Bachelor Thesis

It is not you; it is your social media behavior - An explorative research of what influences consumers’ perceptions of a brand within a social media context

Authors: Lina Hiltunen 930625

& Maya Strinnhed 950111

Tutor: Pär Strandberg

Examiner: Frederic Bill

Semester: Spring 2017

Degree: Bachelor

Course: 2EB01E

Date: 2017-05-29

i

Preface

This bachelor thesis has been written to fulfill the graduation requirements of the

Enterprising and Business Development program at Linnaeus University in Växjö,

Sweden. The research process began in March 2017 and was completed in May 2017;

now the authors are pleased to present the results of this research.

Several individuals have contributed and supported the authors of this bachelor thesis

during the research process. These individuals have generated valuable input and

therefore the authors would like to address a special thank you to all of them.

Our tutor, Pär Strandberg, has throughout the process supported us with his knowledge

and expertise and for this we are grateful. We would also like to thank our examiner,

Frederic Bill, for providing useful information during several seminars.

We would like to thank all participants within our focus groups; their participation and

opinions has been valuable for this entire research. Lastly, we would like to thank all

individuals who have supported us throughout the process of conducting this bachelor

thesis.

Signed by the authors at Linnaeus University May 2017

_________________________ _________________________

Lina Hiltunen Maya Strinnhed

ii

Abstract Bachelor Thesis in Enterprising and Business Development, School of Business and Economics – Linnaeus University, 2EB01E, Spring Semester 2017.

Authors: Lina Hiltunen and Maya Strinnhed

Tutor: Pär Strandberg

Examiner: Frederic Bill

Title: It is not you; it is your social media behavior - An

explorative research of what influences consumers’

perceptions of a brand within a social media context

Background: With the emergence of social media the communication

landscape has changed and consumers tend to rely on online

social information in a larger extent. Interactions on social

media are becoming more significant than ever to

companies, brands and consumers since it can change

consumer’s perception of a company or brand.

Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to explore the interaction

between consumers and influencing aspects on the

perception of a brand in a social media context.

Methodology: This is a qualitative research with a deductive approach

where the empirical material was collected through two

focus groups. A non-probability sampling has been used and

the sampling parameters are based on social media users in

Sweden.

Conclusion: This thesis concludes that certain interactions influence users

and consumers, which leads to them changing their

perception of a company or brand. These interactions are

mainly based on trust but the shared content is also a

significant aspect.

Keywords: Social media, Content Generation, Trust, Interactions,

Influencers, Buzz, Word-of-mouth, Reputation

iii

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction _______________________________________________________ 11.1 Background ______________________________________________________ 11.2 Problem discussion ________________________________________________ 31.3 Research question _________________________________________________ 51.4 Purpose _________________________________________________________ 5

2.0 Literature review ___________________________________________________ 62.1 Trust ___________________________________________________________ 6

2.1.1 Online social trust _____________________________________________ 62.2 Content generation ________________________________________________ 82.3 Interactions ______________________________________________________ 9

2.3.1 Influencers __________________________________________________ 102.4 Reputation ______________________________________________________ 112.5 Literature review summarize ________________________________________ 11

3.0 Methodology _____________________________________________________ 133.1 Research strategy ________________________________________________ 133.2 Qualitative research _______________________________________________ 143.3 Ethical principles _________________________________________________ 143.4 Collection of material _____________________________________________ 153.5 Focus groups ____________________________________________________ 163.6 Interview guide __________________________________________________ 203.7 Sampling parameters ______________________________________________ 213.8 Recording of material _____________________________________________ 213.9 The analysis process of qualitative collected material ____________________ 223.10 Criteria for evaluating qualitative research ____________________________ 23

4.0 Empirical collection _______________________________________________ 244.1 Trust __________________________________________________________ 244.2 Content generation _______________________________________________ 284.3 Interactions _____________________________________________________ 304.4 Reputation ______________________________________________________ 35

5.0 Analysis _________________________________________________________ 375.1 Trust __________________________________________________________ 385.2 Content generation _______________________________________________ 405.3 Interactions _____________________________________________________ 425.4 Reputation ______________________________________________________ 45

6.0 Conclusion _______________________________________________________ 46

7.0 Research implications ______________________________________________ 487.1 Theoretical implications ___________________________________________ 487.2 Managerial implications ___________________________________________ 487.3 Future research __________________________________________________ 49

8.0 Reflections _______________________________________________________ 50

9.0 References _______________________________________________________ 51

iv

Appendix ____________________________________________________________ IAppendix 1: Operationalization _________________________________________ IAppendix 2: Translation of questions ____________________________________ III

1

1.0 Introduction

In this first chapter an introduction will be presented; this will be the foundation of the

entire research. Firstly, the background of the research area will be presented followed

by the problem discussion, which will lead to the research question and purpose of the

research.

1.1 Background

With the emergence of social media the communication landscape has changed and

consumers tend to rely more on online social information rather than traditional

commercial information (Kilgour, Sasser & Larke, 2015; Pavlou & Stewart, 2000; Kaul

& Chaudhri, 2015). Therefore, it will be argued in this thesis how different aspects

within the concept of social media can influence consumers. Tuten & Solomon (2015)

explain social media as the digital ways to communicate and interact with networks of

people and corporations. Furthermore, Charlesworth (2014) describe social media as a

term for different social networks that includes online communities such as Instagram

and Facebook, where consumers can control the content to a larger extent than on a

company’s website. The usage of social media is rapidly growing which creates new

opportunities for all actors within the relatively new and successful medium (Khang, Ki

& Ye, 2012; Yan, Wu, Wu, Wang, Chen & Wei, 2016; Fan, Miao, Fang, Lin, 2013).

Social media is becoming a vital tool as a source of information for companies and

consumers due to the ease of access for everyone. Furthermore, the usage of social

media can impact and influence consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards

companies and brands. (Khang et al., 2012; Fan et al., 2013). A brand is according to

Armstrong, Brennan, Harker & Kotler (2015) a sign, symbol, design, name or a

combination of the mentioned. The brand is a central part of a product and it could add

value to a product or service and benefit the consumers. Social media has a great

dominance regarding a brand and its reputation, according to Kaul & Chaudhri (2015).

Social media is associated to share and forward content of a business and also their

message to other consumers (Kilgour, Sasser & Larke, 2015; Tuten & Solomon, 2015).

Further Charlesworth (2014) argues that social media is a tool that makes it easier for

2

consumers to engage and interact with companies. Content generation is vital for

marketing within social media (Tuten & Solomon, 2015). Tuten & Solomon (2015) are

furthermore describing the phenomenon content marketing as a technique to generate

and exhibit valuable and consistent content to consumers in order to attract and provide

a credible reputation.

It is important to uphold a trustworthy image and capture the consumer’s loyalty, by

doing so companies could use different types of personal brands (Armstrong et al.,

2016). Companies’ does not necessarily have to be the one who sends the message

(Cho, Huh & Faber, 2014). According to Armstrong et al. (2015) these messages could

be found on all digital platforms. It is easy for consumers to find information and

reviews about a company and its products online, which means that consumers can

easily find positive or negative reviews from other users, which can affect the

companies’ reputation. The concept of word-of-mouth (WOM) and buzz are examples

of what could lead to these affects regarding companies’ reputation. WOM and buzz are

two forms of communication between individuals when information is being shared

from one person to another, mostly among people that know each other, according to

Tuten & Solomon (2015). Trusov, Bucklin, Koen (2009) presents that WOM-

communication is a necessary approach to strive for when attracting new consumers and

that WOM has a superior long-lasting effect compared to traditional marketing

activities. Tuten & Solomon (2015) states that WOM has a higher level of credibility

compared to information passed on from the companies themselves. According to

Trusov et al. (2009) does WOM include discussions related to the product and also to

shared content regarding the whole brand. Berger (2014) and Tuten & Solomon (2015)

states that WOM includes face- to-face discussions, ”word of mouse” and also online

mentions and reviews, which impacts the consumer behavior greatly. Fan et al. (2013)

discuss how important it is to focus on this since the electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)

influence consumers on a daily basis and has a major part regarding the credibility

among consumers.

The consumer’s process when making a purchase is affected by the eWOM in a large

extent since trust and credibility towards a company and its products are important for

consumers (Fan et al., (2013). Kaur & Singh (2016) conclude that consumers are more

likely to buy a product that has a good review online rather than a bad one because of its

3

greater trustworthiness towards the brand or product. Fan et al. (2013) argues that the

quantity of eWOM gives a positive influence regarding the companies’ credibility

according to the consumers. This is because a high number of reviews attract

consumer’s attention and affect their perception of a brand. Furthermore, Constantinides

(2009) claims that consumers base their buying decisions on opinions and

recommendations from their peers instead of from the companies’ own marketing

messages, therefore it is important for companies to have peers or consumers giving

them good recommendations online.

Another type of approach is social media influencers (SMIs), which stands for an

innovative and new type of marketing according to Freberg, Graham, McGaughey &

Freberg (2011). SMIs are independent endorsers, which main purpose is to affect the

target audience and shape their opinions through social media tools (Freberg et al.,

2011; Tuten & Solomon, 2015). Influencers exist in all types of online communities and

their network is usually rather extended and reach a lot of different consumers (Tuten &

Solomon, 2015). The power that an influencer has over a brand, its reputation and

perception is becoming significantly stronger due to the growth of social media,

according to Booth & Matic (2011). When receiving information from other consumers

online, knowledge about the other individual is often dismissed (Anon, 2008). This is a

setback for the trustworthiness of the shared information since people tend to interact

and share incorrect information if they do not agree with it (Kaur & Singh, 2016), by

creating relationships online with other individuals the risk of this happening could be

reduced (Evans & McKnee, 2010). After creating these relationships it is important to

build trust between the consumers in order to understand and interpret the shared

information amongst them correctly (Evans & McKnee, 2010).

1.2 Problem discussion

From a user perspective is it crucial to explore how different aspects on social media

influence the perception of a brand and its products in an advertising and

communication context. Information can nowadays flow faster and more efficient than

ever due to the developing creation of social media (Tuten & Solomon, 2015;

Charlesworth, 2014). Social media is constantly growing and will keep growing in this

pace as long as it keeps getting attention from both companies and consumers (Khang,

4

Ki & Ye, 2012; Tuten & Solomon, 2015; Fan et al., 2013; Yan et al., 2016). This leads

to implications regarding the amount of information available and the interaction

between consumers (Khang, Ki & Ye, 2012). Tuten & Solomon (2015) reveals that the

quantity of information on social media is constantly increasing, which makes it harder

to create an effective action strategy (Tuten & Solomon, 2015). By using social media

as a channel in advertising can companies create attention and generate digital traffic to

their business. It can also influence attitudes towards the brand and its image among

consumers (Tuten & Solomon, 2015; Fan et al., 2013). Gensler, Völckner, Liu-

Thompkins & Wiertz (2013) argues that the key factor when it comes to branding on

social media is to see the consumers and their opinions as a part of the brand. This is

difficult for companies since it makes it harder for companies to control and impact

their reputation on social media where consumers can speak freely and share their

opinions (Gensler et al., 2013; Charlesworth, 2014).

Constantinides (2009) states that the rising involvement within social media gives

companies greater and more complex challenges than ever. Fan et al. (2013) argues that

consumers often nowadays do not touch a physical product but rather search about the

products online and therefore they put a large amount of trust in the reviews and eWOM

when making purchase decisions. Furthermore, Tuten & Solomon (2015) states that

consumers tend to assimilate negative comments and reviews online rather than positive

ones. How consumers interact and use information is important to understand in order

to comprehend why they react and respond the way they do (Pavlou & Stewart, 2000).

Tuten & Solomon (2015) identifies that the information shared among consumers can

affect and change the perception about a company, its brand and products. The

challenges regarding the interactions within social media are however to ensure that the

information that is being available is something that can develop positive buzz among

consumers when it is being introduced for the first time. Buzz is considered being

reliable among consumers because other consumers have generated the actual content

(Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard & Hogg, 2014). When information is being revealed on

different types of social media channels it allows consumers to start talking about it and

create this buzz (Yan et al., 2016). This leads to a flow of information that can spread

fast due to the easy access, according to Tuten & Solomon (2015).

5

As stated before, SMIs are independent endorsers (Freberg et al., 2011; Tuten &

Solomon, 2015) called influencers, whom can create brand awareness and help to

strengthening the reputation by reaching out to the target group and give positive vibes

about that specific brand or product (Cho, Huh & Faber, 2014; Booth & Matic, 2011).

Once an influencer has decided to support a company his or hers network and followers

will get affected by the information and in some extent follow the recommendations

from the influencers (Tuten & Solomon, 2015). The use of influencers on social media

have to generate a trustworthy message, which is authentic, otherwise the outcome

could be that the company’s reputation gets affected negatively (Cho, Huh & Faber,

2014; Booth & Matic, 2011). Since the message needs to be trustworthy, it has to derive

trust in the interaction between the parties. Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, Foronda-

Robles & García-López (2014) argues that there are different kinds of trust that can

arise depending on the relation and connections between the individuals and companies.

To date there have been limited exploratory research and analysis of how social media

can affect the perception of a company from a user perspective and research within the

topic has reached a certain level of limitation (Khang, Ki & Ye, 2012; Kaur & Singh,

2016). Therefore, more research is needed about the topic in order to understand how

the phenomena can impact a brand’s reputation in a user-to-user dialogue. This research

provides insight into how interactions on social media can affect a brand’s reputation

amongst consumers and thereafter contribute to further findings.

1.3 Research question

What interactions influences consumer's perception of a brand within a social media

context?

1.4 Purpose

The purpose of this research is to explore the interaction between consumers and

influencing aspects on the perception of a brand in a social media context.

6

2.0 Literature review

In this following chapter the chosen areas of the theoretical framework will be

presented. The topics presented below have been chosen in line with the research

question and purpose of the research. The chapter ends with an illustration of the

literature review summarize.

2.1 Trust

Trust is a complex phenomenon; it is a psychological understanding of a relation

between two parties and the willingness but also expectations of how the other part

should behave (Christoffersen & Robson, 2017). Trust enables communication within

and between companies and individuals and broadens their ability to interact with each

other more frequently (Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, Foronda-Robles & García-López,

2014). Reichheld (2003) argues that if a company does not convey a high sense of trust

towards their consumers the consumers will not trust the company and therefore make

their purchases elsewhere. Trust has become more important than ever, due to the

increase of online social networks. Further, Reichheld (2003) states that it is not the

actual price that rules on these social networks; trust is the most important factor. When

companies have gained trust from consumers, the consumers are willing to share more

personal information with the online vendors and companies. As a result of this trust

that has been developed between the companies and consumers, the consumers are able

to receive more specific offers and customized product and services. In the long run this

leads to a closer bond between the different actors on the social networks, such as the

companies, influencers and consumers. Online interactions create countless

opportunities for consumers to go search for and spread honest opinions about a

company, its brand and products, Reichheld (2003).

2.1.1 Online social trust

Reichheld (2003) argues that trust is more important than ever due to the increase of

online-usage. Since consumers do not interact physically with salespersons, cannot

touch or see the physical product they are therefore bound to rely on promises given and

7

images uploaded by other consumers. Online social networks are explained as a

platform where people can share information and interact with other individuals within

a social context and therefore create a virtual platform for communication, according to

Kaur & Singh (2016) and Anon (2008). Within these virtual platforms people interact

with each other but the problem regarding this is that the users usually do not know

whom they are interacting with (Anon, 2008).

Online trust is related to both the target group and the content that is being revealed,

according to Anon (2008). This trust is a result of people’s enthusiasm to share personal

information virtually (Anon, 2008). People tend to share information online that is not

accurate in order for them to express their disagreements, according to Kaur & Singh

(2016). Anon (2008) states further that a consumer’s trust towards a company or a brand

is based on the shared values and opinions they have with the company or the brand.

When a consumer does not agree with the company’s values or a product’s design, a

negative atmosphere occurs within the virtual communication platform (Kaur & Singh,

2016). Further Kaur & Singh (2016) states that within these communities do both

positive and negative interactions exist. Positive interactions are based on endorsement,

support and connections and the negative ones are a contrast to this, which leads to a

disconnected network. The negativity within these virtual platforms is becoming more

significant due to the risk of it being untrue (Kaur & Singh, 2016).

Anon (2008) concludes that in order to generate online social trust, one have to provide

the consumers with useful content. Further Anon (2008) states that by engaging the

consumers in the interaction process trust will most likely occur between the two

parties. It is significant to understand that in some cases more effort is needed than just

engaging the consumers. Anon (2008) discloses that in order to generate trust, the effort

put into the relationship has to be exposed for the consumers to understand the value of

it. Sometimes is the effort more valuable than the content when cultivating trust (Anon,

2008). Ashley & Leonard (2009) reveal that by using undercover strategies, consumer’s

trust towards a company may decline. If a consumer finds out about the hidden

strategies used to influence without them knowing, their loyalty and trust towards the

company will most likely decrease since the trust has been damaged, according to

Ashley & Leonard (2009).

8

2.2 Content generation

Daugherty, Eastin & Bright (2008) explains user-generated content (UGC) as media

content that is produced and created by the individuals instead of by paid marketing

professionals and it is most often distributed on the Internet. Shao (2009) argues that

UGC is changing the traditional media landscape that the world used to have and

attracts new individuals. Knoll & Schramm (2015) also argues that in the social online

world that exists today, it is possible for a variety of interactions to occur between web

users whom can produce content themselves that is available for everyone to see. UGC

is being used by individuals in different approaches with different intentions, according

to Shao (2009). The main reason to why consumers apply UGC is to maximize their

information searching process to fulfill their needs in the best way possible. The results

of online searching are being influenced by UGC in a large extent, since it has increased

so rapidly, according to Shao (2009).

Further Shao (2009) states that consumers have a good use of UGC sites if the purpose

is to interact with other consumers and enhance the social connections. UGC is what

builds a virtual communication platform and therefore respond to content within these

platforms is what creates credibility amongst users. When consumers express

themselves on user-generated communities they construct their individual online

identity, and they fulfill needs regarding supporting other consumers to fulfill their

individual needs by giving useful content. Knoll & Schramm (2015) states that UGC,

which is present for all companies and consumers, is evidence that it is being used in a

high extent when searching for information online.

Susarla, Oh & Tan (2012) investigates how the content of a message differs within

social media and if the user-generated content is depending on whom delivers the

message. The findings evokes that the message deliverer has an impact over when the

content is being revealed and also the efforts put into it. Furthermore, Susarla, Oh &

Tan (2012) indicates that the structure of the information that is being shared has an

impact on how it will be perceived by consumers. The interaction within the network

might also impact and influence and these interactions play a role in how the content

can be diffused and shared on social media (Susarla, Oh & Tan, 2012).

9

2.3 Interactions

Interaction on social media include dialogues and conversation between users within

their networks (Tuten & Solomon, 2016). Values, behaviors and attitudes are being

spread and promoted by social interactions, according to Falk, Morelli, Welborn,

Dambacher & Lieberman (2013). Interactions that creates an interest among consumers

could be by electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and buzz. As mentioned before, eWOM

stands for electronic-word-of-mouth (Fan et al., 2013) and includes an interaction of

communication between individuals online, according to Tuten & Solomon (2015).

Further, Tuten & Solomon (2016) states that within this concept there has to be a certain

authenticity in the reviews in order for consumers to rely on them. As the platform

social media is becoming bigger and bigger the influences of the eWOM are constantly

increasing. For this reason eWOM has become more effective regarding being an

influential channel of online communication (Fan et al., 2013).

Buzz refers to the excitement, which is being spread around for example a product,

brand or a company. This means that consumers actively must be motivated and

interested in spreading their opinions for a buzz to be considered effective (Falk et al.,

2013). Mattern, Huhn, Perrey, Dörner, Lorenz, & Spillecke (2012) states that the

companies have to see the worthiness of buzz regarding their brands and their offerings.

If companies do not focus on the buzz their consumers will in time leave their sites and

stores, and spread their negative opinions about the brand on platforms where many

consumers talk and post content (Mattern et al., 2012).

Companies should not ignore when a negative buzz creates about their brand since it

often leads to drawn-out damage between the company and their consumers. A negative

buzz has mostly to do with the fact that consumers are not satisfied with the customer

service or that the expectations are not perceived (Mattern et al., 2012). These

interactions are considered to be viral marketing, which creates a wide spread among

consumers (Armstrong et al., 2015). Sherman, Payton, Hernandez, Greenfield &

Dapretto (2016) states that within social media, people tend to react and interact more

strongly with shared information that has received more attention online. Hence, it has a

greater credibility and stronger influence amongst the consumers (Lee, 2015). These

interactions on social media create conversation amongst users where information can

10

be spread (Tuten & Solomon, 2016). Depending on which different medium that is

being used, consumers will adapt to the information differently, according to Lee

(2015). As an example, content sponsorship, which is a form of online promotion, are

preferably being used and placed at targeted sites that already offer useful information

to the consumers in order to maximize the value of the information (Armstrong et al.,

2015).

2.3.1 Influencers

Influencers on social media aims to change user's opinions and behavior by delivering

messages regarding companies’ products and services (Tuten & Solomon, 2016).

Consumers whom are active within social network communities are more likely to buy

an advertised product and at the same time recommend the product to other consumers

whom are active or members of the same group (Knoll & Schramm, 2015; Tuten &

Solomon, 2016). It is also common to use endorsements in different marketing

campaigns, which could be either beneficial or risky, according to Armstrong et al.

(2015). Further, Carter (2016) concludes two different kinds of influencers on social

media. Firstly, celebrities and their relationship to companies and how these factors

together can influence consumers. Secondly, less exposed individuals whom willingly

accept their role as an influencer whom put effort into changing consumer’s perception

about a company.

Carter (2016) states that the influencer’s network is less important within the first type

of influencer and plays a more vital matter for the second type of influencers, in that

scenario is the quantity of the influencer’s network vital. However, Knoll & Schramm

(2015) argues that whether the source of the product was well known to the user or it

was unknown did not matter that much. Further Knoll & Schramm (2015) reveals that

the social influence occurred anyways, as long as someone else within the common

group interacted as well. Tuten & Solomon (2016) states however that consumers rely

more on connections within their network rather than unknown sources of information.

This is problematic because consumer’s connections within their network do not always

interact which makes the whole process useless (Tuten & Solomon, 2016).

11

2.4 Reputation

Gensler et al. (2013) states that social media challenges the protection of a company’s

reputation if the focus does not shift from the company to the consumers. Kaul &

Chaudhri (2015) argues that the reputation assists companies’ transparency amongst

their values and strategies. Lee (2015) concludes however, that companies can use

social media as a tool to empower their reputation. It is described that a change in social

media can be aligned with the reputation but that this change is not the only thing that

affects the reputation, according to Carroll (2015). The interaction amongst consumers

can arise information concerning a company and this information can also play a vital

role for a company’s reputation (Kaul & Chaudhri, 2015). Further, Carroll (2015)

explains that companies must offer a valuable content, which can contribute to a

positive experience for the consumers on social media in order to gain trust from the

consumers and thus maintain a good reputation. Tuten & Solomon (2016) argues that

consumers trust each other and by benefit specific users online, they can help spread a

positive word about a company and therefore create a better reputation for the company.

2.5 Literature review summarize

Interactions on social media is depending on the trustworthiness of the content that is

being shared among consumers since it thereby affects their perception of a brand.

Online social trust is therefore of significant importance regarding these interactions

that are taking place on social media among users and companies’ consumers.

Interactions demand various influencing aspects in order for users and consumers to

perceive and trust the content correctly. In order to understand these influencing factors

and interactions online, trust can therefore be created and built on social media so that

companies can uphold a good reputation based on their social media activities. If there

are low levels of trust and a negative buzz about companies and brands, this often leads

to that the reputation is bad instead of good. See below for visual figure.

12

Figure 1.0 Illustration of literature review summarize, self-generated.

13

3.0 Methodology

This is a qualitative research with a deductive approach, which aims to explore what

influences consumer’s perception of a brand within a social media context. In order to

do so a selection of methods has been made. Further, the selection of methods is

presented. The main method used is focus groups, since the purpose of the research is to

explore consumers’ thoughts about the researched area.

3.1 Research strategy

The research design of a study, is according to Malhotra (2010), the framework or

guidelines for conducting the research. Different kinds of designs and approaches

within a business research can be applied depending on how the subject is being studied

(Bryman, 2016). Further, the research design specifies a detailed description of how the

implementations and how a study should be conducted (Malhotra, 2010). There are two

mainly approaches that are normally used, inductive and deductive (Bryman & Bell,

2011; Bryman, 2016). Inductive approach indicates that theory is derived from collected

material whereby theory is the result of the study. In comparison, deductive strategy is

when the theory controls the direction of the study and what material to collect. In this

research the researchers chose to apply a deductive approach since the theory derived

the material collection in order to answer the research question. When the material is

being collected, it has to be in order to the theory since it is being tested in the research

(Bryman, 2016). According to Bryman (2016) and Bryman & Bell (2011) is an

inductive approach more qualitative and a deductive approach is considered to be

quantitative. However, in this research the researchers chose to apply a deductive

approach even though this is a qualitative research, since the theory derived the

collection of material. Furthermore, Bryman & Bell (2011) are discussing a

combination of the two approaches and are indicating that a qualitative research does

not necessarily have to be inductive, as in this research. The reason for this was because

focus groups were being used as the method for collecting material and in order for the

researchers to be prepared, theory about the topic needed to be collected in beforehand

and thus derived the collection of material.

14

3.2 Qualitative research

As already mentioned, this research is a qualitative research and Bryman (2016)

describes qualitative research as a strategy that normally focuses on the quality of

information rather than the quantity of words. In this research, the quality of the

information was more significant than the quantity in order to have enough means to

answer the research question. Further, a qualitative research approach is according to

Jacobsen (2002) suitable when the researchers aims to collect knowledge regarding how

individuals understand and interpret certain given situations. Since the purpose of this

research is to explore the interaction between consumers and influencing aspects on the

perception of a brand in a social media context, a qualitative approach was considered

suitable. Additionally, a qualitative approach is to prefer over a quantitative approach

when the researchers are open to unexpected results and outcomes and since this

research does not have any expectations of desired result, openness can therefore be

considered a keyword within this research approach, according to Jacobsen (2002).

Openness in a qualitative context is favorably because the process is interactive and

flexible, which means that the research question and layout of the study can change

during the research process (Jacobsen, 2002). The content and structure of this research

changed many times before the researches were satisfied and felt confident with the

layout. However, Jacobsen (2002) points out that it does not always have to change but

the qualitative approach allows the possibility to do so if necessary.

3.3 Ethical principles

According to Bryman & Bell (2011) there are regulations and demands to take into

consideration when conducting research. Firstly, the researchers have to provide the

participants with the right information and also information regarding the following

steps in the research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Before the material was collected from the

participants, they were informed about the research and what would happen further.

Another regulation to take into consideration is about the approval, this regards that the

participants have to be aware of that their attendance is not mandatory and that they can

quit the research whenever they want to (Bryman & Bell, 2011). All participants were

being asked in beforehand if they wanted to participate and were at the same time

15

informed that it was voluntary. They were also asked for approval to record during the

focus groups, which everyone agreed on. The third regulation considers confidential and

anonymity for all the participants, this means according to Bryman & Bell (2011) that

all the information regarding the participant's needs to be handled with strict caution so

that no information leaks to unauthorized sources. In this research, all participants are

anonymous and the transcribed material will not be included in the research. However,

the transcribed material can be revealed to third party but will only be provided when

contacting the researchers, which the participants has agreed on. The regulation

regarding the usage is another important regulation, this means that the collected

information shall not be used in other contexts than to the original research (Bryman &

Bell, 2011). The collected material of this research will not be used in any other but in

this research. The fifth and final regulation is that the researchers shall not give false

reflections regarding the information of the research (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

3.4 Collection of material

When collecting data to a research, there are two mainly types of data that can be

collected, primary and secondary data, according to Bryman & Bell (2011). This

research used both primary and secondary data. Secondary data refers to when the

researcher does not collect the information directly from the primary source and

therefore rely his or hers implications on research from other sources (Jacobsen, 2002).

The theoretical framework of this research is based on secondary data since the

information is collected from already existing research. This means that the information

of the secondary data has been collected with other purposes than what this research has

(Jacobsen, 2002). Hence, data within the secondary approach can enforce each other if

different sources states the same thing and therefore enhance the results, or it could be

used to test results from different researches (Jacobsen, 2002). In this research, the

secondary data has been used as theoretical framework to enforce the collection of the

primary data. Primary data refers to when the researcher collects the data for the first

time on their own through questionnaires, interviews, observations or group interviews

(Jacobsen, 2002). The primary data of this research has been collected through focus

groups. Further, Jacobsen (2002) states that the researcher goes directly to the primary

source to gather information. Within this research the researchers have collected the

material by themselves by two focus groups and therefore that is the primary data of this

research. The structure of the data follows the theoretical framework and has therefore

16

been analyzed by the same structure. This is because the researchers wanted to obtain a

consistent and legible structure of the entire research.

3.5 Focus groups

As mentioned before, this research has used focus groups when collecting the primary

material. Jacobsen (2002) argues that an interview with more participants than one is to

prefer when the researchers wants to develop and find new knowledge. Since the

researchers of this research wanted to gather information and knowledge about other

individuals, it was considered being suitable to interview more than one participant.

These group interviews are referred to as focus groups (Jacobsen (2002; Bryman, 2016).

The differences between group interview and focus groups are however that focus

groups normally refers to one specific theme and group interviews gives a wider

overview of a topic (Bryman, 2016). The topic of this research was narrowed and

therefore focus groups were chosen as the method since only one topic was being

discussed. Further, focus groups allow an active discussion of the topic amongst the

participants whilst group interviews are more individually but at the same time (Bryman

& Bell, 2011). A focus group includes interaction between participants that allows

discussion of deeper meaning (Bryman, 2016). Henceforth, focus groups are to prefer

when the theme to discuss is relatively limited, since if the theme is too wide it will lead

to a too large spread among the participants’ opinions (Jacobsen, 2002). Bryman & Bell

(2011) argues that focus groups are being used because of the participant’s knowledge

about the relevant topic. The participant’s perception of how they use social media was

of significant importance in this research.

Jacobsen (2002) states that focus groups are an appropriate approach since the aim of

this research is to obtain the participant's point of view on public services or

experienced situations. This means that the participants needs to have a certain

experience and perception about the specific topic (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In this

research, the participant’s perception and point of view of social media needed to be

discussed in order to answer the research question. Furthermore, focus groups offers a

backup for all the participants, since one person could give their point of view on a

certain event and other participants could say that they agree but that they could not

express it in their own words (Jacobsen, 2002).

17

During the focus groups, many participants agreed with each other without explaining

in their own words since others had already done that.

In order to ensure that the focus groups and the questions will operate well, a pilot can

be done in beforehand, states Bryman & Bell (2011). A pilot tests the focus group as a

whole so that any problems that may occur can be fixed before the “real” focus groups

are being held. One pilot focus group was made in beforehand to ensure that the

questions were formulated well and that they were understandable. Some changes were

made to make the questions more effective and easy to understand by the participants.

According to Bryman & Bell (2011) a focus group identifies problems and areas that

does not seem to be understood by the participants, which gives the moderators a

chance to improve it and also practice to hold in a focus group. The pilot that was being

made facilitated the moderators to operate a well-planned focus group and make sure

that the participants understood the questions and discussed topic.

Size of the focus groups

Within qualitative research it could be difficult to assemble enough people whom could

contribute with useful information, according to Bryman (2016). If a focus group has a

small amount of participants it will limit the range of opinions provided to the

researches. If a group on the other hand has too many participants it would mainly lead

to that the discussion will lose its tread, according to Jacobsen (2002). Within this

research there were two focus groups held, one with six participants and one with five

participants.

Further Jacobsen (2002) argues that an optimal focus group consist of five to eight

participants and Bryman (2016) states that the minimal amount of participants should

not be less than four and not more than ten. Regarding how many groups that should be

conducted, expresses Bryman & Bell (2011) that just one group will not be enough.

Therefore, two focus groups were held in this research to create a wider range and

variation amongst the material. The researchers also choose five participants in one of

the focus groups and six participants in the other focus group, since more participants

eliminate risks of that participants chooses to not show up (Bryman & Bell, 2011)

18

The composition of a group

Participants within a focus group should, according to Jacobsen (2002), have a required

minimum of common experiences or criteria. This refers to whether the group should be

considered homogeneous or heterogeneous. Regarding homogeneous groups the

participants are as alike as possible, since this will provide relatively common

experiences for the participants. In this research, the common link between the

participants were that they are all students, in their twenties whom are all active on

social media. This often leads to an easier way to communicate within the group states

Jacobsen (2002). A heterogeneous group on the other hand, refers to a group where all

the participants have different experience and background. Groups of this type are,

according to Jacobsen (2002), often more creative since they have different point of

views. Due to this, it was important for the researchers to ensure that there were both

similarities and differences amongst the participants, such as age, gender and study area.

Therefore, a mix of these groups were chosen, the participants were homogenous in

some aspects but also heterogeneous in other aspects. In the figure below there are

information about what makes the participants similar, which is their area of research

such as their differences.

Figure 2.0 Participants summarize, self-generated.

19

The role of the researchers

Bryman & Bell (2011) states that the correct term for an interviewer is moderator.

Jacobsen (2002) discuss that moderators can maintain a passive or active role. A passive

role means that the moderator is starting the discussion by presenting the theme, ask the

questions when needed and listen to the discussion that occurs among the

participants.Within this research, one of the researchers had the role as a moderator

meanwhile the other researcher had the role of reviewing the content and ensure that the

questions were being answered. The other role a moderator could have is an active role.

In this approach the moderator asks specific and targeted questions and thereafter lets

the discussion flow for a while until he/she asks a new question to be discussed,

Jacobsen (2002). In this research the discussion flowed easier within one of the focus

groups whereas the moderators could have a rather passive role. Meanwhile in the other

focus group, the moderator needed to have a more active role and ask the questions

more specific for the discussions to start.

Place for the focus groups

When creating a focus group it is, according to Jacobsen (2002), difficult to find a

location that is a natural environment for all participants. Therefore the moderators

should strive after choosing a neutral place, for example on a café or at an office where

people tend to feel relaxed (Jacobsen, 2002). The focus group in this research were held

at the University library in Växjö where a study room was booked in beforehand to

make sure that the focus group would not get disrupted. It is according to Bryman &

Bell (2011) beneficial for the moderators to start the focus group discussion by welcome

all participants and thank them for their time. Thereafter the theme should be presented

along with a presentation of the estimated timescale, the reasons for recording the

discussion and the main purpose of the research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). When all

participants had gathered in the study room, the moderators welcomed all participants,

thanked them for participating and gave an explanation of what would happen next.

Potential rules should also be presented before starting (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In this

research, no rules were set however the moderators explained to the participants that

they could speak freely and answer however they wanted to. The moderators did

highlight the importance of asking for guidance if a question was not understandable.

20

What is trying to be brought to surface within the qualitative research approach is to

keep the introduction as open as possible in order to close in on the actual information

and results (Jacobsen, 2002). The introduction included a wide question for the

participant to think about for a few minutes in order to get their mind focused on the

topic. Thereafter, the participants could focus on the relevant topic all the time during

the focus groups. At the end, the moderators shall thank the participants and tell them

what the collected material will be used for (Bryman & Bell, 2011), which the

moderators did and explained that they were grateful for the participants’ participation.

3.6 Interview guide

Before a focus group can be performed. the moderators have to decide whether to use

themes or more detailed questions. By using a set of questions instead of themes it

makes the focus group more structured, but that is not beneficial in every case and

therefore does this need to be decided in beforehand (Bryman, 2016). In this research,

the themes was presented for the participants in the beginning and then the moderators

followed an interview guide to collect the material (see appendix 1).

The opening question to the focus groups should intend to make the participants relaxed

and comfortable within the context (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The participants within this

research sat down and had a post-it and pen in front of them, whereas the moderators

started the whole focus groups with an opening question, which the participants could

think freely about and write down their thoughts. The opening question was “How do

you use social media and why?” This was asked in order to make the participants

comfortable and familiar with the theme.

An interview guide contains a numerous of questions that can be constructed in

different ways and depending on how the questions are phrased and in which format,

the participants will answer differently (Bryman & Bell, 2011). There are two types of

questions that can be asked, open or closed. Open questions gives the participants a

chance to answer freely and closed questions comes with a set of alternatives for the

participants to chose from (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In this research, open questions were

used simply because the moderators wanted to start a discussion with each question and

collect as much material as possible from each participant.

21

3.7 Sampling parameters

The sampling discussion can be rather complex since it includes a selection of people to

conduct in the study. Within a qualitative research, non-probability sampling is mainly

used, which includes a sampling method where some individuals have a greater chance

of being selected (Bryman & Bell, 2016). Therefore, in this research, non-probability

sampling was used since all participants had to be active on social media and therefore

those individuals were more likely to be chosen. Snowball sampling is one method

within non-probability sampling and is described as a method whereby small groups of

people that have relevance to the research question is being selected and are asked to

propose other individuals to also participate in the research (Bryman, 2016). In this

research, Swedish users of social media were asked to participate and also bring people

they knew whom would fit to that description. Furthermore, the sampling of this

research was made with Swedish users of social media since 93 % of the Swedish

population actively use Internet and social media every day and is therefore considered

to be mature users of social media (Davidsson & Findahl, 2016). The whole point of

snowball sampling is that the original group is supposed to suggest new participants,

whom are further on asked to propose new participants. Jacobsen (2002) argues that the

snowball approach is showing the flexibility that only exists within qualitative research

methods. Since this is a qualitative research, snowball sampling was also chosen in

order to stay flexible.

3.8 Recording of material

In order to collect and conduct everything being said during a focus group is it best to

record the focus group (Bryman, 2016). Jacobsen (2002) argues that if the moderators

want to understand the recorded content in the best possible way, it is necessary to listen

to the tape over and over again. In the beginning of both focus groups the moderators

asked if everybody were okay with the fact that the focus groups were going to be

recorded and they all were. The moderators explained the purpose of the recording, that

it would be easier for the moderators to analyze the material if they could listen to the

discussions. It was also pointed out that the material would not be of public use and the

participants would be anonymous. By using the approach the researchers could write

22

comments in the margin, easier chose quotes from participants and get a better overview

of the content, according to Bryman (2016). The focus groups were held in Swedish and

thereafter the researchers have translated the material into English for this research.

Therefore, the material have been transcribed to create a higher credibility regarding the

empirical material but as mentioned before, the transcribed material will not be included

in this research. However, to see the questions asked translated into Swedish, see

appendix 2.

3.9 The analysis process of qualitative collected material

When analyzing qualitative collected material there are, according to Jacobsen (2002),

three main steps to keep in mind. The first one is description, the second one is

systematization and categorization and the third is combination. The first step,

description, handles that the researchers should try their best to provide a detailed and

thorough description of the collected material (Jacobsen, 2002). In this research, the

researchers recorded and transcribed the material in order to get a fair and detailed

description of the collected material. The second step, systematization and

categorization aims to sift among the thick descriptions and create a more focused

content that is easier to present (Jacobsen, 2002). The transcribed material is not

presented in this research since it is too heavy of information and does not highlight the

most important aspects. Therefore, the researchers have narrowed the collected material

so that it focuses on the relevant topic. The third and final step, combination, means that

it is time to interpret the collected material. Here the researchers try to find the hidden

messages and bring the results forward (Jacobsen, 2002). In the empirical collection

chapter, needless information has been sifted and the material has been processed and

interpreted by the researchers in order to present the most relevant information. In the

qualitative context it is important to keep in mind that the order of these steps could be

shifting and changed over time if necessary, according to Jacobsen (2002).

23

3.10 Criteria for evaluating qualitative research

Qualitative research focuses more on quality rather than quantity, which requires

different criteria within the two research types, according to Bryman & Bell (2011).

Trustworthiness and authenticity are two mainly criterions for evaluating a qualitative

research. Trustworthiness consists of four underlying criteria that are (1) credibility that

includes aspects of ensuring that the research is performed in a good manner and

analyzing the results according to the participants. The second (2) criteria of

trustworthiness is transferability which refers to the intensive of a smaller group and its

depth whereby the third (3) criteria is dependability that ensures a correct recording of

the information. The fourth (4) and last criteria is conformability that does not allow

personal values of the researchers to bias the results (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In this

research the researchers has taken ethical principles in consideration when recording,

transcribing and analyze the material. The researchers did not let their personal values

affect the research and they had an open mind listening to the discussions within the

focus groups.

24

4.0 Empirical collection

The following chapter presents the empirical material that was collected through two

focus groups where the questions came from the operationalization found in appendix 1.

As previous stated in the methodology chapter, eleven participants contributed to the

empirical material. The structure of this following chapter consists of relevant context

and quotes collected from the focus groups and follows the same structure as the

literature rewiev chapter.

4.1 Trust

Half of the participants from the two focus groups explained that they know whom they

are interacting with on social media and the other half stated that they do not know

whom they are interacting with. The ones that did not know whom they are interacting

with, explained that they usually continue to interact if they find the exchange of

information valuable, interesting and easy to assimilate. They do however read the

information or content carefully since they know that it is not always trustworthy

information. The reason to why they continue to read information is because they find it

interesting how different sources of information can depict same times of events in

different ways. In order to do so, they added that you have to believe in your own ability

regarding what is true and what is probably not and after a while you have created

awareness on how to do that more easily. However, they stop interacting if they find out

that the information is incorrect or if someone spam with information that is not of

value for the participants.

“The worst thing is when someone provide you with incorrect information and you

know that it is not true, it is so tiring and makes me want to unfollow that person”

Participant 2

The other half of the group whom stated that they usually do know whom they are

interacting with thereafter explained that it sometimes can happen that they do not who

they are interactiong with, for example if they see something funny and want to share it

with their friends but they would not interact with more personal information. This is

25

because what you do online can be seen by everyone and you have to stand for what

you do and what you share since everyone online can see it.

Regarding personal information, the participants had depicting thoughts regarding what

personal information is, one participant stated that all information that comes from

him/her is personal whilst many others argued that it has to do with contact information

and other private form of information. Some distinguished personal information as

physical and psychological and that they would not share psychological information

about themselves if they feel unhappy but physical information is not as sensitive to

share. All participants however agreed on that they do not want to share personal

information about themselves since you never know whom can interact with you. It is

not the platform itself but the people within the platform whom could be menacing.

”No you are very cautious with your own integrity”

Participant 9

Despite this, the participants all agreed on that they try not to share too personal

information online but that they do however share personal information in some extent

within their social media networks. They also added that it depends on which form of

social media, some platforms are more socially acceptable to share personal information

on and some are not. The reason to why they do share personal information online is

however because they want to brag and show people a positive side of themselves. They

argue that social media allows users to promote themselves and that you would not want

to show off a bad side of yourself, you would then rather not share anything at all. If

this positive information about yourself is true or not does not really matter, it just has

to seem flawless from other’s point of view.

Trust towards companies

The participants had different point of views regarding what they base their trust

towards a company on. Some stated that the content has to be relevant within the

specific context in order for them to gain trust towards the company. If the revealed

content shows that it has a motive, you will as a consumer see that the company has a

clear strategy and henceforth trust will arise between the parties.

26

The participants resemble it as a form of relationship between a company and

consumers, which creates positive associations towards the company. Another aspect

that was discussed was that trust towards a company would increase significantly if you,

as a consumer would feel comfortable working for the company yourself. This is

something that all participants argued for. According to the participants, this is because

you then have something in common. All participants agreed on that if you do not have

anything in common with the company, you would most likely not have a strong trust

towards the company.

“You can not trust a company if you do not have anything in common”

Participant 8

Furthermore, it was argued that trust towards a company increases if you share the same

values and opinions as the given company. The majority of the participants stated that

when you share values, trust towards the company would automatically increase, whilst

one participant argued that the company’s values are not of high importance. The

argument for that was that it takes time to search for information regarding a company’s

values and opinions. However, the participant included in the argument that if a

company opposed his/hers values, he/she would not make a purchase from that

company. A majority of the participants also discussed that trust will arise if they feel

connected to the company and the brand since it implies that you like the same things

and share the same values. The participants also added that it shows that the company

values more than just maximize their sale, which increases trust towards the company.

Beyond shared values and opinions did two participants mention that their trust towards

a company is based on story-telling. They stated that they want more than just a

product; they want the story behind it as well. This builds a relationship with the

company that makes it easier for consumers to interact with the company. Therafter, the

company can create values for the consumers that are aligned with the consumer’s

values and opinions.

“You get more than just the product which creates a relationship with the company and

you feel that you get something of value from the company”

Participant 2

27

All participants agreed on the effect of word-of-mouth and that a lot of the trust towards

a company comes from other individuals whom are sharing their personal opinions

about the company. Along with that, the individual whom is sharing something about a

company online, needs to be reliable in order for the trust to occur. If this happens,

companies will easily gain trust amongst consumers.

Information from the company’s own website does not increase trust since almost

everything there available is positive and therefore not trustworthy, according to one

participant. However, reliable influencers can help companies increase their trust since

they are considered to have knowledge about the given area and therefore ensure that

the product or company is trustworthy.

“I need to know people that has purchased something there before and are satisfied”

Participant 10

If you are close to and know the person whom is recommending a product, trust towards

the company will more easily arise, according to one participant. The further away the

person whom is recommending the product is, the harder it gets for the company to gain

trust. Another participant adds that it is easier to arise trust towards a company if other

within your own network has interacted with the company and the more people within

the network that have done it, the better.

If you buy a product from a company and does not get satisfied, you will not go back

since your dissatisfaction decreased the trust towards that company, according to one

participant. The other participants explained further that they would not recommend a

product if themselves have experienced a negative event at the given company. The

participants also stated that they would also contact the company and inform customer

service about their dissatisfaction and depending on how upset they are, they would also

inform other consumers about this event or product so that they will not have to

experience the same. All participants claimed that they could contribute to a negative

word-of-mouth if they are unsatisfied but that they however would never share incorrect

information. One participant confessed however that he/she could distort the truth if

28

he/she is really upset in order to prove a point. Another participant explained that he/she

tries not to engage in negativity online since it seldom generates something of value.

Advertising experiments

Regarding advertising experiments and being involved without knowing it, had depicted

opinions. Approximately half of the participants defended that it was an effective way

to market a company and at the same time prove a point. The other half argued against it

and claimed that it harms the trust towards the company and that you, as a consumer,

feel betrayed.

Therefore, they conceded that companies can use another, less damaging strategy to

prove the same kind of message by admitting that it is an experiment but not what kind

or with what company for example, so that consumers know what they are getting

themselves into without feeling betrayed.

“I believe that you can generate the same message in a different way without damaging

the trust at all”

Participant 9

Half of the participants that disliked advertising experiments did however express that if

it does not harm anyone, it is acceptable but that it does affect the trust towards that

company. Another participant added that it could harm trust towards a third party if they

did not detect it either, such as experts within the area.

4.2 Content generation

A majority of the participants explained that they use social media to get inspiration and

to communicate with other, which enables their information searching process. This is

because communicating with others inspires them and therefore they base their

information searching process on what has inspired them. They all agreed on that their

information searching process is based on their connections within their own social

network and whom they have integrated with since it is visible for them and they can

therefore search for the same thing and by that discover new forms of information they

would never have found on their own.

29

Some of the participants mentioned that they get reminded by their previously

information searching process and that it affects what they search for and can therefore

miss out on new information. One participant stated that he/she base his/hers searching

process on how to get valuable content by using advanced searching methods such as

filtering for example. By using these filter functions, the system can help to sort the

information online so that it matches with your searching criteria. All participants

claimed further that it is a good idea to help other’s information searching process

online by provide useful information to them. However, the participants confessed that

it would take a lot of effort to do it themselves.

“My aim is not to improve someone else’s searching process”

Participant 2

Even though all participants said that they interact with other consumers on social

media some explained that it is because they want to brag with their knowledge about

something or because they are a part of a loyalty program where they get rewarded

when interacting or helping other consumers. They added that when they do this, it is

because of the wrong reasons and it therefore affects the trustworthiness of the content.

However, a majority of the participants claimed that they would support other

consumers if they were unsatisfied with something because they wanted to help and

prevent others from the same bad experience. In order for this to work, the information

has to be trustworthy and come from a reliable source.

”It has to be a reliable source behind the information that is being delivered”

Participant 6

It does not have to be a person whom delivers the information but companies,

corporations and other sources can stand behind the information as well. It is important

that a trustworthy source is behind the information in order for it to be reliable.

However, almost all participants stated that it does not matter when the information is

being delivered to them since they receive information from all around the world and

that we have different time zones that makes it difficult for the time to matter. One

participant compared it as when the information is being delivered in relation to

30

something, such as a critical event. He/she then argued that information that is being

delivered close to the event is less reliable since it has probably not been confirmed to

be true that close to the event.

4.3 Interactions

Within this area of interactions on social media the opinions were divided but the

common link was that all participants, in some extent, interacted with others but with

different purposes. Some did it to boost others and some did it to make themselves feel

good. On a daily basis, all participants of the focus groups interacted on social media,

mostly several times per day.

“I interact when I want to brag about something, share information about things I have

knowledge about”

Participant 1

Some of the participants claimed that they mostly interact with people they know very

well, whom they have a shared interest with and therefore honestly want to like or

comment their posts. Two of the participants stated that it is important for them to have

things in common in order to interact with each other. Another participant claimed that

he/she do not aim to make friends through interactions on social media, he/she already

has a group of friends and integrate only with them. A couple of the participants

although thought it is important to interact regarding giving honest reviews on public

forums, but that it is anonymous and aims to just help others in their purchasing

decisions. Further one participant stated that the he/she likes posts on social media

because that is what you do nowadays.

“If I like something on social media I do not do it to show my friends, I do it to show the

company that I am satisfied with them”

Participant 10

A majority of the participants agreed on that social media is a good way to

communicate with companies. If the participants are pleased with, for example a visit at

a restaurant, they do not hesitate to share these positive thoughts on the social media

31

channels of the given company. They thought it was an easy gesture to show respect

towards the company by just sending positive feedback, either public or private.

More or less attention

The participants within the focus groups had different opinions regarding the matter if

they got more affected by information that has gotten a lot of attention on social media,

considering for example many likes and followers.

“I would like to say no, but I think I do, I would like to say that I am so aware but I

guess I do get affected”

Participant 2

Another participant also said that one often do not think that one gets too affected, but

that you probably do. If you see something on social media in the USA that is so

popular that there are lines for blocks, then you would probably want to go to that place

when you visit the USA, since you have seen how much attention it has got on social

media, according to the participant.

Regarding the attention on social media, some participants claimed that they do not care

at all about how many likes or followers a company or brand have on social media.

“It does not affect me that much, for me it is more about knowing the brand and feel

some kind of connection to the brand”

Participant 7

Another participant stated that it does not matter how much attention something gets

regarding likes, comments and followers that much anymore since everybody nowadays

can buy their likes and followers. The participants said that this affects the trust towards

the companies, brands or influencers, since it is nowadays really easy to buy both likes,

followers and comments. This was not the case a couple of years ago according to the

focus groups, but nowadays there are so many whom call themselves influencers with a

lot of followers that it is difficult to sort out which are authentic and which are “fake”.

32

“We get manipulated in some aspects, therefore I do not ever think about how many

likes something has, since it could be sponsored. Therefore I would care more about

information which my friends have shared”

Participant 8

The majority of the participants discussed that they care more about the quality of

shared information and content, not the quantity of it. The participants state that it is

important to feel trustworthiness towards the information and the source behind it.

Celebrities or “normal people’s” reviews

A majority of the participants said that they get more influenced by reviews, opinions

and recommendations from individuals in their surroundings rather than by celebrities,

other famous people and influencers. The focus groups agreed on that it is often risky

for a company or a brand to use a celebrity within their marketing campaigns and other

advertising activities. Either because of that there are scandals related to the celebrity,

which will according to some participants harm and damage the image and

trustworthiness of the brand, or that consumers do not share the same values as the

endorser. If that is the case, the participants stated that they would boycott the company

if they do not agree with their endorsers, since they do not want to be connected with

something that goes against their values.

“I do absolutely not get influenced by reviews by celebrities, because you know that

they have probably been paid to say it”

Participant 3

A high number of the participants agreed on that they more often listen to what their

friends and family have to say and the physical word of mouth, before they go online

and start to search for information, reviews and recommendations. One exception was if

one has followed an influencer on social media for a long time and is considered as a

type of role model. If the person trust this influencer and know what is valuable for that

person, then the participants would care a lot about that person’s review since they share

the same values and there is a high amount faith for the influencer.

33

“The key to if I would listen to reviews from an influencer is if I share the same values

and interest, it makes it more trustworthy”

Participant 2

Another exception is if the reviews on social media comes from an actual reviewer, for

example regarding food, whom is working with writing reviews and is an expert within

the field. Otherwise, the participants prefer to listen to their friends and family, rather

than celebrities and influencers.

Consumer’s recommendations on social media

Some of the participants listen to consumer’s recommendations on social media

meanwhile others do not. Regarding for example traveling, many of the participants

used apps like TripAdvisor before going to a restaurant when being abroad, to see what

previous guests have written and rated.

“If the recommendations are positive there is a greater probability that I will go there,

if the reviews are negative I would never ever go there”

Participant 3

The participants agreed on that reviews and recommendations from previous guests give

them some kind of safety. Although, here the opinions were divide in some extent,

another participant was very skeptical regarding reviews. It needs to feel trustworthy in

order for the participant to believe and actually consider following the

recommendations.

“I feel that if it is a small restaurant with only positive comments, they have probably

written the comments themselves, that is kind of what I think, I am a bit skeptic to that”

Participant 1

The discussion regarding this resulted in that some participants think it is important that

there are both positive and negative comments and reviews in order for it to feel

trustworthy. Some of the participants claimed that they do not read other reviews on

social media if it does not come from their friends and family. Another participant said

34

that he/she trust his/hers own thoughts more than to get affected by reviews and

recommendations by others on social media.

Recommend products within social media network

Regarding if the participants would recommend products to others within their social

media networks, a majority said that they would not do so. The majority of the

participants discussed that even if they sometimes think about sharing

recommendations, they often do not follow through and actually write something.

“If you want sites like TripAdvisor and Momondo to work, you have a ambition that if it

shall work even I have to contribute in some way. But personally, the step to actually do

so is pretty big, since then the experience is behind you and over and then you do not

want to go back.”

Participant 1

Further, the participants agreed on that they share a lot of information regarding

products, companies and brand amongst their friends and family, both positive and

negative experiences. Another participant stated that is has to be something

extraordinary in order for him/her to share something about a product on his/hers social

media networks. The common link in this part of the discussion was that the participants

do not themselves rate and recommend products on social media networks, but rather in

a physical word of mouth towards their friends and family.

Participation in negative buzz

The participants claimed that they have not been a part of a negative buzz regarding a

brand. Many of the participants discussed the fact that a negative buzz often occurs on

Facebook, where someone starts with a negative comment and many other participants

agreed.

“Facebook is not the right medium for those kind of discussions”

Participant 8

Within the focus groups, some of the participants agreed on that they prefer to

communicate directly to the company by example calling them or send a private email

35

instead of writing about their bad experience in public. Some participants do not see any

value in publicly display their dissatisfaction, since it does not mean anything to the

individuals within their social media networks. Nobody within the focus groups claimed

to have spread any wrongful information, if they have had a negative experience they

have been honest about it. The focus groups agreed on that display these negative

feelings and dissatisfaction is not something they engage in, but that they would rather

contact the company directly.

4.4 Reputation

Since there are social mediums such as TripAdvisor nowadays, the participants

discussed that the information they find there affects how they see a brand or company.

But a reputation about a company or brand comes mainly from word of mouth,

according to the participants.

“Let us assume that I am in Italy, in a village recommended by my parents, then I will

probably go to the restaurants they recommend and do not Google about it at all”

Participant 4

The focus groups discussed that a bad reputation can occur on social media but that is

not something they focus on, but rather listen to recommendations from their friends

and family. Some of the participants said that they do not want to engage within

negative discussions, especially not on public social mediums, but there are of course

exceptions.

“It is only if I, myself, have been actively in contact with them and they have given me a

negative experience on for example a restaurant, then I might spread negative

information on social media”

Participant 3

The main parts of the focus groups discussed the fact that they rather spread information

through word of mouth. Therefore, their perceptions and opinions about a company and

brand does not get affected so much due to information from social media, since they

36

instead tend to talk and listen to people in their surrounding rather than search for

information online and on social media.

Spreading information

None of the participants in the focus groups said that they spread information about

brands on social media, if they do that, it is at rare occasions. One of the participants

believe that is has to do a lot with which endorser the brand has and if he/she share the

same values, political views and lifestyle.

“For me, when using celebrities endorsers it is often more negative than positive if I

already like the brand. And if I have already decided I want to buy something, of course

it could push me into liking it a little bit more, but it could on the other hand give a

bigger push to the negative side”

Participant 9

The others in the focus groups agreed and said that they would never spread information

about a brand whom has an endorser, which one does not share values or other

important thoughts with. Overall, the discussion about this was about spreading

information through word of mouth and not on social media. The participants were not

very active in spreading information about brands on social media either.

37

5.0 Analysis

In this chapter the analysis is build from the theoretical framework and thecollected

material from the focus groups in order to extinguish if there are similarities or

differences. Within this chapter, the literature review summarize figure will also be used

to set a foundation for the consistency in the research, which means that firstly the

concept of trust will be analyzed, followed by content generation, interactions and lastly

reputation. See figure below for the structure.

Figure 3.0 Illustration of literature review summarize which is used when analyzing

(self-generated).

38

5.1 Trust

As Christoffersen & Robson (2017) states that trust is built upon expectations and

relations between two parties, the participants of the focus groups agreed with this as

they stated that they need to know the other part in order to trust that person since they

have certain expectations on people closer to them. The closer you are to the other part,

the easier it is to trust that part. The further away you are, the harder it gets to gain trust

towards a company. In addition to this, the participants also stated that trust could arise

because of other aspects such as the willingness to work for the given company. This is

because of the shared values and opinions the consumer and the company then have in

common.

According to Anon (2008) is a consumer’s trust towards a company partly based on the

shared values and opinions they have in common since otherwise it could lead to

negativity within the online social network. A majority of the participants argued that

when two parties share the same values, trust towards the company would automatically

arise since you feel more connected to the given company.

Beyond shared values and opinions, did two participants mention that their trust towards

a company is based on story-telling and Anon (2008) further states that by engaging

consumers in the interaction process, trust will most likely occur between the two

parties. The participant added that they want more than just a product, they want a story

behind it since it shows that the company values more than just to maximize their sale.

This is aligned with Anon (2008) since it is significant to understand that effort is

sometimes needed more than just engaging the consumers in order to generate trust.

Anon (2008) states further that the effort put into the relationship has to be exposed for

the consumers in order for them to understand the value of it, which is what the

participants said as well.

Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, Foronda-Robles & García-López (2014) explains that trust

enables communication between companies and individuals and broadens their ability

to interact with each other at the same time. The participants argued that trust towards a

company is also based on the relevance of the content that is being revealed online since

it can generate in a form of relationship between the company and the consumer, which

39

makes it easier for consumers to interact with the company, as in line with the literature.

Anon (2008) is aligned with the participants regarding this since in order to generate

trust, one has to provide a useful content to the consumers. Reichheld (2003) states

further, that this leads to a closer bond between companies and consumers since Internet

creates countless of opportunities for consumers to interact with each other and

companies. However, the participants explained that half of them do not know whom

they are interacting with on social media and the other half do know whom they are

interacting with. Anon (2008) claims that it can be problematic if you do not know

whom you are interacting with since, according to Kaur & Singh (2016), people tend to

share information online that is not correct if they are dissatisfied or do not agree with a

with a company. All participants claimed however that they would never share incorrect

information but that they could distort the truth if they are unsatisfied with a company.

Also, the participants that do not know whom they are interacting with explained that

they do it when they find the exchange of information valuable to them but that they

read the information carefully since they know that it is not always trustworthy

information. They added that they need to believe in their own ability regarding what is

true and what is not online if they keep interacting with unknown users on social media.

If a company does not convey a high sense of trust towards their consumers, the

consumers will thereafter not stay loyal towards the company (Reichheld, 2003). Some

of the participants were in line with this and stated that if they were to buy a product

and service from a company and would not get satisfied, they would not go back to the

given company since their trust towards the company has then decreased. They would

also not recommend the product, company or the brand to another consumer since they

did not want them to experience the same dissatisfaction. However, when companies

have gained trust of their consumers they are more willing to share information with

and about the company and hence receive more advantageous offers from the company

than before, according to Reichheld (2003). Despite this, all participants agreed on that

they do not want to share information online since they can never know surely whom

they are interacting with. The participants explained further that it is not the platform

itself but the people within the platform whom are menacing and since trust is a result

of people’s enthusiasm to share personal information virtually (Anon, 2008) it is clear

that the participants do not trust all other consumers on social media.

40

What personal information is did the participants have depicting thoughts regarding and

claimed that it partly depends on what kind of social media channel the information is

being shared on since some platforms are more socially acceptable to share personal

information on than others, according to the participants. Despite this, the participants

try not to share personal information online but when they do, it is because they want to

brag and show a positive side of themselves since social media allows users to promote

themselves and they would not want to show off a bad side of themselves, they would

then rather not share anything at all. If this positive information about them is true or

not, does not really matter to the participants. As Kaur & Singh (2016) states, is the

negativity within social media becoming more significant due to the risk of it not being

true but according to the participants, is it the positive information that might not be

aligned with the reality since they would not share negative information about

themselves. However, they did mention that they would contribute to a negative word-

of-mouth if they were unsatisfied with a product or a company but never share incorrect

information regarding it.

Regarding advertising experiments and being involved without knowing it, had depicted

opinions amongst the participants. According to Ashley & Leonard (2009) can trust

towards a company decline if they use undercover strategies and the consumers

thereafter finds out about it and according to the participants is this because they feel

betrayed. Some argued however that it was an effective way to market a company and

prove to the consumers that their products are good if it is a successful experiment. The

participants added that it could also harm trust towards a third party if they do not detect

that it is an experiment.

5.2 Content generation

All participants stated that they share information online in different extents and Knoll

& Schramm (2015) mean that it is proved that user-generated content (UGC) is being

used in a high extent when searching for information online. A majority of the

participants explained that their information searching process is based on their

connections and whom they interact with within their own network on social media.

UGC provides useful content online by users and individuals (Daugherty, Eastin &

41

Bright, 2008) and some participants mentioned that they receive information from

others online in their information searching process whilst some argued that they base

their searching process on how to get useful content by using searching methods that

matches with their searching word. Regarding this did Susarla, Oh & Tan (2012)

investigate how the content of a message differs within social media depending on when

and from whom the message is being delivered from. Almost all participants claimed

that it does not matter when the information is being delivered to them due to different

time zones since they receive information globally whilst some compared the time in

relation to something such as an event and argued that information that is being

delivered closer in time to the event is less reliable. Regarding from whom the

information comes, the participants were aligned that it does not necessarily have to

come from a person but that it is important that it is a trustworthy source behind the

information in order for it to be reliable.

According to Shao (2009) is UGC used by individuals with different intentions and the

participants expressed that they contribute to UGC when they want to brag about

themselves or get rewarded through a loyalty program but when they do this, it is

because of wrong reasons, which affects the trustworthiness of that content.

Shao (2009) further states that the main reasons to why consumers use UGC is to fulfill

their needs in the best way possible by maximizing their information searching process

and interacting with other consumers to enhance social connections. All participants

stated that they do not interact with others online to become more social and make new

friends but Shao (2009) explains that when consumers express themselves online, they

fulfill their needs regarding supporting others by given them a useful content (Shao,

2009). Despite this, the participants claimed that it would take a lot of effort for

themselves to help others by giving them useful content online but according to Shao

(2009) is this interaction between consumers whom are providing useful content what

creates credibility amongst users online. However, a majority of the participants said

that they would support other consumers if they were unsatisfied with a company since

they would want to help and prevent this for happening to others.

42

5.3 Interactions

Interaction on social media includes dialogues and conversation between users and their

networks, according to Tuten & Solomon (2016, 110). Within the focus groups there

was a clear image of the fact that all eleven participants in some extent interact on social

media, on a daily basis, by comments, likes and sending messages. Values, behaviors

and attitudes are being spread and promoted by social interactions (Falk, Morelli,

Welborn, Dambacher & Lieberman, 2013), which the participants of the focus groups

agree on. According to most of the participants, social media is a good place for

communicate with both companies and other individuals.

Consumers whom are active within social network communities are more likely to buy

an advertised product and at the same time recommend the product to other consumers

whom are active or members of the same group (Knoll & Schramm, 2015; Tuten &

Solomon, 2016, 110). All participants were not, according to themselves, actively

sharing content on social media. They do not recommend products often to others

through their social networks, even if they sometimes use social media to search for

information about a hotel on for example TripAdvisor. Instead of sharing information

and recommendations online, the participants prefered to share information with their

friends and family physically.

Fan et al. (2013) states that these interactions create an interest among consumers,

which could lead to be a large extent of electronic word-of-mouth. The electronic word

of mouth was something that some of the participants mostly focused on regarding

reviews on social media about for example a hotel or a restaurant. It was also discussed

amongst the participants whether they listen to other consumers’ recommendations or

not, some said that they did and some claimed that they read it but did not let if affect

their perceptions of a brand displayed on social media.

The participants agreed on that reviews and recommendations from previous consumers

gives them some kind of safety. Although, the opinions divide in some extent, another

participant was very skeptical regarding reviews and do not rely much on others

opinions, especially not on unknown peoples’ reviews. Tuten & Solomon (2016) also

states that within this concept there has to be a certain authenticity in the reviews in

43

order for the consumers to rely on them, and the participants of the focus groups claim

to not care so much about the quantity of the shared content but rather about the quality

considered whom is sharing and spreading the content.

Carter (2016) concludes two different kinds of influencers on social media. Firstly,

celebrities and their relationship to companies and how these factors together can

influence consumers. When being asked about companies and brand whom uses

celebrities endorsers, the overall impression was that the participants did not fancy these

type of endorsers. Firstly, the participants did not think it is favorably for companies

and brands to use celebrities in their advertising and marketing channels on social

media, since there are often scandals connected to the celebrities or that the consumers

does not fancy the chosen endorser. Since interactions on social media regards sharing

what values one may have about something or someone (Falk et al., 2013) is it a risky

game, according to the participants, to use celebrities within the social media channels.

This is also because the participants agreed on and discussed that a celebrity endorser

probably gets pay to talk about and spread the current brand, and therefore do not share

their honest opinion. Therefore, the participants argued that these endorsers do not

influence them that much. This leads to the second kind of influencers on social media,

which are less exposed individuals whom willingly accept their role as an influencer

whom put effort into changing consumer’s perception about a company (Carter, 2016).

Regarding this aspects there were an exception within the focus groups. That was if

you, as a user of social media, had followed an influencer on for example Instagram for

a long time, listened to their podcast if they had one or similar activities, where the user

feels that he/she can trust this influencer because of these activities, then the user would

listen to the reviews and recommendations spread by this influencer. It would not matter

that much if the influencer is sponsored with the content, since the user then know that

the influencer would not post or share anything that goes against his/hers values and

thoughts. Other than that, the participants claimed not to be too influenced by

celebrities’ endorsers and that they often could be influenced in a negative way towards

the brand if they do not have positive associations with the endorser.

Further Knoll & Schramm (2015) reveals that the social influence occurred anyways, as

long as someone else within the common group interacted as well. This is a discussion

that the participants talked a lot about and the fact that if someone in their close network

44

shared or posted anything, they would get more influenced than if someone they do not

know would have shared it. This is supported by Tuten & Solomon (2016, 121) whom

explains that consumers rely more on connections within their network rather than

unknown sources of information. A high number of the participants agreed on the fact

that they tend to care more about the physical word of mouth, which they share with

friends and family. This is something some of the participants do before going online to

search for information, reviews and recommendations.

Regarding spreading information, consumers could also create buzz on social media.

Buzz refers to the excitement that is being spread around for example a product or a

company. This means that consumers actively must be motivated and interested in

spreading their opinions for a buzz to be considered effective (Falk et al., 2013). The

participants within the focus groups claimed to be very inactive regarding sharing

content about products and brands on social media. Mattern, Huhn, Perrey, Dörner,

Lorenz, & Spillecke (2012) states that is it important for companies to focus on their

social media channels to have an overview of that their buzz says about them online, if

it is positive or negative buzz. A negative buzz on public social media platforms in not

anything the participants in the focus groups claimed to have ever been a part of,

although they see a lot of negative buzzing on social media, especially on Facebook.

But as one participant said, a public thread on Facebook is not the right place to

complain about a company or brand. Mattern et al. (2012) further states that a negative

buzz have mostly to do with the fact that consumers are not satisfied with the customer

service or that the expectations are not perceived. The participants within the focus

groups discussed what they have done when they have been unsatisfied with a company

or a brand, and the majority agreed on that calling the company directly or sending a

private email is the most effective way to share their bad experience with the current

company/brand. Some participants do not see the value in publicly display their

dissatisfaction, since it does not mean anything to the individuals within their social

media networks but rather affects their relationship towards the company or brand.

Sherman, Payton, Hernandez, Greenfield & Dapretto (2016) states that within social

media people tend to react and interact more strongly with shared information that has

received more attention online. If it goes the other way around, if they are pleased with

45

their experience or that their expectations has been surpassed, some of the participants

do not hesitate to share their positive feedback on social media at the specific companies

social media channels, to show respect towards the company.

5.4 Reputation

A brand is according to Armstrong et al. (2015) a sign, symbol, design or a name or a

combination of the mentioned. Social media has a great dominance regarding a brand

and its reputation, according to Kaul & Chaudhri (2015). The reputation can be affected

in many ways, for example regarding how much attention a brand has gotten. The

participants within the focus groups had different opinions regarding the matter if they

got more affected by information that has gotten a lot of attention on social media,

considering for example a high amount of likes and followers. Some of the participants

argued that they do not get affected by the amount of likes and followers a

brand/company have on social media and that it does not affect their perception of the

brand. Meanwhile, other participants stated that others opinions of a brand creates a

reputation which they listen to a lot. Further Lee (2015) states that companies can use

social media as a tool to empower their reputation. There are many aspects, which can

affect a reputation, for example the interaction amongst consumers.

The participants within the focus groups discussed social mediums such as TripAdvisor,

where consumers and users easily nowadays can share, rate and discuss their

experiences. Further the participants discussed how the found information on for

example TripAdvisor affects their view on a brand or company but still the participants

think that the physical word-of-mouth-reputations mean more to them than the

electronic word-of-mouth. Therefore, main parts of the focus groups did not think the

information on social media affects their perceptions of a brand until they experience it

themselves or have someone in their close surroundings experience it.

46

6.0 Conclusion

Within this chapter the purpose is fulfilled; explore the interaction between consumers

and influencing aspects on the perception of a brand in a social media context. After

conducting this research, the conclusions that could be drawn within the different

research areas are presented as follows:

Trust as an influencing interaction

The content on social media produced by a company needs to be relevant within the

context in order for consumers to generate a positive perception of the brand.

Companies and brands needs to engaged with the consumers and be visible on social

media in order for them to easily interact with each other. The content is perceived

differently depending on whom the sender is since consumers gets more influenced by

content shared by people they know. This means that consumer needs to have some sort

of relationship with the other part that shares information about a company or brand in

order to trust the content and the company. Consumers need to share values and

opinions with the company, brand or influencer in order to trust their content and create

positive thoughts towards the company, brand or influencer. Although an influencer

could be sharing sponsored content, the consumers feel trust towards the content if there

is a long-term trust for the influencer. Celebrities on the other hand, do not affect the

consumers, since they do not think they share their honest opinions but rather share

content that they get paid for.

The influencing effect of shared content through interactions

Consumers tend to share their negative experiences with a company directly with the

company instead of sharing it publicly, which does not affect the perception of the

brand online negatively amongst other users or consumers on social media. Consumers

find social media as a good platform to interact with both companies and other

individuals, either in private messages or in public displays. Consumers need to have a

bad experience themselves in order for them to share the information on social media

and let the information affect a company’s reputation badly. In addition, consumers

have a hard time trusting other consumers that only provide positive feedback about a

company, however, when trusting a company consumers tend to share positive content

47

about the given company. Consumers also share positive feedback on the company’s

social media channels if their expectations have been surpassed, to show their

gratefulness.

Physical WOM before eWOM interactions

Not all consumers use social media to share their recommendations and reviews, they

prefer to do it more personal within their own physical networks. Still they read others

recommendations online but it does not affect their perception of a brand or company

displayed on social media. E-WOM is an effective way for consumers to interact on

social media if they trust the other part but physical WOM is more effective regarding a

brand’s reputation than eWOM. The consumers get more influenced by content shared

by people they know physically rather than people they only interact with on social

media.

What a “like” interaction really mean

A company’s reputation does not get affected by the amount of attention such as likes

and followers the company has on social media. The quality is more important than the

quantity and content shared by people within their network is more important than

content with a lot of likes for example. However, people can nowadays buy likes and

followers on social media, which damages the trust within the interactions online. Paid

or sponsored content could create low credibility and affects the perception of the brand

negatively.

48

7.0 Research implications

When conducting this research, both theoretical and managerial implications were

encountered. Theoretical implications include what has been contributed to the

research field and the managerial implications contain solutions to the findings in the

research. Lastly, further research suggestions are presented.

7.1 Theoretical implications

The field of social media is well explored, however with the emergence of the

phenomena the communication landscape is changing (Kilgour, Sasser & Larke, 2015;

Pavlou & Stewart, 2000; Kaul & Chaudhri, 2015). Consumers tend to interact more

strongly with each other on social media (Charlesworth, 2014), which can be risk full

for companies and damage their reputation if the information that is being spread is not

true (Tuten & Solomon, 2016). Due to this changing landscape, there have been limited

exploratory research and analysis of how social media can affect the perception of a

company from a user perspective and research within the topic has reached a certain

level of limitation (Khang, Ki & Ye, 2012; Kaur & Singh, 2016). Therefore, this

research has contributed to this deeper field of social media in order to for companies to

understand the importance regarding this.

7.2 Managerial implications

Based on the findings in this research, there are certain implications to take into

account. Several interactions on social media affect consumer’s perception of a brand,

which is concluded in this thesis. Therefore, companies have to take this into

consideration when planning their action strategies on social media and when deciding

how and to whom they want to reach out to. Companies are in great need of

understanding how consumers interact on social media and what influences them in

order for companies to uphold a trustworthy reputation. However, since the theoretical

implications have found a gap whereby further research is needed, this research

suggests future research below.

49

7.3 Future research

Since the understanding of interactions on social media is a rather unexplored field, the

authors of this research suggest future research within this area. More specifically, it

would be interesting to explore more specific what interactions affects trust towards

companies. In this research, the participants discussed that the attention a company has

on social media does not necessarily affect trust towards the company but that bought

likes and followers however can however damage the company’s reputation. An

interesting research could therefore be to explore how and in what extent bought likes

and followers affects consumer’s trust towards and the perception of the company who

has bought these likes and followers on social media.

50

8.0 Reflections

In this final chapter, the authors´ own reflections and thoughts are presented.

It has been both challenging and interesting to conduct a research within the area of

social media, especially from a user perspective. Since the field of interactions on social

media are relatively unexplored, the authors had difficulties finding legit theoretical

research about our specific focus; what influences the consumers’ perceptions of a

brand within social media. Since this is a relatively new area, the authors believe that

this bachelor thesis contributes with interesting input to the research area. Although, the

authors sometimes questioned how the results would turn out, the authors are pleased

with the results that are presented in this research. It has been interesting to listen to

what the participants of the focus groups discussed, since their opinions in some aspects

differed from what the theoretical framework argued for.

51

9.0 References

Anon (2008). “Cultivating Trust and Harvesting Value in Virtual Communities”.

Management Science. 54(1), pp.113–128.

Armstrong, G., Brennan, R., Harker, M., & Kotler, P. (2015). Marketing : An

introduction. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Third edition.

Ashley, C. & Leonard, Hillary A. (2009). ”Betrayed by the buzz?: covert content and

consumer-brand relationships”. Journal of public policy & marketing. Graduate School

of Business Administration, University of Michigan. 28(2), pp.212–220.

Berger, J. (2014). “Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and

directions for future research”. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586-607.

Booth, N. & Matic J A. (2011). "Mapping and leveraging influencers in social media to

shape corporate brand perceptions". Corporate Communications: An International

Journal. Vol. 16 Issue: 3, pp.184-191, doi: 10.1108/13563281111156853

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. United Kingdom: Oxford University

Press. Fifth edition.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. United Kingdom: Oxford

University Press. Third dition.

Carroll, C. (2015). “Matching Dimensions of Reputation and Media Salience for

Feedback, Alignment, and Organizational Self-awarenes” The Journal For Decision

Makers. 40, 4, pp. 480-485.

Carter, D. (2016). ”Hustle and Brand: The Sociotechnical Shaping of Influence”. Social

Media Societ. 2(3), pp.Social Media Society, 2016, Vol.2(3).

52

Charlesworth, A. (2014). Digital marketing: A practical approach. New York:

Routledge. Second edition.

Cho, S., Huh, J. & Faber, R.J. (2014). “The influence of sender trust and advertiser trust

on multistage effects of viral advertising”. Journal of Advertising, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp.

100-114.

Christoffersen, J. & Robson, M.J. (2017). “Money Can't Buy Me Trust: Evidence of

Exogenous Influences Crowding out Process-based Trust in Alliances”. British Journal

of Management. 28(1), pp.135–153.

Constantinides, E. (2009). “Social Media/Web 2.0 as marketing parameter: An

introduction”. In Proceedings of 8th international congress marketing trends (pp. 15-

17).

Daugherty, T., Eastin M. S., & Bright, L. (2008). “Exploring Consumer Motivations for

Creating User-Generated Content”. Journal Of Interactive Advertising. Vol. 8, Iss. 2,

2008.

Davidsson, P. & Findahl, O. (2016). Svenskarna och internet 2016- Undersökning om

svenskarnas internetvanor. https://www.iis.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2016.pdf

(2017-05-15).

Evans, D. & McKee, J. (2010). Social Media Marketing: The Next Generation of

Business Engagement. USA: Wiley Publishing Inc.

Falk, E. B., Morelli A. S., Welborn, B. L., Dambacher, K., Lieberman, D. M. (2013).

"Creating Buzz." Psychological Science 24.7: 1234-242.

Fan Y-W, Miao Y-F, Fang Y-H & Lin, R-Y. (2013). “Establishing the Adoption of

Electronic Word-of-Mouth through Consumers’ Perceived Credibility”. International

Business Research. Vol. 6, No. 3; 2013 ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012

53

Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). “Who are the social

media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality”. Public Relations

Review, 37(1), 90-92.

Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, L., Foronda-Robles, C. & García-López, A. (2014). “The

Value of Trust: An Analysis of Social Capital in Natural Areas”. Social Indicators

Research. 118(2), pp.673–694.

Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y. & Wiertz, C. (2013). “Managing brands

in the social media environment”. Journal of Interactive Marketing. Vol. 27 No. 4, pp.

242-256.

Jacobsen, D.I. (2002). Vad, hur och varför : om metodval i företagsekonomi och andra

samhällsvetenskapliga ämnen, Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Kaur, M. & Chaudhri, V. (2015) . “Playing for the Future: The ‘Digital Roulette’!”. The

Journal For Decision Makers. 40, 4, pp. 486-489.

Kaur, M. & Singh, S. (2016). “Analyzing negative ties in social networks: A survey”.

Egyptian Informatics Journal. 17(1), pp.21–43.

Khang, H., Ki, E. and Ye, L. (2012), “Social media research in advertising,

communication, marketing and public relations”. Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly, Vol. 89 No.2, pp. 279-298.

Kilgour, M., Sasser. S.L., Larke, R. (2015). "The social media transformation process:

curating content into strategy". Corporate Communications: An International Journal.

Vol. 20 Issue: 3,pp. 326-343, doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-07-2014-0046

Knoll, J. & Schramm, H. (2015). “Advertising in social network sites – Investigating

the social influence of user-generated content on online advertising effects”.

Communications, 40(3), pp.Communications, 01/1/2015, Vol.40(3).

54

Lee, S Y. (2015). “Can Companies Gain CSR Reputation via Social Media” The

Journal For Decision Makerers. 40, 4, pp. 475-478.

Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing Research: An applied orientation. USA: Pearson.

Sixth edition.

Mattern, F., Huhn, W., Perrey, J., Dörner, K., Lorenz, J.-T., Spillecke, D. (2012).

Turning buzz into gold. How pioneers create value from social media. McKinsey &

Company, Inc..

Pavlou, P.A. & Stewart, D.W. (2000). “Measuring the effects and effectiveness of

interactive advertising: a research agenda”. Journal of Interactive Advertising. Vol. 1

No. 1, pp. 61-77.

Reichheld, F.F. (2003). Loyalty rules!: how today's leaders build lasting relationships.

Boston, Mass: London: Harvard Business School, McGraw-Hill.

Shao, G. (2009). "Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and

gratification perspective", Internet Research, Vol. 19 Issue: 1, pp.7-25, doi:

10.1108/10662240910927795

Sherman, L., Payton, A., Hernandez, L., Greenfield, P., & Dapretto, M. (2016). “The

Power of the Like in Adolescence.” Psychological Science, 27(7), 1027-1035.

Solomon , M R., Bamossy, G J., Askegaard, S T,. & Hogg, M K. (2014). Consumer

behaviour, a european perspective. Fifth Edition. Pearson Education, England.

Susarla, A. Oh, J-H. & Tan, Y. (2012) “Social Networks and the Diffusion of User-

Generated Content: Evidence from YouTube”. Information Systems Research. 23(1),

pp. 23–41.

Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. & Koen, P. (2009). “Effects of word-of-mouth versus

traditional marketing: findings from an internet social networking site”. Journal of

Marketing. Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 90–102

55

Tuten L. T. & Solomon R. M. (2015). Social Media Marketing. (2.nd ed.). London:

SAGE.

Yan, Q., Wu, P., Wu, S., Wang, L., Chen, H. & Wei, G. (2016). “E-WOM from e-

commerce websites and social media: Which will consumers adopt?”. Electronic

Commerce Research and Applications. vol. 17(1), pp. 62-73.

I

Appendix Appendix 1: Operationalization

II

III

Appendix 2: Translation of questions

IV