• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2008

Previous research has presupposed that the evaluation of consumer who received any recovery after experiencing product failure should be better than the evaluation of consumer who did not receive any recovery. The major purposes of this article are to examine impacts of product defect failures rather than service failures, and to explore effects of recovery on postrecovery product attitudes. First, this article deals with the occurrence of severe and unsevere failure and corresponding service recovery toward tangible products rather than intangible services. Contrary to intangible services, purchase and usage are separable for tangible products. This difference makes it clear that executing an recovery strategy toward tangible products is not plausible right after consumers find out product failures. The consumers may think about backgrounds and causes for the unpleasant events during the time gap between product failure and recovery. The deliberation may dilutes positive effects of recovery efforts. The recovery strategies which are provided to consumers experiencing product failures can be classified into three types. A recovery strategy can be implemented to provide consumers with a new product replacing the old defective product, a complimentary product for free, a discount at the time of the failure incident, or a coupon that can be used on the next visit. This strategy is defined as "a rewarding effort." Meanwhile a product failure may arise in exchange for its benefit. Then the product provider can suggest a detail explanation that the defect is hard to escape since it relates highly to the specific advantage to the product. The strategy may be called as "a strengthening effort." Another possible strategy is to recover negative attitude toward own brand by giving prominence to the disadvantages of a competing brand rather than the advantages of its own brand. The strategy is reflected as "a weakening effort." This paper emphasizes that, in order to confirm its effectiveness, a recovery strategy should be compared to being nothing done in response to the product failure. So the three types of recovery efforts is discussed in comparison to the situation involving no recovery effort. The strengthening strategy is to claim high relatedness of the product failure with another advantage, and expects the two-sidedness to ease consumers' complaints. The weakening strategy is to emphasize non-aversiveness of product failure, even if consumers choose another competitive brand. The two strategies can be effective in restoring to the original state, by providing plausible motives to accept the condition of product failure or by informing consumers of non-responsibility in the failure case. However the two may be less effective strategies than the rewarding strategy, since it tries to take care of the rehabilitation needs of consumers. Especially, the relative effect between the strengthening effort and the weakening effort may differ in terms of the severity of the product failure. A consumer who realizes a highly severe failure is likely to attach importance to the property which caused the failure. This implies that the strengthening effort would be less effective under the condition of high product severity. Meanwhile, the failing property is not diagnostic information in the condition of low failure severity. Consumers would not pay attention to non-diagnostic information, and with which they are not likely to change their attitudes. This implies that the strengthening effort would be more effective under the condition of low product severity. A 2 (product failure severity: high or low) X 4 (recovery strategies: rewarding, strengthening, weakening, or doing nothing) between-subjects design was employed. The particular levels of product failure severity and the types of recovery strategies were determined after a series of expert interviews. The dependent variable was product attitude after the recovery effort was provided. Subjects were 284 consumers who had an experience of cosmetics. Subjects were first given a product failure scenario and were asked to rate the comprehensibility of the failure scenario, the probability of raising complaints against the failure, and the subjective severity of the failure. After a recovery scenario was presented, its comprehensibility and overall evaluation were measured. The subjects assigned to the condition of no recovery effort were exposed to a short news article on the cosmetic industry. Next, subjects answered filler questions: 42 items of the need for cognitive closure and 16 items of need-to-evaluate. In the succeeding page a subject's product attitude was measured on an five-item, six-point scale, and a subject's repurchase intention on an three-item, six-point scale. After demographic variables of age and sex were asked, ten items of the subject's objective knowledge was checked. The results showed that the subjects formed more favorable evaluations after receiving rewarding efforts than after receiving either strengthening or weakening efforts. This is consistent with Hoffman, Kelley, and Rotalsky (1995) in that a tangible service recovery could be more effective that intangible efforts. Strengthening and weakening efforts also were effective compared to no recovery effort. So we found that generally any recovery increased products attitudes. The results hint us that a recovery strategy such as strengthening or weakening efforts, although it does not contain a specific reward, may have an effect on consumers experiencing severe unsatisfaction and strong complaint. Meanwhile, strengthening and weakening efforts were not expected to increase product attitudes under the condition of low severity of product failure. We can conclude that only a physical recovery effort may be recognized favorably as a firm's willingness to recover its fault by consumers experiencing low involvements. Results of the present experiment are explained in terms of the attribution theory. This article has a limitation that it utilized fictitious scenarios. Future research deserves to test a realistic effect of recovery for actual consumers. Recovery involves a direct, firsthand experience of ex-users. Recovery does not apply to non-users. The experience of receiving recovery efforts can be relatively more salient and accessible for the ex-users than for non-users. A recovery effort might be more likely to improve product attitude for the ex-users than for non-users. Also the present experiment did not include consumers who did not have an experience of the products and who did not perceive the occurrence of product failure. For the non-users and the ignorant consumers, the recovery efforts might lead to decreased product attitude and purchase intention. This is because the recovery trials may give an opportunity for them to notice the product failure.

• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.167-194
• /
• 2019

This research starts from the four basic concepts of incentive incompatibility, limited information, myopia and decision variable which are confronted when making decisions in keyword bidding. In order to make these concept concrete, four framework approaches are designed as follows; Strategic approach for the incentive incompatibility, Statistical approach for the limited information, Alternative optimization for myopia, and New model approach for decision variable. The purpose of this research is to propose the statistical optimization model in constructing the portfolio of Sponsored Search Advertising (SSA) in the Sponsor's perspective through empirical tests which can be used in portfolio decision making. Previous research up to date formulates the CTR estimation model using CPC, Rank, Impression, CVR, etc., individually or collectively as the independent variables. However, many of the variables are not controllable in keyword bidding. Only CPC and Rank can be used as decision variables in the bidding system. Classical SSA model is designed on the basic assumption that the CPC is the decision variable and CTR is the response variable. However, this classical model has so many huddles in the estimation of CTR. The main problem is the uncertainty between CPC and Rank. In keyword bid, CPC is continuously fluctuating even at the same Rank. This uncertainty usually raises questions about the credibility of CTR, along with the practical management problems. Sponsors make decisions in keyword bids under the limited information, and the strategic portfolio approach based on statistical models is necessary. In order to solve the problem in Classical SSA model, the New SSA model frame is designed on the basic assumption that Rank is the decision variable. Rank is proposed as the best decision variable in predicting the CTR in many papers. Further, most of the search engine platforms provide the options and algorithms to make it possible to bid with Rank. Sponsors can participate in the keyword bidding with Rank. Therefore, this paper tries to test the validity of this new SSA model and the applicability to construct the optimal portfolio in keyword bidding. Research process is as follows; In order to perform the optimization analysis in constructing the keyword portfolio under the New SSA model, this study proposes the criteria for categorizing the keywords, selects the representing keywords for each category, shows the non-linearity relationship, screens the scenarios for CTR and CPC estimation, selects the best fit model through Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) test, formulates the optimization models, confirms the Spillover effects, and suggests the modified optimization model reflecting Spillover and some strategic recommendations. Tests of Optimization models using these CTR/CPC estimation models are empirically performed with the objective functions of (1) maximizing CTR (CTR optimization model) and of (2) maximizing expected profit reflecting CVR (namely, CVR optimization model). Both of the CTR and CVR optimization test result show that the suggested SSA model confirms the significant improvements and this model is valid in constructing the keyword portfolio using the CTR/CPC estimation models suggested in this study. However, one critical problem is found in the CVR optimization model. Important keywords are excluded from the keyword portfolio due to the myopia of the immediate low profit at present. In order to solve this problem, Markov Chain analysis is carried out and the concept of Core Transit Keyword (CTK) and Expected Opportunity Profit (EOP) are introduced. The Revised CVR Optimization model is proposed and is tested and shows validity in constructing the portfolio. Strategic guidelines and insights are as follows; Brand keywords are usually dominant in almost every aspects of CTR, CVR, the expected profit, etc. Now, it is found that the Generic keywords are the CTK and have the spillover potentials which might increase consumers awareness and lead them to Brand keyword. That's why the Generic keyword should be focused in the keyword bidding. The contribution of the thesis is to propose the novel SSA model based on Rank as decision variable, to propose to manage the keyword portfolio by categories according to the characteristics of keywords, to propose the statistical modelling and managing based on the Rank in constructing the keyword portfolio, and to perform empirical tests and propose a new strategic guidelines to focus on the CTK and to propose the modified CVR optimization objective function reflecting the spillover effect in stead of the previous expected profit models.