See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233743097

The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of
Mobile Sector in Greece

Article · August 2011

CITATIONS READS

13 4,474

3 authors, including:

Dimitrios Drosos Nikos Tsotsolas

University of West Attica University of West Attica
59 PUBLICATIONS   246 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   293 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LIFE ClimaMED "Innovative technologies for climate change mitigation by Mediterranean agricultural sector" View project

Robustness analysis of Strategic Decisions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitrios Drosos on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Vol. 3, No. 2, July-December 2011, pp. 87-105 IJEM

The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and

Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece

D. Drosos*, N. Tsotsolas and P. Manolitzas

Technological Education Institute of Piraeus, Business School Management Information System
Laboratory Petrou Ralli and Thivon 250 Aigaleo

Abstract: The telecommunications industry is currently one of the technologically most

important and fastest growing sectors of the economy. Over the last two decades, mobile
communications have become an integral part of this industry, enabling the formation
and growth of national income, increasing corporate and government revenues as well as
creating new jobs. For the purpose of this paper, the findings of two consecutive six
month long surveys will be presented, measuring the satisfaction levels of users of three
mobile phone companies which operate in Greece, as well as the relationship of these
findings and the changes of market shares of the three companies. For the collection of
the data, questionnaires were used in order to better record the customers’ views on the
service overall as well as their satisfaction levels on particular aspects of the service. The
analysis of the results has been based on the multicriteria MUSA method, which is part
of the wider category of aggregation – disaggregation approach and is based on the
principles of qualitative analysis regression. The results of the data analysis provide strong
indications that the changes in customer’s satisfaction level affect the market share.
Keywords: Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, Multicriteria Analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION
Over the past two decades, customer satisfaction has formed the basis for businesses that aim at
finding themselves at the top of the modern global marketplace. The purpose of a business
company is, initially, to meet the customer’s expectations through the products or services
offered so that his or her loyalty will be achieved (Boshoff and Gray, 2004).
Consumers however, are constantly becoming more demanding, resulting at an ever
increasing level of expectations from a product or service. Therefore, the company must
continually identify the needs and expectations of the consumer and seek to meet and satisfy
them (Gustafsson et al., 2005). Consequently the above factor combined with the increased
competition that exists among the leading service providers has led them to adopt a customer
driven policy. That is why customer satisfaction is an important tool for businesses today and

* Corresponding Author: drososd@teipir.gr

 88 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

shapes their strategy. The philosophy of customer satisfaction at least by international standards
is nothing new. A research that was completed in 1988 in the United States of America with
the participation of 700 top executives working for large companies showed that 64% of these
executives, perceived customer satisfaction as their number one priority. The other 36% said
that it was amongst their top priorities (Shoultz, 1989).
According to Fornell (1992) one of the main drivers for the increased emphasis given to
customer satisfaction over the recent years, is that increased customer satisfaction can lead a
company to a sustainable competitive position that will in turn create an increase in market
share, increase in profits, reduced price elasticity, reduction in operating costs, reduced rework
costs and finally a cost reduction of attracting new customers. Satisfaction and thus customer
loyalty to a company's products or services is generally considered to be one of the most important
driving forces influencing sales. Satisfied customers become loyal customers and also share
their positive experiences with other people who are potential customers of the same company.
(Fornell et al., 1996).
The scope of this paper is to empirically highlight the different aspects of the relationship
between customer satisfaction and market share, in the Greek mobile sector. This paper is
organized into 4 sections. Section 1, presents the literature, regarding customer satisfaction,
and the different views about the relationship between business performance, loyalty,
productivity, profitability, reputation, market share and customer satisfaction. Section 2 presents
the MUSA (Multicriteria Satisfaction Analysis) method, which is the Decision Support System
that was used in order to measure the customer satisfaction. Section 3 presents the methodological
frame and the results of our research. Finally, section 4 summarises some concluding remarks
and discusses, potential extensions of the research.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Customer Satisfaction

The satisfaction of customer, according to Yi (1991), is fixed with two basic ways: “or as a
result, or as a process. The first way determines the satisfaction as a final situation or as a result
of experience of consumption or use of product or service”. According to another approach
“the satisfaction is a cognitive situation of customer, with regard to his sufficient or insufficient
remuneration for the sacrifices and the efforts that have overwhelmed” (Howard and Sheth,
1969). Westbrook and Reilly (1983) consider that “satisfaction is a sentimental reaction in the
experiences of customer that are related or with concrete products and services, or with the
processes of market or still with concrete characteristics of this customer”.
Another definition that has been proposed for the satisfaction of customer is the following:
“Satisfaction is the result of purchase and use of a product or service, which derives from the
customers comparison between the remuneration and the cost of purchase, taking into
consideration the expected result” (Churchill and Suprenant, 1982). Alternatively, the satisfaction
can be seen as a process, with emphasises on psychological factors of perception and evaluation
of the impact: “Satisfaction is an evaluation process based on whether this experience was as
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 89

good as the client believed that is” (Hunt, 1977). “Satisfaction is an evaluation process, which
examines whether this choice is consistent with previous convictions of the client” (Engel and
Blackwell, 1982).
Satisfaction is the reaction of consumers in the evaluation process, which examines the
discrepancies between prior expectations and actual performance level of the product as perceived
by the consumer after use” (Tse and Wilton, 1988). In general, the most popular definitions of
customer satisfaction are based on meeting customers expectations. As explained by Oliver (1996),
Gerson (1993) and Vavra (1997), satisfaction is a measure of how the total offered product or
service fulfills customer expectations. To reinforce customer orientation on a day-to-day basis, a
growing number of companies choose customer satisfaction as their main performance indicator.
It is almost impossible, however, to keep an entire company permanently motivated by a notion
as abstract and intangible as customer satisfaction. Therefore, customer satisfaction must be
translated into a number of measurable parameters directly linked to people’s job -in other words
factors that people can understand and influence (Deschamps and Nayak, 1995).

2.2 The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Business Effectiveness

It is apparent that during recent years customer satisfaction has become a well-known and
established concept in several sciences. Many researches attempted to link customer satisfaction
to business performance, loyalty, productivity, profitability, reputation and market share. A
number of studies in different industries have shown that higher levels of customer satisfaction
lead to greater customer loyalty (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Anderson et al., 1997; Bearden
and Teel, 1983; Bolton and Drew, 1991; Fornell, 1992; Oliver, 1980; Oliver and Swan, 1989;
Yi, 1991). There is considerable disagreement concerning the positive or negative relationship
between customer satisfaction and productivity. The Scientific areas of production management
and operations research commonly argue that this relationship can be positive. Guru’s of TQM
(Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1982; Juran, 1988) believe that the firm that achieves superior levels
of customer satisfaction needs to dedicate fewer resources to handling returns, rework, warranties,
and complaint management, thus lowering costs and improving productivity.
On the other hand Griliches (1971) and Lancaster (1979) claim that there is a negative
relationship between customer satisfaction and business performance. Customer satisfaction-
utility-is modelled as a function of product attributes. Increasing the level of utility-improving
raw materials, adding features or service personnel-requires increasing the level of product
attributes and, therefore, costs.
Another interesting link is the link between corporate reputation and customer satisfaction.
Davies et al., (2002) in their study of retailing context demonstrated that there is a positive
impact of corporate reputation on customer satisfaction. Walsh et al., (2006), in their study of
private energy customers in Germany, found that there is a strongly relationship between
customer satisfaction and corporate reputation. Hennig-Thurau et al., (2002) demonstrated
that customers, who are satisfied with the performance of a company, are likely to engage in
positive word-of-mouth, thus positively reinforcing the company’s reputation.
 90 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

Many researchers have accepted the view that customer satisfaction is positively related
with the desired business performance. At the same time many studies have shown that customer
satisfaction has measurable effects on the customer’s intention to repurchase the offered product
or service, (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Mittal et al., 1999; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988), customer
loyalty, (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Bolton, 1998; Ittner and Larcker, 1998; Mittal and
Kamakura, 2001) as well as the fulfillment of the company’s financial goals. (Anderson and
Mittal, 2000; Fornell et al., 1996; Rust and Zahorik, 1993, Jones and Sasser, 1995, Chaudhuri
and Holbrook, 2001; Fournier, 1998; Oliver, 1999). Zeithaml (2000) gives an overview of
findings of research on aspects of the relationship between customer satisfaction and business
performance. Nelson et al., (1992) found positive evidence on the direct relationship between
customer satisfaction and business performance in hospital settings with higher profitability.
Aaker and Jacobson (1994) found better stock return linked to improved quality perceptions;
Anderson et al., (1994) found a significant association between customer satisfaction and
accounting return on assets. Ittner and Larckner (1996) found that shareholder value is highly
elastic with respect to customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, many researchers claim that there is a negative relationship between
customer satisfaction and business performance. Tornow and Wiley (1991) concluded that
there is a negative correlation between customer satisfaction and gross profit. In another study,
Wiley (1991) found that all dimensions of customer satisfaction are negatively related to financial
performance. In an article on service quality and its impact on profits, Schneider (1991)
concluded that customer satisfaction does not always have a positive impact on profits.
During the recent years several models have been implemented in order to examine the
relationship between customer satisfaction and profitability. Heskett et al., (1994) demonstrated
the Service – Profit Chain Model which suggests that employee satisfaction leads to customer
satisfaction, which leads to corporate profitability. Other researchers (Rust et al., 1995; Rust et
al., 2002; Gustafsson and Johnson, 2002) suggest that improvements in total quality, lead to
improved customer satisfaction, which leads to a higher lever of customer loyalty, which can
result to a higher profitability for an enterprise.
Other researches (Buzzell and Gale, 1987; Jacobson and Aaker, 1987; Gale, 1992; Hallowell,
1996) show that higher customer satisfaction translates into higher than normal market share
growth. However, Fornell (1992), based on data collected from 25,000 consumers who reported
their degree of satisfaction with the consumption of products and services from 32 industries,
he reported that customer satisfaction and market share do not always have a parallel direction.
Hellofs and Jacobson (1999), using empirical data show that increases in market share
may negatively affect the consumers’ perception of quality in at least two ways: Indirectly by
creating negative network externalities and directly by the loss of exclusivity and the loss of the
image of using a product as a result of its increased market share and the product’s popularity.
Actually, there are two contradicting approaches regarding the relationship between customer
satisfaction and market share. Empirical findings have established a positive relationship between
market share and quality, while the latter is directly related to customer satisfaction under the
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 91

notion that the greater the buyer’s perceived quality, the greater the satisfaction he derives from
the product or the service (Kordupleski et al., 1993; Kroll et al., 1999; Oliver 1997). This
positive association may be considered as an indication that by enhancing the quality of the
company’s output over and above the level of quality that characterizes the products of its main
competitors, the company will probably gain a competitive advantage. On the other hand
there are researches that have provided evidences according to which the relationship between
customer satisfaction and market share is not always positive (Hellofs and Jacobson, 1999).
This negative association has also been suggested by Fornell (1992) whose findings confirmed
that in industries where customers’ tastes are heterogeneous while the producers’ offer is
standardised, customer satisfaction is negatively associated with market share.
Based on the above contradicting approaches, Gounaris et al., (2001) discussed the
hypotheses that the relationship between customer satisfaction and market share is moderated
by the degree of homogeneity of the customers’ preferences as well as by the degree of
heterogeneity of the producers’ offerings. More specifically, the research concluded that in
markets where customers’ preferences are homogeneous, market share and customer satisfaction
are positively related, while in markets where customers’ preferences are heterogeneous, market
share and customer satisfaction are not related.
Based on the findings of the aforementioned research we are going to evaluate the
relationship between customer satisfaction and market share in the Greek mobile sector. One
of the main characteristic of this specific market is that all three competitors are offering products
and services with great degree of similarity. Furthermore, the mobile market in Greece is
characterized as mature given the fact that by the end of 2009 there were more than 20.290.000
Connections. Most of the customers have definitely decided which provider meets better their
needs throughout the years.
On the other hand the cost for changing from one provider to the other is practically zero.
So, we assume that if a customer is not satisfied from the services provided by one company,
he/she can easily change provider.
For the reason we would expect the overall satisfaction level of customers of the three
mobile providers to be at similar level. The question is what is actually happening if a customer
for some reasons starts to express lower level of satisfaction. Is this event an indication that the
customer would probably change provider? Based on the above thoughts we are discussing in
this paper the hypothesis that the changes in customers’ satisfaction levels lead to changes
regarding the market shares in a market where the degree of homogeneity of the customers’
preferences is high.
The assessment of market’s homogeneity/ heterogeneity won’t be based on the potential
structural differences of our sample because all three competitive companies offer a big range
of products and services to cover the different customers’ demographic profiles. In this study,
we follow the same approach as Gounaris et al., (2001), and we assess the homogeneity/
heterogeneity of the sample based on the extent to which the customers’ degree of satisfaction
depending on the personal demographic characteristics.
 92 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

3. THE MUSA METHOD

The MUSA (Multicriteria Satisfaction Analysis) method of Grigoroudis and Siskos (Grigoroudis
and Siskos, 2002; Siskos and Grigoroudis, 2002) has been chosen to be used in order to measure
customer satisfaction in this research. The basic principle of MUSA is the aggregation of individual
judgements into a collective value function, assuming that customer’s global satisfaction depends
on a set of criteria representing service characteristic dimensions (Figure 2). The global satisfaction
is denoted as a variable Y and the set of criteria is denoted as a vector X = (X1, X2,…,Xn).
MUSA was chosen over other statistical, econometrical methods because it gives reliable
answers to the following criticism of other methods, namely:
1. Most of the statistical models that are used to analyze consumers’ behavior cannot deal
with qualitative variables, and whenever this happens, the variables are a priori encoded
which results to a loss of the information provided by the consumer.
2. In several methods strong hypotheses are concerned which is difficult to be proved.
These hypotheses may refer either to consumer behavior or to the estimation model
(e.g. satisfaction assessment using a specific probability function).
3. Many methods focus mostly on the description of the characteristics which affect
customer’s satisfaction and not on the synthesis of these characteristics to a global
satisfaction index.
4. Finally, several methods need information which is difficult to be collected (e.g.:
customers’ expected utility, tradeoffs, etc)
This preference disaggregation methodology is implemented through an ordinal regression
based approach in the field of multicriteria analysis used for the assessment of a set of a marginal
satisfaction functions in such a way, that the global satisfaction criterion becomes as consisted
as possible with customer’s judgments (Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos, 1982; Siskos, and
Yannacopoulos, 1985).
According to the survey, each customer is asked to express his/her own judgements, namely
his/her global satisfaction and his/her satisfaction with regard to a set of discrete criteria,
representing characteristics of the provided products and services. Based on these assumptions,
the problem is approached as a problem of qualitative regression and solved via special linear
programming formulations where the sum of deviations between global satisfaction evaluation
expressed by customers and the one resulting from their multicriteria satisfaction evaluations is
minimized. The main results from the aforementioned preference disaggregation approach are
focused on global and partial explanatory analysis. Global explanatory analysis lays emphasis
on customers’ global satisfaction and its primary dimensions, while partial explanatory analysis
focuses on each criterion and their relevant parameters separately. Satisfaction analysis results,
in more detail, consist of:
• Global satisfaction index: it shows in a range of 0-100% the level of global satisfaction of
the customers; it may be considered as the basic average performance indicator for the
organisation.
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 93

• Global demanding index: it shows in a range of -100%-100% the demanding level of

customers according to the following:
• demanding index 100%: extremely demanding customers
• demanding index 0%: “normal” customers
• demanding index –100%: non-demanding customers
• Criteria/sub-criteria satisfaction indices: They show in a range of 0-100% the level of
partial satisfaction of the customers according to the specific criterion/sub-criterion, similarly
to the global satisfaction index.
• Weights of criteria/sub-criteria: they show the relative importance within a set of criteria
or sub-criteria.
• Demanding indices: they show in a range of -100%-100% the demanding level of customers
according to the specific criterion/sub-criterion, similarly to the global demanding index.

Figure 1: Performance/Importance Diagram

Combining weights and satisfaction indices, a series of “Performance/Importance” diagrams

can be developed (Figure 1). Each of these diagrams is divided into quadrants according to
performance (high/low), and importance (high/low), that may be used to classify actions:
• Status quo (low performance and low importance): Generally, no action is required.
• Leverage opportunity (high performance/high importance): These areas can be used
as advantage against competition.
 94 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

• Transfer resources (high performance/low importance): Organisation’s resources may

be better used elsewhere.
• Action opportunity (low performance/high importance): These are the criteria/sub-
criteria that needs attention.
The above methodology has been successfully implemented in many customer satisfaction
surveys. Moreover, it has been used in similar research related to customer satisfaction (Siskos
and Grigoroudis, 2002).

4. METHODOLOGICAL FRAME
This research process consists of the steps below (Hayes, 1992):
• Preliminary analysis: Customer satisfaction research objectives should be specified in
this stage; preliminary market and customer behavioural analysis should be conducted
in order to assess satisfaction dimensions (customers' consistent family of criteria).
• Questionnaire design and conducting survey: Using results from the previous step,
this stage refers to the development of the questionnaire, the determination of survey
parameters (sample size, collection data form, etc.) and the survey conduction.
• Analysis: The implementation of the model is included in this stage providing several
results as described in the previous paragraph. Analysis is performed into the total set
of customers, as well as into distinctive customer segments. Provided results involve
basic descriptive statistical models, as well as the multicriteria preference disaggregation
MUSA model.
• Results: Using the results from the analysis stage, final proposals for company's
improvement strategy can be formulated; a reliability testing process for the results of
the model is also included in this stage.

5. CUSTOMER SURVEY
5.1 Customer Conduction
The results presented in this paper come from two sequential satisfaction surveys, the first one
conducted from July to December 2008 and the second one from July to December 2009. For
the implementation of these two surveys a structured questionnaire was developed which was
addressed to customers of the three mobile telecommunications companies of Greece (Vodafone,
Wind, and Cosmote). A total of 1050 usable questionnaires were returned during the first survey
and 1612 during the second one. For the purposes of this research a web site was constructed.
Through the web site the customer had the opportunity to answer a web based questionnaire.

5.2 Satisfaction Criteria

The main satisfaction criteria for the survey consists of:
• Products - Services: Satisfaction from the services and products of each mobile phone
company
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 95

• Network: This dimension refers to the network of the mobile company

• Stores: This criterion refers to the location of stores and the network of branches that
have been developed by the companies
• Human Resources: This criterion measures the satisfaction that a client gains when
communicating with the staff of the mobile operator in the branch or through the
contact center.
• Customer service: Refers to consumer satisfaction from the services
• Prices: This dimension focuses on the costs of services
• Web Page: This criterion indicates the satisfaction from the website of each company.
We must mention that the set of satisfaction criteria in this survey is based on bibliographical
research. Many researchers (Grigoroudis et al., 1999; Tsintarakis et al, 2001; Grigoroudis and
Siskos, 2010; Michelis et al., 2001; Krassadaki et al., 2002; Manolitzas et al., 2010) introduce
questionnaires in order to measure the customer satisfaction in several different sectors like
banks, shipping, airlines, food and drinks, information technology and the public sector. Each
of the 7 criteria above is divided into sub-criteria, which appear in the following figure.

Figure 2: Hierarchical Structure of Customer Satisfaction Dimensions

 96 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

6. RESULTS
6.1 Sample
The sample selected with random sampling and constituted customers from all the mobile
companies in Greece. All the information about our sample presented in Table 2

Table 1
Sample Information

1st Research 2nd Research

Gender Male 46.80% 48.57%
Female 53.20% 51.43%
<24 22.00% 21.40%
25-34 39.70% 41.69%
Age 35-44 20.20% 21.09%
45-54 13.20% 10.55%
>55 4.90% 5.27%
Lower Secondary School 2.60% 1.99%
Upper Secondary School 27% 30.66%
Educational Level Vocational Training 19.70% 18.75%
Graduate 21.20% 20.04%
Postgraduate/Doctorate 29.50% 28.56%
Single 56.00% 54.02%
Family Status Married 21.50% 19.43%
Married with children 21.60% 24.57%
Divorce 0.90% 1.98%
<1000 € 65.90% 32.75%
Income Level 1001 - 2000 € 55.90% 52.75%
2001 - 3000 € 34.50% 32.88%
3001 - 4000 € 5.30% 7.31%
>4000 € 2.00% 3.59%

In the first as well as in the second survey the biggest portion of the respondents was
customers of Cosmote and the smallest one customers of Wind. This ranking reflects the
actual market shares of the three companies during the survey periods.

Table 2
Mobile Companies Market Share

1st Research 2nd Research

Vodafone 36.00% 33.00%
Cosmote 38.90% 44.50%
Wind 25.10% 22.50%
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 97

6.2 MARKET HOMOGENEITY/HETEROGENEITY

Following the approach of Gounaris et al. (2001), we assessed the homogeneity/heterogeneity
of the mobile service market based on the extent to which the consumers’ degree of satisfaction
with the consumption of a given brand varies depending on the personal demographic
characteristics. In order to examine the degree of market homogeneity/heterogeneity that
characterised this market, we investigated the extent to which the buyers’ satisfaction level
(overall, as well as partial on the criteria) with the use of the services provided by the three
companies varies depending on the personal demographic characteristics. For the evaluation of
the aforementioned correlation we chose to use two measures depending on the nature of the
scale of each variable:
• Chi-square test for nominal demographic variables
• Spearman’s correlation coefficient for demographic ordinal variables
The demographic variables which were filled in the questionnaire were: gender, age,
education level, family status and income level.

Table 3
Correlation of Customer Satisfaction and Respondents’ Demographic
Characteristics (Nominal Variables)

Satisfaction Criteria X2 values for demographic variables

Gender Family status
1st survey 2nd Survey 1st survey 2nd Survey
Overall Satisfaction 0.122 0.651 0.825 0.097
Product - Services 0.015* 0.015* 0.013* 0.087
Network 0.146 0.025* 0.672 0.200
Stores 0.168 0.471 0.225 0.047*
Human resources 0.701 0.464 0.535 0.188
Customer services 0.674 0.144 0.260 0.090
Prices 0.423 0.074 0.055 0.081
Web page 0.153 0.006** 0.362 0.123
Significance levels: ** significant between 0.000 and 0.010, * significant between 0.010 and 0.050,

Table 4
Correlation of Customer Satisfaction and Respondents’
Demographic Characteristics (Ordinal Variables)

Satisfaction Criteria Spearman’s correlation coefficient for demographic variables

Age Educational Level Income Level
1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey
Overall Satisfaction 0.048 0.022 0.051 0.033 0.010 0.062*
Table Cont’d
 98 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

Table 4 Cont’d

Product - Services 0.043 0.063* –0.008 0.079* –0.054 0.023

Network 0.117* 0.071* 0.089 0.050 0.036 0.045
Stores 0.033 –0.001 0.034 –0.002 –0.016 –0.036
Human resources 0.116* 0.029 0.074 0.023 0.040 –0.014
Customer services 0.085 0.072* 0.043 0.008 0.018 0.056*
Prices 0.000 –0.045 –0.024 –0.043 –0.024 –0.057*
Web page 0.026 –0.090** –0.042 –0.003 –0.013 –0.015
Significance levels: ** significant between 0.000 and 0.010, * significant between 0.010 and 0.050,

According to the results presented in Tables 3 and 4, mobile market in Greece is characterised
by homogeneity. More specifically, as the results suggest, the only significant correlations are
observed between two demographic characteristics, namely gender and age, and satisfaction
from web page criterion. These results indicate a homogeneous pattern of the drivers that
create satisfaction in this particular market.

6.3 Criteria Weights

By comparing the criteria weights produced by MUSA method according to the customers’
responses it is shown that there are no important differences among the three different companies.
As it is presented in Table 5 for Vodafone in both surveys the highest weight is calculated for
criterion “Network” with 22.1 % and 22.5% respectively. On the other hand the lowest weight
is allocated to the criterion “Prices” with 9.9% and 11.8% correspondingly.

Table 5
Criteria Weights

Criteria VODAFONE WIND COSMOTE

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
Product - Services 14.30% 13.70% 25.00% 23.40% 14.20% 14.20%
Network 22.10% 22.50% 14.30% 14.30% 21.30% 14.90%
Stores 14.30% 12.50% 14.50% 12.00% 14.30% 14.20%
Human Resources 14.30% 13.80% 12.30% 12.50% 14.30% 14.90%
Customer Service 13.20% 12.50% 14.30% 13.40% 14.30% 14.30%
Prices 9.90% 11.80% 9.30% 12.30% 10.00% 9.60%
Web Page 11.90% 13.20% 10.30% 12.10% 11.60% 17.90%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Moving to the next company, Wind, it is shown in Table 5 that also in both surveys the
calculated weights for the satisfaction criteria are similar. Particularly, the most important
criterion in both surveys is “Products - Services” (25% and 22.6%). The least important criterion
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 99

for the same company is the “Prices” for the first survey with 9.4% and for the second survey
the criterion “Stores” with 12%.
As far as the third company, Cosmote, is concerned, it is actually the only company in
which some differences of the criteria importance are observed in the two surveys. Particularly,
it is shown in Table 5 that for the survey conducted in 2008 the most important criterion by
far, was “Network” with 21.3% while for the next survey in first position the criterion “Web
Page” was found with 17,9%. This difference could exist due to the fact that in the period
between the first and the second survey, Cosmote carried out some big changes concerning its
marketing approach that also affected the company's web site, which was fully adapted to the
new company image. As a result of this change the web page operated as a medium for improved
communication with current customers and as a tool to attract new customers. On the other
hand in both surveys the least important criterion was the “Prices” with 10% and 9.6%
respectively. It is also worth to mention that all other criteria present minor differences between
the two surveys.

6.4 Global Satisfaction Analysis

As it is shown in Table 6, the overall results for both surveys are positive given the fact that the
average global satisfaction indices for all three companies have high values, over 75%. In the
first survey Vodafone has the highest value with 83.83 %, second in the row is Cosmote with
very small difference (83.53%) and the lowest (81.82%) value has been calculated for Wind.
So, it is obvious that customers of these companies are very satisfied. As far as the second
survey is concerned (in 2009) that the only company that improves its performance is Cosmote
showing in this survey the highest value with 83.95%. The other two companies are presenting
lower values in comparison to the results of the first survey, namely 75.77% for Vodafone and
77.49% for Wind.
Table 6
Satisfaction Indices

1st Research 2nd Research

Vodafone 83.83% 75.77%
Cosmote 83.53% 83.95%
Wind 81.82% 77.49%

6.5 Criteria Satisfaction

As it can be seen in Table 7 for Vodafone for both 2008 and 2009, the criterion with the lowest
satisfaction is that of the pricing policy with rates 60.7% and 56.42% respectively. The criterion
with the highest satisfaction for 2008 is that the network reaches a rate of 87.1% and for 2009
is that of Products - Services with the rate reaches 84.52%. Noteworthy is the variation shown
in the test Network between two years where satisfaction in 2009 decreases to 70.25%. Regarding
the other criteria show a slight downward variation.
 100 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

Table 7
Average Satisfaction Indices

Criteria VODAFONE WIND COSMOTE

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
Product - Services 80.80% 84.52% 87.3% 75.83% 80.20% 82.66%
Network 87.10% 70.25% 80.4% 85.21% 86.30% 84.35%
Stores 85.70% 79.75% 85.2% 83.58% 85.20% 84.97%
Human Resources 81.20% 78.79% 77.7% 80.38% 81.00% 84.01%
Customer Service 78.70% 74.39% 78.9% 75.51% 79.90% 81.02%
Prices 60.70% 56.42% 56.7% 60.79% 60.10% 61.04%
Web Page 75.30% 73.14% 70.6% 69.9% 74.10% 83.27%

In the case of Wind the criterion with the lowest satisfaction rate for both years is the
pricing policy rates 56.7% and 60.79% respectively. The criterion with the highest satisfaction
for 2008 is the criterion of Products - Services with 87.3% and for 2009 the criterion of
Network with 85.21%.Remarkable for Wind company is the diversification which is outlined
in the criterion of Products - Services whose satisfaction decreases about 12%.In the other
criteria we did not observe any significant variation worthwhile any particular reference. And
the third mobile operator (Cosmote) alike the previous two, shows the lowest satisfaction rate
in the test Pricing. The satisfaction of this criterion in 2008 reached 60.1%, respectively, while
for 2009 showed a marginal improvement, reaching 61.4%. The criterion with the highest
satisfaction rate in 2008 was the Network (86.3%) while in 2009 the Human Resources with
84.01%.

7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND MARKET SHARE

The main objective of this study is to examine the correlation between the changes of customer
satisfaction with the changes of the respective market shares which are occupied by three mobile
phone companies in the Greek market. The relationship between customer satisfaction and market
share will be based on the information available for the respective market shares of subscribers
and revenue. According to data of table 8 Cosmote in comparison with two other companies,
Vodafone, Wind increased its market share in the category of Subscribers. Cosmote market share
increased from 39.4% in 2008 to 44.4% in 2009. Consequently, the market shares of the two
other companies have been decreased with a greater reduction in the rate of Wind.
Table 8
Market Share Based on the Subscribers, Adapted from Greek Mobile Companies

Mobile Companies Year 2008 Year 2009

Cosmote 39,4 % 44,4 %
Vodafone 33,0 % 31,6 %
Wind 27,6 % 24,0 %
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 101

Similar views show market shares in the category of revenues. As it is shown in table 9
Cosmote rate was increased from 38.8% in 2008 to 45.1% in 2009. Corresponding rates for
the other two mobile operators have a significant reduction.

Table 9
Market Share Based on the Revenue, Adapted from Greek Mobile Companies

Mobile Companies Year 2008 Year 2009

Cosmote 38,8% 45,1%
Vodafone 36,2% 31,9%
Wind 25,0% 23,0%

By making the comparison between the results of measuring customer satisfaction and
market share data concerning the number of subscribers and the revenues, it can be seen that
there is a positive correlation. Cosmote shows an improvement in overall satisfaction levels
while at the same time it increased its market share in both categories of subscribers and revenue.
Similarly the other two companies show lower levels of satisfaction with simultaneous loss of
market share in both categories.

8. CONCLUSION – FUTURE RESEARCH

The presentation of this study is an attempt by researchers to examine the relationship between
customer satisfaction and market share of three companies operating in the Greek mobile
market. It is apparent from the results that there is a positive correlation between the changes
in customer satisfaction level and market share of mobile phone companies in a homogenous
market. Future research will examine results of three successive six-month surveys, attempting
to evaluate also the relationship between customer satisfaction and other business and financial
results.

REFERENCE
[1] Aaker D.A. and Jacobson R. (1994). “The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality”, Journal
of Marketing Research, 31, May, pp. 191-201.
[2] Anderson E.W., Sullivan M.W. (1993). “The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction
for Firms”, Marketing Science, 12 No. Spring, pp. 125-43.
[3] Anderson E.W., Fornell C. and Lehmann D.R. (1994). “Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth”,
Journal of Service Marketing, 1(1), pp. 5-17.
[4] Anderson E.W., Fornell C. and Rust R.T. (1997). “Customer Satisfaction, Productivity, and Profitability:
Differences Between Goods and Services”, Marketing Science, 16(2), pp. 129-145.
[5] Anderson E.W., Mittal V. (2000). “Strengthening the Satisfaction-profit Chain”, Journal of Service
Research, 3(2), pp. 107-20.
[6] Bearden W.O. and Jesse E. Teel (1983). “Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint
Reports”, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, February, 21-28.
 102 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

[7] Bolton R.N., Drew J.H. (1991). “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer
Attitudes”, Journal of Marketing, 55(1), pp. 1-10.
[8] Bolton R.N. (1998). “A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s Relationship with a
Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction”, Marketing Science, 17(1), pp. 45-65.
[9] Boshoff C. and Gray B. (2004). “The Relationship Between Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and
Buying Intentions in the Private Hospital Industry”, South Africa Journal Business Management, 35(4),
pp. 112-115.
[10] Buzzell R.D., Gale B.T. (1987). “The PIMS Principles”, Free Press, New York, NY.
[11] Chaudhuri A. and Holbrook M.B. (2001). “The Chain of Effects From Brand Trust and Brand Affect
to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, 65, (April), pp. 81-93.
[12] Churchill G. A. and Surprenant (1982). “An Investigation Into the Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), pp. 491-504.
[13] Crosby P. (1979). “Quality is Free”, New York: McGraw-Hill.
[14] Davies G., Chun R., Da Silva R.V., Roper S. (2002). “Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness”,,
Routledge, London.
[15] Deming W.E. (1982). “Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position”, Cambridge, MA: MIT Center
for Advanced Engineering Study.
[16] Deschamps J.P., Nayak P.R., (1995). “Product Juggernauts: How Companies Mobilize to Generate a
Stream of Market Winners”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
[17] Engel J.F. and Blackwell R.D. (1982). “Consumer Behaviour”, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
[18] Fornell C. (1992). “A National Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience”, Journal of Marketing,
56, pp. 6-21.
[19] Fornell C., Johnson M.D., Anderson E.W., Cha J., Bryant B.E. (1996). “The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose and Findings”, Journal of Marketing, 60, pp. 7-18.
[20] Fournier S., (1998). “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research”, Journal of Consumer Research 22, pp. 343-373.
[21] Gale B. (1992). “Monitoring Customer Satisfaction and Market Perceived Quality”, Worth Repeating
Series, N. 922CS01, American Marketing Association Chicago, IL.
[22] Gerson R.F. (1993). “Measuring Customer Satisfaction: A Guide to Managing Quality Service”, Crisp
Publications, Menlo Park.
[23] Gounaris S.P., Avlonitis J.G., Kouremenos A., Papavassiliou N., Papathastopoulou P., (2002). “Market
Share and Customer Satisfaction: What is the Missing Link?”, Journal of Euromarketing, 10(4), pp. 61-82.
[24] Grigoroudis E. and Siskos Y., (2002). “Preference Disaggregation for Measuring and Analysing Customer
Satisfaction: The MUSA Method”, European Journal of Operational Research, 143, pp. 148-170.
[25] Grigoroudis E., J. Malandrakis, J. Politis, and Siskos Y., (1999). “Customer Satisfaction Measurement:
An Application to the Greek Shipping Sector”, 5th International Conference of the Decision Sciences
Institute, “Integrating Technology and Human Decisions: Global Bridges into the 21st Century”, July 1999,
Athens, Greece.
[26] Grigoroudis E. and Y. Siskos (2010). “Customer Satisfaction Evaluation: Methods for Measuring and
Implementing Service Quality”, Springer, New York.
[27] Griliches Z., (1971). “Price Indices and Quality Change”, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[28] Gustafsson A. and Johnson M.D., (2002). “Measuring and Managing the Satisfaction-loyalty-Performance
Links at Volvo”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 10(3), March, pp. 249-58.
The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 103

[29] Gustafsson A., Johnson D., Roos I. (2005). “The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship
Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention”, Journal of Marketing, 69, pp. 210-218.
[30] Hallowell R. (1996). “The Relationships of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, and Profitability:
an Empirical Study”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(1), pp. 27-42.
[31] Hayes B.E., (1992). “Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Development and Use of Questionnaire”, ASQC
Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
[32] Hellofs L. and Jacobson R. (1999). “Market Share and Customers’ Perceptions of Quality: When Can
Firms Grow their Way to Higher Versus Lower Quality”? Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 16-25.
[33] Hennig-Thurau T., Gwinner K.P., Gremler D. (2002). “Understanding Relationship Marketing
Outcomes: An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship Quality”, Journal of Service Research,
5(2), pp. 230-47.
[34] Heskett J.L., Jones T.O., Loveman G.W., Sasser W.E. and Schlesinger L.A., (1994). “Putting the Service
Profit Chain to Work”, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 105-11.
[35] Howard J.A. and Sheth J. (1969). “The Theory of Buyer Behaviour”, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
[36] Hunt H.K. (1977). “Customer Satisfaction/dissatisfaction: Overview and Future Research Directions,
in: H.K. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction”,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge. MA.
[37] Ittner C. and Larckner D.F. (1996). “Measuring the Impact of Quality Initiatives on Firm Financial
Performance”, in Ghosh, S. and Fedor, D. (Eds), Advances in the Management of Organisational Quality,
1, JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-37.
[38] Ittner C., Larcker D.F. (1998). “Are Non-financial Measures Leading Indicators of Financial Performance?
An Analysis of Customer Satisfaction”, Journal of Accounting Research, Supplement, 36, pp. 1-35.
[39] Jacobson R. and Aaker D.A. (1987). “The Strategic Role of Product Quality”. Journal of Marketing 51,
pp. 31-44.
[40] Jacquet-Lagreze E., Siskos J. (1982). “Assesing a Set of Additive Utility Functions for Multicriteria
Decision-making: The UTA Method”, Journal of Operational Research, 10(2), 1982, pp. 151-164.
[41] Jones T.O and Sasser W.E, (1995). “Why Satisfied Customers Defect”, Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 88-99.
[42] Juran J.M. (1988). “Juran’s Quality Control Handbook”, 4th ed., New York: McGraw Hill.
[43] Krassadaki E., Grigoroudis E., Matsatsinis N.F., and Siskos Y. (2002). “The Evaluation of Studies and
Training in Information Technology: A Multicriteria Approach”, Operational Research: An International
Journal, 2(3), pp. 321-338.
[44] Lancaster K. (1979). “Variety, Equity, and Efficiency”, New York: Columbia University Press.
[45] Manolitzas P., Yannakopoulos D., Tsotsolas N., and Drosos D. (2010). “Evaluating the Public Sector in
Greece: The Case of Citizens Service Centers”, 4th European Conference on Information Management
and Evaluation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 9-10 September 2010, Proceedings, pp.
250-256.
[46] Mihelis G., Grigoroudis E., Siskos Y., Politis Y. and Malandrakis Y. (2001). “Customer Satisfaction
Measurement in the Private Bank Sector”, European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), pp. 347-360.
[47] Mittal V., Kamakura W. (2001). “Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating
the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), pp. 131-142.
[48] Mittal V., Kumar P., Tsiros M. (1999). “Attribute-level Performance, Satisfaction, and Behavioral
Intentions Over Time: A Consumption-system Approach”, Journal of Marketing, 63(2), pp. 88-101.
 104 International Journal of Engineering and Management (IJEM)

[49] Nelson, E., Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A., Rose, R.L., Batalden, P. and Siemanski, B. (1992), “Do Patient
Perceptions of Quality Relate to Hospital Financial Performance?”, Journal of Healthcare Marketing,
December, pp. 1-13.
[50] Oliver R.L. (1980). “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, November, pp. 460-469.
[51] Oliver R.L., DeSarbo W. (1988). “Response Determinants in Satisfaction Judgments”, Journal of Consumer
Research, 14(4), pp. 495-507.
[52] Oliver Richard L. and John E. Swan (1989). “Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and
Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach”, Journal of Marketing, 53, April, pp. 21-35.
[53] Oliver R.L. (1996). “Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Customer”, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
[54] Oliver R.L., (1999). “Whence Consumer Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 33-44.
[55] Rust R.T., Zahorik A.J. (1993). “Customer Satisfaction, Customer Retention, and Market Share”, Journal
of Retailing, 69(2), pp. 193-215.
[56] Rust R.T., Zahorik A.J. and Keiningham T.L. (1995). “Return on Quality (ROQ): Making Service
Quality Financially Accountable”, Journal of Marketing, 59(2), pp. 58-70.
[57] Rust R.T., Moorman C. and Dickson P.R. (2002). “Getting Return on Quality: Revenue Expansion,
Cost Reduction, or Both”? Journal of Marketing, 66, October, pp. 7-24.
[58] Schneider B., (1991). “Service Quality and Profits: Can You Have Your Cake and Eat It Too?” Human
Resource Planning, 14, pp. 151-157.
[59] Shoultz D., (1989). “Service Firms Are Customer Driven: Study”. American Banker, February 23, pp.
17-18.
[60] Siskos J. and Yannacopoulos D. (1985). “Utastar: An Ordinal Regression Method for Building Additive
Value Functions”, Investigacao Operacional, 5(1), pp. 39-53.
[61] Siskos Y. and Grigoroudis, E., (2002). “Measuring Customer Satisfaction for Various Services Using
Multicriteria Analysis, in: Aiding Decisions with Multiple Criteria”. Essays in Honor of Bernard Roy,
D. Bouyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagreze, P. Perny, R. Slowinski, D. Vanderpooten and P. Vincke (Eds.), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 457-482.
[62] Tornow W. and Wiley Jack W., (1991). “Service Quality and Management Practices: A Look at Employee
Attitudes”, Customer Satisfaction and Bottom-Line Consequences. Human Resource Planning 14, pp. 105-115.
[63] Tse D.K. and Wilton P. C. (1988). “Models of Consumer Satisfaction: An Extension”, Journal of Marketing
Research, 25(2), pp. 204-212.
[64] Tsintarakis C., Siskos Y. and Grigoroudis E. (2001). “Customer Satisfaction Evaluation for Greek Organic
Wine”, 72nd European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAEE) Seminar “Organic Food Marketing
Trends”, June 2001, Chania, Greece.
[65] Vavra T.G. (1997). “Improving Your Measurement of Customer Satisfaction: A Guide to Creating,
Conducting, Analyzing, and Reporting Customer Satisfaction Measurement Programs”, ASQC Quality
Press, Milwaukee.
[66] Walsh G., Dinnie K. Wiedmann K.P. (2006). “How do Corporate Reputation and Customer Satisfaction
Impact Customer Defection? A Study of Private Energy Customers in Germany”, Journal of Services
Marketing, 20(6), pp. 412-420.
[67] Westbrook R.A. and M.D. Reilly (1983). “Value-percept Disparity: An Alternative to the Disconfirmation
of Expectations Theory of Customer Satisfaction”, in: R.P. Bagozzi and A.M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 256-261.
 The Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Market Share: The Case of Mobile Sector in Greece 105

[68] Wiley Jack W. (1991). “Customer Satisfaction: A Supportive Work Environment and Its Financial
Costs”. Human Resource Planning, 14, pp. 117-127.
[69] Yi Y. (1991). “A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction, in: V. A. Zeithaml (Ed.)”, Review of Marketing,
American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL.
[70] Zeithaml V.A. (2000). “Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic Worth of Customers: What We
Know and What We Need to Learn”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), pp. 67-8.

View publication stats