10.1.1. Back to the Exit, Voice, Loyalty model

10.1.1.2. The risk of public protest against private complaints

For brands, two major lessons from the Exit, Voice, Loyalty model remain valid. On the one hand, the Voice behavior is more favorable to the company than that of the Exit, which should encourage companies to facilitate complainant customers’ comments to departments of the company that are able to collect their dissatisfaction. On the other hand, inadequate or late takeover of the company can lead to a transformation of Loyalty in the sense of Hirschman’s model into Voice, or even apathetic behavior. This is particularly detrimental to customer relations because it results not only in less frequent use of the brand’s products, but also in a lack of interest in the communication it sets up. However, the Exit, Voice, Loyalty model fails to account for the new possibility that Internet ecosystems offer to protest to a wider audience, in addition to or instead of the “private complaint”, which refers to the complaint filed directly by the customer with the company in the absence of third parties. This suggests that the Exit, Voice, Loyalty model should be extended (see Figure 10.1). The updated model includes, on the one hand, “public revenge” as a means of defecting with a public protest aimed at harming the company [KAH 70] and, on the other hand, the “mixed complaint”, in which the customer complaint is accompanied by discourse on social networks generally aimed at exerting additional pressure on the company with a view to receiving faster compensation for the damage suffered or a more permanent improvement in the services [SEN 18].

10.1.2. When the customer’s desire for discussion depends on the state of the relationship with the brand

If brands have an interest in promoting the expression of the complainant customer in the form of a private complaint, it is also necessary to identify the factors that will favor the filing of this type of complaint with the brand’s consumer service or on one of its social pages. Two main families of factors can be distinguished: on the one hand, the state of the relationship with the brand, which appears to be a major factor, and on the other hand, the customer’s assessment of their chances of being heard by the brand.

The customer’s trust in the brand and the importance of this relationship to the customer is a decisive factor in the intention to file a private complaint with the company, whether the complaint is filed digitally, by telephone or face-to-face [BOV 05]. This constant property of brand–customer relationships continues to shed light on the behavior of complainant customers, even in the digital age. In particular, the perception of brand benevolence, as a constituent element of the customer’s trust in the brand, plays a major role.

Therefore, that the organization is perceived as listening to its customers’ feedback is essential. Whether the environments are physical or digital, customers evaluate their chance of being heard by the company by considering the power of the employee who handles the complaint and their ability to relay it and influence the remediation process [BOV 05, SEN 18]. In this regard, it is important to note that company employees generally exercise significant discretion in the deferral of complaints, particularly when they are informal [LUR 09]. This results in a variable capacity on the part of the organization to take into account the feedback from its customers, which would benefit from further discussion and guidance within the companies. In particular, the ambiguities relating to the company’s policy of openness in receiving customer complaints and the role of front-office employees in the process of handling such complaints deserve to be resolved.

In addition, in the digital age, customers infer the benevolence of companies in handling customer complaints from the observation of brand activity on their social media pages in response to dissatisfaction expressed by customers. Empirical studies suggest that the active and vigilant presence of brands on their social pages in response to expressions of dissatisfaction is interpreted as a signal of brand openness and care, which in turn promotes the expression of more feedback, whether positive or negative. Analysis of the Twitter interventions of a major U.S. telecommunications brand shows that while the volume of complaints on the brand’s Twitter account increased, this also lead to a greater increase in positive opinions while improving the average level of customer relationship status [MA 15].

However, it is important to bear in mind that when a customer feels highly dependent on a company, especially if they consider that the market does not offer them other equivalent alternatives, they will tend to delay the filing of a private complaint for fear of damaging their relationship with the company [MIT 08]. The risk here is that the customer may complain about the quality of the company’s services to third parties or file negative opinions online anonymously [UMA 17]. Consequently, companies with a specific technological advantage or a contractualization system that penalizes early exits – all forms of company action that function as entry barriers to “lock in” the customer – have an interest in identifying loyal customers who are characterized by silent behavior toward the company. Indeed, in the digital age, these customers will be the first to file negative opinions online in cases of dissatisfaction.

10.2.1. The central role of perceived justice in shaping customer satisfaction

Marketing researchers use justice theory quite widely to explain the generation of satisfaction among complainant customers. The complainant customer will assess the fair handling of the complaint if it is appropriate to compensate for the damage he or she considers to have suffered. To understand the impact of perceived justice on satisfaction, it is necessary to distinguish three dimensions of justice: distributive, procedural and interactive.

Distributive justice aims to restore the balance of economic exchange between the customer and the company, this balance having been upset by the fact that the company did not keep its commitments in the eyes of the customer. The customer’s perception of distributive justice is based on the evaluation of two aspects of equity [ADA 65]. Internal equity refers to the comparison made by the customer between their own contributions in the exchange and the benefits they receive from it. It is completed by taking into account the contributions/benefits balance of other customers of the company: this is the principle of external equity. To trigger the perception of distributive justice, companies offer compensation in various forms: total or partial reimbursement, replacement of the faulty product or discount vouchers to be used on a future purchase.

The procedural and interactional dimensions of perceived justice refer to the way in which the complaint is made, beyond the economic compensation to which it gives rise. Thus, interactional justice concerns the relational aspects of handling the complaint: respect and attention toward the complainant, providing explanations of the malfunction at the source of customer dissatisfaction and expression of regret or apologies for the damage suffered. It seems that interactional justice is perceptible to the customer regardless of the communication medium considered: telephone conversation with call center agents and e-mail or messages transmitted from the brand’s social media pages [SIM 15]. In addition, the accessibility of the complaints handling service, the speed of response and the simplicity, fluidity and traceability of the procedures set up by the company to collect and process complaints are part of procedural justice. In particular, it aims to reduce the effort required by the customer to file a complaint.

Overall, it is difficult to propose a hierarchy of justice dimensions in the case of caring for a complainant customer. While distributive justice seems to explain a larger share of the immediate satisfaction on the part of the complainant customer [ORS 10], it seems that interactional justice has a greater impact on cumulative customer satisfaction than distributive justice, which integrates all the customer’s experiences with the company [GEL 11]. With regard to distributive justice, it is important to note that the customer’s assessment of external equity at the time of handling their complaint has been significantly modified by the development of social networks and online opinion sites. These allow a better representation of what other customers in similar situations have or have not obtained from the company as a result of a complaint. Moreover, while the digital filing of complaints by e-mail, Twitter or on the social media pages of brands has improved the procedural handling of complaints, in particular by increasing the traceability of their processing for the benefit of the customer, it does not seem that the weight of procedural justice in shaping the complainant customer’s satisfaction has been strengthened. Finally, it appears that the digital channel provides access to levels of interactional justice equivalent to those of face-to-face or telephone exchanges, as long as the company gives the customer the possibility to choose the preferred communication channel to file their complaint [GOD 11, SIM 13]. In this respect, the practice of some companies to eliminate telephone call centers in favor of a single digital support including conversation robots or chatbots appears risky from a customer relationship point of view.

10.2.2. The triggering of the customer’s desire for reciprocity

10.2.2.2. The respective contributions of gratitude and satisfaction in postcomplaint behavior

Following on from the work of Palmatier et al. [PAL 09] on customer gratitude, marketing research focused on relational investments made by companies when handling a customer complaint reveals these relational investments could generate feelings of gratitude on the part of the complainant customer. For example, a call center agent’s empathy or friendliness, their efforts to find a solution to the customer’s problem or the monetary benefits granted can be considered as branded relational investments [SIM 13]. In particular, it was established that the satisfaction and gratitude from the complainant customer contributed differently to postclaim loyalty [SIM 15]. If the customer is satisfied with the handling of their complaint, they tend to practice positive word of mouth to recount how they have been treated, but this does not mean that they will purchase with the brand again. This finding confirms the lessons learned from the meta-analyses conducted previously [GEL 11, ORS 10]. On the other hand, the customer who has developed feelings of gratitude because of the relational investments made by the brand at the time the customer complaint was processed will tend to renew their purchases more often. It should be noted, however, that gratitude does not lead to word-of-mouth behavior in this situation, probably because feelings of gratitude are more difficult to express to third parties than the state of satisfaction that tends to highlight the explicit characteristics of the complaint handling. More generally, consumer services would benefit from identifying the types of relational investment with high gratitude potential in order to trigger “reciprocal” loyalty (see Figure 10.2).

From the teachings of the psychology of gratitude [PAL 09], it is possible to identify the major characteristics of relational investments with high gratitude potential. Thus, the potential gratitude involved in the relational investments deployed by the brand at the time the complaint is processed will be all the higher if they are discretionary, express benevolence and are granted without any compensation obligations (see Box 10.1).

10.3.1. Globalization and taking the intercultural factor into account

In a globalized world, which has greatly benefited from the digitization of economies, consumer services support cosmopolitan customers whose cultural specificities can influence the way in which complaints are assessed.

The influence given to the individual at the expense of the group is a major characteristic of Western national cultures [HOF 91]. Western cultures are also characterized by an explicit coding of situations (so-called “weak context” societies). On the other hand, other national cultures favor the group and organize communication around implicit codes (so-called “strong context” societies). In Eastern cultures, in particular, the concept of “face” refers to the respect that a person is entitled to receive because of their social position. However, as long as they are filed on the brand’s social media pages, complaints can reach a large public audience. As a result, online public complaints involve the “face” of customers from an Asian background.

In a study on complaints processing conducted from an intercultural perspective, Sengupta et al. [SEN 18] compared the assessments of German versus Indian complainants. As expected, Indian customers are more sensitive than German customers to the status of the manager who offers them a public apology online. Indeed, the public apology operated the symbolic function of restoring the “face” of the customer from an Asian background. On the other hand, if the manager’s apologies were transmitted online in a private way, the difference in perception between German and Indian customers disappeared and the effectiveness of the statutory tool deployed by the company was undone. Overall, globalized consumer services operating on several communication channels have an interest in identifying which dimensions of national cultures are likely to influence the satisfaction of the complainant customer.

10.3.2. Identifying the complainant customer’s motivations on social networks

The Internet ecosystem has made it possible to express customer dissatisfaction to a wide audience, thus encouraging the multiplication of complainant customer reviews posted on social network platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) or on customer review sites (TripAdvisor, Ciao, etc.). Consequently, managers must try to distinguish two types of Internet user motivation expressing dissatisfaction on social networks that do not depend on the brand: the request for remedial action stricto sensu, which may be similar to a so-called mixed complaint, or the desire to destabilize the brand [GRE 08, KAH 16]. If the request for remedial action calls for action to restore the perceived sense of justice and to encourage the desire for reciprocity in the company’s remediation efforts, the processing of destabilizing online posts must target other objectives.

Destabilizing posts come from customers who want to achieve public conduct that is extremely harmful in order to harm the company itself. For these customers, the separation with the company is irrevocable. Their anger is often the result of a “double deviation” of the company: not only is it the cause of customer dissatisfaction, but it has not been able to put in place an explicit, rapid and satisfactory repair action. In the case of a destabilizing post, the company should focus its efforts not on winning back the customer, but rather on reducing the vengeful energy that drives them. In this perspective, globalized brands have set up virtual war rooms, centers for monitoring Internet users’ conversations and detecting such destabilization actions before they spread. War rooms are also potential tools for identifying external repair opportunities, which consist of taking care of complainant customers from other companies. Early studies on this subject show that these operations can be effective in terms of customer acquisition as long as consumers perceive that companies are not bound by any affiliation [ALL 15].

10.3.3. The “love becomes hate” effect of the loyal customer

In their relationship with the brand, the loyal customer has the particularity of developing a greater sensitivity to reciprocity standards [GRE 08]. As such, they intend for their “good customer” status to be recognized and for the brand to pay attention to them, to communicate with them in an appropriate and transparent manner, to not take advantage of situations at their expense and to reserve more favorable treatment than that granted to newly acquired customers, or to express regret (quickly) following a problem. In addition, the loyal customer tends to take for granted the satisfactory behavior that the brand has hitherto reserved for them [AAK 04]. This behavior is the standard against which the customer evaluates the brand’s relational performance. The fall is all the more severe when the brand no longer complies with the reciprocity standards internalized by the customer. Such deviations, described as relational transgressions, often have harmful consequences on the quality of the relationship with the loyal customer, who experiences the brand’s transgression as a form of betrayal: this is the famous love becomes hate effect highlighted by Grégoire and Fisher [GRE 08].

The issues related to relational transgressions are still poorly understood by companies. First, the phenomenon is rarely named. Then, it is addressed on the same level as the dissatisfactions resulting from breaks in quality. However, expressions from the customer exposed to a brand’s relational transgression are difficult to collect apart from a close interaction with the company’s staff. Consumer services in their current configuration, anonymous and focused on resolving disputes relating to the offer, have a limited capacity to receive this voice. When interacting with a consumer service, the customer can only put on the table what is socially acceptable to debate. To borrow Thevenot’s terminology [THE 06], the complainant’s discourse usually falls either within a “planned regime” (the damage suffered and the compensation expected are highlighted) or within a “justification regime” (the discourse mobilizes socially recognized values such as the right to compensation or equity). Conversely, dissatisfactions of a relational nature, more subtle and personal, are unlikely to be formulated in this context because they depend on a regime based on intimacy (familiarity regime). Consequently, the management of relational transgressions implies a shift in the approach to the complainant customer, generally focused on the quality of the product or service, in order to focus on relational expectations whose drivers are more complex and less objectifiable.

10.3.4. The matrix of restorative actions

Because fair compensation is a major expectation of the complainant customer, particularly in the context of a private or mixed complaint, brands have an interest in working simultaneously on the distributive, procedural and interactional dimensions of their remedial strategy. Each of the three dimensions contributes to maintaining or even improving overall satisfaction with the company. However, this finding must be balanced against the nature of the customer’s dissatisfaction and degree of loyalty to the brand, as indicated in the matrix of remedial actions (see Figure 10.3).

Thus, when the sources of customer dissatisfaction concern relational dimensions (inappropriate employee behavior, lack of brand attention, personalized communication considered intrusive or offensive, etc.) or ethical aspects of company policy, compensation is less effective in generating satisfaction among complainant customers [CAM 15]. Moreover, as explained above, the loyal customer has a strong expectation of reciprocity from the brand in relation to their status as a “good customer”. The customer can be particularly demanding regarding the speed with which their complaint is dealt with, particularly in the context of digital communication, and in the expectation of careful and personalized communication. With regard to the loyal customer, the company is exposed to a devastating “love becomes hate” effect in the case of a double deviation. On the other hand, customers with little attachment to the brand or who have a very episodic relationship with it are mainly looking for economic compensation and are less sensitive to the company’s communication actions.