburger-Saucer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012), when they show stronger service brand involvements. It's accepted that clients see more prominent customer– mark distinguishing proof. (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

H4: There is positive relationship between Self Congruity and Brand Involvement

 

The relationship between Self Congruity and Brand Decision Involvement

 

An individual’s own behavior represents an individual state of customer involvement. (Laaksonen, 1994)The individual-state approach is explained by self-congruity. Through utilization encounters advertisement designs clients gather their mental self-portrait as well as self-personality. For instance, a brand harmonious with their own particular mental self-view clarifies how clients will probably buy brands. (Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982) Communicating a personal accomplishment and indicating societal position clarifies how belongings can speak about themselves. (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)The services they use can be related to a customer’s view (Kim & Jang, 2014). Brand consumption because of their symbolic nature helps customers recognize their self-concepts. Brands are firmly identified with customer’s sense of self congruity when customers exhibit positive responses to a brand. (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

H5: There is positive relationship between Self Congruity and Brand Decision Involvement

 

The relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement

                

 An individual state could be brand involvement motivation/interest) (Huang, Chou, & Lin, 2010)a process (enduring) between relationships serving as a moderator (Martin, Camereno, & Jose, 2011) Since Invalid source specified.  distributed his original work, setting of notices has been connected to association. (Lee & Kim, 2016) Purchase decision(s) (Bojanic & Wamick, 2012) and additionally the administration business. (Kinard & Capella, 2006). Diverse inclusion models have been produced to comprehend the part of association, in view of various circumstances.

These models include

 

The association reasonable and methodological viewpoints demonstrate the model (Bezencon & Blili, 2011); individual inclusion inventory (Zaichkowsky, 1985)the contribution conceptualizing and estimating model (Huang, Chou, & Lin, 2010) and (Laaksonen, 1994).

 

H6: There is positive relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement

 

The relationship between Customer Brand Identification and Brand Decision Involvement

 

  (Laaksonen, 1994) This study researches three diverse perspectives based on involvement model to look at factors that impact clients' contribution identification with service brands (Laaksonen, 1994)  . Proposed three classes for association

 

1. intellectual based approach (i.e. mental tie between an individual and a boost question);

2. singular state approach (i.e. the intrinsic capability of a circumstance to evoke worry with respect to people for their practices in the circumstance); and

3. 3.            Reaction based approach (i.e. perspectives identified with data preparing) (Soon-Ho & Seonjeong, 2017)

 

H7: There is positive relationship between Customer Brand Identification and Brand Decision Involvement

 

The relationship between Promotional Activities and Brand Satisfaction

             

        Encounters with service providers are based upon a customer’s overall satisfaction towards a brand. That is referred to as brand satisfaction. (Olsen, 2007) Fewer prices sensitive, less influenced by competitor’s promotional activities and more loyal customers tend to mostly be satisfies customers comparatively to the dissatisfied customers. (Dimitriades, 2006) Representation of higher brand loyalty is when customers are satisfied with a specific brand (Li & Petrick, 2008)

 

H8: There is positive relationship between Promotional Activities and Brand Satisfaction

 

The relationship between Promotional Activities and Brand Loyalty

 

Such as, for example, publicizing and advancement, value advancement, loss of validity, and changes in life occasions are the reasons of brand switching or switching behavior (Mathur, Moschis, & Lee, 2003) preferably consumers getting their selected brand (Szymanski & Henard, 2001) when customers move to different brand it is mainly because a new brand becomes their new preferred brand choice that they feel satisfied with. Hence suggests that the brand chosen and the attitude towards it share a positive relationship. While most of the time consumers get what they want sometimes may end up with something different like another brand of goods or service they don’t really want. This targets accurately where administrations limit obliges and earnestness of the buying choice of the shoppers to make due with a substitute brand (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004).  Consumers sometimes may switch as per studies due to relevant or situational factors that have a tendency to have brought down levels of reliability, operational and ability to obtain a recommended service brand  (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004).

 

H9: There is positive relationship Promotional Activities and Brand Loyalty

 

The relationship between Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Loyalty

 

        Customers making modifications in their determination consistently is not a deterministic process suggested by studies on consumer decisions. (Selnes, 1993) When for instance a brand that a consumer is using is not available chances are that consumers might purchase a competing brand which is not exactly a first choice but only because it could be used as an alternative. (Oliver R. L., 1980).

 

When customers face uncertainty in the decision making and outcomes they delay their decisions. (Reynolds, Darden, & Martin, 1974).

 

Utilizing these confirmations, we contend that purchasers who acquire their favored service brand are probably going to have more elevated amounts of devotion and additionally a more uplifting state of mind towards benefit enlargement components of the obtained(i.e. favored) brand (Audhlesh, Spears, & Gopala, 2007)

 

H10: There is positive relationship between Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Loyalty

 

The relationship between Self Congruity and Promotional Activities

               

        Loyalty through a peripheral route is influenced by self-image congruence. (Kang, Tang, & Lee, 2015) Functional congruity is showed to be influenced by self-congruity. (Oliver R. L., 1980)Low loyalty and spurious categories would switch to another alternative brand quicker than the loyal and latent groups, situational factors and social norms mediate this relation (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004). Contextual and situational factors are the factors indicated as to why consumers switch to other alternative brands (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004).

 

H11: There is positive relationship between Self Congruity and Promotional Activities

 

The relationship between Brand Involvement and Brand Satisfaction

       

        Customer loyalty indicators are the influencers of customer satisfaction, patronizing a service provider again or referring other customers to other providers are all motivated by satisfied customers (Lam, Shankar, Erramili, & Murthy, 2004). By the increase of attachments between a customer and a brand they try to increase revenues and maintain current customer base, which is the main goal of loyalty programs (Uncles, Dowling, & Hammond, 2003). A gathering that shows higher dedication towards any acquired brand would be the more grounded brand. The intention t purchase is an effective response related to the satisfaction levels. Hospitality loyalty is a crucial determinant of satisfaction (Yang & Peterson, 2004).

 

H12: There is positive relationship between Brand Involvement and Brand Satisfaction

 

The relationship between Service Value and Brand Decision Involvement

       

        Customer satisfaction and service quality achieved on high levels are referred to service organizations. (Audhlesh, Spears, & Gopala, 2007)Possessions are a way consumers discover, define and remind themselves who they are. Different products, services etc are way that expresses who you are through the consumption of different people. Some people use many or just a specific brand to define who they are; they build their identity and also create a certain sense out of it for themselves (Bettman & Escalas, 2005).

 

        Consumers barely chose to try new brands as one they get comfortable to one they don’t easily switch. They like to stick to the preferred brand that they feel suits them well enough (Szymanski & Henard, 2001). Exactly in the situations when consumers choose to switch to another brand, once they do then it becomes their preferred brand or choice. Even in the case of services where where desperation of the buy choice overpowers buyers to agree to a substitute brand.

 

H13: There is positive relationship between Service Value and Brand Decision Involvement

 

The relationship between Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Satisfaction

                

        Consumers get their preferred brand based on the investigation of the relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty. (Szymanski & Henard, 2001) Brands that different, original and express, reveal and reinforce their sense of themselves are the brands that consumers value (Bettman & Escalas, 2005) Brands that have an appealing personality and portray their identity well are the brands that consumers are looking for to use and they are the ones that are mostly searched for (Aaker, 1997) Back raises, social advantages and inborn prizes for consumers are what brands love and this could raise the relationship and benefits of brand representatives, they are perceived as love towards the brands (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012)

 

H14: There is positive relationship between Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Satisfaction

 

The relationship between Customer Brand Identification and Promotional Activities

 

Advertising, advancement, value advancement, loss of validity and changes in life occasions are, are reasons why brands switch or change and also their witching behavior. Although reasons for these switches and switching behavior are what it is more focused on (Audhlesh, Spears, & Gopala, 2007)Profitability through customer loyalty customer satisfaction who perceives high service quality to be satisfied is the customers that are most expected. (Lee, Patterson, & Viet Ngo, 2017) Consumers express who they are through the various products, services and brands that they use. Most individuals use this as a way to build their identity, their sense of themselves and the way they personally look at themselves (Bettman & Escalas, 2005)before their  strategize how the brand should be presented and positioned.

 

H15: There is positive relationship between Customer Brand Identification and Promotional Activities

 

Methodology

 

Method of data collection

 

Data was gathered for this research with the help of multiple questionnaires, from fast food customers, the fast food context under standardize service category, hence promotional activities is clearly understood, one of the most trending industry in Pakistan which is frequently use by customer on daily bases, it also defines the demographic of the customer and their involvement toward the brand The data is collected from different background customers like (students, office workers, social media users etc.). It’s a major market segment among many industries, as it is relatively pocket friendly and convenient. Our sampling was convenient and a questionnaire was distributed in both hardcopy and soft copy. We will give the questionnaire to those who frequently order fast food and through this we know that these consumers are loyal to a specific brand or not.  Data collection might show some biasness because of shortage of time.  The respondents were valid as they were mostly regular customers to the fast food industry.

 

Sampling technique and size

 

    The sample was collected through a questionnaire from a target market being the frequent consumers of a specific fast food. Our target market is every individual who consumes fast food on a frequent basis. Our sample size is 300 respondents for which we distributed 400 questionnaires online as well as in the form of hardcopy which was conducted by consumers who consume fast food regularly or at least twice a week. Out of 400 questionnaires 360 were returned out of which some were invalid and some had information missing because of their busy schedules and lack of interest. The questionnaire was filled by both gender male and female. And the questionnaire was adopted from different source which are authentic and the question were understandable.

 

Instruments of data collection

 

Customer–Brand Identification

1.      

1.     I praise fast food service.

2.       I would experience an emotional loss if I had to stop going my favorite fast food place.

3.       I give value to specific fast food place.

4.       I’m attached with the fast food brand.

5.       I am an important member of your fast food brand community.

 

Self-Congruity

1.     

1. The typical user of your fast food service reflects the type of person who I am.

2.      The overall atmosphere of my favorite fast food brand reflects who I am.

3.      I like to see myself as a typical user of your fast food service.

4.      I feel a close connection to fast food services.

5.      The image of our fast food service users corresponds to my self-image in many respects.

 

Service Value

1.     

1. The employee provided service reliability consistently and dependably.

2.      The employees are willing and able to provide service in a timely manner.

3.      The employees are competent, approachable and easy to contact.

4.      The employees are trustworthy and understand my needs.

5.      Service quality, considering price, time, and effort, my favorite coffee shop brand is good values for the money.

 

Brand Involvement

 

1.      To me the fast food service is important, interesting and relevant.

2.      To me the fast food service is exciting, appealing, fascinating & valuable.

3.      To me the fast food service is involving.

4.      I have a strong interest in the fast food service brand.

5.      The fast food service is very important to me.

 

Brand Decision Involvement

 

1.      Deciding which fast food service brand to visit would be an important decision for me.

2.      When I order fast food I consider taste and quality.

3.    Which fast food service brand I visit matters to me a lot.

 

Promotional Activities

 

1.      I notice pops up and advertisements of fast food on social media.

2.      When I order I notice deals of various fast food.

3.      I prefer to order more, when I have coupons.

4.      I feel attracted by the different advertisements.

5.      I notice bill boards and commercials of fast food.

 

Brand Satisfaction

 

1.      Overall, satisfaction with my favorite fast food service brand.

2.      Satisfaction with visiting my favorite fast food service brand when compared with my expectations.

3.      I am happy with my decision to use the brand.

 

Brand Loyalty

 

1.      I will continue to enjoy services at my favorite fast food service brand.

2.      I would give positive recommendations to others about my favorite fast food service brand.

3.      Overall, I will continue to repurchase drinks at my favorite fast food service brand.

4.      I consider myself a loyal customer at my favorite fast food service brand.

5.      I am still willing to buy fast food service even if its price is a little higher than fast food service brand competitors.

 

Research model

 

 

Statistical Technique

 

The examination has utilized a two-way approach, estimation display in which we talked about validity and reliability and the other model is structural equation modeling (SEM) in which we discussed model fitness and test hypothesis. The software’s we used for assistance are EXCEL, AMOS, WORD and SPSS.

 

Result and Analysis

 

Table 1: Demographics Statistics

 

Gender

 

As we have collected our data from social media and random people, it has been found that our respondents are male i.e. 136 out of 244 which is more than the females i.e. 108 out of 244. As shown in the table above that male is 55.7% and remaining 44.3% of our respondents are females. According to our research the data is acceptable as we are working on promotional activities in fast food business and evaluating its impact on brand loyalty.

 

 

As shown in the table 87.3% of our respondentsi.e.213 out of 244 respondents is of 20-30 years of age and 9.4% of our respondents are from the age group of below 20 as all of them are fast food consumer and eat food frequently. As we have collected the data from different fast food customers so the data are from different age group.

 

 

 

As our respondents are frequently eating fast food, so this respondent has good income level. The table above shows that 108 respondents i.e. 44.3 of respondents have the income in the range of other means more than 55000. 40 have the income of 36000-45000 and 28 of the respondents has the income of 46000-55000. This shows that’s most of the respondents are frequently eater and can afford fast food easily.

 

Table 2: CFA

 

As shown in the table above that the factor loading values are greater than 0.6 which means that the questions of our survey are accurate and the construct reliability is greater than 0.7 which means that the collected data is reliable. Moreover, the data is valid as AVE is less than 0.5 and MSV is less than AVE whereas ASV is less than AVE. thus we can say that the collected data for this research is reliable as well as valid.

 

Table 3: Hypothesize Significant

Description	β	P-value
Brand Involvement and Brand Loyalty	.411	.000
Service Value and Brand Involvement	.333	.000
Service Value and Promotional Activities	.357	.000
Self-Congruity and Brand Involvement	.150	.010
Self-Congruity and Brand Decision Involvement	-2.13	.005
Service Value and Brand Involvement	.333	.000
Customer Brand Identification and Brand Decision Involvement	.389	.000
Promotional Activities and Brand Satisfaction	.215	.000
Promotional Activities and Brand Loyalty	.122	.005
Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Loyalty	.370	.000
Self-Congruity and Promotional Activities	-.098	.202
Brand Involvement and Brand Satisfaction	.437	.000
Service Value and Brand Decision Involvement	.441	.000
Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Satisfaction	.324	.000
Customer Brand Identification and Promotional Activities	.389	.000

 

        Table no 3 shows a positive relationship between Customer Brand Involvement and Brand Loyalty its beta is .411 and its hypothesis is significance as its P value is .000 which is greater than the threshold that is 0.05 hence the hypothesis H1 is accepted. Additionally, the relationship was found between Service Value and Brand Involvement having the beta of 0.333 and P-value of .000. Thus, it is supported the hypothesis H2 so hypothesis is accepted. Moreover, consideration Service Value and Promotional Activities having beta of 0.357 and P-value of 0.00, thus, it supported the hypothesis H3 so hypothesis is accepted. Self-Congruity and Brand Involvement when beta is .150 and p value is 0.10 the hypothesis H4 is rejected. Self-Congruity and Brand Decision Involvement where beta is -2.13 and p value is 0.00 the hypothesis H5 is rejected because of negative beta. Furthermore, the hypothesis was developed to evaluate the relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement beta is 0.333 and the p value is 0.00the hypothesis H6 is accepted. However, the relationship between Customer Brand recognition and Brand Decision participation beta is .389, p value is 0.00 the relationship is positive and speculation H7 is accepted, Promotional Activities and Brand contentment beta is 0.215 and p value is 0.00 theory H8 is accepted and Promotional Activities and Brand Loyalty beta is 0.122, p value is 0.005 so the hypothesis H9 is likewise accepted. The Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Loyalty is found to have a positive relation as its beta is .370 and p value is 0.001 hypothesis H10 is accepted, Self-Congruity and Promotional Activities beta is -.098 p value is .202 H11 is rejected Brand Involvement and Brand Satisfaction beta is .437 as its p-value is 0.00 so its hypothesis H12 accepted. Service Value and Brand Decision Involvement beta is .411 and p value is .000 H13 is accepted. Furthermore, Brand Decision participation and Brand contentment relation is supports hypothesis H14 accepted because p value is .000 and beta is .324 Customer Brand recognition and Promotional Activities have a positive relation, beta is .389 and p value is .000 H15 is accepted, this table shows that self-congruity does not have any positive relationship so variable doesn’t have any connection.

 

Table no 4: mediation effects

 

	Brand Satisfaction		Brand Loyalty
	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect
CUSTOMER BRAND IDENTIFICATION	.108	.002	.313	.002
SELF CONGURITY	.261	.643	.976	.670
SERVICE VALUE	.008	.001	.124	.001

 

In the above table there is partial effect between the variables, no mediation can be seen and self-congruity have nor a direct effect and indirect effect so self-congruity variable is rejected because of no relationship

Hypothesis	Accepted/Rejected
H1: There is positive relationship between Brand Involvement and Brand Loyalty	Accepted
H2: There is positive relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement	Accepted
H3: There is positive relationship between Service Value and Promotional Activities	Accepted
H4: There is positive relationship between Self Congruity and Brand Involvement	Rejected
H5: There is positive relationship between Self Congruity and Brand Decision Involvement	Rejected
H6: There is positive relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement	Accepted
H7: There is positive relationship between Customer Brand Identification and Brand Decision Involvement	Accepted
H8: There is positive relationship between Promotional Activities and Brand Satisfaction	Accepted
H9: There is positive relationship Promotional Activities and Brand Loyalty	Accepted
H10: There is positive relationship between Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Loyalty	Accepted
H11: There is positive relationship between Self Congruity and Promotional Activities	Rejected
H12: There is positive relationship between Brand Involvement and Brand Satisfaction	Accepted
H13: There is positive relationship between Service Value and Brand Decision Involvement	Accepted
H14: There is positive relationship between Brand Decision Involvement and Brand Satisfaction	Accepted
H15: There is positive relationship between Customer Brand Identification and Promotional Activities	Accepted

 

Conclusion and Recommendation

 

The study determines the promotional activities impact on brand loyalty. The study shows that how customer loyalty changes towards brand when different fast food performs promotional activates. The findings of this study provide the evidence that promotional activities influence brand loyalty and buying decision of a customer, because when new fast food brand come in market customer try new brand and switch sometimes existing brand offer deals or provide discounts so customer purchase a brand which offer a discounts. Weather customer is satisfied from the brand but if some fast food offer food in low prices customer switch brand as there is tough competition in fast food industry it’s really difficult to make a loyal customer

 

Our limitation is that we have collected the data of 244 respondents as we did not have time to collect more data and have lack of financial resources. The respondents were also bias in filling the survey forms. The other limitation is we have worked on less variables so, the future researches can be done by using more marketing components and examine its influence on customer brand loyalty. The future research could also be done on the other factors like promotional activity impact on customer decision or purchases and also other components which are related to customer. Future research can also be done to reconfirm the results of this study and to check the loyalty of customer towards a brand.

 

Reference

 

 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research , 34 (3), 347-356

 

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research , 39 (2), 307

        323.

 

Anderson , J., & Narus , J. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal Of Marketing , 54 (1), 42-58.

Angell, R., Megicks, P., Memery, J., Heffernan, T., & Howell, K. (2012). Understanding the older shopper. Journal Of Retailing and Consumer Service , 19, 259-269.

 

Arezoo, D., Pramod, P., & Francisco, G. (2016). Determinants of brand resurrection movement. European Journal Of Marketing.

Arezoo, D., Pramod, P., & Francisco, G. (2016). Determinants of brand resurrection movements. European Journal Of Marketing.
 

Arezoo, D., Pramood, P. I., & Francisco, G. (2017). Determinants of brand resurrection movements. Eoropean Journal of Marketing , 51 (11/12), pp. 1896-1917.
 

Arnould, E., & Craig, J. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory. Journal Of Consumer Research , 31 (4), 868-82.
 

Balasubramanian, S. (1994). Beyond Advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public policy issues. Journal Of Advertising , 23 (4), 29-46.
 

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. (2012). Brand Love. Journal of marketing , 76 (2), 1-16.

 

Beatty, S., Kahle, L., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement-commitment model: theory and implications. Journal of Business Research , 15 (2), 139-168.

Belk, R., Bahn, D., & Mayer, R. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer Research , 9 (1), 4-17.
 

Bettman, J. R., & Escalas, J. E. (2005). Construal Refernence group and brand meaning. Journal of consumer research , 32, 378-389.
 

Bezencon, V., & Blili, S. (2011). Segmenting the market through the determinants of involvement: the case of fair trade. Psychology & Marketing , 28 (7), 628-708.
 

Bojanic, D., & Wamick, R. (2012). The role of purchase decision involvement in a special event. Journal of Travel Research , 51 (3), 357-366.
 

Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. .., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer engagement conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of service marketing , 14 (3), pp. 252

        271.

 

Campbell, M., & Kevin, L. (2003). Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repitition Effects. Journal Of Consumer Research , 30 (2), 292-304.
 

Cattaneo, E., & Guerini, C. (2012). Assessing the revival potentialof brands from the past. Journal of brand management , 19 (8), 680-687.
 

Cha , M., Yi , Y., & Baggozi , R. (2015). Effects of customer participation in corporate social responsibility programs on the CSR-brand fit and brand loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly , 57 (3), 1-15.
 

Cha, M., Yi, Y., & Bagozzi, R. (2015). Effects of customer participation in corporate social responsibility programs on the CSR-brand fit and brand loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly , 57 (3), 1-15.
 

Chen, S., & Raab, C. (2014). Constructionandvalidationof the customer participation scale. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research , 41 (2).
 

Choi , Y., Sung , M., & Hairong , L. (2013). Audio and Visual distractions and implicit brand memory. Journal Of Advertising , 42, 219-27.
 

Davari, A., Iyer, P. P., & Guzman, F. (2017). Determinants of brand resurrection movements. European Journal of Marketing , 51 (11/12).
 

De Chernatory , L., McDonald, M., & Wallace , E. (2012). Creating powerful brands, Burlington MA. Journal of destination Marketing and Management - Elsevier .
 

Dimitriades, Z. (2006). Management Research News , 29 (12), 782-800.Dimitriades, Z. (2006). Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service organization. Management Research News , 29 (12,

        782-800.
 

Dion, D., & Mazzalovo, G. (2016). Reviving sleeping beauty brands ny rearticulating brand. Journal of Business Research , 62 (12), 5894-5900.
 

Doo Syen, K. (2016). Brand familiarity has been found to be an important factor influencing brand memory (Choi , Sung , & Hairong , 2013) marketers expect to influence cognitive, affective, and cognitive

        consumer outcomes including brand salience, brand recall, brand recognition. Journal Of Services Marketing , 30 (4).
 

Eid, R. (2015). Integrating Muslim customer perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and retention in the tourism industry: an empirical study. International Journal of Tourism Research , 17 (3), 249-260.

 

Fatma, S. (2014). Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Experience Management-A Literature Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Business and Commerce , 3 (6), 32-49.
 

Forster, J., Higgins , J., & Idson, L. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment, Regulatory focus and the goal looms larger effect. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology , 55,

        1015-31.
 

Foumier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brand: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of consumer research , 24 (4), 343-353.
 

Gounaris, S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: an empirical study. Brand Management , 11 (4), 283-306.
 

Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, R. (2004). The timing of repeat purchases of consumer. Journal of Research Marketing , 41 (1), 101-115.
 

Harris, K., Davies, B., & Baron, S. (1997). Conversations during purchase consideration. International Review Of Retail Distribution And Consumer Research , 7 (3), 173-90.

Hochgraefe, C., Faulk, S., & Vieregge, M. (2012). Links between Swiss hotel guests’ product involvement and brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management , 21 (1), 20-39.
 

Huang, C., Chou, C., & Lin, P. (2010). Involvementtheoryin constructing bloggers’ intention to purchase travel products. Tourism Management , 31 (4), 513-526.
 

Joana, T., Patricia, L., Lélis, B., & Kenny, B. (2017). The effects of store environment elements on customer-to-customer interactions involving older shoppers. Journal of Services Marketing , 31 (4-5), 339-

         350.
 

Kang, J., Tang, L., & Lee, Y. J. (2015). Self-congurity and functional congurity in brand loyalty. Journal of hospitailty & tourism research , 29 (1), 105-31.
 

Kim, D., & Jang, S. (2014). Symbolic consumption in upscale cafés: examining Korean gen Y consumers’ materialism, conformity, conspicuous tendencies, and functional qualities. Journal of Hospitality &

        Tourism Research , 41 (2).
 

Kinard, B., & Capella, M. (2006). Relationship marketing: the influence of consumer involvement on perceived service benefits. Journal of Services Marketing , 20 (6), 359-368.
 

Kuenzel, S., & Halliday, S. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand identification. Journal of Product & Brand Management , 17 (5), 293-304.
 

Laaksonen, P. (1994). Consumer Involvement: Concepts and Research,Routledge,London. .

 

Lam, S., Shankar, V., Erramili, M., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of Academy of

        Marketing Science , 32 (3), 293-311.
 

Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal Of Communication , 50 (1), 46-70.
 

Lariviere, B., Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., & Aksoy. (2014). A longitudinal examination of customer commitment and loyalty. Journal of service management , 25 (1), 75-100.
 

Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2016). There are too many coffee shops in South Korea. available at http://www.businessinsider.com/massive-south-korean-coffee-market-2016-4 .
 

Lee, J., Patterson, P., & Viet Ngo, L. (2017). In pursuit of service productivity and customer satisfaction. Euoropen journal of marketing .
 

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding the customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing Forthcoming.
 

Li, X., & Petrick, J. (2008). Examining the antecedents of brand loyalty from an investment model perspective. JournalofTravelResearch , 46 (7/8), 25-34.
 

Luck, M., & Benkenstein, M. (2015). Consumers between supermarket shelves. Journal Of Retailing and Consumer Services , 26, 104-114.
 

Machliet, K., & R, D. (1988). Emotional feelings and attitudes towards the advertisement: The roles of brand familiarity and repitition. Journal Of Advertising , 17 (3), 27-35.
 

Martin, S., Camereno, C., & Jose, R. (2011). Does involvement matter in online shopping satisfaction and trust? Psychology & Marketing , 28 (2), 145-167.
 

Mathur, A., Moschis, P., & Lee, E. (2003). Life events and brand preference changes. Journal of Consumer Behavior , 3 (2), 129-41.
 

McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and Consumption. Journal Of Consumer Research , 123 (1), 71-84.
 

Mittal, B., & Lee, M. (1989). A casual model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic Psychology , 10 (3), 363-389.
 

Moorman , C., Zaltman , G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research. Journal Of Marketing , 29 (3), 314-328.
 

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpandé , R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of  Marketing

        Research,29(3), 314-328.

 

Narvanen, E., & Goulding, C. (2016). European Journal of Marketing , 50 (7/8), 1521-1546.
 

Narvanen, E., & Goulding, C. (2016). European Journal Of Marketing , 50 (7/8), 1521-1546.

 

Nicholls, R. (2010). New directions for customer-to-customer interaction research. Journal Of  Services Marketing , 24 (1), 87-97.
 

Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research , 17 (4), 460-9.
 

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research , 17 (4), 460-9.
 

Oliver, R. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty. Journal Of Marketing , 63.
 

Olsen, S. (2007). Reporchase loyalty. Psychology & Marketing , 24 (4), 315-341.
 

Park, W., Maclnnis , D., Priester, J., Eisingerich , A., & Laccobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength. Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers.

        Journal of Marketing , 74 (6), 1-17.
 

Press, M., & Eric, J. (2011). How does organizational identification form? A consumer behavior perspective. Journal Of Consumer Research , 38 (4), 650-66.
 

Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customer. Journal of the Academy of Marekting Sciences , 25 (2), 127-137.
 

Reynolds, F., Darden, W., & Martin, W. (1974). Developing an image of the store-loyal customer. Journal of Retailing , 50 (4), 73-84.
 

Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J., & Coote, L. (2007). Involvement, satisfaction, and brand loyalty in a small business services setting. Journal of Business Research , 60 (12), 1253-1260.
 

Schau, H., Albert, M., & Eric, J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal Of Marketing , 73 (5), 30-51.
 

Scheofer, K., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). The role of emotions in translating perceptions of justice in into post complaint behavioral responses. Journal of Service Research , 11 (1), 91-103.
 

Segal-Horn, S., Chematony, D., & Drury S, L. (2003). Building a services brand: Stages, people and orientation. The Services Industries Journal , 23 (3), 1-21.
 

Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and Loyalty. European Journal of Marketing , 24 (9), 19-35.
 

Shelby, A. (1993). Organizational business, management, and corporate communication: An analysis of boundaries and relationships. Journal Of Business Communication , 30 (3), 241-267.
 

Sheth, J. (1976). Buyer-seller interaction: A conceptual framework. Association for Consumer Research , 382-386.
 

Sierra, J., Heiser, R., & Mcquitty, S. (2009). Exploring determinants and effects of shared responsibility in service exchanges. Journal ofMarketingTheoryand Practice , 17 (2), 111-128.
 

Sierra, J., Heiser, R., & McQuitty, S. (2009). Exploring determinants and effects of shared responsibility in services exchanges. Journal of marketing theory and practice , 17 (2), pp. 111-128.
 

So, K., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wnag, Y. (2013). The influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 34,

        31-41.
 

Soon-, H. K., & Seonjeong, A. L. (2017). Promoting customers involvement with service brands. Journal of service marketing , 31 (7), pp. 733-744.
 

Soon-Ho, K., & Seonjeong, L. (2017). Promoting customers’ involvement with service brands: evidence from coffee shop customers. Journal of Services Marketing.
 

Stokburger-Saucer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing , 29 (4), 406-418.
 

Susanty, A., & Kenny, E. (2015). The relationship between brand equity, customer satisfaction, and brand loyalty on coffee shop: study of Excel so and Starbucks. ASEAN Marketing Journal, 7 (1), 14-27.
 

Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science , 29 (1), 67-74.
 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, H. (1979). An integrative theory of inter group conflict The Social Psychology of Inter group Relations , 33 (47), 74.
 

Thomas, S., & kohli, C. (2009). A brand is forever a framework for revitalizing declining and dead brands. Business Horizons , 52 (4), 377-386.
 

Timothy, K., & Nee, M. (2017). The interplay of customer experience and commitment. Journal Of Services Marketing , 31 (2).
 

Torelli, C. J., & Rodas, M. A. (2017). Tightness and Loseness. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 398-404.

 

Uncles, M., Dowling, G., & Hammond, K. (2003). Customer loyalty and customer loyalty program. Journal of consumer marketing , 20 (4), 294-316.
 

Vargo , S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of academy of Marketing Research , 36 (1), 1-10.
 

Weitz, B. A. (1981). Effectivness in sales interactions. Journal of Marketing , 45 (1), 85-103.
 

Wenxia , G., & Kelley, M. (2017). "The effectiveness of matching sales influence tactics to consumers’ avoidance versus approach. European Jounal Of Marketing , 51 (9/10).
 

Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. (2004). Customer preceived value and loyalty. psychology and marketing, 21 (10), 799-822.
 

Yi, H., Qimei, C., Ruby, P., Yonggui, W., & Atilla, P. (2017). Consumers' Role Performance and Brand Identification. Journal Of Interactive Marketing , 38, 1-11.
 

Zaichkowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-352.
 

Zaichowsky, J. (1984). Conceptualizing and Measuring the Involvement Construct in Marketing. University Microfilms, University of California, CA.
 

Zaichowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 341-352.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<Back