Search results

A fundamental aspect of hierarchical loyalty programs is that some consumers get rewards that others do not. Despite the widespread use of such programs, academics have long debated whether these benefits are outweighed by the potential negative impact of the differential treatment of customers. This study aims to extend our understanding, examining the impact of message framing on consumers’ reactions to hierarchical loyalty structures.

Three online studies were conducted. Study 1 uses advertisements to manipulate the message frame’s emphasis (benefits vs status). Study 2 manipulates consumers’ frame of thought by directing their attention to either changes in benefits or status. Finally, Study 3 uses the proposed framework to reconcile contradictory findings from past research.

Low-frequency customers who do not expect to qualify for a superior customer tier tend to reject hierarchical programs when thinking about status. In contrast, when these customers think about concrete rewards, loyalty program messages produce no negative reactions. High-frequency customers are positively affected by communication regardless of the type of benefits framed.

All studies were done online, potentially limiting the external validity of the results. Nevertheless, the impact of message framing on perceptions about the loyalty program seems to be quite robust across different studies and manipulations.

When communicating with low-frequency customers, managers should avoid promising status; customers should instead be motivated based on concrete rewards. High-frequency customers are indifferent to alternative emphasis of communication frames.

Marketing academics have acknowledged the importance of being able to reward top customers without demotivating light and moderate users. This research is the first to provide a solution to this issue.

Companies often extend brands to higher or lower quality tiers to access different market segments. However, the impact of such extensions on the brand and its subsequent offerings is not yet conclusive. While some studies found an “averaging” pattern (all models contribute equally to the overall perception of the brand: a symmetric effect), others found a “best-of-brand” pattern (the positive impact of an upstream extension is much greater than the negative impact of a downstream extension: an asymmetric effect). This paper aims to reconcile these seemingly conflicting findings by assessing the conditions under which each pattern is likely to emerge.

Three experimental studies are presented to test the conditions under which a symmetric or asymmetric pattern of brand evaluation would merge. Study 1 examined the impact of judgment focus (quality vs expertise) on the pattern of brand evaluations. Study 2 tested the impact of having a comparative set on the assessment of specific brand dimensions. Study 3 examined the impact of the informativeness of price positioning on product quality expectations.

Brand evaluations and attitudes are determined by the presence of a comparative brand and judgment focus. When brands are evaluated without a comparison, a symmetric pattern emerges, as a low-tier extension hurts a brand as much as a high-tier extension helps it. In contrast, when brands are evaluated with a comparison, focusing the assessment on quality leads to a symmetric pattern, while focusing it on expertise leads to an asymmetric one.

The present research specifies conditions under which a low-tier model may hurt brand perceptions. We used hypothetical brands to avoid the impact of preexisting attitudes. While we expect our results to generalize to real brands, this may be considered a limitation of the present research.

The current research delineates the circumstances under which vertical line extensions have positive, neutral or negative impact on brand perceptions and future product expectations. We introduce the presence of a comparison set as a key variable and show how it interacts with assessment focus to affect brand evaluations. When thinking about the impact of extensions on brand perceptions, marketers need to consider which assessment focus is likely to be triggered by environmental cues and whether comparisons are salient.

Brand extension is an important area of investigation as evidenced by the vast literature dedicated to the subject. The present paper advances knowledge in this area by identifying key factors affecting the impact of vertical extensions on brand perceptions.

This paper aims to investigate consumer reactions to minority retail employees. The paper argues that despite the persistence of racism and homophobia in society, the vast majority of the population is strongly against these forms of discrimination. Because of the profound negativity of such behavior, the study hypothesizes that consumers will be motivated to see themselves unequivocally as individuals free of prejudice. As a result, rather than treating all people equally, the study proposes that consumers will overcompensate and exhibit favoritism toward a retail employee when the latter is a member of a minority group.

This study presents ten studies in which participants evaluated employees who were a member of a minority or majority group. Studies 1a–1d use sexual orientation to contrast reactions to majority or minority bank managers in four countries (USÀ, Germany, Italy and South Korea), whereas Studies 1e and 1f use ethnicity (White vs Black) to examine the same question (UK and Canada). Study 1g offers a single-paper meta-analysis, testing the robustness of the observed effect. Studies 2 and 3 examine the roles of political ideology and its associated values, and Study 4 examines choice of an advisor in an online, but consequential setting.

Across several contexts and countries, the study finds a consistent pro-minority bias in evaluations of service employees. The study show that, in the USA, this bias is prevalent among liberals, but not among conservatives. This difference in the impact of political ideology is explained by adherence to traditionalism.

This paper investigates consumer reactions to gays and Blacks and do not test for consumer reactions to other minority groups. Regarding employees’ sexual orientation, the findings of this study are limited to gay men only.

To elicit favorable evaluations from customers, managers may consider the match between employees’ sexual orientation or ethnicity and consumers’ liberal beliefs. In particular, managers may want to hire people from those minority groups in areas known for their liberal values. On the other hand, the findings suggest that managers should not worry about their new recruits’ sexual orientation and ethnicity in conservative areas, because the results suggest that conservatives show no favoritism toward employees in response to their group status.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first paper in marketing investigating consumer reactions to employees who belong to minority groups. The study reports a pro-minority bias that holds across samples and countries, thereby attesting to the population validity of the hypotheses. Further, the study identifies boundary conditions of the effect of employees’ group status by identifying managerially relevant moderators (i.e. political ideology and traditionalism).

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether people’s intuitions regarding the social consequences of word of mouth (WOM) match the actual consequences. The authors investigate the expectations people have about how sharing WOM (positive or negative) will change others’ perceptions of them and then compare these expectations to the actual impact of WOM.

Six studies were conducted. Study 1 predicted how sharing their experiences with various products or services would change others’ opinion of them. Studies 2a/2b contrasted participants’ intuitions about the potential social consequences of sharing WOM with the consequences. Studies 3a/3b and 4a/4b tested for the hypothesized mediating mechanism. Studies 5a/5b focused on negative WOM and used participants’ own reviews to compare intuitions with impact. Study 6 explored whether considering one’s own consumption experience mitigates the negative social impact of WOM.

Consumers expect positive WOM to improve perceptions as it conveys only positive cues about the communicator (i.e. helping intentions and a positive personality). Negative WOM is expected to have neutral impact, as it conveys mixed cues (i.e. helping intentions but a negative personality). In contrast, the authors show that sharing negative WOM tends to be quite detrimental, whereas sharing positive WOM has little impact. People are largely unaware of these effects.

The research contributes to the literature on WOM and social transmission by comparing people’s intuitions about the social consequences of WOM with its actual consequences. The authors acknowledge that they used mostly WOM messages that were pre-written (vs spontaneously generated by participants). This may have constrained the generalizability of the results. Several potential moderators remain to be investigated, such as the role of message extremity, the interpersonal closeness between communicator and receiver, whether the WOM was solicited vs spontaneous, online vs offline, etc.

Greater effort is needed to raise consumers’ awareness about the gap between their expectations and the actual social consequences of WOM. Furthermore, marketers responsible for designing product review opportunities should be encouraged to provide consumers with more flexible options, such as the ability to easily remove an online review. Finally, consumers transmitting negative WOM in particular should be aware that their negative tone may compromise the persuasiveness of their message by making the receiver more vigilant and thus less receptive.

The authors are the first to directly contrast people’s intuitions about the social consequences of WOM with its consequences. Unlike the previous literature, the authors investigate people’s intuitions directly, and investigate the consequences of positive and negative WOM by comparing them to a neutral no-WOM condition. They also shed light on the specific personality traits people infer from WOM.

This paper aims to examine how observers evaluate a company that provides service failure (or excellence) to an immoral versus a moral customer. This study introduces the concept of deservingness to the service literature and suggests that observers appreciate when a company delivers “justice” – either bad service to an immoral customer or good service to a moral customer – and thus evaluate the company more favorably.

This paper presents three online studies using scenarios (ns = 205, 199 and 181) and one lab study (n = 89) using a confederate to manipulate customer morality.

Across four studies, this study finds that a service failure has a less negative impact on observers’ company evaluations when observers consider the target customer immoral, and thus deserving of the bad outcome. Conversely, the positive impact of observing service excellence is enhanced when observers consider the target customer to be moral, and thus deserving of a good outcome. This effect occurs because the perception of deservingness leads observers to experience more positive feelings about the service outcome and these positive feelings transfer over to observers’ evaluations of the service provider.

The mechanism shares some similarities with the concept of immanent justice reasoning, whereby individuals draw a causal link between someone’s prior immoral behavior and an unrelated negative outcome. However, the studies go one step further by showing that such causal reasoning, at least on a moral level, can impact the judgments of the other party (in this case, the company involved in the service outcome).

Service providers need to be particularly attentive when serving customers who are viewed in a positive light, as an observed failure that affects a moral customer can be particularly damaging to company evaluations. Conversely, companies should make efforts to publicize when exceptional service is given to nice, admirable customers, as this is particularly effective at improving evaluations.

Researchers have examined how allocations of responsibility affect observers' evaluation of service encounters. This paper adds deservingness as an alternate mechanism and examines service excellence as well.

The main aim of this paper is to examine the role of brand reputation on the impact of value product on perceptions of a premium product from the same brand. As a secondary goal, it tests and extends existing findings from judgment tasks to a choice task.

Two online experiments are presented. In Study 1 (1a and 1b), participants provided quality and price judgments to products. Brand reputation was manipulated by comparing common store brands to non-store brands (Study 1a) and to upscale store brands (Study 1b). In Study 2, we examined whether findings indicating a positive effect of a value store brand on a premium store brand extends to a choice context. Participants made choices between a premium store brand and a national brand in the presence of either a value store brand or a value national brand.

It was found that brand reputation plays an important role in the interplay of products in line extensions. While the positive impact of a value brand on a premium brand is at its strongest level for a regular store brand, it still has a moderate size for a non-store brand without a defined reputation, as well as for an upscale store brand. Second, using a choice task, we reject an important rival explanation for the impact of a value store brand on a premium store brand observed in previous research.

The authors have focused on consumers’ expectations of products. While research has shown that these expectations play an important role in evaluations, future research may directly examine perceptions after consumption. The findings also offer an opportunity for future research to examine the differences in perceptions between store and non-store brands at different positioning levels, as well as other factors that affect brand reputation.

The findings have two practical implications. First, our results indicate that when a manufacturer produces two products in the same category at different levels of quality, there is some benefit in letting consumers know about this relationship. The authors consistently found no negative impact on the brands and often a positive impact on the premium brand. While effects are stronger for common store brands, they are likely to emerge for any type of brand, albeit weaker.

This paper contributes to the nascent literature on multi-tier brands and vertical extensions in several ways. First, the role of brand reputation was examined and how it interacts with positioning in line extension context. Second, we show that the effect of a value brand on a premium brand is stronger for store brands, but still existent for non-store brands. These results offer implications for practice and open opportunities for future research on multi-tier store brands.

The purpose of this study is to investigate consumer reactions to professionals who use decision aids to make recommendations. The authors propose that people react negatively to decision aids only when they are used in place of human expert judgment. When used in combination with expert judgment, decision aids are not perceived negatively and may even enhance service evaluations.

Three online experiments are presented. Participants indicated their perceptions regarding the recommendation strategy of professionals and their impressions of these professionals using one of three strategies: one based on expertise only, one based on decision aids only and a combination of the two (hybrid approach). Both within and between-subjects designs were used.

Contrary to previous research that has found a negative reaction to professionals who use decision aids, the authors find that consumers actually appreciate these professionals, as long as the use of decision aids does not replace expert judgment. The authors also find that when people are given the opportunity to compare a pure expert judgment approach with a hybrid approach (decision aid in combination with expert judgment), they prefer the latter.

Although findings should extend to various contexts, this research is limited to the three contexts examined and to the type of use of decision aid described.

It has significant practical implication, as decision aids have been shown to improve decision accuracy, but previous research had indicated that consumers view these professionals in a negative way. The current research more clearly delineates the situations under which negative reactions are likely to occur and makes recommendations regarding circumstances in which reactions are actually quite positive.

Reactions to professionals using decision aids have been investigated outside the marketing literature. However, this is the first work to show that consumers actually have positive reactions to professionals using decision aids, as long as they do not replace expert judgment.