The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content
Abstract
Despite the popular use of social media by consumers and marketers, empirical research investigating their economic values still lags. In this study, we integrate qualitative user-marketer interaction content data from a fan page brand community on Facebook and consumer transactions data to assemble a unique data set at the individual consumer level. We then quantify the impact of community contents from consumers (user-generated content, i.e., UGC) and marketers (marketer-generated content, i.e., MGC) on consumers' apparel purchase expenditures. A content analysis method was used to construct measures to capture the informative and persuasive nature of UGC and MGC while distinguishing between directed and undirected communication modes in the brand community. In our empirical analysis, we exploit differences across consumers' fan page joining decision and across timing differences in fan page joining dates for our model estimation and identification strategies. Importantly, we also control for potential self-selection biases and relevant factors such as pricing, promotion, social network attributes, consumer demographics, and unobserved heterogeneity. Our findings show that engagement in social media brand communities leads to a positive increase in purchase expenditures. Additional examinations of UGC and MGC impacts show evidence of social media contents affecting consumer purchase behavior through embedded information and persuasion. We also uncover the different roles played by UGC and MGC, which vary by the type of directed or undirected communication modes by consumers and the marketer. Specifically, the elasticities of demand with respect to UGC information richness are 0.006 (directed communication) and 3.140 (undirected communication), whereas those for MGC information richness are insignificant. Moreover, the UGC valence elasticity of demand is 0.180 (undirected communication), whereas that for MGC valence is 0.004 (directed communication). Overall, UGC exhibits a stronger impact than MGC on consumer purchase behavior. Our findings provide various implications for academic research and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839588 · Cited by 10,641
The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 · Cited by 6,003
Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/319618 · Cited by 3,998
Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03 · Cited by 1,037 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, if marketers frequently engage in unsolicited directed communication with consumers, consumers’ skepticism and annoyance (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998) might be aggravated.”
BackgroundFirm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1080.0444 · Cited by 837 · cited 1×
“, general positivity and negativity) of interactions from UGC and online WOM (Godes and Mayzlin 2009), it is thus not clear yet in the literature as to what the relative marketing effectiveness of MGC (which typically is overtly positive) and UGC on consumer purchases is.”
BackgroundCrosby, L. A., & Stephens, N. (1987) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151388 · Cited by 456
Cited by
Advertising Content and Consumer Engagement on Social Media: Evidence from Facebook
Lee, D., Hosanagar, K., & Nair, H. S. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2902 · Cited by 1,069
Customer engagement with tourism social media brands
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. (2017) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.015 · Cited by 813
Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature review
Zhang, K. Z. K., & Benyoucef, M. (2016) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.04.001 · Cited by 631
Mariani, M. M., Perez‐Vega, R., & Wirtz, J. (2022) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21619 · Cited by 631
Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2021/15882 · Cited by 512
Metadata
- Authors
- Goh, K.-Y., Heng, C.-S., & Lin, Z.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 88-107
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W3125774461
- Cited by
- 1,228
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 189.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.1120.0469
- The paper
- Goh, K.-Y., Heng, C.-S., & Lin, Z. (2013). Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0469
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.