Post on 03-Feb-2022
APPLICATION OF ACSI MODEL IN BRANDED COFFEE
INDUSTRY TO PREDICT CUSTOMER LOYALTY
By
Ngakan Bagus Anugrah Wisesa
015201400062
A Skripsi presented to the
Faculty of Business President University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Bachelor Degree in Business Administration
April 2018
i
ii
CONSENT FOR INTELECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT
Title of
Skripsi
Application of ACSI Model in Branded Coffee Industry
to Predict Customer Loyalty
1. The Author hereby assigns to President University the copyright to the
Contribution named above whereby the University shall have the exclusive
right to publish the Contribution and translations of it wholly or in part
throughout the world during the full term of copyright including renewals and
extensions and all subsidiary rights.
2. The Author retains the right to re-publish the preprint version of the
Contribution without charge and subject only to notifying the University of
the intent to do so and to ensuring that the publication by the University is
properly credited and that the relevant copyright notice is repeated verbatim.
3. The Author retains moral and all proprietary rights other than copyright, such
as patent and trademark rights to any process or procedure described in the
Contribution.
4. The Author guarantees that the Contribution is original, has not been
published previously, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere and
that any necessary permission to quote or reproduce illustrations from another
iv source has been obtained (a copy of any such permission should be sent
with this form).
iii
5. The Author guarantees that the Contribution contains no violation of any
existing copyright or other third-party right or material of an obscene,
indecent, libelous or otherwise unlawful nature and will indemnify the
University against all claims arising from any breach of this warranty.
6. The Author declares that any named person as co-author of the Contribution is
aware of this agreement and has also agreed to the above warranties.
Name Ngakan Bagus Anugrah Wisesa
Date April 19th
, 2018
Signature
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would first like to thank my Savior, Ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa for his countless
blessings and strengths to finish this skripsi. I would also like to express my gratitude
towards the people who always support me throughout this skripsi, which are:
1. My dear family, especially my parents and my sister, thank you for all the
supports, prayers, and advice.
2. My advisor, Prof. Dr. Ajay Chauhan the Dean of Faculty of Business at
President University. Thank you for your time, guidance, patience, and
attention. It is an honored to have you as my advisor.
3. Ms. Lina as the Secretary of Business Administration study program and the
lecturers in President University. Thank you for the support, experience,
knowledge, and skills that you have given to me for the past three years.
4. My best friends, Ni Putu Ardilayanti and I Nyoman Krishna Dananjaya.
Thank you for your motivation, and support.
5. My friends and to all parties which I cannot mention one by one. Thank you
for your help and support.
Cikarang, April 2018
Ngakan Bagus Anugrah Wisesa
v
PLAGIARISM DOCUMENT
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
PANEL OF EXAMINERS ............................................................................................ I
CONSENT FOR INTELECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT ............................................ II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................... IV
PLAGIARISM DOCUMENT ..................................................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENT .............................................................................................. VI
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. X
CHAPTER I .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................... 2
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ........................................................................... 2
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 3
1.5 SIGNIFICANT OF STUDY ........................................................................... 4
1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ........................................... 5
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ............................................................. 5
CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 7
2.2 EUROPEAN CONSUMER SATISFACTION INDEX (ECSI) ..................... 7
2.3 AMERICAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX (ACSI) ..................... 8
2.4 CUSTOMER LOYALTY .............................................................................. 9
vii
2.5 CUSTOMER COMPLAINT ........................................................................ 10
2.6 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ................................................................... 10
2.7 PERCEIVED VALUE .................................................................................. 11
2.8 PERCEIVED QUALITY ............................................................................. 11
2.9 CUSTOMER EXPECTATION .................................................................... 12
2.10 RESEARCH GAP ........................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................. 15
3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 15
3.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 15
3.3 HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................. 16
3.4 OPERATION DEFINITION ........................................................................ 16
3.5 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ...................................................................... 18
3.5.1 QUESTIONNAIRE CONSTRUCTION ..................................................... 18
3.5.2 RELIABILITY ............................................................................................ 20
3.5.3 VALIDITY ................................................................................................. 20
3.6 SAMPLING PLAN ...................................................................................... 21
3.6.1 POPULATION .......................................................................................... 21
3.6.2 SAMPLING METHOD ............................................................................. 22
3.6.3 SAMPLE SIZE .......................................................................................... 22
3.7 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN ........................................................................... 23
CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................. 24
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 24
viii
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 24
4.2.1 CONFORMITY OF RELIABILITY ........................................................... 24
4.2.2 RESPONDENT PROFILE ........................................................................ 25
4.2.3 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 26
4.3 INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 32
4.3.1 INTERPRETATION OF SEM MODEL .................................................... 34
4.3.2 INTERPRETATION OF RESULT ............................................................ 37
CHAPTER V .............................................................................................................. 42
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 42
5.1 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 42
5.2 FUTURE RECOMMENDATION ............................................................... 43
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 44
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 47
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................ 47
FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 56
FIGURE 2.1: FONELL SCSB MODEL .................................................................. 56
FIGURE 3.1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................... 56
FIGURE 4.1: STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (SEM) RESULT ......... 57
TABLES ..................................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 3.1: SOURCE OF THE QUESTION ......................................................... 58
ix
TABLE 3.2: PILOT TEST ....................................................................................... 60
TABLE 3.3: VALIDITY TESTING RESULT ........................................................ 61
TABLE 4.1: CONFORMITY OF RELIABILITY .................................................. 62
TABLE 4.2: RESPONDENT PROFILE ANALYSIS RESULT ............................. 63
TABLE 4.3: FREQUENCY TABLE OF CUSTOMER EXPECTATION .............. 64
TABLE 4.4: FREQUENCY TABLE OF PERCEIVED QUALITY ....................... 64
TABLE 4.5: FREQUENCY TABLE OF PERCEIVED VALUE ............................ 64
TABLE 4.6: FREQUENCY TABLE OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ............. 64
TABLE 4.7: FREQUENCY TABLE OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINT .................. 65
TABLE 4.8: FREQUENCY TABLE OF CUSTOMER LOYALTY ...................... 65
TABLE 4.9: SEM MODEL FIT TEST RESULT .................................................... 66
TABLE 4.10: REGRESSION WEIGHT RESULT ................................................. 66
TABLE 4.11: SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATION ...................................... 66
TABLE 4.11: HYPOTHESIS TESTING RESULT................................................. 67
x
ABSTRACT
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to apply the American Customer Satisfaction Index
(ACSI) Framework toward the branded coffee industry and find out the influences
between ACSI dimensions which are customer expectation, perceived quality,
perceived quality, customer satisfaction, customer complaint, and customer loyalty in
order to predict the customer loyalty in Indonesian branded coffee industry.
Design/Method/Approach
The online questionnaire spread randomly and 384 feedback in total were received.
The questionnaire distributed randomly to citizen of Jakarta who have already visited
the branded coffee shop. Validity and reliability analysis were tested using SPSS
v.24. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was conducted using SPSS v.24 and
AMOS v.24 to test the hypothesis given from this study.
Findings
From the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis can be found that all the
factor have the influence to the other factor inside ACSI framework and leading
toward customer satisfaction and loyalty. But in the finding, perceived quality do not
have a significant impact toward perceived value and customer satisfaction, and
customer satisfaction also do not have a significant impact toward customer
complaint.
xi
Originality/Value
The ACSI method or framework has been used by many other researchers that in case
of customer satisfaction and loyalty. Furthermore, the research that using ACSI
method or framework mostly conducted around United States of America. Therefore,
this study used the same approach and used in Indonesia which have different culture
from America.
Keywords: American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), Branded Coffee Shop,
Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This study is about the analysis of the customer satisfaction towards branded
coffee industry in Indonesia. Representing International chain of coffee shop and
brand in Jakarta the author used Starbucks and Circle K Coffee. Representing
massive local brand, the author used J.CO Coffee and Maxx Coffee. The increasing
interest of society or customer’s in coffee shops is related to several aspects such as
branding, taste and place (Wicaksono & Sitompul, 2013). The interest has increased
by roughly ten percent for the past year. Although it might not be an equal interest of
which coffee shops or brand has the most interest increased of customers.
Since coffee consumption in Indonesia is expected to grow from 3.32 million
bags GBE (green been equivalent) in 2016-17 to 3.4 million bags GBE in 2017-18 (
(Global Agricultural Information Network, 2017). Consumption growth is being
driven by Indonesia’s expanding middle class, and their growing taste for coffee. This
is supported by the growth of retail coffee outlets and retail chains such as Starbucks,
J.CO, Maxx Coffee, and Circle K Coffee. Starbucks has grown to 326 retail outlets in
Indonesia since 2002 (Starbucks, 2018), while Maxx has grown to 70 outlets since
opening in 2015 (Global Agricultural Information Network, 2017) driven by the
growth of coffee consumption by the middle class. From this fact, there is a room to
2
increase the coffee consumption by make the branded coffee shop. Nowadays, many
branded coffee shop spread around Indonesia that offering branded coffee with a
premium taste. The branded coffee shop also offered for those who would like to
place to hang out with friends and family or even business colleagues. In this study,
the researcher try to predict the customer loyalty toward the branded coffee shop in
Indonesia using ACSI framework.
1.2 Research Problem
The competition is fierce among coffee sellers. As on January, 2018
Starbucks leads the pack with 326 outlets in 22 cities but it is difficult to predict who
will lead in future. To make any business projection, it is important to see what drives
the coffee customers in Indonesia driven by the millennial generation. In short it is
important to see how coffee customer gets satisfied and what will make coffee
customer loyal to a particular coffee brand or coffee retail chain. The theoretical
background is provided by American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which
predicts the customer satisfaction and loyalty based on measures of customer
expectation, perceived quality and perceived value. The research problem taken up in
this study is to validate ACSI model with respect to the branded coffee consumption
in Indonesia.
1.3 Research Objectives
There are several research objective for this study which as explained in the below:
3
1. To find out the influence of customer expectation toward perceived quality for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
2. To find out the influence of customer expectation towards customer perceived
value for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
3. To find out the influence of customer expectation towards customer
satisfaction for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
4. To find out the influence of To find out the influence of perceived quality
towards perceived value for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
5. To find out the influence of perceived quality towards customer satisfaction
for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
6. To find out the influence of perceived value towards customer satisfaction for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
7. To find out the influence of customer satisfaction towards customer complaint
or customer loyalty for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
8. To find out the influence of customer satisfaction towards customer loyalty
for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
9. To find out the influence of customer complain towards customer loyalty for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia
1.4 Research Questions
From the research objective, the objective can be translated into this following
research question:
4
1. Is there any influence of customer expectation toward perceived quality for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
2. Is there any influence of customer expectation towards customer perceived
value for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
3. Is there any influence of customer expectation towards customer satisfaction
for Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
4. Is there any influence of perceived quality towards perceived value for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
5. Is there any influence of perceived quality towards customer satisfaction for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
6. Is there any influence of perceived value towards customer satisfaction for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
7. Is there any influence of customer satisfaction towards customer complain for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
8. Is there any influence of customer satisfaction towards customer loyalty for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
9. Is there any influence of customer complain towards customer loyalty for
Branded coffee industry in Indonesia?
1.5 Significant of Study
The theoretical significant is the ACSI framework has not been used for
branded coffee consumption in Indonesia. If the model fits the respondent data, it will
further establish the universal applicability of ACSI framework and the further
5
implication for satisfaction study. For the practical significant, the branded coffee
sellers can be advised about the importance of customer expectation, customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty and how to manage these variable.
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study
This research concentrates on the components influencing the buy aim
towards Coffee shops and products in Jakarta territory as it were. The elements
influencing which will be additionally talked about here is just constrained into
Customer desire may hold a wide range variable, however in this research, author
concentrate on Big Local brand coffee shops, Big International brand coffee shops,
convenient store coffee brands, and small local coffee mark. The aftereffect of this
examination may not be connected to different products advertising. In any case, this
research may tile the route for the more exhaustive approaching researches to be
broke down further.
1.7 Organization of the Study
This study consists of five chapter which are, introduction, literature review,
methodology, result and analysis, and conclusion. Introduction, as the first chapter,
will be explain about the source of the problem, phenomena in industry, and brief
explanation about the ACSI variable. The second chapter consist of all the variable
theory regarding the study. Since this chapter is literature review, in this chapter the
researcher will explain about the theory of ACSI and other theory that include in this
6
study. Methodology consist of the framework of the study, population and data
gathering plan, and also validity and reliability. The forth chapter will explain about
the result of the study, data processing, and the result interpretation. The last chapter
is conclusion, where the researcher conclude all of the study and give a
recommendation to future study.
7
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter the author would like to break down the theory that are being
used in this very thesis. The importance of this chapter is to explain on how the
theory support the analysis in this research. Before the author analyze deeper through
the data that has been gathered it is imperative for the author to explained the theory
behind all the arguments made in this thesis. Whether or not the theory match might
be viewed from this chapter to understand better the research and to avoid confusion.
In this research the author is going to use American Customer’s satisfaction Index or
ACSI. However, other than ACSI there are another theory that the author would like
to explained first and then compare with ACSI to come into conclusion on why the
author used ACSI as the base theory in this research instead of the other theory that
exist.
2.2 European Consumer Satisfaction Index (ECSI)
European experts has been develop The ECSI model based on a set of requirements
(Sarantidou, 2017). According to Bayol et al (2000) & Kristensen et al (2000) The
initial ECSI model consists of seven variable that drives the model; there are five
remote variables which are customer expectations, perceived product quality,
8
perceived service quality, perceived value, and image that become the drivers of the
two central variables which are satisfaction and loyalty (Sarantidou, 2017). ACSI has
introduced a new indictor for satisfaction since 1996 which is consistency of
information while ECSI has not directly included information in their models even
though the effect of information in the selection of manifest variables and was
reflected in some of manifest variables (Yang, Tian, & Zhang, 2004). Due to this
circumstance, the researcher decided not to use ECSI for this study.
2.3 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
Figure 2.1: Fonell SCSB Model
As can be found in the Figure 2.1 above. The ACSI (American Customer
Satisfaction Index), in view of SCSB show which was created by researchers at the
National Quality Research Center at the University of Michigan in 1994, is a measure
of quality of products or administrations as experienced by customer (ACSI, 2018).
The ACSI demonstrate is a circumstances and end results show which begins from
customer expectations to perceived quality, and to perceived value, then those
components affected on customer satisfaction (ACSI) in which the main point, in the
end it leading into two outcomes which is customer complaints or customer loyalty
(Fornell, et al., 2008).
The researcher uses ACSI methodology as it is a versatile model that is
applicable across industries by organizations to benchmark their own customer
9
satisfaction due to its consistent, reliable, and precise approach (ACSI, 2018). By
that, it has been commonly used to measure customer satisfaction and loyalty in retail
industry all over the world (Biscaia, Rosa, e Sa, & Sarrico, 2017). However, ACSI
has not been done in retail industry in Indonesia, particularly in Jabodetabek. Thus,
the researcher would like to see if the ACSI model is applicable in predicting the
customer loyalty on retail industry which in this study is branded coffee shop.
2.4 Customer Loyalty
Customer loyalty can be defined as someone who has a commitment to do a
repeat buying or revisit a chosen product or service constantly in the future; therefore
there will be repeat buying on the same brand, even when there are some situational
factors and marketing hard work that can affect switching behavior (Giovanis &
Athanasopoulou, 2014). On the other hand, Ergun (2013) stated since loyal customers
always make a repeat purchase, it makes the profitability of the firms increase in the
long run. Moreover, Jeong & Lee (2010) founded that customer loyalty means that
whoever make a repeat purchase on goods with exact subject such as product,
service, brand, etc. with the change of circumstance. Shafei & Tabaa (2016) add
another meaning of customer loyalty which it can be express as a level of
permanency in repetitive purchase with customer’s commitment toward the brand.
Customer loyalty can be defined as likelihood of repeat purchase, or repeat purchases
in spite of price increases or positive recommendation to other buyers (Giovanis &
Athanasopoulou, 2015; Shafei & Tabaa, 2016). The customer loyalty is the ultimate
goal or ACSI or similar satisfaction models because to retaining a loyal customer is
10
cheaper than acquiring a new customer (Othman, Kamarohim, & Nizam, 2017). In
conclusion, customer loyalty is a behavior of customers who always do a repeat
buying on the same brand, which driven by the satisfaction toward the
product/service.
2.5 Customer Complaint
Customer complaint can be defined as a response action form the customer
where they expresses their dissatisfaction with products or services. According to
Fornell et al. (1996) if the relationship between the level of customer complaints and
the level of customer loyalty is positive, then the company is successfully turning
complaining customers into loyal customers (Awwad, 2012). The more satisfied the
customers the less chance they will complain, therefore, satisfaction has a negative
relationship with customer complaints (ACSI, 2018).
2.6 Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction has been defined as an evaluation of the perceived
discrepancy between prior expectations and the actual performance of the product as
perceived after its consumption (Othman, Kamarohim, & Nizam, 2017). Satisfaction
can be define as degree or level of meeting the needs or expectation at the end of a
purchase (ACSI, 2018). Customer satisfaction is widely recognized as a key influence
in the formation of consumers’ future purchase intentions. Therefore, customer
satisfaction has become a vital concern for companies and organizations in their
efforts to improve product and service quality, and maintain customer loyalty within
11
a highly competitive marketplace (Awwad, 2012). In the retail industry, Customer
satisfaction can be defined as a post-purchase evaluation of how well a product or
service meets or exceeds the customer expectations (Biscaia, Rosa, e Sa, & Sarrico,
2017).
2.7 Perceived Value
Perceived value is defined as comparison between value of the product or
service toward the price of the product or service in the mind of the customer
(Othman, Kamarohim, & Nizam, 2017). Although price (value for money) is often
very important to the customer's first purchase, it usually has a somewhat smaller
impact on satisfaction for repeat purchases (ACSI, 2018). In other hand, perceived
value can also be defined as the price that customer will accept when purchasing a
certain product or service, which means that when the price is lower than customer
acceptance the customer value will increase (Li, 2017). In the other means that the
customer do not know the price of the product or service. After purchasing, customer
will analyze whether the price is worthwhile for the product which may lead to
satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Othman, Kamarohim, & Nizam, 2017). This condition
will affect the increasing customer satisfaction while the customer think that they feel
satisfied about the product compared with the cost they paid.
2.8 Perceived Quality
Perceived quality can be defined as the overall assessment of the products or
services superiority or excellence based on the users point of view (Li, 2017). Other
12
relevant studies also reported that the consumers' judgment about a product or service
containing overall excellence or superiority considered as perceived quality
(Marakanon & Panjakajornsak, 2017). Perceived quality is measured by which is the
degree to which a product or service meets the customer's individual needs and how
reliable the product or service (ACSI, 2018). Moreover, Biscaia, e Sa, Moura, &
Sarrico (2017) define perceived quality as the perception of quality that relates to
judgments with the quality of the product or service being sold or delivered, both the
tangible aspect such as reliability of the product or service and intangible aspect such
as decency and waiting time. In the other hand, increasing the perceived quality of
product or service is important in formulating or building the customer satisfaction
that will also leading toward customer loyalty (Biscaia, Rosa, e Sa, & Sarrico, 2017).
2.9 Customer Expectation
According to Zeithaml et al. (2006), Customer expectation defined as
customer beliefs toward the product or service delivery compared against the product
quality or service performance is done; which mean that customer expectation is the
relation between the customer prior expectation about the product or service and the
comprehension of product or service quality (William, Appiah, & Botchway, 2014).
Expectations is expressing both prior consumption experience that include
information like advertising and a forecast of the company's ability to deliver quality
in the future (ACSI, 2018). In the other hand, Reena & Singh (2017) stated that
customer expectations are comparison between expected service deliveries that work
as reference points against which performance is judged (Reena & Singh, 2017).
13
Moreover, Awwad (2012) founded that customer expectations refer to the
comparison of quality that customers expect to receive and the result of prior
consumption experience of products or services (Awwad, 2012). When the product or
service exceed customer expectation, this is where the customer satisfaction will
occurs (Othman, Kamarohim, & Nizam, 2017).
2.10 Research Gap
On some previous study, ACSI framework already used in many state
problem of customer satisfaction and also customer loyalty. In this study, the
researcher use ACSI framework toward the branded coffee shop industry to predict
the customer loyalty. When the customer of the branded coffee shop come and visit,
they will hope that they will get what they expected to archive satisfaction and
loyalty. Therefore, customer expectation is become a critical factor to both customer
value and customer satisfaction (Awwad, 2012). In other hand, to create customer
loyalty, customer satisfaction and complain is the important thing. In this research,
the customer complaint will badly impact the customer loyalty in the view of
complaint handling. While all these studies highlight the importance of the stated
variables which are Customer expectations, perceived quality, perceived value,
customer satisfaction, customer complaint, and customer loyalty, ACSI model is the
only model to put a structure to these loose relationships. For the methodology, the
researcher use ACSI rather than ECSI because ACSI model/methodology is more
popular or commonly used in researching customer satisfaction and loyalty for a
14
product or service. Therefore, the ACSI model is worth exploring further and
validating.
15
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
To understand and consider the elements that affect a particular phenomenon,
a methodology is required. This chapter will examine the methods and research
processes used and applied by researchers in this study. In more detail, the purpose of
this chapter is to describe theoretical frameworks, hypothesis, operational definitions
of variables, research instruments and sampling plan which includes population,
sample size, the margin of error, sampling technique, data collection method, validity
,and reliability.
3.2 Theoretical Framework
As mentioned before in the previous chapter, literature review, there are 5
variable that influences the customer loyalty on ACSI framework which are customer
expectation, perceived quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer
complain. These are the ASCI framework that become the research framework is
given in Figure 3.1 below:
Figure 3.1: Theoretical Framework
From the theoretical framework above, customer expectation and perceived
quality are the independent variable for perceived value, perceived value is the
independent variable for customer satisfaction, customer satisfaction is the
16
independent variable for customer complain, and customer satisfaction and customer
complain are the independent variable for customer loyalty. The dependent variable is
customer loyalty.
3.3 Hypothesis
There are several hypotheses that can be translated from the research
framework in case of the Branded Coffee industry which are:
H1: Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer perceived quality
H2: Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer perceived value
H3 Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
H4: Perceived quality has positive influences towards perceived value
H5: Perceived quality has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
H6: Perceived value has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
H7: Customer satisfaction has negative influences towards customer complain
H8: Customer satisfaction has positive influences towards customer loyalty
H9: Customer complain has negative influences towards customer loyalty
3.4 Operation Definition
Customer expectation: In this study customer expectations defines as what the
customer expected before they purchase in terms of product and service of the
branded coffee shop. The observation component of this variable is whether they
17
meet their expectation according to product customization, expected product
reliability, and overall product quality expectations.
Perceived quality: Perceived quality is the perceived quality that customers have
experienced inside the branded coffee shop in terms of service quality or product
quality, including the sense of reliability and product quality overall experience.
Perceived value: Perceived value means the value that customers get from the
integrated product or service and the price after visiting and have experience in the
branded coffee shop. What is measured is whether the price is under the condition of
a certain quality product or service and/or under certain quality conditions from
experience on price.
Customer satisfaction: In this research, customer satisfaction defines as overall
satisfaction with the product or service experience in the branded coffee shop. The
satisfaction measured from the actual customer experience compare with what
customer expected.
Customer complaint: Customer complaint in this research means how the branded
coffee shop handles the complaint from the customer. The more complain that the
branded coffee shop get which is mean the less customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Customer loyalty: The customer loyalty is the measure of the customer’s intention
to remain a customer to the branded coffee shop. The intention to recommend the
branded coffee shop to family and friends.
18
3.5 Research Instrument
3.5.1 Questionnaire Construction
In this research, the researcher used a questionnaire for its instrument. The
questionnaire consists of 31 questions in the purpose of collecting information from
the respondent.
These questionnaire divided into 3 part of question. The first part consists of
respondent profile. The second part consists of screening question about how many
times that respondent purchase or come to the branded coffee shop in a month,
respondents visiting habit, and the branded coffee shop that they have been visited
(Circle K Coffee, Starbucks, Maxx Coffee, and J.CO). This screening question is
needed because the target respondent of this research is the people that have
experienced the branded coffee shop that has been mentioned. The last part of the
questionnaire is the question related to measuring the main variable of interest. This
part contains six section. The first section is about the customer expectation and
consists of five questions, the second section asks about perceived value that consists
seven questions, next section is about customer value consisting five questions, forth
section asks about customer satisfaction also consists of six questions, fifth section is
about customer complain that consists of three questions and the last section asks
about customer loyalty that consists of five question.
Table 3.1: Source of the Question
19
In order to measure the variable of interest of this study, researcher use the
Likert scale. The scale commonly used in a research which in this case is the
questionnaire. By using Likert scale respondents will be given a choice of 1 to 5, 1 to
7 or even up to 11 responses with neutral points in the middle number. In the final
form, the Likert Scale is used by respondents to express whether they agree or
disagree with the given statement. In this study, researcher will use the 1 to 5 scale
which the most suitable for the purpose of this study because the respondent will not
confuse about their answer whether they agree or disagree with the statement. The 5
point of the scale that have been sufficiently considered by the researcher, which is:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
There is section that use the deferent 5 point of scale which is the third part of
the questionnaire on the fifth section about customer complaint.
1 = Never
2 = Sometimes
3 = Neutral
4 = Often
5 = Frequently
20
3.5.2 Reliability
According to (Colin Phelan, 2005), the definition of reliability is the extent to
which assessment tools produce stable and consistent results. Researcher use
reliability to analyze the research question. Cronbach alpha is used to measure the
data reliability. It is commonly used to measure the data in a Likert scale
questionnaire (Tsoukatos, 2015). Suggest that a value of Cronbach alpha is 0.70 to
provide adequate evidence for internal consistency for the statements or questions.
The reliability can be confirmed by finding out the Cronbach’s Alpha of each
variable which is reported in the Table 3.2:
Table 3.2: Pilot Study
As written in Table 3.2, Cronbach’s Alpha of customer expectation is 0.790,
perceived quality is 0.853, customer value is 0.887, customer satisfaction is 0.939,
customer complain is 0.883 and customer loyalty is 0.932. This information prove
that each of variable’s variance are reliable.
3.5.3 Validity
To make sure there is a connection between each variable, validity is needed.
The researcher use validity method to adapt the concept of this study and prove that
the result of the concept is valid to this research’s purpose. There are two types of
validity that the researcher use in this study which are content validity and construct
validity. Content validity ensuring that the measurements have sufficient and
representative set of instruments that suitable and cover the broad range of areas of
21
the concept of the study. The more instruments of scale reflects the area or the whole
concept as measured, the greater validity that it gets. Construct validity is the validity
that indicates the extent to test that measures the theoretical constructs on which the
study is based on. Factor analysis is the most common use to find the construct
validity. The result of the factor analysis can be seen on Table 3.3 below:
Table 3.3: Validity Testing Result
From the result from the validity test in Table 3.3, all of the variable’s
variance have KMO values more than 0.500 and Barlett's test significance value .000
which mean the factor analysis are correct. For the base component of each variable’s
variance, can be explained that customer expectation is between 60.3% - 63.6%,
perceived quality is 55.2% - 67.3%, perceived value is 53.4% - 71.5%, customer
satisfaction 51.3% - 75.3%, customer complaint is 0.868%, and customer loyalty
63.0% - 79.0%. Furthermore, all of the variable have more than 60% of % of variance
and only one component that extracted for each of variable. This may conclude that
all of the variables are valid.
3.6 Sampling Plan
3.6.1 Population
The population can be defined as all of the individuals or units that include in
the study interest (Larget, 2011). The population of this study is all citizen who lives
in Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia. By 2015, there are 10,177,900 of Jakarta
22
population. According to Indonesia population census in 2010, there are 9.607.787 of
Jakarta population (Badan Pusat Statistik DKI, 2010).
3.6.2 Sampling Method
There is two way to collect the sample data of the respondents for research
purpose which are random sampling and non-random sampling. Random sampling is
conducted when all of the population of the study has non-zero probability of being
selected as part of the sample of the study (Ochoa, 2017). A non-random sampling is
a sampling technique in which samples are collected under condition that all the
individuals in the population does not have the equal chances to be selected.
Therefore, the sampling method that used for this study is web-based questionnaire,
where the respondent are unknown and randomly selected. Hence, the sampling
method of this study may considered as a random sampling.
3.6.3 Sample Size
The sample size can be defined as the number of sample that selected from the
population. The sample size is important because it related to the percentage margin
of error. Therefore, the sample size is chosen by minimizing the margin of error so
the probability of the sample showing the true population parameter. According to
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013), if the population is exceeding 1.000.000 the sample size
freeze at 384. Since the population around Jabodetabek is exceeding 1.000.000, the
ideal sample size for this study is 384.
23
3.7 Data Analysis Plan
In this study, the researcher uses the statistical analysis to analyze the sample
data and test the hypothesis using SPSS v.24 and AMOS v.24. Furthermore, the
researcher used descriptive analysis to analyze and find out if there was any outliner
or missing value of the sample.
The factor analysis was conducted to make sure the construct validity. For the
inferential analysis, the researcher considered using Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) because the research framework is structural and non-linear, therefore
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis is necessary.
24
CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher will discuss and analyze the result of the study.
As have been mentioned in the previous chapter, the researcher will conduct the
statistical analysis which is descriptive analysis and Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM). The result is this chapter is considered as the purpose of this study.
4.2 Descriptive Analysis
4.2.1 Conformity of Reliability
The reliability can be confirmed by comparing the Cronbach’s alpha of each
variable to the Cronbach’s alpha of each variable in the pilot test as can be seen on
the Table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1: Conformity of Reliability
From Table 4.1, the Cronbach’s alpha of each variable are above the standard
which is 0.7, for the customer expectation is 0.838, perceived quality is 0.870,
perceived value is 0.857, customer satisfaction is 0.903, customer complain is 0.848,
customer loyalty is 0.892. It can be explained that only small gap between the
Cronbach’s alpha achieved in Pilot Study (n = 30) and the Cronbach’s alpha achieved
25
in the final survey (n = 384). Therefore, the researcher conclude that the questions are
reliable and can be used on the similar study.
4.2.2 Respondent Profile
The respondent of this study are the citizen of Jakarta that have visit and
purchase coffee product in branded coffee shop which are Starbucks, J.CO, Maxx
Coffee, Circle K Coffee, and Local Coffee Shop. There are eight category in
respondent profile which are gender, age, current occupation, education, monthly
income, number of visit in a month, visiting habit, and the branded coffee shop that
have been visited. Analysis of the respondent profile can be seen in Table 4.2 below:
Table 4.2: Respondent Profile Analysis Result
From 384 respondents data are collected, for the gender section there are
47.9% (184 respondents) are male and 52.1% (200 respondents) are female. The
respondent mostly comes from 20 – 30 years old is 50.3% (193 respondents), 40.4%
(155 respondent) are below 20 years old, and 9.4% (36 respondents) are above 30
years. In occupation section, 71.9% (276 respondents) are student, 22.7% (87
respondents) are employee, 4.2% (16 respondents) are unemployed, and 1.3% (5
respondents) are entrepreneur. In education section, the respondent mostly came from
college student or above is 85.9% (330 respondents) and 14.1% (54 respondents) are
schooling (SMP, SMA, etc.). 52.1% (200 respondent) are below Rp. 2.000.000
monthly income, 33.9% (130 respondents) are between Rp. 2.000.000 – 5.000.000
monthly income, and 14.1% are above Rp. 5.000.000 monthly income.
26
There were 316 respondents (82.3%) that visit and purchase coffee in branded
coffee shop 1 – 3 times in a month, 57 respondents (14.8%) visit and purchase coffee
in branded coffee shop 3 – 7 times in a month, and 11 respondents (2.9%) visit and
purchase coffee in branded coffee shop above 8 times in a month.
From the visiting habit point of view, 181 respondents (47.1%) are come to
the branded coffee shop with their family or friends, 124 respondent (32.3%) are
come to the branded coffee shop by their self, 63 respondents (16.4%) are come to
the branded coffee shop with their couple, and 16 respondent (4.2%) are come to the
branded coffee shop with their business colleague.
From the branded coffee shop that the customer have been visited, most of the
customer have been visited Starbucks which are 162 respondent (42.2%), 113
respondents (29.4%) visited Circle K coffee shop, 60 respondents (15.6%) visited
Local coffee shop, 46 respondents (12.0%) visited J.CO, and 3 respondets (0.8%)
visited Maxx coffee.
4.2.3 Frequency Analysis
4.2.3.1 Customer Expectation
Table 4.3: Frequency Table of Customer Expectation
The scale of customer expectation consists of five question. The first question
is about the coffee on sale met the customer expectation and from 384 respondents
8.1% are disagree, 28.6% are neutral, and 63.3% agree that the coffee on sale are
meet their expectation. Furthermore, this variance has 3.72 as its mean, 4 as its
27
median, and 0.90 as its standard deviation. The second is about the expected service
and about 7.8% are disagree, 32.3% are neutral, and 59.9% are agree that they
expecting the branded coffee shop staff serve them with a good service. The variance
of this question has 3.69 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.93 as its standard
deviation. The third question is about the freshness and the taste of the coffee, 7.3%
are disagree, 27.3% are neutral, 65.4% are agree that they expecting a fresh and rich
taste coffee. The variance of this question has 3.77 as its mean, 4 as its median, and
0.92 as its standard deviation. The fourth question is about the problem solving inside
the branded coffee shop and 10.9% of the respondents are disagree, 34.1% are
neutral, and 54.5% are agree that the branded coffee shop would resolve the problem
quickly and efficiently. The variance of this question has 3.52 as its mean, 4 as its
median, and 0.93 as its standard deviation. The last question is about overall
expectation to the branded coffee shop and 7.0% of the respondents are disagree,
27.1% are neutral, and 65.9% are agree that their overall expectations about the
branded coffee shop are very high. The variance of this question has 3.84 as its mean,
4 as its median, and 0.99 as its standard deviation.
4.2.3.2 Perceived Quality
Table 4.4: Frequency Table of Perceived Quality
The scale of customer expectation consists of six question. The first question
is about the equipment and technology that used by the branded coffee shop and from
384 respondents 4.7% are disagree, 24.7% are neutral, and 70.6% agree that the
branded coffee shop has modern equipment and technology. Furthermore, this
28
variance has 3.95 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.93 as its standard deviation. The
second is about the staff attention to the customer and about 9.6% are disagree,
34.6% are neutral, and 55.7% are agree that the branded coffee shop staff pay
individual attention to the customer. The variance of this question has 3.60 as its
mean, 4 as its median, and 0.95 as its standard deviation. The third question is about
the branded coffee shop physical facilities, 4.9% are disagree, 17.2% are neutral,
77.9% are agree that the branded coffee shop physical facilities are visually
appealing. The variance of this question has 4.07 as its mean, 4 as its median, and
0.91 as its standard deviation. The fourth question is about the staff appearance and
3.9% of the respondents are disagree, 18.5% are neutral, and 77.6% are agree that the
branded coffee shop staff are well dressed and appear neat. The variance of this
question has 4.07 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.89 as its standard deviation. The
fifth question is about the information of the coffee and 13.0% of the respondents are
disagree, 32.0% are neutral, and 69.1% are agree that had access to clear and
complete information about the coffee that they purchased. The variance of this
question has 3.53 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 1.00 as its standard deviation. The
last question is about the overall quality of experience in the branded coffee shop and
9.6% of the respondents are disagree, 31.3% are neutral, and 59.1% are agree that
overall quality of experience at the branded coffee shop is very high. The variance of
this question has 3.63 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.89 as its standard deviation.
4.2.3.3 Perceived value
Table 4.5: Frequency Table of Perceived Value
29
In the customer expectation, the scale consists of five question. The first
question is about the price of the coffee and from 384 respondents 14.8% are
disagree, 36.2% are neutral, and 49.0% agree that the price charged for the branded
coffee shop coffee is fully justified. Furthermore, this variance has 3.38 as its mean, 3
as its median, and 1.00 as its standard deviation. The second is about how other
people look at the respondent when they visit the branded coffee shop and about
13.0% are disagree, 29.7% are neutral, and 57.3% are agree that they looks good
when visit the branded coffee shop to the people that they know. The variance of this
question has 3.57 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 1.02 as its standard deviation. The
third question is about the comparison of the price paid and the product value, 10.9%
are disagree, 38.3% are neutral, 50.8% are agree that the branded coffee shop coffee
provides good value compared with the price they paid. The variance of this question
has 3.54 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.98 as its standard deviation. The fourth
question is about the comparison of the cost paid and time spent and 16.4% of the
respondents are disagree, 39.3% are neutral, and 44.3% are agree that purchasing
coffee from the Branded Coffee Shop is worthwhile. The variance of this question
has 3.35 as its mean, 3 as its median, and 0.98 as its standard deviation. The last
question is value that the customer get for the money they spent and 9.6% of the
respondents are disagree, 37.5% are neutral, and 52.9% are agree that the customer
get good value for the money they spent in branded coffee shop. The variance of this
question has 3.52 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.89 as its standard deviation.
30
4.2.3.4 Customer Satisfaction
Table 4.6: Frequency Table of Customer Satisfaction
The scale of customer satisfaction consists of six question. The first question
is about the satisfaction with the branded coffee shop and from 384 respondents 6.3%
are disagree, 30.2% are neutral, and 63.5% agree that they totally satisfied with the
branded coffee shop. Furthermore, this variance has 3.72 as its mean, 4 as its median,
and 0.87 as its standard deviation. The second is about coming back to visit the
branded coffee and about 8.1% are disagree, 29.7% are neutral, and 62.2% are agree
that they will come back to visit the branded coffee shop again. The variance of this
question has 3.74 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.94 as its standard deviation. The
third question is about how the respondent tell the other about their visit, 10.2% are
disagree, 34.9% are neutral, 54.9% are agree that they will tell others about my visit
to the Branded Coffee Shop in positive terms. The variance of this question has 3.60
as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.95 as its standard deviation. The fourth question is
about how satisfied the respondent with the branded coffee shop and 8.1% of the
respondents are disagree, 34.9% are neutral, and 57.0% are agree that they are
extremely satisfied with the branded coffee shop. The variance of this question has
3.61 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.90 as its standard deviation. The fifth question
is about how the branded coffee shop meet the respondent expectation and 10.4% of
the respondents are disagree, 39.1% are neutral, and 50.5% are agree that the branded
coffee shop always meets my expectations. The variance of this question has 3.49 as
its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.90 as its standard deviation. The last question is about
31
the overall quality of service in the branded coffee shop and 6.0% of the respondents
are disagree, 31.3% are neutral, and 62.8% are agree that overall quality of service
provided by the branded coffee shop is excellent. The variance of this question has
3.73 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.90 as its standard deviation.
4.2.3.5 Customer Complain
Table 4.7: Frequency Table of Customer Complain
In the customer complain, the scale only consists of two question. The first
question is about the complaint frequency to the branded coffee shop and from 384
respondents 10.9% are often - frequently, 18.5% are neutral, and 70.6% are never -
sometimes made a complaint to the branded coffee shop. Furthermore, the variance of
the scale has 1.97 as its mean, 2 as its median, and 1.09 as its standard deviation. The
second is about how often that the respondent think their friends made a complaint to
the branded coffee shop and about 12.0% of the respondent are answering often –
frequently, 22.7% are neutral, and 65.4% are never - sometimes made a complaint to
the branded coffee shop. The variance of this question has 2.18 as its mean, 2 as its
median, and 1.06 as its standard deviation.
4.2.3.6 Customer Loyalty
Table 4.8: Frequency Table of Customer Loyalty
The scale of customer loyalty consists of five question. The first question is
about how the respondents say about the branded coffee shop coffee and from 384
respondents 8.1% are disagree, 28.6% are neutral, and 63.3% agree that they say
32
positive things about the branded coffee shop coffee to other people. Furthermore,
this variance has 3.72 as its mean, 4 as its median, and 0.90 as its standard deviation.
The second is about give recommendation to other customer and about 7.8% are
disagree, 32.3% are neutral, and 59.9% are agree that they recommend the branded
coffee shop coffee to others customer. The variance of this question has 3.69 as its
mean, 4 as its median, and 0.93 as its standard deviation. The third question is about
encourage friends and relatives to visit the branded coffee shop, 7.3% are disagree,
27.3% are neutral, 65.4% are agree that they encourage friends and relatives to visit
branded coffee shop. The variance of this question has 3.77 as its mean, 4 as its
median, and 0.92 as its standard deviation. The fourth question is about how the
respondent consider branded coffee shop as the first choice if it comes to having
coffee and 10.9% of the respondents are disagree, 34.1% are neutral, and 54.5% are
agree that they consider the branded coffee shop are their first choice if it comes to
having coffee. The variance of this question has 3.52 as its mean, 4 as its median, and
0.93 as its standard deviation. The last question is about willingness to visit the
branded coffee shop in the future and 7.0% of the respondents are disagree, 27.1%
are neutral, and 65.9% are agree that they will visit the branded coffee shop to have
coffee in future. The variance of this question has 3.84 as its mean, 4 as its median,
and 0.99 as its standard deviation.
4.3 Inferential Analysis
To construct the inferential analysis of this study, the researcher use Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) that performed using SPSS v.24 and AMOS v.24. The
33
variables consist in this study are Customer Expectation (CE), Perceived Quality
(PQ), Perceived Value (PV), Customer Satisfaction (CS), Customer Complaint (CC)
and Customer Loyalty (CL). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was performed to
test of the possible hypothesis in this research. In the construct of SEM analysis, a
SEM model should be made in use to analyze the data that can be seen in the Figure
4.1 below:
Figure 4.1: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Result
Testing the Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) or the fit-ness of the model is needed in
order to ensure that the model is suitable or fit to be analyze. There are some
requirement in order to ensure the model are fit or not which are X2 or Chi-square,
RMSEA, GFI, CMIN/DF, CFI, NFI, and IFI. The model can be considered as a fit
model if there are at least 4 criteria that meet the minimum requirement. The
minimum requirement for each criteria is X2 or Chi-square (>0.05), P value (<0.05),
RMSEA (<0.08), GFI (>0.90), CMIN/DF (<5.0 - >2.0), CFI (>0.90), NFI (>0.80),
TLI (>0.90) and IFI (>0.90) (Newsom, 2005) (Daire Hooper, 2008).
Table 4.9: SEM Model Fit Test Result
As been seen from Table 4.9, the result of the Goodness-of-Fit can be
interpreted the value of CMIN/DF is 2.722 which according to the requirement that
the value <5.0 - <2.0 and it can be considered as good fit. According to the minimum
requirement, P should have value is <0.05. Since the P value of the model is .000, it
indicates as good fit. The SEM model of this study have .917 for CFI value it is
34
considered as good fit. The value for NFI is .879 and it can considered as good fit. In
addition, TLI and IFI have more the 0.9 which is considered as good fit. In
conclusion, the SEM model of this study are more than 4 criteria of Goodness-of-Fit
which is mean the model is good fit.
4.3.1 Interpretation of SEM Model
Table 4.10: Regression Weight Result
In this section, it will be explain about the result of SEM analysis. As can be
seen in Table 4.10, each of the variable hypothesis have been determined whether the
hypothesis is significant or not. There are two indicator to determine it which are CR
or the Critical ratio and P value. The hypothesis is significant if the Critical ration is
above 1.96 and the P value is below 0.05. If the P value is higher than 0.05 it will be
cause a rejection of the hypothesis. The explanation of each variable can be interpret
as follow:
H1: Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer perceived
quality
The C.R value of Customer Expectation towards Perceived Quality is 11.749 and the
P value is *** (Below 0.01), which indicates that Customer Expectation significantly
influences Perceived Quality and H1 is accepted
H2: Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer perceived
value
35
The C.R value of Customer Expectation towards Perceived Value is 3.957 and the P
value is *** (Below 0.01), which indicates that Customer Expectation significantly
influences Perceived Value and H2 is accepted
H3 Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
The C.R value of Customer Expectation towards Customer Satisfaction is 2.019 and
the P value is 0.044, which indicates that Customer Expectation significantly
influences Customer Satisfaction and H3 is accepted
H4: Perceived quality has positive influences towards perceived value
The C.R value of Perceived Quality towards Perceived Value is -1.901 and the P
value is 0.057, which indicates that Perceived Quality significantly influences
Perceived Value and H4 is rejected
H5: Perceived quality has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
The C.R value of Perceived Quality towards Customer Satisfaction is -0.459 and the
P value is 0.646, which indicates that Perceived Quality significantly influences
Customer Satisfaction and H5 is rejected
H6: Perceived value has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
The C.R value of Perceived Value towards Customer Satisfaction is 3.477 and the P
value is *** (Below 0.01), which indicates that Perceived Value significantly
influences Customer Satisfaction and H6 is accepted
H7: Customer satisfaction has negative influences towards customer complain
36
The C.R value of Customer Satisfaction towards Customer Complain is -1.373 and
the P value is 0.170, which indicates that Customer Satisfaction significantly
influences Customer Complain and H7 is rejected
H8: Customer satisfaction has positive influences towards customer loyalty
The C.R value of Customer Satisfaction towards Customer Loyalty is 15.006 and the
P value is *** (Below 0.01), which indicates that Customer Satisfaction significantly
influences Customer Loyalty and H8 is accepted
H9: Customer complain has negative influences towards customer loyalty
The C.R value of Customer Complain towards Customer Loyalty is 2.131 and the P
value is 0.033, which indicates that Customer Complain significantly influences
Customer Loyalty and H9 is accepted
Table 4.11: Squared Multiple Correlation
Table 4.11 explain about the variance of each variable construct and it can be
explained by using Squared Multiple Correlation analysis. There are six variable that
connect each other and five of them the mediating variables which are perceived
quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, customer complaint, and customer
loyalty. As can be seen in Table 4.11, perceived quality has presented .871 or 87.1%
of its variance, which mean that approximately 12.9% of the other indicators did not
mentioned in this research that are able to explain about perceived quality.
Furthermore, other variable is also applied by this condition which are perceived
value variable explained 76.2% of its variance, customer satisfaction variable
37
explained 0.5% of its variance, customer complaint variable explained 90.8% of its
variance, and customer loyalty variable explained 71.4% of its variance.
4.3.2 Interpretation of Result
In this section, the researcher will conduct the summary of the Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) and regression model analysis result. The Table 4.12 show
the summary of the proposed analysis by the researcher and will be analyzed further.
Table 4.12: Hypothesis Testing Result
H1: Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer perceived
quality
Customer expectation has positive influences toward perceived quality and H1 is
accepted. This condition is supported by Howard (1977)’s theory that customer learn
and predict the quality and value from the product by using their expectation and
experience. The more close the quality and the value of product from the customer
expectation, the more satisfaction the customer get. Furthermore, (Biscaia, Rosa, e
Sa, & Sarrico, 2017) also states that customer expectations give or have a direct
influence on perceived quality, perceived value and satisfaction.
H2: Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer perceived
value
38
Customer expectation has positive influences toward perceived value and H2 is
accepted. Same as hypothesis 1 that this condition is supported by Howard (1977)’s
theory that customer learn and predict the quality and value from the product by using
their expectation and experience, which can be explain that the expectation of the
customer can influence the perceived value. This hypothesis is also used by (Biscaia,
Rosa, e Sa, & Sarrico, 2017) that find the expectation have a direct impact toward the
perceived value.
H3 Customer expectation has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
Customer expectation has positive influences toward perceived value and H2 is
accepted. Churchill & Surprenant (1982)’s theory support this hypothesis which is the
customer may use different types of expectation in order to determine the satisfaction.
This hypothesis also confirmed by (Almsalam, 2014) that customer expectation has a
positive influence toward customer satisfaction.
H4: Perceived quality has positive influences towards perceived value
Perceived quality not has positive influences toward perceived value and H4 is
rejected. This result different from the research done by Snoj et al (2004) that conduct
the research in Slovenia and the result they found a significant influence between
perceived quality and perceived value (Boris Snoj, 2014). From the theory above, the
researcher conclude that the rejection of the researcher hypothesis could be happen
because of the differences of culture of respondent and the different of research
location.
39
H5: Perceived quality has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
Perceived quality not has positive influences toward customer satisfaction and H5 is
rejected. This is completely different from the research by Cronin and Taylor (1992)
that confirmed customer satisfaction affected by perceived quality and this also
confirmed by the previous research and theory from by Parasuraman, (1988),
Parasuraman et al., (1985), Woodside et al., (1989) (Almsalam, 2014). This rejection
could be happen because the customer that involved in this study do not care about
the perceived quality and they think they came to branded coffee shop which mean
they have nothing to worry about the quality of product not the service. In the other
hand, the cause of this rejection could also be the different of research location.
H6: Perceived value has positive influences towards customer satisfaction
Perceived value has positive influences toward customer satisfaction and H6 is
accepted. This hypothesis supported by Patterson and Spreng (1997)’s theory that
perceived value give a positive and direct influence toward customer satisfaction
(Khan & Kadir, 2011). The more suitable or worth price for a product the more
satisfaction the customer get. Furthermore, (Biscaia, Rosa, e Sa, & Sarrico, 2017)
also find that perceived value have a positive direct impact toward the satisfaction
index.
H7: Customer satisfaction has negative influences towards customer complain
Customer satisfaction not has negative or significant influences toward customer
complain and H7 is rejected. According Fornell et al. (1996)’s theory that the
40
decreasing in customer complaint give immediate consequence of increase in
customer satisfaction (Awwad, 2012). This rejection also find by (Awwad, 2012) that
there is no significant influence from customer satisfaction toward customer
complaint. It show in this study, customer satisfaction does not have any influences
toward customer satisfaction. This rejection could be cause by different approach of
the variable’s construct and/or the different customer perspective regarding the
complaint.
H8: Customer satisfaction has positive influences towards customer loyalty
Customer satisfaction has negative influences toward customer loyalty and H9 is
accepted. According to Anderson and Sullivan, (1993) and Fornell, (1992) greater
customer loyalty can be driven by customer satisfaction (Awwad, 2012). This
condition also supported by Reichheld& Sasser, (1990)’s theory that the increased of
customer loyalty can be caused by increased overall customer satisfaction (Zekiri,
2011). Furthermore, (Biscaia, Rosa, e Sa, & Sarrico, 2017) also state the variable that
have highest contribution to customer loyalty is customer satisfactions.
H9: Customer complain has negative influences towards customer loyalty
Customer complain has negative influences toward customer loyalty and H9 is
accepted. According to Hirschman’s (1970) theory, when the customer satisfaction is
increasing this will has immediate impact that the decreased customer complaints and
increased customer loyalty (Fornell, et al., 2008). With this theory, can be explained
41
that the increase of the decrease of customer complain affecting the increase of the
customer satisfaction. (Awwad, 2012) Also found that customer complaint have a
significant influence toward the customer loyalty.
42
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion
The study was purposed to find and predict the customer loyalty of the
branded coffee industry using the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
framework with one independent variable which is customer expectation; four
mediating variable which are perceived value, perceived quality, customer
satisfaction, and customer loyalty; and one ultimate dependent variable which is
customer loyalty. This study intend whether all five variable on the ACSI model have
a significant influence toward the customer loyalty regarding branded coffee shop in
Indonesia and the result is of this study as follow:
a. Customer expectation has a positive and significant influence toward
customer perceived quality, perceived value, and customer satisfaction
b. Perceived quality does not have any significant influence toward customer
value and customer satisfaction.
c. Perceived value has a significant influence toward customer satisfaction.
d. Customer satisfaction has a no significant influence toward customer
complaint but a great positive or very significant influence toward
customer loyalty
e. Customer complain has a negative influence toward customer loyalty
43
From this conclusion, can be explained that three hypothesis that the
researcher proposed is rejected.
5.2 Future Recommendation
The study was about the prediction of the customer loyalty of branded coffee
industry in Indonesia by using the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI).
This study focused on the branded coffee industry that bring the question about how
satisfied Indonesian coffee drinker toward branded coffee industry in Indonesia in
intention to capture or predict the customer loyalty. For the future research, this study
could be added as reference toward ACSI study or any customer satisfaction and
loyalty study. Since this study conducted in Jakarta, Indonesia, any changes in the
variable construct is accepted especially for perceived quality of the product or
services to capture more accurate data from the similar population, and it also can
considered as further research that perceived quality influence customer satisfaction
on ACSI or any satisfaction and loyalty study.
For the industry sector, this study can be referred as how the to build customer
satisfaction and loyalty from customer expectation, perceived value, and customer
complain. This study conclude that the pricing for the product and the overall services
inside the coffee shop can be considered as the most important factor to increase the
customer satisfaction. If the customer satisfaction is increasing then the customer
loyalty is increasing to. In the other hand the complaint handling is also important
because when the business can handle the complaint positively that mean the
company is success to turn complaint to loyalty.
44
References
ACSI. (2018). The Science of Customer Satisfaction. Retrieved December 2017, from
American Customer Satisfaction Index: http://www.theacsi.org/about-
acsi/the-science-of-customer-satisfaction
Almsalam, S. (2014). The Effects of Customer Expectation and Perceived Service
Quality on Customer Satisfaction. International Journal of Business and
Management Invention, 79-84.
Awwad, M. S. (2012). "An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index
(ACSI) in the Jordanian mobile phone sector. The TQM Journal, Vol. 24 ,
529-541.
Badan Pusat Statistik DKI. (2010, May 31). Badan Pusat Statistik DKI Jakarta.
Retrieved from Badan Pusat Statistik DKI Jakarta:
http://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/site?id=3100000000&wilayah=DKI-Jakarta
Balmer, J. M., & Chen, &. W. (2017). Corporate heritage brands, augmented role
identity and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 1510-
1521.
Biscaia, A. R., Rosa, M. J., e Sa, P. M., & Sarrico, C. s. (2017). Assessing customer
satisfaction and loyalty in the retail sector. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 34(9), 1508 - 1515.
Boris Snoj, A. P. (2014). The relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk
and perceived product value. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 156-
167.
Colin Phelan, J. W. (2005, July 20). EXPLORING RELIABILITY IN ACADEMIC
ASSESSMENT. Retrieved from chfasoa:
https://chfasoa.uni.edu/reliabilityandvalidity.htm
Daire Hooper, J. C. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for
Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods Volume 6, 53 - 60.
Ergun, H. S., & Kuscu, &. Z. (2013). Innovation orientation, market orientation and
e-loyalty: evidence from Turkish e-commerce customers. International
Strategic Management Conference , 509 – 516 .
Fornell, C., Cook, D. C., VanAmburg, D., Morgeson, F., Bryant, B. E., Vanderwill,
L., . . . Trombly, &. J. (2008). ACSI Methodology Report. Michigan: National
Quality Research Center.
Giovanis, A. N., & Athanasopoulou, &. P. (2014). Gaining customer loyalty in the e-
tailing marketplace: the role of e-service quality, e-satisfaction and e-trust .
International Journal Technology Marketing, 288 - 304.
45
Global Agricultural Information Network. (2017). Indonesia Coffee Annual Report
2017. Jakarta: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
Jeong, Y., & Lee, &. Y. (2010). A study on the customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty of furniture purchaser in on‐line shop. Asian Journal on Quality, 146-
156.
Khan, N., & Kadir, &. S. (2011). The impact of perceived value dimension on
satisfaction and behavior intention: Young-adult consumers in banking
industry. African Journal of Business Management Vol.5, 4087-4099.
Larget, B. H. (2011). Samples and Populations. Samples and Populations, 1 - 21.
Li, C.-P. (2017). Effects of Brand Image, Perceived Price, Perceived Quality, and
Perceived Value on the Purchase Intention towards Sports and Tourism
Products of the 2016 Taichung International Travel Fair . The Journal of
International Management Studies, 97 - 107.
Marakanon, L., & Panjakajornsak, &. V. (2017). Perceived quality, perceived risk
and customer trust affecting customer loyalty of environmentally friendly
electronics products . Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 24 - 30.
Miguel, M. A. (2009). Loyalty, perceived value and relationship quality in healthcare
services . Journal of Service Management, 20(1).
Newsom. (2005). Some Clarifications and Recommendations on Fit Indices. USP 655
SEM, 1 - 14.
Ochoa, C. (2017, January 12). Random and non-random sampling. Retrieved from
netquest: https://www.netquest.com/blog/en/random-non-random-sampling
Othman, M., Kamarohim, N., & Nizam, &. F. (2017). Brand Credibility, Perceived
Quality and Perceived Value: A Study of Customer Satisfaction. International
Journal of Economics and Management, 763 – 775.
Reena, K., & Singh, &. M. (2017). A Study on Nature of Services and customers’
expectations and perceptions regarding service quality. IOSR Journal of
Business and Management , 12 - 20.
Sarantidou, P. (2017). Enriching the ECSI model using brand strength in the retail
setting . European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(3),
294 - 312.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, &. R. (2013). Research Method for Business: A Skill Building
Approach. United Kingdom: Jhon Wiley & Sons Ltd: Jhon Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Shafei, I., & Tabaa, &. H. (2016). Factors affecting customer loyalty for mobile
telecommunication industry. EuroMed Journal of Business, 347-361.
46
Starbucks. (2018, January ). Starbucks - About Us - Company Information. Retrieved
December 2017, from Starbucks: https://www.starbucks.com/about-
us/company-information
The Statistics Portal. (2017, May 16). Total coffee consumption in Indonesia from
1990 to 2017. Retrieved from The Statistics Portal:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/314982/indonesia-total-coffee-
consumption/
Tsai, M. T., Tsai, C. L., & Chang, H. C. (2010). “The effect of customer value,
customer satisfaction and switching costs on customer loyalty: an empirical
study of hypermarkets in Taiwan”. Social Behavior and Personality, 28(6).
Tsoukatos, A. G. (2015). The role of service fairness in the service quality –
relationship quality – customer loyalty chain An empirical study. Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, 758.
Vinita Kaura, C. S. (2015). Service quality, service convenience, price and fairness,
customer loyalty, and the mediating role of customer satisfactio. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(4).
Wicaksono, A., & Sitompul, L. (2013). A REVIEW BASED ON YOUNG ADULT
CONSUMERS’ PERSPECTIVE: WHAT SHOULD MCCAFE DO? THE
INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 2(19).
William, O., Appiah, E. E., & Botchway, &. E. (2014). ASSESSMENT OF
CUSTOMER EXPECTATION AND PERCEPTION OF SERVICE
QUALITY DELIVERY IN GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK. 1 - 18.
Yang, X., Tian, P., & Zhang, &. Z. (2004). A Comparative Study on Several National
Customer Satisfaction Indices (CSI). National Science Foundation of China, 1
- 5.
Zainuddin. S, A. W. (2016). Building Brand Aura. International Journal of Scientific
and Research Publications, 6(10).
Zekiri, B. A. (2011). Measuring Customer Satisfaction with Service Quality Using
American Customer Satisfaction Model (ACSI Model). International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences , 232 - 258.
47
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
APPLICATION OF ACSI MODEL IN BRANDED COFFEE INDUSTRY TO
PREDICT CUSTOMER LOYALTY
APLIKASI MODEL ACSI PADA INDUSTRI KOPI BRANDED UNTUK
MEMPREDIKSI LOYALITAS PELANGGAN
Dear respected respondent,
I am Business Administration students concentrated in Retail Business from President
University. I am currently working on my research to complete my final assignment,
Thesis/Skripsi. In addition, the survey is made in order to know how perceived quality,
customer expectation and perceived value of Branded Coffee Shop could affect the
customer's satisfaction and customer loyalty. If you would like to spare your time to fill out
this survey intended for Branded Coffee Shop in Indonesia, we would be very grateful. This
questionnaire should only take 3-5 minutes of your time. Please be assured that all answers
you provide will be kept in the strictest confidentially and will be used for the study purpose
only. I would like to thank you for taking the time to complete the survey.
(Kepada responden yang terhormat,
Saya adalah mahasiswa Universitas President Jurusan Administrasi Bisnis yang
terkonsentrasi di Bisnis Ritel. Saat ini saya sedang melakukan penelitian untuk
menyelesaikan tugas akhir saya, Skripsi. Survei ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui bagaimana
persepsi kualitas, harapan pelanggan dan persepsi nilai dari Branded Coffee Shop yang
dapat mempengaruhi kepuasan pelanggan dan loyalitas pelanggan. Jika Anda berkehendak
meluangkan waktu untuk mengisi survei yang ditujukan untuk Branded Coffee Shop di
Indonesia, saya akan sangat berterima kasih. Survei ini akan mengambil waktu anda sekitar
3-5 menit. Hasil survei ini tidak akan disebarluaskan dan hanya akan digunakan sebagai
bahan pembelajaran. Kami mengucapkan terima kasih telah meluangkan waktu untuk
mengisi survei ini.).
I. RESPONDENT PROFILE (PROFIL RESPONDEN)
Check the square (Ceklis dalam kotak nya)
1 Gender Male (Pria)
Jenis kelamin Female (Wanita)
48
2 Age Below 20 years old (Dibawah 20 tahun)
Umur 20-30 years old (20-30 tahun)
Above 30 years old (Diatas 30 tahun)
3 Occupation Student (Pelajar, Mahasiswa)
Pekerjaan Unemployee (Tidak bekerja)
Employee (Karyawan)
Entrepreneur (Pengusaha)
4 Education College student or above (Mahasiswa dan diatasnya)
Tingkat pendidikan Schooling (SMP, SMA, Etc.)
Other
5 Monthly income Above Rp 5.000.000 (Diatas Rp 5.000.000)
Pemasukan per bulan Rp 2.000.000 - Rp 5.000.000
Below Rp. 2.000.000 (Dibawah Rp. 2.000.000)
6
How many times in a month you purchased coffee in Branded Coffee Shop?
(1 - 2)
(2 - 7)
Seberapa sering kah anda membeli kopi di Branded Coffee Shop dalam sebulan?
Above 8 (Diatas 8)
7
Can you tell us about your visiting habit?
Single (Sendiri)
Couple (Pasangan)
Bisakah Anda ceritakan tentang kebiasaan Anda dalam berkunjung?
Family or Friends (Keluarga atau Teman)
Colleague and Business (Client dan rekan bisnis)
8
Have you consumed coffee from any of the Branded Coffee Shops on this list?
Starbucks
Circle K Coffee
Bisakah Sudahkah Anda mengkonsumsi kopi dari salah satu Toko Kopi Bermerek dalam daftar ini?
Maxx Coffee
J.CO
Other Branded Coffee Shop
49
II. QUESTION (PERTANYAAN) (Circle the Number (Lingkari Angka nya))
SECTION A
No. Statement Item (Pernyataan)
Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree
Sangat Tidak Setuju - Sangat Setuju
1 2 3 4 5
1
The Branded Coffee Shop has modern equipment and technology
1 2 3 4 5 Branded Coffee Shop memiliki peralatan dan teknologi modern
2
The Branded Coffee Shop staff pay individual attention to customers
1 2 3 4 5 Staf Branded Coffee Shop memberi perhatian individual kepada pelanggan
3
The Branded Coffee Shop physical facilities are visually appealing 1 2 3 4 5 Fasilitas fisik Branded Coffee Shop menarik secara visual
4
The Branded Coffee Shop staff are well dressed and appear neat
1 2 3 4 5 Staf Branded Coffee Shop berpakaian bagus dan tampil rapi
5
I had access to clear and complete information about the coffee that I purchased
1 2 3 4 5 Saya memiliki akses untuk mendapatkan informasi yang jelas dan lengkap tentang kopi yang saya beli
6
The overall quality of experience at the Branded Coffee Shop was very high
1 2 3 4 5 Keseluruhan kualitas pengalaman di Branded Coffee Shop sangat tinggi
7 In general, I purchased a coffee of high quality
1 2 3 4 5
50
Secara umum, saya membeli kopi dengan kualitas tinggi
SECTION B
No. Statement Item (Pernyataan)
Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree
Sangat Tidak Setuju - Sangat Setuju
1 2 3 4 5
1
The coffee on sale at the Branded Coffee Shop met my expectations
1 2 3 4 5 Kopi yang dijual di Branded Coffee Shop memenuhi harapan saya
2
The Branded Coffee Shop staff would understand my needs, and serve me in a competent and exemplary way
1 2 3 4 5 Staf Branded Coffee Shop akan memahami kebutuhan saya, dan melayani saya dengan cara yang kompeten dan patut dicontoh
3
The coffee that I was going to buy was totally fresh and rich in taste
1 2 3 4 5 Kopi yang akan saya beli benar-benar segar dan kaya rasanya
4
If there was a problem with the coffee, then the Branded Coffee Shop would resolve it quickly and efficiently
1 2 3 4 5 Jika ada masalah dengan kopi-nya, maka Branded Coffee Shop akan menyelesaikannya dengan cepat dan efisien
5
My overall expectations in relation to the Branded Coffee Shop Coffee were very high
1 2 3 4 5 Harapan saya secara keseluruhan berhubungan dengan kopi Branded Coffee Shop sangat tinggi
51
SECTION C
No. Statement Item (Pernyataan)
Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree
Sangat Tidak Setuju - Sangat Setuju
1 2 3 4 5
1
The price charged for the Branded Coffee Shop coffee is fully justified
1 2 3 4 5 Harga yang dikenakan untuk kopi Branded Coffee Shop sepenuhnya disesuaikan
2
The fact that I visit Branded Coffee Shop looks good to the people I know
1 2 3 4 5 Fakta bahwa saya mengunjungi Branded Coffee Shop terlihat bagus bagi orang-orang yang saya kenal
3
Compared with the price paid, the Branded Coffee Shop coffee provides good value
1 2 3 4 5 Dibandingkan dengan harga yang harus dibayar, kopi Branded Coffee Shop memberikan kualitas yang bagus
4
Compared with the costs paid and time spent, purchasing coffee from the Branded Coffee Shop is worthwhile
1 2 3 4 5 Dibandingkan dengan biaya yang harus dibayar dan waktu yang dihabiskan, membeli kopi dari Branded Coffee Shop sangat berharga
5
Customers get good value for the money they spent in Branded Coffee Shop 1 2 3 4 5 Pelanggan mendapatkan nilai/kualitas terbaik untuk
52
uang yang mereka habiskan di Branded Coffee Shop
SECTION D
No. Statement Item (Pernyataan)
Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree
Sangat Tidak Setuju - Sangat Setuju
1 2 3 4 5
1
As a regular customer, in general, I am totally satisfied with the Branded Coffee Shop
1 2 3 4 5 Sebagai pelanggan tetap, secara umum, saya benar-benar puas dengan Branded Coffee Shop
2
I will come back to visit the Branded Coffee Shop again
1 2 3 4 5 Saya akan kembali mengunjungi Branded Coffee Shop lagi
3
I will tell others about my visit to the Branded Coffee Shop in positive terms
1 2 3 4 5 Saya akan memberitahu orang lain tentang kunjungan saya ke Branded Coffee Shop secara positif
4
Considering everything, I am extremely satisfied with the Branded Coffee Shop products
1 2 3 4 5 Mengingat semuanya, saya sangat puas dengan produk Branded Coffee Shop Coffee
5
The Branded Coffee Shop always meets my expectations Branded Coffee Shop selalu memenuhi harapan saya
1 2 3 4 5
6
The overall quality of the services provided by the Branded Coffee Shop is excellent
1 2 3 4 5
53
Keseluruhan kualitas layanan yang diberikan oleh Branded Coffee Shop sangat baik
SECTION E
No. Statement Item (Pernyataan)
Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree (In case of question E.1 and E.2 read Never –
Frequently)
Sangat Tidak Setuju - Sangat Setuju (Dalam pertanyaan E.1 dan E.2 dibaca Tidak
pernah – Sangat sering)
1 2 3 4 5
1
How often have you made a complaint to the Branded Coffee Shop?
1 2 3 4 5 Seberapa sering Anda mengajukan keluhan ke Branded Coffee Shop?
2
How often do you think your friends made a complaint to the Branded Coffee Shop?
1 2 3 4 5 Seberapa sering Anda mengira teman Anda mengajukan keluhan ke Branded Coffee Shop?
3
If you had to complain, do you disagree that the problem would be resolved well at Branded Coffee Shop?
1 2 3 4 5 Jika Anda harus mengeluh, apakah menurut Anda masalahnya tidak akan terselesaikan dengan baik di Branded Coffee Shop?
54
SECTION F
No. Statement Item (Pernyataan)
Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree
Sangat Tidak Setuju - Sangat Setuju
1 2 3 4 5
1
I say positive things about the Branded Coffee Shop coffee to other people
1 2 3 4 5 Saya mengatakan hal positif tentang kopi Branded Coffee Shop kepada orang lain
2
I recommend the Branded Coffee Shop coffee to others
1 2 3 4 5 Saya sarankan kopi Branded Coffee Shop ke orang lain
3
I encourage friends and relatives to visit Branded Coffee Shop
1 2 3 4 5 Saya mendorong teman dan kerabat untuk mengunjungi Branded Coffee Shop
4
I consider Branded Coffee Shop my first choice if it comes to having coffee
1 2 3 4 5 Saya menganggap Branded Coffee Shop adalah pilihan pertama saya jika membeli kopi
5
I will visit Branded Coffee Shop to have coffee in future also
1 2 3 4 5 Saya akan mengunjungi Branded Coffee Shop untuk minum kopi di masa depan juga
55
56
FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Fonell SCSB Model
Figure 3.1: Theoretical Framework
Customer Satisfaction ( SCSB )
Perceived Performance ( Value )
Customer Expectation Customer
Loyalty
Customer Complaints
57
Figure 4.1: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Result
58
TABLES
Table 3.1: Source of the Question
Variable Original question Adjusted question Source(s)
Customer
Expectatio
n
The variety of goods on sale at
the store met my expectations
The coffee on sale at the
Branded Coffee Shop met my
expectations
(Biscaia et
al., 2017)
The store staff would
understand my needs, and
serve me in a competent and
exemplary way
The Branded Coffee Shop staff
would understand my needs,
and serve me in a competent
and exemplary way
The good that I was going to
buy was totally reliable and
would not breakdown during
use
The coffee that I was going to
buy was totally fresh and rich
in taste
If there was a problem with the
good, then the store would
resolve it quickly and
efficiently
If there was a problem with the
coffee, then the Branded
Coffee Shop would resolve it
quickly and efficiently
My overall expectations in
relation to the store were very
high
My overall expectations in
relation to the Branded Coffee
Shop were very high
Perceived
Quality
The store has modern
equipment and technology
The Branded Coffee Shop has
modern equipment and
technology
(Esen
Gürbüz,
2008)
Employees pay individual
attention to customers
The Branded Coffee Shop staff
pay individual attention to
customers
(Allameh et
al., 2015)
Their physical facilities should
be visually appealing
The Branded Coffee Shop
physical facilities are visually
appealing
(Biscaia et
al., 2017)
Their employee should be well
dressed and appear neat
The Branded Coffee Shop staff
are well dressed and appear
neat
I had access to clear and
transparent information about
the good that I purchased
I had access to clear and
complete information about the
coffee that I purchased
The overall quality of customer
service at the store was very
high
The overall quality of
experience at the Branded
Coffee Shop was very high
In general, I purchased a good
of high quality
In general, I purchased a coffee
of high quality
59
Perceived
Value
The payment of interest or
commission is fully justified
The price charged for the
Branded Coffee Shop coffee is
fully justified
(Roig et al.,
2006)
The fact that I come here looks
good to the people I know
The fact that I visit Branded
Coffee Shop looks good to the
people I know
(Lin et al.,
2005)
Compared with the price you
paid, this web site provides
good eTail service value
Compared with the price paid,
the Branded Coffee Shop
coffee provides good value
Compared with the tangible
and intangible costs you paid,
purchasing from this web site
is worthwhile
Compared with the costs paid
and time spent, purchasing
coffee from the Branded
Coffee Shop is worthwhile
You think you are getting good
value for the money you spent
Customers get good value for
the money they spent in
Branded Coffee Shop
Customer
Satisfactio
n
As a regular customer, in
general, I am totally satisfied
with the store
As a regular customer, in
general, I am totally satisfied
with the Branded Coffee Shop
(Biscaia et
al., 2017)
I will come back to visit TRT
again
I will come back to visit the
Branded Coffee Shop again
(Balmer &
Chen,
2017)
I will tell others about my visit
to TRT in positive terms
I will tell others about my visit
to the Branded Coffee Shop in
positive terms
(Levesque
&
McDougall,
1996)
Considering everything, I am
extremely satisfied with my
bank
Considering everything, I am
extremely satisfied with the
Branded Coffee Shop Fresh
Cafe products
My bank always meets my
expectations
The Branded Coffee Shop
always meets my expectations
The overall quality of the
services provided by my bank
is excellent
The overall quality of the
services provided by the
Branded Coffee Shop is
excellent
Customer
Complain
Have you ever made a
complaint at this store?
How often you have made a
complaint at the Branded
Coffee Shop?
(Biscaia et
al., 2017)
The problem was resolved well How often do you think your
friends made a complaint at the
Branded Coffee Shop?
60
If you had to complain, do you
think that the problem would
be resolved well?
If you had to complain, do you
think that the problem would
not be resolved well at Branded
Coffee Shop?
Customer
Loyalty
I say positive things about this
bank to other people
I say positive things about the
Branded Coffee Shop coffee to
other people
(Kaura et
al., 2015)
I recommend this bank to
others
I recommend the Branded
Coffee Shop coffee to others
I encourage friends and
relatives to do business with
this bank
I encourage friends and
relatives to visit Branded
Coffee Shop
I consider this bank my first
choice to avail banking
services
I consider Branded Coffee
Shop my first choice, if it
comes to having coffee
I will do more business with
this bank in future also
I will visit Branded Coffee
Shop to have coffee in future
also
Table 3.2: Pilot Test
Cronbach's
Alpha
CE .790
PQ .853
PV .887
CS .939
CC .883
CL .932
61
Table 3.3: Validity Testing Result
Research
Instruments KMO
Barlett's
Test
Significance
Extraction % of
Variance
Component
Matrix
Component
Extracted
CE1
.854 .000
.621
60.788
.788
1
CE2 .636 .797
CE3 .627 .792
CE4 .603 .776
CE5 .553 .744
PQ1
.836 .000
.673
60.777
.821
1
PQ2 .576 .759
PQ3 .646 .804
PQ4 .589 .767
PQ5 .552 .743
PQ6 .611 .782
PV1
.857 .000
.543
64.064
.737
1
PV2 .597 .773
PV3 .709 .842
PV4 .639 .799
PV5 .715 .846
CS1
.895 .000
.715
67.660
.715
1
CS2 .686 .686
CS3 .645 .645
CS4 .753 .753
CS5 .748 .748
CS6 .513 .513
CC1 .500 .000
.868 86.807
.932 1
CC2 .868 .932
CL1
.860 .000
.647
70.716
.647
1
CL2 .790 .790
CL3 .751 .751
CL4 .717 .717
CL5 .630 .630
62
Table 4.1: Conformity of Reliability
Pilot Study Whole Study
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha
CE .790 CE .838
PQ .853 PQ .870
PV .887 PV .857
CS .939 CS .903
CC .883 CC .848
CL .932 CL .892
63
Table 4.2: Respondent Profile Analysis Result
Measure Item Frequency
Percentage
(Based on
384 sample
size)
Gender Male 184 47.9%
Female 200 52.1%
Age <20 years old 155 40.4%
20 - 30 years old 193 50.3%
>30 years old 36 9.4%
Occupation Student 276 71.9%
Employee 87 22.7%
Entrepreneur 5 1.3%
Unemployed 16 4.2%
Education Schooling 54 14.1%
College Student or above 330 85.9%
Monthly
Income
< Rp. 2.000.000 200 52.1%
Rp. 2.000.000 - 5.000.000 130 33.9%
> Rp. 5.000.000 54 14.1%
Visit in a
month
(1 - 3) 316 82.3%
(3 - 7) 57 14.8%
>8 11 2.9%
Visiting habit Single 124 32.3%
Couple 63 16.4%
Family or friend 181 47.1%
Colleague and business 16 4.2%
Coffee shop
that have been
visited
Starbucks 162 42.2%
J.Co 46 12.0%
Maxx Coffee 3 0.8%
Circle K Coffee 113 29.4%
Local coffee shop 60 15.6%
64
Table 4.3: Frequency Table of Customer Expectation
Variable Mean Median Std Dev Disagree Neutral Agree
CE1 3.72 4 0.90 8.1 28.6 63.3
CE2 3.69 4 0.93 7.8 32.3 59.9
CE3 3.77 4 0.92 7.3 27.3 65.4
CE4 3.52 4 0.93 10.9 34.1 54.9
CE5 3.84 4 0.99 7.0 27.1 65.9
Table 4.4: Frequency Table of Perceived Quality
Variable Mean Median Std Dev Disagree Neutral Agree
PQ1 3.95 4 0.93 4.7 24.7 70.6
PQ2 3.60 4 0.95 9.6 34.6 55.7
PQ3 4.07 4 0.91 4.9 17.2 77.9
PQ4 4.07 4 0.89 3.9 18.5 77.6
PQ5 3.53 4 1.00 13.0 32.0 54.9
PQ6 3.63 4 0.89 9.6 31.3 59.1
Table 4.5: Frequency Table of Perceived Value
Variable Mean Median Std Dev Disagree Neutral Agree
PV1 3.38 3 1.00 14.8 36.2 49.0
PV2 3.57 4 1.02 13.0 29.7 57.3
PV3 3.54 4 0.98 10.9 38.3 50.8
PV4 3.35 3 0.98 16.4 39.3 44.3
PV5 3.52 4 0.89 9.6 37.5 52.9
Table 4.6: Frequency Table of Customer Satisfaction
Variable Mean Median Std Dev Disagree Neutral Agree
65
CS1 3.72 4 0.87 6.3 30.2 63.5
CS2 3.74 4 0.94 8.1 29.7 62.2
CS3 3.60 4 0.95 10.2 34.9 54.9
CS4 3.61 4 0.90 8.1 34.9 57.0
CS5 3.49 4 0.90 10.4 39.1 50.5
CS6 3.73 4 0.90 6.0 31.3 62.8
Table 4.7: Frequency Table of Customer Complaint
Variable Mean Median Std Dev Disagree Neutral Agree
CC1 1.97 2 1.09 70.6 18.5 10.9
CC2 2.18 2 1.06 65.4 22.7 12.0
Table 4.8: Frequency Table of Customer Loyalty
Variable Mean Median Std Dev Disagree Neutral Agree
CL1 3.65 4 0.88 7.6 34.6 57.8
CL2 3.54 4 0.91 11.2 34.4 54.4
CL3 3.43 3 0.97 16.1 34.1 49.7
CL4 3.15 3 1.19 28.6 30.5 40.9
CL5 3.55 4 0.98 13.0 33.6 53.4
66
Table 4.9: SEM Model Fit Test Result
Goodness-of Fit
Index
Cut-off
Value Result Evaluation
CMIN/DF (<5.0 - >2.0) 2.722 Accepted
P value (<0.05) 0.000 Accepted
CFI (>0.90) 0.917 Accepted
NFI (<0.80) 0.879 Accepted
TLI (>0.90) 0.906 Accepted
IFI (>0.90) 0.920 Accepted
Table 4.10: Regression Weight Result
Table 4.11: Squared Multiple Correlation
Estimate
PERCEIVED_QUALITY .871
PERCEIVED_VALUE .762
CUSTOMER_COMPLAINT .908
CUSTOMER_SATISFACTION .005
CUSTOMER_LOYALTY .714
67
Table 4.11: Hypothesis Testing Result
Hypothesis CR P Conclusion
Customer expectation Perceived quality 11.749 *** Accepted
Customer expectation Perceived value 3.957 *** Accepted
Customer expectation Customer satisfaction 2.019 .044 Accepted
Perceived quality Perceived value -1.901 .057 Rejected
Perceived quality Customer satisfaction -0.459 .646 Rejected
Perceived value Customer satisfaction 3.477 *** Accepted
Customer satisfaction Customer complain -1.373 .170 Rejected
Customer satisfaction Customer loyalty 15.006 *** Accepted
Customer complain Customer loyalty 2.131 .033 Accepted