A Study On Awareness Of Indian Customers Towards Social Media Marketing – A Special Reference To Tamilnadu
S.Thiruselvan1, Dr. R. PonMurugan2 .
Abstract
This study is targeted to empirically investigate the Indian consumer perceptions on social media advertisements. For this purpose 250 respondents are selected through convenience sampling method with interview schedule to collect the information about customers perceptive of social media marketing in Tamil Nadu especially in Thoothukudi district and analyse through multivariate analysis. The objective of the study is to analyse various factors of social media marketing and customer’s opinion about buying products. In this drive MANOVA has employed along with turkey post-hoc test. The results obtained are based on the output variables namely economic indicator, administrative indicator and purchase intention indicator with input variables such as sources of awareness, internet usage and number of visits per week. Economics indicator is significantly differing with sources of awareness but do not differ with number of visits per week and internet usage. It indicates that advertisements published in social media websites are perceived inversely depending on the website in which they appear.
Introduction
The evolution of social media in the last decade has been impressive, as have been the countless functions offered by it.Marketing scenario had been extremely traditional earlier, but now there is a welcome move towards digital marketing(Haida A. and Rahim H.L.,2015 and J.
Phillips and S. M. Noble.,2017). This shift has been gearedup to a huge range by social media and its several functions(Aparna p. Goyal.,Teena. &. SanjeevBansal,2016, Rodriguez, M., Peterson, R.M. and Krishnan, V., 2017). Rising public coverage to social media has provided new chances to marketers to target an initial section of society towards social media awareness.
The increasing existence of advertisements in social media sites is a noticeable result of this statistic(Baird, C.H. &Parasnis, G, 2011 and Abhamid, N.R.,2008). While the surge in the number of advertisements in social media has vibrant takers in industry, its risinginterest in academic groups cannot be understated(NimaBarhemmati&Azhar Ahmad,2018 and Pfeil, U., Arjan, R. and Zaphiris, P.,2019). The levels of advertisements in social media offers much scope for research to understand opportunities and challenges involved(Bhatt, S. & Bhatt, A.,2012).
With swiftly mounting developments in social media functions that make themhighly specialized and matchless, it is neither applied nor correct to cluster all functions intoa single unit to recognize their impact on users(Schivinski, B &Dabrowski, D., 2016 andBranthwaite, A. &
Patterson, S.,2011). It is therefore important to study theeffect of advertisements in various types of social media functions on users to understandtheir suitability and effectiveness.
Research problem
‘Product information’ is a significant feature in consumer attitudetowards commercials, from both consumer and advertiser perspectives (D’Silva, B., Bhuptani, R., Menon, S., &D’Silva, S., 2011 and Jahn, B. and Kunz, W.,2012). It indicates that there is a strong associationbetween
1Ph.D. Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, Aditanar College of Arts and Science, Tiruchendur - Affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu.
2Principal and Associate Professor (Retd.), T.D.M.N.S College, T.Kallikulam - Affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu.
consumer attitude,belief and product information towards onlineadvertisements.The information indicator isapplicable to web advertisements as well(DharmeshMotwani, DevendraShrimali, and KhushbuAgarwal 2014 and Ramaswamy, V, 2018). Whereas the contrary studies by Social media may mislead contradictorymessages that can influence the consumer’s attitude towards advertisements and webadvertisements are no exceptions(Vijayalaxmi, &Srinivasarao.,2015 and Nisar, T. M. and Whitehead, C.,2016). Previous studies have shown a negative relationshipbetween consumer attitude and lies spread in web advertisements. The purchasing habits of consumers can be inclined by a several factors, not all of them arerational(Adnan VeyselErtemel, & Ahmad Amoura, 2016 and Hanna, R., Rohm, A., and Crittenden, 2011).
Consumers can buy products they do not need or cannot afford, if they are aware of the value of it(Azeem, A. &Haq, Z.U., 2012).Social media marketing increases dissatisfactionamong consumers by showing products which some consumers can’t afford and it makes people buy unaffordable products just to show off(Gehrt, K.C., Rajan, M.N., Shainesh, G., Czerwinski, D.
and O’Brien, M., 2012, Hajli, N. M., 2014).
Indian online trades have shown preference to social media in recent years. Update posts and advertisements in social media have a noteworthy effect on online buying decisions of online consumers in India(Kelly, L., Kerr, G., &Drennan, J.,2011 and Kamal, S. and Chu, S.,2012).Present study attempts to examine consumer perception of belief across different social media sites in India. For this, economic, administrative and purchase intention indicators were chosen.
Objectives
To analyse the different factors of social media marketing and their role in influencing customer in favour of purchase of products.
Hypothesis
H01: There is no significant difference among ‘Economic, Administrative and Purchasing Indicators’ with ‘Sources of Awareness’, ‘Internet Usage’,’ Number of Visits Per Week’ variables.
H02: There is no significant difference among ‘Economic indicator, Administrative indicator and Purchasing Indicators.
Sample selection
The present research paper is based on descriptive statistics and has applied suitable sampling technique for research design and interview schedule has been employed for the data collection. For this drive 250 samples are selected from Thoothukudi District at Tamilnadu.
Data and Methodology
For testing the hypothesis, MANOVA is measured to be appropriate and is used as the analysis tool in the study. MANOVA has the facilityto assort the significant differences among groups considering the employed dependent variable(Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L.
and Black, W.C, 1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Multiple comparative post hoctests are shown to classify the difference in pattern of consumer behaviour across the three measurement indicators.
Results
Table 1. Frequency Analysis
Test Variable N Percent
Sources of Awareness
Word of Mouth 59 23.6
Friends & Relatives 89 35.6
News Paper 73 29.2
TV & Social Media 29 11.6
Total 250 100.0
Internet Usage
Less than 1year 74 29.6
1 –2 years 63 25.2
3 – 4 years 53 21.2
4 - 5 years 47 18.8
Above 5 years 13 5.2
Total 250 100.0
No. of visits per week
Less than 5 times 52 20.8
6 to 10 times 55 22.0
11 to 20 times 62 24.8
Above 20 times 81 32.4
Total 250 100.0
Table 1 reveals the variables of 250 respondent’s opinion on social media marketing. In the case of source of awareness, 23.6 percent selected ‘word of mouth’ category, 35.6 percent chosen ‘friends and relatives’ group, 29.2 percent picked ‘newspaper’ bracket and only 11.6 percent preferred ‘TV and social media’ cluster. On the other hand, 29.6 percent selected ‘lesser than one year’ internet usage category, 25.2 percent favored ‘1-2 years’ cluster, 21.2 and 18.8 percent chose ‘3-4 year’ and ‘4-5 years’ groups respectively whereas only 5.2 percent selected
‘above 5 years classification. 20.8 percent of respondents used internet less than 5 times per week, 22 percent used 6 to 10 times, 24.8 percent utilized 11 to 20 times and the majority of 32.4 percent visited internet more than 20 times per week.
Table 2.Reliability Statistics
Test variable Cronbach's Alpha
Economic Indicator 0.712 Administrative indicator 0.721 Purchasing intention indicator 0.729 Overall Indicator 0. 788
Table 2 indicates that reliability of statistics on economic indicator is 71.2 percent, administrative indicator and purchasing intention indicator is measured to be 72.1 percent and 72.9 percent respectively but the overall indicator showed 78.8 percent reliability of the study as mentioned as Cronbach, L.J. 1951, if value of alpha is greater than 0.7.
Table 3.Shapiro-WilkTests of Normality Test Variable Economic indicator Administrative
indicator
Purchasing intention indicator
Sources of Awareness
Word of Mouth
0.053 (0.947)
[59]
0. 139 (0. 969)
[59]
0. 054 (0. 953)
[59]
Friends &
Relatives
0. 070 (0. 928)
[89]
0. 055 (0. 971)
[89]
0. 061 (0. 942)
[89]
News Paper
0. 073 (0. 963)
[73]
0. 057 (0. 958)
[73]
0. 055 (0. 967)
[73]
TV & Social Media
0. 230 (0. 954)
[29]
0. 128 (0. 944)
[29]
0. 063 (0. 904)
[29]
Internet Usage
Less than 1year
0. 060 (0. 917)
[74]
0. 053 (0. 961)
[74]
0. 052 (0. 967)
[74]
1 –2 years
0. 053 (0. 935)
[63]
0. 057 (0. 953)
[63]
0. 051 (0. 929)
[63]
3 – 4 years
0. 054 (0. 943)
[53]
0. 141 (0. 966)
[53]
0. 054 (0. 929)
[53]
Test Variable Economic indicator Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator
4 - 5 years
0. 067 (0. 955)
[47]
0. 090 (0. 958)
[47]
0. 074 (0. 956)
[47]
Above 5 years
0. 606 (0. 950)
[13]
0. 192 (0. 911)
[13]
0. 362 (0. 932)
[13]
No. of visits per week Less than 5
times
0. 045 (0. 943)
[52]
0. 052 (0. 951)
[52]
0. 076 (0. 032)
[52]
6 to 10 times 0. 041
(0. 918) [55]
0. 050 (0. 949)
[55]
0. 052 (0. 949)
[55]
11 to 20 times 0. 051 (0. 925)
[62]
0. 072 (0. 965)
[62]
0. 049 (0. 962)
[62]
Above 20 times 0. 056 (0. 962)
[81]
0. 051 (0. 970)
[81]
0. 070 (0. 956)
[81]
Note: No brackets refer p value; () refers statistic and [] refers degrees of freedom.
Table 3 implies normality which is greater than 0.05. In all the sub-groups of ‘sources of awareness’ and ‘internet usage’ categories, the significant value was above 5 percentand it implies normality. In the case of ‘number of visits per week’ bracket, except ‘less than 5 times’
and ‘6 to 10 times’ cluster, rest of all sub-categories, p-value > 0.05. Therefore, normality is assumed and an appropriate parametric test can be used.
Table 4.Correlations
Test Variable Economic Indicator
Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator
Economic indicator 1 .605** .499**
Test Variable Economic Indicator
Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator
Administrative indicator .605** 1 .567**
Purchasing intention indicator .499** .567** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4 explains the correlation co-efficient among the three categories. All the three indicators showed strong positive relationship with their respective groups. It indicated that there is nomulticollinearity problem and assumed the normality to choose further parametric test.
Table 5. Covariance Test Equality of Covariance Matrices
Box's M 296.839
F 1.135
df1 186
df2 5351.899
Sig. 0.105
Table 5 indicates covariance matrices of the dependent variables. The p-value 0.105 is higher than the significant value and it was observed that normality and covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups.
Table 6.Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances Indicators Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Economic indicator 0.963 47 183 0.546
Administrative indicator 0.955 47 183 0.561 Purchasing intention indicator 0.719 47 183 0.909
Table 6 observed the equality variances among the three groups. For all the three variables, p-value is higher than the level of significance and the conclusion is that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
Table 7.Multivariate Tests
Effect Λ F Hypothesis df Error df p η2
Sources 0.943 1.197 9.000 440.657 0.295 0.019
Internet 0.948 0.814 12.000 479.172 0.636 0.018 Visits 0.980 0. 398 9.000 440.657 0.936 0.936 Sources * @Internet 0.788 1.365 33.000 533.963 0.088 0.076
Sources * @Visits 0.890 0.800 27.000 529.256 0.754 0.038 Internet * @Visits 0.854 0.815 36.000 535.512 0.771 0.051 Sources * @Internet * @Visits 0.705 0.933 72.000 541.777 0.634 0.110
Table 7 indicates multivariate effects of the three categories. Among all the variables probability value is above the significant value and therefore normality is assumed to conduct further parametric test analysis.
Table 8.Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Effect Economic
indicator
Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator
Sources
0. .281 (1.286) [0.021]
0. 205 (1.543) [0. 025]
0. 369 (1.057) [0.017]
Internet
0. 799 (0. 413)
[0.009]
0. 687 (0. 567)
[0.012]
0. 864 (0. 320) [0. 007]
Visits
0. 944 (0. 127) [0. 002]
0. 949 (0. 118) [0. 002]
0. 624 (0. 587) [0. 010]
Sources *
@Internet
0. 786 (0. 647) [0. 037]
0. 268 (1.232) [0. 069]
0. 104 (1.591) [0. 087]
Sources * @Visits 0. 414 (1.035) [0. 048]
0. 853 (0. 527) [0. 025]
0. 865 (0. 511) [0. 025]
Internet * @Visits 0. 644 (0. 806) [0. 050]
0. 380 (1.079) [0. 066]
0. 721 (0. 730) [0. 046]
Sources *
@Internet *
@Visits
0. 368 (1.082) [0. 124]
0. 345 (1.102) [0. 126]
0. 478 (0.992) [0. 115]
Note: No brackets refer p value; () refers F-value; [] refers η2 value.
Table 9 implies tests between subject’s effects of the selected variable groups. Among the above variables p-value is higher than 0.05 and hence between the subjects effects are equal.
Thus we assumed the normality of the selected groups to conduct further tests.
Table 9.Estimates
Category Economic indicator Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator
Sources of Awareness Word of Mouth 19.122a
(0.417)
19.695a (0.351)
19.815a (0.392) Friends &
Relatives
20.126 (0.354)
19.997 (0.299)
20.11 (0.333) News Paper 20.529a
(0.4)
20.972a (0.337)
20.573a (0.376) TV & Social
Media
20.241a (0.577)
20.279a (0.486)
20.979a (0.542) Internet Usage
Less than 1year 19.733a (0.4)
20.021a (0.337)
19.960a (0.376) 1 –2 years 19.822
(0.427)
20.311 (0.36)
20.592 (0.402) 3 – 4 years 20.321a
(0.475)
19.720a (0.401)
20.372a (0.447) 4 - 5 years 20.082a
(0.432)
20.430a (0.364)
20.282a (0.406) Above 5 years 19.938a
(0.79)
20.781a (0.666)
20.344a (0.743) No. of visits per week
Less than 5 times
19.602a (.489)
20.020a (.413)
20.664a (.460) 6 to 10 times 20.066a
(.421)
20.449a (.355)
20.418a (.396) 11 to 20 times 20.008a
(.428)
20.029a (.360)
21.238a (.402) Above 20 times 20.141a
(.379)
20.266a (.319)
20.382a (.356) a. Based on modified population marginal mean.
Table 9 shows the selected variables estimators. Economics indicator was more satisfied in ‘newspaper’ and ‘friends & relative’ groups in first group. ‘3 – 4 years’ and ‘4 – 5 years’
categories have good relationship with second group. ‘Above 20 times’ and ‘6 to 10 times’
clusters have positive association with third group. The ‘newspaper’ and the next category have substantial relationship with administrative indicator. Above 5 years and 1 – 2 years clusters,
there is significant association with second group. 6 – 10 times and above 20 times classifications have considerable relationship with third group. TV & social media and newspaper brackets were statistically significant in sources of awareness group. 1 – 2 years and 3 – 4 years clusters have substantial association in second group. Less than 5 times and 6 to 10 times categories have significant correlation with third group.
Table 10. Multiple Comparisons on Sources of Awareness Test Variables Economic
indicator
Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator
Word of Mouth
Friends &
Relatives
0.884 (0.425)
0.996 (0.358)
0.997 (0.399) News Paper 0.017*
(0.443)
0.003*
(0.373)
0.621 (0.416) TV & Social
Media
0.575 (0.574)
0.942 (0.484)
0.328 (0.539)
Friends &
Relatives
Word of Mouth
0.884 (0.425)
0.996 (0.358)
0.997 (0.399) News Paper 0.058*
(0.399)
0.000*
(0.337)
0.678 (0.376) TV & Social
Media
0.861 (0.541)
0.867 (0.456)
0.362 (0.509)
News Paper
Word of Mouth
0.017*
(0.443)
0.003*
(0.373)
0.621 (0.416) Friends &
Relatives
0.058*
(0.399)
0.000**
(0.337)
0.678 (0.376) TV & Social
Media
0.717 (0.555)
0.110 (0.468)
0.860 (0.522)
TV & Social Media
Word of Mouth
0.575*
(0.574)
0.942 (0.484)
0.328 (0.539) Friends &
Relatives
0.861 (0.541)
0.867 (0.456)
0.362 (0.509)
News Paper 0.717
(0.555)
0.110 (0.468)
0.860 (0.522) Note: open brackets indicated significant value; Brackets indicated standard error.
Table 10 explains the multiple comparisons among the selected variables. ‘Word of mouth’ group with newspaper group p-values of economic indicator is 0.017 and administrative indicator is 0.003, which is lesser than 0.05 indicates that there is a significant difference from each other. Friends & relatives group with newspaper group significance value is lesser than 5
percent level implies that there is a significant variation from each group. Newspaper cluster, with word of mouth and friends & relatives brackets, were statistically significant with 5 percent.
Table 11. Multiple Comparisons on Internet Usage Internet Usage Economic
indicator
Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator Less than
1year
1 –2 years 0.874 (0. .434)
0. 738 (0. 365)
0. 939 (0. 408) 3 – 4 years 0. 869
(0.445)
0. 367 (0. 384)
0. 610 (0. 428) 4 - 5 years 0. 956
(0. 472)
0. 816 (0. 398)
0. 999 (0. 444) Above 5
years
0. 991 (0. 761)
0. 997 (0. 641)
0. 985 (0. 715) 1 –2 years Less than
1year
0. 874 (0. 434)
0. 738 (0. 365)
0. 939 (0. 408) 3 – 4 years 0. 368
(0. 471)
0. 970 (0. 397)
0. 962 (0. 443) 4 - 5 years 1.000
(0. 487)
1.000 (0. 411)
0. 879 (0. 458) Above 5
years
1.000 (0. 770)
0. 839 (0. 649)
1.000 (0. 725) 3 – 4 years Less than
1year
0. 869 (0. 455)
0. 367 (0. 384)
0. 610 (0. 428) 1 –2 years 0. 368
(0. 471)
0. 970 (0. 397)
0. 962 (0. 443) 4 - 5 years 0. 550
(0. 507)
0. 971 (0. 427)
0. 542 (0. 477) Above 5
years
0. 849 (0. 783)
0. 631 (0. 660)
0. 998 (0. 736) 4 - 5 years Less than
1year
0. 956 (0. 472
0. 816 (0. 398)
0. 999 (0. 444) 1 –2 years 1.000
(0. 487)
1.000 (0. 411)
0. 879 (0. 458) 3 – 4 years 0. 550
(0. 507)
0. 971 (0. 427)
0. 542 (0. 477) Above 5
years
1.000 (0. 793)
0. 864 (0. 668)
0. 964 (0. 745)
Above 5 years
Less than 1year
0. 991 (0. 761)
0. 997 (0. 641)
0. 985 (0. 715) 1 –2 years 1.000
(0. 770)
0. 839 (0. 649)
1.000 (0. 725) 3 – 4 years 0. 849
(0. 783)
0. 631 (0. 660)
0. 998 (0. 736) 4 - 5 years 1.000
(0. 793)
0. 864 (0. 668)
0. 964 (0. 745)
Table 11 observed multiple comparisons between internet usages and rests of other variables. In less than one year cluster with rest of other selected variable, p-value is greater than 0.05 and implies that there is no significant difference among others. classification with the remaining other variables showed significant value higher than 0.05, which meant no difference with each other. Furthermore, in comparison of 3 – 4 years, 4 – 5 years and above 5 years bracket with rest of the other sub variables p-value is above the level of significance which indicates that there is no difference in deviation among these variables.
Table 12. Multiple Comparisons of Number of Visits
No. of visits Economic
indicator
Administrative indicator
Purchasing intention indicator Less than 5
times
6 to 10 times
0. 994 (0. 489)
0. 770 (0. 412)
0. 914 (0. 460) 11 to 20
times
0. 985 (0. 476)
0. 998 (0. 401)
0. 538 (0. 447) Above 20
times
0. 797 (0. 449)
0. 442 (0. 379)
0. 966 (0. 423) 6 to 10
times
Less than 5 times
0. 994 (0. 489)
0. 770 (0. 412)
0. 914 (0. 460) 11 to 20
times
1.000 (0. 468)
0. 636 (0. 395)
0. 905 (0. 441) Above 20
times
0. 915 (0. 442)
0. 969 (0. 373)
0. 629 (0. 416) 11 to 20
times
Less than 5 times
0. 985 (0. 476)
0. 998 (0. 401)
0. 538 (0. 447) 6 to 10
times
1.000 (0. 468)
0. 636 (0. 395)
0. 905 (0. 441) Above 20
times
0. 941 (0. 427)
0. 291 (0. 360)
0. 197 (0. 401)
Above 20 times
Less than 5 times
0. 797 (0. 449)
0. 442 (0. 379)
0. 966 (0. 423) 6 to 10
times
0. 915 (0. 442)
0. 969 (0. 373)
0. 629 (0. 416) 11 to 20
times
0. 941 (0. 427)
0. 291 (0. 360)
0. 197 (0. 401)
Table 12 indicates multiple comparisons among number of visits with other dependent variable. In less than five times and 6 to 10 times classifications with other responses variables, p-values are higher than 5 percent. Hence we accepted the null and rejected the alternative hypothesis that there is no significant variation with each other. In comparison of 11 to 20 times and above 20 times brackets with remaining categories, probability value are greater than the level of significance. Therefore we accepted the null hypothesis that there is no difference with each other.
Discussion
Results based on the hypothesis of the study and different variables were taken intoconsideration regarding social media marketing from customers point of viewand are beinghighlightedasbelow;
The customer’s point of view on social media marketing multivariate results showing the respondent variables such as economic indicator, administrative indicator and purchase intention indicator with explanatory variables namely sources of awareness, internet usage and number of visits per week is analysed. The economic indicator correlated strongly positive relationship with administrative indicator than the purchase intention indicator. At the same time economic indicator showed significant difference with newspaper, word of mouth and TV &social media variables indicated that people are getting awareness about rationale of the product. On the other hand, purchasing intention of customers cannot be determined by internet usage and number of times visiting the social media.
Conclusion
Multivariate analysis of variance result indicates that most of the sample respondent’s gives importance to Social mediais creating strong desire for the product in the mind of customer and the results displayed that the advertisements published in social media websites are perceived inversely depending on the website in which they appear. An important observation from this research is that users do not perceive advertisements identically in all types of social media sites. The study identified new insights that are useful to both practitioners andacademicians. Especially, the evaluation of user perception of belief across the social media marketingoffers valuable useful information.
References
1. Abhamid, N.R., “Consumers’ behavior towards Internet technology and Internet marketing tools”, International Journal of Communications; (2008): 3(2).
2. Adnan VeyselErtemel, & Ahmad Amoura, “The role of Social Media Advertising in Consumer Buying Behavior”, Istanbul Commerce University, Turkey, International Journal of Commerce and Finance; 2016: 2(1).
3. Aparna p. Goyal.,Teena. &. SanjeevBansal, “Impact of Increasing Trend of Online Marketing on Consumer Buying Behavior: FMCG Brands in Indian Scenario”, International journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences, 2016; 4(5): 14-27.
4. Azeem, A. and Haq, Z.U. “Perception towards internet advertising: a study with reference to three different demographic groups”, Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2012; 4(1): 28–45.
5. Baird, C.H. and Parasnis, G., “From social media to social customer relationship management”, Strategy & Leadership, 2011; 39 (5): 30–37.
6. Bhatt, S. and Bhatt, A., “Factors influencing online shopping: an empirical study in Ahmedabad”, The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 2012; 11(4): 51–65.
7. Branthwaite, A. and Patterson, S., “The power of qualitative research in the era of social media”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 2011; 14 (4): 430–440.
8. D’Silva, B., Bhuptani, R., Menon, S., &D’Silva, S., “Influence of Social Media Marketing on Brand Choice Behaviour among Youth in India”, International Conference on Technology and Business Management, 2011; 28 (30): 756-763.
9. DharmeshMotwani, Dr. DevendraShrimali, and Ms. KhushbuAgarwal, “Consumer Attitude towards Social Media Marketing”, Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research (JBM&SSR), 2014; 3, (4): 1-12.
10. Gehrt, K.C., Rajan, M.N., Shainesh, G., Czerwinski, D. and O’Brien, M. “Emergence of online shopping in India: shopping orientation segments”, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, 2012; 40 (10):742–758.
11. Haida A. and Rahim H.L., “Social Media Advertising Value: A Study on Consumer’s Perception”, International Academic Research Journal of Business and Technology, 2015; 1 (1): 1-8.
12. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.,1998.
13. Hajli, N. M., “A Study of the Impact of Social Media on Consumers”, International Journal of Market Research, 2014; 56 (3): 387-404.
14. Hanna, R., Rohm, A., and Crittenden, “We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem”, Business Horizons, 2011; 54(3): 265-273.
15. J. Phillips and S. M. Noble, “Simply captivating: Understanding consumers' attitudes toward the cinema as an advertising medium”, Journal of Advertising, 2007; 36(1): 81- 94.
16. Jahn, B. and Kunz, W., “How to Transform Consumers into Fans of Your Brand”, Journal of Service Management, 2012; 23 (3): 344-361.
17. Kamal, S. and Chu, S., “Cultural differences in social media usage and beliefs and attitudes towards advertising on social media: findings from Dubai, United Arab Emirates”, Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments, 2012; 7(5): 123–141.
18. Kelly, L., Kerr, G., &Drennan, J., “Avoidance of advertising in social networking sites:
The teenage perspective” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2010; 10(2): 16-27.
19. NimaBarhemmati and Azhar Ahmad, “Effects of Social Network Marketing (SNM) on Consumer Purchase Behavior through Customer Engagement”, Journal of Advanced Management Science, 2015: 3(4):21-35.
20. Nisar, T. M. and Whitehead, C., “Brand Interactions and Social Media: Enhancing User Loyalty Through Social Networking Sites”, Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 62(3):
743-753.
21. Pfeil, U., Arjan, R. and Zaphiris, P., “Age differences in online social networking – a study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace”, Computers in Human Behavior, 2009; 25(3), 643–654.
22. Ramaswamy, V., “Co-creating Value Through Customers’ Experiences: The Nike Case Strategy and Leadership”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 2008; 36 (5): 9-14.
23. Rodriguez, M., Peterson, R.M. and Krishnan, V., “Social media’s influence on business- to-business sales performance”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 2012; 32, (3): 365–378.
24. Schivinski, B &Dabrowski, D., “The effect of social media communication on consumer perception of brands”, Journal of Marketing Communications, 2016; 22(2): 12-26.
25. Vijayalaxmi, &Srinivasarao, “Consumer Buying behavior for Electronic products a study of select items”, Kakatiya university, warangal, India, International journal of research and computational technology, 2015; 7 (2).
