ACTA UNIVERSITATIS AGRICULTURAE ET SILVICULTURAE MENDELIANAE BRUNENSIS

Volume 63 112 Number 3, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563031013

EFFECT OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

ON COMPANY PERFORMANCE

Petr Suchánek1, Maria Králová2

1
Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Lipová 41a, 602 00 Brno, Czech
Republic
2
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Economics and Administration,
Lipová 41a, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Abstract

SUCHÁNEK PETR, KRÁLOVÁ MARIA. 2015. Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Company

Performance. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(3): 1013–1021.

The subject of this article is customer satisfaction and its impact on company performance through
satisfaction with its products, including a comparison with the competition. Research was conducted
in search of factors which affect customer satisfaction on the one hand and the performance of the
company on the other hand. We constructed a model explaining what specific factors (affecting
customer satisfaction) have an impact on the performance of a company. This model can help
management to better run the business and achieve higher performance. The article is based on
research that focused on companies in the food industry in Czech Republic and on their customers.
First, we found the financial performance of surveyed companies (based on indicators ROA, ROE
and assets turnover) and on this basis they have been divided on companies efficient and inefficient.
Furthermore factors were identified (based on previous research of authors) that have an impact
on customer satisfaction (among these factors include product quality, customer requirements for
product, comparison with competitive products, etc.). With the use of non-parametric statistical
methods, logistic regression and discriminant analysis was analyzed, what factors affecting customer
satisfaction also affect business performance.

Keywords: customer satisfaction, product quality, company performance

INTRODUCTION through satisfaction with its products, including

This article deals with the relationship between a comparison with the competition. This article
customer satisfaction and business performance. aims to find the factors of customer satisfaction
It is based on the claim that customer satisfaction which have an impact on company performance.
is formed and influenced by various factors, which The operational objective of the article is to put
in turn affect company performance. From the these factors into context with performance so
perspective of the company and its management it is that managers may, by deliberately influencing
essential that the business can (directly or indirectly) these factors, affect customer satisfaction and
affect (at least some) factors of customer satisfaction. consequently the performance of their company.
It is, therefore, vital for the enterprise management A model was, therefore, designed within the scope
to identify the factors of customer satisfaction of research, where customer satisfaction consisted
and, when possible, to influence them so that the of three groups of interrelated factors that affect
performance of the company may increase. The company performance. These include factors
research, on which this article is based, is focused characterizing customer shopping behaviour (e.g.
just on those customer satisfaction factors that may frequency of purchase, length of use, satisfaction
(directly or indirectly) affect the management of the with the product, etc.), product quality (e.g.
company. price, technical features of the product, etc.) and
The subject of this article is then customer comparing the product of a relevant business with
satisfaction and its impact on company performance the competition (e.g. tradition, quality, customer
relations, etc.).

1013
1014 Petr Suchánek, Maria Králová

The research was conducted on a sample of food depends on customer satisfaction (see below), it can
enterprises in the Czech Republic as the products be assumed that higher customer satisfaction means
of these enterprises are widely available in retail higher product quality and higher willingness to
chains, and it is, therefore, not a problem to obtain purchase the product (share of wallet). The above-
respondents among customers of these businesses. mentioned satisfaction – profit chain can thus be
In order to ensure maximum homogeneity of the supplemented with product quality; its place being
sample of respondents (customers of surveyed between satisfaction and share of wallet.
companies) the research was eventually narrowed With respect to the time horizon, the authors
to students. This group of customers is to a certain understand the relationship of product quality and
extent somewhat specific; however, it makes up customer satisfaction in the long term, i.e. should
a significant percentage of customers in the context a satisfied customer positively affect the profitability
of the Czech population. of the company (through the purchase of a quality
product), this customer must be acquired and (in the
long run) also retained. This is consistent with the
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
findings of Anderson and Mittal (Anderson, Mittal,
Quality (of a product) and customer satisfaction 2000) and Cooil (Cooil et al., 2007).
are the key factors of a company performance, which The term “quality” is oen interpreted differently
has been confirmed by many studies (Matzler et al., by different authors, for example, Parasuraman
2004). Customer satisfaction is generally defined (Parasuraman et al., 1985) defines quality as zero
as a feeling or judgment by customers towards defect production, whereas Crosby (Crosby,
products or services aer they have used them 1979) understands quality as conformance to the
(Jamal and Naser, 2003). Customer satisfaction can requirements of the customer. From the customer’s
mean very different things among to the answerer. perspective it is then possible to understand quality
It may include such factors as delivery time, price, as quality perceived on the basis of the consumer’s
conformity, professionalism, or it is generally just judgment about a product’s overall excellence
a response to customer’ requests (Kuronen, Takala, or superiority (Zeithaml, 1988). In this context,
2013). Fornell notes that if the first determinant of overall
Customer satisfaction can thus be understood customer satisfaction is perceived quality, then the
as the result of a subjective process – the customer second determinant of overall customer satisfaction
compares his ideas with perceived reality (Anderson is perceived value (Fornell et al., 1996).
et al., 1994). Such a definition of customer satisfaction This finding suggests that quality can be
is consistent with the transaction-specific concept, associated with customer satisfaction, or rather
which evaluates specific buying opportunities that the quality level is determined by the level of
aer the completion of the selection (and possible customer satisfaction. At the same time, however,
purchase) of a product (Anderson et al., 1994). Selnes this level of customer satisfaction (and product
similarly defines customer satisfaction as the post- quality) also reflects the value that the customer
choice evaluative judgment of a specific transaction (subjectively) assigns to the product. The price,
(Selnes, 1993). which the customer is willing to pay for a product,
When examining customer satisfaction, the can then be deduced from this value. However,
authors aimed their research at the current state with respect to the above definition, it must hold
of customer satisfaction as well as Al-Hawari and true that higher satisfaction of the customer’s needs
Ward (Al-Hawari, Ward, 2006). This definition was and his higher gratification does not automatically
used because the research is aimed at determining mean that the customer perceives the higher quality
customer satisfaction with a particular product (the of the product. To this notion can be added that
subject of the research is then not the determination higher product quality also means a higher value of
of customer satisfaction with the purchase as the product and the higher the price the customer
a whole, nor demographic, situational or other attributes to the product. However, it is not at all
characteristics that lead to the customer’s decision to certain whether the customer will be willing to pay
buy the product). this (higher) price for the (better) product.
To a certain extent, there was a narrowing of the Company performance can be seen in the context
issue of customer satisfaction, as the marketing of the production capacity of the company, i.e. as
policy of the company (the way of using marketing an output from the manufacturing process going
tools, including pricing strategies), which affects on in the company. This approach directly incites
customer satisfaction and consequently company the use of accounting data for direct and simple
profit was not addressed (Zeithaml, 2000). performance evaluation, by the means of company
The authors then seemingly did not proceed performance appraisal in relevant prices of
in accordance with satisfaction – profit chain specified products. The most widely used company
(satisfaction  share of wallet  revenue  profit) performance indicators include profitability,
(Cooil et al., 2007 cf. Anderson, Mittal, 2000), but namely return on sales – ROS, return on assets –
concentrated on the product and its impact on ROA, return on equity – ROE (Richard, 2009). It
customer satisfaction and consequently the profit of is also possible to use asset turnover – ATO for
the company. Given that the quality of the product
 Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Company Performance 1015

performance evaluation, as did, for example, Gu or sample of customers examined comprised 5592
Habib (Gu et al., 2006; Habib, 2006). persons (students), which were questioned during
Measuring company performance based on the autumn of 2013.
accounting data is problematic because the First, on the basis of economic indicators,
accounting data does not (more or less) fully reflect companies were divided into ‘performing’ and
the actual (market) performance of the company. ‘non-performing’ ones. Enterprises with two out
Therefore, we are offered the possibility of using of the three indicators (ROA, ROE, ATO) above the
the market price of shares, or indicators based on median, aer discarding a priori poor enterprises
this price in measuring company performance. (Equity < 0), are those the study regarded as
For the measurement of performance Tobin’s performing. The remaining enterprises were
coefficient (q) can then be used (Anderson et al., regarded by the study as non-performing.
2004). However, in the Czech Republic, the use of The factors of the customers’ satisfaction
indicators of capital market is problematic because characteristics were then ascertained for both
there are only 15 firms traded on the main market samples of enterprises, and differences were looked
of the Prague Stock Exchange (PSE) (i.e. across all for between both of the samples. The results were
sectors, these companies make up 98.5% of the evaluated based on Mann-Whitney tests. To predict
total volume of transactions in 2013, for more whether the company will be efficient or inefficient
information see Yearbooks 2013, 2014). However, (based on the examined customer satisfaction
there are tens of thousands of liability companies factors) discriminant analysis and logistic regression
(according to the Albertina database there was were used. Because the results of both methods led
a total of 25,273 companies up to 10. 7. 2014, to similar conclusions, only the results obtained by
of which 463 were food industry enterprises). logistic regression are mentioned in the article. The
Moreover, the market value of other legal forms of significance of all tests was assessed with regard to
enterprises (such as limited liability companies) can the level of significance  = 0.05.
be difficult to measure because these companies
do not issue any shares. Their market value can only
RESULTS
be determined using business valuation methods
that are relatively demanding in terms of internal In the first part dedicated to enterprise perfor-
information. Therefore, the above-mentioned mances, the researched enterprises are divided into
standard ratio indicators were eventually put in use two groups – the productive and non-productive
for performance evaluation. companies on the basis of ROE, ROA, and ATO (var-
iable activity in Tabs. I and II). To give a clearer pic-
ture of both groups of enterprises and to give em-
MATERIAL AND METHODS phasis on the differences between them also the
Research was conducted in the form of two values of liquidity (L3) and indebtedness (the ratio
questionnaires (in which data was ascertained). of own capital to the whole capital – variable equity
The first questionnaire was divided into several in Tabs. I and II) are presented. In the second part
areas, where for the purposes of this paper the dedicated to customer satisfaction the factors are
area devoted to product quality (three questions), presented with an influence on the performance of
customer’s character of shopping behavior (six the enterprises examined (statistically significant).
questions) and competitiveness (thirteen questions),
was used. These sections contained rating scale The Performance of Companies
questions. This questionnaire was filled from In this section are set out the results of the
customers of surveyed companies. evaluation of the performance of the examined
The second questionnaire was filled from enterprises with respect to individual performance
respondents of surveyed enterprises. This indicators. The characteristics of the performing
questionnaire was additionally supplemented enterprises are given in Tab. I, while the
with selected quantitative data from the balance characteristics of the non-performing enterprises
sheet and profit and loss account (for 2012), so as to are given in Tab. II. The results clearly show that
determine the basic ratios of profitability (namely there were 38 performing enterprises and 48 non-
ROE and ROA), activity (namely ATO), liquidity performing one.
(including long-liquidity – L3) and indebtedness In light of the classification method, it was no
(namely own-funds ratio). The design of these surprise that the performing enterprises in the
indicators also emanates from methods used by selection have on average much higher ROE
the authors in previous research, and which are indicators, whereas the indictor for ROA and L3
furthermore in accordance with the design used liquidity is only slightly higher. The ATO indicator
by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech (assets) is on average for performing enterprises
Republic (Suchánek, Špalek, 2007). even a little lower. Also, the indebtedness
The sample of enterprises examined comprised indicator is considerably lower for performing
86 companies in the food industry sector, which enterprises than it is for non-performing ones. It
were questioned during the autumn of 2013. is clear that the essential difference between the
Economic data were gathered for the year 2012. The performing and non-performing enterprises in
1016 Petr Suchánek, Maria Králová

I: Economic characteristics of performing enterprises

GOOD = 1
Variable Descriptive Statistics (enterpprise_quality.sta)
Valid N Mean Median Minimum Maximum Lower Quartile Upper Quartile Variance
ROE 38 0.22083 0.14360 −0.10993 1.34246 0.08387 0.25910 0.06725
ROA 38 0.15899 0.11258 0.02352 0.90921 0.06301 0.14875 0.03943
ACTIVITY 38 2.23291 1.79377 0.64480 6.64131 1.28378 2.75258 1.90139
LIQUIDITY 38 2.77093 1.46305 0.61332 18.74916 1.06029 2.39041 15.57789
EQUITY 38 0.50432 0.52366 0.05477 0.94077 0.29932 0.72247 0.06679
Source: authors

II: Economic characteristics of non-performing enterprises

GOOD = 0
Variable Descriptive Statistics (enterpprise_quality.sta)
Valid N Mean Median Minimum Maximum LowerQuartile UpperQuartile Variance
ROE 48 −0.13179 0.00334 −3.93233 1.20594 −0.15854 0.03734 0.46358
ROA 48 0.12713 0.01323 −1.32070 6.75510 −0.03196 0.03391 1.04435
ACTIVITY 48 2.32422 1.61530 0 16.94971 0.90431 2.85147 7.45396
LIQUIDITY 48 2.86098 1.17468 0.02250 26.37852 0.93832 1.76723 28.82141
EQUITY 48 0.23380 0.30595 −3.80814 0.95537 0.12078 0.48837 0.46277
Source: authors

the investigated sample were the indicators for performing category. It will be interesting to observe
ROE and indebtedness, whilst at the same time it is whether the quality of the product (or its innovation)
clear that non-performing businesses are unable to will have an effect on this status.
adequately makes use of (sufficiently increase the
value of) external resources or generate sufficient Individual Factors of Customer Satisfaction
net profit. This obviously does not depend on the In this part are presented results of the
turnover speed of the invested resources, which investigation of the individual factors that have
is comparable (and compared with the sector – influence on the performance from the customer’s
the average asset turnover is 2.07 – even above point of view. The overall results are mentioned in
average), but rather on the ability to make effective Tab. III. Displayed p-values are related to two-sided
use of resources. Added value in this sector is tests, whereas research hypothesis were one-sided.
aer all relatively low, so less effective economic Thus the relevant p-values were re-calculated.
management pushes enterprises into the non-

III: Factors that have influence on the performance of the company from the customer point of view
Mann-Whitney U Test (w/continuity correction) (zakaznici studenti.sta)
By variable Performing
Variable
Rank Sum Rank Sum Z Valid N Valid N
U Z p-value p-value
Group 1 Group 2 adjusted Group 1 Group 2
SATISFACTION 7106157.5 8531870.5 3609917.5 4.018376 0.000059 4.070945 0.000047 2455 3137
FIRST_EXP 7103060.5 8534967.5 3613014.5 3.966684 0.000073 4.020884 0.000058 2455 3137
BUY_FREQ 7143803 8494225 3572272 4.646721 0.000003 4.714553 0.000002 2455 3137
QUALITY 7163471.5 8474556.5 3552603.5 4.975011 0.000001 5.056954 0.0000004 2455 3137
CPRICE 6748470 8889558 3733730 −1.951808 0.050962 −1.990558 0.046530 2455 3137
CQUALITY 7187760.5 8450267.5 3528314.5 5.380421 0.0000001 5.479373 0.00000004 2455 3137
CTRADITION 7176780.5 8461247.5 3539294.5 5.197152 0.0000002 5.276790 0.0000001 2455 3137
CFLEXIBILITY 6977843.5 8660184.5 3738231.5 1.876673 0.060564 1.952031 0.050935 2455 3137
CACCESS 6988480 8649548 3727595 2.054208 0.039956 2.106134 0.035193 2455 3137
CSCALE 6986241.5 8651786.5 3729833.5 2.016845 0.043712 2.048559 0.040506 2455 3137
CAVAILABILITY 7022001.5 8616026.5 3694073.5 2.613719 0.008957 2.637765 0.008346 2455 3137
REPEAT 6749841.5 8888186.5 3735101.5 −1.928916 0.053742 −2.105932 0.035211 2455 3137
Source: authors
 Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Company Performance 1017

The first statistically important factor that is The seventh important factor that is significantly
significantly connected with the performance of related to enterprise performance is the comparison
the company is customer satisfaction (variable of the quality of the enterprise product with the
SATISFACTION). In particular the research proved competition (variable CQUALITY). The research
that the customer satisfaction with the provided proved that the customers evaluate product
product is higher with the productive companies quality in the productive companies as higher in
than with the non-productive companies. comparison with the competition.
The second statistically important factor that is The eighth important factor, significantly
significantly connected with the performance of the connected with enterprise performance is tradition,
company is experience with the product (variable compared to competition (variable CTRADITION).
FIRST_EXP) that the customers have in the sense This factor is related to the second mentioned
of the period for which the customers have known factor which is experience (how long customers
the products. The investigation proved that the have known the product). The research proved
customers have more experience with the products that the productive companies are connected with
of the productive companies, i.e. that they have larger tradition (in the sense of the duration of the
know them (and have been buying them) longer. success rate during the activity on the market where
The third factor that from the customer point larger tradition means longer and more successful
of view is connected significantly with enterprise presence on the market) than the non-productive
performance is the frequency of the purchase companies. This means that for the enterprise to be
(variable BUY_FREQ). It was proven there that (financially) productive it has to enter (very quickly)
the frequency of the purchase is higher with the the awareness of the customer, it has to convince the
productive enterprises. customer about its quality and make the customer
The fourth factor that is significantly related to repeat-purchase so that the customer connects the
enterprise performance is quality (in the sense of the enterprise with tradition, in other words so that the
technical make) of the product (variable QUALITY). customer labels it as being traditional.
The research proved that customers evaluated better The ninth factor that is significantly connected
the quality with the productive enterprises. This way with enterprise performance is flexibility
we can conclude that from the customer’s point of (variable CFLEXIBILITY). The research proved
view the productivity in the productive companies that customers consider flexibility higher in the
was higher. That is valid also in comparison with case of productive companies (compared to the
the competition i.e. that the quality of the products competition).
of the productive enterprises is, in comparison with The tenth factor significantly connected with
the competition, higher. enterprise performance is the approach to the
The fih factor that is significantly related with customer, compared to the competitive companies
enterprise performance is the price, related to the (variable CACESS). The research proved that
quality of the product. The research proved that the approach of the productive companies is, in
the price of the products (related to their quality) comparison with the competition, better than
from the productive companies was evaluated as in the non-productive companies. Considering
lower by the customers. On this basis we assume the fact that it concerns the final customer who
that the customers would be willing to pay for the however does not buy the product of the researched
quality product at an even higher price than the companies directly but through mediators (retail
one the product is being offered for. On the other trades), the question arises whether this factor does
hand, it means that for the less quality product they not evaluate rather the quality of the distributive
will be willing to offer also a significantly lower net of the enterprise. However, on the other hand, it
price. By that it is confirmed that students and also is clear that the customer connects the purchase of
(generally speaking) the customers from the Czech the product with the producer whether distributed
Republic are very sensitive about the price, which directly or indirectly, i.e. paradoxically (in the case
also corresponds with the findings of Porter (Porter, of the indirect seller) with the low possibility of the
2008). producer to influence the quality of the approach
When determining the price of the enterprise to the customer (who is the employee of another
product in comparison with the competition company).
(variable CPRICE), however, the results are exactly With this is related also the eleventh factor
the opposite, i.e. the price of the products by which is the extent of the offered services (variable
productive companies is considered higher by the CSCALE). The research proved that the customers
customers. Taking into consideration that it concerns consider the extent of the offered services of the
the productive companies we can assume that the productive companies higher (in comparison
customers are nevertheless buying the product that with the competition) than of the non-productive
is of higher quality but more expensive. From this companies. Again the question arises whether the
we can assume that the customers (students) in the services (the extent of the services) of the retail
Czech Republic are willing to pay a higher price for trades are not evaluated in terms of the distribution
higher quality (in the case of the food products). of the product to the final consumer.
1018 Petr Suchánek, Maria Králová

Also the twelh factor, which is the availability competition (variable CPRICE), and tradition,
of the store in comparison with the competition compared to competition (variable CTRADITION).
(variable CAVAILABILITY) comes out significantly The final logistic regression model has considered
better in the productive companies. Here it can “performing” companies as success, where the
be stated with high certainty that the manner of vector of explanatory variables is as follows:
distribution is evaluated and it seems that the
productive enterprises have their distribution better x = (FIRST_EXP, BUY_FREQ, QUALITY, CPRICE,
organized, in other words they use better mediators CTRADITION).
than non-productive enterprises.
All of these variables were statistically significant
The thirteenth factor significantly connected with
at level  = 5% and the p-value of the likelihood
enterprise performance is the repeated purchase of
ratio test was almost zero. This model with five
the product (variable REPEAT). The research proved
explanatory variables is, therefore, significant. The
that customers of productive companies repeat
resulting model has the following form:
their purchase of the product (they buy the product
again) more oen than customers of non-productive p(x)
companies. This finding corresponds with the third Log  =
(1 − p(x))
factor (the frequency of purchase) because the
= −0.85 + 0.024 × FIRST_EXP + 0.06 × BUY_ FREQ +
willingness to buy the product again is related to the
+ 0.053 × QUALITY − 0.09 × CPRICE +
higher frequency of purchases.
+ 0.06 × CTRADITION.
Comprehensive Model of Customer
From the “Odds ratio” column in Tab. IV, it is
Satisfaction
apparent that the chance of success, i.e. the chance
Based on the results of previous parts of the that the company will be performing is greater than
research focused on individual factors of customer 1 in all variables except CPRICE. Increasing the
satisfaction on company performance, twelve value of this variable reduces the chance that the
factors were identified that have an influence on this company will be performing. Value increase for
performance. Using logistic regression it was further other variables leads, on the other hand, to a higher
investigated whether a comprehensive model could chance that the company will be performing. If, for
be established (and what it would look like), which example, the value of C_TRADITION is increased
would be able to explain the combined effect of by one unit, the chance of the company to be more
these factors on the efficiency or inefficiency of the efficient (more performing) increases by 6.5% (with
business. values of the other model variables unchanged).
Presented in this part are the results of the This interpretation of the model corresponds to
investigation of the factors that have (when the assumptions set out in the introduction (and
combined) an influence on performance from the identified in the literature). The more experience
customer’s point of view. The overall results are the customer has with the product, the more oen
presented in Tab. IV. he buys it. The better (in a technical aspect, i.e.
Of the twelve analyzed variables (customer content and design) the product is (compared to
satisfaction factors) five factors were shown to be competitors), and the longer it is on the market
statistically significant (using both discriminant (longer tradition), the higher the company
analysis and logistic regression): experience with performance is. Conversely, the higher the price
the product (variable FIRST_EXP), frequency of is (compared to competitors), the lower the
purchase (variable BUY_FREQ), product quality performance of the company is.
(in terms of design and crasmanship), (variable On the other hand, it is necessary to admit that
QUALITY), price of the product compared to the model correctly assessed only 58% of cases.
Thus, although the interpretation of the model

IV: Factors that have an impact on company performance (when combined)

Performing – Odds Ratios (customers students)
Distribution: BINOMIAL, Link function: LOGIT
Effect Modeled probability that Performing = performing
Odds Ratio Lower CL 95.0% Upper CL 95.0% p
Intercept
FIRST_EXP 1.024193 1.000763 1.047623 0.045534
BUY_FREQ 1.062408 1.031125 1.093691 0.000149
QUALITY 1.054093 1.018683 1.089502 0.003547
CPRICE 0.915273 0.878719 0.951826 0.000002
CTRADITION 1.065351 1.029851 1.100850 0.000474
Source: authors
 Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Company Performance 1019

corresponds to the assumptions and expectations, course they also compare the various products of
the ability of the correct classification is not large. the same company). It is expected that customers
Because the model can correctly classify up to will compare the price and technical design of
89% non-performing businesses, but only 19% products. Based on the above results, again, it is not
performing businesses, it appears that it better surprising that customers compare the tradition
recognizes non-performing businesses. of a product (company), all of these being factors
the company (management) can affect. At the same
time, it can be concluded that the company should
DISCUSSION
also obtain information about their competitors
About half (54.5%) of the investigated factors and basically should perform similar comparisons
affecting customer satisfaction in the three that the customer does. Thus, it will not just better
mentioned areas had a significant impact on separate itself from the competition, but also better
business performance. Although the direction of the reach the customers, acquire them, and keep them
effect of these factors was in line with expectations, (by offering them a higher quality product).
the strength of this effect, as a comprehensive model Interestingly, in addition to the above factors, there
has shown, was low. are factors that are modifiable by the management
It is not too surprising that the performance of only indirectly or more precisely, factors which are
a company is affected by the price of the product defined by the nature of the transaction (product
and its technical design, as these factors are, together sale). These are the approach to the customer;
with customer satisfaction, an essential part of services offered, and the availability of the product
product quality. The company (its management) (in the sense of the location where the customer
can directly affect this quality. In order to achieve shops). It follows that for company performance
this, the company needs to acquire correct data not only the quality and nature of the product are
about customer needs, as better information leads important, but also the quality of the store, which
to a better product (technical design and price better is given by the three aforementioned factors. This
meeting customer needs) which leads to higher means that the company and its management
customer satisfaction. More satisfied customers then must carefully consider the distribution method;
buy the product again (this is rather important in the higher company performance is associated with
case of foodstuffs, which are purchased frequently better vendor services, better availability and better
and regularly), thus ensuring not only current but approach to customers. Therefore, it is expected
also future company performance. that a more appropriate method of distribution will
In terms of customer buying behaviour, it is probably use retail companies with a dense branch
interesting that the company’s performance is network in the form of supermarkets rather than
also affected by the duration of use of the product, discount stores.
respectively how long a customer uses the product In terms of the customer satisfaction impact on
and the frequency of purchase. The duration the company performance model, it is interesting
of product use may be associated with a certain that factors comparing competition recede into the
moderation of a customer who refuses to abandon background. Price and tradition only are important
a product which he knows and with which he is for company performance (compared to the
satisfied. Companies would thus have to focus their competition). This confirms the phenomenon of
efforts not only on customer acquisition, but also on price as an important factor of customer satisfaction
maintaining existing customers. influencing performance (it is also the most
In the case of purchase frequency, where it was significant variable). The model shows that price
found that higher frequency of purchase leads to has a negative impact on performance suggesting
greater company efficiency, it can be assumed that sensitivity to price (in terms of price increase). It
the customer is subject to a certain routine, i.e. that can be assumed that the customers, (students) in
the customer does not think too much about the this case prefer a product with a lower price and are
purchased product. From this assumption, we can not willing to pay more for the product (for better
deduce that the length of use and the frequency quality).
of purchase of the product are related, and their Factors of tradition and duration of product use
impact on performance is higher especially in the are closely related and confirm the influence of
case of repeat purchases (oen needed goods). The factors of purchase characteristics (along with the
enterprise cannot substantially influence these frequency of purchase) on company performance.
factors since they are given by the product and the The results thus support the above claims about
product consumption character. On the other hand, these factors, including recommendations for the
the enterprise can (by the use of marketing tools) management of the company.
seek the most frequent purchase of its product (and It is interesting that performance in the model
convince the customer of the superiority of the is influenced only by the technical design of the
product at the same time). product and not by customer satisfaction. This result
Because no company or product is on the market indirectly supports the claim of preference rates; the
alone, it is not surprising that customers compare customer is apparently willing to accept a product
products of different companies to each other (of that is indeed on the some technical level, but he is
1020 Petr Suchánek, Maria Králová

not quite satisfied with it (i.e. there exists a better but in comparison with the competition; therefore
more expensive product). Such buying behaviour performance basically depends (based on the factors
(i.e. buying it because it is cheap, not because it is we examined) only on quality and price. Because
of good quality) is typical for students, and it could customer shopping behaviour does not depend
probably be also applied to goods (food) of frequent only on the product, but also on other factors (e.g.
consumption. customer’s income), it is logical (in terms of the
In this context, it is interesting that in the short evidencing model value), that additional factors will
term aspect, customer shopping behaviour or have to be included in the model. However, this will
tradition (in terms of business) cannot be changed only be possible in the scope of further research.

CONCLUSION
Of the twenty-two factors that were examined in relation to customer satisfaction, twelve proved to
be statistically significant with regard to the efficiency or inefficiency of the company. Of these twelve,
three factors relate directly to the customer (customer satisfaction, experience with the product,
frequency of the purchase), the product quality (quality of the product in the sense of the technical
design) and comparisons of the company product with the competition – from the customer’s
perspective, in eight categories (price, quality, tradition, flexibility, customer approach, the extent of
offered services, accessibility of the store, repeated product purchase).
The above factors do not affect the company’s performance individually. In terms of company
management, it is thus very difficult to focus on these various factors. It is not clear what will be the
final effect on the customer when the mutual relations between the factors (which may be not only
complementary but also competitive), or the strength of their effect on customer are not known.
Because of this, the model of customer satisfaction influence was built with factors that affect the
performance of the company individually. These factors, whose combined effect on the financial
performance the model described, only five proved to be statistically significant (two in the customer
area, one in the product quality area, and two in the area of a matching competition product
comparison). Although the model is statistically significant and the five factors (experience with the
product, frequency of purchase, quality of the product in the sense of the technical design, price and
the tradition compared to the competing companies) have an impact on performance, the explanatory
ability of the model is low, i.e. the influence of these factors on company performance is small.
It is clear that in the area of customer satisfaction, there are other factors that have an impact on
company performance. It would thus be appropriate to expand research further with situational or
demographic factors, possibly examine customers’ satisfaction with the overall purchase. Because
students represent a specific group of customers (e.g. young people, low income) it would be
appropriate to compare the results with another group of customers.

Acknowledgement
This paper is published as part of specific research entitled Quality Management and Enterprise
Competitiveness (MUNI/A/0799/2013).

REFERENCES CROSBY, P. B. 1979. Quality is free: The art of making

AL-HAWARI, M., WARD, T. 2006. The effect of quality certain. 1st edition. New York: McGraw Hill
automated service quality on Australian banks’ Custom Publishing.
financial performance and the mediating role FORNELL, C. et al. 1996. The American customer
of customer satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence & satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings.
Planning, 24(2): 127–147. The Journal of Marketing, 60(4): 7–18.
ANDERSON, E. W. et al. 1994. Customer Satisfaction, GU, Z., GAO, J. 2006. Financial Competitiveness
Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from of Macau in Comparison with Other Gaming
Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3): 53–66. Destinations. UNLV Gaming Research and Review
ANDERSON, E. W., MITTAL, V. 2000. Strengthening Journal, 10(2): 1–12.
the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of service HABIB, A. 2006. Disaggregated earnings and
research, 3(2): 107–120. prediction of future profitability: evidence from
ANDERSON, E. W. et al. 2004. Customer Satisfaction industrial groups in Japan. Review of Accounting and
and Shareholder Value. Journal of Marketing, 68(4): Finance, 5(4): 355–369.
172–185. JAMAL, A., NASER, K. 2003. Factors influencing
COOIL, B. et al. 2007. A longitudinal analysis customer satisfaction in the retail banking sector
of customer satisfaction and share of wallet: in Pakistan. International Journal of Commerce &
investigating the moderating effect of customer Management, 13(2): 29–53.
characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 71(1): 67–83.
 Effect of Customer Satisfaction on Company Performance 1021

KURONEN, M., TAKALA, J. 2013. Measuring RICHARD, P. J. et al. 2009. Measuring Organizational
and Developing Customer Satisfaction with Performance: Towards Methodological Best
the Balanced Critical Factor Index Method. In: Practice. Journal of Management, 35(3): 718–804.
Diversity, Technology, and Innovation for Operational SELNES, F. 1993. An examination of the effect
Competitiveness: Proceedings of the 2013 International of product performance on brand reputation,
Conference on Technology Innovation and Industrial satisfaction and loyalty. European Journal of
Management. ToKnowPress, S4_236-244. marketing, 27(9): 19–35.
MATZLER, K. et al. 2004. The asymmetric relation- SUCHÁNEK, P., ŠPALEK, J. 2007. Financial
ship between attribute-level performance and Measuring of the Czech Republic Companies
overall customer satisfaction: a reconsideration of Competitiveness. The Business Review, Cambridge,
the importance–performance analysis. Industrial 9(1): 78–85.
Marketing Management, 33(4): 271–277. ZEITHAML, V. A. 1988. Consumer Perceptions of
PARASURAMAN, A. et al. 1985. A conceptual model Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and
of service quality and its implications for future Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3):
research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41–50. 2–22.
PORTER, M. E. 2008. The five competitive forces that ZEITHAML, V. A. 2000. Service quality, profitability,
shape strategy. Harvard business review, 86(1): 25–40. and the economic worth of customers: what we
PRAGUE STOCK EXCHANGE. 2013. Yearbook 2013. know and what we need to learn. Journal of the
[on-line]. Available at: www: http://p.pse.cz/ Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1): 67–85.
Statist.dta/Year/fb2013.pdf. [Cited by 10. 7. 2014]

Contact information
Petr Suchánek: suchy@econ.muni.cz
Maria Králová: kralova@econ.muni.cz