IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/prbchp/978-3-031-62135-2_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Negative WOM for Liking Brands vs Positive WOM for Disliking Brands: Differences in Length and Content of WOM

In: Advances in Digital Marketing and eCommerce

Author

Listed:
  • Takumi Kato

    (Meiji University)

Abstract

Although there is considerable literature on the motives for posting word of mouth (WOM), little is known about the characteristics of WOM generated by posters’ motives and circumstances. This study clarifies the influence of brand sentiment (linking/disliking) and text content (positive/negative) on the quantity and quality of WOM, based on an online survey of 3,036 users of two representative e-commerce sites (Amazon and Rakuten) in the Japanese market. First, the WOM perspective is confirmed. Negative WOM contains more words than positive WOM. Furthermore, positive WOM about disliking brands had the shortest word count, while positive WOM about liking brands and negative WOM about disliking brands were significantly more numerous. Next, from the perspective of WOM quality, this study evaluates the percentage of quality, cost, and delivery (QCD), which captures the sources of corporate competitiveness. Consequently, compared to the other groups, positive WOM toward liking brands had a significantly higher rate of mentions of costs and delivery. In other words, the psychological state in this situation tends to express the most concrete value.

Suggested Citation

  • Takumi Kato, 2024. "Negative WOM for Liking Brands vs Positive WOM for Disliking Brands: Differences in Length and Content of WOM," Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, in: Francisco J. Martínez-López & Luis F. Martinez & Philipp Brüggemann (ed.), Advances in Digital Marketing and eCommerce, pages 1-7, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:prbchp:978-3-031-62135-2_1
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-62135-2_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:spr:prbchp:978-3-031-62135-2_1. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.