IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v34y2023i1d10.1007_s11002-022-09631-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“No, Thanks”: How Do Requests for Feedback Affect the Consumption Behavior of Non-Compliers?

Author

Listed:
  • Dikla Perez

    (Bar-Ilan University)

  • Gal Oestreicher-Singer

    (Coller School of Management, Tel-Aviv University)

  • Lior Zalmanson

    (Coller School of Management, Tel-Aviv University)

  • Matthew Matan Rubin

    (INSEAD)

Abstract

Consumers’ feedback helps firms, yet most requests for feedback are unanswered. Research on question–behavior effects suggests that providing feedback on prior experiences might influence subsequent consumption behavior, but provides little insight regarding users who decline requests (e.g., by clicking “No, Thanks”). Accordingly, we investigate whether the exposure to a request to rate a consumption experience influences users’ future conversion regardless of their compliance. We carried out two large-scale field studies in collaboration with a leading international website that offers basic service for free, and additional desirable features for a fee (“freemium”). We exposed users to a rating request and measured their subsequent likelihood of converting to the paid service. Users exposed to a rating request were more likely to convert compared with users who were not exposed; this effect persisted over 90 days. Notably, users who complied with the request were no more likely to convert compared with non-compliers.

Suggested Citation

  • Dikla Perez & Gal Oestreicher-Singer & Lior Zalmanson & Matthew Matan Rubin, 2023. "“No, Thanks”: How Do Requests for Feedback Affect the Consumption Behavior of Non-Compliers?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 83-97, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:34:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11002-022-09631-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-022-09631-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-022-09631-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-022-09631-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fazio, Russell H & Powell, Martha C & Williams, Carol J, 1989. "The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(3), pages 280-289, December.
    2. Fitzsimons, Gavan J & Morwitz, Vicki G, 1996. "The Effect of Measuring Intent on Brand-Level Purchase Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(1), pages 1-11, June.
    3. Morwitz, Vicki G & Johnson, Eric J & Schmittlein, David C, 1993. "Does Measuring Intent Change Behavior?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 46-61, June.
    4. Berger, Ida E & Mitchell, Andrew A, 1989. "The Effect of Advertising on Attitude Accessibility, Attitude Confidence, and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(3), pages 269-279, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaojing Dong & Ramkumar Janakiraman & Ying Xie, 2014. "The Effect of Survey Participation on Consumer Behavior: The Moderating Role of Marketing Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 567-585, July.
    2. Omar Merlo & Andreas B. Eisingerich & Wayne D. Hoyer, 2024. "Immunizing customers against negative brand-related information," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 140-163, January.
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott & Morwitz, Vicki G. & Kumar, V., 2000. "Sales forecasts for existing consumer products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 383-397.
    4. Yogesh Upadhyay & S. K. Singh, 2010. "When Sports Celebrity Doesn'T Perfrom: How Consumers React to Celebrity Endorsement?," Vision, , vol. 14(1-2), pages 67-78, January.
    5. Liu, Wendy & Aaker, Jennifer L., 2008. "The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect," Research Papers 1998, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    6. Voorhees, Clay M. & Fombelle, Paul W. & Gregoire, Yany & Bone, Sterling & Gustafsson, Anders & Sousa, Rui & Walkowiak, Travis, 2017. "Service encounters, experiences and the customer journey: Defining the field and a call to expand our lens," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 269-280.
    7. John Robert Warren & Andrew Halpern-Manners, 2012. "Panel Conditioning in Longitudinal Social Science Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(4), pages 491-534, November.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:48-61 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. So, Kevin Kam Fung & King, Ceridwyn & Hudson, Simon & Meng, Fang, 2017. "The missing link in building customer brand identification: The role of brand attractiveness," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 640-651.
    10. Johanna Peetz & Melanie Simmons & Jingwen Chen & Roger Buehler, 2016. "Predictions on the go: Prevalence of spontaneous spending predictions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 48-61, January.
    11. Sun, Baohong & Morwitz, Vicki G., 2010. "Stated intentions and purchase behavior: A unified model," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 356-366.
    12. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    13. Alois Stutzer & Lorenz Goette & Michael Zehnder, 2011. "Active Decisions and Prosocial Behaviour: a Field Experiment on Blood Donation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(556), pages 476-493, November.
    14. Rosbergen, Edward & Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 1997. "Analyzing visual attention tot repeated print advertising using scanpath theory," Research Report 97B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    15. Vanitha Swaminathan & Srinivas Reddy & Sara Dommer, 2012. "Spillover effects of ingredient branded strategies on brand choice: A field study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 237-251, March.
    16. Choi, James J. & Haisley, Emily & Kurkoski, Jennifer & Massey, Cade, 2017. "Small cues change savings choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 378-395.
    17. Scarpi, Daniele & Pizzi, Gabriele & Raggiotto, Francesco & Mason, Michela, 2018. "A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of satisfaction toward extreme sporting Events," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 358-368.
    18. Agarwal Sanjeev & Teas R. Kenneth, 2005. "Measurement Context Effects in Telephone-Survey-Based Tests of Causal Models," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-24, July.
    19. Cowley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Recognition confidence, recognition accuracy and choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 641-646, June.
    20. Tami Kim & Leslie K. John & Todd Rogers & Michael I. Norton, 2019. "Procedural Justice and the Risks of Consumer Voting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5234-5251, November.
    21. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:34:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11002-022-09631-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.