Conventional wisdom suggests that brands should respond in an accommodative way to consumer complaints. However, this research shows that observers of the communication between complainants and brands on social media may prefer a defensive response under specific conditions. Thus, this study helps managers to find optimal responses to social media complaints, thereby minimizing negative consequences. We introduce a previously unexamined key moderator that takes account of the observer perspective: the benefits sought in the context of a complainant-brand interaction (e.g., brand presences in social media). Hence, we differentiate hedonic from utilitarian contexts and we note the distinct observer benefits and corresponding preferences. A field study and a series of experiments show that a defensive response can be superior in hedonic contexts but inferior in utilitarian ones. We also show how response strategy indirectly affects observers' behavioral consequences and identify complaint reasoning and brand communication style as relevant boundary conditions.
Purpose
A distinct view of customer participation in services classifies the characteristics of the participation process as experience- versus outcome-oriented, each of which affects customer participation success uniquely for different types of services (utilitarian vs hedonic). This study aims to investigate if service managers should differentiate and focus on distinct characteristics according to the service types.
Design/methodology/approach
Two consumer experiments serve to assess the potential moderating effect of service type on consumer preferences for experience- versus outcome-oriented forms of customer participation.
Findings
The two empirical studies affirm the proposed moderating effect of service type on the effect of experience- and outcome-oriented customer participation characteristics. Experience-oriented characteristics work better for hedonic than for utilitarian services, and one study confirms a stronger positive effect of outcome-oriented characteristics for utilitarian services.
Research implications
Further research should replicate the experimental findings with a field study. Furthermore, continued research could analyze the mediators of the interaction of co-production characteristics with the service type in greater detail.
Practical implications
Managers can design the characteristics of the customer participation processes according to the nature of the service (hedonic vs utilitarian) and, thus, maximize customers’ willingness to pay.
Originality/value
This study offers a new perspective on customers’ reactions to customer participation in services: depending on the service type or situation in which a service is being consumed, different customer participation characteristics lead to (financial) success.
Against the backdrop of only a few empirical studies on the topic of up‐or‐out career models in professional service firms (PSFs), we highlight the importance of an explicit applicant perspective on the topic of up‐or‐out and develop a quantitative approach to analyze the perception and effects of up‐or‐out models in practice. Our empirical study is based on an online practitioner survey as well as on a two‐by‐two between‐subjects‐experiment with law and management students. The practitioner sample shows that the interviewed classic PSFs (law firms and accounting firms) have predominantly implemented alternative career positions in favor of up‐or‐out models while the interviewed Neo‐PSFs (management consulting firms) show a more balanced implementation of up‐or‐out models and extended career models. However, results of our experimental applicant study reveal that the potential employee groups have different preferences: Law students (and hence potential applicants of classic PSFs in the future) show a higher likelihood to apply in connection with the up‐or‐out‐model, whereas management students (and hence potential applicants of Neo‐PSFs in the future) show a higher likelihood to apply in connection with the alternative career model.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.