WOM Marketing in
Social Media
´ pez, Marı´a Sicilia and
Manuela Lo
´zar
Carmen Hidalgo-Alca
ABSTRACT
Purpose
Companies are interested in engaging consumers in
spreading the word about their products or brands. Although
more and more studies are analysing word of mouth marketing
(WOMM), the topic is still very recent, thus very little is known
about how to develop a WOMM campaign effectively. This
chapter develops a literature review on WOMM in social media
for better understanding on how to manage WOMM.
The studies reviewed have allowed
Methodology/approach
us to identify the main decisions that should be taken when
planning a WOMM campaign: the selection of the seed, the
type of message and the inclusion ofincentives.
Findings We identify the two types of objectives that companies can follow with WOMM: information diffusion or consumers’ persuasion. Depending on the campaign objectives, the
strategy to be used in order to be successful is different.
This chapter can be useful to both, marSocial implications
keters, by showing them how to develop a WOMM campaign
effectively; and researchers, by showing them the main gaps on
WOMM that should be addressed in future studies.
This is one of the first attempts to review
Originality/value
the literature and organize knowledge on WOMM. Concepts
that have been treated as synonymous by many researchers
such as opinion leaders, market mavens, innovative consumers,
and hubs are clari fied and distinguished one from the other
which may help in improving previous knowledge on this field.
Keywords: WOM; eWOM; WOM marketing; social media
149
150
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
Introduction
The Internet has become an important information source for consumers. We can find a great deal of content on the Internet for entertainment and providing reviews on products and services (George &
Scerri, 2007). This content has been shown to influence consumer
behaviour (Chen, Fay, & Wang, 2011; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner,
Walsh, & Gremler, 2004; Park & Lee, 2009). The communication
process where one individual may influence others on the Internet is
called electronic word of mouth (hereafter eWOM) (Hennig-Thurau
et al., 2004). Approximately, 88% of online shoppers consult products’ reviews before purchasing (Reevoo, 2012) and 70% of
Internet users trust eWOM (Nielsen, 2013). EWOM also affects
company sales (Duan, Gu, & Whinston, 2008; Godes & Mayzlin,
2004; Liu, 2006) and it has shown more influential than firmgenerated information on the Internet (Bickart & Schindler, 2001;
Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009).
A great deal of attention is being devoted to this new communication phenomenon. The increasing interest in eWOM contrasts with the
loss of confidence and decrease in investments on advertising
(GroupM, 2013). Therefore, companies are interested in using eWOM
as a new communication tool (Kozinets, De Valck, Wojnicki &
Wilner, 2010; Verlegh, Ryu, Tuk, & Feick, 2013). This intentional
influence of companies on consumer-to-consumer communications is
known as WOM marketing (hereafter WOMM) (Kozinets et al.,
2010). Companies are currently in the process of learning how to
develop WOMM campaigns (Groeger & Buttle, 2014). They can
reach two objectives with a WOMM campaign: a fast diffusion of the
information, or to persuade consumers to buy the product (Libai,
Muller, & Peres, 2013). A fast diffusion of the information is related
to the creation of awareness about a product or brand. On the other
hand, persuading consumers to buy the product could be related
with product adoption (Bass, Gordon, Ferguson, & Githens, 2001).
WOMM campaigns can benefit from using social media. Social
media are defined as ‘online functions allowing creation and
exchange of user generated content’ (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010,
p. 60). All the different tools that can be defined as social media
such as social network sites (SNSs), blogs and forums let people
express themselves or just take part of other people’s expressions,
expressions that can be seen by consumers around the world
(Weman, 2011). SNSs are one of the most used platforms in
WOMM campaigns. SNSs are defined as ‘web based services that
allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within
a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, view and traverse their list of connections and
WOM Marketing in Social Media
those made by other within the system’ (Boyd & Ellison, 2008,
p. 211). Companies can create a profile on these platforms that consumers can follow. These profiles are known as brand pages. The
messages that companies upload on their brand pages can be seen
by their followers, and their followers can easily transmit this information to their contacts only by clicking like, share or making a
comment on these messages. Therefore, the companies’ challenge is
engaging consumers to spread the word about their products and
brands through social media and specifically through SNSs, that is,
developing WOMM campaigns through these platforms.
This book chapter is organized in the following manner. First,
we will provide a conceptualization of WOMM and will analyse its
effect on consumers. Second, we will discuss about how to orchestrate a WOMM campaign in social media. We will finalize this
chapter by explaining some WOMM strategies that companies can
follow depending on their marketing objectives.
Conceptualization of WOMM. Its
Influence on Consumers
WOMM
Kozinets et al. (2010, p. 71) defined WOM Marketing (WOMM) as
‘the intentional influencing of consumer-to-consumer communications by professional marketing techniques’. More recently, the
Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) defines
WOMM as ‘any business action that earns a customer recommendation’ (Word of Mourh Marketing Association [WOMMA], 2012).
Basically, this marketing technique consists of giving a message
(original/valuable information) to some consumers (who are called
the seed) in order to spread the word. The seed could generate new
eWOM or simply transmit the information that the company has
sent to him/her. An example in which the seed generates new
eWOM is the WOMM campaign developed by destination marketing organization (DMO) of Flanders (Belgium). They created
‘Flanders is a Festival’ to increase Flanders’s awareness as a festival destination inviting 100 bloggers from 13 countries. Key influencers were selected as the seed for this campaign according to their
location in key markets, online reach and audience, passion and
enthusiasm, writing skill and whether they were a good overall
match for the program. The main results were 257 blog posts (one
of these posts can be found at Emma’s Destination blog1) across
1
http://www.emmataveri.com/2012/11/biggest-blog-trip-in-world-visit.html
151
152
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
SENDER
RECEIVER
ENDOGENOUS
EWOM
CONSUMER A
CONSUMER B
EXOGENOUS EWOM
SEED
COMPANY
Figure 1:
Endogenous versus Exogenous eWOM.
international markets, 5.5 million unique visitors to the Visit
Flanders website,2 with a total reach of 11.5 million people. One
example of a WOMM campaign in which the seed transmits the
information is the called ‘Roller Babies’, developed by the brand of
water ‘Evian’. The video created for this campaign3 has been viewed
nearly 70 million times to date. The video consists of computeranimated babies doing a roller skating routine to The Sugarhill
Gang’s ‘Rapper’s Delight’. The babies perform their routine after a
title card indicates that drinking Evian water would make you feel
as young and energetic as those babies. Both campaigns obtained
great results, but the company needs to decide which objective is
pursuing in order to develop it more effectively.
When a WOMM campaign is planned, the company expects to
spread the word about the product or brand intentionally. The
resulting WOM or eWOM generated or transmitted differs from the
one that occurs spontaneously among consumers. According to
Godes and Mayzlin (2009), conversations between consumers generated because of a WOMM campaign are called exogenous WOM/
eWOM, in contrast to endogenous WOM/eWOM, which occurs
naturally and without a firm’s intervention. If we consider the action
of Flanders’ DMO, the 257 blog posts created are exogenous
eWOM, while the post created by a blogger that assisted to the festival and did not participate in the campaign should be considered as
endogenous eWOM.
Figure 1 shows how WOMM works and the differences
between endogenous eWOM and exogenous eWOM. In endogenous
2
3
http://www.visitflanders.com/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcVllWpwG
WOM Marketing in Social Media
eWOM, a consumer (consumer A) is the sender, that is, who gives
some information about products and brands to other consumer
(consumer B). However, in WOMM campaigns, the sender is the
company, which gives some information about their products and
brands to the seed, that is, the initial group of consumers who will
be contacted by the company to start with the WOMM campaign.
Then the seed gives the information to other consumer (consumer B)
by creating exogenous eWOM. Nevertheless, research has shown
that consumers are not able to distinguish between endogenous and
exogenous WOM (Dellarocas, 2006; Mayzlin, 2006). Therefore,
WOMM campaigns add value and contribute to the spontaneous
diffusion of products and brands among consumers. In the same
vein, the WOMMA (2007) suggests that a WOMM campaign can
amplify spontaneous WOM.
How WOMM Works in Social Media
Companies have to take some decisions to develop a WOMM campaign. Unlike endogenous eWOM, the sender in exogenous eWOM
is the company (Godes & Mayzlin, 2009). The company sends a
message to the selected seeds with the aim of encouraging them to
spread the word about its products or brands. Following López and
Sicilia (2014), the main decisions to be taken are the selection of the
seed, the decision about what type of message should be sent and
the decision about whether to include an incentive or not to spread
the word.
THE SELECTION OF THE SEED
The seed has to be selected with the aim of spreading the word about
the product or brand. The seed is the initial group of consumers who
will be contacted by the company to start with the WOMM campaign (Libai et al., 2013). Selecting these initial, conversation-starting
consumers is a critical managerial decision, and firms try to select
those consumers who are best suited to helping achieve the aims of
the WOMM campaign (Stephen & Lehmann, 2012). Previous WOM
studies have highlighted the importance of ‘influentials’ in WOM
communication (Goldenberg, Lehmann, & Hong, 2009; Iyengar,
Van den Bulte, & Valente, 2011; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955).
The concept ‘influential’ has been very much used in WOM literature. However, research has used it to refer people with different
characteristics. For example, Watts and Dodds (2007) use the term
influential to call high-connected people but Katz and Lazarsfeld
(1955) refer to influential as consumers who influence the purchase
decision of other consumers. Goldenberg et al. (2009) mixed up
153
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
154
different ideas in their paper. For these authors, influential people
are believed to have three important traits: (1) they are convincing
(may be even charismatic), (2) they know a lot (i.e. are experts), and
(3) they have a large number of social ties (i.e. they know many
people).
Literature review points out that the term influential is not being
used homogeneously in the literature. This conceptual ambiguity
could be solved by using a classification that focuses on the characteristics that better reflect the type of influence each consumer may
have. According to this idea, we propose that influential could be
divided into opinion leaders, innovators, market mavens and hubs.
Although there may be some overlaps between them, market
mavens, opinion leaders, hubs and innovators are all different concepts. Figure 2 shows some characteristics that differentiate each
seed and some common features that they share.
Opinion leaders: Opinion leaders are ‘individuals who exert an
unequal amount of influence on the decision of others’ (Rogers &
Cartano, 1962, p. 435). Compared with consumers who seek their
High knowledge
Great
influence in
a product
category
General
market
knowledge
High innovativeness
OPINION
LEADERS
INNOVATORS
MARKET
MAVENS
HUBS
First to
adopt an
innovation
High
connectivity
Early adoption
Figure 2:
Characteristics that Differentiate each Seed and Common Features.
WOM Marketing in Social Media
advice, opinion leaders frequently possess more knowledge, experience, expertise and involvement with the product category (Lyons &
Henderson, 2005). In addition, opinion leaders usually have many
contacts (Valente, 1996), although this is not a critical requirement
to be considered as opinion leaders.
Innovators: Innovators are the first individuals who adopt an innovation (Rogers, 1995). Diffusion Theory posits that innovators are
crucial in new product diffusion (Bass, 1969; Mahajan & Muller,
1979). According to this theory, a new product is first adopted by
some innovators who, in turn, influence others to adopt it. Although
opinion leaders could have a more innovative behaviour than other
consumers (Lyons & Henderson, 2005), and innovators usually
have greater opinion leadership than later adopters, not all opinion
leaders are innovators. When the product is too innovative, an opinion leader should demonstrate prudent judgement in decisions
about adopting new ideas. Opinion leaders can perceive risk losing
their status recommending very innovative products that those in
their social circle are not ready to adopt (Rogers, 1993).
Opinion leaders can find difficulties for spreading the word about
high innovative products. As we have explained above, when the product is too innovative, opinion leaders can be prudent to judgement
in decisions about adopting new ideas as they perceive risk losing
their status recommending very innovative products (Rogers, 1993).
Therefore, innovators should be used as seed in WOMM campaigns
that have the objective of promoting high innovative products.
Market mavens: Market mavens are ‘individuals who have information about many kinds of products, places to shop, and other facets
of markets, and initiate discussions with consumers and respond to
requests from consumers for market information’ (Feick & Price,
1987, p. 85). Their potential of influence is associated with their
general knowledge of the market. However, market mavens may
also be confused with opinion leaders (López & Sicilia, 2014).
Opinion leaders have more expertise with a product category
(Lyons & Henderson, 2005), whereas the influence of market
mavens is based on more general knowledge and experience with
markets (Feick & Price, 1987). Market mavens could be an interesting seed to transmit information that is not interesting for opinion
leaders. According to Feick and Price (1987), there is information
that may not be interesting to opinion leaders such as messages
about low involvement products that market mavens could easily
transmit. Therefore, for these kinds of products, market mavens
may constitute an adequate seed.
Hubs: Hubs are ‘well-connected people with a high number of connections to others’ (Hinz, Skiera, Barrot, & Becker, 2011, p. 56).
155
156
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
Their importance as seeds is related to the high number of potential
consumers they are connected with. On the other side of the spectrum, we can find the fringes, which ‘are connected to a few number
of others’ (Hinz et al., 2011, p. 56). Unlike other type of seeds such
as opinion leaders, innovators or market mavens, hubs are not more
persuasive, innovative or knowledgeable than others (Goldenberg
et al., 2009; Hinz et al., 2011). Their potential resides on their
greater reach compared to other individuals (Hinz et al., 2011).
Moreover, hubs adopt products sooner than other people not
because they are innovative but rather because they are exposed
earlier to an innovation as a result of their multiple social links
(Goldenberg et al., 2009).
THE TYPE OF MESSAGE
The more relevant the information is perceived by the seed, the
higher the probability to stimulate eWOM. Companies need to give
receivers messages that they will consider as relevant. The message
to be sent in a WOMM campaign can be either valuable or original
information. The format in which information is transmitted varies.
Companies can give receivers some information in form of text,
graph information, images or even videos with the aim of spreading
the word about the product or brand.
Samsung used messages with valuable information in one of its
WOMM campaigns. This company gave some clues on Twitter
about the Samsung Galaxy S6 before launching. It was written on
March 2015, while this smartphone was launched on 10 April
2015. This information may be very valuable for the selected seeds
and may lead them to spread it. Other companies prefer to create
their own messages (original information) to encourage consumers
to spread the word. For example, the campaign called ‘The
Desperados Experience’ developed by the brand of beer
‘Desperados’ followed this second strategy. They first created and
then uploaded a video on Youtube simulating a party with which
consumers could interact choosing the members of the party or
opening doors to enter in other rooms. In both cases, the message
has something different and/or valuable that encourages receivers to
engage in WOM about the brand.
INCENTIVES
Companies sometimes include some kind of remuneration in
exchange for sharing information (Roy, 2011). Incentives may consist of an economic incentive, a product trial or a gift. Companies
can also provide a product trial to consumers to encourage them to
spread the word. The aim of giving a product to consumers is that
WOM Marketing in Social Media
they talk about their experience with this product. For example,
many clothing or cosmetic brands give away their products to fashion bloggers to write a post about their experience with that product. Additionally, companies can give incentives to consumers who
play games within SNSs. Marketers in SNSs’ games can offer economic incentives of game currency in exchange for encouraging consumers to forward marketer-generated messages broadly to their
contacts on this SNS (Hansen & Lee, 2013).
Strategies of WOMM
Companies can reach two objectives with WOMM campaigns: they
can just aim at getting a high diffusion for their products and
brands, or can go beyond diffusing trying to persuade consumers to
buy their products and brands. The decision about the strategy to be
followed resembles that of traditional advertising campaigns, where
advertisers have to decide between a more informative or a more
persuasive campaign. The strategy selected should be consistent with
the type of seed, with the type of message to be sent and with the
inclusion or rejection of incentives.
WOMM STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE INFORMATION DIFFUSION
The stimulation of the information diffusion is especially appropriate for new product launches (Godes & Mayzlin, 2009) and other
situations in which firms have limited timeframes for achieving
their objectives (Stephen & Lehmann, 2012). For example, in new
product launches, consumers need to be aware of the new product
before adopting it (Iyengar et al., 2011; Van den Bulte & Lilien,
2001). Thus, if the information about the new product is diffused
quickly, adoption speed will be increased (Shen & Hahn, 2008).
Therefore, it is important to reach high information diffusion and
it could be reached through WOMM. One of the most appropriate WOMM strategies to reach a great diffusion of information is
viral marketing (Ferguson, 2008; Van der Lans, Van Bruggen,
Eliashberg, & Wierenga, 2010).
Viral marketing
Viral marketing is defined as ‘the phenomenon by which consumers
mutually share and spread marketing-relevant information, initially
sent out deliberately by marketers to stimulate and capitalize on
word of mouth’ (Van der Lans et al., 2010). This strategy intends to
diffuse an initial message promoted by the company (Ferguson,
2008). The message is usually original information, especially in
form of video or image that attracts consumers’ attention.
157
158
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
Traditionally, viral marketing campaigns have been diffused via
e-mail; however, nowadays it is more common to use SNSs.
SNSs allow consumers to share brand-related information very
easy being very suitable to develop viral marketing campaigns.
Individuals can create their own profiles on SNSs in which they can
upload pictures, videos and information about them. They can also
be connected with other consumers on these platforms. Their
‘friends’ on Facebook or their ‘followers’ on Twitter can see all
information consumers upload or share. Companies can also create
a profile on these platforms that consumers can follow. These profiles are known as brand pages. The messages that companies
upload on their brand pages can be seen by their followers, and their
followers can transmit this information to their contacts only by
clicking like, share or making a comment on these messages. Once
the company has decided to do viral marketing, it has to decide on
the type of seed to be selected, the type of message and whether to
include some kind of incentive or not.
Hubs can be the most suitable type of seed to be selected in viral
marketing campaigns due to its high connectivity. Traditionally, it
has been difficult to identify hubs (Stephen & Lehmann, 2012);
however, the development of social media has made easier this issue.
For example, companies can identify hubs on SNSs only by observing their number of contacts. Hubs will be consumers with many
contacts on these platforms, as they are connected with many people
(Hinz et al., 2011; Stephen & Lehmann, 2012; Watts & Dodds,
2007).
A recent study has shown the superiority of the seeding strategy
using hubs over less connected people or over a random selection of
consumers in a viral marketing campaign (Hinz et al., 2011).
Additionally, Libai et al. (2013) have found that while most of the
social value created by a WOMM campaign could be achieved
choosing the seed randomly, targeting hubs increase social value by
about a third on average in a product seeding campaign. Using
hubs, a higher portion of the social value gained comes from accelerating the purchases of customers who would have purchased anyway (Libai et al., 2013).
Goldenberg et al. (2009) have shown that hubs who are
also innovative have a greater impact on the speed of adoption process. However, previous research has recognized the difficulty of
involving hubs in WOMM campaigns. Hubs can suffer from information overload due to their central position in the social network
(Porter & Donthu, 2008). Thus, they must filter the information
they transmit to others. Nevertheless, their potential should not be
underestimated despite these limitations. Hinz et al. (2011) proposed
that promoting a low-risk product generates less risk to transmit the
information, thus hubs do not hesitate before participating in these
WOM Marketing in Social Media
cases. In addition, hubs will be more suitable to create awareness
about a new product or to disseminate quickly information due to
their high connectivity. In sum, hubs seem to be a very appropriate
seed for viral marketing in order to achieve a faster social
contagion.
Regarding the type of message, previous studies about viral
marketing campaigns through e-mail have shown that messages that
spark strong emotions (humour, fear, sadness or inspiration) and
those that appeal to desires for fun, entertainment and social connections are more likely to be forwarded (Berger & Milkman, 2012;
Dobele, Lindgreen, Beverland, Vanhamme, & van Wijk, 2007;
Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, & Raman, 2004). E-mails about free
stuff, and containing helpful tips (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Phelps
et al., 2004), capture the imagination by intriguing are also very
likely to be passed (Dobele et al., 2007). More surprising, more utilitarian and hedonic content will also be more likely to be shared by
e-mail (Berger & Milkman, 2012). Additionally, Hsieh, Hsieh, and
Tang (2012) studied the intention of forwarding videos on the
Internet. They showed that humour and multimedia effects on
videos increased consumers’ intention to share it.
In addition, recent research has examined the characteristics that
the message should have in order to be much diffused on SNSs.
Previous studies have analysed the tactics that companies can follow
to reach a great diffusion of their post on Facebook. For example, De
Vries, Gensler, and Leeflang (2012) have shown that both positioning the brand post on top of the brand page and the interactivity of
the post enhance brand post popularity. But the findings also indicate
that different drivers influence the number of likes and the number of
comments. Vivid brand post characteristics enhance the number of
likes but not the number of comments. However, informational and
entertain posts are not more likely to be liked or commented.
Additionally, Kwok and Yu (2013) have shown that the messages that companies post on Facebook are more liked and commented when they include only text or a picture than posts with videos
or links. They have also shown that posts with messages that promote the brand or the product are less shared than posts that do not
directly promote them. Similarly, Swani, Brown, and Milne (2014)
have shown that posts are more effective if they include corporate
brand names and avoid ‘hard sell’ or explicitly commercial statements. Including emotional sentiments on Facebook posts is a particularly effective message strategy (Swani et al., 2014). According to
Cvijikj and Michahelles (2011), posts on Facebook that contain
information have caused a significantly high number of likes, while
the least number of likes occurred for posts related to competitions.
Posts with a goal of engagement have also a great number of comments (Cvijikj & Michahelles, 2011). Additionally, studies based on
159
160
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
Twitter have shown that the messages that include links and hashtags have strong relationships with retweet ability (Suh, Hong,
Pirolli, & Chi, 2010). In sum, in order to reach a great scope, commercial messages do not seem to be effective. Messages that enhance
humour, surprising, entertainment or emotions are more likely to be
shared.
Very little is known about the effect of incentives on eWOM
transmission on viral marketing campaigns. To the best of our
knowledge, only Hansen and Lee (2013) have shown that economic
incentives related with games played within SNSs increased the
intention to forward a message about this game. Thus, more
research is needed about the effect of incentives on viral marketing
campaigns.
PERSUASIVE WOMM STRATEGIES
Companies could also have the objective to persuade consumers to
buy the product. There are two WOMM strategies that could be
used to reach this objective: referral programs or WOMM campaigns addressed to bloggers.
Referral programs
The most traditional WOMM activity is referral programs. This
technique is defined as ‘creating tools that enable satisfied customers
to refer their friends’ (WOMMA, 2007). The moving of referral programs to the Internet is called as e-referral programs. The e-referrals
are a variety of methods including a ‘tell-a-friend’ option on the
company site (Ahrens & Strahilevitz, 2007). The seeds used in this
strategy are the current customers of the company. The company
first sends a message to its customers. It basically consists of an
incentive in reward for attracting new customers. If the seed attracts
a new customer, he/she will receive the incentive (Ryu & Feick,
2007). Companies can also reward both the seed and the receiver of
the recommendation (Ryu & Feick, 2007; Verlegh et al., 2013). The
most typical rewards are financial rewards or discounts (Verlegh
et al., 2013). Previous studies that have analysed referral programs
online have shown that the higher the incentive given to both, seeds
and receivers, the higher the success of the campaign, that is, the
higher the eWOM created and the number of new customers
(Ahrens, Coyle, & Strahilevitz, 2013). Additionally, the campaign
would have a higher success if the company spends more on the
seed than on the receiver. It is the seed who will be communicating
for the business as a mini sales force, thus, a larger incentive for
the seed than for the receiver maximizes results (Ahrens et al.,
2013).
WOM Marketing in Social Media
WOMM campaigns addressed to bloggers
This technique consists of engaging bloggers to spread the word
about products. They are the selected seed for this WOMM strategy.
Bloggers are related with opinion leaders on the Internet (Droge,
Stanko, & Pollitte, 2010). Identifying opinion leaders online is a
relatively easy task. However, engaging bloggers to spread the word
is far more difficult because their involvement in these types of
WOMM campaigns may affect the reputation of the blogs they
represent.
Bloggers have a duty with their audience, the readers. As readers
can post comments and interact with the blogger; the blogger may
develop contents looking for interaction with readers, thereby facilitating the formation of bloggers readers relationships (Moon &
Han, 2011; Tan, Tan, & Teo, 2009). As a result, it is very likely
that a community will be built around the blog composed of its
readers and other bloggers (Kozinets et al., 2010; Moon & Han,
2011; Nardi, Schiano, Gumbrecht, & Swartz, 2004). The main
motivation to blog is related with the self (Herring et al., 2005;
Huang, Chou, & Lin, 2008; Nardi et al., 2004). Since bloggers get
more and more into writing their experiences on a particular product or industry, they become experts on it building credibility
(Merriweather, 2013).
The size and credibility of the blogs are aspects very appreciated
by bloggers. Bloggers are currently worried about the trade-off
between increasing readers without losing credibility or reputation.
The credibility and reputation of the blog are tightly linked with the
independence of the blogger (Huang et al., 2008). Similarly, honesty, authenticity and openness are crucial for blogs (Wright, 2006).
Blogs are also seen as a community that is not only about the sharing of information but also about building trust, friendship and alliance (Kozinets et al., 2010).
Thus, when a company identifies influential bloggers and contacts with them for a WOMM campaign, a great tension may
appear between the blogger and the company (Kozinets et al.,
2010). Bloggers are recruited as a type of marketer transforming
interpersonal communication into an intended persuasion effort
(Kozinets et al., 2010). Bloggers are due to their community, thus
they must adjust their post to their communal norms. According to
Kozinets et al. (2010), bloggers take WOMM messages and meanings and then alter them to make the marketing message more
believable, relevant to conform to the norms and expectations the
community has developed. If the post created by the blogger is not
in agreement with these communal norms, it can create a negative
impression among the readers and a loss of reputation. Thus, bloggers could avoid participating in WOMM campaigns in order to
limit these negative consequences.
161
162
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
The message can be some information about a product/service,
a product or a product trial (in this case, the campaign is called as
‘product seeding campaign’) and/or an economic incentive. A recent
study (López, Sicilia, & Verlegh, 2015) has shown that WOMM
campaigns using bloggers as seeds are effective, however, not
all WOMM campaigns that approach bloggers are successful.
Additionally, the strategy in which a company gives a monetary
incentive to bloggers in order to post about the product has no effect
on their intention to eWOM (López et al., 2015). In contrast, the
strategy of giving the product to bloggers has better results than
giving them only information about the product (López et al., 2015).
Ethical Issues of WOMM
Some WOMM practices have been subject to ethical concerns.
Therefore, the WOMMA has created a code of Ethics. According
to this code, WOMM campaigns require that both marketers and
the seed ensure that any connection between them that could affect
the credibility consumers give to the seed’s statements should be
disclosed. However, marketers fear that disclosure will reduce the
WOMM campaign effectiveness (Abendroth & Heyman, 2013). If
consumers become aware of dubious ethical practices, how do
they react? Previous studies have shown that when disclosure
occurs, the seed is rated as more credible and receivers tell more
people about the brand being discussed (Carl, 2008). In addition,
early disclosing leads to more favourable evaluations of the seed in
comparison to knowing after the conversation that the seed has
received an incentive to spread the word (Tuk, Verlegh, Smidts, &
Wigboldus, 2009).
Several unethical practices have been associated to WOMM
practices and reported in the literature. One of the most popular is
the use of employees to post online as if they were consumers
introducing positive comments on behalf of the company (Litvin,
Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008). Therefore, firms whose products are
being discussed online are therefore tempted to manipulate consumer perceptions by posting costly anonymous messages that praise
their products (Dellarocas, 2006). Similarly, the company could
have employees posting negative comments regarding the competition. The use of employees as seeds of unethical WOMM
campaigns could seriously damage the reputation of this marketing
technique.
Ethical issues are also very visible in the blogosphere. Beyond
the issue of ‘blog culture’, opportunities abound for abuse by
bloggers that act as seeds but fail to report their company affiliations. Nobody licenses blogs and their intellectual freedom is one of
WOM Marketing in Social Media
the medium’s principle attractions. However, this same lack of control is an open door for abuse. Previous studies have shown that
some readers have rejected their favourite bloggers when they have
started to commercialize their blogs (Wijnia, 2004). In addition,
76% of consumers trust in bloggers who have received a free product, while only 45% of them trust in bloggers who were paid for
writing a post (Social Media Link, 2013). This issue calls for intense
study for demarcate a well-defined boundary between the ethical
practice of managing eWOM and its abuse.
Conclusions
Other consumers’ opinions exert a great influence on consumers’
decisions (Arndt, 1967; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955). The development
of the Internet has increased the power that consumers’ opinions
have. Social media platforms allow eWOM to be seen by consumers
around the world (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Thus, companies
are interested in engaging consumers in spreading the word about
their products or brands (Kozinets et al., 2010). Companies are
currently in the process of learning how to develop WOMM campaigns. Although more and more studies are analysing WOMM, the
topic is still very recent, thus very little is known about how to
develop WOMM effectively (Feng & Papatla, 2011; Kumar &
Rani, 2014).
This chapter aims to review the studies that analyse how to
develop a WOMM campaign and identifies the two types of strategies that companies can follow with this communication tool:
information diffusion or consumers’ persuasion. Companies should
choose an initial group of consumers and a message for these consumers to spread the word. Several decisions, the selection of the seed,
the type of message (original information, valuable information) and
the inclusion of an incentive, will determine the success of the
campaign.
The chapter has also provided some guidelines for the type of
strategy companies should follow depending on the objectives they
have. Viral marketing campaigns using hubs as seeds can be very
appropriate for reaching a high diffusion while referrals campaigns
or campaigns addressed to bloggers seem to be more effective for
persuading consumers. In any case, there is still much to be learnt in
the design and development of WOMM campaigns. The type of
seed to be selected is not clear either. Additionally, some types of
seeds are difficult to identify. For example, the profile of a market
maven is not known making more difficult his/her identification (see
Barnes & Pressey, 2012; Lester, Tudor, Loyd, & Mitchell, 2012).
Moreover, companies do not still know why some messages are very
163
164
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
successful and some others are not and they know very little about
the advantages and disadvantages of using incentives and about
when it may be appropriate to use them. In fact, very little is known
about the use of incentives on viral marketing campaigns.
Conceptualization in this field is also an issue to be solved.
Terms such as opinion leaders and hubs or opinion leaders and
market mavens are used interchangeably despite the fact they are
different concepts. Finally, WOMM campaigns have many ethical
concerns, whether to reveal or not the company contact is always an
important that the seed does not know how to address. Further
efforts should be devoted to all these topics for a better understanding and effective use of this new communication tool.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the grant ECO2012-35766 from the
Spanish Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness and by the
Fundación Séneca-Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de
Murcia (Spain), under the II PCTRM 2007-2010. Authors also
thank the support provided by Fundación Cajamurcia.
References
Abendroth, L. J., & Heyman, J. E. (2013). Honesty is the best policy: The effects of
disclosure in word-of-mouth marketing. Journal of Marketing Communications,
19(4), 245 257.
Ahrens, J., Coyle, J. R., & Strahilevitz, M. A. (2013). Electronic word of mouth: The
effects of incentives on eReferrals by senders and receivers. European Journal of
Marketing, 47(7), 2.
Ahrens, J., & Strahilevitz, M. A. (2007). Can companies initiate positive word of
mouth? A field experiment examining the effects of incentive magnitude and equity,
and eReferral mechanisms. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa,
K. Segerståhl, & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), Persuasive technology (pp. 160 163). Berlin:
Springer.
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), 291 295.
Barnes, S. J., & Pressey, A. D. (2012). In search of the “Meta-Maven”: An examination of market maven behavior across real-life, web, and virtual world marketing
channels. Psychology & Marketing, 29(3), 167 185.
Bass, F. M. (1969). A simultaneous equation regression study of advertising and sales
of cigarettes. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(3), 291 300.
Bass, F. M., Gordon, K., Ferguson, T. L., & Githens, M. L. (2001). DIRECTV:
Forecasting diffusion of a new technology prior to product launch. Interfaces,
31(Suppl. 3), S82–S93.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(2), 192 205.
WOM Marketing in Social Media
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential source of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31 39.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210 230.
Carl, W. J. (2008). The role of disclosure in organized word-of-mouth marketing programs. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(3), 225 241.
Chen, Y., Fay, S., & Wang, Q. (2011). The role of marketing in social media: How
online consumer reviews evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 85 94.
Cvijikj, I. P., & Michahelles, F. (2011, September). Understanding social media marketing: a case study on topics, categories and sentiment on a Facebook brand page.
Proceedings of the 15th international academic mindtrek conference: Envisioning
future media environments (pp. 175 182). ACM.
De Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand
fan pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 83 91.
Dellarocas, C. N. (2006). Strategic manipulation of Internet opinion forums:
Implications for consumers and firms. Management Science, 52(10), 1577 1593.
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., & van Wijk, R. (2007).
Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons,
50(4), 291 304.
Droge, C., Stanko, M., & Pollitte, W. (2010). Lead users and early adopters on the
web: The role of new technology product blogs. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 27(1), 66 82.
Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. (2008). The dynamics of online word-of-mouth
and product sales: An empirical investigation of the movie industry. Journal of
Retailing, 84(2), 233 242.
Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market aven: A diffuser of marketplace information. The Journal of Marketing, 51, 83 97.
Feng, J., & Papatla, P. (2011). Advertising: Stimulant or suppressant of online word
of mouth? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 75 84.
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.
George, C. E., & Scerri, J. (2007). Web 2.0 and user-generated content: Legal challenges in the new frontier. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 2.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth
communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545 560.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009). ‘Firm-created’ word-of-mouth communication:
Evidence from a field test. Marketing Science, 28(4), 721 739.
Goldenberg, S. H., Lehmann, D. R., & Hong, J. W. (2009). The role of hubs in the
adoption process. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 1 13.
Groeger, L., & Buttle, F. (2014). Word-of-mouth marketing influence on offline and
online communications: Evidence from case study research. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20(1 2), 21 41.
GroupM. (2013). Media and marketing forecasts. Retrieved from www.groupm.com.
Accessed on October 1, 2013.
Hansen, S. S., & Lee, J. K. (2013). What drives consumers to pass along marketergenerated eWOM in social network games? Social and game factors in play. Journal
of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 8(1), 53 68.
165
166
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic
word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38 52.
Herring, S. C., Kouper, I., Paolillo, J. C., Scheidt, L. A., Tyworth, M., Welsch, P., &
Yu, N. (2005). Conversations in the blogosphere: An analysis “from the bottom up”.
In System Sciences. HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international
conference (p. 107b). IEEE.
Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies for viral
marketing: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 55 71.
Hsieh, J. K., Hsieh, Y. C., & Tang, Y. C. (2012). Exploring the disseminating
behaviors of eWOM marketing: Persuasion in online video. Electronic Commerce
Research, 12(2), 201 224.
Huang, L. S., Chou, Y. J., & Lin, C. H. (2008). The influence of reading motives on
the responses after reading blogs. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 11(3), 351 355.
Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and
social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195 212.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59 68.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
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.
Kumar, A. S., & Rani, D. U. (2014). Paradigm shift of social media marketing.
International Journal of Logistics & Supply Chain Management Perspectives, 2(4),
421 425.
Kwok, L., & Yu, B. (2013). Spreading social media messages on Facebook an analysis
of restaurant business-to-consumer communications. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
54(1), 84 94.
Lester, D., Tudor, R. K., Loyd, D. D., & Mitchell, T. (2012). Marketing mavens’
fusion with social media. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 1(1), 6.
Libai, B., Muller, E., & Peres, R. (2013). Decomposing the value of word-of-mouth
seeding programs: Acceleration versus expansion. Journal of Marketing Research,
50(2), 161 176.
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word of mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458 468.
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74 89.
López, M., & Sicilia, M. (2014). How to develop WOM Marketing. In F. LiébanaCabanillas, F. Muñoz-Leiva, J. Sánchez-Fernández, & M. Martínez-Fiestas (Eds.).
Electronic payment systems for competitive advantage in ecommerce (pp. 30 47).
IGI Global.
López, M., Sicilia, M., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2015). My posts cannot be bought.
Strategies to encourage bloggers to spread the word, Working Paper, University of
Murcia, Spain.
Lyons, B., & Henderson, K. (2005). Opinion leadership in a computer-mediated
environment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(5), 319 329.
Mahajan, V., & Muller, E. (1979). Innovation diffusion and new product growth
models in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 43(4).
Mayzlin, D. (2006). Promotional chat on the internet. Marketing Science, 25(2), 155 163.
WOM Marketing in Social Media
Merriweather, A. (2013). How to start blogging. Clinton Gilkie.
Moon, E., & Han, S. (2011). A qualitative method to find influencers using similaritybased approach in the blogosphere. International Journal of Social Computing and
Cyber-Physical Systems, 1(1), 56 78.
Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog.
Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41 46.
Nielsen. (2013). The Nielsen global survey of new product purchase sentiment.
Retrieved from www.nielsen.com. Accessed on November 20, 2013.
Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM
effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61 67.
Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral marketing
or electronic word-of-mouth advertising: Examining consumer responses and motivations to pass along email. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 333 348.
Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2008). Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtual
communities. Management Science, 54(1), 113 128.
Reevoo. (2012). Shopping habits 2012. Retrieved from www.reevo.com. Accessed on
April 1, 2013.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Cartano, D. G. (1962). Living research methods of measuring
opinion leadership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(3), 435 441.
Rogers, E. M. (1993). The diffusion of innovation model. In I. Masser & H. J.
Onsrud (Eds.), Diffusion and use of geographic information technologies (pp. 9–24).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roy, S. (2011). Brand loyalty measurement: A framework. SCMS Journal of Indian
Management, 8(2), 112 122.
Ryu, G., & Feick, L. (2007). A penny for your thoughts: Referral reward programs
and referral likelihood. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 84 94.
Shen, W., & Hahn, J. (2008, October 15). Impact of online word-of-mouth on the
market for consumer goods The interplay between adoption rate, product market
life and market size. Working Paper, Purdue University.
Social Media Link. (2013). Social recommendation index sponsored. Retrieved from
www.socialmedialink.com. Accessed on April 15, 2014.
Stephen, A., & Lehmann, D. (2012). Using incentives to encourage word-of-mouth
transmissions that lead to fast information diffusion. Working paper. University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., & Chi, E. H. (2010, August). Want to be retweeted?
Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. 2010 IEEE
second international conference on Social computing (socialcom) (pp. 177 184). IEEE.
Swani, K., Brown, B. P., & Milne, G. R. (2014). Should tweets differ for B2B and
B2C? An analysis of Fortune 500 companies’ Twitter communications. Industrial
Marketing Management, 43(5), 873 881.
Tan, W. K., Tan, C. H., & Teo, H. H. (2009). Would I use my personal blog for
commercial exchange? ECIS (pp. 146 157).
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(3), 90 102.
Tuk, M. A., Verlegh, P. W., Smidts, A., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2009). Interpersonal
relationships moderate the effect of faces on person judgments. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 39(5), 757 767.
167
168
MANUELA LÓPEZ ET AL.
Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations.
Social Networks, 18(1), 69 89.
Van den Bulte, C., & Lilien, G. L. (2001, October 9). Two-stage partial observability
models of innovation adoption. Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania.
Van der Lans, R., Van Bruggen, G., Eliashberg, J., & Wierenga, B. (2010). A viral
branching model for predicting the spread of electronic word-of-mouth. Marketing
Science, 29(2), 348 365.
Verlegh, P. W., Ryu, G., Tuk, M. A., & Feick, L. (2013). Receiver responses to
rewarded referrals: The motive inferences framework. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 41(6), 669 682.
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441 458.
Weman, E. A. (2011). Consumer motivations to join a brand community on
Facebook (Available on Internet). Helsinki: Hankel School of Economics.
Wijnia, W. (2004). Understanding web logs: A communicative perspective. In T. N.
Burg (Ed.), BlogTalks 2.0. Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH.
Word of Mourh Marketing Association. (2007). WOM 101. Retrieved from http://
womma.org. Accessed on November 1, 2011.
Word of Mourh Marketing Association. (2012). WOMMAPEDIA. Retrieved from
http://womma.org. Accessed on November 1, 2011.
Wright, J. (2006). Blog marketing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.