A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing

By Arnaud De Bruyn, Gary L. Lilien. 2008

980 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Sociology and Political Science, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7debf5a8bcbdd9c27d71fa58aeea9db54e35c585

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

In Sociology and Political Science

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

Citations in the corpus

Word of Mouth: What We Know and What We Have Yet to Learn (2013, positive): “The ability to reach large numbers of consumers through electronic channels increases the reach of paid endorsers dramatically (De Bruyn and Lilien 2008).”
“Do We Believe in TripAdvisor?” Examining Credibility Perceptions and Online Travelers’ Attitude toward Using User-Generated Content (2013, background): “Perceptual homophily concerns the similarities among people regarding their likes, dislikes, values, and experiences (Bruyn and de Lilien 2008).”
Estimating Aggregate Consumer Preferences from Online Product Reviews (2010, neutral): “1 Recent Internet-related discussions of how word-of-mouth influences consumers’ actual behaviors can be found in De Bruyn and Lilien (2008) and Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels (2009).”
Customer-to-Customer Interactions: Broadening the Scope of Word of Mouth Research (2010, background): “Recent research have suggested alternative ways to demonstrate the profitability of these programs (De Bruyn and Lilien 2008; Godes and Mayzlin 2009; Kumar, Petersen, and Leone 2010; Libai, Muller, and Peres 2010; Toubia, Stephen, and Freud 2009).”
WOM and social media: Presaging future directions for research and practice (2014, background): “According to De Bruyn and Lilien (2008), there remains a great deal of uncertainty about how WOM works, which can be attributed to four key factors: (1) prior research has largely focused on WOM communications that have successfully influenced the decisionmaker; (2) studies have emphasized WOM…”
Knowledge Sharing Among Tourists via Social Media: A Comparison Between Facebook and TripAdvisor (2017, background): “Perceptual homophily concerns the similarities among people regarding their likes, dislikes, values, and experiences (De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008).”
Are Health Behavior Change Interventions That Use Online Social Networks Effective? A Systematic Review (2014, positive): “Second, messages can be delivered via existing contacts, which may be more influential than health messages delivered via traditional marketing strategies [11].”
A bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature (2018, background): “Moreover, viral marketing builds on the characteristics of social contagion and especially (electronic) word-of-mouth [226, 227].”
Language Abstraction in Word of Mouth (2010, background): “Another well studied element of word of mouth is the relationship between the sender and the receiver, more precisely the tie strength (Brown & Reingen, 1987; De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008; Godes & Mayzlin, 2004; Van Hove & Lievens, 2009).”
Sharing with Friends versus Strangers: How Interpersonal Closeness Influences Word-of-Mouth Valence (2016, background): “Notably, the bulk of past efforts focused on factors that affect the quantity of information shared and thus trigger greater or weaker diffusion or adoption of a product or service (Bansal and Voyer 2000; De Bruyn and Lilien 2008).”
Effects of Word-of-Mouth versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site (2009, background): “In contrast, De Bruyn and Lilien (2008) observe the reactions of 1100 recipients after they received an unsolicited e-mail invitation from one of their acquaintances to participate in a survey.”