T.C.
YE VE KAZAK
KARARINDA SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIMININ R
ANAL Z
Lazzat KAKEN
T.C.
YE VE KAZAK MA
KARARINDA SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIMININ R
ANAL Z
Prof.
Lazzat KAKEN
An
demir
persone ediyorum.
aileme .
merhum anneme ve babama ithaf ediyorum.
YE VE KAZAK
KARARINDA SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIMININ IL IRMALI
B R ANAL Z KAKEN, Lazzat
2020, 131 sayfa
,
kullanarak, e
ci na paralel olarak,
olarak kullan ma Bu
ola da, sosyal medya lma
ve bir
alma n
belirlemek
sosyal medya d
ama tir.
Veriler, amet eden
132 ol Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Instagram
ve WhatsApp ,
-
- Sosyal medya
Corra anketin kendilerinden
- -
Medyada Bilgi Arama (SMBA), Faaliyetleri (SMTF) ve
grupta
yer alan 7 , Sosyal Medyad
, SMBA, SMTF, SMSAE boyutta
den -s
etine
etkisi -nin
hipotezleri d r. Sosyal hipotezi desteklenirken,
etkisinin Instagram,
YouTube, Twitter, SnapChat daha fazla ku
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal Medya ,
ABSTRACT
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE ON CONSUMER PURCHASING DECISION IN TURKEY AND KAZAKHSTAN
KAKEN, Lazzat Business Administration
August 2020, 131 pages.
The fact that today's technological age has a great interest by individuals, has enabled marketing strategies to be prepared for the online environment. Thanks to the rapid technological developments, businesses offer their services and/or products to their consumers by using various marketing tools. The use of social media platforms as a marketing tool is increasing alongside the increasing rate of social media usage and reaching remarkable figures worldwide. In this context, comparing the impact of using social media on consumer behavior in Turkey and Kazakhstan has been identified as a problem statement of this study. This study aimed to determining dimensions of the scale that measures purchase decisions status and usage of social media by consumers, also determining the differences in Turkey and Kazakhstan of the effect of brand social media page to purchase willingness, purchase intention and purchase decisions. In addition, assign differences in Turkey and Kazakhstan whether the social media usage time differs, the use of social media platforms varies according to generations whether the social media page of any brand differs according to generations on the purchasing decision was determined as a secondary purpose of the study.
Data was collected through online questionnaires method on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and WhatsApp. It included a total of 372 participants from people who are living in Turkey (230) and Kazakhstan (142). To measure the effect of social media on purchasing decisions; The 3-item scale, which Song and Yoo (2016) determined as the purchasing decision; willingness
to purchase, purchasing intention, and purchasing decision was used. Some of the scale items measuring the purpose of social media usage and social media usage status were found by Corrada et al. (2020) and was adapted to the Turkish, Kazakh and Russian language upon the receipt of the Spanish questionnaire applied by them.
The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was applied regarding the validity and applicability of these scale items in three different groups. The intended use of social media was collected in a single dimension consisting of 6 items - Marketing Communication (MC). The 16-item scale in the first group that investigates the access to consumer behavior of social media was determined in three dimensions; Searching for Information on Social Media (SISM), Promotional Activities on Social Media (PASM), The Effect of Social Media on Purchasing (ESMP). The 7-item scale in the second group investigating the effect of social media on consumer behavior was explained in a single dimension, namely Product Communication on Social Media (PCSM). In this context, the status of social media usage on purchasing process has been determined in four dimensions: SISM, PASM, ESMP, PCSM.
In addition, among the determining hypotheses within the scope of the study;
the duration of social media usage, the purchase of the product and brand recommended on social media, the purpose of using social media, the effect of any brand's social media page on the willingness to buy, the effect of any brand's social media page on the purchase intention, the impact of social media on purchasing decisions asthe hypothesis varies in Turkey and Kazakhstan is not supported. While the hypothesis that social media usage platforms differ according to generations is supported, the hypothesis that the effect of any brand's social media page on the purchasing decision differs according to generations is not supported. Generation Y uses Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat social media platforms more than Gen X. No difference was found in other social media platforms.
Key words: Social Media Platforms, Social Media Usage Purpose, Willingness to Buy, Purchase Intention, Purchase Decision.
... i
... ii
ABSTRACT ... iv
... vi
... ix
... x
... xi
G SOSYAL MEDYA 1.1. ... 3
1.2.SOSYAL MEDYA BOYUTLARI... 7
1.2.1. Medya Boyutu ... 7
... 7
1.2.3. Teknolojik Boyutu ... 9
1.3.1. Bloglar ve Mikrobloglar ... 12
1.3.2. Wikiler ... 18
1.3.3. Podcasting ... 19
... 22
1.3.4.1. Facebook ... 24
1.3.4.2.Instagram ... 28
1.3.4.3.Youtube... 31
1.3.4.4. Twitter ... 33
1.3.4.5. Linkedin ... 37
1.3.4.6. Pinterest... 39
1.3.4.7. Snapchat ... 41
1.3.4.8. WhatsApp ... 42
1.4. SOSYAL MEDYANIN ... 43
YE VE KAZAK KARARINDA SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIMININ R ANAL Z ... 66
... 66
... 67
i ... 68
... 68
... 71
... 72
... 75
... 88 ...
...98
EKLER... 111
EK - ... 111
EK - ... 117
EK - ... 124
EK - ... 131
Tablo 3.5.1. ... 69
Tablo 3.7.1. ... 73
Tablo 3.7.2 ... 73
Tablo 3.7.3. Toplam A ... 74
Tablo 3.7.4 ... 74
Tablo 3.7.5. ... 75
Tablo 3.7.6 ... 75
Tablo 3.9.1. ... 88
Tablo 3.9.2. ... 89
Tablo 3.9.3. ... 90
Tablo 3.9.4. ... 90
Tablo 3.9.5. ... 91
Tablo 3.9.6. ... 91
Tablo 3.9.7. ... 92
Tablo 3.9.8. So ... 93
.
... 9
. ... 14
... 23
... 25
... 67
... 76
... 76
... 77
... 77
Grafik 3 ... 78
... 78
... 79
... 79
... 80
... 80
... 81
... 81
... 82
... 82
... 83
... 83
... 84
Grafi ... 84
... 85
... 85
... 86
... 86
... 87
bir perspektiften
ler de, ,
mektedirler. A
. Bu kapsamda,
leri
, sosyal medya, pazarda
i bilgi ektedir (Blackshaw ve Nazzaro, 2006:2). Sosyal medya
erisinde acebook, resim
ve video Instagram, Pinterest mikro blog sitesi
sa ; sanal ortamlardaki bireyler ve firmalar
tir.
birisi
(Hennig- Thurau vd., 2010:311-312). Bunun bir nedeni, bilg
te
tir (https://www.nielsen.com/, e.t:01.06.2020).
%
(Gil-Or, 2010:7).
.
Bu B ; sosyal
medya ,
mikrobloglar, vikiler, podc -Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, SnapChat, WattsApp-
a erek
ile toplanan verilerin
SOSYAL MEDYA
kul
2012:223).
medya,
Deloitte
z kontrol
ve
etmektedir.
https://www2.deloitte.com/, e.t. 20.06.2020)
beklenemez. Nite
olarak kullanmala .
Stepanov (2018) uygun yerini
lerinin
n En fazla da
(Stepanov 2018:11).
fiili ve potansiyel m
il mesi konusunda,
d 2018:284).
Sosyal
edilen sosyal medya;
-
Sosyal medya, bireyden gruba k
( Bozkurt, 2017
2011:272).
(2013) sosyal me belirterek,
.
.
Kitle ileti platformudur.
. -
28).
Paquette (2013
ne izin veren ve
(Paquette 2013:3).
ine ve hedef gruplar
a
birlikte, da temsil etmektedir (Tafesse ve
Wien,
in -
. Sajithra ve Rajindra (2013
(Sajithra ve Rajindra, 2013:69). Sosyal
2016:31-
"We
are social" (2018) - 4
bulgulan
,
Fomenkov,2014:454-455).
Sosyal medya;
teknolojik boyutu "Web 2.0" teknolojisi 2016:46).
1.2.1. Medya Boyutu
etken
multimedya
interaktiflik .,
2012:5- , yeni
n bilgiye
lar ise,
-5).
-
nerated Content-
CGM online bilgi kayna
-Driven Content- n
la
ta -20).
( -10):
lu
.
olmak, kendini ifade etmek.
arama, bulma, okuma, topl
- mektedir (Ye
maya devam etmekte ve mevcut
Web 2.0 ve CGC toplumda ve Kaynak: Ye vd. 2011:635
si kurumlar, markalar vs.
-13).
1.2.3. Teknoloji Boyutu
alan Tim Berners Lee 1989
ses,
2014:43-45
.0 ise ku
2014:43-45).
Web 2.0 Sosyal medya (Akar, 2010b:11).
nin Web
2.0 si
e,
(Tepper, 2003: 22) . Bu
anlamsal web yeni web -76). Web
(Ahmed, 2015
verilerdeki veriler daha
ilebilir ve depolan (Morris , 2011:42).
unsurlar:
lmesi.
Web ortamda arama edinil
bir kaynak yelpazesinden bilgilerin edinilmesi.
. Rudman ve Bruwer, 2014:136-137).
. Web 4.0;
kapsamakta (Almeida, 2017:7041). Fowler ve Rodd (2013) Web 4.0
intelligent electronic agent (Fowler ve Rodd, 2013:
www.bigthink.com, e.t.20.05.2020) Polanska (2014) Web 4.0 eb ki dayana
(Polanska, 2014:337). Choudhury (2014 a ultra- ntelligent electronic agent ultra , symbiotic web - biquitous web- web
siyaset, sosyal vb. kilit topluluklarda
r (Choudhury, 2014:8099-8100).
1
-
1.3.1. Bloglar ve Mikrobloglar
(Akar, 2010a:45).
un bu
(Olgun, 2014:12-14).
l
2018:40).
(Levy, 2007:124).
s (Kerpen, 2011:239).
orumlanabilmesi asenkron ve asimetrik olma
r (Silva vd., 2008: 56). Bloglar
, etken olabilir.
2016:25-27).
2007:913).
tim
ortaya
2018:45-
Kaynak: 2019:18-19
si
. Bunlar; siyasi kampanyalar,
orand
: K
ir.
Temasal bloglar n konular
Kurumsal bloglar, ticari
2009:4-8 ; -29).
bloglardaki bilg
nin Van Esch vd., 2018:779).
hedef kitl ,
. Bu
tir (Lu vd., 2014:260
gerekmektedir. B
. B n
. Bu k
erebilir (Van Esch vd., 2018:788).
iler genellikle e- -
-ticareti gelenekse
-
- -800
olarak, bir e- -
(Yoo vd., 2010: 94). Bir blogu takip eden
Van Esch vd., 2018:778).
Ho vd.
hak .
etkileyebilir. da
alm
(Ho vd., 2015:347).
nin, uzman
(Ho vd., 2015:346-362).
Liljander vd.
ile incele
i
tespit
(Liljander vd., 2015: 610-632).
,
blogl
2011:1245).
m genellikle 140-200) b (Akar, 2010a: 55). Mikroblogun blogdan
Mikroblog, blogun
Bloglar; internet
gazetesi, mikrobloglar ise dilmektedir (Turgut,
tam olarak istedikl
-28).
Zhou vd.
Sina mikro- verileri top
akendecilerin mikroblog
d., 2017:819- 838).
1.3.2. Wikiler
-25). W
Wiki
olanak ta
projelerdir (Korfiatis vd., 2006: 253).
W
(Dikme, 2013:10). Wikiler
tedirler. W
2018:51-52).
1.3.3. Podcasting
ku
-
r teknolojidir. 2013
: www.macworld.com, e.t. 22.07.2020). P
(Zickuhr, 2013: www.pewresearch.org, e.t.22.07.2020).
i (Mou ve Lin, 2015: 475).
Sankar ve Bouchard, 2009: 129):
PodcastAlley
Podscope
bloggerlar
Podcasting, bi
(Akkaya, 2013: 35).
. Podcastler haberlerini, yetneklerini, deneyimlerini ve
audio ve video dijital platformlarda irler.
sunulabilir. Podcast kullanarak bir fi
(Zafarmand, 2010:75).
omment"(yorum) ekleme ve
Ying rini "podcast"
2012: 19).
arak
.
u
Podcast uygul
,
2016:26). Samuel-Azran vd.
ni
hoby ve uyk
(Samuel- Azran vd., 2019:482). 2020
-34:% 48, 35- Bu veriler 2018 ve 2019
tmektedir (https://www.podcastinsights.com e.t.22.07.2020). P
unsurlar hem bilgi edinme arzusu hem de rahatla , olarak belirledi (Samuel-Azran vd., 2019: 484).
kurumlar,
, otomatik indirilir (Zacharis, 2012:172).
modeline meydan okur (McGarr, 2009 ; King, 201 akt. Zacharis, 2012:172).
2010:53).
- bloglar,
e- n
ler vb.-
marketing, https://pdfslide.net/, e.t. 20.08.2020).
a
or 2016:35).
(bilgi, birikim,
S
tirilmektedir. la
.
siteleri
2010:55).
2010b
:214).
(www.hupspot.com, e.t.:18.05.2020)
3
Kaynak: -57
Y
ni ile profil abilmektedir.
, pazarlama stratejilerini de etkileyebilmektedir (Parlak,
2010:37). kategorisi
e ifade etmektedir (Safko ve Brake, 2009:26).
lerde bir
.
64).
(As vebinarlar, flashmoblar,
hizmetleri,
ve den
deneyim haline gelmektedir (Belch ve Belch, 2014:131).
1.3.4.1. Facebook
Ellyson, 2008 ; Ho, 2014:1450 ; ; Turgut, 2016:30 ; Olgun, 2014:17).
nan Mark Zuckerberg, omenlerinden birisi
(Olgun, 2014:17).
(Turgut,
de
an
i da
(Buzetto-More, 2012: 69). Bulut (2012) Facebook
-
4
Kaynak: Bulut, 2012:43-44
2016:37). Facebook,
2017:29). Facebook 2018:43).
2013:7).
si
r.
Facebook, e-
Yang (2012
n 256 Facebook
rekreasyon
, 2012:50).
edir.
.
da Facebook'un (Kudeshia ve Kumar, 2016:323).
larak veriler
%20'sinin l , %32'si
V ,
(Sharif Mollah,
Facebook'taki banner k
% 48'inin orta derecede
internette gezinirken Facebook'd
(Sharif Mollah, %27'si
Facebook da banner rek
da
le, insanlar Facebook da
daha kullan (Sharif Mollah,
2015:166).
ettikleri Deh
statistik popul
n ticari isminin dahil
ehghani ve Tumer, 2015:597-599).
1.3.4.2.Instagram
I
Instagram resim ve video payl
Instagram ,
resimleri , bulunan filtreleri kullanarak edit
edebilmekte 2016:39).
I
len
"Hashtag"leri ekleyebilir ve her seferinde en fazla 30 kez kullanabilmektedirler.
alarda I Insta
I
(7- (1 dakika), direkt
ses kay I
sunmakla birlikte,
2018:11). Instagram
,
I
I edilen
sek gelirlere
( 2018:57).
tar -
.
I
I (Humbatov,
2015: 43).
e- I
reklamlar, etiketlemeler veya sponsorluklar olabilir
I de her bir
Insta
bulunan i
vb i n
daha fazl e
I
(Bozkurt, 2019:1511).
Bir I
Delrue, 2018:20).
Tzavara vd.
%55,65'i 25- %20'si 18-
%26,09' %4,35'i
dir. %38,
,
%43,48'i Facebook ve/veya %33,05'inin bu ifadeyi
,44), Facebook ve / veya Instagra
%22.61'i ise kabul etme (Tzavara vd.,2019:82-87).
I
(Kusumasondjaja ve Tjiptono, 2018:659-687).
1.3.4.3.Youtube
a: 96). Youtube
bu
teknolojik
-
video kalitesi de otomatik 320x240 olarak melerinin
(http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube, e.t.: 20.02.2020).
sunmakla beraber kendi
platformdan silinmektedir.
tehdit, ve yasal
Yout
( 2010:74-75). de
vloggerler Youtub
( -28).
sanat,
.
hizmetlerini,
reytinglere
. -6 saniye sonra
dir.
e
2018:13-14).
Lee ve Watkins (2016) YouTube vlogge
tube'd
t
(Lee ve Watkins, 2016:5757).
1.3.4.4. Twitter Twitter
bir mikroblog medya platformudur (Jansen vd., 2009:2170). Twitterin mikroblog
pazarlama diyal
. (Thoring, 2011:141-142). K
de internette edilen 10 web sitesinden birisi
(Chen, 2014:208). Temel olarak
olarak bir cep telefonundan araf internet ve mobil
Facebook ve LinkedIn gibi
, yani Twitter
. D takip edilmez
(Virk, Chen,
(Waters ve Williams, 2011:353). Read vd. (2019) Twitterin
iddia etmektedir (Read vd., 2019:1924).
Twitter 2007
. 2012:33). Twitter (2015) verilerine
milyondan fazla ku l
platformudur.
tweet
n abonelerine
kelimesini, arama
(Abney vd., 2017:283).
(Kwon ve Sung, 2011:5).
2019:1914)
, m
d., 2017:282-283).
Hewett vd. (2016)
se
t vd., 2016:18).
2011:www.mashable.com, e.t. 21.06.2020).
Jansen vd.
ren 150.000'den fazla tweet analiz ni
Mark 20'si marka hissi ifa
de .
rketlerin Twitter
d., 2009:2169).
Thoring, 2011:141).
-duygusal tweet'lerden daha fazla
(Lin ve Pena, 2011:17).
Witkemper vd.
Read vd.(2019) d
sahip
olanlardan , Bu,
ere
.
. yara
ilgil ,
da gelir (Read vd., 2019:1927).
1.3.4.5. Linkedin
arak .
bir sosyal a :linkedin.com, e.t. 22.07.2020). Bilgi, teknoloji,
vd.,2014:1).
vd.,
ofesyonel ve
n ar
(Broillet vd., 2016:2).
sitelerini
a -
g
profesyoneller.
(Skeels ve Grudin, 2009:97).
LinkedIn, harici prof
vd., 2016:1). En fazla t
(Papacharissi, 2009:200). LinkedIn, internette sadece 1-
(Natarajan vd., 2014:279).
- - Bir ad
(www.hubspot.com, e.t.:18.05.2020).
1.3.4.6. Pinterest
bir platformdur. .
(Saxton ve Ghosh, 2016:1).
olanak ta
Smith (2014) Pinterestin A nternet
i %63 art (Smith, 2014: https://expandedramblings.com, e.t.22.07.2020).
2016:13)
ge erek,
u haline :
www.forbes.com, e.t. 15.06.2020).
Pinterest'in kurucusu
uyumlu hissettir . Chafkin (2012) Pinterest
-
80 $ ve Twitter - . Pinterest
. (Chafkin, Sashittal ve Jassawalla, 2019:55
i
i
2018:91).
(Sashittal ve Jassawalla,
resimleri orada saklayabilirler. B 2018:92).
Pinterest, belki de sosyal alandaki .
ve
.
, pot lar
ne istediklerini bilmiyor olsalar da, ak da
olabilir
da istiyor olabilirler.
(Youn ve Jin, 2017:568). Sevitt ve Samuel
e
Sashittal ve Jassawalla, 2019:54).
Blair, 2012:multichannelmerchant.com, e.t.
04.03.2020). Spi
. Heussner (2012) %67'si
Facebook'a ve Spitznagel, 2013 ve Heussner
Sashittal ve Jassawalla, 2019:54).
veya Twitter
(Fulgoni ve Lipsman, 2015:3).
vur
2016:12). Pinterest bulunurken (Honigman,
2012:www.hufpost.com, e.t. 15.07.2020) 2015
olarak %45'ind
(French, 2016:12).
1.3.4.7. Snapchat
Snap Z ve Y
fark yoktur. Snapch
(www.hubspot.com veya
Bununla birlikte,
n ortak
.
1.3.4.8. WhatsApp
;
bir sonucu olarak,
-Fi kullanarak oturum
e
Wh (Bump, https://blog.hubspot.com, e.t. 20.07.2020).
WhatsApp for Business ise
bilgileri edinebilir.
her zamankinden daha kolay hale gelmektedir. WhatsApp Business mobil uygulama Carmicheal, https://blog.hubspot.com, e.t.:20.07.2020).
2019: 100-101).
Oklaz -46).
-
ya
rin
etkilenmektedir.
in
re S
halin
olar
130).
2017:82-
nin pozitif ve
etkilememektedir (%48).
2
(%40).
olarak etkilenenlerdir (Iyengar, Han ve Gupta, 2009:3-4).
en
de belirli bir
-fikirleri ve geri da bu
Oklaz ). Sosyal medya
:
ak.
kurmak.
, yeni
tutmak ve geri bildirimleri dikkate almak.
.
ncak yap
hizmetlerine
Campbell vd. (2014),
;
i
sosyo-
- -
-
ler -aktifler- 10'unu temsil
inci grup - - %28'i
segmentler toplamda
Bilhassa, bilgi mo
Farzin ve Fattahi (2018) pazarlama
psikoloji ve pazarlama
WOM
erkek, 157
Tweeter olarak
-
PI
Jakic vd. (2017), sosyal medya t
marka- ile
Birinci lemi Almanya'dan
verilerini
6).
ncilerden (%40,9), (%35,7) ve serbest
(%13,0) jyerler ve
r da potansiyel in, meslek,
p kullan
in,
,
Corrada vd. (2020), sos
;
edilen
Osei-Frimpong vd. (2019),
, ancak,
birlikt
, ,
Jiao vd. (2018),
Kavramsal model
t dan elde edilen verilerle analiz edilmektedir. Anket
l a
yal
n
a
etkilemektedir
ortaya
Lin vd. (2018),
ma hipotezlerini test etmek in
- duygusal de
olumlu etkiye
, d mektedir.
Nash (2019),
gru
ortaya koy
, ,
Renton ve Simmonds (2017),
ilerinin
, , lgiler sunma
iyonunu kabul l
bilgilerinin
Ramanathan vd. (2017),
, sosyal medya incelemeleri potansiyelinden
r: marka, reklam
incelemele
de
da
veriler
kullan lan
kalit u durum
eri memnuniyeti seviyelerindeki
Ancak,
; nin
So
cekleri efektlerinin
Ho (2014), zellikle
e
kentinden toplanan veri seti (n=
e,
Thornhill vd. (2017), OSM (Owned Social Media Exposure) ve ESM (Earned Social Media Exposure)
- da
Duan ve Dholakia (2017), sosyal medyada
ndeki e
hayaline dayanan ve
ya (seyir) at
hipotezleri destekle Song ve Yoo (2016),
2013 - 31 Ara
.
l
-
S
Dwivedi vd. (2019), (Emotional Brand
Attachment-EBA) Consumer-Based
Brand Equity- n
sosyal medya CBBE'yi
. Ay , alternatif bir model,
kle ilgilidir; bu
A
desteklen
Lin vd. (2018)
-
rihleri n
otelle
Tafesse ve Wien (2018)
fonksi
kombine mesaj stratejilerinin
le tamamlamak etkinliklerini
Liu vd. (2015)
irik olarak test
u da
%56) ve
%44); %61) ve 21 ila 25 (%
ve bul . Sosyal medyada
. S
arma ve sunumun larda ile benzerli
y 2, marka bilinirlili
Mohammad G. Nejad vd. (2016),
, anket -
regresyonlar ve t-
Benson vd. (2019) ; sosyal medya kul
ir ve
dIn,
-
3
ndedir (0.057). Bu nedenle, H4
Sheikh vd. (2019) Social
Commerce Constructs- niyetleri
sitelerinin
n
et
erik ve e-
- stratejilerini olumlu bir e-
Hsu (2017),
tercih
H1a ve
rde
old
desteklendi
Liu vd.(2019) (Social Media Brand
Communities- akatini motive edip
etm
in,
n
-
-
-
-
-yeterl
-
insan - - -yeterlik
de
-
Kwon vd. (2017),
arak ampirik analizler
bi
Soares vd. (2017),
lojistik reg
nekleminin
kayet etme ve tatmin edici bir hizmet
- tek -
ve
Zhang vd. (2017),
Y e anket
e pozitif, negat
(Social Networking Websites)'lerin, TSMT (Technological Sophistication with Mobile Technology)'lerin, PI(Peer Influence)'lerin ve FI(Family Influence)
- -
n tatmin e
-24 -
Hamouda vd. (2018),
tutum ve da
ile kleme
i etkisi de teyit e
YE VE KAZAK
KARARINDA SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIMININ R
ANAL Z
,
lamda, il
de
3.1.
et
ne kin
bi ,
,
olarak;
, b
da
, , konuya
da
olarak analiz etmesi
3.3.
, niyeti,
nda iye ve Kazak
i belirlemektir. Bu kapsamda,
H1:Sosyal m H2:Sosyal m
H3:Sosyal medya H4:
H5: :
H6:
H7: .
H8:
3.4.
V Google
lde 10.06.2020-
sonucunda 142 ve 230
Toplamda
3.5.
cebook, Twitter, Linkedin ve WhatsApp
Toplam Kazakistan
Cinsiyet
241 64,8 128 55,7 113 79,6
Erkek 131 35,2 102 44,3 29 20,4
18-20 26 7,0 14 6,1 12 8,5
21-30 190 51,1 143 62,2 47 33,1
31-40 83 22,3 35 15,2 48 33,8
41-50 38 10,2 20 8,7 18 12,7
51-60 31 8,3 17 7,4 14 9,9
61-70 3 0,8 1 0,4 2 1,4
1 0,3 - - 1 0,7
1 0,3 1 0,4 - -
Lise 7 1,9 7 3,0 - -
49 13,2 17 7,4 32 22,5
Lisans 210 56,5 135 58,7 75 52,8
75 20,2 45 19,6 30 21,1
Doktora 30 8,1 25 10,9 5 3,5
Gelir
2350 ve daha az 131 35,2 96 41,7 35 24,6
2350- 64 17,2 30 13,0 70000 - 34 23,9
3500- 40 10,8 15 6,5 120000 - 25 17,6
4500- 35 9,4 17 7,4 150000 - 18 12,7
5500- 33 8,9 25 10,9 180000 - 8 5,6
6500- 26 7,0 20 8,7 220000 - 6 4,2
7500- 16 4,3 11 4,8 250000 - 30000 5 3,5
8500- 7 1,9 7 3,0 300000- 350 11 7,7
9500- az
3 0,8 3 1,3 350000 -
17 4,6 6 2,6
erke
%
istan
18- -3
- -
- -
ve %0,3(1)71
- -
- -
- -
ka 18- -
- -
- -
-
-30 ve 31-
X ve baby boomers da
(1) (7) (17)
yorumlanabilir.
(64) 2350-3500
3500- %9,4(35) 4500-5500
%8,9 (33) 5500- 6500-7500
500- 8500-9500
ire, - ) 10500 ve
daha fazla
- -
- -
- -
- -
sahiptir.
%24,6(35), 70000 - %23,9(34), 120000 150000 %17,6(25), 150000- 180000
%12,7(18), 180000 220000 %5,6(8), 220000 -
%4,2(6), 250000 300000 %3,5(5), 300000 350000 %7,7(11), 350000 - 40000 (0) ve
(0) gelire sahiptir.
de
3.6.
- -
sorular,
na
- .
madde ekleme-
hin, 2018:318).
soruya, 6 maddelik 7. soruya ve 7 maddelik 8. soruya
birinci
gruptaki ;
Maddeler Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Toplam Varyans% tif % Toplam Varyans %
1 7,465 46,654 46,654 7,465 46,654
2 3,312 20,700 67,354 3,312 20,700
3 1,303 8,145 75,499 1,303 8,145
4 ,824 5,150 80,649
5 ,573 3,580 84,229
6 ,461 2,880 87,109
7 ,417 2,604 89,713
8 ,300 1,876 91,588
9 ,279 1,744 93,332
10 ,251 1,569 94,902
11 ,210 1,315 96,217
12 ,152 ,948 97,165
13 ,145 ,907 98,072
14 ,124 ,773 98,845
15 ,097 ,607 99,452
16 ,088 ,548 100,000
ve isimleri, yani hangi maddenin hangi maddelerle
, Tablo 3.7.2
Tablo 3.7.2 Sosyal Medyada
(SMTD)
SM Bilgi Arama
SMTD2 ,890
SMTD1 ,859
SMTD3 ,850
SMTD4 ,842
SMTD7 ,792
SMTD11 ,668
SMTD5 ,651
SMTD6 ,622
ya Etkisi
SMTD16 ,930
SMTD14 ,926
SMTD13 ,920
SMTD15 ,919
SMTD10 ,868
SMTD9 ,847
SMTD12 ,665
SMTD8 ,644
her Sosyal Medyad
(SMBA) = 0.934
Almaya Etkisi (SMSAE) f Cronbach = 0.950 olarak
f Analizlerin g
gerekmektedir
.
6 madddelik 7 ;
Tablo 3.7.3 bu
%
Tablo 3.7.3 anan Varyans
Maddeler
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Toplam Varyans % Toplam
1 3,505 58,419 58,419 3,505
2 ,973 16,214 74,633
3 ,623 10,386 85,019
4 ,426 7,099 92,119
5 ,288 4,808 96,927
6 ,184 3,073 100,000
Tablo 3.7.4
Cronbach
SMKA22 ,816 = 0.856
SMKA17 ,801
SMKA18 ,782
SMKA21 ,769
SMKA20 ,737
SMKA19 ,672
ikinci grupta ki
Tablo
3.7.5 ,
Tablo 3.7.5. Topl
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Toplam Varyans % Toplam
dimension0
1 4,599 65,694 65,694 4,599
2 ,937 13,384 79,078
3 ,533 7,615 86,694
4 ,370 5,286 91,979
5 ,260 3,709 95,688
6 ,203 2,905 98,593
7 ,098 1,407 100,000
Tablo 3.7.6
Cronbach
,892 = 0.910
,883 ,860 ,797 ,770 ,731 ,721
3.8. Betimleyici Istatistikler Anket formunun birinci
,
r.
iye ve 142 Kazakistan
- ve kullan
Grafi
da kaynaklanabilir.
de Twitter
.
Grafik 3.8.9 ve Grafik 3
Grafik 3.8.12. Kazakista
ir.
de Pinterest
-
-6 saat
-3 saat -
Anket formunun ikinci herhang
Grafik 3.8.19
Grafik 3.
nedeni ile, pazarlamada da sosyal medya pl
Grafik. 3.8.21 ve Grafik 3.8.22
pazarlamada (eWOM)
sosyal medyada edinilen
sosyal medyada edinilen
5 i %89- -
3.9. Hipotez Testleri A
t testi
Hipotez 1:
t-testi
( =3,3000), ylelikle analiz
, Tablo 3.9.1.
N Ort. Std.
Sap
T Df p
Sosyal medyada 230 3,30 ,99
-1,753 370 ,081
Kazakistan 142 3,49 1,08
eklem t-
bir fark
p>0.05
H2 des
N Ort. Std.Sap T df P
Sosyal medyada
230 2,3870 1,28233
,049 370 ,961
Kazakist
an 142 2,3803 1,24759
Hipotez 3:
=0,269 p>0.05 , t-
H3
N Ort. Std. Sap T df p
SMKA 230
3,2558 ,92207
-1,107 370 ,269
Kazakistan 142
3,3650 ,92805
Hipotez 4:
ne etkisi ( =3,2478)
ise ortalama (
Etkisinde
N Ort. Std.Sap T df p
Herhangi bir
m 230
3,2478 1,26573
-1,087 370 ,278
Kazakistan 142
3,3944 1,26018
Hipotez 5:
Kazakistan
ri (
N Ort. Std.Sap T df P Herhangi bir
sosyal medya
alma niyetimi etkiler.
230
3,2652 1,24827
-1,898 370 ,058
Kazakistan 142
3,5141 1,19536
Hipotez 6:
-
=3,2696), Kazakistan
p>0.05 H6
N Ort. Std.Sap T df p
Herhangi bir
sosyal medya
alm etkiler.
230
3,2696 1,25953
-1,751 370 ,081
Kazakistan 142
3,5000 1,18949
Hipotez 7:
.
-
21-30 ve 31- ise 41-50 ve 51-
Kategorisi
N Ort. Std.Sap T Df P
Facebook 273 3,8535 2,17450
-,597 340 ,551
69 4,0290 2,20275
Twitter 273 3,4103 2,32794
1,919 340 ,056
69 2,8116 2,26401
Instagram 273 6,0256 1,44866
8,076 340 ,000
69 4,2899 2,08003
LinekdIn 273 2,0769 1,69925
1,233 340 ,218
69 1,7971 1,62318
WhatsApp 273 6,3516 1,25182
1,366 340 ,173
69 6,1159 1,38836
Snapchat 273 1,8645 1,61562
2,710 340 ,007
69 1,3188 ,84875
Pinterest 273 1,7729 1,45005
1,681 340 ,094
69 1,4638 ,94837
Youtube 273 5,8828 1,44793
5,037 340 ,000
69 4,8116 2,01666
Zaman harcama 273 3,4945 ,99676
5,396 340 ,000
69 2,7826 ,90537
Hipotez 8:
llikle, 273 Y
>
dir. S
Tablo 3.9.8. Etkisinde Ku
Kategorisi
N Ort. Std.Sap T df p
273 3,3956 1,25040
,201 340 ,840
69 3,3623 1,12421
a medya plat
olarak Sosyal
eniyle, e-
sosyal medya
-
hem 21- -
ve lisans mezunu osyal medya
lerinde yararlanabilir.
. Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest ve SnapChat s
mesi dikkat
Ortalama
dirilmesinde bulunularak,
ama
-
ol -
.
olabilecek Bu
Medyada Bilgi Arama
Medyada
S , be
boyutu, rehber olarak alabilirler.
- i,
-
etkisi Bu etki, ortalama olarak =3,24 ile =3
bilinmektedir.
Sosy
dir.
sonucunda sosyal medya plat
ektedir.
.
App)
ABNEY, A. K., PELLETIER, M. J., FORD, T. R. S. & HORKY, A. B.(2017).
#Ihateyourbrand: Adaptive Service Recovery Strategies On Twitter. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(3), 281 294.
AHMED, W. (2015). Third Generation Of The Web: Libraries, Librarians And Web 3.0, Library Hi Tech News. 32(4), pp. - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-11- 2014-0100
AKAR, E. (2010a). Web de Pazarlama Stratejleri.
Bir Pa
Dergisi, 10 (1), 107- 122.
AKKAYA-
Doktora Te
AKSAKALLI, T. (2018).
ALALWAN,A. A., RANA, N. P., DWIVEDI, Y. K. & ALGHARABAT, R. (2017).
Social Media In Marketing:A Review and Analysis Of The Existing Literature.
Telematics and Informatics. 34(7),1177-1190.
Bloglar. Journal of Yasar University, 8(2), 899- 927.
ALMEIDA, F. (2017).Concept And Dimensions Of Web 4.0. International Journal of Computers and Technology, 16(7),7040-7046.
ARIEMRE, A.S. (2018),
BAYCAN, P. (2017).
BELCH, G. & BELCH, M. ( 2014). The role of New and Traditional Media in the Rapidly Changing Marketing Communications Environment. International Journal on Strategic Innovative Marketing, 1, 130-136.
BENSON, V., EZINGEARD, J. & HAND, C. (2019). An Empirical Study Of Purchase Behaviour On Social Platforms: The Role Of Risk, Beliefs And Characteristics. Information Technology & People, 32(4), 876-896.
BERCOVICI, J. (2014). Still more data shows Pinterest passing Twitter in popularity, Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/06/24/still-more-data- shows-pinterest-passing-twitter-in-popularity/#24171d974eeb , e.t. 15.06.2020.
BLAIR, L. (2012).Why Merchants Need to Take a Look at Pinterest, Multichannel Merchant. https://multichannelmerchant.com/marketing/why-merchants-need- to-take-a-look-at-pinterest/, e.t. 04.03.2020.
BLACKSHAW, P. & NAZZARO, M. (2006). Consumer-Generated-Media(CGM) 101:
Word-of-mouth in the age of the web-fortified consumer. http://www.nielsen- online.com/downloads/us/buzz/nbzm_wp_CGM101.pdf e.t. 15.06.2020.
BOYD, D., & ELLISON, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, (13), 210-230.
BOSTANCI, M.(2010).
Sosyal
isi / Journal of Erciyes Communication, 6(2), 1507-1524.
BULUT, E. (2012).
Lisans Tezi,
BUMP, P. (2020). How 5 Brands Use WhatsApp For Marketing.
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/brands-on-whatsapp, e.t. 20.07.2020.
BUZETTO-MORE, N.A. (2012). Social Networking In Undergraduate Education.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management,7,64-90.
(11), Ankara:Pegem
BROILLET, A., KAMPF, C. & EMAD, S. (2014). And How Do We Learn International Professional Communication Conference, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282936074 e.t. 25.03.2020
CAMPBELL, C., FERRARO, C. & SANDS, S. (2014). Segmenting Consumer Reactions To Social Network Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 48(3- 4), 432-452.
The Ultimate Guide to Using WhatsApp for Business in 2020, https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/whatsapp-marketing, e.t.:20.07.2020.
Impact Of Social Media On Consumer Behavior. Indian Journal of Research in Management, Business and Social Sciences (IJRMBSS), 2(2),107-114.
CHEN, H. (2014). College-
Marketing Information On Twitter. Young Consumers, 16(2), 208-221.
CHIANG, I.P. & HSIEH, C. H. (2011). Exploring The Impacts Of Blog Marketing On Consumers. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(9), 1245-1250.
CHOUDHURY, N. (2014). World Wide Web And Its Journey From Web 1.0 To Web 4.0. (IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 5 (6), 8096-8100.
CORRADA SANTOS M., , FLECHA, J. A. & LOPEZ, E. (2020). The Gratifications in the Experience of the Use of Social Media and Its Impact on the Purchase and Repurchase of Products and Services. European Business Review, 32(2), 297- 315.
l Bilimler
-
DEHGHANI, M. & TUMER M. (2015). A Research On Effectiveness Of Facebook Advertising On Enhancing Purchase Intention Of Consumers. Computers in Human Behavior ,49, 597 600.
catholique de
DI, C. (2012).
Amerikanskih I Rossiiskih Issledovateley, Vestnik SPbGU, 9(3), 223-230.
i.
DUAN, J. & DHOLAKIA, R. (2017). Posting Purchases On Social Media Increases Interpersonal Relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(5),404-413.
DWIVEDI, A., JOHNSON, L., WILKIE, D. & DE ARAUJO-GIL, L. (2019).
Consumer Emotional Brand Attachment With Social Media Brands And Social Media Brand Equity. European Journal of Marketing, 53(6),1176-1204.
Sosyal Medyada Pazarlama: Sosyal Medyada Kullanici Motivasyonunun Sosyal Medya Pazarlama Algisina
FARZIN, M. & FATTAHI, M. (2018). EWom Through Social Networking Sites And Impact On Purchase Intention And Brand Image In Iran. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 15(2),161-183.
FOWLER , J. & RODD, E. (2013). Web 4.0: The Ultra-Intelligent Electronic Agent is Coming. https://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/web-40-the-ultra-intelligent- electronic-agent-is-coming, e.t.20.05.2020.
FRENCH, D. (2016). Pinterest Provides Opportunity to Engage, Furnituretoday.com, February 15, 12.
FRIEDMAN, L. (2013). Apple: One billion iTunes podcast subscriptions and counting.
https://www.macworld.com/article/2044958/apple-one-billion-itunes-podcast- subscriptions-and-counting.html e.t.22.07.2020.
FULGONI, M. G. & LIPSMAN, A. (2015). Digital word of Mouth and Its Offline amplification a Holistic approach to leveraging and amplifying all Forms of
wOM. , March. 1-3.
GIL-OR, O. (2010). Building Consumer Demand by using Viral Marketing Tactics within an Online Social Network. Advances in Management, 3(7), 7-14.
Sosyal M
.
30 Minute Social Media Marketing. New York: McGraw Hill.
HAMOUDA, M. (2018). Understanding Social Media Advertising Effect On on Of Tourism Advertising On Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(3), 426-445.
HENNIG-THURAU, T., MALTHOUSE, E., FRIEGE, C., GENSLER, S., LOBSCHAT, L., RANGASWAMY, A. & SKIERA, B.(2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 311- 330.
HEWETT, K., RAND, W., RUST, R.T. & VAN HEERDE, H.J. (2016). Brand buzz in the echoverse. Journal of Marketing, 80(3),1-24.
HO, C. (2014). Consumer Behavior on Facebook : Does Consumer Participation Bring Positive Consumer Evaluation of The Brand?. EuroMed Journal of Business, 9(3), 252-267.
HO, C.H., CHIU,K. H.,CHEN,H. & PAPAZAFEIROPOULOU,A.(2015). Can Internet Blogs be Used as an Effective Advertising Tool? The Role of Product Blog Type and Brand Awareness. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 346-362.
HONIGMAN, B. (2012). 100 Fascinating Social Media Statistics and Figures from 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-honigman/100-fascinating-social- me_b_2185281.html, e.t.15.07.2020.
HSU, L.
Fan Page: From A Dualistic Perspective Of Trust Relationships. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(5),766-800.
HUMBATOV , S. (2015). Brand Management With Social Media:In Service Industry.
.S. (2012).
Karaman.
IYENGAR, R., HAN, S. & GUPTA, S. (2009). Do Friends Influence Purchases in a Social Network. Harward Business School, Working Paper, file:///C:/Users/%D0%9B%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82/Do wnloads/SSRN-id1392172.pdf.
JAKIC, A., WAGNER, O.M. & MEYER, A.(2017). The Impact of Language Style Accommodation During Social Media Interactions on Brand Trust. Journal of Service Management, 28(2), 418-441.
JANSEN, B., 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.
JIAO, Y., ERTZ, M., JO, M. & SARIGOLLU, E. (2018). Social Value, Content Value, and Brand Equity In Social Media Brand Communities: A Comparison of Chinese and Us Consumers. International Marketing Review, 35(1),18-41.
lgi Edinme ve 21, 130-150.
Sosyal ve Dergisi, 5(2), 69-72.
KARA, T. (2013).
i Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(3), 1-17.
zi,
KERPEN, D. (2011). Likeable Social Media- How to Delight Your Customer, Create an Irresistible Brand, And Be Generally Amazing on Facebook (And Other Social Network), McGraw-Hill Books.
KIRCOVA,
. ezi,
KORFIATIS, N.T., POULOS, M. & BOKOS, G. (2006). Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: an insight from Wikipedia. Online Information Review, 30(3), 252-262.
KUDESHIA, C.H. & KUMAR, A. (2016). Social Ewom: Does It Affect The Brand Attitude And Purchase Intention Of Brands?, Management Research Review,40(3),310-330.
KUSUMASONDJAJA, S. & TJIPTONO, F.(2018). Endorsement and Visual Complexity in Food Advertising on Instagram. Internet Research, 29(4), 659- 687.
Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(49), 55-83.
ole of the Social Media on Consumer Preferences: A Survey on the Effects of Social Media Sites on the Buying Decision Making Process,
thesis
KWON, E.S. & SUNG, Y. (2011). Fol Journal
of Interactive Advertising, 21(1), 4-16.
KWON, J., HAN, I. & KIM, B. (2017). Effects Of Source Influence And Peer Referrals On Information Diffusion In Twitter. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(5), 896-909.
5(99),16-25.
B. (2016). Youtube Vloggers' Influence On Consumer Luxury Brand Perceptions And Intentions. Journal of Business Research, 69, 5753 5760.
LEVY, M. (2007). WEB 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.
LIETSALA, K. & SIRKKUNEN, E. (2008). Social Media, Introdution To The Tools And Processes Of Participatory Economy. Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 17 Tampere University Press, 1-183.
LIN, J.-S. & PENA, J. (2011). Are you following me? A content analysis of TV networks brand communication on twitter. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 17-29.
LIN, J., LI, L., YAN, Y. & TUREL, O. (2018). Understanding Chinese Consumer Engagement In Social Commerce: The Roles Of Social Support And Swift Guanxi. Internet Research, 28(1), 2-22.
LIN, S., YANG, S., MA, M. & HUANG, J. (2018). Value Co-Creation On Social Media: Examining The Relationship Between Brand Engagement And Display Advertising Effectiveness For Chinese Hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(4),2153-2174.
LIU, L., LIU, R., LEE, M. & CHEN, J. (2019). When Will Consumers Be Ready ? A Psychological Perspective On Consumer Engagement In Social Media Brand Communities. Internet Research, 29(4), 704-724.
LIU, S., CHOU, C. & LIAO, H. (2015). An Exploratory Study Of Product Placement In Social Media. Internet Research, 25(2), 300-316.
LU, L.C., CHANG, W.P. & CHANG, H.H. (2014). Consumer attitudes toward sponsorship type, product type, and brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258-266.
MANCUSO, J. & STUTH, K.(2011). e Tell The
Difference Between Facebook And Linkedin?. Marketing Research, Fall, 40.
MILETSKY, J. (2010). Princibles of Internet Marketing. Boston: Cengace Learning.
MOHAMMAD G. NEJAD, D., DOOTSON, P., BEATSON, A. & DRENNAN, J. (2016). Financial Institutions Using Social Media Do Consumers Perceive Value?", International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(1), 9-36.
MORRIS, R. D. (2011).Web 3.0: implications for online learning. TechTrends, 55(1), 42-46.
MOU, Y. & LIN, C. A. (2015). Exploring Podcast Adoption Intention via Perceived Social Norms, Interpersonal Communication, and Theory of Planned Behavior.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(3), 475-493.
NAIK, U. & SHIVALINGAIAH, D. (2009). Comparative Study of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Conference Paper, Conference: 6th International CALIBER 2008, At University of Allahabad, Allahabad.
NASH, J. (2019). Exploring How Social Media Platforms Influence Fashion Consumer Decisions In The UK Retail Sector. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(1), 82-103.
NATARAJAN,T., BALAKRISHNAN,J., BALASUBRAMANIAN,S.A. &
MANICKAVASAGAM, J. (2014). Perception Of Indian Consumers Towards Social Media Advertisements In Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube And Twitter, Int.
J. Internet Marketing and Advertising, 8(4), 264-284.
NEGIZ, M. (2012). Bilgi Ekonomisi Sosyal Medya Analizi, https://works.bepress.com/muhammet-negiz/15/download/, e.t. 23.12.2019.
-
OLGUN, B. (2014).
ONI. A. O. & ONI Impact Of Social Media On Consumer Behaviour.
International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS),5(1),284-287.
O'REILLY, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. , No. 65, 1st quarter 2007,17-37.
OSEI-FRIMPONG, K., MCLEAN, G. & FAMIYEH, S. (2019). Social Media Brand Engagement Practices: Examining The Role of Consumer Brand Knowledge, Social Pressure, Social Relatedness and Brand Trust. Information Technology &
People, 33(4), 1235-1254.
Dinamikleri Ve Blog Alemi. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication TOJDAC, 4 (1), 36-50.
PAPACHARISSI, Z. (2009). The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: A comparative Analysis of Facebook, Linkedin And Asmallworld. New Media &
Society, 11(1-2), 199-220.
PARLAK, F. (2010).
Nitel Bir Uygulama.
PAQUETTE, H. (2013). Social Media Tool: A Literature Review. Major Paper by Master of Sconce Students. Rohde Island: University of Rohde Island, Paper 2, 1-26.
RAMANATHAN, U., SUBRAMANIAN, N. & PARROTT, G. (2017). Role of Social Media in Retail Network Operations and Marketing to Enhance Customer Satisfaction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(1),105-123.
READ, W., ROBERTSON, N., MCQUILKEN, L. & SHAHRIAR FERDOUS, A.
(2019). Consumer Engagement on Twitter: Perceptions of The Brand Matter.
European Journal of Marketing, 53(9),1905-1933.
RENTON, M. & SIMMONDS, H. (2017). Like Is A Verb: Exploring Tie Strength And Casual Brand Use Effects On Brand Attitudes And Consumer Online Goal Achievement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(4), 365-374.
RUDMAN, R.& BRUWER, R. (2015). Defining Web 3.0: Opportunities and Challenges. The Electronic Library, 34(1),132-154.
SAFKO, L. & BRAKE, D. K. (2009). The Social Media Bible New Jersey.
SAJITHRA, K. & RAJINDRA, P.(2013). Social Media- History & Components.
Journal of Business and Management.7(1), 69-74.
SAMUEL-AZRAN, T., LAOR, T. & TAL, D. (2019). Who Listens To Podcasts, And Why?: The Israeli Case. Online Information Review, 43(4), 482-495.
SANKAR, K. & BOUCHARD S.A. (2009). Enterprise Web 2.0 Fundaments, Chapter 5: Content Aggregation. Syndication and Federation via RSS and Atom. Cisco Press, 129.
SASHITTAL, H.C. & JASSAWALLA, A. R. (2015). Why Do College Students Use Pinterest? A Model and Implications For Scholars And Marketers. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 15(1), 54 66.
SAXTON, G.D. & CHOSH, A. (2016). Curating For Engagement: Identifying The Nature And Impact Of Organizational Marketing Strategies On Pinterest.
Organizational Marketing Strategies On Pinterest, 1-40.
SHARIF MOLLAH, MD. A. (2015). Impact Of Internet Banner Advertisement On Social Media s Consumer Buying Behaviour: A Case Study Of Facebook.
European Journal of Business and Management,7(7),150-176
SHEIKH, Z., YEZHENG, L., ISLAM, T., HAMEED, Z. & KHAN, I. (2019). Impact Of Social Commerce Constructs and Social Support on Social Commerce Intentions. Information Technology & People, 32(1), 68-93.
SILVA, L., GOEL, L. & MOUSAVIDIN, E. (2008). Exploring The Dynamics of Blog Communities: The Case Of MetaFilter. Info Systems J ,19, 55 81.
SKEEL S, M.M. & WHEN Social Networks Cross Boundaries: A Case Study of Workplace Use of Facebook and Linkedin. 95-103.
