A sizable portion of online movie reviews contain spoilers, defined as information that prematurely resolves plot uncertainty. In this research, the authors study the consequences of spoiler reviews using data on box office revenue and online word of mouth for movies released in the United States. To capture the degree of information in spoiler review text that reduces plot uncertainty, the authors propose a spoiler intensity metric and measure it using a correlated topic model. Using a dynamic panel model with movie fixed effects and instrumental variables, the authors find a significant and positive relationship between spoiler intensity and box office revenue with an elasticity of .06. The positive effect of spoiler intensity is greater for movies with a limited release, smaller advertising spending, and moderate user ratings, and is stronger in the earlier days after the movie’s release. Using an event study and online experiments, the authors provide further evidence that spoiler reviews can help consumers reduce their uncertainty about the quality of movies, consequently encouraging theater visits. Thus, movie studios may benefit from consumers’ access to plot-intense reviews and should actively monitor the content of spoiler reviews to better forecast box office performance.
AlbaJoseph W.WilliamsElanor F. (2013), “Pleasure Principles: A Review of Research on Hedonic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (1), 2–18.
2.
AndersonTheodore W.HsiaoCheng (1981), “Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76 (375), 598–606.
3.
AndersonTheodore W.HsiaoCheng (1982), “Formulation and Estimation of Dynamic Models Using Panel Data,” Journal of Econometrics, 18 (1), 47–82.
4.
Babić RosarioAnaSotgiuFrancescaDe ValckKristineBijmoltTammo HA (2016), “The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Sales: A Meta-Analytic Review of Platform, Product, and Metric Factors,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (3), 297–318.
5.
BagwellKyle (2007), “The Economic Analysis of Advertising,” in Handbook of Industrial Organization, ArmstrongMarkPorterRobert, eds, 1st ed, Vol. 3, Chap. 28. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1701–844.
6.
BasuroySumanDesaiKalpesh K.TalukdarDebabrata (2006), “An Empirical Investigation of Signaling in the Motion Picture Industry,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (2), 287–95.
7.
BleiDavid M.LaffertyJohn (2005), “Correlated Topic Models,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 147–54.
8.
BleiDavid M.LaffertyJohn (2007), “A Correlated Topic Model of Science,” The Annals of Applied Statistics, 1 (1), 17–35.
9.
BleiDavid M.NgAndrew Y.JordanMichael I. (2003), “Latent Dirichlet Allocation,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
10.
BlundellRichardBondStephen (1998), “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 87 (1), 115–43.
11.
BlundellJonathanGerrishSeanWangChongBoyd-GraberJordan L.BleiDavid M. (2009), “Reading Tea Leaves: How Humans Interpret Topic Models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 288–96.
12.
ChevalierJudith A.MayzlinDina (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 345–54.
13.
ChintaguntaPradeep K.GopinathShyamVenkataramanSriram (2010), “The Effects of Online User Reviews on Movie Box Office Performance: Accounting for Sequential Rollout and Aggregation Across Local Markets,” Marketing Science, 29 (5), 944–57.
14.
ClemonsEric K.GaoGuodong GordonHittLorin M. (2006), “When Online Reviews Meet Hyperdifferentiation: A Study of the Craft Beer Industry,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 23 (2), 149–71.
15.
DeightonJohnRomerDanielMcQueenJosh (1989), “Using Drama to Persuade,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 335–43.
16.
DellarocasChrysanthos (2003), “The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms,” Management Science, 49 (10), 1407–24.
17.
DellarocasChrysanthosZhangXiaoquanAwadNeveen F. (2007), “Exploring the Value of Online Product Reviews in Forecasting Sales: The Case of Motion Pictures,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21 (4), 23–45.
18.
DuanWenjingBinGuWhinstonAndrew B. (2008), “Do Online Reviews Matter? An Empirical Investigation of Panel Data,” Decision Support Systems, 45 (4), 1007–16.
19.
ElyJeffreyFrankelAlexanderKamenicaEmir (2015), “Suspense and Surprise,” Journal of Political Economy, 123 (1), 215–60.
20.
FellmanDaniel R. (2006), “Theatrical Distribution,” in The Movie Business Book, Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill, 362–74.
21.
GelperSarahPeresRenanaEliashbergJehoshua (2018), “Talk Bursts: The Role of Spikes in Prerelease Word-of-Mouth Dynamics,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (6), 801–17.
22.
GodesDavidMayzlinDina (2004), “Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication,” Marketing Science, 23 (4), 545–60.
23.
GodesDavidSilvaJosé C. (2012), “Sequential and Temporal Dynamics of Online Opinion,” Marketing Science, 31 (3), 448–73.
24.
GohKhim-YongHengCheng-SuangLinZhijie (2013), “Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content,” Information Systems Research, 24 (1), 88–107.
25.
GopinathShyamThomasJacquelyn S.KrishnamurthiLakshman (2014), “Investigating the Relationship Between the Content of Online Word of Mouth, Advertising, and Brand Performance,” Marketing Science, 33 (2), 241–58.
26.
Hennig-ThurauThorstenWiertzCarolineFeldhausFabian (2015), “Does Twitter Matter? The Impact of Microblogging Word of Mouth on Consumers’ Adoption of New Movies,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 375–94.
27.
HochStephen J.HaYoung-Won (1986), “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 221–33.
28.
HolbrookMorris B. (1999), “Popular Appeal Versus Expert Judgments of Motion Pictures,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (2), 144–55.
JohnsonBenjamin K.RosenbaumJudith E. (2015), “Spoiler Alert: Consequences of Narrative Spoilers for Dimensions of Enjoyment, Appreciation, and Transportation,” Communication Research, 42 (8), 1068–88.
31.
KeeleLukeKellyNathan J. (2006), “Dynamic Models for Dynamic Theories: The Ins and Outs of Lagged Dependent Variables,” Political Analysis, 14 (2), 186–205.
32.
KerriganFinola (2017), Film Marketing. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
33.
KimYoungsooKrishnanRamayya (2015), “On Product-Level Uncertainty and Online Purchase Behavior: An Empirical Analysis,” Management Science, 61 (10), 2449–67.
LeavittJonathanChristenfeldNicholas (2013), “The Fluency of Spoilers: Why Giving Away Endings Improves Stories,” Scientific Study of Literature, 3 (1), 93–104.
LiXinxinHittLorin M. (2008), “Self-Selection and Information Role of Online Product Reviews,” Information Systems Research, 19 (4), 456–74.
39.
LiuXiaoSinghParam VirSrinivasanKannan (2016), “A Structured Analysis of Unstructured Big Data by Leveraging Cloud Computing,” Marketing Science, 35 (3), 363–88.
40.
LiuYong (2006), “Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 74–89.
41.
LuShijieWangXinBendleNeil (2020), “Does Piracy Create Online Word of Mouth? An Empirical Analysis in the Movie Industry,” Management Science, 66 (5), 2140–62.
42.
MoonSangkilBergeyPaul K.IacobucciDawn (2010), “Dynamic Effects Among Movie Ratings, Movie Revenues, and Viewer Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (1), 108–21.
43.
MudambiSusan M.SchuffDavid (2010), “Research Note: What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.com,” MIS Quarterly, 34 (1), 185–200.
44.
NetzerOdedLemaireAlainHerzensteinMichal (2019), “When Words Sweat: Identifying Signals for Loan Default in the Text of Loan Applications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (6), 960–80.
45.
NickellStephen (1981), “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects,” Econometrica, 49 (6), 1417–26.
46.
OlsonGary M.MackRobert L.DuffySusan A. (1981), “Cognitive Aspects of Genre,” Poetics, 10 (2/3), 283–315.
47.
RobertsMargaret E.StewartBrandon M.AiroldiEdoardo M. (2016), “A Model of Text for Experimentation in the Social Sciences,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111 (515), 988–1003.
48.
SeilerStephanYaoSongWangWenbo (2017), “Does Online Word of Mouth Increase Demand? (and How?) Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” Marketing Science, 36 (6), 838–61.
49.
SunMonic (2012), “How Does the Variance of Product Ratings Matter?” Management Science, 58 (4), 696–707.
50.
TangTanyaFangEricWangFeng (2014), “Is Neutral Really Neutral? The Effects of Neutral User-Generated Content on Product Sales,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 41–58.
51.
TirunillaiSeshadriTellisGerard J. (2014), “Mining Marketing Meaning from Online Chatter: Strategic Brand Analysis of Big Data Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 463–79.
52.
TrottierDavid (1998), The Screenwriter’s Bible: A Complete Guide to Writing, Formatting. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.
53.
WangXinBendleNeil T.MaiFengCotteJune (2015), “The Journal of Consumer Research at 40: A Historical Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 5–18.
54.
ZillmannDolf (1995), “Mechanisms of Emotional Involvement with Drama,” Poetics, 23 (1/2), 33–51.
55.
ZillmannDolfAlan HayT.BryantJennings (1975), “The Effect of Suspense and its Resolution on the Appreciation of Dramatic Presentations,” Journal of Research in Personality, 9 (4), 307–23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
