Samenvatting
Summary webcare (880085-M-6)
- Instelling
- Tilburg University (UVT)
This summary contains all relevant material for the exam, including the lectures and the mandatory literature for the Master’s course Webcare
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 7 van de 67 pagina's
Voorbeeld 7 van de 67 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
3 beoordelingen
Door: elenaadv5 • 2 weken geleden
Door: lisadeloo9 • 11 maanden geleden
Door: Lisezwetsloot • 1 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Summary WebcareTilburg University 2022-2023
880085-M-6
This document contains all relevant material for the exam, including the lectures and the mandatory
literature for the Master’s course Webcare
Celeste Graumans
,Inhoud
Lecture 1a; Introduction to webcare .......................................................................................... 4
Lecture 1a – Literature ........................................................................................................... 4
Grégoire, Salle & Tripp (2015) – Managing social media crises with your customers: the
good, the bad, and the ugly ................................................................................................ 4
Van Noort, Willemsen, Kerkhof & Verhoeven (2014) – Webcare as an integrative tool for
customer care, reputation management, and online marketing: a literature review .......... 5
Lecture 1a – Introduction to webcare ..................................................................................... 8
Lecture 1b; Introduction to webcare ........................................................................................ 10
Lecture 1b – Literature ......................................................................................................... 10
Weitzl (2019) – Webcare’s effect on constructive and vindictive complaints .................. 10
Liebrecht & van Hooijdonk (2022, to appear) – Webcare across public and private social
networking sites: How stakeholders and the Netherlands Red Cross adapt their
messages to channel affordances and constraints .......................................................... 10
Melián-González et al. (2021) – Predicting the intentions to use chatbots for travel and
tourism............................................................................................................................... 13
Lecture 1b – Introduction to webcare ................................................................................... 14
Lecture 2; Webcare for customer care (by people) ................................................................. 17
Lecture 2 – Literature ........................................................................................................... 17
Joireman et al. (2016) – Customer forgiveness following service failures ...................... 17
Javornik et al. (2020) – “Don’t Forget that Others Are Watching, Too!” The Effect of
Conversational Human Voice and Reply Length on Observers’ Perceptions of Complaint
Handling in Social Media .................................................................................................. 20
Jakic et al. (2017) – The impact of language style accommodation during social media
interactions on brand trust ................................................................................................ 21
Lecture 2 – Webcare for customer care (by people) ........................................................... 23
Lecture 3; Webcare for customer care (by chatbots) .............................................................. 26
Lecture 3 – Literature ........................................................................................................... 26
Araujo (2018) – Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design
cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company
perceptions........................................................................................................................ 26
Van Hooijdonk & Liebrecht (2021a) – Chatbots in the tourism industry: the effects of
communication style and brand familiarity on social presence and brand attitude ......... 27
Khadpe et al. (2020) – Conceptual Metaphors Impact Perceptions of Human-AI
Collaboration ..................................................................................................................... 28
Lecture 3 – Webcare for customer care (by chatbots) ........................................................ 29
Lecture 4; Webcare for public relations ................................................................................... 33
Lecture 4 – Literature ........................................................................................................... 33
Park et al. (2012) – Managing bad news in social media: A case study on Domino’s
Pizza Crisis ....................................................................................................................... 33
Van Hooijdonk & Liebrecht (2021b) – Sorry but not sorry: The use and effects of
apologies in airline webcare responses to NeWOM messages of flight passengers ...... 34
Jeesha & Purani (2021) – Webcare as a signal: exhaustive-selective webcare strategy
and brand evaluation ........................................................................................................ 36
, Lecture 4 – Webcare for public relations ............................................................................. 38
Lecture 5; Webcare for marketing purposes ........................................................................... 44
Lecture 5 – Literature ........................................................................................................... 44
Crijns et al. (2017) – How to deal with online consumer comments during a crisis? The
impact of personalized organizational responses on organizational reputation .............. 44
Béal & Grégoire (2022) – How do observers react to companies’ humorous responses to
online public complaints?.................................................................................................. 46
Schamari & Schaefers (2015) – Leaving the home turf: how brands can use webcare on
consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement .................. 48
Lecture 5 – Webcare for marketing purposes ...................................................................... 50
Lecture 6; Reflection on webcare and chatbots ...................................................................... 56
Lecture 6 – Literature ........................................................................................................... 56
Ghosh & Mandal (2020) – Webcare quality: conceptualization, scale development and
validation ........................................................................................................................... 56
Lew & Walter (2022) – Scripts and Expectancy Violations: Evaluating Communication
with Human or AI chatbot interactants ............................................................................. 59
Widdershoven et al. (2021) – it’s part of the job: How webcare agents regulate their
emotions during service interactions on Facebook and Twitter ....................................... 61
Lecture 6 – Reflection on webcare and chatbots................................................................. 62
, Lecture 1a; Introduction to webcare
Lecture 1a – Literature
Grégoire, Salle & Tripp (2015) – Managing social media crises with your
customers: the good, the bad, and the ugly
The positive side of social media represents opportunities:
1. When customers complain to the company online immediately after a first-service
failure
2. When consumers publicize extraordinary recoveries
The bad involves risks:
1. When customers discuss a failure without complaining to the firm
2. When consumers reach out to online third-party complaints intercessors
The truly ugly represents the peak of online threats and public crises:
1. When customers spread negative publicity through user-generated content SM
following a double deviation
2. When competitors respond to this content to steal customers
The six types of social media complaints
- Double deviation: a situation known as both a service failure and a failed recovery.
The firm doubles the damage by twice deviating from norms of acceptable firm-
customer interaction.
A typology of social media complaining
The good: the SM complaining represents opportunities for firms
- Directness: directly contacting the company online, through tweets or the company’s
Facebook page, to constructively request resolution of a service failure.
- Boasting: spreading the good word and positive publicity via Facebook or Twitter
about how well the firm resolved the complaint
,The bad; is the SM complaining that represents risks for firms
- Badmouthing: after the first service failure, spreading negative word-of-mouth
through one’s Facebook network, tweets, blog, or YouTube account – all without ever
contacting the firm.
- Tattling: complaining to a third-party website (e.g., bbb.com, consumeraffairs.com),
blog, or newsletter.
The ugly: the SM complaining that represents the highest threat to firms
- Spite: after the firm botches its response to the initial service failure and complaint,
thus failing the customer twice, the customer spreads negative word-of-mouth with a
heated vengeance via user content-generated media (e.g., YouTube).
- Feeding the vultures: a competitor not only takes joy in the firm’s mishandling of the
complaint but uses SM to amplify the mistake to steal more of the firm’s customers.
How managers should address the different types of complaints
- Firms need to defend themselves
- Do not create service failures, and especially don’t commit double deviations
- Customer policies often have unintended side effects and sometimes inattentive
employees disappoint customers.
- Need a good system to spot service failures
- Need a communication plan to address online complaints
Van Noort, Willemsen, Kerkhof & Verhoeven (2014) – Webcare as an
integrative tool for customer care, reputation management, and online
marketing: a literature review
When consumers are dissatisfied with a consumption experience, they usually respond in
one of the following ways:
, 1. Stop using an organization’s products/services and take their business to a
competitor
2. File a complaint with the organization that is responsible for the dissatisfying
consumption experience
3. Talk about their dissatisfying consumption experience with fellow consumers
(NeWOM)
Nowadays this can also happen online via social media
Webcare as an integrative organizational tool
- Web 2.0 enabled a consumer to voice their complaints with a large audience in the
form of electronic word of mouth (WOM)
- Complaining: refers to dyadic communication involving only the complainant and the
organization
- Complaining has shifted: into triadic communication, involving not only the
complainant and the organization but also other stakeholder groups observing the
complainant’s voice behavior towards the organization.
- Webcare: the act of engaging in online interactions with (complaining) consumers, by
actively searching the web to address consumer feedback (e.g., questions, concerns,
and complaints)
- Webcare serves different goals:
o Customer care: the goal is to signal customer problems with the
organization’s service or product. The organization is in the position to solve
such problems to the satisfaction of the customer to meet or even exceed their
expectations
o Public relations: webcare can affect the reputation of an organization
indirectly, but also directly. By engaging in webcare, organizations
demonstrate that they take the concerns of consumers seriously, which may
prevent online comments from becoming crises. Webcare can be used as a
means of reputation and relationship management
o Marketing tool: the insights that derive from monitoring what people are
saying about an organization can be used as input to improve its products and
services.
Should one engage in webcare
- Social listening: monitoring tools and monitoring agencies make it easy to keep
track of all the good and bad reviews, opinions, or comments.
- When organizations listen to what people say and write on these outlets, they are in a
position to take strategic action.
It is important to determine whether to respond or not to the negative reviews, opinions or
comments that people post on social media
- Not responding: both the complainant and the observing audience might think that
the organization does not care about the opinions of the stakeholders, thereby
resulting in even more organizational damage.
- Consumers were far more satisfied when an organization posted a response in reply
to this negative comment than when a response was lacking
- With respect to webcare as a marketing tool, several studies demonstrated that
webcare is effective in positively influencing potential consumers who are exposed to
negative comments posted by someone else.
- For managing public relations, there were mixed effects. A webcare response was
more effective than no webcare response.
, o When an organization responds to the complaint people who read the
complaint and the webcare response evaluate it as more trustworthy.
o When an organization responds to negative feedback on a review site,
potential consumers are more likely to hold the organization (and not an
external factor) responsible for the problem.
Literature suggests that responding to complaints on social media is in general a wise thing
to do.
When to respond
Two different approaches should be considered when to responding:
1. Reactive webcare: webcare can be posted in reply to a customer’s request to
respond to their complaint. This can be expressed explicitly (e.g., by asking the
organization to solve the problem) or implicitly (e.g., by tagging or addressing an
organization)
2. Proactive webcare: organizational responses are not preceded by any direct or
indirect requests from the complainant to respond
Organizations that take on a reactive webcare strategy are on the right track, because of the
effectiveness of the reactive approach and also because of the observers.
- For both marketing and customer care purposes, a reactive webcare strategy was
demonstrated to be more effective than a proactive strategy.
- The general rule of thumb should be to only take action when it is explicitly asked for!
What to say in webcare
Customers evaluate each step in the process in terms of its fairness:
- Distributive justice (largest effect – transaction-specific): the perceived fairness
of the outcomes. By calculating the ratio of one’s input and the outcome and
subsequently comparing this outcome to previous outcomes or outcomes that others
have achieved.
o The costs: the price paid for the service, the extra effort because of the
service failure
o The outcome: compensation by the service provider
When the ratio is lower than what other customers got, or lower than the ratio in
previous service recovery experiences, the distributive justice will be low
- Procedural justice: the procedures used to achieve these outcomes. Should grant
some control to people, by allowing them to tell their version of what happened and to
state the arguments behind their claims. If people perceive no control over these
procedures, they will perceive the fairness of these procedures as low
- Interactional justice (largest effect – cumulative): the interpersonal treatment
(politeness, amount of empathy) during the interactions between the organization and
the customs procedures.
Each aspect uniquely explains differences in post-service recovery customer satisfaction
Several response types have been distinguished, which can be grouped into three
categories:
- Compensation: both to solving the problem (repairing, replacing, or compensating a
faulty product) and apologizing (psychological compensation)
- Favorable employee behavior: behaviors that signal attentiveness and credibility
(by listening carefully and explaining the reasons behind decisions)
- Organizational procedures: policies, procedures, and structures a company has in
place to provide a smooth complaint-handling process (facilitation and timeliness)
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper celestegraumans. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €11,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 76462 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen