Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Online Product Reviews: Implications for Retailers and Competing Manufacturers

Open access
Kwark, Young, Chen, Jianqing, Raghunathan, Srinivasan·2014·Information Systems Research

Abstract

This paper studies the effect of online product reviews on different players in a channel structure. We consider a retailer selling two substitutable products produced by different manufacturers, and the products differ in both their qualities and fits to consumers' needs. Online product reviews provide additional information for consumers to mitigate the uncertainty about the quality of a product and about its fit to consumers' needs. We show that the effect of reviews on the upstream competition between the manufacturers is critical in understanding which firms gain and which firms lose. The upstream competition is affected in fundamentally different ways by quality information and fit information, and each information type has different implications for the retailer and manufacturers. Quality information homogenizes consumers' perceived utility differences between the two products and increases the upstream competition, which benefits the retailer but hurts the manufacturers. Fit information heterogenizes consumers' estimated fits to the products and softens the upstream competition, which hurts the retailer but benefits the manufacturers. Furthermore, reviews may also alter the nature of upstream competition from one in which consumers' own assessment on the quality dimension plays a dominant role in consumers' comparative evaluation of products to one in which fit dimension plays a dominant role. If manufacturers do not respond strategically to reviews and keep the same wholesale prices regardless of reviews (i.e., the upstream competition is assumed to be unaffected by reviews), then, we show that reviews never hurt the retailer and the manufacturer with favorable reviews, and never benefit the manufacturer with unfavorable reviews, a finding that demonstrates why reviews' effect on upstream competition is critical for firms in online marketplaces.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2013.0511

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 35 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Chen P-Y, 2004, Proc. 25th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (ICIS)
  2. Garvin DA, 1984, Sloan Management Rev., 26, S25
  3. Hong Y, 2012, Proc. 33th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (ICIS)
  4. Jiang Y, Guo H (2013) Design of consumer review systems and product pricing. Working paper, Florida Gulf Coast University. · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2164368
  5. Jiang B-J, 2008, Proc. 29th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (ICIS)
  6. Sutton J, 1986, Amer. Econom. Rev., 76, 393

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Kwark, Y., Chen, J., & Raghunathan, S.
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
2014-03
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
93-110
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W2167181457
Cited by
398
References
35
FWCI
11.52
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Online Product Reviews: Implications for Retailers and Competing Manufacturers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.2013.0511
The paper
Kwark, Y., Chen, J., & Raghunathan, S. (2014). Online Product Reviews: Implications for Retailers and Competing Manufacturers. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0511

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.