4.6 Article

How can firms stop customer revenge? The effects of direct and indirect revenge on post-complaint responses

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 1052-1071

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11747-018-0597-2

关键词

Customer revenge; Public exposure; Justice theory; Negative affect; Brand transgression; Service failure; Service recovery; Post-complaint responses

类别

资金

  1. Chair Omer DeSerres of Retailing
  2. RBC Financial Group Chair of E-commerce
  3. Fonds de recherche du Quebec - Societe et culture (FRQSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Do customers feel better or worse after enacting revenge? Using a multimethod approach, we show that customers' post-complaint desire for revenge depends on whether they initially use direct or indirect revenge behaviors (RBs). Specifically, the current research makes three contributions. First, we find that the more customers use direct RBs, the more pronounced is the decrease in their post desire for revenge over time, whereas a strong engagement in indirect RBs is associated with higher post desire for revenge over time. A series of experiments also indicate that direct RBs lead to less post desire for revenge and more positive affect, compared to the indirect RBs condition. Second, we document the process underlying each effect. The beneficial effect of direct RBs is explained by justice restoration, while the deleterious effect of indirect RBs is mainly explained by public exposure. Third, on the basis of our findings, we test different managerial tactics to reduce avengers' post desire for revenge. For direct avengers, recoveries with full or overcompensation substantially reduce their negative responses because these customers are primarily driven by justice restoration. For indirect avengers, our prescription involves taking initiatives to change their focus from public exposure to justice restoration by using proactive social media tools. This switch makes these latter customers more amenable to most recoveries, even poor ones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据