FGC, UGC, and the Marketing Funnel

Modeling the Relationship Between Firm and User Generated Content and the Stages of the Marketing Funnel

Colicev, Kumar, & O’Connor (2019) — International Journal of Research in Marketing

Motivation and Research Gap

  • Social media is now mainstream, but research has focused on isolated metrics (sales, stock returns)
  • Critical gap: no study has theoretically and empirically linked FGC and UGC to the entire marketing funnel
  • FGC and UGC differ fundamentally: “social advertising” vs. “wisdom of the crowd”
  • Prior work considers only FGC volume — ignores valence and vividness

First study to decompose FGC into multiple dimensions and map both FGC and UGC onto all four stages: Awareness → Consideration → Purchase Intent → Satisfaction.

Conceptual Framework

Two theoretical pillars:

  1. Consumer Information Processing Theory — informative vs. persuasive effects
    • Informative → Awareness (mere exposure drives recall)
    • Persuasive → Consideration & Purchase Intent
  2. Source Credibility Theory — expertise vs. trustworthiness
    • FGC: higher source expertise (official, detailed product info)
    • UGC: higher source trustworthiness (first-hand, non-commercial)

Core prediction: source expertise dominates trustworthiness → FGC should prevail in mid-funnel (consideration, purchase intent), while UGC prevails at top (awareness) and bottom (satisfaction).

FGC & UGC Dimensions + Hypotheses

FGC dimensions: Neutral valence, Positive valence, Vividness (text → video) UGC dimensions: Volume, Valence

Hypothesis Prediction
H1 UGC > FGC for Awareness
H2a FGC > UGC for Consideration & Purchase Intent
H2b FGC vividness > FGC neutral/positive (mid-funnel)
H2c UGC valence > UGC volume (mid-funnel)
H3 UGC > FGC for Satisfaction
H4 High corporate reputation → stronger FGC effects (mid-funnel)

Data and Methodology

  • 19 brands across 7 industries (services, durables, non-durables)
  • 264 days → 5,016 brand-day observations
  • Multi-source data:
    • FGC/UGC: Facebook (20,074 brand posts, 189,557 user posts)
    • Funnel stages: YouGov BrandIndex (daily surveys of 5,000 panelists)
    • Controls: Kantar (ad spend), CRSP, Lexis-Nexis
  • Method: Panel Vector Auto Regression (PVAR) with GMM estimation
  • Sentiment: Naive Bayes classifier for both FGC and UGC

Main Results — H1 to H3

IRF cumulative effects (Table 3a):

Dimension Awareness Consideration Purchase Intent Satisfaction
UGC Valence 0.224*** 0.810*** 0.403*** ns
UGC Volume 0.248*** 0.330*** 0.127** 1.481**
FGC Vividness −0.109* 2.722*** 2.214*** ns
FGC Neutral 0.112** 0.903*** 0.955*** 0.193**
FGC Positive 0.190*** ns ns ns

H1 ✓ UGC > FGC for Awareness | H2a ✓ FGC > UGC for Consideration & PI H2b ✓ FGC vividness dominates | H2c ✓ UGC valence > UGC volume H3 ✓ UGC > FGC for Satisfaction

FGC Vividness: The Standout Performer

FGC vividness has the strongest relationship with consideration (2.722) and purchase intent (2.214) — far exceeding all other dimensions.

Why? - Media richness theory: vivid content better resolves ambiguity - Photos and videos communicate product features more effectively - Vivid content is more engaging and persuasive (Berger & Milkman 2012)

Surprising finding: FGC positive valence is not significant for consideration or purchase intent - Positive brand language perceived as overly commercial and “pushy” - Consumers prefer objective, neutral, and vivid content

Corporate Reputation as Moderator (H4)

High CR Brands Low CR Brands
FGC → Consideration FGC neutral: +1.025* FGC vividness: −0.912; FGC neutral: −2.157
FGC → Purchase Intent All 3 FGC dims positive FGC positive: −0.274**

H4 ✓ — High CR brands benefit from all FGC dimensions; low CR brands see backfire effects.

Key takeaway: Low-reputation brands should first build corporate reputation before investing in FGC strategies. For them, UGC remains mostly positive — encourage user content instead.

Consumption Category Differences

Stage Durables & Non-Durables Services
Awareness Larger positive FGC/UGC effects Smaller effects
Consideration & PI Smaller effects Larger positive effects
Satisfaction Smaller effects Larger positive effects

Explanation: - Durables/non-durables → consumers actively search for product info → higher awareness effects - Services → customer-oriented pages, more post-purchase touchpoints → stronger mid/lower-funnel effects

Managerial Implications

  1. FGC vividness is your strongest lever — invest in photos and videos, not just text posts, for mid-funnel persuasion
  2. Don’t overdo positivity — neutral and vivid FGC outperforms positive FGC for consideration and purchase intent
  3. UGC drives awareness and satisfaction — encourage user conversations to build top-of-mind recall and post-purchase reassurance
  4. Reputation matters — low-CR brands risk backfire from FGC; prioritize reputation-building first, lean on UGC in the meantime
  5. Tailor by category — durables brands: leverage social for awareness; services brands: leverage social for persuasion and satisfaction
  6. Manage the full funnel — FGC and UGC play complementary roles; an integrated content strategy is essential

Limitations and Future Research

  • Single platform (Facebook) — Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok not covered
  • Self-reported funnel metrics (YouGov) vs. actual purchase behavior
  • No causal identification (no exogenous variation)
  • FGC expertise vs. UGC trustworthiness untested experimentally
  • FGC themes (humor, product, promotional) not disentangled

Future directions: - Field/natural experiments for causal identification - Multi-platform and cross-industry studies - Individual-level analysis linking FGC/UGC dimensions to entire funnel - Interaction with traditional media spend

Citation: Colicev, A., Kumar, A., & O’Connor, P. (2019). International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.09.005