Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose – This research applies the Wallet Allocation Rule (WAR) to provide marketing scholars and practitioners with a deeper understanding of the key drivers of loan selection and to estimate the relative value borrowers place on various attributes when selecting a loan provider among competitors.

Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 642 credit union (CU) members from nine geographically dispersed USA CUs was conducted. WAR analysis was conducted to measure the relative value customers place on the selected variables within and across the financial institutions that were part of the borrowers’ consideration sets.

Findings – WAR analysis revealed stark differences in the value of factors in the selection of a bank or a credit union for first mortgages, suggesting that WAR analysis is a useful tool for understanding the relative value of various attributes in the selection of one loan provider over another.

Originality/value –This research provides a significant contribution to both the service literature and the scientific literature in general by providing a user-friendly and scientifically tested analysis tool to measure relative value distances of ranked data and providing additional evidence for the usefulness of WAR analysis to better understand relative customer satisfaction and its implications for consumer behavior and service marketing.

Keywords

Value creation customer satisfaction key driver analysis wallet allocation rule financial services loans banks credit unions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aksoy

(2014). Linking satisfaction to share of deposits: An application of the wallet allocation rule. International Journal of Bank Marketing , 32(1), 28–42.

Aksoy

. (2015a). Linking member satisfaction to loan decisions: A wallet allocation rule approach to first mortgages (Research Report No. 366 (7/15)). Madison, Wisconsin: Filene Research Institute Publication.

Aksoy

. (2015b). Linking member satisfaction to loan decisions: A wallet allocation rule approach to refinanced mortgages (Research Report No. 366 (7/15)). Madison, Wisconsin: Filene Research Institute Publication.

Aksoy

. (2015c). Linking member satisfaction to loan decisions: A wallet allocation rule approach to second mortgages (Research Report No. 366 (7/15)). Madison, Wisconsin: Filene Research Institute Publication.

Aksoy

. (2015d). Linking member satisfaction to loan decisions: A wallet allocation rule approach to home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) (Research Report No. 366 (7/15)). Madison, Wisconsin: Filene Research Institute Publication.

Aksoy

. (2015e). Linking member satisfaction to loan decisions: A wallet allocation rule approach to new car loans (Research Report No. 366 (7/15)). Madison, Wisconsin: Filene Research Institute Publication.

Aksoy

. (2015f). Linking member satisfaction to loan decisions: A wallet allocation rule approach to used car loans (Research Report No. 366 (7/15)). Madison, Wisconsin: Filene Research Institute Publication.

Aksoy

. (2015g). Linking member satisfaction to loan decisions: A wallet allocation rule approach to personal loans (Research Report No. 366 (7/15)). Madison, Wisconsin: Filene Research Institute Publication.

Bagrow

J. P.

Sun

ben-Avraham

(2008). Phase transition in the rich-get-richer mechanism due to finite-size effects. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41(18) p. 185001, Retrieved 26 August 2015, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2220.pdf

10.

Bank Marketing. (1991, October). Analysis solves performance measurement dilemma. Bank Marketing , 23(10), 40.

11.

Böckenholt

Dillon

W. R.

(1997). Some new methods for an old problem: Modeling preference changes and competitive market structures in pretest market data. Journal of Marketing Research , 34(1), 130–142.

12.

Bonato

Tian

(2013). Complex networks and social networks. In Advances in network analysis and its applications (Mathematics in industry series, 18) , (pp. 269–286). New York: Springer and Heidelberg.

13.

Buoye

Keiningham

T. L.

Williams

Aksoy

(2014). Understanding what it takes to be number 1. In J. Kandampully (Ed.), Customer experience management: Enhancing experience and value through service management (pp. 327–345). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

14.

Chrzan

Kavecansky

(2010). Stated ‘versus’ derived importance: A false dichotomy (Maritz White Paper No. MR-1001-02). Fenton, MO. Retrieved 11 August 2015, from http://www.maritz.com/~/media/Files/MaritzDotCom/White%20Papers/Research/Stated-vs-Derived-Importance.ashx.

15.

Cowan

(2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 24(1), 87–114.

16.

David

H. A.

(1969). The method of paired comparisons. London: Charles Griffen & Company Ltd.

17.

Doyle

J. R.

Green

R. H.

Bottomley

P. A.

(1997). Judging relative importance: Direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 70(1), 65–72.

18.

Ehrenberg

A. S. C.

(1969). Towards an integrated theory of consumer behavior. Journal of the Market Research Society , 11(4), 305–337.

19.

Ehrenberg

Goodhardt

(2002). Double jeopardy revisited, again. Marketing Research , 14(1), 40–42.

20.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (2015). Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit. 2015. New York, NY: Retrieved 11 August 2015, from http://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2014Q4.pdf

21.

Findlay

(2013). The importance of rank: How our brains constrain survey responses. Paper presented at the SAMRA Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved 11 August 2015, from http://www.samra.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Findlay_The-Importance-of-Rank-Research-Paper.pdf

22.

Fortunato

Flammini

Menczer

(2006). Scale-free network growth by ranking. Physical Review Letters, 96(22). Retrieved 26 August 2015, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602081.pdf DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.218701

23.

Findlay

Hofmeyr

Louw

(2014). The importance of rank for shorter, smaller surveys. International Journal of Market Research , 56(6), 717–736.

24.

Gallarza

M. G.

Gil-Saura

Holbrook

M. B.

(2011). The value of value: Further excursions on the meaning and role of customer value. Journal of Consumer Behaviour , 10(4), 179–191.

25.

Green

P. E.

Srinivasan

(1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New development with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing , 54(4), 3–19.

26.

Gustaffson

Johnson

M. D.

(1997). Determining attribute importance in a service satisfaction model. Journal of Service Research , 7(2), 124–141.

27.

Hofmeyr

Goodall

Bongers

Holtzman

(2008). A new measure of brand attitudinal equity based on the Zipf distribution. International Journal of Market Research , 50(2), 181–202.

28.

Jaccard

Brinburg

Ackerman

L. J.

(1986 March). Assessing attribute importance: A comparison of six methods. Journal of Consumer Research , 12(4), 463–468.

29.

Janssen

Pralat

(2010). Rank-based attachment leads to power law graphs. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , 24(2), 420–440.

30.

Jeong

Néda

Barabási

(2003). Measuring preferential attachment in evolving networks. Europhysics Letters , 61(4), 567–572.

31.

Johnson

(1987). The accuracy of utility estimation in ACA, Orem, UT: Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Retrieved on 2 February 2016, from http://23.253.226.78/download/techpap/acaaccur.pdf

32.

Johnson

Huber

Bacon

(2003). Adaptive Choice Based Conjoint Analysis , Orem, UT: Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Retrieved on 2 February 2016, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acbc.pdf

33.

Keiningham

T. L.

Aksoy

Buoye

Cooil

(2011 October). Customer loyalty isn’t enough: Grow your share of wallet. Harvard Business Review , 89(10), 29–31.

34.

Keiningham

T. L.

Aksoy

Williams

Buoye

(2015). The wallet allocation rule: Winning the battle for share. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

35.

Keiningham

T. L.

Buoye

Ball

(2016). Competitive context is everything: Moving from absolute to relative metrics. Global Economics and Management Review , 20(2), 18–25.

36.

Keiningham

T. L.

Cooil

Malthouse

E. C.

Buoye

Aksoy

De Keyser

Larivière

(2015). Perceptions are relative: An examination of the relationship between relative satisfaction metrics and share of wallet. Journal of Service Management , 26(1), 2–43.

37.

Keiningham

T. L.

Vavra

T. G.

(2001). The customer delight principle. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.

38.

Kohli

Sah

(2006). Some empirical regularities in market shares. Management Science , 52(11), 1792–1798.

39.

Little

J. D. C.

(2004). Comments on ‘models and managers: the concept of a decision calculus’: Managerial models for practice. Management Science , 50(12), 1854–1860.

40.

Louviere

J. J.

(1993). The best-worst or maximum difference measurement model: Applications to behavioral research in marketing. Paper presented at The American Marketing Association’s 1993 Behavioral Research Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.

41.

Maydeu-Olivares

(2004). Thurstone’s case V model: A structural equations modeling perspective. In K. van Montfort J. Oud A. Satorra (Eds), Recent developments on structural equation models (pp. 41–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

42.

Miller

D. P.

(2004 May 9–12). Bootstrap 101: Obtain robust confidence intervals for any statistic. Proceedings of the SAS User’s Group International 29 Proceedings (Paper No. 193-29), Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi29/193-29.pdf

43.

Miller

G. A.

(1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review , 63(2), 81–97.

44.

Myers

J. H.

Alpert

M. I.

(1968 October). Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and measurement. Journal of Marketing , 32(4), 13–20.

45.

Oliver

R. L.

(1996). Varieties of value in the consumption satisfaction response. Advances in Consumer Research , 23(1), 143–147.

46.

Oliver

R. L.

(2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

Orme

(2010). Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison, WI: Research Publishers, LLC.

48.

Quality Focus Institute. (1991 April). Deciding where to start on service quality. Bank Marketing , 23(4), 50–52.

49.

Sattler

Hensel-Börner

(2000). A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, F. Huber (Eds), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (pp. 121–133). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

50.

Sawtooth Software. (2013). The max diff system technical paper, version 8 (Technical Paper No.). Orem, UT. Retrieved 14 October 2015, from www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/maxdiffpap.pdf

51.

Shiffrin

Nosofsky

(1994). Seven plus or minus two: A commentary on capacity limitations. Psychological Review , 101(2), 357–361.

52.

Takane

(1987). Analysis of covariance structures and probabilistic binary choice data. Communication & Cognition , 20(1), 45–61.

53.

Thurstone

L. L.

(1928 January). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529–554.

54.

Zipf

G. K.

(1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Relative Value and Customer Choice in Loan Decisions: An Application of the Wallet Allocation Rule

Abstract

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References