BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2015, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 0 - 0, 29.09.2015

Anil Savas Kilic Nimet Uray

Abstract

References

  • • Accenture (2013). The New Energy Consumer Handbook.
  • • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
  • • Akkemik, K. A., & Oğuz, F. (2011). Regulation, efficiency and equilibrium: A general equilibrium analysis of liberalization in the Turkish electricity market. Energy, 36(5), 3282-3292.
  • • Annala, S., Viljainen, S., & Tuunanen, J. (2013). Rationality of supplier switching in retail electricity markets. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 7(4), 459-477.
  • • Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. the Journal of Marketing, 42-58.
  • • Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Carrero, M. (2007). Analysing firms' failures as determinants of consumer switching intentions: The effect of moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2), 135-158.
  • Research, 13(3), 184-197.
  • Prime Ministry Privatization Administration (n. d.). Date retrieved: 12.05.2015,
  • address: http://www.oib.gov.tr/tedas/tedas.htm APPENDIX
  • Table 2: Studies that include service quality as a switching factor switching attitude
  • service quality | B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999)
  • service quality | B2C: Anton et al. (2007), Babu (2014) B2B & C: Zeithaml et. al. (1996a)
  • service failure | critical incident B2C: Anton et al. (2007)
  • product quality | B2C: Kim (2008)
  • service quality | B2C: Clemes et al. (2010) service failure | B2C: Colgate and Hedge (2001),
  • Gerrard and Cunningham (2004), reactional triggers B2C: Roos and Gustafsson (2007), core
  • service failure B2C: Keaveney (1995) service recovery | B2C: Colgate and Hedge (2001),
  • Colgate and Lang (2001), response in service failure B2C: Keaveney (1995), service
  • encounter failures B2C: Keaveney (1995) breadth of services | B2C: relationship breadth,
  • number of subscriptions1 B2C: Abdelrahmamn (2011), range of goods B2C: Roos (1999),
  • value added services B2C: Makwana et al. (2014), service attributes (C)2 B2C: Lewis and
  • Soureli (2006) convenience | inconvenience B2C: Keaveney (1995), Gerrard and
  • Cunningham (2004) number of bank branches B2C: distance B2C: Clemes et al. (2010)
  • location B2C: Roos (1999)
  • behavioral intention service quality B2C: Cronin et al. (2000) B2B: Schertzer (2006) loyalty
  • Miller (2007) quality of teaching3 B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) call quality B2C: Kim
  • and Yoon (2004) service failure | B2C: Buttle and Burton (2002) service recovery | B2C:
  • Buttle and Burton (2002) service attributes (C)4 B2C: Lewis and Soureli (2006)
  • Convenience | service attributes (B) 3 B2C: Lewis and Soureli (2006)
  • service quality | B2C: Cronin and Taylor (1992) service recovery | B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007)
  • service quality B2B: Lam et al. (2009)
  • service recovery | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • relationship breadth B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) retention
  • terms belong to banking industry
  • Service attributes have measures covering a number of separate constructs representing (A)communication,
  • (B)convenience, and (C)innovative products
  • 3 terms belong to education sector
  • Service attributes have measures covering a number of separate constructs representing (A)communication,
  • (B)convenience, and (C)innovative products
  • Table 3: Studies that include prior switching behavior as a switching factor
  • prior switching behavior | B2C: Thomas et al. (2004)
  • prior switching behavior | B2C: Ganesh et al. (2000)6 length of business relationship | B2B:
  • Lam and Burton (2006)
  • prior churn | B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) Retention
  • Table 4: Studies that include satisfaction as a switching factor Switching intention
  • satisfaction | B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999), Walsh et al. (2005), Walsh et al. (2006)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Keaveney and Parthasarathy (2001)7 , Kim and Yoon (2004)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Cronin et al. (2000)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Rust and Zahorik (1993), Jones and Sasser (1995), Gremler and Brown
  • (1996), Mittal and Lassar (1998), Oliver (1999), Beerli et al. (2004), Buttle and Burton
  • (2002), Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), Ball et al. (2004), Kim et al. (2004), Aydin et al.
  • (2005), Lewis and Soureli (2006), Eshghi et al. (2007), Li and Petrick (2008), Lai et al.
  • (2009), Ibáñez et al. (2006), Hartmann and Ibanez (2007) B2B: Lam et al. (2004)
  • satisfaction (in relationship quality) B2B: Rauyruen & Miller (2007) relationship
  • satisfaction | B2B: Caceres and Paparoidamis (2007)
  • Repurchase intentions satisfaction |
  • B2C: Cronin and Taylor (1992), Jones (1998 B2B: Patterson and Spreng (1997)
  • satisfaction | B2B: Molinari et al. (2008)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) Retention
  • Table 5: Studies that include value as a switching factor
  • Behavioral intention
  • value | B2C: Cronin et al. (2000)
  • value | B2C: Buttle and Burton (2002), Chiu et al. (2004), Lewis and Soureli (2006), Lai et Loyalty
  • al. (2009) B2B: Lam et al. (2004)
  • Repurchase intentions value | B2B: Patterson and Spreng (1997) Repurchase behavior
  • value | B2B: Molinari et al. (2008)
  • Authors study the the probability of a firm reacquiring a customer according to the lapse duration
  • Authors don't directly mention the related construct as a factor, but group customers accordingly and identify their differences
  • Authors don't directly mention the related construct as a factor, but group customers accordingly and identify their differences
  • Table 6: Studies that include trust as a switching factor
  • switching behaviour reputation | B2C: Clemes et al. (2010)0 ethical problems | B2C: Keaveney (1995) loyalty
  • (2006), Ibáñez et al. (2006) B2B: Caceres & Paparoidamis (2007) brand trust | B2C:
  • Hartmann and Ibanez (2007) confidence benefits | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) trust
  • (in relationship quality) B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) B2B: Rauyruen & Miller (2007)
  • anticipated future trust of supplier | B2B: Doney and Cannon (1997)0 trust of sales- person | B2B: Doney and interaction reasons to stay
  • confidence | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 7: Studies that include commitment as a switching factor switching intention
  • commitment | B2C: Anton et al. (2007)
  • commitment | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) B2B: Caceres and Paparoidamis (2007)
  • emotional commitment (in relationship quality) | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001)
  • commitment (in relationship quality) | B2B: Rauyruen & Miller (2007)
  • commitment | B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) retention
  • Table 8: Studies that include attitude and subjective norms as a switching factor switching attitude
  • subjective norms B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999)
  • switching intention attitude towards switching / subjective norms B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999)
  • Table 9: Studies that include influential triggers as a switching factor
  • Switching behaviour influential triggers | B2C: Roos and Gustafsson (2007) advertisement | B2C: Clemes et al. (2010)
  • Table 10: Studies that include price as a switching factor switching attitude
  • switching intention price changes | B2C: Anton et al. (2007)0 switching decision
  • price | B2C: Kim (2008)0
  • price | B2C: Roos (1999), Thomas et al. (2004), Clemes et al. (2010) pricing | B2C: Keaveney
  • switching behaviour (1995), Gerrard and Cunningham (2004), Makwana et al. (2014) pricing problems | B2C:
  • Colgate and Hedge (2001) interest rate loyalty
  • 8 | B2C: Abdelrahmamn (2011)
  • price | B2B: Naumann et al. (2010)0
  • terms belong to banking industry
  • Table 11: Studies that include alternative attractiveness as a switching factor
  • attraction by competitors | B2C: Keaveney (1995) apathy (B)9 | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001)
  • quality of alternative options | B2C: Li and Petrick (2008) better service | B2B: Naumann Loyalty et al. (2010)
  • Repurchase intentions attractiveness of alternatives | B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) Reasons to stay
  • alternatives | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 12: Studies that include segment focus as a switching factor
  • Behavioral intention image - industry knowledge | B2B: Schertzer (2006) image - customer focus and expertise |
  • B2B: Schertzer (2006)
  • Table 13: Studies that include variety seeking as a switching factor Switching behaviour
  • variation B2C: Roos (1999)
  • Repurchase intentions
  • inertia (B)10 B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007)
  • Table 14: Studies that include switching costs as a switching factor
  • switching attitude information search costs | B2C: Gamble et al. (2009)
  • switching decision switching costs | B2C: Kim (2008) switching behaviour
  • Abdel-rahmamn (2011) apathy (A)14 | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001) negativity | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001)
  • switching costs | B2C: Gremler and Brown (1996), De Ruyter et al. (1998), Beerli et al. (2004),
  • Aydin and Özer (2004), Aydin et al. (2005), Ibáñez et al. (2006), Hartmann and Ibanez (2007
  • B2B: Lam et al. (2004) investment in the relationship | B2C: Li and Petrick (2008)
  • switching costs | B2C: Jones et al. (2000) B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) inertia (A)15 |
  • B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) intentions
  • 9 Apathy has two measures; (A) relating to switching costs and (B) relating to attractiveness of alternatives
  • 10 White and Yanamandram (2007) define two dimensions of inertia: "(A) Inertia as the outcome, the customer
  • thinks that the alternatives are unattractive due to switching costs), (B) Inertia as a behavioural characteristic
  • defined as "the customer is lazy, inactive, or passive"
  • 11 Matthews et al. (2008) found out that "switching costs on the relationship between a person’s desire to switch
  • banks and the likelihood that they will actually do so", however in the table it is located under switching
  • behaviour column for the sake of the presentation
  • Relationship investment has two parts of measures; A relating to switching costs and B relating to social bonds
  • terms belong to banking industry
  • Apathy has two measures; (A) relating to switching costs and (B) relating to attractiveness of alternatives
  • 15 White and Yanamandram (2007) define two dimensions of inertia: "(A) Inertia as the outcome, the customer
  • thinks that the alternatives are unattractive due to switching costs), (B) Inertia as a behavioural characteristic
  • defined as "the customer is lazy, inactive, or passive" retention switching costs | B2C: Hess and Ricard (2003) reasons to stay switching costs | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007) time and effort |B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 15: Studies that include social bonds as a switching factor switching intention
  • switching behaviour relational bonds | B2B: Lam et al. (2009)
  • relationship investment (B)16 | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001)
  • Inter-personal bonds | B2C: Gremler and Brown (1996)0 special treatment | B2C: Gremler
  • and Brown (1996) special treatment benefits | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) social
  • benefits | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) personnel | B2C: Roos (1999)
  • repurchase intentions interpersonal relationships B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) reasons to stay
  • social bonds | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007) emotional bonds B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 16: Studies that include image as a switching factor Loyalty
  • image | B2C: Lewis and Soureli (2006) brand image | B2C: (Kim and Yoon (2004) corporate image | B2C:
  • Aydin and Özer (2004)
  • Relationship investment has two parts of measures; A relating to switching costs and B relating to social bonds

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIER SWITCHING: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL BASED ON MIGRATION THEORY

Year 2015, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 0 - 0, 29.09.2015

Anil Savas Kilic Nimet Uray

Abstract

Electricity sector liberalization is moving forward with the purpose of efficiency, better customer service, and lower prices; however it has not fully succeeded yet, neither in Europe nor in the rest of the world. While service provider switching is an indicator of successful liberalization, it also means customer loss and acquisition from the electricity suppliers’ point of view. Therefore, it has a significant importance for both the market regulator and market participants including customers and suppliers, making it a concept that should be understood thoroughly. This paper aims to build a conceptual model of electricity supplier switching behavior to be tested for a relatively neglected customer segment in the business to business market [B2B]: small and medium enterprises [SME]s. The model can also be used for business to consumer [B2C] segment because of the similar behaviors of small organizations and individuals. The model proposed in this study is mainly based on the study of Bansal et al. (2005) who adopt push, pull, and moorings [PPM] migration model to switching, using the similarities between human migration and customer switching. An extensive literature research is conducted to support and contribute to the existing PPM model and to have an extended version of it.

Keywords

Service switching Switching factors Pull-Push-Mooring Model Migration theory Utilities

References

  • • Accenture (2013). The New Energy Consumer Handbook.
  • • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
  • • Akkemik, K. A., & Oğuz, F. (2011). Regulation, efficiency and equilibrium: A general equilibrium analysis of liberalization in the Turkish electricity market. Energy, 36(5), 3282-3292.
  • • Annala, S., Viljainen, S., & Tuunanen, J. (2013). Rationality of supplier switching in retail electricity markets. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 7(4), 459-477.
  • • Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. the Journal of Marketing, 42-58.
  • • Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Carrero, M. (2007). Analysing firms' failures as determinants of consumer switching intentions: The effect of moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2), 135-158.
  • Research, 13(3), 184-197.
  • Prime Ministry Privatization Administration (n. d.). Date retrieved: 12.05.2015,
  • address: http://www.oib.gov.tr/tedas/tedas.htm APPENDIX
  • Table 2: Studies that include service quality as a switching factor switching attitude
  • service quality | B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999)
  • service quality | B2C: Anton et al. (2007), Babu (2014) B2B & C: Zeithaml et. al. (1996a)
  • service failure | critical incident B2C: Anton et al. (2007)
  • product quality | B2C: Kim (2008)
  • service quality | B2C: Clemes et al. (2010) service failure | B2C: Colgate and Hedge (2001),
  • Gerrard and Cunningham (2004), reactional triggers B2C: Roos and Gustafsson (2007), core
  • service failure B2C: Keaveney (1995) service recovery | B2C: Colgate and Hedge (2001),
  • Colgate and Lang (2001), response in service failure B2C: Keaveney (1995), service
  • encounter failures B2C: Keaveney (1995) breadth of services | B2C: relationship breadth,
  • number of subscriptions1 B2C: Abdelrahmamn (2011), range of goods B2C: Roos (1999),
  • value added services B2C: Makwana et al. (2014), service attributes (C)2 B2C: Lewis and
  • Soureli (2006) convenience | inconvenience B2C: Keaveney (1995), Gerrard and
  • Cunningham (2004) number of bank branches B2C: distance B2C: Clemes et al. (2010)
  • location B2C: Roos (1999)
  • behavioral intention service quality B2C: Cronin et al. (2000) B2B: Schertzer (2006) loyalty
  • Miller (2007) quality of teaching3 B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) call quality B2C: Kim
  • and Yoon (2004) service failure | B2C: Buttle and Burton (2002) service recovery | B2C:
  • Buttle and Burton (2002) service attributes (C)4 B2C: Lewis and Soureli (2006)
  • Convenience | service attributes (B) 3 B2C: Lewis and Soureli (2006)
  • service quality | B2C: Cronin and Taylor (1992) service recovery | B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007)
  • service quality B2B: Lam et al. (2009)
  • service recovery | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • relationship breadth B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) retention
  • terms belong to banking industry
  • Service attributes have measures covering a number of separate constructs representing (A)communication,
  • (B)convenience, and (C)innovative products
  • 3 terms belong to education sector
  • Service attributes have measures covering a number of separate constructs representing (A)communication,
  • (B)convenience, and (C)innovative products
  • Table 3: Studies that include prior switching behavior as a switching factor
  • prior switching behavior | B2C: Thomas et al. (2004)
  • prior switching behavior | B2C: Ganesh et al. (2000)6 length of business relationship | B2B:
  • Lam and Burton (2006)
  • prior churn | B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) Retention
  • Table 4: Studies that include satisfaction as a switching factor Switching intention
  • satisfaction | B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999), Walsh et al. (2005), Walsh et al. (2006)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Keaveney and Parthasarathy (2001)7 , Kim and Yoon (2004)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Cronin et al. (2000)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Rust and Zahorik (1993), Jones and Sasser (1995), Gremler and Brown
  • (1996), Mittal and Lassar (1998), Oliver (1999), Beerli et al. (2004), Buttle and Burton
  • (2002), Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001), Ball et al. (2004), Kim et al. (2004), Aydin et al.
  • (2005), Lewis and Soureli (2006), Eshghi et al. (2007), Li and Petrick (2008), Lai et al.
  • (2009), Ibáñez et al. (2006), Hartmann and Ibanez (2007) B2B: Lam et al. (2004)
  • satisfaction (in relationship quality) B2B: Rauyruen & Miller (2007) relationship
  • satisfaction | B2B: Caceres and Paparoidamis (2007)
  • Repurchase intentions satisfaction |
  • B2C: Cronin and Taylor (1992), Jones (1998 B2B: Patterson and Spreng (1997)
  • satisfaction | B2B: Molinari et al. (2008)
  • satisfaction | B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) Retention
  • Table 5: Studies that include value as a switching factor
  • Behavioral intention
  • value | B2C: Cronin et al. (2000)
  • value | B2C: Buttle and Burton (2002), Chiu et al. (2004), Lewis and Soureli (2006), Lai et Loyalty
  • al. (2009) B2B: Lam et al. (2004)
  • Repurchase intentions value | B2B: Patterson and Spreng (1997) Repurchase behavior
  • value | B2B: Molinari et al. (2008)
  • Authors study the the probability of a firm reacquiring a customer according to the lapse duration
  • Authors don't directly mention the related construct as a factor, but group customers accordingly and identify their differences
  • Authors don't directly mention the related construct as a factor, but group customers accordingly and identify their differences
  • Table 6: Studies that include trust as a switching factor
  • switching behaviour reputation | B2C: Clemes et al. (2010)0 ethical problems | B2C: Keaveney (1995) loyalty
  • (2006), Ibáñez et al. (2006) B2B: Caceres & Paparoidamis (2007) brand trust | B2C:
  • Hartmann and Ibanez (2007) confidence benefits | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) trust
  • (in relationship quality) B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) B2B: Rauyruen & Miller (2007)
  • anticipated future trust of supplier | B2B: Doney and Cannon (1997)0 trust of sales- person | B2B: Doney and interaction reasons to stay
  • confidence | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 7: Studies that include commitment as a switching factor switching intention
  • commitment | B2C: Anton et al. (2007)
  • commitment | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) B2B: Caceres and Paparoidamis (2007)
  • emotional commitment (in relationship quality) | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001)
  • commitment (in relationship quality) | B2B: Rauyruen & Miller (2007)
  • commitment | B2C: Gustafsson et al. (2005) retention
  • Table 8: Studies that include attitude and subjective norms as a switching factor switching attitude
  • subjective norms B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999)
  • switching intention attitude towards switching / subjective norms B2C: Bansal (1997), Bansal and Taylor (1999)
  • Table 9: Studies that include influential triggers as a switching factor
  • Switching behaviour influential triggers | B2C: Roos and Gustafsson (2007) advertisement | B2C: Clemes et al. (2010)
  • Table 10: Studies that include price as a switching factor switching attitude
  • switching intention price changes | B2C: Anton et al. (2007)0 switching decision
  • price | B2C: Kim (2008)0
  • price | B2C: Roos (1999), Thomas et al. (2004), Clemes et al. (2010) pricing | B2C: Keaveney
  • switching behaviour (1995), Gerrard and Cunningham (2004), Makwana et al. (2014) pricing problems | B2C:
  • Colgate and Hedge (2001) interest rate loyalty
  • 8 | B2C: Abdelrahmamn (2011)
  • price | B2B: Naumann et al. (2010)0
  • terms belong to banking industry
  • Table 11: Studies that include alternative attractiveness as a switching factor
  • attraction by competitors | B2C: Keaveney (1995) apathy (B)9 | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001)
  • quality of alternative options | B2C: Li and Petrick (2008) better service | B2B: Naumann Loyalty et al. (2010)
  • Repurchase intentions attractiveness of alternatives | B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) Reasons to stay
  • alternatives | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 12: Studies that include segment focus as a switching factor
  • Behavioral intention image - industry knowledge | B2B: Schertzer (2006) image - customer focus and expertise |
  • B2B: Schertzer (2006)
  • Table 13: Studies that include variety seeking as a switching factor Switching behaviour
  • variation B2C: Roos (1999)
  • Repurchase intentions
  • inertia (B)10 B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007)
  • Table 14: Studies that include switching costs as a switching factor
  • switching attitude information search costs | B2C: Gamble et al. (2009)
  • switching decision switching costs | B2C: Kim (2008) switching behaviour
  • Abdel-rahmamn (2011) apathy (A)14 | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001) negativity | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001)
  • switching costs | B2C: Gremler and Brown (1996), De Ruyter et al. (1998), Beerli et al. (2004),
  • Aydin and Özer (2004), Aydin et al. (2005), Ibáñez et al. (2006), Hartmann and Ibanez (2007
  • B2B: Lam et al. (2004) investment in the relationship | B2C: Li and Petrick (2008)
  • switching costs | B2C: Jones et al. (2000) B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) inertia (A)15 |
  • B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) intentions
  • 9 Apathy has two measures; (A) relating to switching costs and (B) relating to attractiveness of alternatives
  • 10 White and Yanamandram (2007) define two dimensions of inertia: "(A) Inertia as the outcome, the customer
  • thinks that the alternatives are unattractive due to switching costs), (B) Inertia as a behavioural characteristic
  • defined as "the customer is lazy, inactive, or passive"
  • 11 Matthews et al. (2008) found out that "switching costs on the relationship between a person’s desire to switch
  • banks and the likelihood that they will actually do so", however in the table it is located under switching
  • behaviour column for the sake of the presentation
  • Relationship investment has two parts of measures; A relating to switching costs and B relating to social bonds
  • terms belong to banking industry
  • Apathy has two measures; (A) relating to switching costs and (B) relating to attractiveness of alternatives
  • 15 White and Yanamandram (2007) define two dimensions of inertia: "(A) Inertia as the outcome, the customer
  • thinks that the alternatives are unattractive due to switching costs), (B) Inertia as a behavioural characteristic
  • defined as "the customer is lazy, inactive, or passive" retention switching costs | B2C: Hess and Ricard (2003) reasons to stay switching costs | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007) time and effort |B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 15: Studies that include social bonds as a switching factor switching intention
  • switching behaviour relational bonds | B2B: Lam et al. (2009)
  • relationship investment (B)16 | B2C: Colgate and Lang (2001)
  • Inter-personal bonds | B2C: Gremler and Brown (1996)0 special treatment | B2C: Gremler
  • and Brown (1996) special treatment benefits | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) social
  • benefits | B2C: Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) personnel | B2C: Roos (1999)
  • repurchase intentions interpersonal relationships B2B: White and Yanamandram (2007) reasons to stay
  • social bonds | B2C: Colgate et al. (2007) emotional bonds B2C: Colgate et al. (2007)
  • Table 16: Studies that include image as a switching factor Loyalty
  • image | B2C: Lewis and Soureli (2006) brand image | B2C: (Kim and Yoon (2004) corporate image | B2C:
  • Aydin and Özer (2004)
  • Relationship investment has two parts of measures; A relating to switching costs and B relating to social bonds
There are 142 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Articles
Authors

Anil Savas Kilic This is me

Nimet Uray

Publication Date September 29, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 4 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Kilic, A. S., & Uray, N. (2015). ELECTRICITY SUPPLIER SWITCHING: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL BASED ON MIGRATION THEORY. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2015313140

Journal of Business, Economics and Finance (JBEF) is a scientific, academic, double blind peer-reviewed, quarterly and open-access journal. The publication language is English. The journal publishes four issues a year. The issuing months are March, June, September and December. The journal aims to provide a research source for all practitioners, policy makers and researchers working in the areas of business, economics and finance. The Editor of JBEF invites all manuscripts that that cover theoretical and/or applied researches on topics related to the interest areas of the Journal. JBEF charges no submission or publication fee.



Ethics Policy - JBEF applies the standards of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). JBEF is committed to the academic community ensuring ethics and quality of manuscripts in publications. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden and the manuscripts found to be plagiarized will not be accepted or if published will be removed from the publication. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. Plagiarism, duplicate, data fabrication and redundant publications are forbidden. The manuscripts are subject to plagiarism check by iThenticate or similar. All manuscript submissions must provide a similarity report (up to 15% excluding quotes, bibliography, abstract, method).


Open Access - All research articles published in PressAcademia Journals are fully open access; immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers. Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now.