Mar Mar21256

econstor
A Service of
zbw
Leibniz-Informationszentrum
Wirtschaft
Make Your Publications Visible.

Leibniz Information Centre
for Economics
Reichstein, Thomas; Brusch, Ines
Article — Published Version

The decision‐making process in viral marketing – A
review and suggestions for further research
Psychology & Marketing
Provided in Cooperation with:

John Wiley & Sons
Suggested Citation: Reichstein, Thomas; Brusch, Ines (2019) : The decision‐making process in
viral marketing – A review and suggestions for further research, Psychology & Marketing, ISSN
1520-6793, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 36, Iss. 11, pp. 1062-1081,
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21256
This Version is available at:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/230066
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:
Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your
Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes.
Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial
Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them
machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise
use the documents in public.
Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen
(insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open
gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you
genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated
licence.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
www.econstor.eu
DOI: 10.1002/mar.21256
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The decision‐making process in viral marketing—A review

and suggestions for further research
Thomas Reichstein | Ines Brusch
Chair of Marketing and Innovation

Management, Brandenburg University Abstract
of Technology Cottbus‐Senftenberg, Cottbus, Viral marketing is used to widely distribute content. To achieve this goal, the basic
Germany
decision‐making process from content reception to interaction must be clarified. This
Correspondence paper examines the decision‐making process of individuals in viral marketing using
Thomas Reichstein, Chair of Marketing
and Innovation Management, Brandenburg a new dynamic model. In addition, this work reviews the existing literature on viral
University of Technology Cottbus‐ marketing and structures to identify existing issues for further research. The
Senftenberg, Erich‐Weinert‐Str. 1, 03046
Cottbus, Germany. decision‐making process is basically divided into two stages. In the first decision
Email: [email protected] stage, individuals decide whether content should be considered. When individuals
agree to view the content, they decide in the second stage whether they want to
interact with it. These two decisions are influenced by three factors: the framework
conditions, content, and interaction aims. With the help of the decision model, this
paper summarizes the most important findings from viral marketing research over
the last 20 years. In addition, this work provides new opportunities for further
research in the field of viral marketing.
KEYWORDS
consumer behavior, decision‐making process, social media marketing, viral marketing, word of
mouth
1 | INTRODUCTION Earth, this means that more than one in three people on Earth actively
uses social networks. These facts illustrate the enormous importance
Viral marketing (VM) is currently regarded as the “holy grail” of digital of VM today. For example, after analyzing the US in‐depth, these facts
marketing (Akpinar & Berger, 2017). Rayport (1996) was one of the become even more impressive. A study by the Pew Research Center
first to address VM in his article, “The Virus of Marketing.” According (2018) found the following. In the US, 68% of the population use
to Cruz and Fill (2008), the term VM was introduced by Jurvetson and Facebook, and 73% use YouTube. Three‐quarters of Facebook users
Draper in 1997 and defined as “network‐supported word of mouth.” use Facebook every day. As the current generation of users 18‐29
Hotmail, which used e‐mail as a distribution medium, was one of the years old grows up, social media is likely to continue to expand.
pioneers in VM (Jurvetson, 2000). Over the course of time, the Already, 88% of the population in this age segment use social
possible communication channels of VM have expanded. Today, social networks. Facebook (80%) and YouTube (94%) continue to dominate
networks rather than e‐mail are used to distribute content. The most the generation of users 18–24 years old. This age segment heavily
popular social networks are currently Facebook and YouTube, uses other social networks such as Snapchat (78%), Instagram (71%),
followed by the networks WeChat and QQ, which are widespread in and Twitter (45%). Companies should use this impressive potential for
Asia. In 2019, 2.94 billion people are expected to use social networks their benefit. Laroche, Habibi, and Richard (2013) showed that
(eMarketer, 2019). With a population of about 7.7 billion people on customer and brand loyalties to a company are strengthened by social
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2019 The Authors. Psychology & Marketing Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1062 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar Psychol Mark. 2019;36:1062–1081.

REICHSTEIN AND BRUSCH | 1063
media. Companies should therefore actively create viral content on community element in social media. Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry,
social networks to improve the company’s perception among existing and Raman (2004) chose a concise definition that describes VM “as
and new customers (Akpinar & Berger, 2017). the process of encouraging honest communication among consumer
This paper sheds light on the decision‐making process (DMP) of networks.” Cruz and Fill (2008) pointed to the risk of loss of control
individuals in VM. In addition, this paper summarizes VM, which has in VM and mentioned the strong relationship to classical WOM.
been discussed in the literature for more than 20 years. By The classic WOM was the subject of discussion long before VM
structuring the existing literature, a model was created that was established in the research (e.g., Bone, 1995; Brown & Reingen,
represents the DMP of individuals in VM. Furthermore, the topic 1987; Engel, Kegerreis, & Blackwell, 1969; Herr, Kardes, & Kim,
should be given new impetus by breaking with outdated views (e.g., 1991; Richins, 1983). According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2011), VM
the term “sharing” is updated to “interaction”) and providing a variety results from the classic WOM, coupled with exponential growth and
of approaches for further research. the use of social media. The reference of VM to WOM is often
After analyzing the known definitions of VM, this paper described in the literature (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Dobele et al.,
introduces the new dynamic model that replaces old static models 2005; Ferguson, 2008; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2011). This is one of the
and comprehensively visualizes the DMP in the digital world. With reasons why VM is also called “electronic word of mouth” (Chu &
the help of this model, the three influencing factors (i.e., framework Kim, 2011; Hennig‐Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004;
conditions, content, and interaction aims) are analyzed and summar- Kaplan & Haenlein, 2011). Besides electronic WOM, there are other
ized based on a literature review. In conclusion, research gaps are terms that describe VM. These include “word of mouse” (Breazeale,
identified, and suggestions are provided for further research. 2009; Helm, 2000; Sun, Youn, Wu, & Kuntaraporn, 2006; Xia &
Bechwati, 2008), “internet word of mouth” (Goldenberg, Libai, &
Muller, 2001), “buzz marketing” (Carl, 2006; Mohr, 2007; Thomas,
2 | D E FI N I T I ON O F V I RA L M A RK E TI N G 2004) or “stealth marketing” (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2004).
Despite the scientific proximity, there are indications that
Over the last two decades, understanding of VM and its definitions differences exist between word‐of‐mouth (offline WOM) and viral
has evolved. In particular, the metaphor for a biological virus or marketing (online WOM). For example, WOM has a greater impact
epidemic characterizes the definitions and forms the term VM in the on purchase intent and a higher probability of retransmission than
literature (Dobele, Toleman, & Beverland, 2005; Gladwell, 2000; Kiss VM (Baker, Donthu, & Kumar, 2016). In general, people prefer to
& Bichler, 2008; Welker, 2002). Helm (2000) defined VM as a spread their opinions offline rather than online because of the social
“communication and distribution concept” based on the transmission risks of online WOM (Eisingerich, Chun, Liu, Jia, & Bell, 2015). In
of digital content between customers who send this content “in their contrast, the exponential growth and resulting high proliferation rate
social sphere” by e‐mail. The recipient is also encouraged to of VM (Woerndl, Papagiannidis, Bourlakis, & Li, 2008) are an
disseminate this content. Wilson (2000) noted that VM describes advantage over the classic WOM (Baker et al., 2016). Another
“any strategy that encourages” users to disseminate content to advantage is the improved measurability of the success of viral
create “the potential for exponential growth,” such as a biological campaigns (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2011). Ferguson (2008) distinguished
virus. Welker (2002) mentions advantages such as the extremely fast between the two in terms of cause and effect. In his opinion, VM is
and cost‐effective distribution of content. As a disadvantage, the the cause that creates awareness and enthusiasm. In contrast, WOM
uncontrollability of the method is stated (e.g., risks with a negative is the effect, as it leads to trial and error.
view of the contents). Porter and Golan (2006) use the term “viral What could be the reason for some of these differences? The first
advertising” and define it as “unpaid peer‐to‐peer communication of hint can be found in the work of Barasch and Berger (2014). People
provocative content.” This content is intended to motivate recipients decide on what content to share based on the target group they
to exchange information so that it can be spread over the Internet. appeal to. If one or a few people are addressed, the content is more
Dobele et al. (2005) distinguish between a practical and marketing useful or helpful. This changes when the content is directed to
perspective. From a practical point of view, VM is a strategy several people. In this case, people usually want to achieve good self‐
“whereby people forward the message to other people on their presentation by disseminating the content. Furthermore, there is a
e‐mail lists or tie advertisements into or at the end of messages.” difference between written and oral communication, because written
From a marketing point of view, on the other hand, it is more a communication (VM) more often expresses interesting contents than
“process of encouraging” designed to encourage individuals “to pass oral communication (classic WOM). The asymmetry of the informa-
along favorable or compelling marketing information they receive,” tion is the reason for this is. Written statements give people more
which is either “by design or by accident.” Kaplan and Haenlein time to think about them. In direct communication (e.g., face‐to‐face)
(2011) claimed that two aspects play a role in the definition of VM. this time is less (Berger & Iyengar, 2013). According to the findings,
The first aspect is that the distribution rate of content must be VM has partly different mechanisms than classical WOM. The
greater than one (as in an epidemic, for example) to achieve content that people spread on social networks is usually public and
exponential growth. The second aspect, the use of social media can be seen by many people. This is particularly critical in social
applications, favors the distribution of content via the existing networks, where the content is directly linked to people’s profiles. In
1064 | REICHSTEIN AND BRUSCH
this context, the sharing/interaction behavior of individuals changes influencing the decision levels. Table 1 shows the results of all three
as a result of self‐presentation concerns, for example. In contrast, studies. A positive significant influence on the decision level is
WOM usually takes place in a private or anonymous context, which indicated by a “+”. The “−” indicates a significant negative influence.
changes the sharing behavior. For this reason, it is necessary to In addition, the influencing factors from the literature were assigned
distinguish between these two areas. to the influencing factors from the DMP model in the table.
Furthermore, the literature review shows that the definition of VM Some special characteristics can be observed. The tie strength
has changed over time. Of course, this is also because of technical has a positive effect on all three decision levels (De Bruyn & Lilien,
development. For example, the number of possible transmission 2008; Camarero & San José, 2011). Pescher et al. (2014), however,
channels has increased to date. In the past, e‐mail was generally cited measured the negative influence on the receiving and forwarding
as the best distribution method (Dobele et al., 2005; Phelps et al., stage. This is as a result of the use of different content throughout
2004). Today, however, content is most often distributed via social the studies. While Pescher et al. (2014) used advertising messages as
media (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2011). After extensive research, it is content, the other two studies focused on useful or viral content. It is
necessary to create a new definition of VM that takes current also striking that the demographic similarity has a negative effect on
developments into account. This definition is as follows: all three levels. The reason for this is that individuals like to take
Viral marketing is defined as marketing strategies that permit advice from people outside their social environment and consider it
exponential distribution of content in network‐based channels in the valuable, such as advice from older persons who already have more
shortest time with comparatively little effort and additionally experience in certain areas (Gilly, Graham, Wolfinbarger, & Yale,
generate measurable added value through the content, which leads 1998). Another remarkable result is that highly networked indivi-
to a high cost‐benefit effect. duals receive a higher amount of content but forward less overall.
One possible explanation would be that such individuals have greater
risk concerns about their social status and are therefore critical of
3 | D E C I S IO N‐M A K I N G P R O C E S S I N V I R A L the content they choose to forward.
MARKETING In addition, two other qualitative models have received attention
in the literature. The work of Phelps et al. (2004) is divided into two
Regarding the DMP of individuals, there is a multitude of literature decision stages, and the work of Palka et al. (2009) is divided into
(Edwards, 1954; Jacoby, 2002; Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Thaler, three decision stages. In particular, Palka et al. (2009) pointed out
1980). One of the first models used to explain the DMP is the S–R many of the possible influencing factors on the individual stages.
(stimulus‐response) model by Skinner (1935), which was later Social factors play an important role in this model and affect all three
extended to the so‐called S‐O‐R (stimulus‐organism‐response) model stages of the model. Other models (e.g., technology acceptance
(Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). This model explains consumer behavior model) are also included in this work. However, factors that are no
in the DMP (Kim & Lennon, 2013). The authors do not go further into longer relevant today are also considered (e.g., costs for the
the psychological models in decision theory but concentrate on the forwarding of messages).
findings in VM. Furthermore, the authors do not further consider the In terms of technological development, these five models are very
algorithmic problems of VM, such as seeding or influence maximiza- limited today. The first point of criticism is that the terms “sharing”
tion. For a deeper insight, the following literature can be used (Chen, and “forwarding the message” are generally used in the existing
Wang, & Wang, 2010; Hinz, Skiera, Barrot, & Becker, 2011; Kempe, models and the literature (Akpinar & Berger, 2017; Berger &
Kleinberg, & Tardos, 2003; Tang, Xiao, & Shi, 2014). Milkman, 2012; Camarero & San José, 2011). Reputation is not only
This work provides an overview of the DMP of individuals in VM. enhanced by sharing content but also by simple expressions of
The course of the DMP, from conservation to distribution of content, interest such as likes (Facebook, YouTube, and others), comments or
has already been mentioned in the literature (Camarero & San José, other forms. It is known that people do not necessarily share content
2011; De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008; Palka, Pousttchi, & Wiedemann, that they have “liked” (Botha, 2014). Guerini, Staiano, and Albanese
2009; Pescher, Reichhart, & Spann, 2014). De Bruyn and Lilien (2008) (2013), for example, distinguished between “plusoners,” “replies”, and
introduced the first relevant model of the DMP in VM in 2008. In this “resharers” in Google+. Therefore, the terms should be adapted to
work, the authors extended previous single‐stage models to a current developments in social networking, and the broader term
multistage model with three decisions. In summary, it can be said “interaction,” which is also applied in practice (e.g., Facebook), should
that the first stage deals with receiving the content (decision: open or be used. It should be noted that sharing is still used in the literature
not). The second stage involves consideration of the content review of this work, as existing research is limited to this form of
(decision: view or not). In the last stage, the final decision is made interaction in most cases.
(decision: forwarding or not). Building on the work of De Bruyn and However, the strongest criticism is that the existing models in
Lilien (2008), similar decision‐making models were developed in the VM are static. Simple forms of content distribution (e.g., through
work of Pescher et al. (2014) and Camarero and San José (2011), e‐mails) can be explained with these models. In the age of social
which also consist of three decision‐making stages. Based on media, however, these models are no longer sufficient. From
quantitative analyses, these researchers examined various factors receiving the content to interacting, the entire DMP is very dynamic.
REICHSTEIN
AND
BRUSCH
T A B L E 1 Overview of previously investigated impact factors in decision models
Stage Receiving/Awareness Interest/opening Forwarding

De Bruyn and Pescher et al. Camarero and De Bruyn and Pescher et al. Camarero and De Bruyn and Pescher et al. Camarero and
Reference Lilien (2008) (2014) San José (2011) Lilien (2008) (2014) San José, 2011 Lilien (2008) (2014) San José (2011)
DMP in VM Impact factor
FC Affinity (TS) # +** #
FC Tie strength (TS) +* −* # # # +* # −* +**
−
Demographic similarity (TS) −** * −**
Connectedness (TS) +* −**
IA
C Positive attitude (TC) +** +**
Entertainment value (C) +* +* +*
Purposive value (C) # +* +*
C Negative attitude (TC) −** #
/ Usage intensity # # # # # +**
Abbreviations: C, content; DMP, decision‐making process; FC, framework conditions; IA, interactions aims; VM: viral marketing; TC, toward content ; TS, toward sender.
#No significant impact|blank fields: not investigated; +positive significant impact; −negative significant impact.
**p < .01.
*p < .01.
|
1065
FIGURE 1 Decision‐making process in viral marketing
For this reason, the classic DMP must, of course, be reconsidered and this content?), created framework conditions (e.g., What is in the
adapted. This assumption is illustrated in the model (Figure 1). There heading of the content?) or random framework conditions (e.g., Is
are various possible processes in the DMP of VM. The model shows this topic currently a trend?). It is important to note that this
these possibilities. The following examples illustrate the essential information is captured dynamically. This means there is no
processes. It should be noted that not all possible processes are prescribed procedure. For example, the individual can jump
listed. This would go beyond the scope of this work. directly into the content without seeing the corresponding
We assume there are basically only two stages of decision‐ heading. In addition, a dynamic change between content and
making. The first decision stage in the literature, to open the content framework conditions is possible (example of attention points:
or not, is obsolete in most social media applications. Content is Headline → Content → Sender → Content). A cognitive process is
usually displayed immediately, and the only decision is to “reject used to decide whether to view the content when sufficient
content” or “accept content” and view it. Therefore, the first two information has been collected from the user.
decision stages of the previous models in the literature are combined If the user decides to view the content (accept content), he enters
into one decision stage. This first decision stage serves as a filter for the second decision stage. This process is also dynamic. For example,
the unmanageable flood of content individuals are exposed to. Of after viewing the beginning of a video, a person might think about
course, algorithms such as those used by Facebook (DeVito, 2017) sharing it. In the progress of the video, the person discards this
already restrict users’ content to their interests. Nevertheless, there thought again, as some of the factors in the video may put the person
is obviously much more content than a user can consume. A person in a bad light with respect to his self‐representation (influencing the
can make this initial decision, sometimes in fractions of a second, interaction aim). After the information has been processed in the
based on many different types of information. The information can be cognitive process, the final decision between interaction and no
generated by the content itself (e.g., an image or video captured interaction is made. It is possible for the individual, after each
directly) or by framework conditions. Why the differentiation decision, to reconsider and, if necessary, revise them. For example, a
between framework conditions and content is relevant becomes person could create a comment on content but delete it later. In
clear over the course of this work. Even interaction aims can addition, the model shows that individuals can be influenced by
influence this decision. An example would be that a person only looks content. In VM, it is not only essential that content is distributed
at content because that person knows the content could be widely but also that this content has a positive effect on people
interesting for friends. The framework conditions themselves are (e.g., in their opinion of a presented product). A person’s attitude or
categorized into receiving framework conditions (e.g., Who sent opinion can be influenced by content, even if that person does not
interact with the content. In addition, it is assumed that content that decisions? Are there any differences between the channels used?
is rejected in the first decision phase does not influence the What impact do so‐called influencers have?
individual. However, when people decide to interact with content, According to Gunawan and Huarng (2015), the attitude of a
they are influenced by it. The two absolute hypotheses remain to be recipient to a product, in relation to the purchase intention, is
proven and could be investigated in further research. influenced by the credibility of a source or a transmitter. In this
The aim of this model is to clarify the dynamic DMP in VM and to context, credibility forms a positive attitude toward the purchase
identify questions for further research. Basically, it is necessary to decision. Regarding content in general, it is likely that the
understand the two existing cognitive processes that are influenced transmitter’s credibility may also have a positive impact on the
by the factors presented. In addition, it must be emphasized that sharing decision. Trust in the transmitter should also be given
each influencing factor of the model can impact each decision stage. (Aghdaie, Sanayei, & Etebari, 2012). The probability of seeing
Some factors are already well researched, but further research in content increases if the receiver is closely related to the transmitter
areas such as framework conditions is necessary to better under- (Camarero & San José, 2011; De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008). Likewise, the
stand the mechanisms of VM. The model is shown in Figure 1 and willingness to share this content increases in a close receiver‐
contains an overview of the available literature on the individual transmitter relationship (Ketelaar et al., 2016). If friends or
influencing factors. In the following, this study presents the various acquaintances appear in the role of the transmitter, this has a
influencing factors of the DMP. In addition, the existing literature on positive influence on the evaluation of the content because of the
individual factors is reviewed. subjective norm (Gunawan & Huarng, 2015). A good perceived
value of the content also has a positive effect on the receiver’s
attitude toward the transmitter (Miquel‐Romero & Adame‐Sánchez,
4 | IN FLU EN CI NG FA CTOR S 2013). However, if it is known that the sending person is sending
the content of poor quality, there is a high probability that this
4.1 | Framework conditions content will not be seen at all, regardless of the close relationship
between the persons (Phelps et al., 2004). Furthermore, despite the
The framework conditions are strong influencing factors on the DMP
transmitter’s high credibility (e.g., if the transmitter is a close
of individuals in VM. By means of framework conditions, people can
friend), the attitude and intention to share the content may
quickly classify and evaluate content (e.g., classification of content
decrease if the content is not convincing or is understood as a
according to headings). This is particularly important for the first
mere advertising message (Hsieh, Hsieh, & Tang, 2012). In the case
decision to filter the enormous flood of content on the Internet. The
of consumer products, the positive influence of the close relation-
relevance of this point can be illustrated by taking a closer look at the
ship between receiver and transmitter is eliminated. In this case,
facts. To estimate how much content is available, statistics from
messages from strangers are more effective in terms of the
Cisco (2019) on Internet usage should be used. In 2017, Internet
intention to share than messages from acquaintances. The reason
traffic was 46,600 GB per second. By comparison, in 1992, Internet
for this could be the desire for unbiased information (Schulze,
traffic was 100 GB per day. In 2022, 82% of Internet traffic is caused
Schöler, & Skiera, 2014). The attitude toward the channel and the
by video content. With an increasing number of contents, individuals
attitude toward the brand, which are integrated into the content,
are facing decision‐making problems. Furthermore, framework
have a positive influence, and the attitude toward VM, in general,
conditions can provide people with additional information (e.g., how
has an influence on the decision to share (Ketelaar et al., 2016). In
the content is perceived by other people) about the content. This, in
addition, a distinction is made in the level of receiving whether the
turn, could have a greater impact on the second decision. These are
content is searched for independently and actively or whether
two reasons why framework conditions should be differentiated from
the recipient receives the content passively from a transmitter. The
the actual content.
criteria degree of interest, literary quality and reasoning power of
The framework conditions have so far been underestimated and
content have less influence on the common decision for people who
have only been discussed to a limited extent in the literature. This
are actively looking for content. In contrast, these criteria have a
work presents the existing findings and provides suggestions for
stronger impact on people who receive content passively (Chen &
further research in this area. In the following, the framework
Berger, 2016). This means that people themselves view researched
conditions are subdivided into the areas of receiving created and
content less critically than received content. This, in turn, influences
random framework conditions.
the intention to share.
4.1.1 | Receiving framework conditions 4.1.2 | Influencer

The receiving framework conditions include all factors related to the As described, people pay attention to the transmitter when they
receiving of content. It is of interest how and whether these factors receive content. For this reason, opinion leaders must be addressed
influence the two decision stages of the DMP. One might ask, for in the receiving framework conditions. Opinion leaders, also known
example, what impact do content transmitters have on people’s as “influentials” (Watts & Dodds, 2007) or “hubs” (Hinz et al., 2011),
are people who can influence the opinions, behavior, attitudes or is better suited for content with an entertaining character. Products
motivations of others (Moldovan, Muller, Richter, & Yom‐Tov, 2017; or content that offer a pure utility should not be distributed through
Valente & Pumpuang, 2007). Nowadays, in social media marketing, this and similar channels. Channels such as LinkedIn should be used
the term influencer is used over the term opinion leader. Influencers for this type of content.
are characterized by a high degree of information transmissions, such Emotions triggered by content have different effects on the
as highly networked people or celebrities. As a result of the growth in virality of this content in the different channels. For example, awe‐
the social media sector, people who create their own content (e.g., via inspiring content works better on Facebook than on Twitter or
blogs or tweets) are considered influencers (Mohr, 2014). Because of Google+. In contrast, surprising content is more likely to work on
the high level of activity in social networks (e.g., Twitter), influencers Google+ (Heimbach & Hinz, 2016). According to Tsugawa and Ohsaki
are building a strong fan base and thus expanding their reach (2015), negative content on the social network Twitter is more viral
(Hwang, 2015). However, it should be noted that Moldovan et al. than positive content. Moreover, these negative contents spread
(2017) found that the impact of influencers is strongest in smaller faster. Furthermore, the results of Tsugawa and Ohsaki (2015) could
strong‐tie groups and that it decreases with the increasing group size. not be confirmed in the work of Stieglitz and Dang‐Xuan (2013), who
The identification of influencers is an important factor for the also examined content on Twitter. It was merely noted that emotions
efficient use of VM (Li & Du, 2011). Identification can promote a in written content promote virality and speed of distribution, but no
faster and stronger spread of a VM campaign (Goldenberg, Han, significant difference was found between positive and negative
Lehmann, & Hong, 2009; Hinz et al., 2011), as highly networked emotions. Gruzd, Doiron, and Mai (2011), on the other hand,
individuals are more willing to distribute advertising content than determined a stronger virality of positive Twitter content. It should
less networked individuals (Smith, Coyle, Lightfoot, & Scott, 2007). It be noted that the data from the previous three Twitter‐related
is also possible to get a sense of the current opinion about a product studies come from different subject areas or cultures. This is an
so that a company can react accordingly (Li & Du, 2011). The indication that the influencing factors of viral content can vary
selection of influencers must be adapted to the respective marketing according to a topic, cultural affiliation (Chung & Darke, 2006) or
campaign or product (Cho, Hwang, & Lee, 2012), but this area should other factors. In general, the right communication channel should be
not be discussed further in this work. For a deeper insight, the adapted to the respective VM strategy on a case‐by‐case basis.
following literature can be used (Valente & Pumpuang, 2007; Van der
Merwe & van Heerden, 2009). The impact of influencers on the DMP
4.1.4 | Created framework conditions
of individuals in VM is not well known. Bobkowski (2015), however,
determined the following. For example, if the individual receives a Created framework conditions are factors that can be modified by
narrative article from an influencer, the perceived information the creator of the content. These factors provide additional
benefit of this message for the individual and thus the distribution information, summarize the content or try to attract people’s
rate of the article increases. There are also opposing views that attention. Suppose an entertainment video is to be published on
assume the broader population has the greatest influence on the viral Facebook. This would require a headline to briefly display the
spread of content and that influencers have a little and more local content of the video. It would also be important to choose the right
impact (Watts & Dodds, 2007; Zhang, Zhao, & Xu, 2016). In summary, startup image or video opening to attract people’s attention.
it can be concluded that influencers can impact the individual. An important aspect of created framework conditions is head-
However, further research in this area is needed to make more lines. The headline of a newspaper article on social networks alone
detailed statements about influencers’ effects on the virality and can tell us how popular the article is (Piotrkowicz, Dimitrova,
economic effectiveness of content. Otterbacher, & Markert, 2017). In a study by the American Press
Institute (2014), it has become clear that only four of ten Americans
also read the content of the headlines. This also shows that headlines
4.1.3 | Communication channel
can display the content in a highly compressed form. As an
The communication channel is another factor that can be assigned to advantage, individuals save an enormous amount of time and effort
the receiving framework conditions. The channel should be adapted in searching for suitable content (Shrawankar & Wankhede, 2016). In
to the respective needs of the desired target group and offer easy the news industry, in particular, there has been a real battle for users’
applicability (Grifoni, D’Andrea, & Ferri, 2012). Examples of such attention. In this industry, headlines are a well‐known and proven
channels include the following: Face‐to‐face, phone calls, blogs, means of attracting user clicks (Alves, Antunes, Agrici, Sousa, &
forums, e‐mail, newsletters, websites and, of course, social networks. Ramos, 2016; Kim, Mantrach, Jaimes, & Oh, 2016; Piotrkowicz et al.,
Social networks are currently used intensively and offer an excellent 2017). This raises the question, how should headlines be designed to
opportunity to disseminate information quickly and widely. For this attract the attention of individuals and thus draw them to the
reason, these networks are particularly suitable for VM (Tang, Tang, content? Normally, headlines are placed above the content to directly
& Yuan, 2018). However, the chosen communication channel should attract the attention of individuals (Nwala & Umukoro, 2017). There
not only be tailored to the target group but also to the product or the is already software that promises a higher click‐through‐rate of the
content itself. Schulze et al. (2014) found, for example, that Facebook content by the correct selection of words in headings. One example is
the headline click‐based topic model from the work of Kim et al. community has a negative impact on distribution) is essential for
(2016). The correct choice of words in a heading is not trivial, widespread dissemination. Images are another factor influencing
because the optimal choice of words is constantly changing and the intention to share, as they can greatly increase the virality of a
depends on topics (Kim et al., 2016). In general, headlines should be content (Kourogi et al., 2015). Content including an image is
precise, striking and expressive (Nwala & Umukoro, 2017) and arouse shared three times as often as content based on plain text.
individual curiosity (Kourogi, Fujishiro, Kimura, & Nishikawa, 2015). However, text‐based content is commented on more often than
Curiosity can be generated, for example, using pronouns. These images. This could be because text‐based content offers more
create an information gap in people that can only be uncovered by depth (Guerini et al., 2013). The chapter “content” refers to the
looking at the content (Blom & Hansen, 2015). An example would be, type of images used to increase virality. In summary, it must be
“This is an animal?” The reader would first have to look at the content ensured that the selected headlines attract enough attention but
to understand the context. In addition, a heading should contain a do not contain false or exaggerated information that could be
summary of the content (Kim et al., 2016). Kuiken, Schuth, Spitters, perceived as deceptive. In addition, there are other created
and Marx (2017) found that short words, signal words (e.g., how, why, framework conditions that can influence the distribution rate.
when, what, who, this) and sentimental words should be used to These have been hardly researched so far and should be examined
increase the performance of headlines. No questions or quotes in the future.
should be used against this. It should be noted that the subject area
of the content has been excluded from this study. However, this
4.1.5 | Random framework conditions
could have a strong influence on the performance of a headline. It
should also be noted that a headline must be adapted to the target Some claim that the virality of content also happens accidentally
group, as individuals have different views, interests, and language (Berger & Milkman, 2012). Researchers have shown (e.g., Berger &
styles. Especially in connection with cultural differences, this point Milkman, 2012; Botha & Reyneke, 2013; Heimbach & Hinz, 2016)
must be considered (Dor, 2003), because individuals in different that some mechanisms in VM can already be explained. However,
cultures show a different sharing behavior (Chung & Darke, 2006). there are factors that can influence virality and cannot be controlled.
Kourogi et al. (2015) found that headings should contain as few One example is occurrences that influence world affairs (presidential
characters as possible. In addition, keywords such as “breaking” and elections, technological inventions, environmental influences, etc.).
“new” attract attention. However, keywords must not be used Another example would be comments or general opinions on content.
incoherently but should be meaningful. Of course, it is possible to drive people in a certain direction, but it is
In the course of the headlines’ main task to draw attention to not always possible to predict where they will end up. So, positively
the content, so‐called “clickbait” is also mentioned in the literature intended content can be pushed into an undesirable direction by
(Alves et al., 2016; Chen, Conroy, & Rubin, 2015; Kuiken et al., people’s negative opinions and trigger negative consequences (e.g.,
2017; Potthast, Köpsel, Benno, & Hagen, 2016). This method of flame war). Stopping this negative public opinion is extremely
attracting attention is regarded as a negative influence and partly difficult but would be a very interesting topic for further research.
as a form of spam (Potthast et al., 2016). Clickbait headlines often It is also a fact that individual opinions and attitudes on certain topics
use vague, false or exaggerated statements and facts with the goal change over time (Kelman, 2017), as does the consumer market,
of generating as many clicks as possible for content (Chen et al., which dynamically adapts to the current needs of individuals (Griffin,
2015). They are increasingly used in so‐called “soft news” content 1997). It is therefore logical that people’s preferences are constantly
that is rather entertaining or offers advantages for the individual changing. This can be slow, as in the food industry, where consumer
(Blom & Hansen, 2015). Clickbait headlines suggest exciting and demand is slowly moving toward locally produced products (Adams &
interesting content. As a rule, the content cannot meet the Salois, 2010). However, trends can also develop quickly. The so‐called
expectations that have arisen from overly exaggerated headlines. Fidget Spinners are an example of this. These were already invented
This is perceived by users as disturbing and unpleasant (Potthast in the 1990s (Luscombe, 2017) and experienced great hype in 2017
et al., 2016). Clickbait is also problematic in view of the currently (Benwell, 2017). This product has spread quickly. Why this product
controversial topic of fake news. However, it should be noted that became so successful within a very short time cannot be determined
some features of clickbait have a positive impact on headline (Lee, 2017). Finding an explanation for trends that develop within a
performance without intentionally misleading users (Kuiken et al., very short time is usually not trivial or even impossible. For this
2017). For example, generated information gaps are also assigned reason, it is assumed that there are random conditions that can
to the clickbait category but do not have to be perceived as influence the virality of content or products. Further research in this
negative by individuals (Blom & Hansen, 2015). Lakkaraju, area is necessary to minimize the factors previously regarded as
Mcauley, and Leskovec (2013) also dealt with the framework random. However, it is assumed that some random factors can
conditions. They found that the interaction of the right title always contribute to the virality of content and products. This is the
(length, description, sentence structure, and chosen word type), at case because a 100% prediction of environmental conditions or
the right time (between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.) and in the right environmental events is not possible. Table 2 shows an overview of
community (multiple uses of the same content in the same the findings of the factor “framework conditions.”
T A B L E 2 Overview of the “framework conditions” factor

Variable Statement Reference
Value of the content A high perceived value of content has a positive effect on the Miquel‐Romero and Adame‐
transmitter‐receiver relationship. Sánchez (2013)
Poor quality content is highly unlikely to be seen at all, regardless of Phelps et al. (2004)
the strong transmitter‐receiver relationship.
If the content is not convincing or is understood as a pure advertising Hsieh et al. (2012)
message, the intention to share the content may decrease despite the
high credibility of the transmitter.
The credibility of the The credibility of a source has a positive influence on the purchase Aghdaie et al. (2012); Gunawan
transmitter decision or on the use of the content. and Huarng (2015)
Relationship to the transmitter The probability of seeing content increases if the receiver is closely Camarero and San José (2011);
related to the transmitter. De Bruyn and Lilien (2008)
The willingness to share content increases in a close transmitter‐ Ketelaar et al. (2016)
receiver relationship.
A close receiver‐transmitter relationship has a positive influence on Gunawan and Huarng (2015)
the evaluation of the content.
In the case of consumer goods, news from strangers is more effective Schulze et al. (2014)
in terms of intention to share compared with news from known
persons.
Level of activity The criteria degree of interest, literary quality and argumentative Chen and Berger (2016)
power of a piece of content have less influence on the decision to
share for people who are actively looking for a content, but a
stronger influence on people who receive the content passively.
Influencer The impact of the influencer decreases with increasing reach. Moldovan et al. (2017)
The influencer can promote a faster and more widespread viral Goldenberg et al. (2009);
marketing campaign. Hinz et al. (2011)
If the content is received from an opinion leader, the perceived Bobkowski (2015)
information value of the message and the distribution rate of the
information increases.
The broad mass has the greatest influence on the viral spread of Watts and Dodds (2007); Zhang
content. Opinion leaders have more local influence. et al. (2016)
Communication channel The communication channel should be adapted to the respective Grifoni et al. (2012)
needs of the desired target group and offer easy usability.
The chosen communication channel should be tailored not only to the Heimbach and Hinz (2016);
target group but also to the product or the content itself. Schulze et al. (2014)
Social networks are particularly suitable for viral marketing because of Tang et al. (2018)
the possibility of spreading information quickly and comprehensively.
Written communication is better suited for viral marketing compared Berger and Iyengar (2013)
with oral communication because of the asymmetry of information.
Characteristics of headlines to Headlines must be precise, striking and expressive to attract attention. Nwala and Umukoro (2017)
increase their performance
Headlines should arouse curiosity. Kourogi et al. (2015); Blom and
Hansen (2015)
Headlines must provide a summary of the content. Kim et al. (2016)
In formulations of headlines, short words, signal words, and Kuiken et al. (2017)
sentimental words should be used.
Words such as “breaking” and “new” attract attention. Kourogi et al. (2015)
Clickbait Clickbait can be deemed spam and have a negative impact. Potthast et al. (2016)
Clickbait headlines often use false statements and facts with the goal Chen et al. (2015)
of generating as many clicks as possible for content.
Clickbait can cause disappointment in individuals, as the content Potthast et al. (2016)
cannot satisfy the expectations that arise.
Clickbait has a positive effect on headline performance when used Kuiken et al. (2017); Blom and
without intentionally misleading the user. Hansen (2015)
4.2 | Content (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Berger, Sorensen, & Rasmussen, 2010;
Cohen, 2014; Stieglitz & Dang‐Xuan, 2013). In this respect, Cohen
Perhaps the most influential factor on the two decision‐making
(2014) was able to gain interesting insights from examining the
stages is the content itself, with greater weight given to the
intention of individuals to share a “serious game.” It was confirmed
interaction decision. The most important question is how content
that both negative and positive emotions promote the intention to
should be shaped to promote high virality. Much is known about the
share. However, it was found that negative emotions stemming from
nature of the content to promote the virality of this content. For
interaction with the content also influenced the intention to share in
instance, it is well known that content must be interesting to attract
the long term. If positive emotions were triggered, the effect during
attention (Miquel‐Romero & Adame‐Sánchez, 2013; Berger & Milk-
the use of the content was short‐lived. The reason for this was
man, 2012; Berger & Schwartz, 2011). A detailed look at the type of
because negative emotions probably left a more lasting impression.
content reveals further aspects that influence the DMP in VM.
Brown et al. (2010) drew a similar conclusion. In this paper, it was
found that a combination of humor and strong violence in one piece
of content increases brand perception in the long term (2 to 3
4.2.1 | Emotions
weeks). Further research should shed more light on this insight to
Emotions are often cited in the literature as drivers of the virality of better understand the temporal component of the influence of
content (Berger, 2011; Berger & Milkman, 2012; Dafonte‐Gómez, emotions on the intention to share. If the content is perceived to be
2014; Dobele, Lindgreen, Beverland, Vanhamme, & van Wijk, 2007; controversial, this may also increase the intention to share, as it
Tsugawa & Ohsaki, 2015). Emotions increase both the intention to increases the degree of interest in the content. If the content is too
share content and the speed of the diffusion of content (Stieglitz & controversial, the opposite effect occurs because individuals may feel
Dang‐Xuan, 2013). The question now is, which emotions influence uncomfortable with sharing or discussing it (Chen & Berger, 2013).
the intention to share? Berger and Milkman (2012) claim in their However, there are also opposing views, as in the work of Stieglitz
work that positive emotions have a higher influence on the and Dang‐Xuan (2013), where a significant difference in the intention
intention to share than negative emotions do. The results from to share negative or positive emotions is not acknowledged. In
Berger and Milkman (2012) were confirmed in a later study by summary, the use of content that can be interpreted negatively must
Heimbach and Hinz (2016). Dafonte‐Gómez (2014) analyzed the 25 be carefully considered. It is possible to increase virality through
most used viral video ads from 2006 to 2013 and came to the same negative content, but risks also exist for products, companies or
conclusion. Fifty‐eight percent of the videos contained humorous people who distribute this content.
content. Erotic (8%) and violent content (16%) were used less. Emotions differ not only in whether they are positive and
Moreover, this form of content was usually presented in a negative but also in their degrees of activation (Smith & Ellsworth,
humorous way. Emotional happiness was the focus of the content 1985). It is known that emotions triggered by content that causes a
of almost all the advertising videos analyzed (92%). Meanwhile, strong activation or excitement in individuals also increase the
negative emotions were usually used only as a surprise and rarely in intention to share (Berger, 2011; Berger & Milkman, 2012;
isolation. In general, the surprise effect was often used in viral video Guadagno, Rempala, Murphy, & Okdie, 2013). Also, negative
ads (76%). As a result of the small number of videos analyzed, This emotions, which have an activating (e.g., fear) instead of a
study should be critically evaluated. However, similar results were deactivating (e.g., grief) influence, have a positive effect on the
achieved in a study by Golan and Zaidner (2008). They found that intention to share (Berger & Milkman, 2012).
humor was used in 91% of viral advertising messages, sex in 28% of In general, content that generates high excitement through
them, violence in 14% of them, children in 13% of them, and animals positive emotions is shared up to 30% more compared with content
in 18% of these messages. that triggers other emotions (Nelson‐Field, Riebe, & Newstead,
Hsieh et al. (2012) also confirmed a clear increase in the intention 2013). The degree of activation could also serve as a mediator for
to share, triggered by positive emotions (such as humor). Further other factors. For example, it is known that multimedia effects have a
effects include an increasingly positive attitude toward this content positive influence on the intention to share and on the attitude
(Hsieh et al., 2012) and toward the brand (Eckler & Bolls, 2011). toward content (Hsieh et al., 2012). The degree of activation could
The combination of positive and negative emotions, not just in the serve as an explanation for the positive influence of multimedia
form of surprises, can also have a positive effect. Brown, Bhadury, effects on virality. These effects probably influence the degrees of
and Pope (2010) noted the positive influence of comedic violence in activation of individuals or increase the activating influence of the
advertising content on the intention to share as well as on the emotions used. However, this is only an assumption, and empirical
attitude toward the content and toward the integrated brand. Botha evidence is still lacking. According to Milkman and Berger (2014),
and Reyneke (2013) concluded that content is shared only when it is scientific work can also be designed in such a way that non‐scientists
associated with positive emotions. If the associated emotions are share it more often. To achieve this, research must be designed to
negative or neutral, the content is not shared further. This thesis arouse emotions, increase perceived benefits and stimulate the
must be critically evaluated, as several studies assume that negative interest of the individual. This summarizes the most important
emotions can also have a positive effect on the intention to share aspects of viral content, including in the nonscientific area.
Basically, it can be said that content must trigger emotions 4.2.3 | Designing the content from the company's
(Dobele et al., 2007) or arouse the interest of people (Berger & point of view
Milkman, 2012) to increase the intention to share. These emotions
As the term “VM” implies, not only is virality important for VM
should be positive or combined with negative emotions, for example,
content creators (e.g., companies) but also a marketing benefit is
for surprises. However, the use of negative emotions can also be
achieved. Hence, it is important to consider additional factors that
advisable in some cases to increase virality.
are not solely related to the pure increase of virality.
In general, noncommercial content is more viral than advertising
4.2.2 | Images content is (Nelson‐Field et al., 2013). Nevertheless, VM can have a
positive influence on individuals’ buying activity (Hamed, 2017). The use
Images are a commonly used content type in social networks, and
of social networks also has a positive effect on purchasing activities
their relevance increases with the growth of popular networks, such
(Zhang, Trusov, Stephen, & Jamal, 2017). The spread of viral content
as Instagram. It is known that images increase the virality of news in
usually begins with strong exponential growth that reaches a peak.
social networks (Guerini et al., 2013; Kourogi et al., 2015). In their
Thereafter, however, the spread decreases rapidly (Broxton, Interian,
analysis, Deza and Parikh (2015) categorized the images shared on
Vaver, & Wattenhofer, 2013). VM, therefore, has a short‐term effect
the Reddit platform according to their virality. Images that can be
(Leskovec, Adamic, & Huberman, 2007). In advertising, content should
assigned to the categories of “animal,” “synthetically generated,”
thus be designed in such a way that the individual can always remember
“(not) beautiful”, “explicit”, and “sexual” correlate most strongly with
it; this can be achieved by integrating so‐called triggers into the content.
virality. Guerini et al. (2013), investigated the influence of individual
The environment activates these triggers, and the triggers cause
image properties on the virality of images. In a comparison of static
individuals to remember the content or the advertised product, which
and animated images, it becomes clear that static images are
keeps the content in the social conversation (Berger & Schwartz, 2011).
commented on more frequently and are provided with simple
In this context, one can speak of a “stickiness factor,” which content
expressions of interest (in this case, “plusoners”). Animated images,
should offer to remain in the individual’s memory (Gladwell, 2000). An
on the other hand, are shared more frequently. The reason for this
example would be the song “Friday” by Rebecca Black, which uses the
is that animated images are often used for funny content. Images
weekday of Friday as the song title and thus simultaneously serves as a
containing faces (in at least 10% of the images) are commented on
trigger. Shehu, Bijmolt, and Clement (2016) have discovered that the
more frequently and with a simple expression of interest but are
beginning and end of advertising videos are crucial for a high
less frequently shared compared with images without faces. The
distribution rate. The beginning is important to attract people's
same is true when it comes to distinguishing the brightness of
attention. However, the end is significantly more important for the
images. Bright images are shared more often, but darker images are
intention to interact. Furthermore, there should be a special and
commented on more strongly and are provided with simple
distinctive part of the video.
expressions of interest. The same applies to color images (vs. black
As already mentioned, a tradeoff may exist between the sharing
and white images), except that color has no influence on the sharing
rate and corporate success. It is not prescribed that a high sharing
rate. Khosla, Sarma, and Hamid (2014) have also investigated the
rate will lead to a company’s success. According to Tucker (2015), a
properties of successful images. Images with a higher reddish
negative correlation exists between the number of views and the
component are more successful than images with a bluish
intention to buy an advertised product. This effect occurs with viral
or greenish tone. In addition, the displayed objects have an
content of three to four million views. In addition, it was found that
influence. Examples are Miniskirt, maillot, bikini, cup (strong
for every additional million views of advertising content, the
positive influence); cheetah, giant panda, basketball (medium
intention to buy the advertised product decreases by approximately
positive influence); wild boar, solar dish, horse cart, guacamole
10%. Huang, Su, Zhou, and Liu (2013) also found that viral content
(low positive influence); spatula, plunger, laptop, golfcart, space
has no influence on purchase intention, as individuals focus more on
heater (negative influence). Persons in images are considered eye‐
the history of the content than on the product information.
catchers and can increase the popularity of the images. In general,
However, the work of Akpinar and Berger (2017) shows that it is
objects in images should arouse interest. Regarding the memor-
possible to create a so‐called “valuable virality.” To achieve this, the
ability of images, it is known that images with faces of people are
advertising content must convey emotions, and at the same time,
more likely to be remembered than images with quiet environ-
the brand must be a natural part of the advertising content.
ments, for example, landscapes (Isola, Parikh, Torralba, & Oliva,
However, the integration of the brand into the content must not be
2014). Thus, it becomes clear that simple partial changes in images’
too strong and must not act as subliminal advertising. This has
properties can influence the intention to interact with these images.
negative effects on the perception of the company and on the
It shows that research on the influence of images in VM is limited,
intention to share its contents (Hsieh et al., 2012). Valuable virality
and therefore, future research is necessary to shed light on this
can also be created via negatively perceived content about products
important part of the DMP in VM. Especially in relation to the first
(negative publicity), for example, by increasing public awareness of
decision level, it is important to know how images should be designed
the product. Negative advertising increases the success of products
to increase people’s attention.
that are still unknown, but it harms the success of already‐known 4.3 | Interaction aims
products (Berger et al., 2010).
The third overarching influencing factor is the individual’s interaction
In conclusion, it becomes clear that viral content also carries
aim. In the context of this factor, the following question arises. Why
risks. When one is creating viral content from a business perspective,
do people interact with content?
it is important to calculate and analyze exactly how the content
One reason why people interact with content is the urge to
affects the individual, as unwanted negative effects on the company
create positive images of other people (Berger, 2014). However,
are possible. However, the careful and correct use of VM can have a
motivations can be different (e.g., altruistic or selfish). To shed more
strong cost‐benefit effect for companies. Table 3 provides an
light on the factor of interaction aims, the question that must be
overview of the findings of the influencing factor of “content.”
T A B L E 3 Overview of the “content” factor

Content Content must be interesting for the individual to attract Miquel‐Romero and Adame‐Sánchez (2013);
attention. Milkman & Berger (2014); Berger and Schwartz
(2011)
Content must arouse emotions to increase the sharing rate. Berger (2011); Berger & Milkman (2012);
Dafonte‐Gómez (2014); Dobele et al. (2007);
Tsugawa and Ohsaki (2015)
Emotions Most viral content contains humor. Dafonte‐Gómez (2014); Golan and Zaidner (2008)
Negative emotions are usually used only as a surprise and Dafonte‐Gómez (2014)
rarely in isolation.
Emotions increase the intention to share and the speed of Stieglitz and Dang‐Xuan (2013)
diffusion.
Positive emotions have a higher influence on the intention to Berger & Milkman (2012); Heimbach and Hinz
share compared with negative emotions. (2016)
Negative emotions can also have a positive effect on the Berger & Milkman (2012); Berger et al. (2010);
intention to share. Cohen (2014); Stieglitz and Dang‐Xuan (2013)
The combination of positive and negative emotions has a Brown et al. (2010)
positive effect on the intention to share.
Negative emotions have a long‐term and positive emotions a Cohen (2014)
short‐term effect on the intention to share.
Level of activation Emotions triggered by content that causes strong activation or Berger et al. (2010); Berger & Milkman, 2012;
excitement in individuals increase the intention to share. Guadagno et al. (2013)
Negative emotions, which have an activating rather than a Berger & Milkman (2012)
deactivating influence, have a positive effect on the intention
to share.
Content that generates high excitement through positive Nelson‐Field et al. (2013)
emotions is shared up to 30% more often compared with
content that triggers other emotions.
Images Images with a higher reddish component are more successful Khosla et al. (2014)
than images with a bluish or greenish tone.
Persons and interesting objects increase the popularity of Khosla et al. (2014)
images.
Images increase the virality of news in social networks. Guerini et al. (2013); Kourogi et al. (2015)
Content from the company's Viral marketing can have a positive influence on buying activity. Hamed (2017)
point of view
Content should be designed in such a way that it remains in the Berger and Schwartz (2011); Gladwell (2000)
memory of the individual.
The beginning and end of advertising videos are crucial for a Shehu et al. (2016)
high distribution rate.
To create valuable viral content, emotions must be conveyed, Akpinar and Berger (2017)
and at the same time, the brand must be a natural part of the
advertising content.
Negatively perceived advertising increases the success of Berger et al. (2010)
products that are still unknown but harms the success of
already‐known products.
answered first has to do with the purpose for which individuals use for positive consequences for themselves if they share content
social media‐probably the most important channel in VM (Kaplan & with others. Self‐esteem is increased not only through positive
Haenlein, 2011). In an explorative study by Whiting and Williams opinions but also through the exchange of negative opinions.
(2013), 25 in‐depth interviews showed that most people, 88% of Interestingly, positive opinions are generated more often than
respondents, used social media for social interaction. Other reasons negative ones (e.g., product ratings) are. However, negative
included information search (80%), entertainment (64%), commu- opinions that individuals receive from others are more often
nication benefits (56%), comfort (52%) or the monitoring and disseminated than positive ones are (Angelis, Bonezzi, Peluso,
observation of others (20%). In addition, 56% said they used social Rucker, & Costabile, 2012). It is interesting to note that males are
media to express their opinions, and 40% of respondents shared more inclined to promote themselves than females are. Females,
information. Individuals also use social media to provide the public on the other hand, tend to acquire knowledge in social networks to
with images of themselves and thus become part of the online build up new social relationships or maintain old relationships
community (Beverland, Dobele, & Farrelly, 2015). The reasons for (Dunbar et al., 1997). In a study by Zhang, Feick, & Mittal (2014),
using social media provide an initial indication of the motivation of gender‐specific differences in the likelihood of negative WOM
the individual to share content with others. Influencers who have a transmission were documented. According to this study, females
strong impact on the distribution of content share content with have fewer concerns than males do regarding sharing negative
others to show their uniqueness and stand out from the crowd (Ho & experiences with strong ties, even if they might put them in a bad
Dempsey, 2010). Influencers not only are characterized by the light. However, no difference was found in weak bonds. In this
exchange of external content but also use their own content to context, further research on the differences in the interaction
present themselves positively (e.g., through the creation of opinions behavior between males and females would be interesting.
or evaluations). The work of Cohen (2014) showed that the type of content also
In general, people have the urge to communicate with other influences the motivation to share. In this work, the intention of
people (Masmoudi, 1979) and to build social relationships with them people to participate in the serious game “Darfur is Dying” was
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). With the help of WOM, people can investigated. The complaints of refugees were obtained by means of
satisfy this urge (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004). Individuals like to talk a free game, and background information was provided. Although
about themselves and their personal relationships and experiences in this game offers emotional experiences for the player, it is not
a social group (Dunbar, Marriott, & Duncan, 1997). In addition, designed for pure entertainment value. In connection with this type
people like to share content with others whom they regard as useful of content, it was found that persons do not share this game for
(Huang, Lin, & Lin, 2009; Miquel‐Romero & Adame‐Sánchez, 2013), hedonistic or useful reasons. It was probably made more for its pure
important or helpful (Huang et al., 2009). People in the role of content and for the need to make others aware of social grievances,
transmitter continue to weigh the extent to which sharing influences perhaps to help. This makes it clear that depending on the type of
their own images. When people believe that they can strengthen content, the sharing motivation of the individual persons can also
their own images by sharing content with others, they are more adapt. In addition to the type of content, individual people also have
willing to share (Huang et al., 2009). It is known that the subjective different motivations for sharing in relation to the audiences
norm influences individuals’ behavior intentions (Ajzen, 1991; addressed. If only one person is addressed (e.g., send an e‐mail to a
Gunawan & Huarng, 2015; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007). As far as person), content that is useful or helpful to the recipient is more
the willingness to exchange is concerned, the content must frequently shared. If, on the other hand, several people are addressed
correspond to the social norm for wide distribution to take place. (e.g., in a public Facebook post), then people attach more importance
People do not want to pass on content that could damage their to self‐presentation. In this case, people are careful not to present
reputations or that society does not accept (Palka et al., 2009). In themselves in a bad light (Barasch & Berger, 2014).
addition, the transmitter must feel that the recipients also accept Berger (2014) described several interaction aims in his work that
social networks and that these belong to the social norm to increase can influence individuals’ sharing decisions. These aims are as follows:
the willingness to share (Yang, 2013).
One of the strongest motivators for sharing content is self‐ • Impression management: Individuals want to make positive
esteem through sharing in social networks (Chu, Lien, & Cao, impressions on others by sharing content (e.g., entertaining, useful,
2018). Individuals share content to distinguish themselves better unique or shared content).
from others and thereby strengthen their self‐esteem (Berger, • Emotion regulation: Individuals can regulate their own emotions by
2014; Chung & Darke, 2006). In addition, people expect social sharing content. For example, people can express their frustration
benefits through sharing (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004). People through negative ratings if they have had bad experiences with a
achieve these benefits, for example, by spreading their own product (e.g., emotional or exciting content).
opinions or those of others regarding products or content. In a • Information acquisition: Individuals talk about topics (e.g., a new
study by Scholz et al. (2017), brain activity was measured in the car) to start conversations about these topics and thereby get
area of the individual valuation system. It was confirmed that self‐ information about these topics (e.g., if not enough information
and social cognitions are strong drivers of virality. Individuals hope about a topic is found).
• Social bonding: Individuals want to communicate with other 5 | D I S C U SS I O N A N D CO N C L U S I O N

people to create and maintain social bonds. In addition, the urge
for social contacts is satisfied (e.g., similarities or emotional 5.1 | Discussion
content).
The modeling of the decision‐making process (DMP) in viral market-
• Persuading others: Individuals want to influence others by sharing
ing (VM) is necessary to structure research as well as application and
content to realize their own desires. For example, a person could
thus clarify the complex process. This raises the question of why a
show his or her friends positive ratings of a restaurant to tempt
new model in the area of the DMP in VM is necessary if models that
them to visit it (e.g., polarized or exciting content).
illustrate this process already exist. The biggest difference between
the DMP model of this work and models from the previous literature
These five aims can be either selfish or altruistic depending on
is the change in the process from static to dynamic. The S‐O‐R model,
the point of view. According to Berger (2014), further foresight is
which serves as a basis for decision problems, is also based on a static
needed to determine whether altruism or selfishness motivates
approach. The DMP of individuals is very complex, and a variety of
individuals more. It has become clear that many aspects of
factors that can occur at different points in time influence it. In
individuals’ cognitive levels of individuals can have an influence on
addition, it is, of course, possible for individuals to revise or re‐
the decision to interact. Examples of questions that individuals might
evaluate their decisions. The predecessor models are based on a
ask themselves include: “How will others see me when I publish this
fixed structure that follows a predefined sequence and is definitive.
video about Kylie Jenner?” “Will my friends think badly about me
The model of this work breaks up this fixed sequence and adapts it to
when I share this video?” “Can I let my anger about this bad movie
the conditions of the present. This allows the complex processes and
run free? Will it make me feel better?”
possibilities of the individual to become more visible. This is
Based on the above findings, depending on the situation, individuals
described in the following using an example. Suppose a person uses
consider whether they want to interact with content. According to the
a social media platform and discovers interesting content. If one were
available literature, this depends not only on the type of content but
to explain the process with the previous models, the person would
also on the motivation to share. Table 4 provides an overview of the
receive the content, then look at it and decide (to share or not to
findings of the last influencing factor, interaction aims.
share) based on the nature of the content. In reality, for example, a
T A B L E 4 Overview of the “interaction aims” factor

Image People share content to create a positive image towards other people. Berger (2014); Huang et al. (2009)
Individuals use social media to present a positive image of themselves to the Beverland et al. (2015)
public.
Opinion leaders Opinion leaders share content to show their uniqueness and stand out from Ho and Dempsey (2010)
the crowd.
Subjective norm Persons do not want to pass on content that could damage their reputations Palka et al. (2009)
or that society does not accept.
The transmitter of content must feel that the recipients accept social Yang (2013)
networks and that they are part of the social norm to increase the
willingness to share.
Self‐esteem One of the strongest motivators for sharing content is self‐esteem through Chu et al. (2018)
sharing on social networks.
Individuals share content to distinguish themselves better from others and Berger (2014); Chung and Darke
thereby strengthen their self‐esteem. (2006)
Men are more inclined to promote themselves than women are. Dunbar et al. (1997)
Motivations for sharing Depending on the type of content, individuals’ sharing motivations can adapt. Cohen (2014)
Interaction aims are impression management, emotion regulation, information Berger (2014)
acquisition, social bonding and persuading others.
People like to share content with others whom they regard as useful, Huang et al. (2009); Miquel‐Romero
important or helpful. and Adame‐Sánchez (2013)
Individuals hope for positive consequences for themselves if they share Scholz et al. (2017)
content with others.
Audience size When content is transmitted to several people, more emphasis is placed on Barasch and Berger (2014)
self‐portrayal than when it is transmitted to one person, in which case more
emphasis is placed on the usefulness of the content.
person could make a decision and interact with the content while When creating content, it is important to ensure that it arouses
viewing it. It would also be possible to revoke this decision after the interest of the individual and conveys emotions to achieve
reconsideration. The decision as to whether the person wishes to see widespread distribution. It should be noted that no magic formula
the content at all may also change as the content is viewed. Maybe exists for the guaranteed success of content. If, for example, content
the person is watching the first 10 s of a video and then decides not is communicated to a specific target group, the interests and needs of
to see the content after all. Such examples are more the rule than the this group must be considered. The choice of a suitable communica-
exception in today’s use of social media applications. These dynamic tion channel plays a role, as does an adjustment in the design of the
processes cannot be simulated with the previous models. This is content. Another aspect is that high dissemination does not directly
the main reason for the need to introduce a new DMP model in VM. mean a positive effect through content (e.g., on the success of a
The model also serves to quantify complex cognitive processes. If company). It is therefore important that distribution is not achieved
cognitive processes are broken down into individuals’ final decisions at all costs but that the content has a positive effect on the individual
(yes or no), the measurability of this model is preserved. Further- (e.g., on brand perception). If this is not the case, content can spread
more, in contrast to earlier models, the direct influence of content on strongly but, in the end, have negative effects (e.g., flame war). The
an individual’s attitude toward content is included, and outdated influence of the factor of framework conditions has been under-
terminology (sharing instead of interaction) is brought up to date. estimated in the literature so far. Evidence exists that this factor can
Overall, the model enables more targeted and structured future have a significant influence on the first decision level in terms of
research. For companies, the model can serve to better understand whether the content is considered at all. The factor of interaction
consumers and their behavior on social media. aims, on the other hand, has a stronger influence on the second
This work contains some limitations. The model of this work is decision stage. People decide whether they want to interact with
based on unpublished test studies and well‐founded literature content based on various motivations (e.g., altruistic or selfish). The
analysis. However, quantitative research to validate the model is content itself has a strong influence on both decision‐making stages.
still pending. The DMP of individuals in VM is influenced by a variety Altogether, the dynamic model presented in this paper illustrates the
of factors. For the sake of simplification, these influencing factors individual processes of the DMP in the VM and offers starting points
have been grouped into three main categories and therefore do not for further research.
represent the full range of possible influencing factors in detail. The
model should, therefore, be regarded as the foundation for further
5.3 | Further research
research. In addition, the model of this work implies that content
affects individuals. This is essential, because for companies not only This work shows that many questions related to the DMP of VM
the distribution of content is relevant, but also the impact on have already been answered in the existing literature. With the
individual consumers. The relationship between the distribution rate help of the established model, however, areas are becoming visible
and attitude toward content has been rarely explored. This work in which further research is needed. Sharing is very well
points to the existence of this problem, but, unfortunately, provides researched, but simple expressions of interest (likes, comments),
very few answers in this area. It would be desirable if future research which can also increase virality, have hardly been studied so far.
were to test and, if necessary, extend the model to make further However, they can also increase virality, and individuals can
progress in the understanding of individuals in the field of VM. usually apply them more easily. Further research could focus on
the different types of interaction and gain insights. Regarding this
paper’s model, it is important to know which factors have the
5.2 | Conclusion
strongest influence in each decision stage. Are the framework
This work provides an overview of the available literature and conditions the most important influencing factor in why people
suggestions for further research in the field of VM. Furthermore, old become aware of the content, or is it the content itself that has the
perspectives are refreshed (e.g., substitution from sharing to influence? What influence does the interaction aim have on the
interaction) and structured. For this purpose, a model is introduced actual interaction decision? Another point is the influence of
that describes the DMP of individuals in VM. This model illustrates content on the opinions of individuals in general. Does the content
that DMP is more dynamic and complex than described in the with which a person interacts have a strong influence on this
previous literature. The model helps with organizing the research person? Can this influence also be negative? How strong is the
area of VM in a more structured and clearer way. Basically, a influence on people’s opinions (e.g., brand image) if they do not
distinction is made between two decision stages that deal with the interact with content? Does content that is rejected in the first
acceptance and interaction of content. Three factors mainly influence decision stage not influence these people?
these decision stages: framework conditions, content and interaction Some facts about the impact of framework conditions in the DMP
aims. The factor of framework conditions can be divided into are already known. Among the three influencing factors, however, this
receiving, created and random framework conditions. The content area offers the greatest potential for further research. In terms of
itself, of course, plays an important role, but other factors also have a social media networks, for example, deeper insights would be useful
relevant influence on the DMP. for identifying the best possible network for the different types of
content. Regarding the receiving framework conditions, further For what reasons does the attitude toward a piece of content change
research could examine whether individuals are more likely to open in the course of viewing it? Which factors generally influence the
content from other individuals (e.g., influencers) compared with attitude toward content (e.g., ethics, morals)? How strongly would
content that companies submit. It could also be investigated whether the interaction rate change if people could interact anonymously on
the content that companies send is perceived as obvious advertising social networks or if the interactions could be seen only among a
rather than content that influencers distribute. In addition, it could be close circle of friends? It turns out that some exciting questions are
investigated whether the content that companies send is perceived as unanswered in VM. Further research should shed more light on this
obvious advertising rather than content that influencers spread. area of research.
Previous research has focused on the identification of influencers
(opinion leaders). This area is currently no longer relevant, as
ORCI D
influencers can be identified via simple methods (e.g. by analyzing
the follower count). More important for further research are the Thomas Reichstein http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7930-9646
questions of how strong the impact of influencers is in social media Ines Brusch http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3304-8804
marketing and how companies can use this impact. Created framework
conditions can be modified and are therefore an important field for
further research. Only headlines have already been examined in R E F E R E N CE S
several research projects. In addition to the headlines, other frame-
Adams, D. C., & Salois, M. J. (2010). Local versus organic: A turn in consumer
work conditions for further research should also be examined in a preferences and willingness‐to‐pay. Renewable agriculture and food
targeted manner. Exemplary questions include: How does the systems, 25(4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170510000219
arrangement of various elements (e.g., headings, images, texts and Aghdaie, S. F. A., Sanayei, A., & Etebari, M. (2012). Evaluation of the
consumers' trust effect on viral marketing acceptance based on the
secondary information) affect the intention to interact? Should
technology acceptance model. International Journal of Marketing
pictures or videos be used to attract attention? How should the Studies, 4(6), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v4n6p79
media (e.g., color, shape, brightness, size) be designed to increase the Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
interaction rate or attention? How do clickbait images or videos that and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0749‐5978(91)90020‐T
exaggerate the content affect individuals? Which aspects do people
Akpinar, E., & Berger, J. (2017). Valuable virality. Journal of Marketing
pay attention to, perhaps even unconsciously, before they look at the Research, 54(2), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0350
content? In general, the relevance of framework conditions should be Alves, L., Antunes, N., Agrici, O., Sousa, C. M. R., & Ramos, C. M. Q. (2016).
examined. Do these factors influence the individual’s attention and Click bait: You won’t believe what happens next! . Fronteiras: Journal
of Social Technological and Environmental Science, 5(2), 196–213.
interaction decisions?
https://doi.org/10.21664/2238‐8869.2016v5i2.p196‐213
The content itself has been thoroughly examined so far. However, American Press Institute (2014). The Media Insight Project: The Personal
because of its high complexity, this area also requires further News Cycle. Retrieved from https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/
research. For example, it would be interesting to know how strongly publications/reports/survey‐research/personal‐news‐cycle/
De Angelis, M., Bonezzi, A., Peluso, A. M., Rucker, D. D., & Costabile, M.
advertising affects the interaction rate. One point of criticism of
(2012). On braggarts and gossips: A self‐enhancement account of
previous research in VM is the following. Basically, only two major
word‐of‐mouth generation and transmission. Journal of Marketing
influencing factors have been identified so far: emotions and arousing Research, 49(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0136
interest in the content. It is conceivable that further influencing Baker, A. M., Donthu, N., & Kumar, V. (2016). Investigating how word‐of‐
factors exist. For example, the structure of video content could be mouth conversations about brands influence purchase and retrans-
mission intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(2), 225–239.
examined. How should the beginning of a video be designed to
Barasch, A., & Berger, J. (2014). Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How
attract the most attention? Does the length of a video affect the audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research,
interaction rate? Why do people stop viewing content? From a 51(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0238
business perspective, it is important to examine the impact of viral Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
content on the individual because nowadays, it is possible to acquire
Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037//
a higher reach and thus a certain virality of content. Influencing the 0033‐2909.117.3.497
distribution of content could be pushed into the background for some Benwell, M. (2017). Fidget Spinners: What are they and why are they so
financially strong companies. Accordingly, it may be more important addictive? Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.
uk/life‐style/gadgets‐and‐tech/fidget‐spinners‐used‐for‐tricks‐what‐
in the future to examine whether factors that generate a high level of
is‐amazon‐buying‐craze‐tutorials‐youtube‐a7733666.html
distribution also have a positive effect on brand perception, for Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?
example. Akpinar and Berger (2017) have taken the first step in this Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.
direction. 1509/jmr.10.0353
Berger, J. (2011). Arousal increases social transmission of information.
In the area of interaction aims, it could be investigated which
Psychological Science, 22(7), 891–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/
stimuli can increase the interaction rate: How should the end of a 0956797611413294
piece of content be designed so that people interact with it? To what Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication:
extent can incentives (e.g., lotteries) influence the interaction rate? A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 24(4), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05. approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(1), 97–106.
002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.06.003
Berger, J., & Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication channels and word of Chu, S. ‐C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in
mouth: How the medium shapes the message. Journal of Consumer electronic word‐of‐mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Inter-
Research, 40(3), 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1086/671345 national Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/
Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011). What drives immediate and IJA‐30‐1‐047‐075
ongoing word of mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), Chu, S. ‐C., Lien, C. ‐H., & Cao, Y. (2018). Electronic word‐of‐mouth
869–880. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.5.869 (eWOM) on WeChat: Examining the influence of sense of belonging,
Berger, J., Sorensen, A. T., & Rasmussen, S. J. (2010). Positive effects of need for self‐enhancement, and consumer engagement on Chinese
negative publicity: When negative reviews increase sales. Marketing travellers eWOM. International Journal of Advertising, 30(11), 1–24.
Science, 29(5), 815–827. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0557 https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1470917
Beverland, M., Dobele, A., & Farrelly, F. (2015). The viral marketing Chung, C. M. Y., & Darke, P. R. (2006). The consumer as advocate:
metaphor explored through Vegemite. Marketing Intelligence & Self‐relevance, culture, and word‐of‐mouth. Marketing Letters, 17(4),
Planning, 33(5), 656–674. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP‐08‐2014‐0146 269–279.
Blom, J. N., & Hansen, K. R. (2015). Click bait: Forward‐reference as lure in Cisco (2019). Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Trends,
online news headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 87–100. https://doi. 2017–2022. Cisco public. Retrieved from https://www.cisco.com/c/en/
org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010 us/solutions/collateral/service‐provider/visual‐networking‐index‐vni/
Bobkowski, P. S. (2015). Sharing the news. Journalism & Mass white‐paper‐c11‐741490.pdf
Communication Quarterly, 92(2), 320–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Cohen, E. L. (2014). What makes good games go viral? The role of
1077699015573194 technology use, efficacy, emotion and enjoyment in players' decision
Bone, P. F. (1995). Word‐of‐mouth effects on short‐term and long‐term to share a prosocial digital game. Computers in Human Behavior, 33,
product judgments. Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 213–223. 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.013
https://doi.org/10.1016/0148‐2963(94)00047‐I Cruz, D., & Fill, C. (2008). Evaluating viral marketing: Isolating the key
Botha, E. (2014). A means to an end: Using political satire to go viral. criteria. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(7), 743–758. https://doi.
Public Relations Review, 40(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1108/02634500810916690
pubrev.2013.11.023 Dafonte‐Gómez, A. (2014). The key elements of viral advertising. From
Botha, E., & Reyneke, M. (2013). To share or not to share: The role of Motivation to Emotion in the Most Shared Videos. Comunicar, 22(43),
content and emotion in viral marketing. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.3916/C43‐2014‐20
160–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1471 De Bruyn, A., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). A multi‐stage model of word‐of‐mouth
Breazeale, M. (2009). Forum ‐ word of mouse ‐ An assessment of influence through viral marketing. International Journal of Research in
electronic word‐of‐mouth research. International Journal of Market Marketing, 25(3), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.
Research, 51(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2501/S1470785309200566 03.004
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word‐of‐mouth DeVito, M. A. (2017). From editors to algorithms: A values‐based
referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362. approach to understanding story selection in the Facebook news
https://doi.org/10.1086/209118 feed. Digital Journalism, 5(6), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Brown, M. R., Bhadury, R. K., & Pope, N. K. L. (2010). The impact 21670811.2016.1178592
of comedic violence on viral advertising effectiveness. Journal Deza, A., & Parikh, D. (2015). Understanding image virality. Proceedings
of Advertising, 39(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091‐ of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,
3367390104 1818‐1826.
Broxton, T., Interian, Y., Vaver, J., & Wattenhofer, M. (2013). Catching a Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., & van Wijk, R.
viral video. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 40(2), 241–259. (2007). Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844‐011‐0191‐2 emotionally. Business Horizons, 50(4), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.
Camarero, C., & San José, R. (2011). Social and attitudinal determinants of 1016/j.bushor.2007.01.004
viral marketing dynamics. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), Dobele, A., Toleman, D., & Beverland, M. (2005). Controlled infection!
2292–2300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.008 Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business
Carl, W. J. (2006). What's all the buzz about? Management Horizons, 48(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.
Communication Quarterly, 19(4), 601–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 011
0893318905284763 Dor, D. (2003). On newspaper headlines as relevance optimizers. Journal
Chen, W., Wang, C., & Wang, Y. (2010). Scalable influence maximization of Pragmatics, 35(5), 695–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378‐
for prevalent viral marketing in large‐scale social networks. Proceed- 2166(02)00134‐0
ings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge Dunbar, R. I. M., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N. D. C. (1997). Human
discovery and data mining, 1029‐1038. https://doi.org/10.1145/ conversational behavior. Human Nature, 8(3), 231–246. https://doi.
1835804.1835934 org/10.1007/BF02912493
Chen, Y., Conroy, N. J., & Rubin, V. L. (2015). Misleading online content: Eckler, P., & Bolls, P. (2011). Spreading the virus. Journal of Interactive
Recognizing clickbait as false news. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Advertising, 11(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2011.
Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection, 15‐19. https://doi.org/10. 10722180
1145/2823465.2823467 Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin,
Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes 51(4), 380–417.
conversation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580–593. https:// Eisingerich, A. B., Chun, H. H., Liu, Y., Jia, H., & Bell, S. J. (2015). Why
doi.org/10.1086/671465 recommend a brand face‐to‐face but not on Facebook? How word‐of‐
Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2016). How content acquisition method affects mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word‐of‐mouth.
word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 86–102. https:// Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.
doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw001 1016/j.jcps.2014.05.004
Cho, Y., Hwang, J., & Lee, D. (2012). Identification of effective opinion eMarketer (2019). Q2 2019 Social Trends. eMarketer. https://www.
leaders in the diffusion of technological innovation: A social network emarketer.com/content/q2‐2019‐social‐trends
Engel, J. F., Kegerreis, R. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1969). Word‐of‐mouth Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies
communication by the innovator. Journal of Marketing, 33(3), 15–19. for viral marketing: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1248475 75(6), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0088
Ferguson, R. (2008). Word of mouth and viral marketing: Taking Ho, J. Y. C., & Dempsey, M. (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to
the temperature of the hottest trends in marketing. Journal of forward online content. Journal of Business Research, 63(9‐10),
Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 1000–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.010
07363760810870671 Hsieh, J. ‐K., Hsieh, Y. ‐C., & Tang, Y. ‐C. (2012). Exploring the
Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998). A disseminating behaviors of eWOM marketing: Persuasion in online
dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of the video. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/
Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10.1007/s10660‐012‐9091‐y
0092070398262001 Huang, C. ‐C., Lin, T. ‐C., & Lin, K. ‐J. (2009). Factors affecting pass‐along
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How little things can make a big email intentions (PAEIs): Integrating the social capital and social
difference. cognition theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8(3),
Golan, G. J., & Zaidner, L. (2008). Creative strategies in viral advertising: 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.001
An application of Taylor’s six‐segment message strategy wheel. Huang, J., Su, S., Zhou, L., & Liu, X. (2013). Attitude toward the viral ad:
Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(4), 959–972. Expanding traditional advertising models to interactive advertising.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083‐6101.2008.00426.x Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehmann, D. R., & Hong, J. W. (2009). The role of j.intmar.2012.06.001
hubs in the adoption process. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 1–13. Hwang, Y. (2015). Does opinion leadership increase the followers on
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.1 Twitter. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 5(3),
Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., & Muller, E. (2001). Talk of the network: A 258–264. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.464
complex systems look at the underlying process of word‐of‐mouth. Isola, P., Jianxiong, X., Parikh, D., Torralba, A., & Oliva, A. (2014). What
Marketing Letters, 12(3), 211–223. makes a photograph memorable? IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis
Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: and Machine Intelligence, 36, 1469–1482.
Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Jacoby, J. (2002). Stimulus‐organism‐response reconsidered: An
Innovation Management, 14(6), 429–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/ evolutionary step in modeling (consumer) behavior. Journal of
1540‐5885.1460429 Consumer Psychology, 12(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1207/
Grifoni, P., D’Andrea, A., & Ferri, F. (2012). An integrated framework for S15327663JCP1201_05
on‐line viral marketing campaign planning. International Business Jurvetson, S. (2000). What exactly is viral marketing? Red Herring,
Research, 6(1), 22–30. 110–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/12.1.60
Gruzd, A., Doiron, S., & Mai, P. (2011). Is happiness contagious online? A Kaikati, A. M., & Kaikati, J. G. (2004). Stealth marketing: How to reach
case of Twitter and the 2010 Winter Olympics. 2011 44th Hawaii consumers surreptitiously. California Management Review, 46(4), 6–22.
International Conference on System Sciences, 1–9. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.2307/41166272
10.1109/HICSS.2011.259 Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2011). Two hearts in three‐quarter time:
Guadagno, R. E., Rempala, D. M., Murphy, S., & Okdie, B. M. (2013). What How to waltz the social media/viral marketing dance. Business
makes a video go viral? An analysis of emotional contagion and Horizons, 54(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.
Internet memes. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2312–2319. 006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.016 Kelman, H. C. (2017). Processes of opinion change, Attitude Change (pp.
Guerini, M., Staiano, J., & Albanese, D. (2013). Exploring image virality in 205–233. Routledge.
google plus. 2013 International Conference on Social Computing, Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., & Tardos, É. (2003). Maximizing the spread of
671–678. https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2013.101 influence through a social network. Proceedings of the ninth ACM
Gunawan, D. D., & Huarng, K. ‐H. (2015). Viral effects of social network SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data
and media on consumers' purchase intention. Journal of Business mining, 137‐146. https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956769
Research, 68(11), 2237–2241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015. Ketelaar, P. E., Janssen, L., Vergeer, M., van Reijmersdal, E. A., Crutzen, R.,
06.004 & van ‘t Riet, J. (2016). The success of viral ads: Social and attitudinal
Hamed, E. M. M. A. (2017). Investigating effects of viral marketing on predictors of consumer pass‐on behavior on social network sites.
consumer’s purchasing decision (Case Study: The Students Of The Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2603–2613. https://doi.org/10.
Administrative Sciences College Najran University). British Journal of 1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.151
Marketing Studies, 5(4), 61–71. Khosla, A., Sarma, A. D., & Hamid, R. (2014). What makes an image
Heimbach, I., & Hinz, O. (2016). The impact of content sentiment and popular? Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide
emotionality on content virality. International Journal of Research in web, 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1145/2566486.2567996
Marketing, 33(3), 695–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016. Kim, J., & Lennon, S. J. (2013). Effects of reputation and website quality on
02.004 online consumers' emotion, perceived risk and purchase intention.
Helm, S. (2000). Viral marketing ‐ establishing customer relationships by Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(1), 33–56. https://doi.
'word‐of‐mouse'. Electronic Markets, 10(3), 158–161. https://doi.org/ org/10.1108/17505931311316734
10.1080/10196780050177053 Kim, J. H., Mantrach, A., Jaimes, A., & Oh, A. (2016). How to compete
Hennig‐Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). online for news audience: Modeling words that attract clicks.
Electronic word‐of‐mouth via consumer‐opinion platforms: What Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on
motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1645‐1654. https://doi.org/10.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10. 1145/2939672.2939873
1002/dir.10073 Kiss, C., & Bichler, M. (2008). Identification of influencers—Measuring
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word‐of‐mouth and influence in customer networks. Decision Support Systems, 46(1),
product‐attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility‐diag- 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.06.007
nosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462. Kourogi, S., Fujishiro, H., Kimura, A., & Nishikawa, H. (2015). Identifying
https://doi.org/10.1086/208570 attractive news headlines for social media. Proceedings of the 24th
ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Advertising Research, 44(4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Management, 1859‐1862. https://doi.org/10.1145/2806416.2806631 S0021849904040371
Kuiken, J., Schuth, A., Spitters, M., & Marx, M. (2017). Effective headlines Piotrkowicz, A., Dimitrova, V., Otterbacher, J., & Markert, K. (2017).
of newspaper articles in a digital environment. Digital Journalism, Headlines matter: Using headlines to predict the popularity of news
5(10), 1300–1314. articles on twitter and facebook. Eleventh International AAAI Con-
Lakkaraju, H., Mcauley, J., & Leskovec, J. (2013). What’s in a Name? ference on Web and Social Media.
Understanding the Interplay between Titles, Content, and Commu- Porter, L. V., & Golan, G. (2006). From subservient chickens to brawny
nities in Social Media. Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI men. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.
Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 311‐320. 1080/15252019.2006.10722116
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., & Richard, M. ‐O. (2013). To be or not to be Potthast, M., Köpsel, S., Stein, B., & Hagen, M. (2016). Lecture notes in
in social media: How brand loyalty is affected by social media? computer science. European Conference on Information Retrieval, 810–817.
International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 76–82. https:// Pew Research Center (2018). Social media use in 2018. Pew Research
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.003 Center. https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social‐media‐use‐
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive in‐2018/
measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, Rayport, J. (1996). The Virus of Marketing. https://www.fastcompany.
25(6), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224296102500611 com/27701/virus‐marketing
Lee, B. Y. (2017). Here's the science behind the fidget spinner craze. Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word‐of‐mouth by dissatisfied consumers:
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/05/19/heres‐ A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/
the‐science‐behind‐the‐fidget‐spinner‐craze/#11bf85bc3af0 002224298304700107
Leskovec, J., Adamic, L. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). The dynamics of Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta‐analysis of the technology
viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web, 1(1), 5–es. acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation
Li, F., & Du, T. C. (2011). Who is talking? An ontology‐based opinion leader effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.
identification framework for word‐of‐mouth marketing in online 1016/j.im.2006.10.007
social blogs. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 190–197. https://doi. Scholz, C., Baek, E. C., O’Donnell, M. B., Kim, H. S., Cappella, J. N., & Falk, E.
org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.007 B. (2017). A neural model of valuation and information virality.
Luscombe, R. (2017). As fidget spinner craze goes global, its inventor Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(11), 2881‐2886.
struggles to make ends meet. The Guardian. Retrieved from https:// https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615259114
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/03/fidget‐spinner‐ Schulze, C., Schöler, L., & Skiera, B. (2014). Not all fun and games: Viral
inventor‐patent‐catherine‐hettinger marketing for utilitarian products. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 1–19.
Masmoudi, M. (1979). The new world information order. Journal of https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0528
Communication, 29(2), 172–179. Shehu, E., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Clement, M. (2016). Effects of likeability
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental dynamics on consumers' intention to share online video advertise-
psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ments. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 35(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/
Milkman, K. L., & Berger, J. (2014). The science of sharing and the sharing 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.01.001
of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 Shrawankar, U., & Wankhede, K. (2016). Construction of news headline
(Suppl 4), 13642–13649. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317511111 from detailed news article. 2016 3rd International Conference on
Miquel‐Romero, M. ‐J., & Adame‐Sánchez, C. (2013). Viral marketing Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), 2321‐2325.
through e‐mail: The link company‐consumer. Management Decision, Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and
51(10), 1970–1982. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD‐08‐2012‐0592 response. The Journal of General Psychology, 12(1), 40–65.
Mohr, I. (2007). Buzz marketing for movies. Business Horizons, 50(5), Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in
395–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.04.001 emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838.
Mohr, I. (2014). Going viral: An analysis of YouTube videos. Journal of Smith, T., Coyle, J. R., Lightfoot, E., & Scott, A. (2007). Reconsidering models
Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 8(3), 43–48. of influence: The relationship between consumer social networks and
Moldovan, S., Muller, E., Richter, Y., & Yom‐Tov, E. (2017). Opinion word‐of‐mouth effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4),
leadership in small groups. International Journal of Research in 387–397. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849907070407
Marketing, 34(2), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016. Stieglitz, S., & Dang‐Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in
11.004 social media—sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of
Nelson‐Field, K., Riebe, E., & Newstead, K. (2013). The emotions that drive Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.
viral video. Australasian Marketing. Journal (AMJ), 21(4), 205–211. 2753/MIS0742‐1222290408
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2013.07.003 Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., & Kuntaraporn, M. (2006). Online word‐of‐mouth
Nwala, M. A., & Umukoro, B. A. (2017). Investigating the meaning of (or mouse): An exploration of its antecedents and consequences.
newspaper headlines: The issue of ambiguity. African Research Review, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(4), 1104–1127.
11(3), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v11i3.9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083‐6101.2006.00310.x
Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. G. (2009). Mobile word‐of‐ Tang, J., Tang, X., & Yuan, J. (2018). Profit maximization for viral
mouth – A grounded theory of mobile viral marketing. Journal of marketing in online social networks: Algorithms and analysis. IEEE
Information Technology, 24(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit. Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(6), 1095–1108.
2008.37 https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2017.2787757
Pescher, C., Reichhart, P., & Spann, M. (2014). Consumer decision‐making Tang, Y., Xiao, X., & Shi, Y. (2014). Influence maximization: Near‐optimal
processes in mobile viral marketing campaigns. Journal of Interactive time complexity meets practical efficiency. Proceedings of the 2014
Marketing, 28(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.08. ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, 75‐86.
001 https://doi.org/10.1145/2588555.2593670
Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of
marketing or electronic word‐of‐mouth advertising: Examining con- Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.
sumer responses and motivations to pass along email. Journal of 1016/0167‐2681(80)90051‐7
Thomas, G. M. (2004). Building the buzz in the hive mind. Journal of Xia, L., & Bechwati, N. N. (2008). Word of mouse. Journal of Interactive
Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.158 Advertising, 9(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.
Tsugawa, S., & Ohsaki, H. (2015). Negative messages spread rapidly and widely 10722143
on social media. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Yang, H. (2013). Market mavens in social media: Examining young Chinese
Networks, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/2817946.2817962 consumers' viral marketing attitude, eWOM motive, and behavior.
Tucker, C. E. (2015). The reach and persuasiveness of viral video ads. Journal of Asia‐Pacific Business, 14(2), 154–178. https://doi.org/10.
Marketing Science, 34(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc. 1080/10599231.2013.756337
2014.0874 Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Mittal, V. (2014). How males and females differ in
Valente, T. W., & Pumpuang, P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to their likelihood of transmitting negative word of mouth. Journal of
promote behavior change. Health Education & Behavior, 34(6), Consumer Research, 40(6), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1086/674211
881–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106297855 Zhang, J., Wang, S., Zhan, Q., & Yu, P. S. (2016, July 2). Intertwined Viral
Van der Merwe, R., & van Heerden, G. (2009). Finding and utilizing Marketing through Online Social Networks. Retrieved from http://arxiv.
opinion leaders: Social networks and the power of relationships. South org/pdf/1607.00542v1
African Journal of Business Management, 40(3), 65–76. Zhang, L., Zhao, J., & Xu, K. (2016). Who creates trends in online social
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public media: The crowd or opinion leaders? Journal of Computer‐Mediated
opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458. Communication, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12145
https://doi.org/10.1086/518527 Zhang, Y., Trusov, M., Stephen, A. T., & Jamal, Z. (2017). Online shopping
Welker, C. B. (2002). The paradigm of viral communication. Information and social media: Friends or foes? Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 24–41.
services & use, 22(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU‐2002‐22102 https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0344
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and
gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 16(4), 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR‐06‐2013‐0041
Wilson, R. F. (2000). The six simple principles of viral marketing. Web How to cite this article: Reichstein T, Brusch I. The decision‐
marketing today, 70(1), 232. making process in viral marketing — A review and suggestions
Woerndl, M., Papagiannidis, S., Bourlakis, M., & Li, F. (2008). Internet‐
for further research. Psychol Mark. 2019;36:1062–1081.
induced marketing techniques: Critical factors in viral marketing
campaigns. International Journal of Business Science and Applied https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21256
Management, 1(3), 33–45.

Mar Mar21256

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mar Mar21256

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mar Mar21256

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

econstor

Make Your Publications Visible.

Reichstein, Thomas; Brusch, Ines

Article — Published Version

Psychology & Marketing

Provided in Cooperation with:

This Version is available at:

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:

The decision‐making process in viral marketing—A review

Thomas Reichstein | Ines Brusch

Chair of Marketing and Innovation

1062 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar Psychol Mark. 2019;36:1062–1081.

T A B L E 1 Overview of previously investigated impact factors in decision models

Stage Receiving/Awareness Interest/opening Forwarding

FIGURE 1 Decision‐making process in viral marketing

4.1.1 | Receiving framework conditions 4.1.2 | Influencer

T A B L E 2 Overview of the “framework conditions” factor

T A B L E 3 Overview of the “content” factor

• Social bonding: Individuals want to communicate with other 5 | D I S C U SS I O N A N D CO N C L U S I O N

T A B L E 4 Overview of the “interaction aims” factor

You might also like