Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
carte), less expensive compare to full service and
medium restaurants and attract frequent visit by
majority of low, middle to high income custom-
ers. Most of this eating place in operation at din-
ner time, customer therefore are patronizing for
the purpose of dining for their taste bud and filling
the stomach.
Many consumers do not actively complain but
a serious problem or bad experience that a con-
sumer could not tolerate could induce the action
of complaint. Customer dissatisfied has led to
a large-scale economic loss and there is a high
probability of being compensated and the cus-
tomer is likely to voice a complaint to the com-
pany or to take public action or private action
(Ngai, et al., 2007). Public action refers to the
direct complaint actions to the seller or a third
party (e.g. consumer agency or government).
Private action indicates that the complaint is
privately done through negative word-of-mouth
communications with family and friends or the
decision not to repurchase the products or serv-
ices again or boycott the products (Ndubisi &
Ling, 2007). The public actions that could be
taken by consumer included verbally complain
to the retailer or manufacturer, write a comment
card or complaint letters, write to newspapers or
complain to consumer council (Heung & Lam,
2003; Ndubisi & Ling, 2006). For complaint cus-
tomer, defection is often the last resort after com-
plaint has failed (Kim, Kim, Im & Shin, 2003;
Ndubisi & Ling, 2007).
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Customer complaint behavior
The literatures on customer complaint behavior
have indeed swelled over in the past decade (Ndu-
bisi & Ling, 2007; Volkov, Harker & Harker, 2002).
Crie (2003) defined consumer complaint behavior
as a process that constitutes a subset of all pos-
sible responses to perceive dissatisfaction around
a purchase episode, either during consumption or
during possession of the goods or services. Thus,
customer complaint behavior is known as com-
plaint responses (Singh & Widing, 1991) and as
the customer dissatisfaction response style (Singh,
1990). These responses or actions include switch-
ing patronage, telling friends and family and com-
plaining to a customer agency. Moreover, action
taken by customer is not only to complain to
the seller, but also includes warning families and
friends, stopping patronage, diverting to mass
media, complaining to customer council and com-
plaining by writing a letter to management (Heung
& Lam, 2003; Ndubisi & Ling, 2007).
According to Singh and Widing (1991), three
types of complaining behavior that can be found
when dissatisfaction occurs: (1) Voice responses
(seeking redress from the seller or no action); (2)
Private responses (word-of-mouth communica-
tion); and (3) Third-party responses (implement-
ing legal action). Broadbridge and Marshall (1995)
indicated that there are three options in customer
complaint behavior (1) To do nothing; (2) To take
private action by switching brands or suppliers,
boycotting the product or service, or warning fam-
ily and friends; and (3) To take public action by
seeking direct redress from the retailer or manu-
facturer, bringing legal action, complaining to the
media or registering a complaint with a consumer
association. In addition, Zeithaml, Bitner and
Gremler (2000) identified four types of complain-
ers in the context of service operations namely: (1)
Passive: Those customers least likely to take any
action, (2) Voicers: Customers who actively com-
plain to the service provider but are less likely to
spread negative word-of-mouth, switch patronage
or go to third party for redressed of their com-
plaints, (3) Irate: are most likely to complain to
friends and relatives and switch over to another
service provider and (4) Activists.
3 METHODOLOGY
For empirical investigation, a quantitative research
method using Gerai customer self-reported experi-
ence through questionnaire survey was carried out.
The survey instrument used was developed and
modified after review of literatures of how other
researchers empirically measure the constructs.
The questionnaire comprises two sections (demo-
graphic profile and complaint behavior). Respond-
ents were asked to report their views based on the
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
=
Strongly
Disagree to 5
Strongly Agree.
Owing to the large number of Gerai customers
in the country only one contextual data collection
setting which is Seberang Jaya, Pulau Pinang was
chosen. Not to disturbing dining mood customer
experiences was measured randomly at popular
supermarkets in Seberang Jaya city rather than at
the Gerai itself.
The surveys were conducted at three selected
shopping complexes, Carrefour, Pacific and Sun-
way, Seberang Jaya City, Pulau Pinang. Respond-
ents were randomly approached before entering the
shopping malls. The respondents were informed
that all information provided by them was strictly
confidential and no individual would be identified.
A total of 332 questionnaires were successfully
distributed. The result showed that the instrument
and items used were reliable with coefficient alpha
value at 0.788.
=
Search WWH ::
Custom Search