Conference

Tsourvakas George

Exploring Word-of-Mouth Communications For Movies

Tsourvakas George-Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki

Veglis Andreas-Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki

Emmanouelides Christos-Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki

Overview Introduction Background Literature

Creating WOM inputs for movies

The effects of WOM outcome for movies Research Model Methodology Results Discussion and Managerial Implications Conclusions

IntroductionWOM is an interpersonal

communication for products and services without a commercial scope

(Arndt 1967)

WOM is the most influential source in marketing communication

(Day 1971; Sheth 1971)

Background Literature (I)

Why WOM communication is important?

Consumer reduces risk

Consumer gains time

WOM communication is related to services

quality

Movies are intangible services

Background Literature (II)

WOM

The number of people coming in touch

Positive/negative information they

exchange

ex-ante or ex-post purchase information

(Anderson 1998; Bone 1995; Buttle 1998)

Hypothesis (A)Tie strength and social networks (Brown & Reingen 1987) and also the frequency of communication between them (Duhan et al. 1997; Goldenberg et al. 2001) create WOM

H1: Moviegoers are more influenced by WOM from strong tie relations than from weak

Hypothesis (B)Intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics of the products or services create WOM (Wirtz & Chew 2002)

H2: Some film characteristics generate WOM among moviegoers

Hypothesis (C)Opinion leaders create WOM

(Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955; Chaney 2001)

H3: Movie critique creates WOM among moviegoers than its absence.

Hypothesis (D)

Intensity of satisfaction creates WOM (Anderson 1998; Bowman & Narayandas 2001)

H4: WOM is more likely to be developed by satisfied moviegoers rather than by non-satisfied

Research Model for WOM for Movies

INPUT OUTPUT

Tie Strengths

Film Characteristics

Critiques

Negative

Positive

WOM

Methodology Questionnaire: Self-report Sample: 168 randomly selected students

cinemagoers Structure:

1. Recall the last movie

2. Information sources

3. Movie characteristics that influence

4. Number of persons they got information

Information Sources about the Movie before Viewing

Source Frequency Ranking

(%) of times stated as source

(%) of times

Ranked 1st

(%) of times

Ranked 2nd

(%) of times

Ranked 3rd

(%)of times

Ranked 1st to 3rd

Friends 73.2 23.2 21.4 23.2 67.9Relatives 14.3 3.6 4.2 2.4 10.1Strangers 3.6 3.0 0.6 0.0 3.6Trailers 72.0 11.3 25.6 26.8 63.7Critics 56.0 11.9 17.3 20.8 50.0

Ads 64.3 17.3 17.9 20.2 55.4Other 4.2 0.6 0.6 1.8 3.0

Base

: All v

alid

resp

on

ses, N

=1

68

Factors Affecting Decision to View the Movie (I)

Frequency of stated importance (%)

FactorMos

t Imp

.

Very

imp.

Moderately imp.

Somewhat

imp.

Not imp. at all

Don’t

know/Don’t

ans.

Total

Very/

most

imp.

Rank

Friends 24.4 40.5 16.1 7.1 7.1 4.8100.

064.9 2

Relatives

4.8 14.3 11.3 11.9 36.7 19.0100.

019.1 12

Strangers

1.8 4.2 8.9 19.6 45.8 19.6100.

06.0 13

Trailers 31.0 32.7 20.2 6.5 5.4 10.1100.

063.7 3

Critics 25.0 32.1 20.2 6.5 8.3 7.7100.

057.1 5

Ads 20.8 25.0 21.4 10.7 8.9 13.1100.

045.8 8

Base: All valid responses, N=168

Factors Affecting Decision to View the Movie (II)

Frequency of stated importance (%)

FactorMos

t Imp

.

Very

imp.

Moderately imp.

Somewhat

imp.

Not

imp. at all

Don’t

know/Don’t

ans.

Total

Very/

most

imp.

Rank

Production

12.5 20.8 17.9 12.516.1

20.2100.

033.3 10

Direction

25.6 29.2 12.5 10.7 7.7 14.3100.

054.8 6

Scenario 20.2 32.1 15.5 9.5 6.5 16.1100.

052.3 7

Acting 26.2 39.9 13.1 4.2 5.4 11.3100.

066.1 1

Theme 35.1 28.6 13.1 5.4 4.2 13.7100.

063.7 3

Music 13.7 22.0 16.1 14.915.5

17.9100.

035.7 9

Origin 15.5 15.5 17.9 13.722.6

14.9100.

031.0 11

Base: All valid responses, N=168

Factors Affecting Decision to View the Movie Discussed More

OftenFactor Ranking

% of times

Ranked 1st

% of times

Ranked 2nd

% oftimes

Ranked 3rd

% of times

Ranked 1st to 3rd

Production

15.5 11.3 9.5 36.3

Direction 16.1 29.8 24.4 70.2

Scenario 20.2 17.3 13.1 50.6

Acting 19.6 22.0 16.7 58.3

Theme 11.9 10.7 29.8 52.4

Music 7.7 4.8 4.8 17.3

Bas

e: A

ll v

alid

res

pons

es, N

=16

8

Characteristics of the Movie Discussed more Often after

ViewingFactor Ranking

% of times

Ranked 1st

% of times

Ranked 2nd

% of times

Ranked 3rd

% of times

Ranked 1st to 3rd

Production

11.3 5.4 6.0 22.6

Direction 16.7 21.4 12.5 50.6

Scenario 16.1 19.0 19.6 54.8

Acting 20.2 22.0 16.7 58.9

Theme 8.3 18.5 38.1 64.9

Music 10.1 4.2 4.2 18.5

Base: A

ll valid responses, N=

168

Discussion

These findings support H1 that moviegoers are more

influenced by strong tie relations.

H2 that films characteristic actors and directors create WOM among moviegoers ex-ante.

Discussion

H3 was not supported

by the data collected.

There is no

significant

relationship between

critique and WOM

Discussion There is a highly significant

statistical relationship (x2=15.16, p-value<0.001) between satisfaction and WOM generation ( H4 )

WOM is more likely to be developed by satisfied moviegoers rather than by non-satisfied

Managerial Implications

1. Movie producers could invite families to go to see movies or might sponsor culture events

2. Promotion methods could follow movie characteristics like early advertising & participation of the movie to festivals

3. Movie writers, stars and directors could give press conference or interviews before film comes to cinema rooms

Conclusion

WOM communications play a pivotal role in entertainment and cultural industries

Future Research:

Investigating WOM into more comprehensive and macro model.