To recommend or not recommend is the question: Does NPS predict word-of-mouth?

IF 2.4 4区 管理学 Q3 BUSINESS International Journal of Market Research Pub Date : 2023-06-24 DOI:10.1177/14707853231186309
Ann E. Schlosser
{"title":"To recommend or not recommend is the question: Does NPS predict word-of-mouth?","authors":"Ann E. Schlosser","doi":"10.1177/14707853231186309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Net Promotor Score (NPS) is ubiquitous, relying on a single-item question to capture consumers’ word-of-mouth (WOM). The question asks consumers for their likelihood of recommending a brand to friends and colleagues. Despite its popularity and advantages over longer satisfaction surveys, NPS has potential weaknesses. Among them are that the NPS question (1) is double-barreled by asking in a single question for likelihood to recommend to friends and likelihood to recommend to colleagues, (2) focuses on recommendations, and thus, ignores consumers’ likelihood to spread negative WOM, and (3) ignores online WOM, which often involves recommendations to strangers rather than friends or colleagues. This paper empirically tests these three potential weaknesses of the NPS measure on the WOM conclusions derived from NPS. Specifically, three experiments vary whether NPS assesses likelihood to recommend to a friend and colleague in a single question (how NPS is currently measured) or in two separate questions. In addition, NPS is compared to responses to an explicit negative WOM question (intent to warn others about the brand). Moreover, across studies, the NPS is reported for a recent positive experience and either a recent negative experience or a recent mixed experience. NPS is also compared to likelihood to engage in online WOM in terms of posting an online review and the intended online rating. By examining these issues, this research sheds light on consumers’ interpretations of NPS, the factors that influence these interpretations, and how these factors affect NPS’ ability to predict negative WOM, online WOM, as well as satisfaction, loyal behavior, and WOM in general.","PeriodicalId":47641,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Market Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Market Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853231186309","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Net Promotor Score (NPS) is ubiquitous, relying on a single-item question to capture consumers’ word-of-mouth (WOM). The question asks consumers for their likelihood of recommending a brand to friends and colleagues. Despite its popularity and advantages over longer satisfaction surveys, NPS has potential weaknesses. Among them are that the NPS question (1) is double-barreled by asking in a single question for likelihood to recommend to friends and likelihood to recommend to colleagues, (2) focuses on recommendations, and thus, ignores consumers’ likelihood to spread negative WOM, and (3) ignores online WOM, which often involves recommendations to strangers rather than friends or colleagues. This paper empirically tests these three potential weaknesses of the NPS measure on the WOM conclusions derived from NPS. Specifically, three experiments vary whether NPS assesses likelihood to recommend to a friend and colleague in a single question (how NPS is currently measured) or in two separate questions. In addition, NPS is compared to responses to an explicit negative WOM question (intent to warn others about the brand). Moreover, across studies, the NPS is reported for a recent positive experience and either a recent negative experience or a recent mixed experience. NPS is also compared to likelihood to engage in online WOM in terms of posting an online review and the intended online rating. By examining these issues, this research sheds light on consumers’ interpretations of NPS, the factors that influence these interpretations, and how these factors affect NPS’ ability to predict negative WOM, online WOM, as well as satisfaction, loyal behavior, and WOM in general.
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
推荐还是不推荐是一个问题:NPS能预测口碑吗?
净促销分数(NPS)无处不在,它依赖于一个单项问题来捕捉消费者的口碑。这个问题询问消费者向朋友和同事推荐某个品牌的可能性。尽管NPS很受欢迎,而且比长期满意度调查有优势,但它也有潜在的弱点。其中包括NPS问题(1)是双重的,即在一个问题中询问向朋友推荐的可能性和向同事推荐的可能性,(2)侧重于推荐,因此忽略了消费者传播负面口碑的可能性,以及(3)忽略了在线口碑,这通常涉及向陌生人而不是朋友或同事推荐。本文根据NPS得出的WOM结论,实证检验了NPS测量的这三个潜在弱点。具体来说,三个实验各不相同,是NPS在一个问题(目前NPS是如何测量的)中评估向朋友和同事推荐的可能性,还是在两个单独的问题中评估。此外,NPS被比作对明确的负面口碑问题的回答(意在警告他人有关该品牌的信息)。此外,在所有研究中,NPS被报告为最近的积极经历、最近的消极经历或最近的混合经历。NPS还从发布在线评论和预期在线评级的角度与参与在线口碑的可能性进行了比较。通过研究这些问题,本研究揭示了消费者对NPS的解释,影响这些解释的因素,以及这些因素如何影响NPS预测负面口碑、在线口碑以及满意度、忠诚行为和一般口碑的能力。
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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Market Research is the essential professional aid for users and providers of market research. IJMR will help you to: KEEP abreast of cutting-edge developments APPLY new research approaches to your business UNDERSTAND new tools and techniques LEARN from the world’s leading research thinkers STAY at the forefront of your profession
期刊最新文献
Examining stated improvement research methods Marketing Outcomes and Shareholder Value: A Review and Research Agenda Measuring prime ministerial brands: Exploring Needham’s framework for assessing the UK’s Boris Johnson and the Greek konstantinos mitsotakis Machine learning based methods for ratemaking health care insurance When “the more the better”? Mindfulness enhances the effect of the number of displayed product features in short video ADs on purchase intention
×
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