Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:23:30.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inverse network sampling to explore online brand allegiance†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2016

PETER GRINDROD ,
DESMOND J. HIGHAM ,
PETER LAFLIN ,
AMANDA OTLEY  and
JONATHAN A. WARD
PETER GRINDROD
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK email: [email protected]
DESMOND J. HIGHAM
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XH, UK email: [email protected]
PETER LAFLIN
Affiliation:
Bloom Agency, Marshalls Mill, Marshall Street, Leeds, LS11 9YJ, UK email: [email protected], [email protected]
AMANDA OTLEY
Affiliation:
Bloom Agency, Marshalls Mill, Marshall Street, Leeds, LS11 9YJ, UK email: [email protected], [email protected]
JONATHAN A. WARD
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within the online media universe, there are many underlying communities. These may be defined, for example, through politics, location, health, occupation, extracurricular interests or retail habits. Government departments, charities and commercial organisations can benefit greatly from insights about the structure of these communities; the move to customer-centred practices requires knowledge of the customer base. Motivated by this issue, we address the fundamental question of whether a sub-network looks like a collection of individuals who have effectively been picked at random from the whole, or instead forms a distinctive community with a new, discernible structure. In the former case, to spread a message to the intended user base it may be best to use traditional broadcast media (TV, billboard), whereas in the latter case a more targeted approach could be more effective. In this work, we therefore formalise a concept of testing for sub-structure and apply it to social interaction data. First, we develop a statistical test to determine whether a given sub-network (induced sub-graph) is likely to have been generated by sampling nodes from the full network uniformly at random. This tackles an interesting inverse alternative to the more widely studied “forward” problem. We then apply the test to a Twitter reciprocated mentions network where a range of brand name based sub-networks are created via tweet content. We correlate the computed results against the independent views of 16 digital marketing professionals. We conclude that there is great potential for social media based analytics to quantify, compare and interpret online brand allegiances systematically, in real time and at large scale.

Keywords

generating functionmentionsnetworksp-valuerandom graphsamplingstatisticsTwitter
Type
Papers
Information
European Journal of Applied Mathematics , Volume 27 , Special Issue 6: Network Analysis and Modelling , December 2016 , pp. 958 - 970
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Submitted to the European Journal of Applied Mathematics, Special Issue on Networks.

References

[1] Aral, S. (2012) Social science: Poked to vote. Nature 489, 212–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[2] Aral, S. & Walker, D. (2012) Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[3] Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A. & Watts, D. J. (2011) Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '11, New York, NY, USA, 2011, ACM, pp. 65–74.Google Scholar
[4] Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C. & Adamic, L. (2012) The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '12, New York, NY, USA, 2012, ACM, pp. 519–528.Google Scholar
[5] Boutet, A., Kim, H. & Yoneki, E. (2013) Whats in Twitter, I know what parties are popular and who you are supporting now! Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 3, 1379–1391.Google Scholar
[6] Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. & Hollebeek, L. (2013) Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66, 105–114.Google Scholar
[7] Chana, K. W. & Lib, S. Y. (2010) Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in virtual communities: The salience of reciprocity. J. Bus. Res. 63, 1033–1040.Google Scholar
[8] Chua, J., Arce-Urrizab, M., Cebollada-Calvoc, J.-J. & Chintaguntad, P. K. (2010) An empirical analysis of shopping behavior across online and offline channels for grocery products: The moderating effects of household and product characteristics. J. Interact. Mark. 24, 251–268.Google Scholar
[9] Ciulla, F., Mocanu, D., Baronchelli, A., Gonçalves, B., Perra, N. & Vespignani, A. (2012) Beating the news using social media: The case study of American Idol. EPJ Data Sci. 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Danaher, P. J., Wilson, I. W. & Davis, R. A. (2003) A comparison of online and offline consumer brand loyalty. Mark. Sci. 22, 461–476.Google Scholar
[11] Farhi, P. (2013) Oreo's Tweeted ad was Super Bowl blackout's Big Winner, Washington Post, (February 05).Google Scholar
[12] Feld, S. L. (1991) Why your friends have more friends than you do. Am. J. Sociol. 96, 1464–1477.Google Scholar
[13] García-Herranz, M., Moro, E., Cebrián, M., Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. (2014) Using friends as sensors to detect global-scale contagious outbreaks. PLOS ONE 9 (4), e92413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[14] Grindrod, P. (2014) Mathematical Underpinnings of Analytics: Theory and Applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Kuehn, C., Martens, E. A. & Romero, D. M. (2014) Critical transitions in social network activity. J. Complex Netw. 2, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H. & Moon, S. (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '10, New York, NY, USA, 2010, ACM, pp. 591–600.Google Scholar
[17] Laflin, P., Mantzaris, A. V., Ainley, F., Otley, A., Grindrod, P. & Higham, D. J. (2013) Discovering and validating influence in a dynamic online social network. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 3, 1311–1323.Google Scholar
[18] Laflin, P., Mantzaris, A. V., Ainley, F., Otley, A., Grindrod, P. & Higham, D. J. (2015) Anticipating activity in social media spikes. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modelling and Mining Temporal Interactions Workshop of the 9th International Conference on the Web and Social Media, Oxford, CA, USA, 2015, Association for the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
[19] Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R. & Richard, M.-O. (2013) To be or not to be in social media: How brand loyalty is affected by social media? Int. J. Inform. Manage. 33, 76–82.Google Scholar
[20] Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M.-O. & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012) The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Comput. Human Behav. 28, 1755–1767.Google Scholar
[21] Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M. & Jebara, T. (2009) Computational social science. Science 323, 721–723.Google Scholar
[22] Lee, S. H., Kim, P.-J. & Jeong, H. (2006) Statistical properties of sampled networks. Phys. Rev. E 73, 016102.Google Scholar
[23] Leskovec, J. & Faloutsos, C. (2006) Sampling from large graphs. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '06, New York, NY, USA, 2006, ACM, pp. 631–636.Google Scholar
[24] Lowcay, C., Marsland, S. & McCartin, C. (2014) Network parameters and heuristics in practice: A case study using the target set selection problem. J. Complex Netw. 2, 373–393.Google Scholar
[25] Maiya, A. S. & Berger-wolf, T. Y. (2011) Benefits of bias: Towards better characterization of network sampling. In Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '11), San Diego, 2011.Google Scholar
[26] Stumpf, M., Wiuf, C. & May, R. (2005) Subnets of scale-free networks are not scale-free: Sampling properties of networks. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 102, 4221–4224.Google Scholar
[27] Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A. & Watts, D. J. (2011) Who says what to whom on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World wide web, WWW '11, New York, NY, USA, 2011, ACM, pp. 705–714.Google Scholar
[28] Zaglia, M. E. (2013) Brand communities embedded in social networks. J. Bus. Res. 66, 216–223.Google Scholar