IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wil/wileco/2018-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Uncorking Expert Reviews with Social Media: A Case Study Served with Wine

Author

Abstract

The growth of social media outlets in which individuals post opinions on publicly consumed goods provides an interesting and relatively unexplored area for examination of the role of crowd sourcing amateur opinions in areas traditionally relegated to experts. In this paper we use wine as an illustrative example to investigate the interaction between social media and expert reviews in the market for high end consumer goods. In particular, we exploit a novel data set constructed from the social media website CellarTracker, which is composed of the averaged individual reviews for 355 distinct wines on a quarterly basis from 2004 through 2017, and pair this with a similarly dimensioned panel of average auction prices for these wines as well as the reviews from three leading experts. We develop a signal extraction model to motivate the interaction between amateurs and experts in revealing a measure of the quality of the wine. The model is then used to motivate the adaptation of an empirical panel structural VAR approach based on Pedroni (2013) by embedding the expert reviews as an event analysis within the panel VAR, which is used to decompose information into components that signal the quality of the liquid in the bottle versus other aspects of the wine that are valued by the market. The approach also allows us to decompose the influence of the expert reviews into components associated with what we define as the quality of the wine versus the pure reputation effect of the expert. The results on expert reviews are consistent with the idea that experts can substantially impact prices through channels other than their signals of quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Albright & Peter Pedroni & Stephen Sheppard, 2018. "Uncorking Expert Reviews with Social Media: A Case Study Served with Wine," Department of Economics Working Papers 2018-03, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    • Handle: RePEc:wil:wileco:2018-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/UncorkingExpertReviews.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dina Mayzlin & Yaniv Dover & Judith Chevalier, 2014. "Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2421-2455, August.
    2. Nofer, Michael & Hinz, Oliver, 2014. "Are Crowds on the Internet Wiser than Experts? The Case of a Stock Prediction Community," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 69935, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    3. Philippe Mahenc, 2004. "Influence of Informed Buyers in Markets Susceptible to the Lemons Problem," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 649-659.
    4. Michael Anderson & Jeremy Magruder, 2012. "Learning from the Crowd: Regression Discontinuity Estimates of the Effects of an Online Review Database," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(563), pages 957-989, September.
    5. Bozbay, İrem & Dietrich, Franz & Peters, Hans, 2014. "Judgment aggregation in search for the truth," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 571-590.
    6. Héla Hadj Ali & Céline Nauges, 2007. "The Pricing of Experience Goods: The Example of en primeur Wine," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 91-103.
    7. David A. Reinstein & Christopher M. Snyder, 2005. "The Influence Of Expert Reviews On Consumer Demand For Experience Goods: A Case Study Of Movie Critics," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 27-51, March.
    8. Gibbs, Michael & Tapia, Mikel & Warzynski, Frederic, 2009. "Globalization, Superstars, and the Importance of Reputation: Theory & Evidence from the Wine Industry," Working Papers 09-3, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    9. Gibbs, Michael & Tapia, Mikel & Warzynski, Frederic, 2009. "Globalization, Superstars, and Reputation: Theory & Evidence from the Wine Industry," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 46-61, April.
    10. Dennis E. Smallwood & John Conlisk, 1979. "Product Quality in Markets Where Consumers are Imperfectly Informed," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(1), pages 1-23.
    11. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    12. Sushil Bikhchandani & David Hirshleifer & Ivo Welch, 1998. "Learning from the Behavior of Others: Conformity, Fads, and Informational Cascades," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 151-170, Summer.
    13. Ashenfelter, Orley & Jones, Gregory V., 2013. "The Demand for Expert Opinion: Bordeaux Wine," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 285-293, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vollaard, Ben & van Ours, Jan C., 2022. "Bias in expert product reviews," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 105-118.
    2. Jacobsen, Grant D., 2015. "Consumers, experts, and online product evaluations: Evidence from the brewing industry," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 114-123.
    3. Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2020. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating Under Asymmetric Information," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt08c456vk, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. Bonnet, Céline & Hilger, James & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2017. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating under Asymmetric Information - The Case of Wine Expert Opinions," TSE Working Papers 17-834, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised May 2019.
    5. Engström, Per & Forsell, Eskil, 2018. "Demand effects of consumers’ stated and revealed preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 43-61.
    6. Hung-Pin Shih & Pei-Chen Sung, 2021. "Addressing the Review-Based Learning and Private Information Approaches to Foster Platform Continuance," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 649-661, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Saens, Rodrigo & Berríos, Rodrigo, 2012. "The country brand trap," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), April.
    9. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Carrera, Mariana, 2016. "Generic aversion and observational learning in the over-the-counter drug market," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0q03b5f2, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    10. Oksana Loginova & Andrea Mantovani, 2019. "Price competition in the presence of a web aggregator," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 43-73, January.
    11. Kamal Bookwala & Caleb Gallemore & Joaquín Gómez‐Miñambres, 2022. "The influence of food recommendations: Evidence from a randomized field experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1898-1910, October.
    12. Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2008. "Thought and Behavior Contagion in Capital Markets," MPRA Paper 9164, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Enrico Moretti, 2011. "Social Learning and Peer Effects in Consumption: Evidence from Movie Sales," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(1), pages 356-393.
    14. Dubois, Pierre & Nauges, Céline, 2010. "Identifying the effect of unobserved quality and expert reviews in the pricing of experience goods: Empirical application on Bordeaux wine," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 205-212, May.
    15. Martin, Simon & Shelegia, Sandro, 2021. "Underpromise and overdeliver? - Online product reviews and firm pricing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    16. Clarissa Laura Maria Spiess Bru, 2023. "Does the Tasting Note Matter? Language Categories and Their Impact on Professional Ratings and Prices," Working Papers Dissertations 105, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    17. David Hirshleifer & Siew Hong Teoh, 2003. "Herd Behaviour and Cascading in Capital Markets: a Review and Synthesis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 9(1), pages 25-66, March.
    18. Foster, Joshua, 2022. "How rating mechanisms shape user search, quality inference and engagement in online platforms: Experimental evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 791-807.
    19. Wei He & Qian Wang, 2020. "The peer effect of corporate financial decisions around split share structure reform in China," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 474-493, July.
    20. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Luxury goods; differentiated goods; information asymmetry; social media; wine;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wil:wileco:2018-03. 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: Stephen Sheppard (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edwilus.html .

    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.