Content and sharing · Two field experiments
Ask for Reviews at the Right Time: Evidence from Two Field Experiments
Jung, M., Ryu, S., Han, S. P., & Cho, D. (2023). Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221143329.
Plain-English take
Immediate reminders reduced review posting relative to a randomized immediate control group without a reminder. For your marketing: Test the timing of review requests after users experience value.
How much weight to give this
3.5/5 Useful evidence with meaningful caveats
The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.
An experiment is useful for causal evidence, but the accessible profile does not establish random assignment.
A usable sample size is not stated in the profile's accessible source.
Experimental comparison is described; randomization or control details need checking in the paper.
This profile could be checked against an abstract or metadata, not the full paper.
Double-blind? Blinding is not reported in the source reviewed; that does not establish whether blinding was or was not used.
Research question
What the authors investigated
When should firms send prompts asking customers to post an online review?
Design
Two field experiments test review-request timing and compare immediate reminders with later requests in online marketplace settings.
Sample and setting
The publisher and university research summaries describe marketplace customers, including a major South Korean online apparel marketplace; the abstract reviewed does not provide sample sizes.
Reported result
What the study found
Immediate reminders reduced review posting relative to a randomized immediate control group without a reminder. The authors interpret this as evidence that reactance to an immediate prompt can outweigh the memory benefit in that setting.
This is a paraphrase of the source. Check the original paper for definitions, estimates, statistical uncertainty and analysis details.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
The evidence concerns particular marketplace transactions and review prompts; it does not show that delaying every customer message improves reviews. Review posting is distinct from review quality or sales impact.
Possible founder application
Test the timing of review requests after users experience value. Randomize timing and report both posting and review quality, while avoiding pressure tactics that can undermine trust.
Evidence access
Publisher abstract; full text access may vary
Journal of Marketing Research abstract and institutional research summary. No sample sizes are added because they were not available in the abstract reviewed.
If only an abstract or metadata was available, the profile is limited to claims supported there. A paper's paywall does not change its evidentiary status, but it limits what we can substantiate from accessible text.