Tag a Friend if you Read This:
The Role of Brand Presence and Motivations in Sharing Branded Video Content
on Social Networking Sites
Jurriaan D. Bastinck
Master’s Thesis: Graduate School of Communication
Student ID: 11393335 Supervisor: Dr. Stephan Winter
02 February 2018
Abstract
In an era where social networking sites (SNS) are becoming progressively commercial, disruptive advertisements are a source of frustration for many SNS users. With many SNS users likely to have an aversion to advertising, businesses aim for earned media efforts instead of paid media. Expanding on earlier studies on branded versus non-branded content effects on SNS and research about motivations for word of mouth and interpersonal communication, this study focuses on brand presence (brand prominently present versus brand inconspicuously present) in branded video content on SNS and its effect on sharing intentions. Moreover, the role of motivations (persuasive versus impression management (IM) versus social interaction (SI)) to use SNS is inspected. Although no significant effect was found for the effect of brand presence in a video ad on sharing intentions on SNS, respondents were more willing to share branded video content when motivated to use SNS for impression management and social interaction. In general, SNS users were more willing to share privately by tagging a friend than to share publically for all their friends to see. No significant interaction effect was found for motivations, meaning motivations do not hold the power to influence brand presence effects. The study implies that practitioners should spread branded video content on SNS with care for different SNS communities and encourage private- over public sharing.
Tag a Friend if you Read This:
The Role of Brand Presence and Motivations in Sharing Branded Video Content on Social Networking Sites
Most businesses will agree that word of mouth (WOM) counts as the best form of marketing. WOM is often cheaper and generates a higher effectiveness than traditional advertising (Akpinar & Berger, 2017; Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009) and while WOM is no new concept, it has been truly redefined since the arrival of social networking sites (SNS) which simplified the sharing of beliefs, opinions and ideas with the world or your own social network online of friends and followers. Initially, SNS were created to connect consumers, but soon businesses started capitalizing on the option to reach thousands or even millions of consumers with the power of SNS by creating social media marketing strategies (Guneluis, 2010).
While there are several ways for businesses to leverage social media in their
operations, advertising on SNS with graphical content, written text or both has been booming the last decade. To emphasize, advertising expenditures have skyrocketed with social media spending (in the US) reaching $31 billion in 2016 with an expected global growth in 2017 of 26.3% (Lepage, 2017). Video advertising is often preferred over other forms of display advertisement since video has substantial effects on increasing advertising efficiency (Invisia, 2017; Toubia, Freud, & Stephen, 2011). Ideally, branded video content is diffused widely by SNS users, subsequently gaining a ‘viral’ status and creating a large reach.
The diffusion of viral videos has previously been studied when researching the influence of emotional appeals on sharing intention (Berger & Milkman, 2013; Dobele et al., 2007; Rimé et al., 1998). Likewise, earlier studies have investigated motivations of consumers to either be active contributors or passive consumers in the online hemisphere. For instance, Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit (2011) and De Vries, Peloso, Romani, Leeflang, & Marcati
(2017) both study contributing and creating motivations, but never explicate whether sharing content falls under the contributing or creating motivation. Moreover, implicit motivations to use social media are discussed in these studies, but never purposely connected forwarding behavior.
A factor that may influence the commercial appearance and shareability of a branded video is presence of a brand or product in a branded video. A video that is clearly branded and perceived by the receiver as particularly persuasive or commercial will most likely activate persuasion defenses in viewers and induce skepticism towards the video (Fransen, Smit, & Verlegh, 2015). Although not many research has been conducted into this area, studies of branded versus non-branded content indicate that there is an effect to be explored (Warner, 2010).
This research aims to complement previous research in showing under what conditions a branded video is shared more frequently. In particular, this study aims to examine if
brand/product presence in a branded video on SNS can influence sharing intention while differentiating sharing into private sharing or sharing publicly, and test if motivations to use social media can alter this effect. Practitioners might then use this information to increase the likeliness of acceptance and referral of branded videos on SNS.
Theoretical Framework
Forwarding Behavior on Social Networking Sites
While online forwarding occurs via e-mail, blogpost or social networking sites (SNS), this study focuses on the SNS way of forwarding content. For Facebook and Twitter there is the option to respectively share or retweet someone else’s post, making the content visible for all his/her friends or followers (Facebook, n.d.; Nations, 2017). This way of public sharing on social media is the original one-to-many way of sharing content. Another way of sharing content on a more personal level is sharing privately, for instance by tagging one or more
friends under a post or sending a private/direct message. This way, the users that are being tagged will receive a personal notification that a friend wants them to view a post.
Previous research on online advertising credibility and trustworthiness has established that most social media users value earned advertisements more than paid advertisement (Nielsen, 2012; Jaimie Y Park & Sohn, 2016); by earned in this case is meant direct referral from a friend. Moreover, there is a growing popularity for content tagging (Dhir, Chen, & Chen, 2017) with pages on SNS trying to increase engagement on their posts by deliberately asking for people to tag their friends or followers in the comments. Reasons for the growing popularity might be that people can use private sharing as a tool for gratification of a variety of needs on social media with it being a convenient, non-dialogical way of connecting with friends and staying in touch (Dhir, 2016; Ha et al., 2017). Therefore, this study predicts that there will be a majority of people willing to share content privately instead of sharing publicly.
H1. When presented with branded video content on a social network site, the intent to share
the content privately will be higher than the intent to share the content publicly.
Brand Presence in Video Advertisement
Video content that comes from a brand can be spread with intents like increasing brand awareness, boosting sales, and increasing brand equity, but ultimately the video will always either be perceived by the public as commercial or not. Specifically, branded videos can frequently be identified by the brand or product that is shown in the advertisement. On the contrary, another option is to more or less hide the brand and base the advertising on creating engaging and shareable content to reach certain goals (Pulizzi, 2012; Rowley, 2008). Unlike previous research on branded versus non-branded content (Choudhary, Chauhan, & Batra, 2017; Kaiser, 2006; No et al., 2014), in this study the focus will be on branded content with the difference being on amount of brand references in the video content. Online video content
that is distributed on SNS has to be adapted to ensure the ‘shareability’ of the content,
especially when a large reach is the main goal of the advert. Often, content where the brand is not omnipresent will be more discreet than clearly branded content and not directly linking the content to a company, product or brand. Consequently, when the content does not directly concern a brand or product, it often finds a wider audience (ReputationX, 2017). Depending on the goals a company has for advertising online (e.g. converting, entertaining, educating), the content will differ in for instance having a call to action or having strong emotional content (Scott, 2015). Although, in terms of shareability, this study argues that when a branded video is clearly branded, SNS users are less likely to share the content.
H2. When a brand or product is prominently present in a branded video, users will be less
likely to share the branded video on SNS than when a brand or product is inconspicuously present.
Motivations for Sharing Content
There has been extensive research on content characteristics of video advertising in gaining a viral status, especially with a focus on elicitation of emotions (Dobele, 2007; Nelson-Field, Riebe, & Newstead, 2013) and content credibility (Metzger, Flanagin, & Medders, 2010). However, less is known about when certain traits or motivations of SNS users effectuate the sharing of content. Online video content that is initially seeded to people that are more readily motivated to share a specific type of content will ultimately reach a larger group of SNS users (Ho & Dempsey, 2010). Moreover, research that identified enjoyment, entertainment and social motivations as main reasons of consumers to forward content gives a useful direction for the present study (Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, & Raman, 2004; Dobele et al., 2007; Ho & Dempsey, 2010; Schulze, Schöler, & Skiera, 2014).
Past Research
In the past, various scientists have tried to formulate a framework of consumer motives to use media sources with motivations ranging from passively watching/browsing to actively creating content (Joinson, 2008; Muntinga, 2011). A framework by Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit (2011) differentiates social media users and their respective motivations to use SNS into consuming (viewing, listening and downloading), contributing (rating, engaging and liking) and creating (publishing, uploading and writing) content on social media. The present study focuses on the grey area between the contributing and creating typologies because sharing is never mentioned as a behavior fitting in either one typology, but is essential in acquiring a viral status in video advertising.
Social interaction and impression/identity management are two of the most
prominently specified motivations in SNS context (Berger, 2014; Boyd, 2007; Bumgartner, 2007; Daugherty, Eastin, & Bright, 2008; McQuail, 2010). Muntinga et al. (2011) reveal that both the contributing and creating type are primarily driven by three motivations: personal identity, social interaction, and entertainment. Forthwith, the former two motivations are considered in this study as two of the three main drivers of sharing on social media and will be referred to as respectively impression management (IM) and social interaction (SI).
Moreover, Berger (2014) identifies another extrinsic motivation that is recurrently used in the (e)WOM context, namely persuasion. In the typology that follows these three motivations will be elaborated on.
Typology of Motivations
Although communication on SNS can be one sided (one-to-many) without a response from the receiving end of the message, often it entails person to person communication. Theories about why we feel the need to engage in interpersonal communications are myriad, but one that matches the theme of this study is the fundamental interpersonal relation
orientation (FIRO) by Schutz (1966). The inclusion motivation in this orientation specifically is made up of two sub-constructs that show similarities with the IM and SI motivations that have been discussed before: the need to belong and the need to be unique.
Impression management. The need to be unique is the sub-construct which lies in the
realm of identity forming through individual outings. Where social media originated to connect people, it quickly also became a medium to express opinions and communicate identities. In fact, indicating one’s interests and expressing oneself to others is possible on SNS by liking, sharing, posting and being part of a community. Sundaram, Mitra, & Webster (1998) showed that self-enhancement and impression management motivations drove
consumers to express themselves by engaging in positive WOM. In addition, referring back to Berger’s (2014) framework, the IM motivation is made up of the components
self-enhancement and identity-signaling which are emphasized as focal in the reasoning of people to share content.
Social interaction. The need to belong is also identified by Baumeister & Leary
(1995) as a driving motivation to establish strong and stable interpersonal relationships. A main use of SNS is to connect and keep in touch with friends and family (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008), but also communicate a belonging to certain groups and communities
(Brandtzæg & Heim, 2009; Oh, Ozkaya, & LaRose, 2014; Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009; Subrahmanyam et al., 2008). The need to belong and the SI motivation both encompass some sense of belonging and connecting in a social network environment and are less directed at the self. Moreover, Berger (2014) mentions in his framework the importance of social bonding (which is split up in reinforcing shared views and reducing social exclusion) in choices made about sharing content.
Persuasion motivation. Social networking sites have been growing in users ever since
network create large opportunities for companies to leverage something which Fogg (2008) calls mass interpersonal persuasion. Rapid dispersion of a message through social ties, with a huge potential social graph is what makes persuasion through SNS so interesting. Much research on persuasion through SNS has a political background and discusses opinion leadership. Yet, the topic of opinion leaders transcends to a brand-related topic as well when one considers the relatively new phenomenon social media influencers. When encountering or looking for information about a brand, product or service, online users tend to take into
account others’ experiences or convictions (Teng et al., 2014). Depending on their amount of followers and level of expertise, influencers have the power to significantly influence a brand’s online engagement, awareness and perception, either for good or bad (Lu & Seah, 2018). In a similar way, consumer reviews these days are a prominent source of product information (Singh et al., 2017) and thus are a emerging topic for businesses to discuss and try to control.
Motivation Effects on Sharing Intention
Continuing, this study argues that these motivations influence the probability of forwarding content on SNS. A high social presence and media richness make SNS a useful medium to express oneself and disclose information about one’s digital identity (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, 2011; Labrecque, Markos, & Milne, 2011; N. Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009). In fact, as one of the first to corner impression management, Goffmann (1959) stated that people who want to impress their audience do so on the ‘front stage’, meaning to perform a role (or identity) to an audience which equates with society. In turn, social media has previously been identified as an online form of front stage (Marabelli, Newell, & Galliers, 2016). Furthermore, De Vries et al. (2017) show that the motivation to self-express on Facebook is a better predictor for creating content than for contributing, which leads to believe that when users want to self-express or manage others’ impressions, they
would create a post on their own page by sharing publically. One should notice that different social networking channels afford different features and characteristics, so impression management strategies vary to deliver the right ‘performance’ per SNS. Nevertheless,
especially the younger generation seems very strategic in promoting oneself successfully and obtaining positive feedback (Marabelli, 2016). Not diving deeper into specific IM strategies, this study argues:
H3a. When the IM motivation is high one will more readily share content publicly than when
the IM motivation is low.
The other option of sharing privately is more interpersonal and directly aimed towards friends and followers. With disclosure intimacy considered to be the main rationale of
relational outcomes (Collins & Miller, 1994; Irwin & Dalmas A, 1973), various studies have found that one of the main uses of SNS is to maintain or create relationships and that the use of these SNS can result in stronger bonds with acquaintances (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009). This online interconnectivity that results from the need for relational maintenance links close to the need to belong as projected by Schutz (1966). Furthermore, J Y Park et al. (2016) portrayed that the private sharing act of friend tagging is considered highly personal; coupled with the fact that disclosure intimacy is considered to be imperative for relational outcomes, this study argues that when the SI motivation is high this will probe users to share content privately more than when the SI motivation is low.
H3b. When the SI management motivation is high one will more readily share privately than
when the SI motivation is low.
Motivations of SNS Usage Moderating Sharing Intention
Impression management moderation. Considering that consumers have always used
expected on SNS. Cases, decisions and online activities result in a digital represented self via automated scenes and digital interactions and define a SNS user (Feher, 2015). However, for a variety of other SNS users to notice this extrinsic outing sharing publicly will be a necessity. In addition, in a brand-related setting, Wallace, Buil, & de Chernaton (2014) found that consumers who engage with inner self-expressive brands, meaning brands that communicate values that are close to one’s own values, are more likely to offer WOM for that brand. In the SNS context this means that when communicating about a brand on social platforms with the goal of managing social control and impressions of others, one will do so publicly when the brand reflects the poster’s values. This relation has also been shown in a study by De Vries et al. (2017) who showed that SNS users who were motivated to self-express on social media were largely responsible for the creation of brand-related content. With these findings and the previous statements about sharing publicly to self-express in mind, this study proposes that IM will moderate the main effects of brand presence on sharing publicly.
H4a. The motivation to use SNS moderates the effects of brand presence on sharing publicly
in users, such that when the IM motivation is high a user is more likely to share a branded video where the brand or product is prominently present publically than when the IM motivation is low.
Social interaction moderation. As basic human psychological needs teach, people
have the need for engaging in relationships with others (Weiser et al., 2015). Part of the reason why people are active on SNS is this need for relatedness and the need to maintain- or create new relationships. Factors like tie-strength (Huynh, 2016; van Noort, Antheunis, & van Reijmersdal, 2012) and individualism (Ho, 2010) positively influence sharing, but as Reeve (2014) points out, in order to satisfy the need for relatedness additional signals that show recognition or acceptance are needed. As stated before, when sharing privately the receiver will get a notification, making it far more likely to receive a reaction, satisfying the need for
relatedness.
Moreover, with video advertising a brand has to differentiate itself and be creative to leverage the social collective on SNS to its favor. In a lot of cases brands will be “the crashers of the Web 2.0 party” and SNS users will not be likely to accept, let alone share their
messages (Fournier & Avery, 2011). A message that is shareable, especially through private channels, is preferably not overly commercial but more focused on having for instance strong narrative or emotional content (Dobele, 2007; Hodgins, 2016). Thus, when a user wants to receive a reaction from the person that is the target of their private sharing efforts to satisfy the need for relatedness, a clearly branded video will have detrimental effects on the likeliness of receiving a reaction. These proclamations lead to the premise that the SI motivation will moderate the main effect of brand identification on sharing privately.
H4b. The motivation to use SNS moderates the effects of brand presence on sharing privately,
such that when the SI motivation is high a user is more likely to share a branded video where the brand or product is inconspicuously present privately than when the SI motivation is low.
Persuasion moderation. Finally, to elaborate on the persuasion motivation and how it
may influence sharing intention the theory can be interpreted in several ways. According to the persuasion knowledge model of Friestad & Wright (1994) consumers’ persuasion
knowledge is proposed to interact with their beliefs about traits, competencies and goals of the persuasion agent and their knowledge about the topic or content to shape persuasion
interactions and influence consumers’ responses to persuasion attempts (Campbell & Kirmani, 2008). Meaning, to persuade users on SNS is to be able to bypass these persuasion defenses so the user will accept the message or content. If a user on social media assumes that their friends or followers have some persuasion knowledge the user might choose to forward a video where the brand is inconspicuously present instead of prominently present to lessen viewer resistance and increase viewers’ action in response to the video (Hsieh, Hsieh, &
Tang, 2012). This kind of network marketing (Fogg, 2008) will come across as independent from corporate influence because it is uttered by a known follower or friend (Buttle, 2017) and the content is what seems to be the purpose of sharing. Moreover, persuading someone to share a video on social networking sites has been shown to be more effective when performed on a more personal level because the message will brush off as more credible and convincing (Huang, Lin, & Lin, 2008; Rigby, 2004). This leads to the last hypothesis.
H4c. The motivation to use SNS moderates the effects of brand presence on sharing privately,
such that when the persuasion motivation is high a user is more likely to share a branded video where the brand or product is inconspicuously present privately than when the persuasion motivation is low.
Methods
To test the hypotheses, a 2 (brand presence: brand prominently present vs. brand
inconspicuously present) x 2 (emotion: inspirational vs. humorous) between-subjects factorial design was used in the experiment. The participants were randomly assigned to one out of four video conditions regarding brand presence and emotion. Moreover, motivations for SNS
usage as described in the theoretical framework were measured in a survey form as individual characteristics.
Previous research showed that an online viral video has varying effects for different emotions (Berger, 2013; Dobele, 2007; Tucker, 2015). To test if the emotion that a branded video elicited affected the intention to share, a factor was added that differed in the emotion used in the branded video. This way, the possibility that people are more inclined to share videos that elicit one emotion over another was taken into account and enhanced the
generalizability of the study. After searching for suitable manipulation material it was noted the videos that had the most views were either inspirationally or humorously themed. Therefore, for both emotion conditions two videos that differed in brand presence were selected.
Data Collection and Sampling
Participants were recruited over a two week period by means of purposive sampling via online social media sources like Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn and through survey sharing platforms. Actual data collection was performed by creating a survey and spreading it through the platforms mentioned. Because this study looks at people who make use of SNS this counts as a qualified way of sampling to get useful data. Participants who did not complete the survey were excluded from analysis, which left 384 participants eligible for analysis with age ranging from 18 to 67 (M = 27.58, SD = 9.65). Of these, 73.9% was Dutch, 4.2% German, and 11.9% ‘other’. No information on gender was recorded.
Manipulation Material and Pretest
Participants were presented a privacy statement and a short introduction about the purpose of the questionnaire and were subsequently asked to give consent for participating in the study. Thereafter, the questionnaire presented one of four branded videos which differed on brand presence (clearly versus inconspicuously) and emotion (humorous versus
inspirational). The videos contained fairly neutral brands, each video lasting between one and two minutes; a neutral brand being a brand without a strongly engaged brand community. This approach was chosen so respondents were unlikely to have strong pre-existing associations with the brand.
The Motorola video showed an ad with inconspicuous brand presence in a humorous massage scene containing the personification of a lazy smartphone versus a ‘better’ Motorola phone; the LG video showed a humorous Spanish ad with clear brand presence in a practical joke situation revolving around a meteor slamming into a city on an LG tv monitor; the Huawei video showed an inspirational ad with inconspicuous brand presence about a boy who tries to connect to his preoccupied family on Christmas and eventually gets the family off their devices to be in the moment; the Sony video showed an inspirational ad with clear brand presence about what can happen when professionals from different disciplines join together to make something new.
After watching the video, questions were asked about participants’ intention to share the video privately and publicly, and questions about the general motivations to use SNS were asked later in the questionnaire to form motivation profiles of the participants. Across
conditions a social media environment was copied to benefit the ecological validity of the study.
Pretest. A pretest was performed to test the manipulation material before commencing
with the actual study. Results of the pretest were helpful in determining the perpetuation of the study and survey design. After the initial idea of manipulating motivational states deemed difficult to achieve, a decision was made to ask respondents about three different types of motivations to use social networking sites and treat the motivations as individual
characteristics (see appendix B for full description of the pretest). Since the pretest showed positive results when testing the videos on emotion elicited and brand presence, the same
videos were used in the final survey.
Measures
Sharing intention. To measure sharing intention, three questionnaire items were used
for private- and three for public sharing. The items were constructed after careful
consideration of the constructs in studies about electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Chu & Kim, 2011; Sun, Youn, Wu, & Kuntaraporn, 2006) and public display on social media
(Donath & Boyd, 2004). Public sharing items measured if users would be willing to share the viewed branded video on their profile (e.g. Facebook wall), openly, and for all
friends/followers to see; private sharing items measured if users would tag one or multiple friends in the comments, and send a friend/follower a direct message to share the branded video that was shown (for full list of items, see table 1 in appendix C). Participants rated their agreement with all items on seven-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely).
A principle component analysis shows that the six items formed a two-dimensional scale, with two components having an eigenvalue above Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explaining 83.71% of the variance. The public sharing items formed one
component which showed a high internal consistency (α = .93, M = 2.25); the private sharing items formed the other component showing equally high reliability (α = .87, M = 3.29).
Brand presence. To measure brand presence, three items were constructed. The items
were constructed after consideration of the impact of central and peripheral processing (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Thus, this study measured brand presence with three items asking (i) if one saw the product/brand appear many times in the video, (ii) if, judging from the video, one would say it is clearly branded, and (iii) if one could clearly identify what was advertised for in the video. Participants rated their agreement with all items on seven-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A reliability check of the items
showed a high internal consistency (α = .773, M = 3.06).
Motivations. The three different motivations were measured with 14 items in total
(see table 2 in appendix C for all items). The five IM items were constructed by analyzing studies where the focus was on self-presentation on social media and IM (Schwämmlein & Wodzicki, 2012; Winter & Neubaum, 2016). Furthermore, SI was equally measured by five items which were derived from studies exploring prerequisites of online WOM (Sun, 2006) and use of social media with a focus on social connections and shared interests (Brandtzæg, 2009). Lastly, the persuasion motivation was measured by four items, derived from studies that concentrated on opinion leadership (Winter, 2016) and consumer engagement in eWOM (Chu & Kim, 2011). Items from these studies were then tailored to the present study and a principal component analysis was performed to see if the items would form three factors. The analysis showed that the 14 items formed a three-dimensional scale, with all construct items loading on three components with an eigenvalue above 1 after varimax rotation, together explaining 65.61% of the variance with the scree plot showing a clear point of inflexion after the third component. After checking for reliability, the items showed a high internal
consistency for IM (α = .86, M =3.94), SI (α = .85, M = 4.04) and persuasion (α = .85, M = 3.65).
Results Manipulation Check
To assess if the video manipulation worked, two manipulation checks were performed; one for emotions and another for brand presence. An independent-samples t-test was
conducted to compare the videos on the two emotion conditions. Scores for the variable ‘I think the video I watched was humorous’ were significantly higher for humorous (M = 5.12,
SD = 1.45) than for inspirational (M = 3.10, SD = 1.42); t (382) = 13.77, p < .001 and for the
inspirational (M = 5.35, SD = 1.33) than for humorous (M = 3.35, SD = 1.69), t (342.78) = .-12.77, p < .001, meaning manipulation was successful and the emotions aimed for were elicited.
Brand presence was tested with an independent-samples t-test to compare the videos on the two brand presence conditions. The t-test showed that scores on the brand presence variable were significantly higher for the clearly branded videos (M = 5.70, SD = 1.17) than for the conspicuously branded videos (M = 4.22, SD = 1.36), t (379.31) = -11.45, p < .001, meaning manipulation for brand presence was successful and the videos differed significantly on brand presence.
Randomization Check
The participants in the four video manipulation groups did not significantly differ by employment 2 (15, N = 383) = 11.09, p =.746; education 2 (18, N = 383) = 11.70, p =.862; nationality 2 (114, N = 379) = 113.54, p =.495, and age F (3, 379) = .208, p =.891, ηp2 =
.002. This means randomization was successful for these variables and there is no need to control for them. Checking randomization for questions about the frequency of private- and public sharing on SNS and the average hours per day spent on SNS it showed for frequency of private sharing F (3, 379) = 5.74, p =.001, ηp2 = .043; frequency of public sharing F (3, 379) =
.13, p =.940, ηp2 = .001, and average hours per day spent on SNS F (3, 379) = .036, p =.991,
ηp2 < .001. Meaning, in the following analyses frequency of private sharing will be controlled
for.
Private Versus Public Sharing
The first hypothesis stated that users are more likely in general to share video content on SNS privately than publically. A repeated measures ANOVA comparing the public sharing and private sharing variables showed a significant difference in private and public sharing, F (1,383) = 153.37, p < .001, ηp2 = .286. Thus, H1 was confirmed and indeed respondents
intended to share a branded video privately (M = 3.29, SD = 1.72) before they would share it publically (M = 2.25, SD = 1.60).
Direct Effect of Brand Presence on Sharing
In testing the second hypothesis, posing that a lower brand presence would increase sharing intention, interesting results were found. A two-way factorial ANOVA with brand presence and the emotion factor as independent variables and the composite measure of public and private sharing as dependent variable, yielded a significant main effect for emotion, F (1,380) = 7.67, p = .006, ηp2 = .020 indicating that the mean sharing intention score was
significantly greater for inspirational videos (M = 2.95, SD = 1.50) than for humorous videos (M = 2.55, SD = 1.36). The main effect of brand presence was non-significant, F (1,380) = 0.03, p > .05, ηp2 < .001. However, the interaction effect showed significance, F (1,380) =
8.07, p = .005, ηp2 = .021, indicating that the emotion effect was greater in the conspicuously
branded condition than in the clearly branded condition. Nonetheless, sharing intentions did not increase with lower brand presence so H2 was rejected.
Direct Effect of Motivations on Sharing Intention
To test if the public sharing intention of a user would be higher for people who scored high compared to those who scored low on the IM motivation (H3a), a correlation analysis was performed. There was evidence of a weak, marginally significant relationship between the IM motivation and public sharing, r(384) = .09, p = .071. Moreover, a weak positive correlation showed between IM and a composite measure of public and private sharing,
r(384) = .16, p = .002. Thus, strictly speaking, H3a is rejected in the present sample, but a
marginally significant outcome indicates a relation might be present, meaning public sharing intention goes up slightly when one is more motivated to use social networking sites for impression management.
interaction motivation one would more readily share privately. A correlation analysis showed a weak significant positive relationship between the SI motivation and private sharing, r(384) = .21, p < .001. Therefore, H3b was supported, meaning the more motivated someone is to use SNS for social interaction, the more readily they will share something privately.
Moderation of Motivations
To analyze if motivations to use SNS moderated the main effect of brand presence on sharing intention, a moderation analysis was performed with help of Hayes’ (2013)
PROCESS tool. To test the hypothesis that when the IM motivation is high a user is more likely to share a branded video with clear brand presence publically than when the IM motivations is low (H4a), model 1 of the process tool was used to test for moderation with brand presence as independent variable, sharing publically as outcome variable and IM as moderating variable. No significant interaction effects were found regarding sharing publically (b =.02, t = .15, p =.879, CI [-.21, .24])1, so no simple slope analysis followed. Thus, H4a was rejected meaning that IM does not moderate the relationship between brand presence and public sharing.
Furthermore, H4b posed that users who scored high on the SI motivation would share an inconspicuously branded video privately more than users who scored low on SI. To examine this, the PROCESS tool was used, this time with brand presence as independent variable, sharing privately as outcome variable and SI as moderating variable. There was no significant interaction effect found regarding the SI motivation and sharing privately (b =-.02,
t = -.17, p =.866, CI [-.27, .23])2, so no simple slope analysis followed. As a result, H4b had to be rejected meaning that SI does not moderate the relationship between brand presence and private sharing.
Finally, the last hypothesis stated that users that scored high on the persuasion
1
When controlling for the variable about the frequency of private sharing for which randomization did not work, the results remained non-significant.
2 C
motivation were more likely to share an inconspicuously branded video privately than users that scored low on the persuasion motivation (H4c). Again, the PROCESS tool was used with brand presence as independent variable, sharing privately as outcome variable and the
persuasive motivation as moderating variable and found no significant interaction effect (b =.20, t = 1.58, p =.115, CI [-.05, .45])3, which means that H4c was rejected. Thus, there is no moderating effect of the persuasion motivation on the main effect between brand presence and private sharing.
Discussion
This study sheds light on a subject which is currently absent in the scientific realm, namely the effect of brand presence (prominently present vs. inconspicuously present) in online branded video content on sharing intention (private and public), while differentiating in emotions used in videos (inspirational vs. humorous). Additionally, the study examined motivations to use SNS, the effect this has on sharing intention, and the interaction with the main effect of brand presence.
Sharing Privately Versus Publicly
The first hypothesis sought to determine if respondents would choose to share the branded video content privately more than they would publicly. The results showed that indeed respondents intended to share the content privately more than they intended to share publically. This confirms a trend of the last few years where video content on SNS gets edited with a caption encouraging people to tag friends in the comments or share the content with friends. On the contrary, videos that get shared publically often are videos that portray things that are close to one’s own values (Wallace, 2014), which also showed in the results of the present study; scores on public sharing were higher for the inspirational videos than for funny videos. An explanation for the higher private sharing intention can be found in that an easy
3
way to satisfy social needs by letting someone know you are thinking about them is to share something with that person privately (Ha, 2017). Combining this with research that links the use of mobile devices with a weaker tendency to delay gratification and increased impulsive behavior (Wilmer & Chein, 2016), it seems likely that the increase of technology in our lives has made us lazy in keeping in touch with social ties online. Moreover, the present study found a positive correlation between average SNS use and private sharing intention,
supporting the findings presented by Wilmer & Chein (2016). These findings may be limited, though, by the specific video content that respondents had to choose to share, but do classify as worthy of a follow up study in the future.
Brand Presence Effects on Sharing Intention
A main effect of brand presence on a users’ sharing intention, in that content that is
clearly branded would be shared less than inconspicuously branded content was not found, thus rejecting H2. However, in line with prior research (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Dobele, 2007), emotion showed a significant difference in sharing intention in favor of the
inspirational condition. Moreover, an interaction effect was found for emotion and brand presence in that the emotion effect was greater in the inconspicuously branded condition than the clearly branded condition. This effect may be explained by the proclamation that, because of the interdependent nature of sharing (Wang, Yang, & Wang, 2014), the success of viral advertising is based on emotional connection rather than the content itself (Eckler & Bolls, 2011). Moreover, research stating that consumers would trust other consumers over brands (Jonas, 2010) denotes that a clear brand message in a video could impede the emotion elicitation of the video, subsequently inhibiting the emotional connection and sharing intentions. While the previous statement is tentative, this interaction effect calls for more research in the direction of emotion in branded content combined with other potentially interesting variables and their impact on the shareability of content.
Motivations for SNS Usage Steering Sharing Intention
After careful scrutiny of studies on motivations (Ho, 2010; Muntinga, 2011) and studies on antecedents of sharing and virality (Dobele, Toleman, & Beverland, 2005; Sun, 2006), two hypotheses were formed about intrinsic motivations regarding the direct effect of IM on public sharing intention (H3a). In the present sample, marginally significant results provided initial indication of a relationship between the two variables. While the correlation was weak and significance marginal, it can be said that people who are motivated to use SNS for IM are not remarkably more likely to share branded video content publically. It could be that sharing content is not the main way of expressing oneself on social media since the content cannot be entirely controlled. With self-created content one can steer into a direction of expression more than by interacting with content created by others.
Hypothesis H3b expected a positive correlation between the SI motivation and private sharing. After analysis, a weak significant positive correlation was found, meaning H3b could be accepted. These results are consistent with a study by Hayes, King, & Ramirez (2016) which showed that interpersonal relationships had an impact on referral of ads within SNS. An explanation might come from the social exchange theory which views viral or ad referral processes as cost-benefit propositions wherein the referrer and recipients must evaluate expected value of an exchange when making decisions. A series of successful interactions in the form of congenial content between two actors wherein both parties equitably benefit can establish a relationship on which can be built in future interactions (Cook & Yamagishi, 1992). This result makes a case for further investigation of the relation between the SI motivation and effects on other outcome variables.
Interaction Effect of Motivations to use SNS
main effect, in that when IM scores were high one would be inclined to share clearly branded videos publically (H4a) compared to when IM scores were low. Contrary to expectations, the analysis did not find a significant difference between high or low IM scores on public sharing intention. This might be explained by the fact that IM operates in both conscious and
unconscious ways (Tashmin, 2016). Consequently, in a self-report survey respondents might lack the introspective ability to answer questions about their IM motivations to use SNS, which led to the low difference in IM scores and eventually might have caused a distortion of the results the study was looking for.
Secondly, the moderation guided by the need for relatedness did not show significant results. SI did not impact the effect of brand presence on private sharing, showing that, while SI does influence sharing privately directly, it does not hold the power to impact the relation between brand presence and private sharing. This could mean that the need to receive a like or comment on a shared video is not as apparent as expected, and thus SNS users do not take into account brand presence when sharing a message privately. Furthermore, the fact that different SNS are being used for diverse reasons (Kietzmann et al., 2011) should be taken into account. Instagram for instance is much more about impressing the audience publicly with nice pictures or videos than Facebook, which is becoming less of a social network the last few years (Oremus, 2016). This diversity in SNS can explain the low difference in SI motivation which, in turn, explains the results of this moderation.
Finally, the third moderation of the persuasion motivation came out non-significant, indicating that people that are motivated to persuade others on SNS are not inclined to share inconspicuously branded content privately over users that are less motivated to persuade. However, an unexpected significant positive relation was found between persuasion and private sharing. This means that SNS users that aim to persuade an audience would choose to reach their goals by private sharing. Theorized was that when a message is coming from a
strong interpersonal relation, a branded video is shared more often. In fact, extrapolating this assumption it can be argued that the more personal the referral is, the higher the persuasive power will be to share the video. Although, from these results it would seem that, contrary to expectations, SNS users are not as informed about persuasive defenses as was theorized from the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and do not take into account the brand presence in a video when trying to convince their social network by sharing the message privately.
The motivations were measured with scales that were never before used in previous research, so future studies should keep perfecting the measurements for motivations to use SNS. This way, low and high scores on motivations will be more evident, creating the possibility of greater effect sizes and significance scores.
Limitations and Future Research
The present study comes with some limitations that might have affected the outcome of some analyses. A recurring image of this study is that the Huawei video (inconspicuously & inspirational) scored higher than the other videos on sharing intention. Possibly, a reason is that this video held a Christmas theme and the survey was spread in December, which is in agreement with previous studies showing increased advertising effectiveness when the ad relevance is improved (Chakrabarti, Agarwal, & Josifovski, 2008). Although this did not lead to unjust significance in the study, future studies should select manipulation material which is less biased in its theme or content.
Another limitation was related to the low scores that were found on sharing intentions. Evidence showed some difference in sharing intention, but mean scores never reached above point four on a 7-points Likert scale, indicating that one would most likely not share the video content. The results of this study, thus, do not show that respondents are likely to share
focus on previously investigated aspects of a brand message like type of product (Schulze, Schöler, & Skiera, 2014) or level of consumer engagement (De Vries, 2017) in combination with motivations to show a more robust effect on sharing intention.
A thing that has to be addressed in this study is the fact that respondents were not asked about gender. Given the previous research in this area, which is limited, there were no expectations of gender impacting the results. Nevertheless, because no gender was inquired, it was a factor for which could not be controlled which in some studies has shown to be
necessary (Coltrane & Messineo, 2000; Smith & Foxcroft, 2009). Needless to say, future studies should take into account gender of the respondents.
A last limitation is that when performing a correlation analysis with all sharing
measurements and motivations it showed the motivations all correlated significantly with each other. This was not controlled for in the analysis, but it is important to specify so future
studies can check if no spurious relationships are present when analyzing the impact of motivations.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
There are a select few companies who, in this age, have genuinely leveraged the potential that lies within social media marketing to benefit their business. If a branded video reaches a viral status a marketing manager will undoubtedly get praise from his colleagues for reaching such a large crowd, but important is to be able to consciously steer into the viral direction and predict sharing intentions. A study by Fournier & Avery (2011) claimed that, in most cases, brands were uninvited at the web 2.0 party, but this study showed that there was no difference in sharing intention between clearly branded video content and inconspicuously branded video content, meaning brands should not have to worry directly about the brand appearance in a branded video. More attention should be paid to the emotion the video tries to elicit, and based thereon adapt the brand appearance in video advertising. Moreover,
confirming the importance of targeting, to get users to diffuse a brand message, brands should mainly target groups of users who use SNS for social interaction or persuasion through promoting the act of sharing content privately. The challenge therein lies in finding niches on SNS that draw users who identify with these motivations.
This study is the first of its kind to shed some light on specific motivations, other than creating or contributing, to use SNS in a brand related context and shows that SNS users are inclined to share a branded video regardless of the brand presence in the video when
inherently motivated by IM, SI or persuasion. SNS users do not seem to value the extent of commerciality in deciding if they would share the message or not which could imply they are quite clever in figuring out the commercial status of a branded video. However, this research studied branded content, where the commercial intent typically is clear, unlike native
advertising or non-branded content, meaning SNS users’ motivation to use persuasion knowledge is activated to infer and correct for persuasive impact (Campbell, Mohr, & Verlegh, 2013). It would be interesting to repeat this research with non-branded vs. branded or sponsored vs. non-sponsored content and learn more about how these motivations work with respect to theory and practice.
The findings in this study lead to believe that motivations to use SNS play a significant role in the brand-related choices consumers make on social media. While no interaction effects were found for motivations with the current main effect, additional evidence has been provided that emotions in branded video content effectuate a certain consumer response to advertising and that the effect thereof is partly subjected to the brand presence in a branded video. Future research should invest in further mapping of motivations and finding new pathways to get consumers to engage with and respond to advertising on social networking sites.
References
Akpinar, E., & Berger, J. (2017). Valuable Virality. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(2), 318–330. doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0350
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497– 529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What Makes Online Content Viral? Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2013). Emotion and Virality: What Makes Online Content Go Viral? GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 5Berger, J(1), 18–23. doi:10.2478/GFKMIR-2014-0022
Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brandtzæg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009). Why People Use Social Networking Sites. In ICOCSC (pp. 143–152). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_16
Bumgartner, B. A. (2007). You have been poked: Exploring the uses and gratifications of Fracebook among emerging adults. First Monday, 12(11), 1–10.
Buttle, F. A. (2017). Word of mouth: understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 6(3), 241–254. doi:10.1080/096525498346658
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it : the use of persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In Handbook of consumer
psychology (pp. 549–571).
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483–495. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.012
Chakrabarti, D., Agarwal, D., & Josifovski, V. (2008). Contextual advertising by combining relevance with click feedback. In Proceeding of the 17th international conference on
World Wide Web (pp. 417-426). New York: ACM Press. doi:1367497.1367554
Choudhary, V., Chauhan, V., & Batra, S. (2017). Purchasing behavior of jewelry: a comparative study between the consumers of branded and non-branded jewelry.
International Journal of Innovative Knowledge Concepts, 5(10). Retrieved from
http://www.ijikc.co.in/sites/ijikc/index.php/ijikc/article/view/631
Chu, S.-C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47–75. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457
Coltrane, S., & Messineo, M. (2000). The Perpetuation of Subtle Prejudice: Race and Gender Imagery in 1990s Television Advertising. Sex Roles, 42(5/6), 363–389.
Cook, K. S., & Yamagishi, T. (1992). Power in exchange networks: a power-dependence formulation. Social Networks, 14(3/4), 245–265. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(92)90004-Q
Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S., & Bright, L. (2008). Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating User-Generated Content. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 16–25. doi:10.1080/15252019.2008.10722139
De Vries, L., Peloso, A. M., Romani, S., Leeflang, P. S. H., & Marcati, A. (2017). Explaining consumer brand-related activities on social media: An investigation of the different roles of self-expression and socializing motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 272– 282. doi:10.1016/J.CHB.2017.05.016
Dhir, A. (2016). Exploring Online Self- presentation in Computer- mediated environments
Motives and Reasons for Photo-tagging and untagging. Aalto University. Retrieved from
https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/20259/isbn9789526067827.pdf?seq uence=1&isAllowed=y
Dhir, A., Chen, G. M., & Chen, S. (2017). Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing a new gratifications scale. New Media & Society, 19(4), 502–521. doi:10.1177/1461444815611062
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., & Van Wijk, R. (2007). Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons, 50(4), 291– 304. doi:10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2007.01.004
Dobele, A., Toleman, D., & Beverland, M. (2005). Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons, 48(2), 143–149.
doi:10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2004.10.011
71–82. doi:10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.cc
Eckler, P., & Bolls, P. (2011). Spreading the virus: emotional tone of viral advertising and its effect on forwarding intentions and attitudes. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 11(2), 1–11. doi:10.1080/15252019.2011.10722180
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Facebook. (n.d.). How do I share a post I see on my News Feed? | Facebook Help Center. Retrieved October 21, 2017, from https://www.facebook.com/help/163779957017799/
Feher, K. (2015). Digital identity: The transparency of the self. In Applied Psychology (pp. 132–143). World Scientific. doi:10.1142/9789814723398_0007
Fogg, B. J. (2008). Mass Interpersonal Persuasion: An Early View of a New Phenomenon. In
Persuasive Technology (pp. 23–34). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68504-3_3
Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54, 193–207. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.001
Fransen, M. L., Smit, E. G., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2015). Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1201. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01201
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.2307/2489738
Goffmann, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Guneluis, S. (2010). Social Media Marketing 2015 - How Did We Get Here? Retrieved October 16, 2017, from http://keysplashcreative.com/social-media-marketing-2015-how-did-we-get-here/
Ha, T., Han, S., Lee, S., & Kim, J. H. (2017). Reciprocal nature of social capital in Facebook: an analysis of tagging activity. Online Information Review, 41(6), 826–839. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0042
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis : a regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Hayes, J. L., King, K. W., & Ramirez, A. (2016). Brands, Friends, & Viral Advertising: A Social Exchange Perspective on the Ad Referral Processes. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 36, 31–45. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094996816300263
Ho, J. Y. C., & Dempsey, M. (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content.
Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 1000–1006. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296309002215
Hodgins, J. (2016). The Influence of Being Transported into Online Branded Videos on Video
Shareability and Brand Attitudes. Texas Tech University. Retrieved from
https://ttu- ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/67158/HODGINS-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
eWOM marketing: Persuasion in online video. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 201–224. doi:10.1007/s10660-012-9091-y
Huang, C.-C., Lin, T.-C., & Lin, K.-J. (2008). Factors affecting pass-along email intentions (PAEIs): Integrating the social capital and social cognition theories. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 8, 160–169. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.001
Huynh, K. (2016). Factors Affecting the Success of Viral Marketing An Affective – Cognitive- Behavioral Process. Business and Management Research, 5(1), 40–45. doi:10.5430/bmr.v5n1p40
Invisia. (2017). 27 Video Stats for 2017. Retrieved November 29, 2017, from http://www.insivia.com/27-video-stats-2017/
Irwin, A., & Dalmas A, T. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? In CHI (pp. 1027– 1036). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357213
Jonas, J. R. O. (2010). Source Credibility of Company-produced and User-Generated Content on the Internet: An Exploratory Study on the Filipino Youth. Philippine Management
Review, 17, 121–132. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/openview/4d4674833670e9f14f0476717f364d73/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2032722
Kaiser, F. G. (2006). A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Norms and
anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences,
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
doi:10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2009.09.003
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business
Horizons, 54(3), 241–251. doi:10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2011.01.005
Lepage, E. (2017). All the Social Media Advertising Stats You Need to Know. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://blog.hootsuite.com/social-media-advertising-stats/
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for Sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124.
Lu, Q., & Seah, Z. Y. (2018). Social Media Influencers and Consumer Online Engagement Management. In F. Di Virgilio (Ed.), Social Media for Knowledge Management
Applications in Modern Organisations (pp. 81–91). Hershey: IGI Global.
doi:10.1086/208704
Marabelli, M., Newell, S., & Galliers, R. D. (2016). The Materiality of Impression Management in Social Media Use: A focus on Time, Space and Algorithms. In
International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–21). Retrieved from
https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=icis2016
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising,
30(1), 13–46. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046
Nations, D. (2017). Twitter Help: What Is a Retweet? How Do I Retweet? Retrieved October 21, 2017, from https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-a-retweet-on-twitter-3486593
Nelson-Field, K., Riebe, E., & Newstead, K. (2013). The emotions that drive viral video.
Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(4), 205–211. doi:10.1016/J.AUSMJ.2013.07.003
Nielsen. (2012). Global Consumers’ Trust in “Earned” Advertising Grows in Importance. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2012/nielsen-global-consumers-trust-in-earned-advertising-grows.html
No, E., Kelly, B., Devi, A., Swinburn, B., & Vandevijvere, S. (2014). Food references and marketing in popular magazines for children and adolescents in New Zealand: A content analysis. Appetite, 83, 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.013
Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior,
30, 69–78. doi:10.1016/J.CHB.2013.07.053
Oremus, W. (2016). Facebook isn’t the social network anymore. So what is it? Retrieved January 22, 2018, from
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/04/facebook_isn_t_the_social _network_anymore_so_what_is_it.html
Park, J. Y., & Sohn, Y. (2016). Power of Earned Advertising on Social Network Services: A Case Study of Friend Tagging on Facebook. In ICWSM (pp. 299–308). Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM16/paper/viewFile/13170/12749
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
30(3), 227–238. doi:10.1016/J.APPDEV.2008.12.010
Perrin, A. (2015). Social Media Usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.
Communication and Persuasion, 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 333–348. doi:10.1017/S0021849904040371
Pulizzi, J. (2012). The Rise of Storytelling as the New Marketing. Publishing Research
Quarterly, 28(2), 116–123. doi:10.1007/s12109-012-9264-5
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the Uses and Gratifications Theory to Exploring Friend-Networking Sites. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 11(2), 169–174. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0056
Reeve, J. (2014). Understanding Motivation and Emotion (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Understanding+Motivation+and+Emotion%2C+6th+Edition-p-9781118517796
ReputationX. (2017). Branded vs. non-branded content: What’s the difference and why should you care? Retrieved January 15, 2018, from
https://blog.reputationx.com/branded-vs.-non-branded-content-whats-the-difference-and-why-should-you-care
Rigby, E. (2004). Viral masterclass: The Revolution Masterclass on viral marketing. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/viral-masterclass-revolution-masterclass-viral-marketing/217975
Rimé, B., Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Zech, E., Philippot, P., & Rimc, B. (1998). Social Sharing of Emotion: New Evidence and New Questions. European Review of Social
Psychology, 9(1), 145–189. doi:10.1080/14792779843000072
Rowley, J. (2008). Understanding digital content marketing. Journal of Marketing
Management, 24(5–6), 517–540. doi:10.1362/026725708X325977
Schulze, C., Schöler, L., & Skiera, B. (2014). Not All Fun and Games: Viral Marketing for Utilitarian Products. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 1–19. doi:10.1509/jm.11.0528
Schutz, W. C. (1966). FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Oxford: Rinehart.
Schwämmlein, E., & Wodzicki, K. (2012). What to Tell About Me? Self-Presentation in Online Communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 387–407. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01582.x
Scott, D. M. (2015). The new rules of marketing and PR : how to use social media, online
video, mobile applications, blogs, news releases, and viral marketing to reach buyers
directly. D. M. Scott (Ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from
https://books.google.nl/books?id=gi5ECgAAQBAJ&dq=goals+of+advertising+on+socia l+media&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Singh, J. P., Irani, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Saumya, S., & Kumar Roy, P. (2017). Predicting the “helpfulness” of online consumer reviews. Journal of Business Research,
Smith, L. A., & Foxcroft, D. R. (2009). The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing and portrayal on drinking behaviour in young people: systematic review of prospective cohort studies. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 51. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-51
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420–433. doi:10.1016/J.APPDEV.2008.07.003
Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., & Kuntaraporn, M. (2006). Online Word-of-Mouth (or Mouse): An Exploration of Its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(4), 1104–1127. Retrieved from
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00310.x
Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-Of-Mouth Communications: a Motivational Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 527–531. Retrieved from https://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8208
Tashmin, N. (2016). Art of Impression Management on Social Media. WSN, 30, 89–102. Retrieved from http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.psjd-3e6d90b7-c452-417a-a9e8-e506560eb874/c/WSN_30__2016__89-102.pdf
Teng, S., Wei Khong, K., Wei Goh, W., & Yee Loong Chong, A. (2014). Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media. Online Information Review,
38(6), 746–768. doi:10.1108/OIR-04-2014-0089
Toubia, O., Freud, A., & Stephen, A. T. (2011). Economics, Management, and Financial
Markets. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets (Vol. 6). Denbridge Press.
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site. Journal of
Marketing, 73, 90–102. doi:10.1.1.622.9010&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Tucker, C. E. (2015). The Reach and Persuasiveness of Viral Video Ads. Marketing Science,
34(2), 281–296. doi:10.1287/mksc.2014.0874
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students’ Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875–901.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x
van Noort, G., Antheunis, M. L., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Social connections and the persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as the
underlying mechanism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 39–53. doi:10.1080/13527266.2011.620764
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2014). Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
23(1), 33–42. doi:10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0326
Wang, C.-C., Yang, Y., & Wang, P. (2014). Sharing Word-of-Mouths or not: the Difference Between Independent and Interdependent Self-Construal. In PACIS 2014 Proceedings (Vol. 56). Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/56
Warner, J. (2010). How to Earn Engagement Capital on Youtube. Retrieved Janury 20, 2017, from
http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/marketing-earn-engagement-capital-youtube/143380/
Weiser, P., Bucher, D., Cellina, F., & De Luca, V. (2015). A Taxonomy of Motivational Affordances for Meaningful Gamified and Persuasive Technologies. In ICT4S. doi:10.2991/ict4s-env-15.2015.31
