The impact of online reviews and samples: the influence of actors on the effect of review valence and sample presence in the terms of TV series watching intention

The impact of online reviews and samples: the

influence of actors on the effect of review

valence and sample presence in the terms of TV

series watching intention

Master Thesis Presentation

Dániel Mester S2533359

Supervisors:

Problem Background

› Information technology developments fuelled customer interconnectedness and enhanced online sampling opportunities

› Consumers tend to reduce the risk associated with purchase, by turning to guidelines, reviews or samples (Dabholkar, 2006)

› Samples:

• Direct and rapid approach of information gathering

• Create pre-purchase experience (Klein, 1998)

• Trailers are unique samples, due to similarities with ads (Kernan, 2004)

› Reviews are strong guidelines for consumers, impact sales (Basuroy et al. 2003)

› In case of vague judgmental criteria available information’s importance increases (Bone, 1995)

Problem statement

› Both reviews, samples and celebrities are influential guidelines for customers and proven to impact customer intentions and sales

› No clear picture under which circumstances reviews and samples are really effective

› Celebrities influence on samples and reviews impact has been under researched

› „Whether a famous actor’s presence influence the impact of review valence and trailer presence on consumption intentions in the TV series

Literature Review

› Word-of Mouth

• Low cost and efficient pre-release advertising tool (Liu, 2006)

• Increases visibility and creates buzz (Mohr, 2007)

• Review valence impacts sales (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006, Dellarocas

2007) › Sampling

• Credible signal associated with better quality and lowers uncertainty

(Hu et al., 2010)

• Direct experience, attitudes formed through are tighter (Smith, 1993)

• Bolsters positive reinforcements, hence indirectly impacting sales

Literature review

› Actors

• Positively influence motion pictures generated revenue (Sochay, 1994)

• Actors provide motivations to watch a movie dispite negative criticism

(Levin et al. 1997)

› Brands could be anything that engages emotional relationships (Bayley, 2005)

› Brands

• Consumers tend to favour brands with higher awareness (Keller, 1993)

• Higher brand awareness is associated with better quality (Aaker, 1991)

• Higher brand awareness can reduce the impact of bad quality (Hoyer

Hypotheses

› H1:

• Samples reduce uncertainty associated with consumption (Berger and

Calabrese, 1975)

• Attitudes formed through direct experience are stronger (Smith, 1993)

• Samples serve as credible quality signals

› H2:

• Consumers use intrinsic cues first to judge quality (Zeithaml, 1988)

• The more diagnosable and accessible an information is, the less accessible

it makes other available information (Feldman and Lynch, 1988) › H3:

• Consumers pair weights and values to information (Bettman et al., 1975)

• Consumers less likely to change their attitude towards a well-known

Conceptual model

H1: Presence of a trailer increases consumer’s intention to watch a TV series H2: The presence of a famous actor decreases the impact of a trailer on

consumption intentions of a TV show

Pre-test and Main questionnaire

› Pre-test: Main goal is to find a famous actor’s not well-known TV show › 6 actor and 5 shows were sampledMatthew Perry and Go On suited the

main investigation’s purpose

› Main questionnaire: 2x2x2 between subjects design › internationally distributed

› Imdb.com review template

Under 18 2.8% Student 39.4% High school d. 16% Single 49.3%

19-25 42.2% Full-time emp. 44% Bachelor d. 40.8% Relationship 35% HUN 39.7% Male 42.6% 26-30 35.5% Part-time emp. 5.3% Master d. 29.8% Married 7.3% BUL 27.7% Female 57.4% 31-35 11.3% Self-emp. 4.3% Phd 1.8% Married w. Child 7.7% NED 10.6% 36-40 3.5% Unemployed 6% Professional d. 6.4% Separated 0.5% Other 22% Over 40 4.6% Other 1.1% Other 5.3% Widowed 0%

Results

Hypotheses Support Results

H1 YES The effect of trailer presence is significant (p=.000). Trailers_{presence increases watching willingness.}

H2 YES

The interaction effect between actor presence and trailer is marginally singnificant (p=.097), and it resulted decreased effects.

H3a, H3b

Discussion

› Impact of trailers

• In line with previous research (Freedman 1986, Hu et al. 2010)

• Trailers serve as quality signals which lead to favourable intentions (Peter and Nord, 1982)

› Impact of celebrites on trailer’s effect

• Stars presence are highly accessible and diagnosable, hence they reduce

the impact of trailers (Feldman and Lynch, 1988)

• People only use extrinsic cues if intrinsic cues are not sufficient (Zeithaml 1988)

› Impact of celebrities on review’s effect

• Reviews are really important in guiding consumers (Pavlou, 2007)

Implications

› Managers should concentrate on handling eWOM

• Stimulating user reviews and foster the positive effects and managing

the impact of negativity

› Sampling is an influential and beneficial marketing tool › Celebrities and actors impact should also be kept in mind

› Decision makers should focus on either celebrities or samples

• Increases cost efficiency

Limitations and Future Research

› Limited generalizability

• Respondent base dominated by Eastern Europeans

• Findings are limited to the tested show and actor

› Usage of a bigger review base

• Testing the effect of review volume

• Utilization of mixed review scenario

Analysis

› Hypotheses testing: regression analysis with dummy variables › R2= .229, F=12.696, p=.00

Variable Beta Std. Error p VIF scores

Analysis

› Reliability analysis: Cronbach’s alphas all above .902

› Correlation analysis: All Items of all scales correlate significantly

› Manipulation check: t-test, positive scenarios M=4.25 SD= .86, negative scenarios M= 1.7 SD= .90