Using Machine Learning to Compare the Information Needs and Interactions of Facebook: Taking Six Retail Brands as an Example
Abstract
:1. Research Background
2. Literature Review
2.1. Facebook Data Mining
2.2. Brand Image and Information Cues
3. Research Hypotheses
3.1. Image Cues
3.2. Marketing Cues
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Information Sources and Data Collection
4.2. Data Analysis and Key Clue Extraction
5. Data Analyses and Results
5.1. Reliability and Validity
5.2. Hypotheses Verification
5.3. Data Verification
6. Results, Hypothesis Verification, and Discussion
6.1. Results
6.2. Hypothesis Verification
6.3. Discussion
6.4. Conluclusions and Limitations
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Measurement and Items
Brand Cues | Likes | Brand Cues | Comments | Brand Cues | Shares |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
recipe | 102.09 | http | 53.74 | recipe | 122.38 |
http | 39.47 | Costco | 26.97 | http | 30.04 |
Costco | 31.18 | member | 23.44 | Costco | 33.43 |
love | 22.72 | love | 26.54 | warehouse | 19.8 |
day | 17.36 | day | 16.48 | love | 26.46 |
available | 9.99 | feature | 8.85 | available | 16.13 |
new | 20.21 | recipe | 20.09 | day | 18.24 |
warehouse | 6.72 | favorite | 28.85 | now | 17.83 |
item | 14.22 | Kirkland | 27.46 | book | 16.98 |
Kirkland | 25.11 | item | 16.14 | receive | 21.91 |
book | 13.34 | comment | 13.88 | item | 17.17 |
member | 17.59 | pick | 4.37 | year | 17.34 |
month | −3.42 | available | 10.74 | new | 16.84 |
Signature | 21.5 | warehouse | 13.01 | last | 13 |
FridayFind | 12.93 | month | −5.62 | offer | 15.88 |
feature | 0.67 | chance | 3.04 | Kirkland | 17.02 |
CostcoConnection | 20.88 | today | 10.39 | 12.21 | |
year | 13 | book | 11.16 | today | 12.82 |
last | 14.14 | select | 8.04 | package | 13.52 |
pick | 6.01 | new | 17.77 | pick | 16.95 |
today | 8.23 | year | 18.94 | save | 10.19 |
local | 3.35 | 11.98 | local | 5.31 | |
value | 13.84 | tip | 16.12 | select | 11.28 |
select | 8.73 | value | 19.63 | Signature | 14.84 |
package | 12.3 | Signature | 21.28 | favorite | 12.59 |
card | 6.21 | time | 14.59 | time | 12.27 |
time | 15.76 | now | 15.53 | Available | 9.87 |
save | 8.07 | last | 14.19 | Sunday | 8.69 |
now | 9.37 | live | 11.59 | live | 12.74 |
9.42 | local | 7.09 | help | 15.16 | |
offer | 13.95 | receive | 12.76 | CostcoConnection | 13.82 |
chance | −1.42 | holiday | 9.53 | member | 18.71 |
find | 16.41 | package | 8.69 | holiday | 8.27 |
receive | 12.35 | find | 15.66 | feature | 9.17 |
live | 10.77 | photo | 7.98 | tip | 11.63 |
vacation | 9.44 | card | 8.41 | comment | 5.92 |
gift | 8.1 | cover | 6.7 | FridayFind | 8.66 |
favorite | 9.58 | home | 5.33 | home | 7.09 |
Sunday | 6.74 | save | 0.06 | photo | 5.31 |
cover | 0.64 | CostcoConnection | 7.22 | month | 7.61 |
Available | 3.7 | learn | 6.35 | chance | −0.45 |
help | 13.47 | offer | 7.07 | gift | 8.39 |
tip | 11.1 | FridayFind | 15.17 | card | 5.44 |
home | 9.27 | Sunday | 6.78 | vacation | 9.44 |
holiday | 9.48 | vacation | 6.49 | find | 9.68 |
photo | −3.73 | help | 10.4 | cover | 17.14 |
comment | 8.76 | start | 6.44 | value | 8.82 |
learn | 6.26 | Available | 5.11 | start | 2.72 |
start | 6.15 | gift | 7.88 | learn | 5.61 |
Brand Cues | Likes | Brand Cues | Comments | Brand Cues | Shares |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tuesday | 37.34 | Tuesday | 30.74 | here | 44.96 |
http | 52.42 | recommendation | 26.55 | http | 30.99 |
tienda | 48.67 | SIEMPRE | 29.29 | SIEMPRE | 24.87 |
fruit | 43.19 | http | 37.96 | recipe | 27.95 |
mejor | 24.86 | mejor | 13.33 | tip | 9.2 |
encuentra | 14.65 | encuentra | 2.63 | mejor | 9.44 |
SIEMPRE | 22.65 | brand | 13.38 | tienda | 24.55 |
walmart | 19.36 | fruit | 35.65 | recommendation | 4.2 |
here | 30.07 | precio | 16.19 | Tuesday | 8.1 |
availability | 17.84 | tip | −2.8 | style | 5.12 |
recommendation | 16.22 | producto | 22.23 | come | 9.91 |
precio | 23.57 | tienda | 17.47 | sale | 13.24 |
lifetime | −2.05 | walmart | 15.93 | encuentra | −7.21 |
producto | 20.97 | lifetime | 7.46 | find | 14.98 |
brand | 16.78 | cat | 25.12 | availability | 18.2 |
shape | 19.43 | prepare.1 | −0.46 | lifetime | 5.25 |
recipe | 29.78 | availability | 2.84 | prepare | 11.9 |
style | −14.79 | baby | 13.16 | prepare.1 | 11.06 |
tip | 9.74 | prepare | −0.8 | subject | 7.63 |
subject | −0.44 | color | −4.2 | ethics | 7.68 |
prepare | 6.45 | style | −5.4 | baby | 13.11 |
sale | 16.27 | come | 6.19 | realization | 15.82 |
prepare | 5.05 | query | 17.26 | responsabilidad | 14.85 |
come | 10.93 | great | −5.73 | ingredient | 15.76 |
ethics | 13.21 | subject | 5.79 | walmart | 5.8 |
responsabilidad | 18.23 | here | 20.61 | shape | −2.03 |
realization | 14.43 | recipe | 14.91 | precio | 1.43 |
great | −1.63 | purchase | 1.63 | producto | 21.01 |
cat | 13.81 | responsabilidad | 13.41 | family | 1.37 |
months | 1.05 | without | 5.03 | months | −1.38 |
ingredient | 20.84 | months | −7.16 | House | 11.54 |
find | 9.57 | ethics | 16.33 | great | 0.82 |
variety | 10.09 | fresh | −4.53 | fruit | 2.52 |
without | 14.64 | shape | 11.48 | Go.ahead | −1.73 |
Favourite | 8.38 | realization | 13.78 | purchase | 7.78 |
family | 5.2 | Go.ahead | 2.35 | brand | 18.06 |
Go.ahead | 2.64 | family | 2.71 | fresh | 6.28 |
discover | 6.1 | variety | 7.94 | without | 5.33 |
interests | 14.28 | sale | 8.66 | interests | 9.27 |
fresh | 11.29 | ingredient | 2.94 | variety | 1.44 |
House | 9.05 | House | 5.75 | Favourite | 6.33 |
baby | 5.2 | discover | −1.11 | color | −2.77 |
purchase | 12.86 | find | 2.83 | Health | 4.82 |
Water | −1.74 | interests | 6.98 | cat | 2.45 |
Health | 0.53 | Favourite | 12.77 | discover | 2.68 |
query | 1.93 | Health | −2.23 | query | −0.53 |
kitchen | −0.65 | Water | 2.61 | Water | 0.29 |
color | −0.51 | kitchen | 5.17 | kitchen | −5.1 |
Brand Cues | Likes | Brand Cues | Comments | Brand Cues | Shares |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
only | 22.21 | only | 19.48 | only | 9.54 |
dip | 24.86 | chicken | 18.16 | online | −26.13 |
order | −5.59 | http | 21.71 | yummy | 0.81 |
chicken | 16.63 | want | 17.24 | http | 16.94 |
win | 12.38 | friend | 1.84 | order | −12.1 |
http | 10.77 | code | −18.84 | chicken | 4.72 |
offer | −0.97 | KFC | 1.95 | friend | −4.19 |
friend | 6.78 | online | −16.01 | KFC | −6.4 |
online | −9.33 | order | −9.49 | offer | −6.29 |
day | 13.77 | dip | 17.79 | enjoy | −7.34 |
today | 5.28 | yummy | −2.72 | dip | 5.42 |
want | 10.17 | day | 9.48 | free | −11.35 |
enjoy | 7.71 | win | 8.11 | want | 8.98 |
meal | 6.65 | right | −0.92 | win | 10.47 |
yummy | −2.04 | enjoy | 7.21 | meal | 4.75 |
KFC | −0.01 | hot | 1.69 | Zinger | −1.75 |
free | 7.21 | offer | −5.24 | hot | −1.47 |
treat | −4.74 | free | −9.1 | Use | −1.9 |
here | 4.27 | now | −5.95 | code | −5.38 |
code | −3.24 | start | 14.14 | click | −6.71 |
hot | 1.96 | good | 7.03 | now | −6.78 |
new | 9.08 | today | 5.8 | right | −0.05 |
good | 0.78 | coupon | 7.61 | new | 10.89 |
Use | 10.19 | click | −6.15 | day | −1.8 |
Zinger | 3.7 | Use | −2.2 | good | 3.13 |
now | −2.68 | new | 3.01 | time | 2.22 |
right | 1.7 | time | 5.74 | coupon | 6.36 |
time | 2.05 | first | −3 | treat | −5.7 |
coupon | 6.37 | Zinger | 2.45 | bucket | 0.95 |
share | 6.19 | treat | −3.84 | today | 3.36 |
call | −0.28 | share | −0.34 | start | 12.1 |
like | 2.03 | come | 0.18 | here | −2.8 |
click | 1.87 | call | −0.58 | like | −0.77 |
bucket | 7.36 | here | 1.04 | come | 1.07 |
come | 1.28 | photo | 10.69 | call | −4.33 |
hunger | −4.11 | bucket | −0.89 | photo | 9.59 |
photo | 8.45 | meal | −0.36 | first | −6.88 |
start | 8.17 | love | −5.53 | share | −0.74 |
first | −4.95 | hunger | 0.11 | love | 0.62 |
love | −2.84 | like | −3.08 | hunger | −6.6 |
Brand Cues | Likes | Brand Cues | Comments | Brand Cues | Shares |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
caramel | 9.52 | caramel | 13.13 | caramel | 22.51 |
Iced | 25.24 | Frappuccino | 12.66 | Frappuccino | 9.47 |
share | 10.02 | Starbucks | 12.46 | Starbucks | 11.17 |
Starbucks | 14.45 | Iced | 8.8 | free | 2.46 |
sweet | 9.53 | holiday | 10.84 | any | 13.98 |
http | 16.95 | friend | 0.05 | share | 6.93 |
here | 1.3 | here | −1.28 | cold | 6.29 |
pumpkin | 2.33 | share | 9.78 | all | 12.01 |
cup | 5.14 | any | 7.47 | holiday | 11.48 |
any | 8.21 | like | 3.58 | drink | 1.9 |
drink | 1.9 | cold | 1.44 | here | −0.32 |
year | 7.69 | time | 1.39 | espresso | 0.75 |
Frappuccino | 3.43 | come | 3.07 | like | 2.68 |
coffee | 1.35 | free | 9.76 | http | 4.01 |
friend | 1.74 | drink | 1.41 | friend | 0.35 |
help | 8.48 | espresso | −0.77 | thank | 5.19 |
all | 1.82 | sweet | 4.39 | today | 6.5 |
cold | 1.33 | today | 3.38 | join | −0.78 |
today | 5.37 | http | 6.44 | sweet | 4.22 |
espresso | −1.08 | help | 5.7 | new | 6.91 |
brew | −2.14 | new | 5.78 | come | 1.97 |
time | −2.13 | community | 0.41 | happy | −0.4 |
new | 0 | coffee | −2.36 | store | 0.51 |
like | −3.73 | now | 3.9 | time | −5.16 |
happy | −3.5 | year | −0.24 | help | 0.66 |
only | −2.12 | brew | −1.89 | love | −0.94 |
holiday | 3.46 | happy | −3.74 | coffee | −1.1 |
thank | 0.6 | store | 4.58 | year | 0.88 |
buy | −2.15 | buy | 0.37 | buy | −6.63 |
join | −1.59 | pumpkin | −1.84 | pumpkin | −2.78 |
come | −1.82 | join | −4.04 | only | −0.04 |
love | −4.53 | love | −2.66 | brew | −4.07 |
free | 0.35 | good | −4.29 | Iced | −1.65 |
store | 3.09 | all | 3.08 | now | 1.17 |
now | −2.46 | only | −1.88 | day | −2.76 |
day | −1.45 | cup | −2.23 | good | −4.6 |
tea | 0.31 | thank | 2.28 | cup | 3.19 |
good | −6.35 | day | −4.3 | community | −3.91 |
community | −1.86 | tea | −3.69 | tea | −3.5 |
Brand cues | Likes | Brand Cues | Comments | Brand Cues | Shares |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
look | 18.3 | today | 0.69 | Vine | 54.36 |
fall | 9.1 | http | 8.93 | http | 22.08 |
detail | 9.54 | low | 4.33 | DIY | 16.62 |
low | 16.69 | paint | −0.56 | store | 7.72 |
idea | 5.21 | project | 0.68 | help | 5.15 |
keep | 6.96 | Vine | 4.89 | like | 1.13 |
build | 8.61 | store | −1.13 | garden | 9.65 |
paint | 0.66 | love | 8.16 | now | 0.74 |
color | 3.42 | look | 13.51 | look | 12.32 |
love | 9 | detail | 9.47 | detail | 14.49 |
like | −3.22 | now | −0.24 | keep | 4.26 |
kitchen | 5.26 | here | 2.62 | kitchen | 4.7 |
save | −0.38 | keep | 10.16 | save | 7.81 |
today | −3.78 | color | −0.91 | light | 4.8 |
now | −1.88 | create | −3.16 | give | −0.03 |
DIY | 11.72 | garden | −2.18 | fall | 10.31 |
project | 2.96 | spring | 5.58 | tip | −0.94 |
here | 5.39 | time | 2.86 | start | 2.72 |
http | 3.05 | idea | −1.78 | love | 9 |
just | 5.3 | just | −4.65 | create | −0.87 |
perfect | 1.47 | design | 0.88 | just | 4.25 |
Vine | −1.92 | need | 1.51 | low | 6.29 |
store | −8.06 | home | −2.81 | project | −0.34 |
create | −5.33 | great | −1.04 | idea | 3.47 |
garden | −0.53 | tip | −4.19 | paint | 1.22 |
start | −4.05 | light | −2.77 | bathroom | 3.46 |
spring | −3.5 | save | −5.47 | time | −3.7 |
tip | −1.61 | build | 1.59 | build | 5.83 |
bathroom | 8.02 | perfect | −3.49 | home | 0 |
time | −3.85 | give | −2.17 | great | −4 |
design | 0.28 | help | 2.96 | design | 2.01 |
give | −3.14 | kitchen | −2.19 | today | 0.17 |
year | −1.56 | like | −4.83 | perfect | 3.28 |
great | −0.68 | fall | −0.62 | color | −0.05 |
home | −1.29 | new | −5.29 | here | 3.41 |
help | −1.86 | DIY | 2.66 | year | −0.34 |
light | −7.12 | family | −1.27 | need | 0.73 |
new | −3.2 | start | −4.22 | new | −3.69 |
shop | −2.08 | shop | −2.93 | family | 0.19 |
family | −4.28 | year | 1.39 | spring | −4.46 |
need | −2.25 | bathroom | 4.38 | shop | 0.3 |
Brand Cues | Likes | Brand Cues | Comments | Brand Cues | Shares |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
http | 0.21 | http | 31.11 | workshop | 29.58 |
full | −8.66 | room | 10.67 | DIY | 5.66 |
home | 0.32 | free | 12.26 | light | 16.26 |
garden | 9.22 | space | −3.83 | http | 8.5 |
post | 3.83 | depot | 9.46 | full | −3.6 |
now | 0.35 | now | 13.97 | post | 6.4 |
know | −2.97 | season | −7.58 | garden | 7.25 |
spring | −0.58 | post | −3.29 | season | 4.71 |
space | −7.09 | home | −4.22 | need | −0.46 |
depot | 2.83 | style | −7.8 | free | 9.9 |
start | −2.61 | full | −6 | know | −0.71 |
today | −2.05 | here | 7.88 | here | 4.73 |
year | 4.01 | know | 5.31 | build | 12.73 |
light | 4.02 | help | 2.49 | space | −5.84 |
need | −7.34 | garden | 5.63 | depot | 2.36 |
DIY | −0.71 | look | −0.24 | home | 5.71 |
project | −3.03 | Christmas | 2.02 | tip | 1.21 |
patio | 7.87 | photo | −4.33 | today | 2.39 |
season | −5.68 | tip | 6.12 | project | 0.61 |
tip | 0.57 | store | 3.38 | patio | 0.72 |
here | 1.05 | DIY | 4.68 | photo | −0.35 |
holiday | −2.89 | paint | 4.98 | outdoor | 0.54 |
store | −4.1 | build | 12.78 | create | −4.46 |
bathroom | −4.84 | tool | 4.55 | SpringMadeSimple | 0.06 |
room | −5.58 | patio | 5.43 | time | 3.95 |
SpringMadeSimple | 5.72 | today | 2.15 | start | −2.69 |
help | 0.73 | create | 2.5 | holiday | 4.16 |
create | −1.87 | new | −5.2 | now | −3.29 |
Christmas | −1.54 | decor | −6.21 | Christmas | 0.66 |
gift | 2.69 | year | −1.51 | year | −1.69 |
workshop | 1.09 | spring | −5.26 | spring | −4.83 |
paint | −0.66 | time | −1.97 | new | 3.35 |
learn | −2.38 | project | 3.61 | learn | −3.43 |
look | −3.65 | need | −2.15 | store | −4.11 |
tool | 0.26 | start | 1.43 | gift | 1.74 |
build | −0.8 | gift | −0.15 | decor | −3.99 |
photo | −2.44 | bathroom | −7.11 | tool | −2.1 |
decor | −3.05 | outdoor | −6 | help | −0.82 |
new | −6.55 | light | −3.99 | look | 0.13 |
time | −5.95 | SpringMadeSimple | 4.49 | room | 3.48 |
outdoor | 0.65 | workshop | 9.64 | style | 0.4 |
free | −1.97 | holiday | −5.11 | paint | 6.44 |
style | −2.77 | learn | 0.9 | bathroom | 1.23 |
References
- Tseng, C.; Wu, B.; Morrison, A.M.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.-C. Travel blogs on China as a destination image formation agent: A qualitative analysis using Leximancer. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennig-Thurau, T.; Wiertz, C.; Feldhaus, F. Does Twitter matter? The impact of microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 375–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enginkaya, E.; Yılmaz, H. What Drives Consumers to Interact with Brands through Social Media? A Motivation Scale Development Study. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 148, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Vries, L.; Gensler, S.; Leeflang, P.S. Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand Fan Pages: An Investigation of the Effects of Social Media Marketing. J. Interact. Mark. 2012, 26, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swani, K.; Brown, B.P.; Milne, G.R. Should tweets differ for B2B and B2C? An analysis of Fortune 500 companies’ Twitter communications. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kacholia, V. News Feed Fyi: Showing More High Quality Content. Facebook.Com. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/business/news/News-Feed-FYI-Showing-More-High-Quality-Content (accessed on 12 December 2021).
- Lipsman, A.; Mudd, G.; Rich, M.; Bruich, S. The Power of “Like”: How Brands Reach (and Influence) Fans through Social-Media Marketing. J. Advert. Res. 2012, 52, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swani, K.; Milne, G.; Brown, B.P. Spreading the Word through Likes on Facebook: Evaluating the Message Strategy Effectiveness of Fortune 500 Companies. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2013, 7, 269–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michaelidou, N.; Siamagka, N.T.; Christodoulides, G. Usage, barriers and measurement of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and medium B2B brands. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2011, 40, 1153–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yadav, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Marketing in Computer-Mediated Environments: Research Synthesis and New Directions. J. Mark. 2014, 78, 20–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foster, M.; West, B.; Francescucci, A. Exploring social media user segmentation and online brand profiles. J. Brand Manag. 2011, 19, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ip, R.K.F.; Wagner, C. Weblogging: A study of social computing and its impact on organizations. Decis. Support Syst. 2008, 45, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, E. Mass Communications Research and the Study of Popular Culture. Stud. Public Commun. 1959, 2, 165. [Google Scholar]
- Lovett, M.J.; Peres, R.; Shachar, R. On Brands and Word of Mouth. J. Mark. Res. 2013, 50, 427–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berger, J. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 586–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbier, G.; Liu, H. Data Mining in Social Media. In Social Network Data Analytics; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 327–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, W.; Zha, S.; Li, L. Social media competitive analysis and text mining: A case study in the pizza industry. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, C.-W.; Kuo, C.-J. Learning in massive open online courses: Evidence from social media mining. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 568–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aggarwal, C.C. Social Network Data Analytics, Chapter an Introduction to Social Network Data Analytics; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Wallace, E.; Buil, I.; de Chernatony, L. Consumer Engagement with Self-Expressive Brands: Brand Love and Wom Out-comes. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2014, 23, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schau, H.J.; Muñiz, A.M.; Arnould, E.J. How Brand Community Practices Create Value. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 30–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, M.T.; Avnet, T. Rethinking Regulatory Engagement Theory. J. Consum. Psychol. 2009, 19, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodie, R.; Ilic, A.; Juric, B.; Hollebeek, L. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, K.; Kaufman, J.; Gonzalez, M.; Wimmer, A.; Christakis, N. Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Soc. Netw. 2008, 30, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goorha, S.; Ungar, L. Discovery of Significant Emerging Trends. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, 25–28 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Cvijikj, I.P.; Michahelles, F. Monitoring Trends on Facebook. In Proceedings of the IEEE Ninth International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, Sydney, Australia, 12–14 December 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Niciporuc, T. Comparative Analysis of the Engagement Rate on Facebook and Google Plus Social Networks. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/0902287.html (accessed on 12 December 2021).
- Tsai, W.-H.S.; Men, L.R. Motivations and Antecedents of Consumer Engagement With Brand Pages on Social Networking Sites. J. Interact. Advert. 2013, 13, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, J.; Lalmas, M.; Yom-Tov, E.; Dupret, G. Models of User Engagement. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 164–175. [Google Scholar]
- Naveed, N.; Gottron, T.; Kunegis, J.; Alhadi, A.C. Bad News Travel Fast: A Content-Based Analysis of Interestingness on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference, WebSci 2011, Koblenz, Germany, 15–17 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Petrovic, S.; Osborne, M.; Lavrenko, V. Rt to Win! Predicting Message Propagation in Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain, 17–21 July 2011; pp. 586–589. [Google Scholar]
- Nishanth, K.J.; Ravi, V.; Ankaiah, N.; Bose, I. Soft computing based imputation and hybrid data and text mining: The case of predicting the severity of phishing alerts. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 10583–10589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, M.Y.; Amaral, L.A. Mining geo-referenced data with qualitative spatial reasoning strategies. Comput. Graph. 2004, 28, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Segall, R.S. Web mining: A survey of current research, techniques, and software. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2008, 7, 683–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, B.; Kumar Singh, H. Web Data Mining Research: A Survey. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research, ICCIC 2010, Coimbatore, India, 28–29 December 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hashimi, H.; Hafez, A.; Mathkour, H. Selection criteria for text mining approaches. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 729–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohrabi, M.K.; Barforoush, A.A. Efficient colossal pattern mining in high dimensional datasets. Knowl. Based Syst. 2012, 33, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parallel Frequent Itemset Mining Using Systolic Arrays. Knowl. Based Syst. 2013, 37, 462–471. [CrossRef]
- Sohrabi, M.K.; Ghods, V. Top-Down Vertical Itemset Mining. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Graphic and Image Processing (ICGIP 2014), Beijing, China, 24–26 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Materialized View Selection for Data Warehouse Using Frequent Itemset Mining. J. Comput. 2016, 11, 140–148.
- Anwar, T.; Abulaish, M. A social graph based text mining framework for chat log investigation. Digit. Investig. 2014, 11, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pachidi, S.; Spruit, M.; van de Weerd, I. Understanding users’ behavior with software operation data mining. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Servia-Rodríguez, S.; RDíaz-Redondo, P.; Fernández-Vilas, A.; Blanco-Fernández, Y.; Pazos-Arias, J.J. A Tie Strength Based Model to Socially-Enhance Applications and Its Enabling Implementation: Mysocialsphere. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 2582–2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.Z.; Zhao, S.J.; Cheung, C.; Lee, M.K.O. Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 67, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallarza, M.G.; Saura, I.G.; García, H.C. Destination Image: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gartner, W.C. Image Formation Process. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1994, 2, 191–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunn, C.A. Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions; Informa UK Limited: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Stepchenkova, S.; Morrison, A.M. The destination image of Russia: From the online induced perspective. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 943–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govers, R.; Go, F.M.; Kumar, K. Virtual destination image a new measurement approach. Ann. Tour. Res. 2007, 34, 977–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, S.; Lehto, X.Y.; Morrison, A.M. Destination image representation on the web: Content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, A.; Banerjee, S. Customer knowledge management via social media: The case of Starbucks. J. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 17, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gensler, S.; Völckner, F.; Liu-Thompkins, Y.; Wiertz, C. Managing Brands in the Social Media Environment. J. Interact. Mark. 2013, 27, 242–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, D.M.; Ellison, N.B. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. J. Comput. Commun. 2007, 13, 210–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shang, R.-A.; Chen, Y.; Liao, H. The value of participation in virtual consumer communities on brand loyalty. Internet Res. 2006, 16, 398–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muniz, A.M., Jr.; O’Guinn, T.C. Brand Community. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 27, 412–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godes, D.; Mayzlin, D. Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test. Mark. Sci. 2009, 28, 721–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Dholakia, U.M. Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2006, 23, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Box, G.E.P.; Jenkins, G.M.; Reinsel, G.C. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mak, A.K.Y. An Identity-Centered Approach to Place Branding: Case of Industry Partners Evaluation of Iowa’s Destination Image. J. Brand Manag. 2011, 18, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fesenmaier, D.; Mackay, K. Deconstructing destination image construction. Tour. Rev. 1996, 51, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.J.; Tedder, M.C. The effects of three different computer texts on readers’ recall: Based on working memory capacity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2003, 19, 767–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, K.-Y.; Lu, H.-P. Intention to Continue Using Facebook Fan Pages from the Perspective of Social Capital Theory. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zaglia, M.E. Brand communities embedded in social networks. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muntinga, D.G.; Moorman, M.; Smit, E.G. Introducing Cobras: Exploring Motivations for Brand-Related Social Media Use. Int. J. Advert. 2011, 30, 13–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, W.; Chuang, Y.H. The Perceived Benefits of Six-Degree-Separation Social Networks. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 26–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ridings, C.; Gefen, D.; Arinze, B. Psychological Barriers: Lurker and Poster Motivation and Behavior in Online Communities. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006, 18, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, C.; Patricio, L. Understanding participation in company social networks. J. Serv. Manag. 2013, 24, 567–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazer, D.; Pentland, A.; Adamic, L.; Aral, S.; Barabási, A.L.; Brewer, D.; Christakis, N.; Contractor, N.; Fowler, J.; Gutmann, M.; et al. Social Science: Computational Social Science. Science 2009, 323, 721–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bishop, C.M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, A.; Rao, T.; Nagpal, S. Using Strong, Acquaintance and Weak Tie Strengths for Modeling Relationships in Facebook Network. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 188–200. [Google Scholar]
- Esuli, A.; Sebastiani, F. Machines that Learn how to Code Open-Ended Survey Data. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 52, 775–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nambisan, S.; Baron, R.A. Interactions in Virtual Customer Environments: Implications for Product Support and Customer Relationship Management. J. Interact. Mark. 2007, 21, 42–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Animesh, A.; Pinsonneault, A.; Yang, S.B.; Oh, W. An Odyssey into Virtual Worlds: Exploring the Impacts of Technological and Spatial Environments on Intention to Purchase Virtual Products. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2011, 35, 789–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoyer, W.D.; Chandy, R.; Dorotic, M.; Krafft, M.; Singh, S.S. Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. J. Serv. Res. 2010, 13, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.-C.; Ku, Y.-C.; Huang, Y.-S. Exploring top managers’ innovative IT (IIT) championing behavior: Integrating the personal and technical contexts. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Jansen, B.J.; Zhang, M.; Sobel, K.; Chowdury, A. Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 2169–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stieglitz, S.; Dang-Xuan, L.; Bruns, A.; Neuberger, C. Social Media Analytics. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2014, 56, 101–109. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, M.; Lei, L.; Wang, J.; Fan, W.; Wang, A. Social Media Adoption and Corporate Disclosure. J. Inf. Syst. 2014, 29, 23–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, A.R.; Tucker, C. Active Social Media Management: The Case of Health Care. Inf. Syst. Res. 2013, 24, 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clark, M.; Melancon, J. The Influence of Social Media Investment on Relational Outcomes: A Relationship Marketing Perspective. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2013, 5, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, N.; Kee, K.F.; Valenzuela, S. Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes. CyberPsychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 729–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kent, R.J.; Allen, C.T. Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, M.C.; Keller, K.L. Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 30, 292–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kent, M.L.; Taylor, M.; White, W. The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relat. Rev. 2003, 29, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fournier, S. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 24, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freling, T.H.; Forbes, L.P. An examination of brand personality through methodological triangulation. J. Brand Manag. 2005, 13, 148–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raney, A.A.; Arpan, L.M.; PashuPati, K.; Brill, D.A. At the Movies, on the Web: An Investigation of the Effects of Entertaining and Interactive Web Content on Site and Brand Evaluations. J. Interact. Mark. 2003, 17, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortin, D.R.; Dholakia, R.R. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sicilia, M.; Ruiz, S.; Munuera, J.L. Effects of interactivity in a web site: The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition. J. Advert. 2005, 34, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafaeli, S.; Ariel, Y. Assessing Interactivity in Computer-Mediated Research. In The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology; OUP: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 71–88. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, T.-P.; Ho, Y.-T.; Li, Y.-W.; Turban, E. What Drives Social Commerce: The Role of Social Support and Relationship Quality. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crocker, J.; Canevello, A. Creating and Undermining Social Support in Communal Relationships: The Role of Compas-sionate and Self-Image Goals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 95, 555–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
ID | Hypothesis | Verdict |
---|---|---|
H1. | Image cues in HI the retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes, comments, and shares | |
H1a. | Image cues in the retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes. | Established |
H1b. | Image cues in the retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through comments. | Partially established |
H1c. | Image cues in the retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through shares. | Partially established |
H2. | Image cues in H2 retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes, comments, and shares. | |
H2a. | Image cues in retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes. | Partially established |
H2b. | Image cues in retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through comments. | Partially established |
H2c. | Image cues in retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through shares. | Partially established |
H3. | Image cues in H3 retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes, comments, and shares. | |
H3a. | Image cues in retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes. | Established |
H3b. | Image cues in retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through comments. | Partially established |
H3c. | Image cues in retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through shares. | Established |
H4. | Marketing cues in H4 retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes, comments, and shares. | |
H4a. | Marketing cues in retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes. | Partially established |
H4b. | Marketing cues in retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through comments. | Established |
H4c. | Marketing cues in retail food brands’ posts encourage public participation through shares. | Partially established |
H5. | Marketing cues in H5 retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes, comments, and shares. | |
H5a. | Marketing cues in retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes. | Partially established |
H5b. | Marketing cues in retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through comments. | Partially established |
H5c. | Marketing cues in retail home improvement brands’ posts encourage public participation through shares. | Partially established |
H6. | Marketing cues in H6 retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes, comments, and shares. | |
H6a. | Marketing cues in retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through likes. | Partially established |
H6b. | Marketing cues in retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through comments. | Partially established |
H6c. | Marketing cues in retail warehouse club brands’ posts encourage public participation through shares. | Partially established |
Image Cues | B | SE | Beta | T | Sig. | R2 | ∆F | F Change | Durbin–Watson | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Retail Food Brands’ Posts | ||||||||||
H1a Likes | RF | 6509.994 | 532.234 | 0.091 | 12.231 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 149.608 | 0.000 | 1.204 |
GB | 1784.118 | 404.669 | 0.033 | 4.409 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 19.438 | 0.000 | 1.193 | |
AD | 5739.455 | 711.084 | 0.060 | 8.071 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 65.148 | 0.000 | 1.198 | |
H1b Comments | RF | 325.768 | 32.362 | 0.075 | 10.066 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 101.330 | 0.000 | 1.529 |
GB | 52.043 | 24.583 | 0.016 | 2.117 | 0.034 | 0.000 | 4.482 | 0.034 | 1.519 | |
AD | 19.459 | 43.258 | 0.003 | 0.450 | 0.653 | 0.000 | 0.202 | 0.653 | 1.521 | |
H1c Shares | RF | 538.372 | 46.897 | 0.086 | 11.480 | 0.000 | 0.007 | 131.786 | 0.000 | 1.576 |
GB | 112.678 | 35.649 | 0.024 | 3.161 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 9.990 | 0.002 | 1.568 | |
AD | 92.578 | 62.736 | 0.011 | 1.476 | 0.140 | 0.000 | 2.178 | 0.140 | 1.571 | |
Retail Home Improvement Brands’ Posts | ||||||||||
H2a Likes | RF | 404.018 | 97.132 | 0.037 | 4.159 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 17.301 | 0.000 | 1.586 |
GB | 377.110 | 95.525 | 0.035 | 3.948 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 15.585 | 0.000 | 1.587 | |
AD | −95.474 | 100.168 | −0.008 | −0.953 | 0.341 | 0.000 | 0.908 | 0.341 | 1.589 | |
H2b Comments | RF | −15.402 | 8.766 | −0.016 | −1.757 | 0.079 | 0.000 | 3.087 | 0.079 | 1.691 |
GB | −21.459 | 8.619 | −0.022 | −2.490 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 6.198 | 0.013 | 1.691 | |
AD | −25.787 | 9.032 | −0.025 | −2.855 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 8.151 | 0.004 | 1.691 | |
H2c Shares | RF | 145.271 | 22.017 | 0.059 | 6.598 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 43.535 | 0.000 | 1.709 |
GB | 69.846 | 21.680 | 0.029 | 3.222 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 10.379 | 0.001 | 1.711 | |
AD | 22.251 | 22.729 | 0.009 | 0.979 | 0.328 | 0.000 | 0.958 | 0.328 | 1.710 | |
Retail Warehouse Club Brands’ Posts | ||||||||||
H3a Likes | RF | 185.616 | 10.137 | 0.085 | 18.310 | 0.000 | 0.007 | 335.270 | 0.000 | 1.784 |
GB | 133.190 | 11.597 | 0.053 | 11.485 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 131.894 | 0.000 | 1.778 | |
AD | 173.223 | 6.980 | 0.115 | 24.815 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 615.807 | 0.000 | 1.794 | |
H3b Comments | RF | −1.405 | 0.703 | −0.009 | −1.998 | 0.046 | 0.000 | 3.992 | 0.046 | 1.851 |
GB | −2.795 | 0.802 | −0.016 | −3.484 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 12.136 | 0.000 | 1.851 | |
AD | −0.659 | 0.486 | −0.006 | −1.357 | 0.175 | 0.000 | 1.842 | 0.175 | 1.852 | |
H3c Shares | RF | 31.235 | 2.269 | 0.064 | 13.766 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 189.502 | 0.000 | 1.925 |
GB | 25.598 | 2.593 | 0.046 | 9.873 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 97.478 | 0.000 | 1.923 | |
AD | 45.667 | 1.556 | 0.135 | 29.350 | 0.000 | 0.018 | 861.452 | 0.000 | 1.928 |
Marketing Cues | B | SE | Beta | T | Sig. | R2 | ∆F | F Change | Durbin–Watson | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Retail Food Brands’ Posts | ||||||||||
H4a Likes | RF | 626.394 | 517.073 | 0.009 | 1.211 | 0.226 | 0.000 | 1.468 | 0.226 | 1.194 |
GB | 488.883 | 618.452 | 0.006 | 0.790 | 0.429 | 0.000 | 0.625 | 0.429 | 1.195 | |
AD | −2391.978 | 550.624 | −0.033 | −4.344 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 18.871 | 0.000 | 1.196 | |
H4b Comments | RF | −103.018 | 31.390 | −0.025 | −3.282 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 10.771 | 0.001 | 1.523 |
GB | 79.512 | 37.550 | 0.016 | 2.117 | 0.034 | 0.000 | 4.484 | 0.034 | 1.520 | |
AD | −119.137 | 33.441 | −0.027 | −3.563 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 12.692 | 0.000 | 1.523 | |
H4c Shares | RF | −74.281 | 45.537 | −0.012 | −1.631 | 0.103 | 0.000 | 2.661 | 0.103 | 1.573 |
GB | 237.959 | 54.439 | 0.033 | 4.371 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 19.107 | 0.000 | 1.570 | |
AD | −104.903 | 48.513 | −0.016 | −2.162 | 0.031 | 0.000 | 4.676 | 0.031 | 1.572 | |
Retail Home Improvement Brands’ Posts | ||||||||||
H5a Likes | RF | 544.878 | 69.576 | 0.070 | 7.831 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 61.332 | 0.000 | 1.600 |
GB | 721.046 | 52.711 | 0.121 | 13.679 | 0.000 | 0.015 | 187.122 | 0.000 | 1.623 | |
AD | 819.504 | 83.542 | 0.087 | 9.810 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 96.226 | 0.000 | 1.610 | |
H5b Comments | RF | −48.046 | 6.276 | −0.068 | −7.655 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 58.602 | 0.000 | 1.694 |
GB | −28.110 | 4.783 | −0.052 | −5.877 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 34.540 | 0.000 | 1.690 | |
AD | −39.189 | 7.556 | −0.046 | −5.187 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 26.900 | 0.000 | 1.689 | |
H5c Shares | RF | 64.849 | 15.815 | 0.037 | 4.100 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 16.814 | 0.000 | 1.715 |
GB | 87.347 | 12.024 | 0.065 | 7.265 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 52.773 | 0.000 | 1.723 | |
AD | 72.656 | 19.017 | 0.034 | 3.820 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 14.596 | 0.000 | 1.717 | |
Retail Warehouse Club Brands’ Posts | ||||||||||
H6a Likes | RF | 315.498 | 14.712 | 0.099 | 21.445 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 459.876 | 0.000 | 1.793 |
GB | 283.907 | 14.420 | 0.091 | 19.689 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 387.644 | 0.000 | 1.793 | |
AD | 426.938 | 21.349 | 0.093 | 19.998 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 399.909 | 0.000 | 1.786 | |
H6b Comments | RF | 5.710 | 1.021 | 0.026 | 5.591 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 31.262 | 0.000 | 1.854 |
GB | 5.107 | 1.000 | 0.024 | 5.105 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 26.065 | 0.000 | 1.854 | |
AD | 12.007 | 1.481 | 0.038 | 8.110 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 65.764 | 0.000 | 1.852 | |
H6c Shares | RF | 72.219 | 3.287 | 0.102 | 21.971 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 482.705 | 0.000 | 1.937 |
GB | 63.216 | 3.223 | 0.091 | 19.616 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 384.798 | 0.000 | 1.936 | |
AD | 58.663 | 4.784 | 0.057 | 12.262 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 150.364 | 0.000 | 1.923 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, Y. Using Machine Learning to Compare the Information Needs and Interactions of Facebook: Taking Six Retail Brands as an Example. Information 2021, 12, 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12120526
Chen Y. Using Machine Learning to Compare the Information Needs and Interactions of Facebook: Taking Six Retail Brands as an Example. Information. 2021; 12(12):526. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12120526
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Yulin. 2021. "Using Machine Learning to Compare the Information Needs and Interactions of Facebook: Taking Six Retail Brands as an Example" Information 12, no. 12: 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12120526