Severity of rivalry in markets and importance of customer’s maintenance for organization enforced them to gain toward creation, keeping and promotion the relationship with customers and according to scholars’ findings; relationship marketing is one of the best ways. The conceptual model which is used in this paper, aims to investigate the effects of relationship marketing value dimensions such as functional benefit, symbolic benefits, experiential benefits and perceived price on customer’s loyalty to cell phone’s brand from the both views, attitudinal and behavioral.
In this paper which is from descriptive-correlation type, we used questionnaire in order to data collection. The sample of this research includes 215 persons which are selected from 3 main districts of cell phone sales in Tehran which are selected due to researchers’ judgment and gathered data are analyzed with structural equation model. The findings and results of the research showed that among relationship marketing value dimensions, just 3 mentioned variables named functional benefits, symbolic benefits and experimental benefits had effect on attitudinal loyalty.Also, the relationship between attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty was accepted.
Among mediator variables, just brand commitment had mediation effect in marketing- loyalty relationship
Venouss, D. V., & Zohouri, B. (2011). Analyzing the Value Dimensions of Relationship Marketing and Brand Loyalty of Mobile Phones. Journal of Business Management, 3(2), 149-172.
MLA
Davar Venouss Venouss; Bahareh Zohouri. "Analyzing the Value Dimensions of Relationship Marketing and Brand Loyalty of Mobile Phones", Journal of Business Management, 3, 2, 2011, 149-172.
HARVARD
Venouss, D. V., Zohouri, B. (2011). 'Analyzing the Value Dimensions of Relationship Marketing and Brand Loyalty of Mobile Phones', Journal of Business Management, 3(2), pp. 149-172.
VANCOUVER
Venouss, D. V., Zohouri, B. Analyzing the Value Dimensions of Relationship Marketing and Brand Loyalty of Mobile Phones. Journal of Business Management, 2011; 3(2): 149-172.