Consumer trust in a post-truth world: Exploring a trust repair vis-à-vis service-brand interaction across digital media
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•239 views
Find attached slides presenting interim results of my Academy of Marketing funded research that I presented at the Business School, Faculty of Management, BU staff seminar series.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Consumer trust in a post-truth world: Exploring a trust repair vis-à-vis service-brand interaction across digital media
Similar to Consumer trust in a post-truth world: Exploring a trust repair vis-à-vis service-brand interaction across digital media (20)
More from Bournemouth University
More from Bournemouth University (14)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Consumer trust in a post-truth world: Exploring a trust repair vis-à-vis service-brand interaction across digital media
- 1. 1 Consumer trust in a post- truth world: Exploring a trust repair vis-à-vis service-brand interaction across digital media The Business School Staff Research Seminar Series Bournemouth, UK 14th February 2018
- 2. Research Background Era of widespread brand crises (Li & Wei, 2016) Consumer trust is essential: loyalty and flexibility (Gower, 2006) positive word of mouth; open/honest communication (Zahra et al., 2005) stakeholder relationships (Bachmann et al., 2015) increased revenue: reduced monitoring/transaction costs; cross/up-selling (Stevens et al., 2015) meaningful relationships between the consumer and brands (Bozic, 2017)
- 3. Consumer trust = brand trust = = “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p.395) = 3 Theory: Consumer Trust Integrity Managerial & Technical competences Transparency Benevolence Identification Conditions for consumer “trusting behaviour” + Intention / Behaviour (Schoorman et al., 2007; Pirson & Malhotra 2011; Dietz & Gillespie, 2012; Pirson and Malhotra, 2011; Butler, 1991, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000; Bozic, 2017) Behaviour (Rousseau et al., 1998) Relational (Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998) Cognitive (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Rousseau et al., 1998)
- 4. 4 Integrity Managerial & Technical competences Transparency Benevolence Identification Theory: Trust Repair Transgressions and negative events lead to a damage within one or several dimensions of trustworthiness = TRUST EROSION incidents Communication and public media engagement has always been used to mitigate post- transgression trust erosion and ‘win back’ trust (Benoit, 2006) TRUST REPAIR STRATEGIES Mechanism Definition/focus Sense-making Shared understanding/accept account of the trust violation Relational Social rituals/symbolic acts to resolve negative emotions and re- establish social order/equilibrium Regulation and control Formal rules and controls to constrain untrustworthy behaviour in order to prevent future violation Ethical culture Informal cultural controls to constrain untrustworthy behaviour and promote trustworthy behaviour in order to prevent future violation Transparency Sharing relevant information about organisational decision processes and functioning with stakeholders Trust transference Transferring trust from a credible (third) party to the discredited party Integrative trust-repair framework (Bachmann et al. 2015)
- 5. Research Gaps! 5 Lack of empirical & in- depth investigation of consumer trust erosion and evaluation of trust repair strategies Exploring digital media content to evaluate brand-consumer interaction in a trust repair timeline! Investigation of past trust erosion incidents is necessary with evaluation of the actual survival / failure of the brand – timeline approach! Conceptual paper!
- 6. to explore the interaction between consumers and brands within the trust repair process with particular focus on digital media that presents a context where such interaction can be tracked and examined. 6 Research Aim: Research Objectives: (RO1) To explore the trust repair process and identify trust repair mechanisms used by brand in digital media (RO2) To evaluate consumer interactions in relation to trust erosion incidents and and responses to trust repair mechanisms in digital media Study context: 3 cases
- 7. Background and context of cases 7
- 8. Method • A netnographic / media content study • Primary unit of analysis – the message (i.e. brand’s media message, consumer message) • Data collection – digital media content across formats (brands’ websites, social media, UGC etc.) • Sample: Brand content – 70 messages (primarily Alton Towers but messages are evident across all cases) + 90 UGC messages in total (primarily Alton Towers) since 2013 • Data analysis: to date - template approach and sentiment analysis, plans to use - emotional text analysis (ETA) • Software: to date – Nvivo, plans to use - SPAD & Iramuteq (qualitative data & language processing software) 8
- 10. Findings (to date) 10 • The only case that utilised the digital media for trust repair purposes is Alton Towers. • Trust repair mechanisms use: sense-making, trust transference and relationships building. • Ignorance approach + diverting attention and evoke purchase/visit oriented behaviour. • Sports Direct, some efforts with relational approach (i.e. #SDFAMILY) but this has not received any traction from the consumers. RO1 • Lloyds, no mechanisms are attempted to be employed. • A misbalance between brands' understanding of how digital media can be used to repair trust and consumer expectations of brands' communication when it comes to regaining their trust. • Consumers are found to engage in post trust erosion dialogue whereas brands tend to ignore the trust erosion event-related content or use digital content to revert consumers’ attention. To date academic literature has not empirically demonstrated the case for this particular argument.
- 11. Next steps … 11 ETA for investigating emotions that UGC involve Further literature review to evaluate and interpret results for each case – recognising contextual differences!
- 12. THANK YOU! I welcome feedback, suggestions and questions … 12
- 13. References Arendt, C., LaFleche, M., & Limperopulos, M. A. (2017). A qualitative meta-analysis of apologia, image repair, and crisis communication: Implications for theory and practice. Public Relations Review. Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N. & Priem, R. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36(9), 1123-1142. Benoit, W. L. (2006). President Bush’s image repair effort on Meet the Press: The complexities of defeasibility. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 285–306. Bozic, B. (2017). Consumer trust repair: a critical literature review. European Management Journal, in press, 1-10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.007. Butler, J.K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643-663. Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93. Delgado-Ballester, E. & Munuera-Alemán, J.L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187-196, Dietz, G. & Gillespie, N. (2012). The recovery of trust: case studies of organisational failures and trust repair. Institute of Business Ethics. Occasional Paper 5. Dirks, K.T., Lewicki, R.J. & Zaheer, A. (2009). Introduction to special topic forum: repairing relationships within and between organizations: building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 68-84. Dorset County Council. (2017, 19 May 2017). Dorset Statistics and census information. Dorset for You Retrieved 11 July, 2017, from https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/statistics Flores, F. & Solomon, R.C. (1998). Creating trust. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(2), 205-232. Fotaki, M. (2014). Can consumer choice replace trust in the National Health Service in England? Towards developing an affective psychosocial conception of trust in health care. Sociology of health & illness, 36(8), 1276-1294. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70-87. Gillespie, N. & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127-145. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. & Meijer, A. (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: evidence from an online. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137-157. Hamzah, Z. L., Syed Alwi, S. F., & Othman, M. N. (2014). Designing corporate brand experience in an online context: A qualitative insight. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2299-2310. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.018 Li, M. & Wei, H. (2016). How to Save Brand after Crises? A Literature Review on Brand Crisis Management. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6(2), 89-96. Lewicki, R. & Bunker, B.B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In: Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R., eds., Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 114- 139. Martin, R.L. (2011). Fixing the game: bubbles, crashes, and what capitalism can learn from the NFL. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. McKendall, M.A. & Wagner, J.A. (1997). Motive, opportunity, choice, and corporate illegality. Organization Science, 8(6), 624-647. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81-101. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Group as Qualitative Research (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Pfarrer, M.D. Decelles, K.A., Smith, K.G., & Taylor, M.S. (2008). After the fall: reintegrating the corrupt organization. The Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 730-749. Pirson, M. & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders? Organization Science, 22(4), 1087-1104. Richards, C., Lawrence, G., & Burch, D. (2011). Supermarkets and agro-industrial foods: The strategic manufacturing of consumer trust. Food, Culture & Society, 14(1), 29-47. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. Schoorman, D., Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J.H. (2007). An integrative model of ornaizational trust: past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354. Singh, J. & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in relational exchanges. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 150-167. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15-37. Stevens, M., MacDuffie, J.P. & Helper, S. (2015). Reorienting and recalibrating inter-organizational relationships: strategies for achieving optimal trust. Organization Studies, 36(9), 1237-1264. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, W.K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593. Weibel, A. (2007). Formal control and trustworthiness - never the twain shall meet? Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 500-517. Wicks, A., Berman, S. & Jones, T.M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 99-116. Zucker, L.G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. In: Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L., eds. Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 8. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 53- 111. Zhu, L., Anagondahalli, D., & Zhang, A. (2017). Social media and culture in crisis communication: McDonald’s and KFC crises management in China. Public Relations Review, March, 1-10. 13
Editor's Notes
- Series of large scale scandals/transgressions linked to corporate brands have happened recently and corporate brands continue being exposed to scandals as a result of consumers’ increased power, technology, competition etc….
- Trust is a complex issue often perceived as a sentimental concept, but the fact is that trust delivers hard and measurable results for brands and businesses. In times when consumers are becoming increasingly cynical about brands, trust helps build and maintain meaningful relationships between the consumer, brands and businesses, through fostering quality communication via positive word-of-mouth (Bozic, 2017). In recent times, there has been a number of spectacular organisational transgressions in the UK, e.g. mis-selling in the financial services sector (e.g. PPI), HR issues in the retail sector (e.g. Sports Direct) and safety issues within the leisure sector (e.g. Alton Towers), have damaged multiple stakeholders’ trust towards those brands and businesses. As a result, businesses and industry sectors are losing sales and most importantly suffering from long-standing and hard to repair reputational damage. To date, much of the research surrounding organizational and consumer trust has focussed on the development of trust, the processes and implications of trust erosion, and the applicability of a limited number of trust-repair mechanisms within the context of isolated and dyadic case studies. Generalised conceptual frameworks underpinning trust-repair across different sectors remain largely unexplored. Bachmann et al. 2015 present the most comprehensive integrative trust-repair framework, proposing six key mechanisms: 1. Sense-making involves establishing a shared understanding and accepted account of what happened, who is responsible and what needs to be reformed. Sense-making as outlined in Weiner’s (1986) causal attribution theory, involves causal ascription to either an internal or external factor, and an examination of the controllability and future stability of that cause in order to predict and prevent the likelihood of that cause reoccurring (Bies and Shapiro 1987; Mayer et al. 1995; Lewicki and Bunker 1996; Tomlinson and Mayer 2009). 2. The relational approach attempts to restore a relationship to a state of social order or social equilibrium by reducing negative affect through social rituals, symbolic acts and offerings (Goffman 1967; Ohbuchi et al. 1989; Dirks et al. 2009; Stevens et al. 2015). The relational approach is closely linked with sense-making and involves timely apologies, admission or attribution of responsibility for wrong conduct (Tomlinson et al. 2004; Lewicki and Polin 2012), public explanations, and punishment in terms of penance, fines, resignations and compensation (Bottom et al. 2002). Punishments are considered more effective for trust-repair when these are entered into voluntarily and when these have substantive and tangible impacts on the violator (Bachmann et al. 2015). 3. Regulation and formal control involves external intervention and monitoring by the government or industry regulators, and internal controls such as laws, rules, policies, process and output controls, contracts, codes of conduct, sanctions and incentives that define and incentivise acceptable conduct, without suffocating innovation and flexibility (Sitkin and Roth 1993; Weibel 2007; Bachmann et al. 2015). These regulations and controls act to fundamentally restructure organisations in order to prevent future trust violations (Stevens et al. 2015). Again, voluntary regulation is more effective for trust-repair than externally imposed regulation particularly where an integrity-based violation has occurred (Sitkin and Roth 1993; Nakayachi and Watabe 2005). 4. Ethical culture and informal control refers to the ethical values engrained in routines and procedures (McKendall and Wagner 1997). Ethical values constrain and safeguard against unethical behaviour. Managers and leaders who establish an ethical culture act as role models, instituting norms and providing a compass for organisation members and stakeholders (Zahra et al. 2005). Where unethical behaviours exists, these are closely linked to the interactive effects of motives, opportunity and choice that result in actions that violate moral and legal codes in order to benefit an organisation or leader (Baucus 1994). Unethical culture can permeate organisations making it very difficult to change (Ashforth and Anand, 2003). Strategies for producing a more ethical culture might include removal of unethical actors and role models, a change in focus towards the long-term needs of the company (Martin 2011) and reminders of stakeholders’ professional responsibilities and roles (Cohn et al. 2014). 5. Transparency and accountability involves the timely disclosure of relevant information about and accountability for decision processes, procedures, functioning and performance (Rawlins 2009; Auger 2014). This allows stakeholders to monitor and make decisions about their relationship with the organization, provided that the organisation is honest, comprehensive and balanced in its reporting and that the stakeholders trusts that this is the case (Gower 2006). In some case, transparency may expose incompetence, a lack of integrity or poor treatment of stakeholders (Bachmann et al 2015). 6. Trust transference involves the transference of trust from a credible trusted entity, such as the government, a regulatory body or inquiry leader, to a discredited entity, and equates to direct experience with an individual or organisation (Simmel 1950; Ferrin et al. 2006). For trust transference to be effective, stakeholders must trust the third party entity and the third party entity must be willing to transfer their trustworthiness to the discredited entity. Communication and public media engagement has always been used to mitigate post-transgression trust erosion and ‘win back’ trust (Benoit, 2006). Digital media, as opposed to traditional media filtered by third parties, has enabled businesses and brands to control their own trust repair messaging process by communicating directly and in a timely manner to stakeholders (Zhu et al., 2017). However, digital media can also detrimentally increase a wide-spread erosion of trust as consumers and other stakeholders openly express their views and observe the reactions of others to brand transgressions – recent evidence of this is digital coverage of the United Airline overbooking scandal (Buckley, 2017). An organization’s post-transgression communication can substantially exacerbate or mitigate the outcomes of a trust erosion incident (Ulmer et al., 2007). In addition, digital technologies further complicate how trust repair process is managed and communicated worldwide (Veil et al., 2011). Specifically, the public participation in digital media participation presents unique challenges to brands’ trust repair strategies and processes. Trust repair process becomes an ongoing process of managing consumer responses and interaction.
- Applying the integrative trust-repair framework proposed by Bachmann et al. (2015), this research aims to explore, compare and contrast the trust repair process and trust repair mechanisms used by the three selected cases in digital (e.g. websites, social networks) media. The findings will identify which repair mechanisms were used and assess their relative success. This research will operationalise Bachmann’s framework and contribute to guidelines for service organisations to use when a crisis occurs. These sectors were chosen as they represent high profile examples, which should ensure consumer awareness of each allowing direct comparisons across service contexts and brands. Each of these case studies represents different causes of trust erosion. The mis-selling of PPI and the subsequent collapse in trust relating to our financial services is largely the result of too much trust. The general public had too much faith in the banking system and the professionalism of staff in the financial services. Whilst on the other side, banks relied on the lack of knowledge of their customers, becoming complacent and demonstrating hubris in their confidence that they would avoid detection or significant retribution (McKendall and Wagner 1997). We are focusing on Lloyds Banking group that has been severely affected by PPI scandal. The HR issues at Sports Direct and subsequent collapse in trust relating to the brand is largely the result of too little trust. The management (including owner Mike Ashley and HR officers) had too little trust in the staff. Rules were impartially administered with no room for rational judgement and demonstrated scepticism on behalf of the management. These rules undermined the dignity of the employees. This, combined with poor working conditions and job insecurity created a distrust of the leadership (Whitener et al. 1998; Kiefer 2005; Wong et al. 2005). The health and safety issues at Alton Towers and subsequent collapse in trust is largely the result of too much trust in the safety of the rides, which resulted in complacency, and in the capabilities of other employees. Locating our research within these different contexts enables us to empirically test the appropriateness and fit of the Bachmann et al. (2015) trust-repair framework across different sectors.