The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Customer Satisfaction, Productivity, and Profitability: Differences Between Goods and Services
Abstract
There is widespread belief that firms should pursue superiority in both customer satisfaction and productivity. However, there is reason to believe these two goals are not always compatible. If a firm improves productivity by “downsizing,” it may achieve an increase in productivity in the short-term, but future profitability may be threatened if customer satisfaction is highly dependent on the efforts of personnel. If so, there are potential tradeoffs between customer satisfaction and productivity for industries as diverse as airlines, banking, education, hotels, and restaurants. Managers in these types of service industries, as well as goods industries in which the service component is increasing, need to understand whether or not this is the case. For example, if efforts to improve productivity can actually harm customer satisfaction—and vice-versa—the downsizing of U.S. and European companies should be viewed with concern. It follows that developing a better understanding of how customer satisfaction and productivity relate to one another is of substantial and growing importance, especially in light of expected continued growth in services throughout the world economy. The objective of this paper is to investigate whether there are conditions under which there are tradeoffs between customer satisfaction and productivity. A review of the literature reveals two conflicting viewpoints. One school of thought argues that customer satisfaction and productivity are compatible, as improvements in customer satisfaction can decrease the time andeffort devoted to handling returns, rework, warranties, and complaint management, while at the same time lowering the cost of making future transactions. The second argues that increasing customer satisfaction should increase costs, as doing so often requires efforts to improve product attributes or overall product design. A conceptual framework useful in resolving these contradictory viewpoints is developed. The framework serves, in turn, as a basis for developing a theoretical model relating customer satisfaction and productivity. The model predicts that customer satisfaction and productivity are less likely to be compatible when: 1) customer satisfaction is relatively more dependent on customization—the degree to which the firm's offering is customized to meet heterogeneous customers' needs—as opposed to standardization—the degree to which the firm's offering is reliable, standardized, and free from deficiencies; and 2) when it is difficult (costly) to provide high levels of both customization and standardization simultaneously. To move forward from the model's propositions to the development of testable hypotheses, we argue that services are more likely than goods to have the preceding characteristics. Hence, tradeoffs between customer satisfaction and productivity should be more prevalent for services than for goods. Although this classification is not precise—many services are standardizable and many goods have a service component—it has the advantage of allowing an initial test of the propositions. The empirical work employs a database matching customer-based measures of firm performance with traditional measures of business performance, such as productivity and Return on Investment (ROI). The central feature of this database is the set of customer satisfaction indices provided by the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB). The SCSB provides a uniform set of comparable customer-based firm performance measures and offers a unique opportunity to test the study's hypotheses. The findings indicate that the association between changes in customer satisfaction and changes in productivity is positive for goods, but negative for services. In addition, while both customer satisfaction and productivity are positively associated with ROI for goods and services, the interaction between the two is positive for goods but significantly less so for services. Taken together, the findings suggest support for the contention that tradeoffs are more likely for services. Hence, simultaneous attempts to increase both customer satisfaction and productivity are likely to be more challenging in such industries. Of course, this does not imply that such firms should not seek improvements in both productivity and customer satisfaction. For example, appropriate applications of information technology may improve both customer satisfaction and productivity simultaneously. The findings should provide motivation for future research concerning the nature of customer satisfaction and productivity, as well as appropriate strategy and tactics for each one. It is worth emphasizing that this is an issue that is not only important today, but certainly will become even more important in the future. As the growth of services continues and world markets become increasingly competitive, the importance of customer satisfaction will also increase. To compete in such a world, firms must strike the right balance between their efforts to compete efficiently and their efforts to compete effectively.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions
Oliver, R. L. (1980) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378001700405 · Cited by 14,494
A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience
Fornell, C. (1992) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1252129 · Cited by 5,641
Self-citationThe antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.12.2.125 · Cited by 4,610
Self-citationThe Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality
Aaker, D. A., & Jacobson, R. (1994) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3152193 · Cited by 789
Cited by
The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251898 · Cited by 4,736
Self-citationCorporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.001 · Cited by 3,439
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.2.24.60761 · Cited by 2,182
Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.4.33.18386 · Cited by 2,083
Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070301291002 · Cited by 2,002
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Rust, R. T.
- Venue
- Marketing Science
- Published
- 1997-05
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-145
- ISSN
- 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-548X
- OpenAlex
- W2107971134
- Cited by
- 1,378
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 26.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.