ÇEVRİMİÇİ TOPLULUKLARDA ELEKTRONİK AĞIZDAN AĞIZA İLETİŞİMİN SOSYAL BELİRLEYİCİLERİ

Yıl 2015, , 563 - 585, 01.06.2016

Bayram Oğuz Aydın

https://doi.org/10.21563/sutad.187073

Cited By: 1

Öz

Tüketiciler bir satın alma kararı vereceği zaman, kişilerarası etki ve ağızdan ağıza iletişim (WOM), en önemli bilgi kaynağı olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. İnternetin gelişip yayılmasıyla kişiler arası ağlar çevrimiçi özellik kazanmıştır. Çevrimiçi topluluklar, ürün veya hizmetler hakkında bilgi elde etme ve paylaşmaya olanak tanıyan bir kaynak olarak görülmektedir. Sosyal belirleyiciler bu iletişim türü için önemli faktörler olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.Bu araştırmada, çevrimiçi topluluklarda gerçekleşen elektronik ağızdan ağıza iletişim (eWOM) konusunu belirleyiciler odağında incelemek amacıyla, Konya iline ziyarette bulunan yerli turistlerin katılımıyla bir çalışma yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın verileri yüz yüze görüşme tekniğiyle, 693 kişi üzerinde uygulanan soru formu ile toplanmıştır. Çalışma neticesinde, eWOM belirleyicileri bağ gücü/güven ve benzerlik olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışma sırasında belirleyicilerin bazı sosyodemografik özelliklerin yanı sıra, çevrimiçi topluluk platformu kullanım özelliklerine göre de farklılaştığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bağ Gücü, Benzerlik, Çevrimiçi Topluluk, Elektronik Ağızdan Ağıza İletişim, eWOM, Güven, WOM

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES

Öz

Interpersonal influence and word-of-mouth (WOM) are ranked as the most important information source when a consumer is in making a purchase decision. These influences are especially important in tourism products which are intangible and difficult to evaluate prior to their consumption. With the development and diffusion of internet, interpersonal networks have gained online features. Online communities are information sources which give way to obtain and share information about products and services. Social determinants are significant factors for such communication type. In this study, we analyze the eWOM occurs in online communities and it’s social determinants. With the lights of these factors, we examine our study with domestic tourist which have visited city of Konya. The data of the study have done with 693 individuals with survey by face to face interview technique. As a result of our study, social determinants of eWOM which are tie strength/trust and homopfily have been determined. İn process of study, we have identified the differentiation both determinants’ features and online communities using features.e

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tie strength, homopfily, online communities, electronic word of mouth, eWOM, trust, WOM

Kaynakça

• ARNDT, Johan (1967). “Role Of Product-Related Conversations in The Diffusion Of A New Product”.Journal of Marketing Research, 4: 291-295.
• BAE, Soonyong, and Taesik, Lee (2011). “Gender Differences in Consumers’ Perception of Online Consumer Reviews”. Electronic Commerce Research , 11, (2): 201-214.
• BEST, Samuel J. and Krueger, Brian S. (2006) “Online interactions and social capital: Distinguishing Between New and Existing Ties”. Social Science Computer Review, 24, (4): 395–410.
• BICKART, Barbara and Robert M. Schindler (2001). “Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer Information”. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, (3): 31- 40.
• BROOKS, Junior, Robert, Cecil (1957). “Word-of-Mouth’ Advertising in Selling New Products”. Journal of Marketing, 22, (2): 154-161.
• BROWN, Jacqueline J. and Reingen, Peter H. (1987) “Social Ties And Word-Of- Mouth Referral Behavior”. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, (3): 350–362.
• BOYD, Danah M. and Nicole, Ellison B. (2007). “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, (1): 210-230.
• CHEN, Yubo and Xie, Jinhong (2004). “Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as A New Element of Marketing Communication Mix”. Management Science, 54, (3): 477-491.
• CHU, Chuan, S. and Kim, Yoojung (2011). “Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Electronic Word‑Of‑Mouth (eWOM) in Social Networking Sites”. International Journal of Advertising, 30, (1): 47–75.
• DELLAROCAS, Chrysanthos (2003). “The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and Challenge of Online Feedback Mechanisms”. Management Science, 49, (10): 1407-1424.
• DUHAN, Dale F., Johnson, Scott D., Wilcox, James B. ve Harrell, Gilbert D. (1997). “Influences on Consumer Use of Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Sources”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, (4): 283-295.
• FABER, Ronald J., Lee, Mira and Nan, Xiaoli (2004). “Advertising and the Consumer Information Environment Online”. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, (4): 447-466.
• FONG, John and Burton, Suzan (2006). “Electronic Word-of-Mouth: A Comparison of Stated and Revealed Behavior on Electronic Discussion Boards”. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6, (2),: 53-62.
• GILLY, Mary C, John, Graham L., Mary, F. Wolfinbarger and Laura, J. Yale (1998). “A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal Information Search”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2, (2): 83-100.
• GRANITZ, Neil A. and Ward, James C. (1996), “Virtual Community: A Sociocognitive Analysis”. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, (2): 161-166.
• GRANOVETTER, Mark S. (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties”. American Journal of Sociology, 78, (6): 1360–1380.
• HAGEL, John (1999). “Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities”. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13, (1): 55-65.
• HENNIG-THURAU, Thorsten and Walsh, Gianfranco (2003). “Electronic Word-of- Mouth: Motives for and Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet”. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8, (2): 51-74.
• HENNIG-THURAU, Thorsten, Gwinner, Kevin P., Walsh, Gianfranco and Gremler, Dwayne 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): 38-52.
• HERR, Paul M., Frank, R. Kardes, and John, Kim (1991). “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility- Diagnosticity Perspective”. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, (4): 454-462.
• HIGIE, Robin A., Feick, Lawrence F. and Price, Linda L. (1987). “Types And Amount of Word-of-Mouth Communications About Retailers”. Journal of Retailing, 63, (3): 260-278.
• JARVENPAA, Sirkka L., Knoll, Kathleen and Leidner, Dorothy E. (1998) “Is Anybody out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams”. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, (4): 29–64.
• KARDARAS, Dimitris, Karakostas, Bill, and Papathanassiou, Eleutherios (2003). “The potential of virtual communities in the insurance industry in the UK and Greece”. International Journal of Information Management, 23, (1): 41-53.
• LENHART, Amanda and Mary Madden (2007). “Social Networking Websites and Teens: An Overview”. http://www.pewinternet.org /PPF/r/198/ report_display.asp, Erişim tarihi: 12.12.2013.
• LEWIS, David J. and Weigert, Andrew (1985). “Trust as A Social Reality”. Social Forces, 63, (4): 967–985.
• LI, Feng and Du, Timon C. (2010). Who is Talking? An Ontology-Based Opinion Leader Identification Framework for Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Social Blogs”. Decision Support Systems, 51, (1): 190-197.
• LUCK, Edwina M.and Mathews, Shane W.(2009). “What Advertisers Need To Know About The Iygeneration: An Australian Perspective”. Journal of Promotion Management, 16, (1/2): 134-147.
• MANGOLD, W. Glynn and Faulds, David J. (2009). “Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of The Promotion Mix”. Business Horizons, 52, (4): 357–365.
• MCALLISTER, Daniel J. (1995). Affect- And Cognition-Based Trust As Foundations For Interpersonalcooperation In Organizations”. Academy of Management Journal, 38, (1): 24–59.
• MITTAL, Vikas, Huppertz, John W. and Khare, Adwait (2008). “Customer Complaining: The Role of Tie Strength and Information Control”. Journal of Retailing, 84, (2): 195–204.
• MOUW, Ted (2006). “Estimating The Causal Effect of Social Capital: A Review of Recent Research”. Annual Review of Sociology, 32: 79–102.
• PAN, Bing, MacLaurin, Tanya and Crotts, John (2007). “Travel Blogs and Their Implications for Destination Marketing”. Journal of Travel Research 46, (1): 35-45.
• PARK, Do H., Lee, Jumin Han, Ingoo (2007). “The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement”. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11, (4): 125-148.
• PIGG, Kenneth E. and Crank, Laura D. (2004). “Building Community Social Capital: The Potential and Promise of Information and Communications Technologies”. Journal of Community Informatics, 1, (1): 58–73.
• PITTA, Dennis A. and Fowler, Danielle (2005). “Internet Community Forums: An Untapped Resource for Consumer Marketers”. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, (5): 265-274.
• PRICE, Linda L. and Lawrence Feick (1984). “The Role of Interpersonal Sources in External Search: An Informational Perspective”. Advances in Consumer Research, 1, (1): 250-255.
• RATCHFORD, Brian T., Talukdar, Debabrata and Lee, Myung S. (2001). “A Model Of Consumer Choice of The Internet as an Information Source”. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5, (3): 7-21.
• RIDINGS, Catherine M., Gefen, David and Arinze, Bay (2002). “Some Antecedents and Effects of Trust in Virtual Communities”. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, (3 & 4): 271–295.
• ROGERS, Everett M. and Bhowmik, Dilip K. (1970). “Homophily–Heterophily: Relational Concepts for Communication Research”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, (4): 523–538.
• ROMM, Celia, Pliskin, Neva and Clarke, Rodney (1997). “Virtual communities and Society: Toward an Integrative Three Phase Model”. International Journal of Information Management, 17, (4): 261-270.
• SCHMALLEGGER, Doris and Carson, Dean (2008). “Blogs in tourism: Changing approaches to information exchange”. Journal of Vacation Marketing: 14, 99-110.
• SMITH, Ted, Coyle, James R., Lightfoot, Elizabeth and Scott, Amy (2007). “Reconsidering Models of Influence: The Relationship Between Consumer Social Networks And Word-of-Mouth Effectiveness”. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, (4): 387–397.
• STEFFES, Erin M. and Burgee, Lawrance E. (2009). “Social Ties and Online Word of Mouth”. Internet Research, 19, (1): 42–59.
• THORSON, Kjerstin S. and Shelly Rodgers (2006). “Relationships Between Blogs As eWOM and Interactivity, Perceived Interactivity, and Parasocial Interaction”. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6, (2): 39-50.
• URAL, Ayhan ve Kılıç, İbrahim (2005). Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• WANG, Zuoming, Walther, Joseph, Pingree, Suzanne and Hawkins, Robert P. (2008). “Health Information, Credibility, Homophily, And Influence Via The İnternet: Web Sites Versus Discussion Groups”. Health Communication, 23, (4): 358–368.