A Marketing Research Study to Determine Consumers' Attitudes Toward and Use of Facebook Advertisements

Prepared for: Dr. John H. Summey

Prepared by: Live Action Marketing Research

Zachary Amato Carly Cripps Sarah Robinson Tyler Rossdeutcher

November 18, 2012 Dr. John H. Summey Southern Illinois University Mail Code: 4629 Carbondale, IL 62901

Dear John H. Summey: As per your request at the start of the fall semester, Live Action Marketing Research has finished your marketing research report about Facebook users' attitudes, perceptions, and usage habits of Facebook advertisements. This report is based on the responses of approximately 664 respondents aged 18 to 64. You will find the results of our report, "A Marketing Research Study to Determine Consumers' Attitudes Toward and Use of Facebook Advertisements," useful for determining Facebook users' complete usage of Facebook advertisements. The results will help you to determine which consumers are clicking on Facebook advertisements and how they are using these ads to make purchase decisions. By knowing this information you can improve the effectiveness of Facebook advertisements. On behalf of Live Action Marketing Research, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to complete this research project. Sincerely,

Zach Amato

Carly Cripps

Sarah Robinson

Tyler Rossdeutcher

Live Action Marketing Research: Biographies

My name is Zach Amato; I'm from Johnsburg, IL and currently a senior majoring in Marketing with a minor in Sociology at Southern Illinois University. I am a proud member of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity as well as supervisor of the circulation department for the Daily Egyptian. My time in both also with experience from studying abroad has given me team building and organizational skills that assist me along with others on the road toward success. My creative and ambitious attitude gives an "outside of the box" perspective for breaking down potential boundaries to achieve any goal my team and I strive for. Hello, my name is Carly Cripps and I am a senior here at SIU studying Marketing. I am originally from a small town in Southern Illinois called Benton, but an avid love of travel and study abroad experience has fostered my interest in international business and marketing. I am a member of the American Marketing Association, as well as Pi Sigma Epsilon, a coed fraternity focusing in marketing and sales. I have been the new member educator of Pi Sigma Epsilon for the last two semesters, and have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to be a leader as well as a mentor to younger or less experienced students. I am aggressive and enthusiastic and am not satisfied until I feel that my work is above par. I enjoy working on a team and my go-getter attitude as well as a strong female perspective brings a unique and valuable addition to the group. My name is Sarah Robinson, I am a senior at Southern Illinois University, and I will be graduating with a marketing degree in May. Throughout my career I have been well trained in customer service, event planning, and management. These experiences help me to contribute to the group. I am a hardworking and motivated individual who does not like to leave the job half finished. I strive to do my best with every endeavor. My name is Tyler Rossdeutcher and I bring quite a bit to this group beyond being a marketing major. I have studied abroad in Grenoble, which allowed me to see different marketing strategies through case studies and other class projects. Beyond that, I held a sales internship and earned recommendations from one of the executives at Gold Eagle Company in Chicago, IL. It was through that internship which my communication and public speaking skills were improved as I gave a speech at the Tall Sales annual fundraiser in Minnesota. Finally, my leadership and organizational skills have been improved due to being on a scholarship committee where we award local wrestlers scholarships to continue their education. In order to aid that fund, we host an annual golf outing in the Chicago suburbs and I play a role in organization through the groups Facebook page as well as through emails. My skills will help this group to meet and exceed our marketing research objectives.

Table of Contents Section Title Executive Summary1-3 Introduction Purpose of Study.....4 Research Methodology...5 Facebook User Profile... 6-21 Research Objective One: Perceptions of Facebook advertisements as a source of Information Introduction.........22 Sub-Objective One: Perceptions of Facebook Advertisements......23-35 Sub-Objective Two: Likability of Facebook Advertisements.....36-43 Sub-Objective Three: Enjoy ability of Facebook Advertisements..44-48 Sub-Objective Four: Evaluation of Facebook Advertisements...49-51 Sub-Objective Five: Likelihood to Click on Facebook Advertisements.....52-55 Summary of Research Objective One......56 Research Objective Two: Information conveyed by Facebook advertisements Introduction.....57-58 Sub-Objective One: Reliability...59-65 Sub-Objective Two: Trust...66-69 Sub-Objective Three: Assessment of Facebook Advertisements.......70-76 Sub-Objective Four: How Facebook Advertisements are Used.....77-82 Sub-Objective Five: Future Use.....83-87 Summary of Research Objective Two....88 Appendix Proposal......89-90

Model.....91 Sampling Plan........92 Questionnaire.................................................................................................As a PDF File on CD Summary Questionnaire........................................................................................................93-147 Limitations of the Study........148 Suggestions for Improvement........149

Executive Summary
This study was conducted to discover what elements of Facebook advertisements appeal to consumers. Our objective in conducting this study was to gain insight into consumers attitudes toward Facebook advertisements. This report was based on an Internet questionnaire sent to a random sample of Internet users ages 18-64. We analyzed this sample by age group, gender, income level, and education level. To further analyze respondents views on Facebook advertisements, we use two main objectives with five sub-objectives for each. The first objective outlines respondents perceptions of Facebook advertisements as a source of information. The sub-objectives are used to break down respondents perceptions on the basis of separate constructs. Sub-Objective One: Perceptions Ethical Concerns: 44.1%, of respondents say that they neither agree nor disagree that information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is honest. 30.5% of the respondents disagree that the advertisements on Facebook are truthful 34% of respondents disagree that the information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is credible 50% of respondents felt neutral that information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is ethical 30.2% of respondents disagree to some extent that Facebook advertisements are factual 33.7% agree to some extent that information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is misleading Orientation to Consumers: 50.7% of respondents agree to some degree that the information presented in Facebook ads is consumer oriented 29.6% agree that the information presented in Facebook ads is beneficial to consumers 26.8% disagree to some extent that information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is benevolent 13.3% agreed to some extent regarding the benevolence of Facebook advertisements 44.3% of respondents say that Facebook ads do not help consumers make the best decisions 21.5% of respondents agree to some extent that these ads also contain abundant information about customers needs

Sub-Objective Two: Likeability 51.7% of respondents indicated that they think Facebook advertises according to where people reside 57.2% of those who took the questionnaire indicated that they sometimes to always experience ads on Facebook that apply to their personal interests
1

49.2% of respondents say that they have at some time been exposed to advertisements that are related to companies websites they have liked on Facebook Across all income levels, there is a slim chance respondents will click on Facebook advertisements. Respondents across all levels of education think that there are sometimes too many ads on Facebook Sub-Objective Three: Enjoyability 43.2% of respondents agree that the information conveyed in Facebook ads is positive 36.1% disagree to some extent that ads are enjoyable 1/3 of respondents agreed, 1/3 of respondents disagreed, and 1/3 of respondents felt neutral that the content of ads are likeable or good. Sub-Objective Four: Evaluation of Ads Respondents find that the advertisements are slightly untrustworthy, unconvincing, not credible, unreasonable, inconclusive and not authentic Sub-Objective Five: Likelihood to Click High school education indicated the highest likelihood to click on Facebook advertisements with 4.6% A vast majority across all age brackets indicated they are unlikely to click Both males and females indicated they are not likely to click

The second objective outlines the information conveyed by the advertisements to respondents. The subobjectives are used to break down respondents attitudes toward the information presented in the advertisements. Sub-Objective One: Assessment of Ads For both gender and income levels, respondents feel "slightly" to "moderately" that Facebook advertisements are not interesting, not effective, not favorable, not convincing, not engaging, not intriguing, and not compelling. Sub-Objective Two: Trust Across all age groups disagree or somewhat disagree that you can trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements 18.6% of respondents 45-54 "somewhat agree" to have confidence in the information provided by Facebook advertisements Sub-Objective Three: Reliability 68% of all respondents "disagree" that they are willing to rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions 6.7% "agree" that they would make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements

59.9% of all respondents "disagree" that they are willing to consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions Sub-Objective Four: How Used Both males and females "agree" they use Facebook to interact with family and friends Both males and females "disagree" they use Facebook to look for companies deals and advertisements As education level increases, the use of Facebook more than any other source of communication and Facebook as a tool for self-expression decreases Sub-Objective Five: Future Use 45.09% of respondents "strongly disagree" that they will spend more time on Facebook advertisements 44.76% of respondents "strongly disagree" that they would increase frequency of visits to Facebook advertisements 42.76% of respondents "strongly disagree" that they are willing to recommend Facebook advertisements 45.59% of respondents "strongly disagree" that they are willing to continuously visit Facebook advertisements 13.7% of respondents between 55-64 "somewhat agree" they would increase their frequency of visits to Facebook advertisements

Purpose of Study
Live Action Marketing Research consultants created this report in reply to Dr. John H. Summey. Dr. John H. Summey asked for us to conduct marketing research to find out Facebook users views about Facebook and Facebook advertisements. Our goal was to gain insight about users perceptions, how they use Facebook, and the information conveyed by Facebook advertisements. To collect our sample we emailed prospective respondents ages 18-64 that currently spend time on Facebook. As a team we distributed an online Internet based survey to friends and family. This gave us a wide variety of information about Facebook user perception pertaining to Facebook advertisements. After analyzing all of our data we broke the analysis down into two main objectives consisting of 5 subobjectives. Objective One: Perceptions of Facebook as a source of information Sub-objective 1: We examine respondents perceptions of Facebook advertisements based on two constructs; Ethical concerns and Orientation to Facebook users. Sub-objective 2: We wanted to know respondents general reaction to Facebook advertisements in terms of likeability. Sub-objective 3: To determine if respondents found Facebook ads enjoyable. Sub-objective 4: To gain further insight into how consumers view Facebook advertisements, we asked respondents to gauge how skeptical they are of ads. Sub-objective 5: We examined how likely respondents were likelihood to click on Facebook advertisements. Objective Two: Information conveyed and using Facebook Sub-objective 1: To perform an assessment of Facebook advertisements, we asked respondents to gauge how willing they were to respond to information provided be Facebook ads when making purchase decisions. Sub-objective 2: To examine the level of trust consumers associate with Facebook advertisements Sub-objective 3: We examined how reliable the information provided by Facebook advertisements is when respondents make purchasing decisions. Sub-objective 4: To find out how consumers use Facebook Sub-objective 5: To gain insight into customers potential future use of Facebook advertisements.

Research Methodology
We conducted this research because we wanted to learn consumers attitudes toward Facebook advertisements and how we could improve that experience. This information is needed for the marketing researcher because we need to know consumers attitudes in order to influence their purchase decisions. The members of Live Action Marketing Research accepted this task to investigate and better consumers attitudes toward and perceptions of Facebook advertisements and whether or not they click on ads. We also aimed to find out how likely consumers are to click on Facebook ads, and what advertisers can do to get visitors to click on ads. We wrote a questionnaire to address our questions about the type of Facebook users that are clicking on ads now and how Facebook users feel about advertisements. The questionnaire was pre-tested, rewritten, and approved by ... The final questionnaire was given to us by Dr. Summey. The respondents took their survey through the Qualtrics website through a link that was emailed to them. After all respondents took the questionnaire, the results were downloaded in an SPSS database provided to us by Dr. Summey. Our sample contained 664 respondents age 18-64. We ran numerous tests, such as frequency tables, independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, Duncan test, cross-tabulation, and bar charts. After running these tests, we analyzed and interpreted consumers' views about Facebook advertisements and whether they are interested in clicking on these ads.

Facebook User Profile

Before we begin to set up the profile of a typical Facebook user, we must first analyze our respondents. Figure 1 shows that 61.04% of our respondents were female.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows that our largest number of respondents (35%) comes from the 18-24 age bracket, about 32% are ages 25-44 and 45-64. About 99% of those who responded appear to use the Internet regularly, having used the Internet at least one hour out of the last 24, with about 70% having been on the Internet for 3 hours or more as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2

Figure 3
7

Figure 4 show that roughly 88% of those who responded have had at least some college, with about 44% completing at least a Bachelors degree. Figure 5 gives us a breakdown of income levels of the total respondents. The largest category of respondents makes less than $25,000 and the smallest between $75,000 and $99,999.

Figure 4

Figure 5
8

Figure 6 shows that vast majority of all respondents use Facebook daily. Those who are 45-64 are less likely to use Facebook daily. 50% of respondents age 45-64 say the use Facebook daily, while 21% say they use Facebook 2-3 times a week.

Figure 6

When we refer to figure 7, we see that respondents age 45-64 are also the people who have had a Facebook profile for less than one year. Most respondents age 18-24 have had a Facebook profile for more than four years.

Figure 7

10

Figure 8 shows that the younger users are also the users who are more likely to have seen a Facebook advertisement. 40% of respondents age 45-54 say they have never seen a Facebook advertisement.

Figure 8

11

According to Figure 9, the younger the user, the more likely they are to click on an advertisement on Facebook. This suggests that younger users who have had Facebook the longest are better versed with the user interface, and are more apt to notice ads on Facebook. This does not necessarily suggest a correlation with how likely they are to click on an ad.

Figure 9

When we compare figures 6, 7, 8, and 9, we can see that, of our largest age bracket (18-24 year olds), 75% have had a Facebook profile for more than 4 years, when compared to the results in Figure 8 we see that only 39% of these users have ever seen a Facebook ad. 61% of all 18-24 year olds say that they are not at all likely to click on a Facebook ad even if seen. 50% of 45-54 year olds have had a Facebook for more than 4 years, but 40% of these respondents have never seen a Facebook ad. The majority of respondents across all age brackets rarely or never use Facebook advertisements.

12

Figure 10 shows that roughly 70% of respondents indicated that they never bookmark advertisements regardless of gender.

Figure 10

13

In Figures 11 and 12, respondents indicated that they are highly unlikely to share advertisements with friends or family members, or to make purchases from Facebook advertisements. Gender does not generally make a difference when determining whether a person will notice, share, or respond to Facebook advertisements.

Figure 11

Figure 12
14

Figures 13 and 14 show a comparison of which source of advertisement consumers prefer between Google and Facebook. Only the age group 25-29 changed their preferred source for advertisement between Google and Facebook. This age group said that Facebook was preferred as a consumer, but that Google would be better from an advertisers point of view. Those respondents between the age of 45 and 64 prefered Google as both an advertiser and a consumer. Oppositely, those between the ages of 18 and 24 and from 30 to 44 indicated that Facebook was a better medium for advertisement from both a consumer's and business' point of view.

Figure 13

Figure 14
15

Figure 15 shows that within the age bracket of 18-29, the majority of respondents said that Facebook had more eye-catching and engaging advertisements. Of those who are 30-34 years old, respondents favor Google slightly, but are not highly likely to engage with ads.

Figure 15

16

In figure 16, we see that respondents age 18-29 and 35-44 prefer Facebook advertisements over Google. However, respondents age 30-34 favor Google ads slightly, and ages 45-64 very obviously prefer Google ads over those on Facebook.

Figure 16

17

Figure 17 shows that just because respondents prefer ads on one site does not mean they are more likely to click on them. 18-24 year olds, responded that Facebook ads are more engaging, and they are more likely to click on these ads. However, those age 25-29 say that Facebook has more engaging advertisements, but are more likely to click on Google ads. 45-54 year old respondents say that Google's ads may be more engaging, but they are more likely to click on Facebook advertisements.

Figure 17

18

Even though 18-24 and 45-54 year olds like the appeal of Facebook ads, as we can see in figure 18, they are more likely to make a purchase from the ads seen on Google. 25-29 year olds and 35-44 year olds responded that Google had more engaging ads; however, they are more likely to make a purchase from an ad seen on Facebook.

Figure 18

19

Figure 19 shows respondents' views of the credibility of Facebook and Google advertisements. 18-24 year olds slightly favor Facebook ads in regard to credibility, while 45-54 year olds favor Facebook ads by over 10%, the largest difference in respondents across all age brackets. All other ages responded that Google's advertisements are more credible.

Figure 19

20

Figure 20 shows that of the total number of respondents, the majority, 44.1%, use Facebook most often on their smartphones. 34.5% say they use Facebook most often on a laptop and 21% on a desktop computer. Only .4% use Facebook on a smart TV. This tells us that our Facebook users are predominantly mobile while using Facebook.

Smartphone Laptop Desktop Computer Smart TV Total

Response N Percent 577 44.1% 451 34.5% 275 21.0% 5 .4% 1308 100%

Percent of Cases 96.0% 75.0% 45.8% .8% 217.6%

Figure 20

21

Research Objective 1
To determine perceptions of Facebook as a source of information.

Research Sub-Objectives
Perceptions -Ethical Concerns -Orientation to Consumers Likeability Enjoyability Evaluation of ads Likelihood to click

Overview of Sub-Objectives
Sub-Objective One: Perceptions We examine respondents perceptions of Facebook advertisements based on two constructs. The first, ethical concerns, involves honesty, truthfulness, credibility, believability, ethicality, factuality, as well as whether or not Facebook advertisements are misleading. The second, orientation to consumers, is concerned with whether or not Facebook ads are beneficial to consumers, benevolent, help people make the best decisions, directed toward consumers needs, and contain abundant information about customers needs. Sub-Objective Two: Likeability We looked at a wide range of topics such as: clicking on advertisements, if they relate directly to their interests and companies they liked, if they interfere with their Facebook experience, as well as the advertisements presence on Facebook. Sub-Objective Three: Enjoyability To determine if respondents found Facebook ads enjoyable, we asked consumers to indicate how strongly they felt that Facebook advertisements are positive, enjoyable, likable, and good. Sub-Objective Four: Evaluation of Ads To gain further insight into how consumers view Facebook advertisements, we asked respondents to gauge how skeptical they are of ads. We asked respondents how trustworthy, convincing, credible, reasonable, questionable, conclusive, and authentic they personally thought Facebook advertisements were. Sub-Objective Five: Likelihood to Click We examined how likely respondents were likelihood to click on Facebook advertisements.
22

SUB-OBJECTIVE ONE:
PERCEPTIONS:
The frequency tables below show the percentage of respondents who agree and disagree with statements about Facebook advertisements. Respondents were asked to give their first reactions to the following statements. These tables show the averages of respondents answers, and can help us better comprehend consumers perceptions about Facebook advertisements. In general, respondents' predominantly indicated they were neutral in regard to Facebook advertisements being honest, truthful, credible, ethical, factual and misleading. Marketers need to substantiate information in Facebook advertisements to improve consumers perceptions of the advertisements. By improving these variables, companies can differentiate themselves based on honest, truthful, credible, ethical, and factual not misleading, information in Facebook advertisements. We can see from figure 1-1 that the vast majority, 44.1%, of respondents say that they neither agree nor disagree with the statement Information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is honest. 30.3% of people disagree that the information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is honest. 25.4% agree that information in Facebook ads is honest.

Honest Valid Percent Valid Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total 100.0 agree 6.3 .7 agree 9.1 16.3 44.1 18.4 disagree 5.1

Figure 1-1

23

Figure 1-2 shows that 30.5% of the respondents disagree that the advertisements on Facebook are truthful. While 25.6% agree with the statement Information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is truthful. We can see that respondents answered almost identically to this statement as to the statement, The information conveyed in Facebook advertisements is truthful.

Truthful Valid Percent Valid Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total 100.0 agree 7.3 .7 agree 9.0 16.9 43.9 17.6 disagree 4.6

Figure 1-2

24

From figure 1-3, we can see that 34% of respondents disagree that the information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is credible. 25.7% of respondents agree that the information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is credible. This means there is gravitation toward the negative attitude when examining Facebook advertisements credibility.

Credible
Valid Percent Valid Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total 100.0 agree 6.6 .7 agree 10.8 18. 4 40.3 18.4 disagree 4.8

Figure 1-3

25

As seen in figure 1-4, 25% of respondents feel that the information in Facebook advertisements is not ethical to some degree. 25.2% of respondents agree to some degree that the information conveyed in Facebook ads is ethical. Almost 50% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements, The information conveyed in Facebook advertisements is ethical. This is a larger number than was neutral for any of the other ethical concerns regarding Facebook advertisements. Half of all respondents had no opinion on the ethicality of ads, while one-quarter agreed that ads are ethical and one-quarter disagreed. Of all ethical concerns, respondents were most evenly split on ethicality. This could mean that respondents dont know what to think of the ethicality of ads, but most likely this is not the reason for viewing or not viewing Facebook ads.
Ethical Valid Percent Valid Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total 100.0 agree 8.1 .5 agree 8.1 12.6 49.8 16.6 disagree 4.3

Figure 1-4

26

As seen in figure 1-5, 30.2% of respondents disagree to some extent that Facebook advertisements are factual. At the same time, 26.1% agree to some extent that Facebook ads are factual. The smallest portion of respondents agrees that the information provided in Facebook advertisements. According to figure 1-5, the majority of respondents do not agree that Facebook ads are factual. The marketer must improve customers' perceptions of the factuality of ads if they want to reach customers through Facebook.
Factual Valid Percent Valid Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total 100.0 agree 5.3 .8 agree 10.1 15.6 43.6 20.1 disagree 4.5

Figure 1-5

27

Figure 1-6 shows respondents answers when asked if Facebook ads are misleading, 27.1% disagree to some extent that ads are misleading. Inversely, 33.7% agree to some extent with this statement. This is interesting when compared with the information given for Information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is factual. Only 6.1% agreed or strongly agreed that ads are factual, while 11% disagreed that ads are misleading.
Misleading Valid Percent Valid Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total 100.0 agree 10.0 3.0 agree 8.3 16.1 39.3 20.7 disagree 2.7

Figure 1-6

28

The ANOVA in figure 1-7 shows that there is no statistical significant difference in means when comparing income levels with respondents' answers to whether Facebook ads are honest, truthful, credible, believable, ethical, factual, and misleading. We know this because the sigs are all above .05 indicating no statistically significant difference. Across all levels of income, respondents' answers to these statements regarding Facebook advertisements do not differ enough to deem them statistically significantly different, indicating all respondents answered very similarly for each variable. The marketer can use this close linkage in responses across these seven variables to his advantage. Because of this relation, a change in the perception of one could trigger a change in all.

ANOVA Sum of Squares 12. Honest Between Groups Within Groups Total Truthful Between Groups Within Groups Total Credible Between Groups Within Groups Total Believable Between Groups Within Groups Total Ethical Between Groups Within Groups Total Factual Between Groups Within Groups Total Misleading Between Groups Within Groups Total 5.419 846.087 851.507 2.893 846.689 849.582 3.906 890.024 893.930 3.069 965.820 968.889 1.222 807.995 809.217 2.319 845.872 848.190 6.918 938.902 945.820 df 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 1.730 1.622 1.067 .372 .580 1.461 .397 .811 .306 1.396 .219 .928 .767 1.668 .460 .765 .977 1.537 .635 .637 .723 1.462 .495 .740 Mean Square 1.355 1.461 F .927 Sig. .448

Figure 1-7
29

Figure 1-8 also compares income level with other variables. These variables include respondents' answers to whether Facebook advertisements are directed toward customer needs, benevolent, contain abundant information about consumers' needs, benefit consumers, help people make the best decisions, and are customer oriented. None of the significant values in this comparison are below .05, so we can conclude that there is no statistical significant difference between any income level groups across all statements. This means income level has no effect on respondents' ethical concerns of Facebook advertisements.
ANOVA Sum of Squares Directed toward customer needs. Between Groups Within Groups Total Benevolent Between Groups Within Groups Total Contains abundant information about customers needs Benefit consumers Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Helps people make the best decisions Between Groups Within Groups Total Consumer oriented Between Groups Within Groups Total 7.095 1086.220 1093.315 4.182 732.003 736.185 4.685 1130.000 1134.685 5.920 1009.689 1015.610 4.523 941.032 945.555 5.567 1155.363 1160.930 df 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 1.392 1.995 .697 .594 1.131 1.625 .696 .595 1.480 1.744 .849 .495 1.171 1.952 .600 .663 1.046 1.264 .827 .508 Mean Square 1.774 1.876 F .946 Sig. .437

Figure 1-8

30

We can see from the data in figure 1-9 that 50.7% of respondents agree to some extent that the information presented in Facebook ads is consumer oriented. Only 15.6% of respondents disagree to some extent that Facebook ads are not oriented toward consumers. While the majority of people agree that Facebook advertisements are consumer oriented, roughly one third of respondents also believed these advertisements were misleading. Marketers need to capitalize on the large percentage of respondents' that perceive ads as being consumer oriented to drive consumers other perceptions of Facebook advertisements.
Consumer oriented Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 17.1 7.6 100.0 agree 4.5 6.8 33.7 26.0 disagree 4.3

Figure 1-9

31

According to figure 1-10, even though a 50.7% of respondents believe Facebook ads are consumer oriented, only 29.6% agree that the information presented in Facebook ads is beneficial to consumers. We can deduce that even though Facebook advertisements are oriented toward the correct consumers, the advertisements are ineffective in showing that they are beneficial to those consumers. In order to close the gap between respondents who believe ads are consumer oriented and beneficial to consumers, customers' perceptions of ads must be improved.
Benefit consumers Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 6.0 2.2 100.0 agree disagree 6.5 9.6 13.1 41.3 21.4

Figure 1-10

32

When addressing benevolence, as in figure 1-11, we see that 59.9% of respondents are neutral and 26.8% disagree to some extent with the statement, The information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is benevolent. While a vast majority of respondents indicated a neutral response to this statement, only 13.3% agreed to some extent regarding the benevolence of Facebook advertisements. By working to improve perceived benevolence, the marketer can improve the value of information relayed to the consumer and thus improve consumers' perceptions of Facebook advertisements.
Benevolent Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 3.2 .5 100.0 agree 9.1 10.9 59.9 9.6 disagree 6.8

Figure 1-11

33

Even though respondents were generally neutral toward the benevolence of Facebook ads, as we can see in figure 1-12, an overwhelming percentage of respondents disagree to some extent that Facebook ads help consumers make the best decisions. Based on the data, 44.3% of respondents say that Facebook ads do not help consumers make the best decisions.
Helps people make the best decisions Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree agree 16.9 16.6 42.8 10.0 2.7 .3 100.0 disagree 10.8

Figure 1-12

34

Although respondents do not agree that ads on Facebook help consumers make the best decisions, from figure 1-13 we can see that 37% of respondents agree that Facebook ads are directed toward customers needs. This percentage dropped from the 50.7% (Figure 1-9) of consumers who agreed to some extent that Facebook ads are consumer oriented. According to figure 1-14, only 21.5% of respondents agree to some extent that these ads also contain abundant information about customers needs.
Directed toward customers needs. Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 8.0 1.5 100.0 agree disagree 7.6 8.1 11.6 35.7 27.5

Figure 1-13
Contains abundant information about customers needs Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 5.3 1.3 100.0 agree disagree 10.8 12.9 13.4 41.3 14.9

Figure 1-14

35

SUB-OBJECTIVE TWO:
LIKABILITY:
According to figure 2-1, an overwhelming majority (51.7%) of respondents indicated that they think Facebook advertises according to where people reside. Inversely, only 21.9% feel that Facebook advertisements are more arbitrary and are rarely, almost never or never based on where a user resides. This does not pertain to how users feel about the content of ads, but does tell us that Facebook users think that Facebook advertisements are at least geared toward where they live.
They advertise according to where people reside. Valid Percent Never (1) 10.3 4.5 7.1 26.4 23.5 21.4 6.8 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely (3) Neutral (4) Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6)

Very often (7) Total

Figure 2-1

36

According to figures 2-2 and 2-3, we see that the mean of males for the statement "Facebook advertises according to where people reside" is 4.26, and is not statistically significantly different from the mean of females, 4.49. This means that both males and females have neutral tendency with a slight lean toward "sometimes" in regard to Facebook advertisements being directed to where they reside. We know this because the significant value of the Levenes test in figure 2-3 is .814, which is greater than .05. Because the sig value is greater than .05, we assume equal variances and use the 2-tailed sig value of .095. This indicates no statistical significant difference between the means of males and females.

Group Statistics 1. What is your gender? 11. They advertise according to where people reside. Male Female N 226 367 Mean 4.26 4.49 Std. Deviation 1.643 1.643 Std. Error Mean .109 .086

Figure 2-2
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2F 11. They advertise according to where people reside. Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed -1.671 476.264 .095 -.232 .139 -.505 .041 Sig. t df 591 tailed) .095 Mean Difference -.232 Std. Error Difference .139 Difference Lower Upper -.505 .041

.055 .814 -1.671

Figure 2-3

37

As we can see in figure 2-4, when asked whether or not Facebook advertisements pertain to users interests, 27.2% of respondents indicated that they have rarely to never experienced a Facebook ad that pertained directly to their interests, while 57.2% of those who took the questionnaire indicated that they sometimes to very often experience ads on Facebook that apply to their personal interests. Over half of all respondents say that they have seen ads that pertain to their interests. Facebook is successfully pooling users likes to gear more advertisements toward them. This indicates that Facebook has the potential to be a lucrative advertising medium.

The advertisements relate directly to my interests. Valid Percent Never (1) 10.6 7.0 9.6 15.6 33.2 16.4 7.6 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely (3) Neutral (4) Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6)

Very often (7) Total

Figure 2-4

38

Figure 2-4a shows the same statement broken down across income levels. When compared by income level, there was no statistical significant difference between respondents, but there was a stronger showing for neutral responses. Figure 2-4b shows The advertisements relate directly to my interests when compared across age groups. The Duncan test demonstrates that those in the age group 45-54 are statistically significantly different than all other age groups except 55 to 64 and 35-44. Those 18-34 did not answer statistically significantly from any other group except 45-54. The three oldest age groups answered most disagreeably, while those 34 and under answered least disagreeably.

The advertisements relate directly to my interests. Duncan 6. Which of the following categories include your total household income for 2011? $100,000 or more $75,000-$99,999 $50,000-$74,999 Less than $25,000 $25,000-$49,999 Sig. 115 78 108 149 134 N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 4.11 4.27 4.32 4.36 4.55 .088

Figure 2-4a
The advertisements relate directly to my interests. Duncan 2. What is your age? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 45-54 years 55 to 64 35-44 years 30-34 years 25-29 years 18-24 years Sig. 118 51 60 31 106 224 .188 3.86 4.00 4.27 4.00 4.27 4.52 4.55 4.59 .073 2

Figure 2-4b

39

According to figure 2-5, 49.2% of respondents say that they have at some time been exposed to advertisements that are related to companies websites they have liked on Facebook. However, 27.4% say they have rarely to never been exposed to advertisements pertaining to companies websites they have liked. Similarly to how respondents indicated that Facebook ads are geared toward their interests, respondents also feel that they see advertisements related to companies websites they have liked.
Advertisements are related to companies websites I have liked. Valid Percent Never (1) 13.6 5.8 8.0 23.4 28.0 15.9 5.3 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely (3) Neutral (4) Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6)

Very often (7) Total

Figure 2-5

40

When we look at the ANOVA table, we see that the significant value, .001, is less than .05, indicating that there is a statistical significant difference. According to figure 2-7 those who make $100,000 answered statistically significantly different from all other groups of income except those making $75,000-$99,999 and those making less than $25,000. Additionally, those respondents with an income of $25,000-$49,999 are statistically significantly different from all other levels of income except respondents with an income level of $50,000-$74,999. Those who make $100,000 or more are least likely to click on Facebook advertisements. Inversely, those who make $25,000-$49,999 are most likely to click on Facebook advertisements.
ANOVA I click on the advertisements Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 32.693 1058.149 1090.842 df 4 579 583 Mean Square 8.173 1.828 F 4.472 Sig. .001

Figure 2-6

I click on the advertisements Duncan 6. Which of the following categories include your total household income for 2011? $100,000 or more $75,000-$99,999 Less than $25,000 $50,000-$74,999 $25,000-$49,999 Sig. 115 78 149 108 134 .149 .241 1.72 1.88 2.00 1.88 2.00 2.11 2.11 2.41 .099 N 1 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2 3

Figure 2-7

41

The ANOVA table in figure 2-8 shows a comparison between the means of education levels against the statements, I click on Facebook advertisements and There are too many advertisements on Facebook. The Duncan tests for this ANOVA are shown in figures 2-9 and 2-10. Since both sig values are above .05 we know there is no statistical significant difference between the means across education levels. The Duncan test in figure 2-9 shows the distribution of the respondents statements, I click on Facebook advertisements across different education levels. Results show that across all education levels respondents almost never click on Facebook advertisements.

ANOVA Sum of Squares There are too many advertisements on Facebook. Between Groups Within Groups Total 11.342 1729.319 1740.660 8.424 1096.434 1104.858 df 5 586 591 5 586 591 1.685 1.871 .900 .480 Mean Square 2.268 2.951 F .769 Sig. . 573

I click on the advertisements Between Groups Within Groups Total

Figure 2-8
I click on the advertisements Duncan 4. What is your highest level of education completed? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Masters degree Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) or other Professional degree (J.D., M.D.) Bachelors degree Some college Associates degree High school (or equivalent) Sig. 177 194 68 65 2.01 2.03 2.18 2.29 .155 16 1.94 72 1.85

Figure 2-9

42

As we see in figure 2-10, respondents across all levels of education think that there are sometimes too many ads on Facebook. Answers from respondents in all education levels are scattered, showing no trend between education levels and, There are too many advertisements on Facebook. Those with a Masters Degree agreed most with this statement, while those with some college agreed least.
There are too many advertisements on Facebook. Duncan 4. What is your highest level of education completed? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Some college Bachelors degree High school (or equivalent) Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) or other Professional degree (J.D., M.D.) Associates degree Masters degree Sig. 68 72 4.97 5.01 .346 16 4.94 194 177 65 4.64 4.79 4.91

Figure 2-10

43

SUB-OBJECTIVE THREE:
ENJOYABILITY
According to figure 3-1, 43.2% of respondents agree that the information conveyed in Facebook ads is positive. Inversely, only 17.4% of respondents disagree with this statement to some degree, while 39.3% has no opinion either way. The majority of respondents feel Facebook ads convey a positive message, and are suitable for many audiences.
Positive Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 10.9 1.5 100.0 agree 4.8 8.6 39.3 30.8 disagree 4.0

Figure 3-1

44

Figure 3-1a is a comparison between advertisements being perceived as positive and gender. The sig value of .575 tells us that equal variances are assumed, and the 2-tailed of .575 shows that there is no statistical significant difference based on gender.
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. t df Sig. (2tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed Positive Equal variances not assumed .730 451.961 .466 -.075 .103 -.277 .127 .314 .575 .741 Upper t-test for Equality of Means

591

.459

-.075

.101

-.274

.124

Figure 3-1a

45

According to the data provided by figure 3-2, only 26.1% of people agree to some degree that ads are enjoyable, while 36.1% disagree to some extent that ads are enjoyable. Even though the majority of respondents say that Facebook ads convey a positive message, more than one third do not enjoy seeing Facebook ads.
Enjoyable Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 6.5 .7 100.0 agree 10.9 17.7 37.8 18.9 disagree 7.5

Figure 3-2

46

According to figure 3-3, 30.9% of respondents replied that the content of ads is likable, 33.6% of respondents disagree that ads are likable. Not only do respondents not enjoy seeing Facebook ads, they do not agree that Facebook ads are likable. Although the majority of respondents agreed that Facebook ads contain positive material, they do not like seeing advertisements on their Facebook pages. In figure 3-3a, we compare the likability of Facebook ads across ages. Those aged 30-34 years answered most negatively, and are not statistically significantly different from respondents age 18-29. Older age groups answered less negatively and are statistically significantly different from respondents age 30-34. Though there is a statistically significant difference, respondents generally somewhat disagree that Facebook advertisements are likable.
Likeable Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 8.1 .7 100.0 agree 10.9 14.9 35.5 22.1 disagree 7.8

Figure 3-3
Likeable Duncan 2. What is your age? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 30-34 years 18-24 years 25-29 years 55 to 64 35-44 years 45-54 years Sig. 31 224 106 51 60 118 .092 3.32 3.74 3.75 3.74 3.75 3.88 3.88 4.03 .279 2

Figure 3-3a
47

As shown by figure 3-4, 29.3% of respondents replied that Facebook ads are good while almost the same amount, 28.4% disagreed with the same statement. In addition almost half, 42.3% of respondents reported a neutral response to Facebook ads being "good".
Good Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 7.3 .8 100.0 agree disagree 6.1 8.5 13.8 42.3 21.2

Figure 3-4

48

SUB-OBJECTIVE FOUR:
EVALUATION OF ADS According to figure 4-1, based on education respondents feel that Facebook ads are moderately untrustworthy, unconvincing, not credible, unreasonable, inconclusive, and not authentic. There is not a statistical significant difference in respondents opinions of Facebook ads. Respondents have a negative attitude toward Facebook ads, and generally think the content of the ads is questionable.

ANOVA Sum of Squares 20. skepticism toward Facebook advertisements. Untrustworthy : Trustworthy Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Unconvincing : Convincing Within Groups Total Between Groups Not credible : Credible Within Groups Total Between Groups Unreasonable : Reasonable Within Groups Total Unquestionable: Questionable Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Inconclusive : Conclusive Within Groups Total Between Groups Not authentic : Authentic Within Groups Total 1.034 1555.526 1556.560 5.807 1558.709 1564.516 .978 1530.378 1531.356 .459 1445.143 1445.602 1.917 1436.248 1438.165 .009 1365.080 1365.089 .059 1430.073 1430.132 df 1 591 592 1 591 592 1 591 592 1 591 592 1 591 592 1 591 592 1 591 592 .059 2.420 .024 .876 .009 2.310 .004 .950 1.917 2.430 .789 .375 .459 2.445 .188 .665 .978 2.589 .378 .539 5.807 2.637 2.202 .138 Mean Square 1.034 2.632 F .393 Sig. .531

Figure 4-1

49

Figure 4-2 shows the Duncan test for education level concerning whether Facebook advertisements are questionable or unquestionable. Those who have a Doctoral or other professional degree answered statistically significantly differently than all other groups except high school. This group indicated that they are neutral on the questionability of Facebook advertisements, and answered least negatively of all groups. Respondents with an Associates or Masters degree answered statistically significantly differently than all other groups except those with a Bachelors degree and some college. These groups answered most negatively of all groups, indicating that believe advertisements are somewhat questionable.

Unquestionable: Questionable Duncan 4. What is your highest level of education completed? Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) or other Professional degree (J.D., M.D.) High school (or equivalent) Some college Bachelor's degree Master's degree Associates degree Sig. 65 194 177 72 68 .320 .110 4.49 4.49 4.88 5.01 4.88 5.01 5.18 5.21 .334 16 4.19 N 1 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2 3

Figure 4-2

50

Figure 4-3 shows a profile analysis of the trend for the respondents skepticism toward Facebook advertisements. The results show that respondents are more inclined to feel negative toward the advertisements. They find that the advertisements are slightly untrustworthy, unconvincing, not credible, unreasonable, inclusive and not authentic. Respondents answered neutrally on whether or not the advertisements are questionable.

Untrustworthy Unconvincing Not Credible Unreasonable Unquestionable Inclusive Not Authentic

1 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

2 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

3 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

4 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| Figure 4-3

5 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

6 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

7 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

Trustworthy Convincing Not Credible Reasonable Questionable Conclusive Authentic

51

SUB-OBJECTIVE FIVE:
LIKELIHOOD TO CLICK
As we see in figure 5-1, of those with a high school education, 18.4% indicated that they are at least somewhat likely to click Facebook ads, more than any other level of education. There is a general trend that as education level goes up, the number of respondents that indicated that they are at least somewhat likely to click decreases. Of those with an Associates Degree, 3% indicated that they were likely to click on a Facebook ad. However, these were the only respondents to indicate that they are very likely to click on a Facebook advertisement. 50% of respondents with a Doctoral degree indicated that they are very unlikely to click on a Facebook ad. Across all education levels, respondents are generally unlikely to click on Facebook advertisements. Based on age, we can see a pattern similar to that with education levels. When the data are examined by age, it is still apparent that respondents are very unlikely to click on Facebook advertisements. Though very small percentages of our sample size indicated they were likely to click on Facebook advertisements, these numbers are not to be ignored. When we compare these numbers to the entire population of over 168 million Facebook users in the United States alone, these small percentages equate to very large numbers.

52

53

When we compare age to likelihood to click on a Facebook advertisement we see a very similar trend as we did when comparing education level to likelihood to click. Figure 5-2 shows that at least 60% of respondents in each age group indicated they are unlikely or very unlikely to click on a Facebook advertisement. However, at least 8% of respondents in each group except 30-34 indicated that they are at least somewhat likely to click on Facebook advertisements. Roughly 20% of respondents within the 45-64 age bracket say that they are at least somewhat likely to click on Facebook advertisements.

Figure 5-2

54

Figures 5-3 and 5-4 indicate that the mean of males, 2.11, is not statistically significantly different from the mean of females which is 2.27 in regard of likelihood to click on Facebook advertisements. Figure 5-4 shows that the sig of the Levene's test is .102, dictating that we look at the sig (2-tailed) of .207 which indicates the means of males and females are not statistically significantly different and both are unlikely to click on Facebook advertisements.
Group Statistics 1. What is your gender? 17. On a seven point scale please rate the likelihood that you would click Facebook advertisements Male Female N 226 367 Mean 2.11 2.27 Std. Deviation 1.430 1.524 Std. Error Mean .095 .080

Figure 5-3
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2F 17. On a seven Equal point scale variances 2.685 Sig. .102 t 1.264 df 591 tailed) .207 Mean Std. Error Difference Lower -.406 Upper .088

Difference Difference -.159 .126

please rate the assumed likelihood that Equal - 499.569 1.283 .200 -.159 .124 -.403 .085

you would click variances not Facebook advertisements assumed

Figure 5-4

55

OBJECTIVE ONE SUMMARY:

We can gain some insight into the consumers minds by evaluating respondents answers in 5 categories: perceptions, likability of ads, enjoyability of ads, evaluation of ads, and finally respondents likelihood to click on Facebook ads. Overall we can see that respondents generally perceive advertisements well; they say that ads are honest, credible, and factual. As we narrow our focus onto likability and enjoyability of ads, respondents do not generally enjoy or like seeing ads on Facebook. The majority of respondents indicated that they are unlikely to click on ads on Facebook. Consumers viewing Facebook ads perceive that ads are directed toward customers needs, but do not contain excess information about customers needs. Respondents also disagree that Facebook ads are benevolent and contain information that is beneficial to consumers. Generally, respondents do not feel strongly that Facebook advertisements properly address ethical concerns. Although customers generally agree that Facebook ads are oriented toward the consumer, these ads do not help the customer make informed decisions, and are not always perceived as beneficial. Judging from respondents answers regarding ethical concerns of Facebook ads, we can see that respondents generally have a negative attitude toward Facebook advertisements. Respondents indicated that ads on Facebook are not very likable. Almost 60% of respondents say that Facebook ads pertain to their personal interests, respondents are still not very likely to click on the advertisements. Overall, respondents tend to be neutral when asked if they enjoy the content of Facebook ads. Generally, respondents think that the content of ads is positive overall, but do not enjoy seeing ads and do not think that ads are likable. Respondents feel that Facebook ads are untrustworthy, unconvincing, not credible, unreasonable, inconclusive, and not authentic. There is not a statistical significant difference in respondents opinions of Facebook ads. Respondents have a negative attitude toward Facebook ads, and generally think the content of ads is questionable. As seen in our crosstabulations, age and education level seem to have the same effect on respondents' likelihood to click on Facebook advertisements. As both age and education level go up, the likelihood of respondents to click on Facebook advertisements goes down. Although the percentages of those who are likely to click may seem small, when we compare these numbers to the entire population they are actually quite large. Across all education levels and age levels, respondents are unlikely to click on Facebook advertisements.

56

Research Objective 2
To determine a consumer analysis of information conveyed and use of Facebook.

Research Sub-Objectives
Assessment of ads Trust Reliability How used Future use Overview of Sub-Objectives Sub-Objective One: Assessment of Ads To perform an assessment of Facebook advertisements, we asked respondents to gauge how willing they were to respond to information provided be Facebook ads when making purchase decisions. We also asked respondents how willing they were to make important purchase decisions based on Facebook advertisements, and to consider the information provided by Facebook ads when making purchase related decisions. Sub-Objective Two: Trust To examine the level of trust consumers associate with Facebook advertisements, we asked respondents to rate on a scale of one to seven, how much they disagree or agree with three statements. These statements were, I trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements, I have confidence in the information provided by Facebook advertisements, It is safe to trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Sub-Objective Three: Reliability We examined how reliable the information provided by Facebook advertisements is when respondents make purchasing decisions. We asked if they consider the information when purchasing and if they make important purchases decisions based on the information provided. Sub-Objective Four: How Used To find out how consumers use Facebook, we investigate respondents use of Facebook for interacting with family and friends, looking for companies advertisements and deals they promote, and if respondents use it for other sources of communications. As well as how respondents feel Facebook helps self-expression and if they feel disconnected without it.

57

Sub-Objective Five: Future Use To gain insight into customers potential future use of Facebook advertisements, we asked respondents to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with four statements. These statements were, I will spend more time on Facebook advertisements, I will increase the frequency of my visits to Facebook advertisements, I am willing to recommend Facebook advertisements to others, and I am willing to continuously visit Facebook advertisements.

58

SUB-OBJECTIVE ONE:
Assessment of Facebook Advertisements
Figure 1-1 shows the average of all respondents' answers when asked to respond to six statements. There is little variance in respondents answers to these statements. When asked if Facebook advertisements are interesting, effective, favorable, convincing, engaging, intriguing, and compelling, respondents answered that Facebook advertisements are moderately to slightly uninteresting, ineffective, unfavorable, unconvincing, not engaging, and not intriguing.

Report Not interesting:Inte resting Mean N Std. Deviat ion 2.92 603 1.687 Not effective:Eff ective 2.89 603 1.625 Not favorable:Fav orable 2.90 603 1.576 Not convincing :Con vincing 2.83 603 1.575 Not engaging :En gaging 2.99 603 1.674 Not intriguing :Intr iguing 3.02 603 1.682 Not compelling :Co mpelling 2.87 603 1.587

Figure 1-1

59

Figure 1-2 shows a one-way ANOVA test, used to compare respondents' opinions of the assessment of Facebook advertisements across income levels. This test show us if respondents in any income answered statistically significantly differently than other groups when asked if Facebook advertisements are interesting, effective, favorable, convincing, engaging, intriguing, and compelling. By looking at figure 1-2, we see that two statements have a significant value less than .05, indicating that at least one income level answered differently than other levels for both statements. In figure 1-2, we see that the two variables with significant values that signal a statistical difference are favorability of Facebook ads, and how intriguing Facebook ads are. These differences are examined further in figures 1-3 and 1-4.

ANOVA Sum of Squares 16. Not interesting: Interesting Between Groups Within Groups Total Not effective: Effective Between Groups Within Groups Total Not favorable :Favorable Between Groups Within Groups Total Not convincing :Convincing Between Groups Within Groups Total Not engaging :Engaging Between Groups Within Groups Total Not intriguing :Intriguing Between Groups Within Groups Total Not compelling :Compelling Between Groups Within Groups Total 17.180 1650.190 1667.370 17.683 1509.164 1526.848 30.413 1413.791 1444.204 17.863 1429.533 1447.396 19.794 1608.999 1628.793 36.885 1612.031 1648.916 22.674 1439.812 1462.486 df 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 4 579 583 5.669 2.487 2.280 .060 9.221 2.784 3.312 .011 4.948 2.779 1.781 .131 4.466 2.469 1.809 .126 7.603 2.442 3.114 .015 4.421 2.607 1.696 .149 Mean Square 4.295 2.850 F 1.507 Sig. .199

Figure 1-2

60

Figure 1-3 shows the means of respondents answers when asked if they find Facebook advertisements to be favorable or unfavorable. Those respondents with an income level of $75000-$99,999 answered statistically significantly differently than all other income levels except $100,000 or more and less than $25,000. Those respondents with an income level of $100,000 or more answered statistically significantly differently from those who make $25,000-$49,999 per year. Although there is a statistically significant difference between all income levels, the general trend shows that when dealing with the persuasive ability of Facebook advertisements across all income levels feel "moderately" to "slightly" not favorable. Those respondents with the highest levels of income view Facebook advertisements least favorably, with those in lower income brackets answering most closely to neutral. Since, typically, those with higher income levels spend more money and are more willing to spend premium prices; this may pose a problem to a marketer, especially one working to sell a high end product.

Not Favorable: Favorable Duncan

a,b

6. Which of the following categories include your total household income for 2011? $75,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more Less than $25,000 $50,000-$74,999 $25,000-$49,999 Sig. N 78 115 149 108 134 1

Subset for alpha = 0.05

2 2.56 2.67 2.83 2.67 2.83 3.07

2.83 3.07 3.19

.230

.068

.103

Figure 1-3

61

The Duncan test in Figure 1-4 tests respondents opinions on whether or not Facebook ads are intriguing or not intriguing. We found that there are three groups with statistically significantly different means when compared to household income. Those respondents with an income level of $100,000 or more are statistically significantly different from all other income levels except $75,000-$99,999. Those respondents with income levels of $25,000-$49,999 are statistically significantly different from all other levels. Similar to figure 1-3, respondents across all income levels generally feel that Facebook advertisements are "moderately" to "slightly" not intriguing. This chart shows a similar pattern to figure 1-3. Those in higher income brackets find Facebook ads to be moderately not intriguing, while those in lower income brackets answered less negatively. This makes it harder for the marketer to reach those in higher income brackets through Facebook advertisements, since they find Facebook ads less intriguing than those with lower income.

Not intriguing :Intriguing Duncan

a,b

6. Which of the following categories include your total household income for 2011? $100,000 or more $75,000-$99,999 $50,000-$74,999 Less than $25,000 $25,000-$49,999 Sig. N 115 78 108 149 134 1

Subset for alpha = 0.05

2 2.62 2.72 2.72 3.16 3.17

3.16 3.17 3.22

.653

.053

.782

Figure 1-4

62

Figure 1-5 shows the difference in the mean male and female respondents' answers regarding their level of skepticism. We see that male respondents typically respond more "moderately" than female respondents. The means indicate that generally both males and females "slightly" to "moderately" feel that Facebook advertisements are not interesting, not effective, not favorable, not convincing, not engaging, not intriguing, and not compelling.

Group Statistics 1. What is your gender? 16. Not Interesting: Interesting Not Effective: Effective Male Female Male Female Not Favorable: Favorable Male Female Not convincing :Convincing Male Female Not engaging :Engaging Male Female Not intriguing :Intriguing Male Female Not compelling :Compelling Male Female N 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 Mean 2.73 3.04 2.86 2.91 2.77 2.98 2.68 2.92 2.88 3.07 2.90 3.10 2.73 2.96 Std. Deviation 1.663 1.709 1.651 1.611 1.533 1.605 1.543 1.603 1.655 1.693 1.661 1.701 1.564 1.605 Std. Error Mean .111 .089 .110 .084 .102 .084 .103 .084 .110 .088 .110 .089 .104 .084

Figure 1-5

63

Whereas figure 1-5 showed the raw means of males' and females' answers, figure 1-6 shows us where the two groups are statistically significantly different. We can see that the only statement regarding the level of skepticism of respondents is with a statistically significant difference is whether or not they find Facebook advertisements to be interesting. Females find Facebook advertisements to be "slightly" not interesting or they have no opinion with a mean of 3.04. Males find the advertisements to be "moderately" or "slightly" uninteresting with a mean of 2.73.
Gender

Figure 1-6

64

Figure 1-7 is a profile analysis for males and females against the dependent variables not interesting, not effective, not favorable, not convincing, not engaging, not intriguing and not compelling. We see that males vary less between different constructs, and generally fall within "moderately". At the same time, females vary more, but leaned more toward "slightly" within those same constructs.

Not Interesting Not Effective Not Favorable Not Convincing Not Engaging Not Intriguing Not Compelling Key: Male: Female

1 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

2 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

Profile Analysis 3 4 5 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

6 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

7 |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.| |.+.|

Interesting Effective Favorable Convincing Engaging Intriguing Compelling

Figure 1-7

65

SUB-OBJECTIVE TWO:
TRUST
Overall, most age groups generally disagree with the statement, I have confidence in the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Of those in the age bracket 45-54, 22.8% at least somewhat agree. This is the largest percentage of respondents to indicate that they somewhat agree that they have confidence in information provided by Facebook ads. Most respondents across all age brackets disagree to some extent with the statement. For example, almost one third (29%) of 30-34 year olds strongly disagree that they have confidence in the Facebook ad information. Still, 6.4% of respondents age 30-34 at least somewhat agree that they have confidence in Facebook advertisements, which is a large number when projected across the entire population of Facebook users.

Figure 2-1

66

According to figure 2-2, we can see that there is a statistically significant difference between all three means, because the sig value for each is less than .05. From this, we can conclude that a statistically significant difference exists between age groups based on the statements, I trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements, I have confidence in information provided by Facebook advertisements, and It is safe to trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements.

ANOVA Sum of Squares 14. I trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. I have confidence in information provided by Facebook advertisements. It is safe to trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 39.643 1209.220 1248.863 37.147 1158.428 1195.575 38.448 1161.974 1200.422 df 5 584 589 5 584 589 5 584 589 7.690 1.990 3.865 .002 7.429 1.984 3.745 .002 Mean Square 7.929 2.071 F 3.829 Sig. .002

Figure 2-2

67

Based on figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5, we can see an obvious pattern amongst age groups for all three statements. Respondents that are 30-34 years old are statistically significantly different from all other age groups except those that are 18-24. Respondents that are 18-24 years old are statistically significantly different from the other age groups except 25-29, 35- 44, and 55-64. Respondents that are age 45-54 are statistically significantly different from all other age groups except 25-29, 35-44, and 55-64. Even though there is a statistically significant difference between these age groups there is a trend that respondents across all age groups disagree or somewhat disagree that they trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements, that they have confidence in this information, and that it is safe to trust this information.

I trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Duncan 2. What is your age? N 1 30-34 years 18-24 years 25-29 years 55 to 64 35-44 years 45-54 years Sig. 31 224 106 51 60 118 .191 .174 2.65 4 2.97 2.97 4 3.20 3.31 3.35 3. 20 3.31 3.35 3.58 4 .172 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2 3

Figure 2-3

68

I have confidence in information provided by Facebook advertisements. Duncan 2. What is your age? N 1 30-34 years 18-24 years 25-29 years 35-44 years 55 to 64 45-54 years Sig. 31 224 106 60 51 118 .091 .342 2.58 3.00 3.00 3.09 3.22 3.25 3.09 3.22 3.25 3.57 4 .078 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2 3

Figure 2-4

It is safe to trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Duncan 2. What is your age? N 1 30-34 years 18-24 years 25-29 years 55 to 64 35-44 years 45-54 years Sig. 31 224 106 51 60 118 .196 .157 2.55 4 2.87 2.87 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2 3

3.06 3.14 3.25

3.06 3.14 3.25 3.47

.130

Figure 2-5

69

SUB-OBJECTIVE THREE:
RELIABILITY
To test respondents perceptions of the reliability of Facebook ads, we ran an ANOVA test. This is used to test the mean of the independent variable, age, and the dependent variables, I am willing to rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making a purchase decision, I am willing to make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements and I am willing to Consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions. Since two of the significant values fall below .05, we know to refer to the Duncan tests in figures 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 to analyze the trends. Although the ANOVA test for, I am willing to consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions, indicates no statistical significant difference, the Duncan test in figure 3-4 proves otherwise.
ANOVA Sum of Squares 15. I am willing to rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions. 15. I am willing to make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements. 15. I am willing to consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions. Total 1426.422 589 Between Groups Within Groups 21.700 1404.722 5 584 4.340 2.405 1.804 .110 Total 1001.439 589 Between Groups Within Groups 28.854 972.585 5 584 5.771 1.665 3.465 .004 Total 1133.363 589 Between Groups Within Groups 31.560 1101.803 df 5 584 Mean Square 6.312 1.887 F 3.346 Sig. .005

Figure 3-1

70

According to figure 3-2, respondents age 18-24 with value of 2.44 (out of 7), meaning they "disagree" with the statement and those age 45-54 with a value of 3.04 (out of 7), meaning they "somewhat disagree" are statistically significantly different from each other. Although there is a statistically significant difference between the means of these groups, respondents across all age brackets indicated that they "disagree" or "somewhat disagree" with the statement I am willing to rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions. So, those aged 18-24 answered least positively than all other age groups. Those in age bracket 45-54 answered less negatively.

I am willing to rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions. Duncan 2. What is your age? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 18-24 years 30-34 years 35-44 years 25-29 years 55 to 64 45-54 years Sig. 224 31 60 106 51 118 .177 2.44 2.55 2.67 2.80 2.80 2.55 2.67 2.80 2.80 3.04 .065 2

Figure 3-2

71

According to figure 3-3, those respondents that are 18-24 with a value of 2.25 (out of 7), meaning they "disagree" and those that are 45-54 with a value of 2.81 (out of 7), meaning they "disagree" are statistically significantly different from each other. Similar to the data from figure 3-2, even though there is technically a statistically significant difference between the means of the age groups, the respondents across all age brackets generally indicated that they "disagree" with the statement, I am willing to make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements.

I am willing to Make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements. Duncan 2. What is your age? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 18-24 years 30-34 years 25-29 years 35-44 years 55 to 64 45-54 years Sig. 224 31 106 60 51 118 .084 2.25 2.32 2.54 2.58 2.69 2.32 2.54 2.58 2.69 2.81 .050 2

Figure 3-3

72

According to figure 3-4, there is a statistical significant difference between respondents based on age. Those respondents that are 30-34 with a value of 2.61, meaning they disagree and those that are 45-54 with a value of 3.28, meaning they somewhat disagree are statistically significantly different from each other. Similar to figures 3-2 and 3-3, again we see that throughout all age brackets respondents disagree or somewhat disagree with the statement I am willing to consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements.

I am willing to consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions. Duncan 2. What is your age? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 30-34 years 18-24 years 35-44 years 25-29 years 55 to 64 45-54 years Sig. 31 224 60 106 51 118 .208 2.61 2.80 2.90 2.92 3.00 2.80 2.90 2.92 3.00 3.28 .115 2

Figure 3-4

73

According to the data in figure 3-6, 68% of all respondents disagree to some extent with the statement I am willing to rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions. Inversely, 11% of all respondents agree to some extent with the same statement.
I am willing to rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions. Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 2.0 .2 100.0 agree 27.5 16.1 21.1 8.8 disagree 24.4

Figure 3-6

74

According to figure 3-7, 74.3% of all respondents disagree to some extent with the statement, I am willing to make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements. Inversely, 6.7% agree to some extent with the same statement. Respondents generally indicate that they do not refer to Facebook advertisements when making important purchase decisions. Facebook ads reach a large number of consumers, if the ads are noticed by Facebook users. Since 6.7% still indicates a large number of users, figure 3-7 indicates an opportunity for the marketer to influence purchase decisions.

I am willing to make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements. Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 1.7 .2 100.0 agree 30.5 16.6 19.1 4.8 disagree 27.2

Figure 3-7

75

According to figure 3-8, 59.9% of all respondents disagree to some extent with the statement, I am willing to consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions. Alternatively, 20.4% of all respondents indicated that they agree to some extent with the same statement. This is a much larger percentage than the 6.7% of respondents who agree with the statement, I am willing to make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements." This shows that respondents may be influenced by Facebook ads, but Facebook advertisements will most likely not be their only source of information when making purchase decisions.

I am willing to Consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions. Valid Percent Strongly (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) Strongly (7) Total agree 3.5 .5 100.0 agree 23.7 12.8 19.7 16.4 disagree 23.4

Figure 3-8

76

SUB-OBJECTIVE FOUR:
How Facebook is Used by Facebook Users
In figure 4-1, we analyzed the differences of means between male and female respondents and how they use Facebook. We note that respondents of both genders somewhat agree or agree that they use Facebook more for interaction with friends and family members and disagree that they use Facebook for companys deals or advertisements. When asked if they use Facebook more than any other source of communication, female respondents responded neutral, shown by a mean of 4.17 and males somewhat disagree shown by a mean of 3.5. For the statement "I feel disconnected without [Facebook]", females somewhat disagree or are neutral with a mean of 3.63. Males lean more toward disagree or somewhat disagree, with a mean of 3.03.

Group Statistics 1. What is your gender? I use Facebook to interact with my friends. I use Facebook to interact with my family members. I use Facebook more than any Male Female Male Female Male N 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 226 367 Mean 6.15 6.28 5.58 6.04 3.50 4.17 3.84 4.07 3.03 3.63 2.14 2.24 2.03 2.05 Std. Deviation 1.231 1.157 1.525 1.313 1.914 1.904 1.685 1.650 1.750 1.894 1.489 1.486 1.445 1.378 Std. Error Mean .082 .060 .101 .069 .127 .099 .112 .086 .116 .099 .099 .078 .096 .072

other source for communication. Female I feel Facebook helps me to express myself. I feel disconnected without it. Male Female Male Female I use Facebook to look for deals Male promoted by the company. I use Facebook to look for companys advertisements. Female Male Female

Figure 4-1

77

Figure 4-2 we see that the means between male and female respondents are statistically significantly different regarding the following statements: I use Facebook to interact with my family members, I use Facebook more than any other source of communication, and I feel disconnected without [Facebook]. Because of the results of this table we decided to run an ANOVA test, shown in figure 4-3, to further analyze these variables.

Figure 4-2

78

In figure 4-3 we ran an ANOVA test and found that there was a statistically significant difference between the means of three statements when compared against education level. These statements are; I use Facebook more than any other source for communication, I feel Facebook helps me express myself, and I feel disconnected without it. Figures 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 show the Duncans tests for this ANOVA.
ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups 19. I use Facebook to interact with my friends. Within Groups Total I use Facebook to interact with my family members. I use Facebook more than any other source for communication. I feel Facebook helps me to express myself. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups I feel disconnected without it. Within Groups Total I use Facebook to look for deals promoted by the company. I use Facebook to look for companys advertisements. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 4.034 828.723 832.757 3.086 1182.104 1185.189 66.613 2142.820 2209.432 33.988 1605.769 1639.757 38.086 2008.034 2046.120 11.922 1282.125 1294.047 3.589 1145.736 1149.324 df 5 586 591 5 586 591 5 586 591 5 586 591 5 586 591 5 586 591 5 586 591 .718 1.955 .367 .871 2.384 2.188 1.090 .365 7.617 3.427 2.223 .051 6.798 2.740 2.481 .031 13.323 3.657 3.643 .003 .617 2.017 .306 .909 Mean Square .807 1.414 F .570 Sig. .723

Figure 4-3

79

According to Figure 4-4, those with a doctoral degree generally indicated that they somewhat disagree with the statement, I use Facebook more than any other source for communication and are statistically significantly different from all other respondents except those with a Masters or a Bachelors degree. These respondents answered most negatively to this statement. Those with a high school (or equivalent) education generally indicated a neutral response with a lean toward somewhat agree for the statement I use Facebook more than any other source for communication and are statistically significantly different from all other levels of education except those with an Associates degree and those with some college. These respondents answered least negatively. From the figure, we can see a trend that as education level increases, respondents generally disagree more with the statement, I use Facebook more than any other source for communication.
I use Facebook more than any other source for communication. Duncan 4. What is your highest level of education completed? Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) or other Professional degree (J.D., M.D.) Master's degree Bachelor's degree Some college Associates degree High school (or equivalent) Sig. 72 177 194 68 65 .156 .128 3.53 3.69 3.53 3.69 3.99 4.16 3.99 4.16 4.62 .122 16 3.13 N 1 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2 3

Figure 4-4

80

Figure 4-5 shows that those with high levels of education tend to disagree more with the statement of I feel Facebook helps me to express myself while those with lower levels of education tend to respond neutral with a slight lean toward somewhat agree with the same statement.
I feel Facebook helps me to express myself. Duncan 4. What is your highest level of education completed? N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Master's degree Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) or other Professional degree (J.D., M.D.) Bachelor's degree Some college High school (or equivalent) Associates degree Sig. 177 194 65 68 3.84 4.14 4.22 4.24 .053 16 3.63 72 3.51

Figure 4-5

81

According to figure 4-6, those respondents with a Doctoral degree generally indicated that they disagree with the statement I feel disconnected without it in regard to Facebook. These respondents are statistically significantly different from all other levels of education except those with a Masters degree, Bachelors degree or an Associates degree. Respondents with either some college or high school (or equivalent) indicated that they somewhat disagree with the statement, I feel disconnected without it in regard to Facebook. These respondents are statistically significantly different from all other levels of education except those with a Masters degree, Bachelors degree or an Associates degree. Respondents with higher levels of education answered most negatively, while those with lower levels of education answered least negatively. There is a slight trend that as education level decreases, respondents disagree less with the statement, I feel disconnected without it in regard to Facebook.

I feel disconnected without it. Duncan 4. What is your highest level of education completed? Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) or other Professional degree (J.D., M.D.) Masters degree Bachelors degree Associates degree Some college High school (or equivalent) Sig. 72 177 68 194 65 .092 3.11 3.20 3.43 3.11 3.20 3.43 3.61 3.78 .103 16 2.75 N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2

Figure 4-6

82

SUB-OBJECTIVE FIVE:
Future Use
Figures 5-1 below shows the frequency of respondents answers to the statements, I will spend more time on Facebook advertisements. 45% of respondents strongly disagree with the statement, while roughly 6.8% of total respondents agree with this statement to some extent.

Figure 5-1

83

Figure 5-2 shows the frequency of respondents' answers to the statement, I will increase the frequency of my visits to Facebook advertisements. Roughly 6.9% of respondents agree to some extent with this statement.

Figure 5-2

84

Figure 5-3 shows the frequency of respondents' answers to the statement, I am willing to recommend Facebook advertisements to others. 8.4% of respondents agree to some extent with that they are willing to recommend Facebook ads to others.

Figure 5-3

85

We can see from figure 5-4 the frequency of respondents' answers to the statement, I am willing to continuously visit Facebook advertisements. 9.8% of respondents agree to some extent that they are willing to continuously visit Facebook advertisements. This is a 3% increase over those who say they will spend more time on Facebook advertisements.

Figure 5-4

86

Figure 5-5 shows a closer statistical analysis of respondents answers to the statement, I will increase the frequency of my visits to Facebook advertisements based on age. We can see from the chart that no respondents strongly agreed with the statement. The most definitive age group, 18-24 year olds, has the highest percentage of those that strongly disagree with 51.8% and the lowest percentage of those that agree to some extent with 4.5%. We see that the age group 55-64 had the largest percent of respondents that would increase their frequency of visits to Facebook advertisements at 13.7%. The general trend apparent in this crosstabulation is that most respondents would not increase the frequency of their visits to Facebook advertisements. At least 4.5% in each age group will increase their visits to Facebook.

Figure 5-5
87

SUMMARY: We found that respondents, when analyzed as a group, see Facebook advertisements to be moderately or slightly not interesting, not effective, not favorable, not convincing, not engaging, not intriguing and not compelling. When analyzed by groups such as income level or gender, we started to see differences in opinions. When income level was observed there were differences in means concerning whether Facebook advertisements were favorable or not favorable, and intriguing or not intriguing. Though we see that there are statistically significantly different means among income levels, the general trend is that respondents feel that Facebook advertisements persuasive ability is moderately to slightly not favorable and not intriguing. When we took into account the difference of opinion between males and females we found that females either find the ads to be slightly uninteresting or they are neutral on the subject. Males consider Facebook advertisements to be moderately to slightly uninteresting. When analyzing information conveyed by Facebook advertisements regarding trust, we noticed a general trend regardless of gender, age, and income level that a vast majority of respondents did not have confidence in or feel safe relying on the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Respondents of both genders generally agreed that they use Facebook to communicate with friends and family while they generally disagreed that they used Facebook to view companys deals or advertisements. Additionally, we outlined a trend that as education level increased, the use of Facebook changed slightly. We saw that in regard to the statements, I use Facebook more than any other source for communication, I feel Facebook helps me to express myself, and I feel disconnected without it respondents with higher levels of education tended to disagree more often. In regard to the reliability of Facebook advertisements, there was a trend that a vast majority of respondents believed they could not rely on the information that was provided. The analysis of Duncan tests and frequency tables showed large percentages of respondents disagreeing with the ability to rely on information and make purchase decisions based on the information provided by Facebook advertisements. When examining the future use of Facebook advertisements, we saw that there was a small percentage of respondents who indicated that they would increase their visits to advertisements. Even when analyzed by different age groups, the majority of respondents disagreed to some extent that they would increase their visits of Facebook advertisements. However, at least 6% of total respondents said that they will increase their visits to Facebook advertisements, indicating a large number of the total population.

88

PROPOSAL
Introduction
People are constantly trying to find out information in a more efficient manner. Whether it is the latest viral video or a newspaper article from many years ago, someone will be searching for it in one way or another. For most search engines, the way they make money is by selling space on their website in the form of advertisements. With todays technology, the host site can even tailor its advertisements to the individual viewing the site based on their viewing history. Facebook is one of the most popular websites on the Internet. It is because of this that this site cannot be ignored when it comes to structuring and advertisement campaign. It is very important for each company looking to advertise to know who will be seeing their ad and in which manner.

Background
Facebook took to the Internet in 2004 and seven years later became the most viewed website in the world. Today Facebook is valued in a region of $100 billion with 955 million active users. That is almost 1/7th of the worlds population. This is a huge database of consumers that cannot be found anywhere else. It is because of Facebooks popularity that makes it vital for Internet advertising.

Concerns
1. How do consumers perceive Facebook as a source of information? a. How do they perceive advertisements? b. Do they like Facebook advertisements? c. Do consumers enjoy Facebook ads? d. Are customers skeptical about the information provided in Facebook ads? e. Are consumers likely to click on ads? 2. How do customers relate to the information given in Facebook ads? a. Are Facebook advertisements interesting, effective, favorable, convincing, engaging, intriguing, and compelling? b. Can Facebook advertisements be trusted? c. Are Facebook ads reliable? d. How are Facebook advertisements used by the consumer? e. Will customers use ads in the future? 3. How would Facebook generate the best response rate for different sorts of advertisements? a. Would Facebook be the best facet for selling items like shoes? b. Which ad location is the better choice for selling software or business products? c. Is this site less effective due to clutter or excessive ad placement? 4. Is it possible to categorize types of ads that would be most effective on this site or is it mostly a case-by-case basis? a. In order to categorize it what items do we need to research? (Example, demographics for each site, how they pick which ads to show users, which ads are more typically viewed in comparison to the other site, etc.) 5. Are the costs for all advertising relatively the same on Facebook? And if not is it still worth the extra money based on the effectiveness on the ad you choose?
89

a. What is the difference in costs and frequency of sponsored ads vs. non-sponsored? b. Are ads placed based on popularity and relevance or the amount of money spent? These concerns will be pivotal in understanding what the site has to offer when regarding advertisements. It will also allow our research team to understand the ease of use and costs of concerning each method of advertising. We can compare this information to develop a well-rounded research report that will allow our client to advertise more effectively. Necessary Tasks The principal objective of this research report is to understand the Who, What, When, Where, and How of Internet advertisements on Facebook. There are several necessary objectives in achieving this goal. They are as follows: 1. Who a. If we can find out which demographics respond to ads on Facebook, we can choose how to advertise to specific target markets. b. If we can pinpoint which demographics are most likely to click on ads for a certain product, we can better customize ads on this site. 2. What a. What types of ads generate the most traffic and revenue? b. On types of ads are customers most likely to click? c. What types of ads are trustworthy, honest, credible, etc.? 3. When a. When are consumers using Facebook? b. At what time of day are ads most responded to? 4. Where a. Are ads geared toward where people reside? b. If we can understand which ad location generates the most traffic to our site and/or generates the most revenue for our business, we can advertise more efficiently. 5. How a. How many different ways can we use Facebook to advertise effectively? Strategy and Proposed Methodology 1. Exploratory a. Investigating secondary research on the effectiveness of advertisements upon users of Facebook. b. Exploring information on advertising techniques on social media websites. 2. Descriptive Research a. Implementing a public survey across many demographics to better understand the effects of advertisements presented on Facebook. 3. Safeguards a. Use SPSS, a computerized data analysis tool to properly record and assess sample information. b. Use a seven-point Likert scale to measure responses. c. Have a 10% validation to prevent non-sampling errors. d. Eliminate any non-sampling errors as well as other extraneous variables.
90

Games
Smartphone/IPOD Tablets

Articles

Video
Social networking Entertainment Guidance for purchases Uses

laptop or desktop

Devices Education Level Gende r

age Demographics Income Occupation

Negative vs. Positive view of ads

Is ad relevant or useful

Facebook
Types of ad seen/used

Respond/not respond Responsiveness/ attitude video

Number of ads responded to in the last 14 Number of ads viewed in the last 14 days

Likelihood to Click Frequency Text Imag e Paid vs. unpaid Time spent on site during last visit

Sidebar

91

SAMPLING PLAN
A questionnaire was generated and administered via email to prospective respondents in a random sample survey. We gathered data about respondents perceptions about Facebook advertisements. The survey was a pure random sample in order to properly represent the entire population. The information was gathered through the Qualtrics program and then put into SPSS for analysis. We interpreted the results of the SPSS analysis to better understand attitudes and perceptions of consumers toward Facebook advertisements and how they may be influenced. We did this to better understand how to market through Facebook ads.

92

SUMMARY QUESTIONAIRE:
1. Do you use Facebook? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes Valid No Total 603 61 664 90.8 9.2 100.0 90.8 9.2 100.0 90.8 100.0

2. How long have you had a Facebook profile? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Less than a year 1-2 years Valid 3-4 years more than 4 years Total Missing Total System 11 93 183 316 603 61 664 1.7 14.0 27.6 47.6 90.8 9.2 100.0 1.8 15.4 30.3 52.4 100.0 1.8 17.2 47.6 100.0

3. How often do you use Facebook? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never Less than once a month Once a month 2-3 times a month Valid Once a week 2-3 times a week Daily Total Missing System Total 25 99 431 603 61 664 3.8 14.9 64.9 90.8 9.2 100.0 4.1 16.4 71.5 100.0 12.1 28.5 100.0 1 9 11 27 .2 1.4 1.7 4.1 .2 1.5 1.8 4.5 .2 1.7 3.5 8.0

Statistics

93

4. In the last 24 hours, approximately how many hours did you spend on Facebook? Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 1.88 2.075 603

4. In the last 24 hours, approximately how many hours did you spend on Facebook? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 Valid 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 16 Total Missing System 50 4 1 3 9 2 47 3 243 4 103 52 33 12 18 1 7 5 3 1 1 1 603 61 664 7.5 .6 .2 .5 1.4 .3 7.1 .5 36.6 .6 15.5 7.8 5.0 1.8 2.7 .2 1.1 .8 .5 .2 .2 .2 90.8 9.2 100.0 8.3 .7 .2 .5 1.5 .3 7.8 .5 40.3 .7 17.1 8.6 5.5 2.0 3.0 .2 1.2 .8 .5 .2 .2 .2 100.0 8.3 9.0 9.1 9.6 11.1 11.4 19.2 19.7 60.0 60.7 77.8 86.4 91.9 93.9 96.8 97.0 98.2 99.0 99.5 99.7 99.8 100.0

Total

94

5. Have you ever seen a Facebook advertisement? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes Valid No Total Missing System 582 21 603 61 664 87.7 3.2 90.8 9.2 100.0 96.5 3.5 100.0 96.5 100.0

Total

Statistics 6. How many hours searching using Facebook advertisements in last 7 days Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 .39 1.121 603

6. How many hours searching using Facebook advertisements in last 7 days Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 0 0 0 0 1 1 Valid 2 3 4 5 6 10 Total Missing System 470 1 1 2 8 78 21 10 2 5 1 4 603 61 664 70.8 .2 .2 .3 1.2 11.7 3.2 1.5 .3 .8 .2 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0 77.9 .2 .2 .3 1.3 12.9 3.5 1.7 .3 .8 .2 .7 100.0 77.9 78.1 78.3 78.6 79.9 92.9 96.4 98.0 98.3 99.2 99.3 100.0

Total

95

7. How often do you use Facebook advertisements? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Not used at all Rarely Sometimes Valid Often Used very often Total Missing System Total 4 1 603 61 664 .6 .2 90.8 9.2 100.0 .7 .2 100.0 99.8 100.0 353 205 40 53.2 30.9 6.0 58.5 34.0 6.6 58.5 92.5 99.2

8. If you see a Facebook advertisement that you like , how often do you bookmark that advertisement? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Not at all Rarely Sometimes Valid Often Always Total Missing System Total 7 1 603 61 664 1.1 .2 90.8 9.2 100.0 1.2 .2 100.0 99.8 100.0 415 140 40 62.5 21.1 6.0 68.8 23.2 6.6 68.8 92.0 98.7

9. How often do you share Facebook advertisements with your friends or family members? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Not at all Rarely Sometimes Valid Often Shared very often Total Missing System Total 7 1 603 61 664 1.1 .2 90.8 9.2 100.0 1.2 .2 100.0 99.8 100.0 455 111 29 68.5 16.7 4.4 75.5 18.4 4.8 75.5 93.9 98.7

96

10. How often have you purchased from Facebook advertisements? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Not at all Rarely Valid Sometimes Often Total Missing System Total 531 56 15 1 603 61 664 80.0 8.4 2.3 .2 90.8 9.2 100.0 88.1 9.3 2.5 .2 100.0 88.1 97.3 99.8 100.0

Statistics 11. They advertise according to where people reside. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.40 1.651 603

11. They advertise according to where people reside. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never (1) 62 27 43 159 142 129 41 603 61 664 9.3 4.1 6.5 23.9 21.4 19.4 6.2 90.8 9.2 100.0 10.3 4.5 7.1 26.4 23.5 21.4 6.8 100.0 10.3 14.8 21.9 48.3 71.8 93.2 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6) (3)

Neutral (4)

Very often (7) Total Missing System Total

Statistics

97

The advertisements relate directly to my interests. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.33 1.702 603

The advertisements relate directly to my interests. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never (1) 64 42 58 94 200 99 46 603 61 664 9.6 6.3 8.7 14.2 30.1 14.9 6.9 90.8 9.2 100.0 10.6 7.0 9.6 15.6 33.2 16.4 7.6 100.0 10.6 17.6 27.2 42.8 76.0 92.4 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6) (3)

Neutral (4)

Very often (7) Total Missing System Total

Statistics Advertisements on Facebook are difficult to ignore. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.78 1.895 603

Advertisements on Facebook are difficult to ignore. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never Valid (1) 106 72 82 16.0 10.8 12.3 17.6 11.9 13.6 17.6 29.5 43.1

Almost never (2) Rarely (3)

98

Neutral (4) Sometimes (5) Often (6)

107 106 82 48 603 61 664

16.1 16.0 12.3 7.2 90.8 9.2 100.0

17.7 17.6 13.6 8.0 100.0

60.9 78.4 92.0 100.0

Very often (7) Total Missing System Total

Statistics I click on the advertisements Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.05 1.365 603

I click on the advertisements Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never (1) 303 134 71 31 57 7 603 61 664 45.6 20.2 10.7 4.7 8.6 1.1 90.8 9.2 100.0 50.2 22.2 11.8 5.1 9.5 1.2 100.0 50.2 72.5 84.2 89.4 98.8 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely Valid (3)

Neutral (4) Sometimes (5) Often Total (6)

Missing

System Total

Statistics Advertisements interfere with the Facebook experience. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.88 1.919 603

99

Advertisements interfere with the Facebook experience. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never (1) 100 62 86 116 112 53 74 603 61 664 15.1 9.3 13.0 17.5 16.9 8.0 11.1 90.8 9.2 100.0 16.6 10.3 14.3 19.2 18.6 8.8 12.3 100.0 16.6 26.9 41.1 60.4 78.9 87.7 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6) (3)

Neutral (4)

Very often (7) Total Missing System Total

Statistics Advertisements are related to companies’ websites I have “liked.” Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.15 1.706 603

Advertisements are related to companies’ websites I have “liked.” Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never (1) 82 35 48 141 169 96 32 603 12.3 5.3 7.2 21.2 25.5 14.5 4.8 90.8 13.6 5.8 8.0 23.4 28.0 15.9 5.3 100.0 13.6 19.4 27.4 50.7 78.8 94.7 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6) (3)

Neutral (4)

Very often (7) Total

100

Missing

System Total

61 664

9.2 100.0

Statistics There are too many advertisements on Facebook. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.81 1.720 603

There are too many advertisements on Facebook. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never (1) 34 38 29 167 107 93 135 603 61 664 5.1 5.7 4.4 25.2 16.1 14.0 20.3 90.8 9.2 100.0 5.6 6.3 4.8 27.7 17.7 15.4 22.4 100.0 5.6 11.9 16.7 44.4 62.2 77.6 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6) (3)

Neutral (4)

Very often (7) Total Missing System Total

Statistics In general, Facebook advertisements are misleading. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.95 1.390 603

In general, Facebook advertisements are misleading. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

101

Never

(1)

45 47 60 288 92 44 27 603 61 664

6.8 7.1 9.0 43.4 13.9 6.6 4.1 90.8 9.2 100.0

7.5 7.8 10.0 47.8 15.3 7.3 4.5 100.0

7.5 15.3 25.2 73.0 88.2 95.5 100.0

Almost never (2) Rarely Valid Sometimes (5) Often (6) (3)

Neutral (4)

Very often (7) Total Missing System Total

Statistics 12. Information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.83 1.208 603

12. Honest Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 111 38 4 603 61 664 16.7 5.7 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0 18.4 6.3 .7 100.0 93.0 99.3 100.0 31 55 98 266 4.7 8.3 14.8 40.1 5.1 9.1 16.3 44.1 5.1 14.3 30.5 74.6

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics

102

Truthful Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.85 1.206 603

Truthful Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 106 44 4 603 61 664 16.0 6.6 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0 17.6 7.3 .7 100.0 92.0 99.3 100.0 28 54 102 265 4.2 8.1 15.4 39.9 4.6 9.0 16.9 43.9 4.6 13.6 30.5 74.5

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Credible Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.79 1.232 603

Credible Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Valid Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) 29 65 111 243 4.4 9.8 16.7 36.6 4.8 10.8 18.4 40.3 4.8 15.6 34.0 74.3

103

Somewhat (5) Agree (6)

agree

111 40

16.7 6.0 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0

18.4 6.6 .7 100.0

92.7 99.3 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

(7)

4 603 61 664

Statistics Believable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.83 1.280 603

Believable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 117 50 3 603 61 664 17.6 7.5 .5 90.8 9.2 100.0 19.4 8.3 .5 100.0 91.2 99.5 100.0 34 64 97 238 5.1 9.6 14.6 35.8 5.6 10.6 16.1 39.5 5.6 16.3 32.3 71.8

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Ethical Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.93 1.171 603

104

Ethical Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 100 49 3 603 61 664 15.1 7.4 .5 90.8 9.2 100.0 16.6 8.1 .5 100.0 91.4 99.5 100.0 26 49 76 300 3.9 7.4 11.4 45.2 4.3 8.1 12.6 49.8 4.3 12.4 25.0 74.8

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Factual Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.84 1.195 603

Factual Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 121 32 5 603 61 18.2 4.8 .8 90.8 9.2 20.1 5.3 .8 100.0 93.9 99.2 100.0 27 61 94 263 4.1 9.2 14.2 39.6 4.5 10.1 15.6 43.6 4.5 14.6 30.2 73.8

Strongly agree Total Missing System

105

Total

664

100.0

Statistics Misleading Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.09 1.265 603

Misleading Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 125 60 18 603 61 664 18.8 9.0 2.7 90.8 9.2 100.0 20.7 10.0 3.0 100.0 87.1 97.0 100.0 16 50 97 237 2.4 7.5 14.6 35.7 2.7 8.3 16.1 39.3 2.7 10.9 27.0 66.3

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Reliable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.78 1.188 603

Reliable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree Valid (1) Disagree (2) 31 55 4.7 8.3 5.1 9.1 5.1 14.3

106

Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

109 270 102 31 5 603 61 664

16.4 40.7 15.4 4.7 .8 90.8 9.2 100.0

18.1 44.8 16.9 5.1 .8 100.0

32.3 77.1 94.0 99.2 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Dependable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.75 1.202 603

Dependable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 103 29 6 603 61 664 15.5 4.4 .9 90.8 9.2 100.0 17.1 4.8 1.0 100.0 94.2 99.0 100.0 28 69 106 262 4.2 10.4 16.0 39.5 4.6 11.4 17.6 43.4 4.6 16.1 33.7 77.1

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Responsible Valid N Missing Mean 61 3.83 603

107

Std. Deviation

1.164

Responsible Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 98 30 7 603 61 664 14.8 4.5 1.1 90.8 9.2 100.0 16.3 5.0 1.2 100.0 93.9 98.8 100.0 29 49 95 295 4.4 7.4 14.3 44.4 4.8 8.1 15.8 48.9 4.8 12.9 28.7 77.6

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Informative Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.02 1.324 603

Informative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 147 61 9 603 22.1 9.2 1.4 90.8 24.4 10.1 1.5 100.0 88.4 98.5 100.0 31 56 80 219 4.7 8.4 12.0 33.0 5.1 9.3 13.3 36.3 5.1 14.4 27.7 64.0

Strongly agree Total

108

Missing

System Total

61 664

9.2 100.0

Statistics Accurate Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.81 1.180 603

Accurate Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 107 35 4 603 61 664 16.1 5.3 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0 17.7 5.8 .7 100.0 93.5 99.3 100.0 27 56 110 264 4.1 8.4 16.6 39.8 4.5 9.3 18.2 43.8 4.5 13.8 32.0 75.8

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Complete Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.72 1.189 603

Complete Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree (1) 35 5.3 5.8 5.8

109

Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

57 111 280 85 31 4 603 61 664

8.6 16.7 42.2 12.8 4.7 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0

9.5 18.4 46.4 14.1 5.1 .7 100.0

15.3 33.7 80.1 94.2 99.3 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Valuable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.41 1.333 603

Valuable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 72 25 4 603 61 664 10.8 3.8 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0 11.9 4.1 .7 100.0 95.2 99.3 100.0 66 93 105 238 9.9 14.0 15.8 35.8 10.9 15.4 17.4 39.5 10.9 26.4 43.8 83.3

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Useful Valid N Missing 61 603

110

Mean Std. Deviation

3.51 1.415

Useful Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 114 26 6 603 61 664 17.2 3.9 .9 90.8 9.2 100.0 18.9 4.3 1.0 100.0 94.7 99.0 100.0 70 89 90 208 10.5 13.4 13.6 31.3 11.6 14.8 14.9 34.5 11.6 26.4 41.3 75.8

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Clear Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.89 1.282 603

Clear Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Valid Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 36 52 88 255 117 47 8 5.4 7.8 13.3 38.4 17.6 7.1 1.2 6.0 8.6 14.6 42.3 19.4 7.8 1.3 6.0 14.6 29.2 71.5 90.9 98.7 100.0

Strongly agree

111

Total Missing System Total

603 61 664

90.8 9.2 100.0

100.0

Statistics Timely Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.02 1.271 603

Timely Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 116 52 13 603 61 664 17.5 7.8 2.0 90.8 9.2 100.0 19.2 8.6 2.2 100.0 89.2 97.8 100.0 32 46 60 284 4.8 6.9 9.0 42.8 5.3 7.6 10.0 47.1 5.3 12.9 22.9 70.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Consumer oriented Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.54 1.405 603

Consumer oriented Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

112

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

26 27 41 203 157 103 46 603 61 664

3.9 4.1 6.2 30.6 23.6 15.5 6.9 90.8 9.2 100.0

4.3 4.5 6.8 33.7 26.0 17.1 7.6 100.0

4.3 8.8 15.6 49.3 75.3 92.4 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Benefit consumers Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.88 1.317 603

Benefit consumers Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 129 36 13 603 61 664 19.4 5.4 2.0 90.8 9.2 100.0 21.4 6.0 2.2 100.0 91.9 97.8 100.0 39 58 79 249 5.9 8.7 11.9 37.5 6.5 9.6 13.1 41.3 6.5 16.1 29.2 70.5

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Benevolent

113

Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation

603 61 3.68 1.119

Benevolent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 58 19 3 603 61 664 8.7 2.9 .5 90.8 9.2 100.0 9.6 3.2 .5 100.0 96.4 99.5 100.0 41 55 66 361 6.2 8.3 9.9 54.4 6.8 9.1 10.9 59.9 6.8 15.9 26.9 86.7

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Helps people make the best decisions Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.33 1.268 603

Helps people make the best decisions Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Valid Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) 65 102 100 258 9.8 15.4 15.1 38.9 10.8 16.9 16.6 42.8 10.8 27.7 44.3 87.1

114

Somewhat (5) Agree (6)

agree

60 16

9.0 2.4 .3 90.8 9.2 100.0

10.0 2.7 .3 100.0

97.0 99.7 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

(7)

2 603 61 664

Statistics Directed toward customer’s needs. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.97 1.363 603

Directed toward customer’s needs. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 166 48 9 603 61 664 25.0 7.2 1.4 90.8 9.2 100.0 27.5 8.0 1.5 100.0 90.5 98.5 100.0 46 49 70 215 6.9 7.4 10.5 32.4 7.6 8.1 11.6 35.7 7.6 15.8 27.4 63.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Contains abundant information about customer's needs Valid N Missing Mean 61 3.58 603

115

Std. Deviation

1.389

Contains abundant information about customer's needs Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 90 32 8 603 61 664 13.6 4.8 1.2 90.8 9.2 100.0 14.9 5.3 1.3 100.0 93.4 98.7 100.0 65 78 81 249 9.8 11.7 12.2 37.5 10.8 12.9 13.4 41.3 10.8 23.7 37.1 78.4

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics 13. Information conveyed by Facebook advertisements is Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 4.27 1.203 603

13. Positive Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Valid Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 24 29 52 237 186 66 9 3.6 4.4 7.8 35.7 28.0 9.9 1.4 4.0 4.8 8.6 39.3 30.8 10.9 1.5 4.0 8.8 17.4 56.7 87.6 98.5 100.0

Strongly agree

116

Total Missing System Total

603 61 664

90.8 9.2 100.0

100.0

Statistics Enjoyable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.72 1.311 603

Enjoyable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 114 39 4 603 61 664 17.2 5.9 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0 18.9 6.5 .7 100.0 92.9 99.3 100.0 45 66 107 228 6.8 9.9 16.1 34.3 7.5 10.9 17.7 37.8 7.5 18.4 36.2 74.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Likeable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.80 1.363 603

Likeable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

117

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

47 66 90 214 133 49 4 603 61 664

7.1 9.9 13.6 32.2 20.0 7.4 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0

7.8 10.9 14.9 35.5 22.1 8.1 .7 100.0

7.8 18.7 33.7 69.2 91.2 99.3 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics Good Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.89 1.264 603

Good Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 128 44 5 603 61 664 19.3 6.6 .8 90.8 9.2 100.0 21.2 7.3 .8 100.0 91.9 99.2 100.0 37 51 83 255 5.6 7.7 12.5 38.4 6.1 8.5 13.8 42.3 6.1 14.6 28.4 70.6

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics

118

14. I trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.17 1.450 603

14. I trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 93 23 2 603 61 664 14.0 3.5 .3 90.8 9.2 100.0 15.4 3.8 .3 100.0 95.9 99.7 100.0 98 122 107 158 14.8 18.4 16.1 23.8 16.3 20.2 17.7 26.2 16.3 36.5 54.2 80.4

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics I have confidence in information provided by Facebook advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.14 1.422 603

I have confidence in information provided by Facebook advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree (1) 97 14.6 16.1 16.1

119

Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

123 112 170 78 19 4 603 61 664

18.5 16.9 25.6 11.7 2.9 .6 90.8 9.2 100.0

20.4 18.6 28.2 12.9 3.2 .7 100.0

36.5 55.1 83.3 96.2 99.3 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics It is safe to trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.05 1.424 603

It is safe to trust the information provided by Facebook advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 68 19 3 603 61 664 10.2 2.9 .5 90.8 9.2 100.0 11.3 3.2 .5 100.0 96.4 99.5 100.0 112 117 117 167 16.9 17.6 17.6 25.2 18.6 19.4 19.4 27.7 18.6 38.0 57.4 85.1

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics

120

15. I am willing to Rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.69 1.388 603

15. I am willing to Rely on information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase decisions. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 53 12 1 603 61 664 8.0 1.8 .2 90.8 9.2 100.0 8.8 2.0 .2 100.0 97.8 99.8 100.0 147 166 97 127 22.1 25.0 14.6 19.1 24.4 27.5 16.1 21.1 24.4 51.9 68.0 89.1

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics 15. I am willing to Make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.49 1.303 603

121

15. I am willing to Make important purchase related decisions based on information provided by Facebook advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 29 10 1 603 61 664 4.4 1.5 .2 90.8 9.2 100.0 4.8 1.7 .2 100.0 98.2 99.8 100.0 164 184 100 115 24.7 27.7 15.1 17.3 27.2 30.5 16.6 19.1 27.2 57.7 74.3 93.4

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics 15. I am willing to Consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.95 1.556 603

15. I am willing to Consider the information provided by Facebook advertisements when making purchase related decisions. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Valid Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) 141 143 77 119 21.2 21.5 11.6 17.9 23.4 23.7 12.8 19.7 23.4 47.1 59.9 79.6

122

Somewhat (5) Agree (6)

agree

99 21

14.9 3.2 .5 90.8 9.2 100.0

16.4 3.5 .5 100.0

96.0 99.5 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

(7)

3 603 61 664

Statistics 15. I am willing to Search for more information on the product or service that I have seen in Facebook advertisement, if I am interested in. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.99 1.813 603

15. I am willing to Search for more information on the product or service that I have seen in Facebook advertisement, if I am interested in. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 157 87 38 603 61 664 23.6 13.1 5.7 90.8 9.2 100.0 26.0 14.4 6.3 100.0 79.3 93.7 100.0 89 73 38 121 13.4 11.0 5.7 18.2 14.8 12.1 6.3 20.1 14.8 26.9 33.2 53.2

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics

123

15. I am willing to Recommend the product or service that I have seen in Facebook advertisements to my friends. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.88 1.457 603

15. I am willing to Recommend the product or service that I have seen in Facebook advertisements to my friends. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 52 16 3 603 61 664 7.8 2.4 .5 90.8 9.2 100.0 8.6 2.7 .5 100.0 96.8 99.5 100.0 146 123 83 180 22.0 18.5 12.5 27.1 24.2 20.4 13.8 29.9 24.2 44.6 58.4 88.2

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics 15. I am willing to Recommend the product or service that I have seen in Facebook advertisements to my family. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.85 1.459 603

15. I am willing to Recommend the product or service that I have seen in Facebook advertisements to my family.

124

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

151 121 88 176 46 18 3 603 61 664

22.7 18.2 13.3 26.5 6.9 2.7 .5 90.8 9.2 100.0

25.0 20.1 14.6 29.2 7.6 3.0 .5 100.0

25.0 45.1 59.7 88.9 96.5 99.5 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics 16. Not interesting:Interesting Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.92 1.687 603

16. Not interesting:Interesting Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 77 35 8 603 61 664 11.6 5.3 1.2 90.8 9.2 100.0 12.8 5.8 1.3 100.0 92.9 98.7 100.0 188 90 80 125 28.3 13.6 12.0 18.8 31.2 14.9 13.3 20.7 31.2 46.1 59.4 80.1

Total

Statistics Not effective:Effective

125

Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation

603 61 2.89 1.625

Not effective:Effective Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 69 25 9 603 61 664 10.4 3.8 1.4 90.8 9.2 100.0 11.4 4.1 1.5 100.0 94.4 98.5 100.0 179 96 86 139 27.0 14.5 13.0 20.9 29.7 15.9 14.3 23.1 29.7 45.6 59.9 82.9

Total

Statistics Not favorable:Favorable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.90 1.576 603

Not favorable:Favorable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total 60 24 7 603 9.0 3.6 1.1 90.8 10.0 4.0 1.2 100.0 94.9 98.8 100.0 172 92 94 154 25.9 13.9 14.2 23.2 28.5 15.3 15.6 25.5 28.5 43.8 59.4 84.9

126

Missing

System

61 664

9.2 100.0

Total

Statistics Not convincing :Convincing Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.83 1.575 603

Not convincing :Convincing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 52 24 8 603 61 664 7.8 3.6 1.2 90.8 9.2 100.0 8.6 4.0 1.3 100.0 94.7 98.7 100.0 178 102 93 146 26.8 15.4 14.0 22.0 29.5 16.9 15.4 24.2 29.5 46.4 61.9 86.1

Total

Statistics Not engaging :Engaging Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.99 1.674 603

Not engaging :Engaging Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 Valid 3 4 80 132 12.0 19.9 13.3 21.9 57.2 79.1 174 91 26.2 13.7 28.9 15.1 28.9 43.9

127

5 6 7 Total Missing System

83 36 7 603 61 664

12.5 5.4 1.1 90.8 9.2 100.0

13.8 6.0 1.2 100.0

92.9 98.8 100.0

Total

Statistics Not intriguing :Intriguing Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 3.02 1.682 603

Not intriguing :Intriguing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 80 36 9 603 61 664 12.0 5.4 1.4 90.8 9.2 100.0 13.3 6.0 1.5 100.0 92.5 98.5 100.0 173 84 82 139 26.1 12.7 12.3 20.9 28.7 13.9 13.6 23.1 28.7 42.6 56.2 79.3

Total

Statistics Not compelling :Compelling Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 61 2.87 1.587 603

Not compelling :Compelling Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

128

1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System

179 95 89 140 72 23 5 603 61 664

27.0 14.3 13.4 21.1 10.8 3.5 .8 90.8 9.2 100.0

29.7 15.8 14.8 23.2 11.9 3.8 .8 100.0

29.7 45.4 60.2 83.4 95.4 99.2 100.0

Total

Statistics 17. On a seven point scale please rate the likelihood that you would click Facebook advertisements Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 62 2.22 1.492 602

17. On a seven point scale please rate the likelihood that you would click Facebook advertisements Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Very unlikely (1) 283 123 73 42 66 14 1 602 62 664 42.6 18.5 11.0 6.3 9.9 2.1 .2 90.7 9.3 100.0 47.0 20.4 12.1 7.0 11.0 2.3 .2 100.0 47.0 67.4 79.6 86.5 97.5 99.8 100.0

Unlikely (2) Somewhat unlikely (3) Valid Undecided (4)

Somewhat likely (5) Likely (6) Very likely (7) Total Missing System Total

129

Statistics 18 I will spend more time on Facebook advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 2.08 1.305 601

18 I will spend more time on Facebook advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 31 7 2 601 63 664 4.7 1.1 .3 90.5 9.5 100.0 5.2 1.2 .3 100.0 98.5 99.7 100.0 271 165 62 63 40.8 24.8 9.3 9.5 45.1 27.5 10.3 10.5 45.1 72.5 82.9 93.3

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics I will increase the frequency of my visits to the Facebook advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 2.10 1.300 601

I will increase the frequency of my visits to the Facebook advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

130

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Valid Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree Total Missing System Total (6) agree

269 157 74 59 33 9 601 63 664

40.5 23.6 11.1 8.9 5.0 1.4 90.5 9.5 100.0

44.8 26.1 12.3 9.8 5.5 1.5 100.0

44.8 70.9 83.2 93.0 98.5 100.0

Statistics I am willing to recommend Facebook advertisements to others. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 2.25 1.411 601

I am willing to recommend Facebook advertisements to others. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 37 12 2 601 63 664 5.6 1.8 .3 90.5 9.5 100.0 6.2 2.0 .3 100.0 97.7 99.7 100.0 257 136 76 81 38.7 20.5 11.4 12.2 42.8 22.6 12.6 13.5 42.8 65.4 78.0 91.5

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics

131

I am willing to continuously visit Facebook advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 2.19 1.429 601

I am willing to continuously visit Facebook advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 44 14 1 601 63 664 6.6 2.1 .2 90.5 9.5 100.0 7.3 2.3 .2 100.0 97.5 99.8 100.0 274 138 64 66 41.3 20.8 9.6 9.9 45.6 23.0 10.6 11.0 45.6 68.6 79.2 90.2

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics 19. I use Facebook to interact with my friends. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 6.23 1.192 601

19. I use Facebook to interact with my friends. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Valid Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) 11 5 7 1.7 .8 1.1 1.8 .8 1.2 1.8 2.7 3.8

132

Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

22 51 178 327 601 63 664

3.3 7.7 26.8 49.2 90.5 9.5 100.0

3.7 8.5 29.6 54.4 100.0

7.5 16.0 45.6 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics I use Facebook to interact with my family members. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 5.87 1.417 601

I use Facebook to interact with my family members. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 92 187 249 601 63 664 13.9 28.2 37.5 90.5 9.5 100.0 15.3 31.1 41.4 100.0 27.5 58.6 100.0 15 16 15 27 2.3 2.4 2.3 4.1 2.5 2.7 2.5 4.5 2.5 5.2 7.7 12.1

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics I use Facebook more than any other source for communication. Valid N Missing 63 601

133

Mean Std. Deviation

3.91 1.940

I use Facebook more than any other source for communication. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 113 66 77 601 63 664 17.0 9.9 11.6 90.5 9.5 100.0 18.8 11.0 12.8 100.0 76.2 87.2 100.0 74 109 91 71 11.1 16.4 13.7 10.7 12.3 18.1 15.1 11.8 12.3 30.4 45.6 57.4

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics I feel Facebook helps me to express myself. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.98 1.667 601

I feel Facebook helps me to express myself. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Valid Neutral (4) Somewhat (5) Agree (6) agree 155 130 67 23.3 19.6 10.1 25.8 21.6 11.1 60.4 82.0 93.2 55 84 69 8.3 12.7 10.4 9.2 14.0 11.5 9.2 23.1 34.6

134

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

(7)

41 601 63 664

6.2 90.5 9.5 100.0

6.8 100.0

100.0

Statistics I feel disconnected without it. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.40 1.858 601

I feel disconnected without it. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 112 50 36 601 63 664 16.9 7.5 5.4 90.5 9.5 100.0 18.6 8.3 6.0 100.0 85.7 94.0 100.0 122 120 74 87 18.4 18.1 11.1 13.1 20.3 20.0 12.3 14.5 20.3 40.3 52.6 67.1

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics I use Facebook to look for deals promoted by the company. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 2.20 1.483 601

I use Facebook to look for deals promoted by the company.

135

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree

274 147 57 60 40 18 5 601 63 664

41.3 22.1 8.6 9.0 6.0 2.7 .8 90.5 9.5 100.0

45.6 24.5 9.5 10.0 6.7 3.0 .8 100.0

45.6 70.0 79.5 89.5 96.2 99.2 100.0

Strongly agree Total Missing System Total

Statistics I use Facebook to look for companys advertisements. Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 2.05 1.406 601

I use Facebook to look for companys advertisements. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neutral (4) Valid Somewhat (5) Agree (6) (7) agree 39 11 3 601 5.9 1.7 .5 90.5 6.5 1.8 .5 100.0 97.7 99.5 100.0 309 136 45 58 46.5 20.5 6.8 8.7 51.4 22.6 7.5 9.7 51.4 74.0 81.5 91.2

Strongly agree Total

136

Missing

System Total

63 664

9.5 100.0

Statistics 20. skepticism toward Facebook advertisements. Untrustworth : Trustworthy Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.24 1.620 601

20. skepticism toward Facebook advertisements. Untrustworth : Trustworthy Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 55 30 21 601 63 664 8.3 4.5 3.2 90.5 9.5 100.0 9.2 5.0 3.5 100.0 91.5 96.5 100.0 122 95 76 202 18.4 14.3 11.4 30.4 20.3 15.8 12.6 33.6 20.3 36.1 48.8 82.4

Total

Statistics Unconvincing : Convincing Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.24 1.620 601

Unconvincing : Convincing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 Valid 2 97 14.6 16.1 36.6 123 18.5 20.5 20.5

137

3 4 5 6 7 Total Missing System

85 165 87 28 16 601 63 664

12.8 24.8 13.1 4.2 2.4 90.5 9.5 100.0

14.1 27.5 14.5 4.7 2.7 100.0

50.7 78.2 92.7 97.3 100.0

Total

Statistics Not credible : Credible Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.29 1.605 601

Not credible : Credible Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 70 28 20 601 63 664 10.5 4.2 3.0 90.5 9.5 100.0 11.6 4.7 3.3 100.0 92.0 96.7 100.0 118 82 92 191 17.8 12.3 13.9 28.8 19.6 13.6 15.3 31.8 19.6 33.3 48.6 80.4

Total

Statistics Unreasonable : Reasonable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.59 1.558 601

138

Unreasonable : Reasonable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 114 33 18 601 63 664 17.2 5.0 2.7 90.5 9.5 100.0 19.0 5.5 3.0 100.0 91.5 97.0 100.0 93 56 88 199 14.0 8.4 13.3 30.0 15.5 9.3 14.6 33.1 15.5 24.8 39.4 72.5

Total

Statistics Unquestionable:Questionable Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 4.94 1.556 601

Unquestionable:Questionable Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 97 98 135 601 63 664 14.6 14.8 20.3 90.5 9.5 100.0 16.1 16.3 22.5 100.0 61.2 77.5 100.0 17 20 44 190 2.6 3.0 6.6 28.6 2.8 3.3 7.3 31.6 2.8 6.2 13.5 45.1

Total

Statistics Inconclusive : Conclusive

139

Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation

601 63 3.28 1.515

Inconclusive : Conclusive Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 58 22 15 601 63 664 8.7 3.3 2.3 90.5 9.5 100.0 9.7 3.7 2.5 100.0 93.8 97.5 100.0 112 78 86 230 16.9 11.7 13.0 34.6 18.6 13.0 14.3 38.3 18.6 31.6 45.9 84.2

Total

Statistics Not authentic : Authentic Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.35 1.550 601

Not authentic : Authentic Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total 57 32 18 601 8.6 4.8 2.7 90.5 9.5 5.3 3.0 100.0 91.7 97.0 100.0 101 89 87 217 15.2 13.4 13.1 32.7 16.8 14.8 14.5 36.1 16.8 31.6 46.1 82.2

140

Missing

System

63 664

9.5 100.0

Total

Statistics Not authentic : Authentic Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.35 1.550 601

Not authentic : Authentic Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 57 32 18 601 63 664 8.6 4.8 2.7 90.5 9.5 100.0 9.5 5.3 3.0 100.0 91.7 97.0 100.0 101 89 87 217 15.2 13.4 13.1 32.7 16.8 14.8 14.5 36.1 16.8 31.6 46.1 82.2

Total

Statistics Not inform people with essential information : Inform people with essential information Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.32 1.582 601

Not inform people with essential information : Inform people with essential information Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

141

1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System

114 75 96 203 61 35 17 601 63 664

17.2 11.3 14.5 30.6 9.2 5.3 2.6 90.5 9.5 100.0

19.0 12.5 16.0 33.8 10.1 5.8 2.8 100.0

19.0 31.4 47.4 81.2 91.3 97.2 100.0

Total

Statistics Not present a true picture of product being advertised : Present a true picture of product being advertised Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 63 3.37 1.624 601

Not present a true picture of product being advertised : Present a true picture of product being advertised Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 4 Valid 5 6 7 Total Missing System 65 38 21 601 63 664 9.8 5.7 3.2 90.5 9.5 100.0 10.8 6.3 3.5 100.0 90.2 96.5 100.0 115 71 97 194 17.3 10.7 14.6 29.2 19.1 11.8 16.1 32.3 19.1 30.9 47.1 79.4

Total

21. On which types of devices do you use Facebook? Tablet

142

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Missing

Tablet System

135 529 664

20.3 79.7 100.0

100.0

100.0

Total

Smartphone Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Missing Smartphone System Total 442 222 664 66.6 33.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

Laptop Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Missing Laptop System 451 213 664 67.9 32.1 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total

Desk top computer Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Missing Desk top computer System Total 275 389 664 41.4 58.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Smart TV Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Missing Smart TV System Total 5 659 664 .8 99.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

22. How often do you use Facebook on your: Tablet Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 210 31.6 35.1 35.1

143

Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always N/A Total Missing System Total

36 75 35 18 225 599 65 664

5.4 11.3 5.3 2.7 33.9 90.2 9.8 100.0

6.0 12.5 5.8 3.0 37.6 100.0

41.1 53.6 59.4 62.4 100.0

Smartphone Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never Rarely Sometimes Valid Most of the time Always N/A Total Missing System Total 56 32 131 141 168 71 599 65 664 8.4 4.8 19.7 21.2 25.3 10.7 90.2 9.8 100.0 9.3 5.3 21.9 23.5 28.0 11.9 100.0 9.3 14.7 36.6 60.1 88.1 100.0

Laptop Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never Rarely Sometimes Valid Most of the time Always N/A Total Missing System Total 60 55 159 136 154 35 599 65 664 9.0 8.3 23.9 20.5 23.2 5.3 90.2 9.8 100.0 10.0 9.2 26.5 22.7 25.7 5.8 100.0 10.0 19.2 45.7 68.4 94.2 100.0

Desktop

144

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Never Rarely Sometimes Valid Most of the time Always N/A Total Missing System Total

123 78 127 72 69 130 599 65 664

18.5 11.7 19.1 10.8 10.4 19.6 90.2 9.8 100.0

20.5 13.0 21.2 12.0 11.5 21.7 100.0

20.5 33.6 54.8 66.8 78.3 100.0

Smart TV Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Never Rarely Sometimes Valid Most of the time Always N/A Total Missing System Total 280 15 5 3 1 295 599 65 664 42.2 2.3 .8 .5 .2 44.4 90.2 9.8 100.0 46.7 2.5 .8 .5 .2 49.2 100.0 46.7 49.2 50.1 50.6 50.8 100.0

1. What is your gender? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Female Total Missing System 254 398 652 12 664 38.3 59.9 98.2 1.8 100.0 39.0 61.0 100.0 39.0 100.0

Total

2. What is your age? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

145

18-24 years 25-29 years 30-34 years 35-44 years Valid 45-54 years 55 to 64 65 or older Total Missing System Total

231 112 32 61 146 66 4 652 12 664

34.8 16.9 4.8 9.2 22.0 9.9 .6 98.2 1.8 100.0

35.4 17.2 4.9 9.4 22.4 10.1 .6 100.0

35.4 52.6 57.5 66.9 89.3 99.4 100.0

3. How many hours did you spend on line in the last 24 hours? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 0 hours Less than 1 hour 1 - 2 hours Valid 3 - 4 hours 5 - 6 hours More than 6 hours Total Missing System Total 7 49 195 211 84 106 652 12 664 1.1 7.4 29.4 31.8 12.7 16.0 98.2 1.8 100.0 1.1 7.5 29.9 32.4 12.9 16.3 100.0 1.1 8.6 38.5 70.9 83.7 100.0

4. What is your highest level of education completed? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent High school (or equivalent) Some college Associates degree Bachelor's degree Valid Master's degree Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) or other Professional degree (J.D., M.D.) Total Missing System 651 13 98.0 2.0 100.0 18 2.7 2.8 100.0 74 209 77 197 76 11.1 31.5 11.6 29.7 11.4 11.4 32.1 11.8 30.3 11.7 11.4 43.5 55.3 85.6 97.2

146

Total

664

100.0

5. What is your ethnicity? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent White/Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Valid Native American Middle eastern or Arabic Pacific Islander Other Total Missing System Total 517 72 23 11 1 4 3 15 646 18 664 77.9 10.8 3.5 1.7 .2 .6 .5 2.3 97.3 2.7 100.0 80.0 11.1 3.6 1.7 .2 .6 .5 2.3 100.0 80.0 91.2 94.7 96.4 96.6 97.2 97.7 100.0

Statistics 6. Which of the following categories include your total household income for 2011? Valid N Missing Mean Std. Deviation 24 2.85 1.466 640

6. Which of the following categories include your total household income for 2011? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Less than $25,000 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 Valid $75,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more Total Missing System Total 91 133 640 24 664 13.7 20.0 96.4 3.6 100.0 14.2 20.8 100.0 79.2 100.0 155 146 115 23.3 22.0 17.3 24.2 22.8 18.0 24.2 47.0 65.0

147

LIMITATIONS
The members of Live Action Marketing Research used and Internet based random sample survey created by Dr. Summey. We ran into several limitations while conducting our research. Our largest problem was a lack of money and resources. We were unable to provide any sort of incentive to respondents, making the survey of little interest to most people. Another important limitation was our sample pool. Our respondents were limited to people that were acquainted with students. If we could have targeted people who have recently made purchases online, or who have some sort of interest in the subject of Facebook advertising than we would have had a more useful batch of information to analyze. The original survey included questions concerned with both Facebook and Google advertising, but due to an abundance of information, our class was only able to analyze Facebook advertisements. If we could have separated the information into two separate surveys we could have shortened the length and received more accurate responses from those respondents in a hurry to finish. Also, if we could have chosen respondents from different locations we might have seen extremely different results. People in different geographical areas use Facebook and Google for different reasons.

148

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

The members of Live Action Marketing Research felt the survey would have more accurate results if had been distributed in a different manner. The Marketing 390 class distributed the survey to friends and family members, aiming for an even number amongst age groups. Because the only criteria for being chosen was determined by age and the fact that the respondents were acquainted with a Marketing 390 student, the survey was not distributed evenly across the United States, and may not be fully representative of the entire population of Facebook users. If the class had targeted a wider sample of respondents in different geographic areas, then the results may have been more representative of the entire population. The original survey included questions about both Facebook and Google advertisements. The survey would have been more beneficial if we could have singled out one site from the beginning. This would have shortened the survey noticeably, making the survey process easier on the respondent, thus resulting in more accurate answers. Another way we could have improved the accuracy of the survey is if we were able to separate answers from those who have never seen an advertisement, and those who have. If a respondent has never seen an advertisement then it is impossible for them to know how Facebook determines which advertisement to display to users. Respondents will likely answer those questions neutral and skew our results.

149