↓ Skip to main content

What People “Like”: Analysis of Social Media Strategies Used by Food Industry Brands, Lifestyle Brands, and Health Promotion Organizations on Facebook and Instagram

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
521 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What People “Like”: Analysis of Social Media Strategies Used by Food Industry Brands, Lifestyle Brands, and Health Promotion Organizations on Facebook and Instagram
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, June 2018
DOI 10.2196/10227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Michelle Klassen, Emily S Borleis, Linda Brennan, Mike Reid, Tracy A McCaffrey, Megan SC Lim

Abstract

Health campaigns have struggled to gain traction with young adults using social media, even though more than 80% of young adults are using social media at least once per day. Many food industry and lifestyle brands have been successful in achieving high levels of user engagement and promoting their messages; therefore, there may be lessons to be learned by examining the successful strategies commercial brands employ. This study aims to identify and quantify social media strategies used by the food industry and lifestyle brands, and health promotion organizations across the social networking sites Facebook and Instagram. The six most engaging posts from the 10 most popular food industry and lifestyle brands and six health promotion organizations were included in this study. A coding framework was developed to categorize social media strategies, and engagement metrics were collected. Exploratory linear regression models were used to examine associations between strategies used and interactions on Facebook and Instagram. Posts from Facebook (143/227, 63.0%) and Instagram (84/227, 37.0%) were included. Photos (64%) and videos (34%) were used to enhance most posts. Different strategies were most effective for Facebook and Instagram. Strategies associated with higher Facebook interactions included links to purchasable items (beta=0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.13, P<.001) featuring body image messages compared with food content (beta=1.96, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.64, P<.001), and where the content induced positive emotions (beta=0.31, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, P=.02). Facebook interactions were negatively associated with using pop culture (beta=-0.67, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.34, P<.001), storytelling (beta=-0.86, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.43, P<.001) or visually appealing graphics (beta=-0.53, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.28, P<.001) in their posts compared with other strategies. Posting relatable content was negatively associated with interactions on Facebook (beta=-0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.06, P=.01), but positively associated on Instagram (beta=0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.95, P=.03). Instagram interactions were negatively associated with weight loss (beta=-1.45, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.21, P=.02) and other content (beta=-0.81, 95% CI -1.57 to -.06, P=.04) compared with food content. Health promotion professionals and organizations can improve engagement using positive messaging and tailoring posts appropriate for different social media channels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 521 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 521 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 73 14%
Student > Master 61 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 8%
Lecturer 24 5%
Researcher 21 4%
Other 61 12%
Unknown 241 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 49 9%
Social Sciences 49 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 7%
Psychology 20 4%
Other 83 16%
Unknown 250 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,355,898
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#3,205
of 7,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,784
of 341,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#90
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.