[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How the attributes of content distributors influence the intentions of users to pay for content shared on social media

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social media companies such as Facebook, WeChat, and Weibo are trying to profit from paid content shared on social media. This paper studies how the attributes of content distributors influence the intentions of users to pay. An online 2 × 2 between-subject experiment was conducted among Weibo users. Two analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and structural-equation modeling were employed to test the hypotheses. Subjects showed weaker intention to pay for content shared by a celebrity than that by a noncelebrity when distributors were not experts. Conversely, there was no significant difference when distributors were experts. When distributors were not celebrities, there was no significant difference between an expert and a nonexpert on the intention to pay. Subjects showed stronger intention to pay for content shared by an expert than that by a nonexpert when distributors were celebrities. Intention to pay was also significantly affected by attitudes toward the content distributor and prior attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim, H. W., Gupta, S., & Koh, J. (2011). Investigating the intention to purchase digital items in social networking communities: A customer value perspective. Information & Management, 48(6), 228–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Constine, J. (2018). Facebook builds Patreon, Niche clones to lure creators with cash. Retrieved Apri1, 2021, from https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/19/facebook-creator-monetization/

  3. Ha, A. (2019). Facebook will start taking a cut of fan subscriptions in 2020. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/09/facebook-subscription-revenue-share/

  4. Zhang, W. (2020). WeChat is letting bloggers add paywalls. Will the experiment work? Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1005086/wechat-is-letting-bloggers-add-paywalls.-will-the-experiment-work%3F

  5. Tong, Q., & Jia, D. (2020). WeChat tests pay-to-read feature for public blogging accounts. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-01-16/wechat-tests-pay-to-read-feature-for-public-blogging-accounts-101504591.html

  6. Hall, S., Li, C., Stewart, K., et al. (2020). Understand the value of media: a consumer and industry perspective. Retrieved from March 30, 2021, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Understanding_Value_in_Media_Perspectives_from_Consumers_and_Industry_2020_CN.pdf

  7. Sina Tech. (2018). Weibo empowered content writers to earn 26.8 billion yuan the content ecosystem is more active. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://tech.sina.com.cn/i/2018-12-21/doc-ihmutuee1410472.shtml

  8. Fan, B. (2016). 2016 Weibo user development report. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://data.weibo.com/report/reportDetail?id=346

  9. Xinbang. (2020). An official account’s article generates an income of 16 thousand yuan: Analyze the status quo of WeChat’s paid read feature. Retrieved March 30,  2021, from https://36kr.com/p/5290891

  10. Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Kankanhalli, A. (2012). What motivates people to purchase digital items on virtual community websites? The desire for online self-presentation. Information Systems Research, 23(4), 1232–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mäntymäki, M., & Salo, J. (2013). Purchasing behavior in social virtual worlds: An examination of Habbo Hotel. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 282–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wan, J., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Zhao, L. (2017). How attachment influences users’ willingness to donate to content creators in social media: A socio-technical systems perspective. Information and Management, 54(7), 837–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yu, E., Jung, C., Kim, H., & Jung, J. (2018). Impact of viewer engagement on gift-giving in live video streaming. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1450–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Oh, H., Animesh, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2016). Free versus for-a-fee: The impact of a paywall. MIS Quarterly, 40(1), 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bagley, K. (2018). NetEase cloud music: Social meets streaming. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from http://groovedynasty.cn/netease-cloud-music-social-meets-streaming/

  16. Oestreicher-singer, G., & Zalmanson, L. (2013). Content or community? A digital business strategy for content providers in the social age. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 591–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liang, T. P., & Turban, E. (2011). Introduction to the special issue social commerce: a research framework for social commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grange, C., & Benbasat, I. (2013). The value of social shopping networks for product search and the moderating role of network scope. In Proceedings of the 34th international conference on information systems.

  19. Hansen, J. M., Saridakis, G., & Benson, V. (2018). Risk, trust, and the interaction of perceived ease of use and behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of social media for transactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bapna, R., & Umyarov, A. (2015). Do your online friends make you pay? A randomized field experiment on peer influence in online social networks. Management Science, 61(8), 1902–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Botha, E., & Mills, A. J. (2012). Managing the new media: Tools for brand management in social media. In A. Close (Ed.), Online consumer behavior: Theory and research in social media, advertising and E-tail. (pp. 83–100). Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zhao, Y., Zhao, Y., Yuan, X., & Zhou, R. (2018). How knowledge contributor characteristics and reputation affect user payment decision in paid Q&A? An empirical analysis from the perspective of trust theory. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 31, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee, U., Kim, J., Yi, E., Sung, J., & Gerla, M. (2013). Analyzing crowd workers in mobile pay-for-answer Q&A. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 533–542).

  26. Amblee, N., & Bui, T. (2011). Harnessing the influence of social proof in online shopping: The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales of digital microproducts. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 91–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bradley, R. (2013). The media has a message …. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://fortune.com/2013/10/10/the-media-has-a-message/

  28. Dou, X., Walden, J. A., Lee, S., & Lee, J. Y. (2012). Does source matter? Examining source effects in online product reviews. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1555–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lorini, E., & Sartor, G. (2016). A STIT logic for reasoning about social influence. Studia Logica, 104(4), 773–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Xu, X., & Pratt, S. (2018). Social media influencers as endorsers to promote travel destinations: An application of self-congruence theory to the Chinese Generation Y. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(7), 958–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’and the rise of Social Media Influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Martin, G. (2017). The essential social media marketing handbook: A new roadmap for maximizing your brand, influence, and credibility. Red Wheel/Weiser.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ai, P., Li, W., & Ding, A. (2020). Powerful little numbers: how bandwagon cues influence consumer purchase intention for online content. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ed7d/e1f75604fcf7da21a91d08443aab895a460a.pdf

  35. Shi, X., Zheng, X., & Yang, F. (2020). Exploring payment behavior for live courses in social Q&A communities: An information foraging perspective. Information Processing & Management, 57(4), 102241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78(3), 171–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Asemah, E. S., Nwammuo, A. N., & NkwamUwaoma, A. O. A. (2017). Theories and models of communication. (Rev). University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jeon, J. O., & Baeck, S. (2016). What drives consumer’s responses to brand crisis? The moderating roles of brand associations and brand–customer relationship strength. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(6), 550–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ko, H. C. (2018). Social desire or commercial desire? The factors driving social sharing and shopping intentions on social commerce platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 28, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression management: Personality traits and concerns for secondary goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Veer, E., Becirovic, I., & Martin, B. A. (2010). If Kate voted conservative, would you? The role of celebrity endorsements in political party advertising. European Journal of Marketing, 44(3/4), 436–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kim, J., & Lennon, S. J. (2013). Effects of reputation and website quality on online consumers’ emotion, perceived risk and purchase intention: Based on the stimulus-organism-response model. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(1), 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fleck, N., Korchia, M., & Le Roy, I. (2012). Celebrities in advertising: Looking for congruence or likability? Psychology and Marketing, 29(9), 651–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stallen, M., Smidts, A., Rijpkema, M., Smit, G., Klucharev, V., & Fernández, G. (2010). Celebrities and shoes on the female brain: The neural correlates of product evaluation in the context of fame. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(5), 802–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008). Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Parmar, B. K. J., & Patel, R. P. (2015). Fame versus no name: Gauging the impact of celebrities and non-celebrities endorsement on purchase. African Journal of Business Management, 9(4), 127–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gong, W., & Li, X. (2017). Engaging fans on microblog: the synthetic influence of parasocial interaction and source characteristics on celebrity endorsement. Psychology and Marketing, 34(7), 720–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ahmad, A. H., Idris, I., Mason, C., & Chow, S. K. (2019). The impact of young celebrity endorsements in social media advertisements and brand image towards the purchase intention of young consumers. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(5), 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Choi, S., & Rifon, N. J. (2007). Who is the celebrity in advertising? Understanding dimensions of celebrity images. The Journal of Popular Culture, 40(2), 304–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang, T., Duong, T. D., & Chen, C. C. (2016). Intention to disclose personal information via mobile applications: A privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 531–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Xu, Q. (2014). Should I trust him? The effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 136–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ayeh, J. K. (2015). Travellers’ acceptance of consumer-generated media: An integrated model of technology acceptance and source credibility theories. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mun, Y. Y., Yoon, J. J., Davis, J. M., & Lee, T. (2013). Untangling the antecedents of initial trust in Web-based health information: The roles of argument quality, source expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Saeed, R., Naseer, R., Haider, S., & Naz, U. (2014). Impact of celebrity and non-celebrity advertisement on consumer perception. The Business & Management Review, 4(3), 154–160.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Silvera, D. H., & Austad, B. (2004). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisements. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11/12), 1509–1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Martin, K. D., & Smith, N. C. (2008). Commercializing social interaction: The ethics of stealth marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work on social networks?: how gender and age shape receptivity. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 258–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Clemons, E. K. (2009). The complex problem of monetizing virtual electronic social networks. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kumkale, G. T., Albarracin, D., & Seignourel, P. J. (2010). The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1325–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Jahng, M. R., & Hong, S. (2017). How should you tweet?: The effect of crisis response voices, strategy, and prior brand attitude in social media crisis communication. Corporate Reputation Review, 20, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Incitez China. (2014). Weibo launched paid content and buy-me-a-coffee features for premium publishers. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.chinainternetwatch.com/8090/weibo-launched-paid-content-buy-me-a-coffee-features-for-premium-publishers/

  65. Chan, C., & Segal, A. (2019). Making a living off ‘likes’: The new influencer paradigm. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://a16z.com/2019/12/19/making-a-living-off-likes/

  66. Schimmelpfennig, C., & Hunt, J. (2020). Fifty years of celebrity endorser research: Support for a comprehensive celebrity endorsement strategy framework. Psychology & Marketing, 37, 488–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Langner, S., Hennigs, N., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2013). Social persuasion: Targeting social identities through social influencers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Baxter-Wright, D. (2019). The number of social media followers that makes you a ‘celebrity’. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/worklife/a28302319/number-of-followers-celebrity/

  70. MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 324–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhu, J., & Tan, B. (2007). Effectiveness of blog advertising: Impact of communicator expertise, advertising intent, and product involvement. In ICIS 2007 Proceedings.

  74. Gaied, A. M., & Rached, K. S. B. (2010). The persuasive effectiveness of famous and non famous endorsers in advertising. IBIMA Business Review, 2010, 474771.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Renko, S., Lončar, M., & Bučar, K. (2019). The link between retail innovations and youth purchasing behaviour. In TRADE PERSPECTIVES 2019: Business model innovations in domestic and international trade (pp. 29–46).

  76. Majeed, M., Tijani, A., & Yaquob, A. (2020). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertising: HND marketing students perspective. Global Journal Of Management And Business Research. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/3046

  77. Roettl, J., Bidmon, S., & Terlutter, R. (2016). What predicts patients’ willingness to undergo online treatment and pay for online treatment? Results from a web-based survey to investigate the changing patient-physician relationship. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(2), e32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Green, J. P., Tonidandel, S., & Cortina, J. M. (2016). Getting through the gate: Statistical and methodological issues raised in the reviewing process. Organizational Research Methods, 19(3), 402–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lin, T. C., Hsu, J. S. C., & Chen, H. C. (2013). Customer willingness to pay for online music: the role of free mentality. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(4), 315–333.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wang, C. L., Zhang, Y., Ye, L. R., & Nguyen, D. D. (2005). Subscription to fee-based online services: What makes consumer pay for online content? Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(4), 304–311.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Kwong, S. W., & Park, J. (2008). Digital music services: Consumer intention and adoption. The Service Industries Journal, 28(10), 1463–1481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Dutta, S. (2012). Analyzing consumer intention to pay for online content: A systematic approach. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 38(1), 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Sardanelli, D., Vollero, A., Siano, A., & Bottoni, G. (2019). Lowering the pirate flag: A TPB study of the factors influencing the intention to pay for movie streaming services. Electronic Commerce Research, 19(3), 549–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Zhao, Y., Peng, X., Liu, Z., Song, S., & Hansen, P. (2020). Factors that affect asker’s pay intention in trilateral payment-based social Q&A platforms: From a benefit and cost perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(5), 516–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Bergkvist, L., Hjalmarson, H., & Mägi, A. W. (2016). A new model of how celebrity endorsements work: attitude toward the endorsement as a mediator of celebrity source and endorsement effects. International Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 71702064), the International Innovation Team of Philosophy and Social Science of Jilin University, and the China Scholarship Council. A part of research work was done at the University of Granada. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that helped us to substantially improve the article. Some of their ideas and specific suggestions were included or adapted into this article. Yangchun Li is the corresponding author of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Jilin University, Changchun, China

    Wan Su & Huichuan Zhang

  2. School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

    Yangchun Li

  3. School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China

    Tiandong Wang

Authors
  1. Wan Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yangchun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Huichuan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tiandong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yangchun Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Relevant studies on antecedents of payment/purchase intention toward paid content or services

Authors

Research

Paid content or services

Is the role of content distributor examined?

Antecedents of payment/purchase intention on which research focused

Kim et al. [1]

They studied social-networking-community (SNC) members’ decisions to buy digital items

Accessories for users’ digital avatars; digital decoration for users’ virtual rooms

No

1. Price utility

2. Functional quality

3. Aesthetics

4. Playfulness

5. Social self-image expression

6. Social-relationship support

Kim et al. [10]

They studied what motivates people to buy digital items in virtual-community (VC) websites

Digital items such as avatars and decorative objects

No

1. Online-presentation self-efficacy

2. VC involvement

3. Online self-presentation norms

4. Desire for online self-presentation

5. Gender

6. Age

7.VC tenure

Mäntymäki and Salo [11]

They studied why people spend real money on virtual goods and services

Virtual items for accessorizing the avatar, digital decoration, and collectibles

No

1. Perceived usefulness

2. Perceived enjoyment

3. Perceived network size

4. Social presence

5. Perceived ease of use

6. Self-efficacy

7. Availability

Lin et al. [80]

They studied the role of free mentality on the formation of willingness to pay for fee-based online content

Paid online music

No

1. Perceived benefit

2. Free mentality

3. Perceived sacrifice

4. Subjective norm

5. Attitude toward paying

6. Perceived behavioral control

7. Music websites

Wan et al. [12]

They studied the effects of social and technological factors on users’ intent to purchase virtual gifts to donate to content creators

Virtual gifts for live video streaming

No

1. Identification

2. Interaction

3. Information value

4. Competitiveness

5. Sociability

6. Personalization

7. Emotional attachment to content creator

8. Functional dependence on social media

Yu et al. [13]

They studied the effect of viewer engagement on purchasing gift items to a streamer in a live video streaming

Virtual gifts for live video streaming

No

1. Viewer engagement

Zhao et al. [23]

They studied which factors contribute to trust-building and can drive payment decision of questioners on social Q&A platforms

Paid answers

No

1. Reputation of knowledge contributors

2. Ability of knowledge contributors

3. Integrity of knowledge contributors

4. Benevolence of knowledge contributors

5. Price

Wang et al. [81]

They studied the influence of several factors on consumers’ intention to pay for online content or services

Paid online content or services

No

1. Convenience

2. Essentiality

3. Added value

4. Perceived service quality

5. Usage frequency

6. Perceived fairness

7. Security concerns

Kwong and Park [82]

They studied the factors of influencing college students’ intention to pay for digital music services

Paid digital music service

No

1. Perceived ease of use

2. Perceived usefulness

3. Perceived service quality

4. Attitude towards using digital music services

5. Subjective norms

6. Perceived behavioral control

Dutta [83]

They studied a holistic model to predict customers’ intent to pay for online content

Paid online content such as Internet access services and business services

No

1. Relative advantage offered by paid online content

2. Complexity of using paid online content

3. Compatibility with paid online content

4. Internet self-efficacy

5. Perceived web security

6. Attitudes toward using paid online content

7. Subjective norms

8. Perceived behavior control

Roettl et al. [77]

They studied the influence of factors on patients’ willingness to pay for online healthcare services offered by the general practitioner (GP)

Paid e-healthcare service

No

1. Gender

2. Age

3. Education

4. Income

5. Information-seeking personality

6. Social motive

7. Trust in the GP

8. Actual use of online communication with the GP

9. Perceived usefulness of the Internet for health-related information

10. Willingness to communicate online with the GP more often in the future

Sardanelli et al. [84]

They studied the factors that affect consumers’ intentions to pay for online movie-streaming services

Online movie-streaming services

No

1. Involvement

2. Subjective norms

3. Frequency of past behavior

4. Attitude toward the subscription of movie-streaming services

5. Moral judgement

6. Perceived risk

Ai et al. [34]

They studied how bandwagon cues of online paid content and the professional backgrounds of content providers influence trust and purchase intention on an online paid-content platform adding social elements (e.g., “likes”)

Online paid content such as online audio guides for books

No

1. Bandwagon cues

2. Source expertise of content provider

3. Trust toward content provider

Zhao et al. [85]

They studied the antecedents of askers’ pay intention in social Q&A platforms

Paid answers

No

1. Perceived cost

2. Perceived extrinsic benefit

3. Perceived intrinsic benefit

4. Positive reciprocity belief

5. Perceived value

6. Trust in answerers

7. Trust in platforms

Shi et al. [35]

They studied why users pay for paid content in social Q&A communities

Paid content such as live courses

No

1. Perceived quality of free content

2. Perceived credibility of content producers

3. Perceived likeability of content producers

4. Perceived quantity of participants

5. Social endorsement

6. Gender

7. Education

8. Vocation

9. Income

Authors of the present study

We studied how the attributes of content distributors influence the intentions of users to pay for content shared on social media

Paid content shared on social media platforms

Yes. The role of content distributors was examined in the present study

1. A content distributor’s fame

2. A content distributor’s expertise

3. Attitudes toward distributors

4. Prior attitude toward general commercial content on social media

5. Gender

6. Income

7. Age

Appendix 2: Scales

Attitude towards content distributor (adapted from [70]):

Please indicate your attitude towards the content distributor shown in the social post. The content distributor is:

  • 1: unpleasant–7: pleasant;

  • 1: unfavorable–7: favorable;

  • 1: bad–7: good.

Intention to pay for paid content (adapted from [71]):

Please indicate your intention to pay for the paid content. It is ____ that I pay for the paid content.

  • 1: unlikely–7: likely;

  • 1: improbable–7: probable;

  • 1: uncertain–7: certain.

Prior attitude toward general commercial content on social media (adapted from [70]):

Please indicate your attitude toward general commercial content on Weibo (e.g., Weibo post containing purchase information or a link to an ecommerce site). General commercial content on Weibo is:

  • 1: unpleasant–7: pleasant;

  • 1: unfavorable–7: favorable;

  • 1: bad–7: good.

Fame:

To which extent would you agree that the distributor is a celebrity?

  • 1: strongly disagree–7: strongly agree.

Expertise (adapted from [53]):

Regarding the content distributor’s expertise in the paid-content category, he is:

  • 1: inexperienced–7: experienced;

  • 1: not an expert–7: an expert;

  • 1: unknowledgeable–7: knowledgeable;

  • 1: unqualified to offer purchase advice–7: qualified to offer purchase advice;

  • 1: unskilled–7: skilled.

Appendix 3: How our paper is different from previous studies

Previous studies

Context

Difference

Amos et al. [46] studied the effectiveness of celebrity endorsements. They indicated that familiarity was positively related to the effectiveness of an endorsement [46]

Advertising

Our research target was content distributors, including celebrities and noncelebrities. Distributors without fame were also examined in our paper. Moreover, we classified that, when a person is known to others, they are deemed familiar to them, too. Therefore, familiarity is usually a surrogate of fame [42]. Surprisingly, in the present study, no significant effect of fame on users’ payment intention was found when content distributors were experts. Instead, fame even hampered users’ payment intention when distributors were not experts

Stallen et al. [45] explained why endorsers with fame are usually more persuasive than noncelebrity endorsers are. The effectiveness of a celebrity endorsement is derived from the transfer of a positive affect or attitude from the celebrity to the product [45]

Product endorsement (shoes)

Fame can perhaps bolster the endorsement effectiveness of product endorsement in many cases. However, in a paid-content context, we found that fame negatively affected the users’ payment intention when endorsers did not display adequate expertise. Furthermore, fame seemed to be less relevant to payment intention when expert endorsers were present. Significant influences of attitudes towards the content distributor on payment intention were found irrespective of whether endorsers were celebrities. Hence, the present study extended the theoretical boundary established in the prior literature. In a paid-content context, the effectiveness of an endorsement is derived from the transfer of a positive attitude from content endorser to endorsed content, regardless of whether the endorser is famous

Dou et al. [28] studied how the source of a message (Internet users) influences consumers’ product assessment. A significant effect of expertise on product attitude was found; however, no significant effect of expertise on purchase intention was found [28]

Online product reviews

The authors stressed the endorser’s role of Internet users in influencing consumers’ product assessment and purchase intention [28]. Kindle 2, a wireless reader device, was selected as the product in their experiment. The authors also mentioned that the product type could affect a person’s way of information processing [28]. Paid content, an intangible digital good, is very different from tangible products such as reader devices. It is hard for social media users to assess the quality of a digital good before they purchase it due to its virtual nature [23]. In contrast to tangible products, users have to rely more on peripheral cues, such as the content distributors’ expertise. Furthermore, in contrast to the reference paper, a significant effect of expertise on payment intention was found in our study when distributors were famous

Mun et al. [54] examined the effect of a consultant’s expertise (professional vs. nonprofessional) on the viewers’ trust in the consultant. The presence of expertise can increase the likelihood that viewers trust the information [54]

Web-based information seeking

Social media are platforms for free information seeking and gathering. However, our research interest lay in paid content. Therefore, previous knowledge that expertise was associated with more positive outcomes could become invalid when users run into paid information or content shared on social media. When it comes to making a payment, user interest in content could be largely weakened when we consider the fact that massive social media content is free. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the effect of expertise on payment intention. Moreover, the reference article focused on information providers. This is a broader concept that can entail content producers and content distributors. Our research interest lay in massive content distributors on social media and focused on how social media should use this force to grow their paid-content business. Therefore, we studied a more precise concept and considered the characteristics of social media (e.g., a distributor’s profile page could contain information related to this person’s expertise). We found that expertise was not always effective in eliciting a more positive outcome from users when endorsers were not famous

Parmar and Patel [47] compared the product-endorsement effect of celebrities and noncelebrities, and found that each type of endorser had their own advantage in product endorsement

Endorsement of tangible products

The two authors indicated that the effects of fame and expertise varied in different product categories [47]. However, all products in their study were tangible. Paid content on social media is a digital good that is different from tangible products. Unlike tangible products, paid content does not have a physical appearance through which buyers assess its quality

Bergkvist et al. [86] studied a new model of how celebrity endorsements work and found insignificant effects of expertise on attitudes toward brand endorsement

Brand endorsement

In our research context, paid content is quite different from brand endorsement. We were able to show that expertise increased users’ payment intention and attitude toward an endorser when the endorser was a celebrity

Gong and Li [48] studied celebrity endorsements on a microblog (Weibo) and found an insignificant effect of perceived expertise of celebrity on the users’ intention to purchase the endorsed product

Celebrity endorsement on a microblog

The authors studied celebrity endorsements on a microblog platform (Weibo) similar to our study. In contrast to their study, focusing on tangible products, we studied intangible digital goods. Moreover, in our study, a significant effect of expertise on users’ payment intention was found

Zhao et al. [23] studied Q&A platforms and the factors determining platform users’ payment decisions. They found that knowledge contributors’ reputation was positively related to users’ payment decision [23]

Paid Q&A

Q&A platforms cannot be equated to social media platforms, as they are not designed for online social interactions. Therefore, it is questionable whether conclusions established in the context of paid answers are still applicable in our social media context. Moreover, albeit reputation is a concept close to fame, a significant negative effect of fame on payment intention was found when distributors were nonexperts. There was no significant effect of fame on payment intention when distributors were experts

Ahmad et al. [49] studied the endorsement effect of young celebrities on young consumers. Insignificant influence of expertise on endorsement effectiveness was found [49]

Social media advertising

The authors focused on how young consumers were affected by celebrity endorsements. In our study, we expanded our scope to a larger group of consumers with a broader age range (see Table 1). The authors also indicated that, with regard to young consumers, celebrities’ expertise did not seem to be influential to them [49]. However, we found that celebrity expertise was positively related to users’ payment intentions and attitudes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, W., Li, Y., Zhang, H. et al. How the attributes of content distributors influence the intentions of users to pay for content shared on social media. Electron Commer Res 23, 407–441 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09482-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09482-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation