Dining and Dishing: Analyzing Uses and Gratifications of Facebook and Twitter Interaction by Patrons...

DINING AND DISHING 1

Dining and Dishing: Analyzing Uses and Gratifications of Facebook

and Twitter Interaction by Patrons in the Restaurant Industry


Dining and Dishing: Analyzing Uses and Gratifications of Facebook

and Twitter Interaction by Patrons in the Restaurant Industry

Restaurant owners know that their social media presence is a

vital aspect of their marketing and public relations efforts.

Facebook Pages and Twitter profiles have become the hubs where

restaurants and their customers converse. People who are

Facebook fans of restaurants visit the restaurants 20% more

often, recommended them more often, and report significantly

greater emotional attachment to the restaurants (Dholakia &

Durham, 2010). Twitter shows the same impact, with several

startup restaurants using exclusively Twitter to market to their

customers (Sniderman, 2011). Starbucks credits the majority of

its growth in recent years to a successful social media strategy

(Cook, 2012). It is becoming clear that in order to grow a

restaurant in this century, social media interaction is

imperative.

But what motivates a patron to engage with a restaurant on

social media? Facebook has 1 billion users, 604 million mobile


users, and more than 42 million Pages. As of May 2013, 72% of

online adults use social networking sites, and 67% use Facebook,

while 18% use Twitter (Duggan & Brenner, 2013). Twitter now

boasts 500 million individual users with over 200 million active

users each day (Smith, 2013). The motivations for social media

use have been studied at length, but very little data exists on

the uses and gratifications of Facebook and Twitter engagement

between restaurants and their customers. To discover what drives

this interaction, this paper presents data from a survey (N =

438) of Facebook and Twitter users who interact with restaurants

on these platforms. A uses and gratifications, U&G, theoretical

approach (Blumler & Katz, 1974) was applied in order to examine

the frequency and the nature of these interactions, i.e., the

social and informational needs being sought out and met by users.

How and why hospitality customers interact with restaurants and

implications for online content creation are discussed.

Literature Review

Social Media Uses and Gratifications

U&G, like other psychological theories, focuses on human

needs and how people seek to fulfill them. Social scientists are


especially drawn to U&G theory for social media analysis because

it emphasizes that individuals are active in their choices to

select and interact with specific media platforms (Hicks et al.,

2012).

U&G researchers have explored gratifications people seek and

fulfill by using social media in general and by using Facebook

and Twitter in particular. Social media’s interpersonal aspects

work well with the U&G approach because U&G considers a user’s

needs and how well a medium meets those needs. Four categories of

needs that motivate people to use technology have been

identified. Ruggiero (2000) defined these categories as:

“Diversion (i.e., as an escape from routines or for

emotional release), social utility (i.e., to acquire

information for conversations), personal identity (i.e., to

reinforce attitudes, beliefs, and values), and surveillance

(i.e., to learn about one’s community, events, and political

affairs)” (p. 26).

Both businesses and media consumers value Facebook because

it integrates interpersonal and mass communication in a platform

that has become the hub of social life for many people. News


feeds provide users with updates on their friends and family

interwoven with news from brands they follow. Ruggiero (2000)

pointed out that the Internet brings interpersonal communication

to the forefront, and this phenomenon is highly evident on

Facebook. Many researchers analyzed Facebook uses and

gratifications and found both information-seeking and social

interaction motives.

For instance, Lee and Ma (2012) found that most users are on

Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family and identified

two gratifications reported by Facebook users: socializing and

status seeking. Zhang, Tang and Leung (2011) found five

gratifications obtained by Facebook users: social surveillance,

recognition, emotional support, network extension, entertainment,

and network maintenance. The uses and gratifications for Twitter

interaction, like those of Facebook, generally fall into the two

categories of social and information sharing. Johnson and Yang

(2009) found that Twitter users’ social motives include to “have

fun; be entertained; relax; see what others are up to; pass the

time; express myself freely; keep in touch with friends or

family; communicate more easily; and communicate with many people


at the same time” (p. 14). The information motives are to “get

information (facts, links, news, knowledge, ideas); give or

receive advice; learn interesting things; meet new people; and

share information with others” (Johnson and Yang, 2009, p. 14).

Johnson and Yang (2009) also discovered that motivations change

over time with Twitter users first joining the site for social

purposes but staying with it and using it more often for its

informational aspects.

Chen (2011) studied how active Twitter use gratifies a need

to connect with others. The study focused on Twitter serving as

a process gratification, which means that the experience of using

the service, rather than simply the content it provides,

gratifies the needs of the users. “People who actively seek out

Twitter are doing so out of a basic human need to connect with

others that they can then gratify by using this computer medium”

(Chen, 2011, p. 760). Chen noted that the relationships formed

on Twitter are weak ties, low in emotional intensity, that still

provide a feeling of belonging.

Uses & Gratifications of Consumer and Brand Social Media

Interaction


When people engage with brands on Facebook, motivations

differ from when they communicate with friends and family. Quan-

Haase and Young (2011) identified the two primary gratifications

obtained by general Facebook use as social connectivity (keeping

in touch with friends and peers) and social information

(obtaining information about peers’ activities). When customers

“Like,” comment, or share a brand Page on Facebook, they are not

merely using the social media tool to keep in touch with friends

and family. Motives of information sharing and social

interaction are the primary uses and gratifications that

researchers have found for business-related Facebook use.

Some researchers have begun to identify which specific tools

in Facebook, such as sharing, status updates, and groups, are

associated with various gratifications. Smock found that

“motivations which significantly predict general use of Facebook

paint an incomplete picture of motivations for using the site and

obscure our ability to gain insight into user motivations of use”

(2011, p. 2326). This is of particular interest to Facebook

marketers who need to know why users take specific actions in

relation to brands.


One of the goals of a Facebook marketer is to increase link

sharing whereby users share the brand’s content with their

interpersonal networks. Baek (2011) studied motivations for

sharing links and found that the primary motive was information

sharing. This study also found that the motives for sharing

links differed from those for Facebook use in general. This

reinforces the differences that other researchers noted between

interpersonal and brand interactions on Facebook.

Twitter interaction between brands and their followers shows

the same dual motivations of social and information sharing. In

a study of uses and gratifications for interactions between

professional athletes and their fans, analysis revealed the

information-sharing gratifications of consumption of the

entertainment value of the athlete and receiving news about their

activities. Social motives included admiration of their social

status, promotion for the fan’s own social status, and

association with a community (Frederick, Lim, Clavio & Walsh,

2012).

Twitter is especially valuable to restaurant marketers

because people use it to make decisions on a moment-by-moment


basis. Jansen et al. (2009) found that Twitter users mention

brands in their tweets about 20% of the time, and only 20% of

those tweets mention an opinion about a product. Many tweets

both by restaurants and their customers are simply to share

information about their current offerings. This supports Chen’s

(2011) finding that information sharing is a stronger motivator

than social interaction on Twitter.

Social Media and Hospitality

Hospitality marketers are embracing social media as a way to

attract and connect with customers. A large body of research

exists on social media in hospitality and specifically in travel

planning. While much of the early interest in social media has

been based upon anecdotal information, the value of social media

for corporations is starting to be quantified. Plangger

conducted an empirical study of the Facebook and Twitter profiles

of major U.S. corporations and found “a positive relationship

between marketing investments in social media programs, the

popularity of these programs, and firm value” (2012, p. 152).

Many hospitality companies, including restaurants, are jumping on


the social media bandwagon now that the link between social media

and sales is being demonstrated.

A ComScore survey found that between 79% and 87% of

hospitality consumers viewed online reviews, and 41% of

restaurant review readers visited a restaurant based upon the

reviews they read (ComScore/the Kelsey group, 2007). Recent

research has supported in multiple ways the growing impact of

hotel and restaurant reviews in travel decision-making.

Travel reviews are a part of a general category called User

Generated Media (UGM). Shao identified two gratifications of

UGM: social interaction and self-expression. Social interaction

involves building virtual community and sharing interests and

information with others. Self-expression of one’s own identity

and individuality is a “process by which people attempt to

control the impressions others have of them” (Shao, 2008, p. 14).

Reviews from other consumers have become a primary driver in

travel decisions with 51% of consumers indicating they would make

a final decision about booking a trip due to the influence of UGM

(Cox, Burgess, Sellitto, Buultjens, 2009).


Electronic Word Of Mouth (eWOM) is a more specific type of

UGM that involves online reviews of items or experiences.

Hennig-Thurau et al. defined eWOM as “any positive or negative

statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a

product or company which is made available to a multitude of the

people and institutes via the Internet” (2004, p. 39). eWOM

plays a vital role in customer decisions when researching travel

online because “hospitality and tourism product offerings, as

intangible goods, cannot be evaluated before their consumption,

thus elevating the importance of interpersonal influence”

(Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2006, p. 458). Cheung and Lee (2012)

found that “sense of belonging” was the biggest motivator for

sharing eWOM. People shared their opinions online for the social

reason of building community and helping others by imparting

knowledge, and they felt personal enjoyment from doing so. Chen

et al. (2011) noted that many consumers post reviews of high-end

items in order to display a high social status, making it easier

for luxury brands to encourage reviews and sharing.

Facebook brand Pages are a form of eWOM. By liking or

commenting on a brand post, brand fans state their opinion


publicly. “Liking and commenting on a brand post is thus similar

to WOM communication” (deVries, Gensler, & Leeflang, 2012, p.

84). Research indicates that vivid and interactive posts by

brands were positively related to customer engagement; even

negative comments on brand pages served to enhance the feeling of

community among members because it allowed fans to engage in a

lively discussion. Janson, Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdury (2009)

analyzed Twitter as eWOM, finding that 20% of brand-related

Tweets mention a “sentiment or opinion about that company,

product, or service” (p. 2184). Recognizing that their social

media presence is a forum for eWOM, restaurant marketers should

seek to have a conversation with their Facebook and Twitter fans

and to encourage both positive and negative comments because both

serve to increase interaction.

Social media is increasingly accessed on mobile devices,

adding an entirely new facet to eWOM (Scott, 2012). eWOM through

social media offers hospitality marketers the ability to reach

consumers when they are away from home and actively looking for a

business to visit. Kaplan defines mobile social media as “a

group of mobile marketing applications that allow the creation


and exchange of user-generated content” (Kaplan, 2012, p. 131).

Consumers are increasingly posting and reading reviews of hotels

and restaurants while traveling, which allows real-time decision

making that was unheard of in the past. A recent Pew Internet

study found that smartphone usage “is creating a new culture of

real-time information seekers and problem solvers.” (Rainie &

Fox, 2012, p. 1). The survey showed that 30% of cell phone

owners used their phones to decide whether to visit a business,

such as a restaurant, in the past 30 days (Rainie & Fox, 2012).

This creates new opportunities for businesses to engage with

customers online while they are physically at the point of sale.

When implementing social media in business, Kaplan (2012)

recommends engaging users in conversations and initiating the

creation of user-generated content.

Hospitality Social Media Uses and Gratifications

In order to engage hospitality consumers on social media,

businesses need to know why their customers are participating in

the creation of UGM. Huang et al. (2010) found that users of

social networks like Facebook and Twitter shared travel

information for three functional motives. Two motives are


informational: obtaining travel information and information

dissemination; the third motive is social: personal

documentation.

Information seeking is the primary motive for hospitality

social media use. Users of travel knowledge obtained through

social media reported that it “not only reduces the uncertainty

and perceived risks involved, but enhances the quality of

planning trips as well” (Huang et al., 2010, p. 729). This

aligns with Hennig-Thurau’s 2004 finding that eWOM takes place

because “affiliation with a virtual community can represent a

social benefit to a consumer for reasons of identification and

social integration” (p. 42).

Social interaction also drives eWOM creation by restaurant

consumers. In a content analysis of 2,471 customer comments on

an online restaurant guide, Pantelidis found that “a wonderful

shared experience – rather than hunger – is the primary reason

why people dine out in a full-service restaurant” (2010, p. 488).

Sixty-five percent of restaurant reviews referred to the social

experience of dining, such as who the person dined with and what

they were celebrating. The social motive of sharing an account


of a wonderful dining experience was a powerful motivator for

people who wrote online restaurant reviews (Pantelidis, 2010).

Yelp is a social media platform where patrons comment on and

interact with restaurants. Hicks et al. explored the Uses and

Gratifications of restaurant reviews on Yelp.com in a 2012 study.

They examined five primary motives that drove the use of Yelp and

found that information seeking was the highest, followed by

entertainment, convenience, interpersonal utility, and passing

time. Their findings “reinforce the main tenet of Uses and

Gratifications theory: Yelp users are utilizing the site to

fulfill a need or purpose” as opposed to simply being influenced

by the media source (2012, p. 2278). The current study is

interested in finding the uses and gratifications for Facebook

and Twitter restaurant interactions, a medium less targeted

toward hospitality reviews.

User Generated Media’s Transition Into Social Media Platforms

Because of the incredible impact of customer reviews on

travel decision-making, hospitality brands have started to become

highly proactive in their responses and interactions with

consumers using social media. Litvin, Goldsmith & Pan (2008)


suggest that hospitality companies monitor what is being said

about them in order to respond appropriately or to risk

increasing negative sentiment about their brand. Parra-Lopez,

Gidumal, Gutierrez-Tano, & Diaz-Armas (2011) recommend that

hospitality companies spend time listening to user contributions,

to participate and respond in the conversation, and to recognize

and thank contributors.

Gretzel, Kang, and Lee (2008) note that consumer reviews

online are and will continue to be important for users who want

to share and receive information about a product or service; they

recommend that businesses take advantage of online reviews to

engage customers. Restaurant marketers can encourage positive UCM

and eWOM by posting stimulating content, encouraging

conversation, and targeting influencers to grow their fan base on

social media.

The majority of user-generated media created about

restaurants is positive (Pantelidis, 2010). U&G researchers have

not yet compared the motivations for users who post positive

comments with those who post negative ones. This gap in the

literature would provide fruitful information for a future study.


The data on uses and gratifications for UGM by restaurant

consumers lines up with that for social media interaction between

consumers and businesses. Consumers perform both activities for

two primary reasons: social interaction and information seeking.

Uses and Gratifications for Restaurant Social Media

Social media use by consumers of hospitality in general has

been studied at length, but little focus has been given to its

role in restaurant marketing eWOM studies of restaurant consumers

have found that social motives are primarily why people engage in

eWOM communication (Jeong & Jang, 2011, p. 358).

A recent research study by Dholakia and Durham (2010)

surveyed 13,270 restaurant customers to determine the effect of

“Liking” a restaurant’s Facebook Page on consumer behavior. They

found that people who became Facebook fans of the restaurant

visited the restaurant 20% more often, recommended it more often,

and reported significantly greater emotional attachment to the

restaurant. They also found that only a small percentage (2.1%)

of customers on a restaurant’s mailing list became Facebook fans,

showing that it may be difficult to convert customers into fans


(Dholakia & Durham, 2010). This data shows the huge impact that

a Facebook “Like” can have on restaurant revenue.

Restaurant marketers must make sure that their Facebook

posts are effective in reaching their customers in order to

continue to appear in their News Feeds. Facebook uses an

algorithm to determine which posts appear in News Feeds, and they

are more likely to promote companies to the News Feed when their

content enjoys a high level of engagement with Fans (ComScore,

2012). Motivating customer engagement can be a difficult task.

“Only a small percentage (typically around 1 percent of Fans)

actually engage with a given brand message (ComScore, 2012, p.

8). Restaurants could increase their rates of fan engagement by

following the advice of deVries, Gensler & Leeflang (2012).

Their study of Facebook brand fan Pages found that brand messages

with questions, interesting images, and vivid contrasting color

drove higher rates of engagement with fans more than

informational or hyperlinked posts.

Kwok and Yu (2013) analyzed thousands of posts on the

Facebook Pages of top U.S. restaurants and discovered that

information-related posts garnered much more interaction than


marketing-related ones. Consumers prefer to interact with brands

in a conversational manner but mainly about of foods they enjoy

at a restaurant and their dining experiences as opposed to

marketing promotions and giveaways. This aligns with the uses

and gratifications research findings that information-seeking

motives are primary for users of social media. Pantelidis (2010)

notes that “the old concept of viral marketing, as generated by

the operator, has become meaningless with the shirt in power from

marketer to consumer – indeed, consumers will be suspicious or

even offended when restaurateurs attempt to influence the content

of social media sites” (p. 488). This creates a quandary for

restaurant marketers who need to drive engagement without seeming

too controlling of the content.

Twitter, while less studied than Facebook, has also proven a

useful tool for restaurant marketing. In a tweet-by-tweet

analysis of Starbucks’ Twitter account, Jansen et al. (2009)

discovered that Twitter was being used “as a place for a

combination of customer testimony, complaining, feedback, and

Q&A” (p. 2183). Researchers concluded that for restaurants,


“Twitter appears a viable customer relationship management

platform” (p. 2183).

The Current Study

Both information sharing and social uses and gratifications

play a role in hospitality consumers’ motivation to interact on

social media. We know that the most effective social media posts

are informational (Kwok & Yu, 2013), but we do not know what

specific uses and gratifications drive consumer interaction.

Jeong & Jang (2011) found that “despite the significant impact of

eWOM in hospitality-related industries, especially in the

restaurant segment, little research has been done to investigate

eWOM in this field,” and that “no study has investigated what

drives restaurant customers to use eWOM to communicate about

their restaurant experiences with others” (p. 357). A

comprehensive, empirical study into the specific uses and

gratifications that drive Facebook and Twitter interaction by

restaurant patrons would provide valuable information to guide

restaurant marketing professionals in the future.


Based on the above literature regarding uses and

gratifications, as well as the specific U&G of social media, this

study investigated the following research questions:

RQ1: How frequently do Facebook and Twitter users interact

with restaurants?

RQ2: How do age, gender, and overall social media use

influence interactions with restaurants on Facebook and

Twitter?

RQ3: What social and informational gratifications are sought

by those who interact with restaurants via Twitter and

Facebook?

RQ4: Do Facebook users seek different social and

informational gratifications than Twitter users?

Methods

Data was collected from anonymous participants through an

online survey, with approval from the Institutional Review Board

at the large Southeastern University where this research took

place. Researchers took a convenience sample of Facebook and

Twitter users by employing a snowball technique. The researchers

posted a link to the survey on their personal Facebook and


Twitter accounts and asked their networks to participate in a

social media usage study. The researchers also sent private

messages to several Facebook and Twitter users with large social

networks to ask them to share the survey’s link with others.

Survey links were also shared with college students in several

undergraduate communication and business courses.

Participants

A total of 438 participants responded to the online survey.

Nearly all the participants (N = 430) reported having a personal

Facebook account, while 58.4 percent (N = 248) indicated that

they had a personal Twitter account. Of these 248 Twitter users,

only 219 reported logging into Twitter at least once a week. The

study excluded respondents who reported no association with

restaurants through Facebook and/or Twitter, as they were not

part of the specific population examined in this study. The

final survey sample consisted of 206 participants who interacted

with restaurant pages on Facebook weekly and 54 who interacted

weekly with restaurants on Twitter. Approximately one-fourth of

the people who interacted with restaurants on Facebook also did

so on Twitter.


The mean age for survey respondents was 30.81 (SD = 13.14),

and ages ranged from 18 to 78 years old. From the final sample,

females represented 63.30 percent of social media users. 36

percent of social media users were male, and 3 percent of

participants declined to indicate their gender. Among our survey

respondents, 68.1 percent were Caucasian (N = 301), 9.7 percent

were African American (N = 43), 11.5 percent were Hispanic (N =

51), 3.8% were Asian American (N = 17) and 6.8 percent reported

another race (N = 30).

Measures

The study’s researchers collected background information on

age, gender, and race from each respondent to provide an overview

of demographic characteristics. To measure frequency of social

media use, participants were asked to report how times per day

they accessed Facebook and/or Twitter. Social media usage was

measured by times logged in per day, and respondents were also

asked to self-report how much time they spent using Facebook

and/or Twitter in hours and minutes per day. The survey asked

participants how many restaurants they “Like” on Facebook and/or

follow on Twitter as well as how many times per day they


interacted with restaurants on those social media platforms.

Both the quantity of restaurants “Liked”/followed and the

frequency of interaction were measured.

To measure gratifications sought, participants were provided

with a list of 22 reasons for using Facebook and 23 reasons for

using Twitter to interact with restaurants and were asked to rate

their level of agreement or disagreement with each reason on a 5-

point scale. These two scales were modified from the scale used

in Johnson & Yang’s 2009 uses and gratifications of Twitter

study.

The Likert-type scales (Cronbach’s α = .915 for Facebook and

.966 for Twitter) solicited responses from Facebook and Twitter

users on 23 measurement items including seven informational

motives (to get information; to receive special offers; to learn

interesting things; to learn menu changes; to see what the food

looks like; to get answers to questions about food/restaurant;

and to see what people at the restaurant are up to) and 16 social

motives (to complain about or share a bad experience; to be

entertained; to pass the time; to comment on restaurant

activities and updates; to communicate more easily; to be part of


a restaurant/food community; to give or receive advice; to have

fun; to communicate with many people at the same time; to show

support for the restaurant; to share restaurant information with

others; to participate in discussions; to express myself freely;

to relax; to keep in touch with the restaurant staff; and to meet

new people).

Results

The first research question asked how frequently Facebook

and Twitter users interacted with restaurants. Participants

reported logging on to Facebook 11.37 times per day, on average

(SD = 15.01), and 74.3% of participants reported spending at

least 30 minutes a day on Facebook. Participants reported

interacting with restaurant pages an average of 2.84 times per

day (SD = 5.22). The mean number of restaurant pages “Liked” by

Facebook users who reported interacting with restaurant Pages was

11.60 (SD = 14.17). Twitter users, on the other hand, reported

logging on an average of 9.75 times per day (SD = 12.35), and 34%

of the participants reported spending an average of more than 30

minutes a day on Twitter. While using Twitter, participants

reported interacting with restaurants an average of 5.16 times


per day (SD = 9.63). The mean number of restaurant pages

followed by Twitter users who reported interacting with

restaurant pages was 13.38 (SD = 12.68). In response to RQ1,

while more participants as a whole reported “Liking” a restaurant

on Facebook than following a restaurant on Twitter, among those

interacting with restaurants on social media, daily interaction

with restaurants was nearly three times higher on Twitter than on

Facebook.

Research Question 2 asked how age, gender, and overall

Facebook and Twitter use influenced interactions with restaurants

on Facebook and Twitter. In order to answer this question, two

linear regressions were performed on the number of times

respondents interacted with restaurants on social media on both

Facebook and Twitter. Gender and age were entered in the first

block of both regressions, and overall use of the platform was

entered in the second block of each regression.

The first block (age and gender) was found to be a

significant predictor of the number of interactions with

restaurant Facebook pages per week, F(2,201) = 3.497) Adjusted R

Square = .024. Gender was a near-significant variable in the


block, where males are more likely than females to interact with

restaurant Facebook pages (β = .131, p = .066). Block 2, time

spent on Facebook per day, was non-significant.

For Twitter interactions with restaurants, age and gender

were both non-significant predictors. In the second block, gender

is a near significant predictor, F(3,53) = 4.421 Adjusted R

Squared= .162, p <.01. Gender is a near significant predictor in

the second block β = .246, p = .056. Time spent on Twitter is

also a significant predictor of restaurant interactions on

Twitter (β = .418 p <.01). Females were more likely to interact

with restaurants on Twitter and more time spent on Twitter led to

an increase in interactions with restaurants.

Research Question 3 asked what social and informational

gratifications patrons who interacted with restaurants via

Facebook and Twitter sought. As shown in Table 1, seven of the

top ten gratifications sought by Facebook users were

informational motives: to get information, to receive special

offers, to learn daily specials, to learn menu changes, to see

what the food looks like, to learn interesting things, and to get

answers to questions about food/restaurant. The social motive,


to show my support for the restaurant, ranked third on the

gratifications sought list, and, to share restaurant information

with others, and to communicate more easily with the restaurant

rounded out the top ten. In contrast, Table 1 illustrates that

five of the top ten gratifications sought by Twitter users were

informational motives: to get information, to receive special

offers, to learn interesting things, to learn menu changes, and

to see what the food looks like. The five highest reported

social motives were to show my support for the restaurant and to

get answers to questions about food/restaurants, which ranked

third and sixth, respectively.

RQ4 wondered if Facebook users sought different social and

informational gratifications than Twitter users. We did find a

difference between the two platforms. Participants reported

interacting with restaurants on both Facebook and Twitter largely

to meet informational needs, with the notable exception of the

social gratification “showing support” for the restaurant across

the two platforms. By examining Table 1 we see that the top 3

gratifications sought for both platforms were the same. Within

the larger scope of the top 10 gratifications sought across


platforms, we see more social uses than informational uses on

Twitter as compared to Facebook.

Discussion

The purpose of our study was to examine patrons’

motives for interacting with restaurants using Facebook and

Twitter. The theory of uses and gratifications is useful for

conducting Internet research (Ruggiero, 2000) and provides

valuable insight when examining the motives of social media

users. The results of our study show that fans of restaurants on

social media report more informational than social motivations

when interacting with restaurants on Facebook than on Twitter.

We investigated motives of Facebook and Twitter users interacting

with restaurants and found that, of Johnson and Yang’s (2009)

social and informational gratifications sought, the informational

motives are much more prevalent. This finding corresponds with

Kwok and Yu’s (2013) analysis of restaurant Facebook posts, which

revealed that the most effective social media posts are

informational.

Since information seeking is the most popular reason

that people interact with restaurants on social media,


restaurants should be sure to offer a lot of information on

Facebook Pages and Twitter profiles. Postings about daily menus,

food photos, specials, and events would draw in more users

seeking information. The number two motivation for both Facebook

and Twitter is to receive special offers, so restaurants that

wish to encourage new followers may want to advertise social

media-exclusive promotions on Facebook and Twitter.

Of the social motives, the most frequently reported

by both Facebook and Twitter users was to show support for the

restaurant. Overall, this was the third most frequently cited

reason for interacting with restaurants on social media. This

can be interpreted as good news for restaurant marketers – their

social media fans are excited to support their businesses across

both social platforms. Restaurant owners can use this information

to focus on building relationships with guests that will motivate

them to want to show support.

The results for Facebook and Twitter gratifications

sought were very similar, so it appears that an information-

driven posting strategy for restaurant social media managers

would be effective for both platforms. We noted a gender


difference among users, whereby males are more likely than

females to interact with restaurant Facebook Pages. Given that

most people who interact with restaurants on Facebook for

informational purposes, we can conclude that the most common user

of a restaurant Facebook Page may be a man looking for

information. This could have an important impact on design and

content decisions for social media managers.

Users of Twitter restaurant profiles also revealed gender

differences. The more time women spent on Twitter in general, the

more time they spent interacting with restaurants on Twitter.

Marketers creating client personas should keep in mind that women

with social motivations are the most likely users of restaurant

Twitter profiles. Tweets that invite social interaction and

encourage sharing and retweeting could be very appealing to this

demographic.

This research reveals that more people interact with

restaurants on Facebook than on Twitter, but the Twitter users

are much more active and social in their restaurant interactions.

The synchronous nature of Twitter may lead to more social-based

interactions, as Twitter users use the platform to directly talk


back and forth with restaurant brands. This aligns with our

finding that Twitter users report more social motivations for

restaurant profile interaction. It looks like social media users

tend to use Facebook when they want to get basic information

about a restaurant, and Twitter when they want to have a

conversation with a restaurant brand. This knowledge can direct

social media managers to focus their efforts on informational

posts on Facebook and their real-time conversations on Twitter.

Overall, our findings reinforce the main tenets of the uses and

gratifications theory: people who interact with restaurants on

social media seek to fulfill a specific purpose. Restaurants can

use Facebook and Twitter to share information and to gain support

for their restaurants by interacting and conversing with their

customers.

Limitations

This study utilized a convenience snowball sample, so the

non-random selection of participants prevents these findings from

being applied to all Facebook and Twitter users. The number of

Twitter users reporting regular interactions with restaurants was

low, so a larger sample of Twitter users would offer more


comprehensive data. Duplicating the same study with a random

sample of participants whose Facebook and Twitter activities

could actually be observed would be useful. This would allow for

a comparison of their demonstrated liking, following, and

commenting behavior with their reported motivations.

Further Research

A longitudinal study could examine if restaurant patrons’

motives change over time. For example, as restaurant-goers

develop relationships with restaurant owners and become regular

patrons, do their motivations change from information-seeking

seeking to social? How does a relationship with the restaurant

owner change the motivations for consumer interaction? A study

evaluating more social media platforms than just Facebook and

Twitter would take into account the rise and fall in popularity

of specific social media websites over time and could provide a

more general idea of uses and gratifications across all social

media.


References

Baek, K., Holton, A., Harp, D. & Yaschur, C. (2011). The links

that bind: Uncovering novel motivations for linking on

Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2243-2248.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.003

Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications:

Current perspectives on gratifications research (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage publications.

Chen, G.M. (2011). Tweet this: A Uses and Gratifications

perspective on how active

Twitter users connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior,

27(2). 755-762. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023

Chen, Y., Fay, S., & Wang, Q. (2011). The role of marketing in

social media: How online consumer reviews evolve. Journal of

Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 85-94.

doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2011.01.003

Cheung, M.K., & Lee, K.O. (2012). What drives consumers to spread

electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion

platforms. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 218-225.

doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.01.015


ComScore/ the Kelsey group (2007). Online Consumer-Generated

Reviews Have Significant Impact on Offline Purchase

Behavior. Retrieved from

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2007/11/

Online_Consumer_Reviews_Impact_Offline_Purchasing_Behavior.

ComScore/ the Kelsey group (2012). The Power of Like 2: How

Social Marketing Works. Retrieved from

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepape

rs/2012/The_Power_of_Like_2-How_Social_Marketing_Works

Cook, J. (2012). Howard Schultz: How Twitter and Facebook are

saving Starbucks money. Retrieved from

http://www.geekwire.com/2012/howard-schultz-twitter-

facebook-saving-starbucks-money

Cox, C., Burgess, S., Sellitto, C., & Buultjens, J. (2009). The

role of user-generated content in tourists' travel planning

behavior. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(8), 743-

764. doi:10.1080/19368620903235753

deVries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. H. (2012). Popularity of

brand posts on brand fan pages: an investigation of the

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2007/11/Online_Consumer_Reviews_Impact_Offline_Purchasing_Behavior

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2007/11/Online_Consumer_Reviews_Impact_Offline_Purchasing_Behavior


effects of social media marketing. Journal Of Interactive Marketing,

26(2), 83-91. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003

Dholakia, U.M. & Durham, E. (2010). One café chain’s Facebook

experiment. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from

hbr.org/2010/03/one-café-chains-facebook-experiment/ar/pr

Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The Demographics of Social

Media Users — 2012. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-

media-users.aspx

Frederick, E. L., Lim, C. H., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012). Why

we follow: An examination of parasocial interaction and fan

motivations for following athlete archetypes on Twitter.

International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 481-502. Retrieved

from

http://journals.humankinetics.com/ijsc-back-issues/ijsc-

volume-5-issue-4-december/why-we-follow-an-examination-of-

parasocial-interaction-and-fan-motivations-for-following-

athlete-archetypes-on-twitter

Gretzel, U., Kang, M., & Lee, W. (2008). Differences in consumer-

generated media adoption and use: A cross-national


perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 17(1), 99-

120. doi: 10.1080/10507050801978240

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D.D.

(2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion

platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate

themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1),

38-52. doi: 10.1002/dir.10073

Hicks, A., Comp, S., Horovitz, J., Hovarter, M., Miki, M., &

Bevan, J. (2012). Why

people use Yelp.com: An exploration of Uses and

Gratifications. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6). 2274-2279.

doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.034

Huang, Y., Basu, C., & Hsu, M. K. (2010). Exploring motivations

of travel knowledge sharing on social network sites: An

empirical investigation of U.S. college students. Journal of

Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(7), 717-734. doi:

10.1080/19368623.2010.508002

Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009).

Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of


the American society for information science and technology, 60(11), 2169-

2188. doi: 10.1002/asi.21149

Jeong, E., & Jang, S. (2011). Restaurant experiences triggering

positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 356-366. doi:

10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.005

Johnson, P. R., & Yang, S. (2009, August). Uses and

Gratifications of Twitter: An examination of user motives

and satisfaction of Twitter use. In Communication Technology

Division of the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism

and Mass Communication in Boston, MA. Retrieved from

https://umdrive.memphis.edu/cbrown14/public/Mass%20Comm

%20Theory/Week%207%20Uses%20and%20Gratifications/Johnson

%20and%20Yang%202009%20Twitter%20uses%20and%20grats.pdf

Kwok, L., & Yu, B. (2013). Spreading Social Media Messages on

Facebook An Analysis of Restaurant Business-to-Consumer

Communications. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 84-94. doi:

10.1177/1938965512458360


Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The

effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in

Human Behavior, 28(2), 331-339. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002

Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic

word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism

Management, 29(3), 458-468. doi:

10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.011

Pantelidis, I. S. (2010). Electronic meal experience: A content

analysis of online restaurant comments. Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly, 51(4), 483-491. doi: 10.1177/1938965510378574

Parra-López, E., Bulchand-Gidumal, J., Gutiérrez-Taño, D., &

Díaz-Armas, R. (2011). Intentions to use social media in

organizing and taking vacation trips. Computers in Human

Behavior, 27(2), 640-654. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.022

Plangger, K. (2012). The power of popularity: how the size of a

virtual community adds to firm value. Journal of Public Affairs,

12(2), 145–153. doi: 10.1002/pa.1416

Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and Gratifications of

social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant


messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 350-361.

doi: 10.1177/0270467610380009

Rainie, L., & Fox, S. (2012). Just-in-time information through

mobile connections. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Just-

in-time.aspx

Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the

21st Century. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3-37. New

York: Routledge. doi: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02

Scott, Cameron (2010). Facebook says mobile ads successful, but

analysts say challenges remain. PC World. Retrieved from

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/259933/faceboo

k_says_mobile_ads_successful_but_analysts_say_challenges_rem

ain.html

Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated

media: A uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research,

19(1), 7-25. doi: 10.1108/10662240910927795

Smith, Craig (2013). A few amazing Twitter stats.

http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/march-2013-by-the-

numbers-a-few-amazing-twitter-stats/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10662240910927795


Smock, A., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y.. (2011).

Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to

unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322-

2329. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011

Sniderman, Z. (2011). How social media is fueling the food truck

phenomenon. http://mashable.com/2011/06/16/food-trucks-

social-media/

Zhang, Y., Tang, L. S., & Leung, L. (2011). Gratifications,

collective self-esteem, online emotional openness, and

traitlike communication apprehension as predictors of

Facebook uses. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(12),

733-739. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0042


Table 1. Top 10 Gratifications sought when interacting with restaurants on Facebook and Twitter

Faceboo

k Rank

Gratification Mean

(SD)

Twitter

Rank

Gratification Mean

(SD)

1. To get information 3.84

(1.32)

1. To get information 3.92

(1.19)

2. To receive special

offers

3.80

(1.44)

2. To receive special

offers

3.87

(1.44)

3. To show my support

for the restaurant

3.49

(1.37)

3. To show my support

for the restaurant

3.62

(1.32)


4. To learn daily

specials

3.48

(1.46)

4. To learn

interesting things

3.38

(1.54)

5. To learn menu

changes

3.19

(1.47)

5. To see what the

food looks like

3.36

(1.59)

6. To see what the

food looks like

3.31

(1.44)

6. To get answers to

questions about

food/restaurant

3.35

(1.44)

7. To learn

interesting things

2.93

(1.37)

7. To learn menu

changes

3.34

(1.66)

8. To get answers to

questions about

food/restaurant

2.90

(1.42)

8. To share restaurant

information with

others

3.28

(1.41)

9. To share restaurant

information with

others

2.74

(1.35)

9. To comment on

restaurant

activities/updates

3.17

(1.56)

10. To communicate more

easily with the

restaurant

2.59

(1.41)

10. To communicate more

easily with the

restaurant

2.92

(1.59)

Date post:	23-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ucf
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Dining and Dishing: Analyzing Uses and Gratifications of Facebook and Twitter Interaction by Patrons...

Documents