An Empirical Test of Mobile Service Provider Promotions on Repurchase Intentions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
If you consider opportune please add a literature review section
Please define the term sustainable repurchase seeing as the term is not widely used or known in the literature
Please, in the section where you consider it appropriate, explain why sustainability is important for the Mobile Service Provider industry and how repurchasing helps to implement a sustainable aproach
Maybe your model proposed in "Figure 1. Proposed model", can be extended to prosumers not only to consumers, considering that you propose a sustainable repurchase model.
Please also present the practical implications or those related to sustainability of your model
You mentioned financial and nonfinancial implications at the end of the paper but they are not found as a concern in the discussion section. Please present, which are the mobile service providers, how they share the market and what is the current market capitalization of those companies
All these data are necessary to give applicability to the theoretical model in order not to make it disconnected from reality
I notice the total lack of conclusions sections; please draw some conclusions from your article
Please check if all-important references are included
Please check English spelling and grammar
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
We would like to thank you for your constructive comments. Undoubtedly, your suggestions have significantly strengthened the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns and present here a point-to-point response to all of your questions and suggestions:
If you consider opportune please add a literature review section.
Our action: Thank you so much. We think both theoretical background and literature reviews are the same. Therefore, we have replaced the heading with a literature review based on the theoretical background.
Please define the term sustainable repurchase seeing as the term is not widely used or known in the literature.
Our action: Thanks again. As you know, repurchase intentions have been widely used in the marketing literature. Furthermore, our conceptual model also used the term, “repurchase intention”. Thus, we have deleted the term “sustainable repurchase” in the title. Alternatively, we just used “repurchase intentions” in the title.
Please, in the section where you consider it appropriate, explain why sustainability is important for the Mobile Service Provider industry and how repurchasing helps to implement a sustainable approach
Our action: Thank you. Yes, we have explained sustainability issue in the section of introduction as follows:
…Sustainability is crucial for the mobile service provider as it has become a central concept to improve mobile service quality and maintain customer satisfaction in a highly competitive marketplace. Besides, repurchasing is fundamental to a firm’s long-term growth.
Maybe your model proposed in "Figure 1. Proposed model", can be extended to prosumers not only to consumers, considering that you propose a sustainable repurchase model.
Our action: We agreed with your suggestion. Thus, the title of Figure 1 has been slightly changed: “Proposed model considering the impact of prosumers”.
Please also present the practical implications or those related to sustainability of your model.
Our action: Thanks again. We have updated the section of practical implications as follows:
During the mobile service renewal stage, M-promotions can be highly effective for high-tech product decision-making, for which consumers engage in extensive online review searches. This implication is especially important for mobile service providers because present firms are willing to accept their customer requests to achieve long-term sustainability.
You mentioned financial and nonfinancial implications at the end of the paper but they are not found as a concern in the discussion section. Please present, which are the mobile service providers, how they share the market and what is the current market capitalization of those companies
Our action: Thank again. We have added how they share the market as follows; however, we did not explain the current market capitalization of those companies because this paper does not focus on firms’ financial/non-financial performance. In this paper, we only provide personalized offerings (from financial and non-financial perspective) for facilitating repurchase intentions or behavioral activities.
For example, SK Telecom, KT Corporation, and LG U+ are the main telecommunication companies in South Korea, and 46.4 percent of mobile phone service subscribers use the service provided by SK (KT = 31.6%; LG U+ = 22%), which are highly personalized offerings and M-promotions [63]. Based on our data analyses, these implications are crucial for the application of the theoretical model to disconnect it from reality.
All these data are necessary to give applicability to the theoretical model in order not to make it disconnected from reality.
Our action: Thank you. Your comments are very valuable. Thus, we have used your comments at the end of practical implications.
I notice the total lack of conclusions sections; please draw some conclusions from your article
Our action: Thanks again. Now, we have created the new section of conclusions as follows (6.4: Conclusions).
6.4. Conclusions
A valuable offering of M-promotions can be perceived as long-term customer care, which creates subsequent repurchasing events. Our findings show that two direct effects on repurchase intentions are significant; however, the other two direct effects (design quality and online reviews) are insignificant. In particular, M-promotions moderate the relationships between functional quality and repurchase intentions and between online reviews and repurchase intentions. The results offer benefits for researchers and firms. Repurchase intentions benefit researchers because it is enhanced by positive online reviews. Firms also gain because the effects of M-promotions can be explained by the functional quality of mobile devices.
Please check if all-important references are included
Our action: We have cross-checked all references.
Please check English spelling and grammar.
Our action: Thank you. The revision work has been proofread by a native speaker again.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the paper An Empirical Test of Mobile Service Provider Promotions on Sustainable Repurchase Intentions present a relevant topic, due to the fact that globally marketing policies on supplier promotions have as a direct element the subsequent redemption policy.
The concepts, bibliographic sources and specialized literature are appropriate, especially in the context in which the authors highlight directly through the sources used and cited the theoretical implications, based on "sales and promotions of mobile communication [11], brand attitudes [22], information online [31] and repeated behavior [5] ”.
The research methodology is relevant, the authors of the paper using tools and working models that confirm the research results, respectively to test the working hypotheses, the authors "collected data from an online professional research firm", which allowed surveys of our target groups in Korea. Furthermore, the authors used criteria for selecting participants (owners of a mobile device) in the sample.
The research results are adequately presented by the research authors, the data obtained are presented through graphs and tables, resulting from the “confirmation factor analysis, the measurement model with M promotions obtained the following matching statistics which were all acceptable: χ2 = 309,556 (df ​​= 137), CFI = .953 and RMSEA = .052”. However, we suggest that the authors of the study present a separate paragraph in which all the elements regarding the personal scientific contribution to the literature are mentioned.
At the end of the paper, the discussions are mentioned, which is why we suggest the authors of the research to add the final conclusions of the paper, some of which can be found in the conclusions chapter.
We congratulate the research team, and after reviewing according to the suggestions mentioned above, we propose the work for acceptance.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
We would like to thank you for your constructive comments. Undoubtedly, your suggestions have significantly strengthened the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns and present here a point-to-point response to all of your questions and suggestions:
The authors of the paper An Empirical Test of Mobile Service Provider Promotions on Sustainable Repurchase Intentions present a relevant topic, due to the fact that globally marketing policies on supplier promotions have as a direct element the subsequent redemption policy.
Our action: Thank you for your brief evaluations.
The concepts, bibliographic sources and specialized literature are appropriate, especially in the context in which the authors highlight directly through the sources used and cited the theoretical implications, based on "sales and promotions of mobile communication [11], brand attitudes [22], information online [31] and repeated behavior [5] ”.
Our action: Many thanks for your positive evaluations again.
The research methodology is relevant, the authors of the paper using tools and working models that confirm the research results, respectively to test the working hypotheses, the authors "collected data from an online professional research firm", which allowed surveys of our target groups in Korea. Furthermore, the authors used criteria for selecting participants (owners of a mobile device) in the sample.
Our action: Thanks for your positive evaluations again.
The research results are adequately presented by the research authors, the data obtained are presented through graphs and tables, resulting from the “confirmation factor analysis, the measurement model with M promotions obtained the following matching statistics which were all acceptable: χ2 = 309,556 (df ​​= 137), CFI = .953 and RMSEA = .052”. However, we suggest that the authors of the study present a separate paragraph in which all the elements regarding the personal scientific contribution to the literature are mentioned.
Our action: Thanks again. We have added the following sentences, but the next sentences (in the original version) have been separated (as a new paragraph).
After the confirmatory factor analysis, the measurement model with M-promotions obtained the following fit statistics that were all acceptable: χ2 = 309.556 (df = 137), CFI = .953, and RMSEA = .052. According to Thompson [52], chi-square/degree of freedom (< 3), CFI (> .900), and RMSEA (< .080) is the key to measure overall model goodness of fit. Our scientific justifications support these recommended criteria.
At the end of the paper, the discussions are mentioned, which is why we suggest the authors of the research to add the final conclusions of the paper, some of which can be found in the conclusions chapter.
Our action: Thank you so much. Your suggestions are consistent with other two reviewers’ suggestion. Thus, we have created a new section of conclusions (6.4).
6.4. Conclusions
A valuable offering of M-promotions can be perceived as long-term customer care, which creates subsequent repurchasing events. Our findings show that two direct effects on repurchase intentions are significant; however, the other two direct effects (design quality and online reviews) are insignificant. In particular, M-promotions moderate the relationships between functional quality and repurchase intentions and between online reviews and repurchase intentions. The results offer benefits for researchers and firms. Repurchase intentions benefit researchers because it is enhanced by positive online reviews. Firms also gain because the effects of M-promotions can be explained by the functional quality of mobile devices.
We congratulate the research team, and after reviewing according to the suggestions mentioned above, we propose the work for acceptance.
Our action: Once again, we appreciate your warm assistance for improving the current manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author(s),
Thank you for submitting the paper and sharing the results of your research. I am happy to admit that your article represents a satisfactory quality of academic work.
First of all, I would like to underline that your paper is based on reliable data analysis. Secondly, its another advantage is the research area focusing on the role of M-promotions in repurchase process. Thirdly, we can carefully assume that the paper is interdisciplinary: it combines management, marketing, and communication/media studies (in the context of mobile usage). The text is well written (except for some minor flaws that can be easily improved) and based on structured narration.
However, I believe that you could improve the quality of your paper by implementing some significant revisions.
- My primary concern is that your research is not sufficiently embedded in the area of sustainability. Admittedly, you refer to it in the title and the conclusions. Unfortunately, these brief mentions do not show a clear connection between M-promotions, repurchase intentions and sustainability. In my opinion, you could underline this particular theme in every part of your paper, along with defining "sustainable repurchase intentions" precisely, reviewing the literature on the topic, and perhaps even considering introducing an additional hypothesis and addressing it in the results and discussion sections.
- I think you could significantly expand the section describing limitations. I see several of them, i.e. the non-representativeness of the study, the moderate size of the research sample, the overrepresentation of the age group of people under 29, the focus on one country, and in the conclusions – the lack of a clear link between the results and the specifics (characteristics) of consumer habits in your country.
- In the "Sample Data" subsection, the description of respondents' demographic characteristics is not precise (there is no information about their education or place of residence). On the other hand, in the "Results" section, it would be great if you indicated whether demographic variables differentiated the results obtained (the current approach presents a general perspective).
- The “Introduction” seems to be relatively short now. You do not: discuss the market of mobile service providers; characterise its specificity and potential; show why choosing such a sector for academic research is important. Thus, the overtones of your study's importance in the context of “Managerial Implications” are not properly marked and embedded in the market practice.
- It would also be great if you devoted more space to developing and deepening the definition of M-promotions.
- You do not clearly state your research objectives and research questions. I also get the impression that in section 2.1, you do not explain precisely how you derived the model presented in Figure 1. You write that "it is inspired by the contextual marketing theory and consumer experience used in traditional and IT-based marketing settings". For the sake of clarity and conciseness of the text, you could clearly indicate how this inspiration translated into the model's construction (what the process of its development looked like).
- The text sometimes makes claims that are not supported by the literature. It would be a great asset if you would supplement the most problematic passages in this regard, e.g.
- „the mainstream of research has focused on the direct role of promotions in sales volume”;
- “Changes in attitude based on a consumption approach have emerged as a fundamental issue in the IT and marketing literature”;
- “Although customers have rich experience with their mobile devices, online reviews are still critical due to consumer’s need for new alternatives”;
- “Because companies track which customers are sustainable”.
I hope you decide to make changes because your text has a potential and is worth continuing to work on further.
Sincerely.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
We would like to thank you for your constructive comments. Undoubtedly, your suggestions have significantly strengthened the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns and present here a point-to-point response to all of your questions and suggestions:
Thank you for submitting the paper and sharing the results of your research. I am happy to admit that your article represents a satisfactory quality of academic work.
Our action: Thank you for your positive evaluation.
First of all, I would like to underline that your paper is based on reliable data analysis. Secondly, its another advantage is the research area focusing on the role of M-promotions in repurchase process. Thirdly, we can carefully assume that the paper is interdisciplinary: it combines management, marketing, and communication/media studies (in the context of mobile usage). The text is well written (except for some minor flaws that can be easily improved) and based on structured narration.
Our action: Thank you for your positive evaluation again.
My primary concern is that your research is not sufficiently embedded in the area of sustainability. Admittedly, you refer to it in the title and the conclusions. Unfortunately, these brief mentions do not show a clear connection between M-promotions, repurchase intentions and sustainability. In my opinion, you could underline this particular theme in every part of your paper, along with defining "sustainable repurchase intentions" precisely, reviewing the literature on the topic, and perhaps even considering introducing an additional hypothesis and addressing it in the results and discussion sections.
Our action: Thank you for your valuable comments. We totally agree. Thus, we have added several details for sustainability in the following sections (e.g., introduction. Literature review and discussion sections).
Sustainability is crucial for the mobile service provider as it has become a central concept to improve mobile service quality and maintain customer satisfaction in a highly competitive marketplace. Besides, repurchasing is fundamental to a firm’s long-term growth. This study provides significant implications for maintaining customer engagement and improving firm performance [6] from a sustainable perspective.
As a consequence, the promotion effect may be critical during repurchase periods and could lead firms to improve long-term sustainability [19,20].
During the mobile service renewal stage, M-promotions can be highly effective for high-tech product decision-making, for which consumers engage in extensive online review searches. This implication is especially important for mobile service providers because present firms are willing to accept their customer requests to achieve long-term sustainability.
I think you could significantly expand the section describing limitations. I see several of them, i.e. the non-representativeness of the study, the moderate size of the research sample, the overrepresentation of the age group of people under 29, the focus on one country, and in the conclusions – the lack of a clear link between the results and the specifics (characteristics) of consumer habits in your country.
Our action: Thanks again. We have addressed these critical limitations as follows.
The non-representativeness is the limitation of this study. There is a lack of generalization because we focus on the mobile service provider industry in a single country. Future research is beneficial for investigating a link between the current results and consumer behaviors.
In the "Sample Data" subsection, the description of respondents' demographic characteristics is not precise (there is no information about their education or place of residence). On the other hand, in the "Results" section, it would be great if you indicated whether demographic variables differentiated the results obtained (the current approach presents a general perspective).
Our action: Thanks again. We have added demographic information (level of education) as follows:
Besides, we analyzed the impact of demographic variables on M-promotions. While both age and education level were insignificant, the role of gender was significant. More specifically, females appeared to comprehensively acquire positive online reviews when M-promotions were high (ß = .19, p < .05), rather than male customers.
The “Introduction” seems to be relatively short now. You do not: discuss the market of mobile service providers; characterise its specificity and potential; show why choosing such a sector for academic research is important. Thus, the overtones of your study's importance in the context of “Managerial Implications” are not properly marked and embedded in the market practice.
Our action: Thank you so much. We have explained this issue in both introduction and practical implication sections as follows:
…It is crucial to understand the role of M-promotions because the mobile service providers market is highly competitive. Furthermore, customers will search for sales information from mobile sources when they are able to renew their contracts. As this marketplace is dynamic, this study is an integrated response to capture the role of M-promotions and guide the sustainable growth of firms.
During the mobile service renewal stage, M-promotions can be highly effective for high-tech product decision-making, for which consumers engage in extensive online review searches. This implication is especially important for mobile service providers because present firms are willing to accept their customer requests to achieve long-term sustainability.
For example, SK Telecom, KT Corporation, and LG U+ are the main telecommunication companies in South Korea, and 46.4 percent of mobile phone service subscribers use the service provided by SK (KT = 31.6%; LG U+ = 22%), which are highly personalized offerings and M-promotions [63]. Based on our data analyses, these implications are crucial for the application of the theoretical model to disconnect it from reality.
It would also be great if you devoted more space to developing and deepening the definition of M-promotions.
Our action: Thanks again. We have developed the definition of M-promotions in the section of literature review.
We defined M-promotions; however, the definition was similar to traditional sales promotions. This study includes financial and nonfinancial tools because different promotional tools may have different effects on sales and customer equity [12]. To capture an integrated response to M-promotions, the definition is acceptable.
You do not clearly state your research objectives and research questions.
Our action: Thank you. The first thing is to address our research purposes. Thus, we have stated our research purposes as follows:
The purpose of this study is to examine: (1) four determinants (e.g., brand attitudes, functional quality, design quality, and online reviews) on a mobile device and their effect on repurchase intentions; (2) how these determinants are related to M-promotions and mobile choice; and (3) how M-promotions moderate the direct and indirect influence of repurchase intentions.
I also get the impression that in section 2.1, you do not explain precisely how you derived the model presented in Figure 1. You write that "it is inspired by the contextual marketing theory and consumer experience used in traditional and IT-based marketing settings". For the sake of clarity and conciseness of the text, you could clearly indicate how this inspiration translated into the model's construction (what the process of its development looked like).
Our action: Thank you so much. We have also explained the proposed model as follows.
In the four-determinant model, brand attitudes reflect a psychological and attitudinal factor. Functional quality reflects perceived functions and perceived quality of alternatives. Design quality reflects the perceived beauty of mobile devices, and online reviews reflect overall evaluations provided by customer experiences. As a moderator, M-promotions are based on an individual’s evaluation of their past purchasing experience. These determinants and M-promotions should be linked to repurchase intentions, directly or indirectly.
The text sometimes makes claims that are not supported by the literature. It would be a great asset if you would supplement the most problematic passages in this regard, e.g. the mainstream of research has focused on the direct role of promotions in sales volume”; “Changes in attitude based on a consumption approach have emerged as a fundamental issue in the IT and marketing literature”; “Although customers have rich experience with their mobile devices, online reviews are still critical due to consumer’s need for new alternatives”; “Because companies track which customers are sustainable”.
Our action: Thanks again. Yes, we have made several citations into the text.
- the mainstream of research has focused on the direct role of promotions in sales volume [1,4,5].
- Changes in attitude based on a consumption approach have emerged as a fundamental issue in the IT and marketing literature [11,25].
- Although customers have rich experience with their mobile devices, online reviews are still critical due to consumer’s need for new alternatives [15,16,31].
- Because companies track which customers are sustainable [62].
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I've reviewed your answers. The purpose of the comments was not to change your vision of research or to eliminate certain specialized concepts but only to expand or explain new concepts. I have no additional comments on the paper presented in this version by the authors.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments again. We will keep in mind when we conduct a new research project again.
Once again, we appreciate your warm assistance.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your kind answer and an effective attempt to improve the quality of your paper. As I mentioned in my first review, it already represented a relatively high quality of academic research. After your revisions, the quality is even better. This said, I have to admit that I am satisfied with all the improvements implemented in the text. However, I think you could add more limitations to your study. I refer to the overrepresentation of respondents among two demographical subgroups: education and age). I also miss discussing the mobile service providers' market in the introduction part (to present how many people use mobile phones or buy new ones, what potential this market has got - very basic information). This short explanation would enhance your research's practical implications by proving that the results obtained may refer to the significant economic area in your country.
Sincerely.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable comments again. based on your feedback, we have addressed additonal limitations as follows:
Similarly, we did not focus on the overrepresentation of respondents among two demographic subgroups: education and age. As these subgroups can play an important role in bridging the gap between repurchase intentions and their determinants, future research is crucial for a better understanding of M-promotions. Finally, we did not consider how many people buy new mobile devices. Especially, researchers should identify what potential this market has got. They can then measure the effectiveness of M-promotions. Thus, our suggestions are important topics for future research.
