1. Tribhuvan University of Nepal; avashanayukongdi06@gmail.com
2. Tribhuvan University of Nepal; poudyalvimolwan8@gmail.com
3. Tribhuvan University of Nepal; r.paulp@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: r.paulp@gmail.com

Keywords: corporate image, customer loyalty, service quality, customer perceived value

1. INTRODUCTION

With the increase in competition, it is getting more demanding to keep existing customers loyal and attract new customers. In telecommunication service, it is important that once the customer is linked with a telecommunication network of a specific operator, keeping their long-term relationship with that network have great importance for the success of the company [1]. The only way for businesses to keep up with the ever-increasing level of competition is to cultivate loyal customer relationships. The field of telecommunication is rapidly evolving into a leading sector that serves as a provider of services for the entire industry. The mobile market in Nepal is rapidly approaching a level of maturity. The retention of loyal customers is an essential aspect of effective marketing practices. The importance of maintaining relationships with existing customers is derived from the concept of benefits associated with doing so [2]. The American Marketing Association has streamlined the definition of the term “customer satisfaction” to mean “the situation in which Consumers generally use the same manufacturer-originated product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers within the category” [3]. The phrase “deeply held commitment to repurchase or frequently buying product or service every time in the future” is one definition of customer loyalty. The quality of the service maintains the customers, and maintaining them leads customers from being satisfied to being loyal. Loyalty can be defined as either the conscious behavior or attitude of a customer. The strategic and operational vision was provided by the concentration on maintaining customer loyalty [4]. According to one piece of research, having satisfied and loyal customers makes an organization more powerful in negotiations. The satisfaction of customers is an extremely vital component of the service industry, in particular for those businesses that compete in dynamic environments and deliver services with only minute differences. [5]. After conducting research into the telecommunications industry, the authors came to the conclusion that protecting customers based on their service commitments was a necessary prerequisite for maintaining customer loyalty [6]. A company’s beliefs and attitudes towards itself are what make up its corporate image. “The perception of the organization” is one definition that can be used to describe “corporate image” [7]. The concept of “corporate image” is defined as “the mental picture of the corporation, which includes value judgments of the attributes of the organization.” According to one piece of research, the concept of “corporate image” refers to “the general estimation in which a company is held by its components through the perceptual representation of an organization’s past actions and future prospects when compared with another leading competitor” [8]. Not only does the corporate image contain information, but it also contains assumptions about the company in its roles as a customer, supplier, employee, corporate citizen, and employer. Rising levels of customer satisfaction contribute to the development of a positive corporate image because they generate favorable word of mouth [9]. Although there is a positive correlation between corporate image and customer loyalty, there is no link established between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty [10]. The report defines the quality of the service as the variance between what was expected from the service providers and what was actually delivered by them. It is the estimation of the service provider after evaluating the difference between desired service quality and actual service quality [11], contrary to the popular belief that service quality is based on the customer’s biassed cognition rather than the purpose of the estimation. According to functional performance, social value for money, emotional value for money, and functional value for money are the four primary dimensions of customer perceived value. It was his opinion that economic and social values, as well as emotions, were more relevant to the field of telecommunications [12]. The perceived value that a customer receives is the single most important indicator of future purchases. The value that a customer places on a service that is provided is determined by weighing all of the associated benefits and sacrifices. According to its definition, “the overall consumer assessment of the utility of a product based on the perception of what is received and what is given” is the customer’s perception of the value of the product. If a particular service is able to satisfy the requirements of the customers, then those customers will purchase that service repeatedly [13].

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Many studies have accredited the dynamic share of corporate repute and image in buyers’ buying behavior. Corporate image is well thought-out and a dynamic part of generating and upholding loyalty with customers [14]. Corporate image is linked with customer retention prospects. Attitude theory expresses that service estimation is the foremost reason for the corporate image; in this way, it increases the value and turns into additional obtainable in memory [15]. Studies demonstrated the express impact of company image on buyer loyalty. Therefore subsequent hypothesis is formulated [16].

H1: Company image has an impact on customer devotion.

Customer perceived value is labeled as “perception about quality, social psychology, benefit, and money.” Due to Abandon in preceding research, a number of researchers studied the manipulation of value on customers’ buying intentions [17]. Preceding researches sharpen the positive relationship between service quality and perceived value. It is publicized to cause loyalty in customers [18]. It investigated mobile services in Canada and China, respectively, and discovered a positive connection between them. Similarly, studies show a favorable relationship between these two factors [19], indicating a positive association between perceived value and customer satisfaction. Numerous types of research have also discovered a clear relationship between perceived value and word of mouth, and repurchase intention [20].

H2: Customer perceived value has an impact on customer loyalty.

Service Quality is considered the main significant factor which affects customers’ perception in the direction of in-store service quality. Service Quality goes with satisfaction only. In contrast, it can be taken as a fraction of the store image [21]. The author of this study believes that service quality should be separated and deeply considered in the context of the customer satisfaction paradigm since service has always been noted as a necessary element in determining the performance of the service business [22]. In contrast, even though previous literature correlation among store image, customer satisfaction, and service quality is conversed [23] and it appeared that it could be used to amplify all the perceptions in the direction of the store, which is formed by each customer. Customers’ enthusiasm to keep a relationship with the organization depends upon their perception of the advantage of a high-quality relationship, satisfaction with the association, and the advantage of association which provides a nonstop flow of values [24]. One of the significant and extensively studied topics in services is service quality. Service quality symbolizes the mass economy not just in urbanized countries but also in under developing countries all over the world. Service quality consequences from customer assessment of their expectations regarding service meet with their perceptions [25]. The fact that the perceived quality of a product is attracting the most competing factor in the business world is the motivation behind calling the current era of business the quality era [26]. Therefore, academics and researchers in service marketing presented a number of different descriptions of problems. Similar to how Berry describes it, the competing mace is influential. There are many different observable aspects that go into quality. It is extremely difficult to achieve the desired level of service quality using this approach because it does not differentiate between important quality aspects [27]. The course of the discussion on service quality refers to three different aspects of outputs. These aspects include the level of technical quality, the mental picture of the organization, and the level of service performance quality. According to Lehtinen [28], the qualities of the service itself can be broken down into three categories: physical quality, organizational quality, and interaction quality. In spite of the fact that these efforts were essential in disentangling service quality into process quality and output quality, there is a lack of evidence. On the basis of this, another source provides eleven different dimensions of service quality. Initial studies did not find a significant association between these factors; however, later studies did [29].

H3: Service quality moderates the association between corporate image and customer loyalty.

As a result, they combined these 10 characteristics and used fivefold dimensions to develop SERVQUAL, which is a method for evaluating service quality. These fivefold dimensions are empathy, assurance, dependability, responsiveness, and tangibles. They highlighted the fact that SERVQUAL is a credible scale for assessing service quality [30], which they found in their research. Service excellence, providing customers with value, and making sure their needs are met are three things that managers of service companies say they provide for their clients. The phrase “customer’s judgment about the excellence of a product” is one definition for “perceived quality,” while the phrase “customer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given” is another definition for “perceived value.” Service quality is typically described in terms of how closely it relates to the notion that it is the result of an evaluation that customers carry out regarding their expectations and their perceptions of the way in which a service is performed [31].

H4: Service quality moderates the association between customer perceived value and customer loyalty.

Figure 01: Theoretical Framework

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study gathered responses from people with professional backgrounds who came from a variety of fields. The findings of this study lead to progress in our understanding of the factors that precede a customer’s devotion in the Nepalese telecommunications industry. There were N=300 people who filled out the questionnaire, and out of those, N=248 questionnaires were usable, which means that the response rate was 82.6%. We made use of a research instrument that had already been developed. The Likert scale with five points was utilized. There are six criteria that are used to evaluate service quality. Two items are used to measure how a customer perceives value, while five items are used to measure customer loyalty and the image of the company. In order to conduct this moderation analysis, the PLS technique is utilized. Both the value that customers perceive they receive and the image that companies project are independent variables. The level of customer satisfaction serves as the independent variable, while service quality acts as the moderating factor.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results and analysis of the study are discussed in this section.

Table 01: Reliability Results

Table 1 shows the reliability analysis. For this, the value of Cronbach Alpha and composite reliability is used to exhibit the reliability of the measurement model. The value of each construct should be greater than 0.7. In our research, all values met the criteria expected value of customer Loyalty’s Cronbach alpha, but composite reliability supports the value, and we consider the reliability of the scale.

4.1 Discriminant Validity

Table 2 shows the outer model factor loading values of each construct’s elements. The threshold value says that the value of an element should be greater than 0.7, which shows that each element is a good measure of its construct.

Table 02: Outer Loading

In our research, all values met the criteria, which shows that questions are a good measure for the constructs.

Table 03: Average Variance Extracted

The average variance shows the variance which actually gives support to our loadings. According to Joseph et al. 2014 the value for each construct should be greater than 0.5. In our findings, all construct values met the minimum value requirement. Hence convergent validity is met-seen.

Table 04: Fornell-Larcker Criteria

Fornell-Larcker is used to check the discriminant validity of constructs. The value for each construct should be maximum with its own construction as compared to its correlation with other constructs. In our research, all constructs met the threshold criteria.

Table 05: Cross Loading

Table 5 show the cross-loading value of items with other as well as with their own constructs, which they are going to measure [32]. The threshold criterion for this is that the value of the item should be higher with its own construct and should lower with other constructs. In our research, all values met the criteria.

Figure 02: Path Coefficient

Table 5 show the cross-loading value of items with other as well as with their own constructs, which they are going to measure [32]. The threshold criterion for this is that the value of the item should be higher with its own construct and should lower with other constructs. In our research, all values met the criteria. The model in Figure 2 shows the inner as well as the outer model. The inner model is basically used to check the impact or relationship between variables, and the outer model shows the factor loading value of each element with its own construct. In our research, we have also checked the moderation impact of service quality [33]. The impact of corporate image on customer loyalty is higher with a beta value of 0.507, which shows if we increase 100 percent corporate image of our company, this will increase customer loyalty by 50.7% or by one unit change in corporate image, the customer loyalty will also change by 0.507 unit in the same direction, and moderation impact also shows significant positive value by 0.165, which shows that impact of moderation is 16.5% positively.  Now coming to the impact of customer perceived value on Customer loyalty, its value is 0.250, which shows the significant value and represents that one unit change in customer perceived value will bring change by 0.250 units in customer loyalty in the same direction [34]. But its moderating impact is too low, which is not have such a significant impact on the association between customer perceived value and customer loyalty.

Table 06: Hypothesis Results

Table 6 shows the path coefficient values for the hypothesis. Here we see T Statistics and P value for hypothesis acceptance or rejection. The criteria for the P value say that its value should be less than 0.05, and the T statistics value should be greater than 1.96. Now coming toward H1, the P value is 0.000, and the T statistics is 7.478; both values met the criteria, so this shows that “Corporate image has an impact on customer loyalty”. The second one is the impact of customer perceived value on customer loyalty. Its P value and T-Statistics are 0.015 and 2.449, which show significant values, and give support to our second hypothesis H2that is “Customer perceived value has an impact on customer loyalty”. The third hypothesis is for the moderation impact of service quality on the association between customer perceived value and customer loyalty it’s both values met the threshold T-Statistics value is 6.828, and the P value is 0.008. Both values met the criteria, so this illustrates that there is a moderating impact of “Service quality on the relationship between customer perceived value and customer loyalty.” This accepts our H3. Lastly, our findings did not support our fourth hypothesis that the value of T-statistics is 0.072, which is lesser than 1.96, which is insignificant; secondly, the P value is 0.943, which is also insignificant. This shows that their service quality did not moderate the relationship between customer perceived value and customer loyalty.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This research was conducted in Nepal; it can test it in other contexts. By applying it in different contexts, we can get an idea of how to make customer-focused strategies for telecommunication in different countries. More relevant variables can be added, and we can add more literature about this study. The limitation was a shortage of time and a lack of resources. Due to a lack of resources, the sample was small

REFERENCES

1. Kotler, P. a. (2006). Marketing Management (12th ed.). Pearson-Prentice.
2. McMullan, R. (2005). A multiple-item scale for measuring customer loyalty development. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 470-481
3. Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
4. Andreasen, T. (2004). Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Reputation as Indicators of Customer Orientation in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Sector Management, 7(2), 16–34.
5. Aydin, S. &. (2005). The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in the Turkish mobile telecommunication market. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 910-925.
6. Ball, D. C. (2006). Service personalization and loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 20, 391– 403.
7. Bauer, H. H. (2006). eTransQual: A transaction process-based approach for capturing service quality in online shopping. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 866–875.
8. Eggert, A. &. (2002). Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 107–118.
9. Fombrun, C. (1996). The Reputational Landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 5 – 14.
10. Rashesh Paudel, Vaidya Devkota, & Niranjan Chen (2023). Impact of customer trust on brand satisfaction through expected benefits in the automobile sector of Nepal. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(01):49-57.
11. Gray, E. R. (1998). Managing Corporate image and reputation. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695-702.
12. Anderson, E. A. (2003). The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125–143.
13. Anderson, E. W. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. The Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 172-185.
14. Bishop, W. R. (1984). Competitive intelligence. Progressive Grocer, 63(3), 19–20.
15. Dowling, G. (2001). Creating corporate reputations: identity, image, and performance. Oxford: Oxford university press.
16. Hsu, H. (2006). An empirical study of website quality, customer value, and customer satisfaction based on the e-shop. The Business Review, 5(1), 190–193.
17. Moisescu, O. &. (2011). A Conceptual Review On Building, Managing And Assessing Brand Loyalty. Virgil Madgearu Review of Economic Studies and Research, 4(1), 67-87.
18. Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 2-22.
19. Wang, Y. L. (2004). An integrated framework for service quality, customer value, satisfaction: Evidence from China’s telecommunication industry Information Systems Frontiers. 6(4), 325–340.
20. , H. (2008). The Study on Service Quality Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty. Shandong University.
21. Zeithaml, V. A. (1981). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.
22. Nguyen, N. &. (2001). Corporate image and corporate reputation in consumers retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8, 227–236.
23. Oliver, S. (2006). Corporate Communication. London: Kogan Page.
24. , F. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: the role of attitude accessibility. Attitude, structure and function Hillside: Erlbaum.
25. Rust, Z. V. (2000). Driving Customer Equity. Boston. Free Press.
26. Santouridis, I. &. (2010). Investigating the impact of service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty in mobile telephony in Greece. The TQM Journal, 22 (3), 330-343.
27. Sirdeshmukh, D. S. (2002). Customer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15–37.
28. Parasuraman, A. A. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-value loyalty chain: a research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168-74.
29. Parasuraman, A. Z. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
30. Sweeney, J. A. (2001). Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
31. Tung, L. L. (2004). Service quality and perceived value’s impact on satisfaction, intention, and usage of short message service (SMS). Information Systems Frontiers, 6(4), 353–368.
32. Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value A substitute for satisfaction in business markets. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(2), 107–118.
33. Velimirović, D. V. (2011). Role and importance of key performance indicators measurement. Serbian Journal of Management, 6(1), 63-72.