Ama Servsig Russell Bennett And Neale 2010

372 views

Published on

This presentation to the American Marketing Association Services Conference in 2010 profiles users of 4 social media sites and tests their positioning and customer value.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
372
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
22
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ama Servsig Russell Bennett And Neale 2010

  1. 1. The relationship between strategic positioning and perceived value of social networking sites<br />Associate Professor <br />RebekahRussell-Bennett and<br />Dr Larry Neale<br />Queensland University of Technology, Australia<br />American Marketing Association ServSig 2010 Porto, Portugal<br />
  2. 2. Social Networking <br />SNS is all about connections and relationships (Neale and Russell-Bennett 2009)<br />There are many SNS, some of which offer connections as a benefit and some do not.<br />Social networking sites have a strong social aspect: the medium allows people to link to other people in an interactive way (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010)<br />But what value do people derive from these social connections? <br />Does the perceived positioning match the strategic positioning of the site?<br />Does willingness to disclose information (privacy) vary for different SNS?<br />How do value, positioning and privacy influence key marketing outcomes?<br />
  3. 3. Research Questions<br />What is the value users derive from four different SNS site; facebook, twitter, youtube and myspace?<br />What is the perceived position of the SNS sites and how does this compare with the strategic positioning?<br />What is the relationship between value, privacy and positioning and;<br /> WOM<br />Preference<br />Future Patronage<br />
  4. 4. Method<br />Online survey of 395 Australian adults 18 – 45<br />FB 152, MS 56, Twitter 42, Youtube 145<br />Randomly selected from a major Australian email list 20% opened the email, 50% responded (n = 623) and of these, 395 had used the site specified in the email. <br />Measures: Value (Mathwick et al 2001) Privacy (Barnes 2006), preference and repatronage intent (Mathwick et al 2001) <br />Sample Profile<br />Gen X and Y, mean age 30.36 years, 56% male, 73% Australian, length of time using SNS 3 yrs, mean 174 Friends on SNS, <br />30% access SNS multiple times a day<br />90% access SNS each week spending mean 4.5 hours per week<br />35.1% of users allow open access<br />25% access SNS site several times per week, mean of 4.39 hours per week<br />78% view other peoples content rather than upload their own<br />96% access SNS at home, 97% use SNS for personal use<br />
  5. 5. Profile of SNS users<br />
  6. 6. Value in Social Networking<br />Social networking sites <br />exchange is not currency but time and information <br />value is inherent in the customer-to-customer interactions and not the customer-organisation interactions, customers co-create value (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004), <br />Prior research of Facebook applications found four types of value (Holbrook1994, 2006); functional, social, emotional and altruistic with social value the most prevalent (Neale and Russell-Bennett 2010)<br />Experiential value (Mathwick et al 2001) is a more fine-grained approach to delve into components of social and emotional value<br />Playfulness, aesthetics, customer ROI, service excellence<br />
  7. 7. Value for each of the SNS sites<br />Red sites are significantly different from the highest scoring site<br />Facebook and youtube offer different types of value (green = FB)<br />
  8. 8. Strategic vs perceived positioning<br /><ul><li>Social networking is becoming an increasingly competitive space, therefore the importance of positioning as a tool to aid consumer choice is critical
  9. 9. Company positioning statements:</li></ul>Myspace - Social Entertainment Experience (Steele 2009)<br />Facebook “giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected (Facebook 2010)<br />Twitter “share and discover what’s happening right now anywhere in the world” (Twitter 2010)<br />Youtube “Broadcast yourself” (youtube 2010)<br /><ul><li>Perceived positioning</li></ul>Highly entertaining<br />A lot of fun<br />Very efficient<br />Excellent for sharing with other people<br />Really good for connecting with the world <br />Great for knowing what’s going on at any time<br />
  10. 10. Positioning of Facebook: Actual vs perceived<br /><br /> “Giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected”<br />
  11. 11. Positioning of Myspace: Actual vs perceived<br /><br /> “Social entertainment experience ”<br />
  12. 12. Positioning of Youtube: Actual vs perceived<br /><br /> “Broadcast yourself”<br />
  13. 13. Positioning of Twitter: Actual vs perceived<br /><br /> “Share and discover what’s happening right now, anywhere in the world”<br />
  14. 14. Privacy – Willingness to Disclose<br />Mean <br />I like to reveal information about myself to others through [SNS]<br />I trust the people I interact with on [SNS]<br />I am willing to share my personal thoughts with others on [SNS]<br />I have included personal information in my profile<br />Everybody should know everything about everyone else<br />Restricting access to my information via [SNS] is important to me<br />FB 2.70 MS 2.38 TW 2.08 YT 1.92<br /> People more willing to reveal info about themself on Facebook and Myspace (closed system) compared to Twitter and Youtube (open)<br />I reveal information about myself <br />Equally online and offline 20.6%<br />More offline 69.5%<br />More online 9.9%<br />
  15. 15. Impact of Value, Positioning and Privacy on WOM<br />Social<br />Intrinsic Enjoyment<br />Functional<br />Excellence as a SNS export R2 0.50<br />Value<br />WOM<br />Positioning<br />Sharing<br />Information<br />Connecting<br />R2 0.28<br />Reveal information<br />Trust people I interact with<br />Willing to share personal thoughts<br />R2 0.40<br />Privacy<br />Red = strongest impact<br />
  16. 16. Impact of Value, Positioning and Privacy on Preference for site<br />Social<br />Intrinsic Enjoyment<br />Functional<br />Excellence as a SNS export Adj R2 0.50<br />Value<br />Efficient<br />Sharing<br />Connecting<br />Information<br />Adj R2 0.28<br />Preference<br />Positioning<br />Like to reveal information<br />Trust people I interact with<br />Adj R2 0.42<br />Privacy<br />Red = strongest impact<br />
  17. 17. Impact of Value, Positioning and Privacy on Repeat Patronage<br />Entertainment<br />Intrinsic Enjoyment<br />Escapism<br />Functional<br />Excellence as a SNS export Adj R2 0.55<br />Value<br />Fun<br />Sharing<br />Connecting<br />Information<br />Adj R2 0.41<br />Repeat Patronage of SNS<br />Positioning<br />Like to reveal information<br />Trust people I interact with<br />Willing to share personal thoughts<br />Restricting access<br />R2 0.30<br />Privacy<br />Red = strongest impact<br />
  18. 18. Discussion and Implications<br />Value across SNS sites<br />Value appears to be either hedonic or utilitarian with FB more utilitarian and YT more hedonic<br />So social media sites offer different types of value as perceived by consumers<br />What is the perceived position of the SNS sites and how does this compare with the strategic positioning?<br />Facebook and YT had alignment between perceived and strategic positioning. This reflects the value scores and marketshare<br />Trust is a common driver for all marketing outcomes. Consumers determine who links to their site which influences their trust levels.<br />Wom is related to value – excellence as SNS site, perceived positioning on information (knowing what’s going on) and the level of trust consumers have with online friends/followers<br />Preference for a specific site is related to functional value, perceived positioning of ability to share with others and information, and, the level of trust consumers have with online friends/followers.<br />Future patronage is related to entertainment and functional value, sharing, and, the level of trust consumers have with online friends/followers.<br />

×