This study aims to analyze the Role of Customer Satisfaction in
mediating the influence of Service Quality and Price Perception on Word of
Mouth in Central Travels Jakarta. This study used primary data by
distributing questionnaires as many as 100 respondents. The data were
analyzed using Structural Equation
Modeling analysis using AMOS version
22 program. Based on the results of the study, it shows that the variables of
Service Quality and Price Perception not only directly affect Word of Mouth,
but Service Quality and Price Perception also affect indirectly.
Keywords:
Service
Quality, Price Perception, Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth (WOM).
INTRODUCTION
With the existence of
travel agents can help meet what consumers want and need. As many as 71% of
service users get information about travel agents from the recommendations of
relatives and relatives, and also as many as 66% of travel agent users assess that
price is not something that is very important in choosing a travel agent
(Marketing Research Indonesia, 2015).
The development of the
travel agency business or Travel agent, resulting in competition among service
companies that offer travel packages to be able to attract consumers to want to
use the services of their company. One
of the companies engaged in the Travel Agent business in Indonesia is Central
Travels. Central Travels serves various
tour packages, excursions, cooperation starts, and so on. The development of the world of tourism in
the community environment both general, schools, universities, and agencies
makes the need for travel, work visits in certain circles, Central Travels
travel agency will facilitate tourist visits.
Like other travel agency service providers, this company provides and
serves tourist trips both from within and from abroad.
Customer satisfaction,
service quality, price perception and word
of mouth (WOM) are issues that affect companies, whether large or small,
global or local companies. Here Central Travels always strives to implement
marketing strategies that aim to increase satisfaction to its customers and it
is hoped that later, they will buy back or recommend to other parties in this
case is positive word of mouth. According to Central Travels, this
communication is a persuasive force, especially in the dissemination of information
about new products. As consumers become increasingly skeptical of the company's
advertising, WOM is widely recognized as a major influence on consumer
purchasing decisions, especially in the context of services. Previous research
Lovelock and Wirtz (2011) stated that customer satisfaction and service quality
will spread positive WOM.
Consumer perception of
service and price is defined as something special, by understanding the
expectations and desires of consumers from a service or service, it will get an
added value for the company.
The decision-making
process by customers not only ends with the occurrence of purchase
transactions, but is also followed by the stage of post-purchase behavior
(especially in broad decision making).
In this stage the customer perceives a certain level of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction that will affect subsequent behavior. If the consumer is
satisfied, he will present a great opportunity to make a repeat purchase or buy
another product at the same company in the future. Chodhury (2014) explores the
relationship between service quality and WOM linking the two constructions at
their dimensional level. The results of this study provide strong support for
the predictive power of perceived service quality in WOM communication. The study explains 60 percent of the variance
in consumer WOM, that some regression models are statistically significant and
that the independent variable has a systematic relationship with the dependent
variable.
Basically, service
quality, price and WOM are a form of customer assessment of expected service
known as customer satisfaction measurement.
For companies, the key to customer satisfaction is the level of feeling
a person feels as a result of a comparison between reality and the expectations
received from a product or service.
Customer satisfaction will be fulfilled if the process of delivering
goods or services from the service provider to the customer is in accordance
with what the customer prepared.
RESEARCH METHOD
Object of Research
The object of research to
be researched by the author is Word of Mouth which is influenced by
Service Quality and Price Perception through customer satisfaction as an
Intervening Variable in Central travels
Jakarta customers.
Research Data
This research is
descriptive by using a data collection method in the form of questionnaires
distributed to customers who come to Central Travels Jakarta. The purpose of
descriptive survey methods is to carefully measure certain phenomena. This study consists of four variables, namely
service quality, price perception, WOM and consumer satisfaction.
Operational Definition
Service Quality Variable (X1)
Indicators :include:
Tangible
Central Travels' ability to
demonstrate its existence to customers.
Reliability
Central Travels' ability to provide services as promised accurately and
reliably. Responsiveness,
a Central Travels policy to assist and provide fast (responsive)
and appropriate service to customers, with clear delivery of information.
Assurance
knowledge, courtesy, and
ability of Central Travels employees to foster customers' trust in the company.
Empathy
Central Travels provides genuine and individual or
personal attention given to customers by striving to understand what customers
want.
Price Perception (X2)
Indicators include:
Affordability,
The prices offered by
Central Travels are affordable for customers.
Price Competitiveness,
Prices offered by Central
Travels are competitive.
Price Compliance with
Quality,
The price offered by
Central Travels is in accordance with the quality that will be obtained.
Price Compatibility with
Benefits,
Customers get benefits in
accordance with the price that has been spent.
Customer Satisfaction (Y1)
Indicators include:
Feeling of satisfaction,
satisfied with the
services and products of Central Travels
Fulfillment of
expectations after purchase,
The services provided by
Central Travels are in accordance with customer expectations.
Always buy,
Customers will continue to
use Central Travels services.
Word of mouth
(Y2)
Indicators include
Positive story,
Customers will share
positive things about the products and services provided by Central Travels
Recommendations
Customers will provide
recommendations to others who need information related to quality Travel
Services.
Invitation
The willingness of Central
Travels customers to invite others to use the services of Central Travels that
they have used
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1. Validity and Reliability
|
Standardized Regression
Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) |
|||
|
|
|
|
Estimate |
|
KP1 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.763 |
|
KP2 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.759 |
|
KP3 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.855 |
|
KP4 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.86 |
|
KP5 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.814 |
|
KP6 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.805 |
|
KP7 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.748 |
|
KP8 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.783 |
|
KP9 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.733 |
|
KP10 |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
0.816 |
|
PH1 |
<--- |
Quiet Price |
0.885 |
|
PH2 |
<--- |
Quiet Price |
0.868 |
|
PH3 |
<--- |
Quiet Price |
0.859 |
|
PH4 |
<--- |
Quiet Price |
0.730 |
|
KPG1 |
<--- |
Customer Satisfaction |
0.887 |
|
KPG2 |
<--- |
Customer Satisfaction |
0.930 |
|
KPG3 |
<--- |
Customer Satisfaction |
0.812 |
|
Wom1 |
<--- |
WOM |
0.827 |
|
Wom2 |
<--- |
WOM |
0.716 |
|
Wom3 |
<--- |
WOM |
0.777 |
Table 2. Exogenous and Enndogen Validity Test
|
Dimension |
Variable |
Standard
Loading |
Error |
Construct
Reliability |
Variance
Extracted |
|||||
|
∑ STd. Loading |
(∑ STd. Loading)² |
∑ Error |
CR value |
Standard
Loading² |
∑ (Std. Loading)² |
VE value |
||||
|
KP1 |
Quality of Service |
0.763 |
0.582 |
7.936 |
62.980 |
6.314 |
0.909 |
0.582 |
6.315 |
0.500 |
|
KP2 |
0.759 |
0.577 |
0.576 |
|||||||
|
KP3 |
0.855 |
0.730 |
0.731 |
|||||||
|
KP4 |
0.860 |
0.740 |
0.740 |
|||||||
|
KP5 |
0.814 |
0.662 |
0.663 |
|||||||
|
KP6 |
0.805 |
0.648 |
0.648 |
|||||||
|
KP7 |
0.748 |
0.559 |
0.560 |
|||||||
|
KP8 |
0.783 |
0.613 |
0.613 |
|||||||
|
KP9 |
0.733 |
0.537 |
0.537 |
|||||||
|
KP10 |
0.816 |
0.666 |
0.666 |
|||||||
|
PH1 |
Price Perception |
0.885 |
0.782 |
3.342 |
11.169 |
2.805 |
0.799 |
0.783 |
2.807 |
0.500 |
|
PH2 |
0.868 |
0.753 |
0.753 |
|||||||
|
PH3 |
0.859 |
0.737 |
0.738 |
|||||||
|
PH4 |
0.730 |
0.533 |
0.533 |
|||||||
|
KPG1 |
Customer Satisfaction |
0.887 |
0.788 |
2.629 |
6.912 |
2.311 |
0.749 |
0.787 |
2.311 |
0.500 |
|
KPG2 |
0.930 |
0.864 |
0.865 |
|||||||
|
KPG3 |
0.812 |
0.659 |
0.659 |
|||||||
The output results of the standardized loading estimate contained in the table of loading values of all indicators have met the requirements, namely >0.5 so that it can be concluded that the indicators forming exogenous constructs used are valid.
Table 3. Endogenous
Validity Test
|
Dimension |
Variable |
Standard Loading |
Error |
Construct Reliability |
Variance Extracted |
|||||
|
∑
STd. Loading |
(∑
STd. Loading)² |
∑
Error |
CR
value |
Standard Loading² |
∑
(Std. Loading)² |
VE
value |
||||
|
WOM1 |
Word
of mouth (WOM) |
0.875 |
0.685 |
2.320 |
5.3824 |
1.801 |
0.749 |
0.766 |
2.236 |
0.554 |
|
WOM2 |
0.903 |
0.513 |
0.815 |
|||||||
|
WOM3 |
0.809 |
0.603 |
0.654 |
|||||||
The output results of the standardized loading estimate contained in the table, the loading value of the entire indicator has met the requirements, namely >0.5 so that it can be concluded that the endogenous construct forming indicator used is valid.
Figure 1. Structural Model Testing
Table 4. Goodness of
fit measurement model results
|
Index |
Cut off Value |
Result |
Model evaluation |
|
|
Chi – Square |
As small as possible |
456.827 |
Marginal |
|
|
Probability |
≥ 0.05 |
0.000 |
Poor fit |
|
|
CMIN/ DF |
≤ 2.00 |
2.286 |
Poor fit |
|
|
RMSEA |
≤ 0.08 |
0.140 |
Poor fit |
|
|
GFI |
Close to 1 |
0.845 |
Bad fit |
|
|
AGFI |
Close to 1 |
0.707 |
Bad fit |
|
|
TLI |
Close to 1 |
0.818 |
Poor fit |
|
|
CFI |
Close to 1 |
0.843 |
Poor fit |
|
The table above shows that the planned model is not marginally fit, because after being tested for compatibility the CMIN/ DF, GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, TLI and CFI values are quite good. Therefore, the model can be continued at the stage of hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis Testing
Table 5. Structural Equation Test Results
(Regression
Weight)
|
|
|
|
Estimate |
S.E. |
C.R. |
P |
Label |
|
Customer
Satisfaction |
<--- |
Quality
of Service |
.524 |
.184 |
2.855 |
.004 |
par_17 |
|
Customer
Satisfaction |
<--- |
Price
Perception |
.589 |
.151 |
3.898 |
par_18 |
|
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Quality
of Service |
.299 |
.126 |
2.373 |
.018 |
par_19 |
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Price
Perception |
.248 |
.113 |
2.199 |
.028 |
par_20 |
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Customer
Satisfaction |
.413 |
.097 |
4.264 |
par_21 |
Table 6. Hypothesis Testing Results
|
Influence |
t count |
Sig |
Conclusion |
||
|
Quality
of Service |
à |
Customer
Satisfaction |
2.855 |
0.004 |
Significant |
|
Price
Perception |
à |
Customer
Satisfaction |
3.898 |
0.000 |
Significant |
|
Quality
of Service |
à |
Word of mouth (WOM) |
2.373 |
0.018 |
Significant |
|
Price
Perception |
à |
Word of mouth (WOM) |
2.199 |
0.028 |
Significant |
|
Customer
Satisfaction |
à |
Word of mouth (WOM) |
4.264 |
0.000 |
Significant |
Figure 2. Mediation or Intervening Testing
|
|
|
|
Estimate |
S.E. |
C.R. |
P |
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Quality of Service |
0.568 |
0.098 |
5.779 |
|
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Price Perception |
0.444 |
0.074 |
5.998 |
Figure 3. Perform a
full model estimation
Table 7.
|
|
|
|
Estimate |
S.E. |
C.R. |
P |
Label |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer Satisfaction |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
.524 |
.184 |
2.855 |
.004 |
par_17 |
|
Customer
Satisfaction |
<--- |
Price
Perception |
.589 |
.151 |
3.898 |
par_18 |
|
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Quality of
Service |
.299 |
.126 |
2.373 |
.018 |
par_19 |
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Price
Perception |
.248 |
.113 |
2.199 |
.028 |
par_20 |
|
Word of mouth (WOM) |
<--- |
Customer
Satisfaction |
.413 |
.097 |
4.264 |
par_21 |
Table 8. Direct Model
and Full Model Test Results:
|
Testing |
Relationship |
Path Coefficient |
P |
|
Direct
Model |
X1 - Y2 (b1) |
0.568 |
Significant |
|
Full
Model |
X1 - Y2 (b1') |
0.229 |
Significant |
|
Direct
Model |
X2 - Y2 (b2) |
0.444 |
Significant |
|
Full
Model |
X2 - Y2 (b2') |
0.248 |
Insignificant |
Direct and Indirect
Influences
Table 9. Direct and
Indirect Influences
|
Influence |
Path coefficient |
Direct influence |
Indirect influence |
Total |
|||
|
Quality of Service |
à |
Customer Satisfaction |
0.370 |
0.524 |
- |
0.524 |
|
|
Price Perception |
à |
Customer Satisfaction |
0.510 |
0.589 |
- |
0.589 |
|
|
Quality of Service |
à |
Word
of mouth (WOM) |
0.260 |
0.299 |
0.217 |
0.516 |
|
|
Price Perception |
à |
Word
of mouth (WOM) |
0.270 |
0.248 |
0.514 |
0.762 |
|
|
Customer Satisfaction |
à |
Word
of mouth (WOM) |
0.510 |
0.413 |
- |
0.413 |
|
Based on the table above can be concluded as follows:
1. The total effect of service quality on customer satisfaction is 0.524, meaning that service quality directly affects customer satisfaction.
2. The total effect of Price Perception on Customer Satisfaction of 0.589 means that Price Perception directly affects Customer Satisfaction.
3. The total effect of service quality on Word of mouth (WOM) is 0.299, meaning that service quality directly affects Word of mouth (WOM).
4. The total effect of Price Perception on Word of mouth (WOM) of 0.248 means that Price Perception does not directly affect Word of mouth (WOM).
5. The total effect of Customer Satisfaction on Word of mouth (WOM) of 0.413 means that Customer Satisfaction directly affects Word of mouth (WOM).
6. The total effect of service quality on Word of mouth (WOM) through customer satisfaction is 0.516, meaning that service quality has a partial effect on Word of mouth (WOM) through customer satisfaction.
The total
effect of price perception on Word of mouth (WOM) through customer satisfaction
is 0.762, meaning that price perception has a partial effect on Word of mouth
(WOM) through customer satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
1. Service Quality
affects Word of mouth (WOM), which means that the better the Quality of Service
provided, it can increase the Word of mouth (WOM) owned by customers at Central
Travels Jakarta.
2. Price Perception
affects Word of mouth (WOM) significantly, which means that the better the
Price Perception given, it can significantly increase the Word of mouth (WOM)
owned by customers at Central Travels Jakarta.
3. Service Quality
affects Customer Satisfaction, which means the better the Quality of Service
provided, it can increase Customer Satisfaction owned by customers at Central
Travels Jakarta.
4. Price Perception
affects Customer Satisfaction, which means that the better the Price Perception
given, it can increase Customer Satisfaction owned by customers at Central
Travels Jakarta.
5. Customer
Satisfaction mediates the influence between Service Quality and Price
Perception on Word of mouth (WOM). That means if customer satisfaction
increases, it will increase the influence between Service Quality and Price
Perception on Word of mouth (WOM).
.
REFERENCES
Andayani, D. G
2014. Pengaruh Kualitas Layanan terhadap WOM di mediasi oleh Kepuasan Konsumen
(Studi pada Salon Kecantikan De’ Mode Purworejo) Jurnal Manajemen Pemasaran. 1 (2) : 1-8
Assauri, S.
2013. Manajemen Pemsaran. Penerbit
Raja Grafindo. Bandung
Aulia, S. dan
S. Djuarsa. 2015. Pengaruh Service Quality terhadap Kepuasan dan Word Of Mouth
Diperguruan tinggi swasta. Jurnal
Manajemen Teori dan Terapan. 6 (1) : 1-9
Candra, R. dan
S. Muchsin. 2016. Membangun Kualitas Pelayanan, kualitas Produk dan Presepsi
Harga untuk mendukung Word of mouth melalui kepuasan. Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Manajemen. 5 (5) : 1-16
Daryanto 2011.
Sari kuliah Manajemen pemasaran.
Penerbit Satu Nusa. Bandung
Ferdinand, A.
2014. Metode Penelitian Manajemen.
Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang
Fitriani, N.
2018. Peran Kualitas Pelayanan dan Kepuasan Pelanggan Dalam menentukan Word of
Mouth Mahasiswa Perguruan Tinggi Swasta di Jakarta, Jurnal Manajemen Pemasaran. 1 (2) : 1-8
Harjati, L. dan Y. Vanesia. 2015. Pengaruh
Kualitas Pelayanan dan Presepsi harga Terhadap Kepuasan Pelanggan pada maskapai Penerbangan Tiger Air Mandala. Jurnal Manajemen Pemasaran. 2 (1) : 1-9
Immanuel, B. dan T. Sherly. 2019. Pengaruh Kualitas Layanan Terhadap
Kepuasan Pelanggan Di PT Hastaco Tour and Travel . Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Manajemen. 5 (5) : 1-16
Kotler, P. dan
K. L. Keller. 2009. Manajemen Pemasaran.
Edisi 13. Penerbit Erlangga. Jakarta
________. dan
K. L. Keller. 2017. Manajemen Pemasaran.
Edisi 13. Penerbit Erlangga. Jakarta
Lupiyoadi, R.
2016. Manajemen Pemasaran Jasa.
Penerbit Salemba Empat. Jakarta
Maria, M. dan
M. Y. Anshori. 2013. Jurnal Pengaruh Kualitas Produk dan Kualitas Layanan
Terhadap Kepuasan Konsumen King Cake. Jurnal
Manajemen Teori dan Terapan. 6 (1) : 1-9
Mustofa, Z.
2009. Mengurangi Variabel Hingga
Instrumentasi. Graha Ilmu. Yogyakarta
Paulus, Y. dan
Ni Wayan 2017. Pengaruh Kualitas Layanan terhadap tingkat kepuasan dan Word of
Mouth Pelanggan Mice di Ramada Bintang Bali resort. Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Manajemen. 5 (6) : 1-23
Satmoko, T.
dan H. Djoko. 2015. Pengaruh Kualita pelayanan terhadap WOM melalui Kepercayaan
dan Kepuasan Kosumen sebagai variable Intervening pada Star Clean Car Wash
Semarang. Jurnal Sains Manajemen &
Bisnis Indonesia. 6 (2) : 212-221
Sedarmayanti
dan S. Hidayat. 2011. Metodologi
Penelitian. Penerbit CV. Mandar Maju. Bandung
Sholihin, M.
dan D. Ratmono 2014. Analisis SEM-PLS dengan WarpPLS 3.0. Penerbit Andi.
Yogyakarta
Somantri, M. dan
Rastini, N. 2019. Peran Kepuasan Memediasi Kualitas Pelayanan dan presepsi
Harga terdap Wom pada layanan Go jek di Denpasar. Jurnal Sains Manajemen & Bisnis Indonesia. 6 (2) : 212-221
Sugiyono.
2011. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan
Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D. Alfabeta. Bandung
Tjiptono, F.
2017. Pemasaran Jasa. Penerbit Andi.
Yogyakarta
_________. dan
A. Diana. 2016. Pemasaran. Penerbit
Andi. Yogyakarta
_________. dan
G. Chandra. 2017. Pemasaran Strategik.
Penerbit Andi. Yogyakarta
|
Copyright holder: Hidayatun Ni’mah, Elwisam, Kumba
Digdowiseiso (2024) |
|
First publication right: |
|
This article is licensed under:
|
