copyright 2017©, mansour t. alansari
Post on 24-Feb-2022
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BEYOND 140 CHARACTERS: MARKETING EFFECTIVENESS OF HOTEL
TWITTER ACCOUNTS IN SAUDI ARABIA
by
MANSOUR T. ALANSARI, B.S., MBA
A DISSERTATION
IN
HOSPITALITY ADMINISTRATION
Submitted to Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Dr. Natalia Velikova
Chairperson of the Committee
Dr. Shane Blum
Dr. Tim Dodd
Dr. Tun-Min Jai
Accepted
Mark Sheridan
Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2017
Copyright 2017©, Mansour T. Alansari
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
ii
ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my creator, Almighty God, for giving me
a still-functioning body and mind so that I may live life and learn. Without His grace, this
doctoral dissertation could not have become a reality.
I am truly grateful to my dissertation committee chairperson, Dr. Natalia
Velikova, who tolerantly and insightfully guided and supported me these past four years
as I sought the right way to conduct this research. Professor Natalia was the most
important pillar and the cornerstone of this project. She was the one who believed in me
and in my topic. Her suggestions helped me to expand my horizons. Without her
inspiration and encouragement, I would not have reached this level of academic
advancement and would not have completed this study. Thank you very much for all of
the valuable time you spent challenging me to effectively complete this work.
My sincere appreciation and endless thanks are also extended to the other
members of my dissertation committee. I offer genuine thanks to Dr. Shane Blum, whose
editorial expertise and valuable recommendations enhanced the overall quality of this
dissertation. As the chairperson of the department, he is always willing to help doctoral
students; his kindness in helping Saudi students is especially appreciated. I also offer
sincere thanks to Dr. Tim Dodd for providing numerous helpful suggestions, insightful
feedback, great advice, and support. I also want to take this opportunity to sincerely
thank Dr. Catherine Jai for all of the help and support she offered me during the statistical
analysis stage and for all of her generous feedback and advice.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
iii
I would like to thank all of my friends and all of the faculty and staff of Texas
Tech University’s Department of Hospitality and Retailing. I offer special thanks to my
first mentor, Dr. Ben Goh; to Drs. Lynn Huffman, Jessica Yuan, Barry McCool, and
Betty Stout; and to all of the other exceptional professors who helped me grow my
knowledge and taught me the importance of a good education. I would like to express my
appreciation to all of my dedicated friends for your support throughout the years I worked
on my doctoral degree.
I have enormous appreciation for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which provided
help and financial support to me during my PhD studies. I offer thanks for the great and
unique opportunities that the most beloved country of Saudi Arabia offers to all Saudi
students. I also send my sincere thanks to the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission (SACM)
and to the Saudi Students Association of the United States. These organizations helped
me tremendously by distributing the link to my online survey to participants.
I am most appreciative of my lovely parents, Talal Alansari and Amal Badawi,
because of their unconditional love and support, words of wisdom, and absolute
confidence in me. I also offer a heartfelt thanks to my brother and sisters for always
standing by my side, no matter where I was. I thank all of my uncles and aunts for their
friendly advice and inspiration.
Finally, but most importantly, I give my deepest thanks to my precious wife, the
love of my life, my best friend, and the mother of my children – Dania Alansari. Her
support, encouragement, quiet patience, and unwavering love were undeniably the
bedrock upon which the last twelve years of my life were built. I offer a wholehearted
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
iv
thanks to my children – Taleen, Abdulkarim, Talal, and Diyala – who provided necessary
breaks from my studies and were my motivation to expediently finish my degree. Love!
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ...................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.4 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................................................ 9
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Theoretical Perspective ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Attitude-toward-the-ad (Aad) model ........................................................................................ 9 2.1.2 Attitudes-toward-the-website (Aws) model ............................................................................ 12 2.1.3 Social Media Marketing Effectiveness Model ...................................................................... 13
2.2 Twitter Marketing Effectiveness Components Model........................................................................ 19 2.2.1 Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) ..................................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Intentions to Book Hotels ...................................................................................................... 20 2.2.3 Photo Presentations on Hotel Social Media .......................................................................... 21 2.2.4 Hyperlink Presentations on Hotel Social Media.................................................................... 23 2.2.5 Product/Service Presentations on Hotel Social Media .......................................................... 24 2.2.6 Consumer Engagement on Hotel Social Media ..................................................................... 25
2.3 Hypothesized Model .......................................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Relevant Consumer Characteristics .................................................................................................. 28
2.4.1 Attitudes toward Social Media .............................................................................................. 29 2.4.2 Consumer Behavior toward Social Media ............................................................................. 33 2.4.3 Consumer Involvement with Social Media ........................................................................... 34
CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................................................ 36
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 36 3.1 Research Design ................................................................................................................................ 36 3.2 Pre-test .............................................................................................................................................. 36
3.2.1 Sampling and Data Collection Procedure for the Pre-test ..................................................... 37 3.2.2 Pre-Test Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 37 3.2.3 Results of the Pre-test ............................................................................................................ 39
3.3 Main Study......................................................................................................................................... 40 3.3.1 Sampling and Data Collection ............................................................................................... 41 3.3.2 Experiment Design ................................................................................................................ 42 3.3.3 Measures ................................................................................................................................ 43
3.4 Pilot Study ......................................................................................................................................... 44 3.5 Data Analysis Procedure .................................................................................................................. 45
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
vi
CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................................................ 49
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 49 4.1 Data Screening .................................................................................................................................. 49 4.2 Characteristics of Respondents ......................................................................................................... 50 4.3 Respondents’ Behavior toward Using Twitter .................................................................................. 51 4.4 Characteristics of Social Media ........................................................................................................ 52
4.4.1 Consumer Behavior toward Social Media ............................................................................. 52 4.4.2 Consumer Attitudes toward Social Media ............................................................................. 57 4.4.3 Consumer Involvement with Social Media ........................................................................... 59
4.5 Measurement Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................... 60 4.6 Preliminary Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 63 4.7 Measurement Model .......................................................................................................................... 67 4.8 Structural Model ............................................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER V .............................................................................................................................................. 73
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................................... 73 5.1 Hypotheses Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 73 5.2 Theoretical Framework Support ....................................................................................................... 81 5.3 Relevant Consumer Characteristics Discussion ............................................................................... 84 5.4 Conclusion, Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies ........................................................... 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 89
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 104
Appendix A: Diagram of the Research Design........................................................................... 104
Appendix B: Content Analysis - Pre-test .................................................................................... 105
Appendix C: Human Research Protection Program Approval Letter ......................................... 108
Appendix D: Simulated Twitter Account ................................................................................... 109
Appendix E: Online Survey ........................................................................................................ 118
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
vii
ABSTRACT
Over the past decade, the rapid advancement of social media (SM) and concurrent
economic conditions created a remarkable proliferation of SM users. SM not only
revolutionized individuals’ lifestyles but also transformed how businesses communicate
and interact with their consumers. Twitter is one of the most popular SM platforms.
Twitter was purposely selected for this study because it is one of the fastest growing SM
platforms (The Statistics Portal, 2015). Moreover, marketers consider Twitter the
second-most-commonly used SM platform, after Facebook (Stelzner, 2014). While the
effects of Facebook on various aspects of business have been studied extensively in the
academic and trade literature, Twitter gets significantly less attention from the academy
and the hospitality industry.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of marketing and advertising
via Twitter on hotels’ marketing effectiveness, which, in turn, may lead to enhanced hotel
performance. The study focused on the market of Saudi Arabia. Specifically, this study
classified by format (e.g. video, photo, and text) and by content (e.g. brand, product, and
engagement) the tweets posted by Saudi hotels. The study used the work of Leung (2012)
as an investigative framework to examine the marketing effectiveness of hotel Twitter
accounts in Saudi Arabia.
The study employed content analysis as a pre-test and a quantitative research design
in the formation of an online survey with an embedded experiment as the main study.
Content analysis was applied in exploring the format and the content of hotels’ tweets to
identify the most popular methods used by Saudi hotels to deliver Twitter messages.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
viii
Quantitative data were collected via an online survey that investigated Saudi consumers’
perspectives toward effective tweets using a simulated hotel Twitter account.
The findings suggest that consumers’ attitudes toward hotels’ tweets have positive
effects on their attitudes toward the Twitter accounts, which, in turn, positively affect
their attitudes toward the hotels’ brands and, ultimately, increase positive electronic word
of mouth and consumers’ intent to book. Regarding the tweets’ format and content,
however, the results were contrary to predictions. This study found that when compared
to a plain-text tweet, adding a photo in a tweet did not have a significant effect on
consumers’ attitudes toward that tweet. Additionally, when compared to a tweet that
included brand information, adding information about products/services in a tweet did not
have a significant effect on consumers’ attitudes toward that tweet. Adding a hyperlink
and providing space for customer engagement negatively affected attitudes toward hotels’
tweets.
Overall, it can be concluded that hoteliers need to find ways to use SM to enhance
their guests’ perceptions of their brands. One of the most effective strategies to meet and
exceed guests’ expectations is to provide high-quality customer service and advanced
interactive technology. This study shows that when consumers have positive attitudes
toward hotels’ tweets and Twitter accounts, it ultimately translates into positive attitudes
toward their brands, intentions to book rooms, and the spread of positive electronic word
of mouth.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
ix
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
SM Social Media
CEO Chief Executive Officer
WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Bahrain,
Kuwait, Sultanate of Oman, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates.
eWOM Electronic Word-of-Mouth
IRB Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board
ATT Attitude-toward-the-tweet
ATHTA Attitude-toward-hotel-Twitter-account
ATHB Attitude-toward-the-hotel-brand
IHB Intention-of-hotel-booking
IEWOM intention-of-electronic-word-of-mouth
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, an IBM software
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
SEM Structural Equation Model
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
CFI Comparative Fit Index
SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
NINFI Non-Normed Fit Index
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 The Ten Most Popular Websites in 2004 and 2017 ........................................................... 3 Table 2 Categorization of Tweet Content ..................................................................................... 38 Table 3 Tweet Formats Most Frequently Used by Saudi Hotel Tweets ....................................... 39 Table 4 Tweet Content Most Frequently Used by Saudi Hotels .................................................. 40 Table 5 Variables of the Main Study ............................................................................................ 43 Table 6 Frequencies and Percentage of Screening ....................................................................... 50 Table 7 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample .................................................................... 50 Table 8 Respondents' Behavior toward Twitter Usage ................................................................. 51 Table 9 Social Media Usage Behavior.......................................................................................... 54 Table 10 Frequency of Social Media Usage ................................................................................. 56 Table 11 Attitudes toward Social Media ...................................................................................... 58 Table 12 Attitudes toward Social Media Advertisements ............................................................ 59 Table 13 Involvement with Social Media ..................................................................................... 60 Table 14 Scale Items and Factor Analysis Results for Model Constructs .................................... 62 Table 15 Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Indicators. ............................... 64 Table 16 Means, Standard Deviations, and Construct Inter-Correlations .................................... 65 Table 17 Means, Standard Deviations and Inter-correlations among Indicators .......................... 66 Table 18 Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates for Measurement Model........................... 69 Table 19 Unstandardized Coefficients, Estimated Standard Errors, and Standardized
Coefficients of Direct Effects ............................................................................................... 72
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The mediating effect of advertising content on cognitive variables ............................. 11 Figure 2. Model of marketing effectiveness of hotel Facebook messages. .................................. 14 Figure 3. Proposed conceptualized model of Twitter marketing effectiveness. ........................... 18 Figure 4. A 3 x 3 design (tweet format and tweet content) of a simulated hotel Twitter
account .................................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 5. Variables coding for data analysis. ............................................................................... 48 Figure 6. Four-factor measurement model of the present study. .................................................. 68 Figure 7. Structural model and hypotheses testing results. .......................................................... 72
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The dramatic growth of the Internet has been driven by the emergence of two
important phenomena: social media platforms and online search engines (Xiang &
Gretzel, 2010). In the business context, Social Media (SM) is the new communication
channel between service suppliers and customers because it allows them to interact
directly with each other. SM is now one of the most successful advertising and marketing
tools. It is also known as consumer-generated media and as electronic word of mouth
(eWOM). In the business context, this technology allows users to create and exchange
content that informs other users about goods, services, and businesses and provides other
information (Blackshaw & Nazzaro, 2004; Elefant, 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Flickr, TripAdvisor, Yelp, Instagram,
Foursquare, and Delicious are all examples of SM, and the list of emerging SM platforms
is still growing fast. Consumer-generated media is unique because it offers customers the
ability to contribute their opinions and feedback, share their experiences, and rate the
products and services provided to them.
The rapid advance of the Internet and concurrent economic conditions have
caused a great proliferation of SM users around the world and in developing countries
especially (Violino, 2011). The CEO of Facebook, which started in 2004, recently made
an announcement that “[they] just passed an important milestone. For the first time ever,
one billion people used Facebook in a single day. On Monday [August 24, 2015], [one in
seven] people on Earth used Facebook to connect with their friends and family”
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
2
(Zuckerberg, 2015). Approximately 82.4% of Facebook’s daily active users are outside of
North America (Facebook, 2015).
Twitter was officially launched in 2006. Currently, Twitter has more than 250
million monthly active users, and 80% of them log into their Twitter accounts via mobile
devices. Almost 77% of Twitter users are outside of the United States (Twitter, 2015).
Erbar (2014) and Firstpost (2013) reported that the most active Twitter users in the world
(relative to the total number of Internet users) are Saudi Arabians. In the fourth quarter
of 2014, Twitter was one of the top ten most popular SM platforms in Saudi Arabia, with
a 19% penetration rate (The Statistics Portal, 2015). The Economist (2014) stated that
most SM users in Saudi Arabia are between 26 and 34 years old. Given that Saudi Arabia
has the world’s highest penetration rate of Twitter users (GMI, 2016; The Statistics
Portal, 2015), the country represents an enormous market in which to examine hotels’
marketing strategies in their Twitter posts, which was the focus of this study.
SM channels account for the most visited websites (Pratt, 2014) and the top share
(about 72%) of total Internet usage (Bullas, 2014; Nielsen, 2013). Reflecting the
evolution of SM, most websites have transformed from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 (Kambil,
2008). Table 1 compares the ten most popular websites in 2004 and 2015. This
comparison reveals that the Internet has shifted away from one-way (“unidirectional”)
communication, i.e. Web 1.0 (e.g. About, Ask Jeeves, and AOL), to two-way
(“multidirectional”) communication or interaction, i.e. Web 2.0 or SM (e.g. YouTube,
Facebook, Wikipedia, and Twitter). In addition to SM channels, online search engines
such as Google, Yahoo!, and Bing have integrated some functions that used to be
exclusive to SM platforms, including reviewing services and products, sharing photos
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
3
and videos, hosting chats, and other interactive functions. This type of media is gaining
attention as one of the most important technological and marketing tools.
Table 1 The Ten Most Popular Websites in 2004 and 2017
Rank 2004 2017
1 Yahoo! Facebook
2 MSN (Microsoft) YouTube
3 AOL Twitter
4 Google LinkedIn
5 eBay Pinterest
6 Ask Jeeves Google Plus +
7 Terra Lycos Tumblr
8 About Instagram
9 Amazon Reddit
10 Monster VK
Note. Adapted from Quinby (2010); ebizMBA (2017)
Several studies have shown that people of different demographics use SM to
communicate with each other (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015;
Guimarães, 2015; Morejon, 2011; PewResearchCenter, 2014). Pew Research Center
(2014) reported that the number of young adult users of SM sites jumped from 9% in
2005 to 90% in 2013. Considering the explosive impact of SM on Internet users and the
way they interact with each other and with businesses, it is important to understand the
opportunity that SM offers the businesses world. Specifically, this study examined the
use of SM by the hotel industry.
The hotel industry is one of the biggest and fastest-growing industries in the
world and plays a significant role in fostering the growth of the global economy. The
number of hotels in Saudi Arabia is dramatically increasing due to the rise of business
and trade and due to religious, heritage, and other types of tourism. Religious tourism is
a major source of revenue for the country. Saudi Arabia has the two holy mosques of
Makkah and Madinah within its borders. Makkah offers the most hotel lodging in the
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
4
Kingdom: 61,319 hotel rooms. Madinah offers 7,890 hotel rooms, while Al Khobar offers
12,186 rooms, Jeddah offers 11,500 rooms, and Riyadh offers 10,514 rooms (The Hotel
Summit in Saudi Arabia, 2013). According to the World Travel and Tourism Council
(2015), the number of foreign tourists to Saudi Arabia is increasing drastically. It is
expected that the county will attract more than 22 million international tourists in 2025.
Riyadh and Jeddah are two major cities in Saudi Arabia. Riyadh is the capital city and
hosts most of the mega-events, and Jeddah is a commercial city that has a very busy
seaport and an airport. Due to their significant amounts of business tourists, these two
cities are more profitable than the other leading Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) cities
(The Hotel Summit in Saudi Arabia, 2013). Therefore, the tourism and business
environment in Saudi Arabia demands that hotels be designed and prepared to serve a
large number of visitors every year.
1.2 Problem Statement
SM allows hotels to communicate with their guests in real time. Several studies
have suggested that SM has not only replaced traditional forms of advertising and one-
way marketing but has also improved consumer engagement, brand awareness, and
customer service (Aluri, Slevitch, & Larzelere, 2015; Barreda, Bilgihan, Nusair &
Okumus, 2015; Ngai, Tao, & Moon, 2015).
One of the most innovative marketing and advertising instruments embraced by
hotels in Saudi Arabia is the involvement of consumers via SM. Increasing numbers of
hotel managers in Saudi Arabia use various marketing and promotion tools to entice
customers to their lodges. For instance, hotels such as Hilton and Marriott and many local
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
5
hotels are heeding advice to increase and improve their SM presences and practices in
Saudi Arabia, which would help grow their businesses and attract more hotel guests.
Despite the broad integration of SM by hotels in Saudi Arabia, however,
examination into the effectiveness of SM practices is still lacking. Measuring the
effectiveness of SM marketing by businesses is a significant challenge (Palmer &
Koenig-Lewis, 2009). In fact, Mickey (2011) reports that 61% of marketing executives
claim that one of the top obstacles to be measured by businesses is the effectiveness of
SM.
The academic approach is similar. While it is assumed that SM is a useful tool
for improving marketing and advertising efforts in the hospitality industry, only a handful
of academic studies have empirically supported this claim, and only a few have discussed
this notion from a quantitative point of view (Aluri et al., 2015; Kim, Lim, & Brymer
2015; Leung, 2012; Leung, Bai, & Stahura, 2015). Several studies have shown that the
theories and approaches of traditional marketing cannot be used with SM marketing (Gil-
Or, 2010; Tariq & Wahid, 2011). Theories, research, and studies into the effectiveness of
SM marketing by the hospitality industry are particularly scarce. This lack of research
and knowledge about the effectiveness of SM marketing creates a need for contributions
to theoretical and practical knowledge about SM marketing, which, in turn, will promote
understanding of consumers’ perceptions and attitudes toward SM marketing. SM is a
revolutionary tool that needs additional research into theoretical approaches and
managerial applications. Thus, the current study sheds light on theoretical models of SM
marketing and contributes to existing knowledge about marketing and social media.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
6
Furthermore, despite the growing adoption of SM in Saudi Arabia, to the
researcher’s knowledge, the marketing effectiveness of hotel SM sites in Saudi Arabia
has not been previously studied. Therefore, this exploratory study examined Twitter
usage in the hotel industry in Saudi Arabia from both guest and SM content perspectives.
This study can help hotels in Saudi Arabia improve their SM marketing practices.
Additionally, this research and its implications may increase the importance of SM as a
marketing tool for businesses, particularly the hotel industry.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence that Twitter marketing
and advertising efforts have in improving hotels’ marketing effectiveness, which, in turn,
may enhance hotel performance. This study focused on the market of Saudi Arabia.
Twitter was purposely selected because it is one of the most used and one of the
fastest growing SM platforms in Saudi Arabia (Erbar, 2014; Firstpost, 2013; The
Statistics Portal, 2015). Moreover, Stelzner (2014) stated that marketers generally
identify Twitter as the second-most-commonly used SM platform, after Facebook. While
the effects that Facebook has on various aspects of business have been studied
extensively in the academic and professional trade literature, Twitter gets significantly
less attention from the academy and from the hospitality industry. Measuring the
marketing effectiveness of Twitter will help answer the following important questions:
how marketing through Twitter can entice guests to join a hotel’s Twitter account, and
whether positive attitudes toward a hotel’s Twitter account result in guests’ intentions to
book that hotel and strengthen guests’ intentions to spread electronic word of mouth
(eWOM).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
7
On the theoretical level, this study used the attitudes-toward-the-advertisement
model for traditional media and its extensions, which incorporate websites and social
media as new advertising and marketing platforms. This study empirically tested the
relationships suggested by the previous models in the Twitter context and aimed to offer
a new step forward in theoretical knowledge about social media’s marketing
effectiveness.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This research has both theoretical and practical significance. First, this research
was one of the first studies to contribute to the existing literature on SM for hotel
marketing. The marketing effectiveness of the hotel-Twitter-account model proposed in
this study provides essential insight into marketing through social media in the hospitality
industry context. From the theoretical perspective, this study offers an important
conceptual model for understanding consumers’ hotel-booking behavior and intentions to
spread positive eWOM. In particular, this study tested the application of the traditional
attitudes-toward-the-advertisement theory to social media. Furthermore, this study
extended this theoretical approach to examining the advertisement itself by incorporating
various components of tweets (a new form of advertisement) into the model.
To the researcher’s knowledge, only one previous study developed a classification
strategy for SM messages: Leung (2012). Leung’s study was limited to investigating the
marketing effectiveness of one SM platform: Facebook. Different SM platforms have
different characteristics, however, and different marketing strategies are needed for each.
Twitter, for instance, provides businesses with diverse marketing tools and focuses more
on mobile marketing. Additionally, the rapid advancement of technologies and SM
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
8
platforms creates considerable room for further investigation and the replication of
previous studies. Leung did not study the influence of consumer characteristics, which
we believe can provide significant insights into attitudes toward SM hotel marketing.
Additionally, the sample that Leung considered was Facebook users in the United States,
who may have different characteristics than Twitter users in Saudi Arabia, who were
targeted in this study.
This study investigated the effectiveness of hotel Twitter marketing by examining
the content and the format of posted hotel tweets. Specifically, this study classified tweets
that Saudi hotels posted by tweet format (e.g. video, photo, and text) and by tweet content
(e.g. brand, product, and consumer engagement). This study examined the perceived
marketing effectiveness of Twitter posts based on these different tweet formats and
different tweet contents in terms of a variety of consumer measures. These consumer
measures included attitude-toward-hotel-twitter-account, attitude-toward-the-tweet,
attitude-toward-the-hotel-brand, the intention to book a hotel room, and the intention to
engage in electronic word of mouth. The practical significance of this study is that it
considered the use of Twitter by the hotel industry. As mentioned previously, the study
focused on Saudi Arabia, which gets little attention in the academic and business
literature. This study will help hotel managers in Saudi Arabia to understand how to use
Twitter to maximize their marketing effectiveness and to understand their consumers
better, which will help them build tailored marketing strategies that target hotel
customers more effectively. This study also offers a new conceptual model that is based
on a synthesis of previous research, adds to the understanding of social media
advertising, and can guide future research.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
9
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of the literature and an acknowledgment of the
prior marketing, advertising, hospitality, tourism, and technology research that
contributes to the subsequent analysis of hotel social media (SM) marketing
effectiveness. Consideration of past studies was undertaken to evaluate the empirical
support for the theoretical background of this research. Furthermore, relevant studies
regarding consumer characteristics such as attitudes toward SM, behavior toward SM,
and involvement with SM are investigated.
2.1 Theoretical Perspective
This section introduces the theoretical framework that helps to identify
characteristics and attributes that may impact consumers’ attitudes and behaviors, which
in turn, may influence their hotel-booking intentions and their eWOM. This study uses
the following fundamental theoretical models: Attitude-toward-the-ad (Aad) (Mitchell &
Olson, 1981), Attitude-toward-the-website (Aws) (Stevenson, Bruner II, and Kumar,
2000), and the Facebook Marketing Effectiveness Model (Leung, 2012). A combination
of these models guided the development of the conceptual model of the marketing
effectiveness of hotel Twitter accounts, which was the focus of this study.
2.1.1 Attitude-toward-the-ad (Aad) model
Mitchell and Olson (1981) were among the first scholars to introduce the Aad
concept. Their approach focused on the affective reactions of individuals toward specific
advertisements after ad exposure. This approach ignores strictly cognitive reactions – for
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
10
example, ad cognitions and brand cognitions (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Mitchell
& Olson, 1981; Shimp, 1981).
The Aad model suggests that when consumers are exposed to a possibly
persuasive advertisement, they develop attitudes toward the ad, such as brand attitudes
and purchase intentions, that then influence the advertisement’s effectiveness (Lutz,
Mackenzie, & Belch, 1983). The Aad model has been tested in various research contexts.
Over the time, several major hypotheses were generated to test the relationships between
Aad , attitudes toward brands, and purchase intent. This study focused on Mitchell’s and
Olson’s (1981) original approach to the mediating effects of advertising content on
cognitive variables.
Specifically, Mitchell and Olson (1981) suggested a direct, one-way causal flow
from Aad to attitude toward the brand (Ab). Mitchell and Olson (1981) used Fishbein’s
attitude theory to investigate whether advertising’s effects on brand attitudes have other
mediators besides product attribute beliefs. The researchers found that by itself, Aad can
accurately reflect consumers’ overall evaluation of an advertising stimulus. Thus, Aad
should be treated as a separate measure from Ab. Furthermore, the mediating effect of
Aad can be interpreted as capturing the conditioning effect of pairing an unknown brand
name (the unconditioned stimulus) with a highly valenced visual stimulus (the
conditioned stimulus). On this interpretation, the evaluation of the advertisement in
general (Aad) or of a prominent part of the advertisement – for example, a picture –
becomes associated with the brand name. The authors suggested that this direct influence
is independent of a message's effect on the formation of beliefs about a product’s
attributes. In other words, consumers’ brand attitudes are largely determined by the
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
11
effects of the advertisements themselves, rather than solely dependent upon consumers’
beliefs about product attributes.
In sum, Mitchell and Olson’s (1981) results indicate that individuals can develop
different perceptions of brands based only on visual information that provides no explicit
brand information. That is, consumers seem to be able to convert visual information into
beliefs about the attributes of an advertised brand (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The mediating effect of advertising content on cognitive variables
Source: Adapted from Mitchell and Olson (1981)
In the same vein, Mitchell and Olson (1979) and Shimp and Yokum (1980) tested
the path of the relationship between consumers’ attitudes toward an ad and their purchase
intentions and purchase behavior. Mitchell and Olson found that advertisements greatly
influenced consumers’ brand attitudes and purchase intentions. Likewise, Shimp and
Yokum claimed that the frequency with which consumers purchased an advertised
brand’s products increased with their favorable evaluations of the advertisement.
With reference to the current study, to better understand the marketing
effectiveness of Twitter, it is important to base studies on the theoretical approach of
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
12
consumer attitudes toward ads. In fact, Mitchell and Olson themselves (1981)
recommended using this approach to research advertising effects. They suggested that
considering Aad a separate construct can provide diagnostic information about an
advertisement's attitudinal impact on consumers. In the framework of the current study,
Aad is substituted for attitudes toward the tweet. In the social media context, a company’s
Twitter account is an advertising medium and a tweet is a modern-day advertisement.
2.1.2 Attitudes-toward-the-website (Aws) model
Following the same logic, the development of the World Wide Web introduced a
new advertising medium, thereby creating the need to study the hierarchy-of-effects of
websites. The evaluation of website advertising, in turn, created the most useful parallel
for examining the effectiveness of SM advertising.
To test the effectiveness of website advertising, many academic studies have used
the attitude toward the website (Aws) model. Chen and Wells (1999) defined Aws as “web
surfers' predispositions to respond favorably or unfavorably to web content in natural
exposure situations” (p. 29). They found that interaction with a website and the features
of the site was positively correlated with attitude toward the website (Cho & Leckenby,
1999). Choi, Miracle, and Biocca (2001) claimed that attitude toward a website is also
influenced by the animated features of the site.
The Aws model was developed first by Stevenson et al. (2000) to show how
consumers react to ads embedded within websites. Later, the model was further examined
and modified by Bruner II and Kumar (2000) to measure how complexity of web
advertising affects the advertising hierarchy-of-effects. They suggested that Aws has an
essential influence on Aad, brand attitude, and purchase intention (Bruner II & Kumar,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
13
2000; Stevenson, Bruner II, & Kumar, 2000). Importantly, they also found that the more
positive a consumer’s Aws is, the more positive that consumer’s attitudes will be toward
the ad, the brand, and their purchase intentions.
These studies were followed by others that investigated the marketing
effectiveness of website media. The introduction of social media in the mid 2000’s
presented new opportunities for marketers, however, as well as new areas of research for
scholars. Leung (2012) was among the first researchers to study the marketing
effectiveness of Facebook in the hotel industry context.
2.1.3 Social Media Marketing Effectiveness Model
This study used the work of Leung (2012) as an investigative framework to
examine the marketing effectiveness of hotel Twitter accounts in Saudi Arabia. The
rationale for basing this dissertation on Leung’s research was as follows: first, Leung
developed a model to investigate the effectiveness of Facebook marketing in the hotel
industry, and this study also uses the context of social media effectiveness. The model
has proven to be an effective and useful measure for examining a variety of attitudes
toward Facebook that relate to perceptions of hotel brands and to individuals’ intentions,
including their intentions to engage in electronic word of mouth (eWOM) and their hotel-
booking intentions.
Leung (2012) proposed an original model to investigate consumers’ attitudes
toward hotels’ Facebook pages, their messages, and their brands, and to investigate how
different Facebook messages’ contents and formats influence consumers’ hotel-booking
intentions and intentions to spread positive eWOM (see Figure 2).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
14
Figure 2. Model of marketing effectiveness of hotel Facebook messages.
Source: Leung (2012).
Leung’s model holds that consumers’ hotel-booking intent and eWOM are guided
by three considerations: 1) message content (e.g. brand, product, and involvement); 2)
message format (e.g. word, picture, and web link); and 3) consumers’ attitudes toward the
Facebook page, messages, and brand. With regard to message content, Leung found that
Facebook messages featuring products and allowing consumer involvement generated
more positive attitudes toward hotels’ Facebook pages than did messages that focused on
a hotel’s brand. Leung also claimed that brand and involvement messages increase both
hotel-booking intentions and eWOM to a greater degree than do product messages. With
regard to message format, Leung found that picture messages positively influence
consumers’ attitudes toward sites more than do words and web link messages. Leung also
argued that words and web link messages have greater impacts on hotel guests’ booking
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
15
intentions than do picture messages. Leung also claimed that attitudes toward a hotel’s
Facebook page have a significant impact on attitudes toward that hotel’s message,
resulting in more positive attitudes toward that hotel’s brand. Hotel booking rates and
positive eWOM are boosted by positive consumer attitudes toward the Facebook page
and the message itself.
This study used Leung’s (2012) model of the marketing effectiveness of
Facebook to empirically validate its fit in a different SM context: Twitter. For the
purposes of this study, however, the original model was modified as follows. Leung
initially argued that Facebook’s message content and format have a direct effect on
consumers’ attitudes toward Facebook pages. Attitudes toward Facebook pages, in turn,
have a direct impact on consumers’ attitudes toward Facebook messages. When they
were tested empirically, however, the results of Leung’s study showed that there was no
effect of message format and content on consumers’ attitudes toward Facebook pages.
This is hardly surprising because the relationship path proposed in the original model
seems counterintuitive. On the contrary, it seems logical to expect that one’s reaction to
the format and content of a SM message will likely influence how one reacts to that
message before one reacts to the entire SM site. Numerous studies have shown that
advertising messages’ format/content (or message characteristics) first shape and directly
influence consumers’ attitudes toward an ad itself (e.g., Baker & Lutz 1988; Edell &
Staelin 1983; Jamalzadeh, Behravan, & Masoudi, 2012; Greene, 1992; Mitchell, 1986;
Raluca & Ioan, 2010; Shimp, 1981; Solomon, 2003; Zabadi, Shura, & Elsayed, 2012).
For instance, Solomon (2003) offered a list of factors that can directly affect attitudes
toward an ad, such as the evaluation of an ad’s executional characteristics (its message
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
16
format), attitudes toward an ad’s promoter, consumers’ moods and feelings induced by
the ad, and reactions generated by the ad. Other studies have claimed that attitudes
toward the brand are influenced directly by attitudes toward the ad (Biehal, Stephens, &
Curio, 1992; Greene, 1992; Homer, 1990; Lutz, 1985; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989;
Mitchell, 1986; Mitchell & Olson, 1977; Raluca & Ioan, 2010; Shimp, 1981; Solomon,
2003).
Thus, this study assumed that the content and the format of messages, rather than
the entire SM page or account, have a direct impact on consumers’ attitudes toward
messages. Therefore, the model proposed by Leung (2012) was modified to suit this
assumption.
By logical extension, then, it is assumed that consumers’ attitudes toward SM
messages positively or negatively influence their attitudes toward SM sites. In other
words, we propose that favorable/unfavorable attitudes toward a SM messages are
reflected in consumers’ favorable/unfavorable attitudes toward the SM platform on which
that message is posted. This assumption is based on previous findings in the literature.
For example, a study by Raney, Arpan, Pashupati, & Brill (2003) found that positive
attitudes toward entertaining advertisements on a website improve consumers’ attitudes
toward revisiting that site considerably more than do sites without entertaining
advertisements. Likewise, Paquette (2013) claims that “users who have more positive
attitudes toward advertising are more likely to join a brand or a retailer’s Facebook group
to receive promotional messages” (p. 10). Moreover, the impact of attitudes toward sites
or SM pages on attitudes toward brands has been investigated by several studies. For
instance, Jee and Lee (2002) argued that positive attitudes toward a site lead to positive
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
17
attitudes toward a brand, which, in turn, increase consumers’ purchasing intentions and/or
their revisiting of the site. Additionally, Leung et al. (2015) claims that attitudes toward
hotel brands are positively affected by attitudes toward their SM sites.
Furthermore, Leung’s (2012) conceptual model provides a useful foundation for
the investigation of the marketing effectiveness of a different type of SM platform –
Twitter – that has not yet been fully explored. Twitter is one of the most popular SM
platforms in the world and uses marketing, advertising approaches, and strategies that
differ from those of Facebook. Smith, Fischer, and Yongjian (2012) claimed that Twitter
provides more brand-central posts than does Facebook. This implies that the role of
brands on Twitter may be larger than the role of brands on Facebook. Moreover, previous
research has found that it is easier for businesses to get “followers” on Twitter than to get
“likes” on their Facebook pages (Kirtiş & Karahan, 2011; Jackson, 2015; Wolfe, 2016).
Thus, because of the very nature of its format, Twitter offers instant access to a larger
number of consumers. In addition, Twitter is more popular with and viewed more
favorably by young audiences than Facebook is because young consumers prefer to
receive information quickly and in small portions (Jackson, 2015). Additionally, Jackson
argued that Twitter is directed more toward audiences who live in cities than toward
audiences who live in rural areas. It is also suggested that Twitter is an ideal marketing
tool for SM marketers because people prefer to use Twitter as a primary source of new
content (Jackson, 2015; Williamson, 2016). Williamson also emphasized Twitter’s
advantages over Facebook: Twitter reaches people outside of individuals’ own circles of
connections; it has a better mobile user interface (UI); it offers better and real-time
engagement tools and capabilities; and it advertises accurately to a wide array of target
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
18
audiences. Thus, previous research suggests that there are essential differences between
Facebook and Twitter that ultimately translate into different marketing and advertising
strategies: they reach different audiences, they deliver different messages, and they
deliver messages at different speeds. Specifically, the conceptual model proposed by this
study can be a source of information on using Twitter as a SM platform for marketing
and advertising for scholars interested in hospitality marketing and the hotel industry.
Moreover, this study tested a new and unique market – Saudi Arabia – while most
previous studies investigated the market of the United States. Additionally, the
conceptual model of the current study focuses more on hotel tweets for marketing and
advertising and their impact on booking intent and eWOM than on hotel SM sites in
general. Figure 3 presents the conceptual framework for the marketing effectiveness of
hotel Twitter account in Saudi Arabia.
Figure 3. Proposed conceptualized model of Twitter marketing effectiveness.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
19
2.2 Twitter Marketing Effectiveness Components Model
2.2.1 Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)
The importance of understanding the intentions of electronic word of mouth
(eWOM) is an essential aspect of predicting the marketing effectiveness of SM. eWOM
is comprised of online reviews and feedback concerning consumers’ experiences with the
services and products they purchase (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004;
Leung, 2012; Leung et al., 2015; Stauss, 2000). Cheung, Lee, and Thadani's study (2009)
revealed that “[eWOM] communication has become a dominating channel that influences
buying decisions of consumers on the Web” (p. 501).
Additionally, several studies have found that eWOM significantly impacts
consumers’ behavior in online shopping and product selection via Internet channels
(Bickart & Schindler, 2001; Senecal & Nantel, 2004; Xia & Bechwati, 2008). SM has
also been found to help in developing positive eWOM, which can improve customers’
participation and interaction with firms (Kim & Hardin, 2010). Similarly, other
consumers’ recommendations of products and services are more important and interesting
to future customers than product and service information itself (Ridings and Gefen,
2004). Twitter followers’ purchasing intentions and product involvement can be affected
by eWOM spread by celebrities on Twitter, especially those with high numbers of
followers (Jin & Phua, 2014).
In the hospitality field, the use of eWOM supports the examination of hotel
guests’ reviews and comments as examples of customers’ perceptions of their
experiences (Lee, Law, & Murphy, 2011; O’Connor, 2010; Stringam & Gerdes, 2010).
Previous researchers have agreed that online comments and reviews of hotel services are
important to hotel ratings (Lee et al., 2011; O’Connor, 2010; Stringam & Gerdes, 2010).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
20
It can be further argued that eWOM generally illicits more credibility and trust than does
traditional media (Blackshaw & Nazarro, 2006). To this end, studies have found that
consumers believe that eWOM is a more reliable source of information than advertising
and marketing messages delivered by companies themelves because eWOM is perceived
to be more organic and, therefore, more authentic (Bickart & Schindler, 2002; Kempf &
Smith, 1998; Walsh, Mitchell, Jackson, & Beatty, 2009). Thus, it is assumed that eWOM
can help researchers to understand the marketing effectiveness of Twitter from the guest
perspective.
2.2.2 Intentions to Book Hotels
To understand consumers’ intentions to book hotels, it is important to understand
whether consumers’ attitudes toward brands can influence their purchasing decisions or
intentions. Purchase intentions are consumers’ actual willingness to act toward an object
or brand (i.e. to buy) and are developed as a result of their decision-making processes
(Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991; Wells, Valacich, & Hess, 2011). Purchase intentions
are one of the most important characteristics of the behaviors or attitudes related to
purchasing decisions (Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman, 1996). Similarly, other studies
have found that attitudes toward brands are one of the key dimensions that facilitate
purchasing intentions by linking current and future purchasing behaviors to consumers’
experiences, satisfaction, and knowledge (Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 2008). Early studies
suggested that when consumers become more aware of and knowledgeable about a brand
through the information they receive via advertising or word of mouth, they decide to
purchase that brand based on their favorable feelings toward that brand (Lavidge &
Steiner, 1961). Similar results were obtained by a more recent study related to SM
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
21
activities, in which it was found that consumers’ purchasing intentions can be influenced
by their perceptions of a brand, which are developed via SM interactions with that
specific brand (Hutter, Hautz, Dennhardt, & Füller, 2013).
With regard to the hospitality and tourism industries, several studies have reported
a strong relationship between purchase intentions and consumers’ behaviors or attitudes
(Ajzen & Driver, 1992; Buttle & Bok, 1996; Jeong, Oh, & Gregoire, 2003; Law & Hsu;
2005; Leung, 2012; Leung et al., 2015). For instance, the quality of a hotel website
influences guests’ purchasing intentions (Jeong et al., 2003; Law & Hsu, 2005). SM sites
are not the only thing that impact hotel guests’ purchasing intentions; booking intentions
are also influenced by attitudes toward hotel brands (Leung et al., 2015). Thus, it is
essential to apply consumers’ intentions to book to the study of hotel Twitter accounts’
marketing effectiveness.
This study focused on the effectiveness of hotel tweets’ marketing and advertising
in terms of their impact on eWOM and booking intentions. Thus, the followings sections
provide an overview of the literature on various aspects of tweets. They consider their
format and content, including photos, hyperlinks, product/services presentations, and
consumer engagement.
2.2.3 Photo Presentations on Hotel Social Media
Twitter, the microblogging social network, provides users various types of
formatting styles. Tweet formats include plain-text, emoji, photos, videos, GIFs, polls,
and quote tweets. Recently, Twitter rolled out new features that allow users to add
photos, videos, GIFs, polls, and quote tweets without having them count toward the 140-
character limit (Wong, 2016). Several studies have claimed that text alone is insufficient
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
22
to communicate information. These studies have emphasized the meaning and
importance of photos (Cho, Phillips, Hageman, & Patten, 2009; Davison, 2007; Graves,
Flesher, & Jordan, 1996; MacKenzie, 1986). Photos and other visual elements are
claimed to be more influential means of interaction than text becuase they more
effectively draw peoples’ attention and influence their perceptions of a given message’s
quality and effectiveness (Cho et al., 2009; Davison, 2007; Graves et al., 1996;
MacKenzie, 1986). Tweets with photos can convey emotions and beauty more accurately
than can text alone becuase their visual elements can be used to enrich and contribute to
the visual experience of the text’s content (Xi, 2012). The impact of a picture is said to be
greater than the impact of plain-text because a picture’s visual quality grabs attention and
engages potential customers (Zhang, Wang, & Tangshan, 2013). A study investigating
the use of Twitter in the Spanish hotel industry claims that “photos, as a particular media
type, generate more retweets … and [favorites] … than other media types do” (Bonsón,
Bednárová, & Wei, 2016, p. 77). Additionally, many previous studies have found that
including photos in tweets results in boosted numbers of retweets (Alboqami et al., 2015;
Boyd, Golder, & Lotan, 2010; Suh, Hong, Pirolli, & Chi, 2010; Zarrella, 2009). Photo
presentations were found to be a key predictor of consumers’ attitudes toward websites,
and behavioral intentions were found to be strongly influenced by these attitudes (Jeong
& Choi, 2005). Using photos on a SM site might motivate Twitter users and increase
their intentions to book hotels because aesthetic ambiance has been found to be one of
travelers’ top priorities in planning trips (Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998). Furthermore,
beautiful and pleasant information is very important in online interactions (Wang &
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
23
Fesenmaier, 2004). Thus, this study addressed photos as the visual tweet format in order
to understand their effect on attitudes toward hotels’ Twitter accounts.
2.2.4 Hyperlink Presentations on Hotel Social Media
Hyperlinks, also known as “web links” or “links,” are highlighted words or
images that connect directly to a specific page or object in another location or file (Zhang
et al., 2013). Because Twitter limits the length of a tweet to 140 characters, hyperlinks
can be used to deliver more details and more complex information than can fit within the
140 characters of a tweet. The use of hyperlinks on Twitter provides individuals an
advanced way to share and enrich their ideas, opinions, and stories, and it offers users an
opportunity to become more involved with the topic at hand when sharing or retweeting
(De Maeyer, 2013; Hsu & Park, 2011). Additionally, Twitter allows an individual to
share information on a particular topic in a single tweet via hyperlink (Holton, Baek,
Coddington, & Yaschur, 2014). Websites such as Bitly (https://bitly.com/), Tinyurl
(tinyurl.com), Google URL Shortener (goo.gl), and Ow via Hootsuite (ow.ly) are used to
simplify and compress long hyperlinks so that they can be embedded in a tweet of limited
size.
Several studies have found that adding hyperlinks to tweets can benefit customers.
Hyperlinks were included in almost 26.2% of millions of tweets collected for research
(Gao, Zhang, Li, & Hou, 2012), and the number of tweets with hyperlinks is rising
(Techcrunch, 2010). Hotels in Spain use hyperlinks, or website links, more than any other
type of media on their Twitter pages. This is believed to be caused by Twitter's limitation
of tweets to 140 characters (Bonsón et al., 2016). Tweets that include hyperlinks attract
more consumers than do those that do not have hyperlinks in them (Alboqami et al.,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
24
2015). A few studies have also claimed that including links in tweets is important for
retweeting purposes (Boyd et al., 2010; Suh et al., 2010; Zarrella, 2009). In fact, “tweets
that include links are 86% more likely to be retweeted” (Cooper, 2013, para. 24). A
Microsoft study found that hyperlinks can increase tweets’ credibility, which, in turn, can
make them more likely to be retweeted (Morris et al., 2012). Another study revealed that
Twitter users found beneficial or interesting information in 84% of tweets with
hyperlinks and that 67% of these hyperlinks referred users to news sources (Gao et al.,
2012, p. 2535). Therefore, it seemed hyperlinks were an important tweet format to
include in this study.
2.2.5 Product/Service Presentations on Hotel Social Media
Information about products and services offered by hotels is valued by consumers
(Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2006). Today, most corporations introduce their products/services
through SM to a vast community of customers by posting short messages, photos, and
hyperlinks about their new products/services and their existing products/services, by
posting tips on how to use their products/services, and via other activities, all of which
are impossible via traditional marketing and advertising means (Roberts & Kraynak,
2008; Weinberg, 2009). This is because marketing products and services via SM is
considered one of the most inexpensive and cost-effective ways of marketing and
advertising in today’s marketplace (Green, 2007; Paridon & Carraher, 2009; Park,
Rodgers, & Stemmle, 2011; Parsons, 2009). Additionally, SM employs a pull marketing
strategy that allows large numbers of consumers to easily access information about
products/services they are interested in (Akar, 2010; Sigala, Christou, & Gretzel, 2012).
Also, many customers prefer to go to SM sites to learn about products/services and to
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
25
gain information they are seeking because they realize that these SM platforms are more
powerful, reliable, and trustworthy than other sources of information provided by
marketers (Bernoff & Li, 2008; Canhoto & Clark, 2013; Chu & Kim, 2011; Park & Cho,
2012). In a survey of high-level managers of various large, global organizations, there
was a general agreement that customers are more influenced by products and services
advertised, designed, and promoted through SM sites (Sinclare & Vogus, 2011). The
presentation of attractive products and services through SM can benefit firms by
enhancing their selling environments, drawing their consumers’ attention, and increasing
their consumers’ engagement (Anderson, Swaminathan, & Mehta, 2013). Visual
presentations of otherwise intangible products and services are very influential in the
tourism and hospitality industry (Morgan, Pritchard, & Abbott, 2001). Messages about
products and services promote intentions to book and engender positive attitudes toward
hotels’ SM sites, especially when product messages are posted in text and hyperlink
formats (Leung, 2012). Valuable and useful product information shared by
knowledgeable people and consumers may help encourage other customers to purchase
and may spread eWOM behavior (Chu & Kim, 2011). For example, it is easier today than
ever before for guests to forward information presented in a hotel's Twitter account about
their favorite products and services; they need only click the “retweet” or “favorite”
button. This action may better illustrate their attitudes toward the hotel’s tweets.
2.2.6 Consumer Engagement on Hotel Social Media
Nowadays, due to the huge influence of various Internet sites and SM in
particular, businesses cannot fully control how their brands and their products/services
are communicated to customers. In this multidimensional communication network – and
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
26
especially in the hospitality industry – the engagement of both customers and businesses
becomes increasingly important. Therefore, engagement in SM communities has received
increased attention from both marketers and researchers in recent years. The concept of
consumer engagement has been acknowledged in a variety of fields, including hospitality
(Cabiddu, Lui, & Piccoli, 2013), community engagement in tourism (Hamilton &
Alexander, 2013), online reviews and engagement in hotels (Park & Allen, 2013),
customer engagement with tourism brands (So, King, & Sparks, 2014), customer
engagement behaviors and hotels’ responses (Wei, Miao, & Huang, 2013), and travelers’
engagement in consumer-generated media creation (Yoo & Gretzel, 2011). So et al.
(2014) discussed in great detail customer engagement with tourism brands and its
measurement. Some researchers believe that customer engagement is an interaction
among a variety of motivational aspects (Bijmolt et al., 2010; Marketing Science
Institute, 2010; van Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef, Reinartz, & Krafft, 2010). Others claim
that customer engagement is a multidimensional concept encompassing both behavioral
and psychological characteristics (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011; Hollebeek,
2009; Hollebeek, 2011; Patterson, Yu, & De Ruyter, 2006; Vivek, 2009). Customer
engagement can also be defined as a form of connection that clients make with other
clients, businesses, and particular brands (Smith & Wallace, 2010).
Several studies have found that engagement with consumers can boost
consumers’ attitudes and decisions to purchase. One of the best uses of SM in the travel
market is to involve consumers and interact with them throughout the entire buying
process to fully understand their needs and enhance the consumer-purchaser relationship
(Green, 2007). Guest and hotelier engagement on SM platforms can influence guests’
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
27
purchasing decisions (Levy, Duan, & Boo, 2013). Engagement can generate new ideas
that enrich consumer experiences and raise the competitive advantage of companies
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010). Customer engagement
adds value for firms in the tourism and hospitality industries by increasing customer
loyalty (So et al., 2014). Customer engagement is also a valuable and essential key to
improving advertising’s effectiveness and to managing retention and the interactions and
loyalty between customers and firms (Calder, Malthouse, & Schaedel, 2009; Hollebeek,
2011). Businesses in the hospitality industry should make it a practice to track and
promote customer engagement (Wei et al., 2013). The proliferation of SM platforms
allows consumers to play a substantial role by engaging with other consumers through
engagement behaviors that go beyond transactions (Verhoef et al., 2010).
Twitter provides consumers a space in which to engage and interact instantly with
businesses. In fact, some hospitality businesses have already effectively increased via
Twitter their two-way interaction and engagement with their guests. For instance,
Marriott Hotels, which has over 200,000 followers on its Twitter page, developed a social
media center called “M Live” to “listen” instantaneously to their guests (Golden &
Caruso-Cabrera, 2016). Previous research shows that one tweet from a hotel's twitter
account increased engagement by 3,000%, so the reach of SM platforms can be
significant (Schools, 2014).
2.3 Hypothesized Model
The model proposed by this study suggests that the four features described above
(photos, hyperlinks, products, and engagement) have direct effects on hotel guests’
attitudes toward tweets, which, in turn, have direct impacts on their attitudes toward
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
28
hotels’ Twitter accounts. Hotel consumers’ attitudes toward hotel Twitter accounts are
assumed to further influence attitudes toward hotel brands, which then influence both
their intentions to engage in eWOM and their intentions to book (see Figure 3).
Therefore, the study offered the following eight directional hypotheses:
H1. Adding a photo will positively affect attitudes toward hotel tweets.
H2. Adding a hyperlink will positively affect attitudes toward hotel tweets.
H3. Adding information about products/services will positively affect attitudes
toward hotel tweets.
H4. Providing space for consumer engagement will positively affect attitudes
toward hotel tweets.
H5. Positive attitudes toward hotel tweets will positively affect attitudes toward
hotel Twitter accounts.
H6. Positive attitudes toward hotel Twitter accounts will positively affect
attitudes toward hotel brands.
H7. Positive attitudes toward hotel brands will positively affect intentions to
engage in eWOM.
H8. Positive attitudes toward hotel brands will positively affect hotel booking
intentions.
2.4 Relevant Consumer Characteristics
The proposed model focuses on hotel Twitter accounts and how tweets influence
the behaviors and intentions of hotel guests. The model does not take into consideration
any consumer characteristics. Several hospitality and tourism studies, however, have
found that consumer characteristics such as SM involvement, attitude toward SM, and
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
29
behavior toward SM can increase the effectiveness of SM platforms in marketing and
advertising hotels (e.g. Bai et al., 2008; Berthon, Pitt, & Campbell, 2008; Boateng &
Okoe, 2015; Christodoulides, Jevons, & Bonhomme, 2012; Hutter et al., 2013; Leung,
2012; Leung et al., 2015; Nassar, 2012; Paris, Lee, & Seery, 2010). Thus, it stands to
reason that consumer characteristics related to SM use can provide significant insights
into the impact of Twitter on hotel marketing.
To understand the influence of SM marketing, it is important to consider the
perceived value it creates for consumers. The benefit or added value might differ based
on hotel guests’ knowledge and experience and on other factors related to SM. For
instance, consumers with greater SM experience and SM knowledge perceive the
marketing or advertising activities of hotel SM sites to be more valuable and beneficial
than do consumers with little experience (Leung et al., 2015). Therefore, the level of
effectiveness of SM sites might vary across consumers. Moreover, consumer SM
attitudes, behaviors, and involvement can be diverse and result in different intentions. In
this case, hotel guests’ experience and knowledge about a hotel's SM site becomes a
determinant of SM attitudes, behaviors, and involvement, which also provide a more
thorough understanding of SM marketing effectiveness. Thus, there is a need to discuss
some of these additional consumer characteristics because they could potentially
influence intentions to book and eWOM.
2.4.1 Attitudes toward Social Media
Attitude is defined as “a person’s enduring favorable or unfavorable evaluation,
emotional feeling, and action tendencies toward some object or idea” (Kotler & Keller,
2006, p. 194). Additionally, attitude is “a lasting, general evaluation of individuals,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
30
objects, advertisements or issues” (Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard, & Hogg, 2013, p.
292). Attitudes determine whether individuals like or dislike objects, advertisements,
ideas, or issues. Therefore, attitudes can influence consumers’ behavior toward products
or services (Kotler & Keller, 2006). Thus, attitudes of individuals toward advertising
influence their responses to advertising efforts and, by extension, their purchasing
intentions (Mitchell & Olson, 1981).
Brand awareness can affect consumers’ attitudes toward SM advertising, which
can consequently impact their behavioral responses (Chu & Kim, 2011; Chu, Kamal &
Kim, 2013). For example, a study in China about gender differences in attitudes and
behaviors toward SM explained how essential SM platforms can be for modern Chinese
consumers, particularly the millennial generation (Ly & Hu, 2015). Moreover, the study
discussed SM usage and how it varied between male and female Chinese consumers;
females tend to be more interested in utilizing SM sites than males do (Ly & Hu, 2015).
Additionally, most Chinese customers utilize SM to socialize and share information with
one another, find different events, follow celebrities, and purchase products (Ly & Hu,
2015).
Typically, consumers have positive attitudes toward SM advertising (Boateng &
Okoe, 2015). Companies’ reputations are considered an important factor in consumers’
responses to advertisements (Boateng & Okoe, 2015). Positive reputations positively
influence decision-making behaviors, including purchasing advertised products and
services and taking favorable actions toward products or services promoted through SM.
Additional factors that influence consumers’ attitudes toward SM marketing
include SM use, SM knowledge, being affected by the Internet and SM,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
31
following/monitoring SM, foresight about SM, and fear of marketing via SM (Akar &
Topçu, 2011). Even further, family income was the only aspect that had a significant
impact on attitudes toward SM marketing (Akar & Topçu, 2011).
Studies also have shown that consumer attitudes toward SM advertising are an
important contributor to its effectiveness (Edwards, Li, & Lee, 2002; Chu et al., 2013).
Consumers’ negative attitudes toward advertising can be influenced by the putatively
intrusive and disturbing nature of online advertising (Edwards et al., 2002).
There is a significant relationship between consumers’ attitudes toward SM
advertising and their brand consciousness, with the perceived quality of this relationship
influencing consumers’ behavioral responses (Chu et al., 2013). This theory explains how
consumers’ attitudes toward advertising can influence their responses, which, in turn,
impact their buying intentions (Mitchell & Olson, 1981).
In sum, previous research has shown that consumers’ attitudes toward SM can
have a significant effect on consumers’ perceptions of SM in general. With regard to
Twitter specifically, this study addressed consumer attitudes and how they influence
consumers’ perceptions in the following three ways: consumers’ attitudes toward specific
tweets, consumers’ attitudes toward hotel Twitter accounts, and consumers’ attitudes
toward hotels’ brands as they are conveyed through SM accounts.
Attitudes toward hotel tweets: The types of tweets a hotel posts through its Twitter
account may influence consumers’ experiences. Tweets often vary: some hotels opt for
informative strategies by conveying specific deals and packages currently offered, while
others prefer more indirect approaches, such as including photographs of the resort and
messages intended to convey the benefits of taking a vacation. Others value tweets for
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
32
consumer engagement. With this in mind, customer attitudes toward hotels’ tweets likely
indicate customer engagement and intention to purchase.
Attitudes toward hotel Twitter accounts: Types of hotel tweets may shape consumer
experiences and, therefore, may influence how hotel brands are ultimately perceived. For
example, a hotel that constantly tweets specific deals might eventually be perceived by
consumers as a budget brand. Conversely, a hotel that tweets images intended to
showcase a its luxuriousness might influence perceptions so that it comes to be seen as a
premium brand. Additionally, the level of hotel engagement on a Twitter account might
result in expectations for service; a Twitter account that communicates and engages with
potential customers could be perceived as one that puts the needs of its customers first,
while one that does not engage on SM might be seen as providing substandard customer
service. Customer attitudes toward hotel Twitter accounts should thus translate into
customer engagement and into intention to purchase.
Attitudes toward hotel brand: Attitude toward a brand is “an individual’s internal
evaluation of the brand” (Mitchell & Olson, 1981, p. 318). Additionally, attitude is “a
relatively enduring, unidimensional summary evaluation of the brand that presumably
energizes behavior” (Spears & Singh, 2004, p. 55). Also, attitude toward a brand is
“implicit in beliefs, feelings, behaviors and other components and expressions of
attitudes” (Giner-Sorolla, 1999, p. 443). As these definitions imply, attitude toward a
brand is the basis of one approach to measuring how consumers evaluate a brand. In other
words, attitude toward a brand can be viewed as the extent to which consumers favor the
brand. Structured advertising influences consumers’ beliefs and evaluations and,
therefore, influences consumers’ attitudes toward a brand (Shimp, 1981). Measuring
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
33
attitude toward a brand is one method by which to examine what kind of advertising,
marketing, promotion, or other activity related to the brand would have the most positive
influence on consumer attitudes toward the brand. As a result, a company could know
how to improve its advertising, marketing promotion, or other activities related to its
brand in the most effective way.
The overall perception of a hotel's Twitter account is often generated on SM via
an initial introduction to the hotel's brand. Thus, whether consumers are motivated or
influenced by a specific account depends on whether the brand advertised aligns with
their travel goals and needs. A business traveler, for example, might be drawn toward
accounts that advertise the convenient amenities necessary for business travel, such as
access to high-speed Internet and conference room availability. Family-oriented travelers
might look for accounts that convey a brand of fun and hospitality, while newlyweds
might seek opulence. Thus, the types of tweets conveyed through a Twitter account
influence perceptions toward hotels’ brands, with customers identifying most with the
brand that aligns best with their needs.
2.4.2 Consumer Behavior toward Social Media
Consumer behavior has been described as a process that starts with a pre-purchase
stage and then continues on to purchase and post-purchasing. Consumer decision-making
processes have been examined in the virtual world (De Valck, Van Bruggen, &
Wierenga, 2009). Communications and interactions with other individuals via SM have a
major impact on decision-making processes, including behavior, the evaluation of post-
purchase, and need recognition (De Valck et al., 2009). SM marketing played an
important role in the formation of relationships among consumers by posting information
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
34
about experiences during both the early and the mature periods of Internet utilization
(Chen, Fay, & Wang, 2011). Consumer behavior has played a significant role in changing
media and marketing processes because consumers have increased their intervention in
business marketing strategies (Berthon et al., 2008). The entire business landscape is
shifting because customers are gradually performing activities that used to be controlled
by firms. Additionally, due to SM, consumers are more actively contributing to the
marketing content of businesses (Ly & Hu, 2015). Thus, in order to create a mutually
beneficial customer-business relationship using SM, businesses need to have an
understanding of what motivates consumer behavior.
2.4.3 Consumer Involvement with Social Media
To better understand consumer involvement with SM, researchers need to
examine the origin and the meaning of the concept of “involvement” and to identify types
of SM users by their levels involvement with SM. Involvement is defined as “a person’s
perceived relevance of the object based on their inherent needs, values, and interests”
(Zaichkowsky, 1985, p. 342). Numerous research studies claim that the use and
purchasing of products or services increases when consumers’ levels of involvement with
those products or services are high (Clarke & Belk, 1979; Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984;
Krugman, 1962; Krugman, 1965; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; Wright, 1973).
Users have been clustered into two major groups based on their involvement with SM:
active and passive (Alarcón-Del-Amo, Lorenzo-Romero, & Gómez-Borja, 2011). Active
SM users engage more in SM activities, such as updating, communicating, reviewing,
and searching (Constantinides, Carmen Alarcón del Amo del, & Romero, 2010). In
contrast, passive SM users are less involved with SM activities (Constantinides et al.,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
35
2010). Hutton and Fosdick (2011) claimed that active SM consumers who follow a
brand's SM site are more positive toward that brand and more willing to purchase the
products/services offered by that brand. Consumers’ involvement with SM can also
increase their trust in a brand and their intention to purchase (Hajli, 2014). Thus, by
studying consumers’ involvement with SM, this study focused on describing the
importance of active SM users and on understanding their contributions to SM marketing
activities.
Christodoulides et al. (2012) found that user-generated content involvement can
have a significant effect on consumers’ perceptions of a brand, which can positively
influence consumer-based brand equity. In the hotel industry, Kim et al. (2015) examined
the effect of managing SM on hotel performance. Guest involvement in online reviews or
ratings can positively impact perceptions of hotel performance. Therefore, previous
research shows that there is a need to understand the impact of consumer involvement
with SM because it is one of the most important consumer characteristics related to the
study of SM marketing effectiveness. With these constructs in mind, this study sought a
more comprehensive understanding of how customer attitudes toward SM, their behavior
on SM, and their involvement with SM can influence their perceptions of hotel Twitter
marketing.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
36
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
This study employed content analysis as a pre-test and quantitative research
design in the form of an online survey with an embedded experiment as the main study.
Content analysis was applied in exploring the format and content of hotels’ tweets in
order to identify the most popular methods Saudi hotels use to deliver Twitter messages.
The data collected during the pre-test assisted the researcher in designing an experiment
using the most prevalent tweet formats and contents. Quantitative data were collected
through an experiment of a simulated hotel Twitter account that was used in an online
survey to investigate Saudi consumers’ perspectives toward effective tweets (Creswell &
Plano-Clark, 2011). Appendix A presents a full diagram of this dissertation’s research
design.
3.2 Pre-test
In the pre-test, the researcher explored the content of multiple existing Saudi
Arabian hotel Twitter accounts to identify the differences within and between the
contents of these accounts. The researcher used content analysis to develop a
classification of the tweets posted on these accounts. Yin (2003) explained how multiple
or collective case studies can be used to predict either “(a) similar results (a literal
replication) or (b) contrasting results but for predictable reasons (a theoretical
replication)” (p. 47).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
37
3.2.1 Sampling and Data Collection Procedure for the Pre-test
In the pre-test, six sample Saudi Arabian hotel Twitter accounts were thoroughly
explored. Tweets posted between September 5, 2015 and October 5, 2015 were reviewed
by the researcher (see Appendix B). Only tweets that were posted by hotels and that were
re-tweeted and mentioned by consumers were included in the study.
The researcher used a purposive sampling strategy (intensity sampling) to select
the hotels (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The researcher identified six
of the most active Saudi hotels on Twitter by considering their numbers of followers and
their numbers of tweets, which were ranked by the well-known SM statistical website
Socialbakers (2015). The main purpose of the pre-test was to develop a categorization for
the formats and the contents of tweets posted on hotel Twitter accounts. The dates,
contents, and formats of the tweets, as well as their numbers of re-tweets and their
numbers of mentions, were recorded and classified. Additionally, an examination of
Twitter followers, re-tweets, and mentions further explored the marketing effectiveness
of the contents posted.
3.2.2 Pre-Test Data Analysis
Content analysis was used to determine the most-frequently used formats and
contents of existing hotel tweets. The procedures were based on Leung’s (2012)
categories for Facebook messages’ formats and contents. Table 2 shows detailed
descriptions of the six categories of tweet contents.
The researcher identified patterns of occurrence in the data generated from the
tweets. The data were then combined into categories that matched Leung’s (2012)
categories, shown in Table 2. After all the data were patterned into the categories, the
researcher interpreted the results using the frequencies method.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
38
Table 2 Categorization of Tweet Content
Tweet Content Description
Brand Focuses on tweets about hotel news, advertisements, hotel honor
and awards, staffing, and social activities.
Product Pays attention to new and existing hotel properties, food and
beverage, restaurants, amenities, room services, events activities,
holiday products, and website, SM and mobile app.
Engagement Focuses on Twitter fans’ replies and actions, such as questions,
experience sharing, mentions, retweets, likes, and picture
captions.
Promotion Spotlights on the tweets that discuss deals, promotions, special
offers, sales, and packages.
Information Consists of the information that is not directly related to the hotel,
such as travel tips, destination information, trip diary, travel
sayings, food recipes, food trends, holiday greetings, safety, guest
trends, and other not information not directly related to hotel.
Reward Includes the prize that Twitter fans win from the hotel without
any purchase, such as contests, guesses, spins, games, giveaways,
free stays, and free points.
Source: Leung (2012)
The validity and reliability of the collected data were assessed and controlled
using different methods. In content analysis research, “validity” refers to the accuracy,
trustworthiness, and credibility of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Creswell & Plano-
Clark, 2011). Internal validity in the content analysis was used to ensure that the data
collected were compatible with reality. The most common internal validity approaches
used in content analysis are triangulation, member checks, and peer review (Creswell &
Plano-Clark, 2011). In this study, a peer review approach was employed by an additional
researcher (who was not associated with this study) to ensure the internal validity of the
data. Additionally, external validity was checked. Tweets from six sample Saudi hotel
Twitter accounts were collected over a period of four weeks to ensure the external
validity of the data.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
39
Stenbacka (2001) stated that reliability in qualitative research is related to the
quality of content analysis. To ensure the reliability of the data collected in the pre-test,
the audit trail approach was utilized. An audit trail is an overall description of how a
study was conducted, from the start to the final reporting of the results (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). Thus, memos were kept throughout the research process and other researchers
were asked to review the trail of the analysis in order to ensure the reliability of the data.
3.2.3 Results of the Pre-test
In terms of tweet format, four types of formats were identified as those most
frequently used in the tweets: video, photo, text, and hyperlink. The results of the tweet
format categorization showed that “Text” was the most popularly used tweet format,
followed by “Photos” and “Hyperlinks.” “Videos” was the least used tweet format; only
two tweets posted videos. Table 3 presents the results of the pre-test in terms of the
number of Saudi hotel tweets by tweet format.
Table 3 Tweet Formats Most Frequently Used by Saudi Hotel Tweets
Tweet format No. of tweets Percent
1 Text 334 50.68
2 Photos 236 35.81
3 Hyperlinks 123 18.66
4 Videos 2 0.30
Thus, the findings suggest that Saudi hotels are more acquainted with posting text,
photos, and hyperlinks in tweets via their Twitter accounts and that the utilization of
videos on Twitter is still narrow. Therefore, the current study considered only text,
photos, and hyperlinks in the main study.
In terms of tweet content, a categorization was identified that included six types:
brand, product, engagement, promotion, information, and reward. The results of the tweet
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
40
content categorization showed that “Brand” was the most commonly used tweet content,
followed by “Product” and “Engagement.” “Information,” “Promotion,” and “Reward”
were less popularly used tweet contents. Thus, the results of the pre-test suggest that
Saudi hotels are more familiar with posting about brands, products, and engagement on
Twitter accounts and that the deployment of the other tweet contents is still limited.
Therefore, this study considered only brand, product, and engagement because of their
frequent utilization. Table 4 presents the results of the pre-test with regard to the number
of Saudi hotel tweets by tweet content.
Table 4 Tweet Content Most Frequently Used by Saudi Hotels
Tweet format No. of tweets Percent
1 Brand 445 33.18
2 Product 356 26.55
3 Engagement 256 19.09
4 Information 148 11.04
5 Promotion 133 9.92
6 Reward 3 0.22
For logistical reasons, though, it was decided that the 4 x 6 design would be
difficult to implement and to report. Thus, the research design was reduced to a 3 x 3 and
only the most frequently used tweet formats and content features were considered: text,
photo, and hyperlink (format), and brand, product, and consumer engagement (content).
3.3 Main Study
The purpose of the main, quantitative study was to explore the marketing
effectiveness of diverse types of hotel Twitter accounts. To achieve this goal, the study
implemented an online survey with an embedded experiment based on the tweet
categorization of the pre-test.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
41
3.3.1 Sampling and Data Collection
A convenience sampling strategy was used in this study (Creswell, 2009;
Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The sample consisted of two groups of consumers: (a)
hotel visitors in Saudi Arabia (reached via SM) and (b) Saudi citizens currently residing
and/or studying in the United States but with previous experiences staying at Saudi
hotels. The two groups were chosen based on their importance to the hospitality industry
and because they represent significant and heavy SM users (Mohammed Bin Rashid
School of Government, 2014).
Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Saudi Association Clubs,
the Saudi Cultural Mission, and hotels in Saudi Arabia. The researcher programmed the
survey and sent it to these organizations. They then distributed a link to the online survey
to potential participants. Because of the nature of the study, the link was also distributed
through various SM platforms, including Twitter and Facebook.
The questionnaire started with two screening questions: “Have you ever stayed in
a hotel in Saudi Arabia?” and “Do you have a Twitter account?” If respondents passed
the screening by answering “yes” to both questions, they proceeded to the experiment,
which involved reviewing and evaluating a simulated Twitter account. Respondents were
asked to indicate their attitudes toward tweets, their attitudes toward the hotel Twitter
account, their attitudes toward the hotel brand, their intentions to book, and their
intentions to engage in eWOM. The respondents were then asked to provide their SM
characteristics, including their behavior, their attitudes, and their involvement with SM.
Finally, participants were asked to provide their demographic information.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
42
The study was submitted for approval by the Texas Tech University Institutional
Review Board (IRB). The Human Research Protection Program approved this research
on March 21, 2016. Please see Letter of Approval in Appendix C.
3.3.2 Experiment Design
A simulated Twitter account was created for a fictitious “M Hotel” brand. Nine
conditions were created that included different tweet formats and contents. To control
ensure the ecological validity of the experiment, tweets were designed to imitate as
closely as possible the real tweets collected in the pre-test. A 3 x 3 design (tweet format
and tweet content) provided nine unique tweets, which were posted on the “M Hotel”
Twitter account (see Appendix D). The sample was randomly split into nine groups
(groups were relatively equal in their numbers of respondents). Each participant saw and
evaluated only one condition. Respondents then proceeded to a set of questions that
assessed their attitudes toward the tweets they had just viewed and additional attitudes
and behavioral measures. The survey measures contained only closed-ended questions.
Figure 4 represents the experimental design.
Tweet Format
Text Photos Hyperlinks
Tw
eet
Con
ten
t Brand Text & Brand
(Condition #1)
Photos & Brand
(Condition #4)
Hyperlinks &
Brand
(Condition #7)
Product Text & Product
(Condition#2)
Photos & Product
(Condition #5)
Hyperlinks &
Product
(Condition #8)
Engagement Text & Engagement
(Condition #3)
Photos & Engagement
(Condition #6)
Hyperlinks &
Engagement
(Condition #9)
Figure 4. A 3 x 3 design (tweet format and tweet content) of a simulated hotel Twitter
account
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
43
3.3.3 Measures
The online survey included a variety of measures designed to obtain information
essential to the purpose of the study. To measure marketing effectiveness, two exogenous
variables were used: tweet format (text, photo, and hyperlink) and tweet content (brand,
product, and engagement). Intention-of-hotel-booking (IHB) and intention-of-electronic-
word-of-mouth (IEWOM) were used as endogenous variables. Other endogenous
variables included the following consumer attitudes: attitude-toward-the-tweet (ATT),
attitude-toward-hotel-Twitter-account (ATHTA), and attitude-toward-the-hotel-brand
(ATHB). Additional variables were utilized to measure consumer characteristics related
to SM: SM usage behavior, attitudes toward SM, and SM involvement (Table 5). For a
complete set of measures and their sources, see Appendix E.
Table 5 Variables of the Main Study
Exogenous Variable
Endogenous Variable
1. Tweet Format (Photo and Hyperlink)
2. Tweet Content (Product and
Engagement)
• Attitudes (ATHTA, ATT, and
ATHB)
• Intentions (IHB and IEWOM)
Measures for ATHTA were adapted from various studies and included attitude-
toward-the-website (Chen & Wells, 1999), website advertising (Bruner II & Kumar,
2000), attitude-toward-the-hotel-Facebook-page (Leung, 2012), and perceived usefulness
and ease of use (Davis, 1989). Measures for ATT and ATHB were adapted from studies
on attitude-toward-the-ad (e.g., Batra & Ray, 1986; Leung, 2012; Leung et al., 2015;
MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie et al., 1986; Mitchell & Olson, 1981) and attitude-
toward-the-brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Leclerc,
Schmitt, & Dubé, 1994; Leung, 2012; Leung et al., 2015). Additionally, the
measurements for IHB and IEWOM were developed based on the scales for hotel
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
44
booking intention and the scale for intention to spread positive WOM (e.g., Chiang &
Jang, 2006; Gruen, Osmonbekov, & Czaplewski, 2006; Leung, 2012; Leung et al., 2015).
Some of the measures were modified to fit the context of this study.
3.4 Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted to gain information about the data collection process
as well as to identify potential problems with the questionnaire. The main purposes for
the pilot study were to determine whether the instrument could be clearly understood by
participants and to make sure the instrument was reliable.
The original survey was developed in English. Before conducting the pilot study,
however, the lead researcher, who was bilingual, translated the survey from English into
Arabic. To reduce the potential for biases resulting from the translation, another
individual, who was also bilingual, translated the Arabic version back into English
without having seen the original English version. The two versions of the survey were
compared, and minor changes were made to ensure accurate translation. Participants were
permitted to complete the questionnaire in the language of their preference. For the pilot,
the survey was active for a week, between April 10, 2016 and April 17, 2016. This initial
effort resulted in 188 responses. Of these, 41 were from the English version and 147 were
from the Arabic version. The subjects were informed that they were participating in a
pilot study and that they had only one week to complete the survey. A time check found
that most of the participants had been able to complete the survey in seventeen minutes or
under.
Data from the pilot study were analyzed using SPSS 22.0. Frequencies were
checked for all variables. Factor analysis was used to evaluate the reliability of the
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
45
following variables: attitude-toward-the-tweet, attitude-toward-hotel-Twitter-account,
attitude-toward-the-hotel-brand, intention of hotel booking, and intention of electronic
word-of-mouth. Reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. All scales
yielded reliability scores above .89.
Slight modifications were made as a result of the pilot study. Some questions
were reworded in minor ways in an effort to elucidate them for participants. Furthermore,
new options were added in response to subjects’ “Other (please, specify)” responses. For
example, when participants were asked about the types of SM platforms they used, some
of the “other” answers suggested “WhatsApp”, which initially was not among the options
in the survey. “WhatsApp” is a popular SM platform in Saudi Arabia, however, so it was
added to the list in the final version. Finally, factor analysis of the pilot study data helped
the researcher to be aware of joint variations in response to unobserved latent variables.
After conducting the factor analysis, the researcher created new items for “intentions of
hotel booking” and deleted some old items that had not loaded properly. Furthermore,
changes were made to the formats of these new items. These efforts helped to increase
the overall content validity of the constructs.
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure
The data collected in the online survey were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 and
Mplus 7. First, the data were pre-screened to eliminate incomplete responses. Next,
descriptive statistics were conducted to check for errors in data entry and missing data. A
structural model was used to test the relationship between the latent variables, which
included tweet format (photo and hyperlink), tweet content (product and engagement),
attitudes toward hotel tweets, attitudes toward hotel Twitter account, attitudes toward
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
46
hotel brand, intentions of eWOM, and intentions of hotel booking (see Table 5).
Moreover, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to select the appropriate
indicators to perform the structural equation model (SEM) for the hypotheses. A
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then conducted and the variance-covariance
matrices from Mplus software version 7 were utilized (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2016)
with Maximum Likelihood estimation.
Treatments of the different conditions – tweet format (text, photo, and hyperlink)
and tweet content (brand, product, and engagement) – were differentiated by creating
four dummy variables. These dummy variables were coded as follows: a 0,1 dummy
variable was used in which the value of 0 was given to the control conditions and the
value of 1 was given to the treatment, or testing, condition. The control conditions were
the text condition for tweet format and the brand condition for tweet content. Thus, four
dummy variables were created for data analysis: photos, hyperlinks, product, and
engagement. In all treatments, the controlling conditions (text and brand) were given the
value of 0. Thus, condition #1 (text and brand) was coded as (0,0,0,0) – all of the testing
conditions (photos, hyperlinks, product, and engagement) were given the value of 0.
Condition #2 (text and product) was coded as (0,0,1,0) – the testing condition (product)
was given the value of 1, and all other treatment conditions (engagement, photos, and
hyperlinks) were given the value of 0. Condition #3 (text and engagement) was coded as
(0,0,0,1) – the testing condition (engagement) was given the value of 1, and all other
testing conditions (photos, hyperlinks, and product) were given the value of 0. Condition
#4 (photos and brand) was coded as (1,0,0,0) – the testing condition (photos) was given
the value of 1, and all other testing conditions (hyperlinks, product, engagement) were
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
47
given the value of 0. Condition #5 (photos and product) was coded as (1,0,1,0) – the
testing conditions (photos and product) were given the value of 1, and the testing
conditions (hyperlinks and engagement) were given the value of 0. Condition #6 (photos
and engagement) was coded as (1,0,0,1) – the testing conditions (photos and engagement)
were given the value of 1, and the testing conditions (hyperlinks and product) were given
the value of 0. Condition #7 (hyperlinks and brand) was coded as (0,1,0,0) – the testing
condition (hyperlinks) was given the value of 1, and the testing conditions (photos,
product, and engagement) were given the value of 0. Condition #8 (photos and
engagement) was coded as (0,1,1,0) – the testing conditions (hyperlinks and product)
were given the value of 1, and the testing conditions (photos and product) were given the
value of 0. Condition #9 (hyperlinks and engagement) was coded as (0,1,0,1) – the testing
conditions (hyperlinks and engagement) were given the value of 1, and the testing
conditions (photos and product) were given the value of 0 (see Figure 5 for more details).
Then, comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), non-
normed fit index (NINFI or TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
were used to evaluate the quality of the model.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
48
Tweet Format
Text Photos Hyperlinks
Tw
eet
Con
ten
t Brand
Text & Brand
(Condition #1)
(0,0,0,0)
Photos & Brand
(Condition #4)
(1,0,0,0)
Hyperlinks & Brand
(Condition #7)
(0,1,0,0)
Product
Text & Product
(Condition#2)
(0,0,1,0)
Photos & Product
(Condition #5)
(1,0,1,0)
Hyperlinks & Product
(Condition #8)
(0,1,1,0)
Engagement
Text & Engagement
(Condition #3)
(0,0,0,1)
Photos &
Engagement
(Condition #6)
(1,0,0,1)
Hyperlinks &
Engagement
(Condition #9)
(0,1,0,1)
Figure 5. Variables coding for data analysis.
Note: Four dummy variables were created for data analysis, namely, picture, hyperlink,
product and engagement. In all treatments, the controlling conditions (text and brand)
were given the value of 0. For example, condition #2 (text and product) was coded as
(0,0,1,0) where the testing condition (product) was given the value of 1 and all other
treatment conditions (engagement, photos, hyperlinks) were given the value of 0.
In terms of the inferences process, validity and reliability of measurement were
evaluated using a conducting factor analysis and a Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. A
principal axis factor analysis was utilized by using Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
rotation on all the scale items included in the hypothesized model (Figure 3). The number
of constructs proposed in this study matched the total number of factors that resulted
from the factor analysis (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Additionally, external
validity was evaluated to preclude convenience sampling, which limits generalizability.
An Estimated Cronbach’s alpha was used to evaluate the reliability of the instrument.
Alpha values at 0.5 were considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
49
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This chapter presents the analysis of the data and the study results. Validity,
reliability analysis, and demographics results are provided. Lastly, the statistical results of
the main experiment using SEM are discussed.
4.1 Data Screening
Due to the nature of the study, participants were recruited via SM platforms,
including Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Two screening questions were asked to
determine respondents’ eligibility to participate in the research project: (a) Have you ever
stayed in a hotel in Saudi Arabia? and (b) Do you have a Twitter account? Respondents
who answered “no” to either of the screening questions were redirected to a thank-you
message at the end of the survey and excluded from participating in the study.
A total of 1,138 respondents initiated the survey. The results of the screening
questions revealed that 92% of respondents had stayed in a hotel in Saudi Arabia
(n=1,045, 91.83%) and that more than half of them had a Twitter account (n=659,
57.91%). After additional data screening, all incomplete responses were deleted, resulting
in a final sample of 615 responses. Details regarding the selection of the participants are
presented in Table 6.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
50
Table 6 Frequencies and Percentage of Screening (N=1138)
Frequency Percentage Cumulative P.
1 Have you ever
stayed in a hotel in
Saudi Arabia?
Yes 1045 91.83 91.83
No 93 8.17 100.00
2 Do you have a
Twitter account?
Yes 659 57.91 63.06
No 386 33.92 100.00
Dropped after
answering “No”
in the 1st
questions
93 8.17
4.2 Characteristics of Respondents
The ages of the participants varied from 17 to 61, though the vast majority
(almost 60%) were under 34 years old. The biggest age group was those between 25 and
34 years old (45.37%). The majority of the participants were male (64.07%). In terms of
highest level of education, the majority of the respondents had already achieved either a
bachelor’s degree (39.02%) or a graduate degree (27.15%). Only 11.38% reported that
their highest level of education was high school. Most of the respondents were Saudi
citizens (83.41%). A detailed demographic profile of the sample is shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N=615)
Frequency Percentage Cumulative P.
What is your gender?
Male 394 64.07 74.34
Female 136 22.11 100
No answer, missing 85 13.82
Age
17 – 24 86 13.98 13.98
25 – 34 279 45.37 59.35
35 – 44 118 19.19 78.54
45 – 54 35 5.69 84.23
Over 54 97 15.77 100
What is the highest education level you achieved?
Less than high school 6 0.98 1.13
High school graduate 70 11.38 14.34
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
51
Frequency Percentage Cumulative P.
Some college work 47 7.64 23.21
Bachelor’s degree 240 39.02 68.49
Graduate degree 167 27.15 100
No answer, missing 85 13.82
What is your nationality?
Saudi Arabia 513 83.41 98.49
Other 17 2.76 100
No answer, missing 85 13.82
4.3 Respondents’ Behavior toward Using Twitter
“Both send and receive” was the highest reported use of Twitter (65.69%). The
number of tweets most participants sent was “less than 4 tweets in a week” (36.91%).
With regard to the effectiveness of Twitter in daily-life communication, the vast majority
of respondents (about 73%) indicated that they found Twitter at least moderately
effective. Almost 24% reported that it was “Extremely effective.” In terms of Twitter
usage, most respondents were heavy users of Twitter. Almost 71% of the sample had
being using Twitter for at least 4 years, and about 29% had used Twitter for more than 4
years. More information about behavior toward Twitter is presented in Table 8.
Table 8 Respondents' Behavior toward Twitter Usage
Frequency Percentage Cumulative P.
I use Twitter to
Send only 11 1.79 1.79
Receive only 198 32.20 34.09
Both send and receive 404 65.69 100
No answer, missing 2 0.33
How many tweets do you send in a week?
Less than 4 tweets 227 36.91 55.23
4 – 7 tweets 81 13.17 74.94
8 – 14 tweets 58 9.43 89.05
Over 14 tweets 45 7.32 100
No answer, missing 204 33.17
How effective is Twitter in daily life communication?
Not effective at all 42 6.83 6.90
Not effective 50 8.13 15.11
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
52
Frequency Percentage Cumulative P.
Slightly effective 68 11.06 26.27
Moderately effective 103 16.75 43.19
Effective 112 18.21 61.58
Very effective 87 14.15 75.86
Extremely effective 147 23.90 100
No answer, missing 6 0.98
How long have you been using Twitter?
Less than 1 year 58 9.43 9.52
1 – 2 years 137 22.28 32.02
3 – 4 years 240 39.02 71.43
5 - 6 years 116 18.86 90.48
Over 6 years 58 9.43 100
No answer, missing 6 0.98
4.4 Characteristics of Social Media
4.4.1 Consumer Behavior toward Social Media
Because the study examined the effectiveness of Twitter as a marketing tool, it
was important to understand the participants’ overall behavior toward SM usage,
especially their experiences with various SM platforms. Table 9 displays the overall
behavior of the respondents toward SM usage. A total of 23 SM platforms were used.
WhatsApp was the most popular (17.51%), followed by Twitter (15.39%), Snapchat
(13.61%), YouTube (13.48%), Instagram (13.08%), and Facebook (11.63%). In terms of
the frequencies of usage of these six SM platforms, respondents reported that they used
WhatsApp “All the time” (66.08%) and that “At least once a day” they used Twitter
(51.54%), Snapchat (50.88%), YouTube (53.54%), Instagram (48.95%), or Facebook
(47.54%) (Table 10).
There were 20 reasons reported for using SM. The top four most frequent reasons
were “To connect with friends” (15.87%), “For the latest news” (13.06%), “To connect
with family” (12.66%), and “For entertainment” (11.98%). With regard to brands or
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
53
companies that respondents followed on SM, the majority followed at least one brand or
a company on SM (72%). Almost 40% followed 1 to 5 companies on SM, 18.29%
followed 6 to 15, and 14.10% followed more than 16 brands or companies. To understand
why respondents followed brands’ SM pages, it was important to consider the reasons or
activities that they engaged with these pages. Twenty-three percent of respondents
indicated that they follow brands’ SM pages to “Search for discounts, offers, and
promotions,” 22.90% indicated that they follow brands’ SM pages to “Find new
products/services,” and 22.33% indicated that they follow brands’ SM pages to “Search
for information about a certain products/services.”
Regarding products or services that respondents purchased because of
advertisements on SM in the last year, 45.07% bought 1 to 5 products or services, and
almost 29% purchased more than 6 products or services. “A friend or colleague with
prior knowledge of the products/services” was the most preferred source of information
(19.87%), followed by “A brands' own website” (19.68%), “Social media” (17.67%), and
“Online search” (17.18%).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
54
Table 9 Social Media Usage Behavior (N = 615) Freq. Percentage %
Which of these social media platforms do
you use? a
WhatsApp 521 17.51
Twitter 458 15.39
Snapchat 405 13.61
YouTube 401 13.48
Instagram 389 13.08
Facebook 346 11.63
Tango 145 4.87
LinkedIn 121 4.07
Google Plus 90 3.03
Foursquare 31 1.04
Vine 20 0.67
Pinterest 18 0.61
Flickr 13 0.44
Telegram 5 0.17
Line 4 0.13
Imo 1 0.03
iMessages 1 0.03
Yelp 1 0.03
Email 1 0.03
Path 1 0.03
Skype 1 0.03
Talk 1 0.03
Hangouts 1 0.03
What is the primary reason that you use
social media? a
To connect with friends 514 15.87
For the latest news 423 13.06
To connect with family 410 12.66
For entertainment 388 11.98
For information on products/services 256 7.90
For information on brands 247 7.63
For political updates 234 7.22
For update in my professional field 227 7.01
To find old friends 175 5.40
For employment opportunities 134 4.14
For spiritual inspiration 113 3.49
To find new friends 104 3.21
For sport news 4 0.12
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
55
Freq. Percentage %
For educational purpose 3 0.09
For reading and discussions 2 0.06
For marketing an enterprise 1 0.03
For news about technology and alternative energy 1 0.03
To connect with other colleagues at work 1 0.03
For new announcements 1 0.03
For new ideas and inspiration 1 0.03
How many brands or companies do you
follow on social media?
0 167 28.02
1-5 236 39.60
6-15 109 18.29
16-30 53 8.89
31-60 20 3.36
Over 60 11 1.85
Which of the following do you do on the
brands’ social media pages? a
Search for discounts, offers, and promotions 244 23.28
Find new products/services 240 22.90
Search for information about a certain product/service 234 22.33
Discuss products or services with other followers 125 11.93
Connect with like-minded people 103 9.83
Give feedback on products/services 102 9.73
How many products/services have you
purchased as a result of advertisements on
social media within the last year?
0 155 26.36
1-5 265 45.07
6-10 95 16.16
11-15 31 5.27
16-20 15 2.55
Over 20 27 4.59
Which source of information on a
product/service do you prefer? a
A friend or colleague with prior knowledge of the
products/services. 326
19.87
A brands' own website 323 19.68
Social media 290 17.67
Online search 282 17.18
Physical shops or dealerships 163 9.93
Television adverts 92 5.61
Television programs 58 3.53
Forums 57 3.47
Magazines articles 50 3.05
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
56
Table 10 Frequency of Social Media Usage (N = 615)
All the time
At least once a
day
At least once a
week
At least once a
month
Once in a few
months
How often do you use
the following SM
platforms?
WhatsApp 66.08 33.14 0.58 0.00 0.19
Twitter 15.86 51.54 22.03 7.05 3.52
Snapchat 35.59 50.88 9.52 3.26 0.75
YouTube 21.97 53.54 21.21 2.78 0.51
Instagram 20.42 48.95 23.56 5.50 1.57
Facebook 14.20 47.54 21.45 10.43 6.38
Tango 5.59 16.78 34.97 32.17 10.49
LinkedIn 4.20 15.13 41.18 27.73 11.76
Google Plus 7.78 24.44 26.67 15.56 25.56
Foursquare 6.67 16.67 36.67 33.33 6.67
Vine 5.00 20.00 45.00 20.00 10.00
Pinterest 5.56 5.56 55.56 27.78 5.56
Flickr 15.38 7.69 7.69 53.85 15.38
Telegram 0.00 20.00 40.00 20.00 20.00
Line 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00
Imo 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
iMessages 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yelp 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Email 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Path 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Skype 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Talk 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hangouts 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
57
4.4.2 Consumer Attitudes toward Social Media
To examine attitudes toward SM, the researcher asked respondents to indicate
their level of agreement with five items, each of which employed a 7-point Likert scale
anchored with 1 “Strongly disagree” and 7 “Strongly agree.” The majority of respondents
(86.48%) at least somewhat agreed with the statement that “Social media is more
reachable than mass media (e.g. TV and Radio).” With “Social media is important in
today’s marketplace,” about 89% at least somewhat agreed. Eighty-six percent of
respondents also indicated that they at least somewhat agree with the statement that
“Social media provides effective platforms to new products/services.” Additionally,
88.44% of respondents at least somewhat agreed that “Advertisements via social media
are an effective way for consumers to try new products/services.” It was found that
87.02% of respondents at least somewhat agreed with the last statement: “Overall, I feel
that companies should use social media in today’s business.” More detailed information
on attitudes toward SM can be found in Table 11.
For respondents’ attitudes toward SM advertisements, “I pay little or no attention
to advertisements on social media” was the highest reported item (44.21%), followed by
“I pay lots of attention to advertisements on social media” (32.46%). Almost 22% of
respondents would like SM to ban advertisements, and only 1.75% did not know if there
were advertisements on SM (Table 12).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
58
Table 11 Attitudes toward Social Media (N = 615)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree Agree
Strongly
agree
% % % % % % %
Social media is more reachable than
mass media (e.g. TV and Radio).
2.28 2.11 2.28 6.84 11.75 31.05 43.68
Social media is important in today’s
marketplace.
1.93 1.23 2.98 5.09 10.70 31.58 46.49
Social media provides effective
platforms to new products/services.
2.11 0.70 2.81 7.89 15.61 33.51 37.37
Advertisements via social media are
an effective way for consumers to
try new products/services.
2.46 1.05 2.46 8.60 17.89 32.81 34.74
Overall, I feel that companies should
use social media in today’s business.
2.28 1.58 2.28 6.84 14.21 29.30 43.51
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
59
Table 12 Attitudes toward Social Media Advertisements (N = 615)
Freq. Percentage Cumulative
Percentage
I pay little or no attention to advertisements on
social media.
252 44.21 76.67
I pay lots of attention to advertisements on social
media.
185 32.46 32.46
I would like social media to ban advertisements. 123 21.58 98.25
I did not know there were advertisements on
social media.
10 1.75 100.00
4.4.3 Consumer Involvement with Social Media
Table 13 displays respondents’ involvement with SM. Almost 60% of
respondents reported that the time they spend online (generally, not necessarily on SM)
ranged between 1 and 29 hours per week (59.37%), and 40.62% reported spending more
than 30 hours online per week. With regard to SM specifically, 61.60% reported spending
1 to 29 hours per week, and 38.41% reported spending at least 30 hours per week on SM.
About 53% of respondents reported that they followed between one and 149 people on
Twitter, and almost 47% followed at least 150 people on Twitter. With regard to number
of followers, almost 60% of respondents reported having 1 to 149 followers, and the
other 40% had at least 150 followers. To understand their involvement with SM, the
researcher asked respondents to identify the age at which they first started using SM.
Almost 50% of the participants reported that they were 20 to 29 years old when they first
started using SM, 28.94% said they were 10 to 19 years old, and almost 21% were older
than 30 years. For more details about consumer involvement with SM, see Table 13.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
60
Table 13 Involvement with Social Media (N = 615)
Freq. Percentage
Cumulative
Percentage
How many hours do you
spend online per week? 1 - 29 hours 320 59.37 59.37
30 - 59 hours 125 23.19 82.56
60 - 89 hours 55 10.20 92.76
90 - 119 hours 28 5.19 97.96
Over 119 hours 11 2.04 100.00
How many hours do you
spend on social media per
week?
1 - 29 hours 332 61.60 61.60
30 - 59 hours 111 20.59 82.19
60 - 89 hours 57 10.58 92.76
90 - 119 hours 25 4.64 97.40
Over 119 hours 14 2.60 100.00
How many people do you
follow on Twitter?
1 - 149 285 52.88 52.88
150 - 299 94 17.44 70.32
300 - 449 60 11.13 81.45
450 - 599 36 6.68 88.13
Over 599 64 11.87 100.00
How many followers do you
have on your Twitter
account?
1 - 149 322 59.74 59.74
150 - 299 77 14.29 74.03
300 - 449 43 7.98 82.00
450 - 599 21 3.90 85.90
Over 599 76 14.10 100.00
Approximately, how old
were you when you first
started using social media?
10 - 19 156 28.94 28.94
20 - 29 268 49.72 78.66
30 - 39 76 14.10 92.76
40 - 49 30 5.57 98.33
Over 49 9 1.67 100.00
4.5 Measurement Validity and Reliability
Construct validity was evaluated using a factor analysis (Kline, 2015) with a
principle components extraction method and a Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
rotation on all model scale items. Cronbach’s alphas were calculated to examine
reliability of measurement.
Table 14 shows the factor analysis results for the model, which consisted of five
major constructs. Each of the five constructs was measured using a seven-point Likert
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
61
scale. Constructs that measured attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account and attitudes-
toward-the hotel-brand had scales anchored with “Strongly disagree” (1) and “Strongly
agree” (7). Attitudes-toward-the-tweet was measured using semantical differential scales
– for example, to indicate whether the respondents felt the tweet was “Bad” (1) or
“Good” (7). Intentions to book and eWOM were measured using “Extremely unlikely”
(1) and “Extremely likely” (7). More information about scale items is presented in Table
14.
First, the attitudes-toward-the tweets scales were tested. After the fifth and sixth
items were dropped because of cross loadings, the scale had an excellent internal
reliability (α = 0.93) and a good convergent validity (factor loadings ranged from 0.78 to
0.86). The attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account scale was composed of three items.
The internal reliability of this scale was excellent (α = 0.86) and its convergent validity
was good (factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.82). The attitudes-toward-the-hotel-
brand (ATHB) scale consisted of four items. Factor loadings for this scale ranged from
0.67 to 0.83, which indicates a good convergent validity. This scale also had an excellent
internal reliability (α =0.87). The intentions-of-hotel-booking scale could not be tested for
internal reliability because it consisted of only one item. The convergent validity was
good (the factor loading was 0.56), but it loaded under another factor, intentions of
eWOM. The intentions-of-electronic-word-of-mouth scale had an excellent internal
reliability (α = 0.93) and an excellent convergent validity (factor loadings ranged from
0.82 to 0.84). Based on the results of this exploratory factor analysis (EFA), all of the
model’s indicators were selected for the structural equation model (SEM) for hypotheses
testing.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
62
Table 14 Scale Items and Factor Analysis Results for Model Constructs
(1=Strongly Disagree / 7=Strongly Agree)
Variables/Source Indicators Items Factor
Loading
Cronbach's
Alpha (α)
Attitudes-toward-the-tweet
ATT1 Bad: Good 0.78 0.93
ATT2 Unlikable: Likable 0.82
ATT3 Unfavorable: Favorable 0.86
ATT4 Negative: Positive 0.83
ATT5* Uninteresting: Interesting *drop
ATT6* Boring: Exciting *drop
Attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-
account
ATHTA1 It provides useful information. 0.82 0.86
ATHTA2 I am satisfied with this hotel Twitter account. 0.78
ATHTA3 I would like to follow this hotel Twitter account. 0.66
Attitudes-toward-the-hotel-
brand
ATHB1 I like this hotel brand. 0.70 0.87
ATHB2 The products and services of this brand are valuable. 0.71
ATHB3 This brand is different from other hotel brands. 0.83
ATHB4 I would be loyal to this hotel brand. 0.67
Intentions-of-hotel-booking IHB I would consider this hotel for booking. 0.56 -
Intentions-of-electronic-word-
of-mouth
IEWOM1 I would re-tweet these tweets. 0.82 0.93
IEWOM2 I would mention the tweets to other people on Twitter. 0.84
IEWOM3 I would post a tweet of my experience on this hotel
Twitter account.
0.82
IEWOM4 I would recommend the hotel to other people on Twitter. 0.84
Note: *Items were dropped because of cross loadings.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
63
4.6 Preliminary Analysis
An analysis of the normality and homoscedasticity of the data was conducted
before the analysis of the measurement construct and structural equation model (SEM)
was started. Kurtosis values should not be greater than ten with no problem of
multivariate normality (Kline, 2015). In this study, Kurtosis values ranged from -1.20 to -
0.21, indicating that the data did not have a serious normality problem. Additionally, the
normality of the data was confirmed using the Skewness values, which ranged from +1 to
-1. More details about the normality and homoscedasticity are displayed in Table 15.
Sample size is very important to having stable results. “Ten participants or
observations per estimation parameter” seemed to be a good rule of thumb and was the
general consensus (Brown, 2006). In this study, there were 45 estimated parameters,
suggesting a targeted sample size of 450 subjects. Hence, the actual sample size (615)
was acceptable.
Mplus software version 7 was used to examine the variance-covariance matrices
(Muthen & Muthen, 1998– 2016). A two-step model-building rule was utilized.
Measurement and path models were included in this model-building analysis (Kline,
2015). To benefit from all of the responses provided in the dataset, including the missing
data, a Maximum Likelihood estimation was used. Moreover, a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) and a structural equation model fit (SEM) were obtained by utilizing
numerous model-fit indexes. Hu and Bentler (1999) argued for the comparative fit index
(CFI) ≥ .95, non-normed fit index (NINFI or TLI) ≥ .95, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤
.08. Thus, this study used these values as cut-off lines. Furthermore, the study examined
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
64
Chi-square (χ2) differences to compare the model fit among models.
Table 15 Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Indicators.
Construct Name Indicators Mean S.D. Skewness Kurtosis
Attitudes-toward-the-tweet ATT1 4.62 1.77 -0.42 -0.57
ATT2 4.55 1.74 -0.38 -0.59
ATT3 4.61 1.79 -0.42 -0.67
ATT4 4.77 1.67 -0.48 -0.40
ATT5* 4.27 1.93 -0.23 -1.02
ATT6* 4.22 1.84 -0.22 -0.86
Attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-
account
ATHTA1 4.43 1.61 -0.60 -0.57
ATHTA2 4.39 1.62 -0.47 -0.63
ATHTA3 3.92 1.81 -0.13 -1.20
Attitudes-toward-the-hotel-brand
ATHB1 4.40 1.64 -0.45 -0.62
ATHB2 4.34 1.44 -0.31 -0.21
ATHB3 4.37 1.53 -0.36 -0.44
ATHB4 3.71 1.65 -0.06 -0.82
Intentions of hotel booking IHB 4.33 1.60 -0.49 -0.50
Intentions of electronic word-of-
mouth
IEWOM1 3.69 1.79 -0.07 -1.14
IEWOM2 3.68 1.75 -0.02 -1.08
IEWOM3 4.06 1.84 -0.20 -1.04
IEWOM4 3.98 1.78 -0.16 -0.96
Note: * Items dropped because of cross-loadings.
ATT1-4 are the item codes of attitudes-toward-the-tweet scale, ATHTA1-3 are the item
codes of attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account scale, ATHB1-4 are the item codes of
attitudes-toward-the-hotel-brand scale, IHB is the item code of the intentions of hotel
booking scale, and IEWOM1-4 are the item codes of the intentions of electronic word-
of-mouth scale. Scale items are shown in Table 14.
A construct inter-correlation test was employed to examine the relationship
between the variables in the proposed model. The results showed that all variables and
their indicators were highly correlated with each other (Table 16 and Table 17). For
example, attitudes toward hotel Twitter account was found to be highly correlated with
attitudes toward the tweet, attitudes toward hotel brand, intentions of hotel booking, and
intentions of eWOM.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
65
Table 16 Means, Standard Deviations, and Construct Inter-Correlations
Mean S.D. ATHTA ATT ATHB IHB IEWOM
ATHTA 4.25 1.68 1.00
ATT 4.51 1.79 0.57*** 1.00
ATHB 4.21 1.56 0.67*** 0.57*** 1.00
IHB 4.33 1.60 0.63*** 0.55*** 0.62*** 1.00
IEWOM 3.85 1.79 0.62*** 0.53*** 0.64*** 0.68*** 1.00
Note: ATT1-4 are the item codes of attitudes-toward-the-tweet scale, ATHTA1-3 are the
item codes of attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account scale, ATHB1-4 are the item codes
of attitudes-toward-the-hotel-brand scale, IHB is the item code of the intentions of hotel
booking scale, and IEWOM1-4 are the item codes of the intentions of electronic word-of-
mouth scale. Scale items are shown in Table 14. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two-tailed)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
66
Table 17 Means, Standard Deviations and Inter-correlations among Indicators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 ATHTA1 1.00
2 ATHTA2 0.75*** 1.00
3 ATHTA3 0.61*** 0.68*** 1.00
4 ATT1 0.45*** 0.54*** 0.43*** 1.00
5 ATT2 0.46*** 0.53*** 0.44*** 0.76*** 1.00
6 ATT3 0.44*** 0.51*** 0.42*** 0.76*** 0.80*** 1.00
7 ATT4 0.33*** 0.42*** 0.36*** 0.64*** 0.72*** 0.73*** 1.00
8 ATT5 0.41*** 0.46*** 0.44*** 0.65*** 0.69*** 0.73*** 0.65*** 1.00
9 ATT6 0.38*** 0.48*** 0.46*** 0.63*** 0.66*** 0.69*** 0.65*** 0.81*** 1.00
10 ATHB1 0.54*** 0.61*** 0.52*** 0.49*** 0.46*** 0.44*** 0.42*** 0.43*** 0.43*** 1.00
11 ATHB2 0.53*** 0.61*** 0.56*** 0.50*** 0.50*** 0.47*** 0.42*** 0.49*** 0.51*** 0.76*** 1.00
12 ATHB3 0.39*** 0.45*** 0.44*** 0.36*** 0.36*** 0.35*** 0.34*** 0.37*** 0.35*** 0.62*** 0.63*** 1.00
13 ATHB4 0.45*** 0.46*** 0.50*** 0.43*** 0.46*** 0.39*** 0.36*** 0.45*** 0.44*** 0.58*** 0.66*** 0.59*** 1.00
14 IHB 0.53*** 0.58*** 0.56*** 0.50*** 0.53*** 0.47*** 0.43*** 0.48*** 0.46*** 0.60*** 0.59*** 0.42*** 0.49*** 1.00
15 IEWOM1 0.46*** 0.50*** 0.58*** 0.43*** 0.46*** 0.41*** 0.34*** 0.46*** 0.46*** 0.53*** 0.56*** 0.42*** 0.57*** 0.64*** 1.00
16 IEWOM2 0.48*** 0.49*** 0.58*** 0.42*** 0.47*** 0.41*** 0.35*** 0.44*** 0.42*** 0.52*** 0.55*** 0.44*** 0.57*** 0.63*** 0.88*** 1.00
17 IEWOM3 0.40*** 0.46*** 0.49*** 0.40*** 0.43*** 0.39*** 0.37*** 0.41*** 0.38*** 0.47*** 0.51*** 0.42*** 0.44*** 0.59*** 0.70*** 0.72*** 1.00
18 IEWOM4 0.48*** 0.51*** 0.56*** 0.46*** 0.47*** 0.40*** 0.37*** 0.45*** 0.42*** 0.53*** 0.55*** 0.43*** 0.54*** 0.63*** 0.79*** 0.81*** 0.80*** 1.00
Mean 4.43 4.39 3.92 4.62 4.55 4.61 4.77 4.27 4.22 4.40 4.34 4.37 3.71 4.33 3.69 3.68 4.06 3.98
S.D. 1.61 1.62 1.81 1.77 1.74 1.79 1.67 1.93 1.84 1.64 1.44 1.53 1.65 1.60 1.79 1.75 1.84 1.78
Note: ATT1-4 are the item codes of attitudes-toward-the-tweet scale, ATHTA1-3 are the item codes of attitudes-toward-hotel-
Twitter-account scale, ATHB1-4 are the item codes of attitudes-toward-the-hotel-brand scale, IHB is the item code of the
intentions of hotel booking scale, and IEWOM1-4 are the item codes of the intentions of electronic word-of-mouth scale. Scale
items are shown in Table 14. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two-tailed)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
67
4.7 Measurement Model
Figure 6 shows the measurement model, which consisted of four latent constructs.
The first latent construct, attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account (ATHTA), was
estimated using three indicators. Each of the other latent constructs, including attitudes-
toward-the-tweet (ATT), attitudes-toward-hotel-brand (ATHB), and intentions-of-
electronic-word-of-mouth (IEWOM), was estimated using four indicators. Moreover, the
maximum-likelihood method in the Mplus software was used to estimate and examine the
measurement model (Table 18). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted –
χ2 (113) = 588.92, p<.001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04 – and
indicated a good fit between the model and the data (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara,
1996). Standardized parameter estimates suggested that the latent variables had been
effectively measured using their respective indicators (factor loadings > .72), as is shown
in Figure 6. The un-standardized parameter estimates are provided in Table 18. The cut-
off criterion for good discriminant validity is determined by calculating the standardized
estimated error-correlations between latent factors, and Brown (2006) suggests that it
should be below 85.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
68
Figure 6. Four-factor measurement model of the present study.
Note: χ2 (113) = 588.92, p<.001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04.
Standardized coefficients are shown in Table 18. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two-
tailed).
ATT is the code of attitudes-toward-the-tweet and ATT1-4 represents its scale, ATHTA
is the code of attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account and ATHTA1-3 represents its scale,
ATHB is the code of attitudes-toward-the-hotel-brand and ATHB1-4 represents its scale,
and IEWOM is the code of the-intentions-of-electronic-word-of-mouth and IEWOM1-4
represents its scale.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
69
Table 18 Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates for Measurement Model
Unstandardized "B" Standardized "β"
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE
Pattern Coefficients
ATT factor
ATT1 1 na -
0.85*** 0.01
ATT2 1.04*** 0.04
0.90*** 0.01
ATT3 1.07*** 0.04
0.90*** 0.01
ATT4 0.88*** 0.04
0.79*** 0.02
ATHTA factor
ATHTA1 1 na -
0.81*** 0.02
ATHTA2 1.11*** 0.04
0.89*** 0.01
ATHTA3 1.07*** 0.05
0.77*** 0.02
ATHB factor
ATHB1 1 na -
0.84*** 0.01
ATHB2 0.91*** 0.03
0.88*** 0.01
ATHB3 0.78*** 0.04
0.71*** 0.02
ATHB4 0.88*** 0.04
0.74*** 0.02
IEWOM factor
IEWOM1 1 na -
0.92*** 0.01
IEWOM2 0.99*** 0.02
0.93*** 0.01
IEWOM3 0.89*** 0.03
0.80*** 0.02
IEWOM4 0.95*** 0.03
0.88*** 0.01
Note: ATT is the code of attitudes-toward-the-tweet and ATT1-4 represents its scale,
ATHTA is the code of attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account and ATHTA1-3 represents
its scale, ATHB is the code of attitudes-toward-the-hotel-brand and ATHB1-4 represents
its scale, and IEWOM is the code of the-intentions-of-electronic-word-of-mouth and
IEWOM1-4 represents its scale. Scale items are shown in Table 14. *p<.05, **p<.01,
***p<.001 (two-tailed).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
70
4.8 Structural Model
The hypothesized conceptual model (Figure 3) specified the relationship between
the latent variables – tweet format (photo and hyperlink), tweet content (product and
engagement), attitudes toward hotel tweets, attitudes toward hotel Twitter account,
attitudes toward hotel brand, intentions of eWOM, and intentions of hotel booking. After
the CFA was conducted, the variance-covariance matrices were utilized using Mplus
software version 7 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2016) with Maximum Likelihood
estimation.
To distinguish the treatments of the different conditions – tweet format (text,
photo, and hyperlink) and tweet content (brand, product, and engagement) – four dummy
variables were created. The dummy variables were coded as follows: a 0,1 dummy
variable was used in which the value of 0 was given to the control conditions and the
value of 1 was given to the treatment, or testing, condition. The control conditions in the
present study were the text condition, in the case of tweet format, and the brand
condition, in the case of tweet content. Thus, four dummy variables were created for data
analysis. For more details, see Figure 5.
The results of the SEM model recommended a good fit – χ2 (160) = 550.13,
p<.001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06 – revealing good model fit for
the hypotheses (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Therefore, no model modification was needed. The
standardized parameter estimates (β) are presented in Figure 7, and the unstandardized
parameter estimates (B) are shown in Table 19.
Of the eight hypotheses proposed, six were supported (Table 19). Hypotheses
1&2 tested the effect of tweet format (photo and hyperlink) on attitudes-toward-hotel-
tweets. Contrary to what was predicted, photo did not have a significant effect on
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
71
attitudes-toward-hotel-tweets when compared to text (Hypothesis 1 was not supported).
On the other hand, hyperlink showed a significant effect on attitudes-toward-hotel-tweets
when compared to text (hypothesis 2 was supported). Contrary to the prediction,
however, hyperlink decreased attitudes-toward-hotel-tweets (β= -.15, p< .01).
Hypothesis 3 tested the effect of tweet content (information about hotel products
compared to information about hotel brand) on attitudes-toward-hotel-tweets. This
hypothesis was not supported. The effect of tweet content (space for consumer
engagement compared to brand) on attitudes-toward-hotel-tweets (Hypothesis 4) was
supported (β= -.13, p< .05), however. This result differed from the result predicted:
engagement was found to decrease attitudes-toward-hotel-tweets.
Hypothesis 5 tested whether attitudes-toward-hotel-tweets positively affect
attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account. Hypothesis 5 was supported (β= .66, p< .001).
Hypothesis 6 examined the effect of attitudes-toward-hotel-Twitter-account on attitudes-
toward-hotel-brand. Hypothesis 6 was also supported (β= .81, p< .001). Hypothesis 7
investigated whether attitudes-toward-hotel-brand significantly influence intentions-of-
eWOM. Hypothesis 7 was supported (β= .72, p< .001). Hypothesis 8 tested whether
attitudes-toward-hotel-brand significantly impact intentions-of-hotel-booking. Hypothesis
8 was supported (β= .70, p< .001). The overall structural model is presented in Table 19.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
72
Figure 7. Structural model and hypotheses testing results.
Note: All are standardized estimates. χ2 (160) = 550.13, p<.001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94,
RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06. Standardized coefficients are shown. *p<.05, **p<.01,
***p<.001 (two-tailed); ns: non-significant.
Table 19 Unstandardized Coefficients, Estimated Standard Errors, and Standardized
Coefficients of Direct Effects Hypothesis Direct Effect Path B SE β Result
H1 Photo ATT -0.14 0.15 -0.05 Not supported
H2 Hyperlink ATT -0.48** 0.15 -0.15 Supported, but opposite direction
H3 Product ATT -0.03 0.15 -0.01 Not supported
H4 Engagement ATT -0.40* 0.15 -0.13 Supported, but opposite direction
H5 ATT ATHTA 0.58*** 0.04 0.66 Supported
H6 ATHTA ATHB 0.86*** 0.05 0.81 Supported
H7 ATHB IEWOM 0.87*** 0.05 0.72 Supported
H8 ATHB IHB 0.81*** 0.04 0.70 Supported
Note: ATT is the code of attitudes-toward-the-tweet, ATHTA is the code of attitudes-
toward-hotel-Twitter-account, ATHB is the code of attitudes-toward-hotel-brand,
IEWOM is the code of the intentions-of-electronic-word-of-mouth, and IHB is the code
of the intentions-of-hotel-booking. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two-tailed).
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
73
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Hypotheses Discussion
The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of various factors of
hotels tweets on customers’ decisions to spread positive eWOM and their intentions to
book a hotel room. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to measure the marketing
effectiveness of Twitter use in the hotel industry in Saudi Arabia. A model was
developed based on the framework of social media marketing effectiveness developed by
Leung (2012). The hypothesized model was tested using an online survey with an
embedded experiment.
The first hypothesis discussed the impact of adding a photo to a hotel tweet on
consumers’ attitudes toward that tweet. We predicted that the relationship would be
significant and the impact would be positive. The hypothesis was not supported,
however. This study found that photos do not affect or positively change customers’
attitudes toward hotel tweets. Contrary to the prediction, the results indicated that hotel
guests like and prefer to retweet plain-text tweets more than they prefer to retweet tweets
that include a photo. This result is inconsistent with the original proposal of Mitchell’s
and Olson’s (1981) attitude model, which suggests that the evaluation associated with a
prominent part of an advertisement, such as a picture, becomes associated with the brand
name. Studies on social media suggest that tweets with photos generate a greater number
of engagements, have excessive effect, and express the emotions and beauty of
information better than does plain-text (Bonsón et al., 2016; Geerlings, 2014; Xi, 2012;
Zhang et al., 2013). For example, a study investigating the use of Twitter in the Spanish
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
74
hotel industry (Bonsón et al., 2016) found that “photos, as a particular media type,
generate more retweets … and [favorites] … than other media types do” (p. 77). The
results of this study, however, were contrary to these previous findings.
We suggest several reasons why tweets with text were more appealing to Saudi
consumers than tweets with photos in this study. Twitter was initially established as a
plain-text only platform, so many people still prefer sending and receiving text tweets.
This may be perceived as similar to sending and receiving text messages. The appeal of
Twitter over text messaging, however, is that it reaches a broader audience. It could be
that most people are accustomed to the simple format of plain-text messaging. It is more
straight-forward and may be perceived as a more direct way to deliver messages via
Twitter. During the pre-test in the present study, the researcher found text to be one of the
most popular types of format used in Twitter by the top six hotels in Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, text is also the most common way for well-known Saudi hotels to deliver
information. Saudi hotel guests may simply be used to this format. Furthermore, this
study used an experimental design by creating a fictitious hotel. It could be that many
respondents did not trust the photo presented in tweets from the simulated hotel’s
account. Nevertheless, the results of this study suggest that Saudi hotels should focus
more on marketing using informative texts about their brands, products/services, policies,
locations, and other useful information for guests. Using a photo may be an option, but
according to the results of this study, it does not have a greater effect that text tweets do.
The second hypothesis tested the relationship between adding a hyperlink to a
hotel tweet and hotel guests’ attitudes toward that tweet. We hypothesized that the
relationship would be significant and positive. This hypothesis was supported, but the
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
75
direction of the relationship was opposite to the one we predicted. We found, in fact, that
adding a hyperlink to a hotel tweet decreases hotel guests’ attitudes toward that tweet.
Contrary to the predictions, the results indicated that plain-text tweets are preferred to a
greater degree by hotel guests than are tweets including a hyperlink. These results are
inconsistent with previous research that found that adding hyperlinks to SM messages is
positively correlated with consumers’ attitudes toward the messages (Alboqami et al.,
2015; Bonsón et al., 2016; Boyd et al., 2010; Cooper, 2013; Suh et al., 2010; Zarrella,
2009). At the same time, the results of our research were in line with a recent study by
Microsoft and Columbia University researchers who found that about 60% of tweets with
links never get clicked or read (Jain, 2016; Morris, 2016). The negative attitudes we
found toward the tweet with a hyperlink may indicate consumers’ concerns about their
privacy and security. This may be especially the case for unknown businesses (like the
simulated hotel created for the purposes of this study). When a company is unknown or
new, there is a lack of trust between consumers and the business. Consumers, therefore,
may think that a hyperlink in a tweet can navigate them to a vulnerable web page. Hence,
new hotels need to be aware of such concerns and try to be more informative in their
tweets to first build trust with their guests. In their initial marketing through Twitter and
other SM platforms, new hotel businesses need to ensure their guests that they are
looking after their well-being, showing integrity, and protecting their information. If they
do, guests will feel safe and secure when they click on all links provided by the hotels
they follow.
The third hypothesis revolved around the relationship between information about
products/services added to a hotel tweet and its influence on hotel guests' attitudes toward
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
76
that tweet. We predicted that the relationship would be significant and that the influence
would be positive. The hypothesis was not supported, however. We found that the hotel
guests’ attitudes did not change if the hotels added information about products/services to
their tweets. Again, these results seem contrary to the findings of prior studies, which
argued that customers’ attitudes are positively influenced by products/services advertised
via SM sites (Sinclaire & Vogus, 2011). From our study, it appears that guests prefer
marketing and advertising information that is not related to products/services. Therefore,
we suggest that if a new hotel wants to achieve satisfactory attitudes from their guests,
they need to focus on marketing their brands first. Only after consumers develop trust in
the brand can they trust information posted about products/services from new or
unknown hotels.
The fourth hypothesis investigated the effect of consumer engagement on hotel
guests’ attitudes toward tweets. Engagement was tested by providing a space in the
simulated tweets that allowed hotel guests’ to reply and act, including by asking
questions, sharing experiences, mentioning, retweeting, liking, and adding picture
captions. We hypothesized that the impact of this type of tweet on hotel guests’ attitudes
toward such tweets would be positive and significant. This hypothesis was supported, but
the direction of the relationship was opposite to the direction we predicted. We found that
tweets with a space for engagement do not affect or positively change customers’
attitudes toward hotel tweets. The results indicated that hotel guests like and prefer to
retweet and interact with tweets that include brand information more than they do tweets
that include a space for engagement. This result was also contrary to the findings of other
studies. For instance, engagement has been found to be positively correlated with
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
77
customers’ experiences, attitudes, and purchasing decisions (Green, 2007; Golden &
Caruso-Cabrera, 2016; Levy et al., 2013; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramaswamy &
Gouillart, 2010; Schools, 2014). Our findings, however, indicate that providing a space
for consumer engagement in a hotel tweet negatively affects attitudes toward that tweet.
One possible explanation for this result might be that the posted tweets were from
a fictitious hotel and, therefore, did not reflect consumers’ preferences. Respondents in
this study were unfamiliar with the simulated hotel brand and simply did not have any
previous experience to reflect upon. Secondly, the simulated tweets were presented in a
static format. So while participants could see a space for engagement, they could not
interact directly in that space.
Similar to our previous conclusions, we suggest that new hotels need to build their
brand images first by posting tweets that are appealing, favorable, useful, and interesting
to their guests’ preferences and experiences. Once consumers have sufficient experience
with a hotel brand, they may be more willing to share their experiences and preferences
by engaging with hotel Twitter accounts. As has been shown by numerous consumer
relationship management (CRM) studies, building relationships with a company
facilitates brand loyalty, retention, repeat purchases, WOM/eWOM, and customer
satisfaction (Heller Baird & Parasnis, 2011; Noor, 2012; Patil, 2014).
We also speculate that respondents may be more engaged with their issues and
problems instantly and directly by, for example, reaching out to management via phone
or email, rather than through a space on Twitter provided for guests’ feedback. This may
be especially relevant when the issue at hand could reveal private information that the
guest does not want to be made public. Hotels need to listen to their guests and interact
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
78
with them instantaneously. Some of these suggestions might help to influence hotels
guests’ engagement and positively affect their attitudes toward brands.
Hypothesis five examined the relationship between the attitude toward the hotel
tweet and the attitude toward the hotel Twitter account. The prediction was that the
relationship would be significant and positive. The hypothesis was supported. We found
that hotel guests’ favorable attitudes toward hotel tweets boosted their attitudes toward
hotel Twitter accounts. Generally, the more hotel guests liked the tweets posted by a
hotel, the more time they spent following and engaging with that hotel’s Twitter account.
This finding accords with our predictions and the notion, forwarded by Raney et al.
(2003), that positive attitudes toward entertaining advertising on a website increase
consumers’ intentions to revisit that site considerably more than do sites without
entertaining advertising. Likewise, Paquette (2013) found that “users who have more
positive attitudes toward advertising are more likely to join a brand or a retailer’s
Facebook group” (p. 10). Also, Leung et al. (2015) suggested that customers’ enjoyment
and experiences of SM pages have a positive influence on their attitudes toward hotels’
SM pages.
Therefore, a hotel’s tweets are important predictors of whether guests will like the
hotel’s Twitter account. Hotels need to evaluate the types of tweets that they post in order
to discover the types that best influence their guests’ attitudes. Tweets posted by a hotel
should be more attractive and interesting to the hotel’s guests to enrich their attitudes
toward the entire Twitter account. The use of Twitter proves to be the venue for
marketing. The results of this study emphasize the value of tweets as a means to improve
a chain of consumer attitudes toward the hotel.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
79
The sixth hypothesis tested the next link in this chain of relationships: the link
between attitudes toward the hotel Twitter account and attitudes toward the hotel brand.
The prediction was that the relationship would be significant and positive. The hypothesis
was supported. We found that hotel guests’ attitudes toward hotel brands are positively
influenced by their attitudes toward hotels’ Twitter accounts. This result also supports the
findings of Leung (2012) and Leung et al. (2015), which claimed that attitudes toward a
hotel’s SM page have a positive impact on attitudes toward the hotel’s brand. The results
suggest that hotels need to take advantage of the marketing opportunities that Twitter
provides to feature their brand names and images. Doing so motivates and influences
their guests’ perceptions of their brands. Brand awareness can also be increased by letting
guests know that the hotel is available on Twitter to listen to and respond to their
inquiries. Strong marketing via Twitter has a direct effect on positive consumer attitudes
toward brands.
The next two hypotheses tested consumers’ attitudes toward a brand on their
intentions to spread positive electronic word-of-month (hypothesis seven) and to book a
room (hypothesis eight). Both hypotheses were supported. We found that the more
positive and favorable consumers felt toward a hotel brand, the more likely they were to
spread positive eWOM about the hotel. This result is in line with previous research that
found that spreading of eWOM is higher when consumers feel more interested in the
brands they follow (Leung, 2012; Leung et al., 2015; Yeh & Choi, 2011). Several
traditional marketing studies have also claimed that consumers’ satisfaction with a brand
greatly influences their WOM. Individuals are more likely to engage in WOM when their
excitement toward a brand is very high (Aaker, 1997; Roberts, 2004) or, on the contrary,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
80
very low (Richins, 1983). An important predictor of the spread positive eWOM is
whether a brand is relevant to its consumers’ lives. This effect was found to be more
prominent in the offline context than in the online context, however (Lovett, Peres, &
Shachar, 2013). Nevertheless, our results suggest that consumers are more likely to
spread positive eWOM about new brands online if those brands use SM platforms,
especially if consumers use Twitter as a platform to engage with the hotels’ brands. Also,
the simplicity of Twitter might be the reason for the fast spread of eWOM, which
increases awareness of hotels’ brands quickly and easily. To generate positive eWOM
about their brands on Twitter, hotels need to professionally interact with their guests.
Larger hotels may consider using celebrities to endorse their brands and spread eWOM.
Moreover, hotels should always maintain control of their brands’ reputations by listening
to and engaging with their guests, employees, and other groups on Twitter. This strategy
can help them to generate more brand awareness and allow them to benefit from
individuals’ engagement.
The eighth and final hypothesis tested whether the relationship between attitudes
toward hotel brand and intentions of hotel booking was significant and positive. This
hypothesis was also supported. The findings clearly demonstrate the impact of hotel
guests’ favorable attitudes toward hotel brands on their booking intentions. This finding
is compatible with those of previous studies that have suggested that purchase intentions
are affected positively and directly by attitudes toward a brand (Bruner II & Kumar,
2000; Leung et al., 2015; Mitchell & Olson, 1981). In other words, the more customers
like a hotel brand, the more likely they are to book a room in that hotel. This is hardly
surprising, as this relationship has been effectively demonstrated by traditional
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
81
marketing. Furthermore, this research seems to support the notion that the same
principles are applicable to marketing via Twitter. Therefore, hotels should use their
Twitter accounts to sustain and promote the positioning of their brand names, which will
enhance their guests’ hotel booking intentions.
Additionally, Smith (2016) claimed that more than three-quarters of active
Twitter users access Twitter on their mobile phones. Thus, hotels also need to increase
their brand awareness and presence on Twitter by targeting mobile users, being mobile
friendly, and utilizing different Twitter tools, e.g. mentioning and adding hashtags.
5.2 Theoretical Framework Support This study used Leung’s (2012) model of the marketing effectiveness of
Facebook in the hotel industry. Leung’s original model suggested that the format and the
content of Facebook messages have a direct, positive effect on consumers’ attitudes
toward Facebook pages, which then influence their attitudes toward the messages
themselves. These positive effects result in positive attitudes toward hotel brands and
ultimately lead to positive eWOM and intent to book.
For the purposes of this study, the model was modified and applied in a different
context (Twitter) and in a different cultural setting (Saudi Arabia). With regard to the
modification of the model, we suggested that the format and the content would influence
attitudes toward messages before they had any impact on other attitudes, such as attitudes
toward SM pages and hotel brands.
Leung initially argued that Facebook message content and message format have
direct effects on consumer attitudes. When tested empirically, however, Leung’s findings
showed that message format and content have no effect on consumers’ attitudes toward
Facebook pages. Leung found that the test of the interaction effect (format x content) was
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
82
not significant. Although, Leung found that among the two main effects, the impact of
Facebook message format was significant, while the impact of Facebook message content
was non-significant. Therefore, Leung argued that both message format and message
content have no effect on consumers’ attitudes and/or their intentions to engage in
eWOM and hotel booking. Thus, Leung dropped these constructs from the originally
hypothesized model and simplified the model to examine only the relationships between
consumers’ attitudes, their eWOM, and their hotel room booking intentions.
In our study, we did not find that Twitter messages’ format or content had any
positive influence on consumers’ attitudes toward hotel Twitter accounts or brands.
Adding a photo did not have any effect on these attitudes, and adding a hyperlink had a
negative effect. Featuring a product in a message did not result in positive consumer
attitudes, while adding a space for consumer engagement had a negative impact on these
attitudes.
Although these results were contrary to our predictions, they were consistent with
Leung’s (2012) original model. Neither study found that SM message format or content
can be used to predict consumers’ positive attitudes toward a company. This is not to say
that SM message format or content should not be taken into consideration when
developing marketing strategies via SM. Here is why.
There are several reasons why the effect of SM messages was not found. First and
foremost, simulated SM accounts were used in both studies. Second, because the
accounts were simulated, respondents did not have any prior knowledge about the
companies or experiences with the hotels. This implies a lack of any previous relationship
with the hotels and, most importantly, a lack of trust in the brands. In real life situations,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
83
respondents may be willing to click on a link provided by a trusted brand or pay more
attention to a photo of a hotel they are familiar with. In the simulations, however, these
attitudes were not evident. Likewise, consumers may be willing to leave feedback on
otherwise engage with a familiar hotel Twitter account, but in our simulated situation,
this was not the case. In addition, guests may be willing to receive information about
products/services provided by a well-known hotel that they are aware of, but in our
simulated situation, this willingness was not shown. Overall, both Leung’s research and
our study demonstrate that forcing respondents to evaluate only simulated hotels’ SM
accounts may have a negative or zero impact on their attitudes and behaviors toward
those hotels’ SM accounts.
It is important to note, here, that although the simulated Twitter account did not
work as intended in examining the relationships between tweets and consumer attitudes,
it actually provided many useful insights for hospitality marketers. In a way, a simulated
Twitter account can be seen as a projection of a new hotel: customers are unfamiliar with
the brand name, and they do not have any experience or trust in the company. What this
study shows is that new hotels face many challenges at first. A new company needs to
start developing their presence on Twitter with simple, informative, plain-text tweets.
Once the company develops a number of followers, they can start making their tweets
more interactive. This study also suggests that once consumers have positive attitudes
toward a hotel’s tweets, they start having positive attitudes toward the hotel’s entire
Twitter account, which, in turn, improve their attitudes toward the hotel’s brand and
result in intent to book and the spread of electronic word of mouth. The findings for these
relationships were consistent with the theoretical model of the study and, once again,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
84
empirically supported the hypothesis that attitudes toward SM accounts have a direct
impact on consumers’ attitudes toward brands and lead to boosted booking intentions and
positive eWOM.
In sum, we found that SM messages are important predictors of whether guests
like or follow hotels’ SM pages. This conclusion is opposite to Leung’s suggestion that
only after consumers develop positive attitudes toward SM pages can they develop
positive attitudes toward messages posted by those pages. We believe that companies
need first to attract their consumers to join their SM sites by taking care of the messages
posted in their SM account. Thus, once consumers have positive attitudes toward a SM
site’s messages, they will be more likely to join or follow the site.
Lastly, the more positive attitudes consumers develop toward a hotel brand, the
more likely they are to book hotel rooms in that brand’s hotels and the more willing they
are to spread positive eWOM about that brand. All hotels, and especially newcomers,
need to take this strategy into consideration to attract new customers and retain existing
customers. Hotel managers should understand that SM marketing is different from
traditional marketing. SM requires them to build their brand names and images by first
listening to their consumers and responding to them instantly. Thus, we believe that
companies need to consider these approaches to earn their consumers’ trust and
confidence in their hotel brands.
5.3 Relevant Consumer Characteristics Discussion
This study also examined consumer characteristics regarding behavior toward
SM, attitude toward SM, and involvement with SM. We found that these characteristics
predict hotel guests’ perceptions toward SM marketing. Generally, it appears that a great
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
85
number of respondents used various types of SM almost every day. The reasons they
reported for using SM included connecting with friends and family, entertainment, news,
and other reasons. Thus, it can be assumed that hotel guests’ positive or negative
experiences with hotels can be spread easily and swiftly to many of their followers on
SM.
With regard to the brands or firms they follow on SM, it seems that the vast
majority of consumers (72% in this sample) follow at least one brand or company. Most
of the respondents followed the brands or companies that they did to search for discounts,
offers, and promotions; to find new products/services; or to search for information about
a certain products/service. Thus, it seems that respondents prioritized information about
products and services above information about brands or companies on SM. This
behavior was only evident for the brands that the respondents knew and trusted (and
therefore followed on SM). Brands need to use SM to provide whatever satisfies their
customers’ needs, experiences, and preferences. Generally, it appears that Saudi
customers prefer recommendations from their friends and colleagues with prior
knowledge about products/services, and then the brands’ or businesses’ own websites.
This shows the value of word of mouth and the value of information provided on
companies’ websites more than it does the value of information on SM. This might be
due to trust concerns about some of the information provided via SM. When asked about
their attitudes toward SM, however, the majority of Saudi respondents believed that SM
plays an important role in today’s marketplace and should be embraced by many
businesses. Therefore, businesses should use SM to build trust, build their reputations,
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
86
enhance awareness of their brands, and gain competitive advantage by reaching the
masses and saving costs.
When it comes to involvement with SM, respondents who started using SM when
they were 10 years old and older said they spent an average of 30 hours per week (more
than 4 hours per day) online and more than 4 hours per day on SM. Regarding the
number of followers on Twitter, more than half of the respondents followed and were
followed by less than 150 people. Almost half of the respondents who used SM were
young consumers (between 20 and 29 years old). Thus, it seems that involvement with
SM is gaining popularity, which means that SM offers great opportunities for hoteliers to
effectively engage with their guests in two-way conversations.
Overall, we suggest that hoteliers find ways to enhance their guests’ experiences
with their brands through SM. One of the most effective ways to improve their
interactions with their guests is to provide a trusted customer review system on their SM
sites. Different strategies for marketing hotels’ products/services via SM seem necessary
for success in today’s highly competitive business world because guests have an open
space of choices from which to select what they follow and recommend and where they
book. Thus, hoteliers need to provide high-quality customer service and advanced
interactive marketing technology to meet and exceed their guests’ expectations.
5.4 Conclusion, Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies
The investigation of SM consumers’ attitudes warrants continuous effort from
both academic scholars and industry practitioners. This study extended the model of
social media marketing effectiveness to investigate the impact of Twitter consumers’
intentions to book hotels in Saudi Arabia and to engage in positive eWOM. The size of
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
87
the Saudi population that uses new technologies and SM and the economic prosperity of
Saudis increase the demand for hospitality researchers to study this phenomenon.
Businesses in general and hospitality and tourism firms in particular should take
advantage of the opportunity to attract Saudi consumers to SM sites.
While this study added knowledge to the theoretical background on the
effectiveness of SM and offered many valuable insights for the hotel industry
practitioners, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. The sampling method used is
one limitation. The study utilized a convenience sampling strategy, so the results cannot
be generalized because the sample was limited to the context of Saudi Arabia. To
generalize these findings, replication of this study in a range of locations is
recommended. Moreover, future studies could use the theory and method applied in this
study to investigate how the hospitality and tourism industries apply different SM
platforms and to investigate other businesses contexts. For instance, similar studies could
be conducted in other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (e.g. Kuwait, United
Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain) or in other regions. Consumers in other
regions might act and feel differently about the use of different SM sites as marketing
tools.
Furthermore, the simulated hotel Twitter account developed and designed by the
researcher might be the reason that some of the results differed from what was expected
and predicted. This study clearly points out that hotel guests need to trust hotel brands
before they can have favorable attitudes toward them. Trust, in turn, could be one of the
mediating factors that affect hotel guests’ attitudes toward hotels. Perhaps using a real
hotel brand to test the model proposed in this research would provide more accurate and
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
88
reliable results that would be more useful to the hospitality industry. Loyalty toward a
specific hotel brand can also be a mediating factor that influences hotels guests’ attitudes
and intentions. So, future research testing real-brand SM accounts should examine trust
and brand loyalty as mediating factors.
Additionally, depending on shifts in the ever-developing, sophisticated
technologies used by different SM platforms, some factors used in this study might need
to be adjusted in future research. For example, videos and snapchatting are
transformative means to market and advertise businesses. Thus, future research could
investigate the impact of these technologies on the consumer attitudes tested in this study.
A general limitation of research in the social sciences is the risk of respondents’
answering untruthfully or inaccurately; therefore, some of the results may not precisely
represent consumers’ experiences and attitudes. Such concerns are always out of the
researcher’s control. Additionally, inaccurate results are usually attributed to the number
of variables used (fatigue effect) or to the way the survey was presented. Although the
timing records show that on average, participants took between 10 and 20 minutes to
complete the survey, future studies might consider being more concise in their
questionnaires.
This research has shed light on the study of SM marketing effectiveness in the
hospitality industry. It offered empirical support to the theoretical model and extended
knowledge of the marketing effectiveness of SM sites in the hotel industry. Future
research is warranted to further examine the relationships between new SM platforms in
the hospitality and tourism industries.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
89
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(3), 347-356.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure
choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 207-224.
Akar, E. (2010). Sosyal medya pazarlaması: sosyal webde pazarlama stratejileri. Efil
Yayınevi: Ankara, Turkey.
Akar, E., & Topçu, B. (2011). An examination of the factors influencing consumers'
attitudes toward social media marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce, 10(1),
35-67.
Alarcón-Del-Amo, M. D., Lorenzo-Romero, C., & Gómez-Borja, M. A. (2011).
Classifying and profiling social networking site users: A latent segmentation
approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 547–553.
Alboqami, H., Al-Karaghouli, W., Baeshen, Y., Erkan, I., Evans, C., & Ghoneim, A.
(2015). Electronic word of mouth in social media: The common characteristics of
retweeted and favourited marketer-generated content posted on Twitter.
International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 9(4), 338-358.
Aluri, A., Slevitch, L., & Larzelere, R. (2015). The effectiveness of embedded social
media on hotel websites and the importance of social interactions and return on
engagement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
27(4), 670-689.
Anderson, R. E., Swaminathan, S., & Mehta, R. (2013). How to drive customer
satisfaction. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(4), 13-15.
Anonymous. (n.d.). Social media and consumer behaviour and attitudes questionnaire.
Retrieved from https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VYRDQNN
Baker, W. E. and Lutz, R. J. (1988). The relevance-accessibility model of advertising
effectiveness. Nonverbal Communication in Advertising, Sidney Hecker and
David W. Stewart, eds., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 59-84.
Barreda, A. A., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., & Okumus, F. (2015). Generating brand
awareness in Online Social Networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 600-
609.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective-responses mediating acceptance of advertising.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 234-249.
Bernoff, J., & Li, C. (2008). Harnessing the power of the oh-so-social web. MIT Sloan
management review, 49(3), 36-42.
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., & Campbell, C. (2008). Ad Lib: When customers create the ad.
California Management Review, 50(4), 6-30.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
90
Bickart, B. & Schindler, R. (2002). Expanding the scope of word of mouth: consumer-to-
consumer information on the internet. Advances in Consumer Research, 29 (1),
428-430.
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of
consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.
Biehal, G., Stephens, D., & Curio, E. (1992). Attitude toward the ad and brand
choice. Journal of Advertising, 21(3), 19-36.
Bijmolt, T. H. A., Leeflang, P. S. H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B. G. S.,
Lemmens, A., & Saffert, P. (2010). Analytics for customer engagement. Journal
of Service Research, 13, 341-356.
Blackshaw, P., & Nazzaro, M. (2004). Consumer-Generated Media (CGM) 101: Word-
of-mouth in the age of the Web-fortified consumer. Retrieved
from http://www.nielsenbuzzmetrics.com/whitepapers
Blackshaw, P., & Nazzaro, M. (2006). Consumer-generated media (CGM) 101 word-of-
mouth in the age of the Web-fortified consumer (2nd Edition). New York:
BuzzMetrics, Inc.
Boateng, H., & Okoe, A. F. (2015). Consumers’ attitude towards social media advertising
and their behavioural response: The moderating role of corporate
reputation. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9(4), 299-312.
Bonsón, E., Bednárová, M., & Wei, S. (2016). Corporate Twitter use and stakeholder
engagement: An empirical analysis of the Spanish hotel industry. European
Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 69-83.
Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010, January). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational
aspects of retweeting on twitter. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii
International Conference, IEEE: Kauai, HI, January 6, 1-10.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer engagement:
Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research.
Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271.
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Bruner II, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2000). Web commercials and advertising hierarchy-of-
effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(1/2), 35-42.
Bullas, J. (2014, January 17). Twenty-two social media facts and statistics you should
know in 2014. Retrieved from http://www.jeffbullas.com/2014/01/17/20-social-
media-facts-and-statistics-you-should-know-in-2014/
Buttle, F., & Bok, B. (1996). Hotel marketing strategy and the theory of reasoned action.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), 5-10.
Cabiddu, F., Lui, T. W., & Piccoli, G. (2013). Managing value co-creation in the tourism
industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 86-107.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
91
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the
relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321-331.
Canhoto, A. I., & Clark, M. (2013). Customer service 140 characters at a time: The users'
perspective. Journal of marketing Management, 29(5-6), 522-544.
Cha, J. (2009). Shopping on social networking Web sites: Attitudes toward real versus
virtual items. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(1), 77-93.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of
marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
Chen, Q., & Wells, W. D. (1999). Attitude toward the site. Journal of Advertising
Research, 39(5), 27-37.
Chen, Y., Fay, S., & Wang, Q. (2011). The role of marketing in social media: How online
consumer reviews evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 85-94.
Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Thadani, D. R. (2009). The impact of positive
electronic word-of-mouth on consumer online purchasing decision. Visioning and
Engineering the Knowledge Society. A Web Science Perspective, ed. M. D.
Lytras et al. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, 5736: 501–510.
Chiang, C., & Jang, S. (2006). The effects of perceived price and brand image on value
and purchase intention: Leisure travelers' attitudes toward online hotel booking.
Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 15(3), 49-69.
Chiou, Y. H., Chen, M. H., Huang, L. S., Huang, L. R., & Hu, S. R. (2008). The effects
of blog product placement type and source credibility on the attitudes toward
product placement in Taiwan. In International Conference on Business and
Information, Seoul, South Korea, July, 7-9.
Cho, C. H., & Leckenby, J. D. (1999, March). Interactivity as a measure of advertising
effectiveness: Antecedents and consequences of interactivity in web advertising.
In Proceedings of The Conference-American Academy of
Advertising, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March, 162-179.
Cho, C. H., Phillips, J. R., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2009). Media richness, user
trust, and perceptions of corporate social responsibility: An experimental
investigation of visual web site disclosures. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 22(6), 933-952.
Choi, Y. K., Miracle, G. E., & Biocca, F. (2001). The effects of anthropomorphic agents
on advertising effectiveness and the mediating role of presence. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 2(1), 19-32.
Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J. (2012). Memo to marketers:
Quantitative evidence for change. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), 53-64.
Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-
of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International journal of
Advertising, 30(1), 47-75.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
92
Chu, S. C., Kamal, S., & Kim, Y. (2013). Understanding consumers' responses toward
social media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products. Journal
of Global Fashion Marketing, 4(3), 158-174.
Clarke, K., & Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition
on anticipated consumer effort. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 313-318.
Constantinides, E., Carmen Alarcón del Amo del, M., & Romero, C. L. (2010). Profiles
of social networking sites users in the Netherlands. In 18th Annual High
Technology Small Firms Conference, HTSF, 25–28 May 2010, Enschede, The
Netherlands.
Cooper, B. B. (2013, August). 10 surprising new twitter stats to help you reach more
followers. Retrieved from https://blog.bufferapp.com/10-new-twitter-stats-twitter-
statistics-to-help-you-reach-your-followers
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Davison, J. (2007). Photographs and accountability: cracking the codes of an NGO.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(1), 133-158.
De Maeyer, J. (2013). Towards a hyperlinked society: A critical review of link studies.
New Media & Society, 15(5), 737-751.
De Valck, K., Van Bruggen, G. H., & Wierenga, B. (2009). Virtual communities: A
marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 185-203.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research,
XXVIII, 307-319.
Duggan, M., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2015, January).
Demographics of key social networking platforms. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/demographics-of-key-social-networking-
platforms-2/
eBizMBA. (2017). Top 15 most popular websites in January 2017. Retrieved from
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites
Edell, J. A., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print
advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 45-61.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
93
Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological
reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-
up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83-95.
Elefant, C. (2011). The "power" of social media: Legal issues and best practices for
utilities engaging social media. Energy Law Journal, 32(1), 1-56.
Erbar, P. (2014, July 30). Different methods, different results: the top 10 countries using
Twitter Inc (TWTR). Retrieved from http://www.techinsider.net/different-
methods-different-results-the-top-10-countries-using-twitter-inc-
twtr/1110152.html
Facebook. (2015). Newsroom, Company info. Retrieved from
https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/
Firstpost. (2013, November). Saudis are the most active Twitter users in the world:
Study. Retrieved from http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/saudis-are-the-most-
active-twitter-users-in-the-world-study-215769.html
Gao, D., Zhang, R., Li, W., & Hou, Y. (2012, October). Twitter hyperlink
recommendation with user-tweet-hyperlink three-way clustering. In Proceedings
of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management, Maui, HI, USA, 2535-2538
Geerlings, D. (2014, January 17). Twitter engagement study: Photo vs. text tweets.
Retrieved from https://bn.co/twitter-engagement-study-photo-vs-text-tweets/
Gil-Or, O. (2010). Building consumer demand by using viral marketing tactics within an
online social network. Advances in Management, 3(7), 7-14.
GMI. (2016, May 25). Saudi Arabia social media statistics 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/saudi-arabia-social-media-statistics/
Golden, J., & Caruso-Cabrera, M. (2016, August 3). Why Marriott looks at everything
you post on social media from your room. Retrieved from
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/02/why-marriott-looks-at-what-you-post-on-
social-media-from-your-room.html
Graves, O. F., Flesher, D. L., & Jordan, R. E. (1996). Pictures and the bottom line: the
television epistemology of US annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 21(1), 57-88.
Green, C. E. (2007). The travel marketer's guide to social media and social networks:
Sales and marketing in a Web 2.0 world. Hospitality Sales & Marketing
Association International (HSMAI) Foundation and Travel Industry Association:
Mclean, VA, USA.
Greene, W. F. (1992). Observations: what drives commercial liking? Journal of
Advertising Research, 32(2), 65-68.
Greenwald, A.G. and Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: four
levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 581-592.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
94
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). eWOM: The impact of
customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty.
Journal of Business Research, 59(4), 449–456.
Guimarães, T. (2015, March). Revealed: A breakdown of the demographics for each of
the different social networks. Retrieved from:
http://www.businessinsider.com/2014-social-media-demographics-update-2014-9
Ha, L., & Hu, X. (2013). Social Media Involvement Among College Students and
General Population: Implications to Media Management. In Handbook of Social
Media Management, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 751-773.
Hair, Jr. J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hajli, M. N. (2014). A study of the impact of social media on consumers. International
Journal of Market Research, 56(3), 387-404.
Hamilton, K., & Alexander, M. (2013). Organic community tourism: A co-created
approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 169-190.
Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to
consumers' social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(6), 356-
364.
Heller Baird, C., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to social customer
relationship management. Strategy & leadership, 39(5), 30-37.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic
word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to
articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-
52.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2009). Demystifying customer engagement: Toward the development of
a conceptual model. Paper presented at the ANZMAC 2009 conference, Monash
University, Melbourne, VIC 30 November - 2 December.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the
loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), 785-807.
Holton, A. E., Baek, K., Coddington, M., & Yaschur, C. (2014). Seeking and sharing:
Motivations for linking on Twitter. Communication Research Reports, 31(1), 33-
40.
Homer, P. M. (1990). The mediating role of attitude toward the Ad: Some additional
evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 78-86.
Hsu, C. L., & Park, H. W. (2011). Sociology of hyperlink networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0,
and Twitter: A case study of South Korea. Social Science Computer Review,
29(3), 354-368.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Model, 6(1), 1–55.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
95
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., & Füller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions
in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on
Facebook. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(5/6), 342-351.
Hutton, G., & Fosdick, M. (2011). The globalization of social media. Journal of
Advertising Research, 51(4), 564-570.
Jackson, D. (2015, September 15). Facebook vs. Twitter: Which is best for your brand.
Retrieved from http://sproutsocial.com/insights/facebook-vs-twitter/
Jain, A. (2016, June). 60 percent of links shared on Twitter Inc. are never read [STUDY].
Retrieved from http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/06/60-percent-of-links-shared-
on-twitter-inc-are-never-read-study/
Jamalzadeh, M., Behravan, N., & Masoudi, R. (2012). An empirical study of email-based
advertisement and its influence on consumers' attitude. International Review of
Management and Marketing, 2(3), 130.
Jee, J., & Lee, W. N. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of perceived interactivity:
An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 34-45.
Jeong, M., & Choi, J. (2005). Effects of picture presentations on customers' behavioral
intentions on the web. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(2-3), 193-204.
Jeong, M., Oh, H., & Gregoire, M. (2003). Conceptualizing web site quality and its
consequences in the lodging industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 22(2), 161-175.
Jin, S. A. A., & Phua, J. (2014). Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact
of twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility
perception, buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of
Advertising, 43(2), 181-195.
Kambil, A. (2008). What is your web 5.0 strategy, Journal of Business Strategy, 29 (6),
56- 58.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2008), The New Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53(1): 59–68.
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2006). A structural analysis of destination travel intentions
as a function of web site features. Journal of Travel research, 45(2), 204-216.
Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kempf, A. and Smith, R. (1998). Consumer processing of product trial and the effects of
prior advertising: a structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research,
35(3), 325-338.
Kim, J., & Hardin, A. (2010). The impact of virtual worlds on word-of-mouth: Improving
social networking and servicescape in the hospitality industry. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(7), 735-753.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
96
Kim, W. G., Lim, H., & Brymer, R. A. (2015). The effectiveness of managing social
media on hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
44, 165-171.
Kirtiş, A. K., & Karahan, F. (2011). To be or not to be in social media arena as the most
cost-efficient marketing strategy after the global recession. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 24, 260-268.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th Edition)
[Kindle Edition]. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management (12th Edition). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Krugman, H.E. (1962). An application of learning theory to TV copy testing. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 26(4), 626-634.
Krugman, H.E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: learning without
involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), 349-356.
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of
advertising effectiveness. The Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59-62.
Law, R., & Hsu, C. H. (2005). Customers' perceptions on the importance of hotel web
site dimensions and attributes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 17(6), 493-503.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effects on
product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 263-
270.
Lee, H., Law, R., & Murphy, J. (2011). Helpful reviewers in TripAdvisor, an online
travel community. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(7), 675-688.
Leung, X. Y. (2012). The marketing effectiveness of hotel Facebook pages: From
perspectives of customers and messages (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.
Leung, X. Y., Bai, B., & Stahura, K. A. (2015). The marketing effectiveness of social
media in the hotel industry a comparison of Facebook and twitter. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(2), 147-169.
Levy, S. E., Duan, W., & Boo, S. (2013). An analysis of one-star online reviews and
responses in the Washington, DC, lodging market. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
54(1), 49-63.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lovett, M. J., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2013). On brands and word of mouth. Journal of
Marketing Research, 50(4), 427-444.
Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A
conceptual framework. Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects, 45-63.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
97
Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B., & Belch, G. E. (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a
mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. NA-
Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 532-539.
Ly, K., & Hu, L. (2015). Gender Difference Influence on Attitude toward Social Media
among Chinese Consumers. (Unpublished Bachelor’s thesis in Business
Administration). University of Borås, Sweden.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural
antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The
Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J., & Belch, G.E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the Ad as
a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143.
Marketing Science Institute. (2010). Research priorities 2010-2012. Retrieved from
http://image.sciencenet.cn/olddata/kexue.com.cn/upload/blog/file/2010/9/2010915
15178616316.pdf.
Mickey, B. (2011). Social media and marketing a major topic of discussion. Funworld,
27(1), 34-35.
Mitchell, A. A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on
brand attitudes and attitude toward the advertisement. Journal of consumer
research, 13(1), 12-24.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Cognitive effects of advertising
repetition. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 213-220.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1979). Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of Attitude
Formation and Change? An Examination of the Theoretical Logic of the Fishbein
Model. Papier De Recherche, Graduate School of Industrial Administration,
CarnegieMellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-
332.
Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government. (2014, June). Citizen engagement and
public services in the Arab world: The potential of social media. Retrieved from
http://www.mbrsg.ae/getattachment/5e2c447f-c02b-438f-a42a-f41ea16206ec/6
Morejon, R. (2011, August). Social media age demographics for Facebook and Twitter.
Retrieved from: http://roymorejon.com/social-media-age-demographics-for-
facebook-and-twitter/
Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A., & Abbott, S. (2001). Consumers, travel and technology: A
bright future for the Web or television shopping? Journal of vacation marketing,
7(2), 110-124.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
98
Morris, D. Z. (2016, June 19). 6 out of 10 links shared on Twitter are never clicked.
Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/06/19/6-out-of-10-twitter-link-clicks/
Morris, M. R., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., & Schwarz, J. (2012, February).
Tweeting is believing?: understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In
Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, Seattle, WA, USA, February 11-15, 441-450
Nassar, M. A. (2012). An investigation of hoteliers' attitudes toward the use of social
media as a branding tool. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(4), 93-
105.
Ngai, E. W., Tao, S. S., & Moon, K. K. (2015). Social media research: Theories,
constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information
Management, 35(1), 33-44.
Nielsen. (2013). State of the media: the social media report 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2012/state-of-the-media-the-social-media-
report-2012.html
Noor, N. A. M. (2012). Trust and Commitment: Do They Influence E-Customer
Relationship Performance? International Journal of Electronic Commerce
Studies, 3(2), 281.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Connor, P. (2010). Managing a hotel’s image on TripAdvisor. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 19(7), 754-772.
Palmer, A., & Koenig-Lewis, N. (2009). An experiential, social network-based approach
to direct marketing. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(3), 162-176.
Paquette, H. (2013). Social media as a marketing tool: A literature review. Major Papers
by Master of Science Students, Paper 2, University of Rhode Island, RI, 2013.
Paridon, T. J., & Carraher, S. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial marketing: Customer shopping
value and patronage behavior. Journal of Applied Management and
entrepreneurship, 14(2), 3-28.
Paris, C. M., Lee, W., & Seery, P. (2010). The role of social media in promoting special
events: Acceptance of Facebook ‘events’. Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2010, 14, 531-541.
Park, H., & Cho, H. (2012). Social network online communities: information sources for
apparel shopping. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(6), 400-411.
Park, H., Rodgers, S., & Stemmle, J. (2011). Health organizations’ use of Facebook for
health advertising and promotion. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 62-
77.
Park, S. Y., & Allen, J. P. (2013). Responding to online reviews problem solving and
engagement in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 64-73.
Parsons, M. (2009). It pays to be socially aware. Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland,
2879, 10-11.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
99
Patil, M. Y. (2014). Social Media and Customer Relationship Management. IOSR
Journal of Business and Management(IOSR-JBM), 27-32.
Patterson, P., Yu, T., & De Ruyter, K. (2006, December). Understanding customer
engagement in services. In Advancing Theory, Maintaining Relevance,
Proceedings of ANZMAC 2006 conference, Brisbane, Australia, December 4-6.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., and Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of
Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
PewResearchCenter. (2014). Social networking fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creating unique value with customers.
Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4-9.
Pratt, S. (2014, April 29). Then & now: The most popular US websites 2004 vs. 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.socialtalent.co/blog/popular-websites
Quinby, D. (2010). PhoCusWright's social media in travel: Traffic & activity.
PhoCusWright Report: Global Edition, 1-27.
Raluca, C., & Ioan, P. (2010). The Impact of consumers attitude toward advertising on
product attitude. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 6, 727-738.
Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). Building the co-creative enterprise. Harvard
Business Review, 88(10), 100-109.
Raney, A. A., Arpan, L. M., Pashupati, K., & Brill, D. A. (2003). At the movies, on the
web: An investigation of the effects of entertaining and interactive web content on
site and brand evaluations. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(4), 38-53.
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot
study. The Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68-78.
Ridings, C.M. & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: why people hang out
online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), 1-10.
Roberts, K. (2004). Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands. New York: Power House
Books.
Roberts, R. R., & Kraynak, J. (2008). Walk like a giant, sell like a madman. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Schools, D. (2014, October 16). Twitter marketing for hotels: How one tweet increased
engagement by 3000%. Retrieved from https://entrepreneurshandbook.co/twitter-
marketing-for-hotels-858efb969c94#.6asesh2xu
Senecal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The influence of online product recommendations on
consumers’ online choices. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 159-169.
Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand
choice. Journal of advertising, 10(2), 9-48.
Shimp, T. A., & Yokum, J. T. (1980). The influence of deceptive advertising on repeat
purchase behavior. In AMA Educators’ Proceedings, American Marketing
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
100
Association, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina,
266-270
Shultz, A. M. (2010). Factors influencing the perceived efficacy of communicating
agricultural messages through social media. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX, USA, August 2010.
Sigala, M., Christou, E., & Gretzel, U. (2012). Social media in travel, tourism and
hospitality: Theory, practice and cases. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Great Britain.
Sinclaire, J. K., & Vogus, C. E. (2011). Adoption of social networking sites: an
exploratory adaptive structuration perspective for global organizations.
Information Technology and Management, 12(4), 293-314.
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How does brand-related user-generated
content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(2), 102-113.
Smith, K. (2016, May 17). 44 astonishing Twitter stats and facts for 2016 - Brandwatch.
Retrieved from https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/44-twitter-stats-2016/
Smith, S.E., Wallace, O. (2010). What is customer engagement? Retrieved from
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-customer-engagement.htm
So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands
scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
38(3), 304-329.
Socialbakers. (2015). Twitter statistics in Saudi Arabia – Accommodation. Retrieved
from http://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/twitter/profiles/saudi-
arabia/brands/accommodation/
Solomon, M. R. (2003). Consumer behavior: buying, having, and being (6th Edition).
Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. & Hogg, M. (2013). Consumer Behavior.
London: Oxford University Press.
Stauss, B. (2000). Using new media for customer interaction: A challenge for relationship
marketing. In Relationship Marketing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 233-253.
Stelzner, M. (2014, May). 2014 social media marketing industry report: How marketers
are using social media to grow their businesses. Social Media Examiner.
Retrieved from
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryReport2014
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own.
Management Decision, 39(7), 551-555.
Stevenson, J. S., Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2000). Webpage background and viewer
attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(1-2), 29-34.
Stringam, B. B., & Gerdes Jr., J. (2010). An analysis of word-of-mouse ratings and guest
comments of online hotel distribution sites. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 19(7), 773-796.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
101
Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., & Chi, E. H. (2010, August). Want to be retweeted? large
scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In Social
Computing (Socialcom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference,
Minneapolis, MN, USA, August 20-22, 177-184.
Tariq, M., & Wahid, F. (2011). Assessing effectiveness of social media and traditional
marketing approaches in terms of cost and target segment coverage.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(1), 1049-
1074.
The Economist. (2014, September 13). Social media in Saudi Arabia: A virtual
revolution. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-
africa/21617064-why-social-media-have-greater-impact-kingdom-elsewhere-
virtual
The Hotel Summit in Saudi Arabia. (2013). The Kingdom’s hospitality sector in statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.hotelsummitsaudi.com/overview.html
The Statistics Portal. (2015). Penetration of leading social networks in Saudi Arabia as of
4th quarter 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.statista.com/statistics/284451/saudi-arabia-social-network-
penetration/
Twitter. (2015) About. Retrieved from https://about.twitter.com/company
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2008). Lessons from Facebook: The effect of
social network sites on college students’ social capital. In 9th International
Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, USA, April 4-5, 1-39.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C.
(2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research
directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.
Verhoef, P. C., Reinartz, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new
perspective in customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247-
252.
Violino, B. (2011). Social media trends. Communications of the ACM, 54(2), 17-17.
Vivek, S. D. (2009). A scale of consumer engagement. Doctoral Dissertation, The
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information search
model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551-578.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V., Jackson, P. and Beatty, S. (2009). Examining the antecedents
and consequences of corporate reputation: a customer perspective. British Journal
of Management, 20(2), 187-203.
Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2004). Modeling participation in an online travel
community. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 261-270.
Wei, W., Miao, L., & Huang, Z. J. (2013). Customer engagement behaviors and hotel
responses. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 316-330.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
102
Weinberg, T. (2009). The new community rules: Marketing on the social web. O'Reilly
Media, Inc.
Wells, J. D., Valacich, J. S., & Hess, T. J. (2011). What Signals Are You Sending? How
Website Quality Influences Perceptions of Product Quality and Purchase
Intentions. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 373-396.
Williamson, W. (2016, August 18). Why Twitter may be better than Facebook for your
B2B marketing strategy. Retrieved from https://blog.jdrgroup.co.uk/digital-
prosperity-blog/why-twitter-may-be-better-than-facebook-for-your-b2b-
marketing-strategy
Wolfe, L. (2016, September 23). Twitter vs Facebook for business: Which is better?
Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/twitter-vs-facebook-which-is-better-
3515069
Wong, J. C. (2016, September). Twitter's new tweets: videos, photos, gifs won't count
toward 140 characters. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/19/twitter-character-limit-
video-photo-gif
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2015). Travel and tourism economic impact 2015
Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://www.wttc.org/-
/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/countries%202015/saudiar
abia2015.pdf
Wright, P. (1973). Cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of
Marketing Research, 10(1), 53-62.
Xi, H. (2012). Microblog and newspaper picture spread analysis. Business Culture (the
second half), 5, 236-240.
Xia, L., & Bechwati, N.N. (2008). Word of mouse: The role of cognitive personalization
in online consumer reviews. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(1), 108-128.
Xiang, Z. & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search.
Tourism Management, 31(2), 179-188.
Yeh, Y. H., & Choi, S. M. (2011). MINI-lovers, maxi-mouths: An investigation of
antecedents to eWOM intention among brand community members. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 17(3), 145-162.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Edition). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yoo, K. H., & Gretzel, U. (2011). Influence of personality on travel-related consumer-
generated media creation. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 609-621.
Zabadi, A. M. A., Shura, M., & Elsayed, E. A. (2012). Consumer attitudes toward SMS
advertising among Jordanian users. International Journal of Marketing
Studies, 4(1), 77-94.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct in marketing. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
103
Zarrella, D. (2009). The science of retweets. Retrieved from
http://danzarrella.com/science-of-retweets.pdf
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
Zhang, C., Wang, J., & Tangshan, H. (2013, January). The sentiment trend analysis of
Twitter based on set pair contact degree. International Journal of Computer
Science Issues, 10(1), 798-804.
Zuckerberg, M. (2015, August 27). An important milestone. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102329188394581?pnref=story
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
104
Dev
elop a
n
exper
iment
conte
nt
anal
ysi
s
dat
a co
llec
tio
n
conte
nt
analy
sis
dat
a an
aly
sis
QU
AN
dat
a co
llec
tio
n
QU
AN
dat
a an
aly
sis
Inte
rpre
tati
on
Pro
ced
ure
s
•N
= 6
hote
l
Tw
itte
r
acco
unts
.
•B
etw
een
Sep
tem
ber
5,
2015 t
o
Oct
ober
5,
2015
Pro
ced
ure
s
•S
um
mar
ize
effe
ctiv
e
twee
ts
•In
terp
reta
tio
n
and
expla
nat
ion o
f
the
quan
tita
tive
findin
gs
Pro
ced
ure
s
•C
onte
nt
Anal
ysi
s by
the
rese
archer
Pro
ced
ure
s
•C
onsi
der
a 3
-
type
twee
t
form
ats
•C
onsi
der
a 3
-
type
twee
t
conte
nt
Pro
ced
ure
s
•N
= 4
50 S
audi
hote
l T
wit
ter
acco
unts
foll
ow
ers.
•S
urv
ey u
sing
Qual
tric
s
•B
etw
een A
pri
l
2016 t
o M
ay
2016
Pro
ced
ure
s
•H
ypoth
eses
•S
PS
S
•F
requen
cies
•M
plu
s 7
(SE
M)
Pro
du
cts
•D
iscu
ssio
n
•Im
pli
cati
ons
•F
utu
re
rese
arch
Pro
du
cts
•D
ata
wer
e
coll
ecte
d a
nd
reco
ded
by t
he
rese
archer
Pro
du
cts
•C
lass
ific
ati
on
of
the
twee
ts
by f
orm
ats
and
conte
nts
Pro
du
cts
•D
escr
ipti
ve
stat
isti
cs
•D
escr
ipti
ve
stat
isti
cs,
mis
sing
dat
a, l
inea
rity
,
hom
osc
edas
ticit
y,
norm
alit
y,
mult
ivar
iate
outf
itte
rs
•C
FI,
SR
MR
, T
LI,
and R
MS
EA
Pro
du
cts
•N
um
eric
al
score
s
Pro
du
cts
•A
3 x
3 t
wo
-
fact
or
(tw
eet
form
at
and
twee
t co
nte
nt)
= 9
uniq
ue
cond
itio
ns.
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Diagram of the Research Design
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
105
Appendix B
Content Analysis - Pre-test (September 5, 2015 – October 5, 2015)
Boudl Hotels & Resorts @BoudlHotels:
Number of Followers 89,177, Followings 4,165, Tweets 6,529.
Type: Regional Hotel & Resort Company.
Bio: Welcome [into] the world of comfort, luxury and refinement, where you can enjoy
fine, distinct and superior services, comfort and peace and all means of [entertainment].
.Saudi Arabia and Kuwait Location:
Phone: 920000666
Website: boudl.com.sa
Joined: June 2011.
Tweet Format Posts/Month Tweet Content Times
Text
205
Brand 110
Product 34
Engagement 190
Promotion 3
Information 92
Photos
132
Brand 107
Product 101
Engagement 6
Promotion 57
Information 32
Videos 2
Brand 2
Product 2
Hyperlinks
62
Brand 6
Product 5
Promotion 56
Carawan Al Fahad Hotel @Carawanalfahad:
Number of Followers 11,195, Followings 26, Tweets 1,091.
Type: National Hotel Company.
Bio: 4-Star hotel includes recreation facilities, spa, convention center, and luxury
wedding hall. It is in the Heart of Riyadh City on Ourabah Street crossing King Fahd
Road close to Kingdom Tower.
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Phone: +966 (11) 217-2345
Website: carawan-alfahad.com
Joined: March 2013
Tweet Format Posts/Month Tweet Content Times
Text
5
Brand 5
Product 3
Engagement 5
Photos 5
Brand 5
Product 5
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
106
Four Seasons Riyadh @FSRiyadh:
Number of Followers 5,667, Followings 266, Tweets 5,227.
Type: Multinational Hotel Company.
Bio: We are Four Seasons Hotel Riyadh at Kingdom Centre. Please follow us on Twitter
for up-to-the-tweet Hotel news and updates.
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Phone: +966 (11) 211-5000
Website: fourseasons.com/riyadh/
Joined: March 2009
Tweet Format Posts/Month Tweet Content Times
Text
31
Brand 27
Product 21
Engagement 4
Promotion 4
Information 6
Photos 2
Brand 2
Promotion 1
Hyperlinks
28
Brand 27
Product 22
Engagement 1
Promotion 3
Information 4
Makkah Hilton & Towers @Hilton_Makkah:
Number of Followers 5,584, Followings 5,707, Tweets 1,781. Type: Multinational Hotel Company.
Bio: Overlooking the Holy Haram Mosque and the Kaaba, the Makkah Hilton & Towers
is set in the heart of Makkah.
Makkah, Saudi Arabia Location: .
Phone: +966 (12) 534-0000
Website: http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/saudi-arabia/makkah-hilton-hotel-
MAKHITW/index.html
Joined: December 2011
Tweet Format Posts/Month Tweet Content Times
Text
21
Brand 1
Product 21
Engagement 3
Photos
10
Brand 7
Product 9
Information 2
Hyperlinks 7
Brand 3
Product 3
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
107
Burj Rafal Hotel Kempinski @BurjRafalHotel:
Number of Followers 2,794, Followings 88, Tweets 928.
Type: Multinational Hotel Company.
Bio: Burj Rafal Hotel Kempinski is a luxurious 5 Star Hotel in Riyadh, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, Location:
Phone: +966 (11) 511-7777
Website: kempinski.com/burjrafal
Joined: January 2014
Tweet Format Posts/Month Tweet Content Times
Text
31
Brand 29
Product 28
Engagement 15
Promotion 6
Reward 1
Photos
30
Brand 29
Product 28
Engagement 2
Reward 1
Hyperlinks
2
Brand 1
Product 1
Engagement 1
Reward 1
Sofitel Al Khobar @SofitelAlKhobar:
Number of Followers 2,544, Followings 1,092, Tweets 1,706. Type: Multinational Hotel Company.
Bio: Luxury hotel located at Khobar Corniche, offering a breathtaking view of the
Arabian Gulf and the city.
Location: Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
Phone: +966 (13) 881-7000
Website: 5988sofitel.com/
Joined: February 2010
Tweet Format Posts/Month Tweet Content Times
Text
41
Brand 34
Product 33
Engagement 26
Promotion 1
Information 7
Photos
39
Brand 34
Product 34
Engagement 1
Information 4
Hyperlinks
6
Brand 6
Product 6
Engagement 1
Promotion 2
Information 1
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
108
Appendix C
Human Research Protection Program Approval Letter
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
109
Appendix D
Simulated Twitter Account
• Text and Brand (Condition #1)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
110
• Text and Product (Condition #2)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
111
• Text and Engagement (Condition #3)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
112
• Photos and Brand (Condition #4)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
113
• Photos and Product (Condition #5)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
114
• Photos and Engagement (Condition #6)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
115
• Hyperlinks and Brand (Condition #7)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
116
• Hyperlinks and Product (Condition #8)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
117
• Hyperlinks and Engagement (Condition #9)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
118
Appendix E
Online Survey
Introductory Statement of Confidentiality and Rights
We are inviting you to participate in our research project that involves the completion of
an online survey. The purpose of the survey is to assess your perceptions and opinions as
Saudi hotel guests. The results of this study will be shared with Saudi Hotels, so you will
have the chance to provide valuable information they may use. The approximate time to
complete the survey is about 10-15 minutes.
The survey is not designed to sell you anything or solicit money from you in any way.
You will not be contacted on a later date for any sales or solicitation. Participation is
voluntary. You may withdraw at any time or skip any questions you do not wish to
answer.
All responses are anonymous. No personal data will be asked and the information
obtained will be recorded in such a manner that you cannot be identified. The data will be
used solely for statistical analysis and no other purpose, and will be available only to the
research group working on this project.
If you have any questions or if you would like to know the results of the study, please
contact Mr. Mansour Alansari at 806.252-2428 or email at m.alansari@ttu.edu
This study has been approved by the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) at
Texas Tech University (tel. 806. 742-2064). If you have any questions about the study or
your rights as a participant, please mail your inquiries to Human Research Protection
Program, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas 79409
Please click to the next page to access the survey
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
119
Screening Questions
If you are using your cell phone, please use the Landscape Orientation mode.
1. Have you ever stayed in a hotel in Saudi Arabia?
• Yes …. [Continue survey]
• No ….. screen out [Thank you for your cooperation, but you don’t meet the
requirement for this study]
2. Do you have a Twitter account?
• Yes …. [Continue survey]
• No ….. screen out [Thank you for your cooperation, but you don’t meet the
requirement for this study]
Experiment Section
In this section the sample is split into the equal number of respondents for the nine
blocks. Each set of participants sees only one condition of the experiment and
respondents then proceed to the next set of attitudes questions.
Tweet Format
Text Photos Hyperlinks
Tw
eet
Con
ten
t
Brand Brand & Text
(Condition #1)
Brand & Photos
(Condition #4)
Brand & Hyperlinks
(Condition #7)
Product Product & Text
(Condition #2)
Product & Photos
(Condition #5)
Product & Hyperlinks
(Condition #8)
Engagement Engagement &
Text
(Condition #3)
Engagement &
Photos
(Condition #6)
Engagement &
Hyperlinks
(Condition #9)
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
120
Attitudes Measures (ATHTA, ATT, and ATTHB)
Variables Measure Source*
• Attitude-
toward-
the-tweet
(ATT)
3. How do you feel about these tweets?
(Likert scales 1 to 7)
3-1. Bad / Good
3-2. Unlikable / Likable
3-3. Unfavorable / Favorable
3-4. Negative / Positive
3-5. Uninteresting / Interesting
3-6. Boring / Exciting
Adapted from Batra
& Ray, 1986; Leung,
2012; Leung et al.,
2015; MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989;
MacKenzie et al.,
1986; Mitchell &
Olson, 1981
• Attitude-
toward-
hotel-
Twitter-
account
(ATHTA)
4. Please, indicate your level of agreement with
each of these statements about this hotel
Twitter account. (Likert scales 1=Strongly
Disagree/ 7=Strongly Agree)
4-1. It provides useful information.
4-2. I’m satisfied with this hotel Twitter
account.
4-3. I would like to follow this hotel Twitter
account.
Adapted from
Bruner II & Kumar,
2000; Chen & Wells,
1999; Davis, 1989;
Leung, 2012
• Attitude-
toward-
the-hotel-
brand
(ATHB)
5. Please, indicate your level of agreement with
each of these statements about this hotel brand
after reviewing its Twitter account.
(Likert scales 1=Strongly Disagree/ 7=Strongly
Agree)
5-1. I like this hotel brand.
5-2. The products and services of this hotel
brand are valuable.
5-3. This brand is different from other hotel
brands.
5-4. I would be loyal to this hotel brand.
Adapted from
Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001;
Cronin, Brady, &
Hult, 2000; Leclerc,
Schmitt, & Dubé,
1994; Leung, 2012
Intentions Measures (IHB and IEWOM)
Variables Measure Source*
o The-
intention-
of-hotel-
booking
(IHB)
6. Please, indicate how likely you are to book this
hotel after reviewing this Twitter account.
(Likert scale 1 =Extremely Unlikely/ 7= Extremely
Likely)
6.1. I would consider this hotel for booking.
Adapted from
Chiang & Jang,
2006; Leung, 2012
7. Using the information provided in this hotel
Twitter account, how would you book this hotel?
(You can choose more than one answer)
• Hyperlinks provided
• Phone number provided
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
121
• Email account provided
• Twitter secure messaging system
• Other (please specify) _____________
o The-
intention-
of-
electronic
-word-of-
mouth
(IEWOM)
8. Please, indicate how likely you are to recommend
this hotel Twitter account to other people on
Twitter.
(Likert scales 1 =Extremely Unlikely/ 7= Extremely
Likely)
8-1. I would re-tweet these tweets.
8-2. I would mention the tweets to other people
on Twitter.
8-3. I would post a tweet of my experience on this
hotel Twitter account.
8-4. I would recommend the hotel to other people
on Twitter.
Adapted from
Gruen,
Osmonbekov, &
Czaplewski, 2006
Twitter Behavior Measures
Variables Measure Source*
o Twitter
behavior Please, tell us how you use Twitter in general.
9. I use Twitter to …
o Send only
o Receive only
o Both send and receive
10. How many tweets do you send in a week?
o Less than 4 tweets
o 4 – 7 tweets
o 8 – 14 tweets
o Over 14 tweets
11. How effective is Twitter in a daily life
communication? (Likert scale 1=Not Effective at all/
7=Extremely Effective)
12. How long have you been using Twitter?
o Less than 1 year
o 1 – 2 years
o 3 – 4 years
o 5 - 6 years
o Over 6 years
Adapted from
Shultz, 2010
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
122
Behavior and Attitudes toward Social Media Measures
Variables Measure Source*
• Behavior
toward
social
media
13. Which of these social media platforms do you
use? (Please select 'none' if you do not use any)
Skipping Logic to question 19
• Google+
• YouTube
• Snapchat
• Vine
• Flickr
• Foursquare
• Tango
• None
• Other (Please specify) ______________
14. How often do you use [name of SM platform
that is carried over from question 13]?
o Once in a few months
o About once a month
o Several times a month
o About once a week
o Several times a week
o Daily
o Several times a day
o All the time
15. What is the primary reason that you use
social media?
• To connect with friends
• To find new friends
• To find old friends
• To connect with family
• For information on brands
• For information on products/services
• For the latest news
• For entertainment
• For spiritual inspiration
• For political updates
Adapted from
Anonymous, n.d.;
Heinonen, 2011;
Ly & Hu, 2015;
Valenzuela, Park,
& Kee, 2008
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
123
• For update in my professional field
• For employment opportunities
• Other (Please specify) ______________
16. How many brands or companies do you follow
on social media? (Please select '0' if you do not
follow any)
Skipping Logic to question 18
o 0
o 1-5
o 6-15
o 16-30
o 31-60
o Over 60
17. Which of the following activities do you
perform on the brands’ social media pages?
• Find new products/services.
• Search for information about a certain
product/service.
• Search for discounts, offers, and
promotions about products/services.
• Discuss products or services with other
followers.
• Give feedback to the brand on
products/services.
• Connect with like-minded people.
18. How many products/services have you
purchased as a result of advertisements on social
media within the last year?
o 0
o 1-5
o 6-10
o 11-15
o 16-20
o Over 20
19. Which source of information on a
product/service do you prefer?
• A brands' own website
• A friend or colleague with prior
knowledge of the products/services
• Social media
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
124
• Television programs
• Television adverts
• Magazines articles
• Online search
• Physical shops or dealerships
• Forums
• Attitudes
toward
social
media
20. Please, indicate your level of agreement with
each of these statements about social media.
(Likert Scales 1=Strongly Disagree/7=Strongly
Agree)
20-1. Social media is more reachable than mass
media (e.g. Television and Radio).
20-2. Social media is important in today’s
marketplace.
20-3. Social media provides effective platforms
to new products/services.
20-4. Advertisements via social media are an
effective way for consumers to try new
products/services
20-5. Overall, I feel that companies should use
social media in today’s business
21. Please choose which statement suits your
attitude toward advertisements on social media.
(Likert Scales 1=Strongly Disagree/7=Strongly
Agree)
21-1. I pay lots of attention to advertisements on
social media.
21-2. I pay little or no attention to
advertisements on social media.
21-3. I would like social media to ban
advertisements.
21-4. I didn't know there were advertisements on
social media.
21-5. Other (please specify)
_________________
Adapted from
Akar & Topçu,
2011; Boateng &
Okoe, 2015; Cha,
2009; Chiou,
Chen, Huang,
Huang, & Hu,
2008; Chu, Kamal,
& Kim, 2013; Ly
& Hu, 2015
Texas Tech University, Mansour Alansari, May 2017
125
Involvement with Social Media Measures
Variables Measures Source*
• Social
media
involvement
22. How many hours do you spend online per week?
________
23. How many hours do you spend on social media per
week?________
24. How many people do you follow on
Twitter?________
25. How many followers do you have on your Twitter
account? ________
26. Approximately, how old were you when you first
started using social media? _________ (years old)
Adapted
from Ha &
Hu, 2013
Demographic Measures
Variables Measures
o Demographic 27. What is your nationality?
_________________________________
28. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
29. What is the highest education level you
achieved?
o Less than high school
o High school graduate
o Some college work
o Bachelor’s degree
o Graduate degree
30. In which year were you born? _________
* Some measures were adjusted to fit the context of the current study
top related