Examining the impact of price sensitivity on customer lifetime value: empirical analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Estimated research model. Source: Based on authors.

Figure 2. Structural equation model for phenomenon.

Note: The preceding Figure 2. Displays the phenomenon’s structural equation model. It illustrates all the variables’ relationships. It also displays the final assertions that were used in the analysis.

Table 1. Variables scale items and measures.

Variable	Sub variable	Conceptual definition	Operational definition
Price Sensitivity	Quality Value	Refers to a product’s or service’s perceived advantage based on its fundamental attributes and performance (Zeithaml, 1988).	4 statements A 5-point Likert scale. (Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2021; Tak, 2020)
	Position Value	To achieve market leadership, a company or product must be distinguished from competitors based on actual dimensions, which may include product features or corporate values that are significant to customers (DiMingo, 1988).	4 statements A 5-point Likert scale (Özkan & Evrim, 2020; Kaleka & Morgan, 2019; Researcher).
	Time Value	Time is commonly described by researchers as a restricted and scarce resource. The word ‘saving time’ refers to redistribute time across various tasks to boost overall efficiency (Berry et al., 2002).	3 statements A 5-point Likert scale (Hennigs et al., 2013; Researcher).
	Information Value	The amount of detailed product information provided to customers by a corporation (Hou & Tang, 2008).	4 statements A 5-point Likert scale. (Hennigs et al., 2013; Researcher).
Customer Lifetime Value	Psychological Value	Pleasure, enjoyment, and sensory satisfaction are elicited as emotional or affective states (Kujala & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2009).	4 statements A 5-point Likert scale. (Hennigs et al., 2012; Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2021)
	Social Value	It is necessary to have social and external esteem, position, power, control and dominance, achievement, compliance, equality, helpfulness, honesty, and loyalty (Sheth et al., 1991).	4 statements A 5-point Likert scale. (Kapferer & Valette-Florence, 2021; Tak, 2020)
	Financial Value	The outcome of balancing the benefits obtained vs the costs incurred during a transaction (Kataria and Saini, 2020).	4 statements A 5-point Likert scale. (Hennigs et al., 2012; Researcher).
	Functional Value	The perceived benefit obtained from an option’s potential for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance is referred to as practical value. This is the value a client obtains from the practical and tangible functionality of a product or service (Sheth et al., 1991).	5 statements A 5-point Likert scale. (Hennigs et al., 2012)

Source: Tak (2020); Kapferer and Valette-Florence (2021), Özkan and Evrim (2020), Kaleka and Morgan (2019); Hennigs et al. (2013), Hennigs et al. (2012), Kapferer and Valette-Florence (2021), Tak (2020), and Kapferer and Valette-Florence (2021).

Table 2. Frequency tables for demographic variables.

Variable	Categories	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Female	80	41.9
	Male	111	58.1
Age	21 less than 30	5	2.6
	30 less than 40	40	20.9
	40 less than 50	78	40.8
	50 and above	68	35.6
Academic Experience Occupation	Bachelor degree	56	29.3
	Postgraduate Degree	135	70.7
Occupation	Academic	24	12.6
	Administrative	98	51.3
	Freelance	26	13.6
	Specialized Profession	43	22.5
Monthly income	100,000 − 150,000	61	32
	150,000+	18	9.4
	50,000 − 100,000	112	58.6
Sample size (n)		191	100

Source: Field data (January–May, 2022), retrieved from Google form.

Table 3. Model measurements of the phenomenon.

Variable	Components	Loadings	Outer VIF	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
Customer lifetime value	CL1	0.707	2.228	0.891	0.910	0.505
	CL2	0.715	2.552
	CL3	0.684	1.998
	CL7	0.706	1.743
	CL9	0.755	1.992
	CL10	0.780	2.352
	CL12	0.780	2.070
	CL13	0.660	1.891
	CL16	0.672	1.968
	CL17	0.628	1.940
Information value	I1	0.745	1.343	0.685	0.749	0.536
	I2	0.501	1.343
	I3	0.559	1.349
	I4	0.791	1.335
Quality positioning value	QP1	0.588	1.426	0.691	0.812	0.52
	QP2	0.644	1.301
	QP3	0.562	1.513
	QP4	0.684	1.554
	QP5	0.547	1.386
	QP6	0.561	1.521
	QP7	0.618	1.297
	QP8	0.731	1.68
Time value	T1	0.753	1.401	0.717	0.839	0.635
	T2	0.831	1.347
	T3	0.804	1.509

Source: Calculations based on sample collected through surveys using SmartPLS.

Table 4. Fornell-Larcker criterion for measuring discriminant validity of the theoretical model.

	Customer lifetime value	Information value	Quality positioning value	Time value
Customer lifetime value	0.71
Customer lifetime value	0.483	0.66
Customer lifetime value	0.543	0.573	0.62
Customer lifetime value	0.564	0.486	0.631	0.797

Source: Calculations based on sample collected through surveys using SmartPLS.

Table 5. Spearman correlation coefficients in phenomenon.

	Customer lifetime value	Information value	Quality positioning value	Time value
Customer lifetime value	1.00
Customer lifetime value	.421***	1.00
Customer lifetime value	.289***	.003	1.00
Customer lifetime value	.314***	.094	.174**	1.00

Sig values: ***<0.01, **<0.05, “”>0.05.

Source: Calculations based on sample collected through surveys using SPSS At 99%.

Table 6. Path coefficients of the model.

	Original sample	Standard deviation	P values
Information value -> customer lifetime value	0.209	0.079	0.008
Quality positioning value -> customer lifetime value	0.239	0.089	0.008
Time value -> customer lifetime value	0.331	0.08	0

Source: Calculations based on sample collected through surveys using SmartPLS.

Table 7. Model evaluation metrics.

	SSO	SSE	Q²	R square
Customer lifetime value	1910	1578.382	0.174	0.401

Note: SRMR = 0.100, d_ULS = 3.252, d_G = 1.001, Chi-Square = 1018.312, NFI = 0.551.

Source: Calculations based on sample collected through surveys using SmartPLS.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kapferer, J. N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2021). Which consumers believe luxury must be expensive and why? A cross-cultural comparison of motivations. Journal of Business Research, 132, 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tak, P. (2020). Antecedents of luxury brand consumption: An emerging market context. Asian Journal of Business Research, 10(2), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.200082

 Google Scholar

DiMingo, E. (1988). The fine art of positioning. The Journal of Business Strategy, 9(2), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039211 10303386

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Özkan, P. E., & Evrim, D. (2020). The mediating role of price sensitivity in the effect of trust and loyalty to luxury brands on the brand preference. Управленец, 11(6), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2020-11-6-6

 Google Scholar

Kaleka, A., & Morgan, N. A. (2019). How marketing capabilities and current performance drive strategic intentions in international markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 78, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.02.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berry, L. L.,Seiders, K., &Grewal, D. (2002). Understanding service convenience. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.3.1.18505

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K. P., Behrens, S., & Klarmann, C. (2013). Unleashing the power of luxury: Antecedents of luxury brand perception and effects on luxury brand strength. Journal of Brand Management, 20(8), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2013.11

 Google Scholar

Hou, L., &Tang, X. (2008). Gap model for dual customer values. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(3), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1007-0214(08)70063-4

 Google Scholar

Kujala, S., & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2009). Value of information systems and products: Understanding the users’ perspective and values. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 9(4), 4.

 Google Scholar

Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Neulinger, A., Dave, K., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Taro, K., Táborecká-Petrovičová, J., Santos, C. R., Jung, J., & Oh, H. (2012). What is the value of luxury? A cross-cultural consumer perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 29(12), 1018–1034. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20583

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sheth, J. N.,Newman, B. I., &Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kataria, S., &Saini, V. (2020). The mediating impact of customer satisfaction in relation of brand equity and brand loyalty. an Empirical Synthesis and Re-Examination. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 9(1), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-03-2019-0046

 Google Scholar

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Sarah Ahmed Awaad, upon reasonable request.