Are your customers grateful? How customer gratitude impacts loyalty programme effectiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify which loyalty programme (LP) benefits are most likely to create consumer gratitude and increase loyalty towards the brand for consumer goods and services loyalty schemes. Design/methodology/approach French-speaking Quebecer (Canada) members of retail LPs answered an online survey. The S-O-R framework was used to investigate the effects of LP benefits on customer loyalty to the brand through the mediating mechanism of gratitude. Data analysis was performed by means of partial least square structural equation modelling. Findings Three benefits (entertainment, recognition and social) out of five were identified to significantly enhance customer gratitude towards the brand. Neither monetary nor exploration benefits had a direct effect on gratitude or loyalty. In addition, gratitude was positively and strongly related to loyalty and fully mediated the effects of entertainment and recognition benefits on loyalty. As for social benefits, gratitude complementarily mediated their relationship to loyalty. Practical implications The findings are of utmost interest to LP managers. They offer valuable insights to maintain or modify LPs to enhance customer true loyalty. First, they highlight the strategic role of gratitude, which strongly determines customer loyalty. Second, this study's findings indicate which LP benefits should be prioritised to enhance customer gratitude and loyalty. Originality/value This research is the first empirical attempt to study the effects of LP perceived benefits on customer gratitude. It addresses the paucity of research on customer gratitude and enhances its importance in retail and relationship 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it