High-profile and popular influencers on TikTok should rethink their approach to brand-sponsored campaigns since followers better engage and trust the authenticity of smaller creators over super influencers when it comes to paid content.

The study published in Psychology & Marketing from the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of Management aims to help brands and businesses develop more successful strategies on the social media platform by delving into how users interact with sponsored user-generated content. They found engagement around brand-sponsored content mirrors TikTok’s own image as an unfiltered, raw, and authentic platform.

Consumers questioned the authenticity of super influencers (over half a million followers), showing less engagement with their sponsored posts relative to their non-sponsored content in contrast to smaller creators (15K followers) who did not experience a drop when promoting similar sponsored content. The niche engagement felt by smaller influencers in promoting sponsored content can be attributed to their size, which makes them able to foster a stronger sense of trust.

Although popular influencers may face challenges with sponsored content, when they promote smaller, lesser-known brands, engagement remains strong. However, endorsing large, well-known brands often results in lower consumer engagement due to perceived lack of authenticity.

“This likely stems from the perception that more popular creators prioritize commercial interests and monetary gains over genuine connections with their audience and the sheer size of their audience may dilute the personal connection with viewers,” says Argiro Kliamenakis, an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Telfer. “This issue is exacerbated when large influencers promote large brands, as these brands are often perceived as inauthentic and profit-driven, leading to lower engagement with this type of content. Therefore, larger brands may find greater value in sponsoring multiple smaller creators and employing other promotional strategies with larger influencers to encourage organic content.”

With authenticity instrumental to reaching audiences, brand managers should exercise discretion when choosing brand partnerships and look to leverage the authenticity of micro-influencers or niche content creators with engaged followings which can lead to favorable responses to sponsored content. Smaller brands can also engage with more popular creators to take advantage of their influence and visibility without sacrificing consumer engagement.

“This research provides valuable insights into how brands can effectively engage audiences on TikTok, shedding light on the nuances of consumer behavior on this platform, which can help brands and businesses develop more successful strategies,” said Kliamenakis, who points to the emerging popularity of TikTok Lives offering another aspect that needs to be looked at. “It would be valuable to investigate how consumers respond to these emerging content formats and how they might influence engagement and perceived authenticity.”

Research from Bayes Business School (formerly Cass) finds that being on the cutting edge of technology is not enough to ensure success in the market, and managers must strategically time launches to create a source of opportunity and credibility for the firm.

The study, led by Dr Thomas Robinson, Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Bayes, with Dr Ela Veresiu, Associate Professor of Marketing at Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, develops a framework for guiding organisations on the best situations for a product launch.

The research identifies four timing situations that can confront marketing managers. Knowing the features and traits of each timing category allows firms to develop a launch strategy leading to success:

• Synergistic timing is the optimal, legitimate launch condition whereby a firm and its stakeholders share norms about when things should occur. Here the market is ready for a product and stakeholders are ready to embrace change.
• Flexible timing consists of low firm-led coordination but high stakeholder willingness to change. Consumers and other stakeholders initiate the legitimacy of a launch moment by being open to a product’s prospective utility. Flexible timing can become synergistic timing if a firm decides its product is sufficient for early release, or it can buy time with consumers by sharing prototype failures or ‘drip-feeding’ information about a product.
• Inflexible timing occurs when there is little appetite from stakeholders to change their timing expectations, so the firm must induce appetite for new technology that can overcome stakeholder caution about the future. To move from inflexible to synergistic timing, managers should aim to restrict a product’s tech functionality or increase its dependency on human intervention.
• Antagonistic timing arises when both stakeholder willingness to change and firm-led coordination are low, and launching new technology should not be a priority in this instance.

The conceptual paper draws on the 2013 release of the Google Glass augmented reality (AR) experience, which failed because it launched at the wrong moment. The firm itself was not adequately prepared, nor were consumers ready to accept the functionality of the device, leading to the glasshole moniker. A decade later, consumers are ready for public filming and social media sharing. Legislation is also in place in a way that now makes Ray-Ban’s Meta Smart Glasses a very desirable device.

Launching new technology in the market is therefore, according to the research, a social game, in which timing is an issue of poise and tact when engaging with stakeholders. Offering time signals consideration, respect, and mindfulness. Not offering enough time is rude and gets in the way of understanding and feeling comfortable around the new technology.

The research was supported by a comprehensive review of literature looking into the role of time in market legitimacy, using the Business Source Complete database to extract academic articles around subject – plus articles from 20 4*,4 and 3 ranked marketing journals that contained key words. The resulting sample of 172 articles were then coded to identify key and recurring themes around time.

Dr Robinson said insights on the role of timing are essential for firms to improve the odds of success at launch.

“While 30,000 new products are introduced every year, 95 percent fail,” he said.

 “Consider a marriage proposal on the first date, a request for more time after ten years in a relationship, waiting too long to thank a relative for a birthday present or serving a dessert before the mains at a dinner party. Stakeholders have strong timing-norms about pacing, sequencing, coordination and planning that impact the readiness of the market.

“While marketers often have a linear view of technology, our research on timing reveals that it is not always the case that the old is simply replaced by the new – often old, failed technologies have a comeback.

“Product categories like AR glasses rose from their own ashes in ‘phoenix markets’, suggesting that it can be worthwhile to revisit old failures. Smartwatches, electric cars, and social media were all initial failures that later succeeded. Substantial losses could have been avoided had they had better timing frameworks.

“While the timing framework is developed for launching new technologies, our research also has broader applications for rebranding and mergers, political marketing, understanding the fashion cycle, service design and the experience economy.”

‘Timing Legitimacy: Identifying the Optimal Moment to Launch Technology in the Market’ by Dr Thomas Robinson and Professor Ela Veresiu is published in the Journal of Marketing.

Scroll through your Facebook feed, and you’ll get pelted by advertisements begging for a click. Like any other type of post, these ads allow you to react. Often, you’ll notice that one or more of your friends has already “liked” them.

Advertisers hope that a high number of such endorsements, especially from familiar faces, might make users more likely to click. But new research from Texas McCombs finds it depends on the type of ad — and the type of friend.

The wrong ads and friends could have the opposite effect, making a viewer less likely to click. So say Ashish Agarwal, associate professor of information, risk, and operations management (IROM), and Andrew Whinston, professor of IROM. Whinston is also the Hugh Roy Cullen Centennial Chair in Business Administration and director of the Center for Research in Electronic Commerce at The University of Texas at Austin.

Agarwal, Whinston, and Shun-Yang Lee of Northeastern University focused on call-to-action (CTA) ads. Such ads use assertive wording to urge users to do something specific, such as purchase a product or download a mobile app. They’re different from the passive wording of informational ads, which politely invite users to click to “learn more.”

Advertisers tend to prefer CTA ads, Agarwal says, because they put social media users “directly into purchase mode.” But past research had shown a downside to CTA ads: They often rubbed users the wrong way, especially when people felt manipulated.

The researchers wondered whether an accumulation of “likes” could overcome that resistance. Says Agarwal, “Given that these are assertive ads, how would these social cues help or hurt?”

They conducted two rounds of studies.

• In a field experiment, they teamed up with a mobile app developer to place a CTA ad on Facebook, asking users to download an app. It appeared 710,445 times, resulting in 799 “likes” and 4,052 clicks.
• For a lab test, they evaluated different combinations of ads and cues: informational vs. CTA and generic “likes” vs. “likes” from friends. Each of the 982 study participants provided the names of five friends.

The studies found that users had different responses, depending on the ad and the cue. For informational ads, more “likes” led to more clicks. The odds of a click rose 3% for every 100 generic likes and even more — 21% — for each “like” by a friend.

For CTA ads, the opposite was true. The overall number of “likes” had no meaningful impact on clicks.

But “likes” from friends did have effects — both ways. They were positive or negative, depending on whether a user believed a friend had similar or dissimilar interests.

• Having similar interests increased odds of a click 180%.
• Having dissimilar interests decreased odds 66%.

Why the difference? In a follow-up lab study, the team found that users responded negatively to CTA ads, because they felt advertisers were trying to manipulate them. They saw the highlighting of “likes” as part of that strategy.

They set aside that resistance, though, when they saw that friends with similar interests “liked” an ad. They saw the ad as having higher credibility.

By contrast, they found informational ads less intrusive than CTAs. They felt less resistance and were more open to being swayed by “likes.”

The team’s findings have implications for advertisers, Agarwal says, as well as for social media companies that rely on advertising revenue. Displaying “likes” may be effective for informational ads but not for CTAs.

“You have to be a bit careful about the value of these endorsements,” Agarwal says. “Maybe social media companies can make their presence optional. Maybe advertisers should have a choice: Do I want my content to be promoted with these endorsements or not?”

“The Effect of Popularity Cues and Peer Endorsements on Assertive Social Media Ads” is published online in Information Systems Research.