Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 1005–1026 | Cite as

What makes online content viral? The contingent effects of hub users versus non–hub users on social media platforms

  • Qingliang WangEmail author
  • Fred Miao
  • Giri Kumar Tayi
  • En Xie
Original Empirical Research

Abstract

Extant research has focused on the role of hub users (e.g., individuals with a large number of ties to other people) in social media–based product adoption or information diffusion processes to the neglect of non–hub users. Drawing on the strength-of-weak-ties perspective and social capital theory, we (1) reveal systematic differences in characteristics of hub users vs. non–hub users in terms of user type, follower type, as well as user–follower relationships and (2) demonstrate differential effects of non–hub users versus hub users contingent upon contextual factors. Using a dataset collected from a popular Chinese micro-blog website, we find that hub users are more likely information disseminators than non–hub users, that followers of hub users are more likely information disseminators themselves than followers of non–hub users, and that there are more reciprocal ties between non–hub users and their followers than relationships between hub users and their followers. More importantly, results confirm contingent effects of hub users vs. non–hub users on reposts. Specifically, relative to hub users, the effect of non–hub users on reposts becomes much less weak when content topics are of high personal relevance to followers’ lives or when content has high emotional valence. By contrast, hub users, relative to non–hub users, become even more impactful when many of their followers happen to be active online when an original post is seeded.

Keywords

Social media User-generated content Hub users Non–hub users Information diffusion Strength of weak ties Social capital theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the review team for constructive feedback and suggestions. The first and fourth authors acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 71402131 and 71832009].

References

  1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.Google Scholar
  2. Alexandrov, A., Lilly, B., & Babakus, E. (2013). The effects of social- and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 531–546.Google Scholar
  3. Anger, I., & Kittl, C. (2011). Measuring influence on twitter. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on knowledge management and knowledge technologies. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks.Management Science, 57(9), 1623–1639.Google Scholar
  5. Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2012). Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science, 337(6092), 337–341.Google Scholar
  6. Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, A. (2009). Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(51), 21544–21549.Google Scholar
  7. Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592–601.Google Scholar
  8. Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.Google Scholar
  9. BBC. (2017). Twitter user numbers overtaken by China's Sina Weibo.BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39947442. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  10. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.Google Scholar
  11. Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 869–880.Google Scholar
  12. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, K.-J., Kim, J., & Lin, J.-S. (2015). The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from Facebook posts on consumer attitude formation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 208–218.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.Google Scholar
  15. Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice.Organization Science, 7(2), 119–135.Google Scholar
  16. de Matos, C. A., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 578–596.Google Scholar
  17. Doreian, P., & Woodard, K. L. (1992). Fixed list versus snowball selection of social networks. Social Science Research, 21(2), 216–233.Google Scholar
  18. Escalas, J. E., & Stern, B. B. (2003). Sympathy and empathy: Emotional responses to advertising dramas. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 566–578.Google Scholar
  19. Godes, D., Mayzlin, D., Chen, Y., Das, S., Dellarocas, C., Pfeiffer, B., Libai, B., Sen, S., Shi, M., & Verlegh, P. (2005). The firm's management of social interactions. Marketing Letters, 16(3/4), 415–428.Google Scholar
  20. Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehmann, D. R., & Hong, J. W. (2009). The role of hubs in the adoption process. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
  21. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  22. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2014). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Inc: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.Google Scholar
  24. Heath, C., Bell, C., & Sternberg, E. (2001). Emotional selection in memes: The case of urban legends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1028–1041.Google Scholar
  25. Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score.Econometrica, 71(4), 1161–1189.Google Scholar
  26. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
  27. Holmes, E. (2017). The Trick to Selling Beauty Products Online.Wall Street Journal,https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trick-to-selling-beauty-products-online-1494986880. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  28. Hughes, D. E., Le Bon, J., & Rapp, A. (2013). Gaining and leveraging customer-based competitive intelligence: The pivotal role of social capital and salesperson adaptive selling skills. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 91–110.Google Scholar
  29. Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195–212.Google Scholar
  30. Iyer, G., & Katona, Z. (2016). Competing for attention in social communication markets. Management Science, 62(8), 2304–2320.Google Scholar
  31. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Proceedings of the 9thWebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56–65). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Jin, S.-A. A., & Phua, J. (2014). Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact of twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 181–195.Google Scholar
  33. Katona, Z., Zubcsek, P. P., & Sarvary, M. (2011). Network effects and personal influences: The diffusion of an online social network.Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 425–443.Google Scholar
  34. Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak ties in networked communities. The Information Society, 21(2), 119–131.Google Scholar
  35. Krajewski, L. J., Malhotra, M. K., & Ritzman, L. P. (2015).Operations management: Processes and value chains. Pearson.Google Scholar
  36. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, J., & Hong, I. B. (2016). Predicting positive user responses to social media advertising: The roles of emotional appeal, informativeness, and creativity. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 360–373.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, C., Kwak, H., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). Finding influentials based on the temporal order of information adoption in twitter. InProceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web (pp. 1137–1138). Raleigh, North Carolina: ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer.Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.Google Scholar
  40. Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542.Google Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, C. (2016). Source credibility and Consumers' responses to marketer involvement in Facebook brand communities: What causes consumers to engage? Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
  42. Michelfelder, I., & Kratzer, J. (2013). Why and how combining strong and weak ties within a Single Interorganizational R&D Collaboration Outperforms Other Collaboration Structures. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(6), 1159–1177.Google Scholar
  43. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  44. Nair, H. S., Manchanda, P., & Bhatia, T. (2010). Asymmetric social interactions in physician prescription behavior: The role of opinion leaders. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 883–895.Google Scholar
  45. O’Reilly, K., MacMillan, A., Mumuni, A. G., & Lancendorfer, K. M. (2016). Extending our understanding of eWOM impact: The role of source credibility and message relevance. Journal of Internet Commerce, 15(2), 77–96.Google Scholar
  46. Peters, K., & Kashima, Y. (2007). From social talk to social action: Shaping the social triad with emotion sharing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 780–797.Google Scholar
  47. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 123–205). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  49. Rawal, M., & Saavedra, J. (2017). Empathy for emotional advertisements on social networking sites: The role of social identity.Marketing Management Journal, 27(2), 88–102.Google Scholar
  50. Rhee, E. Y., & Fiss, P. C. (2014). Framing controversial actions: Regulatory focus, source credibility, and Stock market reaction to poison pill adoption. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1734–1758.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
  52. Shi, H., R. Grewal, and S. Sridhar (2017), "Organizational Herding in Advertising Spending Disclosures: Evidence and Mechanisms. Mays Business School Research Paper No. 3071616. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3071616. Accessed 20 Jan 2018 or  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3071616.
  53. Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65(3), 557–586.Google Scholar
  54. Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media—Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior.Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–248.Google Scholar
  55. Susarla, A., Oh, J.-H., & Tan, Y. (2012). Social networks and the diffusion of user-generated content: Evidence from YouTube. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 23–41.Google Scholar
  56. Trusov, M., Bodapati, A. V., & Bucklin, R. E. (2010). Determining influential users in internet social networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 643–658.Google Scholar
  57. Tsai, Y.-L., Dev, C.s., & Chintagunta, P. (2015). What’s in a brand name? Assessing the impact of rebranding in the hospitality industry.Journal of Marketing Research, 52(6), 865–878.Google Scholar
  58. Tucker, C. (2008). Identifying formal and informal influence in technology adoption with network externalities. Management Science, 54(12), 2024–2038.Google Scholar
  59. Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458.Google Scholar
  60. Wellman, B. (1992). Which ties provide what kinds of support?Advances in Group Processes, Vol(9), 207–235.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, A. E., Giebelhausen, M. D., & Brady, M. K. (2017). Negative word of mouth can be a positive for consumers connected to the brand.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(4), 534–547.Google Scholar
  62. Yakubovich, V. (2005). Weak ties, information, and influence: How workers find jobs in a local Russian labor market. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 408–421.Google Scholar
  63. Yoganarasimhan, H. (2012). Impact of social network structure on content propagation: A study using YouTube data. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 10(1), 111–150.Google Scholar
  64. Zhang, Y., Moe, W. W., & Schweidel, D. A. (2017). Modeling the role of message content and influencers in social media rebroadcasting.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 100–119.Google Scholar
  65. Zoonen, W., & van der Meer, T. (2015). The importance of source and credibility perception in times of crisis: Crisis communication in a socially mediated era. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(5), 371–388.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qingliang Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fred Miao
    • 2
  • Giri Kumar Tayi
    • 3
  • En Xie
    • 4
  1. 1.School of ManagementNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’an, Shaanxi, 710072China
  2. 2.College of BusinessUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  3. 3.School of BusinessUniversity at Albany, State University of New YorkAlbanyUSA
  4. 4.School of Economics and ManagementTongji UniversityShanghai 200092China

Personalised recommendations