Competition for Attention in Online Social Networks: Implications for Seeding Strategies

References

• Ansari A, Koenigsberg O, Stahl F (2011) Modeling multiple relationships in social networks. J. Marketing Res. 48(4):713–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Dhillon PS (2018) Social influence maximization under empirical influence models. Nature Humam Behav. 2(6):375–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Van Alstyne M (2011) The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. Amer. J. Sociol. 117(1):90–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Walker D (2011) Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Sci. 57(9):1623–1639.Link, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Walker D (2012) Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337(6092):337–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Walker D (2014) Tie strength, embeddedness, and social influence: A large-scale networked experiment. Management Sci. 60(6):1352–1370.Link, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A (2013) Engineering social contagions: Optimal network seeding in the presence of homophily. Network Sci. 1(2):125–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asur S, Huberman BA, Szabo G, Wang C (2011) Trends in social media: Persistence and decay. Nicolov N, Shanahan JG, eds. Proc. 5th Internat. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA), 434–437.Google Scholar
• Bakshy E, Hofman JM, Mason WA, Watts DJ (2011) Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. Proc. 4th ACM Internat. Conf. Web Search and Data Mining (ACM, New York), 65–74.Google Scholar
• Bakshy E, Karrer B, Adamic LA (2009) Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content. EC'09 Proc. 10th ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce (ACM, New York), 325–334.Google Scholar
• Ballester C, Calvó‐Armengol A, Zenou Y (2006) Who’s who in networks? Wanted: The key player. Econometrica 74(5):1403–1417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bampo M, Ewing MT, Mather DR, Stewart D, Wallace M (2008) The effects of the social structure of digital networks on viral marketing performance. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):273–290.Link, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, Jackson MO (2013) The diffusion of microfinance. Science 341(6144):1236498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Dulfo E, Jackson MO (2019) Using gossips to spread information: Theory and evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(6):2453–2490.Google Scholar
• Bapna R, Umyarov A (2015) Do your online friends make you pay? A randomized field experiment on peer influence in online social networks. Management Sci. 61(8):1902–1920.Link, Google Scholar
• Barabási AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bearman PS, Moody J, Stovel K (2004) Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(1):44–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Milkman KL (2012) What makes online content viral? J. Marketing Res. 49(2):192–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blume LE, Easly D, Kleinberg J, Tardos E (2009) Trading networks with price-setting agents. Games Econom. Behav. 67(1):36–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: A family of measures. Amer. J. Sociol. 92(5):1170–1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borodin A, Filmus Y, Oren J (2010) Threshold models for competitive influence in social networks. Saberi A, ed. Internet and Network Economics WINE 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6484 (Springer, Berlin), 539–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Braun M, Bonfrer A (2011) Scalable inference of customer similarities from interactions data using Dirichlet processes. Marketing Sci. 30(May–June):513–531.Link, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(2):339–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329(5996):1194–1197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen X, van der Lans R, Phan TQ (2017) Uncovering the importance of relationship characteristics: Implications for seeding strategies. J. Marketing Res. 54(2):187–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook KS (1982) Network structures from an exchange perspective. Marsden P, Lin N, eds. Social Structure and Network Analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 177–199.Google Scholar
• Cook KS, Emerson RM, Gillmore MR, Yamagishi T (1983) The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. Amer. J. Sociol. 89(2):275–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Bruyn A, Lilien GL (2008) A multi-stage model of word of mouth through viral marketing. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 25(3):151–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Efron B (1985) Bootstrap confidence intervals for a class of parametric problems. Biometrika 72(1):45–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feld SL (1991) Why your friends have more friends than you do. Amer. J. Sociol. 96(6):1464–1477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feng L, Hu Y, Li B, Stanley HE, Havlin S, Braunstein LA (2015) Competing for attention in social media under information overload conditions. PLoS One 10(7):e0126090.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goel S, Watts DJ, Goldstein DG (2012) The structure of online diffusion networks. Proc. 13th ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce (EC’12) (ACM, New York), 623–638.Google Scholar
• Goel S, Anderson A, Hofman J, Watts DJ (2016) The structural virality of online diffusion. Management Sci. 62(1):180–196.Link, Google Scholar
• Goldenberg J, Han S, Lehmann DR, Hong JW (2009) The role of hubs in the adoption process. J. Marketing 73(2):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2011) Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Marketing Sci. 30(3):389–404.Link, Google Scholar
• Goyal S, Kearns M (2012) Competitive contagion in networks. Proc. 44th Sympos. Theory Comput. (ACM, New York), 759–774.Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78(6):1360–1380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harush U, Barzel B (2017) Dynamic patterns of information flow in complex networks. Nature Comm. 8(1):2181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heiss F, Winschel V (2008) Likelihood approximation by numerical integration on sparse grids. J. Econometrics 144(1):62–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hinz O, Skiera B, Barrot C, Becker JU (2011) Seeding strategies for viral marketing: An empirical comparison. J. Marketing 75(November):55–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hosanagar K, Han P, Tan Y (2010) Diffusion models for peer-to-peer (P@P) media distribution: On the impact of decentralized, constrained supply. Inform. Systems Res. 21(2):271–287.Link, Google Scholar
• Hu Y, Van den Bulte C (2014) Nonmonotonic status effects in new product adoption. Marketing Sci. 33(4):509–533.Link, Google Scholar
• Iyer G, Katona S (2016) Competing for attention in social communication markets. Management Sci. 62(8):2304–2320.Link, Google Scholar
• Iyengar R, Van den Bulte C, Valente TW (2011) Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Sci. 30(12):195–212.Link, Google Scholar
• Jackson MO (2008) Social and Economic Networks, vol. 3 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane GC, Alavi M, Labianca GJ, Borgatti S (2012) What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. MIS Quart. 38(1):275–304.Google Scholar
• Katona Z, Zubcsek PP, Sarvary M (2011) Network effects and personal influences: The diffusion of an online social network. J. Marketing Res. 48(3):425–443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kitsak M, Gallos LK, Havlin S, Liljeros F, Muchnik L, Stanley HE, Makse HA (2010) Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nature Phys. 6(11):888.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Bezawada R, Rishika R, Janakiraman R, Kannan PK (2016) From social to sale: The effects of firm-created content in social media on customer behavior. J. Marketing 80(1):7–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanz A, Goldenberg J, Shapira D, Stahl F (2019) Climb or jump: Status-based seeding in user-generated content networks. J. Marketing Res. 56(3):361–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee SH, Cotte J, Noseworthy TJ (2010) The role of network centrality in the flow of consumer influence. J. Consumer Psych. 20(1):66–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Libai B, Muller E, Peres R (2013) Decomposing the value of word-of-mouth seeding programs: Acceleration vs. expansion. J. Marketing Res. 50(2):161–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin KY, Lu HP (2011) Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput. Human Behav. 27(3):1152–1161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lobel I, Sadler E, Varshney LR (2016) Customer referral incentives and social media. Management Sci. 63(10):3514–3529.Link, Google Scholar
• Lokhov AY, Saad D (2017) Optimal deployment of resources for maximizing impact in spreading processes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114(39):E8138–E8146.Google Scholar
• Markovsky B, Willer D, Patton T (1988) Power relations in exchange networks. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 53(2):220–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Müller O, Junglas I, Brocke Jv, Debortoli S (2016) Utilizing big data analytics for information systems research: Challenges, promises and guidelines. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 25(4):289–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman ME (2003) Mixing patterns in networks. Phys. Rev. E 67(2):026126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearl J (1995) Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika 82(4):669–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillip MV, Suri R (2004) Impact of gender differences on the evaluation of promotional emails. J. Advertising Res. 44(4):360–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pieters R, Wedel M (2004) Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. J. Marketing 68(2):36–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pieters R, Wedel M, Zhang J (2007) Optimal feature advertising design under competitive clutter. Management Sci. 53(11):1815–1828.Link, Google Scholar
• 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. Inform. Systems Res. 24(1):108–127.Link, Google Scholar
• Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311(5762):854–856.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seidman SB (1983) Network structure and minimum degree. Soc. Networks 5(3):269–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sendiña-Nadal I, Danziger MM, Wang Z, Havlin S, Boccaletti S (2016) Assortativity and leadership emerge from anti-preferential attachment in heterogeneous networks. Sci. Rep. 6:21297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sun E, Rosenn I, Marlow CA, Lento TM (2009) Gesundheit! Modeling contagion through Facebook news feed. Proc. Third Internat. Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA), 146–153.Google Scholar
• Tang Y, Xiao X, Shi Y (2014) Influence maximization: Near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency. Proc. 2014 ACM SIGMOD Internat. Conf. Management Data (ACM, New York), 75–86.Google Scholar
• Teixeira T, Wedel M, Pieters R (2012) Emotion-induced engagement in Internet video advertisements. J. Marketing Res. 49(2):144–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trusov M, Bodapati A, Bucklin R (2010) Determining influential users in Internet social networks. J. Marketing Res. 47(4):643–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker C (2008) Identifying formal and informal influence in technology adoption with network externalities. Management Sci. 54(12):2024–2038.Link, Google Scholar
• Ugander J, Backstrom L, Marlow C, Kleinberg J (2012) Structural diversity in social contagion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(16):5962–5966.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Valente TW (2012) Network interventions. Science 337(6090):49–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Dam J-W, van de Velden M (2015) Online profiling and clustering of Facebook users. Decision Support Systems 70:60–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van der Lans R, Pieters R, Wedel M (2008) Competitive brand salience. Marketing Sci. 27(5):922–931.Link, Google Scholar
• van der Lans R, van Bruggen GH, Eliashberg J, Wierenga B (2010) A viral branching model for predicting the spread of electronic word-of-mouth. Marketing Sci. 29(2):348–365.Google Scholar
• Watts DJ, Dodds PS (2007) Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. J. Consumer Res. 34(December):441–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watts DJ, Peretti J (2007) Viral marketing for the real world. Harvard Bus. Rev. (May):22–23.Google Scholar
• Weng L, Flammini A, Vespignani A, Menczer F (2012) Competition among memes in a world with limited attention. Nature Sci. Rep. 2(335):1–9.Google Scholar
• Wu F, Huberman BA (2007) Novelty and collective attention. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(45):17599–17601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yamagishi T, Gillmore MR, Cook KS (1988) Network connections and the distribution of power in exchange networks. Amer. J. Sociol. 93(4):833–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoganarasimhan H (2012) Impact of social network structure on content propagation: A study using YouTube data. Quant. Marketing Econom. 10(1):111–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zubcsek P, Sarvary M (2011) Advertising to a social network. Quant. Marketing Econom. 9(1):71–107.Crossref, Google Scholar