How About Leveraging Other Relevant Research...?
When we think about what drives WOM, we might also consider phenomena that are similar, but not quite WOM (which we can define generally as C2C communication regarding products, services and brands). What I am suggesting is considering established research in other--RELATED--domains, then thinking about these other research findings in the context of WOM. A few areas that come to mind:
- gossip
- rumors
- memes
- story-telling
Here is just a taste of some insights that seem to be very relevant for us WOM-types:
Rosnow, R. L. (1988). Rumors as Communication: A Contextualist Approach. Journal of Communication(Winter).
This is a classic rumors paper and is an easy read. He summarizes four general predictors of rumors:
1./ Personal anxiety
2./ General uncertainty
3./ Credulity
4./ Topical importance
AREN'T ALL OF THESE RELEVANT TO WOM? AND WOM MARKETING?
This paper has four general conclusions:
- Importance of the rumor is the most controversial factor. (Although we might guess that imporrtance is key, there is contradictory evidence that importance predicts rumor transmission.)
- Anxiety takes precedence over credulity when anxiety is very high or very low (due, in both cases to the amount of attention paid to the credulity). In other words, high anxiety leads to rumors, low anxiety leads to no talk.
- Since rumors are contextually dependent, situations that invite rumormongering for some will not for others. (Similarly, there are both contexts and consumers for which WOM is more prevalent.)
- Rumors can become reality (i.e. uncertainty => certainty).
Heath, C. (1996). Do people prefer to pass along good or bad news? Valence and relevance of news as predictors of transmission propensity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68(2): 79-95.
In this paper, Heath highlights the anecdotal evidence that exaggeratedly bad news may propagate in the marketplace of ideas, more so than good news - even when they are equal in terms of shock value.
DOESN'T THIS MIRROR THE (MIS)CONCEPTION THAT NWOM DOMINATES PWOM?
While WOM researchers have started to look at PWOM vs NWOM in a more systematic way and determined that NWOM does not always dominate, Heath considers the Q in the context of news in general. In a series of three studies, Heath concludes that:
- People typically prefer to pass along central rather than extreme information. (This seems to contradict WOM research, which seems to consistently indicate that consumers who are MORE satified or MORE dissatisfied talk more (see Anderson 1998 Customer Satisfaction & WOM, Journal of Service Research))
- When confronted with extreme information, people prefer to pass along news that is congruent with the emotional valence of the domain in question. This means that in emotionally negative domains, people are willing to pass along bad news even when it is exaggeratedly bad. At the same time, however, people transmit exaggeratedly good news in emotionally positive domains. SO CONSUMERS MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO GENERATE PWOM REGARDING FAVORABLE DOMAIN PRODUCTS (LIKE VACATIONS, FICTION BOOKS, ETC) AND NWOM REGARDING UNFAVORABLE DOMAIN PRODUCTS (LIKE MORTGAGES, FUNERAL SERVICES, ETC) - sound reasonable?
I hope I have provided you with some ideas that will help you de-mystify the phenomenon!
