University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.

UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Determinants of Customer Loyalty for Smartphone Brands in

Pakistan

ASIM IQBAL
Master Scholar, University of Haripur
Email: iasim210@gmail.com

IMRAN QADIR (Corresponding Author)

Lecturer, Department of Management Sciences, University of Haripur
Email: imran@uoh.edu.pk
YASER ZAMAN
Master Scholar, University of Haripur
Email: yaser.zaman004@gmail.com

Abstract
The basic aim of this research is to identify what kind of determinants influence customer
loyalty for purchasing and using smartphone brands in Pakistan. Five preceding
determinants influence customer loyalty in term of functional benefit, hedonic benefit,
monetary cost, non-monetary cost and alternative attractiveness. By using selfadministered questionnaires, data was collected from 200 respondents of smartphone
users in millennial age group. SPSS was used in order to apply basic statistical tools in
term of descriptive, correlation and regression analysis. Results of this study indicated
that all the constructs have significant relationship with customer loyalty. This study
provided dynamic basis to the marketers nationally and internationally to investigate
various determinants that effect customer loyalty.
Keywords: Loyalty, Smartphone, Brand, Pakistan.

Introduction
We are entering a new processing trend that is fifth trend of processing where a new technology platform
revolutionize software, and is connected by three strong technological pillars namely inexpensive
computing, infinite bandwidth and open standards software (Copeland, 2005). This is entitled by increase
in wireless-enabled device (termed smartphone brands in this study) linked by universal, cheap broadband
wireless data access and open programming standards (Zheng & Ni, 2006). Such technological forces have
particularly maximized the merging of communication and processing, which has facilitated the addition of
various, additional functionalities to recognize the base product (Gill, 2008). Moreover, adding hedonic
features to a relatively functional base product gives more benefits than adding useful features (Gill, 2008).
For example, smartphones are developed by functional base products (such as the generic mobile phones)
having substantial benefits with the addition of hedonic features, facilitated with smooth bandwidth
anytime and anywhere. Such that these smartphone brands have more hedonic and valuable features than
generic mobile phones (Ahmad, 2012; Arruda-Filho & Lennon, 2011). Therefore, the smartphone brands
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

23

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

come with greater benefits, they also require further costs. The purchasing cost of these smartphone brands
having some other additional functionalities is likely to become more expensive than some other wireless
broadband data usage services. Moreover, the related services for smartphone brands are evolving and
becoming more sophisticated. Therefore, the scope of strong market competition among many smartphones
producing companies has made due the merging of communication and processing. Furthermore, the open
programming standard environment of developing smartphone brands has made a business eco system
around the pivot firms. Due to this change, firms compete from individual firm to multi firm groups (Iansiti
& Levien, 2004).
However, in this scenario, customer loyalty can provide a significant indication as how to maintain a viable
competitive advantage in the smartphone market in the term of attracting and keeping customer (Yang &
Peterson, 2004). Now, how to develop the understanding of customer loyalty is a key factor. Previously, the
firms main focus was on customer satisfaction to improve customer loyalty. Consequently, numerous
researches have been conducted on customer loyalty (Anderson & Srinivasan, 2003; Oliver, 1999; Yang &
Peterson, 2004; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). The relationship of loyalty becoming more
important for smartphone brands as they become universal in daily life (Aksoy, Buoye, Aksoy, Larivi`ere,
& Keiningham, 2013). So, this study is an attempt towards the said direction. The primary problem
addressed by this study is the effect of smartphone brands on customer loyalty in term of cost, benefit and
alternative attractiveness relationships. This study aim to analyze the relationship of functional benefits,
hedonic benefits, monetary cost, non-monetary cost and alternative attractiveness, with the customer
loyalty for smartphone brands in the market of Pakistan.

Literature Review
Smartphone
A smartphone is developed on the basis of latest mobile operating system, which is consist of more
advanced processing ability and connectivity. Cassavoy (2012), defined the smartphone as a device that
facilitate the user at the same time to make a telephone call as well as have the attributes using as computer
or personal digital assistant which was not possible in past, such as sending and receiving e-mails,
maintaining office documents.
In addition, smartphones are often described by the simplicity with which they can access information
online as well as have their functionality extended over custom designed apps. Examples of smartphones
include, Apple iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Android phones (HTC and Huawei), Windows mobile phones,
like Nokia Lumia (Courts, 2013).
Customer Loyalty
Customer loyalty plays a key role in marketing to attract and keep customers (Yang & Peterson, 2004), on
the other hand marketing and operating costs reduces the customer loyalty (Sunil Gupta & Zeithaml, 2006).
Hence, customer loyalty is a key element of viable competitive edge (Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, & Fahy,
1993). Previous literature consist of various definitions of customer loyalty, number of significant studies
on loyalty that seeks to be better understand the customer loyalty dimensions in different ways, such that
Oliver (1999), to understanding customer loyalty is very complicated in modern era of technology (Jones &
Taylor, 2007). To understand the loyalty concept there are two basic dimensions of customer loyalty are
developed: behavioral dimension as well as attitudinal (Day, 1969; Jacoby & Kyner, 1973). The behavioral
dimension define the customer loyalty as a behavior of, and is calculated the number of purchase buying
consistency (Kahn, Kalwani, & Morrison, 1986).Thus, behavioral dimension of loyalty mostly criticized
for avoiding decision making processes of customers (Enis & Paul, 1970). But in other sense, the attitudinal
dimension defines the loyalty as affectional attitude towards a specific product or brand to bringing
consistency in customer purchase decisions (Anderson &Srinivasan, 2003). Loyalty is the sense of
responsibility, sense of commitment, or affection to somebody. According to marketing prospective loyalty
is somewhat customer sometimes select to show in term of specific brand, product service etc. (Uncles et
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

24

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

al., 2003). According to (Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999) there is no universal definition of customer
loyalty exist somebody fully rely on it, but they defined three salient points on loyalty which are loyalty
leading to the attachment of brand, loyalty as it relates to trend of activities and purchase influence by
uniqueness of individuals (Bagram & Khan 2012).
Functional and Hedonic Benefits
A term benefit is the outcome of customer input to pay in the form of money for purchasing certain brand
or service (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). Therefore, benefit is normally well known term and it is well
organized and enclosed in related past literature. The term functional benefits indicates that functional,
instrumental and practical benefits of product/service (Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2008), similarly
the hedonic benefits refer to aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment benefits of product/service (Babin,
Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Traditionally, the customer past studies has emphases only functional aspects,
product relevant feelings of customer. Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) introduce both prospects of
functional and hedonic values in shopping industry.
Functional benefits is the primary, measureable and cognitive value of the product that provide customer
some sort of tangible advantage. Taking example of the customers who buy product for some specific
purpose and for a specific reasons (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994). Functional benefits of the product
are attached to some basic needs and some basic incentives like how safe this product is and how much
tangible benefits it provided, how much it accessible and how much it available to the market. Customer
think all these aspects before using a product and he or she also think deeply how much his or her purpose
will be accomplished by using this product. If we talk about the loyalty then functional benefits can be
obtain in the form of monetary saving (Bolton et al., 2004; Johnson, 1999).
Hedonic attributes refer to the shopper subjective experience, entertaining and pleasure oriented
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982) and can be related with shopping, media entertainment and improve
shopper behavioral dimension of loyalty (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Babin and Attaway 2000; Babin et
al., 1994; Jones, Reynolds, and Arnold, 2006; McQuail, Blumler, and Brown, 1972). Hedonic attributes
associated with the different loyalty programs with two different approaches: exploration and
entertainment. The key attributes like adopting new fashion and ideas, entertaining magazines, getting
extensive knowledge, to attend different entertaining programs keep up to date you with new technology
are the examples of exploratory behaviors (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Baumgartner and Steenkamp,
1996). Whenever buying products or services customer often face difficulty having many options of
functional and hedonic benefits and these benefits makes a customer loyal toward that product or services
(Cronin Jr., Brady, & Hult, 2000). Customers become loyal to a product or service that offering the
benefits/values it can be contained two different angles: functional and hedonic (Voss, Spangenberg, &
Grohmann, 2003). Hedonic benefits mostly aesthetic, emotional and intangible in nature, and doesnt
willingly afford itself to compare them with other brands (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Chitturi et al.,
2008).
H1: Functional benefit is positively related to customer loyalty.
H2: Hedonic benefit is positively related to customer loyalty.
Monetary and Non-Monetary Costs
The term cost is defined as what customer pay or will have to scarify to purchase a product or service
(Lee & Cunningham, 2001). There are two basic kind of costs customer is actually faces to accomplish own
purchasing deal, that is monetary cost include the cost of product and services including switching and
other hidden costs as well as nonmonetary cost in term of time efforts and other unsatisfactory spending for
the purchase and consumption of services (Roig, Garcia, Tena, & Monzonis, 2006). Actually a customer
sacrifice both aspects of cost monetary as well as nonmonetary whenever he or she make purchase for
certain product or service and these cost indicates to a greater excellence and lesser perceived risk
(Dinsmore, Dugan, Wright, and Arroniz, 2013)

ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

25

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Monetary cost denoted the ways included the monetary terms paid by the customer in order to make
purchase (Berry 1979, Guiltinan 1976; Jacoby, Szybillo, and Berning 1976; Peter and Ryan 1976; Zeithaml
1988). Monetary costs related with price factors a customer will have to scarify in store environment,
transportation, order-handling, and customer services. The costs related with the product repair and
maintenance also included in monetary costs (Monroe, 1990). Monetary consideration including the price
of product or fee charges related with services which is actually shopper give up to buy and it also included
repair cost of the brand (Treacy & Wiersema, 1995).
Non-monetary costs contain time, energy, and feelings associated to find and to get the product (Berry,
1979; Guiltinan 1976; Jacoby, Szybillo, and Berning 1976; Peter and Ryan 1976; Zeithaml 1988). The nonmonetary costs significantly might be consist of customer safety and secrecy intentions (Grewal et al.,
1998). The nonmonetary term refer to those aspects of cost that a customer spent by using a particular
product or service in term of efforts and time regardless to fulfil shopper need and satisfaction (Zeithaml,
1988).
Traditionally, customer studies prefer the benefit terms on cost terms to define customer loyalty (Lee &
Cunningham, 2001). Ruiz, Gremler, Washburn, and Carrion (2008), prove in their research that majority
of businesses are failed to precise both monetary and nonmonetary cost terms that might be associated to
effective mean of customer loyalty. Therefore, costs and loyalty have a significant impact on smartphone
brands. Monetary consideration including the price of product or fee charges related with services which is
actually shopper give up to buy and non-monetary cost include, energy, time, and feeling of the customer
and these are the determinants of customer loyalty (Virvilaite, Saladiene, & Skindaras, 2009).
H3: Monetary cost is negatively related to customer loyalty.
H4: Nonmonetary cost is negatively related to customer loyalty.
Alternative Attractiveness
The term Alternative attractiveness is stated that the Worldwide determination of the relationship to
satisfy best existing key alternative resources (Ping, 2003). Alternative attractiveness also defined as a
customers evaluation towards existing alternatives in a relationship of the expected fulfillment (Ping,
1993). Alternative attractiveness may categorized into four different aspects namely the number of
existing alternatives, the rate of change among these alternatives, the rate of complexity to identifying them
and the rate of complexity to relating these alternatives (Anderson and Narus, 1984). Jones and Sasser
(1995), indicated that in case of many alternatives there is stronger impact of customer loyalty. In service
providers context the customers best economic decisions not only focus on the single service provider they
also compare this to other alternative of service providers (Thaler, 1985). Furthermore, there is significant
impact of these alternatives on customer perceptions in the market (Jones et al., 2000). Alternative
attractiveness creating a situation where a customer can compare existing supplier to other competitor,
whenever your competitors providing more benefits and services, means they are more valuable from you,
this may also encourage their switching dimensions (Keaveney, 1995). If the determination of service
performance becoming decrease it means that customers are dissatisfying from your service and the result
they become disloyal (Wood, 2008). Whenever your competitors are adopted new marketing strategies
they are becoming more attractive than you and may be your customer can switch your company and to
purchase the product of your competitors, Hence creating disloyal situation (Wathne, Biong, & Heide,
2001). To determining the alternative is much easier for the shopper when he or she is much aware about
the product or service provider, but in other hand he or she consider his or her determination on such
information collected from interior and exterior means (Kozak & Decrop, 2009). Yim, Chan, and Hung
(2007).
H5: Alternative attractiveness is negatively related to customer loyalty.

Research Methodology
The methodology of the study includes the different procedures adopted in this study. It gives the
framework of various research examinations, as well as provide hypothetical sketch, Questionnaire
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

26

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

technique, data collection technique conceptual model, sampling technique and finally data analysis
approach.
Data Collection and Analysis Techniques
In this research study, the questionnaire technique was used to get the mainstream of the data for the
purpose of key determinants of customer loyalty for smartphone brands, these informations kept to
examine our findings how they associated with previous findings and what new results offering us to
utilized in the competitive market of smartphone brands and their impact on loyalty in various angles of
loyalty antecedents.
In this study, data was collected through self-administered questionnaires from those participants which are
actually users of smartphone brands. Similarly, data has been collected mainly from three cities of Pakistan
(Haripur Abbottabad and Islamabad). Pre-tested questionnaires were used which was adopted from (Ha &
Park, 2013).
For the purpose of measuring data, SPSS was used in this research. There were three basic statistical tools
used for analyzing the data, which are descriptive statistics, correlation and linear regression.

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework was established to analyze the hypotheses and involves all the dependent and
independent variables. The theoretical framework represented in figure 1, and its sketched supported the
observations presented in study.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

Data Analysis and Results

Data was analyzed by using SPSS software and its three techniques are implemented which are descriptive
statistics, correlation analysis and regression analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistic is a tool which gives the frequency of participants; this research used the following
demographics dimensions.

Gender includes 60 percent male and 40 percent female.

ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

27

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Age includes three slab the largest age group is the range between 15-25 years contain 49 %, the
second slab lies within 26-33 years it contain 32%, similarly the third slab that is from 34-50 years it
has 19% respondent.
Education variable is divided into three different sections which consist of intermediated, under
graduate and post graduated. There are 18 % respondent in first group, 53% in second group and 29%
in third group.
Occupation level of the respondent divided into four classes which are students, employees, faculty
and entrepreneur. There are 35% students, 23% general employees, 22% faculty members and 20% are
entrepreneurs.

Correlation Analysis
The Pearsons correlation is used to measure an association between independents and dependent variables.
The value of a Pearsons correlation may lies between 0.00 (no relation) and 1.00 (perfect correlation).
Table 1: Correlation Analysis
Correlations

CL

FB

HB

MC

NMC

Customer
Loyalty (CL)

Pearson
Correlation

Functional
Benefit (FB)

Pearson
Correlation

.728**

Hedonic Benefit
(HB)

Pearson
Correlation

.705**

.739**

Monetary
(MC)

Pearson
Correlation

-.159*

-.110

-.191**

Nonmonetary
Cost (NMC)

Pearson
Correlation

-.132*

-.138

-.145*

.492**

Alternative
Attractiveness
(AA)

Pearson
Correlation

-.260**

-.245**

-.209**

.027

.334**

cost

AA

Table 1 of correlation indicates the correlation analysis of the dependent variable (Customer loyalty) and
independent variables (Hedonic and functional benefits, monetary and non-monetary cost and alternative
attractiveness). Therefore, from the above findings we conclude that there is a strong positive correlation of
functional and hedonic benefits with dependent variable customer loyalty, for functional benefit (R= .728)
and for hedonic benefit (R= .705). Also in the above table there was a weaker negative correlation of
monetary and non-monetary costs with customer loyalty, where (R= -.159) for monetary cost and (R= .132) for non-monetary cost respectively. Table 1 also indicates the correlation results of alternative
attractiveness, there is a weaker negative correlation between alternative attractiveness and the customer
loyalty and its value is (R= -.260).
Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Measures
Regression analysis in this study was applied individually for each hypotheses.
Functional Benefit and Customer Loyalty
H1: Functional benefit is positive related to customer loyalty.

ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

28

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

Table 2: Coefficient of Functional benefits

Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
.813
.212
Functional Benefit .757
.051
.728
a. Dependent Variable: Customer loyalty
Model

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Sig.

3.844
14.959

.000
.000

The regression results of above table 2 confirm that there is a significant positive relationship between
functional benefits and customer loyalty where (Beta= .728, p= .000). According to these results, functional
benefit contributes more than 72% to customer loyalty where other variables remaining unchanged. Thus
validating the results of H1, and acquired results also supported by the literature. Chen et al., (2013)
examined that in their study there was significant positive relationship between functional values with
online customer loyalty, and their results were also supported by their study.
Hedonic Benefit and Customer Loyalty
H2: Hedonic benefit is positive related to customer loyalty.
Table 3: Coefficient of Hedonic benefits
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
1.321
.190
Hedonic Benefit
.665
.047
.705
a. Dependent Variable: Customer loyalty
Model

Sig.

6.945
14.001

.000
.000

In table 3 regression analysis of the customer loyalty model shows that there is a significant positive
relationship between hedonic benefit and customer loyalty where (Beta= .705, p= .000). The results
propose that the hedonic benefit is having more than 70% effect on customer loyalty where the all other
variables remaining unchanged. Thus the results of the study support H2, and the given results also
supported by the literature. Chen et al., (2013) examined that in their study there was significant positive
relationship between hedonic values with online customer loyalty, and their results were also supported in
their study.
Monetary Cost and Customer Loyalty
H3: Monetary cost is negatively related to customer loyalty.
Table 4: Coefficient of Monetary cost
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
3.616
.149
Monetary cost
-.119
.053
-.159
a. Dependent Variable: Customer loyalty
Model

Sig.

24.226
-2.271

.000
.024

Table 4 indicates the regression results of the study, and confirmed the negative relation between the
Monetary cost and Customer loyalty where (Beta= -.159, p .024). According to these findings, Monetary
cost is having more than (-15%) effect on customer loyalty where other variables remaining constant. The
results of the study support H3, and these results also supported by the previous literature. Yen (2010),
proved that in his study there was negative associations between switching costs in term of (monetary and
non-monetary) and customer loyalty for customers with high perceived risks.
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

29

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Non-Monetary Cost and Customer Loyalty

H4: Non-monetary cost is negatively related to customer loyalty.
Table 5: Coefficient of Non-Monetary cost
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
4.236
.169
Nonmonetary Cost
-.123
.066
-.132
a. Dependent Variable: Customer loyalty
Model

Sig.

25.101
-1.867

.000
.063

Table 5 represents the regression results of the study, confirm that there is a significant negative
relationship between non-monetary cost and customer loyalty with (Beta= -.132, p= .063). According to
these results, non-monetary cost has more than (-13%) effect over the customer loyalty where all other
variables remaining unchanged. The said results of the study supports H4, and these results are also
supported by the literature. Yen (2010), proved that in his study there was negative associations between
switching costs in term of (monetary and non-monetary) and customer loyalty for customers with high
perceived risks.
Alternative Attractiveness and Customer Loyalty
H5: Alternative attractiveness is negatively related to customer loyalty.

Model

Table 6: Coefficient of Alternative attractiveness

Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
4.816
.237
-.273
.072
-.260

(Constant)
Alternative
Attractiveness
a. Dependent Variable: Customer loyalty

Sig.

20.301
-3.795

.000
.000

In table 6 the regression results of the study prove the significant negative relationship between alternative
attractiveness and customer loyalty with (Beta= -.260, p= .000). According to these findings, alternative
attractiveness have more than (-26%) effects over the customer loyalty where the other variable remaining
unchanged. The result of the study supports H5, and the existing literature also supported our results. LiWei (2011), revealed the results in his research alternative attractiveness has negative effect on customer
loyalty.

Discussion Conclusion Limitation and Recommendation

Discussion and Conclusion
The basic purpose of this research is to evaluate the relationship among functional benefit, hedonic
benefits, monetary cost, non-monetary cost, alternative attractiveness and customer loyalty for smartphone
brands in the context of Pakistan. This study included the many elements in term of functional and hedonic
benefit take as a benefit terms similarly cost term include to indicate the increasing complexities and price
of smartphone brands. Several researches had been conducted with various results relevant to customer
loyalty. A series of studies examined that to maintaining customer loyalty has significant impact on
companys business performance. Many of studies had been reported encompassing the antecedents of
customer loyalty for smartphone brands. To specify the potential about perceives results, a convincing
model of study executing to the organizations whose business related to smartphone manufacturing is
mostly focusing to maintaining customer loyalty through different loyalty programs, they also need to build
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

30

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

long-term customer relationship by creating strong brand image and positioning in the mind of their
customers as well as offering unique features in their products to retaining customers and this aspects to
remove customer complexities relevant to product in term of both monetary and non-monetary prospective.
Therefore, the literature review relevant to determinants of customer loyalty and its impact on smartphone
brands market. It became clear that enormous measures particular evaluation and organizing such effects on
customer loyalty around the companys overall benefits of the business performance be needed
intentionally control entirely in the worldwide. Furthermore, to look at the basic requirements of our
research to maintaining customer loyalty for different smartphone users or executing framework that can be
used for various organizations to improve their determination to build strong customer loyalty for long term
association with them.
Functional benefit, hedonic benefit, monetary cost, non-monetary cost and alternative attractiveness, and
for generally organizational development determinants of customer loyalty for smartphone brands have
significant importance to reduce perceived risks, reduce customer switching costs, reduce complexities of
customer by using and purchasing of these devices, similarly in other hand to maximize companys profit,
increase productivity, improve competitive position in the market for stay in business long term.
Results also implies that functional benefit is the key variable to generating and maintaining customer
loyalty for smartphone brands, similarly hedonic attributes of smartphone brands also essential to attract
and keep customers. Because innovators are much likely to prefer hedonic attributes of smartphone brands
rather than functional attributes. All the hypotheses were approved by the data, and results are also
supported by the literature. Past researches of different authors be supported our findings. The key finding
acquired from the questionnaire survey, which consist of number of practical implications and it also
obtained that to maintaining customer loyalty is a key antecedent for smartphone brands.

First, determinants of customer loyalty in term of functional benefit and hedonic benefits have positive
impact on generally business development.
Second, determinants of customer loyalty in tern of monetary cost, non-monetary cost and alternative
attractiveness negatively impact on overall business performance.
Third, determinants of customer loyalty are the significant factors to evaluating the organizational
achievement and overall business development.
Fourth, the study findings infer it is not essential for all the factors to be ensuring the success of
generally business development.
Fifth, customer perceived more functional and hedonic values in smartphone brands regardless of
monetary and non-monetary aspect of smartphone brands.
Sixth, to consider monetary cost in term of price relevant to smartphone brands, however price strategy
should be developed in attention with such other elements, most contribution of benefits terms for
retaining customers.
Seventh, also consider non-monetary aspects of cost relevant to smartphone brands in term of (time,
effort and difficulty) if a smartphone company to remove customer brand related complexities it might
be easy for customer to repurchase this brand as well as attached with your brands for long-term.
Eight, in competitive scenario there will be the fierce competition among various smartphone
companies, so that which company provided realistic marketing strategy in term of promotions it is
easy for that to reduce customer attentions about alternative attractiveness.

Limitation and Recommendation

Determinants of customer loyalty for smartphone brands could may a new study in context of Pakistan. In
past three years smartphone brands getting more popularity among their users and going towards market
maturity. Mostly the students, business executives are more interesting to use smart phone rather than to
generic mobiles. Therefore this research have some deficits as its natural nothing is perfect. There are key
limitations discussed as follow:

ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

31

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Data was collected from just from three cities of Pakistan (Haripur, Abbottabad and Islamabad) which
could not be whole picture of Pakistan
Sample size is consist of 200 participants those the users of smartphone brands, which sample size is
little small, large number of data could reflect a true picture.
There were majority of students were the smartphone users that was quiet limited in Pakistan, if other
peoples become users of smartphones then the loyalty measurement tendency might be varied.
Determinants of loyalty for smartphone brands were being observed in this study which may or may
not be give complete representation of the model, there were some other determinants could be
selected like brand image, brand trust, promotional efforts, purchase criteria, perceived quality,
customer satisfaction, and innovativeness be a part of model.
Here we consider alternative attractiveness for identical industry. However integration has resulted in
the flop of independent market sectors by industry and hence the competitive scope of each industry
has been expended. For example netbooks sales becoming decrease with increasing demand for
smartphones and tablet PCs.
Determinants of customer loyalty having most important aspects of the smartphone business market. It
play a dynamic role in the success of smartphone business. This study is valid for all those businesses
which are directly or indirectly associated with smartphone manufacturing business. It has an extensive
range of application for smartphone business. In order to maintain customer loyalty for smartphone
brands we will recommended the following suggestions that on the basis of our findings.
Company must create strong brand name, brand image, as well as to offer unique features in term of
(functional and hedonic) in their brands and at any cost dont let to lose their reputation.
Businesses need to conduct a different loyalty programs for maintaining and polishing customer
loyalty.
Companys much need to remove customer product related complexities in term of monetary (price)
and non-monetary (time, effort and difficulty) aspects, it is important key to enhance the service
environment to make sure ease of use of the product or service in order to educate customer with
different ways. However the price system must be created in attention with other elements, for the
most part benefits.
Fourth, alternative attractiveness significantly influence customer loyalty, so companys need to
deliver realistic marketing strategies in term of advertisement to reduce customer attentions about
alternative attractiveness (Yim, Chan, & Hung, 2007).

References
Ahmad, N. (2012). Utilitarian and hedonic values of mobile services: A preliminary analysis from the
users perspective. Business& Accounting Review, 9, 6983.
Aksoy, L., Buoye, A., Aksoy, P., Larivi`ere, B., & Keiningham, T. L. (2013). A cross-national
investigation of the satisfaction and loyalty linkage for mobile telecommunications services across
eight countries. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 7482.
Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: A contingency framework.
Psychology and Marketing, 20, 123138.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1984), A model of distributors perspective of distributor-manufacturer
working relationships. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 62-74.
Arruda-Filho, E. J. M., & Lennon, M. M. (2011). How iPhone innovators changed their consumption in
iDay2: Hedonic post or brand devotion. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 524
532.
Arnold M.J., Reynolds K.E (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing 2003; 79 (2): 7795.
Assael, H. (1998). Consumer behaviour and marketing action. 6th ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Babin B.J., Attaway J.S (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of
customer. Journal of Business Research 2000; 49 (2), 91-99.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March), 644-656.

ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

32

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Babin B.J., Darden W., Griffin M (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value. Journal of Consumer Research 1994; 20 (4): 644-657.
Bagram, M. M. M., & Khan, S. (2012). Attaining customer loyalty! The role of consumer attitude and
consumer behavior. International Review of Management and Business Research, 1(1), 1.
Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.B (1996). Exploratory consumer buying behavior: conceptualization and
measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing 1996; 13 (2): 121-137.
Berry, Leonard L. (1979). The Time-Buying Consumer. Journal of Retailing Vol. 55, No. four (winter)
5869.
Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive advantage in service
industries: A conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57, 8399.
Bolton R., Lemon K.N., Verhoef P.C (2004). The theoretical underpinnings of customer asset
management: a framework and propositions for future research. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 2004; 32 (3): 271-292.
Cassavoy, L. (2012). What is a smartphone? About. com.
Chen, M. H., Tsai, K. M., Hsu, Y. C., & Lee, K. Y. (2013). E-service Quality Impact on Online
Customers Perceived Value and Loyalty. China-USA Business Review, 12(5), 473-485.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus
utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48- 63.
Copeland, M. V. (2005). How to ride the fifth wave. Retrieved 19 July, 2012, from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/07/01/8265500/index.htm.
Courts, L. (2013). Communications report 201112 series Report 3. Smartphones and tablets Take-up
and use in Australia.
Cronin Jr., J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of
Retailing, 76(2), 193-218.
Day, G. S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 29
35.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 99113.
Dinsmore, John B., Riley G. Dugan, Scott A. Wright and Inigo O. Arroniz (2013), Free Is Just Another
Word For Something Else to Pay: The Perception of Set Nonmonetary Prices. unpublished.
Donio, J., Massari, P., &Passiante, G. (2006). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in a digital environment:
An empirical test. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23, 445457.
Enis, B. M., & Paul, G. W. (1970). Store loyalty as a basis for market segmentation. Journal of
Retailing, 46, 4256.
Gill, T. (2008). Convergent products: What functionalities add more value to the base? Journal of
Marketing, 72, 4662.
Grewal, Dhruv, Kent B. Monroe and R. Krishnan (1998), Advertising on Buyers Perceptions on
Acquisition Value, Transaction Value and Behavioral Intentions.Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 4659.
Gupta, S., & Zeithaml, V. (2006). Customer metrics and their impact on nancial performance.
Marketing Science, 25, 718739.
Guiltinan, Joseph P. (1976), Risk-Aversive Pricing Policies: Problems and Alternatives. The Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 40, No. one (Jan. 1976), pp. 10-15.
Ha, Y. W., & Park, M. C. (2013).Antecedents of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty for emerging
devices in the initial market of Korea: An equity framework. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 676689.
Hirshman E., Holbrook M. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts methods and propositions. Journal
of Marketing 1982; 46 (3): 92-102.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems
mean for strategy, innovation and sustainability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Jacoby, J., &Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. Repeat purchasing behaviour. Journal of Marketing
Research, 10, 19.
Jacoby, Jacob, George J. Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning (1976), Time and Consumer Behavior: An
Interdisciplinary Overview. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. four (March), pp. 320-339.
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

33

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Johnson K (1999). Making loyalty program more rewarding. Direct Marketing 1999; 61 (11): 24-27.
Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:
Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59, 974-981.
Jones, T., & Taylor, S. F. (2007). The conceptual domain of service loyalty: How many dimensions?
Journal of Services Marketing, 21, 3651.
Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L. & Beatty, S.E (2000). Switching Barriers and Repurchase Intentions in
Services. Journal of Retailing, 2000, 76(2), 259-275.
Jones, T.O. & Sasser, W.E. (1995) Why Satisfied Customers Defect. Harvard Business Review, 73(6),
p.88-99.
Kahn, B. E., Kalwani, M. U., & Morrison, D. G. (1986). Measuring variety-seeking and reinforcement
behaviours using panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 89100.
Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory study.
Journal of Marketing, 59, 7182.
Kozak, Metin; Decrop, Alain (2009). Handbook of Tourist Behavior. Theory & Practice. Routledge: New
York.
Lee, M., & Cunningham, L. F. (2001). A cost/benefit approach to understanding service loyalty. Journal
of Services Marketing, 15, 113130.
Li-Wei, W. (2011). Inertia: Spurious Loyalty or Action Loyalty? Asia Pacific Management
Review, 16(1).
McQuail D., Blumler J.G., Brown J.R (1972). The television audience: a revised perspective. In:
Sociology of Mass Communications 1972; Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Oliver, R. L. (1999).Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 3344.
Peter, J. Paul and Michael J. Ryan (1976). An Investigation of Perceived Risk at the Brand Level.Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 13, No. two (May 1976), 184-88.
Ping Jr, R. A. (2003). Antecedents of satisfaction in a marketing channel. Journal of Retailing, 79(4),
237248.
Ping, R.A. (1993). The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty,
opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 320-52.
Ping, R.A., Jr (1993). The Effects of Satisfaction and Structural Constraints on Retailer Exiting, Voice,
Loyalty, Opportunism and Neglect. Journal of Retailing, 1993, 69, 320-352.
Roig, J. C. F., Garcia, J. S., Tena, M. A. M., & Monzonis, J.L. (2006). Customer perceived value in
banking services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24, 266283.
Ruiz, D. M., Gremler, D. D., Washburn, J. H., & Carrion, G. C. (2008). Service value revisited:
Specifying a higher- order, formative measure. Journal of Business Research, 61, 12781291.
Thaler, R. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 1985, 4,199-214.
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1995). The discipline of market leaders: Choose your customers, narrow
your focus, and dominate your market. London: HarperCollins.
Uncles, M. D., Dowling, G. R., & Hammond, K. (2003). Customer loyalty and customer loyalty
programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), p.294-316.
Virvilaite, R., Saladiene, V., & Skindaras, D. (2009). The relationship between price and loyalty in
services industry.Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 3, 96104.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(August), 310-320.
Wathne, K. H., Boing, H., & Heide, J. B. (2001). Choice of supplier in an embedded market:
Relationships and marketing program effects. Journal of marketing, 65, 54-65.
Wood, J.A. (2008), The effect of buyers perceptions of environmental uncertainty on satisfaction and
loyalty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 309-20.
Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of
switching costs. Psychology& Marketing, 21, 799822.
Yen, Y. S. (2010). Can perceived risks affect the relationship of switching costs and customer loyalty in ecommerce? Internet Research, 20(2), 210-224.
Yim, C. K., Chan, K. W., & Hung, K. (2007). Multiple reference effects in service evaluations: Roles of
alternative attractiveness and self-image congruity. Journal of Retailing, 83, 147157.
Zeithaml, V.; Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp 31-52.
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

34

University of Haripur Journal of Management (UOHJM)

Published by University of Haripur.
UOHJM available at www.uoh.edu.pk/uohjm

April 2016
Volume 1. Issue 1

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 3146.
Zeithaml, Valerie A. (1988), Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End model
and Synthesis of Evidence.Journal of Marketing, three (July), 2-22
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 222.
Zheng, P., & Ni, L. M. (2006). Spotlight:The rise of the smartphone. Distributed Systems Online, IEEE,
7, 3144.

ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Iqbal, Qadir & Zaman (2016)

35