HOW COMPANIES DEAL WITH CONSUMER GENERATED BRANDED CONTENT

(1)

HOW COMPANIES DEAL WITH CONSUMER

GENERATED BRANDED CONTENT

By

Naomi Veldwijk

Supervisor: dr. J. C. Hoekstra

Second supervisors: dr. J. van Doorn, B. Harms University of Groningen

(2)

1

Abstract

This qualitative study seeks to gain insights into how companies manage consumer generated branded content (CGBC). Consumer generated content can be labeled as any type of content (e.g. videos, pictures, blogs, vlogs, social media posts) created and put online by unpaid contributors. Practitioners are increasingly interested in this topic, since they CGBC affect companies easily. On the basis of seven expert interviews, this research explores the company’s response to CGBC in the form of answering the why, the what, the how, the when and the who of CGBC management. Secondly, the effects of the company’s response to CGBC and the

evaluation of these responses are discussed. The results of this research show that companies engage in CGBC management to protect their reputation, they use webcare, social media platforms and response strategies to respond to CGBC. How companies respond to CGBC is influenced by voice of response of the message and companies should value the response speed and the social media influence of the commenter in their response to CGBC. Furthermore,

employees are mainly responsible to respond to CGBC and the effects and evaluation of CGBC is an complex issue as webcare performance is often evaluated by marketing metrics. In this

research twelve propositions are presented to form an agenda for further research on CGBC.

(3)

2

1. Introduction

“On July 6 in 2009, musician Dave Carroll uploaded a video on YouTube. The video, a protest song, was directed to United Airlines. Carroll came to this action because he had a bad

experience during his trip with the airline. He checked in his valuable guitar on the flight to find out during layover that United Airlines employees were throwing guitars around resulting in his guitar being severely damaged! As he filed a claim he was confronted with unsupportive United employees that showed complete indifference to his problem and a protest song was born. In the past this conflict would have ended quietly, but in this new world where social media is

everywhere the video went viral, reached over 17.5 million viewers and resulted in a large amount of negative publicity and financial consequences for the company. Conclusion, the initial response of the company, one of denial and lack of compassion, triggered the dissatisfied

customer to share his feeling with the world and resulted in severe image damage to the company” (Carroll, 2009; Deighton & Kornfeld, 2010).

This phenomenon of customers creating and consuming valuable (i.e. positive content) and invaluable information (i.e. negative content) on social media addressed to companies like the video in the example above can be referred to as Consumer Generated Branded Content, further classified as “CGBC”. It can be labeled as any type of content (e.g. videos, pictures, blogs, vlogs, social media posts and comments) created and shared on social media by unpaid contributors (Gensler et al., 2013; Stoeckl, Rohrmeier & Hess, 2007). According to Deighton & Kornfeld (2009) and Hennig-Thurau et al. (2010) CGBC can be positive, negative or neutral and is used by customers to expound their brand experiences. Furthermore, CGBC has more impact on company performance than traditional media, because CGBC utilizes social networks, is digital, visible, omnipresent, available in real-time, and dynamic (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).

In line with these findings, Holt (2003) and O’Connor (2008) show that CGBC is gaining popularity and has the ability to shape what a large mass of other consumers think about brands and companies. Furthermore, it is easy to see the powerful effect of CGBC on company

(6)

5 The customer empowering effect of CGBC, results in brand managers losing their leading role as the only authors of their online brands’ stories (Campbell, Pitt, Parent & Berthon, 2011; Kuksov, Sachar & Wang, 2013). In other words, the value of a brand is no longer restricted to consumer’s direct purchases and consumptions of the brand. Instead, invaluable consumers (i.e. consumers with no or low purchase behavior) may become of substantial value to a brand, because they can chance other customers’ opinion about the company by influencing them via social media (Kumar et al., 2013).

In this new digital era consumers have great potential influence on social media and while CGBC cannot be controlled by companies, it can be managed (O’Connor, 2008; Looker,

Rockland & Taylor, 2007). Most companies that value their corporate reputation have set up webcare departments as a customer service tool to monitor and manage CGBC directed to their company (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011). Webcare can be defined as “interventions directed by the company to engage in online interactions with (complaining) consumers, by actively

searching the web to address consumer feedback (e.g., questions, concerns and complaints) and serves as a tool in support of customer relationship, reputation and brand management” (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011, p.133). This new approach, shows that companies seem to

increasingly value the interaction with customers on social media and make efforts to manage the CGBC addressed to their company (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).

Although the phenomenon of CGBC is relatively new, social media and the “Web 2.0” interactivity have created a new environment where CGBC can positively and negatively affect company’s performance, image and financial status (Gensler et al, 2013; Kuksov, Sachar & Wang, 2013; O’Connor, 2008; McCarthy,2009; Kumar et al., 2013). First, as a positive effect, Singh & Sonneberg (2012) argue that CGBC can help build awareness, comprehension, empathy, recognition, recall, and provide meaning to the brand and company. Secondly, managing CGBC can increase purchase behavior (O’Connor, 2008). On the other hand, negative effects such as decreased customer engagement, crisis and reputational damage can deteriorate the company’s image and reputation, because negative CGBC can have detrimental effects on all phases of the consumer decision making process (e.g. brand evaluation, brand choice, purchase behavior, brand loyalty and customer satisfaction) (Campbell, Pitt, Parent & Berthon, 2011; Van Noort &

(7)

6 and improve the company’s performance and need to pay attention to CGBC to ensure a brand’s success in the marketplace (Holt, 2003; O’Connor, 2008).

Overall, There is literature on why companies need to manage CGBC addressing damage control and corporate reputation ( Kuksov, Sachar & Wang, 2013; O’Connor, 2008;

McCarthy,2009; Kumar et al., 2013; Singh and Sonnenburg, 2012; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010), but studies on how companies respond, measure, assess and evaluate their company responses to CGBC remain unaddressed (Kietzman, Canhoto, 2013). And thus, The gap in literature

addressing this issue requests further exploration.

(8)

7

2. Literature review

In this section the research model is introduced, by exploring: the company’s response, the effects and the evaluation of the company’s response to CGBC. Prior literature on these elements are discussed and new insights are gained.

2.1 Research model

The following research model (see figure 1) is developed to reflect on the three elements: company responses, effects and evaluation and forms the core of this research. To gain more insights into how companies deal with CGBC directed to the company, these three elements are explored by offering a literature review and a practitioner’s view on the issue.

First, the company’s response to CGBC is divided into five components: why, what, how, when and who. The Why, explores the reason behind company’s gained interest in CGBC

management. The What, offers insights into what social media platforms, tools and strategies companies use to respond to CGBC on social media. How companies deal with CGBC on content level is explored by offering insights into the message content and format, the voice of response and the potential effects of humor, likes and shares in company responses. The When and Who seek to delineate when companies respond to CGBC (e.g. respond or ignore CGBC, speed of response and message importance) and Who is responsible to respond to the CGBC directed to the company (e.g. employee or management).

The second element “effects”, aims to provide more insights into the metrics companies use to measure the effects of their responses to CGBC on social media and the assessment of these metrics. The last element “evaluation” explores the literature on the evaluation of the company’s response to CBGC (e.g. company learnings and feedback loop). Overall the goal of this research is to offer new insights into the effects of the company’s responses to CGBC. With these new insights webcare departments can improve their customer interactions and new impasses that need further research are uncovered.

(9)

8 Figure 1. Conceptual research framework on how companies deal with CGBC.

2.2 Company responses

To gain insights into the first element of the former discussed research framework, the why, what, how, when and who of the company’s response to CGBC is discussed.

2.2.1 Why: CGBC management in companies

CGBC management provides many new opportunities for companies, since nowadays both consumers as non-consumers have the opportunity to voice their questions, complaints and other online content to a broader public (Noort & Willemsen, 2011; Berry et al., 2010; Bolton & Saxena-Iyer, 2009; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh & Gremler, 2010). First, Fournier and Avery (2011) as well as Shanker and Malthouse (2007) suggest that these online developments result in companies managing CGBC by monitoring the social media environment for CGBC and by interfering in online conversations on social media that address the company.

Secondly, these interventions directed by the company, also called webcare, can be used by the company to increase and protect customer care, brand management, reputation

(10)

9 According to Van Noort & Willemsen (2011) companies use webcare to manage CGBC to

restore or improve brand evaluations of complaining customers and/or of those who have been exposed to the negative CGBC of complaining customers. With the rapid development of electronic technology and the internet, research on which social media platform a company’s webcare should focus and operate is no longer an underexposed topic in literature, because companies want to operate on social media platforms with the most reach and popularity to increase customer satisfaction (Dijkmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2015).

Third, companies management of CGBC is necessary, since unresponsive public communication ( ignoring CGBC or not creating corporate social media accounts), vague or crooked company responses could result in public outrage and lots of negative CGBC directed to the company on social media (Champoux et al., 2012). Champoux et al. (2012) also state that next to the general public (i.e. people engaging in CGBC), companies have to monitor their competition since other companies might try to inflict public anger to gain competitive advantage. As a strategy to prevent public negative comments directed to the company, some companies consider not setting up public company pages on social media, but this example of an unresponsive public communication would thus result in fewer potential clients, decreased economies of scope, decreased impact of promotions, less consumer engagement and less sales (Champoux et al., 2012). According to Taylor (2011) and Champoux et al. (2012) companies manage their CGBC on social media to stay profitable and to keep ahead of competition.

Fortunately, not all comments posted online by customers contain negative content or result in negative consequences for companies. CGBC on social media also has positive features because it allows companies to collect data about their followers, gather new insights and

encourage loyalty increasing conversations online (Champoux et al., 2012). And therefore, most focus in literature is on negative CGBC instead of positive CGBC since negative CGBC has a stronger impact on companies (e.g. “going viral”) (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006).

(11)

10 fortunately not all CGBC negatively affects companies. Still, even though positive CGBC allows companies to gain insights into their followers and increase loyalty, negative CGBC has a

stronger impact on companies and therefore, weights more heavily in a company’s decision to manage CGBC the way they do.

2.2.2 What: platforms, tools and strategies to manage CGBC

Prior literature suggests, that in order to manage CGBC companies need platforms to interact with their customers (Kim & Hastak, 2018; Dijkmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2015), webcare as the tool to monitor the online environment (Lee & Song, 2010; Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011) and strategies to respond to CGBC directed to the company (Coombs, 2006; Coombs, 2007; Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Kerkhof, Beukeboom & Utz, 2010).

2.2.2.1 Social media platforms to interact with customers

According to Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre (2011) social media platforms are highly interactive online channels via which communities and individuals discuss, (co-)create, modify and share CGBC and thus, constitute the online environments were companies can

interact with their customers. Recent research by Kim & Hastak (2018) suggests companies should be active on Facebook and Twitter, because these platforms have the widest reach and most active members (respectively 1,6 billion and 320 million monthly active users in 2016) and thus, companies can most easily monitor for CGBC and interact with customers on those

platforms. According to Kim & Hastak (2018) instead of Twitter and Facebook being equally important, companies main focus should be on Facebook, because of its broader range of

generation and broader representation of the whole population (Kim & Hastak, 2018; Dijkmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2015). Thus, by operating on respectively Facebook and Twitter, companies can best interact with customers that create CGBC directed to the company (Smith, Fischer & Yongjian, 2012).

(12)

11

2.2.2.1 Webcare to monitor CGBC

The main requirement of a company’s communication on social media is the monitoring of the online platforms where their brand or company is discussed (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011). It could therefore be stated that companies should know what is said about them on social media and on what platform the discussion is in progress to support customer relationship, reputation, brand management and to restore or improve the mindset of complaining customers (or others exposed to negative CGBC directed to the company) by responding appropriate to it (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011). Kuksov et al. (2013) and Lee & Chong (2010) add to this by suggesting that social media increases consumer empowerment and companies should manage this empowerment by actively engaging on social media platforms.

To deal with the consumer empowering character of these platforms, companies need webcare as the integrative tool to monitor and manage CGBC (Kuksov et al., 2013; Lee & Song, 2010). According to Kerkhof, Beukeboom & Utz (2010) there are two different types of webcare used by companies to increase the effectiveness of their brand communications: reactive webcare and proactive webcare. First, reactive webcare monitors the internet to respond to consumers’ complaints or react to their specific requests (Kerkhof, et al., 2010). Secondly, proactive webcare monitors the internet to respond to CGBC, without a request from the complainant to respond. Thus, proactive webcare responds to online comments directly or indirectly addressing the company without any request (i.e. supermarket chain Albert Heijn notices a conversation on Twitter of two people expressing their love for the new private label chocolate and @AlbertHeijn webcare intervenes by replying “enjoy!” on the comments).

Literature on both forms of webcare suggests that both proactive and reactive webcare strategies can be effective and both forms of contact with customers can be important to reach marketing objectives and to explain the relationship between the company and the customer on service level (Malthouse, 2007; Köhler, Rohm, de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2011). Van Noort & Willemsen (2011) built on these theories by suggesting that using a reactive and proactive

webcare approach to deal with negative CGBC will produce more positive brand evaluations and this effect is mediated by the voice of the response (conversational human voice).

(13)

12 & Avery, 2011). The difference between a CGBC focus and a company generated content focus is that the latter consists of strategically posted content on social media by companies to stimulate CGBC and thus to actively induce consumers to contribute through different types of campaigns (i.e. contests, vlogs or reviews) (Burmann, 2010). Therefore in their study, Fournier & Avery (2011) argue that proactive webcare should only be used in response to online content posted by the company itself, because proactive company interference in CGBC can be considered by the consumer as inappropriate, intrusive, out of place and result in negative CGBC (Chiou & Cheng, 2003; Deighton & Kornfeld, 2009). In line with these findings, Huibers & Verhoeven (2014) argue that proactive webcare actions are recommended in company generated branded content and discouraged in consumer generated branded content (CGBC). In other words, according to Fournier & Avery (2011) and Huibers & Verhoeven (2014) company interference in online consumer conversations is only recommended when the consumer specifically requests it (i.e. proactive webcare approach). These different views on proactive and reactive webcare do not provide a conclusive answer on which approach is most effective, but Van Noort and Verhoeven (2011) take a clear position by suggesting that taking on a reactive webcare approach is most effective, because after posting an online comment consumers exposed to reactive webcare responses evaluated brands more positively, resulting in more positive CGBC.

Unfortunately, using a reactive or proactive webcare approach to manage CGBC is not a turnkey solution for success (Lee & Song, 2010), because a company’s webcare behavior can backfire and have a negative effect as shown in this example of a webcare failure of the Dutch SanomaMedia on Twitter that went viral and resulted in large amounts of negative CGBC directed to the company (Ouwerling, 2014):

“Customer to @SanomaMedia: I have been emailing and calling you but I still haven’t got any response! @SanomaMedia to customer: So you could not reach us by phone and email, you said. Customer to @SanomaMedia: You have to read more carefully, “I DID call your company”. @SanomaMedia to customer: What do you want!? Playing the schoolteacher here or receive help”.

(14)

13

2.2.2.1 Strategies to manage CGBC

Next to deciding on which platform the company has to engage with online commenters and on which webcare approach the company should focus, companies use different strategies to protect the company from negative CGBC resulting in crisis, bad reputation and financial damage (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Lee & Chong, 2010; Coombs, 2006; Coombs, 2007).

First, to protect the corporate reputation companies should be aware of the importance of responding in a private or public manner on the company’s platform of preference (Van Dijk, 2013). Van Dijk (2013) argue that companies webcare departments should deal with negative CGBC (e.g. complaints) in a private environment (e.g. direct messages (DM) via Twitter or personal messages via Facebook Messenger) and positive CGBC (e.g. compliments directed to the company) in the public environment as a form of reputational management or damage control strategy. Lange (2007) contradicts these findings, by arguing that companies need to show

recognizable social media presence and therefore should be visible in both positive and negative content to decrease the likelihood that consumers assume negative conversations only happen behind closed doors. This argument implies that companies do not need to handle all negative comments in a private environment, because a natural balance of visible company responses on social media to both negative and positive CGBC could be most effective in protecting company reputation. Lange (2007) also suggests that public responses transmitted via webcare can amplify praise, correct company errors, address customer service errors and point out other issues to management or employees and therefore are a valuable source of information for companies.

Secondly, according to Huibers & Verhoeven (2014) there are seven webcare strategies used by companies to protect their reputation: information, apologize, sympathy, denial,

(15)

14 In their content analysis on Twitter responses, Huibers & Verhoeven (2014) found that companies use these seven webcare strategies to accommodate: companies individual needs (e.g. denial or justification), stakeholders individual needs (e.g. information, sympathy and

compensation) or collective stakeholder needs (e.g. apologies or other corrective actions). In turn, companies mainly focus on their stakeholders needs instead of defending the company’s

individual needs in their efforts to protect company reputation. To conclude, they found that most companies prefer the use of information, sympathy and corrective actions strategies over the compensation, apology, denial and justification strategies (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014).

These results conflict with prior findings of Coombs (2007), that suggests the most effective strategies are compensation and apology. This strategy is found most effective by Coombs (2007), because both apology and compensation could generate new company improving reputational assets. Other literature that conflict Huibers and Verhoeven (2014) findings, argue that the denial strategy is the second most popular strategy used by companies. (Kim, Avery & Lariscy, 2009; Kerkhof et al., 2010).

To conclude, the outcomes of the discussed literature on what platforms, tools and

(16)

15 Table 1. Webcare strategies based on Coombs (2007) and Huibers & Verhoeven (2014)

Webare strategies Description

Denial Denial of the problem. Used to remove any connection between the crisis and the company, to show the company is not involved in the crisis. This way companies hope to suffer no damage from the crisis and stay out of trouble.

Justification Justifying the problem to make it seem not as bad. Used to put the crisis into perspective and to create an environment where the company makes excuses by turning into the role of a victim instead of the cause.

Information Procure objective information. Used to respond to complainants to provide extra information, find the cause of the problem and solve the issue.

Sympathy Seduce the public into feelings of sympathy. Used to convince stakeholders of the company’s good intentions.

Compensation Compensating stakeholders. Used to create material or symbolic forms of help to accommodate complainants (e.g. gifts, money, product replacements).

Apologies Apologizing to stakeholders. Used to show the complainants full responsibility for the crisis.

(17)

16

2.2.3 How: conveying the company response

How companies respond to CGBC is an important element of CGBC management, because the degree of customer satisfaction with the company response increases positive referrals, influences repurchase intentions and customer engagement (Kietzmann & Canhoto, 2013; Gelbrich & Roschk, 2011). Still, prior literature on appropriate company responses to customer CGBC, offers little guidance on the issue and leaves companies unclear about how to proceed (Van Laer & de Ruyter, 2010; Kietzmann & Canhoto, 2013; Pantano & Corvello, 2013). Literature on how companies should respond to CGBC suggest six variables for further

exploration: message content, message format (Van Laer & de Ruyter, 2010), message voice of response (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011; Koot, 2013; Kerkhof et al., 2011) and use of humor, liking and sharing (Malhotra et al., 2013; Dekay; 2012).

2.2.3.1 Message content and format

According to Van Laer and de Ruyter (2010), there is evidence that “what” (with which content) and “how” (in which format) a company responds to CGBC, contributes to an effective restoration of integrity and a reduction of consumers’ negative feelings or behavior to prevent consumers’ intention to disengage from the company and switch. Suggesting that companies can develop responses that consist of certain content and specific formats that reduces negative CGBC and keep their consumers engaged with their company. Van Laer & de Ruyter (2010) argue that the content of a company response on a customer complaint can be divided into apologies and denials. In contrast, the format of a company response can be analytical (i.e. fact based information) or narrative (i.e. personalized story) (Van Laer & de Ruyter, 2010).

(18)

17

2.2.3.2 Voice of response

Literature on the company’s response to CGBC, claims that the voice of response is one of the most important prognosticators of the effectiveness of webcare (Van Noort & Willems, 2011; Koot, 2013). The voice of response of a webcare is defined by Kelleher (2009, p.177) as “an engaging and natural style of organizational communication as perceived by an organization's publics based on interactions between individuals in the organization and individuals in publics”. The companies voice of response to CGBC is thus the corporate identity of all company’s

responses to online content and should be taken seriously by webcare management (Van Noort & Willems, 2011; Koot, 2013). In other words, the company’s voice of response shows how the company interacts with their public and influences customer satisfaction and how the public evaluates the brand.

According to Van Noort & Willems (2011) The company’s voice of response can be labeled as the conversational human voice of a webcare response. This voice of response, shows the company’s writing style and all content used to form a response (e.g. the use of emoticons, capitalizations, exclamation marks, repeated punctuation, slang, abbreviations, GIF’s, pictures, video’s, notifications and hashtags). By actively engaging in CGBC, online companies can improve their voice of response (Searls & Weinberger, 2001; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Kelleher, 2009). More recent literature of Van Noort and Willemsen (2011) proposes that the voice of response in webcare responses is a core value in the development of effective online

communication strategies (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011). Unfortunately, insights into the most effective content of a company’s voice of control to interact with customers remains unaddressed in literature.

(19)

18 personalized webcare messages improve public’s attitudes towards products, the company, and purchase intentions resulting in increased credibility of the interacting company. Van Laer & de Ruyter (2010) earlier discussed findings on analytical content, conflict these results by implying that in case of complaints, the company could also respond by an enumeration of facts (e.g. in public transport where customers might need information about arrival and departure times).

More insights into the specific content of the companies voice of response, suggest that these webcare messages should be personalized by being written in the first person (e.g. @Jacqueline: I am glad you told me this, Jaqueline. I’m going to check it for you right now! Instead of @Jacqueline: “The company” is glad.. we are..) (Kerkhof et al., 2011). Other findings of Kwon and Sung (2011), suggest that both verbal cues (words) and non-verbal elements in messages can humanize messages and help companies overcome informal and thus ineffective company responses to CGBC by showing the consumer their emotions and understanding. The use of capitalizations (e.g. ‘YOU ARE THE BEST’), emoticons (e.g. ’’), repeated punctuation (e.g. ‘Always!!!!!’ or ‘Seriously?????’), intentional misspellings or slang (e.g. ‘whaaaaaaaaat’ or ‘Wazzup gurl’) and abbreviations (e.g. TGIF for ‘thank god it’s Friday or YOLO for ‘you only live once’) can achieve this effective communication style via webcare to engage the consumer (Koot, 2013; Kwon & Sung, 2011). Coughlan (2011) contradicts this finding by arguing that misspellings and linguistic errors decrease a company’s credibility. Lastly, Malhotra, Malhotra & See (2013) suggest that the length of a response is also important to increase consumer engagement. They suggest that message brevity is the best strategy and advise companies to convey their webcare messages in the briefest possible way.

2.2.3.3 Humor, liking and sharing

(20)

19 unfavorable outcomes in terms of enjoyment, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Van Dolen et al. (2008) indicate that humor could positively affect customer purchase behavior and decrease negative CGBC. Dekay (2012) confirms this by suggesting that companies can avoid high volumes of negative CGBC by mixing humor that lacks marketing focus (i.e. no attempts to persuade the consumer into buying) into their responses (e.g. large companies as Target and Nike already make use of humor to increase customer engagement). Furthermore, including jokes into company responses will humanize the companies voice of response and this personalizing effect of humor is found to be important in creating favorable company responses on CGBC in the mind of the public and thus could increase customer satisfaction (Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011; Koot, 2013;).

Secondly, Malhotra et al. (2013) suggest that ‘liking’ (e.g. liking posts on Facebook or clicking the heart on Instagram) and ‘sharing’ (e.g. sharing a post on Facebook or retweeting a Twitter message) can drive consumer engagement and brand awareness resulting in increased customer satisfaction and purchase behavior. Therefore, companies should like and share certain CGBC and try to increase the amount of likes and shares of their own responses. Malhotra et al. (2013) found that companies could increase customer engagement by including pictures, being topical (e.g. referring to upcoming events or holidays), humanizing the brand (e.g. express human emotions) and promoting the brand (e.g. recommend other products or services) to increase likes on their responses to CGBC. In turn, Malhotra et al. (2013) found that to increase the amount of shares, companies should include videos in their message to the customer. Although, these findings imply that companies should try to increase the amount of likes and shares on their responses as well as engaging in liking and sharing behavior themselves, more specific insights into the exact content of an effective company’s response to increase customer satisfaction needs further exploration.

(21)

20

2.2.4 When: responding CGBC on social media

Central in this section are the components: response or no response, speed of response and message importance to gain insights into when companies deal with online comments. There is both anecdotal and empirical evidence that webcare induces positive responses in consumers after interaction (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011) but limited literature on when companies should or should not react to CGBC or how fast they should respond to comments posted on social media to be most effective.

2.2.4.1 Whether companies respond or not

Kerkhof et al. (2011) suggests that companies dealing with negative CGBC are able to use multiple communicative responses to repair the company’s image and reputation. Companies can remain silent (not responding at all) hoping that the crisis will disappear by itself or offer

apologies (e.g. by admitting responsibility). Kerkhof et al. (2011) and Hearit (1994) suggest that silence in the eyes of the public is similar to the admission of guilt and denial of responsibility increases the importance of the crisis. In other words, no company response on negative CGBC makes the company look guilty of the accusation and denial of responsibilities will result in more negative comments. In line with the findings in this study, Lee and Song (2010) found that it is important for companies to respond to all CGBC directed to the company. In their study,

participants were exposed to negative comments (complaints) that were followed or not followed by a repairing response (i.e. accommodate the complainant). These

complaint-repairing responses had a more positive effect on company evaluation and performance than comments that received no response at all (van Noort & Willemsen, 2011; Lee & Song, 2010).

(22)

21 According to the authors, experience is measured in terms of a company’s presence in months on social media and the number of followers, because the more time companies spend on social media managing CGBC and the larger the amount of followers, the higher the company’s experience in interacting with the customer. As companies grow and get more experienced on social media, their approach to CGBC is likely to change, since experience influences different activities as problem solving, information processing and forming opinions (Pantano & Corvello, 2013; Yoon, 2011). In other words, gained experience on managing CGBC could determine whether companies respond to CGBC or not.

2.2.4.2 Speed of response

Other literature focusing on when companies should respond to CGBC, suggest that response speed is one of the key dimensions of successful service recovery (i.e. effective complaint handling) and therefore, companies should respond as quick as possible to online comments directed to the company (Mattila & Mount, 2003) . The longer companies wait to compose their response strategy, the longer the list of negative comments on the social media platform will be (Champoux et al., 2012). Hong and Lee (2005) also suggest that companies respond timely, because timely company responses can resolve issues with complainants and put a stop to unneeded follow-up attacks from other commenters. In line with these findings, Van Noort & Willemsen (2011) suggest that quick company responses can increase positive CGBC customer loyalty, satisfaction, retention and improve company reputation.

(23)

22

2.2.4.3 Message importance

Next, to acting quick on comments companies should pay extra attention to CGBC derived from commenters with many followers, also labeled as ‘influencers’ (Bakshy, Hofman, Mason & Watts, 2011). Influencers are users of social media platforms that exhibit a combination of desirable attributes (e.g. credibility, expertise, enthusiasm, beauty, connectivity or centrality) that have the ability to influence a large number of others on social media (Gladwell, 2006; Bakshy et al., 2011). According to Gillin (2008) influencers can be evaluated on their influence in social media platforms by participation level, frequency of activity and prominence in the market or on the platform. Booth and Matic (2011) state that there is an immense growth of influencers on social media (e.g. vloggers, bloggers) that have great power over media and consumers. In other words, the wrong company response on comments of an influencer could have immense effect on the company regarding company reputation and image.

(24)

23 companies should pay extra attention to CGBC created by influencers, because their online

power can affect company reputation and image. Therefore, companies should distinguish between different levels of message importance and monitor social media for CGBC created by influencers.

2.2.5 Who: employee and management responsibilities

In determining who is responsible for handling CGBC, the company’s management and employees are essential. Findings in customer service literature show that service managers should empower their employees to induce customer satisfaction when handling customer complaints and questions (Hartline & Ferrel, 1996). This empowerment, also labeled as “a situation in which the manager gives the employees the discretion to make day-to-day decisions about job-related activities” (Hartline & Ferrel, 1996, p.56) is necessary in customer service, because service employees need the freedom to be flexible to make on-the-spot decisions while assisting customers (Hartline & Ferrel, 1996). Therefore, customer service managers should empower their employees and relinquish the responsibility to handle CGBC to their customer service employees in the webcare departments to increase customer satisfaction and improve company performance.

More recent literature on the management of online CGBC via webcare, suggest that webcare is performed best by one or more company representatives (i.e. webcare teams) (Van Noort et al., 2015). According to Gensler et al. (2013) it is better for employees involved in service management to respond to CGBC online than a spokesperson of the firm. This finding could be linked to the earlier discussed literature on the suggestion that people prefer responses that are personal and humane over formal company responses (Kerkhof, 2011; Kelleher & Miller, 2006). On the contrary, Grégoire et al. (2015) suggest that responding to negative CGBC (e.g. complaints and negative virals) should be handled by high-level management, since the company needs to address the public that they fixed the problem otherwise the public will assume the company did not. Assuming that employees in webcare teams should not respond to negative comments themselves and should therefore transfer this type of comments to their manager to respond on.

Overall, literature shows that both service employees and management could be

(25)

24 freedom to handle CGBC and as a result, improve company performance. In line with this

approach is the finding that a webcare employee instead of a company spokesperson should respond to all types of CGBC, because customers prefer personal online conversations over formal ones. Conflicting with these findings is the suggestion that negative CGBC should be separately managed by the company’s management instead of webcare employees. Further exploration of these contradicting findings are justified to gain more insights into who is responsible to respond to CGBC directed to the company.

2.3 Effects of company responses to CGBC

There is limited literature on the effects of the company’s response to CGBC on company performance (e.g. profits or customer engagement). To gain more insights into these effects, an exploration of company metrics, measurement assessment and the frequency of the assessment is conducted.

2.3.1 Metrics

In their study on increasing a company’s financial performance through effective social media marketing, Kumar & Mirchandani (2012) found how companies could successfully increase their return on investment (ROI) of their social media marketing campaigns, as the authors found a new way to measure the effects of social media on a financial level. Although their research mostly focused on company generated branded content instead of CGBC, the metrics they developed may be as well relevant as CGBC metrics.

Kumar & Mirchandani (2012) developed three new metrics: Customer Influence Effect, Stickiness Index and Customer Influence Index. First, the Customer Influence Effect (CIE) could be used to represent “the relative influence of an individual on another user or set of users” (Kumar & Mirchandani ,2012, p.59). Second, The Stickiness Index (SI) could be used by

(26)

25 2013; Pansari & Kumar, 2017), to measure the financial success or failure of social media

management and webcare (Kumar & Mirchandani, 2012). According to Kumar & Mirchandani (2012) the CIV is an important metric in CGBC management, because it measures the impact that (potential) consumers have on the company’s profits and revenue based on what they feel and communicate to others about the brand instead of basing the impact on traditional metrics (i.e. offline metrics based on purchase behavior). In other words, CIV measures the effects of CGBC on company performance without including company generated content (e.g. CIE and Stickiness Index) (Kumar & Mirchandani, 2012). Nowadays, this metric is often more valuable than offline metrics based on purchase behavior, as influencers on social media bring in new prospects for the company.

Other literature on social media measurement suggests that companies should use four key performance indicators (KPI’s) to analyze the company’s performance: insights, exposure, reach and engagement (Neiger et al., 2012). First, insights refer to consumer feedback from social media platforms that could be derived from sentiment analysis (e.g. filtering all CGBC for

negative, positive and neutral comments). Metrics to measure these insights are the number of suggestions or recommendation and types of suggestions or recommendations on social media posts (Neiger et al., 2012).Therefore, insights could be measured by counting the total amount of customer comments on online company responses and separating all comments into neutral, negative or positive CGBC. This way the company can get insights into what type of responses attract most CGBC and what type of CGBC is most posted by the public.

Secondly, reach measures the number of people responding to the social media platform and related posts (Neiger et al., 2012). For instance, when the company responds to the CGBC of a social media influencer the reach might be much higher than a company response to a

complainant with 100 followers. According to Neiger et al. (2012) metrics to measure reach on social media are amount of fans, likes, followers, unfollowers and demographics (e.g. age, sex, education level, income level). Third, exposure measures the number of times specific content on social media platforms is viewed by measuring the number of visits, comments, reviews, views and asset popularity (e.g. what content is most often viewed).

(27)

26 social media users will only engage in reading, liking or disliking posts and comments and will not take further actions. Furthermore, companies can measure high engagement by analyzing people that create CGBC, share CGBC and influence other social media users with that content. According to Neiger et al. (2012) high engaged people on social media will offer insights into how many people are influenced by CGBC and how much people are influenced by other individuals or personal online networks (e.g. customers personal social media accounts) also labeled as the earlier discussed Klout score.

Overall, both Kumar & Mirchandani (2012) and Neiger et al. (2012) findings on metrics to analyze companies social media performance focus mostly on company generated content instead of CGBC, but some metrics like CIV and Neiger et al. (2012) metrics could be applicable to specifically measure CGBC management instead of Company generated content. In other words, more insights into specific metrics to measure the effects of company responses to CGBC on company performance are needed.

2.3.2 Measurement assessment and assessment frequency

There is limited previous literature on how companies assess the metrics used to analyze the effects of CGBC management on company performance. Also, insights into how often companies analyze the effects of CGBC management on company performance (i.e. assessment frequency) remains unaddressed, but prior literature does show an increasing interest in ways to measure and assess the company’s online performance (Kumar & Mirchandani, 2012; Aichnes & Jacob, 2015).

According to Neiger et al. (2012) companies should make use of the associated analytic tools of social media platforms (i.e. Facebook analytics) or invest in third-party software

programs to assess metrics that address social media management. This statement clearly reveals the gap in literature, as it offers no clear solutions and therefore needs further exploration.

(28)

27 programs that focus on the assessment of their measurements on CGBC or social media

management (Neiger et al., 2012). This might be the case, because companies are still trying to figure out what metrics can be best used to measure and assess the effects of their response to CGBC on company performance (Kumar & Mirchandani, 2012; Aichnes & Jacob, 2015; Neiger et al., 2012).

2.4 Evaluation of company responses to CGBC

According to Neiger et al. (2012) despite the expanding use of social media, little has been published about the evaluation of company’s social media management (e.g. the evaluation of how companies respond to CGBC). Literature on the company’s control measures and

feedback loop to evaluate the company’s response to CGBC are explored to offer further insights.

2.4.1 Control measures and feedback loop

Hoffman & Fodor (2010) assume that managers interest in the financial evaluation of the company’s investments in social media (i.e. quantifying the ROI of social media investments) has always been present, but most marketers are dealing with the issue in the wrong way. According to Hoffman & Fodor (2010) companies evaluate their measurements by emphasizing on the quantified returns of their social media investments (e.g. ROI), but companies should rather focus on a different approach of measuring the company’s performance on social media by considering customers’ motivations to engage with the company (e.g. by creating CGBC). This way not only the short term company goals (e.g. increasing sales in the next month) but also the long term effects (returns of investment in social media) will be evaluated (Hoffman & Fodor, 2010). As guidelines, Hoffman & Fodor (2010) argue that companies should set objectives and select

corresponding metrics (e.g. customer satisfaction, brand awareness, customer engagement) before they can evaluate these goals.

(29)

28 According to Markey, Reichheld & Dullweber (2009) after these proposed steps to

prepare the way for an effective evaluation of the company’s response to CGBC, companies should use the Net Promotor Score (NPS). The NPS categorizes customers into promoters, passives and detractors to help companies to get quick insights into the customer service experience (e.g. was the service interaction a failure or a success) by assessing to what extent a respondent would recommend a certain brand, product or service to family and friends (e.g. using a 10-point rating scale from “not likely” to “extremely likely”). And thus, to evaluate the

effectiveness of the company’s response to CGBC over time (Markey, Reichheld & Dullweber, 2009; Van Dessel, 2011).

Interestingly, even though NPS is not addressed in literature as an effective metric to assess social media behavior, as it lacks multidimensionality (e.g. it is used in offline customer service departments like call centers) it is still an often used metric for companies to evaluate their service performance (Zaki, Kandeil, Neely & McColl-Kennedy, 2016; Markey, Reichheld & Dullweber, 2009). This evaluation metric could therefore be generally applicable and used in CGBC management to evaluate the consumers’ service experiences in webcare.

Table 2. Summary of the main literature findings on company responses, the effects and evaluation

Research elements Literature findings

1.Company responses

Why Company’s manage CGBC to increase impact of online content on company performance and thus, to protect the company from reputational damage What Respectively Facebook and Twitter are main social media platforms in CGBC

management. Decision is influenced by popularity.

The reactive webcare approach is valued over proactive webcare approach Apologies and compensation improve the company reputation

How Negative CGBC can be decreased by using specific content of formats The voice of response should be personal and informal

(30)

29 Ignoring increases negative CGBC and results in reputational damage

Who Employees respond to CGBC to solve customer’s individual problems. Management responds to CGBC to solve public problems with an official statement.

2. Effects CGBC measurement are unaddressed in literature, therefore marketing metrics (ROI, SE, CIV, CIE) are used to gain insights.

3. Evaluation Companies evaluate their webcare performance by emphasizing on company generated content instead of CGBC

To conclude, the main literature findings on how companies deal with CGBC are

(31)

30

3. Methodology

In this research a qualitative research approach is adopted to offer a complete and detailed description of how companies deal with CGBC, by exploring the company’s response to CGBC and the effects and evaluation of the company’s response to CGBC. More specific, a realism paradigm is adopted as this approach suits research about the external reality of a marketplace better than other paradigms (e.g. the positivism paradigm) (Sobh & Perry, 2006). The realism approach is the most suitable research method in this study, because this study aims to gather the perceptions of multiple participants on a how companies deal with CGBC by developing multiple answers that cover the issue (Sobh & Perry, 2006). The approach consists of two stages. The first, stage builds on a conceptual framework and the second stage confirms or disconfirm the

framework (Sobh & Perry, 2006). Therefore, this study uses in-depth expert interviews to get more insights into the elements included in the conceptual framework (See Figure 1).

To conclude, the practitioner’s insights are compared with the findings in prior literature to define directions for further research.

3.1 Participants

In conformity with the realism approach, multiple participants were selected to offer their opinion on the studied phenomenon. Seven participants were willing to contribute to this research and therefore selected1. These senior practitioners were selected on three criteria. First the

company they worked for had to be a large player in the market (e.g. well-known company with many followers on social media), second the company had to be an active webcare practitioner (e.g. responding regularly to CGBC on social media) and third, the senior practitioner had to be a professional in consumer services, marketing, social media and/or webcare. Therefore, the potential practitioners’ LinkedIn profile were checked and the amount of followers on their corporate Twitter and Facebook account were evaluated.

To persuade these experts to participate in this research, informing emails with attractive subjects were sent to the selected practitioners (e.g. “Do not delete this email, Claim your Tony Chocolonely”). Eventually, seven practitioners were selected who worked for multiple market

(32)

31 sectors to generate a broad scope of insights (see Table 2). Two companies were specialized in Public Transport (on a regional and a national level) and the rest consisted of telecommunication, supermarket chain, mobility services, online retail & distribution experts.

Table 2. Overview of participants

Participant (P) Position Sector Scope

1 Sr. Communication Advisor Regional Public Transport Netherlands

2 Marketing Manager Regional Public Transport Netherlands

3 Manager Digital-LiveChat Telecommunication Netherlands

4 Social Media Manager Supermarket Chain Netherlands

5 Social Media Manager Mobility Services NL & Belgium

6 Social Media Manager Online retailer & Distributor NL & Belgium

7 Webcare Senior National Public Transport Netherlands

3.2 Interview Process

After the first brief contact with the participants had taken place, each participant received a second email about the general purpose of the interview. The date for the interview was set and the face-to-face in-depth expert interviews were conducted to gain more insights into the topic. All interviews took place at the participants’ workplace, to accommodate the practitioners.

The actual semi-structured interview consisted of an introduction of the interviewer and research topic and questions on the why, how, what, when and who of company responses to CGBC, questions about the effects of the company’s responses to CGBC and questions about the evaluation of these company responses (See Appendix I). The interviews took between 45 and 90 minutes and all participants received chocolate bars as a gesture to thank the participants for their time and effort. All interviews were digitally recorded in mutual consultation and the interviews were transcribed verbatim. In line with, Ormstron, Spencer, Barnard & Snape (2014) the

conceptual framework served as the interview guide.

3.3 Interview Analysis

(33)

32 data, was used to assign the data reductions codes to the data. This approach resulted in the

categorization of seven main codes and thirty-one subcodes (see Appendix G) that underlie the research framework (why, what, how, when, who, effects, evaluation). Accordingly, Appendix H illustrates the use of the Atlas.ti code manager to analyze all interviews. The red circle illustrates the categorization of all documents, comments, subcodes and networks, the blue circle illustrates the pop-up of the code manager and the green circle illustrates the categorized quotes per

(sub)topic. All findings in this study are based on shared insights retrieved from these interviews and individual quotes are used in the following paragraphs to illustrate the findings (Harms, Bijmolt & Hoekstra, 2017).

Lastly, in line with realism research approach, the generalized findings of this study will be converted into theoretical propositions to generate new insights into the topic (Sobh & Perry, 2006; Harms et al., 2017).

According to Creswell & Miller (2000) there is a general consensus in literature that qualitative research needs to demonstrate their validity. To generate validity in this research, the process of ‘member checking’ was used. Member checking is found to be the most crucial technique to establish credibility in qualitative research (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Their process can be used in this study, because this research process shifts from literature findings to

(34)

33

4. Results

After the extensive analyses of the expert interviews, the outcomes of this exploratory study are presented in this section. In line with the research framework (see Figure 2), the

findings apply to the following three elements: company responses to CGBC, effects of company responses to CGBC and an evaluation of company responses to CGBC. Furthermore, the results of the company’s response to CGBC are analyzed by offering insights into why companies manage CGBC, what platforms, tools and strategies are used to manage CGBC, how companies convey the company responses to the public, when companies should respond to CGBC and who should be responsible to deal with CGBC. The propositions at the end of each topic will serve as a guide to further research on how companies deal with CGBC.

4.1.1 Why: CGBC management in companies

All experts highly value the management of CGBC within their company and make use webcare as an interactive tool to deal with customer empowerment, protect the corporate reputation and increase retention. One participant of a large supermarket chain concluded: “We think it is very important to manage consumer comments on social media. First, because those people are our customers and our policy says the customer is king. We want every customer to be happy. We want that in everything; our reputation and their motivation to get back to our store. But especially our reputation, because if we make mistakes we can feel it on a lot of different levels in the company. Every customer complaint could have the power to generate negativity directed to the company.” (Participant 4).

As part of a mobility services company, participant 5 noted about managing CGBC “It helps people. If people are not satisfied, it’s not good for us. We make products for people, not to make money but always to make their lives easier. So our webcare and customer service is one of our most important departments”. Statements in line with this webcare focus on reputation, brand evaluations and customer satisfaction are highlighted in the following quotes:

(35)

34 “On scale from 1-10, the importance of managing CGBC is rated a 10. We think customer

service is very important. We believe that if you do not invest in a good customer service, you lose your customers. The Internet is really powerful at the moment. Customer service is one of our biggest departments right now. Therefore, take it very seriously. “(Participant 6)

“Our webcare is very important. It is also our reputation management. It is important that we handle it in the right way. More than telephone. It is a contact between you and the customer”. (Participant 7)

Only one participant, stated that the management of CGBC on social media directed to the company was important but not as important as telephone services and Live Chat (on the

corporate website). The participant suggested “I think it’s quite important, but not most

important. There is a certain target audience that makes use of our webcare facilities. So it is not the complete customer-base. I think telephone service and our Live Chat are still most important, because in my opinion mostly younger and high-educated people make use of social media to contact the company. Our company’s customer-base includes a lot of elderly people, customers who are using our products and services for over 50 years. You don’t see those people on Social Media” (Participant 3).

When it comes to protecting the company from crisis and decreasing negative CGBC, most experts suggest that both can be decreased or even avoided by replying to customer complaints via webcare departments (Participant 7). In cases of crisis and negative CGBC, the company’s reputation and performance can be protected by responding to CGBC, as the following quote highlights:

(36)

35 of the company or the way they evaluate the brand: the company will lose money and customers too!” (Participant 1)

Practitioners consider responding to both negative CGBC and positive CGBC as equally important to company performance, because as one mobility services expert emphasized:

“Although responding to negative CGBC can be risky business, the impact of positive CGBC can decrease the impact of negative CGBC on company performance (Participant 5). Thus,

practitioners claim that the reason why companies manage CGBC could also be the positive features of customers commenting on social media (e.g. customer insights) instead of the negative features (e.g. protect the company from reputational damage, crisis and decreased performance). A representative of a public transport company thus noted:

“We also manage the online comments directed to our company, to gain more insights into our customers. In example, we can check their social media account and find what they like, so we can engage our customers better next time.” (Participant 7)

Furthermore, practitioners do not consider competition an important factor in deciding on why CGBC should be managed. According to one social media manager: “To create competitive advantage by monitoring other companies on social media, companies have to invest in extra webcare employees to monitor and analyze online comments directed to competitors. So the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. It is just not worth the extra effort” (Participant 6).

To conclude, CGBC management is highly important to increase company performance, but why companies should manage CGBC remains a multidimensional question and it is complex to determine what element weights most heavy on the company’s decision to invest in webcare departments to manage CGBC. Therefore, we propose:

(37)

36

4.1.2 What: platforms, tools and strategies to manage CGBC

According to practitioners the most important social media platforms to interact with customers are respectively Twitter and Facebook, because these platforms are most popular at the moment amongst customers’. Practitioners suggest that Twitter is valued more than Facebook while interacting with customers on social media, because companies receive most CGBC via Twitter and thus make most use of this platform when managing CGBC (Participant 4). Some experts also use social media platforms with fewer reach and less active members, next to Twitter and Facebook. As the following senior communication advisor of a regional public transport company explains:

“We also interact with our customers on less popular platforms like Klacht.nl, LinkedIn,

Instagram and we are starting with YouTube too. The internet is rapidly changing and we need to keep up with our customers. We expect that Instagram and YouTube will become one of the most popular platforms for customers to interact with companies, because we see an increase in the amount of CGBC directed to our company via those platforms.” (Participant 5)

All participants expect a shift in popularity of different social media platforms in the nearby future (e.g. the amount of active members on Facebook will decrease as the amount of active members on Instagram will increase). Therefore, companies interact with their customers on platforms that have most active members and reach, as the following quote highlights:

(38)

37

4.1.2.1 Webcare to monitor CGBC

As a method to react to CGBC all practitioners declared to make use of a webcare

department to manage online comments directed to the company. These webcare departments use various software systems (e.g. Tooling, Gusto, Obi4wan, Sales Force, Buzz Capture) to monitor all comments directed to the company and this system divides all comments randomly amongst webcare employees.

Investing in webcare development is seen by experts as a highly effective and relatively new way to monitor social media platforms for CGBC, with the goal to solve customer problems, increase customer engagement and protect the company’s reputation. One expert explains: “Nowadays, almost everyone is ‘glued’ to their phone and online 24/7, so we try to adapt and anticipate to this new climate by offering our customers the easiest way to interact with us: via webcare. No waiting lines, no charge-per-minute rate like call centers. This way we engage our current and potential customers to favor our company over other companies, because we offer better service. Every company can make or distribute our products, but no company can offer our service quality. That is why we see webcare as an important tool to solve our customers’

complaints.” (Participant 6). Another practitioner notes: “We can do more for a customer from webcare than by phone. In example, if there is a delay or a train got canceled and a customer contacts us by phone we just say: “Check the 9292 website, because we cannot help you further”. With webcare the problem has to be solved. So we will check when their train is leaving and from what platform” (Participant 7).

(39)

38 pushing them into buying something” (Participant 5). Therefore, companies have to be careful in their decision to respond to CGBC without the customers’ request.

4.1.2.2 Strategies to manage CGBC

Choosing the right strategy to respond to CGBC is key to effectively manage CGBC. First, experts state that as an important response strategy companies respond to CGBC in a private or public way by focusing on open and closed webcare. According to a social media manager in online retail and distribution: “Open is what all people can see, so the community management part. Closed is what we get of direct messages (DM) on Twitter and Facebook” (Participant 6). Companies mention that they handle negative comments in private and after the solution they go back to public responses again so other consumers only see the positive side. Experts suggest that negative CGBC can never be prevented, so responding to positive CGBC in public and negative CGBC in private is the best solution to decrease negative CGBC and

emphasize positive CGBC. As one expert highlights: “Company responses to positive CGBC attract more positive customer comments and company responses to negative CGBC attract more negative customer comments”. Furthermore, private conversations are also used by all companies to handle personal issues like contracts or other personal information.

Secondly, according to the practitioners, CGBC addressed to the company mostly consists of questions and complaints. To handle these customer comments effectively (e.g. by restoring customer satisfaction) experts favor three strategies: offering extra information about a service or product, apologies combined with an explanation and compensation or accepting other requests. Experts try to avoid denial and post removal, because these response strategies will most likely result in increased negative CGBC and thus affect the company performance in a negative way, as the following statement suggests: “We never deny accusations from our customers’, because we do not want to disengage our customers, but we do offer them accurate information to solve problems. That mostly works. Also, we never remove CGBC, because customers can make screenshots and when the public finds out we removed negative reactions they will lose trust and we will lose our customers” (Participant 7)

(40)

39 avoid responses that generate negative CGBC. As highlighted by a social media manager:

“When monitoring social media for online consumer comments we don’t make any difference between positive or negative comments, because we think responding to negative, neutral and positive comments is valuable to our company. That is why we monitor all incoming comments for these three sentiments with ‘Tooling’, our computer system. In example, now we know we should never mention politics or religion” (Participant 5).

To conclude, three propositions are presented with regard to what platforms, tools and strategies companies use in their response to CGBC.

P2: The company’s decision to interact with customers on a specific platform depends on the (1) platforms’ reach, (2) amount of active members, (3) amount of incoming customer comments from the social media platform.

P3: A reactive webcare approach to respond to CGBC results in less negative CGBC than a proactive webcare approach.

(41)

40

4.1.3 How: conveying the company response

To increase customer engagement practitioners react to complaints, questions and compliments when they manage CGBC. Questions are answered by addressing the company’s own fixed knowledge and complaints demand most focus. When it comes to responding to complaints, employees are free to decide on how they want to communicate with the consumer. One statement suggests: “There is no manual on replying to complaints. It is important to look at how the customer is behaving and how we deal with his first emotions. But the employee decides how to communicate with the customer.” (respondent 4). One senior communication advisor adds to this by stating: “There is no fixed script on how to reply to online comments, because it

depends on the customer. We try to level with the customer that posted the comment and we try to personalize our response by an informal approach. People like to talk at the same level. So if the consumer uses emoticons in the content of their message, we will reply with emotions and when the consumer uses slang we try to respond with slang. Of course, this approach does not count when consumers use bad words in their comment” (Participant 1).

One expert in mobility services does suggest that fixed manuals to respond to CGBC do exist in the form of technical manuals. In other words, companies that sell ready-to-ensemble products (e.g. Ikea ) or companies dealing with complaints about technical issues (i.e. ANWB) are likely to make use of these fixed manuals, as the following expert states: “We only use response guidelines when it comes to technical processes. These guidelines offer technical guidelines to help the service employees with the content of their response. In example, service employees do not know which type number is on the head gasket of a Fiat Punto, the manual does” (Participant 5).

Another expert notes that sometimes when the company expects an increase of CGBC on social media (e.g. after a new campaign or advertisement is launched or after an official corporate statement), knowledge items (i.e. prefabricated answers to common questions) are uploaded into the company’s knowledge base. Still, the employees are not obligated to make use of this

corporate document. Overall, companies do not use manuals to respond to the different types of online comments, because consumer’s complaints and other comments cannot be

HOW COMPANIES DEAL WITH CONSUMER GENERATED BRANDED CONTENT