Download Relationship Marketing

JÖNKÖPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL
JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY
Relationship Marketing
in the online social network context: a study on student attitudes
.
Bachelor Thesis within Marketing Management
Author:
Jakob Grunditz
Emil Liljedahl
Andreas Nyström
Tutor:
Olga Sasinovskaya
Jönköping
December 2009
Bachelor Thesis within Business Administration
Title:
Authors:
Supervisor:
Date:
Keywords:
Relationship Marketing in the online social network context: a
study on student attitudes
Grunditz, Jakob; Liljedahl, Emil; Nyström, Andreas
Sasinovskaya, Olga
Jönköping, December 2009
Relationship Marketing, Internet Marketing, Facebook, Online
Social Networks, Mutual Value Offerings
Abstract
Background:
Relationship marketing represents a trend in marketing to focus on
mutual value creation and consumer retention by strengthening the
connection between an organization and its customers. With the
growing popularity of online social networks such as Facebook
and Twitter as communication platforms, the networks have
gained attention as tools that organizations can use to address current and potential consumers. To utilitize these networks, it is crucial for organizations to understand how consumers use the networks, what attracts them towards communicating with organizations on online social networks and what drives them to maintain
these relationships in the long run.
Purpose:
This study examines the willingness of students, the dominant user
base of online social networks, towards the initiation of relationships with organizations on the networks Facebook and Twitter,
and the drivers behind the relationship.
Method:
The study was performed through a mixed method approach
consisting of a quantitative survey study and a qualitative focus
group discussion conducted at Jönköping University. The survey
addressed the topics of usage patterns and adopter motivations,
while the focus group attempted to explain and motivate the data
gathered during the survey study. Both studies targeted Swedish
and international students.
The students tended to be long-term users of the networks, and
were positive towards communicating with organizations through
the networks. However, the majority of respondents had not
adopted relationship marketing through online social networks at
this point in time. The respondents favored access to information
and communication channels with peers as value offerings that
would attract them to form relationships with organizations. Ultimately, relationship marketing on online social networks is completely dependent on the consumer’s consent and wishes, and
marketers must focus entirely on satisfying the concerns and requirements of its targeted users.
Conclusion:
i
Kandidatuppsats i Företagsekonomi
Titel:
Författare:
Handledare:
Datum:
Nyckelord:
Relationsmarknadsföring på sociala nätverk online: en studie om
studentattityder
Grunditz, Jakob; Liljedalh, Emil; Nyström, Andreas
Sasinovskaya, Olga
Jönköping, December 2009
Relationsmarknadsföring, internetbaserad marknadsföring,
Facebook, social nätverk online, ömsesidigt värdeskapande
Sammanfattning
Bakgrund:
Relationsmarknadsföring representerar en trend inom marknadsföring mot att fokusera på ömsesidigt värdeskapande mellan organisationer och deras kunder. De internetbaserade nätverken för social kommunikation med Facebook och Twitter i spetsen har sett en
enorm tillväxt under senare år och uppmärksammas alltmer som
platformar för marknadsföringskommunikation. För att kunna utnyttja dessa nätverk effektivt måste organisationer utveckla en förståelse för hur dess kunder använder nätverken, vad som attraherar
dem till att utföra en större del av sin kommunikation mot företag
över dem och vad som driver kunderna till att skapa långlivade relationer med företagen över nätverken.
Syfte:
Denna studie undersöker till vilken grad studenter, den dominerande användargruppen på de social nätverkerken på Internet, är
villiage att kommunicera med företag over dem. Den undersöker
även vad som attraherar studenter till att skapa och uppehålla relationer med företag genom nätverken.
Metod:
Studien genomföres som en multimetodisk undersökning där en
kvantitativ enkätundersökning och en kvalitativ fokusgruppstudie
ingick. Enkätundersökningen behandlade primärt användarmönster och motivationen bakom skapandet av relationer med företag
online, medan fokusgruppen behandlade drivkrafter bakom uppehållandet av långlivade relationer. Båda studierna genomfördes på
Svenska och Internationalla studenter.
Studenterna var huvudsakligen erfarna användare av de digital nätverken, och var positive till att kommunicera med företag over
dem. Majoriteten av studenterna hade dock inte format relationer
med företag over dem vid undersökningens tidpunkt, men de ansåg att tillgång till information och kommunikation med liksinnade
var en stor del av värdet bakom sådana relationer. Relationsmarknadsföring over internet står och faller med konsumentens samtycke, och marknadsförare som vill använda de digitala nätverken
som verktyg måste respektera kundens rätt till integritet och fokusera på att erbjuda dessa största möjliga värde.
Slutsats:
ii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Background ................................................................................................ 2 Problem ...................................................................................................... 3 Purpose ...................................................................................................... 4 Research Questions ................................................................................... 5 Definitions................................................................................................... 5 Delimitations ............................................................................................... 6 2 Theoretical Framework ..............................................................7 2.1 Usage Patterns........................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Social Networks....................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Relationship Marketing ............................................................................ 8 2.1.3 Relationships Online ............................................................................... 9 2.1.4 Network Diffusion .................................................................................. 10 2.2 Adopter Motivation ................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Adoption Drivers .................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Viral Relationship Marketing.................................................................. 13 2.3 Relationship Continuance Drivers ............................................................ 15 2.3.1 Social Media Integration ........................................................................ 15 2.3.2 Message Control ................................................................................... 16 3 Methodology .............................................................................17 3.1 Survey ...................................................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Survey Design ....................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Sample Selection .................................................................................. 19 3.1.3 Data Quality........................................................................................... 20 3.1.4 Pilot Study ............................................................................................. 20 3.1.5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 21 3.2 Focus Group............................................................................................. 22 3.2.1 Administration........................................................................................ 22 3.2.2 Sample Selection .................................................................................. 23 3.2.3 Data Quality........................................................................................... 23 3.2.4 Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 23 4 Empirical Findings ...................................................................24 4.1 Survey Results ......................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Sample Characteristics ......................................................................... 24 4.1.2 Network Behavior .................................................................................. 25 4.1.3 Network Usage ...................................................................................... 28 4.1.4 Attitudes towards commercial participation ........................................... 29 4.1.5 Survey Subsets ..................................................................................... 32 4.2 Focus Group Results................................................................................ 33 5 Analysis.....................................................................................36 5.1 Usage Patterns......................................................................................... 36 5.2 Adopter Motivation ................................................................................... 37 5.3 Relationship Continuance Drivers ............................................................ 39 iii
6 Conclusion ................................................................................41 7 Discussion and Further Research ..........................................43 References .....................................................................................44 Appendix 1 – Survey Template ....................................................48 Appendix 2 – Faculty segmented answers Q10 .........................51 iv
1
Introduction
This section aims to provide an introduction to the concept of relationship marketing and the context of Online Social Networks. It will also introduce the research purpose of this study and provide historical background to online social networking.
Relationship marketing has been an emerging trend in marketing over the last two decades
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Christian Grönroos (1992) defined relationship marketing as a
process “to establish, maintain, and enhance relationships with customers and other partners, at a profit, so that the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is achieved by a
mutual exchange and fulfillment of promises”.
As opposed to the traditional view of marketing, as best illustrated by the Marketing Mix
model, relationship marketing does not subscribe to the notion that marketing communication occurs in one direction, with one active and one passive participant (Morgan & Hunt,
1994). Instead, relationship marketing attempts to form a two-way connection between the
buyer and seller that is based on trust and mutual interest. Rather than just attract customers, it allows an organization to retain customers and enhance consumer loyalty (Grönroos,
1994).
Social networking is a relatively new phenomenon in the online world, but it is quickly
gaining mainstream approval as more and more people sign up for these services and perform a major part of their social interactions online through these networks. A service
niche that was once limited to small audiences of early adopters now serves hundreds of
millions of users on a regular basis (Boid & Ellison, 2007).
As with other digital services, many companies have a presence in the form of traditional
advertising. In the digital context, this traditionally consists of simple graphical adverts such
as banners, that attempts to generate user interest towards visiting the sponsoring organizations’ website. While cost-efficient, this form of marketing works in much the same way as
any other form of direct advertising and is widely regarded by users as objects of irritation
or simply as irrelevant information (Pagendarm & Schaumburg, 2001).
The services that dominate the online social networking sphere offer users the opportunity
to form and join various types of groups or sub-networks. These groups allow users that
share a common interest to discuss and share information pertaining to their subject of interest. While the networks can be formed around a myriad of topics or interests, networks
can also be formed around companies and brands. These sub-networks, created with the
sole intent of maintaining customer relationships and broadening brand awareness, have
become a common phenomenon on the major social networking services in recent years
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
Rather than encountering this type of marketing involuntarily and regarding it as an obstacle, every user that subscribes to these groups has actively chosen to associate with that
particular organization for some purpose. Clearly, marketing managers have a very strong
incentive to attempt to seize this genuine consumer interest.
This study looks at relationship marketing in the context of the online social networks
Facebook and Twitter. It is conducted in the format of a bachelor thesis and explores consumer attitudes of university students at the current point in time.
1
1.1
Background
The online social networks that are the context of this study have several common characteristics. Boyd & Ellison (2007) defined online social networks as internet-based services
that allow the user to:
• Publish information in the form of a profile.
• Form and define connections with other users and groups.
• Use this list of connection to access information from other users, as well as their
lists of connections.
Online social networks are a relatively modern concept, but they have existed in various
forms since 1997 when the SixDegrees website was launched (Gross & Acquisti, 2005).
This service shared some similarities with modern networks in that it allowed the creation
of profiles and listing of friends, but it failed to generate the attention the networks of today have received. These features had existed before SixDegrees, but it was the first online
services to integrate them in the format most online networks have today (Boyd & Ellison,
2007).
SixDegrees ceased to operate in the year 2000, and several sites opened and closed in the
period that followed. The first of these to truly grab worldwide interest was MySpace,
which opened in 2003 and primarily attracted a young audience (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). In
2004 it received competition from Facebook, a service based in the United States and directed at college students, a slightly older target group than that addressed by MySpace
(Joinson, 2008).
The user profiles that can be created on networks such as Facebook allow the user to publish information about their person, including any range of attributes from gender to political affiliation (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). They also allow the sharing of images and other
forms of media, as well as the ability to join any number of discussion groups and networks. Users also specify which other users they have connections to, which many networks simply refer to as “Friends”, regardless of the nature of that particular connection.
Users then maintain a list of these friends, and often automatically subscribe to information
about their status updates (Joinson, 2008).
Facebook was initially kept closed to users outside of American universities, and required
an e-mail address from one of these institutions to join (Joinson, 2008). These closed networks on Facebook still exist and operate in much the same fashion, but the overall service
was later made available to the public. Today, the online social networks market is dominated by a few large actors (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
The norm in social networks today is that the service is publicly available, but access to certain networks and adding new connections require various forms of permission (Boyd &
Ellison, 2007). Thus, access to status information from friends is based on consensus of information sharing. Similarly, any organization wishing to use these networks to contact individuals that are connected to them must seek permission, often by convincing the user to
actively sign up to some simple form of subscription list (Joinson, 2008).
Once subscribed, users can either choose to passively take part of information that is provided by the group host, which within commercial groups often comes in the form of current offers, or to take part in discussions and attempt to recruit additional users for the
usergroup. As in any other context, users can also find themselves disappointed by what
2
the group had to offer and decide to end communication by opting out, setting the stage
for negative word of mouth messages about the organization in question (Richins, 1983).
Word of mouth can also be used by marketers to attract customers to form relationships
with organizations online.
One of the most successful ways of generating word of mouth is the concept of viral marketing and it has seen increased attention with the rise of the Internet as a dominant technology in marketing (Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry & Raman, 2004). Based on the idea that
recipients of a message can be influenced to pass the message along, it allows successful
marketing campaigns to turn into self-sustaining reactions that reaches new audiences
(Leskovec, Adamic & Huberman, 2007).
This approach can be utilized to find and persuade new consumers to form a relationship
with the company (Helm, 2000), and it is one of the most crucial aspects of successfully
gaining and maintaining an audience in the online social network context. Successful marketers must attempt to understand what motivates users to respond positively to these offers of forming relationships with organizations, and to identify what drives users towards
continuing to maintain the relationships over an extended period of time.
1.2
Problem
Marketing on online social networks presents an opportunity for companies to reach out to
individuals who are genuinely interested in their products and services, but it is contingent
on to which degree consumers will respond positively to their presence (Ravald & Grönroos, 1996).
Sheth & Parvatiyar (1995) defined relationship marketing as a value creation process where
the consumer form an attachment to the product or brand by maintaining an interactive relationship with it. Naturally, the consumers’ perception of value, whether it stems from a
perceived reduction in purchase risk or greater utility from products from the vendor in
question, is critical for the process to be successful for both parties (Sirdeshmukh, Singh &
Sabol, 2002).
Morgan & Hunt (1994) proposed that commitment from both sides towards the relationship is central to its success, further implying that attention should be focused on the party
that does not have the dominant commercial interest in maintaining the relationship – in
this case the consumer. A consumer that does not perceive any form of value in committing to the relationship is unlikely to maintain it, and the relationship will fail to reach its
full potential (Tax, Brown & Chandrashekaran, 1998).
Marketing, like all other disciplines affected by innovation, is in a constant state of change
(Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). The diffusion of relationship marketing in a new context
will lag behind the diffusion of the underlying technology, and consumer acceptance of a
commercial presence in a given setting is not necessarily diffused at the same rate as the
technology itself. Therefore, the successful marketer must identify at which point in time a
certain subset of the overall user category can be targeted for relationship marketing efforts.
Social networks are still in the early stages of becoming a mainstream communication tool
but have recently gathered enough attention from a marketing perspective to warrant additional research. Rashtchy, Kessler, Bieber, Shindler, & Tzeng (2007) found that the Internet
is the number one source of media at work and the number two source of media at home,
3
they along with Vollmer & Precourt (2008) conclude that consumers are now more willing
than ever to turn away from the traditional sources of advertising to gain more control over
their media consumption. Consumers are also more willing to make information searches
and purchasing decisions on social networks than ever before (Vollmer & Precourt, 2008).
Full time students currently dominate social networks in terms of users (Joinson, 2008).
Students have low buying power, but research conducted on online networks is likely to be
applicable to the same individuals as they age and gain employment. Relationship marketing aims to build long term interaction and it is therefore important for companies to form
relationships as early as possible. Foux (2006) concludes his studies on consumer generated
media with stating that social media is considered more trustworthy than communication
transmitted through the traditional channels of the promotion mix. It is therefore important to consider the consumers opinions on marketing on social networks.
While relationship marketing and online social networks as individual topics have seen a
great deal of research in recent years, there has been limited discussion on how relationship
marketing can be utilized within the online social network context. Morgan & Hunt (1994)
argue that while many of the dimensions involved in a successful relationship marketing
strategy will be similar across the spectrum, there are also many factors that are highly contextual in nature. Fournier, Dobscha & Mick (1998) note that even when it is generally understood that a company must generate trust and commitment to succeed in relationship
marketing, many companies fail to understand just how this is accomplished in their particular context.
The contextual problem is two-fold in nature – As the context in which a consumer-tobusiness relationship is offered changes, so will the expectations and objectives of participants. In addition to these differences, an organization attempting to capitalize on relationship marketing online must identify the potential audience. Simply identifying the users of
these networks is unlikely to be sufficient, the successful marketer must know which subsets of these users are at all interested in any form of commercial relationships in their online sphere.
One of the major obstacles in relationship marketing is thus how to establish and maintain
a relationship between a consumer and a company. Online social networks have the possibility of providing the means to successful relationships at a relatively low cost but companies need to understand the expectations of their potential audience and this is where research in the context of online social networks is currently lacking. This study has examined university students, a dominant group of users of online social networks, to attempt to
identify the consumers’ view on relationship marketing on social networks.
1.3
Purpose
To determine the willingness of university students to engage in relationships with organizations on the online social networks Facebook and Twitter and the consumers’ driving
motivations behind these relationships.
4
1.4
Research Questions
This study aims to answer the following research questions:
 Usage patterns: Which types of organizations do users tend to be interested in forming these relationships with and what do they have in common?
 Adopter motivation: What tends to motivate users to seek out relationships with
commercial organizations on online social networks?
 Relationship continuance drivers: Which factors drive users to maintain relationships
with organizations on online social networks?
1.5
Definitions
• Diffusion
Refers to the process of diffusion of innovations, a process in which new products, services and practices gain popularity within its targeted segment or the overall population.
Theory by Everett Rogers, see section 2.1.4.
• High- and Low-involvement
A framework that classifies purchases by the amount of consumer involvement that goes
into the decision process, often dependant on the nature and price level of the purchase.
• Marketing Mix
A traditional marketing model that is a key concept in much of the literature in the general
field, in particular Kotler, Wong, Saunders & Armstrongs’ Principles of Marketing (2005).
It is based on the idea that successful marketing is a result of a proper price, place, product
and promotion.
• Opt-in Marketing
As opposed to traditional marketing, opt-in refers to the ability of users to choose whether
to be exposed to information from a particular organization. In an opt-in setup, users are
assumed to be uninterested until they subscribe to the service.
• Usergroup
A form of sub-network that exists as part of a greater general online network, linking users
with some shared given interest together. For example, Universities tend to have usergroups on the Facebook network.
• IRC
IRC is an abbreviation for Internet Relay Chat, an older form of Internet-based chat created in 1988. It uses special software to allow users to communicate in real-time through a
server.
• Social Networks
Social Networks is a broad term that attempts to summarize repeat interactions and connections between individuals as parts of a larger network. Online social networks operate in
much the same way, but in the context of the Internet.
5
• RSS
RSS is a technology for quickly displaying news items in a standardized format, allowing
users to access updated information on computers and mobile phones. Commonly used
for web services that update often, such as online newspapers and blogs.
• Feed
General term for an automatically distributed and updated information flow, for example
the news feed on Facebook.
1.6
Delimitations
This study does not attempt to explain consumer attitudes towards direct advertising on
online media (banners, buttons, skyscrapers etc); it is focused entirely on the type of marketing that occurs when marketing information is spread throughout a network by participating organizations and members as a means toward forming and maintaining businessto-consumer relationships.
Given the limited scope of the study it will be limited to the largest open online social networks, which tend to be aimed towards younger audiences. These networks include the
services such as Facebook and Twitter. This is in contrast to closed social networks such as
MSN Messenger or ICQ, where communication is almost exclusively one-to-one and
where the service acts more as a tool for contacting members of other informal networks
than as a network in itself.
The study is cross-sectional, and was conducted in a field where the context tends to
change at a fast pace. The research was conducted in a 3-month period of time and this
time span is not sufficient to observe attitude changes over time.
6
2
Theoretical Framework
This section introduces current and previous research in relationship marketing, social networking, its application online, diffusion patterns of innovations as well as viral marketing.
This study makes use of current theoretical knowledge in the fields of relationship marketing and online social networks, including an overview of social network dynamics. It attempts to link these theories to current consumer attitudes towards this form of marketing
held by the students who participated in the research to find explanations that are applicable to the online social network population. The research has been divided into sections
based on their relation to the research questions stated in section 1.4.
2.1
2.1.1
Usage Patterns
Social Networks
Online social networks are simply an extension of traditional social networks built using
modern communications technology, and many of the same dynamics apply. This study attempts to link social network theory to behavioral patterns on online networks.
In an article by Dholakia, Bagozzi & Pearo (2004), the researchers built on previous research (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002) to build a social influence model for consumers participating in virtual communities. They used statistics to compare two settings of virtual communities; networks and small groups. By applying theory on social identity and group
norms, they aimed to understand the motivations of people joining the two types of social
forums.
Dholakia et al. (2004) attempted to group concepts from the different schools based on
similarities. The first type are groups where people have close relationships and frequent interaction. The second type is social networks and common identity groups. Users in the
second type tend to have loose connections and narrowly defined relationships. The researchers made use of the term “small group” for the first type of group, and “network
community” for the second type (Dholakia et al., 2004).
Since the two different types of communities attract two groups of people with different
motivations, the people who manage the community must satisfy those needs. People seeking to join network communities tended to have a clear purpose or benefit in mind, for instance easy access to gain or share information, while those who choose to join small
groups tend to have less tangible and more socially oriented motivations. This is in line
with research conducted by McKenna & Bargh (1999) who argued that motivation to join
networks tends to stem either from self-oriented or social purposes.
According to this research, people who would be receptive to relationship marketing will
naturally tend to be the network community character type (Dholakia et al., 2004). They
would want information and palpable benefits for joining the community, and not necessarily chat with others in the community. This is as opposed to the small group type, who
seeks other features, such as real time chat and social interactions.
7
Dholakia et al. (2004) suggested that the virtual community should not include live chat
features, but should have a system in which it is easier to store information and previous
conversations to appeal to the network community type of users. Facebook appeals to both
groups since many different communication tools are provided.
Joinson (2008); Huberman, Romero & Wu (2008), and a host of other researchers have
found that an important driver in behavior and activity on online social networks is the
number of ‘friends’ or contacts that they have formalized within these network applications, and the network community users are likely to maintain significant contact lists.
The online marketing efforts for the virtual community must fit with the network community type in order to meet the needs of the people joining the community. Such a community may for example allow a customer to receive information from the company, and provides the company with a chance to send information in an affordable way to people they
know are interested. In some cases the community could eventually turn into more of a
small group type, where customers grow closer to each other and to the company in terms
of online interaction. Since the needs and expectations of users differ, so will the motivations behind adopting the networks and using it as a tool for new tasks.
2.1.2
Relationship Marketing
This study examines attitudes towards relationship marketing on online social networks,
which is part of the larger concept of creating additional value for consumers of a product
or service.
Traditionally, research in marketing has been centered on one-way marketing communication to create and fulfill demand (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In their work Principles of Marketing, Kotler et al. (2005) present the marketing process primarily as a sequence controlled
by the marketing organization. The process identifies some form of need or want, which
describes the underlying cause for demand, and then attempts to create, communicate and
deliver a product or service to fulfill the need or want. It is only in recent editions that tools
such as the Internet and paradigms such as relationship marketing have gained significant
attention.
Kotler et al. (2005) describes marketing as a mix of four factors: Product, Price, Promotion
and Place, of which this study primarily concerns the latter two. In this traditional model,
very little attention is paid to communication from the consumer to the marketer, and even
less attention to communication between consumers. Yet evidence suggests that reliance
on the internet as a tool for making purchase decisions is growing at very high rate. Greenspan (2002) found that as many as one in third used the internet prior to making highinvolvement purchase decisions. This form of pre-purchase research circumvents the traditional model where the marketer is in complete control of the message. Instead, other
consumers and unbiased third parties alter the message to reflect their perception of the offering, using tools such as online social networks to communicate their views.
This perception is not always based on the actual product. Some organizations compete by
offering extra services or additional features for a product; some compete by maintaining a
superior brand image (Davis, 2000). Even though the product could have identical performance to a lower rated brand, consumers may still prefer the more expensive high-end
brand.
8
One way of creating additional value for consumers is relationship marketing. It was an
important force in the marketing efforts before the industrial revolution, but as the market
developed a more transaction-oriented focus during the industrial era relationship marketing decreased in importance (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995). Competition over customers has
increased in recent years and companies are thus finding new ways to satisfy and retain
their existing customers, relationship marketing has received much attention during the last
two decades as a way of combating the increased competition (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Godson (2009) defines relationship marketing as a relationship between stakeholders that is
mutually beneficial to all the parties involved.
Grönroos (1992) and Godson (2009) argue that the core of relationship marketing is to
build value. An organization will not undertake a project aimed at establishing relationships
with consumers unless it believes it has something to gain, and consumers will not accept
the relationships unless they also feel they derive some form of benefit from it (Godson,
2009). These relationships can be of many different kinds, but they tend to be aimed at increasing the perceived benefit a consumer gains from purchasing or using a product (Sheth
& Parvatiyar, 1995).
Researchers agree in that relationship marketing offers a way to meet increased global
competitiveness but disagree on if relationship marketing is a separate field of study or
simply just a result of trying to achieve customer satisfaction – a core concept in marketing.
While some of the more traditional researchers such as Petrof (1997) argue that relationship marketing is a mere buzzword originating from core marketing concepts such as profitability through customer retention and satisfaction. Other researchers such as Christopher, Payne, Ballantyne & Pelton (1995) approach relationship marketing differently in that
they add on to the traditional 4p model with two additional P’s – processes and people. Relationship marketing is treated as a separate field of study from this point on, as it is conducted through a separate process of communication from other marketing efforts.
Christopher et al. (1995) argue that everything a company does is part of a process (the 5th
P) leading to a product or service being delivered to the consumer, process management is
hence an integral part in how the company deals with its external and internal environments. People are the 6th P and are viewed as the contributors to the process management
and act as the link between customer development and satisfaction (Christopher et al.,
1995). Companies communicating with the external environment through the use of social
networks may at first not appear dependent on people as facilitators of relationship marketing efforts, but the negative effects of marketing efforts carried out poorly have the potential of being far greater.
2.1.3
Relationships Online
The emergence of the Internet as a dominant technology in international society has further increased the attention relationship marketing is gaining (Phelps et al., 2004), and it enables organizations to connect with thousands or millions of its current and potential consumers using minimal resources. In recent years the presence and growth of online social
networks has been gaining widespread attention from audiences worldwide (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) and these networks allow organizations an opportunity to form relationships
with consumers at a very low cost.
Godson (2009) identifies two major advantages with relationships online; reaching the consumer and being better able to serve the consumer. The market online is vast and the possibility of attracting new customers is enhanced when access to for example other regions is
9
easily facilitated online. Technology allows companies to customize their offerings because
each consumer can now be individually served with for example customer profiles (Gordon, 1998). Companies are therefore able to serve their customers more efficiently than
previously (Godson, 2009).
Godson (2009) mentions a major negative aspect of relationships online –impersonality,
when all the business is carried out through computers the customer never meets a real
person. Egan (2008) points out that it is dangerous to force technology (such as automated
call centers) on a consumer as a replacement of human relationships, this is ultimately not a
way of building value for the consumer, the most important aspect in relationship marketing.
Company and customers will interact to gain value, it is therefore critical to find efficient
channels of communication between them to maximize the resulting value. Today many
customers voluntarily give and receive information from companies through opt-in services, creating channels through which organizations are able to communicate and gather information about them (Gordon, 1998).
Relationship marketing is not focused on direct marketing, since the cost of gaining customers by converting them from competitors is greater than attempting to secure the loyalty of previous customers. Buchanan & Gilles (1990) have claimed that an increase as
small as five percent in customers retained can increase profitability by as much as 20%80%. They also found several reasons explaining this increase in profit. Customers in a successful relationship are less inclined to switch to a competitor, are more likely to use positive word of mouth, and are more likely to buy complementary goods (Buchanan & Gilles
(1990).
Buchanan & Gilles (1990) also found that these effects were the direct results of a successful consumer-to-business relationship that would in the end lead to increased profits. This
seems to indicate that customers, once they have become a part of a community, would be
more attached to the company, instead of its competitors.
It is critical to identify how the advantages of online relationship marketing are being utilized at the present time. Relationship marketing on social networks is not simply an issue
of following a trend, but of integrating popular technology with traditional marketing efforts.
2.1.4
Network Diffusion
Whenever a new product, innovation or service is introduced, there is a period of time during which awareness and knowledge of the product spreads throughout the marketplace.
Rogers (1995) introduced the theory of Diffusion of Innovations, and today it is one of the
most cited theories in marketing. Diffusion can be thought of as a pattern in which information is carried forward and disseminated, and the theory attempts to explain how and
why different audiences adopt new innovations at different points in time (Robertson,
1967).
The diffusion process starts with awareness of a new innovation, where any one potential
customer learns of the existence and basic nature of the new product. The consumer then
learns more about the product as time passes, and eventually evaluates it based on personal
preferences, knowledge of the product and the existence of any needs that the product or
10
service fulfills. Following this evaluation the potential customer decides whether or not to
try the innovation (Rogers, 1995).
This is not necessarily a conscious process, and the period of the time over which it
stretches can differ dramatically (Rogers, 1995). Because of the large differences in rate of
adoption, it is possible to divide consumers of most successful innovations into several
categories depending on the rate at which they adopt new products and services, and
Rogers found that the percentage of consumers that belong to these group roughly form
the distribution of a normal bell curve if placed along a timeline axes of the adoption process.
E. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition, 1995
The Early and Late Majority make up the main segment of the population and are naturally
the most profitable segments, but they may have higher barriers towards trying new innovations that they know little about. The Laggards make up the rightmost tail of the distribution and will either adopt the new innovation when it is relatively old, or never at all
(Robertson, 1967). In the context of online social networks, users can be segmented into
the different categories depending on at what time they began using these networks. Users
who started using the networks several years ago will likely belong to the early adopters or
early majority segments.
2.2
2.2.1
Adopter Motivation
Adoption Drivers
Different forms of networks and groups have different levels of barriers towards entry.
The popular social networks encountered on the internet tend to be open and welcoming
to new adopters, but are equally easy to unsubscribe from. To further understand what
drives consumers towards forming relationships with organizations online, it is important
to gain an understanding of why adopters want to be part of online communities.
As mentioned in section 2.1.2 Dholakia et al. (2004) argued that there are two different
types of network users; one type who seeks information, and one that is driven by a need
for social interaction. Therefore, the two types seek different types of communities. If a
person wants information on a product, they would be likely to seek out a network-based
community, rather than the small group type community.
11
For a community to function properly, there must be somebody creating and assembling
the information in question, and somebody else that processes and absorbs it. HennigThurau & Walsh (2003) performed research on why people tend to read posts provided by
others in online communities. They found five different reasons for this, and the dominant
reason was that the readers could be better informed when making purchase decisions and
be so much faster than by using other forms of media. Customers tend to be affected by
these posts in both the informational sense (a product is good or bad) and the social sense
(values and behavior).
Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh & Gremler (2004) continued this research by investigating the reasons for posting messages on the online communities. They found eight major
reasons for this form of word of mouth that are very similar to the motivations behind traditional non-electronic word of mouth.
These eight reasons for posting were:
(1) Platform assistance
(2) Venting negative feelings
(3) Concern for other consumers
(4) Extraversion/positive self-enhancement
(5) Social benefits
(6) Economic benefits
(7) Helping the company
(8) Advice seeking
The researchers found that the most important incentive was the fifth one, social benefits.
All of these influence a person to both visit the community and to post messages. Finally
they segmented the consumers they had studied according to the eight reasons that they
had established. Through hierarchical cluster analysis they established four segments which
all had in common that the strongest reason for publishing online content was concern for
other consumers. They instead focused on the second strongest reason to differentiate the
segments and found that:
• Segment (1), self-interested helpers, are driven by economic reasons.
• Segment (2), multiple-motive consumers, are driven by many different reasons with
none of them particularly standing out.
• Segment (3), consumer advocates, named so because they are concerned about the
other consumers’ interests.
• Segment (4), true altruists, care about both other consumers and companies.
Füller, Jawecki & Mühlbacher (2007) found that highly dedicated consumers in Nike’s online basketball community actively tried to get in touch with their preferred brand, and
Füller along with other researchers later on studied the willingness of consumers to cocreate products with a brand or company (Füller, Matzler & Hoppe, 2008). They concluded
that although consumers feel innovative, they do not necessarily want to contribute to their
brand of choice. Having a strong brand commitment does not necessarily mean that consumers want to participate in innovate projects.
Füller et al. (2008) also found that people do not often join the communities because they
want to contribute an innovative idea to their brand. Instead, having already become members of a community the consumers later on become willing to participate in various inno12
vative projects with the brand. These tend to be the people who in the Hennig-Tharau et
al. (2004) study would be classified as true altruists.
Paterson (2009) summarized the main motives for consumers to enter online communities
to be either the sociability of communities, value of content, and how well the community
supplies customer support and service. This is consistent with the previously mentioned
motives to joining. She also found that these reasons are a factor when it comes to staying
in the community and to actively participate in it. While the motivations behind joining the
online social networks that are not centered around a product are likely to be focused
around sociability, organizations have an interest in attempting to capitalize on the interest
potential adopters have in finding information and other content of value to them within
the networks.
2.2.2
Viral Relationship Marketing
The Blackwell Dictionary of Marketing defines viral marketing as:
“Viral marketing is the term applied to an Internet-based promotional strategy that encourages users to transfer to others a fixed marketing communications message, usually without
the volition of either sender or recipient.” (Littler & Lewis, 2008)
It is essentially the process of diffusion of information over a formal or informal social
network (Leskovec et al., 2007). Whereas direct marketing tends to be based on the idea
that a message is communicated to one receiver who then decides to adopt or not to adopt
the product, viral marketing focuses on the cascade effect that occurs when message receivers voluntarily choose to carry the message forward to others. In essence, viral marketing attempts to use existing social networks to get potential adopters to spread the information to their friends and associates (Wilson, 2000).
This form of marketing is powerful because the product is being endorsed by a friend rather than some one being paid to do it (Jurvetson, 2000). People tend to be less skeptical
towards messages that are assumed to be given without any commercial interests involved,
and if these messages are found interesting people may even choose to pass it onwards.
However, this does not mean that every person is equally susceptible to viral marketing. A
person will not take as much notice if they receive a lot of these types of messages every
day. In fact it is important to examine the typology and general interests of the social
community members for there to be an epidemic effect with the marketing effort (Leskovec et al. 2007).
A major problem in viral marketing is the difficulty in making a message that will actually
achieve a viral effect, and determining who will reliably spread it (Watts & Peretti, 2007). It
is widely held that there are a multitude of factors determining whether viral marketing is
or is not suitable for the diffusion of a particular marketing message (Leskovec et al., 2007),
and this may even be changing as the nature and extent of social networks changes. Some
products may simply not generate the consumer involvement that is required for a sustained cascade effect, and on occasion the message is negatively received to the extent that
a viral effect that ends up harming the product image is created (Moore, 2003).
In order for a successful viral diffusion to occur, there must be some underlying motivation
for the user to pass on the information to his or her peers. Whether the message is simply
to join an online community or to make some kind of moral stand, the user must first have
13
been interested enough to seek out the message and then convinced enough to act as a volunteer messenger towards other users.
Social Rewards
Wilson (2000) found that one core motivation behind passing on viral messages is unrelated to the message itself. Many users will simply choose to forward messages for the purpose of maintaining a relationship with another user, in much the same way as any form of
small talk. Rather than discussing a topic a user will start a conversation by passing on an
interesting viral message, such as a hyperlink to a web-based video clip. Therefore, viral
messages may have a natural tendency to spread through informal networks simply because
they fulfill a social function (Wilson, 2000).
In terms of content, Dobele, Lindgreen, Beverland, Vanhamme & van Wijk (2007) found
that successful viral marketing campaigns tend to target one or more of the primary emotions: Surprise, Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust.
The vast majority included an element of surprise, which the researchers found to be the
most critical emotion for inciting an urge to forward viral messages, which is consistent
with the findings of Lindgreen & Vanhamme (2005). They also found that surprise in itself
does not generate enough interest to create a viral reaction, the message also needs to contain at least one other primary emotion to be effective. Hence, a message could for example
surprise and amuse, or surprise and scare the user. Which emotions to target will depend
on the image the marketer is trying to create, thus campaigns based around products intended for amusement will tend to make use of Joy as the primary emotion.
There will be external effects on which emotions can be successfully utilized depending on
which market segment is being targeted. For example, Dobele et al. (2007) found that there
is a difference in behavior between genders – With male users being more likely to pass on
messages based around the primary emotions fear and disgust than female users.
Personal Benefits
Subramani & Rajagopalan (2003) base their framework of research on viral marketing
around the idea that different users have different potential rewards and benefits from
passing on messages through informal networks. Some messages may not be rewarding to
pass on except for the social rewards explained in the section above, but there are situations where the size of the group of users convinced by the viral message directly affects
the benefits each user receives (Phelps et al., 2004).
Viral Frequency and Response
Viral marketing is a relatively cheap and a powerful way for information to be passed on to
new potential consumers (Portsmouth, 2003), but it is important to understand whether
people respond negatively or positively to viral activities in the communities. A major difference between online communities and using e-mail is that it is possible to post a message in general manner so many people can see it, while at the same time being able to send
a private message should the need arise.
This study examines two forms of viral marketing. The first form of viral marketing is active in the sense that consumers actively choose to forward information concerning a relationship to friends and contacts. The second form is passive and relies on automatic notifications forwarded to these friends and contacts by the social network system. The motiva-
14
tions behind viral activities become an issue within active viral marketing, while passive effects bypass this issue entirely.
2.3
2.3.1
Relationship Continuance Drivers
Social Media Integration
Mangold & Faulds (2009) have developed concrete suggestions for how companies can integrate social networks into their existing promotional mix. They argue that social media
not only allows companies access to their consumers and an ability for open dialogue between them but also allows consumers the ability to talk to each other. The very nature of
social media does however leave the company with limited ability to actually influence
these conversations.
With the tools of social media a dissatisfied consumer has the ability to share his or her
opinion to millions instead of simply a handful of friends and relatives (Gillin, 2007), which
turns social media into an accelerated form of word of mouth. This means that the companies get less control over the flow of information between customers, as noted by Vollmer
& Precourt (2008). Because of this Mangold & Faulds (2009) argue that the traditional
communications paradigm has to give way for a new paradigm that integrates tools to deal
with social media, and they provide the following suggestions for how companies can integrate relationship marketing with social media:
• Provide networking platforms
They suggest that organizations should attempt to form platforms and networks that
consumers can use to communicate and share information. This has several advantages,
such as maintaining a degree of control over the flow of information.
• Use blogs and other social media tools to engage consumers.
These blogs and tools can be used to enable customers to give feedback on products
and encourage honest open communication, ideally benefiting both sender and receiver. This technique has for example been used by software-related firms to
communicate with its consumer base.
• Use both traditional and Internet-based promotional tools to engage consumers
It is important to tie in other tools of the promotional mix into social media, such as
lotteries, giveaways, and voting. The Internet should primarily be seen as one tool of
many, and should complement rather than replace.
• Provide information
Many products can be of more use to an informed consumer, and many companies are
in a position to provide information that customers can use to increase the benefit they
derive from using their products. Liquor companies such as Grey Goose provide elaborate cocktail recipes on their websites, and many consumer products can see broader
use with similar information.
• Provide exclusivity
Exclusivity can be a powerful motivator in that it provides the consumer with an added
incentive towards forming and maintaining a relationship with the organization. If the
same benefit can be gained in other ways, these relationships will not seem as lucrative.
Exclusive deals just available to a certain subset of consumers will tend to generate additional interest.
15
• Design products with talking points and consumers’ self images in mind
It may seem intuitive to think of relationship marketing as a tool that is involved after
the product is designed and finished, but its benefits can be increased by considering it
as an essential element of the design process right from the start. Talking points allow
for a higher likelihood of word of mouth: simple features are easier to communicate
than complex, and fun, intriguing, highly visible, easy to use products are more likely to
stimulate conversation.
• Support causes that are important to consumers
Another popular approach is to integrate social responsibility into relationship marketing, because it tends to translate well to the online network context. In this setting it is
relatively easy to communicate the message of acting in a responsible manner to a large
number of consumers and potential consumers.
• Utilize the power of stories
Stories can create vivid memories that are easily spread through word of mouth,
whether it is a consumers’ story or a story from the company. These stories form an
experience for the consumer, who ideally will tend to relate the company and its brand
to this story in the future.
2.3.2
Message Control
Mangold & Faulds (2009) conclude their study by stating that even though an organization
and its management does not have an ability to control the flow of information regarding
itself or its products throughout social media, this does not mean it should not attempt to
gain as much of this control as possible and most importantly at least try to influence these
communication channels in order to get their marketing communication across.
An organization should strive towards not only maintaining a presence in the evolving social media context, but to integrate this form of communication with its other marketing
practices (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). This way of integrating the marketing efforts in the
online social environment in a proper way is important. Boone & Kurtz (2007) found it necessary to coordinate all of the firms marketing efforts to get a consistent message across to
the consumers.
The types of values identified by Mangold & Faulds (2009) are important when marketing
is applied to social networks. These attributes provide distinct advice and suggestions for
marketers in how to appeal to the consumer, and it is important to investigate how the
consumer views these suggestions. Ultimately the success of maintaining relationships with
consumers online will be dependent on the consumers’ perception of the value added by
continuing the relationship.
16
3
Methodology
This section will introduce the research methods that this study made use of, what part they play in the
greater whole, as well as the fundamental limitations of the study and each form of data collection.
This study employed inductive research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007) to gain an
overview of students’ attitudes towards relationship marketing on online social networks.
For the purpose of this study the consumer is to be considered the unit of analysis (Saunders et al, 2007), and the types of organizations and industries used during the research is
intended purely as examples to simplify data collection. This study was conducted over a
short period of time (3 months) and is cross-sectional in nature.
The study is mixed method in nature, and employs both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The survey described in 3.1 allows respondents to answer multiple-choice
questions and was analyzed quantitatively. The focus group study described in 3.2 was entirely qualitative in nature. Mixed method research aims to utilize the objectivity and reliability of quantitative research with the explanatory strength of qualitative methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
Mixed methods are particularly suited for inductive research, where quantitative and qualitative data can be used interdependently to generate explanations for patterns that occur,
care must however be taken to avoid subjectivity (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The
mixed method approach that is utilized is essentially a form of cross-methods triangulation
(Jick, 1979), where multiple methods are used to verify whether similar conclusions are
reached. While the sample groups for the two research methods employed were not identical, the majority of focus group respondents participated in the survey study.
Online social networks have a high degree of market penetration in the university setting
worldwide (Gross & Acquisti, 2005), which allows access to a sample group that reflect a
very large part of the overall population that are users of these networks. Previous research
was used to formulate a survey that attempts to explore the different dimensions of the
problem. The survey was distributed to students across multiple university faculties.
Prior to reaching the final conclusions a focus group was conducted in order to discuss the
findings with an audience that were not biased from having conducted research in the area.
The focus group was carried out in order to prevent fundamental errors that can arise from
misunderstandings and questions that were unintentionally flawed, or from contamination
due to factors such as bias towards socially desirable answers (Dillman, 2000). Focus
groups are multi-participant studies that make use of group interaction to gather data and
reach conclusions (Kitzinger, 1994).
3.1
Survey
The aim of the survey was to gather descriptive primary data towards answering the research questions. It targeted university students’ belonging to faculties represented at
Jönköping University and made inquires about past experiences of online social networks
and attitudes towards relationship marketing efforts on these networks. Due to the high
degree of market penetration in the targeted setting and the purpose of this report, respondents that did not use online social networks were considered non-respondents. These respondents made up less than 5% of the survey respondents. It was important to filter out
17
these respondents since having them answer the survey without the proper knowledge
about the networks results in unwanted results since the remainder of the survey assumed
that the subject did use one or more of these networks.
The survey design was based on similar research conducted by a host of other researchers
and covers a relatively broad set of variables for analyzing consumer perception of relationship marketing on online social networks.
3.1.1
Survey Design
The survey was designed as a self-administered questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2007) delivered in a classroom setting. This method had the benefit of distribution to a high number
of respondents, primarily because classroom norms tend to prohibit students from leaving
the room before the survey had been completed by their peers. This had the benefit of reducing respondent bias, where the students who happen to be interested in the subject
were the one’s responding to the survey.
The available time frame for administering each survey was limited, because of each survey
session being conducted during classroom time with people that have other obligations.
The time required to answer the survey was therefore limited to 10 minutes or less, and
with questions designed with simplicity that was in line with this time frame. The survey
made extensive use of multiple choice questions to allow for this.
The survey was designed to cover three general areas: general sample attributes as well as
usage patterns and adopter motivation of relationship marketing on online social networks.
The third area of interest in this study, relationship continuance drivers, was primarily studied qualitatively through the focus group study.
General Attributes
Research within this area of study tends to make use of attributes that divide the sample into smaller but significant groups. Gross & Acquisti (2005) used gender as an attribute in
their research, and it is likely to be one of the most commonly used variables overall since
it is of relevance in such an enormous range of fields. Joinson (2008) used age as an attribute variable in his research on use of Facebook, and it is another commonly used variable
for data analysis. Etter & Perneger (1997) found that both these variables tend to be linked
to non-response biases, and care must be taken to avoid this form of bias.
Usage Patterns
McKenna & Bargh (1999) used amount of online activity as a behavioral variable in her research on online social networks and found that it explained differences in attitudes and
behavior. This variable was included because users who spend large amounts of time online
are also likely to be open to performing more actions online, such as communicating with
companies. This category of variables also includes questions about which form of services
users would be willing to perform online in the near future.
Eccleston & Griseri (2008) based a large part of their research on simple binary behavioral
variables involving past and current actions, such as whether a user had previously attempted to convince others to purchase a product. Similar variables can be used to determine whether users are currently maintaining relationships with any commercial organizations on online social networks, and whether they had attempted to convince a friend to
join.
18
Online social networks have a rich culture of passing messages forward, and this dimension
is included in the study because it is one of the key ways organizations can generate awareness of their presence within the networks. Dobele et al. (2007) argued that the motivation
to pass information forward tends to be triggered by different sets of emotions. For example, a user may choose to invite a friend to an open user group based around an amusing
video, or an event that makes him or her angry.
Adopter Motivation
Kotler et al. (2005) discussed the issues of the consumer value in relationship marketing, in
particular that the consumer must be interested in obtaining some benefit from engaging in
relationships with companies. The survey incorporates this by asking about the benefits the
adopters were interested in, and from which types of organizations. Wiseman (1972) argued that opinion variables tend to be easily contaminated by improper use of methods,
and great care must be taken to avoid questions leading the respondent to one of the alternatives in a question.
The survey made use of this concept in addition to the Viral Marketing Framework suggested by Subramani & Rajagopalan (2003), which is based on the idea that users have different motives for passing on messages and recommending others to join networks – both
selfish and altruistic. These factors were implemented into the survey by inquiring about viral behavior and underlying motivations.
3.1.2
Sample Selection
The sample group the survey was administered to was selected among students at
Jönköping University in November 2009. The study was conducted at the beginning of inclass sessions at the engineering, business and teaching faculties with the cooperation of the
professors hosting the lectures. This context has the benefit of reducing nonresponse bias
based on interest, because the students have no incentive such as time constraints to decline to answer the survey. Armstrong & Overton (1997) argue that the most efficient way
of avoiding nonresponse bias is to avoid or reduce nonresponse, this has been avoided by
administering the survey in an in-class setting.
To allow for high diversity in gender and faculty representation stratified random sampling
was used (Patton, 1990) to select classes to attend and conduct the survey at. The strata criteria used was hosting faculty, and the survey contains responses from four randomly selected lectures at the different faculties. This form of purposeful sampling allows researchers to reduce the risk of creating a sample that is not representative for the population
(Saunders et al., 2007). The engineering faculty at Jönköping University is highly dominated
by male students, while the teaching and business faculties have some overrepresentation
by female students. Using hosting faculty as sampling criteria therefore allows for a sample
that has an even gender balance, without polluting the sample by limiting it to one particular faculty or program.
There were a total of 195 respondents, 95 males, 100 females, with an additional 7 nonrespondents (not included in the total). 38 of the respondents were from the engineering
faculty, 73 were from the education and communication faculty and 84 were from the
business and economics faculty. The student groups primarily consisted of Swedish students, with a small amount of international students.
19
3.1.3
Data Quality
The non-response rate of the survey study was less than 5% of the total surveys administered, which should be considered to be very low. This primarily stems from the setting the
survey was administered in, and reduces the risk of non-response bias (Saunders et al.,
2007).
In quantitative research care must be taken to ensure validity. Given the descriptive nature
of this survey the primary issue is external validity, to which degree it is possible to apply
the results and conclusions drawn from one group or sample on the full population or on
other specific groups (Calder, Phillips & Tybout, 1982). The sample drawn from Jönköping
University is likely to be transferable to students in Sweden in general, and is likely to be
applicable to other student bodies in similar cultural contexts.
Another issue in research with pre-defined answers is ‘meaning units’, which in the context
of the survey would be an alternative on a multiple choice question. When a meaning unit
is too broad and fragmented, the conclusions drawn from are likely to be weak (Graneheim
& Lundman, 2003). The problem of fragmentation in the survey has been reduced by having a relatively large amount of alternatives as well as the option of providing open-ended
input.
It is unlikely to be applicable on the full general population, but may have limited applicability on early adopter groups that share student adoption patterns. This study is aimed at
determining attitudes of users of these networks, and at present these networks are populated primarily by people in similar age groups as students. The conclusions are therefore
expected to apply to young adult users of online social networks in general.
With the great amount of students (i.e. people of age 18-25) in the online social network
population (Gross & Acquisti, 2005), the sample was proposed to be sufficiently accurate
in terms of sample size to have a high degree of validity.
3.1.4
Pilot Study
An inherent weakness in any form of questionnaire is that the researchers who designed it
tend to possess a much higher degree of knowledge in the subject than the respondents, as
well as an awareness of what it is that the study in question aims to determine. Therefore it
is important to attempt to minimize the risk of formulating questions that are either ambiguous, unclear or self-answering (Saunders et al., 2007).
Bell (2005) recommends all researchers to perform a pilot study before finalizing the survey
design and layout, to attempt to weed out these errors. A pilot study is conducted by letting
a limited amount of respondents answer the survey and use their performance as feedback
towards the survey design. In some instances the respondents will simply ask the researcher
administering the survey to clarify a question or statement, but Fink (2003) argues that researchers should also look through the answers given and see whether all instructions were
carried out properly.
A pilot study was performed by allowing a handful of individuals in a university setting to
complete the survey while being allowed to ask the person administering the survey any
questions they may have. These individuals were selected from people with various knowledge in social networks and had vastly different levels of familiarity with the concepts the
survey concerns. Following this pilot study certain questions were reformulated especially
20
in regards to age distributions and number ranges, but in general the respondents were able
to complete the survey with relative ease.
Because this study is conducted in English, the survey was conducted in the same language.
While providing a translated survey was an option, this would have run the risk of contaminating the sample. Questions worded in English may not carry the exact same meaning
or weight as one worded in Swedish would. During the pilot study it was found that some
respondents had issues with properly understanding question 10. The wording of question
10 was therefore simplified in order to avoid this in the real sample.
Certain respondents had problems understanding questions that involved language outside
of the general vocabulary, such as terms used to describe online social networks. To prevent sample pollution no technical jargon was used in the final survey, and respondents
were informed they could ask for translations or explanations at any time. An introductory
sentence was also added to the beginning of the survey to introduce the respondent to the
subject.
3.1.5
Data Analysis
To form a solid set of variables to base the analysis on the software suites SPSS and Microsoft Excel were used to compile and organize the results of the survey. This form of analysis allowed for identifying the most commonly occurring answers, and to identify patterns
as well as signs of sample pollution. Multiple-choice questions in particular are suitable for
this approach because of their limited range of alternatives. Sample responses were entered
as a series of binary variables indicating whether or not any particular answer was selected.
Yin (2003) argues that researchers should attempt to form a theoretical grounding through
which to analyze the data prior to its collection. The alternative to this is to attempt to find
suitable a theoretical framework in light of the study results, but this brings the issue of
creating researcher bias where theories that do not support the study’s conclusion may be
ignored.
This study looks at research on relationship marketing and online social networks to form a
theoretical framework that acts as a guide when studying the data results. Saunders et al.
(2007) argues that even explicit inductive research tends to combine elements of inductive
and deductive research, and this study uses a theoretical framework based on previous research in attempting to explain the findings, while at the same time acknowledging the possibility of adding additional theoretical background should unexpected data patterns arise.
Yin (2003) refers to this form of research as explanation building.
This compiled data was used to find patterns that explain the behavior of users in the aggregate sense as well as the differences between them on an individual level. The results of
the study were compiled into charts and are presented in section 4, in addition to sample
subsets with significantly different answers from the full sample. The data charts were used
to gain a graphical overview of the survey data and to form links to previous research. This
data was also used to form the agenda for the focus group discussion.
21
3.2
Focus Group
Surveys are limited in the sense that communication tends to be one-way. They do allow
for inductive research since patterns may emerge that the initial research did not portray,
but they do not allow for discussion, interpretation and general feedback.
To allow for feedback outside of the specific variables that were looked at, a focus group
was conducted where discussions on; relationship marketing, social network activities, opting in on marketing activities in online social networks, and forwarding messages to other
contacts were carried out. A focus group is essentially a semi-structured multi-participant
interview session where any phenomenon or concept can be discussed by outsiders to allow for new input (Saunders et al., 2007).
A major aspect of focus groups is the benefit derived from interaction between participants
and researchers, but also the observation on how participants interact with each other (Carson, Gilmore, Perry & Gronhaug, 2001). It is a useful tool because it permits new inductive
insights based on interaction between those involved in the study when exposed to data
that they may or may not relate to.
These focus groups consisted of, at the time of the study, current users of the online networks in question rather than a random sample of the full population, simply because the
topic requires a certain familiarity to discuss.
During these sessions discussions were focused on the findings of the survey analysis and
whether the participants believe the results correctly described their behavior. Six major
points related to the survey and marketing on social networks were discussed; Marketing
on social media, What would make it interesting to join a group, Automatic updates on the
news feed, Special offers, Facebook as a discussion forum, and Getting people interested.
The focus group was used to increase the reliability of the study, and to prevent any conclusions that stem from data that has been compromised by biases and leading questions.
The focus groups also provided the ability gain reflections on the results from individuals
that did not have a preconceived view of the results.
Focus groups have many other uses, such as generating research questions and objectives,
formulating theories and hypotheses, and providing insight into which types of questions
are relevant during further stages of the study. The focus group was used for verifying findings rather than to generate ideas for survey variables.
3.2.1
Administration
The session was carried out in a study room at Jönköping University with the ability to
comfortably accommodate 14 people, refreshments were provided during the session. A
dual model focus group was adopted where one researcher made sure the discussion went
smoothly and were kept on track, by for example preventing a few individuals from dominating the discussions, while another ensured all subjects were covered. The third researcher was in charge of note keeping as well as recording equipment and did not take
part in the discussions.
Participants were not provided with written material, but were given an introduction to online social networks and their associated features that enable relationship marketing to ensure that every participant had sufficient background knowledge. The session was completed in one hour.
22
3.2.2
Sample Selection
The focus group consisted of 8 participants, consisting of 6 students who were survey respondents and 2 students who were not. The sample was designed to allow for triangulation while attempting to prevent sample pollution by limiting the potential for new insight
unrelated to the survey. The participants were selected from student volunteers at
Jönköping University. The participants were given a gift voucher of 100 SEK at a local
bookstore as well as coffee/tea during the session as incentive to participate.
The requirements for attending were limited to being a subscriber to an online social network, and both international and Swedish students were chosen to attend. Five participants
were native Swedes while three were international students, one from South Africa and two
from Germany. Participants were also chosen based on having varied amounts of experience in social networks. There were eight participants during the session in addition to the
three moderators, three were male and five were female.
3.2.3
Data Quality
A major challenge in qualitative research is to determine the trustworthiness of a study.
Graneheim & Lundman (2003) defined trustworthiness as a concept encompassing credibility, dependability and transferability. Credibility deals with the quality of the study and
the approach taken by the researchers, such as applying proper methodology and selecting
a sample that accurately represents the population while eliminating bias (Patton, 1987).
Dependability is achieved by ensuring that both the study and the results are consistent
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2003). Transferability deals with the degree to which the findings
of any one study can be transferred and applied to the full population or to other groups
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2003). Dependability is not a major issue in a focus group study
carried out once, but care must be taken to ensure transferability and to resist making
broad claims that do not represent the population. To ensure transferability all conclusions
made from findings of the focus group study have been compared to data from the survey
study, ensuring internal dependability and validity.
3.2.4
Data Analysis
The findings provided by the focus group study was used to generate further links between
the data provided by the survey study and previous research, as well as to document which
aspects of relationship marketing efforts respondents felt were critical for maintaining relationships with organizations rather than simply forming them only to later dissolve them.
The participants were asked to motivate and explain survey data, allowing an understanding
of the underlying motivations behind student behavior online.
23
4
Empirical Findings
In this section the results of the survey study performed to gain information on consumer attitudes towards
relationship marketing on online social networks is presented. It also contains a summary of the focus group
study conducted to discuss these findings.
4.1
Survey Results
The survey was conducted in November 2009 and contains responses from 202 participants at the Engineering, Teaching and Business faculties at Jönköping University, with a
relatively even distribution of men and women and faculty representation. The results of
the survey are presented as a series of graphs displaying the results for the full sample as
well as the sample divided into genders.
4.1.1
Sample Characteristics
The survey sample had the following characteristics, presented as percentages of participants from each faculty:
Faculty/Age Engineering Business Teaching Faculty/Gender Engineering Business Teaching 18-­‐19 34% 7% 20% 20-­‐22 37% 48% 54% Male 97% 38% 37% Female 3% 62% 63% 23-­‐24 21% 41% 23% 25-­‐29 8% 4% 2% Faculty/Total Engineering Business Teaching 30+ 0% 0% 0% 38 73 84 Table 4.1.1a Survey Age/Gender/Faculty Sample distribution
The following graph presents the answers given when students were asked to state which
online social networks they are currently members of:
1. Are you a member of any of the following online social networks?
Figure 4.1.1b Question 1 results
24
The adoption of Facebook is beyond widespread, and is close to universal. While this
should not come as a surprise, it is more surprising how few use the Twitter network.
Other networks that have been mentioned by multiple participants include IRC and the
Swedish photography network Bilddagboken. Differences between genders are close to
nonexistent.
Participants who responded ”None” to the introductory question are considered to be
nonrespondents within the rest of the survey. Students who do not use these networks at
all will not be able to provide additional feedback on usage habits, and the remainder of the
results therefore present the results of the 195 respondents who answered one of the other
three options to this first question in other words people that are members on a social
network.
4.1.2
Network Behavior
The students were asked to state whether they were involved in some form of group or
opt-in subscription on any of these networks, and if so, to state what the theme or
underlying idea behind this network was.
2. Are you a member of any groups on these networks?
Figure 4.1.2a Question 2 results
The majority of students who have adopted one or more of these social networks are
members of some form of group, but less than half of these are involved in a group based
around commercial interests in some form. Interestingly, the average student that was a
member of a group centered around a company or brand was more than twice as likely to
be male than female.
25
3. Why have you joined such a group?
Figure 4.1.2b Question 3 results
When asked to provide the reason for why they are members of these groups, the answers
were relatively widespread. It follows logically from question 2 that men would be much
more likely to claim to be fans of brands or companies because they were overrepresented
in commercial groups. Differences between gender were otherwise small, and members of
commercial groups tended to be far more interested in accessing information than special
offers.
4. Have you ever recommended a friend to join one such network or group?
Figure 4.1.2c Question 4 results
5. If so, did you recommend the friend to join:
Figure 4.1.2d Question 5 results
26
Viral activities that involve active participation to recruit new members into these groups
were relatively common, but they tended to be aimed towards groups that were not
commercial in nature. There is no significant difference between genders.
6. Why did you recommend you friend to join this group?
Figure 4.1.2e Question 6 results
The primary motivation behind this viral behavior tended to be a perception of the
targeted friend having an interest in this topic or company, while few were driven by
special offers or direct benefits to themselves. Many respondents were driven by a desire to
increase the membercount of the group in question, and these respondents primarily
tended to be male.
27
4.1.3
Network Usage
The respondents were also asked to provide some information on to which extent they use
these networks and for how long they have been using them.
7. Approximately how many ‘friends’ do you have listed on these networks?
Figure 4.1.3a Question 7 results
The average survey respondent tended to be a very involved user with a highly developed
list of contacts. The majority had between 100 and 399 friends, with the average on
Facebook being 130 (Facebook, 2009), implying significant usage. Men were somewhat
more likely to be outliers.
8. Approximately how much time per day do you spend on online social networks?
Figure 4.1.3b Question 8 results
The average respondent is a daily user who uses these networks for up to one hour per day,
again implying a high degree of usage among students at Jönköping University. In this case
women were somewhat more likely to be outliers, spending either little or a lot of time.
28
9. How long have you been using online social networks?
Figure 4.1.3c Question 9 results
The respondents tended be long term users of the networks, with the majority having
adopted the networks earlier than 3 years ago. Men were more likely to state this than
women, but given the low rate of responses in the second category among men this may
not reflect a real difference in usage history.
4.1.4
Attitudes towards commercial participation
10. I would be interested in using online social networks to:
Figure 4.1.4a Question 10 results
Respondents were generally not enthusiastic about using networks to contact
organizations, with no alternative receiving more than a 35% response rate. The
respondents who were interested in using the networks for this purpose were primarily
29
interested in using it as tool for research and information access, and to communicate with
companies and provide feedback. There was some interest in using social networks as a
tool for customer support, but this concept primarily interested men.
Many simply felt that companies should not interfere in what they consider their personal
sphere, and that these networks should not become a sales market.
11. Which companies would you be willing to communicate with through online social networks?
Figure 4.1.4b Question 11 results
The students were not particularly concerned by which type of company they were
contacting online, with only 30% of respondents stating an opinion beyond ‘any company I
am interested in’. Interestingly, small local companies were far less popular than large
companies.
12. Which industries do you feel should be represented online?
Figure 4.1.4c Question 12 results
The type of industry that should be represented generated stronger opinions, and the
majority felt that the technology, fashion and music industries belonged on social networks,
30
while consumption goods and cars did not. Response rates were somewhat stereotypical in
that men tended to favour technology while women tended to favour fashion. Faculty
distribution was not entirely even, and males belonging to the engineering faculty were
more likely to favour technology than business students. Differences were relatively minor
and with the even faculty distribution among males should not affect the overall results (see
appendix 2). There were no such faculty differences affecting the likelihood to favour
fashion.
13. Is there any type of company or industry you feel does not belong on online social networks?
Figure 4.1.4d Question 13 results
14. Why is that?
Figure 4.1.4e Question 14 results
The students who answered ’No’ in question 13 were considered nonrespondents in
question 14. Some students choose not to answer question 13 which is why the percentages
do not add up to 100%. Generally students felt that certain companies or industries simply
are not the kind that they were interested in dealing with online, either for practical reasons
or out of tradition and norms. Many of them also felt that certain industries or companies
generate negative emotions and are unsuitable for this form of marketing. Women were
overrepresented among the respondents who felt that observing a brand in this context
would cheapen its appearance.
31
4.1.5
Survey Subsets
Twitter
Of the 202 students who participated in the survey, 8% were users of both the Facebook
and Twitter networks. The following table presents the significant differences in answers
between the full sample of respondents and the subset that are Twitter users, which deviation expressed as percentile units. Faculties are expressed by their short form names, with
JTH representing the engineering faculty, HLK representing the teaching faculty and IHH
representing the business faculty. All the respondents included in the full sample are users
of Facebook.
Question Q1.3 Use of 'Other' networks: Q2.1 Use of Brand-­‐based groups: Q3.2 Fan of brand: Q3.4 Accessing information: Q8.5 2 hours or more daily: Q10.2 Communicate with companies: Q10.3 Product support Q10.4 Suggest improvements: Q10.5 Access product information: Q11.2 Small local companies Q11.3 Large retailers Q11.4 Large producers Q12.4 Cars and expensive purchases Q13.2 No unsuitable companies Distribution: 53% Male 6% JTH (-­‐14%) Faculty: Technical Full sample 15% 33% 32% 48% 15% 34% 26% 19% 23% 11% 11% 23% 23% 73% 47% Female 76% HLK +(33%) Education Twitter Deviation 41% 26% 65% 32% 59% 27% 73% 23% 41% 26% 59% 25% 47% 21% 41% 22% 47% 24% 35% 24% 35% 24% 47% 24% 47% 24% 94% 21% 18% IHH (-­‐20%) Business Table 4.1.5a Twitter vs. Full Sample results
Due to the low sample size of the subset only deviations of 20 percentile units or more are
considered to be significant. Sample distribution is relatively even in terms of gender, with
the Teaching faculty of the university being heavily overrepresented as Twitter users. Distribution deviations are expressed as over- or underrepresentation based on representation
in the full sample.
The largest deviations were in attitudes regarding companies and brands being present in
online social networks (question 2.1, 3.2 & 13.2), the types of functions respondents felt
they were interested in performing through online social networks (question 10.2, 10.3,
10.4 & 10.5) and the degree of social network activity (Q8.5).
It appears that students who are users of Twitter tend to spend more hours per day on social networks and be more welcoming of commercial organizations being present on them.
32
Age
The age of individual respondents had very limited impact and deviations tended to be minor. Students in the age bracket 18-19 were less likely (37% compared to 61% for the full
sample) to favor the fashion and clothing industry as a presence on online social networks
and were slightly more likely to consider themselves fans of a brand or company (43%
compared to 32% for the full sample).
Students in the 20-22 age bracket made out the majority of the survey respondents and
therefore displayed only minor deviations from the full sample.
The respondents in the 23-25 age bracket were more likely to be interested in accessing information for gaining the maximum benefit from use of a product (46% compared to 34%
for the full sample).
4.2
Focus Group Results
The discussions started out with general small talk about Facebook usage; all participants
were actively using Facebook while only one had experience with twitter. One participant
had only used Facebook for 6 weeks and another for less than 12 months while the rest
had actively used it for more than 2 years. The following discussions were limited to Facebook as only one person had the necessary experience with twitter to be able to discuss it
knowledgably.
Marketing on social media
While some of the participants were hesitant to companies in general most of the group
had at least some experience with companies being on Facebook, the discussion around
companies on Facebook started out being mostly negative as people thought websites or
email were better means of contact. The discussion however ultimately lead to the group
agreeing to that Facebook is in a very early stage in terms of marketing efforts on the network and concluded that marketing on Facebook could be positive in many ways since the
ultimate decision whether to take in marketing information is in the hand of the consumer.
What would make it interesting to join a group
The respondents did not agree with each other on what purpose a group sponsored by a
company on Facebook should have, one respondent felt that customer support would be
an excellent option while others completely disagreed and felt that Facebook is meant to
invoke a more light hearted atmosphere where it is easy to communicate with your friends.
Others felt that groups on Facebook would work best to introduce a company to new customers and then lead them on to for example websites. The discussion concluded in that
groups’ that provide the same information as for example monthly newsletters would be
interesting if they did so in more frequent intervals with the consumer being able to voluntarily access information when relevant to them. The participants felt that this way they
could get deals and information when most relevant to them instead of having to delete
monthly emails and only find something useful on occasion. The participants wanted to be
able to “subscribe” to information but control access themselves.
33
Automatic updates on the news feed
All respondents felt that the news feed that you see when you log on to the site is the first
and perhaps only thing they pay attention to when logging on to Facebook. The news feed
aggregates information based on what the site feels that the user value the most and thus
looks different for every user. The participants all agreed that finding out what their friends
are doing is what is most interesting in the feed but felt very open to company messages
here as well.
The participants also felt that company messages in the news feed is the least obtrusive way
advertising or marketing messages are shown on Facebook, one participant agreed but
noted that she would be very offended if advertising took over this space. The discussion
lead to viral experiences, and the participants had discovered more than one ad directly
through the news feed from what friends had watched. When the respondents were asked
if they consciously post things like YouTube videos or articles to their wall or friends most
people said they did not do this unless specific information told them to go to Facebook
for further discussion or if there was a specific link to for example one of their friends. A
few participants frequently posted viral videos on YouTube to their wall for friends to see.
Special offers
The female respondents were in general particularly interested in having special offers on
Facebook, fashion companies could for example have a special outfit every day with discounts. The male respondents were equally interested in technology companies having
similar deals. One respondent even felt that promotions on Facebook would be more
attractive than promotions in newsletters. The respondents largely disagreed on what type
of companies that should do this, the conclusion would be (as the survey also showed) that
personal interests determine what companies a consumer is interested in.
Facebook as a discussion forum
Discussion forums were also briefly mentioned by the group and they felt that forums in
general are hard to search if you are not actively following the discussions at the specific forum. Some people felt that Facebook would be a much better place for these kinds of discussions (information search, product experiences, expert help, and discussions in general)
since it allows access to their entire friend network on one platform.
Getting people interested
The respondents felt that companies need to appeal to the Facebook experience to be able
to gain more followers. Competitions such as “if 2000 people join we will…” would be interesting, viral adverts, and promotions that provides exclusive deals such pre-availability to
sales etc.
34
Conclusions
The discussions in general were based around the users own experiences, it was quite noticeable that in certain cases people were negatively inclined to certain companies on Facebook that they were not themselves interested in coincidentally they felt that certain companies that had products or services within their own interests should definitely be on Facebook. There are in other words seemingly no boundaries to which companies that should
be on Facebook as long as they have a crowd that finds their communication interesting.
Most respondents did however realize that with the openness of Facebook they would be
able to ignore all corporate marketing communication they feel is uninteresting. And this is
why social media could be a potential success for companies exercising relationship marketing, the ability to cater to individual needs in as one of the respondents puts it “an open
and friendly atmosphere where communication is based around your peers.”
35
5
Analysis
This chapter attempts to explain the findings displayed on the previous section by applying previous research
in the field and conclusions formed by the focus group study participants.
The findings from the survey and focus group resulted in three major parts of analysis: usage patterns, adopter motivation, and relationship continuance drivers. The usage patterns
describe how consumers use the social media and consequently how relationships between
companies and consumers are viewed from the consumer standpoint. Adopter motivation
describes the underlying incentive that results in a relationship of some form while the relationship continuance drivers suggest more specific touch points that motivates the consumer and company to maintain the relationship in a successful way.
5.1
Usage Patterns
The Facebook network completely dominates the online social network market among
students at Jönköping University (see question 1, table 4.1.1b), and is in this context in a
very late stage of the adoption curve. Twitter remains far less popular, but its users appear
to be more open to communication with organizations. Throughout the study there was no
student who exclusively used Twitter, implying that it is not regarded as a replacement for
Facebook and similar networks. Boyd & Ellison (2007) found that the online social network market tended to be dominated by a few large actors, and the empirical results confirm this to be case.
Ravald & Grönroos (1996) argued that relationship marketing in any context is dependent
on the acceptance and interest of the consumer base to interact with organizations through
that particular channel. The interest in communication with companies and brands on
these networks is far less developed than the network usage itself (see question 10, figure
4.1.4a), and there is a significant gender gap. This difference is not explained by other usage
patterns such as hours spent online, and men did not use online social networks more than
women.
There seems to be a difference in attitudes between genders towards different products being represented online, with the majority of the men being interested in technology while
the majority of females are interested in fashion (see questions 2 and 3, figure 4.1.2a and b).
This should be interpreted as an indication that the primary factor driving users towards
participating in relationships with specific organizations is previous interest in the product
type or organization.
Relationships with organizations is considered a secondary activity on online social networks as evidenced by the high adoption rate of the networks compared to the relatively
low adoption rates of business-to-consumer communication on them (see question 2, figure 4.1.2a). Dholakia et al. (2004) argued the need for segmenting users into groups based
on the intimacy of their relationships on social networking systems, but the results suggests
that students tend to belong overwhelmingly to the network community type of users, with
a large number of narrowly defined relationships. This suggests that the type of users that
are found among students will tend to be relatively open to forming digital relationships
based on relatively weak connections, implying openness to communication with organizations.
36
Active viral activities were limited, with 45% stating that they have never attempted to convince a friend to join any form of group or subscription (see question 4, figure 4.1.2c). During the focus group study the students concluded that the majority of viral activities conducted on Facebook and Twitter tended to be passive. These messages, logs, and advertisements created automatically by the system to inform friends of the student in question
that they had signed up to some form of group or subscription list. The participants also
concluded that the indirect social rewards argued by Dobele et al. (2007) were a large part
of the motivation behind forwarding viral messages, for example as a way of starting a
conversation. The automatic updates are in other words successful in fulfilling the need to
be socially and commercially updated with minimal hassle.
Leskovec et al. (2007) argued for the importance of viral marketing in allowing the formation of business-to-consumer relationships in online social networks, and the students who
participated in the focus group study concluded that they tended to join groups and networks based on the actions of their friends.
The students tended to be active users of the networks, maintaining lists of friends and
contacts of several hundred users. This is likely to be a direct result of the degree of adoption of Facebook in the university context, since these early adopters have had time to
connect with a large number of people through the networks. The majority of the students
were long-term users, with the majority having been members for more than 3 years, implying that students are likely to belong to the early majority segment of the diffusion model in terms of adopting online social network usage (see question 9, figure 4.1.3c).
The students tended to spend 10-30 minutes or more on the online social networks per
day, implying that the networks play a significant part in their social interaction (see question 8, figure 4.1.3b).
5.2
Adopter Motivation
The primary driver for participating in activities driven by commercial organizations on online social networks was found to be the access to information of relevance for the user.
Direct benefits such as access to special offers were of limited interest to respondents that
were a part of the survey (see question 3, figure 4.1.2b), but during discussions within the
focus group there was a general consensus that certain types of offers could convince them
to become members of groups and subscription lists, but that it was contingent on the
value of the offer versus the risk of information overflow that sometimes occurs when
organizations fight for the attention of its audience. This is similar to the argument made
by Godson (2009) that relationship marketing is centered on a mutually beneficial valueoffering.
This form of subconscious benefit to cost calculation represents a problem for organizations on networks, and several of the focus group participants stated that they had dissolved relationships with organizations online because of the large amount of information
that they received through direct messages. They concluded that they would be more willing to remain members of communities where access and quantity of information was driven by user interest and not the publication rate of the organization. Pagendarm &
Schaumburg (2001) argued that marketers must strive towards means of communication
that are seen as actual messages and not simply noise, and the quantity of that information
is likely to affect this perception.
37
There was no particular distinction between using the networks for researching products
for future purchases and accessing information that increases the utility derived from previous purchases, and adopters tended to be interested in both of these advantages of online
relationships with organizations (see question 3, figure 4.1.2b). Respondents tended to favor relationships with larger organizations rather than local companies (see question 11,
figure 4.1.4b). It is likely that the main reason local companies are not regarded as very interesting in this context is their lack of the traditional brand image that tends to be associated with large multinational companies, rather than actual geographical location. This is
likely connected to the lack of geographical boundaries associated with online communication.
One major reason for the respondents to join a group on Facebook was to access information (see question 3, figure 4.1.2b), placing them in the network community type of the
Dholakias’ et al. (2004) community model. This fact is further supported by the response
received in question 10. According to these results users would consider using the groups
as a means to gain or share information.
Users tended to join online social networks to perform tasks traditionally associated with
small group networks, but once part of the network a user may well consider seeking out
companies with network type benefits in mind. McKenna & Bargh (1999) argued that users
tend to join networks for either personal or social benefits, and in the context of online social networks users are likely to be driven by personal benefits. Companies must keep this
in mind to avoid turning away potential adopters by being too obtrusive on the social
sphere of the customer.
A popular reason for consumers to join a company-based group on Facebook is that the
adopter is a fan of the brand (see question 3, figure 4.1.2b), which is similar to what Füller
et al. (2007) found in their study. As in the Füller et al. (2007) study, some of the respondents expressed a willingness to help the brand by suggesting improvements. This should
be connected to the findings of Füller et al. (2008), who found that customers do not at
first tend to join a community to help with an innovative idea. The customer is willing to
help the company to a limited extent, but not willing to invest much time right away. Facebook is used primarily for social benefits, but there is still room for interacting with companies.
Interest in using the networks for tasks such as product support was relatively limited (see
question 10, figure 4.1.4a), but substantial enough to be of interest to potential companies.
Men tended to be overrepresented, which is likely to be explained by the similar figures in
interest of forming relationships with companies in the technological sector. Since women
who responded to the survey tended to be more interested in relationships with companies
which do not produce products that typically require customer support (see question 12,
figure 4.1.4c), they would also be less inclined to request this feature.
Much of the data indicates that relationship marketing on Facebook and Twitter is in the
early adopter stage in the diffusion process, and focus group participants expressed similar
concerns. During the focus group many of the participants did not know all the functions
that they could use to get their own feeds they way they would like. They expressed views
that they could imagine using as tool to involve themselves with companies on Facebook,
but they were not aware that it was indeed possible for them to personally organize their
Facebook account in such a way.
38
The motivations for participating in active viral activities tended to be similar between respondents, and the majority of users displaying such behavior were motivated by a genuine
belief that the person they were forwarding a message to had something to gain from being
part of a particular group or network (see question 6, figure 4.1.2c). Focus group participants preferred viral messages that inspired joy and surprise rather than the other emotion
segments in the Dobele et al. (2007) model, which is likely caused by the casual and carefree environment the networks create.
The main reason for recommending a friend to a group was for social benefits (see question 4 & 5, figures 4.1.2c and d). This is in line with what Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) and
Wilson (2000) found and further enhances online social networks as social tools. There
were also signs of users having other motivation beyond the social aspect, such as some
students wanting to suggest improvements or communicate with companies, as well as increase personal information through discussions.
Viral messages can be seen as similar to spam if there is too many messages being received.
While it runs risk for negative emotional response, it may be the least negative mean for a
company to send out messages. Successful viral campaigns tend to be the ones that lead to
positive emotional response (Dobele et al., 2007), Facebook and other networks act as a
catalyst for facilitating this process. A majority in the focus group were positive to the ability to easily find out that their friend was watching a funny video for example, while at the
same time allowing them to completely ignore it and focus their attention on other parts in
their newsfeed. It is important to consider that there is no way for a company to purchase
access to the feed or even know if they are represented there, granting the consumer considerable control over their exposure to information from organizations.
The survey (see question 6, figure 4.1.2c) indicates that the biggest reason for viral activities
to occur was having a friend interested in the activity, with other motivations such as personal benefits being seen as relatively unimportant. This could in part be explained by the
fact that a majority of those who recommended friends to join groups, recruited to groups
that were not part of a company or brand. Viral activity is primarily a social activity, and
companies that already have a good relation with their customers are likely to attract them,
and through them others who would appreciate similar material.
One view brought up by the respondents in the focus group was that Facebook is a good
forum for easily entering discussions with users who were interested in the same brands.
They explained that they are in this setting able to discuss openly and share negative and
positive views. This is dependent on the fact that companies could or would not control
the discussion, even if certain feedback was negative for the company.
5.3
Relationship Continuance Drivers
In the Mangold & Faulds (2009) model the researchers identified several methods that enabled organizations to connect to consumers through the Internet, and the majority of
these were observed during the focus group study. The participants felt that being provided
with platforms for communicating with other users of a product or service were an important part of relationships with organizations on social network, in particular to research future purchases and maximize the benefits of previous purchases. This in line with the results seen in question 10 of the survey study.
39
Blogs and traditional websites were not seen as a tool for forming relationships on social
networks, but they were seen as efficient tools to reach similar goals. The focus groups participants felt that blogs and traditional websites tended to act as substitutes rather than
complements to online social network marketing efforts.
Of the factors identified by Mangold & Faulds (2009) as key methods to reaching its audience online, the focus group participants felt that access to relevant information was by far
the most critical factor. This is echoed by the survey participants, (see question 3, figure
4.1.2b) where 48% state that access to information is the dominant reason for forming and
maintaining a relationship with an organization on social networks. The focus group participants argued the importance of quality and quantity of information, and concluded that
they preferred the information to be made available to them at their own request, rather
than to be provided through regular subscription services. In the case of regular direct messages, the focus group stressed the need to avoid creating a sense of noise and information
overflow.
Mangold & Faulds (2009) found that offers of exclusivity tends to attract adopters towards
interacting with a company online, yet in the survey a small number of respondents felt that
these were a large part of the motivation behind forming relationships with organizations
on social networks (see question 3, figure 4.1.2b). The focus group participants concluded
that while they were attracted by exclusive offers online they were not the reason for forming the relationship. The offers were instead a powerful tool for keeping adopters dedicated
to the relationship and to continuously browse the material provided by the organization.
The opportunity to support causes of relevance to the potential adopters can be a powerful
tool towards generating consumer interest, and the causes need not be of a charitable nature. The focus group participants argued that they were repeatedly driven towards joining
usergroups based around the idea that an individual or organization would perform an action based on a member count or similar number, and in the survey study 51% stated that
they had an interest in supporting causes through online social networks (see question 3,
figure 4.1.2b). Organizations that manage to present themselves as responsible and supportive of causes that their targeted audience supports will be able to tap into this interest.
The focus groups participants concluded that successful viral messages were very efficient
at gaining their attention, and this is similar to the power of stories factor defined by Mangold & Faulds (2009). The students tended to prefer video clips and other forms of humorous entertainment that generated joyor suprise, which Dobele et al. (2007) found to be
a particularly strong success factor in general viral marketing efforts.
Relationship marketing on online social networks exists in a space considered to be personal by many users, and to maintain relationships this must be respected. The focus group
participants had previously terminated relationships with organizations because they felt
this was not the case, in particular because of large amounts of unwanted messages. Successful marketers on social networks should therefore look at the networks as social arenas
where a small portion is dedicated to relationships with organizations, rather than as large
venues for marketing communication that they can utilize as they see fit.
40
6
Conclusion
This section concludes the study, summarizes the empirical findings in it and relates them to previous research conducted in the field.
Usage Patterns
Students have adopted the use of online social networks to an almost universal extent.
Over 95% of all participants were active users of at least one major social network, with the
vast majority of the market share being dominated by the Facebook network. The Twitter
network has been adopted by a small segment of the student population, but it remains a
minor player in the industry. Several smaller networks are represented in the student population, but they tend to be used in complement with the Facebook network rather than as a
substitute.
The interest in developing relationships with organizations on the online networks is not as
universal, and of the students who participated in this survey only a third of the participants claimed to be members of groups or sub-networks hosted by commercial organizations. The widely held attitude among students towards forming relationships with organizations on social networks is generally positive, but there is concern that these relationships
may not always be on the students’ terms. Morgan & Hunt (1994) proposes that the nondominant part in the relationship is the most important, it is therefore necessary to stress
that companies must fulfill the wishes of the users in order to retain their interest and the
relationship.
The penetration of Facebook among students shows that the diffusion process among students has come a long way, and the majority of participants in the survey have been subscribed to Facebook for more than three years. These participants are aware of companies
on Facebook but their views on the existence of marketing communication on Facebook
varies. There is a willingness and interest in interacting with companies as long as the
choice lies in the hands of the consumer, and the participants in the focus group confirmed
this in many ways by showing interest in relationship marketing efforts on social networks
that are focused on bringing value to the consumer. This implies that there is incentive for
both consumers and companies to maintain relationships, which is consistent with the
findings of Tax et al. (1998).
Adopter Motivation
The participants that were actively using twitter were more inclined to corporate communication on social networks, and an explanation for this would be their status as innovators in
the diffusion process (Rogers, 2005). Relationship marketing is still in the early stages when
limited to social networks but the awareness of these marketing efforts has increased and
the results from the focus group gives an impression of a future where most if not all companies being represented in some way on social networks. While the primary reason for using social networks is to socialize, the respondents were not adverse to the idea behind
forming and maintaining relationships with companies in Facebook groups. This was in
great deal attributed to the fact that it would be beneficial to be able to quickly access information, while at the same time receiving opinions from other users.
Tangible benefits were not the only reasons to join a group, and the students also favored
joining a group to support causes. Another major reason was simply that the user was a fan
of the brand, which they want to identify and associate with. If organizations are able to
provide information, support relevant causes, and provide forums for meeting likeminded
41
consumers and possible contact with the companies, they stand a good chance of forming
and maintaining relations with their customer.
A majority of the users did not actively use viral messages. The ones that did used it mainly
because it fit with their current use of social networks, and they simply considered the network as a tool to expand their social life. The use of passive viral messages dominates, with
messages regarding activity being automatically generated and forwarded to contacts by the
social network system.
Ultimately, users would neither act on either passive or active viral messages nor would
they pass the message along if they were not interested in it. A fraction of the participants
engaged viral activities for a personal benefit, but not nearly as many as the amount of messages sent for social or personal interest reasons. Organizations should tailor their messages
accordingly to appeal to these users.
Relationship Continuance Drivers
Organizations hoping to capitalize on relationship marketing on social networks must focus on providing users with access to information that is relevant to them while ensuring
that the users believe themselves to be in control of the flow of information. Constant
sender-initiated communication will be considered noise and ignored, and may result in the
receiver terminating the relationship.
The criteria listed by Mangold & Faulds (2009) are applicable to relationship marketing on
online social networks, in particular access to information and communication platforms.
Marketers should attempt to form these venues of communication to enable users to
communicate with each other to share information about the organization and its products
but must ensure that the networking platform comes across as unbiased in terms of moderation.
Special offers do not tend to attract new adopters to form relationships with organizations
on social networks, but they motivate previous adopters to maintain the relationship. This
is in contrast with the support of causes and charities, which participants claimed to be a
strong motivator for forming relationships online.
It is critical that marketers respect the private sphere of social network users, and that the
networks are considered by its users to be more than venues for marketing communication.
As Gillin (2007) notes, dissatisfied users have the ability to use the communication platforms against the company. Excess of information will lead to discontinued relationships,
and users will take steps to ensure that they feel in control of the flow of information.
Summary
The research shows that students have adopted online social networks to an almost universal extent, but are still in the early stages of adoption of relationships with organizations
through them. The students are driven by access to information and communicating with
peers interested in the same product type or brand, and were primarily attracted to these relationships by passive viral functions performed by the network system. Marketers attempting to capitalize on relationship marketing online must focus efforts on creating a sense of
trust and respect of privacy towards the adopting users, and avoid exploiting the networks
as mass-communication channels at the expense of the consumers. The most important
message is that relationship marketing on social networks are to a greater extent than on
other communication channels based on the consumers consent and requirements.
42
7
Discussion and Further Research
It could have been beneficial to have conducted the focus group more than once, as this
would have allowed increased trustworthiness of the results and perhaps additional insights
into the subject. It would also have been interesting to conduct a second survey investigating how the participants view the credibility of a company based on frequency of their
communication in other words how students view spam versus messages that they are interested in.
Students want to be able to control access, frequency, and even content in the marketing
information, and it would be interesting to make further investigations into how the findings of this study could be implemented from the marketer perspective.
To increase the understanding of the entire Facebook population a similar study that also
include a sample population consisting of non-students would have to be carried out. It
may however be beneficial to wait until other users have grown more familiar to Facebook
for the study to be of relevance.
Since the findings strongly indicate that Twitter users are more positive to relationship
marketing online and conducting communication on social networks in general it would be
interesting to carry out a study investigating how members of twitter view marketing on
social networks and how their views differ from the general population of facebook and
other broad networks.
Facebook is the top online social network, but may yield to future competitors. It is therefore important to verify whether this research in fact applies to other online social networks as well. Facebook is popular in its present state and there would be no reason for
any competitor to change the basic concept very much. Different networks gain different
audiences and form cultural environments with specific characteristics, and research into
applicability to other networks such as MySpace would be valuable for a broader understanding of the topic.
This research has been performed under a short timeframe, and describes attitudes at the
current point in time. To expand on this knowledge it would be interesting to look at attitude changes in the near future.
Research from the organization perspective will be necessary to gain a complete picture of
marketing on online social networks, and companies have already showed some interest by
the mere fact that they are currently present on these networks. It would therefore be valuable to conduct a study from the perspective of organizations that are currently marketing
themselves through these social networks or have made the conscious decision not to
adopt this technology into their marketing mixes.
While previous research has studied behaviour and usage of online social networks in general (McKenna, 2009; Hennig-Tharau et al., 2004; Füller et al., 2008), this study has specifically examined relationship marketing on Facebook and Twitter. The results complement
research by Godson (2009) but leave room for further studies.
43
References
Armstron, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail
Surveys. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396.
Baggott, C., & Sales, A. (2007) Email marketing by the numbers how to use the world’s greatest
marketing tool to take any organization to the next level. Hoboken, N.J. : J. Wiley & Sons
Bagozzi, R. P. & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual
communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2-21.
Bell, J. (2005). Doing Your Research Project (4th edition). Buckinghamn: Open University Press
Boone, L. E., & Kurtz, D. L. (2007). Contemporary marketing (13th ed.). Mason, OH:
Thomson/South-Western.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Buchanan, R., & Gilles, C. (1990) Value managed relationship: The key to customer
retention and profitability. European Management Journal, 8(4), 523.
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W., & Tybout, A.M. (1982). The Concept of External Validity, The
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Dec., 1982), pp. 240-244
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C.,& Gronhaug, K.. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research.
California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., & Pelton, L. (1995). Relationship marketing:
Bringing quality, customer service and marketing together. International Business
Review, 4(4), 538-541.
Davis, S. M. (2000). Brand Asset Management: Driving profitable growth through your brands. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi R. P., & Pearo L. K.. (2004). A social influence model of
consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241-263.
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley.
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., & van Wijk, R. (2007). Why pass
on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons , 50(4), 291.
Eccleston, D. & Griseri, L. (2008). How Does The Web 2.0 Stretch Traditional Influencing
Patterns? International Journal of Marketing 50(5), 591–616
Egan, J. (2008). Relationship marketing: Exploring relational strategies in marketing (3rd ed.).
Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Etter, J. F., & Perneger, T. V. (1997). Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health
survey. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 50(10), 1123
Facebook. (2009). Facebook Statistics. Retrieved November 15th, 2009, from
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
44
Fink, A. (2003). The Survey Handbook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. (1998). Preventing the premature death of
relationship marketing. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 42-51.
Foux, G. (2006, May 8). Consumer-generated media: Get your customers involved. Brand
Strategy, 38—39.
Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball
communities. Journal of Business Research Vol. 60 (2007).
Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand Community Members as a Source of
Innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management vol. 25 (2008), 608-619
Gillin, P. (2007). The new influencers: A marketer’s guide to the new social media. Sanger, CA: Quill
Driver Books.
Godson, M. (2009). Relationship marketing. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Gordon, I. H. (1998). Relationship marketing: new strategies, techniques and technologies to
win the customers you want and keep them forever. Toronto : Wiley, cop.
Graneheim, U.H., & Lundman, B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:
concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education
Today 24, 2004
Greenspan, Robyn. (2002). E-Shopping Around the World. Retrieved August 20th, 2002, from
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/retailing/article/06061_1431461,00.html
Gross, R. & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social
Networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society,
(November 7) p.71-80. Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Grönroos, C. (1992). Facing the Challenge of Service Competition: The Economies of
Service. In Kunst, P. and Lemmink, J. (Eds), Quality Management in Services (p.
129-40). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum
Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a paradigm
shift in marketing. Management Decision, 32(2), 4.
Helm, S. (2000). Viral Marketing - Establishing Customer Relationships by 'Word-ofmouse'. Electronic Markets, 10(4), 158-161.
Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2003) Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for and
Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce Vol. 8 2003
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D.D. (2004). Electronic Wordof-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing Vol. 18 2004
Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the
microscope. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
45
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Administrative Science Quarterly,24,(4), Qualitative Methodology (Dec., 1979), pp. 602611
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research:A Research
Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 14–26.
Joinson, A. N. (2008) ‘Looking at’, ‘Looking up’ or ‘Keeping up with’ People? Motives and
Uses of Facebook. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human
factors in computing systems, (April 5-10), p.1027-1036. Florence, Italy.
Jurvetson, S. (2000). What exactly is viral marketing. The Red herring, 78, 110.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction
between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103.
Kotler, P., Wong, V., Saunders, J., Armstrong, G., (2005). Principles of Marketing, 4th European
Edition. Harlow: Financial times/Prentice Hall
Leskovec, J. Adamic, L. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). The Dynamics of viral marketing.
ACM Transactions on the Web ,1(1)
Littler, D., Lewis, B. R. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marketing.
Oxford, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2005). Viral marketing: The use of surprise. In Clarke, I.,
& Flaherty, T. (Eds), Advances in electronic marketing (p. 122-139). United Kingdom:
Idea Group Publishing
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither Services Marketing? In Search of a New
Paradigm and Fresh Perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 20.
Mangold, W., & Faulds, D. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion
mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357.
McKenna, K.., & Bargh, J. (1999). Causes and Consequences of Social Interaction on the
Internet: A Conceptual Framework. Media Psychology, 1(3), 249-269.
Moore, R. E. (2003). From genericide to viral marketing: on ‘brand’. Language &
Communication, 23(3-4), 331.
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of Marketing 58(3), 20.
Pagendarm, M. & Schaumberg, H. (2001). Why are users banner-blind? The impact of navigation style on the perception of web banners. Journal of Digital Information, 2, (1)
2001.
Paterson, L. (2009). Online customer communities: Perspectives from customers and
companies. Business Information Review Vol 26. (2009)
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (2nd Edition). US:
SAGE Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks,
CA, US: Sage Publications
46
Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral Marketing or
Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and
Motivations to Pass Along Email. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 333-348
Petrof, J. V.(1997). Relationship marketing: the wheel reinvented?. Business Horizons, 40(6),
26-31.
Rashtchy, F., Kessler, A. M., Bieber, P. J., Shindler, N. H., & Tzeng, J. C. (2007, February).
The user revolution: The new advertising ecosystem and the rise of the Internet as a mass medium.
Minneapolis, MN: Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European
Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19-30.
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot
Study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68.
Robertson, T. S. (1967). The Process of Innovation and the Diffusion of Innovation. The
Journal of Marketing, 31(1), 14-19.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students (4th ed.).
England: Prentice Hall.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). The evolution of relationship marketing. International
Business Review, 4(4), 397-418.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B..(2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in
relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15-37.
Subramani, M.R., & Rajagopalan, B. (2003). Knowledge-Sharing and Influence in Online
Social Networks via Viral Marketing. Communications of the ACM 46(12), 300-307.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research.
SAGE.
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service
complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 62(2), 60-76.
Vollmer, C., & Precourt, G. (2008). Always on: Advertising, marketing, and media in an era of
consumer control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Watts, D. J., & Peretti, J. (2007). Viral Marketing for the Real World. Harvard business review,
85(5), 22.
Wilson, R. F. (2000). The Six Simple Principles of Viral Marketing. Web Marketing Today,
February 1, 2005.
Wiseman, F. (1972). Methodological bias in public opinion surveys. The Public Opinion
Quarterly, 36(1) 105-108
Yin, R.K.. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Edition). California: SAGE
Publications.
47
Appendix 1 – Survey Template
Survey
Online Social Networks
Online social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace have become very popular
in recent years, especially among university students. This study concerns attitudes among
users towards companies using these networks to communicate with customers. Please feel
free to ask any questions you may have.
1. Do you use any online social networks? Please check all that apply.
Facebook
Twitter
Other: ______________
2. Are you a member of any groups on any of these networks? Please check all that
apply.
Yes, a group based on common interest or background
Yes, a group based on a company or brand
No, please skip to question 7
3. Why have you joined such a group? Please check all that apply.
To support some form of cause
I am a fan of the brand or company
To access special offers
To access information from the organization
4. Have you ever recommended a friend to join one such network or group? Please
check all that apply.
Yes, I often forward information about interesting groups
Yes, I have on occasion suggested a friend to join a group
No, please skip to question 7
5. If so, did you recommend the friend to join: Please check all that apply.
A group based on common interest or background?
A group based on a company or brand?
6. Why did you recommend your friend to join this group? Please check all that apply.
To start a conversation
I want to help increase the amount of members in the group
I knew my friend was interested in this topic or brand
The group provided rebates or special offers that were useful for my friend
I gain some sort of benefit from inviting friends
48
7. Approximately how many ‘friends’ or contacts do you have on these networks?
Please check all that apply.
1-19
20-49
50-99
10-199
20-399
400+
8. Approximately how much time per day do you spend on online social networks?
Please check all that apply.
Do not access daily
Up to 10 minutes
10 to 30 minutes
1 hour
2 hours or more
9. How long have you been using online social networks?
A few days to a few weeks
A few months
6-12 months
1-2 years
2-3 years
3 or more years.
10. I would be interested in using online social networks such as Facebook and
Twitter to do the following: Please check all that apply.
Find information about future purchases
Communicate with companies about their products
Get product support
Suggest product improvements
Access information for getting more out of your purchases
Other: _____________________________________________________
11. Which companies would you be willing to communicate with through online social networks? Please check all that apply.
Any company that offers products I am interested in
Small local companies
Large retailers
Large producers of brands that I purchase
49
12. Which industries do you feel should be represented on online social networks?
Please check all that apply.
Technology, mobile phones and computers
Fashion and clothing
Consumption, beverages and food
Cars and other expensive purchases
Record Labels (Music)
Other: _______________________________________________________
13. Is there any type of company or industry do you feel does not belong on online
social networks?
Yes, _________________________________________________________
No, please skip to question 15.
14. Why is that?
The company or brand does not seem modern enough to fit in
Seeing the brand in this context cheapens it
The company or brand generates negative emotions
Not interested in dealing with companies such as this online
15. How old are you?
18-19
20-22
23-24
25-29
30 or above
16. Gender:
Male
Female
Are you interesting in winning a Spotify Invitation that you can either use yourself
or share with a friend? Please note that E-mail addresses will not be shared with anyone.
Yes, my e-mail address is: ___________________________________
No.
Thank you for contributing to our research!
50
Appendix 2 – Faculty segmented answers Q10
Data table for Question 12, males subset, segmented by faculty:
Q12_Industries1 Q12_Industries2 Q17_Faculty1 Q17_Faculty2 Q17_Faculty3 57% 54% 0% 0% 100% IHH 74% 61% 0% 100% 0% HLK 84% 24% 100% 0% 0% JTH 73% 45% 39% 32% 29% Average 51