Conference
Tsourvakas George
Exploring Word-of-Mouth
Communications For Movies
Tsourvakas
George-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Veglis Andreas-Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki
Emmanouelides Christos-Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki
Overview

Introduction

Background Literature
Creating WOM inputs for movies
The effects of WOM outcome for movies

Research Model

Methodology

Results

Discussion and Managerial Implications

Conclusions
Introduction

WOM is an interpersonal communication for
products and services without a commercial
scope
(Arndt 1967)

WOM is the most influential source in
marketing communication
(Day 1971; Sheth 1971)
Background Literature (I)

Why WOM communication is important?
 Consumer
reduces risk
 Consumer
gains time

WOM communication is related to services quality

Movies are intangible services
Background Literature (II)

WOM
 The
number of people coming in touch
 Positive/negative
 ex-ante
information they exchange
or ex-post purchase information
(Anderson 1998; Bone 1995; Buttle 1998)
Hypothesis (A)
Tie strength and social networks (Brown & Reingen 1987)
and also the frequency of communication between them
(Duhan et al. 1997; Goldenberg et al. 2001) create WOM
H1: Moviegoers are more influenced by WOM from
strong tie relations than from weak
Hypothesis (B)
Intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics of the
products or services create WOM
(Wirtz & Chew 2002)
H2: Some film characteristics generate WOM
among moviegoers
Hypothesis (C)
Opinion leaders create WOM
(Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955; Chaney 2001)
H3: Movie critique creates WOM among moviegoers
than its absence.
Hypothesis (D)

Intensity of satisfaction creates WOM
(Anderson 1998; Bowman & Narayandas 2001)
H4: WOM is more likely to be developed by satisfied
moviegoers rather than by non-satisfied
Research Model for WOM for Movies
INPUT
OUTPUT
Tie Strengths
Negative
Film Characteristics
WOM
Positive
Critiques
Methodology



Questionnaire: Self-report
Sample: 168 randomly selected students
cinemagoers
Structure:
Recall the last movie
2. Information sources
3. Movie characteristics that influence
4. Number of persons they got information
1.
Information Sources about the Movie before Viewing
Source
Frequency
Ranking
Friends
Relatives
Strangers
Trailers
Critics
Ads
Other
73.2
14.3
3.6
72.0
56.0
64.3
4.2
23.2
3.6
3.0
11.3
11.9
17.3
0.6
21.4
4.2
0.6
25.6
17.3
17.9
0.6
23.2
2.4
0.0
26.8
20.8
20.2
1.8
67.9
10.1
3.6
63.7
50.0
55.4
3.0
Base: All valid responses, N=168
(%) of times (%) of (%) of
(%) of
(%)of
stated as
times
times
times
times
source
Ranked Ranked Ranked Ranked
1st
2nd
3rd
1st to 3rd
Factors Affecting Decision
to View the Movie (I)
Frequency of stated importance (%)
Some
what
imp.
Not
imp. at
all
Don’t
know/
Don’t
ans.
Most
Imp.
Very
imp.
Modera
tely
imp.
Friends
Relatives
Strangers
24.4
40.5
16.1
7.1
7.1
4.8
100.0
64.9
2
4.8
14.3
11.3
11.9
36.7
19.0
100.0
19.1
12
1.8
4.2
8.9
19.6
45.8
19.6
100.0
6.0
13
Trailers
31.0
32.7
20.2
6.5
5.4
10.1
100.0
63.7
3
Critics
Ads
25.0
32.1
20.2
6.5
8.3
7.7
100.0
57.1
5
20.8
25.0
21.4
10.7
8.9
13.1
100.0
45.8
8
Factor
Base: All valid responses, N=168
Very/
Total most Rank
imp.
Factors Affecting Decision
to View the Movie (II)
Frequency of stated importance (%)
Not
Some
imp.
what
at
imp.
all
Don’t
know/
Don’t
ans.
Most
Imp.
Very
imp.
Modera
tely
imp.
Production
Direction
12.5
20.8
17.9
12.5
16.1
20.2
100.0
33.3
10
25.6
29.2
12.5
10.7
7.7
14.3
100.0
54.8
6
Scenario
20.2
32.1
15.5
9.5
6.5
16.1
100.0
52.3
7
Acting
26.2
39.9
13.1
4.2
5.4
11.3
100.0
66.1
1
Theme
Music
35.1
28.6
13.1
5.4
4.2
13.7
100.0
63.7
3
13.7
22.0
16.1
14.9
15.5
17.9
100.0
35.7
9
Origin
15.5
15.5
17.9
13.7
22.6
14.9
100.0
31.0
11
Factor
Base: All valid responses, N=168
Very/
Total most Rank
imp.
Base: All valid responses, N=168
Factors Affecting Decision to View the
Movie Discussed More Often
Factor
% of
times
Ranked
1st
Ranking
% of
% of
times
times
Ranked
Ranked
2nd
3rd
11.3
9.5
29.8
24.4
% of
times
Ranked
1st to 3rd
Production
Direction
15.5
16.1
36.3
70.2
Scenario
20.2
17.3
13.1
50.6
Acting
19.6
22.0
16.7
58.3
Theme
11.9
10.7
29.8
52.4
Music
7.7
4.8
4.8
17.3
Characteristics of the Movie Discussed
more Often after Viewing
% of
times
Ranked
1st
Ranking
% of
% of
times
times
Ranked
Ranked
2nd
3rd
5.4
6.0
21.4
12.5
% of
times
Ranked
1st to 3rd
Production
Direction
11.3
16.7
22.6
50.6
Scenario
16.1
19.0
19.6
54.8
Acting
20.2
22.0
16.7
58.9
Theme
8.3
18.5
38.1
64.9
Music
10.1
4.2
4.2
18.5
Base: All valid responses, N=168
Factor
Discussion
These findings support
 H1 that moviegoers are more
influenced by strong tie relations.

H2 that films characteristic actors and
directors create WOM among
moviegoers ex-ante.
Discussion

H3 was not supported by
the data collected.

There is no significant
relationship between
critique and WOM
Discussion

There is a highly significant
statistical relationship (x2=15.16,
p-value<0.001) between
satisfaction and WOM generation
( H4 )

WOM is more likely to be
developed by satisfied
moviegoers rather than by
non-satisfied
Managerial Implications
1.
Movie producers could invite families to go to see
movies or might sponsor culture events
2.
Promotion methods could follow movie
characteristics like early advertising &
participation of the movie to festivals
3.
Movie writers, stars and directors could give press
conference or interviews before film comes to
cinema rooms
Conclusion

WOM communications play a pivotal role
in entertainment and cultural industries

Future Research:
Investigating WOM into more
comprehensive and macro model.