Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Should tweets differ for B2B and B2C? An analysis of Fortune 500
companies' Twitter communications
Kunal Swani a,, Brian P. Brown b,1, George R. Milne c,2
a
Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, 100 Rike Hall, Dayton, OH, 45435, United States
b
VCU School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284, United States
c
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, 121 Presidents Drive, Amherst, MA 01003, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Business-to-business (B2B) marketers hesitate to embrace social media as a marketing tool, unlike their
Received 6 February 2013 business-to-consumer (B2C) counterparts, and they struggle to implement successful social media strategies
Received in revised form 29 September 2013 due to their limited understanding of the phenomenon. Drawing on communication and word-of-mouth theo-
Accepted 27 November 2013
ries, the authors investigate how marketers use Twitter differently across contexts and predict key factors likely
Available online 13 May 2014
to inuence the message strategies used in each. A longitudinal content analysis and logistic regression support
Keywords:
the assessment of a sample of more than 7000 tweets by Fortune 500 companies. Marketers in B2B and B2C set-
B2B advertising tings exhibit signicant differences in their branding and selling strategies; their use of message appeals; and the
Twitter use of cues, links, and hashtags to support information searches. Whereas B2B marketers tend to use more emo-
Longitudinal content analysis tional than functional appeals in their tweets, neither B2C nor B2B marketers have adopted hard sell message
Message appeals strategies.
Social media 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction descriptive and generally support ndings from practitioner studies.

The potential of social media as a marketing tool is undeniable. Yet
social media research and stories of its effectiveness mainly focus on
business-to-consumer (B2C) examples in which social media leads
to increased brand awareness, loyalty, engagement, and sales (e.g.,
Kumar & Mirchandani, 2012; Rapp, Beitelspacher, Grewal, & Hughes,
2013; Taylor, Lewin, & Strutton, 2011; Wiersema, 2013). Before social
media marketing can be deemed an unqualied success though, mar-
keters need to better understand its role in business-to-business (B2B)
settings; thus far, B2B marketers seem hesitant to adopt social media
marketing strategies. According to one study, only 5% of B2B marketers
cite social media marketing as a well-optimized part of their marketing
mix, 17% do not use social media at all, and 58% consider themselves in
the initial stages of developing their social media strategies (Giamanco
& Gregoire, 2012). Similarly, 37% of marketers claim that they do
not know enough about social media sites to know where to begin
(Emarketer, 2010). Marketing academics offer little guidance, because
they have been slow to pursue research on social media phenomena
in B2B settings (Wiersema, 2013). The few available studies tend to be
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 216 212 1851; fax: +1 937 775 3545.
E-mail addresses: kunal.swani@wright.edu (K. Swani), bpbrown@vcu.edu (B.P. Brown),
milne@isenberg.umass.edu (G.R. Milne).
1
Tel.: +1 804 827 3516.
2
Tel.: +1 413 545 5669; fax: +1 413 545 3858.
For example, Michaelidou, Siamagka, and Christodoulides (2011) nd
that just more than 25% of B2B rms use social media to achieve their
brand objectives and that non-users believe it is not important or do
not understand whether or how it might help their brands.
Social media tools have been lauded for their ability to enhance col-
laboration, encourage content sharing, and build community (Jansen,
Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdury, 2009; Michaelidou et al., 2011). Consumers
and businesses increasingly adopt social networking sites such as
Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Twitter as a result
(Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011; Yang, 2012;
Zaglia, 2013); Twitter is one of the most widely used social media
sites among Fortune 500 companies, such that approximately 73%
of them use it to communicate with followers (Barnes, Leschault,
& Andonian, 2012). This micro-blogging service allows marketers
to send tweets (i.e., text that is 140 characters or less with possible hy-
perlinks and attached photos) to a network of associates (followers) at
any point in time through a myriad of electronic devices (Twitter,
2013a). Its user base has grown exponentially since its inception,
attracting the attention of marketers who are interested in interacting
closely with their clientele. By tweeting their followers, marketers
have an opportunity to increase brand awareness, generate leads and
revenues, foster relationships, and create brand loyalty (Kumar &
Mirchandani, 2012; Rapp et al., 2013).
Many B2C companies already have used Twitter to their advantage
(Twitter, 2013c), but fewer success stories include B2B companies. In

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.04.012
0019-8501/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
874 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881
addition, both practitioner and academic research on micro-blogging
websites are relatively scant (e.g., Michaelidou et al., 2011; Ramos,
2008, 2009; Spekman & Dotson, 2009), such that B2B marketers appear
uncertain about how to take advantage of Twitter and similar sites.
Ramos (2009) notes that only 8% of B2B marketers using social media
nd it highly effective in driving brand awareness, and only 5% consider
it effective for generating leads. Yet the rapid growth of and signicant
investments in social media create the need for academics to explore
and explicate methods for capitalizing on social media, across both con-
sumer and business contexts. Without such guidance, B2B practitioners
may mistakenly assume that mimicking their B2C counterparts will
prove similarly rewarding. However, evidence suggests that the two
contexts differ enough to justify dedicated investigations and distinct
approaches.
The objective of this article is to explore whether B2B marketers
should adopt distinct Twitter message strategies. Considering the con-
ceptual distinctions of business and consumer markets, we investigate
how marketers use Twitter differently across these contexts, in an effort
to explicate relevant social media phenomena. We use communication
and word-of-mouth (WOM) theories to advance understanding of the
ow and process of communication in social media contexts. Further-
more, we contribute to B2B advertising and organizational buying liter-
ature by providing theoretical explanations and empirical support for
the differences in tweeting strategies between B2B and B2C contexts.
We thus begin with a general background of Twitter and its uses for
businesses. In discussing communication and WOM theories as a frame-
work for describing the ow and process of communication in social
media contexts, we highlight relevant differences between B2B and
B2C sectors, in accordance with organizational buying literature. Next,
we derive hypotheses from B2B advertising literature, followed by a dis-
cussion of our methodology and results. We summarize our ndings
before highlighting some managerial implications and directions for
research.
2. Overview of Twitter
The range of social media sites on the Internet (e.g., Facebook, Twit-
ter, YouTube, Google+, LinkedIn, and Pinterest) is vast, and each site
has its own unique architecture, culture, and norms that affect how
companies use it to execute their social media strategies (Kietzmann
et al., 2011; Smith, Fischer, & Yongjian, 2012). Social media topics are
widespread but incompletely understood, with a variety of challenges
and opportunities in both B2B and B2C sectors (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010). In this research we focus on Twitter, the micro-blogging infor-
mation network site, which hosts more than 200 million active users
who tweet approximately 400 million tweets daily (Twitter, 2013e).
To exploit this tremendous user base, companies have begun to create
brand-specic accounts and brand communities that can engage with
customers (Fournier & Avery, 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Approx-
imately 73% of Fortune 500 companies use Twitter to connect with cus-
tomers (Barnes et al., 2012).
Depending on their interests, Twitter users may follow certain busi-
ness accounts or brand communities and eventually subscribe to com-
pany tweets. When a user becomes a follower, all subsequent tweets
appear in his or her timeline. Marketers also can follow their users to ob-
serve their conversations and even induce two-way communication
ows to send direct messages to customers. Twitter thus adopts an
asymmetrical follower model, such that businesses do not need to ap-
prove their followers, nor do followers need to approve their businesses
(Twitter, 2013d). In this sense, Twitter is a highly viable means for mar-
keters to interact with customers interested in their offerings. It also
enables them to gather real-time market intelligence, insights, and feed-
back. Public tweets are available for anyone to read too, whether logged
in to Twitter or not. Thus, the option of open and public delivery of com-
munications could benet marketers who need to spread their mes-
sages to a larger audience, beyond followers.
Marketers can share information by sending tweets that might in-
clude photos, videos, links, news, and stories. Although a tweet has
140-character limit, unique features available to marketers can organize
and share information effectively. Hashtags, a word beginning with the
# symbol, can be added to tweets to organize conversations around
specic topics and facilitate search. Mentions, or adding a Twitter
username, also can be embedded in the tweet to grab a particular
follower's attention. Furthermore, tweets can include URLs, which are
automatically condensed to 19 characters to conserve space. With re-
cently introduced features, such as expanded tweets, users can employ
links to preview content, view images, and play videos. This feature pro-
vides more interactive experiences. Cashtags, which begin with the $
symbol, also can be added to allow users to research stocks and compa-
ny performance.
A user can interact with a tweet by replying, retweeting (i.e.,
forwarding the message) to friends, or marking it a favorite tweet. A
tweet can go viral quickly if followers start engaging by replying, favor-
ing, and retweeting it. In addition, marketers can create buzz on Twitter
by promoting their tweets and accounts through various advertising op-
tions. Promoted tweets are targeted to reach specic groups at the right
time and place; promoted accounts focus on creating more followers
and inuencers (Twitter, 2013d).
3. Social media communications theory
Most B2B marketers use social media to increase brand loyalty, aware-
ness, and reputation; heighten buyer engagement; foster customer rela-
tionships; and increase sales and protability (Kumar & Mirchandani,
2012; Michaelidou et al., 2011; Rapp et al., 2013). One way for marketers
to fulll these objectives is to create brand communities and communi-
cate with audiences through social media sites (Zaglia, 2013). Under-
standing the ow of communication between businesses and their
customers thus is important.
Communication is the human activity that links people together
and creates relationships (Duncan & Moriarty, 1998, p. 2). In traditional
communication models (e.g., Hoffman & Novak, 1996; Lasswell, 1948;
Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Stern, 1994), a sender (source) encodes or
creates a message, its content (message) gets transmitted through a
medium, and the receiver decodes the sender's message. In more inter-
active communication processes, such as that of the social media
environment, the sender and receiver change positions constantly
while responding to each other's messages (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich,
2008; Labrecque, Zanjani, & Milne, 2011; Mueller, Garg, Nam, Berg, &
McDonnell, 2011). That is, a feedback loop sends a receiver's response
back to the sender.
In Fig. 1 we depict the ow of communication between marketers
and customers in a social media context. Both B2B and B2C marketers
encode and send social media messages through social media sites,
and customers receive and decode the messages. Marketers must de-
cide which message elements to include in their communications to
motivate their audiences to engage with their brand posts. Buyers or
consumers receive the messages and must absorb and interpret them;
if sufciently motivated, they also take action, such as continuing the di-
alogue, sharing the message with their network, storing the message, or
making a purchase. Marketers can track and monitor these actions, re-
spond to comments, and continue the dialogue. Because of this response
capability, a continuous feedback loop exists.
To help build or create brand identity, meaning, responses, and rela-
tionships (Keller, 2009), marketers also vary their communication strat-
egies in their attempt to nd those that are likely to motivate audiences
to engage with the brand (Keller, 2009; Lovett, Peres, & Shachar, 2013).
In addition to selecting appropriate brand strategy approaches and mes-
sage appeals, they decide whether they should encourage additional in-
formation search and employ various selling strategies in social media
announcements. The brand strategy approaches and message appeals
employed seek to identify the brand with its customers and establish
 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881
SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION MODEL
Social
(Sender) Encode
Media
Message
Marketers
B2B/B2C
Decode
(Receiver)
Fig. 1. Social media communication model.
a brand association in customers' minds. Information search and selling
strategies instead aim to create brand resonance and build customer re-
lationships. Overall, marketers must select appropriate communication
strategies to stimulate audiences to engage with their brand messages
(Lovett et al., 2013; Swani, Milne, & Brown, 2013b).
Our proposed social media communication model (Fig. 1) suggests
that B2B and B2C marketers encode appropriate communication strate-
gies, and then send social media messages as tweets to a corresponding
network of customers (buyers/consumers). These customers view, read,
and decode the messages, then choose whether to respond. Marketers
read and encode any responses and, if appropriate, respond back. We
focus mainly on the one-way communication ow from marketers to
buyers/consumers on Twitter, so that we can evaluate the communica-
tion content (i.e., the encoding process used by marketers) and how it
relates to marketers' brand building strategies.
The utility of Twitter, or any social media site, hinges on substantial
numbers of people transmitting and sharing content; for marketers,
that content needs to enhance the brand's image (Berger & Milkman,
2012). Accordingly, marketers seek to understand which content is
most likely to be tweeted (shared) among customers. Because tweets
are the building blocks of communications on Twitter (2013d), the con-
tent of the tweet has particular importance as a primary determinant of
engagement (e.g., retweet, favor, reply), customer relationships, and
other brand and nancial outcomes (Kumar & Mirchandani, 2012;
Rapp et al., 2013). Marketers must be strategic in designing and execut-
ing their tweets, to be able to inuence and motivate their followers,
based on their clear understanding of the factors likely to motivate cus-
tomers to engage with brand-related content.
Research on WOM and virality suggests that various motives insti-
gate content transmission (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Hennig-Thurau,
Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004; Lovett et al., 2013), including con-
sumers' psychological motivations for self-enhancement; desire to
express their uniqueness, expertise, or emotions; goals of conversing
with others; and efforts to reduce perceived risks. In turn, marketers
need appropriate communication strategies to induce these motiva-
tions and entice individuals to engage with brand messages through so-
cial media. Customers might feel motivated to engage with messages
that contain brand names to build their social identity (Lovett et al.,
2013; Rapp et al., 2013). Furthermore, by engaging with emotional
and functional content or brand-related information, they might gain
a means to express their feelings, increase their self-enhancement,
and fulll their need to share information (Berger & Milkman, 2012;
Lovett et al., 2013).
These motivations to engage with social media messages should be
activated by appropriate message strategies by B2B and B2C marketers.
Because marketers need appropriate social media communication
approaches, according to the characteristics of their followers, we
predict that they use different encoding processes when tweeting
to B2B buyers versus B2C consumers (Fig. 1). We thus review the
differences between B2B and B2C contexts and explain their inuence
on customers' motivation to share content, specically in the context
of Twitter communications.
875
Decode (Receiver)
Buyer/Consumer
Encode (Sender)
4. Hypotheses
Prior research generally has concluded that business and consumer
markets differ in their product offerings and decision-making processes
(Brown, Zablah, Bellenger, & Donthu, 2012; Mudambi, 2002; Webster &
Wind, 1972). Because B2B offerings tend to be more technical and com-
plex, buyers use more formal, longer, group buying processes. Further-
more, the complexity of industrial products causes buyers to perceive
higher levels of performance and economic risk, such that they become
much more involved in the purchase decision. To mitigate these risks,
both buyers and sellers seek to establish long-term, collaborative
relationships (Homburg, Klarmann, & Schmitt, 2010; Lynch & De
Chernatony, 2004; Zablah, Brown, & Donthu, 2010). In addition, buyers
generally are involved and rational, using high levels of cognition during
their purchase decision process. In contrast, consumers tend to be
less involved and use low levels of cognition (Lothia, Donthu, &
Hershberger, 2003), such that they demonstrate impulsive buying be-
havior toward some offerings (Minett, 2002; Swani et al., 2013b).
In response, B2B marketers generally use unique encoding processes
and pursue specic social media communication strategies to motivate
customer engagement (Brown et al., 2012) (Table 1). For example, B2B
marketers promote their corporate brand more than their individual
product brands (Mudambi, 2002) and generally make more functional
appeals (Lohtia, Donthu, & Hershberger, 2003; Turley & Kelley, 1997).
Furthermore, they likely include more informational cues and refrain
from commercialism cues in their communications to buyers. We use
these criteria to develop hypotheses that denote differences between
B2B and B2C tweets (Table 1).
4.1. Brand strategy approach
Our rst social media message criterion is based on an organization's
decision to promote its corporate brand or its individual product brands.
Several studies note the importance of B2B branding (Brown et al.,
2012; Kim, Reid, Plank, & Dahlstrom, 1998; Mudambi, 2002), and
there is a growing stream of research that focuses on the importance
of corporate branding (e.g., Brown, 1998; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Keller
& Aaker, 1998), for organizational buying in particular. Brown et al.
(2012) suggest that B2B brands can communicate both tangible attri-
butes (e.g., product performance) and intangible attributes (e.g., rep-
utation, distribution, support services), so B2B marketers focus on
their corporate name branding strategies (e.g., Cisco, IBM, DuPont,
GE, Intel), rather than the product name branding strategies adopted
by B2C marketers (e.g., Gillette, Clorox, Downy, Glade). They also
tend to follow an umbrella branding approach, such that all products
take the name of the corporate brand (Michell, King, & Reast, 2001;
Shipley & Howard, 1993). The use of such corporate brand names
in messages inuences the engagement of B2B buyers more than
it does that of B2C consumers (Swani et al., 2013b), so when B2B
marketers encode tweets in an attempt to motivate customers to en-
gage with brand messages, they likely emphasize corporate brand
names more than B2C tweets.
876 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881
Table 1
Differences in B2B and B2C social media message strategies.
Message strategies B2B
Brand strategy Corporate brand names
Message appeals Functional
Selling strategy Few direct calls to purchase
Information search High
H1a. Corporate brand names appear more frequently in B2B tweets
than in B2C tweets.
H1b. Product brand names appear more frequently in B2C tweets than
in B2B tweets.
4.2. Message appeals
A basic element of advertising message development is the decision
to use a functional/rational appeal or an emotional appeal (Campbell,
Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2011; Lohtia et al., 2003; Turley & Kelley,
1997). Functional appeals refer to specic product specications, fea-
tures, performance, and other tangible cues. In contrast, according to
Kotler and Armstrong (1994, p. 468), Emotional appeals attempt to
stir up either negative or positive emotions that can motivate purchase.
These include fear, guilt and shame appeals that [inuence] people to do
things they should or stop doing things they shouldn't. We posit that
functional appeals in B2B tweets are more effective because the organi-
zational buying process involves assessing information related to com-
plex offerings (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2004). Regardless of the purchase
situation, organizational buying demands extensive problem solving
(Brown et al., 2012) and a cognitive decision-making process (Jensen
& Jepsen, 2007). Thus, functional appeals should be particularly effec-
tive in B2B tweets.
Emotional appeals instead tend to be more effective for consumer
communications (Goldberg & Gorn, 1987; Page, Thorson, & Heide,
1990) mainly because the products are more value expressive
(Bruzzone, 1981). Message appeals should match the product type
(Johar & Sirgy, 1991; Shavitt, 1990, 1992), implying that emotional ap-
peals should be more effective for value-expressive products, whereas
functional/rational appeals work better for utilitarian (technical) offer-
ings (Vaughan, 1980). Lohtia et al. (2003) nd that emotional appeals
are more effective in B2C than in B2B banner ads. Because B2B mar-
keters are likely to use different message appeals than B2C marketers
when encoding tweets to motivate customers to engage with their
brand messages, we predict the following:
H2a. Functional appeals appear more frequently in B2B tweets than in
B2C tweets.
H2b. Emotional appeals appear more frequently in B2C tweets than in
B2B tweets.
4.3. Selling strategy approach
Direct calls to purchase (i.e., hard sells) are explicit statements
encouraging prospective buyers to make an immediate purchase.
Buyers tend to be reluctant to respond to such direct calls, due to
the rigor and complexity that they associate with their lengthy buy-
ing processes. Thus they may lose interest in social media sites that
use explicit selling strategies (Rapp et al., 2013; Spekman & Dotson,
2009). Although the use of hard sell approaches in social media mes-
sages could deter engagement for both B2B buyers and B2C con-
sumers (Swani et al., 2013b), in B2C contexts, the emphasis often is
on selling and encouraging impulsive, short-term sales rather than
B2C Key citations
Product brand names Brown et al. (2012), Mudambi (2002) and Swani et al. (2013b)
Emotional Turley & Kelley (1997) and Lohtia et al. (2003)
Many direct calls to purchase Rapp et al. (2013) and Spekman & Dotson (2009)
Low Gilliland & Johnston (1997) and Mudambi et al. (1997)
developing long-term relationships. Direct calls to purchase then
may be more effective because consumers look for selling cues that
reward immediate purchases. When B2C companies use explicit cues,
such as apply now, buy one, get one free, sale, or shop today,
in their tweets, they may entice consumers to make immediate
purchases. Thus, B2B marketers likely use different selling strategy ap-
proaches than B2C marketers when encoding tweets to motivate their
customers to engage with their brand messages, and we hypothesize:
H3. Direct calls to purchase appear more frequently in B2C tweets than
in B2B tweets.
4.4. Information search
Business marketers are charged with communicating critical, tech-
nological content to inform targeted buyers about an offering that
will fulll a specic, well-dened need (Minett, 2002). Gilliland and
Johnston (1997) note that knowledge about the offering inuences
the extent of a buyer's information search. Because organizational
buyers tend to be experts in their elds, they engage more in analysis
during the purchase process to justify their decisions. Mudambi,
Doyle, and Wong (1997) show that buyers regard technical information
about products or services provided by the manufacturer as an impor-
tant part of the buying process.
The Internet provides an efcient channel for acquiring information
that can support buying decisions by both buyers and consumers. Cor-
porate websites usually provide readily available, critical information
to their visitors; Twitter provides a means to post website links through
tweets. Although marketers typically use links in tweets to increase in-
bound trafc to their corporate website, or other related websites, em-
bedding links also can provide buyers with more information about
the offering or company. In this sense, links might serve as sales funnels,
driving prospects to corporate websites. Cisco, IBM, and Accenture in-
clude cues such as learn more, read on, more information,
watch video, or new technology news in their tweets to link pros-
pects to white papers, testimonials, videos, product specications, and
other potentially valuable information, in exchange for detailed person-
al or company information. In the rational decision-making process for
B2B settings, information search tends to be more extensive than it is
in B2C settings.
Furthermore, Twitter offers the unique hashtag feature, which com-
panies can use to mark keywords or topics (e.g., #intel-powered,
#cisco-linksys, #ibm-db2, and #avaya_nes) and clearly categorize mes-
sages (Twitter, 2013b). Clicking on a hashtag allows users to see similar-
ly themed tweets, so they facilitate information search and should be
more prominent in business communications whose audiences search
information more actively than consumer audiences. We predict then
that B2B marketers use different strategies for information sharing
when encoding tweets to motivate their customers to engage with
brand messages.
H4a. Embedded links and cues for additional information search ap-
pear more frequently in B2B tweets than in B2C tweets.
H4b. Hashtags appear more frequently in B2B tweets than in B2C
tweets.
 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881 877

4.5. Time effects 5.3. Regression models

Because social media is relatively less researched in B2B contexts
(Michaelidou et al., 2011; Rapp et al., 2013; Wiersema, 2013), B2B mar-
keters likely are inuenced by B2C marketers in developing their social
media communication strategies. Because the two contexts are so dif-
ferent, this mimicry may be inappropriate and ineffective for B2B mar-
keters. As they increasingly experiment with and implement social
media methods, it becomes useful to verify whether B2B marketers
adopt social media communication practices initiated by B2C mar-
keters. Thus, we seek to determine whether B2B Twitter communica-
tion practices converge with or diverge from B2C communication
practices over time.
5. Method
To analyze the message strategies of Fortune 500 companies, we cap-
tured their tweets and submitted them to a longitudinal content analy-
sis to assess their content. In addition, we applied logistic regression to
test our hypotheses. Content analysis approaches (Kassarjian, 1977)
offer a frequently used methodology to study marketing content, and
particularly the practices and approaches that marketers use in their
marketing communications (Neuendorf, 2002; Swani et al., 2013b;
Turley & Kelley, 1997). In B2B contexts, content analyses have explicat-
ed communications in several media, including print advertising (Clarke
& Honeycutt, 2000; Cutler & Javalgi, 1994; Jensen & Jepsen, 2007; Lohtia
et al., 1995; Naccarato & Neuendorf, 1998; Turley & Kelley, 1997), banner
ads (Lohtia et al., 2003), Facebook wall posts (Swani et al. 2013b), and
tweets (Swani, Milne, Cromer & Brown, 2013a).
5.1. Data
Our data reect 289 Fortune 500 companies' tweets, generated by
their ofcial Twitter accounts. The list of Fortune 500 companies with
Twitter accounts was based on Barnes (2010). We tracked the accounts
at two points in time: during the week of March 29, 2011, which provid-
ed 3278 unique company tweets active during time 1, and then during
the week of September 29, 2011, which produced 4003 unique compa-
ny tweets during time 2.
To test our hypotheses, we ran a main effects logistic regression to
compare message strategies across B2B and B2C tweets. The indepen-
dent variables were the uses of corporate brand name, product brand
name, functional appeals, emotional appeals, direct calls to purchase,
links and cues for information search, and hashtagsall dummy vari-
ables, for which 1 indicated presence and 0 indicated absence. The de-
pendent variable, communication type of each message, was coded as
B2C (=1) or B2B (=0).
To test for time effects, we also ran a hierarchical logistic regres-
sion model in which we added the main effect of time (1 = time pe-
riod 1; 0 = time period 2) and the interactions between time and
message strategies in the main effects model. Signicant interaction
effects suggest differences in the uses of message strategies across
B2B and B2C contexts over time.
6. Results
The coders identied 184 tweets as both B2B and B2C. We eliminat-
ed them from the data set, leaving a total of 3270 tweets from time pe-
riod 1 and 3827 tweets from time period 2 for analysis.
6.1. Descriptive statistics
In Table 2 we report the descriptive statistics of message strategies
for B2B and B2C tweets for time period 1, time period 2, and both pe-
riods. The data set featured 27.3% B2B tweets and 72.7% B2C tweets
(2(1) = 1461.83, p b .01). As predicted, the percentages of uses of
corporate brand names (B2B = 45.1%; B2C = 35.5%), functional
appeals (B2B = 24.2%; B2C = 13.6%), embedded links and cues for
additional information search (B2B = 80.7%; B2C = 75.7%), and
hashtags (B2B = 56.4%; B2C = 44.4%) were consistently higher for
B2B tweets compared with B2C tweets. The percentages of uses of
emotional appeals (B2B = 30.3%; B2C = 59.5%) and direct calls to
purchase (B2B = 3.5%; B2C = 8.3%) instead were higher for B2C tweets
compared with B2B tweets. Surprisingly though, the percentage of use
of product brand names was similar across contexts (B2B = 17.7%;
B2C = 18.2%).

5.2. Content analysis

6.2. Main effects

Five research assistants, unaware of our research questions, helped

The overall main effects model was statistically signicant (2(7) =
code the data for times 1 and 2. All coders participated in four training
694.42, p b 0.01) and the model predicted percent correct was 0.73, suf-
sessions over a period of two weeks, to ensure that they understood
ciently higher than the 0.50 threshold. The pseudo R2 for the model
the key concepts and could apply the coding scheme efciently. Each
was 0.093. None of the correlations between exogenous variables
coder coded more than 60 messages during the training sessions. The
exceeded 0.32, reducing the potential for multicollinearity issues (type
intercoder reliability measure used a randomly selected subsample of
error) in our regression analysis. We report these results in Table 3,
100 messages from a separate data set (Lohtia et al., 2003; Neuendorf,
Panel a.
2002). We calculated intercoder reliability for the message strategy
We hypothesized that the corporate brand names would appear
variables and the communication type variable using Rust and Cooil's
more frequently in B2B tweets than in B2C tweets, and because the
(1994) proportional reduction in loss index (PRL); a value of 0.70
is acceptable, and 0.90 is desirable. All reliabilities were high (mean Table 2
PRL = 0.99) and above desired levels, suggesting that no meaningful Message strategy executions for B2B and B2C tweets.
differences contributed to the coders' evaluations. In coding the mes-
Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 and 2
sages from the original data set, three coders coded a separate, non-
overlapping portion of messages collected at time period 1, and the Message strategy B2B B2C B2B B2C B2B B2C
remaining two coders coded a separate, non-overlapping portion of Corporate brand name a
43.8 35.3 45.6 35.7 45.1 35.5
the messages collected at time period 2. Thus, each coder was fungible, Product brand namea 13.3 12.0 19.5 25.0 17.7 18.2
given the high level of intercoder reliability. Functional appealsa 7.8 1.7 31.2 26.5 24.2 13.6
Emotional appealsa 39.0 56.4 26.6 62.8 30.3 59.5
For the independent variables indicating strategy type, we used bi- Direct calls to purchasea 0.5 1.9 4.7 15.3 3.5 8.3
nary coding, where 1 indicated that the trait was present and 0 indicat- Information searcha 87.9 76.4 77.6 74.8 80.7 75.7
ed its absence. The coders also recorded the number of hashtags in each Hashtagsa 45.2 39.1 61.1 50.3 56.4 44.4
message so we had a binary variable indicating whether a hashtag was Total tweetsb 577 2693 1361 2466 1938 5159
present (1) or not (0). The communication context was classied into a
Percentage of tweets.
b
three categories: B2B, B2C, or both. Tweet counts.
878 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881

Table 3
Logistic regression results.

a. Main effects model

Dependent variable: B2C tweets

Message strategy Estimate Odds ratio SE WALD Sig Hypotheses Probabilitya

Corporate brand name (1 = yes) 0.265 0.767 0.057 21.453 0.000 H1a supported 0.434b
Product brand name (1 = yes) 0.104 1.110 0.080 1.712 0.191 H1b not supported
Functional appeals (1 = yes) 0.576 0.562 0.075 58.764 0.000 H2a supported 0.360
Emotional appeals (1 = yes) 1.092 2.981 0.059 345.613 0.000 H2b supported 0.749
Direct calls to purchase (1 = yes) 0.786 2.195 0.142 30.913 0.000 H3 supported 0.687
Information search (1 = yes) 0.246 0.782 0.070 12.280 0.000 H4a supported 0.439
Hashtags (1 = yes) 0.482 0.618 0.057 72.218 0.000 H4b supported 0.382
Model t Pseudo pseudo R2 = 0.093 2(7) = 694.42, p b 0.01 Predicted percent correct = 73.6%

b. Interaction effects model

Dependent variable: B2C tweets

Message strategy Estimate Odds ratio SE WALD Sig Probability time 1c Probability time 2c

Corporate brand name (1 = yes) 0.324 0.724 0.075 18.556 0.000

Product brand name (1 = yes) 0.195 1.215 0.096 4.087 0.043
Functional appeals (1 = yes) 0.001 0.999 0.086 0.000 0.994
Emotional appeals (1 = yes) 1.455 4.286 0.078 351.757 0.000
Direct calls to purchase (1 = yes) 0.994 2.702 0.149 44.681 0.000
Information search (1 = yes) 0.008 0.992 0.088 0.008 0.930
Hashtags (1 = yes) 3.710 0.690 0.075 24.571 0.000
Time (1 = time period 1) 2.008 7.447 0.184 119.277 0.000
Corporate brand name time 0.061 1.063 0.122 0.248 0.619
Product brand name time 0.175 0.840 0.177 0.970 0.325
Functional appeals time 1.390 0.249 0.243 32.687 0.000 0.199d 0.499d
Emotional appeals time 0.856 0.425 0.124 47.672 0.000 0.645 0.810
Direct calls to purchase time 0.177 1.124 0.620 0.035 0.851
Information search time 0.758 0.469 0.164 21.406 0.000 0.317 0.498
Hashtags time 0.039 1.040 0.121 0.103 0.748
Model t Pseudo pseudo R2 = 0.136 2
(15) = 1034.39, Predicted percent correct = 75.5%
p b 0.01
a
Only probabilities for signicant main effects are shown.
b
Read as: 0.434 is the probability of the tweet being B2C when the corporate brand name is present.
c
Only probabilities for signicant interactions are shown.
d
Read as: 0.199 (0.499) is the probability of the tweet being B2C when functional appeals are present at time 1 (time 2).

variable representing corporate brand name was negative and signi-
cant ( = 0.265, p b 0.01), we afrmed H1a. However, we cannot
conrm H1b, because the presence of product brand names was not
more frequent in B2C tweets than in B2B tweets, according to the posi-
tive but insignicant variable representing product brand name ( =
0.104, p N 0.01). In line with H2a, functional appeals appear more
frequently in B2B tweets than in B2C tweets, according to the nega-
tive, signicant variable representing functional appeals ( = 0.576,
p b 0.01). In H2b, we predicted that emotional appeals appear more fre-
quently in B2C tweets than in B2B tweets, and in support of this predic-
tion, the variable representing emotional appeals was positive and
signicant ( = 1.092, p b 0.01). In support of H3, direct calls to pur-
chase appear more frequently in B2C tweets than in B2B tweets, with
a positive, signicant variable ( = 0.786, p b 0.01). The use of links
and cues for information search also appeared more frequently in B2B
tweets than in B2C tweets, in that the variable representing the pres-
ence of information search cues was negative and signicant ( =
0.246, p b 0.01), in support of H4a. Finally, in support of H4b, the
use of hashtags appeared more frequently in B2B tweets than in B2C
tweets, according to the negative and signicant variable representing
hashtags ( =0.482, p b 0.01).
6.3. Interaction effects
We added time and the interaction terms to our main effects model
and uncovered a signicant difference between the main effects model
and interaction effects model (2(8) = 399.97, p b 0.01). The overall in-
teraction effects model was signicant (2(15) = 1034.39, p b 0.01) and
the model predicted percent correct was 0.75, sufciently higher than
the 0.50 threshold. The pseudo R2 for the model was 0.136. We report
these results in Table 3, Panel b.
The interaction between time and the use of functional appeals was
signicant ( = 1.390, p b 0.01). This indicates that the percentage
use of functional appeals across B2B and B2C social media messages
converged over time (B2BT1 = 7.8%, B2CT1 = 1.7%; B2BT2 = 31.2%,
B2CT2 = 26.5%). Furthermore, the interaction between time and the
use of emotional appeals was signicant ( = 0.856, p b 0.01). The
percentage use of emotional appeals across B2B and B2C social media
messages diverged even more over (B2BT1 = 39.0%, B2CT1 = 56.4%;
B2B T2 = 26.6%, B2C T2 = 62.8%). The interaction between time
and the use of cues and links for information search was signicant
( = 0.758, p b 0.01), so this tactic converged across B2B and
B2C social media messages (B2B T1 = 87.9%, B2C T1 = 76.4%;
B2BT2 = 77.6%, B2CT2 = 74.5%).
7. Discussion
Social media has the potential to enhance brand equity. It allows
consumers and buyers to interact with their brands in ways that can
create brand identity and brand meaning, as well as encourage brand
responses and relationships (Keller, 2009). Furthermore, increasing
the brand's presence and reputation on social media sites can boost
sales performance and other nancial and brand outcomes (Kumar &
Mirchandani, 2012; Rapp et al., 2013). Thus it has become critical for
marketers to use appropriate communication strategies to motivate
their audiences to engage with brand messages (Swani et al., 2013b).
With this study we have sought to explore whether differences be-
tween business and consumer markets justify the use of distinct social
media message strategies. Applying communication and WOM theories
 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881
to tweets, we contend that B2B marketers encode tweets differently
than B2C marketers so that they can motivate their unique customers
to engage with their brand messages. Building on B2B advertising and
organizational buying literature, we also highlight several particularly
relevant differences in brand strategy, message appeals, selling ap-
proach, and information search between the B2B and B2C contexts.
We tested seven hypotheses related to these differences and found sup-
port for six of them. We also tested whether these differences persisted
over a six-month period.
Do B2B tweets differ from B2C tweets? Our results indicate some dif-
ferences. In B2B tweets, corporate name branding is more frequent than
it is in B2C tweets. We expected B2B marketers to highlight corporate
brand names in their tweets to their followers. Indeed, our results
show that the percentage use of corporate brand names is higher in
B2B tweets compared with B2C tweets. A more intriguing nding is
that there appears to be no difference in the use of product brand
names between the two contexts. We nd that both B2B (2(1) =
1217.00, p b 0.01) tweets as well as B2C (2(1) = 2770.00, p b 0.01)
tweets have a higher presence of corporate brand names than product
brand names in their message strategies. This surprising result might
vary with industry or product type differences in our sample, consider-
ing that Swani et al. (2013a) nd that B2B service companies tend to
have a higher percentage of corporate brand names, whereas B2C ser-
vice companies have a higher percentage of product brand names in
their tweeting strategies. For B2B and B2C companies that offer prod-
ucts, they indicate no such difference (Swani et al., 2013a). We have
not analyzed tweets at the industry or product level, but these factors
might inuence our results related to the use of product and corporate
brand names in tweets.
With regard to appeals, the ndings matched our predictions: B2B
tweets featured a higher percentage of functional appeals, whereas B2C
tweets included a higher percentage of emotional appeals. Yet the data
also suggest that B2B tweets include more emotional appeals (30.3%)
than functional appeals (24.2%; 2(1) = 13.19, p b .01; Table 1). This nd-
ing is consistent with recent organizational buying research that notes the
role of involvement and the signicance of brand emotions in decision-
making processes (Gilliland & Johnston, 1997; Jensen & Jepsen, 2007;
Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004). Emotional content in B2B communica-
tions can help foster customer relationships, add valuable dimen-
sions to product or services, and lead to a sustainable differential
advantage (Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004; Swani et al., 2013b), and
the use of corporate brand names with emotional content has
emerged as a very effective social media strategy for B2B companies
(Swani et al., 2013b). The use of emotional content in tweets thus can
increase customer engagement and strengthen brand relationships.
Although B2C tweets use a higher percentage of direct calls to pur-
chase than B2B tweets, it also is interesting to observe the relatively
low percentage of such calls in both contexts. That is, marketers do
not appear to use Twitter primarily as a selling tool. The dynamics of so-
cial media advertising suggest an approach that differs from more tradi-
tional advertising, in which hard sells are less appropriate (Rapp et al.,
2013). Additionally, B2B tweets have a higher percentage of links and
cues for information search in their messages than B2C tweets, and
the percentage use of hashtags is higher in B2B tweets as well. Yet we
nd substantial usage of cues and links and of hashtags in both B2B
(80.7% and 56.4%, respectively) and B2C (75.7% and 44.4%, respectively)
tweets. That is, regardless of the context, marketers use Twitter as an
information-sharing platform.
Finally, our results show that the characteristics of B2B and B2C
tweets have shifted over time, sometimes diverging and sometimes
converging. The recognition that uses of functional appeals and infor-
mation search have converged over time indicates that Twitter has
grown into a platform for sharing product, service, and company infor-
mation across contexts. However, the use of emotional appeals has di-
verged over time, with a percentage increase in emotional appeals in
B2C tweets compared with B2B tweets.
879
8. B2B implications
These ndings suggest that B2B marketers must continue to inte-
grate social media strategies into their overall marketing communica-
tion strategies. Even if they feel uncertain of the role of Twitter or
social media in general, these marketers keep increasing their usage
over time, as manifested in the 136% increase in the number of tweets
in time period 2 compared with time period 1 (time 1 = 577; time
2 = 1361). Prior research similarly indicates a growing presence of
B2B buyers on social media websites. In response, B2B marketers
have started to allocate more marketing resources to social media
and should try to take advantage of the social media sites that their
target buyers tend to frequent. Moreover, considering the impor-
tance of relationship building in organizational buying, social
media offer a viable tool for B2B marketers to foster customer
brand relationships, especially if the companies have developed
brand reputations and preexisting customer relationships (Rapp
et al., 2013).
Yet B2B marketers also should keep the nuances of the organization-
al buying context in mind when developing their social media strate-
gies. Our results reinforce the notion that B2B marketers tend to focus
on promoting their corporate brands (45.1%) rather than their product
brands (17.7%) in their tweets. Companies with reputable brands can le-
verage their brand image through social media, because customers who
prefer to be associated with reputable brands are likely to engage with
them, such as by spreading positive WOM (Rapp et al., 2013). Our nd-
ing that emotional appeals are more common than functional appeals in
B2B tweets challenges established perspectives of traditional media
practices though, which point to the use of functional appeals as more
effective for B2B marketers (Turley & Kelley, 1997). Rather, it is
more consistent with growing evidence that the dynamics of social
media advertising are distinct from those of traditional advertising.
Emotional cues are important for B2B marketing too (Gilliland &
Johnston, 1997; Jensen & Jepsen, 2007; Lynch & De Chernatony,
2004), and they may be especially effective in social media commu-
nications (Swani et al., 2013b). To differentiate themselves and
build strong brand relationships with their target customers, we rec-
ommend B2B marketers to integrate emotional appeals into their
tweets and other communications. Effective B2B brand communica-
tions emphasize both emotional and functional brand values to gain
sustainable, differential advantages over their competitors (Lynch &
De Chernatony, 2004).
Finally, hard sell tweets are infrequent (3.5%), but cues and links for
information search (80.7%) and the use of hashtags (56.4%) are relative-
ly common as B2B message strategies. The social media platform is not
well suited to serving as a selling tool; it is more applicable for building
customer relationships (Rapp et al., 2013). Therefore, B2B marketers
should avoid using explicit approaches; the frequency of information
cues and hashtags suggests that social media already is effective mainly
as an informational platform or resource. Thus companies can leverage
their customer relationships by providing audiences with useful brand
information.
9. Limitations and further research
Several limitations of this study invite continued research. First, our
sample only generalizes to Fortune 500 rms' tweets; it should be ex-
tended to include messages from small businesses, specic industries,
or different social media sites. Second, the differences we observed
were limited to a select group of message strategies. A better under-
standing of the uses of images, videos, or other message formats (e.g.,
news, job postings, community information) in tweets and other social
media communications would be useful.
Additional research also could consider more intricate classications
of emotional (e.g., adventure, fear, humor, guilt) and functional (e.g.,
quality, performance, economic) appeals, to test for differences across
880 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881
appeal types and contexts. Such deeper understanding of the use and ef-
fectiveness of brand emotions in B2B communications is needed. Addi-
tional research also might consider other important inuences, such as
industry type and product type, on B2B and B2C social media communi-
cation practices. Finally, we encourage researchers to explore social
media effectiveness and its impact on rm or brand performance in
B2B contexts. In particular, we need a better understanding of how so-
cial media communications promote WOM and ultimately enhance
marketing (e.g., brand awareness, brand relationships and brand equi-
ty) and nancial (e.g., sales, return on investment and stock price) out-
comes. The prevalence of social media usage clearly demonstrates that
social media effectiveness is a research topic that requires continued ac-
ademic attention.
In conclusion, our research has explored differences in the tweeting
strategies used in B2B and B2C contexts. We identify signicant differ-
ences in these strategies, specically as they relate to the use of branding
and selling strategies, message appeals, and cues, links, and hashtags that
signal additional information in their Twitter communications. We en-
courage our fellow academics to build on this understanding of social
media in both settings, particularly in the generally under researched
B2B setting.
Acknowledgments
We thank Professor Bruce Skaggs and Spencer Ross for their com-
ments and insights on prior versions of this article; we thank our coders
for their tireless assistance.
References
Barnes, N. G. (2010). The Fortune 500 and Social Media: A Longitudinal Study of Blogging,
Twitter and Facebook Usage by America's Largest Companies. Available at. http://
www.umassd.edu/cmr/
Barnes, N. G., Leschault, A. M., & Andonian, J. (2012). Social Media Surge by the 2012 For-
tune 500: Increase Use of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and More. Available at. http://
www.umassd.edu/cmr/socialmedia/2012fortune500/ (Accessed October 8, 2012)
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing
Research, 49(2), 192205.
Brown, T. J. (1998). Corporate associations in marketing: Antecedents and consequences.
Corporate Reputation Review, 1(3), 215234.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations
and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 6884.
Brown, B. P., Zablah, A. R., Bellenger, D. N., & Donthu, N. (2012). What factors inuence
buying center brand sensitivity? Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 508520.
Bruzzone, D. (1981). New evidence on when to use mood and message. BRC Newsletter,
45.
Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. R. (2011). Understanding consumer con-
versations around ads in a web 2.0 world. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 87102.
Clarke, I., & Honeycutt, E. D. (2000). Color usage in international business-to-business
print advertising. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(3), 255261.
Cutler, B. D., & Javalgi, R. G. (1994). Comparison of business-to-business advertising: The
United States and the United Kingdom. Industrial Marketing Management, 23(2),
117124.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication pro-
cesses: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575600.
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. (1998). A communication based marketing model for managing
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 113.
Emarketer (2010). Complimentary eMarketer Report: Seven Guidelines for Achieving
ROI from Social Media. Available at. http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/
complimentary-emarketer-report-guidelines-achieving-roi-social-media/
#qLcSBtK2HzEdrxHA.99 (accessed April 4, 2012)
Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54, 193207.
Giamanco, B., & Gregoire, K. (2012, JulyAugustt). Tweet me, friend me, make me buy.
Harvard Business Review, 8893.
Gilliland, D., & Johnston, W. (1997). Toward a model of business-to-business marketing
communications effects. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(1), 1529.
Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1987). Happy and sad TV programs: How they affect reac-
tions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 387403.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-
mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 3852.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated envi-
ronments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 5068.
Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., & Schmitt, J. (2010). Brand awareness in business markets:
When is it related to rm performance? International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 2(3), 201212.
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as elec-
tronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech-
nology, 60(11), 21692188.
Jensen, M. B., & Jepsen, A. L. (2007). Low attention advertising processing in B2B markets.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 22(5), 342348.
Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, J. M. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals:
When and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 2333.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and oppor-
tunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 5968.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 4, 818.
Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications envi-
ronment. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(23), 139155.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1998). Corporate level marketing: The impact of credibility on
a company's brand extensions. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1), 356381.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business
Horizons, 54(3), 241251.
Kim, J., Reid, D. A., Plank, R. E., & Dahlstrom, R. (1998). Examining the role of brand equity
in business markets: A model, research propositions, and managerial implications.
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 5(3), 6589.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (1994). Principles of Marketing (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Kumar, V., & Mirchandani, R. (2012). Winning with data: Increasing the ROI of social
media marketing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(1), 5561.
Labrecque, L., Zanjani, S. H. A., & Milne, G. R. (2011). Authenticity in online communica-
tions: Examining antecedents and consequences. In Angeline Close (Ed.), Online Con-
sumer Behavior: Theory and Research in Social Media, Advertising, and E-Tail. : Taylor
and Francis Group.
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L.
Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas: A Series of Addresses (pp. 3235). New
York: Cooper Square Publishers.
Lohtia, R., Donthu, N., & Hershberger, E. K. (2003). The impact of content and design ele-
ments on banner advertising click-through rates. Journal of Advertising Research,
43(4), 410418.
Lohtia, R., Johnston, W. J., & Aab, L. (1995). Business-to-business advertising: What are the
dimensions of an effective print ad? Industrial Marketing Management, 24(5),
369378.
Lovett, M., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2013). On brands and word-of-mouth. Journal of
Marketing Research, 50(4), 41274444.
Lynch, J., & De Chernatony, L. (2004). The power of emotion: Brand communication in
business-to-business markets. Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), 403419.
Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N. T., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). Usage, barriers and mea-
surement of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and medi-
um B2B brands. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 11531159.
Michell, P., King, J., & Reast, J. (2001). Brand values related to industrial products.
Industrial Marketing Management, 30(5), 415425.
Minett, S. (2002). B2B Marketing: A Radically Different Approach for Business-to-Business
Marketers. London: Pearson.
Mudambi, S. M. (2002). Branding importance in business-to-business markets: Three
buyer clusters. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 525533.
Mudambi, S. M., Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1997). An exploration of branding in industrial
markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(5), 433446.
Mueller, K., Garg, S., Nam, J. E., Berg, T., & McDonnell, K. T. (2011). Can computers master
the art of communication? A focus on visual analytics. Computer Graphics and
Applications, IEEE, 31, 1421.
Naccarato, J. L., & Neuendorf, K. A. (1998). Content analysis as a predictive methodology:
Recall, readership, and evaluations of business-to-business print advertising. Journal
of Advertising Research, 1933 May-June.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Page, T. J., Thorson, E., & Heide, M. P. (1990). The memory impact of commercials varying
in emotional appeal and product involvement. In Stuart J. Agres, Julie A. Edell, & Tony
M. Dubitsky (Eds.), Emotion in Advertising (pp. 255268). New York: Quorum Books.
Ramos, L. (2008). Making social media work in B2B marketing. Forrester Report.
Ramos, L. (2009). B2B marketers: Tap into social networking sites to energize community
marketing. Forrester Report.
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social
media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 547566.
Rust, R. T., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and impli-
cations. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 114.
Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. (2004). Consumer Behavior (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana:
University Illinois Press.
Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 26(2), 124148.
Shavitt, S. (1992). Evidence for predicting the effectiveness of value-expressive versus
utilitarian appeals: A reply to Johar and Sirgy. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 4751.
Shipley, D., & Howard, P. (1993). Brand-naming industrial products. Industrial Marketing
Management, 21(1), 5966.
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How does brand-related user-generated
content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(2), 102113.
Spekman, R. E., & Dotson, E. (2009). Using social media in the B2B context. Harvard
Business Review (Prod. #: UV2973-PDF-ENG).
 K. Swani et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 43 (2014) 873881 881

Stern, B. B. (1994). A revised communication model for advertising: Multiple dimensions Webster, F. E., & Wind, Y. (1972). A general model for understanding organizational buy-
of the source, the message, and the recipient. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 515. ing behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 1219.
Swani, K., Milne, G. R., Cromer, C., & Brown, B. P. (2013a). Fortune 500 companies use of Wiersema, F. (2013). The B2B agenda: The current state of B2B marketing and a look
Twitter communications: A comparison between product and service tweets. ahead. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(4), 470488.
International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 5(2), 4756. Yang, T. (2012). The decision behavior of Facebook users. Journal of Consumer Information
Swani, K., Milne, G. R., & Brown, B. P. (2013b). Spreading the word through likes on Systems, 52(3), 5059.
Facebook: Evaluating the message strategy effectiveness of Fortune 500 companies. Zablah, A. R., Brown, B. P., & Donthu, N. (2010). The relative importance of brands in mod-
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(4), 269294. ied rebuy purchase situations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3),
Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: Do ads work 248260.
on social networks? How gender and age shape receptivity. Journal of Advertising Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of Business
Research, 51(1), 258275. Research, 66(2), 216223.
Turley, L. W., & Kelley, S. (1997). A comparison of advertising content: Business-to-
business versus consumer services. Journal of Advertising, 26(4), 3948.
Kunal Swani (Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Amherst), Assistant Professor of Market-
Twitter (2013a). What is Twitter? Available at. https://business.twitter.com/en/basics/
ing, Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Kunal.swani@wright.edu.
what-is-twitter/ (Accessed September 10, 2013)
Twitter (2013b). Glossary. Available at. https://business.twitter.com/en/basics/glossary/
Brian P. Brown (Ph.D., Georgia State University), Associate Professor of Marketing, Virginia
(Accessed September 10, 2013)
Commonwealth University, bpbrown@vcu.edu.
Twitter (2013c). Case Studies. Available at. https://business.twitter.com/en/optimize/
case-studies/ (Accessed September 10, 2013)
George R. Milne (Ph.D., University of North CarolinaChapel Hill), Professor of Marketing,
Twitter (2013d). Twitter for Small Businesses. Available at. https://business.twitter.com/
Ph.D. Program Director, Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts
pdfs/Twitter_Smallbiz_Guide.pdf (Accessed September 10, 2013)
Amherst, milne@isenberg.umass.edu.
Twitter (2013e). How Twitter Can Help your Businesses. Available at. https://business.
twitter.com/how-twitter-can-help-your-business (Accessed September 10, 2013)
Vaughan, R. (1980). How advertising works. Journal of Advertising Research, 20, 2733.