A study of consumer-generated advertising—An experimental analysis based on purchase experiences, information channels, and privacy costs

Chuanxi Cai; Yu Liu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0340481

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 17, 2025
20 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Reza Rostamzadeh, Editor Dear Dr. Cai, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 04 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Reza Rostamzadeh Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This work was supported in part by The Science and Technology Innovation Fund (163060171) and in part by the General Program in philosophy and Social Sciences (2022SJYB0124) Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: In consideration of the references, the authors mainly depend on Chinese database of journals and research. While there are many researches have been written in this topic, especially consumers’ experience and recommendations to which can be benefited by companies in different methods of promotion. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Abstract: - As a beginning, the abstract should be revised to focus on the most important information that determine research process and brief of the results. Also, give a brief of research methodology and sample size for each experiment. Make it short for the reader. Introduction: - There are several statements that have not been referenced. Those either to be cited and should be referenced or by the authors and must be justified. For example, “At the same time a lot of more people tend to trust the information provided by consumers rather than the information provided by companies”? At any level of introduction, theoretical, and the literature review whenever that is statement as a fact should be referenced or justified. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis: - When proposing a hypothesis, there is no need for more information and explanation. This further information may interrupt focus on testing hypothesis. First statement of each hypothesis is enough. Experimental Design: - Normally, there should be a separate section that determines research methodology and research design and then a sperate section for analysis part. This type of writing gives a clear vision of how data will be analysed. - I am not quite happy using ANOVA to test hypothesis. This kind of relationship should be examined using PLS technique to examine whole model, especially when there is a mediating factor that must be examined in designated model. However, it can be accepted in this case due to Conclusions and Recommendations: - “This paper proposes and tested five research hypotheses”. There were 6 hypotheses proposed and tested. Even insignificant results should be presented. References: - As far as I know, there are plenty of research are conducted discovering the relationship between consumer’s recommendations or consumer’s world of mouth through social media and companies that benefit from these recommendations. Number of cited papers is not enough. Reviewer #2: Theoretical Contribution and Discussion: The discussion of the non-significant three-way interaction is speculative. While your explanations are interesting, they should be framed more clearly as potential interpretations and avenues for future research rather than definitive conclusions, as they were not measured or tested. The literature review is adequate but could be more tightly focused on framing the specific gaps your three key variables address. The link from general UGC/CGA motivations to your specific experimental variables could be sharper. Language and Clarity: The manuscript must be professionally proofread to correct grammatical errors and improve phrasing. Pay particular attention to verb tenses and article usage. Minor Comments: The abstract is very long and detailed. Consider shortening it and focusing on the key objectives, methods, and top-level findings. The term "commodity" is used throughout. While not incorrect, "product" or "brand" is more common in marketing literature for this context (e.g., milk tea). Conclusion: This paper has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the literature on consumer-generated content and advertising. The experimental design is strong, and the research questions are pertinent. However, significant revisions are required to meet the standards of a leading journal. These revisions primarily involve enhancing methodological transparency, providing full data access, improving statistical reporting rigor, and polishing the language. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Tawfeeq M. Alanazi Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340481.r001
Revision 1
25 Nov 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewers: Thank you for your review, we have amended this article according to your advice. All the question and answer are as follows: Reviewer #1: Abstract: - As a beginning, the abstract should be revised to focus on the most important information that determine research process and brief of the results. Also, give a brief of research methodology and sample size for each experiment. Make it short for the reader. Answer: We have revised the abstract according to your review. For example, we have added the research process, research methodology and sample size for each experiment. Meanwhile, we have streamlined the abstract, retaining only the important information. Introduction: - There are several statements that have not been referenced. Those either to be cited and should be referenced or by the authors and must be justified. For example, “At the same time a lot of more people tend to trust the information provided by consumers rather than the information provided by companies”? At any level of introduction, theoretical, and the literature review whenever that is statement as a fact should be referenced or justified. Answer: According to your review, we have added the reference for the relevant statements in introduction, such as following: [1] Saura Jose Ramon, Dwivedi Yogesh K, and Palacios-Marqués Daniel. Online user behavior and user-generated content[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, 13: 895467. [2] Hochstein Rachel E., Harmeling Colleen M., Taylor Perko. Toward a theory of consumer digital trust: Meta-analytic evidence of its role in the effectiveness of user-generated content[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2025, 53(4): 1034-1054. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis: - When proposing a hypothesis, there is no need for more information and explanation. This further information may interrupt focus on testing hypothesis. First statement of each hypothesis is enough. Answer: We have deleted the explanation of all hypothesis in Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis. Experimental Design: - Normally, there should be a separate section that determines research methodology and research design and then a separate section for analysis part. This type of writing gives a clear vision of how data will be analysed. - I am not quite happy using ANOVA to test hypothesis. This kind of relationship should be examined using PLS technique to examine whole model, especially when there is a mediating factor that must be examined in designated model. However, it can be accepted in this case due to.. Answer: According to your review, we have separated the analysis part in the experimental. Additionally, we have added the reasons for adopting ANOVA before the experimental, such as following: When ANOVA was used to analyze consumer recommendations and word-of-mouth marketing, it can help identify the impact of different factors on purchase intention or sales volume, which provide a basis for enterprises to optimize their strategies. When comparing the effects of different marketing strategies or the word-of-mouth influence of different product categories, ANOVA can handle multiple groups simultaneously, avoiding the accumulation of errors caused by multiple t-tests, which is very common in consumer recommendation and word-of-mouth marketing research(Liu Juan, Zhang Jianqiang and Zhong Weijun 2021; Eelen Jiska et al. 2017; Ullal, Mithun S et al. 2021). Therefore, we designed an ANOVA variance analysis experiment to handle the influence of multiple factors by comparing the mean differences of multiple sets of data, and to analyze the interaction between two independent variables and the dependent variable. Conclusions and Recommendations: - “This paper proposes and tested five research hypotheses”. There were 6 hypotheses proposed and tested. Even insignificant results should be presented. Answer: This sentence might be ambiguous. We have made the necessary revisions in manuscript. In fact, what we want to cover is we made the assumptions in five aspects. The first aspect includes H1, H2 and H3. The second aspect is H4, the third aspect is H5, the fourth aspect is H6, and the fifth aspect is H7. References: - As far as I know, there are plenty of research are conducted discovering the relationship between consumer’s recommendations or consumer’s world of mouth through social media and companies that benefit from these recommendations. Number of cited papers is not enough. Answer: According to your review, we have added the relevant paper in theoretical analysis and research hypotheses. For example: Guo Huibin et al. (2006) found that in a monopolistic competitive market, a good reputation can reduce consumers' "perceived risk" (uncertainty caused by the invisibility of services) towards products, thereby enhancing consumers' purchasing intention. Gong Shiyang et al (2018) found products with a high-star rating (4.5 stars or above) have a sales volume that is over 30% higher than those with a low-star rating (3 stars or below). Liu Yang et al. (2024) hold that open interaction (the timely response and transparent communication of enterprises to customer feedback) plays a partial mediating role between online word-of-mouth and enterprise performance - word-of-mouth promotes in-depth interaction between enterprises and customers, and is transformed into higher customer loyalty and repeat purchase rates. Park Young Eun and Son Hyunsang (2025) investigated the effects of recommender type and consumption goal (utilitarian versus hedonic) on consumer responses to travel destination recommendation email advertisements. Reviewer #2: Theoretical Contribution and Discussion: - The discussion of the non-significant three-way interaction is speculative. While your explanations are interesting, they should be framed more clearly as potential interpretations and avenues for future research rather than definitive conclusions, as they were not measured or tested. Answer�the non-significant three-way interaction has been put in the future research. Literature review: - The literature review is adequate but could be more tightly focused on framing the specific gaps your three key variables address. The link from general UGC/CGA motivations to your specific experimental variables could be sharper. Answer�According to your review, we have modified the relevant literature in theoretical analysis and research hypotheses. For example, Zeng Fue et al. (2022) investigated the effectiveness of agentic and communal advertising appeals delivered through two communication channels (private messages and public feeds) on social media. Agentic appeals delivered through public feeds generate favorable advertisement attitudes, Communal appeals delivered through private messages engender positive advertisement attitudes. Liu Yang et al. hold that open interaction (the timely response and transparent communication of enterprises to customer feedback) can be transformed into higher customer loyalty and repeat purchase rates. Liu Juan et al. (2021) found the effect of reward level on consumer generated advertising is moderated by privacy cost. In addition, the less relevant references were also deleted. Moreover, the existing studies mainly focused on the direct impact and moderating effect of the three key variables (purchase experiences, information channels and privacy costs) on consumer behavior from the perspective of enterprises, without consideration of consumers themselves. However , the motivation for consumer to generate advertisements is mainly determined by their perceived benefits, so we analyze the direct impact and moderating effect of the three key variables on consumer behavior from the perspective of consumers' psychological mechanism. Language and Clarity: - The manuscript must be professionally proofread to correct grammatical errors and improve phrasing. Pay particular attention to verb tenses and article usage. Answer: According to your review, we have corrected grammatical errors and improved phrasing, particularly the verb tenses and article usage. Minor Comments: - The abstract is very long and detailed. Consider shortening it and focusing on the key objectives, methods, and top-level findings. The term "commodity" is used throughout. While not incorrect, "product" or "brand" is more common in marketing literature for this context (e.g., milk tea). Answer: According to your review, we have shorted the abstracts and focusing on the key objectives, methods, and top-level findings. "commodity" was replaced with products in manuscript. Conclusion: - This paper has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the literature on consumer-generated content and advertising. The experimental design is strong, and the research questions are pertinent. However, significant revisions are required to meet the standards of a leading journal. These revisions primarily involve enhancing methodological transparency, providing full data access, improving statistical reporting rigor, and polishing the language. Answer: Firstly, the reasons for adopting ANOVA have been added before the experimental, and the analysis part has been separated in the experimental. Secondly, We have uploaded the full data as supporting Information files. Thirdly, we have revised the paper, especially in verb tenses and article usage. Thank you and best regards. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340481.r002
23 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Reza Rostamzadeh, Editor A Study of Consumer-Generated Advertising--- An experimental analysis based on purchase experiences, information channels, and privacy costs PONE-D-25-32677R1 Dear Dr. Cai, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Reza Rostamzadeh Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The revised version of the paper was revised according to the comments that have been raised earlier. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Tawfeeq M Alanazi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340481.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Reza Rostamzadeh, Editor PONE-D-25-32677R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Cai, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Reza Rostamzadeh Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340481.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .