Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Zhao, J. J., The problem While the A random In order to train The findings of As Table 1 shows, The Fortune 500 We chose the We recommend
Truell, A. D., addressed in importance of sample of 217 the students to this study are the 217 sites were e-commerce sites Fortune 500 that a further study
this study was using social Fortune 500 use the reported in the classified in seven provided varied largest U.S. be conducted in two
Alexander,
to assess the media for corporate instrument sections of (a) groups according social media tools to companies for years among the
M. W., Fortune 500 business e-commerce properly, the social media to the Fortune ’s attract this study Fortune 500
Sharma, S., largest becomes sites was lead researcher tools industry consumers’ because corporate
& Smith, S. U.S. obvious, no selected from selected one available on classification: participation in their these companies e-commerce sites
M. (2013). companies’ nation-wide the Fortune e-commerce site e-commerce Manufacturing, food respective online are the leaders of for measuring the
Strategic strategic use of study has been 500 largest from the sample sites, (b) and beverages marketing, branding, the U.S. big impact of social
use of social the social identified in the U.S. and worked marketing, (n =56, 26%); and companies. media on return on
media for literature on corporations with his branding, and banks, finance, and advertising activities. investment: how the
media on
of graduate insurance (n =34, As Figure 1 shows,
companies' e-commerce how companies the year 2011 assistant to advertising 16%); retail and Contact Us Email (Zhao, 2013, use of social media
e-commerce and industry use social (Fortune , analyze the strategies wholesale (84%), Facebook
p. 52)
tools on corporate
differences. To media 2011) based content of the on social media, (n =29, 13%); (62%), and Twitter e-commerce sites
sites.
solve the strategically for on the site and collect (c) consumer transportation and (59%) were available affects companies’
Journal Of problem, we achieving their sample-size data with the communication utilities (n =27, on the majority of the annual revenue and
Research In raised the missions and requirement instrument. activities on 12%); computer, Fortune 500 profit.
Business following four objectives. This (Cochran, The completed corporate social information, and e-commerce sites, (Zhao, 2013, p.
Education, research research gap 1977). web-content media, telecommunication followed by
67)
55(2), questions: indicates a need (Zhao, analysis and (d) (n =26, 12%); YouTube (40%),
50-68. 1. What social for a
2013, p.
instrument was significant construction, webcast/webinar/pod
media tools are nation-wide used as an industry engineering, cast (24%),
available on the empirical 53) example when differences in mining, oil and gas LinkedIn (22%), and
Fortune 500 research of training using social (n =24, 11%); and blog (20%). In
e-commerce business use of students on how media on healthcare and contrast, only a
sites? social to use the e-commerce hospitality service minority of the sites
2. How do the media. instrument sites. (n =21, 10%). offered
Fortune 500 (Zhao, properly. In (Zhao, 2013, p. mobile web service
e-commerce addition, (18%), suggestion
2013, p. 52) 53)
sites use social students also box (15%), live chat
media understood that (10%), Flickr (9%),
strategically they would play and MySpace (4%).
for marketing the role of (Zhao, 2013, p.
and branding researchers for
54)
products and web content
services? analysis
3. How do and data
consumers collection, not
engage in the the human
Fortune 500 subjects of the
marketing and study
branding (Zhao,
activities via
2013, p. 53)
social media?
4. Are there
any significant
differences
among industry
groups of the
Fortune 500
e-commerce
sites?
(Zhao,
2013, p.
51)
Momany, The purpose The objective literature The To determine The Kim, Lim, and The First, it is
M., & of this study of this study and researchers internal independent Brymer, (2015) population of recommended
Alshboul, A. was to is examine adapted to designed a consistency, variable in this focused on a interest in that B&B
(2016). examine the the impact of suit the bed survey to Cronbach’s study was social large hotel chain, this study proprietors
Social impact of the social and gather data alpha was media outreach but researchers was B&B devote more
media social media media breakfast (Appendix used. efforts. A total have also proprietors time to
marketing:U on the B&B outreach setting. A). The Cronbach’s score for empirically with engaging in
tilizing social industry, as efforts on A review survey was alpha is a outreach efforts established the establishment social
media to
measured by the brand panel of composed of measure of was calculated importance of s located in media
advance
the awareness, five multiple-choi internal as the sum of online visibility the United marketing
brand
influence of and online individuals ce items consistency. items 5 (Do you for small States. activities. In this
awareness
and social media sales among (including designed to It is a popular make any businesses in the (Momany, study,
increase outreach on bed and university elicit measurement management hotel industry. 2016, p. 41) participants who
online sales. brand breakfast faculty, information used to decision For example, did not engage
International awareness establishmen colleagues, regarding establish based on social Smithson, in social media
Journal Of and online ts, as and demographic reliability. media Devece, and marketing were
Business, sales. The perceived by consultants s International feedback?; Lapiedra (2011) not able to
Marketing, & researchers the ) was (location Journal of coded no = 0 investigated the generate brand
Business,
Decision also sought proprietors of recruited to [rural, and yes = 1), 6 relationships awareness and
Marketing, and
Science, to those determine urban], Decision (How many among use of the online sales
9(1), establish establishmen the survey’s number of Sciences Volume years have you Internet as a from those
33-54. whether the ts Based on validity and rooms, 9, Number 1, been distribution sources.
Fall 2016 41
current the objective, to examine seasonal; using social channel, online Therefore,
Cronbach’s
social media the following the survey’s survey items media?; coded visibility, and passive social
alpha is a
strategies null and constructio 1-3), 1-2 = 1, 3-5 = 2, organizational media presence
coefficient
used by B&B alternative n. proprietors’ 6-10 = 3, more performance at does not help
that ranges
establishme hypotheses (Momany, perception of than 10 = 4), 8 105 hotels in B&B
from 0 to 1.
nts are were 2016, p. social media (How many Spain with under establishments
An alpha
effective, developed 40) outreach hours a 250 employees. generate
coefficient of
in order to and tested: The target efforts by week on average They found no businesses.
0.7 or higher
provide H10: There is sample size proprietor do you spend strong correlation There is no “set
is
insight into no significant for this and/or using social between having a it and forget it”
how this relationship study was employees media to market website and solution to
unique between 120. The (survey items considered an your business?; improved social media
business social media actual 4-8); indication of coded 0 = 0, 1-2 organizational marketing—the
sector can outreach sample size proprietors’ good = performance. more time and
optimize and efforts and was 144. perception of reliability 1, 3-5 = 2, 6-10 = However, resources
track its use brand Convenienc brand (Bruin, 2006). 3, more than 10 Internet visibility proprietors
of awareness e sampling awareness of After = 4), and 7 (total was positively devote to these
social media. among bed was used to their bed and modifications number of correlated with activities, the
(Momany, and breakfast select the breakfast for face media venues organizational stronger their
2016, p. establishmen sample for establishmen validity used out of nine performance, results will be.
41) ts, as the study; ts (survey (per the panel choices; coded (Momany, (Momany,
perceived by SurveyMon items 9-12); review), the no = 0, yes = 1, 2016, p. 35-36). 2016, p. 47)
the key’s and survey for and summed to
proprietors of participant online sales this study fit get total number
those solicitation (survey items this criterion of venues used).
establishmen service was 13-14). The of reliability. (Momany,
ts. employed. items were (Momany,2 2016, p. 41)
H1: There is (Momany, modeled on 016, p.
significant 2016, p. similar items 40-41)
relationship 41) and findings
between from
social media related
outreach literature
efforts and and adapted
brand to suit the
awareness bed and
among bed breakfast
and breakfast setting.
establishmen (Momany,
ts, as 2016, p. 40)
perceived by
the
proprietors of
those
establishmen
ts.
H20: There is
no significant
relationship
between
social media
outreach
efforts and
online sales
among bed
and breakfast
establishmen
ts, as
perceived by
the
proprietors of
those
establishmen
ts.
H2: There is
significant
relationship
between
social media
outreach
efforts and
online sales
among bed
and breakfast
establishmen
ts, as
perceived by
the
proprietors of
those
establishmen
ts.
(Momany,2
016, p. 40)
Gholston, Henceforth, n/a n/a This study’s n/a All of the small n/a In addition to Recommendatio
K., Kuofie, the present data was businesses this, my ns for research
M., & study collected by expressed research of this caliber
Hakim, A. C. focuses on way of struggling or focused on the are endless.
(2016). how small interviews having an issue Philadelphia, Future
Social businesses and with social Pennsylvania researchers may
Media for know when unobtrusive media in area conduct research
Marketing to use social methods. The the beginning. (Gholston, that is similar in
by Small
media. In researcher The choices each 2016, p. 38) nature among
Businesses.
addition the determined small business small businesses
Journal Of
study will what utilized were that felt that
Marketing &
Managemen focus on strategies are explained during their social
t, 7( 1), why some used on the interview, media
24-39. small social media which displayed usage was
businesses via the how their unsuccessful
have an owner-manag consumers were through a
increase in er to engage engaged and comparison of
sales using their strategies that the strategies
social media customers. were utilized. In that each small
and why How the the business
others do owner-manag beginning before utilized.
not. The er’s efforts social media was (Gholston,
current study are apparent used many of the 2016, p. 37)
was also same businesses
designed to acknowledge did not have a
gather data d. real strategy
to answer (Gholston, but chose to use
the 2016, p. 26) word of mouth.
following (Gholston,
two research 2016, p. 35)
questions:
RQ1: How
does a small
business
known for
using social
media build
their
business to
gain
customer
attention?
RQ2: How
does some
small
businesses
increase in
sales using
social media
but others do
not?
(Gholston,
2016, p.
25-26)
STEP 3: References (From the Controversies, disagreements with other authors’ column)
*Note: Always in APA format
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 127e140.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kim, W. G., Lim, H., & Brymer, R. A. (2015). The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
44165-171. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.014
Smithson, S., Devece, C. A., & Lapiedra, R. (2011). Online visibility as a source of competitive advantage for small- and medium-sized tourism accommodation
Analysis of
normality was
verified using
the
Kolmogorov-S
mirnov test
and no
abnormal
variables were
observed.
Multicollinearit
y was verified
by the values
of tolerance
and the
Variance
Inflation Factor
(VIF).
(Hahn,2016,
p.57)
Naylor, R. Study 1a H1: Ambiguous A total of 128 We first test Depending on There was no Similarly, Chatman First, social Further research
compares MVP produces (a) undergraduat these condition, significant and Flynn (2001) media can be could also consider
W., equivalent brand hypotheses
participants’ e students participants saw difference in liking show that used to affiliate other
Lamberton, evaluations across three
liking for an participating one of the between the similar demographic with brands operationalizations
C. P., & unfamiliar to homogeneous
in this
studies
following: (M = 4.74) and heterogeneity within with which a of similarity. We
employing
West, P. M. brand when
similar MVP, (b)
study in different (1) total number ambiguous (M = a workgroup initially consumer anticipate that
equivalent brand
(2012). they observe exchange for operationaliza of fans and 4.48) MVP leads to low levels of already has a gender and age
evaluations to
Beyond the different types heterogeneous
extra credit tions of pictures of six fans conditions (F(1, cooperation. relationship. information are
ambiguous
"Like" of MVP. We MVP, and (c) were told that
MVP
that were the 107) = .86, p = However, some When most likely to be
Button: use significantly they would same age and .36) or between the researchers advise consumers have available to
and similarity.
age to be viewing an gender as the heterogeneous (M = broad inclusion of a experience with marketers
The Impact more positive Study 1a tests
manipulate brand excerpt from all parts of H1 participant4 4.89) and wide range of a brand, our and, therefore, that
of Mere similarity given evaluations than the Facebook using age to (homogeneous ambiguous consumers effects may understanding the
Virtual previous work homogeneous fan page manipulate similar MVP MVP conditions as members of social change. For effects of these
Presence on by practitioners dissimilar created similarity. condition), (2) (F(1, 107) = 1.91, p networking sites example, types
Study 1b tests
Brand and academics MVP. by Roots, a
the parts of
total number of = .17), in support (Dholakia existing brand of similarity or
H2: The
Evaluations highlighting the
relationship
Canadian H1 pertaining fans and of H1a and H1b , and Vianello 2009), users who dissimilarity is of
and influence of clothing to ambiguity, pictures of six fans respectively. We arguing that encounter most utility.
proposed
age company. similarity, and that were the also note that there heterogeneity could dissimilar MVP However, if
Purchase between MVP
dissimilarity
Intentions in
similarity on
composition and (Nadler, same gender but a were indicate might marketers
product using gender different no differences in a brand’s wide range experience anticipate access to
Social brand 2012, to manipulate
preferences. age than the brand liking in the of features or suggest alienation or information about
Media
evaluations in H1c p.108) similarity.
(Nadler, is mediated by Then, given participant similar, broad dissatisfaction consumers’
Settings. 2012, inferences of that Study 1 (homogeneous heterogeneous, appeal. because this ethnicity, for
Journal Of p.108)
leaves dissimilar MVP and ambiguous (Nadler, 2012, demographic example, further
Marketing, condition), conditions when p.107) composition
6(6),
7 commonality unanswered (3) total number these conditions violates their research could test
with the brand’s questions of fans and three were considered expectations. to
105-120. user base.2 about
heterogeneity
pictures of fans together in a (Nadler, determine whether
(Nadler, , Study 2
that were the separate analysis 2012, p.118) this
2012, p.108) focuses same gender and (F(2, 82) = .38, p = operationalization
primarily on age and three .68). As H1c of similarity creates
heterogeneity pictures of fans predicts, the only parallel effects.
, providing a that were the one of the three (Nadler, 2012,
direct test of same gender but a contrast
H1b . p.118)
different age codes that was
Studies 1b
and 2 both (heterogeneous significant was the
include tests MVP condition) as one comparing
of H2 (the the participant, or ambiguous
mediation (4) no fan MVP with dissimilar
hypothesis). pictures, MVP:
Study 3
introduces
only the total (Nadler, 2012,
our theorizing number of fans p.109)
regarding the (ambiguous MVP
moderating condition).
effect of joint No specific
and single direction was
evaluation
given to attend to
contexts
and replicates the fans, and
results related participants
to H1a and H1c viewed the page
. as long as they
(Nadler, liked. Other
2012, information on
p.108) the page was held
constant across
conditions.
(Nadler,
2012,
p.108-109)
Voorveld, H. In this study H1: Social The data In our study Social media Facebook scored Instead, we Clearly, Theoretically,
M., van we adopt an media were collected we chose to engagement. highest on the concentrated on the this approach however, the most
engagement engagement by the market focus on eight Engagement with dimensions of engagement deviates from interesting
Noort, G.,
approach which experiences research social media: the various social interaction experience of conceptualizatio implication of
Muntinga, fits the media agency TNS five social media and topicality. consumers at a ns of the current study is
differ across
D. G., & engagement NIPO at the that are the platforms was Twitter particularly specific media engagement that it is important
social
Bronner, F. literature and end of 2015. most used in measured using 42 ensured that people consumption emphasizing to take into account
media
(2018). platforms.
They the Western experience were intensity not
Engagemen which was H2: Social approached European items (see Table quickly informed moment, which is (intensity of only engagement
t with Social demonstrated media members of country in 1) based largely and up to date. On consistent with our usage) or with a medium
to be predictive advertising its which the on a study about all dimensions other earlier definition that valence when discussing the
Media and
of advertising engagement panel (aged 13 study was media experiences than focuses on the social (positive relation
Social effectiveness and older) conducted with traditional topicality, it scored media “experience.” or negative between digital
differs across
Media (Davis Mersey, who indicated (Facebook, media (Bronner low. YouTube The reason for this engagement). engagement and
social
Advertising: Malthouse, and regular use of YouTube, and Neijens 2006; scored highest on was that consumers This means we advertising
media
The Calder 2010).
platforms.
social LinkedIn, see the entertainment most likely cannot do not try to effectiveness (as
Differentiatin (Voorveld, H3:
media. Twitter, and supplemental dimension: Users reliably report their capture was done in, e.g.,
g Role of 2018,p. Engagement
Respondents Google+ ) and appendix). indicated it made experiences in general positive or Calder, Isaac, and
in this panel three that Exposure to them happy and because (social) negative Malthouse 2016;
Platform 39) with a social receive a represent the social media relaxed, media usage usually engagement. and
Type. media platform
Journal Of
certain fastest advertising. To and allowed them to occurs over a short (Voorveld, Calder, Malthouse,
is positively amount of growing measure whether have a moment for time span and can be and Schaedel 2009)
Advertising, related credits for number of people were themselves. On all trivial and easily
2018,p. 52) but also
47( 1), to social media completing users confronted with other dimensions, it forgotten engagement
38-54. advertising surveys. A worldwide advertising during scored much lower, (Kim, Sohn, and Choi with the advertising
doi:10.1080/ evaluations, screening (Instagram, their most but the second 2011; Voorveld et al. itself.
00913367.2 and this question Pinterest, and recent media highest 2013; (Voorveld,20
relationship is checked Snapchat) consumption score was on Bronner and Neijens
017.140575 whether at (Newcom moment, we asked topicality, followed 2006).
18,p. 50)
contingent
4
on the social
least one of Research and them whether by pastime. (Voorveld,201
the eight Consultancy they saw “a LinkedIn scored
media platform
social media 2015). Our message from a highest on the
8,p. 42)
(see Figure Engagement with a
platforms was examination product, brand, dimension
1).H4: (a) medium can be seen
used in the of each social company or topicality:
Engagement as an
past week. media organization.” It was perceived by
with a social essential context
(Voorveld platform Social media users as a social
characteristic that
media platform through a advertising medium that
is related to ,2018,p. singlesource engagement. If ensured they were
drives responses to
engagement 42) approach respondents quickly informed
advertising
(Calder, Malthouse,
with allows them to indicated and up to date.
and Schaedel 2009).
advertising on be compared they encountered Instagram scored
that platform, in terms of the “a message from a highest on the (Voorveld,201
and (b) social experiences product, brand, pastime and 8,p. 41)
media comprising company, or topicality
engagement, organization” dimensions: It was
advertising
because all during the recent often used to fill
engagement
were consumption empty moments,
subsequently
measured moment, we then and it was perceived
affects social in the same asked about the by users as a social
media way in one experience with medium that
advertising representative and for an ensured
sample.
evaluations (Voorveld evaluation of this they were quickly
(see Figure 1). advertising. informed and up to
,2018,p. Engagement date.
42) experiences and (Voorveld,20
(Voorveld, advertising
2018,p. evaluations could
18,p. 45)
41-42) not be measured at
the specific
ad level because
this would have
made the
questionnaire too
unwieldy. We
therefore decided
to compromise by
rating
social media
advertising in its
entirety at the
specific moment
(conforming to
Bronner and
Neijens 2006).
(Voorveld
,2018,p. 43)
STEP 3: References (From the Controversies, disagreements with other authors’ column)
*Note: Always in APA format
Calder, Bobby J., Mathew S. Isaac, & Edward C. Malthouse (2016), How to capture consumer experiences: a context-specific approach to measuring engagement
predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively different experiences,” Journal of Advertising Research, 56 (1), 39–52.
Chatman, Jennifer A. and Francis Flynn (2001), “The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work
Dholakia, Utpaul M. and Silvia Vianello (2009), “The Fans Know Best,” Sloan Management Review/ Wall Street Journal Business Insights, (August 17), (accessed July
Henning-Thurau, T. et al. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of
Mangold, W. G. & Faulds, D. Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, v. 52, n. 4, p. 357-365, 2009
Stuart, J. (2007). Necessity leads to innovative evaluation approach and practice. Evaluation Exchange, 13 (1-2), 10-11.
STEP 3: References (Both from FSP 1, FSP 2, FSP 3 etc.; and references from the Controversies, disagreements with other
authors’ column) *Note: Always in APA format on a separate page.
References
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 127e140.
Calder, Bobby J., Mathew S. Isaac, & Edward C. Malthouse (2016), How to capture consumer experiences: a context-specific approach to measuring engagement
predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively different experiences,” Journal of Advertising Research, 56 (1), 39–52.
Chatman, Jennifer A. and Francis Flynn (2001), “The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work
Coffman, J., & Reed, E. (2009). Unique methods in advocacy evaluation.Retrieved February , 3 , 2009.
Dholakia, Utpaul M. and Silvia Vianello (2009), “The Fans Know Best,” Sloan Management Review/ Wall Street Journal Business Insights, (August 17), (accessed July
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gholston, K., Kuofie, M., & Hakim, A. C. (2016). Social Media for Marketing by Small Businesses. Journal Of Marketing & Management, 7( 1), 24-39.
Hahn, I. S., Scherer, F. L., Basso, K., & dos Santos, M. B. (2016). Consumer Trust in and Emotional Response to Advertisements on Social Media and their Influence on
Brand Evaluation. Brazilian Business Review (English Edition), 13( 4), 49-71. doi:10.15728/bbr.2016.13.4.3
Henning-Thurau, T. et al. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of
Kim, W. G., Lim, H., & Brymer, R. A. (2015). The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
44165-171. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.014
Kujur, F., & Singh, S. (2017). Engaging customers through online participation in social networking sites. Asia Pacific Management Review, 22(1), 16-24.
doi:10.1016/j.apmrv.2016.10.006
Kumar, K. A., & Natarajan, S. (2016). Role of Social Media in Political Campaigning and its Evaluation Methodology: A Review. Global Management Review, 10(3),
1-12.
Mangold, W. G. & Faulds, D. Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, v. 52, n. 4, p. 357-365, 2009
Momany, M., & Alshboul, A. (2016). Social media marketing:Utilizing social media to advance brand awareness and increase online sales. International Journal Of
Smithson, S., Devece, C. A., & Lapiedra, R. (2011). Online visibility as a source of competitive advantage for small- and medium-sized tourism accommodation
Stuart, J. (2007). Necessity leads to innovative evaluation approach and practice. Evaluation Exchange, 13 (1-2), 10-11.
Taneja, S., & Toombs, L. (2014). Putting a face on small businesses:Visibility, viability, and sustainability the impact of social media on small business marketing.
Voorveld, H. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Differentiating Role of
Zafarani, R., & Huan, L. (2015). Evaluation Without Ground Truth in Social Media Research. Communications Of The ACM, 58(6), 54. doi:10.1145/2666680
Zhao, J. J., Truell, A. D., Alexander, M. W., Sharma, S., & Smith, S. M. (2013). Strategic use of social media on companies' e-commerce sites. Journal Of Research In