Svod Brands’ Communications On Twitter: From Netflix To Blutv

Year 2019, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, 981 - 996, 31.12.2019

Mehmet Yalçın Parmaksız Ebru Enginkaya

https://doi.org/10.11616/basbed.v19i51339.606179

Abstract

More than 2.7 billion social
media users around the world share their ideas about various brands through
many devices at any time. The goal of this research is to study the social network
communication formats of subscription-based video-on-demand services (SVOD)
brands on Twitter, which is the fourth most widely followed social media site
over 274 million users. Netflix, Tivibu, and Blutv’s Turkey accounts had been categorized
via descriptive content analysis for three months. We found that SVOD brands
conducted their brand communication activities consistently on their Twitter
accounts, other digital channels, and in traditional media while engaging with
their followers with an independent approval. It was also determined that Netflix
has accounts for different communication purposes, and Tivibu's electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM) behavior maintains a discouraging communication.

Keywords

Brand, Communications, Social Media, SVOD, Netflix

SVOD MARKALARININ TWİTTER ÜZERİNDEKİ İLETİŞİMLERİ: NETFLIX’TEN BLUTV’YE

Abstract

Dünya çapında 2,7 milyardan fazla sosyal medya kullanıcısı farklı
ürünler ve markalar hakkındaki düşüncelerini her an farklı cihazlar yoluyla
paylaşmaktadır. Aboneliğe dayalı talebe bağlı video servislerine (SVOD) erişim daha
önce olmadığı kadar kolaylaşmıştır. Bu çalışmada, 250 milyondan fazla
kullanıcısıyla dünyada en yaygın olarak takip edilen dördüncü sosyal ağ sitesi
Twitter üzerinden SVOD markalarının sosyal ağ iletişim stillerinin analizi
amaçlanmıştır. Tarama modeli kullanan araştırmada, Netflix, Tivibu ve Blutv’nin
Türkçe paylaşım yapan hesaplarındaki tweetleri üç ay boyunca incelenmiş ve kategorilere
ayrılmıştır. Sonuç olarak SVOD firmalarının Twitter hesaplarındaki marka iletişimleri
ile diğer dijital mecralar ve geleneksel medyadaki pazarlama iletişimlerini
tutarlı yürüttükleri, takipçileriyle bağımsız bir onaylama ile iletişime
geçtikleri görülmüştür. Farklı amaçlara yönelik hesaplara belirli dönemde sadece
Netflix’in sahip olduğu ve Tivibu’nun elektronik ağızdan ağıza iletişim (eWOM)
davranışını cesaretlendirmeyen bir iletişim sürdürdüğü tespit edilmiştir. 

Keywords

Marka, İletişim, Sosyal Medya, SVOD

References

• Araujo, T., Neijens, P. ve Vliegenthart, R. (2017), Getting the Word out on Twitter: The Role of Influentials, Information Brokers and Strong Ties in Building Word-of-Mouth for Brands, International Journal of Advertising, 36(3), s.496-513.
• Asur, S. ve Huberman, B. A. (2010), Predicting the Future with Social Media, in 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, s.492-499.
• Burton, S. ve Soboleva, A. (2011), Interactive or Reactive? Marketing with Twitter, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(7), s.491-499.
• Chatterjee, P. (2001), Online Reviews - Do Consumers Use Them?, ACR 2001 Proceedings, 18(May 2006), s.129-134.
• Chevalier, J. A. ve Mayzlin, D. (2006), The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews, Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), s.345-354.
• Crawford, K. (2009), Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media, Continuum, Taylor & Francis Group.
• Daniel Nasaw. (2009), Dave Carroll’s YouTube Song About United Damaging Gis Guitar Gets Airline to Pay up, US News - The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/23/ united-airlines-guitar-dave-carroll, (Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2018)
• De Bruyn, A. ve Lilien, G. L. (2008), A Multi-Stage Model of Word-of-Mouth Influence Through Viral Marketing, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), s.151-163.
• Duncan, T. ve Moriarty, S. E. (1998), A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 62(2), s.1-13.
• Ehrlich, K. ve Shami, N. S. (2010), Microblogging Inside and Outside the Workplace, The Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media Microblogging, (Mayıs 2014), s.42-49.
• Fong, J. ve Burton, S. (2008), A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Electronic Word-of-Mouth and Country-of-Origin Effects, Journal of Business Research, 61(3), s.233-242.
• Hoffman, D. L. ve Novak, T. P. (1996), Marketing in Hypermedia Environmen Foundations: Conceptual Foundations, Journal of Marketing, 60(3), s.50-68.
• Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M. ve Wu, F. (2008), Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope, SSRN Electronic Journal.
• Hung, K. H. ve Li, S. Y. (2007), The Influence of eWOM on Virtual Consumer Communities: Social Capital, Consumer Learning, and Behavioral Outcomes, Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4).
• Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K. ve Chowdury, A. (2009), Twitter Power: Tweets os Electronic Word of Mouth, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), s.2169-2188.
• Josh Bernoff, T. S. (2010), Empowered, https://hbr.org/2010/07 /empowered, (Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2018)
• Karasar, N. (2007), Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi: Kavramlar, Ilkeler, Teknikler, Google Kitaplar (17. basım). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti, https://books.google.com.tr/books?id= ZwGhnQEACAAJ&dq=niyazi+karasar&hl=tr&sa=X&redir_esc=y, (Erişim Tarihi:02.01.2018)
• Keller, K. L. (2016), Unlocking the Power of Integrated Marketing Communications: How Integrated is Your IMC Program? Journal of Advertising, 45(3), s.286-301.
• Kemp, S. (2019), We Are Social, Digital Report, https://wearesocial.com/ global-digital-report-2019, (Erişim Tarihi: 11.01.2019)
• Killian, G. ve McManus, K. (2015), A Marketing Communications Approach for the Digital Era: Managerial Guidelines for Social Media Integration, Business Horizons, 58(5), s.539-549.
• Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., ve Moon, S. (2010), What is Twitter, A Social Network or A News Media?, In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’10, s. 591–600.
• Kwon, E. S., Kim, E., Sung, Y. ve Yoo, C. Y. (2014), Brand Followers, International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), s.657-680.
• Li, F. ve Du, T. C. (2011), Who is Talking? An Ontology-Based Opinion Leader Identification Framework for Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Social Blogs, Decision Support Systems, 51(1), s.190-197.
• Lin, J.-S. ve Peña, J. (2011), Are You Following Me? A Content Analysis of TV Networks’ Brand Communication on Twitter, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), s.17-29.
• Mangold, W. G. ve Faulds, D. J. (2009), Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of The Promotion Mix, Business Horizons, 52(4), s.357-365.
• Munoz, S. R. ve Bangdiwala, S. I. (1997), Interpretation of Kappa and B Statistics Measures of Agreement, Journal of Applied Statistics, 24(1), s.105-112.
• Parmaksız, M. Y. ve Kırçova, İ. (2019), En Çok Satan Otomobil Markalarinin Twitter İletişimlerine Yönelik Bir Araştirma, Öneri Dergisi, 14(51), s.147-163.
• Rafaeli, S. ve Sudweeks, F. (1997), Networked Interactivity, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4).
• Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S. ve Brown, J. (2003), Explicating Web Site Interactivity: Impression Formation Effects in Political Campaign Sites, Communication Research, 30(1), s.30-59.
• Taecharungroj, V. (2016), Starbucks’ Marketing Communications Strategy On Twitter, Journal of Marketing Communications, 7266(Şubat), s.1-19.
• Trammell, K. D., Williams, A. P., Postelnicu, M. ve Landreville, K. D. (2006), Evolution of Online Campaigning: Increasing Interactivity in Candidate Web Sites and Blogs Through Text and Technical Features, Mass Communication and Society, 9(1), s.21-44.