User-generated content, such as word of mouth, traditionally has been immune to firm influences. However, companies have recently started developing content and encouraging consumers to post it rather than relying solely on organic consumer-generated content. Such firm-generated user content (FGUC), which consumers can share easily, potentially alters their sharing behavior by providing specific language to be included in users’ posts. In investigating the effectiveness of FGUC, the current research addresses if and when consumers share this content and whether they alter it. It also identifies which mechanisms drive sharing decisions and the moderating effects of satisfaction. With a series of lab and field studies, the authors demonstrate that providing FGUC increases the likelihood that consumers share a post about their brand experience, by making the sharing process easier. It also tempers the extent to which dissatisfied consumers share posts, by creating incongruence with their experience. This initial, extensive assessment of the emerging FGUC phenomenon offers relevant guidance for marketers regarding when and how to use this novel tool and the potential implications for consumer welfare.
AhluwaliaRohini (2002), “How Prevalent Is the Negativity Effect in Consumer Environments?” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 270–79.
2.
Allied Market Research (2023), “User Generated Content Platform Market Size, Share, Competitive Landscape and Trend Analysis Report, by Product Type, by End User: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2023-2032,” (accessed December 12, 2024), https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/user-generated-content-platform-market-A74614.
3.
AndersonEugene W. (1998), “Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth,” Journal of Service Research, 1 (1), 5–17.
4.
AppelGilGrewalLaurenHadiRhondaStephenAndrew T. (2020), “The Future of Social Media in Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 (1), 79–95.
5.
Babić RosarioAnade ValckKristineSotgiuFrancesca (2020), “Conceptualizing the Electronic Word-of-Mouth Process: What We Know and Need to Know About eWOM Creation, Exposure, and Evaluation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 (3), 422–48.
6.
Babić RosarioAnaSotgiuFrancescaValckKristine DeBijmoltTammo H.A. (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.
7.
BansalHarvir S.TaylorShirley F.St. JamesYannik (2005), “‘Migrating’ to New Service Providers: Toward a Unifying Framework of Consumers’ Switching Behaviors,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (1), 96–115.
8.
BergerJonah (2014), “Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication: A Review and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (4), 586–607.
9.
BergerJonahHumphreysAshleeLudwigStephenMoeWendy W.NetzerOdedSchweidelDavid A. (2020), “Uniting the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (1), 1–25.
10.
BerryLeonard L.SeidersKathleenGrewalDhruv (2002), “Understanding Service Convenience,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 1–17.
11.
BettmanJames R.LuceMary FrancesPayneJohn W. (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 187–217.
12.
BrownChristina L.KrishnaAradhna (2004), “The Skeptical Shopper: A Metacognitive Account for the Effects of Default Options on Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 529–39.
13.
CampbellMargaret C.GoodsteinRonald C. (2001), “The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Evaluations of Product Incongruity: Preference for the Norm,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 439–49.
14.
CheemaAmarKaikatiAndrew M. (2010), “The Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 553–63.
15.
DaggerTracey S.DanaherPeter J. (2014), “Comparing the Effect of Store Remodeling on New and Existing Customers,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 62–80.
16.
DellarocasChrysanthos (2003), “The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms,” Management Science, 49 (10), 1407–24.
17.
DostFlorianPhielerUlrikeHaenleinMichaelLibaiBarak (2019), “Seeding as Part of the Marketing Mix: Word-of-Mouth Program Interactions for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (2), 62–81.
EpleyNicholasGilovichThomas (2006), “The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient,” Psychological Science, 17 (4), 311–8.
20.
FisherNicholas I.KordupleskiRaymond E. (2019), “Good and Bad Market Research: A Critical Review of Net Promoter Score,” Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 35 (1), 138–51.
21.
FiskeSusan T.TaylorShelley (1984), Social Cognition. Addison-Wesley.
22.
FitzsimonsGavan J.LehmannDonald R. (2004), “Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses,” Marketing Science, 23 (1), 82–94.
23.
GarbarinoEllen C.EdellJulie A. (1997), “Cognitive Effort, Affect, and Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 147–58.
24.
GoswamiIndranilUrminskyOleg (2016), “When Should the Ask Be a Nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (5), 829–46.
25.
GrégoireYanyTrippThomas M.LegouxRenaud (2009), “When Customer Love Turns Into Lasting Hate: The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time on Customer Revenge and Avoidance,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 18–32.
26.
HaenleinMichaelLibaiBarak (2017), “Seeding, Referral, and Recommendation: Creating Profitable Word-of-Mouth Programs,” California Management Review, 59 (2), 68–91.
27.
HayesAndrew F. (2022), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed. Guilford Press.
28.
Hennig-ThurauThorstenGwinnerKevin P.WalshGianfrancoGremlerDwayne D. (2004), “Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet?” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (1), 38–52.
29.
HumphreysAshleeWangRebecca Jen-Hui (2018), “Automated Text Analysis for Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1274–306.
30.
JungMiyeonRyuSunghanHanSang PilChoDaegon (2023), “Ask for Reviews at the Right Time: Evidence from Two Field Experiments,” Journal of Marketing, 87 (4), 528–49.
31.
KozinetsRobert V.De ValckKristineWojnickiAndrea C.WilnerSarah J. (2010), “Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 71–89.
32.
KumarAshishBezawadaRamRishikaRishikaJanakiramanRamkumarKannanP.K. (2016), “From Social to Sale: The Effects of Firm-Generated Content in Social Media on Customer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (1), 7–25.
33.
LambertonCaitStephenAndrew T. (2016), “A Thematic Exploration of Digital, Social Media, and Mobile Marketing: Research Evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an Agenda for Future Inquiry,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (6), 146–72.
34.
LichtensteinDonald R.NetemeyerRichard G.BurtonScot (1990), “Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), 54–67.
35.
MandlerGeorge (1982), “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste,” in Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium, ClarkMargaret S.FiskeSusan T., eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–36.
36.
MeireMatthijsHewettKellyBallingsMichelKumarV.Van den PoelDirk (2019), “The Role of Marketer-Generated Content in Customer Engagement Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (6), 21–42.
37.
Meyers-LevyJoaTyboutAlice M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 39–54.
38.
MorgesonForrest V.IIIHultG. Tomas M.SharmaUditFornellClaes (2023), “The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI): A Sample Dataset and Description,” Data in Brief, 48, 109–23.
39.
ParkC. WhanJunSung YoulMacInnisDeborah J. (2000), “Choosing What I Want Versus Rejecting What I Do Not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (2), 187–202.
PennebakerJames W.BoydRyan L.JordanKaylaBlackburnKate (2015), The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin.
42.
RiceDan HamiltonKeltingKatieLutzRichard J. (2012), “Multiple Endorsers and Multiple Endorsements: The Influence of Message Repetition, Source Congruence and Involvement on Brand Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2), 249–59.
43.
RyuGangseogFeickLawrence (2007), “A Penny for Your Thoughts: Referral Reward Programs and Referral Likelihood,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 84–94.
44.
SchmittPhilippSkieraBerndVan den BulteChristoph (2011), “Referral Programs and Customer Value,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 46–59.
45.
ShockerAllan D.Ben-AkivaMosheBoccaraBrunoNedungadiPrakash (1991), “Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions,” Marketing Letters, 2 (3), 181–97.
46.
SunYachengDongXiaojingMcIntyreShelby (2017), “Motivation of User-Generated Content: Social Connectedness Moderates the Effects of Monetary Rewards,” Marketing Science, 36 (3), 329–37.
47.
TangTanyaFangEricWangFeng (2014), “Is Neutral Really Neutral? The Effects of Neutral User-Generated Content on Product Sales,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 41–58.
48.
TirunillaiSeshadriTellisGerard J. (2012), “Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance,” Marketing Science, 31 (2), 198–215.
49.
ToniettoGabriela N.BaraschAlixandra (2021), “Generating Content Increases Enjoyment by Immersing Consumers and Accelerating Perceived Time,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (6), 83–100.
50.
TrusovMichaelBucklinRandolph E.PauwelsKoen (2009), “Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 90–102.
51.
TuckerCatherine E. (2014), “Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (5), 546–62.
52.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1973), “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 5 (2), 207–32.
53.
TyboutAlice M.SternthalBrianMalaviyaPrashantBakamitsosGeorgios A.ParkSe-Bum (2005), “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Judgments: The Role of Content Versus Retrieval Ease,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 76–85.
54.
Van DoornJennyLemonKatherine N.MittalVikasNassStephanPickDoreenPirnerPeterVerhoefPeter C. (2010), “Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 253–66.
55.
YouYaVadakkepattGautham G.JoshiAmit M. (2015), “A Meta-Analysis of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Elasticity,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 19–39.
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.
