CONSUMER INSIGHTS IN THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY BELGIAN YOUNG ADULTS

C. MARÉCHAL, B. NEETENS, L. ENGELS

1

Abstract

The goal of the research project “Consumer Insights in the Use of Social Media by Belgian Young Adults”, funded by University College Ghent, is to gain a better understanding about what drives Belgian youngsters to share and create commercial content using social media. Based on a literature review, a framework was created. This framework was tested in online interviews. Thanks to this qualitative research we were able to fine-tune the theoretical framework provided by literature and to fill in the blanks. The next stage of the research was a comprehensive survey. Finally, two experiments were conducted. The aim of these two experiments was to understand the relationship between brand awareness, brand attitude and intention to share. For these two experiments, a viral was modified.

Key-words: social media, word-of-mouth, motives, virals, consumer insights

For all correspondence, please contact Claire Maréchal

HoGent FBO, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, BE-9000 Ghent, Belgium, phone: +32485034771, e-mail: claire.marechal@hogent.be

2

Introduction

Advertising agencies often use the internet as a way to connect with consumers. It is an inexpensive way to interact with consumers and it is easier to avoid irritation, which is often the result of TV-commercials. A well known marketing technique is viral marketing. Viral marketing was first defined by a Netscape Newsletter as ‘network-enhanced word of mouth’. (Jurvetson, 2000) When successful, the diffusion of a viral is quite similar to the spread of an infectious disease. (Watts & Peretti, 2010).

However, little is known about what makes a message viral in the online context and what truly motivates people to share those messages. The aim of our research is to understand all possible drivers for youngsters to create and share commercial messages and to understand what kind of messages are more likely to be shared. Further, by identifying these motivations and the significant characteristics of the messages, it will be possible to achieve a profound understanding of the sharing (and creating) of online commercial content.

The goal of the research is to find an answer to three questions:

RQ1. Which social media do Belgian youngsters use? For example: is there a difference in use between social network sites?

RQ2. What motivates Belgian youngsters to create and share commercial content?

RQ3. Is there a link (and if yes, what sort of link?) between the sharing and the characteristics of the messages?

To find an answer to these questions, the research project followed a study design consisting of 4 stages.

A literature review to summarise the known motivations for social media users to share and create commercial content online.

The known motivations tested in the qualitative research phase : there are different undertones in certain motivations and some of them are relatively new to the online context.

Quantitative research: a survey to collect quantitative data. During the survey, virals were used. To select those commercials, we did a content analysis.

The final stage was to conduct two experiments. The experiments were based upon the suggestions from the business community and our research results.

1. Literature review

The goal of the literature review was to summarise all motivations found in the literature for creating and sharing commercial content. We approached this research subject by combining two topics: known motivations for users to create online content (UGC) were combined with insights on word-of-mouth (WOM) communications.

3

First of all, we have a list of possible motivations on why people create online content:

to document life (for oneself or for others) (Nardi, Schiano, Grumbrecht & Swartz, 2004)

for leisure and to pass time (Papacharissi, Rubin, 2000; Phelps, Lewis, Perry & Raman, 2004; Trammell, Tarkowski & Sapp, 2006)

to experiment (Efimova, 2010)

to learn (Nardi et al., 2004; Efimova, 2010)

for self-expression, to formulate opinions and catharsis (Nardi et al., 2004; Trammell et al., 2006; Huang, Shen, Lin & Chang, 2007; Efimova, 2010)

for empowerment (Rein)

Because the subject is ‘commercial content’, known motivations for people to talk, offline and online, about products and brands were summarized ((Dichter, 1966; Engel, Kollat & Blackwell, 1973; Sundaram, Mitra & Webster, 1998; Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003-2004; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh & Gremler, 2004; Kambe, Washida, Kinoshita & Tominaga, 2007; Dellarocas & Naravan). Very well known and already verified theories were found and those motivations were taken into account. The motivations for ‘classic, offline’ word-of-mouth were expected to be quite similar to the motivations for online word of mouth, referred to as electronic word of mouth (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004):

concern for others: altruism

concern for others: helping companies

product involvement

revenge or ventilating negative feelings

message–involvement

Within ‘concern for others’ we have two categories. The first category, ‘concern for others: altruism’, includes motivations for people to warn others if they are dissatisfied with a product or to recommend a product when they are satisfied. ‘Concern for others: helping companies’ means that people feel sympathy towards a company and are willing to contribute to the fame of that company. ‘Product involvement’ refers to the enthusiasm people feel when they purchase or use a product they are really satisfied with. This enthusiasm results in people wanting to talk about the product and how that product is better than others. ‘Revenge or ventilating negative feelings’ speaks for itself: these motivations are mostly present when people are dissatisfied with a product. ‘Message – involvement’ stands for entertainment as a result of a conversation about a message. If people talk about a funny or well-made commercial, that’s message-involvement.

Finally, there is a list of motivations users have to create content and to participate in WOM:

4

utilitaristic motivations and (economic) incentives (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Daugherty, Matthew & Bright, 2008)

social interaction and ‘social benefits’ (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004)

knowledge and information (Trammell et al., 2006; Daugherty et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2007)

self-enhancement, expertise and career (Dichter, 1966; Engel et al., 1973; Sundaram et al., 1998; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Trammell et al., 2006; Daugherty, 2008)

By combining the different motivations for users to create content, the motivations for users to participate in WOM and the motivations that can be found in the two topics, it is possible to have a indication on what motivations will be present if people share and create commercial messages online.

The list of known motivations was put to the test in the qualitative research phase.

2. Qualitative research phase

The goal of the qualitative research phase was to gain a better understanding of the motivations found in the literature review and to be certain that all the possible motivations were included. Therefore, 25 respondents were interviewed.

There were two requirements for the respondents:

They had to be between the ages of 16 and 34.

They shared at least 5 commercial messages in the past six months. The respondents had to be regular social media users who frequently shared such messages because it would be easier for them to reflect on their behavior.

In the recruitment message, we defined ‘commercial message’ as a message, either positive or negative, posted on social media concerning a product or brand.

People who responded were asked for their username on twitter or the name of their blog. We then examined these to see if they met our behavioral requirements. If blog or twitter were used, the five most recent commercial tweets and the five most recent commercial blog posts were collected. Given the subject, the priority was given to respondents who are not professionally1 active on Twitter.

Every interview was conducted online and was based upon a topic guide. The respondents were asked to talk about every possible motivation they had to share commercial content. At the end of the interview, the respondents were asked about their tweets and their blog posts. We noticed that the ‘negative motivations’, such as revenge, were present but not spontaneously declared.

1 In marketing, or to promote own businesses.

5

The respondents were not confronted with every possible motivation described in literature because that would have led to an inaccurate view on the research subject. Rather, we chose to research our respondents’ motivations based on what they spontaneously declared. After all the interviews were completed, every indication of a motivation concerning the sharing of online commercial messages was labeled. If possible, the labels were arranged in accordance with the list of motivations that the literature provided.

A list of all the motivations is given in table 1. Some motivations were obviously present. The three most commonly mentioned motivations are:

concern for others: altruism

need to express oneself, to formulate opinions and catharsis

product/brand involvement

We noticed that the ‘top 3’ of the most present motivations are a combination of the motivations for users to talk about products (WOM) and motivations for users to create content (UGC).

The motivation ‘product involvement’ as described in literature, was modified to ‘product and brand involvement’. Not only did the respondents report that they feel enthusiasm when they purchase or use a product they are really satisfied with but also when they talk about a brand. Two respondents indicated that they share every message a specific brand posts online.

Table 1: Results qualitative research phase about motivations

Motivation Topic Nr respondents

1 concern for others: altruism WOM 17

2 self-expression, to formulate opinions and catharsis UGC 15

3 product/brand involvement WOM 13

4 social interaction and ‘social benefits’ Both 125 self-enhancement, expertise and career Both 11

6 revenge or ventilating negative feelings WOM 11

7 utilitaristic motivations and incentives Both 108 message-involvement Both 8

9 concern for others: helping companies WOM 7

10 pass time UGC 7

11 document life (for oneself or for others) UGC 7

12 knowledge and information Both 7

13 need to characterize oneself New 4

1 google traffic New 3

6

415 reciprocity and contribution to the community New 3

16 urge to create content New 2

17 point out problems New 2

18 learn UGC 1

19 empowerment UGC 1

20 provocation New 1

21 experimentation UGC 0

We were not able to trace back all motivations the respondents had to motivations described in literature. We concluded that those motivations2 are rather different from the ones described in literature.

The need to characterize oneself: for example people who share commercial messages because they associate themselves with the values of a brand and want to be perceived as such.

Google traffic: here the motivations are partially because of incentives, for example people who get paid for advertisements on their blog, but also because they want to be read and they want to know people are following them.

Reciprocity and contribution to the community differs from helping each other. For example people who contribute to a forum because they believe in the idea of shared knowledge and they also want to contribute to it.

The urge to create content drives people to share content on a frequent basis, some daily. They have no idea what, for example, to write about until the commercial came along. If there was something more interesting to write about, they would not have shared that commercial.

To point out problems can be seen particularly on Twitter. Many people want to use social media to their advantage. By complaining about a product or addressing the company directly on Twitter, they hope to get tips from other users to solve a problem but they also want to be helped by the company.

Provocation: we noticed that people shared commercial messages because they wanted to provoke others. For example, they share a negative article about an Apple product because they know a lot of people will react.

3. Quantitative research phase : survey

An inquiry consisting out of four parts was developed. 2 Table 1: in bold.

7

The first part lists how often respondents use different social media.

The second part maps the use of social media for sharing commercial content. Here we registered the social media respondents use, which kind of commercial content they share and how frequently. An important element here was to question the respondents regarding their motivations for sharing commercial content online.

For the third part 19 commercials were integrated. Each respondent was asked to look at three commercials and to answer a few questions regarding the commercial, their intention for sharing the commercial and their attitude towards the brand.

We selected 19 commercials to cover the different elements of the commercials. An overview is given in the following image.

Figure 1: Elements of the commercial

Finally, we ended the survey with some socio-demographic questions.

Based on the previous research phases and our three main research questions, we formulated 11 specific research questions3. In this paper, we’ll focus on three of them.

RQ1. What are the motivations for social media users to share commercial content online?

3 The other research questions are: Is it possible to distinguish profiles based on age, language or gender? Which social media are being used to share commercial content? What kind of commercial messages are shared? Are negative commercial messages shared impulsively? When users consider sharing commercial content, does it matter whether the content is already shared

in their social network? Are commercials with a positive valence more likely to be shared? Are emotional commercials more likely to be shared? Is the presence of the emotion ‘awe’ in the commercial a successful predictor for sharing online?

8

RQ2. What kind of message characteristics influences the likelihood that users will share a commercial message?

RQ3. To which degree does the attitude towards a brand influence the viewers intention to share a commercial message?

The last two questions try to explore the relationship between the different components of the commercial and the degree of appraisal and the intention to share the commercial.

The inquiry was created online using the program Qualtrics. Our respondents were between the ages of 16 and 34 and shared at least one commercial message during the past six months. Due to the different languages spoken in Belgium, we wanted to make sure there was a correct distribution regarding the mother tongue of our respondents.

Each commercial had to be judged by at least 60 respondents. Each inquiry contained three commercials so we needed a total of 380 respondents.4 By September 2011, 392 respondents completed the inquiry so the inquiry was taken offline.

RQ1. What are the motivations for social media users to share commercial content online?

A scale was developed to measure the different motivations. For each topic, a few quotes were collected. We combined existing quotes found in literature with new quotes based on the interviews conducted during the qualitative research phase .

A total of 86 quotes were gathered to represent the 21 different motivations. Two researchers were briefed about the meaning of the different motivations. They were asked to connect each quote with the motivation they believed it belonged to. Quotes that were misplaced by one of the researchers were reformulated or removed. The final scale enclosed 50 quotes.

419 respondents filled in this question in the survey. It was mandatory to respond to each quote individually. A five point scale was used and the mean for each quote was calculated. By using the t-test (and Mann – Whitney U test) it was determined which mean significantly differs from the neutral response 3.

Three quotes were significantly present. Every quote begins with “I will share commercial content because:”

o “it is a way to communicate my opinion about a product or brand”5

o “I am very enthusiastic about my purchase and use of a certain product”6

o “I am trying to help other by sharing my positive experiences about a product or brand and hope they will get the opportunity to have the same positive experience as I had.”7

4 19 commercials, each viewed by 60 respondents. Each survey enclosed three commercials. 5 Mean: 3.33, sign. 0.006 Mean: 3.23, sign. 0.007 Mean: 3.18, sign. 0.02

9

The first quote refers to the motivation ‘self-expression, to formulate opinions and catharsis’, the second to product involvement and at last, the third motivation refers to ‘concern for others: altruism’. Remarkable here is that the three motivations each refer to positive motivations. The same motivations were found during the interviews. The negative motivations, for example revenge or to ventilate negative feelings, were not confirmed.

The quotes that are significantly present alternate with the gender of the respondents. The third one - “I am trying to help others by sharing my positive experiences about a product or brand and hope they will get the opportunity to have the same positive experience as I had.” – was not significantly present for the male respondents. However, it was present for the female respondents. A fourth quote was significantly8 present for the female respondents: “I share commercial content because I hope I will get tips from other users.”

RQ2. What kind of message characteristics influences the likelihood that users will share a commercial message?

Here, the different commercials selected in the content analysis were used. There are 19 commercials that were randomly presented to the respondents.

First, we learned that 24,6% of the commercials would be likely or very likely to be shared by the respondents. There is a very strong correlation9 between the appreciation from the respondents concerning a commercial and their intention for sharing that commercial.

If the respondents were positive about a commercial, they were asked because of which component they were positive. The options that were given are:

o The different emotions present in the commercialo The effect the commercial has on the viewero The information that is given o The visible components used in the commercialo Association with a brando Association with a product

An overview of the different components is given in the next illustration:

Figure 2: Difference between the appreciation and intention to share (n = 1116)

8 p < 0.59 Pearson correlation coefficient is 0,709, significant at 0.01 – level.

10

Emotions

Effect

Informati

on

Visible

elemen

tsBran

d

Product

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

15%

37%

8%

35%

4%2%

22%

38%

6%

24%

6%3%

Appreciation from viewer Intention to share with others

First of all, we noticed that ‘effect’ is the most important element for appreciation as for intention to share. Furthermore, ‘visible elements’ is the second most important element. However, there is a discrepancy between appreciation and intention to share. Emotions on the contrary are more important as a determinant for intention to share. Although ‘visible elements’ is important within both categories, it is less important for ‘intention to share’. Finally, it’s striking that the relationship with a brand or product and to a lesser extent information seems to be unimportant for most respondents.

If respondents indicated they were going to share the commercial, they were asked why. The most given response is ‘because it is funny’. If the commercial was perceived as ‘funny’ the average appreciation and intention to share was higher than the average appreciation and intention to share in general. 89% of the respondents, who would share the commercial, would do so using social networking sites such as Facebook.

RQ3. To which degree does the attitude towards a brand influence the intention from viewers to share a commercial message?

First of all, most of the respondents were either neutral (28%) or positive (44%) about the commercial they watched. We noticed that 53,8% of our respondents knew the brand from the commercial. If they indicated they that knew the commercial, they were most likely to feel neutral (40%) or positive (45%) towards the brand.

We compared the appreciation for two groups – those who did not know the brand and those who did – was compared. We noticed, by using the Mann – Whitney U – test10, a significant difference between the two groups. There is a correlation11 between the attitude from the respondents towards the brand and their appreciation of the commercial. On average, a better attitude towards a brand leads to a much higher average appreciation. For example, if the respondents were very positive about a brand (++) they were – on average – very positive (++) or positive (+) about the commercial also.

10 p: 0.811 Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.43

11

If we use the Mann - Whitney – U test to compare two groups (those who knew the brand and those who did not) and compare the likelihood they will share the commercial we notice that those who do not know the brand are – on average – more likely to share the commercial.

If the respondents indicated that they knew the brand, they were asked about their attitude towards the brand. There is a noticeable correlation12 between attitude towards a brand and intention to share is also noticeable.

Figure 3: correlations between attitude towards the brand, appreciation of the commercial and intention to share

4. Experiments

Prior to the experiments, a number of experts were interviewed. A short presentation was given to the experts. They helped us to decide which possible experiments were most applicable in the business community.

After the survey, we decided to conduct two experiments. The first experiment focused on the brand attitude and helped us to better understand the relationship between appreciation, intention to share and attitude towards a brand. The second experiment examined brand awareness and if a viral changes the consumers’ attitude towards the brand or product. We also examined if awareness or attitude changed after a two week period.

For the first experiment, an in Belgium unknown viral commercial was used. The viral was screened in a test group: the appreciation from the viewers and the intention to share were good.

12 Pearson correlation coefficient 0.39

12

Since it was a beer commercial, a list of different brand of beer was generated. A different test group was asked to rate the beer brands. Four beer brands were selected: one with a positive score, one with a negative score, one with a neutral score and one unknown brand.

Figure 4 Different beer brands

Each version from the commercial was shown to a different test group. Respondents were asked about their appreciation and intention to share. We found no statistical evidence to suggest the average appreciation or intention to share differs from one another. This implies that viewers would share the commercial if they think it’s a good commercial, regardless of the brand.

For the second experiment, the same viral was used. We used the original Guinness commercial. 136 respondents were asked about their attitude (5 points scale) regarding 15 different beer brands before they viewed the commercial. After seeing the commercial ,we asked the respondents three things. We asked to write down the brand from the commercial

13

(unaided recall) ,to select the right brand out of a list (aided recall) and again to rate the 15 different beer brands on attitude.

After two weeks, we contacted the same respondents again. We asked the respondents again to write down the brand, to select the right brand and to rate the beer brands. We compared the brand awareness and the brand attitude.

The brand awareness was high: 91% was able to write down the correct brand (Guinness) directly after they saw the commercial, 93% was able to select the correct brand. There was no significant difference with the brand awareness after two weeks.

The brand attitude directly after the respondents saw the viral is significantly higher than the brand attitude before they saw the viral. There was no difference for the other beer brands.

Table 2: difference in brand attitude

Mean before viral Mean after viral DifferenceBudweiser 2,87 2,82 -0,05Carlsberg 3,78 3,79 0,01Desperados 3,77 3,77 0Duvel 3,93 3,96 0,03Grolsch 2,9 2,81 -0,09Guinness 2,74 2,92 0,18*Hansa 2,71 2,8 0,09Harp 2,67 2,76 0,09Heineken 2,29 2,38 0,09Jupiler 4,13 4,11 -0,02Leffe 3,46 3,49 0,03Maes 3,33 3,36 0,03Pilsner 2,9 2,86 -0,04Rochefort 3,06 3,05 -0,01Stella Artois 3,88 3,86 -0,02

*sig 0,01

Also after two weeks, the attitude towards ‘Guinness’ is significantly higher than the attitude towards ‘Guinness’ before the respondents saw the viral.

Table 3: difference in brand attitude

Mean before viral Mean after two weeks DifferenceBudweiser 2,87 2,9 0,03Carlsberg 3,78 3,76 -0,02Desperados 3,77 3,76 -0,01Duvel 3,93 3,9 -0,03

14

Grolsch 2,9 2,82 -0,08Guinness 2,74 2,99 0,25*Hansa 2,71 2,81 0,1Harp 2,67 2,82 0,15Heineken 2,29 2,43 0,14Jupiler 4,13 4,16 0,03Leffe 3,46 3,54 0,08Maes 3,33 3,45 0,12Pilsner 2,9 2,9 0Rochefort 3,06 3,08 0,02Stella Artois 3,88 3,93 0,05

*sig 0,01

Conclusion

Based on the literature review, the qualitative research, the content analysis, the survey and the experiments, we gained a better understanding of our research content.

We learned through the qualitative research that there are more relevant motivations than those found in the literature. Thanks to the survey, we found which motivations are present and that those are clearly related to positive motivations. Also, we noticed that old motivations for ‘classic’ WOM are present in online WOM combined with the motivations to create content. Those motivations are quite unique for the online environment.

We learned about the different content elements that compose a viral commercial. There are differences between the various elements and the appreciation from the viewer or the intention to share.

Furthermore, we analyzed the relationship between appreciation from the viewer, intention to share and attitude towards a brand. Our findings do suggest that attitude towards the brand is not a significant prediction of intention to share a viral. This indicates that it is equally possible for a neutral brand to spread a viral as for a brand with a positive brand attitude. We also learned that viewing a viral does change a consumer’s attitude towards a brand. More importantly: the change in attitude is still present two weeks after viewing the viral.

There were a few limitations to our qualitative research phase . First of all, we had a rather limited sample of respondents. By using the self-reporting method, it is possible that there is a discrepancy between the motivations the respondents indicate and the motivations that they truly have. Also, given the quickly evolving social media landscape, it is possible that there will be new social media that aim to trigger motivations that are not listed in this research. Hence, there is no way to know for certain that we have listed all possible motivations. By conducting both a qualitative and a quantitative research, we tried to reduce that risk to the bare minimum.

15

The limited sample is also a limitation of our content analysis and survey. There are also undeniably other various variables not taken into account in our content analysis. Finally, it would be interesting to compare the characteristics of the mostly older viral commercials of the content analysis with the characteristics of viral commercials that have been successful recently. By choosing to use virals as research subject for the content analysis and by implementing a selection of those virals into the survey, we restricted the commercial messages we study. However, we believe online commercials are a valuable choice because of the timelessness of those messages. We know that there are all sorts of commercial messages that have other characteristics, such as blogs or location-based services. The general part of our survey – the part that questions the motivations - aims to understand all motivations. We believe that the conclusions concerning the general part are also relevant for those other online messages.

For further research more intensive research regarding the relationship between intention to share, brand awareness and brand attitude would without a doubt be an added value.

Bibliography

Berger, J., Milkman, K., Social Transmission, Emotion , and the Virality of Online Content, http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Virality.pdf, consulted on 26/08/2010, p. 50.

Daugherty, T, Matthew, E., Bright, L., Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), Spring 2008.

Dellarocas, C., Narayan, R., What motivates consumers to review a product online? A study of the product-specific antecedents of online movie reviews, http://digital.mit.edu/wise2006/papers/2B-3_FinalWISE2006abstract-dell-narayan.pdf, consulted on 07/12/2009.

Dichter, E., How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works, Harvard Business Review, november-december 1966, p. 147-166.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W., The repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding, 1969, online te raadplegen op: http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/The-Repertoire-Of-Nonverbal-Behavior-Categories-Origins-.pdf, p. 50.

Engel, J., Kollat, D., Blackwell, R., Consumer behavior, Hinsdale Dryden Press, 1973.

Efimova, L., Blogs; the stickiness factor, https://doc.novay.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-34088/, consulted on 04/01/2010.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G., Gremler, D., Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer –opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?, Journal of Interactive marketing, 18(1), 2004,

16

http://www.gremler.net/personal/research/2004_Electronic_WOM_JIM.pdf, consulted on 18/11/2009.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Walsh, G., Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for and Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Winter 2003-2004, 8(2),p. 51-74.

Huang, C., Shen, Y., Lin, H., Chang, S., Bloggers’ Motivations and Behaviors: A Model, Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), dec. 2007.

Jurvetson, S., What exactly is viral marketing, Red Harring, may 2000, p. 110 – 111.

Kambe, M., Washida, Y., Kinoshita, Y., Tominaga, N., Correlation between Word-of-Mouth Effects and New Media: Simulations of Japanese Media Environment Using Artificial Neural Network, http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/mit5/papers/kambe.pdf, 2007, consulted on 07/12/2009

Ketelaar, P., van Gisbergen, M., ‘Seks werkt niet, humor wel’, Tijdschrift voor Marketing, may 2009.

Nardi, B., Schiano, D., Gumbrecht, M., Swartz, L., Why we blog, Communications of the ACM, 2004, 47(12), p. 41-46.

Papacharissi, Z., Rubin, A., Predictors of Internet Use, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Spring 2000, p. 175-196.

Phelps, J., Lewis, R., Perry, D., Raman, N., Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email, Journal of Advertising Research, December 2004, p. 333-348.

Rein, S., Online Campaigns: The New Way Markets Can Reach Out to Chinese Consumers, http://seekingalpha.com/article/30979-online-campaigns-the-new-way-marketers-can-reach-out-to-chinese-consumers, consulted on 01/12/2009.

Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K., Webster, C., Word-of-Mouth Communications: A Motivational Analysis, Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 1998, p. 527-531.

Trammell, K., Tarkowski, A., Sapp, A., Rzeczpospolita blógow [Republic of Blog]: Examining Polish Bloggers Through Content Analysis, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006.

Watts, D., Peretti, J., Viral Marketing for the Real World, Harvard Business Review, http://research.yahoo.com/files/w_p_HBR_07.pdf, consulted on 05/10/2010.

17

18