Finally consumer’s individual characteristics affect performance expectations, some consumers may simply expect more than others who may have wider latitudes of acceptance.
Recent research by Fournier and Mick (1999) confirms the importance of the ED model. A research subject (Ben) purchased an answer machine. He formed definite pre-consumption expectations regarding specific product features (e.g. remote access dial-in) and benefits (e.g. receiving notice of available work hours). In the early weeks of ownership these expectations largely were met, leading Ben to declare himself satisfied.
Equity Theory
Equity theory is another approach used to understand the factors influencing CS/D. Equity theory holds that people will analyze the ratio of their outcomes and inputs to the ratio of the outcomes and inputs of their partner in an exchange and if they perceive that their ratio is higher, they will experience feelings of inequity or dissatisfaction (Mowen, 2001).
Thus if a buyers ratio of inputs (i.e. information, time, money) to outcomes (i.e. goods or services received) is worse than the sellers the buyer experiences inequity which leads to dissatisfaction (Wilke, 1990).
Mowen (2001) uses the example of an exchange process between consumers and an airline. For consumers the inputs consisted of the money they paid for the ticket, and the outcomes consisted of the quality of service and speed to destination. If consumers perceived their inputs to be too large because they paid higher than average fares then they were dissatisfied, also if outcomes were poor (e.g. if the plane was delayed) they revealed more dissatisfaction.
Although many researchers include it as a separate theory, it is prudent to include actual product performance as an output for the consumer. However evidence has suggested that actual product performance influences satisfaction independently of expectations, equity and attributions, and even when consumers expect a product to perform poorly, they still feel dissatisfied when it does (Mowen, 2001).
Attribution Theory
The attributions that people make can strongly influence their post-purchase satisfaction with a product or a service (Mowen, 2001). If product performance is poor consumers will attempt to determine what caused this and will attribute the problem to different causes.
If the problem is attributed to ourselves, (“I must not have operated it right” or “I sure made a bad buy here”) or to some other events (“If the timer had gone off it wouldn’t have burned”) then dissatisfaction is less likely (Wilke, 1990).
However if we attribute the problem to the manufacturer (“This is a shoddy product, and should not have been put on the shelves”) or to the retailer (“I’ll never go there again; they obviously don’t care what they sell to the customer”) then dissatisfaction is more likely (Wilke, 1990).
In general attributional processes are more likely to impact CS/D when consumer involvement in and experience with (i.e. knowledge of) the good or service is high (Mowen, 2001).
Recent Theories
Recent research by Fournier and Mick (1999) has challenged the traditional views of what factors affect CS/D. They argue CS/D is an active, dynamic process that has a strong social dimension with meaning and emotion as integral parts. The satisfaction of other household members often contribute to the individual consumers satisfaction, thus CS/D is affected by collective interactions among all persons directly and indirectly affected by the product.
It can be argued therefore that no one factor or theory bears more weighting than another in affecting levels of CS/D. It is prudent to conclude that CS/D is influenced by a number of factors and depends upon the different situations faced by and individual characteristics of consumers. It is wise to conclude that CS/D is affected by a wide range of factors including such things as what expectations the consumer has of the product and if these are confirmed, whether they believe they are putting more in and getting less out than the seller and whether consumers attribute problems with products to themselves or the product or service itself.
Consumer responses to dissatisfaction
Bearden and Teel (1983) note that in response to dissatisfaction consumers may take various actions that can be subdivided into private and public responses of varying severity. It is important to note however that in many cases consumers decide to take no action at all, indeed a study by Andreasen and Best covering many product categories found that 70 percent of dissatisfied consumers did not voice a complaint into the marketing system (Wilke, 1990) however consumer responses to dissatisfaction depend upon a number of different factors these are discussed below.
Products or services that are more important to us are more likely to generate complaints when unsatisfactory experiences occur. A new car that won’t run or a poor face lift is likely to generate redress actions (Wilke, 1990). A response to dissatisfaction is more likely to occur when expected benefits are high and expected costs are low (e.g. a purchase made 2000 miles away may not yield a return to that store). Studies have shown that highly educated persons and those with more time on their hands are more likely to seek redress (Wilke, 1990). Further to this Mowen (2001) notes that previous experience with complaining is associated with increased complaint behaviour as people who have complained in the past know how to go about contacting the appropriate authorities. As noted earlier attribution of blame for the problem can affect consumer responses to dissatisfaction. For example, if consumers attribute a problem with an airline service to decisions purposely made by the company, they are much more likely to complain than if they believe the problem is beyond the company’s control (Mowen, 2001).
When consumers are sufficiently dissatisfied they are likely to respond these responses can be split into private and public actions (Bearden and Teel, 1983).
Private Actions
The first private action that a consumer may undertake would be to warn family, friends and other associates not to use the product or service in the future, by speaking to them about the bad experience. As a result not only would the consumer stop using the product / service it is likely that his / her friends would also avoid the product in the future. I recently undertook this sort of action after a bad experience with a salesperson in the mobile phone retailer The Link.
The second private action that a consumer may undertake is more severe and involves the consumer deciding to stop buying the product / service completely and actually boycotting the organisation. The website provides examples of major ongoing consumer boycotts. For example Gap Inc is being boycotted as protestors are annoyed that the owners of Gap are cutting down redwood trees in California resulting in a 10% drop in their share price.
Public Actions
There are three main types of public action that consumers can undertake. The first involves consumers actually seeking redress from the firm or manufacturer. This usually involves the consumer going back to the store and asking the manager to take care of the problem.
The second slightly more severe option would be to complain to business, private or Government agencies. This could involve writing a letter to a newspaper or magazine or complaining to an agency like the Better Business Bureau (in America).
The final and most severe public action would be to take some form of legal action against the retailer or manufacturer. However this usually only takes place in the most extreme cases of dissatisfaction. For example in America consumers took legal action against McDonalds when they found a dead rat in a McDonald’s outlet.
How should organisations respond to complaints?
Wilke (1990) notes that companies attitudes towards complaints are changing with companies actually encouraging consumer complaints and questions after purchase and viewing these as an opportunity rather than a problem. Indeed the head of Procter and Gamble’s Consumer Services Department states “if people have a problem with one of our products we’d rather they tell us about it than switch to a competitor or say bad things over the backyard fence” (Chen, 2000).
In order for firms to be able to turn complaints into an opportunity to generate repurchases there has to be a clear channel through which consumers can complain. Most major companies have introduced toll-free “0800” numbers for customers to use in contacting the firm. These call centres are becoming increasingly important and can provide companies with numerous advantages. Large companies such as GE have “answer centres” which receive 60,000 calls a week, these “answer centres” help to personalise such large organisations. On average only 15% of the calls are complaints and with a 95% satisfaction rate amongst callers it often results in increased company loyalty (Wilke, 1990). Chen (2000) notes that research by the Technical Assistance Research Project (TARP) shows that customers who complain and are satisfied are up to 8% more loyal than if they had no problem at all.
However call centres are not the only means that firms can employ to turn complaints into opportunities. Mowen (2001) notes that franchised auto dealers are consistently in the top ten (percentage wise) of total complaints received by all businesses. It is prudent therefore to look at how such companies deal with complaints.
In America many auto companies have been moving towards “risk free car buying” (Wilke, 1990). Such companies believe that customers have a right to get their money back if they are dissatisfied. This has involved companies such as Chrysler and Ford introducing money back guarantees if cars are returned within 30 days or 1000 miles after purchase or even a replacement car. It has also involved an extension of traditional guarantees and warranty coverage’s offered by these firms (Wilke, 1990). Again by offering such flexible return policies companies such as Ford hope to retain customer loyalty and generate repeat purchases and positive word of mouth in the future.
Conclusion
Without doubt CS/D is vitally important to organisations operating in today’s marketplace as it is generally assumed to be a significant determinant of repeat sales, positive word of mouth and consumer loyalty (Bearden and Teel, 1983). If consumers are dissatisfied then they are likely to take some form of action which will be detrimental to the organisation, as a result firms have had to devise fast and efficient ways to deal with consumer complaints. Most organisations now view a complaint from a consumer as an opportunity rather than a problem, however unless firms have an effective system installed to deal with complaints (i.e. a free call telephone number) then consumer dissatisfaction is likely to increase reducing the chance of increasing consumer loyalty and repeat purchases which are often the case if a complaint is dealt with quickly and efficiently. Firms which ignore CS/D and are unable to deal with complaints effectively are likely to discover that business will become very difficult very quickly.
Word count – 2197
References
Chen, M. n.d., “How to Turn Consumer Complaints into Gold” viewed 6th November 2003 <http://www.business-english-training.com/complaint.htm>
Churchill, G. A. Jr. and Suprenant, C. (1982) “An Investigation into the determinants of Consumer Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing research, 19, pp 491 – 504.
Co-op America 2003, Boycott Action News, Co-op America, viewed 5th November 2003, <http://www.boycotts.org/grid.htm>
Fournier, S. and Mick, D. (1999), “Rediscovering Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, 63, 4, pp 5 ff.
Marks and Spencer UK 2003, Marks and Spencer UK, viewed 6th November 2003,
Mowen, J. C. and Minor, M. (2001), “Consumer Behaviour a Framework”, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Next UK 2003, Next UK, viewed 6th November 2003,
Soloman, M. R. (1996) “Consumer Behaviour”, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Tse, D. K. and Wilton P. C. (1988), “Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formulation: An Extension”, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 2, pp 204 – 212.
Wilke, W. C. (1990) “Consumer Behaviour”, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
The following formula is associated with equity theory: Outcomes A = Outcomes B
Inputs A Inputs B
