International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Social media use and consumer shopping preferences

Joseph Vithayathila,*, Majid Dadgarb, J. Kalu Osiric
a
Computer Management and Information Systems, School of Business, Campus Box 1106, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL 62026-1106, USA
b
Department of Business Analytics & Information Systems, Malloy Hall 205, School of Management, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA
94117, USA
c
Department of Management, College of Business, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 730 N. 14th Street, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: We empirically explore the associations between social media use at home and shopping preferences using
Social media survey data. We focus on popular retail firms including brick-and-mortar firms such as Walmart, Target,
Social network Nordstrom, and Best Buy, and online retailers, such as Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Best Buy. Social media use
Social Network Analysis of popular platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Skype and a general category Other Social Media are
SNA
analyzed. We find that use of LinkedIn, Skype and Other Social Media at home, in the model without control
Media Richness Theory
Consumer
variables, is associated with shopping at Nordstrom, Walmart and Target. Shopping online at Amazon, Best Buy
Consumer behavior and Walmart, without control variables in the model specification, is associated with use of Facebook, Skype,
Consumer buying Twitter and Other Social Media at home. We report additional insights using an alternative specification that
Consumer purchasing preferences includes social media use at work. Media Richness Theory (MRT) and Strength of Weak Ties from Social Network
Consumer marketing Analysis (SNA) and related theories help explain our results. Our results have important implications for social
Advertising marketing campaigns and social media policies for consumer retail firms.

1. Introduction
Social media-influenced consumer buying in the US totaled over
$22 billion in 2019 and is expected to grow to over $84 billion in 2024
(Keyes, 2019). Thirty six percent of US internet users report that social
commerce is important in 2019, a growth from twenty seven percent in
2015. Scholars (Abed, Dwivedi, & Williams, 2015; Alalwan, Rana,
Dwivedi, & Algharabat, 2017; Appel, Grewal, Hadi, & Stephen, 2020)
describe the growing role of social media in consumer marketing. Such
emerging and growing trends motivate the primary focus of this study
which is to investigate associations between consumer shopping pre-
ferences and the use of various, popular and well-known social media
platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Skype, LinkedIn, and Other Social
Media. Our study considers brick-and-mortar stores as well as online
stores. Our research questions are described below.
We investigate the associations between popular social media platforms
and retail shopping stores to address the following research questions: (i)
How is the use of popular social media at home associated with shopping
preferences with respect to specific, familiar retail stores, including online
and physical channels? (ii) What theories and frameworks can best explain
the empirically observed associations? (iii) What are the implications of
social media use and what can frims learn from such social media use? and
(iv) What may explain the results uncovered by the analysis?
The empirical analyses of these research questions using survey data
and regression models result in several findings and implications. Our
findings show that the use of LinkedIn at home is positively associated
with shopping at brick-and-mortar Nordstrom stores, the use of Skype at
home is positively associated with shopping at brick-and-mortar Walmart
stores, and use of Other Social Media is significantly associated with
shopping at Target and Nordstrom. Other Social Media is a catch-all
designation to capture public social media platforms that are not specified
in the survey questions (e.g. Pinterest) as well as retailer-specific, con-
sumer-specific and firm-specific social media platforms. When we include
age, gender, and education as control variables in the regression model,
the use of Facebook at home becomes positively associated with shopping
at Best Buy physical stores. The control variable gender is directly and
negatively associated with shopping at Nordstrom physical stores.
Additionally, we find significant associations with online shopping
at retail merchants. The use of Facebook and Skype at home is asso-
ciated with shopping at Amazon, the use of Twitter at home is asso-
ciated with shopping online at BestBuy, and the use of Other Social
Media is associated with shopping online at Walmart and Amazon. We
include age, gender, and education as control variables in the regression
specification and find no change in these associations.
We contribute to this emerging area of social media use and con-
sumer behavior to inform research and practice. Our study is conducted

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jvithay@siue.edu (J. Vithayathil), mdadgar@usfca.edu (M. Dadgar), jkosiri@unl.edu (J.K. Osiri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102117
Received 25 October 2019; Received in revised form 13 March 2020; Accepted 13 March 2020
0268-4012/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Joseph Vithayathil, Majid Dadgar and J. Kalu Osiri, International Journal of Information Management,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102117
J. Vithayathil, et al.
at the intersection of social media, social networks, and consumer be-
havior. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we discuss
the theoretical background, review the literature, and propose hy-
potheses based on prior work in the field. Next, we discuss our data and
our model, and explain our results and robustness checks followed by a
discussion of our results and their implications and the conclusion.
2. Literature review
Social media are changing the way organizations function and
evolve on many fronts. Social media are transforming firms and their
relationships with society, customers, and the marketplace (Aral,
Dellarocas, & Godes, 2013). Social media are used to connect and
interact with the customers. Social media are also transforming
marketing approaches, enabling businesses to understand consumer
behavior and consumer preferences, allowing firms to predict con-
sumer demand (Hill, Provost, & Volinsky, 2006; Trusov, Bodapati, &
Bucklin, 2010) and interact with customers (Alalwan et al., 2017).
Many customers now rely on social media to provide feedback and
comments about the products and services they have used (Kapoor
et al., 2018) and to communicate their needs and concerns (Abed
et al., 2015).
Social media platforms can create a community of consumers to
discuss and share ideas about certain brands, products or services
(Culnan, McHugh, & Zubillaga, 2010). Social media also allow firms to
develop new methods and techniques for communicating with custo-
mers and suppliers (Culnan et al., 2010). Unlike traditional media,
managers can deploy social media to design marketing messages and
communicate them with millions of consumers simultaneously
(Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Furthermore, firms use social media to en-
gage customers to attain organizational objectives (Jiang, Chen,
Nunamaker, & Zimbra, 2014; Martini, Massa, & Testa, 2013). Many
firms use social media to respond to the customer and retailer criticism
about their brand and about products (Xia, 2013). Consumer attitude
and preferences reflected in product reviews on social media platforms
and networks can influence firm value (Luo, Zhang, & Duan, 2013; Yu,
Duan, & Cao, 2013). Social media can serve as a useful tool to help
firms to maintain a positive image and survive turbulence in the market
(Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011; Kuvykaite &
Piligrimiene, 2013).
This study contributes to the emerging area of research on the use of
social media by customers and by online and brick-and-mortar retailers.
This research is positioned at the intersection of social media, social
networks, and consumer behavior. The results suggest that retailers
could design, develop, and promote their social media presence to be
consistent with their brand image, brand messaging and target audi-
ence, and in consonance with the features and media richness of the
social media platform. Furthermore, this study extends MRT and SWT
in novel ways by demonstrating their application in a new context of
social media and consumer shopping behavior. Indeed, prior research
has shown that social media can serve as an effective marketing tool in
the retail market (Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011; Jones, Comfort, &
Hillier, 2007; Kim & Ko, 2012; Naylor, Lamberton, & West, 2012; Rapp,
Beitelspacher, Grewal, & Hughes, 2013; Sashi, 2012). The retail in-
dustry increased its social media marketing expenditures in the US al-
most by 80 percent in 2010 (Hanna et al., 2011).
The rapid growth of social media has compelled most organizations
to investigate these platforms to find ways to deploy and capitalize
social media (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) for profits and performance.
Over half of social media users are engaged with at least one retailer’s
social media platform including familiar names such as Facebook,
LinkedIn, and Twitter. Well-known and popular retailers actively de-
velop business models to take advantage of opportunities afforded by
social media (Rapp et al., 2013). Retail stores developing e-commerce
platforms rely on Web 2.0 technologies, which include popular social
media platforms and social networks to increase revenue and burnish
2
International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx
business models. McKinsey (Bughin, 2015) reports that marketing
professionals use popular social media platforms, such as Facebook and
Twitter, to create buzz around their products to increase sales and gain
larger returns from investments. For example, Nordstrom now expects
online sales to make up 30 percent of its business by 2020, up from 8
percent in 20101. Nordstrom customers who shop both online and in
stores spend three to four times as much at Nordstrom than those who
shop just using one channel.1
Firms spend millions of dollars in social media marketing, but may
not fully realize the benefits that can be derived from these platforms
because most firms are not managing social media purposefully and
systematically (Hanna et al., 2011). Very few studies have investigated
the impact of different, popular social media platforms on consumer
shopping preferences at popular brick-and-mortar stores and online
retail stores. The design characteristics of social media networking
platforms for marketing campaigns have been investigated in prior re-
search (Zarrella, 2009). Such prior research examines social media
platforms and their costs and benefits for the retail brands with a focus
on network effects and network structural analysis. Our study builds on
and expands extant research by analyzing the relationship between the
use of specific, popular social media platforms and consumer shopping
preferences at selected, well known retail brands..
3. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
Theories invoked and described are Media Richness Theory (MRT)
for computer mediated communications, and Strength of Weak Ties
(SWT) from social network analysis. These theories have constructs,
such as media richness and the value of network ties, that help explain
our findings and the relationships between the use of social media
platforms and consumer shopping behavior. Furthermore, the theories
in conjunction with our results serve as a foundation for suggestions to
practitioners and for future research.
3.1. Theoretical background
Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) and theory of the
Strength of Weak Ties (Granovetter, 1973, 1983) have been widely
used to explain the effects and roles of social media in organizations
(Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008). We provide an overview, and de-
scribe the two theories and their relevance to our research.
MRT is used to explain the impact of computer-mediated commu-
nications (Kahai & Cooper, 2003), effects of video communication on
decision making (Dennis & Kinney, 1998), and people’s choice of
electronic mail versus voicemail (El-shinnawy & Markus, 1997). MRT
explains social media use by examining the fit between the complexity
of the information required for a task and media richness of the social
media platform. Richer media offers higher communicative capabilities,
and improves task performance (Daft & Lengel, 1986). More complex
information is better communicated with richer media (Dennis et al.,
2008). For example, information characterized by high level of com-
plexity and various possible interpretations is better communicated
through the medium of face-to-face meetings in which two parties can
clarify ambiguities arising from the information required and necessary
for a task. Hence, employees can perform the task based on information
that is clearer as a consequence of media richness. Media, with lower
levels of richness, such as computer-based social media, are better
suited to communicate information that is lower in complexity (Dennis,
Kinney, & Hung, 1999). Others analyze the context surrounding social
media use (Palvia, Pinjani, Cannoy, & Jacks, 2011).
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) provide a framework for assessing
media richness. Their framework shows how media can differ based on
1
http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-03-09/nordstrom-s-
profits-zapped-by-online-sales.
J. Vithayathil, et al.
Figure 1. Social Media overlay on Media Richness adapted from Kaplan and
Haenlein (2010).
the richness attribute. We have adapted their framework to describe the
social media platforms in this study based on their richness attribute as
shown in Figure 1. Based on this framework, Twitter as a microblogging
medium has the lowest level of media richness. Social networking
platforms of Facebook and LinkedIn have medium richness. Skype,
which is a text, audio and video communication social medium, has the
highest richness within our set of social media platforms.
We draw on the theory of the Strength of Weak Ties (SWT)
(Granovetter, 1973) to understand and explain the use of social media
by individuals and to understand the corresponding organizational
benefits. SWT shows that ties among members on social media plat-
forms that are characterized as weak ties provide value to those in-
dividuals who are connected through weak ties (such as casual ac-
quaintances) because these weak ties provide access to informational
resources and opportunities that strong ties (close friends) do not pos-
sess (Granovetter, 1983). SWT has been used to analyze and explain the
role of word-of-mouth referral behavior (Brown & Reingen, 1987), so-
cial support networks (Crowell, 2004), social media design (Gilbert &
Karahalios, 2009), occupational status attainment based on social re-
sources (Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981), information diffusion in online
social networks (Zhao, Wu, & Xu, 2010), informal communication and
its impact on collaborative work (Zhao & Rosson, 2009), social value of
online interactions (Grabowicz, Ramasco, Moro, Pujol, & Eguiluz,
2012), and networked communities (Kavanaugh, Reese, Carroll, &
Rosson, 2005).
Zhao and Rosson (2009) argue that individuals with weak ties easily
and quickly establish mutual trust. Once mutual trust is established, it is
likely that individuals share important and valuable information. They
explore the effects of using Twitter on informal communication at work,
and their findings capture a set of qualities that explain why people use
a micro-blogging platform like Twitter. For example, the brevity and
real-time qualities of the posts on Twitter, among others, makes Twitter
attractive to such users.
Gilbert and Karahalios (2009) investigate the strength of social
network ties and its relevance to social media. Their findings provide
guidelines for designing social media attributes. They suggest several
theoretical dimensions for the strength of ties, such as interaction fre-
quency and communication reciprocity. They argue that understanding
the strength of ties can help design social media, for example, with
better privacy control. For example, social media users may have dif-
ferent privacy concerns for the weak ties than the strong ties. Re-
cognizing the difference between the strength of ties will guide design
of the privacy levels in social media.
Grabowicz et al. (2012) analyze the social features of Twitter. Their
analysis shows that Twitter is organized by groups that emerge and
constitute to form its active environment. They introduce the role of
intermediary ties in the transmission of information about new events.
Their findings show that the weak ties between groups transfer new
information. Intermediary ties that belong to different groups work as
information brokers and disseminate new information to individuals in
different groups or social network clusters.
3
International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx
Kavanaugh et al. (2005) show that members with weak ties who use
available communication media can better educate communities and
organize collective actions. Leaders and members in social network
communities who span more than one network are considered weak ties
because there are very few of these weak ties between tight social
network clusters. Their results show that members with weak ties who
use internet-based communication in the networked communities are
socially active and engaged in the community meetings compared to
others who are not endowed with weak ties across different social
network groups or clusters. Their findings show that internet can im-
prove information diffusion and social activities.
An example of SWT in action is described by Teten and Farmer
(2010) where they show that venture funds that expose key information
outside their close network generate better deal flow and results. Our
study extends MRT and SWT in novel ways by demonstrating their
application in a new context of social media and consumer shopping
behavior.
3.2. Hypotheses
Two broad areas of research connect retail consumer behavior with
social media platforms to demonstrate the use and value of social
media. These streams of research are business value (Culnan et al.,
2010; Jiang et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2013) and com-
munication (Kuvykaite & Piligrimiene, 2013; Mangold & Faulds, 2009;
Martini et al., 2013; Xia, 2013). We provide a review of the literature
and describe these two streams of research to provide support and ar-
guments for hypotheses development.
Several studies use econometric models to analyze the relationships
between the consumer preferences and marketing efforts in the e-
commerce marketplace. For example, Luo et al. (2013) use econometric
models to analyze and explain the relationships between user-generated
reviews in social media and firm value. Jiang et al. (2014) suggest that
managers can use discussion content contained in firm-specific social
media to understand the concerns of stakeholders to make informed
decisions. Their results demonstrate the manner in which social media
can be used to better understand stakeholder reactions to the major
events affecting a firm.
Xia (2013) examines the impact of a firm’s responses to consumer
criticism through social media and draws on psychology and social
relationship literature to define vulnerability and the positive effect of
vulnerability on building effective relationships with customers via
social media. Xia’s results show that a more vulnerable response gen-
erates better positive perceptions among consumers compared to a
defensive response. Expectation–disconfirmation theory is invoked by
Xia to explain how consumers evaluate responses posted in social media
regarding consumer products.
Mangold and Faulds (2009) examine non-traditional means of
communication enabled by social media between consumers. They
compare traditional communications with non-traditional commu-
nications enabled by social media that use integrated marketing com-
munications (IMC) for communication strategies to achieve organiza-
tional and strategic objectives. They propose a new communication
paradigm that highlights the important role of the interactions and
communications between consumers in the marketplace, on social
media platforms.
Kuvykaite and Piligrimiene (2013) note that social media serves as a
many-to-many communications platform for firms. They draw on
identity theories to investigate the relationship between communica-
tion enabled by social media and its impact on firm image. Their results
show that a quick communication from the firm using social media will
generate a positive image. Martini et al. (2013) investigate the manner
in which social media can help firms communicate with customers and
engage them in the firm’s activities. They draw on Pickering's “mangle”
theory and Jones' subsequent metaphor of “double dance of agency” to
investigate the mutual relationship between the human and technology
J. Vithayathil, et al.
agencies within social media platforms. Their results illustrate the
manner in which humans and technology co-evolve over time and in-
fluence each other to communicate and connect. Such evolution leads
traditional brick-and-mortar retailers to deploy technologies such as
social media to connect with their customers. Our arguments and prior
literature lead us to Hypothesis 1.
H1. Using social media at home is positively associated with shopping
at Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and Nordstrom brick-and-mortar retail
stores.
Information technology has enabled retail commerce to evolve such
that most major traditional brick-and-mortar retail stores have an on-
line e-commerce offering while others such as Amazon are primarily e-
commerce. The concurrent rise of social media with the growth of e-
commerce has provided these retailers with the mechanism to have an
online digital presence on social media platforms. Such social media
presence enables these retailers to communicate and connect with
consumers through online channels such as social media. Social media
presence for the retailer has the final objective of having an informed
and influenced consumer make a seamless transition from active or
passive search and exploration to a buying customer by enabling online
purchasing. As of March 24, 2016, Walmart had more than 32 million
likes and 13 million page visits on its Facebook page. Retail stores such
as Target, Best Buy, and Nordstrom, have the same significant presence
within the social media space. Reports show that over 40 percent of
people have “friended” a brand on Facebook and 20 percent of tweets
are about products, such as invitations for product information, answers
or responses, from peers, or direct communication by brand re-
presentatives2 and 56 percent of Twitter users say they use Twitter’s
microblogging and communication service for business purposes2. Best
Buy has over 2,500 employees helping customers via Twitter as part of
their @Twelpforce initiative.2
Prior literature informs us that social media can be an effective
marketing tool in the retail market (Hanna et al., 2011; Jones et al.,
2007; Kim & Ko, 2012; Naylor et al., 2012; Rapp et al., 2013; Sashi,
2012), including online shopping. Kim and Ko (2012) argue that social
media make it easier and less costly for retailers to perform marketing
activities. They show that retailers and luxury brands that are present
on social media can significantly improve reputation and image. They
report that 70 percent of consumers have used social media to collect
information about retailers, and about 50 percent of consumers have
made a purchase based on the information they have found on social
media. There has been almost an 80 percent increase in social media
expenditures from 2009 to 2010 in the retail industry in the US (Hanna
et al., 2011).
Scholars, such as Sashi (2012), show that retailers can use social
media to enhance their relationships with their loyal customers and
fans and find that customer engagement is established through a cycle
of steps. Retailers should first reach out, connect, and interact with their
customers. Next, they should address customer needs and questions.
Finally, retailers should retain customer loyalty and commitment over
time. Higher customer engagement will help retailers and popular
brands transform regular customers into loyal customers (Sashi, 2012).
The number of “Likes” associated with a social media post or
message on a social media platform, such as Facebook (Jones et al.,
2007), have important consumer effects. Jones et al. (2007), show
that making connections with users on social media can translate to
positive brand image and elevate purchase intentions. They argue
that revealing the demographics of the users who have “Liked” a
post, for example, on Facebook, can affect the brand image in the
minds of other users of the social media platform. Rapp et al. (2013)
recognize a contagious effect in social media usage that could help
retailers to enhance certain performance measures such as
2 i
http://pamorama.net/2010/02/22/31-social-media-stats-and-anecdotes/.
4
International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx
consumer-retailer loyalty and branding. Such consumer-focused
social media initiatives by retailers will make it easy and seamless to
transition consumers to buying customers. This is typically achieved
through online purchasing when the customer clicks a link. There-
fore, we hypothesize that:
H2. Using social media at home is positively associated with shopping
at Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, and Target online stores.
Our research model to test the hypotheses is shown in Figure 2.
4. Methodology
4.1. Data collection
A total of 314 subjects (N = 314) participated in this study by re-
sponding to survey questions. The participants were primarily working
students of a public university in the state of Washington. Employed
respondents are more likely to have disposable income and be regular
and repeat consumers of retail brands. The survey respondents serve as
a representation of a broad consumer population who are employed and
use relevant content on social media to inform their consumer shopping
preferences. The survey design employed questions based on the Likert
scale to operationalize and measure shopping preferences. Surveys
were randomly distributed among the participants and their consent
was obtained before survey was conducted.
Participants in our survey answered questions on how often they use
social media. This study focuses on popular social media platforms,
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Skype. The survey questions also in-
clude a catch-all social media platform, “Other Social Media,” to cap-
ture platforms that were not included in the study. The survey includes
questions about the respondent’s online and brick-and-mortar retail
stores preferences. Specific well-known retail store brands that are in-
cluded in the study are Target, Amazon, Nordstrom, and Walmart. The
survey questions combine these specific social media platforms and
retail store brands in the US. The objective is to measure the hy-
pothesized associations between the use of popular social media plat-
forms and purchasing from these retail stores including online and
physical stores.
4.2. Data and model
The “glm” command in the statistical software tool R and a logistic
regression specification were employed to test the relationships hy-
pothesized in our models. Sample research questions are provided in
Appendices A and B. The summary demographics of the respondents
are provided in Table 1.
A logistic regression specification was developed to predict the re-
lationship between social media use at home and at work, and shopping
preferences at brick-and-mortar stores and online stores. The model
specification is as follows:
Shopping _Preferencesi = 0 + 1i . FB _Hi + 2i . Twitter _Hi
+ 3i . LinkedIn _Hi + 4i . Skype _Hi
+ 5i . OtherSM _Hi +
i
Where:
0 = intercept
ji
, j = 1, 2, . . , 5 = coefficients
FB _Hi = Facebook use at home
Twitter _Hi = Twitter use at home
LinkedIn _Hi = LinkedIn use at home
Skype _Hi = Skype use at home
OtherSM _Hi = Other Social Media use at home
= error random variable
J. Vithayathil, et al. International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx

LinkedIn members who have career and professional interests.

Nordstrom products may fit the needs of professionals who prefer to
shop at upscale retailers because Nordstrom has a brand equity and
image that is consistent with upscale value and represents professional
attire. The strength of weak ties of LinkedIn users would enable digital
word-of-mouth communications for the upscale, professional
Nordstrom products that may not be familiar with some clustered
networks and these weak ties serve as a link to encourage other
members within their immediate and strong network clusters to shop at
brick-and-mortar Nordstrom stores.
The use of Skype at home is significant and positively associated,
0.465 (0.185), with shopping at Walmart physical stores which sup-
ports our hypothesis. Media Richness Theory (MRT) informs us that
Skype is a social media platform with high richness, which can help
weak ties to communicate and exchange information about products of
Walmart. Walmart sells Skype prepaid cards, which can steer Walmart
shoppers towards the use of Skype services. Users can better commu-
nicate their views, descriptions and actions regarding products through
a free and media rich platform such as Skype. For example, they can
group chat, video chat, and exchange and communicate product in-
formation during a Skype interaction.
Use of Other Social Media is significant and negatively associated
with shopping at Target physical stores, and is significant and positively
associated with shopping at Nordstrom with −0.25 (0.105) and 0.415
(0.116) respectively. The negative association between using Other
Figure 2. Research model.
Social Media and shopping at Target does not support our hypothesis.
*Social media tested in our study: Facebook (FB), Twitter, LinkedIn, Skype, and
Other Social Media and their relationship with consumer products
Other Social Media (BR = brick and mortar, O = online).
varies depending on the retailer. Because Other Social Media is a catch-
all category, it would also include firm-specific or enterprise-specific
Table 1 social media which would not have consumer shopping as a priority
Demographics of the subjects. because of the professional or business focus. Consequently, Target
Variable Percentage being a general mass market retailer, users would be prioritizing busi-
ness considerations and objectives, which in turn would detract from
Age 20−35 years old 70
shopping at such a retailer. In contrast, Nordstrom has a professional,
35−50 years old 25
50−65 years old 5
upscale image and brand which is in consonance with business and
Gender Female 59 professional aspirations and needs and a likely explanation for the
Male 41 positive association. The strength of weak ties may also play a role in
Education High school 9 this result regarding Nordstrom because such weak ties could provide
Community college 43
links to buying opportunities for professional attire at Nordstrom to
Four year college 44
Graduate degree 4 concentrated network clusters. Target is a general merchandise mass-
market retailer and not necessarily the first choice for professional at-
tire. Interestingly, there is no association between shopping at Best Buy
In the next section, we report the results from the analysis of our physical stores and use of any of the social media platforms in our
regression model from our empirical study using survey data. study. A possible explanation is that Best Buy is in a very competitive
consumer electronics market and the Internet has made price compar-
ison shopping easier for electronic consumer goods, which exhibit
5. Results
commodity product characteristics.
Results from analyzing the survey data described earlier and from
testing the aforementioned hypotheses show that the hypotheses are 5.2. Social media use at home and shopping at online stores
partially supported. Specifically, we tested the hypothesized associa-
tions between the use of the popular social media platforms: Facebook, We find that the use of Facebook at home is significant and posi-
Twitter, Skype, LinkedIn, and Other Social Media; and brick-and-mortar tively associated, 0.321 (0.175), with shopping online at Amazon. This
retail stores: Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Nordstrom; and online retail result partially supports our hypothesis. Amazon’s page on Facebook
stores: Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Best Buy. We describe our results has more than 26 million likes and this large user base is strategically
which show that our hypotheses are partially supported. We note the used by amazon to engage with its customers. For example, users can
value of the regression coefficient β and standard error SE for sig- post pictures of their products recently purchased from Amazon to
nificant associations as: β (SE). communicate with the company’s customer service operation. Facebook
is a social network platform with a medium level of media richness
based on MRT and such media richness allows Amazon to show product
5.1. Social media use at home and shopping at brick-and-mortar stores
recommendations based on “likes” on Facebook.3 This merging be-
tween Facebook likes and Amazon recommendations makes purchasing
The use of LinkedIn at home is significant and positively associated,
products online from Amazon simple, quick and convenient. Hence, the
0.542 (0.148), with shopping at Nordstrom. This result supports our
hypothesis. LinkedIn is a social networking platform that is specifically
designed for career and professional networking. Hence, our finding 3
http://mashable.com/2010/07/27/amazon-facebook-recommendations/#
suggests that Nordstrom may be a preferred shopping destination for SbWPNE1SM5qQ.

5
J. Vithayathil, et al. International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx

mutual connection and conversation between Facebook and Amazon Table 2

users could lead to users of the former converting into buyers on the Results for social media use at home and shopping preferences at brick-and-
latter. mortar retail stores.
The use of Twitter at home is significant and positively associated, Socail Media Dependent Variable β SE Wald p-value
0.455 (0.174), with shopping online at Best Buy. This result supports
our hypothesis. Twitter can be viewed by retailers as a platform to build Facebook Walmart 0.053 0.103 0.518 0.604
Target 0.1 0.102 0.985 0.325
a following and a brand image, and as a platform that also engages with
Best Buy 0.109 0.126 0.872 0.383
customers.4 The strength of weak ties plays an important role in Twitter Nordstrom −0.095 0.113 −0.834 0.404
to diffuse information between close-knit members and groups Twitter Walmart 0.109 0.122 0.899 0.368
(Grabowicz et al., 2012). Best Buy has collaborated with Twitter to Target 0.005 0.12 0.046 0.964
Best Buy 0.207 0.144 1.437 0.15
incorporate a ‘Buy’ button in tweets such that users can directly pur-
Nordstrom 0.051 0.125 0.411 0.68
chase the products from within tweets.5 This capability could be at- LinkedIn Walmart −0.025 0.139 −0.185 0.853
tractive to Twitter users because it enables them to follow Best Buy on Target 0.094 0.138 0.681 0.496
the platform which can inform and lead the user to purchase consumer Best Buy −0.132 0.177 −0.744 0.456
electronics from Best Buy. Nordstrom 0.542 0.148 3.656 0.000***
Skype Walmart 0.465 0.185 2.507 0.012**
The use of Skype at home is significant and negatively associated,
Target −0.078 0.181 −0.432 0.666
−0.474 (0.256), with shopping online at Amazon. This result does not Best Buy −0.024 0.235 −0.103 0.918
support our hypothesis and is therefore, contrary to the hypothesis. This Nordstrom −0.22 0.204 −1.076 0.281
result suggests that those users who use Skype at home are unlikely to Other SM Walmart −0.063 0.107 −0.591 0.554
Target −0.25 0.105 −2.365 0.018**
shop at Amazon. A plausible explanation for this negative association is
Best Buy −0.189 0.136 −1.393 0.163
that Skype is high in media richness because Skype offers video calls Nordstrom 0.415 0.116 3.559 0.000***
and group video conferencing. Hence, while Skype may be good for
friends and family to voice-chat and video-chat, it may not be a good * p ≤ 0.1, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001.
platform for focused exchange of product information targeted towards
online purchasing from Amazon. Table 3
The use of Other Social Media at home is significant and negatively Results for social media use at home and shopping preferences at online retail
associated, −0.484 (0.226), with shopping online at Walmart. This stores.
result does not support our hypothesis and is contrary to the hypothesis. Social Media Dependent Variable β SE Wald p-value
This finding suggests that those who use other social media platforms
are unlikely to shop online at Walmart. As noted earlier, Other Social Facebook Amazon 0.321 0.175 1.827 0.067*
Best Buy 0.054 0.173 0.313 0.753
Media is a catch-all category and would include firm-specific and en-
Walmart −0.081 0.178 −0.459 0.646
terprise-specific platforms among other emerging platforms not speci- Target −0.041 0.141 −0.295 0.768
fied in this study. A plausible explanation is that Other Social Media Twitter Amazon −0.085 0.24 −0.357 0.721
may not have the retail consumer retail focus on merchants such as Best Buy 0.455 0.174 2.611 0.009**
Walmart. Users of these other platforms are likely to be using it for Walmart 0.291 0.225 1.294 0.195
Target −0.097 0.184 −0.531 0.595
professional or work-related purposes. However, the use of Other Social
LinkedIn Amazon −0.062 0.231 −0.269 0.787
Media at home is significant and positively associated, 0.335(0.204), Best Buy −0.077 0.233 −0.331 0.74
with shopping online at Amazon. This result supports our hypothesis. Walmart −0.141 0.261 −0.543 0.587
This result suggests that those who shop online at Amazon may arise Target −0.129 0.208 −0.619 0.536
Skype Amazon −0.474 0.256 −1.849 0.064*
from multiple social media platforms to make informed shopping de-
Best Buy −0.141 0.341 −0.415 0.677
cisions. The regression results are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Walmart 0.257 0.301 0.854 0.392
The results are summarized in compact form in Figure 3. The “+” Target −0.312 0.314 −0.994 0.32
entry denotes positive and significant association whereas the “−” Other SM Amazon 0.335 0.204 1.645 0.1*
entry denotes a negative and significant association. Best Buy −0.213 0.192 −1.11 0.266
Walmart −0.484 0.226 −2.138 0.032**
Target 0.036 0.146 0.251 0.801
6. Robustness check
* p ≤ 0.1, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Two robustness checks were performed. First, we added control
variables of age, gender, and education in the regression specification Where:
to analyze their effects on prior results. Note that the age group of
= intercept
50−65 and the education groups of high school and graduate are re- 0

moved from the logistic regression equation due to the very small ji, j = 1, 2, . . , 8 = coefficients
number of cases in those groups. The regression specification is as FB _Hi = Facebook use at home
follows: Twitter _Hi = Twitter use at home
LinkedIn _Hi = LinkedIn use at home
Shopping _Preferencesi = 0 + 1i . FB _Hi + 2i . Twitter _Hi Skype _Hi = Skype use at home
+ 3i . LinkedIn _Hi + 4i . Skype _Hi OtherSM _Hi = Other Social Media use at home
+ Agei = age
5i . OtherSM _Hi + 6i . Agei + 7i . Educationi
Education i = education
+ 8i . Genderi + i
Gender i = gender
i = error random variable
4
http://shiftingcareers.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/how-twitter-can-
help-at-work/?_r=0. Second, we analyzed an alternate regression specification by in-
5
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/blog/morning_call/2015/10/best- cluding the use of social media at work with the following regression
buy-twitter-buy-now-deal.html. specification:

6
J. Vithayathil, et al. International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx

Figure 3. Summary of results for social media use at home and shopping preferences.

Shopping _Preferencesi = 0 + 1i . FB _Hi + 2i . Twitter _Hi 6.1.2. Best Buy physical store
The use of Facebook at home becomes positively associated with
+ 3i . LinkedIn _Hi + 4i . Skype _Hi
shopping at Best Buy physical store at p < 0.05 and its coefficient
+ 5i . OtherSM _Hi + 6i . FB _Wi changes from 0.109 to 0.199 when controls are included in the re-
+ gression model. Among control variables, gender becomes significant at
7i . Twitter _Wi + 8i . LinkedIn _Wi
p < 0.05 with the coefficient of 0.769. This result suggests that female
+ 9i . Skype _Wi + 10i . OtherSM _Wi + i
shoppers tend to buy more from Best Buy physical store and they use
Facebook to collect information about their shopping compared to male
Where, in addition to previously described independent variables, the
consumers.
following were included:

FB _Wi = Facebook use at work 6.1.3. Nordstrom physical store

Twitter _Wi = Twitter use at work The use of Other Social Media and LinkedIn with and without
LinkedIn _Wi = LinkedIn use at work control variables in our model, from Section 5.1, remain positively and
Skype _Wi = Skype use at work significantly associated with shopping at physical Nordstrom stores.
OtherSM _Wi = Other Social Media use at work The control variable gender is negatively associated with shopping at
physical Nordstrom stores at p < 0.05 with a coefficient value of
−0.650. Note that female is coded as “0” and male is coded as “1.” The
negative association of gender with shopping at Nordstrom physical
6.1. Social media use at home and shopping preferences at brick-and-mortar
store suggests that males are less likely to use social media at home to
retail stores with control variables
make informed shopping decisions at the physical Nordstrom stores.

We observed the following changes compared to our findings from

Section 5.1, after adding education, age and gender as control variables
in the logistic regression model specification for consumer shopping
preferences at physical stores. The regression results with these controls
are reported in Table 4.
The following associations remain unchanged from Section 5.1 (see
Table 2) for social media use at home after including age, gender, and
education as control variables in the regression model: Target physical
stores with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Skype, and Other Social Media
use at home; Best Buy physical stores with Twitter, LinkedIn, Skype and
Other Social Media use at home; Nordstrom and Walmart physical
stores with all social media use at home.
6.1.1. Target physical store
The use of Other Social Media at home remains significant and
negative for Target brick and mortar stores as reported in Section 5.1.
From our control variables, gender is negatively associated with shop-
ping at Target physical stores at p < 0.001 with coefficient −0.874.
The control variable age group 35−50 is negatively associated with
shopping at Target physical store p < 0.1 with coefficient of −1.091
This result suggests that gender and age group differences negatively
affect shopping at a Target physical store.
6.2. Social media use at home and shopping preferences at online retail
stores with control variables
We did not observe any change compared to our findings from
Section 5.2, after including education, age and gender as controls to the
logistic regression model specification for shopping preferences at on-
line stores. Table 5 reports the results from the regression with these
controls included.
6.3. Alternative specification
Social media technologies are ubiquitous and they can be accessed
anytime anywhere and as such, includes access to social media plat-
forms and their use at home and at work. As a consequence of this
ubiquity, social media can be used at work to gather information for
shopping and become better informed about preferences, and in some
cases can lead to purchases while at work. Such ubiquity allows shop-
ping information and preferences to be shared with colleagues at work
and consumers may indulge in further search for more desirable retail
goods or retail channels. We include the use of social media at work in
this alternative model to analyze the effect of using social media at
work on shopping preferences.

7
J. Vithayathil, et al. International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx

Table 4 Table 5
Results for social media use at home and shopping preferences at brick-and- Results for social media use at home and shopping preferences at online retail
mortar retail stores with control variables. stores with controls.
Dependent Social Media β SE Wald p-value Dependent Social Media β SE Wald p-value
Variable Variable

Walmart Facebook 0.035 0.106 0.336 0.736 Amazon Facebook 0.377 0.186 2.019 0.043**
Twitter 0.125 0.125 0.996 0.319 Twitter −0.070 0.257 −0.271 0.786
LinkedIn −0.025 0.140 −0.182 0.855 LinkedIn −0.051 0.236 −0.219 0.827
Skype 0.493 0.189 2.607 0.009** Skype −0.563 0.261 −2.151 0.031**
Other SM −0.071 0.109 −0.655 0.512 Other SM 0.387 0.211 1.833 0.066*
Age 20−35 0.072 0.609 0.120 0.904 Age 20−35 0.456 0.800 0.570 0.568
Age 35−50 0.055 0.636 0.087 0.930 Age 35−50 0.995 0.881 1.129 0.259
Gender −0.132 0.248 −0.535 0.592 Gender 0.690 0.433 1.594 0.111
Education – 0.335 0.394 0.851 0.394 Education – 0.077 0.711 0.109 0.913
community college community college
Education – 0.468 0.388 1.207 0.227 Education – −0.671 0.678 −0.989 0.322
undergraduate undergraduate
Target Facebook 0.092 0.108 0.852 0.394 Best Buy Facebook 0.135 0.186 0.726 0.467
Twitter 0.072 0.126 0.569 0.569 Twitter 0.368 0.179 2.059 0.039**
LinkedIn 0.129 0.143 0.897 0.369 LinkedIn −0.065 0.239 −0.272 0.785
Skype −0.027 0.187 −0.146 0.884 Skype −0.190 0.351 −0.542 0.587
Other SM −0.311 0.110 −2.805 0.005** Other SM −0.190 0.197 −0.966 0.333
Age 20−35 −0.688 0.621 −1.107 0.268 Age 20−35 −0.712 0.776 −0.917 0.359
Age 35−50 −1.091 0.649 −1.681 0.092* Age 35−50 −0.974 0.869 −1.122 0.262
Gender −0.874 0.251 −3.479 0.000*** Gender 0.655 0.413 1.585 0.113
Education – 0.519 0.386 1.344 0.178 Education – −0.436 0.589 −0.740 0.459
community college community college
Education – 0.291 0.379 0.766 0.443 Education – −0.248 0.561 −0.442 0.658
undergraduate undergraduate
Best Buy Facebook 0.199 0.827 −2.324 0.020** Walmart Facebook −0.162 0.184 −0.883 0.377
Twitter 0.192 0.149 1.285 0.198 Twitter 0.383 0.238 1.612 0.107
LinkedIn −0.122 0.184 −0.662 0.508 LinkedIn −0.132 0.261 −0.509 0.611
Skype −0.066 0.245 −0.271 0.786 Skype 0.315 0.304 1.037 0.299
Other SM −0.148 0.141 −1.045 0.296 Other SM −0.521 0.233 −2.232 0.025**
Age 20−35 −0.518 0.672 −0.771 0.440 Age 20−35 15.327 1007.737 0.015 0.987
Age 35−50 −0.158 0.705 −0.225 0.822 Age 35−50 15.712 1007.737 0.016 0.987
Gender 0.769 0.307 2.499 0.012** Gender −0.299 0.441 −0.679 0.496
Education – 0.599 0.486 1.231 0.218 Education – 0.516 0.814 0.634 0.525
community college community college
Education – 0.034 0.497 0.069 0.945 Education – 0.511 0.810 0.631 0.528
undergraduate undergraduate
Nordstrom Facebook −0.122 0.119 −1.023 0.306 Target Facebook −0.127 0.147 −0.865 0.387
Twitter 0.061 0.132 0.465 0.642 Twitter 0.015 0.196 0.079 0.936
LinkedIn 0.547 0.152 3.588 0.000*** LinkedIn 0.936 0.211 −0.628 0.530
Skype −0.181 0.207 −0.876 0.381 Skype −0.241 0.313 −0.769 0.441
Other SM 0.394 0.120 3.275 0.001** Other SM −0.036 0.151 −0.243 0.808
Age 20−35 −0.474 0.635 −0.746 0.455 Age 20−35 15.505 981.680 0.016 0.987
Age 35−50 −0.847 0.674 −1.256 0.209 Age 35−50 15.196 981.680 0.015 0.987
Gender −0.650 0.280 −2.320 0.020** Gender −1.152 0.406 −2.835 0.004**
Education – −0.366 0.407 −0.899 0.368 Education – 0.557 0.671 0.830 0.406
community college community college
Education – −0.039 0.397 −0.100 0.920 Education – 0.580 0.660 0.879 0.379
undergraduate undergraduate

* p ≤ 0.1, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001. * p ≤ 0.1, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001.

6.3.1. Social media use at home and at work, and shopping at brick-and-
mortar stores
We tested an alternative logistic regression model in which we in-
cluded social media use at work as additional independent variables.
Table 6 reports the results from the regression analysis of this alternate
specification.
Under the alternative specification for the use of social media at
home and social media use at work, and shopping at brick-and-mortar
stores, the following findings are observed and compared to the find-
ings from Section 5.1 summarized in Table 1.
6.3.1.1. Walmart physical store. The use of Skype at home remains
significant and positive as reported in Section 5.1 earlier.
6.3.1.2. Target physical store. Results from 5.1 and 6.1 show that only
Other Social Media at home is significant and negatively associated with
shopping at Target physical stores. The use of Other Social Media at work
is positive and significant under this alternative specification while the use
at home remains as previously reported in Section 5.1. The use of Twitter
at home becomes significant at p = 0.05 for shopping at Target brick-and-
mortar stores when social media use at work is included in the regression
model. Its p-value changes from 0.964 to 0.05 and the coefficient changes
from 0.005 to 0.391, respectively. Furthermore, the use of Twitter and
Skype at work becomes significant at p < 0.05 with the coefficients of
−0.766 and 0.336, respectively. Twitter is a microblogging platform that
enables users to exchange short messages quickly, and has broadcast
features. Given the lack of available leisure time at work, Twitter may be
an ideal social media platform that has minimal workplace impact when
used for personal activities such as shopping because the actions do not
take much time. Therefore, the combined use of this platform at work and
at home for shopping may provide a time-efficient way to capitalize on
consumer shopping opportunities at Target. While this may imply a
deleterious effect on productivity at work because of the use of Twitter
for personal matters, Vithayathil, Dadgar, and Osiri (2017) find that the
use of Twitter at work may exhibit offsetting positive and negative effects,
resulting in no net impact on productivity.

8
J. Vithayathil, et al. International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx

Table 6 Table 7
Results for social media use at home and at work, and shopping preferences at Results for social media use at home and at work, and shopping preferences at
brick-and-mortar retail stores. online retail stores.
Dependent IV (w = at work; h = β SE Wald p-value Dependent IV (w = at work; h = β SE Wald p-value
Variable at home) Variable at home)

Walmart Facebook-h 0.183 0.131 1.397 0.162 Amazon FB-h 0.082 0.209 0.396 0.692
Twitter-h 0.133 0.182 0.734 0.463 Twitter-h −0.013 0.350 −0.039 0.968
LinkedIn-h −0.114 0.172 −0.664 0.506 LinkedIn-h 0.173 0.294 0.587 0.557
Skype-h 0.497 0.196 2.535 0.011** Skype-h −0.371 0.277 −1.336 0.181
Other SM-h −0.172 0.143 −1.199 0.230 Other SM-h 0.307 0.266 1.151 0.249
Facebook-w −0.261 0.164 −1.593 0.111 FB-w 0.636 0.365 1.743 0.081*
Twitter-w −0.048 0.272 −0.179 0.857 Twitter-w −0.174 0.508 −0.344 0.731
LinkedIn-w 0.213 0.181 1.173 0.240 LinkedIn-w −0.381 0.267 −1.425 0.154
Skype-w −0.157 0.150 −1.044 0.296 Skype-w −0.256 0.191 −1.338 0.180
Other SM-w 0.248 0.188 1.319 0.187 Other SM-w −0.155 0.364 −0.427 0.669
Target Facebook-h 0.101 0.134 0.755 0.450 Best Buy FB-h −0.102 0.219 −0.465 0.641
Twitter-h 0.391 0.199 1.958 0.050* Twitter-h 0.686 0.250 2.739 0.006**
LinkedIn-h 0.164 0.174 0.942 0.346 LinkedIn-h −0.145 0.304 −0.478 0.632
Skype-h −0.154 0.192 −0.799 0.424 Skype-h −0.300 0.386 −0.778 0.436
Other SM-h −0.467 0.146 −3.199 0.001** Other SM-h −0.176 0.238 −0.740 0.459
Facebook-w 0.021 0.165 0.131 0.895 FB-w 0.290 0.258 1.123 0.261
Twitter-w −0.766 0.300 −2.547 0.010** Twitter-w −0.413 0.357 −1.157 0.247
LinkedIn-w −0.170 0.183 −0.927 0.353 LinkedIn-w −0.039 0.322 −0.123 0.902
Skype-w 0.336 0.167 2.009 0.044** Skype-w 0.396 0.187 2.120 0.034**
Other SM-w 0.376 0.192 1.952 0.050* Other SM-w −0.094 0.304 −0.309 0.757
Best Buy Facebook-h 0.067 0.159 0.419 0.675 Walmart FB-h 0.080 0.228 0.350 0.726
Twitter-h 0.556 0.209 2.653 0.007** Twitter-h 0.567 0.307 1.849 0.064*
LinkedIn-h −0.100 0.220 −0.457 0.647 LinkedIn-h −0.196 0.326 −0.602 0.547
Skype-h −0.071 0.259 −0.275 0.783 Skype-h 0.476 0.323 1.471 0.141
Other SM-h −0.133 0.170 −0.781 0.434 Other SM-h −0.557 0.293 −1.895 0.058*
Facebook-w 0.129 0.195 0.664 0.506 FB-w −0.512 0.370 −1.382 0.167
Twitter-w −0.746 0.366 −2.038 0.041** Twitter-w −0.507 0.572 −0.886 0.375
LinkedIn-w −0.144 0.249 −0.582 0.560 LinkedIn-w 0.231 0.317 0.729 0.465
Skype-w 0.229 0.157 1.458 0.144 Skype-w −1.047 0.639 −1.640 0.101
Other SM-w −0.239 0.238 −1.003 0.315 Other SM-w 0.049 0.421 0.119 0.905
Nordstrom Facebook-h −0.306 0.153 −1.998 0.045** Target FB-h −0.117 0.185 −0.635 0.525
Twitter-h 0.192 0.195 0.985 0.324 Twitter-h −0.069 0.278 −0.250 0.802
LinkedIn-h 0.541 0.187 2.893 0.003** LinkedIn-h −0.113 0.256 −0.442 0.658
Skype-h −0.266 0.221 −1.205 0.228 Skype-h −0.286 0.318 −0.898 0.369
Other SM-h 0.250 0.158 1.583 0.113 Other SM-h −0.040 0.205 −0.197 0.844
Facebook-w 0.381 0.180 2.111 0.034** FB-w 0.136 0.218 0.626 0.531
Twitter-w −0.294 0.288 −1.021 0.307 Twitter-w −0.057 0.419 −0.138 0.890
LinkedIn-w 0.032 0.193 0.169 0.865 LinkedIn-w −0.024 0.272 −0.091 0.928
Skype-w 0.068 0.157 0.438 0.661 Skype-w −0.080 0.225 −0.356 0.722
Other SM-w 0.332 0.198 1.679 0.093* Other SM-w 0.125 0.256 0.491 0.624

* p ≤ 0.1, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001. * p ≤ 0.1, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001.

6.3.1.3. Best Buy physical store. Previously, from Sections 5.1 and 6.1,
the use of Twitter at home was not associated with shopping at Best Buy
physical st ores. Under the alternative specification, Twitter at home
becomes significant at p < 0.05 for shopping at brick-and-mortar Best
Buy stores when the use of social media at work is included in the
regression model. Its p-value changes from 0.15 to 0.007, and the
coefficient changes from 0.207 to 0.556, respectively. Furthermore, the
use of Twitter at work is significant and negatively associated with
shopping at a Best Buy physical store at p < 0.05 with the coefficient of
-0.746 under this alternate specification. The negative association of
the use of Twitter at work suggests that consumers who use Twitter at
work are not interested in shopping for consumer electronics at Best
Buy physical stores, whereas use of Twitter at home has positive
implications for personal use and such shopping. The Best Buy
Twitter account (@BestBuy) as of November 22, 2017 shows that
Best Buy has approximately 905,000 Twitter followers, which has
generated some measure of success in engaging with users to promote
its retail outlets and its products. Best Buy uses Twitter to enhance
customer service and the customer experience by quickly answering
customers questions and concerns on Twitter.6 Twitter users can
broadcast their questions on Twitter for a response from Best Buy.
6
https://contently.com/strategist/2012/06/04/best-buy-uses-twitter-to-
enhance-customer-service.
6.3.1.4. Nordstrom physical store. The use of Facebook at home
becomes negatively associated with shopping at Nordstrom physical
stores and significant at p < 0.05 when social media use at work is
included in the model whereas our previous results from Section 5.1 did
not find such an association. Its p-value changes from 0.404 to 0.045
and its coefficient changes from −0.095 to −0.306 respectively, when
social media use at work is included in the regression model.
Furthermore, under the alternative specification, the use of Facebook
at work is positively associated with shopping at Nordstrom physical
store at p < 0.05 with the coefficient of 0.381 with the inclusion of
social media use at work in the regression model. While Facebook is a
general-purpose social media platform that can be used for personal
and professional purposes, our results suggest that Facebook use at
work may be oriented towards professional information because
Nordstrom is a higher-end retail store that offers professional attire in
its product line. This may also explain the negative association of the
use of Facebook at home with shopping at Nordstrom physical stores,
because the use of Facebook at home is not likely to be for professional
purposes. The use of Other Social Media at home becomes non-
significant for shopping at brick-and-mortar Nordstrom stores
compared to our previous results from Section 5.1. A possible
explanation is that Other Social media includes enterprise specific
social media and the alternative specification captures use at work
rendering the use at home as non-significant for shopping at Nordstrom

9
J. Vithayathil, et al.
because Other Social Media use at work is now positive and significant.
The use of LinkedIn remains positive and significant as reported
previously in Section 5.1.
6.3.2. Social media use at home and at work, and shopping at on online
stores
We tested an alternative logistic regression model in which we in-
cluded social media use at work as a predictor of shopping online.
Table 7 shows the results from the regression analysis of this alternate
specification.
Under the alternative specification, the following results were ob-
served and compared to our findings from Section 5.2, reported in
Table 2.
6.3.2.1. Online Amazon. Under the alternative specification, the use of
Facebook and Skype at home becomes insignificant for shopping online
at Amazon when social media use at work is included in the regression
specification. In contrast, the use of Facebook at work is significant and
positively associated with shopping online at Amazon at p < 0.1 with
the coefficient of 0.636. This surprising result suggests that Amazon
shoppers use Facebook at work rather than using Facebook and Skype
at home for shopping at Amazon. This finding also suggests that the use
of social media at home to shop at Amazon is not material, but that use
at work is of significance. This finding has implications for productivity
at work because using Facebook at work for personal shopping may
affect work productivity. Indeed, Vithayathil et al. (2017) have shown
that the use of Facebook at work is negatively associated with project
success at work. Hence, it is plausible that the control or limitations to
the use of Facebook can negatively affect the shopping behavior of the
consumers, and positively affect productivity at work.
6.3.2.2. Online Best Buy. Under the alternative specification the use of
Skype at work becomes significant and positively associated with
shopping online at Best Buy at p < 0.05 with the coefficient of 0.396
when social media use at work is included in the regression
specification. The use of Twitter at home remains significant from
Section 5.2. The result regarding Skype suggests that consumers who
shop at Best Buy online while at work, use Skype to communicate
information related to consumer electronics. Skype is a rich media
platform and Media Richness Theory (MRT) may be in play here in
enabling the association between Skype and shopping online for
consumer electronics. The rich media features allow complex and
nuanced features of consumer electronics to be communicated
effectively on Skype using voice, text, images and video.
6.3.2.3. Online Walmart. The use of Twitter becomes significant for
shopping online at Walmart at p < 0.1 when social media use at work is
included in the regression model. For Twitter use at home, the p-value
changes from 0.195 to 0.064 and its coefficient changes from 0.291 to
0.567 compared to the model without social media use at work.
Walmart has the most active users on Twitter in our list of retailers
with more than 40 percent being active users.7 A likely explanation is
that the use of social media at work contributes to the significant use of
Twitter at home which generates more exposue for online shoppers to
Walmart deals and discounts.
The results under this alternative specification are summarized in a
compact form in Figure 4. As before a “+” entry denotes positive and
significant association whereas the “-“entry denotes negative and sig-
nificant association.
7
http://www.prnewsonline.com/water-cooler/2012/11/20/on-twitter-
walmart-has-the-most-active-followers/.
10
International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx
7. Discussion
Scholars Abed et al. (2015), Alalwan et al. (2017) and Appel et al.
(2020) have described the role of social media and social networks in
consumer marketing. Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence
that social media plays an increasing significant role in consumer
buying behavior. Consumer buying influenced by social media was over
$22 billion in 2019 and expected to exceed $84 billion in 2024 (Keyes,
2019). Keyes also reports the growth of commerce associated with so-
cial media, also referred to as social commerce, from 27 percent in 2015
to 36 percent in 2019. Furthermore, the relationship between firms
such as, retailers and their customers, and their markets (Alalwan et al.,
2017; Aral et al., 2013) are transforming in the age of social media
where social media is increasingly deployed to connect and interact
with customers. Additionally, new social media-based strategies are
employed to enable firms to analyze consumer preference and antici-
pate consumer needs (Hill et al., 2006; Trusov et al., 2010). On the
other side of the social media platform customers are increasingly using
social media to provide feedback, concerns and desires to retail firms
(Abed et al., 2015; Kapoor et al., 2018). The results from our study are a
contribution to the body of work on social media, especially as it relates
to its growing social and commercial importance. Thus, our findings
have implications for research and practice.
Our results show a positive association between using LinkedIn at
home and shopping at Nordstrom. LinkedIn can be an effective adver-
tising platform for Nordstrom to promote its products to those target
users who are employed in professional positions. Such professionals
who are interested in careers and career networking are potential
customers for higher end brands such as Nordstrom. Attire offerings at
Nordstrom may be considered professional and suited to such a pro-
fessional work environment. LinkedIn is a social networking site with
medium richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986), specifically designed for job
seekers and employers which can facilitate connecting retailers with
professionals. This result shows that such social networks such as Lin-
kedIn offer a platform for retailers and advertisers to promote products
that are suitable for professionals.
We find that when social media use is extended to include use at
work in our alternative model specification, certain associations be-
tween social media use at home and shopping preferences changed. The
association between use of Twitter at home and shopping at Target
become positive and significant when use at work is included in the
model. These results show that different marketing strategies may be
needed or existing strategies may need to be modified depending on the
user environment. For example, if employees are allowed to use social
media at work, this usage extension can benefit Target which suggests
that Target should invest more in their Twitter presence and adver-
tisements. Target could focus more on its social marketing campaigns
on the Twitter platform. These results suggest that Target should con-
sider devising new strategies for customers and their user base on
Twitter.
The analysis finds that some of the associations between social
media use at home and shopping preferences become non-significant
when social media use at work is included in the model. Including so-
cial media use at work renders the associations between shopping on-
line at Amazon and using Facebook and Skype at home non-significant.
These results suggest that the effect of marketing campaigns for
Amazon products may be attenuated if the target customers use
Facebook and Skype at work. Based on this result Amazon could devise
modified marketing strategies on social media platforms for improved
efficacy. For example, they could exclude the display of their adver-
tisements to those IP (Internet Protocol) addresses that are corporate
addresses and instead target individual consumers. Amazon would also
need to devise alternate marketing campaigns for the social media use
at the workplace.
The use of Skype at home is negatively associated with shopping
online at Amazon. One implication of this result based on MRT is the
J. Vithayathil, et al.
Figure 4. Summary of results for social media use at home and work, and shopping preferences (b&m = brick and mortar).
lack of a good fit between the capabilities of a rich medium such as
Skype and the task of promoting shopping for products offered by
Amazon. This result suggests that the online retailers, such as Amazon,
may not benefit from media richness as an attribute of the social media
platform to increase sales revenue. Social media users post their ques-
tions and concerns on the platform to obtain answers and gain benefits
expediently when they are interested in a potential purchase. Rich
media may make the process more complex. Therefore, Amazon could
engage customers and create more effective campaigns using media
that is lower in media richness. Our results show that use of Facebook
and shopping online at Amazon has a positive association which sup-
ports this argument because MRT suggests that Facebook is lower in
media richness compared to Skype. A second factor is that the net-
working abilities of Skype are much lower than Facebook.
The use of Twitter at home is positively associated with shopping
online at Best Buy. The implication of this result is that brands and
companies that rely on fast and real-time customer service can benefit
from social media that is low in richness. Specifically, broadcasting and
micro-blogging platforms such as Twitter offer rapid communications,
but low media richness. Electronic products offered by Best Buy may
generate immediate follow-up questions from customers and these
questions can be effectively addressed on broadcast media such as
Twitter where an answer (a tweet, reply, or mention) could be seen by
millions of followers. Consequently, this one-to-many relationships
between brand and customers can be used to satisfy consumer in-
formation needs immediately, which can enhance or build brand image.
7.1. Theoretical contribution
The theoretical contribution of this study is two-fold. Media
Richness Theory (MRT) explains the technology-mediated commu-
nications between the customers and businesses. We extend MRT into a
new context to explain the associations between social media use and
the communicative capabilities of the platform and its features that
facilitate effective communication and exchange of information.
Second, the theory of Strength of Weak Ties (SWT) explains the effec-
tiveness of the transfer of novel information between tightly clustered
networks that have weak ties among the clusters such that these clusters
can benefit from useful information that is typically contained within a
cluster and available only to members of that tight network. MRT and
SWT together explain how customers create, use and benefit from their
social media networks to gather information about the products and
services they are interested in and communicate with retailers about
their needs, concerns, and wishes about those products and services.
11
International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx
7.2. Implications for practice
A digital strategy is inevitable for any organization today given that
we are in the information age. Digital Marketing is important to not
only build brand awareness or build credibility or for good public re-
lations, but it is an important manner in which the organization in-
teracts with the world at large. This is the new digital ‘face of the or-
ganization’, therefore it is imperative for any organization to have a
digital strategy in a wide variety of areas that include customers. For
retailers, consumer shopping and social media are now connected, as
organizations are able to express themselves on social media and reach
a wide swathe of potential customers and existing customers ex-
pediently and conveniently. Retail firms should consider elevating their
social listening skills through social media platforms which will help
provide insight into what consumers want so that they can respond with
what consumers really want in order to maximize revenues. The con-
sumer has access to multiple social media forums that provide access to
information that they would not have otherwise before the digital age
of social media. Firms on the front lines of the digital age are analyzing
information available to them on social media platforms, such as
Twitter, Facebook and others, about the products and issues consumers
are discussing, and are noting the manner in which firms are reacting
and responding to the social media channels of information. This re-
search informs retailers about the relationship and associations be-
tween social media use in the digital age and the retail brand pre-
ferences of consumers.
Retailers could design, develop, and promote their social media
presence in accordance with their brand image, brand messaging and
target audience, in consonance with the features and media richness of
the social media platform. For example, our results suggest that
LinkedIn could be more effective communication and a platform for
retailers, such as Nordstrom, to enhance brand image and revenue,
instead of a platform such as Twitter. LinkedIn is a selective platform
for working professionals whereas Twitter is more general platform that
includes and touches a broader swathe of population who may not
necessarily be interested in higher end, professionally relevant apparel.
The social media platform of choice should ideally exhibit character-
istics and attributes consistent with the retailers brand characteristics,
messaging objectives and target audience.
7.3. Limitations and future research
Our work has a number of limitations. First, we do not specifically
identify Other Social Media, which we use as a catch-all for platforms
not specifically named in the study. Hence, our concept of Other Social
J. Vithayathil, et al.
Media captures a variety of social media that fall outside popular social
media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Skype. Other
Social Media measures in our study may also represent enterprise or
firm-specific social media.
Second, we do not measure the combined use of the social media at
home and at work as one variable. Third, the data is collected through a
self-reported survey, which has its own limitations. Although our re-
sults have important implications, it does not delve into specific one-on-
one relationships between retail brands and social media platforms.
Fourth, the results of this study are generalizable to a population of
social media users who work, have higher education, and are familiar
with social media technologies and may not represent other population
segments such as an older population group who may not have higher
education and may not engage with social media platforms.
Fifth, negative comments and reviews published and shared on
popular social media platforms can have negative impact on shopping
preferences. This study does not analyze the effect of negative social
media comments about retailers. Future research can investigate this
area to measure the impact of negative reviews on the preferences of
social media users towards buying from popular retailers.
Future research can extend our study to investigate the associations
between other types of social media, beyond the popular platforms in
this study. Various marketing campaigns could be investigated with
objective measures in the future research. For example, marketing
campaigns can be investigated, at granular levels, to understand which
combination of marketing strategies and social media platform are ef-
fective in increasing sales and enhancing customer satisfaction. Lastly,
scholars could investigate other dimensions of social media use such as
quality of the platform, time of day, length of use, to analyze the
manner in which these factors affect outcomes.
8. Conclusion
This study provides important insights for the retailers to create and
maintain relationships with customers and gain insights into customers
and their preferences communicated through popular social media plat-
forms. Social media and their communicative capabilities are effective
tools that enables retailers to know the customers and inform the devel-
opment of effective marketing strategies. Retailers can use the results of
this study to craft and mount effective social media campaigns to promote
their products and services to target customers and gain an edge in the
highly competitive retail industry. Social media plays an increasing role in
shaping consumer behavior for evaluating and refining shopping choices.
We investigate the associations between the use of popular social
media platforms and shopping at popular retailers. Our results based on
a logistic regression model show that choosing an appropriate social
medium with certain media richness qualities can be important for
retail brands as they impact marketing campaigns and outcomes. For
example, using social networking platforms, such as Facebook and
LinkedIn, can be effective in increasing sales of products for the brick-
and-mortar retailers. Rich media platforms, such as Skype, may produce
negative outcomes for online retailers. Popular retail brands can benefit
from less rich media platforms, such as Twitter, which has micro-
blogging and broadcasting features that can be effectively used for
enhancing customer service.
Author statement
Joseph Vithayathil, Majid Dadgar and J. Kalu Osiri: All authors
contributed equally to this research during the process of developing
this paper.
Appendix A. Examples of social media use questions
(The rest of the questions follow the same pattern. The complete
survey will be provided upon request.)
12
International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx
Q1. Rate your weekly use of Facebook at Home
1 Very Low or None
2 Low
3 Moderate
4 High
5 Very High or Always
Q2. Rate your weekly use of Twitter at Work
6 Very Low or None
7 Low
8 Moderate
9 High
10 Very High or Always
Appendix B. Examples of shopping preferences questions
(The rest of the questions follow the same pattern. The complete
survey will be provided upon request.)
Q1. What are your frequent online shopping websites? (Check all
that apply)
• Amazon
• Best Buy
• Walmart
• Target
References
Abed, S., Dwivedi, Y., & Williams, M. (2015). Social media as a bridge to E-commerce
adoption in SMEs: A systematic literature review. The Marketing Review, 1, 39.
https://doi.org/10.1362/146934715X14267608178686).
Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media in
marketing: A review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and Informatics,
34(7), 1177–1190.
Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of social media in
marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 79–95.
Aral, S., Dellarocas, C., & Godes, D. (2013). Social media and business transformation: A
framework for research. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 3–13.
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362.
Bughin, J. (2015). Getting a sharper picture of social media’s influence | McKinsey &
Company. http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-
insights/getting-a-sharper-picture-of-social-medias-influence.
Crowell, L. F. (2004). Weak ties: A mechanism for helping women expand their social
networks and increase their capital. The Social Science Journal, 41(1), 15–28. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.002).
Culnan, M. J., McHugh, P. J., & Zubillaga, J. I. (2010). How large U.S. companies can use
twitter and other social media to gain business value. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4),
243–259.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media
richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing Media Richness Theory in the new media:
The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research,
9(3), 256–274.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). media, tasks, and communication
processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600. https://
doi.org/10.2307/25148857).
Dennis, A. R., Kinney, S. T., & Hung, Y. C. (1999). Gender differences in the effects of
media richness. Small Group Research, 30(4), 405–437.
El-shinnawy, M., & Markus, M. L. (1997). The poverty of Media Richness Theory:
Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(4), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.
1996.0099).
Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. CHI 2009.
Grabowicz, P. A., Ramasco, J. J., Moro, E., Pujol, J. M., & Eguiluz, V. M. (2012). Social
features of online networks: The strength of intermediary ties in online social media.
PLoS One, 7(1), e29358. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029358).
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the
social media ecosystem. Special Issue: Social Media, 54(3), 265–273. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007.
J. Vithayathil, et al.
Hill, S., Provost, F., & Volinsky, C. (2006). Network-based marketing: Identifying likely
adopters via consumer networks. Statistical Science, 21(2), 256–276.
Jiang, S., Chen, H., Nunamaker, J. F., & Zimbra, D. (2014). Analyzing firm-specific social
media and market: A stakeholder-based event analysis framework. Decision Support
Systems, 67, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.001).
Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2007). What’s in Store? Retail marketing and cor-
porate social responsibility. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(1), 17–30. https://
doi.org/10.1108/02634500710722371).
Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of Media Richness
Theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 263–299.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.
Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S. (2018).
Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems
Frontiers, 20(3), 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y).
Kavanaugh, A., Reese, D., Carroll, J., & Rosson, M. (2005). Weak ties in networked
communities. Information Society, 21(2), 119–131.
Keyes, D. (2019). Social commerce market report: How social media is driving ecommerce sales
in 2020https://www.businessinsider.com/social-commerce-report.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social
media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media.
Special Issue: Social Media, 54(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.
01.005).
Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer
equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Fashion Marketing and
Consumption of Luxury Brands, 65(10), 1480–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2011.10.014).
Kuvykaite, R., & Piligrimiene, Z. (2013). Communication in social media for company’s
image formation. Economics & Management, 18(2), 305–317.
Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties:
Structural factors in occupational Status attainment. American Sociological Review,
46(4), 393–405.
Luo, X., Zhang, J., & Duan, W. (2013). Social media and firm equity value. Information
Systems Research, 24(1), 146–163.
13
International Journal of Information Management 53 (xxxx) xxxx
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the
promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52, 357–365.
Martini, A., Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2013). The firm, the platform and the customer: A
“Double Mangle” interpretation of social media for innovation. Information and
Organization, 23(3), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.07.001).
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.
Palvia, P., Pinjani, P., Cannoy, S., & Jacks, T. (2011). Contextual constraints in media
choice: Beyond information richness. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 657–670.
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. (2013). Understanding social media
effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566.
Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer‐seller relationships, and social media.
Management Decision, 50(2), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251741211203551).
Teten, D., & Farmer, C. (2010). Where are the deals? Private equity and venture capital
funds’ best practices in sourcing new investments. The Journal of Private Equity, 14(1),
32–52.
Trusov, M., Bodapati, A. V., & Bucklin, R. E. (2010). Determining influential users in
internet social networks. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 47(4), 643–658.
Vithayathil, J., Dadgar, M., & Osiri, J. K. (2017). Does social media use at work lower
productivity? International Journal of Information Technology and Management.
Xia, L. (2013). Effects of companies’ responses to consumer criticism in social media.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(4), 73–100.
Yu, Y., Duan, W., & Cao, Q. (2013). The impact of social and conventional media on firm
equity value: A sentiment analysis approach,” 1. Social media research and appli-
cations 2. Theory and Applications of Social Networks, 55(4), 919–926. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.028).
Zarrella, D. (2009). The social media marketing book. “O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Zhao, D., & Rosson, M. B. (2009). How and why people twitter: The role that micro-blogging plays
in informal communication at work. Sanibel Island, Florida, USA: GROUP’04 May 10.
Zhao, J., Wu, J., & Xu, K. (2010). Weak ties: Subtle role of information diffusion in online
social networks. Phys. Rev. E, 82(1), 16105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.
016105).