Use Of Internal And External Hyperlinks
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Use Of Internal And External Hyperlinks
3.2 Machine interactivity: use of internal and external hyperlinks
Table III shows the use of hyperlinks in tweets, or what, in the context of web sites, has been called “machine interactivity” ( Hoffman and Novak, 1996 ). There were again no significant country differences in the use of internal and external hyperlinks (p > 0.1), and again very little evidence of any consistency within organisations across countries. For example Microsoft US and Qantas Australia were the largest users of internal links, with more than double the use of internal links of their equivalent other country site.
This apparent lack of strategic consistency in Twitter practices by the organisations is also demonstrated in Figure 2 , which shows the percentage of tweets with internal and external links for each organisation. Organisations closer to the top right hand corner (Billabong Australia and Microsoft US) are highest in machine interactivity, with high use of both internal and external links. However, imposition of a median split to show the six top organisations on each dimension reveals only two organisations (Dominos and Cosmo) having relative consistency of practice across the two countries, with Dominos’ consistency being caused by low use of either form of links.
- Discussion
Section:
In an era where many organisations are experimenting with their use of Twitter, but where there is little evidence on what is best practice to guide corporate use, the results provide useful data contrasting the use of Twitter across and within organisations, and provide a model for future analysis of corporate Twitter practices. First, the results reveal no consistent differences in organisational Twitter use between the US, the heaviest user of Twitter, and by comparable organisations in the less well‐developed Australian market, suggesting that organisational use does not reflect any differences in these two geographic markets. More surprisingly, however, the results show little evidence of consistent Twitter usage within organisations, or within those selling the same product in different geographic markets. The results thus fail to show any evidence of the strategic consistency, which has been said to be critical for marketing communications ( Duncan and Moriarty, 1998 ). It is possible that this lack of consistency within companies is due to different organisational objectives in US and Australian markets, and Twitter communications, which have been designed to address those different country objectives. However the failure to find any consistent differences in Twitter usage between the US and Australia suggests that differences in intra‐company Twitter use cannot be explained by country differences, and may instead reflect companies’ failure to develop strategic consistency in their use of Twitter in different markets.
A further indication that companies may not be strategically reviewing their Twitter use is provided by the low efficiency of Twitter communications by some companies. The most efficient user was Microsoft US, with over 80,000 followers, and more than 90 followers for every tweet ever sent. In contrast, Microsoft Australia had only 820 followers, which equates to less than one follower for every tweet ever sent. This relative lack of reach of tweets by Microsoft Australia and other organisations questions the return on any marketing investment in Twitter by these organisations. Microsoft Australia’s tweets were also very different in content from the company’s far more efficient US account, being largely reactive, with very low use of interactivity features such as hashtags, retweets, mentions and hyperlinks. This clear difference in Tweet content, and in efficiency of communications, suggests that the factors, which apparently led to efficient communication by the US account were not being examined and incorporated into the practices of the Australian account.
In contrast, despite a lack of common corporate ownership, Dominos was much more consistent in Twitter practice across the two accounts, with both accounts’ Twitter feed having a high percentage of replies, frequently to customer complaints, suggesting that Dominos in both countries is using Twitter as an online listening device and service recovery channel. While this strategy clearly has the potential for effective service recovery, it means that any follower or casual visitor to Dominos’ twitter feed will be confronted with a large percentage of tweets discussing, or hinting at, problems, e.g. “Sorry to hear that. Can you let our customer care team know where this was: http://bit.ly/3vszZ”.
An analysis of the different practices used by organisations thus reveals different possible Twitter strategies. Dominos’ high level of replies reflects one possible strategy: using Twitter as a response mechanism. While such a strategy allows organisations to react rapidly to customer complaints or queries, there was some evidence that a higher percentage of replies was associated with a lower number of followers, and thus with lower efficiency of reach: there was a marginally negative correlation between the percentage of replies and both the number of followers and the efficiency of communication (p=0.07 for each). It is possible that a large percentage of replies, while allowing interaction with individuals by responding to their tweets, may result in Twitter content, which is uninteresting to others, and discourages followers. Thus the use of Twitter as a one‐to‐one response mechanism may make it difficult to develop one‐to‐many communications with the same account. The only account with a high proportion of replies, which was above the median level of followers, and efficiency was Qantas US. That site had the highest proportion of replies (at 91 per cent), but many replies provided information which was likely to be useful and/or interesting to other followers, e.g. “Here’s a bit for your deal‐o‐the‐day … The Qantas Aussie AirPass is lower than ever for 4 days only! http://bit.ly/4DaySale”. Jansen et al. (2009b) have suggested that organisations should use multiple Twitter accounts for different purposes, and the Dominos example suggests that service recovery tweets might be better sent from a secondary service recovery account, thus avoiding emphasis on problems in the main corporate account. The main corporate Twitter account can then be used for promotional and branding activities or for replies if (like Qantas’ replies) those tweets are likely to be of interest to many followers.
In contrast with the reactive approach of Dominos and Qantas US, other accounts appeared to use Twitter to increase interpersonal interaction, but in different ways: Qantas Australia, Cosmo US and Microsoft US used hashtags to relate tweets to existing conversational threads, e.g. “A joburg local gives us some great and detailed advice on her hometown http://su.pr/1vOg8k #roadtosouthafrica #johannesburg” (thus making the tweet discoverable on two separate tweet threads, “roadtosouthafrica” and “johannesburg”, and making them more likely to be found by people for who the tweets are relevant and interesting). While there was no significant correlation between the percentage of hashtags and the efficiency of corporate communications, Microsoft US and Cosmo US (two of the three largest users of hashtags) had the two highest scores for efficiency of communication, suggesting that increased use of hashtags may, in some cases, lead to larger numbers of followers.
An alternative method of increasing interaction with one’s Twitter followers is to retweet others’ tweets, or refer to tweets by others. For example Microsoft US was one of the largest users of retweets and mentions, using tweets to forward tips, good news stories and favourable publicity, e.g. “TechTarget writes about how migrating to #Exchange 2010 can save money on storage http://bit.ly/dwqWqY(via @MicrosoftIW)”. Forwarding or referring to tweets by others has the dual potential advantages of communicating an apparently independent endorsement, and of creating credibility by referring to, or forwarding favourable tweets by the most influential users – those whose tweets are frequently reforwarded by others ( Romero et al. , 2010 ).
Other accounts used tweets to create what has been called “machine interactivity” ( Hoffman and Novak, 1996 ). For example across both of its accounts, Billabong was a consistent high user of internal and external hyperlinks to provide followers with links to sites relevant to surfing and company products, e.g. “Check out the Billabong XXL Global Big Wave Awards web cast LIVE in 45 min @Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.”. Both internal and external links have the potential to increase recipient engagement by providing easy access to relevant and interesting content, unconstrained by the 140 character restriction on tweets. However, external links risk diverting a follower to another company site. Perhaps to avoid this problem, Cosmo US appeared to have an implicit strategy of using Twitter to build internal web site traffic, with very little use of external links. Instead, Cosmo US sent a large number of tweets using questions about popular fashion, beauty, sex, music and TV shows to drive traffic to the corporate web site, e.g. “what does everyone think about The Hurt Locker winning Best Picture last night at the #oscars ? should #Avatar have won?”. This strategy appeared to be very successful in building the company’s web site traffic: one tweet from Cosmo US stated: “cosmopolitan.com reached 4 million unique users! the most we’ve ever had (& the most of all Hearst sites) Thanks to all of u for clicking!”.
4.1 Managerial implications
The organisations examined here demonstrate a range of possible Twitter strategies and, as with other areas of marketing, choice of the best Twitter strategy should depend on the organisational strategy, and on an assessment of how the organisation can achieve the best return on its marketing investment. Measurement of the short‐ and long‐term benefit of Twitter is not simple, but if, as some of these organisations demonstrate, an organisational account has only a small number of followers, this should trigger a review of best practice use of Twitter, both in other organisational markets and by other comparable organisations. However the general lack of consistent practice that we found within organisations suggests that many organisations are not developing strategic use of Twitter across the organisation, or learning from what works in one country, and using that to develop Twitter practice in another country.
- Conclusion
Section:
Twitter provides an additional channel in an integrated marketing communications strategy, and the strategies employed by each of the 12 Twitter accounts examined here represent good examples of interactive strategies which have been identified in literature examining web site design (e.g. Sundar et al. , 2003 ). Twitter is ideally placed to provide a highly interactive one‐to‐many information channel, using, like Microsoft US, a combination of retweets, hyperlinks, and hashtags to promote positive messages, especially by independent influential individuals. Twitter can also provide easy access to information for those to who it is most relevant or interesting, by pushing users to an internal web site (like Cosmo US). A Twitter strategy can also be reactive, using Twitter as a service recovery channel to respond to customer complaints – both those made directly to the organisation, or those discovered by monitoring the Twitter feed. Ideally, however, responses to customer complaints will be made through a secondary corporate account, in order to avoid damage to the organisation’s reputation by inadvertently publicising problems. The dual capacity of Twitter for one‐to‐one and one‐to‐many communication can thus be harnessed by using the major corporate account for tweets, which build the corporate brand, and using a secondary, lower profile account to respond to complaints.
Since this study involved analysis of only 12 corporate accounts, generalising results to other organisations using Twitter is difficult. However the lack of consistency across company accounts revealed here suggests that many organisations themselves are not sure of their best Twitter strategy, and are failing to apply learning from one organisational Twitter account to other corporate accounts. There is a need for further academic research exploring different Twitter strategies, to provide better guidance to organisations on optimising their use of Twitter. The results from this study can be used as a framework for the further study of organisational Twitter practice, and as a benchmark for further company comparisons.
Notes
- Using the address http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/twitter_id.xml?count=count&page=page_number]
References
1.
Asur, S. and Huberman, B. (2010), Predicting the Future with Social Media, HP Labs, Palo Alto, CA, available at: www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/socialmedia/socialmedia.pdf (accessed 24 April 2010).
2.
Barnes, N.G. (2010), The Fortune 500 and Social Media: a Longitudinal Study of Blogging, Twitter and Facebook Usage by America’s Largest Companies, Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, available at: www1.umassd.edu/cmr/studiesresearch/2010F500.pdf (accessed 21 January 2011).
3.
Bauerlein, V. (2010), “Gatorade’s ‘mission’: sell more drinks”, The Wall Street Journal, Vol. 14, p. B6.
4.
Busby, E., Field, D., Forth, P., Harsaae, J., Rose, J. and Salha, H. (2010), The CMO’s Imperative: Tackling New Digital Realities, Boston Consulting Group, available at: www.bcg.com/documents/file66995.pdf(accessed 1 February 2011).
5.
Cheng, A., Evans, M. and Harshdeep, S. (2009), “An in‐depth look inside the Twitter world”, Sysomos, available at: www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/ (accessed 15 June 2010).
6.
Coyle, J.R. and Thorson, E. (2001), “The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 65‐77. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
7.
Crawford, K. (2009), “Following you: disciplines of listening in social media”, Continuum, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp.525‐35. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve]
8.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1998), “A communication‐based marketing model for managing relationships”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 1‐13. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
9.
Ehrlich, K. and Shami, N.S. (2010), “Microblogging inside and outside the workplace”, Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2010), AAAI Publications,Washington, DC.
10.
Fortin, D. and Dholakia, R. (2005), “Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web‐based advertisment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 387‐96. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
11.
Ha, L. and James, E.L. (1998), “Interactivity reexamined: a baseline analysis of early business web sites”,Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 457‐74. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve]
12.
Hoffman, D. and Novak, T. (1996), “Marketing in hypermedia computer‐mediated environments: conceptual foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 50‐68. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
13.
Honeycutt, C. and Herring, C. (2009), “Beyond microblogging: conversation and collaboration via Twitter”,Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS ’09, Hawaii, pp.1‐10.
14.
Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M.M., Sobel, K. and Chowdury, A. (2009a), “The commercial impact of social mediating technologies: micro‐blogging as online word of mouth branding”, CHI ’09 Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, April 4‐9, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, pp. 3859‐64.
15.
Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M.M., Sobel, K. and Chowdury, A. (2009b), “Twitter power: tweets as electronic word of mouth”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 11, pp.2169‐88. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
16.
Java, A., Song, X., Finn, T. and Tseng, B. (2007), “Why we Twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities”, Proceedings of the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA‐KDD Workshop 2007, San Jose, CA, August 12‐15, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, pp. 56‐65.
17.
Koolstra, C.M. and Bos, M.J.W. (2009), “The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity”, International Communication Gazette, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 373‐91. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve]
18.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H. and Moon, S. (2010), “What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?”,Proceedings of the 19th International World Wide Web (WWW) Conference, ACM, Raleigh, NC, pp.591‐600.
19.
Lefkow, C. (2010), “Twitter unveils ad plan in profit push”, Sydney Morning Herald, 14 April.
20.
Macias, W. (2003), “A beginning look at the effects of interactivity, product involvement and web experience on comprehension: brand web sites as interactive advertising”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, pp. 31‐44. [CrossRef]
21.
Ostrow, A. (2010), “Inside Gatorade’s social media command center”, Mashable Blog, available at: http://mashable.com/2010/06/15/gatorade‐social‐media‐mission‐control/ (accessed 21 January 2011).
22.
Pavlik, J. and McIntosh, S. (2011), Converging Media: A New Introduction to Mass Communication,Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
23.
Rafaeli, S. (1988), “Interactivity: from new media to communication”, in Hawkins, R., Wiemann, J.M. andPingree, S. (Eds), Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 110‐34.
24.
Rafaeli, S. and Sudweeks, F. (1997), “Networked interactivity”, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, Vol. 2 No. 4. [Infotrieve]
25.
Riemer, K. and Richter, A. (2010), “Tweet inside: microblogging in a corporate context”, Proceedings of the 23rd Bled eConference eTrust: Implications for the Individual, Enterprises and Society, Bled.
26.
Romero, D., Galuba, W., Asur, S. and Huberman, B. (2010), Influence and Passivity in Social Media, HP Labs, Palo Alto, CA, available at: www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/influence/influence.pdf (accessed 26 August).
27.
Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S. and Munuera, J.L. (2005), “Effects of interactivity in a web site”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 31‐45. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve]
28.
Song, J.H. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2008), “Determinants of perceived web site interactivity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 99‐113. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
29.
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 73‐93. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
30.
Sundar, S.S., Kalyanaraman, S. and Brown, J. (2003), “Explicating web site interactivity: impression formation effects in political campaign sites”, Communication Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 30‐59. [CrossRef] , [ISI] [Infotrieve]
31.
Trammell, K.D., Williams, A.P., Postelnicu, M. and Landreville, K.D. (2006), “Evolution of online campaigning: increasing interactivity in candidate web sites and blogs through text and technical features”,Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21‐44. [CrossRef] [Infotrieve]
32.
Twitter.com (2011), About Twitter, available at: http://twitter.com/about (accessed 1 February).
33.
Zhao, D. and Rosson, M.B. (2009), “How and why people Twitter: the role that micro‐blogging plays in informal communication at work”, Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, May 10‐13, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, NY.
Use Of Internal And External Hyperlinks
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow