While we introduce “behavioral labeling” and provide initial evidence for its effectiveness, we have only just begun to scratch the surface of this interesting new area. We hope that our findings spark additional research and new marketing practices in this intriguing domain.
Martin P. Fritze is Professor of Marketing, Zeppelin University, Germany.
We find that behavioral labels like “up-smiling” (cheering others up by using encouraging smiley faces in online chats) can induce more supportive and constructive behavior in online classrooms, consumer discussion groups, or forums. Relatedly, behavioral labels like “trollspotting” (spotting online “trolls” and ignoring their reviews) may help consumers become more resistant to information coming from internet trolls. At a more general level, such labels may have a potential to break a “negativity spiral” on social media and contribute to making the online world a better place.
Franziska Völckner is Professor of Marketing, University of Cologne, Germany.
The term “plogging” is a combination of the Swedish verbs plocka upp (pick up) and jogga (jog) and it refers to the activity of picking up trash while jogging to reduce litter. According to Wikipedia, plogging started as an organized activity in Sweden around 2016 and spread to other countries following increased concern about plastic pollution. An estimated two million people plog daily in over 100 countries, and some plogging events have attracted over three million participants.
Linguistic relativity theory shows that language is not just an expression of thought—it also channels how people think and act. Marketing literature suggests consumers adjust their behaviors in response to words that evoke certain images, such as brand and company labels. In a new Journal of Marketing study, we find that naming or tagging an activity with a special word can make people want to do that activity, which we call “behavioral labeling.”
Using a behavioral label can create a commercial advantage for one brand compared to a competitor that does not use a behavioral label. For example, we analyze Google Trends data for two comparable grocery delivery services, “Flink” and “Gorillas,” that entered the German market at around the same time. Both had nearly identical offerings and advertised delivering groceries at retail prices within 10 minutes of ordering. However, after a certain time, Flink started to communicate a behavioral label translated as “Flinking” (or expressed as “Flink it!”) while Gorillas did not introduce any behavioral label. Results showed that Flink had more Google search inquiries than Gorillas after the behavioral label was launched.
Valentyna Melnyk is Professor of Marketing, University of New South Wales, Australia.