## 4 Results
### Description of the Satisfaction Variable  
The results related to customer satisfaction reveal a predominant perception of moderate to low service quality. As indicated in Table 7, 47.22% of respondents (n = 51) rated their satisfaction as regular, while an additional 41.67% (n = 45) reported low satisfaction. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level** & **Scale** & **fi** & **\%** \\ \hline Low & From 2 to 4 & 20 & 18.52\% \\ Half & From 5 to 7 & 62 & 57.41\% \\ High & From 8 to 10 & 26 & 24.07\% \\ Total & & 108 & 100.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: From SPSS 26 software.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Dimension 3: Omnichannel logistics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level** & **Scale** & **fi** & **\%** \\ \hline Low & From 6 to 14 & 74 & 68.52\% \\ Half & From 3 to 11 pm & 22 & 20.37\% \\ High & From 24 to 30 & 12 & 11.11\% \\ Total & & 108 & 100.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: From SPSS 26 software.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Dimension 1: Data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level** & **Scale** & **fi** & **\%** \\ \hline Low & From 12 to 28 & 65 & 60.19\% \\ Half & From 29 to 45 & 32 & 29.63\% \\ High & From 46 to 60 & 11 & 10.19\% \\ Total & & 108 & 100.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: From SPSS 26 software.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Level of omnichannel integration. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level** & **Scale** & **fi** & **\%** \\ \hline Low & From 4 to 9 & 21 & 19.44\% \\ Half & From 10 to 15 & 66 & 61.11\% \\ High & From 16 to 20 & 21 & 19.44\% \\ Total & & 108 & 100.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: From SPSS 26 software.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Dimension 2: Omnichannel payment. Only a minority of 11.11% (n = 12) expressed a high level of satisfaction with the services provided by the service station. These findings suggest that, although most customers continue to use the station's services, their emotional and cognitive evaluations of the experience remain lukewarm or negative, pointing to areas of unmet expectations and service delivery gaps. Regarding customer expectations, the data presented in Table 8 reinforce this interpretation. Nearly half of the respondents (47.22%, n = 51) indicated that their expectations were at a regular level, while 43.52% (n = 47) considered their expectations to be low. Only a small fraction (9.26%, n = 10) reported having high expectations about the services offered. This suggests that the customer base already approaches the station with moderate or limited expectations, which further amplifies the challenge: even when expectations are not particularly high, the service performance is not sufficiently exceeding them to generate widespread satisfaction. The analysis of perceived value, summarized in Table 9, further supports this pattern. A total of 46.30% of respondents (n = 50) perceived the value of the services received as being low, while 41.67% (n = 45) rated it as regular. Only 12.04% (n = 13) considered the perceived value to be high. This distribution indicates a significant gap between what customers invest (in time, money, and effort) and what they feel they receive in return, undermining the station's potential to foster loyalty and advocacy behavior over time. Taken together, these findings highlight a critical alignment issue between service delivery and customer perceptions. The data suggest that the service station is strugggling not only to meet but to positively differentiate itself from baseline customer expectations. Without strategic improvements in omnichannel integration, personalization, and perceived value creation, the station risks reinforcing a cycle of moderate usage without emotional commitment--a dynamic that can weaken its competitive position in the medium term.