ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH (EWOM)

The traditional oral, person-to-person WOM has developed into WOM via the Internet, that is, electronic word of mouth (EWOM) (Chu &Kim, 2011; Cheung et al., 2009). The emergence of web technology provides a virtual avenue to consumers to communicate with other consumers; it occurs over a wide range of electronic media, such as blogs, social networking sites (SNS), consumer review websites and forums, electronic bulletin board systems, and emails (Goldsmith & Horowitz, 2006; Chu &

Kim, 2011). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) define EWOM as ‘any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet.’

EWOM via electronic media allows consumers to gain information not only from people with whom they are familiar but also from the tremendous group of unknown people who previously had experience of using the product or the service (Ratchford et al., 2001). Compared with WOM, EWOM is less personal but more effective because it communicates immediately and contacts many people (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Although EWOM provides the virtual platform for consumers to express their opinion, it also poses a risk to a company because negative information directed at products or services can be spread rapidly to countless people, and the negative information will exist on the Internet for access by any customer (Stauss, 1997).

There are some differences in characteristics between WOM and EWOM. Cheung et al., (2009) identify three. (1) The communication network scale of EWOM is larger than WOM because the Internet can involve the discussions of more contributors or consumers, and it can reach more people than direct personal communication can. (2) EWOM eliminates the limitations of time and location. Consumers can read the information they are interested in and join the discussion at their pace. (3) The credibility of information is critical to EWOM receivers. However, the group discussion on an online forum provides additional resources for other consumers to evaluate whether the information is believable, whereas the credibility of traditional WOM cannot easily be evaluated when opinions are received from friends or relatives.

Goldsmith and Horowitz (2006) also state that cyberspace provides (1) a variety of avenues to consumers to exchange information, (2) online anonymity and confidentiality, allowing consumers to conceal their identities when seeking and giving opinions, (3) a lack of physical clues used to evaluate the identity of others, (4) freedom from geographic and time constraints, and (5) permanence of online conversations. Therefore, EWOM can be considered an extension of traditional WOM to a new medium, that is, the Internet. The communication scale of EWOM is larger than traditional interpersonal communication, and the anonymity characteristic allows consumers to conceal their identities but also prevents them from assessing the identities of others. The online forum breaks the limitation of location and time in the world, and the information will be preserved so that everyone can find it.

This study define word of mouth (WOM) as a consumer conveying discourse or informal information about a particular product or service to other consumers, a process that will influence participating consumer buying behavior. Because this research is focused on negative EWOM behavior in a political election, this study can consider the voters as consumers who can communicate opinions and messages with others voters via the Internet consumer opinion platform, and the product or service they talk about can refer to candidates in the political election. Based on our definition of WOM, informal communication among consumers will influence their buying decisions. In this research, the buying decision can be explained as whether the voters want to vote for the particular candidate; the outcome is seen at the polls or as the result of the political election.

2.3 The motivation for sharing electronic word of mouth (EWOM)

In this part, this study will discuss why people engage in EWOM. Generally, EWOM behavior can be categorized in three aspects: opinion seeking, opinion giving and opinion passing (Chu & Kim 2011). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) identify the motivations for giving opinions or sharing experience in EWOM as (1) social benefits, meaning a desire for social interaction; (2) economic incentives; (3) concern for other consumers; and (4) enhancing their self-worth. These are the main reasons consumers want to publish their experiences online.

Additionally, why do other consumers seek to share with others online? Goldsmith and Horowitz (2006) revealed eight reasons for consumers wanting to seek opinions via the Internet. The motivations of seeking behavior include (1) reducing uncertainty risk, (2) occasionally searching for information and stumbling on other unplanned information by accident, (3) the hedonic motive, such as “because it is cool”, (4) stimulation by off-line inputs such as TV, (5) reducing price consciousness, (6) ease of access—the Internet is the easiest means of obtaining different views on a subject, (7) influence by others such as friends, and (8) obtaining information for exploration purposes. Some researchers also propose that consumers read online articulations primarily to save decision-making time and to make better buying decisions (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2003).

Passing/ forwarding online content is one means of communication in EWOM, but it can easily be ignored (Norman & Russell 2006; Sun et al. 2006). Opinion passing is a unique characteristic of the Internet, which facilitates the spread of information to multitudes of people online with a few easy clicks (Norman & Russell 2006). Ho and Dempsey (2010) use Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) to identify four potential motivations for consumers to forward online information: (1) the need to be part of a group, (2) the need to be individualistic, (3) the need to be altruistic, and (4) the need for personal growth.

EWOM provides a virtual avenue for consumers to express their opinions, but it also poses a risk to companies because the negative information can be spread rapidly and exists on the Internet, available to countless people (Stauss, 1997). Therefore, many companies and researchers focus closely on it; some companies also use electronic consumer platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to connect with their target customers. Electronic WOM may be positive, negative or neutral; thus, it can help the company but could also hurt it. The following sections will elaborate these points further.

2.4 Negative word of mouth (NWOM)

In general, this study see that the amount of positive WOM is more than that of negative WOM, according to research by Resnick and Zeckhauser (2002). They determine that 99.1% of customer feedback on eBay in the late 1990s was positive;

negative and neutral WOM only occupied for 0.6% and 0.3%, respectively. Although the amount of positive WOM is far greater than that of negative and neutral WOM, this study cannot ignore the importance of negative WOM. Most of the literature indicates that negative WOM is more influential than positive WOM (Bone, 1995);

moreover, some studies show that up to two-thirds of dissatisfied consumers do not complain to the marketer but instead engage in negative WOM (Andreason, 1985;

Richins, 1983). Some studies mention that NWOM originates from dissatisfied customers approximately twice as frequently as does PWOM from satisfied customers (Goodman & Newman, 2003). Mulpuru (2007) also concluded that negative reviews occupy a smaller portion of total reviews but are considered helpful to consumers.

Wetzer et al. (2007) defined NWOM as involving all negative recommendations and informal communication between private parties about the evaluation of products or

services. Richins (1984) defines NWOM as a communication method that dissatisfied customers use to damage the product, service or company to others. She (1983) also determined that negative word of mouth is how dissatisfied customers express their complaints. Potential responses of dissatisfied customers include (1) switching brands or refusing to consume any more, (2) complaining to the seller or third party, and (3) telling other people about the unsatisfactory experience. Although complaints would help marketers identify their disadvantages, negative WOM will harm the company because it reaches numerous potential customers. Based on the social sharing literature, this study know that people tend to share information shortly after occurrence of an event; over 50% of such communications even occur on the same day (Rimé et al., 1992).

2.5 The motivation of negative word of mouth

Based on several studies, Wetzer et al. (2007) identified eight basic motivations for NWOM: (1) Comfort search—seeking others’ comfort, support or understanding; (2) Venting—release pressure by expressing emotion; (3) Advice search—engaging in NWOM to gain cognitive clarity; (4) Bonding—decreasing interpersonal distance with others and strengthening social ties; (5) Entertaining—keeping the conversation going and amusing the participants; (6) Self-presentation—managing others’

impression or image of oneself; (7) Warning—helping the receiver make a good purchase decision; and (8) Revenge—harming the company or marketers who make one unhappy. Consumers engage in NWOM for different goals; however, these different goals can also result from consumers experiencing a variety of negative emotions. For example, angry consumers engage in NWOM to vent feelings or to take revenge; disappointed consumers engage in NWOM to warn others; and regretful consumers engage in NWOM to strengthen social bonds or to warn others (Wetzer et al., 2007).

From the above discussion, this study defines NWOM as a communication method that consumers use to express their unsatisfactory experience or recommendations to others. NWOM is induced by several emotions and different motivations. Large numbers of people spreading NWOM on the Internet will eventually start an online firestorm. This study will discuss online firestorms to identify what characteristics they have and how dangerous they are.

2.6 Online firestorm

Although public media often discussing the online firestorm phenomenon, this study can only find a few studies that specifically research this topic. Fortunately, Pfeffer et al. (2014) define online firestorm explicitly: online firestorm is the sudden discharge of large quantities of messages containing negative WOM and complaint behavior against politicians, companies and their brands, government institutions and celebrities in social media networks. Social media users can create huge outrage in reaction to a questionable statement or activity within only a few hours. During an online firestorm, angry emotion is often expressed without targeting any specific criticism; most messages in an online firestorm are personal opinions instead of fact, thereby having highly effective influence.

Following Pfeffer et al. (2014), this study define the difference between NWOM and an online firestorm in the below chart. This study can see that negative WOM can trigger the generation of an online firestorm.

Table 2.6-1. Difference between NWOM and Online firestorm

Definition Difference

NWOM NWOM as a communication way that dissatisfied customer complaint or damage about the product, service or company to others.

Online firestorm as the sudden discharge of large quantities of messages containing negative WOM and complaint behavior against a politicians, company and their brands, government institutions and celebrities in social media networks.

A “phenomenon” characterized by sudden large quantities of NWOM being discussed on social media network. Sudden great amounts of NWOM can lead to an online firestorm.

Pfeffer, et al. (2014) discussed several famous online firestorm cases to illustrate the dangerous of an online firestorm.

Table 2.6-2. Online firestorm cases

Event Online firestorm

On 2012/1/18, McDonald launched an activity to encourage customers aware of the heritage of McDonald food by using

#meetthefarmers on Twitter, but later they changed the hash to #McDStories to encouraged followers shared their story related to McDonalds.

Within only 2 hours, McDonald’s withdrew the activity because many customers shared NWOM and insults on the Internet. Although McDonald’s switched back to #meetthefarmers 2 hours later, the damage had already been done. More than 1000 people had posted negative experiences that happened in McDonalds. This online firestorm received coverage from the traditional media, which led to broader propagation.

In January 2012, a German bank

ING-DiBa made an advertisement show a famous basketball player eating sausage in a butcher’s shop. Vegetarian accused that ING-DiBa promote an unethical (meat) industry on the bank Facebook page.

At the beginning of the protest, comments were posted on the bank’s Facebook page every 5 seconds. At first, ING-DiBa ignored the comments and allowed the heated discussion between vegetarians and meat eaters. The

traditional media instantly propagated the news. Two weeks later, ING-DiBa found the heated discussion had not yet faded, so they announced that from then on, all comments about meat would be deleted in the future. Thereby, the online firestorm finally ended.

At 2011/11/22, a Australian airline Qantas invited customers to attend an activity to win the First Class gift pack, and use the tag of #QantasLuxury.The prize was a pair of pajamas and an amenity kit.

Only 2 hours later, #QantasLuxury was listed in the Twitter Trending Topics list in Australia, with approximately 100-150 tweets every 10 min. Qantas did not consider that a few weeks previously, it had left thousands of passengers stranded at different airports. Therefore, the activity drew many negative comments

attacking Qantas. However, Qantas ignored all the comments and claimed it received a large amount of positive feedback. This behavior led to further propagation and gained Qantas more negative reputation outside Australia.

From the above examples, the most terrible phenomenon this study can observe in an online firestorm is that it can induce intense, huge waves of criticism and complaint without warning to harm the reputation of a company or brand. It could lead the company to lose money. Because to date there are few studies on online firestorms, this study can reasonably assume that companies fear huge volumes of NWOM comments appearing on the Internet and causing negative effects.

This study will discuss later how the online firestorm happened to candidates. It is important for us to recognize clearly the factors causing online firestorms. Pfeffer et al. (2014) summarized seven factors that affect opinion spreading in social media.

This study includes all of them because they bear on this research.

1. Speed and volume

The constant flow of real-time messages in social media causes fast information transportation. Compared to the traditional media need of approximately one day to transport information, an online firestorm can let highly attractive news reach many people within a short time through social media; a company should react in hours or even a few minutes. In an online firestorm, the news will temporally dominate what tremendous numbers of people are talking about, thereby causing huge volumes of communication.

2. Binary choices

Articulate and sophisticated opinions are not what appear on most social media sites.

People who use Social media such as Facebook or Twitter tend to ‘like’ or ‘+1’ the information; were they to want to write more, they would be restricted by technical length limitations of messages. Therefore, there are limits on forming gradual or complete opinions. The absence of comment interaction is an important factor for an online firestorm. Deciding whether to support or oppose the opinions is a binary choice because they are ’either-or situations’ (Schelling, 1973).

3. Network clusters and echo chambers

Interpersonal communication networks have obvious local clustering. Network clustering refers to transporting link creations(Heider, 1946). In other words, if user A is a friend of user B, and user B is a friend of user C, then user A and user C also have a high chance of being friends. The high intensity of connected friends and local clustering will lead to “echo chambers” (Key & Cummings, 1966). These “echo chambers” create a phenomenon in which information is received from different people and directions of their social network; it feels as though everyone is talking about the same topic or has the same opinion(Sunstein, 2001).

4. Unrestrained information flow

Granovetter (1973) mentions the strength of a tie as a combination of time, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocal service. In general, weak ties play a bridge role for transporting information within different groups; strong ties play a role in effecting message communication in a social network (Brown & Reingen, 1987). One can be a friend or follower of a large number of people in social media. The intense number of social network neighbors can amplify and echo information and messages during transmission.

5. Lack of diversity and a filter bubble

Pariser (2011) refers to a concept of a filter bubble, which posits that people on social media tend to overemphasize a specific topic. The filter bubble can function in two ways. One way is connection via social media based on homogeny (McPherson et al., 2001); people tend to connect with others with similar characteristics such as age, gender and socioeconomic status, so that they are likely to have similar interests and opinions. The second way is that social media always present information based on previous user experience or information that also interests a user’s friends. Therefore, people become limited and receive filtered information based on their specific preferences.

6. Cross media dynamics

Social media have gradually become an important information source for traditional media (Diakopoulos et al., 2012). Traditional media use social media such as Twitter and Facebook as a type of ‘radar’ to seek new news or information. This phenomenon

also happened in Taiwan; television or new publishers often find a story on the largest bulletin board system, PPT. Traditional media then broadcasting such a story would cause much more online activity. Myers et al., (2012) found that approximately one-third of the information on social media is caused by external events or factors outside the network.

7. Network triggered decision processes

The process of a network-triggered decision has four separate parts. 1) ‘Knowledge’

refers to the moment people encounter the first information, but the filter bubble affects the information people receive. 2) ‘Persuasion’ implies that people receive positive and negative opinions of events, and the echo chamber causes people to feel as though everyone is talking about it. 3) ’Propagation’ indicates that people decide to support or decline the opinion, talk about the decision to others, and allow it to affect their own decision making. 4) ’Affirmation’ suggests that people would confirm their own opinion when meeting another with the same opinion; otherwise, their opinion may destabilize. This step would also be affected by the echo chamber.

Having explained the seven factors of opinion spreading, this study combine all the factors in a network-triggered decision model to illustrate the process of an online firestorm:

Figure 1. The forming process of online firestorm

As this study mentioned, a filter bubble can affect the first time people receive the information. After people know the news, the echo chamber effect would lead them to feel as though everyone is talking about it; therefore, they would seek more information to help them determine what is actually happening. After people in the

‘persuasion’ step receive a great deal of information from others, they would finally make a decision and try to persuade others of their opinion. Unrestrained information factors lead to the amplification effect when transporting information and messages to others. EWOM implies that people express their opinions to others online; therefore, this study can see that some people in “persuasion” steps would be affected by those people who have already made a decision in the “propagation” step. After these people finalize their opinion, some would also spread the information to influence others. Therefore, this study can observe a continuous virtual circle between the

‘persuasion’ and ‘propagation’ steps; this study names this a virtual circle.

An online firestorm is defined as the sudden discharge of large quantities of messages containing negative WOM and complaint behavior against a company in social media networks (Pfeffer, et al.,2014). Therefore, this study can model the situation. Suppose

knowledge

• Cross  media  dynamic  help  the  information  spreading  further.  This   step  affect  by  Eilter  bubble,  so  customer  would  only  attain  limited   information  online.

persuasion

• The  echo  chamber  would  made  user  feels  like  everyone  are  talking   about  the  news  so  they  would  Eind  more  informaiton  to  Eigure  out  the  

• The  echo  chamber  would  made  user  feels  like  everyone  are  talking   about  the  news  so  they  would  Eind  more  informaiton  to  Eigure  out  the