Kids Complain Do Companies Repond

Kids complain – do companies respond? Cathy Cobb Walgren

Cathy Cobb Walgren is Associate Professor of Marketing at the Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Received 17 February 2016 Revised 15 August 2016 Accepted 29 August 2016

DOI 10.1108/YC-02-2016-00583

Abstract Purpose – Most of the research on children’s consumer behavior focuses on pre-purchase processes, with brand choice typically being the last stage investigated. This paper aims to examine the outcome of children’s purchase decisions, with an emphasis on dissatisfaction and outcome resolution. Of particular interest was the comprehension level of the corporate communication and the extent to which clear, understandable communication influenced children’s ultimate satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach – Eighty-seven children wrote authentic letters of complaint to manufacturers about a recent product purchase. The study examined what happened after the children complained – i.e. how companies responded to children, and how satisfied children were with the resolution and the overall complaint handling process. Two widely regarded readability formulas were used to measure the complexity of the written correspondence. Findings – The present study suggests that child complainants are the most concerned with the bottom-line results of their communication efforts. Like adults, they want the problem corrected. Unfortunately, the majority of children did not feel fully satisfied with the corporate complaint handling process. Over one-third of the companies in the sample did not even bother to respond to children’s legitimate complaints, despite the fact that each child specifically asked the company to write back. Those firms which did were more likely to respond with a letter only than with a letter plus add-on. And the corporate letters, by and large, were written at an educational level which would preclude full understanding by the child. Research limitations/implications – Because consumer complaint behavior is not randomly distributed in the population, the use of probability sampling was precluded. Published studies which have used consumer complaint letters as the data collection method have relied primarily on convenience sampling. In the present study, judgmental sampling was used to select children participants. Three criteria were applied. Children had to be aged between 10 and 13 years. Children had to have experienced dissatisfaction with a product purchase made over the previous six months. Children could not have taken any public action to resolve their dissatisfaction. But they had to be willing to write a letter of complaint at this point. It was considered of utmost importance that the letters used in this study be authentic. They had to be composed and penned by the children themselves. This criterion, coupled with the fact that the complaints were legitimate, avoided the obvious ethical dilemma associated with the use of fabricated letters. Practical implications – It seems ironic that in the present era of consumer consciousness, corporations do not place greater emphasis on truly communicating with their customers, where communication is viewed as a process of establishing shared meaning. How can there be shared meaning when the message sender fails to consider the characteristics of the receiver – characteristics such as age and cognitive development? Businesses may argue that their corporate communication policies and practices are based on a concern for cost efficiency. This argument carries little merit, unfortunately. Even the federal government, through the Plain Writing Act of 2010, acknowledges the importance of using common, everyday words and plain English in all written documents. Social implications – On the surface, American businesses state that they welcome customer feedback. The comments of children are more sought after now than ever before, particularly in the area of advertising and new product development. But the results of this study show that companies have a long way to go before they can claim to be truly receiver-oriented in their managerial communication policies. Perhaps this is why consumers – certainly child consumers – are only beginning to believe that when kids complain, companies will respond.

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016, pp. 299-320, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 299

Originality/value – The vast body of complaint research focuses almost exclusively on adults. Despite their sophistication and marketing literacy, children are not miniature adults. It is not known whether the same models and findings with respect to adult complaint behavior apply to children. Unfortunately, there are very few studies of children’s complaint behavior and corporate responses. Keywords Consumer socialization, Customer service, Children and brands, Consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction, Corporate complaint handling, Letter writing and readability Paper type Research paper

Introduction Children are a highly valued customer group to many domestic and global businesses, and for a good reason[1]. As Marquis (1994, p. 22) has observed, children have “keen and impressionable appetites”, they trust and remember product claims easily, they have disposable income and they are accessible through cost-effective media outlets. They also happen to be a very large demographic. In the USA alone, there are almost 50 million children aged under 12 years (childstats.gov, 2014). Collectively, these young people account for US$40bn in annual buying power (Barbaro and Earp, 2008). This level of spending by kids themselves represents an 852 per cent increase since 1984. That was the year that the broadcast industry was deregulated, ushering in the program-length commercial. With deregulation came a dramatic increase in the amount of money spent on advertising to children – from US$100m in 1983 to US$17bn in 2007 (CBS, 2007). Terms like “kinderculture” (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 1997) and book titles like “Born to Buy” (Schor, 2004) certainly reinforce the notion that children currently are immersed in a culture of consumption. According to child marketing expert McNeal (1992), children can recognize logos by 18 months and ask for brand names by the age of three. Allowances are commonplace by the time a child enters kindergarten (Liberty Financial, 1993). The typical first grader can evoke an astounding 200 brands (Schor, 2004). By the end of third grade, children understand the concepts of sales tax and monetary value, they save and spend money with confidence (McNeal, 1990) and, in fact, make most of their own buying decisions (Raphael, 1993). Goldberg et al. (2003) found through his research that nine-year-olds have almost as much marketing expertise as do 14-year-olds, reinforcing both their early marketing exposure, as well as the truncated nature of modern-day childhood. Interestingly, children have not always had so much “power” in the marketplace. As McNeal (1987) has noted, in the years following the Second World War, children were generally seen and not heard in the realm of consumer behavior. Most companies viewed children merely as their “customers’ kids”, ignoring any independent role they played as current customers, perhaps acknowledging but not strategically acting upon their role as future consumers. Presently, most companies that market to this age group recognize that children play three quite different but equally important roles: as future consumers, yes, but also as current consumers and as influencers of myriad additional purchases. In fact, Schor (2004) has estimated that children influence upwards of US$600bn in family purchases each year. To be a consumer in the full sense of the word, a child must possess three major characteristics (McNeal, 1987). First, he or she must have money available (either from personal income or from the resources of another individual) to engage in an exchange process. This condition is fairly easily met, as the average weekly allowance for the age brackets of 4-9, 10-13 and 14-17 is US$4.10, US$8.70 and US$16.00, respectively, according to a recent Harris poll (Shannon-Missal, 2014). Second, the child must have a motivation or willingness to spend money, a condition which is facilitated by the 40,000 television ads the average child is exposed to annually (Strasburger and Wilson, 2002). There are also numerous media alternatives devoted exclusively to children, most of which contain highly targeted advertising – for example, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Disney Channel, Boomerang, BabyFirst TV, Sprout, Ranger Rick, Boy’s Life, American Girl,

PAGE 300 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

children’s versions of Sports Illustrated, Discovery and National Geographic (www.ranker. com; www.magazines.com), and the relatively new phenomenon of “advergames”, which have become a prominent feature of social media and commercial websites as a way to promote products to young people (Reid, 2014). Third, the child must have mobility or access to the marketplace. According to McNeal (1990), the typical 10-year-old makes 250 store visits per year, or about five visits per week. As children become more active in the marketplace, it follows that they will experience more of the satisfaction and dissatisfaction that accompany purchase decisions. Historically, however, researchers have been most interested in children’s pre-purchase behavior and have treated brand choice as the last stage of the process, ignoring the outcome of the purchase decision in the form of satisfaction, dissatisfaction and outcome resolution. As a result, virtually, all of the complaint literature has centered upon adult consumers as opposed to children. Yet, if the current children become marketing literate before they learn to read and write (John and Peracchio, 1993), surely they must have occasions by their preteen years when product performance does not meet expectations. How do they deal with product dissatisfaction? The purpose of the present study is to explore what happens when children take the public action of complaining to the manufacturer. Do businesses respond to children? How do they respond? And does this lead to children’s ultimate product satisfaction? The next section of this paper explores some of the literature on consumer complaint behavior. We look first at adult complaint behavior, as that is the focus of most published research. Then, we attempt to relate this to children.

Literature review In a review of the complaint literature, Andreasen (1988) estimated that consumers experience dissatisfaction in 15 to 25 per cent of their purchases, although the incidence varies across product categories. It is widely accepted in marketing that keeping existing customers happy is significantly less expensive than acquiring new customers (Aaker, 1991). One study placed the cost of losing a customer at five times the rate of retaining current customers (Hart et al., 1990). In the current competitive climate, then, it is increasingly important for firms to pay attention to their customers after the sale has been made. The consequences for failing to convert dissatisfied customers were first highlighted by the landmark TARP (1979) study. In that report commissioned by the US government, only one-sixth of consumers with major product problems complained to manufacturers. Of that group, only 10 per cent repurchased the same product again. But 54 per cent of those whose complaints were resolved satisfactorily continued to buy the product. A follow-up study by TARP (1982) found that consumers whose complaints were handled unsatisfactorily told a median of nine to ten people about their negative experience. More recently, Winch (2011a) placed the negative word-of-mouth ratio at 10 to 20 people per complaining consumer. Social media have facilitated complaint behavior by giving a public platform to what, in the past, would normally be considered a private action (Liu and McClure, 2001). And while it used to take effort to lodge a complaint (Plymire, 1991), presently, it is simple, convenient and virtually without risk to vent on Twitter and Facebook (Dunn and Dahl, 2012; Winch, 2011b). Indeed, there is considerable evidence that public complaining is on the rise. The Better Business Bureau (2011) reports a 10 per cent increase in complaining nationwide between 2010 and 2011. Perhaps as a result, many companies have developed more sophisticated systems for managing consumer complaints. The rise of customer relationship management reflects the recognition that there is a significant value in maintaining long-term relationships with their customers (Osarenkhoe and Bennani, 2007). Unfortunately, not all companies encourage negative feedback from their customers. Among the reasons given for

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 301

corporate failure to promote complaint behavior are denial, suppression, shortsightedness, grandiosity and diffusion of responsibility (Winch, 2011a). Various models have been proposed to explain the consumer complaint process. Day and Landon (1977) suggested a two-level hierarchical classification. The first level separates action from no action, while the second distinguishes public action (such as complaining to the manufacturer) from private action (which includes negative word-of-mouth and brand switching behavior). According to Andreasen (1977), a necessary precondition for complaint behavior to occur is the formation of pre-purchase expectations that the product will perform a certain way. When the consumer evaluates a consumption experience and finds that it does not meet pre-purchase expectations, the initial outcome is dissatisfaction. At this point, the consumer can choose whether to voice his complaint to the manufacturer. The outcome of this state is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory resolution of the complaint. The researcher can measure the level of initial dissatisfaction; however, this fails to take into account sellers’ complaint handling mechanisms, which can also be measured and which feed into the repurchase process. The present study measures both initial dissatisfaction and final satisfaction/dissatisfaction, as recommended by Andreasen. Researchers have measured corporate complaint-handling procedures in a number of ways: through surveys of complainants (Andreasen and Best, 1977; Gilly and Gelb, 1982; TARP, 1979; Velazquez et al., 2010), surveys of consumer affairs personnel (Bell and Luddington, 2006; Blum et al., 1974), executive role playing (Resnick and Harmon, 1983) and content analysis of business responses to actual letters (Boschung, 1976; Crawford, 1970; Crie and Ladwein, 2002; Hill et al., 1992; Kendall and Russ, 1975). Arguably, the most accurate and unbiased information is generated through the latter method, as it focuses on actual behavior. The present study examines both actual corporate behavior as well as complainants’ reactions to that behavior. Corporate responses to letters of complaint While there is a vast literature on consumer complaining behavior, less attention has been devoted to studying actual complaints and organizational responses (Hsieh et al., 2005). One of the first empirical investigations of complaint handling procedures was conducted by Crawford (1970). In the study, a panel of female shoppers devised 12 common complaint scenarios. Letters were constructed for each scenario and then mailed to 10 companies, resulting in a total of 120 letters. Seventy-seven per cent of the letters were answered, most of them (53 per cent) with a routine form letter. Of the responses, 32 per cent were classified as poor overall, indicated a failure to address the problem or propose a solution. Boschung (1976) manipulated the appearance of the letter (typewritten or handwritten) in a study of responses by 63 manufacturers of consumer packaged products. Results suggested that manufacturers may be influenced by the form and style of the correspondence, with typewritten letters yielding a higher level of response (86 per cent) than did those which were handwritten (65 per cent), despite the fact that both types of letters included a return address and statement of the problem. Kendall and Russ (1975) mailed letters of complaint, including a request for a refund, to 40 companies in five packaged goods categories. Eighty-two per cent of the firms responded, 68 per cent satisfactorily (i.e. with money, coupons or merchandise). The authors found no difference in response due to the presence of an express warranty on the product. Pearson (1976) had 250 college-level marketing students write letters to companies concerning their products and services. The letters varied on a number of dimensions (praise versus complaint, manufacturer versus retailer, national versus regional and consumer versus industrial goods). Among the findings, letters of complaint yielded a higher response rate (74 per cent) than did letters of praise (61 per cent). Manufacturers

PAGE 302 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

were more likely to reply (84 per cent) than were retailers (48 per cent), and national firms responded more frequently (79 per cent) than did either regional or local firms (67 and 35 per cent, respectively). Unfortunately, the results could have been due to the quality of the initial letters, as there was no control over letter content. Martin and Smart (1989) compared actual company responses to consumer letters with the same companies’ stated communication policies. The authors found a few discrepancies between actual and stated behavior. For example, companies tended to be overly optimistic in their estimates of response rate and response time. Of particular interest, companies were asked what they considered the most important principle of correspondence handling to be. The leading answer was speed of response (cited by 65 per cent of the companies). Only 27 per cent of the companies considered addressing the consumer’s specific issue as a top priority. Certainly, turnaround time is an easily measured basis for evaluating consumer affairs departments, which may explain its relative importance within the firm. But it reinforces a sender-oriented viewpoint toward communication – i.e. that getting out a response quickly is more important than addressing the complainant’s concerns. In a study by Hill et al. (1992), students wrote letters of complaint to companies that had recently caused them genuine dissatisfaction. Corporate replies were content analyzed according to the excuses given. The authors reported five prevalent types of excuses, in descending order of usage: deflection (47 per cent), explanation (31 per cent), denial (12 per cent), justification (5 per cent) and minimization (4 per cent). Crie and Ladwein (2002) used a French mail-order firm’s database to analyze written complaints following a delayed product delivery and compared them against a control group who experienced the same delayed product delivery but did not complain. They found, not surprisingly, that the probability of complaining correlated positively with the dollar amount of the delivery, but correlated negatively with the number of items in the order, suggesting that the fewer items purchased, the more the relative importance of each item increased. Bolkan and Daly (2007) suggested that consumer complaints can be mitigated by both organizational response types (excuses, justifications and apologies) and their components (believability, appropriateness and accepting responsibility). A follow-up study by the same authors looked at differences between product and service categories and found, oddly enough, that assuming responsibility was less important for service-based failures than for product-based failures. The study also found that alleviating negativity was easier to do for services than for products (Bolkan and Daly, 2009). Children’s complaint behavior Despite the overwhelming focus on adult complaint behavior in the literature, there is also evidence that children evaluate the outcome of their purchase decisions. Research by Gesell et al. (1977) suggests that children begin to judge some products as a “gyp” by the age of seven. By the age of 10, they have a good sense of what is good and bad. Ward et al. (1977) found that two-thirds of third graders and three-fourths of sixth graders had experienced negative outcomes with products. Additional evidence that children actually turn their dissatisfaction into formal complaints comes from the pages of the now defunct Zillions, a once bi-monthly publication of Consumers Union targeted to 8-14-year-olds. Until it ceased print publication in 2000, this magazine taught children how to obtain redress from companies and generally how to become informed consumers. Each issue was filled with advice on subjects such as how to complain about misleading television ads, how to file a formal mail-order complaint with the post office and how to write a company with a complaint about a premium. A regular column featured letters from children who wrote to companies, along with the company’s resolution. In recent years, an online resource, MediaSmarts, Canada’s Centre for Digital and Media Literacy, has picked up where Zillions left off.

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 303

In one of the few academic studies of children’s complaint behavior, Cobb et al. (1987) examined corporate responses to letters of praise and complaint from both children and adults. The study yielded a 58 per cent response rate. There was no significant difference in response rate to children’s letters versus letters by adults. However, companies were more likely to require children to return the merchandise. They were also more likely to send a free good to adults, but only a letter to children. Among the other findings, there was no difference in the rate of reply to positive versus negative letters. The absence of variation could have been due to the fact that each consumer communication included a request for a reply. Then, too, it could have been a reflection of the growing tendency among businesses to take all communication – both favorable and unfavorable – seriously. Interestingly, companies were more likely to resolve complaints by sending along a free good, while they tended to respond to praise with a letter only. Several conclusions can be drawn from this brief literature review: 

Children are an important force in the current marketplace. The early experiences that children have with products and with companies may well have an impact on their adult consumer behavior (Robinson, 1979). As such, marketers should be more interested in children’s post-purchase behavior, particularly the extent to which children experience and attempt to resolve product dissatisfaction.



The vast complaint literature focuses almost exclusively on adults. Despite their sophistication and marketing literacy, children are not miniature adults. We do not know whether the same models and findings with respect to adult complaint behavior apply to children.



Complaint behavior is not a discrete event. Nor does it occur in isolation. Instead, it is an exchange process. According to Landon (1980, p. 338), “The interaction between the consumer and the responsible party represents a process of confrontation and negotiation [. . .]. We will all benefit from the process perspective” in studying consumer complaint behavior. As such, we should not limit measurements to either the company or the consumer, but we should measure both. Furthermore, in measuring consumer response, it is advantageous to take both initial and final measures of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (i.e. both before and after the complaint resolution process).



At the heart of the issue is communication. As noted by Garrett et al. (1991), very little attention has been devoted toward understanding the role of communication (i.e. what is said) in complaint interactions. But the complaint process is first and foremost a communication process. For too long, companies have applied a sender-oriented view to marketing correspondence, equating communication with message sending. However, the success or failure of a communication effort is determined by the message receiver. Thus, effective complaint resolution will only occur when the sender takes into account receiver characteristics and expectations.

Hypotheses The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of organizational responses to authentic, unsolicited letters of complaint from children. In particular, we were interested in the comprehension level of business communications – that is, the extent to which the corporate message was understood by its intended recipient, in this case, children. Based on previous research in business communication, the study began with the premise that companies often violate a fundamental principle of complaint management – to acknowledge the source and nature of the complaint. The literature supports the fact that some companies do not take the source of correspondence – the consumer – seriously enough to even warrant a reply. Other companies seem to place more emphasis on simply getting out a letter than on the appropriateness of the letter as a form of response. This is symptomatic of a sender-oriented viewpoint, which equates communication with message sending. The problem is that the success of a communication effort is determined by the

PAGE 304 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

message receiver (Timm, 1986). According to Timm (1986, p. 14), the notion of communication as message-sending “implies a lot more control over the process than we may actually have. In most cases, we have too long focused on talking and writing skills and have not sufficiently emphasized anticipating audience reactions”. With that in mind, we expect that the readability of corporate responses to children’s letters of complaint will not be appropriate to the comprehension level of the child: H1. There will be a significant difference in the readability level of children’s letters and the corporate responses. H2. Letters which are clear, readable and which do not rely on technical wording and complex sentence structure well beyond the reader’s comprehension level will result in a higher level of satisfaction by the consumer in the complaint process. Apologies can vary in form from a simple statement of regret to willingness to redress damages to actual restitution. The ability to integrate information and evaluate the appropriateness of a particular form of apology is a function of cognitive development (Darby and Schlenker, 1982). Using Piaget’s framework, preoperational children (those aged two to seven years) do not have the ability to evaluate distinct dimensions of a stimulus and relate them in a thoughtful way. Concrete operational children (aged 7 to 11 years) have the capability to do this. Moving into the formal operational stage (aged 11 years through adulthood), children progress to even more mature and abstract thought processes (John, 1999). Selman (1980) observed that children aged 6 to 8 years could not think from another person’s perspective. This ability to consider another person’s viewpoint, as well as one’s own, begins to surface at ages 10 to 12 years. As the children in our sample were aged 10 to 13 years, they should be able to evaluate the extent of apology and adjust their satisfaction level accordingly. With that in mind: H3. The more extensive the corporate apology, the more likely children will report satisfaction with the company response. Finally, the TARP studies (1979 and 1982) found that complainants whose problems were satisfactorily resolved were the most likely to engage in repeat purchase. Unsatisfactory resolution resulted in a significantly lower repurchase rate. Those dissatisfied buyers who did not complain to the company had the very lowest rate of repurchase, suggesting that even a dissatisfied complainant is better than a non-complainant from a marketing standpoint. Gilly and Gelb (1982) also found a positive relationship between consumer satisfaction with complaint resolution and subsequent brand loyalty. Thus: H4a. Children who obtain a satisfactory resolution to their complaint will have a more positive attitude toward buying the product again. H4b. Children who obtain a satisfactory resolution to their complaint will be more likely to write a complaint letter again, as their faith in the system may well be strengthened.

Methodology Because consumer complaint behavior is not randomly distributed in the population, the use of probability sampling was precluded. Published studies which have used consumer complaint letters as the data collection method have relied primarily on convenience sampling (Pearson, 1976). In the present study, judgmental sampling was used to select children participants. Three criteria were applied: 1. Children had to be aged between 10 and 13 years. This age group was deemed old enough to understand how the market system operates (Ward et al., 1977). Furthermore, 10-13-year-olds should be old enough to write a coherent complaint letter, as well as understand and respond to simple survey questions dealing with product dissatisfaction. According to Belk et al. (1984), children below the fourth grade may have difficulty performing consumer behavior-oriented pencil and paper tasks.

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 305

2. Children had to have experienced dissatisfaction with a product purchase (such as food, clothing, toys, video games, etc.) over the previous six months. The time frame was chosen to facilitate as much recall as possible about the purchase and usage experience. Dissatisfaction was said to have occurred if the post-purchase performance of the product was less than purchase expectations (Andreasen, 1977). For example, perhaps the child bought a toy that did not perform the way it was depicted on television, or he or she opened a product package, only to find that a part was missing. The child could also have felt “gypped” by a product that cost too much. 3. To be included in the sample, children could not have taken any public action to resolve their dissatisfaction. But they had to be willing to write a letter of complaint at this point. It was considered of utmost importance that the letters used in this study be authentic. They had to be composed and penned by the children themselves. This criterion, coupled with the fact that the complaints were legitimate, avoided the obvious ethical dilemma associated with the use of fabricated letters (Kendall and Russ, 1975). Further, the use of a naturalistic study allowed for observation of children in a natural setting without undue influence from the researcher. Eighty-seven children aged between 10 and 13 years participated in the study. They came from all parts of a large southeastern state, from both rural and urban areas. The average educational level was sixth grade. The sample contained an approximately equal number of boys and girls. Each member of the sample was assigned an adult supervisor who was trained for the project. Participation by both children and supervisors was strictly voluntary. Participants in the study were interviewed on three separate occasions by their adult supervisor. Interviews were conducted on a one-to-one level to minimize any outside influence on the child’s point of view. The first meeting involved a screening to ensure that the child met the criteria established for inclusion in the project. The second and third interviews allowed the measurement of both initial dissatisfaction and final satisfaction or dissatisfaction. At the second meeting, the child was asked to recall the specific negative product experience. Once the product experience was clearly in mind, the child was given a simple product evaluation survey. All questions but one were asked in an open-ended fashion. The questions dealt with the following issues: 

detailed description of the product;



where the product was purchased and by whom;



approximate cost of the product;



where the child had first heard about the product;



reason(s) for dissatisfaction with the product; and



feelings when the product did not work as expected.

Then the child was given five possible resolutions to the problem and was asked to choose the one option that he or she would most prefer at this point. The options ranged from a simple letter of apology to reimbursement to product replacement. At this interview, each child was also asked a series of questions about complaint behavior. For example, had the child considered writing a letter of complaint at the time of product dissatisfaction? If not, why not? Did the child believe that companies care about their customers after a sale is made? Did the child believe that many people write to companies when they are unhappy with a product? And why should companies answer letters of complaint from their customers? The product evaluation form served the dual purpose of gathering useful background information for the project, as well as getting the child to think about the specifics surrounding his product experience. After the child completed the survey, he or she was asked to compose a letter of complaint to the manufacturer in question. As stated earlier,

PAGE 306 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

each letter was composed and written by the child, complete with any grammatical or spelling errors. This was essential, given the author’s interest in whether companies tailor their responses to the individual recipient. However, to maintain some controls, each child was reminded to include his name, address and age, as well as description of the product and reason for dissatisfaction. Finally, to ensure that every letter started with the same likelihood of yielding a reply, each child was instructed to ask the company to write back. The adult interviewer then helped the child to locate the company address and mail the letter. The supervisor kept a record of the exact date of mailing and the date of receipt of company reply. Businesses were allowed six weeks to respond, to be included in the study. The 45-day cut-off was considered acceptable, given the mean response time reported in previous studies – 19 days in Clark et al. (1985); 18.5 days in Ciervo (1980); 23 days in Crawford (1970); and 21.1 days in Martin and Smart (1989). A follow-up with non-respondents was conducted one month after the project ended, yielding one additional corporate reply. The second measure of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction took place at the end of the six-week period. At this time, the child was asked to evaluate the corporate response or non-response. If the child received a letter, he was asked to re-read it. Then, he was taken through the letter again and asked to restate what each sentence meant in his own words. The child then completed a simple company evaluation form which measured degree of satisfaction with the resolution, using a smiley face scale (Harrigan, 1991). The child was also asked what actions (if any), he or she wished had been taken by the company. Finally, the child was asked whether he or she would purchase the product again or write a letter of complaint again. Of greatest interest in the project was the extent to which the corporate communication could be read and understood by its intended recipient. Two widely regarded readability formulas were used to measure the complexity of the written material: the Flesch Reading Ease Formula and the Fog Index. Flesch and Fog scores were calculated for the children’s letters as well as the corporate responses. See Moore and Shuptrine (1993) for a thorough review of the high degree of reliability and validity of these measures. Flesch formula The Flesch Reading Ease Formula measures the difficulty of understanding a written passage in English on a scale of 0 (practically unreadable) to 100 (easy for any literate person) (Flesch, 1951). It is considered to be one of the most accurate readability formulas and is used by many government agencies, school systems and even word-processing programs. The exact formula is: Flesch Reading Ease ⫽ 206.835 ⫺ (1.015 ⫻ ASL) ⫺ (84.6 ⫻ ASW) where: ASL ⫽ Average Sentence Length (number of words divided by number of sentences); and ASW ⫽ Average Number of Syllables Per Word (number of syllables divided by number of words). Fog Index The Fog Index is a measure of the educational level that is required to comprehend written material (Gunning, 1968). It was developed by a textbook publisher, Robert Gunning, who felt that most texts are full of unnecessary complexity or “fog”, and the key to clear writing is to anticipate and write to the educational level of the audience. The formula for the Fog Index is: Fog Grade Level ⫽ 0.4 (ASL ⫹ PHW) where:

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 307

ASL ⫽ Average Sentence Length (number of words divided by number of sentences); and PHW ⫽ Percentage of Hard Words (number of words of three or more syllables divided by number of words).

Results It is useful to begin by examining some of the characteristics of the children’s purchases. As shown in Table I, the products ranged from toys and games to electronics to personal grooming aids. Purchases were fairly evenly spread across mass merchandise, convenience and grocery stores, followed by drug, toy, department, specialty, online and electronics stores. Over half of the products were purchased by the parent(s), but 28 per cent of purchases were made by the children themselves. The average product cost $20.00 or less. Not surprisingly, television was the major initial source of information about the product. However, store browsing was used by one-fifth of the sample as a way to find out about the product. This is in keeping with national statistics showing that 10-year-olds on average visit five different stores per week (McNeal, 1990). Most of the dissatisfaction surrounding the product related to product performance. In over one-fourth of the cases, the product simply broke. But another 16 per cent of children reported that the product never functioned properly. An additional 11 per cent stated that a part was missing. It is more difficult to assess unfulfilled expectations, which accounted for 23 per cent of the dissatisfaction. Several of the children stated that the product did not work or look like it did on television. The children’s dissatisfaction initially resulted in feelings of disappointment, anger and, to a lesser extent, sadness. When asked what would make them happy at this point, children cited reimbursement as the number one choice for problem resolution, followed closely by product replacement. Table II presents the sample’s initial perceptions about consumer complaining behavior. Children gave a variety of responses when asked why they had not written a complaint letter about this particular negative experience. The most popular answer was that they did not think of it at the time. Some children did consider taking the product back to the retail outlet (a logical and perhaps simpler solution than dealing with the manufacturer). It is noteworthy that 7 per cent of the children felt that the manufacturer would not respond to their complaint. Turning now to an examination of corporate responses to children’s complaints, 54 of the 87 children’s letters generated some sort of corporate response, resulting in a 62 per cent response rate. Table III presents a content analysis of the 54 corporate replies. As the table reveals, the vast majority of responses (89 per cent) took the form of a letter. The letters were fairly consistent in one respect – most of them acknowledged the child’s letter (at least in a general way). Over one-third of the letters defended company policy. In some cases, this amounted to disavowing responsibility. Consider the following, which was taken directly from one of the corporate letters (emphasis added): The product to which you refer is manufactured and distributed by an independent company which has acquired the exclusive right to use our name on its merchandise. Therefore, THEY are responsible for performing any services necessary.

What this company failed to realize, unfortunately, was that its trademark was still on the licensed product, adding to or subtracting value from the brand’s overall equity. An implication of this is that companies should concern themselves with the satisfaction of licensed products to the same extent that they worry about products they themselves manufacture. This is especially true in the area of marketing to children, as so many products and premiums are licensed. Creeping into the content of many of the corporate letters was a slight suggestion of distrust. Over one-fourth of the letters required return of merchandise, 15 per cent

PAGE 308 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

Table I Characteristics of children’s purchases (N ⫽ 87) Purchase characteristics

(%)

Type of product Toys or games Electronics Food from grocery store Personal grooming Clothing or accessories Books or magazines Restaurant Other

40 13 11 11 11 6 2 6

Type of outlet where purchased Mass merchandise store Convenience store Grocery store Drug store Toy store Department store Specialty store (e.g. shoe, luggage) Online Electronics store Restaurant Other (e.g. gift, don’t know)

13 11 11 9 9 8 8 6 6 2 17

Purchaser of product Parent(s) Self Other relative(s) Friend Other

57 28 9 2 4

Cost of product Up to US$5.00 US$6.00 to 10.00 US$11.00 to 20.00 US$21.00 to 50.00 Over US$50.00 Don’t know

29 11 24 20 11 5

Major source of product information Television Saw in store Friend(s) Had not heard of before Media other than television Other

34 21 17 13 8 7

Reason for dissatisfaction Product broke Product was not as expected Product never worked Part of product was missing Too complicated/too easy Other

28 23 16 11 6 16

Feelings surrounding product failure Disappointment Anger Sadness Other

37 37 15 11

Desired corporate response Reimbursement Product replacement Product substitution Letter from company Product repair Don’t know

36 29 19 9 5 2

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 309

Table II Children’s perceptions about consumer complaining behavior (N ⫽ 87) Perceptions about complaining behavior

(%)

Reason for not writing a complaint letter Didn’t think of it Didn’t have time Belief that company wouldn’t respond Didn’t want to Planned to do something else (e.g. return to store) Other reason Don’t know

38 12 7 7 5 26 5

Extent to which companies care about customer after sale Always Sometimes Rarely Never

24 12 9 55

Belief that many consumers write letters of complaint Yes No Don’t know

28 60 12

Table III Content analysis of corporate responses to children’s complaint letters (N ⫽ 54) Type of response

(%)

Any reply Letter Acknowledged consumer comments Promised to forward comments to appropriate party Defended company policy Offered possible explanations Offered advice concerning use of product Promised to investigate Required proof of purchase Required return of merchandise Required paperwork Form reply card Coupon For free same company product For free other company product For free any company product For US$ off any company product Free replacement product Free unrelated gift Reimbursement Brochure Information sheet Other

100 89 78 17 37 13 4 17 15 26 11 6 24 9 4 2 9 15 11 6 4 2 7

required proof of purchase and 11 per cent asked for some form of paperwork. (Percentages cannot be added because companies could reply in more than one way.) This is consistent with both children’s perceptions and with the general complaint literature (Cobb et al., 1987). It is interesting that very few of the companies in the study (only 4 per cent) used their letter as a forum to offer advice about product use. Regarding other possible responses, 24 per cent of the replies included coupons (an efficient and effective way to attempt to regain customer loyalty). Reimbursement – the resolution of choice by children – was used by only 6 per cent of the responding companies. Product replacement – kids’ second choice – was used by 15 per cent.

PAGE 310 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

H1 stated that there would be a significant difference in readability levels between the children’s letters and the corporate responses. It was expected that corporate replies to children’s letters of complaint would not be written at the appropriate level of comprehension for 10-13-year-olds, based on standards provided in the readability literature. What would be appropriate? Using the Flesch Formula, scores in the 85-100 range would be acceptable. Using the Fog Index, an educational level of 6 (meaning six years of schooling) would be adequate, given that this was the average grade level for the sample. Figure 1 presents the Flesch scores for the corporate responses. They ranged from a low of 40 to a high of 95. The average corporate score was 63. This was significantly lower than the average Flesch score for children, which was 87 (t ⫽ 13.01, p ⫽ 0.001). Figure 2 Figure 1 Reading ease scores for corporate responses to children using the Flesch formula*

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 311

Figure 2 Educational level required for comprehension of corporate responses to children using the Fog Index

presents the results using the Fog Index. In this case, no corporate letter was written below sixth grade level (despite the fact that fourth and fifth graders were included in the sample). At the other extreme, four letters were written at the post-graduate level. Once again, the difference in readability between children’s letters and corporate responses was highly significant (t ⫽ 11.58, p ⫽ 0.001). On average, the business letters required 12 years of schooling for comprehension. Children’s letters averaged a Fog score of 6.9 (indicating that they were written slightly above their grade level). Averages, however, tell only part of the story. It is conceivable that a child in Grade 4 could have received a company letter written at Grade 17. Figure 3, therefore, presents a comparison of the child’s Flesch score with the respective company Flesch score. Figure 4 presents the difference in Fog scores between the child’s letter and the corporate response. A positive difference means that the corporate letter was more difficult than the child’s letter. This was apparent in all but three cases. In two instances, the difference was 10 grade levels. H2 predicted a positive relationship between readability and satisfaction. In other words, we expected that children would be more satisfied with the outcome if companies responded with simple, clear, readable communications that were appropriate for their age and stage of cognitive development. However, there was no significant correlation between either Flesch or Fog Scores and degree of satisfaction (r ⫽ ⫺0.03 and r ⫽ 0.14, respectively). There are several possible explanations for this. It could be that the children in the sample were happy to receive any reply, even if they could not understand it, given their generalized belief that companies do not care about the customer after a sale has been made. Then, too, the children could have been flattered at the prospect of being treated like an adult in their communication with the corporation.

PAGE 312 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

Figure 3 Comparison of child’s Flesch score with company’s Flesch score

Figure 4 Difference in Fog scores between child’s letter and corporate response*

On the surface, this might suggest that companies do not need to take into account receiver characteristics – such as age – in developing their corporate communication. It is true that additional factors such as attribution and affect influence satisfaction. However, it is generally acknowledged that one of the most desired outcomes of the process of communication is comprehension (Lasswell, 1948). Consumer behavior models consider comprehension to be a prerequisite to attitude formation or change. If the corporate letters are designed to restore goodwill, then comprehension is a necessary precondition.

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 313

Furthermore, the prospect of miscomprehension has especially negative consequences for children, who are limited in their information processing skills. Suppose a corporate letter contained instructions for product usage that were misinterpreted by the child and resulted in hazardous misuse of the product. In the present study, much of the corporate correspondence contained elaborate sentence structure that required a college education to understand. To find out just what 10-13-year-olds were likely to get out of the corporate communications, we asked them to play back each sentence from their respective company reply, stating that sentence in his or her own words. Table IV presents some of the more interesting examples of the company statements and the children’s responses. As can be seen, there was a good bit of miscomprehension among children concerning “typical” corporate communication. In some cases, the children isolated individual words that they did not understand (such as “workmanship”). In a few cases, they failed to assimilate entire sentences. As indicated, the corporate communication contained a lot of unnecessary verbiage (such as “exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages”). H3 suggested that the level of satisfaction with the corporate response would increase with the extent of the corporate apology. We examined this hypothesis in several stages. At the broadest level, we looked at the difference in satisfaction levels between children who received no reply versus those who received a reply (regardless of its nature). In this case, the difference was highly significant (␹2 square ⫽ 30.8, p ⫽ 0.0001). Results showed that any response was greeted more favorably than was no response. Next, we looked at the difference in satisfaction levels between those who received a letter only versus those who received a letter plus add-on (defined as any additional enclosure, such as brochure, information sheet, coupon and product). Again, the difference was significant (␹2 ⫽ 11.11,

Table IV Examples of children’s miscomprehension of corporate communication Company statement

Child’s interpretation

“The product to which you refer is manufactured and distributed by an independent company which has acquired the exclusive right to use our name on its merchandise. Therefore, they are responsible for performing any services necessary.”

“The other company did the toy. Who is the other company?”

“If you will return the kit to us, we will have it inspected by our Quality Assurance Department and, of course, a replacement kit will be sent out to you at no charge.”

“They want their Insurance Department to see what pieces were missing.”

“We believe that this recovery represents a swift and successful settlement of what would have been a lengthy and complex lawsuit.”

“It’s good for the company but not good for the consumer.”

“This product is covered by a one-year limited warranty against defects in materials and workmanship.”

“It has a warranty, whatever that is, for one year against things that will harm it. I don’t know what workmanship means.”

“Attached is the promised adjustment.”

“We promise we will never make that product again.”

“We are proud to say the defective rate of [company] products is only 2%.”

“They are happy that more than half of their customers are happy with their things.”

“Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation/exclusion may not apply to you.”

“I have no idea.”

“As a thank you for writing, we’re enclosing a recipe booklet published for young people.”

“Why did they say that and not send me one?”

“When replying, please refer to this letter to assure proper handling.”

“Don’t just throw it around when you ship it.”

“In reference to your inquiry regarding missing pieces from your [product], we require additional information in order to be of assistance.”

“I don’t know.”

PAGE 314 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

p ⫽ 0.025). Children were more satisfied when they received a letter plus add-on than when they received a letter only. Finally, we examined the subset of respondents who received a free good (this could be a coupon for the same or different product, coupon for cents off, free replacement product, free parts, free other gift or reimbursement). Again, we found a significant difference (␹2 ⫽ 11.92, p ⫽ 0.01). This suggests that children are perhaps more sophisticated in their ability to evaluate the extent of corporate apology than was previously thought. However, it is worth noting that we did not ask children about the appropriateness of a company’s response, only their degree of satisfaction with the response. There are certainly some cases when a letter-only response which includes a request for additional information might be more appropriate for a company than immediately sending a replacement product. Nevertheless, the results of this study suggest that it may be wise for companies to always send something extra along with the letter. Figure 5 sums up the children’s degree of satisfaction with the corporate complaint handling process. As indicated, the overall level of satisfaction was fairly low. (Recall that 38 per cent of the children did not receive any reply from the company.) However, there were some encouraging findings as well. There was much support for the final hypothesis. Children who obtained a satisfactory resolution were significantly more likely to consider buying the product again (␹2 ⫽ 36.2, p ⫽ 0.0001). They were also more likely to consider writing a complaint letter in the future (␹2 ⫽ 18.5, p ⫽ 0.01).

Discussion The present study suggests that child complainants are most concerned with the bottom-line results of their communication efforts. Like adults, they want the problem Figure 5 Evaluation of corporate responses (N ⫽ 87)

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 315

corrected. Unfortunately, our research found that the majority of children were not fully satisfied with the corporate complaint handling process. Over one-third of the companies in the sample did not even bother to respond to children’s legitimate complaints, despite the fact that each child specifically asked the company to write back. Those firms which did were more likely to respond with a letter only than with a letter plus add-on. The corporate letters, by and large, were written at an educational level which would preclude full understanding by the child. Clearly, it seems that children are not taken seriously by many businesses. The prevalent images of childhood that are portrayed in the media (either the street-savvy kid or the child in need of protection) dominate cultural discourse and may feed into business practices. Companies need to recognize both the limitations and the capabilities of the child consumer. It seems ironic that in the present era of consumer consciousness, corporations do not place greater emphasis on truly communicating with their customers, where communication is viewed as a process of establishing shared meaning. How can there be shared meaning when the message sender fails to consider the characteristics of the receiver – characteristics such as age and cognitive development? Businesses may argue that their corporate communication policies and practices are based on a concern for cost efficiency. This argument, however, carries little merit. In an innovative research project, Suchan and Colucci (1991) demonstrated quite convincingly that bureaucratic written communications end up costing businesses millions of dollars each year in lost productivity because of the time and effort spent deciphering such bureaucratic correspondence. On average, it took employees 17 per cent less time to decipher communications that were written in plain English. “Plain English”, wrote Crow (1988, p. 89), “indicates a desire to establish common ground, to place high priority on removing impediments to connections between audience and speaker or writer”. Confirming the view that clarity aids understanding, federal government agencies since 1998 have been required to use common, everyday words and plain English in their written documents and regulations, the argument being that: “By using plain language, we send a clear message about what the government is doing [. . .]. Plain language saves the government and the private sector time, effort and money” (Gordon, 1998, p. 1). This government policy was codified with the Plain Writing Act of (2010) (www.congress. gov/bill/111th congress/house-bill/946). The purpose of the 2010 legislation was to “enhance citizen access to government information and services” by making documents issued to the public clear and readable. Businesses may also point to this study’s finding of no relationship between readability and satisfaction as evidence that their corporate communication policies do not need to be revised. Unfortunately, this argument fails to recognize that miscomprehension can still occur, with perhaps negative consequences for both the child complainant and the company. One final, albeit weak, argument is that the poor corporate writing observed in this project does not reflect corporate policy so much as it reflects poor personnel decisions. In other words, what can be expected from people whose maximum job capability is answering complaint letters? This is a cynical view of managerial communication. In the final analysis, there is really no excuse for what Crow (1988) referred to as an “officialese” style of business writing. What are the telltale signs of “officialese”? They include an overuse of numbers and dates, vaguely attributed actions, stiff formalities (e.g. “as per your request”), passive voice and jargon. All of these are elements of writing that can be altered easily and should not require a graduate degree. On the surface, American businesses state that they welcome customer comments. The comments of children are more sought after now than ever before, particularly in the area of advertising and new product development. But the results of this study show that companies

PAGE 316 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

have a long way to go before they can claim to be truly receiver-oriented in their managerial communication policies. Perhaps this is why consumers – certainly child consumers – are only beginning to believe that when kids complain, companies will respond.

Note 1. This research has complied with the Guidelines of the University regarding Research Involving Human Subjects.

References Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY. Andreasen, A.R. (1977), “A taxonomy of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction measures”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 11-24. Andreasen, A.R. (1988), “Consumer complaints and redress: what we know and what we don’t know”, The Frontier of Research in the Consumer Interest. Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest, American Council on Consumer Interests, Racine, WI, 16-19 August, pp. 675-722. Andreasen, A.R. and Best, A. (1977), “Consumers complain – does business respond?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 93-101. Barbaro, A. and Earp, J. (2008), Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood, Media Education Foundation, Northampton, MA. Belk, R., Mayer, R. and Driscoll, A. (1984), “Children’s recognition of consumption symbolism in children’s products”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 386-397. Bell, S.J. and Luddington, J.A. (2006), “Coping with customer complaints”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 221-233. Better Business Bureau (2011), “Complaints to Better Business Bureau up ten percent nationwide”, 24 March, available at: http://orlando.bbb.org/article/complaints-to-better-business-bureau-up-tenpercent-nationwide-26275 Blum, M.L., Stewart, J.B. and Wheatley, E.W. (1974), “Consumer affairs: viability of the corporate response”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 13-19. Bolkan, S. and Daly, J.A. (2007), “Organizational responses to consumer complaints: an approach to understanding the effectiveness of remedial accounts”, Paper presented to the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Bolkan, S. and Daly, J.A. (2009), “Organizational responses to consumer complaints: a re-examination of the impact of organizational message in response to service and product-based failures”, Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 1-22. Boschung, M.D. (1976), “Manufacturers’ response to consumer complaints on guaranteed products”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 10, pp. 86-90. CBS (2007), Resources: Marketing to Kids, CBS, New York, NY, 17 May. Childstats.gov (2014), “America’s children in brief: key national indicators of well-being”, Federal Interagency Forum on Childhood Family Statistics, Washington, DC. Ciervo, A. (1980), “How 155 letters were handled”, Public Relations Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 26-27. Clark, G.L. (1985), “Responses to consumers’ letters of complaint: some implications for managers of consumer affairs departments”, in Klein, D.M. and Smith, A.E. (Eds), Southern Marketing Association Proceedings, SMA, Boca Raton, FLA, pp. 211-124. Cobb, C.J., Walgren, G.C. and Hollowed, M. (1987), “Differences in organizational responses to consumer letters of satisfaction and dissatisfaction”, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 14, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 227-231. Crawford, C.M. (1970), “When consumers complain”, Sales Management, Vol. 105, pp. 29-31. Crie, D. and Ladwein, R. (2002), “Complaint letters and commitment theory: an empirical approach in mail-order selling”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 45-55. Crow, P. (1988), “Plain English: what counts besides readability?”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 87-95.

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 317

Darby, B.W. and Schlenker, B.R. (1982), “Children’s reactions to apologies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 742-753. Day, R.L. and Landon, E.L. (1977), “Toward a theory of consumer complaint behavior”, in Woodside, A.G., Sheth, J.N. and Bennett, P.D. (Eds), Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, North-Holland, New York, NY. Dunn, L. and Dahl, D.W. (2012), “Self-threat and product failure: how internal attributions of blame affect consumer complaining behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 670-681. Flesch, R. (1951), How to Test Readability, Harper, New York, NY. Garrett, D.E., Meyers, A. and Carney, J. (1991), “Interactive complaint communication: a theoretical framework and research agenda”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-79. Gesell, A., Ilg, F. and Ames, L. (1977), The Child from Five to Ten, Harper, New York, NY. Gilly, M.C. and Gelb, B.D. (1982), “Post-purchase consumer processes and the complaining consumer”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 323-328. Goldberg, M., Gorn, G.J., Peracchio, L.A. and Bamossy, G. (2003), “Understanding materialism among youth”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 278-288. Gordon, M. (1998), “In plain English: feds must prune prose”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Vol. 2, p. 1. Gunning, R. (1968), The Technique of Clear Writing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Harrigan, J.A. (1991), “Children’s research: where it’s been, where it’s going”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 11. Hart, C., Heskett, J. and Sasser, W.E. (1990), “The profitable art of service recovery”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 148-156. Hill, D., Baer, R. and Kosenko, R. (1992), “Organizational characteristics and employee excuse making: passing the buck for failed service encounters”, in Sherry, J.F. and Sternthal, B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research: Vol. 19, ACR, Provo, UT, pp. 673-677. Hsieh, S., Thomas, O. and Rotem, A. (2005), “The organizational response to patient complaints: a case study in Taiwan”, Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 308-320. John, D.R. (1999), “Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five years of research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 183-213. John, D.R. and Peracchio, L. (1993), “Children as consumers: are they marketing literate?”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, p. 373. Kendall, C.L. and Russ, F.A. (1975), “Warranty and complaint policies: an opportunity for marketing management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 36-43. Landon, E.L. (1980), “The direction of consumer complaint research”, in Olson, J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ACR, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 335-338. Lasswell, H.D. (1948), “The structure and function of communication in society”, in Bryson, L. (Ed.), Communication of Ideas, Harper, New York, NY. Liberty Financial (1993), Liberty Financial Young Investor Parent’s Guide, Liberty Financial Companies, Boston, MA. Liu, R.R. and McClure, P. (2001), “Recognizing cross-cultural differences in consumer complaint behavior and intentions: an empirical examination”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 54-75. McNeal, J.U. (1987), Children as Consumers: Insights and Implications, Lexington Books, Toronto. McNeal, J.U. (1990), “Children as customers”, American Demographics, September, pp. 36-39. McNeal, J.U. (1992), “Growing up in the market”, American Demographics, October, pp. 46-50. Marquis, S. (1994), “The young ones”, Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 22-23. Martin, C.L. and Smart, D.T. (1989), “Consumer correspondence: an exploratory investigation of consistency between business policy and practice”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 354-382. Moore, E.M. and Shuptrine, F.K. (1993), “Warranties: continued readability problems after the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-36.

PAGE 318 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

Osarenkhoe, A. and Bennani, A.E. (2007), “An exploratory study of implementation of customer relationship management strategy”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 139-164. Pearson, M.M. (1976), “A note on business replies to consumer letters of praise and complaint”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 61-68. Plain Writing Act of (2010), available at: www.congress.gov/bill/111thcongress/house-bill/946 Plymire, J. (1991), “Complaints as opportunities”, Business Horizons, March-April, pp. 79-81. Raphael, M. (1993), “Are you kidding?”, Direct Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, p. 38. Reid, R.M.C. (2014), “Embedded advertising to children: a tactic that requires a new regulatory approach”, American Business Law Journal, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 721-777. Resnick, A.J. and Harmon, R.R. (1983), “Consumer complaints and managerial response: a holistic approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 86-97. Robinson, L.M. (1979), “Consumer complaint behavior: a review with implications for further research”, in Day, R.L. and Hunt, H.K. (Eds), New Dimensions of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, pp. 41-50. Schor, J.B. (2004), Born to Buy, Scribner, New York, NY. Selman, R.L. (1980), The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding, Academic Press, New York, NY. Shannon-Missal, L. (2014), “What’s the going rate for allowances these days? Harris Poll ‘allowance index’ looks at American perceptions on allowances”, PR Newswire, New York, NY, 15 January. Steinberg, S.R. and Kincheloe, J.L. (1997), Kinderculture: The Corporate Construction of Childhood, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Strasburger, V.C. and Wilson, B.J. (2002), Children, Adolescents and the Media, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Suchan, J. and Colucci, R. (1991), “The high cost of bureaucratic written communications”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 68-73. TARP (1979), “Consumer complaint handling in America: summary of findings and recommendations”, Technical Assistance Research Programs, 706 Seventh Avenue, S.E., Washongton, DC. TARP (1982), “Measuring the grapevine– consumer response and word-of-mouth”, Conducted for the Consumer Affairs Department of the Coca-Cola Company by Technical Assistance Research Programs, 706 Seventh Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC. Timm, P.R. (1986), Managerial Communication: A Finger on the Pulse, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Velazquez, B.M., Blasco, M.F., Saura, I.G. and Contri, G.B. (2010), “Causes for complaining behavior intentions: the moderator effect of previous customer experience of the restaurant”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 532-545. Ward, S., Wackman, D.B. and Wartella, E. (1977), How Children Learn to Buy, Sage, Beverly Hills. Winch, G. (2011a), “Complaint handling: where companies and customers both fail”, Psychology Today, 28 May. Winch, G. (2011b), “The squeaky wheel: how complaining via twitter is changing consumer psychology”, Psychology Today, 3 May.

Further reading Chaplin, L.N. and John, D.R. (2007), “Growing up in a material world: age differences in materialism in children and adolescents”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 480-493. Coca-Cola Company (1982), How to Talk to a Company and Get Action, Consumer Information Center of the Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, GA. Cutler, B. (1992), “From soup to purple dinosaur nuts”, American Demographics, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 48-49. Farnell, C. and Westbrook, R.A. (1984), “The vicious circle of consumer complaints”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 68-78. Feigenbaum, N. (1989), “Consumers, your gripes are not going unheard”, Atlanta Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. Bl-B4. Foster, G. (2007), “A matter of complaint”, Occupational Health, Vol. 59 No. 12, p. 25.

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016

YOUNG CONSUMERS

PAGE 319

Gaedeke, R.M. (1972), “Filing and disposition of consumer complaints: some empirical evidence”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 6, pp. 45-56. Gilly, M.C. (1987), “Postcomplaint processes: from organizational response to repurchase behavior”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 293-313. Gilsdorf, J.W. (1986), “Written corporate communication policy: extent, coverage, costs, benefits”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 23, pp. 35-52. Harris, T.E. and Bryant, J. (1986), “The corporate communication manager”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 19-29. Hill, J.A. (2011), “Endangered childhoods: how consumerism is impacting child and youth identity”, Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 347-362. Jacobson, M.F. and Mazur, L.A. (1995), Marketing Madness, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, p. 21. Klare, G.R. (1963), The Measurement of Readability, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Klein, L. (1997), “More than play dough”, Brandweek, Amsterdam, Vol. 38, 24 November. Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, Beverly Hills. Landes, L. (2015), “Never Waste a Good Problem”, Smart Business St. Louis, p. 6. Landon, E.L. (1979), “Responding to consumer complaints: organizational considerations”, in Day, R.L. and Hunt, H.K. (Eds), New Dimensions of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, pp. 91-94. Lee, S.M. (1968), “A consumer writes for consumer rights”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 212-222. Linn, S. (2004), Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood, New Press, New York, NY. List, S.K. (1992), “The right place to find children”, American Demographics, February, pp. 44-48. Magazines.com (2015), “List of children’s magazines”, Franklin, TN. Morton, J.S. and Renzy, R.R. (1978), Consumer Action, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Nickels, W.G. and Zabriskie, N.B. (1973), “Corporate responsiveness and the marketing correspondence function”, MSU Business Topics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 53-58. Ranker.com (2014), “List of children’s media”, Los Angeles, CA. Richins, M.L. (1983), “Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 68-78. Rivoll, R.P. (1974), “Don’t complain about complaints – handle them”, Industry Week, Vol. 181, 27 May, p. 42. Schwartz, D.A. (1973), “Get ready for those consumer complaints”, Sales Management, Vol. 110 No. 28, p. 30. Schwed, M. (1995), “TV commercials and your kids”, TV Guide, 18 February, pp. 19-22. Stone, M. (2011), “Literature review on complaints management”, Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 108-122.

About the author Cathy Cobb Walgren received her MA, MBA and PhD from the University of Texas at Austin. Before coming to Georgia State University, she taught at the University of Illinois. Her primary research interests include consumer behavior and marketing communications. Cathy Cobb Walgren can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

PAGE 320 YOUNG CONSUMERS

VOL. 17 NO. 4 2016