Anda di halaman 1dari 6

ions

ality
anal
nee.
. and
;9.
ig of
and
'earn
SEC
e: A
'l ogy
05.
don:
JUt)',
ty of
ions.
2012 2r,J lr ucrnational Conference en Economic. Education and Munagcmem (ICED, I 2012)
WEB 2.0 Usage in B2C Mar ket
Selma Kadic-Maqlajhc' ", Almir Pestek' " and Mladen Vicevic'"
School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo, Trg oslobodjenja 1, Bosnia and Herzegovina
. ' selma,kadic@efsa,unsa,ba (Corresponding author); balmir.pestek@efsa.unsa.ba;
cmladenvicevic.ba@gmail.com
Keywords: E marketing, Web 2.0.. Producti vity, B2C, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Abst ract. Web 2.0 is 0 be considered as distinguished from everything before by the presence of
increased lnrcrncrivity of its on collaborative platform. In the last decade many articles were
analyzing its structure. clements and opportunities for its usage in different segments of life and
business. Howe ver. it is not known how companies are capitalizing these opportunities. what
benefits they sec from it and what risks they have from (not) using it. There arc even less studies
that consider other environment except the USA and Asia. This paper will usc quantitative research
approach. based on convenience sample of 80 companies. to test hypothesis developed through
theoretical literature review. Research findings should be used as indicative in the area of impact of
the Web 2.0 usage on B2C company performance. This paper will offer new knowledge about Web
2.0. construct and its usage in B2C companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore. it will
increase awareness of the importance of the regional studies in order to enhance regional usage of
Web 2.0 tools.
I. Introduction
Over the past few years. Web 2.0 has become a buzzword. It is one of the reasons why O'Reilly and
Battelle [ I] say thnt Web 2.0 is no longer a platfor mbUI a new world. The growing buzz around the
ability of the so-called Web 2.0 to dcmocmtlzc various aspects of society and culture. including
politics. information. publishing. and business 12). suggests more in depth conceptual and empirical
analyses of this issue arc needed to further understanding and off er guidance for small business
owners and managers [3].
The paper will not deal with an in-depth analysis of the concept, but rather focus on Web 2.0
tools and their usage, and on their effects 011 the efficiency and effectiveness of BI I companies'
marketing activities. The aim of the paper is to establish whether and 10 what extent Hl I companies
use Web 2.0 technologies. in what ways, and how Web 2.0 tools affect the effectiveness of the
entire marketing communication. as well as which tools arc mostly used for these purposes. Such
research would provide enough information tha t could serve as a basis for further studies into
variables that increase Web 2.0 tools" efficiency.
This paper should be seen as an extension of the research that has been conducted by Pcstck cr
al., 14Jabout usage of the Web 2.0. The purpose of this paper is to promote scholarly inquiry about
the need for a new type of promotion tools that arc Web 2.0 based and the adoption of the
worldwide best practices in business activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2. WEB 2.0
The very concept Web 2.0 emerged during a 2004 conference organized by O' Reilly Media. Web
2.0 has been defined as a "new breed of application. which runs primarily on Internet servers and
company intranets. is generally understood to be dynamic [that is. content updates automatically)
978-988 19750) -1 ' IlliS25.110
2012 110ng Kling Education Socicty. Llong Kong 537
and collaborat ive (drawing infor mat ion from multiple sources and from use r contribution).
embracing a new paradi gm. the Internet itself becomes the computing platfor m"{5]. Web 2.0 refers
10 the evolution of Internet from a simple information retrieval to inte ractivity, intcropcrability and
collaboration [6]. Simply. Web 2.0 is the evaluation to a more interacti ve medium where
communicat ion and interact ion arc in focus [7]. The participation-coll aborat ion element of Web 2.0
is perhaps its cent ral theme (8].
Web 2.0 allows users interactive sharing and usc of information. control over the content, user-
oriented and user-co ntrolled design, as well as mutual communication and cooperation on the global
network. Web 2.0 through user-generated content has become a mass phenomenon: Facebook.
My'Space. YouTubc, Wikipcdia and Twiner arc all being listed among To p 15 wcbsitcs. accounting
from more than 11% of global internet traffi c, as of A. pri120 10 [9 in 10].
Companies worl dwide arc now using Web 2.0 in many di fferent ways to connect with customers.
employees and ot her stakeholders [ II ). On the other hand. consumer s ge t tired of TV commerc ials.
they rarely watc h them and change channels as soon as commercials start. Web 2.0 attracts
cons umers' attention in another way. by means of various games. resear ch. etc. Consumers get
involved in and exposed to advertising. and even li nd it fun.
Marketing on Web 2.0 is flexible [i 21. If a campaign launched using a Web 2.0 tool docs not
yield results. it is easy to give up and launch another one. From the "of fli ne marketing" viewpoi nt.
it often happened that a campaign is bound b)' contract and cannot be stopped. although there was
no return on investment.
Web 2.0 technologies allow marketers to reach thei r target audience or. better to say. an ideal
consumer [ 13]. Owing to Web 2.0 technologies. it is possible to rent adve rtising space on. e.g.
Pacebook and post an ad that can be seen only by the users we selected as target audience. It is an
advant age that television. magazines. billboards. etc. never had.
Web 2.0 marketi ng is very affordable and entertaining for users. and allows marketer s to look
into the "black box" and ge t ful ly famil iar with their consumers ( 14J.
Blog is a type of content management system (CMS ). which makes it simple to use for
pub lishing short art icles popularly called posts ( 15J. On the other hand microhlogs are forms of
blogs that limit sizes of each post (I 6]. The bes t-known microhlog is Twitter. which limits a user' s
post to 140 characters. However. since many users post tweet s 0 11 themselves and their lives daily,
eve n a few times a day . it turned out that it is VCI)' useful to marketers [ 17).
Soc ial networks are maybe the leading web 2.0 tool. that allow users to create and build in
add itional applicatio ns on their site (Campbell ct al.. 20 10). Soc ial networking sites. such as
Facebook. l\tySpace. Friendster. Livc.lournal. and Bcbo. are designed to foster social interaction in
a virtual envi ronment r18].
J. Resea r ch
3. 1 Rcscurch methodology, glla ls an d hypotheses
The goat of the research is to find out what conditions in 111 1 are in terms of Web 2.0 tools usage.
Which compan ies use Web 2.0. do they do it in the right way, as part of strategy or thr ough ad-hoc
thoughts? The paper will also try to answe r the question as to how and in what way companies
measure and recognize effects of using Web 2.0 on their busine ss. The paper aut hors do not have
the ambition to ge nera lize results to other markets. The aim is to obtain init ial results of Web 2.0
too ls usage in BII . Suc h resul ts would then serve as a basis for furt her resear ch and developing a
model for improving Web 2.0 too ls e fficiency .
Based on the goals set above and theoretical framework. the following hypot heses were set:
111: The most frequent ly used Web 2.0 tool in the B2C market is Faccbook
112: The primary motive for using Web 2.0 for B2C companies is product/service promotion.
11 3: The sec ondary motive for using Web 2.0 for B:!C companies is CRM.
S3X
539
For a company to use Web 2.0 technologi es. the basic prerequisite is thnt it uses the Internet.
Since the survey was delivered via e-mail, it is reasonable to assume that everybody who
participated in the survey actually uses the Internet. r-,'IOSI respondents clai med that they usc the
Internet for internal and external e-mail communication and doc ument exchange with busine ss
partners, St ill, it is somewhat disturbing that only 35% respondent s usc the Internet for online
service and new staff search. as shown in Graph I.
Quantitative research was conducted using highly structured questionnaire deve loped for this
research. The online questionnai re was created using Google spreadsheet. An on line questionnaire
was sent to a sample or 293 companies that arc operating in Bosnia and llcrzcgoviua. ill B2C
market. We used non-probability con venience sampling method that has been ident ified satiable
compared 10 goals and obj ect ives or the research. Potential respondents received URL address in
the form or the Hypertext link included in an e-mail message sent from researchers. E-mail invited
them to visit website and to part icipate in the research. In total 80 respondents completed
questionnaire thai corre spond s to 27% response rate.
3.2 Anal ysis or research findin gs and di scussion

9%

1-;"
1%
II 0/.

J%
15%
1)%

13%


,.
n.
0. '
...
I ll%
)
0 '
,
S
"
,.

S
'
'.
..(..
..'

10%
Fun"-liun u r ll u:
Co mpany dir ector
:\Iarkeling manager
I\ ssislallt in market ing lkpl.
Administrative assislalll
I'R ass iSlant
I' R lIl.mager
Osher
Sn' lor the r espondent s operate in
Art s und culture
Tourism nud ealcrillg
Trade
Tclccomm uuicanons
Spurts and spo rt eq uipment
l-uucauon
and I' R
II
l' hntoN i.leu
Fiuuncc ami bunking
I'lmrmaccurical indusrrv
Most companies thai part icipated in the resear ch have I-50 employees (74%), and the company
director in person typicall y filled in the que st ionnaire. The surveyed compani es do bus iness in a
wide range or industries, mostly in trade ( 19%) and banking ( 15%) ,
Table I . Data on respondents who part icipaled in the research
' umbr r or in th e
fmm 1 50
fmm 51 ,100
rrom 101-150
from 151-2110
from 20 1-250
over 25 1
I
l
(
I
\
) look
se for
ms of
user' s
daily,
l ideal
eage.
d-hoc
enics
have
b 2,0
-ing a
es not
.poinr,
:'C was
1, e.g.
I is an
ild in
ch as
ion in
orion.
romcrs,
-rclals.
utracts
irs gel
:, user-
global
ebook.
-unti ng
union) ,
) refers
ityand
where
feb 2.0
Kurtosi s
80 11(l')"<.1

72('JO'Y. ) I
71 189""
66\8 l ';;.)
64 13""''1

5 9 , H,"< ,j

I I
, J
J s(5 4-.;1
I
" '$
I
I
I 1 1(10:,';;.)
1

.
u

VoU' uo..

5hu'>
W'"
B' " I'
G" u" " <I u"

1,"k,"<1 '"
m ..
",,"
V,m <oo I
(l,""
.. If
p , " ;,'u. '"

",.."'ho""
P',>dd"
Infomrn ig ccnoroes on
Graph 2. Ove rview of respundents' familiarity with various Web 2.0 tuols!
Some of the listed services arc used by 70% respondents when doi ng business. while 30%
docs not use any. The 1110st frequently used Web 2.0 tool is Faccbook. This prove d the first research
hypothesis. Respondents who answered that they do not lise any service claimed that the main
reason is the fact that they arc not familiar with advantages offered by the services . Besides. 23%
respondents bel ieve that the lise of listed services is a waste of time, while 27% cited "something
el se". among ot her things that their use is not adj usted to the ent erprise' s marketing strategy. strict
company rules. etc.
The second part of qucs tlonnnirc consisted of statements that respond ents had to rank on the
Likert 5-poinl scale, where I meant st rongly disagree and 5 - strongly agree with the offered
statement. Descriptive stat istics is given in table 2.
'lablc 2. Descrip tive stat istics
Mux Moun Std. Deviation
Gra ph I. Overview of purposes for which the Internet is used'
On-lme Services
I This question alll1\\'eu more than one response . so the SUIlI greater than I OU%, is possible.
z 'l his question allowed more than one respo nse. so the MlIll greater than 100% is possihlc.
hch.nge of the documents
Intern"l an'; Exytern.1
Communication
In the next question. respondents were shown a list of Web 2.0 services and asked to mat\;.
those they are familiar with, i.c. those they had heard of before. Faccbook was marked by all the 80
respondents. YouTube by 79. Tweeter by 72. etc.. as shown on Graph 2.
Correlation. r..: = NO
to mark
11 the 80
hilc 30%
research
the main
j es. 23%
omething
gy. strict
nk on the
e offered
rests
\
I
\
Stat istic Slat istk Statistic Stat istic Statistic
Std.
Error
Social oct\\ orls orrcr nil possibilit ics for
,
2.07 1.2t}() -.406 .532
mar ketcrs.
Yousubc. Flkl.r and similar services for \ id..:o
and phot o coracnt exchange serve only lo r s 2.30 1.3 16 -.695 .53 2
cnrcnammcm.
Social net works ca n hi." us...ful in our
s 3.M 1.235 -.36K .532
customcrs/, Ii..: nls!
Il1 lhc futurc. I \<,: "ill pay more alh:nlioll 10
possibi lili.:s offercJ n)' social networks. scrviccs
s 3.59 1.33X -.7-1 7 .532
fur \ id.... o and photo l;tml"'l1l cxchangc. and
colluborarion.
Accordi ng to the respondents. YouTube. Flickr and similar services for video and photo
content exchange proved to be a useful and low-priced alternative for cl assic advert ising via TV.
posters and print advertisements. In this respect. the respondents agree that the described services
are not only for entertainment. The average rating of 3,6-t for statement "Social net works may be
useful in analyz ing our customers/clients' show that respondent s pay attention to possibilities
provided by social networks in customer/client analysis. According to t icked responses and the
average rating of 3.59. respondents will pay more attention to possibilities offered by Web 2.0
services and technol ogies in the future. Since the trend in marketing is such that company marketing
cannot be imagined without these technologies (and many companies build their marketing
strategies on this very trend). such a view is completely expected and logical . and suggests that our
companies have also become aware of the Web 2.0 significance in marketing.
As revealed by Table 3. respondents who bel ieve that social networks are useful for
customer analysi s and development of customer relations will pay more attention 10 social networks'
possibilities in the future.
TaMc 3. Thc fuiur... of U"'II?c
In the fulllrc. \ \I! \ \iII morc allcmion to possihili ticli offer.... J by soci al
ncl\\ orl..!i. $Cn i....... s for \ iJ.. :o and pho to cont... nt e, chanu c. and collaboration.
Social netw orks arc u...... fu! in I' earson Correl at ion
relations \\ ith our customcrs Sig. 12-taibl) .Olltl
Corrc tanon is signilk'lllt at thc 0.0 I k \c1 (2tailcJ).
-to e lusi ons a nd limi tations
Research fi ndings show that B11 companies are aware of the significance of Web 2.0 tools and that
most of them usc them in their business. Still. 30% respondents do not usc these services at all. and
have extremely negative views on their usage. Although the research has proved the hypotheses. the
general impression is that B1 1 companies use Web 2.0 tool s as ad-hoc part of their marketing
activities. rather that the foca l point of their marketing strategy. Having in mind the methodology
used in developing the survey questionnaire and sample. the research findings can serve as a pilot.
which can serve as a basis for a model for improving Web 2.0 tool s efficiency. A full analysis
certainly requi res a greater number of respondents and a compre hensive regional study, in order to
obtain a complete picture of Web 2.0 tools effect. In this respect. the paper will serve as a qua lity
base for future authors. since there is an obvious lack of literature and data pertai ning 10 this topic.
particularly in this territory.
References
11] T. O' Re illy. J. Battelle, Web Squa red: Web 2.0 Five Years On, 2009.
'"
[2] A. Shucn. Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide. North Sebast opol, CA: O'Reil ly Media Inc. [available at
the : http ://www.web2sumrn it.com/web2009/publ iclschedule/detailll a194 (accessed March Jrd
20 II )] 2008.
[3] T. Boyles. M., College Small Business and Web 2.0: lI ope or Hype? Entrepreneurial Execuuve.
vol. 16, pp. 81-96, 20 1J.
[4] A. Pest ek. S. Kadic. and M. Nozica, Implications of Web 2.0 Usage in Higher Education (20\\)
at the 8th CIRCLE International Conference for Ma rketin g. rvtanagemcnt. Finance, Consumer
Behavior, Tourism and Retailing Research. Hosted by: University of Dubrovnik . Croatia,
Organ ized by : Faculty of Economics and Busi ness Uni versity of Zagreb. Croatia. April 20 I J.
[5] E. Schindler, Web 2.0 Defi nitions and Solutions, New Jersey. USA. 2007.
[6] C. Campbell. L. Pitt, M. Pare nt. and P. Berthon, Understanding Consumer Conve rsations aro und
Ads in a Web 2.0 Worl d. Journal ofAdvertising. vol. 40. Issue I . pp. 87 - 102. 20 II.
P] P. Lj ungmark. Facebook as a marketing channel: A SIIU(V of eCOlII /l/erce retailers " Facehook
page ambitkme. Master Thesis. Jonkoping: Jonkoping Internat ional Business School,
Jonkopi ng University. J. 20 11.
[8] T. Boyles. M. College Small Busi ness and Web 2.0: Hope or Hype? Ent reprene ur ial Execut ive,
Vol ume 16. pp. 81-96. 20 11.
[9] G. Alexa , The Top 500 Sites on the Web, [available at htt p:// ww w.alcxa.co m/lopsiles/global
(accessed Novembe r 13, 20 11)]. 2010
[10J T. I-l ennig-Thurau. E. C. Malthouse, C. Fr icgc, S. Ge nsler, L Lc bsch at. A. Rangaswamy, and B.
Sklcm. The Impact of New Med ia on Custome r Relationships. .knenal of Service Research vol.
13(3 ). pp. 311-330. 20 10.
[II] P.A Rosen. and M. I I. Phil lips, Marketing and The Rise of Web 2.0: Expand ing Opportuni ty.
Increasing Cha llenge The Review of Business Information Sys tems: Thi rd Quarter 2011; vol.
15 (3) 35- 42, 201 J.
[ 12] M. Vicevic. Utica] Web-a 2.0 na marketing u BI! kom panljama . Di ploma Paper. School of
Econ omics and Busi ness Sarajevo. 20 I I .
[ I3 J J. Zimme rman and D. Sahlin. Soc ial Medi a Marketi ng AII-in-One For Dummies. Wilca
Publishing. Inc. Hoboken. New Jersey. USA, 20 10.
[ 14J J. Turner, and R. Shah, How to Make Money With Soc ial Medi a. Pearson Education Inc, New
Jersey, USA. 20 11.
[15) D. Zarclla. The Soc ial Medi a Mar keting Book. O'Reill y Med ia, Inc. Sebastopol. Canada. 2010.
[ 16] D. Za rclla , and A. Zarclla. The Fucebook Marketing Book. O' Reill y Media. Inc. Sebastopol ,
Canada. 2010.
[ 17] A. Gibson, N. Co urtney. D. Wilc ox. and C. 1-1 01lha1l1 . Social By Soc ial. [available at
http ://www. socialbysocia1. col11/book/soci al-by- social. (accessed March 20t h 201 1)]. 2009
[18] L. Sa ito. O.K. Brakcm. The Soc ial Medi a Bibl e. Joh n Wiley & Sons. Inc. Hoboken. New
Jersey. USA. 2009
512