The impact of customer value types on customer outcomes for different retail formats

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to profile grocery retailers in terms of seven value types based on Holbrook’s value typology; to link these value types to three key outcomes (i.e. satisfaction, repurchase intention, and word-of-mouth); and to evaluate the impact of the retail format on performance and importance of the seven value types.

Design/methodology/approach

For each retail format, the authors administered a consumer survey, resulting in an aggregate sample of 392 respondents. The authors used partial least squares structural equations modeling to test the relationships between the value types and key outcomes (i.e. importance) and ANOVAs to examine cross-format differences between latent variable scores of the value types (i.e. performance).

Findings

The three retail formats included in the study perform differently on Holbrook’s value types (e.g. non-discounters excel in terms of aesthetic value and play, compared to hard and soft discounters). Furthermore, this study reveals that the strategic importance of each value type depends on the key outcome (e.g. whereas efficiency is the main source of satisfaction, play mainly drives the other two outcomes).

Research limitations/implications

The authors randomly assigned respondents to one of the three retail formats irrespective of their personal preference or patronage. To conduct value-based segmentation, respondents should evaluate either their preferred format or all supermarkets.

Practical implications

This study offers positioning advice to retail managers, according to their format and strategic objectives.

Originality/value

Unlike previous research, this paper provides a cross-format comparison of retailers based on a three-dimensional value typology and its key outcomes.

Citation

Willems, K., Leroi-Werelds, S. and Swinnen, G. (2016), "The impact of customer value types on customer outcomes for different retail formats", Journal of Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 591-618. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2015-0364