Dissertation

Birmingham Business School
Understanding the sharing behaviours of users for
marketing content on social media
© 2017
Tien Koon Chong
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Page | 1
Acknowledgement
This research would not have been possible without the support of a number of people.
Firstly, I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor Dr. Sumanta Barua for the support
and guidance given throughout this entire process. I would also like to thank my family for
the support they have given during my years of education.

Page | 2
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction..............................................................................................................3
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................3
1.2 Importance of Study.........................................................................................................3
1.3 Aims and Objectives of Study..........................................................................................4
Chapter 2: Literature Review.....................................................................................................6
2.1 Social Media Marketing...................................................................................................6
2.2 WOM................................................................................................................................8
2.3 Viral Marketing..............................................................................................................11
2.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................14
Chapter 3: Methodology ..........................................................................................................16
3.1 Research Philosophy ......................................................................................................16
3.2 Data Collection Method .................................................................................................16
3.3 Sampling Method...........................................................................................................17
3.4 Data Analysis Method....................................................................................................18
3.5 Ethical Considerations....................................................................................................19
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion ........................................................................................20
4.1 Facebook Usage .............................................................................................................20
4.2 Behaviour on Facebook..................................................................................................21
4.3 WOM Behaviour on Facebook ......................................................................................23
Chapter 5: Conclusion..............................................................................................................27
5.1 Managerial Contribution ................................................................................................27
5.2 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................28
Appendices...............................................................................................................................30
References................................................................................................................................45

Page | 3
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
While there is no doubt that word-of-mouth (WOM) marketing is a well-established and
acknowledged form of marketing, the dawn of the Internet era has brought along new sets of
marketing strategies (Woerndl et al., 2008). Online marketing is now increasingly being the
preferred choice over traditional forms of marketing as more and more consumers are being
connected online. They are increasingly using the Internet to search and make purchase
decisions online (Mangold and Faulds, 2009). Terms such as social media marketing and viral
marketing have been the hot topic of discussion in recent times.
There is no doubt that the world we live in is more connected than ever before. The number of
Internet users has doubled over the last seven years to reach 3.2 billion globally in 2016, that
is an estimated 43% of the world’s total population. This increased connectivity has caused a
fundamental shift across all types of commerce. Consumers now browse and buy goods and
services differently from previous generations.
1.2 Importance of Study
94% of online adults have at least one social media account (Euromonitor International, 2016).
They use it to keep up with their friends, browse the news or simply to fill time. Most of these
activities are rather passive in character. The daily time spent on social networks has also
increased through the years and almost 4 in 10 follow their favourite brands on social media.
From a global perspective, Facebook remains the top platform for membership and visit
frequency (Global Web Index, 2016). Businesses have been engaging their customers through
social media platforms but with varying outcomes. Understanding how consumers behave on
social media platforms can help business effectively and efficiently engage with the consumers
of tomorrow.

Page | 4
1.3 Aims and Objectives of Study
This paper intends to study the sharing behaviour of marketing content of social media users
in Singapore.
Using previous studies done in the related fields, this study aims to provide an understanding
of consumers’ sharing behaviour on social media and on what matters to them most when it
comes to sharing marketing content. Past studies were done in a Western and European context
and even so, does not necessarily take into consideration marketing content in particular. Such
a study can potentially impact marketers who engage on social media platforms, focusing on
those who can help build buzz and promote their brands with the budgets that they have.
Understanding the behaviours of users can help them effectively and efficiently market their
contents.
This study will first provide an introduction to social media and a review of literatures on
sharing behaviours. We will first look at what the term social media is, why consumers use it
and how it affects marketing strategies. Then, we focused on how WOM marketing works and
its impact online.
This is followed by defining what viral marketing is and its success factors. Thereafter, the
methodology of this study is discussed, followed by the findings and discussions from the
interviews conducted. This study will then conclude with potential managerial implications of
the findings, limitations of the study and likely future research possibilities.
Aim
A study on social media users in Singapore and their behaviour to spread marketing content.
Research Questions
How does the time spent on social media affect the likelihood of sharing marketing content?

Page | 5
What makes people want to check out advertisements?
Why do people share marketed content?

Page | 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Social Media Marketing
Social media as defined by (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010) “is a group of Internet-based
applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that
allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content”. Social media covers a variety of
formats including social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, creativity production sites
like YouTube and Flickr, and microblogging sites like Twitter (Chu and Kim, 2011). A
honeycomb model was conceptualised by (Kietzmann et al., 2011), where seven functional
blocks of social media were identified and it can be used to compare the different functionalities
of the different sites (refer to Appendix 1).
Companies were once able to control information that were available about them but have now
found themselves increasingly relegated into the side lines as mere observers when these online
contents are continuously being modified by users in a participatory and collaborative manner
(Coulter et al., 2012, Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).
United Airlines learnt this the hard way, they suffered a blow to their brand image and stock
price when they broke customer Dace Carroll’s beloved guitar during loading. After a year of
getting the run-around and receiving no compensation from them, he wrote a song entitled
‘United Breaks Guitars’. It had 4.6 million views on YouTube within a month, received media
attention and United Airlines had no choice but to act on it (Mills, 2012). They simply could
not control what was being said about them in the public arena.
With the capacity to create such impacts, it is no wonder that companies are paying much
attention to social media these days. It did not take long for SNSs to outpace email as the most
popular online activity (Chu and Kim, 2011). Social media marketing not only can lead to real

Page | 7
cost savings, crowd source ideas but it is also highly efficient (Hoffman and Fodor, 2010,
Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).
SNSs are increasingly being used by users who turn to each other as sources of information for
brands or to make purchase decisions, which are seen as more trustworthy than traditional
media (Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014, Coulter et al., 2012, Mangold and Faulds, 2009).
SNSs contains valuable information about users such as their interests, who their friends are
and where are they from. However, it was found that most companies using social media are
merely perfunctory. Having minimum degree of connecting and interacting with consumers,
while assuming that one directional messages equates to active social media involvement
(Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014). Data showed that brands with millions of Facebook fans, only
0.45% are active fans and just 1% of fans ever engage with the brand after “liking” the page
(Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014). Setting up a brand Facebook page is not sufficient, there is a need
to create contents that users will have to share or contribute.
Previous research highlighted the importance of consumer engagement in order for social
media marketing to be successful. Providing the platform for conversations to take place, sense
of community and rapport building with consumers. All these increases the likelihood of
responsiveness to companies’ social media strategies (Narayanan et al., 2012, Castronovo and
Huang, 2012).
Other areas of study include evaluation metrics of social media, role of social media with
traditional marketing tools and its impacts on buying decisions (Zhu and Chen, 2015, Skulme
and Praude, 2016, Coulter et al., 2012).
Social media is also a medium used for two other popular forms of marketing, namely Word-
Of-Mouth (WOM) and Viral Marketing.

Page | 8
2.2 WOM
A thorough definition and history of WOM was provided in (Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014).
WOM has existed ever since humans started communicating with each other. As ancient as it
may be, it is still prominent now because of the greater connectivity and speed which
interpersonal messages can spread. WOM is about “informal, ad hoc communication between
individuals concerning products and services” it can be positive or negative depending on the
individual’s satisfaction level (Woerndl et al., 2008). Technology has aided the means of which
people connect to each other but consumers are more sceptical than before. These days,
consumer-to-consumer influence takes precedence over what used to be business-to-consumer
marketing. Hence, there is the need to understand what make consumers tick.
WOM behaviour on SNSs can be categorised into 3 aspects: opinion seeking, opinion giving
and opinion passing. Reasons for such behaviours include the desire to establish and maintain
social relationships, sharing experiences and seeking product information (Chu and Kim, 2011).
However, the study did not take into consideration of the different cultural context when
establishing such behaviours and how it might vary across generations or age groups. Which
might affect its applicability in countries that cultures are vastly different from that study.
There are three emerging streams of research in WOM. 1) Factors that encourage proactive
spread about products and services that consumers experienced. These include satisfaction
level, novelty and brand commitment. 2) Why is it that consumers rely more heavily on WOM
than formal information sources to make decisions. There is a higher likelihood of seeking
opinion of others when they have little expertise in that category, have high perceived risk and
involvement. 3) Explaining the greater influence of personal information sources on consumers
compared to other sources. Important antecedents of WOM influence include source expertise
and social ties strength (Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014).

Page | 9
1) Numerous studies were done looking at the impacts of both positive and negative WOM. It
is complex and depends on a number of mediating factors, hence there is not clear cut answer
as to which is more impactful (Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014). The Theory of Planned Behaviour
is frequently used to understand consumer behaviour in various contexts. In this context, that
is to say, the stronger the consumer’s intention to pass along a message, the more frequent they
will pass it along. Two notable variables of this model, they are consumer attitude and
subjective norms.
Consumer attitude towards marketing content on social media are more favourable than via
emails, and thus more likely to generate referrals than emails which are seen as intrusive and
annoying. Subjective norms are perceived social pressure whether to engage or not engage in
a particular behaviour. It affects sharing decision and also moderate between attitude towards
sharing the message and the intention to share it (Shan and King, 2015). The ways in which
brand relationship and sender-receiver relationship affect sharing attitude also differs. This will
be elaborated in the sections below.
A high level of brand relationship positively affects referring attitude. This also relates to brand
attitude, commitment, loyalty and repurchase intention. Consumer brand relationship combines
cognitive, emotional and behavioural processes that builds trust and interdependence. (Shan
and King, 2015).
2) Messages delivered via WOM are seen as more credible as consumers believe that the sender
have no incentive for conveying such information. Consumers rely greatly on the opinions of
others when decisions are financially or psychologically risky. (Gil-Or, 2010, Castronovo and
Huang, 2012). It was also found that WOM played a more significant role in consumers’ search
for information and purchase decisions for services because of its intangible nature (Cruz and
Fill, 2008, Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014).

Page | 10
3) There is a strong consensus among literatures that strong tie sources are more influential
than weak ties, since these sources are seen as being more credible and trustworthy (De Bruyn
and Lilien, 2008, Chu and Kim, 2011, Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014, Shan and King, 2015,
Mangold and Faulds, 2009, Van Noort et al., 2012, Castronovo and Huang, 2012). In a model
by (De Bruyn and Lilien, 2008), they showed the WOM influence in the decision making
process (refer to Appendix 2). However, their study only looked at email marketing which not
only serve different needs but also have sharing mechanisms that works differently from SNSs.
Moreover, people now spend an increasing amount of time on SNSs than on emails.
Weak ties are defined as “loose connections between individuals that may provide useful
information or new perspective for one another but usually not emotional support.” “Strong
ties are strong connections between individuals that provide emotional or substantive support
for each other” (Van Noort et al., 2012). However, there is no common agreement on which
ties are more essential in the spread of information. The study between social relationship
variables that affect WOM in SNSs could help marketers identify influential individuals in
social networks to successfully carry out a social media marketing strategy (Chu and Kim,
2011).
Studies by (Zhang et al., 2016, Fulgoni and Lipsman, 2015, Leskovec et al., 2007), mentioned
about the conventional diffusion theory that suggests a group of minority people who are
extremely highly connected, called ‘influentials’, are generally considered the most crucial
factor affecting the spread of information. Having more connections means having the
tendency to exert greater influence on information spread. In (Hinz et al., 2011), they proposed
that marketers pick highly connected individuals as initial seeds and showed that the right
customer seeding can yield up to eight times more referral. Whereas (Van Noort et al., 2012)
suggested that messages should promote forwarding to only people that you have strong ties
with.

Page | 11
However, being highly connected does not always result in greater influence, in which (Berger
and Milkman, 2012) added that hiring ‘influentials’ might be far from being cost effective.
Without crowd participation, diffusion of information will still fail. What they found showed
that weak ties may increase reachability whereas strong ties may increase the frequency of
engagement (Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014, Shan and King, 2015, Hinz et al., 2011, Van Noort
et al., 2012). While many studies looked at the impacts of such ‘influentials’, the underlying
participation of the crowd should perhaps deserve further exploration.
In a paper by (Fulgoni and Lipsman, 2015), they identified three criteria of being an influencer:
having the means, the motive and the opportunity to influence. Furthermore, these people are
found to be motivated by altruism, self-expression and content of the message (Shan and King,
2015).
Both brand relationship and sender-receiver relationship affect the attitude towards sharing
messages (Shan and King, 2015). Additionally, (Van Noort et al., 2012) found that the latter is
more significant than the former. Supporting this statement, (Shan and King, 2015) mentioned
that a strong sender-receiver relationship can overpower brand relationship on SNSs. A strong
affiliation with a brand can overcome the weak tie source of the message. Regardless of sender-
receiver relationship, reaching out to loyal customers can still leverage the success of a message
(Shan and King, 2015). However, participants in their study were incentivised which might
actually inflate response rates. Also, the use of self-reported data in survey might not accurately
depict their actual behaviour.
2.3 Viral Marketing
Viral marketing as described by (Hinz et al., 2011) is a phenomenon by which marketing
related information initially sent out on purpose by marketers are mutually shared and spread
among consumers, capitalising on WOM behaviours. In simpler terms, the difference between

Page | 12
viral marketing and WOM is one of cause and effect (Ferguson, 2008). It is similar to traits of
infectious diseases, mimicking the way that viruses spread, hence the term viral marketing.
This kind of marketing is far more effective, penetrating and speedier than traditional WOM.
It has a multiplier effect and can transcend both online and offline (Shukla, 2010, Woerndl et
al., 2008). This could potentially help boost the adoption speed of both products and services.
Five types of viral marketing factors were also identified by (Woerndl et al., 2008) (refer to
Appendix 3). These factors however, were established using only three cases which might
require further testing and are also rather dated to accurately predict the outcomes of marketing
tools used today.
Viral marketing can encourage WOM referrals and is relatively low cost as the carrying of
message is done by the consumers. Crucial to its success is the need for it to be considered
engaging enough to be passed along (Dobele et al., 2005). However, as mentioned by
(Ferguson, 2008), there is no definite hard quantitative investment return measurements for
such campaigns. Which then questions the low cost that is associated with it if the returns are
not all measureable.
One of the earliest successful viral campaign was conducted by Hotmail, with a budget of only
$50,000, they managed to gather 12 million subscribers over an 18-month period (Hinz et al.,
2011). Success factors of a viral campaign includes the content, seeding strategy and
behavioural characteristics of consumers (Hinz et al., 2011, Woerndl et al., 2008). However,
previous studies on viral marketing mainly focused on email marketing but not marketing
campaigns on SNSs.
Successful viral campaigns tend to link emotions to their message content. Surprise is usually
a dominant emotion that will be effective when coupled with a second emotion (Dobele et al.,
2007). The study done by (Dobele et al., 2007) looked at the intention to forward content which

Page | 13
might not necessarily mean actual forwarding behaviour. Moreover, dealing with various
emotions might differ across different cultures.
In addition, (Berger and Milkman, 2012, Botha and Reyneke, 2013) found that physiological
arousal affects virality. High arousal from positive or negative content tend to be more viral
while low arousal or deactivating emotions concludes otherwise. Content is the first
determination of forwarding decision. However, the above studies were not done based on a
SNSs, which might have an effect on sharing behaviours depending on the various sharing
mechanisms in place. In the (Botha and Reyneke, 2013) study, only the intention to forward
was examined and the scope was narrowly focused. There could be other contributing factors
such as personality type, subjective norm or sender-receiver relationship.
Understanding what motivates consumers can help avoid potential backlash and create
contagious content (Berger and Milkman, 2012). Similar to WOM, it was found that more
individualistic and or more altruistic online users tend to forward more online content.
Additional motivators include the need to be part of a group and need for personal growth (Ho
and Dempsey, 2010). These studies however, although was done on viral content, did not
particularly on marketing content.
However, although both studies above were done using contents that went viral, they did not
particularly look at contents created by marketers. Consumers tend to be more cautious of such
contents, which might affect their intention to forward such contents.
Building up buying demand virally is not an instantaneous one. Viral marketing on social media
can be used to increase awareness of the brand which can lead to future purchasing action (Gil-
Or, 2010). Although the study by (Gil-Or, 2010) concluded that viral marketing can be used to
build consumer demand, it did not mention how to accelerate this demand from the followers
nor did it analyse the linkages between being a fan and being an actual customer. The delay

Page | 14
effect of viral marketing on purchasing decision might be one reason why measuring such
success has been limited in the literature. Although there are various measuring methods, there
seems to be no common agreement on what key factors should be evaluated.
The study by (Cruz and Fill, 2008) proposed that evaluation should be done based on the
campaign objectives (refer to Appendix 4). From the different objectives, it will affect the
choice of target audience, the message, media and deployment methods. However, further
testing of the framework is required in order to prove its validity.
2.4 Summary
There is no doubt that social media has impacted the lives of millions. The ability to create
such wide spread impact has spurred many companies to join in the trend. It is usually seen as
a cheaper and highly efficient way to reach customers than traditional marketing tools.
Social media leverages its impact through WOM, which itself has been a widely researched
area for many years. WOM can be either positive or negative and messages delivered via WOM
are seen as more credible.
Quite a number of literatures seem to agree that strong tie sources are more influential than
weaker ones. There was also the notion that ‘influentials’ are key to creating viral spread of
information, some researchers seem to disagree. The relationship between sender and receiver
of messages affecting attitude to sharing is stronger as compared with brand relationship.
Viral marketing capitalises on WOM behaviour. Successful viral campaigns were found to
have dominant and secondary emotions in its content. Content is also found to be the first factor
that determined forwarding decision.
Although there has been research in the areas of social media and marketing, there is however
a lack in research on the time spent on social media and sharing marketing content. In addition,

Page | 15
a couple of the research were rather dated which based its studies on email marketing to
understand sharing behaviour. People now spend more time on social media than they do on
emails. There is a need to relook at previous concepts while applying them in today’s context.

Page | 16
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research Philosophy
Epistemological orientation of the researcher is based on the social constructionism approach.
Taking into account how the understanding of our world are shaped through our experiences
and interactions with others. Keeping in mind that social interactions are also in a constant state
of revisions. Thus, the use of qualitative research allowed rich accounts of details to be
collected that can be result in new concepts and theories that can enhance the academic
literature (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
3.2 Data Collection Method
Data was collected using semi-structured one-to-one interviews, a form of qualitative
interviewing. This method allowed rich, detailed information to be gathered from the
interviewees and provides flexibility and depth in terms of interviewees’ responses. Such
interviews can reveal information that might have been previously been missed because it takes
into consideration the interviewees’ own perspectives and contents of the interviews gets
adjusted during the course of the interview (Bryman and Bell, 2015). The choice of a one-to-
one interview can minimise the social conformity occurrence than that of a focus group
discussion. This help enabled the diversity of views to be present.
However, despite the merits of qualitative interviews, it does have its limitations as well.
Generality of the findings is limited and might not be applicable to other settings. Largely due
to its unstructured nature and dependence on the researcher’s ingenuity, it is nearly impossible
to replicate the study (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
A total of six interviews were carried out. The interviews were administered to undergraduates
enrolled in business related courses at a university located in Singapore. Location of the

Page | 17
interview took place in the meeting rooms in the university campus over a duration of one week.
Each interview lasted approximately five minutes. Participants consisted of one male and five
females. The age range of participants were between 21 to 25 years old.
Although student samples are often criticised for the lack of external validity, they were chosen
in this case mainly because they are a good representation of Internet user, and are more likely
to engage in WOM activities on SNSs (Shan and King, 2015).
This study focuses the sharing behaviour of university aged students for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, among the demographics group of the top active social platforms in Singapore, young
adults aged 20-29 years old were the top users of Facebook. This group alone contributed to
34% of Singaporean users on Facebook (We Are Social, 2016). Secondly, this group of users
are savvy both in media and technology, making them the major drivers and consumers of
social media and viral messages (Botha and Reyneke, 2013). Which leads us to the last point,
these are the people that marketers would want to target. They are raised in a consumption-
oriented environment and are exposed to e-commerce.
Despite financial constraints as young adults, they are keen online shoppers and have the
highest motivation to purchase through social network. In time to come, they will move on to
the working adult category which forms the category of biggest spenders (Global Web Index,
2015).
3.3 Sampling Method
The method of convenience sampling was used for this study. This method allowed quicker
accessibility for the researcher to reach out to the respondents. While on the other hand, avoided
both the lengthy preparation and potential costs involved if probability sampling was used
instead.

Page | 18
Although it resulted in the problem of generalization, this research could help provide a
springboard for future further research or allow connections to be identified with findings that
existed in this field (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
Participants were all recruited through the network of friends and acquaintances of the
researcher and consent to the participation of this study was given by all participants. Before
the interviews, all participants were each given a brief explanation for the purpose of this study.
They were also reminded that they should air their views freely and were encouraged to
elaborate their views whenever possible.
All the interviews were audio-recorded to prevent information loss. These were later
transcribed for the analysis of the interviews. Audio-recording has additional advantages that
includes being able to pose new questions or probe further based on non-verbal communication
cues and allow for more thorough and repeated examination over what was said (Bryman and
Bell, 2015). Participants however might be less willing to open up in their responses with
knowledge that they are being recorded. Thus, it is important that there were attempts to build
rapport and making them feel at ease during the interview mimicking that of a conversation
(Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994).
3.4 Data Analysis Method
After the transcribing was done, the transcripts were read through at least twice. Analysing the
data was first done using descriptive coding which were then coded and categorised. The
categorising of data entails putting relevant bits of data together into groups, this enabled the
researcher to then reach a number of conclusions easily. Most of the categories used were
derived from the literature review and the research objectives (Saldaa, 2015, Saunders et al.,
2009).

Page | 19
However, there is a common tendency to have researcher bias when doing qualitative research
analysis. As mentioned by (Babbie, 2013), the analysis of interviews depends largely on the
subjective judgement of the researcher and that risk affecting the outcome of the analysis. To
avoid this, transcripts of the interviews have been included in the appendix of this paper
(Appendix 6).
3.5 Ethical Considerations
Guidelines from ICC/ESOMAR International Code of Market and Social Research were used
in the design of this study (ESOMAR, 2007). Collection of primary data through interviews
was adhered to ethical standards within the guidelines.
Participants were made known that their participation were voluntary, assured of the
confidentiality of their data and were informed of their right to withdraw from the interview at
any time. None of the participants will be named directly in this study so that no one is harmed
directly or indirectly as a result of this study. They will be named in the study as R1, R2 and
so forth.
An important consideration when conducting qualitative research is the nature of relationship
between the researcher and the participants. Participants for this research were mostly selected
though the network of friends and acquaintances of the researcher. It was crucial that any
relationship does not affect the outcome of the interview and the interviews conducted does
not damage these relationships.

Page | 20
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
4.1 Facebook Usage
All respondents were found to be using Facebook on a daily basis through the various platforms
such as their phones or through the web using their computing devices. Their reported daily
activity ranges from 15 minutes to 6 hours a day, accumulative of a day’s worth of activity.
This is noticeably different from the findings of (We Are Social, 2016) that found that an
average Singapore Internet user spent about 1 hour and 30 minutes on social media daily. Due
to the relatively small sample size used, a generally wide deviation of results can be expected.
The number of Facebook friend connection of each respondent varied between 500 to over
2000 friends.
Reasons for using Facebook varied among the respondents. According to the respondents, they
use Facebook to search for articles to read, keep track of their friends’ activities, entertainment
purposes through videos, news updates or look for promotional deals.
R4: “Shopping deals, promotions; especially those influential groups where they always post
promotional deals, I will follow them so that I will have up to date information and news
articles.”
R5: “Check out what’s happening and what are the posts that my friends are sharing and to
get hold onto promotions that I’m not aware of. Usually I will spend on entertainment videos
or arts and crafts videos.”

Page | 21
Facebook is one but many of the SNSs that are used widely around the world. It started out as
a platform used to connect with friends but using the data gathered from this study, it would
seem that seeking out promotional deals is another popular activity that the respondents do on
Facebook.
This is further supported by the fact that SNSs are found to be used as sources of information
for brands or make purchase decisions (Mangold and Faulds, 2009). The activity of seeking
promotional deals can potentially lead to eventual purchase decisions being made on brands.
One of the respondents also highlighted the term social influencers. The effects of these social
influencers was also previously discussed, about the important role they play in getting
information disseminated through their social circle of influence (Zhang et al., 2016, Fulgoni
and Lipsman, 2015). The respondent mentioned about looking to these social influencers for
promotional deals. This showed that the influencers are seen as a source of information,
someone that they would trust and rely on for information.
4.2 Behaviour on Facebook
Data from the respondents revealed that they have “liked” or follow at least one brand on
Facebook. Respondents indicated that they demonstrated such behaviours, and reasons for such
are that they have a keen interest in the brand, part of the terms and conditions for entering
contests, getting to know more about the brand or regular updates about promotional deals.
R2: “If there’s promotional benefit like getting extra 10% off, to stand a chance to win
something.”
R5: “I will keep a look out of all their other posts that they have posted to see if their contents
are what I’m interested in then, I will decide to follow them.”

Page | 22
Worth highlighting is the fact that as mentioned earlier, many brands have a high number of
followers but it is then up to the brands to decide how they will interact with their followers
(Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014). Moreover, the top five motivators of using Facebook are rather
passive in character, involving consumption of content rather than contributing of content
(Global Web Index, 2016). Questions such as what kind of interactions are their followers most
likely to get engaged in are worth pondering about for companies.
A particular element that was seemingly absent in other studies that this study has revealed was
the prevalence of respondents having an attraction towards winning something such as the likes
of joining a contest and winning a prize from that.
Respondents are found to be more likely to click on posts that are contests based and are able
to win something out of it. This would include having to share the post if it is one of the criteria
in entering the contest. Content of the post matters as respondents tend to look for attractive
deals that catches their attention and are relatable to them. This can be a form of consumer
engagement where users interact with the brand, while also providing companies with valuable
data about themselves at the same time in order to enter the contest.
R3: “Promotional items are interesting, like when they mention one-for-one deals or other
stuffs like winning a free trip to Japan.”
R6: “I will usually share posts about contests if they ask me to like the page and share it with
my friends to win attractive prizes. Such contest I will be more motivated to like the page and
go through the contest. Because there’s a chance of winning. Winning is one factor, another
factor will be my interest in the brand.”

Page | 23
4.3 WOM Behaviour on Facebook
Getting more people talking about their brands and products is what drives WOM behaviour
on Facebook. Sharing it and commenting on it are ways that users help propagate a post and
potentially turning it viral. Among the respondents that does not share content on Facebook,
their reasons were that they simply were not interested in it, they see no point in sharing it, not
being beneficial to other people and a preference of having informative rather than marketing
content. Privacy is also a factor when a respondent decides not to share content on Facebook.
R1: “I think because I want to share meaningful things rather than mass sharing of
advertisement or content that is not beneficial to people. I lean towards to informative content
than marketed content. My family is on my Facebook friends list too, hence I don’t really share
much on Facebook.”
R2: “Because Facebook friends are not really my friends, I am not close to some of them so I
will only want to share it selectively to my close friends on another platform.”
Reasons why respondents shared contents on Facebook are fairly consistent with those
mentioned in the literature review. This includes sharing contents to their friends who may not
be aware or might have missed it, demonstrating altruism behaviour. Or using it as a save
function so that they can refer back to their feed when needed and it will be there. When they
share a content, they would assume that their friends would be interested in the content.
The ability to tag a person while sharing a content makes it more personalised and a higher
likelihood of the recipient clicking into it. This was a behaviour that was not mentioned in other
studies but could affect clicking behaviour as it tends to capture the recipient’s attention by
appearing on top of other posts. More clicks onto a content essentially means better chances of
the content getting shared. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Shan and King, 2015) can be

Page | 24
used in this case to explain the link between the intention of the respondents to share and the
actual sharing of the content.
R3: “Firstly, I think that they may not be aware of such deals and secondly I assume that they
would be interested in it as well. Thirdly, I just want to share it to everyone.”
R5: “Because I think my friends will be interested in such contents based on what we talked
about in the conversations that we have. You know your friend like this particular item a lot
but you are afraid that they might miss the deal. So I would just tag them to keep them informed
about it.”
Among all of the respondents who shared contents on Facebook, most would have the tendency
to do selective sharing. This is based on their intuition of their friends’ preferences and
knowledge of the content shared as some contents may not appeal to everyone. This puts the
focus on content and whether it will be shared with most of their friends depends on the
sensitivity and interests of their friends. A general content will then tend to get more recipients
than contents that are more sensitive in nature. This is also where the studies on sender-receiver
relationship theory comes into play (Van Noort et al., 2012, Shan and King, 2015). Strong ties
sources would mean that both parties understand each other well and likelihood of getting
something that is shared that they might be interested is high. Thus, better chances of them
opening it and forwarding it to others as a result.
R6: “I will share it to everyone, because it is easier to do. Because why be so selective when
you want to share something.”
R3: “Let’s say its regarding religious promotions, ‘bible’. I will only share with my church
friends. However, for food that are ‘halal’, I will share with my Muslim friends only. So, I will
do selective sharing based on contents. For more general content, I will share it with everyone.”

Page | 25
When asked to select between the brand or the content itself that would affect their sharing
behaviour, all respondents agreed that content is more important. That being said, established
brands might have the advantage with its number of followers, company resources along with
its brand equity. But an unknown brand can also have the opportunity of being widely spread
if it has the right content.
Content has to be relatable and interesting to the user. Factors such as affordability of the brand
can also affect sharing behaviour. Positive attitude towards the brand was also found to be
present among the respondents who shared contents related to the brand. This positive attitude
can be categorised as a form of emotions towards the brand, and emotions are found to be an
element in brand relationship which affects sharing attitude as mentioned in the literature
review. Previous studies also examined the association between brand relationship, sender
relationship (Shan and King, 2015) and emotions and content (Botha and Reyneke, 2013) on
sharing behaviour. However, there was no comparison between the brands and content itself.
R4: “I will think that it is more towards to things that I’m interested to or relatable to me. For
example, Gucci sales, but the price remains as $1000, I would not be interested in sharing it.
However, for groceries deals that are more applicable to me, I would definitely share it. Brands
in a way affect too, if the brands don’t seem to be a trusted one, I would not share it too.”
R5: “I would think that content is more important.”
The interview results also did show that number of friends and time spent on Facebook does
not necessarily mean that sharing behaviour can be predicted. It does bring about the question
of identifying a social influencer based on the number of connections he or she has. Number
of connections is not a sure way identifying an active social influencer.

Page | 26
R1 have 2000 over friends’ connections on Facebook but is not an active user of Facebook,
spending 15 minutes to 30 minutes daily. The respondent also does not have the habit of
clicking onto advertisements nor sharing of content on Facebook.
R2 have approximately 1000 friends, browses through Facebook about 3 hours each day.
Shared contents on Facebook but only contests based contents. Other contents are shared
through a web link in WhatsApp.

Page | 27
Chapter 5: Conclusion
This study has looked at the sharing behaviour of users using social media. We used one of the
most widely used SNSs, Facebook as a reference for our study. Using data that we have
gathered through the interviews, we gained an insight understanding of what motivated the
respondents to click on marketing contents as well as why would they want to share these
contents with others. These were the initial research questions that this study aimed to answer.
Using the results that were gathered and mentioned previously in the text, it can be concluded
that time spent social media itself is not an accurate prediction of a user’s likelihood of sharing
marketing content. In addition, we also found that the number of friends that a user has on
Facebook does not directly correspond to his or her sharing activity on Facebook. A user will
likely check out an advertisement if the content is relatable to the user, this study found that
posts that have attractive deals or have a chance of winning have a higher tendency to being
clicked upon.
Using data gathered from the literature reviews and the interviews, we came up with a flow
chart diagram to show the steps a user take in deciding whether to share a content on social
media. (refer to Appendix 5).
5.1 Managerial Contribution
Findings from this study can also yield significant managerial insights for marketers who are
on social media platforms. Many users follow or like brand pages but unless companies have
an optimal strategy for engaging with those users and leverage the use of WOM, their efforts
on SNSs are merely just superficial.
In an attempt to generate WOM, marketers would often use ‘influentials’ whom in theory have
more influence than others. This approach may be prevalent but recent research has cast doubts

Page | 28
on its cost effectiveness. Rather than targeting these special group of people, the current
research suggests that it would be better off focusing on creating contagious content itself. This
study supports the view that content plays a big role in determining users’ interest.
Given the amount of information clutter on the internet, in order for a viral marketing message
to be successful, it must first not only attract attention, but it must also give the viewer a reason
to want to share it with others. A viral marketing campaign will have a better chance of success
if the marketer is able to develop contents that resonates well with the target group. We found
that having attractive contents in the form of 1-for-1 promotions or giving users the chance of
winning something relatable to them, tend to increase the likelihood of them clicking on the
post. The content of the post must first appeal to them, before they take the next step of sharing
it with others. This means appealing to their key motivations for sharing to others such as
demonstrating altruistic behaviour.
5.2 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Although this study shared some new findings in examining sharing behaviours in SNSs, there
are a few limitations that should be noted. While university students may represent the majority
of SNSs users, they may not be an accurate representation of the total SNSs population.
Looking at the growth in SNSs users in recent years, older demographics seem to account for
the greatest growth (Pew Research Centre, 2016). Future research could thus investigate on
how sharing behaviours on SNSs varies across age groups.
Another limitation from this study is that we employed self-reporting data in measuring the
respondents sharing behaviour on Facebook, this might introduce research bias. What was said
during the interview might not be exactly reflective of their actual behaviour, we can only trust
based on what they said.

Page | 29
Another area that would be worth exploring would be to replicate this study in different
countries or over time. Cultural difference in dimensions such as individuality, relationships,
or social power are expected to have different influences on the WOM and sharing process.
Such studies would increase our understanding of viral marketing in an international context
and thus would be especially useful for brands doing marketing in different countries.
In a study done by (Lee and Youn, 2009), electronic WOM platforms were found to have an
impact on the judgement of consumer products. Perhaps future research could venture into the
context of other popular SNSs applications and platforms. For example, using the list from
(Global Web Index, 2016) of the top 10 services, we can see that Instagram and Snapchat have
a relatively high frequency of usage and members. These platforms give opportunities for
advertising strategies, focusing more on visual imagery such as pictures and videos. Instagram
recently introduced new features such as sharing live snippets of users’ day to day activities.
Such future research not only expand our theoretical knowledge on sharing behaviours in social
media in general, but also assist in marketers to develop successful up-to-date social media
advertising strategies while building consumer-brand relationships.
This research focused on only one aspect of the sender-receiver of shared posts, it did not
explore based on the receiver of the post. Research has shown that tie strength has an effect on
source credibility which might affect the opening of a content and sharing behaviour. Future
research can look into that from a social media perspective.
Last but not least, we believe that companies would like to know whether spending all the
resources into social media marketing is actually worth it. Having to achieve success in viral
marketing and all, how is purchase intention linked to frequency of engagement with a brand,
that would be an interesting area to delve into.

Page | 30
Appendices
Appendix 1: The honeycomb of social media (Kietzmann et al., 2011)
Appendix 2: Multi stage model of WOM influence through viral marketing (De Bruyn and Lilien,
2008)

Page | 31
Appendix 3: Critical factors for viral marketing campaigns (Woerndl et al., 2008)
Appendix 4: VMC evaluation framework (Cruz and Fill, 2008)

Page | 32
Appendix 5: Flow chart diagram of a user sharing content on social media

Page | 33
Appendix 6: Transcripts of the interviews conducted
Respondent 1
Can you tell me your usage pattern of Facebook? Such as how often do you use it?
I view Facebook 5 – 6 time a week as I am not an active user.
How long do you use it for?
Probably 15mins to 30 minutes’ daily
How connected are you on Facebook? How many friends do you have?
About 2000+ friends.
So roughly what do you use Facebook for? E.g. what kind of content do you spend on
Facebook most of the time?
If I want to look for articles to read, like news or normal article. Not so much on catching up with
friends but just to see what my friends are doing because I seldom use Facebook messenger.
Do you follow or like brand on Facebook?
Yes, sometimes.
What type of brands do you follow?
They are things that I am interested at for example dessert place or travel related things.
So, do these brands show positive attitude to you?
Yes.
Have you seen advertisement or promotions? Will you click on them E.g. contest posted
on Facebook?
Yes, I have seen them before. But I do not have the habit to click on them.
Is it because you don’t trust them or you find that the contest not interesting to you?
Because usually I am not interested in participating contest so whenever I see such content I am not
entice to click it.
Why not?
Because it’s not interesting.
How about those brands that are of your interest? Eg. Online clothing shops that shows
promotional deals
Usually for me I will rather google search by myself. I usually don’t use Facebook much to check out
for information or promotions.

Page | 34
Let say you are interested in some content does branding or content affects your
clicking behaviour?
Probably so.
So, am I right to say that you do not share any content on Facebook at all?
I share content mostly is those written articles that are on health and travelling.
How about those marketed content video?
Seldom because I feel that there’s no point of sharing. I like to keep my feed in order and not messed
my feed with advertisement.
Is it because you don’t want to share to them because you scare it might disturb them?
I think because I want to share meaningful things rather than mass sharing of advertisement or content
that is not beneficial to people. I lean more towards to informative content than marketed contents.
My family is on my Facebook friends list too, hence I don’t really share much on Facebook.

Page | 35
Respondent 2
I will scroll Facebook every day. Like those see your memories functions which I will view It every
day.
It depends, around 3 hours, I will use it in the morning, afternoon and night any time that I feel
clicking into it.
About 1000 friends.
So roughly what do you use Facebook for? E.g., what kind of content do you spend on
Facebook most of the time?
Browsing through my friends’ post, travel articles or clips being shared on my feed.
What kind of things interest you?
Movie reviews, travel blogs and travel links.
If there’s promotional benefit like get extra 10% off, to stand a chance to win something.
So do these brands show positive attitude to you?
Depends on my past experiences, usage and what are their promotional items they have
I’m guessing that you have seen promotional post on Facebook or maybe even contest.
Will you check it out?
Yes, I will. Because the content of the contest interest me that’s why I want to join it.
How about deals and promos?
Yes, I won’t click directly on the brand more of I will click it through post that people shared through
or from money digest or third party website
Do you share this type of advertisement or promotional contest?
No, I will only share those contest based posts.
Let’s say there’s a one for one deal will it share it with your friends?
I won’t share it on Facebook, I will copy the link and share it through WhatsApp.

Page | 36
Why won’t you share it on Facebook?
Because Facebook friends are not really my friends, I am not close to some of them so I will only
want to share it selectively to my close friends on another platform.
Will the branding and content affect your sharing behavior?
Yes, it will. If I join this contest but the brand is not so good I won’t want to participate or motivated
to share it. E.g. hotels or upscale brand there will be a higher chance for me to share it.
Let say when you share content, you only share with people that you think will be
interested in it right?
Yes, I don’t share it generally to all the other people.
Then why do you want to share to this group only? Is it because of the contest criteria
or is it you want to share with them for other reasons?
Other reason, If I am required to share it on my Facebook I will consider if it is worth my share or
not? For those promotional deals, I will just copy the link and share and copy the link to WhatsApp.

Page | 37
Respondent 3
I use it daily to check on news, advertisement, discount for restaurants and flights. I will also use
Facebook to help my sister and friends to promote their items.
I use it for a while, at most 30 minutes a time, accumulated will be up to 6 hours.
1000+ friends.
So roughly what do you use Facebook for? E.g., you mention looking up news and
helping your friends in sharing stuffs. Are they common activity that you will do?
Yes, of course.
Yes, just to know more about the brand. In case they may come out with new promotional deals or new
items.
Are these brand that you follow are brands that you will potentially buy from them?
Depends on the price or maybe the product is nice.
Yes, if I’m interested and want to buy from the brand.
Have you seen advertisement or promotions shared on Facebook or maybe even
contests?
Yes.
Would you check out this kind of advertisement?
Yes, if the promotional items are interesting, like when they are mentioning “one for one” deal or other
stuffs like winning a free trip to Japan.
So it depends on the content and the type of deals?
Yes.
Do you share this kind of content on Facebook? How often?
If the content is good, I will share it on Facebook so that my friends will see it also. Every week I will
share many posts maximum 7 posts and sometimes also depend on how many posts I saw.

Page | 38
Are they marketed contents?
Yes, they are marketed contents.
Why would you want to share these contents to your friends? is it because your friends
are interested in it too or just to help them?
Firstly, I think that they may not be aware of such deals and secondly I assume that they would be
interested in it as well. Thirdly, I just want to share it to everyone.
Will the branding or content affect your sharing behaviour?
I don’t think it would affect sharing behavior, because it is more about me helping my friends who were
not aware of these promotions. So, for me I’m just a messenger that is sharing out content. It depends
on how good the content is.
Do you share them to everyone?
Depending on the content itself.
How so?
Let’s say its regarding religious promotions “bible” I will only share with my church friends. However,
for food that are “halal” I will share with my Muslim friends only. So, I will do selective sharing based
on contents. For more general content, I will share it with everyone.

Page | 39
Respondent 4
I use Facebook quite often almost every day.
Probably at least 6 hours a day on Facebook.
500 - 1000 friends.
So roughly what do you use Facebook for? For example, what kind of content do you
spend on Facebook most of the time?
Shopping deals, promotions; especially those influential groups where they always post promotional
deals I will follow them so that I will have update to date information and news articles; keeping
myself updated on the recent news so that I will be aware of what’s happening around me and when
people mention it I will be aware of it.
Yes.
Yes.
Definitely you have seen promotions or contest posted on Facebook. Do you check them
out?
Yes, because I feel that I’m interested and related to it.
Would you want to share these contents to your friends?
I would share it but not for friends but more towards for myself only. Because if I want to visit a place
badly, I will know that I can always refer to my own Facebook page and don’t need to link back to the
original post where I will need to spend longer time in finding them as they have thousands of posts.
However, as for those eating post I will tag my friend’s name because I will like to visit the place with
them.
Am I right to say that you share these kinds of contents with your friends very
frequently?
Yes, every day.

Page | 40
You mentioned that you share it to help yourself, right? What about helping your
friends?
Yes, because I think that my friends know that I like to share those kinds of promotional post. I
believe that for those people who have the same likings as me or want to know things about
promotions, they will head over to my page as it acts like a “promotion page”. It also helps them to
get latest new about what’s happening around us. E.g., U.S.A election, a small poll could be done to
get insightful discussion rather than debates.
Do you share content to everyone or share it selectively?
I would choose to share it selectively.
Will the branding and content affect your sharing behaviour?
I will think that it is more towards to things that I’m interested to or relatable to me. For example,
Gucci sales; but the price remains as $1000 I would not be interested in sharing it. However, for
groceries deals that are more applicable to me I would definitely share it. Brands in a way do affect
too, if the brands don’t seem to be a trusted one, I would not share it too.

Page | 41
Respondent 5
I will click into Facebook at least once everyday, to check out what’s happening and what are the
posts that my friends are sharing and to get hold onto promotions that I’m not aware of.
It actually depends, if the first post seeks my attention I will spend more time on exploring other
pages. Sometimes it will last up till an hour the most.
Multiple times a day?
It actually depends on my schedule, if there’s a packed schedule ahead then I will only check it once.
But however for weekends or holidays I will check it more frequently e.g., morning, afternoon and
night time.
Around 1000+ friends.
Usually I will spend on entertainment videos or art and crafts videos (e.g., reuse used items like jeans
to create something new).
Yes.
Why do you follow them?
Usually I do not follow them immediately, I will keep a look out of all their other posts that they have
posted to see if their contents are what I’m interested in then I will decide to follow them.
Yes.
Let’s say there are advertisement on Facebook, will you check out on those posts?
Yes, because I realized that Facebook have this function whereby when you are shopping on channels
like Zalora or Lazada. Facebook are able to know what are the products that you are interested in and
will tend to display it on your Facebook page as an advertisement. And this piece of information is
usually updated with the latest price.

Page | 42
So is it because you trust the source and because of the content?
Yes, because Facebook is a very big brand so a lot of company will want to put their advertisement
materials on them. And I believed that Facebook would have gone through all the security system
whereby they think that it is safe for their users to use.
Do you share content on Facebook? How often
Yes, usually when I login into Facebook I will share contents to my friends.
What kind of content do you share? Any type of contents including marketed contents?
Yes, for example interesting videos or those post where companies will ask us to tag our friends to
win movie tickets I will be interested in sharing it too.
Why would you want to share these contents to your friends?
Because I think my friends will be interested in such contents based on what we talked about in the
conversations that we have.
Is it to help them in getting the great deals?
Yes, and because you know that your friend like this particular item a lot but you are afraid that they
might miss the deal. So I would just tag them to keep them informed about it.
Do you share content to everyone or share it selectively?
Some contents I will want to customize to myself or family only, because you will know that such
contents might not appeal to everyone.
Yes, definitely. Those more popular and well like brand without thinking you will just want to share it
to everyone because you know that everyone will like it. However, when it comes to sensitive content
post like riots or supporting which party, obviously you wont want to share it to everyone.
What is more important? Content or Branding?
I would think that content is more important.

Page | 43
Respondent 6
I use it every day when I want to catch up on news. Because Facebook news feed is always updated
with the latest news e.g. car accident.
I will Facebook as much as I use Instagram. I will use it before I go to bed, during day time when I am
bored or when I’m waiting for my friend. Roughly 3- 4 hours in a day.
1000 + friends.
Based on my interests, as I am interested in acting. The content that I will consider will be casting or
brands that I like, music schools, dance academy and I will subscribe to them.
Yes, I follow them to get regular updates and information from them.
I will only have a positive attitude to brands that post frequently on their page. E.g. The Smart Local.
They have a lot of collaborations like eatbook.sg which is a sub company of them. Where they will
eat foods and post reviews about them which I think that it is good. Although they don’t post a lot
within a week but their post varies ranging from food, places to go, simple hacks which I think is very
good because they keep us engaged to the things that they post. Which therefore I think that content
plays a very important part.
So do you share companies’ social media post? For instance contests, promotions,
pictures, videos, advertisements?
I will usually share posts about contests if they ask me to like the page and share it with my friends to
win attractive prizes. Such contest I will be more motivated to like the page and go through the
contest. Because there’s a chance of winning.
So you will check out those because they have attractive prizes to win?
Winning is one factor, another factor will be my interest in the brand. For example, MDS clothes
launch, whereby you like this page and share their video and tag a friend there will be a chance for me
to win a $30 voucher, so it is something that I will do

Page | 44
So how frequent will you share promotional contents in a week?
Depends, if there are news that are interesting I will share 2-3 times a week. It depends heavily on the
brand and the advertisement that they are posting
Why would you want to share these contents? Apart from the criteria for you to win
Because it helps to get my friends to be aware of this also, because if it is something that is very
applicable to me and my friends it will be good to share. For example, if it is a group activity to share
the things everyone can join it together rather that only I share it.
Is it to help them in getting the great deals?
Yes.
Yes, content will be more important on social media.
When you share content do you share it to everyone or you selectively share it?
I will share it to everyone, because it is easier to do. Because why be so selective when you want to
share something.

Page | 45
References
Arnould, E.J. and Wallendorf, M., 1994. Market-Oriented Ethnography: Interpretation
Building and Marketing Strategy Formulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), pp.
484-504.
Babbie, E.R., 2013. The basics of social research. Cengage Learning.
Berger, J. and Milkman, K.L., 2012. What Makes Online Content Viral?? Journal of
Marketing Research (JMR), 49(2), pp. 192-205.
Botha, E. and Reyneke, M., 2013. To share or not to share: the role of content and emotion
in viral marketing. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891), 13(2), pp. 160-171.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Castronovo, C. and Huang, L., 2012. Social Media in an Alternative Marketing
Communication Model. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 6(1), pp.
117-134.
Chu, S. and Kim, Y., 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-
mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), pp.
47-75.
Coulter, K.S., Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V., et al, 2012. Are social media replacing
traditional media in terms of brand equity creation? Management Research Review, 35(9),
pp. 770-790.
Cruz, D. and Fill, C., 2008. Evaluating viral marketing: isolating the key criteria. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 26(7), pp. 743-758.
De Bruyn, A. and Lilien, G.L., 2008. A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through
viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), pp. 151-163.
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., et al, 2007. Why pass on viral messages? Because
they connect emotionally. Business horizons, 50(4), pp. 291-304.
Dobele, A., Toleman, D. and Beverland, M., 2005. Controlled infection! Spreading the brand
message through viral marketing. Business horizons, 48(2), pp. 143-149.
ESOMAR, (2007) The ICC/ESOMAR Code on Market and Social Research [Online]. Available
from: https://www.esomar.org/uploads/public/knowledge-and-standards/codes-and-
guidelines/ICCESOMAR_Code_English_.pdf [Accessed October 10, 2016].
Euromonitor International, October, (2016) 2016 Digital Consumer Index: Identifying the
Next Digital Frontiers [Online]. Available from: http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/
[Accessed December 11, 2016].

Page | 46
Ferguson, R., 2008. Word of mouth and viral marketing: taking the temperature of the
hottest trends in marketing. Journal of consumer marketing, 25(3), pp. 179-182.
Fulgoni, G.M. and Lipsman, A., 2015. Digital Word of Mouth And Its Offline Amplification.
Journal of Advertising Research, 55(1), pp. 18-21.
Gil-Or, O., 2010. Building consumer demand by using viral marketing tactics within an online
social network. Advances in Management, 3(7), pp. 7-14.
Global Web Index, (2016) GWI Social Summary [Online]. Available from:
https://www.globalwebindex.net/ [Accessed December 11, 2016].
Global Web Index, (2015) Social Commerce [Online]. Available from:
https://pro.globalwebindex.net [Accessed August 15, 2016].
Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., et al, 2011. Seeding strategies for viral marketing: An
empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), pp. 55-71.
Ho, J.Y.C. and Dempsey, M., 2010. Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content.
Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), pp. 1000-1006.
Hoffman, D.L. and Fodor, M., 2010. Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media
Marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), pp. 41-49.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), pp. 59-68.
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., et al, 2011. Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business horizons, 54(3), pp.
241-251.
Kimmel, A.J. and Kitchen, P.J., 2014. WOM and social media: Presaging future directions for
research and practice. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), pp. 5-20.
Lee, M. and Youn, S., 2009. Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) How eWOM platforms
influence consumer product judgement. International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), pp.
473-499.
Leskovec, J., Adamic, L.A. and Huberman, B.A., 2007. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM
Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 1(1), pp. 5.
Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J., 2009. Social media: The new hybrid element of the
promotion mix. Business horizons, 52(4), pp. 357-365.
Mills, A.J., 2012. Virality in social media: the SPIN framework. Journal of Public Affairs,
12(2), pp. 162-169.

Page | 47
Narayanan, M., Asur, S., Nair, A., et al, 2012. Social Media and Business. Vikalpa: The
Journal for Decision Makers, 37(4), pp. 69-111.
Pew Research Centre, November, (2016) Social Media Update 2016 [Online]. Available
from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/ [Accessed
December 11, 2016].
Saldaa, J., 2015. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business students. 5.
ed. edn. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Shan, Y. and King, K.W., 2015. The Effects of Interpersonal Tie Strength and Subjective
Norms on Consumers' Brand-Related eWOM Referral Intentions. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 15(1), pp. 16-27.
Shukla, T., 2010. Factors affecting'Internet marketing'campaigns with reference to viral and
permission marketing. IUP Journal of Management Research, 9(1), pp. 26.
Skulme, R. and Praude, V., 2016. Social Media Evaluation Metrics. Oeconomia Copernicana,
7(1), pp. 131-142.
Van Noort, G., Antheunis, M.L. and Van Reijmersdal, E.A., 2012. Social connections and the
persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as the
underlying mechanism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), pp. 39-53.
We Are Social, (2016) Digital in 2016 [Online]. Available from:
http://wearesocial.com/uk/special-reports/digital-in-2016 [Accessed August 12, 2016].
Woerndl, M., Papagiannidis, S., Bourlakis, M., et al, 2008. Internet-induced marketing
techniques: Critical factors in viral marketing campaigns.
Zhang, L., Zhao, J. and Xu, K., 2016. Who creates trends in online social media: The crowd or
opinion leaders? Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 21(1), pp. 1-16.
Zhu, Y. and Chen, H., 2015. Social media and human need satisfaction: Implications for social
media marketing. Business horizons, 58(3), pp. 335-345.

Dissertation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Dissertation