Hello , i need help to present the important aspect in details of this part of article.

5. A guide to addressing social voice Negative consumer interaction is the number one fear of marketers engaging in social media (Gillin, 2009). Rightfully so, as 85% of customers say they will now complain or retaliate if their needs are not met by a company, and Gen X and Gen Y consumers are likely to use a company's social media sites to complain (Grant, 2013). Based on our analysis, we offer the following step-by-step guide on how to recognize and respond to various types of consumer negativity on social media.

5.1. When/if to delete negative feedback E-WOM allows everyone to see negative comments posted on a company's social media account. Therefore, marketers may be tempted to remove critical negative posts, especially when they may feel the posts are unfair or inaccurate. However, deleting negative feedback could potentially generate further negative attention either by the person who posted the original post or by others, and is typically not the best approach for handling such comments (Gillin, 2009). A key goal for companies engaging in social media dialogue with consumers is to portray authenticity. In order to appear so, the company must keep all feedback posted on its page for people to see, not just the positive. This would apply to all profiles from our analysis exceptforlikely the troll. Deleting such posts is less likely to infuriate other consumers. Moreover, troll posts are often offensive, which gives the company a legitimate excuse for removing them without appearing oversensitive to negative criticism.

5.2. When to respond to negative feedback Ignoring negative posts can be detrimental, potentially creating a relationship problem where there was not one to begin with; this would be the case with segmentation profiles from the early squabbles stage. However, there may be two cases where silence may be preferable to posting a response. One would be in relation to troll posts and the other in relation to social activist posts. For troll posts that the marketer does not delete, there is not much benefit in interacting with the person posting it. Often, such posts are made with the intention of stirring the pot and getting a reaction, which is why silence may be a wise reaction. In the case of the social activist posts, the challenge is that such posts often address controversial issues where people's views can differ. Ifthey take a position, marketers need to be aware of the risk of alienating consumers from the other side. Therefore, in some cases, the option of no response may be worth considering

5.3. How quickly to respond to negative feedback While it is important for marketers to not respond hastily, extensive delays can also be harmful and either create new problems or aggravate existing ones. Timely responses are helpful for all profiles for different reasons. Timely responses to a help seeker communicate that the consumer is important and the company cares and wants to help. A timely response to unsolicited advisors communicates that the company pays attention and appreciates their input and engagement, a message that likely would encourage them to stay engaged with the brand. However, quick responses that are automated may be worse than delayed responses. For example, American Airlines developed a policy to respond to all consumer tweets but with automated responses. When consumers left passive aggressive comments congratulating the airline on being the largest and worst airline "in the history of the world," the automated response from American Airlines was an immediate but standardized, "thanks for your support" message (Stampler, 2013). Progressive had 164 J.P. Melancon, V. Dalakas a similar issue with robo-tweets in response to consumer complaints, infuriating consumers so much that Progressive's 'Buzz score' (measuring sentiment of brands online) fell significantly in comparison to competitors (Stampler, 2012).

5.4. How to respond to negative feedback The different profiles that emerged from our analysis highlight the fact that the same standardized response to different posts is not beneficial. The social media dialogue needs to be authentic and tailored to each individual communication. Although this is something that marketers should have always been doing, now that communications are public, it can be much more embarrassing and potentially costly to do it poorly. Along those lines, responses to posts like ones in the help seeker category can focus on opportunities to build and enhance the relationship with the consumer. This means addressing their question or concern quickly, but also-if and when applicable- providing a bit more than what was asked for. For example, within moments of a consumer tweeting a question about a fee applied to a standby flight, Jet Blue had cleared up the consumers' confusion effectively and efficiently. However, a Jet Blue representative in the same airport actually sought out the consumer in the terminal (using his Twitter profile picture to find him) to make sure he had no further questions and to give him a care package as he waited on his flight (Kolowich, 2014). By a implementing a quick response, Jet Blue avoided an angry consumer. The encounter could have ended there, and the relationship would likely have been preserved. However, Jet Blue, by taking one more step, created an advocate who immediately tweeted about the extraordinary customer service experience with the airline. The idea of exceeding both adequate and desired levels of service has long been a way to achieve "unwavering customer loyalty" (Parasuraman et al., 1991, p. 47) and coordination of social media and traditional customer service may be a powerful way to achieve these means, particularly when the consumer begins the conversation on social media. Having a consumer voluntarily broadcast the service delight on social media gives the company additional goodwill. Responses to an unsolicited advisor can focus on building coproduction opportunities. Marketers can communicate that they value feedback and even actively encourage it. For example, Starbucks has used Starbucks MyIdea website as an outlet for consumer suggestions. It has led to consumer submitting more than 150,000 ideas/suggestions to Starbucks, 277 of which have been implemented by the chain (BusinessWire, 2013). Such coproduction strengthens affective commitment in service relationships and also serves to reduce marketing costs to the firm (Gruen, Summers, & Acito, 2000). Dear John posts aim to communicate the value of the consumer a company is potentially losing. In those cases, it is important for the company to provide front line social media empowerment to handle those issues quickly, publically, and meaningfully. The story-of-my-life posts are a case that clearly highlights the need for customized responses rather than automated standardized one-liners. Consumers who take the time and make the effort to write such detailed accounts of their experience would expect and value company responses that communicate similar effort. In both of these cases, consumer expectations have not yet been met, but consumers may be willing to give the company a second chance. The service recovery paradox states that dissatisfied customers may end up happier after meaningful attention was given to their issue than if there was no issue in the first place (De Matos, Henrique, & Rossi, 2007). These consumer relationships may be salvaged, but in order for such great recoveries to happen, the people handling the social media accounts should do more than simply acknowledge the issue. Consumer expectations must be far exceeded for this to happen. For the profiles in the termination stage, often the possibility for recovery may be gone. In that case, the company's response is more about mitigating potential damage to others who are reading the comments. Standardized response options are unlikely to appease this consumer. Passive-aggressive posts are hard to handle as they are, by their nature, rather cryptic. Marketers should publically volunteer outreach to discuss the issue further in private messages so that other consumers witness the effort to get to the bottom of the issue. For example, a sarcastic passiveaggressive complaint to Whole Foods about the removal of a product the consumer liked led to a prompt response by the company with specific questions to clarify what the consumer was angry about, with the promise to look into the issue forthe consumer and follow up. Negative posts by whistle-blowers should be met with education of consumers that provide additional information regarding the alleged issues about the company in terms of the accuracy of the claims and, in cases where the claims are true, transparency in information on what the company is doing to address it.