Find your perfect match Thesis defense

(1)

Master Marketing Intelligence and Management

Find your perfect match

Thesis defense

27th_{of June 2016}

(2)

Conceptual Model & Research Question

Relationship evaluation

Customer

Satisfaction

NPS

CES

Sector

Relationship quality

Trust

Commitment

Loyalty

Retention

intention

Churn

intention

Personality traits

Business-specific

Attachment Styles

General

Attachment Styles

Five Factor Model

(3)

Avoidant

Attachment styles

Anxious Secure

Have an excessive need for approval

Fear rejection from others

Fear depending on others Strive for emotional and

cognitive distance

(4)

Relevance

Why is this research relevant?

Loyal customers are the more profitable customers.

Relational preferences differ per individual Customer-centric organizations.

Customer-firm relationships become more and more important Firms invest many resources in CRM.

(5)

(6)

Conclusions

What are the main conclusions?

Business-specific attachment styles are the best personality trait to explain relationship quality and relationship evaluation

Customer Satisfaction, NPS and CES influence loyalty.

Retention intention and Churn intention are highly correlated.

In general, the effect of business-specific anxiety on Customer Satisfaction and NPS is partially mediated by trust and commitment.

In general, the effect of business-specific avoidance on Customer Satisfaction and NPS is fully mediated by trust and commitment.

(7)

Business-specific attachment styles are best personality trait to describe

relationship evaluation

Conclusion 1 – Customer Satisfaction

7 Customer Satisfaction 28% 19% 4% 4% 65% 54% 62% 12% 46% 7% 27% 27% 50% 48% 1% 5% 5% 24% 2% 1% 7% 2% 14% 2% Secure Anxious Avoidant

Anxious & Avoidant

Neutral

(8)

Business-specific attachment styles are best personality trait to describe

relationship evaluation

Conclusion 1 – NPS

23% 15% 4% 4% 65% 49% 51% 12% 44% 13% 36% 45% 88% 52% Secure Anxious Avoidant

Anxious & Avoidant

Neutral

Promotor Passive Detractor

8

(9)

Business-specific attachment styles are best personality trait to describe

relationship evaluation

Conclusion 1 - CES

9 CES 19% 18% 11% 6% 58% 40% 38% 17% 34% 17% 34% 23% 30% 55% 5% 24% 24% 33% 17% 2% 9% 39% 13% Secure Anxious Avoidant

Anxious & Avoidant

Neutral

(10)

Business-specific anxiety still has an effect on Customer Satisfaction and NPS when the

mediators are added, while the effect of avoidance is fully mediated. The effects of

business-specific attachment styles on CES are non significant or fully mediated

Conclusion 2 – mediators

10

Table 4.8. The mediation effects of relationship quality.

Independent variable Mediators Dependent variable Bank Insurance Energy Telecom

Anxiety Trust CSAT o o o o

Commitment o o o o

Avoidance Trust CSAT √ √ √ √

Commitment √ √ √ √ Anxiety Trust NPS o √ o o Commitment o √ o o Avoidance Trust NPS o √ √ √ Commitment o √ √ √

Anxiety Trust CES x √ x √

(11)

Recommendations

What should managers do?

Segment customers based on attachment style

Managers should correct the numbers of customer research according to the attachment styles.

(12)

(13)

(14)

The general attachment styles show more secure persons than the business

specific attachment styles.

Attachment styles

Distribution Attachment Styles per sector Distribution General Attachment Styles

64% 5%

16% 12%

4%

Secure Anxious Avoidant Anxious & Avoidant Neutral

64% 39% 50% 43% 40% 5% 6% 5% 5% 3% 16% 28% 27% 34% 37% 12% 9% 4% 5% 6% 4% 18% 15% 13% 14% General Bank Insurance Energy Telecom

(15)

Business-specific attachment styles are best personality trait to describe

relationship quality and relationship evaluation

Conclusion 1 – Customer Satisfaction

(16)

22% 14% 4% 4% 64% 52% 48% 11% 37% 14% 33% 48% 89% 59% Secure Anxious Avoidant Anxious & Avoidant Neutral 26% 23% 7% 9% 64% 39% 54% 4% 41% 10% 39% 39% 96% 50% Secure Anxious Avoidant Anxious & Avoidant Neutral

Business-specific attachment styles are best personality trait to describe

relationship quality and relationship evaluation

Conclusion 1 - NPS

24% 15% 3% 1% 63% 50% 51% 18% 44% 14% 35% 46% 82% 55% Secure Anxious Avoidant Anxious & Avoidant Neutral Bank Insurance 20% 6% 1% 2% 67% 56% 51% 15% 56% 13% 39% 48% 85% 43% Secure Anxious Avoidant Anxious & Avoidant Neutral

16

(17)