The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Why Improving Quality Doesn't Improve Quality (or Whatever Happened to Marketing?)
Abstract
Too often, quality programs fail to improve quality because they concentrate on internal processes which do not affect the customer. This is at least partially due to the alienation of marketing from the quality movement, a situation for which both sides are partially at fault. Ideally, marketing should serve as the eyes and ears of the organization, linking the external customer to managerial processes. One way to do this is to organize the collection of customer satisfaction measures around the managerial processes themselves. This forms a natural bridge from the customer to management and allows management to track the impact of quality improvements all the way from internal process measures to overall customer satisfaction and market share.
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
Cited by
Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.109.24030 · Cited by 2,151
Self-citationBolton, R. N. (1998) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.17.1.45 · Cited by 1,948
Zeithaml, V. A. (2000) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070300281007 · Cited by 1,919
Bolton, R. N., Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2004) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070304263341 · Cited by 741
Competitive and Procedural Determinants of Delight and Disappointment in Consumer Complaint Outcomes
Estelami, H. (2000) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/109467050023006 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- Kordupleski, R. E., Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J.
- Venue
- California Management Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-04
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 82-95
- ISSN
- 0008-1256 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-8564
- OpenAlex
- W2015909727
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.46
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Improving Quality Doesn't Improve Quality (or Whatever Happened to Marketing?). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/41166745
- The paper
- Kordupleski, R. E., Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Why Improving Quality Doesn't Improve Quality (or Whatever Happened to Marketing?). California Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166745
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.
