Re‐examining the effect of service recovery: the moderating role of brand equity

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of brand equity in handling service failure and examine the effects of brand equity on service recovery. Design/methodology/approach -A conceptual framework is proposed which includes that satisfaction, as a mediator, accounts for the relationship between service recovery attributes (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) and post-recovery behavior (repatronage intentions and wordof-mouth behavior). More importantly, brand equity is used to serve as the moderator in the hypothesized research model. Structural equation modeling techniques are applied to data collected from a field study in Taiwan to test the framework. Findings -Results from the current field study found that strong brand equity provides an overall advantage over weak brands in increasing service recovery satisfaction and behavior intentions (repatronage intentions and word-of-mouth behavior).Research limitations/implications -The data used in this study were collected in a single metropolitan area in Taiwan. Future research might be conducted in a variety of countries. Practical implications -Service recovery strategies in responding to service failures are part of the critical task for service managers. This paper suggests that building brand equity is a means by which post-failure satisfaction and behavioral intentions may be enhanced. Originality/value -This is the first study to completely compare the high brand equity with low brand equity in the effect of service recovery.

Relationships of Perceived Justice to Service Recovery, Service Failure Attributions, Recovery Satisfaction, and Loyalty in the Context of Airline Travelers

“…Recent marketing studies of service recovery have recognized perceived justice as a key factor influencing the formation of customers' evaluative judgments on organizational responses to a service failure (Ambrose, Hess, & Ganesan, 2007;Blodgett et al, 1997;Huang, 2011;Schoefer & Ennew, 2005;Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998). Customers assess the level of justice in service recovery (Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999;Tax et al, 1998), and this perception of justice influences their satisfaction (Maxham & Netemeyer, 2002a;Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988).…”

“…apology) have a joint effect on post-recovery satisfaction. Dissatisfied customers demand compensation (distributive justice), efficient recovery procedures (procedural justice), and empathy displays (interactional) from the service provider (Huang, 2011).…”

Boundary Spanning Elements and the Marketing Function in Organizations

“…These associations exist prior to service failure and recovery experiences and influence how customers respond to these encounters. A number of studies show that firm reputation for excellent service quality and high brand equity can mitigate the negative impact of failure severity on customer satisfaction (e.g., Hess 2008;Brady et al 2008;Huang 2011). Following a service failure, customers show greater tolerance for highequity brands and highly reputable firms, regardless of whether service recovery is attempted or not.…”

The influence of cell phone users' relationship intentions on expectations and perceptions of service recovery

“…Bhandari et al (2007: 181) explain that customers' expectations of service recovery can be based on past experience with the service provider or even service recovery experiences with service providers offering completely different products and services. Huang andChang (2008: 1229) opine that certain customers have higher expectations for service recovery than others. Kim et al (2012: 74) support this view by explaining that customers with already established relationships with service providers have higher expectations for service recovery, based on their cumulative satisfaction with past experiences with these service providers, than customers without a relationship.…”