The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance
Open accessAbstract
This study examines whether user-generated content (UGC) is related to stock market performance, which metric of UGC has the strongest relationship, and what the dynamics of the relationship are. We aggregate UGC from multiple websites over a four-year period across 6 markets and 15 firms. We derive multiple metrics of UGC and use multivariate time-series models to assess the relationship between UGC and stock market performance. Volume of chatter significantly leads abnormal returns by a few days (supported by Granger causality tests). Of all the metrics of UGC, volume of chatter has the strongest positive effect on abnormal returns and trading volume. The effect of negative and positive metrics of UGC on abnormal returns is asymmetric. Whereas negative UGC has a significant negative effect on abnormal returns with a short “wear-in” and long “wear-out,” positive UGC has no significant effect on these metrics. The volume of chatter and negative chatter have a significant positive effect on trading volume. Idiosyncratic risk increases significantly with negative information in UGC. Positive information does not have much influence on the risk of the firm. An increase in off-line advertising significantly increases the volume of chatter and decreases negative chatter. These results have important implications for managers and investors.
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
Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(93)90023-5 · Cited by 25,754
Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods
Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912791 · Cited by 22,989
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497 · cited 1×
“Second, for investors, negative information may be more important than positive information because losses loom larger than Marketing Science 31(2), pp. 198–215, ©2012 INFORMS 201 gains (Tversky and Kahneman 1981).”
BackgroundOn Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance
Carhart, M. M. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x · Cited by 17,283
Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s0304-4076(03)00092-7 · Cited by 15,435
Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-y · Cited by 12,633
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
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
Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels
Pesaran, M. H., & Smith, R. (1995) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-f · Cited by 5,479
Cited by
Digital marketing: a framework, review, and research agenda
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. “. (2017) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.006 · Cited by 1,707
Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research
Berger, J. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002 · Cited by 1,469
Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0415 · Cited by 1,127
Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0380 · Cited by 1,073
Uniting the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight
Berger, J., Humphreys, A., Ludwig, S., Moe, W. W., Netzer, O., & Schweidel, D. A. (2020) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242919873106 · Cited by 742
Metadata
- Authors
- Tirunillai, S., & Tellis, G. J.
- Venue
- Marketing Science
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 198-215
- ISSN
- 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-548X
- OpenAlex
- W3123432896
- Cited by
- 623
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 38.57
- 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: Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mksc.1110.0682
- The paper
- Tirunillai, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2012). Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance. Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0682
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.