How to manage eWOM efficiently in the Tourism Sector

Introduction
Word of mouth communication is an informal, face to face communication between two or more individuals. (Arndt’s, 1967) It is perceived to be more credible than traditional advertising since it is by definition a non commercial form of marketing. (Goyette et al., 2010)
Due to the augmented trustworthiness, word of mouth (WOM) has always had great tactical importance for a company’s communication strategy. (Bughin et al., 2010) Moreover WOM has played a relevant role in a consumers purchase decision process, due to the fact that it helps consumers reduce the perceived purchase risk significantly (Neelotpaul, 2010 and Zang et al., 2010) Reducing the perceived risk of purchase is especially important for experience goods such as hospitality services, hardly assessable prior consumption. (Kandampully et al., 2001 and Gil-Or, 2010)
However firms have little control over the message its consumers are spreading, and have to accept praise and criticism likewise. (Kirkpatrick, 2005)
The impact and reach of the WOM has been increased dramatically by the rise in usage of the internet, giving consumers the possibility to spread their opinion to a wider audience (Dellarocas, 2003) and has therefore made companies even more dependent on it. (Goyette e al. 2010)

In the tourism sector, word of mouth consists mainly of online travel reviews that can have both a positive and a negative message. (Tripadvisor, 2010)
Understanding WOM and being able handle it adequately is very important for a marketing manager in the tourism sector, because most of the tourists rely on information acquired through electronic word of mouth during the vacation planning process. (Gretzel et al., 2007)
In addition, WOM plays a very important role in hospitality and tourism, because of the sectors unique characteristics. Due to the intangible aspect of the tourism goods, that makes evaluation prior consumption impossible and because purchasing a tourism service involves such a high psychological risk (Kandampully et al., 2001), having an unbiased information source before completing the purchase decision is crucial. (Litvin et al., 2008)
Word of mouth influences a consumer at every level of the purchasing process: during the initial consideration- set building, throughout the brand evaluation phase, and even at the actual decision making time. (Bughin et al.2010) Although the influence of WOM changes through the various steps, it is the only influencing feature that is positioned among the three main influencers at every stage. (Bughin et al.2010)
Furthermore the Tourism industry is a highly competitive industry, and thus a competent use of online reviews and social media, might lead to attain a competitive advantage over ones competitors. (Litvin et al., 2008)

Marketing research on WOM dates back to the 1960s (Arndt, 1967 and Dichter, 1966), and definitions of WOM have incessantly evolved over time. (Carl, 2006)
Literature so far has focused mainly on the impact that WOM and eWOM have on a consumer, analysing whether positive or negative messages have a bigger impact (Goyette e al. 2010) and evaluating which elements render this form of marketing communication more credible. (Mack et al., 2008 and Cheung et al., 2009) In addition authors tried to understand the reasons that make consumers willing to express themselves on the internet, concluding that the desire for social interaction, for economic incentives and altruism are the main motivations for generating digital word of mouth. ( Henning- Thurau et al. 2004). Dellarocas (2003) compares moreover digital feedback mechanisms to traditional, offline word of mouth, before analysing the increasing importance of a company’s reputation and its effect on future purchase in the digital environment.

While there is no doubt of the critical importance that word of mouth, and more specifically consumer reviews play in tourism, there is only a limited part of literature explaining how a company in the tourism sector should approach the vast field of user -generated content. Although various authors agree on the fact that WOM should to be included in today’s marketing strategy of every business, there is a lack of knowledge of how a marketing manager can attempt to use this marketing tool to his advantage
User generated content in the tourism sector consist mainly of consumer opinions and reviews posted on the net.
Given the importance of the theme and the value for a firm to understand this marketing tool, this article aims to give an overview of the existing knowledge and literature regarding word -of -mouth advertising. Then this article explores eWOM in the tourism and hospitality sector, focusing mainly on user –generated travel reviews, as they make out the biggest part of the WOM communication in this sector.
This paper then aims to show in more detail how tourism companies should handle negative consumer reviews, trying to mitigate the negative impact they have on traveller’s decision making. What is more this article aspires to provide marketing managers of tourism organisations with the knowledge of how companies can handle these online consumer complaints to position their company better and stand out against the ever increasing competition.

Exploring the evolution of WOM
Word -of –mouth (WOM), traditionally between family and friends, has always been a very effective form of marketing. (Goyette et al., 2010)
Arndt’s (1967) definition of word of mouth focuses on key elements of the phenomena: he lays emphasis on the informal, not officially organised aspect of the face- to- face communication between two people, and he highlights the WOMs independence of any commercial source of the information distribution. Litvin et al. (2008) suggests that perceived independence is the key source of WOM, while Richins (1983) engages more with the negative site of word- of- mouth, explaining that even if unsatisfied consumer speaks to a single person about his experience this can be defined as WOM. Bone (1992) suggests that WOM can be a group phenomenon, agreeing with the other authors that the individuals respresent a marketing independent source. Arndt (1967) and Carl (2006) moreover observe that WOM takes place in a everyday context, and that the probability of WOM interactions is positively linked to a close relationship between the communicators.

The biggest part of the authors furthermore agree on the fact that consumers trust WOM more than traditional marketing (advertising and public relations, mostly paid marketing), as we can see by the fact that 20- 50 % of all purchase acts are primarily stimulated by WOM. (Bughin et al., 2010). Gil-Or (2010) tries to explain this fact, by clarifying that the reason for consumers to trust WOM more than they trust traditional marketing is that they have been overexposed to the later and have been affected by deceptive advertising and thus tend to trust firms less. That is why consumers that would have searched for information through advertisements or professional advise, are now relying increasingly on consumer generated content on the net (Dellarocas, 2003). This may partially due to the fact that the modern technology makes it easier to skip advertising, watching for instance movies streamed online, rather than on TV or listening to podcasts rather than to radio. (Martin, 2007 and Kaikati et al., 2005)
Moreover consumers trust other consumers more, because they have no reason to believe that the messenger gains anything, be it an economic advantage or any other benefit, for transferring the information, a company on the other hand does. (Gil-Or, 2010 and Goyette et al., 2010) It can be assumed therefore that consumers give more unbiased advise to potential customers than the company itself.
Bughin et al. (2010) classify three different approaches of word of mouth. Firstly, the authors mention experiential word of mouth, being a result of the direct experience with a product or service and making up for the most part of word of mouth (up to 80 %). It is often originated when the consumers expectation do not match the reality he experiences. (Bughin et al., 2010) Anderson (1998) and Mohr et al. agree that word of mouth arises mostly when there is a gap between the consumers expectations and the consumers experience, both if the gap is positive and negative. In addition, Mohr et al. (2005) explain that the bigger the surprise, the more frequent the WOM, explaining this through the social sharing of emotion.
Second, Bughin et al. (2010) explain that consumers subjected to traditional marketing forms sometimes share information about them or the company publicized in them with their peers. These messages have in many cases a bigger influence and reach than the original marketing campaign. The authors refer to this kind of word of mouth advertising as consequential WOM. (Bughin et al., 2010) Intentional word of mouth is when a company makes use of testimonials to encourage the spreading of news of a new product or service, and this account’s for the third approach that the author describes. This form of WOM is used rarely, as it is perceived to have unreliable effects, and it is known to be handled with difficulty (Bughin et al., 2010).
Carl (2006) makes a similar categorization, distinguishing between “everyday WOM”, informal evaluation of a product, service or brand between at least two communicators, and “institutional WOM”, communication where the company being discussed is part of the conversation.

If one excludes manipulation or fraud for the moment, companies are not able control WOM as easily as traditional marketing forms, as it this communication tool can not usually simply be bought but has to be earned by the firm. (Goyette et al., 2010 and Martin, 2007) The consumer takes an active part in the advertising process, by becoming an advocate for products and services of a firm if he has a very positive experience. (Goyette et al., 2010) Consumers, however are more likely to discuss a bad experience, rather than a good one. (Goyette et al., 2010)

In this article WOM the definition of WOM is given by characteristics, on which most authors have agreed on over time: WOM is a non- commercial, informal communication about a product brand or service, between two or more consumers that are acquainted with each other. These characteristics make WOM usually the most credible of all marketing channels. The focus of this paper lies furthermore on the user-generated word of mouth, given the fact that it accounts for the bigger part of WOM and for the reason that “institutional WOM” goes against the non commercial and independent aspect of word of mouth.

Evolution from traditional WOM to eWOM
Dellarocas (2003) highlights the bidirectional and low-cost dimension of the internet, fact that makes it the one of the few mass medias that not only is able to reach an enormous amount of people, but enables companies to interact and converse with its consumers and gives web users the opportunity to share information and thoughts extending their limited personal network to a new and bigger group of people.
Buttle (1998) declared that WOM can be mediated by electronic means, such as through web- based opinion platforms, news groups, social network sites, blogs, product reviews, “tell-a- friend” hyperlinks or other platforms for user generated content on the web (Henning –Thurau et al., 2004 and Bughin et al., 2010).
In the digital setting a brand gains even more importance than in a traditional marketplace. This is due to the fact that the brand gives credibility were physical contact is not possible, and the consumer has no possibility to actively convince himself of the realness of the provider or the quality of the product. (Neelotpaul, 2010 and Chiang et al., 2008) Therefor word of mouth communication plays a big role in the digital environment.
Krol et al. (2006) agree that the internet has accelerated the WOM and distributes it to a much larger audience than the traditional WOM was able to reach. With the growth of the web (Goyette et al., 2010) and the shift in public trust from traditional news institutions and advertising to social media, WOM has reached new dimensions. (Lanz et al., 2010). Rather than a consumer sharing information with his intimate circle of acquaintance, the communication now happens on a one-to-many basis on the web (Bughin et al., 2010). Due to these special attributes of the internet (the low cost of the media, anonymity and wide reach) consumers are increasingly likely to search for or be exposed to online recommendations. (Hennig-Thurau, et al., 2004).

On the internet, one can compare product prices and features easily and consequently consumers gain more power. The constraints that where once related to location and time are not relevant any longer and as a result the competition is wider in the online environment than in the offline environment. (Dayal et al., 2000 and Sigala, 2003) In the more competitive internet world a strong brand is very important, not only helping the consumer reduce the perceived risk of the purchase, but also conceding him also to save search time and cost. (Neelotpaul, 2010)

A recent study found out than more than half of the woman trust word of mouth advertising more than any other form of marketing. (Martin, 2007) The identity of the person who writes a product review is, in this context, critical to the credibility of the message: the reader must perceive the reviewer as trustworthy and be convinced by his knowledge of the product. (Bughin et al., 2010)
As one would believe, family and friends are thus still the most credible purchase advisors (45% of the shoppers trusted them most) and online user reviews take in the second place (13%). (Martin, 2007)
Because users are confronted with the opinions of strangers instead of their familiar circle of confidents, when exploring digital word of mouth, it is harder for them to evaluate these attitudes, as they know little about the values and beliefs of these strangers. Furthermore in a setting where ones real identity can be hidden it is very difficult for consumers to understand if they are being manipulated or if they read an authentic comment by an other user. (Friedmann et al., 2001)
Because in many cases reviewers can choose to remain anonyms, one is able to post opinions about ones own product, compromising the credibility of the whole online feedback mechanism.
(Kirkpatrick et al., 2005) But Kirkpatrick et al. (2005) reassure the reader by suggesting that those how try to manipulate readers in the online world, by promoting their own products under a different identity, are usually discovered quickly and annihilated by web users.
The risk to be subjected to manipulation of the system must however always be carefully taken in consideration (Dellarocas, 2003) and it is advisable to make identity changes difficult on opinion platforms or to adopt a structure where an exit and re-entry of becomes unprofitable for the reviewer to try and elude manipulation. (Friedmann et al., 2001)
Automated feedback mediators, that are installed on company websites or company owned blogs, are to a certain extend, controllable by a company: they are able to decide who can participate, what type of information one can publish and design the website to enhance features they want to draw attention on. ( Dellarocas,2003).
Although companies can not control the content of eWOM they can monitor it closely, measuring it precisely something that was not possible with traditional WOM. ( Dellarocas,2003).
A company should take this opportunity offered by the digital medium and monitor eWOM regularly to be able to provide their management with relevant, immediate feedback. (Litvin et al., 2008)

Social Networks
If somebody still doubts the importance of social media in a companies marketing communication, it is sufficient to have a look at the statistics regarding Facebook, the largest social network of the world (Gil-Or,2010). Facebook has more than 500 million active users, with an average of 130 friends. These people spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook. (Facebook, 2011) It is hard to argue against the fact that being influential on a site like Facebook, can boost a companies awareness to unknown heights. An average Facebook user is connected to 80 community pages, groups or events and he creates 90 pieces of content, such as blog posts, web links, news stories, each month. (Facebook, 2011) Having an influential role in a social network platform, can enhance a companies marketing strategy and in the best cases start eWOM, without much money being invested on the company’s site.
Gil-Or (2010) illustrates the impact social networks can have on building eWOM, by following the distribution of a viral message without the direct intervention of the original messenger on Facebook. The author found out that, if a Facebook user is joining a certain group or posting a piece of information all of the people connected to the user in this network will be notified of the his action. Therefore all his “friends” will become aware about this group or information and might decide to interact with it. Ideally they would respond to it and as a result spread the information to all the people connected to them (Gil-Or, 2010). The message is as a result possibly spread over major parts of the network, increasing awareness towards a specific information or company, without the direct involvement of a company.

The identity of online opinion leaders is, as said before, crucial to make the message trustworthy. (Bughin et al., 2010) Typically, spread within close, trusted networks, may have a smaller scope, but have a greater influence than those circulated through diffused communities. (Bughin et al., 2010) A person may have a multitude of Facebook friends but accept advice from only a small part of them: the small, trusted circle of friends is still the one with the biggest influence on the individual. (Bughin et al., 2010) This fact is reinforced by the volume of information available on the internet: even consumer reviews, where once few selected pieces were available, now overwhelm the consumer that is not able to assess all the information provided. (Bughin et al., 2010)
The main reason that makes social networks so interesting for marketers is that people are connected with other people they know, or at least they choose to be in contact with and that information distributed through this network is perceived as even more credible as general consumer opinions. (Gil-Or,2010) Tripadvisor for example has integrated its website with Facebook, enabling its users to see which of his “friends” have visited the cities one is interested in, or filter out the reviews that friends have posted on the travel review site (Tripadvisor, 2010). By doing this Tripadvisor gives consumers once again the possibility to narrow the selection of online reviews and to rely on the opinions of the more familiar circle of friends and acquaintances, making eWOM more similar to the traditional word of mouth. By doing this Tripadvisor trusts in the fact that a consumer is considerably more likely to buy a product recommended to him by a family member or friend, rather than a stranger. (Bughin et al.2010)

It is however crucial to understand that the mere presence in a social network is far from enough to exploit the full potential of the eWOM. One must use the right strategy in the social network and use this marketing tool together with other forms of marketing. (Zeisser, 2010)
To make sure people will constantly engage with a company’s social media- or website, its content has to be updated continuously. This has to exceed the simple scope to deliver accurate information, it has to entertain consumers, giving them useful, attractive information, so they gain value from interacting with the website. (Gil-Or, 2010 and Schmallegger et al., 2008).
Stimulating and encouraging positive eWOM should have a positive influence on a company’s performance. (Litvin et al., 2008) Therefore the next chapter will give suggestions one how a company can stimulate the creation of eWOM.

How a company can try to stimulate WOM
Due to the fact that word of mouth advertising is such a powerful marketing tool, a company should try to stimulate it. Because consumers have different motivations for expressing themselves on the net, companies may analyse the motivations of their target market and adopt specific approaches to motivate them. (Henning- Thurau et al, 2004)
One way of doing so is to attribute some kind of recognition to social network users that are actively diffusing information about the company, by providing for instance achievement badges. This is important because social network users are motivated to express themselves on the internet in search for recognition. (Zeisser, 2010) Krol and Carol (2006) on the other hand argue that rewards or incentives of any kind can erode the trust people put in this marketing channel. The fact that readers think that being paid to talk about someone’s product is unethical (Krol et al., 2006) is logical, as it removes a primary aspect of the word of mouths credibility: it is unbiased because WOM communicators do not talk about a product to gain a personal benefit. Krol et al. (2006) suggest that the best way of stimulate word of mouth is thus providing an excellent service or product that people really want to talk about.
In the hospitality and tourism sector, companies might consider inviting influential bloggers or reviewers on a familiarization trip (they have in invited travel agents and journalist till now) to make them write about their property. (Litvin et al., 2008) On the other hand readers might perceive that as unethical as well, and therefore it is advisable to explain the meaning of a familiarization trip and be as transparent as possible.
Zeisser (2010) identified the need of many active social network users to use the internet in seek of self-expression. As a result including virtual goods or providing games on social media sites, will increase the traffic of these active users on the given sites (Zeisser, 2010), and therefore increase the probability of word of mouth creation likewise.
As said before the internet enables consumers to engage with a company anywhere in the world at any time eliminating the constraints of the offline world and making the internet market space more competitive. In addition the internet gives space to a two-way communication between the consumers and the company, enabling the later to have a more immediate contact with its costumers (Dayal et al., 2000 and Sigala, 2003).
Having an active community interacting on a company’s social network site or on a blog, actively creating content and taking part in a conversation with the firm, stimulates users to create content and diffuse information actively. (Gil-Or, 2010) This is why a company should exploit the characteristics of the net as a mean to engage consumers in a bi-directional communication and keep an active relationship with them, through dynamically including social media in a companies marketing strategy. To get a consumers attention and to boost word of mouth a company should sustain interactivity and creativity on their social media or website, to attract consumer’s attention and keep them entertained. (Bughin et al.,2010)
Allowing consumers to engage in a conversation and leave comments on an active site, most certainly results into free and pure consumer feedback. (Litvin et al., 2008)
To be able to achieve a bidirectional communication between consumer and firm, Gil-Or (2010) suggest that the tone of the discussion should be conversional and the company should aim to build a stronger relationship and trust to its customers. To keep a conversation going it is important to monitor a company’s social media- or website is monitored continuously (Litvin et al., 2008), so that a company can answer it’s consumers doubts and questions as fast as possible and providing therefore positive value to it’s consumers. It is however important to keep the conversation in line with the company’s image and values, and to convey a high quality of the content at all times, as suggested by Zeisser (2010),. Another thing a company should take in consideration is that, even tough social media platforms can be used as an influential notification tool, it is important to select the pieces of information they want to share wisely. This is due to the fact, that if a user is confronted with an overflow of information, he is more likely to block the whole of the information out. Therefore a company should choose the most important pieces of information, which are actually interesting to and useful for the consumer. (Zeisser, 2010)
While Gil-Or (2010) acknowledges the difficulty of influencing people through a communication channel where a company’s influence is limited, the author still believes it is necessary to adopt the right tactic to be as effective as possible.
A fact that one should consider when trying to use social media efficiently, is that helping consumers to communicate with each other is more effective, then directly interfering in a social network as it helps the company maintain an independent and therefore more credible communication channel. (Goyette et al. 2010)
To facilitate the process of spreading news for consumers is for instance a way of stimulating the creation of WOM, without directly interfering in the social network. By integrating for example “tell a friend” – tools into the companies website, or incorporate the website with Facebook, Twitter and other social networks one can encourage the production of user generated content. (Zeisser, 2010).
To keep a consumers attention and to keep him or her active, a company needs to change its online activities and concepts constantly, because otherwise the surprising aspect wears off in time. (Martin, 2007) WOM often arises when the consumers are positively or negatively surprised. Briefly, to increase positive word of mouth, a company should try to manage consumer expectations with the aim to increase positive surprise, and limit the negative one. (Mohr et al., 2005)

The Tourism sector and eWOM

Blogs and reviews
Even tough Dichter (1966) suggests that consumer with high involvement in the purchase decision generate increased WOM and tourism products have typically a high involvement (Kandampully et al., 2001), the literature about tourism and its use of social media is limited. (Litvin, 2008)
Because tourism service is an experience good and its characteristics and its quality can therefore not be assessed prior consumption (Gil-Or, 2010 and Kandampully, 2001), being able to rely on a credible information source is even more significant than for other types of product. Tourists want to see more user generated content, like online reviews or opinion, because it inspires them, clarifies doubts and questions and reassures them. (Thevenot, 2011) Due to the lager credibility of WOM (Goyette et al., 2010), it thus plays a major role in the tourism information search.
In the tourism sector online reviews and consumer recommendations are the most popular form of eWOM (Henning-Thurau et al., 2004 and Dellarocas, 2003), with almost 40% of UK travellers indicating that they are mainly influenced by online recommendations. (Thevenot, 2011)
In 2007 more than 20% of the consumers relied on user-created content before purchasing a tourism service (Schmallegger et al., 2008) and nowadays most of the tourists read other consumers comments or travel related blogs during the vacation planning process. (Gretzel et al.,2007)
That travel reviews play an important role in a travellers decision making process, can be demonstrated by the statistics regarding Tripadvisor, the largest travel community in the world (Tripadvisor, 2010). Tripadvisor has 50 million users, 40 million reviewers (real travellers) and 20 million subscribers (Thevenot, 2011) and the site contains helpful tools, such as “been there, done that” inside information and “the best deals for your travel dates” (Tripadvisor, 2010)
That a consumer review site is that popular, is in addition an evidence for the fact that travellers tend to trust amateur reviews more than professional reviewers, as they are independent and gain no benefit by posting their opinion online (Schmallegger et al., 2008)

A blog is a place where people regularly write personal thoughts on a specific subject. Normally blogs are interactive allowing users to engage actively in a conversation by commenting the content. (Schmallegger and Carson) In Tourism the most common forms of blogs are travel reviews or individual blogs where a tourist relates about his personal journeys and experiences (Schmallegger et al., 2008). These blogs are either published on a specialized consumer review site, a virtual travel community or an individual blog on the tourist’s personal website. (Schmallegger et al., 2008) Schmallegger et al. (2008) distinguish 4 different forms of blogs. They speak of consumer to consumer, business to business, business to consumer or government to consumer communication and how they influence the world of tourism.
Because consumer to consumer blogs make out the biggest part of blogs and due to the fact that the other forms of blogs are characterized by completely different approaches, such as networking opportunities for business to business blogs (Schmallegger et al., 2008), this paper chooses to focus on consumer to consumer blogs and more specifically on consumer reviews.

Online Travel Reviews

In search for unbiased information, travellers read online travel reviews. Next to the convenience of the location, consumers are influenced most by online reviews during their decision making process. (Thevenot, 2011)
Nedungandi (1990) declares that it takes both awareness and positive attitude towards a hotel to make a consumer choose it. Travellers exposed to online reviews are more likely to choose a brand, company they have read about. (Vermeulen et al., 2009) Vermeulen et al. (2009) explain that this is due to the fact that the consumer is more aware of the company or brand.
Generally speaking one can say that while positive WOM is likely to increase sales, negative WOM is supposed to decrease them (Arndt, 1967). Although positive reviews certainly have a bigger positive response than negative ones (Vermeulen et al., 2009), Meijer et al. (2006) suggest that negative reviews can bring positive responses in the audience some times. This might be explained by the fact that even tough a negative review informs the reader about negative aspects of a company, it nevertheless makes the consumer aware that the company exists, and might tickle his interest. (Keller, 1993) And after all rising the awareness of a brand makes it more likely that the customer includes it in its consideration set, and therefore the probability of purchase increases. (Baker et al., 1986)
While positive review have a positive impact on both awareness and attitude towards the brand, negative reviews enhance brand awareness, whereas worsening attitude, and as a result may have a overall neutral effect (Vermeulen et al., 2009) but more often it the negative aspect outweigh the increased consciousness and therefore the negative element of the review prevails. In the digital setting a brand plays a major role, and therefore the damage caused by negative reviews has a huge impact on the consumers trust and therefore also on their purchase decisions (Neelotpaul, 2010 and Chiang et al. 2008)
If a consumer knows a brand or company well, he is less likely to be influenced by online reviews (Vermeulen et al., 2009), this might be explained due to the fact that consumers trust themselves more than strangers on the web.
Business travellers use word of mouth recommendations less than leisure travellers in the information search process but for both segments online recommendations as well as word of mouth from the trusted circle of family and friends play an essential part at various stages of the information search process. (McCarthy et al., 2010)

How to effectively manage negative consumer Reviews
Marketing managers in tourism organisation must be aware of the increasing importance of electronic information search and of the fact that their customers are influenced by that phenomenon (Litvin et al, 2008) Therefore it is crucial to understand these new technologies and use them to ones company’s advantage. (Litvin et al, 2008)
The biggest risk of word of mouth is that it is controllable only to a certain limit and therefore a company making user reviews available to its customers is exposing itself to the inability to hide ones failures and the risk of negative feedback, and consequently potential depressed sales and a damaged image. ( Kirkpatrick et al., 2005, Chevalier et al., 2006, Krol et al., 2006 and Schmallegger et al., 2008).
That is why a lot of marketing people are cautious and try to avoid stimulating eWOM (Krol et al., 2006 and Schmallegger et al., 2008), of fear of the impact that negative WOM could have on a companies image and its lack of knowledge how to handle possible negative comments (Schmallegger et al., 2008).
Krol et al. (2006), however point out that word of mouth is going to happen in any case. Consequently it is better to be able to monitor WOM and be conscious how to handle potential negative reviews, to be able to neutralise them or in the best of cases use them to the company’s advantage (Litvin et al., 2008 and and Kirkpatrick et al., 2005)

Chevalier et al., (2006) claim that the online reviews consist mainly of positive reviews, and therefore the perception a reader might get is positively biased. Similarly Goyette et al. (2010) found out that WOM is made up mainly by a positive component. Dellarocas (2003) on the other hand found out that online feedback mechanisms leverage the quick distribution of bad news and can as a result damage brand equity badly. This is why in this paper the focus is going to be set on the negative. Nevertheless, in this paper we are going to focus on the negative side of word of mouth, as it has generally a bigger effect than the positive part.
Once a company has received a negative review, the outcome depends on how the company handles the complaint. If the company does not respond to the complaint, or offers a poor service recovery this increases the negative view consumers will have of the company (Kelley et al., 1993) and can result in additional negative word of mouth. This can be explained, because the dissatisfaction of the poor service adds to the dissatisfaction of the inefficient problem solving, leaving the consumer frustrated and angry. (Donoghue et al., 2009)
If a company on the other hand, handles the complaint efficiently and to the consumer’s satisfaction, this can result in the “service recovery paradox”: consumers rate the service higher after the complaint than before the failure, increasing furthermore positive word of mouth. (Kelley et al., 1993 and Cranage, 2004). This may due to the fact, that consumers feel, the company made an effort to compensate for the lacking quality, showing hereby that the company cares about the consumer. (Black et al., 2009 and Litivin et al., 2008)
Likewise Barlow et al. (1996) declare that handling negative review correctly, can lead to stronger consumer ties, because a correctly handled complaint can increase the trust a consumer has in the company and hence increase his loyalty in the long run.
One a more positive note however a company can use negative reviews and critics wisely, by employing them as a tool to better understand consumer reactions and have a quick feedback on the products quality. (Dellarocas, 2003 and Donghue et al., 2009) Often consumers don’t complain to the company directly, and therefore a hotel may not be aware of the dissatisfaction of his guest and hence not able to provide service recovery. (Black et al., 2009) A hotel can use negative reviews as a mean to improve service continuously because the manager is made aware, where the company needs improving. (Barlow et al., 1996 and Donoghue, et al., 2009) The company can as a matter of fact, even save the money that would have to be invested in costly market research, by filter the information out of negative reviews. (Rahman, 2004) When used efficiently, this way of improving ones hotel service continuously, through trying to offer increased quality over time and additional value for the consumer, might even lead to a competitive advantage. (Barlow et al., 1996)

To be able to handle complaints efficiently, Barlow et al. (1996) suggest following an eight-step guideline (S. 86):
• Say “Thank you”: One should be grateful for the learning opportunity a guest offers by making a complaint and express this gratefulness towards the consumer.
• Explain why you appreciate the complaint
• Apologize for the mistake: Do not apologise at the very beginning of the conversation but rather let the consumer finish complaining to make sure that you know what you are apologizing for.
• Promise to do something about the problem immediately: this is going to make the tourist feel better, as he knows that someone will deal with his problem.
• Ask for necessary information so you can handle the problem efficiently.
• Correct the mistake- promptly.
• Check customer satisfaction: make sure that the service recovery was to the consumers satisfaction and give him some feedback if necessary.
• Prevent future mistakes, by informing the entire staff of the problem. (Barlow et al., 1996)
Another important thing that should be considered when dealing with a complaint is that costumer retention rates are 85% higher, when some sort of compensation is offered to the guest. In doing so, the company should try to give a compensation that is adequate for the severity of the problem. (Black et al. 2009 and Donghue et al., 2009) Employees should moreover be trained to deal with upset consumers adequately, and quickly. (Donghue et al., 2009)

When dealing with a negative online review it is essential that a company answers directly to the comment by dealing with the complaint in the above illustrated ways, since other readers will become aware of the efficient problem solving of the company as well. (Black et al., 2009) In this way the company can proof they care about there consumers and will be earning not only the trust of the directly affected consumer, but also the faith of potential ones. (Black et al., 2009, Litvin et al., 2008 and Kirkpatrick et al., 2005)

Prompt responses to negative consumer reviews are key, and thus monitoring the web in search for consumer feedback is necessary. Kirkpatrick et al. (2005) and Staarwood (2011) therefore suggest employing one person in at least every company who is responsible to search the web for consumer feedback, and deal with eventual negative reviews. Alternatively, a company could make use of professional firms, which analyze the web with the aid of sophisticated software for its clients. (Kirkpatrick et al., 2005)
To monitor the web closely is furthermore an advantage if an inaccurate negative review is posted on the internet, giving the company the possibility of a quick rectification, avoiding negative word of mouth to circulate and increasing therefore the value of reviews to costumers. (Chevalier et al., 2006)

The rewards of aiming for excellence in word-of-mouth marketing are enormous, and it can deliver a sustainable and significant competitive edge few other marketing approaches can match. (Bughin et al., 2010)

Conclusions
Word of mouth communication is a very effective marketing tool that influences consumer’s decision making more than traditional marketing approaches, as it is perceived to be unbiased and thus more credible.
With the increased usage of the internet, word of mouth has reached lager audiences, evolving from a one- to- one to a one-to- many communication tool. The trusted circle of family and friends are still perceived as the most reliable purchase advisors, followed by the online user reviews that are perceived as unbiased by the customers.
Social networks play a fundamental role in the context of eWOM, giving users on the one hand the possibility to spread information over networks with a magnitude of users, and giving users on the other hand the possibility to be connected to people they are acquainted with. The credibility of information spread through these networks is therefore likely even more elevated.
Due to the big impact that word of mouth advertising has on consumer decision making a company should try to stimulate this marketing instrument. As consumers have different motivations for expressing themselves on the internet, companies should adopt specific approaches to try to motivate their market segment.
Word of mouth communication, especially online travel reviews, play an even more important part in the tourism sector, given the fact that this business is hardly assessable prior consumption and therefore in the need of a credible information source.
In general it can be sustained that while positive reviews are likely to increase sales, negative WOM is supposed to decrease them. The biggest risk of word of mouth is that a company is able to control it only to a certain limit and therefore a company making use of it, is exposing itself to the risk of negative feedback and therefore reduced sales.
Due to the fact that a company cannot stop negative word of mouth from spreading across the net, it is wiser to learn how to handle negative travel reviews efficiently, try to neutralise their damaging effect or even better use them to gain a competitive advantage over ones competition. Handling word of mouth communication correctly can deliver a sustainable and significant competitive advantage for a tourism company.

Implications for managers of tourism organizations are therefore, to employ one person that is responsible to monitor the user-generated content about a company on the web and give immediate responses. By handling the complaint, the employee should make sure to listen closely to what the consumer says, to be able to deal with the issue promptly. He should apologize sincerely for the inconvenience caused and try to solve the problem instantly, when adequate offering some form of compensation.
The negative review should moreover always be viewed by tourism managers as a learning experience free of charge, an opportunity to improve the quality of service.
When dealing with a negative online review it is essential that a company answers directly to the online review, to show not only the directly affected consumer they care, but also other potential consumers, which read the online reviews.

[Source]