The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deriving the Pricing Power of Product Features by Mining Consumer Reviews
Open accessAbstract
Increasingly, user-generated product reviews serve as a valuable source of information for customers making product choices online. The existing literature typically incorporates the impact of product reviews on sales based on numeric variables representing the valence and volume of reviews. In this paper, we posit that the information embedded in product reviews cannot be captured by a single scalar value. Rather, we argue that product reviews are multifaceted, and hence the textual content of product reviews is an important determinant of consumers' choices, over and above the valence and volume of reviews. To demonstrate this, we use text mining to incorporate review text in a consumer choice model by decomposing textual reviews into segments describing different product features. We estimate our model based on a unique data set from Amazon containing sales data and consumer review data for two different groups of products (digital cameras and camcorders) over a 15-month period. We alleviate the problems of data sparsity and of omitted variables by providing two experimental techniques: clustering rare textual opinions based on pointwise mutual information and using externally imposed review semantics. This paper demonstrates how textual data can be used to learn consumers' relative preferences for different product features and also how text can be used for predictive modeling of future changes in sales. This paper was accepted by Ramayya Krishnan, information systems.
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
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Friedman, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 · Cited by 24,162
Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models
Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s0304-4076(98)00009-8 · Cited by 22,571
Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models
Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-d · Cited by 19,880
A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection
Kohavi, R. (1995) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.19712698 · Cited by 10,909
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
Cited by
Social Influence Bias: A Randomized Experiment
Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1240466 · Cited by 892
Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. G., & Li, B. (2012) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1110.0700 · Cited by 649
Self-citationMariani, M. M., Perez‐Vega, R., & Wirtz, J. (2022) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21619 · Cited by 631
Identifying Customer Needs from User-Generated Content
Timoshenko, A., & Hauser, J. R. (2019) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2018.1123 · Cited by 513
Product fit uncertainty in online markets: nature, effects, and antecedents
Hong, Y. (., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0520 · Cited by 453
Metadata
- Authors
- Archak, N., Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1485-1509
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2161738110
- Cited by
- 1,007
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 130.74
- 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.