IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joamsc/v47y2019i6d10.1007_s11747-018-00624-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seeking the support of the silent majority: are lurking users valuable to UGC platforms?

Author

Listed:
  • Xingyu Chen

    (Shenzhen University)

  • Xing Li

    (Peking University)

  • Dai Yao

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Zhimin Zhou

    (Shenzhen University)

Abstract

In user-generated content (UGC) platforms, content generators (i.e., posters) account for only a minority of users. The majority of users lurk, participating in information diffusion only and making no direct contributions to the platforms (i.e., diffusers). In this paper, we study diffusers’ reposting behavior in a UGC platform and compare it with that of posters. We find that diffusers generally behave similarly to posters in reposting. Both groups repost more when seeing more posts and encountering popular posts. Interestingly, their reposting behavior diverges under information redundancy, i.e., when more popular posts are seen in a dense network. Under this condition, diffusers show a much higher propensity to repost, which is (partially) driven by their lesser need for uniqueness (NFU). Overall, this study suggests an exquisite way for platforms to activate their lurking users and it sheds light on their value in generating word-of-mouth and in facilitating information diffusion. It also provides useful guidelines for firms to approach the right type of lurking users (i.e., diffusers in a dense network) by using the right method of stimulation (i.e., offering popular albeit redundant information) during product diffusion online.

Suggested Citation

  • Xingyu Chen & Xing Li & Dai Yao & Zhimin Zhou, 2019. "Seeking the support of the silent majority: are lurking users valuable to UGC platforms?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 986-1004, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:47:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s11747-018-00624-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11747-018-00624-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11747-018-00624-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11747-018-00624-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tian, Kelly Tepper & Bearden, William O & Hunter, Gary L, 2001. "Consumer's Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 50-66, June.
    2. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2005. "Conspicuous Consumption and Sophisticated Thinking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1449-1466, October.
    3. Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Barrot, Christian & Becker, Jan, 2011. "Seeding Strategies for Viral Marketing: An Empirical Comparison," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 56543, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    4. Inyoung Chae & Andrew T. Stephen & Yakov Bart & Dai Yao, 2017. "Spillover Effects in Seeded Word-of-Mouth Marketing Campaigns," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 89-104, January.
    5. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    6. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    7. Scott K. Shriver & Harikesh S. Nair & Reto Hofstetter, 2013. "Social Ties and User-Generated Content: Evidence from an Online Social Network," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1425-1443, June.
    8. Hu, Ye & Li, Xinxin, 2011. "Context-Dependent Product Evaluations: An Empirical Analysis of Internet Book Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 123-133.
    9. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M., 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Research Papers 1610, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2009. "Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 721-739, 07-08.
    11. Shin-Yuan Hung & Hui-Min Lai & Yu-Che Chou, 2015. "Knowledge-sharing intention in professional virtual communities: A comparison between posters and lurkers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2494-2510, December.
    12. Stremersch, Stefan & Camacho, Nuno & Vanneste, Sofie & Verniers, Isabel, 2015. "Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 64-77.
    13. Liu-Thompkins, Yuping & Rogerson, Michelle, 2012. "Rising to Stardom: An Empirical Investigation of the Diffusion of User-generated Content," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 71-82.
    14. Sam Ransbotham & Gerald C. Kane & Nicholas H. Lurie, 2012. "Network Characteristics and the Value of Collaborative User-Generated Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 387-405, May.
    15. Jonah Berger & Raghuram Iyengar, 2013. "Communication Channels and Word of Mouth: How the Medium Shapes the Message," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 567-579.
    16. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    17. Dae-Yong Ahn & Jason A. Duan & Carl F. Mela, 2016. "Managing User-Generated Content: A Dynamic Rational Expectations Equilibrium Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 284-303, March.
    18. Stephan Seiler & Song Yao & Wenbo Wang, 2017. "Does Online Word of Mouth Increase Demand? (And How?) Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 838-861, November.
    19. Kristine de Valck & Roberts V. Kozinets & Andrea C. Wojnicki & Sarah J.S. Wilner, 2010. "Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities," Post-Print hal-00458424, HAL.
    20. Frank M. Bass, 2004. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12_supple), pages 1825-1832, December.
    21. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    22. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 701-720, May.
    23. Olivier Toubia & Andrew T. Stephen, 2013. "Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 368-392, May.
    24. Puneet Manchanda & Grant Packard & Adithya Pattabhiramaiah, 2015. "Social Dollars: The Economic Impact of Customer Participation in a Firm-Sponsored Online Customer Community," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 367-387, May.
    25. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    26. Ann E. Schlosser, 2005. "Posting versus Lurking: Communicating in a Multiple Audience Context," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(2), pages 260-265, September.
    27. Xiaohua Zeng & Liyuan Wei, 2013. "Social Ties and User Content Generation: Evidence from Flickr," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 71-87, March.
    28. Frank M. Bass, 2004. "Comments on "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables The Bass Model"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12_supple), pages 1833-1840, December.
    29. Jifeng Mu & Ellen Thomas & Jiayin Qi & Yong Tan, 2018. "Online group influence and digital product consumption," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 921-947, September.
    30. Frenzen, Jonathan & Nakamoto, Kent, 1993. "Structure, Cooperation, and the Flow of Market Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(3), pages 360-375, December.
    31. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2004. "Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 545-560, June.
    32. Jacob Goldenberg & Barak Libai & Eitan Muller & Stefan Stremersch, 2010. "Database Submission—The Evolving Social Network of Marketing Scholars," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 561-567, 05-06.
    33. Wendy W. Moe & David A. Schweidel, 2012. "Online Product Opinions: Incidence, Evaluation, and Evolution," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 372-386, May.
    34. Lena Steinhoff & Robert W. Palmatier, 2016. "Understanding loyalty program effectiveness: managing target and bystander effects," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 88-107, January.
    35. Zoey Chen & Jonah Berger, 2016. "How Content Acquisition Method Affects Word of Mouth," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(1), pages 86-102.
    36. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M, 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 49-68, June.
    37. Jonah Berger & Chip Heath, 2007. "Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 121-134, June.
    38. Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang & Feng Zhu, 2011. "Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1601-1615, June.
    39. Sinan Aral & Dylan Walker, 2014. "Tie Strength, Embeddedness, and Social Influence: A Large-Scale Networked Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1352-1370, June.
    40. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Shyam Gopinath & Sriram Venkataraman, 2010. "The Effects of Online User Reviews on Movie Box Office Performance: Accounting for Sequential Rollout and Aggregation Across Local Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 944-957, 09-10.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shrihari Sridhar & Eric Fang, 2019. "New vistas for marketing strategy: digital, data-rich, and developing market (D3) environments," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 977-985, November.
    2. Wang, Feng & Zhang, Xueting & Chen, Man & Zeng, Wei & Cao, Rong, 2022. "The influential paradox: Brand and deal content sharing by influencers in friendship networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 503-514.
    3. Abhishek Borah & Francesca Bonetti & Angelito Calma & José Martí-Parreño, 2023. "The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science at 50: A historical analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 222-243, January.
    4. Andrew N. Smith & Eileen Fischer, 2021. "Pay attention, please! Person brand building in organized online attention economies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 258-279, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephan Seiler & Song Yao & Wenbo Wang, 2017. "Does Online Word of Mouth Increase Demand? (And How?) Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 838-861, November.
    2. Jake Hoskins & Shyam Gopinath & J. Cameron Verhaal & Elham Yazdani, 2021. "The influence of the online community, professional critics, and location similarity on review ratings for niche and mainstream brands," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    3. Ana Babić Rosario & Kristine Valck & Francesca Sotgiu, 2020. "Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 422-448, May.
    4. Peters, Kay & Chen, Yubo & Kaplan, Andreas M. & Ognibeni, Björn & Pauwels, Koen, 2013. "Social Media Metrics — A Framework and Guidelines for Managing Social Media," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 281-298.
    5. Yuchi Zhang & David Godes, 2018. "Learning from Online Social Ties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 425-444, May.
    6. Liye Ma & Baohong Sun & Sunder Kekre, 2015. "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease—An Empirical Analysis of Customer Voice and Firm Intervention on Twitter," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 627-645, September.
    7. Kannan, P.K. & Li, Hongshuang “Alice”, 2017. "Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 22-45.
    8. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Wang, Feng & Liu, Xuefeng & Fang, Eric (Er), 2015. "User Reviews Variance, Critic Reviews Variance, and Product Sales: An Exploration of Customer Breadth and Depth Effects," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 372-389.
    10. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.
    11. Roma, Paolo & Aloini, Davide, 2019. "How does brand-related user-generated content differ across social media? Evidence reloaded," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 322-339.
    12. Marchand, André & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Wiertz, Caroline, 2017. "Not all digital word of mouth is created equal: Understanding the respective impact of consumer reviews and microblogs on new product success," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 336-354.
    13. Wang, Feng & Zhang, Xueting & Chen, Man & Zeng, Wei & Cao, Rong, 2022. "The influential paradox: Brand and deal content sharing by influencers in friendship networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 503-514.
    14. Stephen, Andrew T. & Lehmann, Donald R., 2016. "How word-of-mouth transmission encouragement affects consumers' transmission decisions, receiver selection, and diffusion speed," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 755-766.
    15. S. Cicognani & P. Figini & M. Magnani, 2016. "Social Influence Bias in Online Ratings: A Field Experiment," Working Papers wp1060, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    16. Philp, Matthew & Jacobson, Jenna & Pancer, Ethan, 2022. "Predicting social media engagement with computer vision: An examination of food marketing on Instagram," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 736-747.
    17. Saeed Tajdini, 2023. "The effects of internet search intensity for products on companies’ stock returns: a competitive intelligence perspective," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(3), pages 352-365, September.
    18. David Godes & José C. Silva, 2012. "Sequential and Temporal Dynamics of Online Opinion," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 448-473, May.
    19. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria D., 2014. "What We Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    20. Scott Motyka & Dhruv Grewal & Elizabeth Aguirre & Dominik Mahr & Ko Ruyter & Martin Wetzels, 2018. "The emotional review–reward effect: how do reviews increase impulsivity?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1032-1051, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:47:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s11747-018-00624-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.