Bittersweet! Understanding and Managing Electronic Word of Mouth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For ‘viral marketing’, it is critical to understand what motivates consumers to share their consumption experiences through ‘electronic word of mouth’ (eWoM) across various social media platforms. This conceptual paper discusses eWoM as a coping response dependent on positive, neutral, or negative experiences made by potential, actual, or former consumers of products, services, and brands. We combine existing lenses and propose an integrative model for unpacking eWoM to examine how different consumption experiences motivate consumers to share eWoM online. The paper further presents an eWoM Attentionscape as an appropriate tool for examining the amount of attention the resulting different types of eWoM receive from brand managers. We discuss how eWoM priorities can differ between public affairs professionals and consumers, and what the implications are for the management of eWoM in the context of public affairs and viral marketing. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".