ISSN 1392-3110Socialiniai tyrimai / Social Research. 2009. Nr. 2 (16), 67-76

The Formation of Customer Loyalty Conception in the Contextof the Evolution of Schools of Marketing Thought

Lina Pileliene', Kristina Zikiene^ Biruta Svagzdiene^

'Vytautas Magnus University, Wytautas Magnus University, ^Siauliai University

Abstract

The article analyzes in theoretical level the impactof development of marketing as a separate science branchon the formation of customer loyalty conception: evolutionof marketing thought and trends of change of approachesare provided, the impact of ideas of different schools ofmarketing thought on customer loyalty conception, percep-tion and approach is determined. The ideas and branchesof relationship marketing, the attitude towards customerand his loyalty of the representatives of this school are ana-lyzed in more detailed way.

Keywords: Customer loyalty, schools of marketingthought, relationship marketing.

Introduction

Customer loyalty promotion and relationshipdevelopment as the consequence of the evolution ofthe marketing science has become the long-mn pre-rogative of marketing. The beginning of the develop-ment of marketing as an independent scientific discip-line is linked to the beginning of the 20th century -exactly to 1900s, when with rapid expansion and inc-reasing productivity of industry the interest in newmethods of production, new product developmentand sales activities, product presentation to the cus-tomers, customer buying behaviour, etc. increased aswell. The opinion exists that marketing has becomethe discipline with potential of resolving all the busi-ness problems of the period and with ability to com-bine benefits and interests of producer and customer.The time period shifts are not the only factor affectingdifferences in meanings of marketing approaches, at-tention paid and their relevance. The solid and signi-ficant contribution of viewpoints of different schoolsof marketing thought while creating and developingmarketing thought encouraged rapidity of the forma-tion and evolution of marketing as a science.

The analysis of scientific literature reveals theusage of traditional managerial and economic princip-les of activity organization in marketing for a longtime. These principles were: cheap production in or-der to achieve greater availability of products and ser-vices for a wider range of customers; and, certainly.

demand stimulation by using advertising and otherpromotional tools in order to increase sales. This tra-ditional point of view based on microeconomic per-spective has lost its relevance in the period of marke-ting paradigm broadening when stepping to post-in-dustrial era.

Research problem and relevance. The orien-tation shift from traditional transaction marketing to-wards the relationship marketing is being held as oneof the major trends in recent marketing development.The opinion that relationship marketing that emphasi-zes affiliation of tight customer relationships and pro-motion of customer loyalty assures the survival of or-ganization and competitive advantage in the marketis widely maintained in modem academic and busi-ness society. In compliance with the conception of re-lationship marketing, the evaluation of evolution ofmarketing science on the basis of customer loyaltyperspective becomes topicality of contemporary mar-keting thought. Assessment of impact of various scho-ols of marketing thought on the attitude to customerloyalty formation is essential for better understandingof prerequisites of relationship marketing emergenceand the phenomenon of customer loyalty itself

The subject of the research is formation of cus-tomer loyalty conception in the context of the evolu-tion of schools of marketing thought.

The aim of the research is to determine theo-retically the impact of the ideas of various schools ofmarketing thought on the perception of customer lo-yalty.

The following objectives have been set:1. To perform the theoretical analysis of evolution

of schools of marketing thought.2. To determine the approaches of various schools

of marketing thought to customer loyalty.3. To disclose the attitude of representatives of relations-

hip marketing school towards customer loyalty.

Theoretical background of the research

In order to achieve the aim set, by referringto theoretical approaches of various authors in thearticle will be analyzed the evolution of marketing

67

thought, will be reviewed the ideas of various schoolsof marketing thought, and will be determined the atti-tude of representatives of each school towards custo-mer loyalty, the importance paid to this phenomenonand impact while forming it. Ideas and branches of re-lationship marketing will be analyzed in more detai-led way by referring to precondition that customer lo-yalty best reflects and very often is identified as theconception of relationship marketing.

The Formation of Customer Loyalty Concep-tion in the Evolution of Schools of MarketingThought

The beginning of formation of marketing as aseparate branch of science is considered to be the be-ginning of the 20* century (Sheth, Parvatiyar, 1995).Distinguishing of marketing discipline from econo-mics was widely explained as disinterest of the rep-

resentatives of the latter in market behaviour, andparticularly in functions performed by the mediators(Houston et al., 1992). Nowadays when marketing asan individual discipline is climbing into the secondcentury of its existence, various authors (Hollanderet al , 2005; Shaw, Jones, 2005; Sheth, Parvatiyar,1995; Wilkie, Moore, 2003) start to talk about its evo-lution.

J. N. Sheth and A. Parvatiyar ( 1995) in the pro-cess of formation of marketing distinguish the follo-wing three eras: preindustrial, which continued fromthe seventh millennium before Christ till the begin-ning of the 20th century, industrial (production),which began at the beginning of the 20th century andcontinued till the beginning of the eighties, and po-stdustrial, which began in the eighties of the last cen-tury and which still continues. Industrial era is divi-ded by other authors (Shaw, Jones, 2005; Wilkie, Mo-ore, 2003) into the following periods (see Table 1).

Table 1Periodization of evolution of marketing thought

J. N. Sheth andA. Parvatiyar

(1995)

W. L. Wilkie,E.S. Moore (2003)

E. H. Shaw,D. G. B. Jones

(2005)

Preindustrial eratill 1900

Pre-marketing periodtill 1900

Pre-academic thoughttill 1900

Industrial era1900-1980

Discovery ofarea

1900-1920

Formation ofarea

1920-1950

Change of para-digms

1950-1980

Traditional marketing thought1900-1955

Change ofparadigms1955-1975

Postindustrialera

From 1980 tillnow

Fragmentationof area

From 1980 tillnow

Development ofparadigm1975-2000

Note: was made by authoresses by referring to J. N. Sheth and A. Parvatiyar, (1995), W. L. Wilkie and E. S. Moore (2003),E. H. Shaw and D. G. B. Jones (2005).

At the time of preindustrial era the agricultu-ral economics and trade of various manufactured ar-ticles had been prevailing. The role of producer wasinseparable of seller. Tight and trust-based relations-hips tied the customer to the producer and determi-ned production of individualized products. Accor-ding to J. N. Sheth and A. Parvatiyar (1995), for thebusinessmen of preindustrial era it was important toretain customers and to encourage repeated procure-ments. This fact is proved by the practice of usage ofsurnames as trademarks. It was considered that surna-mes being used as the trademarks evoke satisfactionof customer, provide quality warranty and encouragerepeated procurements at the same time. Accordingto assertion of J. N. Sheth and A. Parvatiyar (1995),in the period of preindustrial era relationship marke-ting orientation was dominant.

The origin of industrial era is linked to rapidincrease of mass production and mass consumptionat the beginning of the 20th century. The basis of mar-keting (as academic discipline) have become varioustheories of economics, especially classic and neoclas-sic ones (Bartels, 1988), also German Historical andAmerican Institutional Schools (Jones, Monieson,1990). Besides economics (as mother discipline), rep-resentatives of management schools also brought sig-nificant impact on development of marketing as sepa-rate discipline. According to J. N. Sheth and A. Parva-tiyar (1995), business became more oriented towardstransactions than towards maintenance of relations-hips with customers. Production based on mass eco-nomy enabled producers to decrease costs and pricesof products as well. Surplus of production forced thebusinessmen to look for new markets and created the

68

conditions for aggressive selling. Costs of risk andstorage were transferred to such market participants(institutions) as wholesalers, suppliers and other busi-ness mediators. Therefore, the marketing thought ofthe early period was based on distributions and timeand conception of place usefulness.

The first three schools of marketing thought we-re Functional, Commodity and Institutional (Shaw,Jones, 2005). Functions of marketing, such as distri-bution and exchange activity, that were performedby specialized marketing institutions (trading enter-prises) by transferring agricultural and manufacturedcommodities from the point of supply to the place ofdemand, appeared to be socially beneficial and econo-mically valuable (Jones, Shaw, 2002).

The main question of representatives of theschool of marketing functions is: "What is the pur-pose of marketing?". According to P. D. Converse(1945), functional approach was one of the most sig-nificant in the evolution of early marketing thought.The ideas of school of marketing fianctions that dis-tinguished at the beginning of the second decade ofthe 20th century were absolutely forgotten till the endof the industrial era (Shaw, Jones, 2005). We can sta-te that the whole experience of creation and mainte-nance of relationship with customers and formationof customer loyalty, which was leading for organiza-tion of preindustrial era, was forgotten during disco-very of area and formation of area periods of indust-rial era. Philosophies of organizations oriented to pro-duction and sales passed through formation ideologyof customer loyalty.

The analysis of scientific literature reveals thatmarketing thought of industrial era was distinctivelybased on transaction orientation, the representativesof various schools started to perceive the meaningand importance of customer loyalty for organizationanew and to analyze it in fragments.

The representatives of managerial marketingschool see the marketing activity from the point ofview of a seller: when talking about the seller theyare thinking about producer, retailer, and supplierof services or about any other representative of bu-siness or non-business. The representatives of thisschool concentrated on conception of "product dif-ferentiation and market segmentation, as alternativestrategies of marketing" (Smith, 1956), R. J. Keith(1960) described orientation towards a consumer asessential conception of marketing, and the basis ofit later became the Marketing Complex, provided byN. H. Borden (1964). The significant impact on evo-lution of marketing thought of managerial school wasmade by W. Alderson (1957), who analyzed decisionmaking in marketing, which later was related to mar-keting complex.

One of the most important conceptions of rep-resentatives of school of managerial thought was un-derstanding that repeated procurements being perfor-med by the customers are the basis of business suc-cess, and if you want to succeed, you need to formcustomer loyalty (Sheth, Parvatiyar, 1995). The in-terest to repeated procurements performed by custo-mers and their loyalty was turned in the years of theSecond World War.

Later the behaviour of repeated procurementswas researched by the representatives of school of Bu-yer behaviour (Howard, Sheth, 1969). At the begin-ning of distinguishing of this school the main ques-tions being solved by its representatives were buying(search and assortment) and consumption (consump-tion and disposing). It was tried to separate the con-cepts of buyer and customer, therefore the name ofthe school was changed into Customer behaviour.

Evolution of marketing thought of industrialera reached critical period at the beginning of the eigh-ties of 20c. Marketing activity of this era was basedon distinctive orientation to transactions, and efficien-cy of activity was measured by the measures of mar-ket part, income, profitability of trademark, and conqu-ered segments (Sheth, Parvatiyar, 1995). The need of"new" marketing, which could help to develop longlasting relationships with customers, appeared.

The period of paradigm development or, in ot-her words, post-industrial era of marketing, began inabout 1975-1980 and still continues. Managerial, Ex-change and Customer Behaviour schools remainedto predominate in this era (Shaw, Jones, 2005). Theview of marketing splayed out from business activi-ties to all activities of human that are related to anysocial exchange.

When talking about the place of customer loy-alty in the marketing theory, it is necessary to distin-guish the main theories of marketing and to discusstheir impact on conception of customer loyalty (as se-parate research subject).

J. N. Sheth et al. (1988) in the evolution of mar-keting theories distinguish twelve schools of marke-ting thought. Authors classify these schools into fourgroups (theories), choosing perspectives of interac-tion (interactive / non-interactive) and economy (eco-nomical / non - economical) as the basis of classifica-tion (see Table 2). The followers of all twelve scho-ols fairly contributed to formation of customer loyal-ty conception.

Marketing schools refiecting interactive pro-cesses emphasize the importance of balance betweenthe power of buyers and sellers market. The represen-tatives of these schools understand marketing as inte-ractive process including relations and influence bet-ween producers, mediators and customers! At the sa-

69

me time at schools based on non-interactive proces-ses this factor is ignored. Customer loyalty is thoughtto be the consequence of relationships between pro-ducers (sellers) and customers, therefore, its existen-ce is analyzed by marketing schools based on interac-tion perspective.

The second dimension of classification of mar-keting schools is economical orientation versus non-economical one. Marketing schools based on econo-mical perspective express the approach that actionsof marketing participants are influenced by economicvalue. These schools are focused on such variables of

economy as efficiency of production and supply, le-vel of prices and customer income. At the same timethe representatives of non-economical approach sta-te that the actions of producers, mediators and custo-mers can not be explained only with reference to eco-nomic analysis. It was stated that behaviour of mar-ket participants is influenced by social and psycholo-gical factors as well. Customer loyalty is influencednot only by economic but also by psychological andsocial factors, therefore we can state that its existen-ce is acknowledged by the representatives of non-eco-nomical approach as well.

Classification of schools of marketing thoughtTable 2

Basis of classification

Economical perspective

Non-economical perspective

Non-interactive perspectiveCommodities schoolFunctional schoolRegional school

Buyer behaviour schoolSchool of activistsMacro-marketing school

Interactive perspectiveInstitutional schoolFunctionalistic schoolManagerial schoolSchool of organizational dynamicsSchool of systemsSchool of social exchange

Source; J. N. Sheth et al. (1988).

Groups of both the interactive economic andnon-interactive economic marketing schools are con-centrated ahnost exceptionally on the producer or sel-ler of goods. Meanwhile this attitude has changed inthe group of non-interactive non-economical marke-ting schools, by concentrating on the buyer of goods(school of buyer behavior), environment and socialfactors (macro-marketing and activists' schools).

The newest marketing school group sustainsthe interactive non-economical theory of marketing.The supporters of this theory are considered to be therepresentatives of three marketing schools - organiza-tional dynamics, systems and social exchange. Theinteractive non-economical theory differs from the ot-her (interactive economical, non-interactive economi-cal and non-interactive non-economical) in two mainaspects (Sheth et al, 1988):1. It is considered that it is equally important to un-

derstand and analyze both the buyer and the sel-ler. Differently from the economical marketingschools (commodities, functional, region) study-ing the positions of market transactions from thesupplier's (producer's, seller's) point of view andthe non-economical marketing schools (buyer be-havior, activists, macro-marketing) studying mar-ket transactions from the buyer's position, thesethree schools analyze mutual dependency and in-tegrated relations between sellers and buyers inthe context of market transactions.

2. At the same time these three schools refer to scien-ces of behavior and economics.

The interactive non-economical marketing the-ory has been created by three schools: organizationaldynamics, systems and social exchange.

Representatives of the organizational dyna-mics school paid more attention to the aims and ne-eds of the supply chain representatives (producers,wholesalers and retailers) but not to the customers.

Representatives of social exchange school emp-hasize that more attention in marketing researchesshould be paid to the exchange between sellers andbuyers. According to W. Mclnnes (1964), "the mar-ket is the social interaction of people, when the pro-ducers and buyers of economical goods and servicesseek to meet their needs and wishes with the help ofexchange". S. D. Hunt (1983) states that marketing isthe science of behavior, by which it is striven to ex-plain relations based on exchange. F. S. Houston andJ. B. Gassenheimer (1987) present the following ex-planation for exchange: "the drive of exchange is me-eting the needs. We express it by implementing useful-ness, where the function of usefulness indicates that"the implements" are used to meet one's needs..." Aswe can see the cause of exchange is the satisfactionof needs, it could be considered the grounds for satis-faction. Meanwhile satisfaction itself is one ofthe pre-sumptions of customers' loyalty.

70

Representatives of schools of system state thatdifferent marketing elements are related and depen-dent on each other. W. Lazer and E. J. Kelley (1962)distinguish the following elements of marketing sys-tems:1. Functionally independent marketing relations bet-

ween people, forming the system and institutions:producers, wholesalers, retailers, mediators andcustomers.

2. Integration between individuals and organiza-tions, necessary to maintain relations, coveringthe readjustment of changes, innovations, coope-ration and competitiveness.

3. Determination of aims, assignments, beliefs, sym-bols and provisions, promoting interaction. It isexpressed by determination of real marketingaims, creation of proper programmes, image, pro-visions, attitudes and activities.

4. Customer-oriented environment in which the inte-raction and relations are highlighted.

5. Marketing technologies covering means of com-munication, credit services, standardization andimprovement of measures, marketing researches.

In distinction of these elements we could seethe gems of relationship marketing schools, the ob-ject of which is the customer loyalty.

In summary it can be stated that in researchesof representatives of both the system and the socialexchange schools the grounds for research into thecustomers' loyalty as a separate marketing object ap-pears. All the abovediscussed marketing schools be-long to the marketing school group of traditional tran-sactions.

Recently one of the most important marketingdevelopment trends is the orientation shift from thetraditional transaction marketing to the relationshipmarketing. Instead of the orientation of traditionalmarketing, the ground of which is considered to bethe marketing complex, the organizations more andmore choose orientation of relationship marketing,the object of which is the present and potential custo-mers. According to G. A. Wyner (1999) modem orga-nizations seek to develop, raise and maintain profitab-le relations with customers.

Customer loyalty in the context of relationshipmarketing school

Formation of relationship marketing as a sepa-rate school is often explained by the contradiction ofrelationship marketing conception itself to the basisof classification of marketing thought schools, i.e.economical and interaction perspectives. Usage ofeconomical / non-economical and interactive/ non-in-teractive perspectives best refiected the conception oftransaction marketing, however, it did not suit the re-lationship marketing. Usage of non-economical per-spective as the basis of classification did not contra-dict the conception of relationship marketing, howe-ver the interactiveness dimension misfit. As S. Lagro-sen and G. Svensson (2006) state, considering the es-sence of relationship marketing, the most appropria-te ground of classification, best revealing the impor-tance of relation, is the relative perspective (see Fi-gure 1).

Relative perspective

Non-economicalperspective

School of relationship marketing

Figure 1. Classification basis of relationship marketing school

The first start of relationship marketing scho-ol formation is dated 1970, however, the school of re-lationship marketing finally approved its conceptualprovisions in 1980, when the representatives of onetype of the relationship marketing schools - Scandi-navian school - C. Gronroos and E. Gummesson(Gronroos, 1989; Gronroos, 1994; Gronroos, 1997;Gummesson, 1996) initiated perfection of marketingparadigm changes as the basis for their empirical re-searches through the grounding of creation, mainte-nance and development of relations between buyersand sellers.

In 1983 L. Berry presented the formulation ofmarketing definition, stating that relationship marke-

ting is a strategy devoted to maintain and strengthenrelations with customers. E. Gummesson (1993) defi-ned the relationship marketing also as a strategy de-voted to the control of interactions, relations and con-tacts. Ph.Kotler et al. (2003) expand the concept of re-lationship marketing by stating that relationship mar-keting is the creation, maintenance and consolidationof usefiil relations with not only the customers, butalso the suppliers and society. According to the aut-hors (Kotier et al, 2003), relationship marketing, be-ing oriented towards the long term cooperation, stri-ves to provide the customers with the long term va-lue, at the same time seeking the long time satisfac-tion of customers. Relationship marketing becomes

71

the basis of customer retention. Relations of differentlevels - economical, social, technical and legal - areoffered to customers, and that causes great loyalty ofcustomers.

Different authors representing different trendsof schools of relationship marketing emphasize diffe-rent aspects of relationship marketing, usually desc-ribing them as the whole of essential principles orelements. Customers' loyalty as the main aim of rela-tionship marketing remains equally relevant and im-portant at the crossing of different attitudes: all aut-hors analyzing the elements of relationship marke-ting emphasize the loyalty of customers as the mainconstituent of relationship marketing.

H. Diller (2000), while analyzing the relationconcept, defines the relationship marketing as the

whole of particular principles oriented to the achie-vement of the main aim of relationship marketing -customer loyalty. H. Diller (2000) calls his createdsystem of relationship marketing principles "6 i's",the components of which are "Information", "Invest-ments", "Individuality", "Interaction", "Integration"and "Intention". Taking into account H. Diller's(2000) distinguished principles of relationship marke-ting and the whole meaning of principles, it is pos-sible to state that the author refers to the ideas of An-glo-Australian relationship marketing school, empha-sizing the importance of interfunctional relations andseeking customer satisfaction and loyalty through thevalue creation process for customers.

The schematic expression ofthe whole of rela-tionship marketing principles, suggested by H.Diller(2000), is presented in Figure 2.

INFORMATION(ahout customers)

INTERACTION(with customers)

INTENTIONS(start unique relations)

INTEGRATION(of customers)

INVESTMENTS(to customers)

INDIVIDUALITY(of customers)

Source: H. Diller (2000).Figure 2. The whole of relationship marketing principles

While analyzing the model formed by H.Diller(2000) we can state that relationship marketing is ba-sed on six main principles, which are interrelated andreveal the construct of relationship marketing. A cus-tomer becomes the central subject to which all marke-ting activity is directed. When itemizing the princip-les of relationship marketing we can state that first-ly the company providing goods and services to thecustomers is interested in gathering reliable informa-tion about its customers and creating the database ofcustomers (Ahlert, 2000). Secondly, they select on-ly those customers who are worth investment. Notall customers have equal perspectives of future pro-fitability, besides, not all customers equally treat thevalue ofthe same product or service. The third prin-ciple of relationship marketing is individual offer foreach customer. Application of a commodity or servi-ce for individual customer becomes inseparable partof starting close relationship with that customer (Pi-ne, 1993). The fourth and the fifth principles of rela-tionship marketing are related to systematic commu-nication with customers and with involvement of cus-tomers into the process of value creation. The moresystematic these processes are, the closer relations-

hip between the customers and the company exists(Kleinaltenkamp et al., 1996). The last principle of re-lationship marketing is distinguished by the featurethat all activities discussed above must be includedwhen trying to start such unique relationship with cus-tomers, which would distinguish the company fromother competitors and would create the value desiredby the customers. These special relationships betwe-en the company and the customers that are reachableafter realization of all main principles of relationshipmarketing are called "well created" customer loyalty(Diller, 2000).

Ideas of another branch of school of relations-hip marketing - Scandinavian school - are noticeab-le in the scientific works of M. Christopher, A. Payneand D. Ballantyne (1991) and W. Nickel and M. Wo-od (1997). The authors emphasize the same elementsof relationship marketing to be the basis of researchescarried out by themselves. Those elements are con-ceptually close to the nature of customers loyalty -that is, the factors that create, retain and strengthen,in other words, have impact on customer loyalty.M. Christopher, A. Payne and D. Ballantyne (1991)and W. Nickel and M. Wood (1997) distinguish:

72

• The importance of customer retention;• Orientation towards the benefits being provided

by the product/service;• Long-period perspective;• Great attention to servicing of customer;• Liability to customer;• Close communication with customer;• Quality as the basis of all activity.

Retention of customers by forming their loy-alty, and not only attraction of new customers, beco-mes one of the most important objectives of relations-hip marketing. Identification of customers' needs be-comes the basis of customer satisfaction, especiallywhile emphasizing the importance of servicing forconception of generally obtained quality. The atten-tion of Scandinavian school to servicing and servicequality is especially great, as this branch of relations-hip marketing school treats the aspect of service qua-lity as one of the most important components in theprocess of creation of value for customers.

Orientation towards the benefits being provi-ded by the product or service (but not the features ofproduct / service) is also explained through the pro-cess of creation of value for the customer (Gordon,1998). A customer, when buying and using product /service, receives certain benefit that provides possi-bility for satisfaction to appear. (Nickel and Wood,1997). Long period perspective, as well as great at-tention to servicing of customer, when the relations-hips between customers and companies develop, be-come a necessity when seeking customer loyalty.Orientation to development of long-lasting relations-hips with customers enables the companies to maxi-mize their profits by providing the desired value tothe customers.

Liability to customers is treated as one of pro-visions of relationship marketing that emphasizes thestrength of relationships. According to E. Gummes-son (1999), retention of customers is based on orien-tation to customer and satisfaction of his needs, andthat is the liability to customer as well.

Close communication with a customer is neces-sary so that the customer could be involved into theprocess of value creation (Gordon, 1998). Close com-munication with customers ensures the feedback forthe companies and provides valuable information forthe solution of such problems as formation of custo-mer satisfaction, retention and loyalty. In scientificworks of M. Christopher et al. (1991) and W. Nickeland M. Wood (1997) the aspect of quality is mentio-ned as the basis of activity development of compa-nies, very often it is met in the works of representati-ves of Scandinavian school. In this case, seeking qu-

ality is treated as the basis of company activity de-velopment, which creates the conditions for long-las-ting, loyalty-based relationships with customers (Nic-kel and Wood, 1997).

Conclusions

The analysis of the evolution of schools of mar-keting thought that determines and distinguishes theorigins and transformation of customer loyalty, enab-les to draw the following conclusions:1. The process of marketing formation can be divi-

ded into three eras: preindustrial, industrial (pro-duction) and post-industrial. The relevance andmeaning of customer loyalty was ambiguous inthese eras.

2. Talking about the preindustrial era, the role of pro-ducer was inseparable of seller, tight and trust-ba-sed relationships linked the customer to the ma-nufacturer. The relationship marketing orientationwas dominant. The direct connection between aproducer and a customer was based on trust, confi-dence, and cooperation. Obviously, the producer-customer relationship of the period was based onloyalty.

3. The basic idea of the industrial era is shift in orien-tation from individual to mass customer. The ful-filment of needs of an individual customer was cle-arly forgotten in the period. The stagnation streakfor the formation of customer loyalty formationemerged.

4. The need for marketing encompassing manage-rial, customer behavioural, and transactional ap-proaches emerged in the eighties of the twentiethcentury. The relationship marketing could main-tain the idea Customer loyalty and its formationis the basic aim of relationship marketing, ofteneven being equated to the relationship marketingconception.

5. The relationship marketing conception is basedon non-economic and relational perspective. Theconception can be considered as a strategy formaintaining and enhancing customer relations-hips. Various relationship marketing aspects arebeing highlighted by scientists, representing diffe-rent branches of relationship marketing. These as-pects are often named as fiindamental principlesof element entirety. Customer loyalty as the mainaim of relationship marketing remains equally re-levant and dominant in the intersection of the ap-proaches. The scientific discussion reveals custo-mer loyalty to be the main component of modemmarketing theory - relationship marketing.

73

References

1. Ahlert, H. (2000). Enterprise Customer Management:Integrating Corporate and Customer Information. Re-lationship Marketing: Gaining Competitive Advanta-ge through Customer Satisfaction and Customer Re-tention. Berlin: Springer-Verlog.

2. Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing Behavior and Execu-tive Action: A Functionalist Approach to MarketingTheory. USA, IL, Homewood: Richard D. Irwin Inc.

3. Bartels, R. ( 1988). 77;e History of Marketing Thought.OH, Columbus: Publishing Horizons.

4. Borden, N. H. (1964). The Concept of the Marke-ting Mix. Journal of Advertising Research, 4 (June),p. 2-7.

5. Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D. (1991).Relationship Marketing. Bringing Customer Satisfac-tion for Business to Business Professional Services.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1 (25),p. 4-17.

6. Converse, P. D. (1945). The Development of the Scien-ce of Marketing - An Exploratory Survey. Journal ofMarketing, 10 (July), p. 14-23.

7. Diller, H. (2000). Customer loyalty: fata morganaor realistic goal? Managing relationships with custo-mers. In Hennig-Thurau, T., Hansen, U. (Eds.), Rela-tionship Marketing: Competitive Advantage ThroughCustomer Satisfaction and Customer Retention(p. 20-48). Springer Verlag, Berlin.

8. Gordon, I. (1998). Relationship Marketing: New Stra-tegies, Techniques and Technologies to Win the Custo-mer You Want and Keep Them Forever. John Wiley &Sons Canada, Ltd, Ontario.

9. Grönroos, C. (1989). Defining Marketing: A Market-Oriented Approach. European Journal of Marketing,1 (23), p. 52-60.

10. Grönroos, C. (1997). From marketing mix to relations-hip marketing - towards a paradigm shift in marke-ting. Management Decision, 3/4 (35), p. 322—339.

11. Grönroos, Ch. (1994). From Marketing Mix to Rela-tionship Marketing. Toward a Paradigm Shift in Mar-keting. Management Decision, 2 (32), p. 4—20.

12. Gummesson, E. (1993). Relationship Marketing:From 4Ps to 3Rs. Stockholm University, Stockholm.

13. Gummesson, E. (1996). Towards a theoretical frame-work of relationship marketing. In Sheth, J.N. and Sol-lner, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Con-ference on Relationship Marketing (p. 5-18). Berlin,March.

14. Hollander, S. C , Rassuli, K. M., Jones, D. G. B., Dix,L. F. (2005). Periodization in Marketing History. Jour-nal of Macromarketing, I (25), p. 32-41.

15. Houston, F. S., Gassenheimer, J. B. (1987). Marke-ting and Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 4 (51) (Oc-tober), p. 3-18.

16. Houston, F. S., Gassenheimer, J. B., Maskulka, J.(1992). Marketing Exchange Transactions and Rela-tionships. CT, Westport: Quorum Books.

17. Howard, J. R., Sheth, J. N. (1969). The Theory of Buy-er Behavior. New York: John Wiley.

18. Hunt, S. D. (1983). General Theories and the Funda-mental Explananda of Marketing. Journal of Marke-ting, 47 (¥al\), p. 9-17.

19. Jones, D. G. B., Monieson, D. D. (1990). Early De-velopment of the Philosophy of Marketing Thought.Journal of Marketing, 54 {iamxaxy), p. 102-113.

20. Jones, D. G. B., Shaw, E. H. (2002). A History of Mar-keting Thought. In B. A. Weitz and R. Wensley (Eds.)Handbook of Marketing (p. 39-66). London: Sage.

21. Keith, R. J. (1960). The Marketing Revolution. Journalof Marketing, 3 (24), p. 35-38.

22. Kleinaltenkamp, M., Flieb, S., Jacob, F. ( 1996). Custo-mer Integration (From Customer Orientation to Cus-tomer Integration). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

23. Kotler, Ph., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., Wong, V.(2003). Rinkodarosprincipai. Poligrafija ir informati-ka, Kaunas.

24. Lagrosen, S., Svensson, G. (2006). A seminal frame-work of marketing schools: revised and updated. Jour-nal of Management History, - (12), p. 369-384.

25. Lazer, W., Kelley, E. J. (1962). Managerial Marke-ting: Perspectives and Viewpoints. Homewood, Illi-nois: Richard D. Irwing, Inc.

26. Mclnnes, W. (1964). A Conceptual Approach to Mar-keting. In R. Cox, W. Anderson, S. J. Shapiro (Eds.),Theory in Marketing (p. 57-61). Homewood, Illinois:Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

27. Nickel, W, Wood, M. (1997). Marketing Relations-hips, Quality, Value, Worth. Publishers, New York.

28. Pine, J. (1993). Mass Customization: The New Fron-tier in Business Competition. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

29. Shaw, E. H., Jones, D. G. B. (2005). A History ofSchools of Marketing Thought. Marketing Theory,5(5), p. 239-281.

30. Sheth, J. N., Gardner, D.M., Garrett, D.E. (1988).Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation. USA:John Wiley and Sons.

31. Sheth, J. N., Parvatiyar, A. (1995). The Evolution ofRelationship Marketing. International Business Re-view, 4 (4), p. 397-418.

32. Smith, W. R. (1956). Product Differentiation and Mar-ket Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies.Journal of Marketing, i (21) (July), p. 3-8.

33. Wilkie, W. L., Moore, E. S. (2003). Scholarly Rese-arch in Marketing: Exploring the "4 Eras" of ThoughtDevelopment. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,2 (22) (Fall), p. 116-146.

34. Wyner, G. A. (1999). Customer relationship measure-ment. Marketing Research, 2(11), p. 39-41.

74

L. Pilelienè, K. Zikiené, B. Svagzdienè

Vartotojq lojalumo sampratos formavimasis marketingo minties inokykli{ raidos kontekste

Santrauka

Vartotojq lojalumo skatinimas ir rysiq su jais uz-mezgimas ilgalaikèje perspektyvoje marketingo prero-gatyva tapo ilgo marketingo mokslo evoliucijos procesopasekoje. Marketingo, kaip savarankiskos disciplinos,formavimosi pradzia - 1900 m., kai sparciai besivystantpramonei, augant jos produktyvumui, susidométa naujaisgamybos metodais, nauji produktq gamyba ir prekyba,prekiii pateikimu vartotojams, vartotojq pirkimo elgsenair 1.1. Vyrauja nuomoné, kad marketingas tapo ta discip-lina, kuri teigè turinti potencial^, issprçsti visas tuo metuegzistavusias verslui aktualias problemas bei suderintivartotojq ir gamintojn interesus. Skirtinga marketinginiqaspektii reiksmè, jii traktavimas ir aktualumas priklauséne tik nuo laiko periodq kaitos. Svarus bei reiksmingasskirtings marketingo minties mokykli^ atstovq indélis ku-riant bei plètojant marketingo minti prisidéjo prie spartausmarketingo, kaip mokslo, formavimosi ir raidos proceso.Mokslinés literatûros analizè atskleidzia, kad ilg^ laikotar-pi marketingo mokslas rèmèsi tradiciniais vadybiniais irekonominiais veiklos organizavimo principáis: pigia ga-myba, siekiant gaminamus produktus / paslaugas padarytiprieinamus didesniam vartotoji^ratui ir, zinoma, paklausosstimuliavimu naudojant reklamines ir kitas skatinimo prie-mones, siekiant padidinti pardavimus. Sis tradicinis poziu-ris, besiremiantis mikroekonoinine perspektyva, praradosavo aktualum^isplètojus marketingo paradigm^ zengiantpostindustrinès eros link.

Tyrimo problema ir aktualumas. Viena svarbiau-siii pastanjjii meti^ marketingo plètros tendencijii - orien-tacijos suolis nuo tradicinio sandoriq marketingo rysiiimarketingo link. Siuolaikinèje akademinèje ir verslo vi-suomenèje placiai palaikoma idèja, kad rysii^ marketingas,akcentuoj antis artimi{_ santykiq, su klientais uzmezgim^beiinkorporuojantis vartotojq lojalumo skatinimo garantuojaorganizacijii islikim^ ir konkurencini pranasum^ rinkoje.Sutinkant su rysiii marketingo koncepcija, aktualus tampapaties marketingo, kaip mokslo, evoliucionavimo [vertini-mas per vartotojq lojalum^. Skirtingq marketingo mokyk-la indèlis formuojant poziOri \_ vartotojn lojalum^ svarbussiekiant geriau suvokti rysii^ marketingo susiformavimoprielaidas ir suprasti pati vartotojn lojalumo reiskini. Ob-jektas- vartotojn lojalumo sampratos formavimosi uzuo-mazgos marketingo mokyklq raidos kontekste. Tikslas- teoriniame lygmenyje atskleisti marketingo minties mo-kyklq idèjq [tak^ vartotoji^ lojalumo suvokimui. Uzdavi-niai: 1) atlikti teorinç marketingo minties mokyklii raidosanalizç; 2) atskleisti skirtingii marketingo mokyklii poziû-rius i vartotoJ4 lojalum^ 3) isanalizuoti rysiii marketingomokyklos atstovi^ poziùrius [ vartotojii lojalum^.

Teoriniai tyrimo pagrindai. Remiantis ¿vairiq au-toriii teorinèmis nuostatomis, straipsnyje analizuojamamarketingo minties raida, apzvelgtos skirtingq marketin-go minties mokyklq idèjos, nustatytas kiekvienos mokyk-los atstovii poziuris [ vartotojq lojalum^ siam reiskiniuiteikiama reiksmè ir indèlis ji formuojant. Rysiij marke-

tingo mokyklos idèjos ir atsakos analizuojamos plaôiau,grindziant prielaida, kad vartotojq lojalumas geriausiaiatitinka, daznai yra tapatinamas su rysiq marketingo kon-cepcija. Klientu islaikymas formuojant jq lojalum^ o nenaujii klientii pritraukimas, tampa vienu svarbiausiii rysiiimarketingo uzdaviniq. Vartotojo poreikii^ identifikavimasyra vartotojq pasitenkinimo pagrindas, ypac akcentuojantaptamavimo ir paslaugq reiksmç bendrai gaunamos koky-bès suvokimui.

Skandinavq mokyklos dèmesys aptamavimo irpaslaugii kokybei yra itin didelis, nes si rysiii marketingomokyklos saka paslaugii kokybès aspekt^ traktuoja kaipvien^ svarbiausiii komponentii vertes vartotojams kûrimoprocese. Orientacija i produkto ar paslaugos teikiamasnaudas (o ne produkto / paslaugos savybes) taip pat ais-kinama per vertes vartotojui kûrimo procès^ (Gordon,1998). Vartotojas, pirkdamas ir naudodamasis produkt^ /paslaug% gauna tam tikra naud^ kuri suteikia galimybçatsirasti pasitenkinimui (Nickel ir Wood, 1997). Ilgo lai-kotarpio perspektyva, kaip ir dèmesys vartotojo aptama-vimui, vystant santykius tarp klientii ir kompanijq, tampabutinybè siekiant vartotojii lojalumo. Orientacija [ ilgalai-kiii rysiii su vartotojais plètojim^ suteikiant vartotojamsjil trokstam^ vertç, [galina kompanijas didinti savo peln^.isipareigojimas vartotojams traktuojamas kaip viena ryäiiimarketingo nuostatij, apibrèzianti rysiii stipmm^. PasakE. Gummesson (1999), klientii islaikymas susijçs su var-totoju ir jo poreikiii tenkinimu, o tai ir yra isipareigojimasvartotojui. Artimas bendravimas su vartotoju butinas, kadvartotojas galètii bûti [trauktas [ vertes kûrimo procès^(Gordon, 1998). Artimas bendravimas su klientais kom-panijoms garantuoja gr^ztam^i rysi ir suteikia vertingosinformacijos sprendziant vartotojii pasitenkinimo, islaiky-mo ir lojalumo formavimo problemas. M. Christopher irkt. (1991), W. Nickel ir M. Wood (1997) mokslo darbuoseminimas kokybès aspektas, kaip imoniii veiklos vystymopagrindas, daznai sutinkamas skandinavii mokyklos atsto-vii darbuose. Kokybès siekimas traktuojamas kaip [monèsveiklos plètros pagrindas, sudarantis s^lygas atsirasti ilga-laikiams, lojalumu paremtiems rysiams su vartotojais (Nic-kel irVood, 1997).

Isvados. Marketingo formavimosi procese galimaisskirti tris laikotarpius: ikiindustrini, industrijos (gamy-bos) ir postindustrini. Vartotojii lojalumo reiksmè ir svarbaper siuos tris laikotarpius nebuvo vienareiksmè. Ikiindust-riniu laikotarpiu gamintojo vaidmuo buvo neatskiriamasnuo prekybininko, o gamintojo su vartotoju siejo tvirtirysiai, paremti pasitikèjimu - marketingas buvo pagr^stasakivaizdzia rysiii orientacija. Tiesioginè s^veika tarp ga-mintojn ir vartotojii reikalavo pasitikèjimo ir kooperacijos.Taigi galima teigti, kad tuo metu santykiai tarp gamintojo(pardavèjo) ir vartotojii buvo pagristi lojalumu. Industrijoslaikotarpiu daugiausia dèmesio skirta masiniam vartotojui,0 individualiii vartotojii poreikiai ignoruoti. Siuo laikotar-piu vartotojii lojalumo sampratos formavimas(is) buvo s^-

75

stingio bûsen^. XX a. 9-ajame desimtmetyje atsirado mar-ketingo, apimancio vadybini, vartotojit elgsenos ir maini^poziûrius, poreikis. Toks yra irrysi^marketingas. Vartotoji^lojalumas yra pagrindinis rysiit marketingo tikslas, kartaisnet prilyginamas paciai rysiq marketingo koncepcijai. Ry-siii marketingo koncepcija, besiremdama santykine ir ne-ekonomine perspektyva, apibrèziama kaip strategija, skirtapalaikyti ir stiprinti rysius su vartotojais. Skirtingi autoriai,atstovaujantys ivairias rysiii marketingo mokyklos kryptis.

akcentuoja skirtingus rySii marketingo aspektus, dazniau-sia apibûdindami juos kaip pagrindiniii principij, ar elemen-ts visum^. Vartotojii lojalumas, kaip pagrindinis rysiii mar-ketingo tikslas, islieka vienodai aktualus bei svarbus ivai-riiipoziûriiisankirtoje. Mokslinè diskusija atskleidzia, kadsiuolaikinèse marketingo teorijose vartotojn lojalumas ak-centuojamas kaip pagrindinê rysiq marketingo dedamoji.

Prasminiai zodziai: vartotojit lojalumas, marke-tingo minties mokyklos, santykiq marketingas.

76

Copyright of Socialiniai Tyrimai is the property of Siauliai University, Faculty of Social Sciences and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.