You are on page 1of 12

Loyalty: The Influences of Satisfaction and Brand Community Integration Author(s): James H. McAlexander, Stephen K.

Kim and Scott D. Roberts Source: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Fall, 2003), pp. 1-11 Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stable URL: . Accessed: 08/11/2013 11:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


JamesH. McAlexander OregonStateUniversity

StephenK. Kim OregonStateUniversity

ScottD. Roberts ArizonaUniversity Northern

therelative ofsatisfaction, brand andconsumer on Thispaperempirically integration, experience impacts community explores and from and a as future intentions behavior. Data drawn research of customer qualitative purchase survey loyalty expressed by a willingness casinowhoindicate to engageinformal indicate that 1000patrons ofa Native American marketing relationships ofloyalty. ofthefindings tobrand as a keydriver We discussimportant satisfaction implications community integration yields andpractice. for marketing theory INTRODUCTION andKyner andSasser1995; satisfaction 1973;Jones (Jacoby In and Henard the last severalyears, Szymanski 2001). literature has to reveal the evidence however, marketing begun that of some the fundamental tenets of (cf. challenges loyalty Fournier1998). Of interest to the current researchare to the antecedents of loyalty. These questions pertaining to bothourtheoretical issueshaveimportance understanding ofloyalty andthemanagerial ofstrengthening it. challenges

that Thatloyalty is a keymarketing accepted goalis so widely toevery business itsvaluehasbeendeemed tobe "self-evident itis suchimportance, 1996,p.35). With (Reichheld person" that is thefocus ofa significant notsurprising bodyof loyalty have marketers inmarketing. Within that literature literature, a fundamental shared ofwhat understanding loyalty generally has beentraditionally meansandhowit is created.Loyalty and/or tobe reflected behavior LOYALTY: BEYOND SATISFACTION understood byrepeat purchase of a favorable toward attitude suchbehavior theexpression marketers Thereis a growing and Chestnut that indicates is (Jacoby 1978). To achieveloyalty, bodyofresearch loyalty theneedto provide and improve customer developed in waysthat aremoredynamic haveemphasized and complex than Fall 2003 1

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The current research offers a multi-method exploratory study that extends research that hasquestioned thecentral prior part thatsatisfaction and plays in buildingloyalty (Garbarino Johnson this 1999; Oliver1999). Unlikeprevious studies, of brand paper will explore the relative contribution customer community integration (BCI) tothe loyalty equation. This is an issuethat has notbeenpreviously explored.Prior In a provocative for boththeory and workthatfocusedon branded paperwith implications Macintosh, goods (i.e. Jeep, Garbarino and Johnson find in some thatthe conceptof brandcommunity practice, that, (1999) Saab) has indicated overall satisfaction has no significant influence on can providemarketers withfresh into situations, integration insights future work that It has examined the relative purchaseintentions. Buildinguponprior not,however, building loyalty. examines the developmental and brandcommunity can play in processes of relationship roles thatsatisfaction formation and Oh 1987; Berry1995),they building (Dwyer,Schurr, loyalty. find that for customers whoexhibit a strong with relationship a company, trust and commitment satisfaction as Previous research on brandcommunity has emphasized its supplant drivers of loyalty.They concludethatthemanagement of to theconsumption of experiential applicability goods. We satisfaction is mosteffective fordeveloping on people engaged in the loyalty among chose to focus our efforts customers that arenotinclined toward of an experientially oriented service. The establishing enduring consumption research a medium sized NativeAmerican relationships. setting, casino, an opportunity toextend ourunderstanding ofbrand provides In thelast fewyearsscholars have offered and and itsrelevance to loyalty to theservice sector. conceptual community and extendsthese Gamingoperations in theU.S., whether runby states empiricalresearchthat complements (e.g., an orNative haveshown developments. Oliver (1999), for example,presents business, lotteries), private Americans, model in whichsatisfaction makesimportant tremendous inthelastdecade(Ferber andChon1994; evolutionary growth contributions to repurchase in theownership early cycle. In King and Mclntire1998; Lew 1998). Whatfollowsis a this as customers a "convergence of of our conceptual model, framework and hypotheses, gainexperience, a description and social forces" can lead to the review oftheresearch methods andsetting, product, a presentation personal, of (p. 42) of "ultimate a ouranalysis, and a discussion of implications emergence for and loyalty." Brand community, theory introduced into the marketing literature marketing conceptrecently practice. (Muiz and O'Guinn 2001), offersa complementary MuizandO'Guinn(2001,p. 423) define brand CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES perspective. as a "specialized,non-geographically bound community based on a structured set of social relationships Ourconceptual community, framework therecent contributions integrates usersofa brand."Theyobserve that thesocialbonds of McAlexander et al. (2002) and Garbarino among and Johnson builtthrough brandconsumption for (1999) as theyrelateto buildingcustomer mayhave implications loyalty. We andbrand loyalty model the influences equity. of brand community conceptually and integration (BCI), relationship orientation, satisfaction, In theirexploration, and Koenig consumer on loyalty McAlexander, as expressed Schouten, of experience byindicators that brand cansituate the consumer purchase (2002) observe andrepurchase behavior intent. 1 community the Figure displays in a "complex web of relationships" the conceptualframework fromwhich our hypotheses (p. 39). Extending are workof Muizand O'Guinn(2001), McAlexander and his and Johnson's developed. Informed by Garbarino (1999) of relevant findings, colleagues broaden the conceptualization our conceptual modelfocuseson consumers who members to includefellow thebrand have expressed community a willingness to engage in a marketplace customers, theproducts as experienced itself, In ourcase, we identify by thecustomer, and,at consumers who have relationship. various levels, the marketing institutions for enrolled in a responsible relationship marketing program (the Gamers and communicating about the Club) as "relationshiporiented." As indicated by producing,distributing, it is through consumer products.Theynotethat et al. (2002), we approach experience McAlexander brandcommunity that the existence and benefits of brand community integration as thecumulative connections ofconsumers with 2 Journal THEORY AND PRACTICE ofMarketing

in thecommon reflected models "satisfaction buildsloyalty" andHolbrook 1998;Oliver1999;Chaudhuri (Fournier 2001). that focuson theexperiences with associated Investigations use (orconsumption) influential havebeenespecially product variations intheloyalty by uncovering important equation et al. 1999;Licataetal. 2001; Mittal etal. 2001). As ( Mittal customers anduseproducts, newandunanticipated repurchase benefits that an impact on both have (and,sometimes, costs) satisfaction and loyalty be and/or revealed. may Ownership use maylead to interactions with theproduct, and marketers, other customers that influence of and impressions functionality and social meanings that can bear yieldimportant personal andthenature andstrength ofloyalty uponsatisfaction (Price, andTierney Arnould andMick 1995;Fournier 1998;Fournier 1999;Oliver1997,1999).

to thecurrent unfold.Ofparticular importance relationships thatthese relationships can researchis theirobservation ties,and interpersonal developsynergistically, strengthening fortheproduct, thebrand, and the enhancing appreciation inwaysthat marketers customers into the facilitating integrate brand andthat bearuponloyalty. community THE CURRENT RESEARCH

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is notassociatedwithcustomer We andthecompany. the the other brand, consumers, Hlb: General satisfaction product, more the for of influential role customer the find thearguments relationship-oriented experienced loyalty regarding consumers. be to Johnson Oliver and 1999; 1999) (Garbarino experience customer and we explicitly integrate aggregate compelling and loyalty. Our BrandCommunity model. of our an element as satisfaction, Integration, conceptual experience and setsofhypotheses secondand third empirically explore FIGUREI and his colleagues of McAlexander extendthe assertions BRAND COMMUNITY INTEGRATION, SATISFACTION, ofbrand theimpact integration community (2002) regarding AND LOYALTY loyalty. upon A. Less Group

H2a(^X Comity L

General L satisfaction '

'Hia(+) Customer J *****


Integration I


B. More Experienced

will be that brand wehypothesize community integration First, This to satisfaction. related customer hypothesis positively that those who enroll in comes from the observation benefits that anticipate programssometimes relationship For that as to aspectsof brandcommunity. reason, pertain indicatedby the large body of workin the comparisonrelated standards commonly appliedin satisfaction paradigm to andMick 1999; Oliver1997),thedegree research (Fournier benefitsis which an expectationof community-related achievedshouldhave a bearingupon overall successfully withtheexperiences satisfaction. Moreover, gainedthrough which unfold additional benefits mayalso have consumption, the a bearingon satisfaction.Next,we examinedirectly and brand between loyalty. integration community relationship is associatedpositively integration H2: Brand community with satisfactionfor (a) less experiencedrelationshipand (b) moreexperienced consumers oriented relationshipconsumers. oriented is associatedpositively integration H3: Brand community withbrand loyaltyfor(a) less experienced relationshiporiented consumers and (b) for more experienced consumers. relationship-oriented


J yS


General L satisfaction N.

Customer j Loyalty J

Community Integration Brand

on customer Indirect integration of brandcommunity effect Our final set of hypotheses satisfaction. through loyalty that indicates work andempirical conceptual prior integrates the ofcustomer theaccumulation that way impacts experience bear upon and brand community in which satisfaction Hypotheses andJohnson customer 1999; loyalty (Oliver1999; Garbarino effect that the in We et al. propose H^ 2002). to the McAlexander, thatpertain Our model leads to severalhypotheses theless between differs on customer of satisfaction loyalty customer experience, relationshipsthat exist among more and the effect) group (significant experienced and loyalty.Our brandcommunity satisfaction, integration, We also maintain effect). (non-significant group experienced and extend reexamine initial set of hypotheses, Hu and Hlb> is related in H2 and H3 thatbrandcommunity integration work that and Johnson's Garbarino challengesthe (1999) and loyaltyfor both the less to satisfaction positively for toloyalty ofsatisfaction contribution relationship-oriented group.Tying groupand themoreexperienced theeffect of experience experienced consumers. examining By explicitly brand that we anticipate these community together, hypotheses on thesatisfaction/loyalty equationforrelationship-oriented effects andindirect effect hasbotha direct through integration with work and Johnson's Garbarino consumers we integrate for the less experienced on customer satisfaction loyalty the that theconceptual ofOliver(1999). We anticipate work satisfaction ofBCI through effect theindirect butthat group, diminish as will on of satisfaction relationship- wanes loyalty impact For of additional withtheaccumulation experience. oriented customers gainexperience: ofbrand itis onlythemaineffect we expectthat that reason, forthe thatdrivescustomer loyalty integration community Hla: General satisfactionis associated positivelywith more that: we Therefore, hypothesize group. experienced lessexperienced customer for relationship-oriented loyalty consumers.

H3b(+) _


Fall 2003

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

We observed that a strong bondtothecasinowas directly tied to feelings ofconsciousness ofkindandmoral responsibility these we found (Muiz and O'Guinn2001). For example, of as defense their of expressions communitypatrons METHOD reported thecasinotoa localcommunity its that hadvehemently fought membersof the local Theempirical ofthemodelconsists ofqualitative introduction. Many prominent exploration viewedtheintroduction of a casino as morally and quantitative research as the community usingthegamingindustry destructive. itwasbeing were that built focal point. Qualitative Further, workaffords the opportunity to they unhappy on a site that had been and a the of the brand commercially to productive explore applicability community concept sourceof"family-wage" theresearch and to examine thenature of relevant significant employment. setting, and their bases of formation. We ground our relationships As wellas verifying theapplicability ofthebrand work inthequalitative research community quantitative experience. and of existence relevant inthecasino, concept relationships thequalitative work further for us theimportance Research emphasized Qualitative of gauging theimpact of experience on thedevelopment of and We found that some who in enroll the work included observation and community loyalty. Qualitative participant depth Gamers Clubloyalty intend toexperience thecasino interviews conductedat the Shadow MountainCasino program often. We found others who enroll in to observation research consisted of three response specific (disguised). Participant short-term inducements meal full andonefull a (i.e. twodiscounts). days(one weekday weekend) spent by team personresearchteam in the casino. The research inallgames offered participated (e.g.,blackjack, poker, bingo, Measure Development andslots), atemealsinall restaurants andthe andattended bar, Our qualitativeresearch was also important to the a scheduled concert. Participant observation research was of the measures that we used for withtwelve development survey supplemented by exploratory depthinterviews research. We developed multi-item measures for casinopatrons. Interviews werevideo-recorded. Informants quantitative each construct as indicatedfrominterviews withcasino wereselected based method, usinga convenience sampling and Our measures werealso a desire to interview a that was managers, diverse with employees, players. upon sample informed academic studies and trade to gamesplayed, and by prior empirical regard gender, age. and concordant withtherecommendations publications by Churchill itemsare reported in the in theCasino (1979). Measurement Community Appendix. Our experiences in thecasinouncovered theexistence of a Customer We define customer as theextent to vitalbrandcommunity. We notedmultiple dimensions of loyalty. loyalty a which customer the casino and to desires maintain brand as discussed Muiz and O'Guinn patronizes community by (2001) an ongoing with theservice andevidence ofthe formation ofthe described relationship provider (Singhand relationships by Sirdeshmukh We it a as formative scale McAlexander et al. (2002). We found, for that the 2000). operationalize example, a respondent's behavior andfuture intention to casino is a verysocially-oriented for many with environment patronage tothecasino. We measured customer these return patronage bythe gamers. As an element of brand community, ofthe number ofvisits toShadow Mountain Casino intercustomer add pleasureand value to the proportion relationships out of the total number of visits madeto casinosin thelast We notedcamaraderie gaming experience. among blackjack of a the casino's share of a andfriendly In the threemonths (an indicator players competition among poker players. customer's We measured future intention hall the we found intricate rituals as of visits). large byasking bingo groups players desireto return to ShadowMountain assembledtheirdifferent Casino. daubersand good luck tokens, respondent's scale (1: strongly their about arrayed disagree- 7: bingocardsandgotserious playing bingo Two itemsof Likert-type this andbeingwith one another. strongly agree)wereusedfor purpose. The existence of a strong customer to company relationship was demonstrated repeatedlyas casino staff cordially interacted with us andother as we entered thecasino gamers andengaged in casinoactivities. Whenaskedhowthecasino staff her gamingenjoyment, a femaleinformant impacted described the ways in whichstaff can be integral to her experience: 4 Journal THEORY AND PRACTICE ofMarketing Customer We defined customer satisfaction as a satisfaction. overall evaluation of the experience withthe respondent's casino and operationalized it as the extent to whichthe is happy withtheoverallcasino experience and respondent whether theexperience exceedshis/her These expectations. items havebeenusedextensively inprior research (see Oliver 1997 fora reviewof measures). Two Likert-type items (1:

of brand community mediatestheeffect H4a:Satisfaction on customer integration loyaltyforthe less experienced oriented consumers. relationship does not mediate the effect of brand H4b: Satisfaction on customer forthemore community integration loyalty oriented consumers. experienced relationship

"The dealermakesitenjoyable. She's there to enjoyherself andshewouldlikeyouto enjoyyourself while youarelosing your money."

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

agree) were used forthis strongly disagree- 5: strongly purpose. Brand community Following the lead of integration. McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002), we brand community as a multiintegration conceptualized a customer's withbrand, construct: component relationship product(casino servicesin this case), company(casino workersand management), and other customers. We multi-item measures for eachcomponent ofbrand developed The brandcomponent the reflects integration. community thatinformants us in the brandassociations to conveyed as well as an of work indicator the consumers qualitative with thebrand.Thebrand toidentify associations willingness revealedto us includewhatconsumers perceiveas unique We feeling. qualitiesof the casino, such as a welcoming with identification the brand as a desire towear operationalize items(1: strongly casinobranded apparel.Five Likert-type - 5: strongly this agree)wereusedfor purpose. disagree as a customer's The product we operationalized component Twelve with the casino services. attribute-based experience and respondents attributes of casino servicewereidentified eachattribute on a five-point scale (1 : wereaskedto evaluate we 5: The outstanding). companycomponent poor of and as a customer's friendliness perception operationalize andemployees atthe Three fairness ofstaff casino. Likert-type - 5: strongly items disagree agree)wereusedfor (1: strongly the concerns thispurpose.The othercustomer component of other extent to whicha customer enjoysthe company items customers at thecasino.We used twoLikert-type (1: for this 5: agree) purpose. strongly disagree strongly Samplingand Data Collection inthe was a listofplayers whoenrolled frame The sampling A random casino'sloyalty program. sampleof 1000players a letter was selected from thelist.Data collection beganwith that to thechosen introduced theresearch players project.A fewdayslater, thefirst waveofquestionnaires was sentwith an incentive ofa free a coverletter. offered The coverletter A forsurvey dinner fortwo in appreciation participation. to sent three weeks later those was follow-up questionnaire The final that totheoriginal hadnotresponded questionnaire. responserate was 41.5% (415 out of 1000 sent). After because of some of thereturned eliminating questionnaires were suchthings as incomplete 372 responses information, usedfor analysis.

bias is nota These results offer evidencethat nonresponse for this significant study. problem Measure Validation The measurement tovalidation in items weresubject process accordancewith the recommendations by Gerbingand interms Anderson examined oftheir (1988). Theywerefirst item-to-total correlations. Forthefour ofbrand components all inter-component are correlations community integration, than.31 and significant four at p <.001. Therefore, larger are summedto develop a brandcommunity components eachrespondent. matrix score Thecorrelational integration for brand customer satisfaction, among community integration, and customerloyalty suggests that brand community andgeneral satisfaction arehighly correlated integration (y = is still different .72,p < 001),butthecorrelation significantly from unity. and of each measurement scale is also examined Reliability in for multithe Coefficient reported alpha every Appendix. itemscale is above .70, whichis the typicalcutoff point ofthescaleproperties and (Nunnally 1978). A detailed report Pearson correlations is provided inTable 1.
Brand Community Integration 1.00

Mean Brand Community Integration (BCI) General Satisfaction Customer Loyalty 3.97

S.D. .58

General Customer Satisfaction Loyalty

3.71 4.30

.83 .82

.72 .39

1.00 .25 1.00

ofthemeasurement check. The convergent validity Validity scales was tested by checking correlationbetween the items. For example, measurement scales and convergent is correlated with an item customer measure ("I will loyalty that my friends visit the casino") and the recommend the correlation is .33 (p < .001). For customer satisfaction, item("I am happy witha convergent measure is correlated with I have experienced at thecasino")andthe theservices correlation is .70 (p < .001).Forbrand community integration, with themeasure is correlated a convergent item ("Thecasino bias check.Nonresponse bias was assessedin Nonresponse tothe a positive contribution localcommunity") andthe makes toArmstrong andOverton's twoways. First, (1977) according is .42 (p < .001). These resultssupport correlation the no significant differences werefound (p > .10) procedure, of the measurement scale items.The convergent validity theearly between respondent groupand thelaterespondent discriminant ofthemeasurement scaleswas checked validity in themodel.In addition, the for of the constructs group any factor of through exploratory analysis the scales. The with thenonresponse on wascompared group response group measurement itemsweresummed and averagevalueswere such as age and income. No characteristics demographic for modelestimation computed purpose. werefound between thetwogroups. differences significant Fall 2003 5

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 2 MODEL ESTIMATION RESULTS Less Experienced Relational Consumers .45b ( .21*) 1.06* (.08) .61b (.31) .00b (.00) -.01"(.00) MoreExperienced Relational Consumers -.04 ( .08) 1.12*(.O8) .43' (.13) .00c (.00) -.01* (.00)

Customer Satisfaction H,: General Loyalty Satisfaction H2:BCL - General H3:BCI Customer Loyalty Covariate Distance tothecasino*General Satisfaction Distance tothecasinoCustomer loyalty

A. Less Experienced Group
effect.48** totaleffect 1.09*" (a) directeffect: on loyalty: .61**: (b) indirect Brand Community Integration

one to 125 milesand themedian value is eight rangesfrom miles. The proposed Modelestimation. modelwas estimated bythe of LISREL 8 with a covariance matrix as analysis path option an inputmatrix. The respondents were dividedintotwo groups the "more experienced relationshiporiented consumers"and "less experiencedrelationship oriented consumers" on thebasisoffrequency ofpatronage for thelast three months valueofeight was usedbecauseof (i.e.,median skewed distribution of responses). To account for the influenceof geographicproximity to the casino upon we incorporate thedistance between homeandthe patronage, casinointo themodelas a covariate. Thehypothesized model was estimated a a through two-group analysis. Using twotwo major advantagesover other group analysisaffords estimation methods: estimation of direct and indirect effects and the testof coefficient equalityacross the two groups results arereported inTable 2 (Bollen 1989). The estimation andFigure 2.

1.06/ /' '


General L
) ' '5"

Brand Community Integration

j I

' A1M :

( . Customer Loyaty



B. More ExperiencedGroup
-.OS BrandCommunity effect: effect.43***; on loyalty, totaleffect .38** (a) direct (b) indirect Integration

/ 'A7rms'


satisfacton N. N. -.04 )



cJOSL. uxnmunlty Integration



on customer of customer Effect satisfaction loyalty.We thatcustomer shouldincrease as customer predicted loyalty satisfaction increases for theless experienced group (Hla),but not forthe moreexperienced The estimation group(Hlb). result that customer satisfaction has a positive effect suggests = < on customer the in less .45, loyalty (b p .05) experienced group,but its effectin the more experiencedgroup is insignificant (b = -.04, n.s.). Therefore, Hla and Hib are | Customer ) h Lovaltv * Uyany supported fully. on satisfaction. We Effects of brandcommunity integration thatcustomer satisfaction shouldincreaseas hypothesized brand for both community integration strengthens groups (H^ and H2b).The estimation results indicate that satisfaction is associated withbrandcommunity for positively integration both the less experienced (b = 1.06,p < .01) and more = < ofH2aandH2b. experienced (b 1.12,/? .01), in support on loyalty.We Effectof brand community integration thatcustomer shouldgo up as brand hypothesized loyalty

: p < .10; **:p < .05; ***: p < .01

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Descriptive analysis. We examined demographic characteristics oftherespondents. 77% oftherespondents are over50 years oldand61% oftherespondents arefemale. 58% of therespondents had a grossincomeof $35,000 or lower. The distance between the casino and a respondent's home 6 Journal THEORY AND PRACTICE ofMarketing

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

increases for both thelessexperienced community integration The and the more experienced group. modelestimation group is in thebrandcommunity that results integration suggest for both the less with customer associated loyalty positively (b = .43, experienced (b = .61,p < .05) andmore experienced aresupported Thus, H3b H3aand p < .01) as washypothesized. on of brandcommunity and the directeffect integration for bothgroups. is positive customer loyalty

and of brandcommunity therelevant elements can identify success in those relationships. fostering gauge

our analysis in a servicesetting our research By situating of the of the evidence additional transferability provides and brand community concepts of brand community Moreover,thatthe brandaroundwhichthis integration. the in nature from differs forms considerably community havebeenstudiedpreviously brandsthat iconicandmature evidencethatthe impactof the brandcommunity on customer offers Indirect integration effect ofbrandcommunity suchbrands. brand The total effect of beyond concept mayhaverelevance satisfaction. loyaltythrough to was calculated customer on integration loyalty community forFutureResearch and Directions effect. The total Limitations from thedirect theindirect effect unravel in thebrandcommunity on customer of integration effect of from heresuffers thelimitations and The work theless experienced was 1.09(p < .01) for typical group reported loyalty examined We have,for research. total empirical Outofthese the more .38(p < .05) for example, survey group. experienced our to generalize it is suspect effect onlyone casino,andtherefore effect is .61 (p < .05) andtheindirect thedirect effects, while The measures, our findings to othercasinos or settings. theless experienced is .48 (p < .05) for Therefore, group. of for work andsuitable this from thequalitative hasbotha derived brand type integration community (H4a)that hypothesis The research need refinement. on satisfaction effect and an indirect effect direct research, multiple exploratory through constrained ourlatitude with this associated customer survey group is fully objectives loyaltyfor the less experienced To items. measurement is more the total effect to the more For date,scale fullydevelop group, experienced supported. < research is still in realm of brand the is -.05 effect and indirect is direct effect .43 community development .38, (p .01) and to extend exist in in its the that our Significant opportunities Therefore, infancy. integration (H4b) hypothesis (n.s.). measures. There are otherimportant has refineappropriate effect andonly doesnothaveanindirect brand community We next work should be extended. inwhich this for themoreexperienced opportunities effect on customer a direct loyalty discusssomeofthose. is also supported. group be tested thefindings work is that ofthis extension Anobvious to Research is inother necessary establish settings. marketing brandcommunity to the relate that boundaries the may to marketing contribute Our findings theoryand have O'Guinn(2001), Muiz and As noted by conceptualization. we totheory, With for regard marketing practice. implications in which a in a brand we find consumption setting community provide additionalevidence that the accumulationof research Future visible. is might explore the publicly a thatexpress among customers experience consumption more to a brand of privately community applicability to a leads to engagein marketing relationships willingness consumed product. brand in this case other wherein shift forces, community than in building becomemorepowerful loyalty integration, or create is howto encourage marketers facing with A challenge incombination Thisevidence, satisfaction. doesoverall Future their around communities brand and offerings. support to conventional a strong challenge research, provides prior be that can of kinds the should research community explore ofloyalty. theantecedents regarding understandings could research in different Also, settings. credibly replicated of such and implications theexistence theaccepted assistin identifying ourfindings To marketing challenge managers, the as communities of cohesive pitfalls possible focuson managing one must tobuildloyalty that assumption As of the orchestration rumors or of communication boycotts. satisfaction As Oliver satisfaction. customer (1999) contends, of communities cohesive and O'Guinn Muiz indicate, (2001) customers. is of greatest amonginexperienced importance thatfoster environments create consumers potentially may driven is an however, creation, evolutionary process Loyalty market dynamics. by experience. With experience,customershave the damaging and additional the to meaningful opportunity develop the is to identify of examination issue worthy thatcan providea strong Another of brandcommunity connections to brand seek that them consumers of characteristics prompt of and loyalty.The possibility satisfaction affects bondthat or avoid it. Clubs and other consumer community thebondsof that can comefrom ofloyalty thetype building and outside Whostays for do notwork communities everyone. to for brand impetus managers carefully community provides when communities areconsumers What needs fulfilling why? ofa suitably andmaintenance thecreation consider supportive for a substitute communities Are consumer As a marketing environment. challenge, are successful? service-delivery communities? more or "naturally-occurring" tothe family other, attention environment that requires supportive providing in theU.S. against a general trend Putnam joiningor reports of holistic consumption experience.The conceptualization and such as communities in organizations which from marketers a model brand they participating community provides DISCUSSION Fall 2003 7

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ina brand canbuild hassuggested that community integration brand barriers formed around exit (e.g., friendships important self intoextended of theproduct consumption, integration that wouldtendto movea consumer toward concept) longAdditional research is alsonecessary toexamine the would be a valuable research long-term term engagement. Longitudinal thelongevity ofbrand implicationsfor brand community. The literature toolfor assessing community. etal. 2002; Schouten andMcAlexander (McAlexander 1995) andsocialclubs, suchas the political leagues, parties, bowling alone" Elks(Putnam socialtrend of"bowling 2000). Does this bode wellorill for marketers tobuildcommunity? attempts REFERENCES Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: on the Valueof a BrandName,New Capitalizing York:The FreePress. andMarkS. Johnson Garbarino, Ellen, (1999),"TheDifferent Roles of Satisfaction, in Trust,and Commitment Customer Journal 63 ofMarketing, Relationships," 70-87. (April),

J. Scottand Terry Overton Armstrong, (1977), "Estimating Bias in Mail Surveys," Journalof DavidW.andJames C. Anderson Nonresponse Gerbing, (1988),"AnUpdated 14 396-402. Research, (August), Marketing Paradigmfor Scale Development Incorporating and Its Assessment," Journal Unidimensionality of Leonard L. of 25 186-192. Berry, Research, (May), (1995), "Relationship Marketing Marketing Interest, Services-Growing Emerging Perspectives," Journal Jacoband RobertChestnut Science,23 of theAcademy of Marketing Jacoby, (1978), BrandLoyalty Measurement and Management, New York: John (Fall), 236-245. WileyandSons. A. (1989), Structural with Latent Bollen,Kenneth Equations New York:John Variables, Wiley& Sons. Jacob andD.B. Kyner Versus Jacoby, (1973),"Brand Loyalty Journal Research, Repeat Purchasing," ofMarketing 10 (February), 1-9.

andMorris B. Holbrook Chaudhuri, Arjun (2001), "TheChain of Effects Thomas O. and W. Earl Sasser,Jr.(1995), "Why from BrandTrustand BrandAffect to Jones, brandPerformance: The Role of BrandLoyalty," SatisfiedCustomers Defect," Harvard Business Journal 73 (November/December), 65 (April), 81-93. 88-99. Review, ofMarketing, Gilbert A. (1979),"A Paradigm for Churchill, Developing Better ofMarketing Measures Journal Constructs," of 16 (February), 64-73. Research, Marketing MarieandElliotMclntire of King,Joan (1998), "TheImpact theIndianGaming Acton Tribesin the Regulatory and Gaming on American Indian U.S.," in Tourism Lands, Alan Lew and George Van Otten,eds., NY: Cognizant 48-58. Elmsford, Communication,

Dick, Alan S. and Kunal Basu (1994), "Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated ConceptualFramework," Journal Robert V. (2001),"Utopian Kozinets, Science,22 of theAcademy of Marketing Enterprise: Articulating 99-113. the ofStar Trek'sCulture ofConsumption," (Spring), Meaning Journal 28 (June), 67-88. Research, ofConsumer Paul H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh (1987), Dwyer,F. Robert, Journal Indian Reservation Tourism: Lew,AlanA. (1998),"American Buyer-Seller "Developing Relationships," of 51 (April),11-27. A Survey of Resources and Practices," in Tourism Marketing, and Gaming on American IndianLands,AlanLew SethR.andK.S. Chon(1994),"Indian and Issues Van NY: Ferber, Otten, eds., Elmsford, Gaming: George andProspects," Research & Review 1 . 59-8 Journal, Communication, Gaming Cognizant 1 (2), 55-66. Noah Mills, and ViolaineSuran Licata,JaneW., Gregory Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Evaluations Fournier, (2001), "Value andSatisfaction During a Service Relationship,"Services Marketing Developing Relationships Theory in Consumer Research,"Journalof Consumer Research, 24, 22, (3), 19-41. Quarterly, 343-373. (March), James W. Schouten, and HaroldF. McAlexander, H., John andDavidGlenMick( 1998),"Rediscovering Fournier, Susan, Koenig (2002), "Building Brand Community," Journal 63 (October), 5Journal Satisfaction," 38-54. ofMarketing, ofMarketing (January), 23. 8 Journal THEORY AND PRACTICE ofMarketing

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andPatrick Price,LindaL., EricJ.Arnould, Mittal, Vikas, Pankaj Kumar,and Michael Tsiros (1999), (1995), Tierney ServiceEncounters and "Attribute-Level Performance, Satisfaction, Managing "Goingto Extremes: OverTime:A Consumptionand AssessingProvider Journal Behavioral Intentions Performance," of ' Journal 63 (April), 59 (April), 83-97. of Marketing, Marketing, System Approach,' 88-101. Putnam,RobertD. (2000), BowlingAlone, New York: " 1 A. Kamakura Touchstone. Vikas and Mittal, (200 ), Satisfaction, Wagner Behavior: and Repurchases RepurchaseIntent, FromCustomer of Customer Reichheld, F. (1996), "Learning the Moderating Effect Frederick Investigating Journal 37 Harvard Business Characteristics," Defections," Research, Review^(MarchofMarketing 131-142. 56-69. (February), April), Muiz, Albert and Thomas O'Guinn (2001), "Brand Journalof Consumer Research,27 Community," 412-432. (March), 2nd Jim C. (1978) Psychometric ed.,New Theory, Nunnally, York:McGraw-Hill. A Behavioral Oliver, Richard L. (1997), Satisfaction: New York: McGrawon the Consumer, Perspective Hill. Journal Brand L. (1999), "Whence Richard Oliver, Loyalty?" 63 (Special Issue),33-44. ofMarketings to H. Gilmore II andJames B. Joseph Pine, ( 1998),"Welcome Review Harvard Business the x Economy," Experience 97-108. 76 (July-August), JohnW., and JamesH. McAlexander Schouten, (1995), An Ethnography of "Subcultures of Consumption: 22 Journal the NewBikers," Research, ofConsumer 43-61. (June), and andDeepakSirdeshmukh (2000), "Agency Singh, Jagdip in Consumer Satisfaction and TrustMechanisms the Journal Academy of of LoyaltyJudgments," 150-67. Science,28 (Winter), Marketing Szymanski,David M. and David H. Henard (2001), A Meta-Analysis of the Satisfaction: "Customer Journalof theAcademy Evidence," of Empirical Science,29 (1), 16-35 Marketing (2002), "Consumer CraigJ.,andMauraTroester Thompson, Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern The Case of the NaturalHealth Fragmentation: 28 Journal Research, Microculture," of Consumer (March),550-571.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY ofthemarketing andcoordinator ofmarketing ofUtah)is professor H. McAlexander, James program (Ph.D.,University Journal as theJournal in suchpublications has appeared Prior research at OregonStateUniversity. of ofMarketing, recent andPractice.His most andthe Journal Behavior inConsumer Research Consumer Research, Theory ofMarketing andcustomer ofbrand theexamination include interests research loyalty. community

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY at Collegeof Business, of marketing is associateprofessor of Southern K. Kim,(Ph.D., University California) Stephen interaction channel interfirm noncontractual include interests research His State strategies, governance, University. Oregon Journal has appearedin Journal His research Research, surfaceanalysis. and response of Marketing of Marketing, Journal inMarketing, Journal International Science,andother journals. ofMarketing oftheAcademy ofResearch

Fall 2003

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Scott D. Roberts, ofUtah)is associate ofmarketing andmaster ofscienceinmanagement (Ph.D. , University professor director atNorthern Prior in suchpublications Arizona research has appeared as theJournal program University. of and Practice, in Consumer Journal Research Behavior and Theory Marketing ofEconomic Psychology, & Culture.His most recent research theMexicanandMexican-American interests include Consumption,Markets consumer behavior andmarketing to these efforts subcultures.


Journal THEORY AND PRACTICE ofMarketing

This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Appendix Items Measurement I. Brand community integration - 5: agreestrongly) = .73) (1: disagree Brand: (c-alpha 1. strongly I feelwelcome atthecasino. atthecasino. I feelcomfortable I find thecasino'satmosphere exciting. The casinois clean. with thecasinologo. I liketowearclothing 2. while atthecasinoandtheresort oftheservices overall evaluation Pleaseprovide Product: youhaveexperienced your 5: (1: poor- outstanding)51 a. Restaurant g. Bingo h. Blackjack b. Slots i. HotelPackage c. Poker d. Motorcoach j. Sandwich Shop Trip k. Weekend & Events e. Concert Dancing 1. Bar Club f. Loyalty - 5: agreestrongly) = .71): (1: disagree strongly (c-alpha Company thecasinois friendly. The staffai atthecasinoadd to theexperience. Thepeoplewhowork I amtreated atthecasino. fairly - 5: agreestrongly) ofothers: strongly (1: disagree Company atthecasino. I enjoycompany ofothers The casinois too crowded.



- 5: agreestrongly) = .77) (1: disagree II. GeneralSatisfaction strongly (c-alpha 1. The casinoexceeded myexpectations. with thecasino. satisfied 2. I amgenerally - 5: agreestrongly) III. Loyalty: strongly (1: disagree Casino? ShadowMountain Visited casinos? haveyouvisited How many times to thecasino. I willreturn .

a Product is notcalculated. scale andc-alpha is a formative ofbrand community component b Thisitem inthemodelestimation. is dropped

Fall 2003


This content downloaded from on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:20:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions