Engaging customers on Facebook: Challenges for e-retailers

LISA HARRIS1* and CHARLES DENNIS2

1School of Management, University of Southampton, UK2Lincoln Business School, The University of Lincoln, UK

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to carry out an exploratory investigation into the emerging interactions between young consumers andconsumer products/services on social networks. In particular, we examine the extent to which a small exploratory sample of participantsare willing to incorporate social shopping behaviour, namely, product/service recommendations and retail purchase activities. We drawupon a qualitative study of four focus groups carried out with students at two UK-based universities. The results lead us to suggest specificavenues of enquiry that could be pursued in future larger scale work in this new area of consumer behaviour research. We note that for ourparticipants, a ‘nudge’ in the form of recommendations from friends appears to be influential in changing online shopping behaviour andthat a hierarchy of trust ordinal scale in recommenders/reviewers ranging from ‘real’ friends at the top down to reviews on retailers’ websitesmay be positively associated with intention to purchase.Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

The purchase of goods from online stores is now a main-stream activity in the UK. According to Interactive MediaIn Retail Group, online sales were growing at 18 per centper year in 2010 and forecast to reach €81 billion, or 17 percent of total retail sales in 2011 (IMRG, 2011). Increasingly,online retailers are offering interactive features to engagecustomers and encourage them to buy. These include ratingand review systems, product video, virtual assistants, 3Dmodelling, or barcode scanners for smart phones (onsitesocial commerce).

Consumers are also bringing their online experiences intotheir own social networks rather than engaging directly oncompany websites (offsite social commerce). While socialnetwork platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn startedout as meeting spaces for online identity construction, theaddition of functionality echoing the reputation and feedbackmechanisms of major transaction sites such as Amazon hasenabled social networks to develop into full-scale recommen-dation centres. Facebook’s new features are now instigatinganother step change in the power of social networking:online recommendation through the ‘Like’ button and the‘Places’ location-based service. It is still early days fortransactions, but innovators such as Delta Airlines, MalaysianAirlines and Avon now permit an entire purchase to becompleted without the consumer needing to leave Facebook.

Social commerce has been defined as ‘the use of socialtechnologies to connect, listen, understand, and engage toimprove the shopping experience’ (Cecere et al., 2010). Itcan build brand equity by adding to the brand value pro-position with socially powered applications. For example,the Kraft iFood Assistant offers recipes, shopping lists andcommunity support and feedback. The authors define four

stages of social commerce while noting that many companiesare currently still in the first phase:

1. ‘Let’s Be Social’ where companies are using social tech-nologies to test the waters. The focus is on the brand,building a community around it and identifying its value.

2. ‘Enlightened Engagement’ where companies recognisethat customers expect the structure and processes to be inplace for regular online interaction, both between the brandand themselves, and with each other.

3. ‘Store of the Community’ where customers help driveproduct selection, development and merchandising.

4. ‘Frictionless Commerce’ where the buying experience iscompletely redesigned to create a fully customer-centricexperience.

Cecere et al. (2010) highlight Hallmark Cards as a goodexample of an early adopter of social commerce. Theirprogramme began with a card creation contest that receivedmore than 28,000 submissions, and the winning card designswere incorporated into the product portfolio. Hallmarkfollowed this up with a Facebook application called a ‘socialcalendar’. This reminds users of key dates such as theirfriends’ birthdays, and it now has over 1.3 million monthlyactive users. The next stage of the process will be a Facebookstore giving fans the ability to purchase personalised cardsand recommend the experience to their friends. Customerswill be able to choose a card and add a personal message;the card is then printed and posted by Hallmark. These areinnovative examples of social commerce, but there is a fineline between fans authentically sharing their brand passionand spamming their friends. Forward-thinking businessesare moving away from reliance on the centrally controlledmass broadcast and towards the development of personaland localised relationships with well-informed and demand-ing customers. This group of consumers increasingly expectconsistent engagement with their preferred brands acrossa range of online and offline channels. Enhancements tobroadband Internet access and the growth of applications

*Correspondence to: Lisa Harris, School of Management, University ofSouthampton, UK.E-mail: l.j.harris@soton.ac.uk

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.375

facilitating online collaboration through social networks,video/photo sharing sites and blogs mean that consumersnow have the ability to spread ideas and recommendationseven more quickly, widely and cheaply (Ferguson, 2008).The importance of consumer engagement in the achievementof marketing effectiveness was noted by Calder et al. (2009).They showed that engagement with the context and contentof an advert increases its effectiveness, and this is magnifiedif the engagement is achieved at the personal or sociallevel with the individual. Engagement adds a new dimensionto the traditional model of Awareness–Interest–Decision–Action (AIDA) defined by Kierzkowski et al. (1996), helpingthe company to obtain marketing information about theconsumer’s preferences whilst interacting with them on apersonal level.

Nearly half (49%) of all UK Internet users have usedsocial networking at least once in the last year, and over 70per cent of people and households are now Internet users(Dutton et al./OxIS, 2009; IMRG, 2011). According to2010 research by Experian Hitwise (www.hitwise.co.uk),social networks in the UK received more visits (11.9% oftraffic) than search engines (11.3% of traffic) for the first timein May 2010. Facebook is now the second biggest source oftraffic online, closing in on Google’s position as the mostvisited website in the world. Approximately one in ten visitsto a website come immediately after a visit to Facebook.Social networks are sending an increasing amount of trafficto retailers (up 13% in 2010) such that 9.1 per cent of visitsto e-shopping sites now come from social media.

This paper investigates the extent to which consumers areincorporating recommendations and purchase activity intotheir social networking behaviour, through a qualitativestudy involving analysis of focus group discussions withstudents at two UK-based universities. We begin with areview of recent Facebook developments before consideringthe implications for marketers of the changing climate oftrust and influence upon consumer behaviour. When all thisis considered in conjunction with efforts by online retailersto make themselves become more social, we suggest a needto investigate whether young people in particular may findFacebook’s shopping features more appealing than those ofan individual retailer. We then present the findings of ourprimary research, speculate on the possible implications fortheory and practice and draw some preliminary conclusions.

RECENT FACEBOOK DEVELOPMENTS

Facebook’s own statistics show that by July 2010, itsmembership exceeded 500 million people worldwide, whichis equivalent to the population of the third largest country inthe world. Fifty per cent of active users log on in any givenday, and each of these users connects to an average of130 friends. Every time a user interacts with a brand onFacebook, that activity will be displayed in the news feedsof their Facebook friends. This has the potential to create asignificant network effect. According to Nielsen (2010a),Internet users are spending more time on Facebook (amassive 7 hours per month on average) than they spend on

Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Microsoft, Wikipedia and Amazoncombined. From a marketer’s perspective, this means thattheir company or product brand needs to be located withinFacebook. Consumers are increasingly likely to watch amovie trailer or download a discount coupon if that activityhappens inside Facebook, in preference to being pushed toan external website.

Facebook has recently released a number of tools formarketers known as ‘social plug ins’, which are designed todrive deeper engagement with customers. Twenty-four hoursafter first releasing the ‘Like’ button, over one billion ‘Likes’had been served (Facebook data). This button allows usersto share pages from the website concerned back to theirFacebook profile with one click. Depending on how the codeis implemented, they can leave a short comment as well. Thisinformation is then displayed to the user’s network of friendsin real time via their newsfeeds (Debatin et al., 2009).‘Liking’ a page on Facebook essentially serves as an opt-inmechanism for ongoing communications with the owner ofthat page (Poynter, 2008).

In August 2010, Facebook launched a location-basedrecommendation service called Places, which leverages localknowledge and word of mouth. Consumers can check in atretail locations and claim ‘deals’ on their mobile devices.This gives retailers the ability to reach consumers and poten-tially attract them into a given store. The new servicecombines the features of location-based check-in servicessuch as Foursquare and local group deals services such asGroupon or LivingSocial. Facebook has big names such asStarbucks, McDonald’s, H&M and Gap lined up to createdeals on their Places page. Essentially, these deals are digitalversions of the traditional coupon and loyalty cards, where acustomer gets a punch hole for every item purchased. The‘friends’ offer gives a discount to users who check in theirfriends and the ‘charity’ deal requires the retailer to donateper purchase (Slutsky, 2010).

A study by Chadwick Martin Bailey (cited in Owyang,2010) reports that 33 per cent of Facebook users are fans ofbrands, and 60 per cent of these consumers are more likelyto purchase or recommend to a friend after ‘liking’ a brand.This activity has the potential to create a new index of theWeb based on user choices rather than the intricacies ofGoogle’s algorithm. The most popular reasons consumersgave for ‘liking’ a brand were to receive discounts and showbrand support to their friends. These findings confirm theresults of an earlier study by Marketing Sherpa (2009), whichalso highlighted consumers’ wish for entertainment or to findout more about a brand and the company that produced it.The ‘recommendations’ plug-in gives users personalisedsuggestions for pages on a site that they might like basedon what other Facebook users have done with that content.For example, if a link to a particular discounted producthas been shared several times on Facebook, it will appearin the recommendations list tagged ‘6 people shared this’.The item shared most widely on Facebook will appear atthe top of the list. Users who click on that recommended linkcan be taken to an ‘add to cart’ button inviting purchase.

Facebook ‘Login’ (previously called ‘Connect’) allowspeople to sign into a website using their Facebook login

Engaging customers on Facebook 339

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

rather than create a specific account with that retailer. TheLogin feature displays profile pictures of the user’s friendswho have already signed up to that particular website. Byusing this service, over 100 million Facebook users are con-senting to share their personal details with the retailerconcerned. This opt-in is valuable because activity on the sitecan be tracked and associated with an identity so that theconsumer can be contacted with special offers. This newcapability will have to be used responsibly since the opt-inpermission is controlled by the user who will be quick to exitif the retailer abuses the connection.

These new developments raise a number of questionsabout the importance of trust and influence within networks,which will be considered in the next section.

THE ROLE OF TRUST

Trust has often been reported to be central to e-shoppingintentions (e.g. Lee and Turban, 2003; Goode and Harris,2007). The Edelman Trust Barometer (2008) based on aninternational survey of online influencers found that theirmost trusted source of information was ‘a person likemyself’. The role of trust was also considered by Sen(2008), who observed that ‘audiences establish a speaker’scredibility’. Online communications, which originate froma consumer/peer perspective rather than having been pushedout from a corporate power position, create messaging thatis ‘more believable to the reader’ (p30). This finding issupported by a recent Nielsen study (2010b) which showedthat consumers trust their friends and family more than anyother source of information about products and services,and that online product reviews by consumers are trustedmore than information posted directly on a company website.Research by Hulme (2010) confirmed the importance offriends and online reviews as key information sources.Additionally, it showed that only 4 per cent of UK customerstrust advertising, 8 per cent trust what the company saysabout itself and just 10 per cent believe that companies areprepared to listen to the views of their customers.

In an environment where Joinson (2008) identified themajor themes of Facebook use as “Keeping in touch, passivecontact, and communication” (p1030), the values andbenefits generated in contributing to the network are highlyweighted towards the development of social capital. Ellisonet al. (2007) identified the acquisition of social capital as aprimary motivator for sharing perspectives and contributingto word of mouth recommendations. Their finding thatFacebook users ‘view the primary audience for their profileto be people with whom they share an offline connection’(p1155) demonstrated at an early stage of development thatonline social networks were influential in decision makingand that integrated recommendation systems could be lever-aged by marketers. De Valck et al. (2009) suggested thatrecommendations on social network sites such as Facebookmay have ‘a more significant effect on need recognition,actual behaviour and post-purchase evaluations’ than moreestablished virtual communities. Members are also likely toknow each other in real life and can observe consumption

practices. The authors found that the most active membersof the community were influenced most by the discussionstaking place.

In summary, prior research demonstrates that both friendsand opinion leaders have significant influence upon consumerpurchase behaviour. Potentially, more traditional brand com-munications may be left out of the mix altogether.

SOCIAL NETWORKING AND SHOPPINGFor many years, researchers have drawn attention to theimportance of social motivations in shopping (e.g. Westbrookand Black, 1985; Shim and Eastlick, 1998; Dholakia 1999).More recently, social interaction has been shown to beimportant in online shopping (Parsons, 2002; Rohm andSwaminathan, 2004). On the other hand, e-retailers havedifficulty in satisfying customers’ higher-level needs suchas personal interaction (Kolesar and Galbraith, 2000).Yet, as we have detailed above, social networking isbecoming one of the major ways in which people socialise.We sought to explore the fit between shopping and socialnetworking; given that shopping is such a popular socialactivity, it is likely that people will welcome combiningthe two. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of scholarly researchon social networking and shopping such that we are ableto cite only one paper (Dennis et al., 2010). In that con-ceptual paper, Dennis et al. (2010) propose that shopperswill welcome combining social networking with shopping.They explored the proposition with a qualitative investiga-tion that asked participants to compare a specific socialnetworking shopping site (www.osoyou.com) with a moretraditional shopping site. Despite not being previouslyaware of Osoyou, the panel of young women all preferredthe social networking shopping site, finding it enjoyableand useful. A disadvantage was that the site was hardto use on account of having to log in separately to eachindividual retailer in order to shop. As mentioned above,Facebook’s Login service is now able to overcome themajor disadvantage of logging in separately to individualretailers. Therefore, we expect that the opportunity ofcombining Facebook social networking with shopping willbe welcomed, particularly by young people. We are unawareof any previous scholarly research on the links betweenFacebook-type social networking and shopping.

We have shown that Facebook now provides a variety ofways for online retailers to offer a more ‘social’ purchaseexperience, either by integrating Facebook features into theirown sites or (increasingly) by operating within Facebookitself. What this could mean in practice is that retailers beginto link fan membership with behavioural data such as howoften specific people visit the site and what they actuallybuy. Customers can already log into a site using theirFacebook credentials, and before long, they will be able topay and checkout with any other form of registrationrequired, making the purchase process dramatically easier.These trends indicate that the potential power of interactionis now being raised to a new level as the attention and trustof consumers has shifted towards social networks. Conse-quently, there are significant implications for marketing ingeneral and online retailing in particular.

340 L. Harris and C. Dennis

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

So, is the future of marketing really all about leveraging aconsumer’s social graph to sell more products? It is impor-tant to remember that most users tend to go to Facebook tosocialise with friends, not to shop. As reported by Tran(2010), Josh Himwich, Vice President of e-commercesolutions for Diapers.com and Soap.com, stated at the 2010Rise of Social Commerce Conference: ‘Consumers go toFacebook to socialise, not spend 20 minutes shopping. Noone wants an entire shopping experience in Facebook, theywant to spend time with friends.’

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis et al.,1989; Davis, 1993) has often been proposed as a frameworkfor e-retail studies (e.g. Monsuwé et al., 2004; Lee et al.,2005). In TAM, ‘perceived enjoyment’, ‘perceived ease ofuse’ and ‘perceived usefulness’ are key factors that affectpeople’s behaviour intention to adopt new technologicalinnovations such as social e-shopping (Dennis et al., 2010).In the following section, we outline the exploratory researchdesign for the current study, using trust and TAM as a looseframework.

METHOD

This research concerns a complex area that has been littleresearched to date. Therefore, an exploratory qualitativeapproach that sought to provide insight into consumers’experiences was indicated (Bellinger et al., 1976; Dey,1993). Qualitative research allows researchers to formulateinterpretations of the subjects under study and to giverepresentations of these interpretations in order to add to abody of knowledge (Wright, 2008). This was operationalisedin the form of four focus groups. Focus groups are particu-larly appropriate for this type of research, as they provideinsight and depth into the attitude and behaviour intentionsof a group of participants (Kruegar, 1994).

A convenience sample of 26 students was drawn fromtwo UK universities. Student samples are well suited toe-shopping research because they are computer literate(Balabanis and Reynolds, 2001; Fiore et al., 2005) and‘shoppers of tomorrow’ (Dennis et al., 2002: 283). Theprofile of students is closer to that of the online customerpopulation than is the profile of the general populationand accepted as suitable subjects for studies on the use oftechnological innovations (King and He, 2006). All partici-pants were experienced Internet users and e-shoppers. Thesample also represented younger age groups (16 participantsaged 18–24 years and 10 aged 25–44 years), which is appro-priate, as young adults in particular regard the social aspectof shopping as important (e.g. Dholakia, 1999) and are majorusers of social networks (Social Networks, 2007) (Table 1a).

The sample also included a wide variety of nationalities/cultures, including Chinese (5), UK (11, including 2 UK-

Indian and 1 UK-Afro-Caribbean), Greek (3), German (2),Indian (2), Uruguayan, Slovak and Syrian (Table 1b). Thefour focus groups were of between 1 hour 15 minutes and1 hour 45 minutes duration and took place in December2010 and January 2011.

A topics guide was prepared in order to ensure consis-tency between the two experienced researchers who moder-ated half of the focus groups each. The topics guide aimedto explore participants’ uses of Facebook (or other socialnetworks), in particular for recommending or guidingpurchases. Each focus group was moderated by an experi-enced researcher and audio-recorded. After introductoryquestions such as ‘because you’re here, can I assume thateveryone’s a Facebook user?’ (all except one participantwas) and ‘to start the ball rolling, could we go round the tablewith what you use Facebook for?’, the moderator probeduses of Facebook a source of information or providing infor-mation for friends. After narrowing the focus to informationon products, brands and shops, participants discussed whichsources they trusted most/least and why. This was followedby a discussion about combining Facebook or other socialnetworking with shopping and whether participants did orwould find it enjoyable/not enjoyable, useful/not useful,easy/difficult (i.e. the TAM variables); time saving/takeslonger; convenient/not convenient; and sociable/not sociable.Finally, participants were shown demonstrations of Google’sdedicated shopping social networking site www.boutiques.com, invited to ‘play’ with it and comment on whether theywould use this type of service and why/why not.

We adopted a systematic approach to data analysis. Thiswas considered preferable to a conversation analytic approachor group dynamics, which would have been likely to suppressuseful findings as a result of digressing outside our sphere ofinvestigation. Sorting and theme generation in the form ofaxial coding facilitated the listing of recurrent themes. Axialcoding facilitated the process of listing key ideas, using atranscription form based on a standard template, derived fromthe topics guide. Two researchers experienced in focus groupanalysis carried out the coding of half of focus groups eachand then discussed and agreed on the final selection of quotesas indicative of consensus or minority views as appropriate.

FOCUS GROUP FINDINGSOn average, the number of hours spent on Facebook perweek by our participants was 12.2, of which 9.8 hours werespent socialising (including activities such as posting

Table 1a. Ages of focus group participants

Age Number

18–24 1625–44 10Total 26

Table 1b. National cultures of focus group participants

National cultures Number

UK–White 8UK–Indian 2UK–Afro-Caribbean 1Chinese 5Greek 3German 2Indian 2Slovak 1Syrian 1Uruguayan 1Total 26

Engaging customers on Facebook 341

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

pictures, wall posts and groups), 1.8 hours seeking informa-tion and the balance of 0.6 hours providing information.There were some extremes reported, with one participantsaying she used Facebook ‘all the time’, as she had anapplication on her smartphone, which was always keptswitched on. Another said that she ‘rarely’ checkedFacebook and preferred to telephone her friends to keep intouch. Most participants regularly access Facebook frommobile devices as well as from computers:

‘My iPad is for checking Facebook and reading magazines.’(male participant)‘I have an iPhone app for Facebook and Twitter.’ (maleparticipant)‘BlackBerry’ (female participant)‘iPhone is Facebook in my pocket. I use App IM+ [whichhas] all your social networks, [for example] Facebook,Twitter, Skype, Yahoo instead of separate apps for each.’(male participant)

Many participants claimed that they do not use Facebookto search for information but rather use the search enginewww.google.co.uk:

‘Facebook is a social space. It’s about finding out whatmy friends and family are doing. I’m very protective ofthat. I keep my comments or queries about University orcareer-related issues to Twitter.’ (female participant)‘For information on products, I’m more likely to useGoogle; Facebook is not the right place [for that].’ (maleparticipant)

Our participants showed little interest in interacting withbusinesses on Facebook, or indeed with anyone whom theydid not already know in ‘real life’:

‘I seldom link Facebook to brands and shopping.’ (femaleparticipant)‘I don’t accept friend requests from strangers. And I don’tlike my feed cluttered up with junk. I’ll leave groups ifthere’s too much rubbish going on.’ (male participant)

Nevertheless, when asked how they obtain informationfrom friends, all agreed, mainly ‘Facebook’ but to a lesserdegree, also ‘text’ [sms] and ‘email’. As the discussionsprogressed, it became clear that they do post information onFacebook that directly or indirectly recommends products:

‘I do put up in my [Facebook] profile my favourite books,artists [music] and athletes. This is my most genuineopinion that I’m proud of.’ (male participant)‘My friends ask “was this film nice?” and I recommend.’(female participant)‘I bought a Mac [Macbook] laptop and was so excited, Ihad to post it [on my Facebook wall].’ (female participant)

Similarly, they do use Facebook as a source of informationon products and services:

‘If I need something, I ask friends. For example, I’mlooking for some software. I posted it on my wall, got aresponse and got the software.’ (female participant)‘I do quite a bit ask for advice. I wanted a holiday in

Europe 5-star scuba diving. The travel sites don’t do iteasily. I got 20 replies from friends and family—usefulinformation.’ (male participant)

Engagement with productsThe focus group topics guide led the moderators to probethe use of Facebook and other social networking for givingor finding information on products, brands and shops andcombining Facebook and other social networking withshopping. Participants indicated little interest in engagingwith products within their ‘social space’ on Facebook. Afew exceptions were mentioned, usually concerning sportinginterests, hobbies, favoured charities or local cafes offeringspecial deals. The rationale for following such businesseswas to keep up to date or to get discounts rather than tointeract with other fans:

‘Two for one offers on milkshakes! What’s not to like?!’(male participant)‘I’m a fan of Dog’s Trust, because the cause is close to myheart. I like being kept up to date with what they aredoing, and find out about local fund raising events takingplace. I’ve never interacted with anyone else in the groupthough.’(female participant)‘Just because my friends follow something, that doesn’tmean I will too. I like to make up my own mind. It’s formy own benefit, I’m not interested in converting others.’(female participant)‘This company paid me £100 to put a link to their site in afestival group that I created. It has about 3000 membersand the company’s products were relevant to the group’sinterests, so I did it. I wouldn’t advertise anything in mypersonal site though.’ (male participant)

Our participants showed little interest in, or use for, the‘Like’ button. ‘Likes’ are mainly for their own (or closefriends’) benefit rather than in actively recommendingbrands to others or in brands being recommended tothem:

‘“Like” is a recognition that you thought a particular thingwas good, or funny. . .it does not imply a relationshipgoing forward.’ (male participant)‘If it’s just “like” and no insight, I don’t see the point.’(male participant)

But that was later contradicted by one participant:

‘Facebook [“like”] is good for [evaluating products]because you can get information from strangers—lots ofthem.’ (female participant)

TrustNotwithstanding that we did not a priori define the meaningof the word ‘trust’ to participants, a shared understandingof the term can be inferred from the discussions as a will-ingness to rely on information provided by the relevantothers. Recommendations from friends are trusted aboveother sources:

342 L. Harris and C. Dennis

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

‘I would use [Facebook] for a genuine recommendationfrom a friend.’ (male participant—all the group expressedagreement)‘There was a discussion on my friend’s Facebook wall, Ibought a BlackBerry.’ (female participant)‘I bought a laptop on a recommendation from a Facebookfriend. But that was because I knew he was a computerexpert.’ (male participant)

And they also take an interest in others’ Facebook postingsrelated to products:

‘One friend carries fashion advice . . . gifts and ads . . .Myfriend is into cosmetics and posts on her Facebook “likepage” and profile. She advises on the use of mascara andcosmetics. She teaches how to do it.’ (female participant)‘If my Facebook friend recommended I buy somethingfrom a company, I’d have a look but still shop aroundfor the best deal.’ (male participant)

This type of posting can lead to two-way interactionand buying:

‘I put on [Facebook] that my favourite camera is Nikon,I’d love to talk to people about it.’ (male participant)

(same participant, later:)

‘My friends put up really good pictures. I ask aboutcamera brands and lenses. They tell me. They’re experts.I believe them . . . I bought a camera lens last week becausemy friend recommended it.’ (male participant)

Real friends and family are trusted most, but Facebookfriends are also trusted:

‘I would trust my Facebook friends for informationon products and brands, they wouldn’t lie at all.’ (maleparticipant)‘If someone said it’s a good film, I’d go and watch it.’(female participant)

Views were mixed on the extent to which friends aretrusted if they are thought to be earning commission fortheir recommendations, with a single participant (referringto advice on the use of mascara and cosmetics reported inthis section above) continuing:

’I still trust her even if she gets a commission’ [from compa-nies whose products she recommends]. (female participant)

On the other hand, the majority view is that if friends arethought to be earning commission for their recommenda-tions, this can negatively affect reaction:

‘If I knew my friend was on commission, I’d be muchmore sceptical.’ (male participant)‘I’ve got a friend who recommends cosmetics. I knowshe’s trying to sell and I won’t buy.’ (female participant)

Indicating that they pay attention to and sometimes acton friends recommendations, the cyclic process wasstated:

‘First, I didn’t trust the company, then my Facebookfriend gave me information and I thought “I’ll go for it”.

Then I recommended it to friends. One friend used it.’(female participant)

Participants claim to trust their friends:

‘. . .trust people that my friends knowmore than strangers.’(female participant)‘For insurance or investment, I rely on my friend . . . Itrust her because she is my best friend’s sister’ (femaleparticipant)‘If it’s people you know, they’re more trusted.’ (maleparticipant)

Friends who have specific subject and product expertiseare trusted more than are anonymous reviews:

‘I would believe people whose expertise I know.’(female participant)‘A review on the shop[’s own website], I’m a bit cynical,they wouldn’t show a bad one.’ (male participant)‘Often authors review their own books.’ (female participant)‘I bought apps from iTunes because the reviews said “5*the best ever”, then found some are really bad—OK notbad but not 5*. They were recommended by strangers.’(male participant)

It came out strongly that the participants trust theirfriends more than anonymous reviews. There were onlyfew examples of buying on the basis of friends’ advice andnone of using the Facebook login facility to buy. Notwith-standing that participants use Facebook for suggestions andrecommendations from friends, Google (of course) is theirmain information search tool:

‘I use Google, for example to get experts’ responses onblogs. For example, pcadvisor.co.uk fixed the virus onmy computer.’ (female participant)

When asked what they trust least, all participants agreedupon the company website and reviews on the companywebsite. They have more trust in reviews when there are alot of them, even when they are from strangers:

‘If a review is just two or three people, I wouldn’t trust it. Ifit’s 50, I trust it. I go with the majority.’ (female participant)

They also apparently trust some brands and reviewsmore than others:

‘I would trust my friend first, then Amazon [www.amazon.co.uk] not just because it’s a trusted brand but also becauseof genuine reviews and easy returns’ [if wanting a refundor to exchange the product].‘I like independent review sites. Trip Advisor [www.tripadvisor.co.uk] has well targeted ads and hot UK deals.’(male participant)

Similarly, there are mixed attitudes to trusting celebrities,depending on who the celebrity is and whether they areperceived as writing personally:

‘I would trust a celebrity more [than an anonymousreview], depending on who. . . . I would trust more if Iknow it’s them writing [if the writing is] more personal,

Engaging customers on Facebook 343

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

less polished. . . . [I trust] Derren Brown’s blog, clicked onan affiliate link and bought the book. . . . I wouldn’t trustCheryl Cole as much.’ (male participant)‘I don’t trust what’s his name. . .Mark Zuckerberg.Amazon has never misused my data, so I’d rather shopwith them any time.’ (female participant)

These comments show that perhaps more brand interactiongoes on than our interviewees initially cared to admit, althoughwe found very little evidence of active engagement witheither the company or other supporters, beyond the basic wishto be kept updated about activities and discounts.

Social shoppingOur participants showed little interest in shopping directly onFacebook:

‘It’s not as enjoyable as the high street . . . I enjoy food,comments, feel, touch and talk to a [salesperson].’(female participant)‘Maybe for low value items. . .if they gave big discounts.’(female participant)

Most participants expressed no prior interest in theFacebook login, and there were no examples of using it tobuy. When prompted, they expressed mixed opinions:

‘I don’t like the idea.’ (male and female participants)‘Facebook doesn’t have many places that you can log in.’(male participant)

Nevertheless, benefits of Facebook login are recognisedby some participants:

‘Combining Facebook with shopping would be great—Facebook is boring. I might be more likely to buy [latestfashion using Facebook login] rather than Google.’(female participant)‘It would be really good, for example, with Amazon, forexample if your friends’ reviews came to the top [becauseyou were logged in to Facebook].’ (female participant—all in the group agreed)

There were also mixed views on the potential privacy ofFacebook login:

‘Facebook login to retailers would be useful but I amconcerned about privacy.’ (female participant)‘With Facebook login it’s convenient but you have to putin your address.’ (female participant)‘I don’t think this is the risk. I think [Facebook login]would help.’ (male participant)‘I’d like to use it—jump on it. I’m aware of the security[issues].’ (male participant)

Participants were previously unaware of www.boutiques.com (which was discussed earlier in the paper) but wereinterested in it when it was demonstrated, and they trialledit for themselves:

‘With “Boutiques” you can choose lots of nice things. . .fromone website’ (male participant)‘I like to see celebrities wearing stuff and where to buy itfrom.’ (female participant)

‘It’s quite a good intermediary. If there’s a men’s version, I’dlike to be told.’ (male participant)‘Usually, you have all the browsers [individual retailers’websites] open [but with www.boutiques.com] you can lookat all the clothes from all the companies.’ (female participant)

The demonstration of www.boutiques.com also led oneparticipant to contradict his previous lack of interest inFacebook ‘likes’:

‘If I see trainers I like, I click on to Bluefly and see 40,000Facebook “likes”—yes, I would click through to Facebook,I like to see what others have said . . . anybody, not justpeople I know. . . . This is the kind of reviews that I likebecause there are so many.’ (male participant)

Participants appeared to be influenced by the discussionsand/or the demonstration and trial of www.boutiques.comand its links to Facebook, which sparked more interest inFacebook shopping, such that one group left the discussionswith more positive feelings towards Facebook shopping thanat the start:

‘Facebook and shopping could be the future [because itoffers] convenience, choice and [you can] feel close tocelebrities.’ (female participant)

DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS ANDFURTHER RESEARCH

Participants originally stated little interest in Facebookshopping in particular and social e-shopping in general, yetit emerged from the discussions that they often need only aslight ‘nudge’. This is apparent, first, because they trust theirfriends and Facebook is their main way of obtaining informa-tion from friends. Searching via Google is understandablythe main means of searching for information, yet becauseinformation from friends is trusted more, then they oftenbuy on the basis of friends’ recommendations, without realis-ing that they are participating in social e-shopping. Second,when the social e-shopping site www.boutiques.com wasdemonstrated to participants and they tried it for themselves,they expressed mainly positive opinions based on access to,for example, large numbers of customer reviews and easyaccess to many e-retailers at the same time. In parallelwith the ‘nudge theory’ (Ehrenberg, 1997), this leads us tospeculate and recommend for further research that, notwith-standing consumers expressing little interest in Facebookshopping in particular and social e-shopping in general,a ‘nudge’ in the form of recommendations from friendsand trial of appropriate systems may result in significantchanges in consumer behaviour towards the use of Facebookshopping/social e-shopping.

A clear hierarchy of trust emerged. Participants trust first‘real’ friends, particularly experts in the relevant topic, thenFacebook friends, then expert blogs and independent reviewsites. Next come celebrities, although the degree of trustdepends on who they are and the perception that they writethe material themselves. Last come reviews on the e-retailer

344 L. Harris and C. Dennis

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

site, although these are trusted more when there are many ofthem. Trust has been proposed as a major antecedent ofe-consumer behaviour (e.g. Dennis et al., 2009). In line withthe role of trust in the model of e-consumer behaviour byDennis et al. (2009), we propose for further research toinvestigate our suggestion that the recommending party in aproduct or service recommendation or review role can beconsidered as an ordinal proxy variable representing trust,influencing intention to e-shop. Specifically, we speculatethat the ordinal variable will consist of the following (indescending order of influence on influencing intention toe-shop on the basis of the recommendation or review): (i)‘real’ friends, experts in the relevant topic; (ii) other ‘real’friends; (iii) Facebook friends, experts in the relevanttopic; (iv) other Facebook friends; (v) expert blogs andindependent review sites; (vi) celebrities; and (vii) reviewson the e-retailer site.

As preliminary research in a field for which there islittle prior research, the empirical part of this research islimited to a qualitative study with a non-random sample.Also, this study has considered only students, as an im-portant shopping and social networking segment. Theparticipants in our study were not necessarily from ‘earlyadopter’ groups in terms of their use of technology. Whileadept at communicating with their friends on Facebook,not many of them had given much thought or applicationto the full scope of engagement that is now possibleonline. For example, not one participant had used Face-book’s location-based services or interacted with othersupporters within Facebook groups. Few were aware ofrecent developments in online shopping as illustratedby the discussions about Boutiques.com. More extensivequalitative and quantitative studies are recommended tostudy behavioural segments in more detail and to extendthe generalisability of the results.

The organisational implications of engaging in a varietyof ways with specific groups of consumers through socialnetworks need investigation. From a business perspective,it has been reported that a lack of senior management sup-port, staff skills and general interdepartmental co-operationrepresents a significant barrier to effective engagement withsocial media. Hulme (2010) notes that strategies should bein place to develop joined up systems and databases thatbring together all available customer data in a transparentway. This includes transactional data, direct response dataand more contextual data contained in spaces such as blogsand social networks. Delivery mechanisms need to be presentto ensure that promises to online community supporters arekept, for example, with regard to discounts. Currently, manyretailers still lack any real integration between their own Webchannel and social media despite the proliferation of ‘Followus’ banners and ‘Like’ buttons in recent months. Thisleads us to recommend for further research the notion thatin order to develop trust and subsequent purchase activityfrom their social network supporters, retailers need to payattention to the integration of their data across the wholeof the organisation and ensure the availability of sufficientnumbers of trained and empowered staff to engage with theirsupporters effectively.

In conclusion, we have argued that social networking,particularly Facebook, is becoming ever more prevalent, par-ticularly with young people. The results of our qualitativestudy led us to propose new theories appropriate for thisnew form of consumer behaviour. First, notwithstandingconsumers expressing little interest in Facebook shopping/social e-shopping, a ‘nudge’ in the form of recommendationsfrom friends and trial of appropriate systems should result insignificant changes in consumer behaviour towards its use.Second, we expect that there is a hierarchy of trust in recom-menders/reviewers from ‘real’ friends at the top down anordinal scale to reviews on retailers’ websites at the bottom.We speculate that this scale should act as a proxy for trustin the recommendations and be positively associated withintention to purchase the recommended product or service.Future quantitative studies are recommended.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Lisa Harris teaches online marketing at the University of Southampton.She is Course Director of the MSc in Digital Marketing and anaccredited tutor for the University of Liverpool online MBA. Herresearch interests lie in the disruptive effects of technology onbusiness, education and society.

Charles Dennis is Professor of Marketing and Retailing and Directorof Research at Lincoln Business School, the University of Lincoln(UK). His teaching and research area is (e-)retail and consumerbehaviour. Charles is a Chartered Marketer and a Fellow of theChartered Institute of Marketing. Charles’s published books includeMarketing the e-Business (1st and 2nd editions) (joint-authored withDr Lisa Harris), e-Retailing (Routledge) and research mono-graph Objects of Desire: Consumer Behaviour in Shopping CentreChoice (Palgrave).

REFERENCES

Balabanis G, Reynolds NL. 2001. Consumer attitudes towardsmulti-channel retailers’ web sites: the role of involvement, brandattitude, internet knowledge and visit duration. Journal ofBusiness Strategies 18(Fall): 105–131.

Bellinger DN, Bernhardt KL, Goldstucker JL. 1976. QualitativeMarketing Research. AmericanMarketing Association: Chicago.

Calder BJ, Malthouse EC, Schaedel U. 2009. An experimentalstudy of the relationship between online engagement andadvertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing23(4): 321–331.

Cecere L et al. 2010. The Rise of Social Commerce. Altimeterresearch report. Available at www.altimeter.com.

Davis FD. 1993. User Acceptance of Information Technology: SystemCharacteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioural Impacts.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38(3): 475–487.

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. 1989. User acceptance ofcomputer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models.Management Science 35(8): 982–1003.

De Valck K, Van Bruggen GH, Wierenga B. 2009. Virtual Commu-nities: A Marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems47(3): 185–203.

Debatin B, Lovejoy JP, Horn A, Hughes BN. 2009. Facebookand Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviours, and UnintendedConsequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication15(1): 83–108.

Dennis C, Harris L, Sandhu B. 2002. From bricks to clicks: under-standing the e-consumer. Qualitative Market Research – AnInternational Journal 5(4): 281–290.

Engaging customers on Facebook 345

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

Dennis C, Jayawardhena C, Merrilees W, Wright LT. 2009.e-Consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing 43(9/10): 1121–1139.

Dennis C, Morgan A, Wright LT, Jayawardhena C. 2010. Theinfluences of social e-shopping in enhancing young women’sonline shopping behaviour. Journal of Customer Behaviour9(2): 151–174.

Dey I. 1993. Qualitative Data Analysis. Routledge: London; 262–263.Dholakia RR. 1999. Going shopping: key determinants of shopping

behaviour and motivations. International Journal of Retail andDistribution Management 27(4–5): 154.

Dutton WH, Helsper EJ, Gerber MM, OxIS. 2009. The Internet inBritain 2009. Oxford Internet Surveys / Oxford University:Oxford. Available at www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/oxis/

Edelman. 2008. Trust Barometer. Retrieved from http://www.edelman.co.uk/trustbarometer/files/edelman-trust-barometer-2010.pdf.

Ehrenberg AS. 1997. Description and prescription. Journal ofAdvertising Research Nov/Dec: 17–22.

Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. 2007. The benefits of Facebook“friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online socialnetwork sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.

Ferguson R. 2008. Word of mouth and viral marketing: takingthe temperature of the hottest trends in marketing. Journal ofConsumer Marketing 25(3): 179–182.

Fiore AM, Jin H, Kim J. 2005. For fun and profit: Hedonic valuefrom image interactivity and responses toward an online store.Psychology and Marketing 22(8): 669–694.

Goode MMH, Harris LC. 2007. Online behavioural intentions:an empirical investigation of antecedents and moderators.European Journal of Marketing 41(5/6): 512–536.

Hulme M. 2010. Your brand: at risk or ready for growth? AlterianReport. Available at www.alterian.com

IMRG. 2011. Country Profiles: United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland. Interactive Media in Retail Group /CapGemini: London. Available at www.imrg.org [accessed 2September 2011].

Joinson AN. 2008. Looking at, looking up or keeping up withpeople?: motives and use of Facebook. Proceeding of thetwenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors incomputing systems, 5–10 April, Florence, Italy. ACM: NewYork; 1027–1036.

Kierzkowski A, McQuade S, Waitman R, Zeisser M. 1996. Market-ing to the Digital Consumer. McKinsey Quarterly 3: 4–21.

King WR, He J. 2006. A meta-analysis of the TechnologyAcceptance Model. Information Management 43: 740–755.

Kolesar MB, Galbraith RW. 2000. A services-marketing perspec-tive on e-retailing: implications for e-retailers and directions

for further research. Internet Research: Electronic NetworkingApplications and Policy 10(5): 424–438.

Kruegar AR. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for AppliedResearch, 2nd ed.. Sage: London.

Lee KS, Tan SJ. 2003. E-retailing versus physical retailing: atheoretical model and empirical test of consumer choice. Journalof Business Research 56(11): 877–885.

Lee H, Fiore A, Kim J. 2005. The role of the Technology Accep-tance Model in explaining effects of image interactivity technol-ogy on consumer responses, International Journal of Retail andDistribution Management 4(8): 621–624.

Marketing Sherpa. 2009. Social media marketing and PR bench-mark guide, https://www.marketingsherpa.com/research-detail.html?id=16247

Monsuwé TP, Dellaert BGC, de Ruyter KR. 2004. What drivesconsumers to shop online? A literature Review, InternationalJournal of Services Industry Management 15(1): 102–121.

Nielsen. 2010a. Available at http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/facebook-users-average-7-hrs-a-month-in-january-as-digital-universe-expands/

Nielsen. 2010b. Available at http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/friending-the-social-consumer

Owyang J. 2010. The 8 Success Criteria for Facebook Page Market-ing. Available at www.altimetergroup.com

Parsons AG. 2002. Non-functional motives for online shoppers:why we click. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19(5):380–392.

Poynter R. 2008. Facebook: the future of networking with custo-mers. International Journal of Market Research 50(1): 11-14.

Rohm AJ, Swaminathan V. 2004. A typology of online shoppersbased on shopping motivations. Journal of Business Research57(7): 748–747.

Sen S. 2008. Determinants of Consumer Trust of Virtual Word-of-Mouth: An Observation Study from a Retail Website. Journalof American Academy of Business, Cambridge 14(1): 30–35.

Shim S, Eastlick MA. 1998. The hierarchical influence of personalvalues on mall shopping attitude and behaviour. Journal ofRetailing 74(1): 139–160.

Slutsky L. 2010. Facebook Ads Provide ’Deals’ for LocalMerchants. Marketers’ Advertising Age, 3rd November.

Social Networks. 2007. Gender and friending: an analysis ofmyspace member profiles. Available at http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/MySpace_d.doc

Tran C. 2010. Has F-commerce arrived? Available at http://www.altimetergroup.com/2010/11/has-f-commerce-arrived.html

Westbrook RA, Black WC. 1985. A motivation-based shoppertypology. Journal of Retailing 61(1): 78–103.

Wright LT. 2008. Qualitative Research, Chapter 9. In Baker M(ed.), The Marketing Textbook 6th ed. Elsevier: Oxford.

346 L. Harris and C. Dennis

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 338–346 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb