Content uploaded by Lisette Kruizinga - de Vries
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lisette Kruizinga - de Vries on Oct 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand Fan Pages: An Investigation of the
Effects of Social Media Marketing
Lisette de Vries
a,
⁎& Sonja Gensler
a
& Peter S.H. Leeflang
a, b
a
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
b
Faculty of Economics and Business, LUISS Guido Carli, Viale Romania 32, 00197 Rome, Italy
Available online 1 April 2012
Abstract
Social media outlets constitute excellent vehicles for fostering relationships with customers. One specific way to do this is to create brand fan
pages on social networking sites. Companies can place brand posts (containing videos, messages, quizzes, information, and other material) on
these brand fan pages. Customers can become fans of these brand fan pages, and subsequently indicate that they like the brand post or comment
on it. This liking and commenting on brand posts reflects brand post popularity. In this article, we determine possible drivers for brand post pop-
ularity. We analyze 355 brand posts from 11 international brands spread across six product categories.
Results show that positioning the brand post on top of the brand fan page enhances brand post popularity. But the findings also indicate that
different drivers influence the number of likes and the number of comments. Namely, vivid and interactive brand post characteristics enhance
the number of likes. Moreover, the share of positive comments on a brand post is positively related to the number of likes. The number of com-
ments can be enhanced by the interactive brand post characteristic, a question. The shares of both positive and negative comments are positively
related to the number of comments. Managers of brands that operate brand fan pages can be guided by our research with regards to deciding which
characteristics or content to place at brand posts.
© 2012 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Social media; Social networking sites; Marketing communications; Relationship marketing
Introduction
In 2011, more than 50% of social media users follow brands
on social media (Van Belleghem, Eenhuizen, and Veris 2011)
and companies are increasingly investing in social media, indi-
cated by worldwide marketing spending on social networking
sites of about $4.3 billion (Williamson 2011). Managers invest
in social media to foster relationships and interact with cus-
tomers (SAS HBR 2010). One way to realize this aim is to create
brand communities in the form of brand fan pages on social net-
working sites where customers can interact with a company by
liking or commenting on brand posts (McAlexander, Schouten,
and Koenig 2002; Muñiz and O'Guinn 2001). Consumers who
become fans of these brand fan pages tend to be loyal and com-
mitted to the company, and are more open to receiving informa-
tion about the brand (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2006). Moreover,
brand fans tend to visit the store more, generate more positive
word-of-mouth, and are more emotionally attached to the brand
than non-brand fans (Dholakia and Durham 2010).
While preliminary research has been conducted on the success
of marketing activities on social media, little is known about fac-
tors that influence brand post popularity, that is, the number of
likes and comments on brand posts at brand fan pages (Ryan and
Zabin 2010; Shankar and Batra 2009). Management-oriented stud-
ies about brand post popularity are mainly descriptive; they pro-
vide no theoretical foundation and do not formally test which
activities actually improve brand post popularity. For example,
these studies suggest that companies should experiment with dif-
ferent brand post characteristics, such as videos, images, text, or
questions (Brookes 2010; Keath et al. 2011). Current insights
are thus limited, which has increased the call for research in the
area of social media, as indicated by the subject of this special
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: l.de.vries@rug.nl (L. de Vries), s.gensler@rug.nl (S. Gensler), p.s.h.leeflang@rug.nl (P.S.H. Leeflang).
1094-9968/$ -see front matter © 2012 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003
A
vailable online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
www.elsevier.com/locate/intmar
issue and the 2010–2012 Marketing Science Institute research
priorities (www.msi.org).
The aim of this research is to empirically investigate what
factors drive brand post popularity. We develop a conceptual
model that is based upon findings from the banner and adver-
tising literature, as well as the word-of-mouth communication
literature. We consider brand post characteristics (e.g., vividness,
interactivity), content of the brand post (e.g., information, enter-
tainment), position of the brand post, and the valence of com-
ments on the brand post written by brand fans.
We gathered data from different brand fan pages on a social
networking site to test our hypotheses. The findings indicate
that enhancing either the number of likes or the number of com-
ments requires different instruments. With this research we pro-
vide insights to the social media literature, which are interesting
for academics as well as for practitioners. To the best of our
knowledge, we are the first to empirically investigate which fac-
tors influence the popularity of brand posts at a social networking
site. Our research provides valuable and directly applicable impli-
cations for companies’social media marketing activities.
The flow of this paper is as follows: first, we describe brand
fan pages and brand post popularity, and then develop the
conceptual framework and hypotheses. That initial section
is followed by a description of the study design. The empirical re-
sults are then described and discussed. We conclude with impli-
cations for managers, and propose some limitations that provide
opportunities for further research.
Brand Fan Pages and Brand Post Popularity
In just a few years, social networking sites have become ex-
tremely popular: Facebook, for example, claims to have attracted
over 800 million active members (as of fall 2011) since starting in
2004 (www.facebook.com). Social networking sites can be de-
scribed as networks of friends for social or professional interac-
tions (Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009). Members of social
networking sites can become friends with other members, but
they can also become fans of brands on dedicated brand fan
pages. Brand fans can share their enthusiasm about the brand
on these dedicated pages and be united by their common interest
in the brand (Kozinets 1999). Brand fan pages reflect part of the
customers’relationship with the brand (McAlexander, Schouten,
and Koenig 2002), broaden the brand–customer relationship
(Muñiz and O'Guinn 2001), and provide a source of information
and social benefits to the members (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2002;
Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo 2004). On these brand fan pages,
companies can create brand posts containing anecdotes, photos,
videos, or other material; brand fans can then interact with these
brand posts by liking or commenting on them.
In this article, we focus on the determinants of brand post
popularity, i.e., the number of likes and comments. In order to
find these determinants affecting brand post popularity, we
use research on the effectiveness of banner advertising because
similarities exist between banners and brand posts. A banner is
a small advertisement on web pages that advertisers want peo-
ple to click on (Drèze and Hussherr 2003). Similarly, brand
posts occupy only a small part of the brand fan page, with
companies wanting brand fans to like or comment on it. Thus,
the challenges for both banners and brand posts are firstly to at-
tract people's attention and secondly to induce people to click
on and view the content. However, people voluntarily decide
to visit a brand fan page, whereas they are involuntarily con-
fronted with banners and usually pay low attention to them
(Goodrich 2011; Yoo 2009). Despite these differences between
banners and brand posts, factors that compel people to click on a
banner may also be applicable to how people interact with brand
posts. For example, banners and brand posts need special charac-
teristics or features that make them salient from the background
and capture customers’attention (Fennis and Stroebe 2010, p. 51).
Brand posts differ from banners on another aspect as well: the
likes and comments on the brand post reflect active statements of
brand fans and are visible to others. By liking or commenting on a
brand post, brand fans state their opinion publicly. Liking and
commenting on a brand post is thus similar to WoM communica-
tion. We therefore also use literature on WoM communication
when discussing the factors that influence brand post popularity.
Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
The conceptual framework for the determinants of brand post
popularity is presented in Figure 1. We argue that vividness, inter-
activity, the content of the brand post (information, entertainment),
the top position of a brand post, and the valence of comments on a
brand post are related to brand post popularity (i.e., the number of
likes and the number of comments). Additionally, we do control
for the day of the week the brand post is placed, message length
of the brand post, and the product category (see Figure 1).
Vividness
One way of enhancing the salience of brand posts is to include
vivid brand post characteristics. Vividness reflects the richness of
a brand post's formal features; in other words, it is the extent to
which a brand post stimulates the different senses (Steuer
1992). Vividness can be achieved by the inclusion of dynamic an-
imations, (contrasting) colors, or pictures (Cho 1999; Drèze and
Hussherr 2003; Fortin and Dholakia 2005; Goldfarb and Tucker
Brand post popularity
H5
H4
H3
H2
H1
Control variables:
- Day of the week
- Message length of
brand post
- Product category
Vividness
Valence of
comments
Informational
content
Interactivity
Number of likes
Position
Entertaining
content
H6a, 6b, 6c
Number of comments
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
84 L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
2011; Goodrich 2011). The degree of vividness can differ in the
way that it stimulates multiple senses (Coyle and Thorson
2001). For example, a video is more vivid than a picture because
the former stimulates not only sight, but also hearing.
Research shows that highly vivid banners are more effective
with respect to intention to click (Cho 1999) and click-through
rates (Lohtia, Donthu, and Hershberger 2003). Moreover,
higher degrees of vividness appear to be most effective at en-
hancing attitudes toward a website (Coyle and Thorson 2001;
Fortin and Dholakia 2005). We propose that more vivid brand
posts lead to a more positive attitude toward the brand post.
This positive attitude should then compel brand fans to like or
comment on a brand post. Therefore, we formulate:
H1. The higher the level of vividness of a brand post, the more
popular the brand post.
Interactivity
Another way of enhancing the salience of a brand post is in-
teractivity. Interactivity is defined as “the degree to which two
or more communication parties can act on each other, on the
communication medium, and on the messages and the degree
to which such influences are synchronized”(Liu and Shrum
2002, p. 54). Interactivity is characterized by two-way commu-
nication between companies and customers, as well as between
customers themselves; put differently, it characterizes many-to-
many communication (Goldfarb and Tucker 2011; Hoffman
and Novak 1996). Brand post characteristics differ in the degree
of interactivity. For example, a brand post with only text is not
at all interactive, while a link to a website is more interactive
(Fortin and Dholakia 2005) since brand fans can click on that
link. Moreover, a question acts as a highly interactive brand
post characteristic because it begs an answer from brand fans.
Research shows inconclusive findings (no effect versus positive ef-
fect) regarding interactivity on outcome measures, such as attitude
toward an ad, which might be explained by the considered degrees
of interactivity (Liu and Shrum 2002). Some research suggests that
there might exist an optimal level of interactivity (Fortin and
Dholakia 2005), but other research proposes a linear effect of inter-
activity (Coyle and Thorson 2001). Since the objective of brand
posts is to motivate brand fans to react (i.e., liking and/or comment-
ing), we expect that higher degrees of interactivity will generate
more likes and comments. We propose the following hypothesis:
H2. The higher the level of interactivity of a brand post, the
more popular the brand post.
Content of Brand Posts: Information and Entertainment
Information-seeking is an important reason for people to use
social networking sites (Lin and Lu 2011), participate in a vir-
tual community (Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo 2004), and con-
tribute to Facebook groups (Park, Kee, and Valenzuela 2009).
Furthermore, the pursuit of information explains why people
consume brand-related content (Muntinga, Moorman, and
Smit 2011). Hence, if a brand post contains information about
the brand or product, then the brand fans’motivations to
participate or consume the content are met. Additionally, research
shows that people tend to have positive attitudes toward informa-
tive ads on social networks (Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton 2011).
Therefore, brand fans might have more positive attitudes toward
informative brand posts compared to non-informative brand
posts, thus leading to higher popularity. We propose:
H3. Informative brand posts are more popular than non-
informative brand posts.
The entertainment value of a social networking site is also an
important factor for using it (Cheung, Chiu, and Lee 2011;
Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo 2004; Lin and Lu 2011; Park,
Kee, and Valenzuela 2009). Entertainment leads people to con-
sume, create or contribute to brand-related content online
(Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011). Entertaining ads –ads
that are perceived to be fun, exciting, cool, and flashy –do have
a positive effect on attitude toward the ad (Taylor, Lewin, and
Strutton 2011), attitude toward the brand, and the desire to return
to the website (Raney et al. 2003). Hence, if a brand post is enter-
taining, brand fans’motivations to participate or consume the con-
tent are met. Therefore, brand fans might have more positive
attitudes toward entertaining brand posts compared to non-
entertaining brand posts, thus generating higher popularity. This
leads to the following hypothesis:
H4. Entertaining brand posts are more popular than non-
entertaining brand posts.
Position of Brand Posts
Advertising research shows that the position of a banner ad on a
website has a positive effect on attention paid to the ad (Drèze and
Hussherr 2003; Goodrich 2011). Moreover, recent research on
search advertising shows that position plays an important role for
click-through rates; namely, ads on top of the page generate more
clicks (RutzandTrusov2011). Furthermore, prior exposure to ban-
ners has a positive effect on the clicking probability because an ad-
ditional exposure to a banner increases the probability the banner
will be noticed (Chatterjee, Hoffman, and Novak 2003). Whereas
banners are mainly located on the periphery of websites (i.e., left
or right and bottom or top), brand posts are located in the middle
of the brand fan page. The most recently placed brand posts appear
on top of the brand fan page, shifting older brand posts farther
down on the brand fan page. If companies often create new
brand posts, less recent ones shift down quickly, which means
these are less noticeable and can receive less attention than brand
posts that are located on top of the brand fan page. We therefore
propose that the number of days the brand post is located on top
of the brand fan page is beneficial for the brand post's popularity:
H5. Position of a brand post on top of the brand fan page is
positively related to brand post popularity.
Valence of Comments
Brand fans can comment either positively, neutral, or negative-
ly on brand posts. Research shows that consumers’online discus-
sions about positive product or brand experiences can generate
85L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
empathy and positive feelings among readers (Bickart and
Schindler 2001). This exchange of information and experiences
between consumers has a positive effect on the perceptions of
the value of a product, the likelihood to recommend the product
(Gruen, Osmonbekov, and Czaplewski 2006), and sales (e.g.,
Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006; Chintagunta, Gopinath, and
Venkataraman 2010). The positive comments on a brand post
might have complementary value to the company's brand post
(Bronner and de Hoog 2010) and thus increase the attractiveness
of the brand post. Also, the positive comments of brand fans can
enhance the value of the brand post and create empathy among
brand fans. All in all, we expect that the share of positive com-
ments on a brand post, compared to the share of neutral comments,
leads to higher popularity of this brand post. We propose:
H6a. The share of positive comments on a brand post is posi-
tively related to brand post popularity.
However, brand fans can also comment negatively on a brand
post. Therefore, we also investigate the effects of negative com-
ments on brand post popularity. Much negative information ap-
pears to produce a negative effect on attitude toward the ad and
the brand (Eisend 2006). Negative consumer reviews have a neg-
ative effect on purchase intentions or sales (e.g., Chevalier and
Mayzlin 2006; Dellarocas, Zhang, and Awad 2007). Moreover,
Smith and Vogt (1995) show that negative WoM communication,
presented directly before or after respondents have seen an ad, re-
duces brand attitudes, cognitive evaluations about the brand, and
purchase intentions. At the brand fan page, the brand post and
the comments are presented closely together (i.e., the comments
are placed below the brand post). All in all, it might be very likely
that negative comments to a brand post also decrease the attrac-
tiveness of the brand post. Consequently, brand fans will have a
lower attitude toward this brand post and hence like it less. Also,
brand fans might follow the mass and do not want to press the
like button if their peer brand fans comment negatively, i.e., dis-
like the brand post. This results in the following hypothesis:
H6b. The share of negative comments on a brand post is neg-
atively related to the number of likes on that brand post.
Moreover, research shows that when opinions on a website are
very negative, consumers will adapt their opinion downwards
(Schlosser 2005). For brand posts this effect may also occur;
when brand fans comment on a brand post they might negatively
adapt their comment if they read negative comments because they
want to conform to others’opinions. This effect may thus lead to a
higher number of negative comments. Next to that, brand fans
who disagree with these negative comments might rebut these
by providing positive comments (e.g., Moe and Trusov 2011).
People tend to differentiate their opinions and hence post multiple
perspectives (e.g., Schlosser 2005). Moreover, the variance in
posted comments seems to generate subsequent comments,
which is an indication that negative comments are not necessarily
bad (Moe and Trusov 2011). So, negative comments might not
only lead to more negative comments (conformation), but also to
more positive comments (differentiation). Therefore, we propose:
H6c. The share of negative comments on a brand post is posi-
tively related to the number of comments on that brand post.
Control Variables
Research on search advertising shows that people perform
less Internet searching during the weekends than on weekdays,
although click-through rates do not differ between weekdays
and weekends (Rutz and Bucklin 2011). It might be that brand
fans visit brand fan pages more during the weekends than on
weekdays, which can results in higher popularity for brand
posts placed during weekends. Hence, we take into account
whether the brand post is placed during weekdays or weekends.
Advertising research further suggests that message length may
affect outcome measures such as click-through rates either posi-
tively or negatively (Baltas 2003; Robinson, Wysocka, and Hand
2007). We therefore include message length as a control variable.
Unobserved characteristics of product categories might lead to
differences in brand post popularity across brands from different
product categories. Therefore we control for the product category.
Study Design
Operationalization of Variables
In this study, we explain brand post popularity, as indicated by
the number of likes and the number of comments on a brand post.
Table 1
Operationalizations of Vivid and Interactive Brand Post Characteristics.
Level Vividness Interactivity
Low Pictorial
(photo or image)
Link to a website
(mainly to news sites or blogs, but never to the company website)
Voting
(brand fans are able to vote for alternatives (e.g., which taste or design they think is best))
Medium Event
(application at the brand page and announces
an upcoming (offline) event of the brand)
Call to act
(urges brand fans to do something (e.g., go to certain website, liking, or commenting)
Contest
(brand fans are requested to do something (e.g., Tweet or like a website)
for which they can win prizes)
High Video
(mainly videos from YouTube)
Question
Quiz (similar to question, but now brand fans can win prizes)
86 L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
For both vividness and interactivity we have identified four dif-
ferent levels (no, low, medium, and high), which correspond to
previous research (e.g., Coyle and Thorson 2001; Fortin and
Dholakia 2005). The specific brand post characteristics that re-
flect low, medium, and high vividness as well as interactivity of
the brand post are reported in Table 1. No vividness and no inter-
activity are used as base categories in the analyses.
Brand posts are regarded as informative when the brand post
contains information about the company/brand and/or its prod-
ucts. On the other hand, entertaining brand posts contain content
that is unrelated to the brand, such as funny movies or anecdotes.
Some brand posts are neutral; they are neither entertaining nor in-
formative and are used as base categories in the analyses. An ex-
ample of a non-informative, non-entertaining brand post is asking
a neutral question, such as: ‘What color/taste do you like most?’.
Regarding the valence of the comments, we count the number of
positive, neutral, and negative comments on a brand post. Subse-
quently, we compute the shares of positive, neutral, and negative
comments to the total number of comments per brand post. The
share of neutral comments is used as a base category in the
analyses.
Data
We empirically investigated data of 11 international brands
that were actively posting content at their brand fan pages on
a social networking site from May 24, 2010 to February 18,
2011. The brands are from six different product categories: cos-
metics, alcoholic beverages, mobile phones, leisure wear, ac-
cessories, and food. We gathered the number of likes and
comments on a brand post, as well as the valence of the com-
ments and other brand post characteristics, through a total of
355 brand posts.
1
The average number (M) of brand fans was 337,500 per brand
(SD= 168,103); the number of brand posts taken into account in
this research was, on average, 32.27 per brand (SD=7.10); the
average number of likes per brand post was 189.26
(SD= 193.10), and the average number of comments per brand
post was 42.26 (SD= 57.96). The data shows quite a degree of
variation across and within product categories for brand post pop-
ularity (i.e., likes and comments), which is shown in Table 2.
Companies use different tools to stimulate brand fans to like
or comment (see Table 3). On average, about 50% of the brand
posts contain vivid characteristics and about 75% of the brand
posts contain interactive characteristics. More specifically, the
most popular are the vivid brand post characteristic ‘pictorial’,
and the interactive brand post characteristics ‘link to a website’
and ‘question.’The medium vivid and high interactive brand
post characteristics ‘event’and ‘quiz’occur infrequently at the
posts. Because these characteristics do not show much varia-
tion, we decided to exclude them from further analyses. Brands
provided their brand fans with information regarding the company
and its product(s) in 38.6% of the brand posts. Furthermore, 34.4%
of the brand posts were entertaining. The relative shares of neutral,
positive, and negative comments are 0.3, 0.48, and 0.11 respec-
tively. Brands placed a new post, on average, every two days,
and the day that the most brand posts are placed is Thursday.
The average text length at a brand post is 28 words.
Methodology
The two dependent variables for brand post popularity are
y
1
= number of likes and y
2
=number of comments, which are
count data with a Poisson distribution (Cameron and Trivedi
2005; Hill, Griffiths, and Judge 2001). The model to explain
the number of likes and the number of comments can be
expressed as:
yij ¼α
þexp
X
2
f¼1
βfvividfj þX
5
g¼1
βgiagj þβiinfojþβeentertainjþβdpositionjþ
βpposjþβnnegjþβcweekdjþβτtextjþX
5
b¼1
βbpcb
0
B
B
B
B
@
1
C
C
C
C
A
þεij
ð1Þ
where
y
ij
y
1j
or y
2j
; the number of likes per brand post jor the
number of comments per brand post j, respectively,
vivid
fj
dummy variables indicating whether the vivid character-
istic fat brand post jis present or not (baseline category
is no vividness),
ia
gj
dummy variables indicating whether the interactive
characteristic gat brand post jis present or not (baseline
category is no interactivity),
info
j
dummy variable indicating whether brand post jis in-
formative (baseline category is no information),
entertain
j
dummy variable indicating whether brand post jis
entertaining (baseline category is no entertainment),
position
j
indicating the position of the brand post by the number
of days the brand post jis on top of the brand fan page,
pos
j
indicating the share of positive comments on brand post j,
neg
j
indicating the share of negative comments on brand
post j(baseline category for both positive and negative
comments is the share of neutral comments),
weekd
j
dummy variable if the brand post jis placed during
weekdays,
text
j
indicating the number of words at the brand post j,
pc
b
dummy variables for product category b(baseline
category is ‘food’),
ε
ij
ε
1j
or ε
2j
; normally distributed error terms for dependent
variable y
1j
and y
2j
respectively.
1
We only use posts of the brands, so we do not take into account posts of the
brand fans.
Table 2
Average Number of Likes and Comments per Product Category.
Likes Comments
Product category M SD M SD
Food 145.91 82.22 53.91 41.47
Accessories 143.49 52.33 14.86 28.80
Leisure wear 184.02 73.55 15.61 10.51
Alcoholic beverages 253.48 298.53 46.53 65.09
Cosmetics 200.54 233.56 53.44 91.85
Mobile phones 177.10 155.07 56.90 37.15
87L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
We transformed zeros in the dependent (i.e., the number of
comments) and independent count variables (i.e., ‘position’
and ‘text’) into 0.00001. We conducted OLS regressions by
taking the natural logarithm of the dependent variables, as
well as of the independent count variables.
Results
The estimation results are presented in Table 4, while
Table 5 summarizes the findings. The effects of the potential
explanatory variables on the components of brand post popularity,
the number of likes and comments, are clearly different.
Number of Likes
The model for the number of likes is significant as a whole
(F-value = 3.074, p-value b0.01) and explains the variance of
the dependent variable reasonably well (R
2
= 15.0%, adj.
R
2
= 10.1%).
The low level of vividness (i.e., ‘pictorial’) is not significant-
ly related to the number of likes. But, the high degree of vivid-
ness (i.e., ‘video’) is significant and positively related to the
number of likes (β
video
= 0.304, p-value b0.05), in support of
hypothesis 1. The low-level interactive brand post characteris-
tics (i.e., ‘link website’and ‘voting’) are not significantly related
to the number of likes, which is not in support with hypothesis 2.
The medium-level interactive brand post characteristic (i.e., ‘call
to act’) is not significantly related to the number of likes. On the
other hand, the other medium-level interactive brand post char-
acteristic (i.e., ‘contest’) is significant and positively related to
the number of likes (β
contest
= 0.393, p-value b0.01), in support
of hypothesis 2. However, the high level of interactivity (i.e.,
‘question’) is significant and negatively related to the number
of likes (β
question
=−0.193, p-value b0.05). All in all, we find
partial support for hypothesis 2.
Providing information at a brand post is not significantly re-
lated to the number of likes, so we cannot support hypothesis 3.
Entertainment is marginally significant and negatively related
to the number of likes (β
e
=−0.188, p-value b0.10), contrary
to hypothesis 4. The top position of a brand post is significant
and positively related to the number of likes (β
d
= 0.022,
p-value b0.05), in support of hypothesis 5. Compared to neutral
comments, the share of positive comments is significant and
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics Explanatory Variables.
Brand Post Characteristics and Content
Variable Level Operationalization Relative
frequency
(%)
Min
(%)
Max
(%)
Vividness ⁎No 48.7% 20.9% 93.3%
Low Pictorial 34.4% 6.7% 65.1%
Medium Event 0.6% 0.0% 3.3%
High Video 16.9% 0.0% 40.0%
Interactivity ⁎No 23.1% 2.3% 100.0%
Low Link website 51.5% 0.0% 86.0%
Voting 2.3% 0.0% 10.2%
Medium Call to act 6.8% 0.0% 20.4%
Contest 9.3% 0.0% 33.3%
High Question 35.5% 6.7% 80.0%
Quiz 1.4% 0.0% 6.7%
Information No information 61.4% 6.7% 96.0%
Information 38.6% 4.0% 93.3%
Entertainment No entertainment 65.6% 31.0% 92.9%
Entertainment 34.4% 7.1% 69.0%
Variable Operationalization M SD
Valence of
comments ⁎⁎
Share of neutral comments 0.303 0.275
Share of positive comments 0.482 0.278
Share of negative comments 0.114 0.193
Top position Number of days 2.30 4.086
Message length Number of words 28.44 18.445
⁎Please note that the summations of the columns vividness and interactivity are
more than 100%; some brand posts contain more than one interactive or vivid
characteristic.
⁎⁎ Please note that the shares of neutral, positive, and negative comments do
not sum to one; some of the comments are coded as unknown because of
language issues (following Godes and Mayzlin, 2004).
Table 4
Estimation Results for Brand Post Popularity ⁎.
Log
Likes
Log
Comments
Vividness No (baseline) ——
Low Pictorial 0.080 −0.319
High Video 0.304 −0.495
Interactivity No (baseline) ——
Low Link website −0.002 −0.640
Voting 0.221 0.493
Medium Call to act 0.216 −0.674
Contest 0.393 0.217
High Question −0.193 0.968
Information No information
(baseline)
——
Information 0.018 −0.095
Entertainment No entertainment
(baseline)
——
Entertainment −0.188 −0.355
Position Number of days 0.022 0.063
Valence of comments Share of neutral
(baseline)
——
Share of positive 0.708 2.671
a
Share of negative −0.062 3.082
a
Control variables Weekdays −0.106 −0.410
Message length −0.027 0.061
Product categories Food (baseline) ——
Accessories 0.066 −1.673
Leisure wear 0.137 −0.453
Alcoholic beverages 0.149 −0.496
Cosmetics −0.041 −0.719
Mobile phones 0.123 0.315
Constant 4.760 2.407
N355 355
F-value 3.074 7.473
R
2
0.150 0.300
Adj. R
2
0.101 0.260
Bold figures: p-value b0.05, Italic figures: p-value b0.10.
⁎We report unstandardized coefficients.
a
Parameter estimates with same superscripts are not significantly different
from each other.
88 L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
positively related to the number of likes (β
p
= 0.708,
p-value b0.01), in support of hypothesis 6a. The share of nega-
tive comments is not significantly related to the number of likes
and we cannot confirm hypothesis 6b.
Number of Comments
The model for the number of comments is significant as a
whole (F-value = 7.473, p-value b0.01) and explains the vari-
ance of the dependent variable reasonably well (R
2
= 30.0%,
adj. R
2
= 26.0%).
The vivid brand post characteristics are not significantly related
to the number of comments, so we cannot support hypothesis 1
with regard to the number of comments. The low interactive
brand post characteristic (i.e., ‘link website’) is marginally sig-
nificant and negatively related to the number of comments
(β
link
=−0.640, p-value b0.10), contrary to hypothesis 2.The
other low and medium levels of interactive brand post charac-
teristics are not significantly related to the number of comments.
But the high level of interactive brand post characteristic (i.e.,
‘question’) is significant and positively related to the number of
comments (β
question
=0.968, p-valueb0.01), in support of
hypothesis 2.
Whether a brand post is informative or entertaining has no in-
fluence on the number of comments. Hence, we cannot support
hypotheses 3 and 4 with regard to the number of comments. The
top position of a brand post is significant and positively related
to the number of comments (β
d
=0.063, p-value b0.05), in support
of hypothesis 5. Compared to neutral comments, both shares of
positive and negative comments are positively related to the num-
ber of comments (β
p
=2.671; β
n
=3.082, p-valuesb0.01), in sup-
port of hypothesis 6a and hypothesis 6c, respectively.
Managerial Implications
Managers of brands that operate brand fan pages can be
guided by our research with regards to deciding which charac-
teristics or content to place at brand posts. Our research shows
that not all determinants which are beneficial for enhancing the
number of likes do also have an effect on enhancing the number
of comments, and vice versa.
Enhancing the Number of Likes
When managers aim to enhance the number of likes, they
can place a highly vivid or a medium interactive brand post
characteristics such as a video or a contest. Posting a question
(highly interactive) has a negative effect on the number of
likes. A question demands an answer, which cannot be given
by liking the brand post. Also entertainment has a negative ef-
fect on the number of likes. This might be explained by the fact
that entertaining brand posts contain content that is unrelated to
the brand, while brand fans are interested in the brand. Further-
more, the longer a brand post remains at the top of the brand fan
page increases the probability that brand fans are exposed to it,
which indeed has a positive effect on the number of likes. Ad-
ditionally, compared to neutral comments, the share of positive
comments from brand fans are positively related to the number
of likes for the brand post in question. Our results further indi-
cate that brand fans are influenced by each other: the share of
positive comments to a brand post enhances the attractiveness
of the brand post. It seems to raise general interest in a brand
post which may in turn lead to an increasing number of likes.
Enhancing the Number of Comments
Managers who specifically want to enhance the number of
comments should post a highly interactive brand post character-
istic at the brand post, such as a question. This result is intuitive
because answering a question is only possible by placing a com-
ment. The other vivid and interactive brand post characteristics,
as well as the content of the brand post do not have an effect on
the number of comments. Placing the low level interactive brand
post characteristic, a website link, even has a negative effect on
the number of comments. An explanation might be that brand
fans who click on the link do not comment on the brand post
anymore because they navigate away from the brand fan page.
It is beneficial for the number of comments to keep the brand
post longer at the top of the brand fan page. Finally, compared
to neutral comments, both shares of positive and negative com-
ments are positively related to the number of comments. Proba-
bly positive and negative comments enhance a general interest
in the brand post, which leads to more commenting. Namely,
previous research shows that people differentiate their opinions
and the variance in posted comments seems to generate subse-
quent comments (e.g., Moe and Trusov 2011; Schlosser
2005). For managers this is an important finding because it indi-
cates that negative comments are not necessarily bad. Brand
fans may feel to be part of the community because they engage
in a vivid discussion with both positive and negative arguments.
Limitations and Further Research
This research is subject to some limitations which may pro-
vide fruitful avenues for future research. We have chosen to use
eleven brands from six product categories. Moreover, we have
included a limited number of brand posts per brand. The
amount of data is sufficient to empirically investigate the fac-
tors that drive brand post popularity. However, brands did not
Table 5
Summary of Results.
Hypotheses Expected Number of
Likes
Number of
Comments
H
1
: vividness + Supported Not supported
H
2
: interactivity + Partially supported Partially supported
H
3
: information + Not supported Not supported
H
4
: entertainment + Not supported Not supported
H
5
: position + Supported Supported
H
6a
: share of positive
comments
+ Supported Supported
H
6b
: share of negative
comments
−Not supported n.a.
H
6c
: share of negative
comments
+ n.a. Supported
Note: n.a. = not applicable because no hypothesis was formulated.
89L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
often post a quiz or event at a brand post and therefore we ex-
cluded these two explanatory variables from the analyses. Fu-
ture studies may want to use a more comprehensive dataset.
Additionally, we have gathered data from the brand fan pages
of one social networking site. It would be interesting to repli-
cate this research for other social networking sites, to see
whether the results still hold. Specifically, investigating social
networking sites from other countries sheds light on possible
cultural differences that influence which activities on brand
fan pages are and are not successful.
We have investigated the determinants of brand post popu-
larity. An interesting topic for further research is to examine
the determinants of brand popularity. Brand popularity reflects
the number of brand fans, which gives an indication of the
brand's recognition on social media. Industry market research
shows that consumers become brand fans because they have
had a positive experience with the product (Van Belleghem,
Eenhuizen, and Veris 2011). It would be interesting to know
how companies can influence consumers to become brand fans.
Social contagion (i.e., brand fans influencing each other)
might play a role when brand fans choose to like or comment
on a brand post. We show that the shares of positive and nega-
tive comments, compared to neutral comments, are positively
related to brand post popularity. Other research has shown
that WoM communication of social networking sites’users sig-
nificantly influences new sign-ups (Trusov, Bucklin, and
Pauwels 2009). Similarly, social contagion might play a role
in brand fans’decisions to ‘adopt’(i.e., like or comment on) a
brand post. For example, Aral and Walker (2011) show that
the automated notifications in a social network influence the
adoption of an application. The notifications that appear when
a brand fan likes or comments on a brand post might influence
the brand fan's friends to become a brand fan or like and/or
comment on a brand post. An investigation into how the popu-
larity of brands and brand posts is affected by social contagion
could prove interesting and valuable.
We did not include dynamic aspects in our study. The timing
of the likes and comments to the brand post might be investigat-
ed. For example, when do people react: mostly in the few hours
after the brand post is created or also after a few days? This
kind of information can be used to compute how many days be-
tween two brand posts effectively increases brand post popular-
ity. Moreover, the ‘adoption’curve of likes and comments can
be modeled if one knows how long it takes before a certain
number of people like or comment on a brand post.
In conclusion, this research responds to the call for research
into social media, and more specifically, how social media can
be used to manage customer relationships, marketing commu-
nications, and branding. Future research may enrich our initial
findings about the factors that determine the popularity of
brand posts as discussed in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the two guest editors, Donna
Hoffman and Tom Novak, and three anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments and suggestions.
References
Aral, Sinan and Dylan Walker (2011), “Creating Social Contagion through
Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks,”
Management Science, 57, 9, 1623–39.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Utpal M. Dholakia (2002), “Intentional Social Action
in Virtual Communities,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16, 2, 2–21.
——— and Utpal M. Dholakia (2006), “Antecedents and Purchase Conse-
quences of Customer Participation in Small Group Brand Communities,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 1, 45–61.
Baltas, George (2003), “Determinants of Internet Advertising Effectiveness: An
Empirical Study,”International Journal of Market Research, 45, 4, 505–13.
Bickart, Barbara and Robert M. Schindler (2001), “Internet Forums as Influen-
tial Sources of Consumer Information,”Journal of Interactive Marketing,
15, 3, 31–40.
Bronner, Fred and Robert de Hoog (2010), “Consumer-generated Versus
Marketer-Generated Websites in Consumer Decision Making,”Internation-
al Journal of Market Research, 52, 2, 231–48.
Brookes, Erika J. (2010), The Anatomy of a Facebook Post: Study on Post
Performance by Type, Day of the Week, and Time of Day. Vitrue Inc.
Retrieved 10-02-2011 from [http://vitrue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/
07/Anatomy-of-FB-WP.pdf.]
Cameron, A. Colin and Pravin K. Trivedi (2005), Microeconometrics: Methods
and Applications. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Chatterjee, Patrali, Donna L. Hoffman, and Thomas P. Novak (2003), “Model-
ing the Clickstream: Implications for Web-Based Advertising Efforts,”
Marketing Science, 22, 4, 520–41.
Cheung, Christy M.K., Pui-Yee Chiu, and Matthew K.O. Lee (2011), “Online
Social Networks: Why Do Students Use Facebook?,”Computers in
Human Behavior, 27, 4, 1337–43.
Chevalier, Judith A. and Dina Mayzlin (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth
on Sales: Online Book Reviews,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 3,
345–54.
Chintagunta, Pradeep K., Shyam Gopinath, and Sriram Venkataraman (2010),
“The Effects of Online User Reviews on Movie Box Office Performance:
Accounting for Sequential Rollout and Aggregation across Local Markets,”
Marketing Science, 29, 5, 944–57.
Cho, Chang-Hoan (1999), “How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modified
Elaboration Likelihood Model,”Journal of Current Issues and Research
in Advertising, 21, 1, 33–50.
Coyle, James R. and Esther Thorson (2001), “The Effects of Progressive Levels
of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites,”Journal of Advertis-
ing, 30, 3, 65–77.
Dellarocas, Chrysantos, Xiaoquan Zhang, and Neveen F. Awad (2007), “Ex-
ploring the Value of Online Product Reviews in Forecasting Sales: The
Case of Motion Pictures,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 4, 23–45.
Dholakia, Utpal M., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Lisa K. Pearo (2004), “A Social
Influence Model of Consumer Participation in Network- and Small-
Group-Based Virtual Communities,”International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 21, 3, 241–63.
——— and Emily Durham (2010), “One Café Chain's Facebook Experiment,”
Harvard Business Review, 88, 3, 26.
Drèze, Xavier and François-Xavier Hussherr (2003), “Internet Advertising: Is
Anybody Watching?,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17, 4, 8–23.
Eisend, Martin (2006), “Two-Sided Advertising: A Meta-Analysis,”Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 2, 187–98.
Fennis, Bob M. and Wolfgang Stroebe (2010), The Psychology of Advertising.
Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
Fortin, David R. and Ruby R. Dholakia (2005), “Interactivity and Vividness Ef-
fects on Social Presence and Involvement with a Web-Based Advertise-
ment,”Journal of Business Research, 58, 3, 387–96.
Godes, David and Dina Mayzlin (2004), “Using Online Conversations to Study
Word-of-Mouth Communication,”Marketing Science, 23, 4, 545–60.
Goldfarb, Avi and Catherine Tucker (2011), “Online Display Advertising: Tar-
geting and Obtrusiveness,”Marketing Science, 30, 3, 389–404.
Goodrich, Kendall (2011), “Anarchy of Effects? Exploring Attention to Online
Advertising and Multiple Outcomes,”Psychology and Marketing, 28, 4,
417–40.
90 L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
Gruen, Thomas W., Talai Osmonbekov, and Andrew J. Czaplewski (2006),
“eWOM: The Impact of Customer-to-Customer Online Know-How Ex-
change on Customer Value and Loyalty,”Journal of Business Research,
59, 4, 449–56.
Hill, R. Carter, William E. Griffiths, and George G. Judge (2001), Undergrad-
uate Econometrics. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), “Marketing in Hypermedia
Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations,”Journal of
Marketing, 60, 3, 50–68.
Keath, Jason, Justin Kistner, Ellie Mirman, and Justin Levey (2011), Facebook
Page Marketing. HubSpot. Retrieved 24-02-2011 from [http://www.
hubspot.com/Portals/53/docs/ebooks/facebook%20page%20ebook2011.
pdf].
Kozinets, Robert V. (1999), “E-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implica-
tions of Virtual Communities of Consumption,”European Management
Journal, 17, 3, 252–64.
Lin, Kuan-Yu and Hsi-Peng Lu (2011), “Why People Use Social Networking
Sites: An Empirical Study Integrating Network Externalities and Motivation
Theory,”Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 3, 1152–61.
Liu, Yuping and L.J. Shrum (2002), “What Is Interactivity and Is It Always Such
a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influ-
ence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness,”Journal of Advertising,31,
4, 53–64.
Lohtia, Ritu, Naveen Donthu, and Edmund K. Hershberger (2003), “The Impact
of Content and Design Elements on Banner Advertising Click-through
Rates,”Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 4, 410–8.
McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002),
“Building Brand Community,”Journal of Marketing, 66, 1, 38–54.
Moe, Wendy W. and Michael Trusov (2011), “The Value of Social Dynamics
in Online Product Ratings Forums,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48,
3, 444–56.
Muñiz Jr., Albert M. and Thomas C. O'Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 4, 412–32.
Muntinga, Daniël G., Marjolein Moorman, and Edith G. Smit (2011), “Intro-
ducing COBRA's: Exploring Motivations for Brand-Related Social Media
Use,”International Journal of Advertising, 30, 1, 13–46.
Park, Namsu, Kerk F. Kee, and Sebastián Valenzuela (2009), “Being Im-
mersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and
Gratifications, and Social Outcomes,”Cyberpsychology & Behavior,12,
6, 729–33.
Raney, Arthur A., Laura M. Arpan, Kartik Pashupati, and Dale A. Brill (2003),
“At the Movies, on the Web: An Investigation of the Effects of Entertaining
and Interactive Web Content on Site and Brand Evaluations,”Journal of In-
teractive Marketing, 17, 4, 38–53.
Robinson, Helen, Anna Wysocka, and Chris Hand (2007), “Internet Advertising
Effectiveness: The Effect of Design on Click-Through Rates for Banner
Ads,”International Journal of Advertising, 26, 4, 527–41.
Rutz, Oliver J. and Randolph E. Bucklin (2011), “From Generic to Branded: A
Model of Spillover in Paid Search Advertising,”Journal of Marketing
Research,48,1,87–102.
——— and Michael Trusov (2011), “Zooming In on Paid Search Ads: A
Consumer-level Model Calibrated on Aggregated Data,”Marketing Sci-
ence, 30, 5, 789–800.
Ryan, Kevin S. and Jeff Zabin (2010), “Gleansight: Social Media Marketing,"
Gleanster LCC, 1–21.
SAS HBR (2010), “The New Conversation: Taking Social Media from Talk to
Action,”Harvard Business Review Analytic Services,1–24.
Schlosser, Ann E. (2005), “Posting versus Lurking: Communicating in a Multiple
Audience Context,”Journal of Consu mer Research, 32, 2, 260–5.
Shankar, Venkatesh and Rajeev Batra (2009), “The Growing Influence of On-
line Marketing Communications,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4,
285–7.
Smith, Robert E. and Christine A. Vogt (1995), “The Effects of Integrating Ad-
vertising and Negative Word-of-Mouth Communications on Message Pro-
cessing and Response,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 2, 133–51.
Steuer, Jonathan (1992), “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining
Telepresence,”Journal of Communication, 42, 4, 73–93.
Taylor, David G., Jeffrey E. Lewin, and David Strutton (2011), “Friends, Fans,
and Followers: Do Ads Work on Social Networks?,”Journal of Advertising
Research, 51, 1, 258–75.
Trusov, Michael, Randolph E. Bucklin, and Koen Pauwels (2009), “Effects of
Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet
Social Networking Site,”Journal of Marketing, 73, 5, 90–102.
Van Belleghem, Steven, Marloes Eenhuizen, and Elias Veris (2011), Social
Media Around the World 2011. InSites Consulting. Retrieved 18-11-2011
from [http://www.slideshare.net/stevenvanbelleghem/social-media-around-
the-world-2011/download?
lead=394fd930572c9b62fb082021af5a6d0922046ec4].
Williamson, Debra A. (2011), “Worldwide Social Network Ad Spending: A
Rising Tide”,eMarketer.com. Retrieved 26-02-2011 from [http://www.
emarketer.com/Report.aspx?code=emarketer_2000692].
www.facebook.com, statistics. Retrieved 21-11-2011 from [http://www.
facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics].
www.msi.org, 2010–2012 Research Priorities. Retrieved 15-09-2011 from
[http://www.msi.org/research/index.cfm?id=271].
Yoo, Chan Y. (2009), “Effects Beyond Click-through: Incidental Exposure
to Web Advertising,”Journal of Marketing Communications,15,4,
227–46.
91L. de Vries et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 26 (2012) 83–91
