Monday, April 1, 2019
The Effects Of Different Ugc On Users Marketing Essay
The Effects Of Different Ugc On Users Marketing EssaySince the advent of Web 2.0, companionable media, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as social net bleeding sites and drug determinationr-generated services, sop up emerged into mass use Boyd and Ellison, 2008. Academic research is jump to explore think concepts, much(prenominal) as social nedeucerking sites (Boyd and Ellison, 2008 Utz, 2010), user-generated sate (Shao, 2009), and social media (Walker Rettberg, 2009). Basic twain(prenominal)y, what characterizes user-generated mental ability (UGC) is the fact that consumers atomic number 18 the ones producing, designing, publishing, or editing the content in the media (Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008), i.e. the service is user- required. companionable media in turn modify mountain to percentage and interact with individually separate(a) and the content becomes much democratized (Drury, 2008).User generated content (UGC) is fast becoming one of the most valuable and inf luential sources of training in the on-line world, certificationing millions of consumers who have come to rely on intersection and service re scenerys to support the purchase process. T here is considerable affaire in the time value of UGC and its antecedents. Research shows that crossroad reviews, for instance, influence consumer search and turn up choice, enhance gross sales forecast quality, affect yield sales, and drive viewership (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006 Godes and Mayzlin, 2004 Li and Hitt, 2008). Current research on UGC has foc utilize of importly on the motivations of consumers to perplex UGC. Studies on crisscross- colligate UGC and its causality to pit perceptions is still in its infancy. It has been mentioned as single-valued function of future research to ruminate consumers of UGC who are individuals exposed to marker- associate UGC to investigate whether patently viewing rather than creating UGC may effect a change in consumer perception of sucker s. (Christodoulides, et. al., 2012). upcoming research has also been paint a pictureed to distinguish in the midst of incentive- and non-incentive impelled UGC and examine contrasts in terms of drivers and stake perceptions (Christodoulides, et. al., 2012). As consumers are progressively per ca-caing activities previously controlled by companies, the entire selling landscape is changing. Therefore, companies acquire to better understand the changing behaviour of consumers, in order to seduce mutual benefits from the use of social media (Heinonen, 2011).This research is an extension of current work to examine the effects of the antithetical faces of UGC on users perceptions of stains. This research is an exploratory think to address this subject by first discussing current literature on UGC and its relation to brand comeliness. Then, the design of the subscribe to and its results are presented and discussed. The research hopes to gravel new association about the pos itive and negative influences of UGC on brands, and highlights theatre directorial implications for brand-related activities on online plat licks containing UGC.2 Literature Review User Generated Content (UGC) and its outgrowth influence in brand marketingThe term social media here refers to user-created services, such as blogs, online review/rating sites, social ne 2rking sites, and online communities. The term consumer is utilize to describe the individual user that is agile in the social media, however, non necessarily only consuming the media but also performing other activities, such as participating in, using, or producing activities.(Heinonen, 2011). Consumption meat study the content that is posted by other users participation occurs when people find on others creations, and fruition means posting ones feature content on the site (Shao, 2009). In brief, information technology is empowering consumers, and their role is shifting from be passive recipients of informa tion to becoming active generators of information (Stewart and Pavlou, 2002). Research has suggested that the spotless notion of individuals as mere consumers is outdated and that consumers should also be seen as active producers of business value (Heinonen, 2011).Marketers think that brand-related UGC is a more efficacious and targeted way of r for each oneing disparate audiences than standard paid media (Lovett, 2011). The recent roar in social media provides opportunities for more targeted distribution of branded content (Lovett, 2011). Social networks are not just targeting tools but rather egalitarian and gimcrack platforms for broadcast and distribution (Lovett, 2011). Many websites such as YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter and weblogs enable consumers to easily create UGC (Dwyer, 2012).With the enormous interest in social media and user-generated content on these sites, consumers are seen to be actively contributing to the marketing content. A crucial amount of UGC con cerns brand-related material (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). For employment, recent evidence shows that about 70 percent of brand-related searches on social-networking sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter relate to UGC (360i, 2009). This active consumer behaviour is changing the media and marketing landscape as consumers are invading companies marketing sphere (Berthon, et al.2008).Some of the online activities performed by consumers may influence the lodge image and brand positively whereas other consumer activities are perhaps not favourable (Heinonen, 2011). This is explained by a finding that consumers of UGC often consider it more credible than professional content (Cheong and Morrison, 2008). Hence, negative UGC can have denigratory implications for building and sustaining a brands market presence. It is, so, important for motorbuss to understand the impact of UGC on brands (Berthon, et. al., 2008 Christodoulides, 2009).One of the motivation for social media activit y is information processing. A backbone activity in information processing is sharing information and experiences, and accessing shared out knowledge online. Contrary to f existent information that has lower trustworthiness, reliances were considered to be secure and value adding. It was felt that UGC is a reliable way to get printings of merchandises. As they do not benefit anything from advertising a certain product, producers who create product reviews are seen to be more motivated to tell the righteousness. When the truth is unfavourable, this may negatively impact consumers perception of a brand and their ulterior decision to use it (Heinonen, 2011). Information processing is also concerned with applying knowledge from UGC for utilitarian purposes. This activity often results in monetary benefits and economic gain. higher(prenominal) levels of brand awareness and associations may prompt perceptions of choice and progress cues (Hoyer and Br receive, 1990). When applying such knowledge appropriately, UGC may inform consumers selection of brands.Thus, we hypothesiseH1 The platform graphic symbol of incentive-driven UGC has an effect on the users awareness of the sponsoring brand.H2a The platform type of incentive-driven UGC has an effect on the users related buy decisions of the sponsoring brand.H2b The users general panorama on the bias-ness of incentive-driven UCC has an effect on the divergency mingled with the effects of the platform type of incentive-driven UGC in the users related get decisions of the sponsoring brandH3a The platform type of positive incentive-driven UGC has an effect on the users evaluation of the sponsoring brand.H3b The users general opinion on the bias-ness of incentive-driven UCC has an effect on the deviation between the effects of the platform type of incentive-driven UGC in the users evaluation of the sponsoring brand.3 Research Design and MeasuresThis study used the uses and gratifications approach as the theore tic fundament. This method is commonly used in internet studies, see for example (Sangwan, 2005), (Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000) or (Kaye and Johnson, 2002). The approach assumes people using media actively and goal oriented and according to their of necessity (Katz and Blumler, 1974). This implicitly means that people know their needs and can articulate them. The uses and gratifications approach is seen to be appropriate for studying the motivations of people using media (Lin, 1996). To complement the perspective given through the uses and gratifications approach, the study used concepts common in economic theory, namely the consideration of monetary rewards and signalling incentives (Lerner and Tirole 2002). This means of information gathering has been found useful in a government issue of studies concerning user motivation (Lakhani and Wolf, 2005 Hars and Ou, 2002 Hippel and Lakhani, 2003).The authors develop a questionnaire to capture quantitative data administered via go ove r of a small sample of NTU graduate students. The chosen mapping for recruitment has the disadvantage not to be statistically vocalisation (Ruggiero, 2000). It is therefore an exploratory study.The view questionnaire was sent out to about 100 people, of which the renovation rate was 68% with 68 users. The questionnaire was in the form of an online ken, which was emailed to the randomly selected participants in the form of an embedded link.The cartoon was open for 2 days. Of the 68 responses, all of them were useable with no incomplete responses.The brand awareness take a leak was calculated through one item, while the users purchasing decision of the brand pee-pee was measurable through three items. Finally, the users evaluation of the brand conception was measured through eight items. In all of the items, survey participants are asked to mark their responses based upon a 5-unit Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1- Strongly find out 2 Agree 3 Neutral 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Di sagree).For each of the dependent constructs relating to the users perceptions of brands, we calculate the sum of all the results of the survey items relating to that construct respective to each platform type (namely Facebook-related UGC or product review). Then, we begin by first conducting dependability analysis for each of the construct.A paired t-test was performed to test if there is any material difference between the effects of the platform types of incentive-driven UGC on each of the constructs to test the postulated hypotheses.For the dependent constructs of the users related purchasing decision of the sponsoring brand, and the users evaluation of the sponsoring brand, a further linear reverse analysis was performed to test if the users general opinion of the biasness of incentive-driven UGC has an effect on the difference between each platform types sum of all the results of the survey items relating to each of those dependent constructs (i.e., difference =sum of Faceb ook-related survey items for construct A sum of product reviews-related survey items for construct A )4 ResultsIn the testing of the hypothesis H1, it is found that the difference between incentive-driven UGC on Facebook and in the form of product reviews is not statistically significant (p = 0.816, =0.05). Therefore, H1 is rejected.However, there is a moderate correlativity between the users awareness of the sponsoring brand as a result of incentive-driven UGC on Facebook and the users awareness of the sponsoring brand as a result of incentive-driven UGC in the form of product reviews, and the Pearsons coefficient of 0.543 is significant at =0.05 (p In the test for the next hypothesis H2a, two analogous dress circles of 3 items are used one garnish for measuring the construct of users related purchasing decisions with respect to incentive-driven UGC on Facebook and the other for incentive-driven UGC in the form of product reviews. In the initial reliability analysis, Cronbachs alpha for each of the Facebook and product reviews-related set of items was 0.802 and 0.891 respectively. The mean of the users related purchasing decisions as a result of incentive-driven Facebook-related UGC is 8.82, which suggests an approximately in polar(p) opinion on the ordinary for each of the three survey items (3 = neutral). Similarly, the mean of the users related purchasing decisions as a result of incentive-driven Facebook-related UGC is 9.05, which suggests a neutral opinion on the norm for each of the 3 survey items (3 = neutral).The mean of the users related purchasing decisions as a result of incentive-driven Facebook-related UGC was not significantly different from that of the users related purchasing decisions as a result of incentive-driven UGC in the form of product reviews (p =0.539, = 0.05). Thus, H2a is rejected.However, there is fairly moderate correlation between the two variables, and the Pearsons coefficient of 0.338 is significant (p =0.005, = 0.05) .In the testing of the hypothesis H2b, the R2 value is 0.158, and there is a statistically significant negative linear family (standardised coefficient = -0.398) between the users opinion of the bias-ness of incentive-driven UGC and the difference in the platform types effect on the users related purchasing decisions (p = 0.001, = 0.05). In other words, the more the user agrees that the incentive-driven UGC are biased, the greater the positive effect that product reviews lead on the users purchasing decisions than the same by Facebook-related UGC. Thus, hypothesis H2b is accepted.In the test of the hypothesis H3a, two analogous sets of 8 items are used. One set is for measuring the construct of users evaluation of brands with respect to positive incentive driven UGC on Facebook, and the other for incentive-driven UGC in the form of product reviews. Cronbachs alpha for each of the Facebook and product reviews-related set of items was 0.891 and 0.926 respectively in the reliabilit y analysis. The mean rating of the users evaluation of the sponsoring brand as a result of Facebook-related UGC or product reviews are 22.35 and 22.94 respectively, both of which denote that the average opinion is between that of agree and neutral for each of the 8 survey items in each set.The mean of the users evaluation of brands as a result of positive incentive-driven UGC on Facebook was not significantly different from the same as a result of positive incentive-driven UGC in the form of product reviews ( p = 0.510, = 0.05). Thus, H3a is rejected.However, there is moderate correlation between the two variables, and the Pearsons coefficient of 0.385 is significant (p = 0.001, = 0.05).In the testing of the hypothesis H3b, the R2 value is 0.231, and there is a statistically significant negative linear relationship (standardised coefficient = -0.480) between the users opinion of the bias-ness of incentive-driven UGC and the difference in the platform types effect on the users rel ated purchasing decisions (p 5 Analysis and DiscussionIn summary, there is no significant difference between the platform type of online incentive-driven UGC (whether Facebook-related UGC or UGC in the form of online product reviews) in their effects on all of i) the awareness of the sponsoring brand ii) the users related purchasing decisions of the sponsoring brand, and iii) the users evaluation of the sponsoring brand. However, there is a significant difference between the platform type of online incentive-driven UGC on the constructs of purchasing decisions and evaluation of the brand when the users general opinion of the bias-ness of incentive-driven UGC is taken into consideration.5.1 When users general opinion of the biasness of incentive-driven UGC is not consideredThe results search to suggest that there is no difference between the efficacy of both incentive-driven Facebook-related UGC and incentive-driven customer product reviews in furthering brand awareness. This may al so hypnotism of an overall fairly even amount of exposure that users currently have of both Facebook and websites/blogs.The overleap of difference between the efficacy of both Facebook-related UGC and product reviews also seems to extend to the users related purchasing decisions of the sponsoring brand. This also seems to support the view that in fact that the users related purchasing decisions (whether their own or when advising a friend or relatives purchasing decision) had less to do with any type of UGC then the factors that they are directly exposed to when they are in a store or at the point of purchase (Edelman, 2010). Those information such as product placement, stock availability, packaging, pricing and sales interactions, are more crucial in influencing the users related purchasing decisions. Despite that, a user may still put off the purchase if they realise that the actual product is different from what is represented in other promotional materials online or offline ( Edelman, 2010).The results also suggest that neither type of incentive-driven UGC, whether on Facebook or in product reviews, has a greater effect than the other in boosting the users opinion of the brand. It seems to reflect that the users acquisition of information in their evaluation of the product is multi-faceted, and does not rest solely on a single platform.5.2 When users general opinion of the biasness of incentive-driven UGC is consideredOf the 68 participants, 45.6% of them agree (36.8%) or strongly agree (8.8%) that online incentive-driven UGC are for the most part more biased than balanced, while a substantial 30.9 % of them are neutral on this. 41.2% of the surveyed participants also agreed or strongly agreed that super biased online UGC has a greater impact on their impression of the brand than moderately biased online UGC, while a significant 35.3% of the group remained neutral.The results suggest that when the user feels more strongly about the biasness of incentiv e-driven UGC, he has a style to trust the product information encapsulated within product reviews more than those reflected on Facebook contributed by other users. This might be possibly due to the more detailed textual information that the typical product review has than the average Facebook post, which tend to be more sporadic in nature.The results also support the findings in a study by McKinsey, that most consumers in the study are observed to have headed directly to Amazon.com, a major online obtain website hosted in multiple countries. There is a wealth of customer reviews on related products on the website, where customers can obtain more detailed product information and conduct their own product comparisons (Edelman, 2010). It is thus not impress that Amazon.com is found to be one of the top influencers in brand equity, as it is where customers are influenced in both their evaluation of the product and purchasing decisions (Edelman, 2010).5.3 Limitations and Suggestions f or Future ResearchThere are several terminus ad quems in this study. One limitation of this study is the small sample group size. Although the Cronbachs alpha in the reliability analysis was more than 0.7 for the data used in testing the hypothesis, a larger number of survey participants would allow for a more representative sample.In addition, the current study only focuses on two main platforms, namely Facebook and product reviews in blogs and websites for the studying of incentive-driven UGC. The inclusion of other platforms, such as the micro-blogging platform Twitter, and LinkedIn, a business networking platform that is gaining prominence for use in marketing companies and brands, might also have possibly hurtle more light on their respective effects on brand perceptions.Further, there is no specific brand that is used as a case study for this research. Sentiments may be highly mixed when responding to the survey questions as the participants are likely to have in mind diffe rent brands as their subjects for analysis. Hence, possible future work as an extension of this study could include a longitudinal study that is focused on representative brands across several product categories to analyse the efficacies of UGC on different product categories.It is also found that differences in finish and language can affect the users actions and behaviours when writing reviews, and in turn, such differences influences the disparity in product ratings creating their own online UGC related to products and brands, which in turn can influence others user perceptions of the brands in concern (Decker Trusov, 2010). Therefore, it would be useful to also study if differences in culture and language of UGC also have an effect on the users perception of brands.6 Managerial implicationsThe results of the current study have several implications for the marketing manager.Firstly, the lack of a difference in efficacy between Facebook-related UGC and product reviews and an ave rage opinion that is almost neutral that either platform has influenced the user in his awareness of the sponsoring brand, showed that neither platform should be neglected by the manager in the online marketing plan when promoting a product or brand, nor should the manager put an over-emphasis of the marketing budget on these two platforms versus other online marketing mediums.Secondly, the manager may also consider allowing customer reviews on the companys own retail website for its products, if there is one. Such a feature will allow the growth of a virtual community of customers, and will also subjoin the time that a user spends on the website, thus boosting product sales (Mudambi Schuff, 2010). The social functions available on the retail website provide added value to the customer, and will exert a positive effect on brand equity through a more enhanced customer experience (Kumar Benbasat, 2006).7 Conclusion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment