Presentation delivered at the Academy of Marketing Conference, Southampton (UK), July 2012. More information at: http://anacanhoto.com/2012/08/08/evidence-that-customers-use-social-media-strategically-to-get-firms-attention/

1. Customer service 140 characters
at a time – the users’ perspective
Ana Isabel Canhoto, Oxford Brookes University
Moira Clark, Henley Business School
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

2. The problem
How should organisations respond when
customers’ post brand-related comments on SM?
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

3. Literature Review
• Satisfaction with response vs. satisfaction with
transaction or relationship (Stauss, 2002)
• Disconfirmation paradigm (e.g., Oliver, 1980)
• Three dimensions (Johnston 2001):
Access Interac on Outcome
• Positive vs. negative feedback
– Brown et al (2005): Negative feedback driven mostly by
satisfaction w/ product or transaction. Positive feedback
mostly influenced by the customers’ identification with,
and commitment to, the firm (over and above satisfaction)
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

4. Approach
• Exploratory
• Data collection:
– SM
– Snowball
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

5. Some of the companies mentioned
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

6. Findings
Negative Positive
Interaction: Outcome:
-Consistency -Listening
-Human Touch -Care
Outcome: Interaction:
-Speed of reply / problem solving - Tone of voice
-…vs. alternative channels
Access:
-Integration with other channels
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

7. Conclusions and Implications
• Users expect companies to be present on SM,
including non-business platforms (e.g., Facebook)
• Users pull firms into SM; Absence is quickly noticed
• Companies expected to use the various SM
platforms efficiently, working around their
limitations.
• Listening vs. conversation tools
• Multichannel customer management structure
• Communication effectiveness
• Match how sender uses the media with preferences
of the receiver (Danaher & Rossiter, 2011).
• Etiquette - e.g., hashtags, tags, etc.
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

8. Conclusions and Implications
• Strategic use of SM by customers
• Most effective channel to communicate with the
firm; Receiving extra service after praising firm
• Prioritisation of SM creates perverse incentives
and may lead to counter-productive behaviours
from customers (Schrage, 2011)
• eWoM as firmly established public behaviour
• Research gap: eWoM as source of customer
insight or an opportunity for service recovery;
specifically considering the high visibility of the
interactions and the social benefits of eWoM
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

9. Conclusions and Implications
• Ambiguous role of SM as communications channel
• Not owned or controlled by the firm => Mattila and Wirtz
(2004): suitable to vent frustration
• Highly interactive => Mattila and Wirtz (2004): best to seek
redress
• Research gap: Do customers perceive SM as remote or
interactive channel? Effect on behaviour and
expectations?
• Highly visible exchanges
• Attempt to use for firm’s advantage - e.g., retweeting
• May be seen as spam (Bajenaru, 2010) or attempt to bribe
opinion leaders (Mason, 2008)
• Research gap: Do SM users appreciate or resent the
dissemination of their comments?
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

10. Customer service 140 characters
at a time – the users’ perspective
Ana Isabel Canhoto Moira Clark
Oxford Brookes University Henley Business School
www.anacanhoto.com www.hccmsite.co.uk
@canhoto @moiraclark
adomingos-canhoto@brookes.ac.uk Moira.Clark@henley.reading.ac.uk
Canhoto and Clark, 2012

11. References
• Bajenaru, A. (2010). The Art and Science of Word-of-Mouth and Electronic Word-of-Mouth. Annals
of the Oradea University - Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, IX(XIX)(1), 4.7-
4.16.
• Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the Word: Investigating
Antecedents of Consumers' Positive Word-of-Mouth Intentions and Behaviors in a Retailing
Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123-138.
• Danaher, P. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Comparing perceptions of marketing communication
channels. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 6-42.
• Johnston, R. (2001). Linking complaint management to profit. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 12(1), 60-66.
• Mason, R. B. (2008). Word of mouth as a promotional tool for turbulent markets. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 14(3).
• Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2004). Consumer complaining to firms: the determinants of channel
choice. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(2), 147-155.
• Oliver, R. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction
Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.
• Schrage, M. (2011, November). A Better Way to Handle Publicly Tweeted Complaints. Harvard
Business Review.
• Stauss, B. (2002). The Dimensions of Complaint Satisfaction: Process and Outcome Complaint
Satisfaction Versus Cold Fact and Warm Act Complaint Satisfaction”. Managing Service Quality,
12(3), 173- 183.
Canhoto and Clark, 2012