Customer Satisfaction Survey for a Modern Greek Bank and Relationships Between Customer
Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, Complaints Handling and Recommendation.
Spyridon G. Aliferis, University of Paisley Business School, Scotland, UK (June 2006)
Dr. Panagiotis Kyriazopoulos
ABSTRACT
The main subject of this survey is to measure and understand the elements of customer
satisfaction and its impact to business growth and future. One of the aims of this survey is to confirm
the validity of the hypothesis that modern banks keep their customers very satisfied and that is why
they grow over older banks at a higher pace. Another aim of this research is to identify which are the
areas that modern banks excel, through which actions they do it and what elements can be improved.
Last aim is the identification of relationships and connections between customers’ satisfaction, loyalty,
recommendation and complaints handling. It is supposed that the elements of customer’s satisfaction
perception include easiness of Access, Service provided, Products and Personnel.
The conceptual background deals with the literature review in customer satisfaction, service
quality, complaints handling and loyalty. Reichheld & Sasser (1990) argued that loyalty is directly
connected with profitability. The survey was conducted by the usage of anonymous questionnaires to
customers of a Greek modern bank.
The first conclusion was that the respondents were very happy with the model bank. The
competitive advantages that came out from this survey did not include products but they were based
mainly in quality service and personnel. High global satisfaction is verified from the will of customers
to continue using the model bank and to recommending new customers. The results analysis of this
survey confirmed the hypotheses that “total customer satisfaction” is related with “loyalty”,
“recommendation” and “complaints handling” but in general their interrelationships did not fit in linear
regressions models.
Key words: customer satisfaction, quality service, complaints handling
1. Introduction
During the recent years, the banks realized the interrelationship between loyalty, customer
satisfaction, customer retention and profitability. This guided them to a more customer-oriented profile
and to the conduction of satisfaction surveys in order to understand customer preferences and to
diagnose levels of satisfaction. Of course these surveys are perceived as very important as they reflect
trends for switching behaviors or elements that should improved.
Newman & Cowling (1996) stated that excellent service quality is a one-way road for modern
banks. Quality differentiates one bank from the other and is perceived as important in business
profitability and survival. The impact of service quality and corporate profitability seems to be
dependent on high levels of customer satisfaction, on targeting of “good” clients and above all, on the
retention of these customers. Jones & Sasser (1995) stated that the goal is “complete customer
satisfaction”. This is the key for customer loyalty and long-term financial success.
Zeithaml et al. (1990) stated that “management’s failure to identify customer desires is one
kind of quality gap”. From many researches it is derived that the most important criteria assessed by
customers for choosing a bank, are related with service quality and delivery system. Zeithaml et al.
(1996) indicated that examining the link between customer satisfaction and behavioral responses helps
towards the understanding of the link between customer satisfaction and the financial outcomes of an
organization
The traditional product-oriented bank has transformed to a customer-oriented organization
working in a very competitive environment. Towards this direction helped the internationalization of
markets, the telecommunications and technology boom and by all means the liberalization of unified
geographical areas.
This paper is an empirical study for identifying the level of customers’ satisfaction for a Greek
modern bank. It was conducted through the collection of questionnaires where the respondents were
customers. Through the analysis of the results the author will try to find and measure the elements of
customer satisfaction and to diagnose the strong and weak points of these elements. Moreover there
will be a try to understand the causal relationship between customer satisfaction, complaints handling
1
and loyalty in order to confirm, or not, basic hypotheses that were tested in the past by other
researchers.
2. Aims & Objectives
During the last years it is obvious that modern banks gain market share constantly
(http://www.hba.gr); one could say that this happens because modern banks do something better. This
advantage is supposed to be reflected in customers’ satisfaction perception. The main subject of this
survey is to measure and understand the elements of customer satisfaction and its impact to business
growth and future.
One of the aims of this survey is to confirm the validity of the hypothesis that modern banks
keep their customers very satisfied and that is why they grow over older banks at a higher pace.
Another aim of this research is to identify which are the areas that modern banks excel, through which
actions they do it and what elements can be improved. Last aim is the identification of relationships
and connections between customers’ satisfaction, loyalty and complaints handling.
In order to reach and understand the above aims and conclusions it is important to set the objectives of
this survey. The basic objectives are listed below:






Setting and clarification of satisfaction criteria that are perceived as important in the valuation
of customer satisfaction.
Identification of the importance of these criteria
Definitions and explanations of the notions of customer satisfaction, service quality and
customer loyalty.
Recognition of the interrelationships of these variables and their impact in customers’
satisfaction perception.
Explanation of the methodology of the survey and the statistical tools that will be used for the
analysis
Extracting conclusions and understanding of the competitive advantages and identification of
areas that should be improved
3. Basic Hypotheses
It is supposed that the elements of customer’s satisfaction perception include easiness for Access,
Service provided, Products and Personnel. These elements are perceived as equally weighted
antecedents of customer satisfaction and almost all of them share attributes of service quality. This
survey also tries to confirm the hypotheses that customer satisfaction has a direct relationship with
complaints handling, future use, usage continuity, repurchase and recommendations and that these
relationships fit to a two-variable or a multivariable linear regression model. These hypotheses are
presented as:
H1. The greater the satisfaction is, the greater the customer loyalty.
H2. Satisfaction is related with complaints handling, intentions for repurchase and continuity of
usage.
H3. Recommendation intention reflects customer satisfaction and loyalty
A general hypothesis is that there are many differences in bank determinants prior to 1990s.
This happens because of the lack of technology (ATM, Internet Banking, and Phone Banking), which
consisted location, and size of branches network as very important. Researches from Gupta &
Torkzadeh (1988) in Winnipeg – Canada and Laroche et al. (1986) in Montreal – Canada revealed that
the friendliness and politeness of bank personnel, the management of accounts, the rate of interest paid
and the procedures of transactions are the most important factors for choosing a bank. Price
competitiveness was proved of minimum importance which was something that derived from
Zineldin’s (1992) research where stated that banking industry is unique and differ from the most other
service industries. Banking is considered as a relationship where the customer is willing to pay slightly
more in order to have speed and quality in service.
Some of other hypotheses of this survey are:
H4. Access and location of branches are still perceived as very important
H5. Products and charges are similar for all banks and due to this, the customers tend to appreciate
more, politeness, service quality and service speed
2
H6. Image of the bank is not a fundamental criterion for the creation of customer satisfaction
H7. Never mind the overall performance of the bank there are still areas that could be improved
H8. Modern banks have created competitive advantages over older ones and this is why they
constantly grow at a higher pace
H9. Friendliness, politeness of personnel and quality services of the bank have a strong positive
impact on perceived customer satisfaction
4. Conceptual Background
4.1 Customer satisfaction
Surveys conducted from the University of Michigan Business School (2001) led to the result
that customers feel disrespected and mistreated by banks, hotels, etc. Related surveys revealed that
there is a decline in the level of respect given to clients and despite the fact that business is growing the
quality shrinks. This reality had a direct impact, not only in customer’s satisfaction, but also in the
profitability and performance of the companies.
According to Reis et al. (2003), there has been a fundamental shift in how companies treat
their customers. With the help of technology organizations can measure what are the expectations of
their customers and then deliver quality products and services at a profit. Anderson et al. (1994) proved
that the increasing of customer satisfaction leads to higher and more stable profitability, increased
consumer willingness to pay price premiums, recommendations of new potential customers, more
usage of the product, higher repurchase intentions (Reitchheld 1996), and higher levels of customer
retention and loyalty (Fornell 1992; Anderson & Sullivan 1993).
Drucker (1954) underpinned that the principle purpose of a business is to create satisfied
customers. According to Oliver (1980), “Customer satisfaction is generally described as the full
meeting of one’s expectations”. Fornell (1992) defined customer satisfaction as an overall evaluation of
the total purchase experience compared with pre-purchase expectations over time. Oliver (1999)
regarded satisfaction as a fulfillment judgment, focused on a product or service, which is evaluated for
one time or repeated consumption. Oliver (1997) claimed that satisfaction is derived from the Latin
satis (enough) and facere ( to do or make)
Bloemer et al. (1998) argued that there is literature confusion about the relationship of
customer satisfaction and service quality. They found that service quality can be taken as a determinant
of customer satisfaction. The bank customers have certain expectations prior to their contact with the
bank. They develop perceptions during their service from the bank and they compare these perceptions
with their expectations. While customer satisfaction and service quality have similar characteristics
they have some basic differences. In the first place it is argued that in order to form a satisfaction
perception, usage of service is prerequisite, whereas service quality does not need necessarily
experience of the service provided.
According to Levesque & McDougal (1996), the major gains in customer satisfaction derive
from changes in:
 Service quality
 Service characteristics and
 Successful customer complaint handling
Peter & Olson (1996) argued that pre-purchase expectations are believes about the expected
quality and functionality of the product while disconfirmation deals with the differences between prepurchase expectations and post-purchase opinion. This means that when the perceived opinion, after
the purchase of the product/service, is higher than the pre-purchase expectation the customers are
satisfied. When happens the opposite, then the customers are dissatisfied and the company deals with
“negative disconfirmation”.
Hallowel (1996) assumed that there is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction,
service quality and loyalty which this survey acknowledges and which will try to confirm. The basic
model of this survey is adapted from the research of Moutinho & Smith (2000) and is referred below
(Figure 1). The primary idea of this model was developed by Brown et al. (1993). Moutinho & Smith
(2000) argued that a respective number of researchers have found that service related factors like
speed, efficiency, access and services are ways of attracting, satisfying and retaining customers. The
overall bank customer perceived satisfaction is confirmed and reflected to switching behavior and
customer loyalty.
3
Figure 1
Hypothesis 3 (H3 - perceived satisfaction) is the addition “Ease of banking” (H1) and
“Attitudes” (H2). H3 is directly linked with “Switching costs” and “Customer loyalty”. Moreover
created switching costs end up in customer loyalty. This means that H1 and H2 are indirectly connected
(via customer satisfaction) with customer loyalty.
The bank customer’s attitudes have been developed in order to measure perceptions about
service delivery and how they affect to customer’s behavior. For the purpose of this survey, this model
was enriched with perceived satisfaction from products, services and personnel. Moreover ease of
banking factor includes all the service channels of modern banks as well as the time need for delivering
the services. Manrai & Manrai (1993) stated that there is no direct impact of ease of banking and
customer attitudes to loyalty and switching cost. Their connection is coming through customer
satisfaction and is confirmed by the results of the present survey.
4.2 Service Quality
As it is already referred, research in customer satisfaction is often associated with service
quality dimensions. Bitner and Hubbert (1994) defined service quality as the customer’s overall
impression about perceived superiority of a company and its products/services while satisfaction is
defined as the feeling of a customer after the usage and the purchase of a product or service.
Many authors have argued about the relationship between customer satisfaction and service
quality. Some of them like Taylor & Baker (1994) considered them as totally different elements that
should be treated as equivalents in models of customer decision-making. Levesque & McDougal
(1996) stated that there are two overriding dimensions of service quality. The first concerns the core
aspects of the service (e.g. reliability) and the second concerns the process aspects of the services (e.g.
responsiveness, assurance). The outcome of the analysis of this survey confirms that these two
dimensions are antecedents of customer satisfaction.
Banking services are intangible and due to this it is very difficult for the customers to assess
service quality. This is why (Bitner 1990) stated that the customers make conclusions about service
quality based on tangible things like the premises and the physical layouts which surround the service
environment.
Smith (2000) examined the dimensionality of the service quality construct and distinguished three
dimensions:
4
1.
2.
3.
Access – Convenience
Human Elements
Tangibles
Access and Convenience are considered as very important for the easiness of the customers. In
a service provider like a bank, the Human Resources are the main assets of the organization. The skills
and the attitude of the personnel offer competitive advantages and differentiate one bank from the
other. Finally Tangibles issues like the architectural design or the functionality of the procedures
reinforce the perceived holistic image of the organization.
For the purpose of this survey convenience and accessibility are treated as parts of the tangible
dimensions of service quality which is perceived as an important antecedent of customer satisfaction.
All the important elements of customer satisfaction and service quality will be grouped into categories
and will be included in the questionnaire.
4.3 Loyalty
Reicheld and Sasser (1990) argued that retention of customers have a strong impact on a
company’s results. Rust and Zahorik (1993) added that less defection of customers affects market
share. Reitchheld & Sasser (1993); Rust & Zahorik (1993) concluded that building effective
relationships with clients can contribute significantly in loyalty, customer satisfaction and financial
results. These two authors confirmed that when a company increases by five per cent its loyal
customers, profits rise by 25 to 125 per cent.
Fornell and Wernerfelt (1987) concluded that it is better for a company to spend resources in
order to keep existing customers than to attract new ones. Attracting new customers means expenditure
in advertising and promotion and at the beginning of the relationship a compromise with profitability.
Nikolopoulou (2006) wrote that the notions of customer service and customer satisfaction are
connected with effective complaints handling. It must be clarified first to shareholders and then to the
personnel, that complaints are not “troubles” or “threats” but must be perceived as “gifts”. When this
“gift” is used properly it can add value to the company and improve the general image of the
organization. Politeness, promptness and smiling are necessary characteristics of the employees who
serve customers or who deal with customers complaints. Despite the fact that these characteristics do
not cost anything to the company, they increase a lot the customer satisfaction level and consequently
customer loyalty and profitability.
Karatepe & Ekiz (2004) argued that unresolved problems may lead to permanent loss of
customers and negative word-of-mouth. Empirical research conducted by authors like Bodgett &
Anderson (2000) and Maxham & Netemeyer (2002) proved that satisfied complainants tend to have the
intention to repurchase, to recommend new customers and feel, in general, satisfied from the entire
organization.
Bloemer et al. (1998) supported the notion that repeat purchasing or visiting sequence, as a
method for measuring loyalty, must not be the only factor for assessing loyalty. For instance the low
degree of repurchasing could mean that the customers do not need any other products (i.e. mortgage
loan) or that the variety of products can not satisfy their needs. Of course this factor is very important
but it is not the only one needed to be analyzed.
According to East (1997) when customers are satisfied with a particular product or service, are
likely to engage in repeat purchase or cross-purchase. Taylor & Baker (1994) stated that customer
satisfaction has a direct impact in the formation of future purchase intentions.
File & Prince (1992) identified a strong impact of customer satisfaction to recommendation of
potential customers. They stated that satisfied customers are likely to communicate to others their good
experience and through this communication they contribute to the word of mouth advertising. Ewing
(2000) underpinned that the higher the customer’s intention to purchase a brand, the higher will be his
willingness to make a referral of a potential customer to that brand.
5. Banking Sector and the model bank
Zineldin (1996) predicted that banks would move into a very competitive financial
environment providing a variety of products/services. No bank can offer the best products every time in
any different category. Moreover no bank can satisfy all the customers. Banks usually differentiate
their products in order to reach more efficiently different market segments. Personalized service and
customer-orientated approach will outcome customer loyalty and customer retention. Banking industry
was characterized by a stable environment for decades; however, today banks operate in a very
5
competitive, international environment that was created mainly by the growth of technology and
telecommunications and first of all, by the deregulation of markets.
The model bank showed tremendous growth and decisiveness as it managed to double retail
branches in less than three years. From its first day in business, created a Complaints Handling
Department and moreover it conducts customer satisfaction surveys at least twice per year. The model
bank is a customer-oriented organization that manages to grow over its competitors at an amazing pace.
This is the first reason for choosing this firm as the model of this survey. The second, but not less
important, reason is because the model bank is a “pure” modern firm. This means that it is not an
outcome of acquisitions and mergers but strategically follows the expansion of “green field”. The third
reason and at the same time one of the hypotheses, is that having succeeded an amazing performance in
a very short time period, it means that its customers must feel more than satisfied.
6. Methodological frame
After dealing with the conceptual background, there will be an empirical study that is used in
order to test the basic hypotheses that concern Greek retail banking and customer satisfaction from a
modern bank. The research designing of this empirical study follows the deductive approach, which is
related with positivism. The justification of this choice is because the survey is conducted in a single
company working in a very changeable business environment. Interpretivism and realism cannot be
used when generalized conclusions are valid only for several weeks or when the qualitative data come
from a limited sample of the market. Moreover inductive approach, in this case, could lead to some
hypotheses but the point of this survey is to test already set hypotheses, customer satisfaction elements
and causal-effect linkage between specific variables.
The main steps of this survey were based on the methodology presented by Mihelis et al. (1998).
1. Preliminary analysis: Specification of research aims, objectives and hypotheses.
2. Literature review for defining the notions of satisfaction, service quality and loyalty.
3. Reference to the characteristics of the Greek banking sector and more specifically to the
characteristics of the model bank.
4. Questionnaire designing and conduction of survey.
5. Data analysis: SPSS was be used for the analysis of the whole questionnaire while MUSA
was used only for the analysis of customer satisfaction sections.
6. Final conclusions, proposals for improvement and generalized outcomes.
7. Reference to managerial implications about the relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty and about proposals and ideas for further research.
7. Questionnaire designing and Survey Conduction
The questionnaire came out by the adoption and adaptation of questions used in other
questionnaires (Athanasopoulos & Gounaris (2001), Mihelis et al. (1998), Ewing (2000)) Of course
some questions that were perceived as important were developed and added to the questionnaire.
The first question - section was developed in order to identify which are the most important
factors that make customers collaborating with the model bank and it was a closed ranking question.
The following five sections used 5 items Likert scale (“Very satisfied” to “Very dissatisfied”) and dealt
with the perceived customer satisfaction about the bank and included: “Access”, “Service”, “Products”,
“Personnel” and “Overall Satisfaction”.
“Loyalty” the seventh section includes “Complaints handling”, “Continuous Usage”, “Future
usage” and “Recommendation”. Loyalty was measured indirectly because it was perceived as very
difficult to obtain a clear answer about purchase repetition. In order to do this a five items Likert Scale
was used which measures intention to switching bank and willingness to recommend the bank to
potential customers.
The presented customer satisfaction survey took place in December 6 th to December 2005, in
seven branches located in Athens and one in Thessalonica. This choice was made due the focused
expansion of the model bank and due to the fact that the 60% of the Greek population lives in these two
cities.
According to Saunders & Lewis & Thornhill (2003), in order to have a margin error of five
per cent maximum, for a population of one million, the suggested sample should be 384 questionnaires.
The clientele of the model bank did not exceed 400.000 so the final data consisted of 419
questionnaires was considered as acceptable. After a short test period, the questionnaires were
delivered only in customers visiting branches for executing transactions or asking information about
products and the response rate was more than 98 per cent.
6
8. Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis includes the analysis with SPSS for the whole questionnaire and the
analysis with MUSA, focused on customer satisfaction. Except from the descriptive analysis of all
variables, cross tabulation, correlation linear and multi-linear regression analysis will be used for the
analysis of relationships between sections of “Complaints handling”, “Usage continuity”, “Future
Use”, “Recommendation”, and “Overall Satisfaction”.
8.1 Reasons of collaboration
The main purpose of the first question was to identify which are the most important factors
that make a customer keeping his relationship with a modern bank. The task was to calculate the
percentage of customers that ranked each variable between the first four positions and compare this
percentage with the percentage of customers that ranked the same variable between the last four
positions. Following this tactic, a table comes up with two columns. The first column includes the first
cumulative percentage and is named “important” and the second named “non-important” includes the
second cumulative percentages (Table 1).
Table 1
Important
Non-Important
Q1.1. Modern and innovative
44,80%
55,10%
Q1.2. Image and Prestige
33,40%
66,50%
Q1.3. Overall quality of products and services
42,70%
57,20%
Q1.4. Nearby branch
58,20%
41,90%
Q1.5. Service from personnel
87,50%
12,50%
Q1.6. Accessibility to Alternative Channels
50,80%
48,30%
Q1.7. Clarity of information provided
44,50%
55,50%
Q1.8. Speed and efficiency
63,40%
36,60%
It is obvious from the above table that the less important factor for having a relationship is its
image and prestige (Q1.2). This is not very strange because everyone that has a relationship with a
financial institution or a bank takes for granted that this organization is trustful and prestigious (Ball
2004).
A similar conclusion is reflected on the low rate of Q1.7 (Clarity of information provided)
where it is obvious that it is not an important factor for satisfaction or trust or retention of a banking
relationship. As it is analyzed below from the satisfaction rates of variables Q3.8 (“Information”), Q4.7
(“Terms”), Q5.3 (“Understand”), Q5.7 (“Help support”) it is clarified that customers are more than
satisfied from the clarity of terms and conditions and the explanation and help provided from the
personnel. The legal frame that rules banking industry obliges the banks to provide specific and
clarified information about all the products. So although information is a very significant factor for
satisfaction could slightly differentiate banks.
The very hard competition that characterizes banking industry led to homogeneity of products,
services and charges. Every competitive advantage gained from innovative products does not last more
than several weeks. Of course innovative products offer first mover advantages but after a while all
products are copied and seem to be similar. The low rate of variable Q1.3 (Overall Quality of Products
and Services) reflects this reality (H5). Products, although necessary for satisfaction, are not the most
important factor or the only factor for keeping a fruitful banking relationship.
Q1.6 (Accessibility to Alternative Channels) reflects that customers take the presence of
alternative channels for granted. Today there is no retail bank in Greece that does not provide at least
ATM access. This factor could be characterized as “indifferent” for keeping a relationship with modern
banks but of course something that must always exist and run well.
Q1.4 (nearby branch) is the 3rd most important factor for retaining a good relationship.
According to Thwaites &Vere (1995), access/convenience is a very important factor both for choice of
7
bank and for customer satisfaction. Modern banks have realized this from their beginning and they
always try to expand more, reaching the sizes of networks that belong to old or state-owned banks.
The second most important factor is “Speed and Efficiency” (Q1.8). It is well known that the
queues and the response time in old and very big banks are deterrent for keeping a banking
relationship. This constituted a sustainable competitive advantage for modern banks that helped them
create satisfied and loyal customers.
Finally the most important factor analyzed in this section was the quality of service provided
by the personnel (Q1.5). The very high rate of this variable was a surprise. Banking business is a labor
intensive industry, so it is obvious that the most important assets are its employees. This is exactly the
conclusion of this analysis.
8.2 Global Satisfaction
As it was referred above the section focused on customer satisfaction (Access, Service,
Products, Personnel and Global Satisfaction) will be analyzed in depth by the usage of MUSA
(MUlticriteria Satisfaction Analysis). According to Georgoudis & Siskos (2001), the main objective of
the proposed MUSA method is the aggregation of individual judgements into a collective value
function assuming that client’s global satisfaction depends on a set of n criteria or variables
representing service characteristics dimensions.
The average global satisfaction of customers had a very high value that reached 94,8%. The
added value curve for the global set of customers shows that they are not demanding according to their
preferences. The majority of customers have an added value curve more than 88% (Fig. 3). All these
outcomes come out from the inclination of the curve (Fig. 2).
Figure 2
Figure 3
100
84,0
93,3
88,0
100,0
80
60
40
20
0,0
0
extremely dissatisfied dissatisfied
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
satisfied
extremely satisfied
The criteria satisfaction analysis (Fig. 4) shows that the customers are extremely satisfied with all the
criteria under surveillance (Access, Service, Products, and Personnel).
8
Figure 4
100%
Satisfaction
93,8%
93,5%
90,2%
94,9%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Access
Services
Products
Personnel
The first observation is that “Products” has a slightly lower performance in comparison with
the other elements of global satisfaction. Another important conclusion from global satisfaction
analysis is that all criteria have equal weight in the final result (Fig. 5). This means that all respondents
perceive as equally important all the four dimensions of customer satisfaction.
Figure 5
Weights
100%
80%
60%
40%
25,0%
25,0%
25,0%
25,0%
20%
0%
Access
Services
Products
Personnel
The demanding index below (Fig. 6), takes values from -100% to 100%. A value of 100%
would mean that the customers are very demanding. A value of 0% would mean that the customers are
indifferent while the value of -100% would mean that the customers are not demanding at all. In this
survey the total demanding index has the value of -76,9%. This means that the customers are rather
non-demanding. In Greece there are more than forty banks that means that the customers can choose
different products from different banks and do not feel hard “barriers to exit” (H5).
Figure 6
Dem anding Index
-76,9%
As all dimensions have the same weight, it is expected that demanding index for the selected
criteria should have the same value (Fig. 7). One important observation is that for every criterion the
customers are slightly more demanding than their total perception about the bank. This happens
because each different category is more specific and tangible and more easy to specify levels of
requirements.
9
Figure 7
100%
Dem anding
50%
0%
-50%
-68,0%
-68,0%
-68,0%
-68,0%
Access
Services
Products
Personnel
-100%
The average impact indices (Fig 8) show the impact of each dimension to the dissatisfaction of
the customers and due to this they are considered as a measurement of effectiveness and as a trigger for
improvement. These indices take values from 0% to 100%. As it is shown below, all the dimensions
show very low prices. “Products” although have a low value (2,5%) it is almost the double in
comparison with other variables. This means that the bank should take under consideration to move
resources towards this category and improve customers’ perception (H7).
Figure 8
100%
Im pact
80%
60%
40%
20%
1,6%
1,5%
2,5%
1,3%
Access
Services
Products
Personnel
0%
7
8.3 “Access”
The customers are very satisfied from all the elements of “Access” with a slight primacy
“service systems” (Table 2)
Table 2
Q2.1 Location of the branches – (“Location”)
Q2.2 Availability of the computerized systems - services in the branches – (“Service systems”)
Q2.3. Availability of service systems (ATMs, Webanking, Phone Banking) – (“Alternative
channels”)
Q2.4. Average time for response for Phone Banking
Q2.5 Global Satisfaction from Access
for
90,6%
85,4%
78%
75,1%
89,9%
As it is shown above all the satisfaction percentages are almost excellent. This means that
access of any kind is achieved satisfactorily. The result about location of the branches and system
availability are excellent. The lower rates of Q2.3 (“Alternative channels”) and Q2.4 (“Phonebanking”)
are easy to explain as all customers do not use or do not want to have access in these services. That is
why they declared “indifferent” on the way they are running. Another remark here was the below 3%
answers for “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” customers for all questions. Concluding, one could
say that with a total satisfaction rate of 89,9% “Access” is one of the very strong elements of customer
satisfaction (H4).
8.4 “Service”
Service provided by the bank in general is believed as one of the most important factors of
global satisfaction. Service can differentiate a bank from another and can offer competitive advantages
not easy to copy or transfer. As it is shown on the table 3 below, the respondents are very satisfied from
all the elements of “Services”.
10
Table 3
Q3.1 Appearance of the branches interior – (“Image”)
Q3.2 Functionality / comfort of premises – (“Effectiveness”)
Q3.3 Queues for Teller transactions – (“Queues”)
Q3.4 Waiting time for other services – (“Waiting time”)
Q3.5 Privacy while being serviced in the branches – (“Tactfulness”)
Q3.6 What is your opinion about service processes in the branches – (“Service
actions”)
Q3.7 User-friendly environment for Alternative Channels – (“Friendly”)
Q3.8 Information received from the bank – (“Information”)
Q3.9 Global Satisfaction from Services
90,5%
77,8%
88,3%
82,8%
77,3%
79,7%
71,3%
81,6%
91,2%
The total satisfaction level from “Service” is excellent that has a very positive impact on
Global Satisfaction. Although all variables show very good performance there are differences between
them of even 20 per cent.
The best performance belongs to Q3.1 (“Image”) that has to do with the architectural image of
the branches. This indeed is a characteristic of modern banks which abolished non-reachable cashiers
and separated desks in the branches. Two other best performances Q3.3 (“Queues”) and Q3.4
(“Waiting time”) that have a strong impact in the formulation of the total satisfaction rate have to do
with the “speed of service”. Q3.8 (“Information”) presents a very high performance that confirms the
conclusion from variable Q1.7 (Clarity of information provided). This means that although
“Information” of all kind is not a basic factor for retaining a relationship, it must be provided correctly
otherwise it will have a bad impact on satisfaction.
The most poor performance concerns Q3.7(“Friendly”) but as it was explained before it is
believed that it has to do with the fact that not all people use alternative channels and due to this they
did not have enough experience.
Finally once again the percentage rates of “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” customers are
below 3,1%
Figure 9
100%
Dem anding
50%
0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
image
effectiveness
ques
w aiting time
tactfulness
services
frendliness
information
-50%
-100%
The customers are non-demanding (Fig. 9). All the dimensions of this section present the
same index for “demanding” and equal weights (Fig. 10)to the divisional performance.
Figure 10
Weights
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
0%
image
effectiveness
ques
w aiting time
tactfulness
services
frendliness
information
The impact indices for “Service” are very low (Fig. 11). “Friendliness of alternative channels”
and “effectiveness” scored 2%. This means that they need to be cared carefully from the bank. “Image”
and “Queues” that scored 1,4% are the strong advantages of this modern bank
11
Figure 11
100%
Im pact
80%
60%
40%
20%
1,4%
2,0%
1,4%
1,7%
1,8%
1,8%
2,0%
1,7%
image
effectiveness
ques
w aiting time
tactfulness
services
frendliness
information
0%
8.5 “Products”
This section presented the lower performance not only in total but also in every different
element (Table 4). With the exception of the “variety of products”, “terms and conditions” and
“meeting of financial needs” all the elements were performed less that 80%. The general conclusion is
that this category of the survey is essential and must be improved (H7).
Cummulative %
Q4.1 Variety of products and services – (“Variety”)
79,70%
Q4.2 Meet your financial needs? – (“Financial needs”)
73,30%
Q4.3 Deposit interest rates and investment products – (“Interest rates”)
57,20%
Q4.4 Mortgage loans interest rates – (“Mortgage loans”)
59,60%
Q4.5 Consumer loans and Credit Cards interest rates – (“Consumer loans”)
47,90%
Q4.6 Fees and commissions for the usage of products and transactions – (“Charges”)
50,30%
Q4.7 How clarified are the terms of the products? – (“Terms”)
69,80%
Q4.8 BankAssurance and Car Insurance products – (“Special products”)
41,50%
Q4.9 Global Satisfaction from Products
68%
Table 4
The performance of Q4.7 (terms and conditions) means that information is hardly regulated
and provided satisfactorily from all banks that end up to a non-competitive advantage factor.
Q4.6 (charges) gives a very poor performance. Maresca (2003) argued that the reduction of
interest spreads obliged the banks impose commissions in order to recover their earnings. Although all
banks set these kinds of charges, they suffer bad criticism from the clients (H5).
Bank assurance products Q4.8 (“Special products”) show the worst performance. The reason
for this is that the vast majority of customers have never “bought” such a product.
Figure 12
100%
Dem anding
50%
0%
-41,9%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-36,0%
-28,8%
-36,0%
-36,0%
charges
terms
special products
-50%
-100%
product variety financial needs interest rates mortgages loansconsumer loans
The respondents are more demanding with “charges” (Fig. 12). The customers are more nondemanding for “variety of products” because all the banks offer many of products. But as it is shown
on the weight chart below (Fig. 13) this element is weighted as the most important for customers’
satisfaction. At the same time “charges” has the lowest weight and because of this it has a low impact
on total satisfaction.
12
Figure 13
Weights
100%
80%
60%
40%
13,8%
20%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
12,5%
11,2%
12,5%
12,5%
0%
product variety financial needs interest rates mortgages loansc onsumer loans
Figure 14
100%
charges
terms
special products
Im pact
80%
60%
40%
20%
2,1%
2,3%
2,7%
2,6%
3,2%
3,1%
2,4%
3,0%
charges
terms
special products
0%
product variety financial needs interest rates mortgages loansconsumer loans
The impact indices also still low they are worse from other sections (Fig. 14) and need to be
improved.
8.6 “Personnel”
This section presented the best performance (Table 5). With a total satisfaction rate of 94%
the reader can easily interpret the first choice of customers (Q1.5 Service from Personnel). The basic
rule that “the bank is its people” is confirmed totally. Quality service from personnel is the bedrock of
satisfaction (H5, H9). Of course that does not mean that other factors have limited weight on the
perception of the customers. Personnel behavior is not something that can be copied easily from rivals
and at the same time create a sustainable competitive advantage (H8).
Table 5
Q5.1 Politeness, Courtesy and friendliness of Personnel – (“Politeness”)
Q5.2 Employees knowledge and skills – (“Knowledge”)
Cumulative %
98,80%
92,90%
Q5.3 Understand and satisfy financial needs – (“Understand”)
81,30%
Q5.4 Telephone access to the branch – (“Telephone access”)
77,70%
Q5.5 Speed and accuracy in execution of requests – (“Request speed”)
89,70%
Q5.6 Demonstration of Alternatives Channels – (“Demonstration”)
Q5.7 Help/Support in resolution of problems – (“Help support”)
73,70%
89%
94%
Q5.8 Global Satisfaction from Personnel
Q5.1 (politeness) scored the excellent performance of 98,8%, which means that the customers
value this behavior as very important. Moreover, it seems that Q5.2 (knowledge of personnel) is also
valuated as excellent 92,9%. Speed in executing requests (Q5.5) scored 89,7%. The “understanding of
needs” (Q5.3) is also very good and scored 81,3%. These observations mean that the quality of service
provided by the personnel of the bank is very high and that the most important thing is that customers
recognize it (H8).
A good surprise was the performance for “telephone access to the branch” (Q5.4). A
percentage of 77,7% is considered as excellent. This phenomenon is rather rare especially in very old
13
banks or state-owned banks. Amazing performance (89%) presented the willingness of personnel to
help and support in the emergence of problems.
The demanding rate for all the elements of this section was -44%, which means that customers
are non-demanding (Fig. 15). All the elements presented the same demanding rate and weighted
equally to the outcome of the section’s satisfaction performance (Fig. 16). The impact indices take very
low prices and maybe there is no space for improvement in this section (Fig. 17).
Figure 15
100%
Dem anding
50%
0%
-44,0%
-44,0%
-44,0%
Politeness
know ledge
understand
-44,0%
-44,0%
-44,0%
-44,0%
demonstration
help support
-50%
-100%
telephone access request speed
Figure 16
Weights
100%
80%
60%
40%
14,3%
20%
14,3%
14,3%
14,3%
14,3%
14,3%
14,3%
0%
Politeness
know ledge
understand
Figure 17
100%
telephone access request speed
demonstration
help support
Im pact
80%
60%
40%
20%
0,7%
1,2%
1,7%
Politeness
know ledge
understand
1,7%
1,4%
1,8%
1,4%
demonstration
help support
0%
telephone access request speed
8.7 Loyalty
Loyalty is measured indirectly through “usage continuity”, “future usage”, “recommendation”
and reaction to “complaints handling”.
The 87,2% (Q8 usage continuity) of the respondents agree that they will continue to
collaborate with the model bank. The79,7% of the customers agree that when they want something in
the future they will address by all means to the model bank (H1). This proves that the satisfaction
feelings of customers are very profound and stable based on their holistic impression about their
relationship. Below the correlation analysis with “future usage” (0,683), “recommendation” (0,659),
“total satisfaction” (0,676) and “complaints handling” (0,642) (Table 15) showed that these variables
are connected and tend to change towards the same direction by percentages that exceed 60%.
The cross tabulation analysis with total satisfaction (Table 6) showed that 99,1% of
respondents that agree that they will address to the model bank in the future, are at least “satisfied”.
The correlation analysis with “total satisfaction” (0,67) and recommendation (0,721) (Table 15)
showed that these variables are directly and strongly connected. This analysis proves once again the
validity of the customer satisfaction survey outcome. It also proves that satisfaction has a dynamism
that will grow business in the future.
Table 6 - Cross Tabulation Q9 (Future usage) - Q11 (Total satisfaction)
14
continue use * total satisfaction Crosstabulation
Count
total satisfaction
Total
very satisfied satisfied indifferent dissatisfied
totally agree
continue use agree
indifferent
Total
92
32
1
125
32
195
10
237
1
21
30
1
53
125
248
41
1
415
Recommendation is directly connected with satisfaction level (H3). One satisfied customer
should feel the need to recommend his bank and share with other people his impressions. The
performance of variable Q10 (recommendation) is 80,1%. This connected with satisfaction variable is
very important for the banks in order to identify future trends for business growth. The cross tabulation
analysis with total customer satisfaction (Table 7) showed that the 88% of the customers that declared
“satisfied” had the intention to make referrals.
Table 7 - Cross Tabulation Q10 (Recommendation) - Q11 (Total satisfaction)
recomendation * total satisfaction Crosstabulation
Count
total satisfaction
Total
very satisfied satisfied indifferent dissatisfied
recomendation
totally agree
83
40
agree
42
1
indifferent
1
124
165
4
211
44
35
dissagree
Total
126
249
80
1
1
2
41
1
417
“Complaints handling” is proved to have an impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty (H2).
Only the 13,7% of the respondents had a problem with their relationship. The 87% of them asked for a
solution from the bank. The 74% of the customers that asked for a solution declare at least satisfied
with the solution provided (Table 8). The cross tabulation analysis between “complaints handling” and
“loyalty” (Tables 9, 10) showed that every satisfied complainant is willing to repurchase, to continue
bank collaboration and to recommend potential customers
Table 8 - Cross Tabulation Q7.3 (Complaints)-Q11 (Overall Satisfaction)
complaints * total satisfaction Crosstabulation
Count
total satisfaction
Total
very satisfied satisfied indifferent dissatisfied
very satisfied
satisfied
10
5
3
16
3
5
4
complaints indifferent
dissatisfied
22
1
2
very dissatisfied
Total
15
2
1
13
26
10
Table 9 - Cross Tabulation Q7.3 (Complaints handling) - Q8 (Usage continuity)
15
10
1
1
50
complaints * continue use Crosstabulation
Count
continue use
Total
totally agree agree indifferent
very satisfied
8
7
satisfied
3
16
3
22
6
4
10
dissatisfied
2
2
very dissatisfied
1
1
10
50
complaints indifferent
Total
11
15
29
Table 10 - Cross Tabulation Q7.3 (Complaints handling) - Q10 (Recommendation)
complaints * recomendation Crosstabulation
Count
recomendation
Total
totally agree agree indifferent dissagree
complaints
very satisfied
7
7
1
satisfied
4
13
5
3
6
indifferent
dissatisfied
2
very dissatisfied
1
Total
11
23
15
15
22
1
10
2
1
1
50
8.8 Cross Tabulation, Correlation and Regression Analysis
The main hypothesis that “bank customers are very satisfied” from modern banks is
confirmed. This result will be further tested through the analysis and testing of co-relationships with
other variables that are referred below. The researcher will try to reveal the connection of global
satisfaction with retention and complaints handling. The linear regression model did not fit regarding
the “loyalty section” Q8 (usage continuity), Q9 (future usage), Q10 (recommendation) and the
complaints handling Q7.3 (Tables 11,12,13,14).
Table 11 - Regression Q8 (Usage continuity) – Q11 (Total satisfaction)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
,676(a)
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
,456
,455
,467
Table 12 - Regression Q9 (Future usage) – Q11 (Total satisfaction)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
,670(a)
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
,448
,447
,511
Table 13 - Regression Q10 (Recommendation) – Q11 (Total satisfaction)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
,636(a)
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
,404
,403
,547
Table 14 - Regression Q7.3 (Complaints handling) – Q11 (Total satisfaction)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
,685(a)
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
,469
,458
16
,681
Table 15
Correlations
total
satisfaction
Q11 total
satisfaction
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Q7.3 complaints
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Q8 continue use
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Q9 Future use
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Q10
recomendation
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
complaints
continue
use
future
use
recomendation
1
,685(**)
,676(**)
,670(**)
,636(**)
,
,000
,000
,000
,000
418
50
415
417
417
,685(**)
1
,642(**)
,620(**)
,593(**)
,000
,
,000
,000
,000
50
50
50
50
50
,676(**)
,642(**)
1
,683(**)
,659(**)
,000
,000
,
,000
,000
415
50
416
415
415
,670(**)
,620(**)
,683(**)
1
,721(**)
,000
,000
,000
,
,000
417
50
415
418
417
,636(**)
,593(**)
,659(**)
,721(**)
1
,000
,000
,000
,000
,
417
50
415
417
418
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlation analysis (Table 15) though showed that all these variables are directly
connected and have an impact on the final performance of customer satisfaction. The correlation
analysis with total satisfaction, continue use, future use and recommendation (Table 15) proved that
there is a strong connection between these variables with the strongest relationship with overall
satisfaction (>63%). The high performance 94,8% Q11 (Global Satisfaction) is related with a high
performance in complaints handling (68,5%). So after this analysis another hypothesis is confirmed
(H2).
The multiple linear regression model for Q7.3 (offered solution to complaints), Q8 (usage
continuity), Q9 (future usage) and Q10 (recommendation), that was calculated only for respondents
that expressed their complaints to the bank, resulted a R square = 0,674 (Table 16). This means that
when complaints are handled efficiently and at the same time all the other variables perform well, then
the connection between “total satisfaction” and these variables tend to be linear.
Table 16 - Multi - Linear regression (only complainants)
q10
0,111016
0,139737
q9
0,170586
0,145426
67,4%
0,438714
44
8,468682
22,77149
17,53132
q8
0,426051
0,167198
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
q7.3
0,189582
0,094178
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
b
0,164656
0,206055
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
8.9 Demographics”
The respondents are shared between the two genders. It is worthwhile to refer here that the
target group of the model bank is customers from 25 to 45 years old well educated with an income
from average to high. This target group is reflected here as the 68,2% of respondents are aged from 25
to 45 years old and as the education level of the 47,1% concerns university and postgraduate education.
9. Overall Conclusions
The obvious conclusion is that the respondents are very happy with the model bank. These
excellent results could be used as a benchmark for other modern banks.
This means that the competitive advantages that came out from this survey did not include
products but they are based mainly in quality service and personnel. Modern banks gain consistently
market share (H8). Modern banks understood the importance of access to the networks, covered the
17
distance from old or state owned banks, which means that competitive advantages based on networks
faded away (H4). In this direction helped a lot the implementation of alternative channels.
Another conclusion is that no matter the satisfaction performance there are always areas that
need improvement with products being one of the first priorities (H7). Summarizing one could say that
the 13 strong points of the model bank are: “Service systems”, “Architectural image”, “Queues”.
“Information”, “Product variety”, “Financial needs”, “Terms”, “Mortgage loans”, “Deposit interest
rates”, “Politeness”, “Knowledge”, “Request speed” and “Help support”. The areas that need
improvement, no matter their performance rate, are: “Tactfulness”, “Services”, “Effectiveness”,
“Friendliness”, “Special products”, “Telephone access” and “Demonstration”.
In comparison with the survey conducted from Mihelis et al. (1998) for one big state owned
bank named Commercial Bank of Greece, and analyzed with MUSA, one could make the following
remarks. The global satisfaction was 90,1% and the strong points were Access (93,5%) and personnel
(84,7%). Products scored very low (65,4%) while “service” was limited to 72,1%. On the other hand
modern banks are “bet” on personnel and services in order to gain market share without neglecting
access (H5). Products like it was referred before tend to be similar and cannot consist a sustainable
competitive advantage.
The principal hypotheses of this survey were confirmed. First, the improvement of market
share means that customer satisfaction performance is better. Customers are very satisfied. High global
satisfaction is verified from the will of customers to continue using the bank to addressing to the bank
for future needs and to recommending new customers (H2). Bank is its people and its way of servicing
customers, products are necessary but do not make the difference (H9). If old banks with big networks
continue to loose market share it means that modern banks covering the distance and outperform in
areas of quality service and flexibility. The analysis of this survey confirms the hypotheses that “total
customer satisfaction” is related with “loyalty”, “recommendation” and “complaints handling” (H2).
This means that the bank has to take care of pre-sales, sales and after-sales services in such a way that
add value to the final performance.
10. Managerial Implications
Although this survey is detailed and analytical it concerns a single bank. This means that if it
was decided to cover the whole Greek banking industry it would mean that the number of
questionnaires and model branches should be bigger (smaller margin error) and divided to the number
of banks and their market share. So it is recommended that the same survey should be conducted for all
Greek banks in order to understand better the advantages of modern banks and the trend for their
growth in the future. At this point it is worthwhile to refer that surveys’ outcomes present a static
image. Customer satisfaction perception is dynamic and changes from time to time. Due to this, these
kinds of surveys must be conducted periodically not only to have verified results but also to identify the
trend of performances.
Moreover the effectiveness of marketing plans must be linked and evaluated through customer
satisfaction measurement. Finally the establishment of incentive systems for employees has proved to
be directly related with customer service quality, which could be another area for future survey.
12. Conclusion
According to Zairi (2000) the challenge that organizations faces is the move from
“introverted” profit oriented approaches to customer-focused and market-oriented approaches. In order
to increase customer loyalty, many banks create and offer innovative products and services. Worcester
(1997) observed that these products were often accompanied by new charges, so he recommended that
that banks should focus on less tangible and more difficult to copy elements like customer satisfaction,
service quality and loyalty.
According to Jamal & Naser (2002), the importance of customer satisfaction and customer
retention for a customer focused organization must not be underestimated. Complementary to the
above statement is the opinion of Bitner & Hubbert (1994) who stated that customer satisfaction is
becoming a corporate value as more and more companies try to improve the quality offered to
customers in their products and services.
From the above analysis it is obvious that customers are satisfied. Moreover it was confirmed
that there is a strong relationship between customer satisfaction, complaints handling and loyalty.
Elements of satisfaction like: “Access”, “Products”, “Personnel” and “Services” proved to be
significant and equally weighted for the formulation of customers’ perception. It is supposed that
18
modern banks serve customers better and this has to do with culture and services. Products are identical
for all banks but the interrelationships with customers add value to the total outcome.
Customers’ satisfaction perception is a dynamic issue that needs to be tested periodically and
in depth. This is why it is recommended to repeat this survey for all Greek banks in the future. Despite
all these it is proved that banking industry has changed one and for all. Banks need to be customerfocused organizations that divide the market into segments and serve each segment properly.
Segmentation, retention, loyalty and recommendation will outcome total customer satisfaction and
profitability.
13. References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Anderson, E. W. & Fornell, C. & Lehmann, D. R. (1994), “Customer Satisfaction, Market
share and Profitability: Findings from Sweden”, Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), pp.53-66
Athanasopoulos, A. & Gounaris, S. (2001), “Behavioural responses to customer satisfaction:
an empirical study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 5/6, pp687-707
Ball, D. (2004), “The role of communication and trust in explaining customer loyalty; An
extension to the ECSI model”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No.9-10, pp.12721293
Bitner, M. J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.54, pp.69-82
Bitner, M. J. & Hubbert, A. R. (1994), Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction
versus quality” in Rust, R. T., Oliver, R. L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory
and Practice, Sage, London.
Bloemer, J. & Ruyter, K. & Peeters, P. (1998), “Investigating drivers of bank loyalty: the
complex relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction”, International journal
of Bank Marketing, Vol.16 No.7, pp.279-286
Bodgett, J. G. & Anderson, R. D. (2000), A Bayesian network model of the consumer
complaint process”, Journal of Service Research, Vol.2 No.4, pp.321-338
Drucker, P. F. (1954), “The Practice of Management”, New York: Harper & Row
East, R. (1997), “Consumer Behaviour: Advances and Applications in Marketing”, Prentice
Hall, London
Ewing, M. T. (2000), “Brand and retailer loyalty: past behavior and future intensions”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.9 No.2, pp.120-127
File, K. M. & Prince, R. A. (1992), “Positive word of mouth: customer satisfaction and buyer
behaviour”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.10 No.1, pp.25-9
Fornell, C. & Wernerfelt, B. (1987), “Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint
management: a theoretical analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 337-46
Fornell, C. (1992), “National satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 6-21
Georgoudis E. & Siskos Y. (2001), “Preference disaggregation for measuring and analyzing
customer satisfaction: The MUSA method”, European Journal of Operational Research vol.
143, pp.148-170
Gupta, Y. & Torkzadeh, G. (1988), “Re-designing bank service: systems for effective
marketing”, Long Range Planning, Vol.21 No.6
Hallowel, R. (1996), “The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and
profitability: an empirical study”, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol.7 No.4, pp.27-42
Jamal, A. & Naser, K. (2002), “Customer satisfaction and retail banking: an assessment of
some of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking”, International Journal
of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No 4, pp. 146-160
Jones, T.O. & Sasser, W.E.Jr. (1995), “Why satisfied customers defect”, Harvard Business
Review, November-December, pp.88-99
Karatepe, O. M. & Ekiz, E. H. (2004), “The effects of organizational responses to complaints
on satisfaction and loyalty: a study of hotel guests in Northern Cyprus”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol.14 No.6, pp.476-486
Laroche, M. & Rosenblatt, J. & Manning, T. (1986), “Services used and factors considered
important in selecting a bank: an investigation across diverse demographic segments”,
International Journal of bank Marketing, Vol.4 No.1, pp.35-55
Levesque, T. & McDougal, G.H.G (1996), “Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail
banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.14 No.7, pp.12-20
19
22. Manrai, A. K. & Manrai, A. L. (1993), “Consumer switching behaviour of banking services: a
conceptual model”, Proceedings of the Sixth Bi-Annual International Conference of the
Academy of Marketing Science, World Marketing Congress, 15-19 July, Istanbul, Turkey,
Vol.VI, pp.100-4
23. Maresca Paolo (Supervisor of Financial Sector ACCENTURE HELLAS) 19/09/2003, “Banks
Can Reduce Running Cost by 20%”, KATHIMERINI p.24
24. Maxham, J. G. & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002), “Modelling customer perceptions of complaint
handling over time: the effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol.78, pp.259-252
25. Mihelis G. & Grigoroudis E. & Siskos Y. & Politis Y. & Malandrakis Y. (1998), “Customer
Satisfaction Measurement in the Private Bank Sector”, Decision Support Systems Laboratory,
University of Chania Greece
26. Moutinho, L. & Smith, A. (2000), “Modelling bank customer satisfaction through mediation
of attitudes towards human and automated banking”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol.18 No.3, pp.124-134
27. Newman, K. & Cowling A. (1996), “Service quality in retail banking: the experience of two
British clearing banks”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, pp.3-11
28. Nikolopoulou R. (15/03/2006), “The importance of the right customer service in franchise
networks”, EXPRESS, pp.40
29. Oliver, R. L. (1997), “Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consume”, New York:
30. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
31. Oliver, R.L. (1999), Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp.33-44
32. Peter, P. J. & Olson, J. C. (1996), “Consumer behavior and Marketing Strategy”, 4th Edition,
Irwin, Chicago, IL.
33. Reicheld, F. & Sasser, W.E. Jr (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to services”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 105-11
34. Reitchheld, F.F. (1993), “Loyalty-based management”, Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, pp.71
35. Reitchheld, F. F. (1996), “The Loyalty Effect”, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
36. Reis, D & Pena, L. & Lopes, P. A. (2003), “Customer satisfaction: the historical
perspective”, Management Decision, Vol.41 No.2, pp.195-198
37. Saunders, M. & Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2003), “Research Methods for Business
Studies”, Prentice Hall, Financial Times, pp.81-105
38. Smith, A. M. (2000), “The impact of scale characteristics on the dimensionality of the service
quality construct”, Service Industries Journal
39. Taylor, S. A. & Baker, T. L. (1994), “An assessment of the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumer’s purchase intentions”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol.70 No.2, pp.163-78
40. Thwaites, D. & Vere, L. (1995), “Bank selection criteria – a student perspective”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol.11 No.1-3, Jan/Feb/Apr, pp.133-49
41. University of Michigan Business Scholl (2001), American Customer Satisfaction Index,
www.bus.umich.edu/research/nqrc/asci.html
42. Worcester, R. M. (1997), “Managing the image of your bank: the glue that binds”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.15 No.5, pp.146-52
43. Zairi, M. (2000), “Managing customer dissatisfaction through effective complaints
management systems”, The TQM Magazine, Vol.12 No.5, pp.331-337
44. Zeithaml, V. & Parasuraman, A. & Berry, I. (1990), “Developing Quality Service-Balancing
Customer Perceptions and expectations”, The Free Press, New York
45. Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. & Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of
service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.60, April, pp.31-46
46. Zineldin, M. (1992), “Bank-Corporate Client Interactions and Relationships-A New
Marketing Approach”, Research Report Series, No.4, Stockholm University
47. Zineldin, M. (1996), “Bank strategic positioning and some determinants of bank selection”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, March, pp.12-22
20