The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of the Social Structure of Digital Networks on Viral Marketing Performance
Open accessAbstract
Viral marketing is a form of peer-to-peer communication in which individuals are encouraged to pass on promotional messages within their social networks. Conventional wisdom holds that the viral marketing process is both random and unmanageable. In this paper, we deconstruct the process and investigate the formation of the activated digital network as distinct from the underlying social network. We then consider the impact of the social structure of digital networks (random, scale free, and small world) and of the transmission behavior of individuals on campaign performance. Specifically, we identify alternative social network models to understand the mediating effects of the social structures of these models on viral marketing campaigns. Next, we analyse an actual viral marketing campaign and use the empirical data to develop and validate a computer simulation model for viral marketing. Finally, we conduct a number of simulation experiments to predict the spread of a viral message within different types of social network structures under different assumptions and scenarios. Our findings confirm that the social structure of digital networks play a critical role in the spread of a viral message. Managers seeking to optimize campaign performance should give consideration to these findings before designing and implementing viral marketing campaigns. We also demonstrate how a simulation model is used to quantify the impact of campaign management inputs and how these learnings can support managerial decision making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 · Cited by 6,003
Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0015 · Cited by 2,516
Exploring the WOW in online-auction feedback
Weinberg, B. D., & Davis, L. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.06.004 · Cited by 108
Cited by
Validity Issues in the Use of Social Network Analysis with Digital Trace Data
University of Texas at Austin, Howison, J., Wiggins, A., Syracuse University, Crowston, K., & Syracuse University (2011) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00282 · Cited by 369
Information cascades in complex networks
Jalili, M., & Perc, M. (2017) · Journal of Complex Networks · doi:10.1093/comnet/cnx019 · Cited by 248
Referral Reward Size and New Customer Profitability
Wolters, H. M., Schulze, C., & Gedenk, K. (2020) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2020.1242 · Cited by 52
Relative superiority of key centrality measures for identifying influencers on social media
Zhang, Y., & Li, X. (2014) · International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies · doi:10.4018/ijiit.2014100101 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Bampo, M., Ewing, M. T., Mather, D. R., Stewart, D., & Wallace, M.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 273-290
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W4236554952
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.