Negative word of mouth can be a positive for consumers connected to the brand
- 4.5k Downloads
It is widely accepted, and demonstrated in the marketing literature, that negative online word of mouth (NOWOM) has a negative impact on brands. The present research, however, finds the opposite effect among individuals who feel a close personal connection to the brand—a group that often contains the brand’s best customers. A series of three studies show that, when self–brand connection (SBC) is high, consumers process NOWOM defensively—a process that actually increases their behavioral intentions toward the brand. Study 1 demonstrates this effect using an experimental manipulation of SBC related to clothing brands, and provides process evidence by analyzing coded thought listings. Study 2 provides convergent evidence by measuring SBC associated with smartphones, and followup analyses show that as SBC increases, the otherwise negative effect of NOWOM steadily transforms to become significantly positive. Study 3 replicates these results using a combination of a national survey conducted by J.D. Power investigating hotel stays and data drawn from TripAdvisor. Results of all three studies, set in product categories with varying levels of identity relevance, support the positive effects of NOWOM for high-SBC customers and have implications for both managers and researchers.
KeywordsComplaining Brand User-generated content Identity Negative online word of mouth Self–brand connection
- Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and self. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
- Chen, Z. & Lurie, N. H. (2013). Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 463–476.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Ho-Dac, N. N., Carson, S. J., & Moore W. L. (2013). The effects of positive and negative online customer reviews: do brand strength and category maturity matter? Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 37–53.Google Scholar
- Huang, P., Lurie, N. H. & Mitra, S. (2009). Searching for experience on the web: an empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 55–69.Google Scholar
- Kapferer, J. N., & Laurent, G. (1985). Consumer involvement profiles: a new and practical approach to consumer involvement. Journal of Advertising Research, 25, 48–56.Google Scholar
- Kumar, V., Choi, J.B., & Greene, M. (2016). Synergistic effects of social media and traditional marketing on brand sales: capturing the time-varying effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Loten, A (2012). Hoping to fix bad reviews? Not so fast. Wall Street Journal, available online at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444840104577548982072928526.
- Mintel.com (2015). Seven in 10 Americans Seek out Opinions Before Making Purchases, October 1, Retrieved from http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/social-and-lifestyle/seven-in-10-americans-seek-out-opinions-before-making-purchases.
- MSI.org (2014). 2012–2016 Research Priorities. October 2, retrieved from http://www.msi.org/research/2014-2016-research-priorities/.
- Tuten, T. L., & Solomon, M. (2015). Social Media Marketing (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
- Whitler, K. A. (2014). Why word of mouth is the most important social media. Forbes, July 17, 2014.Google Scholar
- Yin, D. Z., Bond, S. D. & Zhang, H. (2014) Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 539–560.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.Google Scholar