measure word of mouth on brand purchase
Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215–224
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Intern. J. of Research in Marketing j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j r e s m a r
Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability
Robert East a,⁎, Kathy Hammond b,1, Wendy Lomax c,2 a b c Kingston Business School, Kingston, KT2 7LB, UK
Duke Corporate Education, 165 Fleet St, London, EC4A 2DY, UK
Kingston Business School, Kingston, KT2 7LB, UK
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history:
First received in February 22, 2008 and was under review for 5 months
Keywords:
Word of mouth
Impact
Brand commitment
Familiarity
NPS
A B S T R A C T
Using two methods, three measures, and data covering a large number of categories, we present findings on the respondent-assessed impact of positive and negative word of mouth (PWOM, NWOM) on brand purchase probability. For familiar brands, we find that:
1.
The impact of PWOM is generally greater than NWOM. The pre-WOM probability of purchase tends to be below 0.5, which gives more latitude for PWOM to increase purchase probability than for NWOM to reduce it.
2.
The impact of both PWOM and NWOM is strongly related to the pre-WOM probability of purchase, the strength of expression of the WOM, and whether the WOM is about the respondent 's preferred brand.
3.
PWOM and NWOM appear to be similar forms of advice-giving behavior, except for their opposed effects on choice.
4.
Respondents resist NWOM on brands they are very likely to choose, and resist PWOM on brands they are very unlikely to choose.
In the Discussion section, we show how our methods could be used to construct a word-of-mouth metric.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Defining the field
Word of mouth (WOM) is informal advice passed between consumers. It is usually interactive, swift, and lacking in commercial
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Intern. J. of Research in Marketing j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j r e s m a r
Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability
Robert East a,⁎, Kathy Hammond b,1, Wendy Lomax c,2 a b c Kingston Business School, Kingston, KT2 7LB, UK
Duke Corporate Education, 165 Fleet St, London, EC4A 2DY, UK
Kingston Business School, Kingston, KT2 7LB, UK
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history:
First received in February 22, 2008 and was under review for 5 months
Keywords:
Word of mouth
Impact
Brand commitment
Familiarity
NPS
A B S T R A C T
Using two methods, three measures, and data covering a large number of categories, we present findings on the respondent-assessed impact of positive and negative word of mouth (PWOM, NWOM) on brand purchase probability. For familiar brands, we find that:
1.
The impact of PWOM is generally greater than NWOM. The pre-WOM probability of purchase tends to be below 0.5, which gives more latitude for PWOM to increase purchase probability than for NWOM to reduce it.
2.
The impact of both PWOM and NWOM is strongly related to the pre-WOM probability of purchase, the strength of expression of the WOM, and whether the WOM is about the respondent 's preferred brand.
3.
PWOM and NWOM appear to be similar forms of advice-giving behavior, except for their opposed effects on choice.
4.
Respondents resist NWOM on brands they are very likely to choose, and resist PWOM on brands they are very unlikely to choose.
In the Discussion section, we show how our methods could be used to construct a word-of-mouth metric.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Defining the field
Word of mouth (WOM) is informal advice passed between consumers. It is usually interactive, swift, and lacking in commercial
References: Ahluwalia, R. (2002, September). How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments? Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 270−279. Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000, May). Consumer response to negative publicity Anderson, N. H. (1965, July). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus combination rule in impression formation Assael, H. (2004). Consumer behavior: A strategic approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 80−191. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2003). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews East, R., Hammond, K., Lomax, W., & Robinson, H. (2005). What is the effect of a recommendation? The Marketing Review, 5(2), 145−157. East, R., Hammond, K. A., & Wright, M. (2007). The relative incidence of positive and negative word of mouth: A multi-category study Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988, August). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word of mouth communication Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., Moldovan, S., & Muller, E. (2007). The NPV of bad news. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 186−200. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360−1380. Juster, F. T. (1966, September). Consumer buying intentions and purchase probability: An experiment in survey design Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An