Permission Marketing and Consumer Engagement on Social Network Sites

(1)

Permission Marketing and Consumer Engagement on Social Network Sites

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Master Thesis. MscBA, specialization Strategy and Innovation

August 4th, 2011

(2)

Voorwoord

Aangezien deze scriptie was het laatste onderdeel van mijn studieleven is, wil ik hier kort mijn lieve moeder, vader(figuur), en opa en oma heel erg bedanken voor alle ontvangen

steun en motivatie de afgelopen jaren!

Ook veel dank aan Thijs Broekhuizen, voor de feedback en betrokkenheid tijdens het schrijven van deze scriptie.

En als laatste dank aan de vrienden die altijd bereid waren om een luisterend oor of een helpende hand te bieden, Roel, Paul, Dennis en Olli.

Heel erg bedankt,

(3)

Abstract

In this paper, the importance and effectiveness of different aspects of permission marketing are explored in the setting of the innovative platform of social network (web)sites (SNS’s). Three types of relationships between users and brands on SNS’s are proposed; ‘Prospects’, ‘Fans’, and ‘Brand Community Members’ (BCM’s). This separation is useful in approaching users. The difference between fans and BCMs is delicate and appears to depend on personal attitudes towards brands. Focus of the primary research was on the SNS ‘Facebook’, and was conducted in Dutch in order to create more focused results. The research explores three types of users and the difference in the elevation and relegation between different levels of relationships on SNS. The perception and effectiveness of various tools on SNS’s, as well as the costs and benefits of permission marketing, are examined to further aid in making accurate recommendations for brands. The results show that ‘privacy costs’ and ‘relevance’ are the two most important factors when it comes to enlarging consumer involvement on SNS. Perceived privacy costs need to be kept low to satisfy the privacy concerns that every type of user, which is of importance in every step of elevation, as results indicate that privacy is of the upmost important to all types of users. Furthermore relevance is needed to spark and maintain interest and to satisfy the needed ‘fit’ with the brand itself and of the messages sent by the brand to the user.

(4)

Chapter 1 – Introduction

In the past decade, the fast pace in development of communication technology has resulted in a large number of important innovations. Through these innovations, individuals’ behavior in communicating and interacting with each other has changed drastically. The Internet has facilitated new manners of interaction, such as email and social media. Consequently, the interactions between consumers and brands have also changed. And as with every innovation, the challenge for organizations is to optimally manage it, and create, capture and maintain value from it.

At a conference about consumer engagement (MARUG Conference 2011) Harry Dekker, Media director of Unilever Benelux, illustrated the challenge at hand by stressing the importance of consumer engagement on Social Network Sites (SNS). Dekker

elaborated that even though it is of great importance for the future of marketing, brands have not yet mastered this trend. However, an enormous 80 percent of Dutch marketers had the intention of actively participating on SNS in 2010 (InSitesConsulting, 2009).

Brands strive to create and maintain an as strong as possible connection with individuals. The real challenge of the unfamiliar dynamics of SNS lies in executing this process. Issues of trust, relevance and engagement are of great importance in this process, and need to be dealt with accordingly. The concept of permission marketing (Godin, 1999), is very useful in guiding the interactions of brands and consumers. One of its most important characteristics is that control of the relationship is in the hands of the consumers, who classify themselves as interested or not, which can make relationship building more efficient for brands. Because permission marketing relies on two-way-participation, it can, and often does, lead to a mutually beneficial relationship. This concept will be further explained in Chapter 2.

1.1 Setting

(8)

Figure 1.1 provides an explanation of the relationships of the actors involved. This thesis will focus on the consumer-brand relationship, which is established within the SNS.

Figure 1.1 – Setting of platform and actors

1.1.1 Brief Overview of the Platform and Actors

Social Network Sites. SNS are a specific form of social media. Whereas social media facilitates social interaction in a number of ways, SNS are characterized as an online service in which users have a public or semi public profile, a list of other users with whom they share a connection and the ability to view and traverse these items of others (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). The SNS is viewed as the system that facilitates the ‘user- brand’ connection. The focus is on the SNS “Facebook”.

Consumers/ Users. Users mainly use SNS for socializing activities, including among others instant messaging (IM), sharing photos and videos, and playing games. The individuals in these networks are widely dispersed in age and location. According to recent research, about 72 percent of internet users are members of at least one SNS. This translates to 940 million SNS users worldwide (InSitesConsulting, 2010), who can potentially become a fan of brands on SNS.



Facebook is the most popular SNS, with over 500 million members (USA Today, 2010).

Social Network Site (Facebook)

Users/ consumers Brands/ organisations

(9)

Brands/ organizations. Companies can use SNS in a multitude of ways including, among others, simple advertising, gathering consumer information, customer service, increasing customer engagement through different tools, and even recruitment practices (Thai, 2009).

Brands have a similar profile page to individual users, a similar list of contacts (referred to as “fans” instead of “friends”), and can interact with other users.

1.2 Objective and Research Question

1.2.1 Aim of the Thesis

The aim of this thesis is to provide an overview of the effectiveness of different strategies incorporating the concept of permission marketing, that brands can incorporate in their interaction within social networks in order to create and maintain higher levels of relationships with consumers.

This thesis tries to aid the challenge of SNS by exploring the methods and possibilities for brands to interact and communicate with users on SNS, with the aim of establishing a certain level of relationship.

1.2.2 Research Questions

Continuing in the line of reasoning above, the objective of this thesis will be to answer the following questions. The main research question is as follows;

“How can brands optimally utilize permission marketing on social network sites to create and maintain higher levels of relationships with consumers?”

Sub questions

To answer the main research question as clearly as possible, the following sub questions will be used to guide the thesis.

(10)

2) How can the (effective) management of the costs and benefits of permission marketing affect the user’s level of relationship with a brand on Facebook?

3) How can the use of certain Facebook functions and tools affect the user’s level of relationship with a brand on Facebook?

1.3 Thesis Outline

(11)

Chapter 2 – Theoretical Framework

The following section will define and elaborate on all the concepts relevant to the research. The concepts relating to SNS and branding are explored and briefly defined. This is followed by a more in-depth analysis of the literature on permission marketing and related concepts that further explain the factors and dynamics of building relationships on SNS.

2.1 Brief Explanation of Social Networks Concepts

2.1.1 Defining the ‘Social Network Site’ Concept

Boyd and Ellison (2007, pp.11) define SNS as “web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.”

2.1.2 User Generated Content and User Generated Branding

SNS are largely based on the concept of user generated content, or UGC. The definitions for UGC are quite diverse since it is a relatively new and rather collective term (Burmann, 2010). A generally accepted characteristic of UGC is that it contains “all content put online by users, whether it was created by them or not” (Valcke & Lenaerts, 2010, p.119). With the growing knowledge of individuals on creating and the ease of use of media such as the internet, UGC has grown immensely in the past decade. In addition to monitoring this, an increasing number of companies aim to actively participate in it, and create and capture value from it (Christodoulides, 2008).

(12)

more than just e-branding in that it refers to an online feedback movement that goes beyond the conventional top-down brand management activities (Burmann, 2010).

The rise of Social media and SNS has made UGB more relevant, convenient and effective, however it also made it more and more difficult to track and control. This is a relevant part of the challenges SNS present. This research aims to elaborate on achieving and maintaining consumer involvement, which is crucial in UGB.

2.2 Concepts of Branding

2.2.1 Branding and E-Branding

Branding deals with the communication of a brand. A brand is the personality that identifies a company, product or service, distinguishes itself from competitors, and how it is positioned towards all other actors, including consumers, staff, and investors.

One of the main objectives of branding is to create value through providing a consistent and compelling offer and a satisfying customer experience (Aaker, 1999). Customers need to develop trust in a brand, usually achieved through satisfaction of use and experience. Only then can firms strengthen the brand further through creating a relationship, and consequently make it more difficult for competitors to imitate (Jevons & Gabbott, 2000).

E-branding is the term used for online branding. It is focused on the same objectives; however there are some differences between on and offline branding. Ibeh et al. (2005) identified the main differences found in previous literature. The ones relevant to this thesis are briefly addressed in table 2.1.

Aspect Difference

Speed of Execution

The speed of initiating e-branding projects is drastically higher than traditional branding projects (Epstein, 2005).

(13)

Customer Loyalty Challenges

Aside from the traditional focus of positioning, advertising, promotions, catchy logos and slogans, creating the delivery of complete, and completely satisfying experiences is more important in e-branding (Dayal et al., 2001)

Importance of Trust

Trust seems to be more important in the virtual world, because the parties to an e-transaction are not in the same place, and therefore cannot depend on traditional indicators such as physical proximity, body signals or handshakes (Ratnasingham, 1998).

Table 2.1 – Overview of relevant differences branding and e-branding

These differences are important to this thesis because they also identify the specific aspects of branding that may lead to difficulties in interacting with consumers on SNS. Especially the last three aspects are reflected upon when discussing the specifics of branding in SNS.

2.3 Permission Marketing

2.3.1 Introducing Permission Marketing

Permission marketing, sometimes referred to as invitational marketing, is a term pioneered by Seth Godin (1999). In this form of marketing, marketers obtain the trust of the consumer to build two-way relationships with consumers. Marketers are provided with information about the consumers, and the types of messages these would like to receive, by the consumers themselves. The marketers use this information to target messages to the consumers. In theory this would lead to less clutter of advertisements, lower searching costs of consumers, and higher targeting precision for brand marketing (Godin, 1999).

(14)

Internet, problems can arise. For instance, it is inexpensive for firms to spread additional promotional communication online once a connection has been made (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). As a result, consumers are often flooded with information, which leads them to value the relationship less. Furthermore the consumer’s perceived lack of control over the terms of such relationships has shown to breed consumer cynicism (Fournier, Dobscha & Mick, 1998). Another concept is that of ‘co-creation’ marketing (Sheth, Sisodia & Sharma, 2000). This envisions a system where both marketers and consumers participate in shaping the marketing mix (Krishnamurthy, 2001).

Permission marketing differs from these concepts in that it emphasizes the degree of needed permission granted by the consumer for a certain brand to interact in a specified manner. The concept has become increasingly relevant with the rise of the internet, e-mail, and more recently social media.

2.3.3 Required Permission (Permission Intensity)

Permission intensity relates to the additional information asked from individuals, and thus the level of targeting done by the brand (Krishnamurthy, 2001). High permission intensity programs will require individuals to provide detailed personal information. It can be assumed that it is simply too costly for brands to initiate, develop and maintain this relationship on an individual basis every single time.

An assumption that can be made from the reasoning above is that customers will be, or at least should become, actively involved in shaping the targeting behavior of brands (Krishnamurthy, 2000). Thus the aspect of customer involvement becomes a critical issue in targeting and advertising. Furthermore it will also be crucial to continued success of made connections and sustained customer involvement and commitment.

(15)

opt-out refers to the option for the consumer to express the wish to not receive messages in the future (Krishnamurthy 2001).

In summary, in order to create meaningful relationships, the sharing of information is needed. In order to access more specific information, more permission will be needed. And with an increase of permission intensity, a higher level of trust is needed. This level of trust is difficult to establish. Even more so because over time, consumers have realized that providing their personal information is a delicate matter. They increasingly recognize that they are often selling their privacy too easily to companies (Hagel & Singer, 1999). A result is that they are more careful and hesitant to share their information with brands. A trustworthy intermediary could provide the solution. This brings us to the concept of the ‘informediary’.

2.3.4 ‘Infomediary’

The term ‘infomediary’, from the term ‘information intermediary’, was coined by Hagel and Singer (1999). They described it as the actors that would become “the custodians, the agents, and the brokers of information about consumers, marketing it to businesses and giving them access to it while protecting the consumers' privacy” (Hagel & Singer, 1999, pp. 15). It stems from the notion that neither the consumers nor the firms will have the time or ability to work out the best deals. A result of this line of reasoning leads to the compromise of a trusted third party that collects consumers’ information and negotiates with vendors on their behalf (Hagel & Singer, 1999).

(16)

2.4 Types of Relationships

2.4.1 Intensity of Relationship

Over the past decade, more and more companies have recognized that they need to acknowledge that different groups of customers vary widely in their behavior, desires, and responsiveness to marketing (Zeithaml et al., 2001). By sorting customers into tiers, or a so-called ‘Customer Pyramid’, efforts can be tailored to increase the benefits of activities. Some of the conclusions from previous research on this topic are very relevant to the challenge of managing individuals on SNS, because of the diversity of user characteristics. For example, what some users may find obtrusive to their privacy, others may find an appreciated personal touch or a sign of brand involvement, or what some may find an abundance of information others may find to be an interesting and pleasant amount.

Zeithaml et al. (2001) state that ‘when possible, when consumers want different services or level of service, and when consumers define value differently, it is useful for firms to identify groups’.

2.4.2 Classification of Relationship

The differentiation can be very useful in managing interaction effectively among various different types of users. Figure 2.1 illustrates a pyramid for the setting on SNS.

(17)

By identifying these stages, this research is able to elaborate on the effectiveness of certain approaches and tools in creating stronger relationships. The top refers to those that have the highest involvement with brands on SNS.

Once again, it is important to note that the transformation from one stage to another is controlled by the user/ consumer. However, this does not mean that the brand cannot influence these steps.

Prospects

‘Prospects’ are SNS users who are not involved with brands on the SNS. However partially because of the extensive advertising opportunities that Facebook provides, these users can be targeted very specifically and are thus an abundant resource for brands to generate consumer engagement.

Target groups can be narrowed down immensely, including target country and city, age, gender, level of education, workplace, relationship status and orientation, and any interests or “likes” that an individual can have. The advertisement design is standardized, making the effort required in creation minimal, while simultaneously retaining the tranquility of the site for users (without the possibility of bright, flashing ads and banners).

The connection in this stage relies primarily on advertising and the control of a possible increase in contact is mainly up to the user, who can become a ‘fan’ of a brand to increase the contact.

Fans

Since brands can also become part of the SNS, with their own profile pages, they can make connections with other users in the network. When a user “likes” a brand, he or she is then referred to as a ‘fan’ of the brand. This connection through the “like” function

(18)

does not necessarily have to be made within the SNS, it can be made anywhere online, including the brands own website or an ad on another website. This “like” function can be seen as a form of “opting-in”, as described earlier, where the user shows interest and gives explicit permission to interact with the brand.

The user still controls the amount of contact to a certain degree, he or she can for example block messages from a particular brand, while remaining listed as a fan, or even simply “unlike” the brand and become a non-fan again.

Even though the participation is considered mutual once an individual opts-in, it should be noted that the level of interaction and type of relationship does not have to be the same for all ‘fans’.

Brand Community Member

Finally, the most intense form of relationship between a brand and its customers, that this thesis identifies, is ‘brand community member’ (BCM). A brand community is defined by Muniz and O'Guinn (2001, p. 412) as "a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among users of a brand." In such a community, not only does an individual consumer have a strong relationship with the brand, he or she also feels aligned with other individuals that have a strong relationship with this brand.

Once a user becomes a fan of a brand, he or she automatically becomes part of the community on the SNS. However, the distinction between a fan connection and a brand

Community BCM 2

User N

Brand Fan connection Fan

Brand

(19)

community member can be seen through the level of engagement. Characteristics of high level of engagement will be defined in the research methodology.

2.4.3 Elevation, Relegation, and Opting-out

Users can be classified in these groups based on the level of consumer involvement. When this changes, their position might also change. The terms elevation and relegation (also see figure 2.1) are chosen to illustrate this because they best express the change to the status quo. No other clear definition has been assigned to these occurrences in previous literature, and since the context is also slightly different here, elevation and relegation are most appropriate.

The aspect of ‘opting out’ is briefly addressed in the research. Although this can be seen as a form of relegation, it differs in that it is a clear indication of complete discontinuation of being associated with a brand, whereas relegation is simply a decrease of interest.

2.5 Functions and Tools on SNS

In the following section, a brief overview of the most relevant options for brands is presented. Brands on Facebook can engage users in a multitude of ways. As mentioned previously SNS provide a platform for brands to do more than simply advertise in a targeted manner. It can be used to draw attention to its everyday activities or keep fans updated about upcoming promotions, sales or events.

(20)

Figure 2.2 – Brand welcome page (KLM)

(21)

# Explanation

1 Sidebar – where a brand’s photos, video’s, promotions and other information can be found. A selected option will appear in the middle frame of the page (4). 2 Brand’s likes – usually consists of affiliated brands on Facebook or promotions

that happen to have a separate Facebook page.

3 Wall – Where the brand and other users can express themselves and react to other users. Has the option of seeing only the brands statements or everyone’s.

4 You and [brand] – Shows a user existing connections between him or her and the brand, including a user’s friends that are already fans of this particular brand. 5 Advertisements – usually advertisements related to the brand or a user’s (recently)

indicated interests.

Table 2.2 – Explanation of Items in Figure 2.3

Although it is good to address the brand page lay-out, in order to research the effects of the various tools on Facebook, these have to be identified separately. Table 2.3 provides a selection of the main tools that can be utilized on SNS.

Function/ tool Explanation

Advertising Targeted, simple advertisements that appear only on the side of a user’s page can be used to obtain attention or promote a aspect of the brand.

Profile page Can be used as a canvas to upload pictures, logos and all other information about the brand.

Groups Can be used to network with a brand’s target audience. It is possible to join existing groups or create one for a brand to amp up the buzz about its services.

Poll / Questions

Can be used to effectively find out what a brand’s target audiences are thinking about any issue.

(22)

Games and Applications

Can be used to more actively involve users, in both brand related and unrelated manners. Unlike the other tools listed here, these are commonly not integrated functions of the network, but additional options made by a third party that are allowed to operate on the SNS. Table 2.3 – Overview of Functions on SNS

2.6 Consumer Perspective on Permission Marketing

2.6.1 Overview of Factors that Determine Consumer Involvement

In a general sense, for consumer involvement to increase, consumers must realize that exchanging their information can be beneficial, increasing the relevant information received (Godin, 1999; Keller & Staelin, 1987). Consumer interest can be seen as the key influencing factor for the degree of participation in an interaction based on permission marketing (Krishnamurthy, 2001). However, even when assumed that consumers understand the benefits and are willing to participate for a promise of better service in the future (Godin, 1999; Milne & Gordon, 1993), some limitations of this interaction can arise from the costs involved during the process.

Table 2.2 outlines the costs and benefits for consumers that increase or decrease the level of interest in participating.

Benefits for Consumers

Message Relevance

When the relevance of promotional messages is higher, they are valued more by individuals, making participation more likely (Biel & Bridgwater, 1990; Grunert, 1996; Milne & Gordon, 1993; Reynolds et al., 1995).

Monetary Benefits

When a form of monetary benefit can be derived, including discounts, coupons, refunds, etc., individuals will me more likely to participate (Milne & Gordon, 1993).

Affiliation Benefits

(23)

Costs for Consumers

Ease of Personal Information Entry/ Modification Costs

Consumer’s interest in participation will decrease when entering and modifying personal information is perceived as difficult or time consuming.

(Blattberg et al., 1978; Oliva, Oliver & Macmillan, 1992). Message

Processing Costs

When greater cognitive effort becomes required, due to complicated or illogical message design, individuals will be less likely to participate. This is also true when the volume of messages is perceived to be too high by the individuals (Krishnamurthy, 2001). Privacy Costs Privacy concerns, may occur when strong and credible assurances

of security are not present, which will make interest and participation less likely (Krishnamurthy, 2001).

Table 2.4 – Overview of benefits and costs for consumers

Influence on Costs and Benefits

The amount of permission granted by the consumer depends on his or her perception of the costs and benefits involved. It is interesting to note that when relating these concepts directly to SNS, the costs are increasingly dependent on the SNS itself. For example, Krishnamurthy (2001) identifies the concept of ‘instructional quality’, which influences both ‘personal information entry/ modification costs’ and ‘message processing costs’, and is dependent on the characteristics of the system, which is adapted by the creator of the SNS. Identified benefits stay more directly influenced by the brand.

(24)

2.7 Brand Perspective

2.7.1 Benefits for Brands

Targeting, Identification of Targets

A well-known, but crucial benefit for brands is the possibility of increasing the effectiveness of targeting desired consumer groups. The extended and detailed source of information that can be narrowed down using various different selection criteria creates the perfect platform for detailed targeting. The figures in appendix A illustrate the simple version of target selection possible of Facebook.

Specificity of Available Information

SNS can act as a middleman between consumers and brands, like an infomediary does (Hagel & Singer, 1999). However, the motives of users sharing information are not directed at improving marketing or connecting with brands. This is simply one of the side results of using the platform.Perhaps one of the most beneficial issues in this situation is that the consumer participates and provides information completely voluntarily and for personal benefits unrelated to marketing, resulting in accurate information. This way, brands can learn more about the background and create a better profile of their customers.

Spillover Trust from the System to the Brand

Trust in Facebook may translate/ spillover to the brands active on Facebook. McCole et al. (2010) make the distinction between three different types of trust; trust in the internet, trust in the vendor, and trust in third parties. They found that that certification provided by third parties, in this case SNS, can provide the needed trust between companies and customers. It is also stated that “this type of trust is also more likely to solve privacy concerns” (Luo, 2002, pp. 115).

(25)

of users, and in intensity of use by these users. They supply detailed interests, ideas, and other information of a highly personal, and sometimes sensitive, nature willingly. As mentioned, collecting this kind of information can be difficult for companies, even more so if a relationship of trust has not yet been established.

Positive Word of Mouth / Consumer-to-Consumer Interaction

SNS provide a very suitable platform for interaction and discussion of opinions.

Therefore being present and active on these will most likely enlarge the chance of word of mouth about a brand. People are more empowered to share their thoughts online and they believe and trust information from like-minded consumers the most (Dunne, 2005). A survey in 2009 showed that 90 percent of consumers trust recommendations by people they know, opposed to only 62 percent when it comes to recommendations from TV-commercials (Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey 2009).

2.7.2 Liabilities for Brands Privacy Issues

There is a lot of criticism on the ‘infomediary’-role that SNS have started to fulfill over the years. These critics say they currently abuse the sense of security created in the past. They heed warning to the fact that the regulations regarding the use of private information have gradually changed over time without being made explicit. An example of this is that in May 2010, Facebook made privacy policy changes that now make personal data available to a wider range of marketers (Spring, 2010). Reactions to these warnings can, and already have in some cases, lead to consumer resentment of the system as a whole. When a brand is actively involved in and affiliated with this system, the negative connotations could spill over into the brands reputation.

Lack of Control over Consumer-to-Consumer Interaction

(26)

(Dunne, 2005). Once a negative discussion about a brand is instigated, it is difficult to get this back on a positive track.

Loss of Control to Facebook

One of the costs of the use for brands is that they have to partly relinquish control over to Facebook. Brands are of course in charge of their own actions. However, concerning the characteristics of the system itself, its regulations and for example lay-out, they have little control, opposed to on their own website, where they could have full control over everything.

Brands do not manage every aspect of the page, nor do they host it. Facebook hosts the pages and provides analytics for free. With marketer dependency on the SNS for consumer engagement programs growing, and traffic on the own brand websites declining (due to cannibalization of their own database with SNS brand pages), SNS are in a powerful position that could be dangerous for brands (Neff, 2010).

2.8 Creation and Maintenance of Relationships

The fact that there are many different options to approaching users does not mean that these are all equally effective or desired by consumer. In this research, the effectiveness of different options will be examined and discussed.

Creating a connection as strong as possible is a common the objectives for brands. The highest user engagement (BCM) will not be achievable with all users, simply because not every person is prone to engage in such relationships with brands. Therefore it is important to select consumers that are, and be satisfied with lesser relationships with consumers who are not, and create the ‘optimal relationship’ for different types of consumers.

(27)

indicates a propensity of favorable word of mouth (Reichheld, 2003). This will be used to measure the level of relationship in this research. The manner of measurement will be further addressed in the methodology of the thesis.

2.9 Research Model

As set out in the introduction, the challenge for brands is to learn how to most effectively interact and create and maintain relationships with consumers. The brands who will be able to handle the costs and benefits in the most effective manner, will be most likely to master the platform of SNS and succeed in this challenge.

+ + + - + Monetary Benefits Message Relevance Affiliation Benefits Costs Benefits

Personal Info. Entry/ Modification Costs Message Processing

Costs Privacy Costs

Consumer interest in participation in permission marketing program

(28)

Chapter 3 – Research Design

The objective of this chapter is to describe how the research is designed and how data is collected.

3.1 Research Method

3.1.1 Data Collection/ Sample

The primary data is collected through a questionnaire with the users of the SNS Facebook. The questionnaire is used to collect information about the different levels of relationships and the costs and benefits related to these, set out in the conceptual model. Through certain questions in the questionnaire, the sample is divided into the three different groups defined earlier; prospects, fans and BCMs.

The results aim to elaborate on the differences within these different levels of relationships and give more insight on what causes these and how they can be influenced by brands’ actions and the use of certain tools on Facebook.

Criteria (Language and Minimum Usage)

Conducting the questionnaire in Dutch ensured that the sample was limited to Dutch speaking participants, creating a more focused and more controlled sample. Previous research has identified cross-national differences in some of the main variables, including among others attitudes towards ‘advertising’ (Byeong-Joon & Subhash, 2001) and ‘privacy’ (Bellman et al., 2004).

(29)

3.1.2 Research Instrument/ Questionnaire

A questionnaire in Dutch was used to collect primary data on the concepts defined in the literature review and their relationships. The original questionnaire can be found in the appendix.

Questions were structured to collect information about several relevant areas. Attention was paid to avoid steering or influencing the participants’ answers in any way.

For most of the questionnaire, the participants identified to what extent they agreed or disagreed with statements on a likert-scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), where the meaning of high and low were clearly specified each time. Some other issues, such as familiarity with Facebook were collected through other scales, and each section had an open answer for suggestions.

The questionnaire was conducted online through the website ‘ThesisTools.nl’. This is a website designed for constructing and administering questionnaires. The primary reason for utilizing this online method was the ease of the use of so-called ‘routing’ of participants. Participants were divided into groups that had to be asked different questions, to do this most effectively; the participants were separated during the questionnaire, depending on answers given.

Participants were recruited through word of mouth on Facebook, Twitter, and ThesisTools. The criteria of ‘checking Facebook at least once a day’ was used in recruiting useful participants, and this was more likely to be met by finding participants online, as opposed to on the street. Snowball sampling was used to most effectively find active Facebook users, by asking participants to recommend other users that would also meet the criteria.

The original questionnaire can be found in the appendix. The set-up of the pages of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

3.1.3 Need for Classification of Prospects, Fans and BCMs

As explained in the literature review, the distinction between several groups is made. This distinction has consequences for the way that questions can be asked in the research.

(30)

perception of the variables, but also to be able to elaborate on the difference in the reasons behind belonging to a certain level (e.g. not being a fan, being a committed BCM) and the difference between the individual steps made (from Prospect to Fan, and from Fan to BCM).

Although it is always optimal to create as much unison among the questions asked of all participants, the questions have to be logical for the participant otherwise the answers, and thus results, will not accurately measure the desired variables. For example asking a BCM why he or she does not have the need to become a fan is illogical, but it is critical to understanding the reasoning of prospects.

Creating single questions that are applicable to all levels of relationship is possible; however results in seemingly complex and confusing questions that could in turn influence the validity of the results.

During the questionnaire, the participants are split into two groups, those who already are fans of at least one brand, and those who are not. The questions proposed to these separate groups are divided into three areas; reasons, elevate, and relegate. Table 3.1 gives a brief indication of the focus and intent of these areas.

Reasons Elevate Relegate

P

Why are they not a fan?

Influence tools, costs and benefits played in this

How would they become more interested in becoming a brand on Facebook?

Influence tools, costs and benefits could play in this

-

(not deemed relevant to question this group on this issue)

F &

BCM

Why have they become a fan?

Influence tools, costs and benefits played in this

Why would they become more interested in the brand on Facebook?

Influence tools, costs and benefits could play in this

Why would they become less interested in the brand on Facebook?

Influence tools, costs and benefits could play in this

(31)

3.2 Measures

The questionnaire was carefully constructed to accurately examine the relevant aspects of the research.

3.2.1 Classification of Relationship

These differing questions are important for classifying users in a level of relationship; prospect, fan, BCM. Their past (and current) actions will be examined to gauge their status now. Their attitudes and intentions to future actions will be examined to indicate the possibility and difficulty of elevating their relationship.

When dividing the relationships in to different classifications, “liking” is not necessarily the key indicator of the connection. Perhaps rather the active involvement can be seen as an indicator of the degree of success, which can be through things as the number of posts, comments or recommendations a fan makes (Chapman, T. (2008).

Prospect = A participant who indicates not to have participated in relevant permission marketing programs on Facebook in the past. The user indicates that he or she is not a fan of any brand on Facebook.

The actual question asked was as follows (translated from Dutch). “I am a fan of at least one brand on Facebook”, with the answering options ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Fan = A participant who indicates to participate in permission marketing programs on Facebook. He or she answers the questions about previous actions on Facebook involving participation in a positive way, however only to a limited extent of involvement, which was determined by the manner of answering the follow-up questions.

(32)

that they say to have promoted at least one brand to others, or have a higher degree of attitudinal loyalty towards at least one brand.

3.2.2 Influence of Costs, Benefits, and Tools

The definitions and explanations of consumer costs and benefits of permission marketing are also addressed in table 2.2.

Private Information Editing/ Modification Costs (PIEM); since this concept is very system related, and thus refers to Facebook instead of brands directly, this aspect is only touched upon the general section of the questionnaire.

Message Processing Costs (MPC); in the questionnaire this is measured with one indicator, namely the ‘cognitive load’ (Shugan, 1980). This is measured with the participants’ perception on the amount of ‘time and effort’ assigned to reading messages.

Privacy Costs (PC); Including ‘internal’ and ‘external’ assurance, the former relating to the system in question, the latter to supervision and audit activities of third parties (Krishnamurthy, 2001). Only internal is of relevance to this research. It is measured through the participants’ perception on the degree that their ‘privacy was/ will be harmed’.

Message Relevance (MR); Constructed according to category-message fit (Keller & Aaker, 1992). This is measured by participants’ perception on the relevance of messages.

Monetary Benefits (MB); divided into three subgroups with the statements “I participate in programs of brands on Facebook if I receive a; (1) ‘gift’, (2) ‘chance to win prize’, and (3) ‘discount’.

Affiliation Benefits (AB); Divided in two parts ‘friend affiliation’ and ‘personality affiliation’, the former dealing with the influence of friends’ actions, and the latter with the participants perceived personal fit with the brand.

(33)

Seven different functions/ tools were identified in Chapter 2 (see table 2.2), these were imbedded in the questionnaire. These are the most well-known functions of Facebook, and with the criteria of one interaction with Facebook a day as a minimum, it can be assumed that they are clearly understood by participants. Thus no further adjustments were necessary.

3.2.3 Consumer Involvement

The consumer involvement is measured in a similar manner as the separation (see 3.2.1 Classification of Relationship). However, here future intentions are measured, opposed to identifying the current state of connections a user has. The focus is on how a current state came to be and how this could change in the future, relating to the costs and benefits of permission marketing and the various Facebook tools.

3.2.4 Control Variables Familiarity with Facebook

These include aspects regarding a user’s use of Facebook. Including variables such as length and frequency of use, number of friends, and an indication of what functions (tools) the participant engages in on Facebook. As previously mentioned, these behaviors are assumed to influence the likelihood of a user being or becoming a fan or brand community member on Facebook.

Opinions of the users concerning permission marketing costs and benefits

As discussed in the literature review, the costs involved in participation to a permission marketing program are assumed to be influenced by the use of a SNS. Answers on this concept can indicate to what extent the specified costs influence a user’s interest. These questions will deal with issues such as personal information entry and modification, message processing, and privacy/ obtrusiveness costs.

(34)

3.3 General Overview of the Sample

Prospects Fans BCMs ALL

Number of Users in Group 67 20 16 103

Average Age 23.07 22.25 24.12 23.08

Gender in % (male/ female) 52.2/ 47.8 45.0/ 55.0 43.8/ 56.3 47.6/ 52.4 Familiarity with Facebook

Time User (1-4)* 3.01b 3.60a 3.00 3.13

View Facebook (1-4)** 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.02

Number of Friends (1-4)*** 2.33b 2.95a 2.62 2.50

Use of Tools on Facebook (1 = never, 5 = daily)

Clicking Advertisements 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Viewing Pages 3.97 4.15 4.12 4.03 Joining Groups 2.07bc 2.75a 3.00a 2.35 Answering Polls 1.78 1.70 2.00 1.80 Creating Events 1.73 2.00 2.25 1.86 Playing Games 1.36 1.35 1.25 1.34 Using Applications 1.54c 1.80 2.31a 1.71

Table 3.2 General Overview of the Sample

*1 = less than 6months, 2 = 6months-1 year, 3 = 1year-2years, 4 = more than 2years ** 1 = 1-5 times a day, 2 = 6-10 times a day, 3 = 11-20 times a day, 4 = over 20 times a day *** 1 = <100, 2 = 100-200, 3 = 200-400, 4 = >400

a

(35)

Chapter 4 – Results

4.1 Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics for the Total Sample

Before further analysis is performed, the dataset is explored and frequency distribution of variables is determined. Issues are addressed when this is deemed relevant. Out of the 120 questionnaires that were returned, 17 cases were excluded due to a high amount of missing data, leaving a total of 103 participants in the analyzed dataset.

The following section roughly follows the structure of the questionnaire, which can also be found in appendix B.

4.1.1 General Opinions about Costs Benefits

As expected, due to the ease of Facebook’s system, most respondents agreed that ‘entering and modifying their personal information’ is not a nuisance, because it ‘does not take much effort’ (N = 103, M = 3.68), and because they ‘want their profile to show correct information’ (N = 103, M = 3.40). However they disagree that doing this is also motivated by ‘receiving more relevant advertising’ (N = 103, M = 1.51).

Concerning ‘message processing costs’, only about one-tenth of the respondents agreed that reading ads is not tedious because they are ‘short and easy to read’ (N = 12, 11.7%), and ‘logically structured’ (N = 8, 7.8%).

Most respondents disagreed with the first statements on ‘privacy costs’. These were the following; ‘I am not worried about sharing my personal information on Facebook, because I think Facebook will not abuse it’ (N =103, M = 2.60), ‘I am not worried about sharing my personal information on Facebook, because I think brands on Facebook will not abuse it’ (N = 103, M = 2.46), and ‘I do not think it is a problem that brands can collect my personal information’ (N = 103, M = 2.16). These results indicate a low degree of trust in both Facebook itself and brands on Facebook. However, surprisingly enough, participants indicated that in the past they ‘have never had the



(36)

feeling that their privacy was breached by either Facebook (N = 103, M = 3.17) or brands on Facebook (N = 103, M = 3.14), so this distrust is most likely based on general cautiousness and not on past negative experiences.

4.1.2 General Opinions about Benefits

Somewhat surprisingly, none of the general statements regarding benefit concepts were agreed with by the sample as whole.

Both statements regarding the ‘message relevance’ of advertisements scored near neutral with the sample as a whole. The statement ‘I enjoy when ads are adjusted to my interests’ had a mean of 2.83, and ‘I read ads more, when they are adjusted to my interests’ scored a 2.69. The latter, however, was not normally distributed, showing a divide in opinions among the sample. Analysis did not show a clear indictor for this.

The different statements regarding ‘monetary benefits’, resulted in the lowest degree of agreement, with two of them ranking below two (M = 1.85 and M = 1.71). This is low, even when considering that people may respond to these issues with socially desirable answers.

Regarding ‘affiliation benefits’, the complete sample indicated to not explicitly enjoy to be associated with a brand ‘when many of their friends are’ (N = 103, M = 1.91), nor ‘when it suits their personality’ (N = 103, M = 2.39).

4.1.3 Level of Relationship

The dividing of the respondents by their type of current relationship resulted in an expected difference in size.

Prospects Fans BCMs Total

Number of respondents 67 20 16 103

Percentage 65.0 19.4 15.5 100

(37)

Of the respondents, 67 answered ‘no’ to the statement ‘I am a fan of at least one brand on Facebook’. These were directed to the part of the questionnaire specified for ‘prospects’.

The 36 remaining respondents were asked follow up questions aimed to examine their degree of involvement in order to separate them later on.

To classify them, several statements were presented. The first two detected if they ever ‘read messages from brands on my newsfeed’ and ‘like messages from brands’. These indicated a further divide, with 15 ‘fans’ not even reading the messages (N = 35), and 21 ‘fans’ indicating never to “like” any messages.

With the final four statements the degree of involvement increased, stating to ‘react to messages’, ‘recommending becoming a fan to friends’, ‘feeling connected to one or more brands on Facebook’ and ‘contributing photo’s or video’s to a brand’s page’. If one or more of these four statements was answered positively, a ‘fan’ is typified as a ‘brand community member’ (BCM).

Opting out

Out of 94 participants that answered if they ‘had ever deleted themselves as a fan of a brand on Facebook’ 19 declared that they had (20.2%).

When asked about the reasons participants had removed themselves as fans, the only two answers that were selected a significant amount of times were ‘because reading the messages I received from this brand took too much time and effort’ and ‘because the messages I received from this brand were not relevant for me’, with 11 and 14 selected times respectively.

4.2 Results by Group

4.2.1 Prospects Reasons

(38)

having considered it’ (N = 66, M = 3.74). Simply ‘not knowing how to become a fan’ can be excluded as a reason, since most prospects disagreed with this (N = 66, M = 2.12).

Statements for ‘not feeling the need to become a fan’ were proposed to the prospects. Both the statements on ‘privacy costs’ and ‘message relevance’ were slightly agreed with, n= 66, M = 3.30 and n = 66, M = 3.18 respectively. The most selected reason among the prospects as a whole was ‘I think the messages from a brand will not be relevant to me’ (N = 66, M = 3.70).

A reason that was not directly in the provided statements, but was suggested by several prospects in the open answer section, was that being a fan of brands on Facebook was simply ‘not what [they] used Facebook for’. Another respondent stated in the open answer format “I only become a fan of things when they happen to pop up as a suggestion, so far I have not had that happen with a brand that suits me” (See appendix C).

Elevation

An overview of all the elevation aspects can be found in tables 4.3 and 4.4.

None of the tools (specified in Chapter 2) were found to be a ‘good reason to become a fan of a brand on Facebook’ by the prospects. Means ranged only from 2.12 for ‘if a brand were active on group pages’ to 2.98 for ‘if a brand created fun events and promoted these on Facebook’. None of the tools can be said to be significantly more or less effective than the others.

(39)

4.2.2 Fans and BCMs

First the answers of the fans and BCMs are briefly addressed together, possible significant differences between the two groups will be addressed subsequently.

Reasons

None of the tools were indicated to be reasons to become a fan in the past.

The two reasons why Fans and BCMs became ‘a fan of a brand of Facebook in the past’ that were often replied to positively, were ‘because I enjoy relevant messages’ (N = 36, M = 1.31) and ‘because this brand suited my personality’ (N = 36, M = 1.31*), both receiving 25 positive answers.

A reason which was suggested by multiple respondents in the open section, was simply to ‘keep in touch’ with future activities and promotions.

Elevation

An overview of all the elevation aspects can be found in tables 4.3 and 4.4.

The statements regarding the various tools resulted in two tools being identified as increasing interest more than the others. These were ‘fun events’ and ‘useful applications’, with means of 3.25 (N = 36) and 3.22 (N = 36) respectively.

When costs were concerned, both the statements on ‘message processing costs’ (‘I think the brand sends me short and logical messages’) and ‘privacy costs’ (‘I know the brand will not harm my privacy’) were agreed with to increase the fans/BCMs’ interest. They have means of 3.36 and 3.75 respectively, with 36 responses each.

Three out of the five statements regarding benefits were agreed with by group as a whole. Showing more interest in a brand when ‘I think they will send me relevant messages’ had the highest degree of agreement (N = 36, M = 3.50), followed by ‘I think I can obtain financial benefits’ (N = 36, M = 3.22) and ‘the brand suits my personality’ (N = 36, M = 3.33). This indicates potential for elevation these groups further.

From the open section, one respondent stated s/he would show more interest ‘when not all of their messages are direct adverts, but if they also include fun facts’.



(40)

Relegation

An overview of all the relegation aspects can be found in table 4.5.

In the section examining the influence of tools on relegation, only one variable was agreed with as indeed having an effect on decreasing the interest in the brand in case this tool would cease to be created by the brand. This was ‘fun event promotion’ with a slightly positive mean of 3.11 (N = 35).

When examining the costs it is clear that high perceived costs lead to less interest very directly. Both the statements on ‘message processing costs’ and ‘privacy costs’ ranked extremely high means of 4.14 (N = 35) and 4.26 (N = 35), indicating little tolerance for difficult or complex messages or invasion of privacy.

Two of the four statements regarding benefits were agreed with by the group as a whole. These were if the brand ‘doesn’t send me relevant messages anymore’ (N = 35, M = 3.74) and ‘doesn’t suit my personality anymore’ (N = 35, M = 3.51).

A separate reason for decreased interest suggested by a participant was if ‘it turns out the brand has violated human rights or otherwise conducts business unethically’.

4.3 Comparison of Results between Groups

There are some differences between the three groups in the general demographics, the familiarity with Facebook, and the opinions. Predominantly, Independent Sample and ANOVA tests were used, the latter with the post-hoc ‘Bonferroni’ test to indicate between which groups the difference was significant.

4.3.1 Familiarity with Facebook

(41)

In the exploration of the use of various tools, ‘viewing other peoples pages’, ‘joining groups’, ‘creating events’ and ‘using applications’ all increased with each subsequent step from prospect to fan, and fan to BCM. This supports the assumption that more active users on Facebook, are more likely to create a higher engagement with brands on Facebook as well. The ANOVA confirmed that there is a significant effect of the level of relationship on the ‘joining group pages’ between prospects, and fans and BCMs, with F(2, 100) =14.358, p < .05. The only other variable that differs significantly across groups is the ‘use of applications’, in this case only between prospects and BCMs, with F(2, 100) = 5.291, p < .05.

Measured with an alpha of .05, none of the remaining analyses showed a significant difference between the fans and BCMs when it comes to familiarity with Facebook.

4.3.2 Opinions about Costs and Benefits

When analyzing the opinions on costs further, the two statements; ‘entering and modifying their personal information’ is not a nuisance, because (1) ‘it does not take much effort’ (F(2, 100) = 3.274, p < .05), and (2) ‘[they] want [their] profile to show correct information’ (F(2, 100) = 2.965, p = .056) were the only ones that also provided a noticeable difference between groups. Although the latter is just above the alpha, it is still notable, because the results show that especially the BCMs feel stronger about this statement than the fans and prospects.

Important to note is that privacy costs do not significantly differ among the three groups, indicating that privacy is indeed important to all three groups.

(42)

Most notable is that enjoying ‘to be associated with a brand when it suits their personality’ is disagreed with by the prospects and the fans (M = 2.15, M = 2.50), but agreed with by the BCMs (M = 3.25), F(2, 100) = 7.492, p < .05.

The computed mean of the ‘monetary benefit’ statements was disagreed with by each group, however BCMs agreed with it much less than the other groups, with the ANOVA showing F(2, 99) = 4.687, p < .05.

A similar occurrence was the case with ‘enjoying being associated with a brand if many of my friends are’. Here F(2, 100) = 6.329, p < .05. It should be noted that even though a difference was found, all three groups still disagree with the statements.

Overview of Opinions about Costs and Benefits

Prospects Fans BCMs All

COSTS Personal Information Entering/ Modification

Entering and modifying their personal information is not a nuisance, because

…it takes little effort 3.54c 3.80 4.12a 3.68

…I like my profile to be accurate 3.28 3.30 4.00 3.40

…I will receive more relevant advertisements 1.51 1.45 1.62 1.51 Message Processing

Advertisements on Facebook are not a nuisance to read, because

…they are short and easy to read 2.01 2.05 2.38 2.08

…they have a logical structure 2.00 2.15 2.31 2.08

Privacy

I am not worried about sharing my personal information on Facebook, because

… I think Facebook will not abuse it 2.67 2.20 2.81 2.60

… I think brands on Facebook will not abuse it 2.49 2.15 2.69 2.46 I do not think it is a problem that brands can collect my personal information

2.04 2.35 2.38 2.16

I have never had the feeling my privacy was breached by

(43)

…brands on Facebook 3.12 3.05 3.31 3.14 BENEFITS

Message Relevance

I enjoy when ads are adjusted to my interests 2.75 2.75 3.31 2.83 I read ads more, when they are adjusted to my

interests 2.73 2.45 2.81 2.69

Monetary

I participate in programs, if I can get

…a free product or gift 1.70c 1.75 2.62a 1.85

…a chance to win a prize 1.57c 1.70 2.31a 1.71

…a discount on products I use 2.02 2.30 2.88 2.21

Affiliation

I enjoy being associated with a brand, when

…many of my friends are fans of this brand 1.70c 2.05 2.62a 1.91

…this brand suits my personality 2.15c 2.50 3.25a 2.39

Table 4.2 – Overview of Opinions about Costs and Benefits

a

= significant difference with prospects, b = significant difference with fans, c = significant difference with BCMs

4.3.3 Elevation of the Different Groups

Since some of the questioning would have become illogical if the whole sample was questioned the exact same, some questions were formulated differently between prospects on one side, and fans and BCMs on the other. This limits the analyses possible on the data. However, because the exact same areas, topics, and terminology was used in similarly formulated questions, the collected information can still give great insight into the differences between the groups. Some of these results need to be interpreted with caution. Analyzing the difference between fans and BCMs has no such limitation, since their questions were identical.

(44)

respectively. The tables also show the ranking of importance of each variable, related to the other variables, attributed by the respondents as a group. This gives a clear view of which concepts were generally found to be most important, among, and perhaps more relevant, between the different groups.

Tools (elevation)

Group** Prospects Fans BCMs TOTAL

Tool * rank M rank M rank M sum rank

Promotes Fun Event 1 2.98 2 3.10 1 3.44 4 1

Useful Application 4 2.50 1 3.20 2 3.25 7 2

Fun Advertisements 2 2.58 3 2.90 3 3.19 8 3

Fun Profile Page 3 2.52 5 2.55 4 2.63 12 4

Active on Group Pages 7 2.12 4 2.60 5 2.44 16 5

Fun Polls 5 2.30 6 2.20 / 6 2.31 17 6

Fun Game 6 2.13 7 1.95 / 6 2.31 19 7

Table 4.3 - Influence of tools on elevation of different groups

*these tools are defined in table 2.3., **No significant differences were found between Fans and BCMs, no analysis is possible with prospects.

When looking at the importance attributed by the different groups in table 4.2, it is clear to see that all three groups value ‘event’ higher than most other variables, relating to the statements. This means that, out of the various tools, prospects feel that ‘when a brand creates and promotes a fun event’ would be the best reason to become a fan of the brand on Facebook. Fans and BCMs similarly believe that this is a good reason they would ‘show more interest in a brand’.

Furthermore, it becomes visible that ‘when a brand creates a fun game’, ‘when a brand creates a nice poll’, and ‘when a brand is active on group pages’ are not considered prime reasons to increase involvement by any of the groups.

(45)

Costs and Benefits (elevation)

Prospects Fans BCMs TOTAL

Issue rank M rank M rank M sum rank

Privacy Costs 1 3.33 1 3.85 2 3.63 4 1

Message Relevance 2 3.23 2 3.75 / 4 3.19 8 2

Personality Affiliation 4 2.98 5 2.75c 1 4.06b 10 3

Monetary Benefit 3 3.12 4 3.25 / 4 3.19 11 4

Message Processing Costs 5 2.58 3 3.45 3 3.25 11 5

Friend Recommendation 6 2.37 7 2.00 6 2.81 19 6

Friend Affiliation 7 1.90 6 2.10 7 2.56 20 7

Table 4.4 - Influence of costs and benefits on elevation of different groups

a

= significant difference with prospects, b = significant difference with fans, c = significant difference with BCMs

The three groups did not differ much on the effects of costs and benefits on elevation. As table 4.4 illustrates, all three groups value ‘when i am certain this brand will not harm my privacy’ (privacy costs) very high and ‘when many of my friends are fans of this brand on Facebook’ (friend affiliation) and ‘a friend of mine recommends it’ (friend recommendation) the lowest.

The only significant difference between Fans and BCMs, clearly visible in the table, is on ‘when this brand suits my personality well’. The independent samples test supports this observation with t(34) = -3.339, p <.05.

4.3.4 Relegation of Fans and BCMs

An overview of the results of analyses regarding relegation can be found in table 4.5. The three groups did not differ much regarding tools. Some differences were detected in ‘advertisement’ and ‘event promotion’. After the independent sample tests were performed, none of these were concluded to be significant.

(46)

doesn’t suit my personality anymore’. In this case, fans do not agree (M = 2.95), however BCMs strongly agree (M = 4.19). This difference was found to be significant with t(33) = -2.874, p <.05. This indicates that the personality aspect is very important to BCMs in order to remain a fan of a brand on Facebook.

Relegation (fans and BCMs)

Fans BCMs

Statements r M r M

TOOLS

I would show less interest in a brand on Facebook, if this brand

…doesn’t create and promote fun events anymore 2 2.95 2 3.31

…doesn’t make fun advertisements anymore 4 2.47 1 3.25

…isn’t active on group pages anymore 1 3.05 / 4 2.75

…doesn’t make a fun profile page anymore 3 2.58 / 4 2.75

…doesn’t make useful applications anymore / 5 2.21 3 2.88

…doesn’t ask fun questions anymore / 5 2.21 / 6 2.50

…doesn’t make fun games anymore 6 1.74 / 6 2.50

COSTS AND BENEFITS I would show less interest in a brand on Facebook, when

…harms my privacy 2 4.21 1 4.31

…reading their messages takes too much time and effort 1 4.32 3 3.94

…doesn’t send me relevant messages anymore 3 4.05 4 3.38

…this brand doesn’t suit my personality anymore 5 2.95c 2 4.19b …being a fan doesn’t provide me financial benefits anymore 4 3.00 5 3.00 …many of my friends delete themselves as fans 6 2.16 6 2.50 Table 4.5 - Influence of tools on relegation of different groups

, b

Permission Marketing and Consumer Engagement on Social Network Sites