“When I took office, only high energy physicists had ever heard of what is called the Worldwide Web… Now even my cat has its own page” (Bill Clinton, 1996)
Only 20 years ago, mostly big companies had access to the Internet in order to ex-change information for the worldwide production and transfer of financial services. The big change has come with new data based applications and an enlargement of broadband connections in the beginning of the 21th century: It is now possible to provide bigger amounts of data in the Worldwide Web. Nowadays, the Internet is a platform where private users can enter personal contents and information. Blogs and forums have become popular in everyday-life.
In Germany, 38% of the 1006 respondents older than 16 years are registered in on-line communities. In the strongest group from 16 to 30 years, even three out of four Internet users are members in those social networks, according to the representative study “Internet 2009- Wer macht was im Worldwide Web” by PriceWaterhouseCoo-pers in Frankfurt (cp. Westfalenblatt, 27 / 28, June 2009, p. 6). Web 2.0 applications have made a change in communication: From the passive one-way communication of the Web 1.0, where users could online read information by experts, to bi-directional communication, where people actively work on the contents of the pages. The Internet has become a social Web: Users with the same interests find each other and discuss everything they think about, for examples about products. Instead of asking friends about their product experiences, they use online communication platforms for the search and the exchange of information. In doing so, a large variety of opinions for every kind of product can be found in the blogs and forums. Analyzing the electronic word of mouth communication is the direct way to customer opinions:
“Imagine, you can overhear like a fly on the wall millions of people talking about your company, your marketing concepts, your advertisement and your products- customers, employees, competitors, partners and the media. Imagine further, you could use these news for adapting perfectly on the customers´ wishes- what you want, how you want it. (..). This and more provide blogs” (Wright, 2006, p. 20).
It is important for every company to find out about the customer´s attitude towards their products. Up to now, companies have conducted classical marketing research surveys, with paper or telephone interviews and focus groups. Classical marketing resea...
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Definitions and Explanations
2.1 Web 2.0
2.1.1 What does Web 2.0 Mean
2.1.2 Electronic Word of Mouth
2.1.3 Blogs
2.1.4 Social Networks
2.1.5 Twitter
2.2 Classification of Products
2.2.1 High-Involvement Products
2.2.2 Low-Involvement Products
2.2.3 Consumer Goods
2.2.4 Producer Goods
2.3 Summary of the Chapters and Meaning for this Master´s Thesis
3 Theoretical Foundations of Marketing, Marketing Research and Web 2.0 Research
3.1 Marketing and Marketing Research Defined
3.2 Comparison of Web 2.0 Research and Classical Marketing Research
3.2.1 Information
3.2.2 Selection Methods
3.2.3 Statistics
3.2.4 Secondary Research
3.2.5 Primary Research
3.2.6 Products
3.2.7 Further Marketing Research Possibilities in the Web 2.0 Compared to Classical Marketing Research
3.3 Motivation of Users to Write Word of Mouth in the Web 2.0
3.3.1 Focus-Related Utility
3.3.2 Consumption Utility
3.3.3 Expert Discussions about Specific Products
3.3.4 Approval Utility
3.3.5 Homeostase Utility
3.3.6 Empowered Involvement
3.4 Summary of Chapters
4 Analysis of the Web 2.0
4.1 Analysis of Users in the Web 2.0
4.1.1 Pattern of Use on the Internet
4.1.2 Pattern of Use in Blogs and Social Networks
4.1.3 Opinion Leaders in the Web 2.0
4.1.4 Future Trends
4.2 Technical Requirements for Analyzing the Web 2.0
4.3 Analysis of Blogs and Social Networks in the Web 2.0
4.3.1 Secondary Research in the Web 2.0
4.3.1.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Servers
4.3.1.2 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Men Cosmetics
4.3.1.3 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Coffee
4.3.1.4 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Tea
4.3.1.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Tractors (Caterpillar) with Twitter
4.3.1.6 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Fast Food (Mc Donald´s) with Twitter
4.3.1.7 Peculiarities of Secondary Data in the Web 2.0
4.4 Primary Research in the Web 2.0
4.4.1 Corporate Blogs: Examples of Nike and Microsoft
4.4.2 Online Focus Groups and Discussions with Opinion Leaders: Example of LG
4.4.3 Online Campaigns: Example of Frosta
4.4.4 Peculiarities of Primary Data in the Web 2.0
4.4.5 Further Marketing Consequences of Negative Word of Mouth in the Web 2.0 and How to Handle It: Examples of Kryptonite and the iPod Nano
4.5 Summary of Chapters
5 Implementation for Practice
5.1 Data Privacy Protection
5.2 Ethics and Critical Acclaim
5.3 Make or Buy?
5.4 Recommendations for Web 2.0 Research in Companies
5.5 Summary of the Chapters
6 Resume and Outlook
Objectives and Topics
This Master's Thesis examines whether Web 2.0-based research is a viable and useful complement or alternative to classical marketing research for analyzing customer opinions and product-related feedback.
- Comparison between classical marketing research and Web 2.0 research methods
- Classification of consumer and producer products and their involvement levels
- Analysis of user motivations for engaging in electronic word of mouth (eWOM)
- Investigation into technical and practical implementation of Web 2.0 analysis
- Evaluation of data quality, privacy ethics, and the role of opinion leaders
Excerpt from the Book
3.3.1 Focus-Related Utility
According to Belasubramanian & Mahajan (2001, in Gwinner, Gremler, Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2004, p. 42) focus-related utility “is the utility the consumer receives when adding value to the community through his or her contributions”. These contributions include in Web-based platforms providing reviews and commentaries on products and services to other community members. Under the umbrella of focus-related utility, there are four additional motives which shall be explained in detail in the following: Concern for other consumers, social benefits, supporting the company and exerting power. Each of them adds value to the community.
The first motive is the concern for other consumers. Users have a desire to help other users with their buying decisions and/ or to save others from negative experiences. 200 years ago, consumers and sellers met on a market place and talked about the products, their quality, and their origin. There was a dialogue between consumers and sellers. In the last century, the dialog has become a one-way-communication: Industrial produced bulk goods were marketed by mass communication via newspapers, radio and television. Trust has decreased and skepticism has grown against promotion contents. The more advertising customers are confronted with, the more they try to avoid it. Referring to Oetting (2008, pp. 6), the only people, who consumers still trust, are other consumers and their personal experiences. They are skeptical of information that comes from companies, but they trust people like themselves.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and introduces the core research questions regarding the utility of Web 2.0 for marketing research.
2 Definitions and Explanations: Defines key terms like Web 2.0, eWOM, blogs, and social networks, while classifying products by involvement levels.
3 Theoretical Foundations of Marketing, Marketing Research and Web 2.0 Research: Compares classical research methodologies with Web 2.0 approaches and analyzes user motivations for generating online content.
4 Analysis of the Web 2.0: Examines user patterns, identifies the role of opinion leaders, and provides empirical case studies of secondary and primary research in the Web 2.0.
5 Implementation for Practice: Discusses practical aspects such as data privacy, ethics, and the strategic decision of whether to conduct research internally or through external agencies.
6 Resume and Outlook: Summarizes the thesis findings and provides a forward-looking perspective on the future of Web-based marketing research.
Keywords
Web 2.0, Marketing Research, Electronic Word of Mouth, eWOM, Blogs, Social Networks, Opinion Leaders, Consumer Goods, Producer Goods, High-Involvement, Low-Involvement, Data Privacy, Netnography, Customer Satisfaction, Online Campaigns.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this thesis?
The thesis explores the potential of using Web 2.0 platforms—such as blogs, forums, and social networks—as instruments for product-related marketing research.
What are the central thematic fields?
The primary themes include the comparison of classical vs. Web 2.0 research methods, the classification of products based on consumer involvement, and the analysis of user motivations for sharing online product reviews.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The main goal is to determine if Web 2.0 analysis is a useful, valid, and cost-effective practice for companies to gain insights into customer attitudes and market trends.
Which scientific methods were applied?
The research relies on literature analysis, comparative method study, and empirical case studies analyzing online data from specific product sectors like servers, cosmetics, and food products.
What does the main part of the work cover?
The main section analyzes user behavior on the Internet, compares secondary vs. primary research data in the Web 2.0, and discusses critical challenges like data privacy and ethical standards.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include eWOM, Web 2.0 marketing, opinion leader identification, netnography, and the shift from sequential value creation to consumer-centric value processes.
How does Twitter function as a research tool according to the author?
The author notes that while Twitter offers real-time data, its effectiveness varies greatly depending on whether the brand name is ambiguous (e.g., "Caterpillar" as an animal vs. company) and whether the content provides enough depth for analysis.
How can companies handle negative word of mouth?
The author advises companies not to filter negative feedback, but to react immediately and transparently, viewing criticism as a "warning signal" and an opportunity to improve their products and services.
- Quote paper
- MBA Nina Obbelode (Author), 2009, Analyzing Word of Mouth in the Web 2.0 for Product Related Marketing Research, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/139049
