Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities

71Journal of MarketingVol. 74 (March 2010), 71–89

© 2010, American Marketing AssociationISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic)

Robert V. Kozinets, Kristine de Valck, Andrea C.Wojnicki, & Sarah J.S. Wilner

Networked Narratives:UnderstandingWord-of-Mouth

Marketing in Online CommunitiesWord-of-mouth (WOM) marketing—firms’ intentional influencing of consumer-to-consumer communications—is anincreasingly important technique. Reviewing and synthesizing extantWOM theory, this article shows how marketersemploying social media marketing methods face a situation of networked coproduction of narratives. It thenpresents a study of a marketing campaign in which mobile phones were seeded with prominent bloggers. Eighty-three blogs were followed for six months.The findings indicate that this network of communications offers four socialmedia communication strategies—evaluation, embracing, endorsement, and explanation. Each is influenced bycharacter narrative, communications forum, communal norms, and the nature of the marketing promotion.This newnarrative model shows that communal WOM does not simply increase or amplify marketing messages; rather,marketing messages and meanings are systematically altered in the process of embedding them. The theory hasdefinite, pragmatic implications for how marketers should plan, target, and leverageWOM and how scholars shouldunderstand WOM in a networked world.

Keywords: advertising and promotions, consumer communication, online communities, online consumer behavior,Internet marketing, social media, word of mouth

Robert V. Kozinets is Associate Professor of Marketing (e-mail:[email protected]), and Sarah J.S. Wilner is a doctoral candi-date in Marketing (e-mail: [email protected]), Schulich Schoolof Business, York University. Kristine de Valck is Assistant Professor ofMarketing, HEC School of Management, Paris (e-mail: [email protected]).Andrea C.Wojnicki is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Rotman School ofManagement, University of Toronto (e-mail: [email protected]). This research was partially supported by the first author’sSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada standardresearch grant (No. 410-2008-2057). Special thanks to the great people at“Buzzablog” who have kindly and patiently shared their data, their time,and their valuable insights.

Word-of-mouth marketing (WOMM) is the inten-tional influencing of consumer-to-consumer com-munications by professional marketing tech-

niques. Known also as social media marketing, viralmarketing, buzz, and guerilla marketing, a plethora of popu-lar books on WOMM have recently been released (e.g.,Jaffe 2007; Kelly 2007; Rosen 2009; Sernovitz 2006), andindustry associations, such as theWord of Mouth MarketingAssociation, have grown rapidly and have advocated for theburgeoning new industry. According to recent research,marketers spent more than $1.54 billion on WOMM initia-tives in 2008, and that amount is expected to rise to $3 bil-lion in 2013 (PQ Media 2009).

Marketers and sociologists have recognized the impor-tance of the phenomenon of word of mouth (WOM)—conceptualized as a naturally occurring phenomenon—formore than half a century, proposing, for example, thatWOM affects the majority of all purchase decisions(Brooks 1957; Dichter 1966). However, these theories andobservations about informal, unsolicited WOM were con-

structed in a marketing world untouched by the Internet(Brown, Broderick, and Lee 2007; Dellarocas 2003; Godeset al. 2005; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004).

The Internet’s accessibility, reach, and transparencyhave empowered marketers who are interested in influenc-ing and monitoring WOM as never before. This article issituated firmly within this new marketing reality. We offertheory that integrates these transformations into the worldof WOM.We begin with an overview of the development ofWOM theory and its assumptions, placing recent develop-ments into historical context. Building on this framework,we detail our empirical investigation of an online WOMMcampaign that engaged consumers who were seeded with anew technology device to generate WOM in their personalblogs. Our findings specify how this marketing processunfolds in the realm of consumer-to-consumer WOM com-munications. We discuss both theoretical and managerialimplications.

We discover and demonstrate four distinct blogger com-munication strategies in response to the product seeding.These communication strategies are marked by the promi-nent tension between commercial and communal norms. Inaddition, they are shaped to fit the represented individualblogger narratives. These communication strategies havespecific implications for how marketers should leverageWOMM campaigns, both online and offline.

The Transformation of WOMTheoryAs markets change, marketing theories must also change toaccommodate them. In this section, we provide an assump-tive frame for this article by briefly reviewing the develop-

ment of WOM theory and practice, as summarized in Fig-ure 1. Although the overview casts theoretical developmentas a series of three evolutionary shifts, considerable histori-cal overlap has occurred. All three models currently coexist,and each pertains to different circumstances.

The Organic Interconsumer Influence Model

Early scholarship established WOM as a significant socialforce, influencing early marketing thought and practice. Forexample, Ryan and Gross’s (1943) diffusion study sug-gested that conversations among buyers were more impor-tant than marketing communications in influencing adop-tion (see also Rogers 1962). We refer to the earliest andsimplest understanding of consumer WOM as a model oforganic interconsumer influence (see Figure 1, Panel A).These interconsumer communications pertain to theexchange of product and brand-related marketing messagesand meanings. In this model, WOM is “organic” because itoccurs between one consumer and another without directprompting, influence, or measurement by marketers. It ismotivated by a desire to help others, to warn others aboutpoor service, and/or to communicate status (Arndt 1967;Engel, Kegerreis, and Blackwell 1969; Gatignon andRobertson 1986). Views of WOM in this model assume that

72 / Journal of Marketing, March 2010

WOM occurs naturally among consumers when marketersperform their job of developing market innovations and per-forming effective product notification through advertisingand promotions (Bass 1969; Whyte 1954).

The Linear Marketer Influence Model

As marketing scholarship and practice advanced, theories ofWOM began to emphasize the importance of particularlyinfluential consumers in the WOM process (e.g., Feick andPrice 1987; King and Summers 1976). Accordingly, it wasin marketers’ interests to identify and attempt to influencethese influential, respected, credible, WOM-spreading con-sumers. This understanding now incorporates an activeattempt by the marketer to influence consumer WOMthrough the use of traditional means, such as advertisingand promotions. Therefore, we refer to this stage as a modelof linear influence (see Figure 1, Panel B). Occurring dur-ing the “cultural engineering” marketing practices of thepost–World War II era, which were formed to overcomeincreasingly resistant buyers (Holt 2002), some consumerswere viewed as potential “opinion leaders” who smart mar-keters could target and influence. Marketers would now beable to work through “the friend who recommends a triedand trusted product” rather than the “salesman who tries toget rid of merchandise” (Dichter 1966, p. 165). Accurate,“realistic information” in marketing was important in theseearly conceptions because the opinion leader was assumedto transmit marketing messages more or less faithfully,without substantially altering them or having them alteredby ongoing communications with other consumers (Brooks1957; Engel, Kegerreis, and Blackwell 1969; Katz andLazarsfeld 1955).

The Network Coproduction Model

The next stage of understanding is the most recent, andthough it coincides with the development and recognition ofthe importance of the Internet, it is not limited to thisdomain. Marketers have become interested in directly man-aging WOM activity through targeted one-to-one seedingand communication programs, with the Internet allowingunprecedented new levels of management and measurementof these campaigns and new professional organizationsallowing the efficient development and diffusion of WOMMknowledge.

Marketing scholarship has evolved from a transactionorientation to one based on relationships (Vargo and Lusch2004), with increasing importance placed on the role ofconsumer networks, groups, and communities (Cova andCova 2002; Hoffman and Novak 1996; Muñiz and O’Guinn2001). Consumers are regarded as active coproducers ofvalue and meaning, whose WOM use of marketing commu-nications can be idiosyncratic, creative, and even resistant(Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry 2003; Kozinets 2001; Muñizand Schau 2005; Thompson and Sinha 2008). Thus, WOMcommunications are coproduced in consumer networks.There are two distinguishing characteristics of this newmodel of understanding (see Figure 1, Panel C). First ismarketers’ use of new tactics and metrics to deliberatelyand directly target and influence the consumer or opinion

FIGURE 1The Evolution of WOMTheory

A: The Organic Interconsumer Influence Model

B: The Linear Marketer Influence Model

C: The Network Coproduction Model

Marketer

Marketer

Marketer

ConsumerConsumer

Marketing-Mix Elements

Marketing-Mix Elements

Marketing-MixElements

Consumer

OpinionLeader

Consumer

Consumer

Consumer

Consumer

Consumer

Consumer

Directinfluence(seeding,one to one)

Indirectinfluence

(advertisements,promotions)

Marketing message and meanings

Marketing messageand meanings

Marketing messageand meanings

leader. Second is the acknowledgment that market messagesand meanings do not flow unidirectionally but rather areexchanged among members of the consumer network.

Yet, despite awareness of the complexity of these com-munal relationships, marketers are just beginning to under-stand the formation, reaction, and effects of communallybased marketing promotions. This article’s contribution isbased on empirical inquiry that attempts to further developthe understanding already captured in the coproductionmodel and to answer the following three questions: How docommunities respond to community-oriented WOMM?What patterns do WOM communicator strategies assume?and Why do they assume these patterns?

MethodWe explore the lived phenomenon of WOMM in a natural-istic context. Our research approach is qualitative and aimsto generate scientific propositions about this new phenome-non that can be subject to further testing and verification.Our investigation focuses on a blog-based campaign in sixNorth American cities. The blog context is highly relevantto our study because blogs have been increasingly popularsites of WOMM campaigns (Kelly 2007; Rettberg 2008;Sernovitz 2006). Estimates by eMarketer placed U.S. blogadvertising at $283 million in 2007 and suggest that 50% ofall Internet users are regular blog readers, a figure the firmpredicts to rise to 67% by 2012 (Kutchera 2008). Further-more, 2006 European surveys indicate that blogs “are sec-ond only to newspapers as a trusted information source”(Brown, Broderick, and Lee 2007, p. 16).

We studied a “seeding” campaign—that is, a campaignin which the product is placed among influential consumersso that they can communicate favorably about it to otherconsumers (see Balter 2005). The campaign was conductedby one of the pioneer North American WOMM firms(“Buzzablog”) for a major global technology manufacturer(“MobiTech”).1 The campaign, designed to promote a newcamera-equipped mobile phone (the “MobiTech 3839”),seeded the phone as well as accessories and a usage tutorialwith 90 bloggers who had previously been contacted bye-mail and telephone and screened for consideration. Influ-ential bloggers were chosen on the basis of the lifestyle-related relevance of their blog content and blog traffic of atleast 400 unique visitors per day. Although participantswere encouraged to blog about the phone, the campaign didnot require them to do so. Most of the products were seededin two large cities with a combined population of more thanseven million people. The campaign yielded significantactivity. Of the selected bloggers, 84% mentioned the phonein their blog. In an interview with the Buzzablog directorwho supervised the campaign, he remarked on its success:

I’d say we were pleasantly surprised how many of theinfluencers that we engaged actually participated in some

Networked Narratives / 73

way along the lines I was just describing, by creating con-tent online about the product [recommending it andinspiring others to product purchase]…. We achievedwhat we wanted to in terms of influencers talking aboutthe MobiTech brand and about this product to a very highdegree. On the whole, the commentary about the productwas very positive. So people who were talking about theproperties of the product were very positive on it. And weknow from follow-up surveys with all of these influencersthat we had a significant number of sales that were actu-ally influenced by these influencers, as a result of recom-mending the product. So, in all those ways, we got theresults that we had hoped for and that MobiTech hadhoped for. (personal communication, March 28, 2009)

However, if marketers want to fully grasp the effects oftheir WOMM strategies, it is necessary to look beyond mea-sures of communication frequency or valence and considerits content. To do this, we conducted an online ethnography,or netnography (Kozinets 2002). We followed Kozinets’s(2007) recent recommendations for adapting the netno-graphic technique to blog content. Although we observedthese blogs without posting to them, we participated in sev-eral discussions with Buzzablog about the campaign. Wealso met to discuss and analyze our ongoing individual par-ticipation in online communities, as well as our readershipof, participation in, and (in one case) authorship of blogs.Although we did not participate directly in the focal blogs,our analysis reflects the participative component that is ahallmark of interpretive depth in both ethnography andnetnography.

Of the 90 bloggers who were seeded in the campaign,we collected data from the 83 whose blogs remained acces-sible throughout the entire length of this study. These bloggersranged in age from 22 years to 45 years at the initial time ofthe campaign, and 59% were male. They also had a range ofoccupations, including photographers, designers, writers,programmers, consultants, and administrative personnel.

To establish a baseline reading of the blogs’ content, wecollected blog entries beginning three months before theproduct seeding. We collected data from the start of thecampaign until immediately after it to establish initial reac-tions. We continued to follow the bloggers and their post-ings for a period of approximately three months after theWOMM campaign. This longitudinal approach allows foranalytic depth and enriches the effort to develop relevanttheory. Total downloaded data amounted to more than 4300single-spaced pages of 12-point-font text, representingapproximately 1,376,000 words and 6722 postings, as wellas significant additional amounts of visual and audiovisualdata. The total number of postings in which the bloggerswrote about the phone or the campaign amounts to 220. Ourdata set contains approximately 700 comments of blogreaders who responded to the WOMM campaign.

We sorted and classified all postings into individualblogger files, and we categorized the files as before, during,and after the WOMM campaign. We coded the data into ini-tial categories, analyzing them for themes relevant to ourinvestigation of WOMM. Through group comparison andmultiple rounds of in-person discussion, a grounded,metaphorical, and hermeneutic interpretation emerged. Weidentified recurrent social and cultural tendencies within the

1Although we realize the limitations of pseudonyms in the ageof the Internet search engine, we follow convention and use pseu-donyms for the names of community participants, as well as thename of the technology company, its product, and the marketingagency.

data and used the constant comparative method to generateinsights. We tested and verified our theory in this way, look-ing for disconfirming cases and altering our theory in multi-ple rounds of analysis. In this second step, unexpected find-ings led us to develop our network coproduction model ofWOM, identifying our main theoretical implications. Ouroverall approach is in keeping with the precepts of main-stream qualitative data analysis and interpretation (e.g.,Thompson 1997).

Although our theory development is based on the entiredata set encompassing all 83 bloggers, for data presenta-tion, we offer a more nuanced recounting of a greatlyreduced subset. The sections that follow focus on the indi-vidual stories of 4 bloggers whose responses to the cam-paign are representative of our findings across the entire set.Samples of additional blogger responses, which we presentsubsequently, underscore the general nature of our findings.

WOMM in Online CommunitiesOur data analysis and interpretation reveal that WOMM ispart of a complex cultural process that nonetheless followsan ascertainable pattern. On the surface, WOMM thatattempts to direct the discourses of bloggers may seem tohave many similarities with the use of public relations orother forms of paid promotion. However, because of a rangeof novel contextual and institutional elements that do notgenerally exist in the professional journalistic or advertisingrelationship, the WOMM campaign is injected into lessestablished, less defined, and more complex cultural rela-tionships. These elements encompass and are related to thenetworked coproduction of marketing-related communica-tions. Although we present these proposed elements beforeelaborating our findings, we derived them from an induc-tive, ground-up data analysis process. Figure 2 captures therange of elements and their interactions.

The WOM communication that is of interest to mar-keters—a market-based message and its associated mean-ings, as well as its reception by an intended audience—isinfluenced by four important factors. First, it is affected byits placement within what we more broadly term communi-cator “character narratives,” or enduring personal stories oraccounts that we may understand as being related to par-ticular expressed character types. Narratives vary, but thereare distinct archetypal patterns in how people offer perspec-tives that unfold over time. For example, a blogger mayself-identify with the character of a loving mom, whichresults in a narrative that stresses kindness, helpfulness, andcaring. Others present a professional, critical, or clinicalcharacter, as might be seen in review blogs. Still othersexemplify engaged community member types (e.g., politi-cal bloggers, citizen journalists). Psychological guides topersonality, such as the Myers-Briggs type indicators, mightusefully be employed to further specify the common com-ponents of these created character types.

Second, WOM communications take place whileembedded in a particular forum. The forum under investiga-tion in the current research is the blog, but other WOM con-texts might include dinner parties, bars, schools, or socialnetworking Web sites. There are different types of blog


forums. We identify and examine personal life crisis, rela-tionship, technical, and mommy forums. Sports, health,fashion, celebrity, and news are other examples of forumtopics.

Third, the WOM communication is affected by commu-nal norms that govern the expression, transmission, andreception of a message and its meanings. These normswould vary by the size of the community, the average age ofcommunity members, their interests, their lifestyles, theirethnic orientation, social class, and extent of shared history,among other factors.

Fourth, the message and meanings of the WOM com-munication are affected by the promotional characteristicsof the WOMM campaign and related promotions, such asthe type of product or service, the product’s brand equityand the objectives, terms, hard-sell nature, and humorous-ness of the campaign.

In the network of WOM communications, these fourelements work in concert to alter the nature of the WOMMmessage and its associated meanings. They influence itsexpression. They transform it, as we explain subsequently,from a commercial promotion to communally valuableinformation. Character type, blog forum, and communalnorms affect the narratives and influence the audienceattracted to the blog and members’ response to its content.Pertinent to our study, the four elements also influence themanifestation and reception of WOMM messages. Follow-ing these four elements, we gain an understanding about theforces that shape WOM in the complex manner depicted bythe network coproduction model. In the remainder of thisarticle, we explore the nature and implication of these net-works of narratives.

We recount in some detail the character narratives andtypes, communications forums, and communal orientationand reception of four blogs from our data set on theMobiTech–Buzzablog WOMM campaign. For confidential-ity, we have given the bloggers the pseudonyms “Frank,”“Alicia,” “Carrie,” and “Judith.” We offer each profile indepth to illustrate the complexity of the manifest phenome-non, which encompasses WOM content and the communalinteractions resulting from the WOMM campaign. Each ofthese four blogs exemplifies a particular narrative strategythat is significant to marketing research and practice.

Frank’s Blog: Seeking Social Connection andOffering Explanation

Character narrative, forum, and communal orientation.According to his blog, Frank is a 27-year-old former broad-cast engineer in the midst of several significant life transi-tions. He recently married and moved from his hometownin the Midwest to his wife’s hometown in a major North-western city. Frank’s blog, a hybrid personal–technologyforum, becomes a way of “sorting out our new livestogether.” Frank had been unemployed for almost two yearsafter moving and writes about finding his way around—andeventually into—new communities in the city.

As expressed on his blog, Frank’s character narrativereveals goals of connecting with people and fitting in, aswell as a love of media, particularly radio. The two inter-twine in his current project of settling into a new commu-

nity as he uses media (blogging, podcasting, and photogra-phy) as a vehicle to gain entry and status into the local net-work of technophiles. For example, Frank uses his wife’s(she is also a blogger seeded in the phone campaign) mem-bership in “Metblogs,” a community-based club of blog-gers, and his common interest in blogging and technologyto forge relationships in his adopted city. This use of onlinecommunities to forge offline relationships is common (USCAnnenberg School 2008). Over time, Frank begins attend-ing in-person Metblog “meet ups” and writes:

[Through blogging], I have been able to meet some reallygreat people and develop friendships that are building intoa community like I have never experienced before. We alldo our own thing and when you actually meetup [sic], youalready have something to talk about and expand the back


story on. In turn, those experiences can lead to more mate-rial to write about later. It’s an intriguing circle. (blog postJune 12, 2007)

The WOMM campaign. Frank’s participation in theWOMM campaign comes relatively soon after he begins toadjust to his new city and provides a vehicle for buildingaffiliation. Aside from its functional and economic value,the WOMM campaign has what Cova (1997) terms “linkingvalue,” facilitating Frank’s integration into his new commu-nity. For example, the first of ten postings that refer to theseeded product is titled, “I’m one of those Buzzablog luckyones” (blog post July 16, 2006), underscoring the affiliationand connection emphasized in his blog. Note that Frankidentifies campaign participants with the name of the

FIGURE 2Coproduced Network Elements Influencing the Expression of WOMM Narratives

commercial-cultural tension

Exogenous Social, Cultural, and Psychological Elements

Messageand

meanings

Message

and

meanings

Messageand

meanings

Message

and

meanings

CharacterNarrative

CommunalNorms

CommunicationsForum

MarketingPromotionElements

Evaluation Explanation

EndorsementEmbracing

Commercial–Cultural TensionInterpersonalOrientationofCom

munications

WOMM firm rather than the product, minimizing theimportance of the phone itself as an object of focus andvalue.

Having asserted membership in the local blogging com-munity by identifying himself as “one of them,” whenFrank experiences ambivalence about participating in theWOMM campaign, it is not surprising that he then seeksexplicit affirmation that he is conforming to communalnorms. Frank interviews several members of “Metblogs”for a podcast and, in particular, confers with a member(“Brian”) who has also received a MobiTech phone in thisWOMM campaign. The tone of the podcast ranges fromhumorous to ironic to uncomfortable:

Frank: I was going to ask you, I just saw you pull yournice MobiTech out there …

Brian: [interrupting] the following is a paid endorsement!

Frank: [feigning surprise] you’re being paid for this?

Brian: Well, not being paid, but bribed for certain,umm…. MobiTech, through their viral marketing partnerBuzzablog and in association with [wireless mobile com-pany], have basically had sort of an aid shipment ofphones for bloggers and it’s a great concept. Basically,they send phones to bloggers in the hopes that they’llbribe them, er, in the hopes that the bloggers will talkabout the phones on their websites. All I can say is that Ithink this is an excellent marketing proposition; I’m reallyhoping that Audi gets behind this idea as well, ‘cause A32.8 S-Line, I am all there, right? But yeah, it’s a perfectlyacceptable phone, I don’t want to give a capsule review,…[opines on phone and future technology].

Frank: Right (laughing). And I too was contacted by thesame viral company.… What do you feel about the wholeprocess in general? Do you feel like you were spammedinto this and also, how do you feel about doing this onyour blog, because obviously I’m doing it on my podcast,so I don’t have too much of a problem with this, but….

Brian: I want to make this entirely clear right now. Atten-tion corporate marketers: if you want to give me$300–$500 worth of free stuff, my number is: [laterscrambled out in editing]. I will take your call at any timeof the day. I can be bought and I am relatively cheap.…Maybe I should just put my e-mail account in thereinstead. Attention marketers: my e-mail address is[address]. I can be bought and I’m cheap!

Frank: Especially if you have any MP3 recording equip-ment, that’s what I’d like to see. Please. Thank you.[Restates URL address for his podcast so donors can findhim.]

Note that Frank joins his interviewee in speakingdirectly to marketers. This is an important action, for in thatmoment, not only has he moved from citizen journalist tofellow blogger, but he has also publicly considered thepotential conflict triggered by participation in the campaignand received approbation from his referent community. Thepodcast audio also indicated that other people were gatheredaround, laughing, and calling out comments or suggestions.


It is noteworthy that Brian uses the word “bribe” (twice)as well as the phrase “I can be bought.” In addition to high-lighting and thus, in some sense, discharging moral conflict,the term confirms the significance of his awareness that heis simultaneously a target and a marketer. In the discussionof the “price” of receiving a free phone—framed by a popculture reference to infomercials (“the following is a paidendorsement”)—and use of the ethically loaded term“bribe” to surface the tension, Brian signals that he is notnaive about the objective of the WOMM campaign and thathe wants his online and in-person audience to read his com-ments as infused with irony. Outing the marketers’ motiva-tion and even inviting more of the same, he confidentlyannounces his knowledge of persuasion tactics and simulta-neously asserts agency in accepting them (e.g., Friestad andWright 1994).

Congruent with his narrative theme of gaining accep-tance, Frank uses his participation in the WOMM campaignas a form of social capital. A few days after making initialremarks about the phone, Frank leverages the podcast asevidence that he is now not only friendly with other, higher-status bloggers but also performing a service for the widertechnical blogging community. In a post forthrightly titled“Addressing the Buzzablog Issue,” Frank confronts the ten-sion, in part by demonstrating his awareness of the mechan-ics of WOMM:

So how do I feel about doing this? There is a part of mysoul that feels like there is some selling out going on here,but I like being someone who can be a part of reviewing aproduct and actually do it with some honesty.... [I]t’s notthe absolutely, greatest phone that beats out anything elseout there that you could buy. It’s also far from being theworst.... Word of mouth. That’s what this is. It’s not over-paid actors telling you that they use this phone; it’s thebest and you should, too. I’m just a guy who blogs amongthe community of other bloggers with connections to thecity of [name]…. In fact, did you listen to the last episodeof my podcast? I had a chance to meet a fellow bloggerwho got the same deal and it was quite possibly some ofthe best content to come from the podcast yet, even if itdid promote a product. But ask yourself, would you ratherlisten to us wise crack about this MobiTech or have somehigh paid actor or actress speak at you? It feels good toknow that there are people out there trying to break fromthe static model mass media uses for advertising. (blogpost July 26, 2006)

Frank’s posting reveals a constant tacking between ethi-cal perspectives as he tries to argue for his legitimacy andconcern for the community, emphasizing his “honesty” inboth praising and criticizing the phone. The post expressesdiscomfort at “selling out” and guilt over collusion withmarketers. Frank tries to impression manage his role, fram-ing himself not as a marketer’s puppet or an “overpaidactor,” but instead as a bona fide member of his adoptedcommunity (“I’m just a guy who blogs among the commu-nity of other bloggers”). Actively seeking to persuade hisaudience that his participation in the WOMM campaign notonly was worthy of communal sanction but also could bebeneficial, Frank presents himself as more faithful to thecommunity’s interests than to those of the marketers. Thepost inspires two positive comments, both from community

members affirming his position, evidence that he has inte-grated his participation in the campaign in a way that isconsonant with both his narrative and his forum’s widercommunal norms. There are no negative comments onFrank’s WOMM campaign-related posts, and commentsindicate a willingness to continue talking about the phone.

Although he remains critical of some of its features,Frank’s blog continues to mention the phone for longer thanmost of the bloggers in the data set; the last posting men-tioning either the phone or the campaign occurred approxi-mately seven months after the initial post (July 16,2006–February 23, 2007). In later posts, Frank reveals hislove of the Apple brand. When he learns that a fellow blog-ger owns an iPhone, he conducts an interview with theowner and posts a product review under a post reverentlytitled “I touched an iPhone,” while his own MobiTechphone is presented as a weak competitor: “All the [iPod]features make sense, applications work like I expect themto, and you quickly forget that you [are] tapping a flat sur-face, opposed to the numerous buttons that exist on myMobiTech 3839” (blog post August 20, 2007). The transientproject connected with the WOMM campaign moves fromone phone to another, while the more persistent narrative ofconnecting with others remains strongly expressed through-out the blog. Many bloggers adopt a similar discursive strat-egy of explaining the WOMM campaign and their involve-ment in it. For example, “Sammy,” a recent universitygraduate and long-time blogger, writes eloquently on theimportance of technology and community. A typicallyreflective post finds him ruminating on identity and audi-ence: “The construction of identity through technology isalso no longer a personal endeavor; in fact, the strengthen-ing of one’s identity now comes through the sharing ofideas, thoughts, and practices across boundaries that areeasily crossed in a world of networked communications”(blog post December 28, 2005). When Sammy, not yet hav-ing received the phone or blogged about the Buzzablogcampaign, is quoted in a national newspaper story about hisparticipation, he unflinchingly meets the exposure with apost titled “Free Stuff and Blogging: Not an EthicalQuandary” (blog post July 2, 2006) that explains his per-spective on the WOMM campaign. Table 1 summarizesdetails associated with Sammy’s blog and others who sharecommon themes with our four representative bloggers.

Alicia’s Blog: Honesty and Humility MeetsMarketing Intent

Character narrative, forum, and communal orientation.Alicia is a 33-year-old, stay-at-home mother of two youngdaughters and a freelance writer living with her partner, amusician. She has maintained an online journal of some sortsince 1996 and classifies the current format of her blog as a“mommyblog” (blog’s “About” page, Spring 2007). Aliciaoften mentions that her blog is personal and serves as arepository of her family memories, disclosing actual namesand photographs of family members as well as details suchas the births of her daughters. Her character narrative repre-sents Alicia as a loving mother who frequently does notmanage to live up to her own expectations. She is humorous


but often self-deprecating. The narrative reflects values oftruthfulness, humility, simplicity, and caring, as well as agoal of gaining genuine human contact during her ratherisolated life stage of being a stay-at-home mom.

Alicia’s blog entries attract an average of four com-ments daily from a loyal group, many asking Alicia how todeal with particular parenting issues. In her answers, Aliciadoes not depict herself as an authority; rather, she discountsher talents as a mother, giving credit to her kids or the cir-cumstances. She is careful not to make judgments aboutparental issues, such as cosleeping and breastfeeding.“Being honest online about the real trials and tribulations ofparenting and especially motherhood because of the ridicu-lous expectations (both from others and the self-imposedexpectations), means that we suddenly feel just a little lessisolated” (blog post June 13, 2006, parentheses in original).

The WOMM campaign. When Alicia is contacted aboutthe WOMM campaign, her first posting exemplifies her lifetheme of humility through her expression of disbelief:“[They] offered me a free cell phone in exchange to [do]nothing more complicated than promising to use it and tomaybe write about it. Honestly? I thought it was a scam”(blog post August 4, 2006). In her first blog entry about thephone itself, titled “Free stuff rocks,” Alicia discloses thecampaign details, who contacted her, the message, and herobligations:

You have to be someone who uses photos and video onyour blog, have approximately 400+ visits per day and bebetween the ages of 22 and 35.... I had no obligations. Ididn’t have to use the phone for a specific amount of timeif I didn’t want to. I didn’t have to buy a particular plan. Ialso didn’t have to be positive in my reviews. I can behonest and if I hate the phone altogether, I can say that.(blog post August 4, 2006)

When describing participation requirements, Alicia usesthe pronoun “you” instead of “I,” implying to her audiencethat they too may be eligible. Generously sharing involve-ment, she offers to connect anyone who meets the criteria or“is close enough to give a shot anyway” (blog post August4, 2006) with Buzzablog. Consistent with her blog’s leitmo-tifs of humility, caring, and honesty, Alicia emphasizes thenonobligatory nature of the agreement.

The subsequent text of the blog is a marketer’s ideal tes-timonial. Alicia explicitly expresses her love of the phoneand enthusiastically shares her amazement about its func-tionality. She uploads pictures she has taken with the phone,and her word choice shows that she feels both spoiled withthe costly, impressive phone and proud and modern to beable to manage such a high-technology device: “Dude, I’mpractically moblogging” (blog post August 4, 2006). Shehas some minor complaints (lack of faceplate) but uses thisto show that the MobiTech phone is precious to her—“I’mso afraid of scratching its ginormous LCD” (ibid)—as wellas signal that she is giving a thorough and impartial review.

Alicia’s second, glorifying post about the phone yieldsnegative comments from her readers, who accuse her of notactually receiving the phone for free and of being boastful.In response, the narrative shifts to a defensive tone. Two


TABLE 1Supplementary Blogger Data

Evaluation

Orientation: CommunalTension: Implicit

Explanation

Orientation: CommunalTension: Explicit

Embracing

Orientation: IndividualTension: Implicit

Endorsement

Orientation: IndividualTension: Explicit

Joseph: If any of you havenoticed the flickr stream nowon this page to the right, thepictures there were takenfrom a Mobitech 3839 that Ijust received yesterday. [doesnot mention how he receivedthe phone] … I have to saythat my first impressions withthis device are pretty good sofar. I’ve been able to snappictures and some decentvideo, play mp3’s, have funwith Bluetooth.… I’ve onlyspent a day with it so far, butthere are some tiny things Ihave to nitpick about.… Well,I look forward to messingaround with this thing andchecking out all the possibili-ties. I’ll keep you posted withmore in-depth reviews andposts about cool things youcan do with this phone.Cheers!(blog post July 7, 2006)

Randy: [post title: “I won’t beMobitech’s Bitch”] This iscool: Mobitech’s going to besending me a fancy free (notfancy-free) cell phone soon,because I have the POWERof BLOGGING at my finger-tips. They called, got myname from somewhere Iguess and a nice womanasked me a bunch of ques-tions about how often I blogand what about and do Iknow how to use a telephoneand so forth.… [M]e and 44other people ... will be gettinga MobiTech 3839 multimediasmart phone.… Don’t worry, Iwon’t fill up the blog with allsorts of shilling, toadying,sycophantic things aboutMobitech, even thoughthey’re being so nice to me.No, for that to happen, they’dneed to send me to [Mobitechcompany headquarters]. Per-haps in August? Hello?(blog post June 23, 2006)

Franklin: I went to see TheCorporation;… it was aninteresting, thought provokingmovie. But one section res-onated with me in ways I’msure the movie’s makers didnot intend. There was a longsegment about how advertis-ers were finding insidiousways to get their product intoyour earshot.… And ratherthan be disturbed by theinsidious (though some mightsay: creative) paths corpora-tions were taking to get theirproducts into the public con-sciousness, my reaction wasquite different. My firstthought was: gee, how do Iget myself a piece of thataction?… I’ve been bloggingfor four and a half years and Ihad to wonder, where was myfree stuff? When was Applegoing to contact me and askme to test out their new blackMacBook? (hint, Apple, hint!).Until today.(blog post July 11, 2006)

Shane: Mobitech is doing anew buzz word-of-mouth pro-motion giving their phonesout to bloggers in the hopesthey’ll spread the word onlineand talking to friends, postingphotos and videos taken withthe cellphone. I’m thankful Imet the criteria and it workedout perfectly as I was juststarting to look for a newphone as well. It’s all volun-tary, no obligation or con-tracts. I don’t have to do anyof this, but since I usuallywrite reviews like this any-ways, I have no problem writ-ing a voluntary review asthanks for getting a phoneand gear for free. And I’lleven be impartial about it.(blog post July 10, 2006)

Jasper: [first of an extensive,multipart review] I got a newcellphone and I’m going totalk about it to death. This isthe first part of a five partseries and I think this is thebest review you’ll find theMobiTech 3839 becauseunlike all those other gad-get/phone reviewers, I will beusing this phone every dayfor the next two years (unlesssome other company wantsto give me one for free).(blog post July 30, 2006)

Sammy: People have beenasking about … the wholefree phone gig and how I canreconcile my code of ethicswith blogging about productsI receive for free.… I justcan’t seem to see the ethicalquandary here: I’m not beingforced to say good thingsabout a product, or anythingat all.… Bloggers do have thepotential to sway public opin-ion (which is why I think Buz-zablog is working in a particu-larly genius manner for theMobitech promotion….Accepting the new Mobitechis not an ethical quandary atall. It is instead a reflection ofa very smart strategy byBuzzablog.(blog post July 2, 2006)

Svetlana: [post title: “WillBlog for Phones”] As a goodmarketing whore, becauseI’ve so had enough to giveand never receive anything inreturn, you will see me post-ing pictures taken with thisphone, I may even do somevideo, but don’t you think thatI am going to become thenext Paris Hilton.(blog post June 28, 2006)

Troy: [response to readercomment about the film TheCorporation] Seen it? I saw itopening night in Ottawa andmy friends have the extendedDVD.Yup. Crazy marketing.But I needed a cellphone.Mine was dying, so the timingis perfect. Either way, I writeabout RAID Cards ... so writ-ing about anything techrelated that I own is normalfor me. But yeah, it’s calledguerilla marketing or some-thing.... So where have youbeen?(blog post August 24, 2006)

weeks later, a post entitled “For the Record” attempts todefend her actions as a WOM marketer:

For people who like to use information off my websiteagainst me, you should note that the camera phone I ownwas given to me for free from Buzzablog, a buzz market-ing company in exchange for promising to use the differ-ent features and to review it. I DID NOT BUY THEPHONE. The last time I turned my pockets inside out orshook my wallet upside down, $350+ did not fall out. Iwould not have bought the phone because it’s about $345out of my budget. (blog post August 20, 2006)

In an effort to defend and authenticate her claims aboutthe campaign, Alicia’s post references other bloggers whohave also received the phone from Buzzablog. She links toanother blogger’s entry with the requirements for participa-tion and stresses her “luck” in meeting all the necessaryrequirements (blog post August 20, 2006). A week later,Alicia posts a couple of pictures and videos that she hastaken with the MobiTech phone, remarking sarcastically,“I’d also like to re-iterate that they were taken with myMobiTech cameraphone, which I got for free from Buzza-blog, lest anyone get their knickers in a knot again over thefalse idea that I am rolling around naked in my huge piles ofmoney” (blog post August 20, 2006).

Notably, these negative reactions are unaccounted for bythe classic diffusion model (Bass 1969; Rogers 1962) andits more recent variants (e.g., Balter 2005), which considerlower-status people prone to imitate the consumption ofthose of higher status. Instead of inspiring imitation, thiscampaign provokes a negative response from some of Ali-cia’s readers.

Key to understanding the cause of this friction is itsrelationship to her character narrative, blog forum, and itscommunal norms. Alicia’s narrative is about family, andaccordingly, her blog constantly reiterates the commonbonds, through parental struggles, between herself and herreaders. In contrast, Frank’s blog is about technology, hisposition is that of an expert, and his narrative theme is aboutconnecting. Although Alicia’s character type stresses humil-ity, transparency, and egalitarianism, her sudden statuschange to that of influencer—signaled by her selection forthe WOMM campaign—grants her implicitly superiorsocial standing and appears to change her role from empa-thetic community member to valorized outsider. After theensuing outcry, her blog never again mentions the MobiTechphone. However, she continues to list it on her Flickr pageas one of the devices with which she takes pictures.

Shortly after the MobiTech WOMM campaign, Alicia’sblog becomes a for-profit forum as she begins acceptingassignments for Payperpost. Payperpost (www.payperpost.com) is a company that pays bloggers to write postings foradvertisers. In an entry stressing her integrity, Alicia’s post-ing explains her decision to her readers: “A lot of peoplehave been negative about it but I think it’s great, honestly. Ionly choose to review things that I genuinely agree with orappreciate. As a result, I think it’s possible to write forPayperpost while still maintaining your integrity as a blog-ger” (blog post November 14, 2006). She states that hermotivation is simply to earn some extra pocket money. Thisshift in blog forum implies that Alicia’s experience with

Reactions to Service Separation / 79

WOMM may have awakened her to the blog’s moneymak-ing potential.

Later, Alicia also responds in another posting to nega-tive comments that she received in private e-mail messages(i.e., not posted on the blog). Her rationale combines anassertion of her honesty—“I truly only write about thingsthat I have an interest in or can support”—with a descrip-tion of her need for money: “It has helped to pay a little billhere or a little bill there and for that I am grateful and happyto do it” (blog post March 5, 2007). She finishes by tellingher readers to sign up, a symbolic offering of her newfoundwealth, similar to the gesture she previously made with theBuzzablog campaign. However, most of her readers areunlikely to be high-traffic bloggers like her and thereforewould not qualify for assignments from Payperpost.

The negative responses continue, some simply callingfor her to “Stop it” (blog comment May 24, 2007). Thenegative reactions subside after Alicia initiates a new typeof forum: a review blog that she describes as “an accompa-niment to my main blog so that I [can] share reviews ofproducts, books, and services” (Alicia’s review blog“About” page, July 2, 2007). This separate blog-within-a-blog contains only fully disclosed paid endorsements. Ingeneral, the few comments that these reviews elicit comefrom readers who are also supportive of the product. How-ever, most readers refrain from commenting on her spon-sored postings, indicating that Alicia’s new role of semi-marketer is accepted, or at least tolerated, when constrainedto a separate, specially partitioned Web site.

Carrie’s Blog: Mocking, Exhibitionism, andEmbracing Commercialism

Character narrative, forum, and communal orientation.According to the blog, which she started in 2003, Carrie is a23-year-old cultural studies student who lives with her par-ents. She takes an interim job as a personal assistant in anengineering firm and, around the same time, becomesinvolved in a serious relationship. Her blog, in which shewrites wittily about her current goals and activities, such asdating, finding a serious relationship, and finding a job, pre-sents itself as a coming-of-age diary. Its self-satisfied, self-centered narrative focuses on dating, drinking, and dressingand is illustrated with numerous pictures exhibiting Carriein sexy clothing and flirty poses. Carrie’s blog exposes herpropensity for exhibitionism and fits into the common pro-ductions of a narcissistic MySpace/Facebook generationthat have been chronicled in the popular press (see Gould2008; Nussbaum 2004). Researchers have hypothesized thatthe Internet fuels this attention-seeking exhibitionism tonew levels (Holbrook 2001).

Yet, despite the blog’s ostensible exhibitionism, much iscloaked. The blog reveals only fragments of Carrie’s dailyroutine, and the people around Carrie are never mentionedby name, but rather by relationship, as in “my sister” or“my boyfriend.” Unlike Alicia’s blog, Carrie’s does not con-fide in its audience. Instead, it entertains them by showingoff, by judging people, or by making fun of others. The blogis full of detailed, deriding descriptions of others’ behav-iors, opinions, clothing, and lives, but its pet topic is rela-tionships; “I thought I should share one of my most favorite

http://www.payperpost.com

http://www.payperpost.com

pastimes: Mocking the pictures and comments on Face-book’s various ‘Being Engaged Rocks!’ groups” (blog postJuly 6, 2007).

Carrie’s life theme is that of seeking attention, and thisimplicit narrative runs throughout her blog, which is audi-enced by eager voyeurs who enjoy her biting wit. With herfrank observations about the sex lives of twenty-somethingsin the style of Sex and the City’s fictional character CarrieBradshaw, blogger Carrie attracts the attention of the tradi-tional media. She is quoted in the local press and providesadvice on a radio program and television show as a “rela-tionship and dating expert.” The blog gains her a loyal,eclectic audience that leaves 10–25 comments per post.Whereas Alicia’s blog exchanges with readers are usuallyfriendly, the comments on Carrie’s blog tend to echo hermocking tone. Although it is typical for her audience torespond to her boasts with sarcasm, when Carrie receivesmore exposure in the traditional media, her blog increas-ingly attracts an (anonymous) audience that leaves viciouscomments. “Honestly, if you weren’t constantly judgingothers, you wouldn’t have much to say. Right down to theshoes that people wear on the bus, you are constantly criti-cizing and judging others. Can’t you think of more impor-tant things to talk about than how much better/prettier/smarter you THINK you are than other people?” (blog com-ment November 11, 2006).

The WOMM campaign. Carrie’s blog does not acceptadvertising, and its narrative does not contain many refer-ences to brands. Its initial entry about the WOMM cam-paign seems both delighted and self-congratulatory:

The perks of being addicted to maintaining a tiny piece ofthe internet come in many forms—from getting freethings to being contacted by both celebrities and thepeople who make celebrities to getting dates from some-thing I’ve written—yes, this site has created a lot ofopportunities.… I know that I’ve been totally lacking onphoto content recently, but that’s simply because I haven’thad a camera. MobiTech decided to fix that and tomorrowI am being given a brand new beautiful 3839 phone aswell as a whole bunch of additional accessories and fea-tures. This means that the next time I am judging weirdpeople on the subway or being crazy at the bar, everythingwill be camera-captured or even videotaped and instantlyuploaded to this blog with hilarious commentary. It’sgoing to be positively thrilling! (blog post August 3, 2006)

Note that Carrie does not provide her readers with anydetails about the WOMM campaign. Unlike Frank and Ali-cia, who provided those details and stated that they werelucky to have been selected, Carrie’s narrative frames thefree gift as an entitlement flowing from her successful,high-status, attention-seeking activities. She has become acelebrity and thus deserves celebrity “schwag.” What ismentioned about the phone is linked to her blogging activity(“I’ve been lacking on photo content”) rather than thephone or the campaign. Carrie receives mostly positivecomments from her loyal readers, who congratulate her forher success. A few days later, Carrie’s blog contains anotherpost about the phone. She adopts her usual mocking tone,but this time appraising herself: She loves the phone butalso makes fun of herself for loving it so much.


So now I have this phone from MobiTech, which I wasgiven, free-of-charge, for the purpose of promoting amongmy social network. At first I was a tad apprehensive to thewhole idea—being trendy is one thing; secretly brandingproducts as a tastemaker is borderline selling-out. Butonce the phone was placed in my hand I became instantlytransfixed and my doubt was replaced with: “How couldanyone not want this phone!?” as well as: “It’s soooo awe-some, it’s pretty much the best celly I have ever had! Thebest cell I have ever seen!” and also: “Everyone LOOK atmy new phone, look look look at everything it does!” I amalmost ashamed at myself for the level of eagerness I havetowards talking about the phone. But I have decided thattrend marketing is the easiest form of marketing, given theright product and people involved, with me and theMobiTech being a prime example. I rarely initiate conver-sations about the phone, but when they start, oh then I gointo celly-love gushing mode, where I blab endlesslyabout things like being able to watch videos on it andadjusting the white-balance on my zoom-lens camera.This all sounds like a carefully crafted product placement,doesn’t it? I told you, I’m an advertiser’s dream: my talk-ing about the MobiTech is not done for contractual oblig-ations or to please them; it’s motivated by my overwhelm-ing need to brag about having received THEBESTPHONEEVER for free. (Which, I now realize, does endup pleasing MobiTech. And so it goes…) So while I’m atit, let’s air out some other products I am currently infatu-ated with, simply because they’re trendy and up to parwith my lifestyle. You know, other things I would waxpoetic about, samples or not. (hint, hint?) (blog postAugust 9, 2006)

Although this narrative acknowledges the marketer–consumer tension, it is raised in a tongue-in-cheek manner,suggesting that concerns with “selling out” are instantlyovercome after she receives and experiences the phone. Shejokes that she is “an advertiser’s dream.” Congruent withher character type and life project, Carrie chooses wordsthat are related to relationships and sexuality (“celly-lovegushing mode,” “infatuation”). She portrays herself as apromiscuous consumer, selling a “lifestyle” and “promoting[products] among my social network,” flitting from “It”product to “It” product and happy to engage in syntheticWOM “given the right product and people involved.” Thisremark is noteworthy because it suggests to readers that theproduct is of such high quality that she cannot help butextol its virtues. It also suggests that she is one of “the rightpeople,” a worthy tastemaker. In the same post, Carrie listsother products (rosé wine, skinny jeans, a designer bag) thatshe is happy to blog about because they are “at par with[her] lifestyle.” She solicits marketers directly (“hint, hint”),showcasing and suggesting her continuing skill as a WOMmarketer and also tells her audience that she is “infatuated”by products other than the MobiTech phone, the subject ofthe WOMM campaign.

However, Carrie’s blog posts do not provide readerswith many details about the phone. She breezily mentionsthat she received “a bunch of accessories,” that she can“watch videos,” and that she can “adjust the white-balanceon the zoom-camera.” However, these are the only specificreasons she gives to explain why she loves the phone somuch. The posts are predominantly about having received

a cool new phone for free, leading to a range of criticalcomments:

Secretly ... plotting your demise/I wanna devise a viralmarketing campaign/To bring dire straits to your abilityfor discerning choice/Bolster corporations with a mildblogger prose/Trash your consumer awareness and revertyou to a walking wallet. (blog comment August 9, 2006)

I used to love the innocence of your blogs and the witti-ness you had of the world around you and I alwaysthought you were really cute, well I still do. Your earlierwestern day blogs can be compared to artist’s first recordor two but sooner or later they sell out and their materialgoes downhill.... Is this what is happening? (blog com-ment August 9, 2006)

That’s a nice Christmas list Carrie, but don’t forget thatwe come here to get a peek at the life of a cute privilegedwoman and not to read advertisements,... regardless ofwhether or not the company that now owns your ass hasinduced your superficial blurbs. (blog comment August10, 2006)

Apparently, Carrie violates a communal norm by soardently promoting the product on her usually critical andbiting blog. As the comments evidence, her endorsement isviewed as a lack of “discerning choice” and “trashing” ofher critical “consumer awareness” faculties. Carrie is pic-tured as having lost her “innocence,” being “owned” by acompany, having been seduced by outsiders, and enjoying ita little too much. Whereas making fun of other people’sshoes or Facebook pages is accepted as an authentic narra-tive for the blog’s regular readers, writing about commercialproducts is considered “vapid” and “superficial.” As withAlicia’s audience, Carrie’s readers do not appreciate theturn that her blog has taken now that she has accepted therole of marketer. They may still find her “cute,” but theypublicly warn her not to turn into a “walking wallet” whoseblog revolves around “artificial” advertisements.

Three months later, Carrie writes about the new sport-utility vehicle that her parents have bought and that sheloves to drive. Her word choice is almost identical to howshe described her feelings for the MobiTech phone. Again,she receives many negative comments, including accusa-tions that her “blog [has] turned into a thinly-veiled adver-tisement for consumer products” (blog comment November1, 2006). Carrie defends herself with the following unapolo-getic response: “See, but the thing is: I buy products. We allbuy products. I try to be as honest as possible on this blogand so I share details of what goes on in my life. I can’t postabout my work to a great extent (confidentiality agreement)and I don’t want to reveal the finite details of my personallife (my audience is a tad out of control these days)—so I’mtrying to be at least accurate on one front” (blog commentNovember 1, 2006).

The response we observe is a direct result of theWOMM campaign’s presentation conflicting with the nar-rative established in the blog. Carrie’s evolving life project,now marked by both a job and a relationship she values, hastransitioned into a period of privacy. Her coming-of-agestory is almost over, and she no longer has much titillatingmaterial for her voyeuristic audience. Carrie responds to the


complaints largely by dismissing them, in a post in whichshe talks about her blogging activity as “generating con-tent” (blog post August 22, 2006). Unlike Frank and Alicia,who disclose information about themselves to their audi-ences and inform them about the transitions they are goingthrough, Carrie has created a character based on herself butis now running short on interesting material. The blog’spostings gradually decrease from an average of 14 postingsper month in 2005, to 8 per month in 2006, to only 2 to 3per month in 2007 and 2008. Comments and readership alsosteadily decline.

Judith’s Blog: Honest Survival and an HonestLiving

Character narrative, forum, and communal orientation.According to her blog, Judith is a married 39-year-oldemergency room nurse. However, as her blog tells the story,for two years she has been on sick leave from her jobbecause of various ailments. The blog’s personal life crisisnarrative combines the tone of a friendly neighbor with thatof a frustrated, brassy, no-nonsense woman. It recounts herdaily triumphs and foibles, including intimate details of herphysical and mental health. Judith’s efforts to earn a livingin the context of a chronic medical condition create a haloof authenticity that her audience responds to with empathiccomments. As with Alicia’s blog, the values and goals ofJudith’s narrative include expressing honesty, being down-to-earth, and being caring. Unlike Alicia’s blog, however,this narrative makes no secret that Judith’s current objectiveinvolves surviving and making money where she can.

Judith writes about her medical odyssey in great detail,but having identified blogging as an alternative source ofincome to her chosen profession, she markets unashamedlyon various forum types. On the blog we studied, after aseries of invasive tests, Judith posts a photo of a breakingwave titled “Rolling Waves.” She does not normally anno-tate these photographic postings but makes an exception tokeep her readers updated on her condition. Yet, even as shereveals her discomfort, she also continues her promotionalefforts, focusing her readers’ attention on the blogger whois currently “renting” (i.e., advertising on) her Web site:

Just a quick note, the picture above is what my stomachfeels like right now. Rolling waves of PAIN. The tests Iwrote about in my last post are what is causing that painor maybe it was preparing for the tests on Sunday. Eitherway, I’m now the proud owner of a, hopefully, resolvingbowel obstruction and I hurt like hell. I’ll write moreabout this later on today. Hopefully I’ll be feeling a bitbetter by then. In the meantime, my poor renter has beenneglected. Won’t you please go and visit Jerry? (blog postJune 29, 2006)

This posting results in 26 comments, among the highestnumber of responses to a single post in our data set. All arepositively inclined toward Judith, and only 5 comments donot explicitly express sympathy for her condition. Notably,many comments explicitly acknowledge her dual identity asboth consumer (a woman in chronic pain) and producer(e.g., selling advertising space or product reviews). Forexample, “Dr. Groovy” writes, “Well, I can’t help you medi-cally, as my formal training is in pediatrics, so I will try to

make you feel better by clicking on your renter.” Anothercommenter simply indicates sympathy by clicking asdirected: “BlogMad hit cha ching” (comments posted onJudith’s blog June 28, 2006).

Although she establishes her character as a hardworkingwife on sick leave trying to pay the bills, Judith has grownher Web activity into a sophisticated cottage industry. Her12 editorial-style blogs offer regular columns, theme weeks,contests, and recurring features. Judith’s narrative reveals agrowing astuteness, as she carefully monitors the blogs’ sta-tistics, promotes her sites to increase their traffic, and worksdiligently to profit from them. The narrative also makesclear that Judith views her blog as a product to develop anda brand to maintain, a type of online magazine whoseengaging content she develops with readers’ suggestions.The blog sells plenty of advertising; it is not uncommon tosee more than 25 advertisements surrounding and inter-jected into her postings. As does Alicia, she also acceptsPayperpost assignments.

The WOMM campaign. Judith begins her participationin the Buzzablog campaign with a sophisticated teaser cam-paign that tempts her readers with a mystery, telling themthat she is about to receive something nice. The good newsthat she has been selected to receive a mystery product isadded at the end of a post enumerating a challenging set ofcircumstances: Her Web site is hacked, she receives her firstnegative comment, and her television set has broken andrequires an expensive repair. Reporting her good fortune inthe context of an otherwise debilitating set of events is arhetorical device used frequently on this blog. It provides asense of drama to her character narrative and frames theperks she receives as relief rather than entitlement, as Carriedoes. Similar to other blog content, the posting about thephone is handled professionally, conceived the way a mar-keter might design a campaign. Buzzablog and its offer arenot dissected. Moral quandaries are not raised. The focus issquarely on the phone and its features.

When Judith’s blog reveals the product she has beengiven, it does so framed in the innocence of summer pas-times. As Judith and her husband stop for what is presentedas a well-deserved ice-cream cone, she snaps a picture ofthe shop’s sign with her new phone. The sign reads, “Mayall your days be ice cream days,” and in the 18 commentsthat result from the post, 16 mention the ice cream and only2 mention the phone. The readers’ comments expressdelight in her good fortune and share positive commentsabout the phone. “May all your days be ice cream days too,”starts one comment, continuing, “The phone sounds awe-some. I have a MobiTech 3839 that I adore. Enjoy” (blogcomment July 8, 2006).

Judith’s response to the phone is equanimous; for exam-ple, her excitement at being selected to receive the productis moderated by her description of the device as “newish.”Similarly, she professes enthusiasm for the phone’s 1.3megapixel built-in camera but then notes, “Ok so 1.3megapixels doesn’t compare to the latest digital cameras butI’ve found that it takes pretty good photos. I can also recordup to an hour of video if I want to…. The only problem isthat the video is in 3GP.… If anyone could give me some


suggestions for some conversion software I’d appreciate it”(blog post July 8, 2006).

Over time, as Judith’s sick leave continues, her blogbecomes increasingly profitable. A year after the MobiTechcampaign, a blog post entitled “I’ve hit the 10,000 dollarmark!” reports on her success. For new viewers of the blog,the post contains a detailed explanation of her WOMMparticipation:

I started doing paid blogging because I’ve been off worksince December 4th 2005 due to Crohn’s. I still have a jobas an ER nurse, but I’m unable to perform my dutiesbecause I’m simply too ill.... I was getting sick pay andthen medical unemployment for a while, but the moneyran out by July 2006.... So last October, as our situationstarted to become desperate I went searching for anotherway to make money. Something that wouldn’t be too hardfor me to do. I came across Payperpost and decided to tryit. Don’t get me wrong—it’s not easy work, but it’s cer-tainly easier than 12 hour ER nursing shift!... This year Ireally can see that I could make a living off my websites.(blog post June 15, 2007)

This explanatory post garners 51 comments, all congrat-ulatory. Judith’s personal narrative as a Sisyphean figure—repeatedly making progress only to be overwhelmed by ill-ness or ill fate—is reflected in many of the comments,which frame her WOMM activity as heroic. For example, as“Antonella” writes,

Congrats! That is certainly a great accomplishment! Mysister also has Crohn’s and is finally in remission after acouple years. It is great that you have been able to …make money while dealing with your health. Good luckwith meeting your goals, I’m sure you won’t have anyproblem getting there and beyond! (blog comment August13, 2007)

Summary of Findings

As the WOMM campaign is incorporated into the publiclydisplayed character narratives of bloggers such as Frank,Alicia, Carrie, and Judith, among others (see Table 1), wefind that a complex pattern emerges. The character narrativeforms the backbone of blog content and contains the recol-lection, development, and representation of more short-term“life projects” and longer-term “life themes” (McCracken1987; Mick and Buhl 1992; Schau and Gilly 2003) relatedto lifelong goal pursuits that are commonly called “identityprojects” (e.g., Thompson 2005; Thompson and Tambyah1999).

Each blog contains a particular history and perspectivein its character narrative; this narrative attracts a certainaudience and plays a part in setting the audience’s expecta-tions. Importantly, in each case, the character narrativetransforms the substance and form of the WOMM cam-paign. In addition, we observe explicit differences in theway that members of the online communities respond to theWOMM campaign. This suggests that there is a larger dis-course taking place about WOMM campaigns in general,including their rules and ethical implications.

We find that the bloggers and community members aresimultaneously flattered and threatened to be selected asWOMM campaign participants. Bloggers are faced with the

new paradox that results from being recruited as a type ofmarketer, and the resulting dual role of consumer–marketercolors the way blog narratives present their involvement inthe campaign. This dual role is particular to WOMM andthe network coproduction model we developed.

Some bloggers attempt to share their good fortune; oth-ers write as if they are entitled to receive this honor. Stillothers analyze WOMM as an important development inblogging or explain their recruitment as a lucky opportunityin light of their dire need. However, as they write about theproduct and the WOMM campaign that supports it, thebloggers cannot ignore that WOMM has intruded into theirdiscursive domain, transforming interpersonal communica-tions into an intended persuasion effort. It is to these char-acteristics of the WOMM campaign and their implicationsfor our theoretical understanding of the phenomenon thatwe now turn.

Narrative Response StrategiesAssociated with WOMM

Adherence to Communal Versus CommercialNorms

Word-of-mouth marketing is based on the assumption thatmarketers can harness the credibility of consumer-to-consumer WOM. The role of identity in online WOM hasbeen studied frequently (Dellarocas 2003; Forman, Ghose,and Wiesenfeld 2008; Wang and Fesenmaier 2003), withgenerally mixed results, because many online communitiespreviously allowed and even emphasized varying degrees ofanonymity. Yet newer forums of online community, such associal networking sites, emphasize ongoing contact withfamiliar participants.

Our findings indicate that identifying with and adheringto “communal norms” is critical for a consumer to “evaluatea reviewer” (Forman, Ghose, and Wiesenfeld 2008, p. 311).Rettberg (2008) suggests that blogs constitute a social net-work that is not only about the sharing of information butalso about building trust, friendship, and alliances. Overtime, the practices that come to conventionalize informationexchange, such as the length of posts or the use of photos,form the basis of more extensive and implicit social norms.Bloggers are expected to conform to those communalnorms and to post messages appropriate to their forums.However, as Kozinets (2002, p. 22) notes, broader socialtensions are evoked when marketplace relationships mixwith communal cultures: “As the self-interested logics ofthe market have filtered into communal relations, they havebeen accused of increasingly undermining the realization ofthe sharing, caring communal ideal.”

Many researchers have written about the increasinglyintertwined or embedded nature of commercial logic andsocial relationships (Frenzen and Davis 1990; Grayson2007; Marcoux 2009; Muñiz and O’Guinn 2001; Price andArnould 1999; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009), and thisis demonstrated throughout our findings as an inherent chal-lenge associated by definition with all community-orientedWOMM. A tension shapes the varieties of WOMMresponse, and the source of the conflict is the dual role of


the communicator. The communicator—in this article, theblogger—is asked to act both as a continuing communitymember and as a marketing agent. Prior marketing theoriesthat psychologically account for consumers’ resistance arebased on a view of marketers who clearly and directly seekto influence the attitudes and purchases of consumers (e.g.,Friestad and Wright 1994). Yet in WOMM, in which theconsumer is required to be a type of consumer–marketerhybrid, the traditional social contract that maintains market-place relationships at a distance from communities is vio-lated, creating great tension.

As a result of this tension, we find that WOM communi-cators invariably take WOMM messages and meanings andthen alter them to make the marketing message more believ-able, relevant, or palatable to the community. Our findingssuggest a set of theoretical propositions in which successfulWOMM depends on this transformation from persuasion-oriented, market-generated, sales objective-oriented “hype”to relevant, useful, communally desirable social informationthat builds individual reputations and group relationships.In this transformation of a market narrative into a socialone, the WOM communicator performs three services valu-able to the marketers: (1) communicating the marketingmessage, (2) staking his or her reputation and trust relation-ships on the marketing message, and (3) converting themarketing message—through language, substance, ortone—to conform to the norms and expectations the com-munity has developed. Prior research has tended to focusalmost exclusively on the first role, namely, messagespreading. Less often has it considered the second role, andrarer still is the cultural focus on the third. Yet, by under-standing the patterns behind the narrative transformation ofmarketing messages, we gain increased understanding ofand ability to manage WOM.

Descriptions of Factors and Narrative Strategies

Why do WOMM blog posts take the form that they do, andwhat does this tell us about WOMM? The answer to thesequestions lies in the interaction of the community-level factorsof narrative, forum, norms, and promotional elements man-ifest in two other narrative elements: (1) the interpersonalorientation of the WOM communications and (2) its adapta-tion or acknowledgment of the commercial–communal ten-sion associated with WOMM. Although the outcomes arecomplex and underdetermined, commercial–communal ten-sion requires a response at this individual level of characternarrative, and this response assumes a particular structuredepending on other important characteristics of themedium. To maintain a trustworthy relationship with othercommunity members, WOMM communicators balance pro-motional messages with the need to exhibit a consistentcharacter narrative and to conform to forum standards andcommunal norms. Again, because WOMM is based on thebelief that marketers can harness the inherent credibility ofconsumer-to-consumer communication, understanding thisdynamic, and particularly the need to balance commercial–communal tensions, is critical for successful practice.

As Figure 3 illustrates, we find in our data a pattern offour different types of communication strategies. First, wehave a narrative strategy, exemplified by the blogs of Alicia,

Jasper, and Joseph, that we call evaluation. The evaluationstrategy deals with cultural anxiety by avoiding it; theWOMM campaign is minimized through concealment, andattention is drawn to the good or service rather than to themarketing campaign. This WOM strategy is aimed at retain-ing affiliation with bloggers’ audiences through acknowl-edgment of their communities’ needs and goals. Communi-cators affirm their leadership position by attempting todemonstrate that their information and opinions are trust-worthy. Yet, in ignoring the moral tension inherent inWOMM, the evaluative strategy can backfire, generating


reader–blogger tension. The community attempts to recon-cile the question of why one of its members would deem-phasize or obscure their other interests and may read thesource as having ulterior motives. This disparity, coupledwith the apparent incongruity of the blogger benefiting atthe individual level while professing a communal orienta-tion, can result in explicit hostility.

Second, there is the “embracing” strategy, which is evi-dent in the blogs of Carrie, Franklin, and Svetlana. Theirnarratives also keep the cultural anxiety implicit, but theymention the WOMM campaign and their participation in it,

FIGURE 3Narrative Strategies for the Communal Reference Expression of WOMM

Evaluation(e.g., Alicia, Joseph, Jasper)

Communication Strategies

•Concealment: minimizes or avoids mention ofWOMM campaign and their participation.

•Product focus: focus on product itself, rather thanWOMM campaign.

•Communal acknowledgment: proactively assertscommunal orientation.

•Leadership: asserts or affirms membership in thecommunity while positioning as safe or preferredinformation source.

Community Reaction

•Negative regarding WOMM campaign, due toavoidance of campaign's moral issues, dependenton forum and communal norms.

•Hostility toward opinion leader role, dependent oncongruity with communicator narrative, forum andnorms.

Explanation(e.g., Frank, Sammy, Randy)


•Disclosure: explicitly reveals WOMM campaignand their participation.

•Awareness of cultural tension: explicitly signalsawareness of cultural tension between WOMmarketing goals and community orientation.

•Communal acknowledgment: proactively assertscommunal orientation.

•Leadership: asserts or affirms membership in thecommunity while positioning as safe or preferredinformation source.

Community Reaction

•Supportive or neutral regarding WOMM campaign.

•Acceptance of opinion leader role, dependent onforum and communal norms.

Embracing(e.g., Carrie, Franklin, Svetlana)


•Acceptance: consumer–marketer dual roleenthusiastically adopted.

•Justification: personal needs emphasized overcommunity needs, in terms of privilege or equity.

•Professionalization: promotional marketinglanguage and terms used; additional marketingopportunities requested.

Community Reaction

•Mixed, polarized responses.

•Negative regarding WOMM campaign if notrelated to prior forum content and communicatornarrative.

•Positive if communal norms, forum, andcommunicator narrative are congruent withWOMM campaign.

•Resistance to opinion leader role, dependent oncongruity.

Endorsement(e.g., Judith, Troy, Shane)


•Disclosure: explicitly reveals WOMM campaignand their participation.

•Awareness of cultural tension: explicitly signalsawareness of cultural tension between WOMmarketing goals and community orientation.

•Justification: personal needs emphasized overcommunity needs, in terms of privilege or equity.

•Professionalization: promotional marketinglanguage and terms used; additional marketingopportunities requested.

Community Reaction

•Tempered negative regarding WOMM campaign.

•Support for opinion leader role, dependent onwhether narrative is deemed “deserving,” ifnarrative integrates WOMM campaign, and ifcommunal norms are supported.

Communal

Individualistic

Implicit ExplicitCommercial-CulturalTension

InterpersonalOrientation of

Communications

using terms of enthusiastic acceptance. These narrativesoffer a bold, self-interested justification alongside theiropen adoption of the dual role as a consumer and marketer.The embracing strategy adopts the professional languageand terms of marketing and also often includes requests forfurther opportunities to promote other products. Our find-ings indicate polarized communal responses to this strategy.Some find the honesty and self-interest refreshing, particu-larly when it fits well with the existing narrative, forum, andnorms. However, there were also many unfavorableresponses, particularly when elements of the WOMM pro-motions—for example, its exclusivity—were not congruentwith prior narrative themes, such as those of friendlinessand inclusion. In these cases, the trustworthiness of thecommunicator was often called into question.

Third, the blog narratives of Judith, Troy, and Shanedemonstrate the “endorsement” strategy. In this communi-cation approach, bloggers express and acknowledge thecommercial–communal tension through a strategy of dis-closure of the WOMM campaign and their participation init. Furthermore, their narratives signal an awareness of mar-keters’ intentions and acknowledge that they may not be inthe best interests of the community. However, they alsoattempt to discharge these concerns with a justifying argu-ment of need. An individualistic orientation is adopted inwhich the communicator argues for his or her own self-interest, often through a communal appeal for assistance,support, and understanding. These bloggers also adopt aprofessionalized promotional language and signal a willing-ness to favor other marketing requests. In our data, this typeof strategy does not seem to arouse hostility in blogs—suchas Judith’s—that are able to connect emotionally with com-munity members. In other blogs, in which the narrativeswere less convincing and/or the communal norms were vio-lated, these appeals have been much less successfullyreceived.

Fourth, the blog narratives of Frank, Sammy, and Randyexemplify the most open and communal WOMM communi-cations strategy, which we call “explanation.” In the expla-nation strategy, the narratives openly disclose the presenceof the WOMM campaign and analyze the various commu-nal impacts of participation in it. The bloggers explicitlyacknowledge and discuss the potential conflict of interestassociated with WOMM, but they do so while asserting theimportance and interests of their communities in a mannerthat affirms their own value to the community as a safe orpreferred source of information. In this way, the communi-cator demonstrates continued shared affiliation with othermembers in the community and presents the WOMM cam-paign in a way that might even lead to the strengthening ofcommunal ties. Community members were either positiveor neutral regarding the WOMM campaign, whose charac-teristics and pros and cons had already been carefully ana-lyzed and democratically discussed.

In general, we find that the intrusion of commercial“hype” presents a type of moral hazard when it contains theinappropriate and unsanctioned mixing of dominant norms,such as sharing, caring, or market exchange. Word-of-mouth marketing communicators are tempted to assumedual and potentially inappropriate roles. Our results suggest


that the potential communal disruptions of WOMM followa discernable pattern that we can now proceed to elaborate.

In contexts in which communal norms are accepting orfavorable toward the marketplace—as they are in manybrand communities, consumer tribes, and fan gatherings, aswell as in many larger, for-profit, or commercially spon-sored communities—embracing and endorsing strategiesare viewed favorably. Because these communities’ normsare supportive of commercialism and consumerism, audi-ences expect these narratives and respond favorably. Alter-natively, communities whose norms are resistant to profitmotives and the logics of the marketplace—such as thosethat are particularly tight-knit or secretive, personable,local, and “caring and sharing”—resist the blatant commer-cialism and self-promotion of an embracing strategy thatthreatens their norms. Expectations are communally cen-tered and not marketplace related or even individualisticallydriven. We find that these communities respond much morefavorably to the explicit explanation narrative.

The communications forum is another important factorinfluencing WOM narrative and communal response. Notsurprisingly, when the forum involves an inherent vulnera-bility or intimacy on the part of the communicator, such asthe inevitable disclosures that accompany the chronicling ofan illness, the audience’s resulting support and sympathyprovide latitude for a successful explanation or endorse-ment strategy. Alternatively, when the communicationsforum is less personal—for example, one that primarilyprovides lifestyle or entertainment content—the audiencemay be more likely to respond well to the commercial nar-rative of the embracing strategy. Similarly, if the forumtends to be a site driven by technical information, theforum’s audience expects an evaluation narrative and,accordingly, responds positively.

As we have demonstrated in our analysis of blogger sce-narios, communicators establish particular types of narra-tive styles that can be interpreted as enacting particularcharacter types. Each character type requires a specific per-formance of the blogging practice (Reckwitz 2002) thatconsists of certain behaviors, understandings, and emotionsthat are socially constructed and communally understood(Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009). Subject to the influenceof other factors identified in our model, these establishedcharacter types are likely to yield particular responses toWOMM promotions because the communicator seeks aconsistent representation that conforms to the practices heor she has established with the audience. Thus, we observehow a conscientious citizen journalist and community new-comer manifests a thoughtful explanation strategy; how ahumble mother who “tells it like it is” encounters frictionusing an outspoken evaluation strategy; how a narcissistic,self-proclaimed expert expresses WOMM by assuming anembracing strategy; and how a sympathetic, “making-ends-meet” professional blogger successfully employs anendorsement strategy.

Finally, the type of WOMM promotion, including theproduct type, must be considered. Technology and otherhigh-involvement products would tend to naturally inspiremore evaluation, while fashion and entertainment productsresult in more embracing narratives. Because of their

explicit commercialism, hard-sell offers result in moreexplanation and evaluation, while soft-sell, long-termbrand-building campaigns, such as funny, viral, or embed-ded advertising created to be spread rapidly among largenumbers, inspire endorsing or embracing narratives (if any).Word-of-mouth marketing programs that overtly seek rec-ommendations, mentions, or reviews may encourage narra-tive responses using the evaluation strategy.

Theoretical ImplicationsConsumers who communicate marketing messages to otherconsumers were previously assumed to engage in thisbehavior as a result of altruism or reciprocity or to attainhigher status (Dichter 1966; Engel, Kegerreis, and Black-well 1969; Gatignon and Robertson 1986). Our investiga-tion reveals something else. Motivations to participate in thebold new world of network coproduction of WOM are morecomplex and culturally embedded, shaped by communalinterests and communicative orientations and charged withmoral hazard. Along with previously identified factors, suchas personality and general communal involvement (Wangand Fesenmaier 2003) or desire for social interaction oreconomic incentives (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Wang etal. 2007), WOM communicators in our research demon-strate their need to balance inherent commercial–communaltensions while being consistent with the character elementsof their ongoing narrative. These findings also questionBrown, Broderick, and Lee’s (2007) suggestion that a Website, rather than a person, is viewed as the primary actor inonline WOM. Similar to Wang and colleagues’ (2007)online retailer avatars, relationships in blogging communi-ties are personal. However, as our research reveals, WOMcommunicators who garner positive responses are not sim-ply personal, they are personal in a communally appropriatemanner.

Our findings generate several propositions for furtherverification and testing. We find that WOMM messages andtheir attendant meanings will be altered by communicatorsin ways that are attuned to a range of different individualand communal factors. We determine that character narra-tives, communications forums, and communal norms arekey elements interacting with the WOMM promotion tomanifest particular forms of WOM narrative. This researchidentifies four distinct strategic patterns that communicatorsuse: evaluation, embracing, endorsement, and explanation.Our analysis of reader comments and responses suggeststhat a positive communal attitude toward a WOMM mes-sage will be a function of the way that it (1) is consistentwith the goals, context, and history of the communicator’scharacter narrative and the communications forum, or media;(2) acknowledges and successfully discharges commercial–communal tensions or offers a strong reason an individual-istic orientation is suitable; and (3) fits with the commu-nity’s norms and is relevant to its objectives.

Word-of-mouth marketing operates through a complexprocess that transforms commercial information into cul-tural stories relevant to the members of particular communi-ties. This research explores this process in only one limitedcontext (i.e., the online context) and for only one marketing


campaign, doing so at a time when this form of marketingwas still novel and focusing our data collection almostexclusively on textual data rather than, for example, photo-graphic, graphical, or audiovisual data. These limitationsalso lead to opportunities. Research that examines theWOMM phenomenon in different and new contexts, bothonline and off, across, for example, social networking sitesand in-home parties, using combinations of advanced visualand textual analysis, will help further our understanding andguide our management of this increasingly important formof marketing.

Managerial ImplicationsThis research offers several practical suggestions for man-agers and marketers employing WOMM campaigns andtechniques across all forums, not only online. Our majorfindings question marketers’ fundamental assumptionsregarding WOM, represented by the common use of termssuch as “amplification” to discuss marketing’s impact onWOM. Amplification assumes a simple quantitativeincrease in frequency of an intact marketing message, simi-lar to increasing gross rating points on ad spending. Indeed,as our interview with Buzzablog’s manager suggested, posi-tive blogger mentions were interpreted as key indicators ofthe success of this campaign. However, our model suggeststhat a particular WOMM promotion must be presented in amanner that is congruent with the ongoing character narra-tive, communications forum, and communal norms prevalentin that WOM environment. This theory draws managerialattention to the importance of working with a deep knowl-edge and awareness of the network coproduction of market-ing messages and meanings through consumer-generatednarratives.

Measurement and classification of the different types ofcharacter narratives and communications forums availableto marketers is a necessary first step to the implementationof this understanding. For example, we discussed severalcharacter narratives, providing a rudimentary classificationof blogger archetypes: the citizen journalist, the tell-it-like-it-is mother, the satirical exhibitionist, the making-ends-meet professional blogger, and so on. There are undoubt-edly many other character types that managers shouldexplore, classify, and develop, not only across blogs oronline communities but also across all media. Similarly, wediscussed communications forums as belonging to particu-lar types: the technology forum, the mommy forum, therelationship forum, the personal life crisis forum, and so on.Each of these forums responds to and fits into preexistingnarrative expectations on the part of the audience, whileaccommodating the need for complexity and varietythrough hybridized forms.

Understanding and respecting communal norms is alsoimportant. Although this research focused on one particulardimension—the resistance and acceptance of commercialvalues—a range of other norms and values could beexplored, classified, and related to particular outcomes,such as reciprocity, trust, or the role of authority. Dependingon the context, including the product being marketed and

the target market, managers should proactively explore thenorms associated with the respective communication forum.

Finally, we explored a WOMM campaign that had spe-cific characteristics, including the stipulation that bloggerswere not mandated to blog about the seeded product, theywere allowed to include positive and/or negative comments,and the manufacturer and marketing agency were open todisclosure. Managers should consider carefully the implica-tions associated with these types of details, particularlytheir impact on commercial–communal tensions. Manyother types of campaigns are possible, and the classificationand theoretical understanding of each over time throughresearch and practice will lead to improved effectiveness.

Importantly, our research results suggest that managershave an opportunity to encourage particular narrative strate-gies that may be ideal for their product and/or their cam-paign. Managers should begin to work with an understand-ing of WOMM’s cultural complexity by seeking to fosterand develop particular kinds of WOM narrative strategiesthat are congruent with particular communicator charactertypes and community norms and practices. Evaluation andexplanation narratives are congruent with communally ori-ented communicators who are part of “caring and sharing”communities. Alternatively, an embracing or endorsementnarrative fits with an individualist communicator participat-ing in a community favorable toward the marketplace.Finally, managers need to attune the type of WOMM pro-motion form itself to the characteristics of the WOM envi-ronment. Hard-sell offers would lend themselves to narra-tive strategies of explanation and evaluation, whileembracing and endorsing narratives would be congruentwith soft-sell, long-term brand-building campaigns.

Our findings complicate the current prediction and mea-surement of WOMM success. Common sense may encour-age managers to amplify positive and minimize negativeWOM regarding their products. However, recent research,including ours, highlights that successful WOMM cam-paigns may embody more than a simple abundance of posi-tive mentions. Sometimes, WOMM communicators includenegative information, perhaps partially to negotiate culturaltension or, as Schlosser (2005) contends, to enhance their


credibility. Liu (2006) argues that the volume of onlineWOM mentions, rather than their positive or negativevalence, best predicts product success. However, the narra-tive strategies of evaluation, embracing, endorsement, andexplanation offer different ways of understanding processand outcomes than positive or negative mentions. They por-tray a multidimensional process of personal and communalstorytelling, an ongoing conversation that WOMM simulta-neously facilitates and interrupts. They suggest that men-tions are not all created equal, and therefore appreciationfor the cultural side of this process and understanding of itsparticular elements will likely lead to more sophisticatedassessment of the narrative outputs of these campaigns.These changes are already beginning, as forward-lookingmarketers (such as those at Buzzablog and MobiTech) arealready assessing engagement, persuasion, and interactioninstead of measuring simple raw impressions. Furthermore,there is an opportunity for marketing managers to focus onthe valuable qualitative insights that emerge from suchonline WOMM programs. Because blogs and other socialmedia forums constitute a (semi)permanent archive of con-sumers’ WOM, managers can mine the conversations forconsumer insights into their products and even into theirmarketing programs.

Whether conducted online or offline, WOMM should beviewed as an inextricable form of marketing that includessuch fashionable—but, we believe, relevant—concepts andterms as prosumers, open-source marketing (Pitt et al.2006), Wikinomics (Tapscott and Williams 2006), brandcommunities (Fournier and Lee 2009; McAlexander,Schouten, and Koening 2002; Muñiz and O’Guinn 2001),and consumer tribes (Cova, Kozinets, and Shankar 2007).Marketing management is just beginning to adapt to thisnew age of the networked coproduction of marketing mes-sages and meanings, a notion that has become increasinglyevident to managers in radically altered industries, such asadvertising, music production, and newspaper publishing. Asit becomes increasingly recognized that few industries willremain untouched, we will increasingly understand how tosupplement broadcasting of hypercommercial messages withthe careful cultivation of consumers’ narrative networks.

Cova, Bernard (1997), “Community and Consumption: Towards aDefinition of the Linking Value of Products or Services,” Euro-pean Journal of Marketing, 31 (3–4), 297–316.

——— and Veronique Cova (2002), “Tribal Marketing: The Trib-alisation of Society and Its Impact on the Conduct of Market-ing,” European Journal of Marketing, 36 (5–6), 595–620.

———, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (2007), ConsumerTribes. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dellarocas, Chrysanthos (2003), “The Digitization of Word ofMouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mecha-nisms,” Management Science, 49 (October), 1407–1424.

Dichter, Ernest (1966), “HowWord-of-Mouth Advertising Works,”Harvard Business Review, 16 (November–December), 147–66.

Engel, James F., Robert J. Kegerreis, and Roger D. Blackwell(1969), “Word-of-Mouth Communication by the Innovator,”Journal of Marketing, 33 (July), 15–19.

REFERENCESArndt, Johan (1967), “Role of Product-Related Conversations in

the Diffusion of a New Product,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 4 (August), 291–95.

Balter, Dave (2005), Grapevine. NewYork: Portfolio.Bass, Frank M. (1969), “A New Product Growth Model for Con-

sumer Durables,” Management Science, 15 (5), 215–27.Brooks, Robert C., Jr. (1957), “‘Word of Mouth’ Advertising in

Selling New Products,” Journal of Marketing, 22 (October),154–61.

Brown, Jo, Amanda Broderick, and Nick Lee (2007), “ExtendingSocial Network Theory to Conceptualise On-Line Word-of-Mouth Communication,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2–19.

Brown, Stephen, Robert V. Kozinets, and John F. Sherry Jr. (2003),“Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and theRevival of Brand Meaning,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (July),19–33.

Feick, Lawrence F. and Linda L. Price (1987), “The MarketMaven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information,” Journal ofMarketing, 51 (January), 83–97.

Forman, Chris, Anindya Ghose, and Batia Wiesenfeld (2008),“Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: TheRole of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets,”Information Systems Research, 19 (September), 291–313.

Fournier, Susan and Lara Lee (2009), “Getting Brand Communi-ties Right,” Harvard Business Review, (April), 105–111.

Frenzen, Jonathan K. and Harry L. Davis (1990), “PurchasingBehavior in Embedded Markets,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 17 (June), 1–12.

Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The PersuasionKnowledge Model: How People Cope with PersuasionAttempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.

Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson (1986), “An ExchangeTheory Model of Interpersonal Communication,” in Advancesin Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed. Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research, 534–38.

Godes, David, Dina Mayzlin,Yubo Chen, Sanjiv Das, ChrysanthosDellarocas, Bruce Pfeffer, et al. (2005), “The Firm’s Manage-ment of Social Interactions,” Marketing Letters, 6 (3–4),415–28.

Gould, Emily (2008), “Exposed,” New York Times Magazine,(May 25), (accessed October 27, 2009), [available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html].

Grayson, Kent (2007), “Friendship Versus Business in MarketingRelationships,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (October), 121–39.

Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh,and Dwayne D. Gremler (2004), “Electronic Word-of-Mouthvia Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumersto Articulate Themselves on the Internet?” Journal of Interac-tive Marketing, 18 (1), 38–52.

Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), “Marketing inHypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: ConceptualFoundations,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 50–68.

Holbrook, Morris B. (2001), “The Millennial Consumer Enters theAge of Exhibitionism. A Book Review Essay: Part 1,” Con-sumption, Markets and Culture, 4 (4), 383–437.

Holt, Douglas B. (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? ADialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,” Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 70–88.

Jaffe, Joseph (2007), Join the Conversation: How to EngageMarketing-Weary Consumers with the Power of Community,Dialogue and Partnership. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Katz, Elihu and Paul F. Lazarsfeld (1955), Personal Influence.NewYork: The Free Press.

Kelly, Lois (2007), Beyond Buzz: The Next Generation of Word-of-Mouth Marketing. NewYork: AMACOM.

King, Charles W. and Frank O. Summers (1976), “Overlap ofOpinion Leadership Across Product Categories,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 7 (February), 43–50.

Kozinets, Robert V. (2001), “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating theMeanings of Star Trek’s Culture of Consumption,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 28 (June), 67–88.

——— (2002), “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnographyfor Marketing Research in Online Communities,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 39 (February), 61–72.

——— (2007), “Netnography 2.0,” in Handbook of QualitativeResearch Methods in Marketing, Russell W. Belk, ed. Chel-tenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 129–42.

Kutchera, Joe (2008), “Navigate the Blogosphere’s Biggest AdNetworks,” iMedia Connection, (accessed November 14, 2008),[available at http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/20486.asp].

Liu, Yong (2006), “Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics andImpact on Box Office Revenue,” Journal of Marketing, 70(July), 74–89.


Marcoux, Jean-Sébastien (2009), “Escaping the Gift Economy,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), 671–85.

McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koen-ing (2002), “Building Brand Community,” Journal of Market-ing, 66 (January), 38–54.

McCracken, Grant (1987), “Advertising: Meaning or Information,”in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Melanie Wallen-dorf and Paul Anderson, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Con-sumer Research, 121–24.

Mick, David Glen and Claus Buhl (1992), “A Meaning-BasedModel of Advertising Experiences,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 19 (3), 317–38.

Muñiz, Albert M. and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand Com-munity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412–32.

——— and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), “Religiosity in the Aban-doned Apple Newton Brand Community,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 31 (4), 737–47.

Nussbaum, Emily (2004), “My So-Called Blog,” New York TimesMagazine, (January 11), (accessed October 2009), [available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/magazine/11BLOG.html].

Pitt, Leyland F., Richard T. Watson, Pierre Berthon, Donald Wynn,and George Zinkhan (2006), “The Penguin’s Window: Corpo-rate Brands from an Open-Source Perspective,” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 115–27.

PQ Media (2009), “Exclusive PQ Media Research: Despite WorstRecession in Decades, Brands Increased Spending on Word-of-Mouth Marketing 14.2% to $1.54 Billion in 2008,” (accessedOctober 30, 2009), [available at http://www.pqmedia.com/about-press-20090729-wommf.html].

Price, Linda L. and Eric J. Arnould (1999), “Commercial Friend-ships: Service Provider–Client Relationships in Context,” Jour-nal of Marketing, 63 (October), 38–56.

Reckwitz, Andreas (2002), “Towards a Theory of Social Practices:A Development in Culturalist Theorizing,” European Journalof Social Theory, 5 (2), 243–63.

Rettberg, Jill Walker (2008), Blogging. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Rogers, Everett M. (1962), The Diffusion of Innovations. New

York: The Free Press.Rosen, Emanuel (2009), The Anatomy of Buzz Revisited. New

York: Doubleday Business.Ryan, B. and N.C. Gross (1943), “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed

Corn in Two Iowa Communities,” Rural Sociology, 8 (March),15–24.

Schau, Hope Jensen and Mary C. Gilly (2003), “We Are What WePost? Self-Presentation in Personal Web Space,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 30 (December), 385–404.

———, Albert M. Muñiz Jr., and Eric Arnould (2009), “HowBrand Community Practices Create Value,” Journal of Market-ing, 73 (September), 30–51.

Schlosser, Ann E. (2005), “Posting Versus Lurking: Communicat-ing in a Multiple Audience Context,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 32 (September), 260–65.

Sernovitz, Andy (2006), Word of Mouth Marketing: How SmartCompanies Get People Talking. Chicago: Kaplan BusinessPublishing.

Tapscott, Don and Anthony D. Williams (2008), Wikinomics: HowMass Collaboration Changes Everything. NewYork: Penguin.

Thompson, Craig J. (2005), “Consumer Risk Perceptions in aCommunity of Reflexive Doubt,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 32 (2), 235–48.

——— (1997), “Interpreting Consumers: A HermeneuticalFramework for Deriving Marketing Insights from the Texts ofConsumers’ Consumption Stories,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 34 (November), 438–55.

——— and Siok Kuan Tambyah (1999), “Trying to be Cos-mopolitan,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 214–41.

Thompson, Scott A. and Rajiv K. Sinha (2008), “Brand Communi-ties and New Product Adoption: The Influence and Limits of

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/20486.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/magazine/11BLOG.html

http://www.pqmedia.com/about-press-20090729-wommf.html

http://www.pqmedia.com/about-press-20090729-wommf.html

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/20486.asp

Oppositional Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (November),65–80.

USC Annenberg School (2008), The Digital Future Report. LosAngeles: USC Annenberg School.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to aNew Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68(January), 1–17.


Wang, Liz C., Julie Baker, Judy A. Wagner, and Kirk Wakefield(2007), “Can a Retail Web Site Be Social?” Journal of Market-ing, 71 (July), 143–57.

Wang, Youcheng and Daniel R. Fesenmaier (2003), “AssessingMotivation of Contribution in Online Communities: AnEmpirical Investigation of an Online Travel Community,” Elec-tronic Markets, 13 (January), 33–45.

Whyte, William H., Jr. (1954), “The Web of Word of Mouth,” For-tune, 50 (November), 140–43.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing is the property of American Marketing Association 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.

Documents

Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities