Social Media Viral Marketing: Factors Influencing Consumer Attitude

Social Media Viral Marketing & Word Of Mouth | Paul Oladimeji
Abstract
The rapid advancement in communication technologies has enabled the rise of new channels for
marketers to promote their products. One of the most revolutionary platforms for communication
is the Internet, and it has enabled the evolution of an emerging platform for product promotion
known as Viral Marketing. Viral Marketing enables the spread of information exponentially over
Internet platforms. The Internet has empowered consumers and marketers alike to initiate
conversations around products, leading to a spread of word of mouth information about these
products.
Viral Marketing can be used by marketers to generate brand awareness among a large population
in a short span of time and with little cost, and lead to referrals by consumers themselves. This
form of word of mouth publicity can be a factor in influencing purchase decisions of consumers.
As a result, viral marketing has become a popular direct marketing tool for startups, which
operate with little budgets which are not adequate to carry out traditional marketing campaigns.
Therefore, it is pertinent that the factors which enable positive reaction of consumers towards
word of mouth information are explored. This paper attempts to investigate the factors that affect
consumer attitude towards online word of mouth and viral communication.
Using a pluralistic methodology for the research, the study is conducted on primary data
collected through survey questionnaires and in-depth interviews carried across Mauritius and
Lagos, Nigeria. Non-probability convenience sampling was used. The dependent variables of the
study include factors such as Product Experience, Monetary Incentives, Entertainment, and
Informativeness, while the dependent variable is the Attitude towards online Word of Mouth.
Correlation analysis was carried out to identify the relationship between independent and
dependent variables, while quantitative and qualitative hypothesis analysis were carried out to
test the validity of the hypotheses.
The study findings show a positive relationship between independent variable factors of product
experience, informativeness, and entertainment, with the dependent variable of consumer attitude
towards online word of mouth, product experience being the most influential factor influencing
1
consumer attitude. However, the study finds no significant relationship between monetary
incentives and consumer attitude towards online word of mouth.
With its qualitative and quantitative findings, this study aims to provide startup marketers with
new insight into the factors that may influence consumers to share their products with their
friends and colleagues online. Finally, it outlines strategies for the application of the positive
variables to ensure optimal viral marketing success for digital product startups.
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Aditya Santokhee, for his invaluable
guidance throughout the course of this project.
My appreciation also goes out to all the survey and interview respondents who took precious
time to conduct this study and benefitting academic research.
Finally, my sincere appreciation goes to my friends, family, lecturers and colleagues, who have
in one way or the other contributed to the completion of this study.
3
Contents
Abstract 1
Acknowledgements 3
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
1.1 Background 6
1.1.1 Consumer Behaviour 7
1.1.2 Viral Marketing in Startups 7
1.2 Problem Definition 9
1.2.1 Marketing Limitation of Startups 9
1.3 Research Questions 11
1.4 Purpose 11
1.5 Definitions 12
1.6 Outline of Study 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 15
2.1 Theoretical Background 15
2.1.1 Word of Mouth (WoM) 15
2.1.2 Viral Marketing: Electronic Word of Mouth 18
2.1.3 Previous Research on WoM 23
2.2 Theoretical Models 25
2.2.1 Online Word of Mouth Model 25
2.2.2 Consumer Attitude 26
2.2.3 Formulation of Hypotheses 32
2.2.5 Summary of the Model 40
Chapter 3: Methodology 43
3.1 Research Approach 43
3.2 Research Method 44
3.2.1 Choice of Method 44
3.2.2 Quantitative Data – Structured Questionnaire 45
3.2.3 Qualitative Data – In-depth Interviews 47
3.3 Limitations of Study 49
4
3.3.1 General Limitations 49

3.3.2 Limitations of In-depth Interview 49
Chapter 4: Data Analysis 50
4.1 Quantitative Data Analysis & Results 50
4.1.1 Measures 50
4.1.2 Results of questionnaire 53
4.2 Qualitative Data Analysis and Results 62
4.2.1 Interview Results 62
Chapter 5: Discussion 75
5.1 Summary and Interpretation of Findings 75
5.2 Implication of Findings for Startup Marketing 77
Chapter 6: Conclusion 79
6.1 Limitations and Further Research 79
References 80
Appendix I: Survey questionnaire 93
Appendix II: Main Results of Survey 98
Demographics 98
Internet Usage 101
Appendix III: Interview Guide 103
5
Chapter 1: Introduction
This section introduces the subject which the author has chosen to be the focus of this research.
It begins by highlighting the academic and industrial background of the subject area, and
proceeds to describe the research questions, purpose, as well as limitations of the research.
1.1 Background
For decades, mass marketing techniques have dominated the ways in which organizations
advertise their products to consumers. Radio, television, direct mail, billboards and related mass
media carried messages to a large audience who tuned in to such media (Kotler and Keller,
2006). However, the dwindling effectiveness of traditional mass marketing media, coupled with
the rapid rise of digital media tools, and the proliferation of Internet-connected devices (PCs,
laptops, and smartphones) have defined new ways for companies to communicate with their
consumers. With global smartphone adoption rising by 17% in from 2009 to 2014 (Heggestuen,
2013), and the increasing use of social media, companies have recognized that consumers can be
reached faster and more effectively through digital media. Peer-to-peer Internet technologies
such as forums, blogs, instant-messaging applications, social networks and chat rooms enables
faster and more exponential spread of information (Kirby and Masden, 2006).
Due to the effects of increased access to brand information, better communication, and
increasing brand awareness, the balance of marketing power has shifted from companies to
consumers. Empowered by user-generated content websites such as YouTube, and countless
social communities on the Web, consumers can now define and communicate more effectively,
their own perspective on brands and their advertising campaigns. According to Bernoff and Li
(2008, p. 36), the trend of people using technologies to obtain product information and
recommendations from one another, rather from companies, has led to the shift towards
consumer power. This drives the need for organizations to engage more with their consumers
and implement marketing strategies that communicate effectively to consumers and generate
more interest in the company’s products. The rising trend of “market with”, where consumers are
more involved in the marketing process (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), has led to the widespread
adoption of tools such as viral marketing to achieve more customer engagement.
6
1.1.1 Consumer Behaviour
While the field of consumer behaviour is in itself a young discipline, its effect on products and
their marketing dividends has been evident for a much longer time. Consumer behaviour is
defined as “the study of individuals, groups, or organizations and the processes they use to
select, secure, use, and dispose of products, services, experiences, or ideas to satisfy needs and
the impacts that these processes have on the consumer and society” (Kuester, 2012). Studying a
consumer involves understanding the psychological, social, cultural and economic factors that
influence human behaviour, and how these factors influence purchasing decisions of consumers.
It allows marketers adapt and improve their marketing strategies to maximize returns. For
example, research by Arthur et al (1997) suggests to marketers an efficient pricing model for
virally marketed products, through a quantitative analysis of consumer behaviour within a social
network.
The shift of power from organizations to consumers as described above is a practical illustration
of how consumer behaviour affects marketing campaigns. Because of the plethora of tools now
available to consumers, they now demand better, increasingly personalised interaction with
companies, such that these interactions lead to an optimal customer experience. According to
Radder (2002, p. 49) “the new demands created by changed consumer needs, societal changes
and technological developments, mean that organizations would have to keep up with these
changes and start to rethink their ways of operation.” Hence, companies, especially startups
which have little or no brand capital, are seeking ways to create engaging experiences with
customers so as to generate interest in their products, leading to product referrals via
word-of-mouth, thus creating a viral effect.
One of the major challenges faced by marketers involved in viral growth campaigns is to identify
the right set of factors which may attract a positive reaction from their audience. They also need
to determine the set of influential targets in a network, most likely tomaximize the spread of
product information across that social network and influence others to engage with a product. It
is important for the marketer to understand consumers’ emotions regarding a current social
context, and how to exploit that emotion in the marketing campaign to ensure customer
7
engagement.
1.1.2 Viral Marketing in Startups
Based on the above stated premise, viral marketing has become one of the modern methods used
to spread product information through online interactive media. Palka et al (2009, p. 172)
describe the term viral marketing as “a type of marketing that infects customers with an
advertising message which passes from one customer to the next like a rampant flu virus.” It
illustrates the way product information proliferates across millions of consumers within a short
period of time (Kiran et al., 2012). Viral marketing leverages the content-sharing nature of
consumers, an inclination which is eased by online communication platforms. The absence of
geographic barriers on the Internet enables viral marketing messages to reach millions of people
across the world within a few hours. Through the use of online platforms, Viral Marketing
extends the traditional Word-of-Mouth concept which has been exploited by marketers for
decades (Chaffey et al., 2006). Reports indicates that marketers spent an estimated $121 billion
on digital marketing in 2014 (Lunden, 2014). These statistics highlight the belief amongst
experts that viral marketing will continue to grow as a viable marketing option (Kuruez, 2008).
While established companies have the added advantage of brand awareness and consumer data
gathered from previous marketing efforts to aid in their viral marketing campaigns, viral
marketing presents both a challenge and an opportunity for startups who are only just bringing
their products to market and do not have the resources more established organizations have at
their disposal. Viral marketing presents an opportunity as startups have the potential to reach a
wide audience with minimal cost. At the same time, preparing effective viral campaigns requires
effective knowledge of customers, as well as trends, and this may be a challenge for startups that
have not had prior interaction with customers.
According to Hasic and Sobstenko (2009), most academic literature has focused on how
consumer behaviour affects marketing in large organizations. There is minimal academic work
into the influential factors affecting viral marketing in startups. Therefore, the author of this
report found it worthy to investigate this area specific to product startups, and address the lack of
8
a framework for identifying consumer attitude to viral marketing.
9
1.2 Problem Definition
1.2.1 Marketing Limitation of Startups
Startups and other entrepreneurial ventures, including SMEs, have been recognized for the
impact they have on the economic growth of a society (Acs and Audretsch, 2003). Through job
creation, creating investment opportunities, and developing innovative products that improve
consumers' lives and/or business processes, startups contribute immensely to a community in
more ways than one. However, the failure rate among new startups is high, with statistics
showing that over 20% of new ventures in the UK fail within their first year, and 50% over the
next 3 years (Stout, 2012). Also, 41% of newly launched commercialized products fail during or
shortly after its launch (Barczak et al., 2009).
The high failure rate among startups can be attributed to a number of reasons, including but not
limited to mismanagement, lack of market/customer awareness, improper value proposition, lack
of experience, among other reasons (Wagner, 2013; Burke, 2014; Entrepreneur Weekly, 2014).
Due to a lack of planning and managerial skills (Hirisch, 1992), and failure to recognize
consumer behaviour relative to their operating market, many entrepreneurs underestimate the
time and effort needed to accomplish marketing tasks, and at the same time, grossly overestimate
the returns on the marketing efforts. The role of the entrepreneur in a startup is to mobilize
necessary resources to start and operate the new venture, and effectively distribute the resources
within the startup. The acquisition of these tangible and intangible key resources, are critical to a
startup’s early stage performance (Shrader and Simon, 1997; Dencker et al., 2009), especially in
the areas of marketing and finance (Hirisch, 1992). Most startups begin with limited financial
resources, and need positive cash flow to sustain them until revenue flows in (Peltovuori &
Westrin, 2014). In many scenarios, the resultant effect of mismanagement and poor market
awareness is the loss of financing without profitability, as the startup’s expenses outweigh its
revenues and funding.
Due to scarcity of marketing resources, startups, especially bootstrapped ones, often find it
challenging to successfully introduce their products to the market, and generate demand for them
10
(Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). Startups must therefore, seek ways to market their products with a
different approach that is more interactive and personal, in order to generate initial interest
and/or revenue (Morris et al., 2002; Denil, 2014). This resource scarcity prevalent in startups can
foster a creative approach to marketing, involving the leverage of Internet marketing tools such
as social media platforms, SEO, and organic traffic (HubSpot, 2014), and strategies for gaining a
small number of initial users who are genuinely interested in the startup’s product (Livingston,
2014), and can generate word-of-mouth for the product, startup, or brand. The adoption of these
unconventional methods for user acquisition and growth generation seems inevitable, due to
evidence that suggests that customers actively avoid traditional marketing media, such as TV,
radio, and even generic Internet advertisements (Hann et al., 2008). This exemplifies the need for
unconventional tactics such as generating amplified viral communication, or exploiting organic
viral communication to exponentially drive awareness of a startup’s brand and product.
In recent years, many large organizations, such as McDonalds, Nike (Testa, 2007), Microsoft,
Philips, Ford, BMW (Lans et al., 2009), Procter and Gamble, Toyota and Burger King (Xavier
and Summer, 2009) have engaged in viral marketing campaigns, proving the commercial
viability of the online word-of-mouth concept.
However, Klum (2007) highlights the dearth of empirical studies on Viral Marketing, and other
researchers have noted the shortage of academic research on consumer-oriented aspects of Viral
Marketing such as consumer behaviour, consumer perception and response, among others
(Xavier and Summer, 2009; Sormunen, 2009). This proves that while there is evidence on the
usefulness of viral marketing to marketers and organizations, there is very little knowledge about
the customers engaged in these marketing activities, and their motivations, attitudes, and
behaviour (Aghdaie, 2012; Palka et al., 2009). This research seeks to contribute to this research
area by addressing consumer behaviour in the context of startup viral marketing.
11
1.3 Research Questions

In order to fulfil the purpose of this dissertation, the following research questions have been
developed:
● What are the factors that influence a customer’s attitude towards a viral marketing
message?
● Does the medium of communication affect the consumer attitude toward the campaign?
And if so, how?
● Are consumers more influenced by negative word of mouth than positive word of mouth?
1.4 Purpose
The main purpose of this thesis is to investigate the factors influencing consumer attitudes
toward social media viral marketing campaigns by startups. The research attempts to make the
following contributions to this field of study. Firstly, it presents a holistic view of social media
marketing, by examining the benefits and limitations of this communication channel as a viral
marketing tool for startups, and how this medium can influence either positive or negative
attitude towards viral campaigns. Research focused on online social media as a viral marketing
tool is lacking (Lammas & Miller, 2010). Secondly, it proposes a theoretical framework that
illustrates the relationship between viral marketing success factors and their effects on consumer
attitudes (Sweeney et al., 2008; Zerniger & Sohail, 2012). Through this study, the author’s
ambition is to provide marketers with a critical understanding of what makes users engage in
their marketing campaigns, so as to enable startups eliminate expensive advertising budgets, and
create amplified viral campaigns that reach their targets effectively.
12
1.5 Definitions
Below are the definitions of some of the key terms a reader may come across throughout this
thesis:
Viral Marketing Marketing strategy that encourages and facilitates the sharing and
passing along of a marketing message to other people (Kim and
Lowery, 2010).
Word of Mouth Word of Mouth is described as "product information transmitted by
individual consumers on an informal basis" (Kulp, 2007).
Consumer Behaviour Consumer behaviour comprises of the decision process and
psychosocial activities customers engage in during the evaluation,
acquiring, use and disposal of products.
Consumer Attitude Consumer attitude is an organization of motivational, emotional,
perceptual, and cognitive processes with respect to a product or
marketing message (Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010, p. 392).
Web 2.0 A more interactive and collaborative form of the World Wide Web,
bridging the gap between web sites and desktop applications. This
collaboration is due to web technologies such as podcasts, blogs,
and social networks, wikis, and RSS feeds.
Social Media Web 2.0 technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of
information, as well as exchange of communication and building of
virtual communities, using mobile, desktop, and embedded devices.
Table 1.1: Definition of Terms
13
1.6 Outline of Study

This thesis is divided into seven concise chapters, each of whose disposition is outlined below:
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Introduction lays the foundation for the study, as it brings in the background of the
research, including introductory information on the topic of viral marketing and consumer
behaviour. It also states the problem this study is trying to solve, as well as the research
questions and hypotheses, followed by a definition of key terms.
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
This chapter contains essential theories, models and an evaluation of relevant studies on
viral marketing, consumer attitude, and how they are related. It gives the reader a more in-depth
view of these topics, and also serves as a reference during the analysis of obtained data. The
chosen theories on viral marketing and consumer attitude will be used to create a framework for
the findings, and will be presented at the end of the chapter. It provides a basis for the analysis of
independent variables of emerging critical factors for viral campaigns, and dependent variable
which is the consumer attitude toward the product or brand.
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter presents to the reader the selected approaches for data collection and
analysis in order to fulfil the research purpose. Several methodologies are discussed and
compared, and the ethod used for the empirical study is described in some detail. Justification
will also be provided for the chosen approach for conducting the study.
Chapter 4: Data Analyses
In this chapter, the author presents the collected empirical findings for the study. The
empirical findings consist of information gathered from primary data such as surveys and
interviews conducted with consumers and interviews with the sample target.
This chapter will also present the analyses, which is the interpretation of the empirical
14
findings. In this chapter, the empirical findings are interpreted and analysed using existing
models and theories derived from the theoretical framework.
Chapter 5: Discussion
Here, the author summarizes the analysed data, providing the reader with conclusive
answers on the research questions and hypotheses. Recommendations for management using
viral marketing are also proposed, within the context of the research purpose.
Chapter 7: Conclusion & Further Research
The Conclusion chapter is done with the aim of verifying the fulfilment of the thesis
purpose. It summarizes the report and proposes suggestions for further research.
Figure 1.1: Thesis Outline
15
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical

Framework
Relevant literature, theories, frameworks and models are presented and explained in this section.
Current models will form the basis of the framework used to present analysed data and findings
2.1 Theoretical Background
2.1.1 Word of Mouth (WoM)
The first written occurrence of the term “word of mouth” is dated back to 1533, according to the
Oxford English Dictionary (Nyilasy, 2006:153f), which defines the term simply as “oral
communication”. Within the context of marketing however, this communication is restricted to
conversations about a company, brand, product or service. This concept is accordingly described
in the definition of word of mouth by Arndt (1967); “oral, person to person communication
between receiver and a communicator whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial,
concerning a brand, a product or a service”. This is echoed in a more recent definition by the
American Marketing Association (AMA, 2012); “information imparted by a consumer or an
individual other than the sponsor. It is sharing information about a product between a consumer
and a friend or other acquaintance”.
Author Definition
Arndt (1967) oral, person to person communication between receiver and a
communicator whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial,
concerning a brand, a product or a service
Richins (1983) Written in the context of negative WOM. WOM communication is
defined as the act of telling at least one friend or acquaintance about
one's dissatisfaction with a product.
Brown & Reingen According to these authors, the WOM exists at the macro level of inquiry
(1987) (flows of communication across groups) as well as the micro level (flows
within dyads or small groups)
Higie et al. (1987) “conversations motivated by salient experiences are likely to be an
important part of information diffusion”
16
Singh (1990) telling others about the unsatisfactory experience (that is, negative
WOM)
Bone (1992) “WOM communication is conceptualized herein as a group
phenomenon--an exchange of comments, thoughts, and ideas among two
or more individuals in which none of the individuals represent a
marketing source.”
AMA (2012) “Information imparted by a consumer or individual other than the
sponsor. It is sharing information about a product, promotion, etc.,
between a consumer and a friend, colleague, or other acquaintance.
Table 2.1 – Definitions of WOM communication by researchers
As noted from the definitions above, word of mouth communication can also be about negative
information regarding a product or service. Hence, WOM can be split into positive
word-of-mouth (PWOM) and negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) (Wilde, 2012). Studies from
Herr et al. (1991, p.460) indicate that the effects of negative word-of-mouth are stronger and
longer lasting than the effects of positive WOM. According to these authors’ work, negative
information about just one product feature or attribute is a stronger influence of judgment than
information about many positive features. According to East et al. (2008, p. 16), while other
studies support this thesis, these previous studies have also failed to examine the higher
frequency of positive word-of-mouth. As a result of this, negative word-of-mouth tends to have a
higher impact, as they occur with less frequency.
Medium of Online Word-of-Mouth Communication

With the prevalence of the Internet in the daily activities of 21st century consumers, the channels
through which information can be communicated has increased, and has thus affected the nature
and characteristics of word-of-mouth. To describe the digital age word-of-mouth, terms such as
“word-of-mouse”, “Internet WOM”, and “electronic word-of-mouth” (Helm, 2000, p.159) have
been used. Some authors (cite) also use the term “viral marketing” to describe word-of-mouth
communication which takes place online, but it should be clear both concepts are
distinguishable, and that viral marketing, is a communication and distribution concept based on
eWOM (Palka et al., 2009), and is not exactly eWOM. Based on this online context,
Henning-Thurau et al. (2004, p. 39) describe the eWOM phenomenon as any positive or negative
17
statement made by customers about a product or brand, made available to multiple parties via the
Internet.
Internet technologies have opened up new channels for optimal word-of-mouth communication,
despite the mainstay of the traditional characteristics of conventional WOM (Wilde, 2012). For
one, WOM is no longer restricted to personal networks, but can potentially reach an unlimited
number of users (Strauss, 1997:26), as the Internet supports one-to-one, one-to-many, and
many-to-many conversations. Also, the concept of tie strength has been turned on its head, as
information sharing can occur between unacquainted sources and seekers. A prime illustration
that exemplifies information sharing between unknown individuals is the act of reading reviews
posted by other (sometimes anonymous) consumers before purchasing a product. Litvin et al.
(2008, p. 9) presenta framework for identifying the various media of WOM communication on
the web (Figure 2.1);
Figure 2.1: Typology of eWOM channels (Adapted from Litvin et al., 2008:9)
Aside enabling both asynchronous and synchronous one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many

conversations through chat rooms, video conferencing, webinars and podcasts, among others, the
Internet has also fundamentally changed the structure of word-of-mouth information, as this
information is indexed, searchable, accessible from all over the world regardless of timezones,
and at a cheap cost (Litvin et al., 2008:10).
18
19
2.1.2 Viral Marketing: Electronic Word of Mouth
The term “viral marketing” originated in a PC User magazine article of 1989 (Okazaki,
2008:89), within the following excerpt:
“At Ernst & Whinney, when McGregor initially put Macintosh SEs up against a set of
Compaqs, the staff almost unanimously voted with their feet as long waiting lists
developed for use of the Macintoshes. The Compaqs were all but idle. John Bowens of
City Bank confirmed this. ‘It’s viral marketing, you get one or two in and they spread
throughout the whole company.’”
The notion of viral marketing as a “network-enhanced word-of-mouth” was further cemented in

the analysis of Hotmail’s viral marketing phenomenon of the 90s by Jurveston and Draper
(1997). Thus, Viral marketing, in its early days, was seen as a way to seed a marketing message
or product, and get other customers to copy it (Wilde, 2013). Companies can achieve this
through the creation of content that is engaging enough and motivates the customer to forward
the message.
Different authors have provided different descriptions for the term “viral marketing”. Pastore
(2000) agrees with the thesis of Juvertson and Draper (1997), who ascribe an online version of
the “word-of-mouth” concept as the main driver for Hotmail’s success. Pastore (2000) notes that
the major difference from the traditional word-of-mouth is the potential to reach and influence
1
more people online (Wilde, 2013).
Helm (2000) offers a different perspective, as she defines viral marketing as “a communication
and distribution concept that relies on customers to transmit digital products via electronic mail
to other potential customers”, and also influence those contacts to transmit the products. In
Helm’s opinion, viral marketing goes beyond word-of-mouth and is an essential form of product
distribution. This view is limited in scope, as it limits its definition to only digital products
1
Hotmail famously, within 18 months and with a marketing budget of just under $500000,
garnered 18 million customers through referrals created by appending the slogan “Get your
private, free email from Hotmail at http://www/hotmail.com” to each email sent by a Hotmail
user.
20
(Porter, 2006:27), and the distribution channel to only the Internet (Helm, 2000:159). While the
initial seeding of a viral campaign may be distributed via online channels only, the exponential
increase in message distribution can be attributed to both online diffusion and offline diffusion of
viral information (Kurucz, 2008).
Wilson (2000) defines viral marketing in a broader perspective, as a “strategy that encourages
individuals to pass on a marketing message to others, creating the potential for exponential
growth in the message’s exposure and influence”. According to Helm (2000:158), the varying
perspectives of the early definitions of viral marketing may be due to the fact that early writings
focused on viral success stories, but lacked formal background and definition.
Viral Marketing Communication using Social Media

Viral marketing, as it is known today, arose through the influence of the Web 2.0 technologies.
Web 2.0 platforms such as blogs, podcasts, web services, and social media sites enabled
consumers, who were once passive receivers of market information, to create their own content.
O’Reilly (2007, p. 24), in his pioneering essay on Web 2.0 states that in order to ensure market
dominance, companies need to leverage the network effects from user contributions in the Web
2.0 era. Although the aforementioned paper does not directly refer to marketing, the effects of
networks and user contributions are the biggest influencing factors for viral marketing and other
online marketing strategies.
These concepts of networks and user-generated content are what make up the core of social
network platforms, which have had a strong influence on online marketing communications, as
consumers searching for product information have access to both corporate marketing content,
but also opinions, commentary and reviews made by other consumers (Smith, 2010). This,
according to Mangold and Faulds (2009:359f) affects consumers’ behaviour and also increases
consumer power within the market due to the opportunities of Web 2.0. Social media, one of the
platforms mentioned in the O’Reilly paper, is also building a business case as a driver of
consumer purchasing behaviour, with research by EDI (2008) showing that a majority of
consumers surveyed relied on social network sites as much as official company websites for
product and brand information, with nearly half of the survey respondents making their
21
purchasing decision based on the information gathered on those social platforms.
How consumers interact with social media is of importance to marketers. There is current
researchthat seeks to develop algorithms for social network analysis (Chen, 2013; Gui-sheng et
al., 2011) which can be used to identify influential generators of content, as well as those
accessing it. However, there is a lack of conclusive trend data on how marketers can group and
effectively target users of social media based on their behaviour and use of these networks. A
body of research (Harridge-March & Quinton 2009, p. 176) suggests the existence of a “loyalty
ladder” in social media communities that splits users into categories such as:
● “lurkers” - reserved users who are reticent to contribute within the community;
● “tourists” - those who participate casually; post comments but are not fully committed to
the network;
● “minglers” - those who post without regularity or any particular frequency; and
● “Evangelists/insiders” - enthusiastic and regular contributors. They are the most frequent
creators of original user content.
Social media is no longer viewed as a mere marketing channel but rather as a facilitator of
word-of-mouth (WOM) (Lammas & Miller, 2010). It also surpasses every other communication
channel in terms of reach and time of information diffusion. This is exemplified by the Old Spice
campaign of 2010 from Procter and Gamble that garnered over 36 million YouTube views within
its first 36 hours (Wiancko, 2010). Social media viral marketing is also attractive, as it allows a
customer to choose whether to engage proactively with the brand and its message, rather than be
passively dictated to (Kirby & Masden, 2006; Hasic & Sobtsenko, 2009).
Despite these aforementioned benefits, Lammas & Miller (2010) cite a lack of control over
marketing messages; lack of credibility due to consumers’ distrust of sales messages, or ; and
challenges in sifting through the large social media audience to target influential users, as some
of the limitations of social media as a viral marketing tool. Burns (2008, p. 16) cites the
“Walmarting across America” case, which was heavily criticised for its ethical breach through
22
the use of a fake blog to promote viral content about Walmart.
The benefits and risks associated with Social Media Viral Marketing are summarized in Table
2.2 below:
23
Category Potential References
Potential Benefits
Financial Low cost (Welker, 2002; De
Pelsmacker & Van Den
Bergh, 2007)
Reach Wide and diverse audience reach (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2011:253f; Helm, 2000)
Speed of diffusion Short reach time. (Wilde, 2012)
Exponential spread of (Helm, 2000)
information.
Rapid diffusion. (Welker, 2002)
Potential Limitations
Lack of control Negative commentary also (Baker, 2009:2)
spreads virally.
Conversion metrics are difficult to (Ferguson, 2008)
measure.
Spam (Dobele et al., 2005)
Poor execution (Burns, 2008, p. 16)
Ethical issues. (Kaikati and Kaikati, 2004)
Trust Source credibility (Lammas & Miller, 2010)
Lack of trust in commercial social (Carter, 2006:2)
media services.
Strategy Short-term success of some viral
campaigns does not lead to
long-term market success.
Table 2.2: Potential Benefits and Risks of Social Media Viral Marketing
Types of Viral Marketing

In the context of this research, viral marketing campaigns are classified into two types (Blake et
al., 2012):
24
● Organic (uncontrolled) Viral Campaigns
● Amplified (controlled) Viral Campaigns
1. Organic Viral Campaigns

Organic viral marketing consists of campaigns which experience exponential growth without any
(or significant) input from the marketer. Sometimes, marketing information diffuses
exponentially and is passed around by consumers without any form of intention from the
marketer. A prime example of the benefits of organic viral marketing is the growth of Hush
Puppies shoes in the mid-90s. Sales of the product increased by 5000% (Thompson, 2008), from
30,000 in 1994 to 430,000 within a year, and four times that the following year. Another popular
example of an unintentional viral campaign is the “Extreme Diet Code and Mentos Experiments”
viral video, which garnered about 7 million views, and was utilized by Mentos and Coca-Cola
for their marketing campaigns (King, 2007).
In organic viral campaigns, original influencers choose to share the message due to some
experience of emotion associated with hearing or viewing the message. As such, the emotion
could either impact positively or negatively on the brand. According to Blake et al. (2012),
organic virality usually occurs for negative brand messages.
When successful, organic viral marketing is an extremely viable form of online product
marketing, as it helps to build tremendous brand equity at a marginal cost. However, marketers
should cautiously utilize organic viral marketing, as the brand may risk the loss of control over
the message and its intent (Lammas & Miller, 2010), thus doing more harm than good.
2. Amplified Viral Campaigns

Amplified viral marketing campaigns are strategically planned viral campaigns created in order
to create awareness of a product or company offering. They have defined goals, and consist of
distinct channels for media communication that can be tracked and analysed by the marketer.
Because most organic campaigns are usually based on already well-known brands, amplified
viral marketing can allow lesser known brands to also implement viral marketing.
Amplified Viral Marketing strategies are prevalent in startup marketing, as the major aim of this
25
form of marketing is to build awareness of a brand. The popularly cited exponential growth of
Hotmail (Subramani & Rajagopalan, 2003) is as a result of a controlled viral campaign that
consisted of a link appended to every email sent by a client for the recepient to download
Hotmail. In this instance, the medium of communication (e-mail) and the means to measure the
effectiveness of the message were defined, and led to the recognition of the effectiveness of the
channel. A more recent utilization of amplified viral strategies is the case of Dropbox, which
achieved exponential growth – user base of 200 million in 4 years (Bulygo, 2012) – by
incentivizing consumers to refer the product to their friends.
2.1.3 Previous Research on WoM
One of the first investigations into the way word of mouth communication influences consumer
behaviour and attitudes is the research of Dichter (1966), who analysed the psychological aspects
of WoM communication, including motivations for WoM listeners, speakers, and influencers.
Most existing literature on word-of-mouth communication interspersed with consumer behaviour

has concentrated on the motivations (Wilde, 2012), antecedents and consequences that determine
word-of-mouth communications, and can be classified into three streams of research
(Iuliana-Raluca, 2012):
● The first stream of research focuses on the motivations behind the proactive spread of
information by consumers about a product or service they have used. This research
stream links these motivations to factors such as extreme satisfaction or dissatisfaction
(Dichter, 1966; Yale, 1987; East et al., 2008:17), commitment to the firm (Dick & Basu,
1994), and the novelty of the product (Bone, 1992). Canarella & Piccioni (2008) also link
this to more humanistic factors such as personal engagement, commitment towards
others, and altruism.
● The second stream concentrates on the in-depth understanding of the information-seeking

behaviours of consumers, and under what circumstances do they rely on WOM rather
than other sources of information about a product. Research in this field suggests that
customers with little expertise in a product category (Furse et al., 1984; Gilly et al.,
26
1998), who associate purchase with high-risk (Bansal and Voyer, 2000), and are deeply
involved in decision-making and purchasing (Beatty and Smith, 1987), seek for WOM
opinions more frequently.
● The third stream of research analyses the reasons why certain personal sources of
marketing information have more influence than others. The following factors have been
identified as important antecedents of WOM influence: source expertise and credibility
(Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Gilly et al., 1998), tie strength (Frenzen and Nakamoto, 1993),
demographic similarity – or homophily (Brown and Reingen, 1987) and perceptual
affinity (Gilly et al., 1998).
Concentration Authors
Understand the motivations behind consumers Dichter, 1966; Yale, 1987; East
proactively spreading information about a product et al., 2008:17; Dick & Basu,
or service they have used 1994; Canarella & Piccioni,
2008
In-depth understanding of the information-seeking Furse et al., 1984; Gilly et al.,
behaviours of consumers and understand why they 1998; Bansal & Voyer, 2000;
rely on WOM rather than other sources of Beatty & Smith, 1987
information about a product
Investigate the reasons why certain personal sources Bansal & Voyer, 2000; Gilly et
of marketing information have more influence than al., 1998; Frenzen & Nakamoto,
others 1993; Brown & Reingen, 1987;
Gilly et al., 1998
Table 2.3: Streams of research on Word of Mouth communication
Studies by Dunhan and colleagues (Dunhan et al., 1997) support the third WoM research stream,
while adding new information about other factors which may affect WoM communication. Task
difficulty and limited prior knowledge of the product or service influences the likelihood of
choosing strong-tie sources, while the likelihood of choosing weak-tie sources is determined by
the degree of evaluative cues, and subjective prior knowledge (Dunhan et al., 1997).
27
Figure 2.2: General Model of Recommendation Source Choice (Dunhan et al., 1997)
2.2 Theoretical Models
2.2.1 Online Word of Mouth Model
To illustrate the inner workings of Word of Mouth, this research presents an inclusive model for
word of mouth, which includes the following sets of variables: (i) Intrapersonal variables which
are internal processes within a consumer associated with seeking input word of mouth and
processing its output; (iii) Extrapersonal variables which are contextual factors that influence the
choice for input WoM, and the processing of its outcome(s) (Buttle, 1998).
28
Figure 2.3: The Online WoM model
1. Intrapersonal Variables
Intrapersonal communication within a consumer involves the interplay of emotions which

involves the processing of a viral message or product, creating a continuous feedback loop to the
consumer, who is both the sender and the receiver of the communication. Intrapersonal
communication occurs during the experience quality (Nelson, 1970) continuum of WoM
communication, as the consumer interacts with the viral message or product. In this continuum,
the message content and product characteristics are the critical factors influencing positive
consumer perception. When a customer’s expectations are met, it leads to customer satisfaction,
not meeting his expectation leads to dissatisfaction, while surpassing the consumer’s expectation
leads to delight, which signifies positive consumer behaviour.
2. Extrapersonal Variables
Extrapersonal communication encompasses all of the interaction that occurs outside of a

consumer’s self, including interaction with the consumer’s social network, as well as the external
environmental forces with which the consumer interacts. The factors that directly affect
interaction with other consumers within a social network exist within the peer-to-peer
29
information conduit (Woerndl et al, 2008), and may include factors such as Tie Strength, Social
network size, as well as the communication medium being used, e.g. social media. Environmental
factors which affect extrapersonal communication include factors based on the structure of the
campaign (e.g. incentives that may encourage virality), and the general business environment
(Xavier & Summer, 2009).
2.2.2 Consumer Attitude
An attitude “is an enduring organization of motivational, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive

processes with respect to some aspect of our environment” (cite), which leads to a tendency to
consistently respond favourably or unfavourably towards a given object within that environment.
In the viral marketing and word of mouth context, consumer attitude involves the motivation to
engage in word of mouth, beliefs and perception about the viral message, emotional reaction
towards the viral message, and the resulting behaviour towards the product being talked about.
It is critical for marketers to understand consumer attitudes, as a consumer with a positive

attitude is more likely to engage further with a product, as well as make a purchase (Sahney,
2013).
Components of Consumer Attitude

Consumer attitude comprises of three components: a cognitive component comprised of the
consumer’s beliefs or knowledge about the product or service offering; the affective component,
which involves emotional feelings toward the offering; and a behavioural component, involving
the response disposition of the consumer (Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010).
30
Figure 2.4: Tri-component model of Consumer Attitude
1. Cognitive Component
The cognitive component of consumer attitude consists of the consumer’s beliefs about a product
or service offering. These beliefs are formed through experiences with the product, as well as
information received through WoM or other personal sources, as well as marketer’s sources such
as viral advertisements. The reinforcement of these beliefs, where the consumer perceives that
the product or service possesses certain attributes with expected outcomes, gives rise to attitudes.
2. Affective Component
The affective component is the emotional response to an object in an environment, i.e. how a
customer feels about the object. Depicting different emotional states of a consumer towards a
product, the affective component of consumer attitude may manifest itself through feelings of
surprise, anger, happiness, joy, irritation, sadness, among others. Recollection of these reactions
may impact on future decision-making of the consumer.
3. Behavioural Component
This component consists of the actual response towards the object. Also known as conative
component (Sahney, 2013), it portrays the outcome of an attitude. For example, the decision to
further engage with a brand or product due to the reinforcement of positive cognition about that
31
brand is an illustration of the behavioural component of an attitude. The first two attitude
components are intrapersonal and thus not expressive, existing within the customer’s mind. It is
only from the behavioural component, positive or negative attitude may be inferred through
observation.
Nature of Consumer Attitude

Consumer attitudes are generally consistent, especially the third behavioural component. This is
due to the nature of consumers to be consistent with their behaviour. This consistency also exists
in the relationship between the three components, as a change in the one component may lead to
change in another component (Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010). When a customer is exposed to
new experiences or knowledge regarding a product that changes his cognitive bias, or
experiences a new emotional affect when confronted with the product offering, the consistency
of the consumer’s behaviour will be altered (Figure 2.5).
32
Figure 2.5: Attitude Component Consistency
Some research however shows only limited consistency in the relationship between the attitude
components (Petty & Krosnick, 1995; Baker, 2001), where a change in an attitude component
does not necessarily reflect in the other areas. This phenomenon can be attributed to factors such
as a lack of need for the product or service, despite favourable intentions, lack of ability to
purchase a product despite feelings of desire, or interpersonal influence which makes the
consumer purchase products that satisfy the needs or preferences of others.
● Consumer attitudes are inhabited over time, formed as a result of (i) product or service
experience quality; (ii) interaction with other people within the consumer’s social
network, including friends, family, colleagues; and (iii) exposure to advertisements and
other promotional messages from marketers. As a result, the formation of attitude is a
process influenced by the needs and motivations of the consumer, as well as her
perception.
● The behavioural component of customer attitude is the only component that can be
observed. Thus, it is stated (Assael, 1992) that attitude cannot be seen directly, but may
be inferred from an individual’s behaviour. For example, in the viral marketing context,
positive attitude may be inferred from a consumer who decides to share a viral message,
while a negative attitude may be inferred from a consumer who does not engage in viral
33
messaging.
34
Consumer Attitude Models

Researchers have attempted to explain and understand the dynamics behind consumers’ attitudes,
how they are formed, how they change, and especially how they relate to purchase behaviour.
Some models have been proposed to highlight the foundations of attitude and gain insight on, as
well as predict consumer behaviour. The most common of these proposed models include the:
Structural Model Description

tricomponent attitude model (Sahney, 2013) This model states that attitudes are composed
of three components; cognitive, affective, and
conative.
It supports component consistency, the belief
that a change in one component leads to
related changes in other components
(Dabholkar, 1994).
multi-attribute attitude model (Sahney, 2013) This model states that a consumer’s attitude
towards an attitude object (product or service,
viral advert, or online information) is a
function of the customer’s perception and
belief of key attributes of that object.
trying-to-consume model (Sahney, 2013) This theory focuses on a specific purchase
situation where the action of a consumer is
directed towards a goal the consumer is
planning to achieve.
This model claims that the resultant outcome
cannot be predicted with certainty.
attitude toward-the-ad model (Sahney, 2013) This model focuses on the impact of online,
print or audio-visual adverts on the formation
of consumer attitude towards a product,
service or brand.
The model is based on the theory that
consumers form opinions and affect as a
35
result of their exposure to an advertisement.

Table 2.4: Models of Consumer Attitude
36
2.2.3 Formulation of Hypotheses
Consumer Behaviour & Attitude towards Word of Mouth

The importance of word of mouth as a critical factor influencing consumer behaviour has been
well documented in consumer behaviour research over the years. In the consumer behaviour
process, word of mouth is identified as a primary source of informational influence in
pre-purchase decision-making (Anderson & Salisbury, 2003, p. 122), and as a means of
expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the product or service during the post-purchase
phase of the consumer decision making process (Tax et al., 1993; Bone, 1995:215f).
The diffusion of information through word of mouth communication can positively or negatively
affect consumer attitude. Research in the field of innovation diffusion has highlighted the role of
Word of Mouth in the adoption of product at various stages of the diffusion process (Mahajan et
al., 1990). According to Tax et al., (1993), word of mouth has also been thoroughly examined as
a means of passing along “informational and normative” influences for other customers' product
evaluation and purchase intention mechanisms (Brown and Reingen, 2987). A high number of
researchers have proposed that favourable word of mouth is a factor that determines product
success (Katz, 1955; Day, 1971; Murray, 1991), and is an efficient way of building positive
brand perception, attracting customers and making them become loyal customers (Duhan et al.,
1997; Tax et al., 1993).
At the same time, negative word of mouth being spread by unsatisfied customers may be harmful
to the product or brand, thus nullifying the costly efforts incurred to acquire these customers
(Band, 1988, p. 24). Negative word of mouth tends to weigh more heavily than positive WoM
(Solomon, 2003), with research (Solomon, 2004) showing a wider propagation of negative
reviews about a product.
Studies from Herr et al. (1991, p.460) indicate that the effects of negative word-of-mouth are
stronger and longer lasting than the effects of positive WOM. According to these authors’ work,
negative information about just one product feature or attribute is a stronger influence of
judgment than information about many positive features. According to East et al. (2008, p. 16),
while other studies support this thesis, these previous studies have also failed to examine the
37
higher frequency of positive word-of-mouth. As a result of this, negative word-of-mouth tends to

have a higher impact, as they occur with less frequency.
Therefore, this research proposes the following hypothesis that tests this assertion:
H1: Negative word of mouth will have a stronger influence on consumers’ attitude than positive
word of mouth.
2.2.4 Linking the Viral marketing factors to Consumer Attitude

Positive consumer attitude to a viral marketing message may be characterised by:
a) Feelings of joy, euphoria or satisfaction when interacting with the viral message.
b) Interest in sharing the viral message with other consumers in the individual’s social
network.
c) Increased or continued engagement with the brand or product.
d) Intention to purchase the product.
e) Actual purchase of the product.
The previous research streams examined in the above section (Section 2.1.3) focus only on the
motivational factors that lead to consumers seeking Word of Mouth communication, while
neglecting factors that lead to its spread, which is an indicator of positive consumer behaviour.
Word of Mouth plays an important role in influencing consumer behaviour, attitudes and
consequently their choices, brand loyalty and switching (Wangenheim & Bayon, 2003). In their
research on the influence of WoM on product/brand switching, Wangenheim and Bayon (2003)
found that expertise and homophily not only affect attitudes toward WoM communication, but
also have an effect on the subsequent decision-making by the consumer.
Tie Strength refers to the degree of closeness established between the information seeker and
the source within the context of a social network (Bristor, 1990; Duhan et al., 1997). The concept
of tie strength is a multidimensional construct, which, according to Frenzen and Nakamoto
(1993), can be represented by the closeness, intimacy, association and support in a social
relationship.
38
The research of Johnson, Brown and Reingen (1987) asserts that, in interpersonal networks,
strong tie strength plays a crucial role, as most people obtain information from close relatives or
friends. This is similar to the 21st century Facebook social network model, where marketers try
to convince consumers to try products which their friends have also used.
Homophily refers to the degree of similarity between individuals in a social network, when
analysed from demographic perspectives such as age, gender, education, or lifestyle (Rogers,
1983). Naturally, people who are similar demographically are more likely to interact more often
with other persons who are closer to them in age, sex and social status (Brown, 1987), as they
affiliate with others who share similar interests and face similar situations.
Trust or credibility of the information source is an important antecedent for word of mouth
communication. Source credibility comprises of two constructs: source expertise and source bias
(Buda and Zhang, 2000). Source expertise refers to the perception of the information source's
competence by the information seeker, while source bias refers to the probable incentives that
may be observed from the source's communication of the information (Eagly, 1993; Perloff,
1993; DeZoort et al., 1993).
According to Zernigah & Sohail (2012), the factors influencing the credibility of a marketing
message include the company’s credibility, the credibility of the message sender, and the
advertising medium used. The trustworthiness and credibility of a viral message source is also
linked to the perceived risk, as viral messages from a trusted source have low perceived risk.
The need for trustworthiness of message sources informs the use of celebrities for some viral
campaigns (Aziz et al., 2013). Celebrities often develop credible personas which consumers
trust, leading to low perceived risk that encourages engagement with the product (Hawkins &
Mothersbaugh, 2010:408). However, the use of celebrities to boost trust and product credibility
has certain risks, such as the damage of credibility due to negative behaviour of a celebrity (Till
& Shimp, 1998).
The professed security surrounding viral message distribution in social media, is an important
factor affecting consumer attitude, according to Haryani et al. (2015). This security consists of
39
five elements, which are: VMC may enable association or interaction with unauthorized
companies; concern that the medium on which the product offering is contained is virus-free;
highly credible individuals provide the marketing information; overall consumer perception of
the viral marketing concept, and proof that information accessed is virus-free. Generally, many
users are wary of spam messages, due to a lack of trust in the media used to distribute viral
messages, and thus do not divulge personal information (Kelly and Kelly, 2010). However,
according to Palka et al (2009) consumers do not have privacy and security concerns toward
viral messages received on social media.
Woerndl and colleagues (Woerndl et al., 2008) divide the various factors influencing viral
marketing success into the following categories; diffusion characteristics (speed, audience
reach), peer-to-peer information conduit (channels and technologies used, source credibility),
message content (engagement, fun, enjoyable), product/service characteristics (suitability, ease
of use), and the overall structure of the campaign (legal issues, encouragement of viral activity).
This classification covers a lot of ground, however neglects the intrinsic and intrapersonal factors
that may influence the consumer to initially or further engage with the product or viral message.
According to Dichter (1966), the reasons to communicate about or engage with a viral brand,
product, or service, may be classified into four main categories, which may overlap or combine.
This classification is presented below:
40
Product-involvement The consumer’s experience while using the product or service may
lead to positive or negative WoM communication.
Self-involvement The primary focus of the need to engage WoM is the consumer,
rather than the product.
The consumer seeks self-confirmation (gaining attention, having
inside information, etc.).
Customers may fill a need (emotional, financial) by talking to
others about the product.
Other-involvement The motivation for WoM is “sharing” a feature of the product with
other consumers.
Recommendation may come in the form of a “gift”, e.g. FarmVille
eggs.
Message-involvement The content of the marketing message; the way the product or
service is marketed, is the primary trigger for WoM.
The consumer’s experience with the product is not the primary
topic of discussion.
Table 2.5: Categories of Motivation for WoM involvement
Iuliana-Raluca (2012) posits that involvement in word-of-mouth communication, either as a

source or recipient, may be due to three criteria: (i) search criterion - communication while
seeking for product characteristics before purchase (ii) experience criterion - word of mouth
communicated due to consumer’s experience with the product after acquisition, and (iii)
credence/reputation criterion - which refers to the validity of the product or service quality, based
on other consumers’ experience.
Meanwhile, Bughin et al. (2010) outline three major forms of word of mouth communication,
uniquely triggered by different factors: experiential WoM, consequential WoM, and intentional
WoM.
According to them (Bughin et al., 2010), experiential WoM is the most common form of word
of mouth, accounting for more than 50% of word of mouth in both new and established products.
It occurs as a result of a customer’s experience with a product or service, mostly when the user
experience deviates from the expected outcome, positively or negatively. Usually, when a
41
customer receives the desired outcome from a product or service, he or she is not inclined to talk
about it, except when inquired by an inexperienced customer. In experiential Word of Mouth, the
characteristics and differentiation of the product solely influences positive attitude and viral
success (Iuliana-Raluca, 2012).
WoM that is triggered by marketing campaigns is known as consequential WoM. Consumers

pass on messages about the brand publicized in the advert, these messages having a stronger
impact than the direct effect of the advert itself. In order to maximize the reach influence of viral
marketing campaigns, startups need to consider the effects of word of mouth when determining
the viral campaign’s content and its media mix (communication channels and technology).
Examples of content factors that may influence reach and positive attitude include entertainment
and humor, as well as informativeness of the ad.
Intentional WoM occurs when a company attempts to create buzz around its product by seeding
word of mouth through influential nodes in a social network. Celebrity endorsements or Twitter
hashtags coinciding with a product launch are examples of intentional WoM.
Blomström et al (2012), in their paper, examine the emotional factors that trigger engagement in
Word of Mouth by consumers. These emotions include Surprise, Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust
and Fear (Dobele et al., 2007). Surprise plays a prominent role in driving WoM sharing, as it
occurs when the consumer’s experience with the product or service offering is radically different
from what he/she expected. However, while they suggest the combination of different emotions
to increase effectiveness of WoM campaigns (Dobele et al., 2007), their research fails to
acknowledge how some of these emotions may lead to negative WoM engagement, which may
be detrimental to the organization.
Hawkins & Mothersbaugh (2010) use the elaboration likelihood theory to highlight factors that
may influence change in consumer attitude. These include individual and situational factors, as
well as external factors related to marketing activities (Petty et al., 1993). These factors are then
classified based on the level of customer involvement in the purchase process. Customer
Involvement, according to the ELM, is an important motivational factor which has both
individual (intrinsic interest) and situational (current need to make a buying decision)
42
components.
The theory suggests that high involvement leads to a central route to change in attitude, as
consumers deliberately process information choices that help in a logical evaluation of the brand.
In other words, high involvement with a product or viral marketing message, due to intrinsic
motivations and need, lead to a change in the cognitive component of the consumer’s attitude.
Therefore, informativeness of viral messages are influential in high-involvement situations.
However, low involvement results in a peripheral route to attitude change, as consumers’ beliefs
are formed based on their exposure to readily available information, without thorough or
deliberate processing of this information. In peripheral route scenarios, limited information is
necessary, as consumers are easily persuaded through affective, and peripheral cues such as
music, pictures, and the nature and characteristics of people involved in the message.
Zernigah and Sohail (2012) also studied how independent factors such as entertainment,
informativeness, irritation, and source credibility affects consumer attitude towards viral
marketing. Their research indicates that entertainment, informativeness, and source credibility
influence consumer attitudes, while irritation has no significant effect on consumer attitude.
Informativeness is a vital incentive for positive consumer attitude toward product

advertisements, as they make a customer not only aware about the new product, but also informs
them on the features and benefits of the product that differentiate it from competitors’ products
(Saadeghvaziri & Hosseini, 2011). Consumers are increasingly interested in receiving marketing
messages that are relevant to them (Haghirian et al., 2005). According to Reyck & Degraeve
(2003), adverts with interesting and customized content that match consumer preferences
influence positive attitude. This means that messages that consumers find boring are perceived to
have low levels of informativeness, thus leading to a negative attitude toward them (Blanco et
al., 2010).
Kelly et al. (2010) suggest that consumers avoid advertisements on social media for reasons
related to the amount of information provided in the adverts. According to these authors, the
little control over information spread is detrimental, as anyone can post anything, leading to the
43
consumer seeing adverts that fail to target specific consumers and are thus irrelevant to them.
However, this assertion is countered by the presence of custom audience targeting in
contemporary social media marketing, particularly Facebook marketing (Facebook for Business,
2013). This option allows advertisers to target their ads to specific audiences with whom they
have established a relationship on/off the social network. Additionally, data mining of
consumers’ social media data has provided marketers with important consumer information that
enables them to build marketing messages that are relevant to consumers.
Consumers’ enjoyment of viral content also plays an important role in developing consumer
attitude toward viral messages. Entertainment is touted to be the most important factor that
affects consumers’ attitude towards mobile adverts (Tsang et al., 2004; Bauer et al., 2005).
Viral campaigns based around emotional factors of entertainment, surprise and joy have an
impact on consumers’ attitude towards them. Consumers show positive responses toward
humorous and amusing messages. Research has shown humour as the dominant content form
that elicits positive response toward a brand’s message (Rodić, 2012).
These assertions cause this paper to propose the hypotheses below that state that informative
social viral messages, which focus on the central route towards attitude change, are likely to
influence a positive change in consumer attitude, while emotional factors such as entertainment
and humour also lead to a change in the affective component of a consumer’s attitude.
Sweeney et al. (2008) developed a model explaining the key motivational factors for Word of
Mouth interaction, and indicating how these factors may affect consumers’ attitudes and
behaviour;
44
Figure 2.6: Model of WoM Impact (Sweeney et al., 2008)
According to these authors (Sweeney et al., 2008), the categories of factors affecting the
consumer behaviour toward viral word of mouth include: the personal characteristics of the
sender or receiver(source credibility, expertise, perception of brand), the type of relationship
between sender and receiver (tie strength, homophily), the characteristics of the viral message
(communication mode and medium, entertainment, clarity of the message), as well as the
situational characteristics (perceived risk of context, knowledge of receiver, need) surrounding
the word of mouth communication. The degree of the word of mouth influence in turn
determines the consumer’s perceptions, attitudes, and decision towards the product or brand.
By studying the above theories by various scholars on viral marketing success themes, the
following major factors are observed to be common to these literatures. These critical factors
include informativeness of the viral message, entertainment value of the message, incentives,
quality and characteristics of the product or service.
These above factors can be divided into categories based on their antecedents, as is evident in
previous models by other authors (Sweeney et al., 2008; Woerndl et al., 2008)
45
A summary of the above theories enables the proposition of the following hypotheses:
H2: The experience with the product is an influential factor affecting consumer attitude toward a
viral message.
H3: Monetary incentives positively influence consumer attitude towards a viral marketing
message.
H4: Entertainment positively influences consumer attitude towards a viral marketing message.
H5: Informativeness positively influences consumer attitude towards a viral marketing message.
2.2.5 Summary of the Model
In order to fulfil the purposes of this research, this section proposes a model which attempts to
integrate the viral communication critical factors with varying results in consumer attitudes. This
model will help in forming interview questions, and when analysing empirical findings.
The proposed model is similarto the model presented by Sweeney et al. (Sweeney et al., 2008)
and the tricomponent consumer attitude framework presented by Hawkins & Mothersbaugh
(2010:393) illustrated in the previous section. In this model, the factors for viral marketing and
Word of Mouth are divided into the following antecedent categories; Personal, Message
characteristics, and contextual/situational factors (Sweeney et al., 2008; Woerndl et al., 2008).
These factors are then linked to the component of consumer attitude which they affect directly or
indirectly.
46
Figure 2.7: Research Model
The tricomponent model toward consumer attitude is adopted in this framework, as it is the most
holistic consumer attitude model that accommodates various forms of antecedents for viral
marketing communication. The multi-attribute model is a mathematical model which measures
variables such as strength of belief or how “good” or “bad” the attitude object is, and this is
beyond the scope and abilities of this research.Meanwhile the attitude toward the ad model
highlights mainly the qualities of a viral advertisement and its effect on the consumer’s attitude
(Sahney, 2013). However, the tricomponent model is flexible enough to also identify
interpersonal antecedents for word of mouth communication, and how these affect a consumer’s
attitude. It also accommodates the situational and personal (motivational and psychological)
factors surrounding viral communication, and their effect on the cognitive or emotional aspects
of consumer attitude. Finally, emotions or information communicated in the ad or marketing
message can be easily attributed to the components they influence.
47
48
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research Approach
The two broad approaches used by researchers in academic research are Inductive and Deductive
approaches. The inductive approach is an exploratory and open-ended approach, used to
understand a phenomenon in its own terms (Hirschman, 1986), as theories and generalizations
are drawn from the observation of gathered data. In inductive research reasoning, the research
begins by collecting a substantial amount of data, looking for patterns in the data, and attempting
to develop theories that expand on those patterns (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Inductive Research
However, deductive reasoning attempts to add upon knowledge by building theory which
explains observed phenomena (Kotzab et al., 2005:60). The deductive approach is the reverse of
inductive research, as it starts with a compelling social theory, from which hypotheses are
formed, and then tested or verified with data (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2: Deductive Research
In summary, deductive approach begins with a hypothesis, while inductive research begins
49
which research questions to narrow the study’s scope. Deductive research focuses on exploring
causality behind theories, while inductive research explores new phenomena, or examines
current theories from a new perspective.
In this case, the current research includes complementary components of both inductive and
deductive approaches. This is known as an abductive approach, as the direction of the research
varies between observed theory and empirical findings (Patel & Davidsson, 2003). The author of
this research therefore, using a pluralistic methodology, administered a quantitative questionnaire
to test hypotheses related to the factors influencing positive consumer attitude towards viral
marketing of new products, and also conducted qualitative interviews with a fraction of the
questionnaire respondents, to gain more insight into the factors that influence choice of
behaviour and attitude among consumers.
The qualitative interviews align with an inductive approach, while the quantitative questionnaires
align with a deductive approach to research.
3.2 Research Method

The main objective of this research is to understand Viral Marketing from the view of the
consumer, hence there is emphasis on the use of primary data, as secondary data may be of a
poor fit, quality, or accurateness (Wrenn et al., 2002). The research provides insight into
consumer attitude towards social media viral marketing and word of mouth. To complete the
research, attitude towards viral marketing is identified as the dependent variable, while viral
marketing/word of mouth factors of informativeness, entertainment, product experience,
incentives, and source credibility are identified as independent variables of research.
3.2.1 Choice of Method
Research methods are known as “a set of procedures and techniques for gathering and analysing
data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998:3). There are three main methods of data collection for research;
qualitative method, quantitative method, and pluralistic method (Burns & Bush, 2000). The
research purpose and nature of research questions influence the choice of method, however, this
choice is also influenced by the method with which the researcher is comfortable (Strauss &
50
Corbin, 1998:33).
Quantitative research is based on the use of numbers, collection of standardized data, and
analyses using statistics and charts (Saunders et al., 2003; Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005).
Quantitative methods are suitable for identifying trends and patterns (Saunders et al., 2003).
However, qualitative research is more flexible and exploratory, with an emphasis on
understanding identified happenings. According to Riley et al (2000), qualitative methods are
dependent on the personal involvement of the researcher as an observer or interviewer during
data collection.
The pluralistic approach combines both qualitative and quantitative research methods in one of
two ways. It may either use exploratory qualitative methods to form a theoretical foundation for
quantitative analysis, or apply the qualitative study after quantitative analysis, to help the
researcher validate or further understand the quantitative findings.
In this research, the quantitative analysis on the effects of viral marketing on consumer attitude
forms the basis on which further validation is sought using qualitative methods. Consumers
actions are sometimes irrational and non-linear, which means mathematical models formed
through quantitative analysis can only serve as a foundation for deeper insight, and not be the
understanding itself. This informs the decision to use the pluralistic approach, to obtain a holistic
view of consumer behaviour, and understand how marketing activities affect it.
3.2.2 Quantitative Data – Structured Questionnaire
Design of survey questions

The survey questions were designed using different collection instruments; the nominal scale, the
five-point Likert scale and ordinal scale. The nominal scale was used for collecting the
demographic data of the survey respondents. With the Likert scale, respondents were asked to
specify the degree of agreement or disagreement, ranging from “5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3
= undecided, 2 = disagree to 1 = strongly disagree”, with a series of agree-disagree
statements/questions related to WoM/VM factors, in order to measure respondents’ cognitive and
affective attitude towards the antecedents of viral marketing, as well as their WoM participation
51
within social media. The final set of questions were formed using the ordinal scale, to enable the
ranking of these viral ad factors as they influence respondents’ behavioural attitude toward a
product, in order of preference from 1-5.
Selection of Respondents
In order to ensure valid conclusions of a research, it is important to define the elements of a
population, and select a characteristic sample (Saunders et al., 2003). Thus, the survey was
conducted with a sample target of consumers, and not the whole population (all consumers) who
fit a particular criteria familiar to the context of the research purpose and questions.
Considering that this research examines Viral Marketing in the context of social media tools, the
author ensured that the survey’s sample target was limited to internet users, who make frequent
use of social media, and log into Facebook at least three times a week.
Based on the supervisor’s recommendation, a sample size of more than (>) 250 respondents were
selected.
Method of Survey Data Collection

Sampling of the sample target can be done through probability and nonprobability sampling.
Probability sampling relies on random selection methods which are representative of the
population (e.g. residents of a particular community, or students at a school) from which they are
selected (Sommer & Sommer, 2001). In probability sampling, there is an equal chance among all
elements of being selected (Wrenn et al., 2001), and results can be generalized from the random
sample.
Non-probability sampling methods, however, involve careful selection of participants. It is

appropriate when there is no sample frame (exhaustive population list) (UWE, 2007). In the
instance of this research, there is no specific population list of consumers who make use of social
media networks. Thus, the research makes use of two forms of nonprobability sampling:
convenience sampling and referral sampling. Convenience sampling is unguided, and thus the
sampling error cannot be estimated (Wrenn et al., 2001). It however, saves time and resources,
by making use of elements that are most conveniently at hand. The use of volunteers who were
52
willing to fill the surveys constitutes a convenience sample. Referral sampling, also known as
snowball sampling, occurs when a respondent refers an acquaintance to the survey. In the case of
this research, respondents were requested to share the survey with their friends using social
media and emails, thus leading to higher response rates.
These methods are biased; convenience sampling may cause researchers to subconsciously
approach some respondents and avoid others (Lucas, 2014a), while snowball sampling may give
participants with more social connections a higher, albeit unknown chance of selection (Berg,
2006). However, their benefits are significant for this time and resource-constrained research, as
they are faster, cheaper, and acquire higher response rates.
Data collection occurred over a period of one month, between August 18th and September 15th
2015. A survey was created on the web survey tool, Survey Planet, and a link to the survey was
distributed through electronic media (email contacts, Facebook friends, and Twitter followers).
After filling the surveys, the participants were urged to share the survey with their contacts using
social media and emails. The survey was also printed and distributed physically, albeit at a
smaller scale. Respondents were asked to provide names of additional respondents who would
qualify for the survey, and respondents acquainted with the researcher were given a few copies
of the survey to distribute among their own contacts, a technique earlier described as referral
sampling. The self-administration of surveys by the respondents has advantages which include
lowered costs, reduced bias by the interviewer, while disadvantages may include incomplete and
unclear responses, refusal to return questionnaires, and possible access issues.
3.2.3 Qualitative Data – In-depth Interviews
An in-depth interview in consumer research may be carried out face-to-face, and involves
in-depth questioning of a person in order to understand the subject’s experience or interest
in/with a product or idea (Perner, 2010b). Interviews help a researcher gain deeper insight into
consumer behaviour, but may be susceptible to bias (Perner, 2010b). Also, the use of a small
sample size and the lack of use of random sampling techniques means that generalizations cannot
be made from the findings of the research (Boyce & Neale, 2006). However, they are particularly
useful for supplementing alternative research methods. Hence, in the context of this study, the
53
in-depth interview is as a validation tool for quantitative research findings.
Interview Design
The interviews were conducted at a location of each respondent's’ convenience. The interviews
were face-to-face, enabling more accurate respondent screening, and eliminating potential
distractions which may delay response completion (Wyse, 2014). The location was selected at
the respondents’ comfort, as a comfortable environment makes the respondent more responsive
to probing enquiries.
Selection of Respondents
Respondents were selected via convenience and referral sampling, due to the limited time and
budget under which the research was conducted. The criteria for selection was similar to the
criteria used for the quantitative survey, as the participants chosen used social media networks as
frequently as three times in a week. Friends and their acquaintances were selected as
interviewees, using non probabilistic methods.
Interview Data Collection

For a planned interview such as this, it is critical to develop an interview guide (shown in
Appendix IV) which provides a general sense of direction to the interview. A pilot interview was
conducted on two respondents in order to prune the questions and come up with a more concise
draft. The pilot study helped in the estimation of time each interview would take (30 minutes),
and in evaluating the feasibility of the interview questions.
The interviews took place between the 20th of August and the 5th of September, and were
semi-structured, working through questions methodically yet permitting supplementary probes to
be made when appropriate. The interviewees were also allowed to respond according to their
preference.
The interviews were recorded on tape, since there was only a single interviewer, and it was
distracting to ask questions and take down comprehensive notes at the same time. Hence, the
tapes were studied shortly after each interview, and the researcher was able to take notes and
summarize key data from the insights gathered. The approximate average of each interview was
54
32 minutes.
55
3.3 Limitations of Study
3.3.1 General Limitations
Sample size and selection limitation

As mentioned earlier, nonprobability sampling methods have limitations which hamper the
accuracy of the research results. Random or stratified sampling, both probability sampling
methods, would provide a more robust and validated sample selection, leading to more accurate
results. The limited sample size also limits the extent to which the results of this research can be
applied as general consumer behaviour theory.
Lack of real-time data

The study involved questioning participants on past actions related to viral marketing campaigns
which occurred in the past. Some of these questions include when last they forwarded product
recommendations or marketing messages to their social media acquaintances, or their reactions
to past viral marketing messages. Inability of respondents to recall some of these details will
decrease the accuracy of the data.
3.3.2 Limitations of In-depth Interview
Non-generalizable
Within the context of this research, the interview questions help to validate and provide further
insight into the findings of the survey. Due to this, the interview sample size is very small, and as
a result, the interview findings by themselves cannot be used to construct viral marketing and
consumer attitude theories that can be applied to a general population of consumers.
Time-related Issues
The decision, to allow interviewees take the interviews at their preferred location, led to multiple
distractions during many of the interview sessions. A number of interruptions occurred,
including telephone calls, and requests for short breaks, thus causing disruptions to the flow of
the interview. These disruptions led to the increase in time taken to complete the interview.
56

57
Chapter 4: Data Analysis

The table below shows the classification on survey questions in accordance to the relevant
hypotheses being tested for. It can be noted some questions are replicated in more than one
section, as they provided validation for more than one hypothesis.
Hypotheses Survey Questions Interview Questions

Dependent Variable
Attitude 3a, 3b, 3c 3a, 3b, 3c
H1(non-variable) 3d
Independent Variables
H3– Product 5a, 5b 4a, b
Experience
H4– Monetary 6a, 6b, 6c 6a, b, c, d
Incentives
H5– Entertainment 8a, 8b, 8c, 6c 7a, b
H6- 3c, 7a, 7b 5b, 8a, 6b
Informativeness
Table 4.1: Classification of survey and interview questions in accordance with hypotheses and research
variables
As noted in the previous section, the in-depth interviews act as a validation tool, which helps the
reader understand the survey findings further. This exploratory research touches on a topic not
widely researched, and as a result survey results may not be enough to correctly analyse some of
the proposed hypotheses. This therefore prompts the use of interview findings to better
understand consumer attitude to viral marketing.
4.1 Quantitative Data Analysis & Results
4.1.1 Measures
The survey consisted of four sections, categorized based on the nature of the questions asked,
and the hypotheses being tested. The first two sections consisted of general questions used to
58
gather basic information about respondents and their internet usage behaviour.
In the first section, general demographic information, such as the age, gender, educational
qualifications, and occupation of survey participants were gathered.
In the second section, the Internet and social media usage behaviour of respondents was
gathered, which helps to indicate if the respondent falls in the target group of this study, and also
examine the degree of prevalence of social media in respondents’ Internet use. At the beginning
of the section, the questions “Do you use the Internet?” and “How often do you connect to the
Internet in a typical week?” were asked, and respondents who and answered “No” and “2 days or
less” indicating little to no frequency of Internet use, were requested to leave the survey.
Respondents were then asked if they owned a social media account or not, and asked to select
which of the social media network they belonged to, among four options. Lastly, the frequency
of social media use was measured, by asking respondents to indicate how often they log in to
their social media accounts weekly.
The following sections were designed to test the proposed hypotheses using a five-point
Likert-scale, ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”, where the respondent
indicates his/her level of agreement with a statement, and some Ordinal scale questions, where
respondents were asked to rank the provided options based on their order of preference.
Attitude towards Viral Marketing
In the third section, the dependent variable, which is the respondents’ attitude towards viral
marketing was examined. To measure this, the statements “I am aware of internet
advertisements”, “I generally trust word of mouth information online”, “I like to find out
information online about a product I want to purchase” were judged on a five-point Likert scale.
The final statement “I am more affected by negative word of mouth than positive word of
mouth” directly examines the first hypothesis, which is related to this variable.
The fourth section examines the independent variables; various factors that may influence
positive attitude towards viral marketing within social media. These factors examined include:
59
Informativeness
This factor was measured by 3 items with 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 =
Strongly Agree). The items included statements such as; “Before purchasing or using a product, I
find out as much information as possible about the product”, “Social media adverts provide
useful information about products”, and “the amount of product information in a viral ad
determines if I will use or purchase the product”.
Entertainment
Strongly Agree). The items included statements such as; “I enjoy watching and sharing funny
ads with my friends on social media”, “I recommend products whose ads I find entertaining”,
and “I am inclined to purchase and use products whose ads I enjoy watching”. It was also
measured by 1 item with Ordinal scale, this item including a request for the respondents to “rank
in the order of relevance, which of the following incentives would most likely motivate you to
forward a marketing message to Facebook friends”.
Product Characteristics
Strongly Agree). The items included statements such as; “I am inclined to share word of mouth
information about products I use with my friends on social media”, and “I post bad reviews
about products I had a bad experience with, even if I enjoy watching their ads”.
Monetary Incentives
Strongly Agree). The items included statements such as; “I like brands that provide monetary
rewards for sharing their products”, and “I forward marketing messages to friends when there is
a financial reward, regardless of my experience with the product”. It was also measured by 1
item with Ordinal scale, this item including a request for the respondents to “rank in the order of
relevance, which of the following incentives would most likely motivate you to forward a
marketing message to Facebook friends”. The options include “Product freebies (software,
60
services, etc.)”, “Social causes or concerns (e.g. current affairs)”, “Monetary incentives (e.g. cash
rewards, coupons, discounts)”, “Fun or controversial content”, and “Social validation or
feel-good factor (being recognized as a trend-spotter)”.
4.1.2 Results of questionnaire
The data gathered were analysed using Minitab 18, a statistical program for data analysis.
Descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression analysis were the statistical techniques used in
the study. Descriptive analyses were conducted observe the social media use and general attitude
of consumers towards viral marketing. Statistical tests were conducted to ascertain the normality
of the data, as well as the characteristics of the variables, while correlation and regression tests
were conducted to test the factor-based hypotheses by examining the relationship between
factors and the effect of the independent variables (viral marketing factors) on the dependent
variable (attitude towards viral marketing).
Respondent Demographics
A total of 300 questionnaires were physically and digitally distributed to respondents, of which
214 questionnaires were completely filled and returned, thus returning a response rate of 71%.
The total sample size was 214 (N = 214), with a distribution of 51% (109) female and 49% (105)
male. The majority of the survey participants are young-aged (below 30) and educated
(Bachelor’s level education). All the survey respondents had appropriate reading and writing
skills to participate in the study. The educational profile of the sample includes: secondary
school leavers (15%); Bachelor’s degree holders (64%); Master’s degree holders (17%), and
PhD holders (4%). Appendix II shows further details of the survey findings, including
demographic results.
Descriptive Statistics
Normality of Data
Table 4.2 below shows the normality analysis of the data. In order to ascertain the normality,
Skewness (measure of lack of symmetry of data) and kurtosis were calculated. Skewness
measures symmetry (or the lack of symmetry) of a data set, while kurtosis measures whether the
61
data is peaked or flat relative to a normal distribution.
Typically, the Skewness of this data should be near zero, as a normal distribution has a Skewness
of zero. The values for both of these metrics for all variables fall between +1 and -1, thus
portraying normal distribution of data.
Variable Skewness Kurtosis
Attitude 0.041 -0.169
Product Experience -0.280 -0.638
Monetary Experience -0.068 -0.174
Entertainment -0.461 0.174
Informativeness -0.255 -0.331

Table 4.2: Normality Statistics
Table 4.3below shows the mean and standard deviation values for the variables. On a five-point
Likert scale with 1 the least favourable value and 5 the most favourable value, the average
respondent score on general attitude towards word of mouth and viral marketing was ___. This is
above the neutral (undecided) value of 3, which suggests a positive disposition towards viral
marketing and word of mouth.
Mean SD
Attitude 3.49 0.691
Product Experience 3.27 1.079
Monetary Experience 2.92 0.965
Entertainment 3.43 0.875
Informativeness 3.56 0.795

Table 4.3: Mean and standard deviation
The mean for each of the Likert scale questions was calculated using the following formula:
62
The mean measures the central tendency of all Likert-scale values and estimates the typical value
in the set. Appendix II shows the complete statistical tables for each of the Likert scale questions.
Relationship between Variables

Correlation
In order to understand the relationship between viral marketing/word of mouth factors and
consumer attitude, a correlation analyses was applied on the variables. The table below depicts
the value of the correlation for the variables identified in the study, in order to understand their
relationship with each other. The following variables show a positive and significant association
with general attitude towards viral marketing and word of mouth: source credibility, product
experience/characteristics, informativeness, entertainment.
Attitu Product Monetary Entertain Informative

de Experience Incentives ment ness
Attitude 1
Product 0.643* 1
Experience *
Monetary 0.053* -0.334** 1
Incentives *
Entertainment 0.488* 0.420** 0.495** 1
*
Informativeness 0.399* 0.370** 0.310** 0.342** 1
*
Table 4.4: Correlation Matrix
The Pearson correlation value of product characteristics and attitude towards viral marketing is
63
estimated at 0.643 and the significance value is .0 (r = .638**, p < .0). These values show a
positively significant relationship between both variables, and indicate that the product
experience of a consumer strongly affects his or her attitude towards online word of mouth
relating to that product.
The relationship between monetary incentives and attitude towards viral marketing is seen to be
very weak and insignificant. This is deduced from the Pearson correlation value of 0.063 and
significance value of 0.302 (r = .302**, p < .302). The findings indicate that monetary incentives
do not have an influence on consumer attitude towards viral marketing. However, between
variables of entertainment and consumer attitude towards viral marketing, the Pearson
correlation value is estimated at 0.451 (r = .451**, p < .0). This implies a moderately significant
influence of entertainment in overall consumer attitude towards viral marketing.
Finally, the Pearson correlation value of informativeness and attitude towards viral marketing is
estimated at 0.399 (r = .399**, p < .0). The relationship signifies that informativeness affects
attitude towards viral marketing, but to a lesser degree than other factors except monetary
incentives.
Other Findings
The nature of H1, H2.1, and H2.2 is such that they are stand-alone (neither independent nor
dependent), and thus do not have a correlation with any other variables. Considering that there is
a limited sample size chosen through convenience sampling, in order to test these hypotheses,
there is a need to increase the accuracy of the final results to the Likert scale questions related to
these hypotheses, and this is achieved by using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The calculated
mean and CI values will be used to determine if the hypotheses are true, false, or neutral, as
shown in Table 4.6.
Before calculating the confidence intervals, the standard deviation is first derived thus:
64
The final results will be based on the following:
Calculation Final results
± CI < 3 Disagree
± CI > 3 Agree
- CI < 3 Undecided
or
+ CI > 3
Table 4.6: Determination of final results from mean and CI values
H1: Negative word of mouth will have a stronger influence on consumers’ attitude than
positive word of mouth.
Question Statement Calculations Final response

3d I am more affected by negative Agree
+CI = 3.93
reviews of a product than positive
reviews – CI = 3.58
Table 4.7: Results of questionnaire for H1
The responses to 3d indicate that respondents agree with the hypothesis. The x +/–CI value of
3.93 is greater than (<) the neutral value of 3, which indicates agreement with the claim. These
findings correspond with earlier research from Herr et al. (1991, p. 460) which states that, even
with less frequency, the impact of negative word of mouth is more powerful than positive word
of mouth. Further insight on this assertion may be obtained from the interview findings on
65
Section 4.2.1.
Hypothesis 2.1: Social media has more credibility than other word of mouth platforms
Table:
Hypothesis 2.2: Celebrities have more source credibility than other WoM sources on social
media.
H2: Product experience has an influence on consumers’ attitude towards viral marketing and
online word of mouth.
Question Statement Calculations Final reponse

3d I am willing to recommend products Agree
+CI = 3.62
I enjoy using on social media.
– CI = 3.20
3d I am receptive towards new ads even Disagree
+CI = 1.93
if I had a bad experience previously
with the product. – CI = 0.98
From the above table, it can be deduced that respondents are willing to share positive word of
mouth messages about products they enjoy using. Also, according to responses from 5b,
respondents are not receptive towards new adverts of products which previously offered them a
poor user experience.
The above findings support the hypothesis that the user experience of a product is influential in
forming consumer attitude about a product. A customer satisfied with the user experience of a
product has a positive attitude towards viral adverts or word of mouth relating to the product.
The findings also support the positive correlation between product experience and attitude
towards viral marketing and online word of mouth, which was previously outlined in Table 4.__
(correlation matrix table).
H3: Financial incentives have a positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards viral
marketing and online word of mouth.
66
Question Statement Calculations/Rank Final response

6a I like brands that provide monetary Undecided
+CI = 3.62
reward for sharing their products.
– CI = 2.32
6b I forward marketing messages to Disagree
+CI = 2.23
friends when there is a financial
reward, regardless of my experience – CI = 1.23
with the product.
6c Rank in the order of relevance which 5th position
of the incentives would most likely
motivate you to share a marketing
message to your friends on social
media
From the above table, it can be deduced that respondents are undecided about feelings of
affection (affective attitude component) towards brands that offer monetary rewards for sharing
their products online. According to responses from 6b, respondents disagree with the view that
they would forward marketing messages if there are monetary rewards attached as incentives,
regardless of their experience with the product.
Additionally, the results of Question 6c indicate that from the provided options, monetary
incentives does not rank as the most motivating factor behind online sharing of word of mouth
information or viral adverts.
The above findings reject the hypothesis that the presence of monetary incentives is influential in
forming positive consumer attitude about a product. Based on these findings, there exists no
significant positive relationship between presence of monetary incentives and the affective or
behavioural attitudes of respondents.
H4: Entertainment of the viral message influences consumers’ attitude towards viral
Question Statement Calculations/Rank Final response
67
3d I enjoy sharing funny ads with my Agree

+CI = 4.06
friends on social media
– CI = 3.12
3d I recommend products whose ads I Agree
+CI = 3.12
find entertaining.
– CI = 2.10
3d I am inclined to purchase and use Undecided
+CI = 3.22
products whose ads I enjoy
watching. – CI = 2.46
6c Rank in the order of relevance which 2nd position
of the incentives would most likely
motivate you to share a marketing
message to your friends on social
media
Responses to 3d indicate that respondents have a positive perception of entertaining adverts

online, and are willing to share these ads to their friends on social media. Additionally, they are
willing to recommend products with entertaining ads to their friends. Respondents however, are
undecided if they would purchase a product due to their feelings of affection towards its advert.
The results of Question 6d also indicate the influence of entertaining content in driving online
sharing, as “fun and controversial content” ranks as the 2nd most motivational factor for sharing
links and videos online.
These findings support the hypothesis that entertainment influences positive word of mouth and
viral communication on social media. It also implies that entertainment is an integral factor in
driving online word of mouth and social sharing of viral adverts, however, its effect is not as
strong for individual preferences of purchase decision. The findings also align with the
correlation matrix that shows a moderately significant relationship between entertainment and
attitude towards viral marketing and online word of mouth.
H5: Informativeness of the viral message influences consumers’ attitude towards viral
68
Question Statement Calculations Final Response

3c I like to find out much information Agree
+CI = 3.39
about a product I want to purchase.
– CI = 3.03
7a Social media adverts provide useful Agree
+CI = 3.57
information about products.
– CI = 3.11
7b The amount of product information Undecided
+CI = 3.01
in a viral ad determines if I will share
the message. – CI = 2.59
Responses to 3c indicate that respondents are inclined to seek information about a product before
they purchase or use the product. Respondents also agree that social media adverts provide
useful information about products and services. The results of Question 7b show that respondents
are undecided if the amount of product information in an online advert determines if they will
share the marketing message.
These findings support the hypothesis that informativeness of a marketing message influences
positive attitude towards viral marketing. This influence affects the behavioural component of a
consumer's attitude, as informativeness drives purchase decisions, but not viral sharing of online
content.
69
4.2 Qualitative Data Analysis and Results

Similar to the questionnaires, the interview questions were also categorized according to the
hypotheses being tested. The interview responses will also be analysed in accordance with their
related hypotheses. The questions, the main responses of respondents, and the summary of the
researcher’s findings are presented in the tables below. Demographic analysis of the respondents
is also presented in Appendix IV.
4.2.1 Interview Results
After collecting basic demographic data about participants, the interview begins by identifying
the Internet browsing habits of participants. This information serves as a control variable to
further understand interpersonal contexts behind some of the quantitative findings.
Summary of results for Internet usage behaviour of consumers
Question Main quotes from respondents Summary of findings

1) Would you “Yes, I am familiar with the All of the respondents are
describe yourself Internet.” familiar with the Internet, and
as Internet savvy? “I have been using the Internet many platforms on it.
for more than 5 years, so yes”
“I guess so.”
b) How many “About two hourseach day, more Most of the respondents are
hours per on weekends” moderate to heavy Internet users,
week do you “More than 3 hours every day” spending more than 20 hours per
spend online? week on social activities online.
“Most of my professional duties
involve being online, so more However, participants who use
than 6 hours every day” the Internet for business are more
likely to be very heavy users,
spending more than 50 hours
weekly online.
c) What type of See Table 4.3
activities do
you engage in
online?
70
d) Do you or “Yes.” All of the respondents have social

your friends “Yes I am, but not all my friends media accounts, Facebook
own social are on social media” featuring predominantly. The
media popularity of Instagram among
accounts? “Yes, I am on Facebook and respondents between ages 20 and
Instagram” 30 indicates the increasing
“Yes, but I don’t use them all the popularity of mobile social
time.” media, especially among the
younger population.
Table 4.2: Internet consumption behaviour of consumers
All of the participants in the study describe themselves as moderate to heavy Internet users, and
are familiar with various Internet platforms (occurring most frequently are platforms like e-mail,
social networking sites – Facebook and Instagram, YouTube) and Google. 11 of the 15
participants spend more than 4 hours online every day of the week, accumulating a total of 21
hours per week. The major online engagements of interviewees vary widely, and thus, due to the
diversity of these activities, they have been categorized as either: (i) Social activities; (ii)
Information seeking activities; and (iii) Business/Commercial activities. These activities are
articulated in Table 4.3.
Participants Number Percentage

of Sample
Social Activities
Instant Messaging All participants 15 100%
Meet new friends All participants 15 100%
Have social media profiles All participants 15 100%
Share personal videos and A, B, C, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O 12 80%
photos
Watching videos on A, B, C, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O 13 87%
YouTube for leisure
Share funny photos and A, C, E, H, I, J, K, O 10 67%
videos with friends
Blogging B, F, G 3 20%
71
E-mailing friends C, D, F, I, O 5 33%

Information-Seeking
Search for information on All participants 15 100%
Google
Watch educational and A, C, D, E, G, J, M, N 8 53%
informative videos
Reading news online A, B, C, D, F, G, I, M, N, O 10 67%
Business/Commerce
Business connections B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, M, O 12 80%
(LinkedIn)
Search for jobs C, D, E, F, I, K, M, N, O 9 60%
Professional e-mailing All participants 15 100%
Online shopping B, E, F, G, I, J 6 40%
Table 4.3: Major Online Activities of Consumers
As seen above, all of the participants engage in common browsing activities (Google, social
media, and e-mailing). The above table also helps us understand the primary motivation for most
of their online activity. While most participants engage in social sharing of personal photos and
videos online, very few of them share original informative, as deduced from 20% of the sample
who blog. They may however share personal photos
Summary of interview results for consumer attitude towards WoM

The next set of questions evaluates general consumer attitude towards viral marketing. It also
evaluates the first hypothesis that “negative Word of Mouth influences consumers’ attitude more
than positive word of mouth”. It adapts items from Xavier & Summer (2009).

2a) How would you ● “Marketing information that Majority of the interviewees
define Viral spreads very fast” understand the basic concept of
Marketing? ● “Viral videos on the viral marketing. Half of the
Internet” respondents do not specifically
mention the Internet as the
● “Something that spreads fast platform for viral communication.
72
like a virus” However, most respondents

● “Marketing that is shared by correctly liken it to a virus, and
many people” point out videos as the prevalent
medium of viral communication.
b) Could you give ● “Dollar Shave Club” – “I Most respondents show a
any examples of found it amusing, and very favourable reaction to viral
viral new unique for a shaving stick products and marketing
products OR ad.” campaigns. Most respondents
adverts you have ● “Dropbox” – “I got various point out that most of the ads were
come across? emails from friends to install very funny and entertaining to
Describe your the app, and it seemed watch, and their level of
general reaction useful… The emails were participation did not go past
towards it not irritating” sharing videos and links to the
adverts. Some respondents
● “A GoPro ad” – “Their ads discovered the viral products,
are very interesting! Usually Dropbox and Snapchat through
action-packed and direct recommendation from
fast-paced.” friends, both online and offline.
● “Many Nike ads” – “I look
forward to Nike ads,
especially during football
tournaments, because they
feature many of my
favourite footballers.”
● “LG Elevator prank”
● “ALS Ice Bucket
Challenge” – “I thought it
was dumb and dubious, but
funny.”
● “Snapchat” – “All my
friends were using it. I was
curious”
c) Do you believe ● “Not all the time” There is a lukewarm reaction to
information ● “It depends on the source” trust of online information. Most
people share respondents would trust
online? ● “Sometimes” information that only comes from
a trustworthy source, but there is
73
● “Yes, but I usually verify” no mention of what makes a

source trustworthy (clues to this in
Table 4.5)
d) Have you used or ● “Yes, books mainly” Only three respondents answered
purchased a new ● “Yes, various items.” in the negative. Majority have
product that purchased items that they saw
someone shared ● “Apps, games” online. Some of the purchases
online? ● “No” were done offline however.
Respondents Cand H,who
responded negatively, were asked
to ignore the next question.
i) Would you do it ● “Yes” Experiences with purchases based
again? ● “For the same product, yes. I on WoM was evenly-split, with
don’t know about other some respondents expressing
types of products” enough confidence to make
another purchase from online
● “It depends” information, some under similar
● “No” circumstances.
Some respondents were not
satisfied with their purchases, but
claimed they will make another
purchase under different
conditions.
Two respondents claimed that they
would not make purchases based
on online information anymore.
e) Do you share ● “Yes” Most respondents engage in online
links, videos and ● “Yes I do, but only on social sharing, however the nature of
other information media.” content differs. Most respondents
with people share personal and entertaining
online? ● “I am a blogger, so yes.” status updates, photos and videos,
while a smaller subset engage in
blogging and other forms of
original content sharing.
f) What are the “Negative reviews turn me away A total of twelve out of fifteen
effects of from a product” respondents claim that viral
74
negative reviews “If a negative review is viral, I negative reviews of a product

on how you will most definitely view the make them perceive the product as
perceive a new product as inferior” inferior, and thus, they are not
product? “The experience of others likely to purchase or engage with
matters to me, so I am most the product further.
likely not to use the product” One of the respondents mentioned
“Depends on the source of that if the negative reviews comes
negative reviews, if they are from “like-minded” sources who
like-minded, I would agree with have the same preferences as her,
their reviews.” she would ignore the product, but
if that weren’t the case, she would
not be affected by the reviews.
g) Are you more “Yes, mostly. In my experience, Nine out of fifteen respondents
influenced by when people say a product is affirmed that negative word of
negative word of bad, it most likely is. But when mouth influences them more than
mouth than they say it’s good, many times it positive word of mouth. This is
positive word of isn’t.” because they believe negative
mouth? Why? “Yes, I wouldn’t want to take word of mouth is more likely to be
the risk of buying something genuine than positive WoM, and
people review poorly, and I end they wouldn’t want to take the risk
up disliking it also. I’d feel of trying something that has
stupid.” already been condemned by
others.
“It depends on the frequency of
both” Two of the respondents claim that
if positive reviews are as much as
“Both affect me the same way” negative reviews, they wouldn’t be
“I don’t care for either” much affected by the negative
reviews.
Three respondents claim that both
positive and negative Word of
Mouth have the same effect on
them, while one participant
claimed not to “care for either”
Table 4.4: General Attitude towards WoM/Viral Marketing
The above questions identify the various components consumer attitude; affective, cognitive, and
75
behavioural. The responses to 2b show a positive affect towards viral videos; consumers
generally have positive emotions toward them. However, there are mixed (positive and negative)
cognitive beliefs about the relevance and credibility of online word of mouth (2c). Behavioural
attitude towards online word of mouth is mostly positive, according to responses to 2d and 2e.
From the responses to 2b, it can be observed that of all the products respondents found out
through viral adverts, seven of them were new products by startups, with digital products such as
Dropbox, Instagram and Snapchat also featuring. However, the majority of viral adverts or
products respondents discovered are products developed by established organizations such as
LG, Nike, and Redbull.
H1: Negative word of mouth is more powerful than positive word of mouth
The results of interview questions 2f and 2g clearly shows that majority of respondents are more
influenced by negative word of mouth than positive word of mouth. 12 out of 15 respondents
(80%) believe negative reviews makes a product seem inferior and results in them turning away
from the product, and 9 out of 15 respondents (60%) clearly state that they are more likely to be
influenced by negative word of mouth, due to reasons of perceived risk and credibility. This
further supports the qualitative findings that test H1.
76
Summary of interview results on the effects of product experience

4a). After using a ● “Yes” All of the respondents indicate that
new product, if you ● “Only if the product is a good product experience
feel that it is good, exceptionally good.” motivates them to share
would you spread the information about the product
word on social ● “I can share information if I online. This is more likely when
media? feel that it is useful to my the product is exceptionally good
social media friends.” (four respondents claimed this), or
● “Sometimes, if it’s when they feel it is useful to their
convenient” social media friends (according to
five respondents).
B) Does your ● “Yes” According to all respondents, the

experience with a ● “Totally, a good experience experience with the product affects
new product makes me perceive how they view information about
affect your positively, any word of it online. Positive experience with
perception of mouth information I see a product results in positive
word of mouth about the product.” perception of online information,
information while a negative experience results
related to that ● “Yes, my experience with in a negative perception of online
product? previous purchases has led messages related to the product.
me to ignore some
messages”
Table 4.6: Product experience & Consumer Attitude
H2: The experience with the product is an influential factor affecting consumer attitude
toward viral marketing.
The findings of 4a and 4b indicate that all respondents see a positive correlation between product
experience and positive consumer attitude. According to all respondents, the user experience of a
product will determine if they further engage in positive word of mouth related to that product.
The findings also provide further insight into some reasons why a user may share information
about a product he or she enjoyed using. Firstly, the user considers the relevance of the product
to her social media friends, and secondly, the product has to exceptionally please the user,
77
resulting in delight (Rodić, 2012).
Summary of interview results on the effects of monetary incentives

6a) See 2ein Table See responses to 2e from Table See results from Table 4.4
4.4 4.4
i.) What is the “Funny videos” The nature of content differs
nature of the “News articles or blog posts” among people who share links and
content of the videos online. Most respondents
links/videos you “Amazon links or gift cards” share personal and entertaining
share? “Interesting games or apps I status updates, photos and videos,
recently came across” while a smaller subset engage in
“My economics/finance blog blogging and other forms of
posts” informative content sharing.
“Mostly personal pictures or Two respondents mention that they

videos” share Amazon gift cards to their
social media friends.
b) What is the main “When there is a reward for The answers to this question were
motivator for you to me” widely varied due to the
post links/videos on “Games and competitions” open-ended nature of it. Here, four
social media? participants mentioned motivations
“When I am emotionally or related to rewards that are
personally connected to the financially derived, e.g. cash
content.” prices, discounts, or rewards from
“When someone requests for competitions.
something” Other participants mentioned
“When I find something really reasons such as emotional or
funny or interesting” personal connection to the ad,
“I share content for informative sharing as a response to friends’
or enlightenment purposes” requests, or sharing mainly for
entertainment or informative
purposes.
c) What is your “I’ve never had such, but sounds While all respondents have not
opinion of new like something I would like.” been involved in campaigns that
products that provide “Seems nice” provide monetary rewards, five
monetary rewards if respondents mentioned that they
“Depends on the amount of
78
you share them? reward. If it’s a substantial would be favourably disposed to

reward, then great!” such an offer.
“It depends on the type of The other respondents do not have
product and nature of the an overly positive outlook on
reward. Direct cash seems sort products that offer monetary
of fishy” rewards for being shared. Four
“Unless it’s a competition, I respondents attribute this to their
don’t really care for such” fear that such products may be of
inferior quality. Others are
“Wary of such. They may do it distrustful of direct cash rewards,
out of desperation because their as they may not be able to retrieve
products aren’t really selling it easily.
out”
Two of the respondents answered
that they would only favour such
products when the rewards for
sharing are substantially high,
while two others are only receptive
to monetary rewards from
competitions.
d) Will you be “No, I don’t want to damage my Four respondents mentioned that
inclined to post credibility with my friends.” they would post positive reviews,
positive word of “If the reward is very high, then on conditions that either there is a
mouth about a I’m in.” significant reward for posting
product, regardless of positive reviews, or the product is
your experience with “If the product is consistently consistently of good quality.
that product, if you good, I would consider posting
positive word of mouth even Most respondents however
will earn a monetary claimed that they would not
reward for doing so? when I don’t have a quality
experience.” engage in positive promotion of
products when they have a bad
experience. These respondents
mentioned that they would not
want to damage their credibility
with friends by recommending
sub-par products for money.
Table 4.7: Monetary Incentives & Consumer Attitude
H3: Monetary incentives positively influence consumer attitude towards a viral marketing
79
message.
The findings of 6a (derived from 2e in Table 4.4) indicate that most respondents engage in online
sharing of a variety of content, including personal pictures, gift cards and coupons, news articles,
blog posts, of funny videos (6b). Four participants out of 15 mention financially derived benefits
(not direct cash) as their motivation for posting links and videos online (6b). It is pertinent to
note here that the three respondents who own a blog (Respondents B, F, G), also share content
online for informative and enlightenment purposes. This illustrates a pattern from which the
online preferences of consumers indicate the nature of content they engage with (Yesilada,
2011).
The findings of 6c indicate that most consumers are distrustful of small, direct cash rewards,
unless they are from games and competitions, but are more favourably disposed to financial
incentives presented in the contexts of promotions and value-added rewards. Also, respondents'
responses to 6d also shows that monetary incentives or rewards are not sufficient enough to
make customers post positive word-of-mouth about a product, regardless of their experience with
the product.
The above findings confirm the quantitative findings for this hypothesis, while providing further
insight into consumers' preference for promotions or value-added rewards as an incentive for
positive virality.
Summary of interview results on the effects of entertainment

See 2b in Table 4.4 ● See responses to 2b in Table The responses to Question 2b
4.4 indicate that the favourable
disposition towards viral adverts is
mainly due to the entertaining
content they contain. While the
question aims at identifying any
factors which may influence
positive reaction to viral messages,
the overwhelming resulting factor
is entertainment. Most respondents
80
point out that they discovered most

of the ads because they were very
funny and amusing to watch.
a) Did you pass “Yes I did, I wanted them to Seven respondents mentioned that
along the also enjoy it.” they shared the ads because they
message to “It was some sort of social wanted their friends to enjoy the
your friends campaign. I was asked to invite content, which they found
on social my friends.” entertaining. Two respondents who
media? discovered viral products were
Why/Why “I felt it would be useful to involved in referral campaigns that
not? them.” required them to share the
“It was funny. I like sharing message. Other respondents felt
funny videos online" that the ad/product would be
useful to their friends.
Do you feel you “Yes, I purchase products which Seven respondents would purchase
would purchase a I like, and I like products whose products because they enjoy the
product because you ads I enjoy” adverts. Eight respondents feel that
enjoyed the advert? “No, I wouldn’t purchase a they would not be influenced by
product because the ad was entertaining ads to purchase the
nice.” product.
See 6b in Table 4.7 See responses to 6b in Table 4.7

Table 4.9: Entertainment & Consumer Attitude
H4: Entertainment positively influences consumer attitude towards a viral marketing message.
From the results above, it can be deduced that entertainment is the major factor behind the
popularity of ads. Most of the campaigns mentioned by the respondents had humorous or
controversial content. Entertainment also positively influences social sharing, but it does not
have a strong effect on determining purchases of the product. The respondents who purchase
products due to their affection of the ads exemplify the consistency of attitude components
favoured by the tricomponent attitude model (Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010).
The findings support the weak correlation between entertainment and consumer attitude found
from the quantitative analysis of the hypothesis.
81
Summary of interview results on the effects of informativeness on consumer attitude

How relevant is the ● “Very important” Nine out of fifteen respondents
amount of product ● “Important, but I would still answer that the amount of product
information available verify the information from information present in an online
in a viral advert? other sources” advert (text or video) is important
to them. According to four of the
● “I’m not used to a breadth of respondents, they would still
information in online verify the information from other
adverts, but it’s easier to sources, such as word of mouth or
decide when there is review sites.
information.”
Two of the respondents claim that
● “Most adverts tell us what viral adverts do not provide useful
we need to hear, so I’d information to them, and as a
rather look out for other result they are not bothered about
things” it.
How accurate are ● “Sometimes they are, Ten respondents claimed that
social media adverts sometimes not.” social media adverts deliver
in communicating ● “Useful” product information that they
relevant information need, while three respondents
about products? ● “I think they are useful. claim that social media adverts do
They have just the not produce information that they
information I need” need.
● “Most social media ads According to two respondents,
provide information I don’t social media adverts sometimes
really need” inform accurately.
Table 4.8: Informativeness & Consumer Attitude
H5: Informativeness positively influences consumer attitude towards a viral marketing

message.
A few respondents claim that they do not trust information available in social media adverts, as
these adverts only portray what they want viewers to know. According to some respondents,
there is a dearth of accurate information in social media adverts, however, there is a consensus
amongst majority of the respondents that favours relevant product information to be available in
82
online advertisements.
This assertion confirms the findings of the quantitative analysis, which accepts the hypothesis
that “Informativeness influences positive consumer attitude towards viral marketing messages”.
The above findings also help to understand that, despite the relevance consumers place on
informativeness of adverts, some of them still verify such information with informal Word of
Mouth sources.
83
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 Summary and Interpretation of Findings
This research investigates consumer attitude towards word of mouth and viral marketing. It
examines five dimensions that influence different components of a consumer's attitude towards
viral marketing. In answering the research questions, one hypothesis was developed to test the
nature of general consumer attitude towards viral marketing, while five hypotheses were created
to identify the link between viral marketing and factors such as product experience and
characteristics, source credibility and trustworthiness, monetary incentives, informativeness, and
entertainment of viral marketing campaigns.
Within the context of the research, the study investigates the use of social media for sharing
activities among consumers. The study finds that the use of social media applications among
consumers is prevalent. 97.3% of the survey participants have a social media account, while
100% of the interview respondents are engaged on social media. The proliferation of mobile
devices and smartphones enables easy access to Internet-based applications that enable social
sharing, which majority of interview respondents partake in on the Internet. Facebook is the most
popular of the social networks, a non-surprising statistic, as Facebook has approximately 1.5
billion users all over the world, more than any other social network (Statista, 2015).
On the basis of the results of this study, H1 is accepted, affirming the claim that negative WoM
has a stronger influence on consumer attitude than positive reviews. This affirmation is
consistent with the views of various researchers (Mizerski, 1982; Weinberger and Dillon, 1980)
that when evaluating products, consumers place more weight on negative feedback than positive
feedback. Studies by Arndt (1967) also show that negative word of mouth has a greater impact
on beliefs, a cognitive component of consumer attitude according to Hawkins and Mothersbaugh
(2010), while Mittal et al. (1998) show that in accordance with the Prospect Theory (Kahneman
& Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), negative perceptions of a product have a
negative effect on repurchase intentions, a behavioural component of consumer attitude
(Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010).
84
Secondly, the results of this study indicate that product experience has an impact on consumer
attitude towards viral marketing and online word of mouth, thus accepting H2. A quality product
leads to customer satisfaction, which serves as a function of repurchase decisions and referrals to
family, friends and acquaintances both online and offline (John et al., 2014). The results of this
study support the research of Sundaram et al. (1998), which states that a satisfying product
performance accounts for a high percentage of Positive Word of Mouth communication.
As the research of Dichter (1966) shows, the personal experience of a user with a product will
spark a conversation about the product because, “… it is talk about the product which confirms
for the speaker his ownership and joy in the product or his discovery of it” (Dichter, 1966). In
order to measure the quality of product experience, Szymanski & Henard (2001) propose that the
concept of expectation is the standard against performance outcomes. Hence, if the outcome of
the experience exceeds the customer's expectations will be considered as satisfied, while if
expectation exceeds the outcome of the experience, the consumer will be deemed dissatisfied.
The findings of this study also show that monetary incentives, especially in the form of cash
rewards, does not have a significant impact on consumers' attitude towards viral marketing.
Quantitative findings show that, among motivators behind consumers sharing content and
evangelizing products online, monetary incentives is not the top motivator. This view is in
congruence with the research of Schulze et al. (2014), who observe that financial incentives are
not detrimental to viral marketing success for certain products; they are merely ineffective. The
non-participation of consumers in money-making sharing schemes may be due to the difficulty
of receiving payments (Klopper, 2002), as shown in the qualitative findings.
Other findings of the qualitative analysis help in understanding the contexts or scenarios in
which consumers engage in online word of mouth due to presence of incentives. The findings
show that respondents are more receptive to financial incentives that come in the form of
benefits related to the product, or value-added rewards.
Additionally, according to the results of this study, a positively significant relationship is

observed between entertainment and consumer attitude towards viral marketing. This implies
that entertaining content enables a positive reaction towards a viral advert or online word of
85
mouth information. Consistent with this finding, a variety of research shows that interesting,
surprising, novel, and funny things are more likely to be shared among consumers online (Berger
& Schwartz, 2011; Berger & Iyengar, 2013). Moderate controversy also boosts word of mouth
because it makes conversations around it interesting (Chen & Berger, 2013).
Quantitative results of this study show that entertainment does not directly influence individual
purchase decisions, but its powerful effect in driving social sharing creates a viral word of mouth
effect that leads to purchase decisions out of curiosity. Thus, it indirectly influences purchase
decision.
Finally, according to results of this study, informativeness has a moderate influence on consumer
attitude towards social media viral marketing and online word of mouth, thus H5 is accepted.
These results show a positive relationship between both variables, thus proving H5. According to
the results of this particular study, informativeness may influence purchase decision (Tsang et
al., 2004), but the study is not conclusive on its effects on social sharing. While empirical
evidence suggests that useful marketing messages or information are more likely to be passed on
and discussed on forums and email lists (Chiu et al., 2007; Lovett et al., 2013), there is no
concrete evidence that shows this phenomenon occurs similarly in social media platforms.
Usefulness of information displayed in ads may convince a user to share them so it makes them
seem smart or helpful.
The above findings, particularly quantitative results, encompass the primary findings of this
paper, while other insights gathered through analysis of the interview serve as additional insight
into the implications and factors of consumers’ attitudes toward online word of mouth and viral
marketing.
5.2 Implication of Findings for Startup Marketing

This study provides a variety of implications for startup marketers and product managers.
Startups may apply the findings of this study when planning and designing both viral campaigns
and word-of-mouth driven products. As the study shows, social media platforms offer a
potentially wide reach and variety of sources from which consumers may receive product
86
information. Also, the credibility of social media platforms may be leveraged to reach customers
personally through viral messages. Due to the interactive nature of social media platforms, use of
social media to promote viral messages can build bidirectional communication between startups
and consumers, thus fostering a long-term relationship and building customer loyalty in a
cost-saving manner.
The need for a quality product that delivers the right experience to the customer is all the more
important for digital products. In addition to promotions and adverts around these products, the
products themselves have to deliver an exceptional experience to the user, and possess
characteristics that allow the user of such a product to spread messages about the product easily
(Gupta, 2011; Setty, 2009). This belief informs the product referral marketing strategy prevalent
in popular digital products such as DropBox, Viber, etc. All these apps enable easy connection to
the user's social media accounts, to help them share their product experience much more easily.
Another implication of this study for startups is in the context of provision of incentives for
sharing new products. Startups may be attracted to this strategy as a “shortcut” to driving traffic
to its product. However, research has shown that consumers are more likely to be intrinsically
motivated to engage in viral product recommendations and sharing (Rensink, 2013; Jodl, 2010),
due to a variety of reasons such as satisfaction, emotional connection with the content, or the
fulfilment of an intrinsic need. This implies that, rather than focusing on providing rewards to
customers for sharing their products, startups should focus on delivering exceptional emotional
and product value to customers, in order to entice them to share the products. However, for paid
digital products which customers exchange money for, financial benefits (such as free vouchers,
discounts and promotional codes) could be provided to entice sharing, as this directly benefits
the product experience and customer satisfaction. For example, most cloud storage providers
(e.g. DropBox) offer free storage worth hundreds of dollars when customers refer their friends to
the product through social media or other channels.
Startups should also pay attention to the information content of viral messages advertising their
product. Because every customer’s social media preferences are different, digital products should
ensure marketing messages delivered to a customer’s feed are relevant to the customer’s
87
preferences. Authentic, relevant and useful information increases the credibility of viral
messages, and influence positive response to the message. Also, entertainment should be a
critical component of startup viral marketing. In order to generate interest in their products,
start-ups can invest in creating viral video adverts, which offer the most entertaining content and
online sharing potential.
88
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 Limitations and Further Research
Even though this study provides findings with useful implications, some limitations were
identified. Firstly, due to time and resource constraints, the selection and size of the sample was
suboptimal. Data was collected from a limited number of people, and the sample was selected
using nonprobabilistic methods that do not select a truly random sample. A larger sample size
selected through random sampling techniques could have generated better results with higher
chances of generalization. Additionally, the research could have done without the study of the
stand-alone hypotheses, as the analysis of these broaden the scope of this research unnecessarily,
and make the quantitative analysis complicated.
Additionally, real-time startup marketing campaigns could be developed and used as case studies
for gathering empirical data. This may eliminate any prior bias or preconceptions about a brand
which a consumer might have prior to the study. The findings generated in a real-world context
are more beneficial to a startup.
In addition to addressing the empirical limitations of this research, the findings point to a few
directions for additional research on similar topics. Firstly, further research may examine the
relationship between Internet browsing behaviour and consumers’ roles in being receivers or
source of word of mouth information. This insight could help in understanding the type of word
of mouth content different online personalities engage in. For example, some findings from the
qualitative analysis of this research show some links between bloggers and active sharers of
content for informative purposes.
Finally, other independent variables could be incorporated into further research, including
message structure factors such as irritation, or privacy issues, or psychological factors such as
perceived risk, self-efficacy, among others.
89
References
Acs, Z. and Audretsch, D. (2010). Handbook on entrepreneurship research. New York:
Springer.
AMA, (2012). Dictionary. [online] Ama.org. Available at:

https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=W#word-of-mouth+commu
nication [Accessed 7 Sep. 2015].
Andreasen, A. (2000). Social marketing institute update. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(2),
pp.59-59.
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product.

Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), p.291.
Arndt, J. (1967). Word of mouth advertising: A review of the literature. New York: Advertising
Research Foundation.
Arthur, D. and Vassilvitskii, S. (2007). k-means++: the advantages of careful seeding. In: SODA
'07: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms.
Philadelphia, PA, USA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, pp.1027-1035.
Assael, H. (1995). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western
College Pub.
Aziz, S., Ghani, U. and Niazi, A. (2013). Impact of Celebrity Credibility on Advertising
Effectiveness. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 7(1), pp.107-127.
Baker, W. (2001). The Diagnosticity of Advertising Generated Brand Attitudes in Brand Choice
Contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(2), pp.129-139.
Band, W. (1988). Measuring the High Payoff from Satisfied Customers. Sales and Marketing
Management in Canada, 4(August), pp.291-295.
Bansal, H. and Voyer, P. (2000). Word-of-Mouth Processes within a Services Purchase Decision
Context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), pp.166-177.
90
Barczak, G., Griffin, A. and Kahn, K. (2009). PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in
NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study *. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 26(1), pp.3-23.
Bauer, H., Barnes, S., Reichardt, T. and Neumann, M. (2015). DRIVING CONSUMER
ACCEPTANCE OF MOBILE MARKETING: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND
EMPIRICAL STUDY. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3), pp.181-192.
Beatty, S. and Smith, S. (1987). External Search Effort: An Investigation Across Several Product
Categories. J CONSUM RES, 14(1), p.83.
Berg, S. (2006). Snowball Sampling-I. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, pp.7817â€“7821.
Berger, J. and Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication Channels and Word of Mouth: How the
Medium Shapes the Message. J Consum Res, 40(3), pp.567-579.
Berger, J. and Schwartz, E. (2011). What Drives Immediate and Ongoing Word of Mouth?.
Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), pp.869-880.
Bernoff, J. and Li, C. (2010). Harnessing the power of the oh-so-social web. IEEE Engineering
Management Review, 38(3), pp.8-15.
Blackwell, R., Miniard, P. and Engel, J. (2006). Consumer behavior. Mason, OH:
Thomson/South-Western.
Blanco, C., Blasco, M. and AzorÃn, I. (2010). Entertainment and Informativeness as Precursory
Factors of Successful Mobile Advertising Messages. Communications of the IBIMA,
pp.1-10.
BlomstrÃ¶m, R., Lind, E. and Persson, F. (2012). Triggering Factors for Word-of-Mouth.
Bachelor Thesis within Marketing. JÃ–NKÃ–PING UNIVERSITY.
Boyce, C. and Neale, P. (2006). CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS: A Guide for

Designing and Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. PATHFINDER
INTERNATIONAL TOOL SERIES Monitoring and Evaluation â€“ 2. [online] USA:
Pathfinder International. Available at:
91
http://www2.pathfinder.org/site/DocServer/m_e_tool_series_indepth_interviews.pdf
[Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
Bristor, J. (1989). Enhanced explanations of word of mouth communications. [London]:

Research and Publications, School of Business Administration, University of Western
Ontario.
Brown, J. and Reingen, P. (1987). Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior. J
CONSUM RES, 14(3), p.350.
Brown, J. and Reingen, P. (1987). Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior. J
CONSUM RES, 14(3), p.350.
Buda, R. and Zhang, Y. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: the interactive effect of message
framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 9(4), pp.229-242.
Bughin, J., Doogan, J. and Vetvik, O. (2010). A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing.
[online] Mckinsey.com. Available at:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/marketing_sales/a_new_way_to_measure_word-of-mou
th_marketing [Accessed 3 Sep. 2015].
Bulygo, Z. (2012). The 7 Ways Dropbox Hacked Growth to Become a $4 Billion Company.
[online] Available at: https://blog.kissmetrics.com/dropbox-hacked-growth/ [Accessed 17
Aug. 2015].
Burke, C. (2014). Theo Paphitis: too many startups fail. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2014/jul/08/theo-paphitis-startups-dra
gons-den [Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
Burns, A. and Bush, R. (2000). Marketing research. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK).
BusinessDictionary.com, (2015). What is customer perception? definition and meaning. [online]

BusinessDictionary.com. Available at:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/customer-perception.html [Accessed 1 Sep.
92
2015].
Buttle, F. (1998). Word of mouth: understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 6(3), pp.241-254.
Cannarella, C. and Piccioni, V. (2007). Innovation Diffusion and Territorial Inertia. International
Journal of Rural Management, 3(2), pp.181-211.
Chaffey, D., Ellis-Chadwick, F., Mayer, R. and Johnston, K. (2006). Internet marketing,
Strategy, Implementation and Practice. 3rd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Chen, D., Gao, H., LÃ¼, L. and Zhou, T. (2013). Identifying Influential Nodes in Large-Scale
Directed Networks: The Role of Clustering. PLoS ONE, [online] 8(10), p.e77455. Available
at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077455 [Accessed 2
Sep. 2015].
Chen, Z. and Berger, J. (2013). When, Why, and How Controversy Causes Conversation. J
Consum Res, 40(3), pp.580-593.
Chiu, Y., Chiou, J., Fang, W., Lin, Y. and Wu, M. (2007). Design, Fabrication, and Control of
Components in MEMS-Based Optical Pickups. IEEE Trans. Magn., [online] 43(2),
pp.780-784. Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/3112361_Design_Fabrication_and_Control_of_Co
mponents_in_MEMS-Based_Optical_Pickups [Accessed 27 Aug. 2015].
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative qesearch: techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. California (Estatu Batuak): Sage.
Day, G. (1971). Attitude change, media and word of mouth. Journal of Advertising Research, 11,
pp.31-40.
Denil, D. (2014). Startups...Use Interactive Marketing by Donna Denil. [online]

Evancarmichael.com. Available at:
http://www.evancarmichael.com/Home-Based-Business/4402/StartupsUse-Interactive-Mark
eting.html [Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
93
DeZoort, F., Houston, R. and Hermanson, D. (2003). Audit Committee Member Support for
Proposed Audit Adjustments: A Source Credibility Perspective. AUDITING: A Journal of
Practice & Theory, 22(2), pp.189-205.
Dichter, E. (1966). How word-of-mouth marketing works. Harvard Business Review, 44(6),
p.148.
Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994). Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), pp.99-113.
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J. and van Wijk, R. (2007). Why pass on
viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons, [online] 50(4),
pp.291-304. Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222669758_Why_pass_on_viral_messages_Becau
se_they_connect_emotionally [Accessed 16 Sep. 2015].
Duhan, D., Johnson, S., Wilcox, J. and Harrell, G. (1997). Influences on Consumer Use of
Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
25(4), pp.283-295.
Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (1995). The psychology of attitudes. A.H. Eagly & S. Chaiken. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, & Janovich, 1993, 794 pp. Reviewed by Christopher Leone,
University of North Florida. Psychology and Marketing, [online] 12(5), pp.459-466.
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.4220120509/pdf [Accessed 3
Sep. 2015].
East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008). Measuring the impact of positive and negative
word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 25(3), pp.215-224.
Facebook for Business, (2013). Facebook for Business. [online] Facebook for Business.
Available at:
https://www.facebook.com/business/news/Custom-Audiences-Is-Now-Available-to-Every-
94
Advertiser [Accessed 24 Aug. 2015].
Facebook Inc, (2014). Facebook Reports Third Quarter 2014 Results - Facebook. [online]
Investor.fb.com. Available at: http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=878726
Frenzen, J. and Nakamoto, K. (1993). Structure, Cooperation, and the Flow of Market
Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), pp.360-375.
Furse, D., Punj, G. and Stewart, D. (1984). A Typology of Individual Search Strategies Among
Purchasers of New Automobiles. J CONSUM RES, 10(4), p.417.
Galalae, C. and Voicu, A. (2013). Consumer Behaviour Research: Jacquard Weaving in the
Social Sciences. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 1(2), pp.278-292.
Ghauri, P. and GrÃ¸nhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. New York:
Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Gilly, M., Graham, J., Wolfinbarger, M. and Yale, L. (1998). A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal
Information Search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), pp.83-100.
Haryani, S., Motwani, B. and Sabharwal, S. (2015). actors Affecting the Consumers Attitude
towards Internet Induced Viral Marketing Techniques. Arabian Journal of Business and
Management Review, [online] 5(4), pp.1-4. Available at:
http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/factors-affecting-the-consumers-attitude-towards
-internet-induced-viral-marketing-techniques-2223-5833-1000134.pdf [Accessed 1 Sep.
2015].
Hawkins, (2012). Consumer behavior. [S.l.]: Mcgraw Hill Higher Educat.
Heggestuen, J. (2015). One In Every 5 People In The World Own A Smartphone, One In Every
17 Own A Tablet [CHART]. [online] Business Insider. Available at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/smartphone-and-tablet-penetration-2013-10 [Accessed 2
Aug. 2015].
Helm, S. (2000). Viral Marketing - Establishing Customer Relationships by 'Word-of-mouse'.
95
Electronic Markets, 10(3), pp.158-161.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth
via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
Internet?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), pp.38-52.
Hirisch, R. (1992). The Need for Marketing in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 9(3), pp.43-47.
Hirschman, E. (1986). Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosophy, Method, and

Criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, [online] 23(3), p.237. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151482?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 12 Sep.
2015].
HubSpot, (2014). Jumpstart: The Guide To Growing A Startup With Inbound Marketing.
Iuliana-Raluca, G. (2012). Word-of-mouth communication: a theoretical review. Marketing and

Management of Innovations, 338(139), pp.132 - 139.
Jacoby, J. (1976). Consumer Psychology: An Octennium. In: Annual Review of Psychology.

Mussen, P., and Rosenzweig, M., pp.331â€“358.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.
Econometrica, [online] 47(2), p.263. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 4 Sep.
2015].
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Kelly, L., Kerr, G. and Drennan, J. (2010). Avoidance of Advertising in Social Networking Sites.
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), pp.16-27.
Kim, Y. and Lowrey, T. (2010). Marketing Communication on the Internet. Wiley International
Encyclopedia of Marketing. [online] Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem04062 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2015].
96
King, R. (2007). The Diet Coke and Mentos Explosion. [online] Businessweek.com. Available at:
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-01-16/the-diet-coke-and-mentos-explosionbusi
nessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice [Accessed 13 Aug. 2015].
Kirby, J. and Marsden, P. (2006). Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth
Revolution. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Klopper, H. (2002). Viral marketing: a powerful, but dangerous marketing tool. S Afr j inf
manag, 4(2).
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2006). Marketing Management. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., Roberto, N. and Lee, N. (2002). Social marketing. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Kotzab, H. and Westhaus, M. (2005). Research methodologies in supply chain management.

Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Kuester, S. (2012). Strategic Marketing & Marketing in Specific Industry Contexts.
Kulp, S. (2007). Advertising among ourselves: a qualitative study of viewer attitudes towards
viral marketing. Dissertation for the degree of MA. University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
Kurucz, V. (2008). erspectives of viral marketing among managers: an Internet based

assessment.. Dissertation for the degree of MA. University of Lugano F aculties of
Communication and Economics Sciences.
Litvin, S., Goldsmith, R. and Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and
tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), pp.458-468.
Livingston, J. (2014). Jessica Livingston: Why Startups Need to Focus on Sales, Not Marketing.
[online] WSJ. Available at:
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus
97
-on-sales-not-marketing/ [Accessed 10 Aug. 2015].
Loudon, D. and Della Bitta, A. (1993). Consumer behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lucas, S. (2012). Beyond the existence proof: ontological conditions, epistemological

implications, and in-depth interview research. Quality & Quantity, 48(1), pp.387-408.
Lunden, I. (2014). Internet Ad Spend To Reach $121B In 2014, 23% Of $537B Total Ad Spend,
Ad Tech BoostsÂ Display. [online] TechCrunch. Available at:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/07/internet-ad-spend-to-reach-121b-in-2014-23-of-537b-tota
l-ad-spend-ad-tech-gives-display-a-boost-over-search/ [Accessed 8 Aug. 2015].
Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Bass, F. (1990). New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A
Review and Directions for Research. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), p.1.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H., Renzl, B. and Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric
relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: a
reconsideration of the importanceâ€“performance analysis. Industrial Marketing
Management, [online] 33(4), pp.271-277. Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673151_The_Asymmetric_Relationship_betwe
en_Attribute_Level_Performance_and_Overall_Customer_Satisfaction_A_Reconsideration
_of_the_Importance-Performance_Analysis [Accessed 13 Sep. 2015].
Miller, R. and Lammas, N. (2015). Social media and its implications for viral marketing. MSc.
The University of Sydney.
Mizerski, R. (1982). An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of

Unfavorable Information. J CONSUM RES, 9(3), p.301.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. and LaForge, R. (2015). Entrepreneurial Marketing: A Construct

for Integrating Emerging Entrepreneurship and Marketing Perspectives. The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, [online] 10(4), pp.1-19. Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257926297_Entrepreneurial_Marketing_A_Constr
uct_for_Integrating_Emerging_Entrepreneurship_and_Marketing_Perspectives [Accessed 4
98
Aug. 2015].
Murray, K. (1991). A Test of Services Marketing Theory: Consumer Information Acquisition

Activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), p.10.
Palka, W., Pousttchi, K. and Wiedemann, D. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth â€“ A grounded
theory of mobile viral marketing. J Inf Technol, 24(2), pp.172-185.
Palka, W., Pousttchi, K. and Wiedemann, D. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth â€“ A grounded
theory of mobile viral marketing. J Inf Technol, 24(2), pp.172-185.
Patel, R. and Davidson, B. (2011). Forskningsmetodikens grunder. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Peltovuori, E. and Westrin, E. (2014). Buzz marketing in startups - A case study on the online
dating startup Mazily. BUSN39 Degree project in Global Marketing. LUND UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT - DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION.
Peres, R., Shachar, R. and Lovett, M. (2011). On Brands and Word-of-Mouth. SSRN Electronic
Journal, 50, pp.1-48.
Perloff, R. (2010). The dynamics of persuasion. New York: Routledge.
Perner, L. (2010). Consumer Research Methods. [online] Consumerpsychologist.com. Available

at: http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/cb_Research_Methods.html [Accessed 8 Sep.
2015].
Petty, R. and Krosnick, J. (1995). Attitude strength. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. and Schumann, D. (1983). Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising
Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. J CONSUM RES, [online] 10(2),
p.135. Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/24098334_Central_and_Peripheral_Rates_to_Adv
ertising_Effectiveness_The_Moderating_Role_of_Involvement [Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
99
Radder, L. (2002). The brand capability value of integrated marketing communications.

Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies,, 7(1), pp.45- 51.
Reyck, B. and Degraeve, Z. (2003). Broadcast Scheduling for Mobile Advertising. Operations
Research, 51(4), pp.509-517.
Riley, M. (2000). Researching and writing dissertations in business and management. London:
Thomson Learning.
RodiÄ‡, N. (2012). Best Practices in Viral Marketing. MSc. Aalto University.
Saad Aslam, (2011). Effect of Word of Mouth on Consumer Buying Behavior. MJSS.
Saadeghvaziri, F. and Hosseini, H. (2011). Mobile advertising: An investigation of factors

creating positive attitude in Iranian customers. African Journal of Business Management,
5(2), pp.394-404.
Sahney, S. (2015). CONSUMER BEHAVIOR.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Setty, R. (2009). Lessons from 9 Viral Videos and 3 Second Acts | Rajesh Setty. [online]
Rajeshsetty.com. Available at:
http://www.rajeshsetty.com/2009/08/18/lessons-from-9-viral-videos-and-3-second-acts/
Shrader, R. and Simon, M. (1997). Corporate versus independent new ventures: Resource,
strategy, and performance differences. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), pp.47-66.
Sohail, K. (2012). CONSUMERSâ€™ATTITUDE TOWARDS VIRAL MARKETING IN

PAKISTAN. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, [online]
7(4), pp.645-662. Available at: http://www.managementmarketing.ro/pdf/articole/289.pdf
Solomon, M. (1983). The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism
100
Perspective. J CONSUM RES, 10(3), p.319.
Sommer, R. and Sommer, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Statista, (2015). Global social networks by users 2015 | Statistic. [online] Statista. Available at:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-user
s/ [Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
Statistic Brain, (2015). Startup Business Failure Rate By Industry | Statistic Brain. [online]
Statisticbrain.com. Available at: http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/
Stout, A. (2012). Inside Startups â€¢ The UK Startup Economy In Numbers: Nov 2012. [online]
Insidestartups.co.uk. Available at:
http://www.insidestartups.co.uk/blog/the-uk-startup-economy-in-numbers-nov-2012/
Szymanski, D. and Henard, D. (2001). Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical

Evidence. j acad market sci, 29(1), pp.16-35.
Tax, S., Chandrashekaran, M. and Christiansen, T. (1993). Word-of-mouth in consumer

decision-making: an agenda for research. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, [online] 6(10), pp.74-80. Available at:
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/staylor/csdcb/articles/Volume6/Tax%20et%20al%201993.pdf [Accessed
6 Sep. 2015].
The Effects of Unfavorable Product Rating Information. (1980). In: Advances in Consumer
Research. [online] Association for Consumer Research, pp.528-532. Available at:
http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/9729/volumes/v07/NA-07 [Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
Thompson, C. (2008). Is the Tipping Point Toast?. [online] Fast Company. Available at:
http://www.fastcompany.com/641124/tipping-point-toast [Accessed 1 Sep. 2015].
Till, B. and Shimp, T. (1998). Endorsers in Advertising: The Case of Negative Celebrity
101
Information. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), pp.67-82.
Tsang, M., Ho, S. and Liang, T. (2004). Consumer Attitudes toward Mobile Advertising: An
Empirical Study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), pp.65-78.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, [online] 211(4481), pp.453-458. Available at:
http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf [Accessed 3 Sep. 2015].
UWE, (2015). Research Observatory @ UWE. [online] University of West London. Available
at:
http://ro.uwe.ac.uk/RenderPages/RenderLearningObject.aspx?Context=7&Area=1&Room=
3&Constellation=28&LearningObject=159 [Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), pp.1-17.
Vincos Blog, (2015). Social Media Statistics | Vincos Blog. [online] Vincos.it. Available at:
http://vincos.it/social-media-statistics/ [Accessed 2 Sep. 2015].
Wagner, E. (2013). Five Reasons 8 Out Of 10 Businesses Fail. [online] Forbes.com. Available
at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fai
l/ [Accessed 8 Sep. 2015].
Wiacko, R. (2010). And the â€˜Oldspice Maneuverâ€™ is created, blows the doors off of
advertising. [online] This is à¤°à¤¾à¤¯à¤¨ - Blogging outside the box since 2009.
Available at:
http://ryanwiancko.com/2010/07/15/and-the-oldspice-maneuver-is-created-blows-the-doors
-off-of-advertising/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2015].
Wilkie, A. (1995). More on a Stochastic Asset Model for Actuarial Use. British Actuarial
Journal, 1(05), pp.777-964.
Woerndl, M., Papagiannidis, S., Bourlakis, M. and Li, F. (2008). Internet-induced marketing
102
techniques: Critical factors in viral marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Science and
Applied Management, 3(1), pp.34-45.
Wrenn, B., Stevens, R. and Loudon, D. (2007). Marketing research. New York: Best Business
Books.
Wyse, S. (2014). Advantages and Disadvantages of Face-to-Face Data Collection. [online] Snap
Surveys Blog. Available at:
http://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-facetoface-data-collection/
Yale, L. (1987). An Empirical Study of Word of Mouth Behavior: Antecedents, Processes and
Outcomes. Working Paper. Graduate School of Management University of
California-Irvine.
Zimmerman, M. and Zeitz, G. (2002). Beyond Survival: Achieving New Venture Growth by
Building Legitimacy. The Academy of Management Review, 27(3), p.414.
103
Appendix I: Survey questionnaire

SURVEY ON VIRAL MARKETING & WORD OF MOUTH
FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMER ATTITUDE
1. Demographics
1a What is your gender?

☐Male ☐Female
1b What is your age?
☐ 20 and
☐ 21 to 25 ☐ 26 to 30 ☐ 31 to 35 ☐ above 35
below
1c What is your highest level of education?
☐Secondary ☐Bachelors ☐Master’s ☐PhD
1d What is your occupation?
2. Internet & Social Media Use
2a Do you use the Internet?

☐Yes ☐No
2b How often do you connect to the Internet in a week?
☐ 2 days or
☐ 3 to 4 days ☐ 5 to 6 days ☐every day
less
2c Do you own a social media account?
☐Yes ☐No
2d Which of the following social networks do you belong to?
Facebook ☐
Twitter ☐
Instagram ☐
Google Plus ☐
2e How often do you log into your social media account in a week?
104
☐Every other ☐Occasionall

☐ Daily ☐Weekly ☐Monthly
day y
105
3. General Attitude towards Word of Mouth/Viral Marketing
3a I am aware of internet advertisements
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3b I generally trust word of mouth information online

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3c I like to find out information online about a product I want to purchase

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3d I am more affected by negative word of mouth than positive word of mouth

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

106
4. Product Experience & Word of Mouth/Viral Marketing
5a I am eager to share messages about products I use to my friends on social media

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I post bad reviews about products I had a bad experience with, even if I enjoy watching their
5b
ads
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
107
5. Monetary Incentives & Word of Mouth/Viral Marketing
6a I like brands that provide monetary rewards for sharing their products

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I forward marketing messages to friends when there is a financial reward, regardless of my

6b
experience with the product
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Rank in order of relevance, which of the following incentives would most likely motivate you
6d
to forward a marketing message to your friends on social media
Product freebies (software, services, etc.) Select ranking
Social causes or concerns (e.g. current affairs) Select ranking
Monetary Incentives(e.g. cash rewards, coupons, discounts) Select ranking
Fun or controversial content Select ranking
Social validation or feel-good factor (being recognized as a Select ranking
trend-spotter)
108
6. Informativeness & Word of Mouth/Viral Marketing
6a Social media adverts provide useful information about products

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6b The amount of product information in a viral ad determines share the advert.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. Entertainment & Word of Mouth/Viral Marketing
7a I enjoy watching and sharing funny ads with my friends on social media

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7b I recommend products whose ads I find entertaining

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7c I am inclined to purchase and use products whose ads I enjoy watching

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
109
Appendix II: Main Results of Survey

Demographics
1. Gender
Chart 1: Gender Information of Respondents
110
2. Age Bracket
Chart 2: Age Bracket of Respondents
111
3. Level of Education
Chart 3: Level of Education of Respondents
112
Internet Usage
4. Average time connected tothe Internet per week
Chart 4: Average times connected to the Internet in a week
113
5. Ownership of social media account
Chart 5: Ownership of social media account
114
Appendix III: Interview Guide

1) Would you describe yourself as net-savvy?
a) How many hours per week do you spend online recreationally?
b) What type of things do you look at online regularly?
c) Do you/your friends own social media accounts?
2) What is your general attitude towards word-of-mouth and viral marketing?
a) How would you define Viral Marketing?
b) Could you give any examples of viral new products OR adverts you have come across?
Describe your general reaction towards it.
c) Do you trust information people share online?
d) Have you used/purchased a new product that was shared by someone online?
◦ Would you do it again?
e) Do you share links, videos with people online?
f) What are the effects of negative reviews on how you perceive a new product?
g) Are you more influenced by negative word of mouth than positive word of mouth? Why?
3) Monetary Incentives & Consumer Attitude towards WoM
a) Question 2e
◦ What was the content of the link/video?
b) What is the main motivator for you to post links/videos on social media?
c) What is your opinion of new products that provide financial rewards for sharing them?
d) Will you be inclined to post positive word of mouth about a product if you will earn a
monetary reward for doing so?
4) Informativeness and Consumer Attitude
a) How relevant is the amount of product information available in an online advert?
b) How useful are social media adverts in communicating relevant information about
products?
115
5) Entertainment & Consumer Attitude towards WoM
a) 2b – Could you give any examples of viral products OR adverts you have come across?
Describe your general reaction towards it.
◦ What did you find interesting about the advert?
◦ Did you pass along the message to your friends on social media? Why/Why not?
b) Would you purchase a product because you enjoyed the advert?
c) Question 3b - What is the main motivator for you to post links/videos on social media?
116

Social Media Viral Marketing: Factors Influencing Consumer Attitude

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Media Viral Marketing: Factors Influencing Consumer Attitude

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Media Viral Marketing & Word Of Mouth | Paul Oladimeji

3.3.1 General Limitations 49

1.1.1 Consumer Behaviour

1.1.2 Viral Marketing in Startups

a framework for identifying consumer attitude to viral marketing.

1.2 Problem Definition

1.2.1 Marketing Limitation of Startups

1.3 Research Questions

1.6 Outline of Study

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Chapter 4: Data Analyses

Chapter 7: Conclusion & Further Research

Figure 1.1: Thesis Outline

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical

2.1 Theoretical Background

2.1.1 Word of Mouth (WoM)

Medium of Online Word-of-Mouth Communication

Aside enabling both asynchronous and synchronous one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many

2.1.2 Viral Marketing: Electronic Word of Mouth

The notion of viral marketing as a “​network-enhanced word-of-mouth​” was further cemented in

Viral Marketing Communication using Social Media

purchasing decision based on the information gathered on those social platforms.

the use of a fake blog to promote viral content about Walmart.

Category Potential References

Types of Viral Marketing

● Organic (uncontrolled) Viral Campaigns

● Amplified (controlled) Viral Campaigns

1. Organic Viral Campaigns

2. Amplified Viral Campaigns

2.1.3 Previous Research on WoM

Most existing literature on word-of-mouth communication interspersed with consumer behaviour

● The second stream concentrates on the in-depth understanding of the information-seeking

2.2 Theoretical Models

2.2.1 Online Word of Mouth Model

Figure 2.3: The Online WoM model

Intrapersonal communication within a consumer involves the interplay of emotions which

Extrapersonal communication encompasses all of the interaction that occurs outside of a

2.2.2 Consumer Attitude

An attitude “is an enduring organization of motivational, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive

It is critical for marketers to understand consumer attitudes, as a consumer with a positive

Components of Consumer Attitude

Figure 2.4: Tri-component model of Consumer Attitude

Nature of Consumer Attitude

Figure 2.5: Attitude Component Consistency

Consumer Attitude Models

Structural Model Description

result of their exposure to an advertisement.

2.2.3 Formulation of Hypotheses

Consumer Behaviour & Attitude towards Word of Mouth

higher frequency of positive word-of-mouth. As a result of this, negative word-of-mouth tends to

2.2.4 Linking the Viral marketing factors to Consumer Attitude

c) Increased or continued engagement with the brand or product.

d) Intention to purchase the product.

e) Actual purchase of the product.

Iuliana-Raluca (2012) posits that involvement in word-of-mouth communication, either as a

WoM that is triggered by marketing campaigns is known as ​consequential WoM​. Consumers

Informativeness is a vital incentive for positive consumer attitude toward product

Figure 2.6: Model of WoM Impact (Sweeney et al., 2008)

2.2.5 Summary of the Model

Figure 2.7: Research Model

Figure 3.1: Inductive Research

Figure 3.2: Deductive Research

3.2 Research Method

3.2.1 Choice of Method

The notion of viral marketing as a “network-enhanced word-of-mouth” was further cemented in

WoM that is triggered by marketing campaigns is known as consequential WoM. Consumers

H5: Informativeness positively influences consumer attitude towards a viral marketing

AMA, (2012). Dictionary. [online] Ama.org. Available at: