IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibf/gjbres/v9y2015i2p95-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Makes Offline Word-Of-Mouth More Influential Than Online Word-Of-Mouth?

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmet Bayraktar
  • Emine Erdogan

Abstract

In this paper, we examine online and offline WOM communication channels in terms of their effectiveness. We explore the factors that make offline WOM more influential than online WOM. Furthermore, we explore how personal characteristics, culture and product categories and features influence consumer preference of one channel to the other. In addition, we examine the channel characteristics that influence consumer preference of one to the other. This study suggests that the strength of ties and the quality of communication are the antecedents to the effectiveness of WOM communication channel. Moreover, it suggests that the value of information mediates the relationship between the strength of ties and the effectiveness of WOM. The study also argues that consumers trust offline WOM more when they seek information about services. On the other hand, they pay more attention to expertise when they seek information about products with high complexity. The study indicates that mindful consumers tend to engage in online WOM more than less mindful or mindless consumers. Besides, consumers in individualist culture use online communication channel more than those in collectivist culture do in order to obtain information about products.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmet Bayraktar & Emine Erdogan, 2015. "What Makes Offline Word-Of-Mouth More Influential Than Online Word-Of-Mouth?," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 9(2), pages 95-107.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibf:gjbres:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:95-107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.theibfr2.com/RePEc/ibf/gjbres/gjbr-v9n2-2015/GJBR-V9N2-2015-9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dahlstrom, Robert & Ingram, Rhea, 2003. "Social networks and the adverse selection problem in agency relationships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 767-775, September.
    2. Kristine de Valck & Roberts V. Kozinets & Andrea C. Wojnicki & Sarah J.S. Wilner, 2010. "Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities," Post-Print hal-00458424, HAL.
    3. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2004. "Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 545-560, June.
    4. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "The Digitization of Word-of-mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, 2003. "The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1407-1424, October.
    6. Sivadas, Eugene & Bruvold, Norman T. & Nelson, Michelle R., 2008. "A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 201-210, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Babutsidze, Zakaria, 2018. "The rise of electronic social networks and implications for advertisers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 27-39.
    2. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7eeckjdtj29ncak518t23a2j25 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Raassens, N. & Haans, Hans, 2017. "NPS and online WOM investigating the relationship between customers’ promoter scores and eWOM behavior," Other publications TiSEM 931e7761-7c6e-40ee-8976-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Saeed Tajdini, 2023. "The effects of internet search intensity for products on companies’ stock returns: a competitive intelligence perspective," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(3), pages 352-365, September.
    5. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria 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, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    6. Tobias Reckmann, 2017. "Verwendung von Word of Mouth-Daten zur Identifikation von Asymmetrie im Wettbewerb: Eine textbasierte Analyse am Beispiel deutscher Automobilmarken [Identification of asymmetric competition by usin," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 173-201, June.
    7. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Marchand, André & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Wiertz, Caroline, 2017. "Not all digital word of mouth is created equal: Understanding the respective impact of consumer reviews and microblogs on new product success," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 336-354.
    9. Pyle, Martin A. & Smith, Andrew N. & Chevtchouk, Yanina, 2021. "In eWOM we trust: Using naïve theories to understand consumer trust in a complex eWOM marketspace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 145-158.
    10. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7eeckjdtj29ncak518t23a2j25 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kaplan, Andreas M. & Haenlein, Michael, 2011. "Two hearts in three-quarter time: How to waltz the social media/viral marketing dance," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 253-263, May.
    12. Kick, Markus, 2015. "Social Media Research: A Narrative Review," EconStor Preprints 182506, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    13. Akbari, Morteza & Foroudi, Pantea & Zaman Fashami, Rahime & Mahavarpour, Nasrin & Khodayari, Maryam, 2022. "Let us talk about something: The evolution of e-WOM from the past to the future," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 663-689.
    14. Khim-Yong Goh & Cheng-Suang Heng & Zhijie Lin, 2013. "Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 88-107, March.
    15. Pauwels, Koen & Aksehirli, Zeynep & Lackman, Andrew, 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, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 639-655.
    16. Williams, Martin & Buttle, Francis, 2011. "The Eight Pillars of WOM management: Lessons from a multiple case study," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 85-92.
    17. Rajković, Borislav & Đurić, Ivan & Zarić, Vlade & Glauben, Thomas, 2021. "Gaining trust in the digital age: The potential of social media for increasing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(4).
    18. Supratim Kundu & Swapnajit Chakraborti, 2022. "A comparative study of online consumer reviews of Apple iPhone across Amazon, Twitter and MouthShut platforms," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 925-950, September.
    19. Choi-Meng Leong & Alexa Min-Wei Loi & Steve Woon, 2022. "The influence of social media eWOM information on purchase intention," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(2), pages 145-157, June.
    20. Yubo Chen & Jinhong Xie, 2008. "Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a New Element of Marketing Communication Mix," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 477-491, March.
    21. Camille Alloing & Marie Haikel-Elsabeh, 2012. "Les leaders d'opinion sur les réseaux socionumériques," Post-Print hal-00958659, HAL.
    22. Chowdhury, Nasif, 2016. "The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions in Bangladesh Telecommunication Industry," EconStor Preprints 142747, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WOM Communication; Online WOM; Offline WOM; Online Reviews;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibf:gjbres:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:95-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mercedes Jalbert (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.