Journal of Services Marketing

A comparison of consumer views of traditional services and self-service technologies

Lawrence F. Cunningham Clifford E. Young James Gerlach
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lawrence F. Cunningham Clifford E. Young James Gerlach, (2009),"A comparison of consumer views of traditional services and
self-service technologies", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 11 - 23
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040910933057
Downloaded on: 21 March 2015, At: 19:54 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3767 times since 2009*
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

James M. Curran, Matthew L. Meuter, (2005),"Self-service technology adoption: comparing three technologies", Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 103-113 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040510591411
Toni Hilton, Tim Hughes, Ed Little, Ebi Marandi, (2013),"Adopting self-service technology to do more with less", Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 3-12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041311296338
James A. Fitzsimmons, (2003),"Is self-service the future of services?", Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol.
13 Iss 6 pp. 443-444 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520310506496

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 604154 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 A comparison of consumer views of traditional
services and self-service technologies
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
The Business School, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Few marketing studies look at service classifications for self-service technologies (SSTs) and none directly compare consumer-based
perceptions of traditional services to SSTs. To fill this gap, this study aims to examine how customers perceived traditional services and SSTs on service
classifications criteria proposed by Lovelock, Bowen and Bell.
Design/methodology/approach – In two separate studies consumer ratings for each classification method on each service were obtained. Using
multi-dimensional scaling (MDS), 13 traditional services and 12 SSTs were separately mapped onto a perceptual space of service classifications.
Findings – The comparison of the two perceptual spaces reveals that consumers viewed the classifications of convenience, person/object, and delivery
for SSTs differently than that for traditional services. The classifications of traditional services were represented by two dimensions of customization/
standardization and person/object. In contrast, the classifications of SSTs were represented by two dimensions of customization/standardization and
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)

separability/inseparability. Thus the description of the underlying dimensions of services varied by traditional services or SSTs.
Research limitations/implications – It is possible that the results of the MDS were influenced by the use of preset classifications. Results may also
be influenced by the authors’ choice of MDS method. Further research is needed regarding the classification of SSTs and the use of these classifications
for SST design.
Originality/value – This research extends previous consumer-based classification research by including SSTs. The findings identified separate
typologies for SSTs and traditional services. The typologies should be of interest to both researchers and managers who are interested in how SSTs are
perceived by consumers.

Keywords Services, Individual perception, Self-service, Customer satisfaction

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Self-service technologies (SSTs) are attracting a great deal of
attention from academicians and practitioners because of
their relative newness and strategic importance. The strategic
importance of SSTs is obvious from the radical changes in
service delivery that it has brought to many industries such as
airline, banking, travel, hotel, financial, and retailing (Meuter
et al., 2000). The appeal of SSTs is primarily derived from the
elimination (or at least a significant reduction in involvement)
of a service representative. For companies, SSTs are a cost-
effective way of providing a greater level of customer service.
Consumers receive the benefits of convenience, ubiquitous
availability, time and money savings, and a reduction in the
anxiety caused by judgmental service representatives (Bitner,
2001; Meuter et al., 2000). This radical progression from
traditional interpersonal service encounters to SSTs, which
replaces human-to-human contact with human-machine
interaction, is regarded by Parasuraman (1996) as a
fundamental shift in the nature of services.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
Although researchers are learning ways to promote, design
and employ specific SSTs, knowing how to apply these
principles across a diverse range of SSTs is more challenging.
First, researchers are still uncertain how SSTs differ from
traditional services; hence, they are somewhat unsure how to
interrelate the two bodies of work. Second, of the empirical
studies reviewed in this article, most have typically focused on
a small number of SSTs. Without a well-defined
understanding of how the entire set of SSTs are perceived
along defined classifications and how these services are
grouped, researchers have difficulty identifying those SSTs
where their results can be best applied.
In the absence of customer driven classifications,
researchers have resorted to using normative classification
schemes. For example, Meuter et al. (2000) suggests
distinguishing SSTs by purpose (customer service,
transactional, self-help) and technological interface
(interactive telephone, internet, Kiosks, Video/CD). These
are normative classifications with an emphasis on
technological medium and system functionality; it is not
known if consumers view SSTs similarly, or if these are the
proper distinctions for classifying SSTs. The consumer-based
objective of Meuter et al. (2000) was to classify incidents of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction with SST service encounters.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Business School

and Ms Nancy Reed for her editorial assistance.
Journal of Services Marketing
23/1 (2009) 11– 23 Received: February 2006
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] Revised: October 2006
[DOI 10.1108/08876040910933057] Accepted: December 2006

11
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
Although a significant contribution to the literature, it did not
define the consumer-based classifications of SSTs themselves.
The purpose of the present research is to compare the
customer perceptions of SSTs to that of traditional services
along known classifications. To do this we will be using
multidimensional scaling (MDS). Substantial classification
work has been conducted on traditional services since the
1980s. More recently, research has been conducted on
traditional services with the objective of explaining how
consumers perceive those services (Bowen, 1990; Iacobucci
and Ostrom, 1996). Cunningham et al. (1997) used an MDS
methodology to map traditional services on defined
classifications proposed by Lovelock. Results of the studies
supported a two-dimensional framework of classifications and
services. These results were replicated cross-culturally in
France, Korea and Taiwan (Cunningham et al., 2004, 2005,
2006).
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
This body of work shows that the Lovelock classification
scheme generated consistent results across cultures and across
a traditional set of services. These studies, as well as other
work on consumer based perceptions of services however, did
not include SSTs explicitly as a part of the set of services.
Hence, we refer to this prior set of services as traditional
services because it did not include the subset of SSTs, nor did
it include the self-service components of some of the
traditional services.
Given the consistency of Lovelock’s classifications for
traditional services and a pervasive assumption that SSTs
differ from traditional services, a comparison of how
consumers view the classification of SSTs versus how they
view the classification of traditional services should reveal
differences and similarities. Thus, this research builds on
previous customer-based classification research and extends
the results to SSTs.
The current study uses the same methodology and
classification framework conducted for traditional services
and looks for the change in results due solely to the nature of
SSTs. Using the same classification framework, it is possible
to compare the two results. Based on these results it is
possible to determine whether there have been changes in the
dimensionality of the classifications of traditional services
versus SSTs. In addition, the authors are able to suggest
typologies for both traditional services and SSTs and compare
the two.
This research should prove to be useful both to practitioners
and academicians. The comparison is useful for illustrating
how SSTs have changed consumer perceptions. Managers can
use the resultant perceptual mapping to better understand their
services, and to possibly reposition them in the minds of
consumers. Developing a typology of traditional services and
comparing it to a typology of SSTs has important theoretical
implications because they can be used for building up theories
in research areas and explaining various phenomena (Hunt,
1983). Service marketers find it extremely difficult to gain
managerial insights from the experience in other industries
without a clear understanding of the similarities and differences
among services (Lovelock, 1983; Bowen, 1990).
Literature review
Early marketing researchers have made an attempt to classify
goods (e.g. Bell, 1981, 1986). Although some of them
suggested that a classification scheme for goods can
12
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
encompass both goods and services simply by broadening
the scope, others have examined the issue of service
classification for at least the last 30 years (Bell, 1981, 1986;
Chase, 1978; Cook et al., 1999; Goodwin, 1986; Grove and
Fisk, 1983; Hill, 1977; Hsieh and Chu, 1992; Judd, 1964;
Kotler, 1980; Langeard and Eiglier, 1983; Lovelock, 1980,
1983; Lovelock and Yip, 1996; Rathmall, 1974; Sasser and
Arbeit, 1978; Shostack, 1977; Silpakit and Fisk, 1985;
Thomas, 1978). The service classification schemes developed
by the early researchers were built upon the assumption that
services are basically different from physical goods (Bateson,
1979; Shostack, 1977; Zeithaml, 1981). Efforts were also
made in classifying international services (Boddewyn et al.,
1986; Clark et al., 1996; Knight, 1999; Nicoulaud, 1989;
Patterson and Cicic, 1995; Vandermerwe and Chadwick,
1989).
Despite such efforts, there are several limitations associated
with the research prior to 1990. First, many of the
classification schemes are only conceptual and normative in
nature (e.g. Rathmall, 1974; Hill, 1977; Thomas, 1978); they
need to be empirically tested. Second, they usually consist of
only a few classification criteria, which do not cover the wide
range of criteria that can be used to differentiate one service
from another (e.g. Grove and Fisk, 1983; Langeard and
Eiglier, 1983). Third, they were built not on a customer’s
perspective but on a service provider’s standpoint (e.g.
Patterson and Cicic, 1995; Vandermerwe and Chadwick,
1989).
Since 1990, several researchers have developed service
taxonomies based on consumer perceptions and more
detailed service classifications (Bowen, 1990; Cunningham
et al., 1997; Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1996; Licata and Mowen,
1997; Stell and Donoho, 1996). For instance, using empirical
data from consumers, Bowen (1990) classified ten services
(e.g. hospitals, movie theaters, photographic services,
restaurants, and hotels) on the basis of nine criteria (e.g.
intangible/tangible, level of customization, employee/
customer contact, importance of people). He used a cluster
analysis to categorize the selected services and described the
characteristics of each cluster based on the average ratings on
the classifying criteria. His resulting clusters were thus based
on customers’ perceptions of the services using the
classification descriptions provided. The clusters, i.e. service
categories, could then be described based on how they were
similar or different on the classifying criteria.
Stell and Donoho (1996) surveyed a convenience sample of
students to develop a service taxonomy. They classified eight
services (e.g. film processing, hair stylists, concerts, vacations,
etc.) into convenience, preference, shopping and specialty
services. They then measured each of the services on the
constructs, perceived risk, purchase effort and involvement, to
see if these constructs could be used to classify the services.
Iacobucci and Ostrom (1996) used MDS as a classification
technique. They classified three sets of services; the goods and
services mix such as fast food restaurants and hotels, the
“purer” services such as professional services, and those
covering the full range such as dinner at a nice restaurant.
Using the MDS technique, they developed three perceptual
maps of the three sets of services without any a priori
classification scheme. They then mapped a classification
scheme incorporating nine classification categories such as
ease/difficulty of quality evaluation, ease/difficulty of
purchase, degree of intangibility, level of standardization,
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
level of interaction between the service provider and the client
onto the perceptual maps to see how well these classification
categories explained the perceptual map. They concluded that
the same properties hypothesized in the literature as
distinguishing services from goods were also useful in
describing differences among services.
Cunningham et al. (1997) also used the MDS technique to
describe how respondent perceptions of 11 services related to
a classification of service categories. The seven classifications
were originally proposed by Lovelock (1980, 1983). The
eleven services selectively represented a wide range of
variations on the classifying criteria, yet were likely to be
well known to the respondent population. The study results
indicated that two dimensions, customization/standardization
and unique/routine, accounted for 79 percent of the total
variance of the means. A later US study was conducted using
an expanded set of 11 classifications derived from Bell (1981),
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
Bowen (1990), and Lovelock (1980, 1983). The US
perception studies were replicated in France (Cunningham
et al., 2004, 2006) Korea and Taiwan (Cunningham et al.,
2005). The studies compared and contrasted the results
cross-culturally. The study results indicated that two
dimensions accounted for between 76.5 and 82 percent of
the variance in means. The two dimensions were uniformly
defined as customization/standardization and person/object.
Overall the resulting classification and mapping of services
were consistent across cultures. The authors were able to
highlight what differences existed in where the specific
classifications mapped onto the dimensions and where
perceived positioning of services differed, and offer
implications for managers.
Since past research in services has included a focus on the
characteristics and dynamics of interpersonal interactions
between the customer and service representative in the
delivery of those services, many academic researchers have
called into question the relevance of this research when it
comes to managing SSTs (Dabholkar, 1994, 1996; Fisk et al.,
1993; Meuter and Bitner, 1998; Schneider and Bowen, 1995;
Meuter et al., 2000). Researchers of SSTs, therefore, are
concerned with the customer’s willingness to switch from
using service personnel to using SSTs. Researchers further
describe willingness as being dependent upon the customer’s
ability to use SSTs, the risks involved with their use, the
advantages associated with their use, and the extent to which
contact with service personnel is preferred or deemed
necessary (Walker and Johnson, 2006).
More recently, researches have focused on consumer
attitudes towards SSTs (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001;
Curran et al., 2003), customer readiness to adopt SSTs
(Bitner et al., 2002; Meuter et al., 2005; Walker and Johnson,
2006), and consumer satisfaction with SSTs (Meuter et al.,
2000; Sweeney and Lapp, 2004; Liljander et al., 2006).
Others have studied the influence of technology
characteristics and situational factors on consumers’
attitudes and intentions (Bateson, 1985; Dabholkar, 1996;
Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Lee and Allaway, 2002;
Meuter et al., 2003). Less research has been conducted on
SST design choices (Schultze, 2003) and the service
attributes provided by SSTs and user needs (Cho and Park,
2003).
This prior work on SSTs primarily examined the impact of
technology on consumer behavior to adopt and use this new
technology. As such, when discussing SSTs, Meuter et al.
13
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
(2000) use a different typology for classification that breaks
from the traditional classifications. The categories used were
broken down by interface (telephone/interactive voice
response, online/Internet, interactive kiosks, and video/CD)
and purpose (customer service, transactions, and self help).
The emphasis on technological interface and purpose
captures both the mode of interaction that replaces direct
face-to-face communications and the information processing
nature of the service requested.
Dabholkar (1994) proposed a three-dimensional
classification scheme for relating technology-based services.
The first dimension regards who delivers the service, whether
a service employee uses the technology to provide the service
for a customer or whether the customer uses the technology
directly. The second dimension captures the location of the
service, whether it is located at a service site or at the
customer’s home or place of work. The last dimension depicts
how the service is delivered, that is, whether there is physical
proximity (face-to-face contact) or physical distance
(telephone or other electronic communication) between the
customer and the service provider or the SST. If one regards
the first dimension as simply distinguishing traditional
services from STS, Dabholkar suggests SSTs can be
classified by location of the service and how the service is
delivered. Interestingly, Dabholkar’s how the service is
delivered dimension is closely aligned with Meuter’s
interface dimension. Hence the major distinction between
Dabholkar’s classification and Meuter’s is location of service
versus purpose.
An interesting alternative basis for conceptualization of
SSTs was offered by Kelley et al. (1990). They proposed a
two by three matrix of categorization of services based on level
of customization and nature of service act (person versus
object). This classification scheme was a result of their looking
at services from a self-participatory role of the consumer. As
such, this classification may be considered a bridge between
traditional services and SSTs since the nature of SSTs is to
have significantly more consumer participation than
traditional services. However, they never tested the
conceptualization empirically. Using a different methodology
and set of classifications, Cunningham et al. (2004)
empirically derived a typology of services that is very similar
to that of Kelley et al. (1990) (see Table I), which provides an
alternative view to that of Meuter et al. (2000) and Dabholkar
(1994).
Although these studies provided important insights into
consumer-based service classifications and as well as support
for utilizing the MDS technique, these efforts raise the
question of whether the results for traditional services are
generalizable to SSTs. Recent attempts to classify SSTs
deviate from the historical practice of using MDS to analyze
consumer perceptions. At this time, there are no known,
empirically-based, consumer-driven classifications of SSTs.
This research offers such a consumer-based perceptual map
of SSTs using previously developed classifications, and
compares it to an equivalent map of traditional services.
Methodology
Service classifications
As described earlier, past research has proposed several key
criteria to classify services (e.g. Bell, 1981; Bowen, 1990;
Lovelock, 1980, 1983). After reviewing the literature, we
 A comparison of consumer views of services Journal of Services Marketing
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23

Table I Customer-based traditional services classification

High customization Moderate customization Standardization
Service performed on object Appliance Dry cleaning
Repair plumbing
Service performed on object and person Legal Banking
Service performed to/for a person Hospital Airline Fast food
University Fine restaurant Public transit
Movies
Sports events

selected eleven criteria for classification purposes in this study
that follow the criteria proposed by Lovelock (1983) as well as
Bowen (1990) and Bell (1981). These criteria were
empirically evaluated in prior studies of traditional service
classifications (Cunningham et al., 1997, 2005; Cunningham
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
to have at least some continuum of measurement. Lovelock’s
classifications are preferred. The relevance and importance of
Lovelock’s classification to researching SSTs is demonstrated
by Cho and Park (2003) in their investigation of customer
needs and geographic accessibility of SSTs who found that

et al., 2004). The classifications included the extent to which customer needs are related to Lovelock’s classifications of
consumers feel: customization and convenience.
.
the level of physical product component is low or high;
. the level of the customer-employee contact is low or high; Selection of services for traditional services study
.
the production and consumption of a service is The criteria considered in selecting the traditional services for
inseparable or separable; this study were threefold. First, the total set of services
.
how risky it would be to choose a provider; represented the different types of services cited in the
.
the switching to a new provider is easy or difficult; literature. Second, they represented a wide range of variations
.
a service is performed on a person or on a tangible object; on the classifying criteria. Third, respondents had a high
.
a service exhibits a formal or no formal relationship probability of extensive experience with the selected services.
between the service provider and the customer; A total of 13 services were chosen based on these criteria.
.
the delivery of a service is continuous or involves discrete Services selected were the same as in prior studies of
transactions; Cunningham et al. (1997, 2005). They were:
.
the customization of a service is low or high; 1 Commercial airline service.
.
the contact person exercises low or high levels of judgment 2 Hospital services.
when making service provision decisions; and 3 University education.
.
the degree to which the convenience level of obtaining a 4 Dry cleaning services.
service is low or high. 5 Banking services.
These classifications are referred to as physical, contact, 6 Spectator sports.
inseparable/separable, riskiness, switching, person/object, 7 Fast food restaurants.
relationship, service delivery (continuous/discreet), 8 Movie theaters.
customization, judgment, and convenience respectively. 9 Plumbing services.
Some classification criteria may apply better in the limited 10 Legal services.
case of SSTs and some may not. For instance, prior 11 Public transit.
classification criteria included judgment on the part of the 12 Fine restaurants.
service provider as a basis for the classification. SSTs all fall 13 Appliance repair.
on one end of this classification basis in that they are
automated and there is no provider judgment involved in the Selection of services for self-service technologies
actual delivery of the service. Hence, judgment is omitted For the purpose of this research, SSTs are defined as
from the analysis. technological interfaces that allow customers to produce
When discussing SSTs, Meuter et al. (2000) and Dabholkar services independent of direct service employee involvement
(1994) use different typologies for classification. It could be (Meuter et al. 2000). The list of SSTs was drawn from a list of
argued that one of these typologies might be a better basis for exemplary SSTs (Zeithamal and Bitner 2006, p. 402). The
conducting the MDS analysis than using the previously criteria used for selecting SSTs from this list were the same as
developed set of classifications. A close examination of their that of the traditional services above. A total of 12 SSTs were
categories, however, shows both the purpose and interface selected:
categories of Meuter and the location of service and how the 1 Online banking.
service is delivered categories of Dabholkar are essentially 2 Distance education.
strictly dichotomous in nature, i.e. the SST is either a 3 Airline reservations.
member of the category or not. There is no attribute 4 Tax software.
associated with the category indicating a level of presence. By 5 Retail self-scanning.
contrast, the classifications approach of Lovelock uses 6 Online auctions.
attributes of services that can be measured along a 7 Pay at the pump.
continuum as a basis for the classification. Thus, in order to 8 ATMs.
evaluate SSTs along classifications, those classifications need 9 Online brokerage.

14
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
10 Interactive phone.
11 Internet search.
12 Online car buying.
Sample selection
Samples for the two studies were based upon availability of
respondents. For both studies, undergraduate and graduate
business students were used as subjects. The students were in
their later stages of their respective business programs with no
significant differences between the two samples. Although the
respondents were students, they were adult consumers of the
set of services. As such they are representative of the
consuming population. They were judgment samples of
highly educated individuals. Participants could read,
understand, and evaluate a sophisticated questionnaire on
consumer issues. The use of a student-based sample has been
proven useful in previous studies regarding branding and
consumer behavior (Biswas et al., 1999; Halstead et al., 1994;
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
Sinha and DeSarbo, 1998; Sparks and Hunt, 1998; Stafford,
1998; Van Riel et al., 2001).
Questionnaire administration
In each sample, a pencil and paper questionnaire was
administered. In the introduction, students were informed
that they were part of an international study about their
perceptions of services. The directions were as follows:
Below we have listed several different ways how services might be classified.
For each classification method, we have provided a brief description to help
in understanding the method. After each description we have listed several
services. We would like you to evaluate how those services would be classified
using the described classification method. Please provide your views as if you
were the consumer or recipient of this service.
Then each classification method is described. For instance,
under the classification of riskiness, we presented the
following:
As you know, in choosing any service provider, there is always some degree
of risk. For instance, the service provider may perform poorly. Please
indicate how risky it would be to choose a provider from the following
services.
The respondents then rated each of the services on a scale
from 1 to 6 indicating riskiness from “low” to “high”. Thus,
we obtained ratings for each classification method on each
service, a 12 by 13 matrix of evaluations.
Sample characteristics
The reference data with traditional services were collected
through a survey with business students in undergraduate and
evening MBA programs at a major metropolitan university. A
total of 282 surveys were completed from 285 respondents.
Likewise, the sample for SSTs was drawn from students in the
same program several years later. A total of 180 respondents
participated in the second study. Table II presents a summary
of the demographics statistics for both samples. The
Table II Sample characteristics
Variable Traditional service data
Male (%)
Married (%)
Education level Graduate/undergraduate
Mean age
Median household income ($)
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
demographic results from the two samples are very similar
and are not statistically different in any demographic category.
Analytical technique
Means aggregated over respondents were calculated for each
service on each classification method. This matrix of means
was then used as input to MDPREF, a variant of
multidimensional scaling (Carroll, 1972). Multidimensional
scaling or MDS refers to a family of techniques that helps an
analyst identify key dimensions underlying respondents’
evaluations of objects.
The research methodology and data collection was
designed specifically to allow the use of MDPREF.
MDPREF constructs a factor-analytic representation of the
set of classifications in multi-dimensional space. It then relates
the set of services to that same multidimensional space. This
method offers a unique advantage over other MDS techniques
in that it maps two distinct sets of information, classifications
and services in our case, on the same multidimensional space.
Other methods form multidimensional maps based on
similarity data but leave the researcher to describe the
nature of the dimensions. MDPREF allows the use of
classification descriptions to be mapped, aiding in the
description of the space, then maps the actual services onto
a known framework. In the study described earlier, Iacobucci
and Ostrom (1996) used INDSCAL, another MDS
technique, to develop a two-dimensional representation of
the services based on a set of 66 paired comparisons of 12
stimuli. Each of the services was then rated on nine
predefined conceptualizations for interpretation. Iacobucci
and Ostrom’s goal was to compare multiple sets of services to
see how they were naturally perceived, using the
conceptualizations as a basis for interpreting the differences.
The focus of this research was to investigate the stability of
classifications across data sets with different sets of services.
For the current research, either the service classifications or
the set of services themselves could logically be used as the
basis for the initial representation onto which the other would
be mapped. In the previous study by Cunningham et al.
(1997), separate analyses were conducted, first representing
the classifications and mapping the services, then representing
the services and mapping the classifications. For this study,
the classifications were the common metric between the two
service data sets. Thus, we focused on the representation of
classifications. We then mapped the services on the
classifications. After performing MDS on each of the data
sets, we constructed pictorial representations of each
classification result with its accompanying mapping of
services.
Each of the results is interesting on its own merit. Of equal
importance, however, is how these dimensions are invariant
across data sets. These services dimensions can be explored
SST data
53.9 53.3
31.6 29.4
Graduate/undergraduate
28.9 27.3
40-49K 40-60K
15
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
from a factor analysis perspective. The dimensions portrayed
in an MDS result are the same as the underlying factor
structure in a factor analysis solution. The individual
classification and service points in space are the same as the
actual factors. In other words, one can pictorially represent a
factor analysis solution as underlying dimensions and vectors.
When comparing different MDS or factor analysis
solutions, two sources of differences are possible:
1 The factor structure can be different, i.e. the factors
appear to represent different dimensions for each data set.
2 the individual factors, i.e. service classifications and
services themselves, can load differently on the factor
dimensions (are in different positions relative to the
underlying dimensions).
Results
In the case of the reference sample of traditional services, the
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
first two factors or dimensions based on the 11 classifications
described above accounted for 82 percent of the total variance
of the means. For the SST data the first two dimensions
accounted for 67 percent. Figure 1 presents the pictorial
results of the analysis of the traditional services data and
Figure 2 presents the same analysis for the SST data.
The points with lines drawn from the origin are the
classifications from which the primary two factors were
extracted. The individual points are the services mapped onto
the classification factors. In order to compare the factor
structures, the matrices of cosines or correlations between the
Figure 1 MDS results: traditional service data
16
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
factor structures of traditional services data and the SST data
were analyzed (see appendix for a discussion on how factor
structures and vectors are compared).
An investigation of the matrices of correlations between the
structures showed that the structures or underlying
dimensions were virtually the same for each data set.
Because the structures were so closely aligned without
rotation, we kept the original solutions from the SST data
rather than displaying the structure after rotation. The next
step was to compare each of the vectors or points in space for
classifications. Table III presents the set of correlations of
each classification of the reference traditional services data
with its corresponding classification in the SST data. Thus it
is a direct comparison how closely each vector in the
traditional services data is aligned with the corresponding
vector in the SST data. For each correlation the equivalent
separation in degrees is also presented.
In the comparison of the reference traditional services
versus SST classifications, the highest correlations were
reported for switching, customization, physical, and riskiness,
with scores of 0.97 and above or less than 15 degrees of
misalignment between the classifications. Slightly lower
correlation scores were reported for inseparable/separable
(0.95), relationship (0.94) and contact (0.92), equivalent to
between 15 and 25 degrees of misalignment. Two
classifications were different on the order of 45 degrees,
delivery (continuous/discreet) (0.76) and convenience (0.70).
And finally, one SST classification, person/object, was 90
 A comparison of consumer views of services Journal of Services Marketing
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23

Figure 2 MDS results: SST data

Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)

Table III Vector comparisons

Classifications Traditional vs SST Equivalent degrees
Physical (low/ high) 0.98 11.1
Contact (low/high) 0.92 23.2
Inseparable/separable 0.95 17.9
Riskiness (low/high) 0.97 14.6
Switching (difficult/easy) 1.00 2.8
Person/object 2 0.08 94.4
Relationship (formal/informal) 0.94 19.8
Service delivery (continuous/discrete) 0.76 40.8
Customization (low/high) 0.99 7.5
Judgment (low/high) N/A N/A
Convenience (low/high) 0.70 45.8

degrees out from the traditional services data classification
(2 0.08).
Discussion
The empirical results of the study suggest that although many
categories have been used to describe services, consumers
generally perceive services along two dimensions. The results
of the analysis suggest that two dimensions explain 82 percent
of the total variance for the traditional services and 67 percent
of the total variance for the SST data. Hence, consumers find
that there are two primary dimensions for classifying services.
The horizontal dimension for both traditional and SST
services is one of customization versus standardization of
services. The vertical dimension, in the case of traditional
services, appears to be one of person or object of the service.
In the case of SST services, the vertical dimension seems to
be one of separability of the SST from the product or service
experience.
These pronounced differences in the SST results reflect
changes in classifications compared to the classifications
obtained for traditional services. The most notable changes
occurred to three classifications. The two vectors identified as
convenience and delivery (continuous/discrete) in traditional
services displayed in Figure 1 have rotated away from the
horizontal axis towards the vertical axis in the SST results in

17
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
Figure 2. The third vector labeled person/object has rotated
from the vertical axis in traditional services in Figure 1 to the
horizontal axis for SSTs in Figure 2.
Although consumers still view SSTs in two dimensions, the
movement of these vectors has created variations in these
dimensions, which indicates some interesting differences in
consumer perceptions. The right hand side of the horizontal
axis represents standardization and the left hand side of the
horizontal axis represents customization. However,
fundamental changes in this classification are evident by the
fact that convenience and delivery (continuous/discrete) have
rotated out of this axis and person/object has rotated into the
axis. Although the dimension of customization and
standardization is still in tact, it seems as if these concepts
are no longer associated with convenience and delivery, but
are now associated with person/object. The one end of the
axis may well reflect the inclusion of personal contact in the
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
delivery of an SST, as with online distance education and
online brokerage, and the other end of the axis is associated
with the elimination of human contact, as with pay at the
pump and internet search SSTs.
As noted on the MDS results for SSTs the vertical axis
defines the separability/inseparability context while it
maintains a high/low physical dimension. The fundamental
change in vertical axis for SST appears to be driven by the
delivery (continuous/discrete) of the transaction and
convenience of the interaction. Good examples of this
concept seem to be themes such as airline reservations
systems, online automobile buying and online auctions where
the transactions are highly discrete, very convenient but the
physical component is highly separable from the actual online
service. In each case, the consumer is able to distinguish the
difference between the purchasing service and the product
purchased. For example, the consumers distinguished a
difference between the services of purchasing an airline
reservation online from the actual flight. On line car buyers
can also distinguish between the online purchasing service
and the physical automobile that is purchased. In contrast,
pay-at-the-pump consumers are much less able to distinguish
the SST from the gasoline purchased.
With the information obtained from the SST multi-
dimensional scaling results, we were able to design a
typology similar to that proposed by Kelley et al. (1990)
Meuter et al. (2000) and Dabholkar (1994). Table IV
represents customer-based SSTs typology developed from the
inherent clusters of services and their placement on the
classification vectors. This typology was developed in the
Table IV Customer-based self-service technologies classification
Customized Standardized
Separable from Airline reservations
product/service Online car buying
Online auctions
Moderately separable Distance education Pay at the pump
Online banking Retail self-scanning
Internet search
Tax software
ATMs
Inseparable from Online brokerage Interactive phone
product/service
18
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
same way as the earlier traditional services typology presented
in Table I, but using SSTs. There are six basic categories
defined by Table IV. The two columns are described as
representing services that are customized or standardized.
Services that embody customization exhibit characteristics of
high risk and high contact. Standardized services embody no
relationship, easy switching, and object classifications.
The three rows represent categories of separability. The
three levels are separable from the product/service,
moderately separable and inseparable. SSTs that are
inseparable contain the service or product within the SST
itself. At the other end of the continuum are SSTs where the
product/service is very separable and distinct from the SST.
For example, airline reservation systems like Orbitz are highly
separable in that the SST supports the purchase of a ticket for
a service to be delivered later by a provider other than the
provider of the SST. As well, online car buying and online
auctions are services where the customer receives the product
or service at a later date by another provider.
Table IV provides a mechanism for grouping like SSTs and
shows how they fundamentally differ from other SSTs. For
example, SSTs in the top left category are SSTs that are
customized and yet highly separated from the product/service.
Services such as airline reservation systems, online car buying
and online auctions represent this category because the SST
allows the user to gain access to a more customized service
and/or product that is reflective of the consumer’s needs and
wants. In these cases, the SST enables the consumer to find a
better available product or service or the SST allows the
consumer to order one to more exacting specifications. While
the authors did not pick services that are classified as highly
separable and standardized, it is not hard to envision such
services. For example, SSTs such as automated flight check in
or self-service car rental might fall into this category. It could
be highly convenient, rather discrete, and switching is
relatively easy.
Table IV also provides insights into moderately separated,
standardized SSTs. This category of SST may include pay at
the pump, retail self-scanning, Internet search, tax software
and ATMs. The service or product may be somewhat
separable from the service or product mechanism. For
example, to pay at the pump you still have to go through
the process of placing gasoline in your gas tank, these events
do not happen simultaneously, yet, at the same time, the
service or product is highly standardized. As we move down
the classification of separability/inseparability, it is easy to
understand how distance education and online banking are
categorized as moderately separated but customized in nature.
They also represent a more formal relationship between
customer and provider because they require that the customer
register with the provider to receive the services. These SSTs
have many of the classifications, such as high risk, high
contact, high customization but yet the service or physical
product is somewhat separated from the service mechanism.
Table IV also depicts services that are largely inseparable
and yet very customized. For example, online brokerage
embodies the service in the online brokerage activity, yet the
service may be highly customized and have a formal
relationship. Interactive phone does the same thing in a
much more standardized fashion.
The typology in Tables I and IV present a consumer-based,
empirically driven comparison of traditional service
classification perceptions to those of SSTs. Kelley et al.
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
(1990) provided their typology of services as a normative way
to describe and classify traditional services. Dabholkar (1994)
provided a normative classification scheme to assist in the
assessment of SST quality and satisfaction. Finally, Meuter
et al. (2000) provided their classification as a basis for
studying consumer attitudes towards services. In contrast, the
present work focuses exclusively on customer perception of
the classification of services. We feel it is necessary to
understand how consumers view services and how SSTs differ
from traditional services gain a better perspective and
understanding of attitudes and satisfaction with those
services.
Conclusions
This paper applied Lovelock’s classifications to an array of
SSTs identified by Zeithaml and Bitner (2003). The results
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
indicate some pronounced differences in classifications
compared to the results obtained with traditional services.
The most notable changes occurred to three classifications.
The two vectors identified as convenience and delivery
(continuous/discrete) have rotated away from the horizontal
axis towards the vertical axis. The third vector, person/object,
has rotated from the vertical axis to the horizontal axis.
Although consumers still see SSTs in two dimensions, the
changes in classification suggest that the vertical dimension
has changed from whether the service is performed on a
person or object. For SSTs, the fundamental issue becomes
one of whether the SST is incorporated into the product or
service. The fundamental changes in the position of
classifications demonstrate that the classification of services
is influenced by the whether the set of services are traditional
or specifically SSTs.
Based on these differences, the authors were able to
construct a second consumer-based typology of SST’s to
directly compare them to a typology of traditional services.
Both the theoretical work of Kelley et al. (1990) and the
empirical work of Cunningham et al. (1997) suggest a two-
dimensional classification scheme for traditional services. The
dimensions were level of customization, and nature of the
service act, person versus object. While the classification of
traditional services is well understood, given the substantial
stream of research, the classification of SSTs has received
little direct attention.
Table IV in this study seeks to offer and identify the
attributes of various SSTs based on the two dimensions
developed by the MDS technique. By categorizing SSTs on
the basis of customization and separability, the authors offer
managers the opportunity to see where their SSTs are
classified on a customer-based conceptualization. The
categorization offers managers an opportunity to speculate
how their new SSTs might be positioned in the minds of the
consumer.
The mapping of services and classifications offer a roadmap
for managers to make fundamental changes in the nature of
services they are providing. For example, managers of
automated transactional SSTs such as ATMs and pay at the
pump could reposition their SST from the initial positioning
that features no formal relationship and easy switching to one
that incorporates more personal customization and tighter
relationships. Similarly, an online auction could change the
position of the SST on the separable dimension by directly
handling the merchandise they auction.
19
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
Since the positioning of various services are largely
determined by how consumers see the nature of the service,
managerial decisions to reposition the SST are likely to
require an additional perceptual map that clearly identifies the
market segments for different SST services. Managers would
try to reposition their SST to take advantage of uncovered or
less competitive segments. For large competitive segments,
managers concentrate on volume by redesigning their SSTs in
the direction of more standardization and less formalized
relationships. By redesigning the technology and the people
component in the SST, management should be able to
successfully reposition any service in order to achieve
competitive advantage.
Certain service sectors that incorporate both traditional and
SST means of service delivery and investigate how the
alternative forms of delivery would be viewed by the
customer. For instance, in the banking industry, comparing
online banking to traditional banking one finds a perception
of slighter more customization for online banking as well as
less separability. Thus, contrary to common wisdom for
SSTs, the relationship for banking with online banking is even
stronger than with traditional banking. ATM’s by contrast are
considered to be decidedly less customized and with less
contact with the bank.
When looking at airlines, consumers perceive airline
services midway between customized and standardized with
service principally applied to a person. Online airline
reservations are viewed as separate from the airline service,
are viewed as somewhat more customized, and even more
applied to the customer or person. Thus, the managerial and
marketing implications for these sectors is that when delivery
method changes, consumer perceptions change and strategies
need to change to serve the expectations of the customers.
Although the pioneering work on classification of services
by Christopher Lovelock focused on managerial perceptions,
there seems to be a continuing role for the assessment of the
nature of services from the consumer perspective. The
positioning of both traditional services and SST services
allows managers an opportunity to see the connection
between the design of the service and how consumers
perceive the service. More importantly it allows managers the
opportunity to experiment with new technological designs
and use service representatives in different ways as they alter
the nature of the service and hence consumer perceptions.
The results of this initial comparison suggest the need for
further research regarding the classification of SSTs and the
need to use these classifications for managerial
experimentation.
Limitations
There are limitations from the perspective of the analytical
techniques associated with this study. The MDS assumed
preset classifications, which were developed from theory,
rather than from the perception of consumers. As we have
discussed, the original classifications were developed through
the work of Lovelock (1980, 1983). Few consumer-based
studies were actually undertaken prior to Bowen in 1990.
It is possible that the results of the MDS were somewhat
colored by the preset classifications developed by Lovelock’s
original work. However, note that these classifications are not
so much actual classifications of services but rather criteria for
developing classifications. Further, our results show that even
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
with 11 criteria for classification, the resulting framework was
reduced to two dimensions in the minds of the consumer. Any
additional criteria for classification are thus not likely to alter
these results.
Results may also be influenced by the use of alternative
MDS methods. For example, in this study multidimensional
analysis of preference data (MDPREF) written by J.D. Carroll
and J.J. Chang of Bell Telephone Laboratories was used
because the authors felt that it offered certain specific
advantages, e.g. identifying the dimensions of the
classifications and mapping the services on the resulting
dimensions. The study was designed to be able to use this
particular method.
The prior studies used traditional services and a set of
classifications. This study used the same set of classifications
yet different services. Thus, although we are able to map the
SSTs directly onto the set of classifications and see how
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
classifications differ using traditional services versus SSTs, we
were unable to directly map traditional and SST services
together. One alternative would be to take a subset of the
traditional services as well as SSTs in a new study to create
the maps.
References
Bateson, J.E. (1979), “Why we need service marketing”,
in Ferrell, O.C., Brown, S.W. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (Eds),
Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 131-46.
Bateson, J.E. (1985), “Self-service consumer: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61, Fall, pp. 49-76.
Bell, M.L. (1981), “A matrix approach to the classification of
marketing goods and services”, in Donnelly, J.H. and
George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 208-12.
Bell, M.L. (1986), “Some strategy implications of a matrix
approach to the classification of marketing goods and
services”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Biswas, A., Pullic, C. and Krishnan, B. (1999), “Consumer
evaluation of reference price advertisements: effects of other
brand’s prices and semantic cues”, Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 52-65.
Bitner, M.J. (2001), “Self-service technologies: what do
customers expect?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 10-11.
Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Meuter, M.L. (2002),
“Implementing successful self-service technologies”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 96-109.
Bobbitt, L.M. and Dabholkar, P.A. (2001), “Integrating
attitudinal theories to understand and predict use of
technology-based self-service: the internet as an
illustration”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 423-50.
Boddewyn, J., Halbrich, M. and Perry, A.C. (1986), “Service
multinationals: conceptualization, measurement, and
theory”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 17,
Fall, pp. 41-57.
20
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
Bowen, J. (1990), “Development of a taxonomy of services to
gain strategic marketing insights”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-9.
Carroll, J.D. (1972), “Individual differences and
multidimensional scaling”, in Shepard, R.N., Romney,
A.K. and Nerlove, S.B. (Eds), Multidimensional Scaling:
Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Chase, R.B. (1978), “Where does the consumer fit in a
service operation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 56,
November-December, pp. 41-52.
Cho, S. and Park, K. (2003), “Characteristics of product/
service process and customer needs of geographical
accessibility in electronic commerce”, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 520-38.
Clark, T., Rajaratnam, D. and Smith, T. (1996), “Toward a
theory of international services: marketing intangibles in a
world of nations”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 9-28.
Cook, D.P., Goh, C.H. and Chung, C.H. (1999), “Service
typologies: a state of the art survey”, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 318-38.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E. and Lee, M. (1997),
“A customer-based taxonomy of services: implications for
service marketers”, in Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and
Iacobucci, D. (Eds), Advances in Services Marketing and
Management, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 189-202.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E. and Lee, M. (2005),
“Customer perceptions of service dimensions: American
and Asian perspectives”, Services Industries Journal, Vol. 1,
pp. 43-59.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E., Lee, M. and Ulaga, W.
(2004), “Comparing perceived service dimensions for US
and French consumers”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 421-32.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E., Lee, M. and Ulaga, W.
(2006), “Customer perceptions of service dimensions:
cross-cultural analysis and perspective”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 192-210.
Curran, J.M., Meuter, M.L. and Suprenant, C.F. (2003),
“Intentions to use self-service technologies: a confluence of
multiple attitudes”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 209-24.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1994), “Technology-based service delivery:
a classification scheme for developing marketing strategies”,
in Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds),
Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 3, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 241-71.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), “Consumer evaluations in new
technology-based self-service options: an investigation of
alternative models of service quality”, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51.
Dabholkar, P.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), “An attitudinal
model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects
of consumer traits and situational factors”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-201.
Fisk, R.P., Brown, S.W. and Bitner, M.J. (1993), “Tracking
the evolution of the services marketing literature”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 61-103.
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
Goodwin, K. (1986), “Using consumers’ roles to classify
services”, in Venkatesan, M., Schmalensee, D.M. and
Marshall, C. (Eds), Creativity in Services Marketing: What’s
New, What Works, What’s Developing, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 159-63.
Grove, S. and Fisk, R.P. (1983), “The dramaturgy of service
exchange: an analytical framework for service markets”,
in Berry, L.L., Shostack, G.L. and Upah, G.D. (Eds),
Emerging Perspectives in Service Markets, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 45-9.
Halstead, D., Hartman, D. and Schmidt, S.L. (1994),
“Multi-source effects on the satisfaction formation
process”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 114-29.
Hill, T.P. (1977), “On goods and services”, Review of Income
and Wealth, Vol. 23, December, pp. 315-38.
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
Hsieh, C. and Chu, T. (1992), “Classification of service
businesses from a utility creation perspective”, Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 545-57.
Hunt, S.D. (1983), Marketing Theory: The Philosophy of
Marketing Science, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Iacobucci, D. and Ostrom, A. (1996), “Perceptions of
services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 195-212.
Judd, R.C. (1964), “The case for re-defining services”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28, January, pp. 58-9.
Kelley, S.W., Donnelly, J.H. Jr and Skinner, S.J. (1990),
“Customer participation in service production and
delivery”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 315-35.
Knight, G. (1999), “International services marketing: review
of research, 1980-1989”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 347-60.
Kotler, P. (1980), Principles of Marketing, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Langeard, E. and Eiglier, P. (1983), “Strategic management
of service development”, in Berry, L.L., Shostack, G.L. and
Upah, G.D. (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services
Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 68-72.
Lee, J. and Allaway, A. (2002), “Effects of personal control on
adoption of self-service technology innovations”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 553-72.
Licata, J.W. and Mowen, J.C. (1997), “A qualitative and
quantitative analysis of consumer categorization of
services”, Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 247-69.
Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J. and van Riel, A.
(2006), “Technology readiness and the evaluation and
adoption of self-service technologies”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 13, pp. 177-91.
Lovelock, C.H. (1980), “Toward a classification of services”,
in Lamb, C.W. and Dunne, P.M. (Eds), Theoretical
Developments in Marketing, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 72-6.
Lovelock, C.H. (1983), “Classifying services to gain strategic
marketing insights”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Summer,
pp. 9-20.
Lovelock, C.H. and Yip, G.S. (1996), “Developing global
strategies for service businesses”, California Management
Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 64-96.
21
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
Meuter, M.L. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), “Self-service
technologies; extending service frameworks and
identifying issues for research”, in Grewal, D. and
Pechmann, C. (Eds), AMA Winter Educator’s Conference
Proceedings: Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 9,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 12-19.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner,
M.J. (2000), “Self-service technologies: understanding
customer satisfaction with technology-based service
encounters”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, July, pp. 50-64.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J. and Roundtree, R.
(2003), “The influence of technology anxiety on consumer
use and experiences with self-service technologies”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp. 899-906.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W.
(2005), “Choosing among alternative service delivery
modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service
technologies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, April,
pp. 61-83.
Nicoulaud, B. (1989), “Problems and strategies in the
international marketing of services”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 55-66.
Parasuraman, A. (1996), “Understanding and leveraging the
role of customer service in external, interactive and internal
marketing”, paper presented at Frontiers in Services
Conference, Nashville, TN, October.
Patterson, P.G. and Cicic, M. (1995), “A typology of service
firms in international markets: an empirical investigation”,
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 57-83.
Rathmall, J.M. (1974), Marketing in the Services Sector,
Winthrop Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Sasser, W.E. and Arbeit, S. (1978), “Selling jobs in the service
sector”, Business Horizons, Vol. 19, June, pp. 61-5.
Schneider, B. and Bowen, D.E. (1995), Winning the Service
Game, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Schultze, U. (2003), “Complementing self-serve technology
with service relationships: the customer perspective”,
e-Ser vice Jour nal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7-31.
Shostack, G.L. (1977), “Breaking free from product
marketing”, Journal of Marketing, April, pp. 73-81.
Silpakit, P. and Fisk, R.P. (1985), “Participatizing the service
encounter: a theoretical framework”, in Bloch, T.M., Upah,
G.D. and Zeithaml, V.A. (Eds), Service Marketing in a
Changing Environment, American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL, pp. 117-21.
Sinha, I. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1998), “An integrated approach
toward the spatial modeling of perceived customer value”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 236-49.
Sparks, J.R. and Hunt, S.D. (1998), “Marketing research
ethical sensitivity: conceptualization, measurement and
exploratory investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62
No. 2, pp. 92-109.
Stafford, M.R. (1998), “Advertising sex-typed services:
the effect of sex, service type and employee type on
consumer attitudes”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 65-82.
Stell, R. and Donoho, C.L. (1996), “Classifying services from
a consumer perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 33-44.
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
Sweeney, J.C. and Lapp, W. (2004), “Critical service quality
encounters on the web: an exploratory study”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 276-89.
Thomas, D.R.E. (1978), “Strategy is different in service
business”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 56, July-August,
pp. 158-65.
Van Riel, A.C.R., Lemmink, J. and Ouwersloot, H. (2001),
“Consumer evaluations of brand extensions: differences
between goods and services”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-31.
Vandermerwe, S. and Chadwick, M. (1989),
“The internationalization of services”, Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 9, January, pp. 79-93.
Walker, R.H. and Johnson, L.W. (2006), “Why consumers
use and do not use technology-enabled services”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 125-35.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1981), “Home consumer evaluation
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
processes differ between goods and services”, in Donnelly,
J.H. and George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 186-90.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2003), Services Marketing:
Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, 3rd ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2006), Services Marketing:
Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, 4th ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Lawrence F. Cunningham can be contacted
lawrence.cunningham@cudenver.edu
Appendix
A procedure was used to rotate the SSTs factor structure to
be as closely aligned with the traditional services factor
structure as possible. The transformation matrix, Cji, derived
to rotate the structures can be viewed as a matrix of cosines
that represent the relationship between the factors after the
structures have been aligned for maximum contiguity.
C ji ¼ ðA0ik B kj Þ0ji V ij E Dj V0ji
where E and V are the roots and loadings for all j possible
factors of the following matrix:
A0ik B kj ðA0ik B kj Þ0ji
where:
i ¼ the number of factors in the A matrix (the traditional
services matrix).
j ¼ the number of factors in the B matrix (the SSTs
matrix).
k ¼ the number of variables factored in each analysis.
The reason that only j factors are possible is that in the
situation where i and j are unequal, the factor space common
to the two structures will shrink to the rank of the second
matrix (B). The new matrix Q ki ¼ B kj C ji is the rotated B
matrix. Finally, a series of cosines are computed which reflect
the proximity of the corresponding individual vectors in the
original A matrix and the rotated B matrix. These cosines are
the diagonal elements of the matrix product A ki C0ij B0jk or
A ki Q0ik .
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
As the provision and use of self-service technologies grow, so
too does the importance to providers of having a thorough
understanding of customers’ perceptions and attitudes
towards both the methods of acquiring the services, and to
the organizations providing them.
To do this providers need reliable service classifications
criteria. As consumers are more and more exposed to
different forms of, and increasingly sophisticated, self-service
technology they eventually become as familiar with it as they
are with traditional ways of accessing services. What prompts
– or discourages – willingness to switch from using service
personnel to SSTs is of concern. As is the relationship
between a willingness and an ability to use SSTs, and the risks
involved with their use, the advantages associated with that
use, and the extent to which contact with service personnel is
preferred or considered necessary.
The appeal of SSTs is primarily derived from the
elimination (or at least a significant reduction in
involvement) of a service representative. For companies,
at: SSTs are a cost-effective way of providing a greater level of
customer service. Consumers receive the benefits of
convenience – fewer “sorry we are closed” notices to
frustrate them – and savings of both time and money.
Few marketing studies look at service classifications for
SSTs and none directly compare consumer-based perceptions
of traditional services to SSTs. Consequently, Lawrence
F. Cunningham et al. set out – by using multidimensional
scaling – to compare the customer perceptions of SSTs to
that of traditional services along known classifications. Their
research offers a consumer-based perceptual map of SSTs
using previously developed classifications, and compares it to
an equivalent map of traditional services.
This offers a roadmap for managers to make fundamental
changes in the nature of the services they are providing. For
example, managers of automated transactional SSTs such as
ATMs and pay-at-the-pump could reposition their SST from
the initial positioning which features no formal relationship
and easy switching to one that incorporates more personal
customization and tighter relationships.
The positioning of both traditional services and SST
services allows managers an opportunity to see the connection
between the design of the service and how consumers perceive
it. More importantly it allows managers the opportunity to
experiment with new technological designs and use service
representatives in different ways as they alter the nature of the
service and hence consumer perceptions.
Classifications selected included the extent to which
consumers feel that:
.
the level of physical product component is low or high;
. the level of the customer-employee contact is low or high;
.
the production and consumption of a service is
inseparable or separable;
.
how risky it would be to choose a provider;
22
 A comparison of consumer views of services
Lawrence F. Cunningham, Clifford E. Young and James Gerlach
.
the switching to a new provider is easy or difficult;
.
a service is performed on a person or on a tangible object;
. a service exhibits a formal or no formal relationship
between the service provider and the customer;
. the delivery of a service is continuous or involves discrete
transactions; the customization of a service is low or high;
and
.
the degree to which the convenience level of obtaining a
service is low or high.
These classifications are referred to as physical, contact,
inseparable/separable, riskiness, switching, person/object,
relationship, service delivery (continuous/discrete),
customization and convenience respectively.
The results indicate some pronounced differences in
classifications compared to the results obtained with
traditional services. The most notable changes occurred to
three classifications. The two vectors identified as
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)
convenience and delivery (continuous/discrete) rotated away
from the horizontal axis towards the vertical axis. The third
vector, person/object, rotated from the vertical axis to the
horizontal axis. Although consumers still see SSTs in two
dimensions, the changes in classification suggest that the
vertical dimension has changed from whether the service is
performed on a person or object. For SSTs, the fundamental
issue becomes one of whether the SST is incorporated into
the product or service.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
23
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2009 · 11 –23
Since the positioning of various services is largely
determined by how consumers see the nature of the service,
managerial decisions to reposition the SST are likely to
require an additional perceptual map that clearly identifies
market segments for different SST services. Managers could
try to reposition their SST to take advantage of uncovered or
less competitive segments. For large competitive segments,
managers concentrate on volume by redesigning their SSTs in
the direction of more standardization and less formalized
relationships. By redesigning the technology and the people
component in the SST, management should be able to
successfully reposition any service in order to achieve
competitive advantage.
Consumers perceive airline services midway between
customized and standardized with service principally applied
to a person. Online airline reservations are viewed as separate
from the airline service and somewhat more customized. The
managerial and marketing implications for such sectors are
that, when delivery method changes, consumer perceptions
change and strategies need to change to serve the expectations
of the customers.
(A précis of the article “A comparison of consumer views of
traditional services and self-service technologies”. Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Arun Kumar Kaushik, Zillur Rahman. 2015. Innovation adoption across self-service banking technologies in India. International
Journal of Bank Marketing 33:2, 96-121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Lai Cheung Leung, Ursula S Bougoure, Karen W Miller. 2014. The effects of affective and utilitarian brand relationships on
brand consideration. Journal of Brand Management . [CrossRef]
3. Joel E. Collier, Daniel L. Sherrell, Emin Babakus, Alisha Blakeney Horky. 2014. Understanding the differences of public and
private self-service technology. Journal of Services Marketing 28:1, 60-70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Deniz Kucukusta, Vincent C. S. Heung, Sandy Hui. 2014. Deploying Self-Service Technology in Luxury Hotel Brands:
Perceptions of Business Travelers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31, 55-70. [CrossRef]
5. Stephen W. Wang, Maxwell K. Hsu, Lou E. Pelton, Danqing Xi. 2014. Virtually Compatible or Risky Business? Investigating
Consumers’ Proclivity Toward Online Banking Services. Journal of Marketing Channels 21, 43-58. [CrossRef]
6. Larry Sau Kei Leung, Margaret J. Matanda. 2013. The impact of basic human needs on the use of retailing self-service
technologies: A study of self-determination theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20, 549-559. [CrossRef]
7. Jesús Manuel López-Bonilla, Luis Miguel López-Bonilla. 2013. Self-Service Technology Versus Traditional Service: Examining
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, Mr perpus uns At 19:55 21 March 2015 (PT)

Cognitive Factors In The Purchase Of The Airline Ticket. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30, 497-508. [CrossRef]
8. Shuling Liao, Colin C. Cheng. 2013. Consumer evaluation of self-service innovation failure: the effect of brand equity and
attribution. The Service Industries Journal 33, 467-485. [CrossRef]
9. Tor W. Andreassen, Sandra Streukens. 2013. Online complaining. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 23:1, 4-24.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Spiros Gounaris, Christos D. Koritos. 2012. Adoption of Technologically Based Innovations: The Neglected Role of Bounded
Rationality. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29:10.1111/jpim.2012.29.issue-5, 821-838. [CrossRef]
11. Mary Ann Eastlick, Claudia Ratto, Sherry L. Lotz, Anubha Mishra. 2012. Exploring antecedents of attitude toward co-producing
a retail checkout service utilizing a self-service technology. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
22, 337-364. [CrossRef]
12. He Michael Jia, Yonggui Wang, Lin Ge, Guicheng Shi, Shanji Yao. 2012. Asymmetric Effects of Regulatory Focus on Expected
Desirability and Feasibility of Embracing Self-Service Technologies. Psychology and Marketing 29:10.1002/mar.2012.29.issue-4,
209-225. [CrossRef]
13. Viswanath Venkatesh, Frank K.Y. Chan, James Y.L. Thong. 2012. Designing e-government services: Key service attributes and
citizens’ preference structures. Journal of Operations Management 30, 116-133. [CrossRef]
14. Cees J. Gelderman, Paul W.Th. Ghijsen, Ronnie van Diemen. 2011. Choosing self-service technologies or interpersonal services
—The impact of situational factors and technology-related attitudes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18, 414-421.
[CrossRef]
15. Wan-I Lee, Yen Ting Chiu, Chia-Chi Liu, Chen-Yuan Chen. 2011. Assessing the effects of consumer involvement and service
quality in a self-service setting. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 21, 504-515. [CrossRef]
16. Lisa Wessels, Judy Drennan. 2010. An investigation of consumer acceptance of M‐banking. International Journal of Bank
Marketing 28:7, 547-568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]