This article was downloaded by: [University North Carolina - Chapel Hill]

On: 14 July 2013, At: 00:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing Communications

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Missed eWOM opportunities: A cross-

sector analysis of online monitoring
behavior
a b
Nora Ganim Barnes & Stephanie L. Jacobsen
a
Center for Marketing Research, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth , 200 Mill Rd. #150A, Fairhaven , MA , 02719 , USA
b
Charlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth , 285 Old Westport Rd., North Dartmouth , MA , 02747 ,
USA
Published online: 10 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Journal of Marketing Communications (2013): Missed eWOM opportunities: A
cross-sector analysis of online monitoring behavior, Journal of Marketing Communications, DOI:
10.1080/13527266.2013.797788

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.797788

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Marketing Communications, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.797788

Missed eWOM opportunities: A cross-sector analysis of online

monitoring behavior
Nora Ganim Barnesa* and Stephanie L. Jacobsenb1
a
Center for Marketing Research, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 200 Mill Rd. #150A,
Fairhaven, MA 02719, USA; bCharlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Rd., North Dartmouth, MA 02747, USA

This paper provides empirical evidence that major sectors of the USA are not
listening to pertinent online conversations (electronic word-of-mouth [eWOM]) that
occur outside of their own social media portals. Data include cross sector as well as
longitudinal research on prominent sectors, including business, not for profits, and
academia. The Inc. 500 (fastest-growing US companies), top charities, and colleges
and universities all neglect, to some extent, the monitoring of eWOM. Findings
indicate that monitoring behavior may be related to how involved an organization is
in social media, if they have a written policy governing its use within the
Journal of Marketing Communications

organization, if they have specific goals that are related to their social media plan, if
they use tracking measures such as page views, numbers of fans or followers, and
how they staff the social media function. Charities are most likely to engage in
monitoring behavior for their causes. The academic sector often employs part-time
(student) assistance with its social media initiatives, ultimately resulting in less
monitoring behavior.
Keywords: eWOM; monitoring; social media; marketing communications; online
crisis management

Introduction
There is no doubt that the Internet has changed how we function. We now routinely
express ourselves in emails, on blogs, forums, websites, and social networking platforms,
such as Facebook and Twitter. According to a 2012 Pew Research Foundation study, 85%
of American adults use the Internet. Our face-to-face communication is now moving
online resulting in an unprecedented amount of consumer-generated information that
impacts all aspects of decision-making, including those surrounding the purchase and use
of goods and services (Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006).
As a result, marketers are becoming more aware of the possibility that online
discussions (electronic word-of-mouth [eWOM]) can, and do, impact sales, reputations,
and brands. Although there has been some early work on the role of eWOM in the
diffusion process (Arndt 1967; Sheth 1971) and more recent research that recognized the
importance of online conversations for businesses (see especially Armstrong and Hagel
1995), the empirical evidence of organizations monitoring eWOM as it applies to them has
not been systematically examined.
Traditional approaches to studying word-of-mouth (WOM) online and offline make
the case that conversations move through populations often resulting in influence to
behave in a particular way. In this paper, we consider, instead, organizations from different
sectors that might logically be impacted in a negative way by eWOM. Colleges and

*Corresponding author. Email: nbarnes@umassd.edu

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

 2 N.G. Barnes and S.L. Jacobsen

universities as well as top MBA programs are often the topics on websites dedicated to
making decisions about higher education. Charities work to get donations and volunteers,
making their image critical to their success. For fast-growing businesses such as the Inc.
500, their name, reputation, and branding strategy are essential for future growth.
The question becomes whether these sectors include the monitoring of critical
online conversations. New perspectives are needed to better understand the relationship
between organizations and the monitoring of eWOM as social media increase their
reach into the daily life and the decision-making of potential students, donors, or
customers.
It is no longer enough to understand how word travels through populations. We
now need to learn how to mitigate problems caused by negative online conversation or
how to maximize loyalty or advocacy expressed in that environment. The first step in
that direction is to locate factors that influence online monitoring behavior for
organizations.
In this paper, we examine the behavior of organizations as it relates to the monitoring
of online communications about their names, brands, or programs. We begin by looking at
the evolution of the work done on WOM and, more specifically, on eWOM as it relates to
marketing. New work in the area of social media marketing is presented which provides
Journal of Marketing Communications

support for studying online monitoring activity. The role of monitoring in online crisis
management as well as identifying brand advocates is discussed.

Conceptual background
WOM, PWOM, NWOM, and the emergence of eWOM
Over 70 years ago, the two-step flow theory was tested and confirmed. The hypothesis that
ideas flowed from mass media to opinion leaders and from these to others depended in
large part on informal communications referred to as ‘WOM’. As early as 1955, Katz and
Lazarsfeld claimed that personal influence has more effect than media because it consists
of active communication rather than one-way promotion.
The WOM literature has been the focus of interest since then, mostly looking at the
role of WOM in the diffusion process (Arndt 1967; Sheth 1971). The essence of WOM is
its personal influence over others in their decision-making, as people tend to gather
opinions from sources they find credible or knowledgeable (Haywood 1989).
The potential power of influence made opinion leaders of interest for much of the early
research on WOM (Arndt 1967). Arndt studied the effects of positive WOM (PWOM) and
negative WOM (NWOM). He concluded that PWOM is more frequent compared with
NWOM, and consumers are eight times more likely to receive favorable WOM than
unfavorable WOM. More recently, East, Hammond, and Lomax (2008) found that
consumers were three times more likely to receive PWOM than NWOM across several
categories. East et al. also found that generally PWOM has more of an impact than NWOM,
whereas others have claimed that NWOM can be more influential than PWOM
(Bayus 1985).
Breazeale (2008) concluded that NWOM has a more powerful influence on consumers
due to the fact that dissatisfied customers disseminate their experience and feelings more
frequently than those who are satisfied. Engel et al. (1969) advised businesses that ‘your
best salesman is a satisfied customer’. Despite the mixed results on which has a more
significant impact, East and others have found that both positive and negative WOM have
a definite effect on purchasing behavior.
 Journal of Marketing Communications 3

eWOM and market impact

Researchers began to look at the motivation for consumers to engage in online referral
activities, in terms of both giving and receiving. Hennig-Thurau and Walsh (2003) provide
a classification of possible motivations, including risk reduction, reduction in search time,
learning how to consume a product, dissonance reduction, determination of social
position, belonging to a virtual community, remuneration and learning what products are
new in the marketplace. Regardless of the motivation, it is clear that this online chatter
exists in the marketing environment.
Feick and Price (1987) suggested that some of those disseminating information about
products were doing so based on their knowledge and prior expertise or involvement in the
product. These opinion leaders were referred to as ‘market mavens’. Their information
went beyond that of the traditional opinion leader in that information was not only about a
product but also about the marketplace as they shared information about prices, best places
to make purchases and couponing. These influencers, if they were identified, could play a
critical role in promoting a particular product or service.
Today, the Internet is revolutionizing how businesses relate to consumers who have
the potential to connect with each other in new and powerful ways (Rayport and Sviokla
1994). Armstrong and Hagel (1995, 1996) proposed that ‘commercial success in the online
Journal of Marketing Communications

arena will belong to those businesses that organize electronic communities to meet
multiple social and commercial needs’. This type of organization would require the tools
to monitor these online discussions in order to facilitate the formation of communities.
The online option has become the vehicle of choice for many to exchange opinions and
share information (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Gruen et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007;
Edwards et al. 2010). As early as 1995, researchers recognized the importance of online
conversations for businesses to build customer loyalty, competitive advantage and
increase market share (see especially Armstrong and Hagel 1995). Although eWOM was
not specifically discussed, the authors did recommend that businesses activate a strategy to
monitor online conversations as they pertained to the company. Several recent studies
have emphasized the role of the Internet in building brands (Breakenridge 2001) and
managing customer relationships (Osenton 2002). It has been suggested that businesses
adopt new models to understand consumers who are actively involved online (Wind,
Mahajan, and Gunther 2002).
Given that there now exists the technology to make it faster and easier to monitor
online conversations that potential consumers are engaged in, this would appear to be the
next step in our understanding the potential power of eWOM. Social media monitoring
(SMM) can provide some important information to better understand the impact of eWOM
on organizations.

Social media monitoring

SMM is a relatively new concept aimed at measuring the effectiveness of communications
disseminated through interactive digital media (Winer 2009). SMM is a means of
organizing conversations on the Internet (eWOM) in a structure that allows a user to see
how conversations interconnect (Sponder 2011). There are now several agencies
and available software that can assist firms interested in applying SMM techniques
(Sharma 2011).
Monitoring consumer eWOM activity has become in itself a business (Tedeschi 1999).
Some organizations routinely do this on their own using Google Analytics or other
software. There are also commercial firms that specialize in monitoring, including well-
 4 N.G. Barnes and S.L. Jacobsen

known companies such as Nielsen and IBM. Several studies now highlight the importance
of monitoring what is being said about companies and how, by monitoring, companies are
able to more successfully control their reputation and message (Kovoor-Misra and Misra
2007; Baird and Parasnis 2011).
Consumer brands Gatorade, JetBlue and Pampers have famously succeeded in
monitoring and reacting to eWOM (Fournier and Avery 2011). Davis and Khazanchi
(2008) studied the impact of eWOM factors on e-commerce sales using data from a retail
e-commerce firm. Their research showed that the interactions among eWOM postings,
product category, volume of postings, and product were statistically significant in
explaining changes in product sales.

Monitoring and crisis management

Despite the obvious beneficial effects that eWOM monitoring can have, an executive
report from IBM (2011) involving both consumers and executives on a global scale found
that less than 50% of the businesses studied monitor their brands, despite fear of negative
brand exposure (Baird and Parasnis 2011). Failure to monitor can lead to crises, including,
but not limited to, inappropriate content on a website or in blogs, negative information
Journal of Marketing Communications

being retweeted or posted on popular forums, and misinformation being disseminated

online regarding the company or its products.
In a study by Stuart and Shandwick (2012) on crisis management, global chief
communications officers described the effects of a crisis as including (besides threat to
reputation) more media and governmental scrutiny, loss of public trust, decline in share
price, loss of revenue, and greater customer dissatisfaction. It is often better to act quickly
and make mistakes than to fail to act until it is too late. In corporate emergencies, it is
nonaction and the resulting spin that cause embarrassment, humiliation, prolonged
visibility, and unnecessary litigation (Lukaszewski 1999). The best way to be in front of a
crisis is to be the first to hear the negative publicity, enabling swift action.
Based on the companies that have experienced a crisis caused by negative eWOM,
30% of organizations saw a decrease in share prices and 24% of organizations saw a loss in
revenue. Monitoring stakeholders and being prepared allow companies to be out in front of
a crisis. In addition, companies can identify brand advocates (Booth and Matic 2011) or
evaluate the effectiveness and health of a firm’s image (Gruhl et al. 2004).
We seek to contribute to the eWOM literature by empirically demonstrating the level
of monitoring of electronic conversations across diverse sectors. In addition to their
potential in advancing eWOM theory, these findings have managerial implications for
those organizations that choose to utilize eWOM monitoring by providing a marketing
advantage in positioning brand communications based on those inputs.
The sectors studied were the focus of benchmarking research conducted annually
since 2007 at a large university in the northeast US. They were selected based on
their representation of important aspects of the US society and the availability of
comprehensive lists allowing for probabilistic sampling.

Methodology
Sample
The sectors included in this study are the nonprofit sector (represented by Forbes
Magazine’s list of the top 200 charities in the USA), the business sector (represented by the
list of the fastest-growing 500 private companies in the USA from Inc. Magazine), and an
 Journal of Marketing Communications 5

academic graduate sector (represented by US News top MBA programs, and

undergraduate colleges and universities from a comprehensive list provided by the
University of Texas, http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/state/). Each list was called in its
entirety except for US colleges and universities, where a proportional sample based on
geography was implemented.
All samples are statistically valid at ^ 5% or less. Sample sizes for each sector’s latest
study are as follows: Inc. 500 (n ¼ 170), Forbes top charities (n ¼ 78), US News top MBA
programs (n ¼ 70), and US colleges and universities (n ¼ 570). Three of the sectors have
been studied annually for several years. The top US MBA programs were studied for the
first time in 2012.

Procedure
To measure the existence of eWOM monitoring behavior, interviewees from all sectors
were asked whether they check for online conversations (eWOM) or mentions of their
name, program, causes or brands either manually or using some automated alert.
Responses to the monitoring question were analyzed with all other questions in each
sector’s survey to determine possible relationships that might explain eWOM monitoring
Journal of Marketing Communications

behavior.
Some questions were open-ended if they had to do with plans for the future or
investment in social media. Other questions were more likely to use interval or ordinal
scales to capture attitudes and perceptions as well as a profile of current online behavior.
For example, all those interviewed were asked how important they thought social media
was to their marketing plan given a range from very important to very unimportant. Other
questions were left open-ended; for example, one question asked how the monitoring
function was actually implemented in their organization. In this case, responses included
the use of automated alerts and occasional Google searches.
All sectors were asked whether they had a written social media policy governing
online communications, how the social media function is staffed, how they measure the
effectiveness of their social media efforts, and specific questions about how social media
impact their organizational goals.
The original survey instruments were designed in 2007 and focused on usage of social
media tools. All sectors studied were questioned about blogging, social networking sites,
and using video or podcasting on their websites. Conducting studies annually provided
important trend data documenting the fading of older platforms, such as MySpace, and the
adoption of newer tools, such as Foursquare, Pinterest, or downloadable mobile apps.
Over the past 5 years, newer tools have been added to the surveys (i.e., Twitter,
YouTube, Pinterest, and Foursquare) and additional questions now focus on monitoring,
measuring, and tracking the impact of an organization’s social media efforts. In addition,
groups are now asked about having written social media policies to govern online
communications by employees and about how the social media function is handled. The
result is a unique set of cross-sector data that provide a glimpse into actual social media
behavior in an organization and their likelihood to listen as well as participate using these
new communications tools.
Although some questions on all four surveys remain identical each year, sectors do
respond to questions unique to their mission. In cases where those unique questions
showed a relationship to the monitoring of eWOM, they are noted.
All interviews were conducted with those most knowledgeable about the use of social
media for marketing their products, services, or causes. For the colleges and MBA
 6 N.G. Barnes and S.L. Jacobsen

programs, the appropriate Admissions Director provided the data. In other sectors, the
Marketing Director or Social Media Manager was interviewed.
In addition to assessing the frequency of monitoring activity, it is important to identify
relationships between eWOM monitoring and other aspects of a social media plan. It may
be that adoption of certain tools or the type of social media management provides some
predisposition or incentive for monitoring. Thus, all surveys included questions on usage
of an array of social media tools, the existence of a written social media policy to govern
online communications, how they measure the effectiveness of their social media efforts,
who manages their social media, and whether they monitor online conversation about their
name, brands, programs, or causes.

Results
The empirical evidence across sectors revealed that although many are participating in
online conversations, only the nonprofit sector shows a widespread monitoring activity.
Nearly one in three of the Inc. 500 and the top MBA programs make no effort to listen to
eWOM if it does not come through their social media portals. This number actually
increases to one in two for US colleges and universities. The empirical evidence clearly
Journal of Marketing Communications

shows that businesses and both academic sectors can improve on the important challenge
of monitoring eWOM.
Figure 1 shows data from 2010 to 2012 Inc. 500, the top charities, and colleges and
universities.

Extent of monitoring
Our research indicates that the number of organizations currently monitoring eWOM for
their company name, brand, programs, or causes ranges from 47% for colleges and
universities to 90% for charities. It is interesting to note that there has been very little
change (2 –3%) in the past 2 years in the number for charities and the Inc. 500. The number
of MBA programs monitoring (65%) is most similar to the Inc. 500 which has remained
between 68% and 70%.

100% 93% 90%

90%
80% 73%
75%
68% 68% 70% 68% 65%
70%
60%
50% 47%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Higher Ed Inc. 500 Charities MBA
2010 73% 68% 75%
2011 68% 70% 93%
2012 47% 68% 90% 65%

Figure 1. Monitoring buzz about their organization by sector 2010– 2012.

 Journal of Marketing Communications 7

Approximately two-thirds of the Inc. 500 and the top MBA programs are currently
monitoring eWOM as it applies to their name, products, or programs. Although the rate of
monitoring over the past 3 years has been fairly consistent among the Inc. 500, it is curious
that one in three of the fastest-growing small businesses and the top MBA programs in the
USA do not listen to online conversation as it relates to them.
The results are especially interesting for US colleges and universities where
monitoring eWOM has declined sharply over the past 3 years. Currently, fewer than half of
these institutions of higher education (47%) are monitoring their school’s name or online
buzz about their program.

Correlations with monitoring

The Inc. 500
Possible relationships between monitoring activity and aspects of a social media presence
were assessed by correlational analyses. For each sector, the question that asked whether
they monitor eWOM about their name, program, brands, or products was correlated with
every other question in that survey. Typically, it, included questions on their use of an
array of social media tools, including blogging, Facebook, Twitter, Podcasting, YouTube,
Journal of Marketing Communications

Foursquare, and more. The intent was to determine whether the use of particular tools
was related to monitoring activity. In addition, correlations were examined between
monitoring and the existence of a written social media plan, intent to increase social media
investments and importance of attaining certain social media objectives.
Several variables were significantly correlated with eWOM monitoring. The use of
blogging (r ¼ 0.375, p ¼ 0.000) and Twitter (r ¼ 0.447, p ¼ 0.000) was positively related
to eWOM monitoring. In addition, Facebook (r ¼ 0.377, p ¼ 0.000) and YouTube
(r ¼ 0.305, p ¼ 0.000) were significantly related to eWOM monitoring behavior for these
fast-growing businesses. To a lesser degree, there are relationships between monitoring
behavior and using Video (r ¼ 0.242, p ¼ 0.002), Foursquare (r ¼ 0.165, p ¼ 0.031),
LinkedIn (r ¼ 0.245, p ¼ 0.001), and Mobile Apps (r ¼ 0.185, p ¼ 0.015).
Several business-specific questions were included only in the Inc. 500 survey. These
questions asked how important their social media efforts were for their business goals,
such as generating leads and improving customer service. Each was answered on a four-
point scale ranging from very important to very unimportant.
Businesses that see their social media efforts as important means to increase web
traffic (r ¼ 0.292, p ¼ 0.000), increase brand awareness (r ¼ 0.250, p ¼ 0.002), enhance
corporate reputation (r ¼ 0.196, p ¼ 0.015), increase lead generation (r ¼ 0.212,
p ¼ 0.008), and improve customer service (r ¼ 0.230, p ¼ 0.004) are more likely to
engage in monitoring eWOM.
There was a significant positive relationship between plans to increase investments in
social media and listening to pertinent online conversations among these businesses. There
is also a relationship between having dedicated social media staff and eWOM monitoring
(see Table 1).

Forbes top charities

Few significant relationships were revealed for monitoring and other variables for the
Forbes top 200 charities. Ironically, this group apparently has embraced social media
more than the others, in that their use of Facebook, blogging, Twitter, and YouTube is the
highest of the sectors studied. Statistically, however, it is only their use of blogging
 8 N.G. Barnes and S.L. Jacobsen

Table 1. Inc. 500 monitoring correlations.

Inc. 500 (2011), n ¼ 170

Use Blogging and reply to comments 0.375 (0.000)
Use Twitter 0.447 (0.000)
Use Facebook 0.377 (0.000)
Use YouTube 0.305 (0.000)
Use LinkedIn 0.245 (0.001)
Use Video Blogging 0.242 (0.002)
Use Mobile Apps 0.185 (0.015)
Use FourSquare 0.165 (0.031)
Employ permanent staff to handle social media efforts 0.278 (0.000)
Plan to increase investment in social media 0.155 (0.044)
Believe social media is important for web traffic 0.292 (0.000)
Believe social media is important for brand awareness 0.250 (0.002)
Believe social media is important for company reputation 0.196 (0.015)
Believe social media is important for lead generation 0.212 (0.008)
Believe social media is important for customer support 0.230 (0.004)

(r ¼ 0.546, p ¼ 0.000) and Twitter (r ¼ 0.372, p ¼ 0.001) that show significant positive
Journal of Marketing Communications

correlations with the monitoring of eWOM. These prolific communicators blog and tweet
and use available analytics specific to these tools to monitor their names and causes
(see Table 2).

Colleges and universities, top MBA programs

Both academic sectors show positive but weak relationships for having a written social
media policy and monitoring eWOM behavior (r ¼ 0.243, p ¼ 0.050 for MBA programs
and r ¼ 0.114, p ¼ 0.006 for undergraduate institutions). In graduate admissions, those
who feel that they have a well-planned and well-executed social media plan are also more
likely to listen to eWOM as it relates to their schools (r ¼ 0.287, p ¼ 0.020). These two
sectors also differ in some important ways.
There is a significant negative correlation between having student help and monitoring
eWOM (r ¼ 2 0.273, p ¼ 0.026) among top MBA programs. The programs with
employees dedicated to the social media efforts are more likely to listen to online buzz.
In addition, for the MBA programs, significant correlations were found for several
variables related to measuring the effectiveness of their social media efforts. Those
programs that use comments left on blogs or other social media accounts, watch the
numbers of fans and followers, and check page views or use Google Analytics to measure
their social media effectiveness are more likely to monitor eWOM. MBA programs that
plan to increase their social media investments are also more likely to listen to online buzz
(see Table 3).
For the four-year colleges and universities, using specific social media tools was
related to eWOM monitoring behavior. There were significant relationships involving

Table 2. Forbes top 200 charities monitoring correlations.

Forbes top 200 charities (2011), n ¼ 78
Use Blogging and reply to comments 0.546 (0.000)
Use Twitter 0.372 (0.001)
 Journal of Marketing Communications 9

Table 3. US news top MBA programs monitoring correlations

US news top MBA Programs (2012), n ¼ 70

Have written social media policy 0.243 (0.050)
Employ permanent staff to handle SM 2 0.273 (0.026)
Measure effectiveness of SM using comments 0.122 (0.004)
Measure effectiveness of SM using fans/followers 0.159 (0.000)
Measure effectiveness of SM using page views 0.232 (0.000)
Measure effectiveness of SM using Google Analytics 0.307 (0.000)
Believe SM is worth the investment 0.101 (0.016)
Have a well-executed SM plan 0.083 (0.046)

Table 4. US colleges and universities monitoring correlations.

US colleges and universities (2011), n ¼ 570
Use Twitter 0.169 (0.000)
Use YouTube 0.163 (0.000)
Use LinkedIn 0.158 (0.001)
Use FourSquare 0.152 (0.001)
Journal of Marketing Communications

Have written social media policy 0.114 (0.006)

Have a well-executed social media plan 0.287 (0.020)

using Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Foursquare and monitoring. The only other
sector, where the use of specific tools correlates with eWOM monitoring, is the Inc. 500
(see Table 4).

Discussion
For the first time, it can now be empirically demonstrated that aspects of a social media
initiative correlate with monitoring eWOM in businesses, nonprofits, and academia. Taken
separately, the findings might appear to be disconnected, but together they paint a picture
of organizations that have learned and adapted to a changing marketing landscape.
There is evidence of a transformation process in some organizations where real listening
is happening. These conversations, regardless of how mundane, crass, or candid, are
essential to advance a business today.
Our findings show that certain elements correlate with monitoring eWOM. These
include using social media tools that require generating content, constant updating, and an
effective messaging plan. Tools such as blogs require a level of commitment beyond that
of other tools. Twitter has grown in importance as well with many organizations now using
it as an extension of their customer service function. The findings also reveal relationships
between listening behavior and having a written social media plan, actively measuring
social media effectiveness, and intent to increase investments in this medium. For those
engaged in these practices, the level of organizational commitment to their social media
program is clear and their use of monitoring might be expected as part of this mindset.
One particularly revealing finding is that the use of students in the social media efforts
at colleges and universities was negatively correlated with monitoring behavior. Although
young people may be more fluent in certain tools and social networking logistics, they may
not be knowledgeable about the over-arching mission or plan for the school’s social media
efforts. The implication might be that organizations need to hire trained social media
 10 N.G. Barnes and S.L. Jacobsen

professionals instead of staffing this function based on age or fluency with a limited
number of tools.
It appears from our study that organizations with permanent positions dedicated to
social media are more likely to engage in eWOM monitoring. This is consistent with the
idea that organizations that are using blogs and other content-heavy social media tools
have a strategic plan and investment in their social media programs, and are more likely to
understand the importance of the monitoring function.
The current literature on eWOM centers on individuals acting as influencers in a digital
environment. Much like earlier theory on WOM, eWOM theory focuses on the flow of
information through a given population. With the rise of a consumer-centric marketplace
in which consumers now have unprecedented access to the knowledge and experience of
others, along with the ability to share that information, new theory needs to look at the
potential impact of eWOM on organizations.
EWOM can result in online crises or marketing opportunities. Its place in the
consumer decision process is central, and its effect on organizational behavior is growing
in importance. Empirical studies need to better inform our theory of eWOM, and its
potential to change the way business is done.
Journal of Marketing Communications

Future research
This study evaluated the online monitoring activities (eWOM) for four distinct groups,
with specific target markets; however, the results may not generalize to consumer goods
firms. The data also do not take into account if any of the sectors studied experience more
significant levels of positive or negative WOM as well as any other significant (non-social
media)-related differences between these sectors. An examination of other sectors,
including government, healthcare or large businesses would be interesting to assess
whether the results obtained in our analysis are apparent in other sectors.
Although monitoring online communications is crucial for a company to maintain
awareness of how consumers are feeling and what their preferences are, focus will have to
be placed on how these eWOM communications are affecting the bottom line. Similarly,
now that most organizations are utilizing social media in some capacity, measuring the
effectiveness of this behavior and ensuring that it results in a positive outcome is more
important than ever.
It is unclear whether those who are monitoring have noticed any change in their brand
image, reputation or overall sales. There is also no evidence that those who are not
monitoring have experienced a drop in sales or a more significant number of crises than
those who are monitoring. The return on investment for social media engagement is the
subject of much debate. Future studies might look at the impact on revenues made by a
social media presence and the impact of the monitoring function in terms of the bottom line.
There are no studies currently available on how the information gathered through
monitoring is currently being used. There may be ‘best practices’ that organizations have
for capitalizing on the information gathered through monitoring. Despite the lack of
evidence as to the direct impact, the significance of the act of monitoring should play
a central role in future research.

Conclusion
In today’s business world, WOM communication is rampant among consumers, and SMM
has become a new tool to help understand this important development. The requisite
 Journal of Marketing Communications 11

challenge facing any organization today is understanding customer concerns, challenges

and opportunities and responding to them directly. Listening to online consumer
conversation as it relates to an organization’s mission, brands, or programs is essential.
This collective intelligence is the new business intelligence and feeds into decision-
making at the highest level so that the organization can respond, improve experiences, and
strengthen the brand. Monitoring eWOM can move an organization from one that might be
vulnerable and disengaged to a position of strength, ready to react, mitigate problems, and
maximize opportunities.

Note
1. Email: s.jacobsen@umassd.edu

Notes on contributors
Nora Ganim Barnes has worked as a consultant for many national and international firms. She has
published over 200 articles in academic and professional journals and proceedings, has contributed
chapters to books, and has been awarded numerous research grants. Her work has been covered
Journal of Marketing Communications

online and in print by Business Week, the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Reuters, Wall Street
Journal, Fox News and Computer World among others. She has been named a Senior Research
Fellow by the Society for New Communications Research. Nora can be reached at Email:
nbarnes@umassd.edu
Stephanie Jacobsen received her MBA in 2009 from the Charlton College of Business at the
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. She specializes in Marketing and Communications. She
was previously MBA Coordinator, responsible for overseeing the new 30-credit MBA Program
offered by the Charlton College of Business at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and is
currently lecturing at the University. Stephanie can be reached at Email: S.Jacobsen@umassd.edu

References
Armstrong, Arthur, and John Hagel III. 1995. “Real Profits from Virtual Communities.” The
McKinsey Quarterly 3: 127– 141.
Armstrong, Arthur, and John Hagel III. 1996. “The Real Value of Online Communities.” Harvard
Business Review 74: 134– 141.
Arndt, J. 1967. “Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product.” Journal
of Marketing Research 4 (3): 291– 295.
Baird, C. H., and G. Parasnis. 2011. “From Social Media to Social CRM.” IBM Executive Global
Business Services. Executive Report.
Bayus, B. L. 1985. “Word of Mouth: The Indirect Effects of Marketing Efforts.” Journal of
Advertising Research 25 (3): 31 – 39.
Booth, N., and J. A. Matic. 2011. “Mapping and Leveraging Influencers in Social Media to Shape
Corporate Brand Perceptions.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 16 (3):
184– 191.
Breakenridge, D. 2001. Cyberbranding: Brand Building in the Digital Economy. Financial Times.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Breazeale, M. 2008. “Word of Mouse an Assessment of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Research.”
International Journal of Market Research 51 (3): 297– 318.
Brown, J., A. J. Broderick, and N. Lee. 2007. “Word of Mouth Communication Within Online
Communities: Conceptualizing the Online Social Network.” Journal of Interactive Marketing
21 (3): 2 – 20.
Davis, A., and D. Khazanchi. 2008. “An Empirical Study of Online Word of Mouth as a Predictor for
Multi-Product Category e-Commerce Sales.” Electronic Markets 18 (2): 130– 141.
East, Robert, Kathy Hammond, and Wendy Lomax. 2008. “Measuring the Impact of Positive and
Negative Word of Mouth on Brand Purchase Probability.” International Journal of Research in
Marketing 25 (3): 215– 224.
 12 N.G. Barnes and S.L. Jacobsen

Edwards, C., A. Edwards, Q. Qing, and S. T. Wahl. 2010. “The Influence of Computer-Mediated
Word of Mouth Communication on Student Perceptions of Instructors and Attitudes Toward
Learning Course Content.” Communication Education 56 (3): 255– 277.
Engel, J., R. Blackwell, and R. Kegerreis. 1969. “How Information is used to Adopt an Innovation.”
Journal of Advertising Research 33 (4): 3 – 8.
Feick, L. F., and L. L. Price. 1987. “The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information.”
The Journal of Marketing 83 –97.
Fournier, S., and J. Avery. 2011. “The Uninvited Brand.” Business Horizons 54 (3): 193– 207.
Goldsmith, R., and D. Horowitz. 2006. “Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking.”
Journal of Interactive Advertising 6 (2): 1 –16.
Gruhl, D., D. Liben-Nowell, R. Guha, and A. Tomkins. December 2004. Information Diffusion
Through Blogspace, Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web.
New York, NY: ACM.
Gruen, T. W., T. Osmonbekov, and A. J. Czaplewski. 2006. “eWOM: The Impact of Customer-to-
Customer Online Know-How Exchange on Customer Value and Loyalty.” Journal of Business
Research 59: 449– 456.
Haywood, K. M. 1989. “Managing Word of Mouth Communications.” Journal of Services
Marketing 3 (2): 55 – 67.
Henning-Thurau, T., and Walsh, G. (2003) “Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for the
Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the internet.” International Journal of
Electronic Commerce 8 (2): 51 – 74.
Hennig-Thurau, T., K. P. Gwinner, G. Walsh, and D. D. Gremle. 2004. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth
Journal of Marketing Communications

via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the

Internet?” Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (1): 38 – 52.
Katz, E., and P. F. Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of
Mass Communication. New York: Free Press.
Kovoor-Misra, S., and M. Misra. 2007. “Understanding and Managing Crises in an Online World.”
In International Handbook of Organizational Crisis Management, edited by C. M. Pearson,
C. Roux-Dufort, and J. A. Clair, 85 – 103. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lukaszewski, J. 1999. “Seven Dimensions of Crisis Communication Management: A Strategic
Analysis and Planning Model.” Ragan’s Communications Journal 155–187.
Osenton, T. 2002. Customer Share Marketing: How the World’s Great Marketers Unlock Profits
from Customer Loyalty. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Rayport, J. F., and J. J. Sviokla. 1994. “Managing in the Marketspace.” Harvard Business Review 72:
141– 150.
Sharma, A. 2011. “Take-off of Online Marketing: Casting the Next Generation Strategies.” Business
Strategy Series 12 (4): 202– 208.
Sheth, J. N. 1971. “Word-of-Mouth in Low-Risk Innovations.” Journal of Advertising Research
11 (3): 15 – 18.
Stuart, Spencer, and Weber Shandwick. 2012. “The Rising CCO IV.” Accessed April 23. http://
www.spencerstuart.com/research/articles/1605/
Sponder, M. 2011. Social Media Analytics: Effective Tools for Building, Interpreting, and Using
Metrics. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.
Tedeschi, B. 1999. October 25 “Consumer Products and Firms are Being Reviewed on More
Websites, Some Featuring Comments from Anyone with an Opinion.” New York Times.
Wind, Y., Vijay Mahajan, and Robert E. Gunther. 2002. Convergence Marketing: Strategies for
Reaching the New Hybrid Consumer. Financial Times. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Winer, R. S. 2009. “New Communications Approaches in Marketing: Issues and Research
Directions.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 23 (2): 108– 117.