Personalization as a Trigger for Reviews: Would You Write One?

Defense

Master thesis

July 5, 2016

Elise Hermans

S2205262

Personalization as a Trigger for Reviews:

Would You Write One?

Motivation of research topic

Increase in information

availability

Online reviews to

inform customers

Customers

Motivation of research topic

Firms

Personalized marketing

communication

Unbiased product and/or

service information

Receiving relevant

messages

Privacy

concerns

Research questions

1.  What is the effect of personalized messages on the intention of customers to write

an online review and the rating thereof?

2.  More specifically, to what extent does this differ based on a customer’s bias after

his/her experience?

3.  What is the customers’ response when being provided with a benefit?

Relevance

›  Add insights to the willingness to write reviews by combining insights on

personalization, privacy concerns, reviews and the halo-effect

›  Increasing prevalence of online reviews

›  Provides practitioners with insights into the effect of personalized message to gain

from reviews

Theory

›  Positive effects personalization

(Chellappa and Sin 2005; van Doorn and Hoekstra 2013; Goldfarb and Tucker 2011)

›  Privacy concerns

›  Privacy calculus

›  Drivers of reviews: altruism

and economic incentives

Tan and Teo 2013)

›  Halo effect

Methodology

›  Online questionnaire distributed through social media and e-mail

• 

255 Dutch respondents

›  Restaurant “Casa di Mama” with online review website “Dinnerstars”

›  Experiment

•  Information about online reservation and the customer experience

•  E-mail from “Dinnerstars” asking for a review

›  Pre-test among 12 peer students for manipulation of personalization, experience and

benefit (p < 0,05)

›  Experiment with 6 scenarios

• 

Non-full factorial design

| 5

Personalized message Benefit No benefit

Unpersonalized message No benefit

Good experience Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Results

›  Sample descriptives among 6 experimental groups

• 

No control variables needed (p > 0,05)

›  Manipulation check (p < 0,05)

• 

Personalization

• 

Benefit

• 

Customer experience

›  ANOVA: willingness to write a review and privacy concerns on a 7-point Likert scale

›  Poisson model: rating on 1 - 5 star rating

F test Sig. Support

Hypothesis 1 0,112 0,172 Not supported

Hypothesis 2 9,156 0,003* Supported

Hypothesis 3 assumptions Baron and Kenny (1986) for

mediation could not be met (p_H1 > 0,05) Not supported Hypothesis 4 5,715 0,018* Supported

Hypothesis 5a 0,110 0,714 Not supported

Hypothesis 5b 0,005 0,943 Not supported

Hypothesis 6 0,118 0,731 Not supported

| 7

ANOVA – Willingness to write a review and privacy concerns

*p < 0,05

Poisson model – Rating

Exp. (β) Sig. Support

Hypothesis 5a 1,167 0,439 Not supported

Hypothesis 6 Good experience Bad experience 0,978 0,980 1,002 0,908 0,870 0,988 Not supported

Conclusion

›  Personalization does not have a significant impact on willingness to write a review

›  Personalization leads to a significant increase in privacy concerns

›  A monetary benefit leads to a significant decrease in privacy concerns

›  Halo effect for valence of customer experience and benefit has no significant

influence on willingness to write a review and rating

Recommendations

›  Managers should be aware of privacy concerns when personalizing marketing

communication

›  An effective tool to decrease privacy concerns is monetary benefit provision

›  Benefit provision most effective among customers who perceived a good experience

| 9

Limitations

Further research

Small sample size and representativeness

Replicate study with larger sample size

Fictitious service provider

Include a non-fictitious service provider

Focus on one service encounter

Replicate study in other service encounters

(e.g. hotel and airline industry)

Thank you for your attention!

References

›  Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological

Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

›  Chellappa, Ramnath K. and Raymond G. Sin (2005), “Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the

Online Consumer’s Dilemma,” Information Technology and Management, 6 (2), 181-202.

›  Goldfarb, Avi, and Catherine Tucker (2011), “Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness,” Marketing

Science, 30 (3), 389-404.

›  Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Edwards C. Malthouse, Christian Friege, Sonja Gensler, Lara Lobschat, Arvind Ranagswamy,

and Bernd Skiera (2010), “The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 311-330.

›  Lwin, May O. and Jerome D. Williams (2003), “A Model Integrating the Multidimensional Developmental Theory of

Privacy and Theory of Planned Behavior to Examine Fabrication of Information Online,” Marketing Letters, 14 (4), 257-272.

›  Morimoto, Mariko, and Susan Chang (2006), “Consumers' Attitudes Toward Unsolicited Commercial E-mail and Postal

Direct Mail Marketing Methods: Intrusiveness, Perceived Loss of Control, and Irritation,” Journal of

Interactive Advertising, 7 (1), 8-20.

›  Thorndike, Edward L. (1920), “A Consistent Error in Psychological Ratings,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 (1), 25-9.

›  Tong, Yu, Xinwei Wang, Chuan-Hoo Tan, and Hock-Hai Teo (2013), “An Empirical Study of Information Contribution to

Online Feedback Systems: A Motivation Perspective,” Information & Management, 50 (7), 562-570.

›  Van Doorn, Jenny, and Janny C. Hoekstra (2013), “Customization of Online Advertising: The Role of Intrusiveness,”

Marketing Letters, 24 (4), 339-351.

›  Wirtz, Jochen (2000), “An Examination of the Presence, Magnitude and Impact of Halo on Consumer Satisfaction

Measures,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7 (2), 89-99.

›  ——— (2001), “Improving the Measurement of Customer Satisfaction: A Test of Three Methods to Reduce Halo,”

Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 11 (2), 99-112.

53 V es ane n, J ari (2007) , “ W ha t is P ers ona liz ati on? A C onc ept ua l F ra m ew ork,“ E ur ope an Jour nal of Mar ke ting , 41 (5), 409 -418. W hi te , T iff any Ba rne tt, Z aha y, D ebra L ., T horbj ørns en, H elge , a nd S ha vi tt S ha ron (2008), “G ett ing T oo P ers ona l: Re ac ta nc e t o H ighl y P ers ona liz ed E -mail S ol ic ita tion,” Mar ke ting L ett er s, 19 (1), 39 -50. W ilc ox, Ra nd (2012), Mode rn St at ist ic s f or the Soc ial and B ehav ior al Sc ie nc es : A P rac tic al Int roduc tion . Boc a Ra ton, F L : CRC P re ss . W ine r, Rus se ll S . (2001), “ A F ra m ew ork f or Cus tom er Re la tions hi p M ana ge m ent ,” Cal ifor ni a Manage m ent R ev ie w , 43 (4), 89 -105. W irt z, J oc he n (2000), “ A n E xa m ina tion of the P re se nc e, M agni tude a nd Im pa ct of H alo on Cons um er S ati sfa cti on M ea sure s,” J our nal of R etai

ling and Cons