For example, in the "gets-gives" conceptualization of customer value, the "gets" has been broadened from product/service quality to cover relationship or experience, and the "gives" has been broadened from cost/price to cover other non-monetary customer resources such as time, effort, emotion, etc.
I think its not only advantageous but also essential that the conceptual meaning of a construct be broadened based on the contextual specificity. That is why modern research is accepting adaptation and broadening of a construct to serve the specific needs of a particular study. Let me suggest a couple of examples:
The most popular approach to customer based brand equity (CBBE) is Aaker's CBBE dimensions. However, it is observed that the brand association dimension can lead to a myriad of associations that are very difficult to quantify. Therefore, brand equity studies consider 'brand image' instead of brand association. In this case 'image' which is a result of 'association' gets operationalised.
In service recovery literature 'atonement' is conceptualized as the tangible reward/ return made to disgruntled customer due to the loss he/she suffered because of the service failure. However, when this 'atonement' is operationalized, it is not restricted to the tangibles given to the customer. it also considers the mental and emotional facets of the consumer due to this atonement.
Summarizing, broadening of the concept of the construct has to be made if it is so required.
- Badges
- Science topic