This study applies the “value get, value give” framework to explain how gamified loyalty programmes create value for firms. This study proposes a model which has been tested and whose aim is to analyse whether the perceived value offered by a gamified loyalty scheme generates enough customer satisfaction and whether this subsequently transforms into customer engagement behaviour that adds value to firms. Data from 134 active users of the gamified loyalty programme ‘Más Renfe’ belonging to Renfe, the Spanish leader in rail transport for passengers and goods, were analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling. The findings show that hedonic and financial value increase user satisfaction, whereas preferential treatment and personalisation value do not. In addition, greater satisfaction with loyalty schemes facilitate customer engagement behaviour. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence of the effectiveness of real gamified loyalty programmes in promoting engagement behaviour that creates value for companies.
In an increasingly competitive business world with low switching costs for customers, brands are making it a priority to gain loyal customers who repeatedly choose them. To attract and engage customers, brands use a variety of marketing tools, among which loyalty programmes stand out (). As a result, the loyalty programme market is currently valued at more than US$5.5 billion and is expected to exceed US$24 billion by the end of 2029 ().
Loyalty programmes are defined as a marketing tool ‘designed to build customer loyalty by providing incentives to profitable customers’ (). Companies use loyalty schemes to increase the customer lifecycle by creating a long-term company-customer bond based on interactivity and individualisation (). Thus, instead of benefiting consumers in a single purchase with one-time offers (), loyalty programmes have a long-term orientation, as they allow consumers to accumulate some form of ‘currency’ that they can redeem for rewards in future purchases ().
The origin of loyalty programmes dates back to the end of the 18th century, when U.S. retailers started giving customers copper coins after their purchases, which they could redeem on their next purchases (). Although this strategy was popular in terms of customer retention, retailers found that using coins was costly, so in the late 19th century, copper coins were replaced by stamps. To encourage loyalty, consumers received small stamps that were glued to loyalty stamp cards to redeem them for products. This became a mass phenomenon, to the point that, during the 1930s, American retailers issued three times as many stamps as the U.S. Postal Service itself (). During the 20th century, loyalty programmes experienced a new boom, following the launch of an important one for an American airline, leading to the move from stamps to cards (). Card-based loyalty programmes caught the public’s attention and brands began to issue loyalty cards to their customers. Nowadays, while physical loyalty cards are still in use, it is unreasonable to expect consumers to carry so many of them in their wallets. Therefore, the use of physical cards has been replaced by digital ones on mobile apps, which are more convenient and environmentally-friendly, representing the future of loyalty schemes.
Despite their advantages in terms of convenience, the effectiveness of loyalty programmes is decreasing (). In the United States, consumers belong to 16.6 loyalty programmes on average, but actively participate in only 7.6 of them (). This shows that, although many customers join several loyalty programmes, they often do not engage with them.
Prior research has proposed the use of gamification to potentially increase the effectiveness of loyalty programmes and solve this dilemma (). Gamification is a form of motivational design that applies game elements and mechanics (e.g., points, levels and rewards) to non-game contexts to motivate certain behaviour () and promote user’s overall value creation (). A recent study by ) reported that nearly one-third of participants think there should be games with loyalty programmes. However, ‘despite this growing trend in marketing practice, academic insight into gamified loyalty programmes’ nature, dynamics, and effectiveness lags behind’ ().
To bridge this knowledge gap, in this study, a model has been designed and tested based on the ‘value get, value give’ framework () as a means to explaining how gamified loyalty programmes create value for customers and whether and how this value is returned to the firm in the form of customer engagement behaviour.
By taking this approach, this paper contributes to the literature in several ways. Firstly, it provides empirical evidence to support Itani et al.’s ‘value get, value give’ () theoretical framework for gamified loyalty programmes, analysing how gamification adds value to customers and firms. Secondly, the analysis of the perceived value of a gamified loyalty programme has recently gained the attention of scholars. However, existing academic research has focused solely on the hedonic and utilitarian value of these programmes (e.g., ; ; ). Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by empirically analysing additional sources of value for customers, as identified by : hedonic value, financial value, personalisation value, and preferential treatment value. Additionally, this paper responds to recent calls for a deeper analysis of the effectiveness of gamified loyalty programmes and their potential to develop greater engagement (). In particular, following , this study improves the understanding of gamified loyalty programmes by empirically testing the specific customer engagement behaviour proposed by that add value to firms, differentiating between transactional and non-transactional engagement behaviour. Finally, this study provides recommendations for practitioners.
Gamification is a tool increasingly used in various contexts, from education to business, to harness the motivational power of games for the players to act in a certain way. Gamification is defined from a design perspective as ‘the use of game elements and game-design techniques in nongame contexts’ (). A similar definition is proposed by : ‘the process of making activities in non-game contexts more game-like by using game design elements’. Meanwhile, defined gamification from a service marketing perspective as ‘the process of enhancing a service with elements to create gamified experiences with the goal of supporting user value creation’.
Compared to conventional loyalty programmes, gamified loyalty programmes are more experiential and effective and engender greater consumer loyalty (). Likewise, gamification improves the attractiveness of loyalty programmes by influencing customers’ perceptions of playfulness and reward satisfaction (). have analysed how gamified loyalty programmes facilitate value creation, finding that gamification plays a vital role in them, due to customers being more willing to engage in value co-creation. In particular, recent academic research has demonstrated that if the gamified loyalty programme is entertaining, in fashion and original, it is perceived as having more hedonic and utilitarian value, leading to satisfaction, continuance intention and loyalty (). have also shown that gamifying a loyalty programme increases customers’ perceptions about its hedonic and utilitarian value, which subsequently manifests itself in the form of greater satisfaction and loyalty. Likewise, have anticipated that gamified loyalty programmes boost customer engagement value from direct contributions (e.g., purchases) and indirect (e.g., advocating).
Drawing on engagement theory and relationship marketing literature, have developed the conceptual framework ‘value get, value give’. From a customer perspective, this tool builds on the norm of reciprocity and proposes that the value customers receive from a firm (or brand) creates a customer-firm relationship that motivates customers to create some kind of value for or benefit to it in the form of engagement; in other words, the more value customers obtain, the more value customers give back. Based on this framework, the proposed model analyses the effect of four sources of value that customers could receive from gamified loyalty programmes (i.e., hedonic value, financial value, personalisation value and preferential treatment value) on their satisfaction with the programme and their subsequent influence on their customer engagement behaviour towards the programme, which are a source of value for the firm. Figure 1 shows the proposed model.
The first part of the ‘value get, value give’ conceptual framework states that the value customers receive from a firm will foster a beneficial customer-firm relationship (). According to previous research, customer satisfaction, defined as ‘a pleasurable level of fulfilment related to consumption’ (), is an appropriate construct to represent this customer-firm relationship ().
Previous research has shown that customer-firm relationships and customer behaviour are influenced by their value perceptions (); that is, when customers perceive value from what a firm is offering, they act accordingly and, hence, create value for it. In gamified loyalty programmes, the perceived value depends on the relationship between the benefits and costs perceived by the user (), so when the benefits or rewards obtained are perceived as valuable, a customer-firm relationship is generated. Recently, proposed the aforementioned four sources of value for customers regarding loyalty programmes.
The first abovementioned source, hedonic value, refers to the enjoyment experienced directly from making the purchase (). Gamified loyalty programmes may provide their users with hedonic value from the entertainment and pleasure obtained from accumulating and redeeming points (). Previous research has demonstrated that if hedonic value is perceived, customer attitudes and behaviour are positively affected; indeed, since enjoyable playability from a gamified system leads to its users finding the interaction intrinsically interesting (), hedonic value results in more positive attitudes and higher participation () as well as greater engagement with the programme (). Additionally, previous studies have demonstrated that hedonic value is an important predictor of satisfaction (; ). In the particular context of loyalty programmes, found that hedonic benefits, or specifically exploration and entertainment, which are encouraged from trying out new products and the accumulation and exchange of points, positively influence customer satisfaction with the loyalty programme. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
Perceived financial value refers to the tangible benefits provided by the loyalty scheme that correspond to being motivated by economic incentives such as discounts, reward cards or vouchers (). In a gamified context, this financial value is related to the satisfaction obtained from the rewards, or, to put it another way, the degree to which the customer enjoys the reward received (). These can positively reinforce behaviour and increase loyalty to the programme (), boost intention to participate in future activities () and promote engagement behaviour towards it (). Previous literature has found that financial value influences customer satisfaction (; ). Specifically, showed that the savings gained from participating in a loyalty programme have a greater influence on customer satisfaction than any other benefit associated with it. In fact, these savings are decisive when signing up for a loyalty programme (). Thus, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
Perceived personalisation value refers to personalised contact and offers that customers receive based on their tastes and previous purchase patterns Personalisation increases the value perceived by users, fostering customer-firm relationships and increasing engagement with loyalty programmes (). A high level of personalisation can increase customer satisfaction, which is achieved when the perceived benefits exceed their expectations (; ). In the specific context of loyalty schemes, has recently shown that personalisation can provide higher satisfaction when perceptions of intangible value are enhanced. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
Finally, participation in a loyalty programme can lead users to perceive value for receiving preferential treatment that satisfies their symbolic and emotional needs, offering a level of status and personal recognition within a privileged group (). Priority access to certain products and services, unique offers and invitations to exclusive events are some examples of preferential treatment received by certain users of loyalty programmes. This provides a sense of belonging and a feeling of importance and integration (). A favourable result of preferential treatment is the creation of hard-to-imitate bonds that drive customers to maintain the customer-firm relationship () and increase their engagement with the programme itself (). Applying gamification in certain contexts results in higher perceived user recognition, leading to positive outcomes such as increased satisfaction (). In the context of loyalty programmes, found that recognition and social benefits, understood as the feeling of belonging to a group or the perception of special attention, influence customer satisfaction with the loyalty programme. Considering this, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
The second part of the conceptual model ‘value get, value give’ states that customers tend to give back to a firm (or brand) the value received, with different types of behaviour that show how engaged they are with it (). defined the concept of engagement with a firm (or brand) as ‘the creation of value from a customer to the company, either through a direct or indirect contribution’. The direct (or transactional) contribution consists of customer purchases (). In other words, each time a customer makes a purchase, value is created due to the company’s sales increasing (). In addition to purchases, customers show their engagement with brands with non-transactional behaviour that indirectly provides value and contributes to sales. The first of these forms of behaviour corresponds to customer influencer value, which is the value of social influence that a customer exerts on other potential customers (). Engaged customers do so in a variety of ways, from engaging in traditional offline word of_mouth (WOM), to posting e-WOM on social media (). In addition to obtaining value with organic WOM, brands can also benefit from customer referral value (); this means that there are referral programmes which give customers incentives if they invite profitable customers to the brand (). One example is ‘bring a friend’, common in loyalty programmes, where many brands motivate their customers to recommend friends, relatives or social media contacts in exchange for points, discounts or gifts. Finally, customers can also provide value indirectly to firms with customer knowledge value (), which refers to how valuable the information is to firms when it comes to being provided with innovative ideas and improvements based on customers’ knowledge and experience.
Previous research has shown that customer engagement with firms provides them with greater value (), as the more engaged customers are, the more loyal they are (; ; ; ), the more willing they are to pay greater amounts () and the higher their purchase intention and repeated purchase behaviour are (; ).
For this reason, it is important to analyse how gamified loyalty programmes can generate long-lasting forms of engagement that provide value to a brand (). Indeed, previous studies have shown that the perceptions that customers have about a loyalty programme tend to be transferred to perceptions about the brand. Thus, the more loyalty to a programme there is, the greater the loyalty to the brand is (), in the same way that the more engagement with the scheme there is, the greater the engagement with the brand is (; ; ).
Customer satisfaction is probably the most recurrent driver of customer engagement behaviour (; ). Previous studies have shown that the more satisfied customers are, the more likely it is that they can be retained and the more loyal they are as a consequence (). Furthermore, the more satisfied users are, the more engagement they show (; ) and the more each specific type of engagement behaviour can be seen as well (). Specifically, satisfaction has been shown to have a positive effect on customers’ purchase and repurchase behaviour (), as well as on impulse buying (). In addition, satisfied customers are willing to promote more of the products and/or services offered by the brand () and make word-of-mouth recommendations (; ). Finally, while some researchers have considered that satisfied customers make fewer suggestions for improvement (), other studies have identified that customer satisfaction motivates the clients to provide feedback to brands with suggestions or complaints (). Considering the above, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
To test the research model, market research was carried out in the context of the gamified loyalty programme ‘Más Renfe’, belonging to Renfe, Spain’s main rail transport company for both goods and passengers. Historically, Renfe has held a monopoly on passenger rail services in the country, which is still maintained in most long-distance high-speed train connections, such as Madrid-Seville, Madrid-Malaga/Granada, and Madrid-Alicante (). However, since December 2020, after the liberalisation of passenger rail transportation in Spain, Renfe has had to face new competition offering aggressive prices (e.g., Ouigo and Iryo) on the busiest and most lucrative long-distance high-speed connection: Madrid-Barcelona. This has led Renfe to make two important decisions: the first one has been the launch of its own low-cost brand (namely AVLO), resulting in a market share split by the beginning of 2023 as follows: 48% Renfe-AVE, 23.9% Ouigo, 17.5% Iryo and 10.6% Renfe-AVLO (). The second decision has been the creation of the ‘Más Renfe’ loyalty programme to generate value among its customers and, thus, obtain greater engagement and loyalty from them.
The design of the ‘Más Renfe’ programme for frequent travellers is based on gamification, including a series of points, levels and prizes to reward the loyalty of its users and improve their travel experience, who must sign up to access it. After registration, they can earn ‘Renfe Points’ every time they use their ‘Más Renfe’ card for purchasing train tickets. The programme offers different levels of ‘Más Renfe’ cards based on the cardholder’s annual expenditure: ‘Más Renfe’, ‘Más Renfe Silver’, ‘Más Renfe Gold’ and ‘Más Renfe Platinum’. These cards offer different benefits to customers, from more points per booking to access to Club Lounges in stations. There is also a special card called ‘Más Renfe Young’ for users between 14 and 25 years old, with special discounts. ‘Renfe Points’ can alternatively be obtained from partner companies or by using financial cards (e.g., Renfe Mastercard, Renfe American Express) as payment methods. The accumulated points can be redeemed for train tickets, with 10 points equalling €1. These points can also be exchanged for hotel stays, car rentals and donations to charities that collaborate with Renfe.
The data collection took place in Spain in May 2023, using a survey aimed at users of the ‘Más Renfe’ programme who were over 18 years of age. Due to the difficulty of contacting active members belonging to the gamified programme, the survey was conducted at three Renfe stations included within the Madrid-Barcelona long-distance high-speed connection: Sants (Barcelona), Camp (Tarragona) and Delicias (Zaragoza).
In total, 164 users responded to the survey. The questionnaire included a control question (‘Attention check: select number 1’ on scale of 1 to 7), so only the correctly answered responses were analysed. After eliminating 30 invalid questionnaires, 134 valid ones were obtained.
To verify the appropriateness of the sample size, the G*Power programme (version 3.1.9.7) was used. For an alpha of 0.05, an estimated effect size of 0.15 and 80% power, a total sample size of 85 responses would be necessary. The final study sample was 134, thus exceeding the minimum recommended sample size.
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample.
The variables included in the study were measured using 7-point Likert-type scales based on previous literature, which were carefully modified to ensure that the items fit the research context (see Table 2). Regarding the perceived value of the gamified loyalty programme, hedonic value was measured based on , financial value was measured using items from , personalisation value was measured using the scale proposed by and preferential treatment value was measured combining items from and . Customer satisfaction with the gamified loyalty programme was measured following the scale proposed by . Finally, in relation to customer engagement behaviour, customer lifetime value was measured using the scale of , influencer value was adapted from and both recommendation and knowledge value were adapted from .
As the data was based on self-reported measures and collated from a one-off survey, common method bias was evaluated by both procedural and statistical methods. Firstly, to reduce the bias of participants’ answers, participation in the study was voluntary and the responses were anonymous. Secondly, a full collinearity test based on the variance inflation factor values (VIF) was conducted. The results suggested there was no common method bias in the study, as all values ranged from 1.098 to 2.540, lower than the threshold of 3.3 ().
Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling with SmartPLS 3.0 was used to analyse data (Ringle et al., 2015). PLS simultaneously assesses the measurement and structural models, whose two steps are described below.
To assess the measurement model, the properties of the scales were evaluated (see Table 3). Individual item reliability for all factor loadings (FL) was confirmed, as they were all above 0.60 and statistically significant at 1% (). Internal consistency was confirmed, as the composite reliability (CR) for all constructs was greater than 0.7 (). The average variance extracted (AVE) values were above 0.5, indicating that the constructs also met the criteria for convergent validity.
Finally, discriminant validity was examined with two tests (). Following the Fornell-Larcker criterion, it was confirmed that the square roots of the AVEs of each construct were greater than the correlations between the constructs (see Table 4). After this, the HTMT ratio was calculated, and all values were found to be lower than the threshold of 0.9 (see Table 5).
Once the reliability and validity of the scales were examined, the structural model was tested. Firstly, the explanatory power of the proposed model was examined by means of the R2 values. The model explained 50.6% of the variance of customer satisfaction with the gamified loyalty programme, as well as 14.3% of the variance of customer lifetime value, 25.2% of the variance of influencer value, 15.2% of the variance of referral value and 12.1% of the variance of knowledge value. Secondly, the Stone-Geisser test showed positive Q2 values for all dependent variables, thereby supporting the predictive relevance of the model. Finally, as the SRMR obtained a value of 0.05, lower than the threshold of 0.08, it can be concluded that the model has a good fit ().
The significance of the relationships proposed was assessed via a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 subsamples, whose results can be seen in Table 6. These revealed that customer satisfaction with the gamified loyalty programme was positively affected by their perceived hedonic value ( = 0.214; p=0.024) and financial value ( = 0.427; p=0.000), supporting H1 and H2, respectively. However, contrary to our predictions, the influence of both perceived personalisation value ( = 0.152; p=0.071) and preferential treatment value ( = 0.060; p=0.506) was non-significant; therefore, H3 and H4 were rejected. Furthermore, the results revealed that the more satisfied users were with the gamified loyalty programme, the higher their engagement with the firm was. Specifically, satisfaction with the programme increased customer lifetime value ( = 0.335; p=0.000), influencer value ( = 0.395; p=0.000), referral value ( = 0.255; p=0.001) and knowledge value ( = 0.209; p=0.024), thus supporting hypotheses H5a, H5b, H5c and H5d, respectively.
This study has proposed and tested a model to explain how the perceived value of a gamified loyalty programme increased customer satisfaction with it and subsequently led to customer engagement behaviour that provided value to the company in question.
The findings revealed that different perceived values of the gamified loyalty programme contributed differently to customer satisfaction. In line with previous studies (e.g., ; ), this one has provided empirical evidence of the positive influence of hedonic and financial value, demonstrating that the entertainment and rewards offered by the gamified loyalty programme promoted customer satisfaction. However, contrary to predictions, perceived personalisation and preferential treatment value did not contribute to increasing customer satisfaction. Although unexpected, these results are in line with , who affirmed that preferential treatment does not promote customer satisfaction. The characteristics of the research context may provide an explanation for this; in ‘Más Renfe’, preferential treatment to certain customers corresponds to access to Club Lounges and free parking at stations. However, these perks are exclusively for ‘Más Renfe Gold’ and ‘Más Renfe Platinum’ cardholders. Given that these members represented just a minority of our sample (i.e., slightly over 5% of respondents), the effects of preferential treatment were minimal.
On the other hand, this study has empirically demonstrated that customer satisfaction with the gamified loyalty programme promoted certain types of customer engagement behaviour. Specifically, customer satisfaction was positively related to customer lifetime value, supporting previous research claiming that it influences purchase and repurchase behaviour (). Satisfaction with the programme also positively affected influencer and referral value, which is consistent with previous research showing that a high level of satisfaction leads customers to talk about a brand () and recommend it (). This study also backs up the findings of , in that customer satisfaction fosters knowledge value, meaning that satisfied customers provide feedback to brands about their own experiences and thus have an opportunity to improve product and service offerings.
This body of work offers several theoretical contributions. The Marketing Science Institute, in its research priorities for 2022-2024 (), has highlighted the need to address how companies can increase long-term customer engagement and loyalty and how technology can improve the customer experience. With this in mind and in order to achieve these objectives, this study has analysed gamified loyalty programmes. Moreover, while this tool is becoming more and more used by brands, as indicated by , academic understanding of its effectiveness is still very limited. Nevertheless, this study has contributed to the literature by providing empirical evidence of how effective a real gamified loyalty programme is for promoting engagement behaviour that allows value for a company to be created, in terms of purchases, incentivised and non-incentivised recommendations, suggestions for improvement and so on. Furthermore, this study has responded to the call by to empirically analyse the engagement behaviour proposed by in the specific context of gamified loyalty programmes.
This study has implications for managerial practice concerning the relevance of hedonic and financial value for fostering customer satisfaction.
On the one hand, in relation to hedonic value, gamified loyalty programmes should be designed including game elements that provide entertainment to users. While most of these programmes already include points and levels, programme developers could also add other achievement and progression elements, such as goals, progress bars and trophies; social elements, like competitions and cooperative functions; and immersive elements, such as the creation of avatars that represent players.
On the other hand, in relation to financial value, loyalty programmes sometimes use rewards that are difficult for users to obtain, which disincentivises their participation and reduces their engagement. Financial rewards should be designed in such a way that users can perceive a benefit. In addition, they should challenge the customer, implying that they should neither be too easy to obtain nor unachievable.
This study also has its limitations, which open the door to wider avenues of research. Firstly, the proposed model was tested using data from a specific gamified loyalty programme (i.e., Más Renfe) and brand (i.e., Renfe), which operate in Spain in a specific sector (i.e., rail transportation). This research context might have a number of characteristics that are not necessarily comparable to other gamified loyalty programmes, brands, countries or sectors. Therefore, future research should replicate the proposed model in a different context. Additionally, as this study relies on cross-sectional data, it was not possible to analyse the evolution of customers’ perceptions of programme value or customer engagement behaviour over time. Thus, it would be interesting for future studies to use longitudinal data to analyse the transfer of value between customers and brands in the long term.
Conceptualization, S.C., and J.M.; Methodology, S.C., and J.M.; Software, J.M.; Validation, J.M.; Formal Analysis, J.M.; Data Curation, J.M.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, J.M.; Writing – Review & Editing, S.C., and J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors are grateful for the support received from the Gobierno de Aragón and the European Social Fund within the framework of Grupo de Investigación Generes, with reference code S54_23R.
1
Agyei, J., Sun, S., Penney, E., Eugene, A., & Ofori-Boafo, R. (2021). Linking CSR and Customer Engagement: The Role of Customer-Brand Identification and Customer Satisfaction. SAGE Open, 11, 21582440211040113. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040113
2
Aydin, G. (2022). Mobile Multi-Brand Loyalty Programs: Elaborating Customer Value and Satisfaction. International Journal of E-Business Research, 18(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEBR.309397
3
Bitrián, P., Catalán, S., & Marchan, J. (2022). Boosting brand engagement and loyalty through gamified loyalty programmes. UCJC Business and Society Review (Formerly Known as Universia Business Review), 19(75), Article 75. https://journals.ucjc.edu/ubr/article/view/4514
4
Bond Brand. (2022). Pathways to Growth Guide powered by The Loyalty Report 2022. https://info.bondbrandloyalty.com/pathways-to-growth-guide
5
Brashear-Alejandro, T., Kang, J., & Groza, M. D. (2016). Leveraging loyalty programs to build customer–company identification. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1190-1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.014
6
Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2020). Intergenerational differences in customer engagement behaviours: An analysis of social tourism websites. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(2), 182-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2327
7
Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2023). The impact of gamified loyalty programmes on customer engagement behaviours. A hotel industry application. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-02-2022-0033
8
Bravo, R., Martinez, E., & Pina, J. M. (2019). Effects of service experience on customer responses to a hotel chain. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(1), 389-405. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2017-0569
9
Bruneau, V., Swaen, V., & Zidda, P. (2018). Are loyalty program members really engaged? Measuring customer engagement with loyalty programs. Journal of Business Research, 91, 144-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.002
10
Busalim, A. H., Ghabban, F., & Hussin, A. R. C. (2021). Customer engagement behaviour on social commerce platforms: An empirical study. Technology in Society, 64, 101437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101437
11
Cambra-Fierro, J., Melero-Polo, I., & Javier Sese, F. (2016). Can complaint-handling efforts promote customer engagement? Service Business, 10(4), 847-866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0295-9
12
13
Choi, H., & Kandampully, J. (2019). The effect of atmosphere on customer engagement in upscale hotels: An application of S-O-R paradigm. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 40-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.012
14
15
Dedeoglu, B. B., Bilgihan, A., Ye, B. H., Buonincontri, P., & Okumus, F. (2018). The impact of servicescape on hedonic value and behavioral intentions: The importance of previous experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.12.007
16
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining «gamification». Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
17
Ding, Y., & Keh, H. T. (2016). A re-examination of service standardization versus customization from the consumer’s perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2015-0088
18
Dreher, F., & Ströbel, T. (2023). How gamified online loyalty programs enable and facilitate value co-creation: A case study within a sports-related service context. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 33(5), 671-696. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2022-0229
19
Faria, J. (2023). Loyalty management market value worldwide 2020-2029. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1295852/loyalty-management-market-size-world/
20
21
Gao, M., & Huang, L. (2021). Quality of channel integration and customer loyalty in omnichannel retailing: The mediating role of customer engagement and relationship program receptiveness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102688
22
Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 608-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.007
23
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442-458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130
24
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). Why do people use gamification services? International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006
25
Högberg, J., Shams, P., & Wästlund, E. (2019). Gamified in-store mobile marketing: The mixed effect of gamified point-of-purchase advertising. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 298-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.004
26
Hollebeek, L. D., Das, K., & Shukla, Y. (2021). Game on! How gamified loyalty programs boost customer engagement value. International Journal of Information Management, 61, 102308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102308
27
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
28
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z
29
Hwang, J., & Choi, L. (2020). Having fun while receiving rewards?: Exploration of gamification in loyalty programs for consumer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 106, 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.031
30
Itani, O. S., El Haddad, R., & Kalra, A. (2020). Exploring the role of extrovert-introvert customers’ personality prototype as a driver of customer engagement: Does relationship duration matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101980
31
Itani, O. S., Kassar, A.-N., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2019). Value get, value give: The relationships among perceived value, relationship quality, customer engagement, and value consciousness. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.014
32
Kim, J., Bojanic, D. C., & Warnick, R. B. (2009). Price Bundling and Travel Product Pricing Practices Used by Online Channels of Distribution. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 403-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508328658
33
Kim, J. J., Steinhoff, L., & Palmatier, R. W. (2021). An emerging theory of loyalty program dynamics. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(1), 71-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00719-1
34
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
35
36
Kumar, V. (2010). A Customer Lifetime Value-Based Approach to Marketing in the Multichannel, Multimedia Retailing Environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(2), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2010.02.008
37
Kumar, V., & Kaushik, A. K. (2022). Engaging customers through brand authenticity perceptions: The moderating role of self-congruence. Journal of Business Research, 138, 26-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.065
38
39
Kyguoliene, A., Zikiene, K., & Grigaliunaite, V. (2017). The Influence of Perceived Benefits on the Satisfaction with the Loyalty Program. Engineering Economics, 28(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.28.1.14635
40
Lee, J.-S., Tsang, N., & Pan, S. (2015). Examining the differential effects of social and economic rewards in a hotel loyalty program. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.05.003
41
Lee, S., & Kim, D.-Y. (2018). The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on satisfaction and loyalty of Airbnb users. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1332-1351. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0504
42
Leenheer, J., van Heerde, H. J., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Smidts, A. (2007). Do loyalty programs really enhance behavioral loyalty? An empirical analysis accounting for self-selecting members. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.10.005
43
Lim, W. M., Rasul, T., Kumar, S., & Ala, M. (2022). Past, present, and future of customer engagement. Journal of Business Research, 140, 439-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014
44
Liu, Y. (2007). The Long-Term Impact of Loyalty Programs on Consumer Purchase Behavior and Loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.4.019
45
Liu, Y., & Yang, R. (2009). Competing Loyalty Programs: Impact of Market Saturation, Market Share, and Category Expandability. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.1.093
46
Merkle. (2023). 2023 Prizing Report. Rewards that resonate in a post-pandemic world. https://info.merkle.com/l/579173/2023-03-28/fbk6x1/579173/1680001046YRa3enSk/2023_Merkle_Prizing_Report.pdf
47
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2007). The effects of loyalty programs on customer lifetime duration and share of wallet. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2007.01.002
48
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2013). The impact of reward personalisation on frequent flyer programmes’perceived value and loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(3), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041311330681
49
Meyer-Waarden, L., Bruwer, J., & Galan, J.-P. (2023). Loyalty programs, loyalty engagement and customer engagement with the company brand: Consumer-centric behavioral psychology insights from three industries. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 71, 103212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103212
50
Mili, S., & Ferro-Soto, C. (2023). Precursors and outcomes of satisfaction of fair trade coffee consumers. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-03-2022-0079
51
Mimouni-Chaabane, A., & Volle, P. (2010). Perceived benefits of loyalty programs: Scale development and implications for relational strategies. Journal of Business Research, 63(1), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.008
52
Monferrer, D., Moliner, M. A., & Estrada, M. (2019). Increasing customer loyalty through customer engagement in the retail banking industry. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, 23(3), 461-484. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-07-2019-0042
53
Moon, J.-W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6
54
MSI. (2022). Research Priorities 2022-2024. Marketing Science Institute. https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/MSI-2022-24-Research-Priorities-Final.pdf
57
Palmatier, R. W., Gopalakrishna, S., & Houston, M. B. (2006). Returns on Business-to-Business Relationship Marketing Investments: Strategies for Leveraging Profits. Marketing Science, 25(5), 477-493. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0209
58
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6
59
Prentice, C., Han, X. Y., Hua, L.-L., & Hu, L. (2019). The influence of identity-driven customer engagement on purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 339-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.014
61
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (Shawn). (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast‐casual restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011035981
62
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
63
So, J. T., Danaher, T., & Gupta, S. (2015). What do customers get and give in return for loyalty program membership? Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 23(3), 196-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2015.02.002
64
Thakur, R. (2019). The moderating role of customer engagement experiences in customer satisfaction–loyalty relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 53(7), 1278-1310. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0895
65
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. (2010). Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions. Journal of Service Research - J SERV RES, 13, 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599
66
Verhoef, P. C., Franses, P. H., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2002). The effect of relational constructs on customer referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider: Does age of relationship matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 202-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302303002
67
Wang, G., Wang, J., Ma, X., & Qiu, R. G. (2010). The effect of standardization and customization on service satisfaction. Journal of Service Science, 2(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12927-010-0001-3
68
69
Wongsansukcharoen, J. (2022). Effect of community relationship management, relationship marketing orientation, customer engagement, and brand trust on brand loyalty: The case of a commercial bank in Thailand. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64, 102826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102826
70
Yi, Y., & Jeon, H. (2003). Effects of Loyalty Programs on Value Perception, Program Loyalty, and Brand Loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 229-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303031003002
