Search results

Although unfavorable pricing errors (UPEs) cost customers billions of dollars each year, research has not yet examined customers’ reactions to UPEs. This paper aims to fill this gap by examining customers’ reactions to UPEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and the interaction between frequency and magnitude. Also, this study explores the moderated mediating role of price consciousness.

Three experimental studies were conducted to examine customers’ reactions to UPEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and the interaction between frequency and magnitude. PROCESS Model 6 and 84 along with multivariate regression analysis and MANOVA were used to test the hypotheses.

The results show that high-frequency and high-magnitude UPEs lead to increased perceived deception and dissatisfaction, resulting in a higher negative attitude toward the grocery store, decreased re-patronage intentions and increased negative word-of-mouth (NWOM). Also, results show that regardless of customers’ price consciousness level, customers display negative reactions when encountering UPEs.

This paper only investigates UPEs in the brick and mortar setting; future studies should examine UPEs in different settings.

The findings show that UPEs can cause significant problems for grocery stores. Thus, managers should take precautionary measures (e.g. constantly checking shelves) to ensure that the advertised price and the checkout price match.

This paper represents the first attempt to empirically examine the relationship between UPEs frequency and magnitude, on the one hand, and perceived deception, dissatisfaction, customer attitude, re-patronage intentions, NWOM and price consciousness on the other.

The purpose of this study is to examine how customers’ perceptions of brands’ social media interactivity impact customer engagement behaviors (CEBs) (e.g. customer purchases, referrals, influence and knowledge) while accounting for the moderating role of brand type and social media platform.

Two separate online surveys (Study 1 (N1) = 341, Study 2 (N2) = 183) were conducted to measure the constructs of interest. Regression analyzes tests research hypotheses; PROCESS Model 1 was used to test the moderating roles of brand type and platform. Further, the pick-a-point approach (i.e. spotlight analysis) was used to probe the interaction terms.

The results indicate that when customers perceive a brand to be highly interactive on social media (vs inactive), they are more willing to buy brand offerings, refer the brand in exchange for monetary incentives, inform their family and friends about the brand on social media and provide feedback and suggestions for improving the brand. Furthermore, the positive impact of perceived social media interactivity on customer purchases, referrals, influence and knowledge varies across brand and social media platform types.

Online surveys using convenience samples were conducted to assess the constructs of interest. Archival data may provide an avenue for further insight. Future research may be able to track actual online customer behavior using such data. Further, researchers are encouraged to corroborate the results found here over time as the winds of social media shift to new platforms.

The results suggest that interacting on social media encourages customers to contribute to brand value directly (through purchasing) and/or indirectly (through referring, influencing and suggesting). While all brands may leverage social media activity for success, the positive impact of perceived social media interactivity on CEBs is particularly impactful for non-global 500 brands. The results also indicate that customers are more willing to add value to the brand through purchases and suggestions when they perceive the brand to be highly interactive on both social media networking sites and the brand’s website. However, they are more willing to promote this brand and influence their social networks about it only when they perceive the brand to be highly (vs less) interactive on its own website.

This study examines the novel issue of the impact of perceived social media interactivity on different CEBs while accounting for the moderating role of the brand and platform used by customers. The results provide value in better understanding the levers through which social media affects performance.

Despite the recent wealth of supply chain agility literature, scholars have yet to thoroughly examine its impacts on the customer experience. To address this gap, we assess the effects of supply chain agility on customer value and customer satisfaction, including the moderating role of customer loyalty, from the perspectives of both business customers (B2B) and end-customers (B2C).

We used multivariate regression analysis to evaluate direct, indirect and conditional effects across survey responses from 148 senior-level supply chain managers (buyers) (Study 1) and 170 end-customers (i.e. consumers) (Study 2).

The results reveal that supply chain agility retains a direct link to both B2B and B2C’ value and satisfaction. However, a higher level of customer loyalty reduces the strength of these relationships, signifying that agility is less important with established customers. In this respect, agility is important to attract new customers, but more agility is not always beneficial once the customer relationship is established.

The current study is among the first to examine end-customer response to supply chain agility. The findings complement existing literature by providing novel insights into the impact of supply chain agility on both business customers (B2B) and end-customers (B2C).

Although supply chain scholars have acknowledged the fundamental disruptive changes experienced by today’s supply chains and the ensuing novelty of the research problems worthy of investigation, they have primarily relied on a limited number of theories to help explain the phenomena of interest. The purpose of this paper is to use a systematic literature review to address this gap and propose additional theories that supply chain researchers can use to help address novel supply chain phenomena, such as those caused by technological disruptions.

The authors use a systematic literature review to examine the studies published over the last 10 years in six of the top supply chain management journals (411 articles) and six of the top marketing and management journals (1,214 articles).

First, the findings show that 15 theories have been relied upon by over 95 per cent of the studies within supply chain management that use formal theories. Second, the authors identify the most frequently used theories within marketing and management (217 theories). Third, as space limitations make it impossible to offer a rich description of each of the 217 theories, the authors identify 30 theories that they considered to be the most salient to supply chain research and suggest areas where supply chain scholars can apply these theoretical lenses.

The research effort allowed the authors to map the current use of theories within the field to gain a better understanding of what other theories could augment the body of theories used within supply chain management. Thus, the current study is a “one stop shop” that supply chain scholars can consult when in a quandary about what theoretical lens to utilize.

The purpose of this paper is to add clarity to the multidimensional concepts of agility and resilience. In addition, this paper seeks to clarify the differences and similarities between the two concepts by integrating the distinct bodies of knowledge on agility and resilience.

A multidisciplinary systematic literature review is conducted. The concept of agility is explored through a review of the sports science, manufacturing, organizational, information systems and information systems development and supply chain literature bases. The concept of resilience is investigated through a review of the psychological and psychopathological, ecological, economic, organizational and supply chain literature bases.

Examining the complex relationship between the two constructs led to the emergence of six major dimensions to capture the concept of agility (i.e. ability to quickly change direction, speed/accelerate operations, scan the environment/anticipate, empower the customer/customize, adjust tactics and operations (flexibility), and integrate processes within and across firms). Similarly, six dimensions were uncovered for resilience (i.e. ability to resist/survive disruptions, avoid the shock altogether, recover/return to original form following disruption, speed/accelerate operations, adjust tactics and operations (flexibility) and scan the environment/anticipate). Agility and resilience were found to share three common dimensions (i.e. ability to adjust tactics and operations (flexibility), speed/accelerate operations and scan the environment/anticipate).

The identification of the common characteristics of agility and resilience carries important managerial implications from a resource allocation perspective. Allocating resources to the development of the common characteristics of agility and resilience can help firms maximize the impact of such investments. That is, by investing in the common characteristics of both they can improve supply chain agility and supply chain resilience. If firms approach the development or improvement of supply chain agility or resilience independent from one another, without an awareness of the common characteristics, they could be duplicating their investments resulting in supply chain redundancies and inefficiencies.

Not having a clear and comprehensive understanding of the similarities and differences between agility and resilience is problematic from a theoretical perspective. A clear understanding of what each construct represents provides a platform for building generalizable theory by helping researchers operationalize these constructs in a consistent manner. Further, providing a generalizable, comprehensive and multidisciplinary perspective on agility and resilience within supply chain management literature can help increase the visibility of the field of supply chain management across other disciplines as scholars outside the field of supply chain management can utilize the results of this research effort.