【无害】品牌社交媒体帖子负面评论的意外结果——价值创造(vs价值破坏)

IF 6.8 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Interactive Marketing Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI:10.1177/10949968221075820
Lauren I. Labrecque, Ereni Markos, Mujde Yuksel, Tracy A. Khan
{"title":"【无害】品牌社交媒体帖子负面评论的意外结果——价值创造(vs价值破坏)","authors":"Lauren I. Labrecque, Ereni Markos, Mujde Yuksel, Tracy A. Khan","doi":"10.1177/10949968221075820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social media allows brands a place to reinforce their identities and build positive interactions with their customers. Despite all the benefits social media offers to brands, it is also is a place where consumers can post negative comments (unintended consequence #1) with the intention to cause harm (value-destruction). But could these value destruction attempts backfire, resulting in value-creation for the brand (unintended consequence #2)? Study 1 (qualitative online content analysis) uses 237 real consumer comments on brand posts to explore the initial unintended consequence—the phenomenon of consumers posting negative comments on innocuous brand posts and identifies four categorizations based on two distinct comment types (personal vs. brand) and tones (lecturing vs. mocking). Building on Study 1, Study 2a investigates how observing consumers view the four different comment categorizations identified in Study 1 and explores whether they vary in terms of their justification (i.e., justified vs. not). Study 2b identifies which categorizations impact observing consumers’ perceptions of a comment as “complaining” or “trolling”. Lastly, Study 3 utilizes an experiment to test unintended consequence #2—we find that “trolling” negative comments on innocuous brand posts can increase observing consumers’ likelihood to engage with the brand.","PeriodicalId":48260,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interactive Marketing","volume":"57 1","pages":"115 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value Creation (vs Value Destruction) as an Unintended Consequence of Negative Comments on [Innocuous] Brand Social Media Posts\",\"authors\":\"Lauren I. Labrecque, Ereni Markos, Mujde Yuksel, Tracy A. Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10949968221075820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social media allows brands a place to reinforce their identities and build positive interactions with their customers. Despite all the benefits social media offers to brands, it is also is a place where consumers can post negative comments (unintended consequence #1) with the intention to cause harm (value-destruction). But could these value destruction attempts backfire, resulting in value-creation for the brand (unintended consequence #2)? Study 1 (qualitative online content analysis) uses 237 real consumer comments on brand posts to explore the initial unintended consequence—the phenomenon of consumers posting negative comments on innocuous brand posts and identifies four categorizations based on two distinct comment types (personal vs. brand) and tones (lecturing vs. mocking). Building on Study 1, Study 2a investigates how observing consumers view the four different comment categorizations identified in Study 1 and explores whether they vary in terms of their justification (i.e., justified vs. not). Study 2b identifies which categorizations impact observing consumers’ perceptions of a comment as “complaining” or “trolling”. Lastly, Study 3 utilizes an experiment to test unintended consequence #2—we find that “trolling” negative comments on innocuous brand posts can increase observing consumers’ likelihood to engage with the brand.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interactive Marketing\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"115 - 140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interactive Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221075820\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interactive Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221075820","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

社交媒体为品牌提供了一个强化其身份并与客户建立积极互动的场所。尽管社交媒体给品牌带来了诸多好处,但它也是消费者发表负面评论(第一个意想不到的后果)、意图造成伤害(价值破坏)的地方。但这些破坏价值的尝试是否会适得其反,从而为品牌创造价值(意想不到的后果#2)?研究1(定性在线内容分析)使用237条真实的消费者对品牌帖子的评论来探索最初的意想不到的后果——消费者对无害的品牌帖子发表负面评论的现象,并根据两种不同的评论类型(个人vs品牌)和语气(训诲vs嘲笑)确定了四种分类。在研究1的基础上,研究2a调查了观察消费者如何看待研究1中确定的四种不同的评论分类,并探讨了他们在理由方面是否有所不同(即,合理与不合理)。研究2b确定了哪些分类影响观察消费者对评论的看法是“抱怨”还是“挑衅”。最后,研究3利用一个实验来测试意想不到的结果#2 -我们发现,在无害的品牌帖子上“挑衅”负面评论可以增加观察消费者与该品牌互动的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Value Creation (vs Value Destruction) as an Unintended Consequence of Negative Comments on [Innocuous] Brand Social Media Posts
Social media allows brands a place to reinforce their identities and build positive interactions with their customers. Despite all the benefits social media offers to brands, it is also is a place where consumers can post negative comments (unintended consequence #1) with the intention to cause harm (value-destruction). But could these value destruction attempts backfire, resulting in value-creation for the brand (unintended consequence #2)? Study 1 (qualitative online content analysis) uses 237 real consumer comments on brand posts to explore the initial unintended consequence—the phenomenon of consumers posting negative comments on innocuous brand posts and identifies four categorizations based on two distinct comment types (personal vs. brand) and tones (lecturing vs. mocking). Building on Study 1, Study 2a investigates how observing consumers view the four different comment categorizations identified in Study 1 and explores whether they vary in terms of their justification (i.e., justified vs. not). Study 2b identifies which categorizations impact observing consumers’ perceptions of a comment as “complaining” or “trolling”. Lastly, Study 3 utilizes an experiment to test unintended consequence #2—we find that “trolling” negative comments on innocuous brand posts can increase observing consumers’ likelihood to engage with the brand.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interactive Marketing aims to explore and discuss issues in the dynamic field of interactive marketing, encompassing both online and offline topics related to analyzing, targeting, and serving individual customers. The journal seeks to publish innovative, high-quality research that presents original results, methodologies, theories, and applications in interactive marketing. Manuscripts should address current or emerging managerial challenges and have the potential to influence both practice and theory in the field. The journal welcomes conceptually rigorous approaches of any type and does not favor or exclude specific methodologies.
期刊最新文献
When Post Hoc Explanation Knocks: Consumer Responses to Explainable AI Recommendations The Effects of Comparative Reviews on Product Sales Examining the Impact of Sponsored Search Results on Choice: An Anchoring Perspective The Power of AI-Generated Voices: How Digital Vocal Tract Length Shapes Product Congruency and Ad Performance Acknowledgments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1