ArticlePublic health nutrition2022
Brands with personalities - good for businesses, but bad for public health? A content analysis of how food and beverage brands personify themselves on Twitter.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are wePublic health nutrition · 2026Trial
- Article
- Regional insights on tobacco-related tweets: unveiling user opinions and usage patterns.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- A Content Analysis of Persuasive Appeals Used in Media Campaigns to Encourage and Discourage Sugary Beverages and Water in the United States.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- A Scoping Review of Observational Studies on Food and Beverage Advertising on Social Media: A Public Health Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- COVID-Washing in US Food and Beverage Marketing on Twitter: Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Social media: frenemy of public health?Public health nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the extent to which food and beverage brands exhibit personalities on Twitter, quantify Twitter users' engagement with posts displaying personality features and determine advertising spending across these brands on Twitter.
designWe identified 100 tweets from 10 food and beverage brands that displayed a 'personality', and 100 'control' tweets (i.e. a post by that brand on the same day). Our codebook quantified the following personification strategies: (1) humour; (2) trendy language and (3) absence of food product mentions. We used media articles to quantify other personification strategies: (4) referencing trending topics; (5) referencing current events; (6) referencing internet memes and (7) targeting niche audiences. We calculated brands' number of tweets, re-tweets, 'likes', and comments and report the relationship between advertising spending and retweets per follower.
settingTwitter posts.
participantsTen food and beverage brands that were described in media articles (e.g. Forbes) as having distinct personalities.
resultsPersonality tweets earned 123 013 retweets, 732 076 'likes' and 14 806 comments, whereas control tweets earned 61 044 retweets, 256 105 'likes' and 14 572 comments. The strategies used most included humour (n 81), trendy language (n 80) and trending topics (n 47). The three brands that spent the most on advertising had similar or fewer retweets per follower than the four that spent relatively little on advertising.
conclusionsSome food and beverage brands have distinct 'personalities' on Twitter that generate millions of 'likes' and retweets. Some retweets have an inverse relationship with advertising spending, suggesting 'personalities' may be a uniquely powerful advertising tool for targeting young adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.