What's the Value of a Like?

Leslie  John; Daniel  Mochon; Oliver  Emrich; Janet   Schwartz

Article | Harvard Business Review | March–April 2017

What's the Value of a Like?: Social Media Endorsements Don't Work the Way You Might Think

by Leslie John, Daniel Mochon, Oliver Emrich and Janet Schwartz

Abstract

Brands spend billions of dollars a year on lavish efforts to establish and maintain a social media presence. But do those campaigns actually increase revenue? New research provides an answer to this question, which has vexed marketers ever since social media burst upon the scene. In a series of experiments, the researchers tested four increasingly interactive ways in which Facebook might affect customers’ behavior. First, they explored whether liking a brand—passively following it—makes people more likely to purchase it. Second, they examined whether people’s likes affect their friends’ purchasing. Third, they looked at whether liking affects things other than purchasing (for example, whether it can persuade people to engage in healthful behaviors). And fourth, they tested whether boosting likes by paying to have branded content displayed in followers’ news feeds increases the chances of meaningful behavior change. The results were clear: Merely liking a brand neither increases purchasing nor spurs friends to purchase more. Supporting likes with branded content, however, can prompt meaningful behavior change.

Keywords: Social Enterprise; Social and Collaborative Networks; Consumer Behavior; Marketing Strategy; Online Advertising;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

John, Leslie, Daniel Mochon, Oliver Emrich, and Janet Schwartz. "What's the Value of a Like? Social Media Endorsements Don't Work the Way You Might Think." Harvard Business Review 95, no. 2 (March–April 2017): 108–115.

By the time Dan Doctoroff, CEO of Sidewalk Labs, began hosting a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session in January 2018, he had only nine months remaining to convince the people of Toronto, their government representatives, and presumably his parent company Alphabet, Inc., that Sidewalk Labs’ plan to construct “the first truly 21st-century city” on the Canadian city’s waterfront was a sound one. Along with much excitement and optimism, strains of concern had emerged since Doctoroff and partners first announced their intentions for a city “built from the internet up” in Toronto’s Quayside district. As Doctoroff prepared for yet another milestone in a year of planning and community engagement, it was almost certain that of the many questions headed his way, digital privacy would be among them.

In their commentary, Wilson & Stolarz-Fantino argue that specific design features of our research mean that it cannot have policy implications and that researchers “need to consider profit maximization in menu design or studies are likely to suggest ill-informed implementations.” In this reply, we respond to the specific critiques of our work with empirical data and conceptual arguments. We agree with Wilson and Stolarz-Fantino that researchers seeking to understand a policy’s influence on consumers should test predictions about which strategies firms will likely use when implementing a policy. Research, however, that demonstrates the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of an intervention even without perfectly predicting a firm’s response still has enormous value for setting policy.

Article | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General | April 2019

Shooting the Messenger

Leslie John, Hayley Blunden and Heidi Liu

Eleven experiments provide evidence that people have a tendency to “shoot the messenger,” deeming innocent bearers of bad news unlikeable. In a preregistered lab experiment, participants rated messengers who delivered bad news from a random drawing as relatively unlikeable (Study 1). A second set of studies points to the specificity of the effect: Study 2A shows that it is unique to the (innocent) messenger and not mere bystanders. Study 2B shows that it is distinct from merely receiving information that one disagrees with. We suggest that people’s tendency to deem bearers of bad news as unlikeable stems in part from their desire to make sense of chance processes. Consistent with this account, receiving bad news activates the desire to sense-make (Study 3A), and in turn, activating this desire enhances the tendency to dislike bearers of bad news (Study 3B). Next, stemming from the idea that unexpected outcomes heighten the desire to sense-make, Study 4 shows that when bad news is unexpected, messenger dislike is pronounced. Finally, consistent with the notion that people fulfill the desire to sense-make by attributing agency to entities adjacent to chance events, messenger dislike is correlated with the belief that the messenger had malevolent motives (Studies 5A, 5B, & 5C). Studies 6A & 6B go further, manipulating messenger motives independently from news valence to suggest its causal role in our process account: the tendency to dislike bearers of bad news is mitigated when recipients are made aware of the benevolence of the messenger’s motives.

Keywords: judgment; communication; sense-making; attribution; disclosure; Interpersonal Communication; Perception; Judgments; Motivation and Incentives;

Citation:

John, Leslie, Hayley Blunden, and Heidi Liu. "Shooting the Messenger." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148, no. 4 (April 2019): 644–666. View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Read Now

Faculty & Research

What's the Value of a Like?: Social Media Endorsements Don't Work the Way You Might Think

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author