Article

Developing a Model for Studying Jindal Journal of Business Research

6(1) 25–43
the Antecedents and Effects of © 2017 O.P. Jindal Global University
SAGE Publications
Word of Mouth (WoM) and sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2278682117700307
e-WoM Marketing Based http://jjbr.sagepub.com

on Literature Review

Deepti Srivastava1
Ruppal Walia Sharma2

Abstract
Word of mouth (WoM) marketing is a key ingredient of interactive marketing, involving consumers
and converting them into spokespersons for the company. The scope of published research on WoM
is broad and spans a long period of time. However, it is not since the advent of social media that
WoM or electronic-Word of Mouth (e-WoM) has become a measurable means of communication,
making work on e-WoM recent and scarce. Also, existing work pertains to developed economies
and there is a potential scope of study in the context of developing nations like India, where the
focus is shifting to digitalization in a huge way. To understand the impact of WoM and social media,
an attempt has been made to divide literature into drivers, measures, and effects of WoM. Number
of variables emerge and can be used to measure the three identified categories. These variables can
also be consolidated to establish causal links between drivers and effects of WoM. WoM has been
conceptualized as the traditional communication model (Cheung & Thadani, 2010) and input–process–
output model (Chan & Ngai, 2010) in the past, but these models take into account only a few variables
that are linked into a causal relationship. By providing a consolidated guideline on drivers, measures,
and effects of WoM, this article attempts to provide a roadmap for corporate/academic research on
cause–effect relationship of WoM, as well as conduct fresh research in the context of developing
economies.

Keywords
Word of mouth, social media, electronic word of mouth, drivers of word of mouth, measures of word
of mouth, effect of word of mouth

1
Scholar, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi, India.
2
Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi, India.

Corresponding author:
Ruppal Walia Sharma, Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), IIFT Bhawan, B-21 Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi - 110016, India.
E-mail: ruppal@iift.edu
26 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

Introduction
Word of mouth (WoM) communication, a powerful force in the market place (Buttle, 1998; Carl, 2008;
Samson, 2010), is revisited by corporates as the new means of marketing communication for improving
customer satisfaction and loyalty (Magnini, 2011; Swanson & Kelley, 2001; Sweeney, Soutar, & Mazzarol,
2012). Social media is a phenomenal change in communication (Di Pietro, Di Virgilio, & Pantano, 2012;
Dotson, 2009; Heinze & Fletcher, 2011; Kilian, Hennigs, & Langner, 2012). It offers companies tremen-
dous opportunity to listen to their consumers, to engage them, and even influence their conversations
(Bruhn, Schoenmueller, & Schafer, 2012). To harness the potential of WoM, corporates are recognizing and
exploiting the power of social media (Haywood, 1989; Sashi, 2012). In fact, strong social communities
strengthen the relationship between brand and consumers over a period of time (Claro & Bortoluzzo, 2015).
WoM has a greater impact than other means of communication (Buttle, 1998), with a number of rea-
sons for rising significance. First, marketing communication is losing its impact (Bughin, Doogan, &
Vetvik, 2010), buyers now relying on other “credible” sources such as expert opinion and WoM. Second,
consumers are constantly bombarded with advertisement clutter (Degraffenreid, 2006; Magnini, 2011)
which addresses the fast diminishing homogeneity of audience (Deloitt, 2012; The Economist, 2006).
Varying customer needs and greater product variety creates need for more specific communication.
Third, cost of traditional media has been increasing, whereas social media is a “free” channel (Fournier
& Avery, 2010). Fourth, WoM referrals have longer carryover effects than traditional marketing (Trusov,
Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009). These referrals probably have a greater impact on social media which is
considered to be a less biased source of information (Dotson, 2009).
The accessibility, reach, and transparency of the Internet have enabled marketers to influence and
monitor WoM as never before (Trusov et al., 2009), especially the social media, with new marketing
opportunities available on this platform (Bruhn et al., 2012; Gong, Li, & Stump, 2007). The “role of fun
provided by the social network” improves attitude toward engagement in electronic-WoM (e-WoM)
communication on social media (Di Pietro et al., 2012). WoM on the social media is easier to observe
and measure; and easier to stimulate and influence because of high visibility and previously posted com-
ments (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006b; Fay & Thomson, 2013). WoM marketing strategies will benefit
from research on what categories of customers are recommending the business, what are they recom-
mending and what is prompting them to do so (Stokes, Ali Syed, & Lomax, 2002).

Research Methodology
The purpose of studying previous literature on WoM is owing to three reasons. One, though there is
ample study on the WoM and e-WoM, few studies consolidate these researches into a comprehensive
review of literature. Two, this study makes an attempt to provide future researches direction and purpose
by highlighting the gaps as well as providing a model for studying the cause–effect relationship between
the drivers and effects of WoM (Figure 1). Three, the study provides an opportunity for researchers of
e-WoM to replicate the study of offline WoM, thereby saving time for building new scales and models.
Leading peer reviewed journals were scanned manually as well as from online data base sources to
extract relevant articles/cases/research papers. The papers were shortlisted on the criteria of relevance to
the topic, peer reviewed cases, conceptual/theoretical papers (throwing new light on the topic), and
empirical researches. The papers date as back as 1989 and cover newer researches till 2016, spanning
over two and a half decades.
Srivastava and Sharma 27

Figure 1.  Suggested Model for Studying the Causal Relationship between Drivers and Effects of WoM
Source: Authors’ own.

Stages of research involved searching for relevant research papers in online data base sources such as
Emerald, Ebsco, Proquest, etc. Following key words/phrases used in the search, word of mouth, e-word
of mouth, word of mouth on social media. Manual search of leading journals was also conducted to
ensure no major work has been left out.
The article has been divided into the following heads: Literature on Word of Mouth, Literature on
WoM on Social Media, Drivers or Causes of WoM, Measures of Word of Mouth, Effects of WoM,
Further Scope and Research Propositions for Future Studies.

Word of Mouth
WoM communication is defined as “informal communications, directed at other consumers, about own-
ership, usage, or characteristics about particular goods and services and/or their producers/sellers”
(Matos & Rossi, 2008), which concerns evaluations of goods and services (Anderson, 1998) and cannot
be controlled (Daniasa, Tomita, Stuparu, & Stanciu, 2010) is between consumers who are not commer-
cially motivated (Baker, Donthu, & Kumar, 2016). Also, defined as “a firms’ intentional influencing
of consumer-to-consumer communications by professional marketing techniques” (Kozinets, de Valck,
Wojnicki, & Wilner, 2010; Taufique & Shahriar, 2011) or “any positive or negative statement . . . avail-
able to a multitude of people and institutions via the internet” (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003).
28 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

Figure 2.  Word of Mouth Communication

Source: Kozinets et al. (2010).

Not a recent phenomenon, WoM was the only way to sell before the advent of the printing press/mass
media (Ferguson, 2008). Aristotle too discusses WoM as influenced by ethos (ethical and personal
appeal), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical appeal; Buttle, 1998).
Web 2.0, and has enabled customers to share information (Sashi, 2012), has amplified and accelerated
the reach of WoM from an intimate, one-on-one communication to a one-to-many basis thus shifting
from a linear mechanism of organic inter-consumer influence model, to the linear marketer influencer
model, to the network coproduction model (Figure 2; Kozinets et al., 2010).
Research also interprets WoM through the traditional communication model, with communicator,
stimulus, receiver and response (Cheung & Thadani, 2010). Chan and Ngai (2011) classify WoM ele-
ments on the basis of input–process–output model.

Social Media
Social media is an increasingly influential media platform for communication (Daniasa et al., 2010;
Köbler, 2010; Reinhard, Güntzel, & Townsend, 2013; Sweeney et al., 2012; Zhang & Daugherty, 2009)
Srivastava and Sharma 29

providing people vast, detailed, and instant information to make their choices easier (Di Pietro et al.,
2012). Its viral quality makes it appealing for corporates (Steinman & Hawkins, 2010) and is extensively
used for online brand engagement, Coca-Cola, Uniliver, and Starbucks being examples of companies
using Facebook and Twitter (Bruhn et al., 2012). Social networking sites are essentially self-promoting,
where users spread the word for the sites (Steinman & Hawkins, 2010).
Tina Sakley is given credit for using the phrase “social media” as co-founder of iVillage.com in 1995.
Chris Shipley and Guidewire Group also used the term “social media” to discuss the incorporation of
blogging, wikis, and social networks, into a new form of participatory media (Reinhard, Satow, & Fadil,
2012). Several terms like virtual association, online community, and web community were used for
online communities (Reinhard et al., 2013).
There are a range of terms and definitions of the virtual community, which can be found in the litera-
ture (Reinhard et al., 2013). Social media is a group of Internet-based applications that build on the
ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of user-
generated content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social network is the democratization of information
(Evans, n.d.), is a user-generated and user-centered medium (Zhang & Daugherty, 2009), where people
team up due to a common interest or problem (Leimeister, Bantleon, & Krcmar, 2002).
The growth of social media is owing to WoM, as network founders, by means of invites or WoM
referrals help acquire new members increasing its membership and reach (Trusov et al., 2009).
Research also suggests that youth, often referred to as “millennial,” or “digital natives,” are more active
on the social media owing to their ability to embrace new media better (Kilian et al., 2012).
Research works have been undertaken to study the use and impact of social media, especially com-
mercial activities (Reinhard et al., 2013). Reinhard et al. (2013), study the impact of social media increas-
ing employability and developing cooperative relationships. In recruitment, social media satisfy the level
of awareness of recruiters and applicants cost-effectively (Madia, 2011). Social media has also been used
in education industry (Cao & Hong, 2011).
Social media is one of the best tools used for communication, during times of emergency (Bunce,
Partridge, & Davis, 2012), and helps in monitoring information; communication with individuals or organi-
sations; seeking assurance in terms of safety and/or location; and developing or expanding awareness.
Although literature on WoM is abundant, research of e-WoM, particularly social media is scarce
(Brown, Broderick, & Lee, 2007). The current body of work has been segregated into three groups
namely drivers of WoM, measures of WoM, and effects of WoM.

Drivers of Word of Mouth

Drivers of WoM are factors which enhance or drive customer WoM.
Existing literature on drivers or motivators of WoM can be broadly classified under the following
categories:

• Sources of WoM
1. Organic WoM generated by consumers
2. Company sponsored or seeded WoM
• Perceived source credibility and strength of ties with source
• Previous experience
• Customer characteristics
• Product category being discussed
30 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

• Medium of communication/social media type

• Message content and message valence.

Organic WoM Generated by Consumers

Organic WoM is communication where the sender is independent of the market (Brown et al., 2007).
WoM independent of corporate influence is perceived to be of greater value by receiver (Buttle, 1998)
with higher chances of relay owing to higher perceived reliability by the receiver (Ennew, 2000).
Online identity of a person can be difficult to access (Brown et al., 2007), thus making it difficult to
detect whether WoM is organic or sponsored impacting perception of the receiver about source credi-
bility and trustworthiness.

Company Sponsored/Seeded WoM or WoM Influenced

by Corporate Activity
WoM planted by a company is called seeded or company sponsored WoM. Because of the growing
importance of WoM, firms are often advised to manage/intertwine in WoM communication (Carl, 2008;
Stokes & Lomax, 2002).
Sponsored WoM can take many forms. Magnini (2011) identifies three types. One, companies may
place sponsored messages in blogs without identifying the communications as being company gener-
ated. Also called stealth techniques, in which mostly undercover paid/compensated individuals generate
WoM without disclosing corporate affiliation (Godes & Mayzlin, 2003). Two, the company may employs
brand pushers. Three, celebrity endorsements disguised as organic WoM. Often marketing campaigns
provide customers with a product to allow them to directly experience it. This “product seeding” or trial
is aimed at producing WoM and is a form of company sponsored WoM (Carl, 2008; Samson, 2010).
Another way is to plant company employees into the fabric of WoM conversation (Carl, 2008).
Research also points toward a relationship between advertising and WoM communication, thereby
indicating an impact of corporate activity on WoM (Fay & Hutton, 2011; Graham & Havlena, 2007).
Research which was previously undertaken by the Keller Fay Group and later extended by Fay and
Hutton (2011), found that nearly 22 percentage of all WoM in the USA, 18 percentage in UK, and
22 percentage in Australia are stimulated or supported by paid advertising appearing in print, online,
television, and outdoors mediums.
Depending on whether the source of WoM is from a consumer (organic WoM) or sponsored/initiated
by a company the recipient of WoM may react differently.
Stealth techniques are more effective than organic or genuine WoM messages (Carl, 2008; Godes &
Mayzlin, 2003; Godes et al., 2005). The other school of thought suggests that when the company agent’s
corporate affiliation is disclosed WoM receivers had fewer negative feelings about them (Carl, 2008).
Research infers that if an individual person learns that he was targeted with a disguised sponsored WoM
message, it will decreased his trust, and ultimately reduced commitment (Magnini, 2011). Study indi-
cates that there is a strong preference for non-sponsored links as compared to sponsored links, with
searchers viewing non-sponsored links first, more than 82 percent of the time (Jansen & Rensick, 2006).
“Promotional giveaways” in WoM marketing campaigns lead to increased WoM (Berger & Schwartz,
2011). It is also suggested that the best media strategy will combine professional and user-generated
content (Daniasa et al., 2010).
Srivastava and Sharma 31

Research has been done for both offline and online mediums. Jansen & Resnick (2006), studying
WoM online, use (e-commerce) 60 organic and 30 sponsored Web links, do not make a comparison
between online–offline modes. Graham and Havlena (2007) study the impact of advertisement on online
searches and website queries, as well as online WoM, suggesting how advertising generates online
WoM and builds brand advocacy across online and offline media. They also suggest an integration of
offline and online strategies. Kozinets et al. (2010) has explored WoM on social media (blogs), and indi-
cates that WoM is influenced by the nature of marketing promotional activity. Magnini (2011) also stud-
ies WoM on blogs. Some of the studies were based on offline context (Carl, 2008; Stokes & Lomax,
2002).

Perceived Source Credibility and Strength of Ties with the Source

In a study on the role of disclosure in organized WoM campaigns, impact of perceived source credibility
(calculated in terms of trustworthiness, goodwill, and competence) on WoM is explored (Carl, 2008).
Consumers had fewer negative feelings about the agent’s corporate affiliation when the agent discloses
her identity. Such results can help use company sponsored WoM campaigns to generate a positive impact.
Research points that consumer relay on WoM more from strong than weak tie relational partners
(Brown et al., 2007). One of the few researchers who have made a comparison between online and
offline WoM, Brown et al. (2007) research online WoM to explore tie strength, source credibility, and
homophily, indicating that the idea of individual-to-individual social ties is less relevant in an online
environment than an offline one. In online context, the web site becomes the individual, taking its char-
acteristic. Similarly, for source credibility, the web site is personified in the individual’s evaluation of
source credibility.
Ennew (2000) points out that service, such as financial services, that require high level of credence
(of the source) and high level of service quality benefit more from WoM.

Previous Usage/Experience
Previous experience can be classified as experience of usage of product: frequency of use, range of use,
etc. (Samson, 2010; Wee, Lim, & Lwin, 1995) and customers’ experiences with the company: purchase
experience, after sales experience, complaint handling experience, etc. (Bolfing, 1989; Jones, 2009; Lau
& Ng, 2001; Ng, David, & Dagger, 2011; Söderlund, 1998; Swanson & Kelley, 2001).
Product usage has effect on intentions to recommend and actual number of WoM conversations gen-
erated (Samson, 2010). On the other hand, loyalty, linking it to past usage, may not be an effective
measure. Past users are not necessarily the best targets of WoM marketing campaigns (Samson, 2010).
However, past users are considered to be more credible than non-users (Wee et al., 1995).
Previous experience helps generate negative and positive WoM (Jones, 2009; Lau & Ng, 2001; Ng
et al., 2011; Teng, 2007). Customer experience in terms of dissatisfaction and inefficient complaint han-
dling by the company will lead to harmful negative WoM (Bolfing, 1989; Söderlund, 1998). Söderlund,
attribute this behavior to interactions with others will help the individual in the “cognitive burden of
dealing with the negative event.” In case of negative service incidents for which customers attribute
responsibility wholly or partly to themselves, apart from the company, customers will be more likely
to complain anonymously through social media, and therefore generate negative WoM (Svari &
Olsen, 2012).
32 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

A high level of customer satisfaction can lead to positive WoM (Ennew, 2000; File & Prince, 1992;
Söderlund, 1998). Good customer relationship and good services generate more positive WoM than
company incentives (Ennew, 2000). Effective complaint handling can also lead to favorable WoM (Gilly
& Hansen, 1992). Similarly, when the company shows “stability” in removing cause of complain, take
responsibility for “recovery” and has shorter “recovery” of service time, it leads to customer sharing
positive information (Swanson & Kelley, 2001). Blodgett, Wakefield, and Barnes (1995), study stability
as a cause of positive WoM, along with other factors like likelihood of success when customer files
complaint, behavior of company in terms of complaint handling, customers’ attitude toward complain-
ing, and product importance.
Interactive marketing behaviors, that is, client participation as part of service delivery process, will
lead to higher volume of WoM or client referrals (File, Judd, & Prince, 1992). A higher intensity and
greater variety of client participation leads to positive WoM. The result of this study brings out four key
elements of service delivery participation, namely tangibility, attendance, empathy, and meaningful
interaction.
Relationship quality and service quality impact WoM behavior (Chaniotakis & Lymperopoulos, 2009;
Ng et al., 2011). Chaniotakis and Lymperopoulos have used Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry’s (1985)
SERVQUAL variables identifying the effects of each variable to satisfaction and WoM. The results sug-
gest that in addition to “satisfaction,” the only service quality dimension that directly affects WoM, is
“empathy.” In addition, “empathy” affects “responsiveness,” “assurance,” and “tangibles” which in turn
have only an indirect effect to WoM through “satisfaction.”

Customer Characteristics
Consumer loyalty is also tested as cause of WoM. Loyal users are not necessarily the best targets of WoM
marketing campaigns (Samson, 2010, Stokes et al., 2002). Stokes et al. (2002) conclude that relatively
newer members of the club under study were more likely to generate positive WoM than existing/older
members. This study, thus, contradicts the implications of relationship marketing that long-term custom-
ers are more loyal and generate more WoM.
Individual (self-confidence, social responsibility, attitude toward complaining, etc.) and situational
factors (proximity to others, purchase decision involvement) are responsible for influencing WoM
(Lau & Ng, 2001). Research indicates that information seeker’s characteristics effect WoM adoption and
credibility assessments (O’Reilly, 2011). Consumer’s tendency to save time prompts him to articulate
WoM (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003). Consumer involvement with the brand is another important
characteristic that can stimulate positive WoM (Bruhn et al., 2012). Consumers’ loyalty toward the prod-
uct/company on the Internet is considered to be a driver of WoM (Kim, 2005).
Dissatisfied consumers who had expected a high likelihood of success when complaining, and have a
positive attitude toward complaining, are less likely to generate negative WoM (Blodgett et al., 1995).
Consumers generate referrals in order to look good (Degraffenreid, 2006). They judge whether a
particular referral/WoM can make them look good on the basis of four basic characteristics: novelty
(well-known items are not referred), utility (satisfies a need of the party being referred), dependability
(extremely high confidence of performance or low risk of failure), and economy (provides a reduction in
time, cost complexity).
Online WoM is studied to explore homophily described as “the congruence between the characteris-
tics of the actors in a social network, based on individual attributes such as gender, age, and education”
Srivastava and Sharma 33

(Brown et al., 2007). Their findings suggest that homophily of an interpersonal relationship based on
individual characteristics is not relevant for online context.
Consumers read others WoM articulations because of their tendency to save time and risk thus “reduc-
ing buying-related risks and decreasing search time” (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003). These factors
help in obtaining buying-relevant information and determination of social position and dissonance
reduction. Belonging to a virtual community, curiosity to learn what products are new in the marketplace
and remuneration increases the chances of reading WoM messages.
According to the year 2006 survey of users of Chinese online community conducted by iResearch,1
the most frequently mentioned intention for taking part in an online community is to share the joy of life
(60.7 percent), the second most mentioned intention is to look for solutions for difficult situations at
work (60.0 percent; Huang, Cai, Tsang, & Zhou, 2011).
In yet another study by Claro and Bortoluzzo, 2015, the characteristics of established buzz agents
were tested to understand the correlation between their online activities and their personality traits. The
authors profiled consumers on the basis of three key characteristics: the consumer’s position in the social
community, nature of ties in the community, and brand attachment. The study showed that buzz agents
are popular in their social community of friends and technology experts, carry dissimilar brands as target
consumers and are product experts (Claro & Bortoluzzo, 2015).

Product Category
There is increase in levels of WoM owing to higher level of consumer involvement and product usage
rate (Samson, 2010). Samson’s research analyzes the impact of brand usage range within a product cat-
egory and frequency of product use on WoM. The usage range within a product category has an effect
on pre-trial intentions in turn leading to recommending the product that has been tried and the actual
number of WoM. The frequency of product use also affects the number of WoM conversations.
Degraffenreid (2006) indicates certain product characteristics like novelty, utility, dependability, and
economy of a product that increase the chances of WoM.
More “interesting” products get more immediate WoM (Berger & Schwartz, 2011). However, this
WoM does not continue over a substantial period of time. In contrast, products publicly visible and envi-
ronmentally cued generate immediate and lasting WoM.
Contradicting S. Degaraffenreid’s findings on economy of products, Blodgett et al. (1995) establish
that some products may be considered more important because they are relatively expensive or the con-
sumer relies more heavily on them (i.e., functionally) or because the customer derives greater enjoyment
from using that product. Further product importance has no effect on whether or not dissatisfied cus-
tomer engages in pre-redress negative WoM.
In another research paper, Dellarocas & Narayan (2006b) have accessed the product type, in this case
movies, and tried to link it to online reviews. Their empirical findings imply that self-expression is one
of the dominant forces behind online review contribution which in turn directly linked to the product
type or movie type. For example, consumers are more likely to review very good and very bad movies
as these movies trigger strong feelings that consumers feel the urge to express; controversial movies
since then their review will be read with more attention by other consumers and so on.
WoM has greater impact and is more widely spread (thereby generating further WoM) for services
than for goods (Fang, Lin, Liu, & Lin, 2011). This is true for categories that are more interesting or
difficult to evaluate before purchase. Another research gives credit to quantity rather than type of
message shared by an individual as cause of “active information sharing” (Köbler, 2010).
34 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

Medium of Communication/Social Media Type

Communication forum in which WoM has been embedded is discussed as a key factor which influences
the communication strategy of an individual (Kozinets et al., 2010). Kozinets has identified blogs having
characters like mommy forum, technical forum, and relationship forum, influencing WoM.
Bampo (2008) studies the process of viral marketing investigating the formation of “the activated
digital network as distinct from the underlying social network.” Networks are classified as random, free
scale, and small world, concluding that scale-free networks are more efficient for viral campaigns than
the other two.
Research suggests social media primary “actors” in online WoM, concluding that online communities
act as a social proxy for individual identification where individuals behave as if websites themselves
have a character (Brown et al., 2007).
Web site design has been found to influence consumer’s emotional and cognitive responses and con-
tributes to satisfaction, which in turn helps generate WoM communication in an online shopping context
(Ha & Im, 2012).
Coulter and Roggeveen (2012) compare “persuasive communication” in online and offline contexts,
concluding that message acceptance is less in online mode than off line mode. They also point out that
despite this, corporates are using online social media sites to establish their marketing, that is, “product
networks.” They suggest that the number of individuals in a “product” network, as well as whether these
individuals are also members of one’s friend network, are important factors that determine message
acceptance.

Message Content and Valence

Message content, visual information in message, how the message is framed, the under tones of the mes-
sage, etc. all are influential in forming WoM.
In an online study, visual information, pictures, or videos are found to be part of the content of a mes-
sage (Lin, Lu, & Wu, 2012). The perception of receiver rates higher in terms of message quality, credibil-
ity, product interest, and purchase intention if the message has visual information.
Sometimes there is “ripple effect of diffusion” caused by the message contents posted online (Huang
et al., 2011). These characteristics are quality, authority, authenticity, and interestingness of the message.
The results suggest that these characteristics have a “positive effect on re-senders” acceptance toward
WoM, which, in turn, have a significant positive impact on “re-senders” resending “intention.”
Often WoM message is structured as a story (Delgadillo & Escalas, 2004). Research shows two
aspects of “story memory” effecting brand attitudes, biased memory for story details and recall of story
gist or summary abstraction of the story. The authors conclude that a story line increases the understand-
ing of WoM communication and draws attention toward the story’s characters and/or brands.
Positive impacts of WoM characteristics on the acceptance level of reader, as well as his intention to
generate further buzz is same no matter what the valence of the message (Huang et al., 2011).

Measures of Word of Mouth

Another set of literature determines ways to measure WoM. WoM has always been difficult to measure.
First, WoM often takes place in largely unmonitored personal settings and at all times, difficult to
Srivastava and Sharma 35

capture. Second, even in recorded WoM, the use of words, their depth, meaning, connotation, and con-
text might be largely different. The first of these issues has been largely solved by the social media which
can record, chronologically, conversations. Conversations on the social media can also be followed up to
study further traffic it generates. Research has been undertaken to measure and analyze WoM on elec-
tronic media. The emergence of online communities has enabled firms to monitor WoM in real time
(Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006a).
Variables to measure WoM can be categorized as quantitative and qualitative.
Quantitative variables include:

1. WoM density (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006a);

2. Volume and frequency of message sent, dispersion of message, and number of people/links
involved (Godes & Mayzlin, August 2003; Fogel, 2010);
3. Density of online ratings (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006a);
4. Impact on ROI, profit, WoM equity (Ferguson, 2008; Bughin et al., 2010).

Qualitative variables include:

1. Richness of content (depth, intensity, vividness of message; Sweeney et al., 2012);

2. Strength of advocacy (implicit or explicit; Sweeney et al., 2012);
3. Valence of WoM message (positive or negative; Godes & Mayzlin, August 2003; Sweeney et al.,
2012; Fogel, 2010);
4. Engagement (Fogel, 2010);
5. Digital footprint index (Fogel, 2010).

Quantitative Variables
WoM density is defined as “the ratio of the total number of people who posted online ratings for a prod-
uct during a given time period over the number of people who bought that product during the same
period” (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006a). The author shows how online ratings density increases the
chances of post-purchase WoM, and suggest the antecedents of online and offline WoM to be similar.
Unlike real-time conversation, online discussions can be monitored for content and number of people
participating (Godes & Mayzlin, 2003; Fogel, 2010). Volume of mentions along with sales and profit
is a good measure for comparisons at different times or to other brands (Fogel, 2010). According to
Godes et al. (2005) to measure frequency of WoM use simple counts like number of times message is
measured, number of times message is relayed, and so on. Another construct they provide is dispersion
or the extent to which conversations about the product are taking place across a broad range of communi-
ties. Fogel gives measures of influence/authority derived from the number of followers, subscribers, and
links for a given person.
Density of online ratings (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006a) defined as “the ratio of the total number of
people who posted online ratings for a product during a given time period over the number of people who
bought that product during the same period.” The density of online ratings is therefore an estimate of
how a person who has purchased a product will rate it online.
Yet another way of measuring WoM lies in its impact (Ferguson, 2008). This method can use varia-
bles like return on investment, profit, and sales, when WoM is seeded and cost of investment can be
measured easily. Bughin et al. (2010) have tried to develop WoM equity, defined as “index of a brand’s
36 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

power to generate messages that influence the consumer’s decision to purchase.” WoM equity is the
average sales impact of a brand message multiplied by the number of WoM messages, allowing marketer
to test WoM effect on sales and market share for brand/company.

Qualitative Variables
Qualitative aspects are difficult to measure and this “sentiment analysis” is usually based on automated
text-mining solutions, although sometimes employing human analysts (Fogel, 2010). Qualitative varia-
bles are discussed below.
Richness of content: Richness of the message content refers to the depth, intensity, and vividness of
the message itself. Richness includes aspects such as the language used and the level of storytelling, and
depth of information involved in the message (Anderson, 1998; Sweeney et al., 2012; Mazzarol,
Sweeney, & Soutar, 2007).
Strength of advocacy: Strength or power of the advocacy refers to the strength or power of the way
the message is delivered. It deals with the manner in which the message is conveyed rather than with the
content. It reflects the strength of intention of recommendation. This dimension reflects the power of
advocacy, whether implicit or explicit (Anderson, 1998; Mazzarol et al., 2007; Sweeney et al., 2012).
Valence: Most of WoM can be categorized as positive or negative. Authors have studied motivating
factors of positive versus negative WoM and how message content may vary according to valence (Godes
& Mayzlin, August 2003; Sweeney et al., 2012).
Engagement (Fogel, 2010) is defined as “a function of how widely a conversation is shared and how
long it is sustained.” She provides various measures of engagement, number of comments on blog post-
ings, reviews on retail and product evaluation sites, times items are forwarded/shared/liked, people with
whom an item is shared, and velocity and duration of the conversation.
Digital footprint index (Fogel, 2010) combines different aspects of online brand conversation to
assess effectiveness of WoM marketing efforts. This includes variables like volume of conversation, tone
of conversation, breadth of conversation, and resonance of message.

Effect of Word of Mouth

Effects of WoM have fewer research papers to its credit owing to following reasons. One, capturing
WoM data is difficult. Even if we collect online WoM data, we cannot record offline WoM in private
settings. Two, various metrics measuring WoM are recent and still being tested. Three, return on invest-
ment and sales can be calculated but cannot be purely attributed to WoM. Other marketing communica-
tion efforts have to be taken into account. Following are key factors that emerge from literature, discussion
impact/effect of WoM:

1. Communication behavior, brand advocacy (Graham & Havlena, 2007; Hennig-Thurau & Walsh,
2003; Trusov, 2009).
2. Buying behavior, purchase intention (Christodoulides et al., 2012; Hennig-Thurau & Walsh,
2003; Huang et al., 2011; Jalilvand & Samiei, 2012; Lim, Chung, & Pedersen, 2012; Trusov,
2009).
3. Product category involvement (Giese, Spangenberg, & Crowley, 1996).
Srivastava and Sharma 37

4. Consumer involvement (Giese et al., 1996).

5. Sales, ROI (Bernadette, Bhuptani, & Menon, 2011; Dotson, 2009; File & Prince, 1992).

Various researches have been done to study the impact valence (positive or negative content of a mes-
sage) of WoM. Negative WoM generates stronger negative behavioral intention than positive messages
(Wee et al., 1995). Positive impacts of WoM characteristics on the acceptance level of receiver and his
forwarding the message remains largely same whatever the valence of the message (Huang et al., 2011).
Positive social media sponsored WoM messages increase online shopping value (Chung & Austria,
January 2010).
Buying behavior is influenced by the reading online WoM (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003). Empirical
findings suggest that online WoM have strong impact on the following: refraining from buying a prod-
uct, generating further WoM, and buying a recommended product
Trusov et al. (2009) have undertaken a study to examine the effects of e-WoM, proposing that e-WoM
among consumers can influence brand image and purchase intention for the automobile manufacturers.
Through mobile Internet customers can read online recommendations for the product they are interested
in directly at the point of purchase influencing purchase decisions (Jalilvand, 2008). According to
Graham and Havlena (2007) online WoM can create brand advocacy offline, independent of an advertis-
ers’ influence.
Effects of e-WoM on buying behavior have also been researched by Christodoulides et al. (2012),
comparing the purchase intention of consumers in UK and China. They analyze the changes in purchase
intention of consumers who are subjected to a WoM episode, and find that valence effects purchase
intention in both countries.
Yet another research suggests that “product category involvement is increased by positive product
specific WoM information, but not decreased by negative product specific WoM information” (Giese
et al., 1996). In other words, the final purchase made by consumer may not be the brand about which
positive WoM was generated.
Bruhn et al. (2012) have conducted a research that compares the effect of traditional marketing efforts
or advertising and social media marketing (which are generated by the company as well as the consumer)
on brand attitude (brand awareness and brand image), and how it effects the purchase intention of con-
sumers. The comparison of traditional and social media communications media, by the authors, shows
that traditional media such as TV and print campaigns are better suited for increasing brand awareness,
while corporate blogs or social networking sites are more apt for improving brand image.
Another study researches the quality of the message and the provider of the e-WOM and how they
together their impact on purchase intentions (Lim et al., 2012). On the one hand, “low-quality” messages
generated higher purchase intentions than “high-quality” and, on the other hand, quality of the message
does not affect the purchase intention. Lastly, purchase intentions were greater for the organic WoM than
sponsored WoM.
A WoM campaign may generate greater consumer involvement within a product category, resulting
in more information-seeking and thus better-informed consumer (Giese et al., 1996).
A study by Zhang and Daugherty (2009) links third-person effect to behavioral consequences related
to WoM on social media. The third-person effect theory of Davisons (1983) proposes that individuals
tend to expect mass media to have a greater effect on others than on themselves. This means that
individuals may anticipate that social media will make the least impact on the first person, a moderate
impact on second person, and the greatest impact on the third person. This study attempts to establish a
relationship between WoM and interpersonal relations.
38 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

Few scholars have made an attempt to study the impact of WoM on sales. Sales (Bernadette et al.,
2011) online can be tracked and any WoM preceding it analyzed. There is an increasing trend among
youngsters to buy products online through these websites. Dotson (2009) suggests that not only does
social media play a role in the sales cycle, but also effectively shorten the cycle by directly targeting
customers who are motivated to purchase. File and Prince (1992) also prove through their research that
positive WoM is a strong factor in the purchase of financial services.
In another study, Carl (2008) has tried to consolidate the outcome metrics as inquiry likelihood
(generating WoM), use likelihood (demand-related outcome), purchase likelihood (demand-related
outcome), and pass-along likelihood (generating WoM).
Often social media is not considered to be an effective means of marketing communication, as in the
banking sector, owing to low customer demand of the media, safety concerns, and lack of alignment with
other relationship marketing efforts (Mitic & Kapoulas, 2012).
Lack of sufficient research in measuring the outcome of WoM through the social media is a drawback
in the existing body of literature.
The variables thus classified are given in Table 1.

Research Gaps and Future Scope for Research

Literature on WoM on electronic media is scanty, though literature on WoM marketing is found easily,
tracing its origin, evolution, and significance in the field of marketing communication. Social media is
an opportunity for organisations and researchers to record WoM activity (Trusov et al., 2009).
Although from the current body of work, a number of causes and drivers of WoM emerge but there is
no evidence of a comparison of these drivers of WoM. These drivers need to be analyzed further to
understand and compare the impact of each one of them on WoM effectiveness. Moreover, not all of
these drivers of WoM are tested on the social media. Jillian Sweeny urges researchers to consider not just
WoM valence and volume, as has been typical in previous WOM research, but to also examine specific
message details, including cognitive content, richness of the content, and strength of delivery. Furthering
research on WoM communication to an online context is also recommended by her.
Most of the existing research is based on consumers in American and European developed econo-
mies. Not much research is done in the Indian consumer context.
Another research gap which emerges in this analysis of literature is a syndication of the variables
drivers, measures, and effects of WoM under one study. Apart from Thorsten Hennig-Thurau and
Gianfranco Walsh (2003), one of the few researchers that provide an end-to-end research, that is, an
empirical study showing causes to effects of WoM, no single study has done a comprehensive analysis.
In other words, existing literature does not offer a comprehensive end to end (causes to outcome) study
for WoM on social media. Mapping the impact of each of the different drivers of WoM to understand and
assess their impact in terms of specific output variables can be done in the following framework based
on the existing literature.
The field of Internet communication technology is dynamic. New technological advancements and
various perspectives around them keep evolving, drawing further research interests. Additional research
is needed to supplement the bigger picture of online WoM communication.
Lack of literature in studying the effect of WoM and can be treated a potential research gap. A poten-
tial research can study the drivers of WoM in a particular marketing campaign and measure which driver
leads to the desired effect of the campaign. For instance, a particular product/service category like hotel
Srivastava and Sharma 39

Table 1.  Classification of Variables on the Basis of Drivers, Measures, and Effectiveness of WoM

Drivers of WoM Measures of WoM Effects of WoM

1. 
Sources of word of mouth Quantitative Variables Include: 1. 
Communication behavior, brand
  a.  Organic word of mouth 1. Word of Mouth Density advocacy (Trusov, 2009;
generated by consumers (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006a) Hennig-Thurau & Walsh,
(Brown et al., 2007; Buttle, 2. Volume and frequency of message 2003; Graham & Havlena,
1998; Ennew, 2000) sent, dispersion of message and 2007)
  b.  Company sponsored or number of people/links involved 2. 
Buying behavior, purchase
seeded WoM (Stokes et al., (Godes & Mayzlin, August 2003; intention ( Jalilvand, 2008;
2002; Carl, 2008; Magnini, Fogel, 2010) Trusov, 2009; Huang et
2011; Godes & Mayzlin, 3. Density of online ratings, al., 2011; Hennig-Thurau &
2003; Samson, 2010; Fay (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006a). Walsh, 2003; Christodoulides
& Hutton, 2011; Graham 4. Impact on ROI, profit, WoM et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2012)
& Havlena, 2007; Berger & equity (Ferguson, 2008; Bughin 3. 
Product category involvement
Schwartz, 2011; Daniasa et al., 2010) (Giese et al., 1996)
et al., 2010) Qualitative Variables Include: 4. 
Consumer involvement (Giese
2. 
Perceived source credibility and 1. Richness of content (depth, et al., 1996)
strength of ties with source (Carl, intensity, vividness of message) 5. 
Sales, ROI (D’Silva, 2011;
2008; Brown et al., 2007; (Sweeney et al., 2012) Dotson, 2009; File & Prince,
Ennew, 2000) 2. Strength of advocacy (implicit or 1992)
3. 
Previous experience of receiver explicit) (Sweeney et al., 2012)
(Samson, 2010; Wee et al., 3. Valence of WoM message
1995; Jones, 2009; Teng, 2007; (positive/negative) (Godes &
Ng et al., 2011; Bolfing, 1989; Mayzlin, August 2003; Sweeney
Swanson & Kelley, 2001; et al., 2012; Fogel, 2010)
Söderlund, 1998) 4. Engagement (Fogel, 2010)
4. 
Customer/receiver characteristics 5. Digital Footprint Index, (Fogel,
(Samson, 2010; Stokes et al., 2010)
2002; Teng, 2008; O’Reilly,
2011; Bruhn et al., 2012;
Blodgett et al., 1995; Kim, 2005;
Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003;
Degraffenreid, 2006; Brown
et al., 2007).
5. 
Product category being discussed
(Samson, 2010; Degraffenreid,
2006; Berger & Schwartz, 2011;
Fang et al., 2011; Köbler, 2010)
6. 
Medium of communication/
social media type (Kozinets
et al., 2010; Bampo, 2008;
Brown et al., 2007; Yong Ha,
2011; Coulter & Roggeveen,
2012)
7. 
Message content and message
valence (Lin et al., 2012; Huang
et al., 2011; Delgadillo &
Jennifer, 2004)
Source: Authors’ own.
40 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

industry generates a lot of buzz online. The driver for this can be the category of product/service or
the level of customer interface needed by this industry. Then, can these drivers lead to a desired effect,
say advocacy for purchase. In other words, existing literature does not offer an end to end (causes to
outcome) model for WoM on social media.
To conclude, this literature review analysis is an attempt to provide an overview of the current status
of knowledge in the domain of e-WoM communication research. We have tried to provide definitions of
both WoM and social media. We have incorporated a framework by identifying the key variables of
causes of WoM, measures of WoM, and effect of WoM. In summary, the goal was to shed new light on
the nature of WoM marketing on the social media, a crucial but largely underutilized component of the
marketing communications mix.

Note
1. See www.iresearch.com.cn

References
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5–17.
Baker, A. M., Donthu, N., & Kumar, V. (2016). Investigating how word-of-mouth conversations about brands
influence purchase and retransmission intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(2), 225–239.
Bampo, M. (2008). The effects of the social structure of digital networks on viral marketing performance. Information
Systems Research, 19(3), 273–290.
Bernadette, D., Bhuptani, R., & Menon, S. (2011). Influence of social media marketing on brand choice behaviour
among youth in India: An empirical study. Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology and
Business Management, March 28–30.
Blodgett, J. G., Wakefield, K. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1995). The effects of customer service on consumer complaining
behaviour. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(4), 31–42
Bolfing, C. P. (1989). How do customers express dissatisfaction and what can service marketers do about it? Journal
of Services Marketing, 3(2), 5–23.
Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities:
Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2–20.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V., & Schafer, D. B. (2012). Are social media replacing traditional media in terms of
brand equity creation? Management Research Review, 35(9), 770–790.
Bughin, J., Doogan, J., & Vetvik, O. J. (2010 , April). A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing. McKinsey
Quarterly.  Retrieved   from   http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/
a-new-way-to-measure-word-of-mouth-marketing
Bunce, S., Partridge, H., & Davis, K. (2012). Exploring information experience using social media during the 2011
Queensland Floods: A pilot study. Australian Library Journal, 61(1), 34–45.
Buttle, F. A. (1998). Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 6, 241–254.
Cao, Y., & Hong, P. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of social media utilization in college teaching: A proposed
model with mixed-methods investigation. On the Horizon, 19(4), 297–306.
Carl, W. J. (2008). The role of disclosure in organized word-of-mouth marketing programs. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 14(3), 225–241.
Chaniotakis, I. E., & Lymperopoulos, C. (2009). Service quality effect on satisfaction and word of mouth in the
health care industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(2), 229–242.
Chan, Y. Y. Y., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2011). Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity: An input-process-output
perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(5), 488–516.
Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2010, June 20–23). The effectiveness of electronic word-of-mouth
communication: A literature analysis. Bled, Slovenia: 23rd Bled eConference eTrust: Implications for the
Individual, Enterprises and Society.
Srivastava and Sharma 41

Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Argyriou, E. (2012). Cross-national differences in e-WOM influence.
European Journal of Marketing, 46(11–12), 1689–1707.
Claro, D. P., & Bortoluzzo, A. B. (2015). Profiling the buzz agent: Product referral and the study of social community
and brand attachment. BAR: Brazilian Administration Review, 12(2), 209–228.
Coulter, K. S., & Roggeveen, A. (2012). Like it or not: Consumer responses to word-of-mouth communication in
on-line social networks. Management Research Review, 35(9), 878–899.
Chung, C., & Austria, K. (2010). Social media gratification and attitude toward social media marketing messages:
A study of the effect of social media marketing messages on online shopping value (pp. 581–586). New York,
NY: Northeast Business & Economics Association.
Daniasa, C. I., Tomita, V., Stuparu, D., & Stanciu, M. (2010). The mechanisms of the influence of viral marketing
in social media. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 5(3), 278–282.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15.
Degraffenreid, S. (2006). Beyond advertising: Why people are the new media. Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1),
81–85.
Delgadillo, Y., & Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative word-of-mouth communication: Exploring memory and attitude
effects of consumer storytelling. In Barbara E. Kahn & Mary Frances Luce (Eds), NA - Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 31, pp. 186–192). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.
Deloitte. (2012). Technology, media and telecommunications predictions (pp. 18–20). London: Deloitte.
Dellarocas, C., & Narayan, R. (2006a, May). A statistical measure of a population’s propensity to engage in post-
purchase online word-of-mouth. Statistical Science, 21(2).
———. (2006b). What motivates consumers to review a product online? A study of the product-specific antecedents
of online movie reviews. Retrieved from digital.mit.edu
de Matos, C. A., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: A meta-analytic review of
the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marking Science, 36. doi: 10.1007/s11747-008-0121-1
Di Pietro, L., Di Virgilio, F., & Pantano, E. (2012). Social network for the choice of tourist destination: Attitude and
behavioural intention. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 3(1), 60–76.
Dotson, E. (2009). Using social media in B2B context. Virginia, USA: Darden Business Publishing, University of
Virginia.
Ennew, C. T. (2000). Managing word of mouth communication: Empirical evidence from India. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(2), 75–83.
Evans, D. (n.d.). Social media marketing: An hour a day. Times Business Series.
Fang, C. H., Lin, T. M. Y., Liu, F., & Lin, Y. H. (2011). Product type and word of mouth: A dyadic perspective.
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 5(2), 189–202.
Fay, B., & Hutton, G. (2011). Advertising worth talking about (the relationship between advertising and word-of-
mouth communication in marketing). Strategic Direction, 27(5). doi: 10.1108/sd.2011.05627ead.005
Fay, B., & Thomson, S. A. (2013). WOM is more offline than online (word-of-mouth (WOM) marketing). Strategic
Direction, 29(3), 14–16.
Ferguson, R. (2008). Word of mouth and viral marketing: Taking the temperature of the hottest trends in marketing.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 179–182.
File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1992). Positive word-of-mouth: Customer satisfaction and buyer behavior. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 10(1), 25–29.
File, K. M., Judd, B. B., & Prince, R. A. (1992). Interactive marketing: The influence of participation on positive
word-of-mouth and referrals. Journal of Services Marketing, 6(4), 5–14.
Fogel, S. O. (2010). Issues in measurement of word of mouth in social media marketing. International Journal of
Integrated Marketing Communications, 2(2), 54–60.
Fournier, S. & Avery, J. (2010, October 1). The uninvited brand (Boston University School of Management Research
Paper No. 2010–32). Boston, MA: Boston University School of Management.
Giese, J. L., Spangenberg, E. R., & Crowley, A. E. (1996). Effects of product-specific word-of-mouth communication
on product category involvement. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 187–199.
Gilly, M. C., & Hansen, R. W. (1992). Consumer complaint handling as a strategic marketing tool. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 1(3), 5–16.
42 Jindal Journal of Business Research 6(1)

Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2003). Using online conversations to study word of mouth communication. Marketing
Letters, 16(3), 415–428.
Godes, D., Mayzlin, D., Chen, Y., Das, S., Dellarocas, C., Pfeiffer, B., … Verlegh, P. (2005). The firm’s management
of social interactions. Marketing Letters, 16(3), 415–428.
Gong, W., Li, Z. G., & Stump, R. L. (2007). Global Internet use and access: Cultural considerations. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 19(1), 57–74.
Graham, J., & Havlena, W. (2007). Finding the missing link: Advertising’s impact on word of mouth, web searches
and site visits. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 427–435.
Ha, Y., & Im, H. (2012). Role of web site design quality in satisfaction and word of mouth generation. Journal of
Service Management, 23(1), 79–96.
Haywood, K. M. (1989). Managing word of mouth communications. Journal of Services Marketing, 3(2), 55–67.
Heinze, A., & Fletcher, G. (2011). Can we make higher education relevant to the needs of the search & social media
marketing industry? Paper presented at the 6th Education in a Changing Environment Conference, Creativity
and Engagement in Higher Education, 6–8 July 2011, Salford, Greater Manchester.
Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2003). Electronic word-of-mouth: Motives for and consequences of reading
customer articulations on the Internet. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 51–74.
Huang, M., Cai, F., Tsang, A. S. L., & Zohu, N. (2011). Making your online voice loud: The critical role of WOM
information. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7), 1277–1297.
Jalilvand, M. R., & Samiei, N. (2012). The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image and purchase intention.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(4), 460–476.
Jansen, B. J., & Resnick, M. (2006). An examination of searcher’s perceptions of non-sponsored and sponsored links
during ecommerce web searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
57(14), 1949–1961.
Jones, S. A. (2009). Integrating experience, advertising, and electronic word of mouth. Journal of Internet Commerce,
8(3–4).
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media.
Business Horizons, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University.
Kim, G. (2005). The role effect loyalty of Internet: A causal model. Asian Journal on Quality, 6(2), 17–30.
Köbler, F. (2010). Social connectedness on Facebook—An explorative study on status message usage. Proceedings
of the Sixteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru (August, 12–15).
Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word-
of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71–89.
Kilian, T., Hennigs, N., & Langner, S. (2012). Do millennials read books or blogs? Introducing a media usage
typology of the Internet generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 114–124.
Lau, G. T., & Ng, S. (2001). Individual and situational factors influencing negative wom behaviour. Canadian Journal
of Administrative Sciences, 18(3), 163–178.
Leimeister, J. M., Bantleon, A., & Krcmar, H. (2002). Geschäftsmodell Virtual Community: Eine Analyse bestehen-
der Communities [Business model virtual community: An analysis of existing communities]. In M. Engelien &
J. Homann (Eds), Virtual organization and new media (pp. 1–40). Dresden: Josef Eul Verlag.
Lim, C., Chung, J. G., & Pedersen, P. M. (2012). Electronic word of mouth messages. Sports Management
International Journal (SMIJ), 8(1).
Lin, T. M. Y., Lu, K., & Wu, J. (2012). The effects of visual information in eWOM communication. Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(1), 7–26.
Madia, S. A. (2011). Best practices for using social media as a recruitment strategy. Strategic HR Review, 10(6),
19–24.
Magnini, V. P. (2011). The implications of company-sponsored messages disguised as word-of-mouth. Journal of
Services Marketing, 25(4), 243–251.
Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity, triggers and
conditions: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 42(11/12), 1475–1494.
Mitic, M., & Kapoulas, A. (2012). Understanding the role of social media in bank marketing. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 30(7) 668–686.
Srivastava and Sharma 43

Ng, S., David, M. E. & Dagger, T. (2011). Generating positive word-of-mouth in the service experience. Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal, 21(2), 133–151.
O’Reilly, K. (2011). How young, technical consumers assess online WOM credibility. Qualitative Market Research,
14(4), 330–359.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for
future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
Reinhard, K., Güntzel, J., & Townsend, R. (2013). Virtual communities from the perspective of transaction costs.
In K. Reinhard, J. Güntzel & R. Townsend (Eds), International business and economics discussion papers (Vol.
1, pp. 50–72). Ravensburg, Germany: Baden-Württenberg Cooperative State University.
Reinhard Satow, L., & Fadil, P. (2012). Assessing the power of social media marketing. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Cooperative Education, 13(1), 39–53.
Samson, A. (2010). Product usage and firm-generated word of mouth: Some results from FMCG product trials.
International Journal of Market Research, 52(4), 459–482.
Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Management Decision,
50(2), 253–272.
Söderlund, M. (1998). Customer satisfaction and its consequences on customer behaviour revisited: The impact of
different levels of satisfaction on word-of-mouth, feedback to the supplier and loyalty. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 9(2), 169–188.
Steinman, M. L., & Hawkins, M. (2010). When marketing through social media, legal risks can go viral. Intellectual
Property & Technology Law Journal, 22(8).
Stokes, D., & Lomax, W. (2002). Taking control of word of mouth marketing: The case of an entrepreneurial
hotelier. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 9(4), 349–357.
Stokes, D., Ali Syed, S., & Lomax, W. (2002). Shaping up word of mouth marketing strategy: The case of an
independent health club. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 119–133.
Svari, S., & Olsen, L. E. (2012). The role of emotions in customer complaint behaviors. International Journal of
Quality and Service Sciences, 4(3), 270–282.
Swanson, S. R., & Kelley, S. W. (2001). Service recovery attributions and word-of-mouth intentions. European
Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 194–211.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2012). Word of mouth: Measuring the power of individual messages.
UWA Business School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. European Journal of Marketing,
46(1/2), 237–257.
Taufique, K. M. R., & Shahriar, F. M. (2011). Online social media as a driver of buzz marketing: Who’s riding?
London: Annual Conference on Innovations in Business & Management.
The Economist. (2006, July 6). The ultimate marketing machine. Special report: Internet advertising, San Francisco.
Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/7138905
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels. K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings
from an Internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.
Wee, C. H., Lim, S. L., & Lwin, M. (1995). Word-of-mouth communication in Singapore: With focus on effects of
message-sidedness, source and user-type. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 7(1/2), 5–36.
Zhang, J., & Daugherty, T. (2009). Third-person effect and social networking: Implications for online marketing and
word-of-mouth communication. American Journal of Business, 24(2), 53.