Engaging with Social Media Influencers on Youtube: A Cluster Analysis

Year 2022, Volume: 51 Issue: 1, 359 - 373, 01.05.2022

Zeynep İrem Erdoğmuş , Melisa Karakaya

https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2022.51.842750

Abstract

Social media platforms have created a new industry where both influencers and consumers are empowered. Consumers do not only consume but also contribute to the content they face on social media. Through their narratives and content, they may even become social media influencers who have the power to shape the attitudes and behavior of fellow consumers. An important social medium, YouTube, allows people to engage with social media influencers by liking, commenting, sharing, etc. However, engagement practices are not similarly shared among every YouTube user, and people have different reaction styles. Thus, measuring success in creating engaging content becomes a controversial issue for brand endorsement. This research aims to uncover consumer typologies in terms of engagement behavior with social media influencers on YouTube. The influential motives of engagement for each typology are also analyzed in order to describe the groups. For this purpose, 341 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform participated in an online survey, and a two-step cluster analysis was conducted with eleven common social media engagement practices with influencers. The results implied a three-cluster solution, and the clusters were profiled according to several social media engagement motivations. The groups were named as ‘positively active followers,’ ‘passive followers,’ and ‘analytical followers.’ Implications for brand endorsement and content marketing strategies are discussed.

Keywords

Social Media, Social Media Influencers, Influencer Marketing, Consumer Engagement, Social Media Engagement, Uses and Gratifications Theory

References

• Abendroth, L. J., and J. E. Heyman. 2013. “Honesty Is the Best Policy: The Effects of Disclosure in Word-of-Mouth Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Communications 19 (4): 245– 257.
• Arora, A., Bansal, S., Kandpal, C., Aswani, R., & Dwivedi, Y. (2019). Measuring social media influencer index-insights from Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 86-101.
• Bowden, J.L.H. (2009), “The process of consumer engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
• Brechman, JM., Purvis, S.C. (2015) Narrative transportation and advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 34 (2) pp. 366-381.
• Brodie, J.R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Consumer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
• Childers, C.C., Lemon, L.L. and Hoy, M.G. (2019), “#sponsored #ad: agency perspective on influencer marketing campaigns”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 258-274.
• Daniel Jr, E. S., Crawford Jackson, E. C., & Westerman, D. K. (2018). The influence of social media influencers: Understanding online vaping communities and parasocial interaction through the lens of Taylor’s six-segment strategy wheel. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 18(2), 96-109.
• De Vries, L., Gensler, S. and Leeflang, P.S.H. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: an investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 83-91.
• Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2016). Social media engagement behaviour: a uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), 261-277.
• Eigenraam, A. W., Eelen, J., Van Lin, A., & Verlegh, P. W. (2018). A consumer-based taxonomy of digital customer engagement practices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 44, 102-121.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics 18(3), 382-388.
• Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92.
• Gao, Q., & Feng, C. (2016). Branding with social media: User gratifications, usage patterns, and brand message content strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 868-890.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: Global edition.
• Hanson, G., & Haridakis, P. (2008). YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and gratifications approach. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(3).
• Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 317-335.
• Hearn, A., & Schoenhoff, S. (2016). From celebrity to influencer in A Companion to Celebrity ed by P.D. Marshall and S. Redmond, Wiley: London, 194-212.
• Holland, M. (2016). "How YouTube Developed into a Successful Platform for User-Generated Content." Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1477
• Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S., Brodie, R.J. (2014), Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 149-165.
• Horton, D. and Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and PSI interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
• Influencer Marketing Hub (2020), The State of Influencer Marketing 2020: Benchmark Report, Retrieved from https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-report-2020/
• Jiménez-Castillo, D., & Sánchez-Fernández, R. (2019). The role of digital influencers in brand recommendation: Examining their impact on engagement, expected value and purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 366-376.
• Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
• Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236-247.
• Ko, H., Cho, C. H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57-70.
• Krause, A. E., North, A. C., & Heritage, B. (2014). The Uses and Gratifications of using Facebook music listening applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 71-77.
• Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(4): 497-514.
• Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 142-164.
• Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New media & society, 11(8), 1327-1347.
• Li, C. & Bernoff, J. (2008) Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by SocialTechnologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
• Lim, H., & Kumar, A. (2019). Variations in consumers’ use of brand online social networking: A uses and gratifications approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 450-457.
• Logan, K. (2017). Attitudes towards in-app advertising: a uses and gratifications perspective. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(1), 26-48.
• Morning Consult (2019), The Influencer Report Engaging Gen Z and Millenilas, Retrieved from https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/The-Influencer-Report-Engaging-Gen-Z-and-Millennials.pdf
• Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M. & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring Motivations for Brand-Related Social Media Use. International Journal ofAdvertising, 30(1), 13-46.
• O'Connor, F. (2016). 'Millenials & Youtube': An investigation into the influence of user-generated video content on the consumer decision making process (Doctoral dissertation, Dublin, National College of Ireland).
• Park, N., Kee, K. F. & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 12(6), 729-733.
• Pham, M. T. & Avnet, T. (2009). Rethinking regulatory engagement theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 115-123.
• Rasmussen, L. (2018). Parasocial Interaction in the Digital Age: An Examination of Relationship Building and the Effectiveness of YouTube Celebrities. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 7(1), 280-294.
• Raun, T. (2018). Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity strategies and affective labor on YouTube. Convergence, 24(1), 99-113.
• Rodgers, S. (2002). The interactive advertising model tested: The role of motives in ad processing. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2(2), 22-33.
• Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), LEA's communication series. Media effects: Advances in theory and research (p. 525–548). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and gratification perspective. Internet research, 19(1), 7-25.
• Silva, M. J., De Farias, A., S., Grigg, M.K., & Barbosa, M. L.A. (2019). The Power of the Body in Social Media: Analyzing Digital Fitness Influencers As Product Endorsers. ACR North American Advances.
• Simpson, Jack (2016) Eight Influencer Marketing Stats for Fashion and Beauty Brands,. Econsultancy, Xeim: Excellency in Marketing. Accessed 7-9-19 at https://econsultancy.com/eightinfluencer-marketing-stats-for-fashion-beauty-brands/
• Smith, N. A., Sabat, I. E., Martinez, L. R., Weaver, K., & Xu, S. (2015). A convenient solution: Using MTurk to sample from hard-to-reach populations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 220.
• Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratifications approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322-2329.
• Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504-525.
• Valsesia, F., Proserpio, D., & Nunes, J. C. (2020). The Positive Effect of Not Following Others on Social Media. Journal of Marketing Research, accessed on http://faculty.marshall.usc.edu/Davide-Proserpio/papers/following-followers.pdf.
• Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.
• Van Der Heide, B. and Lim, Y.S. (2016). On the conditional cueing of credibility heuristics: the case of online influence. Communication Research, 43 (5), 672-693.
• Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362-369.
• Wiedmann, K. P., & von Mettenheim, W. (2020). Attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise–social influencers’ winning formula?. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Bol. Ahead-of-print No.ahead-of-print.
• Yuan, S., & Lou, C. (2020). How Social Media Influencers Foster Relationships with Followers: The Roles of Source Credibility and Fairness in Parasocial Relationship and Product Interest. Journal of Interactive Advertising, (just-accepted), 1-42.