Service Recovery and Pre-Emptive Strategies for Service Failure: Both Lead to Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty, But for Different Reasons

D. Cranage, A. Mattila
{"title":"Service Recovery and Pre-Emptive Strategies for Service Failure: Both Lead to Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty, But for Different Reasons","authors":"D. Cranage, A. Mattila","doi":"10.1300/J150v13n03_09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent research has shown that giving an informed choice to customers can be an effective pre-emptive strategy to offset the damaging effects of service failure. The principle behind this strategy is that customers given an informed choice have increased feelings of self-attributions, share the responsibility for the service failure, feel more regret and stay more loyal. The research has shown that this strategy of informed choice keeps customers more loyal, whether they choose a risky or safe alternative. However, does this strategy work when service failure occurs and the normal service recovery strategies of an apology and/or compensation are given? Would customers still feel some responsibility for the outcome and still be satisfied and stay more loyal? Or would an apology and/or compensation give a mixed signal that the service establishment alone was responsible for the service failure? An alternative perspective would be that by combining pre-emptive and service recovery strategies, customers would feel appreciation and respect for the service company for their disclosure and commitment to complete customer satisfaction. The principle finding was that customer satisfaction and loyalty were higher after a service failure when either the pre-emptive strategy of giving informed choice or the service recovery strategy of an apology and/or compensation were used, than when no choice, apology or compensation were offered. However, the highest ratings for customer satisfaction and loyalty were recorded when both strategies were employed together. Interestingly, the reasons for the higher customer satisfaction and loyalty differed for the individual strategies as well as for the combination of the two strategies. The results have practical implications for service managers.","PeriodicalId":341174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing","volume":"105 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"39","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1300/J150v13n03_09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

Abstract

ABSTRACT Recent research has shown that giving an informed choice to customers can be an effective pre-emptive strategy to offset the damaging effects of service failure. The principle behind this strategy is that customers given an informed choice have increased feelings of self-attributions, share the responsibility for the service failure, feel more regret and stay more loyal. The research has shown that this strategy of informed choice keeps customers more loyal, whether they choose a risky or safe alternative. However, does this strategy work when service failure occurs and the normal service recovery strategies of an apology and/or compensation are given? Would customers still feel some responsibility for the outcome and still be satisfied and stay more loyal? Or would an apology and/or compensation give a mixed signal that the service establishment alone was responsible for the service failure? An alternative perspective would be that by combining pre-emptive and service recovery strategies, customers would feel appreciation and respect for the service company for their disclosure and commitment to complete customer satisfaction. The principle finding was that customer satisfaction and loyalty were higher after a service failure when either the pre-emptive strategy of giving informed choice or the service recovery strategy of an apology and/or compensation were used, than when no choice, apology or compensation were offered. However, the highest ratings for customer satisfaction and loyalty were recorded when both strategies were employed together. Interestingly, the reasons for the higher customer satisfaction and loyalty differed for the individual strategies as well as for the combination of the two strategies. The results have practical implications for service managers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
服务恢复与服务失败的先发制人策略:两者都导致顾客满意和忠诚,但原因不同
最近的研究表明,给顾客一个知情的选择可以是一个有效的先发制人的策略,以抵消服务失败的破坏性影响。这一策略背后的原则是,给予知情选择的顾客会增加自我归因的感觉,分担服务失败的责任,感到更多的后悔,并保持更忠诚。研究表明,这种知情选择策略使顾客更忠诚,无论他们选择风险还是安全的选择。然而,当服务发生故障并给出道歉和/或补偿的正常服务恢复策略时,该策略是否有效?顾客是否仍然会对结果感到一些责任,仍然感到满意并保持更忠诚?或者道歉和/或赔偿是否会给人一种模棱两可的信号,即服务机构单独应对服务故障负责?另一种观点是,通过结合先发制人和服务恢复策略,客户会对服务公司的披露和承诺表示赞赏和尊重,以完成客户满意度。研究的主要发现是,在服务失败后,无论是采用先发制人的策略(提供知情选择),还是采用道歉和/或赔偿的服务恢复策略(道歉和/或赔偿),客户满意度和忠诚度都高于不提供选择、道歉或赔偿的策略。然而,当两种策略同时使用时,客户满意度和忠诚度的评分最高。有趣的是,个体策略和两种策略相结合的客户满意度和忠诚度更高的原因是不同的。研究结果对服务管理者具有实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Collaboration Between CVB and Local Community in Destination Marketing: CVB Executives' Perspective Are Green Tourists a Managerially Useful Target Segment? Impacts of Consumer Environmental Ethics on Consumer Behaviors in Green Hotels How Australian Hospitality Operations View Water Consumption and Water Conservation: An Exploratory Study Pioneering Foodservice Firm Battles Pollution Using Innovative Environmental Strategies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1