1. Conference Tsourvakas George

2. Exploring Word-of-Mouth Communications For Movies Tsourvakas George-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Veglis Andreas-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Emmanouelides Christos-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

3. Overview Introduction Background Literature Creating WOM inputs for movies The effects of WOM outcome for movies Research Model Methodology Results Discussion and Managerial Implications Conclusions

4. Introduction WOM is an interpersonal communication for products and services without a commercial scope (Arndt 1967) WOM is the most influential source in marketing communication (Day 1971; Sheth 1971)

5. Background Literature (I) Why WOM communication is important?  Consumer reduces risk  Consumer gains time WOM communication is related to services quality Movies are intangible services

6. Background Literature (II) WOM  The number of people coming in touch  Positive/negative information they exchange  ex-ante or ex-post purchase information (Anderson 1998; Bone 1995; Buttle 1998)

7. Hypothesis (A) Tie strength and social networks (Brown & Reingen 1987) and also the frequency of communication between them (Duhan et al. 1997; Goldenberg et al. 2001) create WOM H 1 : Moviegoers are more influenced by WOM from strong tie relations than from weak

8. Hypothesis (B) Intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics of the products or services create WOM (Wirtz & Chew 2002) H 2 : Some film characteristics generate WOM among moviegoers

9. Hypothesis (C) Opinion leaders create WOM (Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955; Chaney 2001) H 3 : Movie critique creates WOM among moviegoers than its absence.

10. Hypothesis (D)  Intensity of satisfaction creates WOM (Anderson 1998; Bowman & Narayandas 2001) H 4 : WOM is more likely to be developed by satisfied moviegoers rather than by non-satisfied

11. Research Model for WOM for Movies INPUTOUTPUT Tie Strengths Film Characteristics Critiques Negative Positive WOM

12. Methodology Questionnaire: Self-report Sample: 168 randomly selected students cinemagoers Structure: 1. Recall the last movie 2. Information sources 3. Movie characteristics that influence 4. Number of persons they got information

13. Information Sources about the Movie before Viewing Source FrequencyRanking (%) of times stated as source (%) of times Ranked 1st (%) of times Ranked 2nd (%) of times Ranked 3rd (%)of times Ranked 1st to 3rd Friends 73.223.221.423.267.9 Relatives 14.33.64.22.410.1 Strangers 3.63.00.60.03.6 Trailers 72.011.325.626.863.7 Critics 56.011.917.320.850.0 Ads 64.317.317.920.255.4 Other 4.20.6 1.83.0 Base: All valid responses, N=168

14. Factors Affecting Decision to View the Movie (I) Frequency of stated importance (%) Factor Most Imp. Very imp. Modera tely imp. Some what imp. Not imp. at all Don’t know/ Don’t ans. Total Very/ most imp. Rank Friends 24.440.516.17.1 4.8100.064.92 Relatives 4.814.311.311.936.719.0100.019.112 Strangers 1.84.28.919.645.819.6100.06.013 Trailers 31.032.720.26.55.410.1100.063.73 Critics 25.032.120.26.58.37.7100.057.15 Ads 20.825.021.410.78.913.1100.045.88 Base: All valid responses, N=168

15. Factors Affecting Decision to View the Movie (II) Frequency of stated importance (%) Factor Most Imp. Very imp. Modera tely imp. Some what imp. Not imp. at all Don’t know/ Don’t ans. Total Very/ most imp. Rank Production 12.520.817.912.516.120.2100.033.310 Direction 25.629.212.510.77.714.3100.054.86 Scenario 20.232.115.59.56.516.1100.052.37 Acting 26.239.913.14.25.411.3100.066.11 Theme 35.128.613.15.44.213.7100.063.73 Music 13.722.016.114.915.517.9100.035.79 Origin 15.5 17.913.722.614.9100.031.011 Base: All valid responses, N=168

16. Factors Affecting Decision to View the Movie Discussed More Often FactorRanking % of times Ranked 1st % of times Ranked 2nd % of times Ranked 3rd % of times Ranked 1st to 3rd Production15.511.39.536.3 Direction16.129.824.470.2 Scenario20.217.313.150.6 Acting19.622.016.758.3 Theme11.910.729.852.4 Music7.74.8 17.3 Base: All valid responses, N=168

17. Characteristics of the Movie Discussed more Often after Viewing FactorRanking % of times Ranked 1st % of times Ranked 2nd % of times Ranked 3rd % of times Ranked 1st to 3rd Production11.35.46.022.6 Direction16.721.412.550.6 Scenario16.119.019.654.8 Acting20.222.016.758.9 Theme8.318.538.164.9 Music10.14.2 18.5 Base: All valid responses, N=168

18. Discussion These findings support  H 1 that moviegoers are more influenced by strong tie relations.  H 2 that films characteristic actors and directors create WOM among moviegoers ex-ante.

19. Discussion H 3 was not supported by the data collected. There is no significant relationship between critique and WOM

20. Discussion There is a highly significant statistical relationship (x 2 =15.16, p-value<0.001) between satisfaction and WOM generation ( H 4 ) WOM is more likely to be developed by satisfied moviegoers rather than by non-satisfied

21. Managerial Implications  Movie producers could invite families to go to see movies or might sponsor culture events  Promotion methods could follow movie characteristics like early advertising & participation of the movie to festivals  Movie writers, stars and directors could give press conference or interviews before film comes to cinema rooms

22. Conclusion WOM communications play a pivotal role in entertainment and cultural industries Future Research: Investigating WOM into more comprehensive and macro model.