Examination of Customer-Centric Measures Among Different Types of Customers in The Context of Major Canadian Ski Resort

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm
APJML
30,2 Examination of customer-centric
measures among different types
of customers in the context of
438 major Canadian ski resort
Received 16 May 2017
Revised 23 August 2017
Matti J. Haverila
2 September 2017 Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, Canada, and
Accepted 5 September 2017
Kai Christian Haverila
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – Customer-centric measures such as customer satisfaction and repurchase intent are important
indicators of performance. The purpose of this paper is to examine what is the strength and significance of the
path coefficients in a customer satisfaction model consisting of various customer-centric measures for
different types of ski resort customer (i.e. day, weekend and ski holiday visitors as well as season pass
holders) in a ski resort in Canada.
Design/methodology/approach – The results were analyzed using the partial least squares structural
equation modeling approach for the four different types ski resort visitors.
Findings – There appeared to differences in the strength and significance in the customer satisfaction model
relationships for the four types of ski resort visitors indicating that the a priori managerial classification of the
ski resort visitors is warranted.
Originality/value – The research pinpoints differences in the strength and significance in the relationships
between customer-centric measures for four different types ski resort visitors, i.e. day, weekend and ski
holiday visitors as well as season pass holders, which have significant managerial implications for the
marketing practice of the ski resort.
Keywords Satisfaction, Image, Service quality, Types of customers, Partial least squares modelling,
Repurchase intent
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Tourism plays a significant role for the economy of British Columbia (Destination British
Columbia, 2014a). In 2012, the tourism industry generated $13.5 billion in revenue for the
province and the ski areas represented approximately nine percent of the total tourism
revenues in 2012. Many tourists stem from international origin and, therefore, tourism can
be seen as a significant producer of export revenue for the economy of British Columbia,
Canada (Destination British Columbia, 2014b). The annual number of visits to ski resorts is
close to 20 million. Due to the favorable terrains in British Columbia, the number of alpine
ski resorts is 46 (Government of British Columbia, 2016).
Customer satisfaction is one of the cornerstones in tourism marketing. It is a necessary
prerequisite for other key customer-centric measures such as repurchase intent, and
customer loyalty also in the context of ski resorts (Matzler et al., 2008). Previous customer
satisfaction research has indicated that service quality, image and value for money are
important antecedents for customer satisfaction (American Customer Satisfaction Index,
2017; Fornell, 1992; Kristensen and Eskildsen, 2010). Improvements in customer satisfaction
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics scores can also generate significant improvements in profitability and profit growth
Vol. 30 No. 2, 2018
pp. 438-459
(Anderson and Mittal, 2000; Reichheld and Schefter, 2001).
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
While there are numerous drivers of customer satisfaction to ski resorts, this study will
DOI 10.1108/APJML-05-2017-0096 focus on constructs directly related to skiing. Therefore, more indirect items like
accommodation and retail operations will not be included. During the research, 198 visitors Examination
to a major British Columbian ski resort were interviewed with the aim of capturing the of customer-
different types of visitors (Chi and Qu, 2008). centric
The management of the ski resort perceived there to be the following kinds of ski resort
visitors: day, weekend and ski holiday visitors as well as season pass holders (Alexander, measures
2015). It is likely that there are significant differences to be discovered between different
kinds of visitors, which is because different visitors have different expectations and 439
perceptions regarding service quality, and customer-centric measures; an issue not
previously addressed particularly in the context of ski resorts. Hence, this study’s objectives
are: first, to identify what these customer-centric measures are; second, what is their
importance for the different customer types; and third, what is their strength and
significance in a customer satisfaction model for the different customer types (i.e. are they
valid predictors of customer satisfaction).
The study will proceed with a literature review describing the model and key constructs.
After this, the methodology of the research will be described in detail. This is followed by
the results including the presentation of the descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing
with the partial least squares (PLS) modeling, and discussion and implications. Finally, the
conclusions, limitations and future research opportunities will be presented.
Literature review
Customer satisfaction
Kotler and Keller (2006) defined customer satisfaction as “person’s feeling of pleasure
or disappointment which resulted from comparing a product’s perceived performance or
outcome against his/her expectations” (p. 144). This implies that the assessment of customer
satisfaction is transaction specific and is immediately assessed post-purchase. Others view
the assessment as holistic aiming to capture the cumulative customer experience with the
firm. For ski resorts, the various facets of the cumulative experience might include issues
like the ski experience, ticketing, prices, image, catering, rental equipment, retail/shopping,
queuing, lodging, etc. (Clark and Maher, 2006; Faullant et al., 2008; Ferrand and Vecchiatini,
2002; Matzler et al., 2008). This research concentrates on the skiing aspect of the experience
only as the visitors may assess the medley of related services separately (Chi and Qu, 2008).
Several studies comment on how certain measures are vital for the tourism industry,
which include creating a more loyal customer base, generating customer satisfaction,
improving the service quality as well as creating more value for the customer (Alexandris
et al., 2006; Clark and Maher, 2006; Faullant et al., 2008; Ferrand and Vecchiatini, 2002; Fü ller
and Matzler, 2008; Kyle et al., 2010; Matzler et al., 2007).
Customer satisfaction is a fundamental construct due to its link to performance factors
such as loyalty, repurchase intent and actual purchase behavior (Matzler et al., 2007),
positive word-of-mouth and image (Ferrand and Vecchiatini, 2002). However, studies have
discovered that businesses cannot differentiate with satisfaction alone (Berman, 2005).
The relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intent/loyalty is not necessarily a
linear one as, for example, intensity of competition has an impact on this relationship
(Faullant et al., 2008). This indicates that more may be required to improve repurchase
intentions and loyalty than merely creating satisfaction.
Repurchase intent
Repurchase intent has been defined as the intent to frequently buy a good or service over a
longer period of time (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). Also, one can claim that satisfaction is a
passive customer condition while repurchase intent is an active or proactive relationship
with the organization (Ganiyu et al., 2012) and therefore more significant.
APJML Previous research, for example, regarding golf travelers suggests that golfers with less
30,2 experience had more positive evaluations and different repurchase intentions on their
experience to a resort than those golfers with more frequent experiences. As the golf
industry is related to ski industry, this implies for the ski resort management to foster
segments with different levels of repurchase intentions and develop strategies to increase
repurchase intentions of their customers. Consequently, it should be possible to segment
440 customers on the basis of the frequency of visits, as repurchase intentions may vary with
light, medium and heavy users ( Jahn and Kunz, 2012; Petrick, 2002).
Also, lifestyle, spending levels and skiing skills may have an impact on customer
satisfaction and repurchase intentions (Matzler et al., 2007). For instance, it has been
discovered that highly skilled skiers had higher satisfaction and repurchase intention levels
compared to their lower skilled counterparts (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). Consequently,
managers should focus on satisfying separate dimensions of the skiing experience that are
important to each unique customer segment. The aim of this study is to address this
shortcoming in the extant research. Addressing this issue can increase satisfaction and
repurchase intention levels without incurring significant cost increases (H1).
Image
Image is the customer’s overall impression of a place/destination and it contains their ideas,
emotional reactions and attitudes (Echtner and Brent, 2003). Also, it has been discovered
that image creates value, and is an incentive to purchase; it is useful in differentiation and
positioning, and generates a sense of positivity for firms (Ferrand and Vecchiatini, 2002).
Therefore, developing a positive, high-quality image is vital for ski resort managers who
want their offerings to be differentiated (Chi and Qu, 2008).
The importance of a ski resort’s image and satisfaction with regards to the loyalty
intentions of two customer groups ( first time visitors and regular visitors), previous
research has discovered that the relationship between image and customer loyalty
intentions on the one hand, and satisfaction and customer loyalty intentions on the other, are
significant(Faullant et al., 2008). Therefore, managers should focus on performing to the best
of their abilities with new customers to garner satisfaction and focus on developing a
pristine image for the regular visitors (H8) by making sure that customers have an excellent
service quality experience both from the skiing point of view (H2) as well as from the
interaction with the employees’ point of view (H5).
Another issue when assessing customer satisfaction in the context of ski resort
customers is whether the assessment is to be considered to be transaction specific or a
cumulative assessment. Short-term relationships tend to be more transactional, and
long-term relationships are assessed on the basis of cumulative multiple customer
experiences (Yi and La, 2004). Both approaches can be used in research as services can be
viewed from both transactional and cumulative points of view. Obviously, some types of
services tend to be more transactional and other services more cumulative. It is important to
note that cumulative evaluations are better predictors of customers’ loyalty intentions
(Lervik-Olsen and Johnson, 2003). The cumulative evaluation of customer satisfaction is key
in the use of national satisfaction index models in Sweden (Fornell, 1992), the USA (Fornell
et al., 1996), Norway ( Johnson et al., 2001) and the European Union (Eklöf, 2000).
The decision whether to use either approach has implications on how the research survey is
to be conducted. In transaction-specific surveys, respondents should consider the last
experience the customer had with the service organization and in cumulative customer
satisfaction research the point of view is their overall experience (Lervik-Olsen and Johnson,
2003). On the basis of the discussion above, the decision was made to articulate the survey
instrument from the point of view of cumulative assessment of customer satisfaction.
Perceived service quality Examination
Service quality is vital in the service industry, because it has a great influence on an of customer-
organization’s image and satisfaction levels (Srivastava and Rai, 2013; Yarimoglu, 2015) centric
(H2, H3, H5 and H6). There are several ways to measure service quality. Parasuraman et al.
(1988) generated the key components of service quality, which are access, communication, measures
competence, courtesy, credibility, reliability, responsiveness, security, understanding the
customer and tangibles. They found that service quality is measured as a difference (gap) 441
between customer expectations and overall service performance. Consequently, the issue of
customer perception is a rather subjective standard of quality.
Service quality is typically perceived to be an antecedent of customer satisfaction
(Alen Gonzalez et al., 2007; Sanchez et al., 2007; Srivastava and Rai, 2013), and this is the
point of view taken in this study as well. Previous research recognizes the multi-dimensional
and complex nature of measuring service quality and customer satisfaction as there are
multiple issues (e.g. skiing, employees, accommodation, retail operations, parking, internal
or external entrepreneurs, local residents and local, regional or national organizations, etc.)
to be taken into account (Zemła, 2008). Thus, it is clear that addressing all potentially
relevant issues in one research is not feasible, and thus this research will concentrate on two
elements of service quality, which are skiing and employees.
Skiing and service quality

Skiing is the central aspect of the ski resort affecting customer satisfaction, perceived value
for money and image of the ski resort as that is the main function. Previous research has
discussed the skiing dimension and regards it as part of the physical environment quality
(Alexandris et al., 2006). Extant research also recognizes the multi-dimensional nature of this
service quality dimension of a ski resort. There are issues like snow conditions, snowfall,
average slope height, snow making (Bédiová and Ryglová, 2015), slopes and kids slopes
(Matzler et al., 2007), level of difficulty of ski resort, quality of slopes, safety, moguls, and
waiting times at ski lift (Matzler et al., 2008), ski infrastructure (Zemła, 2008) (H2-H4).
Typically, however, the point of view in these studies has been broad and thus the
assessment of the multi-dimensional nature of the skiing aspect has been limited. The goal
of this study is to address this deficiency.
Employees and service quality

One of the most important service quality features relates to the competence and conduct of
employees who perform critical aspects of the service encounter. For some firms, employees
providing quality customer service may be the only sustainable form of differentiation
(Sousa and Coelho, 2013).
Front-line employees, in implementing a service-oriented firm’s strategies and initiatives,
have been discovered to be significant (Barnes et al., 2013). They also found customers
appreciating employee effort and personality, and the encounter generating a strong
emotional reaction for them. The benefits are twofold because delighting the customer has a
positive effect on employees by improving their customer orientation and job skills.
The managerial implications indicate benefits of giving employees autonomy in encounters
and aligning the expectations of employees and customers.
Previous research in the context of the ski resorts has discovered issues like friendliness,
helpfulness, appearance and competence (Füller and Matzler, 2008; Matzler et al., 2007;
Vesterinen, 2013) to be critical for the service quality, perceived value for money and customer
satisfaction of the ski resort (H6 and H7). As mentioned earlier, empathy is an important service
quality dimension, and helpfulness and friendliness explain that (Zeithaml et al., 2002). Similarly,
competence is a direct service quality construct (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Appearance has also
APJML been mentioned in service encounters as a service quality determinant (Andaleeb, 2001) also in
30,2 the tourism industry (Huang et al., 2009).
Additionally, satisfaction was found to have a strong effect on repurchase intent and
loyalty explaining half of the construct (H10). Clearly, the conduct of ski resort employees is
to be monitored because it may significantly contribute on customer satisfaction and
perceptions of quality.
442
Perceived value
The concept of value is based on the customer’s evaluation of the perceived benefits and
costs of the service (Martín-Ruiz et al., 2012). Extant research has confirmed that providing
value for customers is vital, because it improves the customer relationship by increasing
satisfaction levels (H9), which on the other hand increases repurchase intentions and
customer loyalty (Srivastava and Rai, 2013) (H10). Generating customer value through
enhancing existing services and creating new value-added services also differentiates an
organization and improves its competitiveness (Grönroos, 2009).
Price is an integral component in a customer’s assessment of value (Lin et al., n.d.).
Previous research has indicated that when customers have a positive view regarding value,
then they are less sensitive to price increases, which will have a positive influence on their
attitudinal loyalty, i.e. repurchase intentions (Clark and Maher, 2006; McKenna, 1991).
It is clear that generating value for customers is fundamental. Clark and Maher (2006)
also discovered that value is a significant factor for ski resort customers and it contributes
to the creation of loyalty. It was stipulated that managers should focus on creating and
improving primary and supporting services for the reason that these strategies improve
customer value perceptions while not significantly increasing costs.
Types of customers
The type of customer is recognized to be a situation-specific characteristic between
customers (Konu et al., 2011). Studies discovered that different customer types might have a
varying degree of customer-centric measures. Ignoring heterogeneity can seriously bias
results and, thereby, yield inaccurate management conclusions (Sarstedt et al., 2011).
Previous research has indicated the need to examine the existence of heterogeneity when
evaluating the formative model with PLS (Hair et al., 2011) as there may be systematic
differences in the range and mean levels of satisfaction across different customer types
( Johnson and Fornell, 1991). As the starting point in this research is that there indeed are for
unique types of customers, the examination of the heterogeneity becomes trivial. Using
customer satisfaction only as a comprehensive measure for all customers might not be
applicable. The ability to recognize that different issues drive customer satisfaction and also
that the importance of these items varies is crucial. The goal of this study is to address this
deficiency particularly in the context if ski resorts.
Regarding different customer types, Johnson and Fornell (1991) introduced the concept
of aggregation meaning that customer satisfaction could change with individual-level
experience and product category maturity. The selection alternatives within skiing might
be perceived to be homogenous or heterogeneous; just like how customers might be
homogenous or heterogeneous. This four-quadrant classification based on similarity or lack
of similarity may have implications for customer satisfaction. If the within-category product
alternatives are heterogeneous and customers are heterogeneous, then customer satisfaction
should initially be relatively low and increase later on with experience, but most importantly
vary across different customer types (Cooil et al., 2007; Johnson and Fornell, 1991).
The ski resort management in this research perceived there to be four distinct customer
groups visiting the ski resort as follows: day visitors, weekend visitors, ski holiday visitors
and annual season pass holders (Alexander, 2015). These customers may have different
expectations regarding their visit in terms of skiing quality, personnel service quality, image Examination
and perceived value. Therefore, the following hypotheses (Figure 1) are set: of customer-
H1. There are significant differences between the four types of ski resort customers in centric
terms of the following customer-centric global variables: (a) customer satisfaction; measures
(b) value for money; (c) met expectations; (d) repurchase intent; (e) willingness to
recommend.
H2. Perceived service quality (skiing) has a positive and significant relationship with the
443
perceived image of the ski resort for all four customer types of a ski resort.
customer satisfaction of the ski resort for all four customer types.
perceived value for money of the ski resort for all four customer types.
H5. Perceived service quality (employees) has a positive and significant relationship
with the perceived image of the ski resort for all four customer types.
with the customer satisfaction of the ski resort for all four customer types.
with the perceived value for money of the ski resort for all four customer types.
H8. Perceived image has a positive and significant relationship with the customer
satisfaction of the ski resort for all four customer types.
H9. Perceived value for money has a positive and significant relationship with the
customer satisfaction of the ski resort for all four customer types.
H10. Customer satisfaction has a positive and significant relationship with the
repurchase intent of the ski resort for all four customer types.
Methodology
The sample
The surveys were conducted by students at Thompson Rivers University as part of their
graduate marketing course. As mentioned, the management of the ski resort perceives there
to be four customer types (Alexander, 2015). First, day visitors typically come for the day to
ski and usually live within an hour from the ski resort. Second, weekend visitors come for a
Perceived
service H2 Perceived
quality image
-skiing H8
H4 H3
Customer H10 Repurchase
H6 satisfaction intent
H5
H9 Figure 1.
Perceived The model and
H7 Perceived
service
value hypotheses
quality
-employees
relationships
used in the paper
APJML few days for the weekend typically with friends or family and stay overnight with nearby
30,2 accommodation. The traveling distance is typically somewhat longer relative to day
visitors. Third, ski holiday visitors come for longer periods of time and many of them come
from abroad. They also come with friends and family. Full season pass owners are
interested in skiing as much as possible and, therefore, have bought a full season pass.
They typically also live within an hour from the ski resort.
444 As regards to sampling, a multi-stage approach was used (Dudovskiy, 2016). First,
cluster sampling was used so that the population was divided into separate clusters, i.e. day,
weekend and ski holiday visitors as well as season pass holders as indicated by the
management of the ski resort (Alexander, 2015). After this, within each cluster, simple
random sampling was applied with an aim to catch all four types of ski resort visitors.
In total, there were 198 respondents to the survey. Before handing out the survey, the
purpose of the research was explained, and a background question regarding the type of the
ski resort visitor question was asked. Consequently, 34 of the respondents were day visitors,
49 were weekend visitors, 74 were ski holiday visitors and 41 had a season pass.
When considering the adequate sample size, two approaches were used. First, when
thinking the level of adequate sample size, Cochran’s formula for continuous data was used
(Cochran, 1977). In addition, the adequacy of the sample size for the structural model was
also considered. Using the selected alpha level of 0.025 in each tail of 1.96, estimated
standard deviation in a five-point scale of 0.8, and acceptable margin of error 0.15 (number
of points on primary scale × margin of error ¼ 5 × 0.03), an overall sample size of 137 was
needed. As there were 198 responses in the sample, the requirement for the overall level of
the sample size was met.
Extant literature has indicated that minimum sample size is determined by either being
ten times the largest number of formative indicators used to measure a single construct, or
ten times the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular construct in the
structural model (Hair et al., 2014). As the largest number of structural paths directed at a
particular construct in the structural model was 3 (Figure 1), there needs to be at least 30
observations in any of the groups, i.e. the condition for the minimum sample size was met.
Measurement and questionnaire development

Extant literature has suggested the use of a three-stage model for developing questionnaires
for customer satisfaction evaluation, namely, determining customer requirements,
developing and evaluating the questionnaire, and finally, the usage of the questionnaire
(Hayes, 1997). First, the initial determination of the customer requirements was done
through an extensive literature review to get an idea of the constructs driving customer
satisfaction. Also, an initial list of indicator variables for these categories was created.
Second, the results of the literature review were converted into questions with the aim to
cover the service elements comprehensively. Also, qualitative in-depth interviews with a
ten-customer sample were conducted to confirm the accuracy and comprehensiveness.
The questionnaire was then delivered to management for review and modification. Finally,
the questionnaire was used with the ski resort customers during two consecutive weekends
during the Winter of 2015.
The questionnaire included 31 questions. There were 5 background questions,
6 questions related to image, 11 related to service quality/skiing and 5 related to service
quality/personnel. There were two questions related to customer satisfaction and two
related to repurchase intent. These two were then collapsed into one single measure of
customer satisfaction and repurchase intent, respectively, by averaging the individual
ratings for both. This approach is consistent with other previously conducted research
(Cronin et al., 2000; Gruca and Rego, 2005). Table I provides a summary of the study
measurement variables and the appropriate sources.
No. Variable Relevant research
Examination
of customer-
1. Satisfaction Faullant et al. (2008), Matzler et al. (2007, 2008), centric
Kyle et al. (2010),
Ferrand and Vecchiatini (2002) measures
2. Value for money Matzler et al. (2007), Ferrand and Vecchiatini (2002)
3. Willingness to recommend Faullant et al. (2008), Ferrand and Vecchiatini (2002)
4. Repurchase intent Faullant et al. (2008), Matzler et al. (2007) 445
5. Met expectations Ferrand and Vecchiatini (2002)
6. Image Faullant et al. (2008), Ferrand and Vecchiatini (2002)
Luxurious atmosphere
Exclusive atmosphere
High-quality atmosphere
Cozy and comfortable atmosphere
Family-friendly atmosphere
Fun atmosphere
7. Service quality-skiing Alexandris et al. (2006), Matzler et al. (2008),
Speed of access Kyle et al. (2010),
Capacity with the ski lifts Bédiová and Ryglová (2015)
Snow conditions
Variety, length and quality of ski slopes
Ski slopes’ differences in altitude
Wind-sheltered ski slopes
Safety of ski slopes
Mogul slopes
Skiing lessons
Entertainment in the skiing area
8. Service quality-employees Alexandris et al. (2006), Füller and Matzler (2008),
Friendliness Matzler et al. (2008), Kyle et al. (2010),
Helpfulness Zeithaml et al. (2002) Table I.
Appearance Measurement scales of
Competence study variables
A five-point Likert response scale was used. Questions employed the scale “Very
satisfied – Satisfied – Neither satisfied/dissatisfied – Dissatisfied – Very dissatisfied” or
equivalent to measure the ski resort visitors’ perceptions of the ski resort’s performance.
A “Don’t Know” option was also available for all questions. There has been some discussion
in previous research about the use of five-, seven- or even ten-point Likert scales in terms of
the validity of the instruments in parametric research. Dawes (2008) cited in Malhotra and
Peterson (2006) indicated that the five- or seven-point formats are the most common
and concluded that either five-, seven- or ten-point scales are all comparable for analytical
tools such as PLS modeling.
In order to avoid errors when using surveys the issue of bias has to be discussed.
With respect to sample bias, acquiescence bias, response bias, self-selection bias, social
desirability bias and extremity bias will be addressed (Zikmund et al., 2009). In order to
avoid the acquiescence bias, i.e. the tendency to agree with the questions or to indicate
positive undertones, the respondents were encouraged to respond honestly and truthfully to
the survey. A response bias or survey bias, i.e. the tendency of a respondent to respond to
survey questions untruthfully or misleadingly, if the respondents respond in a socially
acceptable way. Therefore, the survey questions were formatted as clearly as possible.
Also, the survey instrument underwent several reiterations before it was actually used with
the actual respondents. The self-selection bias can transpire if the respondents are allowed
to select themselves into the survey sample causing the sample to be non-probabilistic
(Zikmund et al., 2009). Self-selection did not happen in this research.
APJML Social desirability bias happens if the respondents report inaccurately on sensitive topics
30,2 in order to present themselves in the best possible light (Psychology Concepts, 2013).
Therefore, the respondents were again encouraged to respond honestly and truthfully.
Finally, extremity bias, the tendency of respondents to respond with extremes, might
happen if the questions are phrased either in the positive or in the negative direction
(Zikmund et al., 2009). Proper questionnaire practices were followed to avoid extremity bias.
446
Structural model of customer satisfaction and loyalty
There are numerous models to assess the relationship between drivers of customer
satisfaction, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent. Sweden was the first country in
the world to come up with a uniform measurement for customer satisfaction and loyalty,
and the measurement tool is called the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (Fornell,
1992). On this basis, the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and European
Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) were developed. The common elements of these models
are the constructs of customer satisfaction and loyalty, perceived value and customer
expectations. In addition, the ACSI model also includes the customer complaints construct,
and the ECSI model includes the image construct. Furthermore, the ECSI model makes a
distinction between perceived product quality and perceived service quality constructs
while the ACSI model only includes perceived overall quality (American Customer
Satisfaction Index, 2017; Van Haaften, 2017).
Kristensen and Eskildsen (2010) discussed considerations concerning the specifications
of customer satisfaction models. The European Performance Satisfaction Index, which was
developed on the basis if the ECSI includes seven constructs: image, expectations, product
quality, service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. In this
framework, there are two different model specifications: DKI used in Denmark, and SKI
used in Sweden. The Swedish model was adopted as a base model for ACSI.
The customer satisfaction models include exogenous and endogenous latent variables.
Essentially, an exogenous variable has path arrows pointing outwards and none leading to
it. Meanwhile, an endogenous variable has at least one path leading to it and represents the
effects of other variables (Kwong and Wong, 2013). Alternatively, the terms independent
variables and dependent variables can be used, respectively. A unique characteristic, and
perhaps a weakness of the SKI model, is that it only includes one exogenous latent variable,
which is image. This might have lowering impact for the explanatory power of the model,
which is usually measured with R2 (Samimi and Mohammadi, 2011).
The DKI model has four exogenous latent variables, which make the model more
robust and also should have more explanatory power than the SKI model. The
disadvantage is, perhaps due to the number of exogenous variables, that the model
solution can be rather unstable because some of the relationships in the model can be
insignificant (Kristensen and Eskildsen, 2010). The conclusion that the authors reached is
that in an ideal model, the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches should be
maximized and minimized, respectively.
Kristensen and Eskildsen referred to a study by Johnson et al. (2001), which argues that
image is an outcome of customer satisfaction based on the assumption that image has been
affected by a recent purchasing experience. Furthermore, they proposed that the
expectations construct (in the ACSI model) be replaced with the image construct because
pre-purchase expectations are actually collected post-purchase, which is the same time when
customer satisfaction is also measured meaning that what is actually collected is customer
perceptions of the image. This brings us an issue with modeling so that the non-recursive
nature of the model is violated. Thus, Kristensen and Eskildsen (2010) proposed to use the
image construct as a mediating variable between the actual consumption experience and
post-consumption evaluation, i.e. customer satisfaction.
As discussed previously, several factors might impact customer satisfaction in a ski Examination
resort. As previously stated, the focus in this research is the actual ski experience only. of customer-
Based on the discussion above, the model used in this research will use a modification of centric
both models as described in Figure 1.
The model described in Figure 1 includes nine meaningful interconnections. The measures
assumption based on the customer satisfaction model theory is that all of the relationships
are significant for the four types of customers under investigation in this study. 447
Method
The survey instrument was used to gather data for three reasons. First, using a traditional
survey instrument enabled us to gather immediate feedback from customers’ experience
with the ski resort. Second, the participation in the survey was high. Hardly any
respondents refused to respond. Third, the survey method enabled us to select different
types of respondents as described earlier.
To respond to the first hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA testing procedure was used to test
significant differences between the visitor types. In structural equation modeling (SEM),
there are two main approaches to test models: covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and partial
least squares SEM (PLS-SEM). Following the guidelines for selecting a suitable method to
estimate structural equation models (Hair et al., 2012, 2014), the decision was made to use
PLS-SEM, a well-known method in social sciences such as marketing (Hair et al., 2011;
Henseler et al., 2009), strategic management (Hair et al., 2012) and management information
systems (Ringle et al., 2011). According to Hair et al. (2011), if the research objective is theory
testing, then the method of choice is CB-SEM. If the research objective is prediction and
theory development, then the method of choice is PLS-SEM. Another consideration is the
sample size. PLS-SEM has the capability to work with much smaller samples than CB-SEM.
PLS-SEM enables the use of constructs with fewer items. Therefore, to respond to H2
through H10, PLS-SEM was used to test the strength and significance of the relationships in
Figure 1. Extant literature provides more detailed discussion on the selection between SEM
techniques, and partial least squares modeling (PLS-SEM) (Hair et al., 2011).
The structural model to be tested typically includes two types of latent constructs:
exogenous and endogenous. The perceived product quality and perceived service quality
are exogenous while the perceived image, perceived value for money, customer satisfaction
and repurchase intent are endogenous. Both constructs are typically multi-dimensional and,
therefore, difficult to observe directly (Kwong and Wong, 2013).
The next decision was to consider if the indicator variables are either reflective or
formative in the outer model. Hair et al. (2011) indicated that reflective indicator variables
are functions of the latent construct, while formative indicator variables form the latent
construct. In the previous case, the arrows point out from the latent construct while the
reverse is the case with formative constructs (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).
Formative measures are multi-dimensional in nature, and are the most immediate
antecedent indicators that form/cause the latent construct to exist (Chin, 2010). When
looking at the indicator variables used in the survey, it was decided that the outer model
would be formative because the constructs are indeed multi-dimensional in nature.
As the indicator variables (in the outer model) are formative, the statistical testing
procedure should indicate the following (Kwong and Wong, 2013):
• explanation of the endogenous variable variance;
• inner model path coefficient sizes and significance;
• outer model weight and significance; and
• convergent validity and collinearity among indicators.
APJML Explanation of endogenous variable variance is usually done with R2, which indicates how
30,2 much the variance of the latent variable is explained by other latent variables in the inner
model. Inner model path coefficient sizes and significance indicate how strong the effect of
one variable is on another latent variable. The higher the path coefficient (weight), the
higher its statistical importance. The outer model weight shows the importance of the outer
model indicators. The significance is usually tested with the bootstrapping method in
448 SmartPLS (version 3.2.6.) statistical package.
Convergent validity refers to the degree to which the measures of constructs that are
theoretically related are in fact related. Conventional procedures used for assessing the
validity and reliability of constructs with reflective indicators are not appropriate to
constructs with formative indicators (Bagozzi, 1994; Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).
Therefore, alternative methods must be used to assess the quality of constructs with
formative indicators and refer to four items critical to successful index construction: content
specification, indicator specification, indicator collinearity and external validity
(Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).
Regarding content specification, the goal is to capture all the facets and breadth of the
construct (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) as a “formative construct is more abstract and
ambiguous than a latent construct measured with reflective indicators” (Bagozzi, 1994,
p. 333). In this research, there were three focal constructs to be measured on the formative
(outer) model as follows: service quality-employees, service quality-skiing and image. The
aim was to capture the wide variety within these constructs based on the literature review,
visitor interviews and ski resort management.
The next issue is indicator specification. Here, a census of indicators is required for a
formative construct to cover the whole range of activities and items (Bollen and Lennox,
1991). The point is if one misses one or more important indicators, this might have an
obscure impact on the model. The questionnaire includes the indicators for the three
relevant constructs with formative indicators. Conventional guidelines regarding clarity,
length, directionality, lack of ambiguity and avoidance of jargon were followed
(Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Wiedmann et al., 2012) and a five-point Likert
format was used for the response scales.
Also in the formative measurement models the issue of multicollinearity has to be
addressed. Excessive multicollinearity among indicators makes it difficult to separate the
distinct influence of the individual indicators on the latent constructs (Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer, 2001). Multicollinearity can be checked with the variance inflation factor (VIF)
(Hair et al., 2012). This was done separately for the four customer types. The requirement is
that the VIF should not exceed the value of 5. None of the VIFs exceeded that value and,
thus, there was no evidence of multicollinearity (Table II).
External validity is another item to be addressed. Removing indicators might have an
adverse impact on the construct itself and, therefore, should always be done with caution
(Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). It is, however, possible that an indicator is
irrelevant (Hair et al., 2012). The question then is: What needs to be done? The bootstrapping
method enables us to assess the significance of the weight of each formative indicator.
1. Image 2. Loyalty 3. Overall satisfaction 6. Value for money
1. Image 1.664
Table II. 2. Loyalty
Collinearity 3. Overall satisfaction 1.000
statistics (VIFs) for 4. SQ-employees 1.209 1.276 1.209
the measurement 5. SQ-skiing 1.209 1.952 1.209
(outer) model 6. Value for money 1.521
Regarding an indicator’s removal, both the weight (as the indicator would be formative) Examination
and the loading (as the indicator would be reflective) need to be non-significant, meaning of customer-
that there is no empirical support to keep the indicator variable in the formative model centric
(Hair et al., 2012). This analysis will be conducted in the “Testing the PLS model as a
formative model” section. measures
Finally, common method bias was checked with Harman’s one factor analysis by
entering all independent variables into principal components factor analysis (Malhotra et al., 449
2006). On the basis of the Harman’s factor analysis, there is evidence of common method
bias if one of the factors accounts for the majority of the covariance. When all the
independent variables were entered into a factorial solution, there was no evidence of
common method bias in this research.
Findings
Assessment of the measurement model
One-way ANOVA was used to detect whether there are significant differences in the
global variables between the visitor types. In Table III, there are significant differences
between the types of customers in terms of their customer-centric measures. The results
can be seen in Table III.
Although the overall customer satisfaction level was relatively high, ski holiday visitors
and season pass holders appear to be significantly more satisfied than day visitors and
weekend visitors. Regarding repurchase intent, it again appears that ski holiday visitors
and especially season pass holders are much more likely to repurchase than day visitors and
weekend visitors. The same holds true for the willingness to recommend global construct.
Therefore, H1a, H1d and H1e are supported.
Testing the PLS model as a formative model

The statistical highlights for the whole model are presented in Table IV. The model values
for composite reliability were acceptable as they exceed the value of 0.7 as well as for the
AVE values as they exceed the value of 0.5. Also, the load values exceed values of 0.2 except
for the perceived quality-employees construct (Hair et al., 2010). When using the
standardized root mean square residual as the goodness of fit measure, the analysis
indicated values of 0.057 for the saturated model and 0.065 for the estimated model. The
goodness of fit measure is acceptable as long as the value is less than 0.10 (Henseler et al.,
2014) or less than the more conservative requirement of 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1998).
Before the hypothesis testing stage, it is necessary to assess whether all indicators in the
outer model are indeed relevant (Hair et al., 2012). This was done with the bootstrapping
method, which assesses the significance of the weight and loading of each formative
indicator. This analysis was done separately for the three constructs, service quality-skiing,
service quality-employees and image for the four visitor types.
The weight and the loading of the “exclusive atmosphere” indicator were not significant
for the season pass holders. The implication is that, for season pass holders, an exclusive
Global variable One day trip Weekend Ski holiday Season pass Overall
Ski satisfaction 4.08 4.10 4.32 4.49 4.26**

Table III.
Value for money 3.49 3.45 3.77 3.85 3.66ns
Differences in the
Met expectations 3.76 3.71 3.68 3.88 3.74ns global variables
Repurchase intent 4.16 3.94 4.30 4.66 4.26*** between the types of
Willingness to recommend 4.30 4.16 4.49 4.68 4.41*** customers visiting the
Notes: *,**,***,****Significance at o0.05, o0.01, o0.001, o0.0001, respectively ski resort
APJML Composite
30,2 Construct reliability AVE Construct Load Indicators Load
Overall 0.854 0.746 Perceived image 0.283 Family oriented 0.568

satisfaction
Fun 0.661
Cozy and comfortable 0.857
450 Exclusive 0.328
High quality 0.902
Luxurious 0.651
Perceived quality-skiing 0.621 Number of slopes 0.764
Capacity-lifts 0.479
Length-slopes 0.684
Moguls 0.240
Safety-slopes 0.532
Snow 0.676
Speed-lifts 0.512
Variety, length and 0.797
quality-slopes
Wind-sheltered-slopes 0.440
Perceived quality-employees 0.148 Appearance-employees 0.779
Competency-employees 0.783
Employees 0.902
Friendliness-employees 0.814
Table IV. Helpfulness-employees 0.678
Statistical highlights Repurchase 0.896 0.812 Overall satisfaction 0.679 Met expectations-skiing 0.846
of the measurement intent
(outer) model Overall satisfaction-skiing 0.881
environment is not an important issue (as a formative or reflective indicator). Since this was
the case in only one of the four types of visitors, the indicator was kept for further analysis
in all four cases. The indicator “Moguls” appeared to be non-significant in most cases for the
visitors. Therefore, it was removed from further analysis as there was no empirical support
to keep the indicator in the model (Hair et al., 2012).
The “Entertainment” indicator was not a significant indicator for ski holiday visitors and
season pass holders. Because this was not an important indicator for these two groups, it
was removed from further analysis. Finally, the “Lessons” indicator was not an important
indicator for the ski holiday visitors but since this was the case for only group, the indicator
was kept for further analysis. The “Appearance” and “Competence” indicators were not
important for the day visitors, but since this was the case for just one group, the indicators
were kept for further analysis.
Hypothesis testing with PLS modeling

The hypothesis testing was done separately for the four visitor groups and the results can
be seen in Table V.
In Table V, the service quality (skiing)-image relationship appears to be significant with
every type of customer with high R2 values. Therefore, H2 is supported. The service quality
(skiing)-customer satisfaction relationship is significant in the global model, but not for day
visitors and weekend visitors. Thus, H3 is partially supported. For H4, the relationship
appears to be significant in the global model between service quality (skiing) and value for
money, but not for season pass holders. Therefore, H4 is partially supported.
The service quality (employees)-image relationship is significant in the global model, but
this seems to be based on the perceptions of ski holiday visitors only as the relationship is not
Global Sub 1: day Sub 2: Sub 3: ski Sub 4:
Examination
Relationship model visitors weekend holiday season pass of customer-
centric
Service quality (skiing)-image 0.508 0.832 0.600 0.627 0.675
Service quality (skiing)-satisfaction 0.395 0.377 0.274 0.591 0.453 measures
Service quality (skiing)-value 0.544 0.607 0.418 0.601 0.417
Service quality (employees)-image 0.202 −0.024 0.077 0.238 0.025
Service quality (employees)-satisfaction 0.082 0.111 0.026 0.137 0.224 451
Service quality (employees)-value 0.059 −0.058 0.231 −0.031 0.135
Image-satisfaction 0.283 0.326 0.387 0.106 0.280
Value-satisfaction 0.150 0.062 0.177 0.146 −0.003
Satisfaction-repurchase intent 0.578 0.715 0.682 0.703 0.616
2
Image R 0.384 0.671 0.411 0.550 0.478
Repurchase intent R2 0.335 0.511 0.454 0.494 0.379
Table V.
Value for money R2 0.326 0.334 0.323 0.374 0.267 Path coefficients and
Satisfaction R2 0.556 0.593 0.520 0.689 0.702 R2 in the global model
n 198 34 49 74 41 and subgroups (types
Notes: aPath coefficients and R2’s marked italic are significant at the 0.05 level of customers) modelsa
significant for the other three groups. Ergo, H5 is partially supported. The service quality
(employees)-satisfaction relationship (H6) and the service quality (employees)-value for money
relationship (H7) are not supported for any customer groups. The image-satisfaction
relationship is significant in the global model and for weekend visitors. Thus, H8 is
partially supported.
The value for money-satisfaction relationship is not significant for any group and, thus,
H9 is not supported. Finally, the customer satisfaction-repurchase intent relationship is
strong and significant for all customer types and, thus, H10 is supported.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to identify what these customer-centric measures are, what is
their importance for the different customer types and then to investigate the stability of the
customer satisfaction model relationships by the customer type using the model of
Kristensen and Eskildsen (2010) as a base model. More specifically, we wanted to
investigate the strength and significance of the relationship between the key constructs in
the customer satisfaction model.
When looking the results in Table III, the four types of ski resort visitors had uneven
perceptions about the ski resort in terms of customer satisfaction, repurchase intent and
willingness to recommend. This, however, was not the case for the value for money and met
expectations global constructs as all visitors had quite similar perceptions about these
constructs. It was interesting, however, that the ratings for these constructs were
significantly lower than for the satisfaction, repurchase intent and willingness to
recommend constructs. As value for money construct includes the ratio or trade-off between
perceived service quality and price (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001), it is likely that the price
aspect has a significant lowering impact on the value for money ratings for all types of
customers as the satisfaction ratings were much higher at the same time.
Also, it is perhaps not surprising that the value for money ratings of ski holiday visitors
and season pass holders as one group in comparison to one day trip and weekend visitors as
another group appear to be significantly higher indicating perhaps that ski holiday visitors
and season pass holders place higher importance on the service experience and/or lower
importance on the price.
APJML As indicated before, Johnson and Fornell (1991) claimed that customer satisfaction should
30,2 increase with experience, and also vary across different customer types. This appears to be
the case also in this research as the visitors with more exposure and experience (i.e. ski holiday
visitors and season pass holders) appear to have higher customer satisfaction, repurchase
intent and willingness to recommend ratings. This finding appears to somewhat contradict,
however, with the research findings in the golf resort context (Petrick, 2002) where the golfers
452 with less experiences had more positive evaluations on their experience to a resort than those
golfers with more frequent experiences. The findings of this research, however, indicate that
ski resort visitors with lesser ski resort experiences are less likely to assess their ski resort
visit experience positively than ski holiday visitors and season pass holders, which suggests
that for the management of the ski resort it is somewhat more challenging to provide a
satisfactory ski resort experience for them. This was the case in terms of the satisfaction,
repurchase intent and willingness to recommend constructs.
Table VI summarizes the findings as regards to the global model for H1-H10.
As mentioned, the relationship between service quality (skiing) and image of the ski
resort was significant for all types of ski resort visitors indicating that the skiing experience
is closely related to the image of the ski resort. As skiing is the main activity of a ski resort,
this is not a surprising result and the management of the ski resort needs to emphasize this
in their communication to the potential ski resort visitors.
The service quality (skiing)-satisfaction relationship was significant in the global model as
well as for ski holiday visitors and season pass holders. The day visitors and weekend visitors
did not consider this relationship to be significant, which may be because they only visit the
ski resort in limited occasions while the ski holiday and season pass holders have more intense
exposure with the ski resort. This indicates that service quality (skiing) satisfaction is crucial
for the latter group, because why would they buy a season pass if they were not satisfied?
The service quality (skiing)-value for money relationship appears to be significant in the
global model as well as for all groups except for season pass holders. This could be perhaps
due to season pass holders perceiving to get good value by purchasing a season pass, and
thus value for money has a diminished level of importance for them while perhaps also
making subconscious or conscious mental comparisons to the more expensive options.
The other groups are spending relatively more on a visit by visit basis, which means they do
not perceive to get the same level of value. Therefore, one can see how value for money is
comparatively more important for these groups.
Hypothesis Result
Differences between the four types of ski resort customers in terms of: Supported for H1a, H1d and H1e
H1a
H1b
H1c
H1d
H1e
H2: Perceived service quality (skiing) and perceived image of Supported
the ski resort
H3. Perceived service quality (skiing) and customer satisfaction Supported
H4. Perceived service quality (skiing) and perceived value for money Supported
H5. Perceived service quality (employees) and perceived image Rejected
H6. Perceived service quality (employees) and customer satisfaction Rejected
H7. Perceived service quality (employees) and perceived value for money Rejected
Table VI. H8. Perceived image and customer satisfaction Supported
Summary findings for H9. Perceived value for money and customer satisfaction Supported
the hypothesis H10. Customer satisfaction and repurchase intent Supported
The service quality (employees)-image relationship was significant in the global model and Examination
with ski holiday customers, but not with other groups. This is perhaps due to ski holiday of customer-
visitors being exposed to the employees in different situations in the context of the ski centric
resort. Essentially, they are more likely to have interactions with a wide variety of
employees (e.g. accommodation, retail and restaurant staff ), therefore making these measures
interactions more important for them (Kyle et al., 2010).
It appears that the service quality (employees) construct is less important than the 453
service quality (skiing) construct as it is not significantly related to satisfaction or to value
for money in the global model nor with any subgroups (Srivastava and Rai, 2013).
Customers may not place as much weight on the conduct of employees, as the level of
interaction is limited and as its attribute importance might be less (Weiermair and Fuchs,
2000). This is consistent with previous research as it has been indicated that service
encounters that require more interaction (e.g. fitness classes), the customers have rated staff
performance as relatively more important in comparison to service encounters where less
interaction is required (Kyle et al., 2010). It is most likely seen as a basic requirement
(Füller and Matzler, 2008), where a minimum level of quality is expected, but anything more
does not lead to significantly higher satisfaction levels.
The image-satisfaction relationship is significant in the global model and for weekend
visitors. This shows that having a good image does not necessarily lead to satisfaction for
some types of customers. Ski resorts must perform well to satisfy new customers and create
a pristine image for repeat customers (Faullant et al., 2008). However, only weekend visitors
considered this to be significant. This may be because they have several ski resorts to
choose from. For example, if weekend visitors want to treat themselves to a resort that has a
pristine image, then it means that the resort must deliver on the image expectation,
otherwise they may not be satisfied.
The value for money-satisfaction relationship is only significant in the global model, but
strangely enough not for any individual subgroups. The price point for skiing being
relatively high could possibly explain the lack of significance for the subgroups as skiing is
a comparatively high-priced activity. Therefore, customers do not necessarily need to feel a
sense of good value to be satisfied. Also, the small sample sizes in the subgroups might have
an impact in this regard.
Finally, the customer satisfaction-repurchase intent relationship was strong in the
global model and for all subgroups. This is no surprise, because research has shown how
satisfaction is a necessary prerequisite for customers to have a strong intent to repurchase
(Matzler et al., 2008). The same can be said of the service quality (skiing)-image
relationship in that the results, which indicated a strong relationship on all fronts,
were expected. It seems logical that a ski resort must be able to provide quality skiing
offerings to cultivate a good image.
Implications
There are several managerial implications that emerge from the discussion. What managers
should focus on first and foremost is the overall service quality of skiing. This should be the
key area of focus, because it was found that service quality (skiing) had a strong, positive
relationship with image, satisfaction and value for money especially so for ski holiday
visitors and season pass holders.
Second, managers should focus on creating an image for the ski resort, which is first high
quality, and cozy and comfortable, but also fun, luxurious and family oriented, but not
necessarily exclusive. This type of image seemed to be appealing to especially weekend
visitors to the ski resort. It is possible that the weekend visitors come in groups expecting to
get an excellent ski resort experience.
APJML Third, it looks as if managers do not have to focus so much on providing exceptional
30,2 service quality through their employee interactions. Due to the employees having minimal
levels of contact with customers, service quality may be seen as a basic requirement
(Fü ller and Matzler, 2008). Essentially, it is seen as a necessary prerequisite that is there
only to prevent dissatisfaction.
Another area of focus should be creating a feeling of satisfaction in customers. This is
454 critical because several studies and our model assert that there is a strong positive
relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intent.
To create these heightened levels of satisfaction, the performance and excitement factors
in Matzler and Sauerwein’s (2002) three-factor theory should be emphasized. Performance
factors create satisfaction if the performance is high and it leads to dissatisfaction if the
performance is low. While excitement factors improve customer satisfaction levels if they
are performed, but do not create dissatisfaction if they are not performed, because it is a
surprise. Performance factors for a ski resort would include the ski-related attributes like the
quality, number, safety and capacity of the slopes, and queuing and lessons. While
excitement factors consist of cultural events, slopes for children, nightlife or well-being
services like a spa. However, managers would have to update and/or create new excitement
factors because, after some time, these excitement factors may become the norm for
customer (Fü ller and Matzler, 2008).
Conclusions
The intention in this study was to examine the key drivers of customer satisfaction in the
context of a ski resort. However, firms need more than mere customer satisfaction to elicit
feelings of loyalty and/or a high likelihood of repurchase (Füller and Matzler, 2008).
Therefore, this study is also about helping firms to predict ways to not only meet the
expectations of customers, but to exceed them to generate high satisfaction levels. Finally,
this study intended to assess the differences between various visitor types to see what these
subgroups considered significant regarding satisfaction.
Previous studies have found differences between the types of ski resort visitors. For
instance, there has been discovered to be significant differences between lifestyle segments
that were split by their age, spending levels, interests and whether they had a family and
also that a customer’s lifestyle, spending levels and skiing level had a moderating effect in
the performance-satisfaction-loyalty relationship (Matzler et al., 2008). These authors found
that numerous subgroups in ski resorts existed with the moderators being the difficulty of
the ski area, age, gender and whether they were one-off visitors or repeat visitors. These
differences were considered critical in market segmentation and predicting customer
satisfaction. However, no study had previously considered if the type of stay could have an
effect when predicting customer satisfaction levels.
Theoretical findings demonstrate that factors like service quality (skiing) is a good
predictor of image, satisfaction and value, while, comparatively speaking, service quality
was not. The expected relationship of satisfaction being a positive predictor of repurchase
intent was confirmed across all groups. However, there were some differences across
groups, which were explained previously. From a practical standpoint, there are some key
points for managers. First, improving the service quality (skiing) of the ski resort should
be a key area of focus. Second, managers must understand that mere satisfaction is not
enough, a ski resort must exceed customer expectations in satisfaction to make
satisfaction a better predictor of repurchase intent and other customer-centric measures.
Finally, when a manager decides to improve certain product and service features in the
name of customer satisfaction, then it must be done while appealing to the unique needs of
each visitor group.
Limitations and future research Examination
No research is without its limitations. The surveys were done in two weekends in of customer-
February 2015, one of which was during a Winter holiday for schools. Therefore, it could centric
be argued that there may be a higher proportion of respondents from the weekend and ski
holiday visitor groups, which may put the representativeness of the sample into question. measures
Also, since the time frame between the interviews was quite short, it meant that we did not
receive responses throughout different times of the ski season where the conditions of the 455
slopes may vary, which could have had an effect on responses related to product quality
and satisfaction.
Finally, the study did not include any non-ski attributes, which could have an impact on
the customer satisfaction and repurchase intent. However, this can be justified, as there are
countless items that may or may not influence customer satisfaction; all of them could not be
included. This can be addressed in future research. It is recommended that further research
should be conducted to fully understand the visitor groups of ski resorts in more detail,
which can subsequently lead to a better understanding of what generates feelings of
satisfaction in their respective minds. Also, the future research could examine the mediating
effect of customer satisfaction between the service quality constructs and loyalty.
References
Alen Gonzalez, M., Rodriguez Comesana, L. and Fraiz Brea, J. (2007), “Assessing tourist behavior
intentions through perceived service quality and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 153-160.
Alexander, D. (2015), “General manager”, (M. Haverila, Interviewer, September 15).
Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C. and Meligdis, A. (2006), “Increasing customers’ loyalty in a skiing resort:
the contribution of place attachment service quality”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 414-425.
American Customer Satisfaction Index (2017), “The Science of Customer Satisfaction”, available at:
www.theacsi.org/about-acsi/the-science-of-customer-satisfaction (accessed August 23, 2017).
Andaleeb, S.S. (2001), “Service quality perceptions and patient satisfaction: a study of hospitals in a
developing country”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 1359-1370.
Anderson, E.W. and Mittal, V. (2000), “Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain”, Journal of Service
Bagozzi, R. (1994), “Structural equation models in marketing research: basic principles”, in Bagozzi, R.
(Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 317-385.
Barnes, D.C., Collier, J.E., Ponder, N. and Williams, Z. (2013), “Investigating the employee’s perspective
of customer delight”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 91-104.
Bédiová, M. and Ryglová, K. (2015), “The main factors influencing the destination choice, satisfaction
and the loyalty of ski resorts customers in the context of different research approaches”, Acta
Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 499-505.
Berman, B. (2005), “How to delight your customers”, California Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 129-151.
Bollen, K. and Lennox, R. (1991), “Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation
perspective”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 305-314.
Chi, C.G.Q. and Qu, H. (2008), “Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 624-636.
Chin, W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Vinzi, V., Chin, W., Henseler, J. and
Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Hamburg, pp. 655-690.
Clark, J. and Maher, J. (2006), “If you have their minds, will their bodies follow? Factors affecting
customer loyalty in a ski resort setting”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
APJML Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
30,2 Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L. and Hsu, M. (2007), “A longitudinal analysis of customer
satisfaction and share of wallet: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal of Retailing,
456 Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Dawes, J. (2008), “Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used?
An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales”, International Journal of Market
Destination British Columbia (2014a), “The value of tourism in British Columbia: trends from 2002 to
2012”, February, available at: www.destinationbc.ca/getattachment/Research/Industry-
Performance/Value-of-Tourism/Value-of-Tourism-in-British-Columba-(2012)/2012-Value-of-
Tourism_Full-Report.pdf.aspx (accessed July 11, 2017).
Destination British Columbia (2014b), “Value of tourism”, Research, available at: www.destinationbc.
ca/Research/Industry-Performance/Value-of-Tourism.aspx (accessed August 23, 2017).
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, A. (2001), “Index construction with formative indicators:
an alternative scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 269-277.
Dudovskiy, J. (2016), “Research methodology”, Multi-stage sampling, available at: http://research-methodolo
gy.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/multi-stage-sampling/ (accessed August 23, 2017).
Echtner, C.M. and Brent, R.J. (2003), “The meaning and measurement of destination image”, Journal of
Tourism Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Eklöf, J.A. (2000), “European Customer Satisfaction Index Pan-European Telecommunication Sector
Report – based on the pilot studies”, European Organization for Quality and European
Foundation for Quality Management, Stockholm.
Faullant, R., Matzler, K. and Füller, J. (2008), “The impact of satisfaction and image on loyalty: the case
of Alpine ski resorts”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 163-178.
Ferrand, A. and Vecchiatini, D. (2002), “The effect of service performance and ski resort image on
skiers’ satisfaction”, European Journal of Sport Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-17.
Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Füller, J. and Matzler, K. (2008), “Customer delight and market segmentation: an application of the
three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style groups”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 116-126.
Ganiyu, R.A., Uche, I.I. and Elizabeth, A.O. (2012), “Is customer satisfaction an indicator of customer
loyalty?”, Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 14-20.
Government of British Columbia (2016), The Value of Ski Areas to the British Columbia Economy –
Phase Two: All Alpine Ski Area, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations,
available at: www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-
resource-use/all-seasons-resorts/2014value_of_ski_areas_phase_two_final.pdf
Grönroos, C. (2009), “Marketing as promise management: regaining customer management for
marketing”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 351-359.
Gruca, T. and Rego, L. (2005), “Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 115-130.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Examination
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. of customer-
Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. and Mena, J. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares centric
structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433. measures
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
457
Hayes, B. (1997), Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Survey Design, Use, and Statistical Analysis
Methods, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, Jr, David J.,
Hair, J.F., Hult, M., Tomas, G. and Calantone, R.J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about PLS:
comments on Rönkkö & Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 182-209.
Henseler, J., Ringle, M. and Sinkovics, R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), Advances in International
Marketing, Emerald Group, Bingley, pp. 277-319.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Huang, S., Hsu, C.H. and Chan, A. (2009), “Tour guide performance and tourist satisfaction: a study of
the package tours in Shanghai”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 3-33.
Jahn, B. and Kunz, W. (2012), “How to transform consumers into fans of your brand”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 344-361.
Johnson, M.D. and Fornell, C. (1991), “A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across
individuals and product categories”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 267-286.
Johnson, M., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001), “The evolution and future of
national customer satisfaction index models”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 217-245.
Konu, H., Laukkanen, T. and Komppula, R. (2011), “Using ski destination choice criteria to segment
Finnish ski resort customers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1096-1105.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2006), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Kristensen, K. and Eskildsen, J. (2010), “Design of PLS-based satisfaction studies”, in Vinzi, V.E.,
Chin, W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods
and Applications, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 247-277.
Kwong, K. and Wong, K. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
techniques using SmartPLS”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Kyle, G., Theodorakis, N., Karageorgiou, A. and Lafazani, M. (2010), “The effect of service quality on
customer loyalty within the context of ski resorts”, Journal of Park & Recreation Administration,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Lervik-Olsen, L. and Johnson, M.D. (2003), “Service equity, satisfaction, and loyalty: from transaction-
specific to cumulative evaluations”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 184-195.
Lin, C.‐.H., Sher, P.J. and Shih, H.‐.Y. (n.d.), “Past progress and future directions in conceptualizing
customer perceived value”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 318-336.
McKenna, R. (1991), Relationship Marketing, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Malhotra, N. and Peterson, M. (2006), Basic Marketing Research: A Decision-Making Approach,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in is research: a comparison of
alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 12,
pp. 1865-1883.
APJML Martín-Ruiz, D., Barroso-Castro, C. and Rosa-Díaz, I. (2012), “Creating customer value through service
30,2 experiences: an empirical study in the hotel industry”, Tourism & Hospitality Management,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Matzler, K. and Sauerwein, E. (2002), “The factor structure of customer satisfaction: an empirical test of
the importance grid and the penalty-reward-contrast analysis”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 314-332.
458 Matzler, K., Fü ller, J. and Faullant, R. (2007), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty to Alpine ski resorts:
the moderating effect of lifestyle, spending and customers’ skiing skills”, International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 409-421.
Matzler, K., Fü ller, J., Renzl, B., Herting, S. and Späth, S. (2008), “Customer satisfaction with Alpine Ski
areas: the moderating effects of personal, situational, and product factors”, Journal of Travel
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W. (2001), “Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:
investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Research,
February, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 131-142.
Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Petrick, J.F. (2002), “Experience use history as a segmentation tool to examine golf travellers’ satisfaction,
perceived value and repurchase intentions”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 332-342.
Psychology Concepts (2013), “Psychology concepts”, Social Desirability Bias, January 1, available at:
www.psychologyconcepts.com/social-desirability-bias/ (accessed August 23, 2017).
Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2001), “Put a new lens on loyalty to magnify profitability”,
Harvard Business Review, July, pp. 76-84.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Zimmermann, L. (2011), “Customer Satisfaction with commercial airlines:
the role of perceived safety and purpose of travel”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 459-472.
Samimi, A. and Mohammadi, R. (2011), “Measuring Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) in Iranian tile
industry using PLS path modeling technique”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 141-149.
Sanchez, M., Gazquez, J., Marin, G. and Sanchez, R. (2007), “Effects of service quality dimensions on
behavioral purchase intentions: a study in public sector transport”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 134-151.
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J. and Ringle, C. (2011), “Multi-group analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path
modeling: alternative methods and empirical results”, Advances in International Marketing,
Vol. 22, pp. 195-218.
Sousa, C. and Coelho, F. (2013), “Exploring the relationship between individual values and the customer
orientation of front-line employees”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 Nos 15/16,
pp. 653-1679.
Srivastava, M. and Rai, A.K. (2013), “An investigation of mediating and moderating variables in service
quality – customer loyalty relationship: a research agenda”, International Journal of Customer
Relationship Marketing and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 20-43.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item
scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Van Haaften, R. (2017), “The European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI)”, available at: www.van-
haaften.nl/customer-satisfaction/customer-satisfaction-models/137-the-europeancustomer-
satisfaction-index (accessed August 23, 2017).
Vesterinen, V. (2013), “Theseus.fi”, Service quality in Iso-Syöte: Case: Crystal available at: www.
theseus.fi/handle/10024/62154 (accessed August 23, 2017).
Weiermair, K. and Fuchs, M. (2000), “The impact of cultural distance on perceived service quality Examination
gaps”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 59-75. of customer-
Wiedmann, K., Hennigs, N., Schmidt, S. and Wüstefeld, T. (2012), “The perceived value of brand heritage centric
and brand luxury: managing the effect on brand strength”, in Diamantopoulos, A., Fritz, W. and
Hildebrandt, L. (Eds), Quantitative Marketing and Marketing Management: Marketing Models and measures
Methods in Theory and Practice, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 563-583.
Yarimoglu, E.K. (2015), “A review of service and e-service quality measurements: previous literature 459
and extension”, Journal of Economic & Social Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 169-200.
Yi, Y. and La, S. (2004), “What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and
repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 351-373.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), “Service quality delivery through web sites: a
critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 362-375.
Zemła, M. (2008), “The product quality of Polish ski-resorts: a case study of Silesian skiers’
requirements, satisfaction and complaints”, Tourism, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2009), Business Research Methods, Cengage
Learning, Toronto.
Further reading
Dick, A. 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.
DJS Research Ltd (2011), “What is acquiescence bias?”, (Alumnus) Market Research World,
February 28, available at: http://marketresearchworld.net/content/view/4015/78/ (accessed
August 23, 2017).
Encyclopedia.com (2007), “Critical issues to consider in research methodology”, Errors in Research,
March 29, available at: www.encyclopedia.com/education/applied-and-social-sciences-
magazines/critical-issues-consider-research-methodology (accessed August 23, 2017).
Lavrakas, P.J. (2008), “Sage research methods”, (Sage) Self-Selection Bias, January 1, available at: http://
methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n526.xml (accessed
August 23, 2017).
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Statistics How To (2015), “What is response bias?”, June 24, available at: www.statisticshowto.com/
response-bias/ (accessed August 23, 2017).
About the authors

Dr Matti J. Haverila is a Professor of Marketing at Thompson River University in Kamloops,
British Columbia, Canada. He received a PhD Degree from the Tampere University of Technology,
Finland. His research interests are in the marketing and R&D of technology intensive industries as well
as in customer satisfaction, loyalty and defection. His recent articles have appeared in Journal of
Marketing Management, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Market Intelligence and Planning and Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. Dr Matti J. Haverila is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: haverila@gmail.com
Kai Christian Haverila is a PhD Student at Concordia University in Montreal, QC, Canada and holds
an MBA Degree. His recent writings have appeared in International Journal of Mobile Communications
and Academy of Marketing Studies Journal.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Examination of Customer-Centric Measures Among Different Types of Customers in The Context of Major Canadian Ski Resort

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

Examination of Customer-Centric Measures Among Different Types of Customers in The Context of Major Canadian Ski Resort

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

Skiing and service quality

Employees and service quality

Measurement and questionnaire development

1. Image 2. Loyalty 3. Overall satisfaction 6. Value for money

Testing the PLS model as a formative model

Ski satisfaction 4.08 4.10 4.32 4.49 4.26**

Overall 0.854 0.746 Perceived image 0.283 Family oriented 0.568

Hypothesis testing with PLS modeling

About the authors

You might also like