IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joamsc/v44y2016i6d10.1007_s11747-015-0469-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responding to the 98%: face-enhancing strategies for dealing with rejected customer ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Paul W. Fombelle

    (Northeastern University)

  • Sterling A. Bone

    (Utah State University)

  • Katherine N. Lemon

    (Boston College)

Abstract

Although companies receive a staggering amount of ideas from consumers, only a small fraction of the ideas are actually usable, with as many as 98% being rejected. This research examines the influence of firms’ responses to consumer-generated ideas on consumers’ self-perceptions of face and their tendency to return in the future with more ideas. Specifically, we examine the impact of firm response to consumers’ rejected ideas. The results show that consumers respond to a rejected idea with an increased of face threat, leading to a decrease in future idea sharing. However, the presence of face enhancement reduces these negative effects. Recognizing managers’ dilemma, we identify three buffering responses that may drive perceptions of face enhancement and thus buffer the negative repercussions of face threat from rejecting consumer ideas: (1) considering consumers’ past experiences (success/failure) with submitting ideas, (2) creating a unique group identity, and (3) offering an excuse. We also show the impact of a public versus private firm acknowledgment of consumer ideas on both consumers’ perceptions of face and future idea sharing behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul W. Fombelle & Sterling A. Bone & Katherine N. Lemon, 2016. "Responding to the 98%: face-enhancing strategies for dealing with rejected customer ideas," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 685-706, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:44:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s11747-015-0469-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11747-015-0469-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11747-015-0469-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11747-015-0469-y?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. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. Jennifer J. Argo & Katherine White & Darren W. Dahl, 2006. "Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(1), pages 99-108, June.
    3. Menon, Tanya & Thompson, Leigh, 2007. "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful: Self-enhancing biases in threat appraisal," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 45-60, September.
    4. Puneet Manchanda & Grant Packard & Adithya Pattabhiramaiah, 2015. "Social Dollars: The Economic Impact of Customer Participation in a Firm-Sponsored Online Customer Community," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 367-387, May.
    5. Russell W. Belk, 2013. "Extended Self in a Digital World," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 477-500.
    6. Bolton, Ruth & Saxena-Iyer, Shruti, 2009. "Interactive Services: A Framework, Synthesis and Research Directions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 91-104.
    7. Folkes, Valerie S, 1984. "Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(4), pages 398-409, March.
    8. Kirk Kristofferson & Katherine White & John Peloza, 2014. "The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(6), pages 1149-1166.
    9. Jonah Berger & Chip Heath, 2007. "Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 121-134, June.
    10. Wendy Liu & David Gal, 2011. "Bringing Us Together or Driving Us Apart: The Effect of Soliciting Consumer Input on Consumers' Propensity to Transact with an Organization," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 242-259.
    11. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    12. Keith Wilcox & Andrew T. Stephen, 2013. "Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 90-103.
    13. Reinartz, Werner & Haenlein, Michael & Henseler, Jörg, 2009. "An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 332-344.
    14. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sara Hanson & Lan Jiang & Darren Dahl, 2019. "Enhancing consumer engagement in an online brand community via user reputation signals: a multi-method analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 349-367, March.
    2. Kristin Masuch & Maike Greve & Simon Trang, 2021. "What to do after a data breach? Examining apology and compensation as response strategies for health service providers," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(4), pages 829-848, December.
    3. Andria Andriuzzi & Géraldine Michel & Claudiu Dimofte, 2020. "How Brand Conversations on Social Media Prompt Jealousy in Brand Relationships," Post-Print hal-02977457, HAL.
    4. Leclercq, Thomas & Hammedi, Wafa & Poncin, Ingrid, 2018. "The Boundaries of Gamification for Engaging Customers: Effects of Losing a Contest in Online Co-creation Communities," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 82-101.
    5. 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.

    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. Bernritter, Stefan F. & Verlegh, Peeter W.J. & Smit, Edith G., 2016. "Why Nonprofits Are Easier to Endorse on Social Media: The Roles of Warmth and Brand Symbolism," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 27-42.
    2. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ivan Fedorenko & Pierre Berthon, 2017. "Beyond the expected benefits: unpacking value co-creation in crowdsourcing business models," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 7(3), pages 183-194, December.
    4. Kannan, P.K. & Li, Hongshuang “Alice”, 2017. "Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 22-45.
    5. Schemmann, Brita & Herrmann, Andrea M. & Chappin, Maryse M.H. & Heimeriks, Gaston J., 2016. "Crowdsourcing ideas: Involving ordinary users in the ideation phase of new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1145-1154.
    6. Liang Xiao & Linyong Luo & Tongping Ke, 2024. "The influence of eWOM information structures on consumers’ purchase intentions," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1713-1735, September.
    7. Kunhao Yang & Itsuki Fujisaki & Kazuhiro Ueda, 2020. "Interplay of network structure and neighbour performance in user innovation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, December.
    8. Pollok, Patrick & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2019. "Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 98-114.
    9. Yan Huang & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2014. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(9), pages 2138-2159, September.
    10. Dejean, Sylvain & Jullien, Nicolas, 2015. "Big from the beginning: Assessing online contributors’ behavior by their first contribution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1226-1239.
    11. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver, 2012. "Are technological gatekeepers constraining my cluster? Unfolding the paradox of gatekeepers resilience across cluster life cycle stages," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1206, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised May 2012.
    12. 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.
    13. Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2019. "The consumer production journey: marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 238-254, March.
    14. Boons, Mark & Stam, Daan, 2019. "Crowdsourcing for innovation: How related and unrelated perspectives interact to increase creative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1758-1770.
    15. Zhang, Mingyue & Zhao, Haichuan & Chen, Haipeng (Allan), 2022. "How much is a picture worth? Online review picture background and its impact on purchase intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 134-144.
    16. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Bordunos, A. & Kokoulina, L. & Ermolaeva, L., 2015. "Role of enterprise gamified system in fostering innovation capacity: A field experiment," Working Papers 6420, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University.
    18. Laura J. Kornish & Jeremy Hutchison‐Krupat, 2017. "Research on Idea Generation and Selection: Implications for Management of Technology," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 633-651, April.
    19. Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    20. Dominik Mahr & Aric Rindfleisch & Rebecca Slotegraaf, 2015. "Enhancing Crowdsourcing Success: the Role of Creative and Deliberate Problem-Solving Styles," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(3), pages 209-221, September.
    21. Zeng, Michael A., 2018. "Foresight by online communities – The case of renewable energies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 27-42.
    22. Abbie Griffin & Brett Josephson & Gary Lilien & Fred Wiersema & Barry Bayus & Rajesh Chandy & Ely Dahan & Steve Gaskin & Ajay Kohli & Christopher Miller & Ralph Oliva & Jelena Spanjol, 2013. "Marketing’s roles in innovation in business-to-business firms: Status, issues, and research agenda," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 323-337, December.

    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:spr:joamsc:v:44:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s11747-015-0469-y. 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.