COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
Website sociability and flexibility in relation to customer online satisfaction
1. WEBSITE SOCIABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN
RELATION TO CUSTOMER ONLINE
SATISFACTION:
A RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Sandrine Prom Tep, Ph.D. candidate HEC Montreal
sandrine.prom-tep@hec.ca
Manon Arcand, Marketing Professor, ESG-UQAM
arcand.manon@uqam.ca
Oct.1st, 2011 – Boston, MA.
2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Research context and objectives
Literature review
Website quality and performance
Web site flexibility and Feature fatigue
Paradoxes of choice and technology
Sociability and the social Web
Proposed conceptual model and hypotheses
Contributions
Future work as conclusive remarks
References
3. RESEARCH CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES
This study stands at the intersection of online consumer
behavior in marketing and human-computer interaction (HCI)
Electronic tools are more and more omnipresent and loaded with
features (i.e. iPhone)
The Web is now a market-driven space with a strong social dimension,
even more so in the mobile context (Bernoff & Li 2008; Kaplan & Haenlein 2010)
Ex. Ticket Master Facebook App
Research Objectives
Extend the Thompson, Hamilton & Rust (2005) paper on « Feature
fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too much of a Good
Thing » to online services
Introduce the moderating role of sociability between Web site
flexibility and PEOU and its indirect impact on satisfaction
4. LITERATURE REVIEW: WEB SITE QUALITY AND
PERFORMANCE
A large body of research in last years focused on what
make a Web site more effective
Online service quality
Visual design, quality/quantity of
information, personalization, interactivity, security/privacy (Yoo &
Donthu, 2001; Barnes & Vidgen, 2003; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003; Bressolles 2006)
E-satisfaction as a key measure of performance (Szymanski &
Hise2000; Hsu 2006; Evanschitzky et al. 2004)
Technology Acceptance Model
The central role of usability/ease of use : positive influence on
attitude, satisfaction, intentions (Davis 1989; Aljukhadar & Sénécal 2009; Bressolles, Durieu &
Giraud 2007)
5. LITERATURE REVIEW: WEB SITE FLEXIBILITY AND
FEATURE FATIGUE
Flexibility in the online context
All the alternatives offered by a Web site to serve one single
purpose / to complete a single task (Bastien & Scapin, 1993; Hearst et al.
2002)
e.g.; CNet.com (expert and consumer reviews, product description, pictures and
video, price comparison, etc.)
Important criteria for Web site ergonomics (Bastien & Scapin, 1993;
Shneiderman, 1998)
Flexibility brings Feature fatigue
Too many features make the product overwhelming and difficult to use
(less usability), resulting in “feature fatigue” and less satisfaction in
usage & refuting the saying “the more the better”
eTailers seducing consumers…
Consumers tend to choose products loaded with a large
number of features, attracted by their capability (Thompson,
Hamilton & Rust, 2005)
= Increasing Web site‟s flexibility and augmenting
site complexity
In the long term, marketers should seek to develop
products with an “optimized level” of flexibility to
maximize satisfaction and repurchase
6. LITERATURE REVIEW: PARADOXES OF TECHNOLOGY
AND CHOICE
Feature fatigue is an illustration of the Paradox of
technology
Polar opposite conditions can simultaneously exist in the same
thing: competence/incompetence, freedom/enslavement (Mick &
Fournier, 1998)
Related to feature fatigue (or “too much of a good thing
effect”) is the “Paradox of Choice”
CB literature: Where choosing from among a large number of
alternatives have negative effects (regret, decreased product
and life satisfaction, lower self-control) (Murray & Haübl 2008; Schwartz
2005)
Web site flexibility brings choice complexity
Mass-customization Web sites giving consumers too many
interactive features for customizing products lead to low
behavioral intentions (Lee et al. 2011)
7. LITERATURE REVIEW: SOCIABILITY AND THE
SOCIAL WEB
The social Web and the contribution revolution (Cook 2008)
UGC features, eWOM, social shopping and peer
recommendations (Senecal & Nantel 2004; Cova, Kozinets & Shankar, 2007;
Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Lin 2008)
Moderating role of sociability
While usability focuses on HCI, sociability encompasses anything
supporting social interaction in an online environment (human-
human interaction) (Preece, 2000; Preece & Schneiderman 2010)
While flexibility affects usability negatively, sociability can compensate
as it is addressing the need for social interaction through social
presence and social validation
“Social cues induce perception of Web site socialness leading to increased pleasure
and arousal, both of which positively influence flow, hedonic and utilitarian value and
patronage intentions” (Wang et al. 2007)
“A combination of system characteristics (e.g. information and system quality) and
social factors (e.g. trust and social usefulness) contribute to virtual community‟s
success” (Lin 2008)
The influence of sociability is established in driving attitude toward the company
and service quality perceptions in online product communities (Nambisan & Watt
2011)
8. CONCEPTUAL MODEL: OUR PROPOSITION
Website P1(-) Perceived P3a(+)
flexibility Ease of use Satisfaction
(PEOU)
P2 P3b(+)
P4?
BI
Sociability
(yes/no)
P1: Website flexibility impacts negatively PEOU
P2: Sociability interacts with flexibility to impact PEOU such as:
P2a/P2b: social functionality presence (absence) weakens (does not
weaken) significantly the negative impact of Website flexibility on PEOU
P3a: PEOU impacts positively on satisfaction
P3b: PEOU impacts positively on BI
P4: Sociability impacts positively PEOU?? (Few literature found yet for theoretical
support, but we could suspect an informative social influence at work)
9. CONTRIBUTIONS
Theoretical level
Proposition of a research framework which
Highlights the interplay between flexibility and sociability attributes on
Website consumers‟ evaluations
Integrates the cognitive and social dimensions of Web sites into one
single model
Sets the table for empirical testing
Managerial level
Help managers carefully plan the introduction of additional Web
site features (functionalities), to balance flexibility and
sociability for more perceived usability and satisfaction
Being aware that « Too many features can encourage initial purchase
but damage satisfaction and reduce repurchase probability » if not
properly balanced to address the functional and social needs of the
online consumers
10. FUTURE WORK FOR CONCLUSIVE REMARKS
We plan to test this conceptual model empirically with
2 types of online social context
flexibility
Prom Tep & Arcand...website sociability and
Open group vs closed group
Using a consumer review platform (like Buzzilions or CNet)
Using a collaborative work platform (like Zoho or Central Desktop)
with proper manipulation checks for
Flexibility H/L installing more or less features
(ex. calendar, task list, alerts, folder categories, etc.)
Sociability Y/N
(ex. contact lists with online status, discussion threads, work
groups/subgroups, etc.)
Controlling for key variables
(ex. need for social interaction, Web site experience, etc.)
11. Prom Tep & Arcand...website sociability and
flexibility
Suggestions?
THANK YOU!
Questions?
12. REFERENCES
Aljukhadar, M. and Senecal, S. (2009), “How the website usability
elements impact performance”, Proceedings of the 15th Americas
Conference on Information Systems 2009, San Francisco.
Barnes S.J, and Vidgen R.T. (2002), “An integrative approach to the
assessment of e-commerce quality”, Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, Vol. 3(3), pp. 114–27.
Bastien, J.M.C. et Scapin D. (1993), « Ergonomic criteria for the
evaluation of Human-Computer interfaces, INRIA, France
Bernoff, J. and Li, C. (2008), “Harnessing the Power of the Oh-So-Social
Web”, MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 36-42.
Bressolles, G. Durieu, F. and Giraud , M. (2007), « The impact of
electronic service quality‟s dimensions on customer satisfaction and
buying impulse », Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 6, (1), pp. 37-56.
Bressolles, G. (2006), “La qualité de service électronique: NetQu@l:
proposition d‟une échelle de mesure appliqué aux sites marchands et
effets modérateurs, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 21, 3,
pp. 19-47.
Cook,S. (2008), “The contribution revolution: Letting Volunteers Build
Your Business”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86(10), pp. 60-66.
13. REFERENCES
Cova, B., Kozinets, R.V. & Shankar, A. 2007 (Eds), Consumer Tribes.
Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology », MIS Quarterly
, Vol. 13, 319-340.
Evanchitsky, H., Gopalkrishnan, I., Hesse, J. and Ahlert, D. (2004) „E-
satisfaction:a re-examination‟, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, No.
3, pp.239–247.
Gill, T. (2008), « Convergent products: What functionalities add more
value to the base? », Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 (March), pp. 46-62.
Hearst, M. et al. (2002), « Finding the flow in in-site
search », Communications of the ACM, 45,9, pp. 42-49.
Hennig-Thurau, T. et al (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the Internet”, Journal of Interactive Marketing
Vol., 18, 1, pp. 38-52.
Kaplan A. and Haenlein M., (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The
challenges and opportunities of social media”, Business Horizons, Vol.
53, Issue 1, p. 59-68
14. REFERENCES
Lee, H.-H, Damhorst, M.L., Campbell3, J.R., Loker4, S. and
Parsons, J.L. (2011), « Consumer satisfaction with a mass
customized Internet apparel shopping site”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 316-329.
Lin H.-F. (2008), « Determinants of succesful virtual communities:
Contributions from system characteristics and social factors »,
Information & Managemetn, Vol. 45, pp. 522-527.
Mick, D. and Fournier, S. (1998), « Paradoxes of technology:
Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies », Journal of
Consumer Research, 25, (sept), pp. 123-43.
Murray, K.B. and Haubl, G. (2008), Interactive consumer decision
aids in Handbook of Marketing Decision Models, Chap. 3, Wierenga,
B. (ed). Springer Science +Business Media.
Nambisan, R. and Watt, J.H. « Managing customer experiences in
online product communities », Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64,
pp. 889-895.
Nielsen, J. (1990), « Ten Usability Heuristics »
Preece, J. (2000), Online Communities: Designing Usability,
Supporting Sociability, Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.,
www.ifsm.umbc.edu/onlinecommunities
15. REFERENCES
Preece, J. and Shneiderman, B. (2009), «The reader to leader framework:
Motivating technology mediated social participation », AIS Transactions on Human
Computer Interaction, 1,1,:pp. 1-21.
Sénécal, S. and Nantel, J. (2004), “The Influence of Online Product
Recommendations on Consumers‟ Online Choices,” Journal of Retailing, 80 (2),
pp. 159-169.
Shneiderman, B. (1993), « Designing user interface strategies for effective
Human-Computer Interaction », Massachussetts: Addison-Westly, 639 pages.
Schwartz, B. (2005), “The paradox of choice: Why more is less”, Harper Collins,
New York, NY.
Szymanski, D.M. and Hise, R.T.(2000), “E-satisfaction: An initial examination”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 (3), pp. 309–322.
Thompson, D.V., Hamilton, R.W. and Rust, R.T. (2005), « Feature fatigue: When
product capabilities become too much of a good thing », Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 42 (nov.)‟ pp. 431-442.
Wang, L.C., Baker, J., Wagner, J.A. & Wakefield, K. (2007), “Can a retail web site
be social?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 (july), pp. 143-157.
Wolfinbarger M, and Gilly M.C. (2003), “eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and
predicting etail quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79(3), pp. 183–97.
Yoo B, and Donthu N. (2001), “Developing a scale to measure the perceived
quality of an Internet shopping site (SITEQUAL)”, Quarterly Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Vol. 2(1), pp. 31–46.
Notas do Editor
In the last 5 years a large body of lit has developed and has shown the positive effect of sociability on consumers’ attitude and BI, driving VC success Moderating role of sociabilityWhile flexibility affects usability negatively, sociability can compensate as it is addressing the need for social interaction through social presence and social validationUGC-related functionalities turn regular Web sites into social network spaces (good old online communities)Consumers now also expect to turn to the Web to have social dimensions addressed while shopping onlinePeer recommendations influence product choice (Senecal & Nantel 2004)The growth of social commerce , consumer tribes (Cova, Kozinets & Shankar, 2007) and eWOM(Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Lin 2008)