Measuring the Degree of Corporate Social Media Use

Abstract

This article aims to provide a model with which to measure the degree of corporate social media use or, in other words, the extent to which companies are exploiting the potentialities of single or multiple social media platforms. This is, however, explicitly different from using metrics to assess the success of social media activities, as it is purely measuring how intensively a pre-defined group of social media is utilised, taking into account the frequency of social media activity by the brand as well as the related user reactions. The degree of corporate social media use helps companies and market researchers analyse single brands or companies and compare them with other brands, competitors or industry averages. The degree of corporate social media use is a useful indicator, which should be combined with social media metrics in order to draw better conclusions about where to increase or intensify social media activities.

Full text

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
257
© 2015 The Market Research Society
DOI: 10.2501/IJMR-2015-018
Measuring the degree of corporate
social media use
Thomas Aichner
University of Padova
Frank Jacob
ESCP Europe
This article aims to provide a model with which to measure the degree of
corporate social media use or, in other words, the extent to which companies
are exploiting the potentialities of single or multiple social media platforms. This
is, however, explicitly different from using metrics to assess the success of social
media activities, as it is purely measuring how intensively a pre-defined group
of social media is utilised, taking into account the frequency of social media
activity by the brand as well as the related user reactions. The degree of corporate
social media use helps companies and market researchers analyse single brands
or companies and compare them with other brands, competitors or industry
averages. The degree of corporate social media use is a useful indicator, which
should be combined with social media metrics in order to draw better conclusions
about where to increase or intensify social media activities.
Social media is more than Facebook
As of January 2014, Facebook Inc.’s website, facebook.com (Facebook),
was the largest global social network, with a total of 1.19 billion active
users monthly and an annual growth rate of 18%. The company reports
that 728 million of its registered users log in to their account on a daily
basis in order to post, comment, share and ‘like’ stories, pictures and
videos about their own life, their friends, celebrities, organisations, brands
and companies. Even though Facebook itself estimates the number of fake
accounts to be around 8.7%, these figures prove the ongoing success story
of online social networks and social media. However, Facebook is just one
example of many social networks, all of which represent merely one out of
13 different types of social media that are described herein.
Received (in revised form): 24 June 2014

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
258
The purpose of this article is to provide a model with which to measure
the degree of corporate social media use. The degree to which a company
is using a specific social media platform or a combination of social media
platforms is the basis for a number of analyses, such as performance
analyses and advertising success analyses, as well as for the planning of
future social media activities. The scope of application includes but is not
limited to self-assessment of companies, competitor analyses and market
research.
The different types of social media
The following typology defines the scope and applicability of the proposed
model, and describes how companies use the 13 different types of social
media. In addition, market researchers and practitioners may refer to it
with regard to their study design, e.g. which social media platforms to
include or exclude in their research, and as a source of definitions.
Generally speaking, social media are web-based applications and
interactive platforms that facilitate the creation, discussion, modification
and exchange of user-generated content (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010;
Kietzmann et al. 2011). Social media are therefore not limited to social
networks like Facebook but include blogs, business networks, collaborative
projects, enterprise social networks, forums, microblogs, photo sharing,
product/services reviews, social bookmarking, social gaming, video sharing
and virtual worlds. According to the web metrics website, alexa.com, nine
out of the top 20 and 395 of the top 100 most visited websites in January
2014 were social media sites. Table 1 gives an exhaustive overview of all
the different types of social media, and provides two popular examples for
each category.
Many researchers point out that social media is different from Web 2.0
(Kaplan & Haenlein 2010; Weinberg & Pehlivan 2011; Berthon et al.
2012). Web 2.0 essentially enables social media and serves as an
umbrella term to describe the many different technologies running in the
background of social media applications and platforms. Table 2 provides a
brief description of each type of social media.
Companies are measuring their success in social media
Social media have become crucial for companies in a growing number
of their value chain activities. In marketing, social media is not just an
optional element in the promotional mix, but a mandatory element within

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
259
Table 1 Types of social media with examples
Type of social media
Examples
Name Website
Blogs The Huffington Post
Boing Boing
huffingtonpost.com
boingboing.net
Business networks LinkedIn
XING
linkedin.com
xing.com
Collaborative projects Wikipedia
Mozilla
wikipedia.org
mozilla.org
Enterprise social networks Yammer
Socialcast
yammer.com
socialcast.com
Forums Gaia Online
IGN Boards
gaiaonline.com
ign.com/boards
Microblogs Twitter
Tumblr
twitter.com
tumblr.com
Photo sharing Flickr
Photobucket
flickr.com
photobucket.com
Products/services review Amazon
Elance
amazon.com
elance.com
Social bookmarking Delicious
Pinterest
delicious.com
pinterest.com
Social gaming World of Warcraft
Mafia Wars
warcarft.com
mafiawars.com
Social networks Facebook
Google+
facebook.com
plus.google.com
Video sharing YouTube
Vimeo
youtube.com
vimeo.com
Virtual worlds Second Life
Twinity
secondlife.com
twinity.com
Table 2 Descriptions of social media
Type of
social media Description
Blogs A blog (from ‘web’ and ‘log’) is a chronological list of postings, which can be read
and commented upon by visitors. Blogs are run by both individuals and companies,
which post news or other informational material, such as product tests.
Business
networks
Individuals use business networks to establish and maintain professional contacts.
Registered users create a personal profile and share personal details such as
the type and duration of their education, professional experience and expert
knowledge. Companies use professional networks primarily to position themselves
as an employer and to search for new employees or experts.
(continued)

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
260
Type of
social media Description
Collaborative
projects
Collaborative projects bring together internet users with a common interest
and/or certain knowledge in order to plan, develop, improve, analyse and/
or test technological, academic, scientific or fun-oriented projects. The results
(e.g.programs, codes, findings, results, games) are usually distributed as open
source and made available to the public for no charge.
Enterprise
social
networks
Enterprise social networks are open for registration only to employees of a specific
company or group, offering similar features as social networks, including personal
profiles, profile pictures, etc. Companies want to ensure that their employees
know one another and exchange experiences and ideas. This helps to increase the
efficiency of knowledge management within the firm.
Forums A forum is a virtual discussion platform where users can ask and/or answer other
users’ questions and exchange thoughts, opinions or experiences. Communication
here does not happen in real time, like in a chat, but is time delayed and usually
visible to the public.
Microblogs Microblogs restrict the length of postings to approximately 200 characters, which may
be the major reason for their popularity. Postings may include pictures or weblinks.
Users can subscribe to news from other users, companies, brands or celebrities.
Photo
sharing
Photo-sharing websites offer services such as uploading, hosting, managing and
sharing of photos. Often, the photos can be edited online, organised in albums and
commented upon by other users.
Products/
services
review
Product and service reviewing websites sell and provide information about
products. Customers can evaluate products or certain attributes (e.g.product
quality) and write or read product reviews.
Social
bookmarking
Social bookmarking describes the concept of saving and organising internet
bookmarks at a centralised platform in order to share them with friends and other
users. Social bookmarks are a valuable indicator for popular websites and other
web content.
Social
gaming
Social games are online games that allow or require social interaction between
players, e.g.card or multiplayer games.
Social
networks
Social networks connect people that know one another, share common interests or
would like to engage in similar activities. Users have an individual profile; they can
be found by other users using their full name, and they upload pictures and videos.
Companies use social networks by creating a corporate profile in order to position
certain brands and to inform and support existing or to win new customers.
Video
sharing
Video-sharing platforms allow users to upload and share personal, business or
royalty-free videos and to watch them legally. Most websites offer the opportunity
to comment on specific videos. Companies use these social media to share
commercials, to test unconventional promotional videos or to save costs, which are
much lower compared to TV advertising.
Virtual
worlds
Virtual worlds are populated by many users who can create a personal avatar,
and simultaneously and independently explore the virtual world, participate in its
activities or communicate with others. In contrast to computer games, time continues
even when the user is not logged in. Virtual worlds often use virtual currencies, which
have an actual value, and allow companies to sell virtual or real products.
Table 2 Descriptions of social media (continued)

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
261
many companies’ marketing strategy (Hanna et al. 2011). However,
companies who decide to enter the world of social media must be prepared
to encounter a number of difficulties, and face both reputational and
economic risks. First of all, the world of social media is fast moving and
users expect their questions to be answered within hours. If companies
ignore their users or react too late on critics this may evolve to global
discussions about the weaknesses of the company itself or of its products,
which eventually results in an economic damage for the company. What is
more, when companies take their first steps into the digital world they tend
to rely on traditional schemes in terms of marketing and communication,
which may be considered to be antiquated and have no positive or even
negative effects in terms of brand awareness and reputation. Companies
should therefore be both careful and adopt suitable, innovative ways
to reach potential customers on social media. It can be very helpful for
companies to set themselves objectives in terms of number of posts,
number of interactions and average response time to enquiries, to mention
just a few.
When using social media on a corporate level, it is not only important
to set objectives, but also to measure its success by using relevant metrics
(Hoffman & Fodor 2010; Peters et al. 2013; Smith 2013). Such metrics
for social media applications include but are not limited to the number
of visits, tags, page views, members/fans, impressions, incoming links,
impressions-to-interactions ratio, and the average length of time visitors
spend on the website.
Of course, not all social media platforms are relevant for business.
While social networks, video-sharing platforms and business networks
are of high interest, other types of social media, such as photo sharing,
social bookmarking or social gaming, might be less important in absolute
terms and of less interest to companies because the scope of application
is limited. As more and more customers inform themselves online
about product attributes and product performance, product reviewing
websites are significant for companies, although they can usually not be
influenced by the company itself, in contrast to all other social media.
However, product reviewing websites as well as blogs, forums and social
networks are a vehicle for learning for companies, as customers share
their individual positive and negative experiences or provide solutions
to the problems they have experienced. Even though these social media
provide valuable information for research and development, collaborative
projects and enterprise social networks are the primary source for new
product development. When it comes to recruitment and headhunting,

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
262
business networks are the most important source for companies. An
increasing number of companies, however, post certain job openings on
their microblog or in social networks, especially if the target group for
the job is young with a high affinity to the internet, technology and social
media. Table 3 provides an overview of how important different types of
social media (e.g. blogs or social networks) are for each of a company’s
operational functions (e.g. marketing or human resources), which is
especially important for market researchers when their research interest is
focused on a specific corporate function or activity.
Depending on the individual importance of the company’s value chain
activities, the model presented in this article may be adjusted by including
or excluding certain types of social media that are of low or no importance
to the specific activity. For example, a B2B company may exclude products/
services review platforms from their analysis.
It is not enough for companies to simply ‘be there’ and to have a social
media account. They need to update their profiles and websites regularly
and be highly reactive to customer requests in social media in order for
their presence there to be effective. Several market studies show that, on
average, customers expect response times of a few hours to a maximum
of one day, which is a serious challenge for most companies, regardless of
their size. Posts, competitions, content uploads and other activities have to
Table 3 Importance of social media for different corporate functions
Type of social media
Corporate function
R&D Market ing
Customer
service Sales HR Organi sation
Blogs
Business networks
Collaborative projects
Enterprise social networks
Forums
Microblogs
Photo sharing
Products/services review
Social bookmarking
Social gaming
Social networks
Video sharing
Virtual worlds
Importance: (empty) none or almost none; low; medium; high; very high

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
263
be planned well in advance and require companies to coordinate their use
of different social media. On the corporate level, social media activities
therefore require strategic plans, clear internal rules, dedicated staff and
adequate monitoring. In order to meet these requirements, companies
need to invest relevant amounts of money. Therefore, a growing number
of companies are increasing efforts to measure the success of their social
media activities. Hoffman and Fodor (2010) call this the ‘ROI of social
media marketing’, and suggest relevant and easily measurable metrics
for analysing social media efforts. However, they do not include a
number of social media in their paper, and limit the suggested metrics to
marketing-related areas such as brand awareness and brand engagement,
not taking into account research and development, customer service,
human resources and organisation. The identification of metrics for all
social media in these functional areas would be an interesting area for
further research.
This article does not suggest additional metrics, but proposes a method
of how to measure the extent to which companies are using a pre-defined
group of social media, called the ‘degree of corporate social media use’.
This indicator is useful and should be combined with social media metrics
in order to draw better conclusions about where to increase or intensify
social media activities. In addition, it can be used to easily compare the
degree of social media use by companies and brands.
Corporate social media use: the model
It is important for both practitioners and academics to be able to measure
the degree of corporate social media use (CSMU), which is defined as
the degree to which companies or brands are utilising a pre-defined
group of social media. It is essential to have a standardised ratio scale
in order to simplify the measurement, and to allow a reliable, clear and
transparent comparison of companies’ and brands’ social media use.
The scope of application includes but is not limited to self-assessment of
companies, competitor analyses and market research. This article provides
a corresponding model, which is developed using a four-step approach.
Step 1: monthly active users
First, the five leading global social media in terms of monthly active
users are identified, which are facebook.com (Facebook), youtube.com
(YouTube), plus.google.com (Google+), linkedin.com (LinkedIn) and

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
264
twitter.com (Twitter). An active user is defined as a registered user who
logs in to his or her account, irrespective of whether or not he or she
actually reads, posts or shares something, and regardless of how long he or
she remains on the social media website. For those platforms that do not
require a registration to use the most important functions, e.g. YouTube,
the number of unique page visitors is taken instead. The list in Table 4
includes the most recent official data available in January 2014.
It should be mentioned that some regional platforms, such as the Chinese
social network Qzone (qzone.qq.com), would have a sufficiently high
number of active users to be included in this list. However, this list refers
exclusively to global social media. It may be adjusted according to need
by other researchers, especially when assessing regional markets, which is
generally considered to be a challenging task (Aichner & Perkmann 2013).
Of course, the list of the five most used social media will change over time
and will have to be updated on a regular basis. In addition, the list can
easily be extended to include more than five social media.
Step 2: social media impact factor
Second, the social media impact factor (SMIF) is calculated. It is based on
the monthly active users of the five social media included in the analysis,
and may change according to the number of active users over time and if
more platforms are added to the model. The SMIF is calculated by dividing
the active users of each platform (AUplatform) by the sum of the active users
of all platforms (∑AUplatform) included in the model.
SMIF AU
AU
platform
platform
platforms
=
∑
Table 4 Monthly active users of the five most important social media as of January 2014
Social media name Website Active users/month
Facebook www.facebook.com 1,190,000,000
YouTube www.youtube.com 1,000,000,000
Google+ plus.google.com 540,000,000
LinkedIn www.linkedin.com 259,000,000
Twitter www.twitter.com 232,000,000
Total 3,221,000,000

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
265
As of January 2014, the respective SMIF of the five most important social
media in terms of monthly active users, namely Facebook (social network),
YouTube (video sharing), Google+ (social network), LinkedIn (business
network) and Twitter (microblog), is:
SMIF
Facebook
==
1190 000 000
3221 000 000 037
,,,
,,,.
SMIF
YouTube
==
1000 000 000
3221 000 000 031
,,,
,,,.
SMIF
Google+
==
540 000 000
3221 000 000 017
,,
,,,.
SMIF
LinkedIn
==
259 000 000
3221 000 000 008
,,
,,,.
SMIF
Twitter
==
232 000 000
3221 000 000 007
,,
,,,.
The SMIF determines the relative importance of each social media platform
in the given framework. This is the basis with which it is possible to assess
the use of multiple social media by companies or brands and to show the
big picture, rather than simply the use of a single platform. The number
of social media can easily be reduced or expanded by taking into account
fewer or more websites, e.g. when companies want to exclude irrelevant
social media and include regional or niche platforms in their individual
calculations. When more platforms are included in the model, the relative
importance of each is reduced.
Step 3: social media use
Third, each of the individual social media platforms is assessed and
individual criteria are established as how to calculate the corporate use of
the respective platform. This index may not only change depending on the
type of social media, e.g. social networks versus microblogs, but differences
also surface between platforms of the same type based on the tools and
range of functions offered by the platform. This article provides specific

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
266
criteria about how to calculate the use of five individual social media
platforms, namely Facebook (social network), YouTube (video sharing),
Google+ (social network), LinkedIn (business network) and Twitter
(microblog). The use of other social media can be calculated in the same or
in a similar way, depending on the range of applications, e.g. no option for
users to comment on posts.
In order to find the optimal degree of utilisation for each of the five
social media platforms, the activities of the following three well-known
and popular global brands are investigated individually for each platform.
First, Intel Corporation (Intel), an American semiconductor chip maker,
is examined. Second, Samsung Mobile, a business unit of Samsung
Electronics Corporation, a South Korean electronics company, is analysed.
Third, the activities of The Walt Disney Company (Disney), an American
entertainment and media enterprise, are included in the study. Based on the
activities of these three companies, an index of social media use (SMU),
ranging from zero (0 = no use at all) to one (1 = full use) is established.
The average values serve as a benchmark that equals one (1 = full use),
representing the optimal degree of utilisation of the specific platform. Of
course, some companies will exceed the value of one (1 = full use), in which
case their SMU for the respective social media shall be equal to one (1 =
full use). The index is calculated by taking into account publicly available
information about the frequency of social media activity by the brand
(text, picture, video and job postings) as well as the related user reactions
(comments, shares, ‘likes’ and job applications) by its followers, subscribers
or fans (short: fans). As all social media platforms offer different features,
the SMU of a platform (SMUplatform) is a customised function of the number
of the social media activities by the brand and the user reactions to each
individual activity.
SMUf
platform social mediaactivitiesuserreactions=
()
,
While a ‘like’ (or a ‘+1’, ‘thumbs up’, etc., depending on the social media
platform) expresses a certain degree of positive interest, comments may
also be negative and therefore need to be classified accordingly in the
analysis of the five social media. In the case of YouTube, ‘likes’ are weighted
100 times higher than views. Given that positive comments show a higher
degree of identification, they are weighted five times the weight of ‘likes’.
Shares (or retweets’, etc., depending on the social media platform) are
weighted ten times the weight of ‘likes’ or twice the weight of positive
comments because they have an important multiplier effect. Shares are

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
267
especially valuable since they help companies to acquire new fans and win
new customers by diffusing posts of the brand to other users who are not
part of the brand’s network and are therefore out of direct reach for the
company.
As global brands usually have several accounts on most social media, e.g.
a Facebook account in different countries and/or in different languages,
the corporate account with the highest number of fans of Intel, Samsung
Mobile and Disney was selected for the present study. The data were
collected from 1 November 2013 to 31 December 2013, and include
text, pictures, video and job postings on each of the respective platforms,
which have all been assessed individually. It does not include, however,
announcements of events, replies to customer requests and special activities
such as competitions, unless they are promoted with a traditional text,
picture or video posting. The total number of individually analysed
postings was 695 (59 on Facebook, 166 on YouTube, 46 on Google+,
75 on LinkedIn and 349 on Twitter). Both the analysis of the five social
media platforms and the SMU formulas are adjusted to the type of social
media and its individual applications. In order to calculate the average
values, the user reactions are weighted by the number of corporate social
media activities, e.g. comments by video uploads or job applications by job
postings.
Facebook
On Facebook, it is possible for companies to create dedicated pages, write
postings, as well as upload pictures and videos. Registered users can become
fans of a Facebook page and ‘like’ the message, picture or video, comment
on it, or share it with their individual friends. Table 5 shows the number
of fans, the number of postings, including text messages, uploaded pictures
and videos, as well as the average number of ‘likes’, positive comments and
shares for each of the three analysed corporate Facebook accounts.
Table 5 Facebook activities of selected companies in November and December 2013
Company name
Total Average per posting
Fans (millions) Postings ‘Likes’ Positive comments Shares
Intel 23.86 9 15,356 262 597
Samsung Mobile 31.19 23 13,517 390 417
Disney 46.02 27 36,212 346 2,832
Average 33.69 20 24,183 350 1,550

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
268
Based on the average values, it is possible to calculate a constant, which
is needed to determine the SMU equation for the utilisation of Facebook. A
step-by-step calculation is provided only for Facebook, while for the other
four social media the final equation is provided. Step 1 is to multiply the
number of postings per month (20/2 = 10) with the quotient of (a) the
average number of ‘likes’ (24,183) plus the average number of positive
comments times five (350*5 = 1,750) plus the average number of shares
times ten (1,550*10 = 15,500) and (b) the number of fans (33,690,000).
Step 2 is to divide 1 (1 equals the optimal value in the 0–1 SMU index) by
the outcome of Step 1 (0.0123). The result is a constant of 81.3. Companies
can use the following formula to calculate the SMU of Facebook and will
receive a value between zero (0 = no use at all) and one (1 = full use). The
result of the equation can exceed the optimal value of one, in which case
the SMU shall be equal to one.
SMUFa cebook posts*likes comments* shares*
fans *=∅+∅+∅‘’
51
081
13
.
YouTube
On YouTube, companies can create corporate video channels and upload
videos, e.g. product tests, commercials and interviews. The videos can
usually be watched by anyone who visits the website, while ‘liking’ and
commenting on them is restricted to registered users, who can also subscribe
to a channel. Even though videos can be shared in other social media, and
despite the fact that this is an important factor, shares are not considered
in this research, as it is impossible to reveal the number of shares. It is
important to mention that, in contrast to postings in social networks or in
microblogs, where posts are usually popular only for a few days or for as
long as they are visible on the user’s news page, visitors to video-sharing
platforms generally search for videos using the platform’s search function,
and can find and watch videos that were uploaded years earlier. Therefore,
in order to guarantee consistency, the analysis of the SMU of YouTube and
other video-sharing platforms should be done within a time range of two
to ten weeks after the videos have been posted, as it is the case with the
research in this article. In addition, and in contrast to Facebook, users can
‘dislike’ a video. In light of this, Table 6 shows the number of subscribers,
the number of video uploads, the average numbers of views, the adjusted
average number of ‘likes’ minus ‘dislikes’, and the average number of
comments for each of the three corporate YouTube channels analysed.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
269
Companies can use the following formula to calculate the SMU of
YouTube and will receive a value between zero (0 = no use at all) and one
(1 = full use). The result of the equation can exceed the optimal value of
one, in which case the SMU shall be equal to one.
SMUYouTube
videouploads*viewslikes *comments*
=∅+∅+∅‘’100 5500 0025
subscribers
*.
Google+
Similar to Facebook, Google+ offers companies the possibility to create
a dedicated page, write text postings, and upload pictures or videos.
Registered users can add the page to their circle, which means that they
are subscribing for all news posted by the respective Google+ page. If
users like a post, picture or video, they can ‘+1’ (‘like’) or share it with
their individual network. Table 7 shows the number of users who have
the respective page in their circles, the number of posts, including text
messages, uploaded pictures, and videos as well as the average number
of ‘+1s’, positive comments, and shares for each of the three corporate
Google+ accounts included in the analysis.
Table 6 YouTube activities of selected companies in November and December 2013
Company name
Total Average per video
Subscribers Video uploads Views ‘Likes’ Positive comments
Intel 70,000 117 20,470 14 3
Samsung Mobile 662,000 40 1,297,891 2,108 212
Disney 102,000 9 38,394 253 33
Average 278,000 55 329,254 532 55
Table 7 Google+ activities of selected companies in November and December 2013
Company name
Total Average per posting
In circles Postings ‘+1s’ Positive comments Shares
Intel 449,000 9 192 15 25
Samsung Mobile 166,000 13 418 42 34
Disney 241,000 24 274 24 29
Average 285,000 15 298 27 30

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
270
Companies can use the following formula to calculate the SMU of
Google+ and will receive a value between zero (0 = no use at all) and one
(1 = full use). The result of the equation can exceed the optimal value of
one, in which case the SMU shall be equal to one.
SMUGoogle+posts*scomments* shares*
in circle
=∅+ +∅ +∅‘’1510
ss *3
89
.
LinkedIn
On LinkedIn, companies can create a corporate profile, post news and
publish job offerings. In business networks, traditional text and picture
postings are of low relevance. This becomes evident by both the low number
of postings by corporations and the low number of ‘likes’ and comments.
Based on this, they are not included in the calculation of LinkedIn’s SMU.
Rather than traditional postings, job postings and the number of applicants
per job posting are of high relevance in determining the CSMU. Depending
on the company’s preference, potential applicants can either apply directly
through LinkedIn or are forwarded to the corporate website. In contrast
to all other data collected in this study, the average number of applicants
per job posting is based on the average of the 25 earliest job postings of
the reference period of November and December 2013, as of 15 January
2014. In addition, the number of followers is not used to calculate the
SMU, as it is not connected to the number of applicants. Nevertheless, the
information is provided in Table 8, which shows the number of followers,
the number of employees according to the most recent annual report, the
number of job postings, and the average number of applicants per job
posting for each of the three corporate LinkedIn accounts analysed.
In the case of LinkedIn, the number of job postings is adjusted by the
number of employees in order to consider the relationship between the size
of a company and its vacancies. Companies can use the following formula
Table 8 LinkedIn activities of selected companies in November and December 2013
Company name
Total Average per job posting
Followers Employees Job postings Applicants
Intel 369,000 105,000 845 27
Samsung Mobile 278,000 206,000 171 73
Disney 358,000 166,000 199 92
Average 335,000 159,000 405 44

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
271
to calculate the SMU of LinkedIn and will receive a value between zero
(0 = no use at all) and one (1 = full use). The result of the equation can
exceed the optimal value of one, in which case the SMU shall be equal to
one.
SMULinked In
jobpostings
employees *applicants*=∅17 8.
Twitter
On Twitter, companies can create an account and post short tweets (text
or picture postings) with a maximum length of 140 characters. Registered
users can add the tweets to their favourites (similar to ‘likes’), post an answer
(comment) or retweet (share) the message. However, the answers to posts
are not taken into account when calculating the SMU of Twitter, as it is
difficult to identify which and how many answers are actually related to a
specific post. Table 9 therefore shows the number of followers, the number
of postings as well as the average number of favourites and retweets for each
of the three corporate Twitter accounts examined in this study.
Companies can use the following formula to calculate the SMU of
Twitter and will receive a value between zero (0 = no use at all) and one
(1 = full use). The result of the equation can exceed the optimal value of
one, in which case the SMU shall be equal to one.
SMUTwitterposts*favourites retweets*
followers *=∅+∅10 17 3.
Table 9 Twitter activities of selected companies in November and December 2013
Company name
Total Average per posting
Followers Postings Favourites Retweets
Intel 2,575,000 180 181 215
Samsung Mobile 7,129,000 78 331 400
Disney 3,459,000 91 787 768
Average 4,388,000 116 372 401

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
272
Step 4: calculating the degree of corporate social media use
Finally, as both the social media impact factor (SMIF) and the equations
to calculate the social media use (SMU) are identified for the five most
important social media in terms of monthly active users, it is possible to
calculate the degree of corporate social media use (CSMU) of any company.
Companies can choose whether to include only one or up to five of the
most important social media in terms of monthly active users in order to
determine the degree of social media use. If they choose to assess only one
platform, the SMIF does not need to be used, as its function is to weight the
SMU of the individual platforms by their relative importance. Whenever
one, two or three websites are removed from the model, the SMIF needs to
be recalculated. However, while a reduction of the number of social media
in the model is unproblematic, adding new platforms requires a prior
determination of the SMU equation, which is time consuming but easy to
do by following the instructions of this article. As the SMIF (e.g. 0.37 for
Facebook) is based on the most recent available data about the monthly
active users of each platform, these data may be updated on a regular basis.
The formula to calculate the CSMU for all platforms together is:
CSMU SMUSMU SMU
companyFacebook YouTub
eG
oogle+
=++*. *. *.037031 0117
008007++SMUSMU
LinkedIn Facebook
*. *.
As a practical example, the extent to which Intel, Samsung Mobile and
Disney are exploiting social media is calculated for both each individual
social media platform (SMU) and for the whole model (CSMU). The
results are shown in Table 10.
As can be seen, Samsung Mobile is using four out of five social media
in an optimal way and has the highest CSMU (0.987). Disney is also using
Table 10 Degree of corporate social media use by Intel, Samsung Mobile and Disney
Description
Company name
Intel Samsung Mobile Disney
SMUFacebook 0.69 >1 = 1 >1 =1
SMUYouTube 0.98 >1 = 1 0.18
SMUGoogle+ 0.40 >1 = 1 >1 = 1
SMULinkedIn >1 = 1 >1 = 1 >1 = 1
SMUTwitter >1 = 1 0.82 >1 = 1
CSMU 0.777 0.987 0.746

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
273
four platforms in the best possible way, but has a CSMU of just 0.746. This
can be explained by the fact that the company has a low SMU of YouTube
(0.18), which is the second most important platform, with a weight of 31%
in the present model. On the contrary, Intel is using two platforms to their
full extent and three platforms in a suboptimal way, but has a higher CSMU
(0.777) than Disney, because its efforts to use the different social media are
more balanced.
Discussion
The model presented in this article can help market researchers and
marketing managers to measure and compare the degree of corporate
social media use (CSMU), both for individual platforms and for up to
five different social media. It might be the basis for performance analyses
and used as a tool to optimise the number and frequency of activities on
different social media. If there is a need or interest to assess individually
or include other social media in the model other than Facebook, YouTube,
Google+, LinkedIn or Twitter, this can easily be done by following
the same approach that has been used in this article. On the one hand,
academics will find this model a helpful tool to study the world of social
media because it provides a simple, clear and consistent framework that
allows comparison of the use of social media among brands, companies,
markets and industries. Furthermore, the CSMU enhances the general
comparability of quantitative studies about the use of social media. On
the other hand, practitioners can apply it in order to identify where to
increase or reduce social media activities. In addition, the CSMU helps
companies understand whether or not to allocate or shift human and
financial resources, which increases the probability of success in the online
world. The CSMU is a powerful yet easy to understand indicator that
allows companies to monitor internal social media activities, build industry
averages and keep track of their competitors.
There are, however, some limitations that need to be taken into
account. First, the model is not intended to be used for new accounts or
for accounts with very few fans. Generally speaking, it is recommended to
use the CSMU for companies with at least 1,000 fans or followers in each
social network, which is typically not a difficult number for any business
to achieve. Second, elements like fan drop-off, ‘unlikes’ and corporate
micro-management of content, such as the deletion or modification
of posts, have not been considered in the current model because they
are hard or impossible to track for outsiders. Third, only global social

Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
274
media have been taken into account to build the model presented in this
research. Of course, regional social media, such as the Russian social
network VK (vk.com), should be taken into account by local or national
companies and in order to assess certain markets, which requires the
additional effort to recalculate the SMIF and to create a SMU equation
for the respective platform. However, it should be noted again that this
article provides all necessary information and instructions for building
both the SMIF for any social media and the respective SMU equations for
most platforms. Fourth, the CSMU does not permit the drawing of direct
conclusions with respect to the success of a company’s or a brand’s social
media activities, as a number of other factors, e.g. virality, play a crucial
role. Therefore, social media metrics need to be taken into account, and
should be utilised in conjunction with the CSMU in order to assess the
return on investment of both human and financial resources in social
media activities.
During the research for this paper, a number of additional findings
emerged, which are briefly described in the following. It is striking that
the behaviour of users of the two social networks Facebook and Google+
is quite different. On the one hand, corporate Facebook accounts generate
one ‘like’ per 1,393 fans, while they need only 956 followers on average
on Google+ to receive one ‘+1’. On the other hand, one in 21,700
Facebook fans shares a post, compared to one share for every 9,500
Google+ followers. Users on Google+ are therefore more than twice as
likely to share the news and activities of the brands and companies they
are following. As already mentioned, it is particularly important that
postings are shared by users in order to reach their individual connections.
Therefore, these numbers show that the quantity of fans alone is not a
good indicator of the success of a brand on social networks. Another fact
is that each of the analysed companies, compared to the other two, has the
highest number of fans on at least one social media platform. While Disney
is leading the statistics of the most fans on Facebook, Intel has the highest
number of followers on both Google+ as well as LinkedIn, and Samsung
Mobile outperforms the other companies on both YouTube and Twitter.
These differences can be partly explained by the fact that social media
platforms have different target user groups. Another possible explanation
may be that companies are focusing their attention and/or allocating their
budgets unequally. It is especially striking that Disney has the lowest SMU
on YouTube, which is a key platform to advertise movies and TV series.
Overall, it can be seen that Intel is posting the highest number of messages
and uploading most videos, but receives the lowest number of views,

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 57 Issue 2
275
‘likes’, comments and shares, while Samsung Mobile’s and Disney’s posts
seem to be more popular among their fans and followers.
References
Aichner, T. & Perkmann, U. (2013) Viewpoint: Social media: opportunities and risks for
regional market research. International Journal of Market Research, 55, 5, pp. 609–610.
Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K. & Shapiro, D. (2012) Marketing meets Web 2.0, social
media, and creative consumers: implications for international marketing strategy. Business
Horizons, 55, 3, pp. 261–271.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. & Crittenden, V.L. (2011) We’re all connected: the power of the social
media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 3, pp. 265–273.
Hoffman, D.L. & 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. & 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. & Silvestre, B.S. (2011) Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54,
3, pp. 241–251.
Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A.M., Ognibeni, B. & Pauwels, K. (2013) Social media metrics – a
framework and guidelines for managing social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 4,
pp. 281–298.
Smith, S. (2013) Conceptualising and evaluating experiences with brands on Facebook.
International Journal of Market Research, 55, 3, pp. 357–374.
Weinberg, B.D. & Pehlivan, E. (2011) Social spending: managing the social media mix.
Business Horizons, 54, 3, pp. 275–282.
About the authors
Thomas Aichner is a PhD student in Management Engineering at the
Department of Management and Engineering of the University of Padova.
He earned his BSc in Economics and Management at LUSPIO University,
his MSc in European Business at ESCP Europe and his MA in Management
at the University of Trento. His research is mainly focused on mass
customization, e-commerce and international marketing.
Frank Jacob is a Professor of Marketing at ESCP Europe’s Berlin Campus.
Areas of research interest include the link between service offerings and the
application of modern digital technology.
Address correspondence to: University of Padova, Department of
Management and Engineering, Stradella S. Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy.
Email: mail@thomasaichner.eu