Bernt Krohn Solvang
17
customers are more sensitive to benefits/costs of complaining. The difference could be explained by a
difference in personal competence expressed where the offline customers have highest score (Cho,
Hiltz and Fjermestad 2002).
Comp lain, protest and avoidance have also been seen as negative effects of loyalty programs
(Strauss, Schmidt and Schoeler 2005).
Each fourth of the potential complainers do not complain. The main reasons for this are linked to
perceived costs of complaining as time and efforts (Voorhees, Brandy and Horowitz 2006). According
to Grønhaug and Zaltman (1981), making a complaint is positively linked to experience, education and
income, but negatively linked to age.
Voice handling
Poor handling of a complainer who chooses to complain instead of changing shop because he has
a certain loyalty will weaken the complainer’s faith in the supplier. This results in fewer satisfied
customers and reduced loyalty. The risk of exit and a reduction in repeat purchase increase, together
with the increased probability of negative private comments (WOM) (Bearden and Oliver, 1985;
Grønhaug, 1987; Richins, 1983). Griffin (1995: 191) points out those complainers who have obtained a
quick solution have a repeat-purchase tendency of 82%, in contrast to those who have experienced a
major problem without complaining and whose repeat-purchase tendency is 9%. Those who complain,
irrespective of the result, have a repeat purchase figure of 19%. Gilly and Hansen (1985) point out that
effective complaint handling results in customer satisfaction and loyalty.
We must suppose that many of the complainers are loyal customers. They choose to complain
instead of changing shop because their loyalty has increased the costs perceived in changing shop. On
the other hand a greater zone of tolerance among the loyal customers may keep them from
complaining. Good handling of this type of complainer will strengthen the complainer’s faith in the
supplier: ‘only moderate degrees of satisfaction with service recovery are needed to restore future
repurchase intention’ (Andreassen, 1997: 195; Singh, 1990b; Gilly and Hansen, 1985).
Good complaint handling results in satisfaction and increased loyalty, and reduces the probability
of negative private comments (WOM) (Bearden and Oliver, 1985; Grønhaug, 1987; Richins, 1983).
This in turn reduces the risk of exit and increases the probability of repeat purchase. Increased
probability of repeat purchase means a better financial result for the supplier. Calculations show that an
increase of 5% in the repeat purchase share from 60% to 65% increases receipts by 15%. ‘On the other
hand a fall in customer loyalty from, for example, 90 to 80 will result in future sales being halved.’
(Andreassen, 1997: 4) This is also shown by Oliver (1997, pp. 368-369). A better financial situation
helps the supplier to satisfy complainers. A weaker situation makes it more difficult for the supplier to
offer good complaint handling.
Negative WOM
Bearden and Oliver (1985) found that a higher potential loss stimulates various forms of
complaint, and that the extent of private complaint behaviour is inversely linked to satisfaction with the
response from the firm. They point out that if the organisation makes a mistake in its complaint
handling, this may lead to loss of goodwill and negative WOM. Grønhaug (1977) pointed out that the
complaints seem to build up round complex products which involve a high risk.
Richins (1983) found a connection between the consumers’ evaluation of the complaint handling
and comments about the shop. The more negative the complaint handling expected by the complainer,
the greater the probability of negative private comments (WOM). In another work Singh (1990b) points
out that exit and negative WOM are linked to an evaluation of the probability of the complaint being
successful. But Naylor and Kleiser (2000) do not find any effect of earlier complaint handling on
negative WOM. No complainers are less likely to engage in negative word of mouth than the
dissatisfied and recovery groups (Voorhees, Brandy and Horowitz 2006).
Some of the protest forms turn out the public against a firm that has wronged them. Protests
published at the Internet are rooted in injustice, identity and turn out as a personal grievance into a
“cause” worthy of public attention and support (Ward and Ostrom 2006).
Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction are associated with the expectations of the customer. If
high expectations are met, the customer will be satisfied, but if low expectations are not exceeded by
the delivery the customer will be dissatisfied (Oliver, 1997). The customer’s experiences could be
linked to various sources as service performance, product quality, transactions, product delivery and
other factors (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry, 1990).