Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Antecedents and consequences of the key opinion leader status: an econometric and machine learning approach

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) have an undeniable influence on businesses. Many online review communities, such as Yelp, give KOL users prominent status in their communities as cues of source trustworthiness. Using both econometric analysis and machine learning methods, we adopt an antecedents and consequences framework to investigate the drivers of KOL status and their economic impact on businesses. We find that a user’s social activity is more important in determining KOL status than the reviews themselves. On the consequences side, the paper shows that the first KOL review significantly boosts sales, regardless of the actual rating assigned by the KOL. After confirming this sales boost, we use random forest regression to predict sales using KOL review characteristics, including text. It is found that the number of KOL reviews as the most influential feature in predicting sales. This research contributes to the existing literature by adding a more granular, holistic investigation into KOLs in online consumer review communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.yelp.com/elite.

  2. https://www.yelp-support.com/article/What-is-Yelps-Elite-Squad?l=en_US.

  3. https://www.yelp-press.com/company/fast-facts/default.aspx.

  4. https://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/help.

References

  1. BasuMallick, C. (2020). Yelp vs. Google: Which is the best marketing option for SMBs? Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://www.martechadvisor.com/articles/seo/yelp-vs-google-for-smbs/.

  2. De Langhe, B., Fernbach, P. M., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2016). Navigating by the stars: Investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 817–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim, J. M., Jun, M., & Kim, C. K. (2018). The effects of culture on consumers’ consumption and generation of online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing., 43, 134–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Salesbacker (2015). Step-by-step guide to getting product reviews from top Amazon reviewers. Retrieved May 11, 2022, from https://www.salesbacker.com/blog/1/Step_by_step_guide_to_getting_product_reviews_from_top_Amazon_reviewers#!

  5. Bamakan, S. M. H., Nurgaliev, I., & Qu, Q. (2019). Opinion leader detection: A methodological review. Expert Systems with Applications, 115, 200–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chowdhry, K., & Newcomb, T. M. (1952). The relative abilities of leaders and non-leaders to estimate opinions of their own groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(1), 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Luca, M. (2012). Reviews, reputation, and revenue: The case of Yelp. com. SSRN Electronic Journal, (12–016)

  9. Banerjee, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Bose, I. (2017). Whose online reviews to trust? Understanding reviewer trustworthiness and its impact on business. Decision Support Systems (Supplement C), 96, 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rocks, N. & Michael, E. (2015). Why we created the yelp elite squad. Retrieved May 11, 2022, from https://nishrocks.medium.com/why-we-created-the-yelp-elite-squad-b8fa7dd2bead..

  11. Zhu, L., Yin, G., & He, W. (2014). Is this opinion leader’s review useful? Peripheral cues for online review helpfulness. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 15(4), 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yu, C., & Margolin, D. (2021). The disproportion of crowd wisdom: The impact of status seeking on Yelp reviews. PLoS ONE, 16(6), e0252157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pranata, I., & Susilo, W. (2016). Are the most popular users always trustworthy? The case of Yelp. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 20, 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lyu, W., Qi, Y., & Liu, J. (2022). Proliferation in live streaming commerce, and key opinion leader selection. Electronic Commerce Research., 1, 34.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tobon, S., & García-Madariaga, J. (2021). The influence of opinion leaders’ eWOM on online consumer decisions: A study on social influence. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(4), 748–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2020). Influencers on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership. Journal of Business Research, 117, 510–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dai, W., Jin, G., Lee, J., & Luca, M. (2018). Aggregation of consumer ratings: An application to yelp. Com. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 16(3), 289–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheng, L.-C., & Huang, C.-L. (2019). Exploring contextual factors from consumer reviews affecting movie sales: An opinion mining approach. Electronic Commerce Research, 20, 807–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2011). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(10), 1498–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosario, A. B., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016). The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Floyd, K., Freling, R., Alhoqail, S., Cho, H. Y., & Freling, T. (2014). How online product reviews affect retail sales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu, N., Koh, N. S., & Reddy, S. K. (2014). Ratings lead you to the product, reviews help you clinch it? The mediating role of online review sentiments on product sales. Decision Support Systems, 57, 42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006). The nature and role of feedback text comments in online marketplaces: Implications for trust building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 327–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang, J., Sarathy, R., & Lee, J. (2016). The effect of product review balance and volume on online Shoppers’ risk perception and purchase intention. Decision Support Systems, 89, 66–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chong, A. Y. L., Li, B., Ngai, E. W. T., Ch’ng, E., & Lee, F. (2016). Predicting online product sales via online reviews, sentiments, and promotion strategies: A big data architecture and neural network approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36, 358–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang, J., Kim, W., Amblee, N., & Jeong, J. (2012). The heterogeneous effect of WOM on product sales: Why the effect of WOM valence is mixed? European Journal of Marketing, 46(11), 1523–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hong, H., Xu, D., Wang, G. A., & Fan, W. (2017). Understanding the determinants of online review helpfulness: A meta-analytic investigation. Decision Support Systems (Supplement C), 102, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Karimi, S., & Wang, F. (2017). Online review helpfulness: Impact of reviewer profile image. Decision Support Systems (Supplement C), 96, 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee, J., & Hong, I. B. (2019). Consumer’s electronic word-of-mouth adoption: The trust transfer perspective. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 23(4), 595–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee, S.-G., Trimi, S., & Yang, C.-G. (2018). Perceived usefulness factors of online reviews: A study of Amazon. com. Journal of computer information systems, 58(4), 344–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mariani, M. M., & Borghi, M. (2020). Online review helpfulness and firms’ financial performance: An empirical study in a service industry. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 24(4), 421–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang, X., Tang, L. R., & Kim, E. (2019). More than words: Do emotional content and linguistic style matching matter on restaurant review helpfulness? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 438–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Srivastava, V., & Kalro, A. D. (2019). Enhancing the Helpfulness of Online Consumer Reviews: The role of latent (Content) factors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 48, 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lu, S., Wu, J., & Tseng, S.-L. (2018). How online reviews become helpful: A dynamic perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 44, 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chua, A. Y. K., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Understanding review helpfulness as a function of reviewer reputation, review rating, and review depth. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 354–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen, P.-Y., Dhanasobhon, S., & Smith, M.D. (2008) All reviews are not created equal: The disaggregate impact of reviews and reviewers at amazon. com. Available at SSRN

  39. Agnihotri, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Online review helpfulness: role of qualitative factors. Psychology & Marketing, 33(11), 1006–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jiménez, F. R., & Mendoza, N. A. (2013). Too popular to ignore: The influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(3), 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ngo-Ye, T. L., & Sinha, A. P. (2014). The influence of reviewer engagement characteristics on online review helpfulness: A text regression model. Decision Support Systems, 61, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fang, B., Ye, Q., Kucukusta, D., & Law, R. (2016). Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tourism Management, 52, 498–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu, Z., & Park, S. (2015). What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites. Tourism Management, 47, 140–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu, Y., Huang, X., An, A., & Yu, X. (2008) Modeling and predicting the helpfulness of online reviews. 2008 ICDM'08 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (443-452)

  45. Xu, Q. (2014). Should I trust him? The effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 136–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bennett, P. (1999). Understanding responses to risk: Some basic findings. In P. Bennett & K. Calman (Eds.), Risk communication and public health (pp. 3–32). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Folse, J. A. G., Porter Iii, M., Godbole, M., & Reynolds, K. E. (2016). The effects of negatively valenced emotional expressions in online reviews on the reviewer, the review, and the product. Psychology & Marketing, 33(9), 747–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Weathers, D., Swain, S. D., & Grover, V. (2015). Can online product reviews be more helpful? Examining characteristics of information content by product type. Decision Support Systems, 79, 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shan, Y. (2016). How credible are online product reviews? The effects of self-generated and system-generated cues on source credibility evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(B), 633–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2008). Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hass, R. G. (1982). Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses in persuasion. In R. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141–172). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Baek, H., Ahn, J., & Choi, Y. (2012). Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: readers’ objectives and review cues. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(2), 99–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., & Bronner, F. (2012). The ironic effect of source identification on the perceived credibility of online product reviewers. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 18(1), 16–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lu, X., Ba, S., Huang, L., & Feng, Y. (2013). Promotional marketing or word-of-mouth? Evidence from online restaurant reviews. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 596–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Chen, Z., & Lurie, N. H. (2013). Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Archak, N., Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2011). Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Management Science, 57(8), 1485–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cui, G., Lui, H.-K., & Guo, X. (2012). The effect of online consumer reviews on new product sales. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(1), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 180–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Öğüt, H., & Onur Taş, B. K. (2012). The influence of internet customer reviews on the online sales and prices in hotel industry. Service Industries Journal, 32(2), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2008). Do online reviews matter?—An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1007–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science, 57(9), 1623–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bapna, R., Ramaprasad, J., & Umyarov, A. (2018). Monetizing freemium communities: Does paying for premium increase social engagement? MIS Quarterly, 42(3), 719–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Goh, K.-Y., Heng, C.-S., & Lin, Z. (2013). Social media brand community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user-and marketer-generated content. Information systems research, 24(1), 88–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Xu, K., Chan, J., Ghose, A., & Han, S. P. (2017). Battle of the channels: The impact of tablets on digital commerce. Management Science, 63(5), 1469–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The review of economic studies, 65(2), 261–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Statistical conclusion validity and internal validity. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Mifflin and Company.

  69. Pearl, J. (2009). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistics surveys, 3, 96–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015). Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine, 34(28), 3661–3679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stuart, E. A., Lee, B. K., & Leacy, F. P. (2013). Prognostic score–based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(8), S84–S90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). Unsupervised learning. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics, 29(5), 1189–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Zhang, X., Yu, Y., Li, H., & Lin, Z. (2016). Sentimental interplay between structured and unstructured user-generated contents: An empirical study on online hotel reviews. Online Information Review, 40(1), 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lorla, S. (2020). TextBlob documentation [TextBlob 69:[Available from https://textblob.readthedocs.io/en/dev/.

  77. He, J., Wang, X., Vandenbosch, M. B., & Nault, B. R. (2020). Revealed preference in online reviews: Purchase verification in the tablet market. Decision Support Systems, 132, 113281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zhang, M., Wei, X., & Zeng, D. D. (2020). A matter of reevaluation: Incentivizing users to contribute reviews in online platforms. Decision Support Systems, 128, 113158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Analytics and Information Systems, The Peter J. Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University, Queens, NY, 11439, USA

    Yanni Ping

  2. Department of Information Management and Business Analytics, Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07043, USA

    Chelsey Hill

  3. Department of Economics and Finance, The Peter J. Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University, Queens, NY, 11439, USA

    Yun Zhu

  4. Department of Marketing, Martin Tuchman School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA

    Jorge Fresneda

Authors
  1. Yanni Ping
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chelsey Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yun Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jorge Fresneda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanni Ping.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ping, Y., Hill, C., Zhu, Y. et al. Antecedents and consequences of the key opinion leader status: an econometric and machine learning approach. Electron Commer Res 23, 1459–1484 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09650-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09650-9

Keywords