Seeking the support of the silent majority: are lurking users valuable to UGC platforms?

  • Xingyu Chen
  • Xing Li
  • Dai Yao
  • Zhimin ZhouEmail author
Original Empirical Research


In user-generated content (UGC) platforms, content generators (i.e., posters) account for only a minority of users. The majority of users lurk, participating in information diffusion only and making no direct contributions to the platforms (i.e., diffusers). In this paper, we study diffusers’ reposting behavior in a UGC platform and compare it with that of posters. We find that diffusers generally behave similarly to posters in reposting. Both groups repost more when seeing more posts and encountering popular posts. Interestingly, their reposting behavior diverges under information redundancy, i.e., when more popular posts are seen in a dense network. Under this condition, diffusers show a much higher propensity to repost, which is (partially) driven by their lesser need for uniqueness (NFU). Overall, this study suggests an exquisite way for platforms to activate their lurking users and it sheds light on their value in generating word-of-mouth and in facilitating information diffusion. It also provides useful guidelines for firms to approach the right type of lurking users (i.e., diffusers in a dense network) by using the right method of stimulation (i.e., offering popular albeit redundant information) during product diffusion online.


Information diffusion Network density Clustering coefficient UGC platform 



We greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions of seminar participants at 2017 JAMS “Thought Leader Conference on Marketing Strategy in Digital, Data-Rich, and Developing Environments” conference at UIBE, Beijing, China, and thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for the constructive and developmental review process. We are in debt to the company in China which shares the data and provides extensive discussions. Haiwen Dai and Junwen Huang provided excellent research assistance. Chen and Zhou are grateful for financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers 71502111, 71872115, 71772126 and 71832015). The authors contribute to the paper equally and are listed alphabetically. The usual disclaimers apply.


  1. Aaltonen, A., & Seiler, S. (2015). Cumulative growth in user-generated content production: evidence from Wikipedia. Management Science, 62(7), 2054–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn, D. Y., Duan, J. A., & Mela, C. F. (2016). Managing user-generated content: a dynamic rational expectations equilibrium approach. Marketing Science, 35(2), 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Conspicuous consumption and sophisticated thinking. Management Science, 51(10), 1449–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antin, J., & Cheshire, C. (2010). Readers are not free-riders: Reading as a form of participation on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 127–130). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2014). Tie strength, embeddedness, and social influence: a large-scale networked experiment. Management Science, 60(6), 1352–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthur, C. (2006). What is the 1% rule? The Guardian.Google Scholar
  7. Balasubramanian, S., & Mahajan, V. (2001). The economic leverage of the virtual community. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5, 103–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barasch, A., & Berger, J. (2014). Broadcasting and narrowcasting: how audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bass, F. M. (2004). Comments on “a new product growth for model consumer durables the bass model”. Management Science, 50(supplement 12), 1833–1840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berger, J. (2014). Word-of-mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berger, J., & Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication channels and word of mouth: how the medium shapes the message. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 869–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brocato, E. D., Baker, J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2015). Creating consumer attachment to retail service firms through sense of place. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 200–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, P. K. (2010). Measuring user influence in twitter: the million follower fallacy. Icwsm, 10(10–17), 30.Google Scholar
  19. Chae, I., Stephen, A. T., Bart, Y., & Yao, D. (2017). Spillover effects in seeded word-of-mouth marketing campaigns. Marketing Science, 36(1), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheema, A., & Kaikati, A. M. (2010). The effect of need for uniqueness on word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 553–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2016). How content acquisition method affects word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen, Y. J., & Kirmani, A. (2015). Posting strategically: the consumer as an online media planner. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(4), 609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chintagunta, P. K., Gopinath, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The effects of online user reviews on movie box office performance: accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets. Marketing Science, 29(5), 944–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences and individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & Angelis, M. D. (2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers: how interpersonal closeness influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 712–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edelmann, N. (2013). Reviewing the definitions of “lurkers” and some implications for online research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(9), 645–649.Google Scholar
  30. Fardouly, J., & Vartanian, L. R. (2016). Social media and body image concerns: current research and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fossen, B. L., & Schweidel, D. A. (2016). Television advertising and online word-of-mouth: an empirical investigation of social TV activity. Marketing Science, 36(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frenzen, J., & Nakamoto, K. (1993). Structure, cooperation, and the flow of market information. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gao, G., Greenwood, B. N., Agarwal, R., & McCullough, J. S. (2015). Vocal minority and silent majority: how do online ratings reflect population perceptions of quality. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 565–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009). Firm-created word-of-mouth communication: evidence from a field test. Marketing Science, 28(4), 721–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehmann, D. R., & Hong, J. W. (2009). The role of hubs in the adoption process. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., Muller, E., & Stremersch, S. (2010). Data base submission–the evolving social network of marketing scholars. Marketing Science, 29(3), 561–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gourieroux, C., Monfort, A., & Trognon, A. (1984). Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: applications to poisson models. Econometrica, 52(3), 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hausman, J., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52(4), 909–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C., & Feldhaus, F. (2015). Does twitter matter? The impact of microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences., 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies for viral marketing: an empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hu, Y., & Li, X. (2011). Context-dependent product evaluations: an empirical analysis of internet book reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(3), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hung, S. Y., Lai, H. M., & Chou, Y. C. (2015). Knowledge-sharing intention in professional virtual communities: a comparison between posters and lurkers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2494–2510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. John, L. K., Emrich, O., Gupta, S., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Does “liking” lead to loving? The impact of joining a brand’s social network on marketing outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Katona, Z., Zubcsek, P. P., & Sarvary, M. (2011). Network effects and personal influences: the diffusion of an online social network. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 425–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of marketing research, 39(1), 61–72.Google Scholar
  49. Kozinets, R. V., Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. (2010). Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web (pp. 591–600). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lai, H. M., & Chen, T. T. (2014). Knowledge sharing in interest online communities: A comparison of posters and lurkers. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Li, X., Bresnahan, T., & Yin, P. L. (2016). Paying incumbents and customers to enter an industry: buying downloads. Available at SSRN:
  53. Liao, S., & Chou, E. Y. (2012). Intention to adopt knowledge through virtual communities: posters vs lurkers. Online Information Review, 36(3), 442–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lin, H. C., & Kalwani, M. U. (2018). Culturally contingent electronic word-of-mouth signaling and screening: a comparative study of product reviews in the United States and Japan. Journal of International Marketing, 26(2), 80–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liu, Y. (2006). Word-of-mouth for movies: its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liu-Thompkins, Y., & Rogerson, M. (2012). Rising to stardom: an empirical investigation of the diffusion of user-generated content. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lovett, M. J., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2013). On brands and word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: a new individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing, 14(6), 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Manchanda, P., Packard, G., & Pattabhiramaiah, A. (2015). Social dollars: the economic impact of customer participation in a firm-sponsored online customer community. Marketing Science, 34(3), 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marett, K., & Joshi, K. D. (2009). The decision to share information and rumors: examining the role of motivation in an online discussion forum. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 47–68.Google Scholar
  61. McWilliam, G. (2000). Building stronger brands through online communities. Sloan Management Review., 41(Spring), 43–54.Google Scholar
  62. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Milkman, K. L., & Berger, J. (2014). The science of sharing and the sharing of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement 4), 13642–13649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mishra, S., & Slotegraaf, R. J. (2013). Building an innovation base: exploring the role of acquisition behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(6), 705–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Moe, W. W., & Schweidel, D. A. (2012). Online product opinions: incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Marketing Science, 31(3), 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moldovan, S., Steinhart, Y., & Ofen, S. (2015). “Share and scare”: solving the communication dilemma of early adopters with a high need for uniqueness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mousavi, S., Roper, S., & Keeling, K. A. (2017). Interpreting social identity in online brand communities: Considering posters and lurkers. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), 376–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mu, J., Thomas, E., Qi, J., & Tan, Y. (2018). Online group influence and digital product consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–27.Google Scholar
  69. Nair, H. S., Manchanda, P., & Bhatia, T. (2010). Asymmetric social interactions in physician prescription behavior: the role of opinion leaders. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (1999). Shedding light on lurkers in online communities. Ethnographic Studies in Real and Virtual Environments: Inhabited Information Spaces and Connected Communities.Google Scholar
  71. Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., & Preece, J. (2006). Non-public and public online community participation: needs, attitudes and behavior. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Oberholzer-Gee, F. (2014). Buzzfeed - the promise of native advertising. Harvard Business School Case, 714–512.Google Scholar
  73. Packard, G., & Berger, J. (2016). How language shapes word-of-mouth’s impact. Journal of Marketing Research.Google Scholar
  74. Park, E., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., Houston, M. B., & Yoo, B. (2018). Social dollars in online communities: the effect of product, user, and network characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 82(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Perna, D., Interdonato, R., & Tagarelli, A. (2018). Identifying users with alternate behaviors of lurking and active participation in multilayer social networks. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 5(1), 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ransbotham, S., Kane, G. C., & Lurie, N. H. (2012). Network characteristics and the value of collaborative user-generated content. Marketing Science, 31(3), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rego, L. L., Billett, M. T., & Morgan, N. A. (2009). Consumer-based brand equity and firm risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ryu, G., & Han, J. K. (2009). Word-of-mouth transmission in settings with multiple opinions: the impact of other opinions on WOM likelihood and valence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schlosser, A. E. (2005). Posting versus lurking: communicating in a multiple audience context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Seiler, S., Yao, S., & Wang, W. (2017). Does online word-of-mouth increase demand? (and how?) evidence from a natural experiment. Marketing Science, 36(6), 838–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shen, Q., & Miguel Villas-Boas, J. (2017). Behavior-based advertising. Management Science, 64(5), 2047–2064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shriver, S. K., Nair, H. S., & Hofstetter, R. (2013). Social ties and user-generated content: evidence from an online social network. Management Science, 59(6), 1425–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sohn, D. (2009). Disentangling the effects of social network density on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 352–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Steinhoff, L., & Palmatier, R. W. (2016). Understanding loyalty program effectiveness: managing target and bystander effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stephen, A. T., Zubcsek, P. P., & Goldenberg, J. (2016). Lower connectivity is better: the effects of network structure on redundancy of ideas and customer innovativeness in interdependent ideation tasks. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(2), 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015). Unraveling scientific impact: citation types in marketing journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sun, N., Rau, P. P. L., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: a literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 38(2), 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sun, M., Zhang, X., & Zhu, F. (2016). Nonconformity in online social networks. NET Institute working paper no. 12-15. Available at SSRN:
  93. Tagarelli, A., & Interdonato, R. (2015). Time-aware analysis and ranking of lurkers in social networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 5(1), 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Takahashi, M., Fujimoto, M., & Yamasaki, N. (2003). The active lurker: Influence of an in-house online community on its outside environment. In Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 1–10). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  95. Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K. (2008). Brand communities and new product adoption: the influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 65–80.Google Scholar
  96. Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Toubia, O., & Stephen, A. T. (2013). Intrinsic VS. image-related utility in social media: Why do people contribute content to Twitter? Marketing Science, 32(3), 368–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Trusov, M., Bodapati, A. V., & Bucklin, R. E. (2010). Determining influential users in internet social networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Uslay, C., Morgan, R. E., & Sheth, J. N. (2008). Peter drucker on marketing: an exploration of five tenets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(1), 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2008). The impact of marketing-induced versus word-of-mouth customer acquisition on customer equity growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wan, E. W., Xu, J., & Ding, Y. (2013). To be or not to be unique? The effect of social exclusion on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1109–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wang, K., & Goldfarb, A. (2016). Can offline stores drive online sales? Journal of Marketing Research, 54(5), 706–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Willett, J. (1998). VECO-an online community making a difference, an evaluation of the project. Australian student traineeship foundation and dusseldorp skills forum, Sydney.Google Scholar
  107. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  108. Workman, M. (2014). New media and the changing face of information technology use: The importance of task pursuit, social influence, and experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(Supplement C), 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wu, F., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Novelty and collective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(45), 17599–17601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zamudio, C., Wang, Y., & Haruvy, E. (2013). Human brands and mutual choices: an investigation of the marketing assistant professor job market. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(6), 722–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zeng, X., & Wei, L. (2013). Social ties and user content generation: evidence from Flickr. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Zhang, X., & Zhu, F. (2011). Group size and incentives to contribute: a natural experiment at Chinese Wikipedia. The American Economic Review, 101(4), 1601–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: the moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 133–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of ManagementShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina
  2. 2.Guanghua School of ManagementPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.NUS Business SchoolNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations