THE EFFECT OF EWOM ON PURCHASE INTENTION: EVIDENCE FROM E-COMMERCE SITES

Öz

Everyday more companies prefer direct marketing with direct marketing channels, creating exclusive relationship between producer and consumer. Often this advantage comes with a risk/opportunity: electronic word of mouth (eWOM). Whether this cost can be turned into a profit or not, it falls to firms to pay proper heed to these words coming from communities. Those words are also the main concept of our study, showing the importance of eWOM on purchasing intentions. To accomplish this goal, an online research was done targeting the consumer population frequently uses leading e-commerce sites. An online survey applied to the target population in order to measure the antecedents of eWOM and its relationship between purchase intention. The results are greatly coherent with theoretical model and previous studies. According to results, consumers pay great attention to strength, rating and consistency of recommendations while evaluating the review credibility of the eWOM. Further, credible arguments regarding the products affect consumers’ purchasing intentions in positive way.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Electronic word of mouth,Credibility,Rating,Consistency,Argument Strength,Purchase Intention

AĞIZDAN AĞIZA İLETİŞİMİN SATIN ALMA NİYETİNE ETKİSİ: E-TİCARET SİTELERİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Her geçen gün daha fazla şirket doğrudan pazarlama araçlarını kullanarak doğrudan pazarlamayı tercih etmekte, tüketici ve üretici arasında özel ilişkiler kurmaktadır. Bu uygulama şirketlere çeşitli faydalar sağlarken, yönetilmesi gereken bir risk/fırsatı da beraberinde getirmektedir: Elektronik ağızdan ağıza iletişim (ewom). Bu risk/fırsatı kâra dönüştürülmesi, bu topluluklardan gelen cümlelere dikkat eden işletmelerin sorumluluğundadır. Bahsekonu kelimeler aynı zamanda çalışmamızın temelini oluşturmakta, ewom’un satın alma niyetindeki önemini göstermektir. Bu hedefi yakalayabilmek için, e-ticaret sitelerini sıkça kullanan hedef nüfüs üzerine online bir araştırma yapılmıştır. Ewom’un öncüllerini ve satınalma niyeti ile arasındaki ilişkiyi ölçmek için hedef nüfüsa online bir anket uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, konsept modelimizle ve önceki çalışmalarla büyük ölçüde uyumludur. Sonuçlara göre tüketiciler ewom’un itibarını değerlendirirken bahsekonu yorumların gücüne, değerlendirme notuna ve tutarlılığına büyük ölçüde dikkat etmektedir. Ayrıca tüketicilerin, itibarı olduğunu düşündükleri yorumlar tarafından, bahsekonu ürünler hakkındaki satın alma niyetlerinin müspet yönde etkilendiği tespit edilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ağızdan Ağıza İletişim,Güvenilirlik,Derecelendirme,Tutarlılık,Argüman Gücü

Kaynakça

1. BAGOZZI, R. & Yi, Y. (1988), On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
2. BROWN, T.A. (2015), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, Second Edition, NY: Guilford Publications Inc.
3. CHANG, H. H., & WU, L. H. (2014), An Examination of Negative e-WOM Adoption: Brand Commitment as A Moderator. Decision Support Systems, 59, 206-218.
4. CHEUNG, M.Y., LUO, C., SIA, C. L. & CHEN H. (2009), Credibility of Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Informational and Normative Determinants of On-line Consumer Recommendations, International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Summer 2009, 13(4), 9-38.
5. GAURI, D.K., BHATNAGAR A., & RAO R., (2008), Role of Word of Mouth in Online Store Loyalty: Comparing Online Store Ratings with Other e-Store Loyalty Factors, Communications of ACM, 51(3), 89–91.
6. DODDS, W. B., MONROE, K. B., & GREWAL, D. (1991), Effect of Price, Brand and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.
7. FANG, Y.H. (2014), Beyond the Credibility of Electronic Word of Mouth: Exploring eWOM Adoption on Social Networking Sites from Affective and Curiosity Perspectives, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(3), 67-102.
8. FORNELL, C. & LARCKER, D.F. (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18(1), 9-50.

9. FU, X., BIN, Z., XIE, Q., LIULI, X., & YU, C. (2011), Impact of Quantity and Timeliness of EWOM Information on Consumer's Online Purchase Intention Under C2C Environment. Asian Journal of Business Research, 1(2), 37-52.
10. HAIR, J.F., BLACK, W.C., BABIN, B.J. & ANDERSON, R. E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition. Pearson Education. New Jersey.
11. HÄUBL, G., & TRIFTS, V. (2000), Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4-21.
12. HARMAN, H. H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. HO, J. Y., & DEMPSEY, M. (2010), Viral Marketing: Motivations to Forward Online Content. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1000-1006.
14. HU, L. T., & BENTLER, P. M. (1999), Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
15. KELLOWAY, K.E. (1998), Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, London, Sage.
16. KLINE, R. B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications.
17. LAFFERTY, B. A., & GOLDSMITH, R. E. (1999). Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When A High Versus A Low Credibility Endorser is Used in The Ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109-116.
18. LAGES, L. F., JAP, S. D., & GRIFFITH, D. A. (2008), The Role of Past Performance in Export Ventures: A Short-Term Reactive Approach, Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 304–325.
19. LEE, K. T., & KOO, D. M. (2012), Effects of Attribute and Valence of e-WOM on Message Adoption: Moderating Roles of Subjective Knowledge and Regulatory Focus. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1974-1984.
20. LEE, S. A., & JEONG, M. (2014), Enhancing Online Brand Experiences: An Application of Congruity Theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 49-58.
21. LINDELL, M.K. and WHITNEY, D.J. (2001), Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86(1), 114-121.
22. LIS, B. (2013). In eWOM we trust. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 55(3), 121-134.
23. LU, L. C., CHANG, W. P., & CHANG, H. H. (2014), Consumer Attitudes Toward Blogger’s Sponsored Recommendations and Purchase Intention: The Effect of Sponsorship Type, Product Type, and Brand Awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258-266.
24. MALHOTRA, N. K., KIM, S. S., & PATIL, A. (2006), Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and A Reanalysis of Past Research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865-1883.
25. MENACHEMI, N. (2010), Assessing Response Bias in a Web Survey at a University Faculty. Evaluation & Research in Education. 24(1), 5-15.
26. PARK, H. S., LEVINE, T. R., KINGSLEY WESTERMAN, C. Y., ORFGEN, T., & FOREGGER, S. (2007), The Effects of Argument Quality and Involvement Type on Attitude Formation and Attitude Change: A Test of Dual-Process and Social Judgment Predictions. Human Communication Research, 33(1), 81-102.
27. PETTY, R. E., PRIESTER, J. R., & BRINOL, P. (2002), Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2, 155-198.
28. PODSAKOFF, P.M. & ORGAN, D.W., (1986), Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
29. PODSAKOFF, P. M., MACKENZIE, S. B., LEE, J. Y., & PODSAKOFF, N. P. (2003), Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of The Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
30. PRICE, S. L., & HERSH, W. R. (1999), Filtering Web Pages for Quality Indicators: An Empirical Approach to Finding High Quality Consumer Health Information on The World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium (p. 911). American Medical Informatics Association.
31. QUI, L., PANG, J., & LIM, K. H. (2012), Effects of Conflicting Aggregated Rating on EWOM Review Credibility and Diagnosticity: The moderating Role of Review Valence. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 631-643.
32. SHER, P. J., & LEE, S. H. (2009), Consumer Skepticism and Online Reviews: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(1), 137-143.
33. STEIGER, J. H. (2007), Understanding The Limitations of Global Fit Assessment in Structural Equation Modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898.
34. TABACHNICK, B.G., & FIDEL, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, Fourth Edition, MA, Allyn& Bacon Inc.
35. XIA, L., & BECHWATI, N. N. (2008), Word of Mouse: The Role of Cognitive Personalization in Online Consumer Reviews. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(1), 3-13.
36. YAYLI, A., & BAYRAM, M. (2012), E-WOM: The effects of Online Consumer Reviews on Purchasing Decisions. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 7(1), 51-64.
37. YOO, C. W., SANDERS, G. L., & MOON, J. (2013), Exploring The Effect of e-WOM Participation on e-Loyalty in e-Commerce. Decision Support Systems, 55(3), 669-678.
38. ZHANG, W., & WATTS, S. (2004), Knowledge Adoption in Online Communities of Practice. Systemes d'Information et Management, 9(1), 81.