MARKALARDA YAŞANAN OLUMSUZ DURUMLARIN ELEKTRONİK AĞIZDAN AĞIZA İLETİŞİME (E-WOM) YANSIMALARI: PEGASUS ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, markaların yaşadığı olumsuz durumların elektronik ağızdan ağıza iletişimi (eWOM) nasıl etkilediğini belirlemektir. Yöntem: Çalışmada nitel araştırma tasarımlarından örnek olay yönteminden yararlanılarak, Pegasus havayollarının yaşamış olduğu uçak kazası neticesinde paylaştığı özür mesajına yapılan yorumlar analiz edilmiştir. Analizde kullanılacak yorumlar için Türkiye’de en çok kullanılan sosyal ağ sitelerinden biri olan İnstagram tercih edilmiş ve 1351 kullanıcı yorumu analiz edilmiştir Bulgular: Analiz neticesinde oluşan 42 tema 10 kategori altında toplanmıştır. Yapılan yorumların %41,4 olumsuz, %30,5’inin tarafsız, %22,2’sinin olumlu ve % 5,9’da konudan bağımsız farklı bir durumla ilişkili yorum olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Özgünlük: Gelişen teknolojiler ve küreselleşme markaların tüketici iletişiminde geleneksel iletişim kanallarının yanında yeni iletişim kanallarını da etkin bir şekilde kullanmasını sağlamıştır. Tüketici iletişiminde kullanılan yeni iletişim kanallarının başında sosyal medya uygulamaları gelmektedir. Özellikle markalar pazarlama faaliyetlerinde sosyal medyayı etkin şekilde kullanıp, tüketicilerin isteklerini dikkate alarak marka imajlarını ve tüketicilerin markalarına karşı tutumlarını şekillendirmektedir. Benzer şekilde sosyal medya kullanımı ile birlikte tüketiciler sürekli iletişim halinde oldukları markalar ile yaşadıkları olumlu ve olumsuz deneyimleri de sosyal medya kanalları aracılığıyla paylaşmaktadır. Olumlu paylaşımlar işletme itibarında ve imajında pozitif etki yaratırken, olumsuz paylaşımlar ise işletme imaj ve itibarını negatif yönlü etkilemektedir. Tüketicilerin sosyal medyada marka hakkında çeşitli söylemlerde bulunması noktasında işletmeler açısından önemli olan tüketicilerin söylediklerini iyi analiz etmektir. Bu bağlamda konunun nasıl ve ne gibi sorularla derinlemesine incelenmesi ve tüketici söylemlerinin de derinlemesine analizinin yapılması çalışmayı özgün kılmaktadır. Çalışma sonuçlarının markalara yol gösterici olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• MARKA
• AĞIZDAN AĞIZA İLETİŞİM
• E-WOM
• PEGASUS

EFFECTS OF NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES ON BRANDS ON THE ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH (E-WOM): PEGASUS EXAMPLE

Öz

Purpose: the aim of this study is to determine how negative situations experienced by brands affect electronic word of mouth (eWOM). Method: Qualıtatıve research desıgn ıs preferred ın thıs study.The comments made on the apology message shared by Pegasus airlines as a result of the plane crash was analyzed by using the case study method. One of the most widely used social networking site in Turkey has preferred to work with İnstagram and 1351 user comments analyzed. Findings: As a result of the analysis, 42 themes were gathered under 10 categories. It was determined that the comments made were %41,4 negative, %30,5 neutral, % 22, 2 positive and %5,9 related to a different situation independent of the subject. Originality: Developing technologies and globalization enabled brands to use new communication channels effectively in addition to traditional communication channels in consumer communication. Social media applications are at the forefront of new communication channels used in communication with the consumer. Especially, brands shape their brand images and attitudes of consumers towards their brands by taking into consideration the wishes of consumers by using social media effectively in their marketing activities. Similarly, with the use of social media, consumers share the positive and negative situations they experience with the brands they are in contact with through social media channels. While positive shares have a positive effect on business reputation and image, negative shares affect business image and reputation negatively. It is important to analyze what consumers say, which is important for businesses, in terms of making various discourses about the brand on social media. In this context, the in-depth examination of how and with what kind of questions and analysis of consumer statements makes the study unique. The results of the work are consıdered to be a guıde for brands.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Brand
• word of mouth
• electronic word-of-mouth
• pegasus

Kaynakça

1. Akar, E. (2010). Sosyal Medya Pazarlaması: Sosyal Webde Pazarlama Stratejileri. Ankara: Efil Yayınevi
2. Amblee, N.ve Bui, T. (2008). Can brand reputation improve the odds of being reviewed online?, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12(3), 11– 28.
3. Ashley, K. ve Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement, Psychology and Marketing, 32(1), 15–27
4. Bajpai, V. Pandey, S. ve Shriwas, S. (2012). Social media marketing: Strategies ve its impact. International Journal of Social Science ve Interdisciplinary Research, 1(7), 214-223
5. BBC (2020, 6 Şubat) Sabiha Gökçen'de Pegasus uçağı pistten çıktı: 3 kişi öldü, 180 kişi yaralandı.Erişim adresi https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-51389039
6. Bowen, G. (Ed.). (2014). Computer-Mediated Marketing Strategies: Social Media and Online Brand Communities: Social Media and Online Brand Communities. London:Igi Global.
7. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. ve Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.
8. Browning, V., So, K. K. F., ve Sparks, B. (2013). The influence of online reviews on consumers' attributions of service quality and control for service standards in hotels. Journal of Travel ve Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 23-40.

9. Cheung, C.M. ve Lee, M. (2012). What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 218-225.
10. De Vries, L., Gensler, S. ve Leeflang, P. S. H. (2017). Effects of traditional advertising and social messages on brand-building metrics and customer acquisition. Journal of Marketing, 81(5), 1–15.
11. Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. ve Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Capturing consumer engagement: Duality, dimensionality and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(5–6), 399–426.
12. Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. ve Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Capturing consumer engagement: Duality, dimensionality and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(5–6), 399–426. Dobele, A., Toleman, D. ve Beverland, M. (2005). Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons, 48(2), 143-149.
13. Evans, D. (2008). Social media marketing: an hour a day. Indiana: Wiley Publishing.
14. Ganesh, K. (2018). Portea:social media applications, G. Heggde Ve G. Shainesh (Eds.).Social Media Marketing Emerging Concept And Applications içinde (s. 195-218). Singapure: Springer Nature
15. Gensler, S., Volckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y. ve Wiertz, C. (2013). Managing brands in social media environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 242–256.
16. Güçdemir, Y. (2017). Sosyal medya: Halkla ilişkiler, reklam ve pazarlama (7. Baskı ) İstanbul: Derin Yayınları
17. Gürbüz ve Şahin(2018). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. Felsefe – Yöntem – Analiz (4. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık Hanna, R., Rohm, A. ve Crittenden, V. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265–273
18. Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. ve Coney, K. A. (2004). Consumer behavior: building marketing strategy. Boston: Mcgraw-Hill.
19. Helm, S. (2000). Viral marketing-establishing customer relationships by'word-of-mouse'. Electronic markets, 10(3), 158-161.
20. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G. ve Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-ofmouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1): 38–52.
21. Hewett, K., Rand, W., Rust, R. T. ve Heerde, H. J. V. (2016). Brand buss in the echoverse. Journal of Marketing, 80(3), 1–24.
22. Hsu, Y. L. (2012). Facebook as international eMarketing strategy of Taiwan hotels. International journal of hospitality management, 31(3), 972-980.
23. Inversini, A., & Masiero, L. (2014). Selling rooms online: the use of social media and online travel agents. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.26(2), 272-292
24. Kaplan, A. M., ve Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.
25. Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15, 139–155.
26. Kemp, S. (2020, 18 Şubat). Erişim adresi https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-turkey
27. Kırcova, İ., ve Enginkaya, E. (2015). Sosyal medya pazarlama. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık
28. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P. ve Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241–251. Klein, L. R. (1998). Evaluating the potential of interactive media through a new lens: Search versus experience goods. Journal of Business Research, 41(3), 195–203.
29. Kutlu, D. ve Ayyıldız, H. (2017). Konaklama İşletmelerinde Elektronik Ağızdan Ağıza İletişimin Tüketici Ve Oteller Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Turizm ve Araştırma Dergisi, 1(6), 40- 58.
30. Laboy, F. Ve Torchio, P. (2007). Web 2.0 for the travel marketer and consumer. The International Association Of Online Communicators. http://www.sabrehospitality.com/pdf/whitepaper.pdf.
31. Levy, S. E., Duan, W. ve Boo, S. (2013). An analysis of one-star online reviews and responses in the Washington, DC, lodging market. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 49-63.
32. Mangold, W. G. ve Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
33. Mauri, A. G. ve Minazzi, R. (2013). Web reviews influence on expectations and purchasing intentions of hotel potential customers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 99-107.
34. Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A. ve Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of the stakeholders: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 285–299.
35. Murdough, C. (2009). Social media measurement: It’s not impossible. Journal of interactive advertising, 10(1), 94-99.
36. Nicholls, Paul (2003). Viral Marketing: Plant a Promotional Seed that will Spread Like Wildfire. http://www.klixxx.com/stories/features/viral4.html
37. Nieto, J., Hernández-Maestro, R. M. ve Muñoz-Gallego, P. A. (2014). Marketing decisions, customer reviews, and business performance: The use of the Toprural website by Spanish rural lodging establishments. Tourism Management, 45, 115-123.
38. Pan, B., MacLaurin, T. ve Crotts, J. (2007). Travel blogs and the implications for destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 35–45.
39. Park, D. H., Lee, J., ve Han, J. (2007). The effect of online consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: the moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125–148
40. Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., ve Piele, L. J. (2005). Communication research: Strategies and sources (6. Baskı.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth
41. Safko, L. ve Brake, D.K. (2009), The Social Media Bible, Tactics, Tools, Strategies For Business Success. John Wileyv & Sons
42. Schmitt, B. (2012). The consumer psychology of brands. Journal of consumer Psychology, 22(1), 7-17.
43. Smith, R. E. ve Vogt, C. A. (1995). The Effects of Integrating Advertising and Negative Word-of-Mouth Communications on Message Processing and Response. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), 133-151.
44. Srinivasan, S., Rutz, O. J. ve Pauwels, K. (2016). Paths to and off purchase: Quantifying the impact of traditional marketing and online consumer activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 440–453.
45. Stateman, A. (2005). Viral marketing, everywhere displays and podcasting: Social and business trends for the new year. Public Relations Tactics, 12(1), 27.
46. Tafesse, W. ve Wien, A. (2018). Implementing social media marketing strategically: an empirical assessment. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(9-10), 732-749.
47. Tonta, Y. (2009). Information services and Web 2.0: New challenges and opportunities. Electronic Library: 1 International Scientific Conference, Belgrade, September 25th-28th, 2008
48. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E. ve Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of marketing, 73(5), 90-102.
49. Weinberg, T. (2009). The New Community Rules: Marketing on the Social Web. California: O'Reilly, 3-6.
50. Xie, K. L., Zhang, Z. ve Zhang, Z. (2014). The business value of online consumer reviews and management response to hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 43, 1-12
51. Yacouel, N. ve Fleischer, A. (2012). The Role of Cybermediaries in Reputation Building and Price Premiums in the Online Hotel Market. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2), 219-226
52. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. Yüksel, A. ve Yüksel, F. (2004). Turizmde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Turhan Kitapevi.
53. Zarella, D. (2010). The social Media Marketing Book. Sebastopol, Kanada: O'Reilly, 130.
54. Zeelenberg, M. ve Pieters, R. (1999). On Service Delivery that Might Have Been: Behavioral Response to Disappointment and Regret. Journal of Service Research, 2(1), 86-97.
55. Zhang, J. Q., Craciun, G. ve Shin, D. (2010). When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? a study of consumer product reviews. Journal of Business Research, (63), 1336–1341.