Social influence in social advertising: evidence from field experiments

Social advertising uses information about consumers' peers, including peer affiliations with a brand, product, organization, etc., to target ads and contextualize their display. This approach can increase ad efficacy for two main reasons: peers' affiliations reflect unobserved consumer characteristics, which are correlated along the social network; and the inclusion of social cues (i.e., peers' association with a brand) alongside ads affect responses via social influence processes. For these reasons, responses may be increased when multiple social signals are presented with ads, and when ads are affiliated with peers who are strong, rather than weak, ties. We conduct two very large field experiments that identify the effect of social cues on consumer responses to ads, measured in terms of ad clicks and the formation of connections with the advertised entity. In the first experiment, we randomize the number of social cues present in word-of-mouth advertising, and measure how responses increase as a function of the number of cues. The second experiment examines the effect of augmenting traditional ad units with a minimal social cue (i.e., displaying a peer's affiliation below an ad in light grey text). On average, this cue causes significant increases in ad performance. Using a measurement of tie strength based on the total amount of communication between subjects and their peers, we show that these influence effects are greatest for strong ties. Our work has implications for ad optimization, user interface design, and central questions in social science research.

[1]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[2]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Tracking information epidemics in blogspace , 2005, The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI'05).

[3]  William Allen,et al.  The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness , 1953 .

[4]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[5]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Social capital on facebook: differentiating uses and users , 2011, CHI.

[6]  T. Schelling Hockey Helmets, Concealed Weapons, and Daylight Saving , 1973 .

[7]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  6. Katz, E. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[8]  Jennifer Neville,et al.  Using Transactional Information to Predict Link Strength in Online Social Networks , 2009, ICWSM.

[9]  Lars Backstrom,et al.  Find me if you can: improving geographical prediction with social and spatial proximity , 2010, WWW '10.

[10]  R. Moffitt Policy Interventions, Low-Level Equilibria, and So-cial Interactions , 1999 .

[11]  Kevin Lewis,et al.  Social selection and peer influence in an online social network , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  George R. Goethals,et al.  Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. , 1973 .

[13]  Robin J. Tanner,et al.  Of chameleons and consumption: The impact of mimicry on choice and preferences. , 2008 .

[14]  M. Argyle Social interactions. , 1976, Science.

[15]  F. H. Hankins,et al.  The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .

[16]  A. Owen,et al.  Bootstrapping data arrays of arbitrary order , 2011, 1106.2125.

[17]  M. Sherif The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .

[18]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter , 2011, WSDM '11.

[19]  Mark S. Granovetter Threshold Models of Collective Behavior , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  M. Jackson,et al.  An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities and Segregation , 2007 .

[21]  Catherine Tucker Social Advertising: How Advertising that Explicitly Promotes Social Influence Can Backfire , 2016 .

[22]  D. Watts,et al.  Origins of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network1 , 2009, American Journal of Sociology.

[23]  Yannis M. Ioannides,et al.  Identification of Social Interactions , 2010 .

[24]  Arun Sundararajan,et al.  Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  W. Shadish,et al.  The renaissance of field experimentation in evaluating interventions. , 2009, Annual review of psychology.

[26]  S. Asch Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. , 1956 .

[27]  M. Macy,et al.  Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Influence and correlation in social networks , 2008, KDD.

[29]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[30]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution , 2006, KDD '06.

[31]  Sharad Goel,et al.  Who Does What on the Web: A Large-Scale Study of Browsing Behavior , 2012, ICWSM.

[32]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[33]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Center of Attention: How Facebook Users Allocate Attention across Friends , 2011, ICWSM.

[34]  Paolo Pin,et al.  Identifying the roles of race-based choice and chance in high school friendship network formation , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  The dynamics of viral marketing , 2005, EC '06.

[36]  D. Watts,et al.  Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation , 2007 .

[37]  E. Rogers,et al.  HOMOPHILY-HETEROPHILY: RELATIONAL CONCEPTS FOR COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , 1970 .

[38]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[39]  Bradley A. Hanson,et al.  The Bootstrap and Other Procedures for Examining the Variability of Estimated Variance Components in Testing Contexts , 2014 .

[40]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content , 2009, EC '09.

[41]  Art B. Owen,et al.  THE PIGEONHOLE BOOTSTRAP , 2007, 0712.1111.

[42]  David H. Reiley,et al.  Does Retail Advertising Work? Measuring the Effects of Advertising on Sales Via a Controlled Experiment on Yahoo! , 2008 .

[43]  Dylan Walker,et al.  Creating Social Contagion Through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks , 2010, ICIS.

[44]  Chris Volinsky,et al.  Network-Based Marketing: Identifying Likely Adopters Via Consumer Networks , 2006, math/0606278.

[45]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies , 2010, Sociological methods & research.

[46]  Eric Sun,et al.  Gesundheit! Modeling Contagion through Facebook News Feed , 2009, ICWSM.

[47]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[48]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[49]  D. Rubin Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .