Despite the importance of customer value, considerable divergence of opinion exists on how to adequately conceptualize and measure this construct. In this study, four commonly used methods for measuring customer value (i.e., the methods proposed by Dodds et al. (1991), Gale (1994), Holbrook (1999) and Woodruff and Gardial (1996)) are compared. First and foremost, the psychometric properties of the different methods are evaluated. Next, the authors compare the predictive ability of the different methods with respect to key outcome variables (i.e., satisfaction, word of mouth, repurchase intention). Finally, the methods are compared based on their relative practicality and actionability. The authors' findings show that each method has its own benefits and costs and should be used based on its suitability for a particular application. The paper culminates with a prescriptive flowchart that summarizes the main findings and provides direction for choosing the optimal value measurement method.

No abstract

Although the Alternative Uses divergent thinking task has been widely used in psychometric and experimental studies of creativity, the cognitive processes underlying this task have not been examined in detail before the two studies are reported here. In Experiment 1, a verbal protocol analysis study of the Alternative Uses task was carried out with a Think aloud group (N=40) and a Silent control group (N=64). The groups did not differ in fluency or novelty of idea production indicating no verbal overshadowing. Analysis of protocols from the Think aloud group suggested that initial responses were based on a strategy of Retrieval from long-term memory of pre-known uses. Later responses tended to be based on a small number of other strategies: property-use generation, imagined Disassembly of the target object into components and scanning of Broad Use categories for possible uses of the target item. Novelty of uses was particularly associated with the Disassembly strategy. Experiment 2 (N=103) addressed the role of executive processes in generating new and previously known uses by examining individual differences in category fluency, letter fluency and divergent task performance. After completing the task, participants were asked to indicate which of their responses were new for them. It was predicted and found in regression analyses that letter fluency (an executively loading task) was related to production of 'new' uses and category fluency was related to production of 'old' uses but not vice versa.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to profile grocery retailers in terms of seven value types based on Holbrook’s value typology; to link these value types to three key outcomes (i.e. satisfaction, repurchase intention, and word-of-mouth); and to evaluate the impact of the retail format on performance and importance of the seven value types. Design/methodology/approach – For each retail format, the authors administered a consumer survey, resulting in an aggregate sample of 392 respondents. The authors used partial least squares structural equations modeling to test the relationships between the value types and key outcomes (i.e. importance) and ANOVAs to examine cross-format differences between latent variable scores of the value types (i.e. performance). Findings – The three retail formats included in the study perform differently on Holbrook’s value types (e.g. non-discounters excel in terms of aesthetic value and play, compared to hard and soft discounters). Furthermore, this study reveals that the strategic importance of each value type depends on the key outcome (e.g. whereas efficiency is the main source of satisfaction, play mainly drives the other two outcomes). Research limitations/implications – The authors randomly assigned respondents to one of the three retail formats irrespective of their personal preference or patronage. To conduct value-based segmentation, respondents should evaluate either their preferred format or all supermarkets. Practical implications – This study offers positioning advice to retail managers, according to their format and strategic objectives. Originality/value – Unlike previous research, this paper provides a cross-format comparison of retailers based on a three-dimensional value typology and its key outcomes.

No abstract