Online Word of Mouth - [email protected] Home

Online Word of Mouth

A Process Model of Online Word of Mouth

Author: Ann Christina Sørensen

Supervisor: Anne Martensen

Department of Marketing

Cand. Merc. Marketing Communications Management Thesis

Copenhagen Business School

May 2010

Pages: 100

Word count: 172.198

2

Executive Summary

Word of mouth is a powerful communication tool, because it influences peoples’ buying

behaviours. New technology allows word of mouth to occur in an online environment, and it

has been given a whole new importance. Online word of mouth is able to reach considerably

larger numbers of people and it is possible for companies to observe consumer‐to‐consumer

conversations. At the same time as consumers are increasingly using the Internet and social

media tools, many companies are interested in harnessing the power of online word of mouth

communication. However, many companies do not know how to act in an online environment,

where they have less control over the information available about them.

This thesis addresses how companies can utilise online word of mouth successfully. To do

this, the thesis has conducted a literature review about word of mouth communication.

Traditional word of mouth is a relevant starting point given that online word of mouth

originates from this base, and shares many important characteristics with it. In addition, this

thesis emphasises the potential of social media tools, because these are commonly used to

pass on online word of mouth messages. On the background of the literature review and the

examination of social media, a process model of online word of mouth has been developed. In

order to demonstrate the process model, this thesis includes a contemporary case, which

analyses how a company has utilised it.

Several elements are found to be important in relation to online word of mouth. These include

the identification of the right influencers and to encourage these to pass on online word of

mouth messages; to choose the proper communication channels; and how to get listeners to

listen to the messages. The process model of online word of mouth makes it tangible for

companies, who do not know how to utilise online word of mouth, to encourage online word

of mouth communication. The process model is general and the choices made in the steps of

the model are likely to differ depending on the company, who utilises it. However, it does

provide as an important indicator of which elements are important to include in an online

strategy, making online word of mouth manageable and easier to approach.

3

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................5 1.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PROBLEM SPECIFICATION.................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3.1 Research Questions .....................................................................................................................................................7

1.4 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 2 METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE ...............................................................................................................8 2.1 METHOD OF THE THESIS.................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Scientific Approach .....................................................................................................................................................8 2.1.2 Data Collection Method ............................................................................................................................................8 2.1.3 Theory of Science – Social Constructionism.....................................................................................................9 2.1.4 A Hermeneutic Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS............................................................................................................................................ 10 3 WORD OF MOUTH ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 TRADITIONAL WORD OF MOUTH .................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 THE POWER OF WORD OF MOUTH ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH ............................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3.1 Defining Online Word of Mouth.......................................................................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Characteristics of Online Word of Mouth....................................................................................................... 16 3.3.3 Source Credibility and Trust ................................................................................................................................ 17

3.4 THE POWER OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH................................................................................................................ 17 3.5 VIRAL MARKETING........................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.6 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH............................................................. 20 3.6.1 Offline communication or online communication...................................................................................... 20 3.6.2 Narrow reach or broad reach ............................................................................................................................. 22 3.6.3 Spoken word or written word ............................................................................................................................. 22 3.6.4 Difficult to observe or possible to observe ..................................................................................................... 23

4 THE COMMUNICATION FLOW OF WORD OF MOUTH .......................................................................... 24 4.1 THEORY OF THE TWO‐STEP FLOW MODEL................................................................................................................. 24 4.1.1 Critique of the TwoStep Flow Model............................................................................................................... 26

4.2 A FLOW MODEL OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH ......................................................................................................... 27 4.3 INFLUENCERS .................................................................................................................................................................... 30 4.3.1 Online Influencers..................................................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.2 Groups that are Influential................................................................................................................................... 34

4.4 THE DIMENSION OF INFLUENCERS ............................................................................................................................... 36 4.5 MOTIVES FOR PASSING ON ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH ............................................................................................ 38 4.6 MOTIVES FOR LISTENING TO ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH......................................................................................... 42 4.7 ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH AND SOCIAL MEDIA......................................................................................................... 43 4.7.1 Online Communities................................................................................................................................................. 45 4.7.2 Reviews and Rating.................................................................................................................................................. 47 4.7.3 Media Sharing ............................................................................................................................................................ 48 4.7.4 Email .............................................................................................................................................................................. 49 4.7.5 Instant Messaging .................................................................................................................................................... 49

5 PROCESS MODEL OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH................................................................................... 50 5.1 A PROCESS MODEL OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH.................................................................................................... 50 5.2 THE PROCESS MODEL STEP BY STEP............................................................................................................................ 52 5.2.1 Step One: Identify Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 52 5.2.2 Step Two: Identify Target Audience ................................................................................................................. 52

4

5.2.3 Step Three: Identify and Select the Influencers ........................................................................................... 53 5.2.4 Step Four: Select Communication Channels ................................................................................................. 55 5.2.5 Fifth Step: Get the Influencers to Talk ............................................................................................................. 55 5.2.6 Sixth Step: Get the Listeners to Listen.............................................................................................................. 60 5.2.7 Seventh Step: Track and Measure Results ..................................................................................................... 62

5.3 A CASE: SPRINGFEED CONSULTANCY AND DANISH RED CROSS ............................................................................. 63 5.4 THOUGHTS ON THE PROCESS MODEL........................................................................................................................... 69

6 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 71 6.1 MAIN FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................................ 71 6.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 74

7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 82 APPENDIX 2.1........................................................................................................................................................... 83 APPENDIX 2.2........................................................................................................................................................... 91 APPENDIX 2.3........................................................................................................................................................... 97

5

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Identification

Traditional word of mouth communication is an ancient way of sharing ideas, and has existed

ever since people began to exchange information. As times have changed, so has the nature of

word of mouth. It has evolved from an unconscious process to something that modern

advertisers try to influence and use (Sernovitz, 2009; 3).

Word of mouth communication is now very important to businesses, because traditional

marketing methods are not as effective at reaching target audiences as they once were (Smith

et al., 2007; 387 & Keller, 2007; 449). Marketer‐initiated communication appears to be

declining as consumer‐driven recommendations of products increase in importance

(Eccelston and Griseri, 2008; 593; Keller, 2007; 449). Consumers generally perceive word of

mouth to be far more credible than marketer‐initiated communication (Allsop et al., 2007;

398), which is often perceived as untruthful and biased (Eccelston and Griseri, 2008; 593).

The influence of word of mouth marketing is growing stronger (Allsop et al., 2007; 398).

Research shows that word of mouth communication consistently outperforms glossy

magazines, radio and TV commercials, because personal recommendations carry much more

influence, impact and value (Dichter, 1966; 166 & Lam et al., 2005, 9; Godes et al., 2004, 545

and Keller, 2007; 448). Word of mouth communication can help to acquire new customers

(Villamueva et al., 2008; 48); the art of retaining old customers and acquiring new ones is one

of the primary goals of any company (Thomas, 2004; 64).

Today, word of mouth is no longer restricted to face‐to‐face communication. An online

environment offers countless new opportunities for businesses to influence the behaviour

and opinions of consumers (Eccleston and Griseri, 2008; 592). This relatively new

phenomenon is now referred to as online word of mouth and it is a fundamental element of

marketing practice (Keller, 2007; 449) as Internet usage continues to grow (Schindler &

Bickart, 2005; 35). The increasing number of people using the Internet represents an

increasing potential market for companies to target (Pitta and Fowler, 2005; 272) and,

alongside the growth of social media, many companies are now focusing on this area

6

(Computer Economics Report, 2010; 7). However, many companies do not know how to

operate in the online setting because they have less control over the information written

about them (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009; 59).

For these reasons, it is safe to assume that companies’ interest in online word of mouth

marketing will increase as the Internet matures. Companies need to develop a deeper

understanding of online word of mouth communication and acquire insights into how to use

it. The challenge for companies lies in learning how to listen to consumers’ conversations,

discovering the best way to incorporate these insights into a tool for targeting their intended

audiences. The main challenge is to understand which elements are important in relation to

online word of mouth and how to utilise these the best possible way.

1.2 Problem Specification

As online word of mouth is a relatively new area, first appearing with the advent of the

Internet, it has not been studied as much as the traditional word of mouth methods. This is

why, when compared to traditional word of mouth, there is little research literature covering

the online word of mouth phenomenon. However, because of the increasing importance of

online word of mouth communication, awareness and interest in the subject is greater than

ever. The literature implies that there are strategies for companies seeking to utilise online

word of mouth communication, but there are few specific suggestions about how to unlock

the potential.

The object of this thesis is to examine the nature of word of mouth communication, covering

subjects that are important elements of the processes underpinning online word of mouth

communication. This will contribute to existing literature by suggesting a process model for

using online word of mouth as part of a successful marketing strategy. It will offer companies,

with little knowledge of the subject, a tool to incorporate online word of mouth as a core

element of their marketing approach.

1.3 Problem Definition

By outlining the background of the problem identification and specification, this study will

provide an answer for the following problem definition:

Creating a process model of how to utilise online word of mouth successfully

7

The answer to this problem definition and the following research questions will be found by

including a review of the existing academic literature and, using this background research to

suggest a process model for maximising the marketing potential of online word of mouth. A

case of how a company utilises the process model is also included in order to demonstrate the

process model.

1.3.1 Research Questions

In order to elaborate on the problem definition, this thesis will include answers to the

following research questions:

1) What characterises traditional and online word of mouth and viral marketing?

2) What does the communication flow regarding online word of mouth look like?

3) What are influencers and why are they important?

4) What are the motives for listening to and passing on word of mouth messages?

5) Where does online word of mouth take place?

For an overview of definitions, see Appendix 1.

1.4 Limitations

The thesis has following limitations:

• This thesis does not include studies of any specific product‐group in the process model

of using online word of mouth successfully; all companies, who do not know how to

utilise online word of mouth communication, are addressed in general terms.

• The findings in the thesis recognise the consequences of negative word of mouth, but

there is no further elaboration about the subject.

• In relation to influencers, this thesis only elaborates on the specific areas of the

influencer theory that are most relevant to online communication.

• This thesis does not incorporate the legislation governing social media.

Minor limitations will be highlighted throughout the body of the thesis.

8

2 Methodology and Structure

2.1 Method of the Thesis

In this chapter, the methodological approaches selected for this thesis will be explained. The

choice of methodology influences the findings and conclusions, so the reasoning behind these

choices must be assessed.

2.1.1 Scientific Approach

This thesis uses a deductive approach (Andersen, 2003; 39), because it is primarily based on

theoretical literature, and the examination of the problem definition uses a theoretical

approach rather than empirical data. The resulting conclusions and the process model of

online word of mouth, suggested in chapter 5, are based upon a background of theory about

traditional and online word of mouth, communication flow and the influencers theory.

However, this thesis has also collected empirical data in order to support the process model,

in the form of qualitative data, where an inductive approach has been used (Andersen, 2003;

64, 40).

2.1.2 Data Collection Method

Primary data

This thesis has collected data from the company Springfeed Consultancy. The data consists of

a power point presentation and additional information about the company’s campaign. This

thesis has also conducted an exploratory interview (Andersen, 2003; 23) with one of the

partners in Springfeed Consultancy. The purpose of the primary data has been to find out how

the company has utilised the process model of online word of mouth. The interview has been

semi‐structured as the interviewer already had acquired theoretical knowledge about the

subject, but still was open to new angels (Andersen, 2003; 212).

The primary data is illustrated in appendix 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.

Secondary data

9

The study incorporates secondary data, which is found in an array of scientific journals,

articles and various books. The database “Business Source Complete,” from the library of

Copenhagen Business School, was utilised as a way of finding relevant scientific journals.

Additional literature sources were found in the various bibliographies included in academic

articles.

Consequently, the findings of the thesis are built upon academic literature as a basis for

gaining insights into the problem definition.

2.1.2.1 Critique of Data

Asking whether or not it is sufficient to utilise only secondary data is a valid question. This is

why this thesis has found it necessary to include a case study in order to support the theory.

However, there is an advantage to using secondary data in that previous researchers have

already tested the theories and hypothesis. Furthermore, the purpose of this study is to

suggest a process model for using online word of mouth based upon well‐established theory.

In relation to the interview a disadvantage is that the interviewer has had a bias interest in

those particular asked questions. Questions that might have been different, had the interview

been made by a third person. However, as the interviewee was free to answer the questions

as he saw fit, the questions should not appear to be leading.

2.1.3 Theory of Science – Social Constructionism

The theory of science stipulates that science is of a social constructive nature. This implies

that reality is a social construct, existing only in our individual or collective minds (Andersen,

2003; 34). According to Andersen (2003; 34), there are no real truths, only competing truths,

and it is impossible to decide which of the various truths, perceptions or comprehensions are

the real ones.

The social constructive nature underpinning the theory of science will influence the process

model of online word of mouth. This is largely due to the individual background of the author,

so it will affect the interpretation and decoding of the theory used during the research

process.

As social constructive theory dictates that there is no overall truth, but several truths this

thesis follows the same structure. The findings of the thesis do not represent the only truth

10

about a problem, and should be looked upon as only one of the many potential answers

suggesting workable solutions to this issue.

2.1.4 A Hermeneutic Approach

This thesis uses a hermeneutic approach (Gilje and Grimen, 2002; 164). The intent with the

hermeneutic approach is to interpret and understand all the data utilised in this thesis in

order to answer the problem definition.

A central aspect of the hermeneutic approach is the hermeneutic circle. The circle symbolises

how the interpretation of a specific area will lead to an understanding, which leads to a new

interpretation (Gilje and Grimen, 2002; 178). Put differently, the problem definition will be

looked upon from different perspectives, which will all have an influence on the conclusion.

This hermeneutic approach is utilised to navigate the thesis and its results. All the elements of

the thesis will be reflected upon and what these mean for the problem definition (Gilje &

Grimen, 2002; 178).

2.2 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis is divided into six chapters:

• Chapter 1 introduces the overall topic of this thesis, including the problem

identification and specification, the problem definition and research questions, as well

as pointing out the limitations of the thesis.

• Chapter 2 elaborates upon the methodology of the thesis, including the scientific

approach, data collection method and theory of science, and, finally, discusses the

structure of the thesis.

• Chapter 3 reviews the word of mouth literature, including traditional word of mouth,

online word of mouth and viral marketing, and elaborates upon the power of word of

mouth. The chapter also outlines the major differences between traditional and online

word of mouth, helping to provide a deeper understanding of the entire concept.

• Chapter 4 reviews the literature concerning the communication flow of word of mouth.

The object is to provide an understanding of how communication flows influence

online word of mouth. This chapter also includes an explanation of influencer theory,

revealing the motives behind passing on and listening to online word of mouth. Finally,

11

the research highlights the potential of social media, where most online word of mouth

transmission occurs.

• Chapter 5 presents a process model of online word of mouth, which is built up on the

background research developed in chapters 3 and 4. This chapter also elaborates upon

the process model step by step, and includes a case of how a company has utilised the

process model in order to do online word of mouth. This chapter ends with thoughts

on the process model.

• Chapter 6, the final chapter, relates the overall conclusions of this thesis, including the

main findings of the thesis and suggestions for further research.

12

3 Word of Mouth

In order to create a process model for online word of mouth, it is important to acquire a

deeper understanding of word of mouth as a concept. As online word of mouth developed

from traditional word of mouth, it is important to review the literature and understand the

processes governing traditional word of mouth. This will strengthen any review and

conclusions drawn from research into online word of mouth communication.

This chapter will provide the reader with a theoretical understanding of traditional and online

word of mouth, as well as the process of viral marketing. The chapter finishes with a

differentiation between traditional and online word of mouth. This provides an answer to

research question one:

‐ What characterises traditional and online word of mouth and viral marketing?

3.1 Traditional Word of Mouth

The beginning of the 20th century saw the first research about word of mouth and, from the

very beginning, traditional word of mouth was acknowledged as being influential. An example

of this was a study conducted by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), in their book Personal Influence.

Here, they found that informal personal advice has a much greater impact than mass media

advertising, and they proposed that recommendations from people are a more important

influence than formal advertisements (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955; 176‐179). Brooks (1957;

154) supported this observation, and suggested that the powerful networks of interpersonal

relations existing within the consumer market could be used to sell products. It is apparent

that early researchers understood the power of personal contacts and recognised the great

importance that this held for marketing. They found that personal contacts are so powerful

that they are the most effective tool for causing lasting changes in opinion and behaviour

(Brooks, 1957, 155). Modern researchers largely agree with the idea that word of mouth is a

potent influence governing consumer behaviour (East et al., 2008; 215), because impartial

advice concerning purchase decisions reduces the level of doubt (Helm, 2000; 159).

13

Traditional word of mouth has been a topic of research for a number of decades, so several

definitions of the concept are available. For example, Arndt (1967; 3) defined traditional word

of mouth as: “Oral, persontoperson communication between a receiver and a communicator

whom the receiver perceives as noncommercial, concerning a brand, a product, or a service”.

Building upon this, contemporary researchers share the idea that word of mouth is almost

entirely non‐commercial. East et al. (2008; 215) defined word of mouth as: “Informal advice

passed between consumers. It is usually interactive, swift, and lacking in commercial bias”.

Stern (1994; 6‐7) made a thorough definition: “WOM occurs in real time and real life: it refers

to utterances that can be taken as the verbal acts of real persons on specific occasions in

response to particular circumstances. These utterances are personally motivated, spontaneous,

ephemeral, and informal in structure – that is, they are not paid for by a sponsor; they are not

composed and revised over time; they disappear as soon as they are uttered; and they are not

consciously structured by means of literary devices (imagery, rhythm, rhyme) or formal patterns

(poetic, epic, and so forth)”. Stern (1994; 6‐7) also accentuates some very interesting points.

One of his proposals states that traditional word of mouth is personally motivated and

spontaneous. This means that traditional word of mouth is, unlike ordinary advertising,

something that is not planned and is a natural part of normal conversation, and it is important

to emphasise that word of mouth happens in a constantly changing environment (Allsop et al.,

2007; 404). In addition, traditional word of mouth is spoken, so the words disappear and do

not linger.

Dwyer (2007; 64) provides an interesting dimension in his definition of traditional word of

mouth: “Word of mouth is a network phenomenon: People create ties to other people with the

exchange of units of discourse (that is, messages) that link to create an information network

while the people create a social network”. The social aspect of traditional word of mouth is an

interesting inclusion when defining the concept, as it can be argued that a social network is

quite unique to word of mouth, especially when compared to ordinary advertising via

television, magazines and similar media. When people share experiences, they create ties to

each other, and sharing information causes people to create a social network as well as an

information network.

14

3.2 The Power of Word of Mouth

Previous research acknowledges and documents the idea that word of mouth is a very

powerful consumer influence, as it acts as both a source of information and a persuasive

communication tool (Schindler & Bickart, 2005; 36; Gildin, 2002; 94 & Keller, 2007; 448 &

Bayus, 1985; 36). This explanation is the major reason why word of mouth is able to influence

people’s buying behaviours and final purchase decisions (Kiecker and Cowles, 2001; 73;

Buttle, 1998; 242 & Bayus, 1985; 31). The literature reveals that word of mouth has a positive

and strong influence on new customer acquisition (Trusov et al., 2009; 98), and also affects

consumer awareness, expectations, perceptions, attitudes, behavioural intentions and actual

behaviour (Lam et al., 2005; 9).

The power of word of mouth should not be underestimated because it occurs many times

every day, as a natural part of normal conversation; as a result, it is spontaneous and

independent of any seller (Gildin, 2003; 99). According to a research study using Americans as

subjects, Keller (2007; 450) found that people participate in 3.5 billion word of mouth

conversations every day, and brands are discussed 2.3 billion times per day. Even though this

research only included Americans, it still reveals the high level of daily word of mouth

communication occurring around the world.

According to literature, trust, credibility and personal relevancy are important influences

upon the power of word of mouth:

Trust

Trust refers to the level of trust between two consumers. This variable depends upon the

personal trust relationship present between people sharing recommendations (Keller, 2007;

451). This is consistent with Moorman et al. (1992; 315) who believe that trust represents a

person’s willingness to rely on the word of another individual that they believe to be reliable.

The receiver of a word of mouth message trusts the sender’s intention to make a genuine,

unbiased recommendation. Adding to this intention, individuals usually trust people with a

similar personality and outlook to themselves (Eccleston and Griseri, 2008; 593). Because the

receiver of a word of mouth message trusts the sender, it lowers any anxiety, vulnerability

and uncertainty surrounding a particular transaction (Augusto de Matos & Rossi, 2008; 582).

15

Credibility

The perception of credibility is another element dictating the power of word of mouth (Hung

et Li, 2007; 485). Credibility occurs when the recipient perceives that the source of a message

possesses relevant knowledge, skill, or experience, and the recipient is confident that the

source gives objective and unbiased information (Belch and Belch, 2007; 166‐167).

Furthermore, word of mouth messages are commonly perceived to be far more credible than

marketer‐initiated communication (Allsop et al., 2007; 398 & Buttle, 1998; 242). The

underlying reason for this is that the messages typically originate from people with little

commercial benefit arising from telling others about a product or a service (Gildin, 2002; 99).

To add to the level of credibility, word of mouth messages are especially believable when they

come from unbiased people with a similar background to the receiver (Allsop et al., 2007;

398). The most credible people are family, friends, colleagues, other networks and peers.

Certainly, it can be argued that the credibility of word of mouth messages is a major

advantage in a world where the level of trust in organisations appears to be declining (Allsop

et al., 2007; 398).

Personal relevancy

The personal relevance of a word of mouth message is another reason why word of mouth is a

powerful medium, and is highest when a message succeeds in appealing to a person’s values

(Allsop et al., 2007; 403). Word of mouth messages are normally made with the intention of

making a genuine recommendation to a fellow consumer and, because of this personal

relevance, they are more likely to be heard and acted upon. Allsop et al. (2007; 404)

emphasise that the more personally relevant the word of mouth messages are, the more likely

it is that fellow consumers will pass the messages to others.

3.3 Online Word of Mouth

Because online word of mouth originates from traditional word of mouth, researchers argue

that it shares many of the same qualities. Several researchers (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 40

and Gruen et al., 2006; 450) have found that because of the closeness between traditional and

online word of mouth, it is reasonable to assume that consumer motives, important to

traditional word of mouth, also are relevant to online word of mouth.

16

3.3.1 Defining Online Word of Mouth

Various terms are used to refer to online word of mouth. For example, online word of mouth

(Duan et al., 2008; 233) is often referred to as “electronic word of mouth” (Phelps et al., 2004;

333; Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 38), “Internet word of mouth,” or “word of mouse” (Helm,

2000; 159; Goldenberg et al., 2001; 212). These terms all describe exactly the same concept.

Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004; 39) define online word of mouth as being: “Any positive or

negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company

which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet”. Just like

traditional word of mouth, online word of mouth is consumer‐based communication about a

product or company. It just happens in an online environment.

3.3.2 Characteristics of Online Word of Mouth

Online word of mouth uses new technology in an online environment, including mobile

phones and the Internet (Kiecker et al., 2001, 74). These are often referred to as the “new

media,” which is characterised by its interactivity, making it possible for the company to have

a dialogue with the consumers in a way that was not previously possible (Pitta and Fowler,

2005; 265; Bezjian‐Avery et al., 1998; 23). Furthermore, the process of word of mouth

communication moves considerably faster in an online environment (Mason, 2008; 212).

As result, online word of mouth has acquired a new level of importance, because Internet

consumers can interact with each other and share their interests and knowledge, largely due

to the fact that the Internet encourages interpersonal communication and activities

(Korgaonkar et Wolin, 1999; 57). At the same time, the Internet possesses many possibilities

that are important to both consumers and organisations, due to the process of bidirectional

communication. Organisations can reach a higher percentage of people in their target

audience much faster than in the real world. Online word of mouth can reach numerous

individuals for an unspecified period of time, in direct contrast to the short lifespan of the

spoken word (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 39). Arguably, this makes online word of mouth

even more effective than traditional word of mouth, which is hampered by the limited reach

of face‐to‐face communication. At the same time, the costs are very low and individuals can

make their personal opinions easily accessible to the global community of Internet users

(Dellarocas, 2003; 1407). The Internet makes it easy for consumers to gather unbiased

17

product information from fellow consumers and pass on their own consumption‐related

advice, by engaging in online word of mouth communication (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 39).

The Internet offers numerous possibilities for consumers to share their opinions, preferences

and experiences, and accompanies have a great opportunity to use this for their own

advantage (Trusov et al., 2009; 90). In relation to this, there is the idea that online word of

mouth grants various advantages to consumers because of its ability to use a variety of

formats (Gruen et al., 2006, 450).

3.3.3 Source Credibility and Trust

One important question asks whether online word of mouth loses source credibility and trust,

due to the online setting and the fact that online messages occur between multitudes of

people who do not necessarily know one another. Certainly, trust between an influencer and a

listener is important, and Eccleston and Griseri (2008; 602) found that trust is an ongoing

concern for Internet users, which is why friends and relatives are still the most trusted

sources of information. On the other hand, opinions concerning personal product experience

on Internet forums are often judged as trustworthy, because people acknowledge that the

information comes from fellow consumers, perceived as having little vested interest in the

product, nor any intention to manipulate the reader (Bickart et al., 2001; 32).

To develop and nurture the level of trust between a consumer and a company, companies

must be aware that trust and source credibility are extremely important online. Kiecker and

Cowles (2001; 85) stressed that it is important to establish credibility in an online setting

because the companies’ success rate is affected by how much the consumers can trust the

people and companies with whom they interact. According to the research, trust and source

credibility are intact with online word of mouth, since messages still offer consumers

unbiased product information. However, a company must create and maintain trust and

credibility given that this is a very important aspect for online consumers.

3.4 The Power of Online Word of Mouth

There is little question that online word of mouth is an influential marketing tool (Allsop et al.,

2007; 398). With the new technology, word of mouth is even more powerful, largely due to

the new possibilities created by modern communication. The Internet has magnified the

power of word of mouth in the marketplace (Ward et Ostrom, 2002; 429), and new, informal

18

communication channels, such as the Internet, mobile phones, text messaging, email, instant

messaging and blogs, have all made it very easy to share information and opinions (Allsop et

al., 2007; 398).

Some researchers (Andreassen et Streukens, 2009; 252) reinforced the idea consumers may

well be more open to online word of mouth. The reason is that consumers actively search for

information online before making any purchasing decisions (Andreassen et Streukens, 2009;

252). This idea makes perfect sense, because consumers actively seeking product knowledge

online are more open to acting upon the information they gain (Andreassen et Streukens,

2009; 252), because their guard may be down. Extending this important point, online word of

mouth appears to be a significant influence upon a consumer’s evaluation of products (Doh et

Hwang, 2009; 193). Furthermore, Kiecker and Cowles (2001; 74) found that, regardless of

where word of mouth takes place, in an off‐line setting or an online setting, the influence of

word of mouth communication is still present.

Another advantage of online word of mouth is that it takes place in public rooms (Andreassen

and Streukens, 2009; 252), such as the Internet. Seen from the eyes of companies, this gives

online word of mouth a great advantage, due to the fact that it is able to reach a larger

audience than traditional word of mouth. Thus, new technology, such as the Internet, is

something that companies can take full advantage of. Thanks to the Internet and social media

tools, it is possible to look inside what was, customarily, a private sphere (Andreassen et

Streukens, 2009; 257).

3.5 Viral Marketing

Viral marketing must be included in any research about online word of mouth because it is

easily confused with online word of mouth; they both take place online and share some

superficial characteristics. However, they do differ in many significant aspects and it is crucial

to make a clear distinction.

Viral marketing is a specific type of word of mouth communication, involving an “explosive

selfgenerating demand – or ruin” (Dobele et al., 2005; 144). This idea suggests that viral

marketing is based upon creating an epidemic growth or viral effect, targeting as many people

as possible. Because the spread is epidemic, there is a significant possibility that a viral

marketing message will reach many people lying outside the target audience.

19

Viral marketing can be defined as: “From a practical perspective, it is a strategy whereby people

forward the message to other people on their email list or tie advertisements into or at the end of

messages” (Dobele et al., 2005; 144). Viral marketing can consist of an informational message

or, more often, as an entertaining message, the main reason why the message is forwarded by

Internet users. A viral marketing campaign is often funny (Dobele et al., 2005; 146),

explaining why the messages are so engaging. In this way, viral marketing messages do not

necessarily have much to do with the product itself and, generally speaking, viral marketing

messages are forwarded more frequently because of the messages themselves, rather than

because of the actual product, service or brand. Compared to online word of mouth, viral

marketing is not about making and receiving recommendations about a product. Dobele et al.

(2005; 144) emphasise that viral marketing is only used to generate word of mouth

recommendations.

Another definition of viral marketing says that: “Viral marketing is in its essence a

communication strategy that uses ideas, slogans, catch phrases and icons or a combination

hereof to transmit a message concerning a product as fast and as widespread as possible within

a given target group. It is often part of a branding strategy and it usually seeks to address

opinion leaders and often also early adopters” (Beckmann & Bell, 2001; 1). Like online word of

mouth, viral marketing uses the natural communication networks between consumers to

spread a specific message. Unlike word of mouth, viral marketing is far more likely to be

perceived as marketer initiated advertising, despite the fact that the message is sent from a

friend. These two definitions of viral marketing make it clear that viral marketing messages

have a large marketer‐constructed element; online word of mouth originates from a former or

present customer, just as with traditional word of mouth.

An effective viral marketing campaign can create awareness about a product or a brand quite

successfully as it can spread exponentially. However, advertisers and businesses need to be

aware of the risk that consumers may feel that they were exploited by a viral marketing

campaign, potentially hurting the product or brand (Dobele et al., 2005; 149).

20

3.6 Differences Between Traditional and Online Word of Mouth

In the literature, it is evident that traditional word of mouth and online word of mouth share

many of the same qualities. However, they also differ in four major areas, all of which

advertisers must take into account.

Table 1 gives an overview over the main differences of traditional and online word of mouth

found in the literature.

Traditional word of mouth Online word of mouth

Takes place

Offline communication

“Face‐to‐face communication” –

not anonymously

Online communication

“Online setting” – can be anonymously

Reach Narrow reach

“Private rooms”

Broad reach

“Public rooms”

Nature of message

Spoken word

“Perishable”

Written word

“Available for a substantial time‐period”

Measurable Difficult for companies to observe

Possible for companies to observe

Table 1 Differences between traditional and online word of mouth (own creation)

3.6.1 Offline communication or online communication

One major factor highlighted by several researchers is that traditional word of mouth

happens face‐to‐face, whereas online word of mouth occurs in the anonymous online world

(De Bruyn et Lilien, 2008; 152; Dellarocas, 2003; 1410). With face‐to‐face interaction, it is

easier to make an accurate interpretation of what is said, largely because people can interpret

facial expressions and body language. This is not possible in an online setting, especially

problematic when the process of finding information includes evaluating the opinions of

strangers (Dellarocas, 2003; 1410). Because the setting is different online, Dellarocas (2003;

1410) argued that the reliability of online identities is questionable because they can be

21

manipulated easily, so developing precautions and installing adequate defences as part of

gaining a better understanding is crucial. This particular observation is reinforced by the

work of Kiecker and Cowles (2001; 85), who noted that it is possible to be anybody on the

Internet; by contrast, verifying credibility characteristics is far easier with traditional word of

mouth. Based on the study of an online discussion group, McWilliam (2000; 47) found that

trust must to be earned over a period of time, simply because online meetings do not happen

face‐to‐face and lack physical cues. People online are evaluated according to their ability to

contribute to conversations and the overall validity of their insights so, many of the

conversations online replicate some of the features that characterise face‐to‐face

conversations, such as continuity and immediacy (McWilliam, 2000; 47). Pitta and Fowler

(2005; 267) also emphasised that, over time, it is possible to form relationships in an online

setting. Cheung et al. (2009; 11) go further, and suggest that there are more ways to evaluate

online recommendations than with traditional word of mouth recommendations. They

suggest that online forums provide extra non‐verbal cues to help the reader evaluate the

reliability of a source (Cheung et al., 2009; 11).

Online word of mouth differs from traditional word of mouth in that the recommendations

are not restricted to close friends, family and acquaintances. On the Internet, consumers can

easily share their opinions and experiences about products with everyone (Leskovec et al.,

2007; 4). An online setting gives individuals the opportunity to be absolutely anonymous,

which is not usually possible with face‐to‐face communication. Schindler and Bickart (2005;

37) proposed that a key difference is the strength of the ties between people exchanging

information. A weak tie symbolises that the communicators do not know one another,

whereas a strong tie symbolise that they do, whether as friends, family or acquaintances.

However, weak ties are not always negative; Sun et al. (2006; 1108) suggested that online

communicators show fewer inhibitions, less social anxiety and less public self‐awareness. The

reason for this tendency towards self‐disclosure is probably caused by the level of anonymity

offered by the Internet (Sun et al., 2006; 1108). It is important to note that it is possible to

have both strong and weak ties in online word of mouth, depending upon how the message is

communicated (Schindler and Bickart, 2005; 37). For example, a weak tie could take the form

of online consumer reviews, where the reader does not know the reviewer personally,

whereas a strong tie could be a friend in an online social networking site.

22

3.6.2 Narrow reach or broad reach

It is evident that since traditional word of mouth happens face‐to‐face, the reach is relatively

narrow when compared to the possibilities apparent with online word of mouth. Because of

the Internet, online word of mouth can reach audiences on an unprecedented scale

(Dellarocas, 2003; 1407), and online word of mouth is able to reach an unlimited number of

people, as long as the recipients have a computer with Internet access, a mobile phone, or

other electronic device containing new communications technology. In other words, the

sources using online word of mouth communication have considerably more options available

for spreading the word than is possible with traditional word of mouth communication

(Kiecker and Cowles, 2001; 82).

As traditional word of mouth typically represents one‐to‐one communication, in what

Andreassen and Streukens (2009; 252) call “private rooms,” it has a relatively narrow reach

and the speed of the message spreading is relatively slow, simply due to the private nature of

the message. In contrast, because of the Internet, online word of mouth can reach multiple

individuals very quickly (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 39), and the potential reach is

considerably more than with traditional word of mouth. Distance is less limiting and remote

Internet users are much easier to reach. This is largely because of what Andreassen and

Streukens (2009; 252) call “public rooms.” Online word of mouth is accessible to a much larger

audience because Internet acts as a public room, where people from all over the world can

meet. Online word of mouth allows one‐to‐one communications, but the new technology also

allows one‐to‐many and many‐to‐many communications, and the relative reach of online

word of mouth is comparatively broad.

3.6.3 Spoken word or written word

Another significant difference between traditional word of mouth and online word of mouth

is the use of the spoken word as opposed to the written word. Traditional word of mouth

normally implies the spoken word which, as previously mentioned in section 3.1, is driven by

face‐to‐face communication between people who know each other at some level. Because the

communication is face‐to‐face it is also perishable (Andreassen and Streukens, 2009; 252).

Online word of mouth involves the written word, and many researchers agree that the written

word carries its own advantages. Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004; 39) argued that the written

word is available for an indefinite time‐period and, according to Bickart and Schindler (2001;

23

37), this allows consumers to acquire new information at their own pace. Because the written

word normally does not disappear, it is easy for consumers to return and read the words,

gaining a more detailed understanding that is not always apparent with the spoken word

(Bickart and Schindler, 2001; 37; Sun et al., 2006; 1109; Andreassen and Streukens, 2009;

252). The written word often allows the information to be more intact and more formalised

than with the spoken word (Sun et al., 2006; 1109), and the written word will remain exactly

as it was written, whereas the spoken word is volatile and exposed to many interpretations.

3.6.4 Difficult to observe or possible to observe

A significant difference between traditional word of mouth and online word of mouth is that

online word of mouth makes it possible for companies to observe consumer‐to‐consumer

conversations (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; 545). Because online word of mouth is

characterised by transmission of the written word, companies can learn from the insights gain

from these observations. This is unique to online word of mouth and, according to Bickart and

Schindler (2001; 38) such insights open up the possibility of gaining a better understanding of

why personal information is so influential. Observation also makes it easy for companies to

find out what the consumers are saying about them and their products. By observing the

activity and online conversations occurring in different online communities, companies can

observe and learn from interpersonal communication (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004; 548), using

online conversation to their advantage.

Previously, companies could not observe word of mouth messages because spoken word

communication is private and difficult to observe (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; 545).

24

4 The Communication Flow of Word of Mouth

This chapter elaborates upon the communication flow of word of mouth. To do so, the two‐

step flow model is used, because it illustrates how communication flows from mass media and

amongst consumers, and an important element in the communication flow is recognised as

influencers. Finally, the chapter analyses where these online conversations take place.

Building upon the findings of chapter 3, it is important to discuss these aspects, since they are

all important to any organisation seeking to utilise online word of mouth.

By doing so, this chapter answers research question two, three, four and five:

‐ What does the communication flow regarding online word of mouth look like?

‐ What are influencers and why are they important?

‐ What are the motives for listening to and passing on word of mouth messages?

‐ Where does online word of mouth take place?

4.1 Theory of the Two‐Step Flow Model

The idea of the TwoStep Flow Model originates back to the 1940s, with a study of how

information and ideas spread through mass media and interpersonal networks. This was

summarised in the book, The People’s Choice, by Paul Lazarsfeld, Berard Berelson, and Hazel

Gaudet (1948). The book described the process of decision‐making during the Presidential

election campaign at that time (Weimann et al., 2006; 175). Later on, Katz and Lazarsfeld

(1955) further developed the model in their book, Personal Influence. They found that there is

a strong link between the mass media and the population, naming this link “opinion leaders,”

where individuals spread information gained from the media (Feick & Price, 1987; 84). The

theory of the two‐step flow has had a major influence on communication theory for several

decades, and this well‐acknowledged idea is still useful to companies (Weimann et al., 2006;

175).

25

The theory differs from the so‐called Hypodermic Model, which states that mass media

unidirectionally influences individuals. In other words, according to this model, there is no

intermediary link that shares information between the mass media and the individuals.

The Hypodermic Model is illustrated in Figure 1, on the left side of the figure.

Figure 1 Hypodermic Model and Two-Step Flow Model (Source: Windahl et al. 2009)

In contrast to this, the theory of the two‐step flow, illustrated on the right side of the figure,

emphasises that individuals receive information from other people within a communication

environment, as well as from mass media and interpersonal channels from source to receiver

(Windahl et al., 2009; 69). For companies to utilise this model, they must identify the

individuals responsible for passing on information to the other people in the communication

environment, and encourage them to pass on word of mouth messages.

As it is seen in the two‐step flow model, the public receives information indirectly from

opinion leaders who, in turn, receive the information directly from mass media. Influencers

pass this information on to the individuals receiving information from the opinion leaders,

often called followers or listeners. Influencers have more knowledge than the listeners, and

can be described as: “People, who tend to consume more media output, discuss certain themes

26

with others, and participate more in organisations than do others in their immediate

environment” (Windahl et al., 2009; 71). The concept of influencers will be further discussed

in section 4.3.

One thing that makes the two‐step flow model quite valuable is that it connects mass and

interpersonal communication, offering companies an opportunity to devise strategies that

target the opinion leaders directly, allowing them to take advantage of the flow of information

(Windahl et al., 2009; 71). In other words, the model informs marketers of what targets they

should focus upon, and reminds them that communication often passes though more than one

link; it is very important to bear this in mind when creating marketing plans.

The two‐step flow model is also very unique because it recognises that consumers are social

beings who exchange information and communicate with each other, proposing that they are

all influential to some extent and that they are active in several contexts (Windahl et al., 2009;

72).

4.1.1 Critique of the Two‐Step Flow Model

The two‐step flow model can be criticised for over‐simplifying the communication process. In

real life, the influence process is much more complicated (Weiman et al., 2006; 175), and it is

likely that there are more factors than a few influencers passing on what they heard from the

mass media to all of their listeners. Instead, influencers are likely to be influenced by others,

and an exchange of information also occurs between people who influence, which makes them

disseminators as well as recipients of influence (Weiman et al., 2006; 175).

Another area of the two‐step flow model which can be criticised is the role of influencers.

Watts and Dodds (2007; 442) argued that it is unclear how, or if, these influential individual

are indeed accountable for the diffusion processes and the adoption of technology. The

researchers do not reject the notion that under some conditions, influencers are able to

influence other people, but state that this is far from true in every case. On the other hand,

they believe that, in most situations, influencers are only moderately more important than

ordinary individuals (Watts and Dodds, 2007; 442). In addition to this, the researchers

criticise the two‐step Model for being unspecific about precisely how the influencers shape

other people’s opinions (Watts and Dodds, 2007; 442).

27

Many criticisms point out that the model underestimates the role of the listeners. The model

describes the listeners as passive, simple receivers of information from the influencers, and

suggests that they do not do anything to find the information themselves (Weimann et al.,

2006; 175).

4.2 A Flow Model of Online Word of Mouth

The two‐step flow model suggests that the communication flows from mass media, passing

through influencers before reaching listeners. As the two‐step flow model hails back to the

1940s, it does not include a communication flow model for an online setting. However, online

word of mouth uses a whole new communication flow between the sender of a message and

the receiver, although it is based upon the previous model. In the traditional sense, word of

mouth communication happens face‐to‐face; this is not the case in an online setting (Pitta and

Fowler, 2005; 267).

This is why it is important to elaborate further about the communication flow governing

online word of mouth, because the flow from influencers to the listeners consists of more than

just one link. The additional flows of communication are: onetoone communication, oneto

many communication and manytomany communication (Pitta and Fowler, 2005; 267).

Figure 2 depicts how the information flows from influencers to the individuals in the three

communications flow methods:

28

Figure 2 Communication Flow (own creation)

29

The three communication flows differ from each other, especially in the sense of how many

people they are able to reach. So, the overall effect of the communication flow differs

according to which particular flow is dominant. This idea will be expanded in following

sections.

Onetoone communication

This is where an ordinary listener acts as an opinion leader and talks about the product

he/she uses and, in this way, peers directly spread the information about the product. How

frequently, and to what extent this one‐to‐one communication flow occurs, entirely depends

upon the product category and how easy it is for the user to talk about the product. In this

form of communication flow, the contact is characterised as direct and highly interactive and,

as people get to know one another, it is possible for them to develop deep relationships (Pitta

and Fowler, 2005; 266). One‐to‐one communication flow is interesting because it is relatively

easy to measure the pass along effect and predict the future success (Pitta and Fowler, 2005;

267). If one user, on average, persuades more than one prospect user to become a customer, it

will result in an exponential growth in customers and the process will have been successful.

This is why it is interesting to identify any viral parameters, allowing marketers to optimise

them and achieve epidemic growth.

One example that can be categorised as of this type of communication flow is the social

networks, where one user usually persuades one or more new users. The users are peers,

which in this sense means that they know each other. However, the effect of one‐to‐one

communication has yet to be thoroughly addressed in research communities.

Onetomany communication

This is where an influencer, who usually started off as being a listener, passes on the messages

to numerous listeners that he/she does not necessarily know personally. Because of new

technology, it has become possible for one consumer to reach an unlimited number of other

consumers online, in a way that could be perceived as personal (Kiecker and Cowles, 2001;

72). Furthermore, this is usually a one‐way communication flow (Pitta and Fowler, 2005;

268).

30

Examples of one‐to‐many communication flow are blogs and newsletters. However, a one‐

way communication flow is not strictly the case with blogs, because it is possible to leave

comments to the blogger, and he/she can choose to respond back. By contrast, a one‐way

communication flow is present when a company sends out newsletters. Pitta and Fowler

(2005; 268) argue that this type of communication is an efficient way to make contact with a

multitude of consumers, but its effectiveness is limited by its one‐way flow. In order to make

this communication flow more effective, many companies now incorporate an email function,

allowing communication to flow both ways.

Manytomany communication

This communication flow differs in the sense that there is not one central influencer; instead,

numerous less influential influencers provide information about a product to other people.

Each message provided about a product is less significant, as it is the combined joint

messages, from all or some of the influencers, that has an overall impact. Put differently, the

interaction occurs between multitudes of consumers, because messages are available to

everybody and are not of a private nature. The receivers can be both consumers and other

units, such as companies (Pitta and Fowler, 2005; 268).

Examples of this type of communication are consumer review boards, typically in web shops,

where users review and rate products. Usually nobody knows anybody personally, and it is

perfectly valid to question whether or not the trust towards an individual is limited. However,

as was shown in section 3.3.3, it might not be a problem, because the messages are perceived

as originating from fellow consumers. Furthermore, it is assumed that trust in the particular

community and in the combined message rises with the number of messages. For example, if

many people write positive reviews of a particular book on the review board of a web shop,

the reader can gather a greater number of recommendations and is more likely be persuaded

to buy the particular book.

4.3 Influencers

As the two flow models from section 4.1 and 4.2 show, influencers are very important,

because they are a link between the individuals and the mass media, and also send word of

mouth messages to the listeners. The object of this section is to build upon the theory of

influencers, also referred to as opinion leaders and influentials (Weimann et al., 2006, 174).

31

Understanding influencers is critical, because they pass on word of mouth messages and

encouraged to do so.

The idea that some consumers are influencers, and have great authority in the eyes of other

consumers, has been studied for several decades. In the 1950’s Katz and Lazarfeld (1955; 3)

defined influencers as: “The individuals who were likely to influence other persons in their

immediate environment.” Contemporary definitions, such as the one made by Windahl et al.

(2009; 71) in section 4.1 are largely in agreement with the early ones. Influencers are thus

characterised as people who pass on information to their surroundings, via word of mouth

communication.

By giving advice and verbal direction for search, purchase and use, influencers indirectly

influence other people (Flynn et al., 1996, 137). Influencers are able to influence other

people’s attitudes and behaviours and give advice to the followers, who they persuade to

purchase products through word of mouth (Weimann et al., 2006; 174). Kiecker and Cowles

(2001; 77) explain the relationship between influencers and listeners in the following way:

“Opinion Leaders influence consumers’ brand choices within product categories by providing

WOM recommendations that are viewed as credible due to their involvement, expertise, and

experience in a product category and the receiver’s belief (trust) that the Opinion Leader has no

vested interest in nor anything to gain personally from their purchase.”

According to the above definition, influencers are able to encourage other people to buy and

try products through the power of word of mouth recommendations, providing an

explanation for why influencers are very relevant to companies. Influencers provide useful

advice and information (Rogers, 2003; 26), and personal influence and interpersonal

discussions ultimately shape public opinion and behaviour (Nisbet, 2005; 3). Influencers

influence other people in matters ranging from fashion to politics, and they usually possess

expertise and knowledge about a particular subject (Weimann et al., 2006, 174).

Influencers can be identified by the background of characteristics that they possess, and make

use of many skills, such as reading, listening and watching, in the process of acquiring a high

degree of product knowledge. They are innovative product adopters and they are usually

deeply involved with a specific product category (Lyons & Henderson, 2005; 322). Thus,

influencers involve themselves in a specific product category and actively seek out product

32

information (Weimann et al., 2006; 174). Influencers are active communicators and pass on

useful information about products (Weimann et al., 2006; 174), and family and friends often

perceive individuals actively gaining information through search activities as influencers

(Lyons & Henderson, 2005; 321). This indicates that influencers are informally recognised as

experts by their friends, family, colleagues and other connections (Weimann et al., 2006; 176).

An influencer is not significant because of his or her personal status or position in society.

Influencers are not perceived as leaders in society, and they are not able to influence through

standard authority structures or via organised media; people listen because they are well‐

informed, highly‐respected individuals (Watts et Dodds, 2007; 442). To become an influencer

is a position that is earned and maintained through the individual’s own competences and

social accessibilities, and relies upon their ability to conform to the norms of the system

(Rogers, 2003; 27). According to Rogers (2003; 27), influencers act as models of innovative

behaviour to their followers, mainly because they are likely to adopt new things long before

mainstream society does. So, influencers are also able generate interest and encourage the

trial of new products (Weimann et al., 2006, 174). Ultimately, the purchasing behaviour of the

listeners is guided by the influencers, through word of mouth communication (Weimann et al.,

2006; 174). In contrast to the influencers, the listeners do not involve themselves with

products and seek easier ways of finding out relevant information. The influencers show a

great interest in products, as part of their quest to seek in depth information, and their

involvement with product information research ensures that they know more than their

listeners, allowing them to provide information and give good advice. This is the major reason

why listeners take notice of what the influencers have to say, because they appear to know a

lot about the products.

4.3.1 Online Influencers

With the arrival of the Internet and mobile phones, the influencers have additional places to

spread word of mouth messages. Using new technology, it is now possible for influencers to

share their opinions and recommendations online with their followers, quickly and easily. In

the same way that online word of mouth is a relatively new phenomenon, online influencers

are a recent observable occurrence.

33

Some studies propose that online influencers are similar to traditional influencers in several

important ways (Lyons and Henderson, 2005; 325), such as their ability to influence other

people. However, the main difference between online and traditional influencers is that online

influencers use new technology and tend to exclusively operate online, rather than in the

traditional marketplaces. However, Lyons and Henderson (2005; 325) suggest there is not

much difference between traditional and online marketplaces, and the dynamics of the

Internet as a marketplace are quite similar to those of the traditional market environment. In

the same way, Lyons & Henderson (2005; 326) proposed that online influencers share several

characteristics with traditional influencers, despite the different spheres of operation. This

view supports the idea that online influencers have several fundamental characteristics in

common with influencers based in the traditional market places, a similarity discussed in

section 4.3. These traits are a high level of knowledge in their particular field and the routine

of actively seeking information.

However, because of the potential uses of the new technology, online influencers possess

additional qualities. A typical online influencer is generally characterised as computer literate

and confident with technology. Research shows that online influencers have a higher level of

computer skills and demonstrate a greater level of involvement with the Internet than non‐

leaders (Lyons and Henderson, 2005; 325). The skills they generally obtain are built upon a

certain level of knowledge and familiarity with the computer and Internet. Online influencers

know how to navigate the Internet, and they are also curious about investigation and research

online. Because these people possess certain skills, they are more confident, which again

makes them more likely to spend time exploring the Internet (Lyons and Henderson, 2005;

322). Online influencers actively take part in unearthing the many possibilities and potential

uses of new technology, and are more likely to surf the Internet and explore unfamiliar topics,

out of sheer curiosity (Lyons & Henderson, 2005; 325). Because of this, online influencers

possess a higher level of knowledge about the Internet than the average person, and this great

knowledge encourages other people to seek out and take their advice. In this way, online

influencers subconsciously manipulate how other consumers seek, purchase and use

products, by bringing them new information (Lyons & Henderson, 2005; 326).

Online influencers seem to have more advantages than influencers in the traditional

marketplaces. Whereas traditional influencers usually reach less than a dozen people, online

34

influencers can contact a potential global audience containing a practically unlimited number

of users, due to the rapid growth of the Internet (Lyons & Henderson, 2005; 319). Most

current theories assume that this makes online influencers considerably more prominent

than traditional influencers, simply because they are able to reach a greater number of people

and, as a consequence, reach more of a company’s target audience. In relation to the flow

models, influencers are able to reach other people, and companies should try to encourage

this.

4.3.2 Groups that are Influential

Because the influencer theory has received so much attention in theoretical literature, it is

important to cover exactly who these influencers represent in reality, allowing companies to

focus on this particular group. It is also imperative to identify the influential individuals in

social networks and encourage them and encouraging word of mouth transmission to occur

(Smith et al., 2007; 387).

Companies who want to use word of mouth methods successfully must be aware of the

specific characteristics mentioned in section 4.3, because they are vital to the identification of

potential influencers. This section will give a few indications of how and where influencers

can be found.

Even though Dichter (1966) made his study several decades ago, many commentators argue

that his findings are still applicable today. He appears to be an acknowledged researcher in

the field of word of mouth, and many contemporary researchers (Kozinets et al., 2010;

Andreassen and Streukens, 2009; De Bruyn and Lilien, 2008; Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004) still

refer to him in their work.

Dichter (1966; 152) identified seven groups that he called influential groups. He found these

groups to be the main sources of successful recommendations (Dichter, 1966; 152):

1. Commercial authorities: People who know more about a product than the average

consumer, because of their job or training. Dichter (1966; 152) also referred to this

group as “professional experts and salespeople.”

35

2. Celebrities: People who are famous from television, movies and other media. They do

not necessarily have anything to do with the product itself. Dichter (1966; 152‐154)

also called these people “synthetic word of mouth producers”.

3. Connoisseurs: People who have a great knowledge about a product and are fellow

consumers; they do not work with the product.

4. Sharers of Interest: People who have something particular in common with the listener

(Dichter, 1966; 154).

5. Intimates: People, such as family members, friends and close relatives. Dichter (1966;

154) emphasises that recommendations from this group need not be verbal, and can

be non‐verbal. This group often influences the listener through direct observation of

what products they use.

6. People of goodwill: People that are genuine friends to the listener, individuals that the

listener perceives as giving genuine advice and who are genuinely interested in the

listener’s well‐being (Dichter, 1966; 154). This group understands the listener’s needs

and make recommendations based upon that background.

7. Bearers of tangible evidence: People who have the product at hand to show and

demonstrate it to the listener, so that the interested party can see and feel the product

first hand.

According to Dichter’s (1966; 154) research, it is the people of goodwill, people who are

sharers of interest, the intimates and the bearers of tangible evidence who are the most

influential. This seems logical because these groups represent interpersonal influences and

people, whom Watts and Dodds (2007; 442) refer to as “individuals, who are highly informed,

respected, or simply “connected””.

In the modern world, there is a strong belief that the celebrities group emphasised by Dichter

(1966; 152) is also influential, particularly because of their heightened status awarded by

media saturation. They are influential, but this is not an interpersonal influence (Watts and

Dodds, 2007; 442).

Even though Dichter’s (1966) study was performed in the 1960s, his findings concerning the

influential groups are still applicable to today’s groups; the groups are the exactly the same in

the modern world. For example, consumer review writers (sharer of interest), bloggers and

36

journalists (connoisseurs), and musicians and politicians (celebrities) certainly wield great

authority in the eyes of consumers.

Another significant aspect related to influential groups is that influencers are found at every

social level, can be of either sex, and encompass a wide range of professions and age groups

(Weimann et al., 2006; 176).

4.4 The Dimension of Influencers

A central part of the influencer theory is the idea that a few influential individuals are able to

influence a majority of people. However, there is an interesting divergence of opinions

between researchers concerning the influencer hypothesis. Some researchers (Katz and

Lazarfeld, 1955) are of the opinion that influencers are restricted to being a few highly

connected individuals, while other researchers (Smith et al., 2007) are of the opposite

opinion. Based on research, Smith et al. (2007; 395) suggest that influence is not something an

elite few possess, but is a potential shared by everyone, purely because it is a normal function

of human nature. This corresponds with suggestions made by Flynn and Eastman (1996;

137), who said that all consumers have a great influence on each other in several ways, and

that consumption is a major topic of social communication. Myers and Robertson (1972; 45)

also found that influencers are only slightly more influential than other people, and showed

that influencers themselves are often recipients of influence. The influence is a two‐way

process and, instead of a small number of highly connected groups of people wielding the

highest influence, Smith et al. (2007; 390) suggest that it is a moderately connected majority

fuelling the process.

The idea that an influencer is not necessarily drawn from an elite is a very interesting

observation and is critical to any marketing model. The reason is that the research suggests

that greater numbers of people are able to influence other people than initially assumed. This

is very interesting for companies, because it means that they should be able to reach out to a

larger potential audience of influencers. With more influencers spreading word of mouth

messages, the company can increase the number of people in the target audience who will

hear the message and act upon it.

It does seem that Smith et al. (2007; 390) make a relevant point, and it is logical to assume

that many consumers at some level are influencers. For example, a person, who knows a lot

37

about cars might be influential in the car category because of his knowledge, whereas the

same person might not know anything about mobile phones. Everybody is a potential

influencer to some degree, depending upon their knowledge, experience and interests. An

influencer does not have to know about every subject in the world, only a specific subject, and

being an influencer very much depends upon the exact product category. This agrees with

observations made by Allsop et al. (2007; 400), who suggested that when people turn to

others in order to get advice, their preferred source depends on the given topic and who they

regard as having the proper expertise in this area. According to Allsop et al. (2007; 400)

everyone belongs to various social networks and, depending on the topic, individuals take

different roles, either as the giver or receiver of word of mouth.

Applying Online Word of Mouth

This suggests that marketers should be aware that many people might be potentially

influencers of different levels, and that they should identify influencers according to this

model. It is important for marketers to have the right understanding of the specific social

networks in which their products operate, as well as knowing which individuals in the social

network will be the most active at creating and spreading product messages (Allsop et al.,

2007; 400‐401). In order to target the right people Allsop et al. (2007; 402) suggest that

marketers should use their resources to understand which individuals and groups have the

strongest impact, and which of those are most likely to spread word of mouth about their

product. The marketers must then ensure that these people have positive experiences with

the brand so that, in return, they will be more likely to spread positive word of mouth reviews

across their network (Allsop et al., 2007; 402). Related to this is the idea that the company

should not push the messages out to the influencers as a one‐way flow of information. Ideally,

the company should engage in a meaningful dialogue with the influencers, finding out how the

company’s product or brand is already discussed by consumers (Keller, 2007; 449).

Another suggestion about methods that marketers can use to approach influential people

online, with the intention of encouraging them to talk about a product, is to make a site

providing trustworthy and unique information. Representatives can meet them in forums and

offer them information that matches their specific needs (Smith et al., 2007; 395‐396).

Companies can also establish an online system, making it possible for consumers to

38

recommend a company’s product, or they can include a link that makes it easy for individuals

to share information with their fellow consumers (Huang and Chen, 2006; 425). Another idea

is to add a visitor survey to the companies’ websites, helping them to uncover usage patterns,

involvement and product knowledge, with the purpose of building long‐term relationships for

future influencer‐driven programmes (Lyons and Henderson, 2005; 326).

Finally, the company could consider incorporating traditional marketing activities into their

strategy of generating online word of mouth communication. Even though traditional

marketing methods do not have the same effect as previously, they are still an excellent tool to

stimulate word of mouth communication. Keller (2007; 452) suggests that traditional

marketing channels are an effective, yet often overlooked, part of stimulating word of mouth

communication.

4.5 Motives for Passing on Online Word of Mouth

It is important to know and understand the motives dictating why online influencers pass on

online word of mouth information, and this is essential knowledge for those wanting to

encourage influencers to spread messages. Knowing the motives for passing on online word

of mouth can help companies to develop messages that will enhance viral activity and target

the right individuals (Phelps et al., 2004; 335 and Sundaram et al., 1998; 530), ultimately

helping them to design a service that is highly customer‐oriented (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2008;

50).

Throughout the decades, researchers have contributed to literature with both online motives

(Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004) and motivations behind generating traditional word of mouth

(Dichter, 1966 and Sundaram et al., 1998). Researchers found that consumer motives for

passing on traditional word of mouth are related to consumer motives for passing on online

word of mouth, because of the close relationship between the theories describing online and

traditional word of mouth processes (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 40 and Goldsmith &

Horowitz, 2006; 477‐478). This is why it is important to include both online and offline

motives, because it allows a deeper understanding of online motives.

As one of the first to do so, Dichter (1966; 148) uncovered many motives for positive word of

mouth communication, basing his research on in‐depth interviews with 255 consumers in the

United States. Dichter (1966; 148) found that motives for positive word of mouth

39

communication included: Productinvolvement, selfinvolvement, otherinvolvement and

messageinvolvement. In recent times, Sundaram et al. (1998; 529) elaborated further on the

possible motives for passing on word of mouth messages. They based their motives on the

findings of several hundred interviews, and identified four broad motives for positive word of

mouth communication. These are altruism, selfenhancement, help the company and product

involvement (Sundaram et al., 1998; 529). Finally, Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004; 48‐50) studied

motives for supplying opinions, with a special focus on online consumers and online word of

mouth. By looking at about 2,000 Internet users who wrote online comments, they found that

the primary motivations for engaging in online word of mouth include: concern for others,

social benefits, economic incentives and extraversion/selfenhancement (Hennig‐Thurau et al.,

2004; 48‐50).

The following represents the four most common motives:

Altruism

Altruism is one of the motives found to be a major reason for passing on word of mouth

messages. Altruism can also be referred to as “concern for other people,” or “other‐

involvement.” Altruism is the idea of doing something to help other people, without expecting

anything in return. Research shows that individuals engaging in word of mouth often have the

intention of helping other consumers, assisting them in making a purchase decision that is,

ultimately, satisfying (Sundaram et al., 1998; 529).

It is also argued that altruism is one of the main motives for passing on word of mouth. By

conducting in‐depth interviews, Smith et al. (2007; 387) found that the desire to help other

people is a primary motivation. They point out that when advice is well received, it

encourages the influencer to continue and make a greater effort, and people continue give

advice because of the human tendency to be helpful (Smith et al., 2007; 392; 387).

Product involvement

Product involvement is also a motive for passing on word of mouth. If a product is perceived

to be important or relevant, it often generates excitement about the product which, in turn,

leads to word of mouth (Sundaram et al., 1998; 529). Influencers’ personal interest in the

product and their use of the products makes them want to share the news with fellow

40

consumers (Sundaram et al., 1998; 529). It can be argued that product involvement is a

motive that marketers should pay special attention to. Consumers involve themselves with

satisfying products, and product involvement is a principal explanation for generating word of

mouth (Feick and Price, 1987; 84). If a product is of high quality, reliable and durable, it is

much more likely to generate word of mouth communication to a greater extent (Sundaram et

al., 1998; 530). Therefore, the better a product or service offered by a company, the more

likely it is to generate positive word of mouth because a satisfied customer is far more likely

to spread word of mouth information (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004; 547). Ultimately, another

significant reason to pass on word of mouth messages is that consumers with positive

experiences of a company’s product or service will have more favourable attitudes towards it.

If customers are satisfied and have had good experiences, they are more likely to spread

constructive word of mouth both online as well as offline. Exactly how much word of mouth

they spread depends upon their exact degree of satisfaction (Augusto de Matos & Rossi, 2008;

580). Especially product involvement corresponds with some of the characteristics of

influencers, which was mentioned in section 4.3, which were high levels of product

knowledge and deeply involved with a product category. Because influencers are active

communicators, this corresponds with self‐enhancements, altruism and social benefits.

Selfenhancement

Self‐enhancement is also one of the main motives. Some consumers genuinely want to provide

their fellow consumers with helpful advice; and many consumers like to appear to be a smart

and competent shopper. By sharing their positive consumption experiences, some individuals

hope to enhance their image as intelligent, thoughtful shoppers (Sundaram et al., 1998; 529).

Sundaram et al. (1998; 529) suggest that a motive like self‐enhancement does not carry as

much weight as much as motives like altruism and product involvement. Research shows that

this may well be the case, because word of mouth communication is certainly closely linked to

giving sincere advice. However, times have changed since Sundaram et al. (1998) made their

observations in the 1990’s, and the last decade has seen a boom in online social networking

sites, bringing a new culture of self‐enhancement on the Internet; it is easy to “publicise”

oneself and ones opinions. This is often a result of the tendency to bring attention to oneself,

41

or construct an image that an individual wishes to project to the surrounding network

(Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009; 62).

Social benefits

Social benefits are also mentioned as an important motive. Social benefits appear to have a

large impact on word of mouth because key influencers like to share their information about

the market place as a type of social exchange (Goldsmith et al., 2003; 57). Motives like social

benefits are also coherent with the increasing growth of contemporary online communities

and social media, where consumers meet and interact, just as with traditional market places.

Additional motives

In addition to the abovementioned motives, commitment is another reason why people pass

on word of mouth messages. Commitment is defined as being: “an enduring desire to maintain

a valued relationship” (Moorman et al., 1992; 316), and it is important in this context, because

customers who are highly committed to a company or product are more likely to talk

positively about it (Augusto de Matos & Rossi, 2008; 581). Commitment is believed to have a

positive effect on word of mouth activity (Augusto de Matos & Rossi, 2008; 591) and, if people

do not value a particular company or product, they will not be committed (Moorman et al.

1992; 316). Furthermore, perceived value is likely to generate word of mouth; value is related

to the trade‐off of give‐and‐get components, and is defined as: “the consumer’s overall

assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given”

(Zeithaml, 1988; 14). As a result, perceived value reflects something that is tangible and

communicable, and a customer is more likely to stay loyal to a product or a company if the

customer perceives that they received more benefits from a product or service than the cost

that they invested. Ultimately, this loyalty is often expressed through positive word of mouth

(McKee et al., 2006; 212 & 210).

It is crucial that companies are aware of the different motives for generating word of mouth,

and these motives should be taken into account when developing new strategies for

generating effective online word of mouth. It is evident that consumers do not act as a

homogeneous group and have different motivations for engaging in online word of mouth

(Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 51), covering the whole range of motives lying behind generating

42

positive messages. Companies should cover all the main motives in order to enhance the

possibility to reach as many as possible.

4.6 Motives for Listening to Online Word of Mouth

In the same way that it is important for companies to know and understand the motives

behind why online opinion leaders pass on word of mouth, it is vital for them to know and

understand the motives behind listening to online word of mouth in order to be able to

influence that behaviour. Once again, it is reasonable to assume that motives for listening to

traditional word of mouth are broadly similar to the motives for listening to online word of

mouth.

In addition to identifying motives for engaging in word of mouth activities, Dichter (1966;

152) proposed a set of motives dictating why an individual would listen to word of mouth, as

well as act upon the recommendation and buy the particular recommended product. Dichter

(1966; 152) found two key motives that are important to the listener:

1. It is important that the person who makes the recommendation and passes on the

word of mouth is genuinely interested in the listener and their well‐being.

2. It is equally important that the person who makes the recommendation has experience

and knowledge about the product, and can convince other of this.

Dichter (1966; 152) emphasises some additional questions that the listener will ask him or

herself before listening to the recommendations. These are: What relationship the listener

and influencer have to each other, can the influencer be trusted, and what is their relation to

the product; do they have any material reasons to give positive reviews? These additional

questions are interesting because they sum up some relevant points that are very applicable

to word of mouth communication, such as credibility and financial gain.

As already mentioned, there is evidence in the literature that many consumers prefer

listening to fellow consumers than advertisers (Keller, 2007; 449; Allsop et al., 2007; 398).

People still place a lot of trust in fellow consumers, and this tendency has not declined as

communication migrates on to the Internet (Bickart et al., 2001; 32). It appears that older

researchers, such as Dichter (1966; 152), and several researches (Keller, 2007; 449; Bickart et

al., 2001; 32; Allsop et al., 2007; 449) from the past decade, agree that trust is extremely

43

important in relation to word of mouth communication. As a result, it is reasonable to assume

that a major motive for listening to online word of mouth is the belief that fellow consumers

will tell the truth about a product.

Another motive that several researchers mention is the idea of reducing the level of risk

incurred when purchasing a product (Buttle, 1998; 250; Hogan et al., 2004; 272). Many

consumers may experience uncertainty when purchasing new products, and want to reduce

this by listening to reliable online word of mouth. Marketers can reduce the perceived risk by

encouraging customer communities and customer ratings (Thomas, 2004; 66).

4.7 Online Word of Mouth and Social Media

Web based technologies allow word of mouth to be communicated via online channels. An

online environment is important, because it is relatively easy to build brand awareness and a

corporate image through word of mouth communication (Mason, 2008; 212).

Web 2.0 and user‐generated content are treated in the same way as social media because Web

2.0 represents a new way of utilising the World Wide Web, and user‐generated content

represents the way in which most people utilise social media (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009;

61).

Social media can be defined as: “Social Media is a group of Internetbased applications that

build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation

and exchange of User Generated Content” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009; 61).

A number of online communication channels exist, each with the potential of spreading online

word of mouth messages. Figure 3 illustrates the various social media tools and divides the

terms from each other, as many of them overlap; these include, but are not limited to:

44

Figure 3 Social media tools (own creation)

There are a variety of possibilities for companies wishing to utilise the communication

channels found within social media. On these sites, many messages are passed on, as

influencers use online media such as e‐mails, chat groups, personal websites and consumer

rating sites (Thomas, 2004; 64).

However, there are some aspects that the company should pay close attention to, and these

are relevant to all of the social media tools used in a marketing strategy, because there are

some risks involved when engaging social media. Companies should choose wisely between

the various social media tools and services, purely because there are many and the company

should focus their efforts in the areas with many potential customers (Computer Economics

Report, 2010; 8). Furthermore, it is good practice to generate policies stipulating what a

company can and cannot share in online settings (Computer Economics Report, 2010; 8),

because a company may not want to share all of its information with the consumers and

competitors. Another important aspect of social media is that it is a dynamic environment,

and new tools can disappear almost as quickly as they entered the virtual landscape, making

social media based marketing very unpredictable (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009; 64‐65).

An increasing number of people are participating in the various discussion forums

(Andreassen et Streukens, 2009; 250), and because of the sheer number of potential

45

consumers online, the Internet has seen consumers and companies carry out an increasing

amount of online business (Hoffman et Novak, 1996; 51; Korgaonkar et Wolin, 1999; 53). This

is the major reason why many companies wish to unleash the possibilities offered by social

media. However, if marketers want to influence online word of mouth messages through

social media tools, they must develop deep knowledge about the sites where messages are

likely to be generated. However, companies must also take into account the idea that several

of the social media tools are very alike and overlap, a trend that will be developed in the

following sections narrating the uses of social media tools.

4.7.1 Online Communities

An online community can be defined as: “A wide range of Internet forums including markets

and auction sites, electronic bulletin boards, listservers, social networking sites, blog hosts or

sites, gaming communities, and sharedinterest Web sites” (Miller et al., 2009; 306). Interaction

in online communities occurs whenever people connect with each other on the computer, via

Internet networks, with the intention of sharing information regarding buying, selling,

collaborating or advice seeking (Williams et Cothrel, 2000; 81). The interaction between the

consumers is a major driver of the growth in online communities (Pitta and Fowler, 2005;

269).

Online communities offer consumers an opportunity to socialise and share their opinions,

experiences and knowledge with fellow consumers and Internet users. These communities act

as an arena to obtain and exchange information about products, and share general

information. On social networks, it is easy to develop relationships with likeminded people

(Bickart & Schindler, 2001; 32). It has been shown that participation in online forums can

have a considerable impact on consumer behaviour, and is expected to increase the number of

product purchases (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; 32).

Companies can utilise online communities to gather a variety of data about the consumers,

including data concerning product satisfaction, degrees of brand loyalty, changes in customer

attitudes and desire for future products (Pitta and Fowler, 2005; 266). Hagel and Armstrong

(1997; 151) suggest that one way to increase profitability on the Internet is by creating

communities for its customers to socialise in.

46

Research has shown that the information exchanged in online communities is more relevant

to consumers (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; 33). This is because people generally tend to trust

the information originating from fellow consumers and it is normally perceived as unbiased,

genuine advice. This is a key reason why online communities are likely to be a major influence

upon people’s product purchases (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; 32).

4.7.1.1 Blogs

Blogs are utilised to share feelings, opinions and information, and their number has increased

significantly over time (Huang et al., 2008; 351), and it is easy for blog readers to leave

comments for the bloggers and thereby interact with them. Usually, a single person writes

blogs, but they are often written by groups of people, depending upon the exact nature of the

blog. Corporate blogs are a growing phenomenon, due to the fact that they serve as a useful

interactive online advertising tool for companies (Cho and Huh, 2008; 239). These blogs offer

companies a way to interact with their target audience on a more personal level. Huang et al.

(2008; 352) stressed that blogs are becoming very significant because they have the potential

to affect a large number of people. Blogs represent a one‐to‐many communication flow.

4.7.1.2 Social Networking Sites

A social networking site can be defined as being initiated by: “a small group of founders who

send out invitations to join the site to the members of their own personal networks. In turn, new

members send invitations to their networks, and so on” (Trusov et al., 2009; 90). Social

networking sites are one of the fastest‐growing areas of the Internet and have become

enormously popular (Trusov et al., 2009; 90‐92).

An online social networking site makes it possible for people to create their own personal

profile, which usually includes a personal profile picture, lists of interest and preferences, a

presentation of the user, a section to share opinions and much more. The personal profile is

either available to the members of the network only, or can be open to public access if the

user prefers this. In section 4.5, it was shown that one of the motives for generating word of

mouth messages is self‐enhancement. This is perfectly consistent with the enormous

popularity of social networking sites built upon user‐created profiles as a way to enhance

oneself.

47

An online social networking site allows users to develop and grow a network of friends built

upon social or professional interaction (Trusov et al., 2009; 92). It is typically easy to add new

friends by sending a friend request, by searching on a particular friend’s name, or by browsing

a “people you might know” application. Acquiring new friends is often central to developing

value for users, because it adds new content and increases the level of personal interest

(Trusov et al., 2009; 93). In contrast to traditional media, Internet social networking sites are

both centred on the user and user‐generated (Zhang et Daugherty, 2009; 53).

For marketers, online social networking sites offer a great opportunity to target a specific

audience. All the users of a site are potential customers as long as they are exposed to

advertising while using the sites, ultimately generating revenue for the companies (Trusov et

al., 2009; 93). Social networking sites represent a one‐to‐one and one‐to‐many

communication flow.

4.7.1.3 Forums

Forums are online communities formed around a specific interest (Pitta and Fowler, 2005;

266) and are usually divided into specific topic areas. Within each area, users start forum

threads about different topics, and these threads can continue for years, allowing newcomers

to read previous communication within the forum and learn from a wider knowledge base

(Pitta and Fowler, 2005; 265). Forums represent one‐to‐one, one‐to‐many and many‐to‐many

communication flow.

4.7.2 Reviews and Rating

Online consumer review is the sharing of information between consumers and online

consumer reviews are rapidly growing in importance and popularity, as a fairly new and

exciting product information channel (Chen & Xie, 2008; 478). Reviews are often detailed

comments, and many e‐commerce companies, such as Amazon.com and Dell.com, make it easy

for people to review products and share their opinions with fellow consumers. Adding to the

appeal, a review is frequently combined with a rating system, often symbolised by stars

(Baker et al., 2007; 225).

Relatively new research investigating online consumer behaviour showed that 97,9 % of a

group of customers participating in the study used customer reviews before making online

purchases; furthermore, they found them to be credible and accurate (Doh et Hwang, 2009;

48

195). Reviews are starting to play a very important role in influencing consumers’ purchase

decisions (Chen & Xie, 2008; 477). It is evident that consumer reviews are one of the most

important drivers of product sales and consumer purchase decisions, due to this popularity

and importance (Chen & Xie, 2008, 477‐478).

It is important to note that companies do not control what the online consumer reviews say,

and this is why they must rely on their product being good enough to generate positive online

word of mouth. Companies are starting to understand the importance of selling high‐quality

products, in line with the theory that online influencers are more likely to generate positive

online word of mouth if the product satisfies their needs. In relation to this, online consumer

reviews are a “double‐edged sword” that, on the one hand, can benefit the seller and, on the

other hand, hurt the seller (Chen & Xie, 2008; 487).

Online consumer reviews can be a very beneficial marketing tool. It can effectively generate

product interest across a broad range of people, and companies should investigate the

potential of allowing consumers to share and exchange product information and experiences

on online communities (Bickart et al., 2001; 38). Reviews and ratings represent many‐to‐

many communication.

4.7.3 Media Sharing

Media sharing sites, like YouTube.com and SlideShare.net, make it possible for consumers to

create and share multimedia content. Internet users can share content such as photos, videos

and PowerPoint presentations, easily and quickly (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009; 63), and

consumers have already become an important part of the media distribution chain (Haridakis

and Hanson, 2009; 317).

Media sharing sites are not limited by the time of day, and the significant advantage of the

media sharing sites is that consumers can view the multimedia content at any convenient time

(Haridakis and Hanson, 2009; 317).

Companies can also create videos fairly easily and upload these to media sharing sites, with

the possibility of reaching a large number of consumers. Many of these media sharing sites

(especially YouTube) host contact channels for several companies because of their

49

considerable popularity amongst users (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009; 63). Media sharing

represent one‐to‐many and many‐to‐many communication flow.

4.7.4 Email

Email offers a quick and easy method for communicating with other people, and it is possible

to correspond with a large group of recipients at the same time. Therefore, emailing is

extremely important for both organisational and interpersonal communication (Wang et al.,

2009; 93). Email represents one‐to‐many communication flow.

4.7.5 Instant Messaging

Instant messaging can be defined as: “a computer application that allows synchronous text

communication between two or more people through the Internet” (Huang and Leung, 2009;

675). Companies cannot directly interact with their target audience through instant

messaging, but it is a tool that many consumers use to interact with each other online and, as

a result, instant messaging represents another way in which people generate online word of

mouth messages. Huang and Leung (2009; 675) stress that the use of instant messaging keeps

growing and that it heavily used by younger people.

50

5 Process Model of Online Word of Mouth

The purpose of this chapter is to suggest a process model of online word of mouth, created

after looking at the essentials of the theory related in chapters 3 and 4. The ultimate aim is to

propose a process model of how to use online word of mouth successfully. This chapter also

includes a case, which analyses how a company has utilised the process model to do online

word of mouth.

This chapter includes following sections:

• A process model of online word of mouth

• The process model step by step

• A case: Springfeed Consultancy and Danish Red Cross

• Thoughts on the process model

5.1 A Process Model of Online Word of Mouth

The process model offers companies, who do not know how to do online word of mouth, a

concrete model of how it can be done successfully. The process model offers a straightforward

approach for a company to utilise online word of mouth communication. The intention is not

to surprise with new theories, but to make online word of mouth more tangible, manageable

and easier to approach.

The process model consists of seven steps, and ends with an evaluation of whether or not the

pass‐along effect has been successful. The process model of online word of mouth is

illustrated in Figure 4.

51

Figure 4 A Process Model of Online Word of Mouth (own creation)

52

5.2 The Process Model Step by Step

The following sections are built upon the background research of chapters 3 and 4.

5.2.1 Step One: Identify Objectives

The first step is to identify the overall objectives of the company. The objectives represent

what the company wants to achieve, or put differently, what the company wants its end‐result

to be.

It is important to identify the objectives, since that allows the company to have a clear plan of

where it is going and what it wishes to accomplish. Objectives also make it easy for the

company to track and measure the results during the later stages of the process model.

5.2.2 Step Two: Identify Target Audience

The second step of the process model is to identify the target audience of the company. The

target audience is a particular group of people that the company intends to aim the online

word of mouth messages at, and defines who the company wishes to sell its products or

services to. Identifying the target audience is crucial, because the company needs to ensure

that the right people hear and read the online word of mouth messages.

The marketing strategy must highlight the difference between the target audience and the

influencers. As mentioned previously, the target audience represents the group of consumers

that the company wants to sell its products or services to, and the influencers are individuals

that the company wishes to encourage to pass on word of mouth messages to the target

audience. However, there is a fine line between the two groups, because the influencers can

also, in some scenarios, be a part of the target audience. This occurs when, for example, an

individual in the target audience is encouraged by influencers and passes on the word of

mouth message via a blog. This member of the target audience becomes an influencer as well,

making the flow of information dynamic and multi‐faceted.

This step is central, because identifying the target audience is a fundamental precursor to

making the following steps in the process model as accurate as possible, and companies can

make much more precise decisions in the following steps. The third step: “The identification of

the influencers” is especially influenced by the make‐up of the target audience. The reason for

53

this is that the company ultimately wants to identify the right influencers for persuading their

target audience.

5.2.3 Step Three: Identify and Select the Influencers

This step concerns identifying and selecting the influencers who are most able to influence

the choices of the target audience by sharing their knowledge with listeners. As was found in

section 4.3, influencers are able to influence a wider group of people and their purchase

behaviour, so the company must take full advantage of this process, and the influencers must

match the company’s target audience if they are to reach the right people. As was found in

section 4.3.1, the influencers’ recommendations are much more effective than those made

directly by the company, so the influencers must be identified and targeted.

What to be aware of when identifying the influencers

In reference to section 4.4, the company must identify the individuals who actively create and

spread messages about products and services to their fellow consumers. The company must

understand exactly who these influencers are, encouraging them to pass on online word of

mouth messages later on in the process model.

The company must also keep in mind that influencers possess several characteristics. These

characteristics are elaborated upon in section 4.3 and section 4.3.1, which included the idea

that influencers have great product knowledge, innovative product adopters and are truly

involved within specific product categories. The ideal influencers to meet the company’s aims

should be well informed, respected, and well‐connected and acknowledged in their networks.

The company should bear in mind that the influencers do not always meet the traditional

perception of leaders in society, but are influencers because of their unique competencies and

abilities. Furthermore, the company might find that the influencers are part of some of the

influential groups described in section 4.3.2.

The company should be aware that influencers are not merely a few highly connected

individuals, and should understand that many people are potential influencers, as discussed

in section 4.4. This means that influencers are potentially a larger group of people rather than

an elite, privileged few. Identifying the influencers has much to do with the exact topic and in

which product category it lies. As a result, the identification of the influencers often depends

54

upon which product category the company operates in, dictating which people have the

highest level of knowledge about the company’s particular product category.

How to identify the influencers

In order for the company to identify and select the influencers, the company should go online

and learn what people are saying about the particular company or product.

The company can identify the influencers in the following ways:

• Find out where online conversations take place; in which online venues do people talk

about the company and its product or service?

• Find out who the most active talkers are online. As suggested in section 4.4, if the

company intends to target the right people, it must spend some time understanding

who the important people are, who will have the strongest impact on other people, and

who is most likely to generate word of mouth messages about the company’s product

or service.

• Monitor online conversations about the company and its product. As was mentioned in

section 3.6.4, the fact that word of mouth happens online gives the company the

advantage of observing consumer‐to‐consumer conversations as they unfold. In

contrast, this is much more difficult to monitor with traditional word of mouth. The

company should utilise the great advantages given by being able to monitor people’s

conversations, as they can learn a lot of useful information with this tactic.

• Building upon the previous suggestion, the company should also monitor online

conversations about the company’s product category and find out what people are

saying in general.

This step is important because, if the company wants word of mouth messages to spread, it

must identify the people who most actively spread messages about the company’s product to

other people, as stated in section 4.4. This step is also important, because influencers often

have a relatively large network, as described in section 4.4, and the company ideally wants the

word of mouth messages to reach as many people in the target audience as possible, another

important reason for identifying influencers. If the company fails to identify the right

55

influencers, the word of mouth message will not be passed on to the intended target audience

and the campaign will not be as effective as the company would wish.

5.2.4 Step Four: Select Communication Channels

This step is about selecting which communication channels the company wishes to utilise to

spread the online word of mouth messages. The company should choose the communications

channels containing many influencers, allowing them to have more opportunity to reach this

group. As it was mentioned in section 4.7.1.2, social media tools make it possible for the

company to target a particular group of people.

Section 4.4 showed that it is important for the company to have a proper understanding of the

chosen communication channel in which the company’s product is popular. The company can

then utilise the optimum communication channels to connect with the influencers and build

relationships with them.

This step is important because it is here that the vast majority of online word of mouth takes

place. In relation to section 4.7, it is through online media that the influencers pass on word of

mouth messages and these places are also where the listeners take note of the messages. This

step is also important for laying good foundations for the next two steps in the process model

of online word of mouth, which are to get the influencers to talk and the listeners to listen.

The correct communication channels must be chosen if a company intends to be successful in

the following steps. As related in section 4.7, the communication channels unlock numerous

possibilities for the company, because it is able to reach a great percentage of the target

audience with relatively little effort. It is a huge advantage for the company if different

communication channels are found to effectively generate product interest and increase

product purchases, in relation to section 4.7.

5.2.5 Fifth Step: Get the Influencers to Talk

This step focuses on getting the influencers to talk. Section 3.1 highlighted the idea that word

of mouth is about the natural exchange of information through conversations between

consumers. In addition, it was found in section 4.5 that people primarily have the desire to

help each other because it is human nature to do so. What the company must do is to “take

advantage” of this information exchange process, by turning it to its advantage. What the

56

company ideally wants is to help this natural communication process along, by encouraging

the influencers to talk.

In order to get the influencers to talk, the company must be aware of what motivates them to

spread word of mouth messages. When the company has an understanding of what motivates

this process, the company will have a clearer idea of what it must do in order to encourage the

influencers to talk. Influencers may be inspired to pass on word of mouth messages through

additional motives, such as commitment and perceived value, as was suggested upon in

section 4.5.

The company can find out what motivates its selected influencers by observing how these

influencers communicate online or, as was suggested in section 4.4, if the company has made

a visitor survey on its website, it can directly ask in the survey what motivations drive the

website’s visitors. The company may not build a completely accurate picture with this

method, because the visitors do not represent a cross‐section of the potential pool of

influencers. However, a well‐conducted survey may serve as good indicator of underlying

motivations.

Even if the company finds that the influencers are especially motivated by, for example,

product‐involvement, the company should make an effort to encourage the influencers to talk

based around the other motives, because this might encourage the influencers to increase the

amount of information they share.

The following are suggestions about what the company can do in order to encourage online

word of mouth communication, based on the different motives:

Product Involvement

The company can attempt to encourage the degree of satisfaction among the influencers and

stimulate the spread of online word of mouth messages to the related networks. This

corresponds with findings from section 4.5, which suggested that satisfaction and good

experiences with a company and its product are very likely to generate positive word of

mouth messages.

57

As mentioned in section 4.4, the company could also aim at forging long‐term relationships

with the identified influencers, providing another incentive for them to become involved. This

is consistent with the characteristics of online influencers elaborated upon in section 4.3.1,

where research showed that influencers are characterised by their deep involvement.

The company can do the following to encourage the spread of online word of mouth

messages:

• Provide the influencers with additional information about the product that is

interesting to talk about positively. This could be, for example, excellent customer

service, great deals on the company’s product, or a range of similar benefits. This is

consistent with the elaboration of perceived value in section 4.5, where it was found

that the influencers are more likely to spread positive word of mouth to their network

if they receive more benefits than they invested.

• Establish the company’s presence online. This might give the influencers a sense of

connection with the company and create loyalty. As shown in section 4.4, the company

can easily meet the influencers online through the communication channels; the

company can answer any questions the influencers might have and forge a strong,

dynamic connection with the influencers. In relation to section 4.7.1.1 this could for

example be corporate blogs, which allow the company to engage with the influencers

on a more personal level and are able to affect a lot of people.

• The company can participate in online conversations and provide trustworthy and

unique information to persuade the influencers in relation to section 4.4. If the

company is truly honest and sincere to the influencers, listening to them and actively

reacting to what they say, the influencers may feel more connected to the company and

also more committed, especially if the influencers feel that they have a valued

relationship with the company. A company might generate this goodwill by showing

consumers that it cares about its customers and values their opinions. As specified in

section 4.5, commitment often encourages word of mouth messages because, if

influencers are committed to a company and its products, they are more likely to speak

positively about it to their network.

• Listen to what is said about the company in online communities and respond to it. If

something needs to be changed, the company should take action and rectify the issue,

58

swiftly. This will signal that the company takes its costumers seriously and that it

reacts to what they have to say. Section 4.5 showed that the better a product or service

offered by a company, the higher the level of customer satisfaction, with a resulting

higher likelihood of generating word of mouth communication.

• Give the influencers the product in their hands, allowing them to talk about it online. In

this way, the company combines traditional advertising with online word of mouth.

The company can try to give the influencers a positive experience with the product, as

mentioned in section 4.4, and offering a free product/product sample to the

influencers will create positive feelings towards the company and should generate

positive word of mouth.

Altruism and Social Benefits

The company can facilitate the process of getting the influencers to talk by doing the

following:

• With reference to section 4.4, the company can establish a system that makes it easy

for the influencers to recommend the company’s product and for the listeners to read

the recommendations. In this way, tools could be created to make it easy for the

influencers to share their opinions with the target audience. This could be, for example,

creating a “send‐to‐a‐friend” functionality for social networking sites, mobile devices

and other social tools. The company could design rating systems or make it possible to

write consumer reviews, an idea elaborated upon in section 4.7.2.

• The company can create a specific website to provide trustworthy and exclusive

information, hopefully persuading the influencers to talk. As highlighted in section

3.3.2, it is possible for the company to have a dialogue with the consumers online, and

the company must use this to its advantage. Section 4.7.1 showed that, by creating an

online community, the company makes it easier for its customers to socialise and share

interests, encouraging influencers to pass on their recommendations, exchange

information and good advice. Finally, a community makes it possible to develop

relationships with people who share similar interests.

59

Selfenhancement

As mentioned in section 4.5, some influencers like to enhance their self‐esteem by appearing

to be competent and smart consumers, ultimately impressing their peers. If this is the case,

the company can use the following tactic:

• Provide the influencers with additional information about the company and its product

or service. For example, this could be by offering the influencers electronic newsletters

containing exclusive news. Section 4.5 showed that the influencers are encouraged to

give the listeners advice and will make a greater effort to talk when their advice is well

received. If the influencers have additional information about the company and its

product or service, they have more information than other consumers, making it easier

for them to appear informed.

In general

At this stage, the company must pay special attention to the line between naturally occurring

word of mouth and paid‐for advertising. The intention behind getting the influencers to talk is

to avoid turning them into what could easily be mistaken for paid advertisers or affiliates. If

the influencers become perceived as such, this could be very unfortunate, because it risks

turning consumers against the company. This step is designed to encourage the influencers to

keep on doing what they already do; generate sincere word of mouth messages and share

them with their network. Section 3.1 showed that genuine word of mouth has no commercial

bias and is not paid for by a company. On the contrary, word of mouth messages are

personally motivated and are part of people’s natural conversations; the company wants to

encourage this to happen, organically. Therefore, an important point for the company to

remember is that, when trying to encourage the influencers to talk, under no circumstances

should it pay the influencers to pass on the word of mouth messages, because this is certainly

not genuine word of mouth communication and can backfire. In relation to section 4.4, the

company must not push the messages out in a one‐way flow but engage in a dialogue with the

influencers in order to encourage them to generate word of mouth.

60

This step holds great importance because, in order to do online word of mouth successfully,

the messages must spread and reach the intended target audience. This is why the company

depends upon the influencers talking, and must identify the right influencers to perform this

step. A successful spread of the online word of mouth messages depends on the influencers

sending them to as many of the listeners as possible.

5.2.6 Sixth Step: Get the Listeners to Listen

It must be noted that the listeners can be both the target audience and influencers. If some of

the target audience also turns out to be influencers, this is a positive development for the

company. Section 4.1.1 showed that influencers are also influenced by other people, so they

are significant in both spreading and receiving influence in a dynamic communication flow.

General advantages for the company

When the company wants the listeners to listen, it has some distinct advantages. Section 3.4

showed that online listeners are characterised by their tendency to actively search for

information online. This is why listeners, in general, are more open to the information that

they hear and read. However, organisations should not take unfair advantage of this

openness, simply because people are often easily annoyed if they receive spam e‐mails or

similar hard‐sell techniques, and may feel exploited by this behaviour, as explained in section

3.5.

Moreover, it is an advantage that most listeners prefer to listen to fellow consumers instead of

advertisers, as found in section 3.2. This is because consumers trust their fellow consumers

much more than they trust advertisers and, since trust still is present in online settings, as

explained in section 4.6 and section 4.7, the company still has the advantage. Related to this

principle is the fundamental idea that the word of mouth messages must be genuinely created

by the influencers and should not be sent directly by an organisation. The company must

remember that the people listen to word of mouth messages because they believe that the

influencers are telling the truth about the company’s product or service. What the company

can do is to lay the best ground for making the listeners feel as if they are in a safe

environment online, a place where they feel that they can trust the influencers to be credible,

as discussed in section 3.2.

61

The motivations of the listeners

In order to get the listeners to listen, the company must pay close attention to what factors

motivate people to listen to online word of mouth. As it was elaborated upon in section 4.6,

people tend to listen to word of mouth messages if they believe that the influencer is

genuinely interested in their well‐being. The listeners are also motivated to listen when the

influencer appears to be experienced or knowledgeable in the field.

Section 4.6 showed that the company itself must take responsibility for reducing the risk that

the listeners perceive if they are to trust that the information they receive is valid and

impartial. The company should appear to be as trustworthy as possible, with no hidden

agenda that could easily scare the listeners off.

The company can do the following in order to get the listeners to listen:

• The company can make a presence online. This will show that the company wants to

connect with its target audience; this should create a sense of trustworthiness.

• If the company participates in online conversations, this signals to the listeners that

the company cares about them. In the long run, this may also create a relationship of

trust between the company and the listeners.

• As revealed in section 4.6, the company can encourage or make online communities for

the listeners, creating a trust‐relationship.

• In order to reduce risk, the company can provide the possibility of making consumer

reviews and ratings. This is in consistency with section 4.7.2, which said that reviews

play a significant role in consumers’ purchase decisions.

Interesting messages

Another aspect that the company must be aware of, when trying to persuade the listeners to

listen, is that the online word of mouth messages must be worth listening to. If the content of

the message is empty, the listeners simply refuse to hear it. Section 4.5 suggested that, if a

product was of high quality, or reliable and durable, it would create positive word of mouth

communication. If the company’s product or service can live up to this ideal, the content of the

word of mouth messages should be interesting and relevant to consumers.

62

5.2.7 Seventh Step: Track and Measure Results

At this step, the company should track and measure the results it has achieved so far. The

company should evaluate whether or not the above steps of the process model of online word

of mouth have been followed correctly, allowing them to gauge the level of success. Put

simply, did the previous steps have the desired impact?

In order to find out, the company can reflect upon the following two questions. This should be

completed before the company moves further into the process model: “Is the passalong

effect successful?” and “Are the company’s objectives reached?”

Tracking and measuring, or observing and monitoring, can answer the two questions, and

establish if the online word of mouth messages are flourishing in the chosen communication

channels, as well as revealing whether the target audience is picking them up or not.

It is important to track and measure the company’s results and look at whether or not the

company reached the objectives it made in the first step of the process model, establishing the

success of the previous steps.

Successful PassAlong

If the company can answer yes to the two questions, the pass‐along effect has been visible and

the company’s objectives achieved, the company has been successful in using the process

model of online word of mouth.

Undesired PassAlong Effect

On the other hand, if the company finds that it has not yet reached its objectives and the pass‐

along effect has not been successful, the company should answer the following questions,

allowing it to find out where the problem occurred. If, for example, the problem was that the

proper communication tools were not chosen, this is the step that the company should focus

on solving. It should also revisit the steps that focus on making the influencers to talk and on

getting the listeners to listen, because the problem may also affect these stages.

The company finds the problem by going back through the process model and finding out

where the problem arises.

63

Optimising

When the company has located at which step the problem lies, it should optimise its efforts at

that stage and correct the problem. The company must restart from that step in the process‐

model of online word of mouth and continue to follow the model.

5.3 A Case: Springfeed Consultancy and Danish Red Cross

The purpose of this section is to apply the process model of online word of mouth with a

contemporary case. To do so, this thesis analyses how a company is using the process model

of online word of mouth in order to spread the word about a campaign via online word of

mouth.

The company is called Springfeed Consultancy, which is a company that develops mobile

solutions, and advices in development as well as market characteristics of the growing mobile

industry (www.springfeed.com).

Danish Red Cross is a humanitarian movement, which works, among others, for the

protection of human life and to prevent and alleviate human suffering (www.drk.dk).

At the moment, Springfeed Consultancy is cooperating with Danish Red Cross on a game for

mobile phones. The game is called “Africa Needs Water,” and the purpose with it is to create

awareness about the campaign and to raise money to Danish Red Cross via online word of

mouth. The game itself is free to download, so there is no expense involved for the users,

except if they choose to donate money to Danish Red Cross. The game is free of charge in

order to retain the users.

The users spread the word about the campaign and the game by sending an SMS or e‐mail to a

friend. A link to the game is combined with the SMS and e‐mail. The online word of mouth

message also spreads via social networks, which in this case will be Facebook and Twitter.

The campaign is still under development but it is getting launched within the following

months.

Specifics of the conducted interview, the game and other information about the company and

the campaign used in the following analysis can be found in appendix 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.

64

Springfeed Consultancy and The Process Model of Online Word of Mouth

The following elaborates upon how Springfeed Consultancy follows the steps of the process

model in order to do online word of mouth. Whether or not the company will be successful is

still unknown, as they are in the process of launching the campaign. However, the following

provides an example of how a company has gone through the steps in the process model in

order to do online word of mouth.

Identify Objectives:

Based on data from Statistics Denmark, Comscore and Gartner, which all provide marketing

insights and data, the company has found that there are approximately 500.000 – 750.000

potential users to the mobile game. These users are consumers, who own a mobile phone,

which is usable for games, and consumers who has utilised the Internet on their mobile

phones within the last three months, paid via SMS and played games on their phones.

The company has made the objective to reach 60‐80 % of the potential users within a time

period of four months.

Finally, the company’s goal concerning the pass along effect is that this is more than 1 for the

first 30‐40 % of users. After this point the company assumes the group of users will be

wearing off, and the adoption of new users will no longer be exponential.

Identify Target Audience:

The company has identified its target audience to be active mobile phone users, which the

company also calls innovators and early adopters. This audience is between 15‐30 years of

age and are typically users of high‐end smartphones, such as Android and iPhones.

With time, the company will focus on users between 15‐40 years of age, who use smartphones

such as Nokia S60, BlackBerry, Samsung etc. The company calls this audience early majority.

In the end, the company will target users, who use low‐end feature phones, such as older Sony

Ericsson and Samsung phones etc. The company refers to this audience as late majority.

Identify and Select Influencers:

65

Some of the company’s target audience and influencers overlap. The company expects that

some of the innovators and early adopters are going to influence the early majority and late

majority through a one‐to‐one communication flow. The reason why, is that the innovators

and early adopters find it easy to install the application on their mobile phones and they are

able to help others installing the game. In consistency with step three of the process model, in

section 5.2.3, these influencers have particular product knowledge about the mobile

application.

When Danish Red Cross launches campaigns, it usually gets a lot of attention from the media.

This is also expected to be the case with this campaign. This is why the company has

identified other influencers to be bloggers/journalists, who are going to blog about the

campaign.

Danish celebrities have also been identified as influencers. The reason why, is because several

celebrities are already connected to Danish Red Cross as ambassadors, and they are often

promoting new campaigns. In this case, celebrities/ambassadors from Danish Red Cross are

also promoting the “Africa Needs Water” campaign in order to influence the listeners.

Both the bloggers/journalists (connoisseurs) and the celebrities are consistent with the

influential groups found by Dichter (1966) in section 4.3.2.

Select Communication Channels:

The company has chosen different communication channels in order to get the online word of

mouth message to spread. In consistency with step four, section 5.2.4, the company has

chosen communication channels in accordance with where the identified influencers are.

These include social media tools such as social networking sites and consumer reviews where

the innovators and early adopters especially are assumed to be present and blogs, where the

bloggers will be present.

The online message is partly passed on via the users’ mobile phones. The application contains

a “send‐to‐friend” functionality using SMS and e‐mail. This way, the individual user has the

possibility to be both target audience and influencer, if he/she passes on the message. This

communication flow is one‐to‐one communication, which can spread relatively quickly in an

online setting.

66

As already mentioned, the company has also chosen blogs and social networks as

communication channels. By doing so, the communication flow will in this case be one‐to‐

many.

The company also creates a website with additional information about the campaign. This is

in coherence with step four of the process model, in section 5.2.4. The website along with the

social networks will most likely be a part of building relationships between the influencers

and the campaign/company. The website is being promoted via Facebook and Twitter from

the application on the phone.

Finally, the company also utilises consumer‐rating systems, which exist on the various

application stores. The company does not choose the rating systems personally, but they are a

mandatory part of the application stores. In order for the mobile game to achieve a high

rating, the company is well aware of the importance of the applications to work properly and

that the usability is high as well as the game itself is reasonable. The consumer‐rating systems

represent a many‐to‐many communication flow.

Finally, the company combines online word of mouth with traditional marketing methods, as

the celebrities (ambassadors) will be exposed on TV. The company has chosen to do so in

order to enhance the online word of mouth messages.

Get the Influencers to Talk:

The company strives to make it easy for the users to share information about the mobile

application in order to get the influencers to spread the online word of mouth message. To do

so, the company continuously keep on testing and optimising the usability in order to make

the product/application as great as possible. This is compatible with step five, section 5.2.5,

which stated that if a product is of high quality and reliable, this stimulates word of mouth

communication about a product.

Furthermore, the company makes sure to cover the four main motives for passing on word of

mouth messages:

Altruism: The “Send‐to‐a‐friend” functionality makes it easy to send the message to friends.

Furthermore, as mentioned, the company creates a website with additional information about

67

the campaign including pictures, videos etc., with the purpose for bloggers/journalists and

ambassadors to refer to and collect additional information about the campaign to pass on.

Influencers may also be encouraged to spread the word about the mobile application because

of the charity part of it – that it aids people in need. This also makes the overall online

message about the application to spread.

Social benefits: The website, which the company creates, also includes a window that shows

pictures of people who “likes this” from Facebook. If the user of the website at the same time

is logged on his/hers profile on Facebook, it is possible to see pictures of ones “Facebook‐

friends” in this window. On this website, it is also possible to link videos of the application to

various blogs. In the application, there is also a “share‐this” on Facebook and Twitter, or a

“like‐this” on Facebook. What the users share is a link to this website, which the company has

created for the purpose. By sharing product information on social networks this also creates

ties and solidarity between the users and the social network offers a place where users can

socialise and exchange information.

Productinvolvement: The company makes it possible to discuss the mobile application via

the social networking site, Facebook, with other users. Furthermore, the company also

provides additional information about the product/application on Facebook and the website,

so the influencers have extra information about the product to talk about.

Selfinvolvement: By utilising social networks and “send‐to‐friend” – functionality the

influencers at the same time signals to its surroundings that he/she contributes to a

humanitarian organisation like Danish Red Cross. The influencers can also signal through

discussions on Facebook that they have knowledge about this product/application to the

surroundings, and thus appear as competent customers.

Finally, an additional motive, perceived value, is also covered. As the mobile application itself

is free of charge, the users most likely will feel that they are receiving more benefits from the

mobile application than they have invested.

Get the Listeners to Listen:

68

In consistency with step six, section 5.2.6, the company reduces any risk involved in

downloading and installing the applications by signing it with a certificate. The company does

so in order to prevent people from not downloading and installing the applications.

The company also enhance the credibility online by creating a website about the campaign,

which is hosted and run by Danish Red Cross. An online presence by Danish Red Cross creates

a trustworthy environment, and the whole campaign appears credible.

The consumer rating systems in the application stores also reduce risk, the listener might feel,

as the listeners can see how high a rating the mobile application has received and what other

users are saying about the application.

Furthermore, the sender’s mobile phone number and e‐mail addresses are used in the SMS or

e‐mail in order to make these appear more credible and trustworthy. In this case the sender

and receiver typically know one another, which adds to the listener being confident that the

influencer is genuinely interested in the listeners well being. In addition, passed on messages

has an already made text, however this can be adjusted by the influencer in order to make it

more personal and be more relevant to the listeners.

The company also removes any obstacles that may occur in relation to logging on or signing

up in order to start the game. The company strives to make the mobile application as simple

as possible.

Track and Measure Results:

A link in an SMS or e‐mail has a tracking id, which makes it possible for the company to track

and measure the results of the campaign. This tracking id tells the company whom and what

has sent the message.

By doing so, the company gets information on all the platforms about:

• How many “invitations” a user has sent

• When the message was sent

• When the mobile application was downloaded

• Which mobile phone the message was sent from

• Identification of which mobile phone the mobile application was installed on

69

• Who the message was sent to

• Which operators were utilised in the transaction

In relation to Android, BlackBerry and iPhone it is possible for the company to track and

measure how often the mobile application is utilised and for how long.

Finally, the company can store server side who donated via SMS. In agreement with Danish

Red Cross, the company does not pass on any sensitive information about the users.

As it appears from the above, all the steps of the process model have been important to the

company to put into practice. In other words, the company has not found it relevant to skip

any of them in order to encourage word of mouth messages. How successful the company will

be in encouraging online word of mouth messages is still unknown, as the campaign is still

under development. But this case serves as an illustration of how a company has utilised the

process model in order to create awareness and raise money to Danish Red Cross.

5.4 Thoughts on the Process Model

The steps of the process model have a similar structure as the theory from chapter 3 and 4.

The reason why is that the process of the thesis has been iterative, which is why the theory

and the steps naturally will take the same structure. This way, the understanding and

readability should become better and more understandable.

The particular order of the steps has been found valid because of their interdependence. The

analysed case supports the order of the steps, as the company follows the steps in its

campaign.

However, the process model can be characterised as being general, in the sense that how

Springfeed Consultancy utilised the model, is not necessarily the same way another company

should utilise it. This depends on which objectives a particular company has identified. In the

same way, the social media tools have different effects and should be utilised accordingly to

what the objectives are.

The process model provides companies with a theoretical background on how online word of

mouth can be used successfully. The process model provides companies with a deeper insight

into the online word of mouth communication. Several companies make the mistake of

70

focusing heavily on the particular social media tools rather than identifying the right

influencers and looking deeper into the subject, by including relationships with the

consumers, having conversations with them and listening to what they have to say. In

contrast, this is included in the process model of online word of mouth.

71

6 Conclusion

This thesis elaborated upon the subject of online word of mouth communication, and

developing a process model based upon the main focus. This thesis also included other

aspects, which are highly relevant in relation to online word of mouth. This thesis answered

the problem definition by suggesting a process model of online word of mouth based upon

accepted theories and analysed how a company has utilised the process model in order to do

online word of mouth.

6.1 Main Findings

Word of mouth communication is a powerful mechanism because it directly affects

consumers. It is personally motivated and spontaneous; it is not planned but is a natural part

of people’s daily conversations. It is a valuable source of information and a persuasive

communication tool, reducing any doubts that the listeners may have. This way, both

traditional and online word of mouth communication can influence people’s buying

behaviours, as well as influence final purchase decisions, and it has a strong effect on the level

of new customer acquisition. Trust, credibility and personal relevancy are the major forces

behind the power of word of mouth communication.

Word of mouth communication has been given new importance because of new

communications technology, which allows word of mouth to take place in an online setting,

moving considerably faster and reaching a larger audience. The online setting allows

consumers sharing the same interests to interact and pass on online word of mouth messages,

even to strangers, as the communication flow is multiple. The communication flow is more

complex in an online setting because it is feasible to reach a much larger group of people. In

an online setting, it is possible to communicate one‐to‐one, one‐to‐many and even many‐to‐

many. At the same time the communication is also bidirectional, both between the consumers,

but also in the sense that it is possible for companies to engage in conversations with their

target audience and reach consumers very quickly.

72

In general, online word of mouth does not lose any of its source credibility or inbuilt trust

between consumers, even though online word of mouth has no face‐to‐face element.

Recommendations are still judged as being trustworthy and credible, simply because they

originate from fellow consumers with no wish to manipulate listeners. However, trust must

be earned over time in some cases, and people are evaluated according to their ability to

contribute to conversations. It is important for the company to create trust and credibility in

an online setting, given that the level of confidence between consumers and companies is

extremely important to online clients. In addition to this, online consumers are generally very

open to online word of mouth, because they actively search for relevant information online.

Both traditional and online word of mouth communication are much more influential than

traditional marketing methods. However, as it was seen in the case, Springfeed Consultancy

combined traditional marketing methods with online word of mouth in order to create a buzz.

Companies utilising the process model can with advantage include traditional marketing

methods as well as a part of encouraging word of mouth communication.

Viral marketing is a specific type of word of mouth communication and is built upon creating

epidemic growth and targeting as many people as possible. Contrary to online word of mouth,

which consists of genuine messages of advice, viral marketing can be categorised as marketer

initiated advertising, subtly different from consumer‐initiated word of mouth. Creating

epidemic growth with online word of mouth messages is desirable, if this is able to target the

right target audience.

Influencers have been found to be of great importance, because they are a link between mass

media and individuals, giving advice and recommendations to listeners through online word

of mouth messages. This is a major reason why influencers are important for any company

wishing to use online word of mouth successfully. Companies can identify influencers

according to the background of their unique characteristics and who are the most active

talkers online. Companies encourage influencers to pass on word of mouth messages. As it is

seen in the case, influencers can furthermore act as helpers to the listeners. Because of their

high product knowledge, influencers can help the listeners with basic problems concerning

the product.

73

A main finding concerning the nature of influencers is that they are not restricted to elite

social groups. Influencers are very likely to be drawn from a moderately connected majority

of people, implying that companies should pay attention to this when they try to identify

online influencers.

It is important that the company recognise that it is the influencers who generate word of

mouth messages and not the company. The company cannot control word of mouth messages,

but it can try to influence the process, in the best possible way, by encouraging the spread of

the messages. What the company wants is to encourage the natural information exchange

processes occurring between consumers on a daily basis. Related to this idea, it is vital that

the listeners and influencers do not feel exploited by the company; they must not develop the

impression that the messages were marketer initiated. This will backfire and may well hurt

the image of the company. Trust is of the essence and the company must maintain an ethical

approach to its strategy.

Influencers are motivated to generate word of mouth messages for several reasons. Especially

altruism, self‐enhancement, social benefits and product involvement have been found to be

motives for passing on messages. These motives, especially product involvement, coincide

with the characteristics of the influencers. Motives for listening to word of mouth messages

includes risk reduction, genuine advice giving and knowledgeable influencers. In relation to

the case, Springfeed Consultancy made sure to cover all the main motives for passing on and

for listening to online word of mouth. This might be an advantage for any company to do, as it

can be difficult to find out what exactly motivates the influencers.

Social media tools, the true foundation of spreading online word of mouth messages, they all

make it very easy for consumers to share ideas, opinions and recommendations, and the exact

social media tool or tools that the company should utilise depends upon where the customers

and influencers meet and share ideas. This way, social media have amplified the importance

and level of online word of mouth communication. Social media tools can be used to great

advantage. The various social media tools provide different results. It depends on what the

company’s objectives are. However, it is important to remember that online word of mouth is

still about people and not merely about utilising social media tools. It is important to

74

understand that, as social media tools rapidly change, consumers will remain the same. They

will still look for traditional trust and credibility in the online environment.

In order to harness the power of online word of mouth successfully, this thesis showed that it

is important for the company to 1) identify objectives, 2) identify the target audience, 3)

identify and select influencers, 4) select communication channels, 5) get influencers to talk, 6)

get the listeners to listen, 7) track and measure results; each of these steps are of equal

importance. None of the steps could have been excluded, as they were interdependent. The

process model provides important guidelines for any company, who do not know how, to

utilise online word of mouth. How one company utilises the process model is not necessarily

the same way another company would utilise it, because the different steps depends on what

the companies objectives are. The different influencers and the different social media tools,

create different results.

It is important to keep in mind that online word of mouth, first and foremost, is about people,

and it is the influential people who pass on the word of mouth messages. Therefore, it is

essential to understand these consumers and listen to their needs and wants, responding

accordingly to these desires if word of mouth is to be encouraged. Online word of mouth is

about consumer participation and involvement.

6.2 Suggestions for Further Research

It is reasonable to assume that online word of mouth will become even more relevant in the

future. This is partly because more companies will realise the latent power of word of mouth

messages, and partly because of the possibilities that new technology grants. Social media is

continuingly increasing in complexity and scope, so many companies want to be a part of the

development.

The process model of online word of mouth has been made on the background of theory.

Further research could take a few different directions:

• The process model of online word of mouth has only been tested by one company. It is

suggested that it will only improve the model, if more companies tested the model,

because how the process model is utilised depends on the objectives of the company.

75

This will make it easier to adjust possible faults, and refine and optimise the process

model.

• Online word of mouth is still a fairly new subject for research, and more social media

tools and new literature appears every month. This is why new knowledge can be used

to improve the process model in the future.

• As the subject of online word of mouth will increase in the future, more research

concerning combining online word of mouth with traditional marketing strategies will

reap dividends.

76

7 References

Allsop, D.T., Bassett, B.R., Hoskins, J. A. (2007). Word‐of‐Mouth Research: Principles and Applications. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 398‐411.

Andersen, I. (2003). Den skinbarlige virkelighed – vidensproduktion inden for samfundsvidenskaberne. Samfundslitteratur, 2. Udgave, 2. Oplag

Andreassen, T.W., Streukens, S. (2009). Service innovation and electronic word‐of‐mouth: is it worth listening to? Managing Service Quality, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 249‐265.

Arndt, J. (1967). Word of mouth advertising – a review of the literature. New York: Advertising research foundation

Augusto de Matos, C., Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word‐of‐Mouth communications in marketing: a meta‐analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, Vol. 36, pp. 578‐596.

Baker, A., Rajagopalan, B., Parameswaran, R. (2007). Explaining Consumer Ratings in Online Recommender Systems. American Marketing Association, Vol. 18, pp. 225‐226.

Bayus, B. (1985). Word of Mouth: The Indirect Effects of Marketing Efforts. Journal of advertising research, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 31‐39.

Beckmann, S.C., Bell, S. (2001). Viral marketing = wordofmouth marketing on the Internet? (And a case story from the Nordic countries). Copenhagen Business School, pp. 1‐5.

Belch, G. E., Belch, M. A. (2007). Advertising and Promotion. An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. McGraw‐Hill International Edition. Seven Edition.

Bezjian‐Avery, A., Calder, B., Iacobucci, D. (1998). New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 23‐33.

Bickart, B., Schindler, R.M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 31‐40.

Brooks, R. B. Jr. (1957). Word‐of‐mouth Advertising in Selling New Products. The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 154‐161.

Buttle, F. A. (1998). Word of mouth: understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 241‐254.

Chen, Y., Xie, J. (2008). Online Consumer Review: Word‐of‐Mouth as a New Element of Marketing Communication Mix. Management Science, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 477‐491.

77

Cheung, M. Y, Luo, C., Sia, C. L., Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word‐of‐mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on‐line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 9‐38.

Cho, S., Huh, J. (2008). Corporate Blogs as a Form of eWOM Advertising: A Content Analysis of Source Credibility and Interactivity in Corporate Blogs. American Academy of Advertising Conference Proceedings, pp. 239‐241.

Computer Economics Report (2010). Social Media Use Remains Early Stage in the Enterprise. Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 6‐14.

De Bruyn, A., Lilien, G. L. (2008). A multi‐stage model of word‐of‐mouth influence through viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol., 25, pp. 151‐163.

Dellarocas, C. (2003). The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms. Management Science, Vol. 49, No. 10, pp. 1407‐1424.

Dichter, E. (1966). How Word‐of‐Mouth Advertising Works. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 147‐166.

Dobele, A., Toleman, D., Beverland, M. (2005). Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 143‐149.

Doh, S. J., Hwang, J. S. (2009). How Consumers Evaluate eWOM (Electronic Word‐of‐Mouth) Messages. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 193‐197.

Duan, W., Gu, B., Whinston, A. B. (2008). The Dynamics of Online Word‐of‐Mouth and Product Sales – An Empirical Investigation of the Movie Industry. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 233‐242.

Dwyer, P. (2007). Measuring the value of electronic word of mouth and its impact in consumer communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 63‐79.

East, R., Hammond, K., Lomax, W. (2008). Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 215‐224.

Eccleston, D., Griseri, L. (2008). How does Web 2.0 stretch traditional influencing patterns. International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50, No. 50, pp. 591‐161.

Feick, L. F., Price, L. L. (1987). The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 83‐97.

Fisher, T. (2009). ROI in social media: a look at the arguments. Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 189‐195.

Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion Leaders and Opinion Seekers: Two New Measurement Scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 137‐ 147.

Gildin, S. Z. (2002). Understanding the Power of Word‐of‐Mouth. Revista de Administracao Mackenzie, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 91‐106.

78

Gilje, N., Grimen, H. (2002). Samfundsvidenskabernes forudsætninger – indføring i samfundsvidenskabernes videnskabsfilosofi. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Godes, D., Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using Online Conversations to Study Word‐of‐Mouth Communication. Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 545‐560.

Godin, S. (2001). Unleashing the Ideavirus. New York: Hyperion.

Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., Muller, E. (2001). Talk of the Network: A Complex Systems Look at the Underlying Process of Word‐of‐Mouth. Marketing Letters, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 211‐223.

Goldsmith, R. E., Horowitz, D. (2006). Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 1‐16.

Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, E. B. (2003). Innovative Consumers and Market Mavens. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 54‐64.

Gruen, T.W., Osmonbekov, T., Czaplewski, A.J. (2006). eWOM: The impact of customer‐to‐customer online know‐how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 449‐456.

Hagel, J., Armstrong, A. G. (1997). Net Gain. Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities. The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1, pp. 140‐153.

Haridakis, P., Hanson, G. (2009). Social Interaction and Co‐Viewing With YouTube: Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 317‐335.

Helm, Sabrina (2000). Viral Marketing – Establishing Customer Relationships by “Word‐of‐Mouse”. Electronic Markets, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 158‐161.

Hennig‐Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., Gremler, D.D. (2004). Electronic word‐of‐mouth via consumer‐opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of interactive marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 38‐52.

Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in Hypermedia Computer‐Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 50‐68.

Hogan, J. E., Lemon, K. N., Libai, B. (2004). Quantifying the Ripple: Word‐of‐mouth and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 271‐280.

Huang, H., Leung, L. (2009). Instant Messaging Addiction among Teenagers in China: Shyness, Alienation, and Academic Performance Decrement. CyperPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 675‐679.

Huang, J.H., Cheng, Y.F. (2006). Herding in Online Product Choice. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 413‐428.

Huang, L.S., Chou, Y.J., Lin, C.H. (2008). The Influence of Reading Motives on the Responses after Reading Blogs. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 351‐355.

79

Hung, K. H., Li, S. Y. (2007). The Influence of eWOM on Virtual Consumer Communities: Social Capital, Consumer Learning, and Behavioral Outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 485‐495.

Kaplan, A. M., Haenlein, M. (2009). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, Vol. 53, pp. 59‐68.

Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal Influence – the part played by people in the flow of mass communication. First Free Press.

Keller, E. (2007). Unleashing the Power of Word of Mouth: Creating Brand Advocacy to Drive Growth. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 448‐452.

Kiecker, P., Cowles, D. (2001). Interpersonal Communication and Personal Influence on the Internet: A Framework for Examining Online Word‐of‐Mouth. The Haworth Press, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 71‐88.

Korgaonkar, P., Wolin, L. (1999). A Multivariate Analysis of Web Usage. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 53‐68.

Kozinets, R.V., Valck, K. D., Wojnicki, A. C., Wilner, S. J.S. (2010). Networked Narratives: Understanding Word‐of‐Mouth Marketing in Online Communities. American Marketing Association, Vol. 74, pp. 71‐89.

Lam, D., Mizerski, D., Lee, A. (2005). Cultural Influence on Word‐of‐Mouth Communication. American Marketing Association, Vol. 16, pp. 9‐10.

Leskovec, J., Adamic, L. A., Huberman, B. A. (2007). The Dynamics of Viral Marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 2‐46.

Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Phelps, J. E., Raman, N. (2005). Understanding Pass‐Along Emails: Motivations and Behaviors of Viral Consumers. In C. P. Haugtvedt, K. A. Machleit, R. F. Yalch, ed. Online Consumer Psychology – Understanding and Influencing Consumer Behavior in the Virtual World. New Jersey London: Psychology Press. Ch. 3.

Lyons, B., Henderson, K. (2005). Opinion Leadership in a Computer‐Mediated Environment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 319‐329.

Mason, R.B. (2008). Word of mouth as a promotional tool for turbulent markets. Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 207‐224.

Miller, K. D., Fabian, F., Lin, S. J. (2009). Strategies for Online Communities. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 305‐322.

McKee, D., Simmers, C. S., Licata, J. (2006). Customer Self‐Efficacy and Response to Service. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 207‐220.

McWilliam, G. (2000). Building Stronger Brands through Online Communities. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41, pp. 43‐54.

80

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The Dynamics of Trust within and between Organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 314‐28.

Myers, J. H, Robertson, T. S. (1972). Dimensions of Opinion Leadership. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. IX, pp. 41‐46.

Nisbet, E.C. (2005). The Engagement Model of Opinion Leadership: Testing Validity Within a European Context. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3‐30.

Phelps, J.E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., Raman, N. (2004). Viral Marketing or Electronic Word‐of‐Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 333‐348.

Pitta, D.A., Fowler, D. (2005). Internet community forums: an untapped resource for consumer marketers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 265‐274.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press

Schindler, R.M, Bickart, B. (2005). Published word of mouth: Referable, consumer‐generated information on the Internet. In C. P. Haughtveds, K. A. Machleit, Yalec, K. A., ed. Online Consumer Psychology – Understanding and Influencing Consumer Behavior in the Virtual World. New Jersey London: Psychology Press. Ch. 2.

Sernovitz, A. (2009). Word of Mouth Marketing. New York: Kaplan Publishing.

Smith, T., Coyle, J. R., Lightfoot, E., Scott, A. (2007). Reconsidering Models of Influence: The relationship between Consumer Social Networks and Word‐of‐Mouth Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 387‐397.

Stern, B. B. (1994). A Revised Communication Model for Advertising: Multiple Dimensions of the Source, the Message, and the Recipient. Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 5‐15.

Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., Kuntaraporn, M. (2006). Online Word‐of‐Mouth (or Mouse): An Exploration of Its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 1104‐1127.

Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., Webster, C. (1998). Word‐of‐Mouth Communications: A Motivational Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 527‐531.

Thomas, G. M. (2004). Building the buzz in the hive mind. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 64‐72.

Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of Word‐of‐Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 90‐102.

Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., Hanssens, D. (2008). The Impact of Marketing‐Induced Versus Word‐of‐Mouth Customer Acquisition on Customer Equity Growth. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLV, No. 1, pp. 48‐59.

81

Wang, J., Chen, R., Herath, T. Rao, H.R. (2009). Visual e‐mail authentication and identification services: An investigation of the effects on e‐mail use. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 92‐102.

Ward, J., Ostrom, A. (2002). Motives for Posting Negative Word of Mouth Communications on the Internet. Published in Expanding the Scope of Word of Mouth: Consumer‐to‐Consumer Information on the Internet by Bickart, B., Schindler, R. M. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 428‐430.

Watts, D. J., Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 34, pp. 441‐458.

Weiman, G., Tustin, D. H., Vuuren, D., Joubert, J. P. R. (2006). Looking for opinion leaders: Traditional vs. Modern Measures in Traditional Societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 173‐190.

Williams, R. L., Cothrel, J. (2000). Four Smart Ways To Run Online Communities. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 81‐91.

Windahl, S., Signitzer, B., Olson, J. T. (2009). Using Communication Theory. London: Sage. Second Edition.

Zang, J., Daugherty, T. (2009). Third‐Person Effect and Social Networking: Implications for Online Marketing and Word‐of‐Mouth Communication. American Journal of Business, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 53‐63.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means‐End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 2‐22.

Springfeed Consultancy information, retrieved May 18th

http://www.springfeed.com/about/?lang=da

Danish Red Cross information, retrieved May 18th

http://drk.dk/om+roede+kors/organisation/røde+kors‐organisationen

82

Appendix 1

DEFINITIONS:

Traditional word of mouth can be defined as: “Oral, persontoperson communication

between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver perceives as noncommercial,

concerning a brand, a product, or a service” (Arndt, 1967; 3).

Online word of mouth can be defined as: “Any positive or negative statement made by

potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company which is made available to a

multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; 39).

Viral marketing can be defined as: “Viral marketing is in its essence a communication strategy

that uses ideas, slogans, catch phrases and icons or a combination hereof to transmit a message

concerning a product as fast and as widespread as possible within a given target group. It is

often part of a branding strategy and it usually seeks to address opinion leaders and often also

early adopters” (Beckmann & Bell, 2001; 1).

Social media can be defined as: “Social Media is a group of Internetbased applications that

build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation

and exchange of User Generated Content” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009; 61).

Influencers can be defined as: “The individuals who were likely to influence other persons in

their immediate environment.” (Katz and Lazarfeld, 1955; 3).

83

Appendix 2.1

Information about the campaign, Springfeed Consultancy is making in collaboration with Danish Red Cross.

Introduktion

Dette dokument har til formål at beskrive DRK spillets opbygning, afhængigheder samt planlægning. Det er ment som hjælp til fælles forståelse for hvordan og hvad der skal produceres og ikke som en egentlig specifikation.

Figur 1 Livscyklus for applikationen

Side navigering og layout

Vær opmærksom på at enkelte elementer afhænger af hvilken telefon brugeren benytter.

84

Forside

Første side brugeren ser forklarer med baggrundsbilledet at det her er en kampagne for vand. Ellers er der ikke andet end et logo for DRK samt følgende knapper:

‐ ”Start spillet”, der fører brugeren til selve spillet ‐ ”Vil du støtte?”, der fører brugeren til støttefunktion. Det er

vigtig at teksten afspejler at der er flere valg herefter således at brugeren ikke er nervøs for at klikke på knappen.

‐ ”Vidste du?”, der fører brugeren til ”vidste du”‐fakta ‐ ”Spred budskabet”, der fører brugeren til mulighed for at dele spil

med andre brugere ‐ ”Om os”, der fører brugeren til information omkring DRK og

Springfeed Consultancy ‐ ”Afslut”, der afslutter applikationen

Spillet

Selve spillet er delt op i to dele.

Navigering

Navigeringen med knapper er gemt under selve spillet. Når brugeren benytter softbutton (menu knapper) eller retur knappen, vil følgende menu punkter vises:

‐ Genoptag spillet ‐ ”Vil du støtte?”, der fører brugeren til støtteside ‐ ”Spred budskabet”, der fører brugeren til spred budskab side ‐ ”Tilbage”, der fører brugeren tilbage til forsiden

Gameplay

Selve spillet er bygget op på følgende måde:

‐ Et glas i bunden samler faldende objekter op. Brugeren styrer glasset frem og tilbage med højre/venstre navigeringstast, eller ved at trække i glasset på en touch skærm.

‐ Der er 4 typer faldende objekter, 2 der tæller point op f.eks. 2 størrelser vanddråber, og 2 der tæller ned f.eks. mudrede dråber der indikerer at vandet er forurenet.

85

‐ Point der samles vises som penge i øverste venstre hjørne.

‐ I øverste venstre hjørne vises en trist lille dreng. Jo flere point des gladere bliver han.

‐ Dråberne falder med stigende intensitet.

‐ Når brugeren er træt af at spille trykker han på en softbutton eller retur knappen.

Vil du støtte?

Siden giver brugeren mulighed for at støtte via SMS eller opkald. Det er vigtigt at forklare brugeren præcis hvad der sker når der trykkes på knapperne.

Siden er bygget op på denne måde:

‐ Indledende tekst der fortæller at ved at klikke på knappen ”Send SMS” herunder vil der blive sendt en SMS med teksten DRK til 1231 fra applikationen, der vil blive trukket 100 kr gennem operatøren og at brugeren vil modtage en SMS som bekræftelse på donationen når den er gået igennem. iPhone brugere vil få fortalt at de skal skrive ”DRK” før de sender beskeden.

‐ ”Send SMS” knap ‐ Tekst der fortæller at brugeren også kan ringe op til en

automatisk telefonsvarer på 90 56 56 54 og donere 100 kr ‐ ”Ring op” knap

Efter en succesfuld SMS afsendelse eller opkald bliver brugeren spurgt om ikke han/hun ønsker at ”sprede budskabet” hvorefter brugeren havner på ”spred budskabet” siden

86

Vidste du?

Siden fortæller på simpel listeform (overskrift, tekst, billede) forskellige facts om vand og problemer i Afrika.

Spred budskabet

Siden beder brugeren om at sprede budskabet om kampagnen og applikationen. Det kan han/hun gøre ved at sende en SMS eller e‐mail til en ven hvori der er et link, eller ved at dele det på sociale netværk, i første omgang Facebook.

Siden er bygget op på følgende måde:

‐ Indledende tekst der fortæller hvor vigtigt det er at fortælle andre om denne applikation og kampagnen.

‐ Indledende tekst der fortæller at man kan sende et link direkte til en ven ved at benytte knapperne herunder. Det koster kun prisen på en SMS.

‐ ”Send SMS” knap ‐ ”Send e‐mail” knap ‐ Del på Facebook knap der linker i en

browser til m.facebook.com/sharer.php eller facebook.com/share.php

87

Send SMS til ven

Denne side er afhængig af platformen idet der skal kunne søges på telefonnummer og benyttes T9 ordbog i tekstfelter. Der er 3 elementer på siden:

‐ Modtagerfelt hvor brugeren kan tilføje et telefonnummer ved søgning eller skrive direkte

‐ Tekstfelt med standart tekst som brugeren kan ændre for at få det til at lyde mere personligt

‐ Read only link til download siden

Send email til ven

For enkelte telefoner vil der være mulighed for at sende en email i stedet for SMS (iPhone, Android, BlackBerry og andre).

Da vi har mere plads en i en SMS vil der være

‐ En beskrivende tekst der fortæller lidt om kampagnen og Røde Kors ‐ Hvordan man installerer applikationen på telefonen, herunder et link i et ikke klik‐bart

format uden tracking kode, således at folk der læser emailen på en ikke‐telefon nemt kan installere.

‐ Klikbart link til folk der er på en telefon kan nemt installere

Om os

Samme layout som i ”Vidste du,” men med information om DRK og Springfeed.

Download side (link i SMS/email)

Download siden er den side der præsenteres for brugeren når denne klikker på linket sendt via SMS eller linket der vises andetsteds og skal tastes direkte ind i browseren.

Subdomæne

Det er vigtigt at vi har et kort domænenavn, f.eks. http://m.drk.dk fordi det skal passe ind i en enkelt SMS og skal kunne tastes hurtigt ind i en browser.

Indhold

Download siden skal være mobil venlig, dvs. 1) være XHTML W3C compliant 2) kun vise absolut nødvendige data + grafik.

Vi skal vise følgende indhold:

Overskrift: ”Vælg en af følgende platforme fora t downloade det nye mobilspil fra DRK:”

88

iPhone/iPod Touch: Med link til Apple App Store.

Android: Med link til Android Market.

Andre telefoner: Med link til direkte download af Java ME applikation.

Siden bliver forhåbentligt aldrig vist fordi vi laver et HTTP 302 redirect til et af ovenstående afhængig af HTTP UserAgent. Men det kan være user agent er noget vi ikke forventer, brugeren vil downloade via sin PC eller telefonen ikke understøtter HTTP 302.

Tracking

For at vi kan optimere de virale parameter, om der er telefoner der ikke fungerer etc. vil vi gerne logge data vha. linket til download siden.

Den telefon der sender en SMS sætter data om sig selv via download linket der lægges i SMS’en. En SMS kunne f.eks. se således ud:

”Hej Peter

Prøv det nye spil fra Dansk Røde Kors. Klik på linket og download spillet http://m.drk.dk?Gl3q2eHI755kke7 – Husk at fortæl andre om det og støt Røde Kors!”

Koden vil fortælle:

‐ Id o Første 4 karakterer o For at holde styr på hvem sender hvor mange beskeder o Random 4 cifre genereret første gang der startes o Sammen med useragent, tidspunkt for installation skulle gøre risikoen for

kollisions minimal ‐ Platformen der har sendt SMS’en

o Første karakter er fabrikanten, næste 4 er modellen o Så vi kan se om der er platforme der ikke er repræsenteret, samt hvilke

platforme der er ”influencers choice” o Der laves et udtræk fra platformen således at i=iPhone, m=Motorola, n=Nokia

etc. efterfulgt at model nummer ‐ Tidspunkt for installation

o 3 karakterer o I 10 min intervaller efter installationen

‐ Tidspunkt for afsendelse o 3 karakterer o I 10 min intervaller efter installationen

‐ Antal afsendte beskeder o 1 karakter

89

Server side skal der logges følgende data:

‐ HTTP Useragent (så vi kan se populariteten af forskellige platforme) ‐ IP adresse (for at identificere operatør) ‐ Tidspunkt

Ovenstående logges for hvert request og gøres tilgængelig for os så vi kan lave statistikker.

For Android og iPhone vil vi benytte Flurry til at lave detaljerede statistikker om brugsmønstre.

Application stores

Der er en del application stores på markedet i øjeblikket der kan drive brugere. Vi satser på følgende i første omgang:

‐ Android Market (Google) ‐ Apple App Store (Apple) ‐ GetJar (uafhængig) ‐ Ovi Store (Nokia) ‐ PlayNow (Sony Ericsson) ‐ SamsungApps (Samsung) ‐ LG Application Store (LG)

Tidsplan og afhængigheder

Vi har følgende afhængigheder til DRK:

‐ Download side eller adgang til samme så vi kan sikre os at siden er funktionel og ”mobil venlig”

‐ Billedmateriale eller design udarbejdet af eller sammen med DRKs grafikere ‐ Webside til kampagnen der fortæller om kampagnen og hvordan man downloader

applikationen ‐ Application stores skal godkende applikationerne inden de lægges op ‐ Applikationen til Java ME telefonerne skal testes og signeres inden de kan releases

Tidsplan

‐ 15. maj: iPhone applikationen påbegyndes ‐ 20. maj: Java ME applikationen godkendes af DRK ‐ 23. maj: intensiv test af Java ME applikationen på lead devices ‐ 23. maj: Android applikationen påbegyndes ‐ 28. maj: Download site kører ‐ 28. maj: Website kører ‐ 4. juni: iPhone applikationen submittes til App Store

90

‐ 4. juni: Java ME applikationen sendes til test og signering ‐ 18. juni: Release af website, download site og applikationer

18. juni: Java M

91

Appendix 2.2

PowerPoint from Springfeed Consultancy

92

93

94

95

96

97

Appendix 2.3

Transcript from interview with Jens Vesti (partner and consultant in Springfeed Consultancy). The interview has been recorded and afterwards transcribed.

Interview made May 2010

Interviewer: Ann Christina Sørensen (ACS) and Interviewee: Jens Vesti (JV)

ACS: Hi Jens, thank you for taking the time answering my questions about the campaign you are making in cooperation with Danish Red Cross.

JV: You are welcome!

ACS: Can you tell a bit about the campaign and what the purpose of it is?

JV: Sure! We are currently working on an application, which is a game that the users can download to their mobile phones and pass on to their friends as well. The game is quite simple and easy to use. The purpose of the game is to create awareness about the game, Danish Red Cross and to raise money. The campaign is called “Africa Needs Water,” and the mobile game is about gathering drops of water in a little cup and to miss polluted water. Depending on how good the user is to gather the fresh water, it is indicated in the top left corner how much money the user has gathered. The user can then choose to donate this money to Danish Red Cross, to recommend the game to a friend, to exit the game etc.

ACS: In the power point presentation, which I received from you, you state that you expect to reach 500750.000 potential users. Where did you come about these numbers? And how are these potential users characterised?

JV: Well, we have reached these numbers on a rather comprehensive research made with data from Statistics Denmark, Comscore and Gartner. These users are characterised by first of all owning a mobile phone, which can be used to play games on. The users have furthermore utilised the Internet on their mobile phones within the last three months and paid bills by SMS. We are expecting to reach 60‐80 percent of these potential users within 4 months.

ACS: These users are also your target audience, how would you describe them?

JV: We have divided our target audience into 3 groups! The first group are innovators and early adopters. These are characterised by being active mobile phone users and they are typically between 15‐30 years and normally use high‐end smartphones, such as Android and iPhones, which are relative new phones on the market. This is the primary group of our focus.

The second group is the early majority. They are 15‐40 years old, and they use smartphones such as Nokia S60, BlackBerry, Samsung etc. We focus on this group later on in the process.

The third group is the late majority, which we will target in the end of the campaign. The late majority has low‐end feature phones, which are older Sony Ericssons, Samsungs and the likes.

98

ACS: Are you targeting both females and males?

JV: Yes! Our game targets both genders!

ACS: What do you do to get people to return to your game?

JV: We make usability tests!

ACS: What is that?

JV: Usability tests are about how we make the application as easy to use for the user. We test this with representative groups from the target audience.

We also use Flurry, which is a statistics module that tells us something about the usage of the application. How many times do one user uses this application, does he pass the message on etc.

ACS: Is it specific information, or more superficial information you receive about the users?

JV: We have promised Danish Red Cross not to pass on sensitive information. We will not identify a specific user, but we will identify the installation of the application. So we can say something about how many users utilise the application, how often they donate and the likes.

ACS: So what are the particular elements that make a user to play the game over and over again?

JV: The game is easy to apprehend. At the same time, the game challenges the user, so it is not too easy to utilise. In the near future, we also include a social aspect, in the sense that it is possible for friends to challenge each other with the game – to beat each other’s scores.

ACS: In your power point presentation you mention that you would like bloggers and journalists, to pass on the word about the application. Are there other influential people you have thought of to create awareness about the campaign?

JV: Definitely! First of all, the bloggers are important to pass on the word about the application. We have experience with bloggers, such as journalists in the mobile field, who are always very interested in new applications. And now, especially with a mobile application in cooperation with Danish Red Cross, we expect to be written about in the blogs.

Danish Red Cross has several famous people connected to the organisation as ambassadors. When Danish Red Cross does new campaigns, such as this one, these ambassadors are also utilised to spread the word.

And finally, we also have some people within the target audience, which we expect to be influential people. As the innovators and early adopters are skilled mobile users, some of them will most likely help the early majority and late majority with installing the application.

ACS: How are these influencers within the target audience going to influence the early and late majority?

JV: Via SMS or emails, on Facebook and Twitter!

99

ACS: The Facebook site, is it going to be a fansite of the campaign and mobile application?

JV: Yes that’s correct! The fan‐site on Facebook is a place for the users, and additional information will also be available here.

ACS: How are the famous people going to spread the word?

JV: Basically on TV! We imagine it to be on e.g. “Good Morning Denmark” and the likes.

ACS: I would also like to talk about which channels you are using to spread the online word of mouth messages. You have already mentioned emails, blogs and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Are you expecting to use other online channels, such as online consumer reviews, ratings, forums or the likes?

JV: Well, no, but I guess we do use rating systems, as these are connected to the app stores, where the mobile application can be downloaded ‐ it’s free. But we do not choose this ourselves, though, as they are a part of the app stores. However, we are aware of the importance of a good rating, which is why the application has to work properly and have a high usability and a reasonable game. So we are continually working at solving any problems, which might occur with the use of the application. We keep testing it and optimising the usability. We have also removed problems that sometimes occur when people sign up or log on a game.

ACS: Yes, I know about problems with signing up and it is pretty annoying!

JV: Exactly! People easily get annoyed and quickly leave the program, app etc. if there is any problem. This is what we are trying to avoid. So we make the application as simple as possible, and also sign the application with a certificate, so people can see the authenticity of it, as people also tend to become suspicious at dodgy looking links. And we are trying to avoid this to avoid the user from not installing the application.

ACS: Can you tell me a bit about the website, you are creating?

JV: We create the website, but it is hosted and run by Danish Red Cross! The website contains supplementary texts about Danish Red Cross, our company, the campaign and the game etc., so people can get more information about the game and the campaign. We also upload pictures and videos for especially bloggers and journalist to use, if they are writing about us. It is also possible to link these videos to blogs. Via the application on the phone, the website is promoted through Facebook and Twitter.

We also integrate the website with Facebook! On the website we have a window displayed, with pictures of some of the people who are fans of the campaign and game on Facebook. If the users at the same time entering the website is logged on his profile on Facebook, then he can see all of his friends, who are fans already.

ACS: How are you going to track and measure the results later on in the process?

JV: We have a tracking id on the links in the SMS and emails. This makes it possible for us to track the number of invitations a particular user has sent, how many messages that has been sent, when the appllication was downloade, who it was sent to, identification of which mobile

100

it was sent from, which operator were used etc. We can basically retrieve a lot of information from this tracking id. We also store server side the donations sent by SMS!

We are also able to measure how often an application is utilised and for how long time with phones such as Androids, iPhones and BlackBerries. We use Flurry for this.

ACS: But you haven’t tracked and measured your results yet, as the campaign is still under development?

JV: That’s right! However, we expect to reach our objectives, and if we don’t, we find out what the problem is and take it from there!

ACS: You mention creating a viral effect in your power point presentation. In my thesis I talk about a successful pass along in relation to how well the passing on of online word of mouth messages will be. Have you any idea concerning your passalong effect, if >1 represents a message passed on?

JV: Yes! Our goal is definitely to be able to reach more than one with approximately 30‐40% of the first users. We are prepared that the group of users will be wearing off eventually, which means that the adoption of new users no longer will be exponential.

ACS: In what way has the process model controlled the process of your campaign?

JV: It has structured our view on how we identify our objectives and how we utilise influencers. It has given us valuable information, especially about the role of the influencers.

ACS: Has the particular order of the steps in the process model been important?

JV: It has in our case. First and foremost it is about finding out who our target audience is, to understand this group and what we want to achieve in the first place. We have followed the steps of the process model in that particular order and this has worked for us.

ACS: How would you evaluate the process model?

JV: To us, the process model has made good sense to utilise, in order to find out how our campaign could spread via online word of mouth communication. However, the process model is more minded on campaigns and not on optimising our products. In this way, it is much more marketing orientated rather than focusing on product development. However, we have utilised the model to find out what to do with our campaign, and we have gone through the steps several times. This way, it has been very informative.

A usable point with the model is to focus on the target audience before thinking about the communication channels. We have many customers, who wish to use Facebook, for no particular reason. When we ask why, they answer; because they want to reach a lot of people. They do not think about targeting the right audiences or influencers at all. This model makes it easier for us to explain to our customers where they should put their main focus. It can be very expensive to choose communication channels, especially if these are the wrong ones.

ACS: Thank you very much for your time and good luck with the campaign.

JV: Cheers!

Date post:	12-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Online Word of Mouth - [email protected] Home

Documents