1. Quest International College, Pokhara University, Nepal; Rashesh _ Paudel213@gmail.com
2. Quest International College, Pokhara University, Nepal; meetvaidya2020@gmail.com
3. Quest International College, Pokhara University, Nepal; Niranjan239@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: Niranjan239@gmail.com

Keywords: Expected Benefits, Brand Satisfaction, Customer Participation & Trust

1. INTRODUCTION

Brand satisfaction means the match between the customer’s perceived performance and the brand’s actual performance. When the brand’s perceived performance matches the actual performance, the customer is satisfied. Satisfied customers are likely to buy from you again. This increases positive word of mouth. Retaining a customer is more cost-effective than acquiring a new customer. Satisfied customers increase sales and enhance the brand’s reputation [1]. Customer engagement is a driver of marketing practice, and many resources are used to increase brand equity [2]. Many companies, such as Audi, BMW, Toyota, and Unilever, have learned from this and have taken many actions through customer participation [3]. The level of involvement of a customer has been shown to have a positive effect on that customer’s level of satisfaction as well as their perception of having obtained higher-value services [4]. Managers are under the impression that using consumer engagement may result in a delayed payout due to the rapid increase in demand and the consequences that will follow. Building an inviting organizational climate for consumer engagement and analyzing the results of these connections (i.e., brand satisfaction, future purchase intentions, and brand loyalty) can be challenging. The difficulty lies in building an inviting organizational climate for consumer engagement. In point of fact, getting feedback from customers and providing effective solutions to problems raised by clients continues to be a challenge [5]. Brands are everywhere, and it’s easy to see how important they are to the overall success of marketing efforts. A consumer can expect a certain level of quality and happiness from a product if the brand is well-known. Strong brands should ultimately result in larger sales flows [7] because they enhance the value of the products they represent [6] and establish the image of the company that produces those goods. Previous research investigated customers’ preferences regarding online versus offline interactions [8, 9], customer satisfaction and loyalty in online versus offline settings [10], and customer engagement in virtual brand communities [11]. There is no correlation between the customer’s past actions and their level of satisfaction with the brand [11]. The influence of expected utility on brand satisfaction in Nepal’s automotive industry has never before been investigated by any academic researcher. The results of this study demonstrate that customer participation is directly correlated to levels of brand satisfaction.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Expected utility, achieved through psychological, social-integrative, and indulgent benefits, is connected with the capability to increase security and status, build status, and self-knowledge [12]. Systems that increase expected utility have frequently been used by managers in order to captivate the devotion of customers and to increase the one-of-a-kind meaning that results from using managers or items. As a result, it is anticipated that expected utility will contribute to favorable outcomes associated with customer engagement [13]. Therefore, expected utility, also known as the prospect of a gain (whether it be happiness, financial, emotional, or sentimental), is a significant operator for customer engagement because of its ability to support brand energy and increase interface. Therefore, higher stages of expected utility are discovered with the participation of the customer [14]. When a rapid customer-company relationship is established, what is known as “participation in brand communities” can be said to exist between an organization and its clientele [15]. Consumer participation, for instance, has the potential to close the gap between a company’s brand promises (including its vision, culture, and image) and the expectations of its stakeholders [16]. This event has been analyzed through the prism of service-dominant logic (S-DL) [17] due to the fundamental shifts in the customer role that emerge as a result of leveraging consumer involvement as an operational element in value production. There appears to be a rise in the level of involvement of customers in the creation of new products and services [18]. This means that the interaction between a company and its customers is no longer viewed as a discrete, time-bound segment but rather as an ongoing process that results in advantageous outcomes. In this sense, businesses have moved away from producing goods for their customers and towards collaborating with those customers [19]. [20] Satisfaction is a complicated concept because it is influenced not only by the consumer’s past, characteristics, and anticipations but also by other stimuli, such as the ease of transaction, the expertise of the sales staff, the variety of available locations, and the availability of special offers. Customer loyalty indicates a commitment to a particular brand rather than to a specific product or service. Customers are more likely to remain loyal to a brand if the performance of that brand is consistent with the performance that they have come to expect from that brand [21]. The customer’s experience with the brand has a positive impact on both the equity of the brand and satisfaction with the brand [22]. The greater the importance a customer places on a supplier’s association commitment, the more faith the customer has in the supplier’s ability to uphold the terms of a contract [23]. The link between a consumer’s level of involvement and participation is stronger when the consumer is in a state of trust [24]. Customer belief is a psychological condition in which a person decides to believe the actions of others and disregard potential hazards [25]. Customer belief can be defined as an individual’s decision to believe the actions of others. There are many different aspects that contribute to the conversion of consumer trust and loyalty through relationship exchange [26].

H1: Expected benefits positively influence customer participation.

H2: Customer trust has an effect on customer participation

H3: Customer participation leads to Brand satisfaction

Figure 01: Conceptual Model

Figure 1 represents the conceptual model adopted and amended. It shows that Expected benefits have a positive impact on Customer participation. Customer trust has a positive impact on customer trust, and Customer participation has a positive impact on Brand satisfaction. Table 2 shows the hypothesis that has been studied and tested in this study.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research collected data on customer participation, customer trust, brand satisfaction, and expected benefits by using primary data. The setting for the collection of data was Nepal. The population selected for data collection was Automobile owners. We coded the variable as CT for customer trust, BS for brand satisfaction, EB for expected benefits, and CP for customer participation. The questionnaire contained 20 questions. There were 5 questions to describe each variable. The platform for data collection was Google form. The questionnaire was sent to 150 respondents via Email, WhatsApp, and Facebook. To obtain the results, data was run on Adanco 2.0. The duration to hold the research was about 4 months. We measured the correlation coefficient among variables. Also, we measured the effect size by using the reliability of scales suggested by [27]. We measured Cronbach’s alpha (α), Jöreskog’s rho (ρc), Dijkstra-Henseler’s rho (ρA).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 02: Conceptual Model results

The construct operationalization defines that customer trust predefined reliability is 1.0000 and predefined reliability for expected benefits, customer participation [28], and brand satisfaction is also 1.0000.

Table 01: Construct Operationalization

The Dijkstra-rho Henseler’s (A), Jöreskog’s rho (c), and Cronbach’s alpha  for customer trust are reliable on anticipated advantages, and customer involvement and brand happiness are 95 percent. Expected benefits and customer participation had a substantial association. Customers’ engagement was related to the predicted advantages in a positive way. As seen in Table 02, predicted advantages have a positive impact on consumer engagement.

Table 02: Construct Reliability

The average variance extracted (AVE) for customer trust, expected benefits, customer participation, and brand satisfaction are 0.6414, 0.6530, 0.5775, and 0.7001, respectively, indicating that Customer Trust has an impact on customer participation.

Table 03: Convergent Validity

The convergent reliability has been assessed, as shown in Table # 04 by Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

Table 04: Discriminant Validity: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

The coefficient of determination (R2) measures the amount of variation explained by independent variables by an endogenous variable [29]. R2 values ranging from 0 to 1 are possible. Table 05 displays the R2 values from recent studies.

Table 05: Coefficient of determination (R2)

The path coefficients, as in Table 06, are standardized regression coefficients [30]. Their values are based on the quantification of the impact of an independent variable on a dependent variable.

Table 06: Path Coefficient

The sum of the individual direct and indirect effects is the entire influence (effect) of one variable on another. If the independent variable is raised by one standard deviation [31], the amount of the entire effect is described as the “rise in the dependent variable.” (See Table 07)

Table 07: Total Effects

The correlation between measurements of the same construct has been shown in Table 08.

Table 08: Inter-Construct Correlations

Table 09 is displaying the results of hypothesis testing by examining the values of path coefficients and T-tests and defining the significance levels [32]. The test was used to decide which hypotheses were accepted and which were rejected based on the data collected throughout the investigation.

Table 09: Hypothesis testing

5. CONCLUSIONS

Customer participation leads to brand satisfaction for customer participation by (β= 0.1242), while Cohen’s= 0.0135 [33], for customer participation on expected utility, is (β= 0.7362), while Cohen’s= 1.1830, as we see that all effects are 95%. Customer engagement effects are a critical element in marketers’ social media relationships with consumers [34]. The growing diversity of perspectives represented in social media investments [35] lends credence to the significance of the findings presented here. The difficulty of creating brand equity through dynamic interactions between consumers and brands is highlighted by our findings, which shed light on this topic. If brands developed a structured approach across all of the measures in our system to explicitly explain the benefits of engagement to their customers, then customers would become more engaged in the life of the brand. Our findings may also assist managers in understanding the importance of employing strategies that promote interaction. This would increase their customer base as well as the return on investment of the partnership marketing initiatives they undertake. Participation from customers is a potent instrument that can be of assistance to businesses in achieving significant results. Businesses that want to raise their customers’ awareness of their brand should make an investment in the development of customer engagement methods that result in shared learning. Conversations amongst a group of people, with the goal of identifying recurring themes and resolving issues, are one way this can be accomplished. The bad news is that efficacy varies, which means that managers need to evaluate the levels of collectivism, different typologies of brand success, and qualities of client involvement. We suggest that in order for these strategies to be more successful, the emphasis should be placed on co-creation activities that give consumers and target customers in countries with a strong sense of collectivism the idea that the product or service they are purchasing has value. As a result, we are going to accept our null hypothesis, which states that customer engagement does not result in satisfied customers. This research paper will make a contribution to today’s world. However, some limitations are always present. First, this study used a convenient sample that may influence our results. This research was specifically relevant to the market domain, not to other domains such as psychology, IT, etc. Secondly, the results are based on the assumption that the selected respondents responsibly gave correct information.

REFERENCES

1. Nardi, V. A. M., Jardim, W. C., Ladeira, W. J., & Santini, F. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between customer participation and brand outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 117, 450-460.
2. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of business research, 66(1), 105-114.
3. Casaló, L., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2007). The impact of participation in virtual brand communities on consumer trust and loyalty: The case of free software. Online information review.
4. Fanna, M., Masson, G., Capito, C., Girard, M., Guerin, F., Hermeziu, B., … & Chardot, C. (2019). Management of biliary atresia in France 1986 to 2015: long-term results. Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and Nutrition, 69(4), 416-424.
5. Ind, N., Fuller, C., & Trevail, C. (2012). Brand together: How co-creation generates innovation and re-energizes brands. Kogan Page Publishers.
6. Jensen, J. A., Holten-Lund, H., Nilsson, R. T., Hansen, M., Larsen, U. D., Domsten, R. P. & Rasmussen, M. F. (2013). SARUS: A synthetic aperture real-time ultrasound system. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 60(9), 1838-1852.
7. Song, J. H., & Adams, C. R. (1993). Differentiation through customer participation in production or delivery. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
8. Lundkvist, A., & Yakhlef, A. (2004). Customer participation in new service development: a conversational approach. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal.
9. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15-37.
10. Attasuda &  Thitima (2022). Impacts of economic conditions on mental health: a case study of Thailand. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 1(01):30-39.
11. Dabholkar, P. A., & Sheng, X. (2012). Consumer participation and the trust transference process in using online recommendation agents. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 25, 9
12. Johnson, M. D., Nader, G., &Fornell, C. (1996). Expectations, perceived performance, and customer satisfaction for a complex service: The case of bank loans. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(2), 163-182.
13. France, C., Grace, D., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (2018). Customer brand co-creation behavior: conceptualization and empirical validation. Marketing intelligence & planning.
14. Solomon, M. R., & Panda, T. K. (2004). Consumer behavior, buying, having, and being. Pearson Education India.
15. Yim, C. K., Chan, K. W., & Lam, S. S. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy service participation? Synergistic effects of self-and other-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 121-140.
16. Eisingerich, A. B., Auh, S., & Merlo, O. (2014). Is Acta nonverbal? The role of customer participation and word of mouth in the relationship between service firms’ customer satisfaction and sales performance. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 40-53.
17. Kim, J. L., Elfman, L., Mi, Y., Johansson, M., Smedje, G., &Norbäck, D. (2005). Current asthma and respiratory symptoms among pupils in relation to dietary factors and allergens in the school environment. Indoor air, 15(3), 170-182.
18. Aaker, J. (1991). The negative attraction effect? A research of the attraction effect under judgment and choice. ACR North American Advances.
19. Frambach, R. T., Roest, H. C., & Krishnan, T. V. (2007). The impact of consumer internet experience on channel preference and usage intentions across the different stages of the buying process. Journal of interactive marketing, 21(2), 26-41.
20. Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., &Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2), 153-175.
21. Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., &Guinalíu, M. (2008). The role of satisfaction and website usability in developing customer loyalty and positive word‐of‐mouth in e‐banking services. International Journal of bank marketing.
22. Nysveen, H., Oklevik, O., & Pedersen, P. E. (2018). Brand satisfaction: Exploring the role of innovativeness, green image and experience in the hotel sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
23. Verhagen, T., Swen, E., Feldberg, F., &Merikivi, J. (2015). Benefitting from virtual customer environments: An empirical research of customer engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 340-357.
24. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., &Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of business research, 66(1), 105-114.
25. Fang, Z. L., Sabin, C. A., Dong, B. Q., Wei, S. C., Chen, Q. Y., Fang, K. X., … & Harrison, T. J. (2008). Hepatitis B virus pre-S deletion mutations are a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched nested case–control research. The Journal of general virology, 89(Pt 11), 2882.
26. Dong, B., &Sivakumar, K. (2017). Customer participation in services: domain, scope, and boundaries. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 944-965.
27. Guindon, S., Dufayard, J. F., Lefort, V., Anisimova, M., Hordijk, W., &Gascuel, O. (2010). New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Systematic Biology, 59(3), 307-321.
28. Vargo, S. L., &Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
29. Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14-28.
30. Wind, J., &Rangaswamy, A. (2000). Customerization: The second revolution in mass customization. eBRC working paper, eBRC Penn State University.
31. Lin, Y. H. (2015). Innovative brand experience’s influence on brand equity and brand satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2254-2259.
32. Ruane, L., & Wallace, E. (2015). Brand tribalism and self-expressive brands: social influences and brand outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
33. Lin, Y. H., Lin, Y. C., Lee, Y. H., Lin, P. H., Lin, S. H., Chang, L. R., … &Kuo, T. B. (2015). Time distortion associated with smartphone addiction: Identifying smartphone addiction via a mobile application (App). Journal of psychiatric research, 65, 139-145.
34. Miyamoto, T., &Rexha, N. (2004). Determinants of three facets of customer trust: A marketing model of Japanese buyer–supplier relationship. Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 312-319.
35. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., &Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of business research, 66(1), 105-114.