9.2 Social Media

To find relevant hashtags to an issue, consult with

Review

Social Media Metrics and Dashboards (K. Peters et al. 2013)

(Pelletier et al. 2020)

  • Consumer usage motivation for Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram and understanding which platforms consumers prefer to use to co-create with brands
  • Types of customer response:

    • Social purpose: interact with others and share content with others

    • Information purpose: seeking out info, news, events, professional business purposes

    • Entertainment purposes: have fun or follow their favorite celeb and pop culture events

    • Convenience purposes just to browse and observe when they are bored

  • Uses and gratification theory: benefits extracted from a media source vary based on the different purposes for which a person chooses to consume media. (Severin, Tankard, et al. 1997)

    • Social motivation: people use platforms with more broad ways of communications for social motivation (e.g., Facebook)

    • Informational motivation: users with informational purpose usage will come to the platform with an emphasis on real-time information (Twitter)

    • Entertainment motivation: Hedonic purpose is to escape and enjoy experiences (Instagram). Users with entertainment purposes will go to a platform with an emphasis on hedonic experiences (Instagram)

    • convenience motivation: a source of convenience or distribution (to pass the time). Easy browsing to scroll content (e.g., Instagram). Users will go to the platform with visual content and minimal text (Instagram). People find all platforms (Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter) convenient.

  • Users who desire to engage in co-creation will go to a platform with a broader array of communications mechanisms.
  • With social media, consumers co-create brand stories and share personal experiences, which can enhance or destroy brand equity
  • Findings:

    • For informational purpose, consumer use twitter

    • For social purposes, people like to use Twitter and Instagram

    • Instagram is a primary platform for entertainment motivation and co-creating with brands

    • Facebook has the lowest usage intentions and co-creation (despite being the largest platform and network most widely used by marketers) Even though practitioners have a strong bias toward Facebook as a social media promotional platform, but then one size does not fit all.

(Schweidel and Moe 2014) Listening in on Social Media:

  • Joint modeling of sentiment in social media posts and venue format.

  • The content of the post and sentiment towards the brand affects both processes.

  • Common monitoring approaches can lead to misleading brand sentiment metrics.

  • Model-based measure of brand sentiment serves as a leading indicator of external performance measures

(Appel et al. 2020)

Social media:

  • “a collection of software-based digital technologies—usually presented as apps and websites—that provide users with digital environments in which they can send and receive digital content or information over some type of online social network” (p. 80)

  • “social media to be a technology-centric—but not entirely technological—ecosystem in which a diverse and complex set of behaviors, interactions, and exchanges involving various kinds of interconnected actors (individuals and firms, organizations, and institutions) can occur” (p. 80)

Social media at present

  1. Platform: major and minor, established and emerging the at providing the underlying tech and business model

  2. Use cases: How various kinds of people and orgs are using this tech and for what purpose

This paper categorizes social media as

  1. Communication between known others (e.g., family friends)
  2. Communication between unknown but share common interests
  3. Access and contribute to digital content (e.g., news, gossip, and product reviews)

Future of social media in marketing

  1. Immediate future:

    1. Omni-social presence: sharing is embedded on every social platform, embedded in every digital tool. Platforms broaden their platform to encompass the Omni-social world. Affect consumer decision-making process (beginning to end). Social media is shaping the cultural world.

    2. The rise of influencers: increase accessibility and appeal of social media. Micro influencer (more authentic and credible), virtual influencer (i.e., non-human, CGI).

    3. Privacy concerns on social media: no hard privacy definition., more and more people delete social media.

  2. Near future

    1. Combating loneliness and isolation: on the rise

    2. Integrated customer care: social-media-based customer care., reduced customer service using humans.

    3. Social media as a political tool:

  3. Far future

    1. Increased sensory richness: AR, VR

    2. Online, offline integration and complete convergence: omni channel approach (e.g., mobile app to do AR) online and offline self (self presentation)

    3. Social media by non-humans: AI, social bots, hard to do attribution model, buy likes and shares, erode consumer trust,

(Kietzmann et al. 2011)

Seven functional building blocks:

  1. Identity: self-disclosure
  2. Conversation
  3. Sharing
  4. Presence
  5. Relationships
  6. Reputation: not only people but also content
  7. Groups

Differences Matter: the 4 Cs the 4 Cs: cognize, congruity, curate, and chase - relate how firms should develop strategies for monitoring, understanding, and responding to different social media activities

  • Cognize: firms should recognize and understand their social media landscape

  • Congruity: develop strategies that are congruent with different social media functionality

  • Curate: firms should be the curator of social media interactions and content.

  • Chase: firms should understand the conversation and info flow of social media content.

(S. Srinivasan, Rutz, and Pauwels 2015)consumer journey (know-feel-do pathway)

  • Studied low-involvement product (fast moving consumer good)

  • Earned media drive sales

  • higher consumer activity on earned and owned media lead to consumer disengagement (e.g., unlikes)

  • On top of traditional marketing sales drivers (distribution, price), earned and owned social media can also explain part of the path to purchase.

(Yuchi Zhang et al. 2017) Correlation between online shopping and social media

  • In the long run, social media usage is positively correlated with shopping activity

  • In the short run, immediately after social media usage, online shopping activity is lower.

(Buratti, Parola, and Satta 2018)

  • SMM is an accessible and low-cost way to create a competitive advantage even in conservative sectors - B2B services (e.g., tanker shipping companies and ocean carriers).

(Kärkkäinen, Jussila, and Väisänen 2010)

  • B2B businesses utilized social media less than B2C businesses.

  • The front-end phase of the new product development (NPD) process and the launch/commercialization phase provide the highest social media innovation potential for B2B businesses.

(Herhausen et al. 2022)

  • Active listening and empathy in the firm’s response evokes gratitude in high-arousal customers, even if the actual failure is not (yet) recovered.

(Colicev et al. 2018) Owned Social Media (OSM) vs. Earned Social Media (ESM)

  • The volume of ESM engagement influences brand awareness and purchase intent, but not customer satisfaction.

  • Positive and negative valence of the ESM has the greatest influence on customer satisfaction.

  • OSM boosts brand recognition and customer happiness, but not purchase intent, demonstrating its nonlinear influence.

  • OSM enhances purchase intent for high participation utilitarian brands and for brands with higher repute, suggesting that socially responsible business practices provide OSM greater legitimacy.

  • Purchase intent and customer satisfaction impact shareholder value positively.

Definitions:

  • Brand-controlled social media: Owned social media (OSM)

  • Social media exposure via voluntary, user-generated brand mentions, recommendation, and so on that are not directly generate or control by a company is earned social media (ESM)

Background

  • Research (see table 1 - p. 38) has shown positive impact of social media on consumer mindset metrics (e.g., brand awareness, purchase intent, customer satisfaction) which lead to higher firm performance, but no explicit mediation path.
p. 40
p. 40
p. 41
p. 41

Data

  • Sampling steps

    • obtain detailed OSM and ESM data from a third-party data provider

    • obtain data on consumer mindset metrics

    • Sample brands that follow a coporate branding strategy

    • brand must be listed on the US stock exchange.

  • Social Media Measures

    • OSM: From Facebook, Twitter, but not YouTube.

    • Earned Social Media:

      • Brand fan following: Cumulative daily numbers of FB likes, Twitter followers, YouTube subscribers.

      • ENG volume: Daily cumulative number of people talking about this (PTAT) on Facebook, Twitter user re-tweets, YouTube video views

      • positive and negative-valance: based on a composite volume -valence metric that captures the number and popularity of the user posts based on naive Bayes algorithms.

    • Apply factor analysis with Varimax rotation on all metrics within each construct to obtain a one-factor solution for each.

    • Consumer mindset metrics from YouGov.

    • Missing product and brand level heterogeneity (in the Web appendix mentioned that brand’s rating on hedonic-utilitarian scale and product purchase involvement), but likely used human coders following (Bart, Stephen, and Sarvary 2014)

Methodology

(Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009b)

  • WOM referrals have stronger and longer carryover effects than traditional marketing

  • WOM referrals result in higher response elasticities

  • Monetary value of WOM referrals can be calculated through revenue from advertising impressions

  • This calculation provides an upper-bound estimate for financial incentives a company may offer to encourage WOM.

References

Appel, Gil, Lauren Grewal, Rhonda Hadi, and Andrew T Stephen. 2020. “The Future of Social Media in Marketing.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 48 (1): 79–95.
Bart, Yakov, Andrew T. Stephen, and Miklos Sarvary. 2014. “Which Products Are Best Suited to Mobile Advertising? A Field Study of Mobile Display Advertising Effects on Consumer Attitudes and Intentions.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (3): 270–85. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0503.
Buratti, Nicoletta, Francesco Parola, and Giovanni Satta. 2018. “Insights on the Adoption of Social Media Marketing in B2B Services.” The TQM Journal 30 (5): 490–529. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-11-2017-0136.
Colicev, Anatoli, Ashwin Malshe, Koen Pauwels, and Peter O’Connor. 2018. “Improving Consumer Mindset Metrics and Shareholder Value Through Social Media: The Different Roles of Owned and Earned Media.” Journal of Marketing 82 (1): 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0055.
Dekimpe, Marnik G., and Dominique M. Hanssens. 1995. “The Persistence of Marketing Effects on Sales.” Marketing Science 14 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.14.1.1.
Herhausen, Dennis, Lauren Grewal, Krista Hill Cummings, Anne L. Roggeveen, Francisco Villarroel Ordenes, and Dhruv Grewal. 2022. “EXPRESS: Complaint Deescalation Strategies on Social Media.” Journal of Marketing, August, 002224292211199. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221119977.
Kärkkäinen, Hannu, Jari Jussila, and Jaani Väisänen. 2010. “Social Media Use and Potential in Business-to-Business Companies’ Innovation.” In Proceedings of the 14th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 228–36. MindTrek ’10. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1930488.1930536.
Kietzmann, Jan H, Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P McCarthy, and Bruno S Silvestre. 2011. “Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media.” Business Horizons 54 (3): 241–51.
Pelletier, Mark J., Alexandra Krallman, Frank G. Adams, and Tyler Hancock. 2020. “One Size Doesn’t Fit All: A Uses and Gratifications Analysis of Social Media Platforms.” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 14 (2): 269–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrim-10-2019-0159.
Peters, Kay, Yubo Chen, Andreas M Kaplan, Björn Ognibeni, and Koen Pauwels. 2013. “Social Media Metrics—a Framework and Guidelines for Managing Social Media.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 27 (4): 281–98.
Salo, Jari. 2017. “Social Media Research in the Industrial Marketing Field: Review of Literature and Future Research Directions.” Industrial Marketing Management 66 (October): 115–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.07.013.
Schweidel, David A, and Wendy W Moe. 2014. “Listening in on Social Media: A Joint Model of Sentiment and Venue Format Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (4): 387–402.
Severin, Werner Joseph, James W Tankard, et al. 1997. Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. Longman New York.
Srinivasan, Shuba, Oliver J. Rutz, and Koen Pauwels. 2015. “Paths to and Off Purchase: Quantifying the Impact of Traditional Marketing and Online Consumer Activity.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44 (4): 440–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0431-z.
Trusov, Michael, Randolph E Bucklin, and Koen Pauwels. 2009b. “Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site.” Journal of Marketing 73 (5): 90–102.
Zhang, Yuchi, Michael Trusov, Andrew T. Stephen, and Zainab Jamal. 2017. “Online Shopping and Social Media: Friends or Foes?” Journal of Marketing 81 (6): 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0344.