This is How We Do It: Untangling Patterns of Super Successful Social Media Activities

Online social media plays an important role in the marketing communications mix of many companies. Thus, scholars have recently tried to uncover patterns that have a positive impact on the effectiveness of social media communication, predominantly focusing on message characteristics. Although a lot of valuable insights have been generated, it remains unclear what the drivers of ‘super successful posts’ (SSP) are. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to reveal why a very small proportion of social media posts significantly outperform the majority of other posts. For this purpose, we employed case evidence from the automotive industry and collected 2,000 Facebook posts. In regard to the numbers of likes, comments, and shares, the 20 most successful posts each were selected. After removing the duplicates, a final sample of 42 SSP remained. With an explorative multi-level approach, including two focus group sessions, an in-depth analysis was conducted for every post. Aiming to capture a comprehensive picture, we also investigated the context of each post beyond the online environment. With our analysis, we reveal five typical patterns of social media excellence (co-branding, wow effect, cognitive task, timing, and campaign). In addition, we further elaborate on four selected SSP to enhance the understanding of underlying mechanisms. Among other things, our findings encourage practitioners to employ a broader view when planning social media posts. Thus, the understanding about the five patterns of SSP may support practitioners in enhancing the popularity of their future posts.

[1]  Peter Neijens,et al.  What Motivates Consumers To Re-Tweet Brand Content? , 2015, Journal of Advertising Research.

[2]  Kai-Ingo Voigt,et al.  Framing social media communication: Investigating the effects of brand post appeals on user interaction , 2017 .

[3]  Sertan Kabadayi,et al.  Consumer – brand engagement on Facebook: liking and commenting behaviors , 2014 .

[4]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities , 2006 .

[5]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Bayesian surprise attracts human attention , 2005, Vision Research.

[6]  Jennifer S Lerner,et al.  How anger poisons decision making. , 2010, Harvard business review.

[7]  Uwe Hettler Social Media Marketing: Marketing mit Blogs, Sozialen Netzwerken und weiteren Anwendungen des Web 2.0 , 2010 .

[8]  L. Chernatony,et al.  Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes , 2014 .

[9]  Tracy L. Tuten,et al.  Creative Strategies in Social Media Marketing: An Exploratory Study of Branded Social Content and Consumer Engagement , 2015 .

[10]  Timm F. Wagner Promoting Technological Innovations: Towards an Integration of Traditional and Social Media Communication Channels , 2017, HCI.

[11]  Wendy W. Moe,et al.  Measuring the Value of Social Dynamics in Online Product Ratings Forums , 2010 .

[12]  H. S. Krishnan Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-based brand equity perspective , 1996 .

[13]  Andrew Lipsman,et al.  The Power of “Like” , 2012, Journal of Advertising Research.

[14]  Bruno S. Silvestre,et al.  Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media , 2011 .

[15]  J. Berbegal‐Mirabent,et al.  Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages , 2014 .

[16]  Randi Priluck Grossman Co‐branding in advertising: developing effective associations , 1997 .

[17]  Graeme Hutton,et al.  The Globalization of Social Media , 2011, Journal of Advertising Research.

[18]  D. Shaw,et al.  Agenda setting function of mass media , 1972 .

[19]  Marcel Corstjens,et al.  The Power of Evil , 2012, Journal of Advertising Research.

[20]  D. Berlyne A theory of human curiosity. , 1954, British journal of psychology.

[21]  Hsi-Peng Lu,et al.  Intention to Continue Using Facebook Fan Pages from the Perspective of Social Capital Theory , 2011, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[22]  D. Moore,et al.  Affect Intensity and the Consumer's Attitude toward High Impact Emotional Advertising Appeals , 1996 .

[23]  Andrew N. Smith,et al.  How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? , 2012 .

[24]  Ann E. Schlosser Posting versus Lurking: Communicating in a Multiple Audience Context , 2005 .

[25]  Antecedents of Brand Post Popularity in Facebook: The Influence of Images, Videos, and Text , 2015 .

[26]  J. McAlexander,et al.  Building Brand Community , 2002 .

[27]  Kai-Ingo Voigt,et al.  Hold the Line! The Challenge of Being a Premium Brand in the Social Media Era , 2016, HCI.

[28]  Randi Priluck,et al.  Co‐branding: brand equity and trial effects , 2000 .

[29]  David J. Faulds,et al.  Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix , 2009 .

[30]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[31]  Surinder Tikoo,et al.  Effect of Cobranding on Consumer Product Evaluations , 1995 .

[32]  Timm F. Trefzger,et al.  Unleash Your Brand! Using Social Media As a Marketing Tool in Academia , 2016, HCI.

[33]  Christian W. Scheiner,et al.  Communicating high-tech products - a comparison between print advertisements of automotive premium and standard brands , 2015 .

[34]  Rebecca Walker Naylor,et al.  Beyond the “Like” Button: The Impact of Mere Virtual Presence on Brand Evaluations and Purchase Intentions in Social Media Settings , 2012 .

[35]  Suzan Burton,et al.  Interactive or reactive? : marketing with Twitter , 2011 .

[36]  Pamela Baxter,et al.  Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers , 2008 .

[37]  P. Leeflang,et al.  Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand Fan Pages: An Investigation of the Effects of Social Media Marketing , 2012 .