Like, comment, and subscribe: investigating the effectiveness of digital engagement prompts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigates the effectiveness of different types of calls-to-action (CTAs) in YouTube videos, specifically examining how “like,” “comment,” and “subscribe” prompts affect user engagement behaviors and how their placement within videos (beginning, middle, or end) influences viewer response rates. Design/methodology/approach The research analyzes 8,500 English-language YouTube videos from major English-speaking markets (USA, UK, Canada, Australia) using PLS-SEM. Video transcripts were analyzed to identify CTA presence and placement, while engagement metrics were collected via YouTube’s API. Findings Results show that “like” CTAs significantly increase video likes, particularly when placed mid-video. However, neither “comment” nor “subscribe” CTAs show significant effect on their respective engagement metrics. Cross-country analysis reveals variations in CTA effectiveness across markets, with the strongest effects observed in the USA. Research limitations/implications The sample of English-language content from Western markets limits generalizability to other cultural contexts. The analysis also relied solely on verbal CTAs, excluding non-verbal elements and content quality factors. Practical implications Content creators should strategically place “like” CTAs mid-video to maximize low-effort engagement, while recognizing that direct “comment” and “subscribe” requests have limited effectiveness without additional incentives or value propositions. Market-specific engagement strategies are recommended even within seemingly homogeneous English-speaking markets. Originality/value This study provides one of the first large-scale empirical tests of CTA effectiveness on YouTube, challenging the assumption that all CTAs boost engagement. By integrating Parasocial Relationship Theory and Expectancy-Value Theory, it demonstrates how both emotional connections and rational cost-benefit analyses determine viewer responses to prompts, expanding our theoretical understanding of digital consumer behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".