Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

Differential effects of firm generated content on consumer digital

engagement and firm performance: An outside-in perspective
Ming Cheng a, 1, Jiaqi Liu b, 1, Jiayin Qi c, *, Fang Wan d
a
Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University, 73 Tremont St., Rm. 7080, MA 02108, USA
b
Institute of Journalism and Communication, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 9 Panjiayuan Dongli, Chaoyang Dist., Beijing 100021, China
c
Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Change Management, Key Lab of Data Science and Management Decision, Shanghai University of International Business and
Economics, 620 Gubei Rd., Changning Dist., Shanghai 200336, China; Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Distributed Computing and Service, Ministry of Education, 10
Xitucheng Rd., Haidian Dist., Beijing 100086, China
d
Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, 181 Freedman Crescent, 464 Drake Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T5V4, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Social media contains a massive amount of information, which provides researchers and practitioners with an
Outside-in perspective invaluable source of data to conduct research from end-users' perspectives, in order to influence firm strategic
Firm-generated content choices. Although an extensive amount of research has been developed in B2C and B2B marketing context, few
Consumer digital engagement
social media studies take a dive into potential linkages between external and internal marketing contexts in an
Social media
industry specific paradigm. This study aims to bridge B2C and B2B social media marketing, by adopting the
Big data analysis
outside-in perspective as theoretical lens. Using a large-scale dataset, collected from a micro-blogging site, and
consumer-oriented information assembled from multiple sources, we empirically examine the inter-relationship
between firm-generated messages, consumer digital engagement, and firm sales performance in the movie in­
dustry. Theoretically, this study builds upon the outside-in perspective and extends the current knowledge of the
outside-in perspective to the social media context. It also bridges the B2C and B2B marketing literature by
demonstrating that the insight garnered from B2C social media interactions should be integrated into the B2B
firm interactions, communications, and decision makings. Managerially, this study provides movie practitioners
with important implications.

1. Introduction called for future work to develop multi-dimensional, consumer-oriented

Social media contains a massive amount of information, which
provides researchers and practitioners an invaluable data source to
study end-users' perspectives to influence firm strategic choices
(outside-in perspective) (Quach, Park, Lee, Weaven, & Palmatier, 2019).
In the B2C context, social media research largely focuses on examining
the external market voice (e.g., user-generated content) from consumer
sentiment perspectives (Meire, Hewett, Ballings, Kumar, & Van den
Poel, 2019). In the B2B context, research primarily emphasizes social
media communications solely within the B2B networks (e.g., Drum­
mond, McGrath, & O'Toole, 2018). Few social media studies have dived
into potential linkages between external and internal marketing con­
texts (Cortez & Johnston, 2017), linking B2C and B2B in the same
conceptual framework. Because of this gap, multiple researchers have
measurement systems to advance the outside-in marketing perspectives
(Luxon, Reid, & Mavondo, 2015; Musarra & Morgan, 2020; Quach et al.,
2019; Van Dieijen, Borah, Tellis, & Franses, 2020).
In this study, we attempt to answer the research call by employing
the outside-in perspective to link external B2C interactions and B2B
marketing in the same conceptual framework. Specifically, our goal is to
examine a firm's ability to influence consumer digital engagement with
two different types of firm-generated content (FGC), i.e., informative
and emotional. We aim to examine 1) how the two types of FGC influ­
ence consumer digital engagement, 2) how consumers' digital engage­
ment on a B2C social media platform affect a firm's sales performance,
and 3) whether or not the insights garnered from B2C social media
provides value to B2B firms across an industry value chain. To answer
these research questions, we conduct an empirical study in the movie

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mcheng2@suffolk.edu (M. Cheng), liujq@cass.org.cn (J. Liu), qijiayin@139.com (J. Qi), fang.wan@umanitoba.ca (F. Wan).
1
The first two authors share equal contribution to the development and preparation of this article.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.07.001
Received 31 May 2020; Received in revised form 15 April 2021; Accepted 1 July 2021
Available online 16 July 2021
0019-8501/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.
M. Cheng et al.
industry.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the movie industry provides an ideal context
with its “B-B-C" industry structure (Elizashberg, Elberse, & Leenders,
2006). The movie industry has the following unique features: relatively
limited “shelf lives” for products that are very expensive to produce,
fierce competition between theater chains, market volatility, the
ascendancy of new entrants funded by content streaming service pro­
viders and ever-changing consumer content preferences. These features
offer essential opportunities for us to adopt the outside-in perspectives
and allow us to examine:
1) The impact of a firm's social media communication strategies on its
end consumers' digital engagements.
2) The subsequent impact of end consumers' digital engagements on
firm performance.
3) The influence of the B2C social media interactions on the dynamics
of B2B partners within the movie industry value chain.
To empirically answer our research questions, we utilize a curated
large-scale, movie-specific dataset compiled from multiple sources.
These sources include: 1) A leading international movie exhibitor, AMC
theatres, which is also known as Wanda cinema in the domestic Chinese
market, 2) Firm generated content created by the movie exhibitor on a
leading Chinese micro-blogging platform (“Sina Weibo”), and 3)
Consumer-generated information compiled from multiple sources. The
consumer-generated information included in this study is from: 1)
Consumer digital engagement in response to FGC posted on the micro-
blogging platform, 2) Audience ratings from multiple online movie da­
tabases, and 3) Movie search trends and popularity from the Chinese
leading search engine platform.
Our empirical results suggest that both types of FGC – informative
and emotional FGC – have a significant impact on consumer digital
engagement. Specifically, informative FGC has a significant impact on
low and moderate digital engagement levels (e.g., likes and comments)
but does not significantly impact high-level engagement (e.g., shares). In
contrast, emotional FGC has a significant impact on moderate and high
digital engagement levels (e.g., comments and shares), but it has no
significant impact on low-level engagement (e.g., likes).
Further, we identify the mediating effect of consumer digital
engagement and its nuances in the relationship between FGC and firm
Fig. 1. The value chain, players, and the structure of the movie industry.
42
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
sales performance. Specifically, when informative FGC is promoted, all
levels of consumer digital engagement (likes, comments, and shares)
will positively impact sales above the baseline level originally generated
by the informative FGC. However, when emotional FGC is promoted,
only higher-level consumer digital engagement (comments and/or
shares) will positively impact sales above the baseline level originally
generated by the emotional FGC.
Theoretically, this research makes two contributions to the litera­
ture. First, we extend the current knowledge of the outside-in perspec­
tive to the social media context (Day, 1994, 2011; Hunt & Madhavaram,
2019; Mu, 2015; Quach et al., 2019; Rust, 2019). Specifically, we
demonstrate that consumer digital engagement measurements such as
likes, comments, and shares, can be helpful to outside-in performance
metrics in the social media context. The value of establishing these
outside-in performance metrics is twofold: 1) they can serve as a set of
predictors for firm sales performance at various stages of a product
lifecycle (e.g., product development, or post-production, promotion
phase); 2) they can serve as a tool for evaluating the alignment between
consumer sentiment and the firm's social media communications goals
(e.g., boosting brand image, generating “buzz”, or complementary).
Next, we empirically examine the interaction between two outside-in
components (FGC and consumer digital engagement) and its subse­
quent outcome (firm sales performance). That is, consumer engagement
level, as triggered by varying types of FGC, mediates the impact of FGC
on firm sales performance differentially.
By doing so, we bridge the B2C and B2B marketing literature, by
demonstrating that insight garnered from B2C social media interactions
may be beneficially integrated into B2B firm interactions, communica­
tions, and decision making. The empirical findings provide movie
practitioners critical managerial implications.
2. Literature review and research hypotheses
2.1. Outside-in perspective in social media communications
Social media communications play a crucial role in B2C and B2B
contexts (e.g., Swani, Milne, Brown, Assaf, & Donthu, 2017). It provides
a forum for consumers to interact and engage with FGC (e.g., likes,
comments, and shares). Consumer behavioral insights harvested from
these interactions can be analyzed and shared among actors within or
M. Cheng et al.
external to a business network (Leek, Cunning, & Houghton, 2016). By
effectively engaging consumers, a firm's digital marketing communica­
tions can go beyond being a “mere virtual presence,” and generate the
activity needed to produce insights that can be harvested and applied to
achieve a positive impact on firm performance (Hoffman & Fodor, 2010;
Koch & Dikmen, 2015; Naylor, Lamberton, & West, 2012). Accordingly,
social media content objectives, strategies, and tactics are essential
components of a marketing communications regime (Juntunen, Isma­
gilova, & Oikarinen, 2020).
In the B2C research context, there has been a dominant focus on the
effectiveness of social media content on consumer word-of-mouth gen­
eration (e.g., Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009), purchase decision (e.
g., Gavilanes, Flatten, & Brettel, 2018; Kumar, Bezawada, Rishika,
Janakiraman, & Kannan, 2016) and sales performance (e.g., Kumar,
Bhaskaran, Mirchandani, & Shah, 2013). This body of research
commonly adopts a direct one-to-one stimuli-response logic, where the
pairwise relationship between social media content and consumer dig­
ital engagement (e.g., Akpinar & Berger, 2017; Kim & Hanssens, 2017),
or the pairwise relationship between social media content and sales
performance (e.g., Lin, Ross, & Liu, 2015; Song, Huang, Tan, & Yu,
2019; Wang & Kim, 2017) have each been examined as separate and
distinctive, uncorrelated phenomena.
In comparison, this study views the interplay among social media
messages, consumer digital engagement, and overall firm performance
from a systematic viewpoint. We argue that consumer digital engage­
ment plays a mediating role in the relationship between FGC and sales
performance. We further hypothesize that consumer digital engagement
responds differently to two distinct FGC types (informative and
emotional).
The extant literature, to some extent, may incorporate some level of
mediating effects (e.g., using eWOM or website visits) before analyzing
the impact of social media messages on purchase intention or sales
performance (Martínez-Navarro & Bigné, 2017). Our work explicitly
identifies the mediating effect of consumer digital engagement, high­
lighting the nuances of such effects in the relationship between FGC and
firm performance. Our results suggest that firms need to develop and
monitor associated metrics to assess and improve consumers' digital
engagement. This will, in turn, enhance firms' sales performance (e.g.,
De Vries, Gensler, & Leeflang, 2017; Kumar et al., 2016). Theoretically,
it is essential to note that where digitalization is becoming vital for
business survival, consumer engagement with firm social media content
has become a critical digital currency. We collect data from multiple
sources, rendering more substantial external validity and broadening
the scope of traditional B2C social media studies, which often examine
the relationships between a single firm and its focal customers (e.g.,
Kumar et al., 2016; Meire et al., 2019).
From the B2B side of research, our work demonstrates that the in­
sights generated from the external marketplace (B2C component) can be
value-added to B2B members within a value chain. This new perspective
indicates increased advantage accrued to monitoring and enhancing
consumers' digital engagement for a firm in the movie industry. Our
work is an important departure from traditional research in the B2B
context. In the B2B context, prior research emphasizes the adoption,
utilization, integration of social media, and the consequences of such
adoption, including but not limited to brand reputation development
and maintenance (e.g., Brennen & Croft, 2012; Holliman & Rowley,
2014; Michaelidou, Siamagka, & Christodoulide, 2011), B2B buyer-
seller relationship management (e.g., Agnihotri, Dingus, Hu, & Krush,
2016), new business opportunity and network identification (e.g.,
Drummond et al., 2018), and B2B sales performance improvement (e.g.,
Itani, Agnihotri, & Dingus, 2017; Ogilvie, Agnihotri, Rapp, & Trainor,
2018). Research on B2B social media topics primarily focus on virtual
conversations among internal business network partners (Huotari,
Ulkuniemi, Saraniemi, & Mӓlӓskӓ, 2015) while excluding the B2C part
of the communication (Drummond et al., 2018).
The exclusion of B2C consumer insight in B2B research may be due to
43
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
the fact that B2B product and service offerings and buying processes are
more technical and complex than they are in the B2C context (Swani,
Milne, & Brown, 2013). End consumers may lack knowledge and
expertise to contribute insight into the B2B firms' decision-making
processes, or they may lack the motivation to establish a long-term
relationship with a B2B firm (Swani et al., 2013; Cortez & Johnston,
2017). However, we argue that these assumptions regarding end con­
sumers may be oversimplified, i.e., the irrelevance of consumers' insight
argument in firm strategies and performance in a B2B setting is
problematic.
The outside-in perspective is timely in this regard. It suggests that
knowledge about consumers and the external market is important in
firm decision-making and performance evaluation (e.g., Day, 1994; Day,
2011; Day, 2014; Mu, 2015; Quach et al., 2019; Rust, 2019). More
importantly, the outside-in perspective “shifts managerial focus outside
the traditional boundaries of the firm to facilitate understanding of
external forces that may significantly influence firm performance and
expand knowledge of how different participants inside and outside the
firm interact to create value” (Mu, 2015; Zhang & Watson IV, 2020).
Current research considers social media as a dominant field for the
implementation of the outside-in perspective (Quach et al., 2019). The
data from social media are vital, not only because they can provide
useful external market insights revealing individual consumer's per­
ceptions, opinions, and preferences, but also because they enable the
creation and development of a precise and granular consumer-oriented
measurement system (Quach et al., 2019). Despite its importance,
research has yet to systematically study social media communications
from the outside-in perspective, connecting B2B and B2C paradigms. To
fill the research gaps, we adopt the outside-in perspective as our theo­
retical lens. Table 1 summarizes social media studies in B2B contexts and
the contributions of this study.
2.2. FGC in social media: An outside-in approach
Messages posted at a firm's official accounts or fan pages on social
media platforms are referred to as firm-generated content (FGC). Firms
continually and actively create and promote new content via trusted
social media platforms to foster interactions with consumers, hoping
that it can induce a variety of desirable consumer behaviors and positive
outcomes (Kumar et al., 2016; Martínez-Navarro & Bigné, 2017; Scholz
et al., 2018). As such, FGC promoted through social media platforms is
also considered to be a “social advertising” technique (Colicev, Kumar,
& O'Connor, 2019). Accordingly, FGC framing is viewed as a critical
component to the success of a firm's social media campaign because it
plays an important role in managing customer expectation and senti­
ment in the social media context (e.g., Nisar & Prabhakar, 2018).
Generally, firms apply two distinctive types of message narratives:
informative and emotional appeal, each type intended to fulfill different
consumer needs (Lee, Hosanagar, & Nair, 2018; MacInnis, Rao, & Weiss,
2002; Meire et al., 2019; Zhang, Sun, Liu, & Knight, 2014). Informative
appeals are designed to trigger consumer's rational and cognitive pro­
cessing by using product-attribute-related information such as price and
product features (Armstrong, 2010; Yoo & MacInnis, 2005). Emotional
appeals are designed to influence the consumer's emotional states and
fulfill their emotional needs by using remarkable facts, iconic symbols,
or logos (Berger & Schwartz, 2011; Porter & Golan, 2006).
Although FGC may embrace inside-out perspectives to some level (e.
g., some unique, internal strengths or capabilities that the firm may
include in its message content design), we argue that FGC promoted via
social media platforms should still be considered a legitimate, outside-in
marketing communications approach. This is because social media en­
ables and attracts consumer engagement and interaction (likes, com­
ments, and shares). Instead of being passive message receivers,
consumers can be active in information seeking and promoting the types
of messages that suit them on social media (Quach et al., 2019). Con­
sumers can be expected to engage with a firm's social media fan page (e.
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Table 1
A summary of the related B2B social media literature.
Study Outside-in Social Research Type Dependent Variable Mediator Key Insight Context & Focus
Perspective Media Domains

Michaelidou et al. No Yes Quantitative – – Social media can be used as - B2B

(2011) (survey-based) an effective marketing tool - branding & social
for small and medium media
enterprises' brand
development.
Brennen and Croft No Yes Quantitative – – The function of social media - B2B
(2012) (content can be viewed as a platform - inter-firms
analysis, text- for “soft marketing”, inter- relationship & social
mining) organization relationship media
management, and brand
development.
Rapp, No Yes Quantitative Social media usage – Social media has a contagion - B2B & B2C
Beitelspacher, (survey-based & effect across members in the - social media
Grewal, and regression same channel.
Hughes (2013) model)
Swani et al. (2013) No Yes Quantitative Number of likes – Examination of the - B2B
(content relationship between message - social media &
analysis, strategies and the “likes” communication
regression companies received on
model) Facebook to develop effective
social media advertising
strategies.
Holliman and Customer Content Qualitative – – B2B digital content marketing - B2B
Rowley (2014) centricity was Marketing (interviews) is a useful tool for firms to - branding &
highlighted build up reputation and communication
sustain positive brand status.
Swani, Brown, and No Yes Quantitative B2C tweets – The comparison of content -B2B & B2C
Milne (2014) (regression strategies in the context of - social media &
model) B2B and B2C on Twitter. communication
Huotari et al. No Yes Qualitative – – B2B firms can directly and - B2B
(2015) (Content (interviews) indirectly influence content - social media
Creation) creation in social media.
Siamagta, No Yes Quantitative & Adoption of social – The exploration of factors - B2B
Christodoulide, Qualitative media that B2B firms could use to - social media
Michaelidou, and determine the adoption of
Valvi (2015) social media strategies.
Jӓrvinen and No Content Case Study – – Integration of content - B2B
Taiminen (2016) Marketing (interviews) marketing with B2B selling - buyer-seller
process through marketing relationship & sales
automation, could provide management
prompt content to meet
customer needs.
Agnihotri et al. No Yes Quantitative Responsiveness & Information Social media plays an - B2B
(2016) (survey-based) customer communication important role in - buyer-seller
satisfaction communicating information relationship, sales
to customers, enhancing management & social
salesperson overall media
information communication
behaviors, and elevating
customer satisfaction.
Leek et al. (2016) No Yes Quantitative Number of favorites, – Exploration of the use of - B2B
(regression retweets, and social media (Twitter) used - marketer-follower
model) comments by B2B marketers and the relationship & social
followers' responses. media
Mehmet and Clarke No Yes Case Study – – A better understanding on - B2B
(2016) how B2B online posts create - social media &
virtual conversations and the communication
different meanings of the
messages.
Itani et al. (2017) Adaptive Yes Quantitative Adaptive selling Social media use B2B salespeople's attitudes - B2B
selling was (survey-based) behavior & sales determine the use of social - sales management &
highlighted performance media. The use of social social media
media can help salespeople
collecting competitive
intelligence and adaptive
selling.
Swani et al. (2017) No Yes Quantitative Number of likes and – The identification of critical - B2B & B2C
(regression comments factors that affect Facebook - social media &
model) brand content popularity communication
metrics and different content
strategies.
Drummond et al. No Yes Multi-method – – Social media has an ability in - B2B
(2018) Case Study facilitating entrepreneurial - inter-firm
(continued on next page)

44
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Table 1 (continued )
Study Outside-in Social Research Type Dependent Variable Mediator Key Insight Context & Focus
Perspective Media Domains

firms' resource mobilization relationship & social

among the firms' existing media
network.
Ogilvie et al. Adaptive Yes Quantitative Customer – The examinations of the - B2B
(2018) selling was (survey-based) relationship impact of social media - buyer-seller
highlighted performance & sales technology (SMT) in B2B relationship, sales
performance sales context. management & social
media
Bill, Feurer, and Adaptive Yes Quantitative Salesperson social – The effect of salesperson use - B2B
Klarmann (2020) selling was (survey-based & media use of social media on consumer - buyer-seller
measured as regression loyalty is dependent upon the relationship, sales
control model) context. management & social
variables media
Juntunen et al. No Yes Qualitative & – – An in-depth understanding on - B2B & B2C
(2020) Quantitative B2B company-led user - advertising, social
(descriptive & engagement on social media media, B2B
statistical content posted on Twitter. engagement
analysis)
van Dieijen et al. Yes Yes Quantitative (big -Stock returns – The examination of the - B2B & B2C
(2020) data & time - UGC (number of spillover effect of the -marketing/finance
series analysis) tweets, from volatility in user-generated interface, big data
sentiment content to stock returns and
perspective) vise versa.
This study Yes Yes Quantitative (big - Consumer digital Consumer - Consumer digital - B2C & B2B
data analysis & engagement digital engagement varies depending - social media,
regression (number of likes, engagement upon the types of FGC and it communication, the
model) comments, & mediates the impact of FGC inclusion of outside-in
shares); on movie exhibitor's box perspective, & big
- Opening week box office sales performance. data
office revenues - The integration of the B2C
component, with the outside-
in perspective, can be value-
added to B2B firm dynamics
and ecosystem.

g., showing consumption, contribution, and/or creation behaviors) if
firms provide them with rich and trustworthy content in social media
(Cao, Meadows, Wong, & Xia, 2021). However, if firms were to focus on
developing FGC solely from the inside-out perspectives, while ignoring
the sentiment and issues revealed by consumers, there could be no
engagement and may even result in a negative impact (Colicev et al.,
2019). As such, we argue that a firm promoting its content via social
media (FGC) should be considered a part of an outside-in integrated
marketing communications scheme (Finne & Gronroos, 2017).
2.3. Consumer digital engagement: Outside-in consumer metrics
The sum of the interactions between consumers and firms as a
response to each FGC message posted on a social media platform is
known as consumer digital engagement (Scheinbaum, 2016), concep­
tualized as “the mechanics of a consumer value addition to the firm”
(Pansari & Kumar, 2017). The measurements of consumer digital
engagement entail the number of likes, comments, and shares. Collec­
tively, these indicators form a unique set of metrics, which are often
used by firms for advertisement assessment and purchase prediction
(Alhabash, McAlister, Quilliam, Richards, & Lou, 2015; Santini et al.,
2020; Sashi, 2012). Mu (2015) argues that customer engagement is an
important aspect of outside-in thinking. Accordingly, recent contribu­
tions in the outside-in perspective advocate that consumer digital
engagement metrics can be employed in evaluating the effectiveness of
an outside-in marketing approach (Petersen et al., 2009; Quach et al.,
2019).
The three measurements of consumer digital engagement used in this
study – likes, comments, and shares – can be further categorized into
three different levels (low, moderate, and high, respectively). This
categorization is based on 1) the amount of cognitive effort that each
type of engagement requires of consumers (Gavilanes et al., 2018), 2)
the consumer's psychological mind states, and 3) the activities
consumers take as they are exposed to FGC messages (Harmeling,
Moffett, Arnold, & Carlson, 2017).
Likes is the first element of the metrics, representing the lowest level
of consumer digital engagement. A simple click on a “like” button in­
dicates a consumer's affection attitude towards a FGC message (Calder,
Isaac, & Malthouse, 2013). The number of likes indicates the volume of
consumer's positive attitude towards certain brands and can be seen by
others. The second element, comments, refers to more engaged firm-
consumer interactions on social media. Unlike simply clicking a “like”
button, consumers need to type short phrases or sentences in response to
FGC, requiring more cognitive efforts to verbalize opinions, perceptions,
or attitudes (Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan-Thomas, 2015). As such,
researchers attribute comments as “message deliberation” and position
it at a moderate level along the consumer digital engagement spectrum
(Alhabash & McAlister, 2014). Shares, the last component of the metric,
serves as the integration of likes and comments. Not only can consumers
forward the FGC messages to their own online social network, but they
can also add comments to the shared content. Instead of passively
reacting to FGC messages (e.g., likes), consumers take the initiative by
advocating the FGC and the associated products via his or her own
profile. Therefore, “shares,” is the highest level of digital engagement
(Gavilanes et al., 2018; Sawhney, Verona, & Prandelli, 2005).
2.4. Impact of FGC on consumer digital engagement
Although firms commonly employ both informative and emotional
messages to engage with customers (e.g., Elizashberg et al., 2006; Kim &
Hanssens, 2017; Meire et al., 2019; Rishika, Kumar, Janakiraman, &
Bezawada, 2013; Tucker, 2015), research has yet to look into how
different types of FGC (e.g., informative or emotional FGC) affect con­
sumer digital engagement behaviors (e.g., likes, comments, or shares)
and the subsequent firm performance outcomes differentially, using
data from multi-sources. Given that FGC messages and consumer digital

45
M. Cheng et al.
Fig. 2. Conceptual framework: FGC, consumer digital engagement, and firm sales performance.
engagement each represent a unique outside-in marketing sub-
component in the social media communication context, it is important
to understand the interplay between these two components and how the
interactions may further affect firm performance. A deeper under­
standing of the inter-relationship between FGC and consumer digital
engagement offers fresh perspectives to the outside-in marketing liter­
ature (Musarra & Morgan, 2020; Quach et al., 2019; van Dieijen et al.,
2020). Recent FGC literature highlights that messages posted on firm
owned social media platforms (e.g., micro-blogging sites) can evoke
positive brand awareness and brand image in consumers' minds, which,
in turn, is expected to result in positive consumer digital engagement
(Colicev, Malshe, Pauwels, & O'Connor, 2018; Meire et al., 2019).
Pansari and Kumar (2017) suggest that consumers become more
engaged with firms, either directly (e.g., purchasing) or indirectly (e.g.,
referring or influencing), when they feel satisfied and/or emotionally
attached. In our context, informative FGC entails product-attribute-
related information, which is designed to satisfy consumer informa­
tion seeking and gathering needs (Coulter & Punj, 2004). Emotional FGC
is the inclusion of positive mood-eliciting messages, producing psycho­
logical resonance with consumers (Meire et al., 2019). As such, in
exploring the direct impact of FGC and consumer digital engagement,
we hypothesize that both types of FGC – informative and emotional FGC
– are positively associated with all three levels of consumer digital
engagement behaviors.
H1a. Informative FGC is positively associated with all three levels of
consumer digital engagement, i.e., likes, comments, and shares.
H1b. Emotional FGC is positively associated with all three levels of
consumer digital engagement, i.e., likes, comments, and shares.
In the FGC literature, informative FGC features product-oriented,
neutral information that helps consumers detect product quality, alle­
viate perceived risks and uncertainty (Goh, Heng, & Lin, 2013; Levy,
Weitz, & Grewal, 2014), and fulfill their information seeking and gath­
ering needs. As such, informative FGC facilitates positive consumer
engagement (Pansari & Kumar, 2017), particularly when it comes to
consumer's positive brand-related attitude development (Colicev et al.,
2018; Kumar et al., 2016) and consumer sentiment improvement (Meire
46
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
et al., 2019).
However, consumers who display a higher level of engagement (e.g.,
shares) may simply be driven by their familiarity or loyalty to certain
products or brands (Colicev et al., 2018; Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999). If
consumers' goals are not related to product-feature information seeking
and gathering, informative FGC may not provide much value and
concomitant engagement (Stammerjohan, Wood, Chang, & Thorson,
2005). This is particularly true when it comes to experiential products
(e.g., products offered in entertainment, sports, or hospitality-related
industry). Not only do consumer becomes less willing to provide and
share their own experience with others (e.g., the scant amount of user-
generated content posting online) (Liang, Schucker, Law, & Chen,
2020), but they may also be more reluctant to share informative FGC, as
they may perceive these types of messages as being less relevant and
interesting to others (Tellis, MacInnis, Tirunillai, & Zhang, 2019).
Accordingly, we hypothesize that informative FGC has a greater impact
on lower level online engagement (e.g., likes) rather than the higher
level online engagement (e.g., shares).
Compared with informative FGC, emotional FGC features mood-
eliciting information and is more likely to be discussed and shared
(Akpinar & Berger, 2017). As a result, emotional FGC is expected to
outperform informative FGC in engaging consumers in higher-level
engagement (e.g., comments or shares). Given that emotional FGC is
intentionally designed with positive messages (Dens & De Pelsmacker,
2010), consumers may have suspicions or disbelief about product
authenticity, eliciting message skepticism and/or negative brand-
related evaluation (Colicev et al., 2018; Darke & Ritchie, 2007; Fran­
sen, Verlegh, Kirmani, & Smit, 2015; Obermiller, Spangenberg, &
MacLachlan, 2005). Because of this possibility, consumers may not
positively respond to emotional FGC. Therefore, it may underperform
when it comes to evoking consumer's affective attitude (e.g., likes)
compared with informative FGC.
H2a. Informative FGC has a greater positive impact on lower level
consumer digital engagement than emotional FGC.
H2b. Emotional FGC has a greater positive impact on higher level
consumer digital engagement than informative FGC.
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Table 2 Table 3
FGC content feature, description, and supporting literature. Descriptive statistics (dependent and key independent variables).
FGC Content Feature Description Supporting Type Key Variables Mean SD Min Max
Literature
Independent Informative Appeal 1.50 0.99 0 8
Informative Description Movie characteristics (e. Karray and Variables Emotional Appeal 1.21 0.77 0 6
Appeal g., storyline) Debernitz (2017) Dependent Likes 34.20 66.48 0 1124
Producer Information about the Kim and Hanssens Variables Comments 29.66 67.98 0 1166
producer of a movie (e. (2017) Shares 48.79 99.18 0 894
g., director, cast) Huang et al. (2015) Opening week box 2792.14 5614.02 0.41 42,089.4
Karray and office revenue (in
Debernitz (2017) 10,000 RMB)
Launch Movie release time and/ Chen and Yin
announcement or location (2017)
2.5. The mediation effect of consumer digital engagement
Format Movie format (e.g., Ho, Liang,
IMAX, 3D) Weinberg, and Yan
(2018) In the marketing communications literature, research suggests that a
Sales New or existing sales (e. Men and Tsai typical marketing messaging procedure is comprised of three key ele­
g., ticket price) and/or (2012), Gavilanes ments: message inputs, consumer responses, and observable or expected
promotion, including et al. (2018)
discount
outcomes (e.g., Stern, Zinkhan, & Holbrook, 2002; Vakratsas & Ambler,
Awards Awards and/or honors Liu et al. (2014) 1999). In these three elements, consumer responses are considered an­
that a movie received tecedents to consumer behavioral outcomes (Gavilanes et al., 2018;
before it was released Pansari & Kumar, 2017). Following this theoretical thread, in the social
Review Reviews or feedback Elberse and
media context, consumer digital engagement can be conceptualized “as
from critics or audience Eliashberg (2003),
Huang et al. (2015) part of a process leveraging firm resources into success” (Pansari &
Hennig-Thurau Kumar, 2017; Santini et al., 2020). As such, it is reasonable to speculate
et al. (2015) that consumer digital engagement might play a mediating role, further
Special Activity Special activities Chen and Yin strengthening the positive relationship between FGC and consumer
towards movies held by (2017)
a movie exhibitor (e.g.,
purchase intent or the firm's overall sales performance (Colicev et al.,
theme exhibitions, 2018).
opening ceremony, etc.) In our context, consumers click the “like” button in response to either
Emotional Emoji Emoji or net slang Li, Chan, and Kim type of FGC reflecting their favorable attitude, which may further
Appeal (2018), Lee et al.
indicate their positive purchase intention (Ajzen, 1991; Lim & Dubinsky,
(2018), Das,
Wiener, and 2005). Comments and shares represent higher levels of consumer
Kareklas (2019) engagement and therefore, may also affect consumer purchase decisions
Friend-likely The tone of the post is Dubois, Bonezzi, (e.g., Alhabash et al., 2015; Martínez-Navarro & Bigné, 2017).
friend-like and De Angelis Depending upon the type of FGC, the level of consumer digital
communication, (2014)
showing interpersonal
engagement could vary. It may further bring variations to a firm's sales
closeness performance (Akpinar & Berger, 2017; Varadarajan, 2020). John,
Humor Humor and/or fun Calder, Malthouse, Mochon, Emrich, and Schwartz (2017) suggest that “likes” do not
elements (e.g., joke) and Schaedel necessarily add positive value to a firm's return on investment. However,
(2009)
when consumers' digital engagement is strong, with high volumes of
Warren and Berger
(2011) likes, comments, and shares, it is likely that peer consumers take further
Eisend, Plagemann, notice and form a herding effect (Huang & Chen, 2006). For example, in
and Sollwedel the Chinese movie industry, one direct consequence of such herding is
(2014) that topics related to a movie can enter the “top search” list, which
Akpinar and Berger
(2017)
directly generates further social media discussions and, more impor­
Philanthropic Charitable appeal, Lee et al. (2018) tantly, box office sales (Hai & Hai, 2018). Considering all aspects, we
including philanthropic, hypothesize that consumer digital engagement serves as a mediator in
activist message, etc. the relationship between both FGC types and firm sales performance.
Surprise Unexpected elements to Berger and
cause surprise Milkman (2012) H3a. The effect of informative FGC on a firm's sales performance is
Akpinar and Berger mediated by consumer digital engagement, i.e., likes, comments, and
(2017)
shares.
Awe Arousal of admiration Berger and
feeling Milkman (2012) H3b. The effect of emotional FGC on a firm's sales performance is
Interactivity Question Question and/or quiz Gavilanes et al.
(2018)
mediated by consumer digital engagement, i.e., likes, comments, and
De Vries, Gensler, shares.
and Leeflang
(2012)
Fig. 2 presents our hypothesized relationships. We investigate the
Chatting Small talk with Lee et al. (2018) mediating roles of consumer digital engagement metrics in the rela­
followers tionship between different types of FGC (informative vs. emotional FGC)
Voting Initiating a vote for De Vries et al. and firm sales performance (e.g., opening week box office sales).
alternatives (e.g., who is (2012)
the follower's favorite
movie star) 3. Method
Call to act Urging followers to do Chen and Yin
something (e.g., go visit (2017) 3.1. Data
a website)

Notes. Interactivity features, including question, chatting, voting, and call to act, The conceptual framework is empirically tested using a unique
are treated separately from informative and emotional appeals. In this study, dataset collected from a leading international movie exhibitor (AMC
they are considered as a part of the control variable set (under “FGC message
characteristics” category).
47
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Table 4 released during the 14 months period in the Chinese domestic movie
A list of control variables, description, and supporting literature. market. The dataset has 18,880 movie-level FGC messages and 637,049
Control Description Supporting Literature consumer digital responses, including likes, comments, and shares. Be­
Variable sides movie messages data, we collect an array of attributes indicating
Movie Characteristics movie-specific characteristics and other information from several major
Actionj Dummy: whether the movie is Topaloglu and Dass (2019) third parties, online movie databases (Song et al., 2019), including
an action film Liu et al. (2014) Douban.com (equivalent to IMDB.com), Mtime.com, ChinaBoxOffice
Adventurej Dummy: whether the movie is (www.cbooo.cn), and Baidu Trends (similar to Google Trends).
an adventure film
Comedyj Dummy: whether the movie is a
comedy film
Dramaj Dummy: whether the movie is a 3.2. Variables
drama film
Romancej Dummy: whether the movie is a
3.2.1. FGC
romance film
Thrillerj Dummy: whether the movie is a Each FGC is classified into informative and emotional appeals. The
thriller film coding process was conducted manually and it follows the quantitative
Originj Origin of the film: domestic Elberse and Eliashberg (2003) relational content analysis approach (Gavilanes et al., 2018). Eight
(Mainland China, Taiwan, and Liu et al. (2014)
dummy variables are constructed for informative appeals, and six
Hong Kong), foreign, or both
domestic and foreign
dummy variables are coded for emotional appeals (See a list of sample
Competitivej Number of competitive movies Huang et al. (2015) FGC and coding procedures in Appendix A). Although there are obser­
showing concurrently vations in our dataset where a FGC message contains informative and
Special dayj Dummy: whether the movie Hennig-Thurau et al. (2015), emotional appeals, about 90% of such cases are comprised of some
release day is a holiday, during a Chen and Yin (2017)
informative appeal elements and only one emotional element (e.g., a
weekend or weekdays
Director Average revenue of the past Kim and Hanssens (2017) message with informative information by an emoji icon). The summa­
powerj three movies made by the same tion of dummy variables within each FGC type depicts the content
director characteristics and the input intensity (Lee et al., 2018). Table 2 pro­
Novelj Dummy: whether the movie is Joshi and Mao (2012)
vides a detailed description regarding the development of dummy var­
an adaptation of a novel
Ratingj Average rating of the movie by Liu (2006)
iables and the supporting literature.
audience
Expenditurej Cost of the movie production Elberse (2007), Elberse and 3.2.2. Consumer digital engagement and theatrical sales performance
and promotion expenses Anand (2007) Consumer digital engagement in response to each FGC is measured
FGC Message Characteristics by the number of likes, comments, and shares. Given that opening week
Lengthij The length of a FGC message (in Berger and Milkman (2012) box office ticket sales account for over 40% of the total movie revenues
the format of bytes) De Vries et al. (2012) (Liu, Mazumdar, & Li, 2014), extant research often uses a movie's
Rooderkerk and Pauwels
(2016)
opening week box office revenues as a proxy for overall market value
Photoij Number of photos included in a Ashley and Tuten (2015) estimation (De Vany & Walls, 1999; Huang, Strijnev, & Ratchford, 2015;
FGC message Kim & Hanssens, 2017). Accordingly, we collect each movie's opening
Videoij Number of videos included in a De Keyzer, Dens, and De week box office revenues and employ it as the dependent variable to
FGC message Pelsmacker (2015)
measure the movie exhibitor's sales performance (Oh, Roumani,
Hyperlinksij Number of links included in a Coursaris, Van Osch, and
FGC message Balogh (2016) Nwankpa, & Hu, 2017).
Interactivityij Number of interactivity features Kirk, Chiagouris, Lala, and Table 3 reports the descriptive statistics of all key variables. As
included in a FGC message Thomas (2015), Daugherty, illustrated in Table 3, the FGC messages posted by the movie exhibitor
Djuric, Li, and Leckenby are evenly distributed between informative and emotional appeals, with
(2017), Gavilanes et al. (2018)
Time Time difference between FGC Olney, Holbrook, and Batra
informative FGC (1.50 per message) slightly greater than emotional FGC
differenceij messages and movie (1991) (1.21 per message). Regarding consumer digital engagement, on
releasedates average, the number of shares per FGC message is 48.79, which is
Exposurej Number of FGC messages Schmidt and Eisend (2015) significantly higher than the number of likes (34.20), and comments
released about a specific movie
(29.66).
Non-social media channels
Newsj Number of news about the Huang et al. (2015) 3.2.3. Control variables
movie, released through non-
To reduce potential confounding effects, we develop an array of
social media channels
Eventj Number of actual events related Elberse (2007) control variables in three categories: 1) movie characteristics, 2) char­
to the movie acteristics of FGC messages, and 3) movie producers' or distributors'
Searchj Average daily search volume of Kim and Hanssens (2017) advertising activities using non-social media channels. To capture
the movie in a search engine
intrinsic movie characteristics, we conduct a thorough literature search,
categorize, and summarize a collection of key measurements from the
movie theatres, also known as Wanda cinema in the domestic Chinese mainstream movie-industry marketing literature. The list of variables
market) and its posts on a leading Chinese social media platform (“Sina includes:
Weibo”). The platform features micro-blogs and is equivalent to Twitter
in the US (Seo, Li, Choi, & Yoon, 2018). The dataset entails dis­ 1) Movie genres,
aggregated, movie-level FGC messages posted by the movie exhibitor 2) Movie origins (e.g., domestically or internationally),
from September 2014 to November 2015. Consumer digital engagement 3) Number of competitive movies showing concurrently,
in response to individual FGC (e.g., number of likes, comments, and 4) Whether a movie was released on a holiday or during the weekend,
shares) and the opening week box office revenues are also included in 5) Director power,
the dataset. 6) Whether a movie was developed based on a novel,
We collect data on 285 movies released to the movie theater chain 7) Movie ratings or word-of-mouth valence, and
for the study duration. These movies accounted for 80% of the movies 8) Movie expenditure.

48
M. Cheng et al.
Next, following the same control variable development scheme, we
develop another set of variables to reflect FGC characteristics. The
control variables include: 1) FGC message length, 2) vividness – whether
any photo, video, and hyperlinks were included, 3) interactivity, 4)
count of FGC messages, and 5) time difference between FGC messages
and movie release date.
Finally, we include a few variables to control for the effects gener­
ated from the movie producers' or distributors' advertising activities via
non-social media channels. We classify these variables into 1) news
about each movie in industry media, 2) online search volume about each
movie, and 3) online or offline movie promotional events, which were
developed to attract attention. The list of control variables, the
description, and the supporting literature to each variable are summa­
rized in Table 4.
3.3. Model specification
3.3.1. Impact of FGC on consumer digital engagement
We use a negative binomial regression model to examine the impact
( )
log λijk = β0k + β1k Informativeij + β2k Emotionalij + β3k Interactivityij + β4k Lengthij
+β5k Timedifferenceij + β6k Videoij + β7k Hyperlinkij + β8k Photoij + β9k Originj + β10k Novelj
+β11k Ratingj + β12k Competitivej + β13 Directorpowerj + β14k Actionj + β15k Adventurej
+β16k Comedyj + β17k Dramaj + β18k Romancej + β19k Thrillerj + β20k Expenditurej
+β21k Exposurej + β22k Specialdayj + β23k Newsj + β24k Searchj + β25k Eventj + εijk
of FGC (informative and emotional appeal) on consumer digital
engagement behavior. The justification for using this approach lies in
two aspects. First, the three key indicators (likes, comments, and shares)
are count data, with each variable being non-negative and right-skewed.
Second, there is an over-dispersion issue in our dataset – where the
variance of each variable (likes, comments, and shares) is greater than
the corresponding mean value (Choudhary et al., 2017; Rooderkerk &
Pauwels, 2016). Therefore, the negative binomial regression analysis is a
“better fit” in portraying the relationship between FGC and digital
engagement based on data structure in this research (Cameron & Triv­
edi, 2013; Mu, Thomas, Qi, & Tan, 2018; O'hara & Kotze, 2010; Wool­
drige, 1997).
( )
log Opening week box officeij
= α0 + α1 Sharesij + α2 Commentsij + α3 Likesij + α4 Informativeij + α5 Emotionalij + α6 Interactivityij + α7 Lengthij
+α8 Timedifferenceij + α9 Videoij + α10 Hyperlinkij + α11 Photoij + α12 Exposureij + α13 Originj + α14 Novelj
+α15 Specialdayj + α16 Ratingj +α17 Competitivej + α18 Directorpowerj + α19 Actionj + α20 Adventurej
+α21 Comedyj + α22 Dramaj + α23 Romancej + α24 Thrillerj + α25 Expenditurej + α26 Newsj + α27 Searchj
+α28 Eventj + εij
Two assumptions are made in this estimation. First, consumer digital
engagement decision is independent. That is, whether or not a consumer
clicks the “like” button, provides comments, and/or shares the posts
through his or her profile solely depends upon his or her attitude and
judgment. Second, a customer's engagement decision at the current time
is not affected by his or her prior engagement decisions.
We denote i as a FGC message and j as a movie product involved in
FGC posts. The number of consumer engagement behaviors in different
levels evoked by a FGC message i about movie j is denoted as Yijk, where
k equals 1, 2, and 3, representing likes, comments, and shares respec­
tively. The actual number of likes, comments, or shares in response to
FGC posts is denoted as q. Therefore, the negative binomial regression
model can be elaborated in Eq. (1):
49
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
( / ) ( ) (
( ) Γ λijk θ + q 1 λijk θ )q
P Yijk = q = ( / ) θ , λijk > 0, θ > 0 (1)
Γ λijk θ Γ(q + 1) 1 + θ 1+θ
In Eq. (1), Γ(⋅) is the gamma distribution, and θ refers to the over-
dispersion parameter (Gardner, Mulvey, & Shaw, 1995; Wang, Yang,
& Guo, 2019). λijk represents the expected number of consumer digital
engagement at three different levels, likes, comments, and shares. And,
log(λijk) can be elaborated as a function of a collection of independent
and control variables, which entails 1) FGC types: informative or
emotional appeal; 2) FGC-specific characteristics; 3) movie-specific
characteristics; and 4) measurements that reflect movie promotion
and popularity across non-social media channels (See Table 4). We
normalize and standardize two types of FGC covariates (informative and
emotional) before model estimation, which allows us to compare the
magnitude of difference regarding the impact of each FGC type on three
levels of consumer digital engagement (likes, comments, and shares).
The model is specified in Eq. (2), as below:
(2)
3.3.2. Mediation effect of consumer digital engagement
Next, we employ a log-linear regression model approach to examine:
1) the direct relationship between FGC and opening week box office
revenues (e.g., Topaloglu & Dass, 2019) and 2) the direct effects of
consumer digital engagement on opening week box office revenues (e.g.,
Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006; Hennig-Thurau, Wiertz, & Feldhaus, 2015).
The log-linear regression model is specified in Eq. (3). We then test
consumer digital engagement's mediation effect, using the Bootstrap
parallel multiple-mediation analysis (Hayes, 2018). The empirical re­
sults are reported in the next section.
(3)
4. Empirical results
4.1. Impact of FGC on consumer digital engagement
The empirical results showing the direct effects of FGC on consumer
digital engagement at three different levels (Model 1) are summarized in
Table 5.
First, for FGC content and its impact on customer digital engage­
ment, we conduct two sets of model estimation for each engagement
level. Model 1(a) is the reduced form of Model 1(b), which only consists
of control variables. As shown in Model 1(b), informative appeal is
positively associated with likes (̂
β = 4.27, p < 0.001), comments ( ̂β=
3.38, p < 0.001), and shares (̂
β = 0.24, p > 0.05). These results suggest
M. Cheng et al.
that informative appeal only appears to be significant under the condi­
tion of likes and comments. It also indicates that informative appeals are
positively associated with low and moderate level consumer digital
engagement (e.g., likes or comments), but not the high-level engage­
ment (e.g., shares). Therefore, hypothesis 1a is partially supported.
Regarding the impact of emotional FGC on consumer digital
engagement of all levels, we find that emotional appeals are positively
associated with comments (̂ β = 3.28, p < 0.001) and shares (̂ β = 2.83,
p < 0.001). However, the impact of emotional appeals on likes is
insignificant ( ̂
β = − 0.08, p > 0.05). In comparison to the impact of
informative FGC, the results indicate that emotional appeals only appear
to be significant under the condition of comments and shares. The re­
sults suggest that emotional appeals are positively associated with
moderate and high digital engagement levels (e.g., comments, shares)
but not the low-level engagement (e.g., likes). Therefore, hypothesis 1b
is partially supported.
Second, we compare the magnitude of difference regarding the
impact of two types of FGC (informative and emotional appeals) on
three levels of consumer digital engagement. Since the two types of FGC
covariates are standardized and normalized before the model estima­
tion, the magnitude of difference can be identified through a direct
comparison between the two coefficients. As shown in Model 1(b) under
the “likes” scenario, the coefficient of emotional appeal is insignificant
(̂
β = -0.08, p > 0.05), whereas the coefficient of informative appeal is
significantly positive and has a much higher value (̂ β = 4.27, p <
0.001). It suggests that informative FGC engage consumer at lower level
more effectively (e.g., likes) than emotional FGC. To further validate this
finding, we conduct a Wald test and the result is consistent (W = 15.00,
p < 0.001). Thus, hypothesis 2a is supported. As to the “shares” scenario,
the coefficient of informative appeal is positive but insignificant (̂β =
0.24, p > 0.05), whereas the coefficient of emotional appeal is signifi­
cantly positive and has a greater value (̂
β = 2.83, p < 0.001). The result
indicates that emotional FGC has a greater positive impact on engaging
consumers at a higher level (e.g., shares) than informative FGC. A Wald
test is also conducted under this scenario and we find the result to be
consistent (W = 23.55, p < 0.001). Therefore, hypothesis 2b is
supported.
4.2. Mediation effect of consumer digital engagement
To examine the indirect mediation effect of each consumer digital
engagement level, we employ the bias-corrected bootstrapping
approach. This particular approach allows confidence intervals to be
asymmetric and offsets estimate inaccuracy that could derive from an
ordinary bootstrap (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
The empirical results are reported in Table 6.
As illustrated in Table 6, under the informative FGC scenario (Model
2a), indirect effects section, the point estimates for all consumer digital
engagement levels are significant (0.22 for likes, p < 0.01; 0.54 for
comments, p < 0.001; 0.13 for shares, p < 0.01). Additionally, the bias-
corrected bootstrap confidence intervals of consumer digital engage­
ment, based on 1000 bootstrap samples, are entirely above zero (0.08 to
0.35; 0.42 to 0.66, 0.03 to 0.24, respectively). Collectively, these results
indicate that the effect of informative FGC on opening week movie box
office revenues are positively mediated by all three levels of consumer
digital engagement, i.e., likes, comments, and shares. Therefore, hy­
pothesis 3a is supported.
However, when it comes to emotional FGC mediation effect exami­
nation (Model 2b), we find that only comments (1.26, p < 0.001) and
shares (3.31, p < 0.001) are significant with bias-corrected bootstrap
confidence intervals above zero (1.02 to 1.54 for comments and 3.01 to
3.61 for shares). The results imply a boundary condition on the medi­
ation role of consumer digital engagement under the emotional FGC
scenario. Specifically, the effect of emotional FGC on opening week
50
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
movie box office revenues is only mediated by higher level digital
engagement, including comments and shares. Therefore, hypothesis 3b
is partially supported.
4.3. Robustness checks
A series of tests are conducted to examine the robustness of the
empirical results. First, a G-index factor analysis is performed to test the
correlations among the fine-grained FGC features (Holley, 1966; Stew­
art, 1981). Most of the correlation coefficients estimated through this
process are smaller than 0.1, suggesting that there are no strong corre­
lations among the majority of message appeal dummy variables. The
results of this factor analysis are reported in Appendix B. Second, we
employ a two-stage least square regression model to examine the
endogeneity issue, which might be caused by the simultaneity between
sales (e.g., opening week moviebox office) and the number of FGC
exposure (Yoon et al., 2018). We use the average number of other
competitive movies' FGC messaging exposure as the instrumental vari­
able in this test. The detailed results, combined with the empirical re­
sults generated from the log-linear model Eq. (3) are summarized in
Appendix C. The endogeneity test results are consistent with the findings
from the original empirical results. These tests suggest that our results
are robust.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
Theoretically, this study contributes to the marketing body of
knowledge in two aspects. First, we extend the current knowledge of the
outside-in perspective into social media (e.g., Musarra & Morgan, 2020;
Quach et al., 2019). We especially emphasize the inter-relationships
between two outside-in marketing sub-components (firm-generated
messages and consumer digital engagement) and the subsequent firm
performance under diverse scenarios. Extant research measures FGC
either in the aggregate format of volume and valence (e.g., Colicev et al.,
2019; Peters, Chen, Kaplan, Ognibeni, & Pauwels, 2013) or survey
methodology (e.g., Cao et al., 2021; Martínez-Navarro & Bigné, 2017).
We suggest that a granular set of consumer-oriented metrics and mea­
surements collected from multiple sources is indispensable in evaluating
the effectiveness of the outside-in marketing efforts (e.g., the direct
impact of FGC on consumer digital engagement). Most extant studies
measure and analyze the impact of FGC on engagement and firm sales
performance as two independent, parallel events (e.g., Akpinar &
Berger, 2017), we identify and simultaneously empirically test the
mediation role of consumer digital engagement in the relationship be­
tween two different types of FGC (informative and emotional) and firm
sales performance.
We further highlight the nuances of the mediation effect to the FGC
and firm sales performance relationship under different FGC scenarios.
Our results suggest that informative FGC can be positively transmitted to
revenues through all types of consumer digital engagement, whereas
emotional FGC can only be positively transmitted to revenues when the
digital engagement level reaches beyond “likes.” The findings help
resolve a prolonged debate in the FGC literature regarding whether or
not FGC can positively influence a firm sales performance (e.g., Colicev
et al., 2018; John et al., 2017; Srinivasan, Rutz, & Pauwels, 2016).
Because customer engagement outcomes can be viewed as a set of pre­
dictors for firm sales performance, we suggest that consumer digital
engagement metrics, which entail likes, comments, and shares, can be
considered as good outside-in performance metrics and employed as a
powerful tool for the evaluation of the alignment between consumer
sentiment and firm's goals.
Second, we bridge the B2C and B2B marketing literature in social
media. The mediation effect of consumer digital engagement identified
in this study suggests that the external connections (B2C social media
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Table 5
Parameter estimates of the impact of FGC on consumer digital engagement.
Parameter Consumer digital engagement Hypothesis testing results

Likes Comments Shares

Model 1(a) Model 1(b) Model 1(a) Model 1(b) Model 1(a) Model 1(b)

FGC Content
Informative Appeal – 4.27*** – 3.38*** – 0.24 H1a is partially supported
(0.29) (0.32) (0.25) H2a is supported
Emotional Appeal – -0.08 – 3.28*** – 2.83*** H1b is partially supported
(0.33) (0.15) (0.11) H2b is supported

Control Variables
Interactivity 0.36 − 0.30 0.44* − 0.05 − 0.09 − 0.10
(0.18) (0.20) (0.20) (0.21) (0.14) (0.14)
Length 0.10 0.09 − 0.40 0.02 0.39 0.71
(0.54) (0.55) (0.61) (0.63) (0.40) (0.40)
Time difference − 0.03 − 0.02 − 0.04 − 0.08 0.05 0.02
(0.14) (0.14) (0.16) (0.16) (0.11) (0.11)
Video − 0.19 − 0.15 − 0.35 − 0.11 − 0.45 − 0.23
(0.48) (0.48) (0.50) (0.48) (0.36) (0.35)
Hyperlink 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.12 0.03
(0.13) (0.13) (0.10) (0.12) (0.08) (0.09)
Photo 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
(0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.05) (0.05)
Origin − 0.04 − 0.02 − 0.04 − 0.08 0.03 0.00
(0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.05) (0.05)
Novel − 0.03 0.01 − 0.07 − 0.03 − 0.07 − 0.06
(0.10) (0.10) (0.11) (0.11) (0.07) (0.07)
Competitive − 0.03** -0.03* − 0.01 − 0.10 -0.03** -0.03**
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.14)
Rating − 0.01 0.00 − 0.01 − 0.01 0.00 0.00
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)
Director power − 0.30 − 0.07 − 0.83 − 0.42 − 0.84 − 0.67
(0.50) (0.50) (0.66) (0.67) (0.41) (0.41)
Action 0.19 0.15 0.08 0.04 − 0.10 − 0.10
(0.12) (0.12) (0.13) (0.13) (0.09) (0.09)
Adventure − 0.10 − 0.07 0.17 − 0.02 0.04 − 0.12
(0.16) (0.16) (0.17) (0.17) (0.12) (0.12)
Comedy 0.04 0.03 − 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.13
(0.11) (0.11) (0.12) (0.12) (0.08) (0.08)
Drama − 0.23 − 0.26 − 0.22 − 0.10 − 0.45 − 0.34
(0.15) (0.15) (0.16) (0.16) (0.12) (0.12)
Romance − 0.02 0.07 − 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00
(0.18) (0.18) (0.21) (0.21) (0.15) (0.15)
Thriller 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.05
(0.12) (0.12) (0.13) (0.13) (0.09) (0.09)
Special day − 0.05 − 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.09 0.05
(0.12) (0.12) (0.13) (0.13) (0.09) (0.09)
Exposure -0.77*** -0.73** -0.51* − 0.34 0.34 0.45*
(0.21) (0.23) (0.24) (0.25) (0.17) (0.18)
Expenditure 0.12 0.09 0.38 0.06 − 0.15 − 0.34
(0.30) (0.30) (0.32) (0.33) (0.25) (0.25)
News 0.06 0.25 0.24 − 0.04 − 0.03 − 0.51
(0.53) (0.53) (0.57) (0.62) (0.42) (0.45)
Event 0.36 − 0.04 0.43 0.39 1.46 1.67
(0.40) (0.40) (0.42) (0.43) (0.25) (0.25)
Search 0.73* 0.52 0.84* 0.37 0.90 0.74
(0.34) (0.34) (0.37) (0.37) (0.24) (0.24)
(Intercept) -3.43*** -3.73*** -3.45*** -4.88*** -3.01*** − 3.69***
(0.27) (0.29) (0.30) (0.32) (0.21) (0.22)
Log-likelihood − 2284.44 − 2184.29 − 2001.37 − 1799.99 − 3541.05 − 3332.86
Root MSE – – – – – –
Psedo R2 0.009 0.053 0.009 0.109 0.023 0.080
Adjusted R2 – – – – – –
LR Test 43.2 243.50 35.65 438.40 164.71 581.08
Prob> Chi2 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
p – – – – – –

Robust standard errors in parentheses.

*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

component) can provide valuable insight to B2B members across the players (e.g., producers, distributors, and exhibitors), our findings on
value chain, and therefore, influence B2B firm dynamics and decision- consumer digital engagement reinforce the critical roles that the three
making processes. Given that our study is empirically conducted in the marketing capability elements – marketing sensing, customer engaging,
movie industry, which is a dynamic marketplace involving multiple and partner linking – play in a value chain (Mu, 2015). Our findings

51
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Table 6
Results of the mediation effect of consumer digital engagement.*
Direct effects Opening week box office Hypothesis testing results

Model 2(a) Model 2(b)

Effect (SE) CILL-UL Effect (SE) CILL-UL

Informative Appeal 1.52*** 1.29 to 1.75 – –

(0.12)
Emotional Appeal – – -0.52*** − 0.79 to − 0.25
(0.14)
2
R 0.28 0.28
MSE 3.39 3.39
p 0 0

Indirect Effects Opening week box office Hypothesis testing results

Model 2(a) Model 2(b)

Effect (Boot SE) Boot CILL-UL Effect (Boot SE) Boot CILL-UL

Total 0.89 0.74 to 1.03 4.57 4.19 to 4.92

(0.07) (0.18)
Likes 0.22** 0.08 to 0.35 0.00 − 0.01 to 0.00 H3a is supported
(0.07) (0.00)
Comments 0.54*** 0.42 to 0.66 1.26*** 1.02 to 1.54 H3b is partially supported
(0.06) (0.14)
Shares 0.13** 0.03 to 0.24 3.31*** 3.01 to 3.61
(0.05) (0.16)
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

suggest that B2B firms can use social media messages voiced by con­
sumers to capture additional external voices, consumer attitudes, per­
ceptions and opinions, and properly translate them into meaningful
market insights. Such insights can be applied to B2B firms' decision-
making at various stages of a product lifecycle (Mu, 2015; Mu & Di
Benedetto, 2012).
When dynamic updates from B2C social media communication are
combined with transparency and knowledge sharing among B2B mem­
bers, B2B partners can adapt quickly, align themselves well within the
network, and promptly respond to a changing external market. As such,
a strong B2B partner relationship – through collaboration, coordination,
and reconfiguration – is imperative (Drummond et al., 2018), as it is
essential for the creation of a “multi-win” situation and the development
of a healthy, de-centralized, value co-creation marketing ecosystem.
Fig. 3 illustrates the impact of B2C social media communication on B2B
partners in the movie industry context.
5.2. Managerial implications
This study has several managerial implications for movie practi­
tioners. First, the differential effects of two FGC types on consumer
digital engagement behaviors (likes, comments, and shares) can be
employed as guidelines for social media content creation and promo­
tion. For B2C, this finding suggests that firms in the movie industry (e.g.,
producers, distributors, or exhibitors) can leverage existing resources
and the insights garnered from social media to design or adjust their
content flexibly and effectively.
Instead of passively responding to the market or seeking a “silver
bullet” (one perfect FGC type fits all objectives through social media
platforms), movie practitioners might consider tailoring their FGC
content strategies to engage consumers at different levels for specific
objectives (e.g., boost image, communication, virality, or complemen­
tary). For instance, if a movie exhibitor is interested in creating a

Fig. 3. An illustration of the integration of the outside-in perspective and its impacts on B2B firms in the movie industry.

52
M. Cheng et al.
positive image or awareness for a movie, informative FGC should be
considered as a better candidate than emotional FGC – because of
informative FGC's stronger positive impact in triggering likes. If the
ultimate goal is to create a “virality” situation on social media, the movie
exhibitor should invest more in developing mood-eliciting content, as
emotional FGC has a more powerful impact on consumer “sharing”
behavior. Additionally, consumer digital engagement variation con­
tributes to firm sales performance differentially and, therefore, can be
utilized as an essential set of predictors for assessing movie exhibitor's
box office sales performance. For movie industry managers thatintend to
engage customers and expect positive outcomes via social media (e.g., a
boost on the box office sales), the FGC being promoted should be
designed such that higher-level engagement (comments or shares) can
be triggered.
Second, a more profound understanding of the external consumers –
the characteristics of audience members that liked, commented, and/or
shared FGC posts on social media – can further help movie practitioners
with customer segmentation and profiling (Quach et al., 2019; Rans­
botham & Kiron, 2018; Rust, 2019). Consumers following FGC on social
media are primarily driven by the perceived benefits, in the format of
instrumental or experiential value (e.g., Martínez-Navarro & Bigné,
2017; Nambisan & Baron, 2007), and they can be classified into three
unique categories (Chen & Berger, 2013; Park, Naaman, & Berger,
2016). “Assessors” indicate people who click the “like” button, “ad­
visers” reflect people who write comments, and “advocates” represent
people who make recommendations or endorsements through their so­
cial networks. This classification, combined with the differential effects
of two FGC types on consumer digital engagement and theatrical sales
performance, provides a strong foundation for movie producers or ex­
hibitors to identify their “fan base.” With the identification of fans (or
“advocates”), they could further develop personalized social media
communication campaigns specifically tailored to their audience's
needs. By monitoring how consumers respond to FGC on social media,
they may continue growing the fan base, enhancing overall firm per­
formance in the long run.
Third, by monitoring B2C social media communication and the
variations of consumer digital engagement, B2B firms within a network
(e.g., movie producers and exhibitors) can get immediate consumer
feedback regarding whether or not a movie can be successful even before
its release date. Based on the feedback, firms can adjust and reconfigure
FGC messages. Specifically, FGC messages promoted from movie ex­
hibitors' end usually entail movie-specific, non-theater-related infor­
mation, requiring participation and collaboration with producers. For
example, movie producers can provide exhibitors with intriguing movie
content that appeals to key consumer segments. Movie exhibitors can
then incorporate this information to design their FGC messages using
various narratives (e.g., informative or emotional) to facilitate movie
promotion and content dissemination in social media.
The data collected from movie exhibitor's social media platform, the
granular consumer-oriented insight (FGC, digital consumer engage­
ment, and box office sales performance), and the data analytical ap­
proaches implemented by a specific party (e.g., the movie exhibitor in
our context), can be shared across B2B partners within the network. The
accessibility of the knowledge and insights from the external market
could ease the process of information exchange and resource mobiliza­
tion among B2B partners (e.g., sorting out a set of “optimal” FGC mes­
sages that benefit both parties – movie producers and exhibitors). Given
that movie promotion often takes place simultaneously through various
channels (e.g., exhibitor's social media, critic review, and third-party
platforms such as IMDB, or traditional movie posters or billboards),
knowledge sharing across B2B partners would help to assure that
members involved in the product promotion process can reduce poten­
tial conflicts and align themselves well concerning their objectives.
Accordingly, firms can reinforce decentralized value co-creation and
53
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
foster a healthy marketing ecosystem.
5.3. Limitation and future research
Our study has several limitations, which also point to potential di­
rections for future research. For the B2C and B2B parts of the discussion,
we mainly focus on examining the B2C social media communication,
constructing the B2C component from the outside-in perspective, and
proposing that it could add valuable insights to B2B marketing opera­
tions, communications, and decision-making processes. How B2B firms
can utilize B2C insight to accomplish specific goals (e.g., sales or
transactions between B2B firms) or channels (e.g., online vs. offline) are
outside the scope of this study. Future research may further explore B2B
firm dynamics as it is influenced by B2C interactions.
Second, regarding the model specification and data collection, this
study focuses on examining the inter-relationships between FGC, con­
sumer digital engagement, and subsequent firm performance – from an
outside-in perspective – we only keep the main effects, with a group of
product-related control variables included. Future research might
include dynamic interaction terms and provide better insight into the
impact of variation in movie/franchise-specific concerns.
Third, given that the dataset is collected from a social media plat­
form, we do not have access to individual consumer-level movie ticket
purchase information. Future research can collect individual-level in­
formation such as consumer demographic characteristics and explore
how individual-level variables affect the effects of key independent
variables on dependent variables.
Fourth, while examining the inter-relationships between consumer
digital engagement and two types of FGC appeals on the B2C end, we
assume that consumer's level of engagement behaviors (e.g., likes,
comments, and shares) are based upon individual's own decision and is
not affected by his or her prior social media content browsing/con­
sumption history. Future research might consider social media's herd
effect and examine data at a more granular level such that outside-in
oriented measurements can capture and reflect the entire customer
journey over time – from social media browsing to engaging and
consuming content, and subsequent purchase behaviors.
Finally, the study is conducted in the movie industry, and the
empirical analyses are examined in a micro-blogging social media site.
Future research could test if the findings from this study can extend to
other industries (e.g., traditional merchandise, commodity industry) or
social media platforms other than micro-blogging sites.
Declaration of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Funding source declaration
This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China
[grant number: 91546121] and Digital Transformation in China and
Germany: Strategies, Structures and Solutions for Aging Societies [grant
number: GZ 1570].
Appendix A. Sample posts and content coding examples
Appendix B. Correlations of all FGC related dummy variables
 Movie Title Sample FGC (original Chinese version) Sample FGC (English translation version) Informative Emotional Interactivity
M. Cheng et al.

Appeal Tags Appeal Tags Tags

Night at the #万有影力#世界上最棒的美差是什么?安静的做个吃货，还是安乐温柔乡?[偷笑]一个名叫拉里.丹利 #Wanda Movie# What's the best job in the world? Be a foodie having a peaceful [Description] [Emoticon] [Question]
Museum: Secret 的家伙认为世界上最美的差事是伦敦大英博物馆守卫~ [汗]与凶猛的远古恐龙搏斗，与九头蛇共舞，被 mind, or enjoy living an easy life? [Chuckle] A guy, named Larry Daley, thinks that [Launch [Surprise] [Call to act]
of the Tomb 雄狮追杀…《博物馆奇妙夜3》北京12.30 “奇妙复活之夜”等你来，详情戳:<http://t. the best job in the world is to be a security guard in the British Museum ~ [Sweat] announcement]
cn/RZwSbsT> Fighting against the fiercely ancient dinosaurs, dancing with the hydra, and being
hunted by the lion… Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb. Beijing 12.30
Wonderful Resurrection Night is waiting for you. For more information, please refer
to: <http://t.cn/RZwSbsT>
Night at the 回复@阿姨814:对的，那两串数字就是两张兑换码。您可以在万达影城的官网上注册下，成功注册后 Reply to @Aunt 814: Yes, the two numbers are the voucher codes. You can register [Friend-likely] [Chatting]
Museum: Secret 点出这部电影就可在线购票了，您选好座位选择支付方式，里边就有可以用兑换码的，就能选座儿了。或 on the official website. After successful registration, you can buy the movie ticket [Call to act]
of the Tomb 者手机下载万达电影客户端，跟我上边说的一样。别着急，按照提示操作就行啦! #兑换攻略记心间# online. Once you select a payment method for seat reservation, you may use the
voucher codes to reserve the seat you prefer. Alternatively, you can download the
Wanda APP, using the instruction provided above. Take your time, just follow the
instruction and it will take you there! #Ticket Redemption Strategy#
Miss Granny #霸气抢票#2000张:新年豪礼第一发!七旬老太变身妙龄少女，“国民奶奶”穿越50年时光逆转不着 #Snap Up 2000 Tickets# The first round of great gifts in the new year! A 70-year- [Description] [Humor] [Call to act]
痕迹!陈正道执导，杨子姗、陈柏霖、鹿晗等主演奇幻喜剧《重返20岁》1月8日爆笑来袭。假如时光 old woman becomes a young lady. The “Granny” travelled back in time for 50 [Producer] [Surprise] [Question]
倒流，你的20岁该如何重新度过?转发 + 评论，说一句你20岁时的青春宣言，并@好友1位 ，即有 years without any trace! The fantasy comedy Miss Granny, directed by Zhengdao [Sales]
机会抢到影票2张哦~ Chen and starred by Zishan Yang, Bolin Chen, and Han Lu, will be coming up on [Launch
January 8th. If you can go back in time, how would you spend your 20-year-old announcement]
again? Share + comment, write down your 20-year-old youth declaration, and @
one of your friends, you will have a chance to win two tickets~

54
No. FGC Content Feature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 Informative Appeal Description 1.00

2 Awards 0.07*** 1.00
3 Review 0.09*** 0.12*** 1.00
4 Format 0.21*** 0.12*** 0.06*** 1.00
5 Sales 0.08*** − 0.00 0.02*** 0.21*** 1.00
6 Launch announcement 0.40*** 0.11*** 0.04*** 0.15*** 0.12*** 1.00
7 Special activity 0.04*** − 0.00 0.06*** 0.08*** 0.16*** 0.11*** 1.00
8 Producer − 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.01 0.00 0.03*** 0.01 1.00
9 Emotional Appeal Surprise − 0.00 − 0.00 0.04*** − 0.01 − 0.01* − 0.00 0.01* − 0.01 1.00
10 Emoji − 0.03*** − 0.01* 0.00 − 0.01 0.02** 0.00 0.01 0.05*** 0.05*** 1.00
11 Humor 0.00 − 0.01 − 0.00 0.01 0.01* 0.01 0.00 0.03*** − 0.02*** 0.24*** 1.00
12 Philanthropic 0.02** − 0.00 − 0.00 − 0.00 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** − 0.01 0.01* 1.00
13 Friendlikely − 0.02*** − 0.01* − 0.01 − 0.01 0.02** − 0.02** 0.01* − 0.00 − 0.03*** 0.04*** 0.13*** 0.04*** 1.00
14 Awe 0.07*** − 0.00 − 0.00 − 0.00 0.07*** 0.08*** 0.20*** − 0.01 0.05*** 0.01** 0.01 0.08*** 0.01* 1.000
15 Inter-activity Voting 0.03*** 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.02** 0.01** 0.01 − 0.02*** − 0.05*** − 0.17*** 0.02*** − 0.01 0.07*** − 0.01 1.00
16 Question 0.02** 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.02** − 0.02*** − 0.01 − 0.01** − 0.02** − 0.04*** − 0.01* 0.05*** − 0.01 0.17*** 0.00 0.11*** 1.00
17 Chatting − 0.02** − 0.01 − 0.02** − 0.04*** − 0.03*** − 0.05*** − 0.03*** − 0.02*** − 0.02*** − 0.07*** − 0.02** − 0.01 0.42*** − 0.01* 0.03*** 0.18*** 1.00
18 Call to act 0.00 0.00 − 0.01 0.01* 0.03*** 0.01 0.04*** 0.04*** − 0.01 0.01* 0.01 − 0.00 0.33*** 0.03*** 0.01* 0.31*** 0.12*** 1.00
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

Appendix C. Robustness check on potential endogeneity

Parameters Opening Week Box Office

OLS 2SLS

Informative Appeal 2.414*** – 1.520*** 2.479*** – 1.518***

(0.124) (0.119) (0.126) (0.119)
Emotional Appeal 4.048*** – -0.523*** 4.111*** – -0.492***
(0.118) (0.138) (0.120) (0.140)
Likes – 2.521*** 1.355*** – 2.647*** 1.463***
(0.249) (0.265) (0.258) (0.277)
Comments – 4.964*** 5.132*** – 5.036*** 5.151***
(0.272) (0.314) (0.275) (0.314)
Shares – 8.210*** 8.490*** – 8.155*** 8.440***
(0.136) (0.142) (0.139) (0.147)
Interactivity -0.310*** − 0.062 -0.221*** -0.393*** − 0.090 -0.241***
(0.068) (0.060) (0.061) (0.071) (0.062) (0.063)
Length 2.424*** 2.096*** 2.068*** 2.320*** 2.062*** 2.044***
(0.195) (0.175) (0.175) (0.198) (0.177) (0.176)
Time difference -0.159** -0.166*** -0.162*** -0.157** -0.164*** -0.161***
(0.052) (0.047) (0.046) (0.052) (0.047) (0.046)
Video − 0.054 0.124 0.126 − 0.073 0.118 0.121
(0.161) (0.145) (0.144) (0.163) (0.145) (0.145)
Hyperlink -0.187*** -0.254*** -0.246*** -0.190*** -0.255*** -0.247***
(0.052) (0.047) (0.046) (0.052) (0.047) (0.046)
Photo 0.140*** 0.128*** 0.122*** 0.138*** 0.127*** 0.121***
(0.028) (0.025) (0.025) (0.028) (0.025) (0.025)
Origin − 0.010 0.019 0.020 0.014 0.027 0.026
(0.025) (0.023) (0.023) (0.026) (0.023) (0.023)
Rating 0.051*** 0.057*** 0.059*** 0.073*** 0.064*** 0.064***
(0.010) (0.009) (0.009) (0.012) (0.010) (0.010)
Novel 0.026 0.079* 0.084** 0.041 0.084** 0.087***
(0.035) (0.032) (0.031) 0.036) (0.032) (0.031)
Competitive -0.036*** -0.018*** -0.018*** -0.037*** -0.019*** -0.019***
(0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004)
Director power 0.065 0.580** 0.615*** 0.082 0.584** 0.617***
(0.186) (0.168) (0.167) (0.188) (0.168) (0.167)
Action − 0.084 − 0.055 − 0.054 − 0.047 − 0.043 − 0.046
(0.043) (0.039) (0.039) (0.044) (0.039) (0.039)
Adventure − 0.061 − 0.011 − 0.004 − 0.106 − 0.026 − 0.015
(0.059) (0.053) (0.053) (0.060) (0.054) (0.054)
Comedy 0.249*** 0.199*** 0.197*** 0.265*** 0.204*** 0.201***
(0.038) (0.035) (0.034) (0.039) (0.035) (0.035)
Drama − 0.128* 0.014 0.003 − 0.104* 0.023 0.009
(0.050) (0.045) (0.044) (0.050) (0.045) (0.045)
Romance 0.076 0.113 0.138* 0.212** 0.159* 0.172***
(0.067) (0.061) (0.060) (0.074) (0.066) (0.065)
Thriller − 0.014 − 0.016 − 0.015 0.036 0.001 − 0.002
(0.044) (0.039) (0.039) (0.045) (0.040) (0.040)
Special day 0.022 − 0.030 − 0.030 0.030 − 0.027 − 0.028
(0.044) (0.039) (0.039) (0.044) (0.039) (0.039)
Exposure − 0.118 -0.266*** -0.282*** 1.578*** 0.318 0.144
(0.082) (0.074) (0.074) (0.365) (0.327) (0.327)
Expenditure -0.780*** -0.615*** -0.594*** -0.789*** -0.619*** -0.598***
(0.112) (0.101) (0.100) (0.113) (0.101) (0.100)
News 0.131 0.528** 0.587*** − 0.040 0.468** 0.541***
(0.192) (0.173) (0.173) (0.198) (0.176) (0.176)
Events 1.213*** − 0.047 − 0.121 1.435*** 0.035 − 0.059
(0.158) (0.144) (0.143) (0.167) (0.151) (0.151)
Search 0.628*** − 0.114 − 0.129 0.401*** − 0.190 − 0.185
(0.146) (0.132) (0.132) (0.155) (0.139) (0.138)
(Intercept) 4.935*** 5.427*** 5.299*** 3.842*** 5.056*** 5.024***
(0.103) (0.090) (0.094) (0.252) (0.222) (0.226)
Root MSE 2.0557 1.8513 1.8423 2.0775 1.8530 1.8425
Adj R2 0.1024 0.2720 0.2791 0.0832 0.2706 0.2789
p 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Durbin test (p-Value) – – – 23.2368 3.3606 1.7923
(p = 0.0000) (p = 0.0668) (p = 0.1806)
Hausman test (p-Value) – – – 23.2321 3.35621 1.7896
(p = 0.0000) (p = 0.0670) (p = 0.1810)

Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses.

*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

55
M. Cheng et al. Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58

References De Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2017). Effects of traditional advertising and
social messages on brand-building metrics and customer acquisition. Journal of
Marketing, 81(5), 1–15.
Agnihotri, R., Dingus, R., Hu, M. Y., & Krush, M. T. (2016). Social media: Influencing
Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2010). Attitudes toward the extension and parent brand in
custome satisfaction in B2B sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 172–180.
response to extension advertising. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1237–1244.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product and Brand
Akpinar, E., & Berger, J. (2017). Valuable virality. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(2),
Management, 24(1), 28–42.
318–330.
Drummond, C., McGrath, H., & O'Toole, T. (2018). The impact of social media on
Alhabash, S., & McAlister, A. R. (2014). Redefining virality in less broad strokes:
resource mobilisation in entrepreneurial firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 70,
Predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and
68–89.
twitter. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1317–1339.
Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2014). Positive with strangers, negative with
Alhabash, S., McAlister, A. R., Quilliam, E. T., Richards, J. I., & Lou, C. (2015). Alcohol’s
friends: How interpersonal closeness affect word-of-mouth valence through self-
getting a bit more social: When alcohol marketing messages on Facebook increase
construal. ACR North American Advances, 42, 41–46.
young adults’ intentions to imbibe. Mass Communication and Society, 18(3), 350–375.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL:
Armstrong, J. S. (2010). Persuasive advertising: Evidence-based principles. New York:
Chapman & Hall.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Eisend, M., Plagemann, J., & Sollwedel, J. (2014). Gender roles and humor in
Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An
advertising: The occurrence of stereotyping in humorous and nonhumorous
exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychology
advertising and its consequences for advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising,
and Marketing, 32(1), 15–27.
43(3), 256–273.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of
Elberse, A. (2007). The power of stars: Do star actors drive the success of movies? Journal
Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.
of Marketing, 71(4), 102–120.
Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing word of
Elberse, A., & Anand, B. (2007). The effectiveness of pre-release advertising for motion
mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 869–880.
pictures: An empirical investigation using a simulated market. Information Economics
Bill, F., Feurer, S., & Klarmann, M. (2020). Salesperson social media use in business-to-
and Policy, 19(3–4), 319–343.
business relationships: An empirical test of an integrative framework linking
Elberse, A., & Eliashberg, J. (2003). Demand and supply dynamics for sequentially
antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(4),
released products in international markets: The case of motion pictures. Marketing
734–752.
Science, 22(3), 329–354.
Brennen, R., & Croft, R. (2012). The use of social media in B2B marketing and branding:
Elizashberg, J., Elberse, A., & Leenders, M. A. A. M. (2006). The motion picture industry:
An exploratory study. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 11(2), 101–115.
Critical issues in practice, current research, and new research directions. Marketing
Calder, B. J., Isaac, M. S., & Malthouse, E. C. (2013). Taking the customer's point-of-view:
Science, 25(6), 638–661.
Engagement or satisfaction?. Retrieved from: http://www.msi.org/reports/taking-t
Finne, A., & Gronroos, C. (2017). Communication-in-use: Customer-integrated marketing
he-customers-point-of-view-engagement-or-satisfaction-1/.
communication. European Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 445–463.
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W. J., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of
relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of
consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for
Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331.
countering them. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 6–16.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Count panel data. Oxford: Oxford University
Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and
Press.
rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological
Cao, D., Meadows, M., Wong, D., & Xia, S. (2021). Understanding consumers' social
Bulletin, 118(3), 392–404.
media engagement behaviour: An examination of the moderation effect of social
Gavilanes, J. M., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2018). Content strategies for digital
media context. Journal of Business Research, 122, 835–846.
consumer engagement in social networks: Why advertising is an antecedent of
Chen, K., & Yin, J. (2017). Information competition in product launch: Evidence from the
engagement. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 4–23.
movie industry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 26, 81–88.
Goh, K. Y., Heng, C. S., & Lin, Z. (2013). Social media brand community and consumer
Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation.
behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user- and marketer-generated content.
Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580–593.
Information Systems Research, 24(1), 88–107.
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book
Hai, K., & Hai, X. (2018). An international literature review on big data analytics in the
reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354.
film industry. Retrieved from: http://media.people.com.cn/n1/2018/0813/c420832
Choudhary, V., Currim, I., Dewan, S., Jeliazkow, I., Mintz, O., & Turner, J. (2017).
-30225815.html.
Evaluation set size and purchase: Evidence from a product search engine. Journal of
Harmeling, C. M., Moffett, J. W., Arnold, M. J., & Carlson, B. D. (2017). Toward a theory
Interactive Marketing, 37, 16–31.
of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45
Colicev, A., Kumar, A., & O’Connor, P. (2019). Modeling the relationship between firm
(3), 312–335.
and user generated content and the stages of the marketing funnel. International
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis
Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(1), 100–116.
(2nd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press.
Colicev, A., Malshe, A., Pauwels, K., & O’Connor, P. (2018). Improving consumer
Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C., & Feldhaus, F. (2015). Does twitter matter? The impact of
mindset metrics and shareholder value through social media: The different roles of
microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies. Journal of the
owned and eared media. Journal of Marketing, 82(1), 37–56.
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 375–394.
Cortez, R. M., & Johnston, W. J. (2017). The future of B2B marketing theory: A historical
Ho, J. Y., Liang, Y., Weinberg, C. B., & Yan, J. (2018). An empirical study of uniform and
and prospective analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 90–102.
differential pricing in the movie theatrical market. Journal of Marketing Research, 55
Coulter, K. S., & Punj, G. N. (2004). The effects of cognitive resource requirements,
(3), 414–431.
availability, and argument quality on brand attitudes: A melding of elaboration
Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social media
likelihood and cognitive resource matching theories. Journal of Advertising, 33(4),
marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 41.
53–64.
Holley, J. W. (1966). A reply to Philip Levy-in defense of the G index. Scandinavian
Coursaris, C. K., Van Osch, W., & Balogh, B. A. (2016). Informing brand messaging
Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 244–246.
strategies via social media analytics. Online Information Review, 40(1), 6–24.
Holliman, G., & Rowley, J. (2014). Business to business digital content marketing:
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception,
Markets' perceptions of best practice. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8
defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114–127.
(4), 269–293.
Das, G., Wiener, H. J., & Kareklas, I. (2019). To emoji or not to emoji? Examining the
Huang, D., Strijnev, A., & Ratchford, B. (2015). Role of advertising and consumer interest
influence of emoji on consumer reactions to advertising. Journal of Business Research,
in the motion picture industry. Review of Marketing Science, 13(1), 1–40.
96, 147–156.
Huang, J. H., & Chen, Y. F. (2006). Herding in online product choice. Psychology &
Daugherty, T., Djuric, V., Li, H., & Leckenby, J. (2017). Establishing a paradigm: A
Marketing, 23(5), 413–428.
systematic analysis of interactive advertising research. Journal of Interactive
Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2019). Adaptive marketing capabilities, dynamic
Advertising, 17(1), 65–78.
capabilities, and renewal competences: The “outside vs. inside” and “static vs.
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing,
dynamic” controversies in strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 129–139.
58(4), 37–52.
Huotari, L., Ulkuniemi, P., Saraniemi, S., & Mӓlӓskӓ, M. (2015). Analysis of content
Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4),
creation in social media by B2B companies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
183–195.
30(6), 761–770.
Day, G. S. (2014). An outside-in approach to resource-based theories. Journal of the
Itani, O. S., Agnihotri, R., & Dingus, R. (2017). Social media use in B2B sales and its
Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 27–28.
impact on competitive intelligence collection and adaptive selling: Examining the
De Keyzer, F., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2015). Is this for me? How consumers
role of learning orientation as an enabler. Industrial Marketing Management, 66,
respond to personalized advertising on social network sites. Journal of Interactive
64–79.
Advertising, 15(2), 124–134.
John, L. K., Mochon, D., Emrich, O., & Schwartz, J. (2017). What’s the value of a like.
De Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (1999). Uncertainty in the movie industry: Does star power
Harvard Business Review, 95, 108–115.
reduce the terror of the box office? Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(4), 285–318.
Joshi, A., & Mao, H. (2012). Adapting to succeed? Leveraging the brand equity of best
De Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand
sellers to succeed at the box office. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40
fan pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of
(4), 558–571.
Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 83–91.

56
M. Cheng et al.
Juntunen, M., Ismagilova, E., & Oikarinen, E. L. (2020). B2B brands on twitter: Engaging
users with a varying combination of social media content objectives, strategies, and
tactics. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 630–641.
Jӓrvinen, J., & Taiminen, H. (2016). Harnessing marketing automation for B2B content
marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 164–175.
Karray, S., & Debernitz, L. (2017). The effectiveness of movie trailer advertising.
International Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 368–392.
Kim, H., & Hanssens, D. M. (2017). Advertising and word-of-mouth effects on pre-launch
consumer interest and initial sales of experience products. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 37, 57–74.
Kirk, C. P., Chiagouris, L., Lala, V., & Thomas, J. D. E. (2015). How do digital natives and
digital immigrants respond differently to interactivity online?: A model for
predicting consumer attitudes and intentions to use digital information products.
Journal of Advertising Research, 55(1), 81–94.
Koch, S., & Dikmen, A. (2015). Does successful social media marketing affect brand
value?: An empirical investigation. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations,
13(1), 15–26.
Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). From
social to sale: The effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer
behavior. Journal of Marketing, 80(1), 7–25.
Kumar, V., Bhaskaran, V., Mirchandani, R., & Shah, M. (2013). Practice prize winner -
creating a measurable social media marketing strategy: Increasing the value and ROI
of intangibles and tangibles for hokey pokey. Marketing Science, 32(2), 194–212.
Lee, D., Hosanagar, K., & Nair, H. S. (2018). Advertising content and consumer
engagement on social media: Evidence from Facebook. Management Science, 64(11),
5105–5131.
Leek, S., Cunning, L., & Houghton, D. (2016). Revisting the task media fit model in the
era of web 2.0: Twitter use and interaction in the healthcare sector. Industrial
Marketing Management, 54, 25–32.
Levy, M., Weitz, B. A., & Grewal, D. (2014). Retailing management. New York: Mcgraw-
Hill Education.
Li, X., Chan, K. W., & Kim, S. (2018). Service with emoticons: How customers interpret
employee use of emoticons in online service encounters. Journal of Consumer
Research, 45(5), 973–987.
Liang, S., Schucker, M., Law, R., & Chen, C. (2020). The importance of marketer-
generated content to peer-to-peer property rental platforms: Evidence from Airbnb.
International Journal of Hospitality Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2019.102329.
Lim, H., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2005). The theory of planned behavior in e-commerce:
Making a case for interdependencies between salient beliefs. Psychology and
Marketing, 22(10), 833–855.
Lin, S., Ross, B., & Liu, H. (2015). Does the social value of a brand matter?. In An
empirical investigation of the impact of brand social engagement on firm’s financial
performance. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2670894.
Liu, A., Mazumdar, T., & Li, B. (2014). Counterfactual decomposition of movie star
effects with star selection. Management Science, 61(7), 1704–1721.
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office
revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.
Luxon, S., Reid, M., & Mavondo, F. (2015). Integrated marketing communication
capability and brand performance. Journal of Advertising, 44(1), 37–46.
MacInnis, D. J., Rao, A. G., & Weiss, A. M. (2002). Assessing when increased media
weight of real-world advertisements helps sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4),
391–407.
Martínez-Navarro, J., & Bigné, E. (2017). The value of marketer-generated content on
social network sites: Media atencedents and behaviroal responses. Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 52–72.
Mehmet, M. I., & Clarke, R. J. (2016). B2B social media semantics: Analyzing multimodal
online meanings in marketing conversations. Industrial Marketing Management, 54,
92–106.
Meire, M., Hewett, K., Ballings, M., Kumar, V., & Van den Poel, D. (2019). The role of
marketer-generated content in customer engagement marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 83(6), 21–42.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2012). How companies cultivate relationships with publics
on social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States. Public Relations
Review, 38(5), 723–730.
Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N. T., & Christodoulide, G. (2011). Usage, barriers and
measurement of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and
medium B2B brands. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1153–1159.
Mu, J. (2015). Marketing capability, organizational adaptation and new product
development performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 151–166.
Mu, J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2012). Networking capability and new product
development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(1), 4–19.
Mu, J., Thomas, E., Qi, J., & Tan, Y. (2018). Online group influence and digital product
consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(5), 921–947.
Musarra, G., & Morgan, N. A. (2020). Outside-in marketing: Renaissance and future.
Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 98–101.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments:
Implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 42–62.
Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyond the “like” button: The
impact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in
social media settings. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 105–120.
Nisar, T. M., & Prabhakar, G. (2018). Trains and twitter: Firm generated content,
consumer relationship management and message framing. Trasportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 318–334.
57
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The
consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7–17.
Ogilvie, J., Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A., & Trainor, K. (2018). Social media technology use
and salesperson performance: A two study examination of the role of salesperson
behaviors, characteristics, and training. Industrial Marketing Management, 75, 55–65.
Oh, C., Roumani, Y., Nwankpa, J. K., & Hu, H. F. (2017). Beyond likes and tweets:
Consumer engagement behavior and movie box office in social media. Information
and Management, 54(1), 25–37.
O’hara, R. B., & Kotze, D. J. (2010). Do not log-transform count data. Methods in Ecology
and Evolution, 1(2), 118–122.
Olney, T. J., Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1991). Consumer responses to advertising: The
effects of ad content, emotions, and attitude toward the ad on viewing time. Journal
of Consumer Research, 17(4), 440–453.
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 294–311.
Park, M., Naaman, M., & Berger, J. (2016). A data-driven study of view duration on
YouTube. In Paper presented at the tenth international AAAI conference on web and
social media, Cologne, Germany, May 17-20, 2016.
Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A. M., Ognibeni, B., & Pauwels, K. (2013). Social media
metrics–a framework and guidelines for managing social media. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 27(4), 281–298.
Petersen, J. A., McAlister, L., Reibstein, D. J., Winer, R. S., Kumar, V., & Atkinson, G.
(2009). Choosing the right metrics to maximize profitability and shareholder value.
Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 95–111.
Porter, L., & Golan, G. J. (2006). From subservient chickens to brawny men: A
comparison of viral advertising to television advertising. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 6(2), 30–38.
Preacher, K. L., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymtotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Quach, S., Park, T., Lee, J. Y., Weaven, S., & Palmatier, R. W. (2019). Toward a theory of
outside-in marketing: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 89,
107–128.
Ransbotham, S., & Kiron, D. (2018). Using analytics to improve customer engagement.
MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/using-analytics
-to-improve-customer-engagement/.
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social
media effects across seller, retailer and consumer interactions. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566.
Rishika, R., Kumar, A., Janakiraman, R., & Bezawada, R. (2013). The effect of customers’
social media participation on customer visit frequency and profitability: An
empirical investigation. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 108–127.
Rooderkerk, R. P., & Pauwels, K. H. (2016). No comment?! The drivers of reactions to
online posts in professional groups. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 35, 1–15.
Rust, R. T. (2019). Outside-in marketing: Why, when and how? Industrial Marketing
Management, 89, 102–104.
Santini, F. O., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Sampaio, C. H., & Babin, B. J.
(2020). Customer engagement in social media: A framework and meta-analysis.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 1211–1228.
Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media.
Management Decision, 50(2), 253–272.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The internet as
a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 19(4), 4–17.
Scheinbaum, A. C. (2016). Digital engagement: Opportunities and risks for sponsors.
Journal of Advertising Research, 56(4), 341–345.
Schmidt, S., & Eisend, M. (2015). Advertising repetition: A meta-analysis on effective
frequency in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 415–428.
Scholz, M., Schnurbus, J., Haupt, H., Dorner, V., Landherr, A., & Probst, F. (2018).
Dynamic effects of user- and marketer-generated content on consumer purchase
behavior: Modeling the hierachical structure of scoial media websites. Decision
Support Systems, 113, 43–55.
Seo, Y., Li, X., Choi, Y. K., & Yoon, S. (2018). Narrative transportation and paratextual
features of social media in viral advertising. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 83–95.
Siamagta, N. T., Christodoulide, G., Michaelidou, N., & Valvi, A. (2015). Determinants of
social media adoption by B2B organizations. Industrial Marketing Management, 51,
89–99.
Song, T., Huang, J., Tan, Y., & Yu, Y. (2019). Using user-and marketer-generated content
for box office revenue prediction: Differences between microblogging and third-
party platforms. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 191–203.
Srinivasan, S., Rutz, O. J., & Pauwels, K. (2016). Paths to and off purchase: Quantifying
the impact of traditional marketing and online consumer activity. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 440–453.
Stammerjohan, C., Wood, C. M., Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2005). An empirical
investigation of the interaction between publicity, advertising, and previous brand
attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 55–67.
Stern, B. B., Zinkhan, G. M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2002). The netvertising image:
Netvertising image communication model (NICM) and construct definition. Journal
of Advertising, 31(3), 15–27.
Stewart, D. W. (1981). The application and misapplication of factor analysis in marketing
research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 51–62.
Swani, K., Brown, B. P., & Milne, G. R. (2014). Should tweets differ for B2B and B2C? An
analysis of fortune 500 companies’ twitter communications. Industrial Marketing
Management, 43(5), 873–881.
M. Cheng et al.
Swani, K., Milne, G. R., & Brown, B. P. (2013). Spreading the word through likes on
Facebook: Evaluating the message strategy effectiveness of fortune 500 companies.
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(4), 269–294.
Swani, K., Milne, G. R., Brown, B. P., Assaf, A. G., & Donthu, N. (2017). What messages to
post? Evaluating the popularity of social media communications in business versus
consumer markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 77–87.
Tellis, G. J., MacInnis, D. J., Tirunillai, S., & Zhang, Y. (2019). What drives virality
(sharing) of online digital content? The critical role of information, emotion, and
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 1–20.
Topaloglu, O., & Dass, M. (2019). The impact of online review content and linguistic
style matching on new product sales: The moderating role of review helpfulness.
Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/Deci.12378.
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus
traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of
Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.
Tucker, C. E. (2015). The reach and persuasiveness of viral video ads. Marketing Science,
34(2), 281–296.
Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How advertising works: What do we really know?
The Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 26–43.
Van Dieijen, M., Borah, A., Tellis, G. J., & Franses, P. H. (2020). Big data analysis of
volatility spillovers of brands across social media and stock markets. Industrial
Marketing Management, 88, 465–484.
58
Industrial Marketing Management 98 (2021) 41–58
Varadarajan, R. (2020). Customer information rousurces advantage, marketing strategy
and business performance: A market resources based view. Industrial Marketing
Management, 89, 89–97.
Wang, J., Yang, N., & Guo, M. (2019). Dynamic positioning matters: Uncovering its
fundamental role in organization's innovation performance. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 35(5), 785–793.
Wang, Z., & Kim, H. G. (2017). Can social media marketing improve customer
relationship capabilities and firm performance? Dynamic capability perspective.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 15–26.
Warren, C., & Berger, J. (2011). The influence of humor on sharing. ACR North American
Advances, 39, 712–713.
Wooldrige, J. (1997). Quasi-likelihood methods for count data. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yoo, C., & MacInnis, D. (2005). The brand attitude formation process of emotional and
informational ads. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1397–1406.
Yoon, G., Li, C., Ji, Y., North, M., Hong, C., & Liu, J. (2018). Attracting comments: Digital
engagement metrics on Facebook and financial performance. Journal of Advertising,
47(1), 24–37.
Zhang, H., Sun, J., Liu, F., & Knight, J. G. (2014). Be rational or be emotional:
Advertising appeals, service types and consumer responses. European Journal of
Marketing, 48(11/12), 2105–2126.
Zhang, J. Z., & Watson, G. F., IV (2020). Marketing ecosystem: An outside-in view for
sustainable advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 287–304.