The Informational Value Of Social Tagging Networks
Hyoryung Nam & P.K. Kannan
The Informational Value of Social
Tagging Networks
Social tagging is a new way to share and categorize online content that enables users to express their thoughts, perceptions, and feelings with respect to diverse concepts. In social tagging, content is connected through usergenerated keywords—“tags”—and is readily searchable through these tags. The rich associative information that social tagging provides marketers new opportunities to infer brand associative networks. This article investigates how the information contained in social tags can act as a proxy measure for brand performance and can predict the financial valuation of a firm. Using data collected from a social tagging and bookmarking website, Delicious, the authors examine social tagging data for 44 firms across 14 markets. After controlling for accounting metrics, media citations, and other user-generated content, they find that social tag–based brand management metrics capturing brand familiarity, favorability of associations, and competitive overlaps of brand associations can explain unanticipated stock returns. In addition, they find that in managing brand equity, it is more important for strong brands to enhance category dominance, whereas it is more critical for weak brands to enhance connectedness.
These findings suggest a new way for practitioners to track, measure, and manage intangible brand equity; proactively improve brand performance; and influence a firm’s financial performance.
Keywords: user-generated content, social tags, social media, brand equity, firm valuation
W
Online Supplement: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0151
linked to a corporate brand. We focus on social tags, a specific form of UGC; infer how consumers conceptualize and create associative structures of brands; and demonstrate the informational value of social tagging networks in the context of stock market valuation.
We infer brand associative structure by examining social tagging networks
The Informational Value of Social
Tagging Networks
Social tagging is a new way to share and categorize online content that enables users to express their thoughts, perceptions, and feelings with respect to diverse concepts. In social tagging, content is connected through usergenerated keywords—“tags”—and is readily searchable through these tags. The rich associative information that social tagging provides marketers new opportunities to infer brand associative networks. This article investigates how the information contained in social tags can act as a proxy measure for brand performance and can predict the financial valuation of a firm. Using data collected from a social tagging and bookmarking website, Delicious, the authors examine social tagging data for 44 firms across 14 markets. After controlling for accounting metrics, media citations, and other user-generated content, they find that social tag–based brand management metrics capturing brand familiarity, favorability of associations, and competitive overlaps of brand associations can explain unanticipated stock returns. In addition, they find that in managing brand equity, it is more important for strong brands to enhance category dominance, whereas it is more critical for weak brands to enhance connectedness.
These findings suggest a new way for practitioners to track, measure, and manage intangible brand equity; proactively improve brand performance; and influence a firm’s financial performance.
Keywords: user-generated content, social tags, social media, brand equity, firm valuation
W
Online Supplement: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0151
linked to a corporate brand. We focus on social tags, a specific form of UGC; infer how consumers conceptualize and create associative structures of brands; and demonstrate the informational value of social tagging networks in the context of stock market valuation.
We infer brand associative structure by examining social tagging networks
References: The Informational Value of Social Tagging Networks / 39 Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer and Deborah Roedder John (1997), Griffiths Thomas L., Mark Steyvers, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum (2007), “Topics in Semantic Representation,” Psychological Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (July), 15–30. Hoberg, Gerard and Gordon Philips (2010), “Product Market Synergies and Competition in Mergers and Acquisitions: A TextBased Analysis,” Review of Financial Studies, 23 (10), 3773– 3811. Ho-Dac, Nga N., Stephen J. Carson, and William L. Moore (2013), “The Effects of Positive and Negative Online Customer Reviews: Do Brand Strength and Category Maturity Hoeffler, Steve and Kevin L. Keller (2003), “The Marketing Advantages of Strong Brands,” Journal of Brand Management, Interbrand (2009), “Best Global Brands 2009,” (accessed April 3, 2014), [available at http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-globalbrands/best-global-brands-2009.aspx] Jacoby, Jacob, George J. Syzabillo, and Jacqeline Busato-Schach (1977), “Information Acquisition Behavior in Brand Choice John, Deborah Roedder, Barbara Loken, and Christopher Joiner (1998), “The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship ———, ———, Kyeongheui Kim, and Alokparna Basu Monga (2006), “Brand Concept Maps: A Methodology for Identifying Kaplan, Andreas M. and Michael Haenlein (2010), “Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Keller, Kevin Lane (1987), “Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations,” ——— (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 ———, Brian Sternthal, and Alice Tybout (2002), “Three Questions You Need to Ask About Your Brand,” Harvard Business Review, 80 (9), 80–89. Körner, Christian, Dominik Benz, Andreas Hotho, Markus Strohmaier, and Gerd Stumme (2010), “Stop Thinking, Start Kothari, S.P., Susan Shu, and Peter D. Wysocki (2009), “Do Managers Withhold Bad News?” Journal of Accounting LeRoy, Stephen (1989), “Efficient Capital Markets and Martingales,” Journal of Economic Literature, 27 (4), 1583–1621. Liu, Yong (2006), “Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue,” Journal of Marketing, 70 Luo, Xueming (2009), “Quantifying the Long-Term Impact of Negative Word of Mouth on Cash Flows and Stock Prices,” Medin, Douglas L. and Marguerite M. Schaffer (1978), Context Theory of Classification Learning,” Psychological Review, 85 Mika, Peter (2007), “Ontologies Are on Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics,” Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5 (1), 5–15. Mizik, Natalie and Robert Jacobson (2004), “Stock Return Response Modeling,” in Assessing Marketing Strategy Performance, Christine Moorman and Donald R ——— and ——— (2008), “The Financial Value Impact of Perceptual Brand Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (February), 15–32. ——— and ——— (2009), “Financial Markets Research in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (May), 320–24. Nedungadi, Prakash (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,” Netzer, Oded, Ronen Feldman, Jacob Goldenberg, and Fresco Moshe (2012), “Mine Your Own Business: Market Structure Pink, Daniel H. (2005), “Folksonomy,” The New York Times, (December 11), (accessed April 3, 2014), [available at http:// Robu, Valentin, Harry Halpin, and Hana Shepherd (2009), “Emergence of Consensus and Shared Vocabularies in Collaborative Tagging Systems,” ACM Transactions on the Web, 3 (4), 14:1– Rosch, Eleanor (1973), “Natural Categories,” Cognitive Psychology, 4 (3), 328–35. Smallwood, Denise E. and John Conlisk (1979), “Product Quality in Markets Where Consumers Are Imperfectly Informed,” Srivastava, Rajendra K. and Allan D. Shocker (1991), “Brand Equity: A Perspective on Its Meaning and Measurement,” Strohmaier, Markus, Christian Körner, Roman Kern (2010), “Why Do Users Tag? Detecting Users’ Motivation for Tagging in