Patrick xu how do brands work adv 580

HOW DO BRANDS ON TWITTER WORK? !1

INTRODUCTION ! Although Twitter user growth has slowed in recent months, it is one of the most active

social networking sites (SNSs), gaining 50 million new users a month. From July to September

2014, Twitter accrued 284 monthly active users (MAUs). Compared to Facebook’s 1.3 billion

MAUs, Twitter is still catching up. However, ad sales continue to rise, accounting for a

significant part of Twitter’s annual revenue. Bands are flocking to its advertising opportunities,

with ad revenue in 2014 more than doubling from November 2013—$320 million, beating

analysts’ expectations. Recently, Twitter has been experimenting with releasing new platforms

for brands to connect with consumers—the latest feature, Twitter Offers, released in late

November 2014, “enables advertisers to create card-linked promotions and share them directly

with Twitter users.” On the Twitter Advertising Blog, Group Product Manager Tarun Jain stated

that Twitter Offers will allow advertisers to “attribute redemptions directly to their campaigns on

Twitter, so that they can effectively measure the ROI from their promotions, even when

redemption happens offline.”

The ad sales are driven by a set of assumptions that Twitter advertising works. However,

social media advertising—and in particular Twitter advertising—is still a very new channel and

there is not yet a defined way to measure the efficacy of Twitter ads. What do brands think they

are doing on Twitter? What are they actually doing on Twitter? Are they accomplishing what

they set out to do? Jain stated that advertisers will soon be able to effectively measure the ROI

from their Twitter campaigns, but there is no clear pathway to quantifying what exactly that

return on investment would look like, as these campaigns do not fall into the traditional

advertising model—especially when in many cases, brand activity cannot even be defined as a


campaign in the traditional sense. Consequently, when it comes to brand presence on Twitter,

success cannot be measured simply through impressions. As Gangadharbatla (2012) wrote, in the

traditional advertising model, ads are “a clearly demarcated advertisement bounded by time (e.g.,

30-second spot) or space (e.g., full- or half page ad), but in a social media context…become

complex ongoing message[s] that illustrate the consumption behavior and habits of individuals

who choose to share, and thereby, implicitly recommend the brands to everyone in their network

or on the Internet if their profiles are public” (p. 407). With so many independent variables at

play, there is not yet a clear metric that can be used to measure success when it comes to Twitter

advertising.

!LITERATURE REVIEW ! Social media research is still a fairly new research subject, particularly in the field of

advertising. In a research article published in analyzing the development of social media

research, between 1997 and 2010, only 35 articles focusing on social media research had been

published in top advertising academic journals (Khang, Eyun, and Ye, 2012, p. 283). Among

these articles, “ ‘social media as advertising tools or issues’ was among the leading topics, along

with ‘social media usage’ (Khang et. al, 2012, p. 287).

By 2013, there were more articles focused on specific SNSs, including one that focused

on Facebook brand pages to “provide a conceptual framework to explain how and why

consumers interact with brands on brand SNS pages and to advance the theoretical knowledge on

the mechanism underlying consumer engagement via social media” (Tsai and Men, 2013, p. 77).

This study wanted to test whether users’ social media dependency had a positive affect on


engagement behavior with brand pages because these brand pages increased levels of parasocial

interaction (PSI), or “a user’s interpersonal involvement with a media personality (including

brands’ SNS representatives through media communication” (p. 78). The researchers stated that

“social media communication entails a higher level of PSI, because users can observe how the

brand representative interacts with other fans and followers and become familiar with the

projected personality of the representative through wall posts (p. 78). Results from this study

showed this was not true in the case of Facebook, and in the discussion suggested that future

research should test these hypotheses on other SNSs such as Twitter. However, advertising

research focused specifically on Twitter is still a developing area.

One way academic researchers are looking into the effectiveness of Twitter advertising is

through the Hierarchy of Effects model, also known as the AIDA (Attention-Interest-Desire-

Action) model. The Hierarchy of Effects model has classically been considered to be the

dominant model used to explain how advertising works and focuses on how advertising

influences and persuades people to enter into the purchase process. As Barry (1987) wrote, the

seven steps that consumers follow to get to the point of purchase are: “1. unawareness of product

or service existence, 2. awareness of product or service existence, 3. knowledge of what the

product has to offer, 4. favorable attitude toward the product—consumers like it, 5. a favorable

attitude to the point of preferring one brand over others, 6. a desire to buy as well as conviction

that the purchase would be wise, and 7. the actual purchase” (p. 263).

Much of the current social media research around Twitter is centered around the

Hierarchy of Effects model, focusing on how brands try to use their social media presence to

either increase awareness or to influence and change the attitudes of consumers toward their


brands. Lipsman, Mudd, Rich, and Bruich (2012) stated that the value of an online fan of a brand

can be assessed in three primary ways: “increasing the depth of engagement and loyalty among

fans, generating incremental purchase behavior, and leveraging the ability to influence friends of

fans”—but also that campaign approaches which focus on “raw fan counts—or the total number

of engagements on a given piece of content—fail to depict the potential and realized scope of

social-media brand impressions” (p. 40, p. 52). Lipsman et. al felt that looking at the impact

social media networks had on awareness was not enough to get the full picture.

Naylor, Lamberton, and West (2012) looked at how “mere virtual presence” (MVP), or

the passive exposure to a brand’s supporters that low involvement casual consumers would have

when visiting a brand Twitter would affect their brand evaluations and purchase intention toward

the brand and found that “the decision to reveal a brand’s fan base or to leave supporters’

identities ambiguous is important because the demographic composition of the MVP presented

affects consumers’ reactions to the brand” (p. 115). They suggested that movement from

awareness to interest depends on the level to which potential consumers can already identify with

the presented brand, and curating what information is publicly available in regards to what kind

of people already gravitate towards that brand

Kwon and Sung (2012) turned the focus back on the content of brand Twitter pages and

through a set of empirical research found that brand Twitter pages rarely post product or

company-related information, whereas “brand names appear often in tweets, followed in

frequency by redirecting cues. These findings align with previous research that shows Twitter is

useful in generating exposure to brands and driving more traffic to brand websites, rather than

for selling products or services (e.g., Heaps 2009; Stelzner 2010). That is, Twitter can generate


buzz around brands and help them engage with current and future consumers” (p. 14). Kwon and

Sung also found that the development of distinct personalities on brand Twitters helped influence

consumers to share tweets and spread brand awareness through electronic word-of-mouth

(eWOM). Kwon and Sung’s findings are in accordance with previous research that suggested

that strong consumer-brand relationships could influence a consumer’s decision to spread brand

messages to others (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). It is also something that Kim,

Sung, and Kang (2014) found in their study looking into what influences brand followers to

retweet brand tweets. However, in their discussion and conclusion sections, both studies

ultimately turned away from the AIDA model and instead turned their focus to identity theory

and how willingness to engage is influenced by the level of self-association a person has with a

brand.

Hanna, Rohm, and Crittenden (2011) referred to SNSs as “platforms for influence” and

called for marketers to focus on using their Twitters as place to both capture and continue

attention via attention, as marketing “can no longer solely be about capturing attention via reach

(p. 267). Hanna et. al however did not feel that social media campaigns could work on their own,

instead suggesting in their conclusion that they are only one part of the purchase funnel system

and the companies “need to consider both social and traditional media as part of an

ecosystem” (p. 273).

Fagerstrøm and Ghinea (2010) turned their focus specifically on low involvement

consumers on SNSs and discussed effective ways to create brand awareness and positive attitude

among this group. They found that low-involvement consumers “must have some incentive to

spend time and energy to share their thoughts, opinions, and experiences” (p. 70). They also


concluded that effective interactive advertising could increase consumer involvement in the

product category and therefore increase their motivation to undertake product-relevant thinking,

shifting the direction of their research from focusing on how to create brand awareness and

positive attitude to consumer motivation to think about a specific brand.

As can be seen, in most of these articles, the AIDA model does not stand alone as an

explanation for the efficacy of Twitter and other SNS campaigns, but is included among a series

of other theories, leading to the possibility that the AIDA model may not be enough to explain

how Twitter works. And in fact, the AIDA model is not the only way to look at how advertising

works on Twitter. Even though it is the dominant view among researchers, there are other models

that can be considered—in particular, the agenda setting theory as described by Max Sutherland

and John Galloway (1981): “the main implication of agenda-setting theory is that the major goal

of advertising may be to focus consumers’ attention on what values, products, brands, or

attributes to think about rather than try to persuade consumers what to think of these” (p. 26).

The agenda setting theory postulates that brand salience (operationally defined as top-of-

mind awareness) is how advertising really works. It has less to do with trying to change the

attitudes of consumers and more to do with getting them to think of the brand, which may in fact

be what is really happening with Twitter advertising. A few academic researchers have

approached social media advertising from this angle. Mangold and Faulds (2009) described

social media as a new hybrid element of the promotion mix and noted that although social media

has greatly increased the power of consumer-to-consumer conversations in the marketplace and

brand managers cannot directly control these conversations, they can use methods “to influence

and shape the discussions in a manner that is consistent with the organization’s mission and


performance goals” (p. 361). In addition, an article on interactive advertising prior to the advent

of social media pointed out that “traditional approaches to advertising practice and research

implicitly assume that advertising is something the firm does to the consumer. Interactive

advertising makes it clear that this is a very limited view of advertising and highlights the need to

understand what consumers do to advertising” (Pavlou and Stewart, 2000, p. 63). Pavlou and

Stewart also discussed control process measures and how setting goals for consumers could help

“provide an organizing framework for consumer behavior [and] determine the product features

consumers find relevant and for which they seek information…goals determine those pieces of

information that are the most salient and accessible to consumers in a particular situation” (p.

66).

In regards to television advertising, Krugman (1965) stated that “for the most part,

persuasion (i.e., overcoming a resistant attitude) is not involved at all and that it is a mistake to

look for it in our personal lives as a test of television’s advertising impact” (p. 349). The same

may apply for Twitter advertising. For instance, on the industry side, at first glance, it seems like

Twitter’s own advertising blog subscribes to the AIDA model to explain to advertisers why

Twitter advertising works, titling one blog post, “Promoted Tweets and tone of voice help drive

purchase intent”. However, the actual content of the post reads more like a subscription to the

agenda setting model, with statements such as “Promoted Tweets play a key role in preparing

brand followers for a “commercial conversation” and “The research points to the importance of

using variations in tone of voice in Twitter bios as a way to conduct particular types of

conversation.”


Another post from November 2014, titled the “Influencer Q&A with Chevy: how the

brand seized the moment with #TechnologyAndStuff”, uses influence in the headline of the

article, but talks entirely about how Chevy’s social media team made use of Twitter to convert

online conversation about a Chevy manager’s socially televised verbal gaffe during the World

Series while presenting a Chevy Colorado truck to World Series MVP Madison Bumgarner into a

conversation about Colorado itself with a clever tweet. According to the article, the day after the

tweet was posted, 70% of Twitter conversations about trucks were about the Colorado. When

asked about why he thought the tweet was successful, Jamie Barbour, manager of digital, site

and social advertising at Chevrolet, he responded by saying “The Tweet was timely, humorous

and authentic. People responded because we joined the conversation in a natural way. We then

successfully changed the direction of the conversation to put the focus on the Chevrolet Colorado

and all the #TechnologyAndStuff it has.”

Furthermore, in a 2012 interview with trade publication BtoB, Richard Alfonsi, VP of

global online sales, stated that “The conversation has changed from ‘Why Twitter?’ to ‘How

Twitter’? The basics are that Twitter now has 200 million global users and growing, including b-

to-b decision makers who engage on the platform to bring them closer to what interests them”.

Another post on the Twitter advertising blog on holiday shopping pointed out that when a subject

is already top of mind, Twitter users willingly flock to talk about it and open up to conversation

suggested by others:

! “Every year, holiday shopping conversation on Twitter peaks on key days like Black Friday. Why does this matter? Data from Crimson Hexagon and The NPD Group indicates that conversation volume on Twitter is strongly correlated with sales. In November-December 2013, the correlation between conversation about buying TVs on


Twitter and sales volume was 0.98 (with -1 indicating no relationship, and 1 indicating a perfect relationship). The results for laptop shopping were similar: our analysis showed a 0.84 correlation between the conversation and sales.” !These industry articles reflect Sutherland and Galloway’s (1981) argument that the agenda-

setting concept goes beyond the notion of simple awareness and “suggests that through media

emphasis, individuals also learn how much importance particular issues, persons, or attributes

are ‘supposed’ to have” (p. 26). Essentially, many of these articles seem to be telling brands that

they should try to set a consumer agenda when considering how to manage their official Twitter

pages. However, the current set of research literature would predominantly suggest that if brands

are asked to explain what their perceived goals are for Twitter, they might use the traditional

Hierarchy of Effects model to explain the purpose and drive behind their actions. For instance, a

Twitter advertising blog post titled “Three new insights for travel brands on Twitter” stated that

“of the 28% of users who said they had engaged a travel brand on Twitter and received a reply,

73% felt more positively about the brand afterward” and “One in two Twitter users says Twitter

content is influential in their consideration of a travel brand.”

This may have to do with the fact that brands and researchers are approaching Twitter

advertising with several sets of expectations. Because it is the predominant approach to

advertising, advertisers are searching for positive attitudes on social media and correlating it with

brand consideration. However, a professional research study conducted by digital marketing

agency Isobar and commissioned by Twitter actually found that likeability of a brand on Twitter

does not necessarily mean consideration. This is a clear interruption of the AIDA process.

Likeability, which falls in between attention and interest, may not even progress to desire; and

without progressing to desire, there is a low chance that action will be taken to move to purchase.


The Isobar report began by stating that “It’s well established that our choices in real

world situations are heavily influenced by the context in which we make them” and then went on

to point out that “very often, people are not aware that they are being influenced by certain

things, or if they are, they find it very hard to judge the extent to which external cues have an

impact on their behavior” (Caig, Donajgrodzki, Gladstone, Jachimowicsz, and Siantonas, 2014,

p. 6, p. 9). The potential effect of unconscious memory cues were discussed again in another post

on the Twitter advertising blog, “Measuring a billion data points to find out the effect of Tweets”,

which discussed the results of a research study conducted by the market research firm Neuro-

Insight to learn how Twitter content can have an effect on long-term memory. According to the

post, the study found that “there is a very strong correlation between memory encoding, what is

stored, and our subsequent actions including purchase behavior…We’re not always consciously

aware of what’s behind our behavior, but what’s been encoded into memory, even unconsciously,

is a key driver.” These findings echo Sutherland and Galloway’s (1981) suggestion that “so

called ‘overlearning’ will move some information out of short term memory and into long term

memory systems, and [that consumers] will permit significant alterations in the structure of

[their] perceptions of a brand or product, but in ways which may fall short of persuasion or

attitude change” (p. 26).

!!!!!!!!!


RESEARCH QUESTIONS ! So what is actually happening on Twitter, and how do official brand Twitters really work?

Thus far, academic research has primarily approached it from the perspective of the Hierarchy of

Effects model, and though industry blogs seem to agree with their viewpoint on the surface level

(i.e., in headlines), the actual content of their posts seem to suggest a more agenda setting based

practice. However, it is not yet clear whether either approach fully encapsulates the phenomenon

that is actually taking place on Twitter, nor is it clear what consumers think is happening in

regards to Twitter advertising. Consequently, we have developed three research questions

designed to search for insights that will add a level of clarity to this new field.

!RQ 1: Do brands use Twitter to reinforce existing consumer attitudes, or do they use it to remind consumers about their products? !Official brand Twitters are carefully curated and managed to reflect brand philosophies maintain a consistent tone of voice. However, consumers who follow a brand Twitter may not follow it because they feel a certain way about the brand, but rather because they want to keep track of potential promotions and deals on products. !RQ 2: Do brands use Twitter to influence consumer attitudes, or do they use it to guide online consumer conversations? !Researchers approaching brand Twitters from the perspective of the AIDA model would suggest that a successful brand Twitter would move a new consumer from awareness of a brand to desiring that brand and then eventually choosing to purchase, whereas the agenda setting theory would suggest that brands on Twitter are not speaking to consumers who are unaware; rather, they are already aware, and are actively seeking new information. !RQ 3: Do brands use Twitter to create brand awareness, or do they use it to keep their brand top of mind among consumers? !Through promotions such as Promoted Tweets, brands can spread awareness about their brand. However, by creating a Promoted Tweet, they are also potentially setting the agenda for consumers who already want to learn more about brand promotions and create salience and thus, top-of-mind awareness.


!METHODOLOGY !PRETEST !To get an initial read on how consumers believe brands on Twitter work, our group conducted a

short qualitative survey pretest with 11 informants from a range of ages and backgrounds. We

asked them a series of questions to gain insight into their perspectives and lay opinions. The

questions can be found in Appendix 1.

!FINDINGS ! We found that the number of brands informants followed were quite diverse, from 0 to 50 to

over 100. In terms of why they chose to follow Twitter brands, the majority did so because they

wanted to stay updated—they wanted to know about new products, deals and other information.

They also stated that they would follow a Twitter brand if it posted something cool or interesting.

Two of the informants indicated they only follow brands they liked and were familiar with.

The brands informants followed were quite diverse, but mostly technology products and

media (TV shows/ magazines). Others included music, sports, and food. When asked why they

like these brands, the informants tended to say it was because they liked the product and brand

image. There was also some confusion among some informants as to what was considered a

brand—they were unsure whether celebrities or news outlets counted as brands.

In terms of content, informants liked humorous, professional (high-quality photos/videos),

informed tweets. However, in terms of actively engaging with the content, they were very

passive—they rarely visited the brand's Twitter page to retweet the brand tweets, and just read

brand tweets when they showed up on their newsfeed.


The informants did not think that brand Twitters changed their opinion of the brand,

although two informants mentioned that a brand might have changed their attitude toward the

brand to some extent—one informant began to feel the Denny’s brand is “laidback and cool”

after reading official tweets which were “surprisingly humorous and modern with its use of

memes and quick-wittedness” because it didn’t “ooze of professionalism”. The other informant

stated that if they saw an interesting brand Twitter page, it would, “if anything, change my

opinion of that individual brand Twitter, rather than the brand itself."

When asked why they think brands use Twitter, most informants responded by stating that

they believe brands use Twitter to interact with consumers by updating information about the

product or promotions and understanding their opinions through comments and complaints. They

also believed that Twitter is also an efficient way of marketing to reach potential consumers.

However, if a Twitter brand posts too often, too little, or posts offensive tweets, informants said

they would quickly unfollow them.

The informants generally agreed that they would find themselves thinking more about the

brand after following their Twitter page, and also believed that they would think more about a

brand if asked to follow an official Twitter page. Half of the informants said that the brands they

follow become top of mind in product category; however, the other half disagreed.

!PROPOSED RESEARCH ! Our pretest findings suggest that when asked about Twitter, consumers generally believe

that brand Twitters are designed to find new consumers and reach out to a wide audience, but not

to change or influence consumer attitudes. They also suggest that consumers are generally


unmotivated to initiate brand conversations and interactions unless they show up directly on their

newsfeed, indicating that consumers like to wait for the brand to come to them. To probe further

into how consumers actually interact with and process the content on brand Twitters, we have

developed an expanded research study. We will first select a group of participants who are active

on Twitter and also actively follow brands. After we finish selecting the participants, we will

conduct the same pretest survey with them and afterward, go through their Twitter account

timeline with them and review their activity over the past month and note down every interaction

they have with a brand. We will also take note of how much they have interacted with their

“favorite” brands (brands whose content they have retweeted, favorited, or responded to >5 in a

month). After this timeline review, participants will be asked to keep track of two different bands

on Twitter for a month: the first will be a brand they are already following, and the second will

be a randomly assigned popular brand on Twitter. Participants will be assured that there is no

need to change their behavior to deliberately engage with the brands, but will rather be

encouraged to use Twitter as usual. At the beginning of the month, participants will be asked two

questions to determine the baseline level of brand experience: “What is your opinion of this

brand?” and “How often do you think about it?” At the end of the month we will contact the

participants again (there will be no interaction between researchers and participants throughout

the month) and ask them the same two questions, with one additional question: “Do you think

your opinion of this brand has changed from a month before?” This research study could

potentially help us gain some useful and interesting insights for our research question on the

consumer side of the equation.

!


!DISCUSSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH ! There are many opportunities for further research into Twitter advertising. It is still a new

field and there are many angles that still bear further exploration on how and why Twitter

advertising is effective other than either the Hierarchy of Effects model or the agenda setting

theory. One angle that deserves specific focus is consumer motivation. What motivates people to

join Twitter and engage with brands? What encourages them to share such information? One

earlier study looked into theories of user gratification as a way to research user motivation for

using social media—specifically the need for online social capital and psychological well-being

—and found that user motivation affected attitudinal responses and participation intention in

brand communities on SNSs (Chi, 2011). Another recent study found that the rate at which

people spread information on Twitter depends on how many followers they have; the larger their

network, the more quickly they share content that shows up on their Twitter feed—therefore,

their motivation to share content is impacted by the number of people willing to listen to what

they have to say (Morales, Boronodo, Losada, and Benito, 2014). Another study found that

message sharing behavior is “motivated by the need for self-enhancement. Specifically, when

consumers perceive an online advertisement as consistent with their self-concept, they are more

likely to share that message with others…the likelihood that they share online advertisements

depend on the degree to which consumers perceive that the ad enables them to express their

identity” (Taylor, Strutton, and Thompson, 2012, p. 23).

Connected to this, further research into the structure of consumer relationship norms on

Twitter would result in many useful insights into how Twitter advertising works. For instance,


“Beware, This is Sponsored!”, a conference paper from 2012, used the reactance theory to come

to the conclusion that with television ads that if people “feel they are being influenced, they will

oppose the appeal, and people tend to resist persuasion attempts when they recognize them as

such…[and] in line with this assumption, several studies have demonstrated that the activation of

persuasion knowledge leads to a less favorable brand attitude” (p. 8). However, brand Twitter

pages are in a unique position because they stand alone. People make a choice to follow them.

What is the level to which they will tolerate messages coming at them and what makes a

successful brand Twitter? What is the relationship between a brand and someone who commits to

follow a brand Twitter for the incentives/promos versus someone who simply follows to keep

track of entertaining tweets? If they are irritated by the messaging, then they stop processing it

and unfollow. How can a brand earn a Twitter user’s trust? McAlexander, Schoueten, and

Koenig’s (2002) ethnographic and quantitative research on the power of building brand

communities found that “the benefits to a firm of cultivating brand community are many and

diverse. Community-integrated customers serve as brand missionaries, carrying the marketing

message into other communities” (p. 51). Research into how the tenets of communication within

an online brand community would translate into the context of the Twitter environment could

also explain why or why not certain Twitter campaigns are successful or unsuccessful. Related to

the context of a communication within online environments, looking into the connection between

word of mouth advocacy—specifically eWOM, could prove to be useful for future research into

Twitter advertising, as found in some of the earlier studies using the AIDA model (Kim, Sang,

and Sung, 2014; Kapoor, Jayasimha, and Sadh, 2013).


It is also important to conduct further research into elaboration and how people process

information when it comes to Twitter. For example, in terms of existing research on online and

interactive advertising, phenomenons such as banner blindness with banner advertising have

been well documented, but limited research on elaboration has been done with Twitter

advertising. What are people looking at? What elements of a brand tweet do they notice first?

The actual content? The number of favorites and retweets? The username? And what do they

actually remember about what they see? There has been some research on this (Sundar and Kim,

2005; Fenn, Griffin, Uitvlugt, and Ravizza, 2014) but much more is necessary to achieve a more

comprehensive of how Twitter functions as a communication medium. Another aspect

researchers should look into is how different media devices (smartphone vs. tablet vs. laptop)

influence elaboration levels of Twitter content.

Finally, more research needs to be done on how to actually analyze Twitter data. As

Lewis, Zamith, and Hermida (2013) note, even though scholars have access to thousands of

tweets via Twitter’s public Application Programming Interface (API), “many researchers are not

getting the “firehose” of the complete content stream, but merely a “gardenhose” of very limited

numbers of public tweets—the randomness of which is entirely unknown, raising questions

about the representativeness of such data to all tweets, let alone to all users on the service” (p.

37). Furthermore, as Nelson, Sharp, and Wind (2013) stated in their article calling for new laws

for digital marketing, Twitter media conditions need to be examined to search for empirical

generalizations that can be used to analyze Twitter advertising and consumer response. As

Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, and Silvestre (2011) stated in their article breaking down the

functional building blocks of social media, social media—and in particular, Twitter—have


changed the advertising landscape and “by analyzing the seven building blocks—identity,

conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups—firms can monitor and

understand how social media activities vary in terms of their function and impact” (p. 250).

Ultimately, there is still a lot to learn about how Twitter advertising actually works, but

the good news is that there are many theoretical paths to explore and decode its mysteries.

!!!APPENDIX 1 !Reinforcement How many brands do you actively follow on Twitter? Why would you follow a brand on Twitter? What kind of brands are they? What do you like about the brand? What do you like about their tweets? How often do you check their Twitter page? Do you like to retweet brand tweets? !Influence Has a brand twitter ever changed your opinion of that brand? Why do you think brands use Twitter? (lay opinion) What would make you unfollow a brand Twitter? !Top of Mind Awareness Do you find yourself thinking about the brand more after following their Twitter pages? Is that brand the one at the top of your mind when you think about the product category? Do you believe you would think about a brand more after following their Twitter page? !!!!!!!!!!


REFERENCES !Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101. !Barry, T. E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effects: An historical perspective. Current issues and Research in Advertising, 10(1-2), 251-295. !Boerman, S., van Reijmersdal, E., & Neijens, P. (2012). Beware: this is sponsored! How disclosures of sponsored content affect persuasion knowledge and brand responses. !Caig, J., Donajgrodzki, S., Gladstone, J., Jachimowicsz, J., & Siantonas, N., (2014). Unconscious Cues: An Experiment into the Unconscious Drivers of Brand Perception on Twitter. Isobar. Retrieved from http://usblog.isobar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Isobar-Twitter-White-Paper.pdf !Chi, H. H. (2011). Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community: exploratory study of user motivation and social media marketing responses in Taiwan. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 44-61. !Elrhoul, M., (2014, Nov. 20). Three new insights for travel brands on Twitter. The Twitter Advertising Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2014/three-new-insights-for-travel-brands-on-twitter !Fagerstrøm, A., & Ghinea, G. (2010). Web 2.0’s marketing impact on low-involvement consumers. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 67-71. !Fenn, K. M., Griffin, N. R., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Ravizza, S. M. (2014). The effect of Twitter exposure on false memory formation. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 1-6. !Ficek, A., (2014, Oct. 30). How Tweets drive sales: new holiday shopping research. The Twitter Advertising Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2014/how-tweets-drive-sales-new-holiday-shopping-research !Fulk, J., & Yuan, Y. C. (2013). Location, Motivation, and Social Capitalization via Enterprise Social Networking. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 19(1), 20-37. !Gangadharbatla, H., (2012). Social Media and Advertising Theory. Advertising Theory, Chapter 26 !Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal of interactive advertising, 6(2), 2-14. !

http://usblog.isobar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Isobar-Twitter-White-Paper.pdf

https://blog.twitter.com/2014/three-new-insights-for-travel-brands-on-twitter

https://blog.twitter.com/2014/how-tweets-drive-sales-new-holiday-shopping-research


Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business horizons, 54(3), 265-273. !Hosford, C. (2013). Twitter makes bold moves to attract advertiser attention. B to B, 98(2), 20. !Humphreys, L., Gill, P., Krishnamurthy, B., & Newbury, E. (2013). Historicizing new media: A content analysis of Twitter. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 413-431. !Jain, T., (2014, Nov. 25). Introducing Twitter Offers. The Twitter Advertising Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2014/introducing-twitter-offers !Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68. !Kapoor, P. S., Jayasimha, K. R., & Sadh, A. (2013). Brand-related, Consumer to Consumer, Communication via Social Media. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 2(1), 43-59. !Keller, E., & Fay, B. (2012). Word-of-Mouth Advocacy A New Key to Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(4), 459-464. !Khang, H., Ki, E. J., & Ye, L. (2012). Social media research in advertising, communication, marketing, and public relations, 1997–2010. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 279-298. !Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business horizons, 54(3), 241-251. !Kim, E., Sung, Y., & Kang, H. (2014). Brand followers’ retweeting behavior on Twitter: How brand relationships influence brand electronic word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 18-25. !Krugman, H. (1965). The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 349-56 !Kwon, E. S., & Sung, Y. (2011). Follow me! Global marketers’ twitter use. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 4-16. !Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Hermida, A. (2013). Content analysis in an era of big data: A hybrid approach to computational and manual methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1), 34-52. !

https://blog.twitter.com/2014/introducing-twitter-offers


Lipsman, A., Mudd, G., Rich, M., & Bruich, S. (2012). The Power of" Like": How Brands Reach (and Influence) Fans through Social-Media Marketing. Journal of Advertising research, 52(1), 40. !MacMillan, G.,(2014, Oct. 30). Promoted Tweets and tone of voice help drive purchase intent. The Twitter Advertising Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/en-gb/2014/promoted-tweets-and-tone-of-voice-help-drive-purchase-intent !Macmillan, G., (2014, Nov. 14) Measuring a billion data points to find out the effect of Tweets. The Twitter Advertising Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/en-gb/2014/measuring-a-billion-data-points-to-find-out-the-effect-of-tweets !Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365. !McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of marketing, 66(1), 38-54. !McCracken, G. (1987). Advertising: Meaning or information. Advances in consumer research, 14(1), 121-124. !Morales, A. J., Borondo, J., Losada, J. C., & Benito, R. M. (2014). Efficiency of human activity on information spreading on Twitter. Social Networks, 39, 1-11. !Narayanan, M., Asur, S., Nair, A., Rao, S., Kaushik, A., Mehta, D.,Athalye, S., Malhotra, A., Almeida, A., & Lalwani, R. (2012). COLLOQUIUM Social Media and Business. Vikalpa, 37(4), 69. !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. !Nelson, K., Sharp, B., & Wind, Y. (2013). Empirical Generalizations: New Laws for Digital Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 53, 175-180. !Parker, E., (2014, Nov.18). Influencer Q&A with Chevy: how the brand seized the moment with #TechnologyAndStuff. The Twitter Advertising Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2014/influencer-qa-with-chevy-how-the-brand-seized-the-moment-with-technologyandstuff !

https://blog.twitter.com/en-gb/2014/promoted-tweets-and-tone-of-voice-help-drive-purchase-intent

https://blog.twitter.com/en-gb/2014/measuring-a-billion-data-points-to-find-out-the-effect-of-tweets

https://blog.twitter.com/2014/influencer-qa-with-chevy-how-the-brand-seized-the-moment-with-technologyandstuff


Pavlou, P. A., & Stewart, D. W. (2000). Measuring the effects and effectiveness of interactive advertising: A research agenda. Journal of Interactive Advertising,1(1), 61-77. !Rosenkrans, G. (2009). The creativeness and effectiveness of online interactive rich media advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(2), 18-31. !Stringfield, J., (2013, Oct. 7). Study:Twitter's influence on holiday shopping. The Twitter Advertising Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2013/study-twitters-influence-on-holiday-shopping !Sundar, S. S., & Kim, J. (2005). Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising,5(2), 5-18. !Sutherland, M., & Galloway, J. (1981). Role of advertising: Persuasion or agenda setting. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(5), 25-29. !Taylor, D. G., Strutton, D., & Thompson, K. (2012). Self-enhancement as a motivation for sharing online advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising,12(2), 13-28. !Thorson, E., & Rodgers, S., (2012). What Does "Theories of Advertising" Mean?. Advertising Theory, Chapter 1 !Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and Antecedents of Consumer Engagement With Brand Pages on Social Networking Sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 76-87. !Zeng, F., Huang, L., & Dou, W. (2009). Social factors in user perceptions and responses to advertising in online social networking communities. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(1), 1-13. !!

https://blog.twitter.com/2013/study-twitters-influence-on-holiday-shopping

Date post:	08-Apr-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	patrick-xu
View:	216 times
Download:	3 times

Patrick xu how do brands work adv 580

Documents