Colgate 2001

Journal of Consumer Marketing
Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the financial services industry

Mark Colgate, Bodo Lang,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mark Colgate, Bodo Lang, (2001) "Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the financial services industry",
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 Issue: 4, pp.332-347, https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110393001
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110393001
Downloaded on: 19 September 2017, At: 03:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 37 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5431 times since 2006*
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:43 19 September 2017 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2003),"The influence of satisfaction, trust and switching barriers on customer retention in a continuous purchasing
setting", International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 Iss 4 pp. 374-395 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09564230310489231">https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310489231</a>
(2000),"An exposition of consumer behaviour in the financial services industry", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18
Iss 1 pp. 15-26 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320010315325">https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320010315325</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
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.

An executive summary for
managers and executive Switching barriers in consumer
readers can be found at the
end of this article markets: an investigation of the
financial services industry
Mark Colgate
Senior Lecturer, Department of Marketing, The University of
Auckland, New Zealand
Bodo Lang
Lecturer, Department of Marketing, The University of Auckland
Business School, Auckland, New Zealand
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Services marketing, Barriers, Financial services

Abstract Much research looks at why customers switch service organizations but there
has been less focus on why customers do not switch service organizations, even though
they have seriously considered doing so. In light of this, we present an analysis of the
literature and develop a list of potential switching barriers. These switching barriers
are then empirically tested within two financial services industries. Results from over
400 consumers enable us to ascertain not only the importance of each switching barrier
but also to develop a more parsimonious understanding of these barriers, through

factor analysis. The results reveal similar patterns in the two industries in respect to
switching barriers. The first of the four factors contains reasons related to apathy, the
second factor contains negative reasons for customers staying with their current service
provider, the third factor relates to relationship variables and the final factor relates to
service recovery. Results clearly indicate that the first two factors are far more
important than the latter two in terms of why customers stay even when they seriously
considered leaving.
Introduction
Much research looks at why customers switch service organizations
(Keaveney, 1995; Levesque and McDougall, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 1996)
and its importance (Fornell and Wernerfelt, 1987; Mittal and Lassar, 1998;
Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Yet there has been little research that looks at
why customers do not switch service organizations. This is an important area
of research for several reasons.
Point of view First, from an academic point of view a comprehensive understanding of the
switching process requires not only an understanding of why consumers
switch but also an awareness of why they do not switch. That is, consumers
frequently go through a cognitive process where they decide to either stay or
leave a service organization, what we call a ``switching dilemma''. This
research looks at the decision to stay and the reasons behind it. In this respect
we are focusing on a missing element in consumer research in a services
context. Second, for those firms which have many prospective switchers as
part of their customer base it is important to understand why these customers
stay and to what extent such firms can further discourage such customers
from leaving (in both positive and negative ways). Finally, for those services
firms which are looking to attract these prospective switchers (e.g. new
entrants into the market), an understanding of why customers do not switch
is important, as it will enable them to develop strategies to overcome these
switching barriers and gain market share.
The research register for this journal is available at

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
332 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001, pp. 332-347, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761
A two-stage research process was developed to ascertain the reasons why
consumers decide to stay with their current service provider even though
they have seriously considered switching to another provider. Initially, a
literature review was undertaken to unearth the constructs that other
researchers have suggested act as switching barriers. The second stage
explores, through empirical research, the underlying structure of these
barriers and their importance in respect of a consumer's decision to stay with
their service provider. The idea behind this stage is to validate empirically
the switching barriers proposed within the literature but which have not been
tested. The paper then concludes with implications for both academics and
managers alike.
Literature review
Switching barriers The aim of the literature review was to identify switching barriers and
synthesise these to develop broad categories in respect to why consumers
stay with service organizations even though they have seriously considered
switching. Both the product and services literature are analysed to develop a
comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior in this area.
Relationship investment
Relationship marketing has received increasing attention from both
academics and practitioners due to the potential benefits for both firms and
their customers (Colgate and Danaher, 2000). Due to the potential benefits a
body of literature has emerged indicating that investment into a relationship
may be one reason consumers stay with their service provider. For example,
Gwinner et al. (1998) argue that consumers will commit themselves to
establishing, developing, and maintaining relationships with a service
provider that provide superior valued benefits. They discovered that
consumers receive many benefits from developing relationships and that
these benefits could be classified into confidence, social, and special
treatment benefits. Gwinner et al. (1998) found that even if a consumer
perceives the core service attributes as being less than optimal, they may
remain in a relationship if they are receiving important relational benefits.
Relationship-specific Berry and Parasuraman (1991) also suggest that effective relationship-
investments specific investments increase customers' dependency because they raise the
costs of switching to competitors. By switching to a competitor, the customer
would lose the benefits from the relationship-specific investments not readily
available from the competitors.
Jones et al. (2000) also discovered an indirect empirical link between
interpersonal relationships and repurchase intentions. This link suggested
that, in situations of low customer satisfaction, strong interpersonal
relationships positively influence the extent to which customers intend to
repurchase. These results suggest that relationships do act as a barrier to
switching.
Switching costs
Switching costs are another category of switching barriers that emerge from
an analysis of the literature. These costs are defined as the cost of changing
services in terms of time, monetary and psychological costs (Dick and Basu,
1994; Guiltinan, 1989; Sengupta et al., 1997). Switching costs can also
create a dependence of the consumer on the provider (Morgan and Hunt,
1994). Switching costs may come in the form of termination costs from the
current service provider to joining costs with the alternative service provider.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 333

Gronhaug and Gilly (1991) argue that a dissatisfied customer may remain
``loyal'' because of high switching costs. For example, moving to a new
service provider requires investing effort, time and money, which acts as a
significant barrier to a consumer taking action when dissatisfied with the
current service provider. Ping (1993) examined the relationship between
switching costs and customer loyalty, and discovered that when customers
perceive the switching costs associated with leaving the current relationship
and establishing the alternative to be high they tend to be ``loyal''.
Perceived risk Switching costs also relate to perceived risk, which is defined as ``the
consumer's perception of the uncertainty and adverse consequences of
buying a product [or service]'' (Dowling and Staelin, 1994, p. 119). This is
conceptualised as the likelihood of negative consequences (i.e. danger, loss,
etc.). Perceived risk represents consumers' uncertainty about loss or gain in a
particular transaction and has six components (e.g. Murray, 1991; Murry and
Schlacter, 1990): financial, performance, social, psychological, safety, and
time/convenience loss. We can see that these are similar to the time,
monetary and psychological switching costs, referred to earlier, when safety,
social and performance risk are included under the broader psychological
descriptor.
Clearly, switching costs seem to be an important reason not to switch service
providers as many researchers have proposed the existence and significance
of these barriers. Hence, they form an integral part of this study.
Availability and attractiveness of alternatives

The number of alternative providers, as perceived by the consumer, may also
influence a decision to remain with a service provider. First, there may not be
many or any alternatives due the structure of the industry, e.g. monopoly.
Second, consumers may perceive that there are few alternatives in the market
because of the fact that many of the alternatives are not in their evoked set.
This is supported by Bendapudi and Berry (1997) who propose that
consumers might remain in a relationship because they perceive no
alternative. Therefore, repeat purchase behaviour may not indicate loyalty
from consumers, but merely a lack of alternatives or no perceived differences
between alternatives (e.g. Bejou and Palmer, 1998; Ping, 1993; Andreasen,
1985; Szmigin and Bourne, 1998). This perception may mean that it may not
be considered worthwhile switching from one service provider to another.
Service provider Anderson and Narus (1990) also suggest that a consumer might be dependent
on a service provider because of the lack of superior competition in the
marketplace. So even though consumers are not satisfied with their current
provider they stay because it is still better than the alternatives. In summary,
it seems likely that the presence of alternatives, some of which need to be at
least as good as the current provider, may play a major role in a consumer's
decision to stay or leave.
Service recovery
The final category unearthed in the literature, which relates to reasons why
customers may stay with their current service provider is service recovery.
Service recovery includes all the activities and efforts employed by a service
organization to rectify, amend, and restore the loss experienced by the
customer following a service failure (GroÈnroos, 1988).
Consumers may stay with a service provider after they have experienced a
problem with them because they were satisfied with the service recovery
process after they had complained. This is the optimal situation for service
334 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

providers who encounter a complaining customer (Zemke, 1993). A service
recovery strategy is recognised as a crucial element in achieving long-term
customer satisfaction for services firms (Tax et al., 1998).
Customers who have experienced a problem will usually be dissatisfied,
although this level of dissatisfaction varies based on the severity of the
problem. Successful service recovery can reverse this dissatisfaction and can
sometimes lead to the customer being more satisfied than prior to the
problem, a phenomenon called the ``service recovery paradox'' (Smith and
Bolton, 1998). In this way, good service recovery can lead to customers
changing their mind about switching from their service provider. Hence,
service recovery is included as an important switching barrier in this study.
Summary of literature
Individual issues None of above literature has sought to classify why customers do not switch
(after a switching dilemma) into one overall study. Rather, research has
focused on individual issues (such as relationship investment) and few
studies are empirically based. Importantly, no research has asked consumers
the reasons for staying with a service provider after they have seriously
considered switching (i.e. after they have been through a switching

dilemma). Asking consumers why they might not switch before they have
considered doing so may lead to reliability problems. For example, Jones
et al. (2000) ask `ìf you were thinking of switching what would stop you
from switching'', which leads customers to speculate rather than identifying
the real reasons that prevent customers from switching providers.
In light of this gap, this paper has analysed the literature and drawn out four
major categories: relationship investment, switching costs, availability of
alternatives and service recovery. These four categories are then examined
through responses from consumers who have recently seriously considered
switching from their current service provider. This leads to the following
research questions:
(1) To what extent are the four major categories of switching barriers
(relationship investment, switching costs, availability of alternatives and
service recovery) substantiated across these two service industries?
(2) What is the relative importance of these categories in respect to why
customers do not switch, even though they have seriously considered
doing so?
Methodology
Design
Cross-sectional survey A cross-sectional survey design was adopted which questioned respondents
from two industries; the retail insurance industry and retail banking industry
within New Zealand. Each survey was sent out to two separate samples as
the questionnaires were tailored to the unique aspects of the industry.
Respondents received two items; a booklet and a reply-paid envelope
making it easier for consumers to respond. The booklet consisted of eight
pages, the first page being a cover letter explaining the relevance of the
survey and what to do with the completed survey. The remainder of the
booklet contained a self-completion questionnaire including instructions on
how to fill out the questionnaire. One section of the survey was used to
investigate only those respondents who had previously ``seriously considered
switching'' from their main[1] insurance company or bank but had decided
to stay, and the reasons for this decision. This section enabled the
investigation of this study's two research questions.

Sample
To select respondents, a proportionally stratified probability sampling
method was used. This method carries several advantages. First, stratified
sampling is a very efficient method, resulting in lower standard deviations
and higher confidence in any estimated values. Second, employing this
method ensures that different regions of New Zealand (sub-populations)
were represented. Within each sub-population a systematic sampling method
(i.e. select every ``nth'' data point), was used to select consumers.
Questionnaires The details of 4,456 consumers were acquired from an electronic version of
all New Zealand telephone books. From the 4,456 questionnaires sent out,
263 (9.8 per cent) were returned as ``return to sender'' in the banking
industry and 175 (9.8 per cent) in the insurance industry. This left 2,425 valid
questionnaires for the banking industry and 1,593 for the insurance industry
that were sent out. To reduce non-response bias, a second mailing was made
to non-respondents from the first mailing. In total 1,346 usable banking
questionnaires were received, resulting in a response rate of 55.5 per cent
and 580 (36.4 per cent) for the insurance industry. The difference in response
rates is attributable to two factors. First, although penetration of insurance
products is high (around 85 per cent of all New Zealanders have at least one
insurance product) it is not as high as bank accounts, where 96 per cent of the
population has a cheque account. Second, banking seems to generate higher
levels of involvement. For example, in this study the average involvement
score for Zaichowsky's (1994) five-point scale was 2.24 (out of 7, where 1 is
highly involved) for banking and 3.04 for insurance. It is reasonable to
assume that consumers are more likely to respond to surveys on services they
are more involved in.
Measurements
Major objective The major objective of the study was to identify the reasons why consumers
decide not to switch from their main bank or insurance company, even
though they seriously considered moving. Therefore, respondents were asked
whether they ``have ever seriously considered moving from their main bank
(insurance company) but ended up staying''. This question and its wording is
important as it enables us to create a sample of ``considered switchers'' and it
also avoids any behavioural intention issues. That is, this group has
considered switching and it is not, therefore, a reflection of what they plan to
do in the future. Research that asks consumers what they plan to do in the
future has been proven to be a less than accurate reflection of what customers
actually do (cf. Zeithaml et al., 1996). This study investigates those
customers who have actually seriously considered switching ± but stayed ±
so that it reflects past, not future, behaviour. The word ``serious'' was an
important inclusion in the question as it ensures that the people included in
the sample have spent time consciously considering switching.
Respondents in this sample were then asked how long ago they seriously
considered moving, why they considered moving (i.e. what triggered this
decision process) and, most importantly, why they did not move. This final
question contained 11 categories as to why a consumer may not move after
they have seriously considered doing so, and also an additional open-ended
category for those respondents whose answers did not fit the closed-ended
questions. The 11 categories were based on the above literature review and
contained five questions on relational investment (social bonds, confidence
benefits and special treatment), three questions on switching costs
(psychological, financial and time), one on service recovery and two

questions on the attractiveness of alternatives. The actual questions used in
the survey can be seen in Table I.
Results
Descriptive analysis
Retail banking industry The results from the retail banking industry reveal that 41 per cent (549) of the
total sample has seriously considered leaving their main bank at some stage
and 22 per cent (295) did so in the last year. It was decided that only those
customers who had seriously considered leaving their bank in the last year
would be used, as past research has shown that more recent events have more
accurate levels of recollection (Sudman and Bradburn, 1973). This resulted in
a reduced but still adequate sample of 295 respondents. In the insurance
industry 27 per cent of respondents (154 of those sampled) had seriously
considered switching their main insurance company at any stage, 9 per cent
(52) in the last year, 10 per cent (57) 1-2 years ago and the rest (8 per cent or
45) over two years ago. The sample used in the insurance industry for the
subsequent analysis are those customers who have seriously considered
moving in the last two years, not the last year as in the banking sample.
Although it would have been preferable to use only those who have considered
switching in the last year, this sample was too small and thus the first two
categories were combined to give a sample of 109 respondents.
Analysis of those customers who have seriously considered switching
insurance companies compared to those who have not indicated that there are
no differences in terms of age, gender, income, education level or ethnicity.
However, those customers who have seriously considered moving banks
tended to be younger (Chi square = 44.43, p = 0.00), had higher incomes
(Chi square = 37.32, p = 0.00) and a higher level of education (Chi square =
23.186, p = 0.01) than those who had not seriously considered moving.
Prospective switchers These prospective switchers also exhibit extreme levels of dissatisfaction
compared to those who have not seriously considered moving. For example
only 4 per cent of those customers who have not seriously considered
moving in the retail-banking sample are dissatisfied and 81 per cent satisfied,
compared to 39 per cent and 22 per cent respectively for those customers
who have seriously considered moving in the last year. A comparison of the
two groups in the insurance industry reveals similar findings. Only 2 per cent
Switching barrier
categories Switching barrier variables
Relational I have confidence that my bank/insurance company provides the
investments best deal
My bank/insurance company knows my needs
Staff know me
I receive preferential treatment from my main bank/insurance
company
I feel a sense of loyalty to my main bank/insurance company
Switching costs Too much bother in terms of time and effort
I was concerned about negative financial outcomes
I feel locked in because of the products I have with the bank/
insurance company
Service recovery A complaint that I had was resolved
Attractiveness of All banks/insurance companies are the same
alternatives I was uncertain of the outcome if I changed
Table I. Switching barrier variables used in survey

of those insurance customers who have not seriously considered moving at
all are dissatisfied and 82 per cent satisfied, compared to 12 per cent and 51
per cent respectively.
Those customers who have seriously considered leaving their main bank also
tended to search actively for information about alternatives. Over 35 per cent
of those customers who had considered switching collected material to
compare prices and information about the competition. Another 28 per cent
asked friends and family and other acquaintances for advice about
alternatives. The rest just considered switching but did not actively seek
information about what to do next. The results were similar for retail
insurance customers but with 52 per cent comparing information from
different companies, and 19 per cent asking friends and family for advice.
Decision-making process These results and the fact that consumers were asked to state whether they
seriously considered switching suggests that respondents had begun to go
through a decision-making process, and collecting information was a first
step in this process, and were not just thinking of leaving in passing. This
indicates an active, rather than passive, state of mind. This increases
confidence in the validity of the responses to the main questions this research
sought to answer. Why do consumers not switch service providers, how can
we classify these reasons and how important are these different reasons?
Classification of switching barriers

Banking industry
Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the dimensionality of the
reasons why customers do not switch banks and thus determine the relevance
of categories unearthed in the literature. A common factor analysis with
Varimax rotation was undertaken for the 11 items in the retail banking
survey. Evaluation of the Eigenvalues and screeplot indicated a four-factor
solution, which explained 67 per cent of variation in the items. Tests
suggested that the overall factor solution adequately accounted for the
underlying structure of the data (Bartlett's Test of Sphericity p-value =
0.000, KMO statistic = 0.671). The final factor solution is represented in
Table II.
Problems Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
I receive preferential treatment from my
main bank/insurance company 0.624
I feel a sense of loyalty to my main bank/
insurance company 0.718
I have confidence that my bank/insurance
company provides the best deal 0.856
My bank/insurance company knows my
needs 0.867
I was concerned about negative financial
outcomes 0.660
I feel locked in because of the products I
have with the bank/insurance company 0.828
I was uncertain of the outcome if I
changed 0.558
Too much bother in terms of time and
effort 0.819
All banks/insurance companies the same 0.698
A complaint that I had was resolved 0.846
Note: ``Staff know me'' variable was deleted due to insufficient loading
Table II. Rotated factor solution for retail banking respondents

The first factor accounted for 24 per cent of the variation in the data, and
related to relationship issues such as loyalty, staff knows my needs,
preferential treatment and receiving the best deal, and very much fits with
the Gwinner et al. (1998) relationship classification. In light of this it was
labelled ``relationship investment'' as it relates to the fact that some
customers are not willing to leave due to the effort that has been made in
developing the relationship between themselves and their bank.
``Negativity'' The second factor was named ``negativity'', and explained 15 per cent of the
variance. Items in this factor were all related to negative reasons as to why
customers might stay ± such as being locked in, being concerned about
negative financial consequences and uncertainty about the outcome of
switching to another provider.
The third factor also explained 15 per cent of the variation and was labelled
`àpathy'' as it was made up of two variables relating to the fact that the
status quo seemed more appealing. These variables were `àll banks are the
same, so no better off'' and ``too much bother in terms of time and effort''.
The final factor accounted for 13 per cent of the variance and is concerned
with one variable only ± satisfactory handling of a customer complaint.

Thus, this factor is called ``service recovery''. The variable ``staff know me''
did not load on any factor (the cut-off was 0.5 for factor loading, as Hair et
al. (1995) suggest this is a reasonable cut-off for a sample size of over 100)
and was thus deleted.
Insurance industry
Retail insurance industry In terms of the retail insurance industry data a Varimax rotation on the 11
items was also undertaken. Evaluation of the Eigenvalues and screeplot
indicated a four-factor solution, which explained 69 per cent of variation in
the items. Tests suggested that the overall factor solution was adequately
accounting for the underlying structure of the data (Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity p-value = 0.000, KMO statistic = 0.678). The final factor solution
is represented in Table III. Overall, the factor structure and its components
are very similar to the retail banking industry data.
The first factor accounted for 23 per cent of the variation in the data, and
related to the same relationship issues contained in the first factor of the
Problems Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

I feel a sense of loyalty to my main bank/
insurance company 0.760
I have confidence that my bank/insurance
company provides the best deal 0.782
My bank/insurance company knows my needs 0.819
Staff know me 0.605
I was concerned about negative financial
outcomes 0.813
I feel locked in because of the products I have
with the bank/insurance company 0.704
I was uncertain of the outcome if I changed 0.806
A complaint that I had was resolved 0.898
Too much bother in terms of time and effort 0.619
All banks/insurance companies the same 0.876
Note: `Ì receive preferential treatment'' from my main bank/insurance company
variable was deleted
Table III. Rotated factor solution for retail insurance respondents

retail banking analysis. The only difference was the addition of the ``staff
know me'' variable and the deletion of the variable ``preferential treatment''
as it did not load on any factor. Due to its similarity to the equivalent factor
in the banking sample this factor was also named ``relationship investment''.
The second factor was also named ``negativity'' and explained 19 per cent of
the variance. Items in this factor were identical to the second factor in retail
banking data. The third factor accounted for 13 per cent of the variance and
is identical to the fourth factor in the retail banking results; hence it is called
``service recovery''. The final factor also explained 13 per cent of the
variation and was labelled `àpathy'' as it was akin to the third factor in the
retail banking data.
Switching barriers Although creating a classification of the switching barriers is useful, and it is
interesting to note similar factor structures in both industries, an
understanding of the importance of these categories is also valuable. This is
because it enables us to assess the relative significance of the factors in
relation to the reasons prohibiting consumers from leaving their service
provider.
In order to determine the relative importance of the derived factors on a

consumer's decision not to switch, the mean importance rating was derived
for each factor. These importance scores were calculated by averaging the
mean scores of the items within each factor. This technique has previously
been adopted in research assessing the importance weightings of factors in
other service contexts (Gwinner et al., 1998). Tables IV and V provide the
mean importance ratings for each of the four factors and for their component
items.
`Àpathy'' As the tables show in both markets, the `àpathy'' factor was the largest
switching barrier, with ``too much bother'' being the biggest single reason
within this factor and also the joint most important reason out of the 11 items
in the insurance market and second most important single reason in the
banking market. Clearly, therefore, customer inertia is a major barrier for
Problem factors Mean

Factor 1: Relationship investment 1.95
Feel loyalty towards bank 2.02
Receive preferential treatment 1.77
Bank knows needs 2.02
Confidence of best deal 1.98
Factor 2: Negativity 2.74

Concerned about negative outcomes 2.91
Feel locked in 2.68
Uncertainty if changed 2.64
Factor 3: Apathy 2.82

All banks same 2.74
Too much bother 2.90
Factor 4: Service recovery 1.97

Complaint resolved 1.97
Note: Means based on a scale of relative importance weighting (1 = strongly disagree
to 4 = strongly agree)
Table IV. Comparison of factor means: retail banking

Problem factors Mean
Factor 1: Relationship investment 2.31
Feel loyalty towards insurance company 2.28
Staff know me 2.13
Insurance company knows needs 2.37
Confidence of best deal 2.46
Factor 2: Negativity 2.48

Concerned about negative outcomes 2.77
Feel locked in 2.12
Uncertainty if changed 2.55
Factor 3: Service recovery 2.07

Complaint resolved 2.07
Factor 4: Apathy 2.69

All insurance companies same 2.61
Too much bother 2.77
Note: Means based on a scale of relative importance weighting (1 = strongly disagree
to 4 = strongly agree)
Table V. Comparison of factor means: retail insurance
service organizations to overcome if they are looking to attract customers

away from a poor performing competitor.
The second most important factor in both industries was ``negativity'' ± the
potential for the customer to lose in some way if they switched firms. Being
concerned about financial negative outcomes drove this factor and was also
the biggest single reason in both markets. Uncertainty of change was also
prominent in this factor. Finally, ``feel locked in'' was a less significant
variable in the retail insurance industry compared to the retail banking
industry. This is probably to do with the fact that the barriers to exit are much
lower for an insurance policy than for switching banks, given the potential
complexity and time involved (e.g. changing salary details, direct debits,
etc.).
Relationship investment The third most important factor in the insurance industry and the last (by a
small margin) in the banking industry was relationship investment. There are
clearly differences between the two markets here with insurance customers
believing that a much larger relationship investment has been made with
their company than bank customers. In particular, insurance customers
seemed to believe that they received the best deal with their current
company, but bank customers believed this to be less true. Bank customers
also believed that their bank did not understand their needs as well.
Regardless of the differences between the two markets, relationship
investment is still a much less important reason to stay for consumers in both
of these markets, relative to the negative and apathy factors.
Finally, service recovery did not seem to be a major switching barrier; this
could be due to three reasons: some consumers may not have a reason to
complain; not every customer complains when they receive a service failure;
and even when they do complain they may not necessarily receive a
satisfactory resolution.
Discussion
The above results are of significance as they raise some important academic
and managerial issues. First, the way the literature has described barriers to

switching contrasts with a customer-centric description of the reasons why
consumers don't switch, as presented in this paper.
For example, lack of alternatives, time and effort in terms of switching are
revealed as one `àpathy'' category in this paper, rather then the separate
categories proposed in the literature. Moreover, this factor was deemed the
most important from the customer's perspective, indicating that change that
seems too difficult, and potentially fruitless, is a significant barrier to
switching. From a managerial perspective this issue seems critical in these
industries ± how do competing organizations overcome this consumer apathy
that seems so prevalent? What strategies and tactics can be used to move
customers from the passive state of mind (i.e. considering switching but
staying) to the active (i.e. actually switching). Research into this area by both
managers and academics seems vital if this barrier is to be understood and
overcome.
Negative consequences Another category not found within the literature is ``negativity'', this factor
essentially relates to the possibility of negative consequences if the customer
switches firms. This factor contains psychological (such as uncertainty and
feeling locked in) and financial consequences. This is similar to the
switching costs category identified in the literature but more focused on the
negative outcomes typically associated with switching providers. This factor
was the second most important and highlights the value of managers
accentuating the positive and reducing uncertainty, when looking to attract
consumers. The negative financial outcomes may be more difficult to
overcome unless firms can give new customers price breaks as an
enticement.
One category of switching barriers that was consistent with the literature was
the relationship category. This was prominent in the literature and a clear
factor emerged within the analysis that contained only relationship elements.
Interestingly, this factor was not considered as important by customers as a
reason not to switch (particularly for banking consumers) ± negative factors
and apathy were much more important. This is notable given the multitude of
research that supports the relationship approach (cf Cram, 1994; Payne,
1994; Rust et al., 1994; Shani and Chalasani, 1992; Webster, 1994). It may
well be that the industries under analysis are particularly poor at developing
relationships and this reduces this barrier's significance. Alternatively,
consumers have seriously considered leaving because the relationship has
dissolved and hence it is a reason to leave rather than stay. Finally, it may be
that relationships are not as important to consumers as we first thought and
other factors ``tie'' the consumer to the organization. Clearly more research
is required here.
Service recovery factor Similarly, the service recovery factor is also consistent with the literature but
not rated as important. This factor suggests that when consumers seriously
consider leaving, service recovery does not really mediate the switching
process. Overall, it seems to play only a minor role. Undoubtedly one of the
reasons for this is that service recovery is not common, it is likely that only a
handful of situations will require service recovery. For example, in some
circumstances customers do not often complain (e.g. dissatisfaction with a
price increase) hence service recovery may not be required. However, other
factors could also be at work, such as poor complaint handling. This would
not be picked up in these results. The customer may have complained but
received poor service recovery and, hence, this did not influence their
decision to stay. It is likely that a combination of these factors is at work.

Further research may also be useful here in ascertaining exactly why service
recovery was not a more prominent factor.
Conclusion
Customers' switching behaviour and the reasons behind it have received
considerable attention in the past. This paper set out to investigate the
reverse of this phenomenon: the reasons why consumers, who have seriously
considered switching their service provider, stayed. There are many reasons
why this paper is important. First, empirically testing the reasons why
customers do not switch providers aids our understanding of consumer
switching behaviour. By identifying what factors reduce the likelihood of
switching we gain a better understanding of when customers are more or less
likely to switch service providers.
Factors Second, this research is not only the first empirical effort to validate the
numerous variables that are believed to have an impact on customer
switching behaviour but also combines these variables into factors. By doing
so, we have been able to validate the significance of certain variables, such
as perceived lack of alternatives and switching costs. While factor analysis
has enabled us to condense a large number of variables into a more

manageable number of categories, this process has also provided us with
insights into the underlying patterns of why customers do not switch
providers. Importantly, this paper has revealed the importance of a new
factor, termed ``negativity'', relating to the potential negative outcomes of
the switching process for the consumer.
Third, this paper has made a significant contribution by prioritising the four
factors that prohibit customers from switching service providers. Similar
patterns emerged in both industries. Interestingly, `àpathy'' was found to be
the most important in both the retail bank and retail insurance context.
Second most important was the newly-found factor, ``negativity'', further
underlining the academic contribution of this study.
Limitations Despite best intentions, there are limitations to this research. First, the
industries under analysis are similar in many respects and this may limit the
generalisability of results. Research in dissimilar industries such as doctors,
dentists, Internet service providers (ISPs) is strongly encouraged. Similarly,
studies in other countries would also be valuable to ascertain whether the
results are country specific. Finally, the categories that were used in this
study were taken from the literature and, even though there was an open-
ended question prompting respondents for further categories, it may be that
these categories were not exhaustive and alternative barriers may exist.
Overall, many parties should be interested in the above results. Organizations
that have low levels of customer satisfaction, and hence need to reinforce
barriers to switching, will hopefully start to understand the factors that
encourage customers to stay and build on them. Given that apathy and
negativity seem to be the most significant switching barriers, it seems
reasonable to recommend that these organizations need to build more
switching barriers such as financial barriers or increasing the number of
products customers hold, thus increasing the feeling of being ``locked in''.
This strategy is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term, however, as
having a large number of customers who feel ``trapped'' is likely to lead to
more negative word of mouth, lower acceptance of new products, less ability
to cross-sell, and many other negative outcomes relating to having
``terrorist'' customers (Jones and Sasser, 1995). A more sustainable approach

would be to understand why relationships are not barriers to switching and
build stronger relationship values, such as trust.
Managers from services organizations looking to attract customers away
from competitors will also benefit from an understanding of what keeps
potentially dissatisfied customers with a firm. Knowledge that apathy and
negative factors drive this decision will help these managers build
appropriate strategies to increase levels of customer acquisition. For
example, reducing the time it takes customers to switch or offering financial
incentives to switch could be more important than first thought.
Academic perspective From an academic perspective, this seems an under-researched area. This
research alone suggests that the numbers of consumers who seriously
consider switching but stay on an annual basis is large (22 per cent in the
banking example). Hence this topic is potentially as important as
understanding switching itself. The authors see more research that creates a
greater understanding of the switching barriers across additional industries as
being critical to the advancement of consumer marketing theory.
Note
1. A main bank was defined as the bank that respondents would use for most of their
transactions. A main insurance company was defined in terms of the company where the
customer had most policies. This was deemed necessary to ensure valid responses from
respondents, as they were likely to have a stronger impression of their main company
compared to a company they did little business with.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), `À model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working partnerships'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Andreasen, A.R. (1985), ``Consumer responses to dissatisfaction in loose monopolies'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, September, pp. 135-41.
Bejou, D. and Palmer, A. (1998), ``Service failure and loyalty: an exploratory empirical study
of airline customers'', Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), ``Customers' motivations for maintaining relationships
with service providers'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 223-47.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Service: Competing through Quality, The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Colgate, M. and Danaher, P. (2000), `Ìmplementing a customer relationship strategy: the
asymmetric impact of poor versus excellent execution'', Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 375-87.
Cram, T. (1994), The Power of Relationship Marketing: Keeping Customers for Life, Pitman
Publishing Ltd, London.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), ``Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Dowling, G. and Staelin, R. (1994), `À model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 119-34.
Fornell, C. and Wernerfelt, B. (1987), ``Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint
management: a theoretical analysis'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, November,
pp. 337-46.
Gronhaug, K. and Gilly, M.C. (1991), `À transaction cost approach to customer dissatisfaction
and complaint actions'', Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 165-83.
GroÈnroos, C. (1988), ``Service quality: the six criteria of good perceived service quality'',
Review of Business, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 10-13.
Guiltinan, J.P. (1989), `À classification of switching costs with implications for relationship
marketing'', in Childers, T.L., Bagozzi, R.P., Peter, J.P. (Ed.), 1989 AMA Winter
Educators' Conference: Marketing Theory and Practice, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 216-20.

Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), ``Relational benefits in services
industries: the customer's perspective'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-14.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S. (2000), ``Switching barriers and repurchase
intentions in services'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 259-74.
Jones, T. and Sasser, E. (1995), ``Why satisfied customers defect'', Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 88-96.
Keaveney, S.M. (1995), ``Customer switching behaviour in service industries: an exploratory
study'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, April, pp. 71-82.
Levesque, T.J. and McDougall, G.H.G. (1996), ``Customer dissatisfaction: the relationship
between types of problems and customer response'', Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 246-76.
Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998), ``Why customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction
versus loyalty'', Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-94.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), ``The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.
Murray, K.B. (1991), `À test of services marketing theory; consumer information acquisition
activities'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, January, pp. 10-25.
Murray, K.B. and Schlacter, J.L. (1990), ``The impact of services versus goods on consumers'
assessment of perceived risk and variability'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Payne, A. (1994), ``Relationship marketing: making the consumer count'', Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 29-31.
Ping, R.A. Jr (1993), ``The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting,
voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 320-52.
Reichheld, F.W. and Sasser, W.E. (1990), ``Zero defections: quality comes to services'',
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 105-10.
Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. and Keiningham, T.L. (1994), Return on Quality; Measuring the
Financial Impact of Your Company's Quest for Quality, Probus Publishing Company,
Chicago, IL.
Sengupta, S., Krapfel, R.E. and Pusateri, M.A. (1997), ``Switching costs in key account
relationships'', Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 9-16.
Shani, D. and Chalasani, S. (1992), `Èxploiting niches using relationship marketing'', Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 43-52.
Smith, A. and Bolton, R. (1998), `Àn experimental investigation of customer reactions to
service failure and recovery encounters: paradox or peril?'', Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-81.
Sudman, S. and Bradburn, N. (1973), `Èffects of time and memory factors on response in
surveys'', Journal of the American Statistical Association, December, pp. 805-15.
Szmigin, I. and Bourne, H. (1998), ``Consumer equity in relationship marketing'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 544-57.
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998), ``Customer evaluations of service
complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing'', Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62, April, pp. 60-76.
Webster, F. Jr (1994), Market Driven Management of Marketing, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), ``The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision and
application to marketing'', Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70.
Zeithaml V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), ``The behavioural consequences of
service quality'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.
Zemke R. (1993), ``The art of service recovery: fixing broken customers ± and keeping them
on your side'', in Scheuing, E. and Christopher, W. (Ed.), The Service Quality Handbook,
Amacom, pp. 463-76.
&

346
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

347
This summary has been Executive summary and implications for managers and
provided to allow managers executives
and executives a rapid
appreciation of the content
I really can't be bothered to change my bank
of this article. Those with a
It's all too much hassle. The bank may give lousy service but we're not
particular interest in the
changing banks because it means sorting out dozens of direct debits,
topic covered may then read
arranging for changes to the payroll at work, cancelling cheques and
the article in toto to take
dealing with the old bank who aren't about to rush about trying to help. And
advantage of the more
what's worse, we can't be sure the new bank will give us any better service.
comprehensive description
So we don't change and we put up with the queues, mistakes and
of the research undertaken
unhelpfulness of our current bank.
and its results to get the full
benefit of the material Colgate and Lang reveal that this `àpathy'', as they term it, is the biggest
present barrier to people switching supplier ± at least in the financial services
industry. There are other factors involved but this `àpathy'' is the biggest
influence keeping people from changing. As marketers we need to consider
how this finding should influence the way in which we communicate and
serve our customers. In addition we should look at ways to reduce the hassle
involved in switching, thereby allowing customers to join us from a
competitor.
However, the other factors that influence the decision not to switch ±
financial or psychological negatives, the strength of relationships and the
firm's ability to recover from service failure ± also need to be incorporated
into our marketing activities.
Service quality and good communications

Good service and the right communications are the first line of defence
against customers leaving. It is self-evident that the service performance of a
firm affects the relationship with customers and, where that performance is
good, the customer has less reason to look elsewhere to receive that service.
However, we cannot overlook the importance of communication with
customers as part of the service in toto.
The face-to-face contact over the bank counter may be great but if we send
poorly written letters we're undermining that good service. It is the complete
service that matters, not just the individual contacts with the customer. A
strong relationship makes for a better chance of keeping the customer ± but
it's not enough on its own.
Alongside the service and relationship elements, firms also create barriers to
switching by imposing financial penalties on switchers and through the
psychological barriers implicit in a long relationship. These barriers are very
significant and competitors have to overcome them if they are to succeed in
attracting customers to switch. Indeed, some companies do use the tactic of
paying financial penalties where they exist for switching customers.
Apathy ± why should I bother, it's not that important?

Removing the inertia that keeps people from switching ± and maintaining
that apathy ± represents the heart of switching or anti-switching strategies.
Put simply, encouraging customers to take the easy route and stay is a
sensible approach for firms. And, where we want to encourage people to
change, we need to take away the hassle and make the switch really easy.
Recently, I changed suppliers for gas and electricity. Why? Because my new
supplier not only was cheaper but offered to do all the leg work, sorting out
direct debits, billing and meter reading. All I had to do was sign the form. If

this company had not given that service I wouldn't have switched suppliers,
since I cannot spare the time to get all the details sorted out.
This approach ± removing the hassle barrier ± must bring advantages to the
``poacher''. And the current supplier has little defence, assuming that there
is no financial barrier to the switch. The only protection is a sense of loyalty
± or at least inertia ± or a lack of trust in the potential new supplier. Indeed,
Colgate and Lang suggest that raising the level of trust that consumers have
in the firm presents an additional defence against switching.
At the same time as we consider our response to switching customers we
should examine the profitability of those customers and the costs of keeping
them set against the costs of losing them. There is no reason to keep
customers when those customers do not provide a significant benefit to the
business. In some cases we might even be better off without them!
Customers will leave ± just don't make it easy for them

In the end we have to accept that customers will leave. And also that this
departure is not always our fault ± our service might have been great but it's
no good if the customer's moving to the other end of the country.
Nevertheless, we shouldn't make it easy for the customer to go and we should

make some effort to keep the customer.
We need to consider all the elements discussed above ± building barriers
through the structure of the product, in the complexity of the relationship and
in the service we provide. We need to offer more reasons to stay, so as to
counteract firms that will seek to ``buy'' new customers through ``paying-
off'' the barriers. The longer we hold on to a customer and the more effort
we put into our relationship with that customer, the less likely it is that their
desire to switch will overcome the inertia and apathy that keep them with us.
(A preÂcis of the article ``Switching barriers in consumer markets: an

investigation of the financial services industry''. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for MCB University Press.)

This article has been cited by:
1. Heesup Han, Wansoo Kim, Sanghyeop Lee, HakJun Song. 2017. Key Determinants of Upscale Restaurant Patrons’ Repeat
Purchase Behavior: Testing the Impact of Inertia. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 4, 1-17. [Crossref]
2. Florian Bauer, Mai Anh Dao, Kurt Matzler, Shlomo Y. Tarba. 2017. How Industry Lifecycle Sets Boundary Conditions for
M&A Integration. Long Range Planning 50:4, 501-517. [Crossref]
3. Heesup Han, Jinsoo Hwang. 2017. Growing competition in the healthcare tourism market and customer retention in medical
clinics: New and experienced travellers. Current Issues in Tourism 9, 1-23. [Crossref]
4. Chechen Liao, Hong-Nan Lin, Margaret Meiling Luo, Sophea Chea. 2017. Factors influencing online shoppers? repurchase
intentions: The roles of satisfaction and regret. Information & Management 54:5, 651-668. [Crossref]
5. RahmanMuhammad Sabbir, Muhammad Sabbir Rahman, HassanHasliza, Hasliza Hassan, Osman-GaniAahad, Aahad Osman-
Gani, Abdel FattahFadi Abdel Muniem, Fadi Abdel Muniem Abdel Fattah, AnwarMd. Aftab, Md. Aftab Anwar. 2017. Edu-
tourist’s perceived service quality and perception – the mediating role of satisfaction from foreign students’ perspectives. Tourism
Review 72:2, 156-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. MannanMahafuz, Mahafuz Mannan, MohiuddinMd. Fazla, Md. Fazla Mohiuddin, ChowdhuryNusrat, Nusrat Chowdhury,
SarkerPriodorshine, Priodorshine Sarker. 2017. Customer satisfaction, switching intentions, perceived switching costs, and
perceived alternative attractiveness in Bangladesh mobile telecommunications market. South Asian Journal of Business Studies 6:2,
142-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. ChuahStephanie Hui-Wen, Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah, RauschnabelPhilipp A., Philipp A. Rauschnabel, MarimuthuMalliga,
Malliga Marimuthu, ThurasamyRamayah, Ramayah Thurasamy, NguyenBang, Bang Nguyen. 2017. Why do satisfied customers
defect? A closer look at the simultaneous effects of switching barriers and inducements on customer loyalty. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice 27:3, 616-641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. MsaedCristelle, Cristelle Msaed, Al-KwifiSam O., Sam O. Al-Kwifi, AhmedZafar U., Zafar U. Ahmed. 2017. Building a
comprehensive model to investigate factors behind switching intention of high-technology products. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 26:2, 102-119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Heesup Han, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2017. Cruise travel motivations and repeat cruising behaviour: impact of relationship
investment. Current Issues in Tourism 10, 1-20. [Crossref]
10. Jinsoo Hwang, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2017. First-class airline travellers' perception of luxury goods and its effect on loyalty
formation. Current Issues in Tourism 20:5, 497-520. [Crossref]
11. Hyun-ik Cho, Seong-Hyun Youn, Jung-Su Lee. 2017. The Structural Relationship among Taekwondo Studio Relationship
Marketing Implement Factors, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty. The Korean Journal of Physical Education 56:1,
405-415. [Crossref]
12. LeppäniemiMatti, Matti Leppäniemi, JayawardhenaChanaka, Chanaka Jayawardhena, KarjaluotoHeikki, Heikki Karjaluoto,
HarnessDavid, David Harness. 2017. Unlocking behaviors of long-term service consumers: the role of action inertia. Journal of
Service Theory and Practice 27:1, 270-291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Boukis Achilles, Gounaris Spiros, Kostopoulos Giannis. A Multilevel Investigation of the Effect of Employee’s Satisfaction on
Customer Outcomes in a Financial Services Context 227-236. [Crossref]
14. Byeong-Seo Min. 2016. A Study on the Effects of the Mobile Telecommunication Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Customer
Loyalty. -Focus on Moderation effect of Switching Barrier-. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 44:4, 921-934.
[Crossref]
15. Qian Cheng, Ruoshi Du, Yunfei Ma. 2016. Factors influencing theme park visitor brand-switching behaviour as based on visitor
perception. Current Issues in Tourism 19:14, 1425-1446. [Crossref]
16. Isabel Abinzano, Luis Muga, Rafael Santamaria. 2016. The Role of Investor Type in the Fee Structures of Pension Plans. Journal
of Financial Services Research 50:3, 387-417. [Crossref]
17. Doreén Pick, Martin Eisend. 2016. Customer Responses to Switching Costs: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Moderating
Influence of Culture. Journal of International Marketing 24:4, 39-60. [Crossref]
18. Goitom Tesfom, Nancy J. Birch, Jeffrey N. Culver. 2016. Switching behavior of U.S. mobile phone service customers after providers
shift from contract to no contract mobile phone service plans. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33, 154-163. [Crossref]
19. Kwabena G. Boakye, Victor R. Prybutok, Charles Blankson. 2016. An Integrated Model of Quality for Mass Services in the
Context of the Ghanaian Retail Banking Sector. Thunderbird International Business Review 58:5, 425-438. [Crossref]
20. 김김김. 2016. Effects of the Quality of Service and Relationships on the Behavior Intention of Hair Salon Customers. Journal of
Investigative Cosmetology 12:3, 243-250. [Crossref]
21. Weisheng Chiu, Doyeon Won. 2016. Consumer-brand relationships in sports products and repurchase intention. International
Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 17:3, 243-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. So-Dam Kim, Jay-Ick Lim, Sung-Byung Yang. 2016. An Empirical Study on Influencing Factors of Intention to Use Third-Party
Mobile Payment Services : Applying the Task-Technology Fit Model. Journal of the Korea society of IT services 15:2, 185-201.
[Crossref]
23. Ezlika Ghazali, Bang Nguyen, Dilip S. Mutum, Amrul Asraf Mohd-Any. 2016. Constructing online switching barriers: examining
the effects of switching costs and alternative attractiveness on e-store loyalty in online pure-play retailers. Electronic Markets 26:2,
157-171. [Crossref]
24. Eun-Yong Lee, Kyu-Eun Park, Yu-Jung Jeon. 2016. Study on Price Sensitivity at University Cafeterias : Focus on Seoul and
Chungcheong Area. Journal of the East Asian Society of Dietary Life 26:2, 117-124. [Crossref]
25. Palacios-MarquesDaniel, Daniel Palacios-Marques, GuijarroMaria, Maria Guijarro, CarrileroAgustin, Agustin Carrilero. 2016.
The use of customer-centric philosophy in hotels to improve customer loyalty. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:3,
26. Yangwhan Lim. 2016. A Study of the Perceived Attractiveness of Wearable Devices - Focused on the Smartwatch -. Journal of
the Korea Society of Digital Industry and Information Management 12:1, 131-141. [Crossref]
27. Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, Yun Di, Usha Ramanathan. 2016. Moderating roles of customer characteristics on the link between
service factors and satisfaction in a buffet restaurant. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:2, 469-486. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
28. Salman Awan, Yanxia Cheng. 2016. Improve Communication Quality by Understanding Customer Switching Behavior in China’s
Telecom Sector. iBusiness 08:04, 70-83. [Crossref]
29. David Gray, Steven D’Alessandro, Leanne Carter. The Influence of Inertia on Brand Switching Behaviour 779-787. [Crossref]
30. Steven D’Alessandro, Lester Johnson, David Gray, Leanne Carter. 2015. Consumer satisfaction versus churn in the case of upgrades
of 3G to 4G cell networks. Marketing Letters 26:4, 489-500. [Crossref]
31. Wonsuk Jung, Youngsun Kwon. 2015. Differences between LTE and 3G service customers: Business and policy implications.
Telematics and Informatics 32:4, 667-680. [Crossref]
32. Arvid O. I. Hoffmann, Dana Ketteler. 2015. How experiences with trading a company’s stock influence customer attitudes and
purchasing behavior. International Journal of Bank Marketing 33:7, 963-992. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Shih-Liang Chao, Bo-Chuan Chen. 2015. Effects of switching costs on customer loyalty in the liner shipping industry. Maritime
Economics & Logistics 17:3, 341-358. [Crossref]
34. Chul Woo Yoo, Srikanth Parameswaran, Rajiv Kishore. 2015. Knowing about your food from the farm to the table: Using
information systems that reduce information asymmetry and health risks in retail contexts. Information & Management 52:6,
692-709. [Crossref]
35. Heesup Han, Haejin Yoon. 2015. Customer retention in the eco-friendly hotel sector: examining the diverse processes of post-
purchase decision-making. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23:7, 1095-1113. [Crossref]
36. Chia-Ying Li. 2015. Switching barriers and customer retention. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 25:4, 370-393. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
37. Steven D'Alessandro, Lester Johnson, David M. Gray, Leanne Carter. 2015. The market performance indicator: a macro
understanding of service provider switching. Journal of Services Marketing 29:4, 302-313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Heesup Han, Jinsoo Hwang, Yunhi Kim. 2015. Senior Travelers and Airport Shopping: Deepening Repurchase Decision-making
Theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20:7, 761-788. [Crossref]
39. Jaejon Kim, Kyungja Park. 2015. Factors Affecting Relative Attractiveness and Adoption of Convergence Products. The Journal
of Information Systems 24:2, 139-162. [Crossref]
40. Osama Sam Al-Kwifi, Zafar U. Ahmed. 2015. An intellectual journey into the historical evolution of marketing research in brand
switching behavior – past, present and future. Journal of Management History 21:2, 172-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Miah Lee, Eunju Ko, Seulgi Lee, Kyulim Kim. 2015. Understanding Luxury Disposition. Psychology & Marketing 32:4, 467-480.
[Crossref]
42. Heesup Han. 2015. Travelers' pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and
the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Management 47, 164-177. [Crossref]
43. Christine T. Ennew. The Service-Profit Chain 1-4. [Crossref]
44. Dilip Mutum, Ezlika Mohd Ghazali, Bang Nguyen, David Arnott. 2014. Online loyalty and its interaction with switching barriers.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21:6, 942-949. [Crossref]
45. Fredy Valenzuela. 2014. Switching barriers' influences on service recovery evaluation in the retail banking industry: Construct
development and testing. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 22:4, 296-306. [Crossref]
46. Yiwen Gao, Minghui Kang, Tao Wang, Meng Wang. The Role of Switching Costs in O2O Platforms: Antecedents and
Consequences 371-378. [Crossref]
47. Moh’d A. Al-hawari. 2014. Emotional stability and switching barriers in the retail banking context. Managing Service Quality:
An International Journal 24:5, 469-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Doreén Pick. 2014. “Switching is easy”—Service firm communications to encourage customer switching. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 21:4, 502-509. [Crossref]
49. Yingkui Yang. 2014. Understanding household switching behavior in the retail electricity market. Energy Policy 69, 406-414.
[Crossref]
50. Vishal Vyas, Sonika Raitani. 2014. Drivers of customers’ switching behaviour in Indian banking industry. International Journal
of Bank Marketing 32:4, 321-342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Farzana Quoquab, Norjaya Mohd. Yasin, Rozhan Abu Dardak. 2014. A qualitative inquiry of multi-brand loyalty. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 26:2, 250-271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Medha Srivastava, Alok Kumar Rai. 2014. An investigation into service quality–customer loyalty relationship: the moderating
influences. DECISION 41:1, 11-31. [Crossref]
53. Yunhi Kim, Myung-hwan Cho, Heesup Han. 2014. Testing the Model of Hotel Chain Frequency Program Members' Loyalty
Intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19:1, 35-60. [Crossref]
54. Shueh-Chin Ting. 2014. The Relationship between Customers’ Switching Cost and Repurchase Intention: The Moderating Role
of Satisfaction. Journal of Service Science and Management 07:04, 313-322. [Crossref]
55. Hyun soo Lee, Young Il Chae. 2013. Understanding Perceived Enjoyment, Perceived Risk and Intention to Use Smart phone
Banking Services. Journal of the Korea society of IT services 12:4, 205-218. [Crossref]
56. Naehyun (Paul) Jin, Hyuckgi Lee, Sangmook Lee. 2013. Event Quality, Perceived Value, Destination Image, and Behavioral
Intention of Sports Events: The Case of the IAAF World Championship, Daegu, 2011. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
18:8, 849-864. [Crossref]
57. Bedman Narteh. 2013. Key determinant factors for retail bank switching in Ghana. International Journal of Emerging Markets
8:4, 409-427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Dapeng Liang, Zhenzhong Ma, Liyun Qi. 2013. Service quality and customer switching behavior in China's mobile phone service
sector. Journal of Business Research 66:8, 1161-1167. [Crossref]
59. Spiros Gounaris, Achilleas Boukis. 2013. The role of employee job satisfaction in strengthening customer repurchase intentions.
Journal of Services Marketing 27:4, 322-333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Mira Kartiwi, Ali Rfieda, Teddy Surya Gunawan. A conceptual framework for assessing electronic banking continued use 1-7.
[Crossref]
61. Chang-Mook Park, Dong-Woo Kim, Chang-Hyung Lee, Kwang-Ho Kim. 2013. The Effects of Service Quality and System
Quality on Customer's Satisfaction and Continued Usage Intention of N-Screen Service Regarding Mobile Network Condition.
Journal of Digital Contents Society 14:2, 223-233. [Crossref]
62. Susan Ferrier, Kathryn Waite, Tina Harrison. 2013. Sports sponsorship perceptions: An exploration. Journal of Financial Services
Marketing 18:2, 78-90. [Crossref]
63. Patria Laksamana, David Wong, Russel P.J. Kingshott, Fatimah Muchtar. 2013. The role of interaction quality and switching
costs in premium banking services. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31:3, 229-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Rooma Roshnee Ramsaran‐Fowdar. 2013. Assessing the influence of switching barriers on patients' expectations and tolerance
zone. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 26:3, 236-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Jinsoo Hwang, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2012. The Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Prestige in Luxury Restaurants. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 17:6, 656-683. [Crossref]
66. Heetaek Kang. 2012. The Factors Affecting the Intention to Purchase Digital Items and Continuance Intention in Social
Networking Communities김 Focused on Relationship Maintenance Mechanism and Expectation-Confirmation Model. Korean
Management Science Review 29:3, 135-156. [Crossref]
67. Yi-Hsien Wang, Kuang-Hsun Shih, Ya-Chi Huang. 2012. Measurement of Switching Cost on the Customer Retention in the
Banking Industry. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 40:6, 104315. [Crossref]
68. Anupam Krishna, G.S. Dangayach. 2012. Service operation strategy: a developing country perspective. Production Planning &
Control 23:10-11, 789-800. [Crossref]
69. Heesup Han, Kisang Ryu. 2012. The theory of repurchase decision-making (TRD): Identifying the critical factors in the post-
purchase decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:3, 786-797. [Crossref]
70. Richard Lee, Larry Neale. 2012. Interactions and consequences of inertia and switching costs. Journal of Services Marketing 26:5,
71. Gurjeet Kaur, R.D. Sharma, Neha Mahajan. 2012. Exploring customer switching intentions through relationship marketing
paradigm. International Journal of Bank Marketing 30:4, 280-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Allyn White, Michael Breazeale, Joel E. Collier. 2012. The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST
Push Policies. Journal of Retailing 88:2, 250-261. [Crossref]
73. Wen-Hai Chih, Kai-Yu Wang, Li-Chun Hsu, I-Shin Cheng. 2012. From disconfirmation to switching: an empirical investigation
of switching intentions after service failure and recovery. The Service Industries Journal 32:8, 1305-1321. [Crossref]
74. Niels Hermes, Ernest Kihanga, Robert Lensink, Clemens Lutz. 2012. The Impact of Trade Credit on Customer Switching
Behaviour: Evidence from the Tanzanian Rice Market. Journal of Development Studies 48:3, 363-376. [Crossref]
75. Hyeong Yu Jang. 2012. The Effects of Service Qualities on Customer Satisfaction and the Moderating Effects of Customer
Involvement and Customer Delight in Sports Center. Journal of Korea Service Management Society 13:1, 107-132. [Crossref]
76. Hyo-Sun Jung, Hye-Hyun Yoon. 2012. Study on the Effects of Switching Cost in Family Restaurant Upon Customer Satisfaction
and Switching Focused on the Moderating Effects of Customer Knowledge and Variety Seeking Orientation. Journal of the Korean
Society of Food Culture 27:1, 19-29. [Crossref]
77. Maiko Sakai. 2012. Antecedents and Outcomes of Switching Barriers in Service Industries. Journal of Marketing & Distribution
14:2_3, 17-53. [Crossref]
78. Heesup Han, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2012. An Extension of the Four-Stage Loyalty Model: The Critical Role of Positive Switching
Barriers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29:1, 40-56. [Crossref]
79. Isabel Sánchez-García, Rik Pieters, Marcel Zeelenberg, Enrique Bigné. 2012. When Satisfied Consumers Do Not Return: Variety
Seeking's Effect on Short- and Long-Term Intentions. Psychology & Marketing 29:1, 15-24. [Crossref]
80. Svetlana Bogomolova, Olga Grudinina. 2011. Under the marketers' radar: Commonly ignored triggers for brand repertoire changes.
Journal of Marketing Management 27:13-14, 1378-1403. [Crossref]
81. Heesup Han, Yunhi Kim, Eui-Keun Kim. 2011. Cognitive, affective, conative, and action loyalty: Testing the impact of inertia.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 30:4, 1008-1019. [Crossref]
82. Hyo-Sun Jung, Hye-Hyun Yoon. 2011. A Study on the Effects of Customer's Perceived Values in a Family Restaurant upon
Switching Cost and Customer Loyalty. Korean journal of food and cookery science 27:5, 487-496. [Crossref]
83. Mário Teixeira Reis Neto, Jeislan Carlos de Souza, Gustavo Queiroga Souki. 2011. Identifying variables that predict clients'
propensity to end their checking accounts. International Journal of Bank Marketing 29:6, 489-507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Heesup Han, Wansoo Kim, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2011. Switching intention model development: Role of service performances,
customer satisfaction, and switching barriers in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30:3, 619-629.
[Crossref]
85. Li‐Wei Wu. 2011. Satisfaction, inertia, and customer loyalty in the varying levels of the zone of tolerance and alternative
attractiveness. Journal of Services Marketing 25:5, 310-322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Goitom Tesfom, Nancy J. Birch. 2011. Do switching barriers in the retail banking industry influence bank customers in different
age groups differently?. Journal of Services Marketing 25:5, 371-380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Chenyun Ye, Jingwen Li, Zhihua Xie. The essential management defects and constraint strategies in the internal control
mechanism of listed companies in China 5227-5229. [Crossref]
88. Yi-Shun Wang, Shun-Cheng Wu, Hsin-Hui Lin, Yu-Yin Wang. 2011. The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery
justice and perceived switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. International Journal of Information
Management 31:4, 350-359. [Crossref]
89. Yu‐Xiang Yen, Edward Shih‐Tse Wang, Der‐Juinn Horng. 2011. Suppliers' willingness of customization, effective
communication, and trust: a study of switching cost antecedents. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:4, 250-259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Jaakko Aspara, Henrikki Tikkanen, Erik Pöntiskoski, Paavo Järvensivu. 2011. Exploration and exploitation across three resource
classes. European Journal of Marketing 45:4, 596-630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Yi-Fei Chuang. 2011. Pull-and-suck effects in Taiwan mobile phone subscribers switching intentions. Telecommunications Policy
35:2, 128-140. [Crossref]
92. Ken Kwong-Kay Wong. 2011. Using Cox regression to model customer time to churn in the wireless telecommunications industry.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 19:1, 37-43. [Crossref]
93. Chung-Tzer Liu, Yi Maggie Guo, Chia-Hui Lee. 2011. The effects of relationship quality and switching barriers on customer
loyalty. International Journal of Information Management 31:1, 71-79. [Crossref]
94. Heesup Han, Ki-Joon Back, Yun-Hi Kim. 2011. A Multidimensional Scale of Switching Barriers in the Full-Service Restaurant
Industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52:1, 54-63. [Crossref]
95. Constantino García-Acebrón, Rodolfo Vázquez-Casielles, Víctor Iglesias. 2010. The Effect of Perceived Value and Switching
Barriers on Customer Price Tolerance in Industrial Energy Markets. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 17:4, 317-335.
[Crossref]
96. C. Whan Park, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, Dawn Iacobucci. 2010. Brand Attachment and
Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers. Journal of Marketing
74:6, 1-17. [Crossref]
97. Steve Baron, Kim Harris. 2010. Toward an understanding of consumer perspectives on experiences. Journal of Services Marketing
98. Venkata Yanamandram, Lesley White. 2010. Are inertia and calculative commitment distinct constructs?. International Journal
99. Michael D. Clemes, Christopher Gan, Dongmei Zhang. 2010. Customer switching behaviour in the Chinese retail banking
industry. International Journal of Bank Marketing 28:7, 519-546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Fredy Valenzuela. 2010. Switching barriers used to retain retail banking customers. Management Research Review 33:7, 749-766.
101. Evangelos Tsoukatos, Evmorfia Mastrojianni. 2010. Key determinants of service quality in retail banking. EuroMed Journal of
Business 5:1, 85-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Kisang Ryu, Heesup Han, Soocheong (Shawn) Jang. 2010. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions in the fast‐casual restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22:3,
103. Marnix S. Bügel, Abraham P. Buunk, Peter C. Verhoef. 2010. A Comparison of Customer Commitment in Five Sectors Using
the Psychological Investment Model. Journal of Relationship Marketing 9:1, 2-29. [Crossref]
104. Wansoo Kim, Chihyung Ok, Deborah D. Canter. 2010. Contingency variables for customer share of visits to full-service restaurant.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 29:1, 136-147. [Crossref]
105. Heesup Han, Ki-Joon Back, Betsy Barrett. 2009. Influencing factors on restaurant customers’ revisit intention: The roles of
emotions and switching barriers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28:4, 563-572. [Crossref]
106. Devashish Das Gupta, Atul Sharma. 2009. Customer Loyalty and Approach of Service Providers: An Empirical Study of Mobile
Airtime Service Industry in India. Services Marketing Quarterly 30:4, 342-364. [Crossref]
107. Concepción Varela Neira, Rodolfo Vázquez Casielles, Víctor Iglesias Argüelles. 2009. Comportamiento de abandono de la relación
de un cliente con la empresa en un contexto de fallo y recuperación del servicio. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa
12:40, 143-169. [Crossref]
108. Mei-Fang Chen, Ling-Huei Wang. 2009. The moderating role of switching barriers on customer loyalty in the life insurance
industry. The Service Industries Journal 29:8, 1105-1123. [Crossref]
109. Chung gyu Byun, Saebum Kim. 2009. The effects of perceived switching costs on relational commitment and behavior intention.
Jounal of Korea Service Management Society 10:2, 85-104. [Crossref]
110. 김김김, Kim, Tae-hoon, 김김김. 2008. Analysis on the effect of service quality, customer satisfaction, switching barrier at ski resort for
customer retention. Jounal of Korea Service Management Society 9:4, 111-133. [Crossref]
111. Ahmad Jamal, Adegboyega Adelowore. 2008. Customer‐employee relationship. European Journal of Marketing 42:11/12,
112. Jieming Liu, Kefan Xie, Qian Wu. A Preliminary Study on Collaborative Management of Intellectual Property in Supply Chain
Enterprises 1-4. [Crossref]
113. Hsin Hsin Chang, Su Wen Chen. 2008. The impact of customer interface quality, satisfaction and switching costs on e-loyalty:
Internet experience as a moderator. Computers in Human Behavior 24:6, 2927-2944. [Crossref]
114. Kisang Ryu, Heesup Han, Tae-Hee Kim. 2008. The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value,
customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27:3, 459-469. [Crossref]
115. 김김김. 2008. The effects of service quality on relationship quality involving satisfaction and trust: focused on the moderating effects
of switching cost on customer loyalty. Jounal of Korea Service Management Society 9:2, 229-254. [Crossref]
116. 김김김, 김김김, 김김김, 김김김. 2008. A study on the intrinsic desire influencing the inertia motivation of consumer for financial service:
focused on self determination theory. Jounal of Korea Service Management Society 9:1, 3-24. [Crossref]
117. Jaeheung Yoo, Soohyung Kim, Jaehwan Hong. An Empirical Study on Impacts of Service Quality and Switching Cost on Customer
Loyalty of VoIP Services 989-992. [Crossref]
118. Gavin Lees, Ron Garland, Malcolm Wright. 2007. Switching banks: Old bank gone but not forgotten. Journal of Financial Services
Marketing 12:2, 146-156. [Crossref]
119. Heesup Han, Kisang Ryu. 2007. Moderating Role of Personal Characteristics in Forming Restaurant Customers' Behavioral
Intentions: An Upscale Restaurant Setting. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 15:4, 25-54. [Crossref]
120. Seigyoung Auh, Simon J. Bell, Colin S. McLeod, Eric Shih. 2007. Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services.
Journal of Retailing 83:3, 359-370. [Crossref]
121. Rui Zhang, Keyi Wang, Kaibo Chen, Rong Rong. Customer Switching Intention in Service Industries and the Effect of Customer
Perceived Value 1-6. [Crossref]
122. Simon J. Bell, Andreas B. Eisingerich. 2007. The paradox of customer education. European Journal of Marketing 41:5/6, 466-486.
123. Mahesh S. Bhandari, Yelena Tsarenko, Michael Jay Polonsky. 2007. A proposed multi‐dimensional approach to evaluating service
recovery. Journal of Services Marketing 21:3, 174-185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
124. Lesley White, Venkata Yanamandram. 2007. A model of customer retention of dissatisfied business services customers. Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal 17:3, 298-316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. Yu-Hern Chang, Fang-Yuan Chen. 2007. Relational benefits, switching barriers and loyalty: A study of airline customers in
Taiwan. Journal of Air Transport Management 13:2, 104-109. [Crossref]
126. Abdolreza Eshghi, Dominique Haughton, Heikki Topi. 2007. Determinants of customer loyalty in the wireless
telecommunications industry. Telecommunications Policy 31:2, 93-106. [Crossref]
127. M. Colgate, V. T.-U. Tong, C. K.-C. Lee, J. U. Farley. 2007. Back From the Brink: Why Customers Stay. Journal of Service
Research 9:3, 211-228. [Crossref]
128. Xu-xiaoli, Wan-yinghong, Huan-zhijian, Liu-hui. The impact of service quality, satisfaction, value and switching barrier on
customer loyalty in Chinese airline industry 1316-1321. [Crossref]
129. 김김김, Hyeong Yu Jang. 2006. 김김김 김김김김김 김김김김 김—김김김김김 김김김김김김 김 김김김김김 김김김김. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science
16:3, 61-86. [Crossref]
130. Rosario Vázquez-Carrasco, Gordon R. Foxall. 2006. Positive vs. negative switching barriers: the influence of service consumers'
need for variety. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5:4, 367-379. [Crossref]
131. Mei-Fang Chen, Ling-Huei Wang. The Impact of Switching Barriers on Customer Loyalty in Professional Service Contexts
545-550. [Crossref]
132. Venkata Yanamandram, Lesley White. 2006. Switching barriers in business‐to‐business services: a qualitative study. International
Journal of Service Industry Management 17:2, 158-192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Deirdre O'Loughlin, Isabelle Szmigin. 2006. Emerging perspectives on customer relationships, interactions and loyalty in Irish
retail financial services. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5:2, 117-129. [Crossref]
134. Jaana Tähtinen, Terje I. Vaaland. 2006. Business relationships facing the end: why restore them?. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 21:1, 14-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
135. Regan Lam, Suzan Burton. 2006. SME banking loyalty (and disloyalty): a qualitative study in Hong Kong. International Journal
136. Zhijian Huan, Xiaoli Xu, Huaizu Li. The impact of service quality, satisfaction, value and switching barrier on customer loyalty
in Chinese mobile telecommunication industry 217-222 Vol. 1. [Crossref]
137. Christian Homburg, Matthias Bucerius. 2005. A Marketing Perspective on Mergers and Acquisitions: How Marketing Integration
Affects Postmerger Performance. Journal of Marketing 69:1, 95-113. [Crossref]
138. Geun Ha Suh, Ki Ho Youn, Yeon Jo Yang, Mi Ok Seo. 2004. 김김김김김김 김김김김김김 김김김김김 김김 김김. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing
Science 14:1, 101-124. [Crossref]
139. Scott R. Colwell, Sandra Hogarth‐Scott. 2004. The effect of cognitive trust on hostage relationships. Journal of Services Marketing
140. Philip Gerrard, J. Barton Cunningham. 2004. Consumer switching behavior in the Asian banking market. Journal of Services
Marketing 18:3, 215-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
141. Lesley White, Venkat Yanamandram. 2004. Why customers stay: reasons and consequences of inertia in financial services.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 14:2/3, 183-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. Moon-Koo Kim, Myeong-Cheol Park, Dong-Heon Jeong. 2004. The effects of customer satisfaction and switching barrier on
customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services. Telecommunications Policy 28:2, 145-159. [Crossref]
143. Hee Suk Kang. 2003. 김김 김김김김김 김김김김 김김김김김 김김 김김. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 12:1, 29-57. [Crossref]

Colgate 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colgate 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the financial services industry

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

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

Keywords Consumer behaviour, Services marketing, Barriers, Financial services

but also to develop a more parsimonious understanding of these barriers, through

The research register for this journal is available at

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 333

Availability and attractiveness of alternatives

334 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

considered switching (i.e. after they have been through a switching

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 335

336 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

Table I. Switching barrier variables used in survey

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 337

Classification of switching barriers

Table II. Rotated factor solution for retail banking respondents

338 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

with one variable only ± satisfactory handling of a customer complaint.

Problems Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Table III. Rotated factor solution for retail insurance respondents

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 339

In order to determine the relative importance of the derived factors on a

Problem factors Mean

Factor 2: Negativity 2.74

Factor 3: Apathy 2.82

Factor 4: Service recovery 1.97

Table IV. Comparison of factor means: retail banking

340 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

Factor 2: Negativity 2.48

Factor 3: Service recovery 2.07

Factor 4: Apathy 2.69

Table V. Comparison of factor means: retail insurance

service organizations to overcome if they are looking to attract customers

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 341

342 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

has enabled us to condense a large number of variables into a more

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 343

344 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 345

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

Service quality and good communications

Apathy ± why should I bother, it's not that important?

346 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001

Customers will leave ± just don't make it easy for them

Nevertheless, we shouldn't make it easy for the customer to go and we should

(A preÂcis of the article ``Switching barriers in consumer markets: an

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 18 NO. 4 2001 347

142-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

You might also like