The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Media Marketing: A Literature Review and Implications
Abstract
This study carries out content analysis and systemizes articles on social media marketing in the Web of Science database. Forty‐four studies were analyzed in accordance with a variation on the systematic review approach, involving synthesis‐ and interpretation‐based assessment. The results demonstrate how most of the studies analyzed focus on the consumer perspective in terms of usage, share, and influence of social media on consumer decisions, and perceptions. The studies focusing on the firm's perspective centered not only on the usage of social media, but also on their implementation, optimization, and measurement of results. The majority of studies are quantitative and published in recent years. This study not only reached certain conclusions for both theory and practice, but also defined future lines of research according to the gaps detected by the study's results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · Cited by 17,875
Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002 · Cited by 4,111
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002 · Cited by 1,044
The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.454 · Cited by 912
Cited by
Ki, C. ‘., & Kim, Y. (2019) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21244 · Cited by 749
Ladhari, R., Massa, E., & Skandrani, H. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102027 · Cited by 557
Bibliometrics of social media research: A co-citation and co-word analysis
Leung, X. Y., Sun, J., & Bai, B. (2017) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.06.012 · Cited by 546
Florence, E. S., Fleischman, D., Mulcahy, R., & Wynder, M. (2022) · Journal of Social Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsocm-09-2021-0221 · Cited by 113
An overview of systematic literature reviews in social media marketing
Rowley, J., & Keegan, B. J. (2020) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551519866544 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Alves, H., Fernandes, C., & Raposo, M.
- Venue
- Psychology & Marketing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-11-11
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1029-1038
- ISSN
- 0742-6046 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6793
- OpenAlex
- W2556183700
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 38.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
