1 WHAT MOTIVATES BRAND CONSUMERS TO BROWSE FACEBOOK FAN
PAGES AND SPREAD THE WORD?:
The impact of utilitarian and hedonic motives on product browsing and Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)
Lorenzo Bertini
Lorenzo Bertini Student No: 10697381 Email address: lorenzobertini1@hotmail.it Thesis Supervisor: Dr. E. De Waal
2 Eye, judgement and leg…
3 Abstract
Over the last years the potential of Facebook brand/fan pages has been gaining popularity worldwide. Because of that, brands are trying to figure out new approaches to advertise and promote their products through these platforms, since they are perceived as possible future marketing ventures. However, few researches have been developed over this specific social media context. Therefore, the main goal of this research is to enlighten specific aspects of Facebook brand/fan pages in order to further explain what motivate users (fans) to browse products through Facebook brand/fan pages and how this browsing behaviour can affect information sharing (eWOM) in the specific social media platform of Facebook brand/fan pages. Within the theoretical framework of Utilitarian and Hedonic motivation theory the research selects specific motivations that push fans to browse products. Results obtained on data collected from 235 active members of Facebook brands/fan pages show that both perceived Utilitarian and perceived Hedonic motivations have an effect on user’s eWOM. Specifically, customized advertisement and authority & status impacts fans’ intention to share products information on such a medium. However, the research model was not found to explain product browsing in an exhaustive way.
Keywords: Social media, Facebook brand/fan pages, perceived Utilitarian and Hedonic motivations, product browsing, electronic word of mouth (eWOM).
4 Introduction
The constant evolution of social networking sites (SNS) has created new opportunities for companies and marketers, thus becoming one of the newest phenomena for commerce-related activities (Wesson, 2010). One example of such social network sites is Facebook, which has, over the past years, become the most popular social network platform (Ellison et al., 2007). The revolutionary power that these social networking sites hold is based on the possibility to utilize user interconnection to reach a massive amount of customers at a relatively low cost (Mislove et. al, 2007). As digital social interaction lies at the heart of social commerce, Facebook will undoubtedly be one of the most prominent tools to conduct social commerce activities (Pöyry et al., 2013; Wesson, 2010).
Previous research on social networking sites has predominately focused on what motivates consumers to belong to and participate in a traditional brand community (Jahn & Kunz, 2012; Abedniya & Mahmouei, 2010; Dellarocas, 2003; Kozinets et al., 2010; Moran, 2010; T. Smith et al., 2007; Trusov et al., 2009; Xiaofen & Yiling, 2009). Social networking sites (SNS) differ from normal brand communities, in that they are defined as “a specialized, non-geographically bound, online community, based on social communications where consumers join forum-based discussion” (De Valk et al., 2013). Thus, SNS represent a different kind of environment where consumers (fans) can easily interact with multiple companies within one site without separately going to the actual forum-based community page (Pöyry et al., 2013). Therefore, they have certain features that categorize them as online communities, but also have features that set them apart from traditional online communities (Pöyry et al., 2013). ‘Liking’, for instance, indicates the user’s wish to belong to the community and to receive messages posted to the page directly to his/her ‘newsfeed’ – a continuously updating stream of content created in the user’s network. In addition to this, factors like the ease of use and the relatively low cost compared to
5 conventional methods of marketing, have led to the engagement of companies in Facebook fan pages thus being perceived as the future of electronic commerce (Curty & Zhang, 2011; Jahn & Kunz, 2012; Mikalef et al., 2013). So business executives and marketers have realized the business potential that these platforms may have for gaining a competitive edge (Li et al., 2007; Tancer, 2007). The richness of media supported by social networking sites (SNS), in combination with the vast user base, enables SNS to be used as a unique tool for attracting new customers and gaining direct customer feedback (Mikalef et al., 2013).
In the virtual environment, navigation includes the process of “exploring” product-related information in alternative ways. Web browsing is considered the first stage where consumers are involved in skimming information and making choices via the Internet (Rowley, 2001). However the motivations that explain why users browse through Facebook fan pages and share information with their friends are still not clear. In fact, in contrast with the immense business power that Facebook fan pages hold, only one empirical research has studied the effect that participation in such pages has on customer behaviour (Borle et al., 2012). Specifically they found that being a member (participation) of a Facebook brand/fan pages is useful for deepening the relationship with customers (Borle et al., 2012). Based on the fact that previous research has categorized browsing into utilitarian and hedonic (Park et al., 2012), the current research presents a model that adopts hedonic and utilitarian motivations to browse products through Facebook fan pages.
During the years a lot of researches have explored hedonic and utilitarian motivation on shopping/consumption behaviour (Tauber, 1972; Holbrook, 1982; Wagner & Rudolph, 2010; Kim & Hong, 2011; Westbrook & Black, 1985; Arnold & Reynolds 2003; Babin et al. 1994; Batra & Ahtola 1990; Dhar & Wertenbroch 2000; Holbrook & Hirschman 1982) but only few of them have been based on both utilitarian and hedonic motivations (To et. al, 2007). In this case To et al. (2007) found out that both Utilitarian and Hedonic motivations are determinants
6 of consumer intention to search and thereby purchase. On the one hand, utilitarian browsing seeks to “acquire products through the use of heuristics, goal-oriented behaviour, risk reduction strategies, and achievement of information search goals” (Park et al., 2012). Alternatively, hedonic browsing “focuses on fun, entertainment, and the more enjoyable aspects of shopping, whether or not a purchase occurs” (Babinet al., 1994; Janiszewski, 1998; Moe, 2003). Babin’s (1994) research pinpoints that hedonic factors impact unplanned shopping while utilitarian factors do not. Therefore, it can be suggested that although factors that fall in either category may differ significantly, in order to view the product browsing processes comprehensively, both utilitarian and hedonic aspects must be investigated simultaneously (Mikalef et al., 2013). Thus, the usages of both hedonic and utilitarian dimensions provide new knowledge within the social network context.
In addition to this, in Facebook fan pages, customers can easily be perceived as co-creators of brand messages by creating enormous viral effects and behavioural actions as Eelectronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)(Kozinets et al., 2010; Libai et al., 2010). eWOM directly influences the sales of a company (e.g., Forman, Ghose, & Wiesenfeld, 2008) and could perform an important role in consumers’ decisions to buy products (e.g., Liu, 2006). Thus the model was completed with the exploration of the relationship between product browsing through Facebook brand/fan pages and sharing information Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). This final part of the research model is of great importance to practitioners, since it can potentially offer an explanation of Facebook fan pages’ values for generating additional revenues and can be used as a user-generated marketing platform.
Therefore, this study aimed to clarify how specific motivations of Facebook fan pages foster user intention to browse product information and the effect that it have on consumers’ information-sharing behaviour within the theoretical framework of utilitarian and hedonic motivation theory. So the main research question is listed as follows:
7 RQ: To what extent do utilitarian and hedonic motivations explain product browsing through Facebook fan pages and consequently affect the intention to share electronic information (eWOM)?
Literature review
Product browsing motivations
As previously mentioned, based on the results provided by the study of Park et al., (2012), this study categorizes motivations to browse products through Facebook brand/fan pages into perceived Utilitarian and Hedonic motivations. From the Utilitarian perspective, previous literature has repeatedly noted that these motivations are one of the two taxonomies of forces that engage consumers in the browsing process (Brown et al., 2005; To et al., 2007). To et al. (2007) based their research on the fact that “convenience, product selection, information availability, lack of sociality and customized advertisements” represented the main predictors of perceived Utilitarian motivations. In the context of Facebook brand/fan pages, it is of primary interest for web browsers the purchase intention of products in an efficient and timely manner in order to achieve their goals of cost savings and convenience with minimum effort (Overby & Lee, 2006). In addition to that, other researches pointed out that selection, customization and interaction could be primary motivations for product browsing (Alba, 1997; Ghosh, 1998). Accordingly, researchers emphasize variety of selection, promotions, and sensory attributes as key in the encouragement of product browsing intentions via Facebook (Then & Delong, 1999; Hong & Lee, 2005; Lim & Dubinsky, 2004; Taylor & Cosenza, 2000;
8 Ward & Lee, 2000). In addition to this, perceived Utilitarian motivation is defined as “mission critical, rational, decision effective, and goal oriented” (Engel et al., 1993; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Batra and Ahtola, 1991;), where browsing is perceived as a “mission to be completed efficiently during the online process” (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Sherry et al., 1993; Babin et al., 1994). Therefore, supplying these cues (convenience, product selection, information availability, lack of sociality and customized advertisements) may also facilitate web browsing on the Facebook brand/fan pages context (Lepkowska- White, 2004; Odekerken-Schröder & Wetzels, 2003).
Regarding the impact that perceived hedonic motivations have on product browsing little has been performed (Mikalef et al., 2013). However, based on previous studies, enjoyable or interesting opportunities for browsing in electronic market play an important role in increasing the hedonic shopping experience (Blakeney et al., 2010; Mazaheri et al., 2010). In addition to that, consumers browsing enjoy seek information about a wide array of products regardless of whether they make a purchase (Rowley, 2001; Smith and Sivakumar, 2004). Novak et al. (2003) also point out that the online flow experience is more likely to occur during recreational activities than during goal-direct activities, further confirming the rising levels of hedonic browsing on the Internet. So consumers not only go online for gathering information and purchasing products (Kim & Shim, 2002), but also for satisfactory experiences and emotions (Park et al., 2012). In addition to that, To et al., (2007) reinforced this saying that the joy of searching behaviour not only comes from what they have found, but also from the searching process itself. Therefore, based on previous studies, perceived Hedonic motivation is also very important (Falk, 1997). So it is crucial to take into account not only the functional requirements present in Facebook brand/fan pages but also the escapist items that they hold (Hirschman & Holbrock, 1982). Hence, in the context of Facebook brand/fan pages, both perceived Utilitarian and perceived Hedonic motivations would influence browsing products behaviour.
9 H1: Perceived Utilitarian motivations positively affect users’ product browsing through Facebook brand/fan pages.
H2: Perceived Hedonic motivations positively affect users’ product browsing through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Based on the research Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001), this study categorizes perceived utilitarian motivations in: convenience, selection, information availability and lack of sociality. Because of the importance that previous research has noted regarding customized advertisements and the great advantages that it has on Internet shopping (it produces advertisements that are compatible to users likings, based on personal information), this factor was added to the model (Han & Han, 2001; Burke, 1997). For the Hedonic perspective four factors are categorized due to the fact that they have to be applicable to a virtual platform: adventure, social, idea, authority and status (Mikalef et al., 2013). In conclusion, this research model includes five perceived Utilitarian and four perceived Hedonic shopping values (see Fig. 1).
Utilitarian motivations
Convenience. Previous research has often defined “convenience in terms of saving time and effort, including physical and mental effort” (Nickols et al., 1983; Williams et al., 1978). In addition to this, accessibility of the store (in terms of location and hours of availability) has been included in some conceptualizations of convenience (Corby, 1994; Gerth et al., 1996). In the context of Facebook brand/fan pages, previous research has said that “convenience represents the 90% of consumers’ shopping behaviour attraction” thus becoming one of the
10 main reason why fans may love to browse and shop products online (Overby & Lee, 2006; Kamarulzaman, 2011; Bathnagar et al., 2000). Facebook brand/fan pages, perceived as an online shop, do not have opening hours thus allowing fans to browse products at any time that is convenient for them (Mikalef et al., 2013). In addition to this, Facebook brand/fan pages are recognized as a more confortable environment where people can browse their products based on their own timetable (Cha, 2009; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). Thus, both the elements of when a consumer can browse and where a consumer can browse are part of the convenience. Persons who approach the virtual environment as offering greater convenience are more likely to consider the new media (Facebook brand/fan pages) as both “useful” and “easy to use” (Childers et al., 2001). Perceptions of the convenience of this social media facilitate the accomplishment of the browsing task (making it more useful), and also make the process of browsing (the ease of use) more appealing (Childers et al., 2001). Plus, Kamarulzman (2011) has stated that browsing products through Facebook brand/fan pages is perceived as one of the best ways to save time, effort and accessibility. Therefore this study posits the following hypothesis:
H3. Convenience motivates users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Selection. Online shoppers frequently offer product selection as a goal-directed reason to shop online (Wolfinbarger, 2001). These people “are more likely to enjoy browsing websites with a wide selection because they tend to be variety-seekers” (Lim & Dubinsky, 2004; Moe, 2003). Also, encountering a variety of items enhances browsing efficiency by increasing access to comparable items and enabling better product choice (Roehm & Roehm, 2005; Sharma et al., 2006). Moreover, the ability of Facebook brand/fan pages to concentrate geographically dispersed consumers, allows brand experts the ability to serve their markets profitably by
11 broadening online fans' perceptions that fan pages offer them better selection (Modhal, 1999). Thus, consumers see Facebook brand/fan pages as a place where they expect to find selection, and where they do find selection (Wolfinbarger, 2001). In fact, in comparison to traditional retailers, e-tailers are able to offer a higher level of choice, which means a wider range of product categories and a greater variety of products within any given category (Lynch & Ariely, 2000; Ward & Lee, 2000). A broad variety of selection increases online browsing traffic (Lim & Dubinsky, 2004), and consumers tend to browse online when their product expectations are met or exceeded (Lim & Dubinsky, 2004). Specifically on such pages, continuous engagement and selection of appealing content are considered fundamental for companies in order to increase their viral propagation (Parent et al., 2011). Moreover, online fans expect that over time the complete product lines of their favourite retailers will be available online, and cite the anticipated increase in selection as a reason they will browse and shop a product on Facebook brand/fan pages more in the future (Wolfinbarger, 2001). So it is hypothesized that:
H4. Selection motivates users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Information availability. Most of previous research regarding information availability on social media platforms has been articulated thorough different aspects. Some approaches have focused on the fact that online social platforms play a major role in the diffusion of information by increasing the spread of novel information and diverse viewpoints (Bakshy et al., 2012), whereas other approaches indicated that information availability includes acquiring the information of product specs, stores, promotions and so on (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). In the particular context of Facebook brand/fan pages, “Fans” enjoy these virtual communities with common interests to exchange and and find out where information is shared and available
12 with other Fans (Powell, 2009; Chiu et al., 2006). In addition to that, previous research stated that information generated by Social network sites (especially Facebook fan pages) significantly influence users’ continue intention to browse through the site (Lin & Lu, 2011). In particular, Facebook brand/fan pages have substantially empowered consumers and eased their information acquisition and sharing processes, which, in turn, have significantly influenced Web users’ behaviours, like product browsing (Kucuk & Jrishnamurthy; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Basically what Fan pages provide is the possibility to be only few clicks away from the information about products by representing the most efficient way for consumers to get that information (To et al., 2007). Thus the 5th hypothesis is generated:
H5. Information availability motivates users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Lack of sociality. The fourth dimension of the Utilitarian online shopping motivation is about “lack of sociality”. This factor indicates that Internet shoppers are more inclined to deny distractions during online shopping (Joerding & Meissner, 1998). While shopping online, the primary relationship is not between the seller and buyer, but rather between buyer and the mediated environment (Hoffman et al., 2000). Interestingly, it turns out that Facebook fans largely enjoy the relative lack of social interaction while buying online (Lin & Lu, 2011). Absent online are salespeople, spouses, crowds, and lines. Additionally, the ability to find what they need and to complete a transaction without having to go through a human being is associated with fans who have increased freedom and control (Lin & Lu, 2011). Thus people on Facebook brand/fan pages don’t want to be worried about interacting with sales people or other people around them by basically not engaging in these unrequired actions, while instead continue the action of browsing products through virtual platform (Facebook fan
13 page)(Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). Thus the following hypothesis is generated:
H6. Lack of sociality motivates users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Customized advertisements. Han and Han define customized advertisements as unique values that the Internet could provide to the customer (2001), where not only product specs are included but also packaging, shipment, design and transaction method (Feather, 2001). Such personalized advertising has been found to enhance the user’s intention for both, the intention to search for products (product browsing) and then share information related to that (eWOM), therefore acting as an initiator of the sharing information process (Moe, 2003). According to Feather (2001), the service of customized advertisements is a feature that adds Utilitarian value to a medium, meaning that the process of searching becomes more efficient. The research of Choi and Rifon (2002) has identified that the relevance of customized advertisements is a strong predictor of the intention to purchase a product/service by adding Utilitarian value to the browsing shopping process with the added impact of word of mouth (Jones et al., 2006). In addition to that, an early study by Gordon and Lima-Turner (1997) found that consumers would be more prone to follow and consequently browse an advertisement that is customized to their likings compared to one that is not. Therefore, because of the profiling performed by Facebook, customized advertisements appear to users based on their specific interests and likes (Mikalef et al., 2013). Thus this study posits the following hypothesis:
H7. Customized advertisements motivate users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
14 Hedonic motivations
Adventure/explore. The concept of adventure refers to the fact that consumers will experience a novel and enjoyment-filled process when shopping online (Mikalef et al., 2013). Curiosity has always pushed people to interact with a computer (Webster et al., 1993) by generating the action of adventure (To et al., 2007). As Westbrook & Black (1985) stated “Adventure means that customers encounter something novel and interesting, and experience the joy of exploration during the process of shopping”. It can be also defined as “shopping for stimulation, adventure, and the feeling of being in another world” (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). Because of the novelty of performing a task, i.e. product browsing, on Facebook brand/fan pages there could be an influence in the sense of adventure experienced by users (Mikalef et al., 2013). It seems that browsing through Facebook brand/fan pages is different from exploring in physical stores. In physical stores, shoppers are likely to feel diversion because they are able to receive enjoyment and pleasure from shopping via the five senses. Therefore because of the use of small screens of a mobile devices or computers, sensory attributes like sight, sound and smell are felt little by fan browsers (Lee & Benbasat, 2004). Based on that, this study hypothesize that for Facebook brand/fan pages the following will stand:
H8. Adventure/explore motivates users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Social. A great number of studies have identified that one of the main reasons why consumers browse products is due to the enjoyment that the online social interaction provides through social media platforms (Dawson et al., 1990; Ono et al., 2012; Mikalef et al., 2013; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001; To et al., 2007). This aspect is particularly relevant to the Hedonic motivation of consumers to browse products through Facebook brand/fan pages and is noted to
15 be a prime motivator for this behaviour in this specific context (Mikalef et al., 2013). These social interactions during the browsing process could provide the users with pleasure, and motivate them by doing this in the future (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). The result is that these people share the same information and shopping experience with someone else who also has the same interest online (To et al., 2007). In addition to that, Kaufman-Scarborough and Lindquist (2000) stated that social motivations for browsing products online refer to the enjoyment of the shopping process with friends and family. Because Facebook enables users to have easy access to the company brand/fan pages in every place at every time when needed, fans are able to browse products without any time and place limitations with friends and family, thus producing a sense of pleasure (Ono et al., 2012). Additionally, the research from Dawon et al. indicated that the “social interaction provided by browsing is usually the main reason for consumers to continue browsing” (1990). Thus, this study presents the following hypothesis:
H9. Sociality motivates users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Idea. Alba et al. (1997) previously stated that browsing and discovering new trends and fashions represents one of the most important motivations for shopping online. In the context of Facebook brand/fan pages, the general “idea” is that consumers browse through social media platforms to learn about new trends and products, evaluate and understand the brands’ information while at the same time enjoying this discovery process (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; To et al., 2007). This process is found to give pleasure to consumers thus stimulating the Hedonic value that they perceive (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). To reinforce this approach, Parsons (2002) pointed out the strongest motivations for browsing online is represented by “discover[ing] and secure[ing] new trends”. In addition, Parsons (2002) stated, “One of the strongest motivations for Internet shoppers is to find, assess, and appreciate trends and new
16 fashions because many of them can access information that would otherwise be unavailable”. This might be the context in which Facebook brand/fan pages provide immense amount of trends and fashion information (Kim & Ko, 2012). Moreover, browsers who want to find information on trends can update their knowledge of new information at any given time. Thus, they may intend to visit Facebook brand/fan pages. Additionally, social media networks, and especially Facebook brand/fan pages, provide a large concentration of information from various different sources, mainly focused on commercial products (Powell, 2009; Chiu et al., 2006). Thus, discovering new products according to trends is an exploration-oriented procedure and so users that engage in this process are lead by Hedonic motivations (Mikalef et al., 2013). Therefore, this study posits the following hypothesis:
H10. Ideas motivate users to browse product through Facebook brand/fan pages.
Authority & status. As Mikalef et al. (2013) stated the authority and status factor is defined as the “sense of control over the technology used”. What basically differs from the authority held by a consumer in a physical store is that, through Facebook fan pages, users decide what product they want to browse by retrieving all information about that product in an effortless way and providing feedback that has an impact (Parsons, 2002). As a result, a higher level of control and authority is felt by the consumers when browsing a product through such pages (To et al., 2007). Also, previous research found that the control over the shopping experience is noted as being an important Hedonic motivation when considering online browsing (Parsons, 2002). Thus this study presents the following hypothesis:
H11. Authority and status motivates users to browse products through Facebook brand/fan pages.
17 Electronic Word of mouth (eWOM). To complete the model, the effect of product browsing on electronic word-of-mouth will be tested. An important aspect of the online experience is the sharing of information (Mikalef et al., 2013; Shimabukuro Sandes & Torres Urdan, 2013). Word of mouth (WOM), or referral marketing, is the influence of someone’s informal opinion about products and brands derived from consumption experiences (Sen & Lerman, 2007; Mikalf et al., 2013). WOM behaviour is based on an unpaid endorsement of products or services, which is “used by companies almost as a form of advertisement and has a great deal of credibility” (Sen & Lerman, 2007) and where most of the recommendations (92%) come from friends and family (Word of Mouth Marketing Association, 2014). With the ease of sharing information through Internet technologies, mobile devices, and social media, electronic word of mouth (eWOM) has gained even more credibility thus becoming a topic of constant interest for marketing scholars (Shimabukuro Sandes & Torres Urdan, 2013; Mikalef, et al, 2013; Sheng & Teo, 2012). The range and the diffusion velocity of information online have provided consumers with easy access to other consumer comments about products, brands, or companies (Duana, Bin, & Whinston, 2008).
In terms of research regarding Facebook Fan pages and eWOM, little has been performed. Previous research has stated that the more the user browses a particular community page, the more likely he/she will be exposed to information and marketing messages that may be useful (Poyri et al., 2013). As Hennig-Thurau (2004) said, useful or interesting information will sometimes be forwarded to other consumers because they are motivated to help those consumers by generating electronic word- of-mouth behaviour. Therefore, this reflects the idea of online communities as information environments in which users can situate themselves in order to keep a lookout for information related to their areas of interest and to communicate the information to other consumers (Burnett 2000). Additionally, users tend to share information on a product that they have seen and think could be of interest to friends and peers, a typical
18 action of post-browsing (Mikalef et al., 2013). Being familiar with a product and aware of recent product trends also leads to relatively high levels of word-of-mouth activity. The browsing activity of Facebook fan pages visitors realizes the general Hedonic and Utilitarian motivations into specific word of mouth behaviour, which is what most Facebook marketers aim for (Poyri et al., 2013). This creates new implications for marketing managers since consumers are generators of informal campaigns to their circle of acquaintances. Therefore the following hypothesis is generated:
H12: There is a positive relationship between browsing products on Facebook brand/fan pages and users’ intention to share information online (eWOM).
Research model. The purpose of this study is threefold. The first part involves exploring the factors that shape the perceived Hedonic and Utilitarian value of browsing products on Facebook fan pages. In addition, the research wants to examine the impact that perceived Utilitarian and Hedonic value has on triggering user intention to browse products on such pages. Past research has shown that distinguishing between Hedonic and Utilitarian motivation is imperative, since consumer behaviour differs accordingly. Therefore, we want to determine if fans of Facebook fan pages are inclined to browse for products based on Utilitarian, Hedonic motivations or both. The final part of our conceptual research model is to determine if the browsing of products on Facebook fan pages affects the intention to share information about products and services to fellow peers. We therefore propose an integrated model by using perceived Hedonic and Utilitarian motivations as mediating constructs in order to explain how they impact Facebook fan pages users’ intention to browse products encompassing all the aforementioned aspects (Figure 1).
19 Figure 1. Research model Convenience Selection Lack of sociality Information availability Customized advertiseme nts Adventure/ explore Social Idea Authority & status PUM FFP Product browsing eWOM PHM
20 Convenience Selection Lack of sociality Information availability Customized advertiseme nts Adventure/ explore Social Idea Authority & status PUM FFP Product browsing eWOM PHM H4 H3 H5 H6 H7 H1 H8 H9 H10 H11 H2 H12
21 METHOD
In order to test the hypothesis previously presented, a survey research was conducted. Since the presented model has to be tested in the context of Facebook brand/fan pages, a random sample of university students were chosen due to the greater use of technology and social media that University students use when compared with other population segments (Seock & Bailey, 2008; Gardyn, 2002). In addition to this, they are playing an active role in the social media movement, enhanced by the fact that they are constantly interconnected with each other and technology and media are a significant part of this consumer’s lifestyle (Harris Interactive, 2004; Nielsen Reports, 2014).
A total of 235 University students were collected with an age range from 18 to 30 that completed the survey in May/June 2015. As their view of Facebook brand/fan pages is of importance for this research, participants who did not browse or visit Facebook brand/fan pages were excluded from participating. Thus a total of 180 valid surveys were tested. The sample was composed of male (n = 85) and female (n = 95).
To test our hypothesis a cross-sectional survey was conducted. An online questionnaire was sent to our sample in order to evaluate the Utilitarian and Hedonic aspects of Facebook fan pages that motivates product browsing by users and how this affects the intention to share online information (eWOM). The questionnaire was distributed through the social network website Facebook. Several posts were included in this heavy traffic website along with email distribution lists. This method of data collection, which is consistent with previous online studies (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Steenkamp & Geyskens, 2006), generated 180 valid responses. In addition to that, based on the researchers’ personal network, other potential respondents were contacted though an invitation email and assured about confidentiality and anonymity. The participants followed the link or URL address indicated by invitation and
22 reminder emails. Survey respondents could terminate the survey at any time without penalty.
Measurements
Facebook-usage & Product browsing FFP. General Facebook-usage (FU) and FFP-usage were both measured in terms of frequency: “On average, How often do you visit FB/FFP?”. A 6-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “5 or more days a week” was used for these questions. If respondents answered “never”, they were skipped to the end of the survey whereas if any other option were provided they were conducted to the following questions. Moreover, for FFP, frequency was measured through a slider, where people had to indicate number of visit(s) per day. In addition, FU and FFP were both measure in terms of duration by asking respondents to indicate the amount of hours (only for FU) and minutes they were used to spend on such virtual platforms e.g. “On average, how much time do you spend on Facebook brand/fan pages per vision? Please indicate the amount of minutes”. Then participants were asked if they have ever browsed through FFP. If respondents answered no, the survey skipped to the end of the survey. If respondents answered yes, they were asked about their motivations (hedonic/utilitarian) to browse a product on FFP and consequently about some questions regarding the generated electronic word of mouth (eWOM). First of all FU frequency and duration were combined by multiplying the answers in order to compute the new variable (FU). For FFP, duration and frequency, were used separately and in a combined format (PBFFP).
Perceived Utilitarian and Hedonic motivations. To measure perceived Hedonic and Utilitarian motivations to browse product on FFP, the research used items based on previous studies (To et al., 2007; Mikalef et al., 2013; O’Brien, 2010; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001; Arnold & Reynolds, 2003) and adapted to the context of the research (Facebook fan pages).
23 Two different scales composed by five items were developed and measured with a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Perceived Utilitarian motivations (PUM) grouped items of convenience, information availability, selection, lack of sociality and customized advertisement (see Appendix A for detailed formulation of exact questions items). Whereas Perceived Hedonic motivation (PHM) grouped items of social, adventure, idea and authority & status themes (again, see Appendix A for wording). Two principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation were used to check which items could be used for PUM and PHM. Regarding PUM, all items correlate positively with the first component with an acceptable scale reliability, Cronbach's alpha = .79. Therefore, it appears the scale measures perceived Utilitarian motivation. For PHM the items correlate positively with the first component proving to be highly reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .91. Therefore, it appears the scale measures perceived Hedonic motivation.
After this, each factor of Utilitarian and Hedonic motivations was measured. Based on previous research, this study categorizes utilitarian motivations into convenience, selection, information availability, lack of sociality, and customized advertisements, whereas, for the hedonic perspective, four values are categorized: adventure, social, idea, authority and status (Mikalef et al., 2013; Han & Han, 2001; Burke, 1997; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001).
Utilitarian values. Previous researches found that convenience, information availability, product selection lack of sociality and customized advertisement were important values for Utilitarian motivation (Mikalef et al., 2013; Han & Han, 2001; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001; To et al., 2007). Based on the study from Mikalef et al. (2013), convenience, product selection and customized advertisement were measured through three items whereas information availability and lack of sociality through two (see Appendix A for detailed formulation of exact questions items). All the items where adapted in the context of FFP and measured with a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A PCA with varimax rotation was used to
24 check which items could be used for convenience, product selection and customized advertisement. The internal consistency of convenience items proved to be reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .79. Therefore, it appears the scale measures Convenience. For product selection, the PCA with varimax rotation showed that all the items correlate positively with the first component with an acceptable scale reliability, Cronbach's alpha = .77. Therefore, it appears the scale measures product selection. For customized advertisement, the PCA revealed that the internal consistency of these three items proved to be reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .88. Therefore, it appears the scale measures Customized advertisements. For information availability and lack of sociality the PCA was not necessary due to the amount of items the scale was formed. The two items of information availability measurement scale were found to be reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .72. In addition, even the two items of lack of sociality measurement scale were found to be reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .82. Therefore, it appears the scales measure even information availability and lack of sociality.
Hedonic values. Even all the Hedonic values were based on previous researches and adapted in the context of FFP. Previous studies stated that Idea, social, adventure and authority & status were an important value for Hedonic motivations (To et al., 2007; Mikalef et al., 2013; Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). The created scales were composed of three items measured with a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (again, see Appendix A for wording). A PCA with varimax rotation was used to check which items could be used for each Hedonic value. For Idea the internal consistency of these three items proved to be highly reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .92. Therefore, it appears the scale measures Idea. Regarding Social the PCA with varimax rotation showed that all the items correlate positively with the first component with an acceptable scale reliability, Cronbach's alpha = .89. Therefore, it appears the scale measures Social. Even for Adventure the PCA found that all the items correlate positively with the first component with an acceptable scale reliability, Cronbach's
25 alpha = .88. So the proposed scale measures Adventure. Then, for authority & status, the internal consistency of the three items proved to be highly reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .92. Therefore, it appears the scale measures Authority & status.
e(WOM). As previously mentioned users tend to share information on a product that they have seen and would be of interest to friends and peers, thus becoming a typical action of post-browsing (Mikalef et al., 2013). Therefore eWOM were taken from Mikalef et al., and then adapted in the context of FFP (2013). The created scale was composed of 4 items and measured with a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)(see Appendix A for detailed formulation of exact questions items). The PCA was used to check which items could be used for measuring eWOM. All the four items were already positively framed (all items factor loadings >.45). The reliability of the scale is highly reliable, Cronbach's alpha = .92. Therefore, it appears the scale measures electronic word of mouth (eWOM).
Results
Respondents’ Facebook brand/fan pages usage. Survey participants (N = 180) were asked about FB-usage and FFP-usage. 90.6% visits Facebook 5 or more days a week, with an average of 2.72 hours per day. Then participants answered to some specific questions regarding Facebook brand/fan pages usage. As table 1 shows there is no one common trend for frequency to visit FFP, however approximately 60% of the respondents visit them on a weekly basis with an average of 2.1 number of visits per day. In terms of duration results show that fans spend 8.25 minutes on average per visit.
26 Table 1
General Facebook and Facebook brand/fan pages respondents’ usage experience.
Survey items Frequency Percentage (%)
On average, how often do you visit Facebook? (N=180)
1 to 2 days a week 2 1.1
3 to 4 days a week 14 7.8
5 or more days a week 163 90.6
On an average day, how much time do you spend on Facebook? (N=180) M SD
Number of hours 2.75 2.25
Number of minutes 22.15 16.96
On average, how often do you visit Facebook brand/fan pages? (N=180) Frequency Percentage (%)
A few times a year 25 13.9
1 to 3 days a month 50 27.8
1 to 2 days a week 52 28.9
3 to 4 days a week 39 27.1
5 or more days a week 14 7.8
On average, how much time do you spend on Facebook brand/fan pages per vision? (N=180)
M SD
Number of minutes per visit 8.25 6.59
On an average day, how many times do you visit Facebook brand/fan pages? (N=180)
M SD
27 Control variables
Before describing the results of the study, it is important to make a few remarks. Parallel to the effects that Utilitarian and Hedonic motivations have on product browsing through FFP, it can be the case that other influences affect product browsing and electronic word of mouth as well. The demographic variables included gender, age, education, and nationality. Seven category options were provided for education: no school completed, primary school, high school, bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, professional degree, doctorate degree. Regarding control variables no significant correlations were found between the dependent measures and all of the assessed control variables (all p's > .05); therefore, these variables were not included as covariates in the analyses.
Hypothesis testing
Based on the researches performed by Mikalef et al. (2013) and To et al. (2007), perceived utilitarian motivation, convenience, selection, information availability, lack of sociality and customized advertisement were found to be positive predictors for product browsing through Facebook fan pages (PBFFP) while adventure, social, authority & status and idea for the perceived Hedonic motivation perspective. In addition to the aforementioned Independent variables, the construct variable Facebook-usage (FU) was introduces in the model. To see if any significant associations were established in the context of Facebook fan pages, a stepwise regression analysis was run, in which the 12 variables were entered into the model depending on the size of their (significant) correlation with the product browsing through Facebook fan pages as the model dependent variable. So, the researcher performed a one-to-one estimation of all independent variables against the dependent variable to make sure of overall relevance of
28 the models constructs to the dependent variable.
The stepwise analysis revealed that only perceived Utilitarian motivations (b* = .24, t = 3.33, p < .001) and Facebook usage (b* = .24, t = 3.33, p < .001), together with the other independent variables, explained 17% of the variance in the presented model, F(2, 177) = 7.30 p < .01 (table 2). Thus confirming only Hypothesis 1. Convenience (H3), selection (H4), information availability (H5), lack of sociality (H6), customized advertisement (H7), idea (H8), social (H9), adventure (H10), authority & status (H11) and perceived Hedonic motivation (H2) were not significant (p > .05) and were thus excluded from the model. These results show that very little of the variance in PBFFP were explained by the mentioned Independent variables.
Table 2
Stepwise regression model to predict product browsing through Facebook fan pages.
Product browsing FFP
Independent variables b* β t
Perceived Utilitarian Motivation (PUM) .18** .3.19 2.70
Perceived Hedonic motivation (PHM) -.04 -.40
Convenience -.04 -.54 Information availability -.03 -.40 Product selection .01 .20 Lack of sociality -.12 -1.45 Customized advertisement -.00 -.07 Idea .06 .76 Social -.07 -.88 Adventure -.08 -.83
29
Authority & status -.05 -.53
Facebook-usage (FU) .34*** .20 4.98
Notes. (N =180). ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
In addition to that, the same analysis was conducted by analysing the aforementioned independent variables on the dependent variable PBFFP in terms of frequency and duration singularly. Regarding Frequency 1 stepwise regression analysis, results show that Idea (b* = .17, t = 2.61, p < .01) and FU (b* = .38, t = 5.73, p < .001), together with the other independent variables explain 20% variance in the predicted dependent variable (product browsing frequency 1). For frequency 2, FU (b* = .38, t = 5.52, p < .001), together with the other independent variables explain 14% variance in the predicted dependent variable (product browsing frequency 2). Lastly for product browsing-duration, results show that Idea (b* = .14, t = 2.07, p < .05) and FU (b* = .33, t = 4.75, p < .001), together with the other independent variables explain 20% variance in the predicted dependent variable (product browsing-duration).
Table 3
Stepwise regression model to predict product browsing through Facebook fan pages in terms of FFP frequency 1, frequency 2 and duration.
Product browsing FFP
Independent variables Frequency1 Frequency 2 Duration
Perceived Utilitarian Motivation (PUM) .00 .08 .09
Perceived Hedonic motivation (PHM) .00 .02 .05
30 Information availability .02 .06 -.01 Product selection -.02 .03 .06 Lack of sociality .04 -.08 .03 Customized advertisement .00 -.02 .10 Idea .17** .10 .14* Social -.05 -.04 .02 Adventure -.03 -.02 -.00
Authority & status .00 -.01 .06
Facebook-usage (FU) .17*** .38*** .33***
Notes. (N =180). Cell entries are betas from stepwise regression. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001.
Given the fact that there were only few significant relationships between the central concepts of the model, there might be some interesting associations to find amongst the other dependent variable eWOM. So another stepwise regression analysis was conducted in order to see if any significant associations between all the Independent variables and eWOM were established in the context of Facebook fan pages. The researcher was surprised to know that PHM (b* = .64, t = 11.64, p < .001), customized advertisement (b* = .31, t = 7.39, p < .001), authority & status (b* = 0.24, t = 5.21, p < .001), and PUM (b* = -.17, t = -3.02, p < .005), together explained 82% of the variance in the model, F(4, 176) = 9.16, p < .005. Convenience, Information availability, product selection, lack of sociality, idea, social, and adventure were not significant thus excluded from the presented model.
31 Table 4
Stepwise regression model to predict eWOM through Facebook fan pages.
eWOM
Independent variables b* β t
Perceived Utilitarian Motivation (PUM) -.17** .10 -3.02
Perceived Hedonic motivation (PHM) .64** .06 11.64
Convenience -.01 -.87 Information availability -.03 .35 Product selection -.01 -.29 Lack of sociality -.01 -.15 Customized advertisement .31** .05 7.39 Idea .09 1.05 Social .00 .02 Adventure .04 .40
Authority & status .24** .05 5.21
Facebook Usage -.01 -.35
Product browsing -.01 -.56
Notes. (N =180). ** p < .01, two-tailed test.
Based on the results of previous analysis two mediations analysis were run with PUM and FU as independent variables, product browsing as the mediators, on the dependent variable eWOM. Even if the most common method to test mediation was developed by Baron and Kenny (1986), new different approaches for test indirect effect or mediation have been discussed (MacKinnon et al. 2002). For example Hayes (2009) criticized that this approach
32 “does not provide statistical test for the indirect effect size and because the requirement of a significant association between the independent and dependent variable is seen as too restrictive”. Therefore the model with one mediator (PBFFP) was tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2012).
To be able to test the effect of each independent variable, separate mediation analyses were run, with PUM and FU as the independent variable, PBFFP as mediator and eWOM as dependent variable. For both of the mediation analysis the direct effect of each Independent variable were found to be statistically significant (p < .001). Firstly, the regression model of the direct effect can therefore be used to predict the relationship between PUM and eWOM. eWOM, b*= 1.24, t = 12.65, p < .001, has a significant strong association with PUM. Then even the regression model to predict the relationship between FU and eWOM could be used. eWOM, b*= .02, t = 2.74, p < .001, has a significant strong association with FU. However, for both of the analysis, bootstrapping showed insignificant indirect effect, 95% CI [-.00, .01][-.02, .05]. Both confidence intervals include zero, so no mediation can occur.
33 Discussion
Utilitarian and Hedonic motivations have been explored extensively in shopping motivations research studies associated with consumers purchase intention and search information. However, limited studies to date have applied this theory to browsing behaviour in the context of Facebook brand/fan pages. First of all Facebook brand/fan pages present unique characteristics since they allow for user generated content, enable immediate content sharing with peers and give the possibility to interact with multiple companies within one site. Building on the potential that such pages have in providing a new medium for doing business, the theory of utilitarian and hedonic motivations was applied in order to determine what factors of such platforms encourage users to browse for products on them and consequently generate electronic word of mouth (eWOM). These questions represent main goals for marketers who wish to engage in the social media world in order to be more competitive and differentiate from their competitors. Therefore, it must be clear to them which particular aspects of Facebook brand/fan pages attract users to browse, in order to set up appropriate strategies.
In order to actualize the objectives of this research, a quantitative analysis research was carried out on data gathered from 180 active fans of Facebook brand/fan pages. Outcomes from the analysis indicate that the model was only explained by perceived utilitarian motivations (PUM) and general Facebook-usage (FU). Specifically, these predictors were found to have a significantly positive effect on user intention to browse products over this particular virtual context. These findings are in line with what has been found regarding the general users motivations to browse products on such pages. As the results from Brown et al. (2005) and To et al. (2007) showed, perceived utilitarian motivations represent one of the two taxonomies of forces that engage consumers in the browsing process. In addition, the introduction of Facebook-usage into the presented model was proven to be effective. In fact, results show that
34 Facebook-usage can be an important predictor of product browsing. A possible explanation of this unexpected result can be explain by the fact that the more time users spend on Facebook in general, the more chances they will have to visit brand/fan pages and consequently browse products through Facebook fan pages.
However, in contrast to the argumentation presented in the theoretical framework all the other Utilitarian and Hedonic values were found to have no effect on the main research outcome variable (PBFFP). In terms of information availability, for example, a possible explanation can be that users don’t perceive FFPs as virtual contexts where they try to find information. The ease of finding information elsewhere over Facebook brand/fan pages can enhance this aspect by reducing the importance of information availability on such pages. So in contrast to what has been previously discovered from other researches (e.g. Lin & Lu, 2011), information generated on SNS (fan pages in particular) does not significantly influence users’ intention to browse. In addition to that, the utilitarian value convenience was not perceived to be as an important value during the process of products browsing. It may be the case that fans don’t perceive FFPs as an online shops, thus discrediting previous researches that have defined them “to be a more confortable environment where people can browse at any time is convenient for the fan” (Cha, 2009; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). For lack of sociality, however, it seems that consumers do not oppose the idea of interacting with sales people during the browsing process. The total independence that users held during this action turned out to be a double-edge sword. In fact, in the immense virtual context in which Facebook fan pages lie, users can be lost in their product browsing by instead being distracted by other actions (e.g. posts, comments, chat). Thus Internet shoppers should not regard lack of sociality as a required and critical browsing value.
Several researches have pointed out that Customized advertisement represent a unique advantage for browsing products on Facebook fan pages (Mikalef et al., 2013; Feather, 2001).
35 However, this study finds that Internet shoppers do not find customization useful, which means that it would not influence product browsing. One possible explanation could be due to the fact that customers are not alerted about product and services change, thus making virtually impossible to identify the benefit of this value. In addition there may be the possibility that FFPs do not provide enough sophisticated advertisements in order to meet consumer needs. For this reason, FFPs should investigate and improve this phenomenon on this front. However, further analysis of the study unexpectedly revealed that customized advertisement could be a good predictor for eWOM. In fact, customized advertisements held the basic idea that even passive observers can be transformed into active ones for brand related word of mouth (Daugherty & Hoffman, 2014). Therefore, when customized advertisements are presented on such pages, they can be turned into an argument for discussion thus unintentionally generate eWOM.
From the hedonic perspective, this research found that none of the Hedonic values presented in the model (idea, adventure, social and authority & status) have an impact on user intention to browse products through Facebook brand/fan pages. However it turned out that Idea significantly predict PBFFP when frequency and duration are analysed separately. The significantly positive association of idea with product browsing can be explained by the continuous update of new products and trends through Facebook brand/fan pages. In addition the generated comments by other fans and online discussions can influence the discovery of trends on such pages. Consequently, it is logical that this aspect of Facebook brand/fan pages will enhance the attraction to users who are keen in finding out the latest trends. Parallel to this, adventure was also found to be an irrelevant factor in describing why users use Facebook brand/fan pages to browse products. This, in contrast with other researches (Lee & Benbasat, 2004; Mikalef et al., 2013), can be justified by the fact that browsing products through Facebook brand/fan pages is not perceived as a novel and enjoying process by the fans, but
36 instead as an usual action. Additionally, in contrast to what Mikalef et al. (2013) stated, even authority & status negatively relates with product browsing. This result shows how fans don’t feel to be in control over this specific medium (in the case Facebook brand/fan pages) when they browse products through FFP. Additionally, the ability to socialize over Facebook brand/fan pages does not enhance products browsing by users. In contrast with some previous researches that positively associated socialization with perceived hedonic motivations (To et al., 2007; Dawson et al., 1990; Mikalef et al., 2013; Ono et al., 2012; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001), in this study “social” does not seem to be an important value that affect products browsing through Facebook brand/fan pages. This result is in contrast with previous studies performed into traditional stores where Social was found to positively affect perceived Hedonic motivation (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). To et al. (2007) suggested that complicated and unnecessary social activities could negatively affect perceived Hedonic motivations. Therefore a possible explanation of this result is due to the fact that fans may not want to socialize and be interrupted by strangers. With comments and posts, fans feel irritated and consequently stop the action of browsing products through these social media platforms (Facebook fan pages). Fans maybe correlate the action of socializing with platforms that are more in line with friendship and not with shared interests. Therefore some other considerations should be given to the development of new survey items that better explain the Hedonic Social value on FFP and consequently leads to further questions about Social on these platforms.
Finally this research tries to point out some insights about the predictors that have an effect on information sharing (eWOM) by validating the claim that Facebook bran/fan pages can be used for user-generated marketing platforms. Several researches studies were conducted on social media in order to test motivations and intentions to browse and purchase products, search and share information, but none of them specifically focused on the context of Facebook brand/fan pages (Mikalef et al., 2013). What the results from this study unexpectedly found
37 was a direct effect, in addition to customized advertisement, of both perceived Utilitarian and perceived Hedonic motivations on sharing product information. Word of mouth is gaining increasing attention amongst marketers, since positive feedback from a peer about a product is a strong motivator for future purchasing (Cheug & Lee, 2012). Therefore, since perceived Utilitarian/Hedonic motivations and word of mouth intention are inextricably linked, brands have to be focused on all the users responses they can collect and move accordingly by identifying which motivations specifically affect eWOM behaviour on such pages. The identification of such motivations can help marketers to create more functional FFPs where brands can publish products in a more efficient manner. These actions can directly affect eWOM behaviour on such virtual platforms thus turning into specific purchase intention, which is what most Facebook marketers aim for (Poyri et al, 2013).
Managerial implications
In the crowded virtual environment, it becoming essential for brands to be present established into the social media in order to remain competitive in today’s retail environment. Therefore thanks to the research results it is possible to validate that Facebook brand/fan pages can be used for marketing purpose with an increment in the brand commerce. The results suggest brands that were hesitant to enter in this new social media context to do so.
In the context of Facebook brand/fan pages, companies must focus on enhance the general perceived Utilitarian motivations to browse products on such platforms. In addition they should focus on customized advertisements in order to generate and facilitate eWOM. So the frequency of these ads must be enhanced in order to consider the important effect of brand/fan pages in terms of content.
38 Limitations
This study has some limitations. Because of the particular context in which this research is steeped, a generalization of the findings across contexts will be difficult to be applied. It may be useful to compare these results with different social media platforms. In addition to this must be borne in mind in interpreting the results of this research that another limitation can occur. The participants used in this study consisted of snowball sample with the high probability to share the same characteristics of the researcher (MBA students). On average, they tended to be better educated, younger, and more cosmopolitan than the population at large. As such, they may have browsing motivations that are not common with all the rest of the population thus limiting the external validity of the results reported in this study. In this light, it would be imprudent to over-generalize the results. Therefore future research should sharpen the simultaneous assessment of consumer responses toward localized and standardized advertisements in multiple cultures.
Suggestions for Future Research
The results of this research provide a new perspective on the impact that FFP has on business to customer e-commerce. Because of the infancy of this study field, further researches should be performed in this particular social media context. The findings generalization from this study, with a more variegates and diversified sample can be considered to be the following step to investigate for future research.
This study was conducted within the specific social media platform of FFP. Then it would be beneficial for future researches to include other social media platform in order to compare motivations to browse through users between more platforms.
39 In addition to that, a final area of recommended future research can be based on the assumption that this research examined two motivations (utilitarian and hedonic). Because there are numerous factors that can potentially influence product browsing (e.g. product differences, users differences, brands differences) future researchers could investigate different market segments.
40 References
Abedniya, A., & Mahmouei, S. S. (2010). The impact of social networking websites to facilitate the effectiveness of viral marketing. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 1(6), 139–146.
Adjei, Mavis, Noble, Stephanie, & Noble, Charles (2010). The influence of C2C commu- nications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 634–653.
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., & Wood, S. (1997). Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. The Journal of Marketing, 38-53.
Algesheimer, René, Dholakia, Utpal M., & Herrmann, Andreas (2005). The social influ- ence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 19–34. Arnold, M. J., Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79
(1), 77-95
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., Griffin M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012, April). The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 519-528). ACM.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Batra, R., Ahtola O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of customer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 12 (2), 159-170.
41 Bhatnagar, A., Misra, S., & Rao, H. R. (2000). On risk, convenience, and Internet shopping
behavior. Communications of the ACM, 43(11), 98-105.
Bernardo, M., Marimon, F., & del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M. (2012). Functional quality and hedonic quality: A study of the dimensions of e-service quality in online travel agencies. Information & Management, 49(7), 342-347.
Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word:
Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123-138. Burke, R. R. (1997). Do you see what I see? The future of virtual shopping. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 352-360.
Cha, J. (2009). Shopping on social networking Web sites: Attitudes toward real versus virtual items. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(1), 77-93.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2002). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of retailing, 77(4), 511-535.
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of web advertising credibility: A study of consumer response to banner ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 12-24.
Corby, C. A. (1994). Consumer technology and its effect on banking. Bank Marketing, 26, 24-24.
Cotte, J., Chowdhury, T. G., Ratneshwar, S., & Ricci, L. M. (2006). Pleasure or utility? Time planning style and web usage behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20(1), 45-57.
