Does the effect on consumer engagement towards companies and consumer purchase
intentions differ between the social media sites Facebook and Twitter?
Social Media Marketing
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
Bachelor Thesis Business Administration
Statement of originality
This document is written by Kirsten Dedel who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Social media marketing: the differences between Facebook and Twitter in
their effect on consumer engagement and purchase intentions
Abstract
Previous studies have made classifications of social media sites and examined how brand-related user-generated content differs between Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but the difference between social media sites in their effect on consumer purchase intentions and consumer engagement towards companies is not studied yet. Therefore this study aims to examine if there is a difference between the social media sites Facebook and Twitter in their effect on consumer engagement towards companies and consumer purchase intentions. Assumed is that consumer engagement towards companies and consumer purchase intentions will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies and that consumer engagement towards companies and consumer purchase intentions will be higher with high company engagement on social media sites than with low company engagement on social media sites. These hypotheses are tested through online questionnaires with a sample of 59 Dutch consumers. The results show that there only is a difference between the social media sites Facebook and Twitter in their effect on consumer purchase intentions.
Table of contents 1 Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 6 2 Theoretical framework __________________________________________________________ 7 2.1 Social media ______________________________________________________________ 7 2.2 Facebook _________________________________________________________________ 9 2.3 Twitter ___________________________________________________________________ 9 2.4 Consumer engagement _____________________________________________________ 10
2.5 Consumer purchase intentions _______________________________________________ 11 3 Conceptual model _____________________________________________________________ 12
3.1 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer engagement _________________________________ 12
3.2 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer purchase intentions ___________________________ 14
3.3 High versus low company engagement _________________________________________ 16 4 Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 17
4.1 Design __________________________________________________________________ 17
4.2 Measurements ____________________________________________________________ 18
4.3 Procedure _______________________________________________________________ 20
4.4 Sample __________________________________________________________________ 20
4.5 Analyses and predictions ____________________________________________________ 22 5 Results _____________________________________________________________________ 23
5.1 Reliabilities ______________________________________________________________ 23
5.2 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer engagement _________________________________ 24
5.3 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer purchase intentions ___________________________ 25
5.4 High versus low company engagement _________________________________________ 26
5.5 Control variables __________________________________________________________ 27 6 Discussion __________________________________________________________________ 30
6.1 Summary and interpretation of study results ____________________________________ 31
6.2 Limitations and implications for future studies ___________________________________ 32 7 Conclusion __________________________________________________________________ 33 List of references ________________________________________________________________ 35
Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Dutch ___________________________________________________ 39 Appendix 2 - Questionnaire English _________________________________________________ 55
1 Introduction
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest, Instagram, Flickr; there are a lot of social media sites with many users nowadays. For example, Facebook has monthly more than 1,23 billion users (Kraan, 2014), Twitter is monthly used by 241 million people (Verlaan, 2014) and YouTube has monthly over 1 billion unique visitors (YouTube, 2014). Social media have become an important part of today’s society.
Social media have also become important for companies. Where once consumers only used Internet to read and watch content and to buy products and services, nowadays they are utilizing the Internet platforms to create, modify, share and discuss the content (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). This has led to a change in companies’ marketing strategies. Because social media can really affect a company’s reputation, sales, and even survival (Kietzmann et al., 2011), and because it is a good way to reduce costs for companies (Kirtiş & Karahan, 2011), social media marketing has become an essential part of companies’ marketing strategies; 97% of the companies is using social media for their marketing and 86% of the marketers states that social media is important for their business (Stelzner, 2013).
Through the dynamic and interconnected international environment marketing managers face not only many opportunities, but also threats with social media (Berthon, Pitt, Plangger, & Shapiro, 2012). For example, there are many social media sites and these all vary in scope and functionality (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Facebook for instance is for the general masses, while LinkedIn focuses on professional networks. On media sharing sites like
YouTube and Flickr consumers can share videos and photos and on micro-blogging sites like Twitter consumers can share real-time updates. A marketing manager wants to increase the engagement of their customers and other consumers towards the company and also wants to increase consumer purchase intentions, so that sales and profits will rise, but he has no idea which of the many social media sites he has to use. Although using different social media
channels can be a worthwhile and profitable strategy, most companies cannot simply
participate in all social media channels, because social media sites have to be updated actively (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). It is thus is important for managers to know which social media channel they can use best to meet their marketing objectives like consumer engagement and purchase intentions.
Previous studies about social media marketing have for example showed how brand-related user-generated content differs between Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (Smith, Fischer, & Yongjian, 2012) and that there are different outcomes of consumer action for the different marketing channels (Weinberg & Pehlivan, 2011), but there is little knowledge about which social media channel or channels companies should use to meet their objectives.
Therefore the research question is:
‘Is there a difference between the social media sites Facebook and Twitter in their effect on consumer engagement towards companies and consumer purchase intentions?’
To answer this research question, first a theoretical framework is given and then a conceptual model will be developed. Next a methodology will be described, the results will be given and discussed and at last a conclusion will be given.
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 Social media
Social media has become very popular and many people and companies are using it, but what does the term social media exactly mean? Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) define social media as ‘a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological
Hereby with Web 2.0 Kaplan and Haenlein mean that software developers and end-users use the World Wide Web as a platform whereby content and applications are continuously modified by all users in a participatory and collaborative way and not just created and
published by individuals. With user-generated content Kaplan and Haenlein mean the various forms of media content created by end-users that are publicly available, which is published on social networking sites accessible to a selected group of people or on publicly accessible websites, shows a certain amount of creative effort and is created without professional routines and practices.
Kirtiş and Karahan (2011) give a simpler definition of social media. They define social media as ‘the different ways Internet users interact with each other online and involving activities like sharing contents, communicating with friends and creating blogs’. So in short, social media allows people to create and exchange content online and thus to connect and communicate with others from all over the world, and not only with people nearby.
Not all social media are the same (Bernoff & Li, 2008). There are many different social media sites, which have different applications. There are for example content communities, collaborative projects, social networking sites and blogs (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Besides functionality social media sites also differ in terms of their scope (Kietzmann et al., 2011). There are for example social networking sites that are for everybody, but there are also social networking sites that focus on a specific target group. Consumers respond to or use all these different types of social media with different purposes and in different ways (Weinberg & Pehlivan, 2011). For this study the focus will be on two different social media sites: Facebook and Twitter.
2.2 Facebook
With worldwide more than 1,23 billion users per month (Kraan, 2014) Facebook is one of the biggest social media sites. It was founded in 2004 (Smith et al., 2012) and is a social
networking site (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Facebook started as a niche private network for Harvard University (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kietzmann et al., 2011), but is now a social network for everybody all over the world.
With social networking sites users can create personal information profiles – which can include any type of information, like photos, videos and blogs – and invite friends, colleagues and other acquaintances to have access to those profiles (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Users can also send each other e-mails and instant messages through social networking sites. So social networking sites, such as Facebook, enable users to connect.
2.3 Twitter
Just like Facebook, Twitter is also one of the biggest social media sites; it has 241 million users per month worldwide (Verlaan, 2014). Twitter was founded in 2006 (Smith et al., 2012) and is a micro blogging site (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Micro blogging sites are similar to blogs, only with shorter posts. On Twitter users can only post messages up to 140 characters. Blogs are a kind of personal web pages, where the author for example describes his life or gives relevant information in one specific content area, which are usually managed by just one person (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). However, interaction with others is possible throught the addition of comments. Micro blogging sites are also similar to social networking sites, so actually micro blogging sites are a combination of blogs – with only short posts – and social networking sites.
2.4 Consumer engagement
With the existence of social media, nowadays companies must focus on capturing and continuing attention through engagement (Hanna et al., 2011). So it is therefore logical that engagement with consumers is one of the objectives when companies use social media (Weinberg & Pehlivan, 2011), but what does consumer engagement exactly mean?
The existing literature especially gives several definitions of the more specific
customer engagement, and not very much definitions of consumer engagement. Patterson, Yu and De Ruyter (2006) for example define customer engagement as ‘the level of a customer's physical, cognitive and emotional presence in their relationship with an organization’. Hollebeek (2011) gives a quite similar definition, she defines customer engagements as ‘the level of a customer's motivational, brand-related and context-dependent state of mind, characterized by specific levels of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional activity in brand interactions’. Vivek, Beatty and Morgan (2012) give a less extensive definition of customer engagement. They define it as ‘the intensity of a customer’s participation and connection with the organization's offerings and activities, initiated by either the customer or the
organization’.
Then Calder, Malthouse, & Schaedel (2009) define consumer engagement, whereby they focus on consumer engagement online. Their definition is: ‘consumer engagement with a website is a collection of experiences with the site, whereby an experience is a consumer's beliefs about how a site fits into his/her life’. Hereby Calder et al. distinguish between different kinds of experiences, like utilitarian experiences, whereby consumers believe a site provides information to help them make important decisions and accomplish something in their lives, and intrinsically enjoyable experiences, which enables consumers to unwind and escape from the pressures of daily life.
Brodie, Ilic, Juric and Hollebeek (2013) also define consumer engagement. Their definition is specified for consumer engagement in a virtual brand community, which is a social media application, and is much more detailed than the definition of Calder et al. (2009). The definition Brodie et al. give, is: ‘consumer engagement involves specific interactive experiences between consumers and the brand, and/or other members of the community, and is a context-dependent, psychological state characterized by fluctuating intensity levels that occur within dynamic, iterative engagement processes. It is a multidimensional concept comprising cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral dimensions, and plays a central role in the process of relational exchange where other relational concepts are engagement antecedents and/or consequences in iterative engagement processes within the brand community’. For this study, this definition of Brodie et al. is followed, together with the distinction between
different kinds of experiences from Calder et al.
2.5 Consumer purchase intentions
It can be expected that besides consumer engagement, consumer purchase intentions is another objective when companies use social media, because eventually companies has to make profits. Chen, Hsu and Lin (2010) describe online purchase intention as ‘the desire of consumers to make a purchase through the website’ and state that it is an important predictor of actual buying behavior. In this study not only online purchase intention is examined, but purchase intention in general. Therefore the definition of consumer purchase intention for this study is: ‘the desire of consumers to make a purchase’.
3 Conceptual model
3.1 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer engagement
Social media provide companies an opportunity to engage, interact and build important relationships with potential customers (Mersey, Malthouse, & Calder, 2010). So actually social media provide companies an opportunity to enable interactive experiences between consumers and the brand, which defines consumer engagement. Without social media companies are less able to create consumer engagement that they are with social media. So the use of social media will increase consumer engagement, but how will this differ between Facebook and Twitter?
The many different social media applications, thus including Facebook and Twitter, can be distinguished through a classification scheme. In previous studies different classification schemes are developed. For example, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) developed a classification scheme based on theories in the field of media research and in the field of social processes. Regarding the media-related component of social media, they use the richness of the medium and the degree of social presence it allows as classification to distinguish the different social media types. According to social presence theory media differ in the degree in which acoustic, visual and physical contact can emerge between communication partners (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976), and differ according to media richness theory in the amount of information that can be transmitted in a given time interval (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Regarding the social dimension of social media, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) use the type of self-presentation the medium allows and the degree of self-disclosure it requires as the second classification to distinguish the different social media types. According to the concept of self-presentation people have in any type of social interaction the desire to control the impressions others get of them (Goffman, 1959), and thus use social media to present themselves (Schau & Gilly, 2003). This self-presentation is often done through the conscious or unconscious revelation of
personal information that is in line with the image one want to give; this is called self-disclosure (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Under this classification both Facebook and Twitter score high regarding to self-presentation and self-disclosure. However, Facebook and Twitter differ in social presence and media richness. Because Twitter only allows short posts and Facebook does not have such a limitation, Facebook scores higher in this dimension than Twitter.
Weinberg and Pehlivan (2011) classify social media based on the half-life of
information and the information depth of the social media. The half-life of information means refers hereby to the longevity of the information in terms of appearance/availability on the screen and interest in a topic. The information depth refers hereby to the richness of the content and the number and diversity of perspectives, which is comparable to the media richness Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) use. Twitter and Facebook do not really differ regarding the half-life of information. Both Facebook and Twitter have a short half-life of information (Weinberg & Pehlivan, 2011). Information appearing on these social media can move quickly of the screen, because a lot of new information is posted constantly - especially when a user is friends with or following a lot of other users. On the other hand Facebook and Twitter do differ regarding the information depth. Just like Facebook scores higher than Twitter on the media richness and social presence dimension at Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), Facebook has a deep information depth, while Twitter has a more shallow information depth according to Weinberg and Pehlivan (2011). With Twitter companies can easily and quickly keep
consumers informed on short topics, while companies can use Facebook to convey and share deeper and richer information.
Because Twitter is thus structured and used to share relatively shallow information with a relatively short half-life, it enables fast and brief engagement and conversations. And because Facebook is thus structured to share relatively deep information with a relatively
short half-life, it enables connection and communication. So the use of the more shallow Twitter by companies will probably be less likely to stimulate consumer engagement than Facebook. Therefore the first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Consumer engagement towards companies will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies.
3.2 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer purchase intentions
As mentioned in the theoretical framework, social media allows people to create and
exchange content online and thus to connect and communicate with others from all over the world, and not only with people nearby. This means that consumers can also share brand-related content and can communicate about companies online with other consumers from all over the world. Individual consumers and online communities can create, share and consume pictures, videos, blogs, tweets, Facebook entries, etc. about brands and companies, without permission of the companies concerned (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Social media enables consumers to talk directly with each other and companies have no control over the content, frequency and timing of these conversations on social media (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Thus the power of marketing shifted from the companies to the consumers (Berthon et al., 2012), which is called bottum-up marketing (Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011).
With the power at the consumers, social media can really affect the company’s reputation, in a postive or negative way (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Consumers are more trusting of their own and their peers’ opinions (Hanna et al., 2011). If companies do not use social media and do not participate in the online communications about their brand from consumers, this can have a negative outcome for the company (Kietzmann et al., 2011). For
example, if a customer places a story about a negative experience with a company on social media, this story can be forwarded to other possible customers all around the world and can create a snowball-effect. These possible customers who read this will now probably be less willing to buy something from that company; the consumer purchase intentions decrease. This example is supported by a study of Wang, Yu and Wei (2012), whereby they found that online consumer socialization through social media affects consumer purschasing decisions.
On the other hand, if companies do use social media they can participate in these communications and are able to prevent or reduce the negative impact. Companies may not be able to directly control consumer conversations on social media, but they are able to influence these conversations (Mangold & Faulds, 2009).
The purchase intentions of consumers will thus probably be higher if a company uses social media, which will allow them to influence (negative) online conversations between consumers, than if the company does not use social media, and therefore cannot influence those conversations. Furthermore, companies also use social media for digital advertising and promotions (Smith et al., 2012), which can also increase the purchase intentions of
consumers. So the use of social media will increase consumer purchase intentions, but how will this differ between Facebook and Twitter?
As stated in H1 the use of social media site Facebook by companies instead of Twitter will probably lead to higher consumer engagement. One of the antecedents of consumer engagement is involvement (Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014). Wang et al. (2012) found that involvement is positively associated with product attitude and that product attitude is then positively associated with purchase intention. Therefore there can be assumed that
involvement is positively associated with purchase intention and thus consumer engagement will be positively associated with purchase intention. Also, Brodie et al. (2013) found that consumer engagement enhances emotional bonding, loyalty and satisfaction, connection,
empowerment, trust and commitment. This are all consumer objectives, which will probably increase purchase intentions of the consumers. Thus consumer engagement towards
companies will probably increase consumer purchase intentions. And because the use of social media site Facebook by companies instead of Twitter will probably lead to higher consumer engagement, the use of social media site Facebook by companies instead of Twitter thus will probably also lead to higher consumer purchase intentions. Therefore the second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Consumer purchase intentions will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies.
3.3 High versus low company engagement
Companies can use social media sites in different ways. They can for example only use social media sites to place advertisements and announcements, but they can also use is to actively communicate with their customers and other consumers, to react on their questions and comments. In the first example the company is not really engaged with their customers and consumers, while in the second example the company is engaged with their customers and other consumers. Therefore in this study a distinction is made between high company
engagement and low, or no company engagement when a company is using social media sites. According to Brodie et al. (2013) companies need to listen to and ‘engage in
engaging’ consumers to stimulate consumer engagement and according to Wang et al. (2012) companies need to engage in ‘participating and socializing’ experiences across consumers to stimulate purchase intentions. Hence the third hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 3a (H3a): High company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter will lead to higher consumer engagement towards companies compared to low company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b): High company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter will lead to higher consumers purchase intentions compared to low company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter.
A schematic overview of the hypotheses is given in model 1.
Model 1: Conceptual model
4 Methodology
4.1 Design
The data was collected through self-completed online questionnaires among Dutch consumers who are using social media. A questionnaire is a good way to measure the variables among consumers and makes it easy to examine and explain the relationships between the variables (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012, p. 419). Besides, with an online questionnaire it is easier to get a larger sample size and it is a relative easy and cheap method (Saunders et al.,
Social Media Site Facebook
Social Media Site Twitter Consumer Purchase Intentions Consumer Engagement Company Engagement H1 H3 H2 +
2012, p. 421), which is important considered the limited time and resources available. The respondents were sampled with self-selection sampling through personal contact and through the social media sites Facebook and Twitter. This is an easy way to reach people and it has the advantage that only the right target-group - people who are already using social media - is reached.
The questionnaire contained an experiment, which is a good way to discover causal relationships between variables (Saunders et al., 2012, p.174). For the experiment the variable company engagement was manipulated. This was done through two different scenarios for Facebook and two different scenarios for Facebook. For both Facebook and Twitter one of the two scenarios showed high company engagement and the other scenario contained low
company engagement. So in total there were four scenarios; Facebook with high company engagement, Facebook with low company engagement, Twitter with high company engagement and Twitter with low company engagement. The scenarios can be found in Appendix 2.
The respondents were shown two of the four possible scenarios, of which one with Facebook and one with Twitter. With randomisation was determined which scenarios were shown to the respondents. This way the composition of the respondents for the different scenarios would be about the same and it would not affect the outcomes.
4.2 Measurements
The dependent variable consumer engagement towards companies is measured at consumer level with a 10 items scale for Facebook and a 9 items scale for Twitter based on scales from Calder, Malthouse and Schaedel (2009) and Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie (2014). An
example item for Facebook is: ‘After seeing such a Facebook page as the example (you may
write a message or comment on this page’ and an example item for Twitter is ‘After seeing such a Twitter page as the example (you may also think of a similar page from another
company) it is likely that I, now or in the future, write a message to the company on Twitter or comment on tweets of the company’. The scales are ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, so a high score means that the consumer is very engaged with the company on
Facebook or Twitter after seeing a Facebook or Twitter page of that company. There are three items counterbalanced on both the Facebook scale and the Twitter scale, which will be
recoded for analysis.
The dependent variable consumer purchase intention is measured at consumer level with a 6 items scale adapted from Dodds, Monroe and Grewal (1991) and Grewal, Monroe and Krishnan (1998). An example item is ‘After seeing such a Facebook/Twitter page as the
example (you may also think of a similar page from another company) there is a chance I’m going to buy something at that company next year’. The scales are ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, so a high score means that the consumer has a high intention to
buy a product at a company after seeing a Facebook or a Twitter page of that company. There is one item counterbalanced, which will be recoded for analysis.
For the independent variable social media sites, the networks Facebook and Twitter are tested in this study. These two social media sites fall under a different classification (Weinberg & Pehlivan, 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), are both consumer networks and are both in the top five platforms used by marketers and in the top five most important platforms for marketers (Stelzner, 2013). Besides, both Facebook and Twitter have a lot of users; Facebook has worldwide more than 1,23 billion monthly users (Kraan, 2014) and Twitter has worldwide 241 million monthly users (Verlaan, 2014). With 6,1 million daily Facebook users and 1,5 million daily Twitter users it are the most actively used social media sites in the Netherlands (Oosterveer, 2014). The respondents are shown a Facebook and/or Twitter page
from KLM as an example. There is chosen for a page from KLM, because KLM is a Dutch company and is the top socially devoted brand on Facebook and Twitter in the Netherlands and also worldwide (Socialbakers, 2014).
The independent variable company engagement is also measured through a shown example. There are two different examples, one with high company engagement and one with low company engagement, for both Facebook and Twitter. For both Facebook and Twitter just one of the examples is shown to the respondent. In the dataset low company engagement is coded 0 and high company engagement is coded 1.
4.3 Procedure
After the measurement scales were developed, the questionnaire was made with Qualtrics. The original Dutch questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1, the translated English questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2. The online questionnaire was pre-tested by four people before it was activated. Then the data was collected through the online questionnaire in one week. Hereby the variables were measured at consumer level. The link to the survey was shared actively on Facebook and Twitter, so participants could fill in the survey online when and where they wanted.
4.4 Sample
In total 145 respondents filled in the questionnaire, from the 155 who started the
questionnaire. This results in a response rate of 93.5%. But only 73 respondents have both Facebook and Twitter and because respondents with both Facebook and Twitter are needed for the analysis the other respondents were excluded form the analysis. Then another 14 respondents were excluded from the analysis because the respondents did not fill in the entire
questionnaire and thus were not useful for the analysis. So the final sample used for the analysis consists of 59 respondents.
44.1% of the respondents is male and 55.9% is female. The average age of the respondents is 26.69 years (SD = 11.828), with a median of 22 years, a minimum age of 16 years and a maximum age of 73 years. 1.7% of the respondents has vmbo as current or highest obtained level of education, 6.8% havo, 10.2% vwo, 8.5% mbo, 37.3% hbo and 35.6% university.
1.7% from the respondents uses Facebook less than once a month, 5.1% uses Facebook several times a week, 20.3% uses Facebook daily and 72.9% uses Facebook several times a day. 35.6% from the respondents uses Twitter less than once a month, 8.5% uses Twitter monthly, 15.3% uses Twitter weekly, 6.8% uses Twitter several times a week, 18.6% uses Twitter daily and 15.3% uses Twitter several times a day.
As shown in table 1 and 2, overall the respondents use Facebook and Twitter more to connect with friends and family than with companies / organizations. Also with all types of use the respondents use Facebook more than Twitter.
Often Regularly Occasionally Not Checking information (eg status updates)
from friends / family 67.8% 23.7% 6.8% 1.7%
Checking information from companies / organizations
3.4% 16.9% 50.8% 28.8%
Responding to information from friends /
family 16.9% 32.2% 39% 11.9%
Responding to information from, or sending messages to companies / organizations
5.1% 3.4% 23.7% 67.8%
Often Regularly Occasionally Not Checking tweets from friends / family 28.8% 18.6% 28.8% 23.7% Checking tweets of companies /
organizations 8.5% 13.6% 35.6% 42.4%
Responding to tweets from friends / family 5.1% 6.8% 47.5% 40.7% Responding to tweets from, or sending
tweets to companies / organizations 1.7% 0.0% 22.0% 76.3%
Table 2. Frequency table type of use Twitter
4.5 Analyses and predictions
The outcomes of the questionnaire are analysed with the statistical program SPSS. First the reliability of the used measurement scales is tested with a reliability analysis.
Then to test the difference between consumer engagement towards companies with the use of social media site Facebook by companies and consumer engagement towards
companies with the use of social media site Twitter by companies a paired t-test is done. This test compares the difference in means under two conditions (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 518), in this case Facebook and Twitter. Predicted is a statistically significant difference between consumer engagement towards companies with the use of social media site Facebook by companies and consumer engagement towards companies with the use of social media site Twitter by companies.
Next another paired t-test is done to test the difference between consumer purchase intentions with the use of social media site Facebook by companies and consumer purchase intentions with the use of social media site Twitter by companies. Predicted is a statistically significant difference between consumer purchase intentions with the use of social media site Facebook by companies and consumer purchase intentions with the use of social media site Twitter by companies.
To test the difference between consumer engagement towards companies with high company engagement on social media sites and consumer engagement towards companies with low company engagement on social media sites an independent groups t-test is done. This test compares the difference in means of two groups (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 517), in this case thus high company engagement and low company engagement. Predicted is a statistically significant difference between consumer engagement towards companies with high company engagement on social media sites and consumer engagement towards companies with low company engagement on social media sites.
Next another independent groups t-test is done to test the difference between consumer purchase intentions with high company engagement on social media sites and consumer purchase intentions with low company engagement on social media sites. Predicted is a statistically significant difference between consumer purchase intentions with high company engagement on social media sites and consumer purchase intentions with low company engagement on social media sites.
Last the control variables gender and age will be tested. To test the difference between men and women an independent groups t-test is done for consumer engagement and for consumer purchase intentions. Age will be separated in two groups, a group to 25 years old, which is close to the average age of the respondents, and a group above 25 so the difference between these two age groups can also be tested with an independent groups t-test. Predicted is there are no differences between these control variables.
5 Results
5.1 Reliabilities
To test whether the used measurements scales are reliable and thus can be uses for further analyses a reliability analysis is done. If the Cronbach’s alpha of a scale is 0.7 or higher, it
indicates that the questions combined in the scale are measuring the same thing and thus the scale is reliable (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 430).
The consumer engagement towards companies scale is for both Facebook and Twitter highly reliable; Cronbach’s alpha for this variable is 0.821 for Facebook and 0.896 for Twitter. Cronbach’s alpha for the Facebook consumer engagement scale can be increased to 0.853 and Cronbach’s alpha for the Twitter consumer engagement scale can be increased to 0.909 if one of the items, ‘It is likely that I need to think about this page or about the company
when it comes to the company related issues (eg KLM with airlines) in the near future’, is
deleted from the scales. But this item will not be deleted from the scale, because Cronbach’s alpha is already from reasonable height and deleting the item will only cause an increase of Cronbach’s alpha below 0.10.
The consumer purchase intention scale for Facebook is reasonable reliable and the consumer purchase intention scale for Twitter is highly reliable, because Cronbach’s alpha for this variable is 0.777 for Facebook and 0.841 for Twitter. Cronbach’s alpha for the Facebook consumer purchase intention scale can be increased to 0.831 and Cronbach’s alpha for the Twitter consumer purchase intention scale can be increased to 0.884 if the item ‘I am willing
to buy something from that company’ is deleted from the scales. But because both Cronbach’s
alphas are already from reasonable height and deleting the items will only cause an increase of the Cronbach’s alphas below 0.10, this item will not be deleted from the scales.
5.2 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer engagement
Hypothesis 1 stated that consumer engagement towards companies will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies. As described in chapter 4.5 with a paired t-test is tested whether there is a
use of social media site Facebook by companies and consumer engagement towards
companies with the use of social media site Twitter by companies. The results of this test are presented in table 3 and show that on average the use of Facebook by companies (M = 2.88, SE = 0.089) ensures higher consumer engagement than the use of Twitter by companies (M = 2.84, SE = 0.111), but this difference is not significant t(58) = -0.45, p > 0.05, r = 0.06. Thus hypothesis 1 is not supported.
5.3 Facebook versus Twitter: consumer purchase intentions
Hypothesis 2 stated that consumer purchase intentions will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by
companies. With a paired t-test is tested whether there is a statistically significant difference between consumer purchase intentions with the use of social media site Facebook by
companies and consumer purchase intentions with the use of social media site Twitter by companies. The results of this test can be found in table 3. These results show that on average consumer purchase intentions are significantly higher with the use of Facebook by companies (M = 3.24, SE = 0.086) than with the use of Twitter by companies (M = 3.00, SE = 0.097),
t(58) = -3.451, p < 0.05, and represent a medium-sized effect r = 0.41. So hypothesis 2 is
supported.
M SE t p
Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter (1-tailed) Consumer engagement 2.8763 2.8418 0.08920 0.11092 0.453 0.3265 Consumer purchase
intentions 3.2401 3.0000 0.08588 0.09670 3.451 0.0005
Note. N = 59.
5.4 High versus low company engagement
Hypothesis 3a stated that high company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter will lead to higher consumer engagement towards companies compared to low company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter. An independent groups t-test is done to t-test whether there is a statistically significant difference between consumer engagement towards companies with high company engagement on social media sites and consumer engagement towards companies with low company engagement on social media sites. This test is done for consumer engagement with Facebook and for consumer
engagement with Twitter. The results of these tests can be found in table 4 for Facebook and table 5 for Twitter. These results show that with Facebook on average consumer engagement toward companies is higher with high company engagement (M = 2.90, SE = 0.138) than with low company engagement (M = 2.85, SE = 0.112), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -0.315, p > 0.05, r = 0.04. With Twitter on average consumer engagement towards
companies is also higher with high company engagement (M = 2.96, SE = 0.183) than with low company engagement (M = 2.72, SE = 0.122), but this difference is also not significant
t(57) = -1.044, p > 0.05, r = 0.14. So hypothesis 3a is not supported.
Hypothesis 3b stated that high company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter will lead to higher consumers purchase intentions compared to low company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter. To test whether there is a
statistically significant difference between consumer purchase intentions with high company engagement on social media sites and consumer purchase intentions with low company engagement on social media sites another independent groups t-test is done. This test is done for both consumer purchase intentions with Facebook and consumer purchase intentions with Twitter. The results of these tests can also be found in table 4 for Facebook and table 5 for Twitter and show that with Facebook on average consumer purchase intentions are higher
with high company engagement (M = 3.30, SE = 0.136) than with low company engagement (M = 3.17, SE = 0.101), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -0.744, p > 0.05, r = 0.10. With Twitter on average consumer purchase intentions are also higher with high company engagement (M = 3.04, SE = 0.169) than with low company engagement (M = 2.95, SE = 0.094), but this difference is also not significant t(45) = -0.469, p > 0.05, r = 0.07. Thus hypothesis 3b is also not supported.
M SE t p Low CE (N = 28) High CE (N = 31) Low CE (N = 28) High CE (N = 31) (1-tailed) Consumer engagement 2.8464 2.9032 0.11180 0.13807 -0.315 0.377 Consumer purchase intentions 3.1726 3.3011 0.10088 0.13639 -0.744 0.230
Table 4. T-test outcomes high versus low company engagement Facebook
M SE t p Low CE (N = 29) High CE (N = 30) Low CE (N = 29) High CE (N = 30) (1-tailed) Consumer engagement 2.7241 2.9556 0.12214 0.18320 -1.044 0.1505 Consumer purchase intentions 2.9540 3.0444 0.09354 0.16875 -0.469 0.321
Table 5. T-test outcomes high versus low company engagement Twitter
5.5 Control variables
To test whether there is a statistically significant difference between the consumer
engagement towards companies of men and the consumer engagement towards companies of women an independent groups t-test is done. This test is done for both consumer engagement towards companies with Facebook and consumer engagement towards companies with
Twitter. The results of these tests can be found in table 6. The results show that with
Facebook on average the consumer engagement towards companies of men (M = 2.90, SE = 0.150) are higher than the consumer engagement towards companies of women (M = 2.85, SE = 0.109), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -0.272, p > 0.05, r = 0.04. With Twitter on average the consumer engagement towards companies of men (M = 2.95, SE = 0.183) are higher than the consumer engagement towards companies of women (M = 2.75, SE = 0.136), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -0.888, p > 0.05, r = 0.12. So there is no
significant difference between men and women in their consumer engagement towards companies.
To test whether there is a statistically significant difference between the consumer purchase intentions of men and the consumer purchase intentions of women again an independent groups t-test is done. This test is done for both consumer purchase intentions with Facebook and consumer purchase intentions with Twitter. The results of these tests can also be found in table 6. The results show that with Facebook on average the consumer purchase intentions of men (M = 3.25, SE = 0.158) are higher than the consumer purchase intentions of women (M = 3.23, SE = 0.092), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -0.101, p > 0.05, r = 0.01. With Twitter on average the consumer purchase intentions of men (M = 3.14, SE = 0.157) are higher than the consumer purchase intentions of women (M = 2.89, SE = 0.119), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -1.302, p > 0.05, r = 0.17. So there is no significant difference between men and women in their consumer purchase intentions.
M SE t p
Male
(N = 26) (N = 33) Female (N = 26) Male (N = 33) Female (1-tailed) Consumer engagement Facebook 2.9038 2.8545 0.14972 0.10933 0.272 0.393 Consumer purchase intentions Facebook 3.2500 3.2323 0.15832 0.09202 0.101 0.460 Consumer engagement Twitter 2.9530 2.7542 0.18347 0.13641 0.888 0.189 Consumer purchase intentions Twitter 3.1410 2.8889 0.15735 0.11911 1.302 0.099
Table 6. T-test outcomes gender
To test whether there is a statistically significant difference between the consumer engagement towards companies of young people and the consumer engagement towards companies of older people another independent groups t-test is done. This test is done for both consumer engagement towards companies with Facebook and consumer engagement towards companies with Twitter. The results of these tests can be found in table 7. The results show that with Facebook on average the consumer engagement towards companies of young people (M = 3.00, SE = 0.103) are higher than the consumer engagement towards companies of older people (M = 2.74, SE = 1.759), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -1.255, p > 0.05, r = 0.016. With Twitter on average the consumer engagement towards companies of young people (M = 2.93, SE = 0.129) are higher than the consumer engagement towards companies of older people (M = 2.58, SE = 0.210), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -1.418, p > 0.05, r = 0.18. So there is no significant difference between young and older people in their consumer engagement towards companies.
To test whether there is a statistically significant difference between the consumer purchase intentions of young people and the consumer purchase intentions of older people
again an independent groups t-test is done. This test is done for both consumer purchase intentions with Facebook and consumer purchase intentions with Twitter. The results of these tests can also be found in table 7. The results show that with Facebook on average the
consumer purchase intentions of young people (M = 3.31, SE = 0.102) are higher than the consumer purchase intentions of older people (M = 3.03, SE = 0.149), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -1.401, p > 0.05, r = 0.18. With Twitter on average the consumer purchase intentions of young people (M = 3.09, SE = 0.114) are higher than the consumer purchase intentions of older people (M = 2.74, SE = 0.170), but this difference is not significant t(57) = -1.563, p > 0.05, r = 0.20. So there is no significant difference between young and older people in their consumer purchase intentions.
M SE t p 0 - 25 (N = 44) (N = 15) 25 + (N = 44) 0 - 25 (N = 15) 25 + (1-tailed) Consumer engagement Facebook 2.995 2.7400 0.10266 1.7588 1.255 0.1075 Consumer purchase intentions Facebook 3.3106 3.0333 0.10204 0.14925 1.401 0.0835 Consumer engagement Twitter 2.9318 2.5778 0.12885 0.21032 1.418 0.081 Consumer purchase intentions Twitter 3.0871 2.7444 0.11399 0.17049 1.562 0.062
Table 7. T-test outcomes age
6 Discussion
This study aimed to examine if there is a difference between the social media sites Facebook and Twitter in their effect on consumer engagement towards companies and their effect consumer purchase intentions, so managers can decide which social media channel they must
consumer purchase intentions will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies and if consumer engagement towards companies and consumer purchase intentions will be higher with high company engagement on social media sites than with low company engagement on social media sites.
6.1 Summary of study results
The results were surprising. Hypothesis 1 stated that consumer engagement towards
companies will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies. This hypothesis is not supported. That there are no significant differences found in consumer engagement between Facebook and Twitter could indicate that consumer engagement towards companies is not higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies. This might be because other components of Twitter and Facebook than
assumed are important in the effect of Facebook and Twitter on consumer engagement. It was assumed that the depth of information would be important, but it could be that the half-life of information is more important. Facebook and Twitter do not really differ regarding the half-life of information; they both have a short half-half-life of information (Weinberg & Pehlivan, 2011). So if the half-life of information is an important antecedent, it would be logical that there is no difference in consumer engagement between Facebook and Twitter.
Hypothesis 2 stated that consumer purchase intentions will be higher with the use of social media site Facebook by companies than with the use of social media site Twitter by companies. This hypothesis is supported. This was assumed because there was assumed that higher consumer engagement would also lead to higher consumer purchase intentions, but because hypothesis 1 is not supported this is probably not the right explanation. An possible
explanation of the difference in consumer purchase intentions between Facebook and Twitter could be that the depth of information on social media sites is an important antecedent for consumer purchase intentions, because Facebook has a deep information depth, while Twitter has a more shallow information depth according to Weinberg and Pehlivan (2011).
Hypothesis 3a stated that high company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter will lead to higher consumer engagement towards companies compared to low company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter. This hypothesis is not supported. Hypothesis 3b stated that high company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter will lead to higher consumers purchase intentions compared to low company engagement on social media sites Facebook and Twitter. This hypothesis is not supported. This could be because the experiment was not good enough, but it could also be that there are no big differences in company engagement on social media sites.
6.2 Limitations and implications for future studies
Overall, the limitations of this study are caused by the research design. As first, one limitation is that the respondents are only Dutch consumers, so probably the outcomes will only be useful for Dutch companies because the results cannot be generalized for other countries. To generalize the results the study should be done in other countries as well. Also only KLM was used as an example in the questionnaire, so the results can be different for other companies or industries.
The experiment in the questionnaire with low and high company engagement was not tested on forehand. Other limitations are that only two social media sites are tested and the sampling size is rather small. A larger sample will be better to have a representative sample (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 267). Also, the variables are only measured through a questionnaire; the customers will not really perform the outcome, so the results can be biased.
Furthermore there was no scenario without social media site included in the study, so the results of the use of social media could not be compared with the outcomes of consumers without social media. Therefore there could not be studied whether social media sites in general lead to higher consumer engagement and consumer purchase intentions. This can be studied in future studies.
Also there are more variables that can be taken into account in future studies. A lot of other factors can influence the relationship between social media sites and consumer
engagement and purchase intentions. In this study only Facebook and Twitter are examined, but there are many more social media sites, for example YouTube and Instagram, that can be examined in the future. Future studies can also study the effect on other objectives for social media from companies, for example brand awareness and brand loyalty.
7 Conclusion
The research question of this study was ‘Is there a difference between the social media sites
Facebook and Twitter in their effect on consumer engagement towards companies and consumer purchase intentions?’. To answer this question the consumer engagement towards
companies and customer purchase intentions for Facebook and for Twitter were collected through an online survey. Then the differences between Facebook and Twitter for consumer engagement towards companies and for consumer purchase intentions are studied. Also is researched whether there are hereby differences between low and high company engagement.
The results only show a difference between the social media sites Facebook and Twitter in their effect on consumer purchase intentions. Consumer purchase intentions were higher with the use of Facebook than with the use of Twitter. For consumer engagement towards companies no differences were found.
These results can help managers in their decision which social media channel they must use, what is especially helpful for managers with low money and time resources. The results suggest that managers could better use Facebook than Twitter if they want to increase the purchase intentions of consumers.
List of references
Bernoff, J., & Li, C. (2008). Harnessing the power of the oh-so-social web. Sloan
Management Review , 49 (3), 36-42.
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., Plangger, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy. Business Horizons , 55 (3), 261-271.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis . Journal of Business Research , 66 (1), 105-114.
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of
Interactive Marketing , 23, 321-331.
Chen, Y.-H., Hsu, I.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2010). Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Business Research , 63, 1007-1014. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness,
and structural design. Management Science , 32 (5), 554-571.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). The Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations. Jounal of Marketing Research , 28 (8), 307-319.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistis using SPSS (Third ed.). SAGE Publications.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The Effects of Price-Comparison Advertising on Buyer's Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Marketing , 62 (4), 46-59.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We're all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons , 54 (3), 265-273.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation. Journal of
Interactive Marketing , 28, 149-165.
Hollebeek, L. (2011). emystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus.
Journal of Marketing Management , 27 (7/8), 785-807.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons , 53 (1), 59-68.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business
Horizons , 54 (3), 241-251.
Kirtiş, A. K., & Karahan, F. (2011). To be or not to be in Social Media arena as the most cost-efficient marketing strategy after the global recession. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences , 24, 260-268.
Kraan, J. (2014, January 30). NU.nl Tech. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from NU.nl: http://www.nutech.nl/internet/3688989/facebook-in-2013-geheim-van-mobiele-advertenties-ontrafeld.html
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons , 52 (4), 357-365.
Mersey, R. D., Malthouse, E. C., & Calder, B. J. (2010). Engagement with Online Media.
Journal of Media Business Studies , 7 (2), 39-56.
Oosterveer, D. (2014, January 27). Social media marketing. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from Marketingfacts: http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/nationale-social-media-onderzoek-2014
Pallant, J. F. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual (Second ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Patterson, P., Yu, T., & De Ruyter, K. (2006). Understanding customer engagement in
services. Advancing theory, maintaining relevance, proceedings of ANZMAC 2006
conference, (pp. 4-6). Brisbane.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students (Sixth ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Jornal of Consumer Research , 30 (3), 385-404.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive
Marketing , 26 (2), 102-113.
Socialbakers. (2014). Socially Devoted. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from Socialbakers: http://sociallydevoted.socialbakers.com
Stelzner, M. A. (2013, May). 2013 Social Media Marketing Industry Report. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from Social Media Examiner:
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryReport2013.pdf Verlaan, D. (2014, February 5). NU.nl Tech. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from NU.nl:
http://www.nu.nl/tech/3694375/twitter-passeert-241-miljoen-actieve-gebruikers.html Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring
customer relationships beyond purchase. The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social Media Peer Communication and Impacts on Purchase Intentions: A Consumer Socialization Framework. Joural of Interactive
Marketing , 26 (4), 198-208.
Weinberg, B. D., & Pehlivan, E. (2011). Social spending: Managing the social media mix.
Business Horizons , 54 (3), 275-282.
YouTube. (2014, April 17). YouTube Statistieken. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/nl/statistics.html
Appendix 1 - Questionnaire Dutch
Questions with * are counterbalanced.
Beste deelnemer,
Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Dit onderzoek gaat over social media marketing en wordt uitgevoerd ten behoeve van mijn bachelorscriptie voor de studie
Economie en Bedrijfskunde aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Deelname aan dit onderzoek is geheel vrijwillig. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 5 tot 10 minuten.
Tijdens het onderzoek zullen een aantal vragen gesteld worden met betrekking tot social media sites van bedrijven. Deze vragen gaan over uw persoonlijke mening en er zijn dus geen goede of foute antwoorden. Lees de vragen en stellingen zorgvuldig en kies altijd het
antwoord dat het meest op u van toepassing is. Graag zou ik u vragen om de vragenlijst geheel in te vullen.
Uw gegevens en antwoorden worden volledig anoniem en vertrouwelijk behandeld en zijn uitsluitend bedoeld voor onderzoeksdoeleinden. Voor meer informatie of vragen over dit onderzoek kunt u mailen naar kirsten_dedel@hotmail.com. Ik hoop u hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en dank u nogmaals hartelijk voor uw deelname.
Met vriendelijke groet, Kirsten Dedel
Q1 Ik verklaar op een voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard, methode en doel van dit onderzoek. Ik weet dat de gegevens en resultaten van het onderzoek alleen anoniem en vertrouwelijk verwerkt zullen worden. Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud me daarbij het recht voor om op elk moment zonder opgaaf van redenen mijn deelname aan dit onderzoek te beëindigen.
m Akkoord (1) m Niet akkoord (2)
If no is selected, then skip to end of survey.
De volgende vragen gaan over uw demografische gegevens en uw social media gebruik. Q2 Wat is uw leeftijd?
Q3 Wat is uw geslacht? m Man (1)
m Vrouw (2)
Q4Welke opleiding volgt u momenteel of heeft u als hoogst afgerond? m Basisonderwijs (1) m Vmbo (2) m Havo (3) m Vwo (4) m Mbo (5) m Hbo (6)
m Wo (7)
Q5 Heeft u een Facebookaccount? m Ja (1)
m Nee (2)
Q6 Heeft u een Twitteraccount? m Ja (1)
m Nee (2)
De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op Facebook. Q7 Hoe vaak gebruikt u Facebook?
m Minder dan een keer per maand (1) m Maandelijks (2)
m Wekelijks (3)
m Meerdere keren per week (4) m Dagelijks (5)
m Meerdere keren per dag (6) Q8 Waarvoor gebruikt u Facebook?
Niet (1) Af en toe (2) Regelmatig (3) Vaak (4) Informatie (bijv. statusupdates) van vrienden/familie bekijken (1) m m m m Reageren op informatie van vrienden/familie (2) m m m m Informatie van vrienden/familie delen (3) m m m m Informatie van bedrijven/organisaties bekijken (4) m m m m Reageren op informatie van, of berichten sturen naar bedrijven/organisaties (5) m m m m Informatie van bedrijven/organisaties delen (6) m m m m
Example 1 (respondents will see one of the two examples (randomization, evenly distributed):
Hieronder ziet u een voorbeeld van een Facebookpagina van een bedrijf en wat er zoal op deze pagina geplaatst wordt. Beeld u in dat u deze pagina (of een soortgelijke pagina van een ander bedrijf) daadwerkelijk aan het bekijken bent terwijl u op Facebook bent ingelogd. Bekijk deze voorbeelden goed en beantwoord dan de vragen op de volgende pagina. Let op: het kan even duren voordat de afbeeldingen zijn geladen!
Example 2 (respondents will see one of the two examples (randomization, evenly distributed):
Hieronder ziet u een voorbeeld van een Facebookpagina van een bedrijf en wat er zoal op deze pagina geplaatst wordt. Beeld u in dat u deze pagina (of een soortgelijke pagina van een ander bedrijf) daadwerkelijk aan het bekijken bent terwijl u op Facebook bent
ingelogd. Bekijk deze voorbeelden goed en beantwoord dan de vragen op de volgende pagina. Let op: het kan even duren voordat de afbeeldingen zijn geladen!
Q9 Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met onderstaande stellingen. Volledig mee oneens (1) Mee oneens (2) Noch mee oneens noch mee eens (3) Mee eens (4) Volledig mee eens (5) Ik vind dit een
goede Facebookpagina (1) m m m m m Ik krijg een positief gevoel bij deze Facebookpagina (2) m m m m m
Dit is geen leuke Facebookpagina (3)*
m m m m m
Deze
Facebookpagina is beter dan veel andere
Facebookpagina's die ik heb gezien (4)
m m m m m
Consumer engagement towards companies
Q10 Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met onderstaande stellingen.
Let op: met 'het bedrijf' wordt het bedrijf waarvan de Facebookpagina is bedoeld.
Na het zien van zo'n Facebookpagina als het voorbeeld (u kunt hierbij dus ook denken aan een soortgelijke pagina van een ander bedrijf)...
Volledig mee oneens (1) Mee oneens (2) Noch mee oneens noch mee eens (3) Mee eens (4) Volledig mee eens (5) ... zal ik nu of in de toekomst informatie van deze pagina delen in een gesprek met anderen (1)
m m m m m
... zou ik deze pagina
gaan volgen (2) m m m m m
... zal ik nu of in de toekomst informatie van deze pagina liken (3)
m m m m m
... is het
onwaarschijnlijk dat ik ooit informatie van deze pagina zal
delen op Facebook (4)*
... is het
waarschijnlijk dat ik nu of in de toekomst een bericht of reactie op deze pagina schrijf (5)
m m m m m
... kan ik deze pagina gebruiken voor het maken van aankoopbeslissingen nu of in de toekomst (6) m m m m m ... voel ik me meer verbonden met het
bedrijf (7) m m m m m
... is het
onwaarschijnlijk dat ik in de nabije toekomst aan deze pagina of aan het bedrijf moet denken als het over aan het bedrijf gerelateerde onderwerpen gaat (bijv. aan KLM bij vliegmaatschappijen) (8)*
m m m m m
... zal ik deze pagina nooit meer bezoeken (9)*
m m m m m
... zou ik meer over het bedrijf willen weten (10)
m m m m m
Consumer purchase intentions
Q11 Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met onderstaande stellingen.
Let op: met 'dat bedrijf' wordt het bedrijf waarvan de Facebookpagina is bedoeld.
Na het zien van zo'n Facebookpagina als het voorbeeld (u kunt hierbij dus ook denken aan een soortgelijke pagina van een ander bedrijf)...
Volledig mee oneens (1) Mee oneens (2) Noch mee oneens noch mee eens (3) Mee eens (4) Volledig mee eens (5) ... is er een kans dat ik komend jaar iets bij dat bedrijf ga
kopen (1) ... is er een kans dat ik de
aankoop van iets van dat bedrijf zou overwegen (2)
m m m m m
... ben ik niet bereid iets bij dat bedrijf te kopen (3)*
m m m m m
... zal ik eerder een product bij dat bedrijf kopen dan hetzelfde product bij een ander bedrijf (4)
m m m m m
... zal ik iets van dat bedrijf kopen (5)
m m m m m
... zal ik eerder iets bij dat bedrijf kopen dan als het bedrijf geen Facebookpagina had gehad (6)
m m m m m
De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op Twitter. Q12 Hoe vaak gebruikt u Twitter?
m Minder dan een keer per maand (1) m Maandelijks (2)
m Wekelijks (3)
m Meerdere keren per week (4) m Dagelijks (5)
m Meerdere keren per dag (6) Q13 Waarvoor gebruikt u Twitter?
Niet (1) Af en toe (2) Regelmatig (3) Vaak (4) Tweets van vrienden/familie bekijken (1) m m m m Reageren op tweets van vrienden/familie (2) m m m m
