A Literature Review of marketing and Facebook
Henning Stueber and Simon Wurth
Master of Science in Strategic Entrepreneurship for International Growth Halmstad University, Sweden
Abstract:
Social media platforms like Facebook have quickly become more popular as well more utilized by private users and business organizations. Consumer marketing and brand management on the other hand are connected with much more complexibility in this global, quickly growing technology-world. Besides that, both topics are connected more and more together. Facebook marketing is one of these so called “hot topics” and the interests for researchers regarding this field have never been bigger before.
The purpose of this literature review therefore is to get a wider overview about the field of
“Facebook and marketing.” After focusing on each field it will be examined how these topics are connected together.
By taking 61 articles this study provides an overall view about different perspectives and trends. Thus it covers the role of companies, advertising and brand pages taking within Facebook and marketing.
Although there are already plenty of articles about social media it was decided to take the most current ones. The latest facts are underlining literature statements and reinforce the importance of this field.
The findings are relevant for the theory of information dissemination and provide valuable and directly applicable implications for Facebook and marketing.
Keywords: Facebook, marketing, social media, online marketing, brand pages, users Introduction:
In today’s 21th century, technologies are becoming a much bigger importance. In people's everyday life lots of things are controlled with the help of technologies (Alalwan, Rana, Algharabat and Tarhini, 2016). Information and data transfer is processed faster and smartphones, laptops or tablets replace telephones, computers or books (Zhu and Chen, 2015). According to this development social media became a big importance in the last 10 years. Platforms like LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook are taking an essential part of our lives and they are adopted by the majority of the society (Alalwan et. al., 2016).
Furthermore people have never been using social media that much than today. The overall mindset towards social media is mostly positive and people are enjoying it. Social media users are sharing their thoughts, spreading facts, liking posts and create their own virtual user account (Gensler, Völckner, Liu-Thompkins and Wirtz, 2013).
Worldwide there are more than 1.5 million brand pages and the number is still growing every day (Jeanjean, 2012). Every second social media user is following a brand (Van Belleghem, Eenhuizen and Vers, 2011). Because of these facts it is not wondering that companies and organizations using social media platforms to attract new users who can be potential customers (Luarn, Lin and Chiu, 2015). The communication effect of Facebook brand pages with a wide range of users is a chance for organisations and a big possibility to become more popular and successful. For managers of all kind of companies this is a big challenge (Vries, Gensler and Leeflang, 2012). With help of social media and technology market dynamics are
changing. They can threaten competitive positions of companies and influence their sales increase. (Alalwan et. al., 2016).
Comparing with the old traditional marketing-type social media marketing can reach much more potential customers within different user channels (smartphone, laptop, iPad). Also they have more interaction with the customer. Customers are becoming more and more a value creator and not only a receiver (Berthon, Pitt, Plangger and Shapiro, 2012). Customers with big influences attain to power to the best offer they want regarding needs and wants (Alalwan et. al., 2016).
Furthermore Facebook can strengthen relationships with customers and followers depending on the different cultures (Minton et. al., 2012). Although there is an overall importance or need for the use of Facebook the following statistics underline that there are big cultural differences within users. For example in 2011 people in Russia (10 hours per month) used social media twice as much as people in the United States (5,2 hours). Today the numbers are much more higher because of smartphone or tablets. (Minton et. al., 2012).
In the last years the numbers of rewires about the topic Facebook and marketing were still increasing. Thus it is not wondering that there are so many review articles existing. From all social media platforms Facebook is the the most popular one (Meiselwitz, 2016). The following review concentrates only on Facebook and marketing. In this case Facebook is representative for social media. Due to the point that Facebook is a big field, the literature review can’t implement all things in detail.
Another upcoming field is sustainable marketing and social media. As there is an increasing interest and need for sustainable marketing, lots of companies try to use social media for green advertises from the background of sustainability (Minton et. al., 2012).
Method:
The scope of the task was to review the literature on “Facebook and Marketing”. The only restriction the authors got was to mainly use scientific articles from the databases of “Web of Science”, “Scopus” and the online-library of Halmstad University. In addition, the authors should use at least thirty different references to make it a reliable review. The majority of the articles was published in the last five years, which shows the growing importance of this subject. Many of them even have been published after 2014.
First of all, the authors made a concept how to deal with this topic. They built up a plan for the review how to sort out to recent sources for the topic.
In the planning process of the review the authors wanted to make it as traceable as possible for the readers and future researchers. It was decided for a very systematic review process. As Petticrew and Roberts (2006) pointed out, this systematic review process is understood as the perception of trust in the scientific research in any field. The aspiration was to summarize all relevant identified sources in the best transparent way.
In the beginning of the research the authors gathered references for the review independently from each other. One began with the research on Web of Science and the other one on Scopus. They searched for the keywords “marketing, Facebook, social media, networking, affiliate marketing”. After collecting the different documents, the authors shared them with each other, compared and discussed what they found. After the first research the authors quickly came up the minimum amount of articles. They had to sort out the relevant articles and retained mainly only those articles from English language publication. It helped
excluding some articles from the first research. The authors created a general chart with all the headings. Following this, they divided the articles into the most important topics the literature wrote about by reading the abstracts and making notes. The authors also had a look at the publication dates because they didn’t want to use too old articles for this current field.
They wanted to write a review with the latest information as possible. So they tried to include all articles containing the expression “Facebook, marketing, social media, networking, affiliate marketing” offering valuable information.
After that the authors gave the review an overall structure with fixed different topics according to the selected literature. After the methods, there will be an overview the results in section three. The results are shown and explained with the help of statistics or graphs. In chapter four topics of chapter three will be discussed and deliberated (like Facebook and sustainability, -brands, -customer relationship, -advertising, -marketing, -engagement). These literature review will finish with implications and a future research in chapter five and six.
This process was based on individual and independent analysis of the articles.
It was interesting to see that the researched articles are dealing with different topics and perspectives about the Facebook and marketing context.
Based on the results, the authors summarized and extracted information on the subject to analyze them in terms of this literature review.
Results:
The main articles the authors found on “Facebook and Marketing” focused on several topics.
Typical topics are the searching, usage and sharing of information by Facebook users. Other fields are the influence of Facebook on consumer attitudes towards brands and the Facebook- influence on the increased consumption by consumers. The importance of Facebook pared with marketing is shown in the following results and charts. All these facts focusing on the social media platform Facebook.
Facts about Facebook
As already mentioned above every day there are more than one billion people using Facebook (allfacebook, 2016). For firms this is a great chance to cheaply spread marketing news over the world (allfacebook, 2016). Nowadays marketers need to take these new chances of these evolving technologies like Facebook to create engagement with the customers (Schultz and Peltier, 2013). The content of brands on Facebook rose by 35% from 2014 to 2015 but the content engagement decreased by approximately 17% over the same time (TrackMaven’s, 2016).
Today 9 of 10 US companies with more than 100 employees have a social media presence using for marketing issues. For many companies, social media is still a relatively new marketing area and there are still existing many gaps in knowledge how to handle things (Barger and Labrecque, 2013). It is not easy for them to coordinate their efforts, because it is such a fragmented medium (King et al., 2014; Straker et al., 2015).
The study below shows an analysis of the 30 biggest Facebook brand pages and their posting behaviour in the first half of 2016. As it is shown the average brand on Facebook is posting approximately 1.2 times per day. Big corporations like Disney and Amazon with an Facebook-keen audience are posting more than three times as much as the average per day.
Figure 1: Firsching, 2016
To get the greatest feedback the brands should post on weekends at 9 am, 1 pm and 3 pm as the table below shows. These results have been found through studies of eight different magazines.
Figure 2: Ellering, 2016
Due to the point that people seem to be happier on saturday, sunday, friday and thursday the best time to post news via Facebook is on or nearly before the weekends. Posting at 3 pm will get the most clicks and posts at 1 pm get the most shares.
Advertisement with brand Pages
Furthermore every kind of organisation, association and team can post information or display advertisements. There are not only companies with the purpose to market products or services to increase the turnover. Social or donation organisations, sport clubs, universities or at least private persons organizing parties use the opportunity of Facebook to reach a wide range of users (Rawee, 2016). Every brand page can create endless events and invite whoever they
want. Often people underestimate the effect of this kind of marketing because it is free (Rawee, 2016). Private persons can sell clothes, electronic devices or event tickets.
Commercials on Facebook itself
Advertising banners on Facebook are often personalized. Everybody leaves one’s marks on the internet (Welt, 2014). Advertising firms are collecting these personal data to sell it to brands which want to advertise on Facebook. The classical way how websites identify users are so-called cookies (Welt, 2014). Small text files the websites save on the computer to recognize the user (Welt, 2014). A quite new technology to identify the user is “browser- fingerprinting” (Welt, 2014). The information from both ways of identification can be merged to create a detailed profile of the user with preferences and aversions of every kind of consumption goods. This data is valuable for companies and is used for commercials on Facebook very often.
Factors influencing consumers behavior on Facebook
For firms must be considered that there are many different factors that influence the consumers’ attitude towards a company, brand or product. (Huang et al., 2013) For example consumers are liking more brands that are seen as “warm”, often non-profit organizations (Bernritter et al., 2016). Marketers should also have in mind, that redesigned products generate more online discussion than new products and that high ratings often lead to lower ratings in the future (Feng and Papatla, 2012; Hu and Li, 2011). More reviews are made when the quality of a product is very high or very low (Chen at al., 2011).
In the beginning it is very important for Facebook users that the content on social media entertains them (Shao and Ross, 2015). For consumers who are already familiar with Facebook entertainment is not that important anymore. They are following the firm or brand on Facebook for the latest information of their products.
If marketers are trying to catch their followers on Facebook, it is also related to the character of the consumer. Extraversion and openness to experiences are leading to engagement of consumers (Kabadayi and Price, 2014).
Also a better knowledge of consumers about a product belongs to higher activity on Facebook (Packard and Wooten, 2013). The point that sharing content on Facebook is open for everyone influences the behavior of consumer as well. They are less willing to promote by word of mouth advertising on social media than in person because sharing content with lots of people on Facebook may reflect negatively on themselves in some way (Eisingerich et al., 2015; Barasch and Berger, 2014).
The most important factor which influences the behavior of consumers towards firm-, brand- and product posts on Facebook is the content (Huang et al., 2013). Consumers are more addressed with posts which were not just commercial and which include emotional parts (Swani et al., 2013). Multisensory and interactive posts which contain photos are most likely to receive any kind of feedback, as likes, comments and shares (Vries et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2015).
Another interesting point is that consumers share more often content with others when they got it from other consumers and not from brands itself (Chen and Berger, 2016).
The sharing of firm, brand and product content on Facebook can be seen as a mixture between brand-promotion and self-promotion (Smith et al., 2012).
An investigation of the effects of Facebook has shown that there are several facts for companies for increasing the sales process of products and attract customers in many ways to get a higher number of likes and comments (Gensler et. al., 2013). 20 million people like
Facebook brand pages everyday in January 2012 (Jeanjean, 2012). 50 % of social media users follow brand pages. Worldwide companies investing in social media pages about 4.3 $ billion (Williamson, 2011).
Discussion:
As the facts provided above show, user generated content on Facebook has significant effect on brand associations, loyalty and perceived quality of the brand (Schivinski and Dabrowski, 2015). But can this presence be translated into customer value or is it a false inference (eMarketer, 2015)? Shared reviews on Facebook are influencing the customer perception on a product (Purnawirawan, 2012). Purnawirawan (2012) also found that when none or a few reviews on a product were negative, the attitude towards the product was influenced the most, especially for unfamiliar brands.
Labrecque (2013) concluded that the consumer gains power through customer engagement.
The more customers are reached on Facebook, the more influence they are getting and putting pressure on the brand and the marketers and can control them.
Ertimur and Gilly (2012) found that consumer-generated advertisements were perceived as authentic but not credible.
A logical following Punawirawan (2015) found was that positive reviews will make the reader recommend the product to others more than negative reviews. A positive word-of- mouth recommendation has the strongest positive advertising effect (Baker et al., 2016).
Also not very surprisingly is the connection between credible reviews and higher purchase intentions (Jiménez and Mendoza, 2013). The same study found that detailed information makes reviews for search products more credible. Reviews for experience goods are more credible than reviews for search goods if the reviewer agrees with the original review (Jiménez and Mendoza, 2013).
Firms and brands on Facebook should have in mind that consumers rely heavily on average ratings (de Langhe, 2016). Most important for marketers and firms would be the study of Hamilton (2014), it shows that user generated content in form of reviews can affect the willingness to pay of consumers.
Being active on Facebook for firms and brands means not just pushing communications to the consumers. 93% are interactions with consumers but most of the firms are still focusing on pushing communications (Schultz and Peltier, 2013; Kerns, 2016). That means brands and firms should comment on consumer content on Facebook and maybe share important user- generated-content with the other followers. Sharing more content to consumers means that there is a greater chance to catch them (Barger, Peltier and Schultz, 2016).
The following Figure will show how the interaction between consumer and firms on Facebook could look like:
Figure 3: Barger, 2016
A firm should be actively involved in the interactions on Facebook and react to negative posts and helping to solve problems, that improves the attitude towards the brand and has positive effect on the sentiment of the consumers (van Noort and Willemsen, 2012; Coyle, 2012; Homburg, 2015).
Also there are some other main advantages which should make firms concentrating even more on Facebook marketing. First of all, the financial barriers to Facebook are low. Even for business use Facebook is mostly free to use and it can reach a huge number of people (Weinberg, 2009).
As already provided above the interactivity of Facebook and social media in general lets customers participating actively (Hill and Moran, 2011). It can lead to positive attitude toward firms and brands and to a higher involvement (Bucy, 2003; Kalyanaraman and Sundar, 2003; Hill and Moran, 2011). This interactivity lets the consumers decide and select which content they want to see and interact with. This point is a chance for marketers. Based on the user sites personal interests the marketers are able to target potential consumers. They can reach only the people who are most interested in the offers which let the marketing become much more effective.
But Facebook as a marketing platform has not only advantages, there are also some disadvantages which may occur. If you as a firm are using Facebook as a marketing tool, some people have to be responsible for all the concerns and questions occurring. It requires a significant time investment (Barefoot and Szabo, 2010).
Facebook collects user information and preferences on the internet. This can be seen as a critical point. Many people mistrust this way of getting personal data in terms of privacy and security issues.
One more point which could be negative for firms and brands on Facebook is that unhappy customers can create negative pressure on the company by responding negatively on brand or firm's posts. That can damage marketing campaigns and there is not much a marketer can do to prevent these occurrences (Cheung, Lee and Thadani, 2009).
As the results above show there are different ways of advertising in Facebook. Furthermore it is shown that the way of implementing advertisement on Facebook can diversify.
After a detailed research it became clear that following factors increase the popularity of brand posts on Facebook: Vividness, inveracity informational content, entertaining content, position, valence of comments (Vries et. al., 2012).
It is shown that vividness of information can influence the online engagement of users. Posts with high level of vividness receive a lot of likes. Likes are a sign for the customers that they support the message or comment or satisfied with it (Luarn, Lin and Chiu, 2015).
Surprisingly videos are getting less likes. The reason for this can be that videos are taking a longer time to watch (Luarn, Lin and Chiu, 2015). Interactivity exerts a strong effect on online engagement. Furthermore different posting strategies can also increase the level of online engagement (Luarn, Lin and Chiu, 2015).
Implications/ Conclusions:
Summarizing it was found out that it is possible to categorize the literature about Facebook and marketing into five big major topics: Facebook and advertising, Facebook and word of mouth, Facebook and customer relationship; Facebook and brand issues; social media and customers perception and behavior; Facebook for the firms perspective and adoption of social media (Alalwan et. al., 2016).
Facebook is nowadays still a “hot topic” but especially with the combination of marketing it will become even more important in the next years
Facebook is more than a dissemination or an advertisement channel. Here you can reach a lot of people if you compare this to other advertising forms (e.g. newspapers, events, radio, television). Another interesting fact is that customers have the chance on social media to interact with the companies. This literature review has shown that Facebook is a good way to spread cheaply marketing through different levels to catch the customers. When looking at historic literature Aristotle created already more than 2000 years ago a basis for successful and convincing marketing strategies.
School of thought:
“Rhetoric” by Aristotle is one of his most important works and it influences people even nowadays. Aristotle was a student of Plato, the major thinker of the ancient world (rhetorikblog, 2013). His work “Rhetoric” teaches about the power of persuasion (Aristotle, 1992). He distinguished between “Ethos, Pathos and Logos”, known as the “ingredients for persuasion” (rhetorikblog, 2013). To understand the connection between these “ingredients”
and nowadays economy, the three basic rules of “Ethos, Pathos and Logos” have to be further explained (Aristotle, 1992).
Ethos stands for credibility and is based on the hypothesis, that an argument acquires vogue also on ethical aspects (rhetorikblog, 2013). That means, the arguing person has to be trustworthy (Aristotle, 1992). Besides that, the person should be an expert on his specific field and has the competency to comment on something on a high quality level. The listeners should be impressed with the authority and integrity (rhetorikblog, 2013).
Ethos is generally understood as the various way how somebody imparts knowledge. It can also be supported of the reputation (rhetorikblog, 2013).
Pathos is related to feelings, emotions, which appeal to the sympathy of the listeners (Aristotle, 1992). One of the typical ways to effect these feelings is to convey a specific association. The values, beliefs and understandings of the arguing person are taught through an emotional story (rhetorikblog, 2013). The story and message of the arguing person moves the listeners to decide and act in the wanted way.
Logos means addressing somebody’s intellect and making a logical argument (Aristotle, 1992). To be convincing, all points of view have to be logically linked to each other. Logos means logic in Greece. The key to a good and convincing argumentation are good and logical reason (rhetorikblog, 2013).
Aristotle preferred the technique of Logos, but from everyday life experiences, Ethos and Pathos are at least as important as Logos (rhetorikblog, 2013). Many people can’t follow logical arguments and go by intuition. These three key rules can also be applied on nowadays economy, especially marketing and sales techniques.
As explained above Ethos means persuading people with a person’s trustworthiness or good reputation. That means for marketing issues on Facebook making advertisements with celebrities (readwritethink, 2009). They are telling in an advert that the product is good and the people trust them. The people admire these celebrities because their Ethos makes the people buying the products (readwritethink, 2009). For firms and brands it is worth it to win these celebrities over with lots of money because using an unknown expert for an advertisement has not the same effect on the consumers.
Pathos means persuading people with emotions of all sorts. It could be anger, fear, sadness, happiness, guilt and more. Many advertisements rely on Pathos to affect people. Humor is used very often in advertisements (readwritethink, 2009), also on Facebook. It affects people and causes positive emotions which make the customers buy the product.
Logos means persuading people with logic, with solid evidence (readwritethink, 2009). Facts and statistics are often used on Facebook for advertisements. It is the core for a good reason behind an argument for buying a product.
Summarizing all these three parts are influencing people on Facebook towards buying products but only the combination of these three levels makes an advertisement on Facebook an effective one.
Future Research:
The literature has underlined that Facebook and marketing have become a big issue within the last years. It was shown that there are so many different strategies to attract more customers on social media. The trend is more going to let the users of the brand pages interact with the post and videos. This is more valuable for the customer. Marketing and advertising from Facebook has nowadays a stronger attachment and empowerment. According to this a lot is connected to the emotions and credibility to the customers. The mix of both plus interaction drives the user to be inspired or influenced by the brand page.
In comparison to radio, TV or newspapers, social media is more direct and the user thinks the advertisement is only addressed to himself. Therefore he feels much more valuable.
Marketers have to take care not to produce negative brand advertisement, that the user doesn't feel comfortable anymore.
For future researchers there will be a steady development regarding Facebook and marketing.
In addition to this new marketing possibilities on Facebook will come up for companies or private users which enables new fields to study for researchers.
References:
Alalwan, A., Rana, N., Algharabat, R. and Tarhini, A. (2016), A systematic review of extant literature in social media in the marketing perspective, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 79-69.
allfacebook (2016), “Die ersten offiziellen Facebook-Nutzerzahlen für das Jahr 2016”, available at: http://allfacebook.de/toll/facebook-nutzerzahlen-2016 (accessed 05 February 2016).
Alves, H., Fernandes, C. and Raposo, M. (2016). Social Media Marketing: A Literature Review and Implications. Psychology & Marketing, 33(12), 1029-1038.
Aristotle. (1992). Rhetoric. G. A. Kennedy (Ed.). Oxf. UP (NY).
Baker, A.M., Donthu, N. and Kumar, V. (2016), “Investigating how word-of-mouth conversations about brands in uence purchase and retransmission intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 225-239.
Barasch, A. and Berger, J. (2014), “Broadcasting and narrowcasting: how audience size affects what people share”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 286-299.
Barefoot, D., and J. Szabo. (2010). “Friends with benefits: A social media-marketing handbook”. San Francisco: No Starch Press.
Barger, V.A. and Labrecque, L.I. (2013), “An integrated marketing communications perspective on social media metrics”, International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Barger, V., Peltier, J. W. and Schultz, D. E. (2016). Social media and consumer engagement:
A review and research agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(4), 268–
287.
Bernritter, S.F., Verlegh, P.W.J. and Smit, E.G. (2016), “Why nonpro ts are easier to endorse on social media: the roles of warmth and brand symbolism”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 33, pp. 27-42.
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., Plangger, K., Shapiro, D. (2012), Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: implications for international marketing strategy.
Business Horizons, 55(3), 261–271
Bucy, E.P. (2003). “The interactivity paradox: closer to the news but confused”. In E.P. Bucy
& J.E. Newhagen (eds) Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 47–72.
Chen, Y., Fay, S. and Wang, Q. (2011), “The role of marketing in social media: how online consumer reviews evolve”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 85-94.
Chen, Z. and Berger, J. (2016), “How content acquisition method affects word of mouth”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 86-102
Cheung, C. M. K., M. K. O. Lee and D. R. Thadani. (2009). “The impact of positive electronic word-of- mouth on consumer online purchasing decision”. Visioning and Engineering the Knowledge Society. A Web Science Perspective, ed. M. D. Lytras et al.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5736: 501–510.
Coyle, J.R., Smith, T. and Platt, G. (2012), “‘I’m here to help’: how companies’ microblog responses to consumer problems in uence brand perceptions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
de Langhe, B., Fernbach, P.M. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (2016), “Navigating by the stars:
investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 817-833.
de Vries, L., Gensler, S. and Lee ang, P.S.H. (2012), “Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: an investigation of the effects of social media marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 83-91.
Eisingerich, A.B., Chun, H.H., Liu, Y., Jia, H.M. and Bell, S.J. (2015), “Why recommend a brand face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word-of-mouth”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No.
1, pp. 120-128.
Ellering, N. (2016), “What 16 studies say about the best times to post on social media”, available at: http://coschedule.com/blog/best-times-to-post-on-social-media/ (accessed 14 February 2016).
eMarketer (2015), “Will marketers ever grasp social ROI measurement? Mediocre social tools mean mediocre management, measurement”, available at:
www.emarketer.com/Article/ Will-Marketers-Ever-Grasp-Social-ROI- Measurement/1012616 (accessed 05 February 2016).
Ertimur, B. and Gilly, M.C. (2012), “So whaddya think? Consumers create ads and other consumers critique them”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 115-130.
Feng, J. and Papatla, P. (2012), “Is online word of mouth higher for new models or redesigns?
An investigation of the automobile Industry”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 92-101.
Firsching, J. (2016), “Studie Facebook Seiten: Mehr Facebook Videos & niedrigere Postingfrequenz”, available at: www.futurebiz.de/artikel/studie-facebook-seiten-2016/
(accessed 14 February 2016).
Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y., Wiertz, C.(2013), Managing brands in the social media environment. J. Interact. Mark. 27(4), 242–256
Hamilton, R., Vohs, K.D. and McGill, A.L. (2014), “We’ll be honest, this won’t be the best article you’ll ever read: the use of dispreferred markers in word-of-mouth communication”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 197-212.
Hill, P.R., Moran, N. (2011). “Social marketing meets interactive media: lesson for advertising company”, International Journal of Advertising, 30(5), pp. 815–838
Homburg, C., Ehm, L. and Artz, M. (2015), “Measuring and managing consumer sentiment in an online community environment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp.
629-641.
Hu, Y. and Li, X. (2011), “Context-dependent product evaluations: an empirical analysis of Internet book reviews”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 123-133.
Huang, J., Su, S., Zhou, L. and Liu, X. (2013), “Attitude toward the viral ad: expanding traditional advertising models to interactive advertising”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 36-46.
Jeanjean, L. (2012), “5 tips to increase your Facebook fan base”, Journal of Financial Planning, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 20-21.
Jiménez, F.R. and Mendoza, N.A. (2013), “Too popular to ignore: the in uence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 226-235.
Kabadayi, S. and Price, K. (2014), “Consumer-brand engagement on Facebook: liking and commenting behaviors”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp.
203-223.
Kalyanaraman, S. and Sundar, S.S. (2003). “The psychological appeal of personalized online content: an experimental investigation of customized web portals”, Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, May.
Kerns, C. (2016), “The ‘social iceberg’: the data on 1:1 marketing may surprise you”, available at: http://marketingland.com/social-iceberg-data-11-marketing-may-surprise- 167569 (accessed 05 February 2016).
Kim, D.H., Spiller, L. and Hettche, M. (2015), “Analyzing media types and content orientations in Facebook for global brands”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4-30.
King, R.A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V.D. (2014), “What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 167-183.
Labrecque, L.I., vor dem Esche, J., Mathwick, C., Novak, T.P. and Hofacker, C.F. (2013),
“Consumer power: evolution in the digital age”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol.
27 No. 4, pp. 257-269.
Luarn, P., Lin, Y.-F. and Chiu, Y.-P. (2015), “Influence of Facebook brand-page posts on online engagement”, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 39 No. 4.
Meiselwitz, G. (2016), Social Computing and Social media: 8th International Conference, SCSM, 2016, Toronto, The Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland.
Minton, E., Lee, C., Orth, U., Kim, C.-H. and Kahlee, L. (2012), Sustainable Marketing and Social media: A Cross-country analysis of motives for sustainable behaviors, Journal of Advertising, Vol. No. 4, pp. 69-84.
Nadaraja, R. and Yazdanifard, R. (2013). “Social media marketing: advantages and disadvantages”, Center of Southern New Hempshire University.
Packard, G. and Wooten, D.B. (2013), “Compensatory knowledge signaling in consumer word-of-mouth”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 434-450.
Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Purnawirawan, N., De Pelsmacker, P. and Dens, N. (2012), “Balance and sequence in online reviews: how perceived usefulness affects attitudes and intentions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 244-255.
Rawee, M., (2013), 10 Social Media Marketing Tips: Automate Blog Posts, Engage Audience, FREE WordPress Plugins For Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+, YouTube, LinkedIn and More!, (Online Business Series)
readwritethink (2009), “Persuasive Techniques in Advertising”, available at:
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson1166/PersuasiveTech niques.pdf (accessed at 20 February 2017).
rhetorikblog (2013), “Logos - Ethos - Pathos”, available at: http://rhetorikblog.net/logos- ethos-pathos/ (accessed at 05 February 2017).
Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2015), “The impact of brand communication on brand equity through Facebook”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-53.
Schultz, D.E. and Peltier, J.W. (2013), “Social media’s slippery slope: challenges, opportunities and future research directions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 86-99.
Shao, W. and Ross, M. (2015), “Testing a conceptual model of Facebook brand page communities”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 239-258.
Smith, A.N., Fischer, E. and Yongjian, C. (2012), “How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 102-113.
Straker, K., Wrigley, C. and Rosemann, M. (2015), “Typologies and touchpoints: designing multi-channel digital strategies”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 110-128.
Swani, K., Milne, G. and Brown, B.P. (2013), “Spreading the word through likes on Facebook”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 269-294.
TrackMaven (2016), “The content marketing paradox revisited: time for a reboot?”, available at: http://trackmaven.com/resources/content-marketing-paradox-revisited/ (accessed 05 february 2016).
Van Belleghem, S., Eenhuizen, M. and Veris, E. (2011). Social Media Around the World 2011. InSites Consulting. Retrieved 18-11-2011 from http://www.slideshare.net/
stevenvanbelleghem/social-media-around-the-world- 2011?lead=394fd930572c9b62fb082021af5a6d092204 6ec4.
van Noort, G. and Willemsen, L.M. (2012), “Online damage control: the effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 131-140.
Weinberg, T. (2009). “The new community rules: Marketing on the social Web”. Sebastopol, CA: O‟Reilly Media Inc.
Welt, Die (2014). “So funktioniert personalisierte Werbung im Internet”, Retrieved 14.02.2016 from https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webwelt/article160308665/So- funktioniert-personalisierte-Werbung-im-Internet.html.
Williamson, D.A. (2011). Worldwide Social Network Ad Spending: A Rising Tide.
eMarketer.com. Retrieved 26-02-2011 from http://www.emarketer.com/Report.
aspx?code=emarketer_2000692.
Zhu, Y. Q., Chen, H.G. (2015), Social media and human need satisfaction: implications forsocial media marketing. Business Horizons, 58(3), 335–345.
