0
Facebook as customer support tool; an effective
substitution for the traditional call centers?
Exploratory research
Master Thesis
MSc. Business Studies – Marketing
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J.H.J.P. Tettero
Second reader: Drs. A.C.J. Meulemans
Student: Lilian Kalkman
Student ID: 10709576
1
Abstract
The study contains an exploratory research of the impact of Facebook customer support on service recovery quality and customer satisfaction. A Facebook analysis of 140 conversations between customers and providers of four different companies is conducted. The companies are KLM, Vodafone, KPN, and Coolblue. Service recovery quality is measured by the dimensions empathy, responsiveness, empowerment, communication, atonement, feedback and explanation, a combination of the existing scales RECOVSAT (Boshoff, 2005) and SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Customer satisfaction is measured by approaching customers privately on Facebook. The main findings of this study are: 1) It is assumed that Facebook is an effective tool for offering customer support for customers, the service recovery quality is high. Especially, customers seem to give high importance to the
‘empathy’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘responsiveness’ dimensions 2) Customer satisfaction is not influenced by the high service recovery quality, because often negative previous experiences with other channels have damaged the overall satisfaction. 3) Keeping the process simple, reducing uncertainty and having an well-organized back office are important aspects in providing service.
Keywords: Customer Service, Customer Support, Service Recovery, Social Media, Facebook, Service Quality, Service Recovery Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Service Channels
2
“You can do all sorts of cool stuff on social media – run campaigns, make great offers, post cool pictures and otherwise entertain and engage your audience – but if you don’t
offer customer support, you’re buggered.” – G-W. ter Haar, Social Hub Manager KLM (2015)
3
Table of contents
1.Introduction………..….……….…..6 1.1 Purpose of research……….………..……..……..6 1.2 Research content………...…………7 1.3 Theoretical contributions………...………7 1.4 Managerial contributions……….………..8 1.5 Structure……….………...…8 2. Literature review……….…...….9 2.1 Service recovery……….…...…92.1.1 What is service recovery?...9
2.1.2 Why is service recovery important?...11
2.2 Service channels………...12
2.2.1 As complaining tool……….……12
2.2.2 Context………..…...12
2.2.3 Demarcation field of study……….…..13
2.2.4 Multichanneling………...….13
2.2.5 Type of channels……….……..14
2.2.5.1 Physical channels………..….15
2.2.5.2 Telephone channels……….…..15
2.2.5.3 Remote channels………....16
2.2.5.4 Relevant channels for this study………..…..19
2.2.5.5 General differences between Call centers and Facebook….….20 2.2.5.6 Channel relationship……….….23
2.3 Service recovery quality………..…24
2.3.1 Description………...…24
2.3.2 Determinants of service recovery quality……….…25
4
2.4.1 Distinction of service types………..31
2.4.2 Delineation for study………..…..32
3. Methodology………...……..34
4. Results………..….37
4.1 Facebook analysis………...37
4.1.1 KPN……….…37
4.1.1.1 Dimensions from the customers perspective……….37
4.1.1.2 Dimensions from the providers perspective……….….38
4.1.1.3 Concluding patterns and remarks………..…40
4.1.1.4 Private message approach……….………41
4.1.1.5 Conclusion KPN………42
4.1.2 Vodafone………..…42
4.1.2.1 Dimensions from the customers perspective……….42
4.1.2.2 Dimensions from the providers perspective………..…44
4.1.2.3 Concluding patters and remarks………..…..45
4.1.2.4 Private message approach………..47
4.1.2.5 Conclusion Vodafone………...….50
4.1.3 Coolblue………...51
4.1.3.1 Dimensions from customers perspective………...……51
4.1.3.2 Dimensions from providers perspective……….……..….52
4.1.3.3 Concluding patterns and remarks……….….53
4.1.3.4 Private message approach………..54
4.1.3.5 Conclusion Coolblue………...…..55
4.1.4 KLM………...55
4.1.4.1 Dimensions from the customers perspective…………...……..55
4.1.4.2 Dimensions from the providers perspective………..56
5
4.1.4.4 Private message approach………..60
4.1.4.5 Conclusion KLM……….…..61
5. Discussion……….62
5.1 Comparison companies………...…62
5.1.1 Dimensions from the customers perspective………62
5.1.2 Dimensions from the providers perspective……….…63
5.1.3 Summary of outcomes………..…67
5.1.4 Private message approach……….67
5.2 Extra data……….68
5.2.1 Discussion of interviews………...68
5.2.2 Strategy of Coolblue highlighted……….70
6. Conclusions and recommendations………...…71
7. Limitations and suggestions for future research……...………....72
8. References……….73
9. Appendix………...83
A. Item scales RECOVSAT and SERVQUAL……….………83
B. Selection of analyzed Facebook messages………...………84
6
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of research
Service industries continue to grow in importance, which leads to consumers voice increasing irritation, frustration, and dissatisfaction with individual service encounters (Koepp, 1987). Customer service in big organizations that use a customer helpdesk service, also known as ‘call centers’, often appears to fail (Bateman et al., 1999). Call centers face an efficiency-service conflict due to the expected fulfillment of too many task that are in conflict with each other (Wallace et al., 2000). Research shows that the majority of customers is dissatisfied with the way companies resolve their complaints, indicating that most customers have more negative feelings about an organization after they go through the service-recovery process (Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999). Call centers need to pay more attention to the elements of service quality: customers achieving a desired outcome, ensuring a prompt response and appropriate service time, and training and managing service consultants so that they are knowledgeable, helpful and polite. Understanding and meeting customers’ needs need to be improved. (Dean, 2004; Wallace et al., 2000; Taylor & Bain, 1999)
Organizations today provide different channels for customers where they can communicate with each other and provide service. (Koole & Mandelbaum, 2002) Besides call centers, internet has become a new channel for customer service (Walsh & Godfrey, 2000). As a result, call centers have been expanded into contact centers (Koole & Mandelbaum, 2002). A contact center is a call center where the traditional telephone service is enhanced by some additional multi-media customer-contact channels, commonly VRU, e.mail, fax, Internet or chat (Koole & Mandelbaum, 2002). The increasing use of the Internet, customer demand for channel variety, and acknowledged potential for efficiency gains, have stimulated the extension of call centers into contact centers.
Social media is a rising platform on the internet which is increasingly used by both consumers and providers (Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Kietzmann, 2011; Fourney & Avery, 2011). Consumers are turning more frequently to various types of social media to conduct their information searches and to make their purchasing decisions (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). This represents the social media phenomenon, which can now significantly impact a firm’s reputation, sales, and even survival (Kietzmann et al., 2011). As a consequence, many organizations have entered the world of social media (Fourney & Avery, 2011). Companies who want to survive have to invest in their on-line visibility. Nowadays, companies that don’t give high priority to the online environment are running behind the facts
7
(www.marketingonline.nl). Companies use social media to run campaigns, make great offers, post cool pictures and to entertain and engage their audience, but if you are active on social media you must offer customer support (https://blog.klm.com/what-has-klm-learned-from-5-years-of-social-media-service/). Therefore, companies are increasingly making use of social media as an customer support channel, additional to the call centers.
1.2 Research content
The first intention of this study was to compare the telephone channel (call center) with the social media channel of Facebook, to see if there were differences between the services provided. Given the negative literature about call center service quality it seemed interesting to find out whether Facebook had the same outcome or if the service was different and better evaluated. Customer support offered through Facebook is a young and new modus operandi. Therefore, I chose to do an exploratory research by analyzing Facebook messages of customers and providers to get insight in the service provided. While analyzing and writing about the Facebook channel, many interesting thoughts were established which caused that it emerged as a separate subject. As a result of the literature review, the comparison with the call center turned into an additional topic and Facebook as customer support channel became the main topic of this study. The literature review is based upon the first intention of the study, this should be kept in mind while reading the thesis. It seems that Facebook (and social media in general) is becoming more and more important in providing customer support, therefore the conclusions from the Facebook analysis are interesting for the other channels (especially call centers) as well.
Service quality and customer satisfaction are a central part in this study. Service quality is evaluated as service recovery quality, because service recovery is a main part of customer support that is analyzed. The goal of this study is to investigate which degree of service recovery quality and customer satisfaction are present on a specific service channel. This study will focus on Facebook as channel, the most used social networking site with 67% of internet users using it worldwide (Duggan, & Brenner, 2013). Facebook is the fastest growing social networking site with more than 800 million users (Graham, Faix & Hartman, 2009). As a result, the comparison with call centers will not disappear in total, but will mainly be based on existing literature. The main question in this research is: What is the influence of Facebook customer support on service quality and customer satisfaction?
8 1.3 Theoretical contribution
Literature so far has mainly focused on online marketing and the influence of social media on product purchase. Yet, no research is done about the customer support aspect of social media. Given the rise and growing importance of this topic this study will be a major contribution. Besides, this study will be a contribution to the scarce existing literature on customer service. Another theoretical contribution is the focus on service recovery. This adds to the scarce literature on service recovery (Lidén, & Skålén, 2003).
The comparison between call centers and Facebook is a contribution as well, because this has not been studied before. The study has a focus on multichanneling, which is a topic that is in its infancy. So far, little is known about the use and consequences of different channels. (Nicholson et al., 2002; Montoya-Weiss, Voss, & Grewal 2003; Dholakia et al., 2005) Several studies on marketing have highlighted the importance of measuring the influence of multichanneling (Thomas & Sullivan 2005; Kushwaha & Shankar, 2005; Pieterson et al., 2007).
Besides that, the comparison between call centers and Facebook is a contribution, because this has not been studied before and can be practically interesting for managers.
1.4 Managerial contributions
For managers and services companies this study can have a major contribution because it is important for managers to know how their customers evaluate the service they offer and if this has an effect on customer satisfaction. Managers who have this information know why and when they have to change the customer service quality to keep or create satisfied customers. It is important for companies to deliver good service, as evaluation of services can influence brand loyalty. This study can help managers to improve their service levels, by highlighting aspects of service quality that are important for customers in evaluating services. Moreover, the rise of social media and its growing impact for companies makes it even more interesting for managers. (Bateman et al., 1999; Dean, 2004; Labreque et al., 2013; Caruana, 2002)
1.5 Structure
This research is structured as follows; Chapter 1: Introduction, Chapter 2: Literature review, Chapter 3: Methodology, Chapter 4: Results, Chapter 5: Discussion. Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations. Chapter 7: Limitations and suggestions for future research.
9
2. Literature review
In this paragraph, I will elaborate on the concept of service recovery. First, I will explain what service recovery is. Second, I will explain why service recovery is an important aspect of services. After that, I will outline different types of channels for service recovery. At last, I will discuss the differences of two certain type of channels; call center versus Facebook. The second part of the literature review will contain information about the quality of service recovery. First, the description of service recovery quality will be explained. After that, the determinants of service recovery quality will be discussed. The third part of the literature review includes an elaboration of the type of service sector relevant for this study.
2.1 Service recovery
2.1.1 What is service recovery?
Before explaining the concept of service recovery, it is necessary to get an idea of what a service entails. A service is a complicated phenomenon. It can be used in various ways, ranging from personalized service to service as a product. Moreover, a service is usually experienced in a subjective manner, involving experiences, trust, and feelings or emotions. (Nispen, 2006) Cook, Coh en Chung (1999) have studied different perspectives and ways of services and concluded that no single definition of service is capable of encompassing the full diversity of services and the complex attributes that accompany them. Therefore, services are best described using characteristics. The most cited and used characteristics are established by Parasuraman, Zeithalm, and Berry (1985); intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability. Intangible because services are performances rather than objects. Inseparable because services are often simultaneously produced and consumed. Heterogeneity because the performance often varies from producer to producer, from customer to customer, and from day to day. Perishable because services often cannot be stored or inventoried, they are fluid. (Nispen, 2006)
Another important characteristic of services is that it involves processes. Three processes are defined, which all involve the contact between the customer and the provider. The first process is named ‘pre-service contacts’, this contains all contact in the time period the customer orientation (which type of service and possible provider ) takes place before choosing an provider. The second process is named the ‘core-service-contacts’, this contains all contact after a customer has chosen a provider till the purchase is done. The third process is the ‘post-service-contacts’, this contains all contact when the customers deploys the service.
10
All processes are important in providing services. Services are linked with the whole consumption system, they entail the perception of the entire service. The personal relation between the customer and provider has a central role in this perception, because services are related to people in the entire service system. These characteristics cause that services can be best evaluated afterwards. (Tettero, & Viehoff, 2000)
The characteristics of services that cause errors, failures or mistakes are often inevitable. Due to the heterogeneity and inseparability of services, there is much variability in the service performance. Also, the fact that the entire service is reflected in persons is the main reason that mistakes are a critical part of every service. Organizations can make effort to minimize errors, but even in the best service companies errors seem to occur. As a result, in the provision of services errors are seen as a given and thus resolving them have become an important aspect in keeping the customer satisfied. While companies may not be able to prevent all problems, they can make sure that the problem will be recovered in the best way possible. (Hart, Heskett, & Sasser, 1990; Nispen, 2006) Therefore, recovering problems or errors is a crucial element in achieving a satisfied customer. The true test of an organization’s commitment to client satisfaction does not depend on the advertising promises but on how the firm responds when things go wrong for the customer (Lovelock, Patterson, & Wirtz, 2014). Recovering service errors or problems is also known as service recovery, meaning that when you unintentionally break your service promise to a customer, you need a plan for putting things right again (Lovelock, Pattterson, & Wirtz, 2014). Kelley and Davis (1994) define service recovery as “the process by which a firm attempts to rectify a service delivery failure.” According to Gronroos (1998) service recovery can also be named consumer’s complaints processing. Zeithalm, Berry, and Parasuraman (1993) define service recovery as “activities that are performed as a result of customer perceptions of initial service delivery behaviors falling below the customer’s zone of tolerance.” Maxham III (2001) defines service recovery as the behaviors that service providers taken to reduce or recovering the losses of consumers suffered from service failure. Tax and Brown (2000) give a wider description of service recovery, naming it a process that identifies service failures, effectively resolves customer problems, classifies their root cause(s), and yields data that can be integrated with other measures of performance to assess and improve the service system. Tax and Brown (1998) recognize the importance of the service recovery process, and recognize that improving the whole service system is a part of service recovery. It is not only about fixing
11
the problem or failure, but about the process of dealing with the customer after a service failure and recovering customers. (Johnston, & Michel, 2008; Tax, & Brown, 1998)
2.1.2 Why is service recovery important?
While service industries continue to grow, consumers service pressures are growing as well. Consumers have raised their expectations, are more demanding, more aware of their rights, and prepared to switch service providers quickly if they are unhappy. (Lovelock, Patterson, & Wirtz, 2014; Del Rio-Lanza, Vazques-Casielles, & Diaz-Martin, 2009) Organizations responses to service failure is a major determinant to maintain and reinforce its customers’ loyalty, or to drive them to a competing firm (Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999). Lovelock, Patterson, and Wirtz (2014) state that service recovery is important in keeping or creating satisfied customers. They recognize the significance of service failure that goes along with dissatisfied customers, it can cause negative word of mouth, diminished customer value, decreased trust and decreased loyalty. Johnston and Michel (2008) suggest that service recovery, on top of customer satisfaction, has an impact on loyalty, delight, and profit. Tax and Brown (1998) also argue that profit is affected by customer loyalty, which results from customer satisfaction generated from good service recovery procedures. The impact of service recovery on delight (Johnston, & Michel, 2008) suggests that recovery can lead to higher levels of satisfaction than is achieved through normal service delivery without failures. This phenomenon is known as the ‘service recovery paradox’. Smith and Bolton (1998) define the service recovery paradox as customers who receive good or excellent recoveries in response to a service failure will exhibit enhanced levels of satisfaction and increased repatronage intentions which would not have been attained if they had not had a failure/recovery experience with the service organization. Several sources in academic and business literature (McCollough et al., 2000; Smith & Bolton, 1998; Tax et al., 1998; Bitner et al., 1990) suggests that if organizations effectively recover from service failures, then failures will have little if any negative effects on customer satisfaction and retention, and (ultimately) on the firm’s profitability. Some marketers even imply that service failures should be looked upon as opportunities to impress customers with good service performance and enhance their loyalty (Bolton & Smith, 1998). An example that illustrates the importance of service recovery becomes clear in the study of Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) who found that customers with unresolved complaints re-purchase in only 19% of cases, but re-purchase intention soars to 54% with resolved complaints, and 82% when resolved quickly. (Neale et al., 2006) However, failures should not occur too often because people prefer an improving series of
12
outcomes. If failures will repeat each other in a sequence of recoveries, this will not improve the customer satisfaction, people want the sequence to end positive rather than negative. (Maxham, & Netemeyer, 2002) This indicates that when a failure is recovered well the first time, this can improve customer satisfaction, but when the failure will repeat itself it would become more negatively evaluated.
2.2 Service Channels
2.2.1 As complaining tool
The first step to delivering service recovery is providing customers with convenient channels for complaining (Hart et al., 1990). Complaining is an essential part of service recovery, illustrated by Gronroos (1998) that describes it as consumer’s complaints processing. Without complaining an organization cannot recognize the customer’s problem, and thus cannot recover it. Besides that, complaining is an important tool for organizations as it provides them feedback that helps indicating where the organization’s processes are deficient and where improvement can be made (Lovelock, Patterson, & Wirtz, 2014). Complaints are a result of service failures, because service failures are negative experiences with a service or service provider. A general view of possible service failures can be given by the use of existing literature. Kelley et al. (1994) found that most failures are related to policy or product failure. Michel (2001) categorized service failures in nine categories that include: advice, process, interaction, documents, information, conditions, systems, and 3rd parties.
However, complaining is not the only tool organizations offer through their channels. Service recovery is part of a bigger context.
2.2.2 Context
Traditionally service recovery was mainly focused on complaint handling, where customers were asked to hand in a formal complaint if they had a problem. Complaints were in the form of a written letter to the organization, which the organization handled in an administrative manner. Internal efficiency was the core priority; to solve the problem while keeping the costs as low as possible. (Gronsroos, 2000) Nowadays, service recovery is more than complaint handling. The external efficiency has become the priority; keeping customers satisfied in order to build long-term relationships and long-term profit. (Gronroos, 2000) All contact and interactions between the provider and customer when the service is deployed are important, also known as the ‘post-service’(Tettero & Viehoff, 2000). Petre et al. (2006) divide the service encounter in three stages; the pre-purchase stage, the purchase stage and the
13
post-purchase stage. In the post-purchase phase any follow-up support and delivery of the product or service is provided. Service recovery is part of such a follow-up support. (Petre et al., 2006) Another, more common name for a follow-up support is customer support. Customer support is assistance to help customers gain maximum value from their purchases. Typical forms of support include installation, documentation, maintenance, user training and repair services. Offering customer support after purchase, also known as ‘after-sales service’, is essential for achieving customer satisfaction and building long term relationships with customers. (Goffin, & New, 2001)
2.2.3 Demarcation field of study
This study is focused on different channels through which customer support, and thus service recovery, is offered. The contact and interactions between customer and provider are central, conducting the dialogue between customer and provider is the core business of the channels offering customer support (http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/de-invloed-van-klantenservice-op-klantbeleving) The desired outcome of customer contacts is delivery of product support services to customers, diffusion of new product information, and product improvement suggestions (Nambisan, & Baron, 2007). In line with these outcomes, the most important reasons for customers to contact an organization are obtaining information, making a statement or complaining (Mittelmeijer, 2011). In response, employees who give customer support need to have knowledge about the product, information systems, and administration systems. Above, that knowledge has to be applied to inform and advise the customer and the employee has to deploy skills to perform the task the customer asked for. (Mittelmeijer, 2011)
Service recovery is a substantial part of customer support after-sale (Mascarenhas et al., 2006) therefore the focus of this study is on service recovery. However, when analyzing the channels the bigger context should be taken into account and it is possible that other forms of customer support will occur besides complaints. Most important is the manner in which organizations or/and employees provide good service to their customers in the after-sale stage. This interaction between customer and provider is part of the total experience and influences customer satisfaction (Verhoef et al., 2009)
2.2.4 Multichanneling
Traditionally, the use of one single channel was the standard for service recovery. Channel of service delivery can be defined as the means of communication through which a service is delivered to (or reaches) the customer. (Sousa & Voss, 2006) However, companies in all
14
industries are increasingly making use of more than one channel to provide customer service, this has become the standard strategy for most organizations (Moriarty, & Moran, 1990; Coelho, Easingwood, & Coelho, 2003). As a result, the possibilities for customers to reach an organization have grown over the past years. Examples of different channels are letters (traditional way), offices/service encounters, websites, telephone, email, social media, or kiosks. The phenomenon of organizations providing their customers more than one channel is called multi-channeling. (Easingwood, & Coelho, 2003) Reasons for organizations to apply multi-channeling are to keep customers satisfied and let the customer achieve maximum benefit of the service utilized (Montoya-Weiss, Voss, & Grewal, 2003).
Kotler (2000) defines multi-channeling as the use of one or more channel by one organization, in order to operate one or more client segments. Pieterson’s (2007) definition is more specific than that and states that multi-channeling is the use of more channels within the same service process or the use of more channels in different service processes where the channels are linked with each other. The increased use of multi-channeling is mainly caused by the growth of the internet and organizations adding internet-based channels in their service delivery. Internet often is combined with physical facilities, phone, and other channels. (Sousa, & Voss, 2006). Evidence suggests that companies that complement their traditional channels with Internet-based channels will be more successful than single-channel companies (e.g., Gulati and Garino 2000; Porter 2001; Vishwanath and Mulvin 2001).
2.2.5 Type of channels
Service (recovery) channels can be distinguished in three types: remote channels, telephone channels, and physical channels (Zeithaml et al., 2009). Telephone channels and physical channels both belong to the interactive channels. In the table below an overview is given of the different channel types related to service recovery;
15
Figure 1. Day & Landon’s (1977) classification of consumer complaining behavior
2.2.5.1 Physical channels
A physical channel consists of a means of communication with the customer employing a physical infrastructure, meaning physical facilities in the context of face-to-face service. (Sousa, & Voss, 2006) For service recovery, this is the real life service encounter/frontdesk or local store/kiosk of the service provider where you can go if you have a failure or complaint with the given service. Even though many customers still use this traditional channel, the overall use of it has decreased compared to the telephone and internet channels. (Pieterson et al., 2007)
2.2.5.2 Telephone channels
A common used telephone channel in the service industry is called a call center. Call centers agents provide tele-services, that allows them to interact and enable service to the customer over the phone. (Brown et al., 2005) The call centers’ toll-free numbers give customers easy access to customer-service representatives who can then handle their requests, including complaints (Matilla, & Mount, 2003). The use of these telephone call centers is a growing trend in service industries (Tax, & Brown, 2012). Most call centers support Interactive Voice Response (IVR) units, also called Voice Response Unit’s (VRU’s), which are the industrial version of answering machines including the possibilities of interactions. (Koole, & Mandelbaum, 2002) IVR’s are used to route calls into a more specific area by presenting a caller with voice queries based on different schemes. General voice queries are
16
asked first, and then, based on caller responses, more specific queries are asked to narrow and focus the caller’s requests. The questions can be seen as a decision tree which goes from the “root problem” to the “leaf” problem. Whereas at the “leaf” problem specific voice information is available or the caller may be placed in a voice queue to speak with the next available caller assistance agent. (Fawcett et al., 1998) For example, users having problems with a computer software product and are calling a call center to fix it; they could get an IVR with options “Press ‘1’ for network problems, Press ‘2’ for operating system problems, Press ‘3’ for printer problems, Press ‘4’ for spreadsheet problems”. If the user pressed ‘3’ for printer problems the following questions would be “Press ‘1’ if your printer is not printing at all, Press ‘2’ if your printer is printing unrecognizable characters, Press ‘3’ if your printer is not printing all the information on one page” etc. This will lead the user to the “leaf” level where the user is given additional information or is told to stay on the line to receive help from a live agent. (Fawcett et al., 1998) The working environment of call centers is often built as an endless room with numerous open space booths, in which employees sit in front of computer connections with earphones, providing tele-services to unseen customers (Koole, & Manderbaum, 2002).
Call centers can handle inbound or outbound calls. Inbound calls are telephone call that are initiated by outsiders calling in to a centers, this involves the customer support and help-desk services. Outbound calls are typically calls that are initiated from within a center to outsiders. (Gans, Koole, & Mandelbaum, 2003; Aksin et al. 2007) This study will focus on the inbound call centers, because they handle customers related issues.
Call centers can be part of the organization itself, where the service is provided by the organizations employees, or organizations can choose to move their call center operations offshore (Ren & Zhou, 2008). Some companies benefit from outsourcing, but a substantial part of companies who outsource their call center are not successful (Bronner, 2013). It is important that the outsourcer and the user company collaborate closely to achieve coordination (Ren & Zhou, 2008). Customers do not distinguish call centers from the user company, any bad experiences with the service provided by the call center will be imposed upon the user company. Therefore, service quality in both types of operating call centers is very important. (Ren & Zhou, 2008)
In a study of general channel use in the Netherlands in the period of 2001 to 2006, Pieterson et al. (2007) found that the use of the telephone as channel has increased. Aksin et al. (2007) mention the increasing importance of call centers worldwide and state that call
17
centers serve as a primary customer-facing channel for firms in many different industries. Call centers allow a company to build, maintain, and manage customer relationships by solving problems and resolving complaints quickly, having information, answering questions, and being available usually 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year (Feinberg et al., 2000).
2.2.5.3 Remote channels
Remote channels are channels without direct human interaction. Traditional forms of remote channels are postal letters. With the rise of ICT during the 1980s and 1990s new channel types started to emerge quickly. As a result, the two new dominant types of remote channels are e-mail and Internet websites. (Ebbers et al., 2008)
Service recovery via email involves human-human interaction, as the customer sends an e-mail to the company which is supposed to be answered by an employee. Email is considered a simple way to interact with a company, but non-response or poorly and slowly answers often seem to occur (Murphy & Tan, 2003; Voss, 2000; Murphy & Gomes, 2003). (Neale, 2006)
Internet websites are often used as multichannel to facilitate service recovery (Tax, & Brown, 2012). As opposed to email, corporate websites have a human-computer interaction, as the customer searches the website to find the information needed. Websites often contain Frequently Asked Questions (FSA’s) on their page to simplify the information search for their customers. (Neale et al., 2006)
Furthermore, internet contains for example blogs, forums, communities and social media (Chen, Fay, & Wang, 2011) Social media is the fastest growing platform on the internet that has grown rapidly in recent years (Krasnova et al., 2010). Social media refers to online platforms that facilitate socialization and communication between the users (Keenan, & Shiri, 2009), also known as ‘social networking’. Social media entails the websites and applications that can be used for social networking. The biggest three social network sites are Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin. (shareslides.net, 2015) Social networking is a tool that entails online human interaction. It is increasingly used as a business network, allowing customers and firms to interact. Firms engage in social network sites to reach their customers. (Sashi, 2012)
Social network sites are an addition to other internet websites, and include the ability of online chat, which gives the opportunity to have human-human interaction even though the
18
contact is computer-mediated. Online chat allows the customer to interact one-on-one in real time with a service representative (Walker, 2001). As a result, online chat is a new and common channel used on the internet as customer service platform (Pieterson et al., 2007). Companies can choose to add online chat on their own corporate website, or/and to present the company on a Social Networking Site (SNS) engaging in the social media environment. (Wirtz et al., 2010) Facebook is the most important and popular social networking sites, mostly since it is the biggest (Ang, 2011), and it allows firms to create a company-specific ‘wall’ where customers can post messages about a specific topic, involving questions, requests and complaints, that are visible for all other Facebook users. (Wirtz et al., 2010) It is also possible to start a private chat conversation with the company (Smock et al., 2011). For companies engaging on SNS it is important to take user interests serious and to be available for receiving and responding to customer feedback and inquiries twenty four hours a day (Sashi, 2012). An example of a customer-provider interaction on Facebook is shown in the picture below;
Figure 2. Example Facebook conversation
The use of online interactions to provide customer service and service recovery is defined as ‘webcare’ by Van Noort and Willemsen (2011). Webcare is monitoring and engaging in online interactions with customers to signal and handle feedback (e.g. questions, comments and complaints). (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011)
19
Gregoire et al. (2014) distinguishes six types of social media complaints, shown in the table below;
Figure 3. Six types of social media complaints
The table shows that the first type of complaining online via social media is important. In order to avoid ‘The Bad’ and ‘The Ugly’ of the social media complaining (see Figure 3), ‘The Good’ must be handled in a proper way. With direct complaints, the customer is not primarily concerned about revenge or warning other customers: he/she mainly seeks effective recovery for an initial service failure. Therefore, firms should take good care of the customers complaint to avoid the negative consequences. (Gregoire et al., 2014)
Focus of this study will be on webcare as ‘directly contacting the company online’, where SNS are used to apply this way of service recovery (Gregoire et al., 2014).
2.2.5.4 Relevant channels for this study
The physical and telephone channels can be seen as traditional today, due to the rise of Internet. However, the telephone use has increased over the past years (Dean, 2004; Gans et al., 2003). The study of Pieterson et al. (2007) showed that the face-to-face and postal channels recently decreased, whereas telephone and Internet channels increased. Although
20
face-to-face interaction still are common used, the growth of telephone and especially Internet channels are notable. Internet websites had by far the highest growth rate, and tripled over a time period of 5 years (2001-2006). (Pieterson et al., 2007) On top of that, webcare seems to be increasingly used by firms (Kerkhof, 2010). Due to the rise of social media, the use of SNS (especially Facebook) is a growing tool to offer customer support and service recovery (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011; Gregoire et al., 2014).
Therefore, the focus of this study is on the comparison between the telephone channel (call centers) and the Internet channel (Facebook). In the table shown below, the importance of both types of channels is illustrated.
Table 4. Channel use in The Netherlands (Pieterson et al., 2007)
Furthermore, there is little research into multi-channeling although it is the new standard and thus very important. Customer experience is formed across all moments of contact with the firm through several channels. (Sousa, & Voss, 2006; Pieterson et al., 2007). Research also shows that the study of multi-channeling is in its early stages. Existing studies focused on customer-company interactions show some large knowledge gaps. Little knowledge exists about the behavior and consequences of different channels (Montoya-Weiss, Voss, & Grewal 2003; Dholakia et al., 2005).
2.2.5.5 General differences between Call centers and Facebook
There are several differences between call centers and Facebook, that might influence the service recovery quality and/or satisfaction. First, the type of contact is different. Call centers have a direct form of interaction of voice-to-voice, whereas Facebook has an indirect form of interaction through the computer. Second, call centers are an offline form of service recovery, whereas Facebook is an online form of service recovery. These are two main differences between the channels, which might cause a difference in service quality.
More is known about the quality of call centers (Gans, Koole, & Mandelbaum, 2003; Wallace, Eagleson, & Waldersee, 2000; Aksin et al., 2007) compared to the quality of Facebook or online service recovery in general.
21
centers are accessibility, effectiveness and interaction (Gans, Koole, & Mandelbaum, 2003).
Accessibility concerns issues related to the ease of use and waiting time, and involves
questions like ‘how long did the customer have to wait to speak to an agent?’. If we compare call centers accessibility with Facebook’s accessibility different views can be discussed. The reach of both channels is high, call centers and Facebook are both able to be connected to the customer worldwide and for twenty four hours a day. (Graham, Faix & Hartman, 2009; Pattison et al., 2000). Although Internet and telephone use both increased over the past years, using Internet does not directly mean that the Internet user also used Facebook, whereby with telephone use, the user of a telephone can always reach a call center if he or she wants. Therefore, it can be assumed that the reach of call centers is higher than Facebook. Nevertheless, Facebook is a common medium to reach a company. 71% of Internet users are also active on Facebook, and with 800 million users Facebook is the biggest social network site of the world. Social media in general has the most active users between the age of 15 and 39. However, the use of Facebook has grown for the age of 65 and older, with 56% of seniors using it. Figure 4 and 5 illustrate the popular usage of Facebook. (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/slideshare.net;
www.marketingfacts.nl) Thus, it seems plausible that the reach of call centers is higher than the reach of Facebook.
Furthermore, both channels are free of costs, which improves their accessibility. Internet is a free tool and call centers today are often toll-free as well (Matilla, & Mount, 2003).
Figure 5. Facebook usage
Figure 6. Facebook usage
However, this does not mean that the reach is higher in terms of waiting time. Literature suggest that call centers often have long queuing time, while on Facebook you will
22
immediately get an response from the company. Complaining through Internet is also considered to be easier because it just takes one click to post your complain and directly reach a company for a solution (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011), instead of calling a company navigating an automated telephone system featuring multiple and confusing options, and spending time on hold while being passed from representative to representative. In many instances, it is more convenient for customers to write on a firm’s wall or send a tweet as opposed to using traditional communication channels. (Gregoire et al., 2014;Bateman et al., 1999; Koole & Mandelbaum, 2002)
Effectiveness concerns if the problem was solved in a good manner, and involves
questions like ‘Did the service encounter completely resolve the customer’s problem or was additional work required?’ (Gans, Koole, & Mandelbaum, 2003).
In call centers the tension between efficiency and service is more salient than in most service organizations (Wallace, Eagleson, & Waldersee, 2000). Two opposite goals need to be reached for call centers, namely standardization and customization. Customization to meet customer’s expectations and standardization to enable employee training, consistent responses to customer enquiries, and the ability to cater to a mass market. Organizations have to meet both budgetary and service priorities, but there appears to be an imbalance in these two areas. (Dean, 2004) Call centers need to pay more attention to the elements of service quality: customers achieving a desired outcome, ensuring a prompt response and appropriate service time, and training and managing service consultants so that they are knowledgeable, helpful and polite. Understanding and meeting customers’ needs must be improved. (Dean, 2004; Wallace et al., 2000; Taylor & Bain, 1999) Wallace, Eagleson, and Waldersee (2000) add that call centers face an efficiency-service conflict due to the expected fulfillment of too many task that are in conflict with each other. The effectiveness of Facebook service recovery has not been researched yet, thus no conclusions can be made. However, it can be expected that Facebook does not have to face the standardization versus customization conflict that happens to occur in call centers, because the focus of service recovery on Facebook is more customer oriented (Gummerus et al., 2012).
Interaction concerns personally related issues like empathy in the conversation and
satisfaction. (Gans, Koole, &, Mandelbaum, 2003) This is a doubtable topic as well. Tax and Brown (2012) suggest that call centers have more empathy because it involves direct human interaction, whereas Bolton and Houlihan (2005) state that call centers are de-personalized due to the focus on efficiency rather than customer’s needs and wants. For the online environment, Van Noort and Willemsen (2012) see web care as communication with a human
23
voice in a non-persuasive way. Whereas communication with a corporate voice is perceived as profit-driven and persuasive, which fits more in the context of call centers. Brands or service providers who communicate through web care, mimic ‘one-to-one communication’ and ‘humanize’ the corporate voice. (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012) However, web care can be evaluated as non-personal as well, because no direct human contact is made.
In sum, different views can be made about the efficiency of call centers versus Facebook. However, much literature exists about the quality of Call centers but no research is done about the quality of Facebook in the field of customer support/service recovery. Therefore, general antecedents of service recovery quality and satisfaction will be discussed and tested in the Facebook environment. Literature will be used from the offline context, since little is written/studied about online service recovery quality of Facebook. Internet does not change the fundamental principles of marketing, and accordingly, the understanding that can be achieved from offline service failure/recovery research is highly relevant online (Holloway & Beatty, 2003).
2.2.5.6 Channel relationship
Clark (2013) discovered an interesting relationship between the two channels. It appears that a large number of complaints through social media come from bad experiences with the interactive channels. According to the study of Clark (2013) which showed that 62% of the complaints on Facebook and Twitter were referring to a negative/unresolved experience with the telephone customer service. The study suggest that remote channels (in this case social media) are mainly used to vent anger and frustration of the interactive channel and that customers therefore feel better by complaining on social media. Kowalski (1996) declares this relationship occurs because he states that seeking redress (the reason for consumers to complaint through interactive and remote channels, see figure 1) also involves some degree of self-focused attention, whereby events and behaviors are compared to the individual’s own standard. The dissatisfaction threshold is lowered when a bad experience with an interactive channel is achieved, and therefore the intention to resolve the discrepancy increased, which results in the customer transferring their dissatisfaction from an interactive channel to a remote channel of complaint. (Mattila & Wirtz, 2004; Clark, 2013) What can be concluded from this study is that the customer is already dissatisfied when he or she complaints on Facebook. This is an interesting view to keep in mind when measuring customer satisfaction of both channels, because customer’s expectations are a part of satisfaction, according to the
24
disconfirmation paradigm (which will be elaborated later) (Walker, 2001). It can be suggested that Facebook has a higher satisfaction rate because expectations were lower.
2.3 Service Recovery Quality
2.3.1 Description
To describe what service recovery quality is, it is helpful to get an understanding of service quality in general. Quality is defined as ‘zero-defects – doing it right the first time’ or as ‘conformance to requirement’ (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Crosby, 1979). However, service quality is more complex than the definition of quality (of products), because service quality can differ among all individuals, it is ‘what customers perceive’(Gronroos, 1988). Therefore, service quality in theory is similar to perceived service quality, and can be used in the same sentence. For the convenience, service quality will be used as designation in this study. Service quality is a measure of how well the service level delivered matches customer expectations. Delivering quality service means conforming to customer expectations on a consistent basis. (Parasuraman et al., 1985)
There are two paradigm’s regarding the creation of service quality; the disconfirmation paradigm and the experience paradigm. The experience paradigm states that expectations are irrelevant in evaluating service quality, and that the actual experience with the service is the only relevant antecedent in evaluating service quality (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). The disconfirmation paradigm is the most dominant view in the service literature. This paradigm states that service quality involves the difference between customer’s expectation and experience. (Parasuraman et al., 1985) Where expectations can be defined as predictions about what is likely to happen during a future exchange with a company. (Walker, 1995) Based on the theories found by Oliver and Winer (1987) and Woodruff et al. (1983), a ‘disconfirmation model’ can be drawn: negative disconfirmation when the outcome is lower than expected, positive disconfirmation when the outcome is higher than expected and confirmation when the outcome is just as expected. Usually, confirmation will lead to a neutral or indifferent state: the consumer is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This so called “zone of indifference” indicates that performance must fall outside of what is expected for satisfaction/dissatisfaction (related to service quality) to occur.
Thus, service quality can be distinguished in expected quality and experienced quality. Expected quality involves external communication like marketing communication, sales and image, word of mouth, public relations, individual needs and previous experiences
25
(Parasaruman et al., 1985; Gronroos, 1990). Experienced quality involves technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality regards the outcome of a service, whereas functional quality regards the process of the service. (Parasuraman et al., 1985)
Service quality is seen as an opportunity to distinguish yourself from the competition and is of utmost importance to customer satisfaction and therefore essential for long-term success (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Nispen, 2006). The quality of service (related to satisfaction) is one of the major determinants of the customer satisfaction (Kumbhar, 2011). The relationship between expectation, service quality and customers satisfaction have been investigated in a number of researches. They found that, there is a very strong relationship between quality of service and customer satisfaction (Parasuraman et al, 1985). The higher level of perceived service quality results in increased customer satisfaction. When perceived service quality is less than expected service quality the customer will be dissatisfied (Jain and Gupta, 2004).
Service recovery is a critical part of service quality. It is a process-related service criterion that can effect the functional quality of a service. (Gronroos, 2000) Effective service recovery can have a significant and positive effect on service quality and customer satisfaction (Brown et al., 1996). Zemke and Bell (1990) state that an organization’s true test of commitment to service quality is the way the company responds when things go wrong for the customer. This illustrates the importance of service recovery in relation to service quality. Service recovery quality can be defined as the service quality when a service failure has occurred (after purchase). (Zemke & Bell, 1990) Logically, service recovery quality is related to satisfaction as well. A good recovery can increase the satisfaction with services (Gronroos, 2000).
2.3.2 Determinants of service recovery quality
A conceptual model that describes how service quality is emerging is ‘the gaps model’ of Parasuraman et al. (1985). The model provides an overview of all factors, including extern (customer) and intern (company), that influence the total service quality. The model is illustrated in the figure below. Gap 5 represents the total service quality, which is created by gap 1 – 4. The gaps are discrepancies in the process of service delivery that create service quality. Gap 1 is the ‘consumer expectation – management perception gap’, whereby discrepancy occurs because the management has different perceptions than the consumer expectations about quality. Gap 2 is the ‘management perception – service quality
26
specification gap’, whereby discrepancy occurs because the management perception is inconsistent with the established service quality specifications. Gap 3 is the ‘service quality specifications – service delivery gap’, whereby discrepancy occurs because the specifications of service quality are not reached by the service delivery. Gap 4 is the ‘service delivery – external communications gap’, whereby discrepancy occurs because the external communication delivered through marketing is inconsistent with the service delivery. Gap 5 is the ‘expected service – perceived service gap’, which represents the service quality according to the disconfirmation paradigm, where it is the outcome of difference in expectations and experience of service delivery. (Parasuraman et al., 1985)
Figure 7. GAPS-model Parasuraman et al. (1985)
Building on the gaps model, Parasuraman et al. (1985) created an instrument called SERVQUAL, that measures service quality. Service quality is presented as a multidimensional construct, and Parasuraman et al. (1985) developed ten components of service quality, see figure 8.
27
Figure 8. Determinants of service quality
In 1988 these components were collapsed into five dimensions; reliability, assurance, empathy, responsiveness and tangibles. (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Buttle, 1996)
Dimensions SERVQUAL Definition
Reliability The ability to perform the promised service
dependably and accurately
Assurance The knowledge and courtesy of employees
and their ability to convey trust and confidence
Empathy The provision of caring, individualized
attention to customers
Responsiveness The willingness to help customers and to
provide prompt service
Tangibles The appearance of physical facilities,
equipment, personnel and communication materials
28
SERVQUAL measures what a customer considers important in evaluating service quality. Since service recovery is an essential aspect of service quality, it can be suggested that the dimensions measuring service quality could be relevant for measuring service recovery quality as well. However, there is a difference between service quality and service recovery quality that is not included in the gaps model and SERVQUAL. The gaps model and SERVQUAL are focused on preventing service failure, whereas service recovery is repairing the service failure. Thus, an important difference is that SERVQUAL involves the service quality at the first delivery (“doing it right the first time”) and service recovery involves service delivery after a failure occurred (“doing it right the second time”). Therefore, it is a requirement to search for other dimensions influencing service recovery quality.
Boshoff (1999;2005) established dimensions that are focused on service quality of service recovery. Service recovery quality is multidimensional as well. Boshoff (1999) did an exploratory study to find out what the potential attributes for service recovery satisfaction are, by using three service industries (banking, airlines, and health) as reference. The study concluded that thirteen attributes influenced the evaluation of service recovery, namely: time, atonement, apology, fair fix, empathy, accepted responsibility, kept promises/reliability, feedback, perceptions of commitment to service quality and customer satisfaction, empowerment, access/approachability, tangibles, staff attitude and explanation. Boshoff established a measurement scale of service recovery satisfaction called ‘RECOVSAT’. In 2005 Boshoff made a re-assessment and refinement of RECOVSAT, that eliminated some attributes and includes six dimensions shown in table 10.
Dimensions RECOVSAT Definition
Communication The extent to which the service firm’s
employees communicated clearly, asked questions to clarify the situation, were understanding, and were reliable and honest in their endeavours to solve the problem
Empowerment The extent to which the employee who first
received the complaint was able to solve the problem, and did not have to solicit the help of someone else to do so
29
Feedback Whether the service firm provided written
feedback about the progress made to solve the problem, and also whether they offered a written apology
Atonement Whether the service firm tendered an
apology for the financial loss incurred, made sure the customer was not “out of pocket”, and did so in a polite manner
Explanation Whether the service firm provided an
explanation of what went wrong, and how satisfactory the explanation was perceived to be
Tangibles Whether the service firm employees with
whom the customer dealt, were well-dressed, and worked in a tidy, professional, environment
Table 10. RECOVSAT dimensions, Boshoff (2005)
The RECOVSAT dimensions are established by a study in the financial sector, further generalizability into other sectors are not yet accomplished. However, it seems plausible that RECOVSAT is a good measure for service recovery satisfaction in all sectors. The dimensions do not specifically refer to the financial sector and are general in essence. The descriptions of the dimensions are all focused on a occurred service error and therefore seem sector independent. Furthermore, RECOVSAT is the most elaborated evaluation of service recovery so far. (Boshoff, 2005; Nispen, 2006)
Hart et al. (1990) established ‘the road to service recovery’ that describe the elements that companies need to have to build the capability of recovering from service problems. The first step of the road to service recovery is measuring the costs of effective service recovery. Errors have costs associated with them. It is important to inform the customer which costs they have to make for the recovery, try to cover all costs, and if that is impossible show the company’s regret. The second step is breaking customer silence and listen carefully to customers complaints and be active in problem finding by making it easy for customers to
30
complain. The third step is to anticipate needs for recovery. Companies can narrow the search for problems by monitoring certain areas of the organization and addressing them in their service-recovery strategies, this gives customers the opportunity to more specific and effective recovery. The fourth important step is to act fast. Companies should identify problems quickly and respond fast to customer’s complaints. The fifth and sixth steps are related to each other and are training and empower employees. It is important to give employees the authority, responsibility and incentives to be involved in the customer’s process of service recovery and fulfill the customer’s needs. The last step is to close the customer feedback loop, giving the customer feedback and telling them about the improvement. (Hart, Heskett, & Sasser, 1990)
The road to service recovery of Hart et al. is mainly included in RECOVSAT (Boshoff, 2005). Measuring costs of recovery is incorporated into the dimension ‘Atonement’; breaking the silence is related to the dimension ‘Communication’; training and empowering employees is incorporated in to the dimension ‘Empowerment’; closing the customer feedback loop is incorporated in to the dimension ‘Feedback’. ‘Act fast’ tends to be an important aspect of service recovery as well (Hart et al., 1990), and especially in the context of call centers time tends to effect service recovery quality and satisfaction (Burgers et al. 2000; Feinberg et al., 2000). This is in line with Gans et al. (2003) who mention that accessibility is one of the main predictors of call centers quality. This aspect is not incorporated into the RECOVSAT scale. However, it is related to the dimension ‘Responsiveness’ of SERVQUAL. Therefore, this dimension of SERVQUAL will be added above the RECOVSAT measurement.
Because many service encounters can be seen as social encounters as well, personalization and customization of the relationship with customers is important (Czepiel, 1990). For example referring to customers by name during transactions, providing continuity of service through the same representative or giving extra individual attention to the customer. The customer may stay with a certain service provider not because of superiority of performance, but because of the commitment he or she has developed to the service provider and its employees, that can be characterized by elements of emotionality. In the case of services, such an emotional commitment is based predominantly on the customer’s personal familiarity with and affinity to single service employees. Consequently, we presume that the employees’ handling of interactions with customers strongly influences the level of commitment a customer develops toward a service provider. (Hennig-Thurau, 2004; Czepiel,
31
1990; Parasuraman et al. 1985; Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012) This view is in line with the ‘interaction’ predictor for call centers quality mentioned by Gans et al. (2003). Furthermore, Burgers et al. (2000) and Bearden et al. (1998) also find that empathy is an important aspect in evaluating call centers quality. This aspect of personalization and customization is closely related to the SERVQUAL dimension ‘Empathy’. Since it seems important in evaluating services this dimension will be added to the measurement of service recovery quality in this study.
In sum, RECOVSAT dimensions Communication, Empowerment, Atonement, Explanation, Feedback, and SERVQUAL dimensions Empathy and Responsiveness will be used as measurements of service recovery quality. The dimension ‘Tangibles’ will be deleted from the scale, because it specifically related to face-to-face service encounters and thus is not relevant for this study.
2.4 Service Sector
2.4.1 Distinction of service types
Services can be distinguished in many different ways. In this study the distinction of Tettero and Viehoff (2000) will be applied.
The nature of the production process can be divided in three different types; human bondage, system/organization bondage, or machine bondage. Human bondage means the service is entirely provided by people (i.g. consultancy). System/organisation bondage means the service is provided by logistic or organizational systems, where the effort of people is an important additional element but not the main production (i.g. banking). Machine bondage meant the service is entirely provided by the effort of machines or other devices (i.g. transport).
The nature of the service itself can be divided in three types as well; knowledge and skills services, facility services, or outsourcing services. Knowledge and skills services are services where the provision of knowledge and skills is the core business (i.g. notary). Facility services includes a combination of human effort and machines and are services that exist when many customers are involved in order to assist them (i.g. telecommunication). Outsourcing services are services that customers can perform themselves, respectively interchangeable with other possibilities (i.e. hospitality industry).
From the customers point of view another distinction is made based on type of purchase. Three different purchase situations are established. The first one is extensive problem solving
32
(UPO; Uitgebreid Probleem Oplossen), second is limited problem solving (BPO; Beperkt Probleem Oplossen), and the last is routinely purchase behavior (RAG; Routinematig Aankoop Gedrag).
2.4.2 Delineation for study
The type of service that will be investigated in this study can be categorized in system/organization bondage and facility services. Service recovery is an support service, and support services are part of facility services because it is provided to help customers by human effort within organization systems. The management of facility services (facilities management) is described as a hybrid management discipline that combines people, property and process management expertise to provide vital services in support of the organization (Then, 1999). Pintelon et al. (2004) state that the management of facility services is responsible for organizing and coordinating all activities that are necessary to make the workplace as flexible, maintainable, and productive as possible. Facility services support the primary process and contribute to the objectives of the organization (Pintelon et al., 2004)
Facility services include many different types of support services, for example transportation, administration, cleaning and repair. (Herwege, 2005) In figure 11. other types of facility services are given (Then, 1999). Then (1999) states that the management of facility services is moving from tasks and functions towards resource management. ‘Support Services Management’ is mentioned in the category of resource management facility services, and is the type investigated in this study.
Figure 11. Changing focus in facility management (in: Then, 1999)
The nature of the service type investigated in this study is clear now, but within this field I have chosen four different type of organizations where the facility service of customer support/service recovery is analyzed. The customer support and service recovery these
33
organizations provide their customers is similar, but the core service of the organizations is different.
The service sectors of the organizations are airline services (KLM), telecommunication (Vodafone and KPN) and retail (Coolblue). If the distinction of services of Tettero and Viehoff (2000) will be applied on these separate organizations KLM would be machine bondage, knowledge and skills service, and UPO. Vodafone and KPN would be system/organization bondage, facility services, and RAG. Coolblue would be system/organization bondage, facility service, and BPO. These differences could be relevant to keep in mind when evaluating the service quality and customer satisfaction, since it might cause differences in service quality and customer satisfaction. However, this study is mainly focused on the quality of the customer support and service recovery (facility service) as a separate phenomenon. Therefore, the organizations are viewed as one type of service; system/organization bondage and facility services.
34
3. Methodology
The research in this thesis can be described as an exploratory study. Prior to the study there is little knowledge about the subject and little evidence of any theory. In addition, there are no clear hypotheses available. Exploratory research contributes to the development of theories and formulating hypotheses. The form of this research type can be characterized as an intermediate form of descriptive and evaluative research. (Baarda, & de Goede, 2002). Kothari (2011) describes exploratory research as a research to gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it.
This study contains two parts of research. For insight about Facebook service recovery quality exploratory research is done, because little is known about the subject so far. Companies are still exploring this new world, illustrated in an interview with the Social Media Hub Manager of KLM who compared using social media as “kids playing in the sandbox for the first time”( https://blog.klm.com/what-has-klm-learned-from-5-years-of-social-media-service/). Therefore I decided to specifically enter social media, Facebook in this case, to investigate what was going on. I saw that many customers use Facebook to contact a company for complaints and/or questions, and that companies respond to this. Because literature shows that call centers are often evaluated negatively, I was curious how this other channel (Facebook) was working and whether it is evaluated differently. To gain insight about this phenomenon I chose analyzing the messages and follow specific cases of customers, whom I also approached privately to ask questions regarding the service offered.
The focus of the study switched from a comparison between call centers and Facebook to an analysis of Facebook, with the comparison versus call centers as an afterthought.
To gain knowledge about the Facebook recovery quality and customer satisfaction on Facebook, four companies were analyzed. On the Facebook pages of the companies KPN, Vodafone, Coolblue, and KLM 140 messages/conversationsin total were analyzed, of which 35 for each company. These conversations contained complaints and questions of customers related to the service, with responses of the companies. The vast majority of customer messages contained complaints. Because service recovery includes the handling of complaints, I analyzed the messages according to the measurement scale of RECOVSAT. Thereby, literature indicates that empathy and responsiveness have an influence on customer satisfaction as well, since they measure service quality. Therefore, above the dimensions of
