Abstract
Recently, online reviews have become a prevalent information source for competitive analysis because they provide rich information on the voices of customers. Based on online reviews, we propose a novel method named Integrated-Degree based K-shell decomposition (ID-KS) to conduct competitive analysis via product comparison networks. Under the consideration of feature differences among products, we apply text-mining approaches and ID-KS to convert online reviews into competitive insights including competitor identification, product comparison, product ranking, brand comparison and market-structure analysis. To validate the feasibility and the effectiveness of ID-KS, we demonstrate our approach in two cases, SUV cars and laptops, and compare it with state-of-the-art methods. The results show that ID-KS analyzes product comparison networks more effectively and properly, and it derives comprehensive comparative insights that are not fully captured by existing studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gao, S., Tang, O., Wang, H., & Yin, P. (2018). Identifying competitors through comparative relation mining of online reviews in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.004
Nasr, S. B., Bécan, G., Acher, M., Ferreira Filho, J. B., Sannier, N., Baudry, B., & Davril, J.-M. (2017). Automated extraction of product comparison matrices from informal product descriptions. Journal of Systems and Software, 124, 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.11.018
Liu, Y., Bi, J.-W., & Fan, Z.-P. (2017). Ranking products through online reviews: A method based on sentiment analysis technique and intuitionistic fuzzy set theory. Information Fusion, 36, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2016.11.012
Amarouche, K., Benbrahim, H., & Kassou, I. (2015). Product opinion mining for competitive intelligence. Procedia Computer Science, 73, 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.004
Kim, S. G., & Kang, J. (2018). Analyzing the discriminative attributes of products using text mining focused on cosmetic reviews. Information Processing & Management, 54(6), 938–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.06.003
Farhadloo, M., Patterson, R. A., & Rolland, E. (2016). Modeling customer satisfaction from unstructured data using a Bayesian approach. Decision Support Systems, 90, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.06.010
Li, S., Zha, Z.-J., Ming, Z., Wang, M., Chua, T.-S., Guo, J., & Xu, W. (2011). Product comparison using Comparative Relations. Presented at the SIGIR ’11 Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in Information Retrieval, Beijing, China.
Zhang, Z., Guo, C., & Goes, P. (2013). Product comparison networks for competitive analysis of online word-of-mouth. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 3(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2407740.2407744
Yang, X., Yang, G., & Wu, J. (2016). Integrating rich and heterogeneous information to design a ranking system for multiple products. Decision Support Systems, 84, 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.02.009
Tkachenko, M., & Lauw, H. W. (2017). Comparative relation generative model. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(4), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2016.2640281
Kumar, A., & Abirami, S. (2018). Aspect-based opinion ranking framework for product reviews using a Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient method. Information Sciences, 460–461, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.05.003
Wang, Z., Zhao, Y., Xi, J., & Du, C. (2016). Fast ranking influential nodes in complex networks using a k-shell iteration factor. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 461, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.05.048
Wang, W. M., Wang, J. W., Li, Z., Tian, Z. G., & Tsui, E. (2019). Multiple affective attribute classification of online customer product reviews: A heuristic deep learning method for supporting Kansei engineering. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 85, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.015
Zhang, L., Chu, X., & Xue, D. (2018). Identification of the to-be-improved product features based on online reviews for product redesign. International Journal of Production Research, 57(8), 2464–2479. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1521019
Wang, W. M., Li, Z., Tian, Z. G., Wang, J. W., & Cheng, M. N. (2018). Extracting and summarizing affective features and responses from online product descriptions and reviews: A Kansei text mining approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 73, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2018.05.005
Candi, M., Jae, H., Makarem, S., & Mohan, M. (2017). Consumer responses to functional, aesthetic and symbolic product design in online reviews. Journal of Business Research, 81, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.006
Jin, J., Ji, P., Liu, Y., & Johnson Lim, S. C. (2015). Translating online customer opinions into engineering characteristics in QFD: A probabilistic language analysis approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 41, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2015.02.006
Abrahams, A. S., Jiao, J., Wang, G. A., & Fan, W. (2012). Vehicle defect discovery from social media. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.04.005
Zhang, X., Niu, S., Zhang, D., Wang, G. A., & Fan, W. (2015). Predicting Vehicle Recalls with User-Generated Contents: A Text Mining Approach. Presented at the Intelligence and Security Informatics: Pacific Asia Workshop, PAISI 2015, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Law, D., Gruss, R., & Abrahams, A. S. (2017). Automated defect discovery for dishwasher appliances from online consumer reviews. Expert Systems with Applications, 67, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.069
Mummalaneni, V., Gruss, R., Goldberg, D. M., Ehsani, J. P., & Abrahams, A. S. (2018). Social media analytics for quality surveillance and safety hazard detection in baby cribs. Safety Science, 104, 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.01.003
Khare, V. R., & Chougule, R. (2012). Decision support for improved service effectiveness using domain aware text mining. Knowledge-Based Systems, 33, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.03.005
Korfiatis, N., Stamolampros, P., Kourouthanassis, P., & Sagiadinos, V. (2019). Measuring service quality from unstructured data: A topic modeling application on airline passengers’ online reviews. Expert Systems with Applications, 116, 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.037
Su, Y., & Teng, W. (2018). Contemplating museums’ service failure: Extracting the service quality dimensions of museums from negative on-line reviews. Tourism Management, 69, 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.06.020
Du, J., Xu, H., & Huang, X. (2014). Box office prediction based on microblog. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1680–1689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.08.065
Hur, M., Kang, P., & Cho, S. (2016). Box-office forecasting based on sentiments of movie reviews and Independent subspace method. Information Sciences, 372, 608–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.08.027
Hua Li, Sourav S Bhowmick, & Aixin Sun. (2010). Affinity-Driven Prediction and Ranking of Products in Online Product Review Sites. Presented at the Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wang, H., & Wang, W. (2014). Product weakness finder: An opinion-aware system through sentiment analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(8), 1301–1320. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-05-2014-0159
Wang, W., Feng, Y., & Dai, W. (2018). Topic analysis of online reviews for two competitive products using latent Dirichlet allocation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 29, 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.04.003
Jin, J., Ji, P., & Gu, R. (2016). Identifying comparative customer requirements from product online reviews for competitor analysis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 49, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2015.12.005
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Mthods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Kitsak, M., Gallos, L. K., Havlin, S., Liljeros, F., Muchnik, L., Stanley, H. E., & Makse, H. A. (2010). Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nature Physics, 6(11), 888–893. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1746
Garas, A., Schweitzer, F., & Havlin, S. (2012). A k-shell decomposition method for weighted networks. New Journal of Physics, 14(8), 083030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/8/083030
Wei, B., Liu, J., Wei, D., Gao, C., & Deng, Y. (2015). Weighted k-shell decomposition for complex networks based on potential edge weights. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 420, 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.11.012
Netzer, O., Feldman, R., Goldenberg, J., & Fresko, M. (2012). Mine your own business: Market-structure surveillance through text mining. Marketing Science, 31(3), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1120.0713
Chen, K., Luo, P., & Wang, H. (2016). Investigating transitive influences on WOM: From the product network perspective. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-016-9241-8
Tan, K. H., Ji, G., Lim, C. P., & Tseng, M.-L. (2017). Using big data to make better decisions in the digital economy. International Journal of Production Research, 55(17), 4998–5000. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1331051
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
Guo, Y., Barnes, S. J., & Jia, Q. (2017). Mining meaning from online ratings and reviews: Tourist satisfaction analysis using latent dirichlet allocation. Tourism Management, 59, 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.009
Xiang, Z., Du, Q., Ma, Y., & Fan, W. (2017). A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: Implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Management, 58, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.001
Wang, Y., & Xu, W. (2018). Leveraging deep learning with LDA-based text analytics to detect automobile insurance fraud. Decision Support Systems, 105, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.11.001
Duan, W., Cao, Q., Yu, Y., & Levy, S. (2013). Mining Online User-Generated Content: Using Sentiment Analysis Technique to Study Hotel Service Quality. Presented at the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea, Maui, HI, USA.
Lee, K., & Yu, C. (2018). Assessment of airport service quality: A complementary approach to measure perceived service quality based on Google reviews. Journal of Air Transport Management, 71, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.004
Bi, J.-W., Liu, Y., Fan, Z.-P., & Cambria, E. (2019). Modelling customer satisfaction from online reviews using ensemble neural network and effect-based Kano model. International Journal of Production Research, 57(22), 7068–7088. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1574989
Mirtalaie, M. A., Hussain, O. K., Chang, E., & Hussain, F. K. (2018). Extracting sentiment knowledge from pros/cons product reviews: Discovering features along with the polarity strength of their associated opinions. Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.046
Eliacik, A. B., & Erdogan, N. (2018). Influential user weighted sentiment analysis on topic based microblogging community. Expert Systems with Applications, 92, 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.10.006
Jeong, B., Yoon, J., & Lee, J.-M. (2017). Social media mining for product planning: A product opportunity mining approach based on topic modeling and sentiment analysis. International Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.09.009
Jo, Y., & Oh, A. (2011). Aspect and sentiment unification model for online review analysis. Presented at the WSDM ’11 Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, HongKong, China.
Qiu, J., Liu, C., Li, Y., & Lin, Z. (2018). Leveraging sentiment analysis at the aspects level to predict ratings of reviews. Information Sciences, 451–452, 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.04.009
Liu, B. (2015). Sentiment analysis: Mining opinions. Cambridge University Press.
Le, Q. V., & Mikolov, T. (2014). Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents. arXiv e-prints. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4053
Elrod, T. (1991). Internal analysis of market structure: Recent developments and future prospects. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00554130
Lee, T. Y., & BradLow, E. T. (2011). Automated marketing research using online customer reviews. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 48(5), 881–894. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.5.881
Saaty, T. L. (2001). Analytic hierarchy process. In S. I. Gass & C. M. Harris (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science (pp. 19–28). New York, NY: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-0611-X_31
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71872123, 72032005 and 71572122).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: Details of weight measurement via AHP
AHP is a popular approach to estimating the relative importance or weights of assorted factors or decisions. Combining our research objects and the process of AHP proposed by Saaty [54, 55], we illustrate the weight evaluation of product features as follows.
STEP 1: Pairwise comparing product features and estimating their relative importance using the nine-scale scoring. The nine-scale scoring is introduced bellowing table. The comparing results are recorded in the pairwise comparison matrix (PCM). For example, PCM(PF2, PF1) denotes the importance of PF2 comparing to PF1 (Table
9).
STEP 2: For each PF in PCM, if the PCM(PFi, PFj) = A, then PCM(PFj, PFi) = 1/A.
STEP 3: Checking the consistency of PCM by calculating the consistency ratio (CR). Detailed measurement of CR is introduced in the work of Saaty [54]. If CR is smaller than 0.1, PCM is consistent. Otherwise, PCM must be revised until it is consistent.
STEP 4: Normalizing PCM by columns using the sum of the column.
STEP 5: obtaining weights of PFs by averaging the normalized PCM by arrays.
Appendix B: Node attributes of 24 car models
Car | Brand | #Review | Avg.rate | Agreed rate % | Car | Brand | #Review | Avg.rate | Agreed rate % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | PB1 | 854 | 4.400 | 77.97 | P13 | PB5 | 945 | 4.043 | 69.82 |
P2 | PB1 | 683 | 4.312 | 67.45 | P14 | PB6 | 420 | 4.104 | 77.77 |
P3 | PB2 | 403 | 4.304 | 66.15 | P15 | PB7 | 759 | 4.202 | 69.00 |
P4 | PB2 | 316 | 4.133 | 70.43 | P16 | PB4 | 649 | 4.336 | 67.25 |
P5 | PB3 | 1136 | 4.053 | 74.10 | P17 | PB4 | 719 | 4.519 | 74.02 |
P6 | PB4 | 799 | 4.281 | 74.28 | P18 | PB8 | 738 | 4.547 | 77.03 |
P7 | PB4 | 983 | 4.191 | 70.68 | P19 | PB8 | 1052 | 3.998 | 75.82 |
P8 | PB4 | 572 | 3.993 | 72.84 | P20 | PB9 | 1203 | 4.117 | 71.41 |
P9 | PB3 | 899 | 3.904 | 69.61 | P21 | PB9 | 1333 | 4.278 | 74.57 |
P10 | PB1 | 2595 | 4.344 | 66.25 | P22 | PB7 | 598 | 4.595 | 67.77 |
P11 | PB1 | 1354 | 4.446 | 73.95 | P23 | PB7 | 1031 | 4.509 | 71.95 |
P12 | PB5 | 433 | 3.857 | 74.38 | P24 | PB7 | 1275 | 4.385 | 69.89 |
Appendix C: Node attributes of 20 laptops
Laptops | Brand | 5SR % | TUV | ALPR | Laptops | Brand | 5SR % | TUV | ALPR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | LB1 | 93 | 1538 | 8.42 | C11 | LB6 | 96 | 1188 | 14.58 |
C2 | LB2 | 94 | 728 | 8.33 | C12 | LB6 | 98 | 1612 | 14.27 |
C3 | LB2 | 91 | 699 | 6.54 | C13 | LB7 | 96 | 1490 | 17.23 |
C4 | LB2 | 95 | 1435 | 12.25 | C14 | LB7 | 97 | 937 | 9.83 |
C5 | LB3 | 94 | 1119 | 10.92 | C15 | LB7 | 98 | 865 | 6.75 |
C6 | LB3 | 92 | 1274 | 10.36 | C16 | LB7 | 94 | 684 | 13.64 |
C7 | LB4 | 95 | 2757 | 11.44 | C17 | LB8 | 94 | 465 | 10.06 |
C8 | LB5 | 95 | 761 | 11.10 | C18 | LB8 | 94 | 1419 | 12.99 |
C9 | LB6 | 96 | 1141 | 15.05 | C19 | LB9 | 96 | 4038 | 13.37 |
C10 | LB6 | 96 | 385 | 8.74 | C20 | LB9 | 97 | 1405 | 10.05 |
Appendix D1: PFSM of car dataset
Seat | Driving experience | Gas mileage | Driving performance | Dealer service | Space | Reliability | Interior | Assistant system | Transmission | Outlook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
w | 0.0072 | 0.0258 | 0.0530 | 0.0797 | 0.0262 | 0.0071 | 0.1343 | 0.0147 | 0.0170 | 0.1107 | 0.0137 |
P1 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.01 | 0.45 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 1.09 | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 0.69 |
P2 | 0.61 | 0.40 | 0.24 | 0.40 | 0.35 | 0.48 | 1.22 | 1.04 | 0.00 | 0.87 | 1.14 |
P3 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 0.57 | 0.00 | 1.08 | 0.00 |
P4 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.32 | 0.53 | 0.82 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.72 |
P5 | 0.33 | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.17 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.86 | 0.74 |
P6 | 0.34 | 0.40 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.56 | 0.64 | 1.16 | 0.68 | 0.78 | 0.31 |
P7 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.88 | 1.06 | 0.72 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P8 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.83 | 1.19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P9 | 0.33 | 0.46 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.63 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.78 |
P10 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.66 | 0.00 | 0.41 | 0.81 | 1.45 |
P11 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 1.06 | 0.88 | 0.87 |
P12 | 0.50 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.00 |
P13 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.19 | 0.46 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P14 | 0.39 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.41 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 1.21 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.80 |
P15 | 0.43 | 0.21 | 0.47 | 0.21 | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.57 | 0.00 | 0.96 |
P16 | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 1.21 | 1.10 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P17 | 0.37 | 0.17 | − 0.10 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 1.21 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 0.88 |
P18 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.85 | 0.00 |
P19 | 0.36 | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.44 | 0.46 | 0.61 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 0.67 | 0.00 |
P20 | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 1.04 | 0.00 |
P21 | 0.41 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.59 | 0.32 | 0.53 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
P22 | 0.48 | 0.08 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.55 | 0.33 | 0.76 | 1.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P23 | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.66 | 1.18 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P24 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.64 | 0.71 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Appendix D2: PFSM of car dataset
Control | Power | Quality | Steering wheel | Console | Sunroof | Entertainment | Cost performance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
w | 0.1318 | 0.0879 | 0.1780 | 0.0262 | 0.0274 | 0.0079 | 0.0102 | 0.0410 |
P1 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 1.00 | 1.20 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.74 |
P2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P3 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P4 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P5 | 0.00 | 1.39 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P6 | 0.00 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.93 | 1.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P7 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P8 | 0.00 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P9 | 1.12 | 0.00 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P10 | 1.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P11 | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
P12 | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P14 | 0.00 | 0.63 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P15 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.00 | 1.10 | 0.00 |
P16 | 0.96 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P17 | 0.00 | 1.29 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.86 |
P18 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P21 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P22 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P23 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.07 | 0.00 | 0.64 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
P24 | 0.96 | 0.00 | 0.84 | 1.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Appendix E1: PFSM of laptop dataset
Screen | Customer service | Running speed | Startup speed | Appearance | Office work performance | Heat dissipation | Cost performance | Logistics | Weight | Keyboard | Configuration | game performance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
w | 0.0527 | 0.0358 | 0.2835 | 0.1063 | 0.0217 | 0.0425 | 0.0193 | 0.0640 | 0.0047 | 0.0072 | 0.0096 | 0.0241 | 0.0432 |
C1 | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.59 | 0.26 | 0.00 | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C2 | 0.26 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.31 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C3 | 0.49 | 0.68 | 0.24 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.00 | 1.67 | 1.54 | 1.48 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C4 | 0.44 | 0.29 | 0.69 | 0.53 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 0.62 |
C5 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.34 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C6 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.66 | 0.42 | 0.00 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.20 |
C7 | 0.40 | 0.59 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.61 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.36 |
C8 | 0.62 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.57 | 0.00 | 1.23 | 1.07 | 0.00 | 1.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C9 | 0.53 | 0.60 | 0.17 | 0.63 | 0.32 | 1.38 | 0.00 | 1.34 | 0.00 | 1.34 | 1.59 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C10 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.38 | 1.05 | 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.60 | 1.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C11 | 0.27 | 0.69 | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C12 | 0.29 | 0.39 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.68 | 0.96 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.89 | 1.46 | 1.14 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C13 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 1.10 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.04 | 0.98 | 0.16 |
C14 | 0.63 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.62 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C15 | 0.81 | 0.65 | 0.37 | 0.87 | 0.57 | 0.69 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.96 | 1.42 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C16 | 0.33 | − 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.28 | 0.41 | 0.54 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.24 | 0.00 | 1.26 | 0.00 |
C17 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.90 | 1.34 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.17 | 0.00 |
C18 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.48 | 1.19 | 0.64 |
C19 | 0.39 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.60 | 0.43 | 0.78 | 1.09 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.48 | 0.00 |
C20 | 0.64 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.44 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.00 | 1.09 | 1.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.68 |
Appendix E2: PFSM of laptop dataset
Price | Workmanship | System | Complimentary products | After-sales | Accessories | Quality | Office software | H-Share | Packaging | Easy to use | Audio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
w | 0.0503 | 0.0111 | 0.0228 | 0.0079 | 0.0206 | 0.0121 | 0.1007 | 0.0358 | 0.0095 | 0.0030 | 0.0076 | 0.0039 |
C1 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.00 | − 0.07 | − 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.18 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C4 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.52 |
C6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C7 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C8 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C9 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.36 | 0.00 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.52 | 0.00 |
C12 | 0.00 | 0.77 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C14 | 0.31 | 0.63 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C15 | 0.00 | 1.30 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.00 |
C16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C17 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C18 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
He, Z., Zheng, L. & He, S. A novel approach for product competitive analysis based on online reviews. Electron Commer Res 23, 2259–2290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09534-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09534-y