Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) has gained popularity due to the fact that people can communicate and discuss brands through emotive expressions, remarks, and reviews regardless of their distance. The purpose and objectives of this study are to determine how e-WOM factors, such as brand image, brand awareness, and brand loyalty based on trust, influence brand equity. The study’s methodology included both qualitative and quantitative research to examine consumers’ perspectives and generalize the findings, respectively. For qualitative research on e-WOM variables, both in-depth interviews and focus groups are utilized. The next stage is to collect online responses from 410 participants and evaluate their relationships using a structural equation modeling (SEM) model. The findings suggest that content quality, the number of reviews, norm conflict, and sponsored recommendations are the characteristics that generate e-WOM and enhance the ability to establish trust in these reviews. This enhances the brand equity of digital businesses. This demonstrates the factors that managers should emphasize in order to enhance the positive effects of e-WOM and thereby increase brand equity.

Keywords

brand image brand awareness brand loyalty content quality number of reviews norm conflict sponsored recommendations source expertise

Introduction

Consumers are progressively incorporating smart apps into their daily lives, and the application space is expanding (Sánchez-Corcuera et al., 2019). A growing number of people are using e-commerce sites like Shopee, Lazada, and Tiki, as well as online businesses offering services through sophisticated application platforms like Baemin, Grab, Spotify, and Netflix (Statista, 2022). According to a Bain & Company estimate, a company’s profitability can grow by 25% with a 5% increase in client retention (Forbes, 2020). Consumers often examine reviews left by past purchasers before making a purchase. The definition of eWOM is “the dynamic and ongoing information exchange process between potential, actual, or former consumers regarding a product, service, brand, or company that is available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” (Ismagilova et al., 2017, p. 5). Customers may connect and debate items with e-WOM regardless of their geographic location using emotional expressions, comments, and reviews (Craciun et al., 2020). Given how much customers depend on word of mouth, the adoption of e-WOM has had a tremendous impact on advertising (Moradi & Zihagh, 2022). Online consumer reviews rank as the second-most reliable source of brand information, making them crucial for firms to closely monitor (Tran & Strutton, 2020).

E-WOM has several disadvantages, including its slowness, limited customer reach, difficulty in measurement, and publication of negative customer feedback (Hussain et al., 2018). As employee accounts are quite personal, brand employees need time to introduce products and services to others and within their network, even when using social networks. The account for the brand has few consumers (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Customers pay close attention to the information because they always assume it is advertising. e-EWOM’s ability to reach potential consumers, particularly those who follow through on business accounts, is quite limited. It is challenging for customers to receive news if they do not follow the brand (Hancock et al., 2023). It is challenging to measure word-of-mouth marketing because consumers can read without commenting, liking, or sharing; only reach can be measured (Harrison-Walker, 2001). If a consumer has a negative experience, online word-of-mouth advertising can fail. If a dissatisfied customer informs you that she will inform others, you will be aware. This is concerning because you are unable to assist and satisfy this customer. Furthermore, negative information is more infectious than positive information (Hancock et al., 2023). Despite these drawbacks, the function of E-WOM in digital platform operations and increasing competitiveness remains vital. Therefore, it is essential for businesses to acquire the competencies required to establish trust for e-WOM.

Previous research on e-WOM focused mostly on the influence of e-WOM on consumers’ purchase choices (Verma et al., 2023), while other studies highlighted the implications of e-WOM on brands. e-WOM can help improve brands through personality, social, and informational characteristics, thereby building trust (Dwivedi et al., 2021). e-WOM can help improve brands through personality, social and informational characteristics, thereby building trust (Leong et al., 2022). It is exclusively focused on brand image (Teresa Borges-Tiago et al., 2021), brand perception, and brand loyalty (Bhandari et al., 2021).

However, previous studies have not explained how factors affect e-WOM consumer issues, how consumers comprehensively evaluate e-WOM, or why e-WOM may increase brand equity. Previous studies still lack the combination of all factors, such as content quality (Chan et al., 2020), source expertise (Leong et al., 2022), and volume of review, to build trust for e-WOM. Some reviews indicate conflicting ideas; however, they can create multidimensional information that helps consumers make the right decisions (Sagynbekova et al., 2021; Verma et al., 2023). Previous studies have not focused on factors that build credibility for e-WOM, specifically review quality, reviewer’s information source, and number of reviews (Leong et al., 2022; Litvin et al., 2018). Some reviews will have conflicting opinions, but precisely this conflict can create a multi-dimensional source of information, thereby helping to build the quality of word of mouth (Gerrath et al., 2023; Shi et al., 2019). As long as conflicts and controversies in reviews still ensure social standards, it will bring positive value (Ahmad & Guzmán, 2021).

As a result, the goal of this study is to look at how e-WOM affects brand equity (which includes three components: brand image, brand awareness, and brand loyalty), brand trust, and the influence of factors affecting trust in e-WOM. e-WOM is a low-cost type of marketing, and marketers must constantly develop successful tactics for low-budget businesses. It is crucial to identify the elements that make e-WOM more trustworthy. Specifically, the study answers the following questions:

• What role does e-WOM play in the development of brand equity?

• What are the different aspects of online word-of-mouth that contribute to its reliability?

• In what ways do these different aspects influence e-WOM?

This research will conduct two studies, the first of which is a qualitative investigation into the e-WOM factors that consumers care about in relation to brand equity. In order to predict the influence of e-WOM on brand equity in a general sense, the study will construct a research model based on the variables proposed through interviews and a review of the relevant literature using consumer feedback.

Theoretical Background

Brand Equity Concepts

Brand equity is a term that refers to the intangible value of goods and services, and it has recently been expanded to assess the brands of cities and nations (Keller, 2003). Brand equity comprises brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty, and consumer perception of quality. According to Aaker (1991), brand awareness is the capacity of prospective purchasers to identify or remember that a brand is a trademark for a certain product category. Brand awareness is regarded as a significant aspect of boosting cognitive capacity, from ignorance to recall. Brand awareness encourages customer commitment to a brand and has a high correlation with brand loyalty (Keller, 2003). Keller defines brand image as the view of a brand that reflects the existing consumer associations in the customer’s mind (Keller, 2003). Brand image is the characteristic that distinguishes one brand from another (Ghodeswar, 2008). Brand loyalty is a consumer’s strong commitment to repurchase a preferred product or service (Akroush & Mahadin, 2019).

In this study, brand equity is a dependent variable that e-WOM influences through the intermediary variable of trust (Sijoria et al., 2018). This study will examine how e-WOM’s trust enhancement can increase loyalty, awareness, and brand image. In this study, we have enhanced the prior customer-based brand equity models presented by Keller (1993) by integrating brand awareness, brand image, and brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is the primary foundation for building brand value. Brand loyalty is one of the components of a customer-based brand equity model. A good brand can also attract and retain customers; it is essential for the company to retain its present customers and earn their loyalty (Khan et al., 2022) ) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Brand equity model of Aaker (1991).

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM)

Word-of-mouth (WOM) is considered one of the most significant means of information dissemination (Barreda et al., 2015). WOM is a personal, informal, and noncommercial form of communication about a company, product, or brand that occurs between consumers and whose sources are regarded as being free from commercial influence (Kahraman & Kazançoğlu, 2019). Electronic word-of-mouth is the name of this new phenomenon (e-WOM). Customers communicating with one another over the Internet or other information technology-based platforms is known as electronic word of mouth (e-WOM) (Ismagilova et al., 2021; Petrescu et al., 2023). Customers may now share their product-related experiences on the Internet through e-mail, message boards, chat rooms, forums, fan clubs, brands, and user groups (Bhandari et al., 2021). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) define e-WOM as comments made about a product or company by potential customers, existing customers, and prior customers that are made accessible to a large number of people and enterprises through the Internet (Tang, 2017). Previous studies have examined the function of brand-related e-WOM as a function of sharing media, including movies, videos, and images, on social networks, media websites, and businesses’ websites, as well as the practice of sharing purchase experiences, comments, or online reviews of people who have used the brand (Bui et al., 2022; Sijoria et al., 2018). In this study, e-WOM serves as a mediator between online brand equity and consumer trust.

This research consists of two steps: qualitative research initially, followed by quantitative research. From the customer’s perspective, qualitative research is needed to determine which aspects boost brand image and the effects of e-WOM on brand image enhancement. Once the interview’s critical factors have been confirmed, this will show that the data is accurate. Brand equity as intangible brand assets is associated with brand-name recognition, brand beliefs, brand loyalty, perceived brand quality, and positive brand symbolism, as well as competitive advantage and future profits (Sun et al., 2020). E-WOM can either increase or decrease brand equity (Aoki et al., 2019). Consequently, e-WOM will not always have a positive effect on brand equity. Previous research has not examined the factors that increase e-WOM, thereby enhancing brand equity by boosting trust. This study will examine the relationship between e-WOM and brand equity through trust building, focusing on the aforementioned gaps.

Study 1: Qualitative Study

Qualitative Research Method

Data Collection

A qualitative method was used to find out how e-WOM affects the value of a brand for online companies and how consumers feel about the things that affect how they feel about e-WOM. Corbin (1998) says that qualitative research is mostly used to figure out how people act, not to project their actions or opinions. The research used a semi-structured interview, a planned sampling method, and a theoretical sample of participants, most of whom were Ho Chi Minh City students who used internet brands and knew a lot about this type of business. Five individual respondents and two interview groups, all between the ages of 19 and 22, were interviewed. The interviews lasted between 10 and 15 minutes and took place in September 2022. We chose to employ an online interview form with video recording due to the complexity of the COVID-19 outbreak and to secure the safety of both interviewers and respondents, as well as interviewee confidentiality and consent to its use.

Five respondents participated in in-depth interviews for the purpose of gaining customer insights. Nielsen and Landauer (1993) developed a mathematical model demonstrating that 85% of interface problems can be identified by conducting a qualitative evaluation with five participants. After that, we conducted group interviews with two groups of five individuals each in order to obtain the respondents’ perspectives on multiple dimensions. Each research group should consist of 4 to 12 individuals, but in order to conduct the interview more efficiently, we have created two groups so that the focus group has ten participants (Carson et al., 2001). We randomly divided the respondents into two interview groups and arranged the interviews based on their availability.

Question Design

The offered questions served as a guide for the interview. However, because this research used a semi-structured interview format, the participants were free to say what they thought and could change how they answered. At the beginning of the interview, theoretical information about e-WOM and the definition of brand equity, according to Keller (2003), was given to make sure our respondents understood the idea and cognitive stimulus. Next, the interviewer will ask nine open-ended questions related to the research goal for the article. This study will explore the subject and compile informants’ viewpoints and ideas.

In order to explore characteristics of brand equity and how e-WOM can enhance them to anwer “What role does e-WOM play in the development of brand equity?,” we designed the followwing questions:

Question 1: What aspects of an online brand will pique your interest as you begin to learn about it?

Reason: The question is designed to determine whether the interviewee is aware of the brand when using the product, as well as what characteristics of a brand they are interested in.

Question 2: How did you start to remember and recognize that online brand?

Reason: The question was developed to evaluate the interviewers’ process of forming an impression of the brand and the brand factors that will influence that process in order to determine how reviews affect brand awareness.

Question 3: Do you have an image of a brand in your mind when you read reviews about it online?

Reason: After interviewees read the review, the question was asked to gather information about their ability to visualize the brand image of online brands.

In order to explore how to trust e-WOM to anwer “What are the different aspects of online word-of-mouth that contribute to its reliability?,” we designed the followwing questions:

Question 4: What are your thoughts on the quality of online brand reviews? Do you think the quality of the reviews matters? Why?

Reason: The objective of the question is to determine what a quality review looks like to the customer and whether or not the quality of the review is important.

Question 5: How do you feel when you’re exploring an online brand and find very few reviews?

Reason: The question is to identify the interviewee’s reaction when a certain brand has fewer reviews than other brands.

Question 6: How do you feel when you read conflicting reviews?

Reason: The question was asked to survey respondents’ responses when confronted with the e-WOM norm conflict of having many different opinions about the same brand. This is a common phenomenon, especially when the brand’s review content is linked to the rating scale.

In order to explore e-WOM’s consequences to answer “In what ways do these different aspects influence e-WOM?,” we designed the followwing questions:

Question 7: Are you a loyal member of any online brand? What factors contribute to your brand loyalty?

Reason: This question will determine whether or not online brand reviews influence brand loyalty.

Question 8: Would you be willing to buy a product from that brand again if you had a bad experience with it but heard from many people, and the reviews about that brand are good and there is an improvement?

Reason: This question is designed to assess respondents’ reactions to subjective norm conflicts, but it is predicated on the fact that e-WOM’s opinions differ from their own prior experiences. For the purpose of simplicity, the question leaned toward whether respondents would agree to give the brand another chance if their previous experience with it had been negative.

Question 9: Do you believe there are other factors influencing e-WOM besides those mentioned above?

Reason: This question was asked to gather more opinions from respondents about the factors influencing their belief in e-WOM, in addition to the factors mentioned in the previous questions, so that the research model could be adjusted more effectively.

Data Analysis and Results

According to the suggested coding and transition analysis standards by Bhattacherjee and Sanford (2006), the replies were translated using the content analysis approach. The first two researchers looked at each interview sample individually, putting them into groups based on their common characteristics. The third researcher will read the final material for each phase again, make changes, and sign off on them. This procedure lessens coding bias and supports the researcher’s analysis.

Respondent Description

For this study, in-depth interviews were done with five people who had much experience with online businesses and often used these kinds of businesses. One of the five people who answered is now working at a well-known e-commerce site and knows a lot about online branding and marketing. The last four respondents are economics and public relations students who use these businesses often. They will look closely at the customer experience and how variables affect how customers see the brand’s value.

In addition, we conducted interviews with two groups of economics students in Ho Chi Minh City, each consisting of five to six 19- to 20-year-old students, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the psychology of the customer group concerning the effect of electronic word of mouth on online brand equity. The perceptions of these two sets of respondents about their experiences and the consequences of electronic word of mouth on online brand equity are vastly different.

The Impact of e-wOM on Brand Equity in the Context of Online Business

This section is meant to give you an idea of how customers feel about brands and what they like about them. According to the information gathered, most respondents care a lot about the brand when deciding whether or not to use a product, but only a few do not care (they only buy when they need to). When asked which features of a brand they are most interested in, price and offers are the most commonly mentioned: “I am interested in the price of the product,”“I will select a brand with a lower price,” and “I typically choose a brand with many discounts.” Most people who answered said that when they use a product, they also think about what other customers and people in their immediate environment have said about it. For example, “If I read a lot of bad reviews, I won’t use it,” or “I always read reviews about brand prices before I use it.” However, only a few people seemed to care about the logo and style of the internet brand. So, consumers’ opinions of a brand also affect their interest in that brand, even though price and incentives are the most critical factors.

Study 2: Quantitative Study

After conducting a qualitative study, quantitative research focuses on collecting data through Google Forms with a large number of participants to generalize the findings. The structure of Study 2 includes hypotheses, quantitative methodology, data analysis, and results, presented below.

Hypotheses

Antecedents of e-WOM included opinion seeking, self-word reinforcement, product involvement, and economic incentives as methods for building e-WOM credibility (Hussain et al., 2018). The extension of the antecedents of e-WOM credibility is divided into two parts: review (argument quality, recommendation consistency, recommendation valence, recommendation ratings) and reviewer (source credibility, platform credibility, message credibility; Rani & Shivaprasad, 2021; Verma et al., 2023). Meanwhile, another study indicated brand loyalty increases e-WOM (Rialti et al., 2017). Several studies divided the effects of positive e-WOM and negative e-WOM on CBBE (Sijoria et al., 2018). In summary, previous studies focused on the review and reviewer of e-WOM; however, there is still a lack of a current variety of methods of review through internet platforms. There are several studies supporting the relationship between e-WOM, trust, and brand equity (Ismagilova et al., 2021; Moradi & Zihagh, 2022; Sijoria et al., 2018; Verma et al., 2023). Studies indicated that eWOM has a direct effect on brand equity, but it has not been established that eWOM increases consumer trust, which in turn increases brand value. Therefore, in order to better explain the concerns of customers when reading e-WOM, thereby increasing trust and increasing brand value for businesses and platforms, we consider the content, volume of reviews, sponsors, ratings of e-WOMs, and e-WOM’s role in trust and brand equity. To guide this study, the conceptual model is outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Research model.

Trust

Trust, as defined by Moorman et al. (1993), is the capacity to put one’s faith in, depend upon, and connect with others. Even in the worst circumstances, trust may be an important element in achieving long-term success. Therefore, trust will always be an element that has to be taken into account and respected in the interaction between brands and consumers. When confidence in a brand would reduce perceived brand awareness, brand trust is defined as the readiness to believe in the company’s capacity to deliver on its promises (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). As the cornerstone for creating a sustained connection between the brand and the client, customer risk to the brand (Matzler et al., 2008). A considerable impact of trust on brand equity was found by S. Kim and Manoli (2022) in research on company reputation and brand equity via corporate social responsibility initiatives. More precisely, research on brand equity by Zehir et al. (2011) found that trust increases brand recognition. Brand equity may be built via customer contentment and trust, and it has a favorable effect on customer satisfaction (Kahraman & Kazançoğlu, 2019). The brand image will be positively impacted by improving the hospital’s total reputation, or, to put it another way, customer satisfaction and trust. The results of an earlier study by Rialti et al. (2017) demonstrate that trust has a substantial impact on the brand image of airlines. The researchers also found a connection between brand loyalty and consumer trust. Brand loyalty benefits from increased consumer trust (Lau & Lee, 1999). Customers who trust a brand tend to show more brand loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

H1: Brand trust has a positive impact on brand awareness.

H2: Brand trust has a positive effect on brand image.

H3: Brand trust has a positive effect on brand loyalty.

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM)

Trust is one of the most essential business attributes, especially for internet firms (Grabner-Kraeuter, 2002). Trust minimizes the fear, ambiguity, and pain involved with purchase choices, resulting in improved customer satisfaction and thus affecting e-WOM, especially in a complicated online business environment (Ismagilova et al., 2021). Therefore, prospective buyers typically seek the counsel of family members, friends, or coworkers with past experience. The influence of e-WOM on customer behavior may be much greater than that of conventional word of mouth (Jeong & Jang, 2011). Since e-WOM information is seen as more credible than WOM owing to its anonymity and absence of other incentives (Gerrath et al., 2023; Shi et al., 2019), e-WOM information is deemed more dependable than WOM (Leong et al., 2022). Zhao et al. (2020) assert that there is a connection between e-WOM, customer trust, and purchase intent, and that the direction of e-WOM will determine whether or not consumers’ faith in the brand improves or declines. Therefore, it shows that consumers’ desire to test a brand is correlated with their faith in the brand, and this trust is significantly impacted by industry evaluations (Kassim & Asiah Abdullah, 2010). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

H4: e-WOM has a positive impact on customer trust in the context of online brands.

Content Quality

To lessen confusion and ambiguity before making a purchasing decision in the wide internet market, shoppers must research reviews and past brand experiences (Walsh et al., 2007). Customers trust reviews less when they think the reviews are impacted by sponsorship (Golmohammadi et al., 2020; S. J. Kim et al., 2019). The caliber of an information source has a big impact on e-WOM. Both the content of the message and the reviewer’s reputation have an impact on that reviewer’s influence (Jeong & Jang, 2011; Verma et al., 2023) Consumers carefully consider the post’s real quality before determining whether or not to accept the viewpoint (Oh, 1999). Few papers have included qualitative factors like content quality, reputation, or source type, whereas previous research has typically concentrated on quantitative elements of e-WOM like volume and value. It’s important to take into account bogus reviews and anonymity (Malbon, 2013). Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

H5: The quality of the content has a positive impact on customer trust in e-WOM.

Volume

The amount or count of online brand information is referred to as volume (Park et al., 2007). The number of posted reviews a user has discovered regarding a certain item or company is referred to as the review count (Tastan et al., 2014). Popularity and the quantity of reviews are essential metrics for measuring the effectiveness of electronic word of mouth (e-WOM), which has an impact on purchase choices (Z. Zhang et al., 2010). Each brand’s volume is said to be a sign of how popular it is (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006). As the number of reviews rises, the brand’s online visibility will also rise and more consumers will be able to access various brand-related materials. As a result, the brand becomes more well-known to consumers and they tend to view brands as less risky, which increases their intention to use the brand (Seo & Jang, 2013). The quantity of positive online word-of-mouth grows as the number of reviews does (Litvin et al., 2018). Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

H6: Volume has a positive effect on the reliability of e-WOM.

Norm Conflict

Subjective norms are the social rules that a person feels they have to follow and think about when deciding if they want to do something (Ajzen, 1991). Subjective standards are set based on regional cultural elements. Even though these standards may not be the same as those in other cultures, they are still okay in one culture (Cho, 2000). For instance, Asian women would have a different societal definition of beauty than Western women. When social media users express opinions that are commonly accepted by that culture, it might impact other people’s purchase choices (Godey et al., 2016). Depending on the notions and criteria of each person, these concepts or remarks may sometimes contradict one another. Eventually, purchasers may find it challenging to make decisions when there are several streams of internet comments, since they are unsure which ones to believe (AL-Nawafleh et al., 2019). As a result of the interview we performed to get respondents’ opinions on conflict, we discovered that respondents tended to be reluctant and had been researching companies more (Shi et al., 2019). Customers are also led to believe that reviews are getting more truthful and reliable due to the formation of standards conflicts and that most responses will adhere to more widely accepted standards (Ahmad & Guzmán, 2021). Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

H7: Normal conflict has a positive impact on customers’ trust in e-WOM.

Source Expertise

Customers are more likely to have faith in a product, service, or brand if they are provided with information from experts expressing their thoughts on the product, service, or brand (Ki & Kim, 2019). Customers are often more swayed by the suggestions and evaluations of industry professionals than by the advice of non-specialists (Kang & Namkung, 2019). However, they will depend on the person’s popularity, search for more credentials, workplace, or biography to determine whether they are a genuine expert (Harris & Dennis, 2011). A customer or professional may be successful in that sector, such as someone with great cosmetics, beautiful skin, or a gorgeous figure (Chan et al., 2020; Gannon & Prothero, 2018). A consumer expert is a broader idea than an academic expert. This is a fantastic opportunity for companies to boost their brand’s reputation by selecting authoritative information sources (Yu & Yuan, 2019). For new items, difficult-to-evaluate products, or products with too many alternatives, buyers often depend on expert evaluations to decide whether to purchase a trial. Therefore, the following hypothesis is made:

H9: Source expertise has a positive effect on customer trust in e-WOM.

This research employs Aaker and Keller’s definition of Brand Equity, and in this study, we combine both concepts, focusing more on image, brand awareness, and brand loyalty (as a feature of brand resonance) than on the tangible characteristics (Keller, 2003).

Quantitative Methods

Data Collection

The team gathered survey data using Google Form’s convenience sampling. This is a wonderful tool for sending and distributing surveys, updating and saving data immediately online, and monitoring sample collection progress. To disseminate the survey, we publish a Google Form link on student Facebook pages and groups, comment with links beneath articles in public groups, and send links through Messenger andandand Zalo; study groups of data collection is October 2022. Respondents spent around 3 or 5 minutes completing the questionnaire. The response is entirely voluntary, and we have the respondents’ permission to use the questionnaires for research. Convenience sampling was used to select the non-probability sample, as it does not prioritize equal selection for all groups and the respondents are primarily students (Hair, 2011). Before the main questionnaire, we introduced the study and asked a selective question at the start of the panel to remove respondents who do not utilize internet brands. Choosing “No” ends the survey. If the answer is “Yes,” the respondent will be asked some demographic information and a multiple-choice question: “What online brands do you typically use?” This question prompts survey respondents to think about internet brands they use while answering subsequent questions. All inquiries are set to the internetan answer, preventing respondents from omitting values. 440 respondents responded to the questionnaire, but only 410 responded affirmatively to the screening questions and completed the survey. The total number of respondents utilized for the study was 410, with a 93% validity rate.

Measurements

This study adopted the scales from previous studies, and modified to fit with the current study context. Brand image items were adapted from Lin et al. (2021); brand awareness were adapted from (Godey et al., 2016) and Langaro et al. (2018); brand loyalty were adapted from Zehir et al. (2011) trust were adapted from Hasan et al. (2021); trust were adapted from H. Zhang et al. (2021) and Fatma et al. (2020); content quality were adapted from Magno (2017); norm conflict were adapted from McDonald et al. (2013); volume were adapted from Abd-Elaziz et al. (2015); sponsored recommendation were adapted from Lu et al. (2014); source expertise were adapted from Wiener and Mowen (1986) and Ecker and Antonio (2021). All variables are measured using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 to 5 represent increasing agreement from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” According to Hair (2011), each item requires a minimum of five respondents; this study contains 43 items; therefore, a minimum of 215 respondents are required for statistically significant results. The total number of respondents is 410, thereby making the sample representative.

Methodology

Reliability and Validity

The reliability was tested by checking the items of the variables through factor loadings (>.5) and Cronbach’s alpha (>.7) (Cortina, 1993). Next, we consider the correlation between variables. Currently, none of the variables have a high correlation, all are lower than .7 (Vaske et al., 2017). Next, to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales, we assessed the relevance of CR (>.7), and AVE (>.5; F. Hair Jr et al., 2014), and for determining the discriminant validity evaluation via heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations method (Ab Hamid et al., 2017). To test for collinearity, ensuring there is no high correlation between variables, we evaluate inner Validating Formative Indicators (VIF;<.3).

Structural Equation Modeling

Structural equation modeling (SEM) test analyzes multidimensional model connections. Combining quantitative data with correlative assumptions (cause-effect relationships into a graph) (F. Hair Jr et al., 2014). SEM enables researchers to visually assess the associations between variables by testing several multivariable regression models and modeling multivariable correlations. Prioritize resources by boosting the desired dependent variable.

Data Analysis and Results

Descriptive Statistics

There were 410 responses, and 40.2% of them were men and 59.8% were women. Young people (18–24 years old) make up the majority of responses (90.2%); those under 18 years old make up just 5.1%; those between 25 and 30 years old make up 4.1%; and those beyond 30 years old make up the lowest percentage (0.5%). Since data is mainly Gen Z and students, the vast majority are 18 to 24 years old. Due to the fact that the majority of survey participants are young adults in the age bracket of students and recent graduates, the low income level under $5 million accounts for the majority of respondents (78.5%), followed by the income level of $5 million to $10 million (16.3%), and the remaining income level group of $10 million to $15 million ($20 million and over) only account for a small portion of respondents (1.5%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, respectively) (see Table 1). Moreover, when customers were asked which digital businesses they regularly use or think about, 63.9% thought of Grab (moving), 13.7% thought of Gojek, 10.7% thought of Shopee, 6.8% thought of Spotify, and below 2% thought of Bee, Lazada, and Moo respectively (see Table 2).

Table 1.

Demographic Information of the Respondents.

Items		Amount	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	165	40.2
Gender	Female	245	59.8
	Total	410	100.0
Age	Under 18 years old	21	5.1
	25–30 years old	17	4.1
	18–24 years old	370	90.2
	Over 30 years old	2	0.5
	Total	410	100.0
Income (VND)	Under 5 million VND	322	78.5
	5−10 million VND	67	16.3
	10−15 million VND	6	1.5
	15−20 million VND	8	2.0
	Over 20 million VND	6	1.5
	Total	410	100.0

Note. Vietnam Dong (VND).

Table 2.

Frequency of Digital Brands.

Digital brands	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Grab	262	63.9
Gojek	56	13.7
Shopee	44	10.7
Spotify	28	6.8
Bee	8	2.0
Netflix	7	1.7
Lazada	4	1.0
Momo	1	0.2
Total	410	100.0

Reliability and Validity Check

Table 3 presents the factor loadings values of each item, all are greater than .5, crobach’s alpha values are all greater than 0.7, CR (>.7); and AVE (>.5), ensuring the reliability of the scale. Table 4 shows the correlation between the variables in the model. There are some variables CQ, BI have no correlation, but CQ predicts the impact on e-WOM in the model, so it does not affect the research model in terms of overall. Table 5 evaluates Discriminant validity through the HTMT value, all values in the table do not exceed .85, so the condition is satisfied that the variables are different from each other. Table 6 predicts the phenomenon of multicollinearity, the results show that all values are less than 3, so this phenomenon does not occur in the research model. Thus, all variables, and items meet the requirements of reliability and accuracy to perform SEM evaluation.

Table 3.

Test Results of Reliability.

Factors	BA	α	CR	AVE
Brand Awareness (BA)		.832	0.882	0.599
BA1: I am always aware of this brand.	0.720
BA2: Characteristics of this brand come to my mine quickly.	0.720
BA3: I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of this brand.	0.746
BA4: I can remember this brand often.	0.817
BA5: I can recognize the characteristics of this brand.	0.857
Brand Image (BI)		.861	0.896	0.589
BI1: The products/services have a high quality.	0.753
BI2: The products/services have better characteristics than competitors.	0.780
BI3: The brand has a personality that distinguishes it from competitors.	0.768
BI4: It is a brand that does not disappoint its customers.	0.759
BI5: It is one of the best brands in the sector.	0.774
BI6: This online brand is very consolidated in the market.	0.770
Brand Loyalty (BL)		.844	0.895	0.682
BL1: I intend to buy this brand in the near future.	0.863
BL2: The next time I need that product, I will buy the same brand.	0.821
BL3: Commercials regarding competing brands are not able to reduce my interest in buying this brand.	0.805
BL4: I intend to recommend this brand to other people.	0.812
Content Quality (CQ)		.775	0.869	0.689
CQ1: The information provided by this e-review is accurate.	0.814
CQ2: The information and suggestions published in this e-review are reliable.	0.850
CQ3: The content of this e-review is updated.	0.827
eWOM (EW)		.797	0.868	0.622
EW1: Online discussions had a significant influence on me.	0.799
EW2: I followed the suggestion given in online discussions.	0.791
EW3: I agree with the online discussions about the brand.	0.791
EW4: I frequently gather information from e-reviews about the brand before using it.	0.773
Norm Conflict (NC)		.859	0.904	0.703
NC1: I feel confused when I read many e-reviews with mixed opinions.	0.800
NC2: I feel the e-review’s conflict of opinions makes it more believable.	0.853
NC3: I will want to learn more about the brand when I encounter many mixed e-reviews	0.867
NC4: When there is a conflict between the opinions of the e-review, I will trust the opinion with more people agreeing.	0.832
Source Expertise (SE)		.838	0.880	0.596
SE1: I believe popular review sites or forums provide me with helpful information.	0.779
SE2: I believe the number of reviews written by the reviewer represents knowledge in evaluating the experience.	0.757
SE3: I believe the longer a reviewer has registered on a review site.	0.737
SE4: I rely on the reviews which other readers believe useful.	0.823
SE5: I believe in the review from the real customer experiencing the brand.	0.760
Sponsored Recommendations (SR)		.855	0.902	0.697
SR1: I think the sponsored recommendations and e-reviews tells the truth.	0.847
SR2: I don’t believe in what the sponsored reviewer wrote in this article.	0.801
SR3: I can learn the real product information from the sponsored review.	0.857
SR4: After reading the sponsored e-review, I have been accurately informed about the product information.	0.833
Trust (TS)		.890	0.924	0.753
TS1: I expect this brand to be sincere and genuine.	0.887
TS2: I belive this brand performs its roles very well.	0.865
TS3: This brand works hard to satisfy me.	0.868
TS4: This brand fulfills its commitments to customers.	0.849
Volume (VOL)		.821	0.881	0.650
VOL1: The number of online review/comment is large, inferring that the brand is popular.	0.811
VOL2: Highly ranking and recommendation, inferring that the brand has good reputations.	0.760
VOL3: The more the brand is mentioned in front of me the more am aware of it.	0.833
VOL4: The more the brand is discussed in front of me the more it influences my purchasing decision.	0.819

Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 4.

Correlations Analysis Result.

	BA	BI	BL	CQ	EW	NC	SE	SR	TS	VOL
BA	1.000
BI	0.392	1.000
BL	0.203	0.322	1.000
CQ	0.066	−0.063	−0.079	1.000
EW	0.187	0.160	0.206	0.386	1.000
NC	0.140	0.046	0.127	0.148	0.321	1.000
SE	0.079	0.054	0.051	0.143	0.188	0.215	1.000
SR	0.049	0.005	0.040	0.336	0.477	0.492	0.367	1.000
TS	0.390	0.410	0.538	−0.088	0.381	0.178	0.130	0.147	1.000
VOL	0.071	0.013	0.056	0.212	0.380	0.376	0.397	0.553	0.126	1.000

Note. TS = trust; BI = brand image; BA = brand awareness; BL = brand loyalty; EW = eWOM; CQ = content quality; VOL = volume; NC = norm conflict; SR = sponsored recommendations; SE = source expertise.

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity—Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).

	BA	BI	BL	CQ	EW	NC	SE	SR	TS
BA
BI	0.456
BL	0.233	0.377
CQ	0.096	0.107	0.104
EW	0.225	0.190	0.252	0.490
NC	0.167	0.075	0.151	0.185	0.386
SE	0.113	0.081	0.072	0.158	0.195	0.229
SR	0.090	0.070	0.058	0.408	0.575	0.575	0.407
TS	0.447	0.463	0.620	0.109	0.450	0.202	0.136	0.167
VOL	0.094	0.066	0.097	0.268	0.468	0.449	0.465	0.660	0.152

Table 6.

Collinearity Statistics (VIF).

	BA	BI	BL	EW	TS
BA
BI
BL
CQ				1.129
EW					1.000
NC				1.347
SE				1.233
SR				1.838
TS	1.000	1.000	1.000
VOL				1.568

Structural Equation Model Assessment

Table 7 shows the explanatory power of the variables in the model. Specifically, the variables that explain 30.2% e-WOM build ability, e-WOM can generate 14.3% trust for the brand, and to increase brand equity, brand loyalty explains 28.9%, brand image explains 16.8%, and brand awareness explains 15.2%.

Table 7.

R-Squared Values.

	R-square	R-square adjusted
BA	0.152	0.150
BI	0.168	0.166
BL	0.289	0.288
EW	0.311	0.302
TS	0.145	0.143

Note. TS = trust; BI = brand image; BA = brand awareness; BL = brand loyalty; EW = eWOM.

Table 8 shows the results of the research model, all hypotheses were approved, except norm conflict (H2) and source expertise (H5). In which, content quality (β = .253, p-value < .0001), volume (β = .151, p-value = .0087), and sponsored recommendation (β = .270, p-value < .0001) all increase the likelihood of creating a positive e-WOM. E-WOM moderately increases trust in the brand (β = .381, p-value < .0001). Finally, trust moderately increases brand awareness (β = .390, p-value < .0001) and brand image (β = .410, p-value < .0001), and strongly increases brand loyalty (β = .538, p-value < .0001).

Table 8.

Hypotheses Results.

Ho	Relationships	β	S.E.	t-Value	p-Value	Results
H1	CQ → EW	.253	0.053	4.763	.000	Approved
H2	NC →EW	.100	0.059	1.710	.087	Rejected
H3	VOL → EW	.151	0.062	2.451	.014	Approved
H4	SR → EW	.270	0.065	4.165	.000	Approved
H5	SE → EW	−0.029	0.038	0.760	.447	Rejected
H6	EW → TS	.381	0.039	9.695	.000	Approved
H7	TS → BI	.410	0.043	9.440	.000	Approved
H8	TS → BA	.390	0.051	7.643	.000	Approved
H9	TS → BL	.538	0.043	12.573	.000	Approved

Note. β = standardized regression weights; S.E = standard error; TS = trust; BI = brand image; BA = brand awareness; BL = brand loyalty; EW = eWOM; CQ = content quality; VOL = volume; NC = norm conflict; SR = sponsored recommendations; SE = source expert.

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion

The results of the data analysis confirmed the original research hypotheses, confirming that consumers care about a variety of factors when reading eWOM, including content, number of reviews, controversies, referrers, and source expertise. The research model is built based on the combination of two models of brand equity by Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993), WOM (Bei et al., 2004), and eWOM (Verma et al., 2023). Customers first examine the review’s content to determine whether the product or service warrants further consideration. Then, they view the number of evaluations as an implicit confirmation of the product’s credibility since there are so many people interested in it and providing feedback.

Thus, the quality of review content as well as having a famous, reputable recommender will have a great impact (Filieri, 2015).

Sponsored reviews substantially influence brand equity and e-WOM. In other words, when they know it’s an open and public sponsorship, individuals have greater faith in a recommendation. In fact, a significant number of influencers have received sponsorships from firms in return for writing product reviews. This is a persuasive marketing strategy that businesses frequently use today, according to Hsu and McDonald (2002), a representative group has a substantial role in the effectiveness of the brand marketing campaign (del Mar Garcia de Los Salmones et al., 2013). If brands choose the best candidate for their target audience and provide high-quality content, their sales and brand equity will improve dramatically. Moreover, doing the opposite will reverse the impact and temporarily damage the brand’s trust (Min et al., 2013).

Customers peruse low-rated reviews to determine whether they make sense. If it is insignificant, the risk will be categorized as permissible. Consumers believe that no brand is ideal, but brands with more positive than negative reviews should be considered for purchase. Moreover, contradictory opinions create a strong impression of the brand image in consumers’ perceptions and arouse their interest and need for personal authenticity (Baumeister et al., 2001).

It is also essential to have individuals endorse goods and services since, if they are well-known, customers are more inclined to believe them because of their reputation and professional accomplishments. A blue check mark or the number of followers on a social media account indicates how highly consumers regard knowledge.

The person who introduces the product or service is also essential, because if it is a well-known individual, consumers will be more likely to believe it based on that individual’s reputation and career. A blue checkmark or the quantity of followers on a social media account both indicate how highly consumers value expertise. Contrary to predictions, the study’s results indicate that e-WOM and the source expertise of the review had no effect on one another (confirmed H. As specialists, they would be less affected by e-WOM than less experienced individuals, consistent with the results of the previous. In spite of this, it would be unwise to dismiss this idea outright, since alternative events might still occur. Savvy shoppers can determine whether evaluations are genuine and give high-quality information (Johnson et al., 2023). Therefore, people should regard evaluations obtained from respected websites as especially reliable and persuasive.

Theoretical Implications

Previous research has demonstrated that e-WOM increases brand equity, and because there are two categories of e-WOM impact, including positive and negative e-WOM, the manner of impact also varies. Prior research has also examined e-WOM from the perspective of reviewers. However, there is no research that explains e-WOM consumer concerns and how customers evaluate e-WOM holistically. Nonetheless, prior research has not explained why eWOM can increase brand equity.

This research contributes to the existing literature on e-WOM and brand equity. This study first identifies the factors in which a consumer is interested when reading online reviews, including content quality, volume of online reviews, norm conflict, sponsored recommendations, and source expertise. This is a novel and distinctive aspect of this study compared to previous research that concentrated solely on reviewers. Customers care about a variety of factors, including the online review content, the number of controversies, the referrer’s reputation, and the expert’s ideas. An effective e-WOM incorporates multiple components.

This study expands on the reasons why e-WOM can increase brand equity through trust. It is the components of eWOM that instill customer trust in the brand, thereby enhancing the brand’s image, customer perception, and customer loyalty. This research adds to the customer-based brand equity model proposed by Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) and completes earlier investigations into the variables influencing e-WOM. Brand loyalty has the highest standardized regression coefficient when compared to brand image and brand awareness in terms of its effect on consumer trust. Given that trust has a beneficial impact on brand image and brand awareness, it seems logical to include brand loyalty in Keller's (1993) customer-based brand equity model. In contrast to previous studies, this one explains in greater detail why positive eWOM increases brand equity.

Finally, this study expands on the reasons why e-WOM can increase brand equity through trust. It is the components of eWOM that instill customer trust in the brand, thereby enhancing the brand’s image, customer perception, and customer loyalty. In contrast to previous studies, this one explains in greater detail why positive eWOM increases brand equity.

Practical Implications

This research has various ramifications for brand managers using e-WOM to develop online companies’ brand equity. Managers can use the study’s findings to decide how to build trust in e-WOM across a variety of platforms. Consequently, e-WOM builds positive brand equity. First, according to the study’s findings, e-WOM increases customer trust (TS). Furthermore, positive e-WOM messages increase trust by removing ambiguity (Duman & Das, 2021). If brand managers are ready to invest in, manage, and perceive e-WOM as a vehicle to increase brand trust among consumers, we contend that the link between e-WOM and brand equity will offer a significant source of income in the long run. In this approach, the brand will be promoted more via inexpensive web advertising.

Second, we make the observation that the factor that has the most impact is the variable sponsored recommendations, which has an effect on e-WOM. This indicates that sponsored e-reviews to be published on forums will have more credibility than voluntary, discretionary e-reviews because online consumer evaluations are frequently supplied anonymously or in a general sense. Even though this will be made abundantly evident in sponsored e-reviews, the blog article may nevertheless contain photos of the product being utilized or links to its trademarks (Ismagilova et al., 2021). Brand managers have the opportunity to encourage affiliate marketing through the use of e-WOM by giving enticing commissions and awards. These incentives will help individuals boost their earnings while also assisting businesses in attracting new clients.

Thirdly, in terms of their influence on e-WOM, content quality (CQ) and volume (VOL), information quality and reliability had a favorable impact on e-WOM in research analyzing the impact of e-WOM information quality and reliability (Sijoria et al., 2018). A high degree of familiarity may also elicit a favorable emotional reaction, and studies in the past have shown that good feeling often enhances performance (Jeong & Jang, 2011). We may infer from this that e-reviews provide reliable, public, thorough, and often updated information, and that the more businesses that are mentioned or discussed, the more customers will learn about them. more familiar with and confident in the brand. Promos in the form of codes, discounts, and vouchers may be used more often to entice customers to submit high-quality e-reviews. The assessment must also be published on the brand’s application or website in a clear and transparent manner and be adaptable to social networking sites, blogs, etc.

Limitations and Future Researchs

Several of the study’s drawbacks will be useful for further research. The majority of survey participants are between the ages of 18 and 24, have monthly incomes under $5 million, and reside in Ho Chi Minh City, which poses the first constraint. For respondents of various ages, socioeconomic statuses, and geographic locations, the survey’s findings could no longer be very accurate. Future research should include data from a wider variety of geographic locations, ages, and economic levels.

Due to time and research constraints, we chose factors that affect e-WOM and certain components of brand equity from prior studies for this study. We anticipate that future studies will collect e-WOM and brand equity impacts that are functional enough to undertake a thorough investigation. A future study has the potential to become in-depth research and draw the interest of higher management. The form is more successful at creating brand equity when compared to the effects of e-WOM and conventional business marketing. Contrary to expectations, the study’s findings showed that the source expert for the review and the e-WOM did not interact to impact one another. This finding necessitates the revision of a subsequent investigation. Why aren’t consumers as interested as you’d think in the comments on online channels, and do they originate from experts?

The norm conflict (NC) has no impact on the e-WOM of all the variables. According to the findings of the interviews with the respondents, they have a range of responses to the e-reviews of the brand. The majority of them believe that the conflicting viewpoints of the e-review make the brand more credible and pique customers’ interest in it. Future research may recheck the impact of norm conflict on e-WOM.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is funded by University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH), Vietnam.

Ethical Compliance

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

ORCID iDs

Minh Thi Hong Le

Hung Nguyen Tuan

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study's findings are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

Aaker

D. A.

(1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. Free Press. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999632623802121

Abd-Elaziz

M. E.

Aziz

W. M.

Khalifa

G. S.

Abdel-Aleem

(2015). Determinants of electronic word of mouth (EWOM) influence on hotel customers’ purchasing decision. International Journal of Heritage, Tourism, and Hospitality, 9(2/2), 194–223.

Ab Hamid

M. R.

Sami

Mohmad Sidek

M. H

. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker Criterion versus HTMT Criterion. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 890(1), Article 012163. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163

Ahmad

Guzmán

(2021). Brand equity, online reviews, and message trust: The moderating role of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 30(4), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-09-2019-2564

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

Akroush

M. N.

Mahadin

B. K.

(2019). An intervariable approach to customer satisfaction and loyalty in the internet service market. Internet Research, 29(4), 772–798. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-12-2017-0514

AL-Nawafleh

E. A.

ALSheikh

G. A. A.

Abdulllah

A. A.

Bin

Tambi

A. M.

(2019). Review of the impact of service quality and subjective norms in TAM among telecommunication customers in Jordan. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 35(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoes-07-2018-0101

Aoki

Obeng

Borders

A. L.

Lester

D. H.

(2019). Can brand experience increase customer contribution: How to create effective sustainable touchpoints with customers? Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 29(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2018.1551728

Barreda

A. A.

Bilgihan

Nusair

Okumus

(2015). Generating brand awareness in online social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.023

10.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Finkenauer

Vohs

K. D.

(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323

11.

Bei

L. T.

Chen

E. Y. I.

Widdows

(2004). Consumers’ online information search behavior and the phenomenon of search vs. Experience products. Experience Products. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(4), 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-004-5490-0

12.

Bhandari

Rodgers

Pan

P. L.

(2021). Brand feedback to negative eWOM messages: Effects of stability and controllability of problem causes on brand attitudes and purchase intentions. Telematics and Informatics, 58, Article 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101522

13.

Bhattacherjee

Sanford

. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148755

14.

Bui

Krishen

A. S.

Anlamlier

Berezan

(2022). Fear of missing out in the digital age: The role of social media satisfaction and advertising engagement. Psychology and Marketing, 39(4), 683–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21611

15.

Carson

Gilmore

Perry

Gronhaug

. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Researchhttps://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209625

16.

Chan

Drake

Vollmer

R. L.

(2020). A qualitative research study comparing nutrition advice communicated by registered dietitian and non-registered dietitian bloggers. Journal of Communications In Healthcare, 13(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2020.1749351

17.

Chaudhuri

Holbrook

M. B.

(2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255

18.

Chevalier

J. A.

Mayzlin

(2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345

19.

Cho

(2000). The role of heritage language in social interactions and relationships: Reflections from a Language Minority Group. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2000.10162773

20.

Corbin

J. M.

(1998). The corbin and strauss chronic illness trajectory model: An update. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice, 12(1), 33–35. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/corbin-strauss-chronic-illness-trajectory-model/docview/207666345/se-2?accountid=39958

21.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

22.

Craciun

Zhou

Shan

(2020). Discrete emotions effects on electronic word-of-mouth helpfulness: The moderating role of reviewer gender and contextual emotional tone. Decision Support Systems, 130, Article 113226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113226

23.

De Jans

Cauberghe

Hudders

. (2018). How an advertising disclosure alerts young adolescents to sponsored vlogs: The moderating role of a peer-based advertising literacy intervention through an informational vlog. Journal of Advertising, 47(4), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1539363

24.

De Jans

Van de Sompel

De Veirman

Hudders

. (2020). #sponsored! How the recognition of sponsoring on Instagram posts affects adolescents’ brand evaluations through source evaluations. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106342

25.

del Mar Garcia de Los Salmones

Dominguez

Herrero

Herrero . (2013). Communication using celebrities in the non-profit sector. International Journal of Advertising, 32(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.2501/ija-32-1-101-119

26.

Duman

Ü. O.

Das

(2021). The dynamic rise of digital brands’ Market Mavens in digital entertainment: A complete know how for curious customers. In Das

Gochhait

(Eds.), Digital Entertainment. (pp. 147–172). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9724-4_8

27.

Dwivedi

Y. K.

Ismagilova

Hughes

D. L.

Carlson

Filieri

Jacobson

Jain

Karjaluoto

Kefi

Krishen

A. S.

Kumar

Rahman

M. M.

Raman

Rauschnabel

P. A.

Rowley

Salo

Tran

G. A.

Wang

(2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 59, Article 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168

28.

Ecker

U. K.

Antonio

L. M.

(2021). Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. Memory & Cognition, 49(4), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01129-y

29.

Elvira, & Ismagilova. (2017). Electronic Word of mouth (eWOM) in the marketing context. Springer International Publishing AG.

30.

Fatma

Ruiz

A. P.

Khan

Rahman

(2020). The effect of CSR engagement on eWOM on social media. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(4), 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-10-2019-1895

31.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Sarstedt

Hopkins

Kuppelwieser

V G.

. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-10-2013-0128

32.

Filieri

(2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006

33.

Forbes. (2020). The importance of word-of-mouth marketing through social media. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2020/12/07/the-importance-of-word-of-mouth-marketing-through-social-media/?sh=84e404030a32

34.

Gannon

Prothero

(2018). Beauty bloggers and YouTubers as a community of practice. Journal of Marketing Management (JMM), 34(7-8), 592–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2018.1482941

35.

Gerrath

M. H. E. E.

Mafael

Ulqinaku

Biraglia

(2023). Service failures in times of crisis: An analysis of eWOM emotionality. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 154, Article 113349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113349

36.

Ghodeswar

B. M.

(2008). Building brand identity in competitive markets: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810856468

37.

Godey

Manthiou

Pederzoli

Rokka

Aiello

Donvito

Singh

(2016). Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 69(12), 5833–5841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.181

38.

Golmohammadi

Mattila

A. S.

Gauri

D. K.

(2020). Negative online reviews and consumers’ service consumption. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 116, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.004

39.

Grabner-Kraeuter

(2002). The role of consumers' trust in online-shopping. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE, 39(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016323815802

40.

Hair

J. F.

(2011). Multivariate data analysis: An overview. In Lovric

(Ed.), International Encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 904–907). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_395

41.

Hancock

Breazeale

Adams

F. G.

Hardman

(2023). Fueling and cooling firestorms: How online community members enable and disable online negative e-WOM. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 32(2), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-12-2021-3756

42.

Harris

Dennis

(2011). Engaging customers on Facebook: Challenges for e-retailers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(6), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.375

43.

Harrison-Walker

L. J.

(2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050141006

44.

Hasan

Shams

Rahman

(2021). Consumer trust and perceived risk for voice-controlled artificial intelligence: The case of Siri. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 131, 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.012

45.

Hennig-Thurau

Gwinner

K. P.

Walsh

Gremler

D. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10073

46.

Hsu

McDonald

(2002). An examination on multiple celebrity endorsers in advertising. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420210419522

47.

Hussain

Guangju

Jafar

R. M. S.

Ilyas

Mustafa

Jianzhou

(2018). Consumers’ online information adoption behavior: Motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.019

48.

Ismagilova

Dwivedi

Y. K.

Slade

Williams

M. D.

(2017). Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM). In: Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) in the Marketing Context. SpringerBriefs in Business. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52459-7_3

49.

Ismagilova

Rana

N. P.

Slade

E. L.

Dwivedi

Y. K.

(2021). A meta-analysis of the factors affecting eWOM providing behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 1067–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-07-2018-0472

50.

Jeong

Jang

(2011). Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.005

51.

Johnson

Cho

Patwary

(2023). Online shopping orientations of Latino millennial generational cohorts. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 22(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2107

52.

Kahraman

Kazançoğlu

İ.

(2019). Understanding consumers’ purchase intentions toward natural-claimed products: A qualitative research in personal care products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2312

53.

Kang

J. W.

Namkung

(2019). The information quality and source credibility matter in customers’ evaluation toward food O2O commerce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10.011

54.

Kassim

Asiah Abdullah

(2010). The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 22(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851011062269

55.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101

56.

Keller

K. L.

(2003). Understanding brands, branding and brand equity. Interactive Marketing, 5(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.im.4340213

57.

Khan

R. U.

Salamzadeh

Iqbal

Yang

(2022). The impact of customer relationship management and company reputation on customer loyalty: The mediating role of customer satisfaction. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 21(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2020.1840904

58.

Kim

(2019). The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade consumers: The role of consumers’ desire to mimic. Psychology and Marketing, 36(10), 905–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21244

59.

Kietzmann

J. H.

Hermkens

McCarthy

I. P.

Silvestre

B. S.

(2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

60.

Kim

Manoli

A. E.

(2022). Building team brand equity through perceived CSR: The mediating role of dual identification. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 30(3), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2020.1795912

61.

Kim

S. J.

Maslowska

Tamaddoni

(2019). The paradox of (dis)trust in sponsorship disclosure: The characteristics and effects of sponsored online consumer reviews. Decision Support Systems, 116, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.10.014

62.

Langaro

Rita

de Fátima Salgueiro

(2018). Do social networking sites contribute for building brands? Evaluating the impact of users' participation on brand awareness and brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(2), 146–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2015.1036100

63.

Lau

G. T.

Lee

S. H.

(1999). Consumers' trust in a brand and the link to Brand Loyalty. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009886520142

64.

Leong

C. M.

Loi

A. M. W.

Woon

(2022). The influence of social media eWOM information on purchase intention. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 10(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-021-00132-9

65.

Lin

Y. H.

Lin

F. J.

Wang

K. H.

(2021). The effect of social mission on service quality and brand image. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 132, 744–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.054

66.

Litvin

S. W.

Goldsmith

R. E.

Pan

(2018). A retrospective view of electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-08-2016-0461

67.

L. C.

Chang

W. P.

Chang

H. H.

(2014). Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.007

68.

Magno

(2017). The influence of cultural blogs on their readers’ cultural product choices. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.007

69.

Malbon

(2013). Taking fake online consumer reviews seriously. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-012-9216-7

70.

Matzler

Grabner-Kräuter

Bidmon

(2008). Risk aversion and brand loyalty: The mediating role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810875070

71.

McDonald

R. I.

Fielding

K. S.

Louis

W. R.

(2013). Energizing and de-motivating effects of norm-conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212464234

72.

Min

P. Magnini

Singal

. (2013). Perceived corporate training investment as a driver of expatriate adjustment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), 740–759. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-may-2012-0079

73.

Moorman

Deshpandé

Zaltman

(1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700106

74.

Moradi

Zihagh

(2022). A meta-analysis of the elaboration likelihood model in the electronic word of mouth literature. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1900–1918. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12814

75.

Nielsen, & Landauer. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 conference on human factors in computing systems.

76.

(1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-4319(98)00047-4

77.

Park

D. H.

Lee

Han

(2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.2753/jec1086-4415110405

78.

Petrescu

Ajjan

Harrison

D. L.

(2023). Man vs machine—Detecting deception in online reviews. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 154, 113346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113346

79.

Rani

Shivaprasad

H. N.

(2021). Revisiting the antecedent of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) during COVID-19 Pandemic. DECISION, 48(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-021-00298-2

80.

Rialti

Zollo

Pellegrini

M. M.

Ciappei

(2017). Exploring the antecedents of brand loyalty and electronic word of mouth in social-media-based brand communities: Do gender differences matter? Journal of Global Marketing, 30(3), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2017.1306899

81.

Sagynbekova

Ince

Ogunmokun

O. A.

Olaoke

R. O.

Ukeje

U. E.

(2021). Social media communication and higher education brand equity: The mediating role of eWOM. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(1), e2112. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2112

82.

Sánchez-Corcuera

Nuñez-Marcos

Sesma-Solance

Bilbao-Jayo

Mulero

Zulaika

Azkune

Almeida

(2019). Smart cities survey: Technologies, application domains and challenges for the cities of the future. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 15(6), 1550147719853984. https://doi.org/10.1177/1550147719853984

83.

Seo

Jang

(2013). The roles of brand equity and branding strategy: A study of restaurant food crises. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.014

84.

Shi

Cao

Chen

Chow

W. S.

(2019). How social media brand pages contribute to functional conflict: The central role of commitment. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.007

85.

Sijoria

Mukherjee

Datta

(2018). Impact of the antecedents of eWOM on CBBE. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(5), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1108/mip-10-2017-0221

86.

Statista. (2022). E-commerce share of total retail sales in Vietnam from 2015 to 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006835/e-commerce-share-of-retail-sales-in-vietnam/

87.

Sun

Garrett

T. C.

Phau

Zheng

(2020). Case-based models of customer-perceived sustainable marketing and its effect on perceived customer equity. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 117, 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.007

88.

Tang

(2017). Mine your customers or Mine your Business: The moderating role of culture in online word-of-mouth reviews. Journal of International Marketing, 25(2), 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.16.0030

89.

Tastan

Linch

G. C.

Keenan

G. M.

Stifter

McKinney

Fahey

Lopez

K. D.

Yao

Wilkie

D. J.

(2014). Evidence for the existing American Nurses Association-recognized standardized nursing terminologies: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(8), 1160–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.004

90.

Teresa Borges-Tiago

Arruda

Tiago

Rita

Rita . (2021). Differences between TripAdvisor and booking.com in branding co-creation. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 123, 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.050

91.

Tran

G. A.

Strutton

(2020). Comparing email and SNS users: Investigating e-servicescape, customer reviews, trust, loyalty and E-WOM. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.009

92.

Vaske

J. J.

Beaman

Sponarski

C. C.

(2017). Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach's alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189

93.

Verma

Prakash Dewani

Behl

Pereira

Dwivedi

Del Giudice

(2023). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of eWOM credibility: Investigation of moderating role of culture and platform type. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 154, 113292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.056

94.

Walsh

Hennig-Thurau

Mitchell

V. W.

(2007). Consumer confusion proneness: Scale development, validation, and application. Journal of Marketing Management (JMM), 23(7-8), 697–721. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707x230009

95.

Wiener, & Mowen. (1986). Source credibility: On the independent effects of trust and expertise. ACR North American Advances.

96.

Yuan

(2019). How consumers’ brand experience in social media can improve brand perception and customer equity. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(5), 1233–1251. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-01-2018-0034

97.

Zehir

Şahin

Kitapçı

Özşahin

(2011). The effects of brand communication and service quality in building brand loyalty through brand trust; the empirical research on global brands. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1218–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.142

98.

Zhang

Liang

(2021). Investigating the impact of interpersonal closeness and social status on electronic word-of-mouth effectiveness. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 130, 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.020

99.

Zhang

Law

(2010). The impact of e-word-of-mouth on the online popularity of restaurants: A comparison of consumer reviews and editor reviews. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 694–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.02.002

100.

Zhao

Wang

Tang

Zhang

(2020). Electronic word-of-mouth and consumer purchase intentions in social e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 41, Article 100980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100980

Establish Trust With Electronic Word-of-Mouth to Improve Brand Equity

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Brand Equity Concepts

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM)

Study 1: Qualitative Study

Qualitative Research Method

Data Collection

Question Design

Data Analysis and Results

Respondent Description

The Impact of e-wOM on Brand Equity in the Context of Online Business

Study 2: Quantitative Study

Hypotheses

Trust

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM)

Content Quality

Volume

Norm Conflict

Sponsored Recommendations

Source Expertise

Quantitative Methods

Data Collection

Measurements

Methodology

Reliability and Validity

Structural Equation Modeling

Data Analysis and Results

Descriptive Statistics

Reliability and Validity Check

Structural Equation Model Assessment

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Researchs

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Compliance

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References