76
AN EXAMINATION OF THE UK ONLINE CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING AND E-WORD-OF- MOUTH - IN THE WEB 2.0 CONTEXT By TIAGO FARIA # 08975251 Supervised by ADRIAN THOMAS Submitted to Manchester Metropolitan University Department of Food and Tourism Management as part of the requirement of the MA Strategic Consumer Marketing Word Count: 14.413 4 th September 2009

Master's Final Dissertation

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

MA Strategic Consumer Marketing - Final Dissertation on the topic "Internet Marketing

Citation preview

Page 1: Master's Final Dissertation

AN EXAMINATION OF THE UK ONLINE CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND

ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING AND E-WORD-OF-

MOUTH - IN THE WEB 2.0 CONTEXT

By

TIAGO FARIA # 08975251

Supervised by

ADRIAN THOMAS

Submitted to Manchester Metropolitan University Department of Food and Tourism

Management as part of the requirement of the MA Strategic Consumer Marketing

Word Count: 14.413

4th

September 2009

Page 2: Master's Final Dissertation

2

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in this dissertation has been submitted in support of an

application for another degree or qualification of this University or any other institution of

learning.

Page 3: Master's Final Dissertation

3

Abstract

The present paper advances the understanding of the UK internet users’ behavior when in

presence of Search Engine Marketing (SEM) and e-Word-of-Mouth (WOM) activities,

considering the present active role of the online consumer who uses Web 2.0 tools such as

Blogs and Social Media. An online questionnaire survey, reaching 108 respondents who

actively use the social network site “Facebook”, examined the respondents’ general and socio-

demographic characteristics, online behavior, and level of engagement with SEM and WOM

activities. It also identified the most popular and the most frequently used internet tools. The

survey findings were by and large consistent with similar studies conducted in the United

Kingdom and North America. The analysis of the collected data enabled to note relevant

relationships between variables, comparing answers through gender, age, and hours spent on

the internet. The findings will give internet marketers a degree of insight into their target

users, and will enable them to formulate strategies to cater for the identified segments

effectively. In addition, this study will provide a vital point of reference for future research

into internet marketing, which will certainly be useful considering the current trends and

growth of this particular marketing activity.

Page 4: Master's Final Dissertation

4

Acknowledgements

Collecting all the data for the present research would not be possible without all my

colleagues from Manchester Metropolitan University, who gave their time to complete the

survey, thus many thanks go to them.

I wish to thank my supervisor Adrian Thomas for the excellent support and guidance

throughout the project, and for all the positive thoughts transmitted all through the year.

Many thanks go to my family, especially my Parents for their unconditional support, devoted

attitude and faith in me.

Finally, a big blessing to all my friends for the support, inspiration, and partake when the ride

was pretty rough for all.

Page 5: Master's Final Dissertation

5

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 13

1. The Internet ................................................................................................................................... 13

1.1 The impact of the Internet on consumer Marketing ................................................................ 13

1.2 Web 2.0 ................................................................................................................................... 14

2. The UK Internet User .................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Online Consumers’ Perceptions Towards e-Marketing .......................................................... 15

2.2 Online Consumers’ Attitudes Towards e-Marketing .............................................................. 16

2.3 Attitudes towards search engines ............................................................................................ 16

2.4 Attitudes towards Emails ........................................................................................................ 18

2.5 Attitudes towards Social Media .............................................................................................. 18

2.6 The Web 2.0 Consumer ........................................................................................................... 19

3. Internet Marketing ......................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Search Engine Marketing ........................................................................................................ 21

3.1.1 Search Engine Optimization (SEO) ..................................................................................... 22

3.1.2 Pay-Per-Click Search Engine Marketing (PPC) ................................................................... 24

3.2 eWord-of-Mouth (eWOM) Marketing .................................................................................... 26

3.2.1 Viral Marketing .................................................................................................................... 26

3.2.2 Social Media Marketing ....................................................................................................... 28

Page 6: Master's Final Dissertation

6

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 30

1. Primary Research .......................................................................................................................... 30

1.1 Online Questionnaires ............................................................................................................. 31

1.2 Sampling ................................................................................................................................. 33

1.3 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 34

1.4 Challenges and Limitations ..................................................................................................... 34

2. Secondary Research ...................................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 36

1. UK Internet users’ general characteristics ..................................................................................... 36

1.1 Daily hours spent on the internet ............................................................................................. 36

1.2 Daily usage of the different internet tools ............................................................................... 37

2. UK Internet users’ demographic and social characteristics .......................................................... 39

3. Attitudes towards Search Engine Marketing ................................................................................. 40

3.1 Attitudes when performing a query on a Search Engine ......................................................... 40

3.2 Attitudes towards Sponsored Links ......................................................................................... 41

4. Attitudes towards company emails ............................................................................................... 46

5. Attitudes towards companies’ Social Network pages ................................................................... 49

6. Attitudes towards companies’ official blogs ................................................................................. 52

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 56

1. Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 56

2. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 59

Page 7: Master's Final Dissertation

7

3. Areas for further research .............................................................................................................. 60

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 61

CYBEROGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 70

APPENDIXES ...................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix A – Sample of how the survey looked like to the respondents ......................................... 71

Appendix B – Facebook page of the pilot survey ............................................................................. 72

Appendix C – Survey response summary ......................................................................................... 73

Appendix D – Survey Monkey upgrade - payment receipt ............................................................... 74

Appendix E – Gantt Chart ................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix F - Questionnaire Structure .............................................................................................. 76

Page 8: Master's Final Dissertation

8

Table of Figures, Tables and Graphs

Figures

Figure 1: Heat-map of user’s scan of Google search results pages (Aula and Rodden, 2009)

Figure 2: Organic and Paid areas in Google search engine (Google, 2008)

Tables

Table 1: Daily hours spent on the internet

Table 2: Gender of respondents

Table 3: Age of respondents

Table 4: Respondents’ search habits

Table 5: Search result elements in order of respondents’ preference

Table 6: Frequency of “clicks” on sponsored links

Table 7: Reasons for not clicking on sponsored links

Table 8: Factors for company email forwarding

Table 9: Interaction with company pages on Social Networks

Table 10: Type of interaction with company pages of Social Networks

Table 11: Interaction with official blogs of companies

Table 12: Type of interaction with company blogs

Graphs

Graph 1: Hours spent on the internet Vs gender

Graph 2: Hours spent on the internet Vs age

Graph 3: Internet tools frequency of usage

Graph 4: Education level of respondents

Page 9: Master's Final Dissertation

9

Graph 5: Frequency of clicks Vs gender

Graph 6: Frequency of clicks Vs age

Graph 7: Frequency of clicks Vs hours spent online

Graph 8: Reasons for not clicking links Vs age

Graph 9: Reasons for not clicking links Vs hours spent online

Graph 10: Factors for Email forwarding Vs age

Graph 11: Factors for Email forwarding Vs Hours spent online

Graph 12: Interaction with company pages Vs gender

Graph 13: Interaction with company pages Vs age

Graph 14: Interaction with company pages Vs hours spent online

Graph 15: Interaction with official blogs Vs gender

Graph 16: Interaction with official blogs Vs age

Graph 17: Interaction with official blogs Vs hours spent online

List of abbreviations

eWOM – e-Word-of-Mouth

PPC – Pay-per-Click

SEM – Search Engine Marketing

SEO – Search Engine Optimisation

WOM – Word-of-Mouth

Page 10: Master's Final Dissertation

10

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

The topic of this research, “An Examination of the UK Online Consumers’ Perceptions and

Attitudes towards Search Engine Marketing and e-Word-of-mouth – in the context of Web

2.0”, raises several thoughts. Firstly, an understanding of what Search Engine Marketing and

e-Word-of-Mouth are is essential for the contextualization of the project. Carrera (2009) and

Chaffey et al. (2009) define Search Engine Marketing as an activity that involves promoting

companies through online search engines, in order to meet marketing objectives by delivering

relevant content in the users’ search results, and motivating them to click on a specific link.

As for e-Word-of-Mouth Marketing, Park and Kim (2008) define it as the most measurable,

controllable and strategic way to build active and mutually beneficial consumer-to-consumer

and consumer-to-marketer communications around a certain product, service or company

(The Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association, 2009).

Secondly, identifying the main characteristics of the Web 2.0 is crucial to comprehend the

reason of this research: the understanding on how users engage and participate with search

engines and social media, focusing particularly on the marketing activities involved in those

web tools. Web 2.0 is a term introduced in 2004 by the American company O’Reilly Media,

in order to define a second generation of communities and services based on the Web, such as

blogs and Social Networks. This term does not mean a new version of the web, but a change

in the way it is used by customers and creators (O’Reilly, 2005). Consumers have now an

active role on the web, where their opinions and interests truly count, but the main power is

the users’ possibility for content creation (Microsoft, 2007; Fu et al., 2007; Cheung and Lee,

2009).

It is widely acknowledged in the marketing field that it is the knowledge of customers, the

prediction of their behaviour, and the meeting of their expectations that is the key to success.

Therefore, internet marketers need to recognize detailed characteristics of online users and

their internet habits in order to effectively identify and reach their target segments (Carrera,

2009; Chaffey et al., 2009). From the consumer marketing perspective, analysis of internet

users’ decision-making process should be based on users’ characteristics and their online

behaviour.

Page 11: Master's Final Dissertation

11

This project aims to critically analyse on how UK online consumers perceive and act when in

presence of Search Engine Marketing (SEM) and e-Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) activities, and

the main objectives are:

• To contextualize the impact of internet on contemporary marketing

• To investigate the current context of the Web 2.0 consumer, and its active role on the web

• To analyse the contemporary internet users’ behaviour towards marketing

• To explore key concepts in Internet Marketing, focusing specifically on Search Engine

Marketing (SEM) and e-Word-of-mouth (eWOM)

• To evaluate the way UK online consumers perceive SEM and eWOM activities, and

assess their attitudes towards it

• To make recommendations for future research or strategies in the internet marketing

context

During the secondary research process, several key research questions were raised, which

would be the basis of the questionnaire elaboration:

• How far are trust issues a concern when analysing internet marketing activities

effectiveness?

• How do users perform searches in search engine pages, and what do they consider more

important in a search result?

• Why do internet users prefer massively the organic results in a search engine page, rather

than sponsored links?

• What motivates internet users to forward marketing emails to other users?

• How far are users engaging with company blogs and social network pages?

• How do users mostly interact with those blogs and social network pages?

This paper is organised as following: firstly, an exploration of the previous research and

documented evidence takes place in the literature review (chapter 2). Secondly, an

explanation on how the research was carried out, including research design, sampling, data

collection methods, method of analysis and limitations (chapter 3). Moreover, the answer to

the research questions comes about on chapter 4, with a thorough analysis of the survey

results. Finally, the conclusion of the research is consummated on chapter 5, where research

findings are analysed through the point of view of their impact on further academic or

Page 12: Master's Final Dissertation

12

professional research, including practical recommendations, limitations of the findings and

areas for further research.

Page 13: Master's Final Dissertation

13

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

1. The Internet

1.1 The impact of the Internet on consumer Marketing

Examining the internet in the perspective of consumer marketing is crucial to understand and

contextualize this project. Here arises a straightforward question: What are the major

implications of the Internet on consumer marketing?

Chaffey et al. (2009) claim that the internet has transformed marketing since the first website

was created in the early 90’s (http://info.cern.ch/) (CERN, 2008), and nowadays, with over

one billion people using the internet regularly, the way companies market their products and

services and the way consumers behave has changed dramatically. Peterson et al. (1999)

reinforce this idea, arguing that the World Wide Web possessed the most potential for

marketing. Success in business already depends on technological knowledge, and this

competitive edge has to be achieved in a continuous process.

There are several authors that believe that the Internet had a significant impact in all of the

Marketing mix 4 P’s: in the Product Mix, the digital brought new products and services (e.g.

software) and added new features to existing ones (e.g. music on the internet) (Carrera, 2009).

Avlonitis and Karayanni (2000) include the fact that the internet facilitated the discovery of

consumer needs, customization and product testing; In the Price Mix, Carrera (2009) states

that there was a significant reduction of costs, which originated companies selling their

products or services at a low price, using only their web sites (e.g. low-cost airlines).

However, the customization of products also allows companies to charge premium price,

since they comply better with buyer’s tastes (Chaffey et al., 2009); As for the Place, services

like home-banking facilitated the interaction and significantly reduced the costs comparing to

other distribution channels. Also, the ability to retain information about the clients is much

more efficient than traditional channels, for these give information about themselves

unconsciously; Considering the Promotion, in the digital context the advertising adapts

instantly to the needs of the consumers, since it collects information about these (e.g. IP

address detection and buyer profile suggestions) (Carrera, 2009). Moreover, the promotion of

Page 14: Master's Final Dissertation

14

a product/service is nowadays also made by a C2C basis, which is difficult to control but has

ways to manage (Mangold and Fauls, 2009), as will be analysed further in this project.

All these factors have changed the way consumers interact with companies, bringing a much

wider choice from different suppliers, and also the means to select and purchase items turned

out to be much easier and quicker. But how far customers are engaged and confident of this

new way of marketing is one of the issues to be explored in this project.

1.2 Web 2.0

A report by Microsoft (2007) goes even further, stating that web 2.0 is transforming the

internet into a powerful and influential social medium, changing the way society thinks and

behaves. The report affirms that especially the social networking phenomenon is gathering

people online in communities, acting as a channel for personal expression. This is consistent

with Fu et al. (2007) view, where it is said that the use of collaborative technologies results in

an extraordinarily fast growing virtual community, where people communicate and share

information. These authors also agree with the fact that the World Wide Web is shifting to a

social web, where users have an active role in every aspects of business – here remains the

main focus of this research paper.

Consumers left the passive role behind and embraced the role of an active agent, who

expresses himself through new tools, such as blogs, wikis or social networks (Carrera, 2009).

Similarly, Cheung and Lee (2009) argue that the web has shifted from being mere information

medium into a platform of content creation and sharing. Chaffey et al. (2009) add to these

arguments that with the widespread adoption of high-speed broadband world-wide, rich media

experiences are increasingly used to engage consumers with each other and with companies –

more people will discuss online and interact with the brand campaigns, in a sort of “viral

effect” that will be explored in this research. These authors complement Carrera’s definition,

by adding that Web 2.0 is a collection of web services that promote interaction and user

generated content through virtual community or social network participation, mashups,

content ratings, widgets and tagging. The viral effect referred here is shared by Thackeray et

al. (2008), who argue that web 2.0 enhances the power of viral marketing by increasing the

speed of experience sharing in progressively larger audiences. Nonetheless, what remains to

Page 15: Master's Final Dissertation

15

be answered is how far are users willing to engage with internet marketing campaigns, and

what motivates them to share the latter.

2. The UK Internet User

2.1 Online Consumers’ Perceptions Towards e-Marketing

Online consumers lack the physical comfort of the offline stores and face-to-face

communication. This fact is associated with the stories of fraud and security problems on the

internet commerce (Chaffey et al., 2009). Therefore, online consumers usually look for

evidence of trust when they are on a website, which include brand familiarity, site appearance,

quality of the content, official recognition and recommendations by other users. Ha (2004)

completes this argument, by explaining that as consumers have become more internet savvy,

they insist on only interacting with companies they trust. Other trust factors can be added

such as privacy (risk of providing personal information), security (payment risks), navigation

(quick and fulfilling access to information) and order fulfilment (confirmation of orders to

give evidence to consumers in high-involvement services) (Bart et al., 2005; Ha, 2004).

Nonetheless, consumers do not purchase online only in company websites: other online

sources are equally important, or even more important to the purchase choice. Following a

research by AOL UK (2006), 77% of the respondents agree that if they saw a negative review

on the internet about a product, it would make them reconsider their purchase, and 42%

assumed they have switched to a different brand. The most important sources of online

information were firstly the search engines, followed by websites of famous retailers, price

comparison websites, reviews/opinions on the internet written by experts, and customer

opinions/reviews on websites. An important factor to add to these findings is that these online

sources of information reduce the time spent in evaluating product quality before purchase - a

common aspect in an offline context (Huang et al., 2009). Therefore, what is important to

retain here is that trust factors have an important role in consumers perceptions towards online

marketing, and that consumers have access to different sources of information about the

products they intend or are motivated to buy. How far do they think about these issues when

in presence of internet marketing campaigns, and how the Web 2.0 era has shortened these

concerns?

Page 16: Master's Final Dissertation

16

2.2 Online Consumers’ Attitudes Towards e-Marketing

Breitenbach and Van Doren (1998) identified five different types of internet users, which are

agreed by other academics to remain valid nowadays (Chaffey et al., 2009):

• Directed information seekers: Those who seek for product, services or leisure information,

that usually do not buy online

• Undirected information seekers: Usually referred as “surfers”, these users like to browse

and constantly change web sites through links, looking for interesting or unexpected

things – these are more likely to click on banner ads

• Directed buyers: These users are usually online to buy something specific. Websites that

compare products play an important role here

• Bargain hunters: Those who want to find offers and promotions, in order to justify their

investment in online shopping

• Entertainment seekers – These users seek for pure online entertainment in contests such as

quizzes, puzzles or multi-player games, or just to interact with animated features in a web

site

More recently, a report from EConsultancy (2004) identified a similar classification of online

consumer behaviour, but stating that it does not imply that behaviours are applied to different

people – depending on the product or occasion, individuals may behave differently. The

report identified the “Tracker” (who knows what he is looking for), the “Hunter” (who

searches, compares, and seeks for help), and the “Explorer” (who can have a shopping

objective or just to satisfy its curiosity). But what remains to be explored in depth, is the type

of consumer that doesn’t have a buying intention, but that is exposed to an internet marketing

action (such as Search Engine Marketing or a Viral Marketing campaign), resulting or not in

an unexpected conversion.

2.3 Attitudes towards search engines

To perform product or service searches, users mostly utilize search engines. These have

emerged as powerful consumer tools that retrieve relevant information about products or

Page 17: Master's Final Dissertation

17

services. Users can now perform quick online searches by simply issuing queries made up of

search terms (Kumar and Lang, 2007). Nevertheless, it is important to notice that not all users

are searching for specific products; users mainly look for information on search engines. In

fact, as Smith (2009) states, Google’s (world’s largest search engine) primary objective is to

provide relevant information about the words queried. Moreover, information websites always

rank higher than profit-driven sites, remaining here an important challenge for Search Engine

Marketing.

To better understand consumer search engine behaviour, Search marketing company iProspect

(2006) conducted a research on how consumers use search engines. The key findings were

that 62% of search engine users only look at the first page of search results. Aula and Rodden

(2009) complete this finding, by showing that users evaluate search results very fast and

mostly make unconscious decisions, focusing mainly on the first two results of a search

(Figure 1). iProspect also states that when users do not find what they are looking for, 41%

change search term or search engine, and 82% refine their search with complementary words.

As for prestige, it was found that 36% consider that the companies listed at the top of the

search are the best brands in the market. The final finding was that comparing to the

sponsored area, between 60% to 80% click on the natural (or organic) listings of a search

page. What remains to be explored is why users massively prefer organic links, and the

reasons behind not clicking on the sponsored links.

Figure 1: Heat-map of user’s scan of Google search results pages

Source: Aula and Rodden (2009)

Page 18: Master's Final Dissertation

18

2.4 Attitudes towards Emails

Following a study by Habeas (2008), regardless of email and internet threat concerns,

consumers are still and will be in the future dependant on email, either for their relationships

with businesses or with each other via web 2.0 applications. The study revealed that 69% of

the users expressed concern about email fraud scams, and that many of them still do not know

how to distinguish between potentially dangerous and trustable emails. It also revealed that

the majority prefer companies that offer choice of opt-in, content and frequency of emails.

Mintel (2008) added that users trust the emails that come from familiar companies who

deliver relevant information with minimum of effort. In a seminar by dotMailer (2009), it was

stated that despite the current context of the web 2.0 era where consumers have all the power,

email is the gateway to consumers’ digital lives – every single user has an email account (or

more), remaining here a great tool for spreading word-of-mouth, as will be analysed further.

However, what motivates users to forward marketing emails is another key point in this

research. Lin et al. (2006) argue that users might have stronger intention to forward a certain

email if it gives them positive emotions, gives relevant information, are greater in length, or

include interesting multimedia. On the other side, Phelps et al. (2004) distinguished between

Infrequent Senders and Viral Mavens: the first ones select rigorously which emails are

relevant and - if decide to forward - to whom they send; while Viral Mavens are frequent

senders who feel excited, helpful, or satisfied when they forward emails to people who they

think will like the message. In another perspective, a report by Mintel (2008) shows that

nearly half of the respondents open emails with special offers if they come from someone they

know, and are mostly in the age of 25-44 years.

2.5 Attitudes towards Social Media

The appearance of web-based social media has facilitated the communication between one

person and hundreds or even thousands of others, for the spreading of products or companies.

This consumer-to-consumer perspective has gained tremendous power among the business

world, but also a new opportunity for companies to communicate closely to their consumers

was created (Sinha, 2008). Nevertheless, due to its uncontrollable nature, the challenge for

companies lies on the ability to shape consumers’ discussions in order to align them with the

Page 19: Master's Final Dissertation

19

company’s goals (Mangold and Faulds, 2009). These authors distinguished five different

social media platforms: Communication (blogs, micro-blogs, and social networks – which

will be focused in this project), Collaboration (Wikis, Social Bookmarking, and Opinion

Sites), Multimedia (Photo, Video, and Audio Sharing Sites), Opinion Sites (Product Review

sites, and Question & Answers sites), and Entertainment (Virtual communities and Games).

Research by iProspect (2007) found that several social media sites are visited by a quarter of

the internet users; very few perform searches in those sites for companies or brands; that 34%

of the users of these sites have been influenced to purchase a product through them; the

majority still do not have the habit to add user generated content; and that the younger the

user, the more apt is to visit and engage proactively with social media sites. Ramos (2009)

improved these findings in a study by Forrester Research, by showing how consumers use

social media to make buying decisions: it was found that the vast majority (69%) are

“Spectators” that read and watch user-generated content; 37% are “Critics” that contribute

with comments; and 29% are “Collectors” that use social technology to collect information.

The main finding of this study was that it is not the social media application that influences

their buying behaviour; it is their online peers’ opinions. Therefore the main issues that

remain to be researched in this project are how users engage and recommend company blogs,

micro-blog pages and social network pages.

2.6 The Web 2.0 Consumer

Carrera (2009) argues that if consumers are studied in the same way as before, it is a fatal

mistake – exploring only their needs is not enough anymore. The Web 2.0 consumer is now

the “Prosumer”, i.e. a mixture of producer and consumer; someone who has a direct

connection with the R&D department of the company. In a video recording, Prometeus

(2007), the current power of the professional consumer is underlined, predicting that in the

future the virtual worlds will dictate the new reality - experiences. Chaffey et al. (2009)

support this analysis, by adding that the rise of the web 2.0 consumers came not only by the

outbreak of new internet tools, but also because of the human wish to socialize and share

experiences instantly.

Page 20: Master's Final Dissertation

20

Consumers are nowadays living a digital lifestyle, differentiating from the past consumer

behaviour through their active interest, intelligence; they are technology savvy, and with lack

of time. They want to instantly access and participate in all the information anytime and

anywhere, evolving from passive consumers to autonomic, active and empowered consumers.

The internet cannot be seen as “the virtual world” anymore, since people are experiencing

emotions in reality, and sharing them online – transforming the internet into a “mirror” of

reality (Microsoft, 2007). This report focuses on Social Networking experiences, and claims

that over 23% of European internet users visit a social networking web site at least once a

month, predicting exponential growth in this area. More importantly for marketing purposes,

it also states that social networkers trust their communities’ opinions and information sharing,

many of them recommend comment and share advertisements, and that most of them engage

with companies personal pages and are opened to include sponsored content on their own

pages (Microsoft, 2007).

Web 2.0 consumers retain satisfaction in the usage of virtual communities by achieving

purposive value and self discovery, and that satisfaction exerts a strong impact on the

intention to continuously use the communities and recommend it to others. This satisfaction is

normally achieved through online discussion forums that facilitate information exchange and

experience sharing between users (Cheung and Lee, 2009).

Hence, it is of most interest for this paper to analyse how far consumers are engaging with

companies in social networks, blogs and micro-blogs; i.e. sharing companies’ content with

other users or actively participating with user generated content in company pages.

3. Internet Marketing

Carrera (2009) argues that in the end of the 90s there was a belief that web sites would be

financially supported by advertising, in the same way it was used by the offline channels. The

same tactics were used for the online, with static banners without interactivity which did not

work at all (advertising income was not enough to support the new business models), leading

to the dot-com bubble burst in 2001. But this idea is not shared with Razi et al. (2004), who

Page 21: Master's Final Dissertation

21

state that the failure of the DotCom was due to a lack of traditional business and marketing

knowledge, and also to the lack of knowledge of online consumer behaviour and perceptions.

This difficulty originated a higher level of demand, followed up by unusual imagination levels

(Google, 2009).

This imagination led, therefore, to new paths of promotion through the internet: interactive

banner advertising, web site sponsorships, Email Marketing, Search Engines Marketing and

Social Media. These new promotion tools originated several advantages for the companies:

better cost-benefit balance; no limits to market reach; Instantaneous communication; and real

time statistics (Jensen, 2008). Nevertheless, there are still certain disadvantages that have to

be considered: difficulty to attract customers due to increase of online advertising; and there is

still certain unwillingness towards the digital world (Razi et al., 2004). But this author did

not mention an important factor, introduced by Chaffey et al. (2009), who claim that for

internet marketing to be successful, it is still necessary to integrate its techniques with

traditional media support, and that the investment in Internet Marketing should be determined

by the achievement of marketing objectives.

3.1 Search Engine Marketing

Carrera (2009) states that until the generalization of Google, the search for information about

companies, products and people had not evolved considerably, i.e. the main source of

information was the traditional telephone lists or advertisements. Nowadays, the strength of

this search engine is so obvious that the term “google it” has replaced the term “search”. The

verb “Google” has also been officially listed in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2006 (Foley,

2006).

While Carrera (2009) states that 90% of the internet users use search engines to find

information on the web, research by AOL UK (2006) shows that 71% of the people use online

search engines when considering different information sources to chose a product. Therefore,

ignoring the positioning of a company and its products in search engines can cost many

contacts and possible sells. According to SEO Consultants (2009), in May 2009 these were

the top 4 search engines, dominating together with a 99% share of market:

Page 22: Master's Final Dissertation

22

1. Google – 73,66%

2. Yahoo – 15,55%

3. Bing (MSN) – 5,64%

4. Ask – 3,81%

These search engines have an interesting way of searching for web pages, generally within

0,07 seconds per search. They use spiders (also called robots or webcrawlers), which can be

identified as automatic explorers, that search the entire web for occurrences of a specific

subject in a web page. These spiders will then feed the database of the search engine with the

keywords found in that web site, referencing its location and frequency of usage. Finally, the

user types the keywords in the search box of the search engine, and the latter searches in its

database to find corresponding links (Sen, 2005; Carrera, 2009).

Search Engine Marketing involves promoting companies through online search engines, in

order to meet marketing objectives by delivering relevant content in the users’ search results

and motivating them to click on a specific link. There are two different types of Search

Engine Marketing, that should be integrated in marketing activities: Search Engine

Optimization (achieving the highest position/ranking in the natural or organic listings of a

search page, within a combination of specific keywords) and Pay-Per-Click Search Marketing

(placing text ads with a link to a company web page that will be displayed in a specific area of

a search page – usually “sponsored links” – when users type particular keywords) (Carrera,

2009; Chaffey et al., 2009; Google, 2009; Klaassen, 2009).

3.1.1 Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

Carrera (2009) argues that it is said that the secret to be on the top ranking of search engines

exists, but it is religiously hidden. The algorithm that originates the order of the web sites

after a search is not known, and therefore it is only possible to discuss the techniques that help

position a web site in the top rankings. Nevertheless, Chaffey et al. (2009) states that there is

not only one algorithm – for instance, Google claims to use more than 200 factors within its

search ranking algorithms, including positive and negative factors.

The main techniques used to improve the rankings include the optimization of:

Page 23: Master's Final Dissertation

23

• The web page title - has to be objective, relevant and include the most important

keywords (Carrera, 2009; Google, 2008). But that is not the only variable: Chaffey et al.

(2009) add that since it is the call-to-action hyperlink that is shown on the search engines

page results, it is essential to be strong enough to have more clicks

• the Meta Tags - portions of text inserted in the HTML code of the page, invisible for

page viewers but visible to search engine spiders – useful for controlling in some degree

how the web page is described by a search engine (Carrera, 2009). Here again, Meta Tags

also denote the information that will be displayed in the search engine results page, after

the hyperlink (Chaffey et al., 2009; Google, 2008)

• URL structure – creating descriptive categories and filenames to the website documents

will organize better the site and facilitate spiders’ crawling; moreover it creates a user-

friendly URL for other people who intend to link to the site (Google, 2008).

• Structure of the site - Carrera (2009) states that because spiders are automatic web

navigators, they need to easily get into a website and navigate through it. Therefore, a

clean, simple, well linked and well structured web site will have more chances to be better

ranked, and also help visitors find quickly the intended content (Google, 2008).

• Site linking - calculated by the number and quality of links associated to the web site

(Carrera, 2009). Boosting external links is vital for optimum page ranking and it is

considered as the most important factor of success in search engines. But Chaffey et al.

(2009) consider that the internal linking structure is also important, by linking internal

links to pages that are intended to be well ranked.

• Keyword analysis – there are two alternatives: including many keywords to get more

visits but less conversions, or less keywords to get better results (Carrera, 2009). Chaffey

et al. (2009) use the term “keyphrase” rather than keyword, since search engines attribute

more relevance when there is a phrase combination between keywords typed by users and

a web site phrase.

• Use of Keywords in the content - keywords should be consistently repeated in the

content of a webpage, without the use of synonyms (Carrera, 2009). Nevertheless,

Chaffey et al. (2009) state that the keywords (or “keyphrases”) should not be repeated too

many times, as it might be considered as “search engine spamming”.

There are several advantages and disadvantages connected with the usage of SEO. The main

advantages are that it is a highly targeted marketing approach, it is potentially low cost, and

Page 24: Master's Final Dissertation

24

very dynamic (Chaffey et al., 2009; EConsultancy, 2009). Carrera (2009) adds to these

advantages the fact that it is possible to have real time statistics – it is possible to know the

reaction of the market every minute, enabling readjustments if results do not turn up.

Nevertheless, the SEO practice is not that straightforward: the results are many times

unpredictable, may take time to be implemented, and the complexity of the factors of page

rank (Chaffey et al., 2009). What remains to be researched in this paper is how online users

perform searches: whether they type one, two or more keywords on the search engines or

whether if they type phrases or random words; and what do they consider more important in

the results page (the title, the description or the repetition of typed keywords in bold).

3.1.2 Pay-Per-Click Search Engine Marketing (PPC)

Buying keywords in search engines completely revolutionized the online advertising, since

these generalized the concept of Cost-Per-Click – the client of this type of advertising only

pays when a visitor clicks on the specific advertisement (Carrera, 2009). Comparing to SEO,

PPC gives much more control on the appearance in search pages, due to the amount bid and

the relevance of the text advertisement (Chaffey et al., 2009). Instead of spending time

manipulating site codes and contents, marketers can therefore pay for positioning in search

results (Sen, 2005).

Carrera (2009) states that nowadays, the main search engines have advertising schemes

associated to searches (Google Adwords, Yahoo! Search Marketing, and Microsoft adCenter).

When a visitor writes in the search box one or more keywords, the search page shows not

only the organic search results, but also a group of sponsored links acquired by companies.

The advertisements are produced by the advertisers, with a maximum of 25 characters in the

ad title and 35 for the text lines and web address. As shown in Figure 2, these advertisements

are placed in the sponsored results area of searches – the paid search (EConsultancy, 2008).

However, several authors point out that many times consumers do not notice the difference

between sponsored and organic links, clicking in relevant links for their query but with biased

content (Sullivan, 2007; Sen, 2005; O’Connor, 2009).

Page 25: Master's Final Dissertation

25

Figure 2: Organic and Paid areas in Google search engine

Source: Google (2008)

In early PPC programs, the ranking of sponsored listings was based on the highest offer of

cost-per-click for a specific keyword. But nowadays, this is not necessarily the case: search

engines also pay attention to relative click-through rates of the ads – ads with fewer clicks

will drop down the listing (Sullivan, 2007). This analysis is part of the Quality Score, a

concept shared by the major search engines, which also analyses the match between the

keyword and the occurrence of it in the text, the historical click-through rate, the engagement

of the searcher when clicking on the ad, and also the loading speed and relevance of the web

page associated (Chaffey et al., 2009; Google, 2009).

The main advantages of this advertisement system are that it directs the ads only to the target

that searched for those specific keywords, and the client only pays when users clicks on the

ad. It also allows clients to change the contents in order to improve results, plan the maximum

amount of campaign investment and cost-per-click, and control and refine campaigns on a

daily basis through search engine control panels (such as Google Analytics). The ad stays

online until the initial budget reaches the end (Google, 2009). Chaffey et al. (2009) include

the fact that PPC is very accountable, results are predictable, simpler to use than SEO, quicker

to get posted in search pages and has a branding effect (even there is no click, users see the

ads). But it has a negative side as well: it is getting highly competitive and expensive costs-

Page 26: Master's Final Dissertation

26

per-click, controlling campaigns can be time consuming, and many people still do not trust

advertisements (EConsultancy, 2008).

Therefore, the challenge of this paper is to investigate on how UK internet users distinguish

between organic search and paid search results, and how often do they click on paid results.

3.2 eWord-of-Mouth (eWOM) Marketing

The Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association (2009) defines word-of-mouth (WOM)

marketing as the act of “giving people a reason to talk about your products and services, and

making it easier for that conversation to take place. It is the art and science of building active,

mutually beneficial consumer-to-consumer and consumer-to-marketer communications”. It is

not about creating WOM among consumers, it is about finding the best way to take the best

out of it in order to meet marketing objectives. The best way to promote WOM is to

encourage and facilitate it, by educating people about products/services, identifying social

influencers, providing the best tools to facilitate communication, finding the right context and

being a good listener (Chaffey et al., 2009).

Different from traditional WOM, eWOM is measurable, controllable and more strategic (Park

and Kim, 2008). Understanding how word-of-mouth can be generated and influenced is

essential, since recommendations from other online users are trusted and capable of

influencing consumers’ product/service choice (Chaffey et al., 2009). Carrera (2009) goes

even further by arguing that the internet allowed word-of-mouth communication to overcome

geographical barriers, accelerate the speed of transmission of those messages, and guarantee

the integrity of the original message.

3.2.1 Viral Marketing

Tim Draper’s idea to help launch Hotmail in 1996 was based a pattern of rapid consumer

adoption by appending in every hotmail users’ outbound emails the message “Get your free

email at Hotmail”. Every user became a salesperson from Hotmail, marking the birth of Viral

Marketing (Jurvetson and Draper, 1997) through unintentional dissemination (Bruyn and

Page 27: Master's Final Dissertation

27

Lilien, 2008). Never before have people been as immune to advertising as they are nowadays,

as well as interconnected between each other through social networks and instant messaging

tools. Therefore, in the latter remains the greatest opportunity for companies to improve their

brand presence (Carrera, 2009). Kirby and Mardsen (2005) agree and complete this idea,

arguing that people no longer use the internet only for shopping or research – new

technologies have turned the interest into the entertaining side of the web.

Online Viral Marketing is a form of eWOM marketing that uses discussions about brands or

campaigns and promotes transmission through pass-along email or discussion in a social

network. It harnesses the network effect of the internet, reaching quickly a large number of

users in the same way as a virus (Chaffey et al., 2009). Kirby and Mardsen (2005)

consummate this thought by stating that this type of marketing focuses on personal experience

of brands, trusting on the power of consumers to promote the brand unconsciously – who

deliver additional user-oriented information and recommendation (positive or negative

feedback) (Park and Lee, 2008).

Viral Marketing is based on motivating consumers to pass a certain message to others, in

order to create a significant increase in visibility and influence of a brand. The success of a

Viral Marketing campaign does not depend on the budget; it is more likely to depend on

creativity and assertive targeting. Carrera (2009) argues that the critical success factors of

these campaigns are based on creating a proper and facilitated consumer-consumer

environment, exploring motivations, using existing communities and using humour as a

sharing motivator. Nevertheless, the challenge remains on erasing the spam and virus issues

that have cluttered the electronic communications (Bruyn and Lilien, 2008).

Carrera (2009) also points that the right people to be targeted are those who have the social

role of distributors of information (hubs) in their social network, and who have an

acknowledged power of influencing others. Chaffey et al. (2009) complete this theory by

stating that effective hubs can reach large audiences in a cost-effective way, and act as highly

influential agents by rating the opinions of others. That is the reason why effective research

on online social networks is an important aspect of this type of marketing. However

companies need to be careful, since in the same way positive feedback can be quickly spread,

negative feelings can also have a destructive power over companies. How far do UK users

Page 28: Master's Final Dissertation

28

forward viral emails and how far do they give positive/negative recommendations in social

networks, is what remains to be analysed in this paper.

3.2.2 Social Media Marketing

Bhargava (2006) has created the term “Social Media Optimization” in order to define the

changes made to optimize a website so that it is easily linked to, highly visible on social

media searches, and more frequently included in relevant communication platforms. That can

be done by increasing the linkability of the site through blogs and micro-blogs, facilitating

tagging and bookmarking, rewarding inbound links by listing them back, submitting content

to relevant sites to increase visibility and links, and encouraging co-creation mashups. But

optimizing a website is just a part of the social media influence: Mangold and Faulds (2009)

state that shaping consumers’ discussions is vital, and that it should be achieved through the

creation of own social network platforms, engaging customers through blogs, providing

honest information about the company, being original and outrageous, personalizing the

communication, designing products/services that leverage word-of-mouth, and utilizing the

power of stories. Microsoft (2007) added to these the ability to identify influential social

network members, and to behave like the best social networkers, by being continuously

creative, honest, and conscious of the community inserted. However, as Vasishtha (2009)

points out, if companies are too casual in web 2.0 environments, it can diminish them in the

eyes of users.

Focusing on the most influential applications of communication – starting with Social

Networks - Boyd and Ellison (2007) define them as “web-based services that allow

individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a

list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of

connections and those made by others within the system” (p. 211). But this definition lacks an

important point of social networks: the interactive capability to post comments or other

content: Carrera (2009) includes it, by stating that Social Networks are communities of people

who share the same interests and activities, or that are interested in exploring those of other

people, through inserting text, image and video contents on social network websites. These

websites are based on personal profiles with all the multimedia contents, and in commentaries

and contributions of other members of the social network. Even so, both these authors

Page 29: Master's Final Dissertation

29

bypassed an important factor in social networking: the fundamental growth of these services

is due to its simplicity and ease of use, but fundamentally due to its incredibly addictive

nature (Microsoft, 2007).

Considering the blogging application, it is in the origin of an accelerated democratization of

content distribution. Blogs can bring several advantages to businesses: it is simple and

inexpensive to create; it is a good way to share experiences in an intimate way, promoting

therefore the word-of-mouth; it helps companies to increase credibility by sharing all the

activities the company is involved in; and it helps to interact with the market, by encouraging

experiences’ sharing and users commentaries (Carrera, 2009). Vasishtha (2009) complements

this theory, stating that blog readers can exchange ideas with companies, but also with other

bloggers, giving them a sense of community and of relationship building. This form of

marketing can also be extremely effective in generating interest, driving call-to-action,

creating brand friendliness, and showing that the company has expertise in a certain subject

(Kirby and Mardsen, 2005).

Finally, the micro-blogging is a phenomenon that is increasingly growing among individual

users. The obvious and most remarkable example – Twitter – is also expanding into the

business area. The main function of this site is to send and read other users’ updates – Tweets

– which are short based posts of what they are doing at the moment. It represents nowadays a

marketing channel and as a source of what customers and non-customers are saying about the

company (Ginovsky, 2009). Jansen et al. (2009) complete this idea arguing that micro-

blogging can be a powerful tool to forward potential customers to websites or blogs, and also

to receive positive brand exposure via followers who micro-blog about the company. If there

are negative postings, companies can immediately intervene and get feedback through

monitoring tools. Twitter can aggregate several applications other than the users’ updates:

useful for sharing links, works as powerful news feed, and as a valuable opinion site (Wilson,

2008). Regarding to the current project, what is interesting to research here is how are users of

social networks, blogs and micro-blogs engaging with companies through these applications.

Page 30: Master's Final Dissertation

30

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY

This project was aimed to be completed until September 4th

2009, and it was expected to be

elaborated in due time (3 months), even though the researcher opted to change the research

topic in a rather advanced stage of the course. The research methodology was planned

considering the context of the research topic, the type of information required, and the time

and resources available for completion. This research design guided the investigator in terms

of following the appropriate methods of data collection, in order to answer the proposed title

of research.

Considering the limitations of the project, one can argue that the secondary data research was

limited to the literature available in the MMU library resources (academic journals and

books), and that the research for primary data was limited by the sample number, due to

restrictions of time to complete the project and resources to support it.

Another important issue was the fact that no research project can be conducted without

running into ethical concerns (Burns, 2000). Regarding to this project, several ethical issues

should be taken into account: Informed Consent (clear exposure of the nature and purpose of

the research to respondents); Privacy and confidentiality (clear mutual understanding of the

use that will be made of the data collected); Right to Discontinue (respondents must be free to

refuse to respond to a questionnaire or parts of it; and Publication of findings (the researcher

has the obligation to open with the results of findings, allowing colleagues to vet the research

and its implications).

1. Primary Research

The primary data was collected through the quantitative research method of survey, conducted

by online questionnaires sent to internet users in the UK, during the months of June and July

2009 (see Appendix A). Potential respondents were given an identical array of closed

questions in a set order about their internet habits and their perceptions/attitudes towards the

various methods of internet marketing. These questions were elaborated bearing in mind

certain aspects that were not found in the literature available; the research questions that were

arisen in the introduction; and the relevancy to the research topic.

Page 31: Master's Final Dissertation

31

The quantitative method presented several challenges to the researcher that had to be taken

into account: it requires imagination, patience and discipline in the planning stage; the data

collection may present technical problems, requiring persistency and continuous attention;

and the tasks of data analysis and critique are determined by the way the project was planned

(Davies, 2007).

Quantitative method was chosen over the qualitative method since the purpose of the project

was to assess the way consumers perceive and act towards internet marketing, and not

understand why they do it. Qualitative method requires rich textual data and in-depth

understanding of the issues regarding the research (Polonsky and Waller, 2005), which was

not the objective of the researcher.

Finally, the researcher opted for the usage of online questionnaires, rather than structured

interviews, due the time and resources available, and also because of its relevancy for the

specific topic chosen (internet). Other advantages of this type of data collection are the

absence of interviewer influence to the answers of respondents, and its convenience to

interviewees, who can respond the questions when they want and at their own pace. On the

other side, the main disadvantages over the structured interviews are the fact that the

interviewees have no help in questions they have difficulty to understand, and they get tired

very easily, which makes the task of the researcher harder – cannot ask too many questions,

which limits the data collection (Bryman and Bell, 2007).

1.1 Online Questionnaires

As for the use of internet to deliver questionnaires and receive replies, it represents several

advantages to the researcher, especially with the time limits imposed by the change of route. It

is easy to structure the questionnaire, send it electronically, include click-button response

opportunities and incorporate visual and multimedia elements. This method can shorten the

period of data collection considerably; however, outside a framework of a group to which the

researcher belongs, the response rate can be disappointing (Davies, 2007). Other negative

aspects include the fact that internet based surveys are very often seen as SPAM, which can

reduce the response rate, and also the fact that technical malfunctions might arise in some

respondents’ computers, which are out of control of the researcher (Burns and Bush, 2006).

Page 32: Master's Final Dissertation

32

The probable issue of some respondents not having internet access is not a relevant matter,

since the internet usage in the United Kingdom reaches practically 80% of the entire

population (Internet World Stats, 2009).

The questionnaires were delivered through the usage of the social network site “Facebook”,

leader in the UK (Brandrepublic, 2008). A link of the questionnaire landing page was sent to

the members who belong to the researcher’s “friend list” (about 50, consisting only of UK

residents), who were also encouraged to forward it to other members; additionally, the same

link was posted in the discussion wall of Facebook specific groups (such as Google UK –

115 members; UK Internet Marketing – 78 members; UK Blogger – 46 members; UK

Facebook – 272 members). The fact that the researcher’s friend list is composed by multi-

cultural backgrounds, adding to the fact the Britain is a melting pot of different origins, might

enable this research to generalise the findings to other countries outside the United Kingdom.

Before this, a pilot survey was conducted on Facebook, through the creation of a specific page

of this project, entitled “UK Web 2.0 Project”, promoted in groups of professionals and the

researcher’s “friend list” (see Appendix B). This helped to evaluate the competency of the

questionnaire, and estimate precisely the time to take the survey (Iarossi, 2006). The pilot

survey was essential to find possible mistakes and change questions or answer choices that

were not as easy to perceive as they were supposed to.

The usage of a social network site as a means of spreading the questionnaires is highly related

to the topic of the research, considering the Web 2.0 era; it can be considered as less intrusive

than email; but it also puts in practice the “viral effect” analysed in the literature review,

following the principles of Viral Marketing. Furthermore, in order to achieve the highest

response rate, which can be a critical disadvantage of using Social Networks, incentives were

applied together with the questionnaire link, such as humoristic and futuristic videos about the

usage of social networks. These incentives were also useful to contextualize the purpose of

the survey, and served as motivators for the completion of the questionnaire.

The chosen software utilized for the creation of the questionnaires was Surveymonkey.com,

the leading provider of online survey solutions (Reuters, 2009). The software is user-friendly,

with both free version and professional version (the researcher opted to upgrade to

professional version, since the free version was too limited – see Appendix D), enables

personalization, and has powerful statistical and reporting results. The latter include

Page 33: Master's Final Dissertation

33

visualisation of results in real-time; analysis through graphs, charts and individual responses;

enables secure share of survey results; and personalised filtering and cross tabulation, which

provided powerful tools for the researcher to analyse and compare data. Collecting responses

is obtained by sending a link to the survey via email, or posting it on websites – as will be

done with this project (Survey Monkey, 2009).

Concerning the questionnaire design (Appendix F), it was developed according to the research

questions developed in the literature review, and the researchers’ objectives. As for the

structure of the questionnaire, one can divide it by six parts: firstly, questions about the users’

general internet usage habits take place. Secondly, an array of questions about the

respondents’ search engine routines comes by, focusing on organic and sponsored links.

Thirdly, a question about the users’ email forwarding habits arises, considering what

motivates them to forward a business email to other users. Fourthly, two questions about

social networking habits are asked, taking into account how users interact with business pages

of social networks. Fifthly, questions about users’ blogging behaviour occur, in order to

analyse how respondents’ engage with company blogs. Finally, a group of socio-demographic

questions takes place, including gender, age, and education level.

1.2 Sampling

Considering the size of the sample, questionnaires were planned to be sent to a minimum of

100 respondents, in order to validate this type of academic exploratory research, and the total

of responses reached 108 (see Appendix C). The sample frame enquired included UK internet

users, with an active account on the social network site “Facebook”, with an age between 18-

30 years, and which were linked within the researcher’s “friend list” or a specific Facebook

group (related to the topic). These variants were chosen in order to be appropriate for the

objectives of the research and for the time and resources available, to obtain data in a setting

to which the researcher has access, and to improve sampling quality through two different

subsamples (Davies, 2007).

This sampling is inserted in the convenience sampling approach, which is characterized by a

“non-systematic approach to recruiting respondents that often allows a potential respondent to

self-select into the sample” (Schonlau et al., 2002, p. 33). It is a sample in which the

Page 34: Master's Final Dissertation

34

probability of a sample member to be included in the sample cannot be measured. This type of

sampling requires less time and effort, and fewer costs. In the case of this research, an

uncontrolled instrument distribution will take place, by posting the survey on the web –

participation in this type of survey in entirely voluntary and self-selected (Schonlau et al.,

2002).

1.3 Data Analysis

In the case of this research, as stated before, the web-based survey tool “Survey Monkey” was

used to collect data, but also to analyse the data, as it includes both design and analysis

features. Therefore, the use of traditional statistics software “SPSS” was not needed, since all

the statistic analysis tools were available on Survey Monkey, such as browsing responses

individually, filter responses to desired variables, cross-tabulate answers, build graphs and

tables easily in various formats, and download all the content for Excel or PDF files (Survey

Monkey, 2009). The analysis of the data collected in the survey was analysed both

individually and through bivariate analysis. This sort of quantitative analysis explores

relationships between variables in order to find evidence of variations among them (Bryman

and Bell, 2007). For instance, relationships between the age of users and the attitudes towards

search engine advertising. These results were then utilised to answer the research questions,

both statistically and theoretically.

1.4 Challenges and Limitations

One of the main issues in the data collection process was the fact that this kind of sampling

cannot be generalized. It is not possible to know of what population the sample is

representative, other than the fact that all are internet users. Nevertheless, it still can be a

catalyst for further research or allow a link with existing findings in the area (Bryman and

Bell, 2007).

Time and cost also represented a strong limitation, since the researcher had 3 months to

complete the project, and limited resources. Therefore, the sample number could not be

greater, which means that there was less precision in the findings and more probability of

sampling error. There was also the issue of non-response rates, where there was a high

probability of not all elements of the sample agreeing to participate in the research. Finally,

Page 35: Master's Final Dissertation

35

the heterogeneity of the sample limited the findings, since it belongs to a small group of

internet users that were at the researcher’s reach (Bryman and Bell, 2007).

Considering the limitations of an online survey, several can be pointed out. Bryman and Bell

(2007) state that the invitations to take part in the research can be viewed as “spam”; there are

concerns among participants about confidentiality, due to a widespread anxiety of fraud and

hackers; and there is also a loss of personal touch between the interviewer and the

interviewee. Also, the limitations of the web-based survey confines the researcher’s ability to

analyse the data in a more thorough and statistical way, that could be achieved by using the

traditional SPSS software.

2. Secondary Research

The secondary data was accessed through Manchester Metropolitan University Library

Services, using academic books and electronic databases (such as Emerald, Mintel, EBSCO

Host, ScienceDirect and SAGE) for the review of relevant literature available in the Internet

Marketing variants of Search Engine Marketing, electronic word-of-mouth, and Email

Marketing. Also, literatures on consumer behaviour on the internet and on the Web 2.0

theories were reviewed, in order to contextualize and guide the elaboration of questionnaires

for primary research. Relevant academic journals (such as the Journal of Marketing, Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication, Journal of Consumer Marketing or International

Journal of Market Research) and reports from internet users and internet statistics (in

databases such as Mintel, Business Source Premiere and reports from major companies in the

area) were also analysed and compared. The use of secondary data was important to

contextualize the project, but it cannot be considered as valid and conclusive as the primary

data (Burns, 2000). It is also a means of developing an argument about the significance of the

research, and affirming the credibility of the researcher as someone who is knowledgeable in

the chosen area (Bryman and Bell, 2007).

Page 36: Master's Final Dissertation

36

CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

1. UK Internet users’ general characteristics

1.1 Daily hours spent on the internet

The vast majority of the respondents of the survey use the internet for 1 to 6 hours per day,

reaching 69,2 per cent of the total sample. Even so, it is also important to notice that a

relevant percentage of respondents (18,7%) spend time online for 7 to 9 hours, and that 9,3

per cent use the internet for 10 or more hours, averaging out a significant proportion of 28 per

cent. Therefore, it is possible to assume that the respondents of the survey were relatively

experienced internet users, with less than 3 per cent claiming to spend time online for less

than 1 hour. Table 1 presents the percentage and response count of survey respondents using

the internet in those different amounts of hours.

Table 1: Daily hours spent on the internet

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

less than 1 hour 2,8% 3

1-3 hours 37,4% 40

4-6 hours 31,8% 34

7-9 hours 18,7% 20

10 - or more 9,3% 10

answered question 107

skipped question 1

Another important aspect of the data collected is that there is a considerable predominance of

female respondents who spend time online for 7 or more hours, with a total of 31,7 per cent

against 23,8 per cent of male respondents (Graph 1). Also interesting to notice is the fact that

the younger respondents tend to spend less hours per day on the internet, with the age group

of 18-21 years spending mostly between 1 to 3 (47,1%) and 4 to 6 (35,3%) hours per day

online (Graph 2). These findings can be evidenced by a research by “Cyber Sentinel”, where

it was found that UK teenagers spend an average of about 31 hours a week online, which

makes it about 4 hours a day spent on the internet (Telegraph, 2009).

Page 37: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 1: Hours spent on the internet Vs gender

Graph 2: Hours spent on the internet Vs age

1.2 Daily usage of the different internet tools

As regards to frequency of usage of different internet tools on an average day, respondents

predominantly alleged that the most regularly and constantly used internet tool is Email, with

Graph 1: Hours spent on the internet Vs gender

Graph 2: Hours spent on the internet Vs age

1.2 Daily usage of the different internet tools

As regards to frequency of usage of different internet tools on an average day, respondents

predominantly alleged that the most regularly and constantly used internet tool is Email, with

37

As regards to frequency of usage of different internet tools on an average day, respondents

predominantly alleged that the most regularly and constantly used internet tool is Email, with

Page 38: Master's Final Dissertation

about 51 per cent of the respondents assuming they use it constantly.

University of Stanford validates this finding (even if in a different country, but with similar

trends) by illustrating that Email is by far the most common internet activity, even though it is

not the main reason users go online (Nie and E

by those respondents who also constantly use Search Engines (47,2%) and Instant Messaging

(40,6%). The fact that Search Engines are used by almost half of the respondents can be

supported by a report from iCro

spend most of the time searching. On a lower level, Social Networks are less constantly used,

with the majority of respondents alleging they only use it regularly (42%).

is possible to identify Video and Photo sharing sites as the midmost internet tool in terms of

usage, with 42 per cent of the respondents selecting the option “sometimes”. Finally, at the

bottom, Discussion Forums and Blogs are clearly the least regularly used

sum of “never” and “rarely” answers of about 76 and 67 per cent respectively. Graph 3

represents the ratings of each internet tool, according to the respondents’ frequency of usage.

Graph 3: Internet tools frequency of usage

about 51 per cent of the respondents assuming they use it constantly.

University of Stanford validates this finding (even if in a different country, but with similar

trends) by illustrating that Email is by far the most common internet activity, even though it is

not the main reason users go online (Nie and Erbring, 2002). This result is closely followed

by those respondents who also constantly use Search Engines (47,2%) and Instant Messaging

(40,6%). The fact that Search Engines are used by almost half of the respondents can be

supported by a report from iCrossing (2005), where it is affirmed that 53% of online users

spend most of the time searching. On a lower level, Social Networks are less constantly used,

with the majority of respondents alleging they only use it regularly (42%).

ssible to identify Video and Photo sharing sites as the midmost internet tool in terms of

usage, with 42 per cent of the respondents selecting the option “sometimes”. Finally, at the

bottom, Discussion Forums and Blogs are clearly the least regularly used

sum of “never” and “rarely” answers of about 76 and 67 per cent respectively. Graph 3

represents the ratings of each internet tool, according to the respondents’ frequency of usage.

Graph 3: Internet tools frequency of usage

38

about 51 per cent of the respondents assuming they use it constantly. A study by the

University of Stanford validates this finding (even if in a different country, but with similar

trends) by illustrating that Email is by far the most common internet activity, even though it is

rbring, 2002). This result is closely followed

by those respondents who also constantly use Search Engines (47,2%) and Instant Messaging

(40,6%). The fact that Search Engines are used by almost half of the respondents can be

ssing (2005), where it is affirmed that 53% of online users

spend most of the time searching. On a lower level, Social Networks are less constantly used,

with the majority of respondents alleging they only use it regularly (42%). In a middle term, it

ssible to identify Video and Photo sharing sites as the midmost internet tool in terms of

usage, with 42 per cent of the respondents selecting the option “sometimes”. Finally, at the

bottom, Discussion Forums and Blogs are clearly the least regularly used internet tools, with a

sum of “never” and “rarely” answers of about 76 and 67 per cent respectively. Graph 3

represents the ratings of each internet tool, according to the respondents’ frequency of usage.

Page 39: Master's Final Dissertation

39

2. UK Internet users’ demographic and social characteristics

Internet users participating in this study were predominantly female (as seen on table 2), most

of whom between ages of 22 and 25 (table 3). This trend is consistent with existing research

by Fallows (2005), where it is stated that female users in the age gap of 18-29 are more likely

to be online, and are further more enthusiastic communicators, which can explain the higher

response of female respondents to this research. A high proportion of respondents was highly

educated, with as many as 88 per cent having completed at least undergraduate studies (see

graph 4). The fact that the respondents predominantly had this age gap and education can be

explained by the fact that, since the survey was distributed through Facebook, a great part of

those who responded were part of the researcher’s “friend list”.

Table 2: Gender of respondents

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Male 40,0% 42

Female 60,0% 63

answered question 105

skipped question 3

Table 3: Age of respondents

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

18-21 16,2% 17

22-25 50,5% 53

26-29 27,6% 29

30-or more 5,7% 6

answered question 105

skipped question 3

Page 40: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 4: Education level of respondents

3. Attitudes towards Search Engine Marketing

3.1 Attitudes when performing a query on a Search Engine

Regarding the internet users’ search engine habits it is obvious that the best part of

respondents (about 75 percent) type a combination of keywords, when performing a query on

a search engine site, like the given example in the survey “restaurants Manches

consider also that a slightly relevant percentage of respondents (16,2%) type a phrase when

performing a query, remaining here an interesting challenge for SEO specialists, because the

task to find the most relevant and used keywords is harder if

connection words (table 4). Findings on a study by iProspect (2006) also point out the need

for marketers to not only target a few broad terms, but also an abundance of more specific

keyword phrases, which many users query when

search.

Considering the search results page, findings prove that there is a preponderance of

respondents (40,6%) that consider that the description of a search result is the most important

element, when considering which result to click. This finding can be validated through

Graph 4: Education level of respondents

ttitudes towards Search Engine Marketing

3.1 Attitudes when performing a query on a Search Engine

Regarding the internet users’ search engine habits it is obvious that the best part of

respondents (about 75 percent) type a combination of keywords, when performing a query on

a search engine site, like the given example in the survey “restaurants Manches

that a slightly relevant percentage of respondents (16,2%) type a phrase when

performing a query, remaining here an interesting challenge for SEO specialists, because the

task to find the most relevant and used keywords is harder if users type long phrases with

connection words (table 4). Findings on a study by iProspect (2006) also point out the need

for marketers to not only target a few broad terms, but also an abundance of more specific

keyword phrases, which many users query when are not satisfied with the results of an initial

Considering the search results page, findings prove that there is a preponderance of

respondents (40,6%) that consider that the description of a search result is the most important

sidering which result to click. This finding can be validated through

40

Regarding the internet users’ search engine habits it is obvious that the best part of

respondents (about 75 percent) type a combination of keywords, when performing a query on

a search engine site, like the given example in the survey “restaurants Manchester”. To

that a slightly relevant percentage of respondents (16,2%) type a phrase when

performing a query, remaining here an interesting challenge for SEO specialists, because the

users type long phrases with

connection words (table 4). Findings on a study by iProspect (2006) also point out the need

for marketers to not only target a few broad terms, but also an abundance of more specific

are not satisfied with the results of an initial

Considering the search results page, findings prove that there is a preponderance of

respondents (40,6%) that consider that the description of a search result is the most important

sidering which result to click. This finding can be validated through

Page 41: Master's Final Dissertation

41

Google’s Webmaster Central Blog, where it is stated that a quality snippet can have a direct

impact on the chances of a website being clicked, which might indicate that the description of

the search result is the element which users consider the most (Google, 2007). Nonetheless, a

close percentage of respondents (36,6%) believe that the title of the search result is the

principal element (table 5). Hence, the first two and most obvious elements of search results

are clearly the ones that captivate users the most.

Table 4: Respondents’ search habits

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Type only one keyword 8,6% 9

Type a combination of keywords (e.g. "restaurants

manchester") 75,2% 79

Type a specific phrase (e.g. "restaurants in the area of

manchester") 16,2% 17

Other (please specify) 5

answered question 105

skipped question 3

Table 5: Search result elements in order of respondents’ preference

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

The title of the search result 36,6% 37

The description of the search result (snippet) 40,6% 41

The website URL of the search result 17,8% 18

The repetition of queried keywords in bold 5,0% 5

Other (please specify) 7

answered question 101

skipped question 7

3.2 Attitudes towards Sponsored Links

Survey respondents were asked about their perceptions and attitudes towards sponsored links

of search engine websites, and there was a clear indication that users tend to not click on these

links, or click on them very rarely. This tendency can be found in a report by iCrossing

(2007), where it is stated that the vast majority of users prefer non-sponsored links (more than

Page 42: Master's Final Dissertation

42

50 per cent). Research findings prove that there is a clear preponderance of “never” and

“rarely” answers (both with 40% of respondents) to the question “how often do you also click

on sponsored links?”, making a total of about 80 per cent of the respondents (table 6). Of

these, slightly more were male respondents, mainly between 18 and 21 years of age, and

spending between 1-3 hours on the internet per day (Graphs 5, 6, and 7). This represents a

great issue for Pay-per-Click specialists, meaning that their target is a minority of the users

that visit search engine sites – Only about 17 per cent of respondents claimed to click on

sponsored links occasionally, and an irrelevant percentage stated to always click on them

(table 6).

Therefore, female respondents, between 22 and 25 years of age, and who tend to spend more

time on the internet can be defined as the user that is more likely to click on sponsored links

(Graphs 5, 6, and 7). Evidence of these findings can be found in the report by iCrossing

(2007), where it is argued that female users in the 18-34 age gap tend to accept sponsored

links more easily.

Table 6: Frequency of “clicks” on sponsored links

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Always 2,8% 3

Sometimes 16,8% 18

Rarely 40,2% 43

Never 40,2% 43

answered question 107

skipped question 1

Page 43: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 5: Frequency of clicks Vs gender

Graph 6: Frequency of clicks Vs age

Graph 5: Frequency of clicks Vs gender

clicks Vs age

43

Page 44: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 7: Frequency of clicks Vs hours spent online

Considering the reasons behind the high tendency to never or rarely click on sponsored links,

survey findings show that

response percentages. Exactly 49 per cent claimed that sponsored links are not relevant for

their queries, and 44 per cent do not trust those links (table 7). Therefore there is a clear trust

issue that stray users from clicking on sponsored links, bu

context that does not attract them to those links. The latter issue might find evidence in a

survey by Web Advantage (2004), where it was found that more than a half of respondents

claim that most of the time they do not fi

links.

Moreover, only 7 per cent of respondents assumed to not click on sponsored links due to

unawareness, meaning that the vast majority of users know where these links are located, and

what they are for; nonetheless, this particular finding goes against existing research by

iCrossing (2007), where it is stated that more than a half of search engine users do not know

the difference between natural and sponsored listings. Finally, an interesting aspect of t

findings shows that those who answered “other” to the question have a clear compliance on

the fact that they do not want to be distracted from their initial search.

Graph 7: Frequency of clicks Vs hours spent online

Considering the reasons behind the high tendency to never or rarely click on sponsored links,

there was a preponderance of two answer options that had sim

response percentages. Exactly 49 per cent claimed that sponsored links are not relevant for

their queries, and 44 per cent do not trust those links (table 7). Therefore there is a clear trust

issue that stray users from clicking on sponsored links, but also an issue of r

t attract them to those links. The latter issue might find evidence in a

survey by Web Advantage (2004), where it was found that more than a half of respondents

claim that most of the time they do not find what they were looking for through sponsored

Moreover, only 7 per cent of respondents assumed to not click on sponsored links due to

unawareness, meaning that the vast majority of users know where these links are located, and

nonetheless, this particular finding goes against existing research by

iCrossing (2007), where it is stated that more than a half of search engine users do not know

the difference between natural and sponsored listings. Finally, an interesting aspect of t

findings shows that those who answered “other” to the question have a clear compliance on

the fact that they do not want to be distracted from their initial search.

44

Considering the reasons behind the high tendency to never or rarely click on sponsored links,

there was a preponderance of two answer options that had similar

response percentages. Exactly 49 per cent claimed that sponsored links are not relevant for

their queries, and 44 per cent do not trust those links (table 7). Therefore there is a clear trust

t also an issue of relevancy and

t attract them to those links. The latter issue might find evidence in a

survey by Web Advantage (2004), where it was found that more than a half of respondents

nd what they were looking for through sponsored

Moreover, only 7 per cent of respondents assumed to not click on sponsored links due to

unawareness, meaning that the vast majority of users know where these links are located, and

nonetheless, this particular finding goes against existing research by

iCrossing (2007), where it is stated that more than a half of search engine users do not know

the difference between natural and sponsored listings. Finally, an interesting aspect of the

findings shows that those who answered “other” to the question have a clear compliance on

Page 45: Master's Final Dissertation

Table 7: Reasons for not clicking on sponsored links

Answer Options

I do not notice them

I do not trust them

They are not relevant for my query

Other (please specify)

Concerning the profile of the respondents who do no

relevancy reasons, survey results indicate that both male and female respondents have similar

response rates, but the majority of the respondents are between 26 to 29 years of age, and

spend 7 or more hours on the internet per day. O

reasons are predominantly younger, and spend 1 to 6 hours a day online (Graphs 8 and 9).

Therefore, one can argue that those internet users, who are more experienced, tend to have

less trust issues and concern mor

knowledgeable internet users have a propensity to not trust sponsored links.

Graph 8: Reasons for not clicking links Vs age

Table 7: Reasons for not clicking on sponsored links

Response

Percent

7,0%

44,0%

They are not relevant for my query 49,0%

answered question

skipped question

file of the respondents who do not click on sponsored links due to

relevancy reasons, survey results indicate that both male and female respondents have similar

response rates, but the majority of the respondents are between 26 to 29 years of age, and

spend 7 or more hours on the internet per day. On the other hand, those who proclaim trust

reasons are predominantly younger, and spend 1 to 6 hours a day online (Graphs 8 and 9).

Therefore, one can argue that those internet users, who are more experienced, tend to have

less trust issues and concern more about search skills, while the younger and less

knowledgeable internet users have a propensity to not trust sponsored links.

Graph 8: Reasons for not clicking links Vs age

45

Response

Count

7

44

49

7

100

8

sponsored links due to

relevancy reasons, survey results indicate that both male and female respondents have similar

response rates, but the majority of the respondents are between 26 to 29 years of age, and

n the other hand, those who proclaim trust

reasons are predominantly younger, and spend 1 to 6 hours a day online (Graphs 8 and 9).

Therefore, one can argue that those internet users, who are more experienced, tend to have

e about search skills, while the younger and less

knowledgeable internet users have a propensity to not trust sponsored links.

Page 46: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 9: Reasons for not clicking links Vs hours spent online

4. Attitudes towards company emails

When analysing the reasons that make respondents forward company emails to other users, it

is possible to notice a slight preponderance of respondents who claim to never forward this

kind of emails – about 40 per cent clicked on the answer “I never forward

This might indicate a serious threat to email and viral marketers, since there is a high volume

of users who do not participate actively in email campaigns. On the other half, of those who

assumed to forward emails, joy and entertainment

35 per cent of respondents claiming that they only forward interesting and entertaining emails

to others. In fact, previous research on this topic sustains this idea, for Lin

apprehended that users hav

emotions and richer information.

On a lower level, it is still relevant to notice that trust is an important aspect for a significant

percentage of respondents (20,6%), making credibility an

factor for company email acceptance and sharing. Surprisingly, survey findings indicate that

emails forwarded by friends of the users’

Graph 9: Reasons for not clicking links Vs hours spent online

Attitudes towards company emails

When analysing the reasons that make respondents forward company emails to other users, it

is possible to notice a slight preponderance of respondents who claim to never forward this

about 40 per cent clicked on the answer “I never forward

This might indicate a serious threat to email and viral marketers, since there is a high volume

of users who do not participate actively in email campaigns. On the other half, of those who

assumed to forward emails, joy and entertainment was the most answered option, with about

35 per cent of respondents claiming that they only forward interesting and entertaining emails

to others. In fact, previous research on this topic sustains this idea, for Lin

apprehended that users have a stronger intention to forward emails that give them positive

emotions and richer information.

On a lower level, it is still relevant to notice that trust is an important aspect for a significant

percentage of respondents (20,6%), making credibility and knowledge of the brand a crucial

factor for company email acceptance and sharing. Surprisingly, survey findings indicate that

rwarded by friends of the users’ own network were not an essential factor for

46

When analysing the reasons that make respondents forward company emails to other users, it

is possible to notice a slight preponderance of respondents who claim to never forward this

about 40 per cent clicked on the answer “I never forward company emails”.

This might indicate a serious threat to email and viral marketers, since there is a high volume

of users who do not participate actively in email campaigns. On the other half, of those who

was the most answered option, with about

35 per cent of respondents claiming that they only forward interesting and entertaining emails

to others. In fact, previous research on this topic sustains this idea, for Lin et al. (2006)

e a stronger intention to forward emails that give them positive

On a lower level, it is still relevant to notice that trust is an important aspect for a significant

d knowledge of the brand a crucial

factor for company email acceptance and sharing. Surprisingly, survey findings indicate that

own network were not an essential factor for

Page 47: Master's Final Dissertation

47

respondents to forward those emails, with a response rate as low as 3,7 per cent, remaining

here good news for email marketers: email forwarding does not depend on users’ interaction,

but on quality content and brand trust (table 8). In addition, comparison with a study by

Phelps et al. (2004) demonstrates similar findings, since it is stated that although users

commonly only open emails from somebody they know, recognizing the source might also

prompt a deletion if the sender is perceived as someone who constantly sends excessive and

bad quality emails; furthermore, if users identify the subject line as one received before with

“Fwd: Fwd:” written on it, they might delete that email without even reading the content.

Table 8: Factors for company email forwarding

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

If I enjoyed the advertisement or promotion 35,5% 38

If I trust the company 20,6% 22

If it was forwarded by another friend 3,7% 4

I never forward company emails 40,2% 43

answered question 107

skipped question 1

Considering the profile of the respondents for this section, there is a clear similarity of values

between genders, with no relevant differentiation whatsoever. Nevertheless, there are some

considerations that can be made when analysing the respondents’ age and hours spent online.

Of those users who claimed to never forward company emails, there was a slight

preponderance of younger respondents between 18 and 21 years of age, who spend mostly

between 1 to 3 hours a day on the internet. Therefore, when comparing to other age and hour

groups, there was an inclination for a higher percentage of young respondents with less

internet experience who might give priority to other type of emails. Taking into consideration

those respondents who only forward emails if they enjoy the content itself, there was again a

preponderance of younger users, but in this case with more internet experience, spending 10

or more hours online. These users expect something more from company emails and demand

quality to motivate them to forward. Finally, those who rely solely on trust are mainly

between 26 to 29 years of age and spend 7 or more hours online. These can be considered as

more mature and experienced users, who might know which brands should be relied on due to

possible previous experiences (Graphs 10 and 11).

Page 48: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 10: Factors for Email forwarding Vs age

Graph 11: Factors for Email forwarding Vs Hours spent online

Graph 10: Factors for Email forwarding Vs age

Graph 11: Factors for Email forwarding Vs Hours spent online

48

Page 49: Master's Final Dissertation

49

5. Attitudes towards companies’ Social Network pages

To analyse respondents’ acceptance and participation with companies through Social

Networks the question “When using Social Networks (e.g. Facebook; Twitter), do you

become fan/follow pages of companies you identify with?” was answered. Survey findings

clearly demonstrate that the majority of respondents do not connect with company pages in

Social Networks, with about 65 per cent of total answers (table 9). Of those who answered

“yes”, there was a clear prevalence of male users (about 43%), mainly between 22-25 years

and spending between 7 to 10 hours on the internet (graphs 12, 13 and 14). This might lead us

to deduce that male users in the younger age groups, with more internet experience are those

who tend to show additional interest in company pages of Social Networks.

These findings are relatively consistent with existing research by Tom Chapman (2008), who

in his report “Social Network Marketing, Engagement Marketing and Brands” showed that

only 13% of UK Facebook users have added a brand as a profile friend, pattern noticed in the

current findings, even if in different percentages; also, the fact that more than 50% of

respondents were aged 18-24 is consistent with the majority of 18-25 respondents in the

current research; but Chapman’s research was not consistent with the current research

findings in terms of gender, since this author’s results show that the majority of those who

become fans of company pages are female users, while in the current research there was a

prevalence of male respondents.

Table 9: Interaction with company pages on Social Networks

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 35,5% 38

No 64,5% 69

answered question 107

skipped question 1

Page 50: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 12: Interaction with company pages Vs gender

Graph 13: Interaction with company pages Vs age

Graph 12: Interaction with company pages Vs gender

with company pages Vs age

50

Page 51: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 14: Interaction with company pages Vs hours spent online

After analysing how far respondents do or do not interact with company pages on Social

Networks, the next step was to consider how they interact with those pages. Only the

respondents who answered “yes” to the previous question were considered here, and re

demonstrate that the majority do not participate actively; instead they only observe (about

46%). Nevertheless, a considerable part does participate dynamically, posting comments on

those pages, with a total of about 24 per cent of respondents. Findi

similar percentages of users participate in other ways, and that an irrelevant percentage (5,4%)

invite other users to join company pages (table 10)

with Chapman (2008) report, where it is e

consider to encourage other friends to also add that brand to their profile.

Hence, one can assume that companies still have no

and that there is a clear challenge

are the majority, have more propensity to participate further actively, and can be easily

targeted in order to build a relationship with the brand right from the earlier years as an active

consumer. Chapman (2008) goes even further, stating that brands should look beyond the

“fan” and “follower” metric which is basically a numbers game, and set more emphasis on the

quality of interactions.

Graph 14: Interaction with company pages Vs hours spent online

After analysing how far respondents do or do not interact with company pages on Social

Networks, the next step was to consider how they interact with those pages. Only the

respondents who answered “yes” to the previous question were considered here, and re

demonstrate that the majority do not participate actively; instead they only observe (about

46%). Nevertheless, a considerable part does participate dynamically, posting comments on

those pages, with a total of about 24 per cent of respondents. Findi

similar percentages of users participate in other ways, and that an irrelevant percentage (5,4%)

invite other users to join company pages (table 10) Nonetheless, this finding is not consistent

with Chapman (2008) report, where it is evident that Facebook users predominantly would

consider to encourage other friends to also add that brand to their profile.

sume that companies still have not used social networks at its best potential,

and that there is a clear challenge and opportunity in the younger aged users, who obviously

are the majority, have more propensity to participate further actively, and can be easily

targeted in order to build a relationship with the brand right from the earlier years as an active

Chapman (2008) goes even further, stating that brands should look beyond the

“fan” and “follower” metric which is basically a numbers game, and set more emphasis on the

51

After analysing how far respondents do or do not interact with company pages on Social

Networks, the next step was to consider how they interact with those pages. Only the

respondents who answered “yes” to the previous question were considered here, and results

demonstrate that the majority do not participate actively; instead they only observe (about

46%). Nevertheless, a considerable part does participate dynamically, posting comments on

those pages, with a total of about 24 per cent of respondents. Findings reveal that small

similar percentages of users participate in other ways, and that an irrelevant percentage (5,4%)

, this finding is not consistent

vident that Facebook users predominantly would

consider to encourage other friends to also add that brand to their profile.

t used social networks at its best potential,

and opportunity in the younger aged users, who obviously

are the majority, have more propensity to participate further actively, and can be easily

targeted in order to build a relationship with the brand right from the earlier years as an active

Chapman (2008) goes even further, stating that brands should look beyond the

“fan” and “follower” metric which is basically a numbers game, and set more emphasis on the

Page 52: Master's Final Dissertation

52

Table 10: Type of interaction with company pages of Social Networks

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Post comments on those pages 24,3% 9

Share photos/videos 8,1% 3

Participate in discussions 8,1% 3

Participate in quizzes/events 8,1% 3

Invite friends to join 5,4% 2

Only observe 45,9% 17

answered question 37

skipped question 71

6. Attitudes towards companies’ official blogs

Survey respondents were asked about their level of interaction with company blogs, and to the

question “do you visit official blogs of companies you identify with?” there was a clear

dominance of “no” answers, totalizing 72 per cent of the respondents (table 11). Once again,

of these answers, an even higher prevalence of female users was noticed, totalizing about 79%

of respondents in that gender group. In this case, there was a higher propensity of younger

respondents claiming that they do not visit company blogs (18 to 25 years), but the same

pattern was noticed as in the previous question, with higher percentages of less experienced

users, spending 1 to 6 hours online (graphs 15, 16, and 17). This might be explained by the

tendency for younger and less experienced users to use a limited number of internet tools

(mainly Instant Messaging and Social Networking).

Table 11: Interaction with official blogs of companies

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 28,0% 30

No 72,0% 77

answered question 107

skipped question 1

Page 53: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 15: Interaction with official blogs Vs gender

Graph 16: Interaction with official blogs Vs age

Graph 15: Interaction with official blogs Vs gender

Graph 16: Interaction with official blogs Vs age

53

Page 54: Master's Final Dissertation

Graph 17: Interaction with official blogs Vs hours spent online

Taking into account those respondents who declared to visit company blogs, the survey

included one last question to assess how they interact with those blogs. Providing a list of

possible activities, respondents

posts and events”, with about 83% of clicks. This means that the vast majority do not

participate actively with company blogs, opting to only observe and check for updates. These

were mainly male respondents included in the older age groups, spending fewer hours a day

online. On a much lower rank, there was a category of users (only about 14%) who claimed to

visit those blogs essentially to read other users’ comments, which can indicate their

willingness to check other consumers’ reviews of the products or services in cause (table 12).

In this case, there was a prevalence of young aged female users, who tend to spend 7 or more

hours a day on the internet. Finally, an irrelevant percentage declared to ac

forums of those blogs to share experiences and reviews, which represents a challenge for

marketers: Company blogs need active participation and feedback to justify their existence,

and also to transmit a positive image for those who v

of consumers might give a worst impression than blogs with good and bad consumer

comments.

with official blogs Vs hours spent online

Taking into account those respondents who declared to visit company blogs, the survey

included one last question to assess how they interact with those blogs. Providing a list of

possible activities, respondents massively answered positively to the choice “Read news,

posts and events”, with about 83% of clicks. This means that the vast majority do not

participate actively with company blogs, opting to only observe and check for updates. These

ondents included in the older age groups, spending fewer hours a day

online. On a much lower rank, there was a category of users (only about 14%) who claimed to

visit those blogs essentially to read other users’ comments, which can indicate their

to check other consumers’ reviews of the products or services in cause (table 12).

In this case, there was a prevalence of young aged female users, who tend to spend 7 or more

hours a day on the internet. Finally, an irrelevant percentage declared to ac

forums of those blogs to share experiences and reviews, which represents a challenge for

marketers: Company blogs need active participation and feedback to justify their existence,

and also to transmit a positive image for those who visit those blogs. Blogs with no presence

of consumers might give a worst impression than blogs with good and bad consumer

54

Taking into account those respondents who declared to visit company blogs, the survey

included one last question to assess how they interact with those blogs. Providing a list of

massively answered positively to the choice “Read news,

posts and events”, with about 83% of clicks. This means that the vast majority do not

participate actively with company blogs, opting to only observe and check for updates. These

ondents included in the older age groups, spending fewer hours a day

online. On a much lower rank, there was a category of users (only about 14%) who claimed to

visit those blogs essentially to read other users’ comments, which can indicate their

to check other consumers’ reviews of the products or services in cause (table 12).

In this case, there was a prevalence of young aged female users, who tend to spend 7 or more

hours a day on the internet. Finally, an irrelevant percentage declared to actively participate in

forums of those blogs to share experiences and reviews, which represents a challenge for

marketers: Company blogs need active participation and feedback to justify their existence,

isit those blogs. Blogs with no presence

of consumers might give a worst impression than blogs with good and bad consumer

Page 55: Master's Final Dissertation

55

Table 12: Type of interaction with company blogs

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Read news, posts and events 82,8% 24

Read other users' comments 13,8% 4

Post comments on interesting posts 0,0% 0

Participate in forums to share experiences and reviews 3,4% 1

Other (please specify) 1

answered question 29

skipped question 79

Page 56: Master's Final Dissertation

56

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS

1. Conclusions and Recommendations

The aim of this paper was to advance the understanding of how the UK internet users perceive

and react to Search Engine Marketing and e-Word-of-Mouth activities within the context of

Web 2.0, so that professionals of this area can formulate successful strategies and target this

internet marketing segment effectively. The first objective of the study was achieved, as the

data on the impact of the internet on contemporary consumer marketing showed on the

literature review that it has changed the way consumers interact with companies, bringing

wider choice, and easier selection and purchase of products or services. Also, it was shown

that the internet interfered with the marketing mix variables, affecting the way products or

services are priced, promoted, placed, and even reinvented. As it was said before, marketers

have to take into consideration on whether consumers engage or even trust these new

marketing activities.

As for the second objective – investigating the current context of the Web 2.0 consumer and

its active role on the web – was also met, as clear evidence was found on existing literature

that the contemporary consumer has a new role the business world, being a consumer and a

producer at the same time; from passive to active, linked and empowered consumers who

engage with companies in a completely different way than in the past. Also, there is evidence

that web 2.0 is transforming the internet into a powerful and influential social medium,

changing the way society thinks and behaves (Microsoft, 2007).

Considering the third objective – analysing the contemporary internet users’ behaviour

towards internet marketing – it was also accomplished, since evidence on existing literature

showed that trust factors have an important role on consumers perceptions towards online

marketing, and that consumers have access to different sources of information about the

products they intend or are motivated to buy. It was also found that users behave differently

online, depending on the product and occasion. Considering the behaviour towards Search

Engines, it was found that users mostly look for information, rather than for a specific product

or service; moreover, evidence was discovered on the fact that the majority of users only look

at the first page of a search result, and specially to the first two results, remaining here an

Page 57: Master's Final Dissertation

57

important challenge for Search Engine Marketers. Concerning to the attitudes towards Emails,

relevant literature showed that it is still the most utilized internet tool (as it was underlined by

this project’s findings), but trust issues are still on the edge due to concerns about fraud scams

and internet viruses. It was also found that, contrarily to what the findings of this project

revealed, the majority of users open emails with special offers if they come from someone

they know (Mintel, 2008). As for the behaviour towards Social Media, literature findings

show that the appearance of web-based social media has facilitated the communication

between one person and hundreds or even thousands of others, for the spreading of products

or companies, but the challenge for marketers lies on the ability to shape consumers’

discussions in order to align them with the company’s goals (Mangold and Faulds, 2009).

The fourth objective - to explore key concepts in Internet Marketing, focusing specifically on

Search Engine Marketing (SEM) and e-Word-of-mouth (eWOM) – has been fully achieved.

Key elements of Search Engine Marketing were found on relevant literature, identifying two

different types of Search Engine Marketing, that should be integrated in marketing activities:

Search Engine Optimization (achieving the highest position/ranking in the natural or organic

listings of a search page, within a combination of specific keywords) and Pay-Per-Click

Search Marketing (placing text ads with a link to a company web page that will be displayed

in a specific area of a search page – usually “sponsored links”). As for e-Word-of-Mouth,

after finding that differently from offline Word-of-Mouth it is measurable, controllable and

more strategic (Park and Kim, 2008), and that it overcame geographical barriers, accelerated

the speed of transmission of messages, and guaranteed the integrity of the original message

(Carrera, 2009), a definition of Viral Marketing took place: Online Viral Marketing is a form

of eWOM marketing that uses discussions about brands or campaigns and promotes

transmission through pass-along email or discussion in a social network page (Chaffey et al.,

2009).

As regards evaluating the way UK online consumers perceive Search Engine Marketing and

e-Word-of-Mouth activities and assess their attitudes towards it, the task was challenging but

achieved through this project’s survey. It is the UK Internet Marketers that will benefit from

this analysis, as they can use different internet marketing initiatives to target each segment

more effectively. Concerning to Search Engine Marketing, survey findings show that the

majority of users have the habit to type a combination of keywords, when performing a query

on a search engine site, which validates the current trend of Search Engine marketers to

Page 58: Master's Final Dissertation

58

concentrate on investing on the most queried relevant words. Nevertheless, it is also valid to

consider those who type a phrase when performing a query, remaining here an interesting

challenge for SEO specialists – marketers need to not only target a few broad terms, but also

an abundance of more specific keyword phrases, which many users query when are not

satisfied with the results of an initial search (iProspect, 2006). As regards habits in analysing

search results, survey findings show that the title and the description of a search result are

clearly the most important elements for users, and therefore should be the main focus for SEO

specialists, who intend to reach a higher click-through rate.

After analysing the reactions towards sponsored links, conclusions make us believe that there

is a clear tendency for users to not click on these types of search engine links, due to two

similarly ranked answers: trust and relevancy. Thus it is likely that greater marketing effort or

development of clearer and more reliable advertising messages. Since there is no possible

interference with search engine sites’ structure management, the right choice of keywords is

essential, so that the content that a user is searching matches the message of the sponsored

link that becomes visible – thus relevant match is further reached. Additional satisfaction

surveys could be carried out in order to understand more clearly what users would like to see

in sponsored links, so that they click on them without any type of concerns.

Furthermore, the study also revealed that there is a tendency for users to not forward emails

containing company offers and incentivising them to send to other users. These users should

be further analysed in order to understand what makes them ignore these emails. What was

found in this study was which reasons make users forward those emails: quality content,

entertainment and trust. Since receiving these emails from someone familiar to the user was

not a significant reason to make the latter forward an email, the main focus of email marketers

should definitely be on elaborating relevant, realistic and quality content, to encourage users

to participate in those campaigns actively and “virally”.

Considering to the attitudes towards company pages in Social Networks, an obvious

inclination for users to not engage with these pages was noted in the study, which previous

studies consubstantiate (Chapman, 2008). Here again, it is essential to complement these

findings by further research into users’ motivations to ignore these type of pages, preferably

by means of in-depth questions incorporated into an interview or a focus group survey. What

the current study found was how users that do visit company pages in social networks interact

Page 59: Master's Final Dissertation

59

with them: although the majority do not participate actively, there is a considerable part that

does so by posting comments on those pages. Therefore, marketers involved in social media

should increase their effort on the quality of interactions, rather than simply adding “fans” or

“followers” who are mere inactive numbers (Chapman, 2008).

Finally, after examining the survey results on the users’ interaction with company blogs, once

again it was found that the vast majority do not interact with them. Further conclusive

research is once more advised here, in order to understand the effective cause of this lack of

awareness or interest. However, when analysing those users who do visit company blogs,

findings show that over again users massively do not engage actively with these sorts of web

pages, opting to only observe and check for updates. Here might relay an effective problem

for marketers involved in professional blogging: Company blogs need active participation and

feedback to justify their existence, and also to transmit a positive image for those who visit

those blogs. Blogs with no presence of consumers might give a worst impression than blogs

with good and bad consumer comments.

It is vital that marketers involved in the social media and blogging area understand that the

real power of these internet tools is within the users, and that the web 2.0 era is essentially

consumer driven. Increasing the efforts and incentives for user participation is indispensable,

and clearly marks the difference between a unilateral page and a real community page with

active engagement of all elements involved.

2. Limitations

As regards representativeness of the present study, it is possible that sampling of participants

from the researcher’s Facebook contact list might cause concern. The study participants were

predominantly selected from a priori known group characterised by a similar degree of

interest and involvement with the internet and the researcher’s online habits. Consequently, it

appears that they might have distinctive group characteristics or usage patterns connected

with online habits when comparing to the general UK internet users. However, it was not the

general UK population, but the users between the ages of 18 – 30 who actively use the social

network “Facebook” that were the target of this study. Moreover, male users appear to have

been underrepresented in the study, in spite of their generally alleged higher internet usage.

This trend might be explained by the tendency of female users to be more enthusiastic

communicators and less reluctant to participate in studies (Fallows, 2005). Therefore, the

Page 60: Master's Final Dissertation

60

study results should be extended and generalised to the general public with an extent of

caution. Also, there are little concerns about the validity of the study as there were an

irrelevant percentage of response errors, and the pilot questionnaire helped to reduce

respondents’ misunderstandings.

3. Areas for further research

The present study can serve as a point of reference for both academics and practitioners

conducting research in the areas of Search Engine and e-Word-of-Mouth marketing in the

future. It is recommended that the findings in this study are compared with similar surveys, to

increase the probability of generalisation. Also, it would be insightful to extend the reach of

future research into other areas of internet marketing, as the activities shown in this study

were just a part of this rising movement. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that other type

of internet users are proportionately represented in future studies, as this would allow

analysing the motivations of non-facebook users, who might participate more actively in other

internet activities and change the patterns shown in this paper.

Page 61: Master's Final Dissertation

61

REFERENCES

AOL UK (2006). Review of the Brand New World 1.0, joint research by AOL UK and

Henley Centre, [online] available from:

http://www.digitaltrainingacademy.com/research/AOL_Brand_New_World.pdf [accessed

June 5th 2009]

Aula, A. and Rodden, K. (2009). Eye-Tracking Studies: More than meets the eye, The

Official Google Blog, [online] available from:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/search/label/user%20experience%20and%20usability

[accessed June 12th 2009]

Avlonitis, G.J. and Karavanni, D.A. (2000). The Impact of Internet Use on Business-to-

Business Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 441-459

Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F. and Urban, G. (2005). Are the Drivers and Role of Online

Trust the Same for All Websites and Consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study,

MIT Sloan, Paper 217, [online] available from:

http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/217_urban_jm_revision.pdf [accessed June 5th 2009]

Bhargava, R. (2006). 5 Rules of Social Media Optimization, Influential Marketing Blog,

August 2006, [online] available from:

http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/08/5_rules_of_soci.html [accessed June 13th

2009]

Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and

Scholarship, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13, pp. 210-230

BrandRepublic (2008). Facebook Dominates UK Social Networking as Twitter Leaps, July

2008, [online] available from: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/833643/Facebook-

dominates-UK-social-networking-Twitter-leaps/ [accessed June 9th

2009]

Page 62: Master's Final Dissertation

62

Breitenbach, C.S. and Van Doren, D.C. (1998). Value-added Marketing in the Digital

Domain: enhancing the utility of the Internet, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 6,

pp. 558-575

Bruyn, A.D. and Lilien, G. (2008). A Multi-Stage Model of Word-of-Mouth Influence

Through Viral Marketing, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25, Issue 3,

pp. 151-163

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods, 2nd

ed., Oxford University

Press, Oxford

Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.F. (2006). Marketing Research, 5th

ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper

Saddle River

Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to Research Methods, 4th

ed., Sage Publications Ltd, London

Carrera, F. (2009). Marketing Digital na Versão 2.0, Edições Sílabo, Lisboa

CERN (2008). CERN History Highlights, European Organization for Nuclear Research,

[online] available from: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/History90-en.html

[accessed June 11th 2009]

Chaffey, D., Ellis-Chadwick, F., Mayer, R. and Johnston, K. (2009). Internet Marketing –

Strategy, Implementation and Practice, 4th

edn., FT Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Chapman, T. (2008). Social Network Marketing, Engagement Marketing and Brands, 2009,

[online] available from: http://www.socialnetworkmarketinguk.com/ [accessed 30th July

2009]

Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2009). Understanding the Sustainability of a Virtual

Community: model development and empirical test, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35,

pp. 279-298

Davies, M.B. (2007). Doing a Successful Research Project – Using qualitative or quantitative

methods, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Page 63: Master's Final Dissertation

63

DMA (2006). National Client Email Marketing Survey – 2006 Report, Direct Marketing

Association, [online] available from:

http://www.dma.org.uk/_attachments/resources/2657_S4.pdf [accessed June 8th 2009]

dotMailer (2009). dotMailer Digital Marketing Inside Knowledge Seminar – Manchester June

2009, dotDigital Group PLC

EConsultancy (2004). Online Retail 2004 – benchmarking the user experience of UK retail

sites, EConsultancy Digital Marketers United, [online] available from: http://www.e-

consultancy.com/publications/online-retail-user-experience-benchmarks-2004 [accessed June

5th 2009]

EConsultancy (2008). Paid Search Marketing (PPC) Best practice guide 2008, EConsultancy

Digital Marketers United, [online] available from: http://econsultancy.com/reports/paid-

search-marketing-ppc-best-practice-guide [accessed June 13th 2009]

EConsultancy (2009). SEO Best Practice Guide, EConsultancy Digital Marketers United,

[online] available from: http://econsultancy.com/reports/search-engine-optimization-seo-best-

practice-guide [accessed June 13th 2009]

Fallows, D. (2005). How Women and Men Use the Internet, PEW Internet & American Life

Project, December 2005, [online] available from:

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Women_and_Men_online.pdf.

pdf [accessed 31st July 2009]

Foley, S. (2006).To Google or Not to Google? It’s a legal question, The Independent, August

2006, [online] available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/to-google-

or-not-to-google-its-a-legal-question-411600.html [accessed June 13th 2009]

Fu, F., Liu, L. and Wang, L. (2007). Empirical Analysis of Online Social Networks in the Age

of Web 2.0, Physica A, Vol. 387, pp. 675-684

Ginovsky, J. (2009). Tweeting in the Workplace, Community Banker, Vol. 18, Issue 5, p. 51

Google (2007). Improve Snippets with a Meta Description Makeover, Google Webmaster

Central Blog, September 2007, [online] available from:

Page 64: Master's Final Dissertation

64

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/09/improve-snippets-with-meta-

description.html [accessed 31st July 2009]

Google (2008). Google's Search Engine Optimization Starter Guide, Version 1.1, [online]

available form:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35291 [accessed

June 5th

2009]

Google (2009). Marketing and Advertising Using Google – Targeting your advertising to the

right audience, Google Inc, [online] available from:

http://www.google.com/onlinechallenge/adwords.html [accessed June 13th 2009]

Ha, H.Y. (2004). Factors Influencing Consumer Perceptions of Brand Trust Online, Journal of

Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 329-342

Habeas (2008). Study of Consumer Attitudes Towards Email and Online Interaction with

Businesses – May 2008, Habeas Inc, [online] available from:

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=2008052

1005393&newsLang=en [accessed June 12th 2009]

Huang, P, Lurie, N.H. and Mitra, S. (2009). Searching for Experience on the Web: An

empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 73, pp. 55-69

Iarossi, G. (2006). The Power of Survey Design: A user’s guide for managing surveys,

interpreting results, and influencing respondents, The World Bank, Washington

iCrossing (2007). How America Searches, iCrossing Inc., June 2007, [online] available from:

http://www.icrossing.com/articles/How%20America%20Searches.pdf [accessed 31st July

2009]

Internet World Stats (2009). Internet Usage in Europe, Internet World Stats – usage and

population statistics, March 2009, [online] available from:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm [accessed August 2nd 2009]

Page 65: Master's Final Dissertation

65

iProspect (2006). Search Engine User Behavior Study – April 2006, iProspect Inc., [online]

available from:

http://www.iprospect.com/premiumPDFs/WhitePaper_2006_SearchEngineUserBehavior.pdf

[accessed June 7th 2009]

iProspect (2007). iProspect Social Networking User Behavior Study – April 2007, iProspect

Inc, [online] available from:

http://www.iprospect.com/about/researchstudy_2007_socialnetworkingbehavior.htm

[accessed June 13th 2009]

Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K. and Chowdury, A. (2009). Micro-blogging as Online Word

of Mouth Branding, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Boston April

2009, [online] available from: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1530000/1520584/p3859-

jansen.pdf?key1=1520584&key2=0340194421&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=40480589

&CFTOKEN=20352822 [accessed June 13th 2009]

Jensen, M.B. (2008). Online Marketing Communication Potential, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 42, No. 3/4, pp. 502-525

Jurvetson, S. and Draper, T. (1997). Viral Marketing Phenomenon Explained, Draper Fisher

Jurvetson, January 1997, [online] http://www.dfj.com/news/article_26.shtml [accessed June

12th 2009]

Kirby, J. and Mardsen, P. (2005). Connected Marketing: the viral, buzz and word of mouth

revolution, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

Klaassen, A. (2009). Is There any Marketer not Using Search Marketing These Days?,

Advertising Age, Vol. 80, Issue 11, p. 50

Kumar, N. and Lang, K.R. (2007). Do Search Terms Matter for Online Consumers? The

interplay between search engine query specification and topical organization, Decision

Support Systems, Vol. 44, pp. 159-174

Lin, T.M.Y., Wu, H.H., Liao, C.W. and Liu, T.H. (2006). Why are Some Emails Forwarded

and Others Not?, Internet Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 81-93

Page 66: Master's Final Dissertation

66

Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J. (2009). Social Media: The new hybrid element of the

promotion mix, Kelley School of Business, Vol. 52, pp. 357-365

Microsoft (2007). World of the Web Guidelines for advertisers – Understanding trends and

monetizing social networks, Microsoft Advertising, [online] available from:

http://advertising.microsoft.com/uk/press-realease?Adv_PressReleaseID=416 [accessed June

7th 2009]

Mintel (2008). Consumer Attitudes towards Word of Mouth and Viral Marketing - UK - April

2008, Mintel Oxygen, [online] available from:

http://academic.mintel.com/sinatra/oxygen_academic/search_results/show&/display/id=29168

9 [accessed June 12th 2009]

Nie, N.H. and Erbring, L. (2002). Internet and Society: a Preliminary Report, IT & Society,

Vol.. 1, Issue 1, pp. 275-283

O’Connor, P. (2009). Pay-per-Click Search Engine Advertising: Are Hotel Trademarks Being

Abused?, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 50, Issue 2, pp. 232-244

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next

Generation of Software, O’Reilly Publishing, [online] available from:

http://oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html [accessed June 4th

2009].

Park, D.H. and Kim, S. (2008). The Effects of Consumer Knowledge on Message Processing

of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Via Online Consumer Reviews, Electronic Commerce Research

Applications, Vol. 7, Issue 4, pp. 399-410

Park, D.H. and Lee, J. (2008). eWOM Overload and its Effect on Consumer Behavioral

Intention Depending on Consumer Involvement, Electronic Commerce Research and

Applications, Vol. 7, Issue 4, pp. 386-398

Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S., and Bronnenberg, B.J. (1999). Exploring the

Implications of the Internet for Consumer Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 329-346

Page 67: Master's Final Dissertation

67

Phelps, J.E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D. and Raman, N. (2004). Viral Marketing or

Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining consumer responses and motivations to

pass-a-long email, Journal of Advertising Research, December 2004, pp. 333-348

Polonsky, M.P. and Waller, D.S. (2005). Designing and Managing a Research Project – a

business student’s guide, Sage Publications Inc, London

Prometeus (2007). [Video Recording] Prometeus – the Future of Media, Casaleggio

Associati,[online] available from: http://www.casaleggio.it/thefutureofmedia/ [accessed June

13th 2009]

Ramos, L. (2009). Social Media as Influencer, B to B, Vol. 94, Issue 4, [online] available

from: http://web.ebscohost.com/bsi/detail?vid=4&hid=7&sid=9922e286-2ec0-421a-a30c-

c9c04d0e74f9%40sessionmgr109&bdata=JnNpdGU9YnNpLWxpdmU%3d#db=buh&AN=39

769896 [accessed June 13th 2009]

Razi, M.A., Tarn, J.M., and Siddiqui, F.A. (2004), Exploring the Failure and Success of

DotComs”, Information Management & Computer Security, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 228-243

Reuters (2009). SurveyMonkey Announces Group Led by Spectrum Equity to Become

Majority Investor, April 2009, [online] available from:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS151480+20-Apr-2009+BW20090420

[accessed June 9th

2009]

Schonlau, M., Fricker, J.R.D. and Elliott, M.N. (2002). Conducting Research Surveys via

Email and the Web, Rand, Santa Monica – California

Sen, R. (2005). Optimal Search Engine Marketing Strategy, International Journal of

Electronic Commerce, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 9-25

SEO Consultants (2009). Top Ten Search Engines, SEO Consultants, [online] available from:

http://www.seoconsultants.com/search-engines/ [accessed June 4th 2009].

Sinha, G. (2009). Social Media 2.0, Silicon India, March 2009, [online] available from:

http://web.ebscohost.com/bsi/pdf?vid=4&hid=7&sid=9922e286-2ec0-421a-a30c-

c9c04d0e74f9%40sessionmgr109 [accessed June 13th 2009]

Page 68: Master's Final Dissertation

68

Smith, J. (2009). Google Adwords that Work – 7 secrets for cashing in with the world’s no.1

search engine, The Infinite Ideas Ltd, Oxford

Smith, T., Coyle, J.R., Lightfoot, E. and Scott, A. (2007). The relationship between consumer

social networks and WOM effectiveness, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, Issue 4,

pp. 387-397

Sullivan, D. (2007). Buying Your Way In: Search Engine Advertising Chart – March 2007,

searchenginewatch.com, [online] available from: http://searchenginewatch.com/2167941

[accessed June 13th 2009]

SurveyMonkey.com (2009). Features Highlights, Survey Monkey – online survey tool, June

2009, [online] available from: http://www.surveymonkey.com/Home_FeaturesDesign.aspx

[accessed June 20th 2009]

Telegraph (2009). Teenagers Spend an Average of 31 Hours Online, February 2009, [online]

available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4574792/Teenagers-spend-an-

average-of-31-hours-online.html [accessed 30th July 2009]

Thackeray, R., Neiger, B.L., Hanson, C.L. and McKenzie, J.F. (2008). Enhancing

Promotional Strategies within Social Marketing Programs: Use of Web 2.0 Social Media,

Health Promotion Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 338-343

Vasishtha, P. (2009). Making Web 2.0 Work for You, Advisor Today, January 2009, Vol.

104, Issue 1, pp. 28-29

Web Advantage (2004). Business Users Search Engine Survey, Web Advantage, December

2004, [online] available from: http://www.webadvantage.net/newsroom/results-from-

webadvantagenets-business-users-search-engine-survey-63 [accessed 31st July 2009]

Wilson, D.W. (2008). Monitoring Technology Trends with Podcasts, RSS and Twitter,

Library Hi Tech News, No. 10, pp. 8-12

Word of Mouth Marketing Association (2009). Wom 101, Word of Mouth Marketing

Association, [online] available from: http://www.womma.org/wom101/ [accessed June 5th

2009]

Page 69: Master's Final Dissertation

69

CYBEROGRAPHY

http://econsultancy.com/reports

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/

http://oreilly.com/community/

http://searchenginewatch.com/

http://womma.org/downloads/

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/Web-en.html

http://www.darpa.mil/history.html

http://www.dfj.com/news/cat_index_2.shtml

http://www.digitaltrainingacademy.com/

http://www.google.com/webmasters/

http://www.google.com/onlinechallenge/index.html

http://www.howtotweet.co.uk/

http://www.iprospect.com/search-engine-marketing-university/index.htm

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/

http://www.seoconsultants.com/seo/tips/

http://www.seomoz.org/articles

http://www.the-dma.org/index.php

Page 70: Master's Final Dissertation

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Curwin, J. and Slater, R. (2008). Quantitative Methods for Business Decisions, 6th

Edn.,

Thompson Learning, London

Garner, R. and Dennison, G. (2008). Integrating Search and Social Media, iCrossing and

Pluck, September 2008, [online] available from:

http://www.icrossing.com/research/integrating-search-and-social-media.php [accessed August

29th 2009]

Grappone, J. and Couzin, G. (2008). Search Engine Optimization – An hour a day, 2nd

Edn.,

Wiley Publishing Inc, New Jersey

Malhotra, N.K. (2002). Basic Marketing Research – applications to contemporary issues,

Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000). Research Methods for Business Students,

2nd

Edn., Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow

Scott, D.M. (2009).The New Rules of Marketing & PR, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey

Thomas, A.B. (2004). Research Skills for Management Studies, Routledge Taylor & Francis

Group, New York

Thomas, S.J. (2004). Using Web and Paper Questionnaires for Data-Based Decision Making,

Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Page 71: Master's Final Dissertation

71

APPENDIXES

Appendix A – Sample of how the survey looked like to the respondents

Page 72: Master's Final Dissertation

72

Appendix B – Facebook page of the pilot survey

Page 73: Master's Final Dissertation

73

Appendix C – Survey response summary

Page 74: Master's Final Dissertation

74

Appendix D – Survey Monkey upgrade - payment receipt

Page 75: Master's Final Dissertation

Appendix E – Gantt Chart

ACTIVITY

WEEK

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

01-Jun 08-Jun 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 06-Jul 13-Jul 20-Jul 27-Jul 03-Aug 10-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 31-Aug

Re-writing of Research Proposal • • •

• •

Secondary Research - Literature Review • • • •

• • •

Questionnaires design and Pilot testing • • •

• •

Primary Research Data Collection • • •

• •

Primary Research data statistical analysis •

• •

Primary Research discussion and implications • • •

• • •

Organizing final project •

• •

Submission of final project •

Legend: Planned duration • Actual Duration •

Page 76: Master's Final Dissertation

Appendix F - Questionnaire Structure