4.2.3.1 SMM Tool Use
The most frequently selected SMM tool was "Blog (comments enabled)", with 90.5% (n = 38) of respondents indicating that they used this method. "Microblog (e.g. Twitter)" and
"Social Networks (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn)" were the second and third most popular tools, with 88.1% (n = 37) and 81.0% (34) respectively. The least frequently selected SMM tool was "Blog (comments disabled)", with just a single respondent choosing this option. Table 7 shows the full results of this question.
Table 7 : SMM Tool Use
SMM Tool Frequency Percentage
Blog (comments enabled) 38 90.5
Microblog (e.g. Twitter) 37 88.1
Social Networks (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn) 34 81
Video sharing website (e.g. YouTube) 29 69
Photo sharing website (e.g. Flickr) 23 54.8
Discussion forum (moderated by a third party, e.g. Boards.ie) 20 47.6
Social Bookmarking (e.g. Delicious) 18 42.9
Wiki 9 21.4
Discussion forum (moderated by your company) 8 19
Other 4 9.5
Blog (comments disabled) 1 2.4
The majority of participants indicated that they used two or more SMM tools, with just 2.1% claiming to use a single SMM tool. This is not surprising, as it is unlikely that any company is being discussed in any single location on the Web, and SMEs practising SMM will seek to engage with their customers wherever they congregate online. The mean number of SMM tools selected was 4.52. The percentage of participants who selected above the mean number of SMM tools was 58%.
4 participants indicated that they used a number of SMM tools which were not listed amongst the original options for the question. The additional SMM tools were as follows:
• IGOpeople - http://www.igopeople.com
• Podbean.com - http://www.podbean.com
• SlideShare - http://www.slideshare.net
• Wikinvest - http://www.wikinvest.com
• MeettheBoss - http://www.meettheboss.com
Three of these SMM tools (IGOpeople, Wikinvest, MeettheBoss) provide platforms for companies to represent themselves on the Web in locations outside of their immediate sphere of control. Creating company 'profiles' on these socially-enabled directory sites helps to raise awareness of the company, particularly within the business-to-business community. The other two SMM tools (Podbean.com, SlideShare) are channels for helping to distribute content (in these cases audio commentary and corporate presentations respectively) which help establish the company's expertise and credibility.
An investigation was undertaken to examine if a relationship existed between the number of SMM tools, and the rates of customer acquisition and retention. First looking at customer acquisition, an independent t-test was used to see if there was any difference between those that had seen an increase (mean = 5.45, standard deviation = 1.543), or no change (mean = 2.33, standard deviation = 1.155). The results of the t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the two means (t = 3.399, df = 34, p = .002). The mean difference between the groups was 3.121, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between 1.255 and 4.987.
With regard to customer retention, an independent t-test was again used to investigate whether there was a difference between those that had seen an increase (mean = 5.64, standard deviation = 1.56), or no change (mean = 4.31, standard deviation = 2.287). The results of t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the two means (t = 2.045, df = 33, p = 0.049). The mean difference between the groups was 1.329, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between 0.007 and 2.651.
4.2.3.2 Number of months using SMM
The length of time in months participants have been using SMM ranged between 6 and 114. The mean for the group was 35, and the standard deviation was 26.947. A mean of almost 3 years would indicate that the survey responders would be considered "early-adopters" of SMM, given that it has only recently begun to enter mainstream awareness.
An investigation was undertaken to examine if a relationship existed between the length of time participants have been using SMM, and their rates of customer acquisition and retention. First looking at customer acquisition, an independent t-test was used to see if there was any difference between those that had seen an increase (mean = 38.06, standard deviation = 28.496), or no change (mean = 14.67, standard deviation = 5.774). The results of the t-test showed that there was no significant differences between the two means (t = 1.401, df = 33, p = .171). The mean difference between the groups was 23.396, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between -10.577 and 57.369.
With regard to customer retention, an independent t-test was again used to investigate whether there was a difference those that had seen an increase (mean = 45.71, standard deviation = 32.114), or no change (mean = 24.17, standard deviation = 11.738). The results of t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the two means, when equal variances were not assumed (t = 2.768, df = 27.693, p = 0.01). The mean difference between the groups was 21.548, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between 5.595 and 37.501.
4.2.3.3 Motivation to begin using SMM
The most frequently selected motivator was "To promote your company better" (85.7%, n
= 36), with "To lower operating costs" and "Increased competition" being the joint least frequently selected at 4.8% (n = 2). Participants selected between 0 and 9 motivators, with a mean of 3.35 and a standard deviation of 2.338 (n = 48).
The most frequently selected 'proactive' and 'reactive' motivators were "To promote your company better" (85.7%, n = 36) and "Brand reputation management" (47.6%, n = 20), respectively. The 'proactive' motivators (To promote your company better; To enrich your overall marketing communications mix; Management enthusiasm; To increase sales; To carry out market research) outweighed the 'reactive' motivators (Fear of competitive disadvantage; To lower operating costs; To lower marketing costs; Brand reputation management; Increased competition) in 64.6% of the cases.
An interesting point to note is that one of the 'proactive' motivators, "To increase sales", a key strategic objective for many businesses, was chosen by less than half of the respondents (47.6%, n = 20) as one of the reasons they began using SMM. Table 8 shows the full breakdown of the results of this question.
Table 8 : Motivators to begin using SMM
Motivator Frequency Percentage
To promote your company better 36 85.7
To enrich your overall marketing communications mix 30 71.4
To increase sales 20 47.6
Brand reputation management 20 47.6
Management enthusiasm 16 38.1
To lower marketing costs 15 35.7
Other 15 31
To carry out market research 12 28.6
Fear of competitive disadvantage 8 19
To lower operating costs 2 4.8
Increased competition 2 4.8
13 participants indicated that there were a number of other motivators to begin using SMM which were not listed amongst the original options for the question. Some of the additional SMM motivators were as follows:
"we couldn't compete with larger companies on budget so we had to find a way to reach the market that had a low cost of client acquisition"
"Optimise offiline [sic] networking efforts. Get to know people faster and easier.
Speed in communication"
"Changing trends in marketing. Opportunity to convese [sic]"
"Ability to offer extra services to clients"
"To share information and thoughts"
4.2.3.4 Level of staff involvement
The figures for the number of staff employed by participating companies ranged from a low of 1 to high of 85. The mean was 11.28, with a standard deviation of 17.831 (n = 47).
The mean was 43.809, with a standard deviation of 39.627 (n = 46). The values for the percentage of staff engaged in SMM ranged from a low of 0% to a high of 100%. The mean was 43.809, with a standard deviation of 39.627 (n = 46). An investigation was undertaken to examine if a relationship existed between the percentage of staff engaged in SMM, and the rates of customer acquisition and retention in participating companies. First looking at customer acquisition, an independent t-test was used to see if there was any difference between those that had seen an increase (mean = 58.814, standard deviation = 36.983), or no change (mean = 9.252, standard deviation = 5.978). The results of the t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the two means, when equal variances were not assumed (t = 6.785, df = 22.843, p = .000). The mean difference between the groups was 49.56191, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between 34.445 and 64.679.
With regard to customer retention, an independent t-test was again used to investigate whether there was a difference between those that had seen an increase (mean = 64.622, standard deviation = 35.755), or no change (mean = 24.075, standard deviation = 26.013).
The results of t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the two means, when equal variances were not assumed (t = 3.863, df = 31.392, p = 0.001). The mean difference between the groups was 40.546, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between 19.151 and 61.942.
The values for the number of hours all staff spent engaging in SMM ranged from a low of 1 hour to a high of 50 hours. The mean was 12.46, with a standard deviation of 11.112. An
analysis was carried out on the rates of customer acquisition and retention in participating companies, based on the number of hours all staff spent engaging in SMM. First looking at customer acquisition, an independent t-test was used to see if there was any difference between those that had seen an increase (mean = 14.34, standard deviation = 11.392), or no change (mean = 2.33, standard deviation = 2.309). The results of the t-test showed that there was no significant difference between the two means (t = 1.799, df = 33, p = .081).
The mean difference between the groups was 12.01, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between -1.572 and 25.592.
With regard to customer retention, an independent t-test was again used to investigate whether there was a difference between those that had seen an increase (mean = 13.71, standard deviation = 8.878), or no change (mean = 10.5, standard deviation = 13.661). The results of t-test again showed that there was no significant difference between the two means (t = 0.821, df = 31, p = 0.418). The mean difference between the groups was 3.214, and the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference was between -4.771 and 11.2.
4.2.3.5 Percentage of time spent monitoring or contributing to online conversations
The values for the percentage of time spent monitoring online conversations ranged from a low of 0% to a high of 50%. The mean was 13.97, with a standard deviation of 12.658. An independent t-test showed that there was no significant difference between those who reported an increase in the rate of customer acquisition (mean = 13.55, standard deviation
= 11.015) compared to those who reported no change (mean = 18.33, standard deviation = 27.538), in terms of the percentage of time spent monitoring online conversations (t = -0.299, df = 2.062, p = 0.793), where equal variances were not assumed.
The same test was conducted with regards to customer retention: again, no significant difference was established between the two groups (t = -0.301, df = 32, p = 0.765). The mean for those who reported an increase in the rate of customer retention was 13.18, and the standard deviation was 12.358. For those who reported no change the mean was 14.58 and the standard deviation was 14.055.
The values for the percentage of time spent contributing to online conversations ranged from a low of 0% to a high of 95%. The mean was 22.36, with a standard deviation of 25.027. An independent t-test showed that there was no significant difference between those who reported an increase in the rate of customer acquisition (mean = 23.5, standard deviation = 25.701) compared to those who reported no change (mean = 5, standard deviation = 5), in terms of the percentage of time spent contributing to online conversations (t = 1.229, df = 33, p = 0.228).
The same test was conducted with regards to customer retention: again, no significant difference was established between the two groups (t = 0.324, df = 32, p = 0.748). The mean for those who reported an increase in the rate of customer retention was 21.73, and the standard deviation was 24.204. For those who reported no change the mean was 19 and the standard deviation was 21.851.
4.2.3.6 Percentage of overall marketing budget spent on SMM
As a percentage of their overall marketing budget, participants' spend on SMM varied between a low of 0% and a high of 91%-100%. The percentage range with the highest frequency of selection was 1%-10%, with 45.2% (n = 19) of participants choosing this option. A Pearson's Chi-Square test was conducted on participants' spend on SMM as a percentage of their overall marketing budget, comparing it against the rates of customer acquisition and retention. The results show that neither relationship was statistically significant, with customer acquisition giving a result of (n = 41) = 6.864, p = 0.94, and the customer retention analysis resulting in (n = 41) = 12.716, p = 0.549. Table 9 provides a full listing of the results of this question.
Table 9 : Percentage of overall marketing budget spent on SMM
Percentile range Frequency Percentage
0 12 28.6
1-10 19 45.2
11-20 4 9.5
21-30 1 2.4
31-40 0 0
41-50 3 7.1
51-60 0 0
61-70 1 2.4
71-80 0 0
81-90 1 2.4
91-100 1 2.4
4.2.3.7 SMM spend as a percentage of average cost-per-sale
As a percentage of the average cost-per-sale, the ranges representing participants' SMM spend varied between a low of 0% and a high of 41%-50%. The percentage range with the highest frequency of selection was 1%-10%, with 52.5% (n = 21) of participants choosing this option. A Pearson's Chi-Square test was also conducted on participants' spend on SMM as a percentage of their average cost-per-sale, comparing it against the rates of customer acquisition and retention. Again, the results show that neither relationship was statistically significant, with customer acquisition giving a result of (n = 39) = 5.878, p = 0.437, and the customer retention analysis resulting in (n = 39) = 9.823, p = 0.132. Table 10 provides a full listing of the results of this question.
Table 10 : SMM spend as a percentage of average cost-per-sale
4.2.3.8 Likelihood of SMM forming a significant portion of marketing activities in the future
When asked to indicate the likelihood of SMM forming a significant portion of their marketing activities in the future, the majority of respondents selected "Highly likely", with 73.7% (n = 28) of the respondents choosing this option. The least frequently selected choices were "Highly unlikely" and "Unlikely", with none of the respondents choosing either of these options. See Table 11 for a full breakdown of the results of this question.
Table 11 : Likelihood of SMM forming a significant portion of marketing activities in the future
Highly unlikely
Unlikely Unsure Likely Highly likely
Likelihood 0% (0) 0% (0) 5.3% (2) 21.1% (8) 73.7% (28)
The combined percentage of participants who consider it likely or highly likely that SMM will form a significant portion of their future marketing activities was 94.8%.
4.3 Qualitative Analysis
A number of the questions in the online survey produced qualitative data, representing participants' opinions on key topics surrounding the use of SMM. These data will now be analysed to identify common trends which can provide an insight into these topic areas.
The full set of responses to these questions is listed in Appendix F.
4.3.1 Impact of SMM on Research and Development (R&D) or New Product/Service