Tweens satisfaction and brand loyalty in

the mobile phone market

Anne Martensen

Anne Martensen is Abstract

Associate Professor, Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine tweens (8-12 year-olds) satisfaction with and loyalty
Department of Marketing, to their mobile phones and the relationship between these.
Copenhagen Business Design/methodology/approach Based on literature studies, hypotheses about tweens satisfaction
School, Frederiksberg, with and loyalty to their mobile phones are developed. A survey in Denmark forms the empirical basis for
Denmark. the study, and the hypotheses are tested and discussed.
Findings The results indicate that tweens are far more satisfied with their mobile phones than adults
are and that the mobile phones fulfill childrens expectations to a much higher degree. Still, brands are
not able to turn tweens into loyal customers who will recommend their mobile phones to friends. Tweens
loyalty is lower than what is experienced for adults and the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty
is very weak.
Research limitations/implications This study is limited to the mobile phone market. The low degree
of loyalty in this market may not necessarily be the case in other markets. However, it is believed that
many of the arguments share such generic characteristics that they are transferable to other product
areas. Another limitation is that this study is based on a survey in Greater Copenhagen in Denmark.
Therefore, the results can be influenced by a city effect.
Practical implications The paper presents findings, which are useful for mobile phone marketers
marketing strategy and promotional plans towards tweens.
Originality/value The study combines tweens, mobile phones, and customer satisfaction and loyalty
theory. Findings on this combination have not been published previously. However, the combination is
important due to the growing mobile phone penetration among tweens and the fast development of
mobile phones and telecommunication services.
Keywords Children (age groups), Customer satisfaction, Brand loyalty, Mobile communication systems
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Recently, tweens influence on decisions regarding household purchases has grown (Siegel
et al., 2004), among other things in relation to purchases of new technical products of which
they often have more technical knowledge than their parents (Chordas, 2001). This is also
the case for mobile phones. Tweens is the term for eight to 12 year-olds who are in between
ages (Siegel et al., 2004, p. 2). They are a bit too old to be looked at as children and a bit too
young to be teenagers.
Tweens have eagerly adopted the mobile phone. It gives them increased availability as well
as flexibility and it represents a security factor for both children and adults. The mobile
phone also has a great signal value and its many technically sophisticated functions give the
children a possibility to act as frontrunners and trendsetters. Last but not least, the mobile
phone may play an important role when it comes to achieving social status among friends.
The mobile phone is able to fulfill many different needs. The question is whether companies
are able to make tweens completely satisfied with their mobile phones. And does a high level

PAGE 108 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007, pp. 108-116, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 DOI 10.1108/17473610710757464
of satisfaction lead to the creation of a relation to the mobile phone brand in question and
thereby also a high level of loyalty? Or does the tweens lack of experience and their search
for identity mean that no relation to the brand is being built, thus reflecting a low level of
loyalty? The purpose of this article is to answer these questions.

Hypotheses development

Tweens satisfaction with mobile phones

Customer satisfaction is based on the disconfirmation of expectation theory, in which the
customer compares expectations with perceived quality resulting in confirmation or
disconfirmation (e.g. Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980; Oliver and DeSarbo,
1988; Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993).
Thus, it is essential that the mobile phone suppliers live up to the tweens expectations a
task that requires focus on and appeal to certain fundamental needs and motives among
tweens. Otherwise satisfaction, loyalty and a relation to the brand will not be achieved.
In a major Danish empirical study, Grnholdt and Martensen (2004) found that the mobile
phone supplier Nokia achieved a customer satisfaction index of 69 (on a 0-100 scale), while
Sony Ericsson achieved an index of 63. However, as the study only focused on adolescents
over 17 years old, the question is if this customer satisfaction level also applies for tweens.
There is nothing obvious that speaks for neither a higher nor a lower level of mobile phone
satisfaction among tweens than among adults. It is therefore hypothesized:
H1.
Tweens mobile phone satisfaction is at the same level as adults.

Tweens loyalty towards mobile phones

Several studies over time have hypothesized and empirically validated the link between
customer satisfaction and loyalty (retention, recommendation, favorability, etc.) (e.g.
Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Fornell et al., 1996, Rucci et al., 1998; Kristensen et al., 2000;
Bansal and Taylor, 1999; Cronin et al., 2000). In general, it has been proposed that higher
satisfaction is related to higher loyalty (Hallowell, 1996; Strauss and Neuhaus, 1997; Ball
et al., 2004). The models behind the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and the
European Performance Satisfaction Index (EPSI) are based on a direct relationship between
customer satisfaction and loyalty, and in a number of ACSI and EPSI studies, this link is
empirically documented (e.g. Fornell et al., 1996; Grnholdt et al., 2000; Kristensen et al.,
2000; Cassel and Eklof, 2001; EPSI Rating, 2006; Kristensen and Eskildsen, 2005). Also, a
meta-analysis by Szymanski and Henard (2001) gives empirical evidence of loyalty as the
outcome of satisfaction.
However, the form and the strength of the correlation may vary from market to market (Jones
and Sasser, 1995), and there are measurement and method aspects that often moderate the
strength of the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty (Szymanski and Henard, 2001).
Tweens brand awareness is at about the same level as adults brand awareness. According
to the Danish TNS/Gallups Children and Youth Index, autumn 2003, eighti to ten-year-old
tweens know on average six mobile phone brands versus seven brands among adults (ages
19-30). For breakfast cereals the average is 11 vs 14 brands, for sports clothing five vs six
brands and for soft drinks 11 vs 12 brands (Hansen et al., 2002). Tweens remember what
they have seen, heard and read about the brands; they discuss it with their friends and form
their own opinion or form common views on the brands (John, 1999). Therefore we may
presume that tweens are relatively aware of what to expect from the brands.
Still, they do not show the same attitudinal loyalty to a brand as adults do. Lindstrom and
Seybold (2003, p. 51) find in their study that tweens attach themselves to brands in the
same way as adults do but their loyalty is weaker than adults. In a comparison of many
different brands, it was showed that children were 40 percent less likely to be attached to a

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 109
 brand than the adults when asked about the same brand. Thus, we can expect tweens
attitudinal loyalty toward a brand to be significantly lower than the loyalty of adults. But why
are tweens less attached to a brand than adults? There may be several answers to this
question.
First, tweens lack experience. Experience is a decisive factor in relation to loyalty and as
Schiffman and Kanuk (2004, p. 145) emphasize:
The power of a brand resides in the consumers mind from both lived (purchase and usage) and
mediated (advertising and promotion) experiences.

Second, tweens love to experiment with their identity and self-staging. Tweens use the
brands to define themselves and create their identity. To tweens, the brands they buy reflect
the way they see themselves and the way in which they want other to see them. The brand
itself is a symbol of different lifestyles, norms and values and contributes to the tweens
identity, rather because of what it represents than because of what it is. Tweens are in a life
phase where the world is to be explored and experienced. They experience more and more
and they undergo major physical and psychological changes that make them look on
themselves and others in a different way. What is cool and in one moment, is now passe and
out the next. According to Lindstrom and Seybold (2003, p. 55) tweens grow out of brands
extremely fast.
Third, tweens have grown up with the interactive media. They are used to everything and
everybody being available 24 hours a day through many different channels, and they are
constantly exposed to new brands and innovative technical features (Lindstrom and
Seybold, 2003, pp. 11, 23). As a result, tweens are far more impatient and demanding than
before and accustomed to achieve instant satisfaction (Lindstrom and Seybold, 2003, p. 3).
If a product or a brand does not live up to their expectations, they do not feel bound to the
brand and will deliberately choose another brand the next time.

Fourth, according to the BrandChild study tweens are exposed for more than 8,000 brands
each day (Lindstrom and Seybold, 2003, p.5). Because of this massive communication
pressure, tweens are of course aware of the many possibilities and alternatives.

Finally, tweens are more perfidious and mercurial than adults because they are often subject
to great pressure from their friends. They have a herd instinct and urge to belong and be
accepted by the community (Lindstrom and Seybold, 2003, p. 198). Tweens prefer some
brands simply because these brands are accepted by the group or are popular among the
trend-setting and popular members of the group. Therefore, we argue that loyalty is first
created in the group, thereafter the individual tween adapts to the norms and choices of the
group. When the trend-setting tweens in the group change preferences and devote
themselves to another brand, the rest of the group will quickly follow and adapt their own
preferences to those of the trendsetters. Thus, we see that tweens brand preferences
change very fast (Lindstrom and Seybold, 2003, s. 13).
The preceding discussion provides substantial grounds for proposing that:
H2. Tweens show low loyalty towards their mobile phone brand.
H3. A weak relationship exists between tweens satisfaction and loyalty.

Methodology
In order to test the present hypotheses, a survey study on tweens and mobile phones:
awareness, attitudes, satisfaction and loyalty has been conducted in the spring of 2004.
Here, a representative sample of tweens from 35 schools in the area of Greater Copenhagen
was selected. The ten to 12 year-olds were interviewed in the classroom, questions were
read aloud by the interviewer and then the children filled out the questionnaire themselves.
The eight to nine year-olds were interviewed in pairs, questions were read aloud and the
children were guided when filling out the questionnaire.

j j
PAGE 110 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007
Around 1,000 interviews with tweens aged eight to 12 owning a mobile phone were
conducted. The questionnaire was based on the results of more than 50 qualitative
interviews and consisted of 46 questions. The subsequent analyses are based on the
questions on satisfaction and loyalty. The children evaluated these questions on a five-point
scale, and all answers were then transformed to a 0-100 scale, which is used in the following
results. This is also the normal procedure in customer satisfaction studies.

Results and discussion

Tweens satisfaction with mobile phones (evaluation of H1)

A customer satisfaction index of 79 among tweens is achieved. This can be compared with
the customer satisfaction indexes among adults of 69 for Nokia, 63 for Sony Ericsson and
lower for other brands. The differences between tweens and adults are strongly significant
(two-group t test for equality of means; t 7:54, df 986, p , 0:0001; t 9:52, df 844,
p , 0:0001) and H1 must be rejected: Tweens are far more satisfied with their mobile
phones than adults.
A regression analysis has been conducted with the dependent variable being overall
satisfaction and the explanatory variables being fulfillment of expectations as well as five
regression factor scores, based on the means-end chain framework (Peter and Olson, 1993,
p. 100ff): abstract product attributes, functional consequences (security, practical),
psychosocial consequences (social acceptance), instrumental values (self-confidence)
and terminal values (self-esteem). Table I shows the estimated model including only the
explanatory variables with a significant effect.
The estimation indicates that overall satisfaction is positively influenced primarily by
fulfillment of expectations and secondarily by the social relations, e.g. the fact that tweens
believe they become more popular when they have a mobile phone, that they feel more
cool in class and make more friends, if they have the coolest mobile phone. The very
strong mental feeling of satisfaction among tweens is simply due to the fact that the mobile
phone lives up to their expectations and that it fulfills the tweens very essential need for
social acceptance among their friends.

It is remarkable that the abstract product attributes of the mobile phone, such as latest
features, communicated in advertisements, expensive, etc. have a negative effect on the
level of satisfaction. This may be due to the fact that all tweens are studied pooled. If the
analyses are conducted on different tween segments it is possible that there could be
tweens who would ascribe significant importance to these features.
That mobile phones live up to tweens expectations can also be seen from the fact that on the
question is the mobile phone as good as you expected it to be, before you got it? an index
of 71 is achieved. This is a relatively high index compared with other industries included in
the pan European customer satisfaction index studies, even though it was among adult
customers (EPSI Rating, 2006; Martensen et al., 2000).

Table I Results of regression analysis

Dependent variable: overall satisfaction
Independent variable Parameter estimate Standard error t-value p-value

Intercept 2.603 0.153 17.00 ,0.0005

Fulfillment of expectations 0.415 0.038 10.93 ,0.0005
Abstract product attributes 20.161 0.048 23.35 0.001
Psychosocial consequences 0.113 0.500 2.25 0.025

Notes: R 2 0:175; adjusted R 2 0:171; F value 43:38 (p , 0:0005); number of

observations 618

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 111
 Tweens loyalty to mobile phones (evaluation of H2)
Tweens only show a low degree of loyalty to their mobile phone. Because even though they
are very satisfied with their mobile phone (index 79) and even though they think it is much
better than expected (index 71), the average answer to the question Would you choose the
same brand the next time you are to buy a mobile phone? falls at the midpoint of the scale
symbolized by yes and no (index 57) and their willingness to recommend others to buy the
same mobile phone as their own is low (index 43).
These indexes can be benchmarked against the indexes found by Grnholdt and Martensen
(2004) in their study of adults loyalty on the mobile market. Here Nokia has a loyalty index of
56 and Sony Ericsson an index of 52. In general, it can be said that loyalty is low on the
mobile phone market. Repurchase intention among tweens is on the same level as the loyalty
indexes for adults, but tweens are significantly less willing to recommend their mobile phone
(index 43 vs respectively index 52 and 56) (two-group t test for equality of means; t 5:63,
df 831, p , 0:0001; t 9:40, df 974, p , 0:0001). On this background we can
conclude that our data support H2.
That relatively few tweens would recommend their mobile phone to others is an expression of
low loyalty, which is very unfortunate for the suppliers. According to Reichheld (2003)
recommendation is the companies strongest single indicator for repurchase and growth.
Lindstrom and Seybold (2003) find that tweens are 40 percent less likely to feel strong loyalty
toward a brand. Our study shows that tweens intention to recommend their mobile phone
brand is about 20 percent less than that of adults. In other words, tweens have a significantly
lower level of loyalty than adults, but the difference is hardly as significant as in the study by
Lindstrom and Seybold (2003). The lower level of loyalty can be explained by tweens lack of
experience, their search for identity and social acceptance.
The poor degree of loyalty is also reflected by the fact that less than every fourth child (22
percent) would have the same mobile phone as now, if they could choose for themselves.
That is a remarkable result when we at the same time find that tweens are very satisfied with
their current mobile phone. But it can maybe be explained by their rapidly changing life, their
changing view on themselves and others as well as on what is in and what is out. Thus,
even though the needs and motives of tweens are fulfilled and they are satisfied, they are not
loyal as there are so many other brands that can fulfill their needs. Tweens outgrow brands
extremely fast.
The low level of loyalty is further intensified by the fact that more than every third tween (35.2
percent) would like to have a mobile phone completely different from their friends.
Lindstrom and Seybold (2003, p. 264) refer to a study that shows that 10 percent of tweens
believe something new is something cool. Our study seems to indicate that this attitude is
even more pronounced on the mobile phone market. So, in this, market innovation equals
attraction.

The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty (evaluation of H3)

Jones and Sasser (1995) have studied and compared correlations between satisfaction and
loyalty in the USA on markets with different competitive situations and customer relations,
here among automobiles. This market is characterized by intense competition, many offers
and low switching-costs, just as the Danish market for mobile phones. Jones and Sasser
(1995) find that loyalty is very dependent on a high degree of satisfaction just a modest
decrease in the satisfaction level leads to incredible consequences for the level of loyalty.
Therefore, the easier it is to find alternatives, the more important it is to have customers who
are very satisfied with the company and its services. This is in accordance with the pan
European customer satisfaction index studies (EPSI Rating, 2006) and can be part of the
explanation for why tweens are very satisfied with their mobile phones but only show a low
degree of attitudinal loyalty. But let us look more specifically into the impact of satisfaction on
tweens loyalty and the strength of this relationship. In order to do so, we have conducted two
regression analyses with respectively intention to buy again and intention to recommend
as dependent loyalty variables (see Tables II and III).

j j
PAGE 112 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007
Table II Results of regression analysis
Dependent variable: intention to buy again
Independent variable Parameter estimate Standard error t-value p-value

Intercept 1.549 0.159 9.74 ,0.0005

Fulfillment of expectations 0.280 0.040 7.04 ,0.0005
Intention to recommend 0.113 0.033 7.11 ,0.0005

Notes: R 2 0:144; adjusted R 2 0:142; F value 71:90 (p , 0:0005); number of

observations 856

Table III Results of regression analysis

Dependent variable: intention to recommend
Independent variable Parameter estimate Standard error t-value p=value

Intercept 0.358 0.193 1.86 0.064

Overall satisfaction 0.195 0.040 4.93 ,0.0005
Intention to buy again 0.233 0.043 4.71 ,0.0005
Fulfillment of expectations 0.200 0.033 7.07 ,0.0005

Notes: R 2 0:167; adjusted R 2 0:164; F value 56:90 (p , 0:0005); number of

observations 856

In order to make tweens repurchase their mobile phones, it is crucial that the phone both
lives up to the expectations and that they are willing to recommend it to others. Whether they
are satisfied or not does not play a significant role for the intention to buy again. Their
willingness to recommend it does. In order to make them do so, all three aspects play an
equal part. This means that tweens must be satisfied, feel that the product lives up to their
expectations and be willing to buy the same mobile phone again, before they will consider
recommending it to others. Thus, there must be a very large commitment to the phone before
they will stick out their necks and recommend it to their friends. The explanation for this may
be the high social risk involved in recommending a mobile phone, which their friends may
not like in the end. This can lead to a decreasing popularity and even bullying and exclusion
from the group.
However, the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is very weak whether loyalty is
looked at as repurchase intention or recommendation (respectively R 2 0:144 and
R 2 0:167). Thus, there are many other aspects than the ones we have included that have
an impact on tweens loyalty. It should be noticed here that the aspects we have included in
our analysis are the ones that traditionally are used in literature when the relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty is being studied.
These findings indicate support for H3: a weak relationship exists between tweens
satisfaction and loyalty.

Conclusion and managerial implications

In the empirical survey-based study we find that H2 and H3 are supported while H1 is not:
Tweens are far more satisfied with their mobile phones than adults are and the mobile
phones live up to the childrens expectations to a far larger extent. Still, the brands are not
able to create loyal tweens who will buy the same brand again and who will recommend it to
their friends. The level for tweens loyalty is more than 20 percent lower than the level for
adults and there is only a weak relationship between satisfaction and loyalty among tweens.
It is reasonable to assume that relations established in the youth have a positive effect on
loyalty later on in life. Creating a relation to tweens is a long-term investment that should build
on a profound understanding of tweens and their needs and motives:

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 113
 Marketing to tweens is just as much about building a solid foundation for the future as it is about
creating a continuous dialogue with an audience which in a few years will be the companies
largest source of income (Lindstrom and Seybold, 2003, p. 14).

According to Gunter and Furnham (1998) a brand or a product can be dumped or rejected
just as fast as it can be diffused and adopted [. . .] young consumers are not brand loyal,
since they tend to make many different brand choices in response to rapidly changing fads
and fashions. Furthermore, fads and fashions do change rapidly. According to Lindstrom
and Seybold (2003, p. 14) fashion trends have a life cycle of about four months. The question
is what the companies can do to achieve higher loyalty among tweens.
The companies should develop products which fulfill the fundamental needs and motives
among tweens and continuously emphasize this in the communication targeted at the
tweens, e.g. by having a clear understanding of how they can create the best fit between the
image of the brand and the identity of the tween. It is the universal needs and motives that
control their choice of mobile phones later on in their youth, when the influence of their
friends plays a less significant role and they make more independent decisions.
However, for some tweens the purchase and use of mobile phones will be controlled by a
need for security as well as the practical aspect while for others, social accept or
self-confidence are the controlling factors. Therefore, it is relevant for the companies to
segment tweens according to their need for a mobile phone and combine it with an
understanding of their identity making process and self-knowledge. This will provide the
best starting point for developing and designing new mobile phones and then use this as an
element in the marketing and communication towards the segments. In this way, marketers
can position the mobile phone as a symbol of certain lifestyles, norms and values that are
attractive in the eyes of tweens. Thus, the foundation for a dialogue with and a relation to the
group is created.

Limitations and future research

One of the limitations of this study is that we only focus on tweens loyalty towards mobile
phones. The low degree of loyalty found in this market may not necessarily be the case in
other product categories. However we believe that many of the arguments share such
generic characteristics that they are transferable to other product areas.
Another limitation is that the study has only been conducted in Greater Copenhagen in
Denmark. Therefore, there is a risk that the results are influence by a city effect. Would a
national study result in other satisfaction and loyalty levels and relationships?
It could be hypothesized that the very high mobile phone penetration among tweens in
Denmark means that Danish tweens are less loyal than tweens in other European countries
with lower penetration. Comparative studies in countries with different mobile phone
penetration could be interesting in order to analyze the importance of penetration in relation
to satisfaction and loyalty.
As mentioned, the conducted survey also included questions on tweens awareness of and
attitudes towards mobile phones. There is a possibility to conduct further relevant analyses
and answer questions such as:
1. How aware are tweens of their preferences for mobile phones?
2. How does social acceptance and relations influence their preferences and loyalty?
3. What role do friends and parents play when it comes to choice of mobile phone?

References
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, V.W. (1993), The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction
for firms, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-43.
Ball, D., Coelho, P.S. and Machas, A. (2004), The role of communication and trust in explaining
customer loyalty: an extension to the ECSI model, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1272-93.

j j
PAGE 114 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007
Bansal, H.S. and Taylor, S.F. (1999), The service provider switching model (SPSM): a model of
consumer switching behaviour in the service industry, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 200-18.

Cassel, C. and Eklof, J.A. (2001), Modelling customer satisfaction and loyalty on aggregate levels:
experiences from the ECSI pilot study, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 Nos 7/8, pp. 834-41.
Chordas, L. (2001), A new generation in the cross hairs, Bests Review, February.
Churchill, G.A. and Surprenant, C. (1982), An investigation into the determinants of consumer
satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, November, pp. 491-504.
Cronin, J., Brady, M. and Hult, T. (2000), Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environments, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76
No. 2, pp. 193-218.
EPSI Rating (2006), Customer Satisfaction 2005: Pan European Benchmarking, European Performance
Satisfaction Index (EPSI) Rating Editorial Board, EPSI Rating Secretariat, Stockholm, available at: www.
epsi-rating.com

Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose, and findings, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, October, pp. 7-18.
Grnholdt, L. and Martensen, A. (2004), Validating and applying a customer-based brand equity
model, Proceedings of the 33rd EMAC Conference, Murcia, Spain, 18-21 May 2004, Department of
Marketing, University of Murcia and EMAC, Murcia.
Grnholdt, L., Martensen, A. and Kristensen, K. (2000), The relationship between customer satisfaction
and loyalty: cross-industry differences, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5/6, pp. S509-14.

Gunter, B. and Furnham, A. (1998), Children as Consumers A Psychological Analysis of the Young
Peoples Market, Routledge, London.
Hallowell, R. (1996), The relationship of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability:
an empirical study, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 27-42.

Hansen, F., Rasmussen, J., Martensen, A. and Tufte, B. (Eds) (2002), Children: Consumption,
Advertising and Media, Copenhagen Business School Press/Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg.
John, D.R. (1999), Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five years of
research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 183-213.

Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. Jr (1995), Why satisfied customers defect, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 88-99.
Kristensen, K. and Eskildsen, J. (2005), Dansk Kunde Index Resultater og perspektiver,
in Ledelseshandbger, B. (Ed.), Total Quality Management, Articel 9.1, Brsen Forum, Copenhagen,
July, (in Danish).
Kristensen, K., Martensen, A. and Grnholdt, L. (2000), Customer satisfaction measurement at Post
Denmark: results of application of the European Customer Satisfaction Index methodology, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. S1007-15.
Lindstrom, M. and Seybold, P. (2003), BRANDchild, Forlaget Markedsfring, Copenhagen (in Danish).
Martensen, A., Grnholdt, L. and Kristensen, K. (2000), The drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty:
cross-industry findings from Denmark, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5/6, pp. S544-53.

Oliver, R.L. (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-9.
Oliver, R.L. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1988), Response determinants in satisfaction judgements, Journal of
Consumer Response, Vol. 14, pp. 495-507.

Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1993), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 3rd ed., Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Reichheld, F.F. (2003), The one number you need to grow, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12,
pp. 46-54.
Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S.P. and Quinn, R.T. (1998), The employee-customer profit chain at SEARS, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 76, January/February, pp. 82-97.

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 115
 Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2004), Consumer Behavior, 8th international ed, Pearson
Education/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Siegel, D.L., Coffey, T.J. and Livingston, D. (2004), The Great Tween Buying Machine, Paramount Market
Publishing, New York, NY.

Spreng, R.A. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1993), A desires congruency model of consumer satisfaction,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, Summer, pp. 169-77.

Strauss, B. and Neuhaus, P. (1997), The qualitative satisfaction model, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 169-88.

Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical
evidence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.

Further reading
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Graycon, A. (1995), Distinguishing service quality and customer
satisfaction: the voice of the customer, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 277-303.

Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill Companies,
New York, NY.

Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, E. (1990), Zero defections: quality comes to services, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68, September/October, pp. 105-11.

Corresponding author
Anne Martensen can be contacted at: am.marktg@cbs.dk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 116 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 8 NO. 2 2007