Content uploaded by Rang Wang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rang Wang on Jun 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 1
Content Marketing Strategy of Branded YouTube Channels
Rang Wang; Sylvia Chan-Olmsted
University of Florida
Abstract
As content marketing becomes a viable approach to build brands and connect with
consumers, this study assessed top brands’ content marketing strategy on branded YouTube
channels via content analysis. Using a consumer engagement conceptual framework, the study
examined brands’ strategies addressing the interactivity, attention, emotion, and cognition
aspects of engagement and explored the role of YouTube capabilities, financial resources, and
product category in strategy differentiation. Results indicated that engagement through social
media content marketing is highly contextual and platform dependent. YouTube capabilities,
financial resources, and product category play an important role in strategy differentiation.
Keywords: Content marketing, YouTube, Branded content, Consumer engagement
The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in Journal of
Media Business Studies (2020), http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/16522354.2020.1783130
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 2
As YouTube becomes a ubiquitous video platform competing for advertising revenues
across the globe, marketers are increasingly turning to this platform to connect with the so-called
YouTube generation and social media enthusiasts (Ghosh, 2016). YouTube differs from the
traditional TV advertising platform in that it offers brands the opportunity to take control of the
message environment with less time or fewer creative limitations while offering new interaction
and community-building possibilities. YouTube provides a video content marketing avenue that
was unavailable in the past. As online streaming becomes mainstream and YouTube reaches over
a billion users (YouTube, n.d.), studies of media systems and management of such systems
would be incomplete without further understanding of YouTube’s characteristics as a media
channel for marketing communications purposes.
Over the past years, marketers are increasingly turning to the so-called content marketing
to build their brands and connect with consumers. Content marketing is defined as “a strategic
marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent
content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience – and, ultimately, to drive profitable
customer action” (Content Marketing Institute, n.d. para. 3). Unlike traditional marketing
communications (e.g., advertising) where messages are designed for the benefits of brands,
content marketing emphasizes offering value to consumers (Asmussen et al., 2016). In addition,
content marketing uses a pull logic instead of push logic – consumers are not forced to encounter
brand-related information but opt in to receive content from brands (e.g., following a brand on
social media). As a result, consumers are less likely to avoid or ignore the content. Content
marketing is gaining strength as a means of building brands, retaining customer relationship, and
driving customer actions in today’s fragmented media environment (Arrese and Perez-Latre,
2017).
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 3
In 2018, more than 70% of brands in the U.S. claimed having content marketing
strategies and over half of brands around the globe expected to increase their content marketing
budget in 2020 (Beets & Handley, 2018; Handley et al., 2020). In 2019, specifically, video
content was the fastest-growing type of content, as 69% of brands increased their use of video
content in content marketing (Beets and Handley, 2018). As such, YouTube offers a great
opportunity for brands to practice content marketing. It has been suggested that YouTube can
help marketers cultivate authority, build credibility, and construct brand community through
branded content (Agrawal, 2016; Ciampa, 2013). However, as important as content marketing
and YouTube are today, academic studies addressing content marketing on YouTube are scarce.
The key to successful content marketing was “engaging in a conversation with your
customers and prospects” (Pulizzi and Barrett, 2009, p. 15). By eliciting consumer engagement,
it is believed that content marketing will lead to positive outcomes, such as brand loyalty and
purchase intention (Pulizzi & Barrett, 2009). As a result, this study adopts the engagement
framework and investigates the engagement aspects of top brands’ content marketing strategies
on YouTube. The goal is to understand how brands have utilized the relatively new marketing
communication platform YouTube. In addition, considering that a company’s resources and
capabilities can significantly affect the formation of marketing communication strategies of the
brands it owns (Forsyth, 2009), this study explores how two resource- or capability-based
factors, namely YouTube capability and financial resources, have contributed to the differences
in brands’ YouTube strategies. This study also examines brands’ strategy differentiation based
on product category. These factors are of high relevancy in the YouTube context.
As such, this study aims to contribute to our understanding of top brands’ use of
YouTube in practicing content marketing. Specifically, the study is designed to identify major
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 4
trends in top brands’ engagement strategies on the platform and investigate strategy variations
from a resource and capability perspective. Practically, it offers content marketing insights for
practitioners by systematically analyzing leading brands, which often set the tone of industry
practices.
Literature Review
Engagement through Social Media Content
Systematic studies on social media content marketing strategies are scant. In the context
of Facebook, Stephen et al. (2015) developed a typology of social media content characteristics
and studied the effects of these characteristics on consumer engagement. They proposed six
categories and a number of subdimensions, such as information (subdimensions: product-related,
value-related, and brand-related) and calls to action (subdimensions: calls to engage, calls to
enter a competition). They found that being informative is not sufficient in driving consumer
engagement and calls to action actually has little impact. Instead, persuasion-oriented content
characteristics (subdimensions: relevance, message clarity, and advertising tone) work the best.
A similar work from Cvijikj and Michahelles (2013) studied characteristics of brands’ Facebook
content (e.g., content type and media type) on four engagement actions (i.e., likes, comments,
shares, and interaction duration). They reported that both content type and media type affected
engagement results. In general, entertainment content and photos drove more engagement.
However, engaging consumers on YouTube can be different, given that social interaction
on most social media platforms, including Facebook, is mostly based on profiles and friending
(Boyd and Ellison, 2007), but YouTube’s interaction is rooted in the video content itself
(Burgess & Green, 2009; Lange, 2007b), complemented by comments (Lange, 2007a). In a way,
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 5
YouTube’s form of communication provides more contextual cues due to its focus on content
and audio-visual presentations (Littlejohn and Foss, 2009).
Waters and Jones's (2011) study is the only study thus far that specifically studied the
strategies of branded videos in YouTube brand channels, though it focused on nonprofit
organizations. It examined the 100 most viewed YouTube nonprofit channels and coded several
items (e.g., overall purpose, references to nonprofit topics, and calls to action) in an attempt to
identify the purpose of these videos, the content being used to develop organizational identity,
and the way to engage stakeholders. This study found that nonprofit organizations focused on
informing and educating viewers about their missions, programs, and services rather than
engaging stakeholders. Although the study provides great insights, what is found in a nonprofit
context may not apply to commercial brands.
In summary, little research has been done regarding engagement strategies of top brands
in social media content marketing, especially that on YouTube. How variance in these strategies
across brands relates to company- or brand-related factors is not explored as well. This study
aims to address the gap in relevant literature. Specifically, the study examines brands’
engagement strategies from four aspects – interactivity, attention, emotion, and cognition – and
how their strategies differ based on three factors, namely YouTube capability, financial
resources, and product category. A conceptual diagram of this study can be found in Figure 1.
[Figure 1 near here]
The Engagement Framework – Interactivity, Attention, Emotion, and Cognition
In exploring the content marketing strategy of branded YouTube channels, this study
subscribes to the conceptual framework of consumer engagement to identify the most important
strategic aspects in this context. Consumer engagement is defined as “a psychological state that
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 6
occurs by virtue of interactive, cocreative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a
brand) in focal service relationships” (Brodie et al., 2011, p. 106–107). The concept is proposed
to be multi-dimensional with a set of cognitive, emotional, behavioral, experiential, or social
components (Brodie et al., 2011; Dessart et al., 2015; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014).
From a consumer-brand perspective, engagement can help stimulate purchase intention,
encourage word-of-mouth behaviors, and build brand loyalty (Brodie et al., 2013; Chan et al.,
2014). Existing literature also suggests that engagement is highly contextual. This study explores
the concept on a video-based social media platform in a brand content marketing context.
Overall, four strategic aspects are identified that contribute to engagement on YouTube. These
aspects (i.e., interactivity, attention, emotion, and cognition) are discussed below.
Interactivity. The definition of engagement suggests that an interactive experience is at
the core of the engagement concept (Hollebeek at al., 2014). Scholars have discussed
interactivity as one of the most important features of engagement (Asmussen et al., 2016; Mollen
& Wilson, 2010). This is especially true when it comes to engagement through social media. It is
believed that the interactive capabilities of social media perfectly match the nature of
engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2014). By providing interactive content and facilitating interaction
with consumers, social media connect brands with consumers and foster consumer engagement
(Van Laer et al., 2013). Studies have shown that YouTube influencers often use multiple
interactive elements (e.g., greetings, interaction invitations) in their videos and the comment
function to engage their followers and develop communities (Cayari, 2011; Tolson, 2010).
However, little is known about how brands interact with consumers in YouTube channels.
Accordingly, this study will first address the interactive strategy of branded YouTube channels
with the following research question.
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 7
RQ 1: How is interactivity strategy utilized by brands in their YouTube channels?
Attention. Outside the interactive core, engagement has several dimensions. Among the
dimensions, attention is often the first one mentioned (e.g., O’Brien & Toms, 2010; Vivek et al.,
2014). It is the key concept underlying the phase of engagement before behavioral responses
(Hollebeek et al., 2014). When engaged, consumers tend to concentrate on the engaging object
and ignore other things (O’Brien and Toms, 2010). To attract consumers’ attention, several
techniques could be used in advertising, such as the so-called borrowed interest appeal (i.e.,
interests that consumers naturally have, such as cute puppies and beautiful women), animation,
flash, size changes, and pop-up (Campbell, 1995; Nilsson, 2006). In addition, celebrity
endorsement has also been found effective (Erdogan, 1999; Kamins, 1989). The current study
focuses on celebrity endorsement as an attention-getting technique given its strengthened power
in the social media context (Brison et al., 2016; Wood & Burkhalter, 2014). Different from the
traditional advertising context, where celebrity endorsers are socially inaccessible by the
advertising audience, on social media, brands can actually connect the audience with an endorser
immediately by including a link to the endorser’s account. Such an interaction opportunity could
help with attracting the audience’s attention. In addition, brands can take advantage of the
endorser’s follower base by having the endorser post on their own page, attract followers’
attention, and drive traffic to the brand’s channel.
In addition to traditional celebrities, a relevant phenomenon that is unique to social
media, especially YouTube and Instagram, is the existence of social media celebrity, also known
as social media influencers. YouTube celebrities’ videos, comments, and behaviors can influence
the discourse and goals of the YouTube community (Lange, 2007a). In practice, a wide range of
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 8
brands have hired YouTube celebrities to promote their products (Slutsky, 2010). To examine
the attention aspect through celebrity endorsement, the following research question is posited.
RQ 2: How is celebrity endorsement, especially YouTube celebrity endorsement, adopted
by brands in YouTube channels?
Emotion. As one key aspect of engagement, emotions are the internal drive that causes
people “to desire things, to form attachments, to have particular kinds of emotional reactions to
media” (Gates, 2014, p. 77-78). Strong affective engagement can be achieved without a high
level of attention and strong brands can be built through the emotional route (Heath, 2009).
Emotions are important in social media content marketing. Pleasurable emotions elicited by
branded content will lead to positive attitudes toward the brands (Chen et al., 2015). The type
and intensity of emotions contained in a video are associated with its virality (Botha, 2014;
Nelson-Field et al., 2013). Brands can strategically design emotional content to engage
consumers (Biener et al., 2004; Eckler & Bolls, 2011; Holbrook & O’Shaughnessy, 1984).
Subscribing to the emotional content framework proposed by Holbrook and O’Shaughnessy
(1984), which combines the positive/negative bipolarity of emotion with the pleasure-arousal-
dominance framework (Mehrabian, 1996), the present study also explores the emotional content
strategy of the branded YouTube channels.
RQ 3: How is emotional content employed by brands in YouTube channels?
Cognition. To address the cognitive aspect of engagement strategy manifested in branded
YouTube channels, this study explores the message strategy of the videos. The dual-processing
models, such as the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980) and the elaboration likelihood
model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), suggest that consumers may process advertising messages
through two different approaches. One approach relies heavily on cognition and requires
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 9
extensive information processing, while the other is more peripheral or heuristic. Brands could
choose to foster either approach by adopting different messages strategies. The current study
adopts the message strategy typology developed by Laskey et al. (1989). The two-step typology
categorizes message strategy into one of the two main categories – informational or
transformational – and then into a sub-category belonging to the main category. While the
informational approach implies a more cognitive message strategy, the transformation approach
represents a non-cognitive message strategy. Regarding social media content marketing, research
on message strategies and consumer engagement with branded content have in the past focused
on text-based social media platforms (e.g., Ashley and Tuten, 2015). A few studies have
examined the YouTube context, but with an emphasis on corporate social responsibility issues
(e.g., Wen and Song, 2017). To fill the research gap, the following research question is posited.
RQ 4: How is cognitive content, as reflected by message strategy approach, adopted by
brands in YouTube channels?
Factors Affecting Marketing Strategies – YouTube Capability, Financial Resources, and
Product Category
The resource-based theory suggests that companies possess different resources and
capabilities that serve as the foundation for business strategy, such as knowledge resources,
financial resources, and complementary capabilities (Grant, 1991). This indicates that a
company’s resources and capabilities are likely to impact the marketing strategies of the brands it
owns. In addition to resources and capabilities, the theory also indicates that external
environment, such as the industry a company operates in, can have an impact on strategy (Grant,
1991). Based on the theory, this study identifies three factors that are most relevant in the
YouTube content marketing context and explores how these factors may affect brands’ content
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 10
marketing strategies on YouTube. The factors are YouTube capability, financial resources, and
product category. It is worth noting that although resources and capabilities are normally
assigned to a company behind a brand rather than the brand itself and therefore brands owned by
the same company may share some resources and capabilities, the three factors this study
explores are actually brand specific. This will be further elaborated in the following sections.
YouTube capability. YouTube capability, a company’s capacity of deploying primarily
knowledge-based resources it integrated about YouTube, is likely to influence how it approaches
the platform. In the YouTube content marketing context, YouTube capability is reflected by a
company’s understanding of YouTube users, YouTube content, and YouTube functions. It can
be achieved through not only in-house teams but also outsourcing to specialized external
agencies. In either way, companies that have fewer subscribers and views are likely to have
lower levels of YouTube capability, as they don’t seem to master the art of YouTube content
marketing. In addition, companies that are new on the platform may have lower levels of
YouTube capability because they are less experienced. Although outsourcing to experienced
agencies is available, most companies don’t outsource content strategy; they only hire external
agencies for content creation (Handley et al., 2020). As such, companies that are new on the
platform may not sufficiently understand how to develop effective content strategies to engage
with consumers on the platform. Studies have indicated that companies’ social media strategies
varied by their experiences with social media (Fischer and Reuber, 2011; Kietzmann et al.,
2011). The current study measures three indicators to represent a brand’s YouTube capability,
namely subscribers, total views, and years on YouTube. Because even brands owned by the same
company have their independent YouTube channels and audience bases, YouTube capability can
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 11
be regarded as a brand specific factor that represents a brand’s knowledge and capability of
utilizing this platform.
Financial resources. Financial resources have been found to affect a company’s
strategies as well as other resources and capabilities (Kaleka, 2011). Although brands owned by
the same company may share some financial resources, a type of financial resource that is often
brand specific is advertising budget. Advertising budget can be calculated at a product level, a
brand level, or a company level. This study focuses on the advertising budget allocated to a
brand. Advertising budget has been shown to influence brands’ media strategies (Forsyth, 2009).
To assess brands’ budget on content, especially video content, the current study measures two
indicators, namely advertising expenditure and TV advertising expenditure.
Product category. A brand’s industrial environment, as indicated by product category,
can affect the brand’s marketing strategies because each industry has its own attributes and
dynamics. For example, luxury brands are found to offer entertaining content all the time (Kim
and Ko, 2012), while nonprofit organizations majorly provide informational content (Waters and
Jones, 2011). The present study employs the widely accepted involvement level concept (Martin,
1998) to indicate a brand’s category. Accordingly, the following research question is proposed:
RQ 5: How do content marketing strategies vary across brands based on their YouTube
capability, financial resources, and product category?
Methods
This study utilizes content analysis to assess branded YouTube channels. Content
analysis is useful “both in the context of justification for establishing patterns which support
existing theories (or fail to support them) and in the context of discovery for establishing patterns
on which to formulate new theories” (Carlson et al., 1993, p. 29).
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 12
Sampling
Fifty brands that have their own branded YouTube channels and are ranked among the
highest on Forbes’ “The World’s Most Valuable Brands” list (Forbes, 2017) were selected. The
Forbes list is well-known for its credibility and therefore is a proper sampling frame for
measuring top brands’ strategies. Top brands with high brand values are considered successful in
branding and marketing. How they adopt novel marketing approaches has always been a focus of
research (e.g., Ashley and Tuten, 2015; Guo, 2012; Burns, 2016), as it indicates whether these
approaches have become mainstream and indispensable elements of the promotion mix. This
study focuses on major brands’ content marketing practices on YouTube in order to learn how
this marketing technique and this media channel have been used by major brands for marketing
communications purposes.
To sample brands and corresponding YouTube channels, the top 50 brands were first
checked. Two brands that didn’t have YouTube brand channels were removed as they are
considered as not conducting content marketing on YouTube. New brands were then replenished
based on their ranks. For brands that have more than one channel, only the main channel was
selected. Specifically, only the channel that represents (1) the whole brand, instead of a certain
category (e.g., Nike vs. Nike Running); and (2) the brand’s global market, instead of a certain
country (e.g., Nescafe vs. Nescafe USA), was selected. One brand was excluded because it did
not have a global channel. The rationale is that a single category or a specific country is lacking
in representativeness of the brand as a whole. In each brand channel, the featured video at the
home page and another four latest videos were collected. The featured video was preferred
because it indicates the strategic focus of the brand. Another four newest videos were also
collected for more comprehensive representation of the brand’s content strategy. Finally, a
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 13
sample of 50 brands and 250 videos was generated. A list of the brands is provided in Appendix
A.
Data Collection and Coding Procedures
To code videos as they are viewed by consumers on YouTube, the whole coding process
was online. This is necessary because YouTube has several interaction functions that only work
online. For example, a pre-set link may appear during a video inviting consumers to join a
competition and disappear after several seconds. This link will not appear when the video is
downloaded and played offline. Two trained coders coded the videos according to the codebook
in two phases. First, 12% of the sample brands (n=6) and the corresponding videos (n=30) were
used for coder training. During the training process, discrepancies were discussed and the
codebook was revised accordingly. This process repeated several times until the coders reached
acceptable inter-coder reliability. In the second phase, each of the coders independently coded 22
of the remaining brands. This coding method has been widely adopted by media and
communication researchers (e.g., Faerber and Kreling, 2014). The coding process started in
February 2017. When coding, the coders first coded variables containing values that change
constantly (e.g., number of views) simultaneously to minimize the impact of time. After that,
other variables were coded in a one-week period. The final inter-coder reliability of each variable
was calculated and presented in Appendix B.
Coding Scheme
Regarding interactivity strategy, six indicators addressing both the content (i.e., content
interactivity) and non-content (i.e., interaction frequency) aspects were measured, including post
frequency in a month, response frequency in a week, frequency of disabling comments, use of
link, use of call to act, and use of contest/question that invites consumers to participate/answer.
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 14
For attentional engagement, namely celebrity endorsement strategy, the presence of traditional
celebrity and that of YouTube celebrity were coded respectively for each video. As for emotional
content strategy, two dimensions (pleasure and arousal) were coded, each with three categories
(e.g., positive, negative, and neither). As for the cognition aspect, namely message strategy, each
video was coded into one main category (informational vs. transformational) and then one
subcategory (informational: comparative, unique selling proposition, preemptive, hyperbole,
generic-informational. Transformational: user image, brand image, use occasion, and generic-
transformational).
Regarding factors affecting strategies, YouTube capability was indicated by subscribers,
total views, and years on YouTube. Advertising expenditure and TV advertising expenditure
were recorded using secondary data to assess financial resources. When identifying the
expenditures, we recorded the amount of money attributed to the brand names appeared in the
Forbes list, rather than any specific product lines of the brands or any parent brands of the
brands. Lastly, product category was indicated by involvement level (high vs. low). The
operational definitions and coding categories of the variables can be found in Appendix B.
Sample Distribution
The 50 brands come from various industries, including technology, automobile, energy,
fashion, retailing, telecommunication, banking, fast moving consumer goods, and so on. Among
the 50 brands, 10% have more than 1 million subscribers, 50% have between 100,000 and 1
million subscribers, and 40% have fewer than 100,000 subscribers. Concerning total views, 6%
have more than 1 billion views, 24% have between 100 million and 1 billion views, 64% have
between 1 million and 100 million views, and 6% have fewer than 1 million views. As for
YouTube experience, 80% have been on YouTube for 10 years or above. With regard to
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 15
financial resource, 44% spent more than 100 million dollars on advertising in the last year, and
36% spent more than 100 million dollars on TV advertising. With regard to product category,
52% belong to the high involvement category, while 48% belong to the low involvement
category.
Data Analysis
A usage score was calculated for each of the strategy variables except for post frequency
and reply frequency by aggregating the times of using this strategy by the brand in its five
videos. The lowest possible score is 0, referring that the brand did not use this strategy in any of
the five videos. The highest possible score is 5, which means that the brand used this strategy in
all five videos. As such, the original dummy variables representing a single video were recoded
into continuous variables representing a whole brand. Likewise, reply frequency of each brand
was calculated by summing up the total number of responses in the brand’s five videos. These
variables were recoded because this study is interested in content marketing strategies at a brand
level instead of a video level.
Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, and Kendall’s Tau-b
correlation coefficient were utilized to analyze the data. The later three nonparametric tests are
suitable for data with authentic outliners and are not normally distributed, which is often the case
for data collected by content analysis. Note that because the advertising expenditure data of
McDonald’s were not available, this brand was excluded when analyzing the variance in strategy
based on advertising expenditure.
Results
The descriptive stats concerning RQ1 to RQ4 are provided in Table 1. RQ 1 addresses
interactivity strategy from both content and non-content aspects. As for content interactivity,
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 16
around half of the brands (42%, n=21) used “link” and the same percentage used “call to act” in
every video, meaning that the brands were actively linking YouTube videos to other platforms
and are inviting consumers to connect with them or explore more about them. Only 10% of the
brands (n=5) didn’t use “link” or “call to act” in any of their videos. However, the highest level
of interactivity, contest/question, was seldom used by brands, as only 6% (n=3) used it once and
94% (n=47) didn’t use it at all. As for the non-content aspect, namely interaction frequency, the
brands posted relatively frequently but rarely replied to comments. Post frequency ranged from 0
to 225 per month and most brands posted more than once a week (Mdn=7.5, M=20.24,
SD=37.40). Reply frequency ranged from 0 to 8 per week. 90% of the brands (n=45) didn’t reply
to comments at all. In addition, the brands showed a strong will to control user-generated-content
(UGC), as 28% (n=14) of them disabled the comment function for at least one video and 14%
(n=7) even disabled comments for all videos.
RQ 2 explores the attentional aspect of engagement by examining celebrity endorsement
strategy. 24% of the brands (n=12) used traditional celebrity to some extent. 12% (n=6) used it
once, 5% (n=5) used it three times, and 2% (n=1) used it four times. YouTube celebrity was used
indeed, but very rarely, as only 4% of the brands (n=2) used it and just in one video.
RQ 3 addresses emotional engagement and emotional content strategy. Emotional content
was commonly used. The majority of the brands (78%, n=39) used positive pleasure to some
extent and 10% (n=5) used this strategy in all five videos. 14% of the brands (n=7) used negative
pleasure but all of them only used it once. 16% of the brands (n=8) did not use any pleasure in
any video (i.e., used neither pleasure in all five videos). Regarding arousal, 76% of the brands
(n=38) used positive arousal to some extent and no brand used negative arousal. 16% of the
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 17
brands (n=8) used positive arousal in all their videos. 24% of the brands (n=12) did not use any
arousal in any video (i.e., used neither arousal in all five videos).
RQ 4 explores message strategy, which represents the cognitive aspect of engagement.
Almost all brands (98%, n=49) used transformational (non-cognitive) message strategy at least
once in their videos and the majority of the brands (66%, n=33) used informational (cognitive)
strategy at least once in their videos. In is worth noting that 34% of the brands (n=17) employed
transformational (non-cognitive) strategy in all five videos, while only 2% (n=1) used
informational (cognitive) strategy in all videos. Most brands using informational (cognitive)
strategy just used it once (22%, n=11) or twice (20%, n=10). With regard to sub-strategy, the
most widely used informational sub-strategy is preemptive, as 46% of the brands (n=23) used it
at least once. The least used ones were comparative and USP, each used by 4% of the brands
(n=2) and only in one video. Hyperbole and generic-informational strategies each was adopted
by 14% of the brands (n=7). As for transformational sub-strategy, the most frequently used is
brand image – 62% of the brands (n=31) used it at least once. Generic-transformation is the least
used one, as 70% of the brands (n=35) did not use it in any video. User image and use occasion
was adopted by 64% of the brands (n=32).
A series of analyses were performed for RQ5, which addresses the relationship between
content marketing strategies and the three influential factors. A summary of the results is
provided in Table 2. First, two indicators of YouTube capability were associated with
interactivity strategy. To be specific, subscribers was positively correlated with post frequency
(τb = .234, p = .018), link (τb = .238, p = .026), and call to act (τb = .238, p = .026). Total views
was positively correlated with reply frequency (τb = .271, p = .033), link (τb = .234, p = .030),
and call to act (τb = .234, p = .030). Two indicators of financial resources were positively
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 18
correlated with reply frequency, including ad expenditure (τb = .282, p = .025) and TV ad
expenditure (τb = .288, p = .022). Generally speaking, the correlations were significant but weak.
With regard to product category, no group difference was significant (p > .05). In other words,
the brands’ interactivity strategy didn’t differ based on their product category.
In terms of attention strategy as reflected by the use of celebrities, Kendall's tau-b
correlation showed that there was a positive association between traditional celebrity
endorsement and subscribers, τb = .24, p = .036. No other significant correlation or group
difference was identified (p > .05).
With regard to emotional content strategy, because no brands used negative arousal, it
was exempted from further tests. Consequently, neither arousal was also exempted because it is
merely the absence of positive arousal. YouTube capability indicators were significant.
Subscribers was significantly associated with positive pleasure (τb = .24, p = .023), neither
positive nor negative pleasure (τb = -.26, p = .012), and positive arousal (τb = .35, p = .001).
Similarly, total views was also associated with positive pleasure (τb = .22, p = .037), neither
pleasure (τb = -.25, p = .018), and positive arousal (τb = .32, p = .003). A financial resource
indicator, TV ad expenditure, was also significantly associated with positive arousal (τb = .23, p
= .031). In addition, differences based on product category were significant, though marginally.
Low involvement brands used positive arousal (mean rank = 29.67) more frequently than high
involvement brands (mean rank = 21.65), U = 412, z = 1.981, p = .048, but neither arousal less
frequently (mean rank = 21.33) than them (mean rank = 29.35), U = 212, z = -1.981, p = .048.
As for cognitive engagement through message strategies, group differences based on
product category were significant. Compared to low involvement categories, high involvement
categories used informational strategy more (mean rank high = 30.73, mean rank low = 19.83, U =
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 19
176, z = -2.724, p = .006) and transformational strategy less (mean rank high = 20.27, mean rank
low = 31.17, U = 448, z = 2.724, p = .006). With regard to the sub-categories of message strategy,
subscribers was negatively associated with generic-informational strategy, τb = -.28, p =.014,
and positively associated with generic-transformational strategy, τb = .22, p =.049. Both
associations were weak.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study explores how top brands use branded YouTube channels for content marketing
purposes based on the premise that this video social media platform provides an effective
environment for brands to engage consumers. Brand strategies are examined from the
perspectives of interactivity, attention, emotion, and cognitive message design. This engagement
framework is effective in guiding our examination of content strategies. In this section, we
identified the major trends concerning the top brands’ YouTube content marketing strategies,
and discussed the differences in the brands’ strategies based on their YouTube capability,
financial resources, and product category.
The first trend identified is that top brands focus on interacting through content rather
than platform functions. Nevertheless, they do not attempt to elicit higher levels of interactivity
in content, as contest/question is rarely used. The focus on content rather than interaction with
consumers may result from the environment of YouTube. Compared to other social media
platforms, YouTube is not designed for communication, but content consumption and sharing
(Kietzmann et al., 2011). Consumers are the least likely to generate UGC responding to
marketers’ online actions on YouTube, compared to Facebook and Twitter (Smith et al., 2012).
Interaction on YouTube relies on the video content itself (Burgess & Green, 2009; Lange,
2007b). Hence, brands might be responding to the nature of YouTube as a platform by trying to
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 20
provide quality content, instead of interacting with consumers as a means of engagement. It is
necessary for marketers to understand the distinct characteristics of each social media platform
and set engagement objectives accordingly.
The second trend is that top brands are trying to control UGC by disabling comments.
This might be an effort of controlling the media environment in their channels. Given that
uncontrolled negative UGC can harm brand equity (Christodoulides et al., 2012), top brands may
see controlling UGC necessary. However, disabling comments may hamper consumers’
engagement level with the brand, as the emphasis of engagement – interactive experiences – is
inhibited. In addition, it limits interactions among consumers, which impedes engagement.
Marketers should be careful when using this function.
Third, top brands feature traditional celebrities at a moderate level but are reluctant to star
YouTube celebrities. A possible reason is that many of the videos are the secondary
exploitation of the brands’ TV commercials starring traditional celebrities. This also indicates a
significant difference between traditional celebrities and social media influencers. On the one
hand, although social media influencers often have a strong relationship with their followers and
are considered more relatable and trustworthy than traditional celebrities by their followers
(O’Neil-Hart & Blumenstein, 2016), they might be less effective in terms of attracting the
attention of general consumers. General consumers who do not follow an influencer may not be
able to recognize this person and therefore may consider him/her as a mere actor when seeing
him/her in a branded YouTube channel. This explains why some of these major brands
cooperated with social media influencers (e.g., McDonald’s, Nestle) but did not post videos
about these influencers in their branded YouTube channels. Brands tend to have YouTube
influencers post branded content on the influencers’ channels in order to leverage the great
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 21
impact of the influencers on their followers (Mediakix, 2016; Sundermann & Raabe, 2019). On
the other hand, the finding that 4% of the top brands examined have featured YouTube
influencers shows that these grass-root celebrities are exhibiting more and more impact. They
might work better than traditional celebrities in targeting certain consumer segments. It is worth
noting that the power of influencers is not limited to attracting attention; with their strong
relationships with followers, they are able to affect followers’ attitudes, perceptions, and
behaviors (Sundermann & Raabe, 2019). Marketers need to understand the respective advantages
and disadvantages of traditional celebrities and social media influencers and develop marketing
strategies accordingly.
Fourth, emotional content is widely employed, especially positive emotions. Although
negative emotions were occasionally featured, they all led to a positive ending. Hence, they are
not truly negative, but a way to stimulate positive emotions from a different approach. The
finding is consistent with previous findings that brands frequently publish emotional content on
social media to engage followers (Taecharungroj, 2017). It also conforms the belief that
emotional content in marketing communication can evoke consumers’ emotional reactions and
contribute to the overall engagement level (Holbrook & O’Shaughnessy, 1984; Hollebeek et al.,
2014). Emotional content seems effective in engaging consumers. Marketers could try to create
and deliver more emotional content on YouTube.
Fifth, non-cognitive (transformational) emphasis, instead of cognitive (informational)
appeals, dominates YouTube brand channels. In support of Stephen et al. (2015) and Cvijikj and
Michahelles (2013), our findings indicate that informational content may not be sufficient in
terms of engaging consumers on social media, and transformational content, such as content of
entertainment value, might be more effective. In addition, how companies utilize YouTube is
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 22
different from nonprofit organizations, as the latter underlines information and education (Waters
& Jones, 2011). Our findings also reveal an important difference between brands’ strategies on
YouTube and on other social media platforms. While brands were found using a primarily
informational strategy on text-oriented or multimedia-oriented social media platforms such as
Facebook and Twitter (Araujo et al., 2015; Ashley and Tuten, 2015), they seem to focus on
transformational branded content and non-cognitive engagement on YouTube. In addition, the
emphasis on brand image reveals the role of branded YouTube videos in brand image building.
Marketers could offer more transformational, non-cognitive content on YouTube and start to
deploy the platform as a brand building channel rather than an information transmission channel.
Sixth, consistent with previous studies (Forsyth, 2009; Grant, 1991; Kaleka, 2011), our
findings support the notion that factors related to resources, capabilities, and marketing
environment could affect brands’ marketing strategies. With regard to strategy differentiation on
the basis of YouTube capability, financial resources, and product category, three main findings
can be stated. First, overall, YouTube capability is the most significant factor in strategy
differentiation, especially subscribers and total views, which were correlated with most of the
strategy variables, covering all the four engagement aspects. Contradicting previous studies
(Fischer & Reuber, 2011; Kietzmann et al., 2011), YouTube experience did not make a
difference. Brands with a higher level of YouTube capability interact with consumers more,
feature celebrities more, embed emotional content more, and adopt transformational messages
more. Second, product category is a key differentiator in emotional content and message
strategy, corresponding to the suggestion of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) that under
low-involvement conditions, emotional and non-cognitive content work better than rational,
informational arguments (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). Third, it is interesting that brands with
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 23
more financial resources reply to comments more frequently, indicating that financial support is
essential in interaction. Overall, it is clear that resource- and capability-based factors, as well as
product category, affect brands’ content strategies. Marketers who want to make use of YouTube
content marketing should allocate enough resources to the designated team and design strategies
based on their product categories.
Theoretically, the study found that engagement is highly contextual and platform
dependent. Engaging consumers on YouTube can be totally different from that on other social
media platforms, as it (1) emphasizes the presentation of high-quality content instead of the
presence of two-way communication (e.g., comments and replies), which is considered
imperative on other platforms (Chua & Banerjee, 2015; de Vries et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2017),
and (2) has a focus on transformational, non-cognitive content instead of informational, cognitive
content, which is more common on Facebook and Twitter (Araujo et al., 2015; Ashley and
Tuten, 2015). In addition, traditional celebrity and social media celebrity play different roles in
brands’ marketing communications. While social media celebrities engage well with their own
followers, featuring them in brands’ own channels may not be effective in terms of engaging
with the brands’ subscribers. Furthermore, different strategic aspects are influenced by various
factors. Directly related capability, such as YouTube capability in this study, is the most
significant one in strategy differentiation.
This study is limited by its relatively small sample size of 50 brands and 250 videos.
Future studies could sample more videos to represent a brand and study other variables that are
important in content marketing, such as type of content, layout of channel, and link to with other
social media platforms. In addition, this study only examined videos from large, leading brands.
Future studies might investigate brands of different sizes and valuations to detect further
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 24
differences in these brands, or brands that are considered doing well in content marketing to
learn from their practices. Moreover, this study focused on strategy instead of effectiveness, and
therefore no engagement outcome variables were measured. Future studies could incorporate
outcome variables (e.g., sharing) and examine the relationships between strategies and outcomes.
For example, how UGC control could influence engagement. On a related note, this study only
focused on YouTube channels owned by brands; how brands engage consumers through other
channels, especially influencer channels, was not explored. Future studies could further explore
that area.
Other limitations derived from measurement and data analysis should also be articulated.
First, because emotion is highly subjective, it was mainly measured based on the emotions of the
characters shown in the videos. Though this strategy protected the objectivity of this study, some
emotional cues in music and visual elements might have been omitted. Future research could
optimize measures of emotional content. Second, restrained by practical data access issue,
advertising expenditure instead of content marketing expenditure was recorded. Third, because
this study set 100,000 subscribers as the cut point between normal YouTubers and YouTube
celebrity, some less popular YouTuber might have been excluded. However, fame and popularity
are necessary in order to drive attention. Hence, this exclusion is appropriate. A possible future
research direction is to study different levels of celebrity endorsers. Finally, this study did not
control for possible confounding variables. It is important to interpret the results with caution.
Since each of the influential variables has several indicators, the readers could be more confident
about an influential variable’s impact when several of its indicators correlate with or lead to a
difference in a strategy variable (e.g., YouTube capability and interactivity, YouTube capability
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 25
and emotional content, YouTube capability and message strategy, product category and message
strategy).
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 26
References
Agrawal, A. (2016, January 3). 3 reasons why you should be marketing on YouTube and
periscope. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ajagrawal/2016/01/03/3-reasons-why-
you-should-be-marketing-on-youtube-and-periscope/
Araujo, T., Neijens, P., & Vliegenthart, R. (2015). What motivates consumers to re-tweet brand
content? Journal of Advertising Research, 55(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-
2015-009
Arrese, A., & Perez-Latre, F. (2017). The rise of brand journalism. In G. Siegert, M. B. Rimscha,
& S. Grubenmann (Eds.), Commercial communication in the digital age: Information or
disin- formation? (pp. 121–139). De Gruyter Mouton.
Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory
study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychology & Marketing,
32(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20761
Asmussen, B., Wider, S., Williams, R., Stevenson, N., Whitehead, E., & Canter, A. (2016).
Defining branded content for the digital age: The industry experts’ views on branded
content as a new marketing communication concept. Oxford Brookes University and
Ipsos MORI. http://www. thebcma.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BCMA-Research-
Report_FINAL.pdf
Beets, L. M., & Handley, A. (2018). B2C content marketing 2019: Benchmarks, budgets, and
trends. Content Marketing Institute & MarketingProfs.
https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2018/ 12/b2c-research-commitment/
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 27
Biener, L., Ji, M., Gilpin, E. A., & Albers, A. B. (2004). The impact of emotional tone, message,
and broadcast parameters in youth anti-smoking advertisements. Journal of Health
Communication, 9(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730490447084
Botha, E. (2014). A means to an end: Using political satire to go viral. Public Relations Review,
40 (2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.023
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2007.00393.x
Brison, N. T., Byon, K. K., & Baker III, T. A. (2016). To tweet or not to tweet: The effects of
social media endorsements on unfamiliar sport brands and athlete endorsers. Innovation,
18(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1237304
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual
domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service
Research, 14(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703
Brodie, R. J., Ilić, A., Jurić, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.
https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (1 ed.). Polity.
Burns, K. S. (2016). How the top social media brands use influencer and brand advocacy
campaigns to engage fans. In A. Hutchins & N. T. J. Tindall (Eds.), Public relations and
participatory culture: Fandom, social media and community engagement (pp. 59–70).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315766201-17
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 28
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of
manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental advertising
claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 27–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1993.10673409
Cayari, C. (2011). The YouTube effect: How YouTube has provided new ways to consume,
create, and share music. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 12(6), 1–30.
http://www.ijea. org/v12n6/v12n6.pdf
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source
versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),
752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Chan, T. K. H., Zheng, X., Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Lee, Z. W. Y. (2014).
Antecedents and consequences of customer engagement in online brand communities.
Journal of Marketing Analytics, 2(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1057/jma.2014.9
Chand, S. (2014, April 2). High-involvement products and low-involvement products
involvement. YourArticleLibrary.Com: The Next Generation Library.
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/market ing/high-involvement-products-and-low-
involvement-products-involvement-difference/32299/
Chen, K.-J., Kim, J., & Lin, J.-S. (2015). The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from
Facebook posts on consumer attitude formation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3),
208–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1515
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 29
Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J. (2012). Memo to marketers: Quantitative
evidence for change. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), 53–64.
https://doi.org/10.2501/ JAR-52-1-053-064
Chua, A. Y. K., & Banerjee, S. (2015). How businesses draw attention on Facebook through
incentives, vividness and interactivity. IAENG International Journal of Computer
Science, 42 (3), 275–281. https://dr.ntu.edu.sg//handle/10356/81058
Ciampa, R. (2013, March 22). 4 tactics for an effective video content marketing strategy. Content
Marketing Institute. http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2013/03/video-content-
marketing-effective-strategy/
Content Marketing Institute. (n.d.). What is content marketing? Content Marketing Institute.
https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/what-is-content-marketing/
Cvijikj, I. P., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages.
Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-013-
0098-8
de Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan
pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online
brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 24(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635
Eckler, P., & Bolls, P. (2011). Spreading the virus. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 11(2), 1–
11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2011.10722180
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 30
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15(4), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870379
Faerber, A. E., & Kreling, D. H. (2014). Content analysis of false and misleading claims in
television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs. Journal of General
Internal Medicine, 29(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2604-0
Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2011). Social interaction via new social media: (How) can
interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior? Journal of Business
Venturing, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.09.002
Forbes. (2017). The world’s most valuable brands 2017. https://www.forbes.com/powerful-
brands /list/
Forsyth, P. (2009). Marketing: A guide to the fundamentals. Bloomberg Press.
Gates, K. (2014). Designing affective consumers: Emotion analysis in market research. In T.
Miller (Ed.), The routledge companion to global popular culture (pp. 77–92). Routledge.
Ghosh, S. (2016, July 7). Coke turns to YouTube to reconnect with consumers. Campaign. http://
www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/coke-turns-youtube-reconnect-consumers/1401438
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166664
Guo, M. (2012). Marketing and branding in online social media environments: Examining social
media adoption by the top 100 global brands. In H. S. N. Al-Deen & J. A. Hendricks
(Eds.), Social media: Usage and impact (pp. 161–180). Lexington Books.
Handley, A., Stahl, S., Rose, R., Moutsos, K., McPhillips, C., Beets, L. M., Kalinowski, J., &
Reese, N. (2020). B2C content marketing 2020: Benchmarks, budgets, and trends.
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 31
Content Marketing Institute & MarketingProfs. https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/ 12/2020_B2C_Research_Final.pdf
Heath, R. (2009). Emotional engagement: How television builds big brands at low attention.
Journal of Advertising Research, 49(1), 62–73.
https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849909090060
Holbrook, M. B., & O’Shaughnessy, J. (1984). The role of emotion in advertising. Psychology
and Marketing, 1(2), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220010206
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social
media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Kaleka, A. (2011). When exporting manufacturers compete on the basis of service: Resources
and marketing capabilities driving service advantage and performance. Journal of
International Marketing, 19(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.19.1.40
Kamins, M. A. (1989). Celebrity and noncelebrity advertising in a two-sided context. Journal of
Advertising Research, 29(3), 34–42. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-38514-001
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business
Horizons, 54(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An
empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1480–
1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014
Lange, P. G. (2007a, March 31). Commenting on comments: Investigating responses to
antagonism on YouTube. Society for Applied Anthropology Conference, Tampa, Florida.
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 32
Lange, P. G. (2007b). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101. 2007.00400.x
Laskey, H. A., Day, E., & Crask, M. R. (1989). Typology of main message strategies for
television commercials. Journal of Advertising, 18(1), 36–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1989. 10673141
Lin, H.-C., Swarna, H., & Bruning, P. F. (2017). Taking a global view on brand post popularity:
Six social media brand post practices for global markets. Business Horizons, 60(5), 621–
633. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.006
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory. SAGE.
Martin, C. L. (1998). Relationship marketing: A high-involvement product attribute approach.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10610429810209700
Mediakix. (2016, May 2). 5 types of YouTube marketing campaigns with influencers. Mediakix.
https://mediakix.com/blog/youtube-marketing-campaigns-with-influencers/
Mehrabian, A. (1996). Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and
measuring individual differences in Temperament. Current Psychology, 14(4), 261–292.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686918
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research, 63(9–10), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 33
Nelson-Field, K., Riebe, E., & Newstead, K. (2013). The emotions that drive viral video.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 21(4), 205–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2013. 07.003
Nilsson, C. P. (2006). Attention to Advertising [Doctoral dissertation]. Umeå University. http://
urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-897
O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2010). The development and evaluation of a survey to measure
user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 61(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21229
O’Neil-Hart, C., & Blumenstein, H. (2016). Why YouTube stars are more influential than
traditional celebrities. Think with Google. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/consumer-
insights/youtube-stars-influence/
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1.
Pulizzi, J., & Barrett, N. (2009). Get content, get customers: Turn prospects into buyers with
content marketing. McGraw-Hill Date.
http://library.books24x7.com/toc.aspx?bookid=32977
Slutsky, I. (2010, September 13). Meet YouTube’s most in-demand brand stars. AdAge. http://
adage.com/article/digital/meet-youtube-s-demand-brand-stars/145844/
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How does brand-related user-generated content
differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2),
102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002
Stephen, A. T., Sciandra, M. R., & Inman, J. J. (2015). The effects of content characteristics on
consumer engagement with branded social media content on Facebook (No. 15–110;
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 34
Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series 2015). Marketing Science Institute.
http://www.msi. orghttp://www.msi.org/reports/the-effects-of-content-characteristics-on-
consumer- engagement-with-branded
Sundermann, G., & Raabe, T. (2019). Strategic communication through social media influencers:
Current state of research and desiderata. International Journal of Strategic
Communication, 13 (4), 278–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1618306
Taecharungroj, V. (2017). Starbucks’ marketing communications strategy on Twitter. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 23(6), 552–571.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1138139
Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube. Critical
Discourse Studies, 7(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2010.511834
Van Laer, T., De Ruyter, K., & Cox, D. (2013). A walk in customers’ shoes: How attentional
bias modification affects ownership of integrity-violating social media posts. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 27(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.09.002
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, V., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A generalized multidimensional
scale for measuring customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
22(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679220404
Waters, R. D., & Jones, P. M. (2011). Using video to build an organization’s identity and brand:
A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ YouTube videos. Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing, 23(3), 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2011.594779
Wen, J., & Song, B. (2017). Corporate ethical branding on YouTube: CSR communication
strategies and brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(1), 28–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2017.1295291
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 35
Wood, N. T., & Burkhalter, J. N. (2014). Tweet this, not that: A comparison between brand
promotions in microblogging environments using celebrity and company-generated
tweets. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–2), 129–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266. 2013.797784
YouTube. (n.d.). Statistics—YouTube. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.
html
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 36
Table 1. Descriptive results of the brands’ usage of interactivity, celebrity endorsement,
emotional content, and message strategies.
Strategy
Descriptive statistics
N
Min
Max
M
SD
Mdn
Mode
Interactivity
Post frequency
50
0
225
20.24
37.40
7.5
0
Frequency of replying
to consumers
50
0
8
.35
1.31
0
0
Overall
Usage score
No
Yes
1
2
3
4
5
Frequency of disabling
comments
36
(72%)
14
(28%)
1
(2%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
5
(10%)
7
(14%)
Link
5
(10%)
45
(90%)
3
(6%)
10
(20%)
7
(14%)
4
(8%)
21
(42%)
Call to act
5
(10%)
45
(90%)
3
(6%)
10
(20%)
7
(14%)
4
(8%)
21
(42%)
Contest/questions
47
(94%)
3
(6%)
3
(6%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Celebrity endorsement
Traditional celebrity
38
(76%)
12
(24%)
6
(12%)
0
(0%)
5
(10%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
YouTube celebrity
48
(96%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Emotional content
Positive pleasure
11
(22%)
39
(78%)
14
(28%)
7
(14%)
7
(14%)
6
(12%)
5
(10%)
Negative pleasure
43
(86%)
7
(14%)
7
(14%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Neither pleasure
5
(10%)
45
(90%)
7
(14%)
7
(14%)
8
(16%)
15
(30%)
8
(16%)
Positive arousal
12
(24%)
38
(76%)
12
(24%)
9
(18%)
6
(12%)
3
(6%)
8
(16%)
Negative arousal
50
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Neither arousal
8
(16%)
42
(84%)
3
(6%)
6
(12%)
9
(18%)
12
(24%)
12
(24%)
Message strategy
Informational (cognitive)
17
(34%)
33
(66%)
11
(22%)
10
(20%)
5
(10%)
6
(12%)
1
(2%)
Comparative
48
(96%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
USP
48
2
2
0
0
0
0
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 37
(96%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
Preemptive
27
(54%)
23
(46%)
10
(20%)
7
(14%)
3
(6%)
3
(6%)
0
(0%)
Hyperbole
43
(86%)
7
(14%)
6
(12)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Generic-informational
43
(86%)
7
(14%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
Transformational (non-
cognitive)
1
(2%)
49
(98%)
6
(12%)
5
(10%)
10
(20%)
11
(22%)
17
(34%)
User image and use
occasion
18
(36%)
32
(64%)
9
(18%)
9
(18%)
5
(10%)
5
(10%)
4
(8%)
Brand image
19
(38%)
31
(62%)
13
(26%)
9
(18%)
6
(12%)
1
(2%)
2
(4%)
Generic-
transformational
35
(70%)
15
(30%)
7
(14%)
2
(4%)
4
(8%)
1
(2%)
1
(2%)
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 38
Table 2. Summary of correlation and group difference results.
YouTube capability
Financial resources
Product category
SUB
VIE
EXP
ADE
TVE
Interactivity
Post frequency
+
Disabling comments
Reply frequency
+
+
+
Link
+
+
Call to act
+
+
Contest/question
Celebrity endorsement
Traditional celebrity
+
YouTube celebrity
Emotional content
Positive pleasure
+
+
Negative pleasure
Neither pleasure
-
-
Positive arousal
+
+
+
√
Message strategy
Informational (cognitive)
√
Comparative
USP
Preemptive
Hyperbole
Generic-informational
-
Transformational (non-
cognitive)
√
User image/use
occasion
Brand image
Generic-
transformational
+
Note: SUB = Subscriber, VIE = Total view, EXP = Experience on YouTube, ADE = Ad
expenditure, TVE = TV ad expenditure.
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 39
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the study and the corresponding research questions.
YouTube
Capability
Financial
Resources
Product
Category
Influential
Factors
YouTube
Content
Marketing
Strategies
Interactivity:
Interactivity
Strategy
Attention:
Celebrity Endorser
Strategy
Emotion:
Emotional Content
Strategy
Cognition:
Message Strategy
RQ5
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
RQ4
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 40
Appendix A. Brands Included in the Final Sample
Brands
· Accenture
· Disney
· Gucci
· Louis Vuitton
· Samsung
· Amazon
· Ebay
· H&M
· McDonald’s
· SAP
· American Express
· ESPN
· Hermès
· Mercedes-Benz
· Starbucks
· Apple
· Facebook
· Home Depot
· Microsoft
· Toyota
· AT&T
· Ford
· Honda
· Nescafe
· UPS
· BMW
· Fox
· HP
· Nestle
· Verizon
· Budweiser
· Frito-Lay
· HSBC
· Nike
· Visa
· Cisco
· GE
· IBM
· Oracle
· Walmart
· Coca-Cola
· Gillette
· IKEA
· Pampers
· Wells Fargo
· CVS
· Google
· Intel
· Pepsi
· Zara
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 41
Appendix B. List of Variables, Operational Definitions, and Sources
Variables
Operational definition and measurement
Inter-coder reliability
Interactivity: interactivity strategy (Source: De Vries et al., 2012 and self-developed)
Post frequency
The number of videos the brand posts in one month.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Disabling
comments
Comment function of the video disabled.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Response frequency
The number of responses the brand replies to
viewers’ comments in one week.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Link
A link to other websites in the video or the
description area.
93.3% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = .63
Call to act
Asks consumers to do something in the video or the
description area. E.g., subscribe the channel, explore
more on the official website, and like the brand on
other social media.
93.3% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 79
Contest/question
Contains questions or contests in the video or the
description area and asks viewers to
answer/participate.
96.7% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = -.02
Attention: celebrity endorsement (Source: Self-developed)
Traditional
celebrity
Showing an individual or a group of individuals that
has/have been reported in either of the two well-
known celebrity news websites: TMZ or E! News.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
YouTube celebrity
Showing a YouTuber with more than 100,000
followers.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Emotion: emotional content (Source: Holbrook & O’Shaughnessy, 1984)
Pleasure
Type of affection the video primarily conveys based
on characters shown in it. If there are no people,
judge based on the overall presence including visual,
music, voiceover, and super.
Positive: happy, pleased, friendly, loving, satisfied,
hopeful, relaxed.
Negative: sad, lonely, annoyed, unsatisfied,
despairing.
Neither: Neither positive nor negative affection.
86.7% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 73
Arousal
Type of content that arouses or suppresses mental
alertness and responsiveness based on characters
shown in it. If there are no people, judge based on the
overall presence including visual, music, voiceover,
and super.
Positive: content that arouses mental alertness and
responsiveness. E.g., lively, energetic, active,
excited, and motivated.
Negative: content that suppresses mental alertness
and responsiveness. E.g., sluggish, inactive, dull,
sleepy, bored.
Neither: Neither positive nor negative arousal
83.3% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 65
Cognition: message strategy (Source: Laskey et al., 1989)
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 42
Informational
(cognitive)
Provides consumers with factual (i.e., presumably
verifiable), relevant brand data in a clear and logical
manner such that they have greater confidence in
their ability to assess the merits of buying the brand
after having seen the advertisement. E.g., utility,
function.
Main category:
96.7% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 89
Sub-category: 86.7%
agreement; Scott’s Pi
= 81
Comparative
Compares the brand/product with competitive brands
or products (including other brands and precedent
products from the brand itself).
USP
Claims explicitly that the brand has a unique product
attribute or benefit-in-use which can be verified or
proven objectively.
Preemptive
Demonstrates factually based on objectively
verifiable attributes or benefit-in-use, but contains no
claim of uniqueness or mention of competing brands.
Hyperbole
Factual based, but are exaggerated or can’t be
objectively verified.
Generic-
informational
Does not focus on a particular brand but on the
general product category.
Transformational
(non-cognitive)
Associates the experience of consuming the product
with a unique set of psychological characteristics.
E.g., feelings and experiences.
User image or
use occasion
Focuses on brand users and their lifestyles,
experiences of using the brand, or situations where
the brand is used.
Brand image
Focuses on the image of the brand itself. They are
trying to deliver “personalities” of the brand, such as
sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication,
and ruggedness.
Generic-
transformational
Focuses on a product category rather than a specific
brand.
YouTube capability (Source: Self-developed)
Subscriber
Number of subscribers of the channel.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Total view
Number of total views of the channel.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Experience
Number of years since the brand opened the channel.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Financial resources (Source: Self-developed)
Ad expenditure
Advertising spending last year.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
TV expenditure
TV advertising spending last year.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
Product category (Source: Chand 2014)
CONTENT MARKETING ON YOUTUBE - 43
Involvement level
High: people need to consider carefully before
making purchase decisions. It often has these
features: a high price; complex technical; major
differences compared to alternatives; projection of
self; and high risks.
Low: people don’t need to consider carefully before
making purchase decisions. It often has these
features: a low price; differences between the brand
and alternatives are minimum; is a daily-
consumption item; and low risks.
100% agreement;
Scott’s Pi = 1
