Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 411–422 | Cite as

The impact of online word-of-mouth on television show viewership: An inverted U-shaped temporal dynamic

  • Romain CadarioEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article examines the dynamic impact of online word-of-mouth (WOM) on US television show viewership. With WOM data collected from the Internet Movie Database website, we find that the cumulative volume of online WOM has significant explanatory power for viewership over time. Consistent with the mere exposure effect theory, the dynamic impact of the volume of online WOM over time varies according to a curvilinear, inverted U-shaped curve. Due to an initial floor effect, the volume of WOM is not significant in the early episodes. The impact of volume increases over time, before peaking and starting to decrease in the latter part of a show’s life. This article demonstrates the differential effects of online WOM over time and thereby suggests that firms’ online marketing strategies, such as media planning, must adjust with the product life cycle.

Keywords

Internet marketing Word-of-mouth Online consumer reviews Television shows 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the support of the AFNOR Chaire Performance des Organisations of the Foundation of Paris-Dauphine. The author would also like to thank Beatrice Parguel, Manuel Cartier and the participants in the Paris Dauphine ERMES seminar, the 2013 BPF Camp in HEC Paris, and the 2013 Marketing Science Conference.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of work of mouth on sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clemons, E. K., Gao, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Bruyn, A., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dellarocas, C., Zhang, M., & Awad, N. F. (2007). Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: the case of motion pictures. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2008). Do online reviews matter? An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1007–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godes, D., & Silva, J. C. (2011). Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Science, 31(3), 448–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godes, D., Mayzlin, D., Chen, Y., Das, S., Dellarocas, C., Pfeiffer, B., et al. (2005). The firm’s management of social interactions. Marketing Letters, 16(3/4), 415–428.Google Scholar
  12. Idato, M. (2011, June 16). Word’s out, geeks rule. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/words-out-geeks-rule-20110615-1g2c7.html.
  13. Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preattentive mere exposure effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 376–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McAlister, L., Sonnier, G., & Shively, T. (2012). The relationship between online chatter and firm value. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moe, W., & Trusov, M. (2011). The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 444–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Van den Bulte, C., & Lilien, G. L. (2003). Two-stage partial observability models for innovation adoption. Working paper, Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  19. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zajonc, R. B., Shaver, P., Tavris, C., & Van Kreveld, D. (1972). Exposure, satiation, and stimulus discriminability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 270–280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paris Dauphine University, DRM – UMR CNRS 7088ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations