customer satisfaction and loyalty start with the product, culminate with the brand

Customer satisfaction and loyalty: start withthe product, culminate with the brand

Eduardo Torres-Moraga

Facultad de Economa y Negocios, University of Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile

Arturo Z. Vasquez-ParragaCollege of Business Administration, The University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, Texas, USA, and

Jorge Zamora-GonzalezFacultad de Ciencias Empresariales, University of Talca, Talca, Chile

AbstractPurpose Studies on customer satisfaction and loyalty have focused on brand rather than product. It is not that brand is not important, but theprocess of loving a brand starts with a product. Customers appreciate products by themselves, independent of the brand, as shown in their pursuit ofsatisfaction and development of loyalty. Such appreciation seems to be prominent regarding innovative products when compared to traditionalproducts. This paper aims to investigate this issue and provide a product-brand typology.Design/methodology/approach The paper takes the form of empirical research on a partial application of the typology.Findings Results show that the relationship satisfaction-loyalty is significantly present when evaluating products alone albeit a weaker presencethan when evaluating brand alone. Such unequal presence is corroborated in both traditional (bottled wine) and innovative (electronic) products eventhough it is much stronger in innovative products. The relationship satisfaction-loyalty is also present when evaluating product and brand combined,indicating that there is an intermediate position between product and brand. In contrast, the literature treats brand and product-brand as being in thesame category thereby diminishing the importance of a useful difference between brand and product-brand.Practical implications There are practical consequences of applying the typology and examining the findings. The relationship satisfaction-loyaltystarts with the product, includes the product-brand, and culminates with the brand. This process is significantly more important regarding innovativeproducts, such as electronics, as compared to traditional products such as wine.Originality/value This study introduces a typology underscoring the pursuit of satisfaction and development of loyalty in three conditions of productpresence versus brand presence, that is, product alone, brand alone, and product and brand combined.

Keywords Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty, Brands, Electronic commerce, Wines

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

This study aims at:. developing a comprehensive product-brand typology;. examining the relationship satisfaction-loyalty when

evaluating the product alone;. comparing the strength of the relationship in either

product alone or brand alone situations;. exploring the strength of the relationship in a product-

brand combined situation; and. comparing the strength of the relationship in either

traditional product or innovative product.

The first section reviews the literature on the key concepts of

this research: product, brand, customer satisfaction, and

customer loyalty, and introduces the product-brand typology.

The next section reports on the methodology used to partially

test the relationships emerging from the typology as

formulated in the propositions. The section on results gives

an account on the validity of the measures used and the

hypothesis tests performed. The remaining sections offer

conclusions, practical implications, and suggestions for future

research.

Literature review

Product and brand for customer relationships

This review focuses on product and brand as two stages in the

development of the benefits destined to satisfy customers

needs and preferences, and satisfaction and loyalty as two

stages in the customers response to the company offerings. It

is assumed that product is an initial stage in the product

offering whereas brand is a mature stage. Similarly,

satisfaction is an initial stage in the customer response to a

company offering whereas loyalty is a mature stage in such a

response.When studying customer satisfaction and/or loyalty,

research has focused on satisfaction or loyalty towards the

brand, not the product. The existence of the product has been

subsumed into the brand, thus ignoring brand as a separate

reality. In addition, when studying the product, such as in

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Journal of Consumer Marketing

25/5 (2008) 302313

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]

[DOI 10.1108/07363760810890534]

302

product development or product innovation, the customers

response (e.g., satisfaction or loyalty) to it has been ignored.One of the consequences of such an approach is that

marketers do not use the product as a base to gain customersatisfaction or to generate customer loyalty even if loyalty is

reduced to customer retention or purchase repetition(spurious loyalty).The product can be a good starting point for providing

satisfaction and generating loyalty, whereas the brand can be

the mature stage of such processes. The intention is not todiminish the importance of the brand; instead, the intention is

to recognize the importance of the product, separate from thebrand. The advantages of getting an early start with providing

satisfaction and generating loyalty towards the productinclude market pioneering, first mover advantages, low-cost

proactive innovation, and industry redefinition. Thedisadvantages of ignoring the product as an initial stage to

develop company policies for satisfaction and loyalty includeloss of market opportunities, loss of market leadership, high-

cost reactive innovation, and high-cost brand development.However, the recognition of the product as an initial stage

to develop satisfaction and loyalty policies may not be equalacross different products. Some products, lets say traditional

products, such as fresh food and drinks, may be in less need ofsuch policies, whereas innovative products, such as

automobiles and electronic equipment, may be highlydependent on such policies.A typology including the product and the brand in their

various levels of recognition, such as single product, product

mix, and no presence, is developed and presented below andthe relationships emerging from it tested.

Customer satisfaction as antecedent of loyalty

Satisfaction is often used as a predictor of future consumerpurchases (Newman and Werbel, 1973; Kasper, 1988).

Satisfied customers have a higher likelihood of repeatingpurchases in time (Zeithaml et al., 1996), of recommendingthat others try the source of satisfaction (Reynolds andArnold, 2000; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999), and of becoming

less receptive to the competitors offerings (Fitzell, 1998).More specifically, satisfaction is found to be a necessary

precursor of customer loyalty (Fitzell, 1998; Fornell, 1992;Reynolds and Beatty, 1999; Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt, 2000;

Zeithaml et al., 1996). Whereas satisfaction and loyalty arerecognized as strongly related by most studies (Anderson and

Sullivan, 1993; Fornell, 1992; Rust and Zahorik, 1993; Taylorand Baker, 1994), some consider the relationship to be

interchangeable (Hallowell, 1996; Oliver, 1999), and some tobe unidirectional, that is, progressing from satisfaction to

loyalty only (Strauss and Neuhaus, 1997). Satisfied customerstend to be loyal customers with (Rowley, 2005) or without the

mediation of other variables (Coyne, 1989; Fornell, 1992;Oliva et al., 1992).

Customer loyalty as an outcome of marketing

relationships

A quick observation of customer loyalty is repeated purchase(Ball et al., 2004; Copeland, 1923; Newman and Werbel,1973; Tellis and Chandy, 1998). In practical terms, firmswant repeated purchases mainly because such behavior in

consumers can:. apparently show the customer preference for a brand or

product (Bowen and Shoemaker, 1998);

. reflect a customers purchase intention (Mellens et al.,1996); and

. presumably secure profitability (Reichfeld and Sasser,1990; Rust et al., 2004; Reinartz et al., 2005) by increasingmarket share (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001).

Yet, the literature has categorized this type of loyalty asspurious loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994) or loyalty by inertia(Solomon, 1992; Bloemer and Kasper, 1994) because it onlysignals behavioral customer response. The consideration ofattitudes in addition to the behavioral representation makesloyalty not just richer conceptually (loyalty is a process, notjust an act) but also more useful for practical purposes, suchas influencing customers both attitudinally and behaviorally(Dick and Basu, 1994; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978; Jacobyand Kyner, 1973; Oliver, 1999; Olson and Jacoby, 1971).Attitudinal loyalty reflects customers cognitive, affective, andconative predispositions to continue relating to the brand orcompany (Oliver, 1999) often involving customercommitment (Bloemer and Kasper, 1994; Morgan andHunt, 1994; Solomon, 1992) or, better yet, involving trustand commitment, in this order, after an initial experience ofcustomer satisfaction (Bravo et al. 2005; Vasquez-Parraga andAlonso, 2000; Zamora et al., 2004).Consequently, true loyalty (behavioral and attitudinal)

would be more powerful to not only influence the bottom linebut also the mediating processes towards the bottom line suchas:. customers intention to favorably recommend the brand or

company to others (Getty and Thompson, 1994);. horizontal communication (customer to customer),

mouth-to-mouth communication in particular (Gremlerand Brown, 1999; Reynolds and Arnold, 2000; Srinivasanet al., 2002);

. customers resistance to competitors offerings (Gundlachet al., 1995) and persuasive tactics to attract newcustomers (Dick and Basu, 1994); and

. buzz marketing (Grifiin, 1995).

Finally, loyalty is often considered to be a predictor of thefirms financial performance. The relationship, however, isoften established as part of a trio: customer satisfaction-customer loyalty-firms performance (Reichfeld and Sasser,1990; Zeithaml et al., 1990; Anderson et al., 1994; Storbackaet al., 1994; Rust et al., 1995; Hallowell, 1996; Fornell, 1992)

Customer satisfaction-loyalty relationships bylevels of product-brand presence

Product and brand are not synonymous (Schiffman et al.,1997). Yet, some authors have used them interchangeably,particularly when they have addressed repeated purchases(e.g., Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1997). As defined above,product and brand are significantly different bothconceptually and practically. Similarly, customer satisfactionand loyalty are significantly different even though they arestrongly and unidirectionally related.The following typology reflects a customer evolution in

adopting a product or brand and in becoming loyal besidesachieving satisfaction. A customer usually starts judging aproduct in order to find the benefits it brings and thesatisfaction it promises (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999). Thegeneric or unbranded product would be enough to start sucha selection process. Inexperienced consumers with a line of

Customer satisfaction and loyalty

Eduardo Torres-Moraga, Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga and Jorge Zamora-Gonzalez


Volume 25 Number 5 2008 302313

303

products start with the product benefits and preferences

whereas experienced consumers go directly to the brands. As

the customer becomes more experienced with the product, he

or she may focus on a brand.Similarly, products follow life cycles in combination with

their brands: new products are first recognized as products

and later, after the products have satisfied many customers

and reached a more developed stage, as brands. In adopting

cellular phones, for instance, recent customers adopt the

product that best fits their needs or best appeals to them

emotionally, symbolically, and/or cognitively (Park et al.,1986). More experienced but not highly experienced

customers adopt a range of brands on the basis of both

value and price, whereas highly experienced customers

become loyal to a brand.The typology is an effort to represent the evolution of

product to brand in customer choice and the sequential

achievement of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.

Consequently, three levels of product presence (no presence,

presence of a product, and presence of a set of products) are

compared to three levels of brand presence (no presence,

presence of a brand, and presence of a set of brands). Each

cell generated in the comparison (nine cells in total eight

cells are useful because cell 1 is mute) serves to characterize

the type of customer satisfaction-loyalty relationship (see

Figure 1) as described in the following analyses.

Satisfaction-loyalty to the product alone (cell 2)

Customers that evaluate products for the first time focus on

the product benefits, not the brand. The emphasis is in the

tangible attributes of the product, which are visible and

accountable to the buyer (Keller, 1993). For instance,

consumers adopting a cellular phone for the first time may

look at its functions and properties and postpone any

particular interest in a brand. Similarly, low-price car buyers

may focus on the characteristics of the car regardless of brand.

Satisfaction-loyalty to a bundle of products (cell 3)

In addition to focusing on product benefits, some first-time

customers extend such evaluation to bundles of products. For

example, first-time customers who adopt hi-tech products or

innovative products such as electronics or fashion clothing

usually focus on the product functions or attributes,

respectively.

Satisfaction-loyalty to a brand alone (cell 4)

Some customers choose a brand regardless of the product.

For instance, customers who like the Sony brand in any

product Sony may offer, televisions, disc players, photo

cameras, etc. may demonstrate brand loyalty by making

subsequent purchases of Sony products without regard to

other brands. Some brands are linked to products in similar

lines, such as Sony or General Electric, whereas other brands

relate to products in different product lines such as Nestle or

the new Apple. Still some customers identify themselves with

a brand or adopt a brand because it reflects their personality

(Aaker, 1997). Most studies have focused on brand alone

emphasizing its intangible attributes or associations in various

forms: a) company advertising, public relations, and word-of-

mouth communications (Biel, 1992; Krishnan, 1996) media

reports on consumption (Biel, 1992), consumers direct

experience with the product (Biel, 1992; Burnkrant and

Unnava, 1995; Haynes et al., 1999; Hoch and Deighton,1989), brand-owning companys reputation (Nguyen and

LeBlanc, 2001), country of origin (Erickson et al., 1984;Hong and Wyer, 1990), and product distributors (Pettijohn

et al., 1992). Some studies have also emphasized thecombination of tangible and intangible attributes in the

product portrayals (Keller, 1993) or market equilibrium

(Wernerfelt, 1991).

Satisfaction-loyalty to product-brand combinations

(cell 5)

Customers choose the same product line in a range of brands,

for instance, television sets in three brands only, Sony, Philips

and Samsung. Some customers choose clothes or cars within

a range of two or three brands only. Some studies on

customer loyalty seem to have taken into account this type of

combination (Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999).

Conditional satisfaction-loyalty to a brand (cell 6) or

conditional satisfaction-loyalty to a product (cell 8)

Customers attempt to link a product with a brand and set

their preferences in product-brand combinations. A customer

may choose the product or the brand first and then follow

with the brand or the product, respectively (Jacoby and

Kyner, 1973; Brucks, 1985; Dawar and Parker, 1994). For

instance, a customer may choose Sony TV, JVC disc players,

and Cannon photo cameras. Similarly, consumers may choose

Figure 1 Types of satisfaction-loyalty relationships by levels of product-brand presence





304

Levis blue jeans, Arrow shirts, and Dockers socks. The

selection is conditional because when deciding on television

sets, the customer will only favor a Sony brand, or whenadopting disc players, the buyer will only embrace a JVC

brand, and so on.

Satisfaction-loyalty to a set of brands (cell 7)

Some customers, particularly when associating their decisionsto cultural, social or economic peculiarities, buy within a

short span of brands regardless of product. For instance, rich

customers are found to fit this profile in brand choice bybuying luxury or upscale brands only such as Porsche and

Lexus in cars, Gucci and Hartmann in bags and luggage,Celine and Vuitton in clothes, and Burberry and La Vallee in

clothing stores. Similarly, customers that distinguishthemselves by generation, place of origin, or group beliefs

limit their brand choices to particular sets of brands, the ones

that distinguish them in terms of generation, place of origin orgroup beliefs, respectively (Boush et al., 1987; Park et al.,1991; Dacin and Smith, 1994; Herr et al., 1996; Klink andSmith, 2001).

Satisfaction-loyalty to a basket of product-brand

combinations (cell 9)

Many customers choose sets of products within ranges ofbrands, one set per range of brand. For example, in choosing

women cosmetics, some women prefer a set of brands (e.g.,Lancome, Ahrens, and Helena Rubinstein) for face cosmetics,

and another set, for body cosmetics, and so on. The

expressions if I buy moisture lotion it has to be Olay orChanel or if I buy wet shaving products they have to be

Gillette or Colgate Palmolive are common in this cell ofconsumer choices.Cells 2 (product alone), 4 (brand alone) and 5 (product-

brand) will be subject to test using a survey research. From

the above considerations regarding these three cells, we can

formulate the following proposition and hypotheses:

P1. The relationship satisfaction-loyalty is present in bothconsumer products and brand choices, includingproduct-brand combinations. Yet, this relationship is

stronger when customers adopt brands than when theyadopt products. It is stronger when they adopt

innovative products than when they choose

traditional products.H1. The relationship satisfaction-loyalty is significant in

both consumer products and brand choices, includingproduct-brand combinations.

H2. The more the brand is used in adopting the product,the greater the impact of satisfaction on loyalty.

H3. The impact of satisfaction on loyalty is greater inadoptions of product-brand combinations than in

product adoptions alone, but weaker than in brand

adoptions alone.H4. In product adoptions alone, the impact of satisfaction

on loyalty is greater when adopting innovate productsthan it is when adopting traditional products.

Methodology

Research design

A 3 2 research design was applied in order to secure threegroups of consumers (in terms of their choices of brand,

product, or product-brand) and two groups of consumers

adopting either innovative products or traditional products.The strength of the relationship between satisfaction and

loyalty is measured for each type of adoption: product alone,

product-brand, and brand alone. Six off-the-shelf scalesmeasuring each construct, satisfaction or loyalty, were

adapted from the literature as a starting point. The

satisfaction measures were adapted from Sharma andPatterson (1999); Brockman (1998); Smith and Barclay

(1997); Nguyen and LeBlanc (1998); and Veloutsou et al.(2004). The loyalty measures were adapted from Rowley and

Dawes (2000); Yoon and Kim (2000); Nguyen and LeBlanc

(1998); and Veloutsou et al. (2004).Because some of the scales were originally developed in

different contexts of consumers, a pilot study with focusgroups and a group of industrial and retail executives

preceded the actual study. This resulted in four depurated

scaled items per construct. A pre-test of the questionnairefollowed with 105 respondents and resulted in the elimination

of an additional item per construct after evaluating factoranalysis results in light of conceptual contents presented

above. Thus, three scaled items of a Likert type of seven

points (1 completely disagree through 7 completelyagree) for each construct were applied in the final survey.

Samples

Two types of products were adopted, electronic products to

represent innovative products and wine, to representtraditional products. A quota sample was comprised of

customers who buy electronic products or wine for a total of

1,223 respondents (830 buyers of electronic products and 393buyers of wine). The first sample is more than two times the

second sample due to the greater variety of products andbrands in that segment and because the group of product-

brand adopters was absent in the sample of wine buyers.The resulting sample of electronic-product buyers is

distributed as follows: 43 percent adopted product-brands,

40 percent adopted products alone, and 17 percent adoptedbrands alone. Among wine buyers, 55 percent adopted

products alone and 45 percent adopted brands alone.

Results

Reliability

Confirmatory factor analysis with Varimax rotation resultsrevealed that each construct, customer satisfaction and loyalty

among buyers of electronic products, is one-dimensional as

shown in Table I. All Cronbach alphas (Cronbach, 1951) areabove the 0.70 threshold established by Nunnally (1978), and

all item-total correlations are above the 0.30 limit (Nurosis,1993). Table I shows similar results for wine buyers except for

the Cronbach Alpha above 0.60 in the loyalty factor, still

acceptable for exploratory factor analysis (Hair et al., 1998).

Hypothesis tests

Hypothesis tests were conducted using structural equationmodeling (EQS version 6.1). A maximum likelihood method

(Hu et al., 1992) is used in order to prevent potentialproblems derived from the lack of univariate normality in the

data. Figures 2-6 show that the relationship between customer

satisfaction and loyalty is positive and significant (at 0.01level) in the three situations of adoption: product alone, brand

alone and product-brand combination. These results support





305

Table I Satisfaction and loyalty: factor analysis by type of product

Brand alone Product-brand Product alone

Indicator Loading Indicator Loading Indicator Loading

Loyalty: electronic products LTM1 0.80 LMP1 0.78 LTP1 0.59

LTM2 0.84 LMP2 0.84 LTP2 0.88

LTM3 0.83 LMP3 0.79 LTP3 0.88

CA* 0:76 CA 0:72 CA 0:70EV* 67:63 percent EV 64:66 percent EV 63:29 percent

Satisfaction: electronic products STM1 0.88 SMP1 0.87 STP1 0.89

STM2 0.86 SMP2 0.86 STP2 0.92

STM3 0.92 SMP3 0.89 STP3 0.90

CA 0:86 CA 0:85 CA 0:89EV 78:53 percent EV 77:03 percent EVA 81:99 percent

Loyalty: wine products LTM1 0.76 LTP1 0.85

LTM2 0.75 LTP2 0.85

LTM3 0.76 LTP3 0.56

CA* 0:63 CA 0:63EV* 57:53 percent EV 58:39 percent

Satisfaction: wine products STM1 0.73 STP1 0.67

STM2 0.79 STP2 0.67

STM3 0.63 STP3 0.80

STM4 0.76 STP4 0.79

CA 0:70 CA 0:71EV 53:17 percent EV 53:93 percent

Notes: CA Cronbach alpha; EV Explained variance

Figure 2 Satisfaction-loyalty relationship for brand alone (electronic products)

Figure 3 Satisfaction-loyalty relationship for product-brand combinations (electronic products)





306

H1. Similarly, Table II shows acceptable adjustment measures

for all relationships in both types of products, innovative and

traditional, providing additional support for H1.In support of H2, the relationship satisfaction-loyalty is

stronger in brand adoptions as compared to product

adoptions as observed in Table III and in Figures 2-6. The

main reason brand adoptions produce more customer

satisfaction, which in turn produces more customer loyalty,

has to do with the addition of intangible characteristics to the

product tangible features. Intangible components include

psychological benefits of symbolic and emotional value (Park

et al., 1986) and a consumers preference for the personality

he or she sees reflected in the brand (Aaker, 1997). Product

adoptions alone generate customer satisfaction, which in turn

generates customer loyalty on the basis of tangible product

features such as useful functions and attractive appearance.

Most often this is the initial stage of customer satisfaction and

an important one. Yet, it takes the brand to raise the level of

satisfaction with some intangible benefits.In support of H3, Table III and Figures 2-6 show that the

impact of satisfaction on loyalty is greater in adoptions of

product-brand combinations than in product adoptions alone,

but weaker than in brand adoptions alone. This is an

intermediate stage of development in the relationship between

Figure 4 Satisfaction-loyalty relationship for product alone (electronic products)

Figure 5 Satisfaction-loyalty relationship for brand alone (wine products)

Figure 6 Satisfaction-loyalty relationship for product alone (wine products)





307

sellers and buyers, providers and customers. A product-brand

combination brings the advantages of both the tangible

features of the product and the intangible benefits of the

brand in a period of development in which neither the

product nor the brand is able to dominate. On the consumer

side, this stage is represented by a medium-level of

satisfaction-loyalty as compared to the one generated for the

brand alone, assuming the dominance of the brand was able

to generate greater levels of satisfaction by maximizing the

virtues of both tangible and intangible, especially the later

ones, benefits of the product.Finally, in support of H4, Table III and Figures 2-6 show

that the impact of satisfaction on loyalty is greater when

adopting innovative (electronic) products than when adopting

traditional (wine) products. Following a recommendation by

Ailawadi et al. (2001) and using the Fishers Z-test and aprocedure introduced by Cohen and Cohen (1983) to test the

significance of the difference, the results in Table III show that

the relationship is significantly stronger among adopters of

innovative (electronic) products than it is among adopters of

traditional (wine) products. This may happen because

innovative products require more customer participation in

the process of delivering the product to the customer. By the

nature of innovative products, customers become more active

in their search for the product at the same time they become

more scrutinizing and more demanding of satisfaction. Thus,

innovative-product manufacturers and providers work harder

at satisfying the customer, whereas traditional-product

manufacturers and providers may just rely on a customary

base of customers to keep going.

Conclusions

Customer satisfaction and loyalty can be achieved by either

emphasizing the product or the brand depending on the level

of development of the product or product line in the markets.

At the introduction stage of the product, emphasis is on the

product and the tangible aspects of it. Satisfaction can be

achieved at this stage if there is a fit between the customer

need and the product offering. The intensity of satisfaction

attained at this stage, however, is not high mainly because of

the absence or scarcity of the psychological benefits included

in the product offering. At a more mature stage of the

product, there are given opportunities for the brand to excel if

it is able to add enough intangible benefits to the product.

When successful, this new bundle of tangible and intangible

benefits can produce higher customer satisfaction, which in

turn can generate higher customer loyalty in the long term.Yet, a more mature stage can combine a product-brand

where both tangible and intangible benefits are salient without

any set (tangible or intangible) prevailing over the other.

Alternatively, this stage can privilege the brand emphasizing

the intangible benefits. The consequences of either approach

(product-brand or brand alone) on customer satisfaction,

however, are distinctive: the brand alone is able to produce a

stronger satisfaction-loyalty relationship than the product-

brand combination. Nevertheless and despite the benefits of

achieving the stage of a brand alone, it seems that both

customer and manufacturer/provider have to pull up the

brand. The manufacturer/provider cannot reach the highest

stage without the customers help. The customer would finally

Table II Satisfaction-loyalty relationship: goodness of fit by type of product

Electronic products Wine products

Brand alone Product-brand Product alone Brand alone Product alone

Goodness of fit indicesx2 50.405 (8) 30.354 14.466 44.925 45.265

df 8 8 8 13 13

p # 0.001 # 0.001 # 0.001 # 0.001 c 0.001GFI 0.887 0.975 0.986 0.939 0.934

Increases in goodness of fitNFI 0.885 0.966 0.985 0.836 0.831

IFI 0.902 0.975 0.993 0.878 0.873

CFI 0.900 0.974 0.993 0.874 0.869

Adjustments for parsimonyx2/df 6.3 3.79 1.8 3.5 3.48

Table III Satisfaction-loytalty relationship: intensity of the differences

Differences

Fishers

Z-testSignificance

level

Electronic products versus wine productsSTP! LTP (electronics) and STP! LTP (wine) 6.32 0.01STM! LTM (electronics) and STM! LTM (wine) 6.91 0.01Electronic productsSTM! LTM (electronics) and STP! LTP (electronics) 2.33 0.05STP! LTM (electronics) and STP! LTP (electronics) 5.19 0.01STP! LTP (electronics) and STP! LTP (electronics) 2.86 0.01





308

accept the brand alone as the subject of his satisfaction and

follow-up loyalty.The above fitting process between product or brand

adoption and customer satisfaction-loyalty is more intense in

the world of innovative products, such as electronic products,

as compared to traditional products, such as wine. Innovativeproduct processes, such as the ones involved in electronic

products, accelerate the interaction between adoption andrelationships. The intensity in technological developments is

usually matched by customers higher participation in such

processes. By contrast, traditional products do not requireeither technological innovations or active customer

participation or both in the usually slow-paced development

of the product. As a consequence, traditional products do notreach high levels of satisfaction-loyalty, at least not as high as

the ones achieved in innovative-product processes.

Managerial implications

The practical implications of the results achieved in this

research are three-fold. First, managers, particularly, product

or brand managers, should pay attention to the developmentof the product by itself. The customer pays attention to such

development when the product is new or innovated and shows

satisfaction even when taking into account the product alone.Of course, the level of customer satisfaction achieved is not

very high and does not generate strong customer loyalty but is

present and can mark the initial point of a successful path inboth product development and customer satisfaction-loyalty.Second, managers should use the product-brand stage, an

intermediate level in product development, to enhance the

brand and its intangible benefits over the product and its

tangible features. The combination is not always of equalparts or equal importance, but it signals the presence of both,

without either prevailing over the other. To continue progress

in product development, the company should attempt tomake the brand salient by enhancing the intangible benefits of

the product if it finds that the customer is ready for that stage.

The customer is ready for the brand stage when he or she candecide on the basis of the intangible benefits of the product,

ceteris paribus, the tangible features already in place. If movingto the higher stage of the brand alone is difficult, either theproduct-brand combination will have a longer life, delaying

the stage of the brand alone, or the customer satisfaction is

strongly linked to the tangible benefits of the product, makingmore costly to the company the addition of the chosen

intangible benefits.Finally, the shifting process from product alone to product-

brand to brand alone is faster in technologically innovative

products. In this product category, managers can use suchadvantage to achieve the highest stage (brand alone) faster

with probably short periods of product alone and product-

brand combinations. Conversely, managers can haveinsurmountable problems in accelerating the process in

traditional products. Correct policies linked to traditional

products can emphasize the product or the product-brand inthe long term even if the stage of the brand alone can develop

at some point in the future. This is a healthy guidance for

managers of traditional products, so that they should notwaste time and resources in developing the brand in

traditional products that require longer life in the previousstages of product alone and/or product-brand combinations.Consequently, company positioning policies should:

. start with the product, particularly when developing new

products or innovating existing ones;. evaluate product and brand combined when product

development has reached a state of maturity that is

considered enough to maintain a brand; and. culminate with the policy by focusing on the brand as the

last stage in the learning process.

Limitations and future research

When studying the satisfaction-loyalty relationship as derived

from the product adoption process, the literature has ignored

both the product alone and the product-brand combinations.

In this research, we have addressed this forgotten problem

and clarified that customer satisfaction and loyalty start early

in the process, that is, in the development stage of the product

alone. Despite this clarification, however, much remains to be

done. We have tested only three quadrants in the proposed

typology of satisfaction-loyalty relationships by levels of

product-brand presence. The other quadrants, except the

one where there is no brand and product, can also be and

should be tested empirically in order to validate their

corresponding formulations. In addition, further studies are

needed regarding the two stages we have tested empirically,

that is, the product alone and the product-brand

combinations. Whereas previous studies have privileged the

brand over the product in its effects on customer satisfaction

and loyalty, this is a new study and validation of the findings is

called for in other product lines, other market conditions, or

other measures.

References

Aaker, J.L. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, August, pp. 347-56.

Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A. and Gedenk, K. (2001),

Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: store brands

versus national brand promotions, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 65, January, pp. 71-89.

Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M. (1993), The antecedents and

consequences of customer satisfaction for firms, Marketing

Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-43.

Anderson, E., Fornell, C. and Lehman, D. (1994), Customer

satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from

Sweden, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 53-66.

Ball, D., Simoes-Coelho, P. and Machas, A. (2004), The

role of communication and trust in explaining customer

loyalty: an extension to the ECSI model, European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 1272-93.

Biel, A.L. (1992), How brand image drives brand equity,

Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32, November/

December, pp. RC6, R12.

Bloemer, J.M.M. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1994), The impact of

satisfaction on brand loyalty: Urging on classifying

satisfaction and brand loyalty, Journal of Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,

Vol. 7, pp. 152-60.

Boush, D., Shipp, S., Loken, B., Gensturk, E., Crockett, S.,

Kennedy, E., Minshall, B., Misurell, D., Rochford, L. and

Strobel, J. (1987), Affect generalization to similar and

dissimilar brand extensions, Psychology and Marketing,

Vol. 4, Fall, pp. 225-41.





309

Bowen, J. and Shoemaker, S. (1998), Loyalty: a strategic

commitment, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly, Vol. 2, February, pp. 12-25.

Bravo, M., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. and Zamora, J. (2005),

Loyalty in the air: facts and myths related to airline

passenger loyalty, Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo, Vol. 14

No. 2, pp. 101-26.

Brockman, B. (1998), The influence of affective state on

satisfaction ratings, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 11, pp. 40-50.

Brucks, M. (1985), The effects of product class knowledge

on information search behavior, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Burnkrant, R.E. and Unnava, H.R. (1995), Effects of self-

referencing on persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research,

Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 17-26.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), The chain of

effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand

performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-94.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/

Correlation Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.,

Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Copeland, M.T. (1923), Relation of consumer buying habits

to marketing methods, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 4,

pp. 283-9.

Coyne, K. (1989), Beyond service fads meaningful

strategies for the real world, Sloan Management Review,

Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 69-76.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951), Coefficient alpha and the internal

structure of test, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, October,

pp. 297-334.

Dacin, P.A. and Smith, D.C. (1994), The effect of brand

portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand

extensions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May,

pp. 229-42.

Dawar, N. and Parker, P. (1994), Marketing universals:

consumers, use of brand name, price, physical appearance

and retailer reputation as signals of product quality,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 81-95.

Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward

an integrated conceptual framework, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.

Erickson, G.M., Johansson, J. and Chao, P. (1984), Image

variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: country-of-

origin effect, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11,

September, pp. 694-9.

Fitzell, P. (1998), The Explosive Growth of Private Labels in

North America, Global Books, New York, NY.

Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction

barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-21.

Getty, J.M. and Thompson, K.N. (1994), The relationship

between quality, satisfaction and recommending behaviour

in lodging decisions, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure


Gremler, D. and Brown, S. (1999), The loyalty ripple effect:

appreciating the full value of customers, International Journal

of Service Industry, Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 271-91.

Grifiin, J. (1995), Customer Loyalty: How to Earn It, How to

Keep It, Lexington Books, New York, NY.

Gundlach, G., Achrol, R. and Mentzer, J. (1995), The

structure of commitment in exchange, Journal of


Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.

(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall,

New York, NY.

Hallowell, R. (1996), The relationship of customer

satisfaction, customer loyalty and profitability: an

empirical study, International Journal of Service Industries

Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 27-42.

Haynes, A., Lackman, C. and Guskey, A. (1999),

Comprehensive brand presentation: ensuring consistent

brand image, Journal of Product & Brand Management,

Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 286-300.

Herr, P., Farquhar, P. and Fazio, R. (1996), Impact of

dominance and relatedness on brand extensions, Journal of

Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 135-59.

Hoch, S.J. and Deighton, J. (1989), Managing what

consumers learn from experience, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 53, April, pp. 1-20.

Hong, S.-T. and Wyer, R. (1990), Determinants of product

evaluation: effect of the time interval between knowledge of

a products country of origin and information about its

specific attributes, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17,

December, pp. 277-88.

Hu, L., Bentler, P.M. and Kano, Y. (1992), Can test

statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted,

Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112, pp. 351-62.

Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty:

Measurement and Management, John Wiley & Sons, New

York, NY.

Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), Brand loyalty vs repeat

purchasing behaviour, Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 10, February, pp. 1-9.

Kasper, H. (1988), On problem perception, dissatisfaction

and brand loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9

No. 3, pp. 387-97.

Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and

managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.

Klink, R. and Smith, D. (2001), Threats to the external

validity of brand extensions research, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 38, August, pp. 326-35.

Krishnan, H.S. (1996), Characteristics of memory

associations: a consumer-based brand equity perspective,

International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4,

pp. 389-405.

Mellens, M., Dekimpe, M.G. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.B.

(1996), A review of brand-loyalty measures in

marketing, Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management,

Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 507-33.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-

trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of


Newman, J.W. and Werbel, R.A. (1973), Multivariate

analysis of brand loyalty for major household appliances,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 404-9.

Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G. (1998), The mediating role of

corporate image on customers retention decisions: an

investigation in financial services, International Journal of

Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 52-65.





310

Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G. (2001), Corporate image and

corporate reputation in customers retention decisions in

services, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8

No. 4, pp. 227-36.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Nurosis, M.J. (1993), SPSS: Statistical Data Analysis, SPSS,

Chicago, IL.

Oliva, T., Oliver, R. and McMillan, I. (1992), A catastrophe

model for developing service satisfaction strategies,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 83-95.

Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on

the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R.L. (1999), Whence consumer loyalty?, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 63, special issue, pp. 33-44.

Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1971), A construct validations

study of brand loyalty, Proceedings of the American

Psychological Association, Vol. 6, pp. 657-8.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1986),

Strategic brand concept-image management, Journal of


Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991), Evaluation

of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity

and concept consistency, Journal of Consumer Research,

Vol. 18, September, pp. 185-93.

Pettijohn, L., Mellott, D. and Pettijohn, C. (1992), The

relationship between retailer image and brand image,

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 311-28.

Reichfeld, F.W. and Sasser, W.E. (1990), Zero defections:

quality comes to services, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68

No. 5, pp. 105-11.

Reinartz, W.J., Thomas, J.S. and Kumar, V. (2005),

Balancing acquisition and retention resources to

maximize customer profitability, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 69, January, pp. 63-79.

Reynolds, K. and Arnold, M. (2000), Customer loyalty to

the salesperson and the store: examining relationship

customers in an upscale retail context, Journal of Personal

Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 20, April, pp. 89-97.

Reynolds, K. and Beatty, S. (1999), Customer benefits and

company consequences of customer-salesperson

relationships in retailing, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75

No. 1, pp. 11-32.

Rowley, J. (2005), The four Cs of customer loyalty,

Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 574-81.

Rowley, J. and Dawes, J. (2000), Disloyalty: a closer look at

non-loyals, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 6,

pp. 538-49.

Rust, R. and Zahorik, A. (1993), Customer satisfaction,

customer retention and market share, Journal of Retailing,

Vol. 69, Summer, pp. 145-56.

Rust, R.T., Lemon, K. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2004), Return

on marketing: using customer equity to focus marketing

strategic, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 109-27.

Rust, R., Zahorik, A. and Keiningham, T. (1995), Return on

quality (ROQ): Making service quality financially

accountable, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2,

pp. 58-70.

Schiffman, L., Bendall, D., Watson, J. and Kanuk, L.L.

(1997), Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Sydney.

Sharma, N. and Patterson, P. (1999), The impact of

communication effectiveness and services quality on

relationship commitment in consumer, professional

services, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2,

pp. 151-70.

Sivadas, E. and Baker-Prewitt, J. (2000), An examination of

the relationship between service quality, customer

satisfaction, and store loyalty, International Journal of

Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 73-82.

Smith, J. and Barclay, D. (1997), The effect of

organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of

selling partner relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61,

January, pp. 3-21.

Solomon, M.R. (1992), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having

and Being, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.

Srinivasan, S., Anderson, R. and Ponnavolu, K. (2002),

Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an examination of its

antecedents and consequences, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78

No. 1, pp. 41-50.

Storbacka, K., Strandvik, T. and Gronroos, C. (1994),

Managing customer relationships for profit: the dynamics

of relationship quality, International Journal of Service

Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 21-38.

Strauss, B. and Neuhaus, P. (1997), The qualitative

satisfaction model, International Journal of Service

Industries Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 236-49.

Taylor, S. and Baker, T. (1994), An assessment of the

relationship between service quality and customer

satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase

intentions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 163-78.

Tellis, G.J. and Chandy, R.K. (1998), Organizing for radical

product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to

cannibalize, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 4,

pp. 474-87.

Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. and Alonso, S. (2000), Antecedents

of customer loyalty for strategic intent, in Workman, J.P.

and Perreault, W.D. (Eds), Marketing Theory and

Applications, American Marketing Association, Chicago,

IL, pp. 82-3.

Veloutsou, C., Daskou, S. and Daskou, A. (2004), Are the

determinants of bank loyalty brand specific?, Journal of

Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 113-25.

Wernerfelt, B. (1991), Brand loyalty and market

equilibrium, Marketing Science, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 229-45.

Yoon, S. and Kim, J. (2000), An empirical validation of a

loyalty model based on expectation disconfirmation,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 120-6.

Zamora, J., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., Morales, F. and

Cisternas, C. (2004), Formation process of guest loyalty:

theory and empirical test, Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo,

Vol. 13 Nos 3-4, pp. 197-221.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), The

behavioral consequences of service quality, Journal of


Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. (1990),

Delivering Quality Service, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Corresponding author

Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga can be contacted at: avasquez@

utpa.edu





311

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with aparticular interest in the topic covered may then read the article intoto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial present.

Why product is important

Research into customer satisfaction and loyalty has so far

almost exclusively focused on brands. In contrast, products

have largely been ignored and considered as part of the brandrather than a separate entity. That customer satisfaction and

loyalty can in fact be directed at the product has therefore not

been acknowledged. One consequence has been reluctance

from marketers to use the product as a means of generating

satisfaction and loyalty. Torres-Moraga et al. put forward theview that the product is the starting point for the satisfaction

and loyalty process, whereas the brand represents the

advanced stage.Gaining satisfaction and loyalty at this initial phase can

result in several benefits, including first-mover advantage,

low-cost proactive innovation and an opportunity to redefine

the market. In contrast, lost market opportunities, marketleadership and the higher costs associated with reactive

innovation are some consequences of ignoring the product

stage for such purposes.However, the influence of product on satisfaction and

loyalty may depend on the product type. Indications suggest

there will be less impact with traditional goods like food and

drink but considerable significance when the products are

innovative. Automobiles and electronic equipment are two

product areas noted in this respect.Satisfaction is essentially viewed as the antecedent to

loyalty. Satisfied customers become loyal customers who

express this loyalty through their purchase behavior and

future purchase intention. But loyalty that merely exists at this

behavioral level is dismissed as spurious by some observers.

The argument here is that loyalty is more profound when it

incorporates attitude as well as behavior since it reflects

cognitive, affective and conative attachment on the

customers part. This level of loyalty is often expressed

through such as positive word-of-mouth, recommendation to

others and a refusal to consider rival offerings.

A satisfaction-loyalty typology

Based on the existence of a life cycle whereby products evolve

into brands, the authors suggest a typology to elucidate the

process. Eight different stages combining various levels of

product and brand presence are suggested. The present study

focuses on customer satisfaction-loyalty relating to three of

these stages:1 Product alone, when consumer evaluation occurs for the

first time.2 Brand alone some consumers will opt for a specific

brand for a range of different products. Take Sony, for

instance. Those who support this brand may purchase

television sets, disc players, cameras or various otherelectrical appliances or gadgets.

3 Product-brand past research has acknowledged this

intermediate phase where customer selection of a

particular product will be limited to within a small range

of brands. One example would be narrowing the choice of

a new television to Samsung, Phillips or Sony.

Research was designed to examine the extent of satisfaction-

loyalty within these different adoption phases in relation to

either traditional or innovative products. Wine was chosen for

the traditional product and electronic goods as its innovative

counterpart. Of the 1,233 respondents, 830 purchased

electronic products and 393 were wine buyers.Findings indicated that customer satisfaction and loyalty

was:. Positive and significant in all three situations.. Stronger for brand adoption compared to product

adoption. Adoption of the product alone is enough to

generate the satisfaction that in turn can lead to loyalty.

This occurs on the basis of functional attributes and other

tangible product features such as appearance. However,

the brand is also able to boast additional components

containing symbolic and emotional value. In additional to

attachment with these intangible attributes, potential

exists for the customer to engage with the personality

perceived in the brand.

Likewise, the impact of satisfaction on loyalty was greater for:. Product-brand adoption than for product adoption alone

but weaker than for brand adoption alone. The product-

brand stage combines both tangible product qualities and

intangible brand benefits during a development stage

when neither product or brand can dominate.. Adoption of innovative products than for adoption of

traditional products. The authors suggest that consumers

are more involved with innovative products and may

therefore be more demanding. This is likely to force

manufacturers of such products into striving harder to

deliver satisfaction. In contrast, consumer involvement

with traditional products is invariably much lower.

The study findings show that satisfaction and loyalty do begin

much earlier in the process than previously acknowledged.

Satisfaction is possible at the initial stage providing the

product meets customer needs. However, the scarcity or

absence of intangible and psychological benefits at this time

means that the intensity of satisfaction is usually not high. But

this does not lessen the significance of this stage in helping to

generate customer loyalty and satisfaction that can increase

during the subsequent phases and over the longer term.

Marketing ideas and future research

Torres-Moraga et al. urge marketers to place more importance

on the development of the product as customer interest in

such developments is high when products are new or

innovative. Any resulting satisfaction may be limited but it

provides the foundation that can aid product development as

well future increases in customer satisfaction and loyalty.In the product-brand stage, the emphasis should be on

showcasing the intangible features more than the products

salient qualities. When the customer is influenced by

intangible features alone, the time is right to move to the

final stage and make the brand more salient. If marketing the

brand alone proves difficult, the product-brand stage may

have to last longer. On occasions, it could be that satisfaction

is inextricably linked to the tangible product benefits. A focus





312

on the intangible features becomes more difficult when that isthe case.The transition from product alone to brand alone via

product brand is much quicker for technologically innovativeproducts. Managers should use this knowledge to accelerateto the mature stage as quickly as possible. Conversely, movingto this stage with traditional products can be extremelydifficult and ultimately unproductive. Rather than wastingvaluable time and resources, it is more advisable to invest theeffort into developing effective strategies for the product aloneand product-brand stages.Given the novel approach of this study, Torres-Moraga et al.

suggest further exploration of customer satisfaction andloyalty within these initial phases. Likewise, the findings

should also be examined in relation to different product types,market conditions or other measures.Further study could additionally concentrate on other

stages of the authors typology. This research could, forexample, investigate customer loyalty to a bundle of productsor set of brands or to various product-brand combinations.Study could also focus on situations where satisfaction andloyalty is conditional because it depends on specific mixes ofproduct type and brand such as, for example, Sony televisionsor JVC disc players.

(A precis of the article Customer satisfaction and loyalty: startwith the product, culminate with the brand. Supplied byMarketing Consultants for Emerald.)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints





313

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

customer satisfaction and loyalty start with the product, culminate with the brand

Documents