Segmenting Fitness Center Customers: Leveraging Perceived Ethicality for Enhanced Loyalty, Trust, and Word-of-Mouth Communication

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Perceived Ethicality: An Effective Tool for Segmenting Fitness 2 Center Customers while Boosting Loyalty, Trust, and Word-of-3 Mouth Communication

Dear authors,

It is a pleasure to assess your essay. Below, please find my comments and recommendations:

Title:

I suggest to improve the title. It is too long and dispersed.

Abstract

- The abstract should be reviewed and improved significantly.

- I cannot see the main abstract components:  the importance of the research, the problem this work attempts to solve, methodology, results, implications, and the theory that supports the research.

- Is there any theory that supports your study? 

Introduction

-          I cannot appreciate the research aim.

-          The introduction needs to be more comprehensive, and the authors need to explain why this research is necessary and provide an in-depth explanation of the research gap.

-          The authors have added some background and related literature, but they should consider more details about the methodology and empirical results. 

-          The introduction should include the research problem, objective, and research’s novelty. 

-          What theory (ies) support this paper?

-          What is the research GAP?

-          How is the paper structured?

-          A research model must be included

Literature review

-          Can the authors add the title “literature review”?

-          Can the authors provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the literature review that supports this paper, "state of the art"?

-          Can the authors exhibit a particular position, those opposed, and those offering completely different arguments?

-          Can the authors discuss the distinctiveness of each source and its similarities with the others?

Research Methodology

-          Can the authors explain how they select participants? Based on what?

-          What does mean “Northern Greece”? Can the cities be included in this paper?

- How were participants identified if the authors surveyed “individuals who were members”?

-          What type of communication was implemented to access participants?

-          How was the survey conducted? Telephone?

-          Did participants receive an informed consent?

-          Can the authors include a table with demographics?

Results

-          Can you include Factor Loading, CR, AVE, MSV, and MaxR(H) in your descriptive table? 

-          If authors used SPSS and AMOS, can the authors include a table with CFA results?

-          Can the author include a path analysis and hypotheses test table?

-          Can the authors include the model generated by AMOS?

Finally, I wish you the best in this peer-review process, 

Regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English proofreading is necessary. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The researcher stated that in an era marked by growing awareness of ethical consumerism and sustainability, this study aimed to categorize fitness center members based on their perceived ethicality as consumers and evaluate the implications of these segments on loyalty, word-of-mouth communication, and trust towards the organization. This study also advocated for the standardized application of the translated Consumer Perceived Ethicality (CPE) scale, urging for its integration into sustainability focused consumer research. Drawing data from a sample of 286 fitness center members, authors adhered to all necessary steps for adapting and ensuring the validity and reliability of the CPE's translation into Greek. The clustering analysis identified two distinct segments, and discriminant findings revealed that both high and low ethic groups prioritized word-of-mouth communication, followed by trust and loyalty. By leveraging this insight and employing tailored strategies for varying perceived ethicality levels, businesses in the fitness industry can bolster their ethical image, reputation, and customer relations, thereby fostering a more s responsible approach to fitness and recreation. In introducing the CPE scale as a novel segmentation tool, this research addresses a research gap while also contributing to a broader discourse on ethical consumer behavior and sustainability in the fitness sector. The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cites an appropriate range of literature sources. Methodology is clear; rigorous quantitative analyses have been carried out appropriately along with the research objectives. Analyses and findings are presented in a good manner as to present new ideas. The research should strengthen the theoretical and managerial implications. Thus, it will be better to have several separate sections that describe implications for academics and practitioners much more appropriately. I suggested improvements in order to the meet the quality and standards of the journal, specifically, the conclusions, and be able to meet the contribution to knowledge more appropriately.  

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a rather interesting article and I would like to make the following points to help the author improve:

1. Is it possible to include a little bit of the real-world context of your research in the introduction, which would add to the cutting edge of your research.

2. Is it possible to draw a graph to characterize the relationship of the variables in the study?

3. The results of the data analysis need to be further refined, e.g. what are the results of the EFA and CFA?

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your revision. I consider the paper has been improved to be publishable, 

I wish you the best in the peer review process. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Well done. I noticed you enhanced the manuscript appropriately.

Best Regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted