ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online) Volume 2 Issue 1, January (2011)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
OPINION LEADERSHIP AND WORD OF MOUTH (A REVIEW): CONCEPTUAL AND
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA
Adya Sharma
Faculty, Symbiosis Institute of International Business, Pune
ABSTRACT
There have been opinion leaders and opinion seekers from time immemorial. Marketing world
has always acknowledged its presence though there have been views over the level of importance given to
it. Most probably this is one topic that has always been an area of interest for researchers and one can
find research views on it in a lot of early dated journals. What is also true at the same time is that the
marketing world is changing. The changes (especially technological) witnessed in the last two decades
are more than what the world has witnessed in the last century. Information is only a click away and the
consumer is spoilt for choices. In such a scenario along with information what is equally important is
trust and authenticity of information. The word of mouth is a strong tool available for marketers today.
The correct handling can be rewarding and mistakes can be costly. The paper attempts to understand the
implication and implementation of word of mouth by doing a literature review of various researches done
in last two decades. Further the paper attempts to understand the gaps and identify future research areas
with India as the focal point.
Key words: Logistics, Retailing, inventory, service.
Opinion Leadership and Word of Mouth (A Review): Conceptual and Managerial Implications for India
“You know, it's not the people in Hollywood who go to see movies that will make a movie successful; it's the
people all around the country; it's word-of-mouth”. Pia Zadora
Introduction
Informal communication has always influenced consumer’s consumption behaviour. The source of the
informal communication may be friends, neighbours or in the changing technology world it may be the social
networks, chat rooms, blogs, consumer message boards etc. Researchers over the years have studied the
informal communication process and defined it as the process by which opinion leader informally influences the
actions or attitudes of others who may be opinion seekers or opinion recipients. The informal two way
communication process is also termed word of mouth and an opinion leader plays a dominant role in word of
mouth communications. Kotler says that in the era of consumer empowerment led by abundant information and
networked communities, word of mouth becomes the new advertising medium and consumers believe strangers
within their community more than they believe companies. (Kotler, Hermawan Kartajaya, Iwan Setiawan,
Marketing 3.0, 2010)
This paper is an attempt to understand the changing face of word of mouth and opinion leaders through
a literature review of various researches done in the last two decades on this topic. Based on the literature
review, attempt is made to understand the implications and implementation of word of mouth under various
headings like -characteristics of opinion leaders, product characteristic and word of mouth and influence of
word of mouth on decision making. The paper attempts to understand the gaps and identify future research
areas, with India as the focal point.
Opinion Leaders and Word of mouth
Opinion leaders have been identified as an important element of the two step flow of communication.
Greater focus on relational data in study of informal communication has been emphasized where findings
highlight stronger the tie between the service marketers personal relationships with other marketers of related
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online) Volume 2 Issue 1, January (2011)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
service, the more likely it is to be activated for flow of referral (Peter H. Reingen and Jerome B. Kernan, 1986)
When customers engage in word of mouth behaviour following a customer initiated contact the median number
of customers influenced was found to be approximately three regardless of customer initiated contact, customer
characteristic and so forth (Douglas Bowman and Das Narayandas, 2001) Opinion leadership was found to be
most strongly associated with word of mouth comments that include information and advice giving, however
situational involvement was not found to be related to opinion leadership but enduring involvement appeared to
be an important antecedent resulting in opinion leadership (Marsha I. Richins and Terry Root Shaffer, 1988)It
was also found that enduring involvement drives opinion leadership which in turn accounts for behaviour such
as exerting influence, gaining knowledge and sharing information and experience.(Meera P Venkatraman,1990)
Characteristic of opinion leaders
Lot of research has been done in trying to identify the characteristics of opinion leaders. The highlights
have been summarized in Table 1. It was found that marketers do not have to look for opinion leaders in a
specific category but look for leaders and people of influence within a certain community and the people are
very likely to be opinion leaders in the community. In a way a person’s structural position in a network was
found to be a good indication of opinion leadership (R.Van der Merwe and G.Van Heerden, 2009) Willingness
of individuals to individuate themselves in disseminating opinion was also found to be an important
characteristic of the opinion leader along with product familiarity and personal involvement (Kenny K.Chan and
Shekhar Misra, 1990) The importance of social network position was reiterated in another study by Weinman
which found that identification of influential should be related to the concept of opinion leaders and it is not just
a uni-dimensional measure but a combination of personal traits with social position in their personal
network(Gabriel Weinmann, 1991) Further product familiarity, personal involvement (Kenny k.Chan and
Shekhar Misra, 1990), expertise on product(Jacob Jacoby and Wayne D.Hiyer, 2001) were some of the
characteristics identified for opinion leaders. High level of product category involvement and loyalty was found
to be a strong determinant for opinion leadership. On the other hand need for variety was a more important
determinant for market mavens (Nicola E.Stockburger and Wayne D. Hoyer, 2009) Opinion leadership
relationship with innovativeness was found to be stronger than with a three dimensional exploratory behaviour
construct (new brand trial, information and cautiousness).Opinion leaders were found to have a need to be users
of new products/brands as against market mavens who besides having a need to be users of new brand also
sought information and were risk takers. (Ayalla Ruvio and Aviv Shoham, 2007).
The characteristics of online opinion leaders were not found to be very different. They too possessed
higher levels of enduring involvement, innovativeness, exploratory behaviour and self-perceived knowledge
than non-leaders. Online opinion leaders had greater computer skills, used internet for longer period of time than
non-leaders (Barbara Lyons and Kenneth Henderson, 2005) The theory that opinion leadership is a two way
flow of communication was further reiterated in findings of Lawrence F.Feick and et al. Two thirds of opinion
seekers also view themselves as opinion leaders in a product category. (Lawrence F. Feick, Linda L.Price and
Robin A. Higie,1986)Opinion leaders were found to use higher quality sources of information and rely on
interpersonal discussions. This study also highlighted that social context plays a key role in determining opinion
leadership because opinion leaders are more informed than others in the same social network (Christine H.Roch,
2005) Several new motivational factors like seeking retaliation, seeking compensation, seeking bargaining
power as well as three dimensions of altruism towards people with close ties, fellow consumers and business
organization were also found. (Mee Shew Cheung, M Meral Anitsal and Ismet Anitsal, 2007) Locus of control
was also found to effect word of mouth as individuals high on internal locus of control had more probability of
engaging in word of mouth communication with their out-group. (Desmond Lamand Dick Mizerski, 2005)
Table 1 - Characteristics of Opinion Leaders: Quick look
Research Paper
R.Vander Merwe and G.Van Heerden, 2009,
Gabriel Weinmann, 1991, Christine H.Roch, 2005
Kenny k.Chan and Shekhar Misra, 1990
Nicola E.Stockburger and Wayne D. Hoyer, 2009
Christine H.Roch, 2005
Characteristics
Importance of structural position in network
Product familiarity and personal involvement
Product category involvement
High quality source of information
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online) Volume 2 Issue 1, January (2011)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Desmond Lamand Dick Mizerski, 2005
Jacob Jacoby and Wayne D.Hiyer, 2001
Ayalla Ruvio and Aviv Shoham, 2007
Mee Shew Cheung, M Meral Anitsal and Ismet
Anitsal, 2007
Meera P Venkatraman,1990
Marsha I. Richins and Terry Root Shaffer, 1988,
Meera P Venkatraman,1990
Importance of locus of control
Expertise on product
Users of product
Identified new motivational factors
Exert influence, share information
experience
Importance of enduring involvement
and
Implications
Social networks and position of an individual was identified as criteria for Opinion leaders. Also
enduring involvement, knowledge, product involvement, higher quality sources of information and
innovativeness were also important characteristics of opinion leaders. Companies can manage word of mouth by
identifying opinion leaders and by analyzing how different groups of customers interact and influence each
other. In India where power distance is high and yet collectivism is also strong, it would be interesting to note if
these characteristics are true for Indian Opinion Leaders also. Not much difference was found between
traditional opinion leaders and online opinion leaders. In India where access to internet is increasing
dramatically specially among the youth, it would be important and interesting to examine the characteristics of
emerging online leaders.
Product characteristic and word of mouth
Importance of product characteristics varied for different products for opinion leaders. Further little
overlap was found across product categories for opinion leadership (Ronald E.Goldsmith and Thomas S.De
Witt, 2003). It was centrality of visual product aesthetics and need for uniqueness that was important for opinion
leaders of apparel. (Jane E. workman and Lark F. Caldwell, 2007) Tendency to be an opinion leader for stereo
equipment was highly related to one’s knowledge and ownership of stereo equipment. (Jacob Jacoby and Wayne
D.Hoyer, 2001) Working women were found to perceive themselves more likely as opinion leaders on clothing
and business and less likely on products like cooking and children (George M Rose, Lynn R Kahle, aviv
Shoham, 1995) For technical performance attributes consumers preferred to consult experts but for radical
innovation they preferred to talk to a socially connected person for information about attributes that require skill
to use ( Jacob Goldenberg, Donald Lehmann, Sangman Han, 2009) A study on effect of “need for uniqueness”
on word of mouth highlighted that for owned public products the effect of uniqueness was stronger for word of
mouth that included positive recommendations than for word of mouth that contained only product details.(amar
Cheema and Andrew M Kaikati, 2010) Products that are unique in some way (look, functionality, ease of use,
efficacy, price, visibility etc) were found to have the potential to create word of mouth (Renee Dye, 2000)
Implications
Need for uniqueness was a common thread for opinion leaders of different products. Familiarity with
product (either by ownership or experience) was also important criteria for opinion leaders. To encourage
opinion leader’s involvement with the product, marketers need to highlight the uniqueness of the product.
However little or no evidence was found in various studies to understand how opinion leaders define uniqueness
and does the definition of uniqueness differ by products? Uniqueness as defined in one culture may or may not
meet the expectation of another culture and in such a scenario understanding and highlighting the uniqueness of
the product would be an important parameter to reach out to opinion leaders in different countries.
Influence of word of mouth
There never has been a debate on the importance of word of mouth; the debate has always been on the
level of importance of word of Mouth.
Incremental negative review was found to be more powerful in decreasing book sales than an
incremental positive review was in increasing book sales. Also consumers did not take decision only on the
basis of average star ranking but actually read and responded to written reviews (Judith A Chevalier and Dina
Mayzlin, 2006) Word of mouth was found to be an important marketing tool in a complex and turbulent
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online) Volume 2 Issue 1, January (2011)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
environments but not necessarily associated with success (Roger B. Mason, 2008) Even in the online world
informational role of reviews became more important in an environment in which alternative means of acquiring
information was scarce. In such an environment negative word of mouth was found to be detrimental while
positive online word of mouth translated into sales of such niche products. (Feng Zhu and Xiaquan (Michael)
Zhang, 2010) Word of mouth activities were found to be very active during pre release period of movie and
played an important informative role on awareness. Also word of mouth and critical reviews were found to be
complementary to each other rather than substitutes.
(Yong Liu, 2006) However in the field of health care word of mouth was found to not only increase
awareness and knowledge but was also found to persuade and lead to choosing the service provider (Betsy Gelb
and Madeline Johnson, 1995) Similarly word of mouth was found to complement rather than act as a substitute
for advertising in case of DVD advertising. Hence DVD advertising was more effective when consumer word of
mouth was strong and favourable. (Y.Jackie Luan and k sudhir, 2010) Disclosure of corporate affiliations in
organized word of mouth was found to have positive effects in terms of perceptions of trustworthiness, goodwill
and number of people told due to word of mouth. (Walter J Carl, 2008) In the field of health care lack of
reliability, higher priced goods or services were found to generate negative word of mouth while advertising of
ambiguous products or an advertisement with insufficient information to make a decision, providing a worthy
reliability were found to generate positive word of mouth. (Betsy Gelb and Madeline Johnson, 1995, Barry
L.Bayus, 1985)Word of mouth process provided social support for adoption or non adoption and as a tool for
risk reduction.
Hence exposure to positive word of mouth increased the probability of purchase and negative word of
mouth decreased the probability of purchase. A face to face word of mouth was found to be more persuasive
than a printed format except when extremely negative attributes were presented or when more diagnostic
information was available (Paul M.Herr, Frank R Kardes, John Kim, 1991) Favourable word of mouth was not
found to overcome personal negative experience (Betsy Gelb and Madeline Johnson, 1995) Also new product
diffusion was found to be slower in lower income or less educated consumers as they donor engage in word of
mouth communication beyond their in group. This was in contrast to more educated or higher income groups
where word of mouth communication extended beyond their in group. (Desmond Lamand Dick Mizerski, 2005).
Table 2 summarises the influence of Word of mouth.
Table 2 - Influence of word of mouth.
Research paper
Highlights
( Judith A Chevalier and Dina Mayzlin, 2006, Feng Zhu
Incremental negative review more powerful
and Xiaquan( Michael) Zhang, 2010
Roger B. Mason, 2008
Word of mouth important in complex and
turbulent environment
Yong Liu, 2006
Word of mouth active when lack of information.
Creates awareness
Betsy Gelb and Madeline Johnson, 1995
Word of mouth also useful in persuasion and
action
Y.Jackie Luan and k sudhir, 2010
Word of mouth and advertising are
complementary
Walter J Carl, 2008
Trustworthiness important for word of mouth
Betsy Gelb and Madeline Johnson, 1995
Personal negative experience is more powerful
than positive word of mouth
Betsy Gelb and Madeline Johnson, 1995, Barry L.Bayus,
Ways to create positive word of mouth
1985
Implications
Negative word of mouth was found to be more powerful than positive word of mouth. While for some
products positive word of mouth could lead to action (sales), for other products it was more powerful in creating
awareness. Transparency and authenticity of source increased the power of positive word of mouth. Also since
word of mouth complements advertising, campaigns can be designed to create positive word of mouth. The
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online) Volume 2 Issue 1, January (2011)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
consumer today is demanding and hungry for knowledge and updation. Marketers need to avoid any negative
word of mouth and identify ways to create only positive word of mouth. Uniqueness of product, generating
curiosity, creating trust and accountability, ensuring positive personal experiences are some of the tools to create
positive word of mouth. Social media and emergence of virtual communities has made information available at
click of a mouse. The marketers are still struggling in trying to understand how to deploy this positively.
However a look at Indian context shows that penetration of internet among urban Indians stands at 9%. In this
scenario it would be interesting to understand the impact of online word of mouth communication vs. traditional
communication.
Implications and Future research: Indian context
The literature review was done with research done only in the last two decades because the pace and
number of changes that have taken place in the last two decades is probably more than what the world has
witnessed in a century. This statement specially holds true for India where business scenario and customer
profile has undergone an enormous change in the last one decade. Today the Indian customer has a number of
choices for any product. He also has access to knowledge and information to these products and has become
increasingly demanding in transparency, accountability and authenticity. It is important to create an environment
that includes and reflects his trust. In such an environment informal communication by way of word of mouth
becomes an important tool especially in Indian context where technology provides access to the latest
information and cultural values still believes in collectivism and thus decisions are still taken by discussions.
Kotler says that around 90% of consumer surveyed trust recommendations from people they know and 70%
consumers believe in customer opinion posted online. (Kotler et al, 2010)
When the marketing world is talking about customer empowerment (C K Prahald and Venkat
Ramaswamy, 2004) and customer as a source of competence (C K Prahalad and Venkatram Ramaswamy, 2000)
it is imperative specially in Indian context to realize that today’s consumers collective power is bigger than
power of any product / brand/ service and hence networks (social or technical) are important. These networks
spread word of mouth communication which if not handled properly by marketers can be more destructive than
constructive. ITC’s e-choupal used opinion leaders (Sanchalaks) and power of word of mouth communication
constructively and in a latest example from movie world, the product (movie) “Robot” was promoted in a
manner to generate positive word of mouth.
The Indian market has time and again proved that it is different from the Western world and marketers have
wrestled with new rules to win customer loyalty and trust. Power of word of mouth within a community is
emerging as an important promotion tool. When marketing is moving from products to customers to the human
spirit, customer conversations and customer advocates occupy an important place. (Kotler et al. 2010)
However research on word of mouth and opinion leadership in Indian Context is still limited. This would be
an important area for researchers to look at from Indian context. Some of the areas of future research in Indian
context may be:
a) Characteristic of Indian Opinion Leaders. Are they different?
b) Influence of word of mouth on specific product categories. Can we create positive word of mouth?
c) Opinion leaders and their position in social network. Does it matter in the Indian Context?
d) Impact of online word of mouth communication vs traditional word of mouth communication. Is India
different?
e) When information is available at the click of a mouse, is authenticity ad transparency becoming more
important for word of mouth?
Bibliography
1. Amar Cheema and Andrew M Kaikati, “The effect of need for uniqueness on Word of Mouth”, Journal
of Marketing research, Vol XLVII, June 2010, 553-563
2. Ayalla Ruvio and Aviv Shoham, “Innovativeness, exploratory Behaviour, Market Mavenship and
opinion leadership: An empirical Examination in the Asian Context”, Psychology and marketing, Vol
24(8), Aug 2007, 703-722
3. Barbara Lyons and Kenneth Henderson, “Opinion Leadership in a computer mediated environment”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol 4,5,2005, 319-329
4. Barry L.Bayus, “Word of Mouth: The indirect effects of marketing efforts”, Journal of Advertising
research, Jun/Jul/1985, 31-39
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online) Volume 2 Issue 1, January (2011)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Beth Harben and Soyoung Kim, “Attitude towards fashion advertisements with political content:
Impacts of opinion leadership and perception of advertisement message”, International Journal of
Consumer studies,32,2007,88-98
Betsy Gelb and Madeline Johnson, “Word of Mouth Communication: Causes and Consequences”,
Journal of Health care Marketing, Fall 1995-Vol 15, No 3, 54-58
C K Prahalad and Venkatram Ramaswamy,” Co-opting Customer competence”, Harvard Business
Review, Jan-Feb 2000, 79-87
CK Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy, “Co creation experiences: The next Practice in value creation”,
Journal of interactive Marketing, Vol 18, NO 3, Summer 2004, 5-14
Christine H. Roch, “ The Dual Roots of Opinion Leadership”, The Journal of Politics, Vol 67, No1,
February 2005, 110-131
Desmond Lamand Dick Mizerski, “The effects of locus of Control on word of Mouth
Communication”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol 11, No 3, September 2005, 215-228
Douglas Bowman and Das Narayandas, “Managing Customer Initiated Contacts with Manufacturers:
The impact on share of Category Requirements and Word of Mouth Behaviour”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol XXXVIII, Aug 2001, 281-297
Feng Zhu and Xiaoquan ( Michael) Zhang,” Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The
Moderating Role of product and Consumer Characteristics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 74, March
2010, 133-148
Gabriel Weinmann, “The Influentials: Back to the concept of opinion Leaders”, Public opinion
Quarterly, 1991(55), 267-279
George M Rose, Lynn R Kahle, Aviv Shoham, “The Influence of employment status and personal
Values on time related Food consumption Behaviour and Opinion leadership”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol 22, 1995, 367-372
Jacob Goldenberg, Donald Lehmann and Sangman Han, “Social Hubs: do they exist and what is their
role”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 36, 2009, 36-37
Jacob Jacoby and Wayne D. Hoyer, “What Opinion Leaders didn’t know more? A Question of
nomological validity”, Advances in consumer research, 2001, 299-303
Jane E. Workman and Lark F. Caldwell, “ Centrality of visual product aesthetics, tactile and
uniqueness needs of fashion consumers”, International Journal of Consumer studies, 31, 2007, 589-596
John Hagel III, Arthur G.Armstrong,Net Gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities”, The
McKinsey Quarterly, Number 1, 1997, 141-153
Judith A. Chevalier and Dina Mayzlin, “ The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews’,
Journal of Marketing research, Vol XLIII, Aug 2006, 345-354
Kenny K.Chan and Shekhar Misra, “ Characteristics of the opinion leader: a New dimension”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol 19, Number 3, 1990, 53-60
Lawrence F.Feick, Linda L.Price and Robin A.Higie, “People who use people: The other side of
opinion leadership”, Advances in Consumer Research Volume 13, 1986,301-305
Marsha l.Richins and Terry Root Shaffer, “The Role of involvement and opinion Leadership in
Consumer Word of Mouth: An implicit Model made explicit”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol
15, 1988, 32-36
Meera P Venkatraman, “Opinion Leadership, enduring involvement and characteristics of opinion
leaders: A moderating or mediating Relationship?”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 17,1990, 6067
Mee-Shew Cheung, M Meral Anitsal and Ismet Anitsal, “Revisiting Word of mouth communications:
A Cross National exploration”, Journal of Marketing, Theory and practice, Vol 15, No 3, Summer
2007, 235-249
Michael Trusov, Randolph E.Bucklin and Koen Pauwels, “Effects of word of Mouth Versus
Traditional Marketing; Findings from an Internet Social networking site”, Journal of marketing, Vol
73, September 2009, 90-102
Nicola E. Stockburger-Sauer and Wayne D. Hoyer, “Consumer advisors revisited: What drives those
with market mavenism and opinion leadership tendencies and why?”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Mar-June 2009, 100-115
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online) Volume 2 Issue 1, January (2011)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
27. Paul M.Herr, Frank R. Kardes, John Kim, “Effects of word of mouth and product attribute information
on Persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective”, Journal of consumer research, Vol 17,
March 1991, 454-462
28. Paul W Allen,” Assessing the Usefulness of an Opinion Leadership scale to the Diffusion of New
accounting services”, Journal of professional Services Marketing, Vol 21(2), 2000, 149-157
29. Peter H. Reingen and Jerome B. Kernan,” Analysis of referral Networks in Marketing: Methods and
Illustration”, Journal of Marketing research, Vol XXIII( November 1986), 370-8
30. Philip Kotler, Hermawan Kartajaya, Iwan Setiawan, Marketing 3.0, 2010
31. R.van der Merwe and G.van Heerden, 2009, “ Finding and utilizing opinion leaders: Social networks
and the power of relationships”, South African Journal of Business Management, 2009,40(3) 65-76
32. Raghuram Iyengar, Thomas Valente, Christophe Van den Bulte, “Opinion Leadership and social
Contagion in New Product Diffusion”, Advances in consumer research, Vol 36, 2009, 36
33. Renee Dye, “ The Buzz on buzz”, Harvard Business review, November-December 2000, 139-146
34. Roger B. Mason, “Word of mouth as a promotional tool for turbulent markets”, Journal of marketing
communications, Vol 14, No 3, July 2008, 207-224
35. Ronald E. Goldsmith and Thomas S. De Witt, “The predictive Validity of an Opinion Leadership
Scale”, Journal of marketing theory and practice, Winter 2003, 28-35
36. Walter J. Carl, “The role of disclosure in organized word of mouth marketing programs”, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol 14, no 3, July 2008, 225-241
37. Y.Jackie Luan and K.Sudhir, “Forecasting Marketing Mix responsiveness for New Products”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol XLVII, June 2010, 444-457
38. Yong Liu, “Word of mouth for movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue” , Journal of
Marketing, Vol 70, July 2006, 74-89