Abstract
Amaç- Tüketiciler için ürünler ve servisler hakkında tavsiye vermek yaygın olduğu gibi, tavsiyeler hakkında geri bildirim de almak oldukça önemlidir. Pazarlama literatüründe önemli bir çalışma grubu, ürün tavsiyelerinin sonuçlarını incelemektedir (örneğin, Fitzsimons ve Lehmann 2004). Bununla birlikte, literatür ağırlıklı olarak tavsiye verenlerin nasıl etkilendiğine odaklanmıştır, ancak tavsiye verenler ve buna karşılık oalrak geri bildirim verenler arasındaki ilişkinin nasıl etkilendiğine dair sınırlı sayıda bilgi kaynağı vardır (Claus ve diğerleri. 2012; Moore 2012; Shen ve Sengupta 2018). Bu araştırma, tavsiye verenin, önerilen ürünü beğenip beğenmediğini öğrendikten sonra, hem ürün hem de geri bildirim verici ile mevcut ilişkilerini nasıl güncellediğini araştırarak bu bilgi boşluğuna katkıda bulunmaktadır. Tüketicilerin ürünlerle ilgili tavsiye sürecinin hemen bitmediğini, tavsiye alanların geribildirim vererek bu süreci dinamik bir hale getirdiklerini göz önüne alırsak, çalışmamız tavsiye verme sürecinin sonuçlarını daha gerçekçi ve eksiksiz bir şekilde araştırılmasına katkı sağlamaktadır.
Yöntem- Bu çalışmada, bir pilot anket çalışması ve dört deneysel çalışma ile, tavsiye sonrasında olumlu veya olumsuz geri bildirimlerin hem marka tutumu hem de tavsiye alan, yani sonrasında geri bildirim veren tüketicilerin değerlendirmesi üzerindeki etkilerini inceleyerek kulaktan kulağa pazarlama literatüründeki araştırma boşluğu doldurulmuştur. Katılımcılar ya kısmi kredi alan üniversite öğrencileri ya da Prolific katılımcılarıdır.
Bulgular-Araştırmanın bulguları değerlendirildiğinde, verilen tavsiye sonrası alınan olumlu geri bildirimlerde, olumsuz geri bildirimlere göre tavsiye alıcı değerlendirmeleri daha yüksektir. Verilen tavsiye sonrası alınan geri bildirimlerin, tavsiye alıcı üzerindeki değerlendirmesinde, benzerlik algısının aracı rolü gösterilmiştir. İkinci olarak, verilen tavsiye sonrası alınan olumlu geri bildirimlerde, olumsuz geri bildirimlere göre ürün değerlendirmeleri daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Verilen tavsiye sonrası alınan geri bildirimlerin, ürün üzerindeki değerlendirmesinde, marka tarafından ihanete uğrama algısının veya markaya minnet duyma algısının aracı rolü vardır.
Sonuç- Bu çalışmanın sonucunda, verilen tavsiye sonrası alınan geri bildirimlerin sadece ürün değerlendirmelerini değil, aynı zamanda tavsiye alıcıların değerlendirmelerini de etkileyeceği gösterilmiştir. Ürün değerlendirmelerinde ürün tarafından ihanete uğrama veya minnetarlık hisleri rol oynerken, tavsiye alanlarda kişi benzerliğinin aracı rolü ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu bağlamda, tüketicilerin ürün tavsiyesi ve geri bildirimlerinde bulunurken, ikili ilişkilerini de yeniden düzenlediği göze çarpmaktadır. Çalışma sonuçları değerlendirildiğinde, tüketicilerin tavsiye verirken, geribildirimler doğrultusunda, tavsiye verdikleri diğer tüketicilerle olan ilişkilerinin de değişebileceği konusunda hazırlıklı olmalıdır. Bu araştırma, kulaktan kulağa pazarlama literatürüne geri bildirimin etkisini göstererek önemli katma değer sağlamaktadır.
References
- Brick, D. J., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2017). Oppositional brand choice: Using brands to respond to relationship frustration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(2), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.10.002
- Claus, B., Geyskens, K., Millet, K., & Dewitte, S. (2012). The referral backfire effect: The identity-threatening nature of referral failure. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.004
- Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0033
- Fragale, A. R., Rosen, B., Xu, C., & Merideth, I. (2009). The higher they are, the harder they fall: The effects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.05.002
- Moore, S. G. (2011). Some things Are Better Left Unsaid: How word of mouth influences the storyteller. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1086/661891
- Moore, S. G., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2020). She’ll Take Two: Relationship interdependence and negative emotion in everyday choice for others. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/709173
- Obeidat, Z. M. I., Xiao, S. H., Iyer, G. R., & Nicholson, M. (2017). Consumer revenge using the internet and social media: An examination of the role of service failure types and cognitive appraisal processes. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21002
- Shen, H., & Sengupta, J. (2018). Word of mouth versus word of mouse: Speaking about a brand connects you to it more than writing does. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy011
- Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2008). Factors influencing word of mouth effectiveness: Receiver perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3/4), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810852977
Abstract
Purpose- While it is common for consumers to advise about products and services, it is important to receive feedback about their recommendations. An important body of work in the marketing literature had focused on the consequences of product and services recommendations (eg Fitzsimons and Lehmann 2004). While the literature has predominantly focused on how recommendation providers are affected, there are limited sources of information on the relationship between recommendation providers and feedback providers in return (Claus et al. 2012; Moore 2012; Shen and Sengupta 2018). This research contributes to this knowledge gap by investigating how the recommendation providers update their current relationship with both the product and the feedback providers, after receiving feedback about their recommended products. Considering that the recommendation process of the consumers about the products does not end immediately, and that those who receive advice make this process dynamic by giving feedback, our study contributes to a more realistic and complete investigation of the results of the recommendation process.
Methodology- In this study, data were collected online through a pilot survey study, as well as four experimental studies. The participants were either university students that received partial credits or participants that were recruited from Prolific that received monetary compensation. The gap in the word-of-mouth marketing literature was filled by examining the effects of positive or negative feedback after recommendation on both brand attitude and the evaluation of consumers who received advice and also gave feedback.
Findings- When the findings of the research are evaluated, the positive feedback received after the advice given, the recommendation recipient evaluations are higher than the negative feedback. The mediating role of the similarity perception (between the recommendation and feedback provider) in the evaluation of the recommendation receipient has been demonstrated. Secondly, it was seen that the product evaluations were higher after receiving positive feedback than after receiving negative feedback. The perception of being betrayed by the brand or feeling gratitude towards the brand has a mediating role in the evaluation of the product after the feedback.
Conclusion- As a result of this study, it has been shown that the feedback received after the recommendation will not only affect the product evaluations, but also the evaluations of the recommendation recipients. While feelings of betrayal or gratitude by the product played a role in product evaluations, the mediating role of person similarity emerged in those receiving feedback. In this context, it is striking that consumers reorganize their bilateral relations while giving product recommendations and receiving feedback. When the results of the study are evaluated, consumers should be prepared that their relationship with other consumers to which they give advice may also change in line with the feedback. This research provides significant contributions to word of mouth marketing literature by demonstrating the role of feedback.
References
- Brick, D. J., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2017). Oppositional brand choice: Using brands to respond to relationship frustration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(2), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.10.002
- Claus, B., Geyskens, K., Millet, K., & Dewitte, S. (2012). The referral backfire effect: The identity-threatening nature of referral failure. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.004
- Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0033
- Fragale, A. R., Rosen, B., Xu, C., & Merideth, I. (2009). The higher they are, the harder they fall: The effects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.05.002
- Moore, S. G. (2011). Some things Are Better Left Unsaid: How word of mouth influences the storyteller. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1086/661891
- Moore, S. G., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2020). She’ll Take Two: Relationship interdependence and negative emotion in everyday choice for others. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/709173
- Obeidat, Z. M. I., Xiao, S. H., Iyer, G. R., & Nicholson, M. (2017). Consumer revenge using the internet and social media: An examination of the role of service failure types and cognitive appraisal processes. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21002
- Shen, H., & Sengupta, J. (2018). Word of mouth versus word of mouse: Speaking about a brand connects you to it more than writing does. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy011
- Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2008). Factors influencing word of mouth effectiveness: Receiver perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3/4), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810852977
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Finance, Business Administration |
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | July 30, 2022 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2022 Volume: 15 Issue: 1 |
Cite
PressAcademia Procedia (PAP) publishes proceedings of conferences, seminars and symposiums. PressAcademia Procedia aims to provide a source for academic researchers, practitioners and policy makers in the area of social and behavioral sciences, and engineering.
PressAcademia Procedia invites academic conferences for publishing their proceedings with a review of editorial board. Since PressAcademia Procedia is an double blind peer-reviewed open-access book, the manuscripts presented in the conferences can easily be reached by numerous researchers. Hence, PressAcademia Procedia increases the value of your conference for your participants.
PressAcademia Procedia provides an ISBN for each Conference Proceeding Book and a DOI number for each manuscript published in this book.
PressAcademia Procedia is currently indexed by DRJI, J-Gate, International Scientific Indexing, ISRA, Root Indexing, SOBIAD, Scope, EuroPub, Journal Factor Indexing and InfoBase Indexing.
Please contact to procedia@pressacademia.org for your conference proceedings.