Say what? How the interplay of tweet readability and brand hedonism affects consumer engagement

[en] Despite the influence of social media marketing, little is known about how branded messaging characteristics affect consumer engagement. We fill in this gap by assessing how readability interacts with brand hedonism to affect consumer engagement with brands based on our analysis of branded tweets for 96 of the most valuable brands according to Forbes Media. Drawing on processing fluency, we challenge the paradigm that reading ease enhances consumer responses universally. The effect of a tweet's readability is instead sensitive to a brand's perceived hedonistic nature, the degree to which it offers fun and enjoyable benefits. For less hedonic brands, tweets perceived as easy to read tend to result in greater engagement, and for more hedonic brands, tweets perceived as difficult to read tend to result in greater engagement. These findings offer insights for brand communication and social media strategy. © 2019 Elsevier Inc.

Disciplines :

Marketing

Author, co-author :

Davis, S. W.; Marilyn Davies College of Business, University of Houston-Downtown, Houston, TX, United States

Horváth, C.; Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands, ELTE Institute of Business Economics, Budapest, Hungary, Hungary

Grétry, Anaïs ; Université de Liège - ULiège

Belei, N.; Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Language :

English

Title :

Say what? How the interplay of tweet readability and brand hedonism affects consumer engagement

Publication date :

2019

Journal title :

Journal of Business Research

ISSN :

0148-2963

eISSN :

1873-7978

Publisher :

Elsevier, New York, United States - New York

Volume :

100

Pages :

150-164

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Funders :

IU - Indiana University [US-IN] [US-IN]
Rice University [US-TX] [US-TX]
TCU - Texas Christian University [US-TX] [US-TX]
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen [NL]

Available on ORBi :

since 01 December 2021

Statistics

Number of views

104 (3 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

1 (1 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Albert, N., Merunka, D., The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 30:3 (2013), 258–266.
Alter, A.L., Oppenheimer, D.M., Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fuency. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103:24 (2006), 9369–9372.
Berger, J., Milkman, K.L., What makes online content viral?. J. Mark. Res. 49:2 (2012), 192–205.
Bliese, P.D., Hanges, P.J., Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organ. Res. Methods 7:4 (2004), 400–417.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. J. Mark. 72:3 (2008), 48–63.
Dale, E., Chall, J., A formula for predicting readability. Educ. Res. Bull. 27:2 (1948), 37–54.
Dale, E., Chall, J., The concept of readability. Elem. Engl. 26:January (1949), 19–26.
Davenport, J.R., DeLine, R., The readability of tweets and their geographic correlation with education. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6058, 2014. (Accessed 8 June 2016)
de Vries, L., Gensler, S., Leeflang, P.S.H., Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. J. Interact. Mark. 26:2 (2012), 83–91.
Dhar, R., Wertenbroch, K., Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J. Mark. Res. 37:1 (2000), 60–71.
DuBay, W., The principles of readability. 2004, Impact Information, Costa Mesa, CA.
Forbes, The world's most valuable brands. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/, 2016. (Accessed 8 June 2016)
François, T., Miltsakaki, E., Do NLP and machine learning improve traditional readability formulas? NAACL-HLT 2012. Workshop on predicting and improving text readability for target reader populations, 2012, Association for Computational Linguistic, Montréal, Canada, 49–57.
Gibson, E., Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:1 (1998), 1–76.
Gimpel, K., Schneider, N., O'Connor, B., Das, D., Mills, D., Eisenstein, J., Smith, N.A., Part-of-speech tagging for Twitter: Annotation, features, and experiments. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, 2011, June, Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, Oregon.
Hajli, N., Sims, J., Zadeh, A.H., Richard, M.O., A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 71:1 (2017), 133–141.
Hayes, A.F., A primer on multilevel modeling. Hum. Commun. Res. 32:4 (2006), 385–410.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C., Feldhaus, F., Does Twitter matter? The impact of microblogging word of mouth on consumers' adoption of new movies. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43:3 (2014), 375–394.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9:2 (1982), 132–140.
Homburg, C., Ehm, L., Artz, M., Measuring and managing consumer sentiment in an online community environment. J. Mark. Res. 52:5 (2015), 629–641.
Kenny, D.A., Judd, C.M., Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychol. Bull. 99:3 (1986), 422–431.
Klare, G.R., The measurement of readability. 1963, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., Kannan, P.K., From social to sale: The effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer behavior. J. Mark. 80:1 (2016), 7–25.
Labrecque, L.I., Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments: The role of parasocial interaction. J. Interact. Mark. 28:2 (2014), 134–148.
Lee, A.Y., The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:10 (2001), 1255–1266.
Lee, A.Y., Aaker, J.L., Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86:2 (2004), 205–218.
Lee, A.Y., Labroo, A.A., The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. J. Mark. Res. 41:May (2004), 151–165.
Lee, K., Infographic: The optimal length for every social media update and more. Retrieved from https://blog.bufferapp.com/optimal-length-social-media, 2014. (Accessed 13 July 2016)
Lovett, M.J., Peres, R., Shachar, R., On brands and word of mouth. J. Mark. Res. 50:4 (2013), 427–444.
McGlone, M.S., Tofighbakhsh, J., Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychol. Sci. 11:5 (2000), 424–428.
Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., Simonson, I., Preference fluency in choice. J. Mark. Res. 44:3 (2007), 347–356.
Oppenheimer, D.M., Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 20:2 (2006), 139–156.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Schumann, D., Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. J. Consum. Res. 10:2 (1983), 135–146.
Pocheptsova, A., Labroo, A.A., Dhar, R., Making products feel special: When metacognitive difficulty enhances evaluation. J. Mark. Res. 47:6 (2010), 1059–1069.
Rennekamp, K., Processing fluency and investors' reactions to disclosure readability. J. Account. Res. 50:5 (2012), 1319–1354.
Roggeveen, A.L., Grewal, D., Townsend, C., Krishnan, R., The impact of dynamic presentation format on consumer preferences for hedonic products and services. J. Mark. 79:6 (2015), 34–49.
Sawyer, A.G., Laran, J., Xu, J., The readability of marketing journals: Are award-winning articles better written?. J. Mark. 72:1 (2008), 108–117.
Schulze, C., Schöler, L., Skiera, B., Not all fun and games: Viral marketing for utilitarian products. J. Mark. 78:1 (2014), 1–19.
Schwarz, N., Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J. Consum. Psychol. 14:4 (2004), 332–348.
Song, H., Schwarz, N., If it's hard to read, it's hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychol. Sci. 19:10 (2008), 986–988.
Stephen, A.T., The role of digital and social media marketing in consumer behavior. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 10:August (2016), 17–21.
Stephen, A.T., Sciandra, M.R., Inman, J.J., Is it what you say or how you say it? How content characteristics affect consumer engagement with brands on Facebook. Unpublished manuscript, 2015, Said Business School, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sundar, A., Noseworthy, T.J., Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: The effects of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation. J. Consum. Res. 43:1 (2016), 44–67.
Temnikova, I., Vieweg, S., Castillo, C., The case for readability of crisis communications in social media. Paper presented at the 24th international world wide web conference, 2015, May, Italy, Florence.
Twitter, I'm missing Tweets. Retrieved from https://support.twitter.com/articles/277671, 2016. (Accessed 9 June 2016)
van Laer, T., de Ruyter, K., In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts. Int. J. Res. Mark. 27:2 (2010), 164–174.
Venturi, G., Bellandi, T., Dell'Orletta, F., Montemagni, S., NLP-based readability assessment of health-related texts: A case study on Italian informed consent form. Paper presented at the 6th international workshop on health text mining and information analysis, 2015, September, Association for Computational Linguistics, Lisbon, Portugal.