Analyzing Word of Mouth in the Web 2.0 for Product Related Marketing Research

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Definitions and Explanations

2.1 Web 2.0

2.1.1 What does Web 2.0 Mean

2.1.2 Electronic Word of Mouth

2.1.3 Blogs

2.1.4 Social Networks

2.1.5 Twitter

2.2 Classification of Products

2.2.1 High-Involvement Products

2.2.2 Low-Involvement Products

2.2.3 Consumer Goods

2.2.4 Producer Goods

2.3 Summary of the Chapters and Meaning for this Master´s Thesis

3 Theoretical Foundations of Marketing, Marketing Research and Web 2.0 Research

3.1 Marketing and Marketing Research Defined

3.2 Comparison of Web 2.0 Research and Classical Marketing Research

3.2.1 Information

3.2.2 Selection Methods

3.2.3 Statistics

3.2.4 Secondary Research

3.2.5 Primary Research

3.2.6 Products

3.2.7 Further Marketing Research Possibilities in the Web 2.0 Compared to Classical Marketing Research

3.3 Motivation of Users to Write Word of Mouth in the Web 2.0

3.3.1 Focus-Related Utility

3.3.2 Consumption Utility

3.3.3 Expert Discussions about Specific Products

3.3.4 Approval Utility

3.3.5 Homeostase Utility

3.3.6 Empowered Involvement

3.4 Summary of Chapters

4 Analysis of the Web 2.0

4.1 Analysis of Users in the Web 2.0

4.1.1 Pattern of Use on the Internet

4.1.2 Pattern of Use in Blogs and Social Networks

4.1.3 Opinion Leaders in the Web 2.0

4.1.4 Future Trends

4.2 Technical Requirements for Analyzing the Web 2.0

4.3 Analysis of Blogs and Social Networks in the Web 2.0

4.3.1 Secondary Research in the Web 2.0

4.3.1.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Servers

4.3.1.2 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Men Cosmetics

4.3.1.3 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Coffee

4.3.1.4 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Word of Mouth about Tea

4.3.1.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Tractors (Caterpillar) with Twitter

4.3.1.6 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Fast Food (Mc Donald´s) with Twitter

4.3.1.7 Peculiarities of Secondary Data in the Web 2.0

4.4 Primary Research in the Web 2.0

4.4.1 Corporate Blogs: Examples of Nike and Microsoft

4.4.2 Online Focus Groups and Discussions with Opinion Leaders: Example of LG

4.4.3 Online Campaigns: Example of Frosta

4.4.4 Peculiarities of Primary Data in the Web 2.0

4.4.5 Further Marketing Consequences of Negative Word of Mouth in the Web 2.0 and How to Handle It: Examples of Kryptonite and the iPod Nano

4.5 Summary of Chapters

5 Implementation for Practice

5.1 Data Privacy Protection

5.2 Ethics and Critical Acclaim

5.3 Make or Buy?

5.4 Recommendations for Web 2.0 Research in Companies

5.5 Summary of the Chapters

6 Resume and Outlook

Objectives and Topics

This Master's Thesis examines whether Web 2.0-based research is a viable and useful complement or alternative to classical marketing research for analyzing customer opinions and product-related feedback.

• Comparison between classical marketing research and Web 2.0 research methods
• Classification of consumer and producer products and their involvement levels
• Analysis of user motivations for engaging in electronic word of mouth (eWOM)
• Investigation into technical and practical implementation of Web 2.0 analysis
• Evaluation of data quality, privacy ethics, and the role of opinion leaders

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and introduces the core research questions regarding the utility of Web 2.0 for marketing research.

2 Definitions and Explanations: Defines key terms like Web 2.0, eWOM, blogs, and social networks, while classifying products by involvement levels.

3 Theoretical Foundations of Marketing, Marketing Research and Web 2.0 Research: Compares classical research methodologies with Web 2.0 approaches and analyzes user motivations for generating online content.

4 Analysis of the Web 2.0: Examines user patterns, identifies the role of opinion leaders, and provides empirical case studies of secondary and primary research in the Web 2.0.

5 Implementation for Practice: Discusses practical aspects such as data privacy, ethics, and the strategic decision of whether to conduct research internally or through external agencies.

6 Resume and Outlook: Summarizes the thesis findings and provides a forward-looking perspective on the future of Web-based marketing research.

Keywords

Web 2.0, Marketing Research, Electronic Word of Mouth, eWOM, Blogs, Social Networks, Opinion Leaders, Consumer Goods, Producer Goods, High-Involvement, Low-Involvement, Data Privacy, Netnography, Customer Satisfaction, Online Campaigns.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core focus of this thesis?

The thesis explores the potential of using Web 2.0 platforms—such as blogs, forums, and social networks—as instruments for product-related marketing research.

What are the central thematic fields?

The primary themes include the comparison of classical vs. Web 2.0 research methods, the classification of products based on consumer involvement, and the analysis of user motivations for sharing online product reviews.

What is the primary objective of the research?

The main goal is to determine if Web 2.0 analysis is a useful, valid, and cost-effective practice for companies to gain insights into customer attitudes and market trends.

Which scientific methods were applied?

The research relies on literature analysis, comparative method study, and empirical case studies analyzing online data from specific product sectors like servers, cosmetics, and food products.

What does the main part of the work cover?

The main section analyzes user behavior on the Internet, compares secondary vs. primary research data in the Web 2.0, and discusses critical challenges like data privacy and ethical standards.

Which keywords characterize this work?

Key terms include eWOM, Web 2.0 marketing, opinion leader identification, netnography, and the shift from sequential value creation to consumer-centric value processes.

How does Twitter function as a research tool according to the author?

The author notes that while Twitter offers real-time data, its effectiveness varies greatly depending on whether the brand name is ambiguous (e.g., "Caterpillar" as an animal vs. company) and whether the content provides enough depth for analysis.

How can companies handle negative word of mouth?

The author advises companies not to filter negative feedback, but to react immediately and transparently, viewing criticism as a "warning signal" and an opportunity to improve their products and services.