G-3

MARKETING MANAGEMENT II
Assignment - I

22ePGP016b3 – AKASH KOUL

22ePGP016b3 – AKASH SRIVASTAVA
Case Study 22ePGP016b3 – ALOK PAUL
Group -3 22ePGP016b3 – AMAN SINGH RAI
22ePGP016b3 – ANAND
22ePGP075b3 – ISHAN ARORA
Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................2
General Information and Objective.......................................................................................................3
Motivation.............................................................................................................................................3
Literature Review..................................................................................................................................3
Trust in Online Review Contexts............................................................................................................4
How do review cues influence review credibility and usefulness?....................................................5
Review Writing Quality......................................................................................................................5
Number of reviews............................................................................................................................5
Timeliness..........................................................................................................................................6
Methodology.........................................................................................................................................6
Sample profile.......................................................................................................................................6
Subject and Data Collection...................................................................................................................6
Data analysis inferences........................................................................................................................8
Managerial Implication..........................................................................................................................8
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................9
References...........................................................................................................................................10
Appendixes:.........................................................................................................................................12

Figure 1:Model of the Ideal Online Review Process..............................................................................5

 IMPACT OF ONLINE CUSTOMER
REVIEWS ON ONLINE PRODUCT
SELECTIONS

Introduction
Online customer reviews significantly influence product sales, but the quality of a 'credible' review
remains debated. Current research uses quantitative methods and a top-down approach, potentially
reducing understanding to identifying one factor's influence over another. Online reviews of such
diverse “objects” as cameras, hotels, physicians, and university lecturers have become a mass
phenomenon. Many internet users search through reviews of peer consumers, peer patients, peer
students, etc. before making decisions, so online reviews have considerably impacted many areas of
everyday lives (e.g., Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006; Maslowska et al., 2017). Basing decisions on online
reviews requires the trust of opinion seekers in the evaluations of their peers. Moreover, an US
industry survey (BrightLocal, 2022) found that

49 % of consumers trust online reviews as much as they trust personal recommendations from
family and friends. Online reviews are frequently mentioned in relation to a particular eWOM
communication style. "Consumer-generated, consumption-related communication that uses digital
tools and is directed primarily to other consumers" is the definition of electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM) according to Babić Rosario et al. (2020). Therefore, electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)
functions as a catch-all term for various computer-mediated peer-to-consumer discussions in
addition to online evaluations. Online reviews, as opposed to other eWOM types, are often
published on particular review sites. These platforms can be separately developed (e.g., Yelp,
HealthGrades) or included inside store homepages (e.g., Amazon, Bookings), fan communities (e.g.,
Metalstorm, The Metal Archives), and social networking sites (e.g., Facebook). "Peer-generated
product evaluations posted on company or third-party websites" is the definition of online reviews
(Mudambi & Schuff, 2008, p. 186).

We make extensive use of this definition for the current study, but we also make clear that we find
any studies that look at peer assessments in the review area of a review platform to be pertinent.
These evaluations might be written primarily for scientific research or published on a real platform.
Notably, this method removes online evaluations written by social media influencers or posted on
private blogs. We have omitted these reviews because of the significant differences in the
circumstances under which confidence in online reviews arises on review sites and blogs.
General Information and Objective
User-generated product reviews are a persuasive source of information in shaping consumers’
attitudes and their purchases (see, e.g., Bickart & Schindler, 2001; Senecal & Nantel, 2004).
Consumers rely on online reviews to make decisions that range from which movie to watch to which
insurance to buy. However, not all reviewers are likely to be equally credible. Review sites allow
anyone to post anything about any product (Winter, Kramer, Appel, & Schielke, 2010), whether one
is qualified to assess a product critically or not. Reviewers thus include laypersons who claim little
knowledge of the product under review and self-proclaimed experts who claim to know about a
product as part of their profession (Mackiewicz, 2010). Finally, rated experts are reviewers whose
status has been vetted through the ratings of other users based on their past helpfulness.

Motivation
The "Impact of Online Customer Reviews on Online Product Selections" study was motivated by the
need to fully comprehend how online customer reviews influence consumer decisions in the online
marketplace. This study delves into the pivotal role online reviews play in the contemporary e-
commerce landscape, offering valuable implications for both businesses and consumers. In order to
help firms develop their marketing strategies, acquire a competitive advantage, and build customer
trust, this research aims to uncover the complex dynamics at play in consumer decision-making
during online buying.

Literature Review
Beginning in the mid-1990s, many researchers studied the impact of source credibility on
interpersonal influence, specifically on the Internet (Johnson et al., 1999 and Calabrese and
Borchert, 1996). These early studies focused on online political information surrounding the US
presidential election 1996. But recently, E-commerce has expanded significantly over the past few
years and has taken on more significance in our everyday lives, particularly recently under the effect
of COVID-19 (Hasanat et al., 2020). Consumers are more likely than ever to rely on reviews to learn
about products while purchasing online. Reviews are supplied by other customers who have
previously purchased the goods via online shopping websites, as opposed to the official product
information offered by the merchants (Baek et al., 2012). Consumers also increasingly share their
shopping adventures on social media platforms (Floh et al., 2013).

Data from the PowerReviews Health and Beauty Study (Health and Beauty Shopping Trends in 2023 -
PowerReviews, n.d.) found that 95% of consumers say online customer reviews play a role in their
product search, and another 86% said reviews are essential to purchasing. In addition to this,
according to data from our Power of Reviews study, 30% of respondents between the ages of 18 and
44 read reviews before making any purchase. Brands and retailers are often hesitant on heavily
investing in customer feedback because they’re unsure how to generate more reviews to begin with.
PowerReviews' own customer data shows that when products move from zero to more than one
review, the conversion rate increases by up to 65%. That much faith is being placed in review
material.

Trust in Online Review Contexts

There are several types of trust in online review environments, as Duffy (2017) highlighted.
To identify relevant trust relationships, (Borchers, 2023)employed a model of the ideal online review
process (Figure 1). The model identifies the players in the review process as follows: An option
provider (a doctor, for example, or a camera maker) presents a particular choice (a camera that can
be purchased, or a health service that may be received). A reviewer writes a review to discuss their
experience with this option; preferably, they have used it before. The review is often published on a
platform that is supplied by a platform provider (such as Healthgrades or Amazon). The review's
quality is evaluated by the platform's user community (e.g., via comments, flagging, helpfulness
votes). When deciding whether to choose the choice, an opinion seeker who is considering it looks
to the review for guidance. The opinion seeker may choose to read the review in addition to
gathering additional information from an external actor—that is, an actor unaffiliated with either the
choice or the platform. It should be noted that the model only accounts for the simplest aspect of
the online review process, which consists of one reviewer contacting one opinion seeker. The person
seeking an opinion will often read through many reviews and contrast them with one another. Due
to each actor's inherent selectivity, the opinion seeker believes that there are dangers associated
with including additional players: The performer seeking an opinion may fall short of expectations
placed on them since the opinion seeker cannot tell if they would behave in a way that guarantees
high-quality reviews. For instance, platform providers may sell option providers particular editing
options; option providers may pay reviewers to write biased reviews; reviewers may unintentionally
favour premium brands; and community members may differ in their opinions about what makes a
helpful review (Gössling et al., 2018). Thus, if an opinion seeker uses online reviews as a source of
information when making decisions, they run the danger of having to place their faith in one or more
of the involved parties. This finding suggests that trust in online review environments typically
involves additional actors as trustees in addition to the reviewer. The model of the online review
process offers a framework for arranging studies on trust in online reviews. By identifying whose
actor's chosen behaviours the factor relates to, it enables the attribution of the variables under
examination to particular participants in the online review process.

FIGURE 1:MODEL OF THE IDEAL ONLINE REVIEW PROCESS

How do review cues influence review credibility and usefulness?

Two-sided reviews include both good and negative sentiments, whereas one-sided evaluations are
either exclusively positive or exclusively negative (Park et al., 2019). Consistent with advertising
research findings, two-sided communications are frequently considered more trustworthy because
they thoroughly summarise contentious problems (Mayweg-Paus and Jucks, 2018).

Review Writing Quality

In addition to this, an online review's writing quality is influenced by elements including syntax,
structure, and spelling. Style choices that can make a review less clear, including misspellings and
grammar mistakes, make the review seem less beneficial (Schindler and Bickart, 2012, Wang et al.,
2019). Inadequate grammar also leads readers to doubt the author's expertise and reject the
review's legitimacy (Moran and Muzellec, 2017; Clare et al., 2018). Review readability, which is
correlated with writing quality and directly relates to how well a review text is comprehended, is the
most significant factor in determining how beneficial a review is, according to a meta-analysis
conducted by Wang et al. (2019).

Number of reviews
Customers are more likely to buy items with many online reviews than just a few (Zhang et al.,
2014). Customers may feel more comfortable believing the opinion of a large group of individuals
when they realise that a product is popular with others (due to its high number of reviews), which
raises the reviews' perceived usefulness and trustworthiness (Purnawirawan et al., 2014).
Timeliness
Additionally, timeliness can enhance the quality of an online review by strengthening its argument
and making it more believable (Thomas, Wirtz, & Weyerer, 2019). Timeliness is another determining
element, since the review loses value the moment it is considered outdated (Clare et al., 2016).

SOURCE 1 (FILIERI, 2015)

Methodology
Initially, to study the literature on this topic, we searched the internet, especially in “Google
Scholars” about this topic. We did a thorough search using different keywords such as "internet,"
"digital," and "consumer," and we also changed the term "review" to "rating" and
"recommendation." Because online reviews are included in the broad category of electronic word-
of-mouth, or eWOM, we also looked up the phrase "eWOM" or "electronic word-of-mouth".
Additionally, credibility and trust are the foundation of this research. Thus, we choose to include
both phrases in the search term.

Sample profile
There were a total 8 respondents out of which 4 were male and 4 were female. They are the
consumers who order meals from Zomato or Swiggy and depend on online evaluations or who shop
online for fashion, festivals, electronics, and home goods. All of the participants were employed by
MNCs firm and were from Delhi NCR region. This was to make sure that they understood the
importance of earning and use it spend it wisely.

Subject and Data Collection

For this study, in-depth interviews were conducted that lasted about 15 minutes each. As required
for narrative research, the interviews included semi-structured questions that asked participants to
describe in-depth responses .The questionnaire is based on (Lopes et al., 2020) work, where the
scholars tried to assess the relative importance of the argument strength, argument sidedness,
writing quality, number of arguments, rated review usefulness, summary review rating, and number
of reviews in determining the perceived usefulness and credibility of an online review.
Questionnaires used for this interview and were changed to meet the research needs. This research
further attaches the interview and documentation data.

Additionally, the researchers asked for two (2) qualifying questions in the survey form to guarantee
the respondents' reliability. It was confirmed in the first section of the interview questions that the
respondents had purchased apparel, accessories, electronics, and home goods on the Shopee
platform; it was also confirmed in the second section that the respondents had read online reviews
before making a purchase. ( see Appendix)

The first part of the questionnaire is based on ----

Section 1:

Quest 1: What goods do you prefer buying from an eCommerce store? weekly

Quest 2: What are the points you keep in mind/ look at while ordering from an eCommerce website?

Quest 3: Do you give feedback after receiving the product? If yes, then how frequently (under what
conditions), or do you not contribute to giving feedback?

Ques 4: Have you heard that sometimes some sellers buy the ratings from the customer by giving
them cashback, free items, etc? So, how does it impact your intentions? Do you feel reliable on
these ratings?

Question 5: What products will you avoid/never buy from these websites? For some, it could be
shoes, expensive watches, phones, and gold jewellery.

Section 2:

We tried to explore the differential roles of critic reviews on various types of products within the
same product category. We showed the respondents the products' web page and asked their
opinions on-

1. They will buy which products out of the products shown within the category. And
why?
2. Are they looking for anything specific? Highlight those pointers along with the
reason.
 3. Is there any feedback they would share with the e-commerce companies that they
can incorporate to ease their decisions?
4. What challenges did they face while taking a final call on which product they want
to buy?

Data analysis inferences

After conducting the in-depth interview, it was found that respondents mainly prefer buying clothes,
kitchen appliances, electronics, cosmetics, organizing accessories, and some decorative items from
the e-commerce website. The preferred websites are Myntra and Amazon. Three respondents
refrain from buying from Flipkart or Meesho. Their shopping experience was unsatisfactory
regarding product quality, customer service and delivery timelines.

While purchasing, the major factor the customers are looking is the maximum rating ( especially
more Global ratings, verified sellers, delivery time and recent reviews of the product along with the
picture of the product).

It was quite surprising to see that since all the respondents relied heavily on customer ratings
reviews but only 1 respondent mentioned that he provided the review every time he made the
purchase. The reviews he provided are neutral ( including pros and cons). The remaining 7
respondents highlighted that they give ratings only when they don’t find the product satisfactory.
They don’t give positive or neutral ratings to the goods they purchase. Another highlight is that the
respondents refrain from purchasing costly goods from the website. The costly goods can be
precious metals such as Gold, diamonds, laptops, mobile phones etc. Mostly, they believe that
anything above INR 20,000 will be considered costly. They would prefer buying from offline stores or
direct company websites rather than the mediators such as Amazon or Myntra. Only one respondent
agreed that she purchased Gold Jewellery from the company’s website.

From the second section, where the respondents were exposed to review pages of different
products, it was found that they looked for product descriptions along with clear and multiple
images of the product. They further highlighted that no reviews of the product and maximum seller
feedback influenced them to try the product. Three respondents were price-sensitive and had a
budget for every product shown in the survey. Since there was a laptop in the survey, six
respondents skipped that question, mentioning that that is costlier and thus they would look for 2 nd
opinions and also would like to feel the laptop in the offline store first and then would they decide
on the basis of discounts available. However, for the products under the household category,
clothes, and festive category, respondents were ready to take risks and try the products that were
under “10 days replace/ return” category. The products were of lower price range.

Managerial Implication
This study's management ramifications provide e-commerce companies with insightful information.
Based on the results, they should think about the following essential conclusions and actions:

 Make sure product listings include several excellent photos and concise, in-depth
explanations to assist buyers in making judgements.
 E-commerce sites ought to stress the value of user evaluations and ratings as they have a big
impact on consumers' decisions to buy. To present a fair viewpoint, encourage more
consumers to write reviews—both favourable and unfavourable.
 In order to establish credibility with prospective customers, product sites should emphasise
verified vendors, global ratings, and recent reviews.
 Invest in mechanisms to verify and highlight sellers' authenticity and reliability to build trust
with customers.
 Promote customer connections and community involvement. This may encourage a feeling
of loyalty and trust among customers, which might result in more reviews.

Conclusion
The study found that respondents prefer buying clothes, kitchen appliances, electronics, cosmetics,
accessories, and decorative items from e-commerce websites like Myntra and Amazon. They prefer
websites with high ratings, verified sellers, delivery time, and recent reviews. Only one respondent
provided reviews every time they made a purchase, while the remaining seven only gave ratings
when they didn't find the product satisfactory. Respondents also avoid purchasing costly goods from
websites, preferring to buy from offline stores or direct company websites. They look for clear
product descriptions and clear images but prefer price-sensitive products. Due to lower prices,
respondents were willing to take risks with household, clothes, and festive products under the "10
days replace/return" category.
References
Babić Rosario, A., de Valck, K., & Sotgiu, F. (2020). Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth
process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 422–448.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00706-1

Baek, H., Ahn, J., and Choi, Y. (2012). Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: readers’ objectives
and review cues. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 17, 99–126. doi:

Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40. doi:10.1002/dir.1014

BrightLocal (2022). Local consumer review survey 2022.

https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer- review-survey/

Calabrese, A. and Borchert, M. (1996), “Prospects for electronic democracy in the US: rethinking
communication and social policy”, Media Culture and Society, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 249-68.

Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews.
Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345

CLARE, C. J., WRIGHT, G., SANDIFORD, P. & CACERES, A. P. 2018. Why should I believe this?
Deciphering the qualities of a credible online customer review. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 24, 823-842
Clare, C., Wright, G., Standford, P., Caceres, A. (2016): Why should I believe this? Deciphering the
qualities of a credible online customer review, Journal of Marketing Communications, DOI:
10.1080/13527266.2016.113813

Floh, A., Koller, M., and Zauner, A. (2013). Taking a deeper look at online reviews: The asymmetric
effect of valence intensity on shopping behaviour. J. Mark.

Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., & Andersson, A.-C. (2018). The manager’s dilemma: A conceptualization of
online review manipulation strategies. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(5), 484–503.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1127337

Hasanat, M., Hoque, A., Shikha, F., Anwar, M., Abdul Hamid, A. B., and Huam, T. (2020).

Health and Beauty Shopping Trends in 2023 - PowerReviews. (n.d.). PowerReviews.

https://www.powerreviews.com/research/health-beauty-shopping-trends-2023/

Johnson, T.J., Braima, A.M. and Sothirajah, J. (1999), “Doing the traditional media sidestep:
comparing the effects of the internet and other non-traditional media with traditional media
in the 1996 Presidential campaign”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 76
No. 1, pp. 99-123

Kusumasondjaja, S., Shanka, T., & Marchegiani, C. (2012, July). Credibility of online reviews and
initial trust. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(3), 185–195.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766712449365 10.2753/jec1086-4415170204
LI, H., WANG, C. R., MENG, F. & ZHANG, Z. 2019. Making restaurant reviews useful and/or
enjoyable? The impacts of temporal, explanatory, and sensory cues. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 83, 257-265.
Mackiewicz, J. (2010). Assertions of expertise in online product reviews. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 24, 3-28. doi:10.1177/1050651909346929

Manag. 29:646670, 646–670. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.776620

Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E. C., & Bernritter, S. F. (2017). Too good to be true: The role of online
reviews’ features in probability to buy. International Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 142–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1195622

MAYWEG-PAUS, E. & JUCKS, R. 2018. Conflicting evidence or conflicting opinions? Two-sided expert
discussions contribute to experts’ trustworthiness. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 37, 203-223.
MORAN, G. & MUZELLEC, L. 2017. eWOM credibility on social networking sites: A framework.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 23, 149-161
Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer
reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721420

PARK, J., YI, Y. & KANG, D. 2019. The Effects of One-Sided vs. Two-Sided Review Valence on
Electronic Word of Mouth (e-WOM): The Moderating Role of Sponsorship Presence. ASIA
MARKETING JOURNAL, 21, 1-19.
PURNAWIRAWAN, N., DENS, N. & DE PELSMACKER, P. 2014. Expert reviewers beware! The effects of
review set balance, review source and review content on consumer responses to online
reviews. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 15, 162
SCHINDLER, R. M. & BICKART, B. 2012. Perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews: The role of
message content and style. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 234-243.
Senecal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’
online choices. Journal of Retailing, 80, 159-169. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.001

The impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on E-Business in Malaysia. Asian J.Multidisc. Stud. 3, 85–90.

Thomas, J., Wirtz, B., & Weyerer, J. (2019). Determinants of Online Review Credibility and Purchase
Intention. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 20, 1, 2019

WANG, Y., WANG, J. & YAO, T. 2019. What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review
characteristics. Electronic Commerce Research, 19, 257-284.
Winter, S., Kramer, N. C., Appel, J., & Schielke, K. (2010, June). ¨ Information selection in the
blogosphere: The effect of expertise, community rating, and age. Paper presented at the
60th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore
Appendixes:
 Appendix_A_Clothing
 Appendix_B_Festive
 Appendix_C_Kitchen
 Appendix_D_Laptops

Card 1

 Argument strength: strong arguments

 Sidedness: two-sided
 Number of arguments: high
 Writing quality: poor
 Number of reviews: low
 Rated review usefulness: high
 Star rating: absent

Review (************* reviews)

+ good price/quality - no outomatic updates

+ fast routing - not comptatible with my mobile phone

+ voice recognition works well

+ screen has a high resolution

price / quality good, for price good navigation system that leads you to destination allso fast
routing; voice good recognition + high resolution screen. Disadvantage to Gps no outomatic
updates and not comptatibel with gsm.

Did you find this a useful review? *** ***