Online word‐of‐mouth (WOM) can impact consumers’ product evaluations, purchase intentions, and choices—but when does it do so? How do those receiving WOM know whether to rely on a particular message? This article suggests that the multiple players involved in online WOM (receivers, senders, sellers, platforms, and other consumers) each have their own interests, which are often in conflict. Thus, receivers of WOM are faced with a judgment task in deciding what information to rely on: They must make inferences about the product in question and about the players who provide or present WOM. To do so, they use signals embedded in various components of WOM, such as average star ratings, message content, or sender characteristics. The product and player information provided by these signals shapes the impact of WOM by allowing receivers to make inferences about (a) their likelihood of product satisfaction, and (b) the trustworthiness of WOM players, and therefore the trustworthiness of their content. This article summarizes how each player changes the impact of online WOM, providing a lens for understanding the current literature in online WOM, offering insights for theory in this context, and opening up pathways for future research.

No abstract

Swearing can violate norms and thereby offend consumers. Yet the prevalence of swearword use suggests that an offensiveness perspective may not fully capture their impact in marketing. This paper adopts a linguistic perspective to develop and test a model of how, why, and when swearword use affects consumers in online word-of-mouth. In two field datasets and four experiments, the authors show that relative to reviews with no swearwords, or with non-swearword synonyms (e.g., super), reviews with swearwords (e.g., damn) impact review readers. First, reviews with swearwords are rated as more helpful. Second, when a swearword qualifies a desirable [undesirable] product attribute, readers’ attitudes toward the product increase [decrease] (e.g., “This dishwasher is damn quiet [loud]!”). Swearwords impact readers because they convey meaning about 1) the reviewer and 2) the topic (product) under discussion. These two meanings function as independent, parallel mediators that drive the observed effects. Further, these effects are moderated by swearword number and style: they do not emerge when a review contains many swearwords and are stronger for uncensored and euphemistic swearwords (e.g., darn) than censored swearwords (e.g., d* mn). Overall, swearwords in reviews provide value to readers—and review platforms—because they efficiently and effectively convey two meanings.

Sharing water is a contentious environmental issue. Irrigation controls the majority of water resources, but international experiences illustrate that irrigators are reluctant to share their water. How can resource managers achieve acceptance of water-sharing policies to meet the changing needs of society? This study focuses on strategies for selling a political agenda related to water transfers from agriculture. A survey was conducted with 275 irrigators in the western Canadian province of Alberta to assess how attributes that define a water transfer influence irrigators' acceptance rates. Results indicated that the purpose of the transfer was the most important attribute. Six segments emerged based on perceptions of attributes. Greenies, Water Savers, and Efficiency Savers considered environmental attributes, whereas Personal Gainers and Municipal Friends considered personal and municipal attributes. Nay Sayers rejected transfers regardless of attributes. These results provide recommendations for resource managers attempting to persuade irrigators to share their water.

The growing demand for water in urban communities has increased pressure on current water entitlement holders, such as irrigators, to share their water. In the western Canadian province of Alberta, water sharing proposals often require irrigators to permanently sell their water. The majority of irrigation licenses are held by irrigation districts. Under the Irrigation District Act, the transfer of part of such licenses outside the district requires the approval of a majority of irrigators within the district. These water transfer plebiscites often attract considerable opposition from irrigators. Our study attempted to assess nature and reasons behind such opposition. Based on a survey of 275 randomly selected irrigators representing all districts of Alberta, we found that 40% of irrigators prefer sharing water rather than permanently selling it. Irrigators who oppose to water transfers belong to two groups. One group will always oppose water transfers regardless of any gains, while the other group considers factors such as environmental, personal or communal gains when they reject a water transfer. Strategies to effectively conduct a plebiscite on water sharing rights are later discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract