Comparison websites are on the rise; they have become increasingly well-known under the ordinary consumer. However, what is less well-known, is that comparison websites are making use of...Show moreComparison websites are on the rise; they have become increasingly well-known under the ordinary consumer. However, what is less well-known, is that comparison websites are making use of sponsorships. This means that the ranking of options is based on a financial agreement between the website and a product provider. Comparison websites should disclose sponsorship. However, the sponsorship disclosure is not always noticed or interpreted by the consumer. Also, there is not one method to disclose sponsorship. Therefore this study compared four different sponsorship disclosures: a thumbs-up icon, an information icon, a paid position tag, and a highlighted tag. The sponsorship disclosures were shown on a mock comparison website for hotels. One of the hotels was sponsored, which was indicated by the sponsorship disclosure. After the participants used the comparison website to make a hotel preference, they were presented a survey. The survey was intended to examine the influence of different ways of sponsorship disclosure on (a) recognizing and understanding the sponsoring, (b) the feeling of being treated fairly, and (c) the purchase behavior and purchase intention. The results showed that textual sponsorship disclosures were better recognized and understood than the sponsorship disclosures by symbols, especially the highlighted paid position tag. Contrary to our expectations, the type of sponsorship disclosure did not influence the perceived fairness, purchase behavior, and purchase intention as we expected. Possible explanations and directions for future research are discussed, as well as practical implications for consumer organizations.Show less
Price comparison websites are a popular medium for consumers to make purchases online. Many of these websites feature sponsored content and they are required to declare the presence of sponsorship....Show morePrice comparison websites are a popular medium for consumers to make purchases online. Many of these websites feature sponsored content and they are required to declare the presence of sponsorship. The method of declaration is not standardised which may result in consumer deception. The present study aims to examine the effects of different sponsorship declarations on information comprehension, perceived fairness, purchasing reactions, and perceived information adequacy. In an online survey, 301 participants were presented with a mock hotel comparison website. The sponsorship declaration was provided using different symbols per condition which were a ‘thumbs-up’ and ‘i’ symbol, and ‘paid positioning’ and a highlighted ‘paid positioning’ caption. Participants were asked to evaluate the website, recall the symbol that they had seen, as well as interpret its meaning. Afterwards, participants were explicitly told the disclosure information and were asked to evaluate the website again. The results showed the captions were comprehended much better than the ‘thumbs-up’ and ‘i’ symbol. The different methods of sponsorship disclosure affected purchasing behaviour but not general purchasing intention, fairness, and information adequacy. Explicit explanation of disclosure method resulted in decreased fairness and purchasing intention but increased information adequacy for all conditions. The implications of differing symbol recognition for sponsorship are discussed.Show less
Previous studies on online reviews have mostly concentrated on how the evaluations of products or services are affected by negative commentary. More recent studies have expanded the field of online...Show morePrevious studies on online reviews have mostly concentrated on how the evaluations of products or services are affected by negative commentary. More recent studies have expanded the field of online reviews to investigate readers’ appraisals of the reviewer themselves based on their online comments. Most of this work focused on the effects of anger and showed that anger expressions have detrimental effects on the perceptions of the reviewer and on the informative value of the review. The current research examined whether this is always the case. Building on past findings, this study set out to investigate the effect of managerial responses to angry online reviews on appraisals of the service and the reviewer. This study created three differential managerial response conditions (apologetic, humorous, no response) to an angry online review of an imaginary hotel, and measured review informativeness, reader attitude, appropriateness of emotion, rationality of the reviewer, and the likelihood of the reader to book the reviewed hotel. Data were gathered with an online questionnaire (N = 121). Results found that apologetic responses heightened both reviewer informativeness and rationality appraisals and improved readers’ attitudes towards the service. This study thus concludes that the presence and type of managerial response to angry online reviews do have an effect on how the reviewed product or service is evaluated, and how both the review and the reviewer are perceived.Show less
Using previous research as a basis, the current research elaborates on the effect of online angry reviews, in cases when a managerial response is visibly provided with the review. Respondents were...Show moreUsing previous research as a basis, the current research elaborates on the effect of online angry reviews, in cases when a managerial response is visibly provided with the review. Respondents were shown an online angry review that received either an apologetic managerial response or a humorous managerial response. Study results revealed that a managerial response provided to the angry review would moderate the effect and intensity of perceived anger. Specifically, it was found that apologetic managerial responses caused the review to be perceived as more helpful, and the reviewer as more rational, when compared to angry reviews with no response. However, no significant differences were observed when comparing apologetic with humorous managerial responses. Yet, respondents held more positive attitudes about the company after viewing an apologetic, rather than humorous, managerial response. This research provides beneficial implications, namely that it moderates the previously held opinion that anger always backfires in online reviews, and it puts emphasis on apologetic responses as a type of response that managers should provide to ease the angry review directed at them.Show less
