Page 1 of 2
MARK901
Digital Marketing
AUTUMN 2022
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
Time Allowed: 48 hours.
Total Number of Questions: 3
DIRECTIONS TO CANDIDATES
1. Answer ALL questions. The marks for each question are shown next to each question.
2. Total marks: 100. This Exam is worth 30% of your final marks for MARK901.
INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS (FURTHER TO INSTRUCTIONS POSTED ON MOODLE SITE)
• Download the provided Answer Booklet and start typing your answers in the Answer Booklet (word
document). Keep saving your work on your desktop regularly.
• If your answer requires a diagram or calculation that cannot be created in the word document, use A4
size paper(s) to capture the diagram or calculation. Take a photo or scan of the paper (s), upload to
your computer and attach with the Answer Booklet word document in order to form one single file that
has to be uploaded.
• Upload the answer booklet as one file in Turnitin through the subject Moodle site. You have only one
attempt to upload the document – no changes can be made.
• If you are unable to upload the answer booklet in Turnitin before the due time, DO NOT PANIC. Email
it to the lecturer at [email protected] immediately within time limit as specified for
the Turnitin upload. Resubmit via Turnitin later.
• The Lecturer will have the discretion to conduct viva on the submission made, if needed.
Student Number………………………….
First Name ………………………….
Family Name …………………………….
1
Page 2 of 2
Based on the given study, answer all of the following questions [Max 900 words each]:
Q1.
The study discusses the use of a number of different channels in Digital Marketing
a) List and explain the usage of each of these channels as mentioned in the study
b) Categorize these channels into the 3 types of digital marketing media or trifecta (as
discussed in class).
[30 Marks]
Q2.
a) Discuss the enablers of and the barriers to digital marketing usage in the SMEs of Finland,
as discussed in the study.
b) Speculate the applicabilty of each of the above in the case of SMEs in the UAE,
particularly Dubai. [30 Marks]
Q3.
Imagine you are the marketing manager of a mid-scale global fast food chain, and going to
open a flagship outlet in Dubai, UAE:
a) Perform the Segmentation,Targeting and Positioning process for your organization.
b) Determine and describe how you will implement the 7Ps (Product, Price, Place,
Promotion, People, Process, Physical Evidence) of the Digital Marketing Mix for your
chosen target market. [40 Marks]
Notes:
• Answers must be clearly organized into headings and sub-headings.
• Use bullet lists where suitable.
• Use diagrams where suitable.
• This exam will assess your synthesis,analysis and critical thinking skills among others.
This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Author(s):
Title:
Year:
Version:
Please cite the original version:
All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and
duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that
material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or
print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be
offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.
The usage of digital marketing channels in SMEs
Taiminen, Heini; Karjaluoto, Heikki
Taiminen, H., & Karjaluoto, H. (2015). The usage of digital marketing channels in
SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(4), 633-651.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2013-0073
2015
1
THE USAGE OF DIGITAL MARKETING CHANNELS IN SMEs
Abstract
Purpose: The study provides insights into the utilization and goals of digital marketing, and
examines factors that influence the adoption and use of digital marketing channels in SMEs.
Design/methodology/approach: The data comprises semi-structured theme interviews in
SMEs among 16 managers and 421 survey respondents in Central Finland.
Findings: The results of this study reveal that SMEs seem not use the full potential of the
new digital tools, and so are not deriving benefit from the opportunities they provide.
Furthermore, the results also raise the question of whether SMEs have understood the
fundamental change in the nature of communication brought about by digitization.
Research limitations: The data comes from one region and thus the research context limits
the generalizability of the results.
Practical implications: SMEs seem not to be keeping pace with digital developments, mostly
due to the lack of knowledge of digital marketing. Most of the studied SMEs do not apply the
full potential of the new digital tools and hence are not benefitting fully from them.
Social implications: Discussions on the future regional development of SMEs have called for
training programmes to help SMEs exploit digitization. This is something that the government
should take note of.
Originality/value: Whereas the adoption process of new technologies such as IT in general
and the internet in particular have been examined in the SME literature, this is among the first
studies examining adoption and usage of digital tools from the marketing perspective.
Keywords: digital marketing, channels, tools, marketing communications, technology
adoption, social media, small- and medium-sized enterprises, resources
Article classification: Research paper
2
Introduction
Digitization has become part of our daily routines. It is shaping the traditional ways in which
consumers and businesses interact with each other. Digitization, and especially social media,
have been claimed to transform consumer behaviour (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010), with
important consequences for firms, products and brands (Muntinga et al., 2011). Consumers
are increasingly spending their time online and using social media (Forrester Research, 2008;
Nielsen, 2012). They use online services for browsing, storing and playing music, to email, to
access Facebook, Twitter, and apps with various connected devices such as smart phones,
tablets and laptops and that is transforming the way the internet is being used (Ericsson
Consumer Lab, 2012). The adage, ‘If a company cannot be found in Google, it does not exist’
seems to typify consumer behaviour today. It should be clear that the utilization of digital
channels is important for brands, and it should be a progression that SMEs should follow too
if they want to stay competitive and grow. However, it seems that many SMEs do not use the
full potential of these new digital tools (see e.g. Gilmore et al., 2007). SMEs are a significant
part of the world economy. For example, in Europe 99 % of companies are SMEs (of which
92 % are micro-enterprises) and those companies provide more than 75 % of private sector
jobs (European Commission, 2011). The importance of these companies cannot be ignored.
Literature shows that digitization in its various forms is positively related to small business
growth, performance and competitiveness. Digital marketing and social media provide
opportunities for small businesses to attract new customers and reach existing customers more
efficiently. Even the starting point of digitization, broadband access, has been shown to bring
significant opportunities to SMEs such as reaching new target audiences, increasing
performance and efficiency, and improving growth and competitiveness (Galloway, 2007;
Shideler and Badasyan, 2012; Spurge and Roberts, 2005). In addition, internet use can benefit
SMEs by reducing costs (Chong and Pervan, 2007; Kaynak et al., 2005; Lohrke et al., 2006)
and facilitating both internal and external communication (Bharadwaj and Soni, 2007; Chong
and Pervan, 2007; Eriksson, Hultman and Naldi, 2008; Kaynak et al., 2005). More recent
developments in digitization, namely the social aspects of the web (e.g. Web2.0/social media)
have confirmed the positive relationship between utilization and outcomes. In a recent study
of 12 SMEs in the UK, social aspects of the web were found to improve efficiency and
enhance external communication (Barnes et al., 2012).
3
The marketing reality of SMEs is far from that of large corporations and hence digitization is
a greater challenge for them. Literature argues that traditional marketing theories are not even
applicable to SMEs (Reijonen, 2010). SME marketing techniques are informal, reactive and
spontaneous (Gilmore et al., 2004), and there is a considerable gap between marketing
activity in a typical SME and the best practice advanced by marketing theory (Parrott et al.,
2010). SMEs are characterized as strongly sales focused (Hill, 2001; Reijonen, 2010) and the
main goal of their marketing is just to create awareness of the firm and products (Reijonen,
2010). In general, marketing in SMEs has been characterized as disorganized and unplanned,
although some SMEs do engage in formal and conventional marketing practices like
marketing planning (Hill, 2001). Those SMEs that do make and follow a marketing plan
should benefit as the activity has been found to be one of the key factors of successful
marketing in SMEs (Parry et al., 2012). Hill (2001) predicted that formal marketing planning
in SMEs would increase as a younger generation with a more specialized management
education became managers.
The research related to the adoption process of new technologies in SMEs has been widely
covered (Carroll and Wagar, 2010; Chatzoglou et al., 2010; Dholakia and Kshetri, 2004;
Lohrke et al., 2006; MacGregor and Vrazalic, 2005; Parker and Castleman, 2007; Proudlock,
1999) but knowledge of how SMEs utilize digital channels in their marketing requires more
in-depth knowledge.
This study contributes to the understanding of SMEs marketing practices by investigating
digital marketing in the marketing mix of micro and small companies in a regional economy
(Central Finland). The study provides insights into the utilization of digital marketing tools,
and examines factors that facilitate or inhibit the adoption and use of digital marketing
channels in SMEs in Central Finland. In general, Finland is ranked tenth in the world in terms
of internet penetration rate (ITU, 2013) with an internet penetration rate of around 90%. This
means that people in Finland are actively using digital channels like the internet on a daily
basis. On a more general level, the study contributes to the discussion on SME marketing
practices (e.g. Gilmore et al., 2007; O’Donnell, 2011; Reijonen, 2010; Simpson and Taylor,
2002).
The study proceeds as follows. In the next section we discuss the term digital marketing and
its sub-components, and review literature on the enablers of and barriers to the usage of
4
digital tools in SMEs. In the subsequent section we present our methodology. This will be
followed by a presentation of the study results. Finally, a discussion of the findings will be
presented alongside the study’s contributions, limitations and suggested avenues of future
research.
Digital marketing and social media utilization in SMEs
Digital marketing
Digital marketing is a new approach to marketing, not just traditional marketing boosted by
digital elements (Järvinen et al., 2012; Liu, Karahanna and Watson, 2011; Rowley, 2008). It
has its own characteristics and dynamics, which should be understood in order to be able to
select effective marketing tactics and strategies. Digital channels can be classified in various
ways. One way to classify the channels is to present them based on the viewpoint of which
party controls the communications (the company or the target audience) and whether
communications is one-way or two-way (see Table 1).
High company control Low company control
One-way Website
Email newsletters
Online directories
Banner adverting
SEO (Search engine optimization)
SEA (Search engine advertising)
Two-way Company generated blogs
Company’s own communities
Social Media
Table 1 Classification of digital marketing channels
One-way communication channels
Websites and email can be seen as examples of one-way online tools with high company
control. A company’s website can be described as the home of the brand in the online
environment (Christodoulides, 2009). Email can be used for various marketing purposes
including sharing information, promotion, building and maintaining relationships, and guiding
customers to websites (Simmons, 2007). Although email is a two-way communication
channel in its nature, it is often used as a one-way channel to deliver newsletters or
advertisements. These two basic forms of digital marketing are often used in SMEs. Already
in 2008, Eriksson et al. (2008) found that 90% of the Swedish SMEs they surveyed (N=160)
used a website and email to market their products and services. However, they noted that
many of the SMEs were at an early stage of digital channel utilization and that their usage of
the more advanced digital channels remained low. Online directories where a company buys
5
its listing for a certain period, and online advertising, can also be considered digital mediums
of the one-way type marked by high company control.
Search engine optimization (SEO), the process of improving the website’s search engine rank
in organic search results, and search engine advertising (SEA), paid advertisements on a
search engine’s results page related to some keywords, are both one-way communication
channels. Their purpose is to inform people of the products or services available, and they are
crucial to a company’s visibility on the web. Both SEO and SEA are commonly used among
larger firms, but at least few years ago, their potential was not fully understood among SMEs
(Karjaluoto and Leinonen, 2009).
Two-way communication channels
The rise of social media has turned the marketer-customer relationship upside down; in so far
as the power has shifted from marketers to customers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). The
essential nature of social media requires company marketing to take the form of two-way
communication with customers instead of monologues from the company. Naturally, in social
media channels the company has less control over its brand. In social media, audiences do not
expect sales pitches and marketing messages but real information generated by conversations
around the brand (Christodoulides, 2009; Weinberg and Pehlivan, 2011), and they expect
authentic stories to be told (Fournier and Avery, 2011). It has been stated that post-internet
branding is about ‘soft selling’, co-creating value and managing customer relationships not
attempting to directly drive sales (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Rowley, 2008).
Social media has become an important part of an organization’s marketing communications
and branding (Bruhn et al., 2012). For example Facebook has become an important channel in
engaging consumers and creating brand awareness (Malhotra et al., 2013). Blogging is said to
be a good relationship tool for both marketing and PR (Ahuja and Medury, 2010; Cho and
Huh, 2010; Singh et al., 2008) and many large companies have adopted blogging as part of
their routines. Blogging is great way to create content on the web although it requires that one
has something important to say and the ability to express it. It is also a form of social media
where the company retains a relatively high level of control since the blog usually resides on
the company’s own website allowing, the content to be edited and the comments monitored
and filtered.
6
According to a recent study on 462 SMEs in the USA, many SMEs struggle with the added
workload of social media (Moyle, 2012). The study also indicates that SMEs are spending up
to six hours each week on social media. Of the tools available, Facebook (90% use) and
Twitter (70% use) are the most popular, whereas the adoption of blogging and use of
LinkedIn (used by around half of the surveyed SMEs), Google+, and Pinterest remain slow.
According to the study, one-third of the surveyed SMEs would like to spend less time on
social media.
Interactivity within the internet seems to have a positive impact on a company’s online
performance by increasing customer’s attention, developing stronger relationships and
thereby increasing overall satisfaction (Simmons, 2007). Social media seems to be a
successful tool for brand building as well as engaging customers and building unique
customer relationships. In addition to the softer outcomes, a recent study indicates that in
some cases, utilization of social media can also drive straight sales-related outcomes;
customers who are committed through social media to the company are more profitable than
those who are not committed to the brand on social media (Rishika et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, opposing views have also been presented. Brands have been claimed to be
uninvited intruders in social media, mostly because companies do not conform the norms of
social media (Fournier and Avery, 2011). According to a study of more than 7,000 consumers
in the USA, UK, and Australia (Spenner and Freeman, 2012), marketers have placed too
much emphasis on online social networking with their customers. The aforementioned
findings show that consumers have little or no interest in having a social relationship with the
marketer that extends beyond the transactional.
Enablers of and barriers to digital marketing usage in SMEs
Not surprisingly, studies suggest that SMEs are in general at an early stage of adopting digital
channels (Eriksson et al., 2008) and that firm size has a strong influence on the adoption, in
that micro firms are the slowest adopters (Bordonaba-Juste et al., 2012; Teo, 2007). Large
businesses are more likely to have the required resources and knowledge to successfully adopt
new digital channels and tools (Barnes et al., 2012). Past research has investigated the
adoption of digital marketing in SMEs from both the internal (firm-specific factors, strategy,
attitudes and experience) and external (infrastructure and environmental factors) perspectives
(Dholakia and Kshetri, 2004). In the small business context, the widely applied resource-
7
based theory of the firm (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Lockett and Thompson, 2001) suggests
that resources are the dominating factor explaining decision making in small businesses, and
that external factors play a relatively small role (Lockett and Thompson, 2001; Hawawini et
al., 2003). Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki (2010) have classified the reasons to adopt digital
channels in micro firms under three main categories; 1) firm-specific and owner-manager
factors, 2) resource-related factors, and 3) environmental factors. They note that these can act
either as facilitators or inhibitors of adoption. This classification is followed in this study to
understand the adoption of digital marketing in SMEs.
Firm-specific and owner-manager factors
Firm-specific and owner-manager factors such as capabilities, motivation, background and
experience are focal factors determining the strategic business choices of SMEs (Barbero et
al., 2011; Delmar and Wiklund, 2008; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003) such as the usage of
digital channels (Dholakia and Kshetri, 2004; Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010). These
factors are related to expertise and the skill to use new technologies; knowledge of how to
benefit from them in business; and also the attitude of the manager(s) and employees to the
channels and motivation to use the channels (see e.g., Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010).
In particular, the technological knowledge of the company owner has been proved to be an
important factor (Chao and Chandra, 2012). Based on the last study, owners with a solid
knowledge of IT were better able to adopt useful IT solutions and deploy them in ways that
ensured that investments supported the achievement of strategic goals. Other factors that
support the adoption of digital channels in SMEs related to the perceived benefits of the new
channels. Such benefits might relate to the usefulness of a technology (cf. Davis 1989;
Karahanna and Straub, 1999), individual notions of the strategic importance of digital
channels (Bharadwaj and Soni, 2007) and other tangible benefits that the company has
identified in its business (Chong and Pervan, 2007; Kaynak et al., 2005; Levy et al., 2005).
Furthermore, other important factors affecting adoption previously suggested are the ease of
use of the new channels (Kaynak et al., 2005; cf. Davis, 1989; Gefen and Straub, 2000) and
having an opportunity to try the channels in action (Levy et al., 2005).
Resource-related factors
Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki (2010) classified resources-related factors into human resources,
financial resources and technological resources. They suggested that whereas human and
8
financial resources were strong determinants of adoption, technological resources played a
minor role for micro firms. Gilmore et al. (2007) stated that SMEs lacked sufficient human
resources, capital and knowledge to adopt digital channels fully. The lack of human resources,
time and expertise are the largest barriers to digital marketing usage in the industrial context
among both SMEs and larger corporations (Järvinen et al., 2012; see also Michaelidou et al.,
2011). In the same vein, the skills of the employees to utilize the channels have been
identified as a significant enabler of (or barrier to) adoption of digital channels in SMEs
(Chen and McQueen, 2008; Gabrielli and Balboni, 2010; Sayre et al., 2012)
A lack of financial resources/capital is typically considered a barrier to the growth of SMEs
(Cooper et al., 1994; Federico et al., 2012; Gilbert et al., 2006) and thus also to act as a
barrier to the adoption and use of digital channels. Although digital marketing, at its best, has
no variable costs, the fixed costs may still be prohibitive for many companies. Some
companies might be surprised by the labour intensity of marketing in this new, dynamic
environment, which requires a dialogical communication style, continuous attention and
participation as well as content be created.
Environmental factors
Environmental factors are outside the company’s control and include factors such as product
or service type, competitive landscape, the industry sector, consumer/customer behaviour and
outside support. Some products and services are simply better communicated through digital
channels (Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010). External pressures like competition and the need
to expand markets (Chong and Pervan, 2007; Kaynak et al., 2005; Levy et al., 2005,
Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010) and the need for outside support or its availability have
been identified as significant environmental factors affecting adoption of digital channels in
SMEs (Järvinen et al., 2012; Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010). Furthermore, the transition in
customer behaviour is also a development that companies should follow. For instance in
Finland, 86 % of people between the ages of 16 and 24 and 80 % of those aged between 25
and 34 regularly use social media (Statistics Finland, 2012).
Methodological issues
This research uses a multiple case study as its research strategy. The main focus is not on
generalizations but on obtaining in-depth knowledge of a certain phenomenon (Johnston et
al., 1999). The empirical data was collected in two phases; first through semi-structured
9
theme interviews followed by a survey. The objective of the interviews was to gather
knowledge of the companies’ digital marketing activities, their usage of digital channels and
the difficulties experienced in using them. The survey charted digital marketing usage from a
wider perspective and contextualized the results from the interviews. The knowledge gathered
from the interviews was used along with prior studies (Järvinen et al., 2012; Michaelidou et
al., 2011) as a basis of the development of the survey instrument. The items were related to
marketing budget allocation, the utilization of, and objectives set for, digital marketing
channels in SMEs, and the key drivers of adoption.
We conducted a total of 13 semi-structured theme interviews in SMEs with 16 managers (see
Table 2). Those managers had various titles (many SMEs do not have full-time marketing
managers) but all were responsible for the marketing activity (including digital marketing)
undertaken by their firm. The case companies were selected using a subjective sample, since
the purpose was to inspect companies who were interested in digital marketing but had not
fully adopted digital tools as part of their marketing initiatives.
The transcript materials were read through several times, and notes were taken to help parse
the data. Since the same themes were discussed in each interview, all the material was
organized under the themes. After organizing the data, a thick description was written using
quoted material from the interviewees to support the findings. Qualitative content analysis
was also carried out to clarify the usage of different marketing channels as well as the benefits
of and barriers to that usage.
For the second phase of data collection, a survey sample was collected. The sample
represented SMEs based in Central Finland as identified by a specific database. The survey
was conducted online in September 2012. A batch of 3650 e-mails including a link to the
survey was sent to the CEOs, owners, or chairpersons of the board of SMEs. A total of 421
responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 11.5 %. The effective response rate
was 52 % (calculated by comparing those who opened the survey link (N=816), to those who
filled in the survey (N=421). Over half of the respondents (61 %) were from firms employing
one or two people and 53 % operated in the services sector. The split between B2C (45.6 %)
and B2B (45.1 %) was almost even (Table 2).
Interviews in case companies
Company
label
Industry and number of employees (in
parentheses) Interviewed (age in parentheses) Interview
duration
A IT, B2B (9) CEO (35) 118 min
10
B Footwear importer, B2C (5) CEO (37) 145 min
C Fair and congress services, B2B and B2C (90) CEO (56) 111 min
D Printing materials, B2B (13) Sales Manager (30)
Key Account Manager (26) 92 min
E Special construction materials, B2B (40) Marketing Manager (30) 62 min
F Emission control equipment, B2B (8) Marketing Manager (41) 61 min
G Heat water electricity, B2B and B2C (250) Marketing Manager (32) 97 min
H Payment services, B2B (40) Export Manager (30)
Marketing Producer (34) 133 min
I Wood manufacturer, B2B (120) Marketing Manager (39) 113 min
J Bakery / Restaurant, B2C (200) Business Controller (45) 84 min
K Restaurant, B2C (40) CEO (59) 118 min
L Caravan and Cars, B2C and B2B (20) CEO (35) 92 min
M Measuring equipment, B2B (72) Marketing Manager (44)
Sales Manager (56) 59 min
Sample characteristics
Industry N % Customers N %
a Size b N %
Services 223 53.0 Consumers (B2C) 191 45.6 Micro (1–2) 257 61.0
Other 87 20.7 Businesses (B2B) 189 45.1 Small (3-20) 164 39.0
Retailing 59 14.0 Government (B2G) 39 9.3
Industrial commodities 52 12.4
Total 421 100 Total 419 100 Total 421 100
Notes: a Valid percentage (2 missing values), b
Size = Number of employees
Table 2 Sample characteristics
Results
Digital marketing utilization in SMEs
According to the survey findings, close to half (46 %) of the respondents said they utilized
digital marketing poorly or extremely poorly. Just 7 % described their current digital
marketing as very good or excellent. Company investment in digital marketing varies
substantially; slightly over one-third (35 %) of the respondents stated that their investments in
digital marketing absorb less than 5 % of their marketing budget, whereas slightly over a
quarter of the respondents (26 %) allocated over 41% of their marketing budget to digital
channels. There are significant statistical differences (p < .05) in the utilization of digital
marketing in terms of SME size (Table 3). As can be seen, firm size does not affect the
allocation of digital marketing budgets, but does have a significant effect on the self-reported
utilization of digital marketing. Larger firms utilize digital marketing better, even though the
majority perceive that they are not doing it well (mean score 3.19 on a scale ranging from 1–
7). Companies who reported investing more in digital marketing perceived that they utilized it
better. This indicates that the companies that have adopted digital marketing and made the
necessary investments have also been able to take advantage of these tools.
All 1–2 employees 3–20 employees
Mean Mean Mean sig.
11
Utilization of digital marketing1
2.90 2.73 3.19 .007**
Digital marketing budget allocation2
2.87 2.78 3.02 .123
Notes: 1
Scale anchored with 1= extremely poorly and 7 = extremely well
2
Scale: 1= less than 5% (of the marketing budget), 2= 6–10%, 3= 11–20%, 4= 21–40%, 5= 41% or more
* significant at p < .05, ** significant at p < .01, *** significant at p < .001
Table 3 SME utilization of digital marketing and allocation of digital marketing budget
According to the survey, the digital marketing channels used most often were the company’s
own website, SEO, and social media (Table 4). However, none of these channels was utilized
very actively. For example, whereas one-third (34 %) of respondents said they utilized their
company’s website actively for marketing purposes, 30 % said it was not utilized at all.
Additionally, close to half (45 %) did not utilize SEO at all and just 12 % used it actively.
With respect to social media, including the use of social media services such as Facebook,
LinkedIn, YouTube and discussion forums, half of the companies (49 %) did not utilize them
at all and just 13 % used them actively. Firm size has an effect (p < .05) on the activity of
digital channel utilization in marketing and communications in all cases except for social
media, companies’ own communities and blogs, and email advertising.
All 1–2 employees 3–20 employees
Mean Mean Mean sig.
Company website 3.70 3.46 4.08 .003**
Search engine optimization 2.58 2.33 2.98 .000***
Social media in general 2.57 2.44 2.77 .083
Search engine advertising 2.51 2.29 2.86 .002**
Email newsletters 2.42 2.16 2.84 .000***
Email advertising 2.26 2.21 2.33 .447
Company’s own communities 2.00 1.97 2.04 .640
Company generated blogs 1.45 1.39 1.56 .143
Online advertising 1.32 1.20 1.49 .000***
Notes: Scale anchored with 1=not in use and 6= in active use
* significant at p < .05, ** significant at p < .01, *** significant at p < .001
Table 4 Utilization of digital channels in marketing and communications by firm size
The interviewees representing 13 SMEs support the findings. All the case companies had a
website that was regarded as the most important digital channel for marketing and
communications. The other digital channels most commonly used and ranked as the most
important were email newsletters (used by 7 of the 13 SMEs) and social media (used by 6 of
the 13). In line with the survey findings, the interviewees confirmed that company size did not
explain social media usage for marketing purposes.
Objectives of digital marketing channels
12
The sales-centric nature of SMEs was clearly evident from the results related to the goals set
for digital channels (see Table 5). Overall, the most important objective set for each digital
tool was to facilitate sales (always in the top three). Other important goals reported were
facilitating communication and enhancing customer service. Offering the opportunity for
dialogue with customers and assisting recruitment were reported to be the least important
objectives for digital tools.
Slightly over half (55%) rated their website as the most important tool for increasing sales to
existing customers. It was also rated as the number one tool for enhancing customer service,
facilitating communication, disseminating advertising, strengthening the brand and for
recruitment. Search engine marketing, including both optimization and advertising, was rated
as the second most important tool for increasing sales and facilitating advertising. Social
media was not perceived as a tool with the primary purpose of initiating dialogue with
customers. Instead, social media use was viewed as serving the primary objective of
increasing sales. Email marketing was regarded as the most important tool in terms of
facilitating dialogue with customers.
Increasing
sales to
existing
customers
Enhancing
customer
service
Facilitating
communication
Facilitating
advertising
Strengthening
Brand
Facilitating
dialogue with
customers
Recruitment
% N % N % N % N % N % N % N
Company’s
own website 55.3 % 233 43.0 % 181 37.5 % 158 29.2 % 123 27.3 % 115 9.3 % 39 3.1 % 13
Email
marketing 41.3 % 174 35.6 % 150 30.2 % 127 16.4 % 69 12.1 % 51 23.0 % 97 1.7 % 7
Social media 27.6 % 116 22.3 % 94 23.8 % 100 16.6 % 70 20.7 % 87 18.3 % 77 3.1 % 13
Search engine
marketing 46.8 % 197 15.4 % 65 22.1 % 93 28.5 % 120 16.6 % 70 5.4 % 24 1.4 % 6
Online
directories 29.5 % 124 18.1 % 76 16.2 % 68 16.9 % 71 7.1 % 30 3.8 % 16 0.7 % 3
Online
advertising 21.6 % 91 7.1 % 30 10.7 % 45 12.8 % 54 9.7 % 41 3.3 % 14 1.0 % 4
Notes: Respondents nominated a maximum of three main objectives for each channel
Table 5 Objectives for digital channels
Among the firms whose representatives were interviewed, only two had set a clear goal for
their website: attracting new customers. For social media channels, the goals set seemed to be
even vaguer although one company stated that the purpose of their Facebook page was to
facilitate communication. Although almost half of the interviewed companies used social
media, none of them used social media for the purposes of dialogical communication; instead
13
they used the channel primarily to post company news. Social media was still seen as a
largely informal and relaxed communication channel.
Basically our Facebook page is used so that it has all the information that is maybe not important
enough for the web site but still something of a more regular update to customers. For example if our
printing house has send us new samples or something and then I take a quick picture with my phone
and upload it there and say, hey new samples, looking great. It is just a regular update there –
collection of pictures, photos and other stuff. (Key account Manager, Case D)
We have 50 active followers on Facebook. So what, when we don’t know what to do with them! The
time we know how the 50 people open their wallets for us we can actually use that information that
there are 50 of them! Otherwise it is plain charity. (Marketing Producer, Case H)
All the companies were also well aware that it is possible to measure the influence of
marketing practices through digital channels; however, only a few respondents were able to
clearly state what should be measured and primarily, what marketing goals they should set. It
seemed that digital marketing within the companies studied was mostly implemented in an ad
hoc rather than a well-planned manner.
We need a common understanding within our company of what we want to communicate in different
channels and what we want to achieve with them. Our marketing is not well planned – we would
need more measuring. I don’t know what we should follow. (Company J)
Key drivers of adoption
The main reasons why the surveyed SMEs started to utilize digital marketing are shown in
Table 6. Speed of communication, cost savings, and changing customer behaviour are the
three key drivers reported. A total of 64 % considered the speed of communication as an
important or very important reason for adopting digital marketing, whereas only 18 %
regarded it as unimportant or very unimportant. Slightly over half of the respondents
perceived cost savings as an important or very important reason for adopting digital channels
in marketing. Over half (56 %) said changing customer behaviour was an important or very
important reason for using digital marketing. Digital channels were not often used to initiate
dialogue with customers. Although close to one-third (28 %) reported this to be an important
or very important reason for use, almost half (46 %) regarded it as either unimportant (22 %)
or very unimportant (24 %). Surprisingly, sales focused SMEs regarded “increasing sales to
14
existing customers” as the second least important reason to adopt digital tools. This indicates
that SMEs might not be aware of the sales-related opportunities that digital platforms like
online stores offer even for SMEs. SMEs with one or two employees generally regard the
various reasons listed as less important than larger SMEs do. No differences (p < .05) were
found with respect to cost savings, increasing sales to existing customers, and facilitating
dialogue with customers.
All 1–2 employees 3–20 employees
Mean Mean Mean sig.
Speed of communication 3.67 3.53 3.89 .006**
Cost savings 3.46 3.45 3.47 .881
Changing customer behaviour 3.46 3.35 3.63 .031*
Customer acquisition 3.43 3.29 3.65 .006**
Building awareness 3.41 3.29 3.59 .027*
Better targeting of messages 3.39 3.20 3.68 .000***
Enhancing customer service 3.32 3.20 3.52 .012*
Increasing sales to existing customers 2.93 2.83 3.08 .064
Facilitating dialogue with customers 2.70 2.61 2.86 .056
Notes: Scale anchored with 1=not at all important and 5=very important
* significant at p < .05, ** significant at p < .01, *** significant at p < .001
Table 6 Reasons for digital marketing utilization by firm size
Barriers and enablers of digital marketing in SMEs
Not surprisingly, the interviewees identified the biggest obstacles to wider use of digital
marketing to be company resources, including knowledge (an issue for 8 of the 13 SMEs) and
human resources (an issue for 7 of the 13). A lack of monetary resources was mentioned by
only two of the firms. Uncertainty about how to use new digital tools and finding the right
person to take care of digital marketing within the company were the main obstacles
specified.
The interviews revealed that most managers were aware of the limited IT competence within
their organizations but did not perceive it to be a barrier. There were both digital enthusiasts
and others who were less interested, who had succeeded in building a wide online presence
for the company, either through using internal resources or with outside help. Buying
knowledge from outside was generally considered a good way to develop and maintain
external communications. On the other hand, the two companies with marketing staff, who
were excited and knowledgeable about digital marketing, were far ahead of the others in using
it. It seems that the IT affinity of the staff still influences SMEs’ online engagement.
15
I think most of that has come through you [Account Manager] and I think your personal interests are
also there, as is usual with people when you have an interest in certain things, you like working with
them, you’re good at that and you develop yourself in those areas. (Sales Manager, Case D)
It’s kind of a hobby basically, this social media marketing thing and that’s why I try to use it on a
company level and see what new things are around, how it works, and how it develops. (Account
Manager, Case D)
The other important reason cited in the interviews for not using social media channels actively
in marketing and communication was management resistance. Some company executives had
acquired prejudices about the use of social media. Some of their fears and assumptions were
unfounded and caused by the unfamiliarity with different channels and how they worked.
Another common reason to avoid using social media like Facebook in marketing was that the
managers did not have a clear goal for it and did not see how it could add value to their
company. Another important issue was that the marketing managers were not confident about
what they should communicate through different channels.
Company orientation and the customers’ demographic location played a major role in the
choice of suitable channels, whereas less evidence was found for the impact of the
competitive situation. The problem was one of choosing the most efficient channels in the
field of digital marketing, where established communication vehicles and traditions are rare,
and that issue deterred investment in new digital tools.
We are wasting huge amounts of money just because we don’t have a crystal ball. We are using too
many channels and vehicles to advertise and our efforts are to a large extent useless. (CEO, Case C)
Conclusions
This study contributes to the emerging digital marketing literature by providing an overview
of the usage, objectives, drivers, and challenges related to digital marketing in SMEs in one
region (Central Finland). Our study shows that the SMEs participating in this research have
not widely adopted digital tools for marketing purposes. When viewed in the light of the
penetration of the internet and social media usage in Finland, the results of this research are
surprising and somewhat alarming. The results indicate that regional development of the
internet and the usage of digital tools for marketing purposes in companies do not go hand in
hand as might be expected.
16
Although digital channels were not actively used, online visibility can be considered the most
important element of the digital marketing mix as the website and SEO were the two channels
most often used. This finding is line with the previous research on SMEs’ marketing goals
related to the creation of awareness (Reijonen, 2010). The usage of more advanced digital
channels such as online advertising and company generated blogs remained lower which is
consistent with the Eriksson et al., (2008) study conducted in Sweden. In the same vein,
increasing sales for existing customers was seen as the second least important reason to adopt
digital tools which might be because SMEs are not fully aware of different online sales
options, which might often be perceived to require more advanced IT skills.
In contrast to the findings of Eriksson et al. (2008), this study did not identify email as among
the top digital channels used in survey results, but among the interviewed companies sending
email newsletters was considered the second most important tool. In addition, our research
identified SEO and SEA as the top used channels; although it is impossible to state with any
certainty whether the lack of understanding of their potential identified by Karjaluoto and
Leinonen (2009) has improved because relative utilization was still low among our
respondents. SEO and SEA have certainly become better known among SMEs in the last few
years. The willingness to utilize these tools is also likely to have improved because their
influence on website visitors is easily confirmed, and both tools are also relatively cost
effective and easy to use. This view is in line with the previous research that indicates that
important factors affecting the adoption of digital marketing tools are tangible benefits that
the company can identify (Chong and Pervan, 2007; Kaynak et al., 2005; Levy et al., 2005);
ease of use of the new channels (Kaynak et al., 2005; cf. Davis, 1989; Gefen and Straub,
2000); and having an opportunity to try the channels in practice (Levy et al., 2005).
Social media was claimed to be the third most important channel. However, the findings
further indicate that social media is not understood as a two-way communication channel
capable of serving relationship building, as had been suggested by the literature (Ahuja and
Medury, 2010; Cho and Huh, 2010; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010;
Liu et al., 2011; Malhotra et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2008). In addition, the study confirms that
regardless of firm size, SMEs use social media in the same way they use other digital
channels; as a form of one-way broadcasting while attempting to drive sales. The utilization
of digital tools differs greatly according to company size. Our findings mirror those of
17
Bordonaba-Juste et al. (2012), Teo (2007) and Barnes et al. (2012), indicating that larger
companies (in our study employing 3–20 people) utilize most of the examined digital tools
more actively and get more out of them than smaller firms (in our study, those employing 1–2
people).
With respect to the reasons for SMEs delaying the adoption of digital tools, we can conclude
that external factors advocate the adoption of digital channels in marketing but firm-specific,
owner-manager factors and resource-related factors delay the adoption, a finding in line with
previous research (Lockett and Thompson, 2001; Hawawini et al., 2003). Additionally, the
greatest barriers to adopting digital channels in marketing are lack of resources; mainly lack
of knowledge and time (see e.g. Chen and McQueen, 2008; Gabrielli and Balboni, 2010;
Gilmore et al., 2007; Järvinen et al., 2012; Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010; Sayre et al.,
2012). In particular, lack of knowledge of different digital channels and also of the new norms
governing digital media were perceived as formidable obstacles. Our data does not confirm a
lack of financial resources to be a barrier to adoption (cf. Cooper et al., 1994; Federico et al.,
2012; Gilbert et al., 2006). The pivotal factor in the usage of digital tools seems to be whether
the marketing manager is knowledgeable about the digital options and actively pursues his/her
personal interest in the tools. In companies where the person in charge of marketing was
active on social media on a personal level, the company was too. This is a common situation,
especially in smaller companies (see e.g. Chao and Chandra, 2012; Chen and McQueen,
2008; Gabrielli and Balboni, 2010; Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010; Michaelidou et al.,
2011). However, the outsourcing of the utilization of social media tools was considered a
good option and a facilitator of digital marketing usage. The availability of external help to
facilitate adoption of digital tools was also found to be an important factor in previous
research (Järvinen et al., 2012; Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010).
In addition, another sizable barrier to adoption of digital channels was their perceived
usefulness, as Gilmore et al. (2007) also noted. The interviewees were not familiar with the
real benefits of the channels for marketing purposes. SMEs do not have the luxury of trying
out new tools where there is no clear sales goal associated with the tools. However, theory
still suggests that trying new channels is an important factor in enhancing perceived
usefulness (Levy et al., 2005).
18
To summarize the main findings of this study, these results confirm the assumption that many
SMEs do not use the full potential of the new digital tools and hence are not fully exploiting
the opportunities they can bring (Gilmore et al., 2007). The results of this study also raise the
question of whether SMEs have understood the fundamental change in the nature of
communication brought about by digitization. The unplanned digital marketing activities and
the ad hoc nature of marketing implementation reported in the interviews with SME
marketing representatives speaks for the lack of knowledge of the whole digital marketing
concept. In addition, opportunities for dialogue were considered the least important reason to
adopt digital marketing tools thought interactivity within the internet was seen as having an
important impact on a company’s positive online performance (see Simmons, 2007).
Employing digital marketing as a non-dialogical tool and seeing increasing sales as one of the
least important reasons to adopt digital tools might mean that firms are not using social media
and other digital devices efficiently and so might not be fully exploiting the potential of the
new tools. SMEs seem not to be keeping pace with digital development.
Managerial implications
The digitization of buyer behaviour is a progression that SMEs should follow to enhance their
ability to compete in the market of the future. The low adoption of digital channels among
regional SMEs in a digitally well-developed territory might open up new market opportunities
for new digitally aware companies from beyond its borders. There is evidence of this
phenomenon in the context of online shopping: a study of 9,300 Finnish online shoppers
found that online purchases from other countries rose by 15 % in 2012 and currently account
for around 15 % of the total online shopping market (TNS Gallup, 2013). The reality is that
companies should make sure they can be found online. That nowadays requires far more than
just setting up a website and optimizing it for search engines.
The results revealed that firms that have adopted digital marketing and made the necessary
investments have also been able to take advantage of those tools. This indicates that acquiring
digital marketing requires investing monetary resources, but more importantly, requires the
investment of time. This study again highlights the importance of training key marketing
personnel in the company to use the new digital tools. Marketing managers should be trained,
but so should both other middle managers and senior management, at least in terms of the
new order brought by digitization. Companies should first understand this new environment
before they can utilize the full potential of the new social media tools (cf. Fournier and Avery,
19
2011). Discussions on the future regional development of SMEs have called for training
programmes to help SMEs exploit digitization. This is something that the government should
take note of.
With regard to the importance of social media usage in SMEs, as Spenner and Freeman
(2012) pointed out, consumers have little interest in building social ties online with brands:
they just seek information about products and good deals. The utilization of social media in
SMEs is challenging as few SMEs are media houses, and in most cases are not capable of
creating interesting content on the various platforms available to them like a blog, Facebook
or Twitter. To do so would be complicated first by the creation of such content not being their
main line of business. Costs are also difficult to justify as the return on investment is difficult
to evaluate. Instead of considering focusing on content marketing and spending time on social
media, it might still be smarter to focus on the core business of the company, making sure it
offers the best possible products or services to its customers and to build its digital marketing
strategy around the website. Such a strategy is likely to be served by the use of SEO, SEA,
and online advertising, and would ensure the online strategy remains simple.
Nevertheless, social media is about listening, participation and sharing. The dialogical nature
of digital media does not necessarily mean that companies have to maintain an active
presence in social media. However, understanding that dialogical nature of the digital age will
bring about a fundamental change in business practices. Customers expect to be heard,
listened to and taken notice of, which challenges SMEs to be genuinely customer centric. If a
company is able to provide the best possible experience to its customers, those customers are
likely to relate their experiences of dealing with the company on the web.
Limitations and future research
The findings of this study should be interpreted in the light of certain key limitations. First,
the study is explorative in nature. Second, as with any case study, the results are limited by
the study context. Third, although the empirical material consisted of both company
interviews and survey data, the data comes from one region (Central Finland) and therefore
the results cannot be generalized to other settings. Moreover, half of the surveyed companies
are micro firms, and the vast majority operate only in the domestic market, which influences
our results. The interviewees in this study were responsible for marketing activities in the
20
companies, but they also often had other roles in the organization, which might also have
influenced the results.
The worrying aspect of the results is that SMEs are not aware that they could use digital
channels in their marketing programmes. There seems to be a requirement to improve
knowledge of how the various channels available can work together, and of their potential to
benefit an SME. This is where researchers can help SMEs to keep up with developments. It
would also be beneficial to inspect in more detail the reasons why some firms use less and
some more digital marketing and also find out whether the product type, customer type, or the
region where the company is located explains the differences.
We would also strongly encourage researchers to examine SMEs across various industries
that have gained measurable benefits from using social media as a two-way communication
channel. Finally, more research is warranted into the utilization of digital tools to grow sales.
References
Ahuja, V., Medury, Y. (2010), “Corporate blogs as e-CRM tools – building consumer
engagement through content management”, Journal of Database Marketing and Customer
Strategy Management, Vol. 17 No.2, pp.91-105.
Barbero, J.L., Casillas, J.C., Feldman, H.D. (2011), “Managerial capabilities and paths to
growth as determinants of high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises”, International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 29 No.6, pp.671-694.
Barnes, D., Clear, F., Harindranath, G., Dyerson, R., Harris, L., Rea, A. (2012), “Web 2.0 and
micro-businesses: an exploratory investigation”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 19 No.4, pp.687-711.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, pp.99-120.
Bharadwaj, P.N., Soni, R.G. (2007), “E-commerce usage and perception of e-commerce
issues among small firms: results and implications from an empirical study”, Journal of Small
Business, Vol. 45 No.4, pp.510-521.
21
Bordonaba-Juste, V., Lucia-Palacios, L., Polo-Redondo, Y. (2012), “The influence of
organizational factors on e-business use: analysis of firm size”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 30 No.2, pp.212-229.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V., Schäfer, D.B. (2012), “Are social media replacing traditional
media in terms of brand equity creation?” Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No.9,
pp.770-790.
Carroll, W.R., Wagar, T.H. (2010), “Is there a relationship between information technology
adoption and human resource management?”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 17 No.2, pp.218-229.
Chao, C-A., Chandra, A. (2012), “Impact of owner’s knowledge of information technology
(IT) on strategic alignment and IT adoption in US small firms”, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 19 No.1, pp.114-31.
Chatzoglou, P.D., Vraimaki, E., Diamantidis, A., Sarigiannidis, L. (2010), “Computer
acceptance in Greek SMEs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17
No.1, pp.78-101.
Chen, J., McQueen, J. (2008), “Factors affecting e-commerce stages of growth in small
Chinese firms in New Zealand: An analysis of adoption motivators and inhibitors”, Journal of
Global Information Management, Vol. 16 No.1, pp.26-60.
Cho, S., Huh, J. (2010), “Content analysis of corporate blogs as a relationship management
tool”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp.30-48.
Chong, S., Pervan, G. (2007), “Factors influencing the extent of deployment of electronic
commerce for small- and medium sized enterprises”, Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, Vol. 5 No.1, pp.1-29.
22
Cooper, A., Gimeno-Gascon, F.J., Woo, C. (1994), “Initial human and financial capital as
predictors of new venture performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No.5, pp.371-
396.
Christodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No.
1, pp.141-144.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technologies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No.3, pp.319-340.
Delmar, F., Wiklund, J. (2008), “The effect of small business managers’ growth motivation
on firm growth: a longitudinal study”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp.437-453.
Dholakia, R., Kshetri, N. (2004), “Factors affecting the adoption of the internet among
SMEs”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 23 No.4, pp.311-322.
Ericsson Consumer Lab (2012), ”10 hot consumer trends 2013”, Ericsson Consumer Lab
Report, Stockholm, Sweden.
Eriksson, L., Hultman, J., Naldi, L. (2008), ”Small business e-commerce development in
Sweden – an empirical survey”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol.
15 No.3, pp.555-570.
European Commission (2011), “Minimizing regulatory burden for SMEs
Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises”, European Commission, 2011
Report from the commission to the council and the European parliament. available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0803:FIN:EN:PDF
(accessed 20 December 2013).
Federico, J., Rabetino, R., Kantis, H. (2012), “Comparing young SMEs’ growth determinants
across regions”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 19 No.4,
pp.575-588.
23
Forrester Research (2008), “The growth of social technology adoption”, Forrester Research,
Cambridge, MA.
Fournier, S., Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited brand”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No.3,
pp.193-207.
Gabrielli, V., Balboni, B. (2010), “SME practice towards integrated marketing
communications”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 28 No.3, pp.275-290.
Galloway, L. (2007), “Can broadband access rescue the rural economy?”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No.4, pp.641-653.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. (2000), “The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in is
adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption”, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 1 No.8, pp.1-20.
Gilbert, B., McDougall, P., Audretsch, D. (2006), “New venture growth: a review and
extension”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No.6, pp.926-950.
Gilmore, A.,Callagher, D., Henry, S. (2007), “E-marketing and SMEs: operational lessons for
the future”, European Business Review, Vol. 19 No.3, pp.234-247.
Gilmore, A., Carson, D., O’Donnell, A. (2004), “Small business owners and their attitude to
risk”, Market Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No.3, pp.349-360.
Grant, R. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for
strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No.3, pp.114-135.
Hawawini, G., Venkat, S., Verdin, P. (2003), “Is performance driven by industry or firm level
specific factors. A new look at evidence”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1,
pp.1-16.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E.C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A.,
Skiera, B. (2010), “The impact of new media in consumer relationships”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.311-330.
24
Hill, J. (2001), “A multidimensional study of the key determinants of effective SME
marketing activity: Part 2”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,
Vol. 7 No.6, pp.211-235.
Internet World Stat (ITU) (2013), available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm
(accessed 5 June 2013).
Johnston, W.J., Leach, M.P., Liu, A.H. (1999), “Theory testing using case studies in businessto-business research”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28 No.3, pp. 201-213.
Järvinen, J., Töllinen, A., Karjaluoto, H., Jayawardhena, C. (2012), ”Digital and social media
marketing usage in B2B industrial sector”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 22 No.2,
pp.102-117.
Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No.1, pp. 59-68.
Karahanna, E., Straub, W.D. (1999), “The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and
ease of use”, Information & Management, Vol. 35 No.4, pp.237-250.
Karjaluoto, H., Huhtamäki, M. (2010), “The role of electronic channels in micro-sized brickand-mortar firms”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23 No.1, pp.17-38.
Karjaluoto, H., Leinonen, H. (2009), “Advertisers’ perceptions of search engine marketing”,
International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 5 No.1/2, pp.95-105.
Kaynak, E., Tatoglu, E., Kula, V. (2005), “An analysis of the factors affecting the adoption of
electronic commerce by SMEs”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp.623-40.
Levy, M., Powell, P., Worrall, L. (2005), “Strategic intent and e-business in SMEs: Enablers
and inhibitors”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 18 No.4, pp.1-20.
25
Liu, Q., Karahanna, E., Watson, R.T. (2011), ”Unveiling user-generated content: Designing
websites to best present customer reviews”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No.3, pp.231-240.
Lockett, A., Thompson, S. (2001), “The resource-based view and economics”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27, No.6, pp.723-754.
Lohrke, F., Franklin, G., Frownfelter-Lohrke, C. (2006), “The internet as an information
conduit: a transaction cost analysis model of US SME internet use”, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 24 No.2, pp.159-78.
MacGregor, R., Vrazalic, L. (2005), “A basic model of electronic commerce adoption
barriers”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No.4, pp.510-27.
Malhotra, A., Kubowicz Malhotra, C., See, A. (2013), “How to create brand engagement on
Facebook”, MIT Sloan Management review, Vol. 54 No.2, pp.18-20.
Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N.T., Christodoulides, G. (2011), “Usage, barriers and
measurement of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and medium
B2B brands”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp.1153-159.
Moyle, C.S. (2012), “How much time, money do small businesses spend on social media?
[Infographic]”, Vertical Response, October 30th
, available at:
http://www.verticalresponse.com/blog/how-much-time-and-money-do-small-businessesspend-on-social-media-infographic/ (accessed 20 December 2013).
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M., Smit, E.G. (2011), “Introducing COBRAs: Exploring
motivations for brand-related social media use”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30
No.1, pp.13-46.
Nielsen (2012), “The Nielsen global survey of social media usage”, available at:
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2012/state-of-the-media-the-social-media-report2012.html (accessed 2 April 2013).
26
O’Donnell, A. (2011), “Small firm marketing: synthesising and supporting received wisdom”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 18 No.4, pp.781-805.
Parker, C.M., Castleman, T. (2007), “New directions on SME e-business: insights from an
analysis of journal articles from 2003 to 2006”, Journal of Information Systems and Small
Business, Vol. 1 No.1/2, pp.21-40.
Parrott, G., Roomi, M.A., Holliman, D. (2010), “An analysis of marketing programmes
adopted by regional small and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No.2, pp.184-203.
Parry, S., Jones, R., Rowley, J., Kupiec-Teahan, B. (2012), ”Marketing for survival: a
comparative case study of SME software firms”, Journal of Global Information Management,
Vol 19 No.4, pp.712-728.
Proudlock, M. (1999), “IT adoption strategies: best practice guidelines for professional
SMEs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.240-252.
Rishika, R., Kumar, A., Janakiraman R., Bezawada, R. (2013), ”The effect of customers’
social media participation on customer visit frequency and profitability: An empirical
investigation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp.108-127.
Reijonen, H. (2010), “Do all SMEs practise same kind of marketing?”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No.2, pp.279-293.
Rowley, J. (2008), “Understanding digital content marketing”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 24 No.5/6, pp.517-540.
Sayre, K., Rastogi, V., Zwillenberg, P., Visser, J., Sheerin, A. (2012), “Marketing capabilities
for the digital age”, Boston Consulting Group, available at:
http://jcirera.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bcg.pdf (accessed 2 February 2013).
27
Shideler, D., Badasyan, N. (2012), “Broadband impact on small business growth in
Kentucky”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 19 No.4, pp.589-
606.
Simmons, G. (2007), “I-branding: developing the internet as a branding tool”, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 544-563.
Simpson, M., Taylor, N. (2002), “The role and relevance of marketing in SMEs: towards a
new model”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No.4, pp.370-
382.
Singh, T., Veron-Jackson, L., Cullinane, J. (2008), “Blogging: A new play in your marketing
game plan”, Business Horizons, Vol. 51, pp.281-292.
Spenner, P., Freeman, K. (2012), “Keep it simple. They don’t want a “relationship” with you.
Just help them make good choices”, Harvard Business Review, May, pp.2-8.
Spurge, V., Roberts, C. (2005), “Broadband technology: an appraisal of government policy
and use by small-and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Property Investment and
Finance, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 516-524.
Statistics Finland (2012), “Official statistics of Finland: The utilization of communication
technology”, Helsinki, available at: http://www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/2012/sutivi_2012_2012-11-
07_kat_004_fi.html (accessed 2 April 2013).
Teo, T. (2007), “Organizational characteristics, modes of internet adoption and their impact: a
Singapore perspective”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 15 No.2, pp.91-
117.
TNS Gallup (2013), “Online shopping statistics”, Helsinki, available at: http://www.tnsgallup.fi/doc/uutiset/Verkkokauppatilasto_2012.pdf (accessed 20 December 2013).
Weinberg, B. D., Pehlivan, E. (2011), ”Social spending: Managing the social media mix”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No.3, pp.275-282.
Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D. (2005), “Aspiring for and achieving growth: the moderating role of
resources and opportunities”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No.8, pp.1919-1942.
28
