Sunteți pe pagina 1din 48

THE IMPACT ON ELECTRONIC WORD OF

MOUTH
DWG Academy
DWG Academy is trusted digital marketing academy in Punjab, India. Our goal is to deliver Quality
Education in Digital Marketing with real time projects. We have expertise, dedication and passion to
provide training in real time standards to make you ready for a Job, online business and
Entrepreneurship. Our friendly experienced trainers will help you learn the subject with enthusiasm
and passion.

Our Company - DigiWebGurus


DigiWebGurus is a Digital Marketing Agency. It's a complete package with all Digital Advertising
Services. DigiWebGurus makes its clients manage their Online Presence, right from scratch like
Domain, Hosting, Website Development and Design, Graphics, Content Writing and most important
Digital Marketing which includes Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Marketing, Social
Media Marketing & Management, E-mail Marketing, Mobile Marketing and more.
About Our Trainer
Amarinder Singh has 4 year’s experience in digital marketing training and services. He is
extremely positive and motivated trainer you could ever find. He has designed and delivered
training and workshops and been involved in providing digital marketing services to clients
from India and Worldwide. He teaches the subject with dedication and give importance to in
depth subject and live practical.
Amarinder Singh is skilled in Digital Marketing, Web Designing, Web Development and other
advanced technologies. He is Google AdWords Certified Professional. He has also designed
a course curriculum for Digital Marketing for BBA Students.
9+
Years
520+
Batches
5200+
Students
Certified
DWG
The impact of electronic word-
of-mouth
The impact of electronic word-of-
mouth
 Traditional (offline) word-of-mouth has been shown to play a major role
for customers’ buying decisions (Richins&Root-Shaffer, 1988).
 The advent of the Internet has extended consumers’ options for gathering
unbiased product information from other consumers and provides the
opportunity for consumers to offer their own consumption-related advice
by engaging in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM).
 Online community research typically focuses on either the managerial
aspects of such communities (Armstrong & Hagel, 1996) or on the
sociopsychological aspects of the formation and existence of online
communities (e.g., Fischer, Bristor, & Gainer, 1996; Granitz& Ward, 1996)
Focus of study
In this study we focus on eWOM communicated via web
based consumer opinion platforms for the following
reasons:
Web based opinion platforms are the most widely used for
existing eWOM formats.
eWOm communication articulated on web-based
consumer opinion platforms can be expected to exert a
stronger impact on consumer than eWOM published
through other means because unlike news groups, such
web based consumer-opinion platforms are relatively easy
to operate and reuire less internet related knowledge on
the part of the consumer to obtain information.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this article is to better
understand the motivations behind a
consumer’s decision to engage in
eWOM communication on Web-based
consumer-opinion platforms.
Information Adoption Model
 . The information adoption process is of course, the
internalization phase of knowledge transfer, in which
explicit information is transformed into internalized
knowledge and meaning (Nonaka, 1994).
 In the existing information systems literature, dual process
theories are used to explain how people are influenced in
adopting ideas, knowledge or information (Sussman and
Siegal, 2003; Bhattacherjee and Sanford, 2006).
 When applied in a CMC context, the information adoption
model has two key propositions:
1. Information quality
2. Source credibility
Information Quality
 Argument quality refers to the persuasive strength
of arguments embedded in an informational
message (Bhattacherjee and Sanford, 2006).

Source Credibility
Source credibility refers to a message recipient’s
perception of the credibility of a message source,
reflecting nothing about the message itself
(Chaiken, 1980).
Research Model
 Figure depicts the research model used in this study,
explaining the determinants of information adoption
level within an online consumer community. This
research model was built upon the information
adoption model (Sussman and Siegal, 2003). It
examines individual relationships between argument
quality, source credibility, information usefulness, and
information adoption. Further analysis will be
discussed regarding the components of argument
quality and source credibility
Model
Information adoption
 Information adoption is a process in which people
purposefully engage in using information.
Information adoption behavior is one of the
principal activities that users seek to conduct in
virtual communities
 The specific cognitive beliefs of information
adoption behavior in virtual communities are,
therefore, essential to investigating the impact of
electronic word-of-mouth.
Information Usefulness
Perceived usefulness refers to the individual’s
perception that using the new technology will
enhance or improve his/her performance
It is a fundamental predictor of user
adoption, with significant correlations to
both current and future self-reported system
usage (Davis, 1989, 1993).
OBJECTIVES
 This study is to investigate how eWOM
in online customer communities affects
the consumption decision by
discovering which factors encourage
information adoption.
 To facilitate the people.
 For making work easy.
 For more effective marketing.
 As this study focuses on the factors affecting information adoption within
online consumer opinion platforms, the research model was tested based
on an existing online consumer community, justdial.com. justdial.com is a
platform used for sharing information about daily used products in India.
Details about Justdial.com, data collection methods, demographic data
and measures will be discussed in the following sections.
 JUST DIAL INTRODUCTION

 Justdial is an indian company providing local search servicers over


the phone, web,mobile and SMS. It is head quartered in Mumbai,
Maharashtra. Local search services for USA were commenced from
2010. Starting with just Rs50k, VSS Mani has built a business with an
annual turnover of Rs 100 core and valuation in excess of Rs 500
crore.
Data collection
 The target respondents of this study were individuals who
visit particular virtual opinion platforms and who are
influenced by the comments shared within the platform.
The questionnaire was divided into different parts, each
examining the factors affecting information adoption from
online communities. These were mainly the quality of the
comments, source credibility and information usefulness.
Finally demographic information was asked, including
average monthly income and information on using
justdial.com .
 The sample of respondents consisted of both students and
members of the workforce from all age groups on random
basis. Telephonic interview was held.
Measures
 The survey used a multi-item approach with each
construct being measured by a few items for
construct validity and reliability. Measurement of
Source credibility, Relevance, Timeliness,
Accuracy, were carried out by a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly
disagree (5).
RELEVANCE
r1 The comments in justdisal.com are relevant ?
r2 The comments in justdisal.com are appropriate?
r3 The comments in justdial.com are applicable?
Timelines
t1 The comments in justdial.com are current?
t2 The comments in justdial.com are timely?
t3 The comments in justdial.com are up-to-date?
Accuracy
a1 The comments in justdial.com are accurate?
a2 The comments in justdial.com are correct?
a3 The comments in justdial.com are reliable?
Comprehensive
c1 The comments in justdial.com sufficiently complete your needs?
c2 The comments in justdial.com include all necessary values?
c3 The comments in justdial.com cover your needs?
information usefulness
iu1 The comments in justdial.com are valuable?
iu2 The comments in justdial.com are informative?
iu3 The comments in justdial.com are helpful?
information adoption
you closely followed the suggestions of positive comments and went to the recommended
ia1 restaurants ?
ia2 you agree with the opinion suggested in the comments?
SPSS
Reliability

Case Processing Summary

N %

Valid 50 100.0

Cases Excludeda 0 .0

Total 50 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based N of Items
on Standardized Items

.277 .215 17
Item Item Item Statistics Item
Statistics Statistics Statistics

Mean St. dev. N


r1 2.26 1.575 50
r2 2.62 .725 50
r3 2.48 1.266 50
t1 2.62 .945 50
t2 2.70 1.015 50
t3 2.78 1.055 50
a1 1.64 1.005 50
a2 2.58 .673 50
a3 2.88 .982 50
c1 2.50 1.581 50
c2 3.68 1.077 50
c3 2.34 .917 50
iu1 2.30 1.055 50
iu2 3.32 1.115 50
iu3 2.32 1.392 50
ia1 2.94 1.346 50
ia2 3.30 1.344 50
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
r1 r2 r3 t1 t2 t3 a1 a2 a3 c1

r1 1.000 .088 -.146 -.110 .190 .330 -.004 -.376 .284 .348
r2 .088 1.000 -.553 .261 .147 -.245 .004 -.334 .336 .151
r3 -.146 -.553 1.000 -.220 -.140 .570 -.262 .194 -.068 -.153
t1 -.110 .261 -.220 1.000 -.121 -.331 .240 .001 -.182 .321
t2 .190 .147 -.140 -.121 1.000 -.082 .212 .140 .413 .032
t3 .330 -.245 .570 -.331 -.082 1.000 -.153 .040 .151 .349
a1 -.004 .004 -.262 .240 .212 -.153 1.000 .224 -.210 .000
a2 -.376 -.334 .194 .001 .140 .040 .224 1.000 -.356 .029
a3 .284 .336 -.068 -.182 .413 .151 -.210 -.356 1.000 -.223
c1 .348 .151 -.153 .321 .032 .349 .000 .029 -.223 1.000
c2 -.311 -.080 .384 .259 .209 .116 -.033 .571 -.056 .024
c3 -.401 -.139 -.073 -.107 .112 -.511 .445 .236 -.226 -.514
iu1 .075 .499 -.584 .219 -.295 -.288 -.012 -.135 .055 .153
iu2 -.188 .355 -.097 -.231 -.202 -.026 -.314 -.253 .464 -.371
iu3 .185 .082 .062 -.076 .604 -.048 -.004 .059 .566 -.306
ia1 .315 .436 -.402 .030 -.387 .134 -.288 -.479 .272 .244
ia2 .088 .182 .298 .092 -.187 .407 -.462 -.242 .352 .043
Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. N of


Deviation Items

45.26 30.400 5.514 17

ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig
Squares Square

Between People 87.625 49 1.788

Between
182.195 16 11.387 8.802 .000
Items
Within
People
Residual 1014.275 784 1.294

Total 1196.471 800 1.496

Total 1284.095 849 1.512

Grand Mean = 2.66


RELEVENCE
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE

STRONGLY AGREE 24 48%

AGREE 11 22%
NUTRAL 3 6%
DISAGREE 2 4%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 20%

Chart Title In this we select 50 persons


SA A N D SD
randomly and collect the data
. in this data we use linkrt
20% scale method .In which 48%
4% 48%
6% will strongly agree with this
statement ,22% are agree, 6%
22%
are nutral, 4% are disagree
and 20% are strongly disagree
with that.
•R2
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 5 10%
AGREE 11 22%
NUTRAL 32 64%
DISAGREE 2 4%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 0%

In this we select 50 Chart Title


persons randomly and
SA A N D SD
collect the data . in this 0%
data we use linkrt scale 4% 10%
method .In which 10% 22%
will strongly agree with
this statement ,22% are 64%

agree, 64%are nutral,


4% are disagree and 0%
are strongly disagree
with that
R3
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 9 18%
AGREE 25 50%
NUTRAL 6 12%
DISAGREE 3 6%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 7 14%

In this we select 50
persons randomly Chart Title
and collect the data SA A N D SD
. in this data we use
linkrt scale method 14% 18%
.In which 18% will 6%

strongly agree with 12%

this statement ,50%


are agree, 12% are 50%

nutral, 6% are
disagree and 14%%
are strongly
disagree with that.
TIMELINES
•T1

OPTION RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE


STRONGLY AGREE 8 16%
AGREE 11 22%
NUTRAL 23 46%
DISAGREE 8 16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 0%

In this we select 50
Chart Title
persons randomly and
SA A N D SD
collect the data . in this
0%
data we use linkrt scale
16% 16%
method .In which 48%
will strongly agree with 22%
this statement ,22% are
agree, 6% are nutral, 4% 46%

are disagree and 20% are


strongly disagree with
that.
T2
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 8 16%
AGREE 10 20%
NUTRAL 22 44%
DISAGREE 9 18%
DSTRONGLY DISAGREE 1 2%

In this we select 50
persons randomly and Chart Title
collect the data . in SA A N D SD
this data we use linkrt 2%
scale method .In 18% 16%
which 16%% will
20%
strongly agree with
this statement ,20%
44%
are agree, 44% are
nutral, 18% are
disagree and 2% are
strongly disagree with
that.
T3
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 3 6%
AGREE 24 48%
NUTRAL 5 10%
DISAGREE 17 34%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 2%

Chart Title
In this we select 50 persons
SA A N D SD
randomly and collect the
data . in this data we use 2%
6%
linkrt scale method .In
34%
which 6% will strongly
agree with this statement 48%
,48% are agree, 10% are
nutral, 34% are disagree 10%

and 2% are strongly


disagree with that.
ACCURACY
•A1

OPTIONS REPONDENT PERCENTAGE

STRONGLY AGREE 29 58%


AGREE 16 32%
NUTRAL 1 2%
DISAGREE 2 4%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 4%

In this we select 50 persons Chart Title


randomly and collect the SA A N D SD

data . in this data we use 2%


linkrt scale method .In 4% 4%

which 58% will strongly


32%
agree with this statement 58%
,32% are agree, 2% are
nutral, 4% are disagree and
4% are strongly disagree
with that.
A2
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 3 6%
AGREE 17 34%
NUTRAL 28 56%
DISAGREE 2 4%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 0%

Chart Title
In this we select 50 persons SA A N D SD
randomly and collect the 0%
data . in this data we use 4% 6%
linkrt scale method .In
which 6% will strongly 34%

agree with this statement 56%


,34% are agree, 56% are
nutral, 4% are disagree
and 0% are strongly
disagree with that.
A3
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 2 4%
AGREE 20 40%
NUTRAL 11 22%
DISAGREE 16 32%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 2%

In this we select 50 persons Chart Title


randomly and collect the SA A N D SD

data . in this data we use 2%

linkrt scale method .In 4%


32%
which 4% will strongly 40%
agree with this statement
,40% are agree, 22% are
nutral, 32% are disagree 22%

and 2% are strongly


disagree with that.
COMPREHENSIVE
•C1
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STTRONGLY AGREE 23 46%
AGREE 3 6%
NUTRAL 8 16%
DISAGREE 8 16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8 16%

Chart Title
In this we select 50 persons
SA A N D SD
randomly and collect the data .
in this data we use linkrt scale
method .In which 46% will 16%

strongly agree with this 16%


46%

statement ,6% are agree, 16%


are nutral, 16% are disagree
and 16% are strongly disagree 16%
6%
with that.
C2
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 2%
AGREE 10%
NUTRAL 36%
DISAGREE 22%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 30%

Chart Title
In this we select 50 persons SA A N D SD
randomly and collect the data
2%
. in this data we use linkrt
10%
scale method .In which 2% 30%
will strongly agree with this
statement ,10% are
36%
agree,36% are nutral, 22%
are disagree and 30% are 22%

strongly disagree
C3
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 9 18%
AGREE 21 42%
NUTRAL 14 28%
DISAGREE 6 12%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 0%

Chart Title
In this we select 50 persons SA A N D SD
randomly and collect the data . in 0%

this data we use linkrt scale method 12% 18%


.In which 18% will strongly agree
with this statement ,42% are 28%
agree,28% are nutral, 12% are
disagree and 0% are strongly
42%
disagree
INFORMATION USEFULNESS
IU1

OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE


STRONGLY AGREE 15 30%
AGREE 7 14%
NUTRAL 16 32%
DISAGREE 7 14%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 0%

In this we select 50 persons Chart Title


randomly and collect the data SA A N D SD
. in this data we use linkrt
0%
scale method .In which 30% 14%
will strongly agree with this 30%

statement ,14% are


agree,32% are nutral, 14% 32%

are disagree and 0% are 24%


strongly disagree
IU2
OPTION RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 3 6%
AGREE 8 16%
NUTRAL 17 34%
DISAGREE 14 28%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8 16%

Chart Title
In this we select 50 persons SA A N D SD

randomly and collect the data .


in this data we use linkrt scale 16% 6%
16%
method .In which 6% will
strongly agree with this
28%
statement ,16% are agree,34%
are nutral, 28% are disagree 34%

and 16% are strongly disagree.


IU3
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PER5CENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 16 32%
AGREE 19 38%
NUTRAL 6 12%
DISAGREE 4 8%
STRONGLY AGREE 5 10%

In this we select 50 persons Chart Title


randomly and collect the data SA A N D SD

. in this data we use linkrt


scale method .In which32% 10%
8%
will strongly agree with this 32%

statement ,38% are 12%

agree,12% are nutral, 8% are


disagree and 10% are
strongly disagree. 38%
INFORMATION ADOPTION
•IA1

OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE


STRONGLY AGREE 4 8%
AGREE 21 42%
NUTRAL 12 24%
DISAGREE 0 0%
STRONGLY AGREE 13 26%

Chart Title
In this we select 50 SA A N D SD
persons randomly and
collect the data . in this
8%
data we use linkrt scale 26%

method .In which 8% 0%


will strongly agree with 42%

this statement ,42% are 24%

agree,24% are nutral,


0% are disagree and
26% are strongly
disagree.
IA2
OPTIONS RESPONDENT PERCENTAGE
STRONGLY AGREE 2 4%
AGREE 20 40%
NUTRAL 2 4%
DISAGREE 13 26%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 13 26%

In this we select 50 Chart Title


persons randomly and SA A N D SD
collect the data . in
this data we use linkrt 4%
26%
scale method .In
40%
which 4% will strongly
agree with this
26%
statement ,40% are 4%

agree,4% are nutral,


26% are disagree and
26% are strongly
disagree
Data analysis and results
The research model was tested using Partial Least Squares (PLS), a structural
modeling technique that is well suited for highly complex predictive models (Wold
and Joreskog, 1982; Lohmoller, 1989; Barclay et al., 1995; Chin, 1998). In this
section, we will first examine the measurement model and then assess the
structural model by following the two-step analytical procedures (Hair et al.,
1998). Measurement model Convergent validity. Convergent validity indicates the
extent to which the items of a scale that are theoretically related to each other
should be related in reality. It was examined by use of the composite reliability
(CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE). The critical values for CR and
AVE are 0.70 and 0.50 respectively (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As summarized
in Table 1 , all CR and AVE values fulfill the recommended levels, with the CR
ranging from 0.84 to 0.93 and the AVE ranging from 0.68 to 0.87. For the item
loadings, nearly all of them meet the recommended level and are higher than
0.70.
Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity is the extent to which the measurement is not a reflection of
some other variable. It is indicated by low correlations between the measure of
interest and the measure of other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Evidence
of discriminant validity can be demonstrated when the squared root of the average
variance extracted (AVE) for each construct is higher than the correlations between
it and all other constructs. As shown in Table 2, the square root of AVE for each
construct is greater than the correlations between them and all other constructs.
The results suggest an adequate discriminant validity of all measurements.
FINDINGS
In this analysis we find the following things :

SPSS grand mean should be 1 or less than one


and in that analysis it was coming 2.66 it shows
that the analysis has gone wrong. Because not so
much people are aware about JUSTDIAL.COM

With the percentage method we discover that the


mostly people will select the neutral option
because they don’t have any idea about
JUSTDIAL.COM

In this we have found that we have to take more


samples to get more accurate data.
CONCLUSION
This paper sought to explore the motivations behind adoption of online opinions.
The research model is built on the theoretical model of information adoption by
Sussman and Siegal (2003). Hence it is clearly defined that only two
comprehensiveness and relevance is significant to information usefulness and
further information usefulness is strongly impact information adopation.

S-ar putea să vă placă și