Social Ticketing - VNPFSocial Ticketing 3by Fleur Verduin Foreword For Pé and Lotte Here it is: my graduation thesis. After four years at Inholland Haarlem, I am (finally) at the

Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin 2

Social Ticketing Ticketing organisations on social network sites

GRADUATION THESIS

Programme International Music Management

Location Haarlem

Student Fleur Verduin

498949

[email protected]

Circle supervisor Mischa van Perzie

[email protected]

Client Weet Waar Je Koopt

Berend Schans (VNPF) & Marjanne Manders (Mojo)

[email protected] - [email protected]

Date of submission 10 June 2014

mailto:[email protected]





Foreword

For Pé and Lotte

Here it is: my graduation thesis. After four years at Inholland Haarlem, I am (finally) at the end of the

International Music Management programme. You are about to read a document that has cost me

blood, sweat and tears (quite literally, I might add) to prepare and write. Fortunately, it was worth the

effort. I am really proud of what I have written and to have contributed to the Weet Waar Je Koopt

campaign.

For years I have been fascinated by the secondary ticketing phenomenon. It has made me angry

because consumers are being deceived, it has astonished me how many people still don’t know about

this industry and, most of all, it has made me wanting to know more about all of it. With this research, I

had the opportunity to dive into the world that is ticketing. This research may only contribute to the

knowledge about ticketers on social network sites, but it has stimulated me to stay active in informing

people about the secondary industry.

I would like to thank Mischa van Perzie and Annelies de Bruine for their guidance and support, my

parents for convincing me never to quit, my friends for allowing me to alienate them for the last 18

weeks, Marjanne Manders and Berend Schans for providing me the opportunity to do this research,

and again Berend for offering me an internship I wasn’t even applying for in the process.

I hope you will enjoy reading this report, and remember… Weet Waar Je Koopt!

- Fleur Verduin

Alkmaar, 5 June 2014


Abstract

The secondary ticketing industry is winning territory. This means that more consumers overpay for

their event tickets and fewer consumers get the chance to obtain tickets at the official price. While this

does not have to be a bad thing per se, taking into account that the promoters still sell out their events

and get their profits, it does have a negative effect on the organising parties and primary market, i.e.

the parties involved in the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign (WWJK in short), the client of this research.

In order to deal with this problem efficiently, the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign was launched,

providing consumers with a central point of information and contact information specifically for

questions about (secondary) ticket sales. From the beginning, the campaign has been promoted

through a website, print media, banners on related websites and advertisement on (e-)tickets. In

September 2011, the campaign added social network sites to its marketing strategy. However, due to

time- and resource restrictions, the online platforms went into oblivion only months after their launch.

Recently, the campaign’s initiators noticed a significant increase in the activity of secondary ticketing

organisations on social network sites and, with that, a growing popularity of these organisations.

These activities seem to attract the attention of music fans, making them follow the secondary

organisations, and in doing so making them a target for the business.

WWJK perceives the online activity of secondary organisations as a serious threat and feels that it

needs to step up its social media game. Before WWJK starts investing in an extensive strategy for its

social network platforms, it should first understand the origin of its problems. Why do users follow

these organisations? What is it that attracts their attention? If there are clear motives for users to

engage with ticketing organisations online, it is possible that this knowledge could help WWJK in

developing its own strategy. In short, this research will focus on the motives online users have to

follow ticketing organisations on social network sites.

For this research, the following central question was drawn up:

What are the motives of followers of ticketing organisations to engage with these

organisations on social network sites?

To answer this question, five sub questions were formulated, including questions about the current

activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites, type of followers, and level of engagement.

The research consisted of extensive desk research and quantitative research in the form of a

questionnaire. The research includes a total of ten ticketing organisations: five primary organisations

and five secondary organisations. The questionnaire was filled out by 168 respondents that fit the

research population. This sample is not representative of the population. The results therefore

represent the sample rather than the entire population.

The research pointed out that the primary motive for following ticketing organisations is fast and easy

access to information. Followers are most interested in announcements of events, and information

about ticket sales and events. These posts are associated with a consumer input level of


consumption. Despite the fact that many followers seem to use social network sites as an important

source of information, this does not mean that they use it as their sole source. Only on occasion

followers make the decision to buy a ticket solely because of a post on social network sites.

A second motive is entertainment. Posts that are associated with this motive are, among others,

photos, videos, and contests. Contests score particularly high on the observed level of response. The

motive of social connection is found in relation to interactive posts. Posts that specifically ask followers

to respond receive a relative high level of response. With such posts, the input level is that of

participation; followers choose to make an effort to partake in a conversation.

Another important activity in relation to the access to information motive and the input level of

participation is the possibility of asking questions to the organisations. Especially Twitter is actively

used as a channel for customer service by both users and organisations.

With regard to primary organisations and secondary organisations, followers do not seem to make a

difference. In conclusion, followers of ticketing organisations engage with these organisations on

social network sites mainly because they want to be kept up-to-date about music events, or

entertained. Whether information comes from a primary organisation or secondary organisation does

not seem to be an issue.

Prior to making recommendations to the client, the problem is being re-evaluated based on the

research results. Desk research showed that most secondary ticketing organisations, despite having

significant amounts of followers, score very low when it comes to users’ engagement. Primary

organisations with lower or similar amounts of followers score much higher when it comes to response

to posts. This observation and other results raised the questions whether the problem is really of the

expected size. Setting this aside, recommendations are made on how Weet Waar Je Koopt could

handle their own social network sites. These recommendations include utilising Facebook and Twitter

to reach social users and expand the reach of the campaign, and providing customer service. As such

a strategy may be too time-consuming and may not fit the resources available, other

recommendations are made on collaborating with the partners of the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign

and rethinking social network sites altogether. Based on the time and resources the campaign

stakeholders decide to be willing to invest, a suitable option or combination thereof can be chosen to

improve the strategy.


Table of Contents

FOREWORD 3

ABSTRACT 4

1. INTRODUCTION 8

1.1. CLIENT 9

1.1.1. SITUATION 9

1.1.2. OBJECTIVE 10

1.1.3. TARGET GROUP 10

1.2. CONTEXT 10

1.2.1. MACRO: SOCIAL NETWORK SITES (SOCIAL MEDIA) 10

1.2.2. MESO: LIVE MUSIC INDUSTRY 11

1.2.3. MESO: SECONDARY TICKETING 11

1.3. THE CLIENT’S PROBLEM 12

1.4. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 13

1.5. OBJECTIVE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT 14

1.6. OBJECTIVE FOR THE RESEARCH 14

1.7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 15

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 17

2.1. SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 17

2.2. THE FUNCTIONAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 19

2.3. CONSUMERS’ MOTIVES FOR USING SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 21

2.4. CONSUMERS’ ACTIVITIES ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 22

2.5. SOCIAL TECHNOGRAPHICS LADDER 23

3. METHOD OF RESEARCH 25

3.1. METHODOLOGY 25

3.2. DATA COLLECTION 26

3.2.1. SCORECARDS 26

3.2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE 27

3.2.3. POPULATION 30

3.2.4. SAMPLE 30

3.2.5. VALIDITY & RELIABILITY 31

3.2.6. REPRESENTATIVENESS 32

3.3. DATA ANALYSIS 32

3.3.1. TYPE OF ANALYSIS 32

3.3.2. ANALYSIS PER SUB QUESTION 33

3.3.3. TOOLS 35

4. RESULTS 36

4.1. RESULTS FROM DESK RESEARCH 36

4.1.1. PRESENCE OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 36

4.1.2. ACTIVITIES OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 37

4.1.3. ENGAGEMENT 38


4.1.4. POPULARITY OF FACEBOOK ACTIVITIES 39

4.2. RESULTS FROM QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH 39

4.2.1. GENERAL INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS 39

4.2.2. USE OF SOCIAL NETWORK SITES BY RESPONDENTS 40

4.2.3. ENGAGEMENT WITH TICKETING ORGANISATIONS 41

4.2.4. IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES 43

4.3. PRIMARY TICKETERS VS. SECONDARY TICKETERS 44

5. CONCLUSIONS 46

5.1. SUB QUESTIONS 46

5.1.1. SUB QUESTION 1 46





5.2. CENTRAL QUESTION 52

5.3. LIMITATIONS 53

6. RECOMMENDATIONS 54

6.1. RE-EVALUATING THE PROBLEM 54

6.2. EFFECTS ON THE ORGANISATION 55

6.3. ADOPTING A SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGY 56

6.4. PROMOTION THROUGH PARTNERS 59

6.5. RECONSIDERING SOCIAL MEDIA 59

6.6. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 60

7. REFERENCES 61

APPENDIX A: LIST OF KEY TERMS 65

APPENDIX B: SCORECARD 66

APPENDIX C: LIST OF POST CATEGORIES (FACEBOOK) 68

APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE 69

APPENDIX E: REPRESENTATIVENESS 77

APPENDIX F: ANALYSIS TYPE OF USERS 79

APPENDIX G: GRAPHS AND TABLES FROM DESK RESEARCH 80

APPENDIX H: GRAPHS AND TABLES FROM QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH 89

APPENDIX I: CHI-SQUARE TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE 92

APPENDIX J: HEINONEN’S FRAMEWORK WITH RESULTS 103


1. Introduction

A couple of years ago I had my first encounter with a secondary ticketer when I started doubting the

concert tickets of a relative. With Google it was easy to find the organisation that she had bought the

tickets from, but no matter what I did or how hard I tried, I could not get in touch with the shady seller.

It dawned on me that these secondary organisations are out on no more than high profits. Customer

service does not seem to exist in their vocabulary. For long I figured that the secondary ticketing

industry was none of my business, but when people close to me pay over 100 Euros for terrible seats

at a Take That or Tom Jones concert… you make it my business.

Secondary ticketing is an age-old phenomenon that has event organisers worried since the times of

Dickens and even Shakespeare. It comprises the business of profit-seekers who buy up event tickets

from official sellers and resell them to eager buyers for prices way over face value. Unfortunately,

neither event organisers nor the government have found a solid solution yet to ban these secondary

ticketers from the ticket market. As long as consumers keep consuming, these businesses will have

business.

In 2009, several parties decided that they could no longer watch from the side-lines while secondary

organisations disappointed unaware consumers. These parties, including Mojo Concerts and several

venues and associations, bundled their powers and launched an awareness campaign: Weet Waar Je

Koopt (WWJK in short). The campaign would aim to inform consumers about the secondary market

and the risks involved in buying from secondary organisations. If they could not counter the secondary

market, the least they could do was educate the public.

While the campaign was initially only promoted through a website and print media, the parties involved

soon recognised the growing importance of social network sites (SNSs in short). They figured that this

could be an effective way to communicate with the target group. Unfortunately, they were not the only

ones who recognised the opportunities of these platforms. Secondary ticketing organisations also

found their ways to Facebook and Twitter and started attracting consumers to their businesses. Even

more unfortunate was the fact that secondary ticketers, being flourishing organisations, had the time

and resources to invest in a constant online strategy, while WWJK had to rely on minimum budgets

and limited time to maintain its online platforms.

It soon became apparent that a social network strategy requires more than just a few posts every now

and then. And apparently ticketing organisations know what more it needs. Weet Waar Je Koopt

requested this research in order to find out how it can up its social network game in the battle against

the secondary ticketers. But in order to find that out, there is still plenty knowledge to gain.

After the introduction of the client and the problem, the report continues with the theoretical framework

in chapter 2. It describes the consulted literature and explains which models were used to answer the

research questions. Chapter 3 describes the research method. Apart from substantiating the choice of

methodology, it also explains the methods and instruments used for data collection and -analysis. The

data retrieved with the described methods and instruments is analysed in chapter 4, in which the first


steps are made towards answering the research questions. The final conclusions are drawn up in

chapter 5. Finally, based on the research results, recommendations for the client are made in chapter

6. The document concludes with the reference list and relevant appendices.

1.1. Client

Weet Waar Je Koopt is the name of a public campaign aimed at informing consumers about

secondary ticketing and the risks involved in buying from secondary organisations. The campaign,

initiated in 2009 by Mojo Concerts, pop venues Melkweg, Effenaar and WATT, and associations

VNPF (Vereniging van Nederlandse Poppodia en -festivals), VSCD (Vereniging voor Schouwburg- en

Concertgebouw Directies) and VVEM (Vereniging van Evenementen-Makers), was officially launched

during the Noorderslag festival of 2010. Over the years, the campaign has built up a following

including support from artists, primary ticketers, venues, festivals, and suppliers.

1.1.1. Situation

Every day, thousands of people buy tickets to concerts, theatre shows,

sports events and other events on the Internet. What many of them do

not know, is that apart from the official online points of sale there are

many websites/organisations, called secondary ticketers, that buy

tickets in bulk and resell them with the sole objective of generating profit.

On these websites consumers pay prices way over face value for their

tickets, often completely unaware of the situation. It also turned out that

some of these resold tickets do not even guarantee the buyer access to the event, as they are fake or

duplicated. The resale of tickets happens without any permission from the artist and/or promoter, and

since it is a rather popular business, it creates (unnecessary) scarcity; as many tickets fall into the

hands of resellers, only a relatively small amount makes its way to the regular public at the original

price.

Resale does not only occur at sold-out events; at some occasions, tickets are being sold by secondary

organisations for events of which the official pre-sale has not even started yet or for which there are

still plenty tickets available at the official seller. In those cases, resellers do not exploit product

scarcity, but the ignorance of many consumers.

Apart from the problems the secondary business creates for consumers, primary organisations also

see some unfortunate consequences for the entertainment industry:

- Consumers that do not find their way to primary sellers (for instance, because they use

Google to search for tickets) will deem culture/entertainment as too expensive or unaffordable.

They will choose to stay home because they cannot afford the tickets or feel that the prices

are unfair.

- When consumers overpay for their ticket they are likely to spend less money on food and

beverages, merchandise, or tickets to other events (within the same time-span). After all, you

can only spend your money once.

Source: weetwaarjekoopt.nl/backstage


The situation described above was reason for the initiators of the campaign to bundle their powers.

They all shared the same believe that it was about time to make clear to the public where they should

buy their tickets in order to prevent themselves from overpaying and/or being disappointed at the door.

(Weet Waar Je Koopt, n.d.)

1.1.2. Objective

The objective of WWJK is to inform the Dutch audience (12 years and up) about where they should

buy their tickets to events and concerts, and to point out the risks of buying tickets from secondary

ticketing organisations. This has to be done within a minimized budget.

The initiators specifically chose to focus the campaign on promoting primary sellers and not on

slandering secondary organisations. When consumers are aware of the risks and rates of resellers,

they can make educated choices when it comes to buying tickets (Weet Waar Je Koopt, n.d.).

1.1.3. Target group

The target group of the campaign was described in the initial proposal as Dutch consumers over the

age of 12 who buy tickets to concerts/events once or twice a year (Weet Waar Je Koopt, n.d.). The

most important segment of the target group is consumers who are unaware of the ticket-buying

process, usually because they do not attend events on a regular basis. They use, for example, Google

to search for tickets and will click any of the results without realising that it could be a secondary seller.

1.2. Context

This section describes the context of this research. It focuses on three developments relevant to the

problem and research, namely the (growing) popularity of social network sites, the increasing

relevance of the live music industry, and the secondary ticketing industry. Together, these three

aspects illustrate the circumstances under which the client’s problem has arisen and justify the timing

of this research.

1.2.1. Macro: Social Network Sites (Social Media)

Social Network Sites (SNSs in short, popularly used as social media) are defined by boyd & Ellison

(2008) as web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a

bounded system and articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection. Examples of

such services are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Google+. Worldwide, the most popular social

network sites are Facebook, Google+ and Twitter (Search Engine Journal, 2013). In the Netherlands,

Facebook and Twitter are the most popular (profile-centered) social network sites. Facebook currently

has 1.15 billion registered users worldwide, with 8,4 million users in the Netherlands. Twitter currently

has 554 million users worldwide, with 2,9 million users in the Netherlands (Oosterveer, 2013).

According to a recent research by Ipsos (2013), the most common reasons for people to share on

social network sites are ‘to share interesting things’ (61%), ‘to share important things’ (43%) and ‘to

share funny things’ (43%). 30% of respondents indicated that reasons for their activity on social

network sites include ‘to recommend a product or service’ and 29% also use social media ‘to support

an organisation, cause or believe’.


As for organisations, research has shown that 93% of marketers worldwide use social network sites

for business. 70% of marketers have used Facebook to successfully gain new customers and 34%

have used Twitter to successfully create leads (Search Engine Journal, 2013).

In an interview, Goldberg (2011), industrial and organisational psychologist, identified the shift from

companies to digital platforms to collaborate and interact with customers. She said that some of the

positive outcomes from this shift include new marketing and public relations channels, better customer

acquisition, service, and loyalty, and new approaches for branding and communications; a statement

that is supported by the findings in the section above. She furthermore refers to a 2010 study that

showed that 73% of businesses were planning to increase their social media presence.

With the amount of active users on social network sites and the identification by organisations of

online platforms as valuable marketing tools, it is clear that social network sites offer great potential for

attracting and retaining consumers.

1.2.2. Meso: Live music industry

Over the past decades, the music industry has been confronted with many developments. One of the

most significant developments was the shift from physical to digital. MP3s started to replace physical

albums in the late nineties and gained popularity in the twenty-first century (Coldewey, 2012). By

2010, digital sales accounted for 27% of total music purchasing and for over 37% in 2012 (Nielsen,

2013). As with many developments, the digital revolution has its pros and cons. On the one hand, the

digitalisation of music makes music more accessible and affordable for consumers, but at the same

time, for artists and labels, it generates less income than physical products would and makes recorded

music an easier target for piracy. As a result of the declining profits from recorded music, artists are

finding new ways to earn revenues in this digital era (McCubbin, 2012).

The twenty-first century has shown a growing importance of live music and accompanying income

streams (Resnikoff, 2013). A recent research by DiCola (2013) showed that, on average, 28% of

artists’ income comes from live shows, while only 6% comes from sound recordings. A different

research by PwC (2013), mapping global music revenues from 2008 to 2017, shows that global live

music revenues exceeded those of recorded music revenues around 2010, and that live music

revenues will continue to increase significantly, while recorded music revenues will gradually

decrease. Taking all developments described above into consideration, it can be said that there is a

growing focus on live music. More revenue is generated through the sales of concert tickets than there

is through the sales of recorded music. A recent publication of Live Nation’s quarterly numbers

supports this statement about the growing popularity of live music; the organisation hit record

revenues of over $2,2 billion in the third quarter of 2013, up 15% from the prior-year (Peoples, 2013).

1.2.3. Meso: Secondary ticketing

Secondary ticketing describes the business of reselling tickets that have been bought on the primary

market (i.e. from the official seller) with the sole purpose of generating profit. The tickets sold on the

secondary market are offered at prices way over face value. The phenomenon is nothing new; ever

since Dickens staged his plays in the 19th century, and probably well before that, clever ‘businessmen’


have been lining up to resell their tickets (Segrave, 2007). What are new, are the channels that

secondary organisations use to market and sell their goods. Where they used to have no other choice

than to stand in line at the box office for tickets and try to sell them out on the street near venues, they

now have the world at their feet on the World Wide Web (American Antitrust Institute, 2012).

In 2009, Europe Economics (2009) undertook a research in order get a better understanding of the

structure and scale of the secondary ticketing market. Based on extensive surveys and interviews with

stakeholders, the researchers made an estimation of the size of the secondary market for music

events. They found that for high-end events (e.g. Kings of Leon), between 20% and 40% of the tickets

is being resold at a mark-up between 100% and 250%. Very high-end events, concerts from artists

such as Madonna and the late Michael Jackson, know a different demand. For such concerts,

between 60% and 70% is being resold at staggering mark-ups between 500% and 700%. Finally, 20%

to 30% of tickets for popular music festivals are being resold at a relative low mark-up of 30%. It must

be noted that these numbers include tickets resold by consumers.

While in essence secondary ticketing organisations facilitate a free market and match high demands

with similar offers, the industry is often associated with deceit and extortion. In many countries,

primary sellers or other stakeholders have taken action to try and obstruct the secondary market. The

main reason for this is that parties involved in the production of music events deem it unfair that profit

is made off of their ‘product’ by organisations that play no role whatsoever in the realisation. These

organisations simply buy and sell the tickets without making any investments. Money disappears in

their pockets, money that, in fairness, should belong to artists, promoters and venues. Another reason

is that resellers create scarcity by buying up large amounts of tickets, making it difficult for the average

consumer to obtain a ticket at face value. Lastly, secondary ticketing organisations are notorious for

providing misleading information. Claiming to be the cheapest, having the best seats available, having

tickets to ‘sold-out’ shows… phrases that have ignorant consumers think they are either purchasing

from an official seller or that they are making the best choice (Johnson, 2013).

During Europe Economics’ research (2009), music industry stakeholders expressed their concern

about the likely growth of the secondary industry due to the relative ease of setting up online platforms

(including social network sites) nowadays, making it easier to reach consumers.

In conclusion, in times of a music industry struggling with new developments, that has to rely heavily

on live music revenues, secondary ticketing organisations exploit the business by making additional

profits that do not find their way back into the industry. Money that otherwise could be used for artist

development, promotion, and investment, goes into the pockets of mere profit seekers.

1.3. The client’s problem

As described in the context section above, the secondary ticketing industry is winning territory. This

means that more consumers overpay for their event tickets and fewer consumers get the chance to

obtain tickets at the official price. While this does not have to be a bad thing per se, taking into account

that the promoters still sell out their events and get their profits, it does have a negative effect on the


organising parties and primary market, i.e. the parties involved in the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign.

A clear example of such a negative effect is the complaints that the aforementioned parties have to

deal with as a result of resold tickets. When a consumer buys a ticket from a secondary ticketer, he or

she often experiences little trouble with the organisation; the consumer overpays, surely, but may be

unaware of this or may not have any problems with paying extra. However, when any issues arise,

such as invalid tickets, unwanted seats, or no delivery of the tickets at all, and the consumer is unable

to contact the (secondary) seller, he or she will start looking for another scapegoat. Experience has

taught that this scapegoat will often be the promoter or the primary seller. Consequently, the primary

parties have to invest time and resources in dealing with problems caused by other parties.

In order to deal with this problem efficiently, the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign was launched,

providing consumers with a central point of information and contact information specifically for

questions about (secondary) ticket sales. From the beginning, the campaign has been promoted

through a website (weetwaarjekoopt.nl), print media (flyers, posters), banners on related websites and

advertisement on (e-)tickets. In September 2011, the campaign added social network sites to its

marketing strategy. With a Facebook and Twitter account, WWJK actively informed the online users of

newly announced concerts, points of sale, and published (news-) articles about secondary ticketing

and developments in the battle against the extortionate prices. Moreover, consumers were able to

post their questions and concerns on these pages. However, due to time- and resource restrictions,

the online platforms went into oblivion only months after their launch. Since the beginning of 2012,

items are posted sporadically, causing the accounts to no longer be of significant use.

Recently, the campaign’s initiators noticed a significant increase in the activity of secondary ticketing

organisations on social network sites and, with that, a growing popularity of these organisations. The

secondary organisations actively announce and promote concerts, hold competitions, and post news

articles about the music industry, all while promoting their business. These activities seem to attract

the attention of music fans, making them follow the secondary organisations, and in doing so making

them a target for the business.

WWJK perceives this activity of secondary organisations as a threat and feels that it needs to step up

its social media game. The secondary organisations actively engage in social media activities, luring

away consumers from the primary market, while WWJK watches from the side lines. In comparison,

Onlineticketshop has over 172.000 likes on Facebook, while WWJK has just over 2600 (April 2014).

(M. Manders, personal communication, December 11, 2013)

1.4. The research problem

As stated in the previous section, the parties involved in the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign are

concerned about the secondary ticketers on social network sites. While it would be easy to say that

the campaign itself should simply become more active on these platforms, there is more to an online

strategy than posting random content. An organisation should understand what attracts the target

group and how it could keep this target group actively involved in order to build an effective strategy.


This is especially important for WWJK, as it has to work within a minimized budget and with a limited

amount of time available to spend on campaign related activities. While many would say that social

network sites are free tools, this is most definitely not the case. An organisation has to invest time and

resources: in the simplest case, an employee to maintain these online platforms.

Before WWJK starts investing in an extensive strategy for its social network platforms, it should first

understand the origin of its problems, i.e. the popularity of (secondary) ticketers on social network

sites. Why do users follow these organisations? What is it that attracts their attention? If there are

clear motives for users to engage with ticketing organisations online, it is possible that this knowledge

could help WWJK in developing its own strategy. There is a good chance that ticketing organisations

and WWJK (could) attract a similar online target group, as users interested in events and tickets are

likely to also be interested in where it would be best to buy these tickets.

In short, this research will focus on the motives that online users have to follow ticketing organisations

on social network sites. The research will include both secondary and primary (i.e. official) ticketing

organisations, as the target group may be unable to identify the difference between the two types of

parties or, if they are able to make this distinction, they may have different motives for engaging with

primary- and secondary organisations. Also, knowledge about the activities of and engagement with

primary organisation may give insight into collaboration possibilities for the client.

1.5. Objective for the assignment

The objective for the assignment is for the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign to make a decision on its

own online strategy, including social network sites. Could they be able to effectively reach the target

group through social network sites? Is it worth the time and resources? Or would it be wise for the

campaign to focus on different channels to communicate with the target group? A different possibility

would be to consider promoting the campaign through the channels of primary ticketers (who are after

all partners of the campaign). Either way, this report should offer the parties involved in the campaign

a tool that can be used when deciding how to counter the secondary ticketing organisations in a social

network environment. The online strategy should naturally contribute to the main objective of the

WWJK campaign, namely making consumers aware of the secondary market and the risks involved.

1.6. Objective for the research

The objective for the research is to gain insight into the motives of online users to engage with

ticketing organisations on social network sites. As a main problem, WWJK identified the issue of

secondary ticketing organisation becoming (too) popular on social network sites. Before making

decisions on how to counter these actions, it is important to understand the nature of the problem and

how this problem has arisen. What is it that ticketing organisations do that attracts online users? This

research aims to find out the initial motives for users to start following ticketing organisations and the

activities that keep them involved.

The results and recommendations will provide Weet Waar Je Koopt with knowledge about the origin of

their most recent problem and insight into ticketing organisations’ target group(s) on social network


sites. This knowledge can be used to develop a social network strategy that in turn will help expand

the reach of the campaign. This will result in more consumers being well informed about the

secondary ticket market and the risks thereof, helping them in making educated choices when it

comes to ticket purchase (the main objective of WWJK).

The relevance of the problem stipulated by the client was recently confirmed by a news item about the

increase in ticket fraud. Several national news-papers and television programmes devoted articles and

segments to informing consumers about this recent development (NOS, 2014). This research should

contribute to the battle against fraudulent and overpriced tickets. Starting with finding out why

consumers engage with ticketing organisations and whether they (can) make the distinction between

primary and secondary organisations.

1.7. Research questions

Based on the client’s question (management problem), the problem definition (knowledge problem),

and the objective of this research, the following central question has been formulated:



In this question there are three terms that need explaining. The first term is followers, in this research

defined as online users who follow at least one ticketing organisation on at least one social network

site (SNS). Following could include ‘liking’ an organisation on Facebook, ‘following’ an organisation on

Twitter, including an organisation in your Google+ ‘circles’, etcetera. In essence, it means performing

an action on a SNS that allows users to automatically receive updates from an organisation.

The second term is ticketing organisations. These are organisations whose core business is selling

tickets to events. For this research, ten organisations have been selected based on their presence on

social network sites (an account on at least two SNSs) and their popularity on these platforms (with

regard to the amount of followers). As the research focuses on primary ticketers as well as secondary

ticketers, five organisations of each type have been selected. The research only includes ticketing

organisations that sell tickets to music events. Organisations that solely sell tickets to sports-, theatre-

and other events have been excluded from the research with the purpose of making the research as

relevant as possible to the client (the parties involved in the WWJK campaign are primarily concerned

with popular music events). Also, white label ticketing organisations and ticketing software providers

(such as Paylogic and Ticketscript) are excluded from this research as these organisations provide

software and services to other parties rather than selling tickets themselves.

The organisations included in this research are Ticketmaster NL, Live Nation NL, See Tickets NL,

Eventim NL, Ticketpoint, Onlineticketshop NL, TicketStarter, TicketTribune, Rang1Tickets and

Budgetticket NL. While Live Nation is not a ticketing organisation in itself, it is included in the research.

This decision has been made because Live Nation, with an integrated system, does offer consumers

direct access to tickets on its website.


The final term to be identified is social network sites. The definition of this term can be found in the

theoretical framework in chapter 2. The SNSs that the concerning ticketing organisations are found to

be active on are Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube and LinkedIn. Apart from these five platforms,

three others have been selected for this research based on their popularity in the Netherlands, namely

Instagram, Pinterest, and Foursquare (Newcom Research & Consultancy, 2014). All other SNSs have

been excluded from this research as they show no significant popularity in the Netherlands.

To answer this central research question, five sub questions have been formulated. The first question

focuses on the current activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites. It aims to find out

what the organisations are offering to their online following, on which platforms, and how frequently

they are doing this. In other words, what could be the aspects that attract online users to their pages?

This question will be answered for the ten aforementioned ticketing organisations.

1) To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?

The second sub question is formulated to find out what kind of users are following ticketing

organisations on social network sites. It will include demographics (age, gender), involvement in the

music industry (professional involvement, concert attendance), and use of social network sites. The

different classifications of online users that will be used in this research can be found in the theoretical

framework in chapter 2.

2) Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network sites?

Sub question 3 focuses on the level of engagement of followers. Users can have decided at one point

to start following an organisation but does this mean that they actively engage with the organisation or

did they only follow them to express an interest?

3) Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social network

sites?

The fourth sub question aims to find out which activities of ticketing organisations on social network

sites are most valued by the followers. With the models described in the theoretical framework,

activities can be translated to motives, helping answering the central question.

4) Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most valued

by the followers?

The final sub question is aimed at finding out whether users have different motives for following

primary organisations than they have for following secondary organisations. Answering it could point

out whether followers know or care about the difference between primary and secondary

organisations.

5) What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement between primary

ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?

For further clarification, a list of key terms used in this report is included in appendix A.


2. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework provides an overview of the literature that has been consulted in

preparation for this research. It shows the process of identifying core connectors within a topic, and

the development of thoughts and theories on what possible outcomes of the research could be. The

framework at hand discusses the definition of social network sites (SNSs), the functional building

blocks of social network sites, the motives and activities of SNS users, and the Social Technographics

Ladder. These topics and related theories and models form the basis of this research.

2.1. Social Network Sites

In their well renowned article regarding social network sites (cited in over 5000 literary works

according to Google Scholar, May 2014), boyd & Ellison (2008) define these platforms as web-based

services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,

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

connections and those made by others within the system. The backbone consists of visible profiles

that display an articulated list of friends who are also users of the system. boyd & Ellison (2008)

identify the public display of such friend-lists as a crucial component of SNSs, as these enable viewers

to traverse the network graph by clicking through them (boyd & Ellison, 2008). Despite emphasizing

the importance of friends and connections, boyd & Ellison (2008) distance themselves from the term

‘social networking sites’. They feel that the word ‘networking’ puts too much emphasis on relationship

initiation. While networking is possible on social network sites, it is not the primary practice on many of

them (boyd & Ellison, 2008).

Where boyd & Ellison focus on the presence of profiles and connections, many researchers ascribe a

set of other important characteristics to social network sites. Carton (2009) defines SNSs concisely as

internet-based technologies that facilitate conversations. Parent, Plangger & Ball (2011) add that

SNSs differ from traditional web applications by offering users a platform for content creation and -

upload, networking, conversing, media sharing, and bookmarking. Finally, Kietzmann, Hermkens,

McCarthy, & Sylvestre (2011) describe SNSs as highly interactive platforms via which individuals and

communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify user-generated content.

The article by boyd & Ellison (2008) has been cited and discussed by many researchers (e.g. Salo,

Lankinen & Mäntymäki, 2013, Kietzmann et al., 2011), but it has also received some criticism. In his

response, Beer (2008) criticises the use of the term ‘social network sites’ as opposed to ‘social

networking sites’. He argues that the term ‘social network sites’ is too broad; it stands in for too many

things. He agrees that a number of sites are not about ‘networking’ but are ‘networks’, but feels that

this should be grounds for distinction, not for opening up a relatively stable term to include these

differences (Beer, 2008). He suggests using an umbrella term (such as Web 2.0.) that allows for a

series of categories to be fitted within it.

Fraser & Dutta (2008) were one of the first to attempt to formally categorize the different sites, using

the umbrella term ‘social media’. Table 2.1 shows the different categories. Different categorisations


can be found in the literature, based on, for example, virtual communities (Armstrong & Hagel, 1995)

and media richness/self-disclosure (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), but the categorisation by Fraser &

Dutta (2008) is found to suit this research best as it may serve as a basis for making a distinction

based on the different target groups and the potential reach. Additionally, some of these categories

have also been suggested by boyd & Ellison (2008). One critical point may be, however, that, for

example, Facebook nowadays can also be seen as having ‘community’ and ‘passion-centric’

characteristics, as it allows users to create ‘groups’ and ‘pages’ on which likeminded people gather

(though this is not the main purpose of the site).

TABLE 2.1:

CATEGORIES OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Category Appeal Example of site(s)

Egocentric sites

Allow users to construct profiles of themselves on

virtual platforms facilitating identity construction

and connections.

Facebook, Google+, MySpace

Community sites Imitate real-world communities, allowing groups to

form around like beliefs. BlackPlanet, Dogster, MomsLikeMe

Opportunistic sites Allow for different social organisation of users and

facilitate business connections. LinkedIn, Academia.edu

Passion-centric sites Allow users to connect based on interest and

hobbies.

GermanCarForum, Chatterbirds,

TheSamba

Media sharing sites Allow users to share rich media with each other.

Defined by content, not users. YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare

Adapted from Fraser & Dutta (2008)

For this research, the term ‘social network sites’ (SNSs in short, social media may be used in certain

contexts) will be used, as it is, despite the criticism, a term widely employed in many articles and

researches. The key characteristics attributed to this term will be identity, connection, interaction,

conversation, creation, and sharing; combining the various definitions and descriptions, and in line

with the functional building blocks discussed further in this section.

In the Netherlands, there is an apparent top five of most popular social network sites. This top five

includes Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter and Google+ (Newcom Research & Consultancy,

2014). Three out of these five platforms are egocentric sites (Facebook, Twitter, Google+); they allow

users to construct a profile and facilitate identity construction and connections. LinkedIn is an

opportunistic site, facilitating business connections. Finally, YouTube is an obvious case of a media-

sharing site that is defined by rich media content. Other popular social network sites in the

Netherlands are Instagram (media-sharing), Pinterest (media-sharing) and FourSquare (egocentric).

Preliminary research showed the egocentric social platforms (Facebook and Twitter) of various

ticketing organisations to be the most popular among both users and the organisations themselves.


This could be because these are likely to attract the most general audience, and thus have the most

potential in terms of reach.

In order to fence off the term social network sites, the decision has been made to focus the research

on the eight most popular social network sites in the Netherlands mentioned above with regard to

users’ activity. The ticketing organisations researched in this document are found to only be active on

the top five: Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter and Google+.

2.2. The functional building blocks of social network sites

In order to understand social network sites better, Kietzmann et al. (2011) developed a framework

illustrating the seven ‘functional building blocks of social media’. They identified the growing

significance of social network sites and their potential impact on organisations and developed the

model to create a better understanding of the phenomenon. Since its publication in 2011, this model

has been cited in over 500 scientific articles (according to Google Scholar, May 2014).

The framework contains seven building blocks: identity, conversations, sharing, presence,

relationships, reputation, and groups. Each building block examines a specific facet of social media

user experience, and its implications for organisations (Kietzmann et al., 2011). The buildings blocks

are illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Used individually and together, these blocks

can help managers make sense of available

social media choices and improve their

understanding of their audiences’

engagement needs. Individually, the building

blocks are useful for understanding the

engagement needs of social media users,

together they help explain how existing

platforms add value by focusing on a few, not

all, of the building blocks. For example,

LinkedIn focuses on identity, reputation, and

relationships, while YouTube is about

sharing, conversations, groups and

reputations, and Facebook is about

relationships first, but also about presence,

identity, reputation and conversations

(Kietzmann et al., 2011).

Below an overview of the seven building

blocks and the implications for organisations

(Kietzmann et al, 2011):

FIGURE 2.1:

THE FUNCTIONAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Source: Kietzmann et al. (2011)


- Identity: The extent to which users reveal their identities in a social media setting. For example, on

Facebook, users disclose information about their location, age, sex, and personal preferences. The

major implication is privacy. The fact that users willingly share their identities on social network sites

does not mean that they do not care what happens to this information.

- Conversations: The extent to which users communicate with other users in a social media setting.

For example, on Twitter, users post short messages on which they are likely to receive a reply or

comment. Differences in the frequency and content of a conversation can have major implications for

how organisations monitor and make sense of the ‘conversation velocity’. For example, to make

collective sense of the short, speedy, and numerous conversations on Twitter, organisations need

tools and capabilities that allow them to connect the dots. A second implication is the issue of

organisations starting or manipulating a conversation. They need to know when to chime in and when

to butt out.

- Sharing: The extent to which users exchange, distribute, and receive content. For example, on

YouTube, users share videos. One of the implications is the need to evaluate what objects of sociality

users have in common. For instance, the objects of sociality are pictures for Flickr and careers for

LinkedIn. Without these objects, a sharing network will be primarily about connections between people

but without anything connecting them together. The second implication concerns the degree to which

the object can or should be shared, referring to copyright issues and inappropriate material.

- Presence: The extent to which users can know if other users are accessible. For example, on

FourSquare, users can ‘check-in’ at their real-time locations, letting other users know where they are

at that moment. The implication is that organisations need to pay attention to the relative importance

of user availability and -location. Do users prefer to engage in real-time? Is there a desire for selective

presences?

- Relationships: The extent to which users can be related to other users. ‘Relate’ meaning that two or

more users have some form of association that leads them to converse, share, meet-up, or simply just

list each other as friend or fan. For example, Facebook has the friend-list, and Twitter allows users to

follow each other. For organisations, it is important to understand how they can maintain and/or build

relationships with their users.

- Reputation: The extent to which users can identify the standing of others in a social media setting.

For example, a high amount of followers on Twitter, or various endorsements on LinkedIn, may be

indicators of trust. It is important for organisations to choose an appropriate metric to evaluate their

reputation. If time and activity in a community matter, a measure of the number of posts over time may

be a good metric. If the quality of an individual’s contributions matter, a rating system (e.g. the amount

of ‘likes’) would be more appropriate.

- Groups: The extent to which users can form communities and sub-communities. For example, on

LinkedIn, organisations can create groups to which users can subscribe if they are of feel in any way

related to that organisation or topic. In doing so, it is important to establish a set of membership ‘rules’

and protocols.


The theory of the seven building blocks will be used in order to identify the current use of social

network sites by ticketing organisations. It is likely that a large organisation like Ticketmaster cares

deeply about their identity and thrives on facilitating conversations, while a secondary ticketing

organisation may be more concerned about its reputation. Also, it is expected that the motives of

online users to engage with organisations on social network sites can be linked to these building

blocks. It is therefore possible that the results of the research can help identify the building blocks that

the users prioritise, helping organisations in developing a strategy that aims for the highest reach.

2.3. Consumers’ motives for using social network sites

For their research, Salo, Lankinen, & Mäntymäki (2013), identified four consumer motives for using

social network sites: reinforcement of social identity, a sense of affinity, participation (user generated

content), and two-way interaction. In relation to music marketing, they found the additional motive of

‘access to content’. Park, Kee, & Valenzuela (2009) also found four motives: socializing,

entertainment, self-status seeking, and information. Finally, Shao (2009) identified five motives similar

to that of Park et al. (2009), namely information, entertainment, social interaction and community

development, self-actualization, and self-expression.

Linked to the consumers’ motives, Shao (2009) also proposes a set of activities that people perform

online: 1) consumption of information and entertainment, 2) participation in social interaction and

community development, and 3) production of self-expression and self-actualization. In this set of

activities, consumption is defined as reading/viewing content posted by others, participation occurs

when people comment on others’ creations, and production means posting one’s own content.

Although this theory comprises all online activities in general, it does not specify the sub-activities that

occur within the main categories. The activities of consumption, participation, and production may also

include other activities that are not described by the categorization based on contribution/engagement

levels (Heinonen, 2011). It is thus appropriate to identify other activities that can be relevant for social

media users.

Most researches about motives seem to point in the same direction. The motives may be categorized

or defined differently, but all have findings in common. Naturally, the social aspect is very important,

but also the access to content/information. In this research, the findings described above will serve as

the basis for asking the research target group about their motives for using social network sites with

regard to ticketing organisations. A set of six different motives has been drawn up based on the

different findings above. These motives have been ‘translated’ to fit better in the context of ticketing

organisations. The six motives used in this research are (social) identity, sense of affinity, access to

information, social interaction with users, interaction with organisations, and access to (media)

content/entertainment.

Since the retrieval of information is an apparent motive for consumers to use social network sites, it is

expected that there will be a need for up-to-date, relevant content that is easily accessible. The

following section will further explore the motives and activities listed by Shao (2009).


2.4. Consumers’ activities on social network sites

Based on the previous notion that the findings by Shao (2009) need further exploration, Heinonen

(2011) created a conceptual model of consumers’ activities on social network sites. Building on an

extensive review of previous research on motives and activity (similar to that described above),

Heinonen (2011) proposes that consumers’ social network activities can be conceptualised based on

two dimensions: consumer motivation and consumer input (effort/content). The consumer input

dimension, also referred to as engagement level, is separated into three main types of activities based

on the findings by Shao (2009): consumption, participation, and production. The consumer motivation

dimension is also separated into three types: entertainment, social connection, and information.

Examining these categories of motives

provides more details concerning the

nature of the three main activity types

identified by Shao (2009). All

elements in the proposed model are

present in existing research, but they

have not been combined into one

single framework. To fill in the

framework (i.e. find out consumer

activity), Heinonen (2011) undertook

empirical research among a group of

marketing students who were asked to

keep a journal of their activities on

social network sites. The framework,

including the research findings, is

illustrated in Figure 2.2.

The overview of social network

activities shows that consumer input

mainly concerned consumption and

participation; only some activities are related to production. Acquiring and consuming information are

two of the main activities. The research showed that the information is valued for several reasons

including accessibility, being real-time, variety of viewpoints covered, and exclusivity. The drawback is

the trustworthiness of the information. Especially factual information is often considered questionable

(Heinonen, 2011). This finding shows that it is important for an organisation to build-up a credible

reputation, whether or not through social network sites.

A major information processing activity is the retrieval of product information and content, such as

solving problems with product use or accessing content, such as music and software (Heinonen,

2011). Like many researches and theories, these findings again put the emphasis on content. Another

FIGURE 2.2:

AN OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL NETWORK ACTIVITIES

Source: Heinonen (2011)


form of information processing is sharing information and experiences, and accessing shared

knowledge online. Opposed to factual information that has lower trustworthiness, opinions are

considered to be reliable and value adding (Heinonen, 2011). This finding is specifically important with

regard to secondary ticketing organisations. Having consumers share their experiences with

secondary ticketers can benefit the primary organisations while it will probably negatively impact the

business of the secondary organisations.

Focusing on activities rather than only on motivations, the described framework and research findings

increase the understanding of why consumers are interested in social network sites (Heinonen, 2011).

If organisations can identify the activities of their own target group on social network sites they are

likely to be able to tailor their online strategy to these users’ wants and needs. Rather than relying

solely on marketing communication, organisations should try to participate more in their target group’s

social network activities, in order to understand the impact of these on their image and also to facilitate

interaction (Heinonen, 2011).

The described framework will form the basis of an important part of this research’s questionnaire. By

translating the ‘general’ activities to activities linked to ticketing organisations it is possible to identify

the most valued and/or desired activities, i.e. the reasons why users are willing to engage with these

organisations. Also, for this research, the three levels of consumer input are translated into three types

of online users: consumers, participators, and creators. The different types of online users are

elaborated on in the following section, explaining the Social Technographics Ladder.

2.5. Social Technographics Ladder

In 2007, reputable research institution Forrester introduced a model that categorises online users

based on their activities and online involvement.

This model, called the Social Technographics

Ladder, proposes a set of overlapping

classifications of Internet users (Li, 2007). The

initial model consisted of six classifications,

excluding the conversationalists. In 2010, the

researchers introduced this new category to

better fit the users that are active on social

network sites (Bernoff, 2010). The Social

Technographics Ladder with the seven

classifications is illustrated in Figure 2.3. The

term Technographics refers to the analysis of

consumers’ approach to technology (Li, 2007).

The model was created after an extensive

online survey (little under 5000 respondents)

among US and Canadian individuals.

FIGURE 2.3: FORRESTER’S SOCIAL TECHNOGRAPHICS LADDER

Source: Li (2007) and Bernoff (2010)


The different levels are described as follows (Li, 2007, Bernoff, 2010):

Creators: Online consumers who publish blogs, maintain web pages, or upload videos to sites like

YouTube at least once per month.

Conversationalists: Online users who update statuses and post messages that facilitate

conversations.

Critics: Online consumers who participate in either of two ways: commenting on blogs or posting

ratings and reviews on sites like Amazon.com.

Collectors: Users who save URLs, use RSS feeds, or perform any other act that allows them to

‘collect’ information (and possibly share it with a community).

Joiners: Users who only ‘use’ social network sites like Facebook and maintain a profile. They visit

social networking sites but are not ‘active’.

Spectators: Users who view, listen or read without taking any further action.

Inactives: Consumers who do not at all participate in social online activities.

The illustrated model will be used to classify the questionnaire respondents based on their online

activity and to indicate levels of engagement. As the Social

Technographics Ladder is based on consumers’ general online

activities, and this research focuses solely on social network sites, the

aforementioned attributes of each classification will be interpreted as

activities on social network sites. Furthermore the research aims to

use a maximum of four classifications. These classifications are

based on the three types of online users mentioned in the previous

sections, namely consumers, participators, and creators. The fourth

classification of inactives will be formally added, but is not expected to

be applicable to this research as all respondents are expected to

have at least one account on one social network site. The attributes

ascribed to each of the classifications will be based on the Social

Technographics Ladder, as shown in Figure 2.4. Each of the

classifications is appointed the attributes/activities of the levels drawn

up in the ladder. The classifications are made broader, as to divide

the respondents into a lower number of categories, but still entail a

specific level of activity. The inactives are not active on social network

sites at all, the consumers have accounts, read other users’ updates

and messages and may collect photos, videos or other content he or

she is interested in, the participators post their own messages,

facilitate conversations and participate in them, and may use social

network sites to read/write (product) reviews, and the creators are the most active users on social

network sites, creating content of their own. While the Technographics Ladder shows overlapping

classifications, the new model will classify each respondent in only one classification based on his of

her main activity.

FIGURE 2.4:

ONLINE USER CLASSIFICATIONS

Based on Li (2007), Bergoff (2010),

Heinonen (2011)


3. Method of research

This section shows the design for the research. It elaborates on the chosen methodology, the

instruments used for data collection, and the methods used for data analysis.

3.1. Methodology

A quantitative approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses postpositivist claims for

developing knowledge (i.e., cause and effect thinking, reduction to specific variables and hypotheses

and questions, use of measurement and observation, and the test of theories), employs strategies of

inquiry such as experiments and surveys, and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield

statistical data. (Creswell, 2003)

The main part of this research consists of quantitative research, along with desk research.

Quantitative research has been chosen as the main methodology as the research aims to get a good

understanding of a large population, i.e. to generalise the findings. The instrument used for the

quantitative research is an online questionnaire that was designed to retrieve statistical data about the

research population. The quantitative research is for most of the (sub-) questions supported by desk

research. Further desk research was done to get good insight into the current presence and activities

of the selected ticketing organisations on social network sites. For this desk research, the researcher

had to rely on public data.

The methods used for each sub question are described in more detail below.

- Central question: What are the motives of followers of ticketing organisations to engage with these


The answer to the central question will be formulated with the answers from the different sub

questions. No research directly linked to the central question will be done.

- Sub question 1: To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?

This sub question will be answered through desk research. The activities of ten ticketing

organisations on social network sites will be observed and analysed. This question aims to

link the activities of each organisation to the ‘building blocks’-model by Kietzmann et al.

described in the theoretical framework. The observed activities will also be used to help

formulate the possible answers for part of the questionnaire.

- Sub question 2: Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network

sites?

This sub question will be answered through quantitative research. Questions regarding

demographics, involvement in the music industry and activity on social network sites will be

included in the questionnaire. Finding out the characteristic of followers, along with the other

research data, can help in determining whether different followers have different motives and

levels of engagement. Also, it establishes an overview of which types of users are interested


in (following) ticketing organisations which could help in tailoring a strategy to the wants and

needs of these users. The classification of the types of users (consumers, participators,

creators) was established with the models described in the theoretical framework.

- Sub question 3: Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social

network sites?

This sub question will be answered through both quantitative research and desk research.

The questionnaire will include questions on which organisations are being followed and how

actively in order to find out whether ‘following’ equals ‘engagement’. In other words, a user

can follow 6 different organisations, but does this also mean that he/she engages actively with

these organisations? Part of the questions will be based on the Social Technographics Ladder

illustrated in the theoretical framework. As for the desk research part, the different types of

followers’ response to posts will be observed on the social network sites of the different

organisations.

- Sub question 4: Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most

valued by the followers?


The questionnaire will include questions on the importance of certain activities (i.e. posts) and

the initial motives for following the organisation(s). The questionnaire questions related to this

sub question will be based on the model by Heinonen as described in the theoretical

framework and the desk research done for sub question 1. Furthermore, further desk research

into the presence of ticketing organisations on social network sites will include measuring

followers’ response to different types of posts.

- Sub question 5: What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement

between primary ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?


Comparisons will be made between questionnaire respondents who answered to only follow

primary organisations and those who (also) follow at least one secondary organisation. The

desk research will point out whether there are differences in followers’ engagement by

analysing the total responses to posts.

3.2. Data collection

To retrieve the research data, two instruments were used: a questionnaire for the research population

to fill in (sub questions 2 to 5) and ‘scorecards’ to keep track of current activities of the ticketing

organisations on social network sites (sub questions 1, 3, 4 and 5).

3.2.1. Scorecards

To answer the first sub question on current activities of ticketing organisations and part of sub

questions 3, 4 and 5, the social network accounts of ten organisations were observed. Information on


online presence, popularity and activities was written down in Excel ‘scorecards’. An example of the

scorecards used can be found in appendix B. This example shows observations of one month for one

organisation. The full scorecards have not been included in this document. Solely the relevant results

that were retrieved from them are included in the form of tables and graphs.

The research focused primarily on Facebook and Twitter activities, as these social network sites were

found to be the most popular among both users and organisations. The activities of six consecutive

months on Facebook were observed, from September 2013 to February 2014. The timespan was

chosen because the research started in March of 2014 and a six month period was deemed realistic

for the time available for this research. The activities, i.e. posts, were categorised based on the nature

of the post and its purpose. The different categories are partly based on the model by Heinonen

(2011) described in chapter 2. An alphabetical overview of the categories can be found in appendix C.

Some posts served more than one purpose, for example, a concert announcement also included

information about the ticket sales. In these cases, the posts were categorised based on the main

purpose. In the case of the example, the post was categorised as a concert announcement since the

main purpose of the post was to inform followers about an upcoming event for the first time.

For each post several aspects were written down including the date of the post, the amount of likes,

shares, and comments it had received and whether the post included a direct link to the website of the

organisation.

Furthermore, Twitter activities were observed. For each organisation the amount of tweets, replies,

and retweets was written down per day for the period from November 2013 to February 2014. Tweets

being posts by the organisation itself (often of a similar nature as the Facebook posts), replies being

responses to users’ posts (e.g. answers to questions), and retweets being reposts of something

another user or organisation posted. The four-month time span was chosen as Twitter only allows

pages to show up to 3200 tweets (i.e. posts). Due to the large amount of posts, this meant that for

Ticketmaster it was not possible to go back further than the end of October. Also, due to a One

Direction concert (apparently popular among young female Twitter users), Live Nation showed

abnormal activity with regard to replies at the end of September.

3.2.2. Questionnaire

For the quantitative part of the research, an online questionnaire was designed using the online tool

SurveyMonkey.com. The client provided a paid account that gave access to premium design options

and analysis methods. The questionnaire can be found in appendix D.

Questions

The questionnaire was designed with the help of the theoretical framework in chapter 2 and

preliminary desk research results. It started off with general questions about the respondents’ gender


and age and continued with a question about their professional involvement in the music industry and

concert attendance. These questions were included with the intent of finding out which types of users

(with regard to demographics) follow ticketing organisations.

In order to further specify the type of online users, the questionnaire continued with questions about

respondents’ use of social network sites. The question on which platforms are being used included the

eight most popular social network sites in the Netherlands: Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter,

Google+, Instagram, Pinterest and FourSquare (Newcom Research & Consultancy, 2014). The

question provided the option of adding any other social network sites. Besides answering which

platforms they use, respondents were asked how often they use these platforms based on a Likert

scale. The final question about respondents’ use of social network sites asked about how often certain

activities are being performed. The answers provided were based on the Social Technographics

Ladder (see chapter 2) and contained a Likert scale of frequency. With this question it is possible to

classify the respondents into four types of online users (inactive, consumer, participator, and creator).

Before continuing the questionnaire, respondents were asked to look up which ticketing organisations

they follow on which social network sites. In order to help them, a web page was created that gave

respondents an overview of the pages of ticketing organisations. If they were logged into their own

social network accounts they could immediately see whether they were following these organisations.

Respondents were then asked to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to whether they were following at least one of

the mentioned organisations. Respondents who answered ‘no’ were routed to a different part of the

questionnaire. With exit questions (why don’t you follow any organisation?) they were excluded from

the questionnaire. Respondents who answered positively to the question were routed to the next

page.

The part of the questionnaire regarding ticketing organisations on social network sites included

questions on which ticketing organisations the respondents followed and on which platforms, and what

their motives are for following these organisations. The ticketing organisations included in the

questionnaire were selected based on their popularity on social network sites (amount of followers).

Respondents were given the option to add any other ticketing organisations. The five social network

sites included in this part of the questionnaire (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ and YouTube)

were selected as these showed to be the only platforms that the ticketing organisations have accounts

on.

The questions about motives and level of engagement were based on the theoretical framework

presented in chapter 2. Question 15 about ticketing organisations’ activity on social network sites

asked respondents to express how important they deem certain activities. The mentioned activities

were based on the framework by Heinonen (2011) and preliminary desk research, and included a

Likert scale of importance.


The final questions about finding ticketing organisations and familiarity with the Weet Waar Je Koopt

campaign were included to find out whether the respondents would fit into the target group of the

research client.

Distribution channels

The questionnaire was distributed via social network sites from 17 April 2014 to 11 May 2014. It was

only distributed through the channels of social networks sites as the research population consists of

users who are active on these platforms. Therefore, it did not seem logical to spread the questionnaire

through offline channels and online channels other than social network sites.

- Personal/network accounts: To start off, the questionnaire was distributed through the

personal channels of the researcher (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Public data showed that a

relatively large group of users (approximately 110 users) in the researcher’s network followed

one or more ticketing organisations. General messages were sent out in order to reach these

users. The message got picked up by several other users and, as a result, was shared by 21

people in the researcher’s online network. While distributing the questionnaire through

personal channels could cause bias, it is expected that in this case this bias in minimal, as the

messages were aimed at a specific set of users (those who follow ticketing organisations).

- Direct messages – Several days after the questionnaire was initially sent out, the response

rate turned out to be really low. As public data of the social network sites showed which users

followed which organisations, the decision what made to approach users directly through

direct messages, including the link to the questionnaire. This approach caused a significant

increase in respondents.

- Weet Waar Je Koopt – With Weet Waar Je Koopt being the client of this research, it was no

problem to distribute the questionnaire through its platforms. The questionnaire was posted on

the Facebook account of the campaign with a total of 2700 followers.

- Ticketers: After one and a half week the response rate still turned out to be rather low. In an

attempt to increase the amount of respondents, several ticketing organisations were

approached with the question if they could post the questionnaire on their platforms.

Ticketmaster was the only organisation to respond positively to this question. The link to the

questionnaire was posted twice on the Twitter account with a following of over 45.000 users.

Having the questionnaire distributed by an organisation included in the research may have

caused bias in the sense that the majority of the respondents is likely to have answered that

they follow this organisation on Twitter. However, since the initial response rate was

disappointing, this measure was deemed necessary in order to expand the reach significantly.

After two weeks, the questionnaire was also posted on the Facebook page of Eventim (998

followers) and Ticketpoint (7000+ followers) by the researcher herself. Eventim explained that


they rather not post the questionnaire themselves due to secondary ticketers being included in

the research.

3.2.3. Population

The research population is formulated as Dutch users of social network sites over the age of 15 who

follow at least one ticketing organisation on at least one social network site. Although respondents

who do use social network sites but do not follow ticketing organisations were allowed to start the

questionnaire, they were excluded at a certain point through routings including exit questions. It was

decided to not directly exclude these respondents from the questionnaire because these respondents

might have clear motives as why not to follow ticketing organisations that may benefit the outcomes

and the advice. The minimum age was set at 15 years as the Dutch law prohibits having people under

the age of 15 partake in online surveys.

According to public data, the ticketing organisations included in this research have a total online

following of over 630.000 (see appendix G, table G1). However, this number is likely to include users

who follow more than one organisation on more than one platform. Also, the number of followers is

dynamic; organisations lose and gain followers on a daily basis. Finally, since the research population

only includes users over the age of 15, a(n) (unknown) number of people has to be deducted from the

amount of followers. However, even with an amount deducted, the research population will still be

considered to be ‘large’ (over approximately 20.000). Because of this, for the calculation of the

sample, it is not important to find out the exact size of the population. The mathematics of probability

proves the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of

the total population to be examined. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in

examining the opinions of a state of 15.000.000 as it would a city of 100.000 (The Survey System,

n.d.).

3.2.4. Sample

To determine the sample size needed for this research, several factors had to be taken into

consideration. The population size has been established to be ‘large’, and thus not be of significance

to the sample size calculation. The other factors that had to be determined are the confidence level

and the confidence interval. For this research a confidence level of 95% has been chosen and a

confidence interval of 5 because these are ‘standard’ values and because they deliver a realistic

sample size for the timespan of this research. The confidence interval (also margin of error) of 5

means that the researcher can be ‘sure’ that if the questions were asked to the entire population, the

answers would deviate no more than 5% from the answer of the sample. For example, when 40% of

the sample chose a certain answer, with a confidence interval of 5, you can be sure that the answers

of the entire population would lie between 35% (40-5) and 45% (40+5). The confidence level

represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the

confidence interval (The Survey System, n.d.). The confidence level of 95% thus means that it is 95%

certain. With the ‘large’ population, the confidence interval of 5 and the confidence level of 95%, the

sample size needed for this research in order to represent the population is 384.


Sampling frame

For the research population, no sampling frame was available. It was not possible to retrieve full lists

of followers of ticketing organisations on social network sites, let alone the contact information of these

users. Public data only shows statistical information on followers of certain organisations, and which

users in your (personal) network follow a certain organisation.

Non-random sample

The sample of this research is non-random. Due to the absence of a sampling frame, everyone in the

population did not have an equal chance of being selected for the research. The questionnaire was

sent out through selected channels, increasing the chances of followers of those channels of being

selected for the research.

3.2.5. Validity & reliability

Validity refers to whether the research instruments measure what they intend to measure and

reliability is defined as the extent to which the questionnaire (or any measurement procedure)

produces the same results on repeated trials (Miller, n.d.). In order to increase the validity and

reliability of the research, the following measures were taken by the researcher.

Language of the questionnaire

While the language of the report and the language of the programme for which this report was written

is English, the questionnaire was drawn up in Dutch. The reason for this is that the research

population is Dutch. Writing the questionnaire in English could cause the respondents to have trouble

understanding the questions and answers. It could not be assumed that all respondents would have

sufficient skills with regard to the English language.

Research expert

The questionnaire was reviewed twice by a research expert. After the first review the questionnaire

was adapted to better fit the theoretical framework. After the second review, key terms were translated

to terms better understandable for the target group (e.g. ticketing organisatie to kaartverkoop

organisatie) and answers were checked for mutual exclusivity.

Pilot

Before sending out the final questionnaire, a pilot was conducted. The questionnaire was reviewed by

a total of 15 people. These people were selected based on their qualifications. The pilot respondents

included music industry professionals, marketing and communication students, and fellow graduates.

After the pilot period, the questionnaire was adjusted according to the suggestions made by the pilot

respondents. The adjustments included corrections of typos and adjustments of questions that caused

confusion. The results from the pilot phase were also processed in the analysis system of

SurveyMonkey to check whether the data was suitable for the desired analysis.

Theoretical framework


The main part of the questionnaire was based on the theoretical framework described in chapter 2,

meaning that possible answers were not randomly formulated by the researcher but that they are

supported by past findings and theories.

References

This report includes a full overview of used sources, allowing anyone interested to retrieve the original

documents referenced in this research. All sources were carefully selected, paying attention to the

nature of the works (scientific articles, literature), the reputation of the authors, and the amount of

times the works have been cited.

Transparency

This report was written with the intent of giving the reader step-by-step insight into the research

process.

3.2.6. Representativeness

The desired sample size of 384 was not reached. A total of 190 respondents completed the

questionnaire, of which 168 fit the research population. 20 respondents were excluded as they did not

follow any ticketing organisations on social networks sites, and 2 respondents were under the age of

15. With a confidence level of 95%, this amount of respondents results in a confidence interval of 7,56.

Due to this rather large margin of error, the results of this research represent the sample rather than

the entire population. Any percentages retrieved from the questionnaire that are presented in chapter

4 could lay 7,56% higher or lower when calculated for the population (with a confidence level of 95%).

The sample was also checked for representativeness for the gender and age variable with a chi-

square of goodness of fit. The calculations show that the sample is not representative for either

variable, meaning that the distribution of age and gender among the sample is different than the

distribution among the population. The calculations of the chi-squares can be found in appendix E.

3.3. Data analysis

This section explains which methods were used for analysing the retrieved data. The methods are

described in general and specified per sub question.

3.3.1. Type of analysis

As the goal of the analysis is to describe the findings, the chosen type of analysis for this research is

descriptive analysis, also known as univariate analysis (uni = one). The aim of the research is to

create an overview of the target groups’ use of social network sites and their motives for engaging with

ticketing organisations on these platforms. A descriptive analysis delivers clear and concise results

that are accessible to anyone interested and that can be used to construct an advice for the client.

Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were performed for a number of variables with the aim

of finding out whether there are relations between certain variables. This type of analysis falls under

bivariate analysis as two (bi = two) variables are being checked for connections (Dawson, 2009). The


chi-square test of independence is a test statistic that permits researchers to assess if relationships

between two variables are due to chance or if the relationship is systematic. It examines whether the

observed pattern is strong enough to show that two variables are dependent on each other or not

(Gingrich, 1992). Since researchers rely on samples and do not observe an entire population, an

observed relationship could simply be due to a fluke (a property of a peculiar sample) (Corder, n.d.).

While chi-square tests of independence were performed for multiple variables, there are two issues

that need to be taken into consideration when calculating and describing the outcomes.

- Interpretation

The chi-square test of independence only indicates whether or not there is a significant

relation between two variables. It does not say anything about the nature of the relationship

other than that the relationship exists. Only assumptions can be made by examining the

observed values table and by calculating the row percentages. Also, a significant relation does

not necessarily imply ‘cause and effect’ (Gingrich, 1992). For the chi-square tests that indicate

some relation between certain variables, attempts were made to describe the nature of the

relationship by examining the observed values tables. The results hereof are not conclusive in

any way, nor do they indicate relations within the entire population because the sample size of

this research is not representative.

- Small sample size

The use of chi-square tests is deemed inappropriate if any expected value is below 1 or if the

expected value is less than 5 in more than 20% of the cells. There are alternative tests that

deliver more accurate results when the expected numbers are small, i.e. when the sample

size is small (randomization test or Fishers’ exact test of independence) (Gingrich, 1992).

However, this report limits itself to the HBO-level of statistics, meaning that only the chi-

square test is being used to test for relations between variables. Each desired test of

independence was performed as planned, but notions were made on whether or not the chi-

square test is deemed appropriate.

3.3.2. Analysis per sub question

For each sub question, several variables were analysed. Below an overview of which data was

analysed for which sub question and which methods were used.

- Sub question 1: To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?

With the use of the aforementioned scorecards, calculations were made on the frequency with which

the organisations post certain updates. Through observation, the presence on social network sites of

each of the ten organisations was established. The data was retrieved by counting the number of each

type of post on the Facebook pages of each organisation and by writing down the response to each

post. For Twitter, only the amount of posts was counted and the nature of these posts was noted.

- Sub question 2: Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network

sites?


For this sub question, several questionnaire questions were analysed descriptively. These questions

included gender, age, involvement in the music industry, concert attendance, and use of SNSs.

In order to classify the respondents into the four types of online users described in the theoretical

framework (inactive, consumer, participator, creator) calculations were made on question 6 of the

questionnaire. This question asked respondents to indicate how often they perform certain activities

on social network sites based on a Likert scale of frequency. For each type of online user (inactives

excluded) two activities were included. To find out the main activity type of each respondent, the two

values corresponding with each type of online users were added up and divided by two, resulting in an

average value for each type. The type of online user with the highest value was then assigned to the

respondent. An example of this calculation can be found in appendix F.

Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were performed on the gender, age, involvement in the

music industry, and concert attendance variables in combination with the data on how many ticketing

organisations are being followed by each respondent to find out whether there is a relation between

each (demographic) variable and the level of engagement.

- Sub question 3: Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social

network sites?

The results to this sub question were acquired through descriptive analysis of two questionnaire

questions and the analysis of the scorecards (desk research). The questions from the questionnaire

that were analysed were the questions regarding which organisations are being followed on which

platforms, and how active the organisations are being followed.

To measure the level of engagement through desk research, the response to each Facebook post

from each organisation was written down. The three types of response are likes, comments, and

shares. Each type of response shows a certain level of engagement: a like is associated with

consumption, a comment with participation, and a share with creation. The reason for this is that a like

allows users to show their support in a fast and easy way, a comment facilitates a conversation, and a

share moves an update beyond the page of the organisation (users expand the reach by (re-)creating

the post on their own profile) (Mulready, 2013). By observing the retrieved amount of likes, comments,

and shares it is possible to identify the most expressed level of engagement (on Facebook). Also,

awarding each type of response with a number of points per organisation allows calculating

‘engagement scores’ and makes it is possible to find out with which organisations users engage most.

A share is more valuable than a comment, and a comment is more valuable than a like. Therefore

shares are awarded with more points than comments (3 points), and comments are awarded with

more points than likes (2 points). Likes are associated with the lowest level of engagement and are

therefore awarded with only 1 point.

Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were performed on the type of user variable (as

described in for sub question 2), the motive variable and the variable of how active organisations are


being followed. This was done to find out whether there is a relation between respondents’ (personal)

use of social network sites and their engagement with (ticketing) organisations on social network sites.

- Sub question 4: Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most

valued by the followers?

This sub question was also answered through both the questionnaire and desk research. The

questionnaire included questions on motives for following ticketing organisations and the importance

of specified activities. The results to these questions were analysed in a descriptive way.

The analysis of the desk research is similar to that of sub question 3, but takes it a step further. For

sub question 3, the response was analysed in general. For this sub question, the average response

per type of activity was calculated by adding up the total amount of likes, comments and shares per

type of post and dividing them by the amount of posts. This resulted in an overview of the most

popular posts per organisation and in general.

- Sub question 5: What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement

between primary ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?

To answer this sub question the respondents of the questionnaire were divided into two groups: those

who solely follow primary organisations, and those who (also) follow at least one secondary

organisation. For each of these groups, the answers to the questions on motives and level of

engagement were analysed descriptively. Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were

performed for multiple variables in combination with the two groups of respondents. This was done to

find out whether there are relations between following primary or secondary organisations and

motives, level of engagement, and respondents’ characteristics. After testing the variables for

relationships, attempts were made to determine the nature of possible relationships by examining the

tables.

3.3.3. Tools

The results regarding the desk research were mainly analysed by hand with the help of Microsoft

Excel 2010 for calculations.

The results from the questionnaire were analysed with the use of the analysis tools provided by

SurveyMonkey. A paid premium account was provided by the client, which offered extensive analysis

tools.

All chi-squares were calculated by hand so that every step could be checked and re-checked. Only

when the chi-square calculated by hand came close to the critical value or when in doubt, the results

were tested with easy-to-access software provided online by Preacher (2001).


4. Results

This section gives an overview of the results of the research. The data was retrieved through both

desk research, and quantitative research in the form of a questionnaire. The questionnaire had a total

of 190 respondents of which 168 fit the research population. As the required sample size of 384 was

not reached, the results represent the sample rather than the entire population.

All percentages were rounded off to one decimal. It is therefore possible that in some cases the total

of the percentages exceeds 100 percent or falls just under 100 percent.

4.1. Results from desk research

The results in the following sections were retrieved trough desk research.

4.1.1. Presence of ticketing organisations on social network sites

The ticketing organisations included in this research are primary organisations Ticketmaster

Nederland, Live Nation Nederland, See Tickets Nederland, Eventim Nederland and Ticketpoint, and

secondary organisations Onlineticketshop Nederland, TicketStarter, TicketTribune, Rang1Tickets and

Budgetticket Nederland. The organisations were selected based on their presence on social network

sites (at least an account on two platforms) and popularity on social network sites (with regard to the

amount of followers). A full overview of the organisations’ presence on social network sites can be

found in appendix G, figure G1 and tables G1 and G2. The most important findings are summarised

below.

All selected ticketing organisations are found to be active on both Facebook and Twitter.

Onlineticketshop, Ticketmaster, See Tickets and Live Nation also have an account on Google+. 4 out

of 5 primary organisations (all but Eventim) have an account on YouTube on which they post videos.

Only 2 organisations, Ticketmaster and See

Tickets, have an account on LinkedIn.

Ticketmaster and See Tickets are most

present on social network sites with

accounts on 5 platforms.

On Facebook, Onlineticketshop (171.852),

See Tickets (146.522) and Ticketmaster

(122.036) have the highest amounts of

followers. On Twitter, TicketStarter

(56.914), Ticketmaster (45.800) and Live

Nation (19.879) are the most popular

organisations. Adding up all followers from

all accounts of each organisation,

Onlineticketshop (180.768), Ticketmaster (167.927) and See Tickets (154.538) come out on top. The

organisations with the least amount of followers overall are Rang1Tickets (1.636), Eventim (1.939)

180.768 167.927

154.538

67.317

46.833

8.657 3.466 2.147 1.939 1.636

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

200.000

FIGURE 4.1: TOTAL AMOUNTS OF FOLLOWERS PER

ORGANISATION


and TicketTribune (2.147). Figure 4.1. shows the total amounts of followers per organisation from high

to low. A more detailed overview can be found in appendix G, figure G1 and table G1.

4.1.2. Activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites

For each organisation, the Facebook posts of six consecutive months were observed and analysed,

together with four months’ worth of Twitter posts. The results of this analysis can be found in appendix

G, table G3, and figures G2 and G3. The most important findings are summarised below.

The social network sites that are most used by the organisations are Facebook and Twitter. No posts

are published on LinkedIn by any organisation, the YouTube accounts only count small amounts of

videos, and the Google+ accounts are only used sporadically. The organisations that are most active

on Facebook are Ticketmaster (average of 15 posts per week), Live Nation (12 posts) and See Tickets

(8 posts). The least active organisations on this platform are Budgetticket (average of 0 posts per

week) and TicketTribune (1 post per week).

Facebook

Overall, the types of posts that are posted most

frequently on Facebook are announcements of

events (27,5% of all posts), ticket information

(15,7%), and videos (8,1%). The types of posts

that are overall posted least frequently are posts

regarding the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign

(0,3% of all posts), the announcement of contest

winners (2,7%) and reviews (2,9%). Both the

posts regarding WWJK and posts containing

reviews are only posted by one organisation

(WWJK by Ticketmaster, reviews by Live Nation).

Figure 4.2. shows a full overview of the types of

Facebook posts.

To find out to what extent the social network accounts are used by the organisations to attract users to

their websites, observations were made on how often the organisations include a direct link to the

website in their posts. The organisations that do this most often are all secondary organisations:

Budgeticket (100% of all posts include a link to the organisation’s website), TicketTribune (91,3%) and

Onlineticketshop (87,6%). The organisations that do this least are TicketStarter (14,6%), Ticketmaster

(36,2%) and Ticketpoint (42,4%).

Finally, on Facebook, observations were made on whether the organisations allow users to post

messages on their pages, offer web care (customer service through the Internet), and whether they

allow users to post reviews about the organisation. Such posts and services could affect the credibility

and reputation of an organisation. All primary organisations allow for users to post messages on their

pages. These could include questions, complaints, compliments, photos, etcetera. All primary

organisations but Ticketpoint offer web care on Facebook, answering questions from users and

Announcements 27,5%

Ticket info 15,7%

Event info 6,5%

FB event 7,5%

Reviews 2,9%

News 5,5%

Contest 7,1%

Contest winners 2,7%

Video 8,1%

Photo(s) 6,2%

Interaction 5,7%

Tips 4,3%

WWJK 0,3%

FIGURE 4.2: TYPES OF FACEBOOK POSTS FROM SEP 13 TO

FEB '14 OF ALL ORGANISATIONS


engaging actively in conversations. Ticketmaster and See Tickets also allow reviews on their pages.

These are short messages accompanied by ‘scores’ that allow users to express their opinion about

the organisation. From the secondary organisations, only TicketStarter and TicketTribune allow

messages from users on their pages. None of them allow reviews and none offer web care.

Twitter

The organisations that are most active on Twitter are Ticketmaster (average of 39 posts per week),

TicketStarter (13 posts) and Live Nation (8 posts). During the four months in which the organisations

were observed, Budgetticket showed no Twitter activity whatsoever. As Twitter is a social network site

that allows for quick, short conversations, observations were made on how extensive each

organisation engages in conversations with followers. Analysis was done on how many of the total

amount of posts from each organisation was actually a reply to a user’s message (see appendix G,

figure G3). All primary organisations show a high amount of replies, which means that they offer a

great amount of customer services through their Twitter channel. The percentages of replies of

primary organisations range from 35% (Eventim) to 84% (Live Nation). The secondary organisations

score rather low when it comes to customer service. Their percentages vary from 14% (TicketTribune)

to 0% (Rang1Tickets).

4.1.3. Engagement

To find out to what extent users engage with ticketing organisations on social network sites based on

desk research, the total amount of likes, comments, and shares on Facebook was calculated for each

organisation. With the exception of TicketStarter, all organisations gathered an amount of likes higher

than the amount of comments, and an amount of comments higher than the amount of shares.

TicketStarter gathered an amount of shares higher than both the amount of comments and the amount

of likes. However, the majority of these shares were

gathered through two specific contest posts.

The top 3 of organisations with the highest overall

engagement score consists of solely primary ticketing

organisations (See Tickets, Ticketmaster, Live Nation).

The first secondary organisation is found on place 4

(TicketStarter). Onlineticketshop, the organisation with

the highest amount of followers places number 5, with

an engagement score that is 7,5 times lower than that of

See Tickets.

Since the post frequencies of the organisations differ

greatly, an average engagement score per post was

also calculated. With these results, a different top 3

becomes apparent: See Tickets (average engagement score of 501 per post), TicketStarter (366) and

Ticketmaster (166). Again, the notion has to be made that the high score of TicketStarter is due to two

501

366

166

70 68

21 7 7 1 0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

FIGURE 4.3: AVERAGE ENGAGEMENT SCORE PER

ORGANISATION


specific posts. On the average scores, Onlineticketshop ranks 5th with an average engagement score

of 68 per post. Figure 4.3. shows the average engagement score of all organisations from high to low.

See appendix G, table G4 for a full overview of the amount of likes, comments and shares, and

cumulative engagement scores per organisation.

4.1.4. Popularity of Facebook activities

Prior to the questionnaire, desk research was done to find out which types of

posts are most popular among users, based on the level of engagement

(likes/comments/shares). For each type of post, the average amount of likes,

comments, and shares was calculated. The average amount because posts

varied greatly in ‘post-frequency’ and response. The outcome of these

calculations showed that, overall, contests get the highest response,

followed by interaction posts and event info. Overall, the least popular posts

are Facebook events, followed by reviews, and videos. Table 4.1. shows the

top 13 types of posts based on the average level of response. A more

detailed overview of the engagement per type of post can be found in

appendix G, table G5.

4.2. Results from quantitative research

The following results were retrieved through quantitative research by means of the online

questionnaire.

4.2.1. General information questionnaire respondents

The questionnaire was completed by 190 respondents. Of these 190 respondents, 170 follow at least

one ticketing organisation on one social network site. The 20 respondents who do not follow any

ticketing organisation are excluded from the analysis. 2 respondents are under the age of 15 and thus

also excluded from the analysis, bringing the total to 168 respondents who fit the research population.

Age and gender

The youngest respondent of the questionnaire is 15, the oldest 57. The average age of all

respondents is 26. With 31,5%, the age category of 15 to 19 is best represented, followed by the age

category of 20 to 24 with 31,0%. The age category that is least represented among the respondents is

40 to 44 with 3,0%. A full overview of respondents’ age can be found in appendix H, figure H1.

37,1% of the 168 respondents are male, 63,1% are female. The group best represented among the

respondents is females from 15 to 19 years old with 26,2%. The groups least represented are females

from 35 to 39, 40 to 44 years of age, and those of 50 and up, with each 1,2%. A full overview of the

age and gender distribution can be found in appendix H, table H1.

Involvement in the music industry

# Type of post

1 Contest

2 Interactive post

3 Information about event

4 WWJK

5 Photos

6 Contest winners

7 News

8 Announcement of event

9 Information about ticket sales

10 Tips

11 Videos

12 Reviews

13 Facebook events

TABLE 4.1:

POPULARITY BASED ON LEVEL OF RESPONSE


35 of the 168 respondents (20,8%) work in the music industry or follow an education related to this

industry. 23 respondents specified their occupation. These included bookers, artist managers,

programmers, and Media & Entertainment and Kunst & Economie students.

Concert attendance

Respondents were asked about how frequent they attend a concert or music festival. 42,3% of the

respondents attend a concert and/or music festival approximately 3 or 4 times per year. 1,2% claim to

never attend a concert. 15,5% go to a concert or music festival more than once a month. A full

overview of concert attendance can be found in appendix H, figure H2.

Relations

The chi-square test of independence shows that there is no significant relation between age and

concert attendance, these variables are independent.

It did show that there is some relation between professional involvement in the music industry and

concert attendance, meaning that these variables are dependent. By examining the observed values

table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents

who are professionally involved in the music industry are likely to attend concerts more often. The

calculations of the chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I1 and I2.

WWJK

Questions were included to find out how the respondents fit the client’s target group. 79,8% of the

respondents say to know directly where to find the official organisation when looking for concert

tickets. 17,3% have to use a search engine (such as Google) to find the organisation that sell the

concert tickets. 3% indicate to go to the website of the artist or venue to find tickets (other). To the

question whether respondents know the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign, 66,7% answered to know the

campaign and what it stands for. 21,4% have heard of the campaign but do not exactly know what it

entails. The remaining 11,9% have never heard of the campaign at all.

The chi-square test of independence shows that there is a strong relation between knowledge about

the campaign and knowing where to find the official ticket sellers. By examining the observed values

table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents

who have heard of the campaign are more likely to know where they can find official sellers. Another

chi-square test shows that there is no relation between knowledge about the campaign and following

secondary organisations. The calculations can be found in appendix I, tables I3 and I4.

4.2.2. Use of social network sites by respondents

Social network sites

The most popular social network sites among the respondents are Facebook with 93,4% having an

account on this platform, Twitter with 86,9%, and YouTube with 84,5%. 54,1% of all respondents who

have an account on Facebook are active on this platform on a daily basis. 45,9% of all respondents


who use Twitter are active on this platform on a daily basis. For YouTube, the percentage of daily

users is 49,3%. The least popular social network sites among the respondents are FourSquare

(4,8%), Pinterest (29,2%) and Google+ (41,7%).

Respondents were provided the option of adding social network sites that were not included in the

questionnaire. 17 respondents (10,1%) expressed that they (also) have an account on Tumblr and 5

(3,0%) have an account on Last.fm.

76,8% of all respondents have an account on 4 or more social network sites on which they are active

on at least a monthly basis. 1,8% have an account on only 1 social network site, being Facebook.

3,0% of all respondents have an account on the highest amount of 8 social network sites.

A full overview of respondents’ use of SNSs can be found in appendix H, figures H3 and table H2.

Types of users

To classify the respondents into the types of users as presented in the theoretical framework, question

6 of the questionnaire was analysed as shown in appendix F. 63,7% of the respondents score highest

on the activities associated with consumption, 19,6% score highest on the activities associated with

participation, and 2,4% score highest on activities associated with creation. The remaining 14,3% of

the respondents score equally on 2 or more types of activities. Of this 14,3%, 70,8% score equally on

consumption and participation, 12,5% on consumption and creation, 12,5% score equally on all three

types, and 4,2% on participation and creation.

Overall, the activities associated with consumption score an average of 2,8 out of the maximum value

of 5, activities associated with participation score an average of 2,2 out of 5, and the activities

associated with creation score an average of 0,8 out of 5. A full overview of respondents’ activity

frequency can be found in appendix H, table H3.

Relations

The chi-square test of independence shows that there is some relation between age and the amount

of social network sites on which respondents are active. By examining the observed values table,

cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents

under the age of 35 are likely to be active on more social network sites than respondents over the age

of 35. The calculation can be found in appendix I, table I5.

4.2.3. Engagement with ticketing organisations

Ticketing organisations’ following

Of the 168 respondents, 47,6% follow more than one ticketing organisation on more than one social

network site. 26,2% follow multiple ticketing organisations on one social network site. 8,3% follow only

one organisation, but on more than one social network site, and 17,9% follow only one organisation on

one social network site.


The most popular ticketing organisation among respondents is Ticketmaster Nederland. 90,5% of the

respondents follow this organisation on one or more social network sites. 71,4% indicate to follow

Ticketmaster on Twitter and 67,3% of the respondents follow Ticketmaster on Facebook. It must be

noted that the high results for Ticketmaster on Twitter

are likely to be the result of Ticketmaster promoting the

questionnaire through their Twitter account. The second

most popular ticketing organisation among respondents

is Live Nation Nederland, with 56,5% following this

organisation on one or more platform. 40,5% follow Live

Nation on Facebook and 39,9% on Twitter. Live Nation

is followed by See Tickets with 27,4% following this

organisation on one or more platform (22,6% follow on

Facebook and 13,1% on Twitter). Figure 4.4. shows the

followers among respondents per organisations from

high to low. A detailed overview can be found in

appendix H, table H4.

Facebook and Twitter are by far the most popular social network sites among respondents for

following ticketing organisations. The highest percentages for respondents following these

organisations on YouTube, Google+ and LinkedIn reach no higher than 1,8%.

On Facebook, the most popular organisations among respondents are respectively Ticketmaster NL

(67,3%), Live Nation NL (40,5%), See Tickets NL (22,6%), Eventim NL (11,3%), and Onlineticketshop

NL (11,3%). On Twitter, the top five consists of Ticketmaster NL (71,4%), Live Nation NL (39,9%),

TicketStarter (19,1%), See Tickets NL (13,1%), and Eventim NL (8,3%). A full overview of which

organisations are followed by the respondents can be found in appendix H, table H4.

Level of engagement

Of the 168 respondents, 69,6% indicate to only read/view the posts that appear on their

timeline/profile. 20,8% indicate to regularly visit the pages of an organisation to see what has been

posted. The remaining 9,5% follow one or more organisations but indicate that they never look at the

posts. None of the respondents say to ever comment on a post by an organisation or to post a

message on the page of an organisation.

Ticket sales

To find out whether posts on social network sites lead to ticket sales, respondents were asked the

question how often they buy a ticket because of a message they saw on the pages of a ticketing

organisation. 45,2% answered that they only do this now and then. 19,1% never buy a ticket solely

because of a message on a social network site, 13,1% answered to do this regularly, also 13,1% say

to do this often, 4,8% very often, and the remaining 4,8% indicate that a message on a social network

site is almost always the reason they buy a ticket.

90,5%

56,5%

27,4% 22,0%

16,7% 12,5%

2,4% 1,2% 1,2% 0,6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FIGURE 4.4: FOLLOWERS AMONG RESPONDENTS PER

ORGANISATION


Relations

Chi-square tests of independence show that there is no relation between types of users (consumers,

participators, creators) and the amount of ticketing organisations that are being followed. It also shows

that there exists no relation between types of users and their level of engagement with ticketing

organisations. Additionally, the chi-square test did not show a significant relation between professional

involvement in the music industry and the amount of ticketing organisations that is being followed.

Finally, there is no relation between concert attendance and the amount of ticketing organisations that

is being followed. Calculations for these chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I6 to I9.

The chi-square test of independence for the involvement in the music industry and level of

engagement did show a strong relationship between these variables. By examining the observed

values table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as

respondents who are professionally involved in the music industry are likely to follow ticketing

organisations less actively than respondents who are not involved in the music industry. The

calculation can be found in appendix I, table I10.

4.2.4. Importance of activities

Deemed importance

Respondents were asked to indicate how important they deem it to find certain posts on the social

network sites of ticketing organisations on a Likert scale of importance. The Likert scale counted five

items with a corresponding value: not at all important (1), not important (2), neutral (3), important (4),

and very important (5). The respondents’ answers resulted in an average value for each activity as

shown in table 4.2. The activities are ranked from high importance to low importance.

TABLE 4.2:

IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES

Motives for following

Apart from indicating the importance of specific activities, respondents were asked to select the main

reason (i.e. motive) for them to be following ticketing organisations on social network site from a

provided set of motives based on the theoretical framework.

# Activity Score # Activity Score

1 Announcements of events 4,62 8 Photos and videos 2,86

2 Information about ticket sales 4,52 9 Reviews of past events 2,83

3 Information about events 4,27 10 Experiences of other users with the organisation 2,74

4 Exclusive offers 3,93 11 Event pages 2,71

5 The option to ask questions to the organisation 3,88 12 Entertainment news 2,55

6 Contests 3,59 13 The option to start a conversation with other

users 2,16

7 Information about the organisation itself (e.g.

description, contact information, etc.) 2,98 14

The option to post my own messages, photos

and videos 2,13


The vast majority (79,8%) answered to follow ticketing organisations because it offers them fast and

easy access to information in which they are interested. 9,5% answered that they follow the

organisations because of the ‘fun’ content (photos, videos, contests, etc.). 3,6% indicate that they

were not aware of the fact that they followed the selected ticketing organisations. The 4 respondents

who selected the option ‘a different reason’ specified that they follow an organisation for information

about one specific artist or because it is part of their job. A full overview of motives can be found in

appendix H, figure H4.

Relations

The chi-square test of independence shows that there is a relation between types of users and the

initial motive for following ticketing organisations on social network sites. The nature of this relation is

unknown. The calculation of this chi-square can be found in appendix I, table I11.

4.3. Primary ticketers vs. secondary ticketers

Of the 168 respondents, 114 (67,9%) follow only primary ticketing organisations, 54 (32,1%) (also)

follow at least one secondary organisation. The relevant questionnaire results for these two groups are

shown in the table 4.3.

TABLE 4.3:

RESPONSES FOR PRIMARY FOLLOWERS AND SECONDARY FOLLOWERS

*** Respondents were given the option of indicating if they followed different organisations for different reasons. Of the group

who (also) follows secondary organisations, 11,1% said explicitly that they only follow secondary organisation TicketStarter

Only primary organisations (Also) Secondary organisations

Amount of respondents 114 (67,9%) 54 (32,1%)

Most popular organisations (top 3) 1. Ticketmaster NL

2. Live Nation NL

3. See Tickets NL

1. Ticketmaster NL

2. TicketStarter

3. Live Nation NL

Main reason for following the

organisations (top 3)

1. Access to information (82,5%)

2. ‘Fun’ content (9,6%)

3. Interaction with the organisation (1,8%)

1. Access to information (74,1%)

2. ‘Fun’ content (9,3%)

3. I was not aware (9,3%)***

How active do you follow the

organisations?

1. I only read posts that appear on my

timeline (69,3%)

2. I regularly visit the page(s) to see what has

been posted (21,9%)

3. I never look at it (8,8%)

1. I only read posts that appear on my

timeline (74,1%)

2. I regularly visit the page(s) to see what has

been posted (14,8%)

3. I never look at it (11,1%)

Important activities/posts (top 3) 1. Announcements of events (4,63)

2. Information about ticket sales (4,50)

3. Information about events (4,27)

1. Announcements of events (4,65)

2. Information about ticket sales (4,59)

3. Information about events (4,35)

Do you ever buy tickets because

of a post on SNSs?

1. Now and then (49,6%)

2. Regularly (13,9%)

3. Never (13,0%)

1. Now and then (37,0%)

2. Never (31,5%)

3. Often (16,7%)


because they frequently post information about concerts and events. Of this 11,1%, half are aware that this is a secondary

organisation, the other half were not aware that the pages belong to a (secondary) ticketing organisation.

Relations with respondents’ characteristics

Chi-square tests of independence were used to check whether there exist significant relations

between followers' characteristics and following secondary organisations. The test was performed on

the gender, age, involvement in the music industry, and concert attendance variables. No relations

were found between any of the variables and following secondary ticketers. The calculations of the

chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I12 to I15.

Relations with motives and engagement

Chi-square tests of independence were also performed on the motives and engagement variables to

check whether there exists a relation between following secondary ticketing organisations and the

motives for doing so and the level of engagement shown. No significant relations were found for the

motives variable and the level of engagement variable.

The chi-square test performed with the variable of how many ticketing organisations are being

followed on social network sites did show a relation. By examining the observed values table, cautious

attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents who (also)

follow secondary ticketing organisations on social network sites are likely to follow a higher amount of

ticketing organisations on these platforms than respondents who only follow primary organisations.

Additionally, a relation was found between following secondary ticketing organisations and buying

tickets because of a post on the social network sites of ticketing organisations. By examining the

observed values table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the

relationship as respondents who follow secondary ticketing organisations on social network sites are

less likely to buy tickets because of a post on these platforms than respondents who only follow

primary organisations are. The calculations of the chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I16 to

I19.


5. Conclusions

In this chapter, the results of chapter 4 are summarised and each sub question is answered prior to

answering the central research question. Also in this chapter, the results will be linked to the

theoretical framework. The chapter concludes with an overview of the limitations of this research. As

the sample size of this research is not representative, the conclusions, as the results, represent the

sample rather than the entire population.

5.1. Sub questions

5.1.1. Sub question 1

- To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?

Facebook and Twitter are the most popular platforms with regard to the activity of the organisations

and the amount of followers. Google+, LinkedIn and YouTube show to be of no significant value to the

ticketing organisations. Not only do these accounts have limited amounts of followers, the

organisations also show very limited activity on them. Facebook and Twitter are both egocentric

platforms, facilitating identity construction and connection. As these platforms do not focus around a

specific interest or specific type of content, they attract the most general public. Google+ is also an

egocentric platform but overall less popular in the Netherlands. This could be because Google+ is

relatively new to the market (launched in 2011). Its lack of popularity and activity at the moment may

not mean that it will not become a popular platform in the future with (new) possibilities for ticketing

organisations. Opportunistic platform LinkedIn targets business professionals and may therefore not

be suitable for ticketing organisations to promote their business; at least not their consumer products.

Media sharing site YouTube is by itself also difficult to use as a promotion tool as it only allows video

posts. It is more likely that a YouTube account is used to support activities on other SNSs.

Looking at the activities of the ten ticketing organisations included in this research, it can be concluded

that there are great differences in amount of followers and activity. The three organisations with the

greatest amount of followers (Onlineticketshop, Ticketmaster, and See Tickets) each have more

followers individually than the remaining seven organisations have combined.

Ticketmaster, Live Nation and See Tickets are the organisations that are most active on Facebook

with regard to the average amount of posts per week. On Twitter, Ticketmaster, TicketStarter and Live

Nation are the most active.

During the research, thirteen types of posts were distinguished. On Facebook, the types of posts that

are posted most frequently are announcements of events, information about tickets, and videos.

Announcements of events and information about tickets are associated with the information-retrieval

motive of users. Posts containing videos are associated with entertainment-seeking. The results differ

per organisation, but these are the types of posts that are overall posted most frequently.


With regard to reputation management, 2 out of 5 primary organisations allow for users to rate their

organisations on their Facebook page, taking a risk of users posting negative experiences. None of

the secondary organisations allow reviews on their pages. Another option on Facebook is that of

allowing users to posts their own messages to your page. These messages could contain anything

from questions, complaints, and compliments, to videos and promotional messages. All primary

organisations allow such messages on their Facebook pages, against 2 out of 5 secondary

organisations. Finally, organisations can make the decision to actively engage in conversations with

users, through responding on the messages posted by them. 4 out of 5 primary organisations offer

customer service to some extent. None of the secondary organisations do this.

What stands out on Twitter is that all primary organisations use Twitter as a tool for customer service.

Great parts of their Twitter posts consist of replies to questions, complaints, compliments, and other

remarks by users. The secondary organisations seem less concerned with customer service; they

devote only a small amount of posts to answering consumers’ questions.

Linking the activity results to the model designed by Kietzmann et al., conclusions can be made about

which building blocks are utilised by which organisations on which platforms. Twitter is mainly used by

the primary organisations for conversations and reputation. By partaking actively in conversations with

their followers, they manage their reputation. The secondary organisations mainly use Twitter to

establish a presence. Many posts include direct links to their websites, and vice versa. The secondary

organisations in a way also use Twitter to create/maintain a reputation. They may not devote a lot of

posts to customer care but the replies they do post are mainly concerned with reputation

management; they attempt to take away users’ doubts about the organisations by responding to users’

negative posts.

Facebook is mainly used by all organisations for sharing information and content. They all share posts

with their followers. Some information that is directly related to their business, some content that is

posted to keep followers engaged/entertained. Like Twitter, Facebook is also used by most primary

organisations to facilitate conversations; not only between the organisation and users (customer

service) but also between users by posting interactive posts. Secondary organisations take out the

reputation building block by not allowing users to post on their pages. They do not take the risk of

users posting negative messages on their pages, but also deny them the opportunity of posting

positive messages or questions they would like answered. Finally, the organisations that create a lot of

Facebook event pages (Ticketpoint, Eventim and Rang1Tickets) utilise the groups building block. With

their event pages they encourage followers to gather around a common interest (namely a specific

event).


- Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network sites?

Of all followers of ticketing organisations on social network sites, the largest group showed to be

consumers (62,9%). These are online users that have accounts on social network sites but spend


most of their time on viewing and reading other users’ (people and organisations) messages and

updates, rather than posting and creating their own updates and content. The second largest group

represented among the followers is participators, albeit with a significant lower percentage than the

consumers. Participators are those online users who are active in posting their own updates and

partaking in conversations. The smallest group of online users represented among the followers is

creators. Users who frequently post their own content are not active in following ticketing

organisations.

The most popular social network sites among followers are egocentric platforms Facebook (93,5%)

and Twitter (86,5%). These platforms facilitate identity construction and connections. Compared to

other categories of social network sites, egocentric platforms serve the most general public; they do

not focus on specific interests or content. The vast majority of followers have accounts on more than

one social network site on which he/she is active on at least a monthly basis. Only 1,8% has an

account on just one social network site, being Facebook.

With regard to demographics, the largest group represented among followers are females between the

ages of 15 and 24. The least represented group consists of males and females over the age of 35.

42,9% of the followers attend concerts and/or music festivals on a regular basis (3x or 4x per year).

43,5% of the followers attend concerts and/or music festivals more often than that, of which 35,7%

(15,3% of the total) even attend such events more than once a month. A small percentage (12,9%)

only attend a concert and/or music festival now and then, and 1,2% says never to attend a concert or

festival. In general, it can be concluded that followers of ticketing organisations on social network sites

are overall frequent concert-goers.

A relatively small part of the followers (20,6%) works in the music industry or follows an education

related to this industry.

A relation has been found between being involved in the music industry and attending concerts, being

that followers who work in the music industry or follow an education related to this industry attend

concerts more frequently than followers who are not involved whatsoever. Another relation was found

between age and the amount of social network sites that followers are active on, being that followers

under the age of 35 are active on more platforms than followers over 35. No other relations with

regard to followers’ characteristics have become apparent.


- Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social network

sites?

As already mentioned in the previous sub question, the majority of followers classifies as a consumer.

On the Social Technographics Ladder, this is the lowest level of engagement (after inactives who do

not engage at all). They are users who consume, rather than participate or create. They read/consume

information and content posted by others, more than they participate in or facilitate conversations, or

create their own content from scratch.


Most users follow more than one ticketing organisation on social network sites. Only a small part

follows just one ticketing organisation.

One questionnaire question asked specifically about how active the ticketing organisations are being

followed on social network sites. Every user can click the ‘follow’ button, but if users do not engage

further with organisations after clicking this button, what is then really the value of a follower? The

majority of the followers only read the information that appears on their timeline or profile. This level of

engagement is associated with inactive consumption; information is being consumed, but without

making an effort to retrieve this information. Just over 20% regularly visits the pages of the

organisation(s) to see what has been posted. This is associated with active consumption; information

is being consumed, after making an extra effort to retrieve this information. However, still no

participation or creation is performed. Around 10% of the followers are inactive in actually following the

organisation(s); they never look at what has been posted.

Desk research results showed that the most expressed type of response on Facebook is a like,

followed by comments and shares. Likes are associated with consumption as they are simple, fast

ways of showing an interest in or support a certain message, without taking any further action. The

amounts of comments and shares showed to be higher for posts that specifically requested these

types of responses. For example, concert tickets that users could win if they liked and shared the post.

Or an interactive post that explicitly asked a question such as ‘who is your favourite male singer?’.

A strong relation was found between being involved in the music industry and the level of engagement

with ticketing organisations on social network sites, being that followers who work in the music

industry or follow an education related to this industry follow organisations less actively than followers

who are not involved in the music industry.


- Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most valued

by the followers?

After examining series of Facebook posts from the ten ticketing organisations included in the research,

and the response to these posts, it was possible to construct a top 13 of ‘popular’ posts. This top 13

has a clear number one, namely contests. Posts offering followers a chance to win a prize generate

the most response in terms of likes, comments, and shares. Other posts with a high response rate are

those that are of an interactive nature. This type of post includes posts in which the organisations ask

followers about their favourite artist, their plans for the weekend, their ideal line-up, their opinion,

etcetera. They are posts that specifically ask for followers to partake in a conversation.

In order to find out how the posts relate to followers’ motives and level of input (i.e. engagement), all

types of posts were put in Heinonen’s framework. The filled in framework can be found in appendix J,

figure J1. The filled in framework shows that the majority of the posts are associated with the


consumption of information. However, the most popular posts with regard to response (contests and

interaction) are both associated with participation; contests for motives of entertainment, interaction for

motives of social connection. None of the types of posts is associated with creation.

The quantitative research pointed out which types of posts/activities are to be found of the highest

importance to followers. In other words, which types of posts are (part of) the reason to follow ticketing

organisations on social network sites. It basically expresses a desire for certain types of posts. Results

showed that the most important posts are announcement of events, information about ticket sales, and

information about events. The results of this part of the research are also put in Heinonen’s framework

(see appendix J, figure J2). The filled in framework shows that, again, the majority of the activities is

associated with consumption of information. This time, however, the top 4 of most important activities

also fits this category. The one activity that is associated with creation is deemed to be the least

important by followers.

Posts on the social networks sites of ticketing organisations are only sometimes the sole reason for

followers to buy concert tickets. Most followers want more information, for example from the website,

prior to the actual purchase. Followers also find it important to be able to ask questions to the

organisations to retrieve more (specific) information.

To sum up, the activities that are most valued by followers are activities that ask for no more

consumer input that consumption or participation. The most important motive behind the most valued

activities is the retrieval of information, and, in the case of contests, entertainment. The statement that

the most important motive is the retrieval of information is supported by the finding that 78,8% of the

respondents indicated that their initial motive for following ticketing organisations on social network

sites is fast and easy access to information in which they are interested. The second most important

motive is that of entertainment, meaning that followers are looking for ‘fun’ content such as photos and

videos. Additionally, the motive of social connection is expressed by followers responding to

interactive posts. None of the other motives received a significant response.


- What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement between primary

ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?

From all questionnaire respondents, the majority follow only primary organisations. 32,1% (also) follow

at least one secondary organisation.

The results showed that for both groups of respondents fast and easy access to information is the

most important motive. The second most important motive for both groups is entertainment. The third

motive, however, differs among the two groups. The group that only follows primary organisations

indicates interaction with the organisation as the third most important motive, meaning that part of the

followers find it important to be able to converse with the organisations (for example, ask questions

about a certain event). The third most important motive for the group that follows secondary


organisations is not an actual motive but more an expression of the fact that they were not aware that

they were following the organisation(s). Part of the followers who selected this answer specified that

they did so to indicate that they were not aware that the pages of TicketStarter (simply named

‘Concerten’ on social network sites) belonged to a secondary ticketing organisation. They assumed

that they were following a ‘fan-page’ for users who like concerts and music festivals. Despite the

difference in motives, no relation was found between following secondary organisations and the

motives thereof.

The expressed level of engagement has the same top 3 for both groups. No matter which

organisations are followed on social network sites, the majority only reads/views the posts that appear

on their timeline or profile. Consequently, no relation was found between following secondary

organisations and the level of engagement. A relation was found between following secondary

organisations and the total amount of organisations being followed on social network sites, being that

followers of secondary organisations are likely to follow a higher amount of ticketing organisations

than followers of solely primary organisations.

Both groups also indicated to find the same activities important (top 3), namely announcements of

events, information about ticket sales, and information about the events.

The two groups do show differences with regard to how often they buy tickets because of a post on

the pages of ticketing organisations. For both groups the main frequency is ‘now and then’ but the

group that follows secondary organisations places ‘never’ on number 2 against ‘regularly’ of the group

that only follows primary organisations. A chi-square test showed that there is a relation between

following secondary organisations and buying tickets, being that followers of secondary organisations

are less likely to buy tickets because of a post on social network sites than followers of primary

organisations.

Finally, with regard to the research client, no relation was found between knowing about the Weet

Waar Je Koopt campaign and following secondary organisations. This means that followers who know

the campaign are no less likely to following secondary organisations than followers are who do not

know about the campaign.

While the quantitative research shows mainly similar results for the two groups of followers, the desk

research did show differences between primary organisations and secondary organisations.

Calculations showed that the organisations who received the highest response to their posts are all

primary ticketing organisations (See Tickets, Ticketmaster, and Live Nation). Onlineticketshop is the

organisation with the highest amount of followers, but their engagement score is about 7,5 times lower

than that of See Tickets, the organisation with the highest engagement score.


5.2. Central question



The research pointed out that the primary motive for following ticketing organisations is fast and easy

access to information. Followers are most interested in announcements of events, and information

about ticket sales and events. These posts/activities are associated with a consumer input level of

consumption. This finding corresponds with the type of user that is found most among the followers of

ticketing organisations, namely consumers. In turn, these findings are in line with the engagement

level expressed by followers (‘I read what I see on my timeline’) and the observed response to posts

published by ticketing organisations. Another supporting finding is that, in general, the organisations

that post messages most frequently to their social network pages have the highest amount of

followers. This also expresses a certain desire for continuity. Despite the fact that many followers

seem to use social network sites as an important source of information, this does not mean that they

use it as their sole source. Only on occasion followers make the decision to buy a ticket solely

because of a post on social network sites.

The second motive is entertainment. Posts that are associated with this motive are, among others,

photos, videos, and contests. Contests score particularly high on the observed level of response. The

most probable reason for this is that most contests require followers to perform a certain action (like,

share, and win) in order to have a chance of winning.

The motive of social connection is found in relation to interactive posts. Posts that specifically ask

followers to respond (such as ‘who is your favourite artist?’, ‘what would you like to win?’, and ‘what

are your plans for the weekend?’) receive a relative high level of response. With such posts, the input

level is that of participation; followers choose to make an effort to partake in a conversation. Although

these types of posts do not score high in the list of activities most valued by followers, they did receive

a level of response higher than announcements and information posts.

Another important activity in relation to the access to information motive and the input level of

participation is the possibility of asking questions to the organisations. Especially Twitter is actively

used as a channel for customer service by both users and organisations.

With regard to primary organisations and secondary organisations, followers do not seem to make a

difference. Primary or secondary, users follow these organisations to retrieve information. The fact that

a respective percentage of the followers pointed out to follow TicketStarter (a secondary organisation)

because they provide good information, despite knowing that they should never buy tickets from this

organisation, supports this statement.

In conclusion, followers of ticketing organisations engage with these organisations on social network

sites mainly because they want to be kept up-to-date about music events, or entertained. Whether

information/content comes from a primary organisation or secondary organisation does not seem to be


an issue. As long as information can be accessed without having to put in too much of an effort,

consumers find a reason to click that ‘follow’ button.

5.3. Limitations

This research was done within a limited timeframe of 18 weeks. Therefore choices had to be made on

what and what not to include in the research. Also, due to the relative short amount of time available,

there was limited time to distribute the questionnaire and retrieve the data. This resulted in an

unsatisfactory response to the questionnaire.

The final sample size does not represent the population. Therefore the results represent the sample

rather than the entire population. A larger sample size would have led to more sound results.

For the desk research, the researcher had to rely on public data. Some social network sites (including

Facebook) offer organisations extensive analysis tools to track users’ activity and engagement. Due to

limited contact with the organisations included in this research, and thus limited access to data, these

private analytics could not be retrieved. Analysis of this data could lead to more accurate and detailed

results.

Finally, the researcher has limited capabilities with regard to processing statistical data. Therefore the

analysis of relationships could not go beyond making assumptions based on observations and, in

some cases, inappropriate testing. Using more advanced analysis techniques, more appropriate

results could have been retrieved and more sound conclusions could have been drawn up.


6. Recommendations

Based on the research results and the client’s question, recommendations have been drawn up in the

following section. The research sample is not representative for the entire population. Repeating the

research with a representative sample could lead to different outcomes and recommendations.

6.1. Re-evaluating the problem

The initial problem laid out by the client was the growing popularity of secondary ticketers on social

network sites. The accompanying issue being that this online popularity would increase the business

of these organisations, and would thus further negatively affect the primary market.

This research included five secondary ticketers that were selected based on their amounts of followers

and their online activity. The most popular organisation being Onlineticketshop with a following of over

180.000 and the least popular organisation being Rang1Tickets with just over 1600 followers. The fact

that Rang1Tickets belongs in the top 5 of most popular secondary organisations on SNSs, means that

all other (Dutch) secondary organisations have even less than 1600 followers.

Taking aside the amounts of followers, most secondary organisations also show a low level of activity.

For example, Budgetticket NL, with a following of approximately 3500, did not show any activity on

Twitter within the 4 months of research and posted only 2 posts on Facebook within 6 months. It can

only be assumed that the following was built-up in the beginning of this organisation’s accounts.

Finally, 3 out of the 5 secondary organisations (TicketTribune, Budgetticket NL, and Rang1Tickets)

have really low engagement scores, meaning that followers barely respond to their messages1.

The two organisations that are reason for concern are Onlineticketshop and TicketStarter.

Onlineticketshop has an (overall) online following higher than any of the primary organisations and

TicketStarter has an amount of Twitter followers that exceeds all ticketing organisations. However,

some followers righteously pointed out that they follow TicketStarter for the great concert information

(news) they provide, but know that they should never buy tickets from the organisation. Others pointed

out that they did not even know that the accounts ‘Concerten’ belong to this ticketing organisation.

They read the news and announcements, but never even noticed that the posts included links to the

TicketStarter website. TicketStarter did score a high engagement level, meaning that followers

respond well to their messages. However, most responses were gathered through contests, meaning

that followers were aiming to win tickets rather than buying them. Whether or not these contests are

legitimate is debatable. The one concern with this is that the contests required followers to share the

posts, exposing the people in each ‘sharer’s’ network to the organisation. In conclusion, TicketStarter

forms a threat because they mislead users by posing as a ‘fanpage’ for concerts and festival.

Onlineticketshop should be the main concern given the great amount of followers. However, these

followers do not seem very active in engaging with the organisation. Despite posting frequently to their

1 It needs mentioning that 2 of the primary organisations, Ticketpoint and Eventim NL, also have relatively low amounts of

followers and show little activity.


accounts, response rates are very low in comparison to the primary organisations that have fewer

followers. Also, this organisation is really only active and popular on Facebook. Their amount of

Facebook followers is 20 times higher than their amount of Twitter followers. Combine this notion with

the low engagement score and this raises the question whether their Facebook followers are ‘real

followers’. If this is not the case, meaning that the followers are ‘bought’, then this lowers the concern

of the organisation attracting consumers to their business through social network sites, since ‘bought’

likes do not represent actual people. The only concern could then be that a high amount of followers

could give the organisation a credible reputation in the eyes of the consumer (‘this organisation is

popular on Facebook, so it must be a good business’).

Additionally, the research pointed out that messages on the social network sites of ticketing

organisations are more not than often the sole reason for followers to buy tickets. Most consumers will

look for further information before making the actual purchase.

Taking all information above into consideration, it could be concluded that the problem may not be as

big as initially assumed. It may be that the secondary ticketing industry is winning territory, but do

social network sites really play a big role in this? The question should then be asked whether it is wise

to spend time and resources on countering this social network problem or whether the efforts are

better spent on countering the problem in general. For example, another plausible problem could be

that many consumers (17% in this research) search for tickets through search engines, and many

secondary organisations are on the top of the search results.

6.2. Effects on the organisation

Adopting a social media strategy, or any marketing strategy for that matter, requires an organisation to

rethink their ways of doing business. Changing or introducing new ways of promoting your ‘product’

causes changes in many different aspects of the organisation. Weet Waar Je Koopt was launched in

2010 with the aim of informing consumers about the secondary market. The campaign was promoted

via print-media and a website. This website, which is still in its original state, offers visitors information

on where to buy and where not to buy tickets, and general information about secondary sellers.

Additionally, an e-mail address was called into life that consumers can use when they have questions

about their tickets or a specific seller. The decision was made by the parties involved that the activities

of WWJK would be managed by an intern. A new intern is appointed every six months by one of the

organisations in the campaign. To date, the main activity of this intern is answering e-mails from

consumers that are sent to the aforementioned e-mail address. Previous attempts were made to also

serve consumers through social network sites but, seemingly, these attempts failed.

So, now that we are on the verge of reconsidering (social media) efforts, there are some aspects that

need to be taken into consideration by the parties involved in the campaign. First of all, it needs to be

clear to everyone involved in the campaign what it is that they want to communicate to the public. Is

the initial proposal, written in 2009, still up-to-date or does it have to be adjusted (based on the

experiences of the last 4 to 5 years)? Are there new developments that change the perspective of the

campaign? There needs to be a clear mission and vision that all stakeholders can hold on to and work


from. Ideally, a (new) marketing plan would be drawn up stating (future) objectives for the campaign

and a plan of approach.

Then there is the financial aspect. At the launch of the campaign, many things were gathered for free

through the networks of stakeholders. Posters were printed, a website was set-up, and logos were

designed, all within a minimum budget. Direct costs related to personnel were kept to a minimum by

hiring interns to do the job. Adopting new strategies could affect the budget as new efforts will have to

be made and, presumably, more man-hours will have to be dedicated to campaign related activities.

What if the campaign becomes more successful than it ever was? Is there then room for growth? With

regard to time and resources available, is there a desire for growth? Increased popularity could mean

that more consumers could come with questions, more consumers might want to know more about

what secondary ticketing actually is, more parties may want to get involved in the campaign, there

may even grow a desire among primary organisations to develop new initiatives. The question needs

to be asked whether the parties currently involved in the WWJK campaign are ready to deal with

increased successes, or whether there is no desire to expand activities and invest more (time and

resources) in the campaign.

6.3. Adopting a social media strategy

Many organisations have proved over the past years that being on social network sites can be highly

beneficial for the business. But, as the research shows, consumers do not just follow your page for the

sake of it. They need to see a benefit in following your organisation. This section provides

recommendations for WWJK if they choose to become active on social network sites, based on the

results of this research.

Channels

Facebook and Twitter showed to be the most popular social network sites among both users and

organisations. For now, the use of other social networks sites will be discouraged based on the

amounts of users and possibilities. For example, LinkedIn is an opportunistic website that focuses

around professional networks. Although LinkedIn is a very popular platform, promoting the WWJK

campaign would do little for reaching the target group (infrequent concert visitors).

Activities

The research respondents showed a desire for a constant stream of up-to-date information about

music events. Information about where and how to buy tickets to specific events is highly valued as

well as the opportunity to ask questions to organisations. Offering customer service through social

network sites could decrease the amount of e-mails received on the WWJK account, which means

that time usually spent (by the intern) on managing the inbox could be spend on conversations on

social network sites. Customer service through social network sites is considered to be less time

consuming than offering customer service through e-mail because messages on SNSs are usually

quick and informal, and short in terms of length.


Posting information about events and tickets may be time-consuming as WWJK is not concerned with

one specific organisation (e.g. Ticketmaster), but with many. Partners of the campaign include multiple

primary ticketing organisations and venues. It cannot possibly post information about all the events of

all the organisations. Not only will this take up too much time, but it will also cause cluttering of the

accounts. Decisions will have to be made on which types of events and information have the priority.

Are these events with a certain target group, events of a certain scale or from a certain promoter?

Posts about specific events or topics are found to be most effective with regard to the level of

response. Posts containing general information receive less response from users. General information

can be found on websites, since it is usually static information. Social network sites are specifically

suitable for dynamic information; information that is relevant on one day, but becomes irrelevant soon

after. Posting solely static information would not give social network accounts any added value.

Facebook

The desk research showed that ticketing organisations are mainly concerned with sharing information

on Facebook and facilitating conversations through interactive posts and allowing users to post

messages to the pages. As stated above, if Weet Waar Je Koopt were to adopt a similar strategy, it

would have to decide upon what type of information it would want to share with its followers. Since the

objective of the campaign is to inform the public about secondary ticketing organisations without

slandering these organisations, it would be logical that the shared information would include links to

the websites of primary organisations, general information about the secondary market, developments

with regard to the battle against secondary ticketing, and possibly ticket prices. However, most of this

information can already be found on the website of the campaign. Repeating this information again

and again on Facebook would be superfluous and unnecessarily time-consuming.

The aim of WWJK on social network sites should be to create buzz around the campaign; to get

people talking about where they buy tickets, and their experiences with (secondary) organisations.

Have them tell their friends were they should buy tickets. But before a buzz can arise, some sort of

following will have to be build-up. The research showed that announcements of and information about

events were desired most by followers of ticketing organisations, and contests and interactive posts

received the most response. To become of value to users of social network sites that are interested in

music events, the campaign could start by actively announcing large-scale events that attract big

crowds. These shows are usually promoted by one of the main stakeholders in the campaign (Mojo),

so access to information about these shows should be available. The research showed that response

levels were exceptionally high on announcements of concerts of big artists (Beyonce, Justin

Timberlake, Robbie Williams, etcetera). These posts did not only receive many likes, but were also

shared by many followers. If followers of the WWJK page were to share big announcements (of

course including links to the official ticket seller and the WWJK website), this could significantly

increase the reach of the pages, and, consequently, the reach of the campaign. Contests could do the

same thing but in that case prizes would have to be made available, and prizes cost money.


Whenever the following starts to increase, followers will have to be kept engaged. Posts will appear on

the timelines of all followers (unless deactivated by the user) and it then becomes a matter of posting

frequently and posting things that the following is interested in and trigger a response. The results of

this research could be used to determine the nature of these posts.

Facebook could also be used for customer service. However, it is recommended to assign one

channel to this service (e.g. Twitter) to keep it clear for consumers where to turn to for a fast answer to

their question. Of course, Facebook could be used by consumers who do not have an account on

Twitter and e-mail should always stay an option for those consumers not active on SNSs at all.

Twitter

Twitter is recommended for offering customer service (next to posting regular messages). In the case

of Weet Waar Je Koopt, to answer consumers’ questions about their ticket purchase and related

matters. The research showed that this platform is actively utilised as a ‘webcare-tool’ by both

organisations and users. Twitter is recommended for this purpose as the service only allows users to

post messages up to 140 characters, which will force them to keep questions short and to the point.

Also, Twitter is easily monitored. Not only is it easy to interact with users, it is also possible to quickly

signal harmful messages (for example, by monitoring other organisations). For instance, if a user

retweets the message of a secondary ticketing organisation, a reply can be send to this user informing

him or her about the issues with that organisation. This kind of activity was already observed on the

Twitter account of Live Nation. Attention does have to be paid to not letting negative messages

prevail. After all, the initial plan of Weet Waar Je Koopt clearly states that part of the mission is to not

slander the secondary organisations. Clear guidelines should be developed on how to answer

questions and in which tone of voice. Such guidelines also come in useful when switching between

interns, making sure that one intern’s messages do not differ too much from those of another intern.

As all messages and replies are public, consistency and correctness are important.

Implications

Adopting social network activities as described above comes with some implications. First of all, the

stakeholders should determine what they feel the nature of the campaign and the social network

pages should be. While informing users of events could lead to an increased following, it could also

create (wrong) expectations among followers about the campaign. Once WWJK will actively start

promoting events on its pages, this could have the following believe that that is the purpose of the

campaign and may give the impression it is are also there to inform about events (time schedules,

support acts, prices, seating, etcetera). On the other hand, posting only static messages about where

to buy tickets may not be interesting enough to users. A natural balance will have to be found to

engage users on the one hand but stay true to the mission of the campaign on the other.

A second implication is that of the resources that will have to be spent on the social network strategy.

One intern may be enough in the beginning, but will this stay enough once the pages become of

higher significance? Also, working on the social network pages is not something that can be done, for


example, once a week. Conversations can only take part if both sides are actively engaged. For a

consumer that asks a question about a purchase on a Wednesday morning at 10am, an answer after

Friday 3pm will probably be useless.

Finally, a social network strategy should fit in the whole marketing plan of the campaign. It has to have

an added value to both consumers and the organisation and should not stand apart from the other

channels. The messages communicated through SNSs should be in line with the messages

distributed through other channels (such as print media). It is therefore not possible to become active

on social network sites out of the blue. A clear marketing plan will have to be drawn up that outlines

the purpose of each channel, the resources available for each channel, and the overall objectives.

6.4. Promotion through partners

There is a good chance that an individual social network strategy for Weet Waar Je Koopt is

considered to be too time-consuming and unrealistic with regard to resources and the nature of the

campaign. A less extensive approach could be considered if additional collaborations are employed.

What stood out in the research is that out of all observed posts of all primary organisations, only 4 (out

of 1012) were dedicated to the WWJK campaign. A total of 8 posts mentioned the campaign, but only

4 really pointed the campaign out to the followers, and, consequently, triggered a response. 7 of the

mentions were made by Ticketmaster, 1 by Eventim. None of the other primary organisations ever

mentioned the WWJK campaign (on Facebook). This seems like a missed opportunity. The 4

dedicated posts received good response with averages of 60 likes, 7 comments, and 24 shares per

post. The average of 24 shares means that, per post, 24 followers found the message important

enough to share it within their network. Those are, per post, 24 acts of free publicity.

The 5 primary ticketing organisations included in this research have an overall total of nearly 380.000

followers. The campaign accounts still only have just over 3.000. With most primary ticketing

organisations being partners of WWJK, it should be possible to promote the campaign through their

pages. This does not mean that each organisation has to dedicate great amounts of posts specifically

to the campaign, but a mention (and redirection) now and then could rapidly increase the reach of the

campaign’s message. This would mean that WWJK does not necessarily have to invest extensively in

an individual strategy, but it also does not put a whole lot of extra work load on the ticketing

organisations, as they already show to be quite active on SNSs.

When collaborating with the partners is a possibility, the focus of the campaign can stay on informing

consumers through static information and more efforts can be spend on answering questions through

e-mail, Twitter and, possibly, Facebook. Expanding the reach of the campaign will then be the task of

the campaign partners.

6.5. Reconsidering social media

A final option that should be taken into consideration is to leave SNSs for what it is. At least with

regard to designated pages for the campaign. Past experience has shown that it is difficult to keep


pages up to date, mainly due to a lack of time and resources. As explained above, a social network

strategy requires a plan and dedication. Also, as the research has shown, the problem may not lie in

SNSs, or, at the very least, the problem may not be as big as expected. Finally, it should be

questioned whether the target group of the campaign is sufficiently active on SNSs to be worth the

effort. The research respondents were for the majority people who attend a concert at least 3x a year.

Only a small part of the respondents attend a concert on a less frequent basis. The target group of the

campaign was initially described as people over the age of 12 who attend concerts once or twice a

year, that are unfamiliar with the ticket-buying process. Most followers of ticketing organisations attend

concerts more frequently. Respondents who were excluded from the questionnaire because they did

not follow any ticketing organisations, specified that they were infrequent concert visitors and that they

would consider following these organisations if they were to attend concerts more often. This could

mean that such users also may only be interested in information on where to safely buy tickets if they

were to attend concerts more often. In other words, users who attend concerts infrequently (i.e. the

target group) may not see the point in following WWJK on SNSs.

As also described in the initial proposal by the campaign stakeholders, a big part of the problem lies in

the fact that many consumers use search engines to find concert tickets. The research showed a

relation between knowledge about the campaign and using a search engine; meaning that consumers

who know about WWJK are more likely to know where/how to find the official ticket sellers. Wouldn’t it

then be best to spend the time and resources available on a state-of the art website that ends up high

in the search results, instead of opening up extra channels that require new efforts but may not even

reach the desired target group? If consumers are exposed to the campaign while using, for example,

Google to find their concert tickets, this may be the last time they ever use a search engine for this.

Improving the website may require additional investments but, unlike social network sites, it does not

require continuous investments and may therefore fit better within a new budget.

In conclusion, it is time to get the campaign stakeholders together and evaluate what has been

reached so far, what the objectives for the future are, and how much effort and resources one is willing

to further dedicate to the campaign. Because random effort might as well be no effort.

6.6. Suggestions for further research

Suggestions for further research include redoing the research but including analytics that are only

accessible to account-holders. These analytics could provide a more in-depth and detailed overview of

the engagement of followers. Such numbers include, for example, the reach of posts (how many users

have seen a certain post) and the amount of page views. Also, similar research could be designed that

specifically targets the followers of secondary organisations or primary organisations. In this research,

only a small amount of followers of (solely) secondary organisations was reached, challenging the

possibility of comparing the (followers of the) two types of organisations. Finally, when these research

results and recommendations have been used to improve the strategy of WWJK, a follow-up research

could be done in the future to see whether it has (had) the desired effect.


7. References

Armstrong, A., & Hagel, J. III. (1995). Real profits from virtual communities. McKinsey Quarterly,

3(2), 127-141.

American Antitrust Institute (2012). Restrictive Paperless Tickets [White paper]. Retrieved from

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Tickets_paperless_Final.1.17.11.pdf.

Beer, D. (2008). Social network(ing) sites…revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd &

Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 516-529.

Bernoff, J. (2010). Social Technographics: Conversationalists get onto the ladder. Retrieved from

http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2010/01/conversationalists-get-onto-the-ladder.html

on 2 April 2014.

boyd, d.m., & Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Carton, S. (2009). Defining social media. Click Z. Retrieved from

http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1703507/defining-social-media on 2 January 2014.

Coldewey, D. (2012). 30 years ago, the CD started the digital music revolution. Retrieved from

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/30-years-ago-cd-started-digital-music-revolution

6167906 on 17 December 2013.

Corder, K. (n.d.). Measures of association (correlation and chi-square). Retrieved from

http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~corder/pls3954a.html on 27 May 2014.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a

research project (4th ed.). Oxford: How To Books Ltd.

DiCola, P (2013). Money from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons

About Copyright Incentives. Northwestern University School of Law, Law and Economics

Series, 13(1).

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Tickets_paperless_Final.1.17.11.pdf

http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2010/01/conversationalists-get-onto-the-ladder.html

http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1703507/defining-social-media

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/30-years-ago-cd-started-digital-music-revolution%20%096167906

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/30-years-ago-cd-started-digital-music-revolution%20%096167906

http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~corder/pls3954a.html


Europe Economics (2009). Analysis of the Secondary Sales Market for Tickets for Sporting,

Cultural and other Events. Retrieved from http://www.europe-economics.com/publications/

secondary_sales_market.pdf.

Fraser, M., & Dutta, S. (2008). Throwing sheep in the boardroom. Cornwall, UK: Wiley.

Gingrich, P. (1992). Introductory Statistics for the Social Sciences. Regina: University of Regina.

Goldberg, A. (2011). Companies are shifting to digital platforms and media to interact and

collaborate with customers and employees/Interviewer: C. Boutelle. Retrieved from

http://www.siop.org/media/news/digitalplatforms.aspx on 19 December 2013.

Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers’

social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 356-364.

Ipsos (2013). Global ”Sharers” on Social Media Sites Seek to Share Interesting (61%), Important

(43%) and Funny (43%) Things. Retrieved from http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-

polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6239 on 19 December 2013.

Johnson, R.A. (2013). An investigation into the arguments for and against greater regulation of

ticket touting and secondary ticketing at live music events in the UK. Retrieved from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155524674/An-investigation-into-the-arguments-for-and-against

greater-regulation-of-ticket-touting-and-secondary-ticketing-at-live-music-events-in-the-UK on

18 December 2013.

Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities

of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.

Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., & Sylvestre, B.S. (2011). Social media? Get

serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons,

54(3), 241-251.

Li, C. (2007). Social Technographics. Retrieved from

http://miami.lgrace.com/documents/Li_Web_Demographics.pdf.

McCubbin, M. (2012). The Aftermath of Aftermath: The Impact of Digital Music Distribution on the

Recording Industry. UNH Law Review, 10(2), 323-343.

Miller, M.J. (n.d.). Reliability and Validity. Retrieved from

http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/Reliability_and_Validity.pdf.

http://www.europe-economics.com/publications/%20%09secondary_sales_market.pdf

http://www.europe-economics.com/publications/%20%09secondary_sales_market.pdf

http://www.siop.org/media/news/digitalplatforms.aspx

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-%20%09polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6239

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-%20%09polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6239

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155524674/An-investigation-into-the-arguments-for-and-against%20%09greater-regulation-of-ticket-touting-and-secondary-ticketing-at-live-music-events-in-the-UK

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155524674/An-investigation-into-the-arguments-for-and-against%20%09greater-regulation-of-ticket-touting-and-secondary-ticketing-at-live-music-events-in-the-UK

http://miami.lgrace.com/documents/Li_Web_Demographics.pdf

http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/Reliability_and_Validity.pdf


Mulready, R. (2013). 3 Simple Way to Measure Your Social Media Results. Retrieved from

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/3-strategies-to-measure-your-social-media/ on 2 May

2014.

Newcom Research & Consultancy (2014). Nationale Social Media Onderzoek 2014 [PDF file].

Nielsen (2013). The Nielsen Company & Billboard’s 2012 Music Industry Report. Retrieved from

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130104005149/en/Nielsen-Company

Billboard#.Ur2SKmTuKDA on 17 December 2013.

NOS (2014). Meer fraude met concertkaarten. Retrieved from http://nos.nl/artikel/656351-meer

fraude-met-concertkaarten.html on 5 June 2014.

Oosterveer, D. (2013). Alle cijfers over het socialmediagebruik in Nederland medio 2013.

Retrieved from http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/social-media-cijfers-augustus-2013

overzicht on 19 December 2013.

Parent, M., & Plangger, K., Bal, A. The new WTP: Willingness to participate. Business Horizons,

54, 219-229.

Park, N., Kee, K.F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment:

Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,

12(6), 729-733.

Peoples, G. (2013). Live Nation Revenue Hits a Record $2,26 Billion in Third Quarter. Retrieved

from http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/touring/5778225/live-nation-revenue-hits-a

record-226-billion-in-third-quarter on 17 December 2013.

Preacher, K.J. (2001). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi

square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. Available from

http://quantpsy.org.

PwC (2013). Music segment insights from the Entertainment & Media Outlook. Retrieved from

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/global-entertainment-media-outlook/segment-insights/music.jhtml

on 17 December 2013.

Resnikoff, P. (2013). Shifting sources of artist income: 1999-2012. Retrieved from

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/11/20/shiftingsources on 17 December

2013.

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/3-strategies-to-measure-your-social-media/

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130104005149/en/Nielsen-Company%20%09Billboard#.Ur2SKmTuKDA

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130104005149/en/Nielsen-Company%20%09Billboard#.Ur2SKmTuKDA

http://nos.nl/artikel/656351-meer%20%09fraude-met-concertkaarten.html

http://nos.nl/artikel/656351-meer%20%09fraude-met-concertkaarten.html

http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/social-media-cijfers-augustus-2013%20%09overzicht

http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/social-media-cijfers-augustus-2013%20%09overzicht

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/touring/5778225/live-nation-revenue-hits-a%20%09record-226-billion-in-third-quarter

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/touring/5778225/live-nation-revenue-hits-a%20%09record-226-billion-in-third-quarter

http://quantpsy.org/

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/global-entertainment-media-outlook/segment-insights/music.jhtml

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/11/20/shiftingsources


Salo, J., Lankinen, M., & Mäntymäki, M. (2013). The Use of Social Media for Artist Marketing:

Music Industry Perspectives and Consumer Motivations. International Journal on Media

Management, 15(1), 23-41.

Search Engine Journal (2013). The Growth of Social Media v2.0. Retrieved from

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/growth-social-media-2-0-infographic/77055/ on 19

December 2013.

Segrave, K. (2007). Ticket Scalping: An American History 1850-2005. Jefferson: McFarland.

Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratification

perspective. Internet Research, 19(1), 7-25.

The Survey System (n.d.). Sample Size Calculator. Retrieved from

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm on 14 April 2014.

Weet Waar Je Koopt (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.weetwaarjekoopt.nl on 20 December 2013.

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/growth-social-media-2-0-infographic/77055/

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

http://www.weetwaarjekoopt.nl/


Appendix A: List of key terms

In alphabetical order:

Followers Online users who follow at least one ticketing organisation on

at least one social network site.

Primary ticketing organisations Official sellers of tickets appointed by the event promoters.

Primary ticketers The primary ticketing organisations included in this research

are Ticketmaster Nederland, See Tickets Nederland, Eventim

Nederland and Ticketpoint. Additionally, Live Nation

Nederland has been included in this research as

Ticketmaster is part of the Live Nation company and Live

Nation offers users direct access to tickets on its website.

Secondary ticketing organisations Organisations that resell tickets bought from primary

Secondary ticketers ticketing organisations. The secondary ticketers included in

this research are Onlineticketshop Nederland, TicketStarter,

TicketTribune, Rang1Tickets and Budgetticket Nederland.

Social network sites (SNSs) In short, web-based services that allow individuals to

construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded

system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a

connection, and view and traverse their list of connections

and those made by others within the system (boyd & Ellison,

2008). A full definition of this term can be found in chapter 2.

The social network sites referred to in this research are

Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+, Instagram,

Pinterest and FourSquare.

Ticketing organisations Organisations whose core business consists of selling tickets

to events.

Weet Waar Je Koopt/WWJK The research client.


Appendix B: Scorecard

Tota

l twe

ets

We

blin

k in

cl. (+

)

Com

ments

(C)

Share

s (S

)

Lik

es (L

)

Tota

l FB

posts

TO

TA

LS

Feb

ruary

Month

Type o

f post

We

bcare

?

Allo

ws p

osts

by u

sers

?

Allo

ws re

vie

ws?

City

of lik

ers

:

Ages o

f likers

:

Lik

es/fo

llow

ers

(on 2

9/0

4/1

4):

Sin

ce

:

Activ

e o

n:

Se

e T

icke

ts N

ed

erla

nd

43

13/2

5

33

2

12

0

22

41

25

Th

W

T

M

Th

W

T

M

Sa

F

Th

W

T

M

F

Th

W

M

Day

27

26

25

24

20

19

18

17

15

14

13

12

11

10

7

6

5

3

66

7

43

5

14

40

77

10

1

L A

nn

ou

nc

em

en

t

yes

yes

yes

A’d

am

35-5

4

14

6.5

22

Dec 2

01

0

Fac

eb

oo

k

44

40

- 1 - 3 S

81

59

- 7 5

10

C

5/5

v v v v v +

yes

- - - -

7.8

45

June

200

9

Tw

itter

29

7

18

1

2

25

65

24

L

Tic

ket in

fo

7 2 1 - 2 2

S

34

17

1 -

14

2

C

- - - - -

15

3

??

Lin

ked

In

4/5

- v

v

v v

+

42

28

14

L

Eve

nt in

fo

3 - 3 S

- - - - -

18

?? 2

013

Go

og

le+

5 - 5 C

0/2

- - +

20

5

75

13

0

L

New

s

- - - - - 0

July

201

1

Yo

uT

ub

e

2 2 - S

22

10

12

C

1/2

- v +

32

2

12

4

19

8

L

Co

nte

st

46

24

22

S

13

6

98

38

C

0/2

- - +

82

41

41

L C

on

test w

inn

er

0 - - S

26

12

14

C

0/2

- - +


59

59

L

Vid

eo

- - S

3 3 C

0/1

- +

15

8

15

8

L

Ph

oto

(s)

14

14

S

5 5 C

1/1

v +

40

9

74

14

8

51

60

76

L

Tip

s

4 1 - - - 3

S

20

2

12

- 5

1

C

2/5

- - v v - +

15

1 1 1 2

3

3

3 1

T

Tw

eets

Tweets

22

3

1

1

3 1

1 1 2

5

3 1 R Replies

6 2

2 1

1

Rt Retweets


Appendix C: List of post categories (Facebook)

In alphabetical order:

- Concert announcement: The first time announcement of an upcoming event.

- Contest: A post that announces a contest or provides information about a contest.

- Contest winner: A post with the sole purpose of announcing the winner of a contest.

- Event information: Information regarding a specific event. This could be a cancelation, the

announcement of a support act, travel information, time schedules, etcetera.

- Facebook events: The organisation has created an ‘event page’ for one of their events. On

such a page the organisation can post information about the event and users can express

whether they will attend. An event page mainly facilitates interaction between users.

- Interaction: A post that explicitly calls for interaction. For example, a post that asks about

followers’ plans for the weekend.

- News: A post including a news item.

- Photo(s): Photos that are posted with no further intention of providing information (image (and

possibly a description) only).

- Review: A post including a review (or direct link to a review) of a past event.

- Ticket information: Information on where to get tickets, the amount of tickets left, direct links to

ticket sales, prices, etcetera.

- Tips: A post that recommends followers to watch a certain TV show, listen to a radio show at a

certain time, listen to a certain song, etcetera.

- Video: A post with the main purpose of redirecting to- or showing a video.

- WWJK: A post dedicated to the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign with the sole purpose of

informing followers about the campaign and where they can get more information.


Appendix D: Questionnaire

The questionnaire that was sent out for this research was written in Dutch. For the sake of this report,

English translations of the questions and answers have been included below.

Social Ticketing – Ticketing organisaties op sociale media

Social Ticketing – Ticketing organisations on social media

1) Ik ben een…

Gender

o Man/Male

o Vrouw/Female

2) Wat is je leeftijd?

What is your age?

Leeftijd (in jaren)/Age (in years)

3) Werk je in de muziekindustrie of volg je een studie gerelateerd aan deze industrie?

Do you work in the music industry or do you follow a study related to this industry?

o Ja/Yes

o Nee/No

Ruimte voor eventuele specificatie (bijv. student MEM, artiestenmanager, boeker, etc.)

Room for specification (optional) (e.g. student MEM, artist manager, booker, etc.)

4) Hoe vaak ga je ongeveer naar conerten en/of muziekfestivals?

On average, how often do you attend concerts and/or music festivals?

o Nooit

Never

o Minder dan 3x per jaar

Less than 3x per year

o 3x of 4x per jaar

3x or 4x per year

o 1x per twee maanden

Once every two months

o 1x per maand


Once a month

o Vaker dan 1x per maand

More than once a month

5) Op welke sociale media heb je een account en hoe vaak ben je hierop actief?

On which social media platforms do you have an account and how often are you active on these?

Geen (actief)

account

No (active) account

Maandelijks

Monthly

Tweewekelijks

Biweekly

Wekelijks

Weekly

Dagelijks

Daily

Elk uur

Every hour

Constant

Constantly

Facebook O O O O O O O

YouTube O O O O O O O

LinkedIn O O O O O O O

Twitter O O O O O O O

Google+ O O O O O O O

Instagram O O O O O O O

Pinterest O O O O O O O

Foursquare O O O O O O O

Ik heb (ook) een account op andere sociale media, namelijk:

I (also) have an account on different social media, namely:

6) Hoe vaak onderneem je onderstaande activiteiten op sociale media?

How often do you perform the activities below on social media?

Nooit

Never

Af en toe

Now and then

Regelmatig

Regularly

Vaak

Often

Heel vaak

Very often

Bijna altijd

Almost always

Ik bekijk de berichten en statusupdates van anderen I view other users’ messages and updates

O O O O O O

Ik zoek informatie over een product of service (bijv. prijzen, reviews, verkoopinformatie, etc.) I search for information about a product or service (e.g. prices, reviews, retail info, etc.)

O O O O O O

Ik post zelf berichten en statusupdates I post messages and updates

O O O O O O

Ik reageer op berichten en statusupdates I comment on messages and updates

O O O O O O

Ik maak en onderhoud pagina’s (bijv. bedrijfspagina’s, interessepagina’s, etc.) I create and maintain pages (e.g. company pages, interest pages, etc.)

O O O O O O

Ik creëer zelf content en post deze (bijv. video’s, muziek, blogs, etc.) I create and post my own content (e.g. videos,

music, blogs, etc.)

O O O O O O


Voor het vervolg van de enquete is het belangrijk om te weten welke kaartverkoop organisaties jij volgt

op sociale media.

In order to continue with the survey, it is important to know which ticketing organisations you follow on social

media.

Het gaat om de volgende organisaties:

The following organisations are included in the research:

- Ticketmaster Nederland

- Live Nation Nederland

- See Tickets Nederland

- Eventim Nederland

- Ticketpoint

- Onlineticketshop Nederland

- TicketStarter (let op: deze organisatie gaat op sociale media schuil onder de naam 'Concerten')

- TicketTribune

- Rang1Tickets

- Budgetticket Nederland

Als je niet precies weet welke organisaties je volgt, kun je onderstaande pagina gebruiken. Hierop zie

je in één oogopslag wie je waar volgt.

If you do not (exactly) know which organisations you follow, you can use the page below. On this page you can

see which organisations you follow on which platforms.

Klik hier om naar de pagina te gaan

De pagina opent in een nieuw scherm.

Click here to go to the web page.

The page will open in a new window.

Wanneer je een goed idee hebt van welke organisatie je waar volgt, kun je de enquete vervolgen.

When you have a good idea of which organisations you follow on which platforms, you can continue with the

survey.

7) Volg je tenminste één van de genoemde organisaties op één platform?

Do you follow at least one of the mentioned organisations on one platform?

o Ja, ik volg tenminste één van de genoemde organisaties op één platform (routing naar vraag 10)

Yes, I follow at least one of the mentioned organisations on one platform (routing to question 10)

o Nee, ik volg geen één van de genoemde organisaties (routing naar vraag 8)

No, I do not follow any of the mentioned organisations(routing to question 8)


8) Je hebt aangegeven geen enkele kaartverkoop organisatie te volgen op sociale media.

Waarom volg je deze organisaties niet?

You said not to follow any ticketing organisations on social media. Why don’t you follow these

organisations?

o Ik heb er nooit aan gedacht om deze organisaties te volgen

It never occurred to me to follow these organisations

o Ik ben niet geïnteresseerd in deze organisaties

I am not interested in these organisations

o Ik zie de toegevoegde waarde niet van het volgen van deze organisaties op sociale media

I do not see the added value of following these organisations on social media

o Ik gebruik sociale media puur voor persoonlijke doeleinden

I use social media solely for personal matters

o Anders, namelijk:

Other, namely:

9) Wanneer zou je wel overwegen om deze kaartverkoop organisaties te volgen op sociale

media? (optioneel)

When would you consider to start following these ticketing organisations on social media?(optional)

ROUTING NAAR VRAAG 16

ROUTING TO QUESTION 16


10) Welke kaartverkoop organisaties volg je en op welke platformen?

Which ticketing organisations do you follow and on which platforms?

Ik volg deze

organisatie

helemaal

niet

I don’t follow

this

organisation

at all

Ik ‘like’ deze

organisatie

op Facebook

I ‘like’ this

organisation

on Facebook

Ik ‘volg’ deze

organisatie

op Twitter

I ‘follow’ this

organisation

on Twitter

Ik ‘volg’ deze

organisatie

op LinkedIn

I ‘follow’ this

organisation

on LinkedIn

Ik heb mij

‘geabonneerd’

op het

YouTube

kanaal van

deze

organisatie

I subscribed to

the YouTube

channel of this

organisation

Ik heb deze

organisatie

in mijn

‘kringen’ op

Google+

I have this

organisation

in my

‘circles’ on

Google+

Ticketmaster Nederland □ □ □ □ □ □

Live Nation Nederland □ □ □ □ □ □

See Tickets Nederland □ □ □ □ □ □

Eventim Nederland □ □ □ □ □ □

Ticketpoint □ □ □ □ □ □

Onlineticketshop Nederland □ □ □ □ □ □

TicketStarter (‘Concerten’) □ □ □ □ □ □

TicketTribune (‘Protickets.nl’) □ □ □ □ □ □

Rang1Tickets □ □ □ □ □ □

Budgetticket Nederland □ □ □ □ □ □

11) Wat is de voornaamste reden dat je deze organisatie(s) volgt?

What is the most important reason for you to follow this/these organisation(s)?

o Zodat andere gebruikers kunnen zien dat ik geïnteresseerd ben ik dergelijke organisaties

So other users can see that I am interested in these organisations

o Om een bepaalde mate van betrokkenheid te tonen

In order to show a certain level of affinity

o Snel en makkelijk toegang tot informatie waarin ik geïnteresseerd ben (concertinformatie,

nieuws, etc.)

Fast and easy access to information in which I am interested (concert information, news, etc.)

o Interactie met andere gebruikers (discussies, zien wie er naar een evenement gaan, etc.)


Interaction with other users (discussions, see who go to an event, etc.)

o Interactie met de organisatie zelf (vragen stellen, klachten uiten, etc.)

Interaction with the organisations itself (ask questions, post complaints, etc.)

o Er worden dingen gepost die ik leuk vind (foto’s, video’s, winacties, etc.)

Things are being posted that I like (photos, videos, contests, etc.)

o Ik was me er eigenlijk niet van bewust dat ik deze organisatie(s) volgde

I was not aware that I follow this/these organisation(s)

o Een andere reden, namelijk:

A different reason, namely:

12) Wanneer je verschillende organisaties om verschillende redenen volgt kunt je dat hier

aangeven (optioneel).

(bijv. organisatie X voor de informatie, organisatie Y voor interactie met de organisatie)

If you follow different organisations for different reasons, you can indicate that in the field below.

(e.g. organisation X for the information, organisation Y for interaction with the organisation)

Kies in dat geval in de vraag hierboven het antwoord dat de belangrijkste reden voor

jou weergeeft.

If this is the case, please choose the answer that shows the most important reason for you in the

question above.

13) Hoe actief volg je deze organisatie(s)?

How active do you follow this/these organisation(s)?

o Ik like/volg de organisatie(s) maar kijk er verder niet naar

I like/follow the organisation(s) but never look at it

o Ik lees/bekijk alleen de updates die voorbij komen op mijn tijdlijn/profiel

I only read/view the updates that appear on my timeline/profile

o Ik bezoek de pagina(‘s) regelmatig om te kijken wat er is gepost

I regularly visit the page(s) to see what has been posted

o Ik reageer regelmatig op posts van de organisatie(s)

I regularly comment on the posts from the organisation(s)


o Ik plaats regelmatig zelf iets op de pagina(‘s) van de organisatie(‘s) (bijv. een vraag, foto’s,

video’s, beoordelingen, etc.)

I regularly post something on the page(s) of the organisation(s) (e.g. a question, photos, videos, reviews,

etc.)

14) Koop je weleens kaarten voor een evenement naar aanleiding van een bericht op de

sociale media van deze kaartverkoop organisaties?

Do you ever buy tickets to an event because of a post on the social media platforms of these ticketing

organisations?

Nooit

Never

Af en toe

Now and then

Regelmatig

Regularly

Vaak

Often

Heel vaak

Very often

Bijna altijd

Almost always

O O O O O O

15) Hoe belangrijk vind je het om onderstaande aspecten terug te vinden op de sociale

media pagina’s van kaartverkoop organisaties?

How important is it to you to find the aspects below on the social media pages of ticketing organisations?

Helemaal

niet

belangrijk

Not at all

important

Niet

belangrijk

Not important

Neutraal

Neutral

Belangrijk

Important

Heel erg

belangrijk

Very

important

Aankondigingen van evenementen Announcements of events

O O O O O

Informatie over kaartverkoop (bijv. startdatum verkoop, prijzen, etc.) Information about ticket sales (e.g. time tickets on

sale, prices, etc.)

O O O O O

Informatie over evenementen (bijv. tijdschema’s, annuleringen, etc.) Information about events (e.g. schedules, cancellations, etc.)

O O O O O

Entertainment nieuws Entertainment news

O O O O O

Exclusieve acties (bijv. exclusieve voorverkoop voor volgers) Exclusive offers (exclusive presale for followers)

O O O O O

Winacties Contests

O O O O O

Foto’s en video’s Photos and videos

O O O O O

De mogelijkheid om zelf berichten, foto’s en video’s te posten The option to post my own messages, photos and

videos

O O O O O

Recensies van afgelopen evenementen Reviews of past events

O O O O O


Ervaringen van andere gebruikers met de betreffende organisatie Experiences of other users with the organisation

O O O O O

Informatie over de betreffende organisatie (bijv. omschrijving, contactgegevens, etc.) Information about the organisation itself (e.g. description, contact information, etc.)

O O O O O

De mogelijkheid om vragen te stellen aan de betreffende organisatie (klantenservice/webcare) The option to ask questions to the organisation (customer service/webcare)

O O O O O

De mogelijkheid om het gesprek aan te gaan met andere gebruikers The option to start a conversation with other users

O O O O O

Evenementen pagina’s (waarop je kunt zien wie er naar een evenement gaan) Event pages (on which you can see who are going

to a certain event)

O O O O O

16) Welke situatie is op jou van toepassing wanneer je kaarten voor een concert of

muziekfestival wilt kopen?

Which situation applies to you when you want to buy tickets to a concert or music festival?

o Ik weet direct de juiste organisatie te vinden die de officiële kaartverkoop doet

I immediately know where to find the official seller

o Ik gebruik een zoekmachine (bijv. Google) om de juiste organisatie te vinden

I use a search engine (e.g. Google) to find the right organisation

o Anders, namelijk:

Other, namely:

17) Ben je bekend met de campagne ‘Weet Waar Je Koopt’?

Are you familiar with the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign?

o Ja, ik ken de campagne en weet wat het inhoudt

Yes, I know the campaign and what it entails

o Ik heb er wel eens van gehoord maar weet niet precies wat het inhoudt

I have heard of it but I do not know exactly what it entails

o Nee, nog nooit van gehoord

No, I have never heard of it

18) Heb je nog opmerkingen en/of suggesties met betrekking tot dit onderzoek?

Do you have any remarks and/or suggestions with regard to this research?


Appendix E: Representativeness

The chi-squares of goodness of fit for the gender and age variable were calculated as showed below.

Null hypothesis: The gender/age distribution of respondents in the sample is the same

as the gender/age distribution of the research population the

sample is representative for the tested variable

Alternative hypothesis: The gender/age distribution of respondents in the sample differs from

the gender/age distribution of the research population the sample

is not representative for the tested variable

The distributions of the research population were taken from the social media research by Newcom

Research & Consultancy (2014).

The data used for these chi-square tests is shown in tables E1.1. and E1.2.

Based on the data shown above, the expected values were calculated (sample size*percentage)/100.

The observed (number in sample) and expected values are shown in table C2.1. and C2.2. Values

have been rounded up.

With the data shown in the tables above, the chi-squares can be calculated using the following formula

in which O = observed value, E = expected value and i = item:

∑( )

Gender Number in

sample

Per cent in

Newcom

research

Male 62 47%

Female 106 53%

Total 168 100%

Age Number in

sample

Per cent in

Newcom

research

15-19 53 8%

20-39 98 35%

40 and up 17 57%

Total 168 100%

Gender Observed Expected

Male 62 79

Female 106 89

Total 168 168

Age Observed Expected

15-19 53 14

20-39 98 59

40 and up 17 95

Total 168 168

TABLE E.1.1: SAMPLE AND POPULATION GENDER DISTRIBUTION

TABLE E.1.2: SAMPLE AND POPULATION AGE DISTRIBUTION

TABLE E.2.1: OBSERVED AND EXPECTED VALUES FOR GENDER

TABLE E.2.2: OBSERVED AND EXPECTED VALUES FOR AGE


Now for each variable the chi-square has been calculated. In order to determine whether this chi-

square is small or large, a critical value is needed. Using the significance level α and the number of

degrees of freedom (number of categories minus one), this value can be found in a standard chi-

square table. A chi-square value larger than the critical value leads to rejection of the null hypothesis,

a chi-square value smaller than the critical value means that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected

and the alternative hypothesis is accepted (Gingrich, 1992).

Gender

= 7,348

α = 0,05 (because confidence level = 95%)

Degrees of freedom = 1

Critical value = 3,84

Conclusion: > critical value, which means that the null hypothesis can be rejected. The

sample is not representative for the gender variable.

Age

= 198,464

α = 0,05 (because confidence level = 95%)

Degrees of freedom = 2

Critical value = 5,99147

Conclusion: > critical value, which means that the null hypothesis can be rejected. The

sample is not representative for the age variable.


Appendix F: Analysis type of users

Question 6 of the questionnaire was included in order to classify the respondents into different types of

online users. Each component corresponds with a certain type of online user, in accordance with the

Social Technographics Ladder illustrated in chapter 2. The types of users are indicated in red in the

table below. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they perform the activities based on a

Likert scale of frequency. Each item corresponds with a value. The values are indicated in bold in the

table below. With these values, an average score for each type of user could be calculated.

TABLE F1: QUESTION 6 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH CLARIFICATIONS

6) How often do you perform the activities below on social media?

Never

Now and then

Regularly

Often

Very often

Almost always

Likert scale value 0 1 2 3 4 5

CONSUMER: I view other users’ messages and updates

O O O O O O

CONSUMER: I search for information about a product or service (e.g. prices, reviews, retail info, etc.)

O O O O O O

PARTICIPATOR: I post messages and updates O O O O O O

PARTICIPATOR: I comment on messages and updates

O O O O O O

CREATOR: I create and maintain pages (e.g. company pages, interest pages, etc.)

O O O O O O

CREATOR: I create and post my own content

(e.g. videos, music, blogs, etc.) O O O O O O

Examples of calculations

- Respondent #23 answered the question as shown in green in the table above. This means that he

scored as follows on the several types of users:

Consumer: (4+4)/2 = 4

Participator: (0+0)/2 = 0

Creator: (0+0)/2 = 0

These scores result in this respondent being classified as a consumer.

- Respondent #73 answered the question as shown in blue in the table above. This means that he scored

as follows on the several types of users:

Consumer: (2+3)/2 = 2,5

Participator: (3+3)/2 = 3

Creator: (1+1)/2 = 1

These scores result in this respondent being classified as a participator.


Appendix G: Graphs and tables from desk research

TABLE G1: AMOUNT OF FOLLOWERS PER ORGANISATION ON 29 APRIL 2014

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ YouTube Total

Onlineticketshop NL 171.852

95,1%

8.726

4,8% n.a.

190

0,1% n.a.

180.768

100%

Ticketmaster NL 122.036

72,7%

45.800

27,3%

72

0,0%

19

0,0%

0

0,0%

167.927

100%

See Tickets NL 146.522

94,8%

7.845

5,1%

153

0,1%

18

0,0%

0

0,0%

154.538

100%

TicketStarter 10.403

15,5%

56.914

84,5% n.a. n.a. n.a.

67.317

100%

Live Nation NL 26.869

57,4%

19.879

42,4% n.a.

34

0,1%

51

0,1%

46.833

100%

Ticketpoint 7.064

81,6%

1.530

17,7% n.a. n.a.

63

0,7%

8.657

100%

Budgetticket NL 436

12,6%

3.030

87,4% n.a. n.a. n.a.

3.466

100%

TicketTribune 1.788

83,3%

359

16,7% n.a. n.a. n.a.

2.147

100%

Eventim 998

51,7%

941

48,3% n.a. n.a. n.a.

1.939

100%

Rang1Tickets 1.216

74,3%

420

25,7% n.a. n.a. n.a.

1.636

100%

Total 489.184

77,0%

145.444

22,9%

225

0,0%

261

0,1%

114

0,0%

635.228

100%

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

FIGURE G1: AMOUNT OF FOLLOWERS PER ORGANISATION ON 29 APRIL 2014

YouTube

Google+

LinkedIn

Twitter

Facebook


TABLE G2:

PRESENCE ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES PER TICKETING ORGANISATION

Onlineticketshop

Secondary

Ticketmaster

Primary

See Tickets

Primary

TicketStarter

Secondary

Live Nation

Primary

Facebook yes yes yes yes yes

Since May 2010 March 2011 December 2010 March 2012 September 2011

Followers 171.852 122.036 146.522 10.403 26.869

Most popular age-group 35-44 18-24 35-54 18-24 18-24

Twitter yes yes yes yes yes

Since October 2010 March 2011 June 2009 April 2006 November 2008

Followers 8.726 45.800 7.845 56.914 19.879

Google+ yes yes yes no yes

Since January 2012 February 2014 ?? 2013 - ?? 2011

Followers 190 19 18 - 34

LinkedIn no yes yes no no

Since - ?? ?? - -

Followers - 72 153 - -

YouTube no yes yes no yes

Since - November 2011 July 2011 - December 2008

Followers - 0 0 - 51

Ticketpoint

Primary

Budgetticket

Secondary

TicketTribune

Secondary

Eventim

Primary

Rang1Tickets

Secondary

Facebook yes yes yes yes yes

Since September 2010 February 2011 September 2011 January 2010 May 2012

Followers 7.064 436 1.788 998 1.216

Most popular age-group 35-54 35-54 25-44 25-34 13-17/35-44

Twitter yes yes yes yes yes

Since October 2010 February 2011 June 2011 June 2009 June 2010

Followers 1.530 3.030 359 941 420

Google+ no no no no no

Since - - - - -

Followers - - - - -

LinkedIn no no no no no

Since - - - - -

Followers - - - - -

YouTube yes no no no no

Since November 2009 - - - -

Followers 63 - - - -


TABLE G3 (a): ACTIVITY ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES PER TICKETING ORGANISATION

Onlineticketshop

Secondary

Ticketmaster

Primary

See Tickets

Primary

TicketStarter

Secondary

Live Nation

Primary

Facebook

Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14 205 400 208 48 324

Average posts per week 8 15 8 2 12

Most frequent posts

1. Announcements

2. Ticket info

3. FB events

1. Announcements

2. Ticket info

3. Contests

1. Announcements

2. Event info

3. Interaction

1. Announcements

2. News

3. Interaction

1. Videos

2. Announcements

3. Reviews

% Direct link to website included 87,6% 36,2% 43,1% 14,6% 57,1%

Allows reviews of organisation? no yes yes no no

Allows posts by users? no yes yes yes yes

Offers web care? no yes yes no yes

Twitter

Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14

(excl. replies + retweets) 41 657 48 225 133

Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14 (incl.

replies + retweets) 44 2.287 229 256 894

Average posts per week (excl.

replies + retweets) 2 39 3 13 8

% Web care (replies) 6,8% 65,1% 66,4% 12,1% 84,1%

Google+

Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14 1 13 0 - 0

Average posts per week 0 3 (started on Feb 1) 0 - 0

YouTube

Amount of videos - 4 2 - 25

N.B. LinkedIn is excluded from this table as no (public) posts were published on any of the accounts


TABLE G3 (b): ACTIVITY ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES PER TICKETING ORGANISATION

Ticketpoint

Primary

Budgetticket

Secondary

TicketTribune

Secondary

Eventim

Primary

Rang1Tickets

Secondary

Facebook

Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14 54 2 23 26 26

Average posts per week 2 0 1 1 1

Most frequent posts

1. FB events

2. Ticket info

3. Announcements

1. Announcements

2. -

3. -

1. Announcements

2. News

3. Ticket info

1. FB events

2. Ticket info

3. Announcements

1. FB events

2. Announcements

3. Ticket info

% Direct link to website included 42,4% 100% 91,3% 43,1% 78,6%

Allows reviews of organisation? no no no no no

Allows posts by users? yes no yes yes no

Offers web care? no no no yes no

Twitter

Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14

(excl. replies + retweets) 41 0 94 3 9

Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14 (incl.


Average posts per week (excl.


% Web care (replies) 33,3% - 13,8% 35,0% 0,0%

Google+

Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14 - - - - -

Average posts per week - - - - -

YouTube

Amount of videos 46 - - - -

N.B. LinkedIn is excluded from this table as no (public) posts were published on any of the accounts


FIGURE G2: TYPES OF FACEBOOK POSTS FROM SEP 2013 TO FEB 2014 PER ORGANISATION

N.B. Budgetticket NL showed no significant Facebook activity during this 6-month period.

Announcements

22%

Ticket info 17%

Event info 4%

FB event 10%

News 3%

Contest 15%

Contest winners

7%

Video 1%

Photo(s) 6%

Interaction

2% Tips 12%

WWJK 1%

G2.2. Ticketmaster NL

Announc

ements 45%

Ticket info 28%

Event info 2%

FB event

9%

News 5%

Video 2%

Photo(s) 1%

Interaction

8%

G2.1. Onlineticketshop NL

Announcements

19%

Ticket

info 8%

Event info 15%

News 11%

Contest 10%

Contest winners

3%

Video

7%

Photo(s) 10%

Interaction

14%

Tips 3%

G2.3. See Tickets NL

Announcements

23%

Ticket info 12%

Event info 9%

Reviews* 12%

News 4%

Contest 3%

Video 24%

Photo(s) 9%

Interaction

4%

Tips 0%

G2.5. Live Nation NL

Announcements

58%

Ticket info 4%

News 15%

Contest 4%

Video 6%

Photo(s)

2% Interactio

n 11%

G2.4. TicketStarter

Announcements

15%

Ticket info 22%

Event info 2%

FB event 39%

Contest 5%

Contest winners

2%

Video 4%

Photo(s) 11%

G2.6. Ticketpoint

Announcements

65%

Ticket info 13%

News 18%

Tips 4%

G2.7. TicketTribune

Announcements

19%

Ticket info 23%

Event info 15%

FB event 23%

News 4%

Video 4% Interactio

n 12%

G2.8. Eventim NL

Announcements

27%

Ticket

info 11%

FB event 46%

News 4%

Photo(s) 4%

Interaction

8%

G2.9. Rang1Tickets


FIGURE G3: TYPES OF TWITTER POSTS FROM NOV 2013 TO FEB 2014 PER ORGANISATION

N.B. Budgetticket NL showed no Twitter activity whatsoever during this 4-month period.

Tweets

93%

Replies

7%

G3.1. Onlineticketshop NL

Tweets

29%

Replies

65%

Retweet

s 6%

G3.2. Ticketmaster NL

Tweets

21%

Replies

66%

Retweet

s 13%

G3.3. See Tickets NL

Tweets

88%

Replies

12%

G3.4. TicketStarter

Tweets

15%

Replies

84%

Retweet

s 1%

G3.5. Live Nation NL

Tweets

30%

Replies

65%

Retweet

s 5%

G3.6. Ticketpoint

Tweets

86%

Replies

14%

G3.7. TicketTribune

Tweets

15%

Replies

35%

Retweet

s 50%

G3.8. Eventim NL

Tweets

100%

G3.9. Rang1Tickets


TABLE G4:

USER ENGAGEMENT ON FACEBOOK PER ORGANISATION (SEP 2013-FEB 2014)

Total likes

(1 point each)

Total

comments

(2 points

each)

Total shares

(3 points

each)

Engagement

score

Amount of

FB posts

Average

score per

post

Onlineticketshop NL 6.652 1.332 1.509 13.843 205 68

Ticketmaster NL 29.257 12.540 3.982 66.283 400 166

See Tickets NL 49.943 17.089 6.715 104.266 208 501

TicketStarter 3.229 1.306 3.918 17.595 48 366

Live Nation NL 10.925 2.768 2.040 22.581 324 70

Ticketpoint 395 325 23 1.114 54 21

Budgetticket NL 0 0 0 0 2 0

TicketTribune 15 74 0 163 23 7

Eventim NL 12 2 0 16 26 1

Rang1Tickets 71 46 3 172 26 7

Total 100.499 35.482 18.190 194.033 1.316 1.207


Tota

l

Ran

g1

Tic

kets

Eventim

NL

Tic

ketT

ribun

e

Bud

ge

tticket N

L

Tic

ketp

oin

t

Liv

e N

atio

n N

L

Tic

ketS

tarte

r

See

Tic

kets

NL

Tic

ketm

aste

r NL

Onlin

etic

kets

hop

NL

41

0

(41)

1

0

0

2

14

75

40

15

4

78

46

L An

no

un

ce

men

t

76

(8)

0

0

3

0

1

17

11

12

26

6

C

47

(5)

0

0

0

0

1

2

5

11

16

12

S

18

7

(21)

13

0

1 -

11

17

9

66

61

9

L

Tic

ket in

fo

80

(9)

6

0

2 -

24

9

2

7

29

1

C

12

(1)

0

0

0 - 2

2

0

2

6

0

S

37

7

(62)

- 1 - - 0

39

-

27

0

42

25

L

Eve

nt in

fo

92

(15)

- 0 - - 0

15

-

34

23

20

C

10

0

(17)

- 0 - - 0

48

- 5

17

30

S

33

(7)

0

0 - - 4 - - -

16

13

L

FB

eve

nt

3

(1)

0

0 - - 0 - - - 3

0

C

0

(0)

0

0 - - 0 - - - 0

0

S

35

1

(44)

0

0

1 - -

12

8

20

1

39

90

L

New

s

75

(9)

1

0

5 - - 3

6

17

16

27

C

27

(3)

0

0

0 - - 2

2

3

4

16

S

19

(19)

- - - - -

19

- - - -

L

Revie

w

5

(5)

- - - - - 5 - - - -

C

0

(0)

- - - - - 0 - - - -

S

1.8

13

(36

3)

- - - - 7

15

90

5

70

6

18

0

-

L

Co

nte

st

80

1

(16

0)

- - - - 2

11

1

36

5

25

1

72

-

C

2.1

70

(43

4)

- - - - 0

1

1.8

78

26

7

24

-

S

TA

BL

E G

5:

AV

ER

AG

E A

MO

UN

T O

F L

IKE

S, C

OM

ME

NT

S A

ND

SH

AR

ES

PE

R T

YP

E O

F P

OS

T*

* Calc

ula

tion: to

tal a

mount o

f likes/s

hare

s/c

om

ments

per ty

pe o

f post d

ivid

ed b

y th

e a

mount o

f posts

per ty

pe =

avera

ge

N.B

. All n

um

bers

are

rounded o

ff to w

hole

num

bers


Tota

l

Ran

g1

Tic

kets

Eventim

NL

Tic

ketT

ribun

e

Bud

ge

tticket N

L

Tic

ketp

oin

t

Liv

e N

atio

n N

L

Tic

ketS

tarte

r

See

Tic

kets

NL

Tic

ketm

aste

r NL

Onlin

etic

kets

hop

NL

15

4

(51)

- - - -

16

- -

10

8

30

-

L

Co

nte

st w

inn

ers

41

(14)

- - - - 9 - -

24

8 -

C

1

(0)

- - - - 0 - - 0

1 -

S

22

7

(32)

- 0 - - 3

15

11

16

3

23

12

L

Vid

eo

14

(2)

- 0 - - 0

2

1

10

1

0

C

10

(1)

- 0 - - 0

4

1

4

1

0

S

42

9

(61)

16

- - - 5

37

49

22

0

78

24

L

Ph

oto

(s)

45

(6)

1 - - - 0

4

4

12

21

3

C

11

(2)

1 - - - 0

1

0

5

3

1

S

49

1

(70)

5

1 - - -

20

27

24

1

16

2

35

L

Inte

ractio

n

67

2

(96)

10

0 - - -

18

3

32

9

29

3

19

C

20

(3)

0

0 - - - 0

3

9

4

4

S

13

0

(33)

- - 1 - -

11

-

88

30

-

L

Tip

s

8

(2)

- - 0 - - 0 - 4

4 -

C

6

(2)

- - 0 - - 0 - 1

5 -

S

60

(60)

- - - - - - - -

60

-

L

WW

JK

7

(7)

- - - - - - - - 7 -

C

24

(24)

- - - - - - - -

24

-

S

4.6

81

(46

8)

35

2

3

2

60

26

0

1.0

49

2.2

17

79

9

25

4

L

To

tal

1.9

20

(19

2)

18

1

10

0

36

18

4

39

2

70

0

50

3

76

C

2.4

28

(24

9)

1

0

0

0

3

60

1.8

89

30

7

10

5

63

S

TA

BL

E G

5:

AV

ER

AG

E A

MO

UN

T O

F L

IKE

S, C

OM

ME

NT

S A

ND

SH

AR

ES

PE

R T

YP

E O

F P

OS

T*

* Calc

ula

tion: to

tal a

mount o

f likes/s

hare

s/c

om

ments

per ty

pe o

f post d

ivid

ed b

y th

e a

mount o

f posts

per ty

pe =

avera

ge

N.B

. All n

um

bers

are

rounded o

ff to w

hole

num

bers


Appendix H: Graphs and tables from quantitative research

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ Total

Male 9 16 9 9 9 3 3 4 62

5,4% 9,5% 5,4% 5,4% 5,4% 1,8% 1,8% 2,4% 37,1%

Female 44 36 12 5 2 2 3 2 106

26,2% 21,4% 7,1% 3,0% 1,2% 1,2% 1,8% 1,2% 63,1%

Total 53 52 21 14 11 5 6 6 168

31,5% 31,0% 12,5% 8,3% 6,5% 3,0% 3,6% 3,6% 100%

No (active) account Monthly Biweekly Weekly Daily Every hour Constantly Total

Facebook 11

6,6%

5

3,0%

1

0,6%

5

3,0%

85

50,6%

34

20,2%

27

16,0%

168

100%

YouTube 26

15,5%

17

10,1%

14

8,3%

35

20,8%

70

41,7%

4

2,4%

2

1,2%

168

100%

LinkedIn 78

46,4%

33

19,6%

11

6,6%

33

19,6%

13

7,7%

0

0,0%

0

0,0%

168

100%

Twitter 22

13,1%

10

6,0%

2

1,2%

17

10,1%

67

39,9%

34

20,2%

16

9,5%

168

100%

Google+ 98

58,3%

39

23,2%

9

5,4%

8

4,8%

12

7,1%

0

0,0%

2

1,2%

168

100%

Instagram 65

38,7%

12

7,1%

10

6,0%

8

4,8%

54

32,1%

13

7,8%

6

3,6%

168

100%

Pinterest 119

70,8%

26

15,5%

4

2,4%

10

6,0%

8

4,8%

1

0,6%

0

0,0%

168

100%

FourSquare 160

95,2%

6

3,6%

0

0,0%

0

0,0%

2

1,2%

0

0,0%

0

0,0%

168

100%

53; 31,5%

52; 31,0%

21; 12,5%

14; 8,3%

11; 6,5%

5; 3,0% 6; 3,6%

6; 3,6%

FIGURE H1: AGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG

RESPONDENTS

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50+

TABLE H1: AGE/GENDER DISTRIBUTION AMONG RESPONDENTS

2; 1,2%

22; 13,1%

71; 42,3% 27; 16,1%

20; 11,9%

26; 15,5%

FIGURE H2: CONCERT ATTENDANCE AMONG RESPONDENTS

Never

Less than 3x a year

3x or 4x a year

Once every two months

Once a month

More than once a month

3; 1,8% 11; 6,5%

25; 14,9%

42; 25,0%

42; 25,0%

33; 19,6%

7; 4,2% 5; 3,0%

FIGURE H3: AMOUNT OF SNS ACCOUNTS PER PERSON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

TABLE H2: RESPONDENTS’ USE OF DIFFERENT SNSs

* All percentages were rounded off to one decimal


TABLE H3: RESPONDENTS’ ACTIVITY FREQUENCY

TABLE H4: FOLLOWERS AMONG RESPONDENTS

n.a. The organisation does not have an account on this social network site.

* The organisation does not have an account on this social network site. Nevertheless, respondents indicated that

they follow this organisation on this platform. It could be that the respondent mixed up the NL account with the

International account of the organisation or that he/she clicked the answer by mistake.

** The organisation does have an account on this social network site, but according to public data the account does

not have any followers. It could be that the respondent mixed up the NL account with the International account of the

organisation or that he/she clicked the answer by mistake.

0. Never

1. Now

and then

2.

Regularly 3. Often

4. Very

often

5. Almost

always Total Average

I view other users’ messages and

updates

0

0,0%

10

6,0%

25

14,9%

31

18,5%

48

28,6%

54

32,1%

168

100% 3,66

I search for information about a product

or service

20

11,9%

47

28,0%

47

28,0%

30

17,9%

19

11,3%

5

3,0%

168

100% 1,98

I post messages and updates 5

3,0%

52

31,0%

56

33,3%

31

18,5%

13

7,7%

11

6,6%

168

100% 2,17

I comment on messages and updates 5

3,0%

45

26,8%

63

37,5%

27

16,1%

21

12,5%

7

4,2%

168

100% 2,21

I create and maintain pages 103

61,3%

30

17,9%

17

10,1%

11

6,6%

3

1,8%

4

2,4%

168

100% 0,77

I create and post my own content 89

53,0%

46

27,4%

17

10,1%

7

4,2%

6

3,6%

3

1,8%

168

100% 0,83

None Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube Google+

Ticketmaster Nederland 16

9,5%

113

67,3%

120

71,4%

1

0,6%

1**

0,6%

3

1,8%

Live Nation Nederland 73

43,5%

68

40,5%

67

39,9%

2*

1,2%

1

0,6%

2

1,2%

See Tickets Nederland 122

72,6%

38

22,6%

22

13,1%

1

0,6%

0

0,0%

0

0,0%

Eventim Nederland 140

83,3%

19

11,3%

14

8,3% n.a.

1*

0,6%.

1*

0,6%

Ticketpoint 164

97,6%

3

1,8%

1

0,6%

n.a.

0

0,0% n.a.

Onlineticketshop Nederland 147

87,5%

19

11,3%

4

2,4% n.a. n.a.

0

0,0%

TicketStarter 131

78,0%

11

6,6%

32

19,1% n.a. n.a. n.a.

TicketTribune 166

98,8%

1

0,6%

1

0,6% n.a. n.a. n.a.

Rang1Tickets 166

98,8%

2

1,2%

0

0,0% n.a. n.a. n.a.

Budgetticket Nederland 167

99,4%

1

0,6%

0

0,0% n.a. n.a. n.a.


79,8%

9,5%

3,6%

2,4% 2,4%

1,2% 0,6%

0,6%

FIGURE H4: RESPONDENTS' MOTIVES FOR FOLLOWING TICKETING ORGANISATIONS

Fast and easy access to information in which I am interested(access to information)

Things are being posted that I like (entertainment)

I was not aware that I follow these organisations

A different reason

In order to show a certain level of affinity (show affinity)

Interaction with the organisation (social connection)

Interaction with other users (social connection)

So other users can see that I am interested in theseorganisations (social identity)


Appendix I: Chi-square tests of independence

A number of chi-square tests of independency have been performed to find out whether there exist

significant relations between certain variables. This part of the appendix shows how these chi-square

values were calculated and the results per test performed.

The test for independence of X and Y begins by assuming that there is no relationship between the

two variables. This is the null hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is that there is some relation

between the two variables. The null hypothesis is rejected if the chi-square value exceeds the number

of the critical value.

The critical value (cv) is found by using alpha (α) and the number of degrees of freedom (df) when

looking into the chi-square table. In this research, for all tests, the value of alpha is 0,05 because the

confidence level is 95%. The degrees of freedom value for each test is calculated by multiplying the

amount of rows minus 1 by the amount of columns minus 1.

The basis for this chi-square test is a cross table with the observed research data of two variables.

The values in this table are referred to as the observed values (O). To calculate the chi-square, a table

with expected values (E) has to be drawn up. The expected values are calculated by multiplying each

row total by each column total, and dividing this by the total number of subjects.

After drawing up the observed values table and the expected values table, the chi-square value can

be calculated using the following formula:

∑( )

When is larger than the critical value, then the null hypothesis is rejected, meaning that there is

some relation between the two variables. When does not exceed the number of the critical value

than the null hypothesis is accepted, meaning that there is no significant relation between the two

variables. The chi-square test says nothing about the nature of the relationship other than that it

exists.

For the calculations that showed relations between the variables, the row-percentages have been

added to the observed values tables so that an observation of the nature of the relationship could be

made.

N.B. During the calculations, all values were rounded off to two decimals.

N.B. The chi-square test of independence is deemed inappropriate for small sample sizes (when any

expected value is lower than 1 or more than 20% of the expected values is lower than 5). For the

reasons stated in the main texts, the chi-squares have been calculated despite these restrictions. For

each test below it is indicated whether it is appropriate.

(Gingrich, 1992)


CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR AGE* AND CONCERT ATTENDANCE

TABLE I1 (a): OBSERVED VALUES

* Age categories were grouped together with the aim of minimising the number of expected values below 1.

TABLE I1 (b): EXPECTED VALUES

α = 0,05 df = 15 cv = 24,9958 = 23,44

null hypothesis is accepted no significant relation

chi-square test is inappropriate because 3 of the expected values are below 1 and 58% are below 5

CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR INVOLVEMENT IN MUSIC INDUSTRY AND CONCERT ATTENDANCE



α = 0,05 df = 5 cv = 11,0705 = 30,67

null hypothesis is rejected relation

chi-square test is inappropriate because 1 of the expected values is below 1 and 33% are below 5

This chi-square test was repeated with different columns (infrequent, regularly, often). This test was appropriate (no values

below 1 or 5). It delivered similar results: chi-square of 24,62 with a critical value of 5,99147.

Never

Less than 3x

per year

3x or 4x per

year

Once every 2

months

Once a

month

More than once

a month Total

15-24 1 12 50 20 12 10 105

25-34 1 7 11 2 3 11 35

35-44 0 0 5 4 4 3 16

45+ 0 3 5 1 1 2 12

Total 2 22 71 27 20 26 168

Never

Less than 3x

per year

3x or 4x per

year

Once every 2

months

Once a

month

More than once

a month

15-24 1,25 13,75 44,38 16,88 12,50 16,25

25-34 0,42 4,58 14,79 5,62 4,17 5,42

35-44 0,19 2,10 6,76 2,57 1,90 2,48

45+ 0,14 1,57 5,07 1,93 1,43 1,86

Never

Less than 3x

per year

3x or 4x per

year

Once every 2

months Once a month

More than

once a month Total

Involved 0 1 6 7 7 14 35

0,0% 2,9% 17,1% 20,0% 20,0% 40,0% 100%

Not involved 2 21 65 20 13 12 133

1,5% 15,8% 48,9% 15,0% 9,8% 9,0% 100%

Total 2 22 71 27 20 26 168

Never

Less than 3x

per year

3x or 4x per

year

Once every 2

months

Once a

month

More than once

a month

Involved 0,42 4,58 14,79 5,63 4,17 5,42

Not involved 1,58 17,42 56,21 21,38 15,83 20,58


CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WWJK AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TICKET SALES



α = 0,05 df = 4 cv = 9,48773 = 43,08



This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘other’ category. This test was appropriate (only 1 value below 5). It delivered

similar results: chi-square of 41,39 with a critical value of 5,99147.

CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WWJK AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS



α = 0,05 df = 2 cv = 5,99147 = 3,59


chi-square test is appropriate

I know where to

find official sellers

I use a search

engine Other Total

I know the campaign 101 7 4 112

90,2% 6,3% 3,6% 100%

I’ve heard of it 26 9 1 36

72,2% 25,0% 2,8% 100%

I’ve never heard of it 7 13 0 20

35,0% 65,0% 0,0% 100%

Total 134 29 5 168

I know where to

find official sellers

I use a search

engine Other

I know the campaign 89,33 19,33 3,33

I’ve heard of it 28,71 6,21 1,07

I’ve never heard of it 15,95 3,45 0,60

Follows only primary

organisations

(Also) follows secondary

organisations Total

I know the campaign 80 32 112

I’ve heard of it 24 12 36

I’ve never heard of it 10 10 20

Total 114 54 168

Follows only primary

organisations

(Also) follows secondary

organisations

I know the campaign 76,00 36,00

I’ve heard of it 24,43 11,57

I’ve never heard of it 13,57 6,43


CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR AGE* AND AMOUNT OF SOCIAL NETWORK ACCOUNTS*

* Both categories were grouped together with the aim of minimising the number of expected values below 1.

α = 0,05 df = 9 cv = 16,9190 = 17,10



CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR TYPES OF USERS AND AMOUNT OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS BEING

FOLLOWED



α = 0,05 df = 15 cv = 24,9958 = 16,94



This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘undetermined’ category and lowering the amount of columns (more than 4,

instead of more than 5). This test delivered similar results: chi-square value of 8,30 with a critical value of 15,5073.

1-2

SNSs

3-4

SNSs

5-6

SNSs

7-8

SNSs Total

15-24 9 39 53 4 105

8,6% 37,1% 50,5% 3,8% 100%

25-34 2 14 14 5 35

5,7% 40,0% 40,0% 14,3% 100%

35-44 1 10 5 0 16

6,3% 62,5% 31,3% 0,0% 100%

45+ 2 4 3 3 12

16,7% 33,3% 25,0% 25,0% 100%

Total 14 67 75 12 168

1-2

SNSs

3-4

SNSs

5-6

SNSs

7-8

SNSs

15-24 8,75 41,88 46,88 7,50

25-34 3,75 13,96 15,63 2,50

35-44 1,33 6,38 7,14 1,14

45+ 1,00 4,79 5,36 0,90

1 org. 2 org. 3 org. 4 org. 5 org. > 5 org, Total

Consumer 24 47 24 9 2 1 107

Participator 11 8 8 5 1 0 33

Creator 0 1 2 1 0 0 4

Undetermined 9 4 9 2 0 0 24

Total 44 60 43 17 3 1 168

1 org. 2 org. 3 org. 4 org. 5 org. > 5 org,

Consumer 28,02 38,21 27,39 10,83 1,91 0,64

Participator 8,64 11,79 8,45 3,34 0,59 0,20

Creator 1,05 1,43 1,02 0,40 0,07 0,02

Undetermined 6,29 8,58 6,14 2,43 0,43 0,14




CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR TYPES OF USERS AND LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT WITH REGARD TO TICKETING

ORGANISATIONS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES



α = 0,05 df = 6 cv = 12,5916 = 2,96



This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘undetermined’ category. This test delivered similar results: chi-square value of

3,29 with a critical value of 9,48773.

CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND AMOUNT OF

TICKETING ORGANISATIONS BEING FOLLOWED*

* The amount of organisations categories were grouped together with the aim of making the test appropriate

α = 0,05 df = 3 cv = 7,81473 = 6,78



I never look at it

I only read what

appears on my

timeline

I regularly visit the

page to see what

has been posted

Total

Consumer 9 79 19 107

Participator 4 20 9 33

Creator 0 3 1 4

Undetermined 3 17 4 24

Total 44 119 33 168

I never look at it

I only read what

appears on my

timeline


page to see what

has been posted

Consumer 10,19 75,79 21,02

Participator 3,14 23,38 6,48

Creator 0,38 2,83 0,79

Undetermined 2,29 17,00 4,71

1 org. 2 org 3 org.

> 3

org. Total

Involved 12 6 12 5 35

Not involved 32 54 31 16 133

Total 44 60 43 21 168

1 org. 2 org. 3 org.

> 3

org.

Involved 9,17 12,50 8,96 4,38

Not involved 34,83 47,50 34,04 16,63




CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR CONCERT ATTENDANCE AND AMOUNT OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS

BEING FOLLOWED


TABLE I9 (b):

EXPECTED VALUES

α = 0,05 df = 25 cv = 37,6525 = 36,98



This chi-square test was repeated with a lower amount of columns (more than 3, instead of more than 5). This test delivered

similar results: chi-square value of 24,35 with a critical value of 24,9958.

CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND LEVEL OF

ENGAGEMENT

α = 0,05 df = 2 cv = 5,99147 = 16,29



1 org. 2 org. 3 org. 4 org. 5 org. > 5 org, Total

Never 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Less than 3x per year 9 8 4 1 0 0 22

3x or 4x per year 19 29 19 4 0 0 71

Once every two months 6 12 6 1 2 0 27

Once a month 2 5 6 6 1 0 20

More than once a month 8 5 7 5 0 1 26

Total 44 60 43 17 3 1 168

1 org. 2 org. 3 org. 4 org. 5 org. > 5 org,

Never 0,52 0,71 0,51 0,20 0,04 0,01

Less than 3x per year 5,76 7,86 5,63 2,23 0,39 0,13

3x or 4x per year 18,60 25,36 18,17 7,18 1,27 0,42

Once every two months 7,07 9,64 6,91 2,73 0,48 0,16

Once a month 5,24 7,14 5,12 2,02 0,36 0,12

More than once a month 6,81 9,29 6,65 2,63 0,46 0,15

I never

look at it

I only read

what

appears on

my timeline

I regularly visit

the page to

see what has

been posted

Involved 3,33 24,38 7,08

Not involved 12,67 92,63 29,92

I never

look at it

I only read

what

appears on

my timeline

I regularly visit

the page to

see what has

been posted

Total

Involved 9 24 2 35

25,7% 68,6% 5,7% 100%

Not involved 7 93 33 133

5,3% 69,9% 24,8% 100%

Total 16 117 34 168




CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR TYPES OF USERS AND INITIAL MOTIVES FOR FOLLOWING TICKETING

ORGANISATIONS



α = 0,05 df = 21 cv = 32,6705 = 39,15



This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘undetermined’ category and lowering the amount of columns. This test

delivered similar results: chi-square value of 24,92 with a critical value of 21,0261.

CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR GENDER AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS

α = 0,05 df = 1 cv = 3,84146 = 1,94



Social

connection

Show

affinity

Access to

information

Interaction

with users

Interaction with

organisation Entertainment

Not

aware Other Total

Consumer 0 0 90 1 0 11 3 2 107

0,0% 0,0% 84,1% 0,9% 0,0% 10,3% 2,8% 1,9% 100%

Participator 0 2 25 0 1 3 1 1 33

0,0% 6,1% 75,8% 0,0% 3,0% 9,1% 3,0% 3,0% 100%

Creator 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4

0,0% 0,0% 75,0% 0,0% 25,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100%

Undetermined 1 2 16 0 0 2 2 1 24

4,2% 8,3% 66,7% 0,0% 0,0% 8,3% 8,3% 4,2% 100%

Total 1 4 134 1 2 16 6 4 168

Social

connection

Show

affinity

Access to

information

Interaction

with users

Interaction with


Not

aware Other

Consumer 0,64 2,55 85,35 0,64 1,27 10,19 3,82 2,55

Participator 0,20 0,79 26,32 0,20 0,39 3,14 1,18 0,79

Creator 0,02 0,10 3,19 0,02 0,05 0,38 0,14 0,10

Undetermined 0,14 0,57 19,14 0,14 0,29 2,39 0,86 0,57

Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

Male 42,07 19,93

Female 72,61 34,39

Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

Total

Male 38 24 62

Female 76 30 107

Total 114 54 168




CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR AGE* AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS

* Age categories were grouped together with the aim of minimising the number of expected values below 1.

α = 0,05 df = 3 cv = 7,81473 = 4,55



CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND FOLLOWING

SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS

α = 0,05 df = 1 cv = 3,84146 = 0,84



Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

15-24 71,25 33,75

25-34 23,75 11,25

35-44 10,86 5,14

45+ 8,14 3,86

Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

Total

15-24 72 33 105

25-34 22 13 35

35-44 9 7 16

45+ 11 1 12

Total 114 54 168

Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

Involved 23,75 11,25

Not involved 90,25 42,75

Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

Total

Involved 26 9 35

Not involved 88 45 133

Total 114 54 168






CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR CONCERT ATTENDANCE AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS

α = 0,05 df = 5 cv = 11,0705 = 10,06


chi-square test is inappropriate because 1 of the expected values is below 1

CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND INITIAL MOTIVES FOR

FOLLOWING TICKETING ORGANISATIONS



α = 0,05 df = 7 cv = 14,0671 = 10,57



Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

Never 1,36 0,64

Less than 3x per year 14,93 7,07

3x or 4x per year 48,18 22,82

Once every 2 months 18,32 8,68

Once a month 13,57 6,43

More than once a month 17,64 8,36

Follows only

primary

organisations

(Also) follows

secondary

organisations

Total

Never 0 2 2

Less than 3x per year 18 4 22

3x or 4x per year 46 25 71

Once every 2 months 18 9 27

Once a month 11 9 20

More than once a month 21 5 26

Total 114 54 168

Social

connection

Show

affinity

Access to

information

Interaction

with users

Interaction with


Not

aware Other Total

Follows only

primary org. 2 2 94 1 2 11 1 2 114

(Also) follows

secondary org. 0 2 40 0 0 5 5 2 54

Total 1 4 134 1 2 16 6 4 168

Social

connection

Show

affinity

Access to

information

Interaction

with users

Interaction with


Not

aware Other

Follows only

primary org. 0,68 2,71 90,93 0,68 1,36 10,86 4,07 2,71

(Also) follows

secondary org. 0,32 1,29 43,07 0,32 0,64 5,14 1,93 1,29




CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT



α = 0,05 df = 2 cv = 5,599147 = 1,27



CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND AMOUNT OF

ORGANISATIONS BEING FOLLOWED


TABLE I18 (b):

EXPECTED VALUES

α = 0,05 df = 4 cv = 9,48773 = 16,01



I never look at it

I only read

what appears

on my timeline


page to see what

has been posted

Total

Follows only primary org. 10 79 25 114

(Also) follows secondary org. 6 40 8 54

Total 16 119 33 168

I never look at it

I only read

what appears

on my timeline


page to see what

has been posted

Follows only primary org. 10,86 80,75 22,39

(Also) follows secondary org. 5,14 38,25 10,61

1 org. 2 org. 3 org. 4 org. > 4 org. Total

Follows only primary org. 37 45 22 8 2 114

32,5% 39,5% 19,3% 7,0% 1,8% 100%

(Also) follows secondary org. 7 15 21 9 2 54

13,0% 27,8% 38,9% 16,7% 3,7% 100%

Total 44 60 43 17 4 168

1 org. 2 org. 3 org. 4 org. > 4 org.

Follows only primary org. 29,86 40,71 29,18 11,54 2,71

(Also) follows secondary org. 14,14 19,29 13,82 5,46 1,29


CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND HOW OFTEN A POST ON

SOCIAL NETWORK SITES OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS IS REASON TO BUY A CONCERT TICKET



α = 0,05 df = 5 cv = 11,0705 = 11,47



Never

Now and

then Regularly Often Very often

Almost

always Total

Follows only primary org. 15 56 16 13 7 7 114

13,2% 49,1% 14,0% 11,4% 6,1% 6,1% 100%

(Also) follows secondary org. 17 20 6 9 1 1 54

31,5% 37,0% 11,1% 16,7% 1,9% 1,9% 100%

Total 32 76 22 22 8 8 168

Never

Now and

then Regularly Often Very often

Almost

always

Follows only primary org. 21,71 51,57 14,93 14,93 5,43 5,43

(Also) follows secondary org. 10,29 24,43 7,07 7,07 2,57 2,57


Appendix J: Heinonen’s framework with results

N.B. The ranking of each post is shown in parentheses, 1 being the posts with the highest engagement/importance and 13/14

the ones with the lowest engagement/importance.

FIGURE J1:

TYPES OF POSTS BASED ON DESK RESEARCH (ACTUAL ENGAGEMENT)

FIGURE J2:

TYPES OF POSTS BASED ON QUANTATATIVE RESEARCH (DEEMED IMPORTANCE)

Documents

Social Ticketing - VNPFSocial Ticketing 3by Fleur Verduin Foreword For Pé and Lotte Here it is: my graduation thesis. After four years at Inholland Haarlem, I am (finally) at the