Here's what you should learn from social media influencers for your own business marketing. Photo via Getty Images

Influencer marketing is booming, with companies allocating 10 to 25 percent of their advertising budgets to influencer-led strategies. Between 2016 and 2020, the number of sponsored posts rose from 1.26 million to 6.12 million, and overall spending in the past few years has grown by billions.

When partnering with online ambassadors, brands certainly want a large influencer audience. However, audience size does not necessarily reflect the amount influencers are paid. Influencers with similar-sized audiences can be paid very different amounts.

That’s partly because brands also want an engaged influencer audience. An influencer may have many followers, but if those followers don’t actively interact with content, the influencer’s reach is limited. Engagement metrics like comments, shares and “likes” are often a more reliable indicator of impact than follower count alone.

The problem brands face — no matter who the influencer is — is that sponsored posts typically see a plunge in engagement, making it difficult to measure their success. Very little research examines this effect and how influencers can mitigate it.

In a new study, Rice Business professors Jae Chung and Ajay Kalra take up this issue, along with Stanford professor Yu Ding. According to the researchers, one way of boosting engagement overall, even on sponsored content where engagement often falls, is for influencers to increase audience perceptions of authenticity, perceived similarity, and interpersonal curiosity.

Even in a world full of filters and careful staging, authenticity is a key differentiator for leaders, businesses and personalities. One powerful way of appearing true to one’s own personality or character is to effectively share life stories. But social media influencers walk a fine line between presenting their authentic selves and monetizing their platforms.

To attract followers and content sponsors, influencers must curate the images they share, the words they say, and the timing and cadence of their posts. It’s a delicate dance between providing value through a genuine audience connection and aligning with brand interests.

Here are three simple but powerful ways that influencers can boost engagement by highlighting close relationships:

  • Post photos that include one or two close friends or family members.
  • Mention friends and family in the caption.
  • Use first-person language (e.g., “I,” “my” and “we”).

Referencing close social ties is an especially powerful way to boost engagement. According to Professor Chung, “Intimate social ties can make influencers seem more authentic and sponsored messaging seem less transactional.” This effect holds true even when controlling for variables like gender, frequency of posting, use of emojis and hashtags, and audience familiarity with the influencer.

The team analyzed over 55,000 Instagram posts from 763 top influencers during the second half of 2019. One of their most distinctive findings is that, in terms of boosting audience engagement, the ideal number of faces in a photo is three — the influencer plus two friends or family members. For an Instagram audience, this numerical face count proves a surprisingly effective metric for assessing the closeness of relationships.

Influencers can also seem more genuine to followers by referencing intimate social ties in their captions. Terms like “grandpa,” “bestie” and “soulmate” give followers access to an inner circle usually reserved for loved ones, making them feel more connected and invested in the influencer’s world and worldview.

In one experiment, study participants were shown a series of Instagram posts supposedly written by actor Jessica Alba. Testing the impact of language on the perception of close ties, the researchers wrote three different captions for the same image. One caption mentions Alba’s daughter (“Styling by my daughter. Isn’t this outfit cute?”). Another references a distant tie (“Styling by designer Kelmen. Isn’t this outfit cute?”). A third post provided a baseline by indicating no ties at all.

Study participants were asked to select which posts they liked most. The results supported the research hypothesis. Posts mentioning close relationships are significantly more likable than posts mentioning distant ties or no ties.

The team also examined the impact of expressing emotion on Instagram. Does sharing feelings — either positive or negative — help or hurt audience engagement? Using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) language processing program, the researchers categorized and analyzed the strength and valence of emotion-related words and emojis (e.g., “love,” “nice,” “frustrated,” “sad”).

What they found is surprising. Expressing emotion boosts audience engagement, perhaps because it bridges a perceived gap of celebrity between influencer and audience. But what’s interesting is that negative emotions are more powerful than positive ones. According to the researchers’ dataset, negative emotions are expressed only 9.08 percent of the time, while positive feelings are shared 36.03 percent of the time. So, one way of interpreting the finding is that the comparative rarity of negative feeling could take some readers by surprise, and thereby incite a stronger sense of authenticity.

Importantly, all of these findings regarding audience engagement most likely apply to platforms where a gray line exists between private and public life.

And, on this note, the researchers warn against the potential for oversharing and exploiting family and friends for the sake of monetizing content.

But the study shows how brands can strategically sponsor posts that incorporate close ties in photos, express emotion, or share anecdotes in first-person language.

By quantifying tactics to achieve a greater perception of authenticity, the research provides valuable guidance on how to cut through the noise on social media. One of the paths to a more engaged audience, it turns out, runs through an influencer’s inner circle.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung, an assistant professor of marketing at Rice Business, Yu Ding an assistant professor of marketing at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Ajay Kalra, the Herbert S. Autrey Professor of Marketing at Rice Business.

Investors gravitate toward funds ending in the number zero over those ending in the number five, a Rice University researcher finds. Because of this tendency, some investors expose themselves to financial risk and loss of wealth. Photo via Getty Images

Rice University research finds that investors might have a bias towards the number zero

houston voices

When the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 18,000 a few years back, the nicely rounded number dominated the news. When teens take the SAT, those who just miss scoring a round number are more likely to seek a do-over. And, research shows, major league baseball players are four times more likely to end their seasons with a .300 batting average than a .299.

There's something irresistible about figures ending in zero. But does that extend to our decision-making? Does our instinctive love for round numbers affect our financial plans?

The answer is yes, says Rice Business professor Ajay Kalra. Along with Xiao Liu of NYU Stern and Wei Zhang of Iowa State University, Kalra looked at data from thousands of investors in Target Retirement Funds (TRFs), which generally assume retirement at age 65 and ask employees to pick a fund with a year ending either in zero or five (e.g., 2040, 2045) that is nearest to their planned retirement date.

Investors whose birth year doesn't already end in zero or five must round up or round down to choose their TRF.

The zeros clearly win investors' hearts. Succumbing to what the researchers call "zero bias," investors consistently choose to sink their retirement dollars into funds that end in zero, not five. For many of the investors Kalra and his team looked at, especially older people, men and those with higher incomes, this meant choosing a retirement age of 60 or 70 rather than the standard 65.

The choice was often costly. Many investors who rounded up or down to find a fund year ending in zero exposed themselves to real financial risk.

That's because TRFs are graded portfolios — meaning they start out stock-heavy, move to a mix of stocks and bonds and finally emphasize bonds. Investors who rounded down for a too-young retirement target gave themselves less time to benefit from a stock-dominant portfolio. Investors who rounded up for a too-old retirement target ending in zero contributed less money to their retirement because they assumed they had more time to invest. Investors who rounded down did worse than those who rounded up.

Who is most susceptible to losing hard-earned retirement dollars this way? The researchers looked at people born from the 1950s through the 1980s. Of these investors, those born in years ending between three and seven selected the appropriate fund. The zero bias was prevalent in those born in years ending in eight or nine, who tended to project their retirement age as 60, and those born in years that ended in zero, one or two, who favored retiring at 70.

Overall, the researchers discovered, 34 percent of people born in years ending in eight or nine picked retirement funds that targeted too-early retirement — and ended up financially worse off. Meanwhile, 29 percent of investors born in years ending in the numbers zero, one or two picked later TRFs. With the exception of those who were risk averse, these investors ended up better off than those who chose too-early TRFs. Overall, however, investors who picked funds with mismatched retirement dates (that is, inconsistent with retirement at 65), saw more losses than gains.

The infatuation with zero held up even when the researchers replicated their study in an experimental setting. So they tried something different: they presented participants with math problems to coax a "calculative mindset." It worked. Rather than gravitating to zeros, these investors chose retirement funds that matched their ages. Straight talk in the form of a 30-minute one-on-one financial planning session helped too. At least some investors who got this counseling made better choices.

Rounding up or down to zero can be a nice mental shortcut when stakes are low and time is short. There are good reasons, for example, to go for the zero in calculating sales tax when you're buying a book, or tallying how many party guests want cake.

But when it comes to life savings, instinct-based math can be trouble. Financial firms should be aware of this and discourage preference for the shiny number zero. Advisors should nudge clients toward funds that will truly enhance earnings. Most important, however, investors themselves need to keep their heads, think of the future and resist the allure of round numbers.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom. It's based on research by Ajay Kalra, a professor of marketing at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Austin company to bring AI-powered school to The Woodlands

AI education

Austin-based Alpha School, which operates AI-powered private schools, is opening its first Houston-area location in The Woodlands.

The 8,000-square-foot school, scheduled to be ready for the 2026-27 academic year, initially will serve students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Alpha says the school will offer “open workshop spaces and innovative classrooms that support personalized instruction, core academics, leadership development, and real-world life skills.”

Alpha sets aside two hours each school day for the AI-driven, self-paced study of core subjects like math, reading and science. The rest of each school day consists of life-skills workshops focusing on topics such as leadership and financial literacy.

Alpha’s school in The Woodlands has begun accepting applications for the 2026-27 school year. Annual tuition costs $40,000.

“The Woodlands is one of the most dynamic, forward-thinking communities in Texas, and Alpha is proud to bring

an innovative educational model that complements its strong academic foundation,” says Rachel Goodlad, head

of expansion for Alpha.

Founded in 2014, Alpha School combines adaptive technology-driven instruction with immersive life-skills workshops. Its model emphasizes mastery-based learning in core subjects alongside development of communication, critical thinking, financial literacy and leadership skills. It operates more than 15 schools across the country.

Elsewhere in Texas, Alpha operates schools in Austin, Brownsville, Fort Worth and Plano. Alpha also operates 12 Texas Sports Academy campuses in Texas, including locations in Houston, Pearland and Richmond, along with a NextGen Academy esports school in Austin, a school for gifted students in Georgetown, and lower-cost Nova Academy campuses in Austin and Bastrop.

Alpha has fans and critics. While supporters tout students’ high achievement rates, detractors complain about the high tuition and the AI-influenced depersonalization of education.

“Students and our country need to be in relationship with other human beings,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers union, tells The New York Times. “When you have a school that is strictly AI, it is violating that core precept of the human endeavor and of education.”

Alpha co-founder MacKenzie Price, a podcaster and social media influencer, doesn’t share Weingarten’s views.

“Parents and teachers: We need to embrace this change,” Price wrote after President Trump signed an executive order promoting AI in schools.

The Times notes that Alpha doesn’t employ AI as a tutor or a supplement. Rather, the newspaper says, AI is “the school’s primary educational driver to move students through academic content.”

Houston researcher secures $1.7M to develop drug for aggressive form of breast cancer

cancer research

A University of Houston researcher has joined a $3.2 million effort to develop a new drug designed to attack a cancer-driving protein commonly found in triple-negative breast cancer.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most difficult-to-treat forms of cancer and accounts for 10 percent to 15 percent of all breast cancer cases. The disease gets its name because tumors associated with it test negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and excess HER2 protein, making it difficult to target. Due to this, TNBC is often treated with general chemotherapy, which can come with negative side effects and drug resistance, according to UH.

UH College of Pharmacy research associate professor Wei Wang is developing a drug that can target the disease more specifically. The drug will target MDM2, a protein often overproduced in TNBC that also contributes to faster tumor growth.

Wang is working on a team led by Wei Li, director of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Pharmacy’s Drug Discovery Center. She has received $1.7 million to support the research.

Wang and UH professor of pharmacology and toxicology Ruiwen Zhang have discovered a compound that can break down MDM2. In early laboratory models, the compound has shown the ability to shrink tumors.

Wang and Zhang will focus on understanding how the treatment works and monitoring its effectiveness in models that closely mirror human disease.

“We will study how the drug targets MDM2 and evaluate the most promising drug candidates to determine effective dosing, understand how the drug behaves in the body, compare it with existing treatments and assess early safety,” Wang said in a news release.

Li’s team at the University of Tennessee will be working on the chemistry and drug design end of the project.

“This work could lead to an entirely new class of therapies for triple-negative breast cancer,” Li added in the release. “We’re hopeful that by directly removing the MDM2 protein from cancer cells, we can help more patients respond to treatment regardless of their tumor type.”