Publication typeFT ranked journal article
JournalJournal of Consumer Research
Publication Begin page850
Publication End page857
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractIn de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein (2016), we argue that consumers trust average user ratings as indicators of objective product performance much more than they should. This simple idea has provoked passionate commentaries from eminent researchers across three subdisciplines of marketing: experimental consumer research, modeling, and qualitative consumer research. Simonson challenges the premise of our research, asking whether objective performance even matters. We think it does and explain why in our response. Winer and Fader argue that our results are neither insightful nor important. We believe that their reaction is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of our goals, and we show that their criticisms do not hold up to scrutiny. Finally, Kozinets points out how narrow a slice of consumer experience our article covers. We agree, and build on his observations to reflect on some big-picture issues about the nature of research and the interaction between the subdisciplines.
KeywordConsumers' Reviews, Consumer Goods, Consumer Research, Qualitative Research, Perceived Quality, Marketing Research, Simplicity (Philosophy), Illusion of Validity, Online User Ratings, Perceived and Objective Quality, Statistical Precision
Knowledge Domain/IndustryMarketing & Sales