Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS Customer Loyalty Factors Of Small Scale Farmers In Purchasing Poultry Feed SUCI PARAMITASARI SYAHLANI Faculty Of Animal Science Gadjahmada University, Jl Fauna no3, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta 55281 Yogyakarta INDONESIA suci.syahlani@ugm.ac.id ANTON AGUS SETYAWAN Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Jl A Yani Tromol Pos 1 Pabelan Kartasura, Sukoharjo INDONESIA anton.setyawan@ums.ac.id MUJTAHIDAH ANGGRIANI Faculty Of Animal Science Gadjahmada University, Jl Fauna no3, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta 55281 Yogyakarta INDONESIA UMMUL MUZAYYANAH Faculty Of Animal Science Gadjahmada University, Jl Fauna no3, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta 55281 Yogyakarta INDONESIA Abstract: This study aims for factors that affect customer loyalty in business to business poultry industry, specifically in the relationship between feed manufacturersand small scale chicken farming enterprises. There are great differentiatingcharacteristics between those two. Buyers consist of a large number of farmers that operatesmall scale enterprises, inheritingbusinesses for generations, and have limited knowledge of technical and business environments. While suppliers consist of few, butlarge and integrated firms with greaterbusiness advantages. This study used survey design to identify effects of customer perceived value, customer satisfaction,and customer trust toward supplier andcustomer loyalties. This research involved 131 small chicken farming enterprises in Special Province of Yogyakartaas respondents. Data analyses were conducted by structural equation model. The resut revealedthat costumer perceived value influencedcustomer satisfaction and customer trust toward supplier. However, this study showed that customer satisfaction did not affect customer loyalty. Customer loyalty was only affected by costumer trust. E-ISSN: 2224-2899 379 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS Key-words: Customer Satisfaction, Small Scale Farmers, Feed Supplies, Loyalty. customers buy more, are willing to spend more, 1 INTRODUCTION easier to reach, and act as enthusiastic advocates for Business-to-businessmarket has been known as an attractive market. Even though, the number of involved customers is fewer, but they make purchasesat large companies reach customer loyaltyby emphasising scale, impacting revenue security of companies greater attention to some attitudinal antecedents. The involved. The availabilityof suppliers offering relative impact of antecedents may vary in different similar market products or servicesmade business firms.Previous type. When study cognitive showedhow and conative customersdemanded more services and supportsfrom antecedents are within point of parity of the them(Naryandas, 2005). Therefore, it is critical for industry,then affective antecedent like satisfaction suppliers to understand the needs and wantsof their might play as key determinant that influence customers to increasecompany capability to maintain customer loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994).Trust is relationships and satisfactions to ultimately achieve another affective antecedent that emerges as sellers customer loyalty. perceive competence operationally to fulfil the needs Customer relationship management is one the of buyers that would reduce risks in exchange and most common practice in business-to-business increase congruent values between buyers and sellers industries to earncustomer loyalty. Parvitiyar and (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). relationship Does it work universal in all industries? managementas “a comprehensive strategy and Dissimilarities of market structure, bargaining power process of acquiring, retaining, and partnering with would shape different forms of relationship between selective customers to createsuperior value for the suppliersand customers. A limited number of company and the customer”. Superior value would large-scale feed manufacturer operations as well as benefit both parties as it is the result ofpositive their chain management system allows more cooperative and collaborative works between buyer bargaining power on suppplier especially to and seller. Moreover, it would improve marketing customer efficiency and buyer productivity. Customers can relationship management in poultry industry. In alsoact proactively in business development to aid Indonesia, buyer in fulfilling the needs. enterprises.These farmers are categorized in sector 2 Sheth(2001) defined customer thats potentially chicken farmers cause imbalanced mostly aresmall The issue of creating intimate relationship as a group of poultry growers that apply commercial between buyer and sellerbecome more essential in poultry production system with moderate to high business-to-business market,since biosecurity often market and marketing their products structures consisted of few but larger buyers. commercially, counting up to 37.707 farmers Managerswho market (Rushton et al., 2005).Average numbers of birds are placecustomer loyalty higher in priority, because 528 individuals which indicated their operation theyunderstandtheprofitimpact from scales are far below ideal operational scale of their psychological enterprises than firms that supply feed materials. equivalent to loyalty (Harris and Goode, 2004; This great difference of operational scale naturally Oliver, 2014). The reason is simply that loyal raises a power imbalance that would affect business customer are retention E-ISSN: 2224-2899 working or in that another this flows 380 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS relationships. In fact, this is not an isolated issues deserved for the perceived cost of the offering within developing countries, but a widespread one (Bolton & Lemon, 1999). Customers are felt occurring even in contracting system of poultry equitably treated or satisfied if they perceive the ratio industry in USA, as an example. In most poultry of their outcome to inputs is comparable to the ratio industries, notcommonly of outcome to inputs experienced by the company specifying terms of quantity and product. Moreover, (Oliver &DeSarbo, 1988). Yang and Peterson (2000) service qualityand price are not negotiated andthe mentioned that customer satisfaction is a mediating grower must accept the contract offered by variable in linking customer-perceived value and manufacturer, regardless (Taylor and Domina, loyalty. This implies that value is important in 2010).Setyawan et al (2019) found similar picture in marketing relationship. contract terms are Indonesia retail idustry, there is an asymmetry Business-to-business market has different information in business relationship between large aspect in perceived value compare to consumer companies and SME retailers. Large companies have market. Consumer and producer in B2B market are power in determining business rules, eventhough it involved in a close relationship. There are several has a positive effect to SME retailers business aspects crucial inmaintaining business relationship performance.Morgan and Hunt (1994) proposed key such mediating variables in business relationship in B2B, competition, information technology infrastructure those are trust and commitment which appear in the and process of business between parties. Therefore, management support and commitment, government there is a need to evaluate how variables of customer encouragement and commitment, security and trust, relationship in and cultural consideration (Chong et al., 2011). business-to-business market of poultry industry, However, perceived value of each company to their espescially ones that involved small medium partners is an important aspect to consider prior to enterprises. building a business relationship (Albadvi and management Are customer work perceived value, as supplying performance, chain facilities, information global visibility, top Hoesseini, 2011). satisfaction toward supplier,and customer trust Perceived value is a comparison between influence customer loyalty? perceived benefit and perceived sacrifice (Ravald and Gronroos, 1996). Perceived sacrifice includes all 2 LITERATURE REVIEW costs buyer paid when making the purchase, in the case of business-to-business market; purchase price, 2.1 Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Trust in Business-to-Business Market transportation cost, installation cost, carrying cost, An important determinant that is helpful to and delivery cost. Perceived benefits are all attributes advance firm understanding in business relationships of products and services attributes which includes is the concept of value (Anderson, Jain, and technical support that has been received by the buyer. Chintagunta, 1993), as delivering superior value of In the business relationship of several companies, product and service means that company would be perceived values are of importance within a able to generate customer loyalty (Parasuraman and transaction between them. Arefi (2010) shows that Grewal, 2000).The root of perceived value is in reliability as one aspect of perceived value is the equity concept referring to what is fair, right, or most important driver to influence customer E-ISSN: 2224-2899 381 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS satisfaction in business to business market, for all 2009).Achieving satisfaction indicates the ability of functional areas. It is reasonable, since the lack of marketers reliability may affect the business process, such is management. Satisfaction itself can be reached by down time. Furthermore, it is explained that effectively focusing on consumer preferences and employee from different functional areas may give desired valuez to form a long-term commitment. It different weight to different properties of values. can reach out through readiness to modifyproducts Ravald and Gronroos (1996) explainesthat perceived such as technical updates related to productionand value will affect trust and also indirectly influence servicesneeds, such as onsite inspection, inventory loyalty in long term, through the achievement trust that is provided by industrial vendor as well as and customer satisfaction. managing to build personal customer relationship relationship to strengthen customer loyalty. Rufin and Molina (2015) found that trust is a significant aspect of long term business relationship. Terawatanavong et al.,(2007) found that Trust represents willingness of each parties in satisfaction, trust, and commitment are related with business relationship to think and act on behalf of the their partner’s interests (Shaikh et al., 2017). In business-to-business market. Satisfaction is the result business relationship, considering a partner’s interest of fulfilling a partner’s obligation and promises in a in a business decision should be a part of business business relationship, especially in transactions strategy. Trust is an abstract concept that is positively between attributed and vital for humanity, since meaningful Companies in a business relationship have certain relationships often depend on it. In marketing, trust expectations of their partner’s perceived value. If this has been used to forge relationships between buyers expectation is met, then satisfaction will take place. and sellers (Wang and Emurian, 2005). Trust as a Satisfaction has different role in relationship part of relational attribute has been linkedto direct marketing research. Satisfaction is key variable in repurchasing decisions(Hennig-Thurau and Klee business relationship which mediated perceived 1997; Sirdeshmukh et al. 2002). Trust along with value and power with business performance developments of information technology will reduce (Terawatanavong,2007). Another study showed that transaction costs because it encourages commitments satisfaction could be the result of good business of long-term relationships between suppliers and relationship. (Ramaseshan et al, 2006). consumers (Jumaef et al., 2012). As with willingness H1: Customer perceived value affects positively to rely on business partners, trust had assumed an customer satisfaction toward suppliers essential role in establishing and maintaining a H2: Customer perceived value has positive effect on long-term relationshipbetween sellers and buyers. customer trust quality of partners business (Rocco relationship and Bush, in 2016). A satisfaction or positive post-transactional response occurs when there is a match between product and service performed and customer 2.2 Loyalty with Partners in Business Relationship expectation. When it happens, it directs to repeat a Rayruen and Miller (2007) proposed a model that patronage buying behaviour.A number of literature includes satisfaction, trust, and perceived service indicate satisfaction plays a major role in shaping quality as dimensions of relationship quality loyalty(Bennett affecting customer loyalty. The result showed that et E-ISSN: 2224-2899 al., 2005; Fiol et al., 382 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS perceived quality and satisfaction gave positive 3 RESEARCH METHODS effect on loyalty, however trust does not show similar This research was carried out by survey design in effect on dependence factor. Loyalty in B2B relates poultry industry.Population studiedissmall scale with keeping similar business partners without enterprises of poultry growers in Special Province of intentions to terminate business relationships. Yogyakarta. Judgmental sampling method was used Rayruen and Miller (2007) also suggested that to determine research sample with the following loyalty give criterias; respondents are poultry growers in small recommendation to other companies in building operational scale that has been running forat least 2 business partnership with their partners. years. Thereforem it can be assumed that they have of companies in B2B also Gronroos (2017) suggested that in B2B acquired sufficient information about alternatives in context relationship marketing concept should be choosing suppliers and raw material suppliers, in this applied business case, animal feed.Respondents had freedom to relationship. The process of business relationship chooseand switch the feed suppliers. Respondents should be identified based on the importance of that are also the decision makers in purchasing. to analyse the quality of relationship to each parties. Relationship quality, Data were collected by filling out which includes value, satisfaction, and process are questionnaires to obtain information about farms relationship marketing processes, while loyalty and they managed. Development of a questionnaire refers business performance are the result (Rayruen and to the scale of measurement from earlier researches Miller, 2007; Ramaseshan et al., 2006). In B2B conducted by Fiol (2009),Vazquez and Sanzo marketing, loyalty is earned when customers (2011), considereconomic benefit as a result of business wereadjusted to poultry industrial context. Validity relationship. Loyalty in B2B tends to be attitudinal, was analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis and since it related with commitment to purchase, and reliability by using Cronbach Alpha test. Hypothesis expectation to repurchase, or behavioural loyalty testing was analyzed by using Path Analysis with (Bennet et al., 2005). Cassia and Magno (2012) AMOS software. and Doma (2013). Questionnaires found that attitudinal loyalty in B2B marketing affected by product knowledge and experience of customer. Customer commitment 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION to maintain business relationship is determined by customer 4.1 Poultry enterprise profile satisfaction and trust (Espejel et al., 2011). 72,5% respondentsinvolved in this study were Furthermore Sanchez et al., (2012) found that value broiler growersand all of them were under creation and partner’s satisfaction to business contractual poultry grower scheme with integrator relationship gave positive effect to partner’s loyalty companieswhile within their business relationship. enterprises H3: Customer satisfaction towardsupplier positively scheme,poultry growers are obliged to purchase feed affects customer loyalty frompartner companies. However, those poultry H4: Customer trust has positive effecton customer growers were free to choose companies to cooperate loyalty with and the contract was in short period. Therefore, of the 27.5% laying hen wereindependent growers.Incontract farmers could switch rather flexibly to other partners, E-ISSN: 2224-2899 383 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS while independent farmers are free to choose input 79.4% poultry farmers rely on onefeed supplier feed brands. while20.7%buy from more than one feed suppliers. Based on the number of workers, allrespondents were small enterprises, since the 4.2 Measurement test number of permanent and contract workers were less Table 2 shows result of validity and reliability of than 20. Permanent workers were assigned to carry constructs in this study and that all measurement in out while this study fulfilled minimum requirement factor non-permanentworkers were involvedduring harvest loadings for construct validity and Cronbach Alpha and cage maintenances. The result also showed that for minimum reliability. operational routines, Table.1Poultry enterprises profile Characteristic Number Proportion (%) Poultry growertype Broiler Laying hens 95 36 72.5 27.5 Type of enterprise Contractual poultry grower Independent poultry grower 95 36 72.5 27.5 117 14 89.3 10.7 88 41 67.2 32.3 104 27 79.3 20.7 Number of permanent employee 1-3 ≥4 Number of non-permanent employee 1-3 ≥4 Number of chicken feed supplier 1 2 E-ISSN: 2224-2899 384 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS Table 2. Validity and Reliability of Constructs Indicators Alpha Perceived Value Durability value Technical quality Technical competence Reliability Security Firm’s employee 0.7738 Trust Supplier’s integrity Strong relationship with suppliers. Supplier’s reputation. Supplier’s trustworthy Consistency of providing service. Supplier’s reliability. Supplier’s support. Supplier emphasizes on our interest. Company’s control over suppliers. Supplier keep our business confidential. Supplier fulfilling their promises. 0.8390 Satisfaction Supplier fulfilling our expectation. Handling complaint in a goodmanner. Supplier’s employee workprofessional. Supplier’s ability to fulfill our needs. Supplier build longterm relationship. Supplier’s competence. Good business relationship. 0.8398 Loyalty Continuing longterm relationship Gives refference to others. Willingness to pay more Our company will defend our supplier. Enjoying business relationship Forgive supplier’s mistakes. Longterm investment for supplier. 0.6637 E-ISSN: 2224-2899 Factor Loadings Cronbach 1 2 3 4 0.739 0.439 0.621 0.527 0.338 0.737 0.437 0.541 0.653 0.511 0.706 0.511 0.750 0.414 0.701 0.865 0.525 0.809 0.376 0.451 0.733 0.633 0.552 0.566 0.716 0.692 0.679 0.694 0.697 0.807 0.693 385 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS confirm the research model to assess the data 4.3 Hypothesis testing obtained (Hair et al., 2000). Figure 1 shows result of Hypothesis testing consisted of two stages: a path analysis in this study. goodness fit of model and parameter estimatestest to Customer Satisfaction toward Supplier 0.711 n.s Customer Loyalty Customer Perceived Value 0.783 Customer 0.265 Trust Figure 1. Model Estimation of Loyalty in Poultry Industry 4.4 Goodness Fit of Model Testing DF) , GFI (Goodness Fit Index), RMR (root mean This research model is a basic one, therefore the square residual) and RMSEA (root mean square of suitability of the model fit was determined by the approximation). Comparison of the results of the specified absolute value of the indicator of chi-square model fit and the recommended values to determine (ᵡ2 or CMIN), normed chi-square (ᵡ2 / df or CMIN / the feasibility of the model are listed in Table 3. Table3. Absolut parameter indicators of the research model fitness Index of model fitness Recommended index of Result Remarks model fitness Absolute Fit chi-square (ᵡ2 or CMIN) Relatively low 1.893 Good Normed chi square ≤ 5.00 1,868 Good GFI >0.90 0,993 Good RMR <0.05 0,004 Good RMSEA <0.07 0,083 Poor E-ISSN: 2224-2899 386 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS Table4. Estimation Parameter Test Hipotesis Estimation parameter value Critical Ratio Remarks H1: Customer perceive value has positive effect to satisfaction toward suppliers 0.711 11.529 Significant H2: Perceive value has positive effect to trust toward suppliers. 0.783 14.348 Significant H3: Customer satisfactiontowardsupplier positively affect loyalty toward suppliers 0.166 1.283 Not significant H4: Customer trust positive effecton customer loyalty 0.265 2.042 Significant 4.5 Discussions relationships, economic benefit The result of the analysis showed that customer consideration of perceived value plays an important role in shaping presentof satistifaction in feed industry, that is, customer satisfaction toward suppliers(Oliver 1999; goodmanner,professionalim and competence at last Spiteri and Dion 2004). Perceived value of the tend to be commoditized the offering. However, functional, social, and emotional benefits derived customer satisfaction earned would result in from a product. Therefore, consumers of the benefits customers with fidelity (Jones and Sasser, 1995). of the acquisition will have their needs fulfilled in Relationship satisfaction and loyalty is a nonlinear order to provide satisfaction. This relationship is relationship (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001) due to consistent with the study conducted by Arefiet al. different intensities of satisfaction at one time, the (2010) which showed three factors relating to situation, and the needs on different levels. loyalty.The is a crucial supplier’s core thesource of customer satisfaction in the context of In other hand, trust gavepositive effect on B2B; reliability, information about products, and loyalty to the suppliers. This results are consistent commercial attributes. Those factors are the aspect of with research conducted by Morgant and Hunt perceived value that used in this study. (1994) and Jumaef et al. (2012) showing that high However, customer satisfaction itself does not trust committed encouraged long-term relationships affectcustomer loyalty. It reflects that within this between suppliers and consumers, by an example, research setting, customer loyalty is not directly reduction of transaction costs. High trust and support resulted from customer satisfaction. Kim (1998) and by developments of information technology enables Rai and Medha (2013) found that customer significant decline in transaction costs for both satisfaction could result in loyalty within B2C suppliers and consumers. Current information businesses, however in B2B technology among poultry growers and feed manufactures is conducted either by smart phoneand E-ISSN: 2224-2899 387 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS similarly functioning devices so that it is possible for with excellent service to maintain their business suppliers and the customers to make contact easily. It relationship with poultry farmers. can also be a useful facility if consumers have high This study gives important contribution to confidence in the supplier. Reordering or requesting relationship marketing to strengthen position of trust other services (livestock inspection facilities, farm as an important mediating variable. This study was visits, etcetera) can easily be carried out by carried consumers to suppliers, for example, billing relationships between buyers and sellers. It may information, information subsidies or price increases, have limitations and would be more comprehensive and anything related. Trust is a critical key and when including all point of views. We suggest for central factor during exchange between customers further research using dyadic model of business and suppliers to create loyal commitment (Doney and relationship in poultry industry of Indonesia out from customer side to analyze This study also described phenomena of Abratt, 2012). poultry industry in Indonesia. Large companies hold strategic keys in the industry, since they possess final 5 CONCLUSIONS It can be concluded that customer perceived value stock of day-old-chicks and feed distribution. It has positive effect on satisfaction and customer trust isimplied that feed companies in Indonesia lead toward supplier.Each party involved in business business relationship, since they are operating in relationships have good knowledge about product oligopolistic market and have stronger bargaining value. Farmers received information and product position over poultry farmers. These are the reason knowledge from the supplier as well as training and poultry companies in Indonesia have moderate assistance control over price and distribution of all chicken in order to obtain optimum products. results.Specifically in contractual scheme, both partiesbelieve that there is a risk sharing between poultry farmers and integrators. Risk sharing References: between poultry farmers and integrators is related to [1] Albadvi, Amir and Monireh Hosseini. 2011, market security, asintegrators buy allfarmers’s Mapping B2B value exchange in marketing output according to the contract price. This is the relationships: a systematic approach, Journal reason of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol 26, why trust emerged within business relationships. No Satifaction is not supported to become antecedent 7, pp 503–513.https://doi.org/10.1108/0885862111 of loyalty. Satisfaction in business-to-business 1162307 marketing do not always result in loyalty. This is due [2] Anderson, James C., Dipak C. Jam, Pradeep to loyalty in business-to-business related with K. economic calculation of companies involvedwithin assessmentin business relationships. Even though a company may state-of-practice be satisfied with their partner’s service, they could Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 1, No 1, change business partner if they can attain products pp similar quality of service at lower price.Feed 3-29.https://doi.org/10.1300/J033v01n01_02 producers should implement price strategy integrated E-ISSN: 2224-2899 [3] 388 Chintagunta.1993, Customer business value markets:a study,Journal of Arefi, M. A.M. Amini, K. Fallahi. 2010, Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS Drivers of customer satifaction in an industrial quality as predictor of B2B customer loyalty. company from Systemics,Cybernetics and Informatics, Vol Academy of marketing Science, aspect,World Engineering 11, No 1, pp 72-28. and [10] Espejel, Joel., Carmina Fandos and Carlos Technology, Vol 66, pp 1653-1659. [4] Bennet, Rebekah, Charmine E.J Hartel and Flavian. 2011, Antecedents of consumer Janet R McColl-Kennedy. 2005, Experience commitment to a PDO wine, an empirical as a moderator of involvement and satisfaction analysis of spanish consumers. Journal of on brand loyalty in a business to business Wine, Vol22, No 3, pp 205-225. Marketing [11] Fiol, Luis. J. C., Enrique B. Alcaniz, Miguel 97-107. A. M. Tena, and Javier S. Garcia, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.08. Customer loyalty in clusters: perceived value 003 and satisfaction as antecedents.Journal of Bolton, Ruth N., and Lemon Katherine N. Business to Business MarketingVol 16, pp 1999, A dynamic model of customers usage of 276-316.https://doi.org/10.1080/10517120802 services: 496878 setting 02-314R, Management, [5] Vol usage consequence [6] Industrial of as 34, an pp antecedent and satisfaction. Journal [12] Gronross, of [9] Relationship marketing readiness: theoretical background 171-186. https://doi.org 10.2307/3152091. and measurement directions, Journal of Cassia, Fabio and Fransesca Magno. 2012, Services Marketing, Business-to-business branding: A review and 218–225.https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-201 assessment 7-0056 of the impact of Vol 31, No 3,pp non-attribute-based brand beliefs on buyer’s [13] Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. attitudinal loyalty, Canadian Journal of Babin, Rolph E. Anderson. 2013. Multivariate Administrative Sciences, Vol 29, No 3, pp Data Analysis. Pearson Education Limited. [14] Harris, Lloyd C. and Mark M.H. Goode.2004, Chong, Woon Kian, Mathew Shafaghi and The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role Boon Leing Tan. 2011, Development of a of business-to-business critical success factors dynamics,Journal of Retailing, Vol 80, pp (B2B CSFs) framework for chinese SMEs, 139–158. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.002 No. [8] 2017, Marketing Research, Vol. 36, No 2, pp 242-254.https://doi.org 10.1002/CJAS.235. [7] Christian. 5, pp. trust: a study of online service [15] Hennig-Thurau, T. and Alexander Klee.1997, 517-533. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501111153700 The impact ofcustomer satisfaction and Dick, Alan S., and BasuKunal. 1994. relationship quality on customer retention:a Customer loyalty: toward an integrated critical reassessment and model Development. conceptual Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14, No 8, pp framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol 22, 737–764.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520- 99-113.https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039422 6793(199712)14:8<737::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO 2001 ;2-F [16] Doney, Patricia A., James M Barry and Russel Doma, ShaimaaS.B.A. 2013, Relationship E-ISSN: 2224-2899 389 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS Abratt. 2007, Trust determinants loyalty, Journal of Marketing Vol 63, Special and outcomes in global B2B Services, European Issue, Journal of Marketing, Vol 41, No 9/10, pp 33–45.https://doi.org/10.2307/1252099 1096-1116. [25] Oliver, Richard L., and DeSarbo,W.S. 1988, https://doi.org Response 10.1108/03090560710773363 satisfied determinants in satisfaction judgments,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol [17] Jones, Thomas O., and Sasser W. Earl.1995, Why pp 14, customers pp 495–508.https://doi.org/10.1086/209131 defect.HarvardBussines Review, November [26] Parasuraman, A., and Grewal, D. 2000, The December, pp 89-99. impact [18] Jumaef, Mukhiddin,Dileep Kumar. M., Jalal of technology chain: on R. M. Hanasya.2012, Impact of relationship quality–value–loyalty marketing on customer loyalty in the banking agenda.Journal of Academic of Marketing sector.Far East Journal of Psychology and Science, Business, Vol 6, No 3, pp 36-55. 168–174.https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300 Vol A the research 28, pp 281015 [19] Kim, Y. 1998.A study on marketingchannel satisfaction ininternational markets.Logistics [27] Parvatiyar, Atul and JagdishN. Sheth.2001, Information Management, Vol 11, No 4, pp. Conceptual frameworkofcustomerrelationship 224–231.https://doi.org management, 10.1108/09576059810226785 Management—Emerging in andApplications, [20] Mittal, Vikas, and A. Wagner Kamakura.2001, CustomerRelationship Concepts, Jagdish N. Tools Sheth, Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase AtulParvatiyar, and G.Shainesh, New Delhi, behavior: Investigating the moderating effect India: Tata/McGraw-Hill, pp 3–25. of [28] Rai, Alok Kumar and Medha S. 2011, The Marketing Research, Vol 38, February, pp antecedents of customer loyalty: An empirical 131–142.https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.13 investigation 1.18832 context, Journal of Competitiveness, Vol 5, of consumer characteristics, Journal in life insurance No2, pp 139-163. [21] Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt.1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship [29] Ramaseshan, B., Leslie C Yip dan Jae H Pae. marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol 58, pp 2006, Power, satisfaction and relationship 20–38.https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308 commitment in chinese [22] Narayandas, D. 2005, Building loyalty in relationship and their store-tenant impact on business markets, Harvard Business Review, performance,Journal of Retailing, Vol 82, No Vol 83, No 9, pp 131–139. 1, [23] Oliver, Richard pp 63-70. https://doi.org 10.1016/j.jretai.2005.11.004 L. 2014, Satisfaction: A [30] Rauyruen Papassapa dan Kenneth E. Miller. Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, 2ndedition, 2007, Relationship quality as a predictor of Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/978131570 B2B customer loyalty, Journal of Business 0892 Research, Vol 60, pp21–31. https://doi.org 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.11.006 [24] Oliver, Richard L. 1999, Whence consumer E-ISSN: 2224-2899 390 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS relationship:a [31] Ravald, Annika and Christian Grönroos, 1996. confirmatory approach, The value concept and relationship marketing, International Journal of Retail & Distribution European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No 2, Management, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp 158-176. pp https://doi.org/ 19-30.https://doi.org/10.1108/0309056961010 10.1108/IJRDM-11-2015-0174 [37] Setyawan, Anton A, Ihwan Susila and S. 6626 Anindita. [32] Rocco, Richard A. and Alan J. Bush, 2016, 2019, Influence of power Exploring buyer-seller dyadic perceptions of asymmetry, commitment and trust on SME technology and relationships: implications for retailers performance, Business; Theory and sales 2.0, Journal of Research in Interactive Practice, Marketing, https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2019.21 Vol. 10, Issue1, pp.17-32, Vol 20, pp 216-223, [38] Sirdeshmukh, Deepak,Jagdip Singh, and Barry https://doi.org 10.1108/JRIM-04-2015-0027. Sabol.2002. Consumertrust, value, and loyalty [33] Rufin,R. and Molina C.M. 2015, Moderating effects of familiarity and experience in the in relationships of trust with its antecedents and Marketing,66, consequences, e-Services Journal, Vol 9, Issue 15–37.https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.1 3, 8449 pp 19-42.https://doi.org Jonathan, exchanges.Journal of [39] Spiteri, Joseph M. and Paul A. Dion.2004, 10.2979/eservicej.9.3.19 [34] Rushton, relational Customer value, overall satisfaction, end-user RommyViscarra, Anni loyalty, and market performance in detail Mcleod.2005, Impact of avian influenza intensive industries, Industrial Marketing outbreaks in the poultry sectors of five South Management, Vol33, No 8, pp 675–687. East Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.03. Lao PDR, Thailand, Viet Nam) outbreak costs, 005 Emmanuelle GuerneBleich and term [40] Taylor, C. Robert and David A. Domina.2010, control, World’s Poultry Science Journal, Restoring economic health to contract poultry Vol production, Report prepared for the Joint U.S. responses 6, and Issue potential long September, pp491-514 Department of Justice and U.S. Department of https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200570 Agriculture/GIPSA, [35] Sánchez, José Á. L., María L. S. Vijande, and PublicWorkshop on Competition Issues in the Poultry Industry. J. A. T. Gutiérrez. 2012, Value-creating functions, satisfaction and loyalty in business [41] Terawatanavong, Civilai, Gregory J. Whitwell markets: A categorical variable approach dan Robert E. Widing.2007, Buyer satisfaction using a robust methodology under structural with equation modeling, Quality and Quantity, Vol relationship lifecycle, European Journal of 46, Issue 3, pp 777-794. https://doi.org Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 7/8, pp 915-938. The [36] Shaikh, Ateeque, Saswata N. Biswas, Vanita and Debiprasad Mishra influence marketing .2017, across the of strategies customer on relationship supply chain relationships: The moderating effects of Measuring fairness in franchisor-franchisee E-ISSN: 2224-2899 exchange [42] Vazquez, Rodolfo andSanzoJose M. 2011, 10.1007/s11135-010-9413-x. Yadav relational 391 Volume 16, 2019 Suci Paramitasari Syahlani, Anton Agus Setyawan, Mujtahidah Anggriani, Ummul Muzayyanah WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS environmental uncertainty and competitive Rivalry, Journal of Business Marketing, Vol 18, Vol 18, Issue 1, pp 50-82 [43] Wang, Ye Diana and Henry H. Emurian.2005, An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 21, pp 105–125.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.1 1.008 [44] Yang, Zhilin and Peterson T. Robin. 2004, Customer Perceived value satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of switching cost,Psychology and Marketing, Vol 21, No 10, pp 799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030 E-ISSN: 2224-2899 392 Volume 16, 2019