"Vine" : Do You Miss It? Electronic Word of Mouth on The Social Networking Site, Vine

Erkan 461

Volume 9, Number 4, December 2014

“Vine”: Do You Miss It?

Electronic Word of Mouth on

The Social Networking Site, Vine

Ismail Erkan

Brunel Business School

Brunel University,

Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The concept of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) has been diversified by the

advent of social networking websites. Because of this innovation, individuals are

now able to share their ideas and notions regarding brands, products, or services

with their friends through the Internet. For this reason, companies interested in

attracting more attention from consumers create their official accounts on social

networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. This strategy provides instant

communication between companies and their current and potential customers.

These social networking sites, however, are not totally the same; they create

different customer engagement opportunities for companies. To define and

discuss the difference, this paper compares posts at Vine, Facebook, and Twitter

in terms of customer engagement. Results not only confirm that these three

websites have different customer engagement ratios, but also reveal that the ratio

of Vine is higher than the ratios of both Facebook and Twitter.

Keyword: Electronic word of mouth, social media, customer engagement, Vine

462 “Vine”: Do You Miss It?



International Journal of Business and Information

1. INTRODUCTION

In today`s advertising, customers are bombarded daily with hundreds of

messages regarding products and services from a variety of sources, which can

be classified as either marketer-generated or user-generated [Goh, Heng, and Lin,

2013]. Marketer-generated information consists of traditional advertisements

such as TV commercials, radio commercials, or ads on the Internet [Chu and Kim,

2011]. The information produced by marketers of companies is consumed by

customers. User-generated information, on the other hand, consists of

conversations between customers; and, in these conversations, the information is

both produced and consumed by customers.

User-generated information simply refers to word of mouth (WOM), which

is informal communication between people regarding the products and services

of a company [Anderson, 1988; Aydin, Ceylan, and Aydin, 2014]. Because this

type of information is shared by a customer who has no selling intent, it is often

considered more reliable [Lee and Youn, 2009; Bickart and Schindler, 2001].

Although the importance of word of mouth has long been recognized by

marketers and researchers, this type of communication has become more

indispensable because of increased access to and use of the Internet [Sun, Youn,

Wu, and Kuntaraporn, 2006; Lee and Youn, 2009].

Word of mouth has gained a new dimension in the age of the Internet. The

Internet has facilitated this form of communication by providing ever-increasing

space for consumers to share personal opinions and experiences. This new form

of exchange is called electronic word of mouth (eWOM) [Cheung and Thadani,

2012]. Because of content, accessibility, and speed, the Internet has also

prompted more and more people to use the Internet to search for information

rather than rely on traditional methods.

Internet users eagerly seek social networking websites, thus moving

eWOM to a new level. On these sites, consumers can talk about brands, products,

Erkan 463


and services with their friends and acquaintances through visual instruments. To

be able to speak on these sites with familiar people rather than anonymous

individuals is another opportunity that contributes to diversification of word of

mouth (Figure 1).

Word of Mouth

Electronic Word of Mouth

Electronic Word of Mouth on Social Networking Websites

Figure 1. The Diversification of Electronic Word of Mouth

Having discovered the opportunities afforded by social networking sites,

more and more marketers have begun to use these sites as a promotion tool

[Mangold and Faulds, 2009]. Because of the tremendous interest in social

networking websites by consumers, marketers feel obligated to use the sites to

engage with customers in order to understand their expectations and to avoid

being left behind other companies [Heinonen, 2011; Smith, 2009]. Savvy

companies recognize, however, that there are many different social networking

websites and that most of them provide different communication types, as

evident in the distinction between Facebook and Twitter [Smith, Fischer, and

Yongjian, 2012].

Because Facebook and Twitter are the two most popular social networking

websites [eBizMBA, 2014], companies prefer to use these sites to engage





customers. There are, however, some relatively new social networking websites,

such as Vine, which also provide a platform for companies to engage customers.

Although these new sites have fewer users, they have the potential to attract more

customers because of their posting structure. The question, then, is: Should

popularity be the only criterion used by companies when choosing which social

networking website to use? This paper seeks to answer the question by

comparing two established social networking websites (Facebook and Twitter)

with Vine, a promising new social networking site. The comparison is made in

the context of customer engagement ratio.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This review of the literature focuses on two topics: (1) eWOM and social

networking websites, and (2) social networking websites and customer

engagement.

2.1. eWOM and Social Networking Websites

The widespread popularity of the Internet and its increasing use worldwide

have focused attention on eWOM as a marketing tool in terms of both the

academic and business context. The main point in this concept is to create

opportunities for customers to exchange ideas and notions regarding the products

and services of companies. This kind of information has been considered vital

because of its influence on consumers` purchase intentions [Huang, 2010; Zhang,

Craciun, and Shin, 2010]. Because of the speed and convenience of the Internet,

customers can acquire eWOM information instantly with just a few clicks

[Cakim, 2009] from different types of sources, such as blogs, review websites,

and online discussion forums [Cheung and Thadani, 2012].

Social networking websites are another sort of online source providing

available space for eWOM. Through social media, consumers have the

Erkan 465


opportunity to talk about products, services, and their purchase decisions with

their friends [Kozinets, DeValck, Wojnicki, and and Wilner, 2010]. Although

social networking websites have a similar aim – which is to make connections

between people [Boyd and Ellison, 2007] – the way they connect people is

different [Smith, Fischer, and Yongjian, 2012]. For example, Twitter allows only

short posts with a limit of 140 characters, whereas YouTube focuses mainly on

videos. Facebook, on the other hand, has no limitations or specific focus on any

type of posting. This variety in content causes social networking websites to have

different customer engagement ratios.

2.2. Social Networking Websites and Customer Engagement

Consumers feel more engaged with companies when they can share their

opinions and experiences about products or services; and social networking

websites are very appropriate platforms for this engagement [Mangold and

Faulds, 2009]. For this reason, researchers have a growing interest in the

relationship between these websites and customer engagement [Sashi, 2012;

Wirtz, Schilke, and Ullrich, 2010]. Marketers try to define and to build their

engagement methods, because these websites are important tools to manage their

relationships with customers [Sashi, 2012; Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft, 2010].

Many social networking websites have different features to indicate

customer engagement. For companies that create posts to promote their products

and services, the most prominent indicators are the number of “likes,” the

number of “shares,” and the number of “comments” [DeVries, Gensler, and

Leeflang, 2012]. These numbers also express how the information inside the post

spread among customers through eWOM [Hoffman and Fodor, 2010]. Although

the aim is similar, customer engagement opportunities provided by these websites

are not entirely the same. Some have greater customer engagement ratios than

others. The current study examines these ratios for the benefit of both

marketers and researchers.





3. RESEARCH GAP AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Social networking websites are considered essential marketing tools for

companies, but, because of the large number of such sites, it is not easy to use all

of them with the same efficiency. For this reason, companies often choose only

a few sites to interact with their customers. The question is: How do companies

choose among the many social networking websites that are available? The most

prominent selection criterion is the popularity of the website as reflected in the

number of users. This paper posits, however, that customer engagement ratio is

one of the most important criteria that should be considered by companies. To

this end, the paper compares well-known social networking websites in order to

indicate the dimension of customer engagement in eWOM. In doing so, the

study addresses these questions:

1. Should the popularity of a social networking website or the number of

users be the only selection criterion for companies when they choose

social networking websites to promote themselves?

2. Are all social networking websites equal for companies in terms of

providing customer engagement?

3. Does the social networking site Vine provide more customer engagement

opportunities by having a different sort of posting structure?

4. RESEARCH METHOD

To address the research questions, the current study chooses three social

networking websites: Facebook, Twitter, and Vine. The first two are chosen

because they are the most popular social networking websites in the world

[eBizMBA, 2014]. Vine is chosen because it has a different sort of posting

structure, which has the potential to attract more users.

Erkan 467


The company Trident GUM is selected as a case for this study because it

actively uses all three social networking websites. Their official Facebook,

Twitter, and Vine accounts are examined in the context of customer engagement.

More specifically, this study has collected their last five posts on each of the

three social networking websites as of June 24, 2014. These 15 posts, which are

related to the products and services of the companies, are then examined and

compared in terms of number of the “likes,” “shares,” and “comments” [DeVries,

Gensler, and Leeflang, 2012].

5. RESULTS

This study includes only 15 posts from social networking websites. They

may not be enough to generalize the results; however, the main goal of this study

is to introduce the customer engagement ratio as a substantial dimension of

eWOM. Small samples can yield critical results as long as they are purposeful

and strategic [Patton, 2002]. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the customer engagement

values for Vine, Twitter, and Facebook, respectively. Table 4 compares average

ratios for Vine, Twitter, and Facebook. The data clearly show that Vine has a

better customer/engagement ratio than either Twitter or Facebook.

Table 1

Customer Engagement Values for Vine

Platforms

& Posts

No. of

“Likes”

No. of

“Shares”

No. of

Comments

No. of

Followers

Ratio of

“Likes” /

Followers

Ratio of

“Shares” /

Followers

Ratio of

Comments

/ Followers

Vine / 1 570 160 34 65.2 K 0.0087423 0.0024539 0.00052147

Vine / 2 782 269 9 65.2 K 0.011993 0.0041257 0.00013803

Vine / 3 611 178 3 65.2 K 0.0093711 0.0027300 0.000046012

Vine / 4 542 155 12 65.2 K 0.0083128 0.0023773 0.00018404

Vine / 5 972 414 34 65.2 K 0.014907 0.0063496 0.00052147

Average - - - - 0.01066524 0.0036073 0.0002822044





Table 2

Customer Engagement Values for Twitter

Platforms

& Posts

No. of

“Likes”

No. of

“Shares”

No. of

Comments

No. of

Followers

Ratio of

“Likes” /

Followers

Ratio of

“Shares” /

Followers

Ratio of

Comments

/ Followers

TW / 1 12 7 1 33 K 0.00036363 0.00021212 0.000030303

TW / 2 537 1100 37 33 K 0.016272 0.033333 0.0011212

TW / 3 7 3 2 33 K 0.00021212 0.000090909 0.000060606

TW / 4 3 3 1 33 K 0.000090909 0.000090909 0.000030303

TW / 5 4 2 3 33 K 0.00012121 0.000060606 0.000090909

Average - - - - 0.0034119738 0.0067575088 0.0002666642

Table 3

Customer Engagement Values for Facebook

Platforms

& Posts

No. of

“Likes”

No. of

“Shares”

No. of

Comments

No. of

Followers

Ratio of

“Likes” /

Followers

Ratio of

“Shares” /

Followers

Ratio of

Comments /

Followers

FB / 1 45 0 3 13 M* 0.0000034521 0 0.00000023014

FB / 2 118 1 20 13 M* 0.0000090523 0.000000076713 0.0000015343

FB / 3 103 1 4 13 M* 0.0000079016 0.000000076713 0.00000030685

FB / 4 40 0 29 13 M* 0.0000030686 0 0.0000022247

FB / 5 210 13 29 13 M* 0.00001611 0.00000099728 0.0000022247

Average - - - - 0.00000791692 0.0000002301412 0.000001304138

*13.035.381

Erkan 469


Table 4

Comparison of Vine with Twitter and Facebook

Comparison

In Terms of

“Likes”

In Terms of

“Shares”

In Terms of

Comments

Vine / Twitter Vine - 3x Better Vine - 0.5x Better Vine - 3x Better

Vine / Facebook Vine - 1347x Better Vine - 15674x Better Vine - 216x Better

As shown in Table 4, Vine is three times better than Twitter in terms of

“Likes” and “Comments” and 0.5 times better than Twitter in terms of “Shares.”

Compared with Facebook, Vine is 1,347 times better in terms of “Likes”; 15,647

times better in terms of “Shares” (which is quite high and shows that people do

not like sharing marketer-generated content on Facebook); and 216 times better

in terms of “Comments.” The ratios for Facebook have been found remarkably

low in comparison with other social networking sites. Although Facebook has a

huge number of followers, estimated at approximately 13 million, the number of

people who interacted with posts made by companies is quite low. This fact

makes Facebook incomparably weak with regard to customer engagement ratio.

The findings of the current study regarding Facebook correspond with

previous negative criticisms by practitioners [Lake, 2011]. This issue is still

being discussed among researchers [Naylor, Lamberton, and West, 2012]. The

results of the current study show that the participation of users with regard to

company content is not similar among Facebook, Twitter, and Vine. The results

show that the customer engagement ratio for Vine is higher than the ratios for

both Facebook and Twitter. In other words, people are more involved with the

posts of companies on Vine. However, the difference between Vine and Twitter is

not as high as the difference between Vine and Facebook.





6. CONCLUSION

Companies wish to participate in social networking websites because of the

growing interest of customers in these websites. Marketers generally decide to

place their official accounts on the most popular websites such as Facebook and

Twitter. However, as indicated by the results of the current study, popularity as

measured by the number of users should not be the only selection criterion;

customer engagement ratios should also be considered. This means that the new

social networking websites that provide higher customer engagement ratios

should not be underestimated by companies.

Although the current study presents only initial insights because of the use

of small samples, it provides two useful implications for both marketers and

researchers:

1. Customer engagement ratio is a dimension of eWOM that should be

considered by marketers when choosing a social networking website for

the purpose of interacting with customers.

2. Some relatively new social networking websites such as Vine can

provide valuable opportunities in terms of customer engagement and

eWOM. The fact that posts created on Vine are eye-catching encourages

eWOM, a factor that ensures that a company’s message can spread

faster on the Internet among customers.

For further research, the size of the samples used in the current study can

be increased, or interviews with social media users can be added in order to

obtain stronger and more expanded results. In addition (thanks to a reviewer for

offering the following two suggestions), all posts examined in this study included

positive statements about the brand. The results, however, might change if

posts containing negative statements were included. The influence of negative

statements should therefore be tested in further studies. Moreover, the current

Erkan 471


study did not take into consideration the IDs of users who engage a company

through “likes,” “shares,” or “comments.” Although the three categories were

analyzed separately, this factor should be considered as a limitation of this study.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E.W. 1998. Customer satisfaction and word of mouth, Journal of Service

Research 1(1), 5-17.

Aydin, S.; H.H. Ceylan; and E. Aydin. 2014. A research on reference behavior trends

according to Horney's personality types, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences

148, 680-685.

Bickart, B.. and R. Schindler. 2001. Internet forums as influential sources of

consumer information, Journal of Interactive Marketing 15(3), 31-40.

Boyd, D.M., and N.B. Ellison. 2007. Social network sites: Definition, history, and

scholarship, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 13(1), 210-230.

Cakim, I.M. 2009. Implementing Word of Mouth Marketing: Online Strategies to

Identify Influencers, Craft Stories, and Draw Customers, New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Cheung, C.M., and D.R. Thadani. 2012. The impact of electronic word of mouth

communication: A literature analysis and integrative model, Decision Support

Systems 54(1), 461-470.

Chu, S.C., and Y. Kim. 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word

of mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites, International Journal of Advertising

30(1), 47-75.

De Vries, L.; S. Gensler; and P.S. Leeflang. 2012. Popularity of brand posts on brand fan

pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing, Journal of

Interactive Marketing 26(2), 83-91.

eBizMBA Guide. 2014. The top 15 most popular social networking websites - June 2014,

Downloadable form website:

http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites (accessed 6/23/14).

http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites





Goh, K.Y.; C.S. Heng; and Z. Lin. 2013. Social media brand community and consumer

behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user-and marketer-generated content,

Information Systems Research 24(1), 88-107.

Heinonen, K. 2011. Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to

consumers' social media behavior, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10(6), 356-364.

Hoffman, D.L., and M. Fodor. 2010. Can you measure the ROI of your social media

marketing? Sloan Management Review 52(1) 41-49.

Huang, L. 2010. Social contagion effects in experiential information exchange on

bulletin board systems, Journal of Marketing Management 26(3-4), 197-212.

Kozinets, R.V.; K. DeValck; A.C. Wojnicki; and S.J. Wilner. 2010. Networked

narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities, Journal

of Marketing 74(2), 71-89.

Lake, Amielle. 2011. Why Facebook Fans Are Useless, iMedia Connection.

Available at: www.imediaconnection.com/content/30235.asp

(accessed June 26, 2014).

Lee, M., and S. Youn. 2009. Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): How eWOM

platforms influence consumer product judgment, International Journal of

Advertising 28(3), 473-499.

Mangold, W.G., and D.J. Faulds. 2009. Social media: The new hybrid element of the

promotion mix, Business Horizons 52(4), 357-365.

Naylor, R.W.; C.P. Lamberton; and P.M. West. 20012. 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.

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, Sage Publications.

Sashi, C.M. 2012. Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media,

Management Decision 50(2), 253-272.

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/30235.asp

Erkan 473


Smith, A.N.; E. Fischer; and C. Yongjian. 2012. How does brand-related

user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of

Interactive Marketing 26(2), 102-113.

Smith, T. 2009. The social media revolution, International Journal of Market

Research 51(4), 559-561.

Sun, T.; S. Youn; G. Wu; and M. Kuntaraporn. 2006. Online word‐of‐mouth (or

Mouse): An exploration of its antecedents and consequences, Journal of

Computer‐Mediated Communication 11(4), 1104-1127.

Verhoef, P.C.; W.J. Reinartz; and M. Krafft. 2010. Customer engagement as a new

perspective in customer management, Journal of Service Research 13(3), 247-252.

Wirtz, B.W.; O. Schilke; and S. Ullrich. 2010. Strategic development of business

models: Implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the internet, Long Range

Planning 43(2), 272-290.

Zhang, J.Q.; G. Craciun; and D. Shin. 2010. When does electronic word-of-mouth

matter? A study of consumer product reviews, Journal of Business Research 63(12),

1336-1341.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ismail Erkan completed his master’s degree at Istanbul University Business

School in 2012 and started his Ph.D. at Brunel University Business School in 2013.

He worked at Gebze Institute of Technology as a research assistant. Currently, he is

working on electronic word of mouth marketing and social media.

"Vine" : Do You Miss It? Electronic Word of Mouth on The Social Networking Site, Vine

Documents

Transcript of "Vine" : Do You Miss It? Electronic Word of Mouth on The Social Networking Site, Vine