Item Analysis

Individual item analysis was performed to investigate the means and standard deviations of the items pertaining to the constructs for the base model. In Stage 2 (factor analysis) the scores were pooled for each context to investigate the interrelationships between the constructs. The initial pool of 28 pairs of scale items was refined following generally accepted purification guidelines (e.g., Anderson &

Gerbing 1982, 1988; Arnold & Reynolds 2003; Churchill 1979; Hair et al. 1998). As the goal was to have reliable and valid scales that apply to both contexts, salesperson likeability and retail store image scales were examined simultaneously. When items performed poorly, they were removed. First, corrected item-to-total sub-scale correlations were examined for each set of items representing a construct. Items with corrected item-total sub-scale correlations below .40 were considered for deletion (Arnold & Reynolds 2003; Nunnally 1978). After investigation, four items were

174

deleted; viz., satisfaction, purchase decision, retail store image and commitment toward store. Second, correlations among items measuring the same dimension were examined. Items with inter-item correlations smaller than .40 with similar traits were considered for deletion; no additional items were removed in this phase. After these two item analyses, the remaining 24 pairs of items were used for further clarification and refinement (see Table 4.5).

{(TRUSP)-Trust on Salesperson, (COMRS)-Commitment on retail store, (CN)- Customer need, (SF)- Salesperson frankness, (SI)-Self Interest, (SRI)-Store retail Image, (ORI)- Offering retail Image, (ROF)- Relationship orientation financial, (ROS)- Relationship orientation social, (ROST)- Relationship orientation structural, (STI)-Store involvement, (PRI)-Product involvement, (GI)-General Intention, (SPI)-Specific Intention.}

Due to the number of items and associated factors that comprise each of the six constructs, analysis of the structural model was performed with a composite measure of the manifest indicators. Each of the resultant measures comprised the mean of the items along a 10-point scale (see above Table 4.5) in which the mean of the 14 measures ranged between 6.00 and 7.87. Effectively, this represented a variation in the intensity of each construct within the consumer–retailer relationship and was consistent with the earlier conceptual work of Wilson (1995) that suggested key relational constructs are more active at some stages of the relationship, and often latent in others. Unfortunately this was not the focus of the current research, therefore

175

this line of reasoning needs to be explored more fully in further empirical studies (discussed in the implications and future research in Chapter 5).

Table 4.6: Means of Major Variables

Variables SPL RSI RO INV TRUSP COMRS PI Total

Mean 6.77 7.15 6.88 7.66 6.89 6.43 6.33 6.87

Table 4.7: Mean of Sub-category Variables Derived from Main Dependent

& Independent Variables

Variable Mean averages

TRUSP 6.89

COMRS 6.43

CN 7.30

SF 7.56

SI 6.04

SRI 6.73

ORI 7.78

ROF 6.81

ROS 6.43

ROST 7.21

STI 7.87

PRI 7.39

GI 6.00

SPI 6.67

Total 6.98

In Table 4.6, the descriptive statistics indicate that the most important variable in the model was Involvement with a mean of 7.66; respondents reported involvement in the purchase decision to be critical and this could possibly explain the need to engage with the salesperson. Thus, personal involvement is likely to be an important determinant in salesperson likeability, trust towards the salesperson and relationship orientation. When the sub-variables of salesperson likeability were compared, respondents gave the lowest rankings in the entire group to salesperson self interest (mean = 6.04) demonstrating that respondents are not interested in dealing with salespersons that have self interest rather than customer interest as their focal point.

Secondly, whilst the literature indicated that customer needs are critical (Bruhn 2003), the results showed that respondents believe that a salesperson who is frank in their opinions, explanations and clarifications, and who argues with the customer in the customer’s best interests (mean = 7.56) is just as important as a salesperson who merely understands consumer needs (7.3). This implies that whilst customer needs are paramount, a salesperson that is frank in consulting with the consumer is respected by the purchaser of high-tech products.

176

Another observation derived from the descriptive analysis, in terms of retail store image, was that respondents placed a higher importance upon product offerings (mean

= 7.78) than store offerings (mean = 6.73). This is not surprising because store offerings are based on the physical attributes of the retail store, which create the foundations of retail store image. However, respondents are keen to know what the store offers them in terms of direct benefits — reflected through store service; after-sales service; versatile product range and profile; price deals; warranty service; and whether faulty products are repaired without hassle. In today’s competitive environment, respondents are not afraid to express their opinion about what they want in direct benefits and in making ‘deals’ with retailers rather than just relying on the intangible benefits associated with retail store image.

In the relationship orientation construct, 3 factors were extracted; viz., relationship orientation on financial bonding (ROF); relational orientation on social bonding (ROS); and relational orientation on structural bonding (ROST). The result provides empirical evidence of Berry’s (1995) levels of relationship marketing, with the descriptive analysis showing the means of these factors to be 6.81; 6.43 and 7.21 respectively. The evidence was that respondents are least interested in the social activities of the retail store (the lowest mean = 6.43, and their major interest is the relationship orientation created by the retailer through financial incentive bonds and relational structural bonds. Customers indicated they wanted good price deals to complement structural relationship bonding with the retailer and, at the same time, they give more weight where retailers give good financial bonding, social bonding by sending personalised gifts, treating customers as special and giving special deals to privileged customers. The mean of the relational structural bond (mean = 7.21) indicates this to be the most important aspect of a retailer’s relational orientation with the customer.

The factor analysis of involvement extracted 2 factors which were labelled store involvement and product involvement. The means for these factors indicated customers place a slightly higher importance on store involvement (mean = 7.87) than product involvement (PRI mean = 7.39); an unexpected result given respondents indicated the importance of direct benefits from the retailer in terms of financial incentives and structural bonds. However, it can be assumed that respondents feel that

177

they should get involved in store offerings and retail store image rather than product involvement.

For purchase intention, two factors were extracted; viz., general intention (mean = 6.0) and specific purchase intention (mean = 6.67). The factor loadings indicated that respondents are clear with their specific intention to buy a laptop from a particular retailer. This is a big motivating factor, reflected in the weighting that respondents gave to specific intention; in essence, meaning that respondents wanted to pursue their laptop purchase from a particular store. The results should motivate retailers of technology-based products, however, because at the time of the study fieldwork the global economy was at a low-ebb yet respondents were bullish and willing to take a risk in relation to the purchase decision for laptops.

When the mean average of retail store image was compared with salesperson likeability, respondents gave a higher mean ranking to retail store image (mean = 7.15) compared to Salesperson Likeability (mean = 6.77); thus, respondents have more confidence in retail store image than salesperson likeability. Take Harvey Norman, the largest chain in Australia and New Zealand offering technology, furniture, bedding and electrical products; their brand equity is relatively strong because consumers place trust in Harvey Norman and are more loyal and committed to it than other leading retailers such as The Good Guys, RT Edwards, Clive Anthony, Clive Peeters, Myers or Dick Smith. This trust provides the foundation on which salespersons can improve their skills through investing in building stronger relationships with their customers which, in turn, helps build confidence in dealing with the salesperson. Consequently, consumers are likely to purchase products from particular salespersons because they feel that the retailer makes a positive impact on them; they don’t buy products because a particular salesperson is not working in the retail store. However, personal experience in the retail industry suggests that consumers look for a particular salesperson to deal with because they trust in their knowledge and skills and are attracted to the good customer service and relational bonding that certain salespersons provide. Despite this, the research evidence indicated that retail store image has an advantage over salesperson likeability. That means if the retail store image is good, it will act as the attraction to get the customer into the store, and then the focus can shift to the capacity of the salesperson to build

178

the relationship culminating in the salesperson effectively and efficiently closing the sale. On the other hand, when the retail store image is poor, the salesperson will need to work much harder upon the attributes and personality characteristics mentioned earlier in order to convert ‘store visitors’ into ‘paying customers’. The results presented indicated that salespeople need to work on grooming their skills to be more pleasant and acceptable to customers.

In the next section, the approach taken to assess the validity and reliability of the scales used in the research is discussed.