You are on page 1of 23

Proposal Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature 

Rutledge, Jade Period: 4th 


Overarching question:​ How does the implementation social media marketing skills affect the flux of new patients at JLM
Cosmetic and Family Dentistry?
 
Key Terms:  
● Clickthrough Ads: Ads/Post with an attached hyperlink that directs users to JLM Dentistry’s website. 
● Clickthrough Rate: The percentage of people who visit the hyperlink attached to an ad. 
● Social media Endorsement: An individual with a large social media reach post a public approval and/or support of a product or 
business 
● Engagement rate: Measures the level of engagement a post received by analysing factors such as likes, comments, and shares. 
● Impressions:The number of times a post has been viewed 
● Native Advertising: Advertising that is disguised or look like the surrounding platform it located on   
● New patient: Persons who have scheduled an appointment with JLM Dentistry who have never received service from JLM 
Dentistry. 
● Original Content:  
● Reach: The number of individuals/profiles who have viewed a post.  
● Social media optimisation (SMO): Increasing the number of platforms or post with intention to increase reach and publicity 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature 
Foundational Sub Problem 1: ​Why is social media marketing important? 

Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature


Author/title, Purpose Framework Sample Design Variables/ Results Controversies, Limitations Implications
etc. instrument disagreements for practice,
s with other research,
(APA format Overarching Hypothesis/ How the data How the authors theory
reference) Question Objective was collected? Validity and hypothesis was
Reliability supported/rejected
You will add a list of
Conclusion and authors referenced
in this section on a
further studies
separate page
​Taneja, S., Th Ide Stelzner  Ma The The  Produc Also,  Leade
& Toombs, e  ntifying  and  (2012)  rketers  use  y must SME’s  t  and  service  large  rs  of  SMBs 
L. (2014). increasing  developing  conducted  social  determine: reported  that  promotion  can  companies  need  to 
Putting a popularity  a  social  a  survey  media  tools  (1) Is it that social  media  be  an  attractive  have  the  understand  the 
face on of  social  medium  to  of  3,800  and  their helps  the  use  of  social  resources  psychographic
small
media  is  achieve  small  and  networking  organization organizations  media.  and  s  of  target 
businesses:
Visibility, transformin sustainable  medium  sites  to  s are new to  grow  and  However,  if  expertise  to  markets.  It  is 
viability, and g  how  competitive  sized  promote  and they are promote  their  owners  and  employ  web  not  the  need 
sustainabilit private  advantage  organizati their  trying to get businesses,  managers  are  designers  for  statistics  as 
y the impact organizatio could  be  ons  to  products  visibility especially  to  using  social  and  much  as  the 
of social ns  respond  considered  understand  and services  and earn generate  more  media  to  only  marketing  need  to 
media on and  interact  one  of  the  why  these  through  credibility? awareness  in  promote,  then  people  to  develop  a 
small with  most  critical  organizati electronic  (2) Is it for terms  of  they  could  be  create  an  relationship 
business
society.  activities for  ons  are  forms  to  public business  creating  integrated  with 
marketing.
Academy Of Using  small  using  create  relations? exposure  (85%  negative  marketing  customers,  i.e., 
Marketing social  businesses.  social  visibility  (3) Are they of  marketers),  publicity  communicati to  make  a 
Studies media,  it  is  Social  media  for  their  trying to to  increase  instead  of  on  plan  place  in  their 
Journal,​ now  Media  marketing  products  position traffic  (69%)  positive  images  utilizing  hearts.  It  is 
​18(​ 1), possible  for  strategy  (Taneja,  and  their and  provide  of  their  social  essential  for 
249-260. organizatio would  help  2014,  services.  organization organization  respective  media.  the  leaders  of 
ns  to  SMBs  to  The  social  s in the insight  (65%).  organizations.  Small  SMBs  to 
communica penetrate  p.253) networking  marNet for (Taneja,  2014,  Of  course,  there  businesses  recognize  that 
te  their  markets  sites such as  the purposes p.251) may  be  mostly  have  their  choice  of 
 
ideas  and  where  Facebook,  of branding criticism as well  limited  social  media 
 
views  consumers  Twitter,  or because  of  the  resources  or  would  depend 
around  the  are  more  MySpace,  promoting free  flow  of  have  to  do  it 
on  their 
globe  likely  to  etc.  allow  their exchange  of  alone.  marketing 
quickly  and  respond  to  a  for  viral  products and information.  (Taneja,  objectives. 
efficiently.  social media  marNeting  services? (4) Efforts  should  2014, p.255)  (Taneja,  2014, 
(Taneja,  strategy  and  word-  Is it for be  to  use  any  p.257)
Businesses 
2014,  when  they  of-mouth  networking negative 
need  to 
p.250) are  able  to  promotion  with similar feedback  to 
match  their 
interact  and  to  be  businesses improve  the 
online 
differentiate  effective.  and people product  and/or 
reputation 
the  Foursquare  and building service 
with  the 
organization  is  another  community? offerings  to 
offline. 
from  other  social  (Pliska, position  the 
(Taneja, 
organization media  2012) business  as  a 
2014, p.256)
s.  Small  which  is  in  symbol  of 
(Taneja, 
businesses  a  growth  quality.  Li  &   
2014, p.252)
can  stage,  and it  Bernoff (2008) 
 
differentiate  influences 
(Taneja,2014, 
themselves  small 
p.255)
from  other  business 
businesses  organizatio  
by  fostering  ns  to 
a  social  connect 
relationship  individuals 
between  on  a  local 
consumers,  and  mobile 
and  it  is  the  basis,  while 
most  incentivizin
important  g 
component  participants 
of  a  social  through 
media  increased 
strategy.  participatio
(Taneja,  n. 
2014, p.253) 
(Taneja, 
2014, 
p.251)
 
Moreover ​Wang (2006) 
Kujur, F., & Social networking 
is gaining its 
At present the use of 
social media is a 
The sample frame 
consisted of 
The potential 
respondents of this 
1) creating and 
posting online  reveals in his research 
The proposed hypothesis 
has been supported by 
The student sample 
was 
First, to the best of our 
knowledge, it is the first 
Singh, S. importance as one  need for all  respondents of  study are  content  that message  behavioral attitude theories  one limitation of the  study 
(2017). of the most  the businesses  different  users who have  that is relevant to  involvement and positive  such as the Theory of  present study  intended to measure the 
popular online  because it is popular,  educational  followed at least  consumers; 2) brands  attitude formation mainly  Reasoned Action  possibly biasing the  relationship between the 
Engaging activity among  encourages two-way  level such as  one electronic  relinquishing some  depend on  (​Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975​),  findings.  factors relating 
customers consumers  communication,  undergraduate,  accessories  degree  contextual relevance that  the Theory of Trying  (Kujur, 2017,  to the content 
worldwide. Not  reaches all ages and  post graduate and  company  of control over  is the content related  (​Bagozzi &Warshaw,  characteristics of SNA 
through surprisingly,  demographics, and  Ph.D. students  especially mobile  content so that it  factors in advertising  1990​), and the Theory of  p.23) and consumers' online 
online the industry has  promotes  from various  and laptop brand  becomes sharable,  message and the media  Planned Behavior (​Ajzen,  participation and 
followed the  e-word of mouth  location of India  pages on Facebook.  and even  environment which  1991​), which  engagement behavior by 
participation consumers and  (​Divya & Regi,  as internet  Each  modifiable, among  increases  suggest that positive  This is because  showing the mediating 
in social almost 94%  2004​). Social media  adoption and  of them were asked  friends; 3)  attention to  attitudes lead to stronger  vividness value was  effect of consumers' 
found to be the most 
networking of all businesses 
with a marketing 
marketing 
includes the Word of 
usage 
rate still varies 
to provide contact 
information of 
engendering a sense 
of online community 
advertisements and 
advertising awareness. 
intention to perform 
the actual behavior (i.e.,  important 
attitude toward SNA. 
Second, by using the 
sites. ​Asia department have  Mouth (WOM)  across age groups  10e20 individuals  among customers; 4)  Consumers'  online participation and  determinant of users'  structural equation 
attitude toward the 
Pacific established 
their presence and 
marketing which is 
also 
with the highest 
penetration 
and encouraged to 
include individuals 
and facilitating 
conversation rather 
online engagement is 
mainly the result of 
engagement). 
SNA, which 
modeling method, this 
study supports the 
Managemen (Kujur, 2017,  may lead to more 
continuously  known as viral  among young  from all range of  than delivering  contextual  convergent and 
t Review​, pursued engaging  marketing, buzz, and  adults aged  age groups. These  one-way marketing  relevance and the media  p.18) user engagement  discriminant validity of 
their customer  guerilla marketing  between 18 and  individuals then  communications  they experience.  (Kujur, 2017,  proposed scales in the 
​22(​ 1), base on at least one  and involves  29 (​Cheung,  were contacted and  (​Parent,  (Kujur, 2017,  research. Further 
p.23)
16-24. of the “Big Four”  intentional  Chiu, & Lee,  prescreened  Plangger, & Bal,  research efforts are 
social media  influencing of  2011; Taylor et  by being asked the  2011​).  p.18)   called for to validate the 
doi:10.1016/ platforms:  consumer-to-consum al., 2011​).  following question:  The average age of  findings of this study. 
(Kujur, 2017, 
j.apmrv.201 Facebook, Twitter,  er communication  (Kujur,  “Do you use  respondents was 23.5  Further research efforts 
YouTube and  through professional  Facebook? The  p.17) may survey the social 
6.10.006 Google..  marketing  2017, p.20) respondents who 
years, with 20.6 
percent at 15 to 20 age  media users other than 
(Kujur,  techniques  answered “no” were  group; 36.4 percent at 21  college students. 
(​Kozinets, De  thanked and  to 25 age group;  (Kujur, 2017, 
2017, p.18)  Valck, Wojnicki, &  removed from  29.1 percent at 26 to 30 
Wilner, 2010​).  the respondent list.  age group; and 13.9  p.23)
(Kujur, 2017,  The respondents  percent 30 . age group. 
who answered  Sixty five percent of 
p.18) “Yes” were  respondents were male, 
asked again the  and 35 percent were 
following question:  female. The respondents 
“Do you follow the  indicated that they spent 
Facebook  an average of 
brand page of any  2e3 hours daily on 
one of the electronic  Facebook activities. 
accessories  Questionnaires use 
company  previous valuable 
especially mobile  material, slightly 
and laptop?” The  modifying 
respondents who  items to suit the context 
answered  of the mobile fan pages. 
“no” were thanked  Questionnaire 
and removed from  classifies items on 
the respondent list.  five-point Likert scale, 
The respondents  ranging from 
who answered  “strongly disagree” to 
“Yes” were  “strongly agree.” 
provided with the  (Kujur, 2017, 
study 
questionnaire and  p.20)
asked to complete  The findings of this study 
the questionnaire  offer several implications 
over two  for social 
week period and  media marketing. Firstly, 
return it to their  social media markers 
respective contact  should focus on 
person.  vividness which includes 
Once the data were  videos, images and status 
collected, the lead  which draws 
researcher screened  attention of social media 
the  users to view the SNA. 
information for  Moreover it keeps 
miscoded and  engaged both visual and 
suspicious-looking  audio of the human 
data entries. The  sensory in cyber 
total effort yielded a  space. This is because 
usable sample size  vividness value was 
of 394 survey  found to be the most 
questionnaires.  important determinant of 
(Kujur, 2017,  users' attitude toward the 
SNA, which 
p.20) may lead to more user 
engagement 
(Kujur, 2017, 
p.23) 

Zhao, J. J., The problem  While the  A random  In order to train  The findings of  As Table 1 shows,  The Fortune 500  We chose the  We recommend 
Truell, A. D., addressed in  importance of  sample of 217  the students to  this study are  the 217 sites were  e-commerce sites  Fortune 500  that a further study 
this study was  using social  Fortune 500  use the  reported in the  classified in seven  provided varied  largest U.S.  be conducted in two 
Alexander,
to assess the  media for  corporate  instrument  sections of (a)  groups according  social media tools to  companies for  years among the 
M. W., Fortune 500  business  e-commerce  properly, the  social media  to the Fortune ’s  attract  this study  Fortune 500 
Sharma, S., largest  becomes  sites was  lead researcher  tools  industry  consumers’  because  corporate 
& Smith, S. U.S.  obvious, no  selected from  selected one  available on  classification:  participation in their  these companies  e-commerce sites 
M. (2013). companies’  nation-wide  the Fortune  e-commerce site  e-commerce  Manufacturing, food  respective online  are the leaders of  for measuring the 
Strategic strategic use of  study has been  500 largest  from the sample  sites, (b)  and beverages  marketing, branding,  the U.S. big  impact of social 
use of social the social  identified in the  U.S.  and worked  marketing,  (n =56, 26%);  and  companies.  media on return on 
media for  literature on  corporations  with his  branding, and  banks, finance, and  advertising activities.  investment: how the 
media on
of  graduate  insurance (n =34,  As Figure 1 shows, 
companies' e-commerce  how companies  the year 2011  assistant to  advertising  16%); retail and  Contact Us Email  (Zhao, 2013, use of social media 
e-commerce and industry  use social  (Fortune ,  analyze the  strategies  wholesale  (84%), Facebook 
p. 52)
tools on corporate 
differences. To  media  2011) based  content of the  on social media,  (n =29, 13%);  (62%), and Twitter  e-commerce sites 
sites.
solve the  strategically for  on the  site and collect  (c) consumer  transportation and  (59%) were available  affects companies’ 
​Journal Of problem, we  achieving their  sample-size  data with the  communication  utilities (n =27,  on the majority of the  annual revenue and 
Research In raised the  missions and  requirement  instrument.  activities on  12%); computer,  Fortune 500  profit. 
Business following four  objectives. This  (Cochran,  The completed  corporate social  information, and  e-commerce sites,  (Zhao, 2013, p.
Education​, research  research gap  1977).  web-content  media,  telecommunication  followed by 
67)
55​(2), questions:  indicates a need  (Zhao, analysis  and (d)  (n =26, 12%);  YouTube (40%), 
50-68. 1. What social  for a 
2013, p.
instrument was  significant  construction,  webcast/webinar/pod
media tools are  nation-wide  used as an  industry  engineering,  cast (24%), 
available on the  empirical  53)  example when  differences in  mining, oil and gas  LinkedIn (22%), and 
Fortune 500  research of    training  using social  (n =24, 11%); and  blog (20%). In 
e-commerce  business use of  students on how  media on  healthcare and  contrast, only a 
sites?  social  to use the  e-commerce  hospitality service  minority of the sites 
2. How do the  media.  instrument  sites.  (n =21, 10%).  offered 
Fortune 500  (Zhao, properly. In  (Zhao, 2013, p. mobile web service 
e-commerce  addition,  (18%), suggestion 
2013, p. 52) 53)
sites use social  students also  box (15%), live chat 
media  understood that  (10%), Flickr (9%), 
strategically  they would play  and MySpace (4%). 
for marketing  the role of  (Zhao, 2013, p.
and branding  researchers for 
54)
products and  web content 
services?  analysis 
3. How do  and data 
consumers  collection, not 
engage in the  the human 
Fortune 500  subjects of the 
marketing and  study 
branding  (Zhao,
activities via 
2013, p. 53) 
social media? 
4. Are there 
any significant 
differences 
among industry 
groups of the 
Fortune 500 
e-commerce 
sites?  
(Zhao,
2013, p.
51)
Momany, The purpose The objective literature The To determine The Kim, Lim, and The First, it is
M., & of this study of this study and researchers internal independent Brymer, (2015) population of recommended
Alshboul, A. was to is examine adapted to designed a consistency, variable in this focused on a interest in that B&B
(2016). examine the the impact of suit the bed survey to Cronbach’s study was social large hotel chain, this study proprietors
Social impact of the social and gather data alpha was media outreach but researchers was B&B devote more
media social media media breakfast (Appendix used. efforts. A total have also proprietors time to
marketing:U on the B&B outreach setting. A). The Cronbach’s score for empirically with engaging in
tilizing social industry, as efforts on A review survey was alpha is a outreach efforts established the establishment social
media to
measured by the brand panel of composed of measure of was calculated importance of s located in media
advance
the awareness, five multiple-choi internal as the sum of online visibility the United marketing
brand
influence of and online individuals ce items consistency. items 5 (Do you for small States. activities. In this
awareness
and social media sales among (including designed to It is a popular make any businesses in the (Momany, study,
increase outreach on bed and university elicit measurement management hotel industry. 2016, p. 41) participants who
online sales. brand breakfast faculty, information used to decision For example, did not engage
International awareness establishmen colleagues, regarding establish based on social Smithson, in social media
Journal Of and online ts, as and demographic reliability. media Devece, and marketing were
Business, sales. The perceived by consultants s International feedback?; Lapiedra (2011) not able to
Marketing, & researchers the ) was (location Journal of coded no = 0 investigated the generate brand
Business,
Decision also sought proprietors of recruited to [rural, and yes = 1), 6 relationships awareness and
Marketing, and
Science​, to those determine urban], Decision (How many among use of the online sales
​9​(1), establish establishmen the survey’s number of Sciences Volume years have you Internet as a from those
33-54. whether the ts Based on validity and rooms, 9, Number 1, been distribution sources.
Fall 2016 41
current the objective, to examine seasonal; using social channel, online Therefore,
Cronbach’s
social media the following the survey’s survey items media?; coded visibility, and passive social
alpha is a
strategies null and constructio 1-3), 1-2 = 1, 3-5 = 2, organizational media presence
coefficient
used by B&B alternative n. proprietors’ 6-10 = 3, more performance at does not help
that ranges
establishme hypotheses (Momany, perception of than 10 = 4), 8 105 hotels in B&B
from 0 to 1.
nts are were 2016, p. social media (How many Spain with under establishments
An alpha
effective, developed 40) outreach hours a 250 employees. generate
coefficient of
in order to and tested: The target efforts by week on average They found no businesses.
0.7 or higher
provide H1​0​: There is sample size proprietor do you spend strong correlation There is no “set
is
insight into no significant for this and/or using social between having a it and forget it”
how this relationship study was employees media to market website and solution to
unique between 120. The (survey items considered an your business?; improved social media
business social media actual 4-8); indication of coded 0 = 0, 1-2 organizational marketing—the
sector can outreach sample size proprietors’ good = performance. more time and
optimize and efforts and was 144. perception of reliability 1, 3-5 = 2, 6-10 = However, resources
track its use brand Convenienc brand (Bruin, 2006). 3, more than 10 Internet visibility proprietors
of awareness e sampling awareness of After = 4), and 7 (total was positively devote to these
social media. among bed was used to their bed and modifications number of correlated with activities, the
(Momany, and breakfast select the breakfast for face media venues organizational stronger their
2016, p. establishmen sample for establishmen validity used out of nine performance, results will be.
41) ts, as the study; ts (survey (per the panel choices; coded (Momany, (Momany,
perceived by SurveyMon items 9-12); review), the no = 0, yes = 1, 2016, p. 35-36). 2016, p. 47)
the key’s and survey for and summed to
proprietors of participant online sales this study fit get total number
those solicitation (survey items this criterion of venues used).
establishmen service was 13-14). The of reliability. (Momany,
ts. employed. items were (Momany,2 2016, p. 41)
H1: There is (Momany, modeled on 016, p.
significant 2016, p. similar items 40-41)
relationship 41) and findings
between from
social media related
outreach literature
efforts and and adapted
brand to suit the
awareness bed and
among bed breakfast
and breakfast setting.
establishmen (Momany,
ts, as 2016, p. 40)
perceived by
the
proprietors of
those
establishmen
ts.
H2​0​: There is
no significant
relationship
between
social media
outreach
efforts and
online sales
among bed
and breakfast
establishmen
ts, as
perceived by
the
proprietors of
those
establishmen
ts.
H2: There is
significant
relationship
between
social media
outreach
efforts and
online sales
among bed
and breakfast
establishmen
ts, as
perceived by
the
proprietors of
those
establishmen
ts.
(Momany,2
016, p. 40)
Gholston, Henceforth,  n/a n/a This study’s  n/a All of the small  n/a In addition to  Recommendatio
K., Kuofie, the present  data was  businesses  this, my  ns for research 
M., & study  collected by  expressed  research  of this caliber 
Hakim, A. C. focuses on  way of  struggling or  focused on the  are endless. 
(2016). how small  interviews  having an issue  Philadelphia,  Future 
Social businesses  and  with social  Pennsylvania  researchers may 
Media for know when  unobtrusive  media in  area  conduct research 
Marketing to use social  methods. The  the beginning.  (​Gholston, that is similar in 
by Small
media. In  researcher  The choices each  2016, ​p. 38) nature among 
Businesses.
addition the  determined  small business  small businesses 
Journal Of
study will  what  utilized were  that felt that 
Marketing &
Managemen focus on  strategies are  explained during  their social 
t,​ ​7(​ 1), why some  used on  the interview,  media 
24-39. small  social media  which displayed  usage was 
businesses  via the  how their  unsuccessful 
have an  owner-manag consumers were  through a 
increase in  er to engage  engaged and  comparison of 
sales using  their  strategies that  the strategies 
social media  customers.  were utilized. In  that each small 
and why  How the  the  business 
others do  owner-manag beginning before  utilized. 
not. The  er’s efforts  social media was  (​Gholston,
current study  are apparent  used many of the  2016, ​p. 37)
was  also  same businesses 
designed to  acknowledge did not have a 
gather data  d.  real strategy 
to answer  (​Gholston, but chose to use 
the  2016, ​p. 26) word of mouth. 
following  (​Gholston,
two research  2016, ​p. 35)
questions:   
RQ1: How 
does a small 
business 
known for 
using social 
media build 
their 
business to 
gain 
customer 
attention? 
RQ2: How 
does some 
small 
businesses 
increase in 
sales using 
social media 
but others do 
not? 
(​Gholston,
2016, ​p.
25-26)

STEP 3: References (From the Controversies, disagreements with other authors’ column)
*Note: Always in APA format

Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 127e140.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kim, W. G., Lim, H., & Brymer, R. A. (2015). The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management,

44165-171. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.014

Smithson, S., Devece, C. A., & Lapiedra, R. (2011). Online visibility as a source of competitive advantage for small- and medium-sized tourism accommodation

enterprises. Service Industries Journal, 31(10), 1573-1587. doi:10.1080/02642069.2010.48564


 
Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature 
Foundational Sub Problem 2: ​What are the main key performance indicators of brands effectiveness on social media?

Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature


Author/title, Purpose Framework Sample Design Variables/ Results Controversies, Limitations Implications
etc. instruments disagreements for practice,
with other research,
(APA format Overarching Hypothesis/ How the data Validity and How the authors theory
reference) Question Objective was Reliability hypothesis was
collected? supported/rejected
You will add a list of
Conclusion and authors referenced
in this section on a
further studies
separate page
​Zafarani, The challenges  Consider  Sample  As an example,  Nature often  Here, we have 
N/A Note  Learning and 
introduced  designing a  accuracy  La Fond et al.​14  provides  discussed three  we assume  applying methods 
R., & Huan, by humans’ lack  method that  estimation. In  demonstrated  researchers and  general  human behavioral  from 
L. (2015). of knowledge  predicts the most  social  how controlled  ordinary  categories of  patterns are  statistics, 
Evaluation about  likely time users  media,  experiments  people alike a  evaluation on social  consistent over  anthropology, and 
Without the future are  will check their  researchers  can be used to  randomized  media:  time, which is  ethology 
further  email messages  often sample  determine if  experiment  spatiotemporal,  often  can help researchers 
Ground compounded by  or  users or  influence  with no extra effort;  causality, and  not true for long  perform these 
Truth in yearning to  the restaurant  content from a  is causing users  for instance,  outcome.  periods[. The  tasks efficiently. In 
Social understand why  they will most  site, despite  to change  consider  Spatiotemporal  researcher  addition, these 
Media things happen  likely  not knowing  behavior  a city in which a  evaluation  must therefore  methods help 
on social media.  choose for dinner  how  (such as by  researcher is  can be performed  train the  advance research in 
Research. Without  using their  representative  adding new  analyzing  knowing that humans  machinelearning  social 
Communicat surveying  checkins,  the  hobbies  whether an increase  exhibit periodical  method  media and inspire 
ions Of The users on social  or personally  samples  due to a  in number  spatiotemporal  repeatedly over  development of 
ACM,​ ​58​(6), media, the gap  reported  actually are.  friend’s  of police officers  behavior. Causality  time  novel evaluation 
between  locations,  Determining  influence). In  will reduce the rate  evaluation  to ensure the  methods for new 
54.
personal  in social media.  effective  these  of street crime.  can be performed by  technique  research 
doi:10.1145/ understanding  As the time or  sample size is  experiments,  investigating the  consistently  needs 
(Zafarani, 
2666680 and reality  place  well studied  they generated  counterfactual,  performs well.  (Zafarani, 
cannot be  predicted by the  in statistics and  control  2015, p.57) performing 
In nonequivalent 
(Zafarani,  2015, p.60)
gauged.  method occurs in  in survey  groups by  controlled, 
the  sampling​8  randomizing  control, the control  randomized, or  2015, p.56) 
(Zafarani,  group 
future, evaluation  when the  user attributes  natural experiments, 
2015, p.55)  is a challenge.  sampling  (such as  is not selected  finding nonequivalent 
technique is  interests) over  randomly but such  controls, or 
that  employing 
(Zafarani,  known. But  time. They  the control group is  causality detection 
when the  assumed  similar to a  techniques. 
2015, p.56)  sampling  if influence  randomized  When evaluating 
technique  exists, the  group. Consider  outcome, three tasks 
is unknown,  influencer  user migrations  must be performed: 
the researcher  should become  across social media  estimating magnitude, 
can  more similar to  sites.  estimating sample 
generate a  the  (Zafarani,  accuracy, 
small random  influence over  and estimating 
sample and  time and this  2015, p.57) outcome (see Figure 
compare it to  increase  4). 
the sample  in similarity  (Zafarani, 
obtained  should be 
through the  greater among  2015, p.60)
unknown  influenced 
technique.  users than 
(Zafarani,  among 
randomly 
2015,  generated 
p.59) control groups. 
(Zafarani, 
2015, 
p.57)
Kumar, K. Promoting  Therefore,  Social media In  According to  Analyzing the  It Lock and  Getting 
A., & the  advertising  has the marketing,  Solomon  data. Formative  is a standardized  Harris (1996)  connected to the 
Natarajan, candidate or  in both sectors  significant one of the  (1999),  and  method for  argued that  public on a 
S. (2016). political party  like political  impact widely used  consumer  summative data  collecting  most  personal and 
Role of as a brand  marketing  on the  concept is  brand are obtained from  quantitative or  of the  social level has 
Social will  and  elections  “Branding”,  influencing bellwether  qualitative data  professionals  become vital 
Media in be  commercial  relating to  that includes  factors are methodology.  which is  are not  for the politicians 
Political intensifying  marketing will  number of  the  social class, Formatively,  used to examine  familiar with  and the tool they 
Campaignin the candidate  frequently  people  concept of  family, ethnicity  advocates get  whether or not a  “political  use 
g and its or party,  reinforce the  involved and  marketing  and religion and  the information  strategy  marketing”  for it is 
Evaluation which  trust and will  the speed of  goods and  Powell  about the precise  intense to produce  and they  campaigning. As 
Methodolog is brand  provide  communicat services  (1998) argued  gaps  the desirable  believed that  the rise of social 
y: A Review. loyalty  confidence to ion.  in  that primarily  on knowledge of  outcome.  commercial  media all over the 
Global throughout  not to turn For  commercial  political  bellwethers about  The data collection  marketing  world, politicians 
Managemen the election  away from the example, in  sector to the  attitudes are  the  method in  concept was  use the 
t Review,​ and  loyalty path as  2008,  consumers  shaped by  role played by  advocacy  diverse  social media for 
10(​ 3), 1-12. also on non  the values they  Barack  that  media usage,  their messages  evaluations  from their communication 
election  connect with  Obama,  is similar  family,  among this  includes the  field of on a larger 
like  traditional methods  expertise.
period. It is  brand will  the U.S.  marketing  education and  audience.  like interviews,  (Kumar, scale with 
possible  remain true  president  politicians,  peers.  Summatively, the  surveys, polling or  2016, p.5) minimum effort. 
that the  and steady.  used the  their  O’Shaughnessy  message from  focus  (Kumar, 2016,
loyalty  (Kumar, social media  parties and  (2002),  the advocates is  groups (Coffman  p.5)
towards the  2016, p.3) successfully  political  (Kumar, communicated  and Reed, 2009). 
brand of  for his  agenda to  2016, p.4) around  However advocacy 
product  campaign  the voters.  bellwethers and  process is complex, 
is lesser for  since he  Brand which  noticing whether  dynamic and fast 
any particular  understood  provides the  the  paced that makes 
individual  the social  badge of  message is  the data 
and  media and  origin  successfully  collection critical 
higher for the  leveraged  and  moved onto the  since it majorly 
loyalty of a  it and it was  assurance of  policy agenda.  focuses 
political  the initial  quality to  (Kumar, 2016, on the outcome
party;  campaign  the  p.7) which leads
but it is also  where  consumers  difficulty in
possible on  social media  in  processing and 
vice versa for  was  identifying  measuring (Stuart, 
many other  pervasive.  the  2007). 
individuals  (Kumar, particular  (Kumar, 2016,
(Peng and  2016, p.2) product,  p.6)
Hackley,  service 
2009).  or idea 
(Kumar, (Hackley, 
2016, p.3) 2005). 
(Kumar,
2016,
p.2-3)
Hahn, I. S., With the The H1 The sample The The data The final They state that This study is Our findings
Scherer, F. increase of hypothesis used in this methodolo collection hypothesis, H3 social limited in provide insights
L., Basso, the number (consumer study gical instrument was (consumer media has a vital scope on how the
divided into
K., & dos of media, trust has a comprised procedures emotional role in promotion because only emotional
two parts. The
Santos, M. the task of positive 927 used in this first part response to because one social response to
B. (2016). understandi influence on questionnai study contained the advertisements companies can media tool advertisements
Consumer ng and the res. followed characteristics on social interact with (Facebook) in a
Trust in targeting emotional Respondent the steps
of the
media has a consumers and one social media
and respondents
response s were (gender, age, positive through context and
Emotional
Response to consumers to obtained proposed state and influence on online platforms brand consumer trust
Advertiseme has become advertisemen from 22 by Hair academic brand (e.g., Facebook, (Coca-Cola) influence brand
nts on more ts) Brazilian Jr. et al. degree, digital evaluations), Twitter, MySpace were used. evaluation.
fluency,
Social complex. The H2 states. The (2005) for (Hahn,2016, and others). Therefore, Specifically, we
frequency of
Media and Advertising hypothesis average age the computer use p.61) (Mangold and there is a found
their is the most (consumer of the cross-sectio and frequency Faulds 2009) need for the that the trust
Influence visible trust has a respondent nal survey of access to with the growth reapplication that consumers
on Brand component positive s was 27 method.
Facebook). The
of online social of this have in the
Evaluation. second part
of influence on years old, (Hahn,201 contained networks, method brand positively
Brazilian
integrated brand with 6, p.55) scales companies have to other influences both
Business
marketing evaluation) the most regarding the lost some control brands that the emotional
Review following: (1)
(English communicati The final common over their brands, are less well response to
consumer trust
Edition)​, ons. In hypothesis, age group - presenting 12 since information known, such advertisements
​13​(4), addition to H3 between 17 observed in the online as Havaianas and the brand
49-71. advertising, (consumer and 29 variables environment is or local evaluation.
doi:10.1572 Grewal and emotional years old divided multidirectional, brands. Notably, an
into three
8/bbr.2016.1 Levy (2012) response to (minimum interconnected, Additionally, increase in a
unobservable
3.4.3 report that advertisemen age variables and difficult to another consumer’s
web sites, ts on social recorded (affective, predict social media previous trust in
corporate media has a was 14 and behavioral and (HENNING-THURA tool should the brand
blogs, social positive the cognitive); (2) U et al., 2004). be analyzed. implies an
emotional
media and influence on maximum
response (Hahn,2016, p. Third, future increased
online brand 68). The to advertising – 50) studies using emotional
games are evaluations), sample with 15 the response to
potential (Hahn,2016, consisted of observable cross-section advertisements
means of p.61) 56.3% variables al distributed via
contained in
communicati women and three method used online social
on between 43.7% men. unobservable should media.
companies According variables observe (Hahn,2016, p.
and to (attractiveness, changes in 62)
customers, information significance situational
and utility);
for direct from and (3) brand and
purchase, Socialbaker evaluation – superficial
consumer s (2013), presenting 20 traits that
service the largest observed were not
variables
group of
divided into
(complaints Facebook five assessed
and users in unobservable here.
variables
suggestions) Brazil are (Hahn,2016,
(brand image,
or women current and p. 63)
relationships (54% of future
. profiles) intentions,
(Hahn,2016 and the age company
image,
, p.53) range of
tradition of the
the brand and
majority of beliefs
users is regarding the
between 18 role of the
brand in
and 34 society).
years old The
(59%). measurement
(Hahn,201 scale was a
6, p.57) Likert scale,
where
respondents
responded in
degrees of
agreement
from 1
(strongly
disagree) to 5
(strongly
agree). Online
data collection
occurred
from May 2013
and July 2013.
(Hahn,2016,
p.55)

Analysis of
normality was
verified using
the
Kolmogorov-S
mirnov test
and no
abnormal
variables were
observed.
Multicollinearit
y was verified
by the values
of tolerance
and the
Variance
Inflation Factor
(VIF).
(Hahn,2016,
p.57)
Naylor, R. Study 1a H​1​: Ambiguous A total of 128 We first test Depending on There was no Similarly, Chatman First, social Further research
compares MVP produces (a) undergraduat these condition, significant and Flynn (2001) media can be could also consider
W., equivalent brand hypotheses
participants’ e students participants saw difference in liking show that used to affiliate other
Lamberton, evaluations across three
liking for an participating one of the between the similar demographic with brands operationalizations
C. P., & unfamiliar to homogeneous
in this
studies
following: (M = 4.74) and heterogeneity within with which a of similarity. We
employing
West, P. M. brand when
similar MVP, (b)
study in different (1) total number ambiguous (M = a workgroup initially consumer anticipate that
equivalent brand
(2012). they observe exchange for operationaliza of fans and 4.48) MVP leads to low levels of already has a gender and age
evaluations to
Beyond the different types heterogeneous
extra credit tions of pictures of six fans conditions (F(1, cooperation. relationship. information are
ambiguous
"Like" of MVP. We MVP, and (c) were told that
MVP
that were the 107) = .86, p = However, some When most likely to be
Button: use significantly they would same age and .36) or between the researchers advise consumers have available to
and similarity.
age to be viewing an gender as the heterogeneous (M = broad inclusion of a experience with marketers
The Impact more positive Study 1a tests
manipulate brand excerpt from all parts of H​1 participant​4 4.89) and wide range of a brand, our and, therefore, that
of Mere similarity given evaluations than the Facebook using age to (homogeneous ambiguous consumers effects may understanding the
Virtual previous work homogeneous fan page manipulate similar MVP MVP conditions as members of social change. For effects of these
Presence on by practitioners dissimilar created similarity. condition), (2) (F(1, 107) = 1.91, p networking sites example, types
Study 1b tests
Brand and academics MVP. by Roots, a
the parts of
total number of = .17), in support (Dholakia existing brand of similarity or
H​2​: The
Evaluations highlighting the
relationship
Canadian H​1 ​ pertaining fans and of H​1a ​ and H​1b​ , and Vianello 2009), users who dissimilarity is of
and influence of clothing to ambiguity, pictures of six fans respectively. We arguing that encounter most utility.
proposed
age company. similarity, and that were the also note that there heterogeneity could dissimilar MVP However, if
Purchase between MVP
dissimilarity
Intentions in
similarity on
composition and (Nadler, same gender but a were indicate might marketers
product using gender different no differences in a brand’s wide range experience anticipate access to
Social brand 2012, to manipulate
preferences. age than the brand liking in the of features or suggest alienation or information about
Media
evaluations in H​1c p.108) similarity.
(Nadler, is mediated by Then, given participant similar, broad dissatisfaction consumers’
Settings. 2012, inferences of that Study 1 (homogeneous heterogeneous, appeal. because this ethnicity, for
Journal Of p.108)
leaves dissimilar MVP and ambiguous (Nadler, 2012, demographic example, further
Marketing​, condition), conditions when p.107) composition
​ 6​(6),
7 commonality unanswered (3) total number these conditions violates their research could test
with the brand’s questions of fans and three were considered expectations. to
105-120. user base.​2 about
heterogeneity
pictures of fans together in a (Nadler, determine whether
(Nadler, , Study 2
that were the separate analysis 2012, p.118) this
2012, p.108) focuses same gender and (F(2, 82) = .38, p = operationalization
primarily on age and three .68). As H​1c of similarity creates
heterogeneity pictures of fans predicts, the only parallel effects.
, providing a that were the one of the three (Nadler, 2012,
direct test of same gender but a contrast
H​1b​ . p.118)
different age codes that was
Studies 1b
and 2 both (heterogeneous significant was the
include tests MVP condition) as one comparing
of H​2 ​ (the the participant, or ambiguous
mediation (4) no fan MVP with dissimilar
hypothesis). pictures, MVP:
Study 3
introduces
only the total (Nadler, 2012,
our theorizing number of fans p.109)
regarding the (ambiguous MVP
moderating condition).
effect of joint No specific
and single direction was
evaluation
given to attend to
contexts
and replicates the fans, and
results related participants
to H​1a ​ and H​1c viewed the page
. as long as they
(Nadler, liked. Other
2012, information on
p.108) the page was held
constant across
conditions.
(Nadler,
2012,
p.108-109)

Voorveld, H. In this study  H1: Social  The data  In our study  Social media  Facebook scored  Instead, we  Clearly,  Theoretically, 
M., van we adopt an  media  were collected  we chose to  engagement.  highest on the  concentrated on the  this approach  however, the most 
engagement  engagement  by the market  focus on eight  Engagement with  dimensions of  engagement  deviates from  interesting 
Noort, G.,
approach which  experiences  research  social media:  the various  social interaction  experience of  conceptualizatio implication of 
Muntinga, fits the media  agency TNS  five  social media  and topicality.  consumers at a  ns of  the current study is 
differ across 
D. G., & engagement  NIPO at the  that are the  platforms was  Twitter particularly  specific media  engagement  that it is important 
social 
Bronner, F. literature and  end of 2015.  most used in  measured using 42  ensured that people  consumption  emphasizing  to take into account 
media 
(2018). platforms. 
They  the Western  experience  were  intensity  not 
Engagemen which was  H2: Social  approached  European  items (see Table  quickly informed  moment, which is  (intensity of  only engagement 
t with Social demonstrated  media  members of  country in  1) based largely  and up to date. On  consistent with our  usage) or  with a medium 
to be predictive  advertising  its  which the  on a study about  all dimensions other  earlier definition that  valence  when discussing the 
Media and
of advertising  engagement  panel (aged 13  study was  media experiences  than  focuses on the social  (positive  relation 
Social effectiveness  and older)  conducted  with traditional  topicality, it scored  media “experience.”  or negative  between digital 
differs across 
Media (Davis Mersey,  who indicated  (Facebook,  media (Bronner  low. YouTube  The reason for this  engagement).  engagement and 
social 
Advertising: Malthouse, and  regular use of  YouTube,  and Neijens 2006;  scored highest on  was that consumers  This means we  advertising 
media 
The Calder 2010). 
platforms. 
social  LinkedIn,  see  the entertainment  most likely cannot  do not try to  effectiveness (as 
Differentiatin (Voorveld, H3: 
media.  Twitter, and  supplemental  dimension: Users  reliably report their  capture  was done in, e.g., 
g Role of 2018,p. Engagement 
Respondents  Google+ ) and  appendix).  indicated it made  experiences in general  positive or  Calder, Isaac, and 
in this panel  three that  Exposure to  them happy and  because (social)  negative  Malthouse 2016; 
Platform 39) with a social  receive a  represent the  social media  relaxed,  media usage usually  engagement.  and 
Type. media platform 
Journal Of
certain  fastest  advertising. To  and allowed them to  occurs over a short  (Voorveld, Calder, Malthouse, 
is positively  amount of  growing  measure whether  have a moment for  time span and can be  and Schaedel 2009) 
Advertising,​ related  credits for  number of  people were  themselves. On all  trivial and easily 
2018,p. 52) but also 
47(​ 1), to social media  completing  users  confronted with  other dimensions, it  forgotten  engagement 
38-54. advertising  surveys. A  worldwide  advertising during  scored much lower,  (Kim, Sohn, and Choi  with the advertising 
doi:10.1080/ evaluations,  screening  (Instagram,  their most  but the second  2011; Voorveld et al.  itself. 

00913367.2 and this  question  Pinterest, and  recent media  highest  2013;  (Voorveld,20
relationship is  checked  Snapchat)  consumption  score was on  Bronner and Neijens 
017.140575 whether at  (Newcom  moment, we asked  topicality, followed  2006). 
18,p. 50)
contingent 
4
on the social 
least one of  Research and  them whether  by pastime.  (Voorveld,201
the eight  Consultancy  they saw “a  LinkedIn scored 
media platform 
social media  2015). Our  message from a  highest on the 
8,p. 42)
(see Figure  Engagement with a 
platforms was  examination  product, brand,  dimension 
1).H4: (a)  medium can be seen 
used in the  of each social  company or  topicality: 
Engagement  as an 
past week.  media  organization.”  It was perceived by 
with a social  essential context 
(Voorveld platform  Social media  users as a social 
characteristic that 
media platform  through a  advertising  medium that 
is related to  ,2018,p. singlesource  engagement. If  ensured they were 
drives responses to 
engagement  42) approach  respondents  quickly informed 
advertising 
(Calder, Malthouse, 
with  allows them to  indicated  and up to date. 
and Schaedel 2009). 
advertising on  be compared  they encountered  Instagram scored 
that platform,  in terms of the  “a message from a  highest on the  (Voorveld,201
and (b) social  experiences  product, brand,  pastime and  8,p. 41)
media  comprising  company, or  topicality 
engagement,  organization”  dimensions: It was 
advertising 
because all  during the recent  often used to fill 
engagement 
were  consumption  empty moments, 
subsequently 
measured  moment, we then  and it was perceived 
affects social  in the same  asked about the  by users as a social 
media  way in one  experience with  medium that 
advertising  representative  and for an  ensured 
sample. 
evaluations  (Voorveld evaluation of this  they were quickly 
(see Figure 1).  advertising.  informed and up to 
,2018,p. Engagement  date. 
 
42) experiences and  (Voorveld,20
(Voorveld, advertising 
2018,p. evaluations could 
18,p. 45)
 
41-42) not be measured at 
 
  the specific 
ad level because 
this would have 
made the 
questionnaire too 
unwieldy. We 
therefore decided 
to compromise by 
rating 
social media 
advertising in its 
entirety at the 
specific moment 
(conforming to 
Bronner and 
Neijens 2006). 
 
(Voorveld
,2018,p. 43)

STEP 3: References (From the Controversies, disagreements with other authors’ column)
*Note: Always in APA format
Calder, Bobby J., Mathew S. Isaac, & Edward C. Malthouse (2016), How to capture consumer experiences: a context-specific approach to measuring engagement

predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively different experiences,” Journal of Advertising Research, 56 (1), 39–52.

Chatman, Jennifer A. and Francis Flynn (2001), “The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work

Terms,” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 956–74.


Coffman, J., & Reed, E. (2009). Unique methods in advocacy evaluation.Retrieved February , 3 , 2009.

Dholakia, Utpaul M. and Silvia Vianello (2009), “The Fans Know Best,” Sloan Management Review/ Wall Street Journal Business Insights, (August 17), (accessed July

11, 2012), [available at http://online.wsj.com/article

Henning-Thurau, T. et al. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of

Interactive Marketing, v. 18, n. 1, p. 38-52, 2004.

Mangold, W. G. & Faulds, D. Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, v. 52, n. 4, p. 357-365, 2009

Stuart, J. (2007). Necessity leads to innovative evaluation approach and practice. Evaluation Exchange, 13 (1-2), 10-11.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
STEP 3: References (Both from FSP 1, FSP 2, FSP 3 etc.; and references from the Controversies, disagreements with other 
authors’ column) *Note: Always in APA format on a separate page. 
References
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 127e140.

Calder, Bobby J., Mathew S. Isaac, & Edward C. Malthouse (2016), How to capture consumer experiences: a context-specific approach to measuring engagement

predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively different experiences,” Journal of Advertising Research, 56 (1), 39–52.
Chatman, Jennifer A. and Francis Flynn (2001), “The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work

Terms,” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 956–74.

Coffman, J., & Reed, E. (2009). Unique methods in advocacy evaluation.Retrieved February , 3 , 2009.

Dholakia, Utpaul M. and Silvia Vianello (2009), “The Fans Know Best,” Sloan Management Review/ Wall Street Journal Business Insights, (August 17), (accessed July

11, 2012), [available at http://online.wsj.com/article

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gholston, K., Kuofie, M., & Hakim, A. C. (2016). Social Media for Marketing by Small Businesses. ​Journal Of Marketing & Management,​ ​7(​ 1), 24-39.

Hahn, I. S., Scherer, F. L., Basso, K., & dos Santos, M. B. (2016). Consumer Trust in and Emotional Response to Advertisements on Social Media and their Influence on

Brand Evaluation. ​Brazilian Business Review (English Edition),​ ​13(​ 4), 49-71. doi:10.15728/bbr.2016.13.4.3

Henning-Thurau, T. et al. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of

Interactive Marketing, v. 18, n. 1, p. 38-52, 2004.

Kim, W. G., Lim, H., & Brymer, R. A. (2015). The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management,

44165-171. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.014

Kujur, F., & Singh, S. (2017). Engaging customers through online participation in social networking sites. ​Asia Pacific Management Review​, ​22​(1), 16-24.

doi:10.1016/j.apmrv.2016.10.006

Kumar, K. A., & Natarajan, S. (2016). Role of Social Media in Political Campaigning and its Evaluation Methodology: A Review. ​Global Management Review​, ​10​(3),

1-12.

Mangold, W. G. & Faulds, D. Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, v. 52, n. 4, p. 357-365, 2009

Momany, M., & Alshboul, A. (2016). Social media marketing:Utilizing social media to advance brand awareness and increase online sales. ​International Journal Of

Business, Marketing, & Decision Science​, ​9​(1), 33-54.


Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyond the "Like" Button: The Impact of Mere Virtual Presence on Brand Evaluations and Purchase Intentions in

Social Media Settings. ​Journal Of Marketing,​ ​76(​ 6), 105-120.

Smithson, S., Devece, C. A., & Lapiedra, R. (2011). Online visibility as a source of competitive advantage for small- and medium-sized tourism accommodation

enterprises. Service Industries Journal, 31(10), 1573-1587. doi:10.1080/02642069.2010.48564

Stuart, J. (2007). Necessity leads to innovative evaluation approach and practice. Evaluation Exchange, 13 (1-2), 10-11.

Taneja, S., & Toombs, L. (2014). Putting a face on small businesses:Visibility, viability, and sustainability the impact of social media on small business marketing.

Academy Of Marketing Studies Journal,​ ​18(​ 1), 249-260.

Voorveld, H. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Differentiating Role of

Platform Type. ​Journal Of Advertising,​ ​47(​ 1), 38-54. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754

Zafarani, R., & Huan, L. (2015). Evaluation Without Ground Truth in Social Media Research. ​Communications Of The ACM​, ​58​(6), 54. doi:10.1145/2666680

Zhao, J. J., Truell, A. D., Alexander, M. W., Sharma, S., & Smith, S. M. (2013). Strategic use of social media on companies' e-commerce sites. ​Journal Of Research In

Business Education​, ​55​(2), 50-68.