Starbucks’ Marketing Communications Strategy on Twitter Viriya Taecharungroj, Mahidol University International College viriya.tae@mahidol.ac.th To cite: Taecharungroj, V. (2016). Starbucks’ marketing communications strategy on Twitter. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1-19. Introduction In 2014, Fortune magazine named Starbucks the fifth-most admired brand in the world. Starbucks rank number one in the food service industry (Fortune, 2014). Digital sophistication is one of the main drivers of the company’s success. In his book “Onward”, Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, stated that digital and social media were the main initiatives that Starbucks pursued during and after the global recession (Schultz & Gordon, 2012, p. 320). As digital and social media marketing has grown in importance, Starbucks have established a remarkably strong presence on social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, and Tumblr. On Twitter in particular, Starbucks have garnered more than seven million followers. Followers, its potential audience members, are Twitter users who voluntarily receive Starbucks tweets in their feeds. Starbucks had posted updates, or tweets, more than 46,000 times as of January 2015. Starbucks’ activities on Twitter have received unequivocal praise because they have established consistent, open, active, interactive, and engaging relationships with followers (Wakefield, 2012; Moth, 2013; Gembarski, 2012; Noff, 2010; Ruiz, 2011). Understanding Starbucks’ marketing communications strategy on Twitter is the pivotal goal of this research.

Social media have transformed the landscape of marketing communications. Many scholars have studied and expanded marketing communications theory to incorporate functions and impacts of social media. Previous literature indicates the importance of brands’ communications and interactions with customers. Nevertheless, a comprehensive study of a successful brand on social media is lacking. The current research focuses on Starbucks’ Twitter strategy and practical implications for other brands. Unlike the other most admired brands on the Fortune list—Apple (1st), Amazon (2nd), Google (3rd), and Berkshire Hathaway (4th)—Starbucks’ business practices are not particularly technological. Hence, an understanding of its marketing communications strategy on Twitter can be useful for many other organisations.

The first objective of this research is to explore and categorise Starbucks’ marketing communications activities on Twitter. The second objective is to compare the effectiveness of different types of content. Finally, this research aims to suggest marketing communications guidelines for social media marketers.

Literature Review Social Media Marketing Theoretical Background Social media—or another closely related term, social networks—are platforms that combine Web 2.0 technology and user-generated content (UGC) (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social media can be regarded as web-based services that allow users to create identities, engage in conversations, share content, find other people, foster relationships, build reputations, and join groups (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011; Cvijikj, Spiegler, & Michahelles, 2013). Examples of social media platforms are chat rooms, blogs, social networking websites, video-sharing websites, photo-sharing websites, virtual social worlds, collaborative projects, commerce communities, and social bookmarking websites (Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Castronovo & Huang, 2012). Brands can use social media to communicate with audiences as they do with traditional media; however, consumers can also use these platforms to communicate with one another (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Social media platforms have transformed the role of audiences, making them simultaneous recipients and initiators of content (Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011). Social media are a pervasive force that is redefining the process of communication. Traditionally, the communications model consists of the four elements source-message-channel-receiver (SMCR) (Berlo, 1960). The processes within the traditional model involve encoding, decoding, response, feedback, and noise (Rothwell, 2010). The emergence of social media has made the nature of communications more complex and inclusive. Many scholars have recreated the communications framework or model to incorporate the elements of social media (Castronovo & Huang, 2012; Hanna et al., 2011; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Mangold and Faulds (2009) conceptualised “the new communication paradigm”, emphasising that brands’ control over the content, timing, and frequency of information is being “severely eroded”. Traditionally, a company has had considerable control over how its brand is perceived through the management of its promotion mix, including advertising, public relations, and sales promotions. Now, consumers interact with one another to create conversations about the brand. The new communications paradigm model (Mangold & Faulds, 2009) demonstrates that social media have a hybrid element combining the characteristics of the traditional promotional tool and an avenue for customers to interact and create word-of-mouth. Therefore, although social media can help a company communicate more efficiently, the uncertainty in the marketplace can be intimidating. In 2010, Hennig-Thurau et al. developed the “pinball framework”, which incorporates the effects of new media on customer relationships whereby companies release a “marketing ball” into the environment. New media are the bumpers that divert the ball in chaotic and unpredictable ways. Marketing managers use marketing tactics or “flippers” to guide the ball; however, the ball does not always move where intended. The authors asserted that new media, which include social media, are disruptive and make marketing activities unpredictable. Social media platforms can also have an impact on other marketing activities. Castronovo and Huang (2012) proposed an alternative marketing model on a social media platform. The authors

emphasised the linkages between marketing activities on social media platforms and other marketing activities, such as brand community, customer relationship management (CRM), and search engine optimisation (SEO). The model illustrates that the effects of marketing activities on social media platforms are ubiquitous and have an impact on companies’ marketing communications strategies.

The emergence of social media has led to the development of the various expanded marketing communications theories and frameworks referenced above. These prominent models accurately capture the role of social media in the communications process. Scholars have stressed that companies must properly execute social media marketing activities (Castronovo & Huang, 2012), manage relationships with customers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010), and shape discussions online (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). However, although these frameworks generally suggest that brands should utilise social media platforms skilfully and constantly interact with customers, there is no consensus on “how” they can do so effectively. The current research aims to reinforce the understanding of how a successful brand utilises a popular social media platform to deepen social media marketing concepts and provide guidelines for other aspiring brands. Social Media Marketing Strategy & Benefits The rising importance of social media in the marketing communications field has stimulated scholars to study the phenomenon and provide guidelines for businesses to use social media effectively. Much research has focused on the types of content that brands post on social media platforms and their effects on customers. Table 1 summarises examples of social media marketing guidelines from previous literature. Table 1 Examples of Social Media Marketing Guidelines from Literature Author(s) Platform Context Guidelines Zhang, Jansen, & Chowdhury (2011)

Twitter Twitter accounts of nine food & beverage businesses

Businesses should maintain brand presence; actively engage with customers; and tweet humorous, anecdotal, and philanthropic content every 1.5 to 4 hours.

Burton & Soboleva (2011)

Twitter Twitter accounts of publicly-owned companies in the US and Australia

Domino’s Pizza used Twitter as a response mechanism. Microsoft used hashtags to increase its number of followers. A Twitter strategy can be both reactive, using replies, and interactive, using hashtags, retweets, and hyperlinks, to promote positive messages.

Jansen, Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdhury (2009)

Twitter Twitter accounts of 50 major brands, including Starbucks

Microblogging is a viable and effective medium for word-of-mouth marketing. Brands should use Twitter as a feedback mechanism for new products. They can improve their brand image by analysing customers' posts. Effective use of microblogging platforms requires continuous and constant management. Brands can have

multiple accounts for different events and issues. Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton (2012)

Twitter Twitter accounts of 73 nonprofit organisations

Nonprofit organisations were not using Twitter to foster conversations and build community. Practitioners should use the platform to engage stakeholders rather than only for one-way communication.

Pfeffer, Zorbach, & Carley (2014)

Twitter & Facebook

Observations from three recent negative word-of-mouth events

To avoid online “firestorms”, or negative word-of-mouth dynamics, a brand must be proactive and create a large fan network to counter negativity if it arises. It should also identify trusted information brokers or influencers to pass on information to the public.

Hansson, Wrangmo, & Søilen (2013)

Facebook Questionnaires from Swedish social media users

Companies should have an active profile providing up-to-date information about developments. Companies should provide information and create inspiration through photos and statuses.

Sabate, Berbegal-Mirabent, Cañabate, & Lebherz (2014)

Facebook Five Spanish travel agencies

The use of images positively increases users' attention and engagement.

Kwok & Yu (2013)

Facebook Text-mining analysis of twelve restaurants

The four suggested strategies are: (1) use eye-catching keywords, (2) focus on status and photo sharing, (3) engage users with conversational messages, and (4) learn from the best examples.

Cvijikj & Michahelles (2013)

Facebook 100 fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) pages

Entertaining content is the most influential on the level of engagement. The other two suggested content types are information and remuneration.

Many scholars have found that the most effective type of content is in picture

form (Hansson, Wrangmo, & Søilen, 2013; Sabate, Berbegal-Mirabent, Cañabate, & Lebherz, 2014; Kwok & Yu, 2013). Other researchers have found that effective online content should be entertaining and informative (Cvijikj & Michahelles, 2013), interactive and reactive (Burton & Soboleva, 2011), humorous and philanthropic (Zhang, Jansen, & Chowdhury, 2011), and relevant and conversational (Kwok & Yu, 2013). Jansen, Zhang, Sobel, and Chowdhury (2009) stated that brands should use Twitter as a feedback mechanism that also learns from customers’ posts. Likewise, many scholars have suggested that practitioners use social media to engage stakeholders, develop healthy interactions, and create direct dialogues with them (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Segrave, Carson, & Merhout, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011; Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, 2012; Öztamur & Karakadilar, 2014; Tiago & Veríssimo, 2014). Furthermore, brands should be proactive in creating large fan networks to

alleviate any problems with negative word-of-mouth that arise (Pfeffer, Zorbach, & Carley, 2014).

The proper use of social media can help businesses strengthen relationships with customers, identify new opportunities, build brand trust, and foster word-of-mouth communication (Huang & Benyoucef, 2012; Whitla, 2009; Ho, 2014). Consumers’ positive attitudes about engaging with a brand on social media also have an effect on consumers’ intentions to make in-store purchases (Jang, Chang, & Chen, 2013). Additionally, social media offer the possibility of product development through online consumer involvement (Cvijikj et al., 2013). This communication can strengthen brand identity and brand community (Segrave et al., 2011). Moreover, brands can improve trust and commitment through users’ active participation in their online communities (Kang, Tang, & Fiore, 2014).

The current research aims to focus on the social media activities of an established brand, Starbucks, and to purposefully study its activities on Twitter. This popular social media platform is one that marketers often employ due to its pervasiveness, speed, interactivity, and convenience. Twitter has gained popularity among a number of organisations, and it is an indispensable tool that allows marketers to communicate and interact with customers online. Twitter The interactivity of users on social media platforms has become key in building online relationships between organisations and the public (Saffer, Sommerfeldt, & Taylor, 2013). Twitter is an interactive social media platform that allows users to microblog or post short statements (Bae & Lee, 2011). It is open, real-time, simple, free, and flexible (Zhang, Jansen, & Chowdhury, 2011). Since its launch in 2006, Twitter’s influence has continuously expanded. At the close of 2014, there were approximately 288 million active Twitter users (Twitter.com, 2015a). Twitter allows ordinary users to broadcast or share information about their daily activities (Bae & Lee, 2011). There are some simple yet powerful functions for Twitter users. A tweet is a short message, no more than 140 characters long, that is posted by a Twitter user to his or her followers. A user can voluntarily follow another user, operated by an individual, a group of people, or a brand, to receive its future tweets on a personal feed. Interaction on Twitter, as previously noted, is important; a user can “retweet” or repost other users’ messages to broadcast those messages to his or her own followers. Furthermore, a user can mention or reply to another user by using an @ sign followed by a username. Conversations on Twitter are typically unorganised; a hashtag (#) sign is placed in front of a keyword to allow users to search for relevant messages or conversations that revolve around that topic of interest.

Twitter is ideal for brands that seek to build relationships with key stakeholders (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Although Twitter is essentially devoted to information dissemination (Bakshy et al., 2011), businesses also reap benefits from using Twitter to interact with their audiences. Many companies typically use Twitter to communicate with a large number of followers in a one-to-many form.

Furthermore, they use the one-to-one mechanism to interact with individual users by replying or retweeting (Burton & Soboleva, 2011). Methodology Content Analysis This research employs content analysis (Elo & Kyngass, 2008) to study tweets from Starbucks’ official Twitter account (@starbucks). Apart from the official @starbucks account, Starbucks has other accounts. These include activities-related accounts, such as My Starbucks Ideas (@MyStarbucksIdea) and Starbucks Rewards (@starbucksgold); product-related accounts, such as Teavana (@teavana), Frappuccino (@frappuccino) and Evolution Fresh (@EvolutionFresh); and country-specific accounts, such as @StarbucksCanada and @StarbucksIndia. Nevertheless, the scopes of those other accounts are narrow, whereas the official account covers a broad range of topics. Therefore, to understand Starbucks’ overall strategy on Twitter, the author focuses only on the official account. The author collected all Starbucks tweets from 2014, including original tweets by Starbucks and retweets. Retweets are tweets in which the content is created by another user and forwarded or broadcast by Starbucks to its followers. In total, there are 565 tweets from 2014. Another type of Starbucks activity on Twitter is replying. Replies (or mentions) are one-on-one communications from Starbucks to individual users. Replies are more numerous and frequent than original tweets or retweets. Hence, the author studies the replies occurring in December 2014. There are 1,392 replies in the study. Content analysis is also used to analyse the replies; however, category generation is separated from that of original tweets and retweets.

The goal of content analysis is to describe a phenomenon (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The author aims to create categories that capture the universe of Starbucks’ marketing communications strategy on Twitter. The important process of content analysis is to immerse oneself in the data, find insights, and iterate the process to capture trends and patterns.

Devising Categories The author compares and contrasts the categories and theories of several scholars (Jansen et al., 2009; Humphrey et al., 2013; Madden et al., 2013). Jansen et al. (2009) studied tweets, including Starbucks tweets, and categorised them as comments, sentiment, information providing, and information seeking. They also analysed tweet content using object and action approaches. Examples of object categories are coffee, barista, store, and card. In contrast, action categories include positive comment, response, question, answer, and chitchat. Madden et al. (2013) adopted the categories proposed by Jansen et al. (2009) and developed a coding scheme for YouTube comments that share some similarities. Humphrey et al. (2013) observed tweets by individual users and grouped those tweets using three criteria: tweet subject, tweet topic, and tweet style. Each criterion has several categories; for example, tweet style includes accounting, commentary, information seeking, content sharing, and response. The categories proposed by various scholars share some similarities. The

current research begins with the categories of actions by Jansen et al. (2009) because the research contexts are the most closely related; it then compares them with the samples. Some categories are retained, such as question, announcement, store, promotion and card. However, most categories are created anew because a number of the original categories by Jansen et al. (2009) included replies, whereas replies are separated in this study. In total, there are 19 subtypes of content. Subsequently, these subtypes are grouped together to create three main categories (content types) that represent Starbucks’ strategy on Twitter. The three types of content are information-sharing, emotion-evoking, and action-inducing content.

This research also categorises tweets according to the modality. Modalities can be classified into four main types. The first type is the text-only tweet (coded as “text”) that contains text and nothing else. The text and link tweet (coded as “link”) is the second type of tweet and contains a link to another website together with the text. The third type of tweet is the text and image tweet (coded as “image”) in which Starbucks tweets an image to followers. The final type is the text and video tweet (coded as “video”).

Consequently, the author compares the effectiveness of each content and modality by analysing the number of retweets and the number of tweets that were favourites. The number of retweets is the number of times other Twitter users retweet that particular Starbucks tweet. Likewise, the number of favourites represents the frequency with which users label a tweet as a favourite. The numbers of retweets and favourites are by no means conclusive or exhaustive in measuring the effectiveness of content; other metrics, such as sales and brand performance, are arguably equally, if not more, important. Nevertheless, scholars have used the number of retweets to represent influence, popularity, and interactivity (Cha et al., 2010; Bae & Lee, 2011; Kwak et al., 2010; Burton & Soboleva, 2011). Hence, the current research observes these two values to determine the effectiveness of content. A two-way ANOVA is conducted to show the differences in the average numbers of retweets and favourites for each content type and modality.

Another important part of this research is the analysis of replies by Starbucks. Replies are messages from @Starbucks to individual Twitter users who either tweeted directly to @Starbucks or mentioned Starbucks in their tweets. Similar to the content analysis of tweets and retweets, this study begins by comparing the categories of tweet by Jansen et al. (2009) and the samples. Some categories are adopted from the previous study, such as positive comment, question, and chitchat. The response category from the previous study is changed to the apology & support reply type. The answer category is changed to the information reply type to better explain the purpose of the reply. Apology & support are grouped together in one category because they generally go together in a reply. In total, replies are categorised into six types: apology & support, gratitude, information, positive comment, enquiry & question, and chitchat.

In the coding process, three coders are trained to code Starbucks tweets using the content type and modality criteria. One hundred tweets are selected to test the inter-coder reliability. The inter-rater reliability has an average pairwise per cent

agreement of 92 per cent, an average pairwise Cohen’s Kappa of .88, and a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .88. Another three coders are trained to code the replies. One hundred Starbucks replies are tested for inter-rater reliability using the six reply types. The inter-rater reliability has an average pairwise Cohen’s Kappa of .81 and a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .81. The inter-coder reliability results of both tweets and replies reveal a good level of agreement (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002). Findings Three Types of Content From the content analysis, the author finds three content types that describe Starbucks’ marketing strategy on Twitter. In this section, examples of each subtype in the three main categories are explained. Descriptive statistics for tweets in each content type are then presented and discussed. Finally, a two-way ANOVA indicates any differences in effectiveness among the three content categories and modalities. The full list of content types is presented in Table 2. Table 2 Content Type List with Definitions Content Type Subtype Description Information-sharing content

Practical tip Advice on how to create, order, or modify a drink or other Starbucks product. It is accompanied by the #ProTip hashtag.

Product intro / promo An introduction to or promotion of Starbucks products, including coffee, other beverages, food, mugs, and cards.

Store intro / promo An introduction to or promotion of Starbucks stores worldwide.

Campaign intro / promo

An introduction to or promotion of a Starbucks-related campaign.

Official announcement An official announcement by Starbucks. Factual information Other factual information. Emotion- evoking content

Imagery An image presented in a dramatic fashion to evoke an emotion. These images sometimes have surprising elements.

Sentimental message A message that aims to evoke emotions, such as awe, excitement, happiness, calmness, serenity, or peacefulness. These messages typically incorporate signalling words, such as #love.

Storytelling A Starbucks-related story told by a person. This type of message is about people and their activities.

Inspirational quotation

A quotation by a famous person that aims to inspire readers.

Poem Poems or rhymes that contain well-crafted words that evoke positive emotions.

Humorous message A message with a humorous element. Witty message A message with a witty element. Action-inducing content

In-store download A promotional message asking readers to purchase a download card and/or to download in-store digital content.

Event participation A message asking readers to participate in an event or a campaign.

Question A question asking readers to respond regarding certain issues.

Sales promotion A sales promotion campaign, including discounts, free giveaways, and other types of sales promotions, that persuades followers to take action.

Social media engagement

A promotional message persuading readers to engage with Starbucks on a social media platform.

Card registration A message persuading readers to register for a Starbucks card.

The first content type is information sharing. In this type, Starbucks aim to communicate valuable information to followers. The emphasis of this content type is the benefits that followers may receive. The following subtypes fall within this content type: practical tip, product introduction and promotion, store introduction and promotion, campaign introduction and promotion, official announcement, and factual information. Practical tip tweets are those that provide followers or Starbucks customers with guidelines to follow with Starbucks-related products. An example of a practical tip occurred on 26 January 2014, when Starbucks tweeted, “When you add mocha sauce and hazelnut syrup to a latte #ohyes #lattehack #nomnom”. Often, Starbucks label a practical tip tweet with the #ProTip hashtag. For example, on 29 September 2014, Starbucks tweeted, “You can always ask for #IcedBlackTea unsweeten. #ProTip #becauseyouresweetenough”.

Product information and promotion is an information-sharing subtype that aims to inform followers about a new product or provide interesting information about existing products. The following is an example of a product intro/promo tweet: “Layered, lively cup, resoundingly crisp #BlondeRoast. Aria Blend is now available where you buy groceries. #GetBrightandLight”. Two subtypes, store introduction and promotion and campaign introduction and promotion, follow similar patterns; however, the former emphasises a physical store, and the latter emphasises a Starbucks-launched campaign. The other two subtypes in the information-sharing content type are official announcements (e.g., “Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto’s GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling sbux.co/1x7Dczt”) and factual information (e.g., a tweet retweeted from the My Starbucks Idea account reads, “Almost half of college students in our country don’t finish their college degrees. #WeCanDoBetter #HighEd sbux.co/1kE48fV”). An official announcement is a content type that replicates traditional press releases or news announcements, such as mobile application updates or website maintenance schedules. Factual information is posted sparingly because Starbucks generally tweet content that is closely related to the brand.

The emotion-evoking content type includes seven subtypes: imagery, sentimental messages, storytelling, inspirational quotations, poems, humorous messages, and witty messages. The main purpose of emotion-evoking content seems to be to evoke positive emotions in followers, such as happiness, excitement, awe, serenity, peacefulness, calmness, and delight. The most common subtype of this content type is imagery. Imagery content utilises visual elements through digital

images. These images are typically beautiful, digitally adjusted (filtered) and/or modified to create interesting spectacles for audiences. Sentimental messages employ words that are carefully crafted to evoke positive feelings. These messages can be short or long; they are typically but not always related to the brand. For example, a tweet on Mother’s Day reading “Mom’s the best. [a green heart emoji] #BestMom” was retweeted more than six thousand times and was added as a favourite more than seven thousand times. Another frequently used subtype is storytelling. In storytelling tweets, a story is typically told by a Starbucks customer and retweeted by Starbucks (e.g., customer @alliradiuk tweeted a picture of a Starbucks gift card with the message “a stranger just bought me a Starbucks giftcard [sic] just for having a conversation with him: kindness is always rewarding”). These tweets’ main objectives do not involve providing information to followers or persuading them to take action. Nevertheless, creating emotions through captivating content is undeniably important in building any successful brand. The other subtypes—poems, inspirational quotations, humorous messages, and witty messages—also play a role in evoking positive emotions.

Action-inducing content is the final content type identified by the current research. These tweets attempt to persuade Starbucks followers to take a desired action, such as purchasing, participating, or registering. Action-inducing content is often presented in the form of imperative sentences. The most common subtype is sales promotion. Sales promotion tweets usually urge customers to purchase Starbucks products within a specified time period for a discount. For example, together with a picture of a receipt, Starbucks retweeted a tweet from another account, @StarbucksStore: “$2 grande iced drinks after 2pm with your morning receipt. #TreatReceipt (US only)”. In-store download cards and card registration are two subtypes that seek to persuade customers to buy a card to download digital content (e.g., “Pick up a download card for the Time Surfer app. Kill some time by rewinding with this freakishly fun game. It’s our in-store #PickoftheWeek”) or to persuade new or existing customers to register for a Starbucks reward card (e.g., a retweet from another Starbucks account, @starbucksgold, includes a picture of the card and reads, “Catch her while you can: Our Limited Edition Siren Card”). Other action-inducing subtypes also attempt to persuade customers to take action. Event participation tweets ask followers to participate in Starbucks events or campaigns (e.g., “Tag your #redcupcontest moment on Instagram to win a sterling silver Starbucks Card. Rules: sbux.co/redcupcontest”), question tweets ask followers for their input (e.g., “What would you do if you won #StarbucksforLife? [several emojis]”), and social engagement tweets persuade followers to engage with Starbucks on other accounts or other social media platforms. Descriptive Statistics: Content Type After the coding process, the results are compiled, and they are presented in Table 3. Of the 565 Starbucks tweets and retweets in 2014, 112 (20 per cent) are information-sharing tweets, 349 (62 per cent) are emotion-evoking tweets, and 104 (18 per cent) are action-inducing tweets. Within the emotion-evoking type, imagery is the most common subtype, followed by storytelling. However, most storytelling tweets are

retweets from other accounts, particularly from Starbucks customers, or UGC. Practical tip is the most common subtype in the information-sharing content type. Finally, sales promotion is the most common subtype in the action-inducing content type. Table 3 shows the average number of retweets and favourites in each subtype. However, effectiveness, such as the number of retweets and favourites of each subtype, cannot be compared statistically because the numbers of tweets in each subtype are not consistent. Factual information is the subtype with the fewest tweets—4—whereas imagery is the most common subtype, with 132 tweets. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Starbucks Tweets in 2014

n % n (Retweet)

% Retweet

Avg. Ret.

Avg. Fav.

Information-sharing content Practical tip 37 6% 3 1% 758 2,231 Product intro / promo 31 5% 15 7% 517 1,456 Store intro / promo 10 2% 0 0% 514 1,490 Campaign intro / promo 21 4% 10 5% 421 1,060 Official announcement 9 2% 3 1% 304 1,015 Factual information 4 1% 1 0% 476 1,248 Information-sharing total 112 20% 32 15% 573 1,598 Emotion-evoking content Imagery 132 23% 25 12% 1,351 3,651 Sentimental message 52 9% 5 2% 1,193 2,378 Storytelling 118 21% 112 52% 126 729 Inspirational quotation 12 2% 0 0% 1,058 1,361 Poem 6 1% 1 0% 3,217 6,033 Humorous message 5 1% 4 2% 353 906 Witty message 24 4% 4 2% 2,581 4,227 Emotion-evoking total 349 62% 151 71% 1,005 2,431 Action-inducing content In-store download 20 4% 1 0% 159 616 Event participation 25 4% 4 2% 684 1,524 Question 8 1% 0 0% 749 2,325 Sales promotion 33 6% 17 8% 5,322 6,387 Social media engagement 9 2% 2 1% 322 933 Card registration 9 2% 7 3% 581 1,511 Action-inducing total 104 18% 31 14% 2,020 2,901 Total 565 214 Figure 1 shows how these three categories were distributed over the course of 2014 because observing the total numbers alone would not provide a clear picture of how Starbucks published its content. It is clear in Figure 1 that emotion-evoking content is consistently more prevalent than information-sharing and action-inducing content. An obvious irregularity was in September and October 2014, when Starbucks seemed to post an abnormally high number of emotion-evoking tweets. In that period, Starbucks retweeted a huge volume of personal stories from its customers. Thus, the amount of emotion-evoking content spiked for a short period and returned to normal in November and December 2014. Although the other two content types

were less common than the emotion-evoking content, they were consistently published throughout the year of the study.

Figure 1 Content Type Frequency of Starbucks Tweets in 2014 Descriptive Statistics: Modality Coders categorise the 565 Starbucks tweets from 2014 into four modalities. Most tweets are text-only (238 tweets, 42 per cent) or images (228 tweets, 40 per cent). There are only 88 text-and-link tweets (16 per cent) and 11 video tweets (2 per cent). To make the analysis clearer and more practical, the author combines the text-only and text-and-link types under the “textual” modality. Image and video types, meanwhile, are classified together under the “visual” modality. Table 4 indicates the frequencies of each content type as the visual or textual modality. From the data, emotion-evoking content appears more likely to be visual than the other two content types. Information-sharing and action-inducing content thus tend to be textual. However, the trend is marginal, and the differences are not substantial. Table 4 Content Type and Modality Cross-Tabulation Statistics

Content Type Total Information-

Sharing Emotion-Evoking

Action-Inducing

Modality Visual Count 37 166 37 240

% of Total 6.5% 29.4% 6.5% 42.5%

Textual Count 75 183 67 325 % of Total 13.3% 32.4% 11.9% 57.5%

Total Count 112 349 104 565 % of Total 19.8% 61.8% 18.4% 100.0%

Effectiveness of Content Types and Modality In the current research, the effectiveness of content is represented by the numbers of retweets and favourites. A two-way ANOVA test is conducted to observe differences in the average numbers of retweets and favourites between the textual and visual modalities and among the three content types. The results find that the three content types have significantly different numbers of retweets and favourites at the p<.001 level. The action-inducing content type has the highest numbers of retweets and favourites, followed by emotion-evoking and information-sharing content. The results find that the differences between the two modalities in terms of the average numbers of retweets and favourites are significant at the p<.001 level. The visual modality is significantly more effective than the textual modality in terms of the average number of retweets (1,580 versus 756) and the average number of favourites (3,499 versus 1,507). A two-way ANOVA presents interesting interaction effects between content types and modalities. The interaction effects on the average numbers of retweets and favourites (Figures 2 and 3, respectively) are significant at the p<.001 level. Although modality does not have significant effect on the number of retweets and favourites of information-sharing tweets, it significantly affects the number of retweets and favourites of emotion-evoking and action-inducing tweets. The visual and textual modalities of information-sharing content do not lead to significantly different average numbers of retweets (596 versus 561) and favourites (1,684 versus 1,555). Conversely, modality has a considerable effect on the number of retweets and favourites of emotion-evoking content. The visual modality leads to higher average numbers of both retweets (1,267 versus 767) and favourites (3,432 versus 1,525) than the textual modality. The effect is the most prominent in action-inducing content, in which the visual modality generates much higher average numbers of retweets (3,964 versus 946) and favourites (5,615 versus 1,403). In conclusion, although action-inducing content is the most effective in generating high numbers of retweets and favourites, a strong interaction effect indicates that visual content significantly improves effectiveness whereas textual content does not significantly improve the effectiveness of the tweet.

Figure 2 Interaction Effect (Modality x Content Type) on the Average Number of Retweets

Figure 3 Interaction Effect (Modality x Content Type) on the Average Number of Favourites

Six Types of Reply From the study of 1,392 official Starbucks replies in December 2014, this research finds six types of replies that Starbucks used to interact with other Twitter users. These six reply types are information, apology & support, positive comment, question & enquiry, chitchat, and gratitude. Of the six reply types, three are frequent: information (606 replies or 44 per cent), apology & support (436 replies or 31 per cent), and positive comment (232 replies or 17 per cent). The other three reply types—question & enquiry (48 replies or 3 per cent), chitchat (46 replies or 3 per cent), and gratitude (24 replies or 2 per cent)—are less common.

Table 5 describes the meanings of those reply types. This section explains and gives examples of the first three most common reply types. The first and most common reply type is information. In this reply type, Starbucks respond to a Twitter user who asks a question or makes a comment about Starbucks. For example, Starbucks ran the “Vote for Joy” contest (#VoteForJoy), which allowed customers to vote for a specific drink. The drink that received the highest number of votes would be discounted by 50 per cent on a specific date (20 December 2014). On 18 December, a Twitter user (@DeAndreFMorris) asked “@Starbucks How do I vote fore [sic] the pumpkin spice latter [sic]? It’s my favorite!”. Starbucks replied “@DeAndreFMorris Click on this link: sbux.co/1ztGOwO. Then click on PSL to vote. Thanks!”. Another example is when a user (@lanaamarie_) lamented the result of the “Starbucks for Life” contest on 10 December 2014—“I should of [sic] won that Starbucks for life”. Starbucks replied “@lanaamarie_ it’s not too late! There are still 8 winners out there and you have until January 5, 2015. Starbucks.com/win”. These replies aim to provide useful information to customers when they need it. The second example shows that Starbucks also proactively give information to customers even when they have not asked any question. Apology & support is the second most common reply type in this study. This reply type combines apology and support because the two often come together. For example, on 1 December 2014, a user sarcastically complained “I love waiting in line for 15 minutes to get a stale bagel @Starbucks [frowning emoji]”. Starbucks apologised and offered support by replying “@ReneeCabreles That’s no good at all – pls email details (incl ow.ly/F6ECc) to twittercustomerservice@starbucks.com So sorry!” Another example of an apology & support reply on 10 December took place when a user tweeted “@Starbucks gave me the wrong sandwich. Nothing else for lunch, so I’m eating it anyway but #yuck. Pesto is so not stuffing. :(”. Starbucks replied “@Syndelin We hate to disappoint, let us make it up to you! Pls email twittercustomerservice@starbucks.com incl ow.ly/Ait3y Thx”. This reply type generally has a recurring theme of acknowledging the problem, apologising, and providing further support. The third most common reply type is the positive comment reply type. Starbucks used this reply type to reinforce the positive feelings of its customers. On 21 and 22 December 2014, two customers tweeted pictures of the tall beverages and desserts that they had won—prizes offered daily. The first customer tweeted “Yeahhhhhhh!!!!!! [sic] @Starbucks pic.twitter.com/YhOvVwc0xg”, followed by the

other user, who tweeted “@cmckeen87 I won something too!!! @Starbucks pic.twitter.com/yefNsXQwEe”. Starbucks congratulated them by tweeting “@missanachelle @cmckeen87 yaaaaaay [sic] congrats on winning instant prizes! [stars emoji]”. Another example is when Starbucks tweeted on 25 December “@Paradise_Afshar looks perfect on your tree! [Christmas tree emoji]” to respond to a tweet by a Twitter user containing a picture of a Starbucks snowman ornament on a Christmas tree. Table 5 Reply Type List with Definitions Reply type Description Information The purpose of the reply is to provide the follower with useful

information he/she needs. Apology & Support

The purpose of the reply is to apologise for a mistake and/or offer support. Apology & support replies normally contain apologetic and supportive words, such as “sorry”, “apology”, “let us make it up to you”, and “we’re concerned”.

Positive Comment

The purpose of the reply is to reinforce positive feeling from other Twitter users. This type of reply normally contains a word, phrase, and/or symbol exhibiting positive feelings, such as joy, excitement, happiness, celebration, and congratulations.

Question & Enquiry

The purpose of the reply is to ask the follower a question or request a specific input.

Chitchat The purpose of the reply is to respond to and continue a conversation without any particular emotion or goal.

Gratitude The purpose of the reply is to offer gratitude to another Twitter user.

Discussion Theoretical Implications The first objective of the current research is to categorise Starbucks’ marketing communications activities on Twitter. A better understanding of how this iconic brand utilises a famous social media platform has some theoretical implications. In the past decade, theories of marketing communications has been developed, modified, and augmented substantially since the emergence of social media (Castronovo & Huang, 2012; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). All these new frameworks emphasise the importance of the role of marketing on social media platforms and the proactive actions that brands should take to reap the full benefits. The current research aims to provide guidelines for and details on the interactions between a successful brand and its customers. The findings confirm the framework by Mangold & Faulds (2009), who indicated that social media are hybrid channels combining traditional one-to-many communications and interactions that create word-of-mouth effects. Starbucks engaged customers by posting, or tweeting, original content to followers and constantly replying to users’ comments. From the analysis of Starbucks’ replies, this research also demonstrates the unpredictable and chaotic environment of social media (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Starbucks directly interacted with users who had had negative experiences with the

brand by offering them apologies and support. Starbucks also defended its position when the brand was linked with claims of using ingredients with genetically modified organisms (GMO). Conversely, Starbucks also reinforced the good feelings of customers who had enjoyed their experiences with the brand by responding positively. The findings also fit with the alternative marketing model (Castronovo & Huang, 2012). Starbucks used Twitter to magnify the effects of various marketing efforts, such as campaigns (Starbucks for Life and Vote for Joy) and sales promotions.

This research categorises and identifies the three content types: information-sharing, emotion-evoking, and action-inducing content. These three types signify the purpose of each individual tweet and show some resemblance to the three stages of the response process: the cognitive stage, the affective stage, and the behavioural stage (Belch & Belch, 2012; 157). It can be hypothesised that information-sharing content aims to generate attention by informing customers (cognitive stage). The goal of emotion-evoking content is to stimulate affection (affective stage). Finally, action-inducing content is intended to generate behavioural responses from followers (behavioural stage). The current research also sheds light on how a brand can interact with customers. The findings show the three most common types of replies: information, apology & support, and positive comment. The important theoretical implication of this research is the provision of the 3 content types, 19 content subtypes, and 6 types of replies. The descriptions of 19 subtypes and 6 types of replies along with examples can help researchers to determine the keywords for automated content analysis in the future. By studying both original content types and reply types, this research explains the strategies of the two most important marketing communications activities on social media: content creation and customer interaction (Castronovo & Huang, 2012). Figure 4 captures Starbucks’ marketing communications strategy on Twitter. Previous literature indicates that success in social media marketing comes from effective brand-customer interaction and engagement (Burton & Soboleva, 2011; Jansen et al., 2009). This framework helps clarify how a brand can interact with customers effectively on Twitter.

Figure 4 Framework for Starbucks’ Marketing Communications Strategy on Twitter

Practical Implications According to the findings, other brands’ social media marketers can learn from Starbucks’ marketing activities and adapt their content marketing strategies to be more comprehensive and effective. The second and third objectives of this research are to evaluate the effectiveness of each type of content and provide guidelines for social media marketing managers. The practical implications are as follows. Brands Should Use Various Types of Content The first implication for other brands is that brands should not rely on one particular type of content. Starbucks employed three types and 19 subtypes of original tweets and retweets to communicate to its customers. All three content types have their benefits. Brands that focus on only one type of content risk losing the benefits of the other two. Information-sharing content can help engage audiences (Cvijikj & Michahelles, 2013). Emotion-evoking content aims to create positive emotions in the minds of audiences. Starbucks most frequently used this content type, especially through imagery and storytelling subtypes, to communicate. The last content type, action-inducing content, attempts to persuade audiences to take action. This research evaluates the effectiveness of each type by measuring the numbers of retweets and favourites of each individual tweet. The ANOVA test shows that action-inducing content had the highest average number of retweets and favourites. From the six subtypes of action-inducing content, sales promotion was both the most common and the most effective subtype. Although followers may find it overwhelming if most tweets serve a commercial purpose, such as sales promotion, previous research has found that the top two reasons that consumers interact with companies online are to obtain discounts and make purchases (Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Therefore, it is advised that a company’s social media marketing strategy also include action-inducing content or a commercial aspect to mix with informative and emotional content. Brands Should Focus on Visual Content It is also worth noting that the modality also plays an important role. Visual content is more effective than textual content, especially for emotion-evoking and action-inducing content. The two-way ANOVA test found a significant interaction effect. The results show that when Starbucks used emotion-evoking and action-inducing content, visual content was, on average, more effective than simple textual content. This finding confirms previous findings that picture format is the most effective modality (Hansson, Wrangmo, & Søilen, 2013; Sabate, Berbegal-Mirabent, Cañabate, & Lebherz, 2014; Kwok & Yu, 2013).

Brands should focus on how they can effectively deliver high-quality and appealing visual content. Starbucks utilised many visual techniques by tweeting, for example, a simple beautiful photo of a coffee mug, a computer-augmented image, or a high-quality image of a store. Brands must ensure that a substantial portion of their content is visually appealing to customers. Brands Should Prepare for and Manage Customer Interactions

Starbucks continuously interacted with its followers on an hourly basis through replies. The reply tool can contribute a significant human touch to a brand. Scholars have also recommended conversational and interactive activities with customers on social media platforms (Park & Kim, 2014; Kwok & Yu, 2013). In the hectic social media environment, brands cannot easily and accurately predict what will occur in the future. The current research found that brands must interact with customers under many circumstances. Therefore, social media marketers should prepare for the typical customers’ comments. Starbucks replied with information when customers demanded answers. Apology & support replies aimed at customers who had had negative experiences with the brand. Starbucks also reinforced positive feelings with positive comment replies. This research found that these three general reply types were most commonly used by Starbucks. Brands should find appropriate approaches to incorporate these types of interactions into a social media marketing strategy. Conclusion In total, 565 original tweets and retweets by Starbucks’ official account (@Starbucks) and 1,392 replies from 2014 were analysed using content analysis. Overall, this research was an exploration of the social media marketing strategy of an iconic brand. Social media have transformed the frameworks of marketing communications. To further clarify the appropriate strategy, a brand can interact with customers on social media; this research delved into one of the world’s favourite brands, Starbucks, and investigated its social media marketing strategy using a content analysis research method. This research not only extends the understanding of marketing communications on a social media platform but also offers guidelines that can be beneficial to practitioners. To be successful on the social media platforms, this research suggests that brands should use various types of content, focus on visual content, and prepare for and manage customer interactions appropriately.

This study has some limitations. First, it focused on only one brand in a specific time period. Although it gave a detailed view of a successful brand, there may be issues with generalising the research findings. Future research should apply the framework of Starbucks’ Twitter strategy in other contexts. To compare and categorise content types, this research examined Starbucks’ activities on Twitter because the number of tweets was sufficiently high to analyse statistically. Hence, another limitation is that it did not study other social media platforms. Starbucks’ activities on other social media platforms, such as Facebook, YouTube, or Pinterest, can be studied in the future to expand on or confirm the findings in this study. References Bae, Y., & Lee, H. (2011). A sentiment analysis of audiences on twitter: who is the

positive or negative audience of popular twitterers?. In Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology (pp. 732-739). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Baird, C. H., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to Social CRM. IBM Global Business Services. Retrieved from http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/ibv-social-crm-whitepaper.html

Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011, February). Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 65-74). ACM.

Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2012). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective. 9th Edition. The McGraw−Hill.

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. Holt Rinehart and Winston. New York.

Burton, S., & Soboleva, A. (2011). Interactive or reactive? Marketing with Twitter. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(7), 491-499.

Castronovo, C., & Huang, L. (2012). Social media in an alternative marketing communication model. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 6(1), 117-134.

Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., Gummadi, K.P. (2010). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In: Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), Washington DC.

Cvijikj, I. P., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 843-861.

Cvijikj, I. P., Spiegler, E. D., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Evaluation framework for social media brand presence. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 1325-1349.

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.

Fortune (2014). Most Admired 2014. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/

Gembarski, R. (2012). How Starbucks Built an Engaging Brand on Social Media. Branding Personality. Retrieved from http://www.brandingpersonality.com/how-starbucks-built-an-engagin-brand-on-social-media/

Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265-273.

Hansson, L., Wrangmo, A., & Søilen, K. S. (2013). Optimal ways for companies to use Facebook as a marketing channel. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 11(2), 112-126.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., & Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 311-330.

Ho, C. W. (2014). Consumer behavior on Facebook: Does consumer participation bring positive consumer evaluation of the brand?. EuroMed Journal of Business, 9(3), 252-267.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Huang, Z., & Benyoucef, M. (2013). From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at design features. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,12(4), 246-259.

Humphreys, L., Gill, P., Krishnamurthy, B., & Newbury, E. (2013). Historicizing new media: A content analysis of Twitter. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 413-431.

Jang, Y. T., Chang, S. E., & Chen, P. A. (2013). Exploring social networking sites for facilitating multi-channel retailing. Multimedia Tools and Applications,74(1), 159-178.

Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169-2188.

Kang, J., Tang, L., & Fiore, A. M. (2014). Enhancing consumer–brand relationships on restaurant Facebook fan pages: Maximizing consumer benefits and increasing active participation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 145-155.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241-251.

Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 591-600). ACM.

Kwok, L., & Yu, B. (2013). Spreading Social Media Messages on Facebook An Analysis of Restaurant Business-to-Consumer Communications. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 84-94.

Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.

Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313-318.

Madden, A., Ruthven, I., & McMenemy, D. (2013). A classification scheme for content analyses of YouTube video comments. Journal of Documentation,69(5), 693-714.

Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-365.

Moth, D. (2013). How Starbucks uses Pinterest, Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Econsultancy. Retrieved from https://econsultancy.com/blog/62281-how-starbucks-uses-pinterest-facebook-twitter-and-google/

Noff, A. (2010). The Starbucks Formula for Social Media Success. The Next Web. Retrieved from http://thenextweb.com/2010/01/11/starbucks-formula-social-media-success/

Öztamur, D., & Karakadılar, İ. S. (2014). Exploring the Role of Social Media for SMEs: As a New Marketing Strategy Tool for the Firm Performance Perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 511-520.

Park, H., & Kim, Y. K. (2014). The role of social network websites in the consumer–brand relationship. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,21(4), 460-467.

Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 117-128.

Rothwell, J. D. (2010). In the company of others: An introduction to communication. Oxford University Press. USA.

Ruiz, J. (2011). 6 Reasons Starbucks Marketing Communications Strategy is so Effective. Strategic Marketing Solutions. Retrieved from http://www.strategicdriven.com/marketing-insights-blog/6-reasons-starbucks-marketing-communications-strategy-is-so-effective/

Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336-341.

Sabate, F., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Cañabate, A., & Lebherz, P. R. (2014). Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages. European Management Journal, 32(6), 1001-1011.

Saffer, A. J., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 213-215.

Segrave, J., Carson, C., & Merhout, J. W. (2011). Online Social Networks: An Online Brand Community Framework. In AMCIS.

Schultz, H. & Gordon, J. (2012). Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul. New York: Rodale Books; Reprint edition.

Tiago, M. T. P. M. B., & Veríssimo, J. M. C. (2014). Digital marketing and social media: Why bother?. Business Horizons, 57(6), 703-708.

Twitter.com (2015a). About Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved from https://about.twitter.com/company

Twitter.com (2015b). Twitter Help Center. Twitter. Retrieved from https://support.twitter.com/articles/142101-what-are-promoted-tweets

Wakefield, K. J. (2012). How Twitter Helps Starbucks Brew Up an Excellent Customer Experience. Contently. Retrieved from http://contently.com/strategist/2012/02/23/starbucks-twitter-strategy/

Whitla, P. (2009). Crowdsourcing and its application in marketing activities. Contemporary Management Research, 5(1).

Zhang, M., Jansen, B. J., & Chowdhury, A. (2011). Business engagement on Twitter: a path analysis. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 161-175.