The document reports on a study that examined how electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), management response, and brand familiarity influence customers' behavioral intentions towards internet retailers. Two studies were conducted. Study 1 investigated the impact of eWOM valence, volume, and brand familiarity, finding that positive valence had a stronger impact than negative valence. High volume eWOM increased recommendations for unfamiliar brands only. Study 2 examined the effect of management response strategies and eWOM consensus, finding that appreciative responses and high consensus increased patronage and recommendation intentions the most. The findings provide insights into how firms can best respond to online reviews to influence customer behavior.

1. ELECTRONIC WORD-OF-MOUTH, MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND CUSTOMERS’
BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS TOWARDS INTERNET RETAILERS: A STUDY OF NNAMDI
AZIKIWE STUDENTS, AWKA
OJIAKU, OBINNA CHRISTIAN
2012447002P

2. Background of the Study
Consumers review products plus stores
Firms now respond, thus, eWOM and Management
response affects consumer behaviour
Traditional WOM to eWOM
EWOM as IR free sales assistant
1
Introduction

3. 2
Introduction

4. Statement of the Problem
Introduction
Measuring eWOM effect on marketing
outcomes
Appropriate response strategies to manage
eWOM generation and transmission
7
3
Interactive nature of customer-firm
dialogue affects prospective customers
perception

5. Objectives of the study
eWOM and its
corresponding
management
response on
customers’
behavioural
intentions
Main and interaction effects of
eWOM valence and brand
familiarity
Main and interaction effects of
eWOM volume and brand
familiarity
Main and interaction effects of
management response and
eWOM consensus
Introduction
4

6. Research Questions
To what extent does brand familiarity (familiar vs.
unfamiliar) affects customers’ behavioural
intentions?
To what extent does the main effect of valence (i.e., positive
or negative) affect BI?
What is the main effect of eWOM volume (i.e., high or low) on
BI?
What is the effect of eWOM valence and volume
on BI, when consumers are familiar or not
familiar with the IR?
To what extent would management response to
positive and negative eWOM affect customers’
BI?
To what extent does eWOM consensus affect BI?
To what extent does the interaction between consensus in
information and management response affect BI?
Introduction
5

7. Scope of the Study
Unit of Analysis Geographical Time
Introduction
6

8. 1
Conceptual
Review
Dimensions of eWOM
Valence,
Volume
Consensus
Brand familiarity and
eWOM
Management response
to eWOM
• Accommodative,
• Appreciative
• No response
Behavioural Intentions
Patronage Intentions
Recommendations
Intentions
Elaboration Likelihood
Model (ELM;
Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
Social Learning Theory
(Bandurra, 1977)
Empirical
Review
Empirical review on eWOM
•Panel data
•Experimental Surveys
Empirical Review on
Management response
to eWOM
Literature
Review
7

9. Literature
Review
Investigation into the impact of eWOM
and management response is scant
Previous research focused on review
valence and volume in isolation.
Appreciation (Thank you) as a response
strategy to eWOM is sparse.
Gap in the Literature and Contribution of the Study
8

10. Literature
Review
Hypotheses
Review valence will have a significant
effect on PI & RI such that the impact
of positive reviews will be stronger
than negative reviews.
Review volume will have a significant
impact on PI and RI such that HV review
will increase PI and RI whereas LV review
will not have any effect
Brand familiarity will significantly
affect PI and RI such the impact will
be stronger for familiar than
unfamiliar brands.
There will be a significant interaction between
valence and brand familiarity on PI and RI such
that PRV will benefit both familiar and unfamiliar
retailers whereas NRW will harm unfamiliar brand
but will not affect familiar brands
There will be a significant interaction between
volume and familiarity on PI and RI such that
HVR will benefit unfamiliar retailers and not have
any effect for familiar brands
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
MR will significantly impact PI and PI
such that accommodative response
affects PI than other response
strategies whereas appreciative
response affects PI than other
response strategies
Review consensus will have a
significant effect on BI such
that high consensus will have
stronger impact on BI than
low consensus.
There will be a significant interaction
between consensus and MR such that
when consensus is high, an AMR will
affect PI and APR affect RI stronger
than other response strategies and
whereas when consensus is low, an APR
will affect RI stronger than other
response strategies and a no response
affect PI stronger than other response
strategies.
H6
H7
H8
9

11. Literature
Review
Consensu
s
High
Low
Behavioural
Patronage
Recommendation
Management
Response
H6
H7
H8
Accommodative
Appreciative
No response
Fig 2. Management response & BI
Fig 1. EWOM & BI
Conceptual Schema
Volume
High
Low
Behavioural
Patronage
Recommendation
Valence
Negative
Positive
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
Brand
familiarity
familiar
Unfamiliar
10

12. Valence, Volume and Brand familiarity
– 3 items; Patronage and
Recommendation Intentions – 3 items. All
measured with 7 point Likert Scale
and adapted from the literature.
Experimental research design. 2(valence:
positive vs. negative) x 2(volume: high vs.
low) x 2(band familiarity: familiar vs.
unfamiliar) between-subject factorial
design
Students of Nnamdi Azikiwe
University, Awka; Given as
31,000 students
432 . Determined using g*
power analysis
Simulated webpage for a
familiar/unfamiliar online stores;
A link to the Facebook review page;
containing positive/negative reviews
in high (12) or low (3) volume.
Pretest 1: Product category and brand familiarity
Pretest 2: 23 Independent sample between-subject
design (n = 80) for an online shopping task. Computer
lab experiment. Random assignment of participants
to each of the 8 review conditions. Participants read
reviews and complete questionnaire.
Main Experiment: same as pretest 2
Construct Reliability: Factor Analysis and
Cronbach alpha;
Internal/External validity: Random
assignment; real reviews; face validation
Methodology
T-test for manipulation checks;
MANOVA for hypotheses
testing
Study 1
11

13. Appreciative and Accommodative,
Patronage and Recommendation
Intentions measured with 7 point
Likert Scale and adapted from the
literature
Experimental research design
3(management response:
accommodative vs. appreciative vs. no
response) × 2(consensus: high vs. low)
between-subject factorial design
Same as study 1
282 . Determined using g*
power analysis
Simulate webpage for a fictitious online
store; a link to Facebook review page;
contains appreciative, accommodative
and no response conditions in a high
proportional)/low(balanced) consensus
Pretest 1: Average reviews consumers read.
Pretest 2:Pretest 2: 3(management response:
appreciative vs. accommodative vs. no response) x
2(consensus: high vs. low) between-subject factorial
design. Online shopping task where participants read
reviews then management response and complete
questionnaire
Main Experiment: same as pretest
Construct Reliability: Factor Analysis and
Cronbach alpha;
Internal/External validity: Random
assignment; real reviews; face validation
Methodology
ANOVA for manipulation
checks; MANOVA for
hypotheses testing
Study 2
12

14. Valence Brand familiarity Volume
Valence × brand familiarity Volume × brand familiarity
RESULTS
ꓦ = .001, p >ns
RI: p >ns , η2 =.1
Data
Analysis
ꓦ = .34, p< .01
PI: F1,313 = 139.98, p < .01
RI: F1,313 = 127.9 p < .01,
+MPI = 5.6 > -MPI = 3.7
ꓦ = .12, p< .01,
PI: F1,313 = 30.2, p < .01,
RI: F1,313 = 38.8, p< .01,
FMRI = 5.1, > UMRI = 3.9
ꓦ = .02, p = .06,
PI: F1,313 = 2.87, p> n.s
RI: F1,313 = 5.67, p <.05
HMRI = 5.1, LMPI = 4.6
ꓦ = .02, p = .56
PI: F1,321,= 5.3, p < .05
RI: F1,312, = 5.3, p< .01
Munf = p<.05; Mfam = p<ns
PI: p > ns, η2 =.9
H1 H3 H2
H5
H4
13

15. (V = .34, + +)
(V = 0.2, + -)
(V
=
.12,
+
+)
(V = 0.01, - -)
(V = 0.02, + -)
Study 1: Research Model
Key;
++ fully supported
+ - Partially supported
- - Not supported
14
Data
Analysis

16. MR × Consensus
RESULTS
Consensus
H6 H7
H8
Management
Response
ꓦ = .08, p< 0.01
PI: F1,214 = 15.4, p < 0.01
RI: F1,214 = 14.9 p < 0.01,
HMPI = 5.4 > LMPI = 4.5
ꓦ = .15, p<.001
PI: F2,214 = 33.8, p< .001
RI: F1,214 = 35.6, p < 0.01
PI: NR – AP, n.s ,
NR- AC, sig.; AP-AC, sig
RI: NR – AP- AC sig.;
AP-AC, sig
ꓦ = .09, p < .001; ꓦ(NR)=.88, p<.05;
ꓦ(AP) = .04, p<.05; ꓦ (AC)= .009, p= n.s
PI: NR-AC, sig; NR –AP, n.s, AP-AC, sig.
(in L/H).
(L)RI: NR – AC, n.s; NR-AP, sig; AP-AC, sig
(H)NR –AC, sig, AP n.s.
15
Data
Analysis

17. Consensu
s
High
Low
Behavioural
Patronage
Recommendation
Management Response
H6
H7
H8
Accommodative
Appreciative
No response
(ꓦ = .15, - +)
ꓦ = (.08, + +)
ꓦ
=
(
.08
-
+) Key;
++ fully supported
+ - Partially supported
- - Not supported
Study 2: Research Model
16
Data
Analysis

18. Positively valenced eWOM significantly affects PI & RI than negative
eWOM and the effect is independent of brand familiarity
High volume eWOM marginally predicts RI but not PI. Unfamiliar
retailers benefitted from high volume than familiar brands
eWOM consensus significantly affect behavioural intentions
Appreciating customers’ positive feedbacks counts for
generating and transmitting favourable eWOM
Summary of findings
17
Conclusion

19. On social media, customers are
talking about brands and
potential customers are hearing
this conversation and forming
their perceptions and attitudes,
therefore, firms should listen
and respond appropriately.
Conclusion
18
Conclusion

20. Recommendations
19
Conclusion
Firms can motivate satisfied customers to provide reviews
…monitor online reviews and recalibrate its services accordingly to
improve performance
… respond appropriately by thanking customers who provide
the reviews and interacting with them
Apologizing is not enough except when its with a solution

21. Provides empirical evidence on the effect of
brand familiarity and eWOM on consumer
behaviour
Investigates the effect of eWOM and
management response using experiments
Empirically validates the effect of
appreciation in fostering prosocial behavior in
the context of WOM
Major contributions of the study
20
Conclusion

22. 21
Conclusion
Thank You