1.

Introduction

Innovation within the services sector has received very little attention (Djellal et al., 2013). though
retailers area unit among the foremost cogent actors in developed economies, there has been
comparatively very little analysis on retail innovation from a abstract and empirical perspective
compared to alternative sectors (Hristov and Reynolds, 2015). This work seeks to deepen the study
of retail innovation in promoting and technologies and examines the direct and indirect effects of
innovation in these areas on satisfaction, resulting recommendation through store image, client
worth and store whole equity.

Innovation refers to the introduction of recent technologies, products, services, promoting ideas,
systems and ways that of operational to stimulate a company’s economic performance (Townsend,
2010). One new analysis line examines promoting activities and practices (Gil et al., 2014), however
empirical proof relating such innovation with variables related to satisfaction and loyalty continues
to be scanty (Nemati et al., 2010). moreover, the speedy evolution of knowledge and
communication technologies (hereinafter ICT) has radically modified market conditions by providing
new instruments to feature worth to client expertise (Thiesse et al., 2009). there's accord within the
literature over the benefits for companies of ICT use like price reductions, increased client
satisfaction, accumulated market share, ton of} versatile jobs and higher competitive blessings (Gil et
al., 2014). However, technological innovation in marketing may be a recent space of interest with
challenges and debates still to be resolved (Renko and Druzijanic, 2014).

This work studies retail innovation by exploring promoting innovation and technological innovation
from the buyer perspective. an inclination to|we tend to} analyse the direct and indirect effects of
each kinds of innovation on satisfaction, similarly because the influence of satisfaction on one in all
of} the foremost vital dimensions of loyalty, that is, viva-voce behaviour (hereinafter WOM). 3
variables – store image, client worth and store whole equity – were elite for this study from the
marketing literature as they're closely relating to satisfaction and loyalty. they're significantly
relevant in competitive sectors and show very little differentiation between merchandise and
services (Cortiñas et al., 2010). Store image may be a key strategic tool for achieving a competitive
advantage (Delgado et al., 2014) and has recently received specific attention (Kumar et al., 2014).
worth has additionally been found to be particularly relevant in retail experiences in recent years
(Yoon et al., 2014). while whole equity is AN rising space within the context of marketing and needs
bigger in-depth study (White et al., 2013; Gil et al., 2016). an inclination to|we tend to} so believe
that these variables can supply AN improved and broader abstract framework than classical linear
models of loyalty.

Our aim, therefore, is to check the contribution of selling and technological innovation on
satisfaction and WOM through image, client worth and whole equity in marketing experiences. This
analysis can change U.S.A. country|North yank nation} to discover variations within the effects of
every variety of innovation and additional perceive the connection between innovation and client
satisfaction. The results will facilitate business managers style ways and distribute resources to
enhance customers’ levels of satisfaction and their resulting recommendations.

2. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses

The contribution of satisfaction to loyalty has been wide studied within the literature (Agustin and
Singh, 2005), so the|and additionally the} relationship has historically been approached through
antecedent variables like expectations, service quality and perceived worth (Payne and Holt, 2001),
among others. though the link between satisfaction and loyalty looks obvious, varied recent studies
have highlighted the necessity to travel deeper into the antecedents and sort of relationship
between the 2 constructs (Pomirleanu et al., 2016). whereas some studies have unconcealed
nonlinear and/or uneven effects (Cooil et al., 2007), others make sure that the result of satisfaction
depends on various intermediator and moderator factors (Kumar et al., 2013; Eisenbeiss et al.,
2014). This complicated relationship is especially vital on a sensible level as companies have to be
compelled to assess to what extent and wherever it's better to speculate in satisfaction to {come up
with} loyalty (Kumar et al., 2013). Therefore, the loyalty method still presents vital challenges that
need additional investigation.

Technological development has semiconductor diode to important changes in client demands and
behaviours (Grewal et al., 2017). during this digital era, the newest works on loyalty in marketing
highlight the restrictions of evaluating satisfaction as AN upshot and demand on the necessity to live
every client touchpoint with the retail merchant (e.g. website), and integrate the technologies in
loyalty programmes (e.g. mobile wallets) (Kumar et al., 2017). seeable of those challenges, the study
of innovation in any areas of retail merchant strategy is crucial for distinctive what aspects
contribute directly and indirectly to satisfaction and loyalty.

In addition to innovation, variables like store image, client worth and whole equity have a big
presence within the loyalty method. Store image refers to the perception of selling activities (Jinfeng
and Zhilong, 2009) (e.g. commercialism, promotion, etc.), worth is sometimes related to utilitarian
and hedonistic aspects (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) (e.g. price) and whole equity is that the further
worth joined to the whole perceived by shoppers (Yoo et al., 2000). These variables area unit,
therefore, closely joined to completely different touchpoints between the client so the|and
additionally the} store and build key contributions to satisfaction and loyalty. Given the growing
recent interest in client recommendations and comments (Jayawardhena et al., 2016; Leppäniemi et
al., 2017), particularly on-line (King et al., 2014), loyalty is approached within the gift study on the
idea of WOM behaviour

(Jayawardhena et al., 2016; Leppäniemi et al., 2017).

2.1 Marketing and technological innovation

Innovation in services is a smaller amount tangible and tends to be current and harder to outline and
live (Tether, 2005). In marketing particularly, literature on innovation is comparatively new and
fragmented (Musso, 2010; Djellal et al., 2013) and offers 2 lines of research: promoting innovation
and technological innovation.

Attempts to outline and classify promoting innovation in retail area unit still scanty. one in all of} the
foremost representative contributions is from fedora et al. (2002), WHO think
{about|contemplate|take into account} that it refers to the degree of adoption of recent ideas
regarding commercialism or services. Innovation in commercialism focuses on incorporating new
kinds of presenting, organising and distributing merchandise and services within the store, whereas
innovation in services focuses on providing new services joined to the searching expertise (e.g.
nurseries, recreation areas for searching companions, customized service whereas searching, etc.)
(Kotler and lecturer, 2012). From this angle, innovation means that incorporating new techniques
and tools to enhance sales. Thus, the definition provided by the OECD (2005) focuses on this line,
process promoting innovation because the implementation of recent promoting strategies. Most
contributions to the literature on promoting innovation area unit simply abstract (Ganesan et al.,
2009; Musso, 2010; Hristov and Reynolds, 2015); there area unit some qualitative studies with a
business focus (Hristov and Reynolds, 2015) and range of|some|many} quantitative works that
analyse finish shoppers (Anselmsson and Johansson, 2009). There have, however, been hardly any
contributions from the tutorial field of selling (Naidoo, 2010).

Table I summarises the most contributions from studies analysing promoting innovation. In general,
the works show the {benefits} and edges of innovations and imply additional study of the variable.
ton of} enquiry is required get out|to search out} higher activity scales and explore the connection
between promoting innovation and satisfaction and loyalty. In short, the study of selling innovation
presents major challenges and areas to be exploited (Christofi et al., 2015).

Innovation is sometimes related to technological amendment. Technological innovation through the

introduction and development of ICTs has become consolidated in

Table I Review of main contributions on promoting innovation

recent years as a long-run strategic investment, which might deliver competitive blessings by
generating worth for the tip client (Thiesse et al., 2009). There are, however, clear opportunities for
improvement for businesses within the retail sector as a result of, in line with the 2014 report of the
Spanish National Observatory on Telecommunications so the|and additionally the} data Society
(ONTSI, 2015), retail business distribution is at intermediate levels of development and access to
advanced ICTs. Technologies like radiofrequency, self-scanning/self-payment for merchandise and
mobile applications area unit a real age which can to} be very important for the competitive
improvement of shops (Gil et al., 2014), however additional investigation is needed (Visich et al.,
2009).

Table II presents some previous studies and their findings on technological innovation in marketing.
This review shows that though few studies traumatize this variable, there's accord over the benefits
of introducing technologies in terms of prices, satisfaction, market share and fight (Karadag and
Dumanoglu, 2009; Gil et al., 2014). like promoting innovation, within the space of technological
innovation ton of} empirical proof is required on the contribution of innovation to client assessments
and behaviours.

2.2 Store image

management may be a key strategic tool for achieving a competitive advantage (Delgado et al.,
2014). Currently, the conception is receiving hefty attention from domain so the|and additionally
the} business world (Kumar et al., 2014) and is joined to consumers’ perception of a retail merchant
(Morschett et al., 2005). The study of image management began within the Fifties, so the|and
additionally the} literature is incredibly in depth. Most authors use Martineau’s (1958, p. 47) classical
conceptualization as their basis, in line with that image is “the manner within which the shopper’s
mind photos the shop, part by its useful qualities and part by its atmosphere of psychological
attributes”. alternative conceptionualization proposals have outlined it as a third-dimensional
conception (Marks, 1976; Shen, 2010a) supported the interaction of useful and emotional
components (Lindquist, 1974), additionally to the physical characteristics of the institution,
promoting combine, and a collection of psychological attributes (Chang and Tu, 2005). more
moderen studies integrate within the formation of image perceptions, beliefs and data a few specific
store (Hartman and Spiro 2005). during this context, store image is outlined as “perceptions Table II
Review of main contributions on technological innovation

of shoppers on primary promoting activities of a store” (Jinfeng and Zhilong, 2009, p. 488).
Image thus reflects the store’s identity or temperament as a result of it's a mix of beliefs and
perceptions supported tangible and intangible components that buyers attribute to an institution
(Ailawadi and lecturer, 2004; Hartman and Spiro, 2005). it's united that image may be a subjective,
consumer-centred conception and whole keen about the context (Burt et al., 2007). Thus, a spread
of variables or attributes are recognized as contributory to image formation and, above all, quality,
atmosphere, product show, services, convenience, costs and assortment (Shen, 2010a). However,
emotions, accessibility and placement, merchandise, promotion image, loyalty programmes and
payment strategies also are mentioned (Ailawadi and lecturer, 2004; Shen, 2010a; Kumar et al.,
2014). As a consequence of those completely different approaches, a large form of attributes are
thought of as forming a {part of} location image though most studies retain attributes joined to
accessibility, organization of the house, comfort and facilities as being essential parts (Beristain and
Zorrilla, 2011; Delgado et al., 2014; Gil et al., 2017).

2.3 Consumer value

Value has received special attention in recent years (Gallarza et al., 2011, 2016) and is most typically
conceptualized following Zeithaml (1988, p. 14) WHO outlined it as “the consumer’s overall
assessment of the utility of a product supported perceptions of what's received and what's given”.
This get-versus-give perspective considers worth as consumers’ world assessment of the connection
between edges (what is achieved) ANd sacrifices (what is invested) in AN exchange. worth can even
be simply confused with satisfaction though the constructs area unit completely different. worth
takes under consideration the sacrifices in AN exchange, whereas satisfaction doesn't (Grace and
O’Cass, 2005). worth happens at varied stages of the acquisition method whereas satisfaction may
be a postpurchase analysis (Oliver, 1997).

Academic analysis has projected several typologies important (Babin et al., 1994; Holbrook and
Hirschman 1982; Holbrook, 1999; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Gallarza et al., 2011, 2016), that have
given rise to completely different dimensions, from the foremost utilitarian and useful to the
foremost hedonistic. In general, typologies important is sorted into the subsequent four
approaches:

1 benefits vs sacrifices;

2 transaction worth vs acquisition worth of the product; 3 utilitarian worth vs hedonic value;
and 4 Holbrook’s (1999) compartmentalisation.

Research into worth has historically targeted on the merchandise and is scanty within the retail
context, wherever studies concentrate on a spread of views, e.g. worth of the in-store expertise
(Terblanche and Boshoff, 2004), worth of the searching method (Mathwick et al., 2002), or worth of
{the outcome|the result|the finish result} of the overall searching expertise (Babin et al., 1994). The
study by Davis et al. (2012) presents the most worth dimensions investigated within the searching
context. Empirical retail studies have historically targeted on ton of} utilitarian aspects of the
searching method, however more moderen literature indicates that buyers have motivations that
transcend the acquisition of the merchandise (Sharma et al., 2012).

The debate over utilitarian worth vs hedonic worth is joined to the economic and non-economic
approach, severally, to the study important (Babin et al., 1994; Sweeney and Soutar 2001). The
utilitarian worth of searching includes location, merchandise assortment, value and commercial
(Sullivan et al., 2012) and is completely related to client satisfaction and WOM (Babin et al., 2005).
However, hedonistic worth is intangible and ton of} emotional (Kim et al., 2007) and is related to
higher purchase frequency or purchase quantity (Scarpi, 2006).
A common follow within the literature on services is decide|to pick out} some dimensions for the
study important (Mathwick et al., 2002; Andres Martinez and Iniesta, 2006; Leroi- Werelds et al.,
2014). Following that line, from the scale important projected within the literature, an inclination
to|we tend to} think about value, in relevance utilitarian worth, to be the foremost applicable
approach for our study as an inclination to|we tend to} shall study its relationship with satisfaction
and WOM. moreover, {economic worth|value|measure|quantity|amount} has historically been
thought of the most element of client perceived worth (Sullivan et al., 2012; Gallarza et al., 2016).

2.4 Store brand equity

Brand equity is AN rising conception within the retail distribution literature (Pappu and someone,
2006; Beristain and Zorrilla, 2011; White et al., 2013). a large form of terms area unit used like
“customer-based store equity” (Hartman and Spiro, 2005), “retailer equity” (Arnett et al., 2003;
Pappu and someone, 2006) or “store value” (Bigné et al., 2013). supported the conception {of
whole|of brand name|of name} equity that historically focuses on the merchandise (Rust et al.,
2000), whole equity refers to the further worth derived from the existence of the whole (Yoo et al.,
2000) and happens once shoppers build favourable associations with a well-known whole (Keller,
1993). one in all of} the foremost outstanding contributions within the literature on whole equity is
from Aaker (1991, p. 15) WHO defines it as:

[. . .] a collection {of whole|of whole name|of name} assets and liabilities joined to a whole, its name
and image, that increase or take off from the worth provided by a product or service to a firm and/or
to it firm’s customers.

Various authors acknowledge that the bases {of whole|of brand name|of name} equity will apply to
the shop however with some variations (Ailawadi and lecturer, 2004; Pappu and someone, 2006;
Ghodeswar, 2008). Contributions on store whole equity area unit somewhat restricted and in the
main highlight the ability whole data (Hartman and Spiro, 2005) and further worth of the shop has
over shoppers (Jinfeng and Zhilong, 2009). Most studies concentrate on abstract and dimensional
aspects (Hartman and Spiro, 2005; Swoboda et al., 2009; Shen, 2010b; Gil et al., 2016), distinctive
analysis lines (Grewal and Levy, 2007) or developing measures (Arnett et al., 2003; Pappu and
someone, 2006). there's in depth analysis of antecedents and consequences within the literature on
product-oriented whole equity (Cai et al., 2015) however less thus in marketing studies (Gil et al.,
2013, 2016). the foremost recent studies indicate that empirical proof is tough to match because of
the variety of variables, terms and measures.

2.5 Satisfaction

Satisfaction is that the main objective for retail managers and an inspiration of nice interest in
marketing research (Cooil et al., 2007). The literature has outlined satisfaction from a specific/
additive approach (Boulding et al., 1993) and a cognitive/ affectional approach (Oliver, 1997).
Analysis of satisfaction with a concrete expertise is AN approach shared by several authors (Spreng
et al., 1996; Giese and shelter, 2000). However, within the marketing context satisfaction refers to a
collection of accumulated experiences (Jones and Suh, 2000; Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt, 2000). From
the psychological feature perspective satisfaction may be a judgment on an agreeable level of
consumption-related fulfilment (Oliver, 1997). during this line, store satisfaction refers to a
subjective analysis that the shop meets or exceeds expectations (Helgesen et al., 2010), and
expectation disconfirmation theory has the widest acceptance within the literature. The affectional
perspective states that satisfaction may be a outline of emotional responses of varied intensity
(Giese and shelter, 2000). joining each approaches, Lovelock and Wirtz (1997, p. 631) outline
satisfaction as:

[. . .] a person’s feelings of delight or disappointment ensuing from a consumption expertise once

scrutiny a product’s perceived performance or outcome in relevance his or her expectations.

Thus, an inclination to|we tend to} think about client satisfaction with the shop to be a additive,
affectional and psychological feature analysis.

2.6 Word-of-mouth behaviour

One of the foremost important consequences of satisfaction recognized within the loyalty literature
(Carl, 2006) is WOM behaviour or recommendations. though WOM was originally studied within the
Sixties, analysis on the subject has accumulated considerably in recent years. There area unit
completely different definitions of the WOM conception (Litvin et al., 2008). {for example|for
instance|as AN example|as AN instance|to Illustrate|parenthetically|let's say|maybe}, in line with
Westbrook’s (1987, p. 261) classic definition, WOM is “all informal communications directed at
alternative shoppers regarding the possession, usage, or characteristics of specific merchandise and
services or their sellers”. important aspects of WOM embody terribly fact|the actual fact} that it's
direct, personal ANd contains AN freelance message from the corporate that's ton of} real and
credible than advertising or promotion (Litvin et al., 2008). Therefore, WOM excludes formal
communication from customers to firms (complaints or suggestions) and from firms to customers
(promotional activities) (Mazzarol et al., 2007). Second, WOM is additionally each AN antecedent
and a consequence of consumers’ evaluations (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). within the pre-purchase
stage, people obtain data as a risk reduction strategy, and within the post-purchase stage, shoppers
use WOM for facilitate, revenge or to cut back psychological feature dissonance (Halstead, 2002).

WOM has been characterised historically as having a two-dimensional nature, with AN appraising
dimension (valency or extent to that the knowledge is positive) and a conative dimension (degree of
diffusion to others) (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Halstead, 2002). more moderen work has known new
WOM dimensions. {for example|for instance|as AN example|as AN instance|to
Illustrate|parenthetically|let's say|maybe}, Sweeney et al. (2012) additionally add the psychological
feature element that refers to what's being aforesaid so the|and additionally the} affectional
element that reflects the emotions in however it's aforesaid (Mazzarol et al., 2007). Gelbrich (2011)
considers referral and activity as WOM dimensions. Referral is that the degree to that customers
praise and advocate a corporation and its merchandise or services (Swan and jazzman, 1989) and
activity is that the intensity of reprehension others regarding the {benefits} and edges (Harrison-
Walker, 2001). Gelbrich (2011, p. 212) argues “both dimensions could become salient once
customers expertise specific emotions”. as a result of client experiences in marketing have some
hedonistic and emotional content, an inclination to|we tend to} follow this approach in our context.

2.7 Proposed model and research hypothesis

One space of innovation with concerns ton of} studies is that the contribution of selling innovation
to satisfaction and alternative connected constructs like image and worth. Works on the link
between innovation and image, like Weerawardena et al. (2006), highlight the importance of
innovation in up business image. with regard to the connection between innovation and worth,
varied authors agree that the most objective of innovation is to make worth for patrons otherwise
innovation would be AN expense (Beckeman and Olsson, 2011; writer et al., 2013). Empirical proof
reported by Ganesan et al. (2009), Lin et al. (2013) and Sekhon et al. (2015) shows that innovation in
services or some aspects of the shop incorporates a positive impact on worth as a result of it helps
to enhance offer and cut back costs.

In addition, the essence of innovation, from a promoting perspective, consists in providing

customers one thing distinctive and completely different that satisfies their desires (Simon and
Honore Petnji Yaya, 2012). during this sense, “marketing innovation might assist within the
development of recent promoting tools and strategies for targeting shoppers ton of} efficiently”
(Christofi et al., 2015, p. 360). Therefore, all promoting innovation ought to be destined towards
attracting and satisfying customers (Nemati et al., 2010). during this line, Gil et al. (2014) notice a big
direct relationship between satisfaction and innovation within the store. This empirical proof
indicates that consumers’ perceptions of innovation within the store’s promoting practices can have
a positive result on image, worth and satisfaction judgements (Figure 1). Therefore, an inclination
to|we tend to} posit the primary cluster of hypotheses:

H1. promoting innovation in retail expertise incorporates a positive impact on H1a store image, H1b
client worth and

H1c satisfaction.

As already noted, the event of ICTs provides blessings within the kind of worth not just for shoppers
(Thiesse et al., 2009) however additionally through businesses by up fight (Gil et al., 2014). This
accumulated fight is transferred to customers by up consumers’ whole image (Yeh, 2015) and
reducing the worth of the merchandise (Tsai et al., 2010). Following these contributions, an
inclination to|we tend to} assume that the innovation perceived by customers with the technologies
introduced within the store will have a positive result on image and perceived worth. Some works
show that these effects result in accumulated client satisfaction stemming from the introduction of
ICTs (Gil et al., 2014; Severo Ochoa and Pimiento, 2014). In fact, as Renko and Druzijanic (2014)
indicate, technological innovation allows retail firms to know client desires higher, and so, they'll
develop ways to enhance their satisfaction. This finding additionally suggests that perceived
technological innovation can have a positive impact on satisfaction. Therefore, an inclination to|we
tend to} posit the second cluster of hypotheses:

H2. Technological innovation in retail expertise incorporates a positive impact on H2a store imagen,
H2b client worth and H2c satisfaction.

Regarding the potential result of store image on satisfaction, past analysis acknowledges that this
image plays terribly important} role in these judgements (Thomas, 2013; Yoon et al., 2014). one in all
of} the foremost representative studies on the relation between image and satisfaction is Bloemer
and Delaware Ruyter’s (1998). ton of} recently, Thomas (2013) confirms that satisfaction mediates
the connection between image and loyalty. in addition, it's united that buyers select and assess a
store by trusting in their perception or image of it (Blackwell et al., 2006) as a result of their image
reduces the perceived risk related to the acquisition (Ailawadi and lecturer, 2004; Delgado et al.,
2014). This finding means image could build a big contribution to client assessments of the searching
expertise. Therefore, an inclination to|we tend to} think about that the image shoppers have of the
shop can have a positive and direct impact on satisfaction (Figure 1), thus an inclination to|we tend
to} posit the subsequent hypothesis:

H3. Store image in retail expertise incorporates a positive impact on satisfaction.

The influence of client worth on store whole equity is another relationship an inclination to|we tend
to} decide to check at}. during this space, varied studies addressing the character of brand name
equity establish perceived worth collectively of its dimensions (Arnett et al., 2003; Gil et al., 2013)
and at the same time as a consequence (Wagner and Benoit, 2015). There are, however, varied
empirical studies that make sure the impact important or completely different dimensions
important like value or perceived quality on store whole equity (Jinfeng and Zhilong, 2009; Gil et al.,
2013; Bigné et al., 2013).

In addition, the influence important on whole equity is explained by the “use of signals” theory
projected by Richardson et al. (1994), in line with that shoppers base their choices on the weather of
marketing-mix and business styles. as long as worth represents a cost-benefit comparison (Zeithaml,
1988), it is a key indicator of the assessment of a whole (Woodruff, 1997; Teas and Agarwal, 2000)
generating preference and positive attitudes and, therefore, influence whole equity. Some empirical
studies support this theory (Hellier et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2006). Following this approach and
taking under consideration the on top of proof, we have a tendency to assume that if shoppers
understand a store as providing bigger worth through investment in promoting actions (e.g. value
reductions), they'll show bigger preference and consequently, their perception of brand name equity
can improve. Therefore, we have a tendency to propose the subsequent hypothesis:

H4. client worth in retail expertise incorporates a positive impact on store whole equity.

In addition to the result of image, store whole equity can even play a big role in client satisfaction.
The literature relates satisfaction to whole equity from a spread of views (Aaker, 1991; Schreuer,
2000; Huang et al., 2014). in line with some contributions, satisfaction is AN antecedent as a result of
results counsel that satisfaction levels increase whole equity (Pappu and someone, 2006; Rambocas
et al., 2014). Empirical proof for the other result, however, is scanty. let's say, the qualitative study
by Glynn et al. (2012) suggests that whole equity could play a big role in client satisfaction. The work
by Huang et al. (2014) make sure that as whole equity will increase, thus will the amount of
satisfaction. These contributions indicate that if whole equity represents the further worth perceived
by the buyer of the whole (Yoo et al., 2000), the associations, preferences or positive attitudes
customers could have regarding the shop whole could condition their assessments of the searching
expertise and, therefore, influence their level of satisfaction. Therefore, during this study we have a
tendency to think about that whole equity, in conjunction with store image, is AN antecedent of
satisfaction. Therefore, we posit:

H5. Store whole equity in retail expertise incorporates a positive impact on satisfaction.

Finally, within the satisfaction–WOM relationship, there area unit some contradictory results for the
link between satisfaction and loyalty (Seiders et al., 2005; Verhoef, 2003; Kumar et al., 2013).
However, several recent studies in marketing make sure the direct result of satisfaction on WOM
behaviour or intention. let's say, Walsh et al. (2008) conclude that satisfaction incorporates a
positive impact on WOM intentions. Binninger (2008) reports that satisfaction with the shop
promotes recommendation preferences, intentions and attitudes. in line with Vesel and Zabkar
(2009) and Nesset et al. (2011), satisfaction directly influences intention to advocate. And author et
al. (2014) additionally notice a positive, important impact of satisfaction on WOM behaviour.
additionally, the connection between satisfaction ANd WOM is delineate within the kind of an
inverted “U”, such the foremost glad and discontent shoppers can give the foremost comments on
their experiences (Litvin et al., 2008). in line with these results, we have a tendency to think about
that satisfaction can have a positive impact on WOM (Figure 1), and that we posit the ultimate
hypothesis:

H6. Satisfaction in retail expertise incorporates a positive impact on

WOM.

3. Methodology

The enquiry was developed within the context of searching experiences at grocery, clothing, piece of
furniture and electronic merchandise stores. data was collected employing a quantitative analysis
technique supported a structured form. The survey was developed with a collection of fastidiously
elite scales, tested within the most up-to-date literature and custom-made to the retail context. A
pilot check was meted out and a few enhancements were created to the verbiage of the things. A
seven-point Likert-type scale was accustomed live all the variables.

The promoting innovation scale (three items) is customized from fedora et al. (2002), that
represents one among the few makes an attempt to develop a live of innovation within the
marketing sphere. This proposal considers that innovation is expounded to new ideas regarding
commercialism or services, providing a activity that features the amount of innovations adopted, the
instant they're adopted and also the consistency of innovation over time. Bearing in mind that
innovation in promoting is expounded to the implementation of recent promoting strategies (OECD,
2005), the things were made supported the contribution from fedora et al. (2002) considering that
new ideas check with innovative promoting actions meted out by the shop in aspects of
commercialism, like product assortment, in-store product placement, promotions, purpose of sale
animation and atmosphere, and in services aspects, like new services and new experiences (Kotler
and lecturer, 2012)[1]. The technological innovation scale (four items) was taken from Shanghai
dialect et al. (2006), and it measures client perception of retailers’ use and development of ICTs. The
image scale has four things supported Chowdhury et al. (1998), holding the attributes of
accessibility, organization, comfort and facilities.

To measure client worth (four items), we have a tendency to adopt the economic focus (Sullivan et
al., 2012) mistreatment the live of value projected by Sweeney and Soutar (2001). This dimension is
expounded to the utility derived from reducing perceived short and longer-term prices. With
relevance store whole equity scale (four items), some authors argue that this construct can be
evaluated from purchase intention or preference for a particular store compared with a fictional
store (Hartman and Spiro, 2005; Yoo et al., 2000), mistreatment world whole equity measures
custom-made from the merchandise context. Following this approach, the things for activity world
store equity area unit supported Shen (2010b), WHO custom-made the size at first developed by Yoo
et al. (2000) for product equity to the outlet setting. The satisfaction scale (five items) reflects the
psychological feature element (Nesset et al., 2011) and also the affectional element (Gelbrich, 2011)
supported jazzman (1997). Finally, WOM behaviour (six items) was measured in line with Gelbrich’s
(2011) proposal that differentiates WOM referral (Harrison-Walker, 2001) and WOM activity (Swan
and jazzman, 1989).

Personal circumstantial questionnaires were used. Respondents were haphazardly elite and
interviewed at the shop exit regarding their perceptions and relationship with the shop. For this
analysis, we have a tendency to think about a sample of thirteen chain stores (Alcampo – Auchan,
Carrefour, Mercadona, Lidl, Dia, H&M, Zara, Mango, Fnac, Media Markt, Apple Store, El Corte
Inglés Hogar and Ikea) with four kinds of product assortment (grocery, apparel, physical science and
residential furnishings). These store brands were elite due to their product assortment and their
position among the foremost outstanding retail brands in Europe (Interbrand, 2016) and within the
Spanish market (Interbrand, 2015). Through the inclusion of those completely different chains in
terms of status, retail formats and sectors, we have a tendency to aim at aggregation a sample of
outlet customers.
A total of 820 valid questionnaires were collected at the exit of the preceding thirteen chain stores in
a very region that's quite representative of the Spanish retail sector (Valencia, Spain). knowledge
were collected at completely different times and days over many weeks throughout the months of
February-March 2013 to avoid potential biases because of special periods (e.g. Christmas, Winter or
Summer sales). Interviewers conducted face-to-face surveys, getting valid questionnaires from
customers of grocery stores (300), attire (180), physical science (180) and residential furnishings
(160). the most characteristics of the sampling area unit shown in Table III.

Following Hair et al. (2006), varied applied math analyses were run on the info to realize the
objectives and check the projected hypotheses. Scale spatiality and validity were verified by
preliminary correlational analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation. The results allowed USA to check if
the things loaded on their corresponding dimension and to refine the activity scales. Then, verifying
correlational analysis was conducted to verify the preliminary spatiality. A activity model was
calculable to validate the issue structure of constructs and their psychology properties. Following
Marsh and Hocevar (1985) and Gerbing and Hamilton

(1996), the correlation between latent constructs was verified to analyse for a attainable higher
order between factors or dimensions. Internal consistency of the scale was evaluated considering 2
indicators: composed dependability constant and variance extracted for every scale. Analysis of the
scales complete with the study of scale construct validity for the factors within the latent variables
and absence of multiple regression between latent constructs.

Before estimating the causative relations, we have a tendency to controlled for potential common
technique bias issues with 3 analyses: Harman’s (1976) one-factor technique; index of correlation
between latent factors; and Lindell and Whitney’s technique to assess common method bias (Lindell
and Whitney, 2001). Finally, we have a tendency to proceeded to verify the hypotheses by
estimating a structural equation model. this kind of causative modelling enabled USA to contemplate
together the activity of the constructs and also the prediction to guage the results of the latent
variables while not contamination from activity errors.

Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 62 41.3 41.6 41.6
Female 87 58.0 58.4 100.0
Total 149 99.3 100.0
Missing System 1 .7
Total 150 100.0

Age
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 15 to 20 54 36.0 37.5 37.5
21 to 30 87 58.0 60.4 97.9
31 to 40 1 .7 .7 98.6
 41 to 45 1 .7 .7 99.3
46 or older 1 .7 .7 100.0
Total 144 96.0 100.0
Missing System 6 4.0
Total 150 100.0

Marital_Status
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Single 134 89.3 90.5 90.5
Married 11 7.3 7.4 98.0
Other 3 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 148 98.7 100.0
Missing System 2 1.3
Total 150 100.0

Education
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Primary 3 2.0 2.0 2.0
Secondary 1 .7 .7 2.7
University 140 93.3 94.6 97.3
Other 4 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 148 98.7 100.0
Missing System 2 1.3
Total 150 100.0

4. Results

4.1 Dimensionality, reliability and validity ofmeasurement scales

The preliminary study on scale spatiality was conducted through EFA mistreatment most probability
estimation. In terms of scale refinement, 3 things were eliminated as a result of they significantly
accumulated the alpha dependability indicator (one item from the technological innovation scale,
one item from the shop image scale and one item from WOM activity). All the scales were one-
dimensional except the WOM scale that extracted 2 dimensions: WOM referral and WOM activity.
with regard to multidimensionality, each extracted dimensions justify eighty seven.16 per cent of the
variability of the knowledge (49.03 per cent and thirty eight.13 per cent, respectively), wherever no
issue accumulates the bulk of the variance and each factors have eigenvalues bigger than one.
Therefore, following Gelbrich’s (2011) theoretical proposal, we have a tendency to retain 2
dimensions of measurements from the WOM scale.

Exploratory spatiality was confirmed with a two-order activity model estimation mistreatment
strong most probability. Taking the importance of the Chi2Sat-B data point, the worldwide work
indexes show that the variables converged towards the scale established. Going deeper into the
analysis of the third-dimensional WOM construct, the scale referral and activity were extremely
related

(0.890), and also the work of the primary order model (Chi2Sat-B(df 322) 946.1474; RMSEA zero.05;
CFI 0.963) was worse than that obtained once considering the multidimensionality in a very higher
order (Table IV). Internal consistency of the scale was evaluated considering 2 indicators: the
composed dependability constant was bigger than zero.7 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) and also the
average variance extracted was over zero.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table IV).

Scale construct validity was analysed for the factors:

1 Convergent validity was confirmed for one-dimensional scales as all the variables had
important and high standardized loadings (0.6 and t-value a pair of.58) (Steenkamp and Van Trijp,
1991), and it had been additionally confirmed for the third-dimensional WOM as a result of the
covariances between WOM referral and WOM activity were important at zero.01 and their loadings
were important once analysing a second-order activity model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

2 Discriminant validity was checked by linear correlation between every combine of

dimensions. These values were lower than the root of the AVE within the scales (Table I). This
validity was analysed full with the Chi2 distinction check between estimation of the model limiting
the correlations between every combine of constructs to the unit and also the unrestricted model
following the indications in Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The applied math worth Chi2 (df 21)
354.39 was important at ninety nine per cent (p-value zero.000). The variance inflation factors
measures, shown in Table IV, were additionally found to be a lot of under the counseled minimum
threshold of ten.0 (Kleinbaum et al., 1988), showing a transparent absence of multiple regression
between factors.

The exogenous and endogenous variables were collected for a similar shoppers, and at a similar
time, we have a tendency to checked for attainable common technique bias issues. We applied

Harman’s single-factor check (Podsakoff et al., 2003), loading all scale things on one latent issue.
work indexes were Chi2Sat-B

(df 350) nine,612.86; RMSEA zero.183; CFI zero.453; GFI zero.431; AGFI zero.340. scrutiny this
estimation with the leads to Table IV for the activity model with the seven latent variables (Chi2Sat-B
eight,903.72.80; df 23; p-value zero.000001), we are able to conclude that the single-factor
estimation had a considerably poorer work. moreover, none of the correlations between constructs
in Table IV area unit over zero.9 (Baggozi et al., 1991). Finally, in line with Lindell and Whitney
(2001), we have a tendency to used responder age as a marker variable (theoretically not relating to
the factors) and located that none of the correlations of the factors with age were important. These
analyses indicate that the common bias technique didn't considerably have an effect on the findings
from our model
 Corrected Item- Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
MI1 75.39 131.003 .535 .836
MI2 75.30 134.910 .382 .841
MI3 75.27 136.997 .324 .843
TI1 75.24 132.998 .441 .839
TI2 75.20 138.959 .202 .848
TI3 75.40 128.860 .561 .834
SI1 75.01 129.699 .563 .834
SI2 75.24 133.437 .472 .838
SI3 75.14 129.940 .566 .834
SI4 75.27 135.144 .339 .843
CV1 75.30 134.910 .298 .845
CV2 75.32 131.846 .456 .838
CV3 75.31 132.751 .420 .840
CV4 75.72 134.172 .363 .842
BSE1 75.45 136.380 .293 .845
BSE2 75.53 133.519 .391 .841
BSE3 75.46 135.925 .294 .845
BSE4 75.71 135.817 .298 .844
S1 75.31 133.778 .382 .841
S2 75.45 135.144 .387 .841
S3 75.25 131.539 .475 .838
S4 75.32 134.643 .354 .842
S5 75.07 130.897 .510 .836

4.2 Structural analysis and model testing

once finding out the dependability and also the spatiality of the activity scales, we have a tendency
to proceeded to estimate the structural equation model to verify the hypotheses (Figure 2). The
work indexes for the causative model, except the distinction associated to the strong Chi2Sat-B(df
337) one,277.26, area unit adequate (RMSEA zero.060; CFI zero.944; GFI 872: AGFI zero.846; BB-NFI
zero.926; BB-NNFI zero.938).

The results for the calculable coefficients of causative relationships show the numerous effects of
selling and technological innovation within the retail expertise on store image (13 zero.192 and
twenty three zero.282). However, technological innovation incorporates a important and positive
impact on client worth (24 zero.104) and on satisfaction (26 zero.192) however not promoting
innovation. Therefore, technological innovation influences store image, client worth and satisfaction,
whereas promoting innovation solely impacts on store image. These results mean that H1a and also
the second cluster of H2a, H2b and H2c area unit accepted client worth considerably will increase
store whole equity (45 zero.420) and H4 is verified. The satisfaction construct, additionally to
important dependency on technological innovation additionally depends on store image (36
zero.432) and store whole equity (56 zero.457), verificatory H3 and H5. Finally, WOM behaviour
(evaluated from WOM referral and WOM activity) incorporates a positive and important
dependency on satisfaction (67 zero.788). That is, most of the recommendations created by
customers area unit because of their level of satisfaction, thereby confirming H6.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The main aim of our work has been to travel deeper into the study of retail innovation, each in
promoting and technologies, and its direct and indirect effects on satisfaction and resulting
recommendation through store image, client worth and store whole equity. it's a replacement line
of study, that continues to be fragmented and with very little empirical proof (Musso, 2010; Djellal
et al., 2013; Christofi et al., 2015). Given this gap, our work presents, once a theoretical review of the
variables, AN empirical model that was tested on a sample of 820 shoppers in several kinds of stores.

The results of this empirical work counsel that each technological innovation and promoting
innovation change enhancements in consumer-perceived store image. The introduction of
technologies additionally improves client worth and client satisfaction with the shop. However,
whereas promoting innovation will influence store image, its result on client worth and satisfaction
isn't important. Therefore, in our case, customers understand promoting innovation as being slighter
than technological innovation. This distinction is also part explained by the problem in distinctive
promoting innovation with results that buyers will understand as a result of they will be additional to
try and do with the inner management of the business institution. That is, promoting innovation
refers to enhancements in services and commercialism offered by the shop. However, these
enhancements, that area unit straightforward to link to store image, area unit harder to relate to
product costs (in the shape of economic value) or with satisfaction with the acquisition.

The different contributions of the 2 innovations on worth and satisfaction is also because of the
importance of every innovation for shoppers. Shoppers (informants) could have skew their
interpretation of selling innovation towards store actions targeted on advertising, deception or
unethical practices; however they seem to possess a clearer plan of the conception of technological
innovation, particularly given the technological developments within the retail trade.

Marketing innovation will have a big indirect result on satisfaction through store image. Thus,
promoting innovation helps to enhance store image and aforesaid improvement will increase client
satisfaction. The “consumer value-store whole equity-satisfaction” chain has additionally been
confirmed because the relationships between these variables area unit important. the rise in client
worth improves customers’ perception of the whole and also the higher this perception, the
additional glad the client. Finally, our results make sure the connection between satisfaction and
WOM behaviour, in order that customers WHO area unit additional glad with the retail expertise can
build additional recommendations.

This work contributes to the literature on satisfaction and loyalty in marketing through finding out
the role of innovation. we've got found that promoting and technological innovation improve
satisfaction levels each directly and indirectly through store image, client worth and whole equity
which satisfaction stimulates recommendations to alternative shoppers. From a theoretical
perspective, these results give a broader approach by incorporating new antecedents to the
processes of satisfaction and loyalty..

Literature Review
study shows the deeper innovation in retail by marketing and technological perspectives it further
elaborated that technological and marketing helps to improve consumer perceived store image.
technological specifically helps for consumer satisfaction with store while marketing have good
influence over the store image where as it does not influence over consumersatisfaction of
consumers. so with the dimensiontechnological perspective is more important than marketing.
marketing innovation has impact through satisfaction because of store image. Improved store image
by marketing leads to satisfy consumer.