Journal of Promotion Management

ISSN: 1049-6491 (Print) 1540-7594 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Do Social Media Marketing Activities Enhance

Consumer Perception of Brands? A Meta-Analytic
Examination

Blend Ibrahim, Ahmad Aljarah & Bashar Ababneh

To cite this article: Blend Ibrahim, Ahmad Aljarah & Bashar Ababneh (2020): Do Social Media
Marketing Activities Enhance Consumer Perception of Brands? A Meta-Analytic Examination,
Journal of Promotion Management, DOI: 10.1080/10496491.2020.1719956

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1719956

Published online: 29 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjpm20
JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1719956

Do Social Media Marketing Activities Enhance

Consumer Perception of Brands? A Meta-Analytic
Examination
Blend Ibrahima , Ahmad Aljarahb , and Bashar Ababnehc,d
a
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Department of Tourism, Girne Amerikan
Universitesi, Girne, Turkey; bFaculty of Business and Economic, Marketing Department, Girne
Amerikan Universitesi, Girne, Turkey; cCenter of Management Research, Girne Amerikan
Universitesi, Girne, Turkey; dFaculty of Business and Economics, Business Management
Department, American University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Turkey

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Social media marketing activities have been grasping consid- Social media marketing
erable attention from marketers and researchers recently, as activities; social media;
demonstrated by more research efforts investigating these consumer perception; brand
equity; purchase intention;
relatively new marketing channels and their impacts. This meta-analysis; meta-
study reports on a meta-analysis examining social media mar- regression analysis
keting activities (SMMA) relationships with brand equity (BE)
and purchase intention (PI). A quantitative meta-analysis of 15
articles (n ¼ 6282) is conducted in order to determine the
effect sizes of these relationships. Furthermore, potential mod-
erating effects have been investigated for two types of study
characteristic variables; measurement characteristics (type of
economic development, type of questionnaire employed, type
of study quality), and context characteristics (industry type
and sample type of social media). The meta-analysis results
indicate a positive relationship between SMMA and BE
(r ¼ 0.57) reflecting a large effect, while SMMA relationship
with PI (r ¼ 0.43) indicates a medium positive effect. Moreover,
the results of meta-regression show that context characteris-
tics do not moderate the relationship between SMMA and BE
or between SMMA and PI. As for measurement characteristic,
only the type of study quality moderates the relationship
SMMA and PI. Based on these findings theoretical and prac-
tical implications are presented.

Introduction
Social media is defined as an online application built on the ideological
and technical foundations of Web 2.0 that enables communication between
users (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Social media communications come in
varying forms and types like social networking platforms (e.g., Facebook,
Instagram, and LinkedIn), blogs (e.g., Twitter), cooperative projects (e.g.,
Wikipedia), content communities (e.g., YouTube), and virtual social

CONTACT Blend Ibrahim blendibrahim@gau.edu.tr School of Tourism and Hospitality Management,

Department of Tourism, Girne Amerikan Universitesi, Girne, Turkey
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

network websites. The reach of social media communications affects mar-

kets, businesses, and individuals. Thus, social network platforms (Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter) have become an inseparable part of daily life inter-
actions. There are 3.48 billion social media users in 2019, with the total
worldwide number of users growing by 288 million (9%) since this time
last year. Facebook currently has about two billion worldwide users’
accounts and over 1401 million daily active users in the 4th quarter of
2017 (Statista, 2018). Twitter is being used for sharing breaking news
uploaded by citizen journalists, while YouTube celebrities are approaching
popularity levels that were previously limited to Hollywood stars (Kotler,
2018). Globally, more than 95% of social media platforms aged 18–34 are
most likely to follow a brand on social media (LaMontagne.Liva, 2015).
This global customer base makes social media a widely popular marketing
tool among companies, who employ social media as a marketing communi-
cation medium (Hootsuite, 2018; Yadav & Rahman, 2017). Such a picture,
of social media high growth levels, makes the case for an interesting ques-
tion regarding future marketing praxis dominated by social media as
opposed to traditional activities of promoting, advertising, or campaigning.
Companies create social media accounts for their brands using platforms
such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to reach a wider number of con-
sumers. The nature of relationships between brands and consumers in
social media marketing (SMM) is direct and interactive. Such relationships
enable generating new products or services with different models and val-
ues (Kim & Ko, 2012). The value of these communications depends on
messages exchanged, so brands should emphasize sending attractive and
stimulating content that enables a beneficial two-way communication to
take place, instead of posting too regularly for the sake of having an active
online existence (Pinto, Loureiro, Rita, & Sarmento, 2019). For example,
some of the early adopters like Louis Vuitton have benefitted by creating
and managing popular social media communities (Kim & Ko, 2012). Thus,
social media marketing activities (SMMA) have been considered as effective
marketing communication methods (Kim & Ko, 2012).
SMMA’s scholarly understanding has been developed by the work of
Kim and Ko (2010, 2012), who proposed five activities for SMM (entertain-
ment, interaction, trendiness, customization, and word of mouth). The ori-
ginal model explains how SMMA enhance customer equity in the area of
luxury fashion brands. Later on, others have applied this model in different
contexts and brands, as follows: luxury fashion brands (Godey et al., 2016;
Koivulehto, 2017), online education marketing (Spackman & Larsen, 2017),
active users of social media or e-commerce sites (Yadav & Rahman, 2017),
hospitality industry (Ibrahim & Aljarah, 2018), and mobile operators
(Taşkın & Alkaya, 2017). This research aims at consolidating this emerging
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 3

field of inquiry by examining the published empirical evidence to meta-

analyze SMMA relationships with BE and purchase intention (PI)
Some results found SMMA to be a key element of the firm’s success
through applying suitable marketing plans and activities that contribute to
positive BE (Ahmed & Zahid, 2014; Godey et al., 2016; Kim & Ko, 2012;
Spackman & Larsen, 2017; Yadav & Rahman, 2017) and greater PI
(Gautam & Sharma, 2017; Kim et al., 2010; Kim & Ko, 2012). Alternatively,
the relationship between SMMA and BE (Ural & Yuksel, 2015) or PI
(Ahmed & Zahid, 2014; Taşkın & Alkaya, 2017) was reported to be nega-
tive or non-significant. Given the contrasting results, the authenticity of
this research is underscored through seeking a general consensus of empir-
ical findings, from different studies across different contexts representing a
largely inconclusive evidence regarding SMMA, BE, and PI (e.g., Ahmed &
Zahid, 2014; Taşkın & Alkaya, 2017; Ural & Yuksel, 2015). Thus, it remains
unclear to what extent brands should pursue adapting to SMMA in order
to be successful under different boundary conditions (Miller, Fabian, &
Lin, 2009; Okazaki & Taylor, 2013). Motivated by this lack of understand-
ing, this research presents a meta-analytic study which fills the gap of syn-
thesizing conflicting findings issues in the SMMA field. This study
motivation finds additional support a recent systematic literature review
(Alalwan, Rana, Dwivedi, & Algharabat, 2017), as an explicit call for meta-
analytic reviews in the SMM field, is argued for to further examine and
consolidate the field developments.
So, this paper assessed the full text of 139 articles and meta-analyzed the
effects of SMMA in 15 studies that were not synthesized before.
Specifically, relationships between SMMA, BE, and PIs have been previ-
ously researched, yet no effort toward uniting this body of literature has
been reported. Hence, the robustness of various findings from the literature
is still questionable. Generating a comprehensive view of the multitude of
factors clarifying how SMMA affect BE and PI is the underlying aim of
this meta-analysis. The field of SMMA requires an overview of the pub-
lished research, as meta-analyses address the limitations of individual stud-
ies through resolving conflicting findings (Hamari & Keronen, 2017; Par
e,
Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015). Moreover, this paper contributes to know-
ledge through enhancing generalizability of individual SMMA results that
are arguably prone to limited sample sizes or demographic biases owing to
the fact that this meta-analysis pools data from a more diverse sample
(Alalwan et al., 2017; Algharabat, 2017; Gautam & Sharma, 2017; Godey
et al., 2016; Ibrahim & Aljarah, 2018; Ismail, 2017; Kim & Ko, 2012; Seo &
Park, 2018; Yadav & Rahman, 2017). Thus, meta-analytic procedures allow
for correcting sampling and measurement errors (Combs, Ketchen, Crook,
& Roth, 2011).
4 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

Additionally, this study represents an authentic attempt to identify

potential moderators due to the inherent variations in studies reviewed
(e.g., measurement characteristics, such as type of economic development,
type of questionnaire collection, type of study quality, or context character-
istic type, sample type of social media). Reported divergence in correlation
levels poses the question of which study characteristics influence inconsis-
tencies observed in findings across studies. Based on Cohen’s (1988, 1992)
rule of thumb of the 20 effect sizes collected, four effect sizes had a small
effect (r ¼ 0.10–0.30), six effect sizes showed medium effect (r ¼ 0.30–0.50),
and 10 effect sizes represented a large effect size (more of r ¼ 0.50). The
present study is, to our knowledge, not only the first to quantitatively syn-
thesize the moderating effect in SMMA, but also the first empirical attempt
to examine boundary conditions as primary studies are yet to examine any
moderating forces that might affect SMMA relation with BE and PI. This
has not gone unnoticed by researchers, as a number of authors have high-
lighted the need to consider moderating effects in SMM literature
(Algharabat, 2017; Algharabat, Rana, Dwivedi, Alalwan, & Qasem, 2018;
Ismail, 2017; Yadav & Rahman, 2017, 2018). For example, Arora and Sanni
(2019) have pointed the need to study cultural and international perspec-
tives moderating forces in SMM research.
Our research contributes to SMMA literature in several ways. First, we
aim to provide a statistical compilation of research studying the relation-
ship between SMMA and BE, also addressing the magnitude of effect that
SMMA has on and PI. Secondly, by conducting a meta-analysis, we aim to
address the controversial results in the SMMA filed. This work contributes
to knowledge by reducing the heterogeneity in SMM research by empiric-
ally specifying general relationships’ directions and extent of effect for these
relationships. Thus, an investigation of SMMA relationships with BE and
PI is pursued. Thirdly, by examining the moderating effect of some meas-
urement characteristic (such as type of economic development, type of
questionnaire collection, type of study quality, or context characteristic
type, sample type of social media) in the relationship between SMMA and
BE or SMMA and PIs, an explanation of the contradictory findings in the
literature is sought. Hence, the contribution to SMM literature is demon-
strated by empirically testing the moderating influence of measurement
characteristics and context characteristics on SMMA relationships with BE
and PIs. A literature extension is argued for through examining two mod-
erating effect characteristics.
In the next section, we discuss the theoretical underpinning of SMMA,
BE, and PI. This leads to proposing a set of empirically refutable hypothe-
ses regarding the current state of the available scholarly knowledge. Next,
we describe the methodology employed here to collect, sort, and code
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 5

individual studies, which is followed by providing meta-analytic findings.

Then, we discuss the obtained results and reflect on the previously devel-
oped theoretical positions. Finally, research limitations and future research
direction are laid bare.

Theoretical background
Social media marketing activities (SMMA)
SMM lacks an agreed-upon definition. It is described from a marketing
perspective as “the use of online Social media platforms for the purpose of
marketing” (Sharma & Verma, 2018). This general view is built on the
understanding of the differences between “promotional” and “relational”
SMM literature. Some scholars focus on the “promotional” aspect of SMM
“use of social media channels to promote a company and its products”
(Akar & Topçu, 2011), while others point out that the “relational” feature
is key ingredient used to employ social media as a marketing communica-
tion tool to connect and interact with consumers to build customer rela-
tionship (Chang, Yu, & Lu, 2015; Chan & Guillet, 2011; Chi, 2011;
Erdogmuş & Çiçek, 2012; Yadav & Rahman, 2017). Yadav and Rahman
(2017) build on the aforementioned features and describe SMM as using
social media platforms to enhance stakeholders’ value, deliver offers
through online marketing, and achieve personalized promotion based on
WOM for products and services.
On the other hand, SMMA have been considered as effective marketing
communication methods (Kim & Ko, 2012). The comprehensive SMMA
model provided by Kim and Ko (2010, 2012) measured SMMA based on
five dimensions: entertainment, interaction, trendiness, customization, and
word of mouth. This model has been empirically examined to explore the
effectiveness of SMM activities to enhance customer equity in the area of
luxury fashion brands. Kim and Ko (2012) conclude that SMMA do effect-
ively enhance value equity, relationship equity, and BE. Furthermore,
SMMA are considered as a subgroup of marketing activities, whose exclu-
sivity to online environments is used to deliver traditional marketing plans
for promotion goals using emails, newsletters, and online advertising cam-
paigns (Barefoot & Szabo, 2010). The SMMA concept matches with earlier
research about social media, which determined the actions of SMM by tak-
ing it as a portion of the promotional mix in the new brand communica-
tion paradigm (Godey et al., 2016; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Alternatively,
SMMA could be defined as “a subcategory of online marketing/digital mar-
keting that supports traditional promotion approaches” (Yadav & Rahman,
2018, p. 4). In this paper, SMMA are viewed as promotional and relational
communication tools that complement organizational marketing strategies’
6 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

application by offering enhanced interactivity through online relationships

between organizations and consumers. Consequently, we measure SMMA
by taking the overall value of SMMA for two reasons. First, all studies
examined overall SMMA correlation value for SMMA relationships with
BE and PI. Second, there is no meta-analysis examining SMMA in
the literature.

SMMA and Brand Equity

BE is a key concept for modern organizations as a fundamental marketing
asset (Ambler & Styles, 1996). Marketing activities seek to develop BE to
gain competitive advantage (Lassar et al., 1995; Schivinski & Dabrowski,
2016). Specifically, BE is perceived utility and desirability of a brand
(Lassar et al., 1995). Hence, it is defined as “outcomes that accrue to a
product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the
same product did not have the brand name” (Ailawadi, Lehmann, &
Neslin, 2003). Alternatively, BE is referred to as consumer-based brand
equity (CBBE) by Aaker (1991, 1992, 1996) and Keller (1993, 2003). Aaker
envisaged CBBE to include assets and liabilities associated with a logo or
brand name which enhance or reduce the value of a good or service to
organizations and consumers (Aaker, 1996). Aaker (1991, 1992) suggested
four components for BE: brand loyalty, brand association, brand awareness,
and perceived quality. Whereas, Keller (1993) viewed CBBE as “The differ-
ential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of
the brand.” This led to conceptualizing CBBE as general brand knowledge
composed of awareness and image (Keller, 1993, 2003). For the purpose of
this research, BE means greater market share and profits resulting from a
strong positive attitude based on a set of positive brand perceptions and
beliefs among consumers.
BE has been addressed in SMM literature either as an overall construct
(Kim & Ko, 2012; Kumar et al., 2018; Schivinski & Da˛browski, 2013; Yadav
& Rahman, 2017), or as a second-order construct composed of two dimen-
sions (brand image and brand awareness) (Barreda et al. 2015; Seo & Park,
2018). Godey et al. (2016) assert that SMMA have a significant positive
effect on BE. Moreover, Spackman and Larsen (2017) found a positive rela-
tionship between SMMA and BE in UK student online course enrollment.
Lastly, marketing aims to nurture relationships with customers by using
social media networks. This fits into BE management to achieve a strong
positive attitude toward the brand and get bigger market share, as a result
SMMA are estimated to correlate positively with BE (Godey et al., 2016;
Kim & Ko, 2012; Spackman & Larsen, 2017; Yadav & Rahman, 2017).
H1: Social media marketing activities have a positive influence on brand equity.
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 7

SMMA and Purchase Intention

PI reflects the probability that customers will buy a particular product
(Grewal et al., 1998). Such a decision is taken regarding the overall evalu-
ation of the purchase (Dodds, 1995; Shao et al., 2004). Practically, it is a
combination of consumer interest and the possibility of purchasing a prod-
uct ( Kim et al., 2010; Kim & Ko, 2012; Lloyd & Luk, 2010). Theoretical
development for PI is based on behavioral intention theories. Two theories
have informed early researchers about how to conceptualize PIs. First, the
theory of reasoned action (TRA) which postulates that behavioral intention
leads to actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This is used to describe
consumers’ attitudes toward purchasing or using a brand by considering
normative values or subjective norms. As a later development, the theory
of planned behavior (TPB) has been proposed to explain the influence of
behavioral constraints on the link between intention and behavior (Ajzen,
1985). The theories (TRA) and (TPB) suggest that consumer attitudes will
directly affect their behavioral intention, which in turn will influence pur-
chase behavior (Lu, Chang, & Chang, 2014).
Online PI considers whether consumers are developing intentions or
interests in buying a certain product or service by using online transaction
platforms (Pavlou & Chai, 2002). The relationship between SMMA and
online PI has been examined by Kim et al. (2010), who reported a positive
influence of SMMA for luxury brands on both customer relationships and
PI in Korea. Similarly, positive results were reported in the Indian luxury
fashion industry (Gautam & Sharma, 2017). Consequently, previous
research recommends enacting SMMA to communicate the worthiness of
luxury brands to consumers (Gautam & Sharma, 2017; Kim et al., 2010).
SMMA aim to enhance the strength of the relationship with customers
leading to positive attitudes toward a company/brand, thus stimulating
intentions to purchase. For this reason, SMMA is credited with a positive
effect on PI Based on the above discussion, we propose:
H2: Social media marketing activities have a positive influence on purchase intention

The conceptual framework of the research is illustrated in Figure 1.

Potential moderators
Potential moderators are recognized and determined based on their theor-
etical explanation and descriptive influence of varying results among differ-
ent studies. In other words, a moderator explains more variance in findings
than what is expected to be found according to the theoretical predictions
(Arthur, Bennett, & Huffcutt, 2001). In the case SMMA, we observe differ-
ent studied relationships and found suggestions for a number of possible
8 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the research.

moderators (Alalwan et al., 2017; Algharabat, 2017; Ismail, 2017; Yadav &
Rahman, 2017). The case for moderation effects is laid bare after noting
disparities in findings that might be related to the diversity of studies’ con-
texts. Therefore, this study follows the steps of a recent meta-analysis
(Wang et al., 2018) by introducing two characteristics group as moderators:
measurement characteristics and sample characteristics (Figure 1).

Measurement characteristics
Type of economic development. SMM is a global phenomenon. Over the last
decade, purchasing behaviors have expanded from the developed economies
to the developing ones through social media expansion and advances in mar-
keting tools to benefit from social media global reach. Scholars note the need
for generalization of models that study both developed and developing coun-
tries (Alalwan et al., 2017; Ismail, 2017; Yadav & Rahman, 2017), where dif-
ferent cultural contexts are observed too (Algharabat, 2017). A recent United
Nations report (United Nations – Department of Economic & Affairs, 2018)
is used to differentiate among countries on the development scale as shown
in Table 1. So we examine whether the proposed relationships in this study
varies between developed and developing countries, as theorized below:
H3: In case of developed or developing countries, SMMA will have a stronger positive
effect on brand equity (moderation)

H4: In case of developed or developing countries, SMMA will have a stronger positive
effect on purchase intention (moderation)

Type of questionnaire employed. Research points out that online data collec-
tion by utilizing social media has respectable quality while managing to
Table 1. Study data used in meta-analysis.
Economic Social Questionnaire
Authors-ID N R Relationship Year Loc. development media sample Industry type collection Study quality
Kim and Ko (2012) 362 0.41 SMMA–Be 2012 Korea D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal High level
Kim and Ko (2012) 362 0.48 SMMA–Pi 2012 Korea D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal High level
Yadav and Rahman (2017) 348 0.18 SMMA–Be 2017 India D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal High level
Yadav and Rahman (2017) 348 0.15 SMMA–Pi 2017 India D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal High level
Gautam and 243 0.65 SMMA–Pi 2017 India D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal High level
Sharma (2017)
Kim et al. (2010) 133 0.44 SMMA–Pi 2010 Korea D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal High level
Toor et al. (2017) 220 0.65 SMMA–Pi 2017 Pakistan D-ing User Manufacturing Online High level
Spackman and 168 0.6 SMMA–Be 2017 UK D-ed User Service Online High level
Larsen (2017)
Godey et al. (2016) 845 0.24 SMMA–Be 2016 Mix Mix Consumer Manufacturing Online High level
Laksamana (2018) 286 0.42 SMMA–Pi 2018 Indonesia D-ing User Service Normal Normal level
Mohammadpour 169 0.39 SMMA–Pi 2014 Iran D-ing Consumer Service Online Normal level
et al. (2014)
Ajanthan (2017) 250 0.73 SMMA–Be 2017 Sir Lanka D-ing Consumer Service Normal Normal level
Ural and Yuksel (2015) 120 0.58 SMMA–Pi 2015 Turkey D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal Normal level
Taşkın and Alkaya (2017) 663 0.61 SMMA–Be 2017 Turkey D-ing User Service Normal Normal level
Taşkın and Alkaya (2017) 663 0.039 SMMA–Pi 2017 Turkey D-ing User Service Normal Normal level
Kosarizadeh and 386 0.57 SMMA–Be 2015 Iran D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal Normal level
Hamdi (2015)
Kosarizadeh and 386 0.45 SMMA–Pi 2015 Iran D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Normal Normal level
Hamdi (2015)
Rienetta et al. (2017) 225 0.67 SMMA–Be 2017 Indonesia D-ing Consumer Manufacturing Online Normal level
Koivulehto (2017) 52 0.70 SMMA–Be 2017 Finland D-ed User Manufacturing Online Normal level
– Facebook
Koivulehto (2017) 53 0.79 SMMA–Be 2017 Finland D-ed User Manufacturing Online Normal level
– Instagram
Notes: Relationship: Be, brand equity; Pi, purchase intention; SMMA: social media marketing activities; D-ing, developing country; D-ed, developed country; Loc., location, Questionnaire
collection, normal questionnaire or online questionnaire.
JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT
9
10 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

collect data in a short time (Stanton, 1998). This is due to the fact that the
sampled population can respond almost immediately to an email or to a
shared post via Facebook leading to automatic data collection through
online pages such as Survey Monkey or Google Doc (DeFranzo, 2012). By
contrast, print questionnaires could be attracting a different pool of partici-
pants leading to different results (Morrel-Samuels, 2003). Hence, we postu-
late that the nature of the questionnaire might have an effect on the
reported results, as follows:
H5: In case of online or offline study survey, SMMA will have a stronger positive effect
on brand equity (moderation)

H6: In case of online or offline study survey, SMMA will have a stronger positive effect
on purchase intention (moderation)

Type of study quality. We classified the study quality in two categories: high
level (papers published in journals indexed in Social Science Citation Index
(SSCI), expand-(SSCI), Emerging-(SSCI), or Scopus) and normal level
(journals from other indices, or postgraduate theses). We include all pub-
lished research because of the limited number of studies about our subject
of a study being published in mainstream academic journals. Therefore, we
examine whether the level of study quality will have an impact on the dif-
ferences in the existing relationships as follows:
H7: In case of high level or normal level study quality, SMMA will have a stronger
positive effect on brand equity (moderation)

H8: In case of high level or normal level study quality, SMMA will have a stronger
positive effect on purchase intention (moderation)

Sample characteristics
Industry type. Researchers have approached SMM within a number of
industrial contexts. Two broad categories can be used to group those indus-
tries, namely: manufacturing and services. As for the manufacturing indus-
tries, scholars have examined automobile industry (Ural & Yuksel, 2015),
leather industry (Kosarizadeh & Hamdi, 2015), and fashion industry
(Gautam & Sharma, 2017; Godey et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2010; Kim & Ko,
2012). On the other hand, services industry has been studied in the educa-
tion sector (Spackman & Larsen, 2017), tourism sector (Ajanthan, 2017;
Mohammadpour et al., 2014), banking and financial services sector
(Laksamana, 2018), and telecommunications sector (Taşkın & Alkaya,
2017). As a result, this research examines the differences in reported rela-
tionships while taking into consideration the impact of the industry as a
moderating variable, as hypnotized below:
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 11

H9: In case of manufacturing or services, SMMA will have a stronger positive effect on
brand equity (moderation)

H10: In case of manufacturing or services, SMMA will have a stronger positive effect
on purchase intention (moderation)

The sample type of social media. Hootsuite (2018) observed that under 60%
of active social media users are buying products online. However, those
users, who do not make online purchases, are likely to benefit from social
media interactions through forming opinions for later purchase behavior,
scanning best market offers, or choosing a physically located vendor based
on online customer reviews. Hence, not all social media users are potential
online customers. It follows that some differences in studies that sampled
social media consumers compared to studies that used social media users
might be observed. In this paper, we examine whether consumer or user
samples will account for any of the differences in the existing relationships.
H11: In case of consumer or user samples, SMMA will have a stronger positive effect
on brand equity (moderation)

H12: In case of consumer or user samples, SMMA will have a stronger positive effect
on purchase intention (moderation)

Methods
Search strategy
The literature search strategy suggested by Durlak and Lipsey (1991) has
been followed to classify relevant studies for this meta-analysis study. This
includes the use of multiple searches in several databases, multiple broad
keywords, and comprehensive inclusion and exclusion criteria. A broad lit-
erature search in various databases has been conducted including ISI Web
of Science, Science Direct, Emerald Library, Taylor and Francis, Sage
Journals, ProQuest Dissertations, and Thesis Global using two groups of
keywords; SMMA related keywords (e.g., SMMA, SMM, social media net-
work, and social media) and consumer perception related keywords (e.g.,
BE, CBBE, PI, behavior intention). Furthermore, the search strategy was
used to target three major key parts in potential articles including article
title, abstract, and keywords. Moreover, to include all relevant research, we
search for related articles on the internet, using Google Scholar. The litera-
ture search was finalized in November 2018.

Inclusion criteria
The conceptual framework provided by Kim and Ko (2010, 2012) to meas-
ure the overall SMMA is based on five key major aspects (entertainment,
12 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

interaction, trendiness, customization, and word of mouth) has been used

in this research as the key indicator to SMMA. While, our operationaliza-
tion’s of PI and BE are based on scholars’ work (e.g., Schivinski &
Da˛browski, 2013; Yadav & Rahman, 2017). Studies were selected for inclu-
sion in the meta-analysis on the basis of the following criteria. Firstly,
empirical studies that are written in English and reported correlation coeffi-
cients (or any relevant statistic could be converted to correlation such as t-
value, F-ratios, Chi-squared, mean, and SD) between the constructs of the
study. Secondly, when studies reported only standardized regression coeffi-
cients (b), we used a formula recommended by Peterson and Brown
(2005); r ¼ b þ 0.5k. Where k is an indicator variable that is equal to 1
when b is positive and 0 when b is negative. Thirdly, only articles pub-
lished between years 2000 to November 2018 have been included because
the year 2000 resembles with the start the work of the Web 2.0 platform
(Williams et al., 2014). Fourthly, to maximize the possibility of including
published studies, we asked authors of four papers to provide us with the
correlation matrix for studies which have not reported it. Unfortunately,
we did not obtain any positive replies with this information, so these pub-
lished papers were excluded. Figure 2 illustrates the study selection process
labeled in the PRISMA statement (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, &
Grp, 2009). After completing our search process based on the study inclu-
sion criteria in November 2018, we obtained 15 articles with 20 effect sizes
meeting totally the research inclusion criteria (see Table 1).

Coding procedure
Following the recommendation of Lipsey and Wilson (2001), we pre-
pared a coding protocol specifying the information to be extracted from
each study as follow: 1() study reference, (2) sample size, (3) effect size,
(4) year of publication, (5) country where research has been conducted,
(6) study quality (high/low level), (7) type of questionnaire employed
(online/paper questionnaire), (8) economic development (developing/
developed country), (9) industry type (manufacturing/service industry),
(10) the sample type of social media (consumer/user). The final coding
list is noted in Table 1.

Meta-analytic procedures
This research followed a method developed by Hedges and Olkin (1985) to
conduct the meta-analysis result. We first weighted effect sizes by its sam-
pling variance and then we synthesized the weighted effect sizes. Then, fol-
lowing the recommendation of Hedges and Olkin (1985), we transferred all
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 13

Figure 2. Study selection process. Adapted from the PRISMA, 2009 Flow Diagram.
Source: Moher et al. (2009).

coefficient initially to Fisher’s Z. By doing so, we were able to summarize

the effect sizes, confidence limits in Fisher’s Z score (Borenstein et al.,
2009a). Next, we transfer each of the computed values back into the ori-
ginal correlation coefficient. Such a method has been widely used by schol-
ars to compute the effect size (Al Jarah & Emeagwali, 2017; Babi
c Rosario
et al., 2016; Borenstein et al., 2009a). Furthermore, the random effect
model, which assumes that the true effect size varies randomly across stud-
ies has been, used (Field & Gillett, 2010; Hedges & Vevea, 1998). Using the
random effect model in our research is due to the perceived limitation of
the fixed effect model in generalizing the results of the meta-analysis study
(Hedges & Vevea, 1998). Moreover, to further estimate possible heterogen-
eity among the individual citations, the Cochran’s Q and I2 variation were
tested (Borenstein et al., 2009b). The Q-statistic (Cochran, 1954) is the clas-
sical measure for heterogeneity used to probe the existence of significant
14 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

heterogeneity in effect sizes. Whereas I2 variation identifies the percentage

of the variance described by the heterogeneity (Higgins & Thompson,
2002). The cutoff criteria for I2 recommended by (Higgins, Thompson,
Deeks, & Altman, 2003) have been followed by interpreting 25% as low,
50% as moderate, and 75% as high heterogeneity.
Furthermore, we addressed the issue of publication bias by using Fail-
Safe N method developed by Orwin (1983). Orwin’s method allows the
researcher to determine the number of missing studies with an average
effect of zero that would need to be added to the meta-analysis that brings
the overall effect size in “small” effect size. We established the criterion
value at 0.1 for fail-safe studies as suggested by Orwin (1983) to reflect the
small-threshold effect size.
Finally, we interpret the result of our meta-analysis by following the rule
of thumb suggested by Cohen’s (1988, 1992) where a correlation of
r ¼ 0.10 characterizes a small effect size, r ¼ 0.30 characterizes a medium
effect size and r ¼ 0.5 represents a large effect size.

Results
Main effects: SMMA and consumer perception
The analysis of the relationship between SMMA and BE is the strongest
and largest based on Cohen’s (1988) rules of thumb (r ¼ 0.57, at 95% CI
[0.44, 0.67], n ¼ 3352) compared to the effect of SMMA on PI (r ¼ 0.43, at
95% CI [0.29, 0.56], n ¼ 2930) which based on Cohen’s (1988) rules of
thumb can be interpreted as a medium effect. Consequently, hypotheses H1
and H2 were supported.
Higgins and Thompson (2002) measure of heterogeneity (I2) between
SMMA on one hand, both BE and PI on the other revealed significantly
have high values (approximately 95%). This indicates that around 95% of
the observed variance among studies is due to real differences in the mag-
nitude of the effect size, only less than 5% of the observed variance would
have been expected based on random error or it might come from modera-
tors (Al Jarah & Emeagwali, 2017; Aljarah, Emeagwali, Ibrahim, &
Ababneh, 2018; Vedel, 2016). Equally important, all Q-estimates of hetero-
geneity was statistically significant at p < 0.01. Such a result indicates that
the true heterogeneity of effect sizes among the included studies is not due
to the presence of a within-study error. Furthermore, the result of
Q-estimates and the high value of I2 variation which is well above 75%.
Higgins et al. (2003) suggest the existence of potential moderators between
SMMA and consumer perception. Finally, the result of Fail-Safe N indicates
the low risk of publication bias (see Table 2).
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 15

Table 2. Meta-analytic results.

95% conf.int
P
Variables N K r SE Low High. I2 Q (df) p fsN
SMMA ! brand equity 3352 10 0.57 0.04 0.44 0.67 95.96 223.24 (9) 0.00 47
SMMA ! purchase Intention 2930 10 0.43 0.03 0.29 0.56 95.24 189.17 (9) 0.00 34
P
N, total sample size; k, number of independent samples; SE, standard error; Min., minimum; Max., maximum;
r, observed correlation; low & high, lower and upper boundaries of 95% confidence interval; I2, Higgins and
Thompson’s measure of heterogeneity; Q, test of homogeneity; fsN, failsafe N.

Moderator analysis
Table 3 illustrates the result of meta-regression analysis for the moderator
effect of measurement and context characteristics on the two main relation-
ships tested above. The moderator analyses used analysis of variance
between subgroups where a significant level of Q confirmed the moderating
effect. Table 3 shows that only journal quality produces a significant differ-
ence (Q ¼ 17.48, p < 0.05) in the relationship between SMMA and BE but
does not find a significant difference in the relationship between SMMA
and PI (Q ¼ 0.61, p > 0.05). Regarding the rest of measurement characteris-
tics (economic development, question entire collection), none of them is
found to be a significant moderator (p > 0.05 between all relationship).
Similarly, none of the context characteristics is found to have a significant
moderating effect (p > 0.05 between all relationships).

Discussion
Theoretical contributions
There are a number of theoretical contributions from this research: First,
SMMA is an emerging field of scientific inquiry that lacks quantitative syn-
thesis of empirical findings. This study fills this gap through conducting
the first meta-analysis by examining SMMA relationship with consumer
perceptions through studying BE and PI. Through aggregating research
results, this research originality does have a substantiating value for com-
prehending the overall empirical evidence regarding SMMA with BE
and PI.
Second, the findings reveal a positive linkage with a large effect
(r ¼ 0.572) between SMMA and BE, which is consistent with studies
included in this research. Apart from the work of Ural and Yuksel (2015)
who found a non-significant relationship between SMMA and BE, the gen-
eral consensus observed in literature backs positive linkages in different
industries: such as luxury fashion brand (Godey et al., 2016; Kim & Ko,
2012; Koivulehto, 2017), luxury brand (Rienetta et al., 2017), leather prod-
ucts (Kosarizadeh & Hamdi, 2015), online education marketing (Spackman
& Larsen, 2017), social media or e-commerce sites active users (Yadav &
16 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

Table 3. Meta-regression analysis for the difference in effects of measurement characteristics

and context characteristics as moderators.
95 % conf. int. Q-test
P
Variables k n R Low High Q p Results
Measurement characteristics
Economic development
SMMA ! brand equity
Developing countries 6 2234 0.552 0.395 0.678 1.80ns .17 H3 is not supported
Developed countries 3 273 0.698 0.552 0.803
SMMA ! purchase intention
Developing countries 10 – H4 is not performed
Developed countriesa 0 No sufficient observations
Type of Questionnaire
SMMA ! brand equity
Paper questionnaire 5 2009 0.525 0.341 0.671 0.53ns .46 H5 is not supported
Online questionnaire 5 1343 0.624 0.376 0.788
SMMA ! purchase intention
Paper questionnaire 8 – H6 is not performed
Online questionnairea 2 No sufficient observations
Journal quality
SMMA ! brand equity
High level 4 1723 0.365 0.198 0.511 17.48 .00 H7 is supported
Normal level 6 1629 0.672 0.605 0.729
SMMA ! purchase intention
High level 5 1306 0.492 0.287 0.653 0.61ns .43 H8 is not supported
Normal level 5 1624 0.383 0.169 0.563
Context characteristics
Industry type
SMMA ! brand equity
Manufacture industry 7 2271 0.531 0.365 0.665 1.24ns .26 H9 is not supported
Service industry 3 1081 0.652 0.557 0.730
SMMA ! purchase intention
Manufacture industry 7 1812 0.498 0.358 0.616 2.31ns .12 H10 is not supported
Service industry 3 1118 0.287 0.000 0.530
Sample type
SMMA ! brand equity
Consumer 6 2416 0.495 0.298 0.652 2.49ns .11 H11 is not supported
User 4 936 0.660 0.572 0.733
SMMA ! purchase intention
Consumer 7 1761 0.458 0.326 0.572 0.18ns .67 H12 is not supported
User 3 1169 0.395 0.017 0.693
P
Notes. SMMA, social media marketing activities; k study count, n ¼ total simple size; C, effect size class; r, cor-
relation estimate with significance code; low & high, lower and upper boundaries of 95% confidence interval;
p, significance value.
a
The number of effect sizes less than 3, no sufficient observations means no analysis of moderating role due to
insufficient effect sizes.
p < .001.
ns
p > 0.05.

Rahman, 2017), mobile operator customers (Taşkın & Alkaya, 2017), travel
and tourism industry (Ajanthan, 2017). Conversely, non-significant results
obtained by Ural and Yuksel (2015) represented customers who purchased
or intended to purchase a car and were involved with the brand on social
media. The reported non-significant relationship between SMMA and BE
might be due to the weight consumers place on car safety measures along
with other technical properties rather than BE when they purchase a car.
This assertion finds support in literature as postulated by Dwivedi et al.
(2012), who argue that value and relationships are closely tied to functional
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 17

roots while branding is a distant concept, albeit derived, from functional

roots. This has been offered as a potential reason, which might explain the
negative relationship found between SMMA and BE (Ural and
Yuksel, 2015).
However, our findings reveal that the relationship between SMMA and
BE retains a strong and positive correlation with large effect size. This
result can be interpreted as firms engagement on social media platforms
(e.g., Facebook, Twitter) is a multi-purpose marketing activity, in which
stimulating customers engagement with brands does lead reinforcing firms’
commitment to maintaining SMMA and enhancing overall consumers’
experiences. On the branding side, social media platforms provide a space
for customers to create a direct and friendly communication channel with
other users and the brand. This process helps explain the positive effect of
SMMA on BE. Ontologically, BE is composed of perceptions and beliefs
regarding brands that determine their market share. The findings here sup-
port the notion that SMMA (entertainment, interaction, trendiness, cus-
tomization, and word of mouth (WOM)) seem to offer tools to enhance
BE. This view mirrors general SMM literature that makes the case for using
social media to create a sense of uniqueness for marketed brands
(Yazdanparast, Joseph, & Muniz, 2016).
Third, a medium positive linkage (r ¼ 0.439) exists between SMMA and
PI that is consistent with the majority of primary studies. This was
observed despite the fact that there are some differences in the nature of
the studied industries, such as: luxury fashion brand (Gautam & Sharma,
2017; Kim et al., 2010), leather products (Kosarizadeh & Hamdi, 2015), and
retail banking (Laksamana, 2018). However, these results contradict other
researchers (Ahmed & Zahid, 2014; Taşkın & Alkaya, 2017), who found a
negative and non-significant relationship respectively. Taşkın and Alkaya
(2017) investigated students as familiar members or followers of mobile
operators’ social media pages in Turkey. Their reported negative relation-
ship is plausibly explained by understanding that Turkish mobile operators
utilization of social media is still in its infancy stage. Furthermore, the
nature of the study’s population may have contributed to this result as stu-
dents’ social media use might affect purchase attitude in a different man-
ner. While Ahmed and Zahid (2014), who reported a negative relation,
have sampled users and non-users of social media networks. Hence, the
nature of the study’s sample is not representative of social media users who
are the main targeted population of other SMMA studies.
For companies, using SMMA (entertainment, interaction, trendiness, cus-
tomization, and word of mouth) aims to establish an effective communica-
tion medium among consumers or between consumers and companies.
This study found that these activities would lead to a positive impact on
18 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

PIs. Hence, marketers should give more attention to how these activities
(entertainment, customization, interaction, word of mouth, and trend) can
separately affect PIs (Gautam & Sharma, 2017). As social networking plat-
forms enable customers to interact, communicate, and share the interest in
certain products or services delivered by companies, PI is expected
to increase.
Fourth, SMMA exhibit varying values of effect sizes on BE (large effect:
0.57) and PI (medium effect: 0.43). This is taken as an indication for an
obvious difference in SMMA’s ability to manipulate BE and PI. The explan-
ation is that SMMA could largely magnify BE is due to promoting a strong
positive attitude and a preferred assessment based on a set of positive
brand perceptions and beliefs. This effect does lead to enhancing attitude
toward well-known brands for customers, whereas PI might be also affected
by time, trust, and brands’ familiarity.
Fifth, we did not find any significant moderating effects for all measure-
ment characteristics and Context Characteristics on SMMA and BE rela-
tionship, apart from the significant effect of journal quality. The results of
moderating effects can be interpreted as the effect of rigorous review and
publication process has a dampening effect on the reported correlation
between SMMA and BE relationship. Similarly, this study found no signifi-
cant moderating effects on the relationship between SMMA and PIs for all
context and measurement characteristics.

Implications for practitioners

The findings of this study have several implications, which offer a guide for
practitioners to understand how SMMA (entertainment, customization,
interaction, word of mouth, and trendiness) affect consumer perception
through BE and PI. Findings from this meta-analysis develop that know-
ledge by providing a quantifiable value for the magnitude of these effects.
Also, it shows that SMM activities have a larger effect on BE and medium
effect on SMMA–PI relationship. Consequently, some managerial implica-
tions can be drawn. First, marketers could employ these insights to enhance
BE. For example, promoting interaction and supporting easily deliverable
information about brands to simulate WOM among customers will, in
turn, enhance customer–firm relationship, thus enhancing BE. Second, this
study makes the case for supporting SMMA to stimulate PI in different
industries. Third, social media pages are well positioned to be a focal point
for marketing managers’ efforts to enact entertainment, customization,
interaction, word-of-mouth, and trendiness to motivate purchasing among
customers. Fourth, for the relationship between SMMA and BE customers
in developed countries are more sensitive to SMMA than developing
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 19

countries, so these markets provide slightly better returns for SMMA in

terms of BE gains. Fifth, SMMA and PI relationship was found to be more
sensitive in the manufacturing industry compared to the services industry.
Thus, implying marketers in manufacturing industries are better positioned
to reap higher sales gains through fine-tuning their SMMA. Sixth, the
social media platforms are advised to assess their roles in creating environ-
ments that are favorable for implementing SMMA. Examples of such con-
ducive environments might include: facilitating customers’ suggestions
about products, enabling experimenting with new products, creating new
and update content that matches different groups of users and employing a
stimulating system to enhance group interaction.

Limitations
The present study has a number of limitations. First, the relatively low
number of studies examining phenomena that were of interest were less
than three studies on some occasions limiting our ability to conduct mod-
erating analysis for cultural difference among social media platforms.
Second, an inhibiting factor might be using the formula proposed by
Peterson and Brown (2005), as there is an argument for the problems of
converting beta estimated regression to correlations matrix in the meta-
analysis (Becker & Wu, 2007; Bowman, 2012). Nevertheless, this study rep-
resents a significantly informing first attempt to meta-analyze SMMA. As
such, the study provides a quantitative summary of research on these pri-
mary relationships that no prior meta-analysis has attempted before.

Future research
Through conducting this research, it has become apparent to the authors
that other possible venues for future researchers to enable more consolida-
tion of the SMMA field is by conducting more meta-analysis reports. For
instance, examining the relationship between SMMA and CBBE, or apply-
ing meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) for the proposed
model of Kim and Ko (2012). Such a path has ample space to study both
direct effects and mediation relationships, which were not considered in
this research. Another suggestion is studying more potential moderating
effects for future meta-analysis in the field of SMM. For example, the vary-
ing effects between social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram).
Furthermore, the authors noticed that BE has been operationalized in two
ways. Thus, future researchers are invited to look into the possibilities of
conducting meta-analyses based on these differences. Finally, building on
the research limitations future researchers are encouraged to account for
20 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

the differences in cultural contexts according to the big five personality

traits, once more primary research that reports cultural factors is available.

Conclusion
To sum up, this paper investigated the relationship between SMMA, BE,
and PIs through aggregating the primary quantitative studies in the field by
meta-analyzing the reported relations. Specifically, the findings show a
strong linkage between SMMA and BE, while a medium effect between
SMMA and PI is shown. These findings might prove to be valuable for
social media marketers, who are looking for conclusive evidence for
SMMA’s impact on consumers to enhance BE and stimulate PIs. At the
same time, we offer future researchers several avenues to conduct SMMA
research to help stabiles the field foothold in the academic discipline
through providing an aggregated output of the field to support theoretical
contributions made by our colleagues, while providing a sense of direction
for future researchers.

ORCID
Blend Ibrahim http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2410-765X
Ahmad Aljarah http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5722-0846

References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 27–32.
doi:10.1108/eb039503
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review, 38(3), 102–120. doi:10.2307/41165845
Ahmed, M. A., & Zahid, Z. (2014). Role of social media marketing to enhance CRM and
brand equity in terms of purchase intention. Asian Journal of Management Research,
4(3), 533–549.
Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome
measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.4.1.
18688
Ajanthan, D. (2017). The role of a social media marketing in building brand equity – A
special reference to travel & tourism industry in Sri Lanka. Global Journal of
Management and Business Research, 17(3), 30-37. https://journalofbusiness.org/index.
php/GJMBR/article/view/2345
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckmann (Eds.), Action control (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 21

Akar, E., & Topçu, B. (2011). An examination of the factors influencing consumers’ atti-
tudes toward social media marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce, 10(1), 35–67. doi:10.
1080/15332861.2011.558456
Al Jarah, A., & Emeagwali, O. L. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and behavioral
intention: The moderator effect of contextual factors. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(4),
678–697. doi:10.1108/SRJ-07-2017-0113
Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media in mar-
keting: A review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7),
1177–1190. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.008
Algharabat, R., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Alalwan, A. A., & Qasem, Z. (2018). The effect
of telepresence, social presence and involvement on consumer brand engagement: An
empirical study of non-profit organizations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
40, 139–149. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.011
Algharabat, R. S. (2017). Linking social media marketing activities with brand love.
Kybernetes, 46(10), 1801–1819. doi:10.1108/K-04-2017-0130
Aljarah, A., Emeagwali, L., Ibrahim, B., & Ababneh, B. (2018). Does corporate social
responsibility really increase customer relationship quality? A meta-analytic review.
Social Responsibility Journal, 16(1):28–49. doi:10.1108/SRJ-08-2018-0205
Ambler, T., & Styles, C. (1996). Brand development versus new product development:
Towards a process model of extension decisions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
14(7), 10–19. doi:10.1108/02634509610152664
Arora, A. S., & Sanni, S. A. (2019). Ten years of ‘social media marketing’ research in the
journal of promotion management: research synthesis, emerging themes, and new direc-
tions. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(4), 476–499. doi:10.1080/10496491.2018.
1448322
Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2001). Conducting meta-analysis using
SAS. Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Babi
c Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016). The effect of elec-
tronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric
factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318. doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0380
Barefoot, D., & Szabo, J. (2010). Friends with benefits: A social media marketing handbook.
San Francisco: No Starch Press.
Barreda, A. A., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., & Okumus, F. (2015). Generating brand awareness
in Online Social Networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 600–609. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.03.023
Becker, B. J., & Wu, M.-J. (2007). The synthesis of regression slopes in meta-analysis.
Statistical Science, 22(3), 414–429. doi:10.1214/07-STS243
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009a). Introduction to
meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10.1002/9780470743386
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009b). Effect sizes
based on correlations. In M. Borenstein, L. V. Hedges, J. P. T. Higgins, & H. R.
Rothstein (Eds.), Introduction to meta-analysis (pp. 41–43). Chichester, UK: John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd. 10.1002/9780470743386.ch6
Bowman, N. A. (2012). Effect sizes and statistical methods for meta-analysis in higher edu-
cation. Research in Higher Education, 53(3), 375–382. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9232-5
Chan, N. L., & Guillet, B. D. (2011). Investigation of social media marketing: How does the
hotel industry in Hong Kong perform in marketing on social media websites? Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(4), 345–368. doi:10.1080/10548408.2011.571571
22 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

Chang, Y.-T., Yu, H., & Lu, H.-P. (2015). Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and
message diffusion in social media marketing. Journal of Business Research, 68(4),
777–782. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.027
Chi, H.-H. (2011). Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 44–61. doi:10.1080/15252019.2011.10722190
Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common v2 tests. Biometrics,
10(4), 417. doi:10.2307/3001616
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.112.1.155
Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D. J., Jr, Crook, T. R., & Roth, P. L. (2011). Assessing cumulative evi-
dence within ‘macro’ research: Why meta-analysis should be preferred over vote counting.
Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 178–197. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00899.x
Dodds, W. B. (1995). Market cues affect on consumers’ product evaluations. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(2), 50–63. doi:10.1080/10696679.1995.11501684
Durlak, J. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (1991). Methodology: A practitioner’s guide to meta-ana-
lysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 291–332. 10.1007/BF00938026
Dwivedi, A., Merrilees, B., Miller, D., & Herington, C. (2012). Brand, value and relationship
equities and loyalty-intentions in the Australian supermarket industry. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(5), 526–536. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.06.009
DeFranzo, S. E. (2012). Which is more effective: Paper-based surveys or online surveys?
Retrieved from https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/which-is-more-effective-paper-based-
surveys-or-online-surveys/
_ E., & Çiçek, M. (2012). The impact of social media marketing on brand loyalty.
Erdogmuş, I.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1353–1360. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1119
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694. doi:10.1348/000711010X502733
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Gautam, V., & Sharma, V. (2017). The mediating role of customer relationship on the
social media marketing and purchase intention relationship with special reference to lux-
ury fashion brands. Journal of Promotion Management, 23(6), 872–888. doi:10.1080/
10496491.2017.1323262
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., & Singh, R.
(2016). Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and
consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5833–5841. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2016.04.181
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising
on buyers’ perceptions of acquisi. Journal of Marketing, 62(2):46–59. Retrieved from http://
www.dhruvgrewal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/1998-JM-Value.pdf doi:10.2307/1252160
Hamari, J., & Keronen, L. (2017). Why do people play games? A meta-analysis.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 125–141. doi:10.1016/j.ijin-
fomgt.2017.01.006
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 23

Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring incon-
sistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Hootsuite. (2018). Digital in 2018: World’s internet users pass the 4 billion mark – We Are
Social. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018
Ibrahim, B., & Aljarah, A. (2018). Dataset of relationships among social media marketing
activities, brand loyalty, revisit intention. Evidence from the hospitality industry in
Northern Cyprus. Data in Brief, 21, 1823–1828. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.11.024
Ismail, A. (2017). The influence of perceived social media marketing activities on brand
loyalty: The mediation effect of brand and value consciousness. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, 29(1), 129–144. doi:10.1108/APJML-10-2015-0154
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.
2009.09.003
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand
equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, A., & Ko, E. (2010). Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on cus-
tomer relationship and purchase intention. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing Journal
Marketing, 13(13), 164–171. doi:10.1080/20932685.2010.10593068
Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity?
An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65(10),
1480–1486. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014
Kim, J., Kim, J.-E., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2010). The customer–salesperson relationship and
sales effectiveness in luxury fashion stores: The role of self monitoring. Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, 1(4), 230–239. doi:10.1080/20932685.2010.10593074
Koivulehto, E. I. (2017). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? A
case study of fast-fashion brand Zara. Retrieved from https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/
123456789/26042
Kosarizadeh, M., & Hamdi, K. (2015). Studying the effect of social media on consumer
purchase intention (case study: leather products). Journal of Applied Environmental and
Biological Sciences, 5(7), 171–181.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2018). Marketing 4.0: Moving from traditional to
digital. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Kumar, R. S., Dash, S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2018). The impact of marketing activities on
service brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 52 (3/4):596–618. doi:10.1108/EJM-
05-2016-0262
Laksamana, P. (2018). Impact of social media marketing on purchase intention and brand
loyalty: Evidence from Indonesia’s banking industry. International Review of
Management and Marketing, 8(1), 13–18.
LaMontagne.Liva. (2015). Marketing Sherpa. Retrieved from https://www.marketingsherpa.
com/article/chart/demographics-why-customer-follow-brands-social-media#
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11–19. doi:10.1108/07363769510095270
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.cy/books/about/Practical_Meta_
Analysis.html?id=G-PnRSMxdIoC&redir_esc=y
24 B. IBRAHIM ET AL.

Lloyd, A. E., & Luk, S. T. K. (2010). The devil wears Prada or Zara: A revelation into cus-
tomer perceived value of luxury and mass fashion brands. Journal of Global Fashion
Marketing, 1(3), 129–141. doi:10.1080/20932685.2010.10593065
Lu, L.-C., Chang, W.-P., & Chang, H.-H. (2014). Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s sponsored
recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and
brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258–266. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.007
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the pro-
motion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002
Miller, K. D., Fabian, F., & Lin, S.-J. (2009). Strategies for online communities. Strategic
Management Journal, 30(3), 305–322. doi:10.1002/smj.735
Mohammadpour, A., Arbatani, T. R., Gholipour, T. H., Farzianpour, F., & Hosseini, S.
(2014). A survey of the effect of social media marketing on online shopping of customers
by mediating variables. Journal of Service Science and Management, 07(05), 368–376. doi:
10.4236/jssm.2014.75034
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Grp, P. (2009). Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (reprinted from
annals of internal medicine). Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873–880. doi:10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
Morrel-Samuels, P. (2003). Web surveys’ hidden hazards. Harvard Business Review, 81(7),
16–17.
Okazaki, S., & Taylor, C. R. (2013). Social media and international advertising: Theoretical
challenges and future directions. International Marketing Review, 30(1), 56–71. doi:10.
1108/02651331311298573
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A Fail-Safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational
Statistics, 8(2), 157. doi:10.2307/1164923
Par
e, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems
knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Pavlou, P. A., & Chai, L. (2002). What drives electronic commerce across cultures? A
cross-cultural empirical investigation of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 3(4):240–253. Retrieved from http://www.jecr.org/sites/
default/files/03_4_p04.pdf
Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
Pinto, L., Loureiro, S. M. C., Rita, P., & Sarmento, E. M. (2019). Fostering online relation-
ships with brands through websites and social media brand pages. Journal of Promotion
Management, 25(3), 379–393. doi:10.1080/10496491.2019.1557817
Rienetta, F., Rahayu, S. R. I., Hati, H., & Gayatri, G. (2017). The effect of social media mar-
keting on luxury brand customer equity among young adults. IJEM, 11, 409–425.
Schivinski, B., & Da˛browski, D. (2013). The impact of brand communication on brand
equity dimensions and on brand purchase intention through Facebook. GUT FME
Working Paper Series A. Gdansk (Poland): Gdansk University of Technology. Faculty of
Management and Economics, 4(4), 1–24.
Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). The effect of social media communication on con-
sumer perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(2), 189–214. doi:
10.1080/13527266.2013.871323
Seo, E.-J., & Park, J.-W. (2018). A study on the effects of social media marketing activities
on brand equity and customer response in the airline industry. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 66, 36–41. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.09.014
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 25

Shao, C. Y., Baker, J. A., & Wagner, J. (2004). The effects of appropriateness of service con-
tact personnel dress on customer expectations of service quality and purchase intention:
The moderating influences of involvement and gender. Journal of Business Research,
57(10), 1164–1176. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00326-0
Sharma, S., & Verma, H. V. (2018). Social media marketing: Evolution and change. In G.
Heggdeg & G. Shainesh (Eds.), Social Media Marketing (pp. 19–36). Singapore: Springer
Singapore. 10.1007/978-981-10-5323-8_2
Spackman, J. S., & Larsen, R. (2017). Evaluating the impact of social media marketing on
online course registration. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(3), 151–165.
doi:10.1080/07377363.2017.1368774
Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the internet.
Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 709–725. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00259.x
Statista. (2018). Facebook users worldwide 2018 j Statista. Retrieved from https://www.sta-
tista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.
Taşkın, E., & Alkaya, A. (2017). The impact of social media pages on customer equity and
purchase intention; An empirical study of mobile operators. Journal of Business Research
– Turk, 3(9), 122–133. doi:10.20491/isarder.2017.291
Toor, A., Husnain, M., & Hussain, T. (2017). The impact of social network marketing on
consumer purchase intention in Pakistan: consumer engagement as a mediator. Asian
Journal of Business & Accounting, 10(1), 167–199.
United Nations – Department of Economic & Affairs. (2018). World Economic Situation
and Prospects 2018. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-con-
tent/uploads/sites/45/publication/WESP2018_Full_Web-1.pdf
Ural, T., & Yuksel, D. (2015). The mediating roles of perceived customer equity drivers
between social media marketing activities and purchase intention a study on Turkish
Culture. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management United
Kingdom, III(10), 1-18. Retrieved from http://ijecm.co.uk/
Vedel, A. (2016). Big Five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic
review. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011
Wang, Z., Hu, S., Miao, Z., & Ma, L. (2018). A meta-analysis of satisfaction–loyalty rela-
tionship in e-commerce: Sample and measurement characteristics as moderators.
Wireless Personal Communications, 103(1), 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11277-018-5488-9
Williams, G., Hamm, M. P., Shulhan, J., Vandermeer, B., & Hartling, L. (2014). Social
media interventions for diet and exercise behaviours: A systematic review and meta-ana-
lysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open, 4(2), e003926. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-
2013-003926
Yadav, M., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Measuring consumer perception of social media market-
ing activities in e-commerce industry: Scale development & validation. Telematics and
Informatics, 34(7), 1294–1307. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.001
Yadav, M., & Rahman, Z. (2018). The influence of social media marketing activities on cus-
tomer loyalty. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(9), 3882–3905. doi:10.1108/
BIJ-05-2017-0092
Yazdanparast, A., Joseph, M., & Muniz, F. (2016). Consumer based brand equity in the
21st century: an examination of the role of social media marketing. Young Consumers,
17(3), 243–255. doi:10.1108/YC-03-2016-00590