Articel Review 4
Articel Review 4
Articel Review 4
PRADEEP KORGAONKAR
Marketing Department, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, Florida, USA
INTRODUCTION
In 1994, Rust and Oliver were predicting the death of traditional, outbound
advertising stating that by the year 2010, new media and the new marketing
[. . .] will be the dominant paradigm (p. 75). While in 2010 traditional advertising is still up and running, the second part of the prophecy is not far from
Address correspondence to Maria Petrescu, Marketing Department, Florida Atlantic
University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA. E-mail: mpetresc@fau.edu
208
Viral Advertising
209
the truth. Online marketing and advertising represent the business trend
of the contemporary times (Datta, Chowdhury, and Chakraborty 2005;
Ferguson 2008; Porter and Golan 2006; Steyer, Garcia-Bardidia, and Quester
2007). The Internet has affected different aspects of business, with marketing representing a significant part of the online business activities
(Krishnamurthy and Singh 2005).
Internet-based advertising is continually growing while the traditional
advertising media, such as TV, radio, magazines, and newspapers, may be
losing ground to the Web. Technology and other factors have significantly
evolved and positively affect the way consumers use communications, favoring rapid and efficient information exchange and interactivity (Johnson,
Bruner, and Kumar 2006; Keller 2009). The wide use of the Internet has
helped managers realize the potential of a new technology able to complement the traditional word-of-mouth communication, transforming it into
an online viral way of communication with and among consumers (Datta
et al. 2005).
Included in the many benefits of the Internet for marketing, the viral
potential is one of the most influential. As Rust and Oliver (1994) predicted,
the main benefits of online marketing are its high capacity of reach and interactivity leading to marketing efficiencies. Another aspect is important in this
context: the evolution of advertising from involuntary to voluntary. The
consumer is increasingly in control regarding not only the media, but also
the delivery process of advertising (Keller 2009; Rust and Oliver). The
Internet allows significantly more interaction, targeted communication,
increased reach, and better evaluation of the results, all at a low cost (Derbaix
and Vanhamme 2003; Kozinets et al. 2010).
Researchers and practitioners have noted that consumers seem increasingly comfortable with online viral advertising campaigns that encourage
individuals to pass along a marketing message to others through Internet
or e-mail. World-renowned companies, such as Nike or Budweiser, have
successfully used viral advertising in social media, YouTube, Facebook,
and blogs (Borroff 2000; Morrissey 2008; Steenburgh, Avery, and Dahod
2009). From traditional platforms to Internet media, consumers value the
non-commercial, non-imposed, personal sources of advertising information
and peer-to-peer communication much better than the paid ads (Gilly et al.
1998; Kirby and Marsden 2006; Steyer et al. 2007).
This seems to be only the beginning. The eMarketer estimates that
online video advertising in the United States will increase from $1.1 billion
in 2009 to $4.1 billion in 2013, with online advertising spending rising from
4.3% to 11.0% of the overall advertising expenditures (Tsai 2009). Nevertheless, even today, the online marketing potential, especially in social media
and Web sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, is unbelievable.
For example, in March 2010, YouTube publicized on its blog that it reached
a record number of hours of video uploaded per minute: 24, the worth of a
210
211
Electronic consumer-to-consumer
communication regarding a brand or
product
Unpaid electronic (e-mail, Web, or social
media) distribution of business or user
generated advertisements from consumer to
consumer, based on ad content likeability,
entertainment, and controversial
characteristics
Interpersonal
communication
Internet and
traditional
Internet
Internet
Interpersonal
communication
Interpersonal
communication
Forward of
commercial
advertising
Forward of
commercial
messages
Internet
Platform
Social interaction
Purpose
Viral
advertising
eWOM
Buzz
marketing
Viral
marketing
WOM
Social
media
Definition
Consumer-toconsumer
Consumergenerated
opinions
Businessgenerated
commercial
messages
Business- and
consumergenerated
commercial
communication
Consumergenerated
opinions
Business- or
consumergenerated
advertising
Business-toconsumerto-consumer
Consumer-toconsumer
Consumer-toconsumer
Business-toconsumerto-consumer
Consumer-toconsumer
Direction
User-generated
content
Object
212
Viral Advertising
213
214
VIRAL CONCEPTS
Though not extensive, the advertising research studies related to the Internet
analyze numerous concepts, such as electronic word-of-mouth, word-ofmouse, viral marketing, buzz, and viral advertising (Bampo et al.
2008; Dobele et al. 2005; Jurvetson and Draper 1997; Kozinets et al. 2010;
Porter and Golan 2006). Researchers use some of them interchangeably, even
though they do not represent the same technique. Just as the terms advertising and marketing are different, so are the terms viral marketing
and viral advertising, for example. Given the continually developing
Internet and its benefits for marketing and advertising, the following discussion attempts to clarify these concepts. This analysis will prove beneficial
for future research and, at the same time, is essential for the study of viral
advertising. The following section revises the key concepts related to viral
and Internet marketing and advertising: word-of-mouth, viral marketing,
buzz, word-of-mouse, and viral advertising.
Viral Advertising
215
Word-of-Mouth (WOM)
Arndt (1967) defined word-of-mouth as oral, person-to-person communication between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver
perceives as non-commercial, regarding a brand, product, or service.
Word-of-mouth is a conversation about products or brands. However, its
importance comes nothing short of significant, as Arndt notes, it is one of
the most important, if not the most important source of information for the
consumer.
Distinct from other types of communication, traditional word-of-mouth
uses verbal communication dispersed from one person to another through
different media, willingly and as a personal initiative (Datta et al. 2005; Gelb
and Sundaram 2002; Henricks 1998). Unlike other paid communications, it
represents an informal form of communication among family, friends, and
consumers. It is based on individuals personal experiences with a firm or
a product.
The influence of word-of-mouth is efficient especially for undifferentiated products, with similar brand and advertising evaluations. It helps
customers evaluate and adopt the product thanks to information acquired
through word-of-mouth (Larceneux 2007). Word-of-mouth has a higher
impact than advertising or personal selling on information dissemination,
on consumer buying behavior, and a significant influence in the diffusion
of new products (Bayus 1985; Cruz and Fill 2008; Datta et al. 2005; Derbaix
and Vanhamme 2003; Hung and Li 2007; Money, Gilly, and Graham 1998;
Rogers 1983).
Credibility and perceived source reliability (Breazeale 2009) are important advantages of word-of-mouth. The opinion leaders formulate and transmit their comments voluntarily, speak from personal experience, and, at least
theoretically, do not receive compensation for it. In addition, the message is
interactive, bidirectional between consumers, not unidirectional as in traditional advertising. Especially for credence and experience goods, word-ofmouth can help consumers alleviate the risk of trying a new product
(Derbaix and Vanhamme 2003; Hogan, Lemon, and Libai 2004). There is
no attempt to control the opinion or behavior of the consumer, as it happens
with paid advertising (Arndt 1967). The consumer also feels closer to the peer
that communicates a personal experience, because of the people like me
perception (Allsop et al. 2007).
Another essential aspect is that word-of-mouth can be either positive or
negative (Arndt 1967; Derbaix and Vanhamme 2003). Negative WOM is one
of the forms of customer complaining behavior and has been found to negatively affect the probability of purchase (Arndt 1967). Negative word-ofmouth has been found to spread further and faster than positive WOM (Helm
2000). WOM literature does not lack controversies, especially regarding its
effects and the differences between negative and positive word-of-mouth.
216
Datta and colleagues (2005) underline the fact that most research focuses on
consequences and on negative WOM.
While WOM occurs naturally among consumers, researchers found marketing activities implemented in order to influence the peer-to-peer communications (Kozinets et al. 2010). At the same time, word-of-mouth is an
important aspect in the modern electronic media, such as e-mail, blogs,
and social media (Steyer et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2007).
Given this review, this study defines WOM as unpaid verbal consumerto-consumer communication, regarding a brand or product. As presented in
table 1, it includes interpersonal, traditional verbal communication between
consumers representing opinions on brands, products, and purchase
experiences.
Viral Marketing
The writings on the origin of the term viral marketing are as varied as its definitions. Most published articles attribute the formulation of the term to Jurvetson and Draper (1997). They used the term to describe the free e-mail service
that Hotmail was providing, with a message attached to each sent e-mail from
Hotmail. The message was simply stating that the Hotmail e-mail account is
free, which led to a viral attraction of new users. Jurvetson and Drapers definition is one of the most cited in the literature on viral marketing (Bampo
et al. 2008; Cruz and Fill 2008; Datta et al. 2005; Fattah 2000; Swanepoel,
Lye, and Rugimbana 2009). A few studies cite Harvard professor Rayport
as mentioning the term in 1996 (Kirby and Marsden 2006; Shukla, 2010)
and an even earlier use of the term in 1989, in a PC user magazine article
about Macintosh (Kirby and Marsden 2006). Its definition also needs clarification. Research-equated viral marketing with so many other concepts and
the differences between them are no longer clear. The terms include
word-of-mouth, electronic word-of-mouth, word-of-mouse, buzz, and viral
advertising, leading to terminology controversies in the literature (Bampo
et al. 2008; Cruz and Fill 2008).
Jurvetson and Draper (1997) consider viral marketing as online word-ofmouth, enhanced by the use of networks. Viral marketing has also been
defined as e-mail use for word-of-mouth referral endorsement from one
client to other prospective clients, and the process of encouraging individuals
to pass along favorable marketing information received online (Dobele et al.
2005). It is also seen as marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce exponential increases in brand awareness (Datta et al.
2005) or electronic, online form of WOM (Anderson 2008; Cruz and Fill
2008). Viral marketing can use different forms and tools, including blogging,
social networks, and user-generated content that can help spread the word
(Akar and Topc u 2011).
Viral Advertising
217
Other authors even use the term viral marketing and viral advertising
interchangeably (Anderson 2008). Bampo et al. (2008) consider viral marketing to be a strategy that encourages individuals to propagate a message,
creating the potential for exponential growth in its dispersion. Welker
(2002) defines the term viral communication as strategies that allow an
easier, accelerated, and cost-reduced transmission of messages by creating
environments for a self-replicating, exponentially increasing diffusion, spiritualization, and impact of the message (p. 4).
Viral marketing is a marketing strategy that encourages consumers to
pass along messages to others in order to generate added exposure (Plummer et al. 2007, p. 263). Helm (2000) defines it as a companys activities to
make use of customers communication networks to promote and distribute
products (p. 158). It relies on customers to pass forward the message using
digital platforms (Helm).
Other authors, such as Klopper (2001), even state that viral marketing is
just another buzzword for an old concept, such as word-of-mouth. This
comes to attest the confusion and definitional debate present in the literature
on this topic.
However, although some researchers use the terms interchangeably,
this study finds differences between WOM, electronic WOM, and viral marketing, making viral marketing a distinctive term on its own. First, WOM is
usually local and slow, while viral marketing can be global and, in the instantaneous online platform, has an exponential growth potential (Datta et al.
2005). Second, according to Fergusons (2008) position, the difference
between viral marketing and WOM is one of cause and effect. Viral marketing, as influencer marketing programs, builds awareness and buzz. Viral marketing generates word-of-mouth. Positive WOM, on the other hand, leads to
trial and acquisition, and is the effect of viral marketing (Ferguson).
Viral marketing includes the online or offline activities performed by
managers and marketers in order to make the message viral and obtain electronic WOM as effect. It no longer represents only a marketing-to-consumer
communication, but also a consumer-to-consumer communication, encouraged by marketers (Chiu et al. 2007). The control moves from the marketer
to the consumer, but the marketer still maintains a role in trying to encourage
consumers to communicate (Dobele et al. 2005).
A successful viral marketing campaign encourages individual consumers
to forward marketing messages to others. Due to its diffusion potential, the
Internet creates the capacity to transmit the message to thousands of people
(Chiu et al. 2007; Dobele et al. 2007; Shukla 2010). Viral marketing assumes
this epidemic message diffusion potential and it mobilizes the community
(Stanbouli 2003), given the wide access to information and communication
online.
However, some studies also warn that viral marketing should not be
considered the best thing possible, with maximum results at a low cost.
218
Managers can utilize viral marketing as a function of the consumer and product characteristics (Stanbouli 2003). While viral marketing is not the answer
to all promotional problems, it is certainly one of the key tools of modern
marketers.
The study concludes that viral marketing represents online and offline
marketing activities performed to influence consumers to pass along commercial messages to other consumers. As shown in table 1, its purpose
includes the forwarding of business-generated commercial messages,
through the Internet, from businesses to consumers and then to other
consumers.
Buzz Marketing
Buzz marketing is the amplification of initial marketing efforts by third parties through their passive or active influence (Thomas 2004, p. 64). It
includes spreading the message about new products or brand experiences.
Buzz marketing is under consumer control and is auto-generated, transmitted
from peer-to-peer. While research sometimes uses it as a synonym for viral
marketing, there are a few differences noted in studies. Viral marketing
applies to the electronic media, while buzz marketing can use different
mediums, including traditional word-of-mouth and physical interaction
(Swanepoel et al. 2009).
However, the most significant differences between viral marketing
and buzz relate to process and output, as seen in the difference between
word-of-mouth and viral marketing. Buzz, just like word-of-mouth, often
times is an output or consequence of viral marketing (Bampo et al. 2008;
Dobele et al. 2005).
Larceneux (2007) underlines two types of buzz, a commercial and a
non-commercial type. Commercial buzz relies on marketing strategies that
contribute to its creation and growth. Marketers can support the communication exchange among consumers, and especially encouraging opinion
leaders to speak out. On the other hand, non-commercial buzz is a priori,
based on consumers willingness to spread the message and the information
about their experiences. Both of them are present on the Internet; however, the first type includes rather professional expert opinions, while the
second assumes content generated by consumers (Larceneux 2007). As the
discussion on viral marketing notes, consumer-to-consumer communication
has a higher impact and diffusion potential. However, future research
needs to focus on the efficiency and characteristics of commercial vs. noncommercial buzz.
As shown in table 1, the conclusion is that buzz marketing, including
peer-to-peer communications as a consequence of viral marketing, is the
result of marketing strategies meant to encourage consumer-to-consumer
communication.
Viral Advertising
219
Word-of-Mouse or eWOM
Electronic WOM, or word-of-mouse (Breazeale 2009), is any positive or
negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a
product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people
and institutions via the Internet (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004, p. 39). It is similar to word-of-mouth, except for the diffusion benefits offered by the
Internet, and the viral potential. It can use different communication platforms, such as reviews, blogs, e-mail, social media, and chat rooms. Word-ofmouse is user generated, transmitted from consumer to consumer, and has
unlimited consumer reach potential (Helm 2000).
Unlike traditional WOM, when the marketer has no control, the eWOM
presents some control opportunities, such as transparency, access to reviews,
and customer evaluations. This is important, considering that with about
25% of the comments critical or negative, word of mouth cuts both ways,
and marketers must be prepared for both positive and negative (Plummer
et al. 2007).
A significant difference between WOM and eWOM refers to the party
who selects the authority to provide comments (Gelb and Sundaram
2002). eWOM presents the opportunity to access not only the opinions of
friends, family, and personal social circle, but also those of experts and complete strangers. Unlike in personal WOM, in the online environment, the only
thing people might know about a message sender is a user name.
Unlike word-of-mouth, eWOM usually comes from people with strong
opinions, provides confidentiality to the consumers. It has the advantage
of written vs. spoken word and some authority that derives from it (Gelb
and Sundaram 2002).
Plummer et al. (2007) also distinguish between organic and amplified
word-of-mouth. Organic eWOM is based on consumers experiences and
desire to share them, while the amplified type refers to outcomes of marketing campaigns meant to raise brand awareness. These include all kinds of
tool marketers used to promote eWOM, such as the creation of online forums. How to better differentiate between organic and amplified eWOM,
which form to use and when are topics still open for debate, and opportunities for future research.
Previous research found that consumers perceive eWOM communication
as a reliable source of information, which affects the perceived overall value of
a firms offering (Gruen, Osmonbekov, and Czaplewski 2006). eWOM is
especially appreciated and used by consumers when a personal experience
with the respective brand is not available (Jones, Aiken, and Boush 2009).
Thus, eWOM is defined as electronic consumer-to-consumer
communication regarding a brand or product. It is a form of interpersonal
communication and includes consumer-generated opinions, transmitted
from consumers to consumers.
220
Viral Advertising
While some studies use the term viral marketing and viral advertising
interchangeably, this study attempts to clarify the concept of viral advertising.
Porter and Golan (2006) define viral advertising as unpaid peer-to-peer
communication of provocative content originating from an identified sponsor using the Internet to persuade or influence an audience to pass along
the content to others (p. 29). Kirby and Marsden (2006) write that viral
advertising assumes creating contagious advertising messages transmitted
from peer to peer in order to increase brand awareness.
The Internet offers a significantly increased potential of an ad becoming
viral and having an exponentially growing diffusion rate. Viral ads are online
ads that become viral because of consumer action. Companies might pay for
the creation of the ads or they can be user generated, however, their distribution from consumer to consumer is not paid.
Transmitting an ad online, either video, audio, or print (picture) format,
through social media, social networks, e-mail, and other platforms is much
faster and has a much wider reach. Viral advertising includes different forms,
such as the link of a video ad from, for example, YouTube, transmitted to
peers through e-mail or social media.
Classical viral advertising examples are the Whassup? viral ad from
Budweiser or the Trojan condoms 2004 Sex Olympics, downloaded more
than 40 million times (Reid 2005). Viral advertising relies on consumers transmitting the message to other consumers within their social circle (which does
not mean only friends or family). Viral advertising is controlled by consumers. If consumers do not like the ad, it not only affects the attitude toward
the ad or brand, but also their intention to transmit the message. The consumer needs to like the ad enough not only for him=her to buy the product,
but to also pass the message forward.
The not very extensive research on this topic shows that most viral ads
have distinct characteristics when compared to traditional advertising, such
as a catchy message, controversy, entertainment, and higher engagement
levels, usually associated with humorous appeals (Cruz and Fill 2008; Porter
and Golan 2006; Swanepoel et al. 2009).
Viral advertising is personal and even though it comes from an identified sponsor, it does not mean the companies pay for its distribution. Most
of the classical viral ads circulating online are ads financed by the sponsor
brand, launched either on their own platform (company Web page or social
media profile) or on social media Web sites, such as YouTube. Consumers
get the page link from there or copy the entire ad and pass if forward through
e-mail or post it on a blog, Web page, and social media profile.
Researchers and practitioners discuss different antecedents and strategies that make an ad viral. For example, Cruz and Fill (2008) notes two viral
forms, random and placed, differing with regards to place mode (paid or
Viral Advertising
221
222
CONCLUSIONS
Internet-based advertising is continually growing, while technology and
other factors have significantly evolved and positively affect the way consumers use communications. This favors rapid and efficient information
exchange and interactivity (Johnson et al. 2006; Keller 2009). In the Internet
context, advertising and marketing research studies have mentioned aspects,
such as electronic word-of-mouth, word-of-mouse, viral marketing,
buzz, and viral advertising (Dobele et al. 2005; Jurvetson and Draper
1997; Porter and Golan 2006).
This study provides an overview of the past social media research
focusing on different aspects of the viral communication. It also presents
Viral Advertising
223
REFERENCES
Akar, E., and B. Topc u. 2011. An examination of the factors influencing consumers
attitudes toward social media marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce 10 (1):
3567.
Allsop, D. T., B. R. Bassett, and J. A. Hoskins. 2007. Word of mouth research:
Principles and applications. Journal of Advertising Research 47 (4): 398411.
Anderson, S. 2008. Using social networks to market. Rough Notes 151 (2): 114115.
Arndt, J. 1967. Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new
product. Journal of Marketing Research 4 (3): 291295.
Bampo, M., M. T. Ewing, D. R. Mather, D. Stewart, and M. Wallace. 2008. The effects
of the social structure of digital networks on viral marketing performance.
Information Systems Research 19 (3): 273290.
Barefoot, D., and J. Szabo. 2010. Friends with benefits: A social media marketing
handbook. San Francisco: No Starch Press.
Bayus, B. L. 1985. Word of mouth: The indirect effects of marketing efforts. Journal
of Advertising Research 25:3139.
224
Viral Advertising
225
Hung, K. H., and S. Y. Li. 2007. The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer
communities: Social capital, consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes.
Journal of Advertising Research 47 (4): 485495.
Johnson, G. J., G. C. Bruner II, and A. Kumar. 2006. Interactivity and its facets
revisited. Theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising 35 (4): 3552.
Jones, S. A., K. D. Aiken, and D. M. Boush. 2009. Integrating experience, advertising,
and electronic word of mouth. Journal of Internet Commerce 8 (3): 246267.
Jurvetson, S., and T. Draper. 1997. Viral marketing phenomenon explained. http://
www.dfj.com/news/article_26.shtml (accessed April 15, 2010).
Keller, K. L. 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications
environment. Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2): 139155.
Kirby, J., and P. Marsden. 2006. Connected marketing: The viral, buzz and word of
mouth revolution. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Klopper, H. B. 2001. Viral marketing: A powerful, but dangerous tool? Proceedings
of the 3rd Annual Conference on World Wide Web, Johannesburg.
Kozinets, R. V., K. de Valck, A. C. Wojnicki, and S. J. Wilner. 2010. Networked
narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities.
Journal of Marketing 74:7189.
Krishnamurthy, S., and N. Singh. 2005. The international e-marketing framework
(IEMF). Identifying the building blocks for future global e-marketing research.
International Marketing Review 22 (6): 605610.
Larceneux, F. 2007. Buzz et recommandations sur Internet: Quels effets sur le
box-office? Recherche et Applications en Marketing 22 (3): 4564.
Money, R. B., M. C. Gilly, and J. L. Graham. 1998. Explorations of national culture
and word-of-mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in
the United States and Japan. The Journal of Marketing 62 (4): 687.
Morrissey, B. 2008. Viral video hits blur the authenticity line. Adweek 49 (37): 8.
Niederhoffer, K., R. Mooth, D. Wiesenfeld, and J. Gordon. 2007. The origin and
impact of CPG new-product buzz: Emerging trends and implications. Journal
of Advertising Research 47 (4): 420426.
Phelps, J. E., R. Lewis, L. Mobilio, D. Perry, and N. Raman. 2004. Viral marketing or
electronic word-of-mouth advertising: Examining consumer responses and motivations to pass along e-mail. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (4): 333348.
Plummer, J., S. Rappaport, T. Hall, and R. Barocci. 2007. The online advertising
playbook: Proven strategies and tested tactics from the advertising research
foundation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Porter, L., and G. J. Golan. 2006. From subservient chickens to Brawny men: A
comparison of viral advertising to television advertising. Journal of Interactive
Advertising 6 (2): 3038.
Rayport, J. F. 1996. The virus of marketing. Fast Company. http://www.fastcompany.
com/magazine/06/virus.html (accessed May 2010).
Reid, A. 2005. Viral advertising campaigns. Campaign 14.
Riegner, C. 2007. Word of mouth on the Web: The impact of Web 2.0 on consumer
purchase decisions. Journal of Advertising Research 47 (4): 436447.
Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.
Rust, R. T., and R. W. Oliver. 1994. The death of advertising. Journal of Advertising
23 (4): 7177.
226
Scott, J. 2000. Social network analysis: A handbook. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Shukla, T. 2010. Factors affecting Internet marketing campaigns with reference
to viral and permission marketing. The IUP Journal of Management Research
9 (1): 2637.
Smith, T., J. R. Coyle, E. Lightfoot, and A. Scott. 2007. Reconsidering models of influence: The relationship between consumer social networks and word-of-mouth
effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research 47 (4): 387397.
Spence, M. 2002. Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets.
American Economic Review 92 (3): 434459.
Stanbouli, K. 2003. Marketing viral et publicite. Revue Franc aise du Marketing 192=
193:97106.
Steenburgh, T., J. Avery, and N. Dahod. 2009. HubSpot: Inbound marketing and Web
2.0. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, Case 509-049.
Stewart, D. W., and P. A. Pavlou. 2002. From consumer response to active consumer:
Measuring the effectiveness of interactive media. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 30 (4): 376396.
Steyer, A., R. Garcia-Bardidia, and P. Quester. 2007. Modelisation de la structure
sociale des groupes de discussion sur Internet: Implications pour le controle
du marketing viral. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 22 (3): 2944.
Swanepoel, C., A. Lye, and R. Rugimbana. 2009. Virally inspired: A review of the
theory of viral stealth marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal 17 (1): 915.
Thomas, G. M. 2004. Building the buzz in the hive mind. Journal of Consumer
Behavior 4 (1): 6472.
Tsai, J. 2009. Video is more than viral: Forget YouTube sensations and wardrobe
malfunctions. CRM Magazine 13:3642.
Tuten, T. L. 2008. Advertising 2.0: Social media marketing in a Web 2.0 world.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network analysis: Methods and applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Welker, C. B. 2002. The paradigm of viral communication. Information Services and
Use 22:38.
Copyright of Journal of Internet Commerce is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.