ABSTRACT
Word of Mouth Communication has been one of the most exciting areas of recent research enquiry in theoretical marketing. While a majority of research on word of mouth focuses on its triggers and consequences, relatively less attention has centred on the moderating factors that surround word of mouth. One such factor is tie strength. WoM communication takes place within a defined social circle and its impact is often defined by the closeness of the relationship established between the information seeker and the information provider. The closeness of this relationship is known as the “tie strength” (Duhan et al, 1997). No comprehensive study has been found that studies the impact of tie strength on WoM Effectiveness as a whole. The main contribution of this study is to fill this gap. This study specifically examines how tie strength characteristics influence the effectiveness of WoM conversations. A total of 1535 urban consumers who were party to word-of-mouth conversations constitute our sample for the study. Data are collected from respondents across five urban centres of Assam (India) using a structured questionnaire that was administered to the respondents. Linear regression method is used to examine the absolute impact that tie strength characteristics have on the effectiveness of word of mouth. The findings reveal that factors like a close relationship with the referrer and high mutual confidence influence the effectiveness of word of mouth the most whereas factors like frequency of interaction between the referrer and the referee are not that important.
Keywords and Phrases: WoM Communication, Tie Strength, Urban Consumers, Close relationship, Mutual Confidence.
Received : 8th January 2019
Accepted : 30th January 2019
Published : 13th February 2019
1. Bansal, H.S. & Voyer, P.A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 166–177.
2. Banerjee, A. (1992). A simple model of Herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, 797-781.
3. Brown J.J. & Reingen, P.H. (1987). Social ties and word of mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 (3), 350-362.
4. Duhan D.F., Johnson S.D., Wilcox J.B., & Harrell G.D. (1997). Influences on consumer use of WoM recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 (4), 283-295.
5. Frenzen, J.K. & Nakamoto, K. (1993). Structure, cooperation, and the flow of market information. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, 360-375.
6. Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, 1360−1380.
7. Kiecker, P.; Cowles, D. (2001). Interpersonal communication and personal influence on the Internet: A framework for examining online word-of-mouth. J. E. M, Vol. 11, 71–88.
8. Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, Vol.29 (3), 458-468. Available through: LibHub database.
9. Marsden, P.V. & Campbell, K.E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social forces. Vol. 63, 482-501.
10. Rogers, Everett (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th Ed. New York: Free Press.
11. Walker, M.E., Wasserman, S. & Wellman, B. (1993). Statistical models for social support networks. Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 22(1), 71-98.
12. Goldsmith, R.E. & Horowitz, D. (2006) Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 6(2). Available online at: http://www.jiad.org/article76.