Social Media vs Word of mouth

7/29/2019 Social Media vs Word of mouth

1/100

Online Word of MouthA Process Model of Online Word of Mouth

Author: Ann Christina Srensen

Supervisor: Anne Martensen

Department of Marketing

Cand. Merc. Marketing Communications Management Thesis

Copenhagen Business School

May 2010

Pages: 100

Word count: 172.198


2/100

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 consumertoconsumer

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, whichanalyses 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.


3/100

3

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................51.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION .................................................... ............................................................ ............................... 51.2 PROBLEM SPECIFICATION ...................................................... ............................................................. ............................... 6

1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION................................................... ............................................................ ......................................... 61.3.1 Research Questions .....................................................................................................................................................7

1.4 LIMITATIONS ........................................................ ............................................................. ................................................... 7

2 METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE ...............................................................................................................82.1 METHOD OF THE THESIS........................................................ ............................................................. ............................... 8

2.1.1 Scientific Approach .....................................................................................................................................................82.1.2 Data Collection Method ............................................................................................................................................ 82.1.3 Theory of Science Social Constructionism.....................................................................................................92.1.4 A Hermeneutic Approach ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ....... 10

2.2 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS.................................................... ............................................................ ............................ 10

3 WORD OF MOUTH ........................................................................................................................................... 123.1 TRADITIONAL WORD OF MOUTH .................................................... ............................................................ .................. 123.2 THE POWER OF WORD OF MOUTH .......................................................... ............................................................. ........ 143.3 ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH .................................................... ............................................................. ............................ 15

3.3.1 Defining Online Word of Mouth.......................................................................................................................... 163.3.2 Characteristics of Online Word of Mouth....................................................................................................... 163.3.3 Source Credibility and Trust ................................................................................................................................ 17

3.4 THE POWER OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH ...................................................... .......................................................... 173.5 VIRAL MARKETING........................................................ ............................................................. ...................................... 183.6 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH..................................................... ........ 20

3.6.1 Offline communication or online communication...................................................................................... 203.6.2 Narrow reach or broad reach ............................................................................................................................. 22

3.6.3 Spoken word or written word ............................................................................................................................. 223.6.4 Difficult to observe or possible to observe ..................................................................................................... 23

4 THE COMMUNICATION FLOW OF WORD OF MOUTH .......................................................................... 244.1 THEORY OF THE TWOSTEP FLOW MODEL...................................................... ........................................................... 24

4.1.1 Critique of the Two-Step Flow Model ............................................................................................................... 264.2 AFLOW MODEL OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH ........................................................ ................................................. 274.3 INFLUENCERS ....................................................... ............................................................. ................................................ 30

4.3.1 Online Influencers..................................................................................................................................................... 324.3.2 Groups that are Influential................................................................................................................................... 34

4.4 THE DIMENSION OF INFLUENCERS .......................................................... ............................................................. ........ 364.5 MOTIVES FOR PASSING ON ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH ...................................................... ...................................... 38

4.6 MOTIVES FOR LISTENING TO ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH................................................... ...................................... 424.7 ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH AND SOCIAL MEDIA ........................................................ ................................................. 43

4.7.1 Online Communities................................................................................................................................................. 454.7.2 Reviews and Rating.................................................................................................................................................. 474.7.3 Media Sharing ............................................................................................................................................................ 484.7.4 Email .............................................................................................................................................................................. 494.7.5 Instant Messaging .................................................................................................................................................... 49

5 PROCESS MODEL OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH................................................................................... 505.1 APROCESS MODEL OF ONLINE WORD OF MOUTH .................................................... ................................................ 505.2 THE PROCESS MODEL STEP BY STEP....................................................... ............................................................. ........ 52

5.2.1 Step One: Identify Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 52

5.2.2 Step Two: Identify Target Audience ................................................................................................................. 52


4/100

4

5.2.3 Step Three: Identify and Select the Influencers........................................................................................... 535.2.4 Step Four: Select Communication Channels ................................................................................................. 555.2.5 Fifth Step: Get the Influencers to Talk ............................................................................................................. 555.2.6 Sixth Step: Get the Listeners to Listen.............................................................................................................. 60

5.2.7 Seventh Step: Track and Measure Results ..................................................................................................... 625.3 ACASE:SPRINGFEED CONSULTANCY AND DANISH RED CROSS ................................................. ............................ 635.4 THOUGHTS ON THE PROCESS MODEL...................................................... ............................................................. ........ 69

6 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 716.1 MAIN FINDINGS ................................................... ............................................................. ................................................ 716.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .......................................................... ........................................................... 74

7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 76

APPENDIX 1 ................ ................. ................... ................. ................... ................. .................. ................. .................. 82

APPENDIX 2.1.......... ................... ................. .................. ................. ................. ................... ................. ................... .. 83

APPENDIX 2.2.......... ................... ................. .................. ................. ................. ................... ................. ................... .. 91

APPENDIX 2.3.......... ................... ................. .................. ................. ................. ................... ................. ................... .. 97


5/100

5

1 Introduction1.1 Problem IdentificationTraditional 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). Marketerinitiated communication appears to be

declining as consumerdriven 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 marketerinitiated 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 facetoface 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


6/100

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 SpecificationAs 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 DefinitionBy 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


7/100

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 QuestionsIn 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 LimitationsThe thesis has following limitations:

This thesis does not include studies of any specific productgroup in the process modelof 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, butthere is no further elaboration about the subject.

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


8/100

8

2 Methodology and Structure2.1 Method of the ThesisIn 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 ApproachThis 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 MethodPrimary data

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

a power point presentation and additional information about the companys 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

semistructured 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


9/100

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 DataAsking 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 wellestablished 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 questionsas he saw fit, the questions should not appear to be leading.

2.1.3 Theory of Science Social ConstructionismThe 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


10/100

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 ThesisThis thesis is divided into six chapters:

Chapter 1 introduces the overall topic of this thesis, including the problemidentification 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 scientificapproach, 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,


11/100

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 thebackground 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 themain findings of the thesis and suggestions for further research.


12/100

12

3 Word of MouthIn 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 MouthThe 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 bookPersonal 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; 176179). 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).


13/100

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, person-to-person communication between a receiver and a communicator

whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial, concerning a brand, a product, or a service.

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

entirely noncommercial. 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; 67) 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; 67) 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 importantto 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.


14/100


15/100

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

source gives objective and unbiased information (Belch and Belch, 2007; 166167).

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

marketerinitiated 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 theycome 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 persons 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 MouthBecause online word of mouth originates from traditional word of mouth, researchers argue

that it shares many of the same qualities. Several researchers (HennigThurau 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.


16/100

16

3.3.1 Defining Online Word of MouthVarious 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; HennigThurau 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.

HennigThurau 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 consumerbased communication about a

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

3.3.2 Characteristics of Online Word of MouthOnline 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; BezjianAvery 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 targetaudience 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 (HennigThurau 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 facetoface 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


17/100

17

product information from fellow consumers and pass on their own consumptionrelated

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

The Internet offers numerous possibilities for consumers to share their opinions, preferencesand 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 TrustOne 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 MouthThere 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


18/100

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 consumers evaluation of products (Doh etHwang, 2009; 193). Furthermore, Kiecker and Cowles (2001; 74) found that, regardless of

where word of mouth takes place, in an offline 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 MarketingViral 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 somesuperficial 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

self-generating 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.


19/100

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 ofmouth, 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 marketerconstructed 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).


20/100

20

3.6 Differences Between Traditional and Online Word of MouthIn 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

Facetofacecommunication

not anonymously

Online communication

Online setting can beanonymously

ReachNarrow reach

Private rooms

Broad reach

Public rooms

Nature ofmessage

Spoken wordPerishable

Written word

Available for asubstantial timeperiod

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

happens facetoface, whereas online word of mouth occurs in the anonymous online world

(De Bruyn et Lilien, 2008; 152; Dellarocas, 2003; 1410). With facetoface 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


21/100


22/100

22

3.6.2 Narrow reach or broad reachIt is evident that since traditional word of mouth happens facetoface, 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 onetoone 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 (HennigThurau 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 andStreukens (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 onetoone communications, but the new technology also

allows onetomany and manytomany communications, and the relative reach of online

word of mouth is comparatively broad.

3.6.3 Spoken word or written wordAnother 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

facetoface communication between people who know each other at some level. Because the

communication is facetoface 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. HennigThurau et al. (2004; 39) argued that the written

word is available for an indefinite timeperiod and, according to Bickart and Schindler (2001;


23/100

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 observeA 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 consumertoconsumerconversations (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 canobserve 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).


24/100

24

4 The Communication Flow of Word of MouthThis 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 TwoStep Flow ModelThe idea of the Two-Step 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 Peoples Choice, by Paul Lazarsfeld, Berard Berelson, and Hazel

Gaudet (1948). The book described the process of decisionmaking 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 twostep flow has had a major influence on communication theory for several

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

175).


25/100

25

The theory differs from the socalled 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 twostep 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 twostep 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


26/100

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 twostep 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 twostep 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 TwoStep Flow ModelThe twostep flow model can be criticised for oversimplifying the communication process. In

real life, the influence process is much more complicated (Weiman et al., 2006; 175), and it islikely 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 twostep 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 twostep Model for being unspecific about precisely how the influencers shape

other peoples opinions (Watts and Dodds, 2007; 442).


27/100

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 MouthThe twostep flow model suggests that the communication flows from mass media, passing

through influencers before reaching listeners. As the twostep 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 facetoface; 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: one-to-one communication, one-to-

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

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

communications flow methods:


28/100

28

Figure 2 Communication Flow (own creation)


29/100

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.

One-to-one 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 onetoone 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). Onetoone 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 onetoone

communication has yet to be thoroughly addressed in research communities.

One-to-many 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 oneway communication flow (Pitta and Fowler, 2005;

268).


30/100

30

Examples of onetomany 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 oneway

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 oneway flow. In order to make

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

allowing communication to flow both ways.

Many-to-many 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 InfluencersAs 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).


31/100

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 otherconsumers, has been studied for several decades. In the 1950s 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

peoples 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 receivers 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


32/100

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, highlyrespected individuals (Watts et Dodds, 2007; 442). To become an influencer

is a position that is earned and maintained through the individuals own competences andsocial 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 withproducts 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 InfluencersWith 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.


33/100

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 nonleaders (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


34/100

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 companys 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 InfluentialBecause 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 tofocus 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; HennigThurau 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 averageconsumer, because of their job or training. Dichter (1966; 152) also referred to this

group as professional experts and salespeople.


35/100

35

2. Celebrities: People who are famous from television, movies and other media. They donot necessarily have anything to do with the product itself. Dichter (1966; 152154)

also called these people synthetic word of mouth producers.

3. Connoisseurs: People who have a great knowledge about a product and are fellowconsumers; 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 nonverbal. 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 thelistener perceives as giving genuine advice and who are genuinely interested in the

listeners wellbeing (Dichter, 1966; 154). This group understands the listeners needs

and make recommendations based upon that background.

7. Bearers of tangible evidence: People who have the product at hand to show anddemonstrate it to the listener, so that the interested party can see and feel the product

first hand.

According to Dichters (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 Dichters (1966) study was performed in the 1960s, his findings concerning the

influential groups are still applicable to todays groups; the groups are the exactly the same in

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


36/100

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 everysocial 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 InfluencersA 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 twoway

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 suggeststhat 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


37/100

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; 400401). 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 oneway flow of information. Ideally,

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

companys 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; 395396).

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


38/100

38

recommend a companys 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 longterm relationships for

future influencerdriven 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 mouthcommunication.

4.5 Motives for Passing on Online Word of MouthIt 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 customeroriented (HennigThurau et al., 2008;

50).

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

(HennigThurau 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 onlineword of mouth, because of the close relationship between the theories describing online and

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

Horowitz, 2006; 477478). 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 indepth interviews with 255 consumers in the

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


39/100

39

communication included: Product-involvement, self-involvement, other-involvement and

message-involvement. 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, self-enhancement, help the company and product

involvement(Sundaram et al., 1998; 529). Finally, HennigThurau et al. (2004; 4850) 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/self-enhancement (HennigThurau et al.,

2004; 4850).

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 indepth 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


40/100

40

consumers (Sundaram et al., 1998; 529

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	claudio-cassam
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

Social Media vs Word of mouth

Documents