the market performance outcomes of different brand-relatedcustomer attitudes. There are, for example, some branding studiesthat seem to support an assumed relationship (Kerin andSethuraman, 1998; Barth et al., 1998; Mortanges et al., 2003;Bandyopadhyay and Martell, 2007; Romaniuk et al., 2014; Srinivasanet al., 2010), but these studies have focused only on one orvery few customer-based MSMs and their relationships to one or afew different performance-related outcomes, mostly from a shorttermperspective. The most common approach is to limit the studyto the mindset phase and measure the relationships betweendifferent associations and attitude-based loyalty or customer intentionsrather than actual market performance.The explanation for the narrow academic focus, according toour view, is an increasing specialisation that the marketing areahas experienced over recent decades. Scholars, as well as practitioners,often strive for a single “silver bullet metric” and severalcustomer mindset concepts and metrics that have been describedas critical for business success: satisfaction (cf. Fornell, 1992;Gupta et al., 2006; Hallowell, 1996; Anderson et al., 2004; Ittnerand Larcker, 1998; Rucci et al., 1998) and Net Promoter Score (seeReichheld, 2003). There are several forms of cash flow-relatedmarket performance metrics, such as sales volume, price premium,purchase loyalty, market penetration, and market share. Few of thescholars that assume a relationship between MSMs and marketContents lists available at ScienceDirectjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconserJournal of Retailing and Consumer Serviceshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.03.0060969-6989/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.n Corresponding author.E-mail address: johan.anselmsson@fek.lu.se (J. Anselmsson).Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25 (2015) 58–70performance are specific about the exact type of market performancethat their MSM is–or is not – supposed to drive. Vagueoutcomes, such as business success, increased cash flow, orgrowing revenues are often used.These knowledge gaps are problematic and highly relevant forpractical management as companies in spite of uncertainty abouteconomic outcomes spend increasingly more time and moneyanalysing MSMs and how their brands are perceived (InsideResearch, 2005). Some MSMs that emerge from the analyticalprocess are reported to key stakeholders within the company becausethey are believed to be particularly important for overallbusiness success. These are often referred to as Key PerformanceIndicators (KPI) or Key Performance Metrics (KPM). Similar to thebrand value chain model, Ambler (2000) divides KPIs into MSMs orperformance measures. The latter are based on hard market performancedata, such as the number of customers/penetration, sales/market share and relative price level, that reflect true consumerbehaviours, while MSMs reflect target consumers' subjective perceptionsand these are based on survey data, for example: perceivedquality, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. The MSMsoften work as an early warning system and a way to evaluatestrategies, set goals and reward personnel and management
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..