1. BSI Positive and Negative Word of Mouth are not Necessarily Opposites
Marketing 2.0 Conference, Hamburg 2005

2. BSI
Join the conversation
MARKETING 2.0 CONFERENCE
Paris, France 28/29 March 2011
www.marketing2conference.com

3. Positive and Negative Word-Of-Mouth are
not Necessarily Opposites
Jill Sweeney
University of Western Australia
p1

4. Background (1)
Organisations striving to achieve and retain
competitive advantage;
Consumers are becoming more demanding
and discerning;
Competition increasing;
WOM offers point of differentiation;
More effective than advertising (Day, 1971);
Works in conjunction with advertising (Hogan
et al., 2004)
p2

5. Background (2)
• Often used as an outcome of a model:
• service quality (Zeithaml et al., 1996)
• customer value (Hartline and Jones, 1996)
• service recovery efforts (Maxham and
Netemeyer, 2002)
• Hence in positive sense
p3

6. Background (3)
• Most previous research on positive
WOM;
• Despite the oft quoted belief that
dissatisfied consumers engage in more
WOM than satisfied consumers
(Heskett, Sasser and Schlessinger
1997; Mangold, Miller and Brockway
1999; Sweeney 2003); and
• Negative information has greater impact
on evaluations than positive information
(Arndt, 1967; Mittal, Ross and
Baldasare, 1998)
p4

7. Differences?
• Are there any differences in the emotional and
cognitive content of positive or negative
WOM?
• Is the core message different for positive or
negative WOM?
• Are negative messages stronger (e.g. due to
emotions such as anger) than positive
messages?
• Does negative WOM have a greater effect on
opinion than positive WOM, as found by Arndt
(1967) and suggested by Prospect Theory?
• Satisfaction and dissatisfaction not opposites
on emotional circumplex
p5

8. Our full study - Examining WOM from both
giver and receiver viewpoint, i.e. whole cycle;
Study model 1: The effect of perceived value on word- of-
mouth communication (current customers/members)
Perceived value Word of mouth
Satisfaction
p6

9. Our full study
Study model 2: The effect of word- of- mouth
communication on expected value and outcomes
(potential customers/members)
Word of Actual joining
mouth from Expected Intention to Intentions to join
ActualAc
behaviour
any value join (StateWest)
tu
sources*
p7

10. First phase (this study)
• Qualitative:
• Six focus groups – 54 people
• 92 Critical incident forms (CIT):
-each person -one positive WOM, one negative
WOM,
-half from giver of WOM, half from receiver.
p8

11. Analysed (positive vs negative)
• 1) whether the message was emotional, cognitive
or both,
• 2) the content (i.e. message core),
• 3) the reason for givers passing on the comment,
• 4) strength of message
• 5) how the giver or receiver felt as a result of the
comment; and
• 6) whether the receiver acted or not on the
WOM.
p9

12. Table 1: Emotional and cognitive
Positive WOM Negative WOM Total
N 48 44 92
Mainly emotional 8.3% 63.6% 34.8%
Both emotional and cognitive aspects 20.8% 20.5% 20.7%
Mainly cognitive 70.8% 15.9% 44.6%
χ2=35.73 p<0.01
p10

13. Table 2: Message content
Positive WOM Negative WOM Total
N 46 44 90
Service quality 58.7% 36.4% 47.8%
(Dis)satisfaction 4.3% 59.1% 31.1%
Contrast of perceptions to expectations 13.0% 2.3% 7.8%
Perceptions of value 10.9% - 5.6%
Recommendation 13.0% 2.3% 7.8%
χ2=35.50 p<0.01
p11

14. Table 3: Feelings as a result of comment
Positive WOM Negative WOM Total
N 45 41 86
Concerned about being intrusive 6.7% - 3.5%
Confident, encouraged 13.3% - 7.0%
Pleased to help/hinder 22.2% 2.4% 12.8%
company/acknowledge good service
Satisfied, better, relieved 40.0% 39.0% 39.5%
Nothing much 2.2% 17.1% 9.3%
Negative emotions 2.2% 14.6% 8.1%
Rational comment 13.3% 9.8% 11.6%
Sympathy, empathy - 17.1% 8.1%
χ2=31.84 p<0.01
p12

15. Reasons for giving
Strength
Reason for (WOM givers) passing on the message,
• to help/warn (26.5%),
• to share the experience (28.6%) and
• emotional aspects (26.5%)
• Surprising service levels (Perceptions-Expectations) 8.2%
Strength
• 24.5% very strong
• 51% strong
• 24.5% not so strong
p13

16. .
Table 4: Whether comment received changed opinion (receivers only)
Positive WOM Negative WOM Total
N= 21 17 38
Yes 38.1% 70.6% 52.6%
No 61.9% 29.4% 47.4%
χ2=3.98 p<0.10
p14

17. Table 5: Whether acted on positive comment received (receivers only)
N= 23
Yes 91.3%
No 8.7%
p15

18. Negative WOM passed on more quickly,
dissipates later
• “I told most people to give the mechanic a go. I also told them about his
reliability, good service, willingness to help, willingness to get your car
back to you as soon as possible.”
• “In all my years of buying cars, I have never struck anybody like the
dealer at XXX Mitsubishi – obliging, courteous, no false promises and
cooperative.”
• “It was a really bad experience, and so exasperating that I had to tell
someone as soon as I could”
• “My negative WOM has been when I’m pissed off. Within a week of the
experience, after that you’ve probably cooled down. During that week
some people are going to hear about what annoyed me.”
• “If I had really poor service somewhere and I bumped into someone
walking into that shop I would probably say, “Don’t go in there- It’s crap.”
regardless of whether I knew them or not.”
p16

19. Figure 1 Difference between positive and negative WOM in terms or urge to give over
time
Urge to give
WOM
Relating to
Incident
Positive
Negative
Time after Incident
p17

20. Factors preventing negative WOM (1)
Organisational advocacy:
• If someone has given you good service
I like to promote them to give them
more work, to help them and to promote
their business.
• See if you have a negative experience
with an organization is doesn’t
necessarily mean that the next person
is going to have a negative experience
either…I don’t think that it’s fair for
anyone to really sort of blurt out a
completely negative experience.
p18

21. Factors preventing negative WOM (2)
Fear of Intrusion:
• You are just elaborating on your experience and to
my mind you leave it up to them to suss it out for
themselves.
• You could give them your opinion and then if asked
you could expand further which is generally the safer
way of doing it. To go beyond that point you are
intruding upon and pushing that person towards that
particular place too much.
• I think you tend to say “look I went to this restaurant
and we didn’t find it very good” but that’s not to say
that I would say “you mustn’t go” because I don’t
know if a person would dislike it too.
p19

22. Factors preventing negative WOM
impacting (1)
Credibility/validity
• Sometimes when people are telling you something
bad about something then I usually step back and
think ‘well who are you trying to convince?’ They
can be too convincing and you think are you trying
to convince me or yourself?
• I don’t always believe word of mouth because
sometimes you do need proof about those things
before you get convinced to act upon that.
• Its something that you have gotta take carefully.
• I usually like to try and form my own opinion – I
always listen to advice but in the end the decision
is mine and I take time to think about it…
p20

23. Factors preventing negative WOM
impacting (2)
Cumulative positive experience
• You may give positive when people
say, “I had this bad experience at
such and such an institution.” And you
go, “Wait a minute, I’ve heard good
things about them”.
p21

24. When can negative WOM be turned to
advantage?
Memorable advertising, negative to
positive:
• Sometimes they do provoke
conversations – it may not be [name
of financial institution] and you may
not like it but it might turn the
conversation on to that.
• Looking at a certain advert you can
say “oh that looks interesting” and talk
about it. You might say “Oh have you
seen that ad? God its stupid blah
blah”.... [Example of a beer ad
involving a wandering tongue]- it does
lead you to discuss the advert…
p22

25. • I think that the Statewest [credit society] promotion, you know people
lying in beds of worms and all that put me off completely and I said
something at head office and they smiled, ”I know it’s wonderful, we
got lots of enquiries. I thought it was stupid, but we did talk about it
[Statewest].(M7 2 5)
• It might jog your memory or your subconscious if you haven’t
experienced that company for a while and then if something comes
along then you think maybe they have changed (M8 2 5)
• Sometimes they do provoke conversations – it may not be StateWest
and you may not like it but it might turn the conversation on to that
(M 2 6)
p23

26. Summary
• Positive WOM:
– more rationale, considered
– Driven by service quality
– longer term
• Negative WOM
– more likely to be driven by anger and frustration,
dissatisfaction
– Shorter term
• Negative WOM more likely to change views
p24

27. Your opinions?
• We are currently thinking our way through
these differences and what it means in
terms of implications to marketers
• We are interested in your ideas and
comments.
p25

28. Figure 1: A Suggested Word of Mouth Model
Triggers
(giver)
•Responding to
recognised need
•Serendipity
•Adv/Promotion
Outcome (receiver)
Antecedents WOM (giver) Expected value
(i.e., message Richness of message Expected service quality
content) (giver) Strength of advocacy Perceived risk in buying
Service quality
reduced
Satisfaction
Improved product perceptions
Value
Conditions
(giver)
•Organizational
advocacy
•Closeness of giver
and receiver
•Self-confidence of
giver
•Low risk associated
with communication
p26