اثربخشی پیوندهای بازاریابی رابطه‌مند در صنعت بانکداری با تأکید بر گرایش رابطه‌ای مشتری
الموضوعات : Journal of Business Analysis
صمد عالی
1
,
حامد امجدی ینگجه
2
1 - دانشیار گروه مدیریت، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت صنعتی، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران.
الکلمات المفتاحية: پیوندهای بازاریابی رابطه‌مند, سهم مشتری, اعتماد, کارایی تبادل, تمایل به تغییر (بانک یا ارائه‌دهنده خدمات), گرایش رابطه‌ای.,
ملخص المقالة :
مقاله حاضر به مقایسه اثربخشی پیوندهای بازاریابی رابطه‌مند از دیدگاه مشتریان رابطه‌گرا و غیررابطه‌گرا در صنعت بانکداری ایران می‌پردازد. برای آزمون فرضیه‌های پژوهش از رویکرد دو مرحله‌ای مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری (SEM) استفاده شد. در این رویکرد، ابتدا مدل اندازه‌گیری در دو مرحله شامل ارزیابی تک‌بعدی بودن و ارزیابی روایی و پایایی برآورد شد. سپس مدل ساختاری برای آزمون فرضیه‌ها و به‌دست‌آوردن ضرایب مسیر تخمین زده شد.. یافته‌ها نشان داد که پیوندهای بازاریابی رابطه‌مند بر اعتماد مشتری و کارایی تبادل تأثیر دارد. همچنین نتایج نشان داد با این که ارزیابی مشتری از کارایی تأثیر مثبت بر سهم مشتری و اعتماد داشته است، اما تأثیر منفی بر تمایل به تغییر (ارائه‌دهنده خدمات) دارد. ارتباط میان پیوندهای بازاریابی رابطه‌مند و ارزیابی مشتری به‌طور مثبتی تحت تأثیر گرایش رابطه‌ای مشتری قرار می‌گیرد.
1. Aali, S., Ebrahimi, A., & Bafande, A. (2012). Develop model for the effectiveness of relationship marketing strategies in the banking industry of Iran (case study: Keshavarzi Bank. Journal of management science, 8(3), p81-106.
2. Agarwal, U. A., & Narayana, S. A. (2020). Impact of relational communication on buyer–supplier relationship satisfaction: role of trust and commitment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(8), 2459-2496.
3. Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2008, October). Pair programming: what's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 120-128).
4. Brown, J. R., Crosno, J. L., & Tong, P. Y. (2019). Is the theory of trust and commitment in marketing relationships incomplete?. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 155-169.
5. Buttle, F., & Maklan, S. (2019). Customer relationship management: concepts and technologies. Routledge.
6. Castellanos‐Verdugo, M., de los Ángeles Oviedo‐García, M., Roldán, J. L., & Veerapermal, N. (2009). The employee‐customer relationship quality: antecedents and consequences in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(3), 251-274.
7. Chen, C. Y., Chen, C. C., Chen, Y. S., & Wey, S. C. (2011). Moderating effects in relationship marketing: The roles of customer expertise and price orientation. African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9490.
8. Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745-783.
9. De Wulf, Kristof. Gaby Odekerken-Schröder., & Dawn Iacobucci. (2001). Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross- Industry Exploration, Journal of Marketing 65 (October), 33–50.
10. El-Manstrly, D. (2016). Enhancing customer loyalty: critical switching cost factors. Journal of Service Management, 27(2), 144-169.
11. Ginting, Y., Chandra, T., Miran, I., & Yusriadi, Y. (2023). Repurchase intention of e-commerce customers in Indonesia: An overview of the effect of e-service quality, e-word of mouth, customer trust, and customer satisfaction mediation. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 7(1), 329-340.
12. Gómez-Suárez, M., Martínez-Ruiz, M. P., & Martínez-Caraballo, N. (2017). Consumer-brand relationships under the marketing 3.0 paradigm: a literature review. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 252.
13. Guerola-Navarro, V., Gil-Gomez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2024). Customer relationship management and its impact on entrepreneurial marketing: A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(2), 507-547.
14. Ha, M. T., Nguyen, G. D., & Doan, B. S. (2023). Understanding the mediating effect of switching costs on service value, quality, satisfaction, and loyalty. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-14.
15. Handfield, R. (2019). Shifts in buyer-seller relationships: A retrospective on. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 194-206.
16. Hussain, K., Jing, F., Junaid, M., Shi, H., & Baig, U. (2020). The buyer–seller relationship: a literature synthesis on dynamic perspectives. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(4), 669-684.
17. Khan, S. M., Ali, M., Puah, C. H., Amin, H., & Mubarak, M. S. (2023). Islamic bank customer satisfaction, trust, loyalty and word of mouth: the CREATOR model. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 14(5), 740-766.
18. Kim, W. G., & Cha, Y. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of relationship quality in hotel industry, Hospitality Management, 21, 321-338.
19. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
20. Lasrado, F., Thaichon, P., & Nyadzayo, M. W. (2023). Exploring the role of relationship management and relationship quality in B2B: empirical insights and future research directions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(5), 1055-1086.
21. Lin, N. P., Weng, J. C., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2003). Relational bonds and customer's trust and commitment-A study on the moderating effects of web site usage. Service Industries Journal, 23(3), 103-124.
22. Mangus, S. M., Jones, E., Folse, J. A. G., & Sridhar, S. (2020). The interplay between business and personal trust on relationship performance in conditions of market turbulence. Journal of the Academy of marketing science, 48, 1138-1155.
23. Mullins, R., Chase, K. S., & Friend, S. B. (2024). Buyer-seller uncertainty: a systematic review and future research directions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 44(1), 29-49.
24. Ngo, M. V., & Nguyen, H. H. (2016). The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: An investigation in Vietnamese retail banking sector. Journal of competitiveness.
25. Nadeem, W., Juntunen, M., Shirazi, F., & Hajli, N. (2020). Consumers’ value co-creation in sharing economy: The role of social support, consumers’ ethical perceptions and relationship quality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119786.
26. Osenton, T. (2002). Customer share marketing: how the world's great marketers unlock profits from customer loyalty. FT Press.
27. Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., Evans, K. R., & Arnold, T. J. (2008). Achieving relationship marketing effectiveness in business-to-business exchanges. Journal of the Academy of marketing science, 36, 174-190.
28. Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2017). Relationship marketing: looking backwards towards the future. Journal of services marketing, 31(1), 11-15.
29. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B. D., Radomir, L., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035-1064.
30. Shamsollahi, A., Chmielewski-Raimondo, D. A., Bell, S. J., & Kachouie, R. (2021). Buyer–supplier relationship dynamics: A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 418-436.
31. Smith, B. (1998). Buyer-seller relationship: Bonds, relationship management, and sex type, Canadian Journal of Administrative science, 15(1), 76-92.
32. Smith J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1997). The Effects of Organizational Differences and Trust on the Effectiveness of Selling Partner Relationships, Journal of Marketing, vol.61, pp.3-21.
33. Steinhoff, L., & Palmatier, R. W. (2021). Commentary: Opportunities and challenges of technology in relationship marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 29(2), 111-117.
34. Tegambwage, A. G., & Kasoga, P. S. (2023). Determinants of customer loyalty in Islamic banking: the role of religiosity. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 14(12), 3150-3167.
35. Tran, V. D. (2020). Assessing the effects of service quality, experience value, relationship quality on behavioral intentions. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(3), 167-175.
36. Wijaya, E., Suyono, S., & Santoso, P. H. (2020). Relationship of marketing tactics on consumer trust and consumer loyalty: the case of Mega Sanel Lestari Pekanbaru. Journal of Applied Business and Technology, 1(1), 8-13.
37. Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2018). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. McGraw-Hill.
The JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ANALYSIS
Vol. 1, No.1, Spring 2025
DOI:
Research Article
The effectiveness of relationship marketing bonds in banking industry with emphasis on customer's relationship orientation
Samad Aali1*, Hamed Amjadi Yengejeh2
Department of Management, Ta.C., Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
*Corresponding author: samad.aali@iaut.ac.ir
(Received: 2024/11/9; Accepted: 2025/10/21)
Online publication: 2025/11/04
Abstract
The current paper seeks to study the comparison of effectiveness relationship marketing bonds between the perspective of relationship-oriented and non-relationship-oriented customers, in industry of Iran banking. The data tools collection of the paper was structural equation modeling (AMOS 22). Findings showed that the relationship marketing bonds had effect on customer’s trust and exchange efficiency. The results revealed that customer’s evaluation of efficiency had positive effect on customer’s share and trust and negative effect on propensity to switch and the relevance between relationship marketing bonds and customer’s evaluation positively modified by customer's relationship orientation.
Key words: customer share, exchange efficiency ,Relationship marketing bonds, , trust, , propensity to switch
Introduction
Nowadays companies with superior performance in various industries are moving to retain customers and gain their loyalty. Long-term relationship with the customer is a vital strategy. Besides relationship marketing, the level of customer’s orientation should be also considered. Customer relationship orientation includes factors that tend to create greater and stronger relationships with partners. In addition, relationship orientation can increase acceptance of relationship and lead to more effective marketing relationship. In recent years, the financial services sector of Iran, especially the banking industry of Iran, experience the competition scene by appearance new technologies, relative similarity services and the presence of private sector competitors. Moreover, the banking industry of Iran needs to establish a close relationship with customers to gain a different and sustainable presence in competition. Long term and beneficial relationship with customers should be established in order to achieve stable presence in current competitive banking and improve the loyalty of their customers. Moreover, they seek various management strategies (Tegambwage and Kasoga, 2023). Several studies have shown that the profitability of a bank strongly affiliates to loyalty and keeping customers. Obviously, the maintenance and development of long-term relationship do not occur suddenly and require adoption of suitable relationship marketing bonds. The issue that must be considered in relationship marketing bonds is the level of the customer orientation. Therefore, a comprehensive study should be taken in order to understand which relationship marketing bonds have high efficiency to create and maintain long-term relationship with customers in banking industry.
Literature review
Relationship marketing bonds:Relationship marketing bonds as well as investment of a company in relation refers to time, effort and resources that seller spends to create a stronger relationship with buyers. Often these investments provide mutual expectations that can be helpful to strengthen and maintain a relationship and have positive effect on the elements of relation (commitment, satisfaction and trust) (De Wulf et al., 2001, p.55; Gómez-Suárez et al., 2017; Hussain et al., 2020; Mullins et al., 2024; Shamsollahi et al., 2021). Logically, both investment in relation and benefits of relation have affinity; because investment of seller in relation should bring time saving, companionship and improvement of decision making for customer. In addition, when customers receive benefits from investments, they understand the value of relationship. In order to respond relationship-building efforts by seller, customers try to invest their resources to improve relation (Hussain et al., 2020; Mullins et al., 2024). Investment can be carried out in the form of gifts, send direct mail packages, offering some special treatments or loyalty bonds. When relation investments are irreversible and irreparable, spiritual and psychological ties between the two sides and mutual expectations can be beneficial to strengthen and maintain relationships (Brown et al., 2019; Lasrado et al., 2023; Mangus et al., 2020; Smith & Barcley, 1997).Additionally, if customers gain benefits from investments, they should understand the value of relationships. Customers should greet seller efforts in order to create relation and do not deprive their resource investments to build stronger relational bonds. Despite recognition of ten types of bonds, the main focus of relationship marketing researchers is to study three types of these bonds: financial, social and structural.
Types of relationship marketing bonds:Financial bonds usually are known as marketing series and marketing residues that the service provider use economic benefits like price, discounts and other financial incentives for customer loyalty. In larger view, Smith (1988) noted that the financial incentives play the role of structural bonds in the field of relations between companies (B to B). Smith (1988) demonstrated that structural bonds could improve and sustain relation as economic nodes, functional and instrumental. Financial bonds are created by economic benefits, strategies, technologies (knowledge or data) and tools (product or service) which the parties have created them. For instance, in bank industry, banks can offer free services or discounts for their permanent customers in the form of loyalty. Buttle and Maklan (2019), believed that social bonds are dynamic processes and can play central role in the exchange. They noted that the multiple relationships between buyers and sellers by becoming a formal organizational relationship to an informal personal interaction is improved social bonds. Additionally, Guerola-Navarro et al. (2024), considered that these types of bonds depend on common values. Structural bonds usually appear when the companies improve their relationships with customers. Service providers apply the solutions in systems of services to solve customers’ problems. Moreover, structural bonds usually appear when the parties participate in an investment. It is not easily possible to damage or end of cooperation. It is nearly impossible because of complexity and the cost of changing suppliers. Structural bonds are essential for organization such as banks and these bonds create value-added services for customers that are not easily available in other places.
2.2. Relationship marketing bonds and exchange efficiency
In organizational communication, many marketing efforts accomplish for improvement and effectiveness. Firms are looking for ways to perform operations with excellent performance and reduce costs through value-added activities (Zeithaml, 2018). The most important factor that has the greatest impact on trade is unresolved conflicts. In recent years, the unresolved conflicts between buyer and seller have been caused large sums spent on this issue and this conflict belongs to the relation between buyer and seller. In Palmatier’s study, entitled achieving relationship marketing effectiveness in business exchange and the impact of relationship marketing bonds on the efficiency of exchange has been investigated. Additionally, according to Williamson's theory in 1985, Palmatier’s findings showed the efficiency of relationship marketing on the seller's financial results. In fact, by increasing the quality of relationship marketing bond that run by a seller, the customer considers the efficiency of exchange. Therefore, we assume:
H1: Relationship marketing bonds positively affect customer exchange efficiency.
2.3. Relationship marketing bonds and trust
In literatures, the researchers agreed with this point that the trust is one of the main elements that crystallizes the relationship between buyers and sellers. For example, Ginting et al, (2023) proposed that when customers trust to an organization, in fact he is trusted in the quality and reliability of services offered by the organization. According to Khan et al, (2023), the more reliable relationship, the more value that the customer considered for this relationship. In this way, it is very likely that the customer maintains the same relationship of trust instead of accepting the risk of uncertain in the new exchange processes. The risk of uncertain like a potential danger may lead to failure services and negative results (Nadeem et al., 2020). It seems that trust has a positive effect on the relationship between buyer and supplier firms (Agarwal and Narayana, 2020; Shamsollahi et al., 2021). According to Shamsollahi et al, (2021), trust, like willingness is to rely on exchange partner relationship that is trusted by the other side as well. These authors had a bond for this issue that trust would be limited if one side believed the reliability of the other in the relationship but did not want to rely in this case. These authors have been used two approaches in the literature of the field; 1) trust is thinking, feeling or expecting the trustworthiness of the other side of the relationship that originates from experience, reliability, or other international relations; and, 2) Behavioral intentions reflect confidence to one side and vulnerability in it. Lin et al, (2003) concluded that utilization of financial, social and structural bonds increase the trust of customer and testing the credibility and good intentions. Moreover, Tran (2020) applied credibility and good intentions to measure trust as a dimension for evaluating the quality of the relationship between service firms and their customers.
Aaali, Ebrahimi & Bafande (2013) showed in their research, as a dynamic model for the effectiveness of relationship marketing bonds in the banking industry of Iran that the quality of the relationship between the bank and the customer (the quality of the relationship include trust, commitment and satisfaction) have a positive effect on loyalty, word of mouth advertising and customer share. It has increased absorbed customer satisfaction and he follows the continuity of the relationship. Handfield (2019) showed that how satisfied buyer of the relationship would lead buyer to trust and keep relationship. Ngo and Nguyen (2016) in their investigation of trust, noted that to gain the customer loyalty, their trust should be attracted. In this way, if customers trust relationship, the possibility that the customer move on the basis of their needs in order to maintain trust in a relationship will be increased. Chen et al, (2011) in insurance industry showed that investment in the relationship marketing bonds had positive effect on customer trust to seller. Moreover, Wijaya et al, (2020) confirmed positive effect relationship marketing bonds on customer trust in banking industry of Hong Kong.
Thus, we assume:
H2: Relationship marketing bonds positively affect customer trust in the salesperson.
Exchange efficiency, trust and customer share:The most important outcome of relationship marketing effort is performance of seller that reflects the actual seller performance including sales, profits and market share. Payne and Frow (2017) introduced the customer share in relationship marketing instead of market share. Customer share refers to a certain percentage of a customer's purchases of services or products of a company in a certain period. In other words, “how many percentage of the customer would buy a product in a certain time period of a particular company”? For instance, a percentage of a customer's banking activities are performed in a particular bank. It is possible that a customer has an account in a current bank or credit card and interacts with all these banks. In this case, each of the banks receive a percentage of customer’s share. Another definition of customer share has been considered as share of wallet. That is the percentage of the cost of a customer of a particular product belongs to a particular company. Marketers seek a way to increase the customer share in the implementation of strategies to maintain customers. To obtain a greater customer share, Osenton (2002) introduced marketing mix of customer share as the new 4P which included individuals (understanding customers), preferences (understand the use of the product by the customer), permit (obtain customer authorization), accuracy (communicate individually with customers). Marketing share of customers is one of the effective ways to focus on customer to maintain marketing bonds. Marketing share of customer allows companies to focus their efforts to maintain customer on people who want these efforts, connect and respect them. Begel (2008) concluded that trust increases customer share. Castellanos‐Verdugo et al, (2009) in hotel industry of Spain focused the effect of relationship quality (trust and satisfaction) on customer share and reached the conclusion that trust is a strong predictor for obtaining a greater share of customer reside in hotel. These results are in accordance with Kim et al, (2002) who studied data from the 12 five-star hotels gathered in Seoul. The hotel owners need to strengthen the trust and satisfaction to increase the share of customer purchase and achieving continuity of relationship and positive word of mouth advertising. In the study of Steinhoff and Palmatier (2021) achieving relationship marketing effectiveness in business-to-business exchanges and the effect of exchange efficiency on customer share were confirmed. They concluded that exchange efficiency or buyer assessment of time, effort and resources that were spent by the seller had a direct link to customer share. Hussain et al, (2020) according to Williamson’s theory, showed that customers weigh many factors (e.g., dependence, exchange efficiency and trust) and these factors affect customer share (e. g., customer share of bank).
Thus, we assume:
H3: Exchange efficiency positively affects customer trust in the salesperson.
H4: Exchange efficiency positively affects customer share.
H5: Customer trust in the salesperson positively affects customer share.
Exchange efficiency, trust and propensity to switch:The importance of the service sector in the economy has been led in recent years to pay more attention to the effectiveness of customer service. Providing quality service to customer can be led to satisfaction and success. The customer’s dissatisfaction or satisfaction has a direct impact on profitability. The customer’s dissatisfaction has been caused to change the seller. In fact, propensity to switch is the possibility to change seller by customer (Handfield, 2019; Hussain et al., 2020; Payne and Frow, 2017; Steinhoff and Palmatier, 2021).Propensity to switch can be either low or high. The propensity to switch is created by customer evaluation which is about the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the current suppliers and is calculated the cost of switch by customer. Dissatisfaction does not show only the switch. The cost of the switch can be high that the top dissatisfaction customer does not change the seller. For example, customers may be dissatisfied with the performance of suppliers about an answering; but may not change their seller because this change may be caused other problems. Researchers have pointed series of factors that cause the change. These factors include the elements of customer satisfaction and market factors. Ha et al, (2023) conducted a study that examines the relationships between Service Quality (SQ), Service Value (SV), Customer Satisfaction (CS), and Customer Loyalty (CL) in the healthcare industry. Additionally, it provides empirical evidence regarding the impact of various types of switching barriers, including procedural, financial, and relational costs, on these relationships. The rationale for this investigation is that switching costs are key factors in maintaining and developing customer relationships. El-Manstrly (2016) conducted a study with the aim of examining the moderating effects of switching costs, classified by type (relational, procedural, and financial) and direction (positive and negative), on the relationships between customer-perceived value, trust, and loyalty. The results also show that switching costs impact the relationships between customer loyalty, trust, and perceived value in different ways. Furthermore, the strength of the moderating effects varies depending on the type of service. Palmatier et al, (2008) by using empirical studies and collecting data through 3000 questionnaires from Midwestern U.S. industrial buyers, reached to this conclusion that the trust in the salesperson and exchange efficiency both mediate the effect of relationship marketing on seller financial outcomes. They also confirmed trust in salesperson, exchange efficiency and propensity to switch (possibility of changing the seller by the buyer in the future).
Therefore, we assume:
H6: Exchange efficiency negatively affects customer propensity to switch.
H7: Customer trust in the salesperson negatively affects customer propensity to switch.
Relationship orientation and its impact on customer evaluation of the relationship:Relationship orientation includes factors that cause most interest to customer to build strong relationships with partners. In addition, relationship orientation must increase the adoption of relationship and lead to more effective relationship marketing. High relationship oriented customers has positive response to seller’s relationship marketing efforts (e. g., seller requests for meeting or giving information). If both parties seek strong relations, they will have the same goals, will have more motivation to open communication, will release their important information and probably will not enter into any conflict. This similarity in goals, two-way communication and the minimum conflict causes to build strong relationships with customer who wants this relationship (Brown et al, 2019). According to Palmatier et al, (2008) providers request have been faced by customer with low relationship oriented that their transactions are fully automatic (without the presence of the seller), assign 21% of their business to this supplier; because pervious supports cannot predict the future behavior of customers with low oriented relationship. If dealers were able to accurately identify customers with low oriented relationship and had a typical interaction with them (like the electronic exposure), they could save their money, increase their services to current customers and attract competitors’ customers. Therefore, companies have to classify their customers according to the orientation relationship and use this information to correct target to relationship marketing investment. In general, customer relationship orientation acts likes a lever for relationship marketing activities and as a result, it can be strengthen relationships and improving financial performance. The study that examined customer orientation as moderator of the relationship between trust and relationship marketing activities is related to Palmatier's study. According to this study, customer orientation increased the positive effect relationship marketing bonds on trust. When the tendency of customer is high to relation, the customer most will accept the seller efforts. For customer with high relationship oriented, relationship marketing bonds cause improving the quality of the relationship and make customer to assess exchange more effectiveness. This issue causes promotion of the association's assets and finally improves the performance of the seller. Thus, we assume:
H8: Customer relationship orientation increases the positive effect of relationship marketing bonds on exchange efficiency.
H9: Customer relationship orientation increases the positive effect of relationship marketing bonds on buyer trust.
To sum it up, conceptual model can be stated as follows (figure1)1
Figure1.
Conceptual model
Methodology
Measurement: Scales used in this study are extracted from the literature on relationship marketing. A total of 30 items were used to measure the research constructs. Table 12 shows a summary of resources and items used to measure each of the research constructs. All constructs were measured using seven point Likert type scale anchored by ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’.
Table 1.
Total of Scale Items Used in this research
Sources | Number of Item | Constructs |
| 13 | Relationship marketing bonds |
Palmatier et, al. (2008) Lin et al, (2003) | 4 | Financial bonds |
Palmatier et, al. (2008) Lin et al, (2003) | 4 | Social bonds |
Palmatier et, al. (2008) Lin et al, (2003) | 5 | Structural bonds |
Roberts et al,(2003) | 5 | trust |
Palmatier et, al. (2008)
| 4 | Customer Orientation |
Palmatier et, al. (2008) | 4 | Exchange efficiency |
Palmatier et, al. (2008) | 3 | Propensity to switch |
Palmatier et, al. (2008) | 1 question | Customer share |
Sample and Data Collection :The questionnaire was designed based on a detailed study of relevant literature and measures that had been used previously by other researchers. The viewpoints of a number of Iranian banks managers were received on the questionnaire and the number of customers were interviewed and finally, the specialized opinions of marketing scholars were collected. Using the comments of the above mentioned groups, the face validity of the questionnaire was assured. The final questionnaire was sent to 400 customers and ultimately, 311 customers responded to the questionnaires. This resulted in a 60% response rate that is suited to be used in structural equation modeling.
Of the respondents, 54.3% were male and 36.3% were between up to 25 years old. Their median relationship duration with the bank ranged from one to five years. (See Table 2 for participants’ demographic information).
Table 2.
Demographic data
| Number of Respondents | % | |
Gender | Male | 169 | 54.3 |
Female | 142 | 45.7 | |
Age | Up to 25 | 113 | 36.3 |
25-34 | 70 | 22.5 | |
35-44 | 64 | 20.6 | |
45-54 | 31 | 10 | |
55-64 | 28 | 9 | |
65+ | 5 | 1.6 | |
relationship duration with bank (years) | 1-5 | 152 | 48.9 |
6-15 | 123 | 39.5 | |
16-25 | 29 | 9.3 | |
26-35 | 4 | 1.3 | |
+35 | 3 | 1 | |
Analysis Approach:The two-step approach of structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the research hypotheses. In the two-step approach, the measurement model was firstly estimated in two phases including the evaluation of unidimensionality and evaluation of the validity and reliability. Then, the structural model was estimated to test hypotheses and obtain the path coefficients.
Finding and results
Since the load factors of confirmatory factor analysis are more than 0.5 for all the items, the unidimensionality of all of the constructs was approved· Furthermore, the fit indexes of the measurement models are all satisfactory, indicating that the fit of the empirical data to the hypothesized models are adequate. The factor loadings and fit indexes are presented in Table 3.
The internal consistency of the scales was tested using three indicators: composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s α and the average variance extracted (AVE). In all cases, in terms of CR, AVE, and Cronbach’s α, the results confirm the adequacy of the constructs because all scales exceed the minimum criterion of 0.8 for CR (Cheung et al, 2024; Kline, 2023), 0.6 for Cronbach’s α (Kline, 2023) and 0.5 for AVE (Sarstedt et al., 2022) (Table 3).
The average variance extracted (AVE) was used to assess convergent and discriminant validity (See Table 2). The value of all AVE was higher than 0.5; so, we can state that all constructs have high convergent validity (Sarstedt et al., 2022).
Structural model results :Table 4 and Figure 2 illustrate all of the six hypotheses were supported except H6. The results of the goodness-of-fit indices show that this model fits the data adequately, even though chi-square was significant (x2 =43.771, df= 11, p < 0.001, N=311). However, the likelihood ratio chi-square statistic is known to be sensitive
Table 3.
List of items and their sources with reliability and dimensionality indicators
Constructs and items and their sources | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s alpha (α) | CR | AVE |
Relationship marketing bonds |
|
|
|
|
Financial bonds |
| 0.855 | 0.834 | 0.634 |
If the customer has a good turnover, the bank will give facilities. | 0.58 |
|
|
|
The bank gives extra services. | 0.89 |
|
|
|
This bank usually discounts the wage of customers. | 0.88 |
|
|
|
Social bonds |
| 0.788 | 0.842 | 0.64 |
The staffs of this bank have a good and honest behavior with customers. | 0.79 |
|
|
|
All customers in this bank are behaved well and special. | 0.82 |
|
|
|
All ideas about services are considered | 0.79 |
|
|
|
Structural bonds |
| 0.814 | 0.816 | 0.572 |
This bank gives special services according to customer’s demand | 0.67 |
|
|
|
Banking works are done faster and without delays. | 0.67 |
|
|
|
Customer’s demands and needs are considered by staffs. | 0.77 |
|
|
|
Customers feel more comfortable and trust in this bank. | 0.68 |
|
|
|
If the customer intercepts the cooperation of this, they will be in trouble about banking works. | 0.64 |
|
|
|
χ2 = 195.68, df = 51, p =0.000, RMSEA = 0.025, NFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.96, χ2/ df = 3.83 | ||||
Trust (Roberts et al., 2003) |
| 0.860 | 0.877 | 0.643 |
This bank is trustworthy. | 0.80 |
|
|
|
The bank is always honest. | 0.92 |
|
|
|
Usually This bank keeps his/her promises. | 0.79 |
|
|
|
The staffs of this bank rarely make mistakes. | 0.68 |
|
|
|
When I confide my problems to staffing this bank, I know they will respond with understanding | 0.68 |
|
|
|
χ2 = 8.20, df = 2, p > 0.002, RMSEA = 0.028, NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.9, χ2/ df = 4.1 | ||||
Exchange efficiency |
| 0.884 | 0.888 | 0.669 |
I feel that working with this bank has not been efficient according to the time. | 0.84 |
|
|
|
All banking works in this bank are unpleasant. | 0.92 |
|
|
|
I feel that my interactions with this bank are inefficient. | 0.86 |
|
|
|
I feel that my business activities with this bank are so efficient | 0.62 |
|
|
|
χ2 = 6.18, df = 2, p > 0.002, RMSEA = 0.028, NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.90, χ2/ df = 3.92 | ||||
Propensity to switch (R. W. Palmatier, L. K. Scheer, K. R. Evans, T. J. Arnold, 2007). |
| 0.849 | 0.867 | 0.693 |
In the future, I will reduce my bank working with this bank. | 0.92 |
|
|
|
Probably, I will intercept my bank working with this bank. | 0.94 |
|
|
|
For my future bank working, this bank is my priority. | 059 |
|
|
|
to the sample size (Byrne, 2001), thus the relative chi-square statistic (χ2 /df) is increasingly used as a measure of fit. The value of χ2 /df in this study is 3.979; which is lower than the acceptance limit of 5 (Hair et al., 1998; Wheaton et al., 1977).
The GFI was 0.964, AGFI=0.909, NFI=0.958, CFI=0.964, TLI=0.939, and RSMEA=0.078. The results of the study indicated that all six paths were significant in the structural model. All of the paths were significant at p < 0.001.
Figure2.
Results of the hypothesized structural model
Result | p
| Coefficients | CE | Standardized coefficients | The critical ratio (t-value) | Hypothesis
|
Confirmed | 0.000 | 0.565 | 0.076 | 0.462 | 7.483 | H1 |
Confirmed | 0.000 | 0.637 | 0.071 | 0.546 | 8.99 | H2 |
Confirmed | 0.000 | 0.27 | 0.045 | 0.284 | 6.074 | H3 |
Confirmed | 0.000 | 0.044 | 0.013 | 0.223 | 3.451 | H4 |
Confirmed | 0.000 | -0.756 | 0.051 | -0.658 | -14.447 | H5 |
Fail | 0.238 | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.076 | 1.179 | H6 |
Confirmed | 0.000 | -0.178 | 0.054 | -0.148 | -3.306 | H7 |
Table 4.
Testing Hypotheses Using Standardized Estimates (Hypothesized Model)
Hypothesis 1, relation marketing bonds have a positive effect on exchange efficiency, was supported. The results revealed a path coefficient between the two constructs of 0.46, which was positively significant at p < 0.001.
Hypothesis 2 stated that relationship marketing bonds have a positive effect on customer trust. This hypothesis was supported with a path coefficient between the two constructs of 0.54 (p < 0.001).
Hypothesis 3 stated that exchange efficiency has a positive effect on customer trust, and was supported. The results revealed a path coefficient between the two constructs of 0.28, which was positively significant at p < 0.001.
Hypothesis 4 stated that exchange efficiency has a positive effect on customer share, and was supported. The results revealed a path coefficient between the two constructs of 0.22, which was positively significant at p < 0.001.
Hypothesis 5 stated that exchange efficiency has a negative effect on propensity to switch, and was supported. The results revealed a path coefficient between the two constructs of -0.65, which was positively significant at p < 0.001.
Hypothesis 6 stated that customer trust has a positive effect on customer share, and was not supported. The results revealed a path coefficient between the two constructs of 0.07, which was negatively significant at p < 0.238.
Hypothesis 7 stated that customer trust has a negative effect on propensity to switch, and was supported. The results revealed a path coefficient between the two constructs of -0.14, which was positively significant at p < 0.001.
5. Modification of the structural model
In this research modification of the structural model should be tested. Variable adjustment of the model was customer relationship orientation. To test the impact of variable adjustment of the customer relationship orientation, multi-group structural equation modeling was used. For this reason, customers were divided into two groups in terms of relationship orientation. According to the measurement of oriented relationship based on the seven-item Likert scale, customers whose mean score of relationship orientation was less than 4 were in a customer group of low-oriented relationship (99 persons) and customers whose mean score of relationship orientation was more than 4 were in a customer group of high-oriented relationship (212 persons).Then 2 steps analysis of multi-group structural equation modeling were used to test the effect of variable adjustment of the relationship orientation. First step was one example of a good test model in multi-group structural equation modeling. In second step, the same test coefficients path table 6 and 7 implementation of in multi-group structural equation modeling results for variable adjustment of the relationship orientation showed that both hypotheses were confirmed.
As table 5 showed, modification of the structural model in both group (customer with high and low relationship orientation) fit enough and moderator of hypotheses can be tested.
H8: Customer relationship orientation has adjust positive effect the relation between relationship marketing plan which were created by the seller and customer evaluation of exchange efficiency.
Table 5.
One sample of model fitting indices for customer relationship orientation
X2/df | RMSEA | CFI | NFI | TLI | GFI | AGFI | p | df | X2 |
| N | Model |
3.19
| 0.07 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.000 | 46 | 146.9 |
| 311 | The total sample |
1.18
| 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.000 | 46 | 54.3 |
| 99 | Typical low relationship orientation |
2.5 | 0.07 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.000 | 46 | 115 |
| 212 | Typical high relationship orientation |
Table6.
The difference in values of x2 (the same test path) for customer with high and low relationship orientation
p | X2Δ | df | X2 |
Model
|
Assumed path
| Hypotheses | ||||
0.000
-
|
11.179
- |
22
23
|
64.254
52.463 |
|
| H8 | ||||
0.000
- |
6.276
- |
22
23
|
58.739
52.463
|
|
| H9 |
Table7.
The estimated path in the multi-group structural equation modeling customer-oriented relationship
Hypotheses | Assumed path
| Customer with low relationship orientation | Customer with high relationship orientation | ||||
H8 |
Relationship Marketing
Exchange Efficiency | p | t-value | Standardized coefficients | p | t-value | Standardized coefficients |
0.000 | 6.654 | 0.262 | 0.000 | 6.654 | 0.462 | ||
H9 | Relationship Marketing
Trust | 0.000 | 8.231 | 0.33 | 0.000 | 8.231 | 0.556 |
According to the results of table 4, hypothesis 8 was not confirmed. Although, relationship marketing bonds had positive and direct effect on customer evaluation of exchange efficiency and there was a significant difference in customer groups with high and low orientation (xΔ2 =11.791, p<0.05). But relationship marketing bonds (compared with customers who are less interested to relation=β) 0.26)) had positive effect =β) 0.46) on customer evaluation of exchange efficiency in relationship orientation customers (figure 3)3.
Figure3.
Adjustment for the effect of relationship marketing plans on exchange efficiency by customer relationship orientation
H9: Customer relationship orientation has moderate positive effect the relation between relationship marketing plan which were created by the seller and trust.
According to the results, hypothesis 9 was confirmed. Relationship marketing bonds had positive and direct effect on trust and there is a significant difference in customer groups with high and low orientation (xΔ2 =6.276, p<0.05). In the other words,
relationship marketing bonds (compared with customers who were less interested to relation=β) 0.33)) had positive effect =β) 0.56) on trust in relationship orientation customers (figure 4)4.
Figure4.
Adjustment for the effect of relationship marketing plans on trust by customer relationship
6. Results and conclusion
The results in five areas of discussion are as follows:
1. The effect relationship marketing bonds on customer evaluation of the relationship
2. The effect exchange efficiency on customer share and propensity to switch
3. The effect trust on customer share and propensity to switch
4. Moderating effects of customer relationship orientation
6.1. The effect Relationship marketing bonds on customer evaluation of the relationship
We assumed in the research model that relationship marketing bonds included financial, social and structural bonds which had positive effect on exchange efficiency and trust (H1, H2). It was also assumed that customer evaluation of exchange efficiency had positive effect on trust (H3).
The results of hypothesis testing showed that relationship marketing bonds were run by banks had positive effect on customer evaluation of exchange efficiency and trust. To more accurate, these factors increase customer trust to bank and customer evaluated the efficiency of exchange: in financial bonds by development of financial incentives such as gifts, discounts to customers, in social bonds to reminisce, intimate behavior of bank employees, behave with customers as a valued customer, in structural bonds with the emphasis on providing specialized services to customers, attention to customer requirements, perform customer’s work without delay and fast. Additionally, when a customer confirms the exchange efficiency, his/her trust was increased to the bank. Comparing the results showed that effect of relationship marketing bonds on trust to bank is more than exchange efficiency. This result indicated that bank’s customers pay more attention to advantages and benefits are created by bank and as these benefits are increase, trust also rises.
6.2. The effect exchange efficiency on customer share and propensity to switch
We assumed in the research model that customer evaluation of the effectiveness of the exchange had positive effect on customer share and has negative effect on propensity to switch (H4, H5).
The results of hypothesis testing showed that by increasing customer evaluation of the effectiveness of the exchange, customer share increases. If the customer assumes that the exchange efficiency in this case, they will do all banking activities in this bank and the bank can seize a greater share of customer. Results comparison showed that the impact of the exchange efficiency on customer share is less than switch. This issue showed that when customer evaluated the efficiency of exchange, the possibility of switch the bank by customer would reduce and in the future customer would perpetuate his/her relation with bank.
6.3. The effect trust on customer share and propensity to switch
In 6 and 7 hypotheses we assumed that trust to bank increases customer share and decreases propensity to switch bank by customer. Results showed that when the trust is high, customer won’t switch bank but this issue does not have significant effect on customer share. In other words, bank effort to gain customer trust did not have significant effect on customer share and bank needs nothing more than trust to increase customer share. According to Herzberg's two-factor theory, it can be said that for a customer trust as a preservatives variable. With trust customers do not switch their bank. On the other hand, enhancement of trust to bank can act as a motivational factor and increase customer share.
6.4. Moderating effects of customer relationship orientation
We assumed in the research model that customer relationship orientation had adjust positive effect the relation between relationship marketing bond were created by the seller and customer evaluation of exchange efficiency (H8) and also customer relationship orientation had adjust positive effect the relation between relationship marketing bond were created by the seller and trust (H9). In fact customer relationship orientation acts as a lever for relationship marketing activities and can cause to strengthen or weaken relations.
Results comparison show the relationship orientation and relationship marketing bonds which effected on trust was more than exchange efficiency (β=0.556). Result of research about adjustment of the relationship orientation is in coordinate with Palmatier’s research. In this case, to create a strong relationship with the customer in the banking industry, customers are classified according to the degree of relationship orientation.
Research propositions
Finally, based on the research findings, the following management recommendations are offered:
1. Relationship marketing bonds run by banks (financial, social and structural bonds) have a positive and significant effect on trust and exchange efficiency. Maskan bank managers to achieve more success should use more applications like giving gifts, discounts, special services…
2. To improve bank-customer relations, identify specific needs and dedicate specific services to them, this article has been noted to exchange efficiency and switch. Maskan bank and other bank managers should implement customer relationship management system to attract and retain customers. These ways help to associate customers to bank, prevent customers turning away and tend to use the services of other banks. As a result, all customer-banking activities perform in Maskan bank and Maskan bank allocates a greater share of customer.
3. To the Maskan bank and other bank managers recommend about trust to manage their staff correctly, because trust key and customer satisfaction run by correct management of human resources (bank employees). Provide information for customer to increase their trust to Maskan bank.
4. Management and make a handle complaints system is one way to increase customer satisfaction and strong relationships with banks. In this case both sides will have same goals, more motivate to relationships and release their important data.
5. Maskan bank managers always provide information to the customer to aware them about providing banking services, because the awareness customer does not have reason to change and switch the bank.
References
Aali, S., Ebrahimi, A., & Bafande, A. (2012). Develop model for the effectiveness of relationship marketing strategies in the banking industry of Iran (case study: Keshavarzi Bank. Journal of management science, 8(3), p81-106.
Agarwal, U. A., & Narayana, S. A. (2020). Impact of relational communication on buyer–supplier relationship satisfaction: role of trust and commitment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(8), 2459-2496.
Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2008, October). Pair programming: what's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 120-128).
Brown, J. R., Crosno, J. L., & Tong, P. Y. (2019). Is the theory of trust and commitment in marketing relationships incomplete?. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 155-169.
Buttle, F., & Maklan, S. (2019). Customer relationship management: concepts and technologies. Routledge.
Castellanos‐Verdugo, M., de los Ángeles Oviedo‐García, M., Roldán, J. L., & Veerapermal, N. (2009). The employee‐customer relationship quality: antecedents and consequences in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(3), 251-274.
Chen, C. Y., Chen, C. C., Chen, Y. S., & Wey, S. C. (2011). Moderating effects in relationship marketing: The roles of customer expertise and price orientation. African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9490.
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745-783.
De Wulf, Kristof. Gaby Odekerken-Schröder., & Dawn Iacobucci. (2001). Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross- Industry Exploration, Journal of Marketing 65 (October), 33–50.
El-Manstrly, D. (2016). Enhancing customer loyalty: critical switching cost factors. Journal of Service Management, 27(2), 144-169.
Ginting, Y., Chandra, T., Miran, I., & Yusriadi, Y. (2023). Repurchase intention of e-commerce customers in Indonesia: An overview of the effect of e-service quality, e-word of mouth, customer trust, and customer satisfaction mediation. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 7(1), 329-340.
Gómez-Suárez, M., Martínez-Ruiz, M. P., & Martínez-Caraballo, N. (2017). Consumer-brand relationships under the marketing 3.0 paradigm: a literature review. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 252.
Guerola-Navarro, V., Gil-Gomez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2024). Customer relationship management and its impact on entrepreneurial marketing: A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(2), 507-547.
Ha, M. T., Nguyen, G. D., & Doan, B. S. (2023). Understanding the mediating effect of switching costs on service value, quality, satisfaction, and loyalty. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-14.
Handfield, R. (2019). Shifts in buyer-seller relationships: A retrospective on. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 194-206.
Hussain, K., Jing, F., Junaid, M., Shi, H., & Baig, U. (2020). The buyer–seller relationship: a literature synthesis on dynamic perspectives. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(4), 669-684.
Khan, S. M., Ali, M., Puah, C. H., Amin, H., & Mubarak, M. S. (2023). Islamic bank customer satisfaction, trust, loyalty and word of mouth: the CREATOR model. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 14(5), 740-766.
Kim, W. G., & Cha, Y. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of relationship quality in hotel industry, Hospitality Management, 21, 321-338.
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
Lasrado, F., Thaichon, P., & Nyadzayo, M. W. (2023). Exploring the role of relationship management and relationship quality in B2B: empirical insights and future research directions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(5), 1055-1086.
Lin, N. P., Weng, J. C., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2003). Relational bonds and customer's trust and commitment-A study on the moderating effects of web site usage. Service Industries Journal, 23(3), 103-124.
Mangus, S. M., Jones, E., Folse, J. A. G., & Sridhar, S. (2020). The interplay between business and personal trust on relationship performance in conditions of market turbulence. Journal of the Academy of marketing science, 48, 1138-1155.
Mullins, R., Chase, K. S., & Friend, S. B. (2024). Buyer-seller uncertainty: a systematic review and future research directions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 44(1), 29-49.
Ngo, M. V., & Nguyen, H. H. (2016). The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: An investigation in Vietnamese retail banking sector. Journal of competitiveness.
Nadeem, W., Juntunen, M., Shirazi, F., & Hajli, N. (2020). Consumers’ value co-creation in sharing economy: The role of social support, consumers’ ethical perceptions and relationship quality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119786.
Osenton, T. (2002). Customer share marketing: how the world's great marketers unlock profits from customer loyalty. FT Press.
Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., Evans, K. R., & Arnold, T. J. (2008). Achieving relationship marketing effectiveness in business-to-business exchanges. Journal of the Academy of marketing science, 36, 174-190.
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2017). Relationship marketing: looking backwards towards the future. Journal of services marketing, 31(1), 11-15.
Roberts, K. Varki, S., & Brodie, R. (2003). Measuring the quality of relationship in consumer services: an empirical study.European Journal of Marketing 37(1/2), 169-195
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B. D., Radomir, L., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035-1064.
Shamsollahi, A., Chmielewski-Raimondo, D. A., Bell, S. J., & Kachouie, R. (2021). Buyer–supplier relationship dynamics: A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 418-436.
Smith, B. (1998). Buyer-seller relationship: Bonds, relationship management, and sex type, Canadian Journal of Administrative science, 15(1), 76-92.
Smith J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1997). The Effects of Organizational Differences and Trust on the Effectiveness of Selling Partner Relationships, Journal of Marketing, vol.61, pp.3-21.
Steinhoff, L., & Palmatier, R. W. (2021). Commentary: Opportunities and challenges of technology in relationship marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 29(2), 111-117.
Tegambwage, A. G., & Kasoga, P. S. (2023). Determinants of customer loyalty in Islamic banking: the role of religiosity. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 14(12), 3150-3167.
Tran, V. D. (2020). Assessing the effects of service quality, experience value, relationship quality on behavioral intentions. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(3), 167-175.
Wijaya, E., Suyono, S., & Santoso, P. H. (2020). Relationship of marketing tactics on consumer trust and consumer loyalty: the case of Mega Sanel Lestari Pekanbaru. Journal of Applied Business and Technology, 1(1), 8-13.
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2018). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. McGraw-Hill.
[1] Figure1: Conceptual model
[2] Table 1: Total of Scale Items Used in this research
[3] Figure3: Adjustment for the effect of relationship marketing plans on exchange efficiency by customer relationship orientation
[4] Figure4: Adjustment for the effect of relationship marketing plans on trust by customer relationship
