Engagement on Twitter, a Closer Look from the Consumer Electronics Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The innovative elaboration of the paper is insufficient. If this paper only provides empirical evidence for engagement in the consumer electronics industry as declared by the authors, then the research motivation is insufficient because  a lot of  literature have  the same conclusion.

2.It is suggested to reorganize the introduction section from the needs or story of industrial practice.

3.It is suggested to explain the differences and similarities between this paper and existing studies in the literature review section.

4.It is suggested that the management significance of this study should be supplemented in the conclusion section.

Author Response

 Review 01

1.The innovative elaboration of the paper is insufficient. If this paper only provides empirical evidence for engagement in the consumer electronics industry as declared by the authors, then the research motivation is insufficient because  a lot of  literature have  the same conclusion.

The reviewer's suggestions have been further elaborated and a more extensive and updated bibliography has been included.

rewriting the introduction and improving discussion and conclusion sections

1. Giakoumaki, C., & Krepapa, A. (2019). Brand engagement in self-concept and consumer engagement in social media: The role of the source. Psychology and Marketing, 37(3), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21312

1. Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.016
2. Pletikosa Cvijikj, I., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-013-0098-8
3. Sabate, F., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Cañabate, A., & Lebherz, P. R. (2014). Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages. European Management Journal, 32(6), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.05.001
4. Cuevas-Molano, E., Matosas-López, L., & Bernal-Bravo, C. (2021). Factors Increasing Consumer Engagement of Branded Content in Instagram. IEEE Access, 9, 143531–143548. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3121186
5. Juntunen, M., Ismagilova, E., & Oikarinen, E. L. (2020). B2B brands on Twitter: Engaging users with a varying combination of social media content objectives, strategies, and tactics. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2019.03.001
6. Matosas-l, L., & Romero-ania, A. (2021). How to Improve Customer Engagement in Social Networks : A Study of Spanish Brands in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 3269–3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070177
7. Vinerean, S., & Opreana, A. (2021). Measuring Customer Engagement in Social Media Marketing: A Higher-Order Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 2633–2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/JTAER16070145

2.It is suggested to reorganize the introduction section from the needs or story of industrial practice.

the introduction is rewritten

Since the industrial revolution in the 17th century, which generated a profound change with the creation of the steam engine, we could now revive that change with the evolution of social networks and how companies relate to their environment from a unidirectional communication from the companies to their clients to a bidirectional [1].

In the 70s, the first email was sent, and it is in the 90s when the web and social networks transform the types of communication reflected in changes in life, ways of running companies, ways of producing and the way of communication. Users are better informed where engagement is an important tool for companies to achieve high levels of engagement, being an objective for organizations because it involves interactions between customers and their brands [2].

Before the 90's without massive use of the Internet, determining engagement rates required a lot of work, either in planning, data collection and in the analysis of results. During the last decade, social networks have been part of society with new tools for companies that want to innovate in marketing and cause a higher participation rate [3], promoting the use of electronic commerce [4].

The use of the Internet also enhances the use of social networks and these the use of brand engagement self-concept brand communities[3], trust [5] focusing on the type of non-transactional behavior [6], brands deepen their presence in brand awareness, engagement, and word of mouth [7].

The literature finds a void since social networks such as Twitter can deliver exhaustive information on companies [8], if optimal marketing planning is carried out.

The latest report from [9] points out that Twitter is a social networking service in which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets" [10]. Twitter is a communication tool that many organizations use today to send tweets to a large number of users and thus gain followers of their brands. The development of a brand in this social network has become a strategic tool.

The objective of this research is to determine the effect of the different interactions on Twitter on the engagement of the consumer electronics sector. The methodology used is a quantitative and descriptive approach through the analysis of 95,000 tweets from the 30 companies of the Consumer Electronics Show 2020, using regressions. The main results show that mentions on Twitter represent a relevant factor in determining engagement. The contribution of this research lies in the generation of empirical evidence to determine engagement as the importance of mentions in the analysis of engagement in the consumer electronics industry.

This work is organized as follows: Section II is the review of the literature that delves into social networks, Twitter and engagement. Section III describes the methodology, sample, data treatment and procedures, and data analysis. Section IV highlights the results obtained from the descriptive analysis and multiple linear regressions. Section V shows the main pros and cons of the results obtained to end the discussion and ends with section VI where it is possible to make visible the conclusions and future lines of research of the manuscript.

3.It is suggested to explain the differences and similarities between this paper and existing studies in the literature review section.

                                               Linea 97 - 107

Social networks have become very popular and have increasingly attracted the interest of marketers [7], because today they represent an additional marketing channel that could be integrated with traditional ones as part of the marketing mix[6]. For this reason, companies need their social networks to be included in their brand and communication strategies [19] since, in addition to giving access to thousands of people [20], social networks accentuate the opportunities for interaction between companies and their customers. consumers. [3]. Thus, it is said that social networks function as an entertainment system [21], but also as an information system, assuming the characteristics of traditional media, but incorporating the interaction factor that it contributes to the business model [14] .

Recent research shows that customer engagement with companies improves customer relationships, brand attitude, and generates higher future purchase intentions and word of mouth [5]; [44]; [45]; [46], [52].

.

4.It is suggested that the management significance of this study should be supplemented in the conclusion section.

For the correct use of the company's resources, it is suggested to academics, decision makers and managers to perform an engagement management since it is a tool that provides great information about their clients, favoring loyalty and trust. [45,46].

Updated bibliography

References

1. Prakash, Mihir, Steven Ramage, Argyro Kavvada, & Seth Goodman. 2020. “Open Earth Observations for Sustainable Urban Development.” Remote Sensing 12(10). doi: 10.3390/rs12101646
2. Egaña, F.; Pezoa-Fuentes,C.; Roco, L. (2021) The Use of Digital Social Networks and Engagement in Chilean Wine Industry. J. Theor. Appl.Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1248–1265.
   https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16050070
3. Giakoumaki, C., & Krepapa, A. (2020). Brand engagement in self‐concept and consumer engagement in social media: The role of the source. Psychology & Marketing, 37(3), 457-465.
4. Knol, A.; Tan, Y.-H. The Cultivation of Information Infrastructures for International Trade: Stakeholder Challenges and Engagement Reasons.  Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.2018, 13, 106-117.
5. Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in human behavior, 37, 152-161
6. Pletikosa Cvijikj, I., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social network analysis and mining, 3(4), 843-861
7. Sabate, F., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Cañabate, A., & Lebherz, P. R. (2014). Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages. European management journal, 32(6), 1001-1011.
8. Matosas-López, L., & Romero-Ania, A. (2021). How to Improve Customer Engagement in Social Networks : A Study of Spanish Brands in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 3269–3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070177
9. Marketing Science Institute. (2020) Research priorities 2020-2022.[Online].Available: https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ MSI$_$RP20-22.pdf
10. Weller K., Bruns A., Burgess J. and Mahrt M., (2013) InTwitter and Society. Pieterlen, Berne, CHE: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.
11. Obar, J. A., & Steven S. W. (2015). “Social Media Definition and the Governance Challenge - An Introduction to the Special Issue.” SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2663153.
12. Ackermann, M., Ludwig, B., & Wilhelm, K. (2009). HelloWorld : An Open Source , Distributed and Secure Social Network. W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking.
13. Ros-Martín, M. (2009). Evolución de los servicios de redes sociales en internet. Profesional de La Informacion, 18(5), 552–558. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2009.sep.10
14. Campos Freire, F. (2008). Las redes sociales trastocan los modelos de los medios de comunicación tradicionales (The impacts of post-media networks on the traditional media). Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 11(63), 277–286. Retrieved from myspace.com
15. Herrera, Harold Hütt. (2012). “Las Redes Sociales: Una Nueva Herramienta De Difusión.” Reflexiones 91(2):121–28. doi: 10.15517/rr.v91i2.1513.
16. Celaya, J. (2000). La empresa en la Web 2.0. Ediciones Gestión 2000.
17. Hossain, M. A., & Kim, M. (2020). A comprehensive study on social commerce in social networking sites. SAGE Open, 10(2), 2158244020936225.)
18. Sanz, L. (2003). Análisis de redes sociales : o cómo representar las estructuras sociales subyacentes. Networks, 10.
19. Marolt, M.; Zimmermann, H.-D.; Žnidaršič, A.; Pucihar, A. Exploring Social Customer Relationship Management Adoption in Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.  Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.2020, 15, 38-58.
20. Pérez Dasilva, J., Genaut Arratibel, A., Meso Ayerdi, K., Mendiguren Galdospin, T., Marauri Castillo, Í., Iturregui Mardaras, L., Rivero Santamarina, D. (2013). Las empresas en Facebook y Twitter. Situación actual y estrategias comunicativas. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (68), 30–20. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2013-996
21. Kujur, F.; Singh, S. Visual Communication and Consumer-Brand Relationship on Social Networking Sites - Uses & Gratifications       Theory Perspective.  Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.2020,15,               30-47.
22. Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169–2188. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21149
23. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2011). The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Business Horizons, 54(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2010.09.004
24. Zhang, M., Jansen, B. J., & Chowdhury, A. (2011). Business engagement on Twitter: A path analysis. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0065-z
25. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.
26. Mei, Yan, Youliang Zhong, & Jian Yang. 2015. “Finding and Analyzing Principal Features for Measuring User Influence on Twitter.” Proceedings - 2015 IEEE 1st International Conference on Big Data Computing Service and Applications, BigDataService 2015 (March 2006):478–86. doi: 10.1109/BigDataService.2015.36.
27. Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?. European psychologist, 11(2), 119-127.
28. Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 759-772.
29. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573.
30. van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599
31. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573.
32. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of service research, 14(3), 252-271.
33. Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective.                   Journal of Product & Brand Management.
34. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of business research, 66(1), 105-114.
35. Ibrahim, N. F., Wang, X., & Bourne, H. (2017). Exploring the effect of user engagement in online brand communities: Evidence from Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 321-338.
36. Leventhal, R. C., Hollebeek, L. D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
37. Dolan, R., Conduit, J., & Fahy, J. (2015). Social media engagement: A construct of positively and negatively valenced engagement behaviors. In Customer Engagement (pp. 120-141). Routledge.
38. Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Freelon, D. (2011). Communicating civic engagement: Contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of communication, 61(5), 835-856.
39. Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. L. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of differentiated practices on social network sites. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 515-536.
40. Nichols, S. L., Friedland, L. A., Rojas, H., Cho, J., & Shah, D. V. (2006). Examining the effects of public journalism on civil society from 1994 to 2002: Organizational factors, project features, story frames, and citizen engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 77-100.
41. Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. R. (2011). Understanding consumer conversations around ads in a Web 2.0 world. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 87-102.
42. Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user‐generated media: a uses and gratification perspective. Internet research.
43. Voorveld, H. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2011). The Relat ion Between Actual and Perceived Interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 77-92.
44. Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of interactive marketing, 28(2), 149-165.
45. Tussyadiah, S. P., Kausar, D. R., & Soesilo, P. K. (2018). The effect of engagement in online social network on susceptibility to influence. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 201-223.
46. de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Sampaio, C. H., & Babin, B. J. (2020). Customer engagement in social media: a framework and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(6), 1211-1228.
47. Herrera-Torres, L., Pérez-Tur, F., García-Fernández, J., & Fernández-Gavira, J. (2017). El uso de las redes sociales y el engagement de los clubes de la Liga Endesa ACB. Cuadernos de Psicologia Del Deporte, 17(3), 175–182.
48. da Silva, I. O., & Gouveia, F. C. (2021). Engajamento informacional nas redes sociais: como calcular?. AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento, 10(1), 94-102.
49. Wayne Read, Nichola Robertson, Lisa McQuilken, Ahmed Shahriar Ferdous, (2019) "Consumer engagement on Twitter: perceptions of the brand matter", European Journal of Marketing, https://doorg/10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0772
50. Juntunen, M., Ismagilova, E., & Oikarinen, E. L. (2020). B2B brands on Twitter: Engaging users with a varying combination of social media content objectives, strategies, and tactics. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 630-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2019.03.001
51. Vinerean, S., & Opreana, A. (2021). Measuring Customer Engagement in Social Media Marketing: A Higher-Order Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 2633–2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/JTAER16070145
52. Itakura, Kelly Y., & Noboru Sonehara. 2013. “Using Twitter’s Mentions for Efficient Emergency Message Propagation.” Proceedings - 2013 International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES 2013 530–37. doi: 10.1109/ARES.2013.70.
53. Cuevas-Molano, E., Matosas-López, L., & Bernal-Bravo, C. (2021). Factors Increasing Consumer Engagement of Branded Content in Instagram. IEEE Access, 9, 143531-143548.
54. Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2012). Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors carry out a fairly exhaustive study on the factors that impact customer engagement on Twitter. The work can be undoubtedly of interest to the journal's readers, and it is well structured.

Despite this fact, in the reviewer's opinion, the manuscript still has margin for improvement. Fundamentally in the theoretical support of the paper. In this sense, the reviewer's recommendations are the following:

a) There is an introductory section called Review of the literature. However, it does not seem to be a systematic review. If so, the authors should indicate databases examined, range of time analyzed, keywords used in searches, etc. In case, it is not a systematic review, it should be clearly stated as well. In any case, in the author's opinion, many of the key studies in this field are missing. Studies such as the following should be referenced:

1. Giakoumaki, C., & Krepapa, A. (2019). Brand engagement in self-concept and consumer engagement in social media: The role of the source. Psychology and Marketing, 37(3), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21312
2. Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.016
3. Pletikosa Cvijikj, I., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-013-0098-8
4. Sabate, F., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Cañabate, A., & Lebherz, P. R. (2014). Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages. European Management Journal, 32(6), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.05.001

b) In the final part of the manuscript, the pertinent sections discussion and conclusions are presented. However, if we consider the large number of existing publications on this issue, the discussion is merely superficial. Here the reviewer's recommendation is to conduct a much broader discussion, comparing the results obtained here with the findings of other recent research on this question. Studies such as the following can be used for this purpose:

1. Cuevas-Molano, E., Matosas-López, L., & Bernal-Bravo, C. (2021). Factors Increasing Consumer Engagement of Branded Content in Instagram. IEEE Access, 9, 143531–143548. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3121186
2. Juntunen, M., Ismagilova, E., & Oikarinen, E. L. (2020). B2B brands on Twitter: Engaging users with a varying combination of social media content objectives, strategies, and tactics. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2019.03.001
3. Matosas-l, L., & Romero-ania, A. (2021). How to Improve Customer Engagement in Social Networks : A Study of Spanish Brands in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 3269–3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070177
4. Vinerean, S., & Opreana, A. (2021). Measuring Customer Engagement in Social Media Marketing: A Higher-Order Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 2633–2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/JTAER16070145

c) Finally, in the opinion of the reviewer, it would be interesting to highlight the specific and differential value of this research with respect to the already multiple published paper on this issue. This is something that should be done in the initial part of the manuscript. For example, in a specific heading of "objectives" before the methodology.

Author Response

The authors carry out a fairly exhaustive study on the factors that impact customer engagement on Twitter. The work can be undoubtedly of interest to the journal's readers, and it is well structured.

Thank you very much for your intellectual generosity, and sharing the latest studies, your contributions were very helpful.

                Updated bibliography

References

1. Prakash, Mihir, Steven Ramage, Argyro Kavvada, & Seth Goodman. 2020. “Open Earth Observations for Sustainable Urban Development.” Remote Sensing 12(10). doi: 10.3390/rs12101646
2. Egaña, F.; Pezoa-Fuentes,C.; Roco, L. (2021) The Use of Digital Social Networks and Engagement in Chilean Wine Industry. J. Theor. Appl.Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1248–1265.
   https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16050070
3. Giakoumaki, C., & Krepapa, A. (2020). Brand engagement in self‐concept and consumer engagement in social media: The role of the source. Psychology & Marketing, 37(3), 457-465.
4. Knol, A.; Tan, Y.-H. The Cultivation of Information Infrastructures for International Trade: Stakeholder Challenges and Engagement Reasons.  Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.2018, 13, 106-117.
5. Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in human behavior, 37, 152-161
6. Pletikosa Cvijikj, I., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social network analysis and mining, 3(4), 843-861
7. Sabate, F., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Cañabate, A., & Lebherz, P. R. (2014). Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages. European management journal, 32(6), 1001-1011.
8. Matosas-López, L., & Romero-Ania, A. (2021). How to Improve Customer Engagement in Social Networks : A Study of Spanish Brands in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 3269–3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070177
9. Marketing Science Institute. (2020) Research priorities 2020-2022.[Online].Available: https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ MSI$_$RP20-22.pdf
10. Weller K., Bruns A., Burgess J. and Mahrt M., (2013) InTwitter and Society. Pieterlen, Berne, CHE: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.
11. Obar, J. A., & Steven S. W. (2015). “Social Media Definition and the Governance Challenge - An Introduction to the Special Issue.” SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2663153.
12. Ackermann, M., Ludwig, B., & Wilhelm, K. (2009). HelloWorld : An Open Source , Distributed and Secure Social Network. W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking.
13. Ros-Martín, M. (2009). Evolución de los servicios de redes sociales en internet. Profesional de La Informacion, 18(5), 552–558. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2009.sep.10
14. Campos Freire, F. (2008). Las redes sociales trastocan los modelos de los medios de comunicación tradicionales (The impacts of post-media networks on the traditional media). Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 11(63), 277–286. Retrieved from myspace.com
15. Herrera, Harold Hütt. (2012). “Las Redes Sociales: Una Nueva Herramienta De Difusión.” Reflexiones91(2):121–28. doi: 10.15517/rr.v91i2.1513.
16. Celaya, J. (2000). La empresa en la Web 2.0. Ediciones Gestión 2000.
17. Hossain, M. A., & Kim, M. (2020). A comprehensive study on social commerce in social networking sites. SAGE Open, 10(2), 2158244020936225.)
18. Sanz, L. (2003). Análisis de redes sociales : o cómo representar las estructuras sociales subyacentes. Networks, 10.
19. Marolt, M.; Zimmermann, H.-D.; Žnidaršič, A.; Pucihar, A. Exploring Social Customer Relationship Management Adoption in Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.  Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.2020, 15, 38-58.
20. Pérez Dasilva, J., Genaut Arratibel, A., Meso Ayerdi, K., Mendiguren Galdospin, T., Marauri Castillo, Í., Iturregui Mardaras, L., Rivero Santamarina, D. (2013). Las empresas en Facebook y Twitter. Situación actual y estrategias comunicativas. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (68), 30–20. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2013-996
21. Kujur, F.; Singh, S. Visual Communication and Consumer-Brand Relationship on Social Networking Sites - Uses & GratificationsTheory Perspective.  Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.2020,15,               30-47.
22. Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169–2188. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21149
23. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2011). The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Business Horizons, 54(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2010.09.004
24. Zhang, M., Jansen, B. J., & Chowdhury, A. (2011). Business engagement on Twitter: A path analysis. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0065-z
25. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.
26. Mei, Yan, Youliang Zhong, & Jian Yang. 2015. “Finding and Analyzing Principal Features for Measuring User Influence on Twitter.” Proceedings - 2015 IEEE 1st International Conference on Big Data Computing Service and Applications, BigDataService 2015 (March 2006):478–86. doi: 10.1109/BigDataService.2015.36.
27. Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?. European psychologist, 11(2), 119-127.
28. Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 759-772.
29. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573.
30. van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599
31. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573.
32. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of service research, 14(3), 252-271.
33. Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective.     Journal of Product & Brand Management.
34. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of business research, 66(1), 105-114.
35. Ibrahim, N. F., Wang, X., & Bourne, H. (2017). Exploring the effect of user engagement in online brand communities: Evidence from Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 321-338.
36. Leventhal, R. C., Hollebeek, L. D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
37. Dolan, R., Conduit, J., & Fahy, J. (2015). Social media engagement: A construct of positively and negatively valenced engagement behaviors. In Customer Engagement (pp. 120-141). Routledge.
38. Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Freelon, D. (2011). Communicating civic engagement: Contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of communication, 61(5), 835-856.
39. Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. L. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of differentiated practices on social network sites. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 515-536.
40. Nichols, S. L., Friedland, L. A., Rojas, H., Cho, J., & Shah, D. V. (2006). Examining the effects of public journalism on civil society from 1994 to 2002: Organizational factors, project features, story frames, and citizen engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 77-100.
41. Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. R. (2011). Understanding consumer conversations around ads in a Web 2.0 world. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 87-102.
42. Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user‐generated media: a uses and gratification perspective. Internet research.
43. Voorveld, H. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2011). The Relat ion Between Actual and Perceived Interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 77-92.
44. Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of interactive marketing, 28(2), 149-165.
45. Tussyadiah, S. P., Kausar, D. R., & Soesilo, P. K. (2018). The effect of engagement in online social network on susceptibility to influence. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 201-223.
46. de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Sampaio, C. H., & Babin, B. J. (2020). Customer engagement in social media: a framework and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(6), 1211-1228.
47. Herrera-Torres, L., Pérez-Tur, F., García-Fernández, J., & Fernández-Gavira, J. (2017). El uso de las redes sociales y el engagement de los clubes de la Liga Endesa ACB. Cuadernos de Psicologia Del Deporte, 17(3), 175–182.
48. da Silva, I. O., & Gouveia, F. C. (2021). Engajamento informacional nas redes sociais: como calcular?. AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento, 10(1), 94-102.
49. Wayne Read, Nichola Robertson, Lisa McQuilken, Ahmed Shahriar Ferdous, (2019) "Consumer engagement on Twitter: perceptions of the brand matter", European Journal of Marketing, https://doorg/10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0772
50. Juntunen, M., Ismagilova, E., & Oikarinen, E. L. (2020). B2B brands on Twitter: Engaging users with a varying combination of social media content objectives, strategies, and tactics. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 630-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2019.03.001
51. Vinerean, S., & Opreana, A. (2021). Measuring Customer Engagement in Social Media Marketing: A Higher-Order Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 2633–2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/JTAER16070145
52. Itakura, Kelly Y., & Noboru Sonehara. 2013. “Using Twitter’s Mentions for Efficient Emergency Message Propagation.” Proceedings - 2013 International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES 2013 530–37. doi: 10.1109/ARES.2013.70.
53. Cuevas-Molano, E., Matosas-López, L., & Bernal-Bravo, C. (2021). Factors Increasing Consumer Engagement of Branded Content in Instagram. IEEE Access, 9, 143531-143548.
54. Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2012). Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x

Despite this fact, in the reviewer's opinion, the manuscript still has margin for improvement. Fundamentally in the theoretical support of the paper. In this sense, the reviewer's recommendations are the following:

1. There is an introductory section called Review of the literature. However, it does not seem to be a systematic review. If so, the authors should indicate databases examined, range of time analyzed, keywords used in searches, etc. In case, it is not a systematic review, it should be clearly stated as well. In any case, in the author's opinion, many of the key studies in this fieldare missing.

Thanks for the comments and help with the papers, it is not a biblometric review, we changed the name of literature review to Theoretical Background, we included all the recommended papers and others pertinent to the topic.

The Keywords were: Twitter, social networks, engagement, consumer electronics industry and business practices. The databases analyzed were WOS and Scopus. 

Studies such as the following should be referenced:

1. Giakoumaki, C., & Krepapa, A. (2019). Brand engagement in self-concept and consumer engagement in social media: The role of the source. Psychology and Marketing, 37(3), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21312
2. Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.016
3. Pletikosa Cvijikj, I., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-013-0098-8
4. Sabate, F., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Cañabate, A., & Lebherz, P. R. (2014). Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages. European Management Journal, 32(6), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.05.001

and add

165. Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of interactive marketing, 28(2), 149-165.
166. Tussyadiah, S. P., Kausar, D. R., & Soesilo, P. K. (2018). The effect of engagement in online social network on susceptibility to influence. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 201-223.

• de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Sampaio, C. H., & Babin, B. J. (2020). Customer engagement in social media: a framework and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(6), 1211-1228.

1. In the final part of the manuscript, the pertinent sections discussion and conclusions are presented. However, if we consider the large number of existing publications on this issue, the discussion is merely superficial. Here the reviewer's recommendation is to conduct a much broader discussion, comparing the results obtained here with the findings of other recent research on this question. Studies such as the following can be used for this purpose:

The Discussion and Conclusions sections were improved.

There are other studies that also relate engagement with co-promoting the brand on Twitter, i.e. the official account of the brand and the users that interact [49]. The work of [53] review the impact of multiple factors (31) on a smaller number of publications for the consumers’ engagement on companies of ten sectors. [50], based on the Hierarchy of Effects (HoE) theory, explore how relevant B2B companies use content goals (why), strategies (how), and tactics (what) on Twitter for the users’ engagement. Similarly, [8] apply Twitter to identify relevant factors such as extension, components, time slots and themes of the publications for improving the customer engagement with Spanish automotive brands, specifically. Hence, two key actions within the application are needed to generate a retweet of the publication and a mention of the official account, thus giving greater strength to the research already proposed. Even though, we can clearly appreciate a relation between Twitter and the consumers engagement, the work of [51] use Facebook for measuring customer engagement considering a variety of components such as involvement, commitment, customer participation and loyalty.

There is a great change in the way marketing is done and how firms communicate with their customers, the research responds to the goal of determining the effect of different Twitter interactions on the engagement of the consumer electronics industry. With this, the interaction with the greatest influence, in the measurement by using Engagement regressions, is “Mentions per tweet.” The above is verified by two different models and an engagement formula, that its value is used as a dependent variable.

This research shows that Twitter is an important tool for companies in the consumer electronics industry, as they use Twitter as a marketing medium. In the social network, companies in the industry publish their new products through verified accounts, also being used as an instant and easy customer service platform.

1. Cuevas-Molano, E., Matosas-López, L., & Bernal-Bravo, C. (2021). Factors Increasing Consumer Engagement of Branded Content in Instagram. IEEE Access, 9, 143531–143548. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3121186
2. Juntunen, M., Ismagilova, E., & Oikarinen, E. L. (2020). B2B brands on Twitter: Engaging users with a varying combination of social media content objectives, strategies, and tactics. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2019.03.001
3. Matosas-l, L., & Romero-ania, A. (2021). How to Improve Customer Engagement in Social Networks : A Study of Spanish Brands in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 3269–3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070177
4. Vinerean, S., & Opreana, A. (2021). Measuring Customer Engagement in Social Media Marketing: A Higher-Order Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 2633–2654. https://doi.org/10.3390/JTAER16070145

Finally, in the opinion of the reviewer, it would be interesting to highlight the specific and differential value of this research with respect to the already multiple published paper on this issue. This is something that should be done in the initial part of the manuscript. For example, in a specific heading of "objectives" before the methodology.

The objective was explicitly included in the introduction

The objective of this research is to determine the effect of the different     interactions on Twitter on the engagement of the consumer electronics sector. The methodology used is a quantitative and descriptive approach through the analysis of 95,000 tweets from the 30 companies of the Consumer Electronics Show 2020, using regressions.

the introduction is rewritten

Since the industrial revolution in the 17th century, which generated a profound change with the creation of the steam engine, we could now revive that change with the evolution of social networks and how companies relate to their environment from a unidirectional communication from the companies to their clients to a bidirectional [1].

In the 70s, the first email was sent, and it is in the 90s when the web and social networks transform the types of communication reflected in changes in life, ways of running companies, ways of producing and the way of communication. Users are better informed where engagement is an important tool for companies to achieve high levels of engagement, being an objective for organizations because it involves interactions between customers and their brands [2].

Before the 90's without massive use of the Internet, determining engagement rates required a lot of work, either in planning, data collection and in the analysis of results. During the last decade, social networks have been part of society with new tools for companies that want to innovate in marketing and cause a higher participation rate [3], promoting the use of electronic commerce [4].

The use of the Internet also enhances the use of social networks and these the use of brand engagement self-concept brand communities[3], trust [5] focusing on the type of non-transactional behavior [6], brands deepen their presence in brand awareness, engagement, and word of mouth [7].

The literature finds a void since social networks such as Twitter can deliver exhaustive information on companies [8], if optimal marketing planning is carried out.

The latest report from [9] points out that Twitter is a social networking service in which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets" [10]. Twitter is a communication tool that many organizations use today to send tweets to a large number of users and thus gain followers of their brands. The development of a brand in this social network has become a strategic tool.

The objective of this research is to determine the effect of the different interactions on Twitter on the engagement of the consumer electronics sector. The methodology used is a quantitative and descriptive approach through the analysis of 95,000 tweets from the 30 companies of the Consumer Electronics Show 2020, using regressions. The main results show that mentions on Twitter represent a relevant factor in determining engagement. The contribution of this research lies in the generation of empirical evidence to determine engagement as the importance of mentions in the analysis of engagement in the consumer electronics industry.

This work is organized as follows: Section II is the review of the literature that delves into social networks, Twitter and engagement. Section III describes the methodology, sample, data treatment and procedures, and data analysis. Section IV highlights the results obtained from the descriptive analysis and multiple linear regressions. Section V shows the main pros and cons of the results obtained to end the discussion and ends with section VI where it is possible to make visible the conclusions and future lines of research of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting piece of research that focuses on a relevant topic.

The consumer electronic industry is a challenging sector where the competition is based on similar products and the competition heavily depends on the Customers' experience and engagement.

The overview of the literature is fair, however, a few references are missing (please consider the below articles to integrate the research background)

• Kim, E., Sung, Y., & Kang, H. (2014). Brand followers’ retweeting behavior on Twitter: How brand relationships influence brand electronic word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 18-25.
• Li, T., Berens, G., & de Maertelaere, M. (2013). Corporate Twitter channels: The impact of engagement and informedness on corporate reputation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(2), 97-126.
• Devereux, E., Grimmer, L., & Grimmer, M. (2020). Consumer engagement on social media: Evidence from small retailers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19(2), 151-159.

The claim "elevating the analysis of a qualitative study to the quantitative plane achieving" is ambitious, but the authors themselves already mentioned some pieces of research that already quantitatively paved the way for quantitative analyses in measuring customers' engagement through Twitter, although in different fields (other than consumer electronics).

More specific suggestions to the decision-makers can be provided in the conclusions.

Missing identification of the research limitations.

Author Response

All reviewer comments included

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The presented article attempts to evaluate the practical effects of digital marketing and social media marketing activities in the context of two-way communication between brands and recipients. This type of research is rarely presented due to the quite natural willingness of the authors to base their conclusions on case studies. In this case, the study is interesting, thoroughly conducted, and the results are presented in an interesting way. I believe that the article has a high cognitive and scientific value. At the same time, I would like to suggest a few remarks that may contribute to improving the quality of the publication.
- I would enrich the abstract with a more precise presentation of the aim of the research and the aim of the article in order to better explain the essence and value of the presented content;
- the methodological part requires supplementing - in terms of the description of the methodology used. How exactly (with the use of what tools and techniques, taking into account qualitative content analysis) was such a large scope of material studied?
- in the summary, I would point out more precisely the possibilities of continuing the research and suggest showing the comparative potential in relation to other industries and entities.

Author Response

All reviewer comments were included 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

At the outset i would congratulate the authors for writing this paper. Having read the paper several time, I have some concerns.

1. Figure 1 is not clear. A high-resolution figure need to be provided.
2. The authors have mentioned equations (from the regression tables 4 and 5). It is not necessary to mention the equations. Out of all the variables only one variable was significant. Same thing with both the regression tables.
3. In the script, authors need to mention the names of the scholars whose research is cited. For example, according to (25)... .. is not acceptable. All the references were mentioned at the end, but it does not mean the authors totally skip the names. 
4. The manuscript submitted is full of changes made (editing). The authors should have submitted the script eliminating tracking. 

I hope my suggestions would improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Author Response

All reviewer comments were included 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No more comments

It is recommended to accept the paper

Author Response

The use of the Internet also enhances the use of social networks and the use of brand engagement self-concept brand communities [3], trust [5] focusing on the type of non-transactional behavior [6], brands deepen their presence in brand awareness, engagement, and word of mouth [7].

The latest report from [8] points out that Twitter is a social networking service in which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets" [9]. Twitter is a communication tool that many organizations use today to send tweets to many users and thus gain followers of their brands. The development of a brand in this social network has become a strategic tool.

Due to the constant change in social media trends. There are different methods to measure engagement [6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] and Facebook [7]. The literature finds a void since social networks such as Twitter can deliver exhaustive information on companies [8, 16], if optimal marketing planning is carried out. Facebook [7]., give a partial view of the effectiveness of the analysis [17].

The differential contribution of this manuscript is related to the generation of knowledge in the area of management from the management of engagement with the application of variables tested and studied qualitatively in the research of the authors [9]. who[18] define the key variables for measuring engagement, but the authors do not test these variables quantitatively, which is a great opportunity to study the effectiveness of the analysis. 

These variables have not been tested or studied quantitatively, revealing an important gap in the literature related to the measurement of the key variables of engagement. 

This research contributes in three dimensions i) the first one linked to the theoretical contribution to extend the study of [18] elevating the analysis of a qualitative study to the quantitative plane achieving ii) Generate empirical evidence of the key variables in the measurement of engagement on Twitter, creating an innovative way with scientific basis to determine the measurement of engagement. This research contributes to the correct effective decision making of managers and large companies [9], better engaging the customer with their brand. iii) And the third dimension lies in the case study allows to better understand the key variables in Twitter to measure the engagement, specifically in the consumer electronics industry, this research brings together 30 major companies in the consumer electronics industry presented at the Consumer Electronic Show 2020. More than 95,000 tweets were statistically analyzed using linear regressions. Since the consumer electronics industry publishes its new products on Twitter and through the different interactions seen in this study, it is possible to determine the engagement and measure the impact of these products among their followers, determining which interaction is more important to highlight compared to the others. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The work carried out by the authors during the first round, in reviewer´s opinion, has substantially improve the strength of the manuscript.

One of the main issues pointed out during the first review was the theoretical support of the paper. In this sense, the authors have satisfactorily amended this question both in the introduction and in the final part of the manuscript. Here, references of great relevance in this field have been incorporated, as well as others, perhaps less relevant but valuable for having been published in recent years.

On the contrary, the issue regarding the differential value of the work in comparison with similar publications has not been addressed. The research objective is mentioned, and it is clear from the manuscript´s first version. Here, there is no problem. However, indicating the objective of the work is different from pointing out its differential value with respect to the rest of the papers on the same topic. This, in reviewer´s opinion, is critical when deciding if a paper should be published or not. That differential value determines the research real contribution to the academic community.

Author Response

The use of the Internet also enhances the use of social networks and the use of brand engagement self-concept brand communities [3], trust [5] focusing on the type of non-transactional behavior [6], brands deepen their presence in brand awareness, engagement, and word of mouth [7].

The latest report from [8] points out that Twitter is a social networking service in which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets" [9]. Twitter is a communication tool that many organizations use today to send tweets to many users and thus gain followers of their brands. The development of a brand in this social network has become a strategic tool.

Due to the constant change in social media trends. There are different methods to measure engagement [6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] and Facebook [7]. The literature finds a void since social networks such as Twitter can deliver exhaustive information on companies [8, 16], if optimal marketing planning is carried out. Facebook [7]., give a partial view of the effectiveness of the analysis [17].

The differential contribution of this manuscript is related to the generation of knowledge in the area of management from the management of engagement with the application of variables tested and studied qualitatively in the research of the authors [9]. who[18] define the key variables for measuring engagement, but the authors do not test these variables quantitatively, which is a great opportunity to study the effectiveness of the analysis. 

These variables have not been tested or studied quantitatively, revealing an important gap in the literature related to the measurement of the key variables of engagement. 

This research contributes in three dimensions i) the first one linked to the theoretical contribution to extend the study of [18] elevating the analysis of a qualitative study to the quantitative plane achieving ii) Generate empirical evidence of the key variables in the measurement of engagement on Twitter, creating an innovative way with scientific basis to determine the measurement of engagement. This research contributes to the correct effective decision making of managers and large companies [9], better engaging the customer with their brand. iii) And the third dimension lies in the case study allows to better understand the key variables in Twitter to measure the engagement, specifically in the consumer electronics industry, this research brings together 30 major companies in the consumer electronics industry presented at the Consumer Electronic Show 2020. More than 95,000 tweets were statistically analyzed using linear regressions. Since the consumer electronics industry publishes its new products on Twitter and through the different interactions seen in this study, it is possible to determine the engagement and measure the impact of these products among their followers, determining which interaction is more important to highlight compared to the others. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for addressing my remarks.

The paper is now publishable.

Congratulations to the author(s)

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors took into account the reviewer's recommendations. I request the publication of the article in the presented form.

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have incorporated the suggestions from the reviewers.