marketing research
jessica01
EXEMPLARResearchProposals217.pdf
Marketing Research MKTG 2005 Fully Online
RESEARCH PROPOSAL (Methodology)
Please read closely the exemplar below. It is not the perfect assessment, but is a very good example, and scored 85-90%.
Please view this with consideration for what is asked in the assessment brief, and what is stated in the marking rubrics.
It is also integral you can look at this work and yours CRITICALLY so to improve.
PLEASE NOTE, assessments regularly change, so what is stated in this semester's BRIEF may be somewhat different.
Please read the CURRENT ASSESSMENT BRIEF closely!!!!
I have made further notes in red for each section highlighting a few key points.
Great creative presentation. Provides only key information for required sections emphasized. Is concise and clear. Have used free online software Canva to create. Google it!
RESEARCH BACKGROUND According to PWC (2015, 9), 89% of respondents agree the sharing economy is based on the
intangible variable of trust between providers and users. Trust is a willingness to be
vulnerable to the actions of another person or people (Mayer et al 1995) and is therefore,
the “cornerstone of any successful relationship, be it personal or professional” (Nielsen (2014, 10).
A survey by Campbell Mithun’s in 2012 discovered 67% of respondents expressed trust
concerns as the primary barrier to undertaking peertopeer transactions (Davis 2012). Thus,
trust in the sharing economy environment is a vital component as it “is the social glue that enables collaborative consumption marketplaces and the sharing economy to function
without friction” (Rinne 2013, 4).
To build trust within the sharing economy, numerous consumers of varying ages engage
with online review/rating/reputation systems (Godwin 2016). This platform as well as age
can affect the consumer’s decisionmaking process and their perceived
attitudes/perceptions/beliefs towards a particular company, as a survey conducted by Pews
discovered millennials have the lowest levels of trust, with only “19% say most people can
be trusted, compared with 31% of Gen Xers, 37% of Silents and 40% of Boomers” . Thus, confirming age to be a factor when trust is involved (Pew Research Center 2014).
A survey conducted by Verida (2016), revealed 98% of consumers will read peer reviews to
establish credibility and reputation.
(Verida 2016, 6)
Similar results were discovered in BrightLocal (2015) as 92% of respondents’
regularly/occasionally read online reviews, with 40% forming an opinion from reading only
13 reviews. While 80% of respondents trusting online reviews as much as personal
recommendations, ONLY if they meet their requirement (BrightLocal 2015). Thus, suggesting
Background – good overview of key points, range of info and sources suitable to the study.
authenticity of reviews to be fundamental factor for consumers to trust the reviews they
read.
(BrightLocal 2015)
Online review/rating/reputation systems therefore perform a significant factor in consumer
decisionmaking process, as it allows consumers to “discover, evaluate, and compare products/services on the web” (Zervas, Proserpio and Byers 2015, 1). However, such systems
have recently been discovered to generate reviews that are questionable in reflecting the
true product/service quality, with many being overwhelmingly positive (Zervas, Proserpio
and Byers 2015).
According to an analysis developed by Zervas, Proserpio and Byers in 2015 of 600 000
Airbnb properties worldwide, they discovered“95% of Airbnb properties boasting an average usergenerated rating of either 4.5 or 5 stars (the maximum); virtually none have
less than a 3.5 star rating” .
Example of Airbnb guest review: Airbnb adopts an ‘Identified Review System’:
With 51% of consumers selecting a product/service based on its positive reviews
(BrightLocal 2015), it has caused concerns in the authenticity/accurateness of reviews on
Airbnb, as negative incidents have increasingly developed affecting current/future guest’s
trust and personal safety whilst using Airbnb product/services of which have had positive
reviews, suggesting huge discrepancies between reviews and the product/services attained.
The overwhelmingly high ratio of positive to negative reviews creates difficulty for
consumers to trust whether the Airbnb product/service is safe, hygienic and of exceptional
quality. Due to this, “consumers who are familiar with the sharing economy are 34% more likely to trust a leading hotel brand than Airbnb “(PWC 2015, 23).
Online articles, verifying Airbnb’s issue with their online review/rating/reputation
systems:
SECONDARY RESEARCH FINDINGS The sharing economy is a form of consumertoconsumer ecommerce (Jones and Leonard
2014). Due to this nature, trust is deemed crucial within the sharing economy and is
therefore a relevant driver and barrier for consumer participation. (Hawlitschek et al 2016;
Rogers and Botsman 2010). This therefore, results in trust to be a major
challenge/detriment, as it has the capabilities to affect purchase intentions within the
consumer decisionmaking process (Voeth et al 2015). However, to cope with this trust
challenge, the sharing economy has developed/utilized the mechanism of online review
systems to ensure users can create and maintain trust (Hawlitschek et al 2016).
The presence of online reviews is regarded as a powerful source of information for
consumers, as it is a form of wordofmouth, resulting in the term electronic wordofmouth
(EWOM) to arise (Browning et al 2013; Racherla et al 2012). According to Mo et al (2015),
consumers of all ages utilize online reviews during the consumer decisionmaking process as
a source to judge whether they should proceed with purchasing. Online reviews are
evaluations of products/services created by consumers (Mudami and Schuff 2010).
Therefore, the utilization of online reviews assist consumers in determining the quality of
the product/service (Mo et al 2015). Due to this, online reviews can further assist
consumers in attaining attitudes, perceptions and perceived risks associated with the
purchase of the product/service, whilst also deciding whom to trust (Askay 2014; Mo et al
2015).
However, according to a study by Askay (2015) there has been an increase of positivebias
online reviews being identified in numerous online review systems (Askay 2015). This high
degree of positivebias online reviews has impacted the ‘quality’ of reviews, which further
impacts the consumer decisionmaking process (Van Rooyen et al 1999). A study conducted
by Van Rooyen et al (1999), confirmed the vast majority of reviewers are more than likely to
decline to review if their identity was revealed, suggesting individuals are apprehensive of
posting truthful reviews. Reasoning to this, can be explained via the Spiral of Silence (SOS)
Theory as this theory proposes individuals are more likely to refrain from writing reviews if
their identity was revealed due to fear of social isolation and punishment (Askay 2014;
NoelleNeumann 1974). A study by Bolton et al (2013) confirmed posting negative ‘truthful’
reviews could result in retaliatory feedback to occur. Due to this, many consumers rely on
social media and visual images of the seller during their consumerdecision making process
to attain trust.
According to Ioanăs and Stoica (2014), social media has the ability to influence consumers within ecommerce. While Ert et al (2016), discovered visual images of the seller and
nonvisual images such as reviews to aid in trust building. However, the ability to trust online reviews is highly dependent on age and gender. A study by Bae and Lee (2010)
discovered online reviews on purchase intention are stronger for females than males. While
Secondary research – great use of wide range of academic sources. Good synthesis across sources, not purely quoting.
Sutter and Kocher (2014) discovered trust to not only differ across age groups at a given
time, but also across time within different age groups.
PRIMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS The primary research was attained by a qualitative method called focus groups. The nature
of the focus group was informal and encompassed a thorough discussion, due to numerous
open, closed and probing questions. The probing questions assisted in delving further into
potential factors, which has provided meaningful information about the issue.
The use of observation tools was deemed unnecessary within our focus group, as consumer
skepticism could only be discovered by the individual's perception, attitudes and beliefs
associated with Airbnb and therefore are cognitive, meaning individuals would verbally say
what their perception, attitudes and beliefs are, rather than portraying it within their
behaviour at the focus group. Therefore, communication tools were only used to complete
the focus group.
Two moderators managed the focus group. The conducted focus group was completed
within a semiinformal environment at the following location – Curtin University Robertson
Library. A study room was booked to conduct the focus group to ensure privacy, so
participants were not distracted by their surroundings. The focus group consisted of 6
individuals (3 females and males), aged between 18 and 25, with 3 individual being active
Airbnb ‘guest’ users and 3 individuals being nonactive Airbnb ‘guest’ users.
Additionally, a quantitative method called surveyquestionnaire was also utilized, due to its
structured format, which enabled the topic to be measured via statistics. This assisted in
providing objective statistical conclusions. Our survey was conducted online and
facetoface. The online surveyquestionnaire was shared via a social media platform –
Facebook. This allowed for maximization of survey results. 15 individuals (8 females and 7
males) completed the survey, with ages between 18 and 30.
The surveyquestionnaire was also handed to our work colleagues to complete. A total of 10
individuals (5 females and males) completed the surveyquestionnaire between the ages of
18 and 35. Both the online and facetoface surveyquestionnaire also consisted of
active/nonactive Airbnb ‘guest’ users. Having active/nonactive Airbnb ‘guest’ users
enabled different insights and perspectives for both our focus group and
surveyquestionnaire.
In addition, the focus group and survey questionnaire utilized a convenience sample, as
individuals were selected due to them being conveniently located at the right place/time.
Utilizing a convenience sample assisted in saving time.
Primary research – don’t want discussion of what exploratory research is, just application. Good discussion of the method they used, (even why you didn’t use others) and what they found, and discussion given to how used for rest of study.
Questions, which were asked in the focus group and surveyquestionnaire, revolved around
discovering the potential factors/variables that are contributing to Airbnb’s consumer
skepticism. By adopting these questions, it has assisted in developing understanding to the
rise of consumer skepticism. The following findings were discovered:
● 50% of individuals are unsure of the sharing economy and its peertopeer marketplace.
● 50% trusted the Airbnb platform. ● Trust is an influential factor, with 100% of individuals stating it is a factor they do
consider within their decisionmaking process.
● 90% of individuals believe online reviews to influence their decisionmaking process and final selection.
● 90% believe the high ratio of online reviews to be unreliable and to lack credibility. ● 95% will refer to the company’s online review system to gather information during
their prepurchase
These findings have assisted in clarifying and refining our research problem/design by
discovering the influential and potential factors, which are instigating consumer skepticism
for Airbnb. These findings revealed the factors of their online review systems and the host’s
product/service to be prominent factors. These vital findings have thus, allowed for a
foundation for our research questions to revolve around these areas, to ensure further
identification and information of the issue.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
● Airbnb’s online review system is causing a decrease in consumers trust due to its lack of transparency and accountability.
● This poses an issue for Airbnb as it is jeopardizing its ability to retain consumers within its platforms and to trust its host’s product/service.
● This has further caused implications within Airbnb’s future guest experiences and its bottom line.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS The following research questions will assist in determining factors which may impact an
individual’s ability to trust Airbnb, whilst also determining the extent of which these
variables can influence trusting behaviour.
1. How does nonanonymous (identified) online reviews affect the ability for
consumers to trust Airbnb?
Research Problem – okay overview of what is causing, problem, and implications. More detail would be nice.
RQs – good clear overview. Consistent and useful variables, clearly stated. Rq3 too vague. Could extend to 7 to conceptualize more comprehensively
2. Could social media platforms impact the attitudes and beliefs of individuals towards
Airbnb?
3. How does an individual’s perception influence consumer behaviour when choosing
Airbnb?
4. Does age and gender impact the consumer decisionmaking process when selecting
Airbnb?
5. Does the presence of photos have a significant impact on the guest’s
decisionmaking process and their ability to trust Airbnb?
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Conceptual model – good conceptualization. clearly linked with RQs. Good justification of why. Would only limit to 1 moderator (becomes too complex otherwise). Would like to see a mediator present too.
It has been conceptualised that:
● Consumers make purchasing decisions solely based off the judgement made from either the host's profile or accommodation photos. Perceived trust in this case works
as a moderator, as the consumers perceived trust of the host is purely made from
the guests impressions they receive when viewing the host's profile.
● Consumers require the trust of both the service platform and the fellow host when using peertopeer businesses such as Airbnb. Perceived risk is the uncertainty of
consequences the consumer has on the service, and in this case acts as a moderator
as various risk factors such as theft, fraud and physical harm can have a negative
influence on the consumer when using Airbnb.
● Reviews are likely to affect the consumer's purchasing decision when choosing AIRBNB, the attitudes and beliefs acts a moderator as it can impact their purchasing
decision based off their attitude and beliefs.
● Social media can negatively or positively affect the consumer's buying decision when choosing AIRBNB, online reviews is a moderator as it can impact the individual’s
perception towards the service.
● As consumer habits adjust over time, age may act as a moderator as it will definitely influence how consumers think when choosing Airbnb and if it may or may not be
suitable for them.
PROPOSED SAMPLING Population of interest The research will be targeted at individuals aged between 25 45 who are Travellers or
residents in the 5 key tourist areas of Western Australia, The Great Southern, The South
West, Perth Metro, The Kimberleys and Mid West. These are the 5 major tourist based
regions of Western Australia. The majority of current Airbnb consumers use the service for
accommodation in either one of these areas. The population will be computer literate. The
population will have varying levels of income, this is due to the variety of property prices of
the Airbnb listings. There are listing as little as $50 AUD per day. The population will also be
financially aware of the savings involved in using Airbnb as the service is deemed as a way of
saving money on hotels and accommodation.. They will be active travellers themselves that
also utilise online media for cost saving holidays. They will actively use online resources to
compliment their lifestyle and strive for convenience with the use of technology on a daily
basis. They will be active users of technology based sharing economies such as UBER EBAY
and Airbnb. The population will therefore have a strong insight into the pitfalls and
Sampling – great overview of population and application of seg bases. Great range of Sampling frames, with the relevant population members present discussed. Procedure well thought-out and applied.
advantages of an online sharing economy. This will therefore lead to more educated sample
population on the subject of online sharing economies and etourism.
Sampling frames Frame 1: Travel blog subscribers from travelblo.org contain hundereds of subscribers with keen travel
interests around Australia. They are primarily technologically aware and use the internet for
reviews of possible places to travel around Australia/Oceania. Being an interactive site with
a forum suggests that subscribers are active and are stimulated by the content. It is
important for the success of the questionnaire that the sample population are proactive
when it comes to online content.
Frame 2: Local Facebook groups will provide a list of active tourists and consumers with similar
interests to the region as well as possible vendors. Due to the interactive nature of facebook
and things like the instant messenger application it will be easier and more efficient to gain
candidates for the questionnaire and the focus group. Facebook also runs various types of
marketing packages that can be utilized to approach are target population.
Frame 3: Backpacker registers and sign in books are also a great example to gather source material.
With backpackers actively looking to travel on a budget they will be ideally placed to give a
consumer’s opinion on the sharing economy. Backpackers are typically between 1930 and
in Australia come from all corners of the globe. A common theme is a basic grasp of English
as a language.
Frame 4: Another source is the website expedia which is a one stop shop for the best online deals for
travellers incorporating accommodation as well as flights and other travel information. By
looking searching their subscribers on social media platforms such as facebook and twitter
will result in an “active user” segment population. Again direct messaging through these
platforms will result in efficient responses for the questionnaire and focus group.
Sampling procedure Stratified sampling will be used to divide the population geographically into 5 key tourist
regions:
● The Great Southern (Esperance to Albany) ● The South West (Pemberton to Bunbury) ● The Perth Metropolitan (Mandurah to Yanchep)
● The Mid West (Lancelin to Kalbarri) ● The Pilbara (Anywhere North of Kalbarri)
Then through systematically in mailing and direct messaging suitable candidates through
social media platforms such as facebook, twitter and instagram according to the sample
population a pool of potential candidates will be created. It is advantageous to use the
social media aspect of our sample frames as they have capabilities that allow the sender to
see when a message has been read or received e.g Facebook messenger. This can help lead
a more efficient population sourcing technique. The interested candidates will then register
an email address to receive further information.
The selected participants taken from the frames will receive an email that will be
incentivised by an Airbnb based incentive (e.g credit on future rentals). To filter potential
samples we will ask the below question to gain a stronger population to pool our results. By
adding an Airbnb based incentive the likelihood of participants responding will therefore be
higher and lead to a more efficient sampling procedure.
A. Have you used Airbnb in the past 6 months?
B. Have you had a negative experience with online tourism?
C. Do you feel the internet is a safe marketplace?
D. Are you a repeat Airbnb consumer?
E. Would you be interested in attending a discussion group on Airbnb and internet
security?
F. Why do you use Airbnb (optional) with a further notes section.
The first 5 questions will be in a simple “yes” and “no” answer format for convenience of the
user. This will also make it simpler to filter the results to achieve the desired characteristics
of the research population. By asking whether the individual has used Airbnb in the last 6
months will give a fresh opinion of Airbnb and someone more likely to want to participate,
they will have either had a recent negative or positive experience. Recent experiences will
provide more clarity in focus groups. Questions A and B will qualify our population further
whilst D will also add consumers which will add an interesting element to our focus group.
People with experiences on both sides of the sharing economy may provide insights others
won’t.
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY The instruments we will be conducting will have to be evaluated at the same time by
different members of the crew, quantitative data (questionnaires) is conducted at a 60%
capacity as it allows for more accurate results to be obtained and qualitative data (focus
group) is worth 40% due to the nature of consumers, this is then composed together to
analyse and interpret information. After we evaluate information we calculate the response
rates, with online surveys it is more straight forward compared to focus groups, response
rates are calculated by deducting the unusable questionnaire such as demographics filters
and incorrect personal details such as web addresses with the usable information. Being
online the system data comprises much of the information to interpret as focus groups are
more time consuming as its virtual to comprehend.
Questionnaire: This questionnaire will be distributed within social media platforms including email
versions, primarily based on that airbnb is an online sharing economy, so it is where most
information is collected and conducted which also creates a wide audience base and less
costs and validity. The conductor will not have to be present and user can be at any location
at any given time to suit their lifestyle,within a designated time frame.
Emailed introduction:
“Good afternoon fellow travellers,
Please take your time to participate in an online questionnaire, we would like to shed some
light on Airbnb and the increased skepticism over its online review system. Please click on the link below, you will be greatly rewarded.
https://curtin.au1.qualtrics.com/SE?Q_DL=6YlyUWu5YQuQ9NP_5u6UYI4fkilwmPP_MLRP_bpZ2V
6kr832wVKJ&Q_CHL=email
KR AIRBNB CREW!”
Focus Groups:
The focus group discussion has been designed to influence all participants into meaningful
thoughts and discussion about our overall research problem, being whether or not they are
likely to utilize a peertopeer business such as Airbnb based on a variety of contributing factors.
The questions within the focus group are constructed by exploring the participants feelings,
attitudes and perceptions they have towards choosing Airbnb. The focus group discussion is
centred around a wide range of vague and probing questions, which allowed for participants to
go into more deeper thought regarding the research problem and retrieve more accurate and
detailed data.
Great to see the participant recruitment message.
the Qs must be viewable in the hard copy. Therefore if you are using a Qualtrics survey, you MUST also provide SCREENSHOTS of the questions in the appendices
Research instruments – Great overview of FGs with probes considered, as well as use of PT. Questionniare – some good Qs and lots of different types. I would separate into blocks though and make some more visually appealing. Limited demographic discussion.
Appendix 1: Script for focus group discussion *IQ Introduction Question
Questions Remarks/Rationale
Introduction: “Hello everybody, my name is X and this is Y. I will conduct the discussion and Y will observe and take notes. We invited you all to discuss the topic of AirBnB. I will ask you several open questions. Your personal opinions and view are very important for us. There are no right or wrong answers. Please feel welcome to express yourself freely during the discussion.
This conversation will be recorded on tape. This is only for purpose of the research, only Y and I will listen to the tape. No names or personal information will be used in the report.
Some practical issues: the discussion will last between 4560 minutes, . We ask you to please switch off your mobile phones. Please give everyone the chance to express their opinion during the conversation. You can address each other when expressing your opinion, we are only here to assist in the discussion. Is everything clear about the course of the focus group discussion? Let’s begin.
Before starting the focus group discussion, all participants were informed about the purpose of the discussion, confidentiality and practical issues.
IQ: Please share your name and age with us.
This enables participants to break the ice between one another and allow for communication to commence.
IQ: What do you feel like a sharing economy is ? explain
If so, when did you last use one?
Have you heard of airbnb?
Have you ever been on the Airbnb website?
Have you ever considered using Airbnb for accommodation services?
The aim of these questions are to familiarize participants with the discussion topic.
If so, why?
If not, why?
1. How does social media influence your purchasing decisions?
A. Do you feel Facebook / twitter is a reliable source of information on products?
B. If so, does reading reviews on social media about a company/ies have an influence on your perception towards them?
2. Have you read a review that has made you question the concept of Airbnb?
A. Do you know anyone that has had a
negative experience with Airbnb?
B. Would this negative experience
deter you from using Airbnb
accommodation services?
C. If a review doesn’t impact on your
decision making, what dose?
3. How might your attitudes and beliefs be influenced?
A. Are you more than likely to rely on
an organisation’s online review
system for consumer feedback or
are likely to view other sources?
B. If so, what other feedback sources
do you rely on?
C. Do you feel these sources are
trustworthier than the
organisation’s online review
system?
4. Are you quick to make judgment?
A. Would you say photos of a host's accommodation could affect your final purchasing decision?
If so how?
5. Are you indecisive making purchasing decisions?
Why?
What would make you feel more comfortable?
Would you use a peertopeer service if you were uncertain of the consequences?
6. How easily are you able to trust a company?
A. Would you choose bookings.com over Airbnb?
If so, why?
If not why?
7. What do you feel is important to you when booking accommodation?
A. Do you take into consideration the pricing, images, reviews, customer service.
Why?
8. Are you quick to make judgment?
A. Would you say photos of a host's accommodation could affect your
final purchasing decision?
If so how...?
9. How does this image make you feel?
A. What do you like about this image?
B. What do you dislike?
C. What is your outcome?
Source: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ai rbnb+host+photos&view=detailv2&&id=A8 547B3157A3EB1FE45DF7E4EEF93F1B8AEF2 1B2&selectedIndex=6&ccid=vxiDX%2b5G& simid=608049061119789858&thid=OIP.Mb f18835fee468cc635358f552d563a71o0&aj axhist=0
10. From our discussion today, How would you recommend any changes to airbnb?
A. How?
B. Why? And what for?
C. Do you agree or disagree with any others?
Thank you for your participation, any questions?
Pretesting procedure Questionnaire: The questionnaire was first distributed to a small group of colleagues and friends to help
examine the context, framing and information in an informal social media chat online. The
results show instruments that was not foreseen or missed. The results helped reformat and
question what scales to consider and be more precise in the information we were giving and
what data we wish to receive back.
Feedback received and changed:
● Information and layout was too long. Improvement was formating to decrease the page’s, colour and word flow diligently by creating horizontal formatting,word type
and colour.
● The questionnaire needed to be modified and reworded to be clearer this was changed with a discussion of different options then rectified with a solution.
● More interval and Ratio scales, created more ranking orders to understand overall outcome of information.
● The rating system had to be clarified or changed, rating questions including multiple choice answer, it was unnecessary to have both.
Focus Group: The focus group was pretested on a small group with an open forum discussion, and
acknowledged and received a tremendous amount of feedback by our tutor for evaluation.
Feedback received and changed:
● In the mock focus group, our questions were not creating enough discussion, and less effective in data sourcing and coding. We fixed and reworded our questions to
enhance information we were receiving.
● Feedback received was the introduction and our body language was to laid back that we needed more of a professional and confident manner, with this information we
acknowledged and changed our approach.
● Including visual images were acknowledged as they would be beneficial to enhance engagement.
Research Environment The questionnaire will be submitted via email and left for the sample population to answer
at their leisure.Within the email will be a link to the qualtrics questionnaire. By allowing the
population to take the questionnaire online in their own spare time there are no time
restraints or formal settings allowing the participant to be completely at ease when taking
the questionnaire. This is important so the participant is completely honest and takes the
time to put thought into each answer. This will therefore lead to more accurate and reliable
information.
The focus group will be held in Perth, Western Australia the largest populated area in WA.
This is due to it’s central location for travellers and tourists alike. The focus group will take
place on Saturday morning for the convenience of the sample population. The focus group
will be located in the Curtin University Library where rooms are free to rent for students.
Curtin University provides paid parking services and is located 15 minutes from the Perth
CBD. The room will be set out with chair creating a circle for discussion, drinks and snacks
The PRE TEST is actually conducted, focusing on the issues identified (specifics) and how improved.
will be provided to settle the population prior to starting the discussion group. This is for an
equal feel within the focus group. With all the population sat able to face each other it
creates a friendly vibe within the group. The focus group leader will dictate the pace and
tone of the group following the focus group script. The group will be comprised of 10
participants and lasting between 45 minutes to an hour.
PROPOSED CONTRIBUTIONS Consumer trust is an issue negatively affecting Airbnb, due its peertopeer marketplace,
which undertakes strangertostranger exchangers/transactions. With Airbnb implementing
online review systems as a trust building/maintaining mechanism and additionally
encountering increased consumer skepticism on its reliability and trustworthiness, this
further verifies our research findings to be beneficial for the sharing economy, in particular
those organisations who utilize a online review systems.
The research findings associated with online review systems will determine the best type of
online review systems for the sharing economy. As online review systems do vary greatly
from organisation to organisation. These findings discovered will provide useful insights in
attaining an online review systems which is authentic, trustworthy and reliable.
Furthermore, these findings will assist in developing strategies to improve their online
review systems and verify whether sharing economy organisation’s should be in an
anonymous format, rather than identified format to combat the fear of retaliation from
writing a negative review.
Findings obtained could influence sharing economy organisation’s to update their online
review guidelines to foster writing negative reviews and ensure reviewers are being 100%
honest and reporting true information about their bad experiences. It can therefore assist in
sharing economy organisations to implement tools that avoid social retaliation and
punishment from writing a negative review.
Additionally, the research findings will also discover the role of social media within sharing
economy and if social media reviews are more reliable source than their online review
systems. Our findings will also be based on consumer psychology associated within the
decisionmaking process of sharing economy products/services. These findings will provide
insights to sharing economy organisations on why consumers avoid selecting the sharing
economy on the basis of trust and therefore, allow for organisations to develop strategies to
combat this issue and motivate consumer engagement. Research findings will also provide
vital information about age groups and gender and their ability to trust. Again, this can allow
for sharing economy to understand the factors affecting trust levels towards sharing
economy and what age group and gender to focus on. Thus, the research findings obtained
Contributions – is not written as a conclusion GOOD. Talks about value of the research and to whom. Very clear and specific. Relevant to the industry and specific components of the report.
will allow the sharing economy to determine ideas/insights/strategies to combat factors
causing trust issues.
REFERENCING AND COMMUNICATION
Askay, D. A. 2014. "Silence In The Crowd: The Spiral Of Silence Contributing To The Positive
Bias Of Opinions In An Online Review System". New Media & Society 17 (11): 18111829. doi:10.1177/1461444814535190.
Bae, Soonyong and Taesik Lee. 2010. "Gender Differences In Consumers’ Perception Of
Online Consumer Reviews". Electronic Commerce Research 11 (2): 201214. doi:10.1007/s106600109072y.
Botsman, Rachel and Roo Rogers. 2010. What's Mine Is Yours . New York: Harper Business.
BrightLocal. 2015. "Local Consumer Review Survey". Brightlocal . https://www.brightlocal.com/learn/localconsumerreviewsurvey/ .
Bolton, Gary, Ben Greiner, and Axel Ockenfels. 2013. "Engineering Trust: Reciprocity In The
Production Of Reputation Information". Management Science 59 (2): 265285. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609.
Brown, Tom J, and Tracy A. Suter. 2014. MR. 2nd ed. Mason, OH: SouthWestern, Cengage
Learning.
Browning, Victoria, Kevin Kam Fung So, and Beverley Sparks. 2013. "The Influence Of Online
Reviews On Consumers' Attributions Of Service Quality And Control For Service Standards In
Hotels". Journal Of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30 (12): 2340. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.750971.
Davis, Paul M. 2012. "Survey Finds Trust Is #1 Barrier To Sharing". Shareable . http://www.shareable.net/blog/surveyfindstrustis1barriertosharing .
Ert, Eyal, Aliza Fleischer, and Nathan Magen. 2016. "Trust And Reputation In The Sharing
Economy: The Role Of Personal Photos In Airbnb". Tourism Management 55: 6273. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.013.
Godwin, Matt. 2016. "Trust And The Sharing Economy A Solutions Agenda". EESC . http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/panel2mattgodwin.pdf .
Very professional verbal communication suited to a research report. Visually quite good, neat, clear, good use of sub-headings, etc. IMPORTANTLY - reads as a collaborative piece of work, not individual sections done by 5 different people.
Hawlitschek, Florian, Timm Teubner, and Christof Weinhardt. 2016. "Trust In The Sharing
Economy". Die Unternehmung 70 (1): 2644. doi:10.5771/0042059x2016126.
Ioanăs, Elisabeta, and Ivona Stoica. 2014. "Social media and its impact on consumers
behavior." International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories 4, no. 2: 295303.
Jones, Kiku and Lori N. K. Leonard. 2014. "Factors Influencing Buyer's Trust In
ConsumerToConsumer E Commmerce". Journal Of Computer Information Systems 54 (4): 7179. doi:10.1080/08874417.2014.11645724.
Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. "An Integrative Model Of
Organizational Trust". The Academy Of Management Review 20 (3): 709. doi:10.2307/258792.
Mo, Zan, YanFei Li, and Peng Fan. 2015. "Effect Of Online Reviews On Consumer Purchase
Behavior". JSSM 08 (03): 419424. doi:10.4236/jssm.2015.83043.
Mudambi, Susan M., and David Schuff. 2010. "What makes a helpful review? A study of
customer reviews on Amazon. com." MIS quarterly 34, no. 1: 185200.
Nielsen. 2014. "Is Sharing The New Buying?". Nielsen . http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2014/NielsenGlob
alShareCommunityReport.pdf.
Papadopoulou, Panagiota, Andreas Andreou, Panagiotis Kanellis, and Drakoulis Martakos.
2001. "Trust And Relationship Building In Electronic Commerce". Internet Research 11 (4): 322332. doi:10.1108/10662240110402777.
Pew Research Center,. 2014. "Millennials In Adulthood". Pew Research Center’S Social & Demographic Trends Project . http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennialsinadulthood/.
PWC. 2015. "The Sharing Economy Consumer Intelligence Series". PWC . https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwcconsumerintelligences
eriesthesharingeconomy.pdf.
Racherla, Pradeep, Munir Mandviwalla, and Daniel J. Connolly. 2012. "Factors Affecting
Consumers' Trust In Online Product Reviews". Journal Of Consumer Behaviour 11 (2): 94104. doi:10.1002/cb.385.
Rinne, April. 2013. "World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders Sharing Economy Position
Paper". Slideshare.Net . http://www.slideshare.net/CollabLab/yglsharingeconomypositionpaperfinaljune2013.
Sutter, Matthias and Martin G. Kocher. 2007. "Trust And Trustworthiness Across Different
Age Groups". Games And Economic Behavior 59 (2): 364382. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2006.07.006.
Van Rooyen, S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith. 1999. "Effect Of Open Peer
Review On Quality Of Reviews And On Reviewers' Recommendations: A Randomised Trial".
BMJ 318 (7175): 2327. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
Veridu,. 2016. "The Sharing Economy Consumer Views Survey". Veridu . https://www.veridu.com/resources/Sharingeconomyconsumerviewssurvey.pdf.
Voeth, Markus, Jana Pölzl, and Oliver Kienzler. 2015. "Sharing Economy–Chancen,
Herausforderungen und Erfolgsfaktoren für den Wandel vom Produktgeschäft zur
interaktiven Dienstleistung am Beispiel des CarSharings." In Interaktive Wertschöpfung durch Dienstleistungen , pp. 469489. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Zervas, Georgios, Davide Proserpio, and John Byers. 2015. "A first look at online reputation
on Airbnb, where every stay is above average." Where Every Stay is Above Average (January 28, 2015) .
