A qualitative inquiry of multi-brand loyalty

Abstract

Purpose – It is evident that most consumers are polygamous and are loyal to several brands within a particular product or service category. This circumstance is coined as “multi-brand loyalty” (MBL). The present research tries to shade light on consumers' motivation to become a multi-brand loyal by answering the research question: “why consumers become multi-brand loyal within a particular service category?” The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Four focus group discussions and 13 in-depth interviews were carried out to gain deeper insights regarding the drivers of MBL. Findings – The findings of this study suggest that “financial benefits”, “need for privacy”, “competitor's attractive promotional campaign”, “public self-consciousness” and “availability of cheap handset and SIM card” are the most frequently cited reasons that can make mobile phone service users multi-brand loyal. In addition, the study reveals heterogeneity among consumers, i.e. along with “multi-brand loyals”, “sole-brand loyals”, “switchers” and “cross-buyers” also exist in the Malaysian mobile phone service market. Practical implications – These insights put forth the importance for managers of mobile phone service industry to be more cautious in formulating their retention strategies. Moreover, they will be aware of the complicated loyalty pattern of their consumers which will eventually guide them to consider different strategic moves for each different loyalty segments. Originality/value – Although the existence of MBL has been proven empirically, little attention is given to understand consumers' motive to become a multi-brand loyal, particularly in the context of services. Therefore, taking this opportunity into account, the present study fills this gap by providing an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.