International Journal on
Strategic Innovative Marketing
Vol. 02 (2015) DOI:10.15556/IJSIM.02.01.001
Airline brand dissatisfaction:
An overview
Efstathios G Kefallonitis1, a
1School
of Business, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, New York, USA
a)Corresponding
author: [email protected]
Abstract: A number of brand positioning techniques may cause consumer confusion, often
resulting in brand rejection; an evidence of brand dissatisfaction. This study contributes to the
understanding of airline brand satisfaction, in relation to brand communications through
evidence in literature, analysis of business archives and observation.
Academic theory and industrial practice are used to identify factors that formulate consumer
satisfaction culture.
The author’s approach identifies problem areas in the process of
successful message delivery between brands and their offering to their perceptual value towards
satisfaction.
Inappropriate communication media leave consumers with a sense of dissatisfaction towards
brands and their products. The challenges identified are explored. The author proposes a
framework in response to the need for integrated brand communications.
Keywords: branding, airline passenger dissatisfaction, brand associations
1. Introduction
1.1. Consumers
Postmodern consumers are increasingly sensitive and aware of their rights. They
are more sceptical towards social, cultural, political, human rights, and environmental
issues that affect them. Consumer purchases also depend on the manufacturer’s value
of all the aforementioned. Consumers do not passively observe what companies chose to
present. They often show preference to brands that embrace the same ethical values of
their target audience [1]. Consumers like to be aware of what is happening behind the
scenes of a company, particularly what is willingly made public and whether companies
are true to their promises.
Consumers on the contrary, want to know more about the internal functioning of
organisations and remain sceptical over their practices. Consumer awareness towards
internal operations is attracting increasing attention [2]. The public interest goes
1
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
2
beyond its purchasing ability. Consumers are aware of their purchasing power and
expect offering innovation [3]. As consumers follow marketers’ created desires, they
become more knowledgeable and skilled over how companies use branding and promote
their offerings [4].
Corporations often focus solely on internal needs, operations and benefits, rather
than listening to consumer needs and wants [4]. Consumers own the brand and its
meaning.
Understanding what consumers use as a basis for evaluating a brand and
expressing feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction is highly desirable. The escalation of
this brand conflict emphasizes the need of examining brand dissatisfaction causes.
Trying to understand the challenges that lead consumers to make up their minds about
a brand would be useful to both practitioners and academics.
When consumers are dissatisfied with a brand, the challenge is to identify its cause.
Unsuccessful brand positioning or message delivery often result in consumer brand
confusion, absence of real brand differentiation, and lack of brand reality. In addition a
dysfunctional or faulty offering may hurt the brand, as well as inappropriate global
branding techniques.
There are a limited number of methodologies that could successfully implement the
relation between consumer understanding, offering and the brand [6].
Intense competition among brands, the complexity of modern-day products, the
noise from various marketing media and the way that the consumers understand create
an extraordinary market environment.
1.2. Terminology
The term consumer brand dissatisfaction refers to the dissatisfaction caused by
brands. This may relate to the delivery of brand messages and how these relate to the
offering. The word offering refers to the qualities and features of both product and
service combined [5]. It best defines the complexity of what a modern-day product has
become [3] particularly in the airline context [6].
2. Background
It is important to explore the relation between satisfaction, brand and brand
associations. The consumption purpose as well as the time spent in the facility provides
an interesting dimension of study.
2.1. Consumer Satisfaction, Brand and Tangible/Intangible Associations
Literature relating to consumer satisfaction may be distinguished between the study
of pre-usage estimates and post-usage performance. According to the disconfirmationof-expectations model of satisfaction [7], where an exploration of expectations towards
satisfaction could be determined, consumers make a post-purchase comparison
between pre-purchase expectations and post-purchase performance [8], [9], [10].
Consumers express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction over a series of conscious or
unconscious factors. Pre-usage estimates [11], memory held from their previous use, or
product attributes and brand names [12], [65]. Consumer satisfaction may relate to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON STRATEGIC INNOVATIVE MARKETING
3
meeting expectations that relate to product performance (e.g., [13], [9]). Consumer
satisfaction plays a significant role in repeat business [14]. Satisfaction over a
particular brand may have favourable results in future purchase intentions of that
particular brand. Satisfied consumers are willing to provide recommendations of an
offering, thus contribute to positive word-of-mouth advertising [15], [16], the tendency
to say positive things and to remain loyal [17], [18]. This links purchase and word-ofmouth directly and affects viability and profitability of a firm [19].
The tangible and intangible physical environment plays an important role in
generating excitement and therefore satisfaction. This is one of the reasons why
consumers often get attracted by the intangible/ tangible elements of brands.
According to environmental psychology, feelings of excitement, pleasure or
relaxation may be experienced in properly designed physical environments [20].
Aesthetic aspects of the physical facilities are likely to influence customer perceptions
and feelings, but may have been inadequately portrayed by previous service-quality
research. After all, design language delivers the company’s promise, and is responsible
for protecting the company’s corporate identity and image [21].
Exploring the
importance of the tangible and intangible brand features, would help identify which are
more important for the consumer and communicate the brand best. The use of key
brand features would ensure offering uniqueness and support brand satisfaction.
The time that customers spend in service environments also plays a significant role
in the formulation of customer attitudes (Figure 1). The longer time spent at the
facility, the greater opportunity one has to evaluate an environment [22]. When a
consumer spends lengthy periods of time at a point-of-service environment, it is likely
to constantly observe the service provision [15]. Taking this to an airline context, this is
partially the reason why the on-board service and interiors or transatlantic aircraft are
carefully designed. This guarantees passenger comfort that aims at brand satisfaction.
Maintaining a high standard of the on-board offering and interior design, is crucial in
pleasing passengers; particularly during crowded lengthy flights.
Crowded physical environments make customers feel unease, displeased and
encourage them to leave [23], [66]. The time that one spends interacting with an airline
from the moment of reserving a ticket, to the flight itself and the arrival procedures
makes it an interesting area of study.
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
4
Influence of
Environment
Short
[minutes]
Time
Spent
in
Facility
Moderate
[hours]
Extended
[day(s)]
Consumption Purpose
Utilitarian
Hedonic
Dry Cleaner
Fast Food
Drive-thru
Bank
Hair Salon
Health
Clinic
Restaurant
Game
Room
Psychologist
Airline
Law Office
School
Hotel
Hospital
Conference
Centre
Sporting
Event
Church
Service
Amusement
Park
Resort
Darker shaded areas indicate the greater influence of the service environment
on affective response of customers
Figure 1 Typology of Service environments [15]
2.2. The changing needs of airline passengers
Airlines aim in realising three goals: (a) fulfil passengers’ needs and wants; (b) follow
the organisation’s objectives or in other words create profit satisfying the shareholders,
and (c) maintain product and brand differentiation against competition [24].
Customer satisfaction is the ultimate goal in the airline industry. Among full-service
airlines, many claim that Emirates, Etihad, Singapore Airlines, Virgin Atlantic Airlines
and other have unmatched offering qualities that are difficult for competitors to match.
Such increases the likelihood of satisfied passengers and encourages loyalty.
In the low-cost industry sector, with representative airlines such as Southwest,
EasyJet and Ryanair a minimum possible offering is the standard. This keeps operation
costs low and translates to lower airfares. Virgin America and JetBlue are among the
exceptions where additional on-board service options are offered. Such carriers aim to
combine high quality standards and customer value.
In the post 9/11 September 11 era, lengthy security checks and passenger
screening at airports have become the norm [25]. These processes are known to
increase passenger anxiety and discomfort [26]. Someone would expect that a
distressed passenger would seek comfort once seated in the aircraft. Cabin seating
should have a higher impact on the satisfaction factor it holds. Increased seating
comfort is expected in premium classes and is not perceived as an added benefit but an
element of standard service. A passenger that experiences a better service, is more
likely to form greater future-service expectations [27]. Style and comfort interpreted
into concrete product and brand features are what passengers want. This creates a
differentiated brand experience that would meet the customer needs and expectations
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON STRATEGIC INNOVATIVE MARKETING
5
[3]. Ergonomically designed seating entail a kind of human information, e.g. comfort
[27].
Despite the importance of ticket price elasticities and the arrival on time factor,
comfort holds a major role in satisfaction [28]. Similarly cabin comfort [29] and seating
play an important factor to airline passengers [30].
3. Brand conflict
The author investigated challenges that influence the relation between consumer
satisfaction, brand and offering, during the brand communication phase.
3.1. Understanding the offering-to-consumer challenges
Offering and brand, may serve different needs [31], but in consumers’ minds they
are interlinked and refer each other. Although the actual offering may serve basic
consumer needs (i.e. soft-drink as an answer to thirst), the brand offers reassurance
and added value.
In addition, the communication process that connects the offering to the brand is
crucial to the successful message delivery and consumer understanding (Figure 2).
Brand warfare hotspots
offering
communicating
media
consumer
understanding
: Specific elements of brand warfare (e.g. brand confusion)
Figure 2 Schematic perception of the brand conflict presence
As an example, the way EVA Air of Taiwan have associated Hello Kitty® brand to the
airline, offers the airline an advantageous position (Pictures 1 & 2). Passengers
recognize this unique association and connect the Hello Kitty® brand to EVA Air.
Picture 1
Picture 2
Hello Kitty® and EVA Air co-branding examples
6
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
The way an offering is promoted and communicated through media is sometimes
complex. As an examples, cultural sensitivities and language differences ought to be
taken into perspective. This may result in the delivery of an unclear message that may
misrepresent the offering and affect the brand. This is a case of brand conflict.
Brand message delivery through multiple communicating channels may change the
way consumers are informed. The relation between the actual offering and the
communicating media is complex and as a result a standard clear message often is not
being delivered. The interaction may cause confusion and become a source of negative
connotations that may lead to consumer dissatisfaction.
In an airline context, we have witnessed a growth in passenger service add-ons that
give passengers the option to purchase offerings that the market does not provide.
Such offerings are often business lounge access (Priority Pass, Lounge Club program,
etc.), luggage-handling services (luggage forward, sendmybag.com, etc.), to
representation and insurance through associations like the International Airline
Passengers Association (IAPA). This is an example of the changing times in the industry
and evidence of passenger needs that are not met by current airline offerings. This is an
indication that carriers that may satisfy some of these passenger needs will be
favourable [32].
Airline service is anthropocentric as it based on human interactions. It is a
transitional process. Airline crew personify the brand image of the airline. The
provided service and overall behaviour becomes part of the brand. Airlines with the
most awards are these that invest in their people. Having new aircraft and equipment
without the equivalent human element support will not provide customer satisfaction
[33], [34]. Regardless the approach, there can still be problems that affect brand
perception and satisfaction. The may relate to a mismatch between the airline’s
business idea and image driver, that can create conflict and be the source of negative
associations (Table 1). An example of this, are customer service complaints from
Southwest Airlines passengers. Often some of these reach national and international
news when Southwest Airlines’ employees get into disagreements with passengers.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON STRATEGIC INNOVATIVE MARKETING
7
Table 1 Study map of airline brands and consumer dissatisfaction issues (Adopted by author from [35])
Airline
Idea
Southwest Airlines
Activity
Irreverence
Image Driver
Verdict
US based low-cost
Pioneer,
Has
Airline
Altruism
Southwest
Conflict
given
a
Employee-Passenger disagreements
often cause bad press
position no one
else can grab
Virgin Atlantic Airways
Iconoclasm
UK
based
& Innovation
International Airline
Richard
A youthful idea
Virgin Group associations provide a
Branson
that continues to
less favourable image
be irresistible to
an
ageing
population
EasyJet Airline
Not-ordinary,
European
Fight
Airline
for
low-cost
‘Easy’ orange
Changed
notion
your rights
the
of
Growth at the expense of losing
personal-relevance
affordable intraEuropean flying
forever
Singapore Airlines
Asian Classic
Singapore
yet Chic
Scheduled
based
Singapore Girl
Always aiming
Singapore Girl criticism
high
International Airline
British Airways
Traditional
UK based Scheduled
International Airline
Traditional
How
tradition
may
stop
Slow adapting to passenger needs
innovation
3.2. Opportunities
Marketing agencies, as well as airlines are trying to reach the consumers’ psyche
and understand how the complex decisions over distinguishing and choosing a brand
are formed. Consumers are increasingly aware of the effect of marketing methods in
trying to capture their attention. Such scepticisms among consumers have left room for
brand polemics and anti-branding movements [36] and [37]. This movement of
consumer resistance against marketers can extend to consumer boycotts – withholding
purchase and consumption in achieving certain objectives of economic or marketing
character [38].
The complex terms agencies use, the non-inclusion of consumers in product
development have led to the development of a number of problem areas known as:
brand confusion, brand over-information, brand differentiation absence, brand reality,
brand-to-product dysfunction and global branding. These will be discussed further
below (summarized in Table 2):
8
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
Table 2 Map of brand study opportunities
Authors
Addressed
Opportunity
Clancy
and
Trout,
[39];
Brand confusion
Kearney and Mitchell, [40]
Keller, [41]
Brand
over-
information
Olins, [2]; Rutter and Agne,
Brand
[42]
absence
Keller, [41]
Brand reality
Sack, [43]; and Normann, [44]
Brand dysfunction
Aaker
Global branding
and
Joachimsthaler,
differentiation
[45]
§ Brand confusion [39], [40]. Similar offering companies are faced with brand
confusion. This is more frequent between similar service providers, when one brand
gets mistaken for another. This is a result of lack of brand differentiation that comes
from the inability to communicate unique brand characteristics. Once there is a leader
in that area, competing brands will try to copy them. When this happens, unique brand
and product associations are lost. An example, when inflight entertainment (IFE) was
introduced in all classes of service by Emirates in 1992 [24], the move was immediately
copied by competitors. Similarly the first airline that offered Wi-Fi on-board had a
unique proposition. Today most airlines offer this service to their passengers.
§ Brand over-information relates to excessive level of information communicated to a
brand’s audience. Often this information projects a greater amount of information than
required to the public, providing no-added value to the communication processes of the
brand. This has been studied in terms of brand relevance and continuity [41]. Brand
information should be communicated without alienating the original source or
projecting mixed messages. In many cases this can lead to consumer distress and
possible brand rejection. A greater challenge occurs when the projected information
tries to convenience consumers to change their mind or affect present behaviours and
attitudes [46]. Technical details about aircraft performance, types of engines, flying
speed or a funny inflight safety video provide little added benefit. This is because the
passenger has no control over these factors. An over-informed passenger may perceive
further information as noise and may get displeased.
§ Brand differentiation absence occurs when the communicating processes of two or
more brands are similar [2], [42]. Firms compete on brand differentiation issues by
deploying new technologies. This is not sufficient any longer as a grounded approach
that associates to the brand overall theory is required. In this challenge, elements of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON STRATEGIC INNOVATIVE MARKETING
9
commonality between two or more organisations can be found in their visual and
verbal projected messages. In competition, companies may be able to copy a product,
but they are not easily able to copy a brand personality [3], [67]. It is the power of
sustainable differential advantage that makes consumers develop offering and brand
preference. The more similar a company’s offering is a competitor’s, the greater the
need to change something in the customers’ perception of the product, [47].
Considering the one most common colour used in aircraft cabin furnishings one can
easily provide an example. Most cabin furnishings are navy blue and this offers little
space for product differentiation.
Consumers show resistance to mass-produced products by purchasing noveltyinnovative goods, had-crafted goods and personalised items. These choices extend the
time that products maintain their uniqueness [48]. Custom-made, unique products
give their users the feel of uniqueness they often desire. In an airline context this could
translate into exclusive food and beverage on-board choices, custom amenity kits and
new product introductions. This would certainly enhance passenger loyalty.
§ Brand reality, refers to realistic brand communications. It has been studied in
terms of consistency and appropriate positioning [41]. Brand reality goes beyond a
company’s brand equity. It refers to the match between the clarity and consistency of
the projected offering messages and the reality of the perceived messages [49]. It
discusses the value of how these messages meet consumer expectations through use.
Typically what a company projects is different from what the consumer perceives in
terms of how real and feasible that is. Consumers prefer clarity in the projected
organisational responses.
An example can be provided by Singapore Airlines’
‘Singapore Girl’ cabin crew image. Some have criticized this brand driver for not being
realistic, considering the age scale of other senior airline employees or the employees of
competing airlines (Table 1). In addition, marketing communications of low-cost airlines
promote affordable ticket prices. In reality though only a percentage of these seats per
flight are sold on that low-fare basis.
§ Brand to product dysfunction and vice versa was highlighted in relation to offerings
used on a daily basis [43], [44]. This refers to cases when a negatively perceived brand
degrades the offering purely by association. The contrary is also possible when a poor
offering reflects poorly on a brand. Many of us have pulled doors that meant to be
pushed, turned a water tap that was meant to be pulled. Sometimes the blame for these
‘accidents’ is shared by the brand. Technological advance deployed in the company is
not necessarily being reflected in the present branding communicating media. When the
brand offering combination does not readily integrate with each other, supporting the
projected messages, the impression is of impairment. An offering does not necessarily
provide added value by itself, it depends on how it is packaged and promoted. When an
airline advertises completely flat seats and the passenger does not receive this, it will
reflect badly on the airline brand. If the airline advertises a premium on-board service
and what the passenger receives is monitors that do not work, switches that do not
switch, lights and IFE that do not work, then this affect negatively the brand
perception.
§ Global branding, describes unsuccessful brand approaches of brands that tried to
employ global branding campaigns [45]. This is evident when companies utilize a single
approach to all countries. This fails to observe local sensitivities or understand
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
10
customs. It is common sense that failure to meet the different economic, social,
cultural and perceptual boundaries of a country may result in brand rejection. Global
branding campaigns require a lengthy process that does not necessarily result in the
planned outcome and are often unrealistic [50]. A brand’s position may be affected by
national characteristics on the basis of economic, cultural, and geographic similarities
[51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56].
4. Brand perception
In practice we find a number of individual voices that argue against the increasing
complexity of organisations as seen by the marketing industry. They present statements
of possible change towards a more simplistic and focused brand study direction.
Corporations need clear methods for ensuring competitiveness, differentiation of
services and consumer satisfaction in the complicated new situations arising.
Terms associated with brands and corporate identity are not sharp enough to
describe the complexity of information associated with a company’s functions related to
its image.
This is one reason that a number of branding consultancies have formed their own
approach and unique terminology on the subject of brands. These terms are created
and maintained in support of each company’s own functioning. Their large and
increasing number also suggests the rise of greater complexity. These terminologies
introduce internal theory and integrity. In the external audiences these are considered
to be complex and static in the way they provide a link between the organisation and
the outside world. Subsequently we have witnessed cases where these terms are often
used mistakenly. This is a result of the complexity of the new terms and their original
concept or reinterpretation referring to a relative term different from the original.
4.1. Brand experience consumer focus
There is a necessity to concentrate on the brand and verify the messages that are
delivered and particularly how these are perceived, in order to crystallise the campaign
that will target consumer satisfaction. This will provide us with an insight of the
successful message transition through its lifecycle from projection until the time it is
understood by the consumer. It will also support the realisation of the current
positioning in relation to present brand environment.
Organisational strategies have been following one-sided approaches of technical
advance and engineering advantage. The results we have been experiencing are
offerings with excellence in technological advance and limited flexibility in brand
embodiment [57].
Techniques such as increasing the price elasticity or new offers cannot sustain the
brand’s positive image and provide a differential advantage over competition. This is
because they come after the initial organisational message has been delivered and
understood by the consumer. Dwight C. Minton, CEO of Church & Dwight, suggested
[58] that insisting on an intense protection of a brand could result in the organisation
admitting a problem area if one exists. This in turn could result in increased costs,
unfavourable government actions and a higher cost of capital. Resolving any negative
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON STRATEGIC INNOVATIVE MARKETING
11
associations to the brand is essential in sustaining a healthy brand reputation. We
need to look back into the first stages process when the message is formulated.
Great importance lays between consumer and company trust [59], [60], [61], [62]
and the meaning in consumers’ minds. The way consumers understand through the
human senses and the unique key associations formed in relation to that product are
crucial.
Brand image perception built on the consumer’s brand associations and attitude,
has been considered an integral part of brand equity and has been widely employed in
brand equity frameworks (e.g., [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]).
Distinguishing these key associations is essential for addressing the differential
advantage of the organisations offerings against competition. These key associations
suggest a method of projecting the unique identifying elements of the company’s
offerings, an answer to brand differentiation needs.
The identification and use of these unique key associations in a form of framework
suitable for future reference in all company’s communicating processes needs to be
formulated. This tool needs to focus on both theory and practice information reflecting
customer care along with at least verbal and visual means of communication
addressing respectively visual recall and verbal recognition means of the projected
brand experience. This will support the maintenance and enforcement of those
characteristics for the company identifying elements.
5. Summary
The overall mix of both tangible and intangible elements of a brand is equally
important in delivering the appropriate company’s promise and satisfying the customer.
These need to be able to address challenges of brand conflict described as brand
confusion, brand over-information etc., as these puzzle consumers and are a source of
negative connotations.
Firms employ risky branding techniques to create the feel of authenticity. These
may generate feeling of distrust. The anti-branding movement makes available to the
public eye, techniques of organisational branding. As a result, consumers are becoming
increasingly sceptical.
Consumers are looking for companies that fit the model of the round-the-corner
merchant or family-run-business store. How they treat customers, non-customers and
their own staff. As companies grow in size, and are increasingly therefore understood
as commercial entities, consumers will be able to see and judge a brand’s authenticity
and its distance from the profit motive. How original or relevant this brand identity is
to them may change.
There is no direct association between brand characteristics and consumer brand
satisfaction. Consumer brand satisfaction is associated with a memorable pleasant
experience that an airline offers. A strong association between an airline brand and
comfort will provide added value, and satisfy passenger needs. A pleasant offering (e.g.
on-board meal) becomes a positive reminder of that particular brand. This generates
brand recognition and creates value by associating the offering with the brand.
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
12
6. Discussion
Brand confusion, brand over-information, brand differentiation absence, brand
reality and brand dysfunction, have become parts of brand study. These alienate
consumers’ understanding and could harm brands by generating brand conflict.
The research opportunity is in the areas between the communication channels of
theory, practice and consumer understanding. It is exploited in subgroups of
interactions of one another and the way these are interlinked.
Knowing the pitfalls we may encounter during the brand communicating process,
we can conclude that going back to the brand basics, the point when the message is
understood by the consumer, will help us go determine a healthy basis and outline a
future direction. This depends on the projected organisational messages directed by the
level of consumer perception. This explains the need for such research focus in the
relation between consumer perceptive knowledge and the company’s brand message
development and delivery.
To provide a customised and sustainable brand experience the research needs to
follow the established brand basics developed at the stage where consumer perception
starts to be formulated towards the brand. Consumer associative networks theory
along with sources from theory, practice and information gathered by response of the
human senses (free-recall, picture recognition) towards living a certain brand
experience, may be able to addresses from a holistic perspective the increasing
opportunities rising in the battlefield of brand conflict. This will highlight the
opportunity to focus on the principles of the marketed messages and maintain an equal
brand experience delivery between the core offering and the core brand image as
projected and perceived by the consumers.
References
[1] Moynagh, M. and Worsley, R. (2002). Tomorrow’s Consumer – The Shifting Balance
of Power, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1 (3), 293-301.
[2] Olins, W. (1989). Corporate Identity, Making business strategy visible through design.
Thames and Hudson, London, p. 9.
[3] Doyle, P. (1989). Building Successful Brands: The Strategic Options. Journal of
Marketing Management 5 (1), 77-95.
[4] Holt, D. B. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer
Culture and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (1), June.
[5] Normann, Richard and Ramírez, Rafael (1994). Designing Interactive Strategy: From
Value Chain to Value Constellation, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1st edition.
[6] Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. The Journal of
Marketing, 73-80.
[7] Voss, G. B., Parasuraman A., and Grewal, D. (1998). The Roles of Price,
Performance, and Expectations in Determining Satisfaction in Service Exchanges,
Journal of Marketing 62 (4), 46-61, October.
[8] Oliver, R. L. (1980a). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research 17 (November), 460-469.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON STRATEGIC INNOVATIVE MARKETING
13
[9] Swan, E. J., and Trawick, F. I. (1981). Disconfirmation of Expectation and
Satisfaction with a Retail Service, Journal of Retailing 57 (3), 49-67.
[10] Tse, K. D., and Wilton, C. P. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation:
An Extension, Journal of Marketing Research 25, 204-212, May.
[11] Woodruff, R. B., Ernest, R. C., and Roger L. J. (1983). Modelling Consumer
Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms, Journal of Marketing Research
20, 296-304.
[12] Van, O., Stijn, M. J., Janiszewski, C. (2001). Two Ways of Learning Brand
Associations. Journal of Consumer Research 38, September.
[13] Oliver, R. L. (1980b). Theoretical Bases of Consumer Satisfaction Research: Review,
Critique and Future Direction, In: Theoretical Developments in Marketing, eds., Charles
W. Lamb and Pat M. Dunne, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
[14] Taylor, S. A. and Baker, T.L. (1994). An Assessment of the Relationship between
Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Formation of Consumers’ Purchase
Intentions, Journal of Retailing 70 (2), 163-178.
[15] Wakefield, K. L. and Blodgett, J. G. (1999). Customer Response to Intangible and
Tangible Service Factors, Psychology and Marketing 16 (1), 51-68, January.
[16] Richens. L. M. (1983). Negative Word of Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot
Study, Journal of Marketing, 47 (1), 69-78, Winter.
[17] Matzler K., and Hinterhuber H. H. (1998). How to Make Product Development
Projects More Successful by Intergrating Kano’s Model of Customer Satisfaction into
Quality Function Deployment, Technovation 18 (1), 25-38, January.
[18] Zeithaml A. V. , Berry, L. L., and Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioural
consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 31-46, April.
[19] Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I. and Rentz, J. O. (1996). A Measure of Service
Quality for Retail Stores: Scale Development and Validation, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 24 (Winter), 3-16.
[20] Russell, J.A. and Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38, 311-322.
[21] Sackett, P J. and Kefallonitis, E. G. (2003). Using feature design to showcase the
corporate brand, Brand Frontiers: Designing More than Experiences, Design
Management Journal 14 (1), Winter
[22] Hui K. M., and Bateson, J. E. (1991). Perceived control and consumer choice on the
service experience, Journal of Consumer Research 18 (2), 174-185, September.
[23] Baker, J. (1986). The role of environment in marketing services: The consumer
perspective . In: Congram Carole, Czepiel John, and Shanahan Jim (Eds.), The Services
Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage (pp. 79-84). Chicago, IL: American
Marketing Association.
[24] Alamdari, F. (1999). Airline in-flight Entertainment: The Passengers’ perspective,
Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999), 203-209.
[25] Viscusi, W. K., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2003). Sacrificing civil liberties to reduce
terrorism risks (pp. 1-22). Springer US.
[26] Gkritza, K., Niemeier, D., & Mannering, F. (2006). Airport security screening and
changing passenger satisfaction: An exploratory assessment. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 12(5), 213-219.
[27] Rutter, G. B. (1996). Measuring the Design Experience, Design Management Journal
7 (4), 72-76.
14
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
[28] Bassett, P. R. (2012). Passenger comfort in air transportation. Journal of the
Aeronautical Sciences (Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences), 2(2).
[29] Vink, P., Bazley, C., Kamp, I., & Blok, M. (2012). Possibilities to improve the aircraft
interior comfort experience. Applied ergonomics, 43(2), 354-359.
[30] Ciloglu, H., Alziadeh, M., Mohany, A., & Kishawy, H. (2015). Assessment of the
whole body vibration exposure and the dynamic seat comfort in passenger aircraft.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 45, 116–123.
[31] Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000). An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship
between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment, Psychology and Marketing 17
(9), 761-782, September.
[32] Livingstone, A., Popovic, V., Kraal, B. J., & Kirk, P. J. (2012). Understanding the
airport passenger landside retail experience. DRS 2012 Bangkok–Research: Uncertainty,
Contradiction and Value, 1.
[33] Archana, R., and Subha, M. V. (2012). A study on service quality and passenger
satisfaction on Indian airlines. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(2),
50-63.
[34] Namukasa, J. (2013). The influence of airline service quality on passenger
satisfaction and loyalty: The case of Uganda airline industry. The TQM Journal, 25(5),
520-532.
[35] Jones, R. (2000). The Big Idea, HarperCollinsBusiness, London.
[36] Klein, N. (2000). No Logo, Flamingo, London, 1st Edition.
[37] Lasn, K. (2000). Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America™, New York: Quill.
[38] Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding Consumption: A Social
Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts, Journal of Consumer Research 28 (3), 399417, December.
[39] Clancy, K. J., and Trout, J. (2002). Brand Confusion, Harvard Business Review 80
(3), 22, March.
[40] Kearney, I. and Mitchell, V. W. (2001). Measuring consumer brand confusion to
comply with legal guidelines, International Journal of Market Research 43 (1), 85-91,
Henley-on-Thames.
[41] Keller, K. L. (2000). The Brand Report Card, Harvard Business Review 78 (1), 147157, January-February.
[42] Rutter G. B. and Agne A. W. J. (1998). A Darwinian theory of Good Design. Design
Management Journal 9 (4), 36-41.
[43] Sack, M. (1998). Using Research to Create Visual and Verbal Agreement. Design
Management Journal 9 (4), 59-63 Fall.
[44] Normann A. D. (1998). The Design of Everyday Things, The MIT Press, London,
England, 1st Edition.
[45] Aaker, A. D., and Joachimsthaler, E. (1999). The Lure of Global Branding, Harvard
Business Review 77 (6), 137-144, November – December.
[46] Sutherland, M. (2001). Editorial: For effective strategy pre-empt resistance. Journal
of Brand Management 9 (2), 85-88, November, London
[47] Sharp, B., and Dawes, J. (2001). What is Differentiation and How Does it Work?
Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (7-8), 739-759, September.
[48] Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness:
Scale Development and Validation, Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1), 50-66, June.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON STRATEGIC INNOVATIVE MARKETING
15
[49] Kohli, C., and Leuthesser, L. (2001). Brand Equity: Capitalising on Intellectual
Capital. Ivey Business Journal 65 (4), 74-81, March-April.
[50] Kavoura, A. (2014). Advertising activities in social media and the creation of a
community belonging in the digital era. The Małopolska School of Economics in Tarnów
Research Papers Collection, 24 (2), 97-106.
[51] Roth, S. M. (1992). Depth Versus Breath Strategies for Global Brand Image
Management, Journal of Advertising 21, 25-36, June.
[52] Roth S. M. (1995a). Effects of Global Market Conditions on Brand Image
Customization and Brand Performance, Journal of Advertising 24, 55-75, Winter.
[53] Roth S. M. (1995b). The Effects of Cultural and Socio-economics on the
Performance of Global Brand Image Strategies, Journal of Marketing Research 32, 163175, May.
[54] Kavoura, A. (2013). Politics of heritage promotion: branding the identity of the
Greek state, Tourism, Culture and Communication 12 (2/3), 69-83.
[55] Kavoura, A. and Bitsani, E. (2013). Managing the World Heritage Site of the
Acropolis, Greece International Journal of Advances in Culture and Tourism Hospitality
Research, 7(1), 58-67.
[56] Kavoura, A. (2001). State policy for the presentation of Greek National Heritage: the
case of the Cultural World Heritage Sites. Stirling, UK: PhD Dissertation, University of
Stirling, UK.
[57] Kefallonitis, E. G. and Sackett, P. J. (2003). Brand and Product Integration for
Consumer Recognition: A Review. In: Design and Emotion, eds., Deana McDonagh, Paul
Hekkert, Diane Gyi and Jeroen van Erp, Taylor & Francis, London (in print).
[58] Kirby, J. (2002). Harvard Business Review Case Study: The Skeleton in the
corporate closet. Harvard Business Review 80 (6), 35-48, June.
[59] Aaker, A. D. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. The Free Press, New York.
[60] Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualising, measuring and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1), 1-22.
[61] Peter J. P., Olson C. J., and Grunert Klaus (1993). Consumer Behaviour and
Marketing Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
[62] Krishnan, S. H. (1996). Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-based
brand equity perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (4), 389-405,
October.
[63] Aaker, A. D. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets,
California Management Review 38 (Spring), 10220.
[64] Agarwal, M. K., and Rao V.R. (1996). An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based
Measures of Brand Equity, Marketing Letters 7 (3), 237-247.
[65] Feldwick, P. (1996). What is Brand Equity Anyway, and How do you Measure it?,
Journal of the Market Research Society 38, 85-104, April.
[66] Srivastava, R. K., and Shocker, A. D. (1991). Brand Equity: A Prospective on Its
Meaning and Measurement, Working Paper No. 91-124. Cambridge, MA: Marketing
Science Institute.
[67] Park, C. S., and Srinivasan, V., (1994). A Survey-based Method for Measuring and
Understanding Brand Equity and its Extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research, 31,
271-288.
16
AIRLINE BRAND DISSATISFACTION: AN OVERVIEW
[68] Nasiopoulos D. K., Sakas D. P., Vlachos D.S. and Mavrogianni A. (2015).
Modeling of market segmentation for new IT product development. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 1644 (pp. 51).
[69] Sakas D. P., Vlachos D.S., Nasiopoulos D. K. (2014). Modelling strategic
management for the development of competitive advantage, based on technology.
Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 187 - 209.
[70] Nasiopoulos D. K., Sakas D. P. and Vlachos D.S. (2014). Analysis of Strategic
Leadership Simulation Models in Non-profit Organizations. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 276-284.