Table 2 Focus group insights Key...

Table 2

Focus group insights

Key insights	Participants’ key statements
Focus group 1: accommodative response to only negative comments, standard vs humanized account
Reply should be useful, helpful, credible and empathetic	“A helpful reply with useful information is key to understanding the situation and resolving the problem.”
	“Providing useful responses shows the firm is trying to fix its mistakes.”
	“Responses should help both complainants and potential customers. Everyone gets a better impression of the firm.”
	“With many comments on social networks, transparent and informative responses build credibility – without showing credibility, there is no point in replying.”
	“Responses should include apologies, empathy, and emotional engagement.”
Accommodative reply enhances complaint satisfaction	“As a complaining user, my first impression is positive because the firm provides helpful, solution-oriented responses.”
	“I would be satisfied with the complaint handling since the firm shows goodwill, provides details, and offers compensation.”
	“I would be happy with the complaint handling. I get a helpful answer and the firm feels trustworthy and sincere.”
Accommodative reply is customer-oriented	“The way the firm responds is very customer-oriented because it addresses my and other complaints and seems to genuinely care about resolving the issues.”
Accommodative reply enhances attitudes	“The firm’s effort and empathy improve my attitude.”
	“I feel positive about the firm because the problem is solved. It listened, showed understanding, and offered a solution.”
	“I appreciate the firm’s effort to provide useful and satisfying responses.”
	“My impression and attitude are good because I get a helpful response.”
Humanized account is more credible and personal	“Having a concrete communication partner makes the reply more credible. It’s fine if the firm responds from a standard account, but it feels less personal.”
Humanized account is more customer-oriented	“I feel more comfortable with a concrete and tangible contact person.”
Humanized account is more customer-oriented	“Having a contact person makes the responses even more appealing.”
*Focus group 2: defensive response to only negative comments, standard vs humanized account*
Reply should be useful, credible and emotional	“The response should be useful.”
	“Credibility is important, especially on social networks.”
	“Complainants are emotional, so I expect a certain degree of empathy – like an apology.”
Defensive reply lacks appropriate emotions	“The firm doesn’t try to understand customers or offer emotional support.”
Defensive reply lacks appropriate emotions	“We, as complainants, are emotional, but the firm responds with denial and lacks emotional engagement.”
Defensive reply decreases complaint satisfaction	“It’s disappointing that there is no apology or solution.”
	“The firm at least responds, but I am more frustrated than before.”
	“Denying responsibility doesn’t help me – it makes complaining pointless.”
Defensive reply is not customer-oriented	“The firm’s replies are neither customer-oriented nor helpful. There is no solution or compensation.”
Defensive reply negatively affects attitudes	“My attitude wouldn’t be great. I miss a solution and understanding.”
Defensive reply negatively affects attitudes	“How can I like the firm if it isn’t even trying to help?”
Humanized account is better but does not offset negative effects of defensive replies	“The photo and name help me connect with a real person.”
	“I find the humanized account more credible because I get more information about the person.”
	“The humanized account offers contact details for further communication, but I wouldn’t call it customer-oriented.”
	“My attitude wouldn’t be great either way, but having a direct contact might help a little.”
	“A response from a firm representative is better, but I am still unhappy with how my complaint was handled.”

Key insights	Participants’ key statements
Focus group 1: accommodative response to only negative comments, standard vs humanized account
Reply should be useful, helpful, credible and empathetic	“A helpful reply with useful information is key to understanding the situation and resolving the problem.”
	“Providing useful responses shows the firm is trying to fix its mistakes.”
	“Responses should help both complainants and potential customers. Everyone gets a better impression of the firm.”
	“With many comments on social networks, transparent and informative responses build credibility – without showing credibility, there is no point in replying.”
	“Responses should include apologies, empathy, and emotional engagement.”
Accommodative reply enhances complaint satisfaction	“As a complaining user, my first impression is positive because the firm provides helpful, solution-oriented responses.”
	“I would be satisfied with the complaint handling since the firm shows goodwill, provides details, and offers compensation.”
	“I would be happy with the complaint handling. I get a helpful answer and the firm feels trustworthy and sincere.”
Accommodative reply is customer-oriented	“The way the firm responds is very customer-oriented because it addresses my and other complaints and seems to genuinely care about resolving the issues.”
Accommodative reply enhances attitudes	“The firm’s effort and empathy improve my attitude.”
	“I feel positive about the firm because the problem is solved. It listened, showed understanding, and offered a solution.”
	“I appreciate the firm’s effort to provide useful and satisfying responses.”
	“My impression and attitude are good because I get a helpful response.”
Humanized account is more credible and personal	“Having a concrete communication partner makes the reply more credible. It’s fine if the firm responds from a standard account, but it feels less personal.”
Humanized account is more customer-oriented	“I feel more comfortable with a concrete and tangible contact person.”
Humanized account is more customer-oriented	“Having a contact person makes the responses even more appealing.”
Focus group 2: defensive response to only negative comments, standard vs humanized account
Reply should be useful, credible and emotional	“The response should be useful.”
	“Credibility is important, especially on social networks.”
	“Complainants are emotional, so I expect a certain degree of empathy – like an apology.”
Defensive reply lacks appropriate emotions	“The firm doesn’t try to understand customers or offer emotional support.”
Defensive reply lacks appropriate emotions	“We, as complainants, are emotional, but the firm responds with denial and lacks emotional engagement.”
Defensive reply decreases complaint satisfaction	“It’s disappointing that there is no apology or solution.”
	“The firm at least responds, but I am more frustrated than before.”
	“Denying responsibility doesn’t help me – it makes complaining pointless.”
Defensive reply is not customer-oriented	“The firm’s replies are neither customer-oriented nor helpful. There is no solution or compensation.”
Defensive reply negatively affects attitudes	“My attitude wouldn’t be great. I miss a solution and understanding.”
Defensive reply negatively affects attitudes	“How can I like the firm if it isn’t even trying to help?”
Humanized account is better but does not offset negative effects of defensive replies	“The photo and name help me connect with a real person.”
	“I find the humanized account more credible because I get more information about the person.”
	“The humanized account offers contact details for further communication, but I wouldn’t call it customer-oriented.”
	“My attitude wouldn’t be great either way, but having a direct contact might help a little.”
	“A response from a firm representative is better, but I am still unhappy with how my complaint was handled.”

Source(s): Authors’ work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable