چگونه یک شرکت بهترین واکنش را در مقابل مشتری های معمولی پس از شکست خدمات  How a firm’s best versus normal customers react to compensation after a service failure

1. Introduction Building strong customer relationships is a cornerstone of marketing because such relationships improve profitability for firms (De Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder, & Iacobucci, 2001; Kaltcheva, Winsor, & Parasurman, 2013). When a service failure occurs, relationship management becomes crucial as managers need to know how much compensation they should offer to their best vs. normal customers. Should they provide the same or more compensation to their best customers? This question is important because a meta-analysis indicates compensation as the most effective recovery action (Gelbrich & Roschk, 2011a). In their other meta-analysis, Gelbrich and Roschk (2011b) reveal that not all compensation amounts are equally effective. Simple or partial compensation (less than 100% failure reparation) has a stronger incremental effect on satisfaction than overcompensation (more than 100%), and these results suggest that the link “compensation → satisfaction” is nonlinear and concave. Moreover, the effect size of overcompensation is shown to differ for transaction-specific satisfaction (i.e., evaluation of the focal service recovery) and overall satisfaction (i.e., evaluation of all previous interactions with the provider). Hence, in order to better understand the effect of compensation on different satisfaction types (specific vs. overall), Gelbrich and Roschk (2011b) highlight the importance of integrating customer relationship as the missing piece of the puzzle. This latter concept should relate differently to specific and overall satisfaction. So, the general purpose of the current paper is to answer this call, which has been raised, but not formally tested by Gelbrich and Roschk (2011b). Echoing this call, prior research has suggested that compensation should be adapted to prior relationships (Ha & Jang, 2009; Worsfold, Worsfold, & Bradley, 2007). Unfortunately, the findings of this research stream are mixed and the evidence remains inconclusive. For some, prior relationship matters in the satisfaction formation (Worsfold et al., 2007; Study 1); for others, it does not (Mattila, 2001; Worsfold et al., 2007; Study 2). Hence, marketing theorists and practitioners still have a poor understanding of how weak and strong relationship customers respond to a wide range of compensation amounts. We believe that the absence of clear evidence may be explained by a somewhat arbitrary choice of a limited number of compensation amounts (e.g., 0% vs. 20%, or 100% vs. 150%), and a lack of clear distinction between transaction-specific and overall satisfaction. To address these issues, the current study draws comprehensive curve progressions between a wide number of compensation amounts (Studies 1 and 2 include eleven and five compensations amounts, respectively) and two satisfaction types (specific versus overall), for both weak and strong relationship customers. Specifically, this research makes three contributions. After confirming that the effect of compensation on satisfaction is nonlinear and concave, we first propose and test that relationship quality—a popular concept that captures the strength of a relationship (De Wulf et al., 2001)—moderates this function in a predictable manner. When compensation is partial or low (less than 100%), we argue that weak and strong relationship customers display comparable satisfaction. In the context of overcompensation (more than 100%), we argue that strong relationship customers should respond more positively, compared to the weak relationship group. In other words, the overall curve progression should be concave—especially for weak relationship customers, and this curve should start plateauing beyond 100% (see Fig. 1). Based on these curve progressions, we identify the optimal compensation for each group, which is the level of compensation that provides the best increase or return in satisfaction (Gelbrich & Roschk, 2011b).