E-relationship marketing: a cognitive mapping introspection in the banking sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to explore and better understand e-relationship marketing and to identify elements (key concepts) that are predominant to ensure success via the internet. Design/methodology/approach – The exploratory cognitive mapping technique (Cossette, 2004) employs three types of respondents, namely a banking expert, online banking customer and academic expert. Findings – The study points up similarities with traditional relationship marketing (e.g. satisfaction, commitment by bank) and identifies several new concepts spawned by the web-based environment. More precisely, the study highlights the importance of the simplicity and ease of the customer's web experience. Research limitations/implications – The exploratory and qualitative nature of this study opens the door to validation with a broader sample using a self-administered questionnaire developed based on the cognitive mapping technique. Practical implications – In addition to guaranteeing customer satisfaction, it is important: that customers perceive the bank's investment in and commitment to the e-relationship strategy; and, that customers enjoy a highly positive web experience (e.g. perceived quality of site and ease-of-use). Originality/value – Research findings result in an enhanced understanding of e-relationship marketing. Also, given the combination of sparse use of cognitive mapping in marketing and investigation of three different types of subjects (banking expert, online banking customer and academic expert), the findings lend originality while making a substantive theoretical contribution to topical literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".