The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are Consumers More Likely to Contribute Online Reviews for Hit or Niche Products?
Abstract
User-generated content has been hailed by some as a democratizing force that enables consumers to discuss niche products that were previously ignored by mainstream media. Nevertheless, the extent to which consumers truly prefer to use these new outlets to discuss lesser-known products as opposed to spending most of their energies on discussing widely marketed or already successful products has so far remained an open question. We explore this question by investigating how a population's propensity to contribute postconsumption online reviews for different products of the same category (motion pictures) relates to various indicators of those products' popularity. We discover that, ceteris paribus, consumers prefer to post reviews for products that are less available and less successful in the market. At the same time, however, they are also more likely to contribute reviews for products that many other people have already commented on online. The presence of these two opposite forces leads to a U-shaped relationship between a population's average propensity to review a movie postconsumption and that movie's box office revenues: moviegoers appear to be more likely to contribute reviews for very obscure movies but also for very high-grossing movies. Our findings suggest that online forum designers who wish to increase the contribution of user reviews for lesser-known products should make information about the volume of previously posted reviews a less-prominent feature of their sites.
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 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
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.10073 · Cited by 5,916
The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2783 · Cited by 2,869
Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1121066 · Cited by 2,231 · cited 2×
“[34], and tucker and Zhang [37] independently study the effect of the availability of popularity information (e.”
BackgroundCheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415130402 · Cited by 1,286
Cited by
Schryen, G. (2013) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.45 · Cited by 420
Kwark, Y., Chen, J., & Raghunathan, S. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.3.05 · Cited by 350
Vocal Minority and Silent Majority: How Do Online Ratings Reflect Population Perceptions of Quality?
Gao, G. (., Greenwood, B. N., Agarwal, R., & McCullough, P. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2629837 · Cited by 278
Self-citationDeterminants of Mobile Apps' Success: Evidence from the App Store Market
Lee, G., & Raghu, T. S. (2014) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222310206 · Cited by 265
Content Contribution for Revenue Sharing and Reputation in Social Media: A Dynamic Structural Model
Tang, Q., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2012) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222290203 · Cited by 243
Metadata
- Authors
- Dellarocas, C., Gao, G., & Narayan, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-158
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2170356717
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 57.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Are Consumers More Likely to Contribute Online Reviews for Hit or Niche Products? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2753/mis0742-1222270204
- The paper
- Dellarocas, C., Gao, G., & Narayan, R. (2010). Are Consumers More Likely to Contribute Online Reviews for Hit or Niche Products? Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222270204
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.