Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When does online review matter to consumers? The effect of product quality information cues

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Word of Mouth (WOM) is powerful, and online reviews are often the most accessible WOM information source in electronic commerce. Maintaining favorable online reputation has been the top priority for businesses, and investments in improving online review valence have been increasing. Extensive studies explored how online reviews might influence sales, however, the results have been inconsistent. This study explores whether and how consumers might incorporate online reviews into decision making based on signaling theory and examines when online review valence influences sales and when it might not. In a signaling perspective, online reviews might serve as a product quality signal, and subsequently, consumers might incorporate less the online review information into decision making if other product information cues such as expert ratings or brands help to verify the product quality. The findings from 633,029 consumer decisions on a hotel-booking website indicate that product quality information cues moderate the effect of online reviews on purchase likelihood. Also, product quality information cues were highly endogenous in estimating the effect of online reviews on sales. Online reviews are not likely to be a significant influencer on sales if the seller signal product quality with convincing information cues.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edwards, S. (2006). From the guest editor: Special issue on electronic Word of Mouth and its relationship with advertising, marketing, and communication. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reichheld, F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 46–54.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2016). Fake it till you make it: Reputation, competition, and Yelp review fraud. Management Science, 62(12), 3412–3427.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of Word-of-Mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2008). The impact of marketing-induced versus Word-of-Mouth customer acquisition on customer equity growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 48–59.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2008). Online consumer review: Word-of-Mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Management Science, 54(3), 471–491.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tuk, M. A., Verlegh, P. W., Smidts, A., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2008). Sales and sincerity: The role of relational framing in Word of Mouth marketing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(1), 38–47.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, Y., Wang, Q., & Xie, J. (2011). Online social interactions: A natural experiment on Word of Mouth versus observational learning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 238–254.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wang, Y., Wang, J., & Yao, T. (2019). What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics. Electronic Commerce Research, 19(2), 257–284.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. You, Y., Vadakkepatt, G., & Joshi, A. (2015). A meta-analysis of electronic Word-of-Mouth elasticity. Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Liu, Y. (2006). Word of Mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fay, B., Keller, E., & Larkin, R. (2019). How measuring consumer conversations can reveal advertising performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(4), 433–439.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chintagunta, P. K., Gopinath, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The effects of online user reviews on movie box office performance: Accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets. Marketing Science, 29(5), 944–957.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liu, Q., Zhang, X., Zhang, L., & Zhao, Y. (2019). The interaction effects of information cascades, word of mouth and recommendation systems on online reading behavior: An empirical investigation. Electronic Commerce Research, 19(3), 521–547.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Simonson, I. (2016). Imperfect progress: An objective quality assessment of the role of user reviews in consumer decision making. A commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 840–845.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dai, H., Chan, C., & Mogliner, C. (2019). People rely less on consumer reviews for experiential than material purchases. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reductions methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bae, S., & Lee, T. (2011). Gender differences in consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(2), 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chevalier, J., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of Word of Mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kim, R. Y. (2019). Does national culture explain consumers’ reliance on online reviews? Cross-cultural variations in the effect of online review ratings on consumer choice. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 37, 100878.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang, Y., & Yang, Q. (2019). Assessing hotel decision-making of disabled guests: Satisfaction correlation study between online comments’ credibility and perceived risk. Electronic Commerce Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-019-09343-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Woodside, A. G., & Delozier, W. (1976). Effects of Word of Mouth advertising on consumer risk taking. Journal of Advertising, 5(4), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dewatripont, M., & Bolton, P. (2005). Contract theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gambetta, D. (2011). Signaling. In P. Hedstrom & P. Bearman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stock, A., & Balachander, S. (2005). The making of a “hot product”: A signaling explanation of marketers’ scarcity strategy. Management Science, 51(8), 1181–1192.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yang, S. (2012). An empirical study of Word-of-Mouth generation and consumption. Marketing Science, 31(6), 952–963.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Price, L., & Dawar, N. (2002). The joint effects of brands and warranties in signaling new product quality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(2), 165–190.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, non-linear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(1), 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Petrin, A., & Train, K. (2010). A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sudhir, K. (2001). Structural analysis of manufacturer pricing in the presence of a strategic retailer. Marketing Science, 20(3), 244–264.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kelejian, H. (1971). Two-stage least squares and econometric systems linear in parameters but nonlinear in the endogenous variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(334), 373–374.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (5th ed.). Mason: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1490–1528.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(8), 661–677.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Leeflang, P., Tammo, S. H., Bijmolt, H. A., Doorn, J. V., Hanssens, D. M., Van Heerde, H. J., et al. (2009). Creating lift versus building the base: Current trends in marketing dynamics. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(1), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wong, G. Y., & Mason, W. M. (1984). The hierarchical logistic regression model for multilevel analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80(391), 513–524.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kozinets, R. V. (2016). Amazonian forests, and trees: Multiplicity and objectivity in studies of online consumer-generated ratings and reviews. A commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 834–839.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Imai, S., Jain, N., & Ching, A. (2009). Bayesian estimation of dynamic discrete choice models. Econometrica, 77(6), 1865–1899.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kamakura, W., & Wedel, M. (2012). An empirical Bayes procedure for improving individual-level estimates and predictions from finite mixtures of multinomial logit models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 22(1), 121–125.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schmid, C. H., & Mengersen, K. (2013). Bayesian meta-analysis. In J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch, & K. Mengersen (Eds.), Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution (pp. 145–173). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Giacomo, M. D. (2008). GMM estimation of a structural demand model for yogurt and the effects of the introduction of new brands. Empirical Economics, 34(3), 537–565.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pinkse, J., & Slade, M. E. (1998). Contracting in space: An application of spatial statistics to discrete-choice models. Journal of Econometrics, 85(1), 125–154.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pinkse, J., Slade, M. E., & Shen, L. (2006). Dynamic spatial discrete choice using one-step GMM: An application to mine operating decisions. Spatial Economic Analysis, 1(1), 53–99.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Instrumental variables estimation with panel data. Econometric Theory, 21(4), 865–869.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Shaikh, I., O’Brien, J. P., & Peters, L. (2018). Inside directors and the underinvestment of financial slack towards R&D intensity in high-technology firms. Journal of Business Research, 82, 192–201.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Womply. (2019). Is it time to consider reputation monitoring services? Retrieved October 7th, 2019, from www.womply.com/blog/time-consider-reputation-monitoring-services.

  51. Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Chib, S., Griffiths, W., Koop, G., & Terrell, D. (2008). Bayesian econometrics. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Rae Yule Kim

Authors
  1. Rae Yule Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rae Yule Kim.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, R.Y. When does online review matter to consumers? The effect of product quality information cues. Electron Commer Res 21, 1011–1030 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09398-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09398-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation