Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
JOSEPH E. PHELPS
The University of
Alabama
phel [email protected]
REGINA LEWIS
Dunkin'Brands Inc.
Regina.Lewis@
Dunkinbrands.com
LYNNE MOBILIO
Lewis/Mobilio Research
DAVID PERRY
The iJniversity of
Aiabama
NIRANJAN RAMAN
impactRx Inc.
nick [email protected]
Correspondence should be sent to
Joseph E. Phdps ul llw abini-
enmii address.
These studies xoere sponsored
hif Plorielfcedback.com fjinvuK
ptanetfeediiack.cam). an iiilernel-
basad infomfdinrw compami hased
in Cinciuiiali.
An earlier version of this iwrk
it'ill appear a$ a chapter in the
forthamiiii'^ hook. Online Con-
sumer Psychology, C.
Haiigivdt, K. Mackit. and
R. Yalch (eds.).
Viral Marketing or Electronic
Word-of-Mouth Advertising:
Examining Consumer Responses and
Motivations to Pass Along Email
Although viral marketing has garnered a great deal of attention in the trade press,
almost nothing is known about the motivations, attitudes, and behaviors ofthe people
(those sending the email to others) that constitute the essential component of any
such strategy. This articie reports the results of three studies that examine consumer
responses and motivations to pass along emaii. Impiications for target selection and
message creation are discussed for advertising practitioners interested in
implementing viral efforts, and suggestions for future research relating to
computer-mediated consumer-to-consumer interactions are presented for academic
researchers.
INTRODUCTION
As the internet has grown, so has web-advertisingresearch. Nonetheless, few studies have examinedhow email affects consumer behavior. A renewedemphasis on interactive word-^of-mouth advertis-ing is emerging among marketing practitionersand may correct this oversight. Although some(e.g., Modzeiewski, 2000) argue that viral market-ing is not merely an internet-era replacement forword-of-mouth advertising, many agree that turn-ing customers into a marketing force is crucial forviral marketing.
In the online world, this means having custom-ers who will initiate and pass along positive emailmessages concerning your product or service.Among practitioners, discussions of viral market-ing and examples of companies attempting to useviral marketing are becoming more common (e.g..Bush, 2000; God in, 2000; Modzeiewski, 2000; Shirky,2000). Although anecdotal evidence of viral mar-keting successes exists, little is known about themotivations, attitudes, and behaviors of the peo-ple (those passing along the email) who constitutean essential component.
PURPOSE OF ARTICLE
Tlie current article represents a first step in fillingthis void. Its overall goal is to provide a betterunderstanding of the motivations and behaviorsof those who pass along email messages. Only byimderstanding these motivations and behaviorscan advertisers hope to tap effectively into thisrich vein of communication and advocacy, Forscholars, our goal is to provide a useful startingpoint and impetus for further research examiningpass-along email and other computer-mediatedconsumer-to-consumer interactions.
RELEVANT LITERATURE
Email use by individuals and marketers
According to a report of The Pew Internet & Amer-ican Life Project (Madden, 2003), emailing is thenumber one internet activity. More than 90 per-cent of internet users, or about 102 million Amer-icans, use email. Furthermore, the study reportedthat about 50 percent of the online population isusing email on an average day.
DOI: 10.1017/S0021849904040371 December 2 0 0 4 JOURflflL OF HOOEfiTISIilG HESEfiRCH 3 3 3
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
Only by understanding these motivations and behaviors
can advertisers hope to tap effectively into this rich vein
of communication and advocacy.
Individuals use email to communicate
with family, friends, and coworkcrs. Mar-
keters use it to reach actual or prospective
customers. According to Forrester Re-
search, the average household will re-
ceive nine email marketing messages a
day, 3,285 a year, in 2004 (Priore, 2000).
Among the forces driving the growth of
email marketing are low costs to the mar-
keter, the ability to target messages selec-
tively, and high response rates relative to
other forms of direct consumer contact.
As electronic mailboxes become more
crowded, however, response rates may
fall. In fact, email saturation and misuse
(spam) of the medium may already de-
press response rates (Priore, 2000). Con-
sumers often hit the delete key when they
know the message is from a marketer.
They are much more reluctant to delete a
message from a person they know, This
fact is a key component in understanding
the potential power of viral marketing.
Viral marketing
Steve jurvetson and Tim Draper intro-duced the term viral marketing in 1997(Knight, 1999). With such a new and over-used term, disagreement exists about itsdefiJTition. Some (e.g., Pastore, 2000) viewit as word-of-mouth advertising in whichconsumers tell other consumers about theproduct or service. Others (Modzelewski,2000) argue that "true viral marketing dif-fers from word-of-mouth in that the valueof the virus to the original consumer isdirectly related to the number of otherusers it attracts. That Ls, the originator ofeach branch of the virus has a unique and
vested interest in recruiting people to thenetwork" (Modzelewski, 2000, p. 30).Shirky (2000) suggests that soon viral mar-keting will mean word-of-mouth advertis-ing to most people. More importantly,however, he adds that the concept de-scribes a way of acquiring new customersby encouraging honest communicationamong consumers.
It is difficult to contest the argumentthat "buzz" plays a critical role in thepurchasing process for many products.According to Rosen (2000, p. 6), "[Purchas-ing] is part of a social process.... It in-volves not only a one-to-one interactionbetween the company and the customerbut also many exchanges of informationand influence among the people wbo sur-round the customer." Rosen suggests thatimportant invisible networks comprisehubs (people well positioned to share in-formation), clusters (areas of dense con-nections), and connections among clusters.Within these networks, "You notice a con-stant flow of green sparks between cer-tain nodes. These are comments. Tliis isbuzz" (p. 8). Based largely on Shirky'sand Rosen's perspectives, the current ar-ticle views viral marketing as the processof encouraging honest communicationamong consumer networks, and it fo-cuses on email as the channel.
Diffusion of Innovation and uses
and gratifications
Our focus on pass-along email developedout of the convergence of previous schol-arly research and the growth of both emailusage and internet word-of-mouth oppor-
tunities. First, scholarly research concern-
ing social and communication networks,
opinion leadership, source credibility, uses
and gratifications, and diffusion of inno-
vations can provide insights into viral
marketing processes and participants' mo-
tivations. Research in these and other ar-
eas has long demonstrated that consumers
influence other consumers.
For example, diffusion occurs when an
innovation is communicated through cer-
tain channels among members of a social
system. An innovation is an idea, prac-
tice, or object that an individual or unit of
adoption perceives as new (Rogers, 1995).
According to Rogers, mass media chan-
nels are relatively more important for
learning about an innovation, whereas in-
teipersonal communication is especially
important for persuasion.
Thus, consumers communicating via
email may persuade more readily than
mass media advertising. Given other evi-
dence, this is not surprising. A number of
studies (e.g.. Price and Feick, 1984; Udell,
1966) have endorsed the influence of in-
terpersonal contacts on choices (Amdt,
1967). Nonetheless, advertisers tapping vi-
ral efforts are hoping that consumer-to-
consiuner communication also will increase
knowledge and awareness of products and
services. By encouraging communication
among consumers, important perceptions
about products—as well as compelling
triggers for purchase—may spread quickly
and widely, thereby achieving mass reach
a few people at a time. In other words,
advertisers strive to accomplish what Glad-
well (2000) has labeled the "tipping point."
Tbis occurs when any social phenomenon
reaches critical mass due to three things.
These include a handful of exceptional
influencers; the "stickiness factor," or
specific ways that make a contagious mes-
sage memorable; and environmental cir-
cumstances that encourage a virus to be
unleashed.
334 RESEeRCfl December 2 0 0 4
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
If they are to accomplish viral market-ing goals, however, advertisers will needto imderstand which consumers are mostlikely to pass messages along and why.Feick and Price (1987) suggest that mar-ket mavens may send messages for use insocial exchanges and to benefit family,friends, and acquaintances. Tlius, whilethe diffusion literature provides insightregarding the identification of and therole played by opinion leaders, uses andgratifications research may identify themotivations of and rewards experiencedby consumers sending and receiving email.Although much of this literature relatesto the reasons why people use traditionalmedia, the approach is increasingly beingapplied to new technologies (e.g., Eigh-mey and McCord, 1998; Korgaonkar andWolin, 1999). One area that has been gain-ing attention recently is the examinationof tbe motives underlying internet usage(Eighmey and McCord, 1998; Rodgers andSheldon, 2002; Stafford and Stafford, 1998).As Sheehan (2002) pointed out, however,these studies tend to focus on websitesand do not address email. Zinkhan, Kwak,Morrison, and Peters (2003) examine themotivations underlying web-based chat-ting. Still, how and why people use theinternet as a means of communicationremains a relatively neglected area of ac-ademic research {Zinkhan, Kwak, Morri-son, and Peters, 2003), In sum, althoughmany of the issues concerning internet-related research may appear new, previ-ous research does provide some guidance.
Second, we decided to examine inter-personal communication via email be-cause it has become, like postal mail andthe telephone, a common channel for in-terpersonal communication. There are alsosome uncommon characteristics of emailthat played a role in its selection. Forinstance, a person can communicate witha larger number of others, more quicklyand more easily, via email than many of
the other channels. Passijig along email is
even easier than writing comments. Be-
yond this, pass-along email seems partic-
ularly well suited for the spread of images
and/or verbal content that is too detailed
to be disseminated via word of mouth.
BASIC MODEL AND RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
Given tbat viral marketing means en-couraging honest con\niunication amongconsumers—and in the online world thiscommunication is most likely to occur viaemail-—understanding the motivations, at-titudes, and behaviors of those receivingand passing along email messages is nec-essary to implement effective viral mar-keting. Understanding what drives andcharacterizes pass-along email behavior isessential to influencing that behavior. Onlythen can advertisers target individuals withmessages developed to enhance viralactivity.
A model depicting a typical pass-alongemail episode may prove useful. Thismodel (see Figure 1) sen'es two purposes.First, before an understanding of whysomething happens can develop, an un-derstanding of what is happening mustoccur. The model illustrates the various
stages in a typical pass-along email epi-sode. The model contains four stages: (1)the receipt of a pass-along email message;(2) tbe decision to open or delete themessage; (3) if opened, the reading/decoding of the message; and (4) decid-ing whether to forward the message on toothers.
Second, developing an understandingof pass-along email requires examiningparticipants' reactions, motivations, andbehaviors at each stage. Thus, tbe modelhelps identify research questions relevantat each stage. The first stage concernsreactions to the receipt of a pass-alongemail message, and the second stage con-cerns the recipient's decision to open ordelete the message. Research Questions1-3 examine issues coinciding with both.Here, we are interested in receivers' reac-tions to the message and to the sender. Inthe third stage, reading/decoding occurs.At this point, research focuses on what areader likely will open, read, and possiblysend to others. Research Questions 4-6examine issues of interest at this stage.The fourth stage concerns the decision toforward or not to forward. Research Ques-tion 7 explores the communication mo-tives underlying such a decision.
stage 4Decision Point
•Should 1 forward themessage to others?
\ ^^ ^
Stage 1Receipt of Pass-Aiong Email
• Identification of messageas a pass-along email
• Thoughts about proximaland distal senders
• Affective response• Typical pass-along volume
Stage 3Reading the Pass-Along Email
•Typical message structure• Typical message content
stage 2Decision Point• Should 1 open
the message?
Figure 1 Typical Pass-Along Email Episode
December 2 0 0 4 JOUROHL OF 335
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
Although each stage corresponds to spe-
cific resccirch questions in the current study,
it is important to note that the reactions
occurring throughout the episode are in-
terdependent. In other words, the reac-
tions occurring during one stage can
influence reactions at other stages. This is
perhaps most obvious if one considers
the decision to open or delete the email. If
deletion occurs, the episode ends. Also
note that following the research ques-
tions, we present an overview of the three
methods used to examine the questions.
Each method is presented in conjunction
with specific questions. Nonetheless, over-
lap occurs as information relevant to some
questions can be gathered via multiple
methods.
Numerous questions could be gener-
ated pertaining to each stage of the model.
Tlie current study examined the following:
1. Wliat personality characteristics and so-cial motivations do email receiversattribute to email senders?
2. What emotional reactions does receiptof pass-along email messages elicit? Un-der what conditions are they deleted?
3. Do pass-along emails evoke off-linereactions?
4. How many pass-along email messagestypically are received? What types ofmessages typically are received? In whatformaE(s) are they received?
5. How many pass-along emails typicallyare forv\-arded? What types of mes-sages tend to get forwarded? What typesare not forwarded?
6. What is the role of personalization inpass-along emailing?
7. Why do people forward pass-alongemails? What interpersonal communi-cation motives cause consumers to passalong email messages that they havereceived? What emotional reactions areelicited? Wlien and why might peoplequash pass-along emails?
OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PHASES 1-3
To examine the research questions, three
studies were conducted. First, focus groups
helped identify and assess participants'
rational and emotional connections with
both pass-along email and with senders,
as well as the reactions pass-along email
evoke. The first three research questions
pertain to these. Second, by entering into
participants' email worlds, we received
1,259 pass-along emails. A content analy-
sis of these messages provided an in-
depth examination of participants' actual
(versus self-reported) pass-along email be-
havior, lt also yielded useful information
on the types of email most and least likely
to be passed along (i.e., Research Ques-
tions 4-6). Finally, in-depth interviews with
these participants provided communica-
tion motivation data to better understand
these potentially viral consumers (i.e.. Re-
search Question 7).
RESEARCH PHASE 1 —
FOCUS GROUP METHOD
Because of the complexity inherent in un-derstanding patterns and opportunities forword-of-mouth marketing, we began withqualitative research. Trained moderators,using a highly structured discussion guide,spoke with 66 individuals in eight focusgroups—two in each of four cities. Allsessions were taped for analysis. Moder-ators talked to consumers in Atlanta, Cin-cinnati, Buffalo, and Los Angeles. Criteriaof technological and cultural diversityguided the choice of cities. Tlie discussionguide and rationale for market selection,including a description of market PRI2Mprofiles, are available from the authors.
As always in focus group research, theresearch team used its judgment to selectpurposive samples of participants whomet project needs. Because the topic fordiscussion was email usage, participantshad to have access to the internet, eitherat home or at work. Moreover, all partici-
pants had to report spending at least four
hours on email each week. Finally, we
sought people who had at least some fa-
miliarity with the pass-along email con-
cept. Therefore, potential recruits were
asked the following question:
Some people send jokes, stories, or other
information to groups of people they
have organized into email lists. Do you
ever receive this kind of "group" email
from your friends or colleagues?
Those who affirmed receipt of "group"
email were asked further questions to de-
termine whether they received and sent
pass-along email frequently or whether
they are less avid about sending these
emails. We termed the former "Viral Ma-
vens" and the tatter "Infrequent Senders."
Moderators spoke to one grotip of Viral
Mavens and one group of Infrequent Send-
ers in each city. In total, they spoke with
33 Infrequent Senders (16 men and 17
women) and 33 Viral Mavens (15 men
and 18 women). Participants tended to
have high education and income levels,
as is true of the general online popula-
tion. They nonetheless exhibited diversity
in education, income, employment status,
and age. All focus group sessions lasted
about 90 minutes.
FOCUS GROUP RESULTS
Background discussion and learning
It was important tiiat moderators spendsome time introducing the pass-atong emailconcept to participants to ensure theyclearly understood the topic of discus-sion. Moderators kept the descriptionvalue-free, so as not to affect participants'reports of tbe types of pass-along emailsthey receive or the frequency with whichthey pass these emails along. To describethe pass-along email phenomenon to par-ticipants, moderators said the following:
3 3 6 JOOOPBL Of eOOEflTISIIlG flES[flRCH December 2 0 0 4
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
Bi/ pass-along email, WL' mean email that you
receive from someone you know, wbich that
per'foii rJiost likeh/ has received from someoiie
they kmnv, ami so on ami so on.
When moderators introduced the pass-along email phenomenon to respondentsand asked these respondents to describeemails they had lX'ceived that "fit" thevery general definition, both Viral Ma-vens and Infrequent Senders were quickto describe exactly those types of emailswe would classify as "viral." A few re-spondents abandoned the "from someoneyou know" part of our definition andcited direct messaging from companies asexamples of pass-along email. Nonethe-less, confusion around the viral market-ing concept was minimal.
In all groups, the first type of pass-along email mentioned was "jokes." How-ever, there was consistent unaided mentionof multiple other types of viral strains—including virus alerts, inspirational {"les-son leamed") and religious stories, requeststo vote on certain issues, lost childrennotices, chain letters, poems, animatedclips, pass-along emails wiUi links to spe-cific websites, and urban legends. It isinteresting to note that many of the spe-cific emails mentioned in groups werereferenced in more than one city, illustrat-ing how pass-along email can permeategeographic boundaries.
To ensure that participants understoodthe terminology, moderators asked, "Whatwords would you use to describe thedifferent pass-along messages we'vebeen talking about?" Respondents had afew suggestions, including "Forwards,""Chain," "Junk mail," "Mass email,""Spam," and "Forwarded email." None-theless, the "pass-along" terminologyseemed clear.
To fully understand participants' con-cept of "spam," and how or if they dis-tinguish spam from pass-along email,moderators solicited definitions. Respon-
dents defined "spam" as unsolicited, un-
wanted, annoying junk email. They said
spam derives from companies that pur-
chase email lists for marketing purposes.
They expressed irritation at the amount
of unsolicited email they receive. When
asked about the line separating spam from
pass-along email, participants agreed that
"Spam is when you don't know the
sender."
Perceived sender profiles
and motivations
RQl: What personality characteris-tics and social motivations doemail receivers attribute to emailsenders?
Moderators asked participants to thinkabout where pass-along emails origijiate.Tine immediate response in all groups wasa variant of "People with too much time."Some respondents stated that the genesisfor many of these emails is the internet.Examples included Joke of the Day sitesand other websites dedicated to humor-ous material. Some respondents men-tioned "somebody with a lot of friends,""somebody with a political cause," "some-body in the church who wants to do les-sons on the internet," and people whohad experienced traumas.
When moderators explored the motiva-tions that people attribute to the sendersof pass-along emails. Viral Mavens andInfrequent Senders attributed largely pos-itive motivations to the senders. A desireto connect and share with others was men-tioned most frequently. Other identifiedmotivations ranged from the altruistic andcomforting to the evangelical, the super-stitious, and the mimdane. Interestingly,motivations attributed to senders were pos-itive, altliough the experience of receivingpass-along emails can result in negati\'efeelings.
To probe perceptions of senders of pass-along email a bit differently, moderatorsasked Infrequent Senders to paint a "por-trait" of the type of person they picturewhen thinking about pass-along senders.People in Atlanta and Los Angeles com-mujiicated surprisingly positive descrip-tions. These Infrequent Senders viewedpass-along email senders as outgoing, gre-garious, jovial, intelligent, generous, giv-ing, and passionate. Cincinnati and Buffaloparticipants also mentioned positive traitsin their descriptions. Nonetheless, theywere more likely to view senders as some-what insecure and hermit-like, as busy-bodies, as "class clowns," or perhaps aspeople too busy to keep in touch in amore personal manner.
Reactions to receiving pass-along emails
RQl: What emotional reactions does
receipt of pass-along email mes-
sages elicit? Under what condi-
tions are they deleted?
To better understand the recency andmemorability of pass-along emails, mod-erators asked consumers to "Think backto the most recent pass-along email thatwas forwarded to you." Most Viral Ma-vens reported receiving at least one pass-along email a day. Several received manymore than that. The majority said thatthey received a pass-along email on theday of the focus group. A few reportedhaving receiveci one only the day before,and the rest had received one in the pastcouple of days.
Although several Infrequent Senders
talked about an email they received "to-
day" or "yesterday," more Infrequent Send-
ers said their most recent pass-along email
appeared "the other day," "three days ago,"
"sometime in the last week," "a week
ago," or e\'en "last month" or "a few
December 2 0 0 4 JOUOOBL OF flOUEHTISIflG flESEfillCH 3 3 7
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
months ago." Most such participants, with- TABLE l . A
out very recent messages, .iso reported posjtjve EmotJonal Responses to Receiving Pass-Along Emailthat they receive fewer than five pass-
tilong emails per week. Viral Mavens Infrequent SendersAn important objective ofall focus group r ri r ri
sessions was to gain insight into people's „ „^ Someone is thinking about me Someone is thinking about me
emotional reactions to receipt of pass- ,.„ ., , ,. . . ,^ ^ When I m not too busy I m staying in touch
along emails. To accomplish this, moder-'^ " When Its sent to you personally When I have free time
ators asked participants how they feelwhen pass-along emails are forwarded Happy/Brightens my day Happy/Brightens my dayto thein. Certainly, people report both ^^®" ' ' someone I haven't heard When it's someone I haven't heardpositive and negative emotions. The '' ' "' ^ ^"^i' f'"' ' i" ^ ^^ '1^emotions-and their stimuli-are mark- When the message is a good joke.ediy similar between Viral Maven and is inspirational, or containsInfrequent Sender groups, however. '^^1^^!''..^'!^''^
Tables l.A and l.B show the types of Excited Curious
emotion mentioned by research partici- "ifs |j| e seeing a tetter in the mail . . . About new or infrequent senders
pants, as well as the conditions under you look at the top left-hand corner and Will the message be good?which they experience commonly men- you're excited to see who ifs from"tioned emotions.
Many respondents-both Viral and Connected Re//ef
Nonviral-talked about their reacHon to ^^^" though we don't have an Relief of tension at work
pass-along email in the context of their "PP?'^!^"^^.^" ' ^ '! ' ^ .'??®.! ^^h
mvn moads/mindsets. If rushed, or if Rewarded Glad
"having a bad day at work/' they report ^^en I get something from church If the content is goodfrustration or annoyance. Also, many par- yy^en I get certain "pictures"— If I'm anxious to hear from the senderticipants were quick to state that what meaning sexual contentnegative feelings they do experience domU color their perceptions of the senders, ^!^^'^'P^^^ /^!9'P^!9^.
An interesting trend among Viral Ma- Inspired Interestedvens was that some participants de- Makes me fee/_spec/a/scribed negative emotions that they wouldexperience in the iibseuce of pass-alongemail. Tliey said they would miss pass- People do not open all pass-along emails. spondents also commonly decide to openalong email if it were taken away. The Respondents commonly do open only mes- or delete any email based on their ownless viral consumers, not surprisingly, do sages from somebody they know. None- states of mind and their own contexts. For
not feel as tied to the practice. Although theless, knowing a source can also trigger example, respondents are apt to delete aViral Mavens had a difficult time think- a deletion if the sender is perceived as message without reading it if they are
ing of a "dark side" to pass-along email, someone who sends either low quality or pressed for time or if tlie content appearsInfrequent Senders expressed more con- excessive numbers of messages. In addi- inappropriate.
cern about viruses and having their ad- tion, if receivers recognize the subject line
dresses "floating around." Infrequent as one received before, or if "Fwd: Fwd:Senders a!.so expressed a sense that pass- Fwd:" appears in the subject line, they Off-line reactions to receiptalong email was sham communication that may delete the message. As with any email, pass-along email
made them feel like they were commuru- attachments may result in deletions if re-
cating with somebody when they really spondents anticipate long download times RQ3: Do pass-along emails evoke off-
were not. or worry about viruses. Beyond this, re- line reactions?
338 OF flflUERTISlOG BESEBBCH December 2 0 0 4
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
X.B times, pass-along emails are converted to
Negative Emotional Responses to Receiving Pass-Along Email P^P""" ' " ^^"' ^ " '"'"' '"s- '' ' ' ^ ''even further. Viral Mavens especially re-
Viral Mavens Infrequent Senders port printing out emails so they can paste
, ., . . , .. ^ J them up in the office or pass them aloneIrritated Irritated ^ r a
,.,. . • . , ^ -r,- . ,. • ^ t" those who are not online.When the message is irrelevant That I m one m a crowdWhen it feels like ifs wasting my time When I've had a bad dayBy too much "spiritual stuff" When I've asked to be taken off
^ .u .u , . RESEARCH PHASE 2—By too many messages from the same the list
>.,u .. u .u M CONTENT ANALYSISperson When its been months since I ve. . , Focus group analysis provided insight into
received a personal message o r J t h, , . participants' reported pass-alone email be-from the sender ^ ^ r r a
havior. The research team sought to vali-
^f^i^y Aggravated date these reports with observation of
When I've asked to be taken off a list When I receive the same message repeatedly actual pass-along email behavior. In effect.
When content is offensive or shocking When one person sends too many messages we requested that participants invite usDisappointed Frustrated '"''-•' their email "living rooms." At the
When I want a more persona! note That I don't have the time to read a message '-"'• ^ ^^ 3" V*^^' Maven sessions, and onefrom someone Infrequent Senders session, participants
were offered the opportunity to partici-
pate in Phase 2 of this research.About an offer that is too good to Too much hassle to pass it on ^^^^^.^^ ^^^^^^^ ^,^^^ conducted with
all interested participants. These were de-
Burdened Disgusted signed to ensure clear understanding of
When I have too much work At "wrong- kinds of jokes ^^^^ ^"d to heighten participant commit-
When I feel ovenwhelmed "i^-nt. Participants were told the research
When I feel obligated to answer ^^^"^ wanted to study the actual fre-„ , , , „ , quencv of pass-alone email. Thev wereOverwhelmed Stressed . . r
asked to send the research team everyWhen I m spending too much time •'
pass-along email that they received for aon email
month. This included emails that theyUninterested Disrupted passed on to others and messages that
they decided to quash. The research team
urged participants to forward all pass-
Moderators asked respondents if they ported calling their doctors. Such warn- along emails that they received, even those
have ever done anything as a direct result ings might contain advice to suspend that were salacious in content or tone.
of having an email forwarded to them. tampon use because tampons allegedly Judging from the number of people who
Both Viral Mavens and Infrequent Send- contain asbestos or the use of antiperspi- shared risque emails, participants did not
ers reported acting as a result of receiving rants because these products allegedly hesitate out of concern for how they would
pass-along email. Respondents often re- cause cancer. be perceived by study leaders. In retum
searched virus alerts by contacting their Pass-along emails also stimulate face-to- for inciuding the research team in their
information services departments. A few face and telephone conversation. Most Vi- pass-along email li\'es for a month, par-
contacted their congressional representa- ral Mavens said that they end up repeating ticipants were paid $200 iji four instali-
tives in response to pass-along emails, pass-along jokes or other emails with other ments. The 34 participants were varied in
and others visited the websites featured people. Some senders wiD call a recipient age, education, income, and ethnicity,
in animated pass-along items. In response to ask whether the individual has re- Tlu-ee-quarters were Viral Mavens and 55
to health warnings, some participants re- ceived a message and to discuss it. At percent were female.
December 2 0 0 4 JOUBflfiL Of flOOEHTISIflG flESEIlflCH 3 3 9
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
CONTENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
Analytic approach
We used both message-level and person-
level analysis to examine forwarded emails.
First, we inspected the pass-along mes-
sages as a set, nmning frequencies for type
of message, certain message characteris-
tics, and so on. To leam more about the send-
ers of particular emails, we next examined
messages sent by each individual. We
summed, for example, the number of cer-
tain types of messages sent by individuals
and the number of personalized notes added
by individuals so that we could examine
differences between Viral Mavens and In-
frequent Senders and gender groups.
Message receipt
RQ4: How many pass-along mes-sages typically are received?What types are received? Inwhat format are they received?
The research beam received 1,259 pass-along messages during the study Thisaverages more than one per day per per-son. Substantial variety occurred in thevolume of email received from partici-pants, however. One individual receivedand forwarded 177 messages during themonth. Two others also sent more than100 messages each. Three participants sentone message. Two of these were in theInfrequent Senders group. Figure 2 illus-trates the volume of email the researchteam received from each participant.
Viral Mavens received many more mes-sages than did Infrequent Senders. Onaverage. Viral Maver^ received twice asmany pass-along emails (42 messages) asInfrequent Senders received (22 mes-sages). This helped validate respondents'subjective self-evaluation. In other words,their behavior matched the verbal reportsin tht' focus groups.
Number of Pass-Along EmailsReceived versus Sent by Each Participant
Each set of bars represents one of 34 participants.
Number Received • Number Sent
Figure 2 Pass-Aiong Emails Received and Forwarded
If anything, this may underestimate thevolume of email typically received by Vi-ral Mavens. In the foUow-up Interviews, onein three persons stated that their email vol-umes were abnormally low during thestudy. The LoveBug virus scare occurredduring this phase of data collection, andpass-along activity from respondentsslowed down for a little more than a week.
All pass-aiong emaiis that respondentsreceived during the four weeks were codedinto content categories. To develop catego-ries, the research team first reviewed allfocus group tapes to ensure that the cod-ing sdieme contained all types of mes-sages mentioned. Then, the team examinedmessages received. As a result, we cre-ated 16 general categories. Seven werebroken into subcategories (see Table 2). Tomaximize consistency, the research teamtrained one primary coder, who was re-sponsible for coding all 1,259 messages.
As a part of the training process and toallow for an assessment of intercoder re-
liability, one of the authors also coded 5percent of the messages. Observed agree-ment across content categories was 92 per-cent and Scott's pi was 0.89. Scott's piapplies only for the coding of the contentcategories. The coding of the various rea-sons respondents gave for not forwardingemail will be discussed later. Scott's pi forcoding of reasons for not forwarding emailwas 0,95. The other aspects of the contentanalysis consisted more of simple count-ing rather than coding, and observed agree-ment was 100 percent. These aspectsincluded trackijig the number of pass-along messages received and coimting howoften the message was forwarded.
Overall, almost half of the emails re-ceived were joke emails. Chain letters rep-resented about one of every five emailsreceived. Table 2 shows the percentagesby category and also provides more spe-cific information about how messagessorted. General jokes were most common,followed by sexual jokes. Only a few emails
340 HDUEfiTISKKi RESEflRCH December 2 0 0 4
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
TABLE 2 overtly concerned products and/or com-
Percentage of Messages Received in Each Content Category P'""'"''" ™ ' '^^^s^'*' '''^^''' *''*'* '' ''' '•"'-ers are not exploiting this method of
General Content Categories % Content Subcategories % communicating with consumers or that
Jokes ' 48.8 General 20.8 ^" ''' messages do not meet the pass-along threshold. Implications and sugges-
Sexual 14 .5 ,. i . J ^ u • J .i r- J-tions related to this, and other findings,
Gender issues 6.2 are discussed later. Interestingly, focus
Work- or computer related 3.3 g'^up participants identified product wam-
_ ^ ^ ^ „ ings as salient and memorable, but noCurrent events 1.9 '
such messages appeared.Political 1.9 T-, ,, . • j . . . , ,,. , . ,
The results also indicate that Viral Ma-f,?.?^] .9:? ^^"^ received four times as many wam-
Chain letters 17.7 General 8.4 ''^S^ (^-S" concerning a computer virus)„ ,, , ^ and almost ten times as many naked pic-Religious 4.3 ' ^
tures as did Infrequent Senders, MoneyInspirational 2.1 ^ • , ^L J - I T . . . .•• cham letters and emails about enter-.'r.':'.?, . . ,; tainment/events were relatively rare, but
Free stuff 0.8 Mavens also received more of these, Dif-
. . _ _ ferences occurred in the tvpes of emailsMoney 0.4 • ^
that women and men received. For exam-Inspirational 8.4 Thought for the day 6.4 , .. . ... .
••• •• pie, women were three times more likely,T^?.'., .99 .'",P.'f:?,V.'! ^ ,?.:9. *° receive chain letters. They also received
Religious messages 4.8 n">»re games.
, , „ , ^ A r. . . ^ ^ The research team aiso analyzed theInformation 4.4 Current events 2.2 ^
structure of pass-along emails received.Entertainment and events 1.0 i.; J JWe coded messages into seven major cat-Helpful tips 0.9 egories: text messages (74.7 percent), static
Recipes 0.2 pictures (10.1 percent), cartoons (6.1 per-
\A( ,«;.,«^ 1 c n ™ * ^ r- cent), URLs (5 percent), animated car-Warnings 3.5 Computer virus 2.6 \ r "toons (2.9 percent), "movies" (0.6 percent),
'• and other (0,5 percent). Almost 23 percent
,'i','!°??. f?!-, ,9:9 ^^ pass-along emails received contained
Naked pictures 2.8 Naked pictures 2.1 ^^^^ type of attachment. We found that
,,^ . , . . ^ „ -, jpg files and .gif files (almost 70 percentAltered naked pictures 0.7 "^^ & v K
of attachments) were most common.Email digests 1.3Free stuff 1.2 Message forwarding
Comment about a company 1.2P . . RQ5: How many pass-along emaiis
typically are forwarded? WhatMissing children 0.3 " ,
••• types of messages tend to get
9,?. P .".y:9!'.' .'.",?, ^ .,1 .®^^^^ . 9;,^ forwarded? What types are not
Political message 0.2 forwarded?Good deeds 0.1
Overall, participants passed along al-Other type of message 4.0 ^ ,,, . . . . •°—•• most 40 percent of the messages they re-
December 2004 LDF RESEfmCH 3 4 1
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
ceived during the study period. This varied
from 0 to UIO percent among participants.
Figure 1 indicates the number of emails
received and sent for each.
Viral Mavens sent more than two and a
half times as many messages as did Infre-
quent Senders. In addition, Infrequent
Senders listed between one and two peo-
ple on each forwarded email. Viral Ma-
vens averaged four intended recipients.
They also were more likely to forward a
pass-along email. Interestingly no differ-
ences occurred in the number of pass-
along emails that men and women received.
Yet, women were more likely to pass these
messages along.
To identify the possible influence of mes-
sage types on pass-along responses, we
compared the number of emails received
within each category to the number sent.
Table 3 ranks message types in terms of
their viral potential. Most messages con-
taining naked pictures, jokes about gen-
der, jokes about work or computers^ crime
warnings, games, and luck-oriented chain
letters were passed on.
Recall that we asked participants to send
to the research team received messages
that they opted NOT to pass on to others.
For each such message, they were asked
to provide a reason for not forwarding it.
These were coded into categories we called
old message, uninteresting content, inap-
propriate content, not enough time to for-
ward, cute content but does not meet
threshold, and other. The number one rea-
son for quashing a message was the sense
that the content was old. This reason was
particularly salient among Virai Mavens.
Viral Mavens also were more likely to
quash emails due to content that seemed
uninteresting or "stupid."
The role of personalization
RQ6: What is the role of personaliza-
tion in pass-along emailing?
Pass-along email is personalized if it is TABLE 3
sent to one individual at a time, by the percentage Of Emailinclusion of a note written by the sender, ^ . , , „
AC.U A u ^u' u- . I - Forwarded by Categoryand if the sender changes the subject line. ^ ^—^The results of the content analysis match Message Type %up \'ery well with focus groups responses
, ,. ' , .. . ... , . . Good deed (smallrelating to personalization. Viral Mavens. , , , ., , number of emails!) 100.0felt that pass-along emails can be per-
sonal ei'en if the email is not sent to one ! .?.H^f!..P'.9. H!"?.? ^9.:9..
person alone. Despite other names on the Joke, gender issues , -.9
list, they feel personally touched if the Joke, work, or comput:er 55.0content pertains to their interests. The con- Warning,crime ' 54.5tent analysis also showed that the aver-
Games 53.8age pass-along email text contained threevisible send-and-receive cycles and 26email addresses. 9.M. . A.?..
Although 75 percent of the content analy- Cute, feel good picture 50.0sis parHcipants crafted at least one per- Missing children 50.0_sonalized note, on average just one-third ^ „ , .^ -,
[:r .®. f^^a.' S^ne/al 46.7of forwarded messages contained this. Ac-
,. , ., , , I • . r Information, helpful tips 45.5cordmg to the content analysis, Infre- •• ••quent Senders are more likely to add ,.9t ®:. .®f.H.?.' .T:?.".?.personalized notes. Half (51 percent) of Joke, current events 4-3.5Infrequent Sender pass-along emails con- Joke, political 43.5tained a note, as compared to 29 percent ,^L, • i 4,» i-• o i
^ ^ 0\}_3m_\eVier._re\\g\ous. 42.3of those from Viral Mavens.
, ,. . . , f ,• Chain letter, general 40.2In addition to assessing the frequency ot
adding personalized notes, we examined P.hain.!e«er,moriey 40.0
the types of notes that participants in- Warning, computer virus 38.7
eluded. When people include a note, they Inspiration, chain letter 38.5
appear most likely to write a note to mo- j ^ ^ ^ nc^nspecific 37.3tivate readership. More than half of the notes
Inspiration/Thought for the day 36.4received fell into this category {56 per-
, , ^ . I J J J ,. Information, recipes 33.3cent). Interestingly, women added moredis- ••
claimer notes. Finally, content analysis f r e stuff, chain letter 30.0.
results suggested that subject lines of pass- 'P^P.' iH tion, entertainnient 25.0
along emaUs rarely are changed. Only 19 Altered naked pictures 25.0percent of the participants changed a sub- _ ^ . ^,- ject line for messages they passed along.Tu u u J u' vi- A-A vu Religious 24.1Those who altered subject lines did so with •
fewer than 10 percent of forwarded emails. Company or product in positive, way 2^
Iriforrnatiori, current events 18.5
PHASE 3—TELEPHONE INTERVIEWING Digest 0.0METHODOLOGY (IN-DEPTH ONE-ON-ONE) 'ip\^^'p^m^^^ZIZIIIIZ.9:9..Of the 34 focus group participants who
^ ^ ^ ^ Political 0.0remained in the study through Phase 2,we completed follow-up interviews with ^r.^ductwarnings 0.0,3 4 2 JOUniL or eDUERTISIIlG RKEflflCfl December 2004
PASSALONG EMAIL
23. Most were interviewed by phone, dur- nicating with others via pass-along email. Four of the six top-rated reasons in-
ing July 2000, immediately following the hiterviewees stated how much each rea- volved enjoyment and entertainment (see
four-week data collection period. Five re- son matched their own motivations on a Table 4). The other two concerned social
spondents, who were particularly diffi- scale from 1 ("not at all like my reason") motivations—to help and to comnutni-
cult to contact, received the interviewing to 5 {"exactly like my reason"). cate caring.
guide and questionnaires via email. Four
completed and sent back the materials. In
all cases, in-depth open-ended responses, IMDLC **
as well as close-ended responses to se- MOtJVeS fOf Sending PaSS-Along Emaillected scales, were gathered.
-ru ^ I J •. u .. Item M soThese interviews had two objectives:
Because ifs fun 3.91 1.12
. to learn whether their pass-along email Because I enjoy it 3.61 1.34flow was normal or abnormal and
, , , Because it's entertaining 3.48 1.12whether there was any reason to sus
pect the data that they had sent on l9.f?. .'.P..° . . .': 3.48 0.85
" to administer the Interpersonal Commu- JQ have a good time 3.39 1.31
nicationMotivesScale(Rubin, Perse, and ^ ,To let others know I care about their feelings 3.39 1.03
Barhato, 1988), with directions alteredslightly to focus on pass-along email :^.thank.^':'^m 3.09 1.24
To get away from what I'm doing 2.74 1.39
Telephone interviews lasted about 30 Because it peps me up 2.74 1.14minutes. Trained researchers used a struc-
. . . . . , - , - , To show others encouragement 2.70 1.22ttired protocol and discussion guide. These
are available from the authors. ?. . . .H^® ,'.':.?!!P!^^..'^.^..^°.^.^^'.".^ .?.;Z.9 h^9.Because it's exciting 2.65 1.11
TELEPHONE INTERVIEW RESULTSBecause it relaxes me 2.48 1.24
RQ7: What interpersonal communica- ^ecause it;s stimulatirig 2.48 1.08
tion motives cause consumers To get something I don't have 2.48 2.35
to pass along email messages - 0 get away from pressures 2.48 1.24that they have received? Why, , , , , ' Because it's a pleasant rest 2.43 1.08
do people forward pass-along •
emails? What emotional reac- ?.?. . .H^ ' .T'^°"'^®'''^^'^ ^^°I^P^^9? ^•'*3 1-16
tions are elicited by this activ- Because it makes me feel less tense 2.35 1.15
ity? When and why might they' •' " - To put Off something I should be doing 2.35 1.30
quash pass-along emails?Because I have nothing better to do 2.26 1.25
To gain further insight into the motiva- Because it's reassuring to know someone's there 2.13 1.32
tions driving pass-along behavior, the re- Because I want someone to do something for me 2.00 1.17search team administered the Interpersonal^ • - 4 .- c 1 ,o u- Because it's thrilling 2.00 1.13Communicatton Motives Scale (Rubin,
Perse, and Barbato, 1988) during phone I°. . .'.'..°l .®.': .) [ ?,,*?.. .° .^:83 1.19
inten-iews. This scale lists 28 reasons for Because I just need to talk 1.83 1.07
communicating. The instructions for thisBecause I need someone to talk to 1.65 0.83
scale were altered slightly by asking re-spondents about U w reasons for commu- because it makes me_ fee I less I one^^ 1.48 0.79
December 2 0 0 4 JOUBIIBL Of BDUERTISIHG BESEflRCIl 3 4 3
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
Tlie open-ended comments supported
tliis emphasis on fun and social connec-
tion. As one respondent noted, "If I'm too
busy to write a note, I'll select a specific
thing to say—'I'm thinking of you, but I
don't have time to write.'" Other respon-
dents had very pragmatic reasons for
keeping up with pass-along email. One
insurance salesman sends pass-<ilong email
because he believes that keeping his name
visible increases his business. Others re-
iterated a feeling of obligation that we
heard throughout focus group discus-
sions. One said: "I have an obligation to
pass it along. It's what you're supposed
to do with it."
Motivations for sending
pass-along emails
Respondents reported experiencing posi-tive emotions when they sent pass-alongemails. They might feel excited, helpful,happy, or satisfied. Nonetheless, they indi-cated that certain conditions must be metbefore they will forward a message. For Vi-ral Mavens, the message either must be im-portant or must contain something that thesender thinks the other person will like. Fur-ther, Viral Mavens evidently only will for-ward messages when they are in the right"mood" and have the time.
Interestingly, some Viral Mavens com-municated a strong sense of a duty tosend along forwarded email. Some ex-pressed a mild sense of retribution whensomeone frequently was noiiresponsive.They may retaliate by removing the indi-vidual from their email lists.
In general. Infrequent Senders are moreleery of sending pass-along email thanare Viral Mavens and do so much lessfrequently. Some Infrequent Senders dopass on messages, though, if it meets theirstandards for quality or relevance. In-deed, Infrequent Senders indicated that amajor reason they do not forward mes-sages is because the content does not meet
their quality threshold. Also, Infrequent
Senders send along email in a particular
way. They tend to be more selective in
choosing the people to whom they pass
messages. O\'erall, focus group discus-
sion revealed that a strong understanding
of pass-along email etiquette exists. Infre-
quent Senders seem to adhere to these
"rules" more strictly than do Viral Mavens.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
AND IMPLICATIONS
The examination of pass-along email re-
ceipt and sending patterns revealed four
separate pass-along email profiles. The
four cells of Figure 3 illustrate these.
Cell 1 includes those who neither re-
ceived many pass-along emails nor for-
warded many of those they received.
Cell 2 includes those who received few-
such emails, but forwarded a large per-
centage of those that arrived. Cell 3 rep-
resents those who received many messages
and forwarded many messages, and Cell 4
represents those who received many pass-
along emails, but passed on virtually none.
Obviously the Viral Mavens are impor-
tant to advertisers. However, the Infre-
quent Senders in Cell 2 of Figure 3
represent another potentially overlooked
but valuable conduit for marketing mes-
sages. Although they send a relatively
low volume of pass-along email, the main
problem appears to be the low numbers
of email that they receive. Tliey appear
eager to pass available messages along. If
advertisers can access these individuals
and present them with relevant and/or
interesting information, they could de-
velop into more influential market mem-
bers. Indeed, Infrequent Senders may have
an especially noteworthy impact due to
their more targeted, personalized, and mo-
tivating approaches to sending emails to
their network members. Simply identify-
ing and contacting Viral Mavens tind In-
frequent Senders is not enough, however.
The research reported here provides ad-
vertisers with insights about how to con-
sider and approach viral marketing efforts.
Imptlcations for target selection
The current study illustrates the impor-
tance of selecting targets who will find
the advertiser's information relevant
enough to pass-along. Both Viral Mavens
Sen
ding
Pas
s-A
long
Em
ail
Large %
Small %
Receiving Pass-Along Emails
Many
^ ^ Cell 3
Viral Mavens
0eil4
Infrequent Senders
Few
Celt 2
Infrequent Senders:
High Opportunity
Cell 1
Infrequent Senders
Figure 3 Pass-Along Profiles
344 L OF flOUEHTISIflG BESEflllCfl December 2 0 0 4
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
Indeed, Infrequent Senders may have an especially note-
worthy impact due to their more targeted, personalized,
and motivating approaches to sending emails to their
network members.
and Infrequent Senders will quash emailthat they judge irrelevant or uninterest-ing. Thus, targeting the right people isessential to any viral effect. Findingpeople who are interested in what thecompany/organization has to say is eas-ier if an internal list exists of consumerswho have chosen to receive email up-dates. In this sense, viral marketing hasbeen compared with activating an affinitygroup where one is reaching people whoare ready to hear one's message (Parker,2000). Once the affinity group is con-tacted (and hopefully activated), they arein total control.
Other findings reiterate the importanceof carefully selecting the initial target. Thefocus group participants expressed muchirritation about the unsolicited emails thatthey receive from companies, and theyusually delete these without opening them.Upon probing, however, individuals saidthey did not consider information about acompany "junk" if it came from a personthat they know. Tliey would assume thatthe product is of value and that the indi-vidual passed on the information for agood reason. Thus, companies must iden-tify viral consumers and opinion leaderswho are interested in the information. Theyshould send initial messages to as few asnecessary so as to minimize the numberof people who receive company email. Ifthe information meets the viral consum-ers' thresholds for relevance, it has a bet-ter diance of being forwarded. Further, ifthe company contacts only people who
have expressed interest, the email may bewelcomed. According to Parker (2000), anemail campaign for the band Nsync provedso powerful that one girl forwarded themessage to 500 "friends" because it con-tained video messages from band mem-bers that were not available elsewhere.
Based on the current findings, it appears
that women are more likely than men to
pass along email messages. Given wom-
en's great purchasing power and their
rapidly increasing representation online,
advertisers are most likely anxious to spark
viral marketing among online networks
of women. To he successful, however, ad-
vertisers must tailor message strains and
dialogue to women's interests and needs.
Implications for message creation
Message developers should note that mes-sages that spark strong emotion—humor,fear, sadness, or inspiration—are likely tobe forwarded. They should consider craft-ing messages consistent with those partic-
Message developers should note that messages that spark
strong emotion—humor, fear, sadness, or inspiration—
are likely to be forwarded. They should consider crafting
messages consistent with those particularly viral strains
that are most appropriate to their cause.
This illustrates the impact of reaching theright viral consumers. It also depicts theimportance of understanding these con-sumers well enough to create interesting,relevant information.
Of course, finding the right people willrequire that advertisers identify Viral Ma-vens and high opportunity InfrequentSenders (see Figure 3). Providing the de-mographic, psychographic, and behav-ioral proxies that enable this is beyondthe scope of the present study. Althoughdetailed profiles of viral participants arenot available, the current study suggestsat least one demographic variable thatfuture researchers will need to consider.
ularly viral strains that are most ap-propriate to their cause. Very humorousjokes, touchingly sad stories, and particu-larly apt inspirational messages are thoseemails that meet even most InfrequentSenders' thresholds for passing. Interest-ingly, tliis study indicates tliat emails aboutfree stuff and containing helpful tips arepassed along almost half of the time. Com-panies surely are not yet maximizing op-portunities for "seeding" buzz among keytargets through such mechanisms.
In addition, advertisers should matchmessages to consumers' motivations vis-a-vis pass-along email. More specifically,they can appeal to desires for fun, enter-
December 2 0 0 4 JOUBORL OF flOUERTISIIlG RESERRCR 3 4 5
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
tainment, and social connections. Non-
profit organizations with public service
goals may pay special attention to the im-
portant role of social motivations. Desires
to help someone or to do good motivated
both Viral Consumers and Infrequent
Senders. This suggests that viral market-
ing efforts hold considerable promise for
marketing social causes. It would be inter-
esting to further explore the influence of
social motivations in regard to social mar-
keting, perhaps especially in situations in
which commercial entities and nonprofit or-
ganizations collaborate.
On the tactical front, advertisers should
not underestimate the power of their cho-
sen subject lines. Because subject lines
tend to be retained throughout the life of
a pass-along email chain, they deserve
special attention.
The enhancement of viral marketing ef-
forts is not a risk-free opportunity for
organizations. Although our respondents
did not indicate that they hold companies
accountable for annoying emails, they did
indicate that product warnings may con-
tribute to more negative perceptions of
brands. Advertisers should tap into viral
marketing possibilities but also proceed
with caution. Consumer-to-consumer in-
teraction is a two-way street, and bad
news travels just as fast, if not faster, than
good news. Paraphrasing Shirky (2000),
viral marketing is the scourge of the stu-
pid and the slow because it only rewards
those who offer great service and have
the guts to encourage customers to pub-
licly pass judgment on that service every
single day.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
As with all exploratory research, the
present study has limitations. Here, we
identify certain limitations and offer sug-
gestions for how future research may ad-
dress these deficiencies.
First, although multiple research meth-
ods were used, participants for each phase
were drawn from the initial focus group
sample. Recruiting the content analysis
and in-depth interview participants from
the focus groups allowed us to compare
verbal claims with behavior. Nonetheless
having different and more participants in
each phase would enhance generalizabil-
ity. Larger studies, replicating each re-
search phase, are needed.
The current study also does not iden-
tify sufficiently the Viral Mavens and In-
frequent Senders. Future research can
profile types of viral participants and mem-
bers of all relevant subtypes. If detailed
behavioral and psychographic profiles are
developed, advertisers can target those
valuable Viral Mavens and Infrequent
Senders more easily. Of particular value
would he a large-scale psychographic seg-
mentation study that used consumers' at-
titudes and motivations to predict infection
rates for varying message strains.
The present study also could not test
specific message strains among identified
targets. Clearly, a well-designed experi-
ment would help researchers understand
how to trigger online (and offline) behav-
ior through viral marketing. Such an ex-
periment would raise ethical questions
about consumer privacy, however. The
experimenter would need to track the
message from its creation through each
successful pass-along phase. In addition,
it would be difficult to fully inform the
participants of this tracking without hav-
ing that knowledge alter behavior. Carry-
ing out this experiment without the
consumers' knowledge and consent may
sound innocent. Nonetheless, consumers
have expressed outrage over perceived
privacy invasions on numerous occa-
sions and seem especially concerned about
online privacy (Fox et al., 2000). If, how-
evet, pretests suggest that consumers re-
act normally after being fully informed
of the tracking mechanism, and a method
is developed to inform each pass-along
recipient, then much could be learned
from this work.
Of course, monitoring of chat rooms
and newsgroups already takes place. New-
man (1999) has outlined methods for
analyzing word-of-mouth exchanges un-
obtrusively. Tliese approaches could be
fruitful in email research as long as ethi-
cal concerns are addressed. Regardless of
how much Ls learned about "what works,"
developing a fuller understanding of vi-
ral marketing will require scholars to pro-
vide theoretical explanations for why and
how it works. A number of research
streams could prove helpful. An example
is diffusion-of-information research (see
Rogers, 2000).
In addition, a key tenet of viral market-
ing is the belief that consumer-to-consumer
communication is open and honest. Un-
like traditional advertising, viral mes-
sages may be credible because the
communicator's motivation is pro-social
(to educate or to help) rather than pro-
business (to acquire new customers). The
communicator is prompted to speak by
the quality of the product or service, not
for reasons that would undercut the rec-
ommendation. Clearly research examin-
ing the influence of source characteristics
could prove useful.
Some companies have begun offering
incentives to spark viral marketing. Con-
sumers are paid, for example, if they con-
vert new customers. Or, they receive
discounts if they send a certain number of
emails to friends. Compensation could di-
lute the power of the recommendation if
recipients were aware of it. Future work
might focus on the effects of rewards on
variables such as the trustworthiness of
the source so that marketers more accu-
rately can weigh the benefits of sparking
"buzz" against the dilution of source
credibility
3 4 6 DF ROUERTISinU RESERRCR December 2 0 0 4
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
Finally, consumers who are particularlymvoived in pass-along email may adhereto a new type of "social contract." Fuelingthese contracts is a reciprocity norm, whichdictates that ii someone does something foryou, you are obligated to return a favor.Associations between pass-along emailingand adherence to social contracts are toocomplex to have been covered within re-search reported here. Because this dynamicappears alive and well, particularly amongViral Mavens, it merits examination. Obvi-ously, many unanswered questions exist re-garding viral marketing. Nonetheless, thework presented here assesses the motiva-tions and behaviors of viral consumers. Formarketers, its key implications relate to thetargeting and creation of viral messages. Forscholars, this work may provide a usefulfirst step to better understand viral phe-nomena, and the suggestions for future re-search may point to fruitful avenues forinvestigation. (^
JOSEPH E. PHEIJ>S holds the Reese Phlfer Professor-
ship in Advertising and Public Relations at The Univer-
sity of Alabama. He received hts M.A. and Ph.D.
degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and
his B.A. from Saint Norbert College. His current re-
search interests include examining computer-
mediated consumer-to-consumer communication and
privacy issues relating to the use of consumer infor-
mation. Prof. Phelps has published in a variety of
marketing and advertising journals. He served as
editor of voiumes 1-3 of Frontiers of Direc! & Inter-
active Markethg Research. He currently serves on the
Editorial Review Boards of the Journal of Current Is-
sues & Research in Advertising, the Journal of Inter-
active AOvertisIng, the Journal of Advertising Education.
the Newspaper Research Journal, and the International
Journal of Internet Marheting and Advertising. In 1999.
the Direct Marketing Educational Foundation selected
Prof. Phelps as the Outstanding Direct Marketing
Educator. He served as head of the Actvertising Divi-
sion of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication and as president of the
American Academy of Advertising.
REQINA UWIS is director of consumer and brand in-
sights at Dunkin' Brands. Inc., where her strategic
research responsibilities span Dunkin' Donuts, Baskin
Robbins. and Togo's. In her role, she oversees ail
branding/positioning research, actvertising effective-
ness research, store experience testing, new-product
concept testing, psychographic segmentation, sensory
research, and much more. Prior to accepting her cur-
rent position. Dr. Lewis was a partner in Lewis/
Mobilio Research, a boutique market research firm
whose long-term clients spanned Amazon.com, Glaxo-
SmittiKline. lSOORowers. and Pfizer. Prior to that, she
was director of research at Women.com Networks,
where she pioneered myriad online research capabili-
ties and built marketing research as a revenue
stream. Dr. Lewis earned her Ph,D. in mass communi-
cation research from UNC Chape! Hill and an MBA
from Columbia.
MoBiuo is the cofounder of Lewis/Mobilio Re-
search, She holds a Ph.D. in social psychology and is
well versed in the theoretical underpinnings of atti-
tudes, persuasion, motivation, and behavior change.
She specializes in creating customized research
programs—including a full range of advertising effec-
tiveness work, psychograpfiic segmentation, usability
testing, and concept/message testing—to help clients
optimize their marketing strategies. In addition to the
market research arena. Dr. Mobilio works with Applied
Survey Research, a nonprofit organization dedicated
to helping people build better communities by provid-
ing meaningful assessments and outcome evalua-
tions for use in effective community planning.
DAVID K. PERRY is an associate professor of journal-
ism at The University of Alabama, His doctorate is
from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His publica-
tions include two authored books, one edited book,
and numerous articles in joumals such as Communi-
cation Research, Education and Culture, the Journalism
Quarterly, and the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media. His current research interests focus on media
effects, media criticism, and the relationships be-
tween communication scholars and the broader soci-
eties in which they live.
"NICK" RAMAN is vice president at ImpactRx
Inc. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at
Austin, His research interests include information
processing and consumer behavior in electronic me
dia. and his work has been published in the European
Journal of Marketing and in Advances in Consumer
Researcfi.
REFERENCES
ARNDT, JOHAN. "Role of Product-Related Con-
versations in Ihe Diffusion of a New Product."
lournnl of Marketing Research 4, 3 (1967); 291-95.
BUSH, MICHAEL, "'Grincli' Effort Hopes to Steal
Moviegoers." Dhrct MurAv/yiiy Ni'U's, August
21, 2000.
EiGHMFv, JOHN, and LOLA MCCORD. "Adding
Value in the Information Age: Uses and Grati-
fications of Sites on the World Wide Web."
}ciinial of Business Research 41, 3 (1998): 187-94.
FEICK, LAWRENCE F,, and LINDA L, PRICE. "Tlie
Market Maven; A Diffuser of Marketplace In-
formation." joiirm! of Marketing 51, 1 (1987):
83-97.
Fox, SUSANNAH, LKE RAiNit, JOHN HORRICAN,
AMANDA LENHART, TOM SPOONER, and CORNE-
LIA CARTER. "Trust and Privacy Online; Why
Americans Want to Rewrite the Rules." The
Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2000:
|URL; www.pewintemet.org/], accessed on Sep-
tember 11, 2000.
GLADWELL, MALCOLM. The Tipping t'oinh How
Little T/ij>r\'. Can Make n Bi;^ Difference. New
York; Little, Brnwn and Company, 2000.
GOD[N,SETH. ilnlenshing the iiiciroirus. New York:
Do You Zoom, Inc., 2000.
KNIGHT, CHRISTOPHER. "Viral Marketing," Board-
Magazine, 1999: [URL; www.boardwatch.
December 2004 RESKH 347
PASS-ALONG EMAIL
com/mag/99/nov/bwm50.htnil l , accessed on
September 4, 2000.
KoRGAONKAR, PRADEEP K,, and LORI D. WOLIN.
"A Multjvariate Analysis of Web Usage." four-
nal of Advertising Research 39, 2 (1999); 53-68.
MADDEN, MARY. "America's OnUne Pursuits:
Tlie Changing Picture of Who's Online and
What They Do," 2003: [URL: h t tp : / /www.
pewintemet.orgl.
MODZELEWSKI, F. MARK. "Finding a Cure for
Viral Marketing." Direct Marketing Neiiv, Sep-
tember n , 201)0.
NEWMAN, PETER J., |R. "When Windows Re-
place Walls: Investigating Virtual Word of Mouth
Exchanges and Constructing Multilogue Pro-
files." In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
26, Eric ], Amould and Linda M. Scott, eds,
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Re-
search, 1999.
PARKER, PAMELA. "Achoo! Getting Viral with
Rich Media," 2000; (URL: www.turboads,
cum/richmedia_news/2000rmn/rmn20000822.
shtml], accessed on September 4, 2000.
PASTORE, MICHAEL. "The Value of Word of
Mouth," 2000; [URL; http://adres.intemet.com/
feature/article/0,1401,8961_395371,00.htm]], ac-
cessed on September 4, 2000.
PRICE, LINDA L., and LAWHENCE F. FEICK. "The
Role of IntCTpersonal Sources in External Search:
An lnfomiational Perspective." In Advances in
Consumer Research. Vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear,
ed. Arm Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 1984.
PRIORE, TONY. "The Fall, Rise of E-Mail Re-
sponse Rates." Direct Marketing Neivs, Septem-
ber 4, 2000.
ERs. S., and K. M. SHI-LOON. "An Im*
pro\ed Way to Characterize Internet Users."
nii! of Advertising Research 42, 5 (2002); 85-94.
ROGERS, EVERETT M . "Reflections on News Event
Diffusion Research," journalism & Mass Comtini-
uknlion Qmrteriy 77. 3 (2000); 561-76,
ROGERS, EVERETT M . Diffusion of Innovations,
4th ed. New York; The Free Press, 1995.
ROSEN, HMANUEL. The Anatomy of Buzz: Hoio to
Create Word-of-Mouth Mnrketing, New York:
Doubleday, 2000,
RUBIN, R. B,, F,. M . PERSE, and C. A, BARBATO,
"Conceptualization and Measurement of Inter-
personal Communication Motives." Human Civn-
munication Resemdi 14, 4 (1988); 602-28.
SHEEHAN, K, B. "Of Surfing, Searching, and
Newshounds: A Typology of Internet Users'
Online Sessions," journal of Advertising Research
42, 5 (2002): 62-71.
SHIRKY, CLAY. "The Toughest Virus of AM,"
Business 2.0, July 25,2000.
STAFFORD, T. F., and M. R, STAFFORD. "Uses
and Gratifications of tiie World Wide Web; A
Preliminary Study." In The Proceedings of the
1998 Conference ofthe Ameriav! Academy of Ad-
vertising, D. D, Muehling, ed. Pullman, WA;
Washington State University, 1998.
UDHLL, J. G. "Prepurchase Behavior of Buyers
of Small Electrical Appliances." journal of Mar-
keting 30, 4 (1966): 50-52,
ZINKHAN, G . M. , H . KWAK, M. MORRISON, and
C, O. PETERS. "Web-Based Chatting: Consumer
Communication in Cyberspace." journal of Con-
sumer Psychology 13, 1&2 (2003); 17-27.
348 Lor RESEIIRCH December 2 0 0 4
