This article addresses seeding policies in user-generated content networks by challenging the role of influencers in a setting of unpaid endorsements. On such platforms, the content is generated by individuals and firms interested in self-promotion. The authors use data from a worldwide leading music platform to study unknown music creators who aim to increase exposure of their content by expanding their follower base through directing outbound activities to other users. The authors find that the responsiveness of seeding targets strongly declines with status difference; thus, unknown music creators (the majority) do not generally benefit at all from seeding influencers. Instead, they should gradually build their status by targeting low-status users rather than attempt to “jump” by targeting high-status ones. This research extends the seeding literature by introducing the concept of risk to dissemination dynamics in online communications, showing that unknown music creators do not seed specific status levels but rather choose a portfolio of seeding targets while solving a risk versus return trade-off. The authors discuss various managerial implications for optimal seeding in user-generated content networks.
AiChunrongNortonEdward C. (2003), “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models,” Economic Letters, 80 (1), 123–29.
2.
AnsariAsimKoenigsbergOdedStahlFlorian (2011), “Modeling Multiple Relationships in Social Networks,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (4), 713–28.
3.
AnsariAsimStahlFlorianHeitmannMarkBremerLucas (2018), “Building a Social Network for Success,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (3), 321–38.
4.
AralSinanMuchnikLevSundararajanArun (2009), “Distinguishing Influence-Based Contagion from Homophily-Driven Diffusion in Dynamic Networks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (51), 21544–49.
5.
AralSinanWalkerDylan (2012), “Identifying Influential and Susceptible Members of Social Networks,” Science, 337 (6092), 337–41.
6.
BergerJonahMilkmanKatherine L. (2012), “What Makes Online Content Viral?” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (2), 192–205.
7.
BettencourtAnnCharltonKellyDorrNancyHumeDeborah L. (2001), “Status Differences and In-Group Bias: A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Effects of Status Stability, Status Legitimacy, and Group Permeability,” Psychological Bulletin, 127 (4), 520.
8.
BustonPeter M.EmlenStephen T. (2003), “Cognitive Processes Underlying Human Mate Choice: The Relationship Between Self-Perception and Mate Preference in Western Society,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100 (15), 8805–810.
9.
ChenXiVan der LansRalfPhanTuan Q. (2017), “Uncovering the Importance of Relationship Characteristics in Social Networks: Implications for Seeding Strategies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (2), 187–201.
10.
EllemersNaomiDoosjeBertjanVan KnippenbergAdWilkeHenk (1992), “Status Protection in High Status Minority Groups,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 22 (2), 123–40.
11.
EllemersNaomiVan KnippenbergAdVriesNanne DeWilkeHenk (1988), “Social Identification and Permeability of Group Boundaries,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 (6), 497–513.
12.
EverettMartin G.BorgattiStephen P. (2005), “Ego Network Betweenness,” Social Networks, 27 (1), 31–38.
13.
FeingoldAlan (1990), “Gender Differences in Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Romantic Attraction: A Comparison Across Five Research Paradigms,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5), 981.
14.
GaleottiAndreaGoyalSanjeev (2009), “Influencing the Influencers: A Theory of Strategic Diffusion,” RAND Journal of Economics, 40 (3), 509–32.
15.
GoldenbergJacobOestreicher-SingerGalReichmanShachar (2012), “The Quest for Content: How User-Generated Links Can Facilitate Online Exploration,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (4), 452–68.
16.
GoodeWilliam J. (1978), The Celebration of Heroes: Prestige as a Control System. Berkley: University of California Press.
17.
GouldRoger V. (2002), “The Origins of Status Hierarchies: A Formal Theory and Empirical Test,” American Journal of Sociology, 107 (5), 1143–78.
18.
GranovetterMark S. (1973), “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–80.
19.
HaenleinMichaelLibaiBarak (2013), “Targeting Revenue Leaders for a New Product,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (3), 65–80.
20.
HaenleinMichaelLibaiBarak (2017), “Seeding, Referral, and Recommendation: Creating Profitable Word-of-Mouth Programs,” California Management Review, 59 (2), 68–91.
21.
HanakiNobuyukiPeterhanslAlexanderDoddsPeter S.WattsDuncan J. (2007), “Cooperation in Evolving Social Networks,” Management Science, 53 (7), 1036–1050.
22.
HeinoRebecca D.EllisonNicole B.GibbsJennifer L. (2010), “Relationshopping: Investigating the Market Metaphor in Online Dating,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27 (4), 427–47.
23.
HinzOliverSkieraBerndBarrotChristianBeckerJan U. (2011), “Seeding Strategies for Viral Marketing: An Empirical Comparison,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (6), 55–71.
24.
IyengarRaghuramVan den BulteChristopheValenteThomas W. (2011), “Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion,” Marketing Science, 30 (2), 195–212.
25.
LatourBruno (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
LeeLeonardLoewensteinGeorgeArielyDanHongJamesYoungJim (2008), “If I’m Not Hot, Are You Hot or Not? Physical-Attractiveness Evaluations and Dating Preferences as a Function of One’s Own Attractiveness,” Psychological Science, 19 (7), 669–77.
27.
LibaiBarakMullerEitanPeresRenana (2005), “The Role of Seeding in Multi-Market Entry,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22 (4), 375–93.
28.
LibaiBarakMullerEitanPeresRenana (2013), “Decomposing the Value of Word-Of-Mouth Seeding Programs: Acceleration Versus Expansion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 161–76.
29.
LittleAnthony C.Michael BurtD.Penton-VoakIan S.PerrettDavid I. (2001), “Self-Perceived Attractiveness Influences Human Female Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism and Symmetry in Male Faces,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268 (1462), 39–44.
30.
MayzlinDinaYoganarasimhanHema (2012), “Link to Success: How Blogs Build an Audience by Promoting Rivals,” Management Science, 58 (9), 1651–68.
31.
MertonRobert K. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
PodolnyJoel M. (2001), “Networks as the Pipes and Prisms of the Market,” American Journal of Sociology, 107 (1), 33–60.
34.
SabooAlok R.KumarV.RamaniGirish (2015), “Evaluating the Impact of Social Media Activities on Human Brand Sales,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33 (3), 524–41.
35.
SnyderC. RichardLassegardMary AnneFordCarol E. (1986), “Distancing After Group Success and Failure: Basking in Reflected Glory and Cutting Off Reflected Failure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (2), 382–88.
36.
StuartToby E.HoangHaHybelsRalph C. (1999), “Interorganizational Endorsements and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 315–49.
37.
TajfelHenri (1974), “Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour,” Social Science Information, 13 (2), 65–93.
38.
TajfelHenri (1975), “The Exit of Social Mobility and the Voice of Social Change,” Social Science Information, 14 (2), 101–18.
39.
TajfelHenriTurnerJohn C. (1979), “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, AustinWilliam G.WorchelStephen, eds. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, 33–47.
40.
TaylorLindsay ShawFioreAndrew T.MendelsohnG.A.CheshireCoye (2011), “Out of My League: A Real-World Test of the Matching Hypothesis,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (7), 942–54.
41.
TerryDeborah J.CareyCraig J.CallanVictor J. (2001), “Employee Adjustment to an Organizational Merger: An Intergroup Perspective,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (3), 267–80.
42.
ToddPeter M.PenkeLarsFasoloBarbaraLentonAlison P. (2007), “Different Cognitive Processes Underlie Human Mate Choices and Mate Preferences,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (38), 15011–16.
43.
ToubiaOlivierStephenAndrew T. (2013), “Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?” Marketing Science, 32 (3), 368–92.
44.
TrusovMichaelBodapatiAnand V.BucklinRandolph E. (2010), “Determining Influential Users in Internet Social Networks,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (4), 643–58.
45.
Van den BulteChristopheJoshiYogesh V. (2007), “New Product Diffusion with Influentials and Imitators,” Marketing Science, 26 (3), 400–421.
46.
Van den BulteChristopheWuytsStefan (2007), Social Networks and Marketing. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
47.
Van der LansRalfVan GerritBruggenEliashbergJehoshuaWierengaBerend (2010), “A Viral Branching Model for Predicting the Spread of Electronic Word of Mouth,” Marketing Science, 29 (2), 348–65.
WassermanStanleyFaustKatherine (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
WattsDuncan J.DoddsPeter Sheridan (2007), “Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 441–58.
51.
YoganarasimhanHema (2012), “Impact of Social Network Structure on Content Propagation: A Study Using YouTube Data,” Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 10 (1), 111–50.
52.
ZhangYuchiMoeWendy W.SchweidelDavid A. (2017), “Modeling the Role of Message Content and Influencers in Social Media Rebroadcasting,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34 (1), 100–119.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
