IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v314y2024i1p323-339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How responsive should a firm be to customers’ expectations?

Author

Listed:
  • Fruchter, Gila E.
  • Wiszniewska-Matyszkiel, Agnieszka

Abstract

This study explores ways to optimally align quality with customer expectations in light of changes in expectations related to experience with the actual quality of the product. A firm's strategic decision is its responsivity. Responsivity is defined here as the extent to which the quality delivered is aligned with customer expectations. The issue is to find the level of responsivity that maximizes the firm's benefits by increasing the number of loyal customers. The key tradeoff is that although responsivity can help the firm increase its volume of loyal consumers, it is also costly. The main findings are a theoretical characterization of optimal responsivity and an extension to a strategy that offers good/service both with and without responsivity. The outcome is a win-win strategy, that significantly increases both profits and the number of loyal customers, whose expectations converge to the quality delivered. The potential impact of these findings on practice is significant: by understanding what determines the optimal level of responsivity and implementing this win-win strategy, firms can enhance customer satisfaction, loyalty, and profitability.

Suggested Citation

  • Fruchter, Gila E. & Wiszniewska-Matyszkiel, Agnieszka, 2024. "How responsive should a firm be to customers’ expectations?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(1), pages 323-339.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:314:y:2024:i:1:p:323-339
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.09.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221723007130
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.09.011?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. Silvia Faggian & Luca Grosset, 2013. "Optimal advertising strategies with age-structured goodwill," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 78(2), pages 259-284, October.
    2. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Kopel, M. & Dawid, H. & Feichtinger, G., 1998. "Periodic and chaotic programs of intertemporal optimization models with non-concave net benefit function," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(3-4), pages 435-447, January.
    4. Buratto, Alessandra & Grosset, Luca & Viscolani, Bruno, 2006. "Advertising a new product in a segmented market," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 1262-1267, December.
    5. Eugene W. Anderson & Mary W. Sullivan, 1993. "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 125-143.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Montgomery, Alan L. & Smith, Michael D., 2009. "Prospects for Personalization on the Internet," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 130-137.
    8. Neeraj Arora & Xavier Dreze & Anindya Ghose & James Hess & Raghuram Iyengar & Bing Jing & Yogesh Joshi & V. Kumar & Nicholas Lurie & Scott Neslin & S. Sajeesh & Meng Su & Niladri Syam & Jacquelyn Thom, 2008. "Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 305-321, December.
    9. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    10. Sam Aflaki & Ioana Popescu, 2014. "Managing Retention in Service Relationships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(2), pages 415-433, February.
    11. Gadi Fibich & Arieh Gavious & Oded Lowengart, 2003. "Explicit Solutions of Optimization Models and Differential Games with Nonsmooth (Asymmetric) Reference-Price Effects," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 721-734, October.
    12. Bischi, Gian Italo & Gardini, Laura & Kopel, Michael, 2000. "Analysis of global bifurcations in a market share attraction model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 24(5-7), pages 855-879, June.
    13. R. A. Thiétart & B. Forgues, 1995. "Chaos Theory and Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 19-31, February.
    14. Grosset, Luca & Viscolani, Bruno, 2016. "Age-structured linear-state differential games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(1), pages 269-278.
    15. Hommes, Cars H., 1994. "Dynamics of the cobweb model with adaptive expectations and nonlinear supply and demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 315-335, August.
    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. Necati Tereyağoğlu & Peter S. Fader & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2018. "Multiattribute Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence: Evidence from the Performing Arts Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 421-436, January.
    2. Siddiqi, Umema, 2023. "The Intersection of Financial Literacy, Cognitive Ability, and Numeracy Skills in Pakistani Adults," MPRA Paper 119781, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Avram Laura-Augustina, 2018. "Gender Differences and Other Findings on the Cognitive Reflection Test," Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Oeconomica, Sciendo, vol. 63(3), pages 56-67, December.
    4. Philipp Afèche & Mojtaba Araghi & Opher Baron, 2017. "Customer Acquisition, Retention, and Service Access Quality: Optimal Advertising, Capacity Level, and Capacity Allocation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 674-691, October.
    5. Vishal Gaur & Young-Hoon Park, 2007. "Asymmetric Consumer Learning and Inventory Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 227-240, February.
    6. Heribert Gierl & Gunter Gehrke, 2004. "Kundenbindung in industriellen Zuliefer-Abnehmer-Beziehungen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 203-236, May.
    7. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Arieh Gavious & Oded Lowengart, 2012. "Price–quality relationship in the presence of asymmetric dynamic reference quality effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 137-161, March.
    9. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    10. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    11. Tamotsu Onozaki, 2018. "Nonlinearity, Bounded Rationality, and Heterogeneity," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-4-431-54971-0, January.
    12. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    13. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel & Tuckwell, Anthony, 2021. "Evaluating the sunk cost effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 318-327.
    14. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Arne Lauber & Christoph March & Marco Sahm, 2022. "Optimal and Fair Prizing in Sequential Round-Robin Tournaments: Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9651, CESifo.
    16. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    17. Veronica Rattini, 2023. "Worker autonomy and performance: Evidence from a real‐effort experiment," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 300-327, April.
    18. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina & Panadés, Judith, 2022. "Dispelling misconceptions about economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. repec:lje:journl:v:26:y:2021:i:1:p:85-122 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    21. de Castro, Luciano & Galvao, Antonio F. & Noussair, Charles N. & Qiao, Liang, 2022. "Do people maximize quantiles?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 22-40.

    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:eee:ejores:v:314:y:2024:i:1:p:323-339. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.