Social networking sites (SNSs) emerged as one of the most powerful media for advertising across the globe. Globally, companies are shifting a larger pie of their advertising budgets towards social networking sites for better reach and interactive platform. The companies are also looking at it as a low-cost model, which could reap results in minimum time possible for the targeted ‘Facebook generation’. These very facts motivate researchers to study the value of advertisements on social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and others. The article is an empirical study to understand the implications of different variables in advertisements on the delivery of advertising value to the respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been conducted to test the reliability of instrument being used for data collection. Further, a model has been proposed for measuring advertising value through structural equation modelling. The predicted results confirm the roles of different variables, namely, information, entertainment and irritation, in accessing value of advertisements displayed on social networking sites.
AakerD.A.BruzzoneD.E. (1985). Causes of irritation in advertising. The Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 47–57.
2.
AlwittL.F.PrabhakerP.R. (1992). Functional and belief dimensions of attitudes to television advertising: Implications for copytesting. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(5), 30–42.
3.
AndersonM.BrusaJ.PriceJ.SimsJ. (2011). Turning ‘Like’ to ‘Buy’ social media emerges as a commerce channel (pp. 1–9). Booz & Company. Available at http://www.booz.com/media/uploads/BaC-Turning_Like_to_Buy.pdf
4.
BagozziR.YiY. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34.
5.
BauerR.A.GreyserS.A.KanterD.L.WeilbacherW.M. (1968). Advertising in America: The consumer view. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University Boston.
6.
BentlerP.M.BonettD.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
7.
BerthonP.PittL.F.WatsonR.T. (1996). The World Wide Web as an advertising medium: Toward an understanding of conversion efficiency. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(1), 43–54.
8.
BoydDanah M.EllisonN.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
9.
BrackettL.K.CarrB.N. (2001). Cyberspace advertising vs. other media: Consumer vs. mature student attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 23–32.
10.
BrownJ.BroderickA.J.LeeN. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2–20.
11.
ByrneB.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Routledge.
12.
CarminesE.G.McIverJ.P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills: SAGE.
13.
ChinW.W.GopalA.SalisburyW.D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342–367.
14.
DucoffeR.H. (1995). How consumers assess the value of advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 17(1), 1–18.
15.
DucoffeR.H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising the Web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 21–35.
16.
DwyerC.HiltzS.R.PasseriniK. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. AMCIS 2007 Proceedings (pp. 1–12). Presented at the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, 9–12August2007, Colorado, USA. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339
17.
HairJ.BlackW.BabinB.AndersonR.TathamR. (2007). Multivariate data analysis (6th edn). New Delhi: Pearson Education India.
18.
HinkinT.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.
19.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 6(1), 53–60.
20.
HuL.BentlerP.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
21.
Jhih-SyuanLinPeñaJ. (2011). Are you following me? A content analysis of TV networks’ brand communication on Twitter. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 17–29.
22.
KennyD.A.McCoachD.B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333–351.
23.
KimM.LeeM. (2010). Why do college students use Twitter? Presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference, 4–7August2007, Denver, CO.
24.
LeiR.M. (2000). An assessment of the World Wide Web as an advertising medium. Social Science Journal, 37(3), 465.
25.
MacCallumR.C.BrowneM.W.SugawaraH.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130.
26.
McQuailD. (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London, UK: SAGE.
27.
MuenjohnD.N.ArmstrongP.A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformationaltransactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3–14.
28.
NorrisV.P. (1984). The economic effects of advertising: A review of the literature. Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 7(2), 39.
29.
PempekT.A.YermolayevaY.A.CalvertS.L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227–238.
30.
PetersonA.R. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450–461.
31.
PhillipsM.McFaddenD.T.SullinsM. (2010). How effective is social networking for direct marketers?Journal of Food Distribution Research, 41(1), 96–100.
32.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2011). IAB Internet advertising revenue report (pp. 1–23). New York: Interactive Advertising Bureau.
33.
PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited. (2011). India entertainment and media outlook (pp. 1–141). Kolkata: PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited.
34.
RizaviS.S.AliL.RizaviS.H.M. (2011). User perceived quality of social networking websites: A study of Lahore region. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(12), 902–913.
35.
SafkoL.BrakeD.K. (2009). The social media bible: Tactics, tools, and strategies for business success. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
36.
SalisburyW.D.PearsonR.A.PearsonA.W.MillerD.W. (2001). Perceived security and World Wide Web purchase intention. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 101(34), 165.
37.
SchlosserA.E.ShavittS.KanferA. (1999). Survey of Internet users’ attitudes toward Internet advertising. Journal of interactive marketing, 13(3), 34–54.
38.
SinghR. (2009). Does my structural model represent the real phenomenon? A review of the appropriate use of structural equation modelling (SEM) model fit indices. The Marketing Review, 9(3), 199–212.
39.
Social Networking Sites Account for More than 20 Percent of All U.S. Online Display Ad Impressions, According to comScore Ad Metrix - comScore, Inc. (2009, 1September). Retrieved from http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/9/Social_Networking_Sites_Account_for_More_than_20_Percent_of_All_U.S._Online_Display_Ad_Impressions_According_to_comScore_Ad_Metrix (accessed on 14 December 2012).
40.
StelznerM. (n.d.). 2011Social Media Marketing Industry Report|Social Media Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/social-media-marketing-industry-report-2011/
41.
SubrahmanyamK.ReichS.M.WaechterN.EspinozaG. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420–433.
42.
TaylorD.G.LewinJ.E.StruttonD. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: Do ads work on social networks? How gender and age shape receptivity. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 258–275.
43.
TrusovM.BucklinR.E.PauwelsK. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an Internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.
44.
WatchravesringkanK.T.YanR.N.YurchisinJ. (2008). Cross-cultural invariance of consumers’ price perception measures: Eastern Asian perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(10), 759–779.
45.
WellsW.D.LeavittC.McConvilleM. (1971). A reaction profile for TV commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 11(6), 11–18.
46.
YoonSung-JoonJoo-HoKim (2001). Is the Internet more effective than traditional media? Factors affecting the choice of media. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(6), 53–60.
