Social Media As A Relationship Strategy - Twitter - S Impact On Enha

University of Miami
Scholarly Repository
Open Access Theses
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2010-04-27
Social Media as a Relationship Strategy: Twitters

Impact on Enhancing Brand Loyalty
Zongchao Li
University of Miami, zongchao.lee@gmail.com
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_theses

Recommended Citation
Li, Zongchao, "Social Media as a Relationship Strategy: Twitters Impact on Enhancing Brand Loyalty" (2010). Open Access Theses.
Paper 310.
This Open access is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Scholarly Repository. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Open Access Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository. For more information, please contact
repository.library@miami.edu.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
SOCIAL MEDIA AS A RELATIONSHIP STRATEGY:

TWITTERS IMPACT ON ENHANCING BRAND LOYALTY
By
Zongchao Li
A THESIS
Submitted to the Faculty

of the University of Miami
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Arts
Coral Gables, Florida

May 2012
2012
Zongchao Li
All Rights Reserved
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
SOCIAL MEDIA AS A RELATIONSHIP STRATEGY:

TWITTERS IMPACT ON ENHANCING BRAND LOYALTY
Zongchao Li
Approved:
________________
Don W. Stacks, Ph.D.
Professor of Public Relations
_________________
Terri A. Scandura, Ph.D.
Dean of the Graduate School
________________
Robert Stahr Hosmon, Ph. D.
Associate Professor of Public Relations
________________
Cong Li, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor of Advertising
LI, ZONGCHAO
Social Media as a Relationship Strategy:
Twitters Impact on Enhancing Brand Loyalty
(M. A., Public Relations)

(May 2012)
Abstract of a thesis at the University of Miami.

Thesis supervised by Professor Don W. Stacks.
No. of pages in text. (67)
This study looked into Twitter usage as represented by top U.S. retail corporations
in a quantitative way. A content analysis was conducted comparing two groups of retail
corporations one came from the top 100 customer loyalty brand leaders as identified
by Brand Keys (2011a), and the other came from the Fortune 500 retailers, but excluded
from the top-100 loyalty leaders list.
This study aimed to find out the dominant purpose of Twitter usage by major U.S.
retail industry companies, and to what extent the relationship maintenance strategies were
incorporated in Twitter. In addition, the study aimed to test a proposed model that
delineates relationship as a precursor of brand loyalty.
The study results indicated Twitter as an important channel for corporate
communication and relationship maintenance. It was found that for the retail industry,
Twitter was mainly used for consumer relations. Access was the most widely used
strategy (91.6%), followed by assurance (36.4%) and positivity (28.2%). In addition, the
retailers in the brand loyalty leader group were discovered more inclined to use Twitter in
a two-way communication manner, while the Fortune 500 group were more one-way
oriented.
Meanwhile, two relationship maintenance strategies were found significantly

more frequent in use in the brand loyalty leader group than the Fortune 500 group
positivity and assurance. Further more, evidence was found to support that the retail
companies in the brand loyalty leader group utilized Twitter to a greater level as a
communication tool than the Fortune 500 group.
DEDICATION
I would like to memorialize my grandmother, Wang Yufeng, with this project.
Just when this paper was getting finished, she passed away. At 79. She was the most selfsacrificing and caring mother and grandmother. She loved and supported me as well as
everyone else in our family unconditionally. For the whole world, she was compassionate
and loving, always smiling, never argued. She taught me the importance of dedicated
work and, most importantly, she showed me how to be a responsible, kind, and loving
person. Without her influence, I cant be where I am and who I am today.
Grandmother, I dedicate this thesis to you. Though you were not able to see it
finished, I know you would be proud of me, as you always were. You will live on
through me to love, to give, and to live. I will miss you and your guidance.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... ................................ vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... ............................... vii

Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study ................................................................................................................................................ 3

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................................................................... 5
Social Media and Twitter .............................................................................................................................. 5
Social Media as a Marketing Tool ..................................................................................................... 7
Social Media as a Public Relations Tool ......................................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework................................................................................................................................. 8
Brand Loyalty ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Trust determines brand loyalty ........................................................................................................ 9
Trust as a positive relationship outcome ................................................................................... 10
Theoretical Assumption ..................................................................................................................... 11
Public Relations as Relationship Management ................................................................................ 12
Relationship Maintenance Strategies .................................................................................................. 15
Retail Industry and Retailer Brands..................................................................................................... 19
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 20

3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 22
Research Design and Sample ......................................................................................................... 22
Conceptualization and Operational Definitions of Variables ....................................................... 24
Coding Sheet Construction and Procedures ....................................................................................... 26
Intercoder Reliability ................................................................................................................................... 27

4 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................. 30

5 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Implications ...................................................................................................................................................... 50
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................... 50

iv
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix A. Sampled Retail Companies ....................................................................................... 60
Retail industry brand loyalty leaders (2011) ....................................................................................... 60
Retail industry Fortune 500 list (2011) .................................................................................................. 60
Appendix B: Coding Book .................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix C: Coding Sheet ................................................................................................................... 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Theoretical model about relationship, trust and brand loyalty..
11
Figure 3.1. Twitter home page of Amazon
24
Figure 4.1 Retail company post type total ..
31
Figure 4.2 Relationship strategies ... 35
vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Intercoder data . 29
Table 4.1 Type of post .. 32
Table 4.2 Primary purpose of tweet contents 33
Table 4.3 Primary purpose of tweet contents by type of retailer .. 34
Table 4. 4 Positivity level of implementation ... 35
Table 4.5 Positivity by type of retailer .. 37
Table 4.6 Openness/disclosure by type of retailer 37
Table 4.7 Task sharing by type of retailer . 38
Table 4.8 Networking by type of retailer .. 39
Table 4.9 Assurance by type of retailer . 40
Table 4.10 Access by type of retailer 40
Table 4.11 Positivity level of implementation .. 42
Table 4.12 Openness/disclosure level of implementation 42
Table 4.13 Task sharing level of implementation 42
Table 4.14 Networking level of implementation . 43
Table 4.15 Assurance level of implementation 43
Table 4.16 Levels by group .. 44
vii
Chapter 1
Introduction
With the development of social media, the boundary between marketing and
public relations is becoming increasingly blurred. Newell (2011) suggested that social
media marketing should be a relationship strategy, rather than a quick-sale strategy
(Making Friends is about Opening Up section, para. 3) Many social networking sites lack
the personal connectionin other words, instead of being humane and authentic, many
posts on social networking sites are written in ad speak. From the marketing
perspective, social media build trust between the company and the public and develop it
into brand loyalty, which will ultimately drive sale. What social media can bring
marketers, Newell argued, is a long, slow sales curve, social media have its roots in
PR, not advertising (Making Friends is about Opening Up section, para. 5).
Drury (2007) argued that while marketing in traditional media was delivering
messages, marketing with social media is more about building relationships and driving
conversations. He also proposed that marketing in social media is no longer one
dimensional as it was traditionally, but is a two-way process engaging a brand and an
audience, and marketing within social media is not just about telling and giving a
message, rather it is about receiving and exchanging perceptions and ideas (p. 275). In
addition, Drury expressed that, while marketing effectively in the social media is
challenging, it is possible. What lies beneath is a matter of providing content rather than
simple messages that customers can relate to and appreciate (p. 275).
An article in PR News brings the question of ownership, or administrative
control, of social media to the discussion (Ownership of social media, 2010). In
2
practice, the functions are often seen mixed with public relations, marketing, human
resources, and customer service. Yet the question of who should guide the new platform
of social networking sites has not been satisfactorily answered. Some professionals argue
that public relations should guide social media since they share similar DNA both are
fundamentally involved with dialogue and conversation, aimed for the long-term
outcome, and engaged with listening. Other professionals argue from the perspective of
transparency and reputation, which is another commonality of public relations and social
media (Stacks, in press).
However, despite all the resemblance, in practice many organizations have
brought other business functions into the mix, as an emerging cross-functional model
(Ownership of social media, 2010). The PR News article provides insights through
interviews with several public relations professionals. According to the article, Southwest
Airlines has such a mixed model that, while public relations oversees social media and
does the day-to-day management, other functions such as human resources, marketing,
and customer service are also closely engaged. For Sony Electronics, the communication
department manages the social media from the corporate perspective, but managers
ensure the collaboration among other departments in the company. A social media
campaign may involve a tight integration of communication, marketing, and advertising
(Ownership of social media, 2010).
As the debates over the ownership and different working models of social media
go forward, some professionals foresee a new trend arising. Alan Scott, chief marketing
officer of Dow Jones Enterprise Media Group, believes that as social media develop,
marketing and public relations will cease to be distinct entities and be replaced by a new
3
function around the new conversational marketplace (Ownership of social media,
2010, A CMO Weighs in section, para. 3).
Purpose of Study
As discussed, there are a lot of industry-wide arguments as to who should govern
the social media platform. Such discussions have appeared in the trade publications,
online message boards, and individual blogs. Many of them are written by opinion
leaders with expertise in either marketing or public relations. Although their opinions
have good insight, most of them lack rigor and theoretical support. This research looked
into the social media usage as represented by top U.S. retail corporations in a quantitative
way. Twitter was chosen as a social media representative for a content analytical study in
which two groups of retail corporations were studied and compared one came from the
top 100 customer loyalty brand leaders as identified by Brand Keys (2011a), and the
other came from the Fortune 500 retailers, but excluded from the top-100 loyalty leaders
list.
This study aimed to find out the dominant purpose of Twitter usage by major U.S.
retail industry companies, and to what extent the relationship maintenance strategies were
incorporated in Twitter.
Twitter, as a social media platform for organizations to reach publics directly and
establish close relationships, has become an indispensable component of organizational
communication. However, no extant research has examined how organizations enact
relationship maintenance strategies with their publics in Twitter. Therefore, this research
explored the potential of Twitter as an effective platform for relationship management.
4
In addition, by comparing the findings of the two sample groups, the study aimed
to find whether the employment of relationship strategies contributed to the brand
loyalty. Moreover, the study result also tested a theoretical model that delineates
relationship strategies as a precursor of brand loyalty
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
The literature review begins by summarizing the definitions and usage of social
media and Twitter. It further looks into the rationality of social media being used as a
marketing tool and a public relations tool. Then it proceeds to propose a theoretical
model by examining related literature about brand loyalty, trust, and relationships.
Furthermore, it explores theories of relationship management and relationship
maintenance. In addition, literature about the retail industry and retailer brands are
discussed. This chapter concludes by raising three research questions and two
hypotheses.
Social Media and Twitter
Social media are Internet based applications and technologies that enable
participation, connectivity, user-generated content, sharing of information, and
collaboration among a community of users (Henderson & Bowley, 2010, p. 239).
Different types of social media include social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook,
video sharing sites such as YouTube, blogs, podcasts, wikis, and online virtual world.
Social media have created a vast connection in the virtual world among the global
community with a collaborative and participatory culture (Henderson & Bowley, 2010).
They encourage users to discuss, debate, and collaborate with one another as millions
more watch, listen and learn (McConnell & Huba, 2006, p. x).
Launched in August 2006, Twitter is a social media platform that allows users to
communicate within 140-character messages tweets. Generally these types of services
are referred to as microblogs or microblogging. Twitter, in addition to its microblogging,
6
also exhibits social networking features (Thoring, 2011). Twitter users can connect with
each other and share information by following another Twitter account, meaning they
can subscribe to the tweets of another users. Other features that allow user interaction
include posing comments (@reply) and reposting a message (RT retweet). The tweets
can also be categorized by specific topics using hashtags keywords prefixed with a "#"
sign. Twitter is mostly known for being instant and vast spread.
In corporate America, social media have gained popular usage. According to a
2011 social media global study by public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, 84% of the
Fortune 100 companies have at least one social media account. Thirty-four percent of
U.S. companies from the top 100 list are active on all four platforms of social media
studied, including Twitter/microblogs, Facebook/social networks, YouTube/video
sharing, and corporate blogs. Globally, there was an 18% increase in Twitter usage,
followed by YouTube with a 14% growth and next, Facebook with a 13% growth.
Twitter is emerging as the predominant social media platform with an adoption rate of
77% of the Fortune Global 100 Companies, followed by Facebook with 61%.
The same study also found that the number of corporate Twitter accounts have
increased dramatically in recent years. In average, the top 100 companies have 5.8
Twitter accounts, a 38% increase from 2010. For U.S. companies, the average number of
accounts is 9.9, 50% higher than 2010. This radical change was largely affected by the
leap of a few companies such as IBM, which set up 33 new Twitter accounts in the past
year, adding up to a total of 76 corporate Twitter accounts.
Today, Twitter is the most popular microblogging site worldwide. Moreover,
Twitter was found to have more influence on consumer purchase decisions than other
7
social media platforms. A recent Online Shopper Intelligence Study conducted by
Kantar Media Compete revealed that 35% of the respondents thought Twitter had an
influence on their purchase decision, while only 23.5% agreed so with Facebook
(Marketwire, 2011).
Social Media as a Marketing Tool
Scholars have identified social media being used as a marketing tool mainly for
four purposes: (1) market research and feedback generation; (2) publicity, branding, and
reputation management; (3) business networking; and (4) customer service and customer
relationship management (Thoring, 2011).
Some professionals (e.g., Collins, 2011) argue that social media have bypassed
traditional media as a marketing tool for several reasons. First, social media are costefficient. Compared with expensive advertisements on traditional media, social media are
close to a free platform. The only cost involved is time and devotion of the personnel
creating social media messages; this cheap platform enables the corporations to bypass
traditional media outlets for advertising and promotional needs. Second, compared with
pushing messages on traditional media, on social media the audience can choose the
contents they like. Furthermore, once the choice is made, a relationship is built between
the company and the potential customer. Such connections on social media foster a twoway communication between companies and audience, which enables the company to get
feedback from the audience. Moreover, when the audience interacts with the content,
audience members personal networks are exposed to the content as well, in which viralmarketing and electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) is formed.
8
Social Media as a Public Relations Tool
Apparently, social media have brought changes to public relations practice as
well. Scott (2007) asserts in book The New Rules of Marketing and PR that traditional
public relations practices do not work anymore. In the social media age, instead of
pitching stories to traditional media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, and television shows)
companies can now take ownership and independently publish information that will reach
or pull a large audience. Public relations, which used to be a function that tried to
influence public perceptions dominantly through close media relations, has become more
associated with direct public management and engagement in the Web 2.0 environment
(Tanuri, 2009).
Social media have also brought changes to media relations. Waters, Tindall and
Morton (2010) profiled the trend of media catching, which is the reversal of the
traditional media relations communication patterns. According to Waters et al. (2010),
journalists are more inclined to turn the tables and target public relations professionals on
social media for specific content for story ideas.
As discussed above, this transformation of marketing communication from paid
media (advertising) to earned media (traditional public relations media pitching) and now
owned media (social media and web sites) has brought fundamental changes to both
marketing and public relations disciplines.
Theoretical Framework
Brand Loyalty
Brand can be defined as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of
them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers
9
and to differentiate them from those of competitors (Kotler, 1991; p. 442). In early
views, brand loyalty was identified by repeated purchase behaviors (Brown, 1952;
Lipstein, 1959; Kuehn, 1962). This definition was later enriched by researchers who
proposed that brand loyalty should also be measured through the attitudinal dimension in
addition to the behavioral perspective (Assael, 1992; Engel & Blackwell, 1982; Keller,
1993). According to Engel and Blackwell (1982, p. 570), brand loyalty is the
preferential, attitudinal and behavioral response toward one or more brands in a product
category expressed over a period of time by a consumer. Brand loyalty, then, is a
favorable attitude toward a brand resulting in consistent purchase of the brand over time
(Assael, 1992, p. 87).
Trust determines brand loyalty
Brand trust is dependent on many factors. Many corporations strive to build an
image of reliability and dependability solely relying on product quality and customer
service (Blackston, 1992), assuming this will be sufficient to build a strong brand.
However, studies have found that brand does possess some characteristics that go beyond
mere product consideration. The adaption of certain interpersonal relationships, such as
trust, enforces consumers recognition of, and loyalty to, the brand (Delgado-Ballester,
Munuera-Aleman, & Yague-Guillen, 2003).
This idea of brand as a person has been studied both qualitative and quantitatively
by a number of scholars (e.g., De Chernatony & McDonald, 1998; Fournier, 1998). These
studies indicate that brand loyalty can be achieved through efforts aimed beyond
consumers satisfaction of the product or service functionally (Delgado-Ballester et al.,
2003). Interpersonal relationships, such as trust, are key factors affecting brand loyalty.
10
In a study to develop and validate a multidimensional brand trust scale, DelgadoBallester et al. (2003) conceptualized brand trust as a a feeling of security held by the
consumer in his/her interaction with the brand, that it is based on the perceptions that the
brand, as a personified entity, is reliable and responsible for the interests and welfare of
the consumer (p. 31). In developing and comparing three models of brand loyalty in
which trust played different roles, they found a positive relationship between trust and
brand loyalty, suggesting that trust was a major contributor to brand loyalty.
As suggested by Chaudhuri and Holbrooks (2001) findings, brand trust
determines brand loyalty, which, in turn, influences such outcome-related aspects of
brand equity as market-share and relative price. Similar relationships have been found in
a number of other studies that support trust as a determinant variable for brand loyalty
(e.g., Morgan & Hunt 1994; Sung & Kim, 2010).
Trust as a positive relationship outcome
A number of studies of consumers relationships with corporate brands have
proven that brand trust is a signal of relationship quality between consumers and brands
(Blackston, 1992). According to these studies, there are two components in successful
and positive relationships: satisfaction with the brand and trust in the brand (DelgadoBallester et al., 2003). Morgan and Hunt (1994) explored the connection between
relationship and trust from the perspective of relationship marketing. They concluded that
successful relationship marketing requires relationship commitment and trust, both of
which were identified as key mediating variables.
In addition, trust has also been identified by public relations scholars as one of the
outcomes and measures of organization-public relationships. Drawing from the 10-year
11
IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) Excellence study, which
examined more than 300 organizations in the United States, Canada, and the United
Kingdom, Hon and Grunig (1999) developed quantitative measurement scales for
assessing six dimensions of an organization-public relationship: control mutuality, trust,
satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationships, and communal relationships.
Theoretical Assumption
Based on theory discussed above, we can deduct the following connections
among relationship, trust and brand loyalty (See Figure 2.1):
Trust Brand Loyalty

Relationship Trust
Relationship Trust Brand Loyalty

Relationship Brand Loyalty
Relationship
Trust
Brand
Loyalty
Figure 2.1 Theoretical model about relationship, trust and brand loyalty
As such, we can deduct that a well-maintained organization-public relationship
should enhance the brand loyalty. Accordingly, if the social media contribute to
relationship management, it should further contribute to brand loyalty. Therefore, by
using effective relationship maintenance strategies in Twitter, companies will gain higher
12
level of brand loyalty. On the contrary, less effective use of relationship-oriented
strategies in Twitter will not contribute to brand loyalty. This line of reasoning is the
premise for the hypotheses of this study.
Public Relations as Relationship Management
The fundamental goal of public relations is to build relationships with key publics
(Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). Relationship management has also
been a central theme for public relations research. In recent years, the relationship
approach has developed into a viable theory of public relations (Ledingham, 2003;
Vorvoreanu, 2009). Public relations scholars have identified and developed measures for
six relationship outcomes control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange
relationship and communal relationship (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Organization-public
relationships have since become a multi-dimensional, measurable concept (Vorvoreanu,
2009).
There has also been a growing body of literature examining the relationship
maintenance, or relationship cultivation strategies (Bortree, 2007; Hon & Grunig, 1999;
Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Kent & Taylor, 1998; Ki & Hon, 2009; Men & Tsai, in press;
Seo & Lee, 2009; Waters et al., 2011). Relationship strategies are defined as any
organizational behavioral efforts that attempt to establish, cultivate, and sustain
relationships with strategic publics (Ki & Hon, 2009, p. 5). Maintenance of public
relations is any effort used to sustain desired relationships between organizations and
publics (Ki, 2004, p. 8).
Relationship maintenance studies are grounded in interpersonal communication
research, the most well-known of which are Canary and Staffords studies that identified
13
five relationship maintenance strategies: positivity, openness, assurance, social networks,
and sharing tasks (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Public relations
scholars extended the concept and adapted the strategies to organizational communication
(Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009; Seo & Lee, 2009). Early research on this subject
focused on physical interactions, and public relations scholars have developed and tested
relationship measurement scales accordingly (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009).
Recently, with the popularity of Internet and World Wide Web, several studies have
examined the application of these five strategies in different kinds of virtual settings as
well, including organizational websites, blogs and Facebook (Bortree, 2007; Kelleher &
Miller, 2006; Ki, 2004; Men & Tsai, in press; Seo & Lee, 2009; Waters et al., 2011).
For other mainstream relationship management theories, Kent and Taylor (1998)
proposed dialogic communication as a theoretical framework to guide the creation and
maintenance of relationships between an organization and its publics. Dialogic
communication is any negotiated exchange of ideas and opinions (Kent & Taylor,
1999, p. 323). Kent and Taylor argued that dialogic communication is a finished
product of two-way symmetrical communication. It is not merely about agreement.
Rather, it is about the process of open an negotiated discussion (Kent & Taylor, 1999, p.
325). They identified five dialogic principles: ease of interface, usefulness of information,
conservation of return visits, generation of return visits, and dialogic loops. This theory
has been tested and accepted by a number of scholars on both the traditional and new
media platforms (Kim, Nam & Kang, 2010; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Seltzer & Mitrook,
2007; Seltzer & Zhang, 2011).
14
In addition, Kelly (2001) introduced the concept of stewardship as a final, but
missing, step in the generally known public relations process such as Marstons (1979)
RACE model (Research, Action, Communication, Evaluation) and Hendrixs (2000)
ROPE model (Research, Objectives, Programming, Evaluation). According to Kelly
(2001), stewardship consists of four relationship maintenance strategies that foster
relationship growth: reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing.
Other public relations scholars have also raised the importance of stewardship as a
necessary component of relationship management (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham,
2003; Waters, 2009, 2011). Most research on stewardship has focused on offline
behaviors in the fundraising/nonprofit context (Kelly, 1998; Waters, 2009; Worley &
Little, 2002). Waters (2011) studied on the implementation of the four stewardship
strategies on Fortune 100 companies websites and argued that the stewardship strategies
can be practiced in all public domains and that the conceptualization of stewardship
strategies for virtual behavior may be a better presentation of relationship cultivation
strategies than the strategies adapted from interpersonal communication.
This study adopted the relationship maintenance strategies of Hon and Grunig
(1998) as the measure for relationship management because of the personalized
characteristics of social media, especially Twitter. Based on this consideration, therefore,
it is suitable to measure the relationship management on Twitter using this personalcommunication-rooted theory. The six relationship maintenance strategies are discussed
primarily as an organizational public relationship maintenance theory as below.
15
Relationship Maintenance Strategies
Positivity
In Canary and Staffords (1994) interpersonal communication study, positivity
was defined as attempts to make interactions pleasant (p.15). Behaviors with cheerful
and nice gestures, conversations in a courteous and polite manner and avoidance of
criticism of partners are considered as positivity strategies. Several interpersonal
communication studies have further found that positivity is a primary predictor of control
mutuality, as well as a primary maintenance strategy predicting trust (Canary & Stafford,
1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Hon and Grunig (1999) adopted positivity into the
organizational communication domain by defining it as anything the organization or
public does to make the relationship more enjoyable for the parties involved (p. 14). In
their first study that developed empirical measures for relationship cultivation strategies,
Ki and Hon (2009) further defined positivity in a more measurable way as the degree to
which members of publics benefit from the organizations efforts to make the relationship
more enjoyable for key publics (p. 7).
Openness/disclosure
In Canary and Staffords 1994 interpersonal communication study, openness, or
disclosure, refers to direct discussions about the nature of the relationship and setting
aside times for talks about the relationship (p. 12). Examples of openness included
sharing secrets with each other, discussing problems in the relationship, providing advice
from past experience, and listening to each other without judging. For organizational
communication, openness means disclosing thoughts and feelings among parties
involved (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 14). More specifically, openness is the condition in
16
which both organizations and its publics are willing to share their opinions about
problems, concerns, and satisfaction, as well as frustration in an open and honest manner
(Grunig et al., 2002; Ki & Hon, 2009). Furthermore, Ki and Hon (2009) defined
openness as an organizations efforts to provide information about the nature of the
organization and what it is doing (p. 8). Examples of this strategy include providing
annual reports and issue briefings that are informative and valuable, and holding member
meetings that are helpful for members to communicate their opinions to the organization
(Ki & Hon, 2009). Openness, then, is a characteristic highly regarded by many public
relations scholars, some of whom have concluded that openness leads to positive
relationships (Grunig et al., 1992; Grunig & Huang, 2000). Some have stressed openness
as a vital component of trust (Dimmick, Bell, Burgiss, & Ragsdale, 2000), while others
have found this strategy consistent with the symmetrical model of public relations
(Grunig & Huang, 2000). Moreover, openness plays an important role in public relations
ethics (Grunig & Grunig, 1996).
Sharing of tasks
Sharing of tasks was identified in interpersonal relations research as sharing the
househood tasks an performing responsibilities (Canary & Stafford, 1994). The mutual
performance of doing routine tasks and chores between couples is an example of sharing
of tasks (Canary & Stafford, 1994). Hon and Grunig (1999) extended this strategy to
organizational public relations and conceptualized it as organizations and publics
sharing in solving joint or separate problems (p. 15). For example, organizations and
publics could share such tasks as reducing pollution, managing individual or community
issues, providing employment opportunities, increasing profits, which are in the interest
17
of either the organization, the public, or both (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Some scholars
suggested that sharing of tasks could be assessed through the organizations social
responsibility reports, which explained the degree of efforts the organizations made to
respond to problems and issues related to publics (Ki & Hon, 2009). Furthermore, Ki and
Hon defined sharing of tasks as an organizations efforts to share in working on projects
or solving problems of mutual interest between the organization and its publics (p. 8).
Networking
Use of social networks is another relationship maintenance strategy. In
interpersonal communication studies, networking means spending time with partners
family and friends who support the relationship. Adoption of networking strategy is
performed through shared explanation, control mutuality, and liking (Canary & Stafford,
1994). Public relations researchers have suggested that this strategy can also apply to
organizational communication (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009). For
organizations, networking refers to organizations building networks or coalitions with
the same groups that their publics do, such as environmentalists, unions, or community
groups (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 15). For example, an organization may sponsor a
charity group or co-host an event with a local community association. One way to
evaluate organizations networking efforts is documenting organizational contacts with
external groups who engage with their publics (Grunig & Huang, 2000).
Assurances
Assurances in interpersonal relationships refer to behaviors that imply future and
affection between two individuals. Examples of assurances include mutual supporting,
comforting, satisfying needs, and overt expressions of love (Canary & Stafford, 1994).
18
Assurances, along with positivity, have been found as the primary maintenance behaviors
predicting trust (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991). It is also the most
effective strategy in nurturing commitment between two individuals (Stafford & Canary,
1991). For organizational public relations, assurances are indicated when each party in
the relationship attempts to assure the other that it and its concerns are legitimate and to
demonstrate that it is committed to maintaining the relationship (Grunig et al., 2002, p.
551). Ki and Hon (2009) further defined assurances as any efforts by an organization to
assure its strategic publics that they and their concerns are attended to. (p. 9)
Access
Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) defined access as:
Members of publics or opinion leaders provide access to public relations people.
Public relations representatives or senior managers provide representatives of
publics similar access to organizational decision-making processes. Either party
will answer telephone calls or read letters or e-mail messages from the other.
Either party is willing to go to the other when they have complaints or queries,
rather than taking negative reactions to third parties. (p. 14)
Seo and Lee (2009) further illustrated access as a receptive opportunity for both the
organization and publics to involve in each others decision-making process; and each
partys willingness to go to the other for complaints or queries (Seo & Lee, 2009). In
this, access is a relationship maintenance strategy analogous to the often-cited two-way
symmetric communication model (Grunig, 1994; Seo & Lee, 2009). Similarly, Ki and
Hon (2009) defined access as the degree of effort that an organization puts into
providing communication channels or media outlets that assist its strategic publics in
reading it (p. 6).
19
Retail Industry and Retailer Brands
Retailing can be defined as buying goods or products in large quantities from
manufacturers or directly or through a wholesaler and then selling to the end-user in
smaller quantities (Mathur, 2010). This includes selling goods or merchandise in a fixed
or moving location, such as the department store or a street cart. It also includes selling
products through the Internet, as well as selling services, such as haircuts in salons or
shops. A retailer, on the other hand, is an establishment engaged in selling merchandise
for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of
such goods (Mathur, 2010, p.198). Different types of retailers include department stores,
supermarkets, discount stores, warehouse stores, price clubs, specialty stores,
hypermarkets, e-tailors, and convenience stores (Lamba, 2003).
According to the latest U.S. Economic Census (2009), by 2007, there were more
than 1 million retail establishments in the United States. The retail industry (including
food services and automobile) generated annual sales of $4.09 trillion in 2009 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012) an estimated two-thirds of the U.S. gross domestic product
(GDP) comes from retail consumption. The monthly retail sales in January 2012 were
$360.45 billion nationwide (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
Compared with product brands, retailer brands are different in several key ways.
First, many retailers carry products similar to those of their competitors. While some
retailers do sell products of their own brands (store brands), such as Archer Farms by
Target, or many other private labeled brands by grocery chains such as Publix, a large
portion of the retail revenue relied on the national manufacture brands. In addition,
retailer brands are generally more multi-sensory in nature than product brands and can
20
rely on rich consumer experiences to impact their equity (Ailawadi & Keller, 2004, p.
2). Moreover, retailers create their brand images in different ways. Rather than relying on
the uniqueness and quality of their products as many manufacture brands do, retailer
brands largely rely on factors such as location, service, and store appearance (Mazursky
& Jacoby, 1986).
This study focused on retailer brands and excluded product brands from the
sample such as Walt Disney, Apple, and Starbucks. The underlying consideration is to
minimize the factors that might affect brand loyalty, such as a products quality and
distinctiveness.
In addition, this paper investigates customer loyalty in an online business-toconsumer (B2C) context. Businesses-to-business (B2B) practices were outside the sphere
of this study, thus were excluded from analyzing relationship maintenance strategies.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Based on the preceding literature, three research questions are posed that lead up
to two hypotheses:
RQ1: How are the two groups of retail companies using Twitter as a
communication tool?
RQ2: What is the dominant purpose of Twitter use by major U.S. retail industry
companies?
RQ3: How are relationship maintenance strategies implemented on Twitter by
top U.S. retail companies?
H1:
Retail industry companies in a brand loyalty leader group have a higher

adoption rate of relationship maintenance strategies (positivity,
21
openness/disclosure, task sharing, networking, assurance, access) than
general retail industry companies.
H2:

implementation level of relationship maintenance strategies (positivity,
openness/disclosure, task sharing, networking, assurance, access) than the
Chapter 3
Methodology
This study aimed to describe and explore how retail companies were engaged
with Twitter, how they enacted the relationship maintenance strategies online, and
whether any connection existed between relationship strategies and brand loyalty.
Research Design and Sample
To obtain the results in a measurable and neutral way, content analysis was used
as a method of studying and analyzing communication in a systematic, objective, and
quantitative manner for the purpose of measuring variables (Wimmer & Dominick,
2010, p. 156). The content analyzed was taken from samples of two groups of retail
companies. The first group of retailers came from the 2011 Top100 Loyalty Leaders as
identified by Brand Keys (2011a), a New York-based international brand and customer
loyalty research consultancy since 1984 (http://www.brandkeys.com). Brand Keys
specializes in customer loyalty and engagement research and provides brand-equity
measures that predict consumer behaviors. The company annually publishes its Customer
Loyalty Engagement Index and Customer Loyalty Leaders list by examining customers
relationships with 598 brands in 83 categories (Brand Keys, 2011b). The Advertising
Research Foundation has conducted a methodological review of Brand Keys' Brand
engagement measurement methodology, which validated this system (Cook, 2007).
According to the 2011 Top100 Loyalty Leaders list, retailers ring up high on
the loyalty ratings, only following beauty brands and technology brands. Of the 100
loyalty brands, there are 11 retail corporations, five of which are also part of the Fortune
500, and they constituted the first group of this study. The second sample group came
22
23
from the retailers in the Fortune 500 List, but excluded from the top-100 loyalty list. The
Fortune 500 list published annually by the Fortune magazine ranked top U.S. companies
according to the gross avenue. It is generally considered as an authoritative ranking and
has been studied extensively by previous content analysis studies (Ki, 2004; Ki & Hon,
2006; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Waters, 2011). The retail companies sampled from the
Fortune 500 list are regarded as a representative of the top U.S. retailers, which are also a
comparison to the brand loyalty leaders group. There are 42 retail industry companies on
the Fortune 500 list. Excluding those on the loyalty list, 36 retailers are numbered from 1
to 36 according to their ranking.
To select the sample, the RANDBETWEEN function of Microsoft Excel
Version 2010 was used to generate random numbers between 1 and 36. The top 11 nonrepetitive numbers were selected to compose the second group. Some companies chosen
might not be primarily or exclusively retailers, but a significant portion of their revenue
should come from retail sales. Efforts were made to make sure that the retail industry
companies are selected in the same standards from both the loyalty list and the Fortune
500 list.
For the purpose of this study, only those companies with active Twitter accounts
were chosen as the final sample group. Based on the research design, in this study a
company was considered active if it had at least 40 Twitter tweets or posts and its latest
post was made within the past two weeks of the accessed date, to ensure the currency of
the data. For each company selected, only one major official Twitter account was
selected for this study.
24
The data were accessed from the same computer on December 20, 2011, between
8 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. The + Shift + 4 function of Mac computer was used to capture
the selected portion of the screen and save it as a picture file to the desktop. For each
sampled company, the screenshots included both the homepage and 40 individual tweets.
The companys Twitter homepage provided information such as the company name, the
Twitter ID, the following and followers number, and total number of tweets (see Figure
3.1 for example). Of the 40 recorded tweets of each company, every other post was
coded as a systematic random sampling. Finally, a total sample of 22 companies and 440
tweets was analyzed for this study.
Figure 3.1. Twitter home page of Amazon

Conceptualization and Operational Definitions of Variables
The variables for relationship maintenance strategies were adapted from previous
content analysis studies examining the strategy implementation in online environment
(Bortree, 2007; Ki, 2004; Ki & Hon, 2006; Waters et al., 2011; Seo & Lee, 2009). The
six variables of positivity, openness/disclosure, tasking sharing, networking, access, and
assurances were adapted to the Twitter environment in the manner discussed below.
In general, previous content analysis studies of positivity strategy on websites and
blogs defined the variable as any attempt to make the visit to the Web site/blog more
25
efficient and easy to use. Indicators of positivity included items such as ease of
navigation, inclusion of search engine and sitemap, RSS and calendar (Ki, 2004; Ki &
Hon, 2006; Waters et al., 2011; Seo & Lee, 2009). Distinct from web sites and blogs, the
Twitter homepage is a set format and users have little control over the structure of the
web page. In addition, this definition focuses more on the interaction between the site
(web and blog) itself and the viewer, rather than the interaction of the company as
perceived through the site and the viewer. This study focused on examining how
positivity is delivered through Twitter messages by companies. Therefore, positivity is
defined here as attempts to make messages pleasant. Indicators include using a positive
and cheerful tone, posting smiling face signs, using positive exclamations, and showing
of humor.
Openness/ Disclosure is defined as an organizations efforts to make the
information process more transparent and to provide information about any changes
pertaining to finances, organizational restructuring, and other organizational activities.
Different levels of openness are operationalized by different communication models,
including one-way communication, two-way asymmetrical communication, and two-way
symmetrical communication.
Task sharing is defined as performing corporate social responsibility by
addressing social concerns or organizational efforts that relate to the problems of mutual
interest between the organization and its publics, such as environmental activities,
community activities, education activities, and volunteer efforts. Definitions of different
engagement levels are adapted from Kis (2004) research.
26
Networking is defined as organizations efforts in building networks or coalitions
with the same groups that their publics do, such as environmentalists, unions, community
groups, celebrities and opinion leaders. The RT Retweet functions are generally
considered as networking.
Somewhat different from previous efforts in which access was measured by the
presence of contact information (Ki, 2004; Ki & Hon, 2006; Waters et al., 2011; Seo &
Lee, 2009), in this study, Twitter in itself can be a form of access for communication.
Therefore access is defined as an organizations efforts to foster communication and to
provide communication channels or media outlets with other Twitter users. The
indicators include posting questions, @reply/mention, providing phone number or e-mail
address, and providing link to more information.
Assurances refer to any efforts by an organization to assure its publics that they
and their concerns are attended to and to demonstrate that it is committed to maintaining
the relationship. Most tweets for customer services and tweets that generally address
availability and willingness to help, as well as those that emphasize on maintaining
relationships are assurance.
The complete definitions for all study variables are included in Appendix B.
Coding Sheet Construction and Procedures
An initial coding sheet and coding book was developed based on previous Twitter
content analysis studies (e.g., Edman & Dahmen, 2011; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). The
definitions and coding categories were further examined by the researcher over a twoweek period, which allowed definitions adapted and categories adjusted to the Twitter
context. The coding sheet and codebook were further reviewed by public relations
27
scholars as a test of its validity. A third version of the coding sheet and codebook was
completed based on the review feedback.
In the final established coding sheet, the basic information including the company
name, the Twitter ID, group number, following number, followers number, and date of
post were coded as nominal data. The type of post was categorized as original, @reply,
RT retweet, RT + comments, and other. The primary purpose of tweet contents were
summarized based on previous research (Burson-Marsteller, 2011) into seven major
categories: corporate news/ information announcement/ update, advertising/ sales
promotion, greeting/ thanks/ chat, general information/ tip, customer service/ feedback/
support, job recruiting/ career information, and other. For the characteristics of
relationship maintenance strategies, the six variables were coded as either existing (yes)
or not (no). The levels of implementation were coded on a scale of 0-3, with zero
meaning non-existing, and 1 to 3 meaning low, medium and high. For the variable of
access, however, the researcher found it difficult to define in levels of implementation in
the Twitter context. A more reasonable result is generated by summarizing the indicators
rather than rank them, so the levels were replaced by indicators. This includes question,
@ reply/mention, link, phone number, and e-mail address, all of which were coded as
either exist (yes) or not (no) (please refer to Appendix B: Coding book, and Appendix C:
Coding sheets for detailed information).
Intercoder Reliability
Two graduate students were utilized as coders for this study. A four-hour training
session was conducted by the researcher to explain the coding procedure and key
definitions. After sufficient time to read through the coding book and raise questions, the
28
coders independently finished a training test, which composed of 44 tweets from
companies that were not part of the formal sample. The analysis of the initial test result
indicated the need for further training to emphasize details and clarify definitions of
certain variables. After discussion with the coders, an updated codebook was prepared
and handed out to the coders in the second training session, which was followed by a
reliability test. In the test, the two coders coded a 10 percent sample of the coding
contents independently. Data were collected and entered into the IBM SPSS Statistics
version 19 package of statistical programs.
Intercoder reliability was tested using Scotts pi formula (Stacks, 2011). The data
were transformed to ReCal (Reliability Calculator), an online utility
(http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal2/) that is compatible with SPSS. As an online
intercoder reliability Web service, ReCal has been successfully executed for more than
4,000 times (Freelon, 2010b). Its accuracy has been demonstrated by research study as
well (Freelon, 2010a).
The first intercoder reliability check resulted in unacceptable values for some
variables, thus another meeting with the coders was held to discuss the problems and
clarify the misunderstandings. The first test revealed a few ambiguous definitions, for
example, whether retweet posts should be analyzed for access indicators. In addition, the
different levels of implementation for openness and assurance were adjusted in a more
detailed and clear-cut manner, taking into consideration of the cases encountered by the
coders in the pre-test. Moreover, after the first reliability test, efforts were made to
emphasize on some key information that, though clearly defined, can be easily ignored by
the coders. For example, openness refers to disclosure of information that only related to
29
organization finances, restructuring and other organization activities. Sales and
promotional information should not be considered as openness. After making adjustments
to the coding definitions and clarify key information with the coders, another 10 percent
of the sample contents were coded by both coders for a second reliability test. The test
result was shown as in Table 3.1.
Variable
Percent
Agreement
Scott's Pi
Cohen's
Kappa
Krippendorff's
Alpha
Post Type
100
Purpose
95.5
0.941
0.941
0.941
Positivity
93.2
0.823
0.824
0.825
Positivity level
93.2
0.828
0.829
0.830
Openness
93.2
0.759
0.761
0.762
Openness level
90.9
0.694
0.696
0.698
Task sharing
97.7
0.876
0.876
0.878
Task sharing level
97.7
0.879
0.879
0.880
Networking
97.7
0.788
0.788
0.790
Networking level
95.5
0.582
0.585
0.587
Assurance
100
Assurance level
97.7
0.940
0.94
0.941
Access
97.7
0.845
0.845
0.847
Question
97.7
0.919
0.919
0.92
@reply/mention
95.5
0.920
0.920
0.921
Link
97.7
0.959
0.959
0.960
Phone
97.7
0.845
0.845
0.847
Email
97.7
0.845
0.845
0.847
Table 3.1. Intercoder reliability data across three reliability statistics
Chapter 4
Findings
The coded data were entered and processed using the IBM SPSS Statistics version
19 statistical program. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to answer the
research questions and test the hypotheses.
RQ1: How are the two groups of retail companies using Twitter as a
communication tool?
Research question one explored what kind of features can be identified of Twitter
being used as a communication tool by the sampled retail companies. For this study, a
total of 22 companies and 440 tweets were recorded. The number of Twitter accounts the
company was following ranged from 32 to 34,831, with the mean of 7,571.7 (M = 4,804,
SD = 8546.19). The followers number ranged from 256 to 2,756,494, with a mean of
65,416.9 (M = 26,143, SD = 81671.093). The total number of tweets ranged from 154 to
82,312, with the mean of 8,581.8 (M = 4,153.5, SD = 16841.695).
The result showed that the number of Twitter accounts that the Fortune 500 retail
companies followed was significantly higher (p .001) than that of the brand loyalty
group, with the mean following number of 9,060 for the Fortune 500 group and 6,083 for
the brand loyalty leader group (df = 438, f = 37.419, p = .000). Though the difference, the
followers number for the brand loyalty retailers were reversely higher than the fortune
500 giants. The mean value of followers number was 73,319 for the brand loyalty leader
group and 57,515 for the other group.
30
31
Another variable that was statistically significant was the total number of tweets.
The brand loyalty leader group of companies had a mean number of 11,661 tweets, twice
as many as the second group (M = 5,503).
Of the sampled retail companies, the overall major type of post is original tweets
(49.8%), followed by @reply (36.1%) and RT retweet (11.6%) (see Figure 4.1 below).
However, when comparing the type of post between the two groups, a significant
difference (p .001) was observed (X2 = 24.125, df = 3, p = .000). For the group of brand
loyalty retail companies, the primary type of post is @reply, which took 47.3% of all the
post type in the group. Original posts closely followed as the second major post type
(40%). In addition, 10.5% of the tweets were retweets, and 2.3% were retweets plus
comments. For the Fortune 500 group of retail companies, the dominant post type was
original post, which justified 59.5% of all tweets in the group. Only 25% of the tweets in
the second group were @reply (see Table 4.1). The portions for retweets and retweets
plus comments were close to the first group, which were separately 12.7% and 2.7%.
Figure 4.1 Retail company post type total
32
Brand loyalty retailers
Fortune 500 retailers
Total
Original
88 (40.0%)
131 (59.5%)
219 (49.8)
@reply
104 (47.3%)
55 (25.0%)
159 (36.1%)
RT retweet
23 (10.5%)
28 (12.7%)
51 (11.6%)
RT and comments
5 (2.3%)
6 (2.7%)
11 (2.5%)
Total
220 (100%)
220 (100%)
440 (100%)
Note. N = 440, X (df = 3) = 24.125, p = .000

Table 4.1 Type of post
RQ2: What is the dominant purpose of Twitter use by major U.S. retail industry
companies?
Research question two was concerned about the primary purpose of tweets
contents, and whether any difference existed between the two groups of retailers. For the
purpose of utilizing Twitter, as shown in Table 4.2, the major function was to provide
customer service and feedback (35.5%), while nearly a quarter (23.2%) of the sampled
tweets were to provide general information not directly related to the company, such as
retweets or tips. Tweets generated to announce information related to corporate news and
organizational activities accounted for only 17%, slightly higher than advertising and
promotional messages (16.6%). Tweets for greeting/ thanks/ chat took a small portion of
5.5%. Another 2.3% of tweets were for other purposes that were not identified in the
choices. In addition, no major usage of Twitter for employee relations or job recruiting
was observed.
A significant difference (p .001) was observed between the two groups when
comparing the purpose of tweets contents (X2 = 29.003, df = 5, p = .000). For the group
of brand loyalty retail companies, nearly half (44.5%) of the tweets were devoted for
33
customer service. For the same group of retailers, 20.9% of tweets were to provide
general information and tips, followed by 17.3% of tweets announcing corporate news.
Advertising and sales promotion information accounts for only 10.5% of the total sample
in this group. Different from the brand loyalty leader group of retailers, there is no single
dominant purpose of tweeting for the Fortune 500 group. Tweets for customer service,
general information/ tip and advertising/ sales promotion took close portions of the total
sample in the group, respectively 26.4%, 25.5% and 22.7%. Tweets for the purpose of
announcing corporate news and organizational activities were about the same for two
groups (38 for group one and 37 for group two). In addition, 7.7% of tweets in the
Fortune 500 group were for greeting/ thanks/ chat, compared with 3.2% of tweets for the
same purpose in the brand loyalty leader group. Overall, the group of brand loyalty retail
companies had more tweets for customer service, while the Fortune 500 group had a
higher portion of contents devoted for marketing purposes (see Table 4.3 below).
Purposes
Frequency
Percent
Corporate news/information announcement/update
75
17.0
Advertising/sales promotion
73
16.6
Greeting/thanks/chat
24
5.5
General information/tip
102
23.2
Customer service/feedback/support
156
35.5
Other
10
2.3
Total
440
100.0
Note. N = 440
Table 4.2 Primary purpose of tweet contents
34
Purpose
Corporate news/information
announcement/update
38 (17.3%)
37 (16.8%)
23 (10.5%)
50 (22.7%)
7 (3.2%)
17 (7.7%)
46 (20.9%)
56 (25.5%)
Customer service/feedback/support
98 (44.5%)
58 (26.4%)
Other
8 (3.6%)
2 (.9%)
Total
220 (100%)
220 (100%)
Note. N = 440, X (df = 5) = 29.003, p = .000

Table 4.3 Primary purpose of tweet contents by type of retailer
RQ3: How are relationship maintenance strategies implemented on Twitter by
top U.S. retail companies?
A frequency summary was run to examine the six relationship maintenance
strategies and five access indicators. As demonstrated in Figure 4.2, the results revealed
that access was the most frequently used strategy between the two groups of retail
companies. Nine out of ten tweets had at least one indicator of access. Among the access
indicators, the most frequently applied ones were @reply/mention and link. In addition,
more than one third of the tweets exhibited assurance by being attentive to customer
concerns and addressing willingness to help. Of those who presented assurance, 50%
were in the low level of implementation, and those in the medium and low level of
implementation were respectively 31.9% and 18.1%. Moreover, positivity was also a
major employed relationship maintenance strategy on Twitter, shown in 28.2% of the
total sampled tweets. Of the tweets that exhibited positivity, 71% were in the low level,
21.8% in the medium level and 7.3% high level. Finally, openness/ disclosure was
35
observed in 18.4% of the sample, while task sharing and networking took separately
10.7% and 9.1%.
Access
91.6
Assurance
36.4
Networking
9.1
Task sharing
10.7
Openness/
disclosure
18.4
Positivity
28.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage
Figure 4.2 Relationship strategies
Positivity level of implementation
Frequency
Percent
Low
88
20.0
Medium
27
6.1
High
2.0
Total
124
28.2
Table 4. 4 Positivity level of implementation

Besides access, assurance and positivity, the other relationship maintenance
strategies were also observable in the study. Among them, openness was shown in about
18.4% of the sample, tasking sharing 10.7% and networking 9.1%. The implementation
of this three strategies were also mainly in the low and medium levels.
36
H1:

adoption rate of relationship maintenance strategies (positivity,
openness/disclosure, task sharing, networking, assurance, and access)
than general retail industry companies.
The first hypothesis tested the relationship maintenance strategies between two
groups of retail companies. The presumption is that, for the group of retailers with higher
level of brand loyalty (i.e. the brand loyalty leader group), the six strategies of positivity,
openness/disclosure, task sharing, networking, assurance, and access would each present
a higher adoption percentage than the other group. To test this hypothesis, Chi-square
tests were run for each variable between two groups, and the study result revealed two
variables out of six being significant: positivity and assurance. Hypothesis one was
partially supported.
Positivity. In analyzing the existence of positivity in retail companies twitter
posts, a significant difference (p .001) was found between the brand loyalty leader
group and the Fortune 500 group (X2 = 14.553, df = 1, p = .000). As shown in table 4.5,
within the brand loyalty leader group of retailers, 80 out of 220 sampled tweets showed
positivity, or 36.4% within the group. However, for the Fortune 500 group, only 44 out of
220 sampled tweets were positive, which were 20% within the group. Of all the tweets
that showed positivity, 64.5% came from the brand loyalty leader group, while only
35.5% came from the Fortune 500 group.
Openness/disclosure. The data detected no significant difference for
openness/disclosure between the two groups of retail companies. As shown in table
4.6, the number of tweets that presented openness/disclosure within each group were
37
around the same 42 for brand loyalty retailers and 39 for Fortune 500 retailers. Both
groups had nearly one-fifth of the overall posts showing openness.
Brand loyalty Fortune 500
retailers
retailers
Positivity No Count
140
176
% within Positivity
44.3%
55.7%
% within Group number
63.6%
80.0%
% of Total
31.8%
40.0%
Yes Count
80
44
% within Positivity
64.5%
35.5%
36.4%
20.0%
% of Total
18.2%
10.0%
Total
Count
220
220
% within Positivity
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% of Total
50.0%
50.0%
Note. X2 (df = 1) = 14.553, p = .000
Total
316
100.0%
71.8%
71.8%
124
100.0%
28.2%
28.2%
440
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table 4.5 Positivity by type of retailer

retailers
retailers
Total
Openness/ No Count
178
181
359
disclosure
% within Openness/disclosure
49.6%
50.4% 100.0%
80.9%
82.3%
81.6%
% of Total
40.5%
41.1%
81.6%
Yes Count
42
39
81
51.9%
48.1% 100.0%
19.1%
17.7%
18.4%
% of Total
9.5%
8.9%
18.4%
Total
Count
220
220
440
50.0%
50.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% of Total
50.0%
50.0% 100.0%
2
Note. X (df = 1) = 0.136, p = .712
Table 4.6 Openness/disclosure by type of retailer
38
Task sharing. For task sharing, no significant relationships were discovered
between two groups either. Neither group utilized this strategy to a large extent. As
shown in Table 4.7, 9.1% of total tweets within the brand loyalty leader group
represented task sharing, while 12.3% tweets within the Fortune 500 group did so. The
Fortune 500 group actually had higher number of tweets revealing the characteristic of
task sharing.
Networking. Similar to task sharing, networking was not extensively used by
either group. As described in Table 4.8, the data revealed no significant difference for the
variable networking between two groups. The brand loyalty leader group and Fortune
500 group retailers had, separately, 21 and 19 tweets out of 220 devoted for networking.
The adoption rates of networking for both groups were close, 9.5% for brand loyalty
retailers and 8.6% for Fortune 500 retailers.
retailers
retailers
Task sharing No Count
200
193
% within Task sharing
50.9%
49.1%
90.9%
87.7%
% of Total
45.5%
43.9%
Yes Count
20
27
42.6%
57.4%
9.1%
12.3%
% of Total
4.5%
6.1%
Total
Count
220
220
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% of Total
50.0%
50.0%
2
Note. X (df = 1) = 1.167, p = .280
Table 4.7 Task sharing by type of retailer
Total
393
100.0%
89.3%
89.3%
47
100.0%
10.7%
10.7%
440
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
39
Networking No
Count
% within Networking
% of Total
Yes Count
% within Networking
% of Total
Total
Count
% within Networking
% of Total
2
Note. X (df = 1) = 0.110, p = .740

retailers
retailers
199
201
49.8%
50.2%
90.5%
91.4%
45.2%
45.7%
21
19
52.5%
47.5%
9.5%
8.6%
4.8%
4.3%
220
220
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
Total
400
100.0%
90.9%
90.9%
40
100.0%
9.1%
9.1%
440
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table 4.8 Networking by type of retailer

Assurance. A significant difference was revealed between assurance and the
group numbers (X2 = 20.782, df = 1, p = .000). As represented in Table 4.9, 103 out of
220 tweets from Brand loyalty retailer group showed assurance, while the case is true for
only 57 tweets in the Fortune 500 group. The adoption rate of assurance in the first group
was 46.8%, significantly higher than the second group (25.9%).
Access. For the variable of access, no significant difference was found between
two groups of retail companies. As a matter of fact, both groups dominantly exhibited
this strategy. As showed in Table 4.10, the brand loyalty leader group had 90.9% of its
tweets showing access, and the Fortune 500 group had 92.3%. The numbers of tweets
with access were very close for the two groups.
40
Assurance
No
Count
% within Assurance
% of Total
Yes Count
% within Assurance
% of Total
Total
Count
% within Assurance
% of Total
Note. X2 (df = 1) = 20.782, p = .000

retailers
retailers
117
163
41.8%
58.2%
53.2%
74.1%
26.6%
37.0%
103
57
64.4%
35.6%
46.8%
25.9%
23.4%
13.0%
220
220
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
Total
280
100.0%
63.6%
63.6%
160
100.0%
36.4%
36.4%
440
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table 4.9 Assurance by type of retailer
Access No Count
% within Access
% of Total
Yes Count
% within Access
% of Total
Total
Count
% within Access
% of Total
Note. X2 (df = 1) = 0.266, p = .606
Table 4.10 Access by type of retailer

retailers
retailers
20
17
54.1%
45.9%
9.1%
7.7%
4.5%
3.9%
200
203
49.6%
50.4%
90.9%
92.3%
45.5%
46.1%
220
220
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
Total
37
100.0%
8.4%
8.4%
403
100.0%
91.6%
91.6%
440
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
41
H2:

implementation level of relationship maintenance strategies (positivity,
openness/disclosure, task sharing, networking, assurance, access) than the
The second hypothesis tests about the different levels of relationship maintenance
strategies between two groups of retail companies. The presumption is that, for the group
of retailers with higher level of brand loyalty (i.e. the brand loyalty leader group), their
tweets should implement the strategies of positivity, openness/disclosure, task sharing,
networking and assurance to higher levels than the other group. To test this hypothesis,
two separate sets of Chi-square analyses were run to compare the two groups.
First, all the tweets were analyzed in four possible levels: non-exist, low, medium
and high for each of the strategies. The result revealed two variables out of five being
significant: positivity level and assurance level (Table 4.11 to Table 4.15).
Another set of analyses examined only the tweets that enacted the relationship
maintenance strategies. Three possible levels were analyzed: low, medium and high. The
result indicated only assurance level being significant between two groups. For the levels
of positivity, openness/disclosure, task sharing, and networking, no significant difference
was observed between two groups (See Table 4.16).
42
Levels
Total
Non-exist
140 (63.6%)
176 (80%)
316 (71.8%)
Low
53 (24.1%)
35 (15.9%)
88 (20.0%)
Medium
21 (9.5%)
6 (2.7%)
27 (6.1%)
High
6 (2.7%)
3 (1.4%)
9 (2.0%)
Total
220 (100%)
220 (100%)
440 (100%)
Note. N = 440, X2 (df=3) = 17.116, p = .001. The distribution is significant.

Table 4.11 Positivity level of implementation
Levels
Total
Non-exist
178 (80.9%)
181 (82.3%)
359 (81.6%)
Low
27 (12.3%)
28 (12.7%)
55 (12.5%)
Medium
13 (5.9%)
9 (4.1%)
22 (5.0%)
High
2 (.9%)
2 (.9%)
4 (.9%)
220 (100%)
220 (100%)
440 (100%)
Total
2
Note. N = 440, X (df=3) = .771, p = .857.

Table 4.12 Openness/disclosure level of implementation
Levels
Total
Non-exist
200 (90.9%)
193 (87.7%)
393 (89.3%)
Low
8 (3.6%)
13 (5.9%)
21 (4.8%)
Medium
11 (5.0%)
11 (5.0%)
22 (5.0%)
High
1 (.5%)
3 (1.4%)
4 (.9%)
220 (100%)
220 (100%)
440 (100%)
Total
2
Note. N = 440, X (df=3) = 2.315, p = .510.

Table 4.13 Task sharing level of implementation
43
Levels
Total
Non-exist
199 (90.5%)
201 (91.4%)
400 (90.9%)
Low
13 (5.9%)
13 (5.9%)
26 (5.9%)
Medium
7 (3.2%)
6 (2.7%)
13 (3.0%)
High
1 (.5%)
0 (.0%)
1 (.2%)
Total
220 (100%)
220 (100%)
440 (100%)
Note. N = 440, X2 (df=3) = 1.087, p = .780.

Table 4.14 Networking level of implementation
Levels
Total
Non-exist
117 (53.2%)
163 (74.1%)
280 (63.6%)
Low
56 (25.5%)
24 (10.9%)
80 (18.2%)
Medium
24 (10.9%)
27 (12.3%)
51 (11.6%)
High
23 (10.5%)
6 (2.7%)
29 (6.6%)
220 (100%)
220 (100%)
440 (100%)
Total
2
Note. N = 440, X (df=3) = 30.499, p .001. The distribution is significant.

Table 4.15 Assurance level of implementation
44
Strategies
Positivity
Openness/
disclosure
Task sharing
Networking
Assurance
Brand loyalty
retailers
Fortune 500
retailers
Low
53 (66.3%)
35(79.5%)
Medium
21 (26.3%)
6 (13.6%)
High
6 (7.5%)
3 (6.8%)
Total
80 (100%)
44 (100%)
Low
27 (64.3%)
28 (71.8%)
Medium
13 (31.0%)
9 (23.1%)
High
2 (4.8%)
2 (5.1%)
Total
42 (100%)
39(100%)
Low
8 (40.0%)
13 (48.1%)
Medium
11 (55.0%)
11 (40.7%)
High
1 (5.0%)
3 (11.1%)
Total
20 (100%)
27 (100%)
Low
13 (61.9%)
13 (68.4%)
Medium
7 (33.3%)
6 (31.6%)
High
1 (4.8%)
0 (.0%)
Total
21 (100%)
19(100%)
Low
56 (54.4%)
24 (42.1%)
Medium
24 (23.3%)
27 (47.4%)
High
23 (22.3%)
6 (10.5%)
Total
103 (100%)
57 (100%)
Level
Note. For assurance, X (df=2) = 10.593, p = .05. The distribution is significant.

Table 4.16 Levels by group
Chapter 5
Discussion
The purpose of this paper was to examine the retail corporations use of Twitter in
a quantitative way and to what extent the relationship maintenance strategies are
incorporated in Twitter. This study sought to answer the following questions (1) How are
the two groups of retail companies using Twitter as a communication tool? (2) What is
the dominant purpose of Twitter use by major U.S. retail industry companies? (3) How
are relationship maintenance strategies implemented on Twitter by top U.S. retail
companies? In addition, the study also aimed to test the hypothesis that utilizing a
relationship strategy on Twitter had a positive relationship with brand loyalty.
To answer the first research question, the study found that, on average, the
Fortune 500 retailers were following more people than the brand loyalty leaders group;
however, the followers number for the brand loyalty retailers were to the contrary higher
than the fortune 500 group. The fact that the lower average following group generated a
higher number of followers can be well explained by the difference in consumer loyalty.
The study also found that the brand loyalty leader retailers had a mean of twice as many
tweets as the Fortune 500 group. This is strong evidence that the brand loyalty retail
companies utilize Twitter as a communication tool to a higher frequency than the second
group.
The study found that overall the major type of post is original tweets, followed by
@reply and RT retweet. The primary post type for brand loyalty leader group of retailers
was @reply, while for the Fortune 500 group, the original tweets were dominant. @reply
tweets accounted for only a quarter portion of the total posts for Fortune 500 retailers,
45
46
compared with nearly half portion of the brand loyalty leader group. Corporate Twitter
account, as a form of owned media, can be used independently to publish information.
However, simply tweeting is only a one-way communication. The @reply function
enhanced the two-way interaction between the company and the audience. The difference
of post types exhibited by two groups of retailers indicated that the brand loyalty leader
group companies were more inclined to use Twitter in a two-way communication
manner, while the Fortune 500 group are more one-way oriented.
In answering the second research question concerning the primary purpose of
twittering, the findings revealed that overall for both groups the major purpose was to
provide customer service and feedback. Providing general information that was not
directly related to the company, such as retweets or tips, was the second most frequently
observed function. Corporate news and information announcement ranked as the thirdmost important purpose, followed by marketing messages. In addition, no major usage of
Twitter for employee relations or job recruiting was observed. This result indicates that
for the retail industry, Twitter is mainly used for consumer relations.
Furthermore, a significant difference was obtained when comparing the purpose
of tweets contents between the two groups. The brand loyalty leader retailers had more
tweets for customer service, while the Fortune 500 group had a higher portion of contents
devoted for marketing purposes. This difference indicates that the retailers in the brand
loyalty leader group use twitter more for consumer relations, while the Fortune 500
retailers use Twitter more as a marketing tool.
For the third research question that evaluated how top U.S. retail companies
utilize relationship maintenance strategies on Twitter, the study found that, among the six
47
strategies, access was the most frequently used, with a predominant adoption rate of
91.6%. This implies Twitter as an important communication channel widely utilized by
retail industry companies. Among the access indicators, the most frequently applied ones
were @reply/mention and link.
Assurance was the second most widely used strategy (36.4%), followed by
positivity (28.2%) and openness (18.4%). The wide use of assurance strategy emphasizes
the two-way communication of social media and its application as an important platform
that connects between the company and the public. The strategies of networking and task
sharing were found not extensively used by top U.S. retail companies on Twitter in this
study, which is in line with existing findings (i.e., Ki & Hon, 2006).
In previous studies examining the relationship strategies on Fortune 500
companies websites and Facebook pages, openness was distinctively found as the most
commonly used relationship strategy, though mostly in a one-way communication level
(Ki & Hon, 2006; ONeil, 2012). However, this study presented a different emphasis on
relationship strategies by retail companies on Twitter access. Openness, in contrast,
ranked only as the fourth most frequently used strategy. Several factors might cause the
difference. First of all, retail industry might present a different approach in regards of
building relationships online. Most of the sampled retailers do not carry products of their
own, which might result in less openness about products quality and safety measures.
More likely, organizations may utilize different relationship strategies on different media
platforms. For example, on corporate websites, it is more suitable to be open and publish
information as regards to the organizational finances, management changes and other
organizational activities. It could be difficult to do so on Twitter with a limitation of 140
48
characters. For the same reason, there may be more links and other contact information
posted in each tweet to direct audience to more detailed source of information, or to
provide further assistance.
In addition, this study revealed assurance as another important relationship
strategy utilized in Twitter. However, in previous studies, assurance was distinctively
identified as the least used strategies (Seo & Lee, 2009; Waters et al., 2011). Assurance,
which shows the organizations efforts to assure its publics that they and their concerns
are attended to and to demonstrate that the organization is committed to maintaining the
relationship, is an important indicator of two-way communication. Although the previous
studies analyzed the strategies from different contexts and among different industries, we
can draw the conclusion that for major U.S. retail companies, Twitter is used as an
important channel for relationship maintenance and two-way communication.
In regard to the hypotheses that the brand loyalty leader group would exhibit
higher adoption rate and implementation levels of relationship strategies, two key
strategies were found significant: positivity and assurance. Among the tweets that enacted
relationship strategies, only assurance levels exhibited a significant difference between two
groups.
Positivity in this study refers to tweets that are pleasant and friendly in nature.
The findings revealed that the retailers that ranked high on the brand loyalty list had
almost twice as many tweets exhibiting positivity as the Fortune 500 group attitudes
do make a difference. Many tweets that showed positivity were also written in a dialogic
manner. A good example is Zappos.com (@Zappos_Service). Their posts were mostly
cheerful and enthusiastic. As an online retailer, the company built up a reputation for its
customer service. The company has a devoted Twitter team taking shifts and replying to
49
consumer tweets. However, managing social media is not easy. It takes time and efforts
to be fully engaged.
Assurance refers to any efforts by an organization to assure its publics that they
and their concerns are attended to and to demonstrate that the organization is committed
to maintaining the relationship. Companies enact assurance with Twitter mostly by
replying to customers questions and providing help. It was found in this study that nearly
half (N = 103) of the tweets sampled from the brand loyalty leader group of retailers
showed assurance, while the same was true with only a quarter (N = 57) tweets in the
Fortune 500 group. This indicated that the companies in first group were more responsive
and attentive to customer concerns online. Consumer service used to rely heavily on
traditional channels such as telephone, email, or letters. However, with the growing
popularity of social media, more and more people go to Twitter or Facebook for
questions and complaints. For organizations, the voice on the new media should never be
neglected. It takes more than having a presence on social media being interactive is
what brings life to the consumer relations.
No significant differences were found between the two groups of retailers for
openness/ disclosure, task sharing, networking and access. There may be several reasons
for this finding. First, task sharing and networking were both rarely used by two groups.
Only about 10% (20 in number) of the total tweets showed these two characteristics in
each group. This fact made it less likely to have a big difference between two groups.
Although being important contributors of relationship cultivation, both task sharing and
networking relate to out of the ordinary corporate activities. For companies that use
Twitter mainly for customer services, these two strategies would be less demonstrated.
50
As for access, both groups applied this strategy intensively with more than 90% of their
tweets. This made it hard to showcase any major differences. Moreover, openness was
found in around the same number of tweets in two groups 42 for brand loyalty leader
group and 39 for Fortune 500 group. This result is in line with the purpose of tweets
found between two groups: tweets of corporate information announcement and news
updates were accordingly, 38 and 37.
Implications
As the first effort to study relationship maintenance strategies using Twitter, this
study contributes to the current literature of relationship management theory on social
media by adapting the six relationship strategies to the Twitter context and testing them.
Meanwhile, this study has two primary implications for the practice.
First, the findings provide evidence that Twitter has become an important
communication channel through which the retail companies connect with their customers.
Studying Twitter usage from a relationship perspective contributes to building a clearer
picture as to the question of ownership of social media.
Second, the findings should help the public relations professionals as well as
marketers to better understand managing social media in future practices in two ways.
First, listen to the public, be responsive and attentive to publics concerns is the right way
to engage in social media. Second, show a humane side by adding a personal touch in the
conversations, be positive and cheerful can win consumers hearts.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
There are several limitations for this research. First, the definitions for certain
variables need to be further tested and developed. Although the concepts of relationship
51
strategies were adapted from previous research, this study found it difficult to generalize
them to Twitter. The different implementation levels for positivity, openness and
assurance have been redefined and adapted to Twitter. Since this is the first study testing
this new categorization on Twitter, possibility exists that a refined definition of different
levels could lead to a more significant result. The novelty of social media poses a great
challenge to the traditional-media-based public relations theories and measures to adjust
to. New adaptions and verification are rather urgent to catch up the new media world.
They need to be further reviewed and tested by additional researchers to decide the
propriety for Twitter.
Second, there were problems with inter-coder reliability on two variables, which
could have reduced the effectiveness and efficiency of the study. After the second pretest, there were low coefficient values for networking level (0.584) and openness level
(0.694). This revealed a weakness in the definitions of the two variables. These two
variables did not turn out significant, which could be caused by the disagreements
between coders. Efforts are needed in future research to further clarify these definitions
and retest them.
In addition, the sample size in this study could have been larger. This study
analyzed a total of 22 retail companies and 20 tweets from each. This is partly limited to
the number of retail companies from the top 100 brand loyalty leaders, which only
identified 11 retailers. The number of tweets (20 per account) analyzed for each company
seems to be enough, however, future research can sample more companies from the
Fortune 500, which will increase the variation of the sample thus be more representative
of the whole population.
52
The study findings suggest fertile ground for additional research. Efforts remain
needed to apply and enrich the relationship maintenance theory to social media. In
addition, future research should look into the difference in utilizing relationship strategies
between the two groups of retail companies within other social media platforms, such as
Facebook, YouTube, and corporate blogs. Research that examines the different usage
pattern of social media platforms among corporations should also contribute to the
finding of this study. For example, what kinds of companies are more attentive to
Twitter, and what industries are more Facebook fans, or bloggers.
References
Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L. (2004). Understanding retail branding: Conceptual
insights and research priorities. Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 331-342.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.10.008
Assael, H. (1992). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Boston, MA: PWS-KENT
Publishing Company.
Blackston, Max (1992), A brand with an attitude: A suitable case for the treatment.
Journal of the Market Research Society, 34 (3), 231-241.
Brown, G. H. (1952). Brand loyalty fact or fiction? Advertising Age, 23(25), 5355.
Burson-Marsteller. (2011). 2011 global social media check-up. Retrieved from
http://www.bursonmarsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Lists/Post
s/Post.aspx?ID=254.
Bortree, D. (2007). Relationship management in an online environment: Nonprofit
websites' use of relational maintenance strategies with child and adolescent
publics. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1.
Brand Keys. (2011a). Brand Keys customer loyalty leaders 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.brandkeys.com/awards/leaders.cfm
Brand Keys. (2011b). Customer loyalty engagement index. Retrieved from
http://brandkeys.com/syndicated-studies/customer-loyalty-engagement-index/
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and
routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and
relational maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 65(2), 81-93. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255
Collins, C. (Creators). Maximize Social Media (Poster). (2011, June 7). Why social
marketing is better than traditional marketing [Video]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD0gChoYIMY
Cook, W. A. (2007). First Opinion: An ARF research review of Brand Keys Brand
Engagement Measurement methodology. Retrieved from
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thearf-org-auxassets/downloads/research/ARF_Review_Brand_Keys_for_release.pdf
De Chernatony, L. & M. McDonald (1998), Creating powerful brands in consumer,
service and industrial markets (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
53
54
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J., & Yague-Guillen, M. (2003). Development
and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Market Research,
45(1), 35-53.
Dimmick, S. L., Bell, T. E., Burgiss, S. G., & Ragsdale, C. (2000). Relationship
management: A new professional model. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning
(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the
study and practice of public relations (pp. 117136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Drury, G. (2008). Opinion piece: Social media: Should marketers engage and how can it
be done effectively? Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice,
9(3), 274-277. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350096
Economic Census (2009). Summary statistics by sales size of establishments for the
United States: 2007. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Edman, H. (2010). Twittering to the top: A content analysis of corporate tweets to
measure organization-public relationships (Louisiana State University), 20072010 (Masters thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 1439820).
Edman, H. & Dahmen, N. (2011) Twittering to the top: A proposed model for using and
measuring Twitter as a communication tool. Conference papersThe Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
Engel, J. F. & Blackwell, R. D. (1982). Consumer behavior (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: The
Dryden Press.
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (2000) Organization of corporate web pages: Publics and
functions, Public Relations Review, 26(3), pp. 327-344, Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811100000515.
Freelon, D.G. (2010a). ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service.
International Journal of Internet Science, 5(1), 20-33.
Freelon, D. (2010b). ReCal: Reliability calculation for the masses. Retrieved from
http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.
doi:10.1086/209515
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1996, May). Implications of symmetry for a theory of
ethics and social responsibility in public relations. Paper presented at the
International Communication Association, Chicago.
55
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and
relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public
relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and
practice of public relations (pp. 23-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and
effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization?
In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper & J.
White (Eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management
(pp. 65-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Henderson, A. & Bowley, R. (2010). Authentic dialogue? The role of friendship in a
social media recruitment campaign. Journal of Communication Management,
14(3), 237-257. doi:10.1108/13632541011064517
Hendrix, J. A. (2 000). Public relations cases (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hon, C. L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public
relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute For Public Relations, University of
Florida, P.O. Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public
relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of
Communication, 59(1), 172-188. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x
Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice:
Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(2), 395-414. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00019.x
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, & managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 122.
Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. L.
Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 279289). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World
Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334. doi:10.1016/S03638111(99)80143-X
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public
Relations Review, 28(1), 21-37. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X
56
Ki, E. (2004, May). Relationship maintenance strategies by industry type. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Ki, E., & Hon, L. (2006). Relationship maintenance strategies on fortune 500 company
web sites. Journal of Communication Management, 10(1), 27.
Ki, E., & Hon, L. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 21(1), 1-24. doi:10.1080/10627260802520488
Kim, D., Nam, Y., & Kang, S. (2010). An analysis of corporate environmental
responsibility on the global corporate Web sites and their dialogic principles.
Public Relations Review, 36(3), 285-288. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.006
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, and control (8th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kuehn, A. (1962). Consumer brand choice as a learning process. Journal of Advertising
Research, 2(4), 1017.
Lamba, A. J. (2003). The art of retailing. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of
public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181-198.
Ledingham, J. A., & Brunning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public
relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations
Review, 24(1), 55.
Lipstein, B. (1959). The dynamics of brand loyalty and brand switching. In Proceedings
of the Fifth Annual Conference of the Advertising Research Foundation (pp. 101
108). New York: Advertising Research Foundation.
Marketwire. (2011, Sept. 13). Successful retailers use sales and email promotions, free
shipping to attract shoppers online. Retrieved from
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Successful-Retailers-Use-Sales-EmailPromotions-Free-Shipping-Attract-Shoppers-1560467.htm
Marston, J. E. (1979). Modern public relations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mathur, U.C. (2010). Retail management: Text and cases (pp. 198-199). New Delhi: I.K.
International Publishing House.
Mazursky, D., & Jacoby, J. (1986). Exploring the development of store images. Journal
of Retailing, 62(2), 145-165.
McConnell, B., & Huba, J. (2006). Citizen marketers: When people are the message.
Chicago, IL: Kaplan Pub.
57
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H.S. (in press). How companies cultivate relationships with
publics on social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States,
Public Relations Review, doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.10.006
Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Newell, G. (2011, April 7). Social media marketing: Building from the relationship up,
not the sale down. Retrieved from http://www.rbr.com/features/salesmarketing/social-media-marketing-building-from-the-relationship-up-not-thesale-down.html
ONeil, J. (2012, March). An examination of how Fortune 500 companies and
philanthropy 200 nonprofits cultivate relationships using Facebook. Paper
presented at 15th International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.
Ownership of social media: Making the case for public relations. (2010, January 18). PR
News, 66(3). Retrieved from ProQuest database (204231050).
Tanuri, R. (2009). A Literature review: Role of social media in contemporary marketing.
Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/19866535/Role-of-Social-Media-inContemporary-Marketing
Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less:
How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations
Review, 36(4), 336-341. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004
Scott, D. M. (2007). The new rules of marketing and PR: How to use news releases,
blogs, podcasts, viral marketing and online media to reach your buyers directly.
Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007). The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship
building. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 227-229.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.011
Seltzer, T., & Zhang, W. (2011). Toward a model of political organization-public
relationships: Antecedent and cultivation strategy influence on citizens'
relationships with political parties. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(1),
24-45. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2010.504791
Seo, J., & Lee, J. (2009, November). Corporate blogs as a public relations tool:
Relational maintenance framework and corporate blogging strategies of large
Korean companies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Communication Association 95th annual convention, Chicago, IL.
Stacks, D. W. (2011). Primer of public relations research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford
Press.
58
Stacks, D. W. (in press). You are what you brand: Managing your image and
reputation. In J. S. Wrench (Ed.) Workplace communication for the 21st Century:
Tools and strategies that impact the bottom line. New York: Praeger.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship
type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8(2), 217-242. doi:10.1177/0265407591082004
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.
Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639-661.
Sweetser, K. D. (2010). A Losing Strategy: The impact of nondisclosure in social media
on relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 288-312.
doi:10.1080/10627261003614401
Sweetser, K. D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a
relationship management tool. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 340-342.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.016
Thoring, A. (2011). Corporate tweeting: Analysing the use of twitter as a marketing tool
by UK trade publishers. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 141-158.
doi:10.1007/s12109-011-9214-7
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, March 13). Monthly & annual retail trade report. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/retail/index.html
Vorvoreanu, M. (2009). Perceptions of corporations on Facebook: An analysis of
Facebook social norms. Journal of New Communications Research, 4(1), 67-86.
Waters, R. D., Friedman, C. S., Mills, B., & Zeng, L. (2011). Applying relationship
management theory to religious organizations: An assessment of relationship
cultivation online. Journal of Communication & Religion, 34(1), 88-104.
Waters, R. D., Tindall, N. J., & Morton, T. S. (2010). Media catching and the journalistpublic relations practitioner relationship: How social media are changing the
practice of media relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 241-264.
doi:10.1080/10627261003799202
Waters, R. D. (2009). Measuring stewardship in public relations: A test exploring impact
on the fundraising relationship. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 113-119.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.012
Waters, R. D. (2011). Redefining stewardship: Examining how Fortune 100 organizations
use stewardship with virtual stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 129136. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.02.002
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2010). Mass media research: An introduction (9th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
59
Worley, D. A., & Little, J. K. (2002). The critical role of stewardship in fund raising: the
Coaches vs. Cancer campaign. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 99.
Appendix A. Sampled Retail Companies

Retail industry brand loyalty leaders (2011)
No.
Brand
Twitter ID
Category
Amazon
@amazon
Online retail
Zappos
@Zappos_Service Online retail
Wal-Mart
@Walmart
Supermarket
J. Crew
@JCrew_Insider
Retail apparel
Target
@Target
Discount retail
Kohl's
@Kohls_official
Retail department store
Walgreens
@Walgreens
Drug store
TJ Maxx
@T.J.Maxx
Ace
@AceHardware
Retail home improvement
10
True Value
@TrueValue
11
Overstock.com
@Overstock
Online retail
Retail industry Fortune 500 list (2011)

No.
Brand
Twitter ID
Category
CVS Caremark
@CVS_Extra
Drug store
Kroger
@KrogerCo
Supermarket
Home Depot
@HomeDepot
Best Buy
@BestBuy
Retail electronics
Sears
@Sears
Safeway
@Safeway
Supermarket
Supervalu
@supervaluPR
Supermarket
Staples
@Staples
Retail office supply
Auto Nation
@AutoNation
Retail automobile
10
Office Depot
@officedepot
Retail office supply
11
Penske
@PenskeCars
Automotive Group
60
Retail automobile
Appendix B: Coding Book

Part
1. Name of company: Write down the name of the company, for example, Wal-Mart.
2. Twitter ID: Write down the Twitter ID, for example, @Walmart.
3. Group: Check in the box of the group number as identified on the first page of each
file.
4. Following number: The number of people the company follows.
5. Followers number: The number of people currently following the company.
6. Total number of tweets: The current total number of tweets.
7. Tweet number: the number of sampled tweet as identified by the researcher on the left
side of each tweet, ranging from 1 to 20.
8. Date of post: Date of the post as can be found below each tweet, for example, 12 hour
ago, 19 Dec. (The sample accessed date is December 20, 2011.)
9. Type of post:
Original tweet: Post originated by the companys official Twitter account writer.
This can include the @mention tweets, the purpose of which is to mention certain
twitter account.
@reply: Post as a reply to another Twitter account, usually for the purpose of
customer service, as identified by @user at the beginning or end of the Tweet.
RT Retweet: Post not originated by the company, but forwarded from other
Twitter account; if the post is a retweet, it will be identified at the bottom of tweet
message. For example,
RT and comments: Post that includes a retweet message and additional

comments by the company, for example,
Other: Post unclear of category.

10. Primary purpose of tweet contents: choose one major purpose of tweet contents
according to the following definition.
61
62
Corporate news/information announcement/update

Messages to stakeholders announcing information/news related to the
organization, such as new programs, sponsoring events, and news conference.
Advertising/ Sales promotion
Messages to (potential) consumers to advertise product/service, or to announce
sales/deals, or about promotional events specifically related to the products and/or
services.
Greeting/ Thanks
Messages to general public/individuals expressing good wishes, thanks. For
example, Have a good day Thanks for your support.
General information/tip: information not directly related to the organization, this
could include retweets (the eWOM we identified before will fit in this category)
and tips. For example,
Customer service (@reply)/ feedback/ support

Messages devoted to address customer complaints or queries, seeking feedback,
or to provide technological support, usually in the format of @reply.
Job recruiting
Messages targeted at potential employees, recruiting new jobs.
Other
Messages that cant be identified as any of the above category, write down the
specific type of tweet contents, or unclear if cant be specified.
Part Relationship maintenance strategies

1. Positivity
Attempts to make messages pleasant. Indicators include using a positive and cheerful
tone, posting smiling face signs, using positive exclamations and showing of humor.
Most posts expressing gratings, thanks and showing willingness to help fit in this
category.
Messages possessing more than two indicators or showing
a degree of humor.
Examples:
Implementation
High
"Ok tweetie pies! I'm out for the day. As always, it's been
Level
a pleasure. Enjoy your time with the coolest cat ever,
Kevin! = )";
63
Medium
Low
"@MattSchiavenza Hey Matt, glad your experience has

been awesome. We aim to do more than please; we aim to
wow! = )"
Messages possessing two indicators but no showing of
humor.
Example:
"@glamourgirl86 That's wonderful! So happy to hear.
Thanks for the tweet."
Messages possessing only one indicator, and not showing
any humor.
Example:
@joplinquinn @Zappos Thank you for the kind words
2. Openness/ Disclosure
An organizations efforts to make the information process more transparent and to
provide information about any changes pertaining to finances, organizational
restructuring and other organizational activities. Sales and promotional information
disclosure shall not be considered as openness. For example, "Our press conference is
just about to start. Follow @AmazonKindle for live updates or stay right here and well
retweet the highlights."
Provides information related to organizational finances,
restructuring and other organizational activities in a twoway symmetrical communication model. Tweets that
disclose information and advocate feedback, and involve
the feedback as part of the decision-making will fit in this
High
level.
Example:
@Walmart: Go to our Facebook page
http://walmarturl.com/rEdQoz & tell us where 2 give $1.5
million this holiday! Nominate ur fav local nonprofit for a
grant!
Implementation
Level
restructuring and other organizational activities in a twoway asymmetrical communication model. Tweets that
disclose information and also advocate feedback or
participation (either by @ reply or posting questions) will
fit in this category. This kind of tweets is usually focused
Medium on overall organizational goals and ignorant of public
needs. This level also includes the cases in which the
organization encourages public feedback or participation.
Example:
@Walmart: Did you watch our ad, thanking #veterans
for their service? http://on.fb.me/vmNEZR Let us know
what you think ^PK
64
Low

restructuring and other organizational activities, but in a
one-way communication model. Tweets disclosing
information in a persuasive or direct way without seeking
public feedback will fit in this category.
Example:
"@Walmart returned $2.7 billion to shareholders in Q3
through dividends and share repurchases
walmarturl.com/s41Xqw ^GR"
3. Task sharing
Performing corporate social responsibility by addressing social concerns or
organizational efforts that relate to the problems of mutual interest between the
organization and its publics, such as environmental activities, community activities,
education activities and volunteer efforts.
Offers detailed information about the organizations social
responsible activities, such as programs, purposes, grants,
services, or products; and include an evaluation of
programs, reports or teams.
Example:
High
Walmart reused more than 11k tons of fly ash & 2.4k
tons of slag in 2011 by putting it in the cement used in our
stores ^KL #nolandfill;
"Happy America Recycles Day! We recycle millions of
pounds a year through our Super Sandwich Bale program
learn more http://walmarturl.com/vNCogx ^BB";
Offers detailed information about the organizations social
responsible activities, such as programs, purposes, grants,
services, or products, but does not include an evaluation.
Implementation
Example:
Level
"Walmart supports new farmers by making #local
mushrooms available to customers in Puerto Rico.
Medium http://walmarturl.com/u5dy9D ^KL";
Looking to make more sustainable choices? The My
Sustainability Plan website might be the place for you
http://walmarturl.com/vzJinc ^KL
@CraigHerkert talks about our strategy to open new
@Savealot locations on @BloombergTV as a way to
create new jobs.
Offers only statement related to social responsibility
without providing any detailed account of programs,
Low
grants, services, or products; or shows supports for other
organizations social responsibility programs.
65
Example:
STATEMENT: Best Buy Welcomes the Introduction
of Bipartisan Marketplace Fairness Act in U.S. Senate:
http://h.huginonline.com/m=1562596;
"Today we honor our #veteransthank you for your
brave service & sacrifice fighting for freedom around the
world ^BB".
4. Networking
Organizations efforts in building networks or coalitions with the same
groups/individuals that their publics do, such as environmentalists, unions, community
groups, celebrities and opinion leaders.
Identifies partnership with networking groups/individuals,
and offer details of cooperated programs as well.
Examples:
"Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University now talking
High
with our Direct Farm Summit participants via VTC
#WMTdirectfarm."
Help us #SharetheLove! For every "Going" RSVP to our
#ProcrastinatorsUnite event, we'll donate $5 to
@BGCA_Clubs http://on.fb.me/w18KVo
Offers statement of partnership with networking
groups/individuals, but does not offer details of
cooperated programs.
Implementation
Level
Examples:
Medium
Want more info on how to help our #veterans and
#military families? Follow @JoiningForces ^PK #ff
We're proud to partner with @IAMS Home 4 The
Holidays pet adoption program! http://bit.ly/vhcJWd
Offers retweets of networking groups/individuals, but
does not specify any partnership or collaborations, or any
cooperated programs.
Low
Example:
@Walmart Retweet "TODAY: @WhiteHouse First Lady
#MichelleObama joins US Chamber's 4th annual
@HireOurHeroes event - http://tinyurl.com/7cl9x5a"
5. Assurances
Any efforts by an organization to assure its publics that they and their concerns are
attended to and to demonstrate that the organization is committed to maintaining the
relationship. Most @ reply posts are assurances. Posts without @ reply yet still fit in this
category include those that generally address availability and willingness to help, and
those that emphasize on maintaining relationships, for example, John here for your
Twitter needs.
* Retweet doesnt count as assurance.
66
High
Implementation
Level
Medium
Low
Assures helping with the customer's problem by action

(such as answering the question, forwarding inquiry to
other department, contacting related personal), or
demonstrates that the organization is committed to
maintaining the relationships.
Example:
@candypo Our corporate offices are in Henderson, NV
right near Las Vegas. But our Fulfillment Center is in
Kentucky.
"@michaeldub Hi Michael, thanks for contacting us.
We've received your email & passed it along to Customer
Relations. They will be in touch."
@JoeScalo I can place you on the notify list for this item.
Send me your email address via DM and I will add you to
the list!
Addresses the customers concern only by directing
them what to do.
Advocating feedback or seeking further information by
asking questions.
Example:
"@sfiir Please email social@macys.com and someone
will be in touch as soon as possible."
Replies to another Twitter users comment/mention by the
@ reply function, but without addressing any specific
problems; or the posts that generally address availability
and willingness to help, or those emphasizing on
maintaining relationships.
Example:
@AIRFORCE77 Nice! Well I hope she is enjoying it!
John here for your Twitter needs.
6. Access
An organizations efforts to foster communication and to provide communication
channels or media outlets with other Twitter users. The indicators include posting
questions, @reply/mention, providing phone number or email address, and providing
link to more information.
Check all the indicators that apply.
* For evaluation of access in retweet posts (both RT @user copy of original
tweet or direct retweet without any comments), all indicators should be considered in
future cases, including the question, @ reply/mention, link, phone No and email.
NOTE
Tweets for the purpose of advertising might still possess some relationship maintenance
strategies.
Tweets with a @ symbol might not necessarily be a @reply type, it could be an
original tweet if it is a @mention.
Appendix C: Coding Sheet

Part
Coder: __________
1. Name of company: ________________

2. Twitter ID: ________________
3. Group: 1
4. Following Number: ______________

5. Followers Number: ______________
6. Total number of Tweets: ____________
7. Tweet Number: _____
8. Date of post: ______________
9. Type of post:
Original @ reply RT Retweet
RT and comments other
10. Primary purpose of tweet contents:

Corporate news/information
Customer service (@ reply)/
announcement/update
feedback/ support
Job recruiting/career information
Other (please specify): ______
Part Relationship maintenance strategies (check all that apply)
1. Positivity: Yes No
Level of implementation: High
Medium Low
None
2. Openness/ Disclosure: Yes No

Medium Low
None
Medium Low
None
Medium Low
None
Medium Low
None
3. Task sharing: Yes No

4. Networking: Yes No
5. Assurance: Yes No
6. Access: Yes No
If yes, indicator(s): Question @ reply/mention Link Phone No. Email
67

Social Media As A Relationship Strategy - Twitter - S Impact On Enha

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Social Media As A Relationship Strategy - Twitter - S Impact On Enha

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

University of Miami

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Social Media as a Relationship Strategy: Twitters

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_theses

SOCIAL MEDIA AS A RELATIONSHIP STRATEGY:

Submitted to the Faculty

Coral Gables, Florida

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

SOCIAL MEDIA AS A RELATIONSHIP STRATEGY:

(M. A., Public Relations)

Abstract of a thesis at the University of Miami.

Meanwhile, two relationship maintenance strategies were found significantly

Figure 3.1. Twitter home page of Amazon

Figure 4.1 Retail company post type total ..

Figure 4.2 Relationship strategies ... 35

Trust Brand Loyalty

Relationship Trust Brand Loyalty

Retail industry companies in a brand loyalty leader group have a higher

Retail industry companies in a brand loyalty leader group have a higher

Figure 3.1. Twitter home page of Amazon

Task sharing level

Table 3.1. Intercoder reliability data across three reliability statistics

Figure 4.1 Retail company post type total

Fortune 500 retailers

Note. N = 440, X (df = 3) = 24.125, p = .000

Corporate news/information announcement/update

Brand loyalty retailers

Fortune 500 retailers

Note. N = 440, X (df = 5) = 29.003, p = .000

Figure 4.2 Relationship strategies

Positivity level of implementation

Table 4. 4 Positivity level of implementation

Retail industry companies in a brand loyalty leader group have a higher

Table 4.5 Positivity by type of retailer

Brand loyalty Fortune 500

Table 4.8 Networking by type of retailer

Brand loyalty Fortune 500

Table 4.9 Assurance by type of retailer

Brand loyalty Fortune 500

Retail industry companies in a brand loyalty leader group have a higher

Brand loyalty retailers

Fortune 500 retailers

Note. N = 440, X2 (df=3) = 17.116, p = .001. The distribution is significant.

Brand loyalty retailers

Fortune 500 retailers

Note. N = 440, X (df=3) = .771, p = .857.

Brand loyalty retailers

Fortune 500 retailers

Note. N = 440, X (df=3) = 2.315, p = .510.

Brand loyalty retailers

Fortune 500 retailers

Note. N = 440, X2 (df=3) = 1.087, p = .780.

Brand loyalty retailers

Fortune 500 retailers

Note. N = 440, X (df=3) = 30.499, p .001. The distribution is significant.

Note. For assurance, X (df=2) = 10.593, p = .05. The distribution is significant.

Appendix A. Sampled Retail Companies

@Zappos_Service Online retail

Retail department store

Retail department store

Retail home improvement

Retail home improvement

Retail industry Fortune 500 list (2011)