Marketing Letters

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 211–223 | Cite as

Talk of the Network: A Complex Systems Look at the Underlying Process of Word-of-Mouth

  • Jacob Goldenberg
  • Barak Libai
  • Eitan Muller


Though word-of-mouth (w-o-m) communications is a pervasive and intriguing phenomenon, little is known on its underlying process of personal communications. Moreover as marketers are getting more interested in harnessing the power of w-o-m, for e-business and other net related activities, the effects of the different communications types on macro level marketing is becoming critical. In particular we are interested in the breakdown of the personal communication between closer and stronger communications that are within an individual's own personal group (strong ties) and weaker and less personal communications that an individual makes with a wide set of other acquaintances and colleagues (weak ties).

We use a technique borrowed from Complex Systems Analysis called stochastic cellular automata in order to generate data and analyze the results so that answers to our main research issues could be ascertained. The following summarizes the impact of strong and weak ties on the speed of acceptance of a new product:

••The influence of weak ties is at least as strong as the influence of strong ties. Despite the relative inferiority of the weak tie parameter in the model's assumptions, their effect approximates or exceeds that of strong ties, in all stages of the product life cycle.

••External marketing efforts (e.g., advertising) are effective. However, beyond a relatively early stage of the growth cycle of the new product, their efficacy quickly diminishes and strong and weak ties become the main forces propelling growth. The results clearly indicate that information dissemination is dominated by both weak and strong w-o-m, rather than by advertising.

••The effect of strong ties diminishes as personal network size decreases. Market attributes were also found to mediate the effects of weak and strong ties. When personal networks are small, weak ties were found to have a stronger impact on information dissemination than strong ties.

word-of-mouth social networks cellular automata complex systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, E. (1998). “Customer Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth,” Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5-17.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. (1999). “Complexity Theory and Organization Science,” Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232.Google Scholar
  3. Bansal, Havir S, and Peter A. Voyer. (2000). “World-of-Mouth Processes Within a Services Purchase Decision Context,” Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166-177.Google Scholar
  4. Bian YJ. (1997). “Bringing Strong Ties Back In: Indirect Ties, Network Bridges, and Job Searches in China,” American Sociological Review, 62(3), 366-385.Google Scholar
  5. Biyalagorsky E, Gerstner E, and Libai B. (2001). “Customer Referral Management: Optimal Reward Programs,” Marketing Science, 20(1), 82-95.Google Scholar
  6. Boulding W, Lee E, and Staelin R. (1994). “Mastering the Mix: Do Advertising, Promotion, and Sales Force Activities Lead to Differentiation?” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 159-172.Google Scholar
  7. Brown JJ, and Reingen PH. (1987). “Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14(December), 350-362.Google Scholar
  8. Buttle FA. (1998). “Word-of-Mouth: Understanding and Managing Referral Marketing,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 241-254.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen A. (1999). “A Best-Seller by Word-of-Mouth,” Sales and Marketing Management, 151(10), 15.Google Scholar
  10. Dabaher P, and Rust R. (1996). “Indirect Financial Benefits from Service Quality,” Quality Management Journal, 3(2), 63-75.Google Scholar
  11. DeMasters K. (2000). “Museum Hailing Some Word-of-Mouth,” NY Times, April 16.Google Scholar
  12. Duhan DF, Johnson SD, Wilcox JB, and Harrel GD. (1997) “Influences on Consumer Use of Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Sources,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 283-295.Google Scholar
  13. Eliashberg J, Jonker J, Sawhney M, and Wierenga B. (2000). “MOVIEMOD: An Implementable Decision-Support System for Prerelease Market Evaluation of Motion Pictures,” Marketing Science, 19(3), 226-243.Google Scholar
  14. Gilly MC, Graham JL, Finley-Wolfinbarger M, and Yale LJ. (1998). “A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal Information Search,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 83-100.Google Scholar
  15. Goldenberg J, Libai B, and Muller E. (2001). “Riding the Saddle: How Cross-Market Communication Creates a Major Slump in Sales,” working paper, Tel-Aviv U.Google Scholar
  16. Goldenberg J, Libai B, Solomon S. Jan N, and Dietrich S. (2000). “Marketing Percolation,” Physica A, 284(1–4), 335-347.Google Scholar
  17. Granovetter MS. (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 78(May), 1360-1380.Google Scholar
  18. Griffin J. (1995). “The Talk of the Town,” Marketing Tools, October, 72-76.Google Scholar
  19. Herr PM, Kardes FR, and Kim J. (1991). “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product Attributes Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17(March), 454-462.Google Scholar
  20. Holland JH. (1995). Hidden Order. New York: Helix Books.Google Scholar
  21. Jeddidi K, Mela CF, and Gupta S. (1999). “Managing Advertising and Promotion for Long-Run Profitability,” Marketing Science, 18(1), 1-22.Google Scholar
  22. Krider R, and Weinberg C. (1998). “Competitive Dynamics and the Introduction of New Products: The Motion Picture Timing Game,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 1-15.Google Scholar
  23. Krider R, and Weinberg C. (1997). “Spatial Competition and Bounded Rationality: Retailing at the Edge of Chaos,” Geographical Analysis, 29(1), 16-34.Google Scholar
  24. Mahajan V, Muller E, and Kerin RA. (1984). “Introduction Strategy for New Products with Positive and Negative Word-of-Mouth,” Management Science, 30(12), 1389-1404.Google Scholar
  25. Mahajan V, Muller E, and Srivastava RK. (1990). “Determination of Adopter Categories by Using Innovation Diffusion Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27(February), 37-50.Google Scholar
  26. McCarthy M. (1999). “The Blair Web Project,” Mediaweek, 9(43), 52-54.Google Scholar
  27. Oberndorf S. (2000). “When is a Virus a Good Thing?” Catalog Age, 17(1), 43-44.Google Scholar
  28. Reichheld F. (1996). The Loyalty Effect. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers EM. (1995). The Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers EM, and Kincaid DL. (1981). Communication Networks: A New Paradigm for Research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rosser JB. (1999). “On the Complexities of Complex Economic Dynamics,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(4), 169-192.Google Scholar
  32. Rust RT, and Varki S. (1996). “Rising from the Ashes of Advertising,” Journal of Business Research, 37(3), 173-181.Google Scholar
  33. Schwartz EI. (1998). “O.K., Retailers, Why Do your Own Marketing when you can make 100,000 Other Web Sites Do it for You?” New York Times, Aug 10, 3.Google Scholar
  34. Silverman G. (1997). “How to Harness the Awesome Power of Word-of-Mouth,” Direct Marketing, November, 32-37.Google Scholar
  35. Waldorp MM. (1992). Complexity, Touchstone Books: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  36. Walker C. (1995). “Word-of-Mouth,” American Demographics, 17(7), 38-44.Google Scholar
  37. Wilson JR. (1994). Word-of-Mouth Marketing. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson TD. (1998). “Weak Ties, Strong Ties: Network Principles in Mexican Migration,” Human Organization, 57(4), 394-403.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob Goldenberg
    • 1
  • Barak Libai
    • 2
  • Eitan Muller
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJersalemIsrael
  2. 2.Davidson Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business AdministrationTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations