Word-of-mouth rhetorics in social media talk · detailed understanding of eWOM content is needed in...

Journal of Marketing Communications, 2014

Vol. 20, Nos. 1–2, 42–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.797756

Word-of-mouth rhetorics in social media talk

Anat Toder-Alona*, Frédéric F. Brunelb1 and Susan Fournierb2

aSchool of Business, Peres Academic Center, Gad Fainstein Street, Rehovot, Israel; bMarketing Department, School of Management, Boston University, 595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA

Although researchers and practitioners have access to a growing body of evidence on the effects of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) frequency and valence, a more detailed understanding of eWOM content is needed in order to better influence these social media-enabled conversations. Based on an ethnomethodological analysis of community conversations in a popular parenting online forum, we reveal that eWOM is a powerful social act in which consumers use a broad repertoire of eWOM rhetorical methods. The repertoire for advice-seeking talk includes five components: seeker’s legitimacy, topic legitimacy, request formulation, solicitation of responders, and requested response framing. The repertoire for advice-giving includes four components: foundation of authority, advice framing, advice focus, and advice scheme. For each of these components in the two repertoires, we identify corresponding rhetorical methods that can be used in the conversation (over 30 methods in total). Preliminary evidence also suggests that rhetorical alignment between advice-seekers and givers drives effectiveness of eWOM advice. The proposed rhetorical framework has relevance and implication for the many areas where social media and marketing meet.

Keywords: electronic word-of-mouth; word-of-mouth; rhetorical methods; social media; online forum; community

Introduction

In today’s new marketing media environment, most executives might agree that social

media is especially potent because of ‘its ability to amplify word-of-mouth effects. Yet the

vast majority of executives have no idea how to harness social media’s power’ (Divol,

Edelman, and Sarrazin 2012). For many, especially those outside the marketing

communication function, social media remain enigmatic because of ‘its seemingly

nebulous nature’ (Divol, Edelman, and Sarrazin). It is clear and well documented that

‘consumers increasingly go online to discuss products and brands, seek advice, and offer

guidance. Yet, it’s often difficult to see where and how to influence these conversations’

(Divol, Edelman, and Sarrazin). Despite the evidence that electronic word-of-mouth

(eWOM) is a dominant force shaping consumption ‘in a world where word-of-mouth is on

steroids’ (Blackshaw, as quoted by Gupta 2006), marketers have a limited understanding

of the persuasion methods that consumers use to seek and provide eWOM (Kozinets et al.

2010; Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami 2001).

Although the last few years have seen advances in our knowledge of eWOM dynamics

and effectiveness (for a recent integrative review, see Cheung and Thadani 2012), other

factors besides the often-studied dimensions of message frequency and valence should be

considered (Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol 2012). In particular, research on the nature

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.797756mailto:[email protected]

43 Journal of Marketing Communications

and role of the actual content of eWOM is crucial in order to guide marketers on how to

develop eWOM marketing communication strategies (Kozinets et al. 2010, Sweeney,

Soutar, and Mazzarol 2012). These are precisely the issues that we seek to inform in this

research. Our objectives are to (1) use rhetorical analysis to provide a novel theoretical

understanding of eWOM talk and (2) inform marketing communication research and

practice.

Studying eWOM at the level of talk has relevance for many areas where social media

and marketing meet. If communication and marketing professionals want to influence or

be part of online conversations, while avoiding alienating participants in the process, we

need to understand how ordinary consumers talk and influence each other’s talk. Building

on Divol, Edelman, and Sarrazins’ framework of social media activities (2012), we argue

that identifying the repertoires of everyday rhetorical methods used in eWOM advice-

seeking and advice-giving can guide a host of marketing communication activities:

monitoring (measuring and understanding what consumers say about products or brands),

responding (to inquiries, comments, service issues, or even crises), supporting

amplification and the spread of information (via recommendations and advocacy from

engaged consumers who are members of social networks and communities), and shaping

opinions and behavior (supporting content diffusion and buzz, or providing more effective

target deals or offers).

We present results from an ethno-methodological analysis of eWOM exchanges as

they happen organically in the forums of a popular parenting website. We identify the

repertoires of rhetorical methods that eWOM seekers and eWOM givers strategically

select based on the nature and context of the conversation. Theoretical and practical

implications of this research provide directions for future investigations. First, we review

past research on word-of-mouth (WOM) and eWOM content and dynamics in order to

ground the subsequent analysis and discussion.

Conceptual background

WOM is a ‘communication between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver

perceives as noncommercial, regarding a brand, a product or a service’ (Arndt 1967, 5).

This traditional perspective on WOM remains largely relevant in social media contexts and

thus research on traditional WOM can inform eWOM. For example, we can still assume

that in social media settings, a significant portion of eWOM organically stems from

consumers’ own desires/needs to share information. However, increasingly we also

observe that eWOM is co-produced as the result of firms’ actions (Kozinets et al. 2010).

Other unique characteristics of eWOM include its asynchronous nature, the predominance

of the written word, weak social ties among information givers and seekers, and the fact that

participants likely never meet face-to-face. As more WOM takes places online, it is critical

to inform marketing communications via a deeper and more nuanced understanding not just

of WOM but also of eWOM in the context of social media environments.

Traditionally, research on WOM has been difficult because of (1) limited direct

observations due to the private nature of WOM dialogs (Godes and Mayzlin 2004), (2) the

fact that WOM exchanges may flow through hard-to-chart networks of consumer

relationships (Frenzen and Nakamoto 1993), and (3) limitations in data that often include

only one side of the conversation dyad (Christiansen and Tax 2000). As more WOM

exchanges become facilitated via social media, researchers have greater opportunities to

circumvent these difficulties by unobtrusively observing and capturing eWOM

conversations (Schindler and Bickart 2005).

44 A. Toder-Alon et al.

Because WOM exchange implies the occurrence of an interpersonal communication

between two social actors – the WOM seeker and the WOM giver – it is critical to

understand the social nature and content of these exchanges. Although, as noted above, a

lack of access to the actual content of the WOM communication has contributed to a

general lack of understanding on these issues, some notable exceptions exist. Studies have

shown that WOM communications contain three types of information – quality, price, and

value – in a service market (Mangold, Miller, and Brockway 1999) and four types of

WOM comments – positive personal experience, advice-giving, product news, and

negative WOM – in a car buying context (Richins and Root-Shaffer 1988). Additionally,

five referrer styles were identified for accounting services WOM – opinion leader, passive

mercenary, helpful friend, reciprocator, and closed mouth (Dobele and Ward 2002).

With the rise of social media and the ready availability of conversation data, there has

been a renewed research interest in eWOM content. Most research has focused on the

quantity/volume or overall valence of online buzz (Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol 2012).

Although important, these approaches using aggregated brand/product/industry-level

measures cannot explain the power of individual messages or individual conversations

(Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol 2012). More recent studies consider the content of

individual messages. For example, Schindler and Bickart (2012) showed that messages of

moderate length, containing positive product evaluative statements, non-evaluative

product information, information about the reviewer, or entertaining content, were most

effective, while spelling and grammatical errors lessened communications effectiveness.

A study by Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol (2012) developed a scale to measure message

content and uncovered three dimensions – cognitive message content, richness of

content, and strength of content delivery – that are linked to message effectiveness.

Smith, Fischer, and Yongjian (2012) uncovered six dimensions of user-generated-content:

self-promotion, brand focus, brand facts, brand sentiments, communications directed to

marketers, and responses to online marketer action. Differences in the shares of content

categories across social media platforms (YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook) were found.

Finally, another recent study of social media content identified four eWOM narrative

styles in blogs: evaluation, embracing, endorsement, and explanation (Kozinets et al.

2010).

Although these recent studies inform eWOM content, the analyses tend to be focused

on quantifying the occurrence of content features in individual posts or providing general

interpretations of communication styles. Research has yet to focus on content as part of a

conversation that unfolds between parties to a eWOM exchange or on how discursive

elements are used in eWOM talk.

In order to uncover the repertoires of rhetorical methods used by eWOM seekers and

givers, we study eWOM as it organically unfolds in its social context and frame eWOM as

a social action (Mead 1934), a situated performance (Miller 1984) tied to social relations

and identities, and a matter of practice (Sacks 1992). Conceptualizing eWOM as social

action acknowledges the reciprocating dialogues that participants build up through

processes of noting, interpreting, and assessing actions in an interaction (Blumer 1986). As

aspects of situated communications, features of eWOM talk are capable of reproduction

across situations. Although common aspects of advice-seeking and advice-giving

components are granted particular attention in our research, we do not suggest that there is

but one way to classify eWOM talk. In fact, studying eWOM rhetorical methods is

valuable not simply because it permits the creation of a taxonomy for talk, but also because

it includes the social and cultural aspects of eWOM. A turn-by-turn analysis of eWOM

provides insights not only into how eWOM is performed at the level of talk, but also into


the interactional and social structures manifested through it. We demonstrate that eWOM

participants possess repertoires of rhetorical methods that they use as building blocks

to construct eWOM conversations and make sense of their social worlds. We also provide

preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of these methods.

The research context

This study considers eWOM conversations in a new/expectant parent community’s

bulletin boards. Because postings are continuously captured and archived, and because

participants enjoy much self-presentation freedom and anonymity (Lemus et al. 2004), this

setting provides an ideal environment for the study of eWOM content. A lack of

background, appearance, or status constraints (Granitz and Ward 1996) allows online

participants to be largely what they post (Schau and Gilly 2003) such that the rhetorical

effects are captured almost entirely in the written talk.

The data and data collection method

This study utilizes conversation data – i.e., seed message plus all replies – from bulletin

boards hosted at a popular community for new and expectant parents. In Phase 1, one month

of conversations, initiated at two different points in time, were collected from five bulletin

boards. These 10 months of data captured different community life stages since community

boards are organized by pregnancy due-dates, and a new board starts every month. Phase 1

data were used to orient our understanding of community communication practices. In

Phase 2, a longitudinal study captured nine months of complete conversations in a newly

formed board. A total of 12,162 threads were downloaded and screened to confirm the

presence of eWOM exchanges. Relevant eWOM episodes included any positive, neutral,

or negative statements made by potential, actual, or former customers about products,

services, ideas, or companies (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004); 661 such eWOM threads were

identified. To respect privacy, names and web addresses were changed and links to dates,

board names, and personal websites were removed. In the spirit of participant observation,

one of the authors participated in this community while pregnant herself.

Analysis of eWOM episodes

This ethnomethodological analysis (Garfinkel 1996) is informed by membership

categorization analysis (MCA) (Sacks 1974). Both MCA and the better-known

conversation analysis (CA) are methodological approaches rooted in ethnomethodology.

However, contrary to CA, MCA is not so much preoccupied by understanding the

sequential production of conversations, as it is by understanding how the social order

operates and how members make sense of their worlds via categories (i.e., why and

how people do certain things). In MCA, ‘the ordinary sense of talk and action is made

problematic (i.e., for the purpose of analysis) and is conceptualized as the accomplishment

of local instances of categorical ordering work’ (Hester and Eglin 1997, 3). MCA is

primarily interested in social action, not individual action or symbolic interpretation.

Therefore, to understand how eWOM is enacted and understood by participants, we studied

the concrete details of WOM exchanges. The eWOM practices were studied as they were,

without trying to uncover symbolic meanings they might contain (Garfinkel 1996). Using

MCA, we identified regularities in the rhetorical methods individuals employ, rely upon,


and take for granted in seeking and giving eWOM. Analyses yielded formal descriptions of

eWOM initiation and eWOM advice rhetorical methods.

MCA relies on some central analytical concepts: membership categories, membership

categorization devices (MCD), and category predicates. Membership categories are

classifications or social types used to self-identify or describe persons, collectivities, or

objects (Sacks 1974; Hester and Eglin 1997). Based on membership to a social category

(e.g., ‘father’, ‘mother’, and ‘medical doctor’), common knowledge and understanding are

assumed about a person. Membership category devices are ‘a collection of membership

categories plus rules of application’ (Sacks 1974, 218). These are the ways in which

discrete categories are understood to be part of a collective category. For instance, the

categories ‘husband and wife’ are typically understood to belong to the MDC ‘couple’, but

also depending on context (i.e., rule of application) they can also be heard as ‘parents’,

‘newlyweds’, or ‘co-signers on a mortgage’. Based on the economy rule, one category is

enough to self-identify or categorize others. Based on the consistency rule, when two

categories are juxtaposed (e.g., ‘coach and players’) and there exists a clear MCD that

groups them (e.g., ‘team’), then we hear them as being on the same team. It should be

noted that within a MCD, there might be positioned categories for which there exist a

hierarchical relationship. For example in the MCD, ‘expecting mothers’, ‘first-time

moms’, and ‘experienced moms’ occupy different positions. A standardized relational

pair (SRP) is a pair of categories that have reciprocal rights and moral obligations toward

one another. For example, parent and child are example of such pairs. In the context of

eWOM conversations one such SRP is the eWOM advice-seeker and eWOM advice-giver

pair. Based on category membership, category predicates can be imputed (Hester and

Eglin 1997). Predicates include activities, obligations, knowledge, attributes, and

competencies that are expectably part of objects or persons who belong to a category

(Hester and Eglin 1997). When eWOM participants act ‘in ways that are “predicatively

bound” (i.e., predicates of action, rights, obligations, etc.), inferences can be made’ by

each participant ‘about the other based on these actions’ (Psathas 1999, 156). This

suggests that a eWOM seeker has obligations and rights that include asking a legitimate

question, providing information on the situation or needs, and thanking the responders.

Conversely, a eWOM giver has competencies and obligations, such as advising, arguing,

and making a relevant reply. Similarly to the caller-called categories in telephone

conversations (Sacks 1992), in eWOM conversations these category predicates are

reinforced through turn taking and a sequential production of questions and answers. In

turn, these predicates of actions lead to a repertoire of advice-seeking and advice-giving

rhetorical methods that participants carefully utilize.

Analysis is at the level of the eWOM episode/thread. A typical thread is named by the

initiator, based on the main topic (e.g., ‘Crib advice’). Participants in a thread consist of all

parties that produce messages within the thread. Messages are numbered, with Message 1

being the posting that begins the thread. Each episode consists of a series of interconnected

messages, the number of which varies depending on topic interest. Thread titles serve as topic

openers that project the organizing MCD and the category predicates of the participants and

thus serve as invitations for members to participate, engage in topical discussion, or provide

help (Sacks 1992). Based on the topic ‘crib advice’, readers can assume that the MCD will

consist of parties to a eWOM talk about cribs; that some participants will have knowledge or

experience with cribs; that talk will involve information solicitation, recommendations, or

warnings about cribs; that supporting or challenging opinions may be shared; and that

expressions of gratitude for the recommendations may be offered.


The eWOM threads covered a broad range of pregnancy/baby products or services:

requests for general advice (e.g., nursery themes), product recommendations (e.g.,

alternatives to double stroller), choice trade-offs (e.g., full vs. travel size swings), and

brand recommendations (e.g., Baby Bjorn vs. Snugli). Solicited advice was not limited to

baby products (e.g., vacation suggestions) and was often linked to very consequential

decisions (e.g., medical option).

Findings and results

eWOM initiation repertoire

Analyses unveiled five eWOM initiations components: seeker’s legitimacy, topic

legitimacy, request formulation, solicitation of responders, and requested response

framing (see Table 1).

Table 1. Repertoires of WOM rhetorical methods.

Components Rhetorical methods

Advice seeking repertoire Seeker’s legitimacy Establish community membership via

– Due date or baby’s age – Past involvement with the community – Knowledge of the community history – Membership in related community

Self-introduction and personal disclosure – Personal identity emphasis – Social identity emphasis

Topic legitimacy Fit with community purpose Legitimization of off-topic issues Topic involvement

Request formulation Full diagnosis Problem only Solution only

Solicitation of responders Experience based Personal profile based

Requested response framing Paradigmatic Narrative

Advice giving repertoire Foundation of authority Personal knowledge

Formal sources Behavior Own (or others) experience

Advice framing Paradigmatic Narrative

Advice focus Object-oriented Person-oriented

– Self-referential – Other-referential

Advice scheme Reputation of advice source scheme Proven solution advice scheme Verbal classification advice scheme Reasoning advice scheme Consequence advice scheme Analogy advice scheme


Seeker’s legitimacy

Participants who inject a eWOM question must seek legitimacy to get the community’s

attention (Galegher, Sproull, and Kiesler 1998). Evidence of community membership most

often served this goal. Since the boards are organized by pregnancy due date, membership

was frequently implied by specifying the initiator’s ‘edd’ (expected due date) or baby’s age.

Other statements of community membership included references to the fact that a eWOM

seeker was an active past member or that they had been ‘lurking’ before posting. In their

requests, seekers commented on past posts and referred to specific members or the group’s

history. They also indicated membership in affiliated groups in order to claim legitimacy.

In establishing her legitimacy, each eWOM seeker has access to multiple potential

identity categories. The selection of an identity category is shaped by her goals and

the context (Sacks 1992). In strategic expressions of the self, and consistent with self-

categorization theory (Turner 1987), participants identified as individuals (personal

identity) or as group members (social identity):

[Side by side double strollers – 1] I currently have a Graco DuoGlide Tandem stroller. At the time #2 was coming along I had done research and it seemed like the best choice for us. [ . . . ] Well, probably like many other moms now that #3 is coming along I am once again on the quest for a better solution.

Since a category-constitutive feature of ‘experienced moms’ is familiarity with products,

services, and issues about motherhood/babies/pregnancy, it follows that experienced moms

are to be treated as a very knowledgeable group. By referring to the hierarchical position of

her category membership, the initiator provides responders with a way to orient to the

eWOM talk. Responders can assume that they should not include basic stroller information

since the initiator knows that already. Self-categorization also implicitly indicates which

participants are qualified to offer responses (i.e., other experienced moms). In contrast

below, the categorization as a ‘first-time mom’ signals category-constitutive features such

as lack of motherhood experience and invites a broader set of responders.

[Cloth vs. disposable diapers – 1] I’m a first time mom and I was wondering the pros and cons of having cloth diapers [ . . . ] I don’t know anyone who has used them, I need to get your opinions.

Others emphasized their individuality in self-categorizing:

[Cloth diapers – 1] I want to use cloth diapers (this is my first) but I want to make sure it is a good experience from the beginning so I don’t fall back on the disposables. For those of you who have been there before, what diapers do you highly recommend?

The difference between ‘I’m a first time mom’ (as part of a group) and ‘this is my first’ (as

an individual) is noteworthy. By introducing herself as a member of a group, the eWOM

seeker signals that she is not in a unique situation and allows responders to orient their

responses in accordance with the category features of that group. However, by emphasizing

her individuality, she is seeking personalized advice. Thus, the selection of a self-

categorization method signals motives, category features, and determine who is entitled to

offer a response and how to formulate the advice.

Topic legitimacy

Just as callers must provide a reason for a telephone call (Psathas 1999), eWOM seekers

must establish that the request is legitimate and deserving of the community’s time.

Participants signaled topic legitimacy by writing about issues sanctioned by the community

(Galegher, Sproull, and Kiesler 1998), providing compelling problem descriptions, or


showcasing topics in the thread title. In this community, topics concerning babies, young

families, or pregnancy need no justification and are de-facto legitimate. However,

individuals often try to access community resources for unrelated topics. In these instances,

as seen below, participants explicitly identify the request as off-topic (‘OT’) and apologize

in order to ingratiate potential responders and inoculate possible hostile responses.

[OT – moving suggestions – 1] My DH [dear husband] and I are thinking of moving to the DC, MD, or VA area. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone can suggest some nice, friendly suburbs to look at. I hope this doesn’t bothers anyone that this isn’t a ‘baby’ posting, but I thought this would be a great place to get others opinions on the area.

Some participants sought to increase perceived topic legitimacy by signaling that they

have researched the issue and acquired a sound knowledge base. As shown below, initiators

sometimes indicate that they have already received recommendations, but value the advice

of these members, a signal that both the topic and the community opinion matter a lot.

[Any booster seats recommendations – 1] [ . . . ] Anyone care to share their favorite? . . . I need to buy a booster seat for my 3 year old son [ . . . ] I have some info/ratings [ . . . ] and some recommendations from magazines and friends – but thought I’d check with the moms out there with toddlers. If you’ve ‘been there-done that’ and can offer me any advice, recommendations, what to steer clear of – I’d appreciate it.

Request formulation

In order to obtain meaningful eWOM advice, seekers strategically use one of three request

formulation methods: full diagnosis, problem-only, or solution-only. A full diagnosis

contains detailed description of context and problem along with solution options or

constraints. In the following diagnostic, the initiator describes her situation (‘never bought

or used one’), problem (‘unable to do anything requiring the use of more than one arm’), its

urgency (‘need one NOW’), and then constrains potential responses by offering options

(‘Target or Baby Depot’, ‘Toys R Us . . .much closer to me’), and excluding others (‘can’t

wait for shipping’).

[Where I can get a sling tonight – 1] I’ve seen nice slings on-line, but I need one NOW! I can’t wait for shipping. I am unable to do anything requiring the use of more than one arm now that Jake is awake so much more. I have never bought or used one before, so I’m wondering if Target or Baby Depot carry nice ones [ . . . ] Would Toys R Us carry them (much closer to me)? if anyone can recommend a brand that would be wonderful!

Some initiators only provide information on their problem without any solution

options or constraints, while others provide no detail about their problem informing, and

instead focus on potential solutions. In the next account, the participant seeks stroller

information from experienced mothers but provides no facts about her own background or

specific issues:

[Travel systems vs. strollers – 1] [ . . . ] I’ve heard mixed reviews about travel systems – the convenience of them is obvious, but I’ve also heard that the strollers are usually junk. What has been everyone’s experience [ . . . ]?

Solicitation of responders

Although some eWOM initiations indicate implicitly or explicitly that anyone can answer,

most initiations target specific eWOM givers. Targeted solicitation is accomplished

through the seeker’s use of categorization methods based on (1) responders’ experiences

or (2) responders’ profiles or positioned category memberships. By choosing different

categories of responders, eWOM initiators highlight different category features in hope of


yielding more relevant eWOM. The following messages variously indicate that responders

are entitled to provide advice only if (1) they have had a great product experience, (2)

occupy a high hierarchy position in the category, or (3) fit a narrow category such as

‘expecting #2 or more’ with children ‘2 years apart’.

[Diaper bags – 1] Has anyone gotten a diaper bag they love? I cannot find the right one.

[Best diapers – 1] For those experienced moms out there, what do you think is the best brand of disposable diapers? [ . . . ]

[Double stroller – 1] Was just wondering if anyone who is expecting #2 or more has any recommendations for double strollers. My little ones will basically be 2 years apart so I’m really looking around for a double stroller now [ . . . ]

Requested response framing

This analysis supports that eWOM seekers use their requests to frame the nature of

solicited advice. Per Bruner (1986), there are two ways of ordering experience in order to

find out about the world: paradigmatic and narrative. The paradigmatic mode is based on

formal tools of validation and empirical verification, whereas narrative is based on

internal, personal, specific, and context-dependent accounts (Deighton 1992). Findings

support that eWOM seekers use both routes in the requests. In contrast to the evidence-

based approach of the first posting (e.g., pro/cons, quantities, and cost), the responders to

the second one are expected to produce anecdotal descriptions of particular incidents or

actions and utilizing narrative tools such as of drama.

[Cloth vs. disposable diapers – 1] I was wondering the pros and cons of having cloth diapers. In my babybook it says a newborn usually goes through 80 diapers a week! I’m trying to save money but are cloth diapers worth the hassle when you add it all up?

[Two cribs or a big kid bed – 1] I’m interested to see what other people facing the 2under-2 situation are doing about this. My ds [dear son] will be about 17 months when the new baby arrives, which is early for a big boy bed – but he’s already the size of an 18month-old, so I’m worried that crib-climbing is coming up rapidly, and I don’t want to have to shell out for a whole new crib if ds [dear son] will only be in his for a month or two after the new baby arrives [ . . . ] I’ve thought about having the new baby sleep in the pack-n-play [ . . . ] for a while. I’ve also thought about getting a big-kid-bed [ . . . ] What are other people with small children doing about this, or what did you do if you’ve already been in the situation?

Summary

As summarized in Table 1, eWOM seekers organize their messages via the use of

categorization devices and their meaningful selection and execution of categories

determines the sense and essence of eWOM initiation (Vallis 2001). Although any given

eWOM initiation might not use each of the repertoire devices, we found that across all the

posts, the five main components and their respective rhetorical methods were consistently

used to build this part of the eWOM talk.

eWOM advice repertoire

A verbal expression becomes a eWOM advice when it occurs in a context wherein it serves

a specific communication goal or function such as responding to a question or providing

self-generated advice. As shown in Table 1, our analysis of eWOM advice revealed four

components: foundation of authority, advice framing, advice focus, and advice scheme.


Foundation of authority

Just as eWOM seekers need to establish legitimacy, a rhetorical imperative for eWOM

givers involves achieving ethos for the advice. Ethoic argument, wherein the character of

the speaker is used to transfer credibility to the advice (Walton 1996), is one of the three

Aristotelian modes of persuasion and is achieved by establishing competence (Galegher,

Sproull, and Kiesler 1998) via personal knowledge, referring to formal sources or

discussing personal experiences with the issue. In the posting below, a combination of

these methods is used to buttress the proffered advice:

[Where I can get a sling tonight – 9] [ . . . ] I have purchased an Over The Shoulder Baby Holder sling, upon recommendation of my neighbor who is a very experienced mom and a breastfeeding machine. I also did a lot of internet research, and decided this would fit my needs best. I have already received it, although I am still waiting for Baby #2 [ . . . ] I can tell that my newborn won’t get lost in it like my older son did with the Nojo [ . . . ]

Another device that eWOM givers use to establish authority is category-bound

inferences. Establishing that the eWOM giver belongs to a specific category of individuals

allows the recipient to make inferences about the giver’s character or knowledge. For

example, in response to a question about car seats, the responder below self-categorizes as

a ‘safety child seat fanatic’, thereby invoking relevant category-bound predicates. This

categorization implies that the poster is worth listening to because of her knowledge about

the subject.

[Strollers and car seats – 20] [ . . . ] I am a safety child seat fanatic!!! the graco snugride infant seat is rated one of the best and it goes for about $100 [ . . . ] I loved how it snapped on and off [ . . . ] I bought the matching stroller [ . . . ]

Providers of non-solicited advice face the added burden of legitimizing their claims

and gaining the group’s attention (Cuff and Francis 1978). One rhetorical method to

address this concern involves evidence of the existence of latent demand. As illustrated

below, a methodic device common to non-invited eWOM advice is the appeal to the ‘we

are in the same boat’ notion. Emphasis on homophily is designed to gain attention and trust

since homophilous individuals share similar needs (Feldman and Spencer 1965).

[Recommendation for all preggo – 1] Quaker Instant Oatmeal has a specially formulated line called Nutrition for Women [ . . . ] it helps ward off awful constipation [ . . . ] But the BEST part is I can actually stomach it with this terrible morning sickness!!! Just a thought for those of you who are in the same boat as I am, or those who are preparing for it!

Advice framing

In response to eWOM requests, eWOM advice followed two types of framings: through

reasoned arguments (paradigmatic) versus through narrative. The next example shows an

advice squarely based on logical arguments for/against the object of the eWOM.

[Diapers – what kind are you using? – 25] I have been using cloth diapers for about 18mos now with my first son [ . . . ] For me the reasons are as follows (in order of priority):

1. Minimizing contact with toxic chemicals (diapers contain the same ingredient that [ . . . ] 2. Environment. Human waste should be treated and not added to landfills [ . . . ] 3. Easier clean up. I actually did less laundry after switching [ . . . ] 4. Cost. Good quality cloth diapers will resell for a portion of their initial value [ . . . ]

The use of narrative as a method of advice-giving is consistent with the personalized

nature of experiences uncovered in previous WOM research (Richins and Root-Shaffer

1988). Narrative advice is particularly persuasive because of its ability to facilitate the


generation of thoughts by the audience and also enable behaviors and values modeling

(Deighton, Romer, and McQueen 1989; Sunwolf and Frey 2001). In response to a question

about using pacifiers, the following eWOM giver uses a narrative frame for her advice-

giving. Her series of anecdotal descriptions utilizes conflict (‘drives my dear husband

crazy’), pivotal experiences (‘my dad . . . told the nurse to get it’), drama (‘the ‘plug fairy’ came and exchanged them’), and emotions (‘I sucked one when I was little’) to persuade.

This personal, confession-style approach to advice-giving accentuates the sincerity and

personal exposure of the eWOM giver, granting trustworthiness to her claims (‘I would

rather them suck a pacifier’). A second example uses another narrative device to persuade:

a comedic dramatization of experience, as conveyed through an imagined script.

[Dummies/pacifiers – 5] [ . . . ] My ds [dear son] is 2 1/2 and he still uses his ‘binkie’ [ . . . ] it

drives my dh (dear husband) crazy that he uses it so much but it really doesn’t bother me, [ . . . ]

They gave us one in the hospital, he took to it right away, my dad is actually the one who told

the nurse to get it for him [ . . . ] both of my nephews had them till they were 3 or older and then

the ‘plug fairy’ came and exchanged them for toys, [ . . . ] I sucked one when I was little and

when my parents took it away I started sucking my thumb till I was in elementary school and

my teeth stick out a bit, I am waiting until after the baby and going to get checked for braces

cause they bother me so bad, so in my opinion, no debate, I would rather them suck a pacifier

than thumb or finger.

[Iron pills – 9] Did you challenge them? This is what happened to me: They gave me a bottle

of liquid iron and said ‘Take X tablespoons a day of this.’ I took it home, smelled it, and said

‘Heck no!’ So here comes the next appointment:

Are you taking your iron drops?

Ummm . . . .no.

Why not?

(Pause.) ‘Frankly, they smell like frog waste’.

(Rolls eyes.) ‘Put them in some orange juice and be done with it!’

Prove I have a deficiency and need them.

Give me your finger.

(Ahhh, crap! They called my bluff!) I held out my finger, they gave me a tiny stick, put my

blood on a test strip and stared at it. Levels were perfectly normal.

‘OK,’ says the doc. ‘You don’t have to take them’ [ . . . ]

Advice focus

The analysis reveals that eWOM givers might focus their advice content along object or

person-oriented lines. Using object-oriented commentaries ‘directs attention away from

human agency’ (Deighton, Romer, and McQueen 1989), thereby increasing the relevance

and appeal of message claims. This rhetorical method is akin to the product news in

Richins and Root-Shaffer’ research (1988). A common example of object-oriented advice

involves the use of product or brand comparisons:

[Breast pumps – 4] [ . . . ] Avent Isis: For a manual pump, very easy to use. Way too many parts [ . . . ] Priced right [ . . . ] Quiet, totally portable [ . . . ] Pump in style: Bigger, more expensive. Needs outlet or battery. Easy to use [ . . . ] Fewer parts to wash [ . . . ] Perfect for going back to work. [ . . . ] Good customer service [ . . . ]

When eWOM is person-oriented, it can focus either on the giver’s experience (self

referential) or the seeker’s situation (recipient-referential), as shown in the examples

below:

[Questions about bottles – 2] [ . . . ] I used the playtex nursers. I loved them. We never had a dishwasher and so it was so easy with the disposable inserts. When I had my 2nd she was a preemie and the nipples on the playtex was all that could fit in her mouth. I plan on using them again when I do give a bottle [ . . . ]


[Medela pumps – mini-electric vs. pump in style – 3] [ . . . ] I really liked it but did find it kinda bulky and took some time to set up [ . . . ] Since you are at home though that should not be a problem [ . . . ] the PIS is kinda expensive so if you are not going to use it that often then it might be better money wise to get a smaller one.

Advice schemes

This category of eWOM-giving rhetorical methods deals with the justifications or

refutations in the advice. The analysis is grounded in argumentation theory and follows a

pragmatic and contextual orientation in which arguments are analyzed not on formal rules

of logic but rather on their plausibility and ability to generate acceptance (Eemeren and

Grootendorst 1992). Thus, arguments are judged as good, correct, or reasonable as long as

they contribute to conversation goals (Walton 1996). Argumentation scholars have

developed inventories of the types of arguments schemes used in reasoning (Walton 1996;

Macoubrie 2003; Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992), with Walton’s 25-type (1996)

classification being the most detailed. Our analysis of eWOM advice schemes revealed six

argument scheme categories: reputation of advice giver scheme, proven solution advice

scheme, verbal classification advice scheme, reasoning advice scheme, consequence

advice scheme, and analogy advice scheme.

Reputation of advice giver scheme. Several rhetorical methods can be used to support

(undermine) eWOM advice by leveraging the superiority (inadequacy) of the giver. As

discussed, establishing one’s own personal authority (or citing reputable sources) allows

givers to gain the attention of eWOM seekers. However, this rhetorical method can also

serve as the actual argument to support the WOM claim. In the first example below, citing

third-party experts (‘our pediatrician’) support the argument claim. Experts can include

the poster herself, close family members, acquaintances, or a formal reference source. In

the second example, the responder categorizes her husband as a ‘nutritionist’, thereby

leveraging his expertise to build her own.

[Dummies – pacifiers – 5] I am not trying to have a debate, but our pediatrician told us with ds [dear son] that it is better for their teeth than sucking thumb [ . . . ] and it shouldn’t cause problems with buck teeth [ . . . ]

[Prenatal vitamins – 5] [ . . . ] Take a GNC Prenatal. You will feel better, and the baby will be getting the Proper vitamins. Why? Because the pills your Doctor gives you are synthetic. Natural vitamins are just like eating the mineral or vitamin in food. Synthetic vitamins block out nutritional food you are eating because they don’t match the synthetic version of the vitamin or mineral. My husband was a nutritionist and he abhors synthetic vitamins sold by Doctors and pharmacies. He threw away all my sample packs and said it would not do a body good [ . . . ] My doctor actually AGREED with my husband that naturals are better [ . . . ] She said the reason they give synthetic is because it is covered under insurance [ . . . ]

This last example is also indicative of advice schemes that use negative reputation effects

to undermine information by highlighting biases or ‘dark motives’ of a eWOM giver

(Walton 1996).

Advices can also be undermined through objections that point out inconsistencies

between a giver’s advice and behavior, or by simply questioning the character or reputation

of the eWOM giver (Meyers, Brashers, and Hanner 2000). The argument below, with its

strong, chastising, and non-negotiable claims, takes on the authority of a parental voice

(Dillon 1986).


[Teeth problems – 3] At the risk of sounding rude I will attempt to get my point across to you [ . . . ] If there are a lot of cavities in your mouth and some are moderate to deep [ . . . ] they were there for a while [ . . . ] Honestly when was the last time you had a dental check up and do you really care for your teeth the way you should? [ . . . ] It has nothing to do with calcium being removed from your body [ . . . ] Don’t tell me you do all of this because if you did you would not be in this situation [ . . . ]

Proven solution advice scheme. An eWOM giver can support her advice by illustrating

how the recommendation has worked for her or someone she knows, by showing that it is a

typical or most favored solution to the problem. ‘Advice by example’ seeks to prove a

point rather than simply serving as an anecdotal illustration, and it is a common method for

this (Walton 1996).

[Where I can get a sling tonight – 5] Just a word of caution *Try it before you buy it*. I bought the Nojo Dr Sears sling for Sam, he hated it until he was old enough to sit up. By that time, I hated it, because it dug into my shoulders [ . . . ] I am taking my baby with me when I go to get my baby bjorn. I have tried it on, and I like it-but I am not taking anymore chances on getting something I hate wearing [ . . . ]

In ‘advice from popularity’, the common use of the advice is the basic argument that

used to support the course of action:

[Strollers and car seats – 4] We bought the Evenflo Travel System. I would NEVER recommend it to anyone! The car seat is great, it is the stroller that is terrible (I am not the only one, MANY people I have talked to say the same thing) [ . . . ]

Verbal classification advice scheme. These arguments establish that a target is a member of

a category (e.g., a Japanese car) which has a known property (e.g., good resale value).

Based on the classification, the target is inferred to also possess the property (Walton 1996).

In the next example, the giver explicitly declares that she is eccentric and thus, assuming

category-bound inferences, we should expect that she would not like a minivan (something

not eccentric). Yet, she rhetorically uses this counter-dispositional construction in order to

support that her recommendation of minivans over SUVs is factually even more robust

because of its reluctant nature (Potter and Edwards 2001).

[Vroooom – 9] My hubby and I are a bit eccentric (tattoos, lost track of the body piercings) and I would never think of myself as the mini-van type but that is what we have to have now. I love the way SUV’s look and feel but they drink up the gas. And I feel like we would just be throwing that money away every month. I am planning to buy a Dodge Caravan. They get great gas mileage and have a good safety rating. They also have higher trade-in values [ . . . ]

Reasoning advice scheme. A broad set of rhetorical methods falls under this heading,

including cause and effect, correlations, established rule, and evidence to a hypothesis

(Walton 1996). These methods use empirical evidence or some objective rule to link

advice with desired properties. For example, in the correlation advice method, justification

rests on showing the co-occurrence of two phenomena. When a participant states that

‘allowing your child to sleep with you anywhere, other than their own crib or bassinet,

raises the risk of SIDs by about 14%’, she uses correlation to argue against the practice of

bed sharing. Similarly, when a participant declares that ‘My kids broke out in hives if

anything “accidentally” was washed in the regular loads with Cheer’, she uses cause and

effect to recommend against using Cheer. Rule-based advice is a rhetorical method in

which the sole conclusion of a reasoning process serves as a guiding principle (e.g.,

‘anything that has enzymes is more likely to cause allergies’). This articulation can be


quite formal, with the eWOM giver providing empirical evidence, a formal hypothesis and

conclusions from her trial.

[Dreft – can you use something else? – 7] I never once bought a baby detergent with either of my children, and have no intentions of doing so with this one. I washed all of their clothes in whatever I was washing our clothes in, and they never had a problem. No skin rashes, nothing. I don’t see the point in buying separate detergent, doing separate loads, etc, when regular detergent does the same job for a lot less money.

Consequence advice scheme. Consequence advice schemes also focus on decision

outcomes, but attempt to delineate the ultimate (or long term) consequences of the

outcome, as in the below post:

[Amnio – 2] [ . . . ] the real question is, would you keep the baby either way? For me, the baby I get is what I get so whether he/she is Down Syndrome or something else doesn’t change the fact that I’m having the baby. So in my case an amnio wouldn’t do me much good except cause me worry before I need to.

Often, evaluations of consequences are based on value judgments (Macoubrie 2003)

and moral justifications as in the next post. The use of phrases such as ‘should be’ and

‘supposed to be’ emphasizes the environmentalist value in the advice (Dillon 1986).

[Diapers – what kind are you using? – 25] [ . . . ] Human waste should be treated and not added to landfills where it can contaminate water supplies, etc. Feces on disposables are supposed to be shaken into the toilet and flushed, but rarely is. The urine cannot be shaken and ends up in our garbage dumps. Diapers are also made from non-renewable resources and take a very long time to decompose.

The slippery slope justification scheme is a type of consequence-based advice that warns

that if a eWOM seeker takes a first step or accepts a basic premise, she will find herself caught

up in an almost infinite series of gradual consequences leading to a problematic outcome

(Walton 1996). In the next example, the eWOM giver warns of such potential consequences,

arguing that if one examines the content of every food item and worries about all potential

issues, one will have to stop eating, and thus it is better to avoid starting down that path.

[Food warnings – 4] [ . . . ] I too have read lots on the case against lunch meat and decided to only have it occasionally. [ . . . ] Personally I think in today’s society you’d have to eliminate almost everything to have a perfect healthy pregnancy [ . . . ] My personal advice is to choose the things to eliminate that could cause serious birth defects and go from there.

Analogy advice scheme. This kind of justification is used to argue for one case based on its

similarity to another. It includes justifications from comparison, analogy, and practical

reasoning. Analogy advice schemes can be drawn between eWOM protagonists or

between situations. In the following example, the eWOM giver uses a personal analogy to

express her common concern with the seeker, in hope that she too might become a convert:

[OT – anyone buy from Amazon? – 4] I too was a seeeeeerious CHICKEN about on-line shopping, even though all my relatives and friends were doing it. I shopped from Amazon several times recently and had absolutely no problems [ . . . ] I totally understand where you’re coming from b/c I’ve been a victim of ID fraud [ . . . ] and it’s SUCH A PAIN to get straightened out! On the other hand, you don’t want to let the fear run your life, right?

Summary

Our analysis of numerous eWOM responses suggests that some sort of common template is

operating in their formulation and that WOM givers have access to a repertoire of


advice-giving components (i.e., foundation of authority, advice framing, advice focus, and

advice scheme) with corresponding rhetorical methods (see Table 1). Even though

individual responses are constructed through the specifics of an interaction, similar

templates operate across conversations. WOM advice is the accomplishment of local

practices made by a WOM giver as part of her being engaged in a categorical bounded

activity and a conversation in which a WOM seeker provides the gist of the WOM

conversation through her initial request.

Insights into the effectiveness of different WOM strategies

Although a careful understanding of the effectiveness of (and conditions for) each advice-

seeking or advice-giving eWOM methods is an important practical and research issue, it is

beyond the scope of this study or our data. This would implicate a far-reaching research

where the answer of ‘it depends’ is likely to unfold over many specially designed studies,

and where new models would have to be tested against or integrated with other recent

models of eWOM effectiveness (e.g., Cheung and Thadani 2012). Still, we provide a

preliminary step in advancing this goal using the current data and extract two separate

eWOM conversations to provide (1) illustrations of the dynamics and relationships

between different methods of eWOM-seeking and eWOM-giving and (2) evidence of the

impact of eWOM talk.

Our data support the operation of eWOM conversational systems: eWOM givers and

receivers converse in orderly and meaningful ways throughout their interaction such that

their exchanges, although performed across time and locations, cohere. Critical for an

exchange to be judged as successful is alignment of responses against questioning goals.

When eWOM advice is provided in response to a request, the successful eWOM giver

carefully hears the rhetorics in the request so as to produce advice aligned with the

initiator’s specific goal. It is not the selections of a superior advice rhetorical method that

will determine success. It is the ability to deliver against the seeker’s via a careful selection

of aligned rhetorical methods. Alignment reflects not just attention to the problem being

posed, but also to the precise context in which the advice-seeker is operating and the

categorization of his/her circumstances and needs.

In the first conversation below, Trish turns to the community to seek advice on where

to locate decorative elements for her nursery. We provide a sample of the many answers

she received. What is patently clear is that Trish’s request has been perceived as legitimate

and several members go well out of their way to provide recommendations or actively

search for solutions. The participants converse in orderly and meaningful ways such that

the talk cumulatively demonstrates a coherent social activity, the purpose of which is to

solve the problem of the advice-seeker.

[BUGS . . . can anyone help???? – Trish] Ok . . . I am driving myself batty, because I have been trying to find a store or website or ANYTHING who carries either framed pictures of bugs . . . in pastels, like the greens, yellows, blues, pinks, purples, OR even little wooden cut out bugs . . .Our nursery is light yellow and lime green, and I have SEEN pictures and such, but NOT in stores . . . like in magazines and such, nursery pics, etc . . . and I NEED to finish my decor. I only need about 4–5 things, depending on their sizes . . . but anyone have actual stores, or even better, websites I could look at??? Thanks!!! Bugs, like dragonflies, bumblebees, and even Frogs, snails.. you get me, right??

[Natasha] I would try Pottery Barn, Target (in the store they have pottery barn nock off’s you may find.) If they aren’t the style you are looking for, check out a framing store. An independently owned one will have books and books of prints you can get to truly find anything you are looking for. My mom did that for years working for a framing shop and we


had the neatest stuff on the walls! Anyway, custom framing stores can be expensive, but you can get the print separately and then go get a frame yourself rather than a custom one. It varies. The other thing I think you could do would be to find a private baby boutique shop. You’d be suprised what you find in the yellow pages. I know that my boutique near me had books and books and sometimes already framed theme prints. You might find the type you are looking for. Sorry no links, but I hope this gives you some ideas! If you are trying to go cheaper, try buying an illustrated book and framing some pages, or a calendar, etc. It’s all in how big the budget is . . .

[Heidi] Hope these help:

http://www.allposters.com/***[ . . . ] http://www.beyondposters.com/***[ . . . ]

[Robin] Check eBay for Pottery Barn Kids items. I remember seeing some wall art with bugs (maybe knock-offs, but still cute).

[Megan] Trish, my friend did a similar theme for her [dear daughter] nursery . . . she got some pastel butterflies and dragon flies at target.

[Cathleen] I don’t know if you have Kohl’s or Bed Bath and Beyond near you, but both tend to have pictures like that, especially this time of year. They also have great sales on framed art, so you probably wouldn’t have to pay a fortune. Give them a try if you can.

[Maria] Here are some things I found . . .

Wallpaper border: http://www.usawallpaper.com/***[ . . . ]

Personalized: http://www.peekabooart.com/***[ . . . ] I’m still looking though . . .

[Sandra] Your local fabric/craft store may have stuff. Look in the scrapbook section. Also check out the juvenile prints and you may find a cute fabric too. Ah, even the garden stuff may have something thing could sit on a dresser or go on the wall. Bugs are popular in summer so now’s the time to look.

A central theme from this and other conversations is that members of the community

produced eWOM conversations that tended to follow cooperative principles (Grice 1975).

This is further reinforced when Trish returns to the conversation, thanks and acknowledges

the group, and signals that she will follow some of the eWOM advice. Just as telephone

callers have an obligation to close the conversation (Psathas 1999), eWOM seekers have an

obligation to monitor the talk and find a place where a closing message can be produced.

[Trish] thanks alot ladies . . . I will be looking today!!! I appreciate your time!!].

However, what is probably even more revealing is a second close posted a bit later by

Trish. In it, Trish singles out Megan’s advice as particularly relevant and impactful, and

indicates that she used the website to look for the items and will now go to her local store

to try to buy them.

[Trish] Megan . . . thanks . . . I saw the prints I LOVE in the Target.com mag, and can’t find them ANYWHERE on the website, so I’m going to the store . . .

Without further probing Trish, we cannot be sure why Megan’s advice ended up the

one most likely to be followed. However, a closer analysis of this eWOM conversation

reveals that Megan was the only responder to address Trish by her name, thus

personalizing her answer and categorizing Trish as an individual. Furthermore, as we look

back at Trish’s request, we see that Trish did not want just any advice, she too had

categorized herself as a unique person and wanted advice from people who understood her

quest: ‘you get me, right??’ When Megan discussed how her friend had done a similar

theme, she was able to signal that she had relevant experience with the issue and she

understood Trish and the problem at hand. Although quite short in comparison to some of

the other posts, Megan’s advice used a well-aligned collection of rhetorical methods that

made it successful. The other participants, although well-meaning provided eWOM that

http://www.allposters.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;http://www.allposters.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;http://www.allposters.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;http://www.beyondposters.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.beyondposters.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.beyondposters.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.usawallpaper.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.usawallpaper.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.usawallpaper.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.peekabooart.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.peekabooart.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]http://www.peekabooart.com/&ast;&ast;&ast;[…]


was too object-focused, not focused enough on Trish, and in general not well aligned with

the request rhetorics.

The overarching principle that when eWOM response provides information that is

substantially and rhetorically aligned with and tailored to the eWOM request, the advice is

followed. The following conversation example also demonstrates this principle.

[Baby monitors . . . Steph] Anyone have any favorites? I just saw (well [dear husband] did) that Sony has one . . . if anyone knows anything about this please, I’d LOVE feedback. Also, if you have a fav or HATE one type, please let me know.

[Mira] When I registered for my monitor I looked on the Babies’R Us webpage and looked at the ratings. I registered and got the Sony monitor. We set it up and everything is fine. It is really clear and you can charge it and then walk around the house with it on your belt or go outside even. I really like it. It got really good ratings. Of course I haven’t had my baby yet so I’m not sure how it will be with him here but my husband and I have fun with it.

[Amanda] I have a fisher price one from YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS ago . . . and it works great. My only problem with SONY anything is they are stupid with their adaptors . . . everything is so speciallized with sony, a sony anything will only work with a SONY adaptor and the adaptors for a sony product are NOT cheap. (45$ for the ac adaptor for a kids radio that only cost 50$ to begin with) If it comes with the adapters I can see it being ok but honestly I have replaced my adaptors for my fisher price moniters because they have worn out (my oldest ds is 12 . . . really that is not that unusall especailly since I have a dayhome and have used it pretty much steady for 12 years).

[Steph] Thanks Mira and Amanda for your feedback. Its good to hear from someone who HAS the Sony one I like the idea of having it ‘rechargable’ . . .mucho savings on the batteries!! They don’t sell them in Canada (where I am) but I’m only about 20 min from the Washington border and will just head over there early this week to buy one Better go EARLY this week, as I don’t need to have my baby in the USA!!! Wouldn’t THAT be something!?

Again, we see that the advice that carries the day is the one most aligned with the request:

providing specific and constructive details about the Sony product in question. Amanda’s

general rant on Sony and its power adaptors was too focused on the eWOM giver and did

very little to influence the seeker. However, Mira’s first-person direct experience with

the product ‘Its good to hear from someone who HAS the Sony’ and the discussion of the

object’s unique features closed the deal and were enough to compel Step to cross the

border to buy it.

Summary

Our ethnomethodological analysis of eWOM talk has revealed a rich and varied set of

rhetorical methods that participants use to construct eWOM exchanges. While there is a

large potential repertoire for individual messages, we have also observed that patterns

emerge. An eWOM conversation is not the product of isolated practices determined by the

participants’ independent preferences and personalities. Instead, eWOM talks are

assembled achievements emerging from the collaborative work of participants who try to

cooperate with the eWOM seeker and constantly monitor the unfolding interactions. We

cannot support that any specific advice-seeking rhetorical methods or advice-giving

rhetorical methods are more effective than others per se. However, the activities of seeking

advice or recommendations, and providing advice, warnings, or recommendations are only

one part of the activities in eWOM talk. Participants’ other tasks are those of interacting in a

social group where they are monitoring their own and the other members’ social identity

orientations, motivations, purposes of interactions, and intra-community relationships. This

constant and careful monitoring and signaling is key to eWOM effectiveness.


Discussion and future research

By directly observing the full content of WOM conversations from both sides of the

seeker–giver dyad and categorizing the rhetorical methods in this content, we provide new

understanding of WOM in social media. Analysis of the repertoires of rhetorical methods in

eWOM talk codifies the communicative processes used to seek and provide eWOM

information. Our taxonomy of the rhetorical methods used in the construction of WOM talk

is not the first attempt at codifying WOM content, but it differs from prior proposals in

important ways. Rather than codifying the amount or valence of content, we specify the

discursive and argumentation aspects of content as it is woven into the conversations

between seekers and givers. The framework offers a singular and novel way to

conceptualize, categorize, and analyze online eWOM. A second theoretical implication is

that the analysis exposes eWOM conversations as social achievements emerging from the

collaborative work of participants. eWOM talk is more than the instrumental exchange of

relevant information about a brand, product, or service: it is a social act that serves an

innately communal function and has the power to affect actions.

These findings have numerous practical implications. As discussed, social media

remains enigmatic and nebulous, and managers often do not know how, when, or where to

participate in or influence conversations (Divol, Edelman, and Sarrazin 2012). Building on

Divol et al.’s framework, results from this research have relevance to the following social

media activities: monitoring, responding, supporting amplification and the spread of

information, and leading opinions and behavior. Armed with knowledge of eWOM

rhetorics, online marketing community managers can be better informed on how to listen,

what to listen to, and how to engage, be responsive and ultimately communicate with their

online communities. Bloggers might learn how to more effectively tailor the language in

their online posts to achieve greater impact. Marketing managers can develop more

specific guidelines on how company employees might use and recognize rhetorical talk

devices so as to enhance effectiveness in online communication via tools such as Twitter,

Linkedin, Facebook, YouTube, or company blogs. Companies may be more effective in

seeding communications targeted to hubs and influencers, with the right language and

talking points framed with the most appropriate rhetorical devices in mind. When

customer representatives react to customer problems or crisis or participate in online chat

sessions they can be better equipped to respond with the right rhetorical methods by being

more aware and able to recognize and react to the rhetorical devices used by the customers

initiating the feedback. In the age of consumer-to-consumer (C-2-C) communication

where viral quality and message amplification are key, it would also appear that rhetorical

methods might have an impact on outcomes. It would be helpful if marketing executives

could ensure that their messages are framed using rhetorical devices that ensure maximum

amplification and spread.

With a sound typology of basic eWOM rhetorical devices used in social media and basic

evidence of their overall potential impact, we propose future research that systematically

investigates the effectiveness of these methods. Studies are needed that can confirm and

extend preliminary evidence suggesting the power of alignment between the strategies of

WOM givers and receivers such that valid practical guidance can be obtained. Although

there might exist rhetorical methods which are more effective across all situations, the

current data suggest that it is more important that the right rhetorical method should be used

at the right time given the nature of a eWOM question at hand and the specifics of a social

media context. It is essential to develop a more detailed contingency model of the

conditions under which some rhetorical methods are successful and others are not.


A contingency understanding could build on the existing models (e.g., Cheung and

Thadani 2012) but would also have to take into account factors that qualify the socio

communal context (Fournier and Lee 2009) in which the information sharing takes place,

including, for example: community form (e.g., pool, hub, and web), the type of

participants, community script (e.g., barn raising, tribe, performance space, etc.), the stage

of community development (e.g., getting acquainted, maturity, etc.), operative relational

norms (e.g., exchange or communal), the characteristics of the conversation context, the

nature of the focal eWOM subject, etc. Future research should also measure actual

behavior or other behavioral outcomes of interest (e.g., behavior intention, pass-along,

satisfaction, etc.) if an understanding of relative effectiveness is the goal.

Limitations of this research should also be considered in formulating implications and

future research agendas. This study concentrated on eWOM within a particular online

social media environment. Although the context was uniquely suited to this research, and

we believe that most of the findings are relevant for other online settings, practitioners

should listen intently to online conversations in their environments and consider the

particular social media contexts within which eWOM occurs. WOM practices – online or

offline – will be, to some extent, unique to each product or social context and might differ

across social media platforms (Smith, Fischer, and Yongjian 2012). For example, product

review sites contain comments mainly from eWOM advice-givers, and therefore, the

question–answer structure of the talk might not be as relevant and the same repertoires of

rhetorical methods may not exist. The overall community ethos of a given site might also

impact how participants structure conversations. For instance, would a ‘geeky community

of techies’ use similar communication processes and argumentations modes? This is again

an empirical question. What is clear is that marketers should attempt to develop a

rhetorical mapping of the eWOM talk encountered in their specific situations. A contextual

and cultural analysis will provide an understanding of how context shapes eWOM

practices.

Second, the off-line validity of our findings remains an empirical question. Because of

its mostly written nature, eWOM cannot convey voice modulations, non-words sounds,

facial expressions, or body language (Harris 2000). Moreover, everyday speech is a

spontaneous and evanescent communication form, whereas written communication tends

to be more permanent and planned (Jahandarie 1999). Finally, online communities bring

together individuals with little mutual knowledge and relatively weak ties (Schindler and

Bickart 2005). Therefore, findings should not be blindly extrapolated to traditional WOM

contexts wherein different dynamics may apply.

Third, our insights came from C-2-C conversations and one might wonder if the same

rhetorical principles apply when companies are doing some of the talking. If one compares

traditional B-2-C marketing communications wherein messaging is a ‘top-down’ and

largely one-way communication flow, then marketers and consumers do not communicate

in the same manner. However, if one considers the ways in which marketers and

consumers communicate in web 2.0 environments, then a different set of rules and patterns

apply (Fournier and Avery 2011; Pitt et al. 2006). In web 2.0 and social media

environments, where consumers and marketers are often co-creators of brand and message

content, communication is no longer ‘top-down’ but instead about having and facilitating

conversations and building engagement. In these environments, successful marketers have

to be able to converse as members of the social network and community. Although

marketers likely have a clear commercial agenda, if they want to be seen as partners and

collaborators then they need to speak the ‘local language’. Of course, this is something that

should again be empirically tested and researched.


Fourth, since most participants in our research site were women, future research should

consider whether gender issues may be at play. Because gender has been shown to affect

communication styles, and women have been characterized as more communal (Brunel

and Nelson 2000; Tannen 1990), this might have an impact on the nature and content of

the WOM rhetorical methods and practices we have uncovered.

Finally, expanding further on the importance of context, future research should explore

further the longitudinal dynamics of eWOM interactions. eWOM interactions conducted

at a certain development stage in the community’s life span may have consequences for

the shape, form, trajectory, content, or character of the eWOM interaction (Schegloff

1991). It is accepted that communicative practices and community rituals play a key role

in online community development (Toder-Alon, Brunel, and Schneier-Siegal 2005), and

research should investigate how eWOM practices shape and are shaped by community

development processes. Insight is needed into the relationship between the conditions of

interaction (e.g., participants’ perceived community belongingness) and the use of

different methods of eWOM rhetoric. Using longitudinal analysis of WOM exchanges

within a community, the reasons and the ways in which different methods of WOM

rhetoric change over the life of a community can be known. Also, future research can

examine the various social and psychological factors that occasion the production,

reproduction, or modification of different WOM practices in different types of

communities (e.g., mix-gendered communities, communities of purpose, communities

of practice, and communities of interest).

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based on a doctoral dissertation written by the first author under the supervision of the second author. The authors wish to acknowledge the help of Professors George Psathas, Patrick J. Kaufmann, and Douglas B. Holt.

Notes

1. Email: [email protected] 2. Email: [email protected]

Notes on contributors

Anat Toder-Alon is an assistant professor in the Peres Academic Center in Israel. At Peres Academic Center, she teaches in the undergraduate and MBA programs. She primarily teaches Marketing Management, Brand Management, and Consumer Behavior courses. Prior to PAC, Anat was working as a staff researcher at Boston University Institute for Leading in a Dynamic Economy. Her primary research interests include word-of-mouth rhetorical methods, development of relationships within online communities, and the impact of social capital and connectedness on word-of-mouth rhetorical methods. She holds a DBA from Boston University, and an MA and a BA from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Frédéric F. Brunel is an associate professor and Dean’s Research Fellow at Boston University. Brunel leverages research at the intersection of social psychology and anthropology to inform two domains of marketing: consumer relationships and product design. He has special interests in consumption communities online and offline, word-of-mouth dynamics, and aesthetic response styles and skill sets. Current research projects explore the processing of consumer-generated advertising, consumer evaluations of mass customization toolkits for new products, and the link between product design and product personality. He earned a PhD from the University of Washington, an MBA from Illinois State University, and a BS degree from Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Commerciales d’Angers (ESSCA) Angers, France.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


Susan Fournier is a professor and Dean’s Research Fellow at Boston University and Visiting Professor at I.A.E. Grenoble, France. Fournier founded the brand relationships subfield and maintains a portfolio of research that explores the creation and capture of value through branding and brand relationships. Current projects explore the links between brand strategy and shareholder value, brand co-creation and consumer-generated content, the management of person-brands, the power and process of brand parodies, metrics for brand strength, attachment style effects on brand relationships, and the lived experiences of select brand relationships such as flings and adversaries. Fournier holds a PhD from University of Florida, an MS from The Pennsylvania State University, and a BSBA from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She consults with a range of clients to inform her teaching and research.

References

Arndt, Johan. 1967. “Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product.” Journal of Marketing Research 4 (Aug.): 291–295.

Blumer, Herbert. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brunel, Frédéric F., and Michelle R. Nelson. 2000. “Gender Responses to ‘Help-Self’ and ‘Help-Others’ Charity Ad Appeals: An Analysis of the Mediating Role of World-Views and Values.” Journal of Advertising 24 (Autumn): 15–28.

Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Christiansen, Timothy, and Stephen S. Tax. 2000. “Measuring Word of Mouth in Consumer

Research: The Questions of Who and When.” Journal of Marketing Communication 6 (Sep.): 185–199.

Cheung, C. M., and D. R. Thadani. 2012. “The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Communication: A Literature Analysis and Integrative Model.” Decision Support Systems 54: 461–470.

Cuff, E. C., and David W. Francis. 1978. “Some Features of ‘Invited Stories’ About Marriage Breakdown.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 18: 111–133.

Deighton, John. 1992. “The Consumption of Performance.” Journal of Consumer Research 19 (Dec.): 362–372.

Deighton, John, Daniel Romer, and Josh McQueen. 1989. “Using Drama to Persuade.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (Dec.): 335–343.

Dillon, George L. 1986. Rhetoric as Social Imagination: Explorations in the Interpersonal Functions of Language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Divol, Roxane, David Edelman, and Hugo Sarrazin. 2012, April. “Denystifying Social Media.” Marketing & Sales Practice, McKinsey Quaterly. McKinsey & Company.

Dobele, Angela R., and Tony Ward. 2002. “Categories of Word-of-Mouth Referrers.” ANZMAC (Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference), Melbourne.

Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Feldman, Sidney P., and Merlin C. Spencer. 1965. “The Effect of Personal Influence in the Selection of Consumer Services.” In Marketing and Economic Development, edited by P. Bennett, 440–452. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Fournier, Susan, and Jill Avery. 2011. “The Uninvited Brand.” Business Horizons, Special Issue on Web 2.0, Consumer-Generated Content, and Social Media 54, pp. 193–207.

Fournier, Susan, and Lara Lee. 2009. “Getting Brand Community Right.” Harvard Business Review, Apr.: 105–111.

Frenzen, Jonathan, and Kent Nakamoto. 1993. “Structure, Cooperation, and the Flow of Market Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (Dec.): 360–375.

Galegher, Jolene, Lee Sproull, and Sara Kiesler. 1998. “Legitimacy, Authority and Community in Electronic Support Groups.” Written Communication 15: 493–530.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1996. “Ethnomethodology’s Program.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (Mar.): 5–21.

Godes, David, and Dina Mayzlin. 2004. “Using Online Conversations to Study Word of Mouth Communication.” Marketing Science 23 (Fall): 545–560.

Granitz, Neil A., and James C. Ward. 1996. “Virtual Community: A Sociocognitive Analysis.” In Advances in Consumer Research, edited by K. P. Corfman and J. G. Lynch Jr, 161–166. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.


Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

Gupta, Shankar. 2006. “Marketers Need to Heed Negative Buzz” Online Media Daily, February 28. www.mediapostpublications.

Harris, Godfrey. 2000. Let Your Fingers Do the Talking: Using Word of Mouth Advertising on the Internet. Oxford, UK: Management Books 2000 Ltd.

Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh, and Dwayne D. Gremler. 2004. “Electronic Word-of-mouth Via Consumers-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet?” Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (Winter): 38–52.

Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin. 1997. “Membership Categorization Analysis: An Introduction.” In Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, edited by Hester Stephen and Peter, 1–24. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Jahandarie, K. 1999. Spoken and Written Discourse: A Multi-disciplinary Perspective. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Kozinets, Robert V., Kristine de Valck, Andrea C. Wojnicki, and Sarah J. S. Wilner. 2010. “Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities.” Journal of Marketing 74 (2): 71–89.

Laczniak, Russel N., Thomas E. DeCarlo, and Sridhar N. Ramaswami. 2001. “Consumer’s Responses to Negative Word-of-Mouth Communication: An Attribution Theory Perspective.” Communication: An Attribution Theory Perspective, 11 (1): 57–73.

Lemus, Daisy, David Seibold, Andrew Flanagin, and Miriam Metzger. 2004. “Argument and Decision Making in Computer-Mediated Groups.” Journal of Communication 54 (Jun.): 302–320.

Macoubrie, J. 2003. “Logical Argument Structures in Decision-Making.” Argumentation 17 (3): 291–313.

Mangold, Glynn W., Fred Miller, and Gary R. Brockway. 1999. “Word-of-Mouth Communication in the Service Marketplace.” The Journal of Services Marketing 13 (1): 73–89.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meyers, Renee A., Dale E. Brashers, and Jeniffer Hanner. 2000. “Majority/Minority Influence:

Identifying Argumentative Patterns and Predicting Argument-Outcomes Links.” Journal of Communication 50 (Dec.): 3–30.

Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167; in Genre and the New Rhetoric, edited by A. Freedman and P. Medway, 23–42. London: Taylor and Francis.

Pitt, Leyland, Richard T. Watson, Pierre Berthon, Donald Wynn, and George Zinkhan. 2006. “The Penguin’s Window: Corporate Brands From an Open-Source Perspective.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (2): 115–127.

Potter, Jonathan, and Derek Edwards. 2001. “Discursive Social Psychology.” In The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, edited by W. Peter Robinson and Howard Giles, 103–118. Chichester: Wiley.

Psathas, George. 1999. “Studying the Organization in Action: Membership Categorization and Interaction.” Human Studies 22 (Oct.): 139–162.

Richins, Marsha L., and Teri Root-Shaffer. 1988. “The Role of Involvement and Opinion Leadership in Consumer Word-of-Mouth: An Implicit Model Made Explicit.” Advances in Consumer Research 15: 32–36.

Sacks, Harvey. 1974. “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children.” In Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings, edited by Turner. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.

Sacks, Harvey. 1992 [1972]. Lectures on Conversation, edited by G. Jefferson. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Schau, Hope Jensen, and Mary C. Gilly. 2003. “We Are What We Post? The Presentation of Self in Personal Webspace.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (Dec.): 385–404.

Schegloff, Emanuel. 1991. “Reflections on Talk and Social Structure Studies.” In Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, edited by D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman, 44–70. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Schindler, Robert M., and Barbara Bickart. 2005. “Published ‘Word of Mouth’: Referable, Consumer-Generated Information on the Internet.” In Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and Influencing Behavior in the Virtual World, edited by Curtis Hauvgedt, Karen Machleit, and Richard Yalch, 35–61. Mahawan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

www.mediapostpublications


Sch

Date post:	18-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Word-of-mouth rhetorics in social media talk · detailed understanding of eWOM content is needed in...

Documents