Inside the host's mind: psychological principles of viral marketing ...

54

Int. J. Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2, 2016

Inside the host’s mind: psychological principles of viral marketing Joerg Wolter PASS Consulting Group, Aschaffenburg, Germany Email: [email protected]

Vincent Barth, Eva-Maria Barthel, Julia Gröbel, Elena Linden, Yvonne Wolf and Eva Walther* Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Universitätsring 15, 54286 Trier, Germany Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: Although viral marketing is a timely and often used concept to promote brand and products, little is known yet about the psychological factors producing a successful marketing campaign. Based on a review and analyses of the literature, the basic psychological principles related to viral marketing success are delineated in this article. Specifically, the following aspects are addressed: motivational and behavioural characteristics of the user, optimal seeding strategies, network selection decisions, positive or negative affect elicited by campaigns, levels of consumer involvement and issues of the technical design. According to our findings we postulate seven important psychological propositions and provide some practical guidance for applying these principles in order to maximise success. Keywords: viral marketing; psychology; eWOM; viral advertising; seeding strategy. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Wolter, J., Barth, V., Barthel, E-M., Gröbel, J., Linden, E., Wolf, Y. and Walther, E. (2016) ‘Inside the host’s mind: psychological principles of viral marketing’, Int. J. Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 10. Nos. 1/2, pp.54–89. Biographical notes: Joerg Wolter is Senior Consultant and Lecturer in Applied Science. He received his PhD in Psychology from University of Marburg 1998 and has a background in psychoanalysis.

Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Inside the host’s mind

55

Vincent Barth was a master student in psychology at the University of Trier. Eva-Maria Barthel was a master student in psychology at the University of Trier. Julia Gröbel was a master student in psychology at the University of Trier. Elena Linden was a master student in psychology at the University of Trier. Yvonne Wolf was a master student in psychology at the University of Trier. Eva Walther is Social Psychologist and Full Professor for Psychology at the University of Trier. She received her PhD 1997 and Habilitation 2002 from the University of Heidelberg.

1

Introduction “The internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.” (Stewart, 2005)

This statement made by the American actor and comedian Jon Stewart in 2005 is a proper metaphor for the internet phenomenon of viral communication (see also Gladwell, 2000). Viral communication uses social networks to spread pictures, videos or internet trends around the globe. For instance, the original video of ‘Grumpy Cat’ has been watched at YouTube nearly 12 million times. Given the increasing resistance of consumers to traditional marketing strategies such as television or newspaper ads (Leskovec et al., 2007), it’s not surprising that viral communication became of high attraction for marketers (Golan and Zaidner, 2008; Subramani and Rajagopalan, 2003). The use of the internet circumvents consumers’ resistance because it is perceived as a lifestyle and not as a mere tool (Riegner, 2007). According to Ferguson (2008, referring to a study by Inc. Magazine), 82% of the fastest-growing private companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Red Bull invested in viral marketing (i.e. using viral communication in economic contexts). As stated by Dobele et al. (2005), 67% of all products and services in the USA are influenced by viral campaigns. However, because viral marketing is a relatively new concept, little is known yet about the factors that render a viral campaign successful or not. Until now, it seems as if conducting a successful viral marketing strategy depends on luck rather than on specific scientific marketing rules. Going beyond previous work which was predominately concerned with economic factors of viral marketing, the present work pursuits a psychological perspective. Endorsing this psychological perspective we will first briefly summarise current viral marketing research before we will present psychological seven key propositions criteria for successful viral campaigns.

2

Definition of viral marketing

Generally, viral marketing refers to a marketing technique that uses social networks to draw consumer’s attention and increase brand awareness. Although the measurements to

56

J. Wolter et al.

assess effectiveness turned out to be similar (Southgate et al., 2010), viral marketing differs in many respects from other types of mass communication like television (Haridakis and Hanson, 2009; Porter and Golan, 2006). Several approaches to define viral marketing are reported in the literature (e.g. Jurvetson and Draper, 1997; Dobele et al., 2005; Anderson, 2008; Cruz and Fill, 2008; Bampo et al., 2008). For instance, Langner (2009) proposed that viral marketing tries to distribute the marketing content in a matter of an exponential diffusion. As described above, viral marketing is based on the classic method of Word-of-Mouth advertising (WOM; for an intriguing overview, see Rosen, 2009). Nevertheless, there are essential differences: the classical WOM method uses the interaction of consumers in a direct way, while viral marketing uses virtual relationships between consumers interacting in social networks. In fact, viral marketing can be described as an online form of the classic WOM advertising. This is why viral marketing is often used synonymously with the term eWOM. However, there are also differences between viral marketing and eWOM. Some researchers consider viral marketing as a marketing strategy and eWOM as a more informal bottom-up phenomenon which is driven by the users and not instigated or controlled by companies. And others see eWOM as the result of viral marketing (see for a discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_viral_marketing_an d_eWOM). In this article we focus on viral marketing but we also refer to eWOM literature if it is relevant for viral marketing. Another difference to classical WOM advertising is the degree of influence an organisation has on the consumer’s interaction. For example, there is the differentiation between low- and high-integrative concepts. Typical low-integrative concepts are the sharing of emails or the use of the so-called ‘tell-a-friend-button’. The advantage of this technique is that it includes even consumers lacking in enthusiasm, as the distribution of emails is entailed with minimal costs. In contrast, high-integrative concepts are based on the strong involvement of the consumer. For instance, consumers could participate in posting photos or create own advertising spots. This participation is supposed to create emotional connections to the product. This in turn increases consumers’ special personal experience and increases the authenticity of the organisation and the product the organisation is trying to sell.

3

Current state of research

Despite the fact that viral marketing is a relatively young strategy there is a high number of articles reflecting the immense interest in this topic (e.g. Aral and Walker, 2011; Hinz et al., 2011; McNeal, 2012; Mills, 2012; Phelps et al., 2004; Thomas, 2004). However, only a few are based on a psychological background. Thus, the psychological processes underlying the success of viral marketing were not fully addressed yet. Investigating the relevant literature, the present article aimed at identifying the psychological core principles of viral marketing. In the following, we will briefly review the characteristics of the different types of studies that served as a basis of our analysis. For an overview of all studies and articles used in this paper, see Table 1.

Atkinson (1957)

Atkinson (1964)

Bampo et al. (2008)

Barash et al. (2012)

Bargh et al. (1996)

Bargh and McKenna (2004)

Batson (1991)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

x

x

Aral and Walker (2011)

x

x

x

x

Supported proposition

Following the review of a number of motivational systems, the author contrasts an Propositions 3 expectancy-value theory with a drive-habit and 5 theory of motivation. The emphasis is on human motivation.

The motive to achieve and the motive to avoid failure influence behaviour in any situation Propositions 3 where performance is evaluated against some and 5 standard of excellence.

When viral features, such as user-generated personalised invitations, were added to a Proposition 6 software app, it generates an explosive effect on adoption.

Gen X and Gen Y lead businesses into 21stProposition 4 century marketing techniques.

A model to quantify an influential blogger Proposition 4 presented various types of the Mavens.

Social contagions typically require a critical Proposition 2 mass of infected nodes.

Not applicable

Review including 75 papers

People might be altruistically motivated to benefit others for their own sake, rather than Proposition 3 for the anticipation of rewards.

The internet facilitates communication and thus close ties between family and friends, Proposition 1 especially those too far away to visit in person on a regular basis.

Three experiments with 135 Social behaviour can be triggered Proposition 1 participants automatically by features of the environment.

Computer simulations

Almost 39,000 self-selected The spread of a viral message is proportional target audience members Proposition 2 to the number of seeds used. were seeded

Not applicable


2 million Facebook users

Rough notes

Authors collected over 10,000 posts

Mail survey of 4047 Mavens appear to be good targets for retailers, individuals from whom 621 Proposition 4 provided they can be targeted effectively. responses were received

Major findings

Table 1

x

x

Anderson (2008)

3

x

Agarwal et al. (2008)

x

Case studies & Sample size/no. of papers reviews

2

Correlation

Abratt et al. (1995)

Experiment

1

Citation

Inside the host’s mind 57

Overview of publications

x

x

Bughin et al. (2010)

Camarero and San José (2011)

Cheung et al. (2008)

Cheung et al. (2009)

Chiu et al. (2007)

16

17

18

19

20

x

x

x

x

Broxton et al. (2013)

15

Social videos rise to, and fall from, their peak Propositions 1 popularity more quickly than less social and 5 videos.

1.5 million YouTube videos

N = 240 participants 3.

2.

Message recipients who receive emails from close interpersonal sources are more willing to forward them. Those who receive more utilitarian or more hedonic messages are more willing Propositions 3, 5 and 7 to forward them. Those who score high on extraversion and openness and low on conscientiousness traits are more willing to forward them.

Argument strength and source credibility are Propositions 4 the most significant informational factors in and 7 the information receiver’s cognitive processes.

Online survey method with 1195 respondents.

1.

Comprehensiveness and relevance are the key Proposition 7 influencers of information adoption.

The individual’s integration and relationship with the network is critical to the individual’s Propositions 1 involvement in the receiving-forwarding and 6 process.

Sample of 154 users

N = 230

States, that the content of a message is the primary driver of word-of-mouth impact. The Propositions 4 second critical driver is the identity of the and 7 person who sends a message.

Humorous ads that combine higher levels of violence intensity with more severe Proposition 5 consequences appear to elicit greater involvement with the ad message.

Two studies with a total of 302 participants

Theoretical paper

Relationships between market mavens, physical/sensing personality orientation and Proposition 4 extraversion.

Self-completion survey, N = 203

Table 1

x

Brown et al. (2010)

14

x

Brancaleone and Gountas (2007)


Positive content is more viral than negative content. Virality is partially driven by Proposition 5 physiological arousal.

Major findings

One field study and two experiments including141 participants


13

x

Correlation

Berger and Milkman (2012)

Experiment

12

Citation

58 J. Wolter et al.

Overview of publications (continued)

x

x

Chung and Darke (2006)

Cialdini et al. (1976)

Cialdini (2007)

Cialdini et al. (1987)

Clark and Goldsmith (2005)

Clark and Goldsmith (2006)

25

26

27

28

29

30

x

x

x

Chu and Kim (2011)

24

x

x

x

Chu (2011)

23

x

Cho et al. (2014)

x


People who are highly involved in the marketplace and interactive with other Propositions 1 consumers are more sensitive to normative and 4 influences. Data were collected using Innovativeness is associated with self-report surveys Proposition 7 susceptibility to informational influence. administered to 305 students

N = 598 consumers

Supports an egoistically based interpretation Propositions 3 of helping under conditions of high empathy. and 5

Two experiments with a total of 122 participants

Proposition 1

Descriptive social norms compliance decisions powerfully.

Study 1: 190 hotel rooms Study 2: 1595 instance of towel use

influence

Tendency to ‘bask in reflected glory’ (BIRG) by publicly announcing one’s associations Proposition 3 with successful others.

Three experiments with more than 350 participants

Study 1, N = 68 participants Consumers are more likely to provide WOM Propositions 3 for products that are relevant to self-concept Study 2, N = 152 and 6 than for more utilitarian products. participants

normative and are positively Propositions 1, overall eWOM 2, 4 and 7

College aged Facebook group members engage in higher levels of self-disclosure and Propositions 1 maintain more favourable attitudes towards and 6 social media than do non-group members.

An online survey (data of 302 respondents). Tie strength, trust, 363 undergraduate students informational influence participated on a selfassociated with users’ administered online survey behaviour.

Weak trust attributed to an advertiser can be overridden by the trust attributed to the Proposition 4 distributor.

Social interaction ties, trust, norm of reciprocity, identification, shared vision and Propositions 1 shared language influence individuals and 6 ‘knowledge sharing’.

Major findings

N = 244 participants

Data collected from 310 members of a professional virtual community


22

Correlation

Chiu et al. (2006)

Experiment

Table 1

21

Citation



x

Dobele et al. (2007)

Dobele et al. (2005)

Eccleston and Griseri (2008)

Eckler and Bolls (2011)

English et al. (2011)

35

36

37

38

39

x

x

x

Dichter (1966)

34

x

Deutsch and Gerard (1954)

33

x

x

x

Cruz and Fill (2008)

x

Influencing patterns remain still more prevalent within traditional (non-internet) Proposition 7 environments.

1093 interviews with respondents living in Great Britain

Results revealed that the ethos appeal ranked Propositions 1, as the most credible appeal, followed by logos 5 and 7 and pathos.

Successful viral marketing campaigns are comprised of an engaging message that Propositions 5 involves imagination, fun and intrigue, and 6 encourages ease of use and visibility.

Successful viral marketing cases

233 participants were exposed to three YouTube clips

Authors identify that successful viral marketing campaigns trigger an emotional Proposition 5 response in recipients.

Nine viral marketing campaigns

Pleasant emotional tone elicits the strongest attitude towards the ad, attitude towards the Proposition 5 brand, and intention to forward.

Close link between successful, everyday WOM recommendations and effective Propositions 4 advertising. Emphasises the new role of and 6 friends and acquaintances as ‘advertisers’ who recommend a tried and trusted product.

Depth interviews were conducted with 255 consumers in 24 localities in the USA

42 students

Simultaneity of normative and informational Propositions 1 social influence. and 7

A total of five semistructured, face-to-face interviews

101 college students

The paper presents a viral marketing evaluation framework that identifies three key objectives and their particular evaluation criteria. Financial objectives and the need to Proposition 7 measure the return on investment were identified as previously undocumented key issues.


Participants who were willing to share advertising information tended to be more Proposition 4 mindful of others when processing the advertisement.

Major findings

Survey of 418 respondents


32

Correlation

Coyle et al. (2011)

Experiment

Table 1

31

Citation

60 J. Wolter et al.


x

x

x

Fong and Burton (2008)

Geissler and Edison (2005)

Gilfoil and Jobs (2011)

Gladwell (2000)

Glaeser et al. (1999)

44

45

46

47

48

x

x

Festinger (1954)

43

x

x

Market mavens are a unique form of Proposition 4 influence.

The best way to understand – and even engineer – seemingly unpredictable trends is Proposition 7 to think of them as epidemics. A content analysis of 360 viral ads

Trusting behaviour and trustworthiness rise Propositions 4 with social connection; differences in race and and 6 nationality reduce the level of trustworthiness.

The distribution process should be – ideally – Proposition 6 no hassle at all.

This paper studies WOM market participation between buyers and sellers in 16 countries using four forms of Web 2.0 social broadcast behaviours

N = 189

Affinity for technology is positively related to market mavens. Dispositional optimism, need Propositions 4 for cognition and self-efficacy are also and 6 positively associated with both mavenism and affinity for technology.

Word-of-mouth has been shown to differ across cultures. China-based discussion boards engaged in higher levels of Proposition 6 information-seeking than their US counterparts, and lower levels of informationgiving.

This study examines the content of 5993 discussion postings to US and Chinabased discussion boards during two 90-day periods in 2004 and 2005 Survey of N = 565 respondents

A motivational factor is the need to be wellProposition 7 informed.


A well-placed, calculated and provocative The study examines real-life campaign can spark a firestorm of buzz that Propositions 5 campaigns from well-known sometimes can be effective for years in non- and 7 companies terminal new mediums like the internet.

A total of 1531 interviews were completed.


The spontaneous affective reaction resulting from perceptual fluency is a crucial link Proposition 5 between fluency and evaluation.

Major findings

Table 1

x

Ferguson (2008)

42

x

Feick and Price (1987)



41

x

Correlation

Fang et al. (2007)

Experiment

40

Citation



Gross (2002)

Gu et al. (2009)

Haridakis and Hanson (2009)

Harvey et al. (2011)

Henke (2011)

53

54

55

56

57

x

x

Goodey and East (2008)

52

x

x

Goldsmith et al. (2006)

51

x

x

x

x

Golan and Zaidner (2008)

socially Propositions 1 and 4

Personality characteristics of male mavens differ from those of female mavens. The Proposition 4 motivational differences between mavens and non-mavens are not very substantial.

a

Advertisers predominantly based their message strategies on individual ego-oriented Proposition 5 appeals that were based on such themes as humour and sexuality.

N = 55 students

N = 173

N = 427 respondents

103,330 users activities were observed

High involvement consumers exposed to disgust appeal were less likely to pass along Propositions 4 the content, low involvement consumers were and 6 more likely to pass along disgusting content.

Sender involvement and the amount of online communication across the tie are the most Propositions 4 critical factors influencing propagation and 6 propensity.

There is a distinctly social aspect to YouTube use that reflects its social networking Proposition 3 characteristics.

Indirect reciprocity is a dynamic social force and plays a key role in sustaining private Proposition 1 contributions to social networks.

Reappraisal is often more effective than Review including 84 papers suppression as strategy for down-regulating Proposition 5 emotion.

164 respondents


When a belief is at issue, agreement from a dissimilar other will increase judgemental confidence more than agreement from a Propositions 1 similar other; whereas when a value is at and 4 issue, agreement from a similar other will be more influential.

Major findings

The usable sample consisted Market mavenism is more of 598 consumers constructed phenomenon.

A content analysis of 360 viral ads

34 students


50

x

Correlation

Goethals and Nelson (1973)

Experiment

Table 1

49

Citation

62 J. Wolter et al.


Higgins et al. (1977)

Hinz et al. (2011)

Ho and Dempsey (2010)

Hogg and Vaughan (2008)

Hong (2009)

Hsieh et al. (2012)

Huang et al. (2009)

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

x

x

x

Experiment

Correlation

x

x

x

x

Major findings


Netnographical data reveal a triadic power Propositions 3 relationship in the online market system that and 6 facilitates the traffic of identity resources.

A keyword searching method is used due to the immense (over 20 million bloggers) resources of data in Cyworld, a blogging website in Korea

Data collected from 347 email users

Factors such as message involvement, social interaction tie, affection outcome expectations Propositions 3, and message passing self-efficacy exert 5 and 6 significant influences on pass-along email intentions.

Awareness of persuasive intent exerts a negative influence, whereas the humour and Propositions 5 274 participants viewed the multimedia effects have positive influences on and 7 experimental website both attitude towards a received online video and forwarding intentions.

Communication sustains or increases interpersonal relationships and ‘it is the means Proposition 4 by which people influence others and are in turn influenced by them’.

Not applicable

Internet users, who are more individualistic and/or more altruistic, tend to forward more Proposition 4 online content than others.

The best seeding strategies can be up to eight times more successful than other seeding Propositions 2 strategies. Seeding to well-connected people is and 4 the most successful approach.

Three studies in different social networks: small (120 students), medium (1380 students) and very large (208,829 students) N = 582 participants

Priming is only effective if the primes are Proposition 7 accessible and applicable.

60 Princeton University undergraduates

Consumer’s desire for social interaction, desire for economic incentives, their concern Online sample of some 2000 Propositions 3, for other consumers, and the potential to consumers 5 and 6 enhance their own self-worth are the primary factors leading to WOM behaviour.


Table 1

Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004)

Citation



A theoretical model of conformity is Review including 68 papers advanced, and applications of conformity Proposition 1 theory to marketing practice are suggested.

x

x

x

Jalilvand and Samiei (2012)

Johnson and Eagly (1989)

Kaplan and Haenlein (2011)

Keller and Berry (2003)

Kiss and Bichler (2008)

Langner (2009)

Lascu and Zinkhan (1999)

Latané (1981)

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

x

x

Not applicable

x

x

Hung and Li (2007)

x


Attitude towards the viral video advertisement Proposition 5 is the major factor affecting video sharing.

Major findings

The effects of involvement on attitude change depend on the aspect of message recipients’ Propositions 1 self-concept that was activated to create and 6 involvement.

Information through WOM communications has a significant impact on attitudes towards Proposition 7 subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and intention to travel.

There’s a group of people, who are responsible for driving trends, influencing Proposition 4 mass opinion and, most importantly, selling a great many products.


to distribute the a matter of an Proposition 2

When other people are the source of impact and the individual is the target, impact should Proposition 1 be a multiplicative function of the strength, immediacy, and number of other people.

Viral marketing tries marketing content in exponential diffusion.

Computational experiments Authors found a significant lift when using Proposition 4 based on data up to 6000 central customers in message diffusion. customers

Not applicable

Illustrates the six steps executives should take Four groups of social media Propositions 4 in order to dance the social media/viral viral marketing campaigns and 7 marketing waltz.

Meta-analysis over 38 studies

The research model was tested empirically using a sample of 296 inbound tourists

Table 1

To understand electronic WOM four Authors analysed categories of responses are relevant: (1) Propositions 3, computer-mediated data sources of social capital, (2) brand choice 6 and 7 and conducted four face-tofacilitation, (3) persuasion knowledge face interviews development, and (4) consumer reflexivity.

N = 602 participants


67

x

Correlation

Huang et al. (2013)

Experiment

66

Citation

64 J. Wolter et al.


According to field theory, metaphorically speaking, a person pursuing a goal is situated Proposition 6 in one area, while the goal itself is located in another area. The need for a ‘big-seed’ strategy (i.e. using Propositions 1, many seed consumers) depends on message 2 and 4 quality.

Not applicable Tracks the diffusion of 101 new videos published on YouTube

x

x

Lewin (1936)

Liu-Thompkins (2012)

Liu-Thompkins and Rogerson (2012)

Marken (2007)

82

83

84

Not applicable

Sample size of 108 videos was used

Online rating systems and discussion forums Propositions 2 give consumers good opportunity to influence and 6 marketing and customer management.

It is preferable to have many subscribers who Propositions 2 each have a few friends than to have a few and 4 subscribers with many connections.

Present a model that successfully identifies communities, product and pricing categories Propositions 4 for which viral marketing seems to be very and 7 effective.

81

x

Analysis of a person-toperson recommendation network, consisting of 4 million people who made 16 million recommendations on half a million products

Leskovec et al. (2007)

Although extremely positive reviews increased attitude towards the brand, even a Propositions 4 moderate amount of negativity negated this and 7 effect.


80

x

Lee et al. (2009b)

(1) The more heterogeneous the tie is, the quicker the response occurs. Propositions 4 (2) Heavy viral generators tend to be and 7 connected to each other.

Viral marketing data of 30,035 sender–receiver ties

79

x

Lee et al. (2009a)

Attitude towards passing along online video ads and subjective norm positively influence Proposition 1 intention.

A total of 452 students

78

x


Authors propose online behaviours within the context of virtual communities (e.g. HowardForums.com) that will be helpful for Proposition 4 identifying and targeting online market mavens.

Major findings

Lee et al. (2013)

Theoretical paper


77

Correlation

76

Experiment

Table 1

Laughlin and MacDonald (2010)

Citation



Okazaki (2008)

Paek et al. (2011)

Palka et al. (2009)

Phelps et al. (2004)

91

92

93

x

x

x

x

Perceived similarity seems to be a more influential attribute than perceived expertise, Proposition 3 at least among young people in the context of prosocial messages.

Messages that spark strong emotion – humour, 66 individuals in eight focus Propositions 5 fear, sadness, or inspiration – are likely to be groups and 6 forwarded.

57 German consumers were Identifies the determinants of reception, Propositions 3 interviewed usage, and forwarding of mobile viral content. and 6

332 undergraduate students

Commitment to the promoted brand, relationship with the mobile device, and Propositions 1, group–person connectivity act as antecedents 6 and 7 of two primary gratifications of the campaign, entertainment value and purposive value.

1705 responses were retained for the analysis

90

x

(1) A minority of new CPG brands generate the majority of buzz. Propositions 5 (2) Category ubiquity and brand and 7 distinctiveness are predictive of buzz.

Niederhoffer et al. (2007)

89

Different affective experiences emerged from intentional and non-intentional forms of Proposition 5 emotional sharing.

70 products formed the basis of this article.

Four experiments and a total of 206 participants

Neumann and Strack (2000)

88

x

Not applicable

Moser (2002)

People with a low level of involvement are rather willing to try new brands or products or to change their opinion, while people with a Proposition 4 high level of involvement are rather motivated to understand and process given information.

The SPIN framework suggests four key success factors for viral campaigns: Proposition 2 spreadability, propagativity, integration and nexus.

Describes six relevant examples from current public policy events

87

x


Clips that are high in arousal and positive Propositions 3, emotions are more likely to go viral. 5 and 6

Major findings

400 non-commercial and 400 commercial videos

Mills (2012)

x


86

Correlation

McNeal (2012)

Experiment

Table 1

85

Citation

66 J. Wolter et al.


People who are highly involved in viral marketing can’t ignore the norms of the social Proposition 1 system in which they operate. Although both exploratory behaviour and innovativeness affect market mavenship and Propositions 4 opinion leadership, the impact of the former is and 7 stronger.

Not applicable A total of 300 Israeli consumers, of whom 142 provided complete questionnaires

x

x

Riegner (2007)

Rogers (1995)

Ruvio and Shoham (2007)

San José-Cabezudo and CamareroIzquierdo (2012)

99

100

101

x

N = 308 email users

4190 respondents

Individuals’ structural, relational, and cognitive social capital; the message Propositions 1, characteristics; individuals’ motivations; and 3 and 6 the situational context impact the intention to open and forward viral messages.

The most influential consumers on the web today are 24 to 44 year olds who embrace the Proposition 4 internet, not just as a tool, but as a way of life.

Beauty is grounded in the processing experiences of the perceiver, which are in part Proposition 1 a function of stimulus properties.


98

x

Reber et al. (2004)

97

Market mavens have a high reference potential which confirmed their function in Proposition 4 WOM information.

134 respondents

x

Puspa and Rahardja (2009)

96


x

Although computer-mediated communication gives us the opportunity to traverse social boundaries, paradoxically, it can also afford Proposition 1 these boundaries greater power, especially when they define self- and group identity.

501 advertisements


Postmes et al. (1998)

x

Major findings Viral advertising relies on provocative content to motivate unpaid peer-to-peer communication of persuasive messages from Proposition 5 identified sponsors. Viral advertising relies on increasingly raw content for actual distribution.


95

Correlation

Porter and Golan (2006)

Experiment

Table 1

94

Citation



x x

Southgate et al. (2010)

Stokburger-Sauer and Hoyer (2009)

Subramani and Rajagopalan (2003)

Taylor (1989)

Thomas (2004)

Thorelli and Thorelli (1977)

Thorelli et al. (1975)

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

x

x

x

Smith and Mackie (2007)

x

Slama and Williams (1990)


Not applicable

Not applicable

Conceptual framework

The interplay of consumer information and Proposition 7 advertising is important.

Viral communication can help gathering purchase-relevant information which is Propositions 3, especially true for people who are more 6 and 7 careful and concerned in making purchase decisions.

It is the delivery of exceptional value that Propositions 5 creates the essential difference between flatand 6 lining sales and domino-effect driven sales.

Individuals have the need to control their own Proposition 6 environment.

User influence and recipient behaviour are Propositions 4 important factors in viral marketing. and 6

Authors proposing a descriptive framework Not applicable

Opinion leaders have higher levels of product category involvement than individuals with a Proposition 4 tendency towards mavenism.

The analysis is based on 102 video ads from the UK and USA Using data from 1145 German consumers

Established advertising pretest measures such as enjoyment, involvement and branding, Propositions which predict ability to generate offline TV 5,6 and 7 advertising awareness, can also predict ability to generate viral viewings.

Not applicable

Market mavens provide information on a broad variety of goods, services and Proposition 4 marketplace characteristics.

General learning principles predict that people Propositions 1, are motivated to exhibit behaviours that are 5 and 6 rewarded (‘liked’) by others.

Major findings

People are motivated to participate in viral communication by seeing themselves and Propositions 3 anyone connected to them (e.g. the own and 4 culture) in a positive light.

A sample of 306 couples

Not applicable


103

x

Correlation

Skinner (1938)

Experiment

Table 1

102

Citation

68 J. Wolter et al.


x

x

x

x

x

x

Walsh et al. (2004)

Walsh and Mitchell (2010)

Walther (2002)

Wasko and Faraj (2005)

Watts and Dodds (2007)

Weimann (1994)

Wiedmann et al. (2001)

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

x

x

Van der Lans et al. (2010)

113

The book offers a multidisciplinary presentation of the definitions, typologies, Proposition 4 methods, and findings of opinion leadership. Male mavens differ in many respects from Proposition 4 female maven.

Not applicable 60 male and 78 female market mavens were identified from a survey of 455 German consumers

Large cascades of influence are driven not by Propositions 4 influentials but by a critical mass of easily and 7 influenced individuals.

People contribute their knowledge when they perceive that it enhances their professional Proposition 3 reputations.

2555 messages by 597 individuals (a paper-based survey was sent to 593 individuals; received 173 responses) A series of computer simulations

Attitude formation is not confined to the cooccurrence of an attitudinal object with an Proposition 3 evaluated experience but spreads to other preassociated information.

Five experiments with a total of 191 participants

Proposition 4

Characteristics of e-Mavens.

Online sample of some 2500 consumers

Survey of 326 consumers

Market mavens, compared with moderate and non-mavens, are motivated to a greater extent by a sense of obligation to share information, Propositions 3 a desire to help others, and feelings of and 4 pleasure associated with informing others about products.

Develops a model using the theory of Propositions 2, branching processes to predict the actual reach 4 and 6 of a viral marketing campaign

228,351 participants on a real-life viral campaign


The approach identifies the specific users who most influence others’ activity. Proposition 4 Approximately one-fifth of a user’s friends actually influence his or her activity level.

Major findings

In a 12-week data set, authors track daily log-in activities for a random sample of 330 users, their 29,478 friends, and their 2,298,779 friends’ friends


x

Correlation

Trusov et al. (2009)

Experiment

Table 1

112

Citation



Yang et al. (2012)

Yee et al. (2007)

Zajonc (1968)

124

125

126

x

x

Yang and Zhou (2011)

123

x

x

x

Yang et al. (2010)

122

x

Major findings


Four experiments with a total of 131 participants

Mere repeated exposure of the individual to a stimulus object enhances his attitude towards Proposition 2 it.

(1) Male-male dyads have larger interpersonal distance (IPD), than female-female dyads, (2) 835 unique dyads of avatars male-male dyads maintain less eye contact in the virtual environment Proposition 6 than female-female dyads, and (3) decreases ‘Second Life’ in IPD are compensated with gaze avoidance as predicted by the equilibrium theory.

N = 835 college students

Subjective norm, behavioural control and perceived cost are significant predictors of Proposition 1 young American consumer’s attitude towards viral marketing.

A web survey of 440 American college students was conducted

Subjective norm, behavioural control, perceived pleasure, and cost predicted young Propositions 1 American consumers’ viral attitudes, while and 5 subjective norm and perceived pleasure predicted Chinese viral attitudes.

Perceived ease of use is an important Propositions 3 determinant of the intention to use YouTube and 6 to share video.

Survey of 206 male and 135 female video sharers of YouTube

This study content analysed the universe of campaign Email messages are potent instruments email messages (N = 78) Propositions 2 because they can be forwarded to myriad from the Bush and Kerry and 7 nonsubscribers. campaigns during the general cycle of the 2004 presidential election


Williams and Trammell (2005)

Correlation

121

Experiment

Table 1

Citation

70 J. Wolter et al.



71

3.1 Case studies Most case studies report special features of a viral campaign conducted by a certain company. Therefore, case studies are authentic and yield detailed information. Naturally, case studies focus on a single concept of a successful viral marketing campaign but the endorsed key factors are not tested in other marketing contexts. Nevertheless, case studies are very useful considering the fact that the recurrence of some factors could imply their importance in order to increase the success of the viral marketing campaign.

3.2 Interviews Another frequently endorsed method is the use of interviews with viral marketing experts. The advantage of this technique is that experts provide plenty of marketing experience. In most of the cases, the interviewed person managed successful viral marketing campaigns. Because failures, that is, non-successful campaigns, are rarely reported, interviews may nevertheless result in a biased perspective.

3.3 Reviews The advantage of reviews is that they provide a broader picture of factors that may help to make a viral marketing campaign a success. Still, because a review is only as good as the articles it reviews, of course the source of articles matters.

3.4 Focus of the present article and inclusion criteria In order to capture the current state of research of viral marketing an extensive literature search was conducted, using the databases such as PSYNDEX, Web of Science, Business Source Premier and Sociological Abstracts and others (see Table 1). We searched for articles of relevance in those databases by using the term ‘viral marketing’. Despite eWOM articles were included if they were relevant for viral marketing, some works were excluded later on because they did not address either viral marketing or ‘eWOM’ in particular but more general marketing concepts. Moreover, we focused on psychological articles rather than on economic, sociological or other articles. We analysed the studies according to three categories referring to methodological scrutiny. First, all experiments were included because they represent the highest methodological level (i.e. they allow to draw causal inferences). Correlational studies formed the second category, describing relations between variables. However, it is not possible to determine the direction or the causality of this relation. The third category includes case studies, examples and illustrations and other methods. According to our methodological restrictions, 25 studies were assigned to the first, four to the second and 88 to the third category. In a second step we examined the content of every paper and categorised them into four topics referring to the process of a viral marketing campaign: first – personal characteristics, second – seeding strategies, design and content, third – product and involvement, and fourth – technical factors. The factor ‘personal characteristics’ refers to the question which motivations underlie viral communications and to whom a viral campaign should be sent in order to guarantee a certain amount of attention. The second factor, ‘seeding strategies’, is associated with

72

J. Wolter et al.

the question of how people of relevance can be reached best and which networks should be optimally used in order to maximise spread. The third factor deals with the ‘design and innovativeness of the product and the involvement’ with it. The fourth factor is concerned with the ‘content- and technique-related design’ of viral marketing campaigns. In order to enhance target-oriented viral marketing, psychological principles are highlighted that may increase viral marketing success (see Table 1).

4

Personal characteristics and viral marketing

Consistent with previous research, we postulate that motivational and behavioural characteristics of consumers involved in social networks determine the transmission of marketplace information (e.g. Camarero and San José, 2011; Feick and Price, 1987; Harvey et al., 2011; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Ho and Dempsey, 2010; Huang et al., 2013; Palka et al., 2009; Trusov et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2004). Based on the theory of reasoned action, it can be assumed that attitude and intention play an important role in passing along information (Lee et al., 2013). Considering the fact that ‘all consumers are targets of marketing communications’ (Brancaleone and Gountas, 2007, p.522), we distinguish inter- and intrapersonal factors underlying general participation in social networks and more specifically engagement in viral actions. Moreover, we discuss the concept of ‘market mavens’ which is of particular interest for viral marketing (e.g. Abratt et al., 1995; Feick and Price, 1987; Slama and Williams, 1990; Walsh and Mitchell, 2010). Finally, we try to clarify some main characteristics that might have a significant influence on the ‘viral dynamic’.

4.1 Interpersonal factors Given that viral marketing is the transmission of meaningful information from one person to another, it by definition implies a communicational momentum. In general, communication can be considered as a process of both receiving information about the world (in this context especially information about products, brands and/or services) and expressing perceptions, thoughts, emotions and identities (Smith and Mackie, 2007). Communication sustains or increases interpersonal relationships and ‘it is the means by which people influence others and are in turn influenced by them’ (Hogg and Vaughan, 2008, p.564). Accordingly, social influence depends on both, individuals who influence their peers and a critical amount of others who are susceptible to the social influence (Watts and Dodds, 2007). These general aspects of interactions also apply to characteristics of technology-mediated communication, that is, information shared via video, email, or instant messaging (Yee et al., 2007). Considering that viral communication can be seen as an expression of social interaction, we examined the characteristics of viral dynamics from a psychological perspective.

4.2 General motivations in viral dynamics Viral communication can help gathering purchase-relevant information (Berger and Milkman, 2012) which is especially true for people who are more careful and concerned in making purchase decisions (Thorelli et al., 1975; Thorelli and Thorelli, 1977). Because viral marketing ‘turns your customer base into a marketing department’ (http://www.


73

entrepreneur.com/article/233207), the transmitters implicitly or explicitly expect rewards for their effort. That is, transmitters may explicitly or implicitly calculate cost and benefits when spreading an ad. Owing to this fact, we assume that a motivational factor of participating in viral communications is the need to be well-informed (Festinger, 1954), because viral information can help evaluating a certain product, brand or service accurately. The accurate evaluation of consumer goods attaches considerable importance inasmuch as inaccurate appraisals of services or incorrect purchase decisions may be of disadvantage in many situations or costly and time-consuming at least. Moreover, power motives, that is, the need to influence others by seeding persuasive information, could be a motivational factor that goes along with viral communication. Both aspects refer to the human need to master the world by predicting, holding correct opinions of and influencing reality (Huang et al., 2009; Smith and Mackie, 2007). Besides, empirical evidence suggests that viral communication might be stimulated by the need for connectedness which refers to people’s need to ‘create and maintain feelings of mutual support, liking, and acceptance from those [we] care about and value’ (Huang et al., 2009; Smith and Mackie, 2007, p.17; for similar findings, see also Chiu et al., 2007; Okazaki, 2008). Accordingly, the similarity between the members of a virtual community and the norm of reciprocity influences sharing behaviour (Chiu et al., 2006). Feick and Price (1987) found that people send viral messages they consider as useful in social exchange processes in order to benefit family, friends, and acquaintances. Likewise, Walsh et al. (2004) concluded that people who are actively taking part in viral processes are ‘motivated [by] a desire to help others and feelings of pleasure associated with informing others’ (p.109). However, as shown by Wasko and Faraj (2005), reciprocity plays a minor role when people expect a boost in their own reputation from the sharing process. Moreover, general learning principles predict that people are motivated to exhibit behaviours that are rewarded (‘liked’) by others (Skinner, 1938). That is, being liked (e.g. getting a lot of likes) for spreading a piece of information increases the probability that people would spread information in the future (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). From a different point of view, people might also be altruistically motivated to benefit others for their own sake, rather than for the anticipation of rewards (Batson, 1991). Phelps et al.’s (2004) findings support this idea that consumers are often driven by altruistic motives also in online contexts (see Ho and Dempsey, 2010). However, there has been a long debate in psychological research concerning egoistical factors underlying seemingly altruistic behaviour, such as relieving own negative feelings (Cialdini et al., 1987) or the aspiration of reciprocity. Research indicates that indirect reciprocity (Gu et al., 2009) or the need for personal growth (Ho and Dempsey, 2010) might be important factors that motivate individual contributions in social networks. In the case of social media, people can choose between ‘liking’ and/or ‘commenting’ or ‘ignoring’ a seeded ad. Given that there is no ‘dislike’ button, people might be motivated to share viral information, because the risk to be negatively valued does not exist. According to several ‘expectancy value’ – models of motivation (e.g. Atkinson, 1957; Atkinson, 1964), people instead might expect a high likelihood of being supported, which again satisfies the need for connectedness. Connectedness doesn’t only arise by direct communication, such as personal messages, but also indirectly by ‘passing on ads to friends, connecting them to the advertisers explicitly, or commenting on the ad and having those comments passed along in viral channels’ (Chu, 2011, p.32). Persons who ‘like’ the ads which the sender passed along link their profile to the ads and the person

74

J. Wolter et al.

who sent it and demonstrate that they share same interests in products, brands and services. The psychological concept of social norms is important to explain viral dynamics by the means of group-held beliefs about how members should think, feel or behave in a certain (e.g. viral) context. Owing to this, findings indicate that people share viral information ‘in a sense of obligation’ (Walsh et al., 2004, p.109) and Chu (2011) postulates that members of social media, such as Facebook, participating in groups are more likely to disclose their personal data on Facebook than are non-members. Clark and Goldsmith (2005) assume that people who are highly involved in the marketplace and interactive with other consumers are more sensitive to normative influences and therefore more likely to conform to the expectations of others. Referring to Rogers (1995), the authors argue that people who are highly involved in viral marketing can’t ignore the norms of the social system in which they operate, if they want to perform their role as a social communicator effectively. As a consequence, the salience of information-sharing as a social norm (e.g. by showing internet users that many people have shared the information before) might positively influence viral dynamics (Lee et al., 2013). Furthermore, the tendency of publicly announcing one’s association with successful others (a certain brand, product or an attractive seeder), which is known as ‘basking in the reflecting glory of others (BIRG)’ (Cialdini et al., 1976), might influence viral communication as well. As an adaptive strategy for boosting self-evaluation, BIRG could also explain why people tend to share or ‘like’ product relevant information if this increases their self-image. A highly evaluated viral message can be associated with the messenger as a form of evaluative conditioning in which the content of the message (e.g. being funny or otherwise positively evaluated) serves as an unconditioned stimulus (US) and the messenger as conditioned stimulus (CS) (Walther, 2002). Support for the idea that people spread information systematically in order to improve their self-esteem is provided by Chung and Darke (2006). The authors found that consumers are more likely to engage in WOM communication if the given product is closely related to one’s (possibly positive) self-concept. Moreover, Dichter (1966) postulated that personal recommendations can help to gain attention and status. In sum, people might be motivated to participate in viral communication by seeing themselves and anyone connected to them (e.g. the own culture) in a positive light, referring to the general psychological principle of valuing me and mine (Smith and Mackie, 2007). Moreover, Camarero and San José (2011) postulate that ‘new media technology has changed conventional interpersonal communication (sender-message-receiver) by introducing a new form of communicator: a forwarder or transmitter’ (p.2297). Owing to this, it is essential to specify the role of general inter- and intrapersonal factors by discussing some characteristics of those stakeholders who might influence the viral dynamic (Hung and Li, 2007). For example, the theory of planned behaviour has turned out to be very useful in this respect (Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012; Yang and Zhou, 2011; Yang et al., 2012).

4.3 Market mavens According to Dobele et al. (2007), it is ‘vital that companies choose carefully which consumers should first pass on the viral marketing message, as the creation of viral networks depends upon these people’ (p.292). Thus, current research focuses on gathering information about people who significantly influence others (Keller and Berry, 2003; Laughlin and MacDonald, 2010; Weimann, 1994). Especially, literature discusses


75

the concept of ‘market mavens’ (e.g. Abratt et al., 1995; Feick and Price,1987; Slama and Williams, 1990; Walsh and Mitchell, 2010), describing people with a high need for variety (Stokburger-Sauer and Hoyer, 2009), possessing particular knowledge about products, stores and other marketplace information (Feick and Price, 1987), can be distinguished from others by their exploratory behaviour and innovativeness (Ruvio and Shoham, 2007), initiate discussions about marketplace information and respond to the request of others for such information (Walsh et al., 2004). Notwithstanding market mavens’ high need for uniqueness, they appear to be highly susceptible to social influence (Clark and Goldsmith, 2005). Thus, Feick and Price (1987) postulate that market mavens differ from other internet users by being more aware of new products, because they enjoy shopping, pay attention to advertising and they use coupons to a greater extent. They suggest that one reason for market mavens’ acquisition and transmission of information may be their involvement with the marketplace, which refers to the amount of time and effort a buyer invests as a function of interest, previous experiences, perceived risk of negative consequences and situational factors. This seems to be consistent with Coyle et al. (2011) arguing that participants who were willing to share advertising information tend to be more mindful when processing the advertisement, to have a greater general tendency to share internet information, to be more highly involved in the product category and are less concerned about source trustworthiness when passing along information found online. The latter is also consistent with Puspa and Rahardja (2009) who found that in mavens the correlation between subjective knowledge and trust attains a medium level, while objective knowledge is related to trust at a very low level. Moreover, mavens seem to be more interested in smart buying (Slama and Williams, 1990). Geissler and Edison (2005) examined psychological differential variables and found that mavens ‘enjoy being involved with, and learning about new technology’, suggesting openness to new ideas. The correlation between affinity for technology and mavenism was fairly high (r = 0.38). They also found that mavenism correlated moderately with self-efficacy (r = 0.24) and optimism (r = 0.21). In addition, a small correlation was found between need for cognition and mavenism (r = 0.17). In consideration of the Big-Five Personality Model, Goodey and East (2008) examined some differential characteristics of market mavens. They found that ‘male mavens tend to be less agreeable, more emotionally stable, more open to new experiences, have a higher self-esteem and are more materialistic than nonmavens. Female mavens tend to be agreeable, less emotionally stable, more quality conscious and to be younger and less well educated’ (Goodey and East, 2008, p.274; for other gender difference between mavens, see Wiedmann et al., 2001). These findings indicate that mavenism is a complex socially constructed phenomenon rather than a phenomenon that can be predicted by mere demographic factors (Goldsmith et al., 2006). In sum, we assume that viral marketing is influenced by several personal factors. Specifically, viral marketing might be motivated by the need for mastery, connectedness and valuing me and mine. Moreover, the important role of market mavens is stressed.

5

Seeding strategies

Whereas personal factors can hardly be influenced by marketers, the choice of seeding strategy is under their control. As Liu-Thompkins (2012) states, the seeding strategy can be defined as the answer to the question ‘how to start the viral diffusion process’.

76

J. Wolter et al.

According to current literature, the best seeding strategy consists of three components: (1) activating a critical mass (Barash et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2009; Van der Lans et al., 2010; Liu-Thompkins, 2012; Liu-Thompkins and Rogerson, 2012), (2) seeding to certain types of messengers (Hinz et al., 2011; Hong, 2009; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011; Phelps et al., 2004; Trusov et al., 2009), and (3) using suitable networks (Bughin et al., 2010; Camarero and San José, 2011; Lee et al., 2009a; Liu-Thompkins, 2012; Mills, 2012). There are several psychological principles underlying these suggestions, of which most can be subsumed as rules of social influence. The need for a critical mass is often described in terms of mere mathematical diffusion processes: more seeds spreading through the network lead to more individual contacts with the marketing material and therefore make it statistically more likely that the individual will acknowledge and forward this material (Barash et al., 2012; Kiss and Bichler, 2008; Liu-Thompkins, 2012). But the effect of a critical seeding mass can also be influenced by psychological factors (e.g. culture; see Fong and Burton, 2008). This is the case as the critical mass ensures a certain degree of exposure of networkers to the viral marketing campaign and thus triggers mere exposure effects (Zajonc, 1968). The mere exposure effect refers to the fact that exposure to a certain message also enhances the liking of this message. The mere exposure effect is based on the increased ease of cognitive processing for that particular information due to its repetition (Fang et al., 2007; Reber et al., 2004; Zajonc, 1968). Thus, as the viral marketing information (e.g. the video spot or the brand logo) becomes more familiar to the consumer, it also becomes more appealing to him or her. Marketers can benefit from the mere exposure effect by sending out their message to as many people as possible and by distributing them via different channels. Accordingly, marketers are well advised to seed to the largest possible number of people within one virtual social network. However, mere quantity does not guarantee success. As Broxton et al. (2013) concluded from their extensive research of YouTube clips, social videos (defined as those videos that were distributed by other people and not only linked with other videos) ‘rise to, and fall from, their peak popularity more quickly than less social videos’ (p.241). Other research indicates that the most efficient way to exploit the mere exposure effect in viral marketing is the integration of traditional and viral (online) advertising (Marken, 2007; Mills, 2012). By doing so, marketers can ensure several contacts per person with their marketing material without annoying the consumer by exposing him to the very same advertisement over and over again. The brand name and design thus become very familiar and so does the marketing message. Initially reaching a large number of people also realises a second psychological principle, normative social influence (Deutsch and Gerard, 1954). This term refers to the fact that people tend to rely on other people’s judgements and behaviours for information on how to behave in a way that leads to acceptance by the community (Deutsch and Gerard, 1954). Normative influence is particularly relevant if other people are similar to the self (Paek et al., 2011) and increases with the importance of the group. If an individual perceives many others acting in the same manner (e.g. posting a certain video on their social network account or talking about a funny advertisement), he or she might perceive this behaviour as a norm and tend to act accordingly (Smith and Mackie, 2007), especially if these others are considered as trustworthy (Chu and Kim, 2011). As the person does so, they exhibit public conformity (Lascu and Zinkhan, 1999). That means adjusting to other people’s behaviour publicly, no matter what her personal opinion about the behaviour might be (Deutsch and Gerard, 1954). This is important to notice, implying that other peoples’ (perceived) opinion about a viral campaign might be more important


77

than one’s own opinion concerning the decision to pass it on. It also means that a wellspread campaign must not be a successful campaign in terms of positive image effects or purchase decisions. Nevertheless, it can influence potential customers by making them aware of the brand and its apparent popularity. Interestingly, Cho et al. (2014) found that the weak trust attributed to an advertiser can be overridden by the trust attributed to the distributor. In other words, it is more important from whom people received the ad than who initially created it. The reason for acting conformingly to a social norm without really internalising the content reflects people’s need for connectedness (Smith and Mackie, 2007). The chance of an individual publicly adopting a group norm depends on three factors. First, it increases with the number of social sources representing the norm. Second, it is enhanced by the temporal and spatial proximity of those sources and, third, it increases with the importance of group membership to the individual (Latané, 1981). We argue that especially the number of social sources can be altered by marketers by seeding their message to a preferably large number of people within a social network. Mere probability then leads to more people paying attention to, talking about and forwarding the message in the first place (Kiss and Bichler, 2008; Van der Lans et al., 2010). In a subsequent second step, individuals perceive that many network members engage in the marketing campaign, which may influence their decision to forward the information themselves (see Latané, 1981). Temporal proximity cannot be influenced by the marketer but can be seen as mostly given in an online setting where people communicate in real time. Social media platforms might be even better seeding contexts than emails because they allow for direct interaction (Eccleston and Griseri, 2008). Although spatial proximity is not given in online context, at least some virtual social connections stem from real-life relationships between people (Bargh and McKenna, 2004). Such real-life relationships can be hypothesised to be locally available and hence to influence people even more – although it is not easy to target them in particular. One possibility might be to focus on social platforms specialised on certain regions which make it more likely to tap connections between people who meet each other offline. Thus, local communities can increase public conformity by providing spatial proximity (Latané, 1981). In contrast to mere public conformity, private conformity includes not only a (public) adaption of behaviour but also the (private) belief that the public norm contains useful information about reality (Deutsch and Gerard, 1954). That means people do not only conform to normative behaviour because they fear being excluded from the community. Instead, they may be convinced that others’ knowledge exceeds their own understanding and ‘adopt group consensus because it seems correct’ (Smith and Mackie, 2007). Thus, private conformity also fulfils a person’s need for mastery as the norm may help the individual to find the right way of coping with the environment (Cialdini, 2007). As people are more likely to rely on similar individuals (e.g. because they form the individual’s in-group) or on individuals who seem to have expertise in a certain field, such persons will trigger private conformity even more than others (Clark and Goldsmith, 2006; Goethals and Nelson, 1973). This might explain the finding that certain people are better seeders than others (e.g. Hinz et al., 2001; Hong, 2009). Besides having access to more contacts within the network, well-connected people are likely to be seen as reliable sources of information (Glaeser et al., 1999). Accordingly, bloggers are valuable seeders because of their special status as trend setters (Agarwal et al., 2008) and celebrity-like role models (Hong, 2009). This is why people internalise those persons’ perceived attitudes and behaviours more willingly than others. If they see that a beauty blogger

78

J. Wolter et al.

posts a viral marketing spot of a certain cosmetics brand, this will arguably make the blogger’s followers believe in the quality of the brands’ spot as well as its products. Marketers may thus be advised to take special care of convincing well-connected people, bloggers, celebrities or experts to forward or promote their viral marketing campaign. Even more important for informal influence than (perceived) expertise is the strength of the tie between two people within a network. The stronger the relationship tie between two people and the stronger their similarity, the more likely they will be susceptible to group influence and forward information from each other (Camarero and San José, 2011; Postmes et al., 1998). This explains why smaller networks with stronger connected people sharing the same interests have been found to work better for viral diffusion processes (Liu-Thompkins, 2012; Mills, 2012) than others. Such networks (i.e. local networks or networks for people with special interests that match the brands message or products) should be consciously targeted to benefit from the stronger influence between their members. In sum, the chance of viral marketing campaigns to become successful can be increased by using the optimal seeding strategy. It is important to place sufficient seeds in order to reach the largest possible number of people. The viral marketing campaign should be supported by traditional advertising to make the information familiar to the consumer and thus evoke positive emotions. It is also advised to carefully select the right networks for the seeds, as especially local or special interest networks promise the biggest success for a viral campaign. At last, targeting well-connected individuals like bloggers ensures that others will more likely identify with the marketing information.

6

Content and design

One essential step in creating a successful viral marketing campaign is the design of the content. Several studies point out that valence (e.g. emotional tone) of the message is one key factor in getting viral (Lee et al., 2009b). Berger and Milkman (2012) demonstrate that more positive content is more viral. Likewise perceived humour is a key factor in influencing forwarding (Hsieh et al., 2012). However, also strong negative emotions such as anxiety or anger are also linked to virality in contrast to deactivating emotions (i.e. sadness) and suggest that arousal might be one core factor in improving virality. Accordingly, Brown et al. (2010) showed that humorous ads and a combination of highintensity violence cause the highest unaided recall and recognition of the brands and a greater pass along probability compared to ad stimulus types without combining these two factors. Beyond the content the source credibility plays also a role, as Cheung et al. (2009) indicated (see also English et al., 2011). A plausible explanation for these results is that people use viral communication as an emotion regulation strategy. Gross (2002) defines emotion regulation as a process in which the individual influences the kind of their own emotion, the point of time and how they feel and express it. These processes can run automatically or can be controlled. Thus, internet users may watch videos with a positive emotional tone to improve their feelings. Specifically, they may selectively process and spread information eliciting joy and pleasure. Beside this mood improving or enhancing function of viral information, users may approach high arousing clips to avoid or to get rid of boredom and to increase self-activation. A further explanation for the preference for emotional videos can be mood contagion as a mechanism by which affective feelings are transferred between persons (Neumann


79

and Strack, 2000). Accordingly, emotional expression made by a person automatically evokes a congruent mood state in the receiver. Furthermore, mood contagion is instigated by expressive cues without usurping cognitive resources (Neumann and Strack, 2000). Hence, consumers of viral marketing videos may search purposefully for videos eliciting joy and pleasure to bring themselves into the same mood as transported through the video and to regulate own emotional feeling. This quick and simple possibility of getting oneself into a positive mood may be one benefit for the consumer in watching the viral ad. One reason for the consumption of negative emotional content could be the controllability of the event. According to Taylor (1989), individuals have the need to control their own environment to a certain point. The knowledge about the power to pause or stop the video at any time could make it more comfortable to be confronted with negative emotions without the fear of losing control of the whole situation. In summary, it can be stated that positive and some high arousing negative emotions are helpful in making the viral marketing campaign more attractive towards the consumer. To create such an emotional content is clearly one way to spice a viral marketing campaign. However, as Dobele et al. (2007) and Phelps et al. (2004) pointed out, the involvement and the targeting of the consumer are the basis for successfully transporting an emotional message, as discussed in the next chapter.

7

Innovativeness of products and involvement

It is self-evident that the content of a viral marketing campaign is important for the success of the campaign. Moreover, comprehensiveness and relevance are of high importance for information seeking people (Cheung et al., 2008). Some articles point out that there is a special group of products for which viral marketing works better than for others. As Niederhoffer et al. (2007) illustrate, products representing unique solutions are more likely to create buzz. One example is the viral ad ‘Our Blades Are F***ing Great’ launched by DollShaveClub.com, which has been watched by nearly 11 million people. The concept of the company is sending razors to their customer’s home for a relatively small amount of money. In 2005, an article concerning the viral ad ‘I can’t believe it’s not butter’ (launched by Unilever) in the magazine ‘MarketWatch: Food’ depicted that ‘exciting, innovative or premium products’ are more appropriate to go viral than other, more traditional products. There are even some examples for traditional brands which experienced big failures conducting viral campaigns. For instance, a viral marketing designed for Ford’s SportKa in 2004 backfired to the company: the video features a cat, walking on top of a car – and getting decapitated by the car’s sunroof. Although Ford did not actually plan to release the campaign (based on taste-related doubts), the viral ad ended up in the internet and provoked intense discussion about animal rights and ethical boundaries of advertising. Another aspect concerning the match of content and product presented in a viral marketing campaign is the amount of involvement of a consumer (e.g. Eckler and Bolls, 2011; Henke, 2011; San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo, 2012). Within the field of advertising psychology the term depicts how intensive information about a product is processed by a consumer (Johnson and Eagly, 1989). How involved a person is with a product depends on the meaning a product has for a person and whether the product addresses the personal goals of the consumer. It further depends on the consequences a decision in favour of the product has for a person (Moser, 2002). People with a low level

80

J. Wolter et al.

of involvement are rather willing to try new brands or products or to change their opinion, while people with a high level of involvement are rather motivated to understand and process given information (Moser, 2002). At the same time, highinvolved people act as opinion leaders more frequently. Based on this observation, it can be concluded that both types of involvement are important for a successful viral marketing campaign. The high-involved opinion leader is more important at the beginning of the spreading process than the lower involved user, who is willing to watch or try new things and share his or her experiences with other users at a later stage. In sum, viral marketing should rather be applied to exciting new products. Moreover, diverse levels of involvement are important for different stages of the distribution.

8

Technical design

The technical design of a viral marketing campaign can be very challenging. The first challenge is to make it very easy for a user to spread the viral campaign (Yang et al., 2010). As Gilfoil and Jobs (2011) suggested, the distribution process should be – ideally – no hassle at all. One approach to realise this is the use of the so-called ‘tell-a-friendbutton’ in emails (Williams and Trammell, 2005) or the use of share-buttons on social networks like Facebook (Aral and Walker, 2011). As Mills (2012) pointed out, the use of social networks to distribute a viral campaign is not only easier, but also faster than the use of emails. There are two possible – psychological – explanations why an effortless spreading of viral campaigns is working more effectively. The first concept is accessibility, which means that information which is easily accessible in a situation has a strong impact on the processing of a stimulus (Bargh et al., 1996; Higgins et al., 1977). The existence of a share- or a tell-a-friend-button equates to easily available information and makes it therefore easier to distribute the viral campaign. The second explanation can be derived from Lewin’s (1936) field theory. According to field theory, metaphorically speaking, a person pursuing a goal is situated in one area, while the goal itself is located in another area. To achieve the goal, the person has to pass a certain way. Those paths again consist of a number of other areas. It is possible that there are several ways to attain a single goal. When this is the case, Lewin’s theory assumes that people would choose the psychological shortest way. A path’s brevity depends thereby not only on the number of areas a person has to pass through. The experienced psychological distance is also influenced by the amount of difficulties, risk and effort related to a particular way. A second and a third technical aspect is the observability and the trialability (Thomas, 2004). Observability describes to what extent the consumption of a viral campaign through one user is visible to other users. One example for given observability is the sharing of information via Facebook, because users cannot only see how many times an information has been shared, but also who shared it with them. Trialability describes the possibility of sharing and testing of viral campaigns without any risks or high personal costs. Also, by letting customers try out products before actually buying them, organisations show that they have confidence in their product. For instance, the so-called ‘advergames’ – advertising in form of a (temporary) free game – need to have a high trialability. In sum, the distribution of a viral campaign should be easy for the consumers and visible to other users. The spreading of a viral content shouldn’t entail any risks and preferably only few personal costs.


9

81

Psychological propositions of how to go viral successfully

The psychological principles mentioned above might be helpful to create a successful viral marketing campaign. Viral marketing is influenced by personal factors like motivational and behavioural characteristics, an optimal seeding strategy and selection of the right network. To enhance the attraction of a viral marketing campaign it is clearly helpful to attain the emotions of the consumer, to manage diverse levels of involvement and create a technical design to spread the marketing campaign. The essence of the review of viral marketing literature is summarised in seven propositions of how to use viral marketing properly and an example of how to apply the proposition. Proposition 1: Make salient that sharing information is a social norm (Cialdini, 2007; Walsh et al., 2004; Yee et al., 2007). People who are highly involved in viral dynamics can’t ignore norms of the social networks in which they operate. Normative social influence is a powerful tool to influence people especially when the group is important to them. Practical application: Enhance observability. Make the number of clicks as accessible as possible to the public (for instance, launch press articles referring to the number of clicks or generally to the clicking culture). Magnify the display with the number of clicks proportional to the number. Proposition 2: Place as many seeds as possible. Familiarity due to repetition leads to positive emotions caused by mere exposure effects and normative social influence, thus making individuals more likely to notice, forward and like the campaign material (Fang et al., 2007; Reber et al., 2004; Zajonc, 1968). Practical application: Combining viral marketing with traditional advertising by using different advertising channels makes many consumers familiar with the marketing message without annoying them. Proposition 3: Give the user the chance to boost their self-esteem in sharing your spot (Cialdini et al., 1976; Walther, 2002). People associate themselves with positively evaluated information in order to maintain and enhance high self-esteem. Practical application: Make processing the ad an outstanding (positive) experience and allow a personal association with the ad, for instance, by providing a field indicating the last (prominent) clickers. Proposition 4: Seed to market mavens and other highly connected people (Abratt et al., 1995). Use the tendency of market mavens to initiate discussions about marketplace information and their need for uniqueness on the one hand and their susceptibility to social influence on the other hand. Viral marketing benefits also from the trust-worthiness of other wellconnected networkers like bloggers who promote the marketing material to others. Practical application: Pander mavens with special and exclusive information and benefits.

82

J. Wolter et al.

Include local and ‘special-interest’ networks because seeding within local and specialised networks leads to more forwarding by triggering public and private conformity. Proposition 5: Evoke strong emotions and arousal. People use viral information as an emotion regulation strategy (Gross, 2002) and also as a tool to overcome boredom. Practical application: Give your message an emotional tone. Evoke strong arousing emotions such as joy or anger in order to allow people to use the activating function of the viral information. Proposition 6: Create involvement and facilitate participation. The higher personal involvement, the higher the probability that people will process and forward viral information. Practical application: Install ‘wanting’-buttons and other possibilities to participate and allow to include personal features (pictures, comments) into the spot. Enhance the game characteristics of the spot and include possibilities for action. Proposition 7: Make your viral spot as informative as possible. People have a strong need to master the world by predicting, holding correct opinions of and influencing reality (Huang et al., 2009; Smith and Mackie, 2007). A message that supplies this want has higher chances to go viral. Practical application: Include arguments explaining the advantages of your product. Illustrate in which respect your product helps to master reality.

10 Conclusion Social media are a great chance to provide consumers with information they would otherwise never process. On the other hand, receiving attention in this area is highly competitive and virtually impossible because information increases tremendously. As indicated by Jason Ankeny in a recent issue of Entrepreneur, ‘users upload 100 hours of video to YouTube every 60 seconds and share more than 4.75 billion pieces of content on Facebook every 24 hours’ (www.entrepreneur.com/article/233207). Facing these facts, how can one manage the minimal chance of breaking through to a critical mass? With the present article we try to contribute to this question from a social psychological perspective. Based on the assumption that virality is, when it comes down to it, a group phenomenon, we believe that theories and models from social psychology can fruitfully be applied to this area. After reviewing the current literature we suggest seven propositions summarising the results of our analysis. And we also propose ideas of how the psychological propositions can be applied in practice. However, it is also evident from our analysis that the review of relevant papers is fragmentary and incomplete. This is partly due to the fact that we focused predominately on social psychological factors influencing viral marketing. A further reason is that viral marketing is an interdisciplinary field in which the specialist disciplines ignore each other in varying degrees. This decreases the chances that papers written from, for example, an economic perspective, are perceived in psychology and vice versa. However, investigating a


83

phenomenon as complex as viral marketing requires urgently the know-how and wisdom of all disciplines. Future research projects should account for this interdisciplinary nature of viral marketing. Interdisciplinary journals by now play an important role in this respect.

References Abratt, R., Nel, D. and Nezer, C. (1995) ‘Role of the market maven in retailing: a general marketplace influencer’, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 10, pp.31–55. doi:10.1007/BF02249268. Agarwal, N., Liu, H., Tang, L. and Yu, P. (2008) ‘Identifying the influential bloggers in a community’, WSDM ’08 Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM, New York, pp.207–218. doi:10.1145/1341531.1341559. Anderson, S. (2008) ‘Using social networks to market’, Rough Notes, Vol. 151, pp.114–115. Aral, S. and Walker, D. (2011) ‘Forget viral marketing – make the product itself viral’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, pp.34–35. Atkinson, J.W. (1957) ‘Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior’, Psychological Review, Vol. 64, pp.359–372. doi:10.1037/h0043445. Atkinson, J.W. (1964) An Introduction to Motivation, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ. Bampo, M., Ewing, M.T., Mather, D.R., Stewart, D. and Wallace, M. (2008) ‘The effects of the social structure of digital networks on viral marketing performance’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 19, pp.273–290. doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0152. Barash, V., Cameron, C. and Macy, M. (2012) ‘Critical phenomena in complex contagions’, Social Networks, Vol. 34, pp.451–461. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.02.003. Bargh, J.A., Chen, M. and Burrows, L. (1996) ‘Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71, pp.230–244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230. Bargh, J. and McKenna, K. (2004) ‘The internet and social life’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55, pp.573–590. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922. Batson, C.D. (1991) The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Berger, J. and Milkman, K.L. (2012) ‘What makes online content viral?’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 49, pp.192–205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.035. Brancaleone, V. and Gountas, J. (2007) ‘Personality characteristics of market mavens’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp.522–527. Brown, M.R., Bhadury, R.K. and Pope, N.K.L.I. (2010) ‘The impact of comedic violence on viral advertising effectiveness’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39, pp.49–65. doi:10.2753/JOA00913367390104. Broxton, T., Interian, Y., Vaver, J. and Wattenhofer, M. (2013) ‘Catching a viral video’, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, Vol. 40, pp.241–259. Bughin, J., Doogan, J. and Vetvik, O. (2010) ‘A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing’, McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp.113–116. Camarero, C. and San José, R. (2011) ‘Social and attitudinal determinants of viral marketing dynamics’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27, pp.2292–2300. doi:10.1016/ j.chb.2011.07.008. Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O. and Rabjohn, N. (2008) ‘The impact of electronic word-of-mouth: the adoption of online opinions in online customer communities’, Internet Research, Vol. 18, pp.229–247.

84

J. Wolter et al.

Cheung, M.Y., Luo, C., Sia, C.L. and Chen, H. (2009) ‘Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations’, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13, pp.9–38. Chiu, H-C., Hsieh, Y-C., Kao, Y-H. and Lee, M. (2007) ‘The determinants of email receivers’ disseminating behaviors on the Internet’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, pp.524–534. Chiu, C., Hsu, M. and Wang, E.G. (2006) ‘Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42, pp.1872–1888. Cho, S., Huh, J. and Faber, R.J. (2014) ‘The influence of sender trust and advertiser trust on multistage effects of viral advertising’, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Academy of Advertising, 15–18 March, Myrtle Beach, SC. Chu, S.C. (2011) ‘Viral advertising in social media: participation in Facebook groups and responses among college-aged users’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 12, pp.30–43. Chu, S-C. and Kim, Y. (2011) ‘Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-ofmouth (eWOM) in social networking sites’, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30, pp.47–75. Chung, C.M. and Darke, P.R. (2006) ‘The consumer as advocate: self-relevance, culture, and wordof-mouth’, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17, pp.269–279. doi:10.1007/s11002-006-8426-7. Cialdini, R.B. (2007) ‘Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control’, Psychometrika, Vol. 72, pp.263–268. doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1560-6. Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.R., Freeman, S. and Sloan, L.R. (1976) ‘Basking in reflected glory: three (football) field studies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 34, pp.364–376. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366. Cialdini, R.B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J. and Beaman, A.L. (1987) ‘Empathybased helping: is it selflessly or selfishly motivated?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp.749–758. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.749. Clark, R.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2005) ‘Market mavens: psychological influences’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22, pp.289–312. doi:10.1002/mar.20060. Clark, R.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2006) ‘Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30, pp.34–43. doi:10.1111/j.14706431.2005.00435.x. Coyle, J.R., Smith, T., Lightfoot, E., Neace, W. and Platt, G. (2011) ‘“Click here to share with a friend”: a uses and gratifications approach to word-of-mouth marketing effectiveness’, International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Vol. 4, pp.225–247. doi:10.1504/IJEMR.2011.045609. Cruz, D. and Fill, C. (2008) ‘Evaluating viral marketing: isolating the key criteria’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 26, pp.743–758. doi:10.1108/0263450081091669. Deutsch, M. and Gerard, B. (1954) ‘A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement’, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp.629–636. doi:10.1037/h0046408. Dichter, E. (1966) ‘How word-of-mouth advertising works’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 44, pp.147–166. Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Manhamme, J. and van Wijk, R. (2007) ‘Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally’, Business Horizons, Vol. 50, pp.291–304. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2007.01.004. Dobele, A., Toleman, D. and Beverland, M. (2005) ‘Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing’, Business Horizons, Vol. 48, pp.143–149. doi:10.1016/ j.bushor.2004.10.011. Eccleston, D. and Griseri, L. (2008) ‘How does Web 2.0 stretch traditional influencing patterns?’, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50, pp.575–590. doi:10.2501/ S1470785308200055.


85

Eckler, P. and Bolls, P. (2011) ‘Spreading the virus: emotional tone of viral advertising and its effect on forwarding intentions and attitudes’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 11, pp.1–11. doi:10.1080/15252019.2011.10722180. English, K., Sweetser, K.D. and Ancu, M. (2011) ‘YouTube-ification of political talk: an examination of persuasion appeals in viral video’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 55, pp.733–748. Fang, X., Singh, S. and Ahluwalia, R. (2007) ‘An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp.97–103. doi:10.1086/ 513050. Feick, L.F. and Price, L.L. (1987) ‘The market maven: a diffuser of marketplace information’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp.83–97. doi:10.2307/1251146. Ferguson, R. (2008) ‘Word of mouth and viral marketing: taking the temperature of the hottest trends in marketing’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25, pp.179–182. Festinger, L. (1954) ‘A theory of social comparison processes’, Human Relations, Vol. 7, pp.117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202. Fong, J. and Burton, S. (2008) ‘A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth and country-of-origin effects’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, pp.233–242. Geissler, G.L. and Edison, S.W. (2005) ‘Market mavens’ attitudes towards general technology: implications for marketing communications’, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 11, pp.73–94. doi:10.1080/1352726042000286499. Gilfoil, D.M. and Jobs, C.G. (2011) ‘Mind the gap: a global analysis of the number of buyers to sellers using blogging, social networking, online video, and microblogging platforms’, International Journal of Business Research, Vol. 11, pp.86–98. Gladwell, M. (2000) The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Little, Brown, Boston, MA. Glaeser, E., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J. and Soutter, C. (1999) ‘What is social capital? The determinants of trust and trustworthiness’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 115, pp.811–846. Goethals, G. and Nelson, R. (1973) ‘Similarity in the influence process: the belief-value distinction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp.117-122. doi:10.1037/ h0034266. Golan, G.J. and Zaidner, L. (2008) ‘Creative strategies in viral advertising: an application of Taylor’s six-segment message strategy wheel’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13, pp.959–972. Goldsmith, R.E., Clark, R.A. and Goldsmith, E.B. (2006) ‘Extending the psychological profile of market mavenism’, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 5, pp.411–419. Goodey, C. and East, R. (2008) ‘Testing the market maven concept’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 24, pp.265–282. doi:10.1362/026725708X306095. Gross, J.J. (2002) ‘Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences’, Psychophysiology, Vol. 39, pp.281–291. doi:10.1017.S0048577201393198. Gu, B., Huang, Y., Duan, W. and Whinston, A. (2009) Indirect Reciprocity in Online Social Networks – A Longitudinal Analysis of Individual Contributions and Peer Enforcement in a Peer-To-Peer Music Sharing Network, McCombs Research Paper Series No. IROM-06-09, University of Texas, Austin. Haridakis, P. and Hanson, G. (2009) ‘Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: blending mass communication reception and social connection’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 53, pp.317–335. Harvey, C.G., Stewart, D.B. and Ewing, M.T. (2011) ‘Forward or delete: what drives peer-to-peer message propagation across social networks?’, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 10, pp.365–372. Henke, L.L. (2011) ‘Viral marketing and music videos: when shock tactics backfire’, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Vol. 41, pp.1–8.

86

J. Wolter et al.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004) ‘Electronic word-ofmouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18, pp.38–52. Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S. and Jones, C.R. (1977) ‘Category accessibility and impression formation’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.141–154. doi:10.1016/ s0022-1031(77)80007-3. Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C. and Becker, J-U. (2011) ‘Seeding strategies for viral marketing: an empirical comparison’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75, pp.55–71. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0088. Ho, J.Y. and Dempsey, M. (2010) ‘Viral marketing: motivations to forward online content’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, pp.1000–1006. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.010. Hogg, M.A. and Vaughan, G.M. (2008) Social Psychology, 5th ed., Pearson, Essex. Hong, S. (2009) ‘Commodify thyself: neither my space nor your space but a space for massobjectification of subjects’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp.355–361. Hsieh, J-K., Hsieh, Y-C. and Tang, Y-C. (2012) ‘Exploring the disseminating behaviors of eWOM marketing: persuasion in online video’, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 12, pp.201–224. Huang, C-C., Lin, T-C. and Lin, K-J. (2009) ‘Factors affecting pass-along email intentions (PAEIs): integrating the social capital and social cognition theories’, Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, Vol. 8, pp.160–169. Huang, J., Su, S., Zhou, L. and Liu, X. (2013) ‘Attitude toward the viral ad: expanding traditional advertising models to interactive advertising’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27, pp.36–46. Hung, K.H. and Li, S.Y. (2007) ‘The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities: social capital, consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, pp.485–495. Jalilvand, M. and Samiei, N. (2012) ‘The impact of electronic word of mouth on a tourism destination choice testing the theory of planned behavior (TPB)’, Internet Research, Vol. 22, pp.591–612. Johnson, B.T. and Eagly, A.H. (1989) ‘Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 106, pp.290–314. Jurvetson, S. and Draper, T. (1997) Viral Marketing Phenomenon Explained, 1 January. Available online at: http://www.dfj.com/news/article_26.shtml Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2011) ‘Two hearts in three-quarter time: how to waltz the social media/viral marketing dance’, Business Horizons, Vol. 54, pp.253–262. doi:10.1016/ j.bushor.2011.01.006. Keller, E.B. and Berry, J.L. (2003) The Influentials, The Free Press, New York. Kiss, C. and Bichler, M. (2008) ‘Identification of influencers – measuring influence in customer networks’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46, pp.233–253. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.06.007. Langner, S. (2009) Viral Marketing, Gabler Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden. Lascu, D. and Zinkhan, G. (1999) ‘Consumer conformity: review and applications for marketing theory and practice’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7, pp.1–12. Latané, B. (1981) ‘The psychology of social impact’, American Psychologist, Vol. 36, pp.343–356. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343. Laughlin, J.D. and MacDonald, J.B. (2010) ‘Identifying market mavens online by their social behaviors in community-generated media’, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 14, pp.55–70. Lee, J., Ham, C-D. and Kim, M. (2013) ‘Why people pass along online video advertising: from the perspectives of the interpersonal communication motives scale and the theory of reasoned action’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 13, pp.1–13. Lee, J., Lee, J-H. and Lee, D. (2009a) ‘Impacts of tie characteristics on online viral diffusion’, Communications of AIS, Vol. 24, pp.545–556.


87

Lee, M., Rodgers, S. and Kim, M. (2009b) ‘Effects of valence and extremity of eWOM on attitude toward the brand and website’, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 31, pp.1–11. Leskovec, J., Adamic, L.A. and Huberman, B.A. (2007) ‘The dynamics of viral marketing’, ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 1, No. 1, p.5. doi:10.1145/1232722.1232727. Lewin, K. (1936) Principles of Topological Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York. Liu-Thompkins, Y. (2012) ‘Seeding viral content: the role of message and network factors’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 52, pp.465–478. doi:10.2501/JAR-52-4-465-478. Liu-Thompkins, Y. and Rogerson, M. (2012) ‘Rising to stardom: an empirical investigation of the diffusion of user-generated content’, Journal of Interactive Marketing (Mergent, Inc.), Vol. 26, pp.71–82. Marken, G.A. (2007) ‘Social media  the hunted can become the hunter’, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp.9–12. McNeal, M. (2012) ‘The secret to viral success’, Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp.10–15. Mills, A.J. (2012) ‘Virality in social media: the SPIN framework’, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 12, pp.162–169. doi:10.1002/pa.1418. Moser, K. (2002) Markt- und Werbepsychologie. Ein Lehrbuch, Hogrefe, Göttingen. Neumann, R. and Strack, F. (2000) ‘“Mood contagion”: the automatic transfer of mood between persons’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79, pp.211–223. doi:10.1037// 0022-3514.79.2.211. Niederhoffer, K., Mooth, R., Wiesenfeld, D. and Gordon, J. (2007) ‘The origin and impact of CPG new-product buzz: emerging trends and implications’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, pp.420–426. doi:10.2501/S0021849907070432. Okazaki, S. (2008) ‘Determinant factors of mobile-based word-of-mouth campaign referral among Japanese adolescents, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25, pp.714–731. Paek, H-J., Hove, T., Ju, J.H. and Kim, M. (2011) ‘Peer or expert? The persuasive impact of YouTube public announcement producers’, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30, pp.161–188. Palka, W., Pousttchi, K. and Wiedemann, D.G. (2009) ‘Mobile word-of-mouth – a grounded theory of mobile viral marketing’, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 24, pp.172–185. Phelps, J.E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D. and Raman, N. (2004) ‘Viral marketing or electronic word-of-mouth advertising: examining consumer responses and motivations to pass along email’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 44, pp.333–348. doi:10.1017/ S0021849904040371. Porter, L. and Golan, G.J. (2006) ‘From subservient chickens to brawny men: a comparison of viral advertising to television advertising’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 6, pp.30–38. Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1998) ‘Breaching or building social boundaries: side effects of computer-mediated communication’, Communication Research, Vol. 25, pp.689–715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006. Puspa, J. and Rahardja, C.T. (2009) ‘Market mavenism: its contribution in building consumer’s trust’, Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, Vol. 11, pp.21–35. Reber, R., Schwarz, N. and Winkielman, P. (2004) ‘Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 8, pp.364–382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3. Riegner, C. (2007) ‘Word of mouth on the web: the impact of Web 2.0 on consumer purchase decisions’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, pp.436–447. Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York. Rosen, E. (2009) The Anatomy of Buzz Revisited, Doubleday, New York. Ruvio, A. and Shoham, A. (2007) ‘Innovativeness, exploratory behavior, market mavenship, and opinion leadership: an empirical examination in the Asian context’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24, pp.703–722.

88

J. Wolter et al.

San José-Cabezudo, R. and Camarero-Izquierdo, C. (2012) ‘Determinants of opening forwarding e-mail messages’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 41, pp.97–112. doi:10.2753/JOA00913367410207. Skinner, B.F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, Appleton-Century, Oxford, England. Slama, M.E. and Williams, T.G. (1990) ‘Generalization of the market maven’s information provision tendency across product categories’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp.48–52. Smith, E.R. and Mackie, D.M. (2007) Social Psychology, 3rd ed., Psychology Press, New York. Southgate, D., Westoby, N. and Page, G. (2010) ‘Creative determinants of viral video viewing’, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29, pp.2–14. Stewart, J. (2005) The Internet is just a World Passing Around Notes in a Classroom [quote from an interview], 24 August. Available online at: http://krupsjustsayin.blogspot.de/2005/08/ internet-is-just-world-passing-around.html Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Hoyer, W.D. (2009) ‘Consumer advisors revisited: what drives those with market mavenism and opinion leadership tendencies and why?’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 8, pp.100–115. Subramani, M.R. and Rajagopalan, B. (2003) ‘Knowledge-sharing and influence in online social networks via viral marketing’, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46, pp.300–307. Taylor, S.E. (1989) Positive Illusions: Creative Self-Deception and the Healthy Mind, Basic Books, New York. Thomas, G.M. (2004) ‘Building the buzz in the hive mind’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, pp.64–72. doi:10.1002/cb.158. Thorelli, H.B., Becker, H. and Engeldow, J. (1975) The Information Seekers, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge. MA. Thorelli, H.B. and Thorelli, S.V. (1977) Consumer Information Systems and Consumer Policy, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA. Trusov, M., Bodapati, A. and Bucklin, R.E. (2009) ‘Determining influential users in internet social networks’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47, pp.643–658. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.4.643. Van der Lans, R., Van Bruggen, B., Eliashberg, J. and Wierenga, B. (2010) ‘Viral branching model for predicting the spread of electronic word of mouth’, Marketing Science, Vol. 29, pp.348–365. doi:10.1287/mksc.1090.0520. Walsh, G., Gwinner, K.P. and Swanson, S.R. (2004) ‘What makes mavens tick? Exploring the motives of market mavens’ initiation of information diffusion’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21, pp.109–122. doi:10.1108/07363760410525678. Walsh, G. and Mitchell, V-W. (2010) ‘Identifying, segmenting and profiling online communicators in an internet music context’, International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 6, pp.41–64. Walther, E. (2002) ‘Guilty by mere association: evaluative conditioning and the spreading attitude effect’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, pp.919–934. Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2005) ‘Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp.35–58. Watts, D.J. and Dodds, P.S. (2007) ‘Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp.441–458. Weimann, G. (1994) The Influentials: People Who Influence People, State University of New York Press, Albany. Wiedmann, K-P., Walsh, G. and Mitchell, V-W. (2001) ‘The Mannmaven: an agent for diffusing market information’, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 7, pp.195–212. Williams, A.P. and Trammell, K.D. (2005) ‘Candidate campaign e-mail messages in the Presidential Election 2004’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 49, pp.560–574. doi:10.1177/ 0002764205279438.


89

Yang, C., Hsu, Y. and Tan, S. (2010) ‘Predicting the determinants of users’ intentions for using YouTube to share video: moderating gender effects’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, Vol. 13, pp.141–152. Yang, H. and Zhou, L. (2011) ‘Extending TPB and TAM to mobile viral marketing: an exploratory study on American young consumers’ mobile viral marketing attitude, intent and behavior’, Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 19, pp.85–98. Yang, H., Zhou, L. and Liu, H. (2012) ‘Predicting young American and Chinese consumers’ mobile viral attitudes, intents and behavior’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24, pp.24–42. Yee, N., Bailenson, J.N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F. and Merget, D. (2007) ‘The unbearable likeness of being digital: the persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments’, Cyber Psychology & Behavior, Vol. 10, pp.115–121. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9984. Zajonc, R. (1968) ‘Attitudinal effects of mere exposure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 9, pp.1–27. doi:10.1037/h0025848.