Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this research, the authors propose a contagion effect of social media use across business suppliers, retailers, and consumers. After developing and validating social media usage measures at three levels—supplier, retailer, and customer—the authors test social media contagion effects and their ultimate impact on multiple performance measures. The conceptual framework and empirical results offer new insights into the contagion effects of social media usage across the channel of distribution as well as important social influence mechanisms that enhance these effects. Consistent with the predictions, social media use positively contributes to brand performance, retailer performance, and consumer–retailer loyalty. Also, the effect of supplier social media usage on retailer social media usage and in turn on customer social media usage is moderated by brand reputation and service ambidexterity. With the ever-increasing growth and adoption of social media applications and similar technologies, this research provides a framework to promote usage by supply channel partners which ultimately influences performance-related outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., Lodish, L., & Weitz, B. (1987). Resource allocation behavior in conventional channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(1), 254–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angst, C. M., Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Kelley, K. (2010). Social contagion and information technology diffusion: the adoption of electronic medical records in U.S. hospitals. Management Science, 56(8), 1219–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: a randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science, 57(9), 1623–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2008). Positive consumer contagion: responses to attractive others in a retail context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 690–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(October), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: the perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 400–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, A. J. and McDonald, M. P. (2012). Most organization still fear social media. Harvard Business Review Blog Network, http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/most_organizations_still_fear.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29..

  • Brin, D. W. (2011). “Retailers use social media to fine-tune operations,” CNBC.com, October 28, 2011.

  • Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. (1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: the effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 104–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. The American Journal of Sociology, 9(4), 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campalyst (2011). Top 250 Internet Retailers on Social Media, https://www.campalyst.com/top-250-internet-retailers-on-social-media.

  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, J. E., & Sherrell, D. L. (2010). Examining the influence of control and convenience in a self-service setting. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 490–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, N. S., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. In J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 143–172). Newberry Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crittenden, V. L., Peterson, R. A., & Albaum, G. (2010). Technology and business-to-consumer selling: contemplating research and practice. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 30(2), 103–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1999). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, R. Y., & Kamakura, W. A. (2011). Measuring contagion in the diffusion of consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, B. H. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In S. Berkowitz & B. Wellman (Eds.), Social structures: a network approach (pp. 99–121). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evanschitzky, H., Ramaseshan, B., Woisetschlager, D. M., Richelsen, V., Blut, M., & Backhaus, C. (2012). Consequences of customer loyalty to the loyalty program and to the company. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 625–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(October), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1995). Toward the development of relationship theory at the level of the product and the brand. Advances in Consumer Research, 22(1), 661–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Burt, R. S. (1991). Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 88–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, A., Seiders, K., & Voss, G. B. (2011). Enough Is enough! The fine line in executing multichannel relational communication. Journal of Marketing, 75(July), 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus business in marketing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 71(October), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, P. (2010). The impact of CRM 2.0 on customer insight. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 25(6), 410–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., & Dharwadkar, R. (2002). The role of the institutional environment in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 82–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? The American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden-Bache, A. (2011). Study: 93% of B2B marketers use social media marketing. BtoB Magazine, April 18.

  • Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Kuehnl, C. (2010). Social influence on salespeople’s adoption of sales technology: a multilevel analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, D. E., & Ahearne, M. (2010). Energizing the reseller’s sales force: the power of brand identification. Journal of Marketing, 74(July), 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insites Consulting (2011). “Social integration survey,” unpublished data set, Ghent, Belgium.

  • Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasmand, C., Blazevic, V., & de Ruyter, K. (2012). Generating sales while providing service: a study of customer service representatives’ ambidextrous behavior. Journal of Marketing, 76(January), 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A., & Sarah, J. S. (2010). Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(March), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulviwat, S., Bruner, G. C., II, & Al-Shuridah, O. (2008). The role of social influence on adoption of high tech innovations: the moderating effect of public/private consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62, 706–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The diffusion of market orientation throughout the organization: a social learning theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B. (2000). Pressures to uniformity and the evolution of cultural norms: modeling dynamic social impact. In D. Ilgen & C. Hulin (Eds.), Computational modeling of behavior in organization: the third scientific discipline (pp. 189–220). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Wind, Y. (2000). New-product diffusion models. Springer.

  • McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, R. G., Bloodgood, J. M., & Payan, J. M. (2008). Supply chain contagion. Journal of Marketing, 72(March), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, V., Huppertz, J., & Khare, A. (2008). Customer complaining: the role of tie strength and information control. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J. J., Fisher, R. J., & Nevin, J. R. (1996). Collaborative communication in interfirm relationships: moderating effects of integration and control. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muniz, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen AC (2010). What Americans do online: social media and games dominate activity. Nielsen Mobile Media View Internet. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., III, & Tushman, M. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Customer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a field survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(April), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W. (2007). What drives customer relationship value in business-to-business exchanges? Marketing Science Institute Report, (07–118), Issue 4.

  • Palmatier, R., Dant, R., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. (2006). A meta-analysis on the antecedents and consequences of relationship marketing mediators: insight intokey moderators. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2007a). Customer loyalty to whom? Managing the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R., & Grewal, D. (2007b). A longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(October), 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(November), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polansky, N., Lippitt, R., & Redl, F. (1950). An investigation of behavioral contagion in groups. Human Relations., 3, 310–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, T. (2010). Managing sales teams in a virtual environment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichheld, F. F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1987). Advertising and promotion management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2), 153–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrauger, J. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions. Psychological Bulletin Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 581–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Czellar, S. (2009). The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trainor, K. (2012). Relating social media technologies to performance: a capabilities-based perspective. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 32(3), 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bulte, C., & Wuyts, S. (2007). Social networks and marketing. Cambridge: MSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanBoskirk, S., Overby, C. S., McGann, J., & McGann, J. (2009). US interactive marketing forecast: 2009 to 2014. Cambridge: Forrester Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veloutsou, C., & Moutinho, L. (2009). Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 314–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakefield, K. (2007). Can a retail web site be social? Journal of Marketing, 71(July), 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, W. L. (1986). Consumer behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1989). Strategic process effects on consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yim, C. K., Tse, D. K., & Chan, K. W. (2008). Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and passion: roles of customer-firm affection and customer-staff relationships in services. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 741–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisitions, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 587–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, T., Patterson, P., & de Ruyter, K. (2010). Acting ambidextrously in retail banking to achieve service and sales goals simultaneously: A multilevel perspective. ANZMAC 2010, Christchurch, New Zealand, November.

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(April), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing and Management, University of Alabama, 133 Alston Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487, USA

    Adam Rapp

  2. Department of Marketing, Portland State University, 631 SW. Harrison St., Portland, OR, 97207, USA

    Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher

  3. Department of Marketing, Babson University, 213 Malloy Hall, Babson Park, MA, 02457, USA

    Dhruv Grewal

  4. Department of Marketing, Michigan State University, 302 N. Business Complex, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Douglas E. Hughes

Authors
  1. Adam Rapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dhruv Grewal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Douglas E. Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Rapp.

Appendix

Appendix

Service ambidexterity (Yu et al. 2010)

In our branch, we talk to accounts to gain new ideas on how to merchandise products.

In our branch, we increase the level of service quality delivered to customers.

In our branch, we constantly survey existing customers’ satisfaction.

In our branch, we take pleasure in explaining what new product lines are available.

Customer contact -percentage measure

What percentage of your work time do you spend in direct contact with your accounts?

Supplier brand reputation (Veloutsou and Moutinho 2009)

This brand is trustworthy.

This brand is reputable.

This brand makes honest claims.

This brand has a long lasting nature.

In the past, today, and in the future, the values behind this brand will not change.

Consumer-retailer loyalty (Palmatier et al. 2007)

For my next purchase, I will consider this retailer firm as my first choice.

I will do more business with this retailer in the next few years than I do right now.

All else being equal, I plan to buy from this retailer in the future.

I say positive things about this retailer to my coworkers.

I would recommend this retailer to someone seeking my advice.

I encourage friends and coworkers to do business with this retailer.

Social media - customer

My relationship with the brand is enhanced by social media.

I use social media to monitor other runners in the community.

I use social media to follow sales and promotions.

I use social media to monitor events.

People use social media to reach me.

I use social media to improve my relationship with different brands.

I use social media to keep current on events and trends in the sport.

I use social media to communicate with retailers.

I use social media to improve my relationship with retailers.

My relationship with my retail store is enhanced by social media.

Retailer reputation (Veloutsou and Moutinho 2009)

This store is trustworthy.

This store is reputable.

This store makes honest claims.

This store has a long lasting nature

In the past, today, and in the future, the values behind this store will not change.

Social media - retailer

My relationship with my sales reps is enhanced by social media.

My relationship with my supplier firms is enhanced with social media.

I use social media to compare my relationship with my sales reps to other relationships they have with customers.

I use social media to monitor event performance and visibility.

I use Twitter to communicate with current customers.

I use social media to monitor competitors.

I use Twitter to target new customers.

I use Facebook to target new customers.

I use Facebook to communicate with current customers.

I use social media to keep current on events and trends in my industry.

I engage in social media co-op promotions with suppliers.

Our customers use social media to see our current specials and promotions.

I work with suppliers who support social media promotions.

Social media - supplier

My relationship with my accounts is enhanced by social media.

I enhance my customer relationships through social media.

I provide my customers information regarding specials and new products using social media.

I use social media to provide my customers information on events and trends in the sport.

I use social media to monitor event performance and visibility.

I am friends with many of my accounts on my personal social media accounts.

I use social media to monitor competitors.

I engage in social media co-op promotions with suppliers.

I work with buyers who support social media promotions.

Our customers use social media to see our current specials and promotions.

I compare my relationship with my accounts to other relationships they have with other accounts online.

I use social media to keep current on events and trends in the sport.

I am very conscientious about what is posted on my social media accounts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L.S., Grewal, D. et al. Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 41, 547–566 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0326-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0326-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation