Customer Satisfaction as a Predictor of Customer Advocacy and Negative Word of Mouth: A Study of Hotel Industries

Abstract
Companies are competing in the market to lure customers by their services and products but a customer who avail the service or purchased the product feels a satisfaction after product meets the customers need. Customer Satisfaction is an important ingredient in the retention of an imperative for all product and services. Customer satisfaction is not a one activity, onestop event but a continued satisfaction of the customers need with the entire product-services bundle. Just because a customer is satisfied, he motivated others to use the product and becomes a real brand ambassador of the company by advocacy. This is also important to know the factors contributing customer advocacy and factors contributing dissatisfaction which may lead to negative word of mouth. This study is well ahead to find the relation of customer satisfaction with customer advocacy and negative word of mouth in Hotel Industry.

Introduction

As per Paretos principle if a person is satisfied with a product he is going to tell six people but if he is dissatisfied with the product he is going to tell thirteen people. It means a dissatisfied customer is more dangerous than any other factors. Now customers are enjoying the supreme status in business process. Companies are doing everything from customers feedback to production of any new product, so that their products can satisfy the needs of customer. That satisfaction in the minds of customer brings the faith in the product and company and he starts

giving his advice in the favor of company. These type of customers are very valuable for any organizations. Now a days customer advocacy has proved to be the most powerful tools for marketing and companies are using it effectively to associate new customers. But sometimes your customers can be negative for you and can provoke negative word of mouth.

It is dream of any organization to have their customer advocating the organizations Products. This study is well ahead to find the relation of customer satisfaction with customer advocacy and negative word of mouth in Hotel Industry.

Review of Literature
Intensive literature review was carried out on the Customer Satisfaction, Customer Advocacy and Negative Word of Mouth and findings of their research are appended below.

Maxham (1999), This paper reports two studies (i.e., an experimental design and a field study) that examine the effects that different levels of service recovery have on satisfaction, purchase intentions, and one's propensity to spread positive word-of-mouth (WOM). The results indicate that moderate to high service recovery efforts significantly increase post-failure levels of satisfaction, purchase intent, and positive word of mouth alternatively, poor service recoveries seemingly exacerbate the discontent attributed to a service failure. The results do not support a recovery paradox, whereby post-recovery satisfaction is greater than that satisfaction prior to the service failure. In addition, the studies suggest that firms may not always benefit (in terms of consumer perceptions) from service recovery efforts over and above a moderate level.

Richins (1983), Stated that scholars have emphasized the importance of customer satisfaction, few studies have examined in detail consumers' responses to dissatisfaction. This study examines correlates of one possible response-telling others about the dissatisfaction-and identify variables that distinguish this response from others. Variables investigated include the nature of the dissatisfaction, perceptions of blame for the dissatisfaction, and perceptions of retailer responsiveness. Marketing management and consumer behavior research implications are discussed

Goedkoop, van Halen et al. (1999) Stated that the product service system concept has been suggested as a way to contribute to this system level improvement here the environmental impact of products and associated services could be addressed already at the product and service design stage. Special focus should be given to the use phase by providing alternative system solution to owning products, this approach companies may able to gain more customer satisfaction.

Lawer (2005), Stated that Organizations that have adopted Customer Advocacy to focus their energies still have to provide competitive services and products. It is just that they choose to do so in the context of achieving positive levels of Customer Advocacy. Johnson and Fornell et al. (1998) Stated that, the relations between attribute perceptions, overall customer satisfaction and store sales performance, Such links are part of a broader conceptual framework proposed by namely the Service-Profit Chain. Strengthened this framework by accommodating nonlinear ties and asymmetries in the links, and they renamed it the SatisfactionProfit Chain. Customer Satisfaction-sales Performance, to refer to the links of interest. First, we identify specific and measurable attributes that are expected to influence overall satisfaction.

Heskett et al. (2002), Stated that, the attributes are summarized into factors to accommodate commonality and to minimize multi co linearity. These satisfaction factors, in turn, capture product and service variables that lead to overall satisfaction. It follows that improvements in these satisfaction factors, in turn, should increase overall customer satisfaction. And increased customer satisfaction should lead to greater store sales, via increased likelihood of repurchase and favorable word of mouth. We discuss extant findings on these linkages next.

Binncy (2006), Made this paper for designed to enable our customers to determine whether their IT organizations would benefit from being early adopters of customers Advocacy the paper builds on the concepts and models concerning customer advocacy and the net.

Anderson and Mittal (2000) Stated that, the relationship between attribute perceptions and overall customer satisfaction, we must identify how customers interpret and respond to the products and services they buy and experience. Here it is essential to distinguish between specific attributes of a product or a service and the satisfaction factor they represent. In food retailing, for instance, consumers may put high value on a factor that might be called customer service provided by the supermarket. Szymansky and henard (2001); Bernhardt, Donthu and Kennett (2000), these links have been the subject of intense scrutiny by marketing researchers. Since the seminal behavior-oriented research by Oliver (1981), several articles have focused on the antecedents of customer satisfaction in a wide variety of contexts, ranging from firm-specific studies to nation-wide assessments. Although satisfaction factors very according to the type of products, services and business sectors considered, empirical studies provide vast evidence of

their impact on overall satisfaction. Most studies on antecedents of customer satisfaction utilize models reviewed by Johnson (1998) and show significant correlation between various satisfaction factors and overall satisfaction.

Gremler and Brown et al. (1996) Stated that, Customer loyalty by incorporating behavioral and attitudinal measures simultaneously emphasized that true sustainable loyalty could only be

attained when customers enjoyed a high level of positive toward the object, together with high level of repeat patronage behavior. Otherwise, they only expressed the status of spurious loyalty or latent loyalty Spurious loyalty refers customers only behave with repeat patronage pattern but do not attach with a positive attitude toward the object, whereas latent loyalty refers customers only reflect a positive attitude toward the object but do not behave with repeat patronage pattern. Service loyalty consists of three kinds of attributes: namely behavioral, attitudinal and cognitive attributes. As suggested by service loyalty is determined by the

degree to which a customer exhibits repeat purchasing behavior from a service provider, possesses a positive attitudinal disposition toward the provider, and considers using only this provider when a need for this service arises (p. 173). Caruana (1999), service loyalty in this study is defined as: The willingness of customer to consistently re-patronize the same service provider/service company, that maybe the first choice among alternatives, thereby complying with actual behavioral outcomes and attaching with favorable attitude and cognition, regardless of any situational influences and marketing efforts made to induce switching behavior. Repeat Purchase Behavior, in fact, consistent repeat purchase is one kind of loyalty-prone behavior (Cunningham. 1956) by showing continuance on an entity. World of Mouth; it means

recommending others to purchase through any common means. This indicator is important for

assessing loyalty as stated by Gould (1995): loyal customer is defined as those not only gladly use the services but they are so pleased with them that they tell other people about them Besides the meaning of external recommendation, the term of world-of-mouth also includes the meaning of internal communication with service staff. So it is believed that loyal customers are likely to give positive feedback to the service company.

Soderlund & Vilgon (1999), focused on a particular class of variables related to purchasing patterns. It can be noted that significant associations between customer satisfaction in 1995 and customer profitability in 1995, 1996 and 1997 were not a hand here. Give the (reversed) measurement scale used in the assessment of repurchase intentions, a positive association is thus at hand between repurchase intentions, a positive association is thus at hand between repurchase intentions and customer profitability. The framework for this study may be summarized as a linear causal flow consisting of the following links in a temporarily ordered chain; Customer satisfaction repurchase intentions purchasing behavior customer profitability. Overall, the results provide support for the hypothesized links -. However, there were several limitations in their approach. Which should be noted. Another limitation was related to the time periods used in the study. It was not clear to what extent the time periods have provided a proper context for an analysis of the relationships between attitudinal variables and behavioral variables. This study has identified several significant associations between variables in the customer satisfactionrepurchase intentions- purchase behavior- customer profitability chain. The analysis reveals a strong link between customer behavior and customer profitability, while modest links exist between repurchase intentions and subsequent behavior. Only a weak and non- significant direct link can be observed between customer satisfaction and customer profitability. This paper, then,

questions customer satisfactions commonly assumed role as a proxy for profitability. A major purpose of the above paper was to provide a managerially useful, end-to-end view of the CRM process from a marketing perspective. The basic perspective taken was that of the customers, not the company. In other words, what do managers need to know about their customers and how is that information used to develop a complete CRM perspective? As a result, a new term, lifetime customer value or LCV, has been introduced into the lexicon of marketers. The idea was that each/ row/ customer of the database should be analyzed in terms of current and future profitability to the firm.This was the foundation for any customer relationship management activity. For Web- based business, this should be a relatively straightforward as a natural part

of the interaction with customer. For existing companies that have not previously collected much customer information, the task will involve seeking historical customer contact data from internal source such as accounting and customer service. (Winer 2001).

Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), Stated that evolution of the conceptualization and measurement of service loyalty can be classified into three phases. In the early literature, researchers and marketers simply defined customer loyalty as a behavior of customer thus; customer retention with repetitive purchase in terms of volume and value was an important measure of customer loyalty in 1950s. Criticized that the domain of customer loyalty should conceptually go beyond customers behavioral measures (O Malley 1998 ) because customer behavior can be induced by situational factors (Dick and Basu 1994), such as the lack of available alternatives, high

switching cost or tendency of inertia. In fact, near 75% of customers purchasing decision is based on their own attitude and emotion due to the difficulty in evaluating services.

Johnson and Gustafson 2000; Johnson 1998; fornell et al. (1996), Stated that Consumer ratings of specific attributes often, multivariate statistical models are constructed to identify latent variable representing satisfaction factors. In the majority of past research, overall customer satisfaction is then modeled as a liner function of these latent variables. Much recent research, however, is critical of the incomplete treatment of the CSSP links, and researchers call for more elaborate analysis. (Szymanski and Henard 2001). Satisfied customers, the consequences of satisfied (or dissatisfied) customers have received little attention from researchers Perhaps the first study was the pioneering research conducted by Zahori and Rust (1992) on the consequences of customer satisfaction. Their work included a mathematical framework to evaluate the financial value of satisfaction Rust and Zahori (1993) based on the effect of satisfaction on customer retention, and the subsequent impact on market share.

Anderson and Sullivan (1993) addressed the simultaneous estimation of the antecedents to and consequences of customer satisfaction, with data from more twenty thousand Swedish consumers patronizing a hundred or so Swedish companies. (Johnson 1998; Anderson, Fornell and Lehmann 1994) Customer satisfaction, which in turn has a positive association with financial performance, perhaps the most important contribution of this work is the identification of asymmetries in the linkages between disconfirmation of expectations and customer satisfaction. Several studies have examined the relationships in the Satisfaction-Profit (or Service-profit) chain with data from a variety of channels.

Allen (2004), Presented a variety of case studies that involved numerous industries. Ranging from financial services to manufacturing. Customer satisfaction and loyalty research has matured

most rapidly within industries that enjoy a wealth of customer data financial services, in particular, have a tremendous amount of customer data available. As a result, the examples in this book tend to involve banks and manufacturers of high involvement products where customer satisfaction was highly relevant. Such is often not the case in the consumer packaged goods arena in which brand awareness, equity, and shelf placement typically dictate low-involvement purchase decisions. A great deal of very interesting work has been conducted involving brand equity and aesthetics. But this book purposefully avoids this body of literature and instead focuses on high-involvement products and services where quality enhancements may yield significant gains in customer satisfaction.

Mittal, Ross and Baldasare (1998), point out that for the most part, earlier research ignored nonlinearity and asymmetries in the links of the CSSP chain. To illustrate the asymmetry concept, consider the quality of the product department and the f friendliness of cashiers in a supermarket. Stronger consumer evaluations of the quality of the product department might not imply strongly positive effects on customer satisfaction, while weaker quality might be quite damaging. Or improvements in customer-oriented dispositions of cashiers and associates could have a large positive impact on customer satisfaction while reductions in cashier performance may be only mildly negative Bernhardt, Donthu and Kennett (2000) suggest that another pitfall of many satisfaction studies is the tendency to rely on cross sectional analysis for statistical inference (Anderson, Fornell and Lehmann 1994, provides an exception). Bernhardt, Donthu and Kennett argue that a proper analysis of the links between satisfaction and performance requires a dynamic approach. Rust and Zahoriks (1993) suggested that efforts to improve customer satisfaction

must be financially accountable over the time money expenditure should be minimum with result oriented outcomes.

Shi, Su (2007) Stated that commonly accepted that service industry is viewed as a gauge for market modernization. Many researches on service industry focus on the measurement of service quality. For hotel industry, one of general services industry, systematically theoretical research about the hotel service quality management is meaningful. This paper proposes a method to evaluate the hotel service quality in China. First, a questionnaire is designed after HSQ-CS Model. Moreover, AHP is employed to decide the weight of every variable in the questionnaire. With the survey data, a series of practical methods are utilized in the data analysis to measure the service quality based on customer satisfaction (CS). First, with the computation of Customer Satisfaction Degree (CSD), hotel service quality is measured. Secondly, with discriminant analysis and correlation analysis, etc., some insightful conclusions are reached. To name some, 1) Service quality of reception hall is most important for customer satisfaction compared with those of guestroom and restaurant. 2) "Technique of attendants", "Service initiative of attendants" and "Environment and decoration of reception hall" are key variables for customer satisfaction of reception hall. 3) For guestroom, "decoration of room", "safety of room" and "courtesy of attendants" own most powerful influences. 4) For restaurant, key variables are "Taste and variety of food", "service flexibility of waiters/waitresses" and "environment of restaurant". Bernhardt, Donthu and Kennett (2000), study customer satisfaction in a fast-food chain based on monthly data. Although based on simple correlations, the study shows that a dynamic model outperforms a cross-sectional customer loyalty model where customer may be satisfied or

dissatisfied. Anderson and Fornell; Scharitzer and Kollarits 2000; Extant research has focused primarily on the Customer satisfaction links at the aggregate level and for selected sector such as telecommunications, banking, healthcare, automobile and pharmaceuticals etc. Conversely, only a few firm-specific Customer satisfaction assessments have been conducted. Examples include fast-foods restaurants and department stores discuss several examples where the incorporation of non-linearity and asymmetries added significant value to a firms understanding of the Customer Satisfaction links. It is especially desirable to use firm-specific data so the linkages between satisfaction and performance are examined in the context of a firms strategy. Jin and Jai-Ok 2001; Hackl, Scharitzer and Zuba 2000; Gail and Scott (1995) Practically all-empirical investigations on food retailing, in the U.S. as well as internationally, address the drivers of customer satisfaction but do not address their ultimate impact on store revenues. Among the drivers often identified are: perceived value of products relative to their prices, staff friendliness and willingness to help, quality and freshness of products, store appearance, and the degree of customer service However, while the drivers of satisfaction are known qualitatively, and managers believe that satisfaction affects performance, it is necessary to measure explicitly the impact of satisfaction on store sales in order to prioritize strategies to manage the drivers of satisfaction.

Garbarino and Johnson (1999), Stated that the measurement of the behavioral links in the Customer Satisfaction, we link attribute perceptions, overall satisfaction, and store sales, and we allow for nonlinear and asymmetric effects. We specify the model in first differences and we allow for time lags between changes in satisfaction and changes in store sales performance. We also provide an example to show how managers can use the results to develop appropriate

customer satisfaction.

Measurement issues, developing an understanding of the conceptual

relationships between service encounter constructs has preoccupied services researchers over the past two decades. The objective has been to develop an improved understanding of not only the constructs themselves, but also how they relate to each other and subsequently drive purchase behavior. It is noted above that quality, value, and satisfaction have taken center stage in these discussions. Indeed, it was not ago that the development of a working model of the conceptual interrelationships between them was placed at top of future research directions.

Rust and Oliver (1994), Stated that the specific interest was the specification of the antecedent, mediating, and consequent relationships among these three variables. The service management literature argues that customers satisfaction is the result of a customers perception of the value receivedwhere value equals perceived service quality relative to price attributes as price. Rust and Olivers (1994) call for research into interrelationship did not go unanswered. Specifically, there has been a convergence of opinion that favorable service quality perceptions lead to improved satisfaction and value attributions and that in turn, positive value directly influences satisfaction. suggested that the initial service evolution (i.e. appraisal) leads to an emotional reaction that, in turn, drives behavior. Adapting the framework to a services context suggests that the more cognitively oriented service quality and value appraisals precedes satisfaction Anderson and Fornell, 1994; Fornell 1996; It has been suggested in customer satisfaction literature that, contrary to the value literature, defines customer satisfaction as the primary and direct link to outcome measures. Patterson and Spreng, 1997; literature that investigates the relationships between service quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions, although the majority of studies indicate that service quality influences behavioral intention only through value and satisfaction.(

Zeithaml, Berry, 1996) The model adopts the former perspective; that is the depicted relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions is indirect. Several points are apparent based on the modes identified is ample quality value satisfaction in service environment.

Oliva et al. (1998), Stated that, the relationship between service satisfaction and loyalty is nonlinear. However, in causes of high satisfaction a level, a direct relationship with loyalty exists when consumers are not maximally satisfied, value attainment and mood have an influence on loyalty. The influence of value attainment and mood is outside the scope of the present study, because the present study was conducted in a business-to-business environment.

Operationalizations of service loyalty construct (Rust and Williams, 9994) as a number of service loyalty measures have emerged. Most of them only focus on behavioral, attitudinal and cognitive attributes. In fact, the cognitive component of loyalty was the first set of measures identified for the measurement of brand loyalty (Newman and Werbel, 1973), but only few recent researchers try to extend the concept of cognitive measure into the domain of loyalty in service perspective Thus, it can explore the effectiveness of the cognitive component in measuring service loyalty.

Sunderland (1998) Stated that, the time interval in which the customer keeping consumption from a particular service provider continuously. It is also a very common indicator for assessing loyalty because it can definitely reflect the real situation of customers consumption from the same service provider continuously and especially emphasizes the long-term characteristic of service loyalty (Kendrick, 1998). Price Tolerance; undoubtedly, loyal customers willing to pay the premium even the price is increased because the perceived risk is very high, so they instead

to pay the higher price for avoiding the risk of any change (de Ruyter et al., 1999 Morgan and Dev. 1994; Yoon and Kim, 2000). Generally, the developed long-term relationship of service loyalty makes loyal customers more prices tolerant, since loyalty discourages customers to have price comparison with others and to shopping around (de Ruyter et al., 1999). Repeat Purchase Intention; customer loyalty is basically referred as the extent of repeat purchase intention from the same service provider with affective commitment (Shemwell etal. 1998; Sunderland, 1998). Preference; customers preference is the typical measure for the attitudinal dimension of service loyalty (Bloemer et al., 1999; Gremler and Brown, 1996), as true loyalty can be only attained when the customer expressed strong positive preference as well as high repeat patronage on an entity (Dick and Basu, 1994). Similarly, Zeithaml et al. (1996) suggested expressing could manifest loyalty preference over others. Choice Reduction Behavior; indeed, the recent literature suggested that choice reduction behavior was a definite resultant behavior of loyalty, as customers with a strong strength of loyalty would appear to reduce the search motivation, and hence eventually forgo the choice of other alternatives and reduce the competitive efforts on decision making. First in mind; consistent with choice reduction behavior it is suggested that the extremely loyal customers will be ideally limited to only done choice that should be the first choice in their minds (Caruana, 1999). Therefore, high level of service loyalty will lead customers to consider the service provider as the first in his/her mind. Service quality and customer satisfaction act as two antecedents of service loyalty for the causal relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction.

Berry (1995) Stated that, the somewhat broader terms also has a strategic viewpoint about Customer satisfaction and Customer loyalty. He stresses that attracting new customers should be

viewed only as an intermediate step in the marketing process. Developing closer relationship with these customers and turning them into loyal ones are equally important aspects of marketing as attracting, maintaining, and in multi-service organizations enhancing customer relationships satisfaction and loyalty are not surrogates for each other (Bloemer and Kasper 1995; Oliver 1999). It is possible for a customer to be loyal without being highly satisfied (e.g., when there are few other choice) and to be highly satisfied and yet not be loyal (e.g., when many alternatives are available). Firms need to gain a better understanding of the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty in the online environment to allocate their online marketing efforts between satisfaction initiatives and loyalty programs. If for example, the firm finds that greater loyalty is associated with increased satisfaction such that loyalty reinforces satisfaction, it could directly focus enhancing its loyalty programs. Customer satisfaction and retention on behavioral loyalty (customers repeat purchases from an organization) in the offline environment Collectively, these studies have found qualified support for the positive impact of satisfaction on retention, although, interestingly, satisfied customers may defect to competing product and services .

Baveja et al. (2000) Stated that Customer satisfaction, namely, service encounter satisfaction and overall customer satisfaction is relationship-specific, that is, overall satisfaction discrete service encounter or transaction is the cumulative effect of a set of with the service provider over a period of time. (Bitner and Hubbert 1994) Loyal customers have a negative experience and become dissatisfied with a service provider, and then they might gain by switching to a new service provider but also, at the same time, lose some loyalty benefits (e.g. emotional loss, rewards program) or face a potentially unfamiliar service encounter. Compared to non-loyal

customers, loyal customers may perceive the loss to be larger then the short-term gain of moving to a new service provider. Loyal customer of temporary setback in services encounter.

Rust and Oliver et al. (1999), Stated that Loyal customers also have a wider zone of tolerance thereby expirer icing higher-level old satisfaction than non loyal customers. Thus, the greater the loyalty to a service provider. The higher the level of both service encounter and overall satisfaction with that provider. Loyalty in service industry, namely overall customers satisfaction, frequency of use ease of obtaining information, prior experience with service provider, membership in frequency program, and income. These factor are particularly applicable to the travel industry (Pritchard and Howard 1997). A customer to learn the option faster than in the offline context and get a cognitive lock-in with a selected service provider. (Johnson, bellman and Lohse 2002). This property enables customers to go back the service provider and repeat his/her choice. Indeed the online environment mat strength the motivation of customer to a services offering (Davis, Buchanan-Oliver, and Brodie 2000). Finally, by being available 24x7 (round-the-clock), the online medium provides grater convenience than the offline medium for repeatedly choosing a preferred service provider. Customers loyalty to a service provider is influenced by there overall satisfaction with that provider. Most prior research has found qualified report for a positive satisfaction customer-retention relationship (Rust and Zahorik 1993). Bolton (1993) found that duration of a relationship between a customer and a service provider is longer when the customer is satisfied. Customer satisfaction, loyalty may also depend on the ease, which with relevant information can be obtained while choosing the service provider. Easier access to information typically reinforces the tendency to back to a preferred service provider (Oliver 1999). For product such as hotels, which have large number of search

attributes, it is easier to obtain information online than offline. Ease of obtaining information increase consumer learning and May lead to grater cognitive lock-in to the service than the person choosing the service offline.

Boulding et al. (1999), Stated that Loyal customers seem to be in grater control when making choices online than offline, making them more satisfied online than offline. Customers attitudes toward switching for actual switching behavior analysis of the impact of the medium on switching behavior would be a useful complement to the analysis of loyalty and customer satisfaction, and may provide important insights for customer retention. Specifically, researchers could access the effect on the online versus offline media on customer retention and, consequently, on the lifetime value of customers. This analysis is typically done using longitudinal data. Item measure of loyalty, which could be addressed by future studies. Our findings suggested that the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is perhaps more complex than currant theorizing would suggest.

Zoellick and Fastwater (2000), presented e Markets, the idea behind, was right ; current paper, fax, and phone based ordering systems are expensive and inefficient, and will almost certainly be replaced by internet based system. Emarkets can provide transparency into pricing and processing that can squeeze costs out of the purchasing process and, just as important, help markets expand. EMarkets are an important way to make purchasing more productive and efficient and will eventually become a routine, important part of the business. Business to business marketplaces on the internet, or EMarkets, were not having the kind of success or producing the results that were expected. Despite the fact that the business fundamentals for

many eMarkets were sound, the eMarkets were having difficulty in attaining liquidity, where margins are workable and growth is self-sustaining.The current eMarket stagnation grows from the EMarkets initial requirement to have goods on the shelves before opening the doors. What this has meant, in practice, was that most eMarkets have spent substantial sums just creating the catalog and search capabilities required to start the eMarket. In particular, eMarkets have had to spend substantial sums to convert and load supplier catalogs. The fundamental value is there. What was required was a refocusing of eMarket attention and investment from building transaction volume to building more complete relationship were there, and are encoded and realized in every automated transaction between the buyer, the eMarket, and the seller, the transaction volume will follow. Building customer advocacy was one response to the vulnerabilities of CRM and marketing in the face of rising consumer empowerment and growing transparency in customer relationships. It creates new opportunities for customer dialogue, knowledge creation, more authentic brand values and, critically, the context in which the interest of a firm and those of its key customer groups can be more closely aligned. Whether customer advocacy denotes an advanced from of customer relationship management remains to be seen. It was certainly not appropriate for every company. Indeed to get into the game, firms must have existing high levels of product and service quality and brand trust, they must have a highly embedded customer- oriented culture. Their business partners must be aligned and aware of the strategy and their employee sales and service incentives must in tune with customer advocacy outcomes. None of these were easy.

Objectives
To develop and standardize a measure in the hotel industry for customer satisfaction. To develop and standardize a measure in the hotel industry for customer advocacy.

To develop and standardize a measure in the hotel industry for negative word of mouth. To evaluate the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer advocacy. To evaluate the relationship between customer dissatisfaction and negative word of mouth.

To open new vistas for further research.

Research Methodology The study

The study is exploratory in nature with survey method being used to complete the study.

Sample design
Population: The population is the Hotel Industry of Gwalior Region. Sample size: 100 Customers Sampling element: The sampling element was the individual customers of Hotel Industries of Gwalior Region.

Tools for data collection

Self-designed Questionnaire was used for collecting data for Customer Satisfaction, Customer Advocacy and Negative Word of Mouth. The data was collected on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicated minimum agreement and 5 indicated maximum agreement with the statement.

Tools for data analysis

Item to total correlation was applied to check the internal consistency of the questionnaires. The measure was standardized through computation of reliability and validity. Factor analysis was applied to identify the underlying factors affecting the Customer Satisfaction, Customer Advocacy and Negative Word of Mouth. Regression test was applied to measure the effect of Customer Satisfaction on Customer Advocacy and the effect of Customer Satisfaction on negative word of mouth.

Result and Discussion

Internal Consistency Test Iterative item to total correlation was applied on the responses received from the Consumers of Hotel Industries. The items having higher correlation coefficient value than the cut off value (i.e. 0.19422) were retained for further analysis. There were 36 items in the final of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Advocacy and Negative Word of Mouth.

Items

Computed Correlation value

Consistency/ Inconsistency

Accepted/Dropped

1. Lighting 2. Furniture 3. Decor

0.345354 0.463696

Consistent Consistent Consistent

Accepted Accepted Accepted

0.365092

4. Impression 5. Safety 6. Delicious 7. Hospitable 8. Pick up facilities 9. Competence 10. Politeness 11. Interest 12. Uniqueness 13. Experience. 14. Readily discuss 15. Economic 16. Believe 17. Latest 18. Friendly 19. Respectful 20. Willingness 21. Again 22. Security 23. Share 24. Quality

0.362164 0.430026 0.50355 0.367586 0.354485 0.468278 0.42615 0.421358 0.431809 0.655343 0.502061 0.573444 0.534273 0.378375 0.426211 0.531512 0.435674 0.197953 0.518653 0.296761

Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent

Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted

0.526126

25. Not go again 26. To not Visit

0.47787 0.282264

Consistent Consistent

27. Inadequate 28. Below expectation 29. Difficult 30. Not well trained 31. Accommodation 32. Facilities 33. Complicated 34. Not maintained. 35. Improper 36. Not courteous

0.614723 0.506032 0.62284 0.456966 0.46936 0.521643 0.40569 0.512694 0.527454 0.527454

Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent

Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted

Reliability
Reliability tests were applied on the Customer Satisfaction , Customer Advocacy and Negative Word of Mouth measure using SPSS and the value of Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0 .892.

Validity Test
Validity of the questionnaire was checked through face validity method and was found to be high.

Factor Analysis
Principal component factor analysis with Varimax rotation and Kiser normalization was applied. The factor analysis of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Advocacy and Negative Word of Mouth converged in 36 items into 9 factors. The details about the factors, the factor name, variable number, variable convergence and their Eigen value is given in the table given below.

Factor name

Eigen value Variable convergence Total % of Variance 34.Standard not maintained 22.366 30. Staff is not well trained 35. Grievances process is improper 33. Check in process is complicated 31. Accommodation is below expectation 29. Difficult to access 27. Services is inadequate 36. Staff is not courteous 32. Pick up facilities is inadequate 28. Below expectation 2. Good furniture

Loading Value 0.880 0.852 0.824 0.793 0.782

1.Perceived Substandard Quality 8.052

0.774 0.759 0.736 0.707

0.682 0.857 0.797 0.781 0.768

2. Quality of Products Features

7.570

21.027 3. Good dcor 1. Good lighting 4. Positive impression

5. Safety and security 6. Delicious food 11. Interest shown 9. Competence to answer 20. Willingness 3. Customer advocacy 2.847 7.909 18. Warm friendly behavior 22. Security 19. Respectful treatment 14. Readily discuss 4. Shared Good Experience 1.660 4.611 17. Latest cuisine 13. Experience 23. Share 5. Perceived Service 1.597 Quality 4.436 10. Politeness 24.Quality of services 8. Pick up facilities 6. Value Added Features 1.431 3.974 12. Uniqueness in entertainment 7. Hospitable staff 26.Not Visiting 7. Post Purchase Behavior 1.129 3.137 25.No Recommendation 21. Dinner 8. Economical Factors 1.129 3.137 15. Economical facilities

0.690 0.607 0.597 0.477 0.739 0.719 0.645 0.626 0.802 0.788 0.604 0.773 0.668 0.433 0.823 0.654 0.567 0.775 0.673 0.745 0.468

16. Satisfy needs 9. Need Satisfaction 1.022 2.838

0.662

Discussion of Factors
1. Perceived substandard quality (8.052): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 22.366. Major consisting this factor include, standard not maintained (.880), staff is not well trained (.852), grievances process is improper (.824), check in process is complicated (.793), accommodation is below expectation (.782), difficult to access (.774), services is inadequate (.759), staff is not courteous (.736), pick up facilities is inadequate (.707), quality of food is below expectation (.682). Hence it emerges as an important determinant.

2. Quality of Products Features (7.570): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 21.027. Major consisting this factor include, good furniture (.857), Good dcor (.797), Good lighting (.797), Positive impression (.768), Safety and security (.690), Delicious food (.607), Interest shown (.597), Competence to answer (.477). Hence it emerges as an important determinant.

3. Customer advocacy (2.847): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 7.909. Major consisting this factor include, willingness (.739), warm friendly behavior (.719), safety and security is providing (.645), courteous and respectful treatment (.626). Hence it emerges as an important determinant.

4. Shared

Good Experience (1.660): This factor has emerged as this most important

determinant of research with a total variance of 4.611. Major consisting this factor include, readily discuss information (.802), latest cuisine (.788), experience (.604). Hence it emerges as an important determinant. 5. Perceived Service Quality (1.597): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 4.436. Major consisting this factor include, share my good experience with my family member (.773), politeness (.668), quality of services (.433). Hence it emerges as an important determinant.

6.Value added features (1.431): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 3.974. Major consisting this factor include, Pick up facilities (.823), Uniqueness in entertainment (.654), Hospitable staff (.567). important determinant. Hence it emerges as an

7. Post Purchase Behavior (1.283): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 3.564. Major consisting this factor include, not go again (.775), to not visit (.673). Hence it emerges as an important determinant.

8. Economical Factors (1.129): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 3.137. Major consisting this factor include, like to go again for dinner (.745), economic facilities (.468). Hence it emerges as an important determinant.

9. Need Satisfaction (1.022): This factor has emerged as this most important determinant of research with a total variance of 2.838. Major consisting this factor include, satisfy needs (.662). Hence it emerges as an important determinant.

Regression analysis
Customer Satisfaction and Customer Advocacy

The regression is calculated by taking the total of Customer Satisfaction and Customer Advocacy by using SPSS software. In this the customer satisfaction is independent variable and customer advocacy is the dependent variable. Therefore regression is calculated by taking dependent and independent variable.

a Coe fficients

Model 1

(Cons tant) V A R00001

Unstandardiz ed Coef f icients B Std. Error 29.375 5.577 .480 .084

Standardized Coef f icients Beta .500

t 5.267 5.712

Sig. .000 .000

a. Dependent Variable: V A R00002

(a) Dependent variable: (customer advocacy) Y = a + bx Y = 29.375 + .480x X = Customer Satisfaction (Independent) Y = customer advocacy (Dependent)

The linear regression was applied between customer satisfaction (independent variable) and Customer advocacy (dependent variable). The result of regression indicates that independent variable customer satisfaction has an impact on the dependent variable customer advocacy signified by the coefficient beta factor of 0.480 and t value is also significant. As the value of t is 5.712, which is acceptable at 5 % level of significance. So the hypothesis is accepted that there is a significant impact of customer satisfaction on customer advocacy.

Customer Satisfactions And Negative Word Of Mouth

The regression is calculated by taking the total of Customer Satisfaction and Negative Word Of Mouth by using SPSS software. In this the customer satisfaction is independent variable and Negative Word Of Mouth is the dependent variable. Therefore regression is calculated by taking dependent and independent variable.

a Coe fficients

Model 1

(Cons tant) VAR00001

Unstandardiz ed Coef f icients B Std. Error 54.150 9.427 -.122 .142

Standardized Coef f icients Beta -.086

t 5.744 -.859

Sig. .000 .392

Collinearity Statistics Toleranc e VIF 1.000 1.000

a. Dependent Variable: VAR00002

(a) Dependent variable: {Negative Word of Mouth}

Y = a + bx Y= 54.150+ (- .122) x X = Customer Satisfaction (Independent) Y = Negative Word Of Mouth (Dependent)

The linear regression was applied between customer satisfaction (independent variable) and Negative Word Of Mouth (dependent variable). The result of regression indicates the independent variable customer satisfaction has an impact on the dependent variable Negative Word Of Mouth signified by the coefficient beta factor of - .122. Also the t value is -.859 it means negative word of mouth (dependent variable) and customer satisfaction (Independent variable) are negatively correlated.

Conclusion
Customer Satisfaction as: this states in which customer needs, wants and expectations throughout the product or services life are met or exceeded resulting in repeat purchase, loyalty and favorable word of mouth. Customer Advocacy exists where customers are willing to recommend and maximization and services/products to others. The dissatisfied customer engage in more or less word of mouth than satisfied customers.

The topic of the research study was Customer Satisfaction as a Predictor of Customer Advocacy and Negative Word Of Mouth: A Study On Hotel Industry. In this topic the customer satisfaction is independent variable and the customer advocacy and negative word of mouth both are dependent variable on the customer satisfaction. The major findings of this research are that overall Customer Satisfaction does have an impact on customer advocacy. However it has found that Customer Satisfaction and Negative Word of Mouth are Negatively Correlated.

The customer will be benefited with the study because it is ultimately the customer who uses the service product. The customer can get more satisfaction if he is being treated first and receive the

extra services and relationship by the service provider. This research will also be informative to the consumers at Gwalior region about the different Hotel services.

REFERENCES
Anderson, E.W., Sullivan, M.W. (1993), The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2 Spring.125-143.

Anderson, E.W, Mittal, V (2000), "Strengthening the satisfaction profit chain", Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No.2, pp.107-20.

Allen, D. R. (2004), Customer Satisfaction Research Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Integrating Customer Loyalty and Satisfaction Metrics in the Management of Complex, (Jan.)

Anderson, E.W., Fornell C., and R.T. Rust, (1997), Customers satisfaction, Productivity, and Profitability: Differences Between Goods and Services. Marketing Science, (2), 129-145.

Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, D.R. (1994), "Customer satisfaction, market share and profitability", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No.3, pp.53-66. Berry, L.L. (1995), Relationship Marketing of ServicesGrowing Interest, Emerging Perspectives, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, 236-245.

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. (1999), "The quality double whammy", Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No.4, pp.46384. Bernhardt, K.L., Donthu, N., Kennett, P.A. (2000), "A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction and profitability", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 47 pp.161-71. Dr. Derek, Binncy (2006), Customer Advocacy: applying the Ultimate Question To it. Copyright c 2006 Computer Sciences Corporation.

Fornell, C. (1998), Happier Customer are Good for Business, The Philadelphia inquirer. Fornell, C. (2000), e-retailing, a gain industry virtually awakens, Fortune Magazine, Vol. 142,No. 6, SI-S40. Gremler, D., Gwinner, K.P., Brown, S.W. (1996) Generating positive word-of-mouth communication through customer employee relationships. International journal of Service Industry Management. Bradford: 2001. Vol.12, Iss.1; pg.44.

Garbarino, E., Johnson, M.S. (1999), The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr.), pp. 70-87.

Goedkoop, M., van Halen, C., te Riele, H., and Rommens, P. (1999), Product Service Systems, Ecological and Economic Basics, Pre consultants. Heskett, J.L., Sasser, and L.A. Schlesinger (1997), The Service Profit Chain. The Free Press, New York.

Heim, G.R. (2000), Management of Technology and Quality in Electronic Consumer Service Operation: Applications to Electronic Food Retailing, University of Minnesota, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Lawer, C. (2005), Building trust and relationships through customer advocacy Copyright OCM Consulting Limited.

Maxham, G. James (2001) Consumer satisfaction; Positive word-of-mouth; Purchase intentions, Journal of business research, Volume 54, issue 1,October, Pages 11-24.

Mittal, V., Ross, W.T, Baldasare, P.M. (1998), "The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No.1, pp.33-47.

Mont, O. (2000). Product-Service Systems, AFR-Report 288, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden. Oliva, T.A, Oliver, R.L, Bearden, W.O (1995), "The relationship among consumer satisfaction, involvement, and product performance", Behavioral Science, Vol. 40 pp.104-32. Oliver, R.L. (1999), "Whence customer loyalty?", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 pp.33-44. Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. (1993), "Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No.2, pp.193-215.

Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L. (1994), Should We Delight the Customer, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, 86-94.

Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. (1993), "Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No.2, pp.193-215.

Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L. (1994), "Service quality: insights and managerial implications from the frontier", in Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.1-19.

Richins, L. Mrarshal (Winter, 1983), Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Winter, 1983), pp. 68-78.

Sderlund, M., Vilgon, M. (1999), Customer Profitability: An Empirical Examination of the Association Between Attitudes and Behavior, SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration No. 1999:1(Jan.).

Shi, J.H., Qiang Su {2007}, Evaluation of Hotel Service Quality Based on Customer Satisfaction, Service Systems and Service Management, International Conference on Volume , Issue , 9-11{ June} Page(s):1 - 5

Soderlund m, (1998), Customer Satisfaction and its Consequence on Customer behavior revisited: The impact of different levels of satisfaction on word of mouth, feedback to the suppliers and loyalty, International Journal of Services Industry Management, Vol. 9, 169-188.

Szymanski, D., Henard, D. (2001), "Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No.1, pp.16-35. Zoellick and fastwater (2000), The dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Pattern and Consumer Satisfaction . Journal of Consumer Research, VOL. 18, June 84-91.

Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. (2000), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Annexure

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Madam/Sir, I, Manoj Gupta am undergoing a Major Research Project as part of my MBA program. For completion of the project your cooperation is desired. Any information collected will solely be used for academic purpose only and the identity of the respondent shall remain confidential. Please indicate your preferences on the scale of 1 to 7 where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 7 indicate strongly agree.

1. Good lighting 2. Good furniture 3. Good decor 4. Positive first impression of staff with guest. 5. Safety and security 6. Delicious food 7. Hospitable staff 8. Pick up facilities 9.Competence to answer guests queries. 10. Politeness 11. Interest shown in solving guests problem. 12. Uniqueness in entertainment 13. I would like to tell others about my Hotel experience.

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

14. I would like to readily discuss Information about the Hotel. 15. I would like to tell others about the economic Hotel facilities. 16. I will not hesitate in guiding people to the Hotel which I believe can satisfy their needs. 17. I would like to tell others about the latest cuisine. 18. I would like to tell others about the warm friendly behaviour. 19. I would like to share with others about the courteous and respectful treatment received by the Hotel staff. 20. I would like to tell others about the willingness of the Hotel staff in resolving Guest Problems. 21. I would like to go again for dinner with my family members. 22. I would like to tell others about safety and security is providing by this Hotel. 23. I would like to share my good experience with my family members. 24. I would like to tell my friends about the quality of services. 25. I will not go again in this Hotel for dinner. 26. I will suggest friends and relatives to not visit this Hotel. 27. The quality of services in this Hotel is inadequate. 28. The quality of food in this Hotel is below expectation.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

29. The Hotel is difficult to access. 30. The Hotel staff is not well trained. 31. The accommodation facility is below expectation. 32. Pick up facilities is inadequate. 33. Check in and check out processes is complicated 34. The Standards is not maintained. 35. The Grievances handling process is Improper 36. The Hotel staff is not courteous.

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

NAME: MALE [] FEMALE [ ].

GENDER:

CONTACT NO. .

THANKYOU