Choosing Sides in Social Media

CHOOSING SIDES IN SOCIAL MEDIA
Sales-related updates versus non-sales related updates by companies on social media, and its influence on the customers willingness to participate
Ruud Peeters ANR: 872915
Master Thesis Communication and Information Sciences Specialization: Business Communication and Digital Media
School of Humanities Tilburg University, Tilburg
Supervisor: Dr. A. Alishahi Co-supervisor: Dr. S. Milan
June, 2013
Preface
In order to complete the master course Communication & Information Sciences, I was expected to write a thesis about one of the topics that the school provided. My choice involved the Dynamics Of Web 2.0 topic, which I narrowed down to content updates by companies on social media for this study.
I would like to thank everybody who participated in the online survey and had a share in the successful completion of this thesis. Many thanks to Dr. A. Alishahi (supervisor), Dr. S. Milan (co-supervisor) and Dr. M. Antheunis (for discussing the theoretical framework and sharing her insight on the topic).
Furthermore, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support.
Tilburg, June 2013
Master Thesis | Communication & Information Sciences | Ruud Peeters
Abstract
This study builds on previous research of social media usage by youngsters. We researched the influence of sales-related content updates (called SR) by companies on Facebook and Twitter on the customers willingness to participate (called WTPar), versus the influence of non-sales-related content updates (called NSR). Furthermore, we looked at the differences between hedonic products and utilitarian products in regard to the customers WTPar. The study was conducted via an online questionnaire, where the participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions of this study.
A 2x2x2 factorial experimental design was used to test the proposed hypotheses. For Hypothesis 1, it was hypothesized that SR content updates by companies are less desired by the customer, therefore lowering their WTPar. Even though the WTPar score in the SR conditions was lower than the WTPar score in the NSR conditions, this difference was not significant. Hypothesis 2 stated that content updates on Facebook versus content updates on Twitter equally impact the customers WTPar. The results of the study showed that this was indeed the case. Hypothesis 3, however, was rejected. It was predicted that content updates containing hedonic products would result in a higher consumers WTPar compared to utilitarian products. Results showed that this was not the case.
Two of the independent variables were between-subject: (1) the source of the content update (Facebook/Twitter) and (2) the type of content update (SR/NSR). The third variable was merged with the two independent variables, according to its within-subject design: hedonic versus utilitarian products.
The participants indicated that they are willing to follow a company on social media and think that it is helpful. However, when asked to respond or participate in a content update placed by a company, the results were different: a low WTPar score throughout all the conditions. Furthermore, participants indicated that after seeing an update they were (1) unlikely to involve with the brand in the future and were (2) unlikely to purchase the displayed product. These results were the same for all four conditions, showing a trend that was similar to the low WTPar scores. Despite these low scores, participants of the questionnaire generally displayed positive feelings about the brands and thought the products were of sufficient quality, especially in the NSR conditions.
Table of contents
1. 2.
Introduction Theoretical Framework 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. The dynamics of Web 2.0 and social media The changed interaction between companies and customers Motivations for using the internet Social media neutrality, sociality and privacy The Honeycomb framework The 4C Model of social media strategy Willingness to participate (WTPar) The hedonic versus utilitarian model Facebook
6 8 8 9 11 12 13 15 17 17 17 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23
2.10. Twitter 2.11. Research question and hypothesis 2.11.1. Introduction 2.11.2. Research question 2.11.3. Hypothesis 1 2.11.4. Hypothesis 2 2.11.5 Hypothesis 3 3. Method 3.1. 3.2. Design Stimuli
3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 4.
Procedure Target group Participants Measurements
24 24 26 27 29 29 30 30 31 36 36 37 39 41 47 47 89
Results 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. General attitude towards social media posts Connection with the company Product attitude Hypothesis testing
5.
Discussion 5.1. 5.2. Limitations and future research Implications and a look at the future of social media
6. 7. 8.
Conclusion References Appendices Appendix I. Online questionnaire Appendix II. Graphics
1.
Introduction
We now live in a world where people have the opportunity to communicate, connect, collaborate and express in a way that was deemed impossible in the 20th century. There has been a major shift in terms of using the internet as an individual; the internet user is now in control and is no longer dependant (Everson, Gundlach & Miller, 2013). According to Forrester Research (Ghelfi, 2010), 71% of internet users below the age of 21 are creating content for the Web (e.g. videos, blogs and websites). Almost three-quarters (70%) are users of social networking sites. The majority of these users (61%) are active posters of comments on published content. A survey by Bernoff (2010) showed that 60% of all adults (as a general demographic) admitted that they maintain profiles on social media and visit these media on a regular basis. A core characteristic of this study is Web 2.0, which is the umbrella term for the sharing, linking, collaborating and inclusion of user-generated content (Thackeray, Neiger & Hanson, 2007). It means that users are in control of the content (OReilly, 2005); the term originated in 2005, when the dot-com companies collapsed. Its predecessor Web 1.0 centralized one-way communication through static web pages. The users of these pages were only able to absorb information. With the rise of Web 2.0, users became able to both produce and share information (Everson et al., 2013). The ability to share is especially interesting regarding content updates on social media (see section 2.2 for an extensive discussion). For increased profits, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty, Palmatier, Dant, Grewal and Evans (2006) stated that it is increasingly important to generate effective companycustomer relationships. Chen, Fay and Wang (2011) characterized Facebook and Twitter as core venues for companies and brands. These two social media provide the possibility for sales, online customer relationships and management for companies, and provide a platform to publish personal evaluations of products, brands and services for the customer. Therefore, Facebook and Twitter will be used in this study. Furthermore, research by Mollen and Wilson (2010) showed that online interactions with a brand create greater cognitive processing, heightened relevance and emotional experiences. The advertising effectiveness is therefore greater (Calder, Malthouse & Schadel, 2009). This study aims to answer the question what kind of content update yields the best results for companies; sales-related content updates (called SR from here) are compared to non-sales-related content updates (called NSR from here) via the two mediums Facebook and Twitter. Content updates are defined as new posts on Facebook and Twitter that contain either
SR or NSR related content, for example a discount (SR) or information about the product (NSR). The content updates in this study are placed on the Facebook or Twitter pages of nonexisting brands, which were made up specifically for this study.
The structure of this study is as follows. First, we explore the underlying theories and models (chapter 2) and formulate our research question and hypothesis. After that, we report on the methodology (chapter 3). The results of the study are placed in chapter 4, and are discussed and reflected upon in chapter 5. Finally, we draw a conclusion in chapter 6.
2.
Theoretical framework
2.1.
The dynamics of Web 2.0 and social media
The line between entertainment and marketing communication on social media has become thin during recent years (Grigorovici & Constantin, 2004). Social media generates millions of dollars in revenue and advertising. However, little is known about why people join and participate in these social media sites, which allow users to create their own space for creating content (Gangadharbatla, 2008). Social media are online platforms and applications that offer the possibility of interaction, collaboration and content sharing (Richter & Koch, 2007). These media can be further divided in microblogging, podcasts, pictures, video, social bookmarking, weblogs and social blogs (Kim, A.J. & Ko, E., 2012). Social media can create possibilities for companies who find themselves in the position to use advertising and marketing. Research by Kim and Ko (2012) has shown that integrated online marketing is especially attractive because of the low effort and cost compared to traditional marketing. A core characteristic of social media is to what extent it enables companies and customers to connect, communicate and engage. This concept of customer engagement was described by Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric and Ilic (2011, p. 253) as creating an interactive experience and value co-creation within marketing relationships. The definition of marketing has changed over time, among other reasons by the rise of Web 2.0 technology (Thackeray et al., 2007). Although many people still define marketing as promotional tactics such as billboards and commercials, marketing is still a part of the complete social media strategy (Thackeray et al., 2007; 2008). With the increase in technology and online environments in Web 2.0, marketers have an increased potential of reaching customers via their own online profiles. The customer value has become increasingly important, and companies that represent themselves online have to factor in the value of these customers and their online behavior (Kim & Ko, 2012). To explore the (non-)sales nature of content updates, one first has to understand marketing promotion. Kotler and Keller (2007) provided three purposes for marketing promotion: it can be used (1) to increase the awareness of the product, (2) to persuade people to buy the product and (3) to let the customer know that the product is still available. Research by Belch and Belch (2007) has shown that marketers have been using Web 2.0 technologies to form an interactive marketing strategy and online promotion tactics. This includes pop-ups and unders, banner advertising, paid search results and so forth. Rainie
(2007) states that although Web 2.0 is becoming increasingly popular for the general population younger people take particular interest in the possibilities of social media. Besides the changes in the Web 2.0 environment, social media has also lead to a change in the way companies and customers communicate and interact.
2.2.
The changed interaction between companies and customers
Currently, social media sites are very diverse in terms of their function, scope and purpose (Kietzman, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011). Some networks are aimed at the general masses, like Facebook. Other networks have a more professional nature, such as LinkedIn. The sharing of videos and photos is provided by social networks such as Youtube and Flickr. Because Web 2.0 is customer-driven and based, the (micro) blogging services such as Twitter and Wordpress become more widespread as well. The customer is able to voice their public opinion without restrictions here, and can offer real-time updates regarding the information they encounter. Research by Madway (2010) shows that a total of 145 million Twitter users send an average of 90 million tweets per day. No exact numbers of the present (2013) are known, but one can imagine the amount of Twitter users and tweets have only increased since 2010. Because of these developments, the role of the customer is increasingly important for companies that want to settle on social media (Kietzman et al., 2011). People talk about companies online, whether they want it or not. Both participating in this conversation and ignoring it could have a great impact on the brand. The business editor for the BBC, Tim Weber, stated in 2010 that These days, one witty tweet, one clever blog post, one devastating video - forwarded to hundreds of friends at the click of a mouse - can snowball and kill a product or damage a companys share price. (Kietzman et al., 2011). Besides involving the customer, social media is also a great tool for viral and buzz marketing (Thackeray et al., 2008). This form of marketing encourages the customer to share a message and pass along marketing information. When companies create content to publish on their social media platforms, viral marketing can be a powerful tool. Because of the speed that users can share information within their network nowadays, a precise content update can yield great marketing results (Thackeray et al., 2008). As the technology of Web 2.0 goes through a continues change, companies need to be creative in their promotional efforts on social media and devise a strategy which yields the best results regarding customer satisfaction and their willingness to participate (see section 2.7 for more discussion).
Customers want companies to listen to them, help them when they have issues and respond to them (Kietzman et al., 2011). The experiences and preferences of the customer regarding a brand are increasingly dependent on Web 2.0 dynamics like peer reviews, social networks, blogs, tagging, online forums and referrals by friends (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Factors influencing the decision-making process in an information-based marketplace. Adapted from Kotler (2003) and Constantinides (2004); retrieved from Constantinides & Fountain (2007).
Social media are especially suited to reach and engage young customers (Shankar, Inman, Mantrala, Kelley & Rizley, 2011), or digital natives (Prensky, 2005; see section 3.4). However, companies are still seeking the best way to use social media and are trying to understand the extent to which Facebook and Twitter can play a role in involving the customer (Parent, Plangger & Bal, 2011). Although research on this field is increasing, there is still a continuous need for investigation of customer behavior in regard to social media and online brand engagement, particularly among younger customers (Rohm, Milne & Kaltcheva,
10
2012). Therefore, this research will be focused on digital natives. To find out how the target group of this study uses the internet, we explore the motivations for internet usage in the next section.
2.3.
Motivations for using the internet
How is internet used, and what are the corresponding motivations? Together with Hotwired, Wired Magazines internet website, and based on the association probes drawn from the cognitive psychology literature (Szalay & Deese, 1978; Friedmann & Fox, 1989), Staffard, Staffard and Schkade (2001) created a survey to discover the motivations for using the internet, including questions such as Using single, easy-to-understand terms, what do you use the Web for?. In total, 98 respondents answered the questions and filled in a total of 179 terms. The top 15 results of this survey can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Motivational inventory; Top 15 motivations of internet usage (Staffard et al., 2001) Item Overall frequency of response Information Email Research News Software Chatting Entertainment Communication Fun Access Work People Web sites Speed Updates 114 49 45 41 31 24 24 23 20 17 15 13 12 12 12
Based on the information of Table 1, we can conclude people mainly use the internet for NSR content, like News, Chatting and Entertainment. E-mail, Software, Information and Research
11
can be allocated to both SR and NSR updates, as it depends on the context. Although this is no hard evidence that SR updates have a lower impact on the customers WTPar compared to NSR updates, it allows us to gain insight in the motivations of internet users. Before we analyze the background of Facebook and Twitter, we first take look at the role of sociality, neutrality and privacy regarding social media.
2.4.
Social media neutrality, sociality and privacy
We know that social media sites are a part of Web 2.0. However, it is also important to note that social media are not neutral, because the networks within social media function differently. Companies like Facebook and Twitter provide people with new ways of connecting, curating and consuming, but differ in doing so. The neutrality of these networks is one of the most important debates of our time, because it deals with important issues like the freedom to innovate, the freedom to listen, and the freedom to speak. Social media like Facebook and Twitter have an extensive infrastructure, with a wide variety of applications and content. In psychical networks, the values are gained in the psychical layer. However, social media operates on our social layer, our connections with others. This allows companies to accumulate value because we contribute in the form of our online presence. The value of the network lies in its size. Therefore, the network becomes more attractive as it grows. Both Twitter and Facebook have built an extensive network, and this monopoly becomes increasingly larger as Facebook and Twitter become an ever larger part of our lives. The three primary characteristics, or the main reasons for joining social media networks, are: (1) identity, (2) relationship and (3) community (Leenes, 2010). Identity involves playing a certain role on social media, information that is given (consciously) and information that is given off (unconsciously). Maintaining and personalizing a Facebook or Twitter profile is a part of this identity construction. The second characteristic, relationship, allows users of Facebook and Twitter to attract and invite others to a persons network. They can become a Friend on Facebook, or a Follower on Twitter. The third characteristic that draws users to social media is community. This characteristic revolves around doing things together as a community and sharing opinions, thoughts and ideas. Within these three characteristics, sociality and privacy play an increasingly important role. Sociality on the one hand means that a person chooses a rich social online life and takes privacy consequences for granted. Privacy on the other hand raises a set of issues that most people would rather not have (Leenes, 2010). The most important issue of privacy in social media seems to be the invisibility of audiences. Many users put extensive personal data in their online profile, but do
12
not limit others access to this information. This can lead to serious privacy risks (Leenes, 2010). Privacy and sociality are important terms regarding the usage of internet and the online relation between companies and customers, especially since social media are rapidly growing. Bigger social media networks are attractive for both potential users and advertisers and the interaction between these two groups via online profiles.
2.5.
The Honeycomb framework
Although many companies seem to acknowledge the possibilities of social media, not all of them know how to devise a correct strategy, thereby often ignoring or wrongly treating creative customers (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy & Kates, 2007). Another problem regarding companies on social media is that they often lack understanding of the term social media and the various services it can provide (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). This study aims to clarify the role of SR and NSR content updates by companies on Facebook and Twitter. To aid this exploration, the Honeycomb framework and the 4 Cs Model by Kietzman et al. (2011) are used. The Honeycomb framework is build around seven functional blocks of social media: Identity, Conversations, Sharing, Presence, Relationships, Reputation and Groups. Kietzman et al. (2011) state that these blocks do not have to be present in every medium, but instead allow us to gain insight in the functionality and constructs of certain social media.
Table 2: Social media functionality (Kietzman et al., 2011). Building block Identity Conversation Sharing Presence Relationships Reputation Groups Definition The extent to which users reveal themselves. The extent to which users communicate with each other. The extent to which users exchange, distribute and receive content. The extent to which users know if others are available. The extent to which users relate to each other. The extent to which users know the social standing of others The extent to which users are ordered or form communities.
Table 2 explains the functionality of the social media blocks. In Figure 2, the implications of these functionalities regarding a companys position on social media are displayed.
13
Figure 2. Implications of the functionality (Kietzman et al., 2011)
In this research, Facebook and Twitter will be compared. An increasing number of companies create Twitter accounts and have a fanpage on Facebook. This removes the restrictions of time and place between the company and the customer and leads to an interactive two-way and direct communication, compared to the Web 1.0 era, where one-way communication was the leading way of communication (Kim & Ko, 2012). To understand their functionality within social media, the Honeycomb model is applied to Twitter and Facebook (see Figure 3). Jansen et al. (2009) analyzed a Twitter database of 150000 tweets. A large percentage contained some feeling or expressions, both positive and negative, towards a brand. When we look at Figure 3, we can see that Twitter differs from Facebook in its essential honeycomb blocks (Kietzman et al., 2011). While Facebook is mainly focused on Relationships, Twitter revolves around Presence. The darkest sections are the most important for that particular medium. The partially colored sections are second in importance. However, this does not mean that the white blocks are unimportant.
14
Figure 3. The Honeycomb framework of Twitter and Facebook (Kietzman et al., 2011)
Although the Honeycomb model is a great way to explore the building blocks of social media, it merely provides insight for companies and lacks a social media guideline. For their research, Kietzman et al. (2011) also used the 4C model.
2.6.
The 4C Model of social media strategy
The 4C Model provides a guideline for companies with regard to a social media strategy: Cognize, Congruity, Curate and Chase. The 4C model explains how companies have to monitor, understand and respond to social media activities.
Cognize Cognize is derived from recognize. This first C states that companies should first understand the social media landscape via the Honeycomb model, as it provides important information for understanding the customer. In addition, companies should find out if conversations about the company are being held, and if so, where. Not only should the company explore their own landscape, but also that of their competitors, to determine how active they are and how their social media strategy is shaped.
15
Congruity The second C, Congruity, is based on the harmony of social media activity. It states that companies should devise a strategy that is similar to their goals and mission statement. By applying the Honeycomb model, the company can focus the particular building blocks which are most important (see Figure 2). In this phase, the company chooses which path to take. A few possibilities of such strategies are to raise brand awareness, increase sales or to increase brand loyalty. Another important factor of congruity is the realization that companies are not in control of social media (Kietzman et al., 2011). Instead, it is the customer that voices their opinion and beliefs, and it is up to the company to react and respond to these conversations. In addition, the mix between social media and traditional media plays an important role. If the total marketing strategy is not integrated, the audience is likely to get lost. The last important factor of congruity is using the Honeycomb framework to gain trust of the key influencers of a certain medium.
Curate This C revolves around finding the right curator for the social media strategy, who devises a strategy for the amount of content updates and decides the time at which they are posted. Armano (2009) states that the company should identify employees that care about online conversation and have the ability to listen. Furthermore, these employees have to be capable of creating content updates that are emotionally appropriate for the community. Another important aspect of Curate is the ability to create mash-ups. This is a mixture of media that is already published online, such as content or research. The key goal of Curate is solving customer issues and thereby developing a relationship that improves brand loyalty (Kietzman et al., 2011).
Chase The last C, Chase, is the most time-consuming one. It revolves around chasing information for new content updates and adapting/updating the strategy for the (near) future. In this phase, the company can analyze the results of the first 3 Cs, and reflect on these. This stage also involves observing the developments of new social media, like the recently released Google+. This phase has become more manageable since the release of Google Analytics, Google Alerts, Tweetdeck and more. These applications allow the company to gain easy insight in their social media data. Perhaps the most important factor of this phase is the speed of reaction to negative company news, even as small as a tweet (Kietzman et al., 2011).
16
2.7.
Willingness to participate
The model of a customers willingness to participate (called WTPar from here) was created by Parent et al. (2011). This new concept model is based on a previous strategy, called willingness to pay, representing the premium price customers were willing to pay for goods or services. This strategy revolved around the idea that customers felt there were no substitutes available for a certain product. However, with the rise of Web 2.0 and social media, users of social media have gained control over marketing efforts (Parent et al., 2011). Customers have developed a new kind of brand loyalty and prefer personal conversations with companies over faceless and impersonal marketing. This new affinity with brands has been assembled in the term WTPar, the customers willingness to participate with the brand. The current study tests the foundations of this model against the sales nature of content updates by companies. In other words, what is the influence of (N)SR content updates on the customers WTPar?
2.8
The hedonic versus utilitarian model
For this study, we also chose to incorporate different product types in the content updates: hedonic and utilitarian products (van Aart, 2011). Utilitarian brands are brands that are characterized by a functional character. The products of this brand are useful and they solve a problem, for example thirst (milk). However, hedonic brands/products have a more luxurious character, for example milk with a tropical taste or chocolate mousse versus normal yoghurt (Rossiter and Percy, 1997). Utilitarian brands provide certain needs for living, but the customer has no fun in using the product, for example detergent. Hedonic brands can offer the same products as utilitarian brands, but are more about luxury, image, lifestyle and bonding with the brand. Because these brand categories differ from each other, customers could also react differently to certain content updates. See section 2.11 (Hypothesis 3) for an extensive discussion.
2.9.
Facebook
Facebook opened its registration to organizations in April 2006. Within 2 weeks, more than 4000 organizations joined the network (Facebook, 2008). Facebook is a formatted Web page where users can enter a lot of personal information, such as birthdays, hometown, relationships, pictures and studies. Within this social network, users can send friend requests to people, which allows them to enter their network. These relationships are called Friends, and range from extremely close to simply being connected (Boyd, 2006). In addition to their own profile, Facebook users have a Wall. If Friends post something on Facebook, the
17
message will appear on the Wall of their network (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman & Stephanie Tong, 2008). Furthermore, users can Share posts done by others, or Like them, both of which makes the message appear on the Wall of their network. For companies, this means that the right content update can trigger a snowball effect, because the (potential) customers are forwarding the marketing message via a Like or a Share. Although research on the field of social networking is increasing, little is known about how organizations use social media to establish relationships with customers and stakeholders (Walthers et al., 2009). Up to 25% of all page views on the Internet are Facebook interactions (Blodget, 2009). A recent publication by Facebook the fourth quarter of 2012 taught us that Facebook has 618 million daily users, that 587 Likes per second are distributed, and that 20% of all websites has integrated a Like-button on their homepage. People that Like websites have 2.4 times as many friends on Facebook as people that dont (Facebook, 2013; Dutchcowboys, 2013). The users and perceptions of Facebook have changed over time (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2008). In 2006, Facebook users were mainly confirming offline networks instead of actively broadening their online network. Since 2006, Facebook has added and removed features that influenced the experience of the Facebook user, and therefore potential customers for a company.
2.10. Twitter Twitter is one of the microblogging services of social media. Users can post updates on their profile regarding their hobbies, interests, findings, opinions and attitudes. These updates are called Tweets, and contain a maximum of 140 characters. The Twitter medium can be reached via the website itself, a mobile phone, e-mail or via instant messaging (Jansen, Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdury, 2009). A Twitter user can decide who to follow and only those updates will appear in their timeline. All the data on Twitter is stored in an archive. This makes large scale analysis possible. Twitter data is accessible for everybody with internet; it does not limit Tweets to registered users. The main mechanism for information sharing via Twitter is retweeting, which means forwarding the tweet written by another user (Suh, Hong, Pirolli & Chi, 2010). Despite the high amount of shared information on Twitter, it is still unclear what sort of information spreads more widely than others. Research by Suh et al. (2010) has shown that URLs, #hashtags, the number of followers and followees, and the age of the account can increase the chance of a retweet.
18
Little research has been done on the area of Twitter use for marketing purposes. The study done by Jansen et al. (2009) analyzed 150000 tweets for opinions, sentiments and comments and as a result showed that people mainly use Twitter for providing or seeking brand information. Furthermore, around 1/5 of the total tweets mentioned an organization or brand (19%). Finally, 20% of the tweets contained an opinion about a brand, be it positive (52%) or negative (33%). Research by Anderson (1998) showed similar results. Customers that are very negative or very positive about a product are more likely to express their opinions and feelings. Because of its large potential for (viral) marketing, Twitter has attracted a lot of attention from companies, mainly due to its huge reach. A part of these companies use Twitter for SR content updates (like the advertising of products), while other companies mainly use Twitter for NSR content updates, like interaction and Custumer Relationship Management (Asur & Huberman, 2010). Both Facebook and Twitter offer a way for users to receive marketer communications in their information stream. The task is for marketers to post content updates to which customers can respond (Smith, Fischer & Yongjian, 2012). Facebook users can Like a brand and Like or Share their content updates, while Twitter users can Follow their brand and Retweet, Favorite or Reply to the content updates of the company. The study of Smith et al. (2012) explained the importance of brand sentiment, which is a popular measure for marketers to measure the success of their social media marketing. The sentiment that customers have with a brand can either be positive, negative, neutral or unclear. Now that the various models and the medium backgrounds have been discussed, we continue by stating our research question and formulating our hypothesis.
2.11. Research question and hypothesis 2.11.1. Introduction While there have been studies that examine various aspects of social media in general, none have attempted to research the specific influence of SR content updates on the customer and their WTPar, when compared to NSR content updates. Leading up to our research question, we analyze the research done by Rohm, Milne and Kaltcheva (2012) and van Aart (2011). Two schemes have been made in order to clarify the differences between SR content updates and NSR content updates. The first scheme is an analysis of companies on social media in seven categories: (1) Retailers, (2) Online services, (3) Media brands, (4) Luxury, (5) Fastmoving customer goods brands, (6) Sports & lifestyle and (7) Restaurants. This categorization
19
was made by Rohm et al., (2012). Another scheme used by Rohm et al. (2012) is used to clarify SR content updates versus NSR content updates (see Table 3).
Table 3. Content categories SR updates Product information Incentives and promotions Feelings of exclusivity Branded content Purchase-related interactions NSR updates Fun and entertainment The extent of two-way interaction Customer service Privacy and trust Fresh and timely information
It can be argued that all content updates by companies are SR. If not directly SR, the content still contributes to brand engagement and loyalty, therefore possibly increasing sales later on. However, the two terms do differ for this study. Companies that post SR updates use web stores, hyperlinks, multimedia catalogues, discounts, offers, Share & Win posts, etcetera. In short, the customer uses the content to make a (direct) purchase. NSR content updates are mainly about establishing and strengthening brand identity and customer-company relationship. NSR updates are meant to draw the customers attention to new products and services, or to provide the customer with entertainment, fresh, timely content and trust.
2.11.2. Research question The ability for companies to create content updates which can be Shared and Liked by their customers thereby forwarding the marketing message to their own network is increasingly important (Kietzman et al., 2011). The main research question of this study is formulated as follows:
RQ: What is the influence of SR content updates by companies on Facebook and Twitter on the customers WTPar, versus the influence of NSR content updates?
2.11.3. Hypothesis 1 (SR content updates versus NSR content updates) Based on the survey by Staffard et al. (2001) which states that internet is mainly used for Information, E-mail, Research, News and Software (see section 2.3) it is hypothesized that
20
SR content updates by companies are less desired by the customer, therefore lowering their WTPar. Hypothesis 1 is formulated as follows:
H1: SR content updates by companies will result in a lower WTPar in comparison to NSR content updates.
2.11.4. Hypothesis 2 (Facebook versus Twitter) Besides SR content updates versus NSR content updates, the two mediums Facebook and Twitter are also compared. Based on the term brand sentiment, and according to Smith et al. (2012), Twitter is associated with content that could typically be categorized as neutral (information, parts of somebodys life), negative (complaints about a brand) and positive (reviews and opinions about a brand). Facebook is a bit less neutral, although the two mediums are not too different. Facebook is mainly driven by either positive or negative brand perceptions and experiences, but also by neutral content like questions. Because the two mediums although being used in a different way both have positive, negative and neutral content (Smith et al., 2012), it is hypothesized that the two social media Facebook and Twitter equally impact the customers WTPar. Hypothesis 2 is formulated as follows:
H2: Content updates on Facebook versus content updates on Twitter equally impact the customers WTPar.
2.11.5. Hypothesis 3 (hedonic products versus utilitarian products) In section 2.8, we discussed the differences between hedonic and utilitarian products. Because these brand categories differ from each other, one of the product types could result in a higher WTPar than the other product type. It is hypothesized that hedonic products, because of their relation to image and brand connection, will result in a higher customers WTPar compared to utilitarian products. Hypothesis 3 is formulated as follows: H3: Content updates containing hedonic products will result in a higher consumers WTPar compared to utilitarian products.
21
3.
Method
The main goal of this study was to research what the influence of certain content updates by companies on Facebook and Twitter is on the customers WTPar. The study further analyzed other factors like product attitude after being exposed to a SR or NSR content update, or the participants general attitude towards social media posts. By researching this, we could gain better understanding in the behavior of customers towards content updates on Facebook and Twitter, and would be able to adapt a companys social media strategy according to these findings.
3.1.
Design
In this study, a 2x2x2 factorial experimental design was used to test the proposed hypotheses. Two of the independent variables were between-subject experiment conditions: (1) the source of the content update (Facebook/Twitter) and (2) the type of content update (SR/NSR). The third condition was merged with the two independent variables, according to its withinsubject design: hedonic versus utilitarian products. We will further discuss these variables in section 3.2: Stimuli. This study has a between-subject experimental design, meaning that participants were exposed to one of the four versions of the survey (see Table 4).
Table 4. Online survey conditions Condition 1 2 3 4 Source of content update Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter Type of content update SR SR NSR NSR
The online survey was centralized around content updates by companies. Nowadays, many companies have their own Facebook page or a Twitter account. Therefore, this study is focused on these two mediums only. For the purpose of this study, we chose three product domains to focus on: (1) clothes, (2) household products and (3) food. Because we measure the features of the content update material, and not the feeling towards the brand, we decided to set up one non-existing brand per category; a brand that the participant can therefore not know (see Table 5). By doing so, we avoid that the feelings and personal preferences of a
22
participant towards a certain brand -for example Apple versus Windows- could lead to different interpretations or wrong answers.
Table 5. Brands that placed content updates Category Food Clothing Household products Brand After Dinner Desserts Cambo Clothing Kitchen Kings
3.2.
Stimuli
To simulate the natural environment of Facebook and Twitter, each of these brands were assigned a separate and unique Facebook and Twitter page, specifically created for this study. To avoid preferences towards a certain brand, no logos were made. Instead, the companies had a profile picture that was the same throughout all of the conditions: a black background with the name of the company written in white (font: Impact). The text of all content updates were also the same. This way, we prevented or at least lowered- the influence of external factors on the participant.
Figure 4. Logos/profile pictures of the non-existing brands
The placement of a content update would appear in the natural Timeline setting of a Facebook or Twitter user. The images used in the survey were screenshots of the content update within the timeline of the researcher, Ruud Peeters. The survey was centralized around three variables: content type, medium and product type.
23
Variable 1: content type The first variable was content type, which consisted of SR updates and NSR updates. Condition 1 and 2 were SR updates and condition 3 and 4 were NSR updates. The SR updates consisted of online ordering/delivery, sale for one week and a webshop discount. The NSR updates consisted of nutrition information, product tips and free repair service.
Variable 2: medium The second variable was medium. Condition 1 and 3 were Facebook content updates and condition 2 and 4 were Twitter content updates.
Variable 3: product type The third variable was the product type. Within the different categories and brands, two types of products were placed as a content update: hedonic and utilitarian products. For the food category, this meant comparing chocolate mousse (hedonic) and normal yoghurt (utilitarian). In the clothing category, designer beach bags (hedonic) were compared with hiking shoes (utilitarian). Last, the household category compared a juicer (hedonic) with a cooking pan (utilitarian).
3.3.
Procedure
The survey was distributed between the 2nd of May and the 12th of May 2013, and was closed on the 13th of May. There were two restrictions for people that wanted to participate: they had to be between 20 and 34 years old (according to the digital natives target group), and had to study Higher Education or University education, either in the present or having done so in the past. There were no further restrictions. Participants were mainly gathered on Facebook and Twitter (because of these mediums mass potential), but also via e-mail, LinkedIn and personal Whatsapp requests. The anonymous survey link that was generated by Qualtrics was pasted in these requests to participate. On Facebook, the request was posted on my personal timeline. Furthermore, the request was posted in the group for Masterstudents of Communication & Information Sciences. On Twitter, I posted a tweet on my personal account, as well as requesting the TiU Studystore account to retweet this message; a call for help that was answered. Besides the TiU Studystore, several followers also retweeted the following call for participants:
24
Help mij met afstuderen! HBO/Uni student (of geweest)? En tussen de 20 en 34 jaar? Vul de survey in! https://tucis.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5gn7RZEO0TLBa8l || RT please! #UvT #TiU Four days after the initial launch of the survey (May 6th), a reminder was send to the same channels as before. These reminders contained an anonymous survey link that was generated by Qualtrics, the same link as before. This link automatically assigned the participants to one of the four random conditions. The introduction, general questions and ending were the same for all the participants. Via a Qualtrics account, that was obtained via a Tilburg University license, the online questionnaire was developed and recorded. Since this was a Tilburg University account, the style of the school was used as a layout. This was already available within Qualtrics, so it was not necessary to personally design it. The complete survey can be found in appendix I. It consisted of five blocks. The first block was a short introduction to welcome the participant. After this part, the participant was randomly (and evenly) distributed in one of the four conditions. This block was the core of the survey. After this part, the participants answered questions about their general attitude towards social media posts (block 3) and demographics (block 4). The last block consisted of an ending, where the participant was thanked for their participation. Each version of the questionnaire contained the same set of questions. The only difference between the versions were the images of the updates (SR versus NSR updates and Facebook versus Twitter) and the related questions (for example I would Retweet this post versus I would Like this post). The general questions about social media attitude, demographics and the statements about a certain update that was not medium-related, were the same throughout the four conditions. In the introduction, the participant was welcomed, and was asked if they owned a personal Facebook or Twitter account (depending on the condition). When answering no, they skipped the usage questions and were placed at the first content update of the corresponding condition. Lastly, participants were asked for their gender, age (20-34) and education (Higher Education or University Education). After this, participants were thanked for their participation. Several things were measured with this survey: the familiarity and usage of the medium (block 1), the WTPar (block 2 and block 3), product attitude (block 2), general attitude towards social media posts (block 3), connection with the companies (block 3) and demographics (block 4).
25
3.4.
Target group
The target group of this study were digital natives. This generation was born between 1980 and 1994 and been assigned the name The Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998) and digital natives (Prensky, 2001). This group ranging from 20 to 34 years old- possesses familiarity with and reliance on ICT. Digital natives are immersed in technology. As Prensky (2001a, p. 1) stated, they are surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age.
3.5.
Participants
The questionnaire was available online from the 2nd of May to the 12th of May (2013). In total, there were 285 participants that filled out the questionnaire. However, 132 participants did not fully complete the questionnaire and were therefore excluded from the analysis. This resulted in a total of 163 participants that fully completed the survey, 87 male (53.4%) and 76 female (46,6%). The age of the participants ranged from 20 to 34, with an average age of 23.67 (SD: 2.49). The majority of the participants have a University education (63.8%). This means that they were currently studying at a university or have completed a university study in the past (Bachelor or Master). The remaining 36.2% of the participants were currently studying or have completed an HBO education. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four versions of the online survey. This resulted in 45 participants for condition 1, 41 participants for condition 2, 40 participants for condition 3 and 37 participants for condition 4. The participants were asked about social media-related subjects before seeing the content updates. For example, they were asked if they had a Facebook and/or Twitter account, depending on the condition, and the amount in which they use these accounts. In both the Facebook and Twitter conditions, a high amount of people indicated that they owned an account. In the Facebook conditions, a total of 83 out of 85 (97,7%) said to own a personal account, and 94,7% indicated that they use this account on a daily basis. Also, 89,5% of the participants has liked a company or brand on Facebook. In the Twitter conditions, the percentages are slightly lower: 58 of the 78 participants (74,4%) owned a personal Twitter account. The usage of the accounts varies a lot, since the two highest percentages are complete opposites: some participants indicated to use their account on a daily basis (29,5%), while other participants use their account less than once a month (20,5%). A small majority of the participants in the Twitter conditions follow a
26
company/brand via Twitter (51,1%); this is notably different from the percentage in the Facebook conditions (89,5%).
3.6. WTPar
Measurements
The perceived WTPar of the customer was measured by three items and a total of six images per condition. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement, on a 6-point Likert scale, with the following statements: I would Retweet this post, I would Reply to this post, and I would Favorite this post for the Twitter conditions, and I would Like this post, I would Comment on this post and I would Share this post for the Facebook conditions.
Product attitude After being exposed to the image of the content update, and the WTPar related statements, participants were asked to express their feelings towards the brand/product. The measurement of product attitude was based on the marketing handbook by Bruner (2009) and on several studies (Baker, Honea, & Russell, 2004; Tybout, Sternthal, Malaviya, Bakamitsos & Park, 2005): I have positive feelings towards [brand]. and [Brand] delivers products of low quality.
General attitude towards social media posts The general attitude towards social media posts was measured with four items: In general, I ignore the posts by companies on social media, I do not mind seeing posts by companies on my personal timeline., In general, I think following companies on social media is helpful. and Whenever I decide to Follow or Like a company, I worry about spam -related content. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement on a 6-point Likert scale.
Connection with companies on social media The connection with companies on social media was measured with three items: In general, I am willing to respond to a company's post on social media, In general, I am willing to follow companies on social media and I usually take several factors into account before Following or Liking a company. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement on a 6-point Likert scale.
27
Purchase intention The measurement of purchase intention the likelihood that a participant would buy the product after seeing the content update was measured with one item: After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product?. Answers were given on a 2 -point scale: likely or unlikely. Despite being incorporated in the survey, these stimuli served as a distraction variable and were therefore not included in the analysis.
Brand involvement The measurement of brand involvement the likelihood that a participant would involve with the brand in the future after seeing the content update was measured with one item: After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to involve with the brand in the future?. Answers were given on a 2-point scale: likely or unlikely. Despite being incorporated in the survey, these stimuli served as a distraction variable and were therefore not included in the analysis.
28
4.
Results
In this chapter, the results of the data analysis are reported. First, we report on the general attitude towards social media posts, connection with the companies and product attitude. After this, we report on the customers WTPar scores and test the hypotheses.
4.1
General attitude towards social media posts
The general attitude towards social media posts was measured by four items on a 6-point scale. The higher the score, the more positive the participant was about the statement. Three of these items showed a relatively low score compared to the median (3.5) and therefore showed a negative trend; 74,2% of the participants indicated that they ignore the posts made by companies on social media (M: 2.63, SD: 1.30), 69,3% worries about seeing posts by companies on their personal timeline (M: 2.86, SD: 1.30) and 71,2% worries about spamrelated content when Following or Liking a company (M: 2.83, SD: 1.38). The only exception is the helpfulness of following companies on social media. The majority of the participants (65.0%) agrees it is helpful to follow companies on social media (M: 3.72, SD: 1.21). A new variable was formed by joining the four general attitude items, which naturally resulted in a negative trend overall (M: 3.01, SD: 0.91).
General attitude towards social media posts (6-point scale)

Mean 3.72 2.63 2.86 3.82
In general, I ignore the I do not mind seeing In general, I think Wheniver I decide to posts by companies on posts by companies on following companies on 'Follow' or 'Like' a social media my personal timeline social media is helpful company, I worry about spam-related content
Figure 5.
29
4.2
Connection with the company
The participants connection with the company showed a similar negative trend. All three of the measured items resulted in a score that was lower than the median of 3.5 on a 6-point scale. The majority of the participants (84,7%) indicated that they are not willing to respond to a companys post on social media (M: 2.26, SD: 1.16). Furthermore, 76,7% of the participants take several factors into account before Following or Liking a company (M: 2.66, SD: 1.30). A slight majority of the participants (52,1%), however, indicated that they are willing to follow companies on social media. This result is related to the positive score given to the question of helpfulness in following companies on social media, which was asked in the previous section. A new variable was formed by joining the three connection with the company items, which lead to a negative trend overall (M: 2.76, SD: 0.82).
Connection with the company (6-point scale)

Mean 3.36 2.66 2.26
In general, I am willing to In general, I am willing to follow I usually take several factors into respond to a company's post on companies on social media account before Following or social media Liking a company
Figure 6.
4.3
Product attitude
The total score for product attitude on a 6-point Likert scale was surprisingly high (M:3.94, SD:0.58), especially considering the low scores of WTPar, brand involvement, general attitude and connection with the company. This means that the content updates in general did not result in negative feelings towards a brand, and that the participants thought the company delivered products of sufficient quality. This trend showed a higher (more positive) score in the NSR conditions (M:4.07, SD:0.60) than in the SR conditions (M:3.82, SD:0.53).
30
Product attitude (6-point scale)

Mean
4.11
4.06 3.94
3.81
3.83
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
Condition 4
Total
Figure 7.
4.4
Hypothesis testing
4.4.1 Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis proposes that the customers WTPar is lower in the SR conditions, compared to the customers WTPar in the NSR conditions:
H1: SR content updates by companies will result in a lower WTPar in comparison to NSR content updates.
To test whether SR content updates will result in a lower WTPar in comparison to NSR content updates, we calculated the mean of the WTPar scores. The same was done for the NSR conditions. An independent t-test was conducted to analyze whether the customers WTPar was lower in the SR conditions. The assumptions of the independent t-test needed to be checked. Levenes test indicated equal variances (p=.393), so degrees of freedom were not adjusted. Based on the survey by Staffard (2001) which states that internet is mainly used for Information, E-mail, Research, News and Software (see section 1.3) it was hypothesized that SR content updates by companies were less desired by the customer, therefore lowering their WTPar. Results showed that the mean WTPar of the SR conditions was 1.45 (SD:0.66), and was indeed lower than the mean WTPar score of 1.58 (SD:0.68) in the NSR conditions. However, this difference was not significant (t(161)=-1.25, p=.214). Therefore, it can be
31
concluded that the WTPar of the SR conditions is not lower than the WTPar of the NSR conditions.
Hypothesis 1: WTPar score of SR versus NSR updates (6-point scale)

Mean 1.58
1.45
SR updates
NSR updates
Figure 8.
4.4.2 Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis proposes that Facebook and Twitter equally impact the customers WTPar. This was expected because the two mediums although being used in a different way both contain positive, negative and neutral content (Smith et al., 2012).
H2: Content updates on Facebook versus content updates on Twitter equally impact the customers WTPar.
To test whether Facebook content updates will result in a equal WTPar in comparison to Twitter content updates, we calculated the mean of the WTPar scores. The same was done for the Twitter conditions. This lead to an overall WTPar score that was representative for the medium. An independent t-test was conducted to analyze whether the customers WTPar was equal in both mediums. Levenes test indicated equal variances (p=.249), so degrees of freedom were not adjusted. Results showed that the mean WTPar of the Facebook conditions was 1.55 (SD:0.71). Although this was higher than the mean WTPar score of 1.47 (SD:0.63)
32
in the Twitter conditions, the difference was not significant (t(161)=0.73 p=.469). Therefore, it can be concluded that Facebook and Twitter equally impact the customers WTPar.
Hypothesis 2: WTPar score of Facebook versus Twitter (6-point scale)

Mean
1.55
1.47
Facebook
Twitter
Figure 9.
4.4.3. Hypothesis 3 The third hypothesis based on the hedonic vs. utilitarian model by van Aart (2011) proposes that hedonic products, because of their relation to image and brand connection, will result in a higher customers WTPar compared to utilitarian products. Because these brand categories differ from each other, customers also react differently to certain content updates. Hypothesis 3 was formulated as follows: H3: Content updates containing hedonic products will result in a higher consumers WTPar compared to utilitarian products.
To test whether this is the case, we made pairs per condition, comparing the three utilitarian updates with the three hedonic products via a paired samples t-test. The only significant difference between these two categories can be found in condition one (t(44)=3.93, p<.001). The WTPar score of hedonic content updates (M:1.49, SD:0.68) in condition 1 was significantly higher than the WTPar score of utilitarian updates (M:1.29, SD:0.52) in condition 1.
33
Condition 1: WTPar score of hedonic versus utilitarian products (6-point scale)

Mean 1.49 1.29
Facebook/Hedonic/Sales
Facebook/Utilitarian/Sales
Figure 10.
The only other condition that showed a trend was the Twitter/Sales condition (condition 3). The hedonic updates resulted in a higher WTPar score (M:1.58, SD:0.79) than the WTPar score of utilitarian updates (M:1.46, SD:0.73). However, this difference is not significant (t(41)=1.53, p=.13).

Mean 1.58
1.47
Twitter/Hedonic/Sales
Twitter/Utilitarian/Sales
Figure 11.
34
Because we had four conditions that compared hedonic and utilitarian content updates, and only one of these conditions showed a significant difference, we can reject hypothesis 3: content updates containing hedonic products will not result in a higher consumers WTPar compared to utilitarian products. Below are the two conditions that did not show a significant difference of trend when comparing WTPar scores.

Mean 1.69
1.68
Facebook/Hedonic/Non-Sales
Facebook/Utilitarian/Non-Sales
Figure 12.

Mean 1.45
1.38
Twitter/Hedonic/Non-Sales
Twitter/Utilitarian/Non-Sales
Figure 13.
35
5.
Discussion
The main aim of this study was to research the influence of SR content updates versus NSR content updates by companies on Facebook and Twitter. Influence referred to the customers willingness to participate, called WTPar in this study. This was measured on a 6-point scale by summing the scores of several items, for example I would Retweet this post. Furthermore, we measured product attitude, connection with the company and general attitude towards social media posts. Brand involvement and purchase intention were also part of the study, but the resulting scores were not used in the analysis. An online questionnaire was conducted to gather the data and to answer the research question. In the following paragraphs, the limitations, future research and implications will be discussed.
5.1.
Limitations and future research
Although this study aimed to answer some important questions, there were also some limitations. First, more participants even though the number of participants was sufficient to generalize the findings- would have been better. Also, all the participants lived in The Netherlands. In future research, this study could be extended to other countries or continents as well. Second, we used three product categories: food, clothing and household products. Although the amount of different product categories was sufficient, only one brand per category was tested (i.e. After Dinner Desserts, Cambo Clothing and Kitchen Kings). The amount of (different) products for each brand, or the amount of brands per category, could have been extended. It could be that posts about other products or brands have a different impact on a customers WTPar. Third, this study investigated single content updates (screenshots). This might be in conflict with the natural environments of Facebook and Twitter, where updates are surrounded by several other posts, information, images, commercials, advertisements and more. Also, this study made up brands to avoid a certain sentiment of the participant. This could be in conflict with the online environment of Facebook and Twitter. After all, people do not Like or Follow companies that they do not care about, or are quick to undo so after a few displeasing updates. Fourth, this study was limited to Facebook and Twitter. Even though these are among the most-used social mediums by both companies and customers, users are not limited to them. Other large communities like Instagram, Pinterest, Google+ and Digg were not taken into consideration. To gain further insight, this study could be tested in a more extended social
36
media environment. Within Facebook and Twitter, the study could be extended by involving existing brands and gathering real data. For example, how many sales-related updates lead to an actual increase in sales? This kind of data was not available in this study. The products of the content updates could also influence the resulting scores when looking at gender, age or education. We could have tried harder to pick gender-neutral products, because, for example, males could be less interested in beach bags than women, which would result in a lower WTPar score. However, this was not tested in this study and could therefore be part of a research in the future. In addition, this study had no pretests. Therefore, we do not know if the name of the brands or the product category choices influenced the answers of the participants. It could be that the brand After Dinner Desserts was more closely related to hedonic than utilitarian products, which could influence the answers given in the survey. In future studies with a larger timeframe, this could be tested before the survey. Last, the measurement of WTPar was specifically designed for this study, and was not entirely based on previous scientific research, because of lack thereof. The comparison between Facebook WTPar (which consisted of Like, Share and Comment) and Twitter WTPar (which consisted of Favorite, Retweet and Reply) was therefore not entirely justified. There are no models available that express the values of each of these actions. For this study, the three items of Facebook and the three items of Twitter were therefore equated in WTPar value.
5.2.
Implications and a look at the future of social media
Since social media plays such an important role in todays society, an increasing amount of companies wonder what the best way of establishing in this ever-changing environment is. Although many social media experts have their ideas on how to devise a correct social media strategy regarding company updates, few of them have scientific proof to back up their claims. They base their advice mainly on trial-and-error experiences and personal (nonscientific) research. Customers are now in control, so it is important for companies to know how they should interact with them. Since many companies now own a Twitter account and/or a Facebook fanpage, new chances as well as new dangers arise. The chance to build and maintain customer relationships and brand engagement in a way that was impossible 20 years ago, but also the danger of losing a customer because of all the wrong marketing messages.An increasing amount of research on this field is being conducted, but social media are subject to change as well. It might be possible that Facebook, or even Twitter, will not
37
exist in its current form in a few years from now. As technology advances, more and more options become available. Think of the Google Glass for example: a pair of glasses combined with a Smartphone. Considering the growth of people that use Twitter and Facebook on a daily basis, combined with the results of this study, we assume that the impact of these two mediums keeps growing in the future. Because of these developments, it is increasingly important for companies to monitor what people have to say about their brand. People talk about brands, whether they want it or not. The type of content updates play a crucial part in this. A company on social media can either be a one-way sales channel, or a two-way interaction medium where the company can meet and talk to customers for a relatively low cost. Based on the theoretical research, we advice companies to invest time and money in their online environment and do not underestimate the impact of online content on the customer. Based on the results of this study, we also advice companies to use social media for a mixture of sales and non-sales content updates, since there is no scientific proof that one is better than the other. It depends on the company if they should use Twitter or Facebook, but having a professional environment on both mediums is generally better, since it could help in forwarding a marketing message. Even though the results of this study show that participants were not very willing to respond or react to a companys update on Facebook or Twitter, this should not discourage companies to invest time and money in their social media environment.
38
6.
Conclusion
Social media like Facebook and Twitter become more apparent in todays networking society. Therefore, this study sought evidence as to what kind of content update would be the most rewarding in regard to the customers WTPar, because this would result in a better social media (and) marketing strategy. The interest for conducting this study emerged because of the practical implications and its importance for companies worldwide. Many people Follow companies on Twitter or Like the company on Facebook, and are thereby confronted with the updates of these companies on a daily basis. The goal of this study was to research if the customer reacts differently to SR updates in relation to NSR updates (in terms of WTPar). We first aimed at identifying the differences in WTPar scores between SR updates and NSR updates. We did this by creating four conditions within the survey, two SR and two NSR. The participant was randomly appointed to one of these conditions. Our research question was as follows:
RQ: What is the influence of SR content updates by companies on Facebook and Twitter on the customers WTPar, versus the influence of NSR content updates?
Even though the WTPar scores in the SR conditions were lower than the WTPar scores in the NSR conditions, the difference was not significant. The results show a more negative trend for SR conditions than for NSR conditions. It is important to state that the WTPar scores were generally low throughout all the conditions. From these results, we can conclude that the participants were not very willing to respond or react to a companys update on Facebook or Twitter. Second, we aimed at identifying the differences in WTPar between the two mediums, Facebook and Twitter. The WTPar scores were low in both the Facebook and the Twitter conditions, with no significant difference between the two mediums. Thirdly, we analyzed the differences in WTPar scores between hedonic and utilitarian products. The results only showed a significant difference in the Facebook/Sales condition, hedonic products resulted in a higher WTPar score than utilitarian products. However, this was only the case in one of the four conditions. The WTPar scores of the other three conditions didnt differ for hedonic and utilitarian updates. The general attitude towards social media posts and the customers connection with the company also showed low results, with the exception of two statements. Findings show
39
that participants are willing to follow companies on social media and think that following companies on social media is helpful. Despite the low WTPar scores, the product attitude was generally positive, and resulted in a more positive trend for the NSR conditions compared to the SR conditions. The findings of this study contribute to the research of social media marketing, and show that SR updates show a more negative trend in WTPar than NSR updates. This study also shows that people are generally positive about following a brand on social media, because it can be helpful.
40
7.
References
Aart, C. V. (2011). De effecten van het gebruik van visuele metaforen binnen utilitaire en hedonische producten op de productattitude. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from http://essay.utwente.nl/61011/
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5-17.
Armano, D. (2009). Six social media trends for 2010. Retrieved March 4, 2013, from http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2009/11/six_social_media_trends.html
Asur S., Huberman, B.A. (2010). Predicting the Future With Social Media. Retrieved on March 7, 2013 from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.5699.pdf Baker, W. E., Honea, H., & Russell, C. A. (2004). Do not wait to reveal the brand name: The effect of brand-name placement on television advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 77-85.
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2007). Advertising and promotion. An integrated marketing communications perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Bernoff, J. (2010). Social technographics: Conversationalists get onto the ladder. Forrester Research. Retrieved March, 2013, from
http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2010/01/conversationalists-get-onto-theladder.html
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., McCarthy, I., & Kates, S. M. (2007). When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1).
Blodget, H. (2009). Facebook now accounts for 1 in 4 Internet pageviews. Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-facebook-accounts- for-1in-4-internet-pageviews-2009-10
41
boyd, d. (2006). Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12). Retrieved March 11, 2013, from
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html
Brodie, R. , Hollebeek, L. D. , Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011). Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-71. Research,
Bruner, G. C. (2009). Marketing scales handbook: a compilation of multi-item measures for consumer behavior & advertising research. Retrieved from
http://lib.myilibrary.com/home.aspx
Calder, B., Edward J. , Malthouse, C., and Schadel, U. (2009). An Experimental Study of the Relationship Between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 321-31.
Chen, Y. , Fay, S. , and Wang, Q. (2011). The Role of Marketing in Social Media: How Online Consumer Reviews Evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 85-94.
Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S.J. (2008). Web 2.0: conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct, Data, and Digital Marketing Practice, 9 (3).
Dutchcowboys, (2013). De Facebook like-button. Retrieved March, 11, 2013 from: http://www.dutchcowboys.nl/facebook/27545
Everson M., Gundlach E., Miller J. (2013) Social media and the introductory statistics course, Computers in Human Behaviour
Facebook, (2007). Facebook Factsheet. Retrieved March 7, 2013 from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet.
Facebook,
(2013).
Key
Facts.
Retrieved
March
11,
2013
from
http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts
42
Friedmann, R., & Fox, R. (1989). On the internal organization of consumers cognitive schemata. Psychological Reports, 65, 115126.
Gangadharbatla H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective Self-Esteem, Need to Belong, and Internet Self- Efficacy as Predictors of the iGenerations Attitudes toward Social Networking Sites, Journal of Interactive Advertising 8(2)
Ghelfi, A. (2010). Chart: What people are doing online. Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://www.styleandflow.com/2010/chart-what-people-are-doing-online/
Grigorovici, D. M. , and Constantin, C. D. (2004). Experiencing Interactive Advertising Beyond Rich Media: Impacts of Ad Type and Presence on Brand Effectiveness in 3D Gaming Immersive Virtual Environments, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (1).
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (11), 2169-2188.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 5968.
Kietzman, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241251.
Kim A. J. , Ko E., Impacts of luxury fashion brand's social media marketing on customer relationship and purchase intention. J. Glob Fashion Mark 2010a;1(3):16471.
Kim A. J. , Ko E. (2010) The impact of design characteristics on brand attitude and purchase intention: focus on luxury fashion brands. J Korean Soc Clothing Text 2010b;34(2): 25265.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2007). A framework for marketing management. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall
43
Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 721-730).
Leenes, R. (2010). Context is everything: sociality and privacy in Online Social Network Sites, 48-65.
Madway, G. (2010). Twitter remakes website, adds new features. Retrieved November 5 2010, from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1411135520100915 OReilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from
http://www.oreilly.com/lpt/a/6228
McKenzie, J. F., Neiger, B. L., & Thackeray, R. (2009). Planning, implementing, and evaluating health promotion programs. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York (5th ed.).
Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, Telepresence, and Interactivity in Online Consumer Experience: Reconciling Scholastic and Managerial Perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(9/10), 919-25.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., and Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70 136-153.
Parent, M., Plangger, K. & Bal, A. (2011). The new WTP: Willingness to participate. Business Horizons 54, pp. 219-229. Prenksy, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 5, 16. Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership. 63 (4), 813.
44
Rainie, L. (2007). Increased use of video sharing sites. Retrieved March 7, 2013, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/232/report_display.asp
Richter, A. and Koch, M. (2008). Functions of Social Networking Services. Proceedings of 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems.
Rohm, A.J. , Milne, G. R., Kaltcheva, V. (2012). The Role of Online Social Media in BrandConsumer Engagement: An Exploratory Study.
Rossiter, J.R. & Percy, L. Advertising & Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Shankar, V., Inman, J. J., Mantrala, M., Kelley, E., & Ross Rizley (2011). Innovations in Shopper Marketing: Current Insights and Future Research Issues. Journal of Retailing (87S, 1), 29-42.
Smith A. N. , Fischer E. , Yongjian C. (2012) How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2):102113
Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications for the Internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259-288.
Szalay, L. B., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective meaning and culture: an assessment through word association. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., & Chi, E. H. (2010). Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. Social Computing (SocialCom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference, pp. 177-184.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the Net generation. New York.
45
Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., & Hanson, C. L. (2007). Developing a promotional strategy: important questions for social marketing. Health Promotion Practice, 8(4), 332-336. Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., and McKenzie, J. F. (2008). Enhancing Promotional Strategies Within Social Marketing Programs: Use of Web 2.0 Social Media Health Promotion Practice, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 338-343.
Tybout, A. M., Sternthal, B., Malaviya, P., Bakasmitsos, G. A., & Park, SB. (2005). Information accessibility as a moderator of judgments: The role of content versus retrieval ease. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 76-85. doi: 10.1086/426617
Walther J. B. , Van Der Heide B. , Hamel L. M. (2009). Selfgeneration versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: a test of Warranting Theory using Facebook. Communication Research 2009; 36:22953.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28-49.
46
8.
Appendices
Appendix I. Online questionnaire
[Block 1: Introduction] Hi, First of all, thank you for participating in this questionnaire. It will take a maximum of 15 minutes of your time. Im a student of Business Communication & Digital Media at Tilburg University. This survey is part of my master-thesis, which is about posting updates on social media. By filling in this survey, you will help me gain insight regarding this subject and - also noteworthy - help me to graduate! Try to answer as personal as you can, since there are no right or wrong answers. All information will be treated strictly anonymous. Thank you again for participating, and good luck! [The participant is now randomly appointed to one of the following conditions: block 2, block 3, block 4 or block 5] [Block 2. Medium: Facebook // Type: Sales-related updates] Facebook is a popular and free social network that allows its users to create personal profiles, upload photos and videos and become friends with other users, thereby building up a network of their own. Q2.2 Do you have a personal Facebook profile? Yes (1) No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To On the next pages, several Facebook p... Q2.3 How often do you use Facebook, on average? Less than Once a Month (1) Once a Month (2) 2-3 Times a Month (3) Once a Week (4) 2-3 Times a Week (5) Daily (6)
Q2.4 Have you ever Liked a company/brand on Facebook? Yes (1) No (2) On the next pages, several Facebook posts by companies are placed. Please look at the image and answer the questions related to the post.
47
Q2.7 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Very Unlikely (1) I would Like this post (1) I would Comment on this post (2) I would Share this post (3) Unlikely (2) Somewhat Unlikely (3) Somewhat Likely (4) Likely (5) Very Likely (6)
Q2.8 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to involve with the brand in the future? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q2.9 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2)
48
Q2.10 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards After Dinner Desserts are positive (1) After Dinner Desserts delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
49
Q2.13 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to involve with the brand in the future? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q2.14 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q2.15 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards After Dinner Desserts are positive (1) After Dinner Desserts delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
50
51
Q2.20 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards Cambo Clothing are positive (1) Cambo Clothing delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
52
Q2.23 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to involve with the brand in the future? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q2.24 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q2.25 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards Cambo Clothing are positive (1) Cambo Clothing delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
53
54
Q2.28 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to involve with the brand in the future? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q2.29 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q2.30 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards Kitchen Kings are positive (1) Kitchen Kings delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
55
56
[Block 3. Medium: Twitter // Type: Sales-related updates] Introduction Twitter is an online social network that allows its users to send and read text-based posts up to 140 characters long. These posts are also known as tweets. Twitter users can follow people, brands and companies that they like, and can be followed by others themselves. The key of Twitter is retweeting, which is a re -posting of someone else's Tweet. You do this when you see a tweet you like written by someone else, and you want to share that tweet with your Followers. You can also 'Favorite' a tweet. This is most commonly used when users like a certain Tweet. Favoriting a Tweet can let the original poster know that you liked their Tweet, or you can save the Tweet for later. Q3.2 Do you have a personal Twitter account? Yes (1) No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To On the next pages, several posts by c...
Q3.3 How often do you use Twitter, on average? Less than Once a Month (1) Once a Month (2) 2-3 Times a Month (3) Once a Week (4) 2-3 Times a Week (5) Daily (6)
Q3.4 Have you ever 'Followed' a company/brand on Twitter? Yes (1) No (2)
57
Q3.5 On the next pages, several Twitter posts by companies are placed. Please look at the image and answer the questions related to the post.
Q3.7 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Very Unlikely (1) I would Retweet this post (1) I would Reply to this post (2) I would Favorite this post (3) Unlikely (2) Somewhat Unlikely (3) Somewhat Likely (4) Likely (5) Very Likely (6)
58
59
60
Q3.18 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to involve with the brand in the future? Likely (1) Unlikely (2)
61
Q3.19 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q3.20 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards Cambo Clothing are positive (1) Cambo Clothing delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
62
63
64
65
66
[Block 4. Medium: Facebook // Type: Non-sales-related updates] Introduction Facebook is a popular and free social network that allows its users to create personal profiles, upload photos and videos and become friends with other users, thereby building up a network of their own. Q4.2 Do you have a personal Facebook profile? Yes (1) No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To On the next pages, several posts by c... Q4.3 How often do you use Facebook, on average? Less than Once a Month (1) Once a Month (2) 2-3 Times a Month (3) Once a Week (4) 2-3 Times a Week (5) Daily (6)
67
Q4.4 Have you ever 'Liked' a company/brand on Facebook? Yes (1) No (2)
Q4.5 On the next pages, several Facebook posts by companies are placed. Please look at the image and answer the questions related to the post.
68
69
Q4.14 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q4.15 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards After Dinner Desserts are positive (1) After Dinner Desserts delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
70
Q4.19 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2)
71
Q4.20 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards Cambo Clothing are positive (1) Cambo Clothing delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
72
73
74
75
76
Q4.34 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q4.35 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards Kitchen Kings are positive (1) Kitchen Kings delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
[Block 5. Medium: Twitter // Type: Sales-related updates] Introduction Twitter is an online social network that allows its users to send and read text-based posts up to 140 characters long. These posts are also known as tweets. Twitter users can follow people, brands and companies that they like, and can be followed by others themselves. The key of Twitter is retweeting, which is a re -posting of someone else's Tweet. You do this when you see a tweet you like written by someone else, and you want to share that tweet with your Followers. You can also 'Favorite' a tweet. This is most commonly used when users like a certain Tweet. Favoriting a Tweet can let the original poster know that you liked their Tweet, or you can save the Tweet for later. Q5.2 Do you have a personal Twitter account? Yes (1) No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To On the next pages, several posts by c... Q5.3 How often do you use Twitter, on average? Less than Once a Month (1) Once a Month (2) 2-3 Times a Month (3) Once a Week (4) 2-3 Times a Week (5) Daily (6)
77
Q5.4 Have you ever 'Followed' a company/brand on Twitter? Yes (1) No (2) Q5.5 On the next pages, several Twitter posts by companies are placed. Please look at the image and answer the questions related to the post.
78
79
Q5.14 After seeing the post, would you be likely or unlikely to purchase the product? Likely (1) Unlikely (2) Q5.15 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read. Strongly Disagree (1) My feelings towards After Dinner Desserts are positive (1) After Dinner Desserts delivers products of low quality (2) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
80
Q5.22 Please answer the following questions according to the post you just read.
81
Very Unlikely (1) I would Retweet this post (1) I would Reply to this post (2) I would Favorite this post (3)
Unlikely (2)
Somewhat Unlikely (3)
Somewhat Likely (4)
Likely (5)
Very Likely (6)
82
83
84
85
[Block 6. General attitude towards social media posts] Q6.1 The following statements are about your general attitude toward social media posts.
86
Strongly Disagree (1) In general, I ignore the posts by companies on social media (1) I do not mind seeing posts by companies on my personal timeline (2) In general, I think following companies on social media is helpful (3) Whenever I decide to Follow or Like a company, I worry about spam-related content (4)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat Disagree (3)
Somewhat Agree (4)
Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (6)
Q6.2 The following statements are about your connection with companies on social media. Strongly Disagree (1) In general, I am willing to respond to a company's post on social media (1 In general, I am willing to follow companies on social media (2) I usually take several factors into account before Following or Liking a company (3) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6)
87
[Block 7. Demographics] Q7.1 What is your gender? Male (1) Female (2) Q7.2 What is your age? ______ Age: (20-34) Q7.3 What is your current or highest completed education? Higher Education (HBO/HEAO/HTS) (1) University Education (Bachelor or Masters degree) (2) [Block 8. Ending] You completed the survey. Thanks again for participating! Should you be interested in the results of the study, please send a mail to r.w.peeters@tilburguniversity.edu and you will receive the thesis as a PDF file when it is complete. You can also mail me on this address if you have any other questions or comments. Kind regards, Ruud Peeters
88
Appendix II. Graphics
What is your gender?

88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 Male What is your gender? Female
Figure 14.
What is your current or highest completed education?

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Higher Education (HBO/HEAO/HTS) University Education (Bachelor or Masters degree)
What is your current or highest completed education?
Figure 15.
89
What is your age?

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 What is your age?
Figure 16.
Randomization of the participants

N 45 41 40 37
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
Condition 4
Figure 17.
90

Choosing Sides in Social Media

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Choosing Sides in Social Media

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CHOOSING SIDES IN SOCIAL MEDIA

Ruud Peeters ANR: 872915

School of Humanities Tilburg University, Tilburg

Supervisor: Dr. A. Alishahi Co-supervisor: Dr. S. Milan