Anda di halaman 1dari 87

THE NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY

HOW CAN THE SPORT AND LEISURE INDUSTRY USE FIRM-CREATED SOCIAL MEDIA TO MAXIMISE CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY?

by

BENJAMIN J MORALEE ben.moralee@hotmail.co.uk

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the Bsc (Honours) Sport Science and Management

Summer 2013

DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP This submission is the result of my own work. All help and advice, other than that received from tutors, has been acknowledged and primary and secondary sources of information have been properly attributed. Should this statement prove to be untrue, I recognise the right and duty of the Board of Examiners to recommend what action should be taken in line with the Universitys regulations on assessment contained in the Handbook.

Signed ......................

Date ....................

Acknowledgements Above all, I owe my sincere gratitude to my project supervisor, Mr Christopher Parker, for the support and guidance shown to me throughout the writing of my dissertation and for the inspiration to conduct such research. Furthermore, I would like to thank my closest friends and family for their continued encouragement to persevere with the efforts and time put into the dissertation. Lastly, I wish to acknowledge the key informants, professionals and other participants who took time out of their day to assist me in this study.

ii

Contents Acknowledgements Contents List of Figures List of Tables Abstract Introduction Literature Review
Brand Equity Social Media Sport and Leisure Industry Brand Equity Models Literatures use of Customer-Based Brand Equity Models in social media Pathway by which Firm-Created Social Media influences Customer-Based Brand Equity Summary of Research Search Engine Optimisation Social Media Content Conceptual Framework Summary Literature Review Conclusion

ii iii v vi vii 1 3
3 3 4 4 5 7 8 11 12 14 14

Method Results
Participant Information Conceptual Framework External Conditions Internal Conditions

17 24
24 24 29 29

iii

Summary Framework

30

Discussion
Conceptual Framework External Conditions Internal Conditions Summary Framework Limitations Future Research Summary

33
33 36 37 38 40 40 40

Conclusion Bibliography Appendix


Ethics Approval Online Survey Questions Online Survey Graphs Key Description Interview Schedule Sport and Leisure Industry Professionals Interview Schedule Social Media Key Informants

41 47 54
54 55 72 75 79

iv

List of Figures Figure 1. An adapted summary of the relative influence of communication source on brand equity models. Figure 2. The five-stage summary framework by which firm-created social media affects customer-based brand equity. Figure 3. Positive (Negative) firm-created social media content and search engine optimisation cycle. Figure 4. The five-stage conceptual framework by which firm-created social media affects customer-based brand equity by using search engine optimisation and social media content strategy in the external and internal conditions. Figure 5. The relationship between the stages of developing customer-based brand equity using firm-created social media and the relative frequency (%) of themed responses (see Appendix) in the online survey. Figure 6. The factors and sub-factors (see Appendix) influencing the conceptual framework stages and their comparative influence relating to relative frequency (%) in the online survey. Figure 7. The number of participants at each of the six stages of the summary framework. Figure 8. Customer-based brand equity maximisation model using firm-created social media in corporate business.

List of Tables Table 1. Demographic information the 82 online survey participants.

vi

Abstract The study investigates how social media can be used by organisations to maximally influence customer perceptions in the context of the sport and leisure industry. Social media has a massive influence, with vast numbers of people regularly using it. Previous literature has suggested firm-created social media (FCSM) is the most influential factor on overall brand attitude, yet little research has been completed on its use it to maximise customer-based brand equity (CBBE). The study combines two of the most renowned brand equity models from a customer perspective. Using an original marketing communication model a conceptual framework was created by, moving users through five stages. Previous research had found a number of external and internal conditions which all contribute towards FCSM. Research was conducted from three perspectives: an online survey with customers; interviews with sport and leisure professionals who control FCSM; and with FCSM key informants. It found similarities with previous research but with significant holes in knowledge, exemplified by the lack of knowledge and understanding of professionals. Five key factors on search engine optimisation were found, with the forthcoming introduction of Facebook Graph Search pointing to an increase in the influence of link-sharing. Seven aims and qualities for FCSM were established. The external and internal conditions were accepted, establishing that the type of organisation holds the greatest influence over FCSM. Three different types of fan were identified. The further through the seven stage model of FCSM, the greater the CBBE.

vii

Introduction 2006 saw the breakthrough year for social media (Ahlqvist, Bck, Halonen and Heinonen, 2008). In 2005 MySpace, Wikipedia and YouTube were relatively unknown averaging collectively under 10,000 hits per million daily. By the end of 2006 that had risen to over 140,000 (Alexa, 2008). 4 billion hours of video are viewed each month on YouTube (YouTube, 2013), Facebook has over a billion active users (Facebook, 2012) and Wikipedia has over 30 million pages (Wikipedia, 2013). People can use social media to communicate across counties, countries and continents. This impact has been most clearly seen in the recent uprisings in Middle Eastern and North African countries (Grabowicz, Ramasco, Moro, Pujol & Eguiluz, 2012). Before social media people in these countries (e.g. Tunisia, Egypt and Syria) wanted change (Grabowicz et al., 2012): with social media they were able to coordinate and run civil resistance (Shirazi, 2013). Governments were overturned (Shirazi, 2013). If social media can cause a revolution, the possibilities of the impact of a well thought through corporate social media marketing communication campaign are endless. This potential has raised considerable interest in business. Businesses are using social media to reach, broaden and increase their target market and social media marketing to engage with online communities to generate exposure, opportunity and sales (Stelzner, 2009). Like all marketing, the aim is to create brand equity either from a financial or customer perspective. Increasingly literature suggests that brand equity is the primary source of an organisations revenue (Sinclair, 2009). The sport and leisure industry (SLI) is popular and lucrative, particularly following the Olympic Games in London which created unprecedented worldwide interest in sport. BBC viewing figures for the opening ceremony were 27.3 million (BBC, 2012). This was the first 1

Games that set out to increase participation in sport as part of the legacy (Bullough, 2012). Since the Olympics there has been an increase of 1.3 million people participating in sport (Sport England 2012). These people are now regularly interacting with the SLI, creating an increased target market. However, there has been little research into this area (Shannon, 1999). Therefore, the aim of the research is to investigate how organisations in the SLI can use social media to maximise brand equity from a customer perspective. Interviewing key informants with extensive experience in social media and marketing communications will establish strategies to maximise customer-based brand equity (CBBE). Interviewing professionals in the SLI who are responsible for controlling the social media communication will establish which strategies are to used. Online surveys from participants who have involvement in the SLI will establish the effectiveness of current social media marketing communication in sport and leisure organisations (SLO). Using these insights a framework for the use of social media can be created for the SLI to maximise CBBE.

Literature Review Brand Equity Brand equity is a multidimensional concept that is dependent on many different factors (Park & Srinivasan, 1994). Most definitions comprise the idea of added value to gain a competitive advantage. Therefore, brand equity is the value that consumers associate with a brand (Aaker, 1992). Theorists have also struggled to find a universal method to measure brand equity. Businesses must do this as simplifying it into a model will help them to gain a greater understanding of it. There are two different perspectives to brand equity; finance-based (FBBE) and customerbased (Lassar, Mittal & Sharma, 1995). FBBE assesses the brand in monetary terms (Hakala, Svensson & Vincze, 2012). The principle behind CBBE is that the power of a brand is in the mind of the consumers; in what they have experienced; and what they have learnt about the brand (Tuominen, 1999). Hakala et al. (2012) observed that FBBE is reliant on CBBE because to have financial value the company must also have customer value. Social Media Social media is the interaction of people through creating, sharing, exchanging and commenting contents in virtual communities and networks (Toivonen, 2007). Social media marketing communication divides into two categories; firm-created (FCSM) and usergenerated (UGSM) (Godes & Mayzlin, 2009). FCSM is controlled and produced by the business (therefore only positive or neutral) while UGSM is independent, produced by the user (so can be positive, neutral or negative).

SLI The SLI is an area in which companies offer a combination of regulated physical and nonphysical activity, skill and competition that lead to personal growth, satisfaction and self fulfilment (Tordkilsen, 2005 & 2011: Council of Europe, 1992). Brand Equity Models There are two common models of brand equity; The Aaker Model (Aaker, 1991), and The Brand Value Chain (Keller & Lehman, 2003). The Aaker Model is a set of five brand assets and liabilities linked to a business (product or service) that influences (positively or negatively) its value. They are: brand loyalty (customer attachment to a brand); brand awareness (customers ability to recognise that a brand is a part of a certain product category); perceived quality (customers perception of the superiority of a product relative to alternatives); brand image (a set of, usually meaningful, associations); and other proprietary assets (relevant assets to the brand such as patents, etc.). Other proprietary assets have been dropped as a dimension as not relevant to the customer (Pappu, Quester & Cooksey, 2005: Buil, de Chernatony & Martnez, 2008). The Brand Value Chain has four levels: Marketing Programme Investment (MPI) (the source of marketing communication effecting brand value development); Customer Mindset (everything customers think about the brand); Brand Performance (the customers attitude towards the brand against other brands, leading to purchase intention); and Shareholder Value (the financial implications of the brand value). There are three multipliers that are factors determining how value is transferred between levels. They are: Programme Quality (the clarity, relevance, uniqueness and consistency of the marketing); Market Conditions (the effectiveness of the marketing in comparison to other brands, how much brand

support/reinforcement by partners and number and type of customer); and Investor Sentiment (dynamics of the financial market, growth potential, vulnerability of the brand and how important it is in relation to the brand portfolio). The Brand Value Chain gives businesses a way to understand how brand equity is created and offers suggestions for improvement. Bruhn et al. (2012) study on CBBE dropped Shareholder Value from their framework as it is related to the business not customers. Both models solely focus on traditional firm-created marketing communication, not word-ofmouth or social media (which arrived after the models). Both models attempt to define brand equity into a linear model which cannot be exactly representative of such a multidimensional and dynamic concept. Nonetheless, they remain useful. Many studies have used The Aaker Model (Simmons, Thomas & Truong, 2010: Kim, Kim & An, 2003) and The Brand Value Chain (Bruhn et al., 2012) or both (Pappu et al., 2005: Tolba & Hassan, 2009) to analyse CBBE. Both are well accepted models but only take into account the marketing the firm creates, not what the customer generates. Now both theories must also be applied to social media. Literatures use of CBBE Models in social media Bruhn et al. (2012) created a conceptual framework which adapted a model of CBBE, The Brand Value Chain (Keller & Lehman, 2003), to both traditional marketing communication and social media (UGSM and FCSM). It aimed to find the relative influence of communication source on the stages of the model across three different industries (telecommunication, pharmaceuticals and tourism) in German speaking countries. They created an online survey sent out to a wide variety of 393 participants (age, job, education and gender). The questions were multiple-choice, each relating to all the different relationships in the conceptual framework. Differences were found in the relative influence of 5

communication source between industries, implying different industries need to employ different strategies. However, the traditional marketing was solely advertising. Word-ofmouth (WOM) was not investigated in the research despite previous research showing it to be a highly influential factor in CBBE creation (Cui, 2011: Dubois, 2011: Rezvani, Hoseini & Samadzadeh, 2012). Another issue with the study was that the businesses investigated were the top 20 brands in the industry; whether or not the research can be applied to smaller businesses, cross-culturally and cross-nationally cannot be established (Hakala et al., 2012). However, other research suggests the factors effecting brand equity do not change crossnationally (Buil et al., 2008). Most significantly, FCSM was found to have the greatest indirect influence on overall brand attitude (P < 0.05) and therefore purchase intention. This suggests that FCSM is the most influential form of marketing communication on CBBE. In addition, Bruhn et al. (2012) found social media to have a greater influence on brand image than traditional media, while traditional media has a greater effect on brand awareness. Combined, this suggests that brand image has a greater influence on CBBE than brand awareness.

Communication Source Traditional Media Advertising WOM Social Media User-generated Firm-created

Brand Equity Customer-based Finance-based

Brand Awareness Perceived Quality Brand Attitude Brand Loyaltyi Brand Image Other Proprietary Assets Fiscal Outcome

(MPI)

(Customer Mindset)

(Brand Performance)

(Shareholder Value)

Figure 1: An adapted summary of the relative influence of communication source on brand equity models. Pathway by which FCSM influences CBBE Marketing communication is no longer only through traditional forms, but also between the business and recipient on social media. The question remains whether advertising models for traditional forms of media communication will work on social media. Lavidge and Steiner (1961) created a highly-accepted model proposing that effective advertising is long-term: six short-term processes in the customer which lead to a sale. These stages are split into three behavioural dimensions: Cognitive (intellectual or rational thoughts) which are awareness and knowledge; Affective (emotional or feeling reasoning) which are liking and preference; and Motivational (underlying desires and motives for purchase) which are conviction and purchase. These stages are not necessarily equidistant. Coulter and Roggeveen (2012) created a conceptual framework using this model, investigating WOM on social networks, in particular Facebook and Twitter. Using two online 7

surveys of 502 participants, one for each platform, participants were asked to remember a specific product that had previously been suggested to them on the social network and to respond to the questions in relation to that suggested page (Facebook)/follower (Twitter). The Likert scale was used to establish source credibility, source closeness, product network credibility, product network closeness, directed message content and product page content in relation to the knowledge and liking process. Key findings included: product page content appeared to be the primary driver moving consumers from knowledge to liking; and the type of product (physical, service, causerelated or personal) being liked was significant. Significance in the product page content, or brand image, implies that FCSM content that is relevant and important can act as a catalyst for the knowledge to liking process. The difference on the type of product indicates that organisations need to have specific FCSM strategies dependent on the characteristics of the organisation. The study took into account the potential difference in response depending on the type of product page. The primary limitation of the study is its reliance on participants ability to recall events, allowing potential for error or bias. Other limitations include: only two social networks were tested; the study only looks into WOM through suggesting a page or follower, not other forms (e.g. a status update about a business). Finally, there may be a different value in liking and following on the different social networks and in relation to the real world. Summary of Research Bruhns et al. (2012) research established FCSM to be the most influential factor on overall brand attitude compared to advertising and UGSM marketing. Adapting Lavidge and Steiners (1961) six-stage advertising model and The Aaker Model (Aaker, 1991) of CBBE with FCSM (Coulter & Roggeveen, 2012) a summary framework of the five stages can be 8

created. Which are: customer is unaware of the business (has not viewed FCSM); customer is aware of the business (has not viewed FCSM but knows it exists); customer has knowledge of the business (has viewed FCSM with no action); customer that likes/dislikes the business (has viewed FCSM and made a positive/negative association to it); and customer is a fan/critic of the business (has viewed FCSM and shared it publically in a positive/negative light). The hypothesis is that businesses need to use FCSM to move users up the stages of the summary framework to increase CBBE. Coulter and Roggeveens (2012) confirm that product page content, or FCSM, is the most influential factor in moving users from knowledge to liking. The framework suggests that FCSM is closely linked to UGSM and that the closer the user is to creating their own social media, the further through the five-stages they are and the closer the organisation is to maximising CBBE. However, organisations cannot control UGSM; the only way they can influence it is in the way they respond to it. If the UGSM is negative, the organisation may regain their brand image and loyalty in the way they respond to it. They may not completely regain brand image and loyalty lost to the particular user, but their response will often influence other users in a positive way. In stages two to four are dormant members who have not moved on to the next stage for some time. An organisation needs a strategy to activate dormant members.

Customer-Based Brand Equity Unaware


Has not viewed FCSM media Brand Awareness

Aware Firm-Created Social Media


Brand Image Aware of FCSCM but not viewed it Perceived Quality

Knowledge
Viewed FCSM with no action Brand Image

Dislike
Viewed FCSM with negative association Brand Loyalty

Like
Viewed FCSM with positive association Brand Loyalty

Critic
Viewed FCSM and shared it negatively

Fan
Viewed FCSM and shared it positively

Figure 2. The five-stage summary framework by which FCSM affects CBBE. The processes of brand awareness and perceived quality are influenced by FCSM through search engine optimisation (SEO), while brand image and brand loyalty are influenced by FCSM content. Organisations that plan to maximise CBBE through the use of FCSM need to have a SEO and FCSM content strategy. Establishing how the literature suggests an organisation does this will answer the research question.

10

Search Engine Optimisation SEO, also known as search engine positioning (Zuze & Weideman, 2012), enables a website to appear at the top of the result lists, of a search engine for certain keywords (Yalin & Kse, 2010). This ensures the maximum number of relevant users find the social media account(s) above competitors, agency:2 (2013), a leading social media marketing organisation, states the importance of optimising social media visibility on search engines and other has shown that the value of a website is determined by the search engine page on which it ranks (Visser & Weideman, 2011: Zuze & Weideman, 2012). SEO also increases organic traffic through a website (Heinze, Fletcher & Chadwick, 2010). Social media has become a key aspect in SEO strategy since 2011 when Google Panda was introduced, changing the algorithm that influences the value and rank of websites on the search engine (Leibtag, 2012). Google Panda changed the emphasis away from advertising influencing ranking (CNET, 2011), it analyses whether an organisations content is being linked-to, interacted-with and shared and therefore regarded as an asset by customers and ranks according to these factors. It assumes the content is more valuable and rewards it (Leibtag, 2012). Consequently, little research has been completed into the area of social medias influence on SEO. An adapted approach from Google (2010) and Zuze and Weideman (2013) can be used for additional practical steps in how to optimise search engine coverage: use keywords appropriately (around 3-10% of text); create content for users not search engines; linked to social media across platforms and other marketing; use Google AdWords to assist and monitor keyword count and PageRank to monitor progress.

11

Good (Bad) FCSM

More (Fewer) visits to social media accocunt(s)

More (Less) liking, interaction and sharing of FCSM

Good (Bad) SEO

Figure 3: Positive (Negative) FCSM content and SEO cycle. Social Media Content Businesses have a number of opportunities to maximise CBBE through FCSM content. One option is to use a social media specialist company to control the channel. Or, if an organisation is keen to remain in control themselves, communication tools (e.g. Shoutlet) are available which allow you to schedule posts across a number platforms, manage responses and view statistics on user response and reach. Businesses can monitor their success by using other tools (e.g. PeerIndex). No research has been done into the use of social media in the SLI, however, there have been a number of theories proposed in the music (Alper, 2010) and library sector (Fitcher, 2007). A leading specialist (agency:2, 2011) have proposed a number of techniques to use. Alper (2010) gives a list of six dos and donts for the music industry. Do: follow relevant people across time zone, province, country, or even genre; follow and connect with fans regularly; and be personal through interaction with them. Dont: send automatic messages; 12

involve religion or politics; and write anything that wouldnt be shared with parents, principle or the pope. Fitcher (2007) states five optimisation techniques librarians can use: be friendly (and mean it through user interaction with complaints and the tone of voice); be link-worthy (make it fresh, different, interesting and funny); make bookmarking and sharing content easy; let library web stuff circulate (be on different platforms for a large presence); and join the conversation wherever your users are. Both theories note the importance of personal, honest and regular interaction with users and for posts to be interesting and sensible. However, there are distinct differences: in the music industry artists represent a single person; a librarian represents not only a greater organisation but a number of people. So, communications the librarian uses need to be aligned with a number of different individuals views. The SLI, unlike other industries, represents both of these different situations. Professional sports men and women have their own social media accounts for themselves but SLOs have the whole organisation to represent. agency:2 (2013), the leading social media specialist, outlines 5 stages to optimise content (agency:2, 2011): encourage audience engagement (by facilitating UGSM through engaging, relevant and funny conversations and asking clear simple questions); personalise your brand (by developing a relationship with users specific to the platform through replying to and thanking them, showing caring); stand out with rich content (by sharing videos and pictures which grab users attention and are personal); timing is key (topically relevant posts when users are most active); and use the data (use analytic tools to see what topical posts work).

13

Conceptual Framework Summary Both social media content strategy and SEO have also been identified by other theorists as the key to increasing CBBE (Bloomstein, 2012). Taking these theories an adapted conceptual framework for the SLI use of social media to maximise CBBE can be established (Figure 4). The hypothesis is that for a SLO to maximise CBBE it must create the most efficient 5 stage process in the conceptual framework (Figure 4). To establish this an online survey will assist in establishing that the process exists and how the customers use social media. The stage where the majority of the customers are at is the limiting stage to the process and requires optimising. Interviews with professionals who control a SLOs social media communications were completed to find the techniques and strategy used in the SLI. Finally interviews will be conducted with social media communication key informants to establish how the SLI can use FCSM to maximise CBBE. This gains a rounded view of the use of social media to establish if the conceptual framework can be used in the SLI to maximise CBBE. Literature Review Conclusion There are particular external conditions that effect FCSM: including industry (Bruhn et al., 2012), culture and country (Hakala et al., 2012). Size (Bruhn et al., 2012) and type (Coulter & Roggeveen, 2012) of business have been suggested as further external conditions. The target market of an organisation influences its marketing objectives; this in turn influences the type of marketing selected (Armstrong & Kotler, 2013). Adapting this process for social media leaves three internal conditions that influence FCSM: the target market of users; the social media objectives; and which social media platforms (Coulter & Roggeveen, 2012).

14

Therefore, it is hypothesised that each organisation needs to have a specific social media strategy for their industry, culture, country, business size and type. Having established this, it can create a social media content strategy based on their internal objectives, target market and platform use. Only then can a SLO, through the creation, management and control of FCSM, progress a customer through the five-stage conceptual framework into a fan, thereby maximising CBBE.

15

Figure 4: The five-stage conceptual framework by which FCSM affects CBBE by using SEO and social media content strategy in the external and internal conditions.

Sport and Leisure Industry


Knowledge

SEO: Link-sharing o Liking o Interaction o Sharing Keywords Universal Monitor


Perceived Quality

Viewed FCSM with no action Brand Image

Social Media Content: Interact Personality Monitor Linkable Timely Mediums Appropriate Link to other organisations

Aware External Conditions: Country Culture Business Size Business Type Internal Conditions: Target Market of Users Social Media Objectives Social Media Platform Unaware Fan

Like

Aware of FCSM but not viewed it

Viewed FCSM with positive association

Brand Awareness

Brand Loyalty

Not viewed FCSM Low CBBE

Viewed FCSM and shared it positively High CBBE

16

Method Qualitative research is unstructured, exploratory research based on small samples, providing insights and understanding of the problem setting (Malhotra, 2002), whereas quantitative research emphasises on using formal questions and predetermined responses to a large number of respondents (Hair, Wolfinbarger, Ortinau & Bush, 2008). This research is exploratory not validating what is already known and, therefore, qualitative research is most appropriate (Hair et al., 2008). Qualitative data has limitations. It is often unreliable, hard to measure significance and hard to generalise due to the low sample size (Hair et al., 2008). However, it is often quicker to collect, more accurate at understanding behaviour and better at investigating preliminary insights (Hair et al., 2008). The investigation researched three different groups of individuals: key informants in the use of social media (chosen for their experience); professionals who control social media for a SLO (from a variety of international/local organisations of different types); and customers in the SLI (chosen by snowball sample). Data was collected from professionals and key informants using semi-structured interviews while the last group completed online surveys. These groups cover every perspective of the use of social media. By comparing and contrasting the responses, using a mixed methodology, concurrently sequenced, it can be analysed how effective the current use of social media is and then how to maximise CBBE through it. Semi-structured interviews were used above other methods such as observation, questionnaire, etc. Using the same core questions across interviews but asking supplementary questions for greater detail (Hair et al., 2008). Interviews have a number of disadvantages; they can be time consuming and hard to arrange (Malhotra, 2002). But the flexibility of

17

questions, detail gathered and ability to build a rapport to gain more information (McDaniel & Gates, 1999) makes semi-structured interviews the most effective a method. An online survey was chosen for customers (above other methods such as focus group, survey, etc.) for a number of reasons including: speeding up production, completion and analysis of data; data is already in electronic form; much cheaper as (no paper, ink or mailing); participants are more likely to answer the questions honestly; and larger number of participants can be reached (Wilson, 2012: McDaniel & Gates, 1999). The population that are missed because they do not own social media account are not the customers the SLO are targeting. The main downfall to this method is the control over which users complete the survey (McDaniel & Gates, 1999). However, respondents can be locked out of the website after completion (McDaniel & Gates, 1999). SurveyMonkey website was used on a Select subscription. On three questions (Q16, Q22 and Q57) in the 5-point Likert Scale was used. Chudoba (2010) investigated average drop-off rates from surveys with 1 to 50 questions, finding that the greater the number of questions, the greater the drop-off rate. Therefore, question logic was used, reducing the number of questions from 61 to 40 maximum and 6 minimum. Chudobas (2010) research suggests that the online survey should expect a drop off rate between 2-10%. The selected sport and leisure organisation (SSLO) was the last the user had come into contact with, to prevent bias: they were to select a SLO of their own choice it is likely they would be a Fan. The questions following related to that SLO, requiring the user to recall the sequence and reasoning behind their actions on social media. Questions were included to establish the accuracy and reliability of the users ability to recall. Sudman and Bradburn (1973) researched ability to recall a variety of events: it was found that the closer to the event taking place, the more accurate and reliable the data. Approximately 10% difference from the original response was seen in survey results over 3 months after the specific event compared with results taken 18

within 3 months (Sudman & Bradburn, 1973). Therefore, in this study all results of Over 3 months will be removed to ensure accuracy. Those who have Never come into contact with the SLI will also be removed as they are irrelevant. The online survey was completed by a wide range of participants from different genders, ages, education, job and involvement in the SLI. There were 41.46% more men than women. This more accurately represents the SLI: research has shown that just under 1 million more men participate in sport than women (Sport England, 2012). As expected, the largest group of participants were 1822 years old. Social media is most commonly used in younger generations (Madden & Zickuhr, 2011), 1829 made up 42.69% of participants. Majority of participants had degrees while the least common educational backgrounds were PhD and Apprenticeships/Internship, which together made up 4.88% of participants. The high number of students again reflects the high use of social media in younger generations. In the first 18 months of social media the percentage of young adult users rose from 949% (Madden & Zickuhr, 2011). No participants selected the Once a month option for contact with the SLI, probably due to the wording of the answer, as no person would arrange contact with the SLI infrequently. This is confirmed by the even spread of responses across other answers with a range of only 6.95% excluding Couple of times which was the most frequent response by 8.33%. Table 1. Demographic information the 82 online survey participants.

Participant Information (n = 82)

Gender Male Female 70.73 29.27

19

Prefer not to answer Age 18 22 23 29 30 39 40 55 56 < Prefer not to answer Education Background PhD Masters Degree A-Levels Apprenticeship or Internship GCSEs or O-Levels None Prefer not to answer Current Job Apprentice Worker Employee Executive Employee Self-Employed Student Unemployed

32.93 9.76 18.29 31.71 7.32 0

2.44 18.29 67.07 34.15 2.44 29.27 0 0

0 6.1 36.59 12.1 9.76 30.49 3.66

20

Prefer not to answer Other SLI Involvement Maybe once Once Couple of times 4 times 8 times 16 times 16 times < Prefer not to answer

1.22 2.45

18.06 0 26.39 11.11 16.67 11.11 16.67 0

Questions in the interview schedule and online survey were split into 8 groups, each with a different theme: Title Relating to the title and its relevance as a research question. Across all research methods for comparison between the three. User Information Data collected to establish the consumers demographic. Only participants completing the survey were asked these questions; as the survey was online there was no control over completion. Context Information Establishing the reliability of the consumers data in the industry. Only users were asked these questions because only they required the ability to recall. External Conditions Establishing the external conditions affecting the SSLO. Across all research methods for comparison. 21

Internal Conditions Establishing the internal conditions affecting the SSLO. Only professionals and key informants were asked these questions as users would not know the objectives or target market of the organisation.

Summary Framework Establishing the summary framework. Across all research methods for comparison.

Conceptual Framework Relating to the conceptual framework. Across all research methods for comparison.

Common Questions Asked across all participants for comparison.

A justification for each question in the interview schedules and online survey indicating which questions relate to which group: Professionals Interview o Title: Q1-4 o External Conditions: Q5-7 o Internal Conditions: Q8-14 o Summary Framework: Q15-32 o Conceptual Framework: Q33-43 o Common Questions: Q44-53 Key Informants Interview o Title: Q1-4 o External Conditions: Q5-9 22

o Internal Conditions: Q10-11 o Summary Framework: Q12-20 o Conceptual Framework: Q21-25 o Common Questions: Q26-32 Users Online Survey o User Information: Q1-6 o Title: Q7 o Context Information: Q13-15, Q29, Q33, Q37, Q54-56 o External Conditions: Q8-12 o Summary Framework: Q16-18, Q20, Q24-26, Q30, Q34, Q45, Q57-59, Q61 o Conceptual Framework: Q19, Q21-23, Q27-28, Q31-32, Q35-36, Q46-48, Q46-49, Q60, Q62 o Common Questions: Q38-44, Q50-53 The free text questions in the online survey were divided into groups, relating to their stage in the summary framework, from Unaware through to Fan. Liking is participants who have linked to the SSLO (e.g. Liking the social media account(s)). Fan was split into: interacting with the SSLO (e.g. Commenting on some of the FCSM); and sharing their social media content (e.g. Sharing some of the FCSM on a personal account).

23

Results Participant Information 141 participants attempted the online survey; 113 completed it (80.1%). This was a greater drop off percentage than the 10% suggested by the literature. However, a further 31 responses were recalling the SSLO Over 3 months ago or not involved in the SLI so were removed. Only 16 responses were Prefer not to answer. 86.8% of participants use social media. Of those, the most popular platforms were Facebook (97.2%), YouTube (86.1%) and Wikipedia (69.4%). Conceptual Framework
CONTENT 71.4% thought it was Good, 25% thought it Satisfactory and only 3.6% thought it Amazing. No participants regarded it as Bad or Terrible. 60.7% thought that the SSLO was maximising its use of social media.

PROFESSIONALS: Weve actually got quite a restricted budget for marketing ... So its kind of done ... of our phones. Professional A Weve sort of been tweeting and weve sort of been Facebooking but its very scattergun ... now we need to be more strategic about it. Professional B KEY INFORMANTS: Content is King ... It is always, always, always about getting the content of your communications right ... Yes, and the type of content and it is all ultimately tone of voice. Key Informant C

24

Its got to be something genuinely interesting ... its about putting content in thats amusing, interesting, engaging thats what people share. Key Informant B Personal reasons showed the greatest influence on participants reasoning at Aware (69.57%), Liking (36.97%) and Interaction (34.33%) while also being influential at Sharing (31.06%). It was least influential at Knowledge, but still high at 21.62%. Content Personal has little influence over the first two stages (average 6.34%), as the participants will not have seen the FCSM so their responses are based on personal perceptions. The graph shows Content Personal reasons being overwhelmingly the greatest influence on Knowledge (72.97%); but decreasing by 57.06% across the last 3 stages. No Content reasons were given for Unaware and Aware as the content could not influence. However, across the four stages content did influence, growing steadily becoming the most important at Sharing (33.33%). Other reasons was most influential at Unaware (over 50%) but then reduced to no influence at Knowledge. However, it then increased to 19.7% by the final stage.

100 90

Relative Frequency (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Unaware Aware Knowledge Liking Interaction Sharing Personal Content Personal Content Other

Summary Framework

25

Figure 5. The relationship between the stages of developing CBBE using FCSM and the relative frequency (%) of themed responses (see Appendix) in the online survey. Unaware users were due to a lack of interest or feeling the other marketing communications were sufficient (54.17%) and 60.87% at Aware stated lack of interest in SSLO. Another 21.74% either said the marketing already done by the SSLO was enough or that the FCSM was not for them. Knowledge results showed informative (45.95%) and up to date (18.92%) FCSM making up 64.86% of responses. 13.51% required an interest in the SSLO to have viewed the FCSM. Liking results were much more evenly spread across the 25 responses given. The most frequently selected response was interest at only 16.81% while 8 other responses were also selected (9-4%). Interaction showed the three most influential reasons (at 14.18% each) were: not me; really interesting; and personal contact. Interaction results also showed a high range of participant responses at 24. Sharing results showed a shift from Interaction results with a greater influence of content and other reasons by 0.49% and 3.28% respectively. Again the three most influential reasons were not me (increasing 4%), really interesting (increasing 0.96%) and personal contacts (increasing 0.97%).

26

Unaware

Aware

Knowledge

Liking

Interaction

Sharing

27

Figure 6. The factors and sub-factors (see Appendix) influencing the conceptual framework stages and their comparative influence relating to relative frequency (%) in the online survey. SEO 17.9% of participants found the social media account through a search engine, of which 80% were either in The first link or Within the first couple of links. First of all link-sharing ... if you write a blog article thats really interesting and ... loads of people are sharing that link, thats just as good as getting your link displayed on another website. Key Informant A Another way social [media] helps with SEO is key words in blogs so ... put[ting] key words in so the blog is easier to find. Key Informant A And the third way is ... in creating and having social [media] accounts your company is more likely to be found when searched. Key Informant A I think actually with Facebook Graph Search slowly rolling out a lot more people will use Facebook to search [instead of Google] ... the way Facebook search is used is changing a lot and its potentially very powerful if you have a big Facebook audience. Key Informant A

28

External Conditions The country or culture (51.4%), industry (38.9%), size (small 37.5% and big 48.6%) and type (34.7%) of organisation affected the likelihood of the user to Like etc. them. COUNTRY AND CULTURE Obviously there are discussions about [SLO] in every language ... but I know they are putting a lot of investment into getting involved in it. Key Informant B INDUSTRY AND TYPE They do differ Yeah I suppose it is what sort of industry its in ... Very, very different strategies just because of the nature of their product rather than because of the nature of the industry. Key Informant A SIZE How big the organization is [is influential] ... So a 500 million business has probably got a pretty significant upside. A 5 million business probably hasnt, so cutting your cloth based on what you can realistically create and manage. Key Informant B Internal Conditions TARGET MARKET OF USERS A porridge brand might do a deal with the yoga studio because those are the sort of people [target market] that will eat porridge so you partner with them. Key Informant A

29

SOCIAL MEDIA OBJECTIVES So the strategy is more dependent on the network, but the plan for a client is more dependent on what the client wants ... so your strategy is we want to convey these messages about the brand and the plan is well do it by doing a series of these images, this competition. Key Informant A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS For every different platform ... youd try and have one editorial approach about what do we want to be saying today about our brand and then youd put that out in slightly different forms across all those different platforms. Key Informant B Summary Framework Most participants were at Aware (37). The least number of participants were at Sharing (7). The last 4 stages showed a steady decline (average 8 participants). The graph shows a Knowledge to Sharing conversion rate of 1 in 3 participants.

40 35 30

Partcipants

25 20 15 10 5 0 Unaware Aware Knowledge Liking Interaction Sharing

Summary Framework

30

Figure 7. The number of participants at each of the six stages of the summary framework. NO USE Of the participants that do not use social media, 60% could not name a platform the SSLO is on. Only 11.1% had viewed the SSLOs FCSM. NO INDUSTRY 30.8% who use social media but are not involved in the SLI responded I dont know when asked if SLOs use social media. 50% of those responded if they were involved with SLOs that they would consider liking them. UNAWARE 23.6% were not aware of their SSLO having a social media account(s). AWARE Of those that were aware of the SSLO having a social media account(s) 34.5% had not viewed it. KNOWLEDGE Of those that were aware of the SSLO having a social media account(s) 65.5% of them had viewed it. The most frequently visited social media accounts were Facebook (92.9%), Twitter (64.3%) and YouTube (28.6%). LIKING Of those who had viewed the social media account(s) 75% then liked it. So theyre fans who keep coming back to the brand ... Key Informant A INTERACTION Of those who had liked social media account(s) 61.9% then interacted it. Of those who had not liked it only 28.6% had then interacted with it. ... then you take that to the next level where they are engaged fans ... Key Informant A SHARING Of those who had interacted with the FCSM only 46.7% then shared it. Of those who had not interacted with it none then shared it.

31

... but theyre also advocates so theyre telling their friends like this brand is awesome ... Key Informant A MEGA ADVOCATES ... third level where theyre mega-advocates which is where they start recommending people who theyve never met. Key Informant A

32

Discussion Conceptual Framework CONTENT The results found particular influences at each stage which move participants through the conceptual framework. The biggest factors were: personal interest, personal contacts, informative FCSM, beneficial FCSM, interesting FCSM, relevant FCSM and not me (Figure 6). The research from the professionals found a lack of understanding, time and investment in FCSM. Only one of the three SLOs, interestingly the largest, had any FCSM strategy, and only implemented last year. Having no plan or strategy has resulted in SLOs doing FCSM half-heartedly without investment of the time and money that the key informants suggest is necessary. The key informants revealed a vast knowledge and understanding of FCSM and its use. A number of key themes ran through the interviews, emphasising the importance of FCSM as one of a number of marketing channels, each with the same underlying strategy but with a specific social media plan. In summary key informants state that FCSM has to be done well or not at all and nowadays it is not an option not to do it. However, the professionals have only recently realised this and find themselves in a half-way house having social media account(s) but not actually knowing how to use them as a part of their wider marketing strategy. Consequently, due to the lack of quality content only 1 in 3 customers moved from Knowledge to Sharing. Previous research (Alper, 2010: agency:2, 2011: Fitcher, 2007) showed many similarities with the research completed in the online survey and interviews. Both stated the importance of interaction with users, being personal or friendly, worthy of sharing; variety of unique but

33

appropriate FCSM, timely, and monitoring and analysing the responses of users (Figure 6). Literature (Alper, 2010) suggests that SLOs should Like etc. relevant organisations and people on their social media account(s) but the interview research did not establish this to be a factor. Liking relevant organisations and people may hold some influence on CBBE but is not as influential as other factors. Previous research (Buil et al., 2008) was vague regarding FCSM content focusing on internal and external conditions. This research found FCSM content needs to be interesting, beneficial, informative and relevant (Figure 6). Further aims are promotion of the SLO, targeting users and keeping the user up-to-date. Professionals suggested that FCSM should not be used for advertising. However, the online survey suggested that promotion of the SLO is not bad in itself, but the way it is done matters and can often be the organisations down fall. The key informants agreed, stating that ultimately advertising is why SLOs create social media account(s), but they must ensure the users dont recognise this purpose. Each organisation has its own specific business situation (internal and external conditions) which influences the way it might use social media to maximise CBBE. This may be why so little research has been completed in the area of optimally using FCSM in business. SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION The online survey research found that the majority of participants were at Aware while the least were found at Sharing (Figure 7). Therefore, the limiting stage of the conceptual framework is Aware. From the free text responses participants were not int erested in the SSLO so did not view the FCSM (Figure 6). Other influences were that viewing FCSM was not for them and that the marketing communications of the SSLO were sufficient. The professionals research indicated traditional marketing is the primary way to inform customers about FCSM. In two ways: promotional offers or competitions (only available on social media) and increased advertising of the social media accounts. Previous research 34

(agency:2, 2011) agreed, stating the need to ensure all marketing communications having the same underlying strategy. When asked about SEO professionals were not aware of the benefits of using FCSM to maximise search engine ranking. Two key informants stated using traditional marketing but not SEO. However, Key Informant A stated a number of methods to improve SEO using FCSM: having the FCSM liked, interacted with and shared; rich in key words; and more websites making the SLO easier to find. Incidentally, literature does not mention the increased internet visibility gained by having a higher quantity of websites. SEO is a relative unknown among professionals and some key informants but has proved to be vital as 80% only selected the social media account that was Within the first couple of links. The Key Informant A also identified the relationship between FCSM and SEO identifying a cycle: the better the FCSM; the more activity; the better the search engine ranking; the more visits; the more chance of activity. And so the cycle (Figure 3) goes on, in agreement with the literature (Leibtag, 2012). Both literature (Google, 2010) and research with Key Informant A showed the importance of monitoring the search engine ranking to establish the level of its success. However, it is not the only method that can be used to find FCSM: accessing it through personal social media accounts was more popular and with the introduction of Facebook Graph Search this will become more prevalent. Facebook Graph Search acts as a search engine which users can ask social questions, to which it provides highly personalised answer. For example, if a user types in What is the best gym in Nottingham? it would search the users friend list to find any that have lived in Nottingham. It then searches for gyms that their friends have liked or positively commented on and uses this information to create a ranking list. This means the more FCSM activity, the better the visibility of their social media account(s). This may change the face of SEO, driving organisations to focus on link-sharing the primary form of search engine, or Facebook Graph Search, optimisation. The literature 35

did not discuss the consequences of Facebook Graph Search because it is such a recent development. This will drive SLOs to produce quality FCSM, as those with large presence will be rewarded for their strategy and planning with a wider audience. Therefore, SLI professionals need to prepare for its arrival by implementing specific strategies and plans. External Conditions Both the online survey and interviews showed the country or culture, industry, organisation size and type to be influential factors in the process of the conceptual framework. At least one third of all participants who completed the survey stated that each one of the external conditions held influence in the liking process. Somewhat surprisingly Key Informant A stated that the industry is less influential compared to the type of organisation. Key Informant A and B also stated that the size of the organisation also influence the FCSM in terms of time and money spent on it. However, the online survey results suggest that the most influential external factor on liking is the size of organisation: it appears users of social media are less likely to associate with larger organisations. This is assumed by Key Informant B to be due to the fact that a large corporate organisation using social media in a personal way (tone of voice) can seem artificial. Key Informant A stated that platforms are now adapting and assisting international organisations in their presence on social media, for example one Facebook page translated and updated for all countries. The literature hypothesis that the external conditions all contribute towards how an organisation would use FCSM to maximise CBBE was accepted. Both the results of the online survey and interviews with professionals and key informants agreed. However, the literature on the size and type of organisation was sparse with only Bruhn et al. (2012) and Coulter & Roggeveen (2012) stating a possible influence, while little attention was shown in the results and discussion. The interviews suggested these two external conditions to be the

36

most influential of the five. The lack of research confirms the lack of knowledge and understanding surrounding the use of social media, as seen in the interviews with professionals, who despite knowing the importance of FCSM did not know how to use it. Internal Conditions Results showed that social media platforms have specific FCSM needs. Key Informant A gave examples of the most common platforms: Facebook About imagery, establishing how many and what colour. Users should notice a post and learn something new, but all subconsciously. Twitter Proactive and in the right tone of voice. Organisations find people and conversations they want to be monitoring and to be a part of. LinkedIn Corporate. Only post important news about the organisation or industry. Tone of voice and the type of content is key. Instagram Images of the product, organisation, behind-the-scenes or anything relevant to the lifestyle of the target user. Captioning images is optional. Pinterest User-behaviour is to browse, predominantly used by women. No need for big headlines, more about content and displaying it well. All key informants accepted the hypothesis of internal conditions: the type and size of organisation determines which platforms. Previous research (Coulter & Roggeveen, 2012) also suggests different platforms suit different organisations and on those platforms different types of content is required. However, there was mixed opinion among the professionals as to FCSM across platforms: Professional A stated that similar content would be used;

37

Professional B stated different content; and Professional C was unsure. Again, these contradictory views raise questions about the maximal use of FCSM for CBBE. Key informants alluded to the target market of users on FCSM content throughout, as did the professionals. This was as expected as it is an essential foundation of marketing communications. Both Key Informant B and Cs social media objectives were, interestingly, from a negative perspective, damage limitation. Key Informant A stated that size matters, as often smaller organisations want quicker return on investment than larger, who predominantly use it to shape customer perceptions and create large engaged communities. As expected each professional gave a different response to objectives or strategy at their SLO, confirming the hypothesis that it is different for each organisation. As expected the target market of the organisation needs to be established first, before the objectives of the marketing, followed by the channels to reach the target market. Key informants and professionals agreed with these internal conditions. This was expected as they are the three pillars of marketing and without them the SLO is not marketing at all. Summary Framework The hypothesis of the five stages of the summary framework created from the relevant literature (Coulter & Roggeveen, 2012: Lavidge and Steiner, 1961) was confirmed by the results of the online survey (Figure 7) and interviews. As expected some participants were in contact with the SLI but simply were not users of social media. Despite this, 22.2% of them were aware that the SSLO had social media account(s) and 11.1% of participants had even viewed the FCSM. This shows that some, but not all, SLOs use other traditional forms of marketing to advertise their presence on social media, which has drawn some customers to them, as the literature suggests (agency:2, 2011). The interview research was also in

38

agreement with the stages the literature suggested (Unaware to Knowledge) and that the aim of the FCSM is to increase the SLOs community and engagement. Key Informant A stated that perceived quality is influential in search engine ranking, the higher up, the greater the perceived quality. In the online survey brand image was accepted as the key influential factor in the Liking process, as the way the participants perceived the organisation accounted for 16.8% of the reasons for Liking. Only two participants Disliked the SSLO, however, both stated that the SSLO did not own any social media accounts, so the negative pathway of the summary framework cannot be tested. However, the interview research accepted the negative pathway resulting in reduced CBBE. Interestingly both sets of interviews also stated that when negative feedback is produced, if the SLO responds quickly and well, it can often lead to the participant moving from Disliking to Liking or even further. Contrary to the literature, the Fan stage was found to be split into three types. The survey results found that to have Shared, participants previously needed to have Interacted. Similarly, no participant had Interacted before having Liked. This suggested different levels of fans and therefore brand loyalty. This was confirmed when Key Informant A stated the difference between Engaged Fans (or Interaction) and Advocate Fans (or Sharing). Furthermore, there was a third level of brand loyalty, that of Mega Advocate, not discussed in any previous literature. This is a user who recommends the FCSM to others users who they have never met. This is the ultimate goal for organisations, to get their customers to this level of loyalty, answering for them. Literature has shown no acknowledgement of this stage because it is so rare for any organisation to have any fans of this sort. Research with a larger sample population may reveal users of this type. So, it is unsurprising that the professionals did not discuss this stage, as either they do not have any fans of this loyalty or they hadnt distinguished between Advocate Fans and Mega Fans. The knowledge of FCSM shown in 39

interview suggests the latter. Unfortunately it cannot be established whether any of the 25% who had reached the Sharing stage were Mega Advocates. Limitations The investigation could have interviewed a greater number and type of SLO. A greater number of participants in both the key informants and online survey would also have made the research more reliable and accurate. The online survey could have looked at specific platforms instead of social media account(s) in general. This was due to limitations in only using SurveyMonkey Select subscription due to a lack of funding. The online survey required participants to recall the last SLO they had contact with; this was to gain an unbiased selection. However, it was based on accurate recall, so some results may be inaccurate. Fewer free text questions might have reduced the high drop-off rate but this may have been due to the high volume of questions. Future Research It is suggested that future research should study the influence of the type and size of organisation on strategy (the why) and planning (the how) of FCSM usage. Further research could establish the difference in FCSM content between platforms to maximise CBBE. Summary In summary, SLI professionals are unsure how to utilise FCSM, while FCSM key informants know exactly how to use it to its full potential and customers who have personal social media accounts want more quality FCSM.

40

Conclusion The SLI needs to increase SEO because the majority of its customers are at the Aware stage of the FCSM model (Figure 8). This can be done by: implementing social media strategy and plans, which results in the FCSM being liked, interacted with and shared; partnering with other organisations with a similar target market for website linking; having a high key-word count on social media accounts and website; having a number of different social media accounts; monitoring the search engine ranking and analysing it; having social media accounts advertised on all marketing communications, with a common underlying theme; and monitoring the latest developments of Facebook Graph Search. These recommendations will enable the SLI to maximise CBBE through the use of FCSM. Although the research was conducted within the SLI it was found that a model can be created which is a sound framework for all organisations, when industry is added to the external conditions. As in the conceptual framework, the model is split into two sections: one for customers who have not viewed the FCSM (SEO plan); and the other for those who have (FCSM content plan). As a result, a FCSM model to maximise CBBE can be established from the relevant literature, results from the online survey and interviews with SLI professionals and FCSM key informants. FCSM model description: SEO Plan 1) Link-Sharing (Facebook Graph Search) As the literature and primary research suggested link-sharing is vital due to the recent changes to Googles search engine algorithm, which encourages active social media accounts. Key informants stated that social media which users are liking, interacting with and sharing is now regarded by

41

Google to be as important as having a link on another website. The introduction of Facebook Graph Search this form of SEO will become even more significant. 2) Key Words The literature and interviews suggested that key words in social media content play a pivotal role in search engine ranking: across all platforms a targeted use of key words increases the search engine ranking. 3) Easily Found Primary research found that having a number of high-ranking social media accounts (due to high volume link-sharing and the use of key words) leads to a number of websites on the first page of the search engine rankings, increasing visibility. 4) Monitor Search engine ranking must be monitored: either through a plan to improve ranking; or to analyse the current ranking to ensure competitors do not jump above the organisation. Analysing results will establish a future action plan. Facebook Graph Search development should be monitored to establish when it will be introduced and community response to it. 5) Universal A marketing strategy should be created with the same underlying themes to ensure commonality across marketing so that the brand is recognisable. Social media account(s) should be advertised across all marketing to increase awareness and reach of FCSM. Social Media Content Plan Aims Promote Appropriately state and maintain core values: this is the fundamental purpose of corporate social media accounts.

42

Target Target users, often through other organisations, who could be a part of the community and will like, interact and share the FCSM.

Sharing For FCSM to be liked, interacted with and shared in a positive light among users in general and their community.

Personality Do not be corporate, but personal; having a personality and warm tone of voice. One employee for FCSM to maintain consistency.

Interact Be responsive to users who interact, however briefly. Engage with the community and other relevant communities, encouraging participation.

Update Keep the social media account up-to-date in design and content, showing care for the community and the account.

Monitor Responses should be analysed to identify successful plans to replicate, or unsuccessful plans learn from.

Content Interesting FCSM should be entertaining, exciting, inspiring, clever, important, meaningful, motivational and engaging with significant issues. Beneficial Let the user gain something from FCSM, whether it is new information, offers, entertainment, etc. Ultimately make it worthwhile. Informative Should be useful; hints, tips, facts, events, services and facilities. Include the latest information about the industry, organisation and common interests in the community for learning. Keep it accurate and clear.

43

Relevant FCSM should be applicable and tailored to the community and other target market users. Not general, spam-like.

Linkable FCSM should be shareable, that is being sensible, sensitive and aligned with the community and other target market users who share the organisations values.

Timely FCSM should be regular, but not too regular. Post when the community and other target market users want, need or should hear from the organisation.

Mediums Use a wide variety of FCSM content including images, videos, web links, posts, etc.

44

Figure 8. CBBE maximisation model using FCSM in corporate business.

Liking
Brand Image Viewed FCSM with positive association Brand Loyalty

Knowledge SEO Plan (Brand Awareness and Perceived Quality): Link-Sharing (Facebook Graph Search) o Liking o Interacting o Sharing Key Words Easily Found Monitor Universal

Engaged Fan Social Media Content Plan (Brand Image and Brand Loyalty):
Brand Loyalty

Viewed FCSM with no action

Perceived Quality

Aware

Social Media Strategy External Conditions: Country Culture Industry Business Size Business Type
i

Viewed FCSM and interacted with it

Advocate Fan

Aware of FCSM but not viewed it

Internal Conditions: Target Market of Users Social Media Objectives Social Media Platform

Viewed FCSM and shared it positively

Brand Awareness

Unaware

Mega Fan

Brand Loyalty

Not viewed FCSM

Viewed FCSM and answers for it

Aims o Promote o Target o Personality o Interact o Update o Sharing o Monitor Content o Interesting o Beneficial o Informative o Relevant o Linkable o Timely o Mediums

Low CBBE

46

High CBBE

Bibliography 1. Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: Free Press. 2. Aaker, D. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 27-32. doi 10.1108/eb039503 3. agency:2. (2011). Top 5 tips for improving your Facebook EdgeRank. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/agency2socialmedia 4. agency:2. (2013). Search and social media optimisation [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.agency2.co.uk/our-services/search-and-social-media-optimisation/ 5. agency:2. (2013). Our team [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.agency2.co.uk/ourteam/ 6. Ahlqvist, T., Bck, A., Halonen, M., & Heinonen, S. (2008). Social media roadmaps: Exploring the futures triggered by social media. Helsinki: VTT. 7. Alexa. (2008). The top ranked social networking sites [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Online_Comm unities/Social_Networking 8. Alper, E. (2010). Dos and donts of social media. Canadian Musician, 32(3), 45. 9. Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2013). Marketing: An introduction. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. 10. BBC. (2012). London 2012 Olympics deliver record viewing figures for BBC [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/olympic-

viewing-figs.html 11. Bloomstein, M. (2012). Content strategy at work: Real-world stories to strengthen every interactive project. Massachusetts: Morgan Kaufmann. 47

12. Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V., & Schfer, D. (2012). Are social media replacing traditional media in terms of brand equity creation. Management Research Review, 35(9), 770-790. doi 10.1108/01409171211255948 13. Buil, I., de Chernatony, L., & Martnez, E. (2008). A cross-national validation of the consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(6), 384-392. doi 10.1108/10610420810904121 14. Bullough, S. (2012). A new look at the latent demand for sport and its potential to deliver a positive legacy for London 2012. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(1), 39-54. 15. Chudoba, B. (2010, December 8). Re: Does adding one more question impact survey completion rate [Web log message]. SurveyMonkey. Retrieved from

http://blog.surveymonkey.com/blog/2010/12/08/survey_questions_and_completion_rates/ 16. CNET. (2011). Testing Google's Panda algorithm: CNET analysis. [Web Page] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20054797-281.html 17. Coulter, K., & Roggeveen, A. (2012). Consumer responses to word-of-mouth communication in on-line social networks. Management Research Review, 35(9), 878899. doi 10.1108/01409171211256587 18. Council of Europe. (1992). European Sports Charter. Strasbourg, France. Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(92)13&Sector=secCM&Language=lanEnglish &Ver=rev&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogg ed=FFAC75

48

19. Cui, W. (2011). Creating consumer-based brand equity in the Chinese sports shoes market: measurement, challenges and opportunities (Unpublished masters thesis). Aalborg University, Aalborg. 20. Dubois, T. (2011). Brand loyalty creation within online brand communities (Unpublished masters thesis). Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen. 21. eBizMBA. (2013). The top 15 most popular social networking sites: January 2013 [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites 22. Facebook. (2012). Newsroom [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/KeyFacts 23. Fichter, D. (2007). How social is your web site? Top five tips for social media optimization. Online, 31(3), 57-60. 24. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009). Firm-created word-of-mouth communication: Evidence from a field test. Marketing Science, 28(4), 721-39. 25. Google. (2010). Search engine optimization: Starter guide. Retrieved from

http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.co.uk/e n/uk/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf 26. Grabowicz, P., Ramasco, J., Moro, E., Pujol, J., & Eguiluz, V. (2012). Social features of online networks: The strength of intermediary ties in online social media. PLoS ONE, 7(1), 1-9. 27. Hair, J., Wolfinbarger, M., Ortinau, D., & Bush, R. (2008). Essentials of marketing research. New York: McGraw-Hill. 28. Hakala, U., Svensson, J., & Vincze, Z. (2012). Consumer-based brand equity and top-ofmind awareness: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 21(6), 439-451. doi 10.1108/10610421211264928

49

29. Heinze, A., Fletcher, G., & Chadwick, C. (2010). From search engine optimisation to search engine marketing management: Development of a new area for information systems research. Oxford: Conference Proceedings. 30. Keller, K., & Lehmann, D. (2003). How do brand create value. Marketing Management, May/June, 26-31. 31. Kim, H., Kim W., & An, J. (2003). The effects of consumer-based brand equity on firms financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 335-351. doi 10.1108/07363760314083694 32. Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11-19. doi 10.1108/07363769510095270 33. Lavidge, R., & Steiner, G. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59-62. 34. Leibtag, A. (2012). Social media: What are you waiting for. EContent, March, 19. 35. Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011). 65% of online adults use social networking sites. Washington: Pew research centre. 36. Malhotra, N. (2002). Basic marketing research: Application to contemporary issues. New Jersey: Pearson Hall. 37. McDaniel, C., & Gates, R. (1999). Contemporary marketing research (4th ed.). Cincinnati: International Thomas Publishing. 38. Pappu, R., Quester, P., & Cooksey, R. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement empirical evidence. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(3), 143-154. doi 10.1108/10610420510601012

50

39. Park, C., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its expendability. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 271-288. 40. Rezvani, M., Hoseini, H., & Samadzadeh, M. (2012). Investigating the role of word of mouth on consumer based brand equity creation in Irans cell-phone market. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, 8, 1-15. 41. Shannon, R. (1999). Sports marketing: An examination of academic marketing publication. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(6), 517-534. 42. Shirazi, F. (2013). Social media and the social movements in the Middle East and North Africa: A critical discourse analysis. Information Technology and People, 26(1), 28-49. doi 10.1108/09593841311307123 43. Sinclair, R. (2009). The importance of brand equity in creating firm value. Prophet. Retrieved from http://www.prophet.com/downloads/whitepapers/sinclair-brand-equityfirm-value.pdf 44. Simmons, G., Thomas, B., & Truong, Y. (2010). Managing i-branding to create brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9), 1260-1285. doi

10.1108/03090561011062835 45. Sport England. (2012). Active people survey 6. Retrieved from

http://www.sportengland.org/research/active_people_survey/active_people_survey_6.asp x 46. Stelzner, M. (2009). Social media marketing industry report: How are marketers using social media to grow their businesses. Social Media Examiner. Retrieved from http://marketingwhitepapers.s3.amazonaws.com/smss09/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryR eport.pdf 51

47. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. (1973). Effects of time and memory factors on response in surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(344), 805-815. 48. Toivonen, S. (2007). Web on the move: Landscapes of mobile social media. Helsinki: VTT. 49. Tolba, A., & Hassan, S. (2009). Linking customer-based brand equity with brand market performance: A managerial approach. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(5), 356-366. doi 10.1108/10610420910981837 50. Torkildsen, G. (2005). Leisure and recreation management (5th ed.). New York: Routledge. 51. Tordkilsen, G. (2011). Sport and leisure management (6th ed.). Oxon: Routledge. 52. Tuominen, P. (1999). Managing brand equity. The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 1(99), 65-100. 53. Visser, E., & Weideman, M. (2011). An empirical study on website usability elements and how they affect search engine optimisation. South African Journal of Information Management, 13(1), 1-9. doi: 10.4102/sajim.v13i1.428 54. Wikipedia. (2013). Wikipedia: Statistics [Web Page]. Retrieve from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics 55. Wilson, A. (2012). Marketing research: An integrated approach (3rd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. 56. Yalin, N., & Kse, U. (2010). What is search engine optimisation: SEO. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 487-493. 57. YouTube. (2013). Statistics [Web Page]. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html

52

58. Zuze, H., & Weideman, M. (2013). Keyword stuffing and the big three search engines. Online Information Review, 37(2), 1-28. 59. Zuze, H., & Weideman, M. (2012, October). Application of link wheels to improve search engine ranking of commercial websites. Paper presented at the South Afrian Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Academic Conference 2012, Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.web-visibility.co.za/similar-

search.php?Search=Search

53

Appendix Ethics Approval College of Science School of Science and Technology School Ethics Review and Approval Group (SERAG) Notification of Decision Students Name Supervisors Name NTU ID Programme Date of SERAG review Date notification sent to student Benjamin Moralee Christopher Parker N0299813 Sport Science and Management 08.03.2013 08.03.2013

Approved - You may commence your research as outlined in your application. If you have to re-submit your form you must ensure that you clearly indicate on the form that it is a resubmission, for Chairs action, and on a separate document detail what changes have been made, together with including any relevant attachments (e.g. research instruments or participant information).

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact your project supervisor or alternatively e-mail SST.ethics@ntu.ac.uk.

54

Online Survey Questions INFORMED CONSENT QUESTIONS 1. Gender Male 2. Age 18-22 23-29 30-39 56 < 40-55 Prefer not to answer Female Prefer not to answer

3. Education PhD Masters Degree A-levels Apprenticeship Internship or GCSEs or O-Levels None Prefer not to answer

4. Job Apprentice Worker Employee Executive Employee Self-Employed Student Unemployed Prefer not to answer

5. Do you use social media? Yes (Q6) No (Q54) Prefer not to answer

55

6. What social media sites do you use? None Facebook Twitter YouTube Wikipedia Linkedin Google + Pinterest Blogspot Word Press Daily Motion Flickr Tumblr TripAdvisor Scribd MySpace Instagram Vine Yahoo Answers Windows Live Other (Free Text) Prefer not to answer

7. What are the main reasons why you use social media? Free Text Prefer not to answer

8. Do you Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. organisations from different industries? Yes No Prefer not to answer

9. Do you Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. organisations from different countries (or cultures)? Yes No Prefer not to answer

10. Do you Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. low end (small or local) organisations?

56

Yes No Prefer not to answer

11. Do you Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. high end (large or global) organisations? Yes No Prefer not to answer

12. Do you Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. a range of different organisations? Physical product (e.g. shoes) Service product (e.g. police) Cause-related product (e.g. charity) Personal product (e.g. celebrity) Other (Free Text) Prefer not to answer

13. Estimate how often, if at all, do you come into contact with the sport and leisure industry (a company that offers regulated physical and non-physical activity, skill and competition that lead to personal growth, satisfaction and self fulfilment) a month? Never (Q45) Maybe Once (Q14) Once (Q14) Couple of times (Q14) 4 times (Q14) 8 times (Q14) 57

16 times (Q14) 16 times < (Q14) Prefer not to answer

14. Think of the last sport and leisure organisation you came into contact with. What is the name of the organisation? Free Text Prefer not to answer

15. Approximately when did you come into contact with the sport and leisure organisation? Today Yesterday Within the last 7 days Within the last 14 days Within the last month Within the last 3 months Within the last 6 months Within the last year Over a year ago Prefer not to answer

16. What is your opinion of the sport and leisure organisation? I regard myself as a critic of it I dislike it Indifferent I like it 58

I regard myself as a fan of it Prefer not to answer

17. What social media platforms, if any, are you aware of the sport and leisure organisation being on? None (Q41) Facebook (Q18) Twitter (Q18) YouTube (Q18) Wikipedia (Q18) Linkedin (Q18) Google + (Q18) Pinterest (Q18) Blogspot (Q18) Word Press (Q18) Daily Motion (Q18) Flickr (Q18) Tumblr (Q18) TripAdvisor (Q18) Scribd (Q18) MySpace (Q18) Instagram (Q18) Vine (Q18) Yahoo Answers (Q18) Windows Live (Q18) I Dont Know (Q19) Other (Q18) Prefer not to answer (Free Text)

18. Have you viewed the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s)? Yes (Q20) No (Q19) Prefer not to answer

19. Why have you not viewed any of the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s)? Free Text (Q40) Prefer not to answer

20. What platforms that the sport and leisure organisation uses have you viewed? Facebook Twitter 59 YouTube

Wikipedia Linkedin Google + Pinterest Blogspot Word Press

Daily Motion Flickr Tumblr TripAdvisor Scribd MySpace

Instagram Vine Yahoo Answers Windows Live Other (Free Text) Prefer not to answer

21. Why did you view the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s)? Free Text Prefer not to answer

22. How do you rate the sport and leisure organisations social media content (Posts or Tweets or Videos or Pictures or etc.)? Amazing Good Satisfactory Bad Terrible Prefer not to answer

23. Why? Free Text Prefer not to answer

24. How did you find the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s)? Traditional advertising (Posters, Leaflets, Billboards, etc.) (Q26) 60

Modern advertising (Website, Email, Television, etc.) (Q26) Search Engine (Q25) Through personal social media account (Q26) Other (Free Text) (Q26) Prefer not to answer

25. Approximately how high up the search engine browser was the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s)? The first link Within the first couple of links The link was on the first page of results The link was on the first two of pages of results The link was in the first five pages of results The link was outside the first five pages of results Cant remember Prefer not to answer

26. Having viewed the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s) did you Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. them? Yes (Q28) No (Q27) Prefer not to answer

27. Why did you not Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. the sport and leisure organisation's social media account(s)? Free Text (Q30) 61

Prefer not to answer

28. Why did you Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. the sport and leisure organisation's social media account(s)? Free Text Prefer not to answer

29. Approximately how soon after viewing the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s) was this? Same day Day after Within 7 days Within 14 days Within a month Within 3 months Within 6 months Within a year Over a year N/A Prefer not to answer

30. Have you at some point Liked or Retweeted or Commented or Favourited or etc. any of the sport and leisure organisation's Posts or Pictures or Videos or Tweets or etc.? Yes (Q32) No (Q31) Prefer not to answer 62

31. Why did you not Like or Retweet or Comment or Favourite or etc. the sport and leisure organisations Posts or Pictures or Videos or Tweets or etc.? Free Text (Q34) Prefer not to answer

32. Why did you Like or Retweet or Comment or Favourite or etc. the sport and leisure organisations Posts or Pictures or Videos or Tweets or etc.? Free Text Prefer not to answer

33. Approximately how soon after Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s) was this? Same day Day after Within 7 days Within 14 days Within a month Within 3 months Within 6 months Within a year Over a year N/A Prefer not to answer

63

34. Have you at some point Shared or Posted or Tweeted or Pinned or etc. the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s) or one of their Posts or Tweets or Videos or Pictures or etc.? Yes (Q36) No (Q35) Prefer not to answer

35. Why did you not Share or Post or Tweet or Pin or etc. the sport and leisure organisations social media Posts or Tweets or Videos or Pictures or etc.? Free text (Q38) Prefer not to answer

36. Why did you Share or Post or Tweet or Pin or etc. the sport and leisure organisations social media Posts or Tweets or Videos or Pictures or etc.? Free text Prefer not to answer

37. Approximately how soon after Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s) was this? Same day Day after Within 7 days Within 14 days Within a month Within 3 months

64

Within 6 months Within a year Over a year N/A Prefer not to answer

38. Do you feel the sport and leisure organisation is maximising its use of social media? Yes No Prefer not to answer

39. Why? Free Text Prefer not to answer

40. What in your opinion is limiting the number of people who Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s)? Free Text Prefer not to answer

41. How do you feel sport and leisure organisations in general can use social media more effectively? Free Text Prefer not to answer

42. What does it take for you to Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. an organisation?

65

Free Text Prefer not to answer

43. What does it take for you to move from just Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. an organisation to interact with them (e.g. Tweeting or Posting or Commenting or etc.) or sharing some of their social media content (Retweet or Videos or Pictures or Posts etc.)? Free Text Prefer not to answer

44. How do you think social media will develop in the future? Free Text (FS) Prefer not to answer

45. Do you know if sport and leisure organisations use social media? Yes they do (Q46) No they dont (Q51) I dont know (Q48) Prefer not to answer

46. Do you Follow or Like or Subscribe or etc. any sport and leisure organisations? Yes No Prefer not to answer

47. Why?

66

Free Text Prefer not to answer

48. If you knew sport and leisure organisations did have social media would you consider Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. them? Yes (Q50) No (Q49) Prefer not to answer

49. Why would you not consider Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. sport and leisure organisations? Free Text Prefer not to answer

50. How do you feel sport and leisure organisations in general can use social media more effectively? Free Text Prefer not to answer

51. What does it take for you to Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. an organisation? Free Text Prefer not to answer

52. What does it take for you to move from just Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. an organisation to interact with them (e.g. Tweeting or Posting or Commenting or etc.) or sharing some of their social media content (Retweet or Videos or Pictures or Posts etc.)? 67

Free Text Prefer not to answer

53. How do you think social media will develop in the future? Free Text (FS) Prefer not to answer

54. Estimate how often, if at all, you come into contact with the sport and leisure industry (a company that offers regulated physical and non-physical activity, skill and competition that lead to personal growth, satisfaction and self fulfilment) a month? Never (FS) Maybe Once (Q55) Once (Q55) Couple of times (Q55) 4 times (Q55) 8 times(Q55) 16 times (Q55) 16 times < (Q55) Prefer not to answer

55. Think of the last sport and leisure organisation you came into contact with. What is the name of the organisation? Free Text Prefer not to answer

56. Approximately when did you come into contact with the sport and leisure organisation?

68

Today Yesterday Within the last 7 days Within the last 14 days Within the last month Within the last 3 months Within the last 6 months Within the last year Over a year ago Prefer not to answer

57. What is your opinion of the sport and leisure organisation? I regard myself as a critic of it I dislike it Indifferent I like it I regard myself as a fan of it Prefer not to answer

58. What social media platforms, if any, are you aware of the sport and leisure organisation being on? None (FS) Facebook (Q59) Twitter (Q59) YouTube (Q59) Wikipedia (Q59) Linkedin (Q59) Google + (Q59) Pinterest (Q59) Blogspot (Q59) Word Press (Q59) Daily Motion (Q59) Flickr (Q59)

69

Tumblr (Q59) TripAdvisor (Q59) Scribd (Q59) MySpace (Q59)

Instagram (Q59) Vine (Q59) Yahoo Answers (Q59) Windows Live (Q59)

I Dont Know (Q60) Other (Q59) (Free Text)

Prefer not to answer

59. Have you viewed any of the sport and leisure organisations social media account(s)? Yes (Q61) No (Q60) Prefer not to answer

60. Why have you not viewed the sport and leisure organisations social media? Free Text (FS) Prefer not to answer

61. What platforms that the sport and leisure organisation uses have you viewed? None (FS) Facebook (Q62) Twitter (Q62) YouTube (Q62) Wikipedia (Q62) Linkedin (Q62) Google + (Q62) Pinterest (Q62) Blogspot (Q62) Word Press (Q62) Daily Motion (Q62) Flickr (Q62) Tumblr (Q62) TripAdvisor (Q62) Scribd (Q62) MySpace (Q62) Instagram (Q62) Vine (Q62) Yahoo Answers (Q62) Windows Live (Q62) Other (Q62) Prefer not to answer (Free Text)

62. After viewing the sport and leisure organisation's social media why did you not then join the social media platform to become a member ('Like' or 'Follow' or 'Subscribe' or etc.) of the organisation on it? 70

Free Text Prefer not to answer

FINAL STATEMENT (FS)

71

Online Survey Graphs Key Description Figure 5. Free text question responses were also were divided into 4 different groups; Personal, Content Personal, Content and Other. The Personal group involves answers that have nothing to do with the face value of the social media content but rather the participants reasoning behind choosing whether or not to view/like/interact/share with the social media content (e.g. because of a personal interest in a particular SSLO and the person wants to support it). This group includes selfless answers which indicate a consideration for the impact that viewing/liking/interacting/sharing with the social media content will have on the organisation. The Content Personal group includes answers which indicate how the social media content directly influences the participant positively or negatively (e.g. to gain promotional offers). This group includes selfish answers which involve personal gain and reject any personal ties with the organisation. The Content group involves answers directly related to the social media content itself, with no benefit for the user and no evidence of consideration for the impact that viewing/liking/interacting/sharing with the social media content will have on the organisation (e.g. liking something for face value only). The Other group includes the answers not me, marketing sufficient and dont know. Not me represents participants who would not view/like/interact/share with the social media content because of who they are as a person or the values or personality they have (e.g. when someone will not post as many updates on social media because they are an introvert). Marketing sufficient would be given as an answer when the participants believe the other marketing they see internally or externally for the SSLO is enough and do not require any extra information which a social media account(s) offer (e.g. learning the closing times of the SSLO at their facilities, not on social media). Figure 6. (Strong) Personal Interest represents having an individual preference towards the SSLO whether it is positive or negative, that needs to be particularly strong for the interaction 72

and sharing stages in the summary framework. Personal Contacts is for the benefit of other users connected to the user. Personal Support indicates when the user is in agreement with the SSLO FCSM or if the user has a friend or family connection with the SSLO. Personal Principles represents having the same shared values as the SSLO or because of their honesty, genuineness or integrity. Personal Involvement represents reasoning due to current or future involvement with the SSLO. Personal Learning indicates for gaining greater understanding of either the SSLO or social media for personal benefit. Personal Experience indicates a past experience with the organisation, however brief it may have been. Personal Recommendation represents a users advice or suggestion. Personal Time represents personal commitments effecting usage of social media. Beneficial indicates FCSM for personal gain, supportive, etc. (Important) Informative is FCSM that is information or news that needs to be particularly important for the interaction and sharing stages in the summary framework. Up-to-date is FCSM updating the users about the SSLO. Timely is FCSM that is regular but not too frequent which is done at well considered times of the day for the SSLO users. Varied is FCSM which has a wide range of different media such as pictures, videos, links, etc. If they ask is FCSM that requests their users to like, interact or share content. Advertising is FCSM which promotes the SSLO with the potential for financial gain as a result of it. Accurate is FCSM which is not inaccurate but clear, thought-through, censored, etc. Communities is FCSM which increases interaction between users of similar interests or line of work (networking). (Really) Interesting is FCSM which users find fascinating or appealing for the interaction and sharing stages in the summary framework. Relevant is FCSM which is applicable to the SSLO users. Entertaining is FCSM that is in some way funny or humorous. Engaging is FCSM which encourages interaction and communication with the SSLO. Exciting is FCSM which is stimulating. Inspirational is FCSM which is

73

motivating. Appreciation is FCSM which users find helpful. Clever is FCSM which makes the user think.

74

Interview Schedule Sport and Leisure Industry Professionals 1. What are the main reasons (3-5) why you use social media at [ORGANISATION]? 2. (If customer perceptions is one of the) How important is shaping customer perceptions in relation to the other reasons? 3. (If customer perceptions isnt one) Would you say shaping customer perceptions is one? 4. But small in comparison to others? 5. How do you ensure the social media content is relevant to the sport and leisure industry? 6. How do you specialise your social media content for your target market? 7. Do you have any cross-country or culture issues being a worldwide organisation? 8. What are [ORGANISATION] objectives in using social media? 9. How do they plan to achieve this? 10. Are there social media platform specific objectives? 11. So you use .., .. and .. of all social media platforms? 12. Any others? 13. Why these platforms? 14. .. would seem to be [ORGANISATION] most popular social media platform with .. followers why do you think that is? 15. Do you advertise your social media to reach those of your target market who dont know about your presence on it?

75

16. If so how? 17. Do you then measure the effectiveness of your techniques? 18. If so how? 19. Do you run any promotions, or anything alike, to get your target market to view your social media (to show them that its worth viewing or something like that?)? 20. If so, what techniques do you use? 21. Do you then measure the effectiveness of your techniques? 22. If so how? 23. Do you measure the positive or negative response of users to your social media? 24. If so how (both positive and negative)? 25. Do you respond to a users negative social media? 26. If so, what techniques do you use? 27. Do you then measure the effectiveness of your techniques? 28. If so how? 29. Do you respond to a users positive social media? 30. If so, what techniques do you use? 31. Do you then measure the effectiveness of your techniques? 32. If so how? 33. Do you use any techniques for search engine optimisation? 76

34. If so what are they? 35. Did this affect/influence your social media following? 36. Do you plan to develop your search engine optimisation in the future? 37. How do you plan to do this? 38. What techniques/strategies do you use for what you post on social media (what do you Post Like Retweet Favourite Follow Reply etc.)? 39. Why? 40. Do you use different techniques across the social media platforms you are on? 41. What are they? 42. Do you measure the success of posts? 43. How? 44. Do you feel [ORGANISATION] is maximising its use of social media? 45. Why? 46. (YES) What methods are in place for let allow them to maximise it? 47. (NO) How do you feel they would go about maximising it? 48. What do you think, from your experience, it takes for a user to Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. [ORGANISATION]? 49. Why?

77

50. What do you think it takes for a user to then move from just Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. [ORGANISATION] to interact with [ORGANISATION] or share some of your social media content? 51. Why? 52. What in your opinion is limiting the number of people who Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. your social media? 53. How do you plan to develop and keep to the forefront of social media in the future [ORGANISATION]?

78

Interview Schedule Social Media Key Informants 1. What are the main reasons (3-5) why organisations (sport and leisure) use social media? 2. (If customer perceptions is one of the) How important is shaping customer perceptions in relation to the other reasons? 3. (If customer perceptions isnt one) Would you say shaping customer perceptions is one? 4. But small in comparison to others? 5. How, if any, would social media strategies change across industries? 6. How, if any, would social media strategies change across countries and cultures in international organisations? 7. How, if any, would social media strategies change across the level of business they are in (high or low)? 8. How, if any, would social media strategies change across the type of business they are in (physical, service, cause-related or personal product)? 9. How, if any, would social media strategies change across differing target markets? 10. How would social media strategies due to the organisations objectives? 11. How do an organisations objectives effect the platforms they should use, search engine optimisation and social media content? 12. What techniques would you advise an organisation (sport and leisure) to use to reach their target market who does not know that the organisation is on social media? 13. What would be the most accurate measure of this technique?

79

14. What techniques can an organisation (sport and leisure) use to let their target market know that their social media is relevant to them to get them followers? 15. Again, what would be the most accurate measure? 16. What different tools or techniques do you suggest organisations use to work out how to measure the positive or negative response users have to the social media? 17. How do you suggest organisations (sport and leisure) go about responding to negative social media from users? 18. How do you know if it has gone well or not? 19. How do you suggest organisations (sport and leisure) go about responding to negative social media from users? 20. How do you know if the users appreciate it or not? 21. What are the best techniques for search engine optimisation in organisations? 22. How influencing is this on the success of the organisations social media? 23. How do you maintain a high (first page) search engine optimisation? 24. What strategies would you recommend for a sport and leisure organisation to use in what they Post Like Retweet Favourite Follow Reply etc. on social media? 25. How would this differ across social media platform? How would this differ across from other industries? 26. What basic recommendations would you give to a sport and leisure organisations to maximise their use of social media?

80

27. What do you think, from your experience, it takes for a user to Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. [ORGANISATION]? 28. Why? 29. What do you think it takes for a user to then move from just Liking or Following or Subscribing or etc. [ORGANISATION] to interact with [ORGANISATION] or share some of your social media content? 30. Why? 31. What in your opinion is the most common factor in limiting the number of people who Like or Follow or Subscribe or etc. an organisations social media, if any? 32. How can organisations keep at the forefront of social media in the future [ORGANISATION]?

81