Content Accumulation, Audience Concentration, and Connective Selectivity on Instagram: A Population-Level Study of NBA Teams
Keywords:
Instagram; NBA teams; organizational visibility; audience concentration; digital-trace research; sport marketing; platform metricsAbstract
Three numbers sit at the top of every Instagram profile, and on a National Basketball Association (NBA) team's account they are often read as one verdict on how well the team is doing online. They are not the same kind of number. The post count is an archive the club has built and pruned over years, the follower count is the outcome of other people's choices, and the following count is a decision the club made itself about whom to subscribe to. This study asks how far the three actually move together, using the official Instagram accounts of all 30 NBA teams as a complete population captured between 31 August and 2 September 2026, after the 2025-2026 season. Each profile was captured as screenshots, the author transcribed the displayed counters by hand and checked them against an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) pass, and Instagram's abbreviated thousand (K) and million (M) values, which the platform shows at varying precision, were converted to approximate numbers. Medians, concentration ratios, a Gini coefficient with a Lorenz curve, and Spearman rank correlations describe the population without any sampling inference. The 30 accounts together displayed approximately 184.9 million followers (median 4.5 million); the two largest accounts held about 30.3 percent of that total and the five largest about 48.6 percent, and the follower Gini coefficient was 0.445, while post stocks were far more even (Gini 0.125; median 19,650). Posts and followers were only weakly rank-associated (Spearman rho = 0.277), and accounts followed had weak negative rank associations with followers (rho = -0.158) and with posts (rho = -0.094). Within a single league, then, content accumulation, audience scale, and connective selectivity vary independently enough that the study treats them as separate dimensions of what it calls platformed organizational visibility. Because the data are one snapshot of rounded public counters, they support no claim about growth, engagement, or causation.
References
[1] C. Anagnostopoulos, P. Parganas, S. Chadwick, and A. Fenton. "Branding in pictures: Using Instagram as a brand management tool in professional team sport organisations." European Sport Management Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 413-438, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.1410202
[2] K. Filo, D. Lock, and A. Karg. "Sport and social media research: A review." Sport Management Review, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 166-181, Apr. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.11.001
[3] N.K. Baym. "Data not seen: The uses and shortcomings of social media metrics." First Monday, vol. 18, no. 10, Oct. 2013. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i10.4873
[4] M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and K.P. Gummadi. "Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy," in Proc. 4th Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2010, pp. 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14033
[5] P. Parganas, C. Anagnostopoulos, and S. Chadwick. "'You'll never tweet alone': Managing sports brands through social media." Journal of Brand Management, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 551-568, Sep. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2015.32
[6] D. Maderer, P. Parganas, and C. Anagnostopoulos. "Brand-image communication through social media: The case of European professional football clubs." International Journal of Sport Communication, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 319-338, Sep. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2018-0086
[7] Y. Su, B.J. Baker, J.P. Doyle, and T. Kunkel. "The rise of an athlete brand: Factors influencing the social media following of athletes." Sport Marketing Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 33-46, Mar. 2020. https://doi.org/10.32731/smq.291.302020.03
[8] M.L. Naraine and M.M. Parent. "Illuminating centralized users in the social media ego network of two national sport organizations." Journal of Sport Management, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 689-701, Nov. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0067
[9] M.L. Naraine. "Follower segments within and across the social media networks of major professional sport organizations." Sport Marketing Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 222-233, Dec. 2019. https://doi.org/10.32731/smq.284.122019.04
[10] J.W. Treem and P.M. Leonardi. "Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association." Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 143-189, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679130
[11] P.M. Leonardi and J.W. Treem. "Behavioral visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication." Organization Studies, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1601-1625, Dec. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620970728
[12] M. Flyverbom, P. Leonardi, C. Stohl, and M. Stohl. "The management of visibilities in the digital age: Introduction." International Journal of Communication, vol. 10, pp. 98-109, 2016. Available: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4841
[13] T. Gillespie. "The politics of 'platforms'." New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 347-364, May 2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
[14] J. van Dijck and T. Poell. "Understanding social media logic." Media and Communication, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2-14, Aug. 2013. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70
[15] T. Bucher. "Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook." New Media & Society, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 1164-1180, Nov. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159
[16] K. Cotter. "Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram." New Media & Society, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 895-913, Apr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818815684
[17] W.N. Espeland and M.L. Stevens. "A sociology of quantification." European Journal of Sociology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 401-436, Dec. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975609000150
[18] W.N. Espeland and M.L. Stevens. "Commensuration as a social process." Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 24, pp. 313-343, Aug. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313
[19] C. Gerlitz and A. Helmond. "The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web." New Media & Society, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1348-1365, Dec. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812472322
[20] A.E. Marwick. "Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy." Public Culture, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 137-160, Jan. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2798379
[21] D. Opelík, J. Voráček, J. Šíma, and A. Michlová. "Exploring Instagram communication: Usage of Instagram as a marketing tool in professional basketball clubs." Studia Sportiva, vol. 18, no. 2, Dec. 2024. https://doi.org/10.5817/StS2024-2-15
[22] R.K. Merton. "The Matthew effect in science." Science, vol. 159, no. 3810, pp. 56-63, Jan. 1968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
[23] T.A. DiPrete and G.M. Eirich. "Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments." Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 32, pp. 271-297, Aug. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127
[24] M.J. Salganik, P.S. Dodds, and D.J. Watts. "Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market." Science, vol. 311, no. 5762, pp. 854-856, Feb. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066
[25] M. Hindman. The Internet Trap: How the Digital Economy Builds Monopolies and Undermines Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.
[26] J.G. Webster. The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014.
[27] J. Howison, A. Wiggins, and K. Crowston. "Validity issues in the use of social network analysis with digital trace data." Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 767-797, Dec. 2011. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00282
[28] T. Venturini, L. Bounegru, J. Gray, and R. Rogers. "A reality check(list) for digital methods." New Media & Society, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 4195-4217, Nov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769236
[29] D. Freelon. "Computational research in the post-API age." Political Communication, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 665-668, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1477506
[30] A. Bruns. "After the 'APIcalypse': Social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research." Information, Communication & Society, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1544-1566, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637447
[31] R. Dorfman. "A formula for the Gini coefficient." The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 146-149, Feb. 1979. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924845
[32] M.O. Lorenz. "Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth." Publications of the American Statistical Association, vol. 9, no. 70, pp. 209-219, Jun. 1905. https://doi.org/10.2307/2276207
[33] COPE Council. "COPE position - Authorship and AI - English." Committee on Publication Ethics, 2024. https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBmssvg
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit papers with this journal agree to the following terms.
