Vol-3 Issue -4 2017 IJARIIE -ISSN(O) -2395 -4396 [630107]

Vol-3 Issue -4 2017 IJARIIE -ISSN(O) -2395 -4396

5807 www.ijariie.com 1 ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH
COMMUNICATION

Kavita Rawat1, Dr. Ravi Kumar T2, Vinod Singh Rawat3

1 Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru, India
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru, India
3 Principal Consultant, Cibersites India Private Limited, Bengaluru, India

ABSTRACT

Word of Mouth (WoM) and electronic World of Mouth (eWoM) are similar in their motives but diverse in
their reach and impact. Whereas WoM is a traditional way of storytelling between person to person, on the other
hand eWoM does the same but on digital platform such as web sites, social networks, instant messages, news feeds
etc. The cost involved in story telling via traditional way could be huge and audience very limited, on the other hand
the electronic form of this could be very cost effective and could have wide reach across the globe. In business
world, it is a well -known and established fact that customer satisfaction, trust and brand commitment could play an
important role in driving WoM and thus can have far reaching consequences on a prospective customer’s attitude
and behaviour towards a company's product or services. This paper summarizes some theoretical -conceptual and
methodological critical aspects identified by various scholars who analysed and applied in different studies. The
analysis allows to identify interesting points for future research on the topic of fact ors affecting eWoM
communication.

Keyword : – Word of Mouth (WoM), electronic Word of Mouth (eWoM), consumer behaviour, buying decision
process, purchase intention.

1. INTRODUCTION
Word of mouth communication is the making of positive or negative statement about a product or company. When
it is done via internet, it is termed as electronic word of mout h communication (Hennig -Thurau T. , Gwinner, Walsh,
& Gremler, 2004) . Traditional word of mouth which is initially ch aracterized as an oral type about interpersonal
non-business communication (Arndt, 1967) , has now developed into a new form of communication known as
electronic word of mouth communication.
Web 2.0 has given back support fo r electronic word of mouth communication. Major distinctive characteristics of
Web 2.0 like “relationship” technologies, participatory media and a social digital technology has made internet as
people centric and participative web. Because of this advance ment many consumers are exchanging their views and
information of the products over i nternet (Lee, Park, & Han, 2008)
Burson -Marsteller and Roper Starch invented the term „e -fluentials‟ in 1999. They found that with traditi onal word –
of-mouth communication one person can affect the attitude and behaviour of approximately next two people,
whereas in e -WOM one person can affect the behaviour of eight other people. But, in 2001, it was found that one
person could potentially inf luence up to 14 people (Burson -Marsteller, 2005)

Vol-3 Issue -4 2017 IJARIIE -ISSN(O) -2395 -4396

5807 www.ijariie.com 2 2. ELECTRONIC WORD OF M OUTH (EWOM)
Word of mouth is a process of sharing information about a product or service or company to others (Jalilvand,
Esfahani, & Samiei, 2011) . After using a product when one consumer shares his/her experiences about the product
or services directly with others, it is termed as Word -of-Mouth commu nication (Heriyati & Siek, 2011) . In the
study, authors found that there is a positive influence in between the word of mouth and the decision making of
another consumers. Hence, marketer should be aware about the information spread for their products or services.
Also, it is found that wo rd of mouth can strongly impact on the organization‟s effectiveness. A positive or negative
message or review generates positive or negative outcomes respec tively (Williams & Buttle, 2011) .
Word of mouth communication when spread via internet, it is termed as eWOM (Electronic Word of Mou th)
communication. Buttle (1998) , define electronic word of mouth communication as passing information via blogs,
message boards and emails. Electronic word of mouth has a high credibility, empathy and relevance to customers
than marketers designed information when compared with the traditional word of mouth communica tion (Bickart &
Schindler, 2001) .
Lee & Lee (2009) , found that impact of electronic word of mouth communication can be classified into two levels:
 Market level analysis: Mainly focusses on market level parameters like sales.
 Individual level analysis: Focusses on personal influence in which one consumer (sender) can change other
consumer‟s (receiver) attitude or buying decisions.

2.1 Electronic Word of Mouth Quality
Electronic word of mouth quality can be defined as the persuasive power of the comments given by the sender in an
information al message (Bhattacherjee, 2006) . Sometimes consumer buying decision, which will meet their needs,
and their willingness to buy a product will based on the type of quality of information they received from variou s
message portals (Cheung E. , 2008) . A good content quality increases the willingness of a consumer to trust on the
electronic word of mouth and the p roduct (Awad & Ragowsky, 2008) .
2.2 Electronic Word of Mouth Quantity
Electronic word of mouth quantity can be defined as the number of comments or review posted by different
consumers (Cheung & Thadani, 2010) . Or, we can say that the volume or number of electronic word of mouth
represents popularity of a product or ser vice (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006) . Some studies found that there is a strong
positive influence of electronic word of mouth quantity on consumer perceived credibility of electronic wo rd of
mouth communication (Park, Lee, & Ham, 2007) ; (Sher & Lee, 2009) .

3. PURCHASE INTENTION
Purchase intention is defined as a consumer‟s willingness to buy th e product or services. It is a dependent variable
that depends on some external and internal factors. In durable goods purchase intention is the measure of actual
purchase behavior (Kalwani & Silk, 1982) .

4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ELECTRONIC W ORD OF MOUTH QUALITY , ELECTRONIC
WORD OF MOUTH QUANTI TY AND PURCHASE INTE NTION
Word of mouth could be reliable source which affect the purchase intention by affecting the choice of products i n
market (Brown & Reingen, 1987) ; (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991) . Electronic word of mouth communication can
reduce the risk and uncertainty recognised by consumers, hence influenced their purchase intention and de cision
making (Chatterjee, 2001) .
Electronic word of mouth is an informational source for consumers before they make decisions to buy products.
Some studies have found that online reviews about a product or service has a positive influence on s ales (Godes &
Mayzlin, 2004) ; (Judith & Dina, 2006) .

Vol-3 Issue -4 2017 IJARIIE -ISSN(O) -2395 -4396

5807 www.ijariie.com 3 From the above all literature, we can predict the below conceptual model for further future studies.

Fig -1 A Conceptual Model representing impact of electronic word of mouth quantity and electronic word of mouth
quality on purchase intention.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Literature review has been conducted in this paper to emphasize the importance of online consumer reviews on
purchase intention. As electronic word of mouth communication acts as an informant and recommender, it can be
used strategically as a communication channel. The paper reveals that ther e are two important factors which affects
buying behaviour of a person. These are quantity and quality of the source i.e. the quality of the content or message
and the number of the reviewers of a product.
There is no fixed research model in the area of e lectronic word of mouth communication. Several other factors may
include in the future study that influence purchase intention when measured in light of electronic word of mouth
communication.
Lastly, the paper provides a new look to an emerging research area in the current business scenario. Electronic word
of mouth communication is a new and emerging topic which is growing rapidly in the recent years. There are few
limitations in the paper which provides and overview and ignition on the topic of eWOM. A number of different
other opportunities can be identified for further research on the electronic word of mouth communication.

Electronic Word of
mouth Quantity
Electronic Word of
mouth Quality
Purchase Intention

Vol-3 Issue -4 2017 IJARIIE -ISSN(O) -2395 -4396

5807 www.ijariie.com 4 6. REFERENCES
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of Product -Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of Marketing
Research, 4 (3), 291 -295.
Awad, N., & Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing trust in electronic commerce though online word of mouth: An
examination across genders. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24 (2), 101 -121. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742 -1222240404
Bhattacherjee, A. (2006). Influence process for information technology acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model.
MIS Q uarterly, 30 (4), 805 -825.
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 15 (3), 31 -40.
Brown, J., & Reingen, P. (1987). Social ties and word -of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(3), 350 -362.
Burson -Marsteller. (2005). Influential Internet users rely on company web sites as they spread word of brands,
products and services. Retrieved from http://www.efluentials.com/documents/PressRelease.pdf
Buttle, F. (1998). Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral behavior. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
6(3), 241 -254.
Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online reviews: Do consumers use them ? Advances in Consumer Research, 28 (1), 129 -133.
Cheung, C., & Thadani, D. (2010). The effectiveness of electronic word -of-mouth communication: A literature
analysis. Proceedings of the 23rd Bled eConference eTrust: Implications for the Individual, Enterpr ises
and Society.
Cheung, E. (2008). The impact of electronic word -of-mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer
communities. Internet Research, 18 (3), 229 -247.
Chevalier, J., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Onli ne book reviews. Journal of
Marketing Research, 43 (3), 345 –354.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word -of-mouth communication. Marketing
Science, 23 (4), 545 -560.
Hennig -Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. (2 004). Electronic word -of-mouth via consumer -opinion
platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 18 (1), 38 –52.
Heriyati, P., & Siek, T. (2011). Effects of word of mouth communication and pe rceived quality on decision making
moderated by gender: Jakarta blackberry smartphone consumer‟s perspective. Contemporary Management
Research, 7 (4), 329 -336.
Herr, P., Kardes, F., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word of mouth and product attribute informatio n on persuasion:
An accessibility -diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 454 -462.
Jalilvand, M., Esfahani, S., & Samiei, N. (2011). Electronic word -ofmouth: Challenges and opportunities. Procedia
Computer Science, 3 , 42-46.

Vol-3 Issue -4 2017 IJARIIE -ISSN(O) -2395 -4396

5807 www.ijariie.com 5 Judith, A., & Dina, M. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing
Research, 43 (3), 345 -354.
Kalwani, M., & Silk, A. (1982). On the reliability and predictive validity of purchase intention measures. Marketing
Science, 1(3), 243 -286.
Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Understanding the product information inference process in electronic word -of-mouth: An
objectivity -subjectivity dichotomy perspective. Information and Management, 46 (5), 302 -311.
Lee, J., Park, D., & Han, I. (2008 ). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An
information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7 (3), 341 –352.
Park, D., Lee, J., & Ham, I. (2007). The effect of on -line consumer reviews on consumer pur chasing intention: The
moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11 (4), 125 -148. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086 -4415110405
Sher, P., & Lee, S. (2009). Consumer skepticism and online reviews: An elaborat ion likelihood model perspective.
Social Behavior and Personality, 37 (1), 137 -143. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.1.137
Williams, M., & Buttle, F. (2011). The Eight Pillars of WOM Management: Lessons from a multiple case study.
Austra lasian Marketing Journal, 19 (2), 85 – 92.