“Why Would I Read a Mobile Review?” Device Compatibility Perceptions and Effects on Perceived Helpfulness

Abstract

The proliferation of mobile devices means that mobile‐generated customer reviews are on the rise, though research into their peculiarities and appraisals is rare. With field data and a scenario experiment, the current research demonstrates how recipients perceive mobile‐generated customer reviews fundamentally differently from nonmobile‐generated reviews. First, behavioral field data provide evidence that consumers discount the helpfulness of mobile reviews due to their text‐specific content and style particularities. Second, the scenario experiment shows that identifying a review as written on a mobile device lowers recipients’ perceptions of its value, but only if they use a nonmobile device to read the review. Recipients rely on device information as a source cue to assess compatibility. If they perceive themselves as compatible with the device, recipients perceive the review as more helpful because they attribute the review's content to the quality of the reviewed object; if they regard it as incompatible, recipients assume the review reflects the personal dispositions of the reviewer and discount its helpfulness. Managers of online opinion platforms thus must acknowledge the peculiarities of mobile‐generated reviews and the impact of tagging content as mobile or not.

Online reviews: Differences by submission device

“…Second, our findings suggest that mobile eWOM is considered less helpful than desktop eWOM in line with previous literature (Lurie et al, 2014;Marz et al, 2017). However, in contrast to these existing studies, we find that the valence of mobile eWOM is consistently higher than the valence of desktop eWOM, potentially due to our sample being more recent and larger.…”

“…Moreover, after controlling for observable differences in content, mobile eWOM appears to be less valued by other consumers. Marz et al (2017) examine how the helpfulness of mobile eWOM differs from desktop eWOM and conclude that there are significant differences in stylespecific characteristics. Interestingly, they also observe that the knowledge of the type of device the reviewer used to write the review influences other consumers' evaluations of the review's helpfulness.…”

Broadening the Perspective on Mobile Marketing: An Introduction

“…Although some of the papers address research questions about mobile‐based communication, the remaining illustrate consumers’ perspective on mobile‐based retailing and thus shed light on mobile‐based shopping: Mobile‐based communication ‐“Why would I read a mobile review? Device compatibility perceptions and effects on perceived helpfulness” (März, Schubach, & Schumann, ); ‐“The effect of media multitasking on advertising message effectiveness” (Garaus, Wagner, & Bäck, ); and ‐“How mobile in‐store advertising influences purchase intention: Value drivers and mediating effects from a consumer perspective” (Bues, Steiner, Stafflage, & Krafft, ). Mobile‐based shopping ‐“Acceptance of smartphone‐based mobile shopping: Mobile benefits, customer characteristics, perceived risk and the impact of application context” (Hubert, Blut, Brock, Backhaus, & Eberhardt, ); ‐“The impact of perceived visual complexity of mobile online shops on users’ satisfaction” (Sohn, Seegebarth, & Moritz, ); ‐“Effects of blue lightning in ambient and mobile settings on the intention to buy hedonic and utilitarian products” (Guido, Piper, Prete, Mileti, & Trisolini, ); and ‐“To ‘free’ or not to ‘free’: Trait predictors of mobile app purchasing tendencies” (Dinsmore, Swani, & Dugan, ). …”

“…While März et al. () focus on consumer‐generated communications, the contributions of Garaus et al. () and Bues et al.…”

“…In particular, the research conducted by März et al. () focuses on mobile‐generated customer reviews and their effects on customers’ perceptions. While the first study sheds light on the effects of different style and content features of mobile compared to nonmobile reviews, the second study elucidates the effects of congruence between the device used to create the review (i.e., either mobile or non‐mobile) and the device used to read it.…”