One size doesn’tﬁt all: a uses and
gratiﬁcations analysis of social
Mark J. Pelletier
Department of Marketing, University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
Wilmington, North Carolina, USA
Department of Marketing, Industrial Distribution, and Economics, University of
Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Frank G. Adams
Department of Marketing, Quantitative Analysis, and Business Law, Mississippi
State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA, and
Department of Marketing and International Business, The University of Toledo,
Toledo, Ohio, USA
Purpose –This research study aims to investigate consumer usage motivations for three of the top social
media platforms today: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Additionally, through understanding various
platform distinctions, ﬁrms can understand which social media platforms consumers prefer to use to co-create
with brands online.
Design/methodology/approach –An exploratory qualitative study is ﬁrst conducted to understand
consumer motivations for using different social media platforms. The main study tests ﬁve hypotheses
related to consumer usage intentions and social media co-creation behavior across three social media
platforms. A survey is conducted with 1,050 social media users with a comparison of mean responses using
multivariate analysis of covariance.
behaviors. For informational purposes,consumersgravitate toward Twitter. For social purposes, Twitter and
Instagram are preferred. Instagram is the primary platform for entertainment motivation as well as co-
creating with brands via social media. Surprisingly, Facebook shows the lowest usage intentions and co-
creation despite beingthe largest platform and network most widely used by marketers.
Originality/value –To the best of the authors’knowledge, this is one of the ﬁrst studies to take a multi-
platform approach to understanding consumer social media use and co-creation with brands. The results
highlight that marketing academics and practitioners must segment the various social media platforms as
each offers unique value propositions to consumers.
Keywords Social media marketing, Facebook, Twitter, Social networking sites
Paper type Research paper
Social media is about the people! Not about your business. Provide for the people and the people
will provide for you –Matt Goulart.
With nearly 3.5 billion social media users worldwide, or roughly 45% of the global
population, social media has proven its ability to reach individuals in almost every
Received 1 October2019
Revised 25 March 2020
Accepted 2 April2020
Journal of Research in Interactive
Vol. 14 No. 2, 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
marketing segment imaginable (Kemp, 2019;Hanna et al.,2011). Naturally, the growth of
social media has drawn the attention of marketing practitioners, who seek to promote and
enhance their brands via social media’s power to aim speciﬁc brand content at precise
consumer targets (Economist, 2015). According to Pew Research (2018), nearly 70% of US
adults use at least one social media platform, and over 50% of users visit social media sites
daily (Smith and Anderson, 2018). Spending on social media and online advertising is
expected to grow by 18.7% through 2022, compared to a mere 1.3% growth for television
and, relatively ﬂat projections for radio advertising and an almost 27% drop in print
advertising (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2018).
However, even with the manifest growth of social media advertising, only 49% of
surveyed Facebook advertisers believe that their efforts are effective (Stelzner, 2018). Some
may be tempted to simply dismiss social media advertising as ineffective, particularly in
light of Gallop Poll ﬁndings (Elder, 2014) describing social media as overhyped. The
problem may actually stem from a lack of a clear understanding of what social media are,
the various forms of social media and how value is best created on social media networks
(Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Internet-based technologies, such as social media Platforms,
naturally lend themselves to enhanced opportunities for value co-creation and enhanced
engagement opportunities to take place by allowing customers and ﬁrms to interact with
one another in a real-time setting (Dessart, 2017;Yang et al.,2016;Balaji and Roy, 2017).
Although social media in general offers a channel to facilitate co-creative experiences,
current research lacks an understanding of how co-creation may differ on each distinct
Platform and which Platforms consumers gravitate toward when looking to interact with a
Furthermore, the current social media landscape is full of rich and diverse Platforms that
differ in not only size, but also functionality (Kietzmann et al.,2011). In practice, however,
social media marketing is often viewed as a “one size ﬁts all”approach that includes sharing
the same social media post across all social media Platforms, also referred to as cross-
posting. This practice is discouraged by most social media practitioners (Cyca, 2018);
however, current research lacks a clear understanding of what consumers truly desire from
each Platform and how marketers can optimize content for each speciﬁc Platform to deliver
To succeed in the social media environment, additional research is needed to understand
how brands can develop strategies that are congruent not only the Platform being used
(Kietzmann et al., 2011), but also with the needs and motivations of the users on those
Platforms (Zhu and Chen, 2015). Supporting this academic need for social media research, a
2018 survey of social media advertisers indicated that most respondents desired answers to
two primary questions: what social media tactics are the most effective, and what are the
best ways to engage with customers (Stelzner, 2018).
In response to these calls from marketing academics and practitioners alike, this research
seeks to explore the various consumer motivations for using the most popular social media
Platforms and understand which Platforms lead to more co-creation between marketers and
customers. Using this information brands can create a more effective social media content
strategy that resonates with their customers on each speciﬁc Platform. Through an
exploratory qualitative study, the three Platforms investigated include Facebook, Twitter
and Instagram, which are not only the most popular Platforms in terms of consumer usage,
but also the largest for social media marketing expenditures (Stelzner, 2018). Coupling the
results from this initial study with the foundations of Uses and Gratiﬁcations Theory, ﬁve
hypotheses detail how the consumer usage intentions and co-creation with brands differ
across three different social media Platforms. Results of a survey data collection will then be
discussed along with implications for marketing theory and practice, and related future
In an effort to understand what drives consumers to use the various social media Platforms, the
research team recruited 363 US-based social media users from the Amazon Mechanical Turk
online panel and compensated each for participation. The qualitative instrument asked
respondents which social media Platforms they use, how long they had been a user of the
platform and the frequency in which they use the Platform. Within this sample, 337
respondents were Facebook users, 255 respondents used Twitter and only 226 used Instagram.
In terms of multi-Platform usage, 62% of the sample used all three Platforms, 8% used two
Platforms, 23% used only one Platform and 7% reported to only use “other”types of social
media. Next, participants were asked how frequently they logged into each Platform. Facebook
users logged in most frequently with 56% of users signing in multiple times per day, 23%
daily, 11% weekly, 3% monthly and 7% rarely. For Twitter users, 18% logged in multiple
times per day, 20% daily, 18% weekly, 14% monthly and 30% rarely using the Platform.
Finally, Instagram users reported 17% multiple daily uses, 19% daily, 19% weekly, 8%
monthly and 37% rarely. Based on which Platforms each participant reported using (users
reported monthly use or greater), they were then asked open-ended questions regarding why
they use that particular Platform. Demographic information was then collected, with the ﬁnal
sample consisting of 52% female and an average age of 39 years.
Two coders with doctoral-level training in marketing research coded the qualitative
responses to understand why consumers use Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Independently, each judge identiﬁed the discrete emerging themes from each response, with
themes then compared to one another to develop a master list of categories. The coders then
went back through the data to discuss any discrepancies. Overall, the percentage agreement
among coders indicated an acceptable level of agreement (per cent agreement = 0.96)
(Gremler, 2004). In the coding of responses, multiple categories were often conveyed in one
Overall, four themes consistently emerged from the customer responses: social purposes,
informational purposes, entertainment purposes and, to a lesser degree, convenience
purposes. Responses within the “Social”theme reiterated the desire for consumers to
interact with other social media users (including people they know and people they do not
know) and share their personal content with others. This theme comprised the largest
category within the Facebook users’responses, although it was also heavily mentioned
across Instagram and even Twitter to a lesser extent. The “Informational”theme was
heavily dominant on the Twitter Platform, and included users seeking out information,
news and events, as well as for professional business purposes. The third theme
“Entertainment”included consumers using the Platform to have fun or follow their favorite
celebrities/pop-culture events. Instagram was the Platform most frequently used for
entertainment, which is logical given the visual focus of the Platform. Finally, the
“Convenience”theme reﬂected respondents using the various Platforms just to browse or
observe when they were bored. This theme was predominately mentioned by Instagram
users only. Table 1 provides sample quotes and frequencies to illustrate each of these
themes within the data.
Uses and gratiﬁcations theory
Building on the results of the initial exploratory study, an examination of the literature
related to why customers used speciﬁc types of media leads to the foundations of Uses and
Gratiﬁcations Theory (U&G). In general, U&G suggests that the beneﬁts extracted from a
given media source may vary based on the different purposes for which speciﬁc individuals
choose to consume media (Severin and Tankard, 1997). U&G focuses on consumer use and
choice by stating that different individuals may use the same mass media sources for
various purposes (Katz, 1959). By understanding the intrinsic needs that draw consumers
toward speciﬁc media, U&G further helps recognize consumers’motives for usage
behaviors to receive gratiﬁcation.
U&G has been used in various forms of digital marketing, including e-mail (Dimmick
et al.,2004) and websites (Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999); however, it is especially well suited
to examine social media because of the high levels of involvement (Ruggiero, 2000), bonding
social capital (Phua et al.,2017), interactivity of participants (Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999)
and positive vs negative brand communication (Dolan et al., 2016). Through the social media
context, brands can provide value or gratiﬁcation for consumers by optimizing the content
they put forth (Malthouse et al.,2013). The ﬁndings from the exploratory study align with
the tenets of U&G theory, with the main drivers of social media usage identiﬁed as social,
informational, entertainment and convenience/distraction purposes (Ashley and Tuten,
2015;Jahn and Kunz, 2012). The primary limitation of these prior social media-based studies
is that all research has relied on examining social media as a whole (i.e. all Platforms treated
as one) or only speciﬁcally examining one Platform (i.e. Facebook). No research to date has
considered how consumers may have differing usage intentions across the various
Platforms, and what these differences may mean to marketers in terms of engagement and
Value from social motivations stems from a participant communicating and interacting with
others, keeping up with their personal contacts, and meeting people with similar interests
(Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999). In a manner similar to approval utility in Electronic word-of-
Platform frequencies Sample quotes
Use for social purposes
Facebook = 92.7%
Twitter = 38.7%
Instagram = 62.4%
For connecting with family that lives far away and friends that I don’t see
regularly.Keeping connected and up to date with friends and family and
offering/receiving advice from the many groups that I am part of
Use for informational purposes
Facebook = 28.5%
Twitter = 68.7%
Instagram = 12.2%
To keep up with political news and opinions and see what other people in the
world are talking about or what is trending.Breaking news, or details about
live events, or current reactions to recent events.
Use for entertainment purposes
Facebook = 12.7%
Twitter = 37.5%
Instagram = 49.7%
I mainly use it to follow sports and entertainment celebrities to look at
videos and photos they post.
For playing games online and sharing funny memes.
Use for convenience purposes
Facebook = 1.5%
Twitter = 2%
Instagram = 25.7%
I use it to just watch random stuff on my Explore page.For when I’m bored
for viewing photos and reading comments
Notes: *Percentages are based on the total number of times code was present/total respondents reporting
mouth, receiving acceptance from other members of their virtual community may elevate a
social media participant’s overall perceived social status (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Not
only does this social interaction lead to enhanced social status, but it also has weight on the
overall value of the ﬁrm’s offerings (Hewett et al., 2016).
From a social media perspective, Platforms provide means for users to interact with their
personal network of family and friends, while expanding their networks to connect with new
users (Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999). In a similar sense, Facebook users visit the site for
socializing purposes to make connections with others users (Zhu and Chen, 2015) by joining
various Facebook groups, fan pages and gaining a sense of community in a virtual setting
(Dineva et al., 2017). The results of the exploratory study further support Facebook as the
dominant Platform for social interaction purposes. Of the three Platforms examined in this
research, Facebook has the largest base of users, and the broadest, most ﬂexible array of
means to facilitate communication between its parties. Facebook is also the Platform best
suited to maintaining small member groups, enabling users to control the breadth of the
connections they have with various contacts, and thus manage the identity, relationships,
reputation, group and presence functional building blocks of social media described by
Kietzmann and his colleagues (2011). In contrast, Twitter limits the number of characters
within a post, which may deter longer and more in-depth social connections to be formed,
while Instagram also minimizes the textual-based content on the Platform by requiring
visual media to create a post. As a result, for social usage intentions, the authors hypothesize
H1. Users with social purpose usage intentions will be attracted more to Platforms with
a broad array of communications mechanisms.
Use for informational purposes refers to using social media to seek information that is both
helpful and educational. Individuals motivated by information purposes seek means of
internalizing data from external sources, and the more information individuals receive from
a given media source, the more positive attitude they tend to hold toward that media source
(Luo, 2002). In the online environment, individuals will often use various links to obtain
additional information, and informational content of a new site tends to correlate with
positive attitudes toward the website (Chen and Wells, 1999) and toward advertisements
featured on the website (Ducoffe, 1996).
In terms of social media Platforms, Twitter serves as a microblogging network of real-
time posts from individuals, interest organizations of every type and even traditional media
news outlets (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). With 500 million tweets sent each day, or 5,787
tweets per second, “No other platform rivals Twitter for bleeding-edge news and up-to-the
second happenings (Cooper, 2019).”In fact, 71% of Twitter users are reading news on the
Platform (Matsa and Shearer, 2018), which also happens to be the number one Platform for
government leaders as well (Lufkens, 2018). The Twitter Platform allows marketers to begin
brand-speciﬁc conversations with consumers because of this emphasis on information
sharing and discussion (Soboleva et al., 2017). Overwhelmingly, Twitter was the Platform
most respondents in the exploratory study turned to when seeking information. This
suggests the following hypothesis:
H2. Users with informational purpose usage intentions will be attracted more to
Platforms with an emphasis on real-time information.
Value from entertainment refers to the extent to which the media source is used for hedonic
beneﬁts (Eighmey, 1997). Users seeking entertainment beneﬁts use media formats for
hedonic purposes of escapism and enjoyable experiences (Korgaonkar and Wolin, 1999).
From a digital marketing perspective, interactive content and banner ads that consumers
ﬁnd entertaining lead to greater positive attitudes toward the site (Chen and Wells, 1999).
The visual and hedonic attributes of social media provide numerous beneﬁts to ﬁrms in
terms of getting consumers more engaged on the Platform and more willing to interact with
content (Carlson et al., 2018;Mawhinney, 2018;Triantaﬁllidou and Siomkos, 2018).
Although all social media Platforms attempt to provide entertainment for users, the visual
nature of the Instagram Platform most readily lends itself to this goal. Instagram is a “content-
based”Platform that seeks to provide its users with a “shared experience”through pictures and
video content posted on a particular proﬁle (Frier, 2018;Zhu and Chen, 2015). With more than 100
million photos and videos shared on the Platform each day (Kolowich, 2019), brands, digital
inﬂuencers/celebrities and everyday consumers use the Platform to tell their personal stories and
experiences. These statistics were further supported in the results of the exploratory study with
Instagram showing the highest usage intentions for hedonic types of entertainment. Thus:
H3. Users with entertainment purpose usage intentions will be attracted more to
Platforms with an emphasis on hedonic experiences.
This particular usage category is deﬁned by consumers’need to use the media as a source of
convenience or distraction. Although initially introduced to describe television viewing behaviors,
more recent research has shown that various forms of digital media are often used by consumers
to simply “pass time”(Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000;Ko et al., 2005). With the growth of
smartphone adoption, consumers are now able to easily access social media Platforms numerous
times per day, with the majority of social media usage now facilitated through mobile devices
(Sterling, 2017). Surprisingly, it is estimated that the average person spends nearly 2 h a day
browsing, watching or posting on social media Platforms (Asano, 2017).
Although Facebook may be the Platform that has existed the longest and has the largest
number of users, results of the exploratory study indicate that Instagram is the Platform
consumers turn to for easy browsing or for scrolling through content. This result may be
because of the fact that Instagram’s focus on visual content and minimizing text allows users to
put forth less effort when taking a passive observer role. This aligns with individuals
motivated by convenience purposes who are interestedincommunicationsolutions that require
less resources to meet their individual needs (Ko et al., 2005). Furthermore, smartphone usage
may further contribute to this fact as Instagram is the only solely mobile device Platform
included in this study. Thus, this research hypothesizes the following:
H4. Users with convenience purpose usage intentions will be attracted more to
Platforms with an emphasis on visual content and minimal text.
Social media co-creation
Recent research has shifted to try to understand the interactive consumer/brand relationship
that occurs within this virtual setting (Hollebeek et al., 2014;Kao et al.,2016). As social
media enables consumers to become active instead of passive participants, enhanced
opportunities for co-creation exist. Social media users co-create brands through storytelling
and sharing personal experiences (Singh and Sonnenburg, 2012). Storytelling and narrative
transportation fosters engagement with customers by stimulating dialogue and access,
leading to increased attitudinal evaluations (Huang et al.,2018;Hatch and Schultz, 2010). As
seen in Hewett et al. (2016), this dialogue between brands and social media users can
eventually create, or in some cases even destroy, value for the brand.
As previously discussed, the sheer volume of activity on Facebook (Perrin, 2015),
alongwiththeheavypresenceofbrands(Stelzner, 2018), would suggest that larger
amounts of co-creation occur on this Platform compared to Twitter and Instagram.
Additionally, Facebook is the Platform that allows for group formation based on
common interests or brand communities. Popular brands such as Harley Davidson,
Canon and Apple all have multiple dedicated fan pages or groups on Facebook, in
which content centered around their shared interest in the brand is shared numerous
times each day. Consumers derive personal beneﬁts from involvement in branded
Facebook pages, increasing both their levels of engagement and the perceived value
generated by such co-creative experiences (Dineva et al.,2017). Facebook also permits
the widest array of content to be posted and shared among consumers and brands.
This allows for more free form of communication to take place without restrictions on
character count (present on Twitter), ability to include clickable links (cannot be
included on individual Instagram posts) or video/graphic requirements imposed by the
other Platforms. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. Users with a desire to engage in co-creation will be attracted more to Platforms
with a broad array of communications mechanisms.
To test the hypotheses listed above, the authors developed a survey to investigate how consumers’
usage intentions and social media co-creation behavior differ across various types of social media
Platforms. Although a wide array of social media Platforms exist, Facebook, Twitter and
Instagram were the Platforms selected in this investigation based on the results of the exploratory
study and U&G theoretical support. Speciﬁcally, Facebook is hypothesized as the platform with
the broadest array of communication mechanisms (H
), Twitter has an emphasis on real-time
), and Instagram focuses on hedonic experiences, visual content and minimal text
(H3,H4). The research team recruited a total of 1,050 compensated, English-speaking, US-based
customers from the Amazon Mechanical Turk national online panel database. The online panel
allowed for a large sample of real-world brand experiences via social media.
To ensure quality online respondents, the study included various attention checks,
respondent screening policies and a requirement of written text. Attention checks included
asking respondents to select “Strongly disagree”for one item placed within a scale toward
the middle of the survey, as well as asking the respondent to conﬁrm the social media
Platform they were answering the survey for, as well as conﬁrming in two places the brand
they reported to interact with via social media. Additionally, respondents recruited via
Amazon Mechanical Turk had to meet speciﬁc requirements including residing in the USA,
taking the survey from only one IP address, and having a HIT approval rating of 95% or
greater. This type of screening policy follows recommendations set forth byother marketing
researchers using research panels (i.e. Meyer et al.,2017). A total of 45 surveys were dropped
for substantial missing data through listwise deletion (Hair et al.,2010), or for failure to pass
attention check measures. This left a total of 1,005 usable responses, including 331 Facebook
users, 339 Twitter users and 335 Instagram users. Within the ﬁnal sample, 59% were male,
and the average age of respondents was32 years.
The survey instructed respondents to think of a time in the past six months that they co-
created with a brand via one of the three social media Platforms (Facebook, Twitter and
Instagram). To ensure participants understood the meaning of co-creation, the recruitment
message used for panel recruitment provided both a deﬁnition and examples of co-creation
(i.e. you helped promote a brand online). Extant scales adapted from the literature measured
the usage intentions and social media co-creation constructs, as well as brand involvement
used as a control variable (Vernette and Hamdi-Kidar, 2013;Chang, 2009;Escalas and
Bettman, 2005;Ko et al., 2005). All scale items were made of seven-point scales ranging from
1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree or 1 = Never to 7 = Always.
The reliability of the scale items was assessed, and each exhibited an acceptable level of
0.70; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). A conﬁrmatory factor analysis, using
AMOS 22, assessed the unidimensionality, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the
latent constructs. The validity tests indicated an acceptable ﬁt(Hu and Bentler, 1999)ofthe
model to the data (
= 1,611.22, df = 401, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.95, Incremental Fit
Index (IFI) =0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05). Table 2 shows
a complete list of results from the CFA, along with composite reliability for each construct.
Average variance extracted (AVE) calculations tested the scales’convergent and
discriminant validity of each construct. As Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend, calculating
the shared variance between constructs indicated that the average variance extracted was at
least 0.50 for each construct, providing evidence of convergent validity. Further, no shared
variance between constructs exceeded the average variance extracted, indicating evidence of
discriminant validity. Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations and correlations
between variables, and the square root of AVE for each variable. A single latent construct was
included in the analysis to test common method bias (Podsakoff et al.,2003). This factor
included a speciﬁed relationship to each scale item to account for any systematic bias within
the latent constructs. A non-signiﬁcant Chi-square difference indicated common method bias
was not a signiﬁcant concern. This is consistent with the recommendations put forth by Fuller
et al. (2016) that show the single-factor test only fails to detect bias when common method
variance is exceedingly high.
A comparison of mean responses using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA)
tested statistically signiﬁcant differences between the three different social media Platforms
regarding consumer usage intentions and social media co-creation. MANCOVA is an
appropriate method for this analysis as it allows for analysis of multiple dependent
variables simultaneously, with sufﬁcient power, while controlling for the respondent’s age
and brand involvement as the covariate (Hair et al.,2010). The brand involvement covariate
was signiﬁcant (F= 4.44, p= 0.01) and accounted for any effect based on degree of
involvement with the reported brand on the relationships between the Platforms and
dependent variables. The results from the MANCOVA are shown in Table 4.
The results of the MANCOVA showed a statistically signiﬁcant difference between
the three social media Platforms for the usage intentions and co-creation constructs (F(12,
1992) = 12.00; Wilks lambda = 0.87, p<0.001). To ﬁnd which speciﬁc variables
contributed to the signiﬁcant differences between Platforms, a Tukey’spost hoc analysis
was conducted as shown in Table 5.
The ﬁrst hypothesis states that users with social purpose usage intentions will be
attracted more to Platforms with a broad array of communications mechanisms. The results
indicate that there was a signiﬁcant difference between Facebook and the other two
Platforms (F= 13.96, p<0.05); however, the ﬁndings were reversed from what was
hypothesized. Facebook users reported signiﬁcantly lower usage intentions for social
purposes (SocialFacebook = 4.19) than Twitter and Instagram users (SocialTwitter = 4.70,
SocialInstagram = 4.64), denying support for H1.
The second hypothesis states that users with informational purpose usage intentions will
be attracted more to Platforms with an emphasis on real-time information. H
Social media engagement items
Social media co-creation (CR = 0.91)
- Promoted a product or brand online 0.88 **
- Helped other consumers by answering brand-related questions 0.86 35.46
- Collaborated with a brand 0.79 30.66
- Posted a comment concerning a product or service 0.85 34.43
Brand involvement (CR = 0.92)
- The posts made by this brand really hold my attention 0.94 **
- The posts made by this brand draw me in 0.96 60.68
- The content this brand posts really intrigues me 0.89 48.72
- The content that this brand posts reminds me of experiences or feelings I’ve
had in my own life
Use for entertainment (CR = 0.86)
-It’s enjoyable 0.93 **
-It’s entertaining 0.93 45.46
- I just like to look through my newsfeed 0.57 20.35
Use for convenience (CR = 0.84)
-It’s convenient to use 0.84 **
- I can communicate with others for less effort 0.75 25.67
- I can use it anytime, anywhere 0.80 27.92
Use for information (CR = 0.91)
-It’s a good way to catch up on news 0.78 **
- I can learn about useful things 0.94 33.13
- I can learn about things I don’t know 0.91 32.28
Use for social (CR = 0.75)
- I want to express myself freely 0.75 **
- I want to meet people with my interests 0.70 23.50
- I wonder what other people say 0.67 19.07
Notes: **denotes a constrained relationship to 1.00 for identiﬁcation; CR: composite reliability; model ﬁt
= 1611.22, df = 401, p<0.001; CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05
root of AVEs and
Mean (SD) SQRT AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Social media co-creation 2.63 (1.36) 0.84 1
2. Brand involvement 3.31 (1.15) 0.86 0.47 1
3. Use for entertainment 5.32 (1.14) 0.83 0.23 0.26 1
4. Use for convenience 5.32 (1.21) 0.80 0.24 0.29 0.68 1
5. Use for information 4.51 (1.53) 0.87 0.33 0.27 0.49 0.48 1
6. Use for social 4.51 (1.39) 0.71 0.40 0.33 0.57 0.54 0.61 1
Notes: SD: standard deviation; SQRT AVE: square root of average variance extracted
supported as there was a signiﬁcant difference between Platforms (F= 19.26, p<0.05), with
Twitter showing the largest mean (Information
= 4.28, Information
= 4.31; F= 19.26, p<0.05). Additionally, signiﬁcant differences were
found across Platforms for entertainment intentions (F= 10.71, p<0.01), with Instagram
users exhibiting the highest usage intentions for entertainment purposes compared to
Facebook and Twitter users (Entertainment
= 5.12, Entertainment
= 5.52), in support of H3.
suggested that users with convenience purpose usage intentions will be attracted more to
between Platforms were found for the convenience usage variable, although it is important to note
that all means for convenience usage exceeded 5.0. This result implies that consumers ﬁnd all
three Platforms convenient, which intuitively makes sense given the rise of mobile devices and
smartphone application use.
The ﬁnal hypothesis claims that users with a desire to engage in co-creation will be attracted
more to Platforms with a broad array of communications mechanisms. Results again show a
signiﬁcant difference between the social media Platforms (F=3.28,p<0.05), but in the reverse
hypothesized order. Contrary to expectations, Facebook was signiﬁcantly lower (Co-creation
= 2.49) for social media co-creation than Instagram (Co-creation
= 2.76). Twitter showed no
statistical difference between either Facebook or Instagram users. Speciﬁcally, Instagram users
reported the highest levels of social media co-creation, then Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, the results support signiﬁcant differences between Platforms, and for the
majority of the hypotheses. In general, Twitter users visit the Platform for informational and
social purposes, whereas Instagram users log in for both social and entertainment purposes.
Instagram further shows the highest levels of social media co-creation among its users.
Surprisingly, Facebook reported the lowest levels of usage intentions and co-creation, despite
being the largest overall network, and the most favored by marketing managers. This is not
to say that Facebook users do not seek informational, social beneﬁts from the Platform, nor
that either/both Facebook and Twitter users do not seek entertainment beneﬁts from those
Platforms. Rather, it suggests that the ability of the three Platforms to provide those U&G
beneﬁts to consumers is actually inverse of the size and reach of the three Platforms, with
important implications for both scholars and practitioners.
results: mean (SD)
Variables Facebook Twitter Instagram F-stat p-value
Use for social 4.19 (0.08) 4.70 (0.08) 4.64 (0.07) 13.96 0.00
Use for convenience 5.38 (0.07) 5.24 (0.07) 5.34 (0.07) 1.23 0.29
Use for information 4.28 (0.08) 4.92 (0.08) 4.31 (0.08) 19.26 0.00
Use for entertainment 5.12 (0.06) 5.32 (0.06) 5.52 (0.06) 10.71 0.00
Social media co-creation 2.49 (0.08) 2.64 (0.07) 2.76 (0.06) 3.28 0.03
signiﬁcance levels (p-
Variables Facebook vs Twitter Facebook vs Instagram Twitter vs Instagram
Use for social 0.00 0.00 0.56
Use for convenience 0.12 0.65 0.28
Use for information 0.00 0.79 0.00
Use for entertainment 0.02 0.00 0.02
Social media co-creation 0.15 0.01 0.25
Furthermore, the results for Facebook did not support the hypotheses for social usage intentions
or social media co-creation. For the co-creation hypotheses, these results may stem from users
wanting to use the Platform more for personal purposes instead of interacting with brands.
Additionally, users with a large number of “friends”simply cannot process all the posts from
their friends, their groups and the companies. Thus, brands that wish to interact with customers
via Facebook must try to have their content embedded early in the news feed stream, which may
only be possible through paid, sponsored ads instead of mere organic content. In terms of the
results for social usage intentions, it is possible the results may stem from how respondents
interpreted the items. Friends on Facebook are often well-known contacts that the user knows on
a personal level, whereas the same is not necessarily true for the other two Platforms. If a user
wants to “meet people with my interests”or “ﬁnd what others are saying,”they might not turn to
their existing social circle but instead reach out to a more diverse group of public users on
Instagram or Twitter. This represents an area for future research addressed in the Discussion
section that follows.
Social networks have continually grown and evolved over time, with the differences among
Platforms becoming increasingly more pronounced. As Platforms seek to differentiate
themselves by offering unique capabilities and fulﬁlling various consumer needs, social
media users have gravitated toward using multiple sites to accomplish their goals. Shown in
the usage percentages for Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, a great deal of overlap exists
across Platforms, with many active users using numerous sites daily.
While social media users may frequent all three Platforms investigated in this study, each site
offers differing value propositions regarding the type of social engagement that takes place. For
example, Facebook, being the largest and most demographically diverse social media Platform,
can be used to communicate with millions of users through text-based posts, pictures, video or
chat-based communications. Although Facebook allows for the widest array of communication
mechanisms across the largest overall consumer network, it showed the lowest social usage
intentions of all the social networking sites measured. Perhaps, this ﬁnding stems from the sheer
size of Facebook’s user base. While being social with close friends in an intimate setting seems
possible, the same type of social interaction may not be possible in a large convention hall with
everyone you have ever known present.
Conversely, Twitter and Instagram place greater restrictions on the manner in which
communication on the Platform may take place. For instance, communication via Twitter is
limited to only 280-character messages, whereas Instagram requires picture and video messages to
be posted. Regardless of the communication restrictions, these sites demonstrated signiﬁcantly
higher levels of not only social usage intentions but also exhibited higher levels of co-creation
intentions. Furthermore, the character restriction on Twitter seems to provide satisfactory
amounts of information to fulﬁll informational usage intentions, while not overwhelming the user.
These ﬁndings suggest that network size and communication capabilities alone do not necessarily
equate to consumers using the social media Platform to interact with brands. By understanding
what consumers are looking for on each individual Platform, social media practitioners can tailor
their marketing strategies to be more effective by delivering higher levels of customer value/
In older forms of media, the size of a communication network has long served as a proxy for its
utility as a marketing instrument (McAlister et al., 2007;Rust et al.,2004); these ﬁndings beg a
question of that logic. The ability to entertain, and to inform, and to thereby engage a customer
with a brand were all clearly stronger in this study among the smaller Platforms, even though
recent practitioner-based surveys have shown a strong bias for Facebook as a social media
promotional channel of choice. This is not to say that larger social media Platforms are useless,
but for maximum effectiveness, the ﬁrm must decide the ultimate goal of their social media
promotion, and then taking into consideration the consumer usage intentions, decide which
Platform can best accomplish this goal while engaging the maximum number of desirable users.
Consumers visit each social media Platform for various usage intentions; therefore, “one size
ﬁts all”social media marketing strategies are not appropriate. Practitioners must think beyond
“social media strategy”as a singular concept and examine more complex models regarding the
true value proposition of each Platform. Consideration of the intended target market and their
corresponding usage intentions by Platform can assist marketers in developing more effective
social media marketing campaigns. Firms should align their social media promotional messages,
as well as their expectations of customer engagement, with the value being sought by consumers
through the use of the particular social media Platform.
While valuable research insights have been gained through prior explorations of consumer
usage and engagement via social media, a majority of the research to-date has been
conducted using a sample obtained from a single social media Platform. While single-
Platform research provides great depth into understanding consumer engagement on a
speciﬁc Platform, it cannot be assumed that the results can be generalized across the entirety
of social media Platforms. The ﬁndings presented in this study and the dynamic nature of
social media as a communication and promotional channel suggest that consumer research
that does not adequately segment social media may miss key insights into usage.
Examination of Platform by value proposition, target markets and co-creator characteristics
remain insufﬁciently reﬁned. Future research should further explore the role of Platform ﬁtin
examining how social media contributes to the performance of a ﬁrm’s advertising efforts.
Advertising research has indicated that speciﬁc advertising content and the media content in
which it is embedded impose reciprocal inﬂuences on the brand and the media source (Simonin
and Ruth, 1998;Sternthal et al.,1978). The ﬁndings presented here suggest that ﬁt between a
desired brand image and the purpose for which a Platform is used matters. Customer experiences
help co-create brands on social media (Singh and Sonnenburg, 2012), and the reasons that
customers use Platforms will inﬂuence how customers perceive brand messages. This is
particularly important given that brand messages may be surrounded by content created by
other Platform users, and those brand messages may even be inﬂuenced and altered by other
Platform users (Peters et al.,2013). Accordingly, research is needed on the role that Platform ﬁt
plays in supporting (or undermining) brand image and brand equity.
Limitations and future research
A cross-sectional data collection was used for this study. As social media continually evolves, it
would be a worthwhile endeavor to collect longitudinal data to measure the effects of sustained
communication across multiple social media Platforms over time. Longitudinal data could
additionally provide insights into understanding how changes in a Platform impact a ﬁrm’s
social media effectiveness. Furthermore, supplementing these ﬁndings with a practitioner data
collection could compare promotional social media goals with actual consumer usage intentions.
This would uncover whether or not practitioner strategies and consumer social media intentions
are aligned. Consumers could further be asked how they perceive advertisers’goals on each
Platform, and how effective these ﬁrms are at achieving such goals.
To further investigate the unexpected Facebook results, it is recommended that future studies
separate the social usage dimension into two categories. Categories could be constructed
exploring both the users’desire to engage with existing personal connections from their physical
environment, as well as users looking to build more social contacts through their solely on-line
communities in which they have not met face-to-face. Additionally, as the main study only
examined co-creation activities that took place on a single Platform, it would be helpful to see if
similar results hold across multiple Platforms. Future studies could make greater comparisons by
asking respondents to talk about co-creation experiences with a brand that occurred across two
or more social media Platforms. As respondents in this research were asked to recall a speciﬁc
interaction with a brand via social media over the past six months, it is possible that respondents
could have exhibited recency bias by reporting only their most recent interaction. It is therefore
recommended that future studies speciﬁcally ask respondents when the interaction took place
and use this measure as a control variable in analyses.
This study did not speciﬁcally examine the various types of brand-related content the sample
consumed/produced on social media. Therefore, this study does not attempt to delve into the many
and varied forms of information, entertainment or social interaction that social media Platforms
have to offer and how that may change user interaction. For example, lack of trust and lack of
shared values have been shown to be barriers to online co-creation (Chepurna and Rialp Criado,
2018). Further, research has noted a tendency for individuals to seek out sources of news that agree
with their preconceived notions (Purnawirawan et al., 2015). However, from a U&G perspective,
these differing individuals would still be seeking information. Additionally, we did not explore the
levels of gratiﬁcations stemming from usage of the Platforms and how that might relate to the
effectiveness of promotional messages. This is something that could be explored in future studies.
This suggests vast and rich opportunities for future research to explore differences in uses and
gratiﬁcations of different Platforms based on differences in the content individuals seek.
Asano, E. (2017), “How much time do people spend on social media?”,availableat:www.
(accessed 3 March 2019).
Ashley, C. and Tuten, T. (2015), “Creative strategies in social media marketing: an exploratory study of
branded social content and consumer engagement”,Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1,
Balaji, M.S. and Roy, S.K. (2017), “Value co-creation with internet of things technology in the retail
industry”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 7-31.
Carlson, J., Rahman, M., Voola, R. and De Vries, N. (2018), “Customer engagement behaviours in social media:
capturing innovation opportunities”,Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 83-94.
Chang, C. (2009), “Being hooked”by editorial content: the implications for processing narrative
advertising”,Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Chen, Q. and Wells, W.D. (1999), “Attitude toward the site”,Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39
No. 5, pp. 27-38.
Chepurna, M. and Rialp Criado, J. (2018), “Identiﬁcation of barriers to co-create on-line: the perspectives of
customers and companies”,Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 452-471.
Cooper, P. (2019), “28 Twitter statistics all marketers need to know in 2019”, available at: https://blog.
hootsuite.com/twitter-statistics/ (accessed 3 March 2019).
Cyca, M. (2018), “Stop posting the same message on social media and do this instead”, available at:
https://blog.hootsuite.com/cross-promote-social-media/ (accessed 3 March 2019).
Dessart, L. (2017), “Social media engagement: a model of antecedents and relational outcomes”,Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 375-399.
Dimmick, J., Chen, Y. and Li, Z. (2004), “Competition between the internet and traditional news media: the
gratiﬁcation-opportunities niche dimension”,The Journal of Media Economics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Dineva, D.P., Breitsohl, J.C. and Garrod, B. (2017), “Corporate conﬂict management on social media
brand fan pages”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 33 Nos 9/10, pp. 679-698.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J. and Goodman, S. (2016), “Social media engagement behaviour: a uses and
gratiﬁcations perspective”,Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 261-277.
Ducoffe, R.H. (1996), “Advertising value and advertising on the web”,Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-21.
Economist (2015), “A brand new game”, available at: www.economist.com/news/business/
game (accessed 11 March 2016)
Eighmey, J. (1997), “Proﬁling user responses to commercial web sites”,Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 59-67.
Elder, J. (2014), “Social media fail to live up to early marketing hype”, available at: http://online.wsj.
com/articles/companies-alter-social-media-strategies-1403499658 (accessed 1 July 2014).
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp.39-50.
Frier, S. (2018), “Instagram looks like facebook’s best hope”, available at: www.bloomberg.com/news/
features/2018-04-10/instagram-looks-like-facebook-s-best-hope (accessed 18 October 2018).
Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y. and Babin, B.J. (2016), “Common methods variance
detection in business research”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3192-3198.
Gremler, D.D. (2004), “The critical incident technique in service research”,Journal of Service Research,Vol.7
No. 1, pp. 65-89.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V.L. (2011), “We’re all connected: the power of the social media
ecosystem”,Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 265-273.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2010), “Toward a theory of Brand co-creation with implications for brand
governance”,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 590-604.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”,Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Hewett, K., Rand, W., Rust, R.T. and van Heerde, H.J. (2016), “Brand buzz in the echoverse”,Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 1-24.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”,Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2,
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for ﬁt indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”,Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huang, R., Ha, S. and Kim, S.H. (2018), “Narrative persuasion in social media: an empirical study of luxury
brand advertising”,Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 274-292.
Jahn, B. and Kunz, W. (2012), “How to transform consumers into fans of your brand”,Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 344-361.
Kao, T.Y., Yang, M.H., Wu, J.T.B. and Cheng, Y.Y. (2016), “Co-creating value with consumers through
social media”,Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141-151.
Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users ofthe world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social
media”,Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Katz, E. (1959), “Mass communications research and the study of popular culture: an editorial note on a
possible future for this journal”,Studies in Public Communication, Vol. 2, pp. 1-6.
Kemp, S. (2019), “Digital trends 2019: every single stat you need to know about the internet”, available
need-to-know-about-the-internet/ (accessed 18 October 2018).
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P. and Silvestre, B.S. (2011), “Social media? Get serious!
understanding the functional building blocks of social media”,Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3,
Ko, H., Cho, C.H. and Roberts, M.S. (2005), “Internet uses and gratiﬁcations: a structural equation model
of interactive advertising”,Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 57-70.
Kolowich, L. (2019), “The ultimate list of instagram stats 2019”, available at: https://blog.hubspot.com/
marketing/instagram-stats (accessed 3 March 2019).
Korgaonkar, P.K. and Wolin, L.D. (1999), “A multivariate analysis of web usage”,Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 53-68.
Lufkens, M. (2018), “Twiplomacy study 2018”, available at: https://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-
study-2018/ (accessed 3 March 2019).
Luo, X. (2002), “Uses and gratiﬁcations theory and e-consumer behaviors: a structural equation
modeling study”,Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 34-41.
McAlister, L., Srinivasan, R. and Kim, M. (2007), “Advertising, research and development, and
systematic risk of the ﬁrm”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 35-48.
Malthouse, E., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E. and Zhang, M. (2013), “Managing customer
relationships in the social media era: introducing the social CRM house”,Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 270-280.
Matsa, K. and Shearer, E. (2018), “News use across social media platforms 2018”,availableat:www.
journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2018/ (accessed 3 March 2019).
Mawhinney, J. (2018), “45 Visual content marketing statistics you should know in 2018”, available at:
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/visual-content-marketing-strategy (accessed 28 October 2018).
Meyer, T., Barnes, D.C. and Friend, S.B. (2017), “The role of delight in driving repurchase intentions”,
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 61-71.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A.M. (2000), “Predictors of internet use”,Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-196.
Perrin, A. (2015), Social Media Usage: 2005-2015, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC.
Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A.M., Ognibeni, B. and Pauwels, K. (2013), “Social media metrics—a
framework and guidelines for managing social media”,Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 281-298.
Pew Research (2018), “Social media fact sheet”, available at: www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-
media/ (accessed 8 October 2018).
Phua, J., Jin, S.V. and Kim, J.J. (2017), “Uses and gratiﬁcations of social networking sites for bridging
and bonding social capital: a comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 72, pp. 115-122.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2018), “Global entertainment and media outlook 2018–2022”, available at:
www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/tmt/media/outlook.html (accessed 16 September 2018).
Purnawirawan, N., Eisend, M., De Pelsmacker, P. and Dens, N. (2015), “A meta-analytic investigation of
the role of valence inonline reviews”,Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 17-27.
Ruggiero, T.E. (2000), “Uses and gratiﬁcations theory in the 21st century”,Mass Communication and
Society, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-37.
Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2004), “Return on marketing: using customer equity to
focus marketing strategy”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 109-127.
Severin, W.J. and Tankard, J.W. (1997), Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the
Mass Media, 4th ed., Longman, New York, NY.
Simonin, B.L. and Ruth, J.A. (1998), “Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the
spillover effects of Brand alliances on consumer Brand attitudes”,Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Singh, S. and Sonnenburg, S. (2012), “Brand performances in social media”,Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 189-197.
Smith, A. and Anderson, M. (2018), “Social media use in 2018”, available at: www.pewinternet.org/2018/
03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ (accessed 14 October 2018).
Soboleva, A., Burton, S., Mallik, G., Khan, A. (2017), “Retweet for a chance to...’: an analysis of what
triggers consumers to engage in seeded eWOM on twitter”,Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 33 Nos 13/14, pp. 1120-1148.
Stelzner, M. (2018), Social media marketing industry report, available at: www.socialmediaexaminer.
com/social-media-marketing-industry-report-2018/ (accessed 3 March 2019).
Sterling, G. (2017), “Mobile now accounts for nearly 70% of digital media time”, available at: https://
(accessed 19 October 2018)
Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R. and Leavitt, C. (1978), “The persuasive effect of source credibility: tests of
cognitive response”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 252-260.
Triantaﬁllidou, A. and Siomkos, G. (2018), “The impact of Facebook experience on consumers’
behavioral Brand engagement”,Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2,
Vernette, E. and Hamdi-Kidar, L. (2013), “Co-creation with consumers: who has the competence and
wants to cooperate”,International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 539-561.
Yang, S., Lin, S., Carlson, J.R. and Ross, W.T. (2016), “Brand engagement on social media: will ﬁrms’
social media efforts inﬂuence searching engine advertising effectiveness?”,Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 32 Nos5/6, pp. 526-557.
Zhu, Y. and Chen, H. (2015), “Social media and human need satisfaction: implications for social media
marketing”,Business Horizons, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 335-345.
Mark J. Pelletier can be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
Or contact us for further details: email@example.com