Buffardi characteristics of-popular_brand_facebook_pages-179

318 views
273 views

Published on

A GOR presentation

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
318
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Buffardi characteristics of-popular_brand_facebook_pages-179

  1. 1. Laura E. Buffardi, Universidad de DeustoCharacterisitcs of Popular Brand Facebook PagesContact: lbuffardi@gmail.com
  2. 2.  The relationship and communication between brands and consumers is no longer one-way (Meadows-Klue, 2007) Social media strategy is increasingly important ◦ Includes setting up, maintaining, and making a brand’s Facebook page popular. Consultants stress the value of having many fans or “likes” likes ◦ Research by Vitrue indicates each fan is worth $3.60 annually (Morrissey, 2010)
  3. 3.  Non-profit organizations’ Facebook pages (Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009) Fortune 50 companies’ Facebook pages (McCorkindale, 2010) Environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook pages (Sevick Bortree & Seltzer, 2009) Quasi-experiment that used a small café chain’s customers’ pre- and post-Facebook page l ’ d b k launch survey h responses (Dholakia & Durham, 2010)
  4. 4.  Focuses on 1) Facebook page f ) b k features and 2) prior b d ) brand d involvement in predicting consumer attitudes and behaviors towards brand Facebook pages. Study 1: What relationships exist between brand Facebook page features and number of fans? Study 2: What features of brand Facebook pages predict consumer attitudes and/or behaviors towards the page? Study 2: What is the role of prior involvement with a brand in predicting consumer attitudes and/or b h i di ti ttit d d/ behaviors t towards th page? d the ?
  5. 5.  Used the Facebook Search to find the most popular “Product” p p and “Restaurant” fan pages (e.g., Sephora, Domino’s Pizza) ◦ Pages that were not official company pages were excluded. ◦ Saved all tabs of resulting pages (126 total: 50 restaurants, 76 products) Five trained coders rated subjective aspects of pages: Page rated on… Image of brand on page portrayed as… o Interactive (α=.76) o Exciting (α=.80) o Visually Appealing (α=.77) (α .77) o Multicultural (α=.79) (α .79) o Quality Content (α=.92) o Modern (α=.93) o Warm (α=.88) Collected information about objective features (including both dichotomous features, e.g., including a Discussions tab & continuous features e g # company photos #iPhone apps) features, e.g., photos,
  6. 6. Wall Tab Info Tab Photos Tab Video TabBasic: Discussions Tab Feeds Tab Boxes Tab “Special Brand” TabMoreExtensive:
  7. 7. Significant Correlations between Features # of Fans Number of Fans and Objective Features Objective Feature Pearson’s rSignificant CSi ifi t Correlations b t l ti between # of Fan Videos .31**Number of Fans and Subjective Coding Providing a Mission .27** Subjective Index Pearson’s r Providing an Overview .26 26** Multicultural .31*** Rate of Wallposting .24** Interactive .26** Including a Feeds Tab .22* Visually Appealing y pp g .24** # of Fan Photos .20* Exciting .22* Quality Content .20* # of iPhone Apps .20* Modern .19 .19* Including a Polls Tab g .19* * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 # of Discussions .19* # of Visible Reviews -.19*Summary:6 of 7 (86%) subjective codes f bj ti d Including Video Tab l d d b .18*12 of 40 (30%) objective features Including a Reviews Tab -.18*were significant predictors of # fans
  8. 8.  126 U.S. college students participating for course credit were g p p g randomly assigned 5 brands from Study 1 Reported Brand Involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1985) prior to viewing FB page “Browse through this Facebook page as long as you need to, until you feel you have formed an impression of it ” it. Attitudinal and behavioral dependent measures: ◦ Brand Facebook Page Love (Carroll & Ahuvia 2006) Ahuvia, ◦ Brand Facebook Page Experience (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009) ◦ Brand Facebook Page Engagement (3 items created for this study) ◦ Word of Mouth Advertising (from Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006) ◦ Desire to Visit/Fan Brand Facebook Page (5 items created for this study)
  9. 9. Consumer Features attitudesCorrelations with Brand Facebook Correlations with Brand FacebookPage Love Page ExperiencePage Feature Pearson’s r Page Feature Pearson’s rVisually Appealing Page .34*** # Facebook Apps .25**Interactive Page .31*** Exciting Tone .24*Exciting Tone .29*** 29*** Visually Appealing .22** 22**Modern Tone .26** Modern Tone .21*Warm Tone .24** # iPhone Apps .19*Quality Content .23** Interactive Page .19*# Games .22* Quality Content .17*Including Discussions Tab .22* Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
  10. 10. Consumer Features behaviorsCorrelations with Brand Facebook Correlations with Word of MouthPage Engagement Advertising about Page Page Feature Pearson’s r Page Feature Pearson’s r Exciting Tone .27** None -- Modern Tone .27** Correlations with Visit/Fan Brand Visually Appealing Page .26** 26** Facebook Page Interactive Page .23** Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Page Feature Pearson’s r Including Notes Tab .18*Summary:Subjective codes (and a few objective features) are useful for predicting consumerattitudes and engagement, but not behavior towards brand Facebook pages.
  11. 11. Brand Consumer Involvement attitudes/ / behaviors Which page features (if any) predict Correlationsconsumer outcomes above and beyond Outcomes between Brand Involvement and Consumer Page Feature brand involvement? Pearson’s r Brand Facebook Page Love .25** Brand Facebook Page Experience .20* Brand FB Page Experience Brand FB PageBrand Facebook Page Engagement Love Brand FB Page Engagement .26**Feature Advertising about β Word f MouthFeature i i W βd of M h Ad b Page P Feature .23** 23** βVisually Appealing .31 Visit/Fan Page # Facebook Apps .24 Visually Appealing .20* .23Page Interactive .27 Exciting Tone .21 Exciting Tone .23Exciting TE ii Tone .26 26 Visually Appealing .20 Modern Tone .21Discussions Tab .23 # Coupons -.18 Page Interactive .19# Games .20 # Fan Videos .18Modern Tone .20
  12. 12. 3,2 Question : When consumers are less involved with a brand (in 3,1 comparison 3 1 co pa so to when they are more involved), do Facebook page e t ey a e o e o ed), aceboo 3,9 features facilitate positive attitudes? (in accord with Park & Young, 1986) 3 3,8Brand Love 2,9 5 3,2 32 Brand Low Brand Brand Experience e 3,7 2,8 4,8 4,4 Involvement Involvement 3,1 4,6 3,6 High Brand Low Brand 2,7 4,2 Involvement 4,4 3 Consumer Involvement ent d attitudes/ Page Engageme 2,6 3,5 Features Brand Love 4,2 High Brand ngagement 4 4 2,9 behaviors Low Brand Involvement 2,5 Low Brand 3,4 Involvement 3,8 3,8 Involvement Low Brand 2,8 Low Visually Appealing High Visually Appealing High Brand Involvement 3,6 36 Page En 3,3 2,7 Involvement High Brand 3,4 3,6 High Brand Low Visually Appealing High Visually Appealing Involvement 3,2 Involvement 2,6 3,4 3 2,5 Low Visually Appealing High Visually Appealing 3,2 Low Exciting Tone High Exciting Tone Low Exciting Tone High Exciting Tone Facebook page features facilitate positive attitudes for high involvement, but not low involvement brands.
  13. 13.  Subjective Facebook page features are more predictive than j p g p objective page features overall. Facebook page features are more pertinent to predicting p g p p g consumer attitudes than behaviors. Prior brand involvement correlates positively with all consumer outcomes measured. d Some Facebook features (e.g., visually appealing page, # Facebook A F b k Apps) predict positive attitudes and engagement ) di t iti ttit d d t while controlling for brand involvement. Investing time and money in Facebook marketing alone may not be the best strategy for gaining fans with low brand involvement.
  14. 14.  To you for your attention To Burke Addison Hillary Greene Jamar Johnson, Addison, Greene, Johnson Lindsay Lock, Alex LoPilato, Emily Peagler, and Taisa Tremble for assistance with coding and data collection To Ulf Reips, Ted Cascio, Txipi Garaizar, and Keith Campbell for constructive comments on this research

×