Customer satisfaction and loyalty definition of consumer satisfaction

The satisfaction of customer is considered as the popular topic at the practice on marketing and the research asacademicin view of the fact that the primary study of Cardozo’s (1965) on the effort of customers, their expectations and along with the satisfaction of them. In spite of taking many attempts for measuring and explaining the satisfaction of customer, there is not so much consensus conducting in relation to the definition of the satisfaction of customer (Giese and Cote, 2000).

The typical definition of customer satisfaction can be provided as the evaluative judgment of post consumption in relation to the certain product or service (Gundersen, Heide and Olsson, 1996). It is considered as the outcome of the process of evaluative through which expectations of pre purchase are contrasted with performance perception in the time of or after the experience of the consumption (Oliver, 1980). The concept of the satisfaction of the customer is considered as the concept as most widely recognized which is based on the theory of expectancy disconfirmation (McQuitty, Finn and Wiley, 2000).

Oliver developed the theory which proposes that the level of satisfaction is considered as the outcome of difference among the performance as expected and perceived. The occurrence of the satisfaction can be done when an organization provides better product or services than the expectation of the customers (Positive disconfirmation). In other side, dissatisfaction can be occurred while the worse performance is provided by the organization (Negative disconfirmation).

It has been showed by studies that the results of business can be impacted directly and indirectly through the satisfaction of customer. It has been concluded by Luo and Homburg (2007) that the profitability of the business can be affected by the satisfaction of customer positively. The relationship among the patterns of the behavior of the customer has been investigated by the most of the studies (Dimitriades, 2006; Olorunniwo et al. , 2006; Chi and Qu, 2008; Faullant et al. , 2008).

In accordance with these findings, theloyaltyof the customer can be enhanced by the satisfaction of the customer; along with this intentions of repurchasing are also influenced by the satisfaction of customer which can be concluded with positive effects a positive word of mouth leads to the positive publicity. By giving the major consideration towards the satisfaction of customer, not surprisingly there are so many researches have been done which are devoted towards the satisfaction determinants investigation.

The factors as subjective and objective are assisting to determine the satisfaction for example: subjective factors are the needs of customer, emotions etc and the objective factors are the features of products and services. In application on the airlines industries, there has been occurred so many research studies through which attributes are examined which are found out by the passenger as significant in relation to the satisfaction of customer. It has been found out by Atkinson (1988) that customer satisfaction can be determined by proper scheduling, security, value formoneyand the staff courtesy.

It has been revealed by Knutson (1988) that scheduling, comfort, convenience of goods, prompt service, safety and security, staff friendliness are required. It has been stated by Barsky and Labagh (1992) that passengers’ satisfaction can be influenced by the attitude of the employee, scheduling, goods security, landing on scheduled time etc. Akan (1995) conducted the study where it has been showed that airlines passengers’ satisfaction has the determinant of the staffs’ behavior, scheduling, timeliness, pricing of ticket, productivity and performance, robust schedule planning, etc.

The conclusion has been drawn by Choi and Chu (2001) that the top factors of airline industries which can determine the satisfaction of the airline passenger are: the quality of the staff, schedule planning, values, productivity, price of ticket etc. Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in Hilton Hotel: In the past, tourism has been often considered as the natural outcome of environmental and cultural resources of a specific territory. In this view, the role of hospitality enterprises cannot influence demand levels and is merely limited to the supply of services to tourists.

Le Blanc ; Nguyen (1996) suggest that marketing efforts should be directed to highlight the environmental characteristics of the location in order to attract new customers. The constant increase of demand of touristic services, and the request for higher standards by the guests, has enforced the competition among hospitality suppliers and highlighted how the attractivity of the touristic destination is influenced by the standards of the services provided by the local hotels.

In this scenario, providing high quality services and improving customer satisfaction are widely recognized as fundamental factors boosting the performances of companies in the hotel andtourism industry(Barsky ; Labagh, 1992; Le Blanc, 1992,; Le Blanc et al. , 1996; Stevens et al. , 1995, Opermann, 1998). Hotels with good service quality will ultimately improve their profitability (Oh ; Parks, 1997). In a competitive hospitality industry which offers homogeneous services, individual hoteliers must be able to satisfy costumers better then their counterparts (Choi ; Chou, 2001).

To obtain loyalty and to outweigh other competitors, hotel providers must be able to obtain high levels of customer satisfaction for the service supplied. There are several studies that analyze the needs and the desires of tourists. A research by Wuest et al. (1996) defined the perception of hotel attributes as the degree to which guests may find various services and facilities critical for their stay in a hotel.

Hotel’s attributes such as cleanliness, price, location, security, personal service, physical attractiveness, opportunities for relaxation, standard of services, appealing image, and reputation are recognized as decisive by travelers to assess the quality of the hotel (Atkinsons, 1988; Ananth et al. , 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Cadotte & Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988; McCleary et al. , 1993; Rivers et al. , 1991; Wilensky & Buttle, 1988). Part 2: Corporateculture: Culture is defined in varying terms by different theorists. A opular definition is the one provided by Schein (1985: 9): A pattern of basic assumptions – invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with the problems of external adaptation and integral integration – that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. The terms organisational culture and corporate culture are used interchangeably in the literature to refer to the culture pervading an organisation, be it a for-profit or a non-profit entity.

Corporate culture is invariably influenced by natural or regional cultures, or macro-cultures (Hampden-Turner 1994: 12). The emphasis on individualism in US corporations, the emphasis on collective decision making in Japanese firms, and the age old burra sahib culture of British companies in colonial days are all reflections of the influence of macro-cultures on corporate culture. Corporate culture is not entirely monolithic or uniform throughout the organisation. Within the overall culture, there are usually subcultures.

For example, marketing and accounts personnel may have different subcultures due to the differences in the nature of their work andenvironment. The conflicts which sometimes arise among departments can be attributed to such differences. In a similar but broader vein there is a hotel culture, which in turn takes a different hold when the corporate culture of the Hilton chain is compared to that of Sheraton. Similarly, airlines still have a different corporate culture; that of TWA and Singapore airlines are not the same.

At International Hotel Group AG’s, fulfilling the individual needs of a clearly defined target group has been a proven recipe for success in the group’s corporatephilosophyfor long years. Our hotels precisely distinguish themselves not only from each other but from those of the competition as well through their individual character and extraordinary architecture. Enthusiastic, qualified staff and confident interaction based on partnership are just as important to the International Hotel Group as the fulfilment of our guests’ needs and the solution of individual, out of the ordinary problems.

Each staff member in the business is responsible for actively realizing of these objectives – seen as obligation – within his/her sphere of influence. . We both require from and promote creativity in our staff in order to provide our guests with concepts that embody Lindner quality beyond expectations. In thisrespect, everyone is allowed to make mistakes, too, because we consider mistakes a chance to learn and improve the quality of Lindner. Through believing in the capabilities of our staff and by guaranteeing their creative and personal development, we achieve a strong commitment and creative work.

Together, we create values and reach newgoals. Transparency, comprehensive information and a regular exchange between the staff members in our hotels support their further qualification. We manage our business in an honest, reliable, and fair way and our relationship with business partners is characterized by partnership, respect, and cooperation. It is with this foundation of integrity in partnerships that we achieve the permanent development of our International Hotel Group.