The impact of online search intensity and the moderating role of marketing intensity on the market value of listed travel and airline companies in Vietnam
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20262680Keywords:
Google Trends, Investor attention, Market value, Marketing intensity, Vietnam tourismAbstract
This study elucidates the complex relationship between online search intensity and the market value of listed travel and airline companies in Vietnam, examining the moderating role of marketing intensity within this dynamic. By employing a Fixed Effects Model (FEM) with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors on an unbalanced panel dataset of 24 firms from 2015 to 2024 (208 observations), the research reveals that online search intensity (ln_SVI), a proxy for public attention, exerts a negative and statistically significant impact on firm market value (Tobin's Q) (β = -0,189, p < 0,01), suggesting that surges in search volume are more indicative of crises than of positive interest. However, the study's core finding is that marketing intensity (MKT) plays a crucial positive moderating role, capable of mitigating and even reversing this negative impact, as evidenced by a highly significant interaction coefficient (β = 0,875, p < 0,01). The research identifies a critical marketing expenditure threshold of 21,6 %, at which the adverse effect of online attention is completely neutralized, with further analysis showing this mitigating role is particularly pronounced for travel companies but not statistically significant for the airline sector. Consequently, the study concludes that online attention is a double-edged sword, and that marketing is not merely an expense but a strategic investment in "reputational assets," acting as an effective risk management tool that safeguards firm value against information shocks.
References
1. Ocasio W. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(S1):187-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+%3C187::AID-SMJ936%3E3.0.CO;2-R DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K
2. Cheong H, Kim B, Vaquero I. Data valuation model for estimating collateral loans in corporate financial transaction. J Risk Financ Manag. 2023;16(3):206. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16030206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16030206
3. Cosmulese CG. Empirical study on the impact of evaluation of intangible assets on the market value of the listed companies. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2021-1-006
4. Hung PH. Discover the views of the local community on sustainable tourism development in SaPa, Vietnam. Central Asian Journal of Innovations on Tourism Management and Finance. 2023;4(10):1-6.
5. Тхань ННТ, Кім ТНТ, Тхань ХФ, Хуй ХФ. Sustainable tourism financing models: Behavioural insights from Vietnamese tourism companies. Financ Credit Act Probl Theory Pract. 2025;3(62):229-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.3.62.2025.4740
6. Da Z, Engelberg J, Gao P. In search of attention. J Finance. 2011;66(5):1461-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01679.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01679.x
7. Swamy V, Dharani M. Investor attention using the google search volume index – impact on stock returns. Rev Behav Finance. 2019;11(1):55-69. https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-04-2018-0033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-04-2018-0033
8. Kusumawardhani R, Rinofah R, Rukmana D. Google trend and stock market: does it matter?. J Innov Bus Econ. 2022;5(02):85-92. https://doi.org/10.22219/jibe.v5i02.18678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22219/jibe.v5i02.18678
9. Joshi A, Hanssens DM. The long-term effect of advertising on firm value. J Mark. 2010;74(6):23-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.1.20
10. Selçuk Köylüoğlu A, Tosun P, Doğan M. The impact of marketing on the business performance of companies: A literature review. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;9(1):63-74. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.763875 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.763875
11. Rahman M, Rodríguez-Serrano M, Lambkin M. Advertising efficiency and profitability: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Ind Mark Manag. 2020;89:619-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.001
12. Spence M. Job market signaling. Q J Econ. 1973;87(3):355-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
13. Çevik E, Altınkeski B, Çevik E, Dibooĝlu S. Investor sentiments and stock markets during the covid-19 pandemic. Financ Innov. 2022;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00375-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00375-0
14. Chung KH, Pruitt SW. A simple approximation of Tobin's q. Financ Manag. 1994;23(3):70-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3665623
15. Mizik N, Jacobson R. Are the markets myopic? The impact of marketing spending on stock returns. J Mark. 2003;67(4):21-35.
16. Driscoll JC, Kraay AC. Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev Econ Stat. 1998;80(4):549-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
17. Fox J. Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2015.
18. Hughes M, Hughes P, Yan J, Sousa C. Marketing as an investment in shareholder value. Br J Manag. 2019;30(4):943-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12284
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Thi Hai Ha Le, Trong Tuan Ngo, Thi Thuy Van Pham (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
