Summary of lectures & content - Webcare and Conversational AI
Week 1
Webcare → engaging in online interactions with (complaining) consumers; by
actively searching the web to address consumer feedback
1. Monitor the web 2. Consider response (yes/no) 3. Responding (how) 4.
Measuring the outcome
→ considering 3 strategies to determine whether or not to respond (Dekay, 2012):
1. Blocking – doesn’t have advantages, doesn’t stop people from sharing the
info online
2. Censor/delete – as long as nobody notices, it could be ‘successful’… but
what if people see? Also: companies have their norms/values. So if people
misbehave it can be used, but remember that people can still comment
again
3. Respond – organizations should respond; people are more satisfied after
receiving a response in reply to NeWOM (important to know is the
customer’s intent, desires, and motives though)
The response can be:
- Reactive (consumer directly tagged/asked the brand)
- Proactive (consumer didn’t ask for direct contact or an answer)
Responding to NeWOM through webcare increases brand evaluations (so
responding is better than not responding) – the response type did not matter,
BUT the platform type did:
- For reactive: no platform difference influenced brand eval. or perception
of human voice
- For proactive: it was best to answer on a brand-generated platform
(brand’s instagram), rather than the consumer-generated platform
- NeWOM on the brand’s page is more invite to respond, rather
than the person’s personal social media – felt less intrusive
Responding to…
- Constructive complaints (complaining goals can be only achieved by
receiving a response from the company – therefore, receptive to webcare)
- Vindictive complaints (don’t need a response to achieve goal; which is to
reduce frustration and anxiety – it is not receptive to webcare)
! You respond for different webcare goals, depending on the nature of the
complaint
Vindictive complainants are immune to any form of webcare, but constructive
complainants are interested in restoring the customer/brand relationship and
react more sensitively.
No responses often trigger detrimental brand-related reactions (eg. unfavorable
brand image), whereas ‘defensive’ responses are likely to stimulate post-
webcare NeWOM
Goals of webcare - Van Noort & Willemsen (2012)
1. Customer care – signaling customer problems and solving them; meeting
or exceeding their expectations and turning NeWOM into PeWOM (and if
even recommendations)
, 2. Public relations – reputation & relationship management; other people
are watching too. eWOM influences people’s impression of the
organization. Done during crisis.
3. Marketing – responding to compliments, thanking & spreading the
positive comment as a form of marketing. Creating a good image,
enhancing brand evaluations (going viral), and convincing others to
become customers too.
Webcare quality evaluations based on:
- Immediacy of response, ownership of message, comprehensiveness,
civility, assurance, coherence, retention, personalization and elaborateness
(length, detail)
So respond when: DESIRED, be quick & attentive, and demonstrate human
voice
Customer care:
- Double deviation = when there’s a second service failure (e.g. lost bags
KLM, then bad webcare)
→ 3 different ways to complain
A competitor tries to
amplify the situation;
observes convo &
approaches consumer
Trying to get a
refund as a group
(to try have a
bigger impact
through a 3rd party
Customer posts negatively about recovery
(posting about double deviation)
4 different stages after a double deviation:
1. Perception of service failure and recovery
*double deviation occurs here* and 3 different factors come into play when the
1 & 2 can deviation occurs;
amplify 1. failure severity (how bad is it) – the belief of caused inconvenience and
customer’s
anger
aggravation
2. blame attribution (to what extent can you blame the company) – belief
of attribution / responsibility of the firm
3 can actually 3. perceived fairness (how people feel afterwards) → based on Justice
also Theory (Adams) evaluation of the behavior of the organization in
lower the
anger complaint handling; is it fair?
How is the individual treated?
Week 1
Webcare → engaging in online interactions with (complaining) consumers; by
actively searching the web to address consumer feedback
1. Monitor the web 2. Consider response (yes/no) 3. Responding (how) 4.
Measuring the outcome
→ considering 3 strategies to determine whether or not to respond (Dekay, 2012):
1. Blocking – doesn’t have advantages, doesn’t stop people from sharing the
info online
2. Censor/delete – as long as nobody notices, it could be ‘successful’… but
what if people see? Also: companies have their norms/values. So if people
misbehave it can be used, but remember that people can still comment
again
3. Respond – organizations should respond; people are more satisfied after
receiving a response in reply to NeWOM (important to know is the
customer’s intent, desires, and motives though)
The response can be:
- Reactive (consumer directly tagged/asked the brand)
- Proactive (consumer didn’t ask for direct contact or an answer)
Responding to NeWOM through webcare increases brand evaluations (so
responding is better than not responding) – the response type did not matter,
BUT the platform type did:
- For reactive: no platform difference influenced brand eval. or perception
of human voice
- For proactive: it was best to answer on a brand-generated platform
(brand’s instagram), rather than the consumer-generated platform
- NeWOM on the brand’s page is more invite to respond, rather
than the person’s personal social media – felt less intrusive
Responding to…
- Constructive complaints (complaining goals can be only achieved by
receiving a response from the company – therefore, receptive to webcare)
- Vindictive complaints (don’t need a response to achieve goal; which is to
reduce frustration and anxiety – it is not receptive to webcare)
! You respond for different webcare goals, depending on the nature of the
complaint
Vindictive complainants are immune to any form of webcare, but constructive
complainants are interested in restoring the customer/brand relationship and
react more sensitively.
No responses often trigger detrimental brand-related reactions (eg. unfavorable
brand image), whereas ‘defensive’ responses are likely to stimulate post-
webcare NeWOM
Goals of webcare - Van Noort & Willemsen (2012)
1. Customer care – signaling customer problems and solving them; meeting
or exceeding their expectations and turning NeWOM into PeWOM (and if
even recommendations)
, 2. Public relations – reputation & relationship management; other people
are watching too. eWOM influences people’s impression of the
organization. Done during crisis.
3. Marketing – responding to compliments, thanking & spreading the
positive comment as a form of marketing. Creating a good image,
enhancing brand evaluations (going viral), and convincing others to
become customers too.
Webcare quality evaluations based on:
- Immediacy of response, ownership of message, comprehensiveness,
civility, assurance, coherence, retention, personalization and elaborateness
(length, detail)
So respond when: DESIRED, be quick & attentive, and demonstrate human
voice
Customer care:
- Double deviation = when there’s a second service failure (e.g. lost bags
KLM, then bad webcare)
→ 3 different ways to complain
A competitor tries to
amplify the situation;
observes convo &
approaches consumer
Trying to get a
refund as a group
(to try have a
bigger impact
through a 3rd party
Customer posts negatively about recovery
(posting about double deviation)
4 different stages after a double deviation:
1. Perception of service failure and recovery
*double deviation occurs here* and 3 different factors come into play when the
1 & 2 can deviation occurs;
amplify 1. failure severity (how bad is it) – the belief of caused inconvenience and
customer’s
anger
aggravation
2. blame attribution (to what extent can you blame the company) – belief
of attribution / responsibility of the firm
3 can actually 3. perceived fairness (how people feel afterwards) → based on Justice
also Theory (Adams) evaluation of the behavior of the organization in
lower the
anger complaint handling; is it fair?
How is the individual treated?
