Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation

  • REVIEW PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) is a prevalent consumer practice that has undeniable effects on the company bottom line, yet it remains an over-labeled and under-theorized concept. Thus, marketers could benefit from a practical, science-based roadmap to maximize its business value. Building on the consumer motivation–opportunity–ability framework, this study conceptualizes three distinct stages in the eWOM process: eWOM creation, eWOM exposure, and eWOM evaluation. For each stage, we adopt a dual lens—from the perspective of the consumer (who sends and receives eWOM) and that of the marketer (who amplifies and manages eWOM for business results)—to synthesize key research insights and propose a research agenda based on a multi-disciplinary systematic review of 1050 academic publications on eWOM published between 1996 and 2019. We conclude with a discussion of the future of eWOM research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank one of our anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback regarding this revised definition.

  2. Some studies use both field and lab data. The sum is not 100% because the remaining studies use a purely conceptual, meta-analytic, or simulated analytical approach.

  3. Mayo Clinic. (2016, May 13). Retrieved May 20, 2019, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/digestive-diseases/news/hemorrhoidal-disease-diagnosis-and-management/mac-20,430,067#targetText=Diagnosis,so%20they%20suffer%20in%20silence.

  4. The endogenous nature of eWOM signifies that eWOM is not only a driver of firm performance (e.g., sales measures), but it could also be its outcome (e.g., high-selling products attract more eWOM) (Chintagunta et al. 2010).

  5. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of the EU. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3e485e15-11bd-11e6-ba9a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.

References

  • Abrantes, J. L., Seabra, C., Lages, C. R., & Jayawardhena, C. (2013). Drivers of in-group and out-of-group electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). European Journal of Marketing, 47(7), 1067–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adjei, M. T., Noble, S. M., & Noble, C. H. (2010). The influence of C2C communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 634–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrens, J., Coyle, J. R., & Strahilevitz, M. A. (2013). Electronic word of mouth: The effects of incentives on e-referrals by senders and receivers. European Journal of Marketing, 47(7), 1034–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akpinar, E., & Berger, J. (2017). Valuable virality. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(2), 318–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksoy, L., Bloom, P. N., Lurie, N. H., & Cooil, B. (2006). Should recommendation agents think like people? Journal of Service Research, 8(4), 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldo. (2017). “★★★★★”- said YOU + Sale: Up to 50% off. E-mail newsletter.

  • Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. T., & Simester, D. I. (2014). Reviews without a purchase: Low ratings, loyal customers, and deception. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M., & Magruder, J. (2012). Learning from the crowd: Regression discontinuity estimates of the effects of an online review database. The Economic Journal, 122(563), 957–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, A., & Caliandro, A. (2016). Brand public. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 727–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, C., & Leonard, H. A. (2009). Betrayed by the buzz? Covert content and consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(2), 212–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychology & Marketing, 32(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awad, N. F., & Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of mouth: An examination across genders. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016). The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, H., Ahn, J., & Choi, Y. (2012). Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: Readers’ objectives and review cues. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(2), 99–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, A. A. (2005). Consumer awareness and use of product review websites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(1), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batra, R., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Integrating marketing communications: New findings, new lessons, and new ideas. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 122–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, J., Khorramian, A., & O’Donnell, K. (2018). Kinfolk magazine: Anchoring a taste regime. Consumption Markets & Culture, 21(1), 82–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckers, S. F., Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2018). Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 366–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthon, P., Pitt, L., & Campbell, C. (2008). Ad lib: When customers create the ad. California Management Review, 50(4), 6–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyens, I., Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). “I don’t want to miss a thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing out and its relationship to adolescents’ social needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 64(November), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1998). Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandes, L., Nolte, I., & Nolte, S. (2011). Where do the Joneses go on vacation? Social distance and the influence of online reviews on product sales. Working paper, University of Lucerne.

  • Breugelmans, E., Bijmolt, T. H. A., Zhang, J., Basso, L. J., Dorotic, M., Kopalle, P., Minnema, A., Mijnlieff, W. J., & Wünderlich, N. V. (2015). Advancing research on loyalty programs: A future research agenda. Marketing Letters, 26(2), 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronner, F., & De Hoog, R. (2011). Vacationers and eWOM: Who posts, and why, where, and what? Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks Jr., R. C. (1957). “Word-of-mouth” advertising in selling new products. Journal of Marketing, 22(2), 154–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, N. I., Foutz, N. Z., & Kolsarici, C. (2012). Dynamic effectiveness of advertising and word of mouth in sequential distribution of new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadario, R. (2015). The impact of online word-of-mouth on television show viewership: An inverted u-shaped temporal dynamic. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 411–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capoccia, C. (2018). Online reviews are the best thing that ever happened to small businesses. Forbes. Retrieved February 2, 2019 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/11/online-reviews-are-the-best-thing-that-ever-happened-to-small-businesses/.

  • Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2014). The effect of disclosure of third-party influence on an opinion leader’s credibility and electronic word of mouth in two-step flow. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14(1), 38–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, P. (2011). Drivers of new product recommending and referral behaviour on social network sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Wang, Q., & Xie, J. (2011). Online social interactions: A natural experiment on word of mouth versus observational learning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 238–254.

  • Chen, Y.-J., & Godes, D. (2012). Rating with confidence: Rating certainty and word-of-mouth behavior. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, & R. Zhu (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 40, pp. 228–231). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2016). How content acquisition method affects word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 86–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 198–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P. K., Gopinath, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The effects of online user reviews on movie box office performance: Accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets. Marketing Science, 29(5), 944–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., Bell, D. R., & Lodish, L. M. (2012). Traditional and IS-enabled customer acquisition on the Internet. Management Science, 58(4), 754–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemons, E. K., Gao, G. G., & Hitt, L. M. (2006). When online reviews meet hyperdifferentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(2), 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S., & Bright, L. (2008). Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, E., Kannan, P. K., Verhoef, P. C., & Wiesel, T. (2018). Device switching in online purchasing: Examining the strategic contingencies. Journal of Marketing, 82(5), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, B. G. (2019). The consumer production journey: Marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 238–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10), 1407–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langhe, B., Fernbach, P. M., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2016). Navigating by the stars: Investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 817–833.

  • De Valck, K., Van Bruggen, G. H., & Wierenga, B. (2009). Virtual communities: A marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, V., & Chang, E. A. (2009). Does chatter matter? The impact of user-generated content on music sales. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dichter, E. (1966). How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Business Review, 44(6), 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J. P., Shen, L., & Vail, R. G. (2007). Does perceived message effectiveness cause persuasion or vice versa? 17 consistent answers. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 467–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinçer, M. Z., & Alrawadieh, Z. (2017). Negative word of mouse in the hotel industry: A content analysis of online reviews on luxury hotels in Jordan. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(8), 785–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dose, D. B., Walsh, G., Beatty, S. E., & Elsner, R. (2019). Unintended reward costs: The effectiveness of customer referral reward programs for innovative products and services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 438–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis, C., Stephen, A.T., Bart, Y., & Goncalves, D. (2014). When paying does (not) pay off: Incentivized consumer-generated product reviews and avoiding disclosure-induced backlash. Working paper, INSEAD.

  • Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers: How interpersonal closeness influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 712–727.

  • Eelen, J., Özturan, P., & Verlegh, P. W. (2017). The differential impact of brand loyalty on traditional and online word of mouth: The moderating roles of self-brand connection and the desire to help the brand. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(4), 872–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisingerich, A. B., Chun, H. H., Liu, Y., Jia, H., & Bell, S. J. (2015). Why recommend a brand face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 120–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farace, S., Van Laer, T., De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2017). Assessing the effect of narrative transportation, portrayed action, and photographic style on the likelihood to comment on posted selfies. European Journal of Marketing, 51(11/12), 1961–1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Trade Commission. (2017). The FTC’s endorsement guides: What people are asking. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

  • Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, K., Freling, F., Alhogail, S., Cho, H. Y., & Freling, T. (2014). How online product reviews affect retail sales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, J., & Burton, S. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth and country-of-origin effects. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2008). Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A. K., Deitz, G. D., Royne, M. B., & Fox, J. D. (2018). The face of contagion: Consumer response to service failure depiction in online reviews. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2), 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnefeld, I., Iseke, A., & Krebs, A. (2012). Explicit incentives in online communities: Boon or bane? International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(1), 11–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. Q. (2011). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(10), 1498–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. G., & Li, B. (2012). Designing ranking systems for hotels on travel search engines by mining user-generated and crowdsourced content. Marketing Science, 31(3), 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. G., & Li, B. (2014). Examining the impact of ranking on consumer behavior and search engine revenue. Management Science, 60(7), 1632–1654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009). Firm-created word-of-mouth communication: Evidence from a field test. Marketing Science, 28(4), 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godes, D., & Silva, J. C. (2012). Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Science, 31(3), 448–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. (2018). What competitors are missing about Amazon’s new 4-star retail concept. Forbes. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasongoldberg/2018/10/03/what-competitors-are-missing-about-amazons-new-4-star-retail-concept/.

  • Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, W., & Li, X. (2017). Engaging fans on microblog: the synthetic influence of parasocial interaction and source characteristics on celebrity endorsement. Psychology & Marketing, 34(7), 720–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, S., Zhang, J., Zhao, P., & Jiang, X. (2017). Tweeting as a marketing tool: A field experiment in the TV industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(6), 833–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, L., & Stephen, A. T. (2019). In mobile we trust: The effects of mobile versus nonmobile reviews on consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719834514.

  • Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2004). The timing of repeat purchases of consumer durable goods: The role of functional bases of consumer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). eWOM: The impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59(4), 449–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruner, R. L., Homburg, C., & Lukas, B. A. (2014). Firm-hosted online brand communities and new product success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, P., & Harris, J. (2010). How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 1041–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gursoy, D. (2019). A critical review of determinants of information search behavior and utilization of online reviews in decision making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. W., & Price, L. L. (2019). Consumer journeys: Developing consumer-based strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 187–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. W., Schlosser, A., & Chen, Y.-J. (2017). Who’s driving this conversation? Systematic biases in the content of online consumer discussions. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 540–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, R., & Sia, S. K. (2015). Hummel’s digital transformation toward omnichannel retailing: Key lessons learned. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(2), 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S., Jiang, L., & Dahl, D. (2019). Enhancing consumer engagement in an online brand community via user reputation signals: A multi-method analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. L., King, K. W., & Ramirez Jr., A. (2016). Brands, friends, & viral advertising: A social exchange perspective on the ad referral processes. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 36, 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C., & Feldhaus, F. (2015). Does Twitter matter? The impact of microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, C., & Schlager, T. (2019). Focusing on others before you shop: Exposure to Facebook promotes conventional product configurations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho-Dac, N. N., Carson, S. J., & Moore, W. (2013). The effects of positive and negative online customer reviews: Do brand strength and category maturity matter? Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., & Daugherty, T. (2013). Is a picture always worth a thousand words? Attention to structural elements of eWOM for consumer brands within social media. In S. Botti & A. Labroo (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 41(1) (pp. 326–331). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, C. R., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Consumers’ use of brands to reflect their actual and ideal selves on Facebook. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 395–405.

  • Homburg, C., Ehm, L., & Artz, M. (2015). Measuring and managing consumer sentiment in an online community environment. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(5), 629–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H., Xu, D., Wang, G. A., & Fan, W. (2017). Understanding the determinants of online review helpfulness: A meta-analytic investigation. Decision Support Systems, 102, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Internet World Stats. (2017). Facebook World Stats and Penetration in the World. Retrieved January 24, 2019, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/facebook.htm.

  • Jiang, Y., & Guo, H. (2015). Design of consumer review systems and product pricing. Information Systems Research, 26(4), 714–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, F. R., & Mendoza, N. A. (2013). Too popular to ignore: The influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(3), 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. A. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karniouchina, E. V. (2011). Impact of star and movie buzz on motion picture distribution and box office revenue. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(1), 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E., & Fay, B. (2012). Word-of-mouth advocacy: A new key to advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(4), 459–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1480–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Naylor, G., Sivadas, E., & Sugumaran, V. (2016). The unrealized value of incentivized eWOM recommendations. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Slotegraaf, R. J. (2015). Brand-embedded interaction: A dynamic and personalized interaction for co-creation. Marketing Letters, 27(1), 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, R. A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V. D. (2014). What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(3), 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V. (2016). Amazonian forests and trees: Multiplicity and objectivity in studies of online consumer-generated ratings and reviews, a commentary on De Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(April), 834–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kübler, R., Pauwels, K., Yildirim, G., & Fandrich, T. (2018). App popularity: Where in the world are consumers most sensitive to price and user ratings? Journal of Marketing, 82(5), 20–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Bhaskaran, V., Mirchandani, R., & Shah, M. (2013). Creating a measurable social media marketing strategy: Increasing the value and ROI of intangibles and tangibles for hokey pokey. Marketing Science, 32(2), 194–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, H.-C., & Nakhata, C. (2019). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth on customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 27(3), 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer, A.-K., Pähler vor der Holte, N., Kübler, R. V., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2018). The role of the partner brand’s social media power in brand alliances. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kushwaha, T., & Shankar, V. (2013). Are multichannel customers really more valuable? The moderating role of product category characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusumasondjaja, S., Shanka, T., & Marchegiani, C. (2012). Credibility of online reviews and initial trust: The roles of reviewer’s identity and review valence. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(3), 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberton, C. P., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing research’s evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future research. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, R., Besharat, A., & Varki, S. (2017). The effect of review valence and variance on product evaluations: An examination of intrinsic and extrinsic cues. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(2), 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, D. J., Hoeve, M. C., Ortt, J., Pals, N., & Van Der Vecht, B. (2014). Patterns of herding and their occurrence in an online setting. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappas, T., Sabnis, G., & Valkanas, G. (2016). The impact of fake reviews on online visibility: A vulnerability assessment of the hotel industry. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 940–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. Y., & Bell, D. R. (2013). Neighborhood social capital and social learning for experience attributes of products. Marketing Science, 32(6), 960–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Park, D.-H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.-H., & Workman, J. E. (2014). Gossip, self-monitoring and fashion leadership: Comparison of US and South Korean consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(6/7), 452–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. Y., & Bradlow, E. T. (2011). Automated marketing research using online customer reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 881–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y.-M., Lin, L., & Chiu, S.-W. (2014). Enhancing targeted advertising with social context endorsement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19(1), 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bügel, M. S., De Ruyter, K., Götz, O., Risselada, H., & Stephen, A. T. (2010). Customer-to-customer interactions: Broadening the scope of word of mouth research. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liousas, E.A. (2018). Ratings & reviews: What’s old should be new again. Forrester Research Blog. March 16. Retrieved December 12, 2018 from https://go.forrester.com/blogs/whats-old-should-be-new-again/.

  • Lipsman, A., Mudd, G., Rich, M., & Bruich, S. (2012). The power of “Like”: How brands reach (and influence) fans through social-media marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), 40–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H., Lurie, N., & Ransbotham, S. (2013). The content and impact of mobile versus desktop reviews. In S. Botti & A. Labroo (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 41, p. 117). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. J., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2013). On brands and word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 427–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Jerath, K., & Singh, P. V. (2013). The emergence of opinion leaders in a networked online community: A dyadic model with time dynamics and a heuristic for fast estimation. Management Science, 59(8), 1783–1799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, S., De Ruyter, K., Friedman, M., Brüggen, E. C., Wetzels, M., & Pfann, G. (2013). More than words: The influence of affective content and linguistic style matches in online reviews on conversion rates. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mafael, A., Gottschalk, S. A., & Kreis, H. (2016). Examining biased assimilation of brand-related online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 36, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariani, M. M., Borghi, M., & Gretzel, U. (2019). Online reviews: Differences by submission device. Tourism Management, 70, 295–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marketing Science Institute. (2018). 2018–2020 Research Priorities: Marketers’ strategic imperatives. Retrieved January 13, 2019, from https://www.msi.org/articles/marketers-top-challenges-2018-2020-research-priorities.

  • März, A., Schubach, S., & Schumann, J. H. (2017). “Why would I read a mobile review?” Device compatibility perceptions and effects on perceived helpfulness. Psychology & Marketing, 34(2), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C., & De Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 832–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayzlin, D. (2006). Promotional chat on the Internet. Marketing Science, 25(2), 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayzlin, D., Dover, Y., & Chevalier, J. (2014). Promotional reviews: An empirical investigation of online review manipulation. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2421–2455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., & Kan, C. (2015). Humorous complaining. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1153–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melumad, S., Inman, J. J., & Pham, M. T. (2019). Selectively emotional: How smartphone use changes user-generated content. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(2), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. M., McIntyre, S. H., & Mantrala, M. K. (1993). Toward formalizing fashion theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 142–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnema, A., Bijmolt, T. H. A., Gensler, S., & Wiesel, T. (2016). To keep or not to keep: Effects of online customer reviews on product returns. Journal of Retailing, 92(3), 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mix.com (2019). Curate the best of the Internet. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from http://mix.com.

  • Moe, W. W., & Schweidel, D. A. (2012). Online product opinions: Incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Marketing Science, 31(3), 372–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, W. W., & Trusov, M. (2011). The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 444–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., Muzellec, L., & Nolan, E. (2014). Consumer moments of truth in the digital context: How “search” and “e-word of mouth” can fuel consumer decision making. Journal of Advertising Research, 54(2), 200–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motyka, S., Grewal, D., Aguirre, E., Mahr, D., De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2018). The emotional review–reward effect: How do reviews increase impulsivity? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6), 1032–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, H., & Kannan, P. K. (2014). The informational value of social tagging networks. Journal of Marketing, 78(4), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyond the “Like” button: The impact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social media settings. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, I. C. L., & Wakenshaw, S. Y. L. (2017). The Internet-of-Things: Review and research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okazaki, S. (2009). Social influence model and electronic word of mouth PC versus mobile internet. International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 439–472.

  • Okleshen, C., & Grossbart, S. (1998). Usenet groups, virtual community and consumer behaviors. In J. W. Alba & J. W. Hutchinson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 25, pp. 276–282). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. H., & Jeon, J. O. (2018). The impact of mixed eWOM sequence on brand attitude change: Cross-cultural differences. International Marketing Review, 35(3), 390–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, D.-H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, K., Aksehirli, Z., & Lackman, A. (2016). Like the ad or the brand? Marketing stimulates different electronic word-of-mouth content to drive online and offline performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(3), 639–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, K., Leeflang, P. S., Teerling, M. L., & Huizingh, K. E. (2011). Does online information drive offline revenues? Only for specific products and consumer segments! Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006). The nature and role of feedback text comments in online marketplaces: Implications for trust building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 392–414.

  • Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A. M., Ognibeni, B., & Pauwels, K. (2013). Social media metrics: A framework and guidelines for managing social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 281–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–2), 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T. & Kesler, F. (2011). How aunt Amy gets her free lunch: A study of the top-thousand customer reviewers at Amazon.com. In B. Czarniawska & O. Lofgren (Eds.), Managing Overflow in Affluent Societies. New York: Routledge.

  • Piramuthu, S., Kapoor, G., Zhou, W., & Mauw, S. (2012). Input online review data and related bias in recommender systems. Decision Support Systems, 53(3), 418–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poch, R., & Martin, B. (2015). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on user-generated content. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(4), 305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pühringer, S., & Taylor, A. (2008). A practitioner’s report on blogs as a potential source of destination marketing intelligence. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Relling, M., Schnittka, O., Sattler, H., & Johnen, M. (2016). Each can help or hurt: Negative and positive word of mouth in social network brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 42–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, C., Blohm, I., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2013). The effect of rating scales on decision quality and user attitudes in online innovation communities. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(3), 7–36.

  • Risselada, H., De Vries, L., & Verstappen, M. (2018). The impact of social influence on the perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews. European Journal of Marketing, 52(3/4), 619–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rui, H., Liu, Y., & Whinston, A. B. (2013). Whose and what chatter matters? The impact of tweets on movie sales. Decision Support Systems, 55(4), 863–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutz, O. J., & Bucklin, R. E. (2011). From generic to branded: A model of spillover in paid search advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salwen, M., & Sacks, D. W. (2008). An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Mahwah: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schamari, J., & Schaefers, T. (2015). Leaving the home turf: How brands can use webcare on consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 30, 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, A. E. (2005). Posting versus lurking: Communicating in a multiple audience context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. B., & Spreng, R. A. (1996). A proposed model of external consumer information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(3), 246–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuckert, M., Liu, X., & Law, R. (2015). Hospitality and tourism online reviews: Recent trends and future directions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(5), 608–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, C., Schöler, L., & Skiera, B. (2014). Not all fun and games: Viral marketing for utilitarian products. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweidel, D. A., & Moe, W. W. (2014). Listening in on social media: A joint model of sentiment and venue format choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 387–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon-Missal, L. (2013). Different priorities in smartphone vs. computer use, but some common ground. CISION PR Newswire, Retrieved April 27, 2019, from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/different-priorities-in-smartphone-vs-computer-use-but-some-common-ground-185534492.html.

  • Sibai, O., De Valck, K., Farrell, A. M., & Rudd, J. M. (2015). Social control in online communities of consumption: A framework for community management. Psychology & Marketing, 32(3), 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simchi-Levi, D. (2019). From the Editor. Retrieved February 16, 2019, from https://www.informs.org/Blogs/ManSci-Blogs/From-the-Editor/From-the-Editor-January-2019.

  • Simonson, I. (2016). Imperfect progress: An objective quality assessment of the role of user reviews in consumer decision making, a commentary on De Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 840–845.

  • Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 102–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffes, E. M., & Burgee, L. E. (2009). Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research, 19(1), 42–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, A. T., & Lehmann, D. R. (2016). How word-of-mouth transmission encouragement affects consumers’ transmission decisions, receiver selection, and diffusion speed. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(4), 755–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., Dong, X., & McIntyre, S. (2017). Motivation of user-generated content: Social connectedness moderates the effects of monetary rewards. Marketing Science, 36(3), 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, T., Fang, E., & Wang, F. (2014). Is neutral really neutral? The effects of neutral user-generated content on product sales. Journal of Marketing, 78(4), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TechHive. (2019). Bose Frames review: Made in the shades. Retrieved March 15, 2019 from https://www.techhive.com/article/3337530/bose-frames-review.html.

  • Tellis, G. J., MacInnis, D. J., Tirunillai, S., & Zhang, Y. (2019). What drives virality (sharing) of online digital content? The critical role of information, emotion, and brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. V., & Malaviya, P. (2013). Consumer-generated ads: Does awareness of advertising co-creation help or hurt persuasion? Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirunillai, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2012). Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated content and stock performance. Marketing Science, 31(2), 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, C., Neal, D. T., & Morgan, C. (2019). The impact of the mere presence of social media share icons on product interest and valuation. Journal of Business Research, 100(July), 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wangenheim, F. V. (2005). Postswitching negative word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 8(1), 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions: A consumer socialization framework. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 198–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Chaudhry, A. (2018). When and how managers’ responses to online reviews affect subsequent reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(2), 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, C., Rimmer, J., Blandford, A., Gow, J., & Buchanan, G. (2009). Cognitive economy and satisficing in information seeking: A longitudinal study of undergraduate information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2402–2415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiertz, C., & De Ruyter, K. (2007). Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to firm-hosted commercial online communities. Organization Studies, 28(3), 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worldpay. (2017). For each of the following circumstances, how important is it to read online reviews before purchasing a product or selecting a service provider? Retrieved January 10, 2019, from http://www-statista-com.du.idm.oclc.org/statistics/713258/online-review-importance-circumstances-usa/.

  • Xu, P., Chen, L., & Santhanam, R. (2015). Will video be the next generation of e-commerce product reviews? Presentation format and the role of product type. Decision Support Systems, 73(May), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S., De Valck, K., Hennig-Thurau, T., Hoffman, D. L., & Spann, M. (2013). Social commerce: A contingency framework for assessing marketing potential. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 311–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014). Marketing in computer-mediated environments: Research synthesis and new directions. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 20–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, Y., Vadakkepatt, G. G., & Joshi, A. M. (2015). A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity. Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., Yang, S., Narayan, V., & Zhao, Y. (2013). Modeling consumer learning from online product reviews. Marketing Science, 32(1), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Some of the research was conducted when Ana Babić Rosario was a doctoral student at the Department of Marketing at HEC Paris, and an earlier version of this article is part of Ana Babić Rosario’s doctoral dissertation. The authors thank Michael Haenlein, Ko de Ruyter, Donald Bacon, and the participants of the 2017 INFORMS Marketing Science, 2018 BI-JAMS Thought Leaders’, and 2019 AMA Winter conferences for their constructive feedback on earlier versions of this work, as well as Daniel Zheng and Stephanie Panozzo for valuable research assistance. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the HEC Foundation (F1307), Labex ECODEC (Investissements d’Avenir ANR-11-IDEX-0003/ Labex Ecodec/ ANR-11-LABX-0047), and the University of Denver’s Internationalization Office (grants 86587-150401 and 86849-150401). The authors also thank the JAMS review team for their very constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Ana Babić Rosario

  2. HEC Paris, Paris, France

    Kristine de Valck

  3. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Francesca Sotgiu

Authors
  1. Ana Babić Rosario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristine de Valck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Sotgiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Babić Rosario.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Mark Houston and John Hulland served as special issue editors for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 789 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babić Rosario, A., de Valck, K. & Sotgiu, F. Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 48, 422–448 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00706-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00706-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation