A social marketing website you can trust
National Social Marketing Centre
Second National Social Marketing Conference
24 September 2007
Brian Cugelman, Mike Thelwall, Phil Dawes
University of Wolverhampton Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group
and the Wolverhampton Business School
http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk
Presentation overview
1. Growing Internet usage
2. Online behavioural change interventions
3. ‘Costs’ on the Internet
4. Credibility, trust and behaviour
5. Enhancing e-credibility for online social marketing
1. Growing Internet usage
Computers, hosts and users
Computer Industry Almanac, Forrester, International Telecommunication Union, The Domain Survey
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.5019
95
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Bill
ion
s
Computers world-wide (billion)
Internet users (billion)
Hosts (billions)
Poly. (Computers world-wide(billion))
Web 2.0
Alexa using the reach measure. http://www.alexa.com/site/help/traffic_learn_more
2. Online behavioural change interventions
Online behavioural interventions
• Meta-analysis of 22 articles compared web-based versus non-web-based health interventions, showed online interventions increased participants’ knowledge and health related behaviour (Wantland et al., 2004)
• Continuous email reminders can improve participants level of physical activity and eating habits (Franklin et al., 2006)
• Foot-in-the-door technique operates by email (Gueguen, 2002)
• Personalized web content improves attempts to quit smoking (Dijkstra, 2006)
• Internet applications can be more persuasive: they provide anonymity, are persistent, manage vast amounts of information, can present issue in multiple ways (Fogg, 2003)
However, outside experimental settings, mistrust is significant.
3. ‘Costs’ on the Internet(crime, deception and mistrust)
Costs to businesses from e-fraud (billions)
CYBERSOURCE (2007) 8th annual online fraud report. CyberSource Corporation.
$-
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Bill
ion
s (
US
D)
Costs to individuals from e-fraud (millions)
National White Collar Crime Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006) Internet Crime Report
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Mill
ion
s (
US
D)
Oxford Internet Survey 2007 Report: The Internet in Britain
DUTTON, W. H. & HELSPER, E. (2007) Oxford Internet Survey 2007 Report: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Institute.
34%
18%
17%
12%
9%
7%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Received a virus
Contacted by someone online from a foreigncountry
Someone online has asked for banking details
Received obscene or abusive emails from astranger
Bought something that was misrepresented on awebsite
Received obscene or abusive emails fromsomeone known
Had credit card details stolen during Internet use
Social and charitable risks
• In 2007, MySpace removed 29,000 convicted sex offenders from its service
• In 2005, bogus charities distributed email scams designed to divert donations intended for tsunami victims
• After 9/11, US officials froze assets of charities funding terrorists organizations; donations solicited online (HLF)
Reuters (2007); Long and Chiagouris (2006); US Government (2001); Internet Archive (2001)
Conclusion
The more people fear spammers, phishers, identity thieves, con
artists, hackers, cyber stalkers, sex offenders, cyber bullies,
misinformation, propaganda and hate advocates, the more it will
take to build online trust
4. Credibility, trust and behaviour
Credibility (believability)Source credibility: A communicator’s positive characteristics that influence
the receivers acceptance of a message
Credibility = Trustworthiness + Expertise + Attractiveness
Kotler and Roberto (1989); Fogg and Tseng (1999); Ohanian (2001)
Credibility Trustworthiness Expertise Attractiveness
Credible
Believable Reputable
Trustable
Trustworthy
Good
Truthful
Well-intentioned
Unbiased
Honest
Knowledgeable
Competent
Intelligent
Capable
Experienced
Powerful
Classy
Beautiful
Elegant
Sexy
(Cool)
Credibility and source attribution
Perceptions of credibility impact the degree to which audiences are likely to adopt new
behaviours (Kotler and Roberto, 1989)
Website design may have a greater impact on consumers’ attitudes towards websites than their offline perceptions
of the organizations (Long, Chiagouris 2006)
Credibility and behaviour
Correlations between purchase intentions and an endorser’s perceived credibility
Credibility dimensions Correlation
Attractiveness .374*
Trustworthiness .145*
Expertise .485*
OHANIAN, R. (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19, 39-52.
*N=265, P <0.05 one tailed
Which photo could increase or decrease text credibility?
NGUYEN, H. & MASTHOFF, J. (2007) Is it me or what I say? Source image and persuasion. Persuasive 07. Springer.
Credibility and imagery
• Text credibility is influenced by image credibility
• Experiment compared same content with photos of low and high credibility doctors, and no image
Photo Goodwill Trust Credibility
High credibility Higher Higher Higher
Low credibility Lower Lower Lower
No image Middle Middle Middle
NGUYEN, H. & MASTHOFF, J. (2007) Is it me or what I say? Source image and persuasion. Persuasive 07. Springer.
Trust (dependability)
Truster Trustee
Bad outcome -
Good outcome +
DEUTSCH, M. (1962) Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
A. Ambiguous path
B. Trustee controls outcome
Start with an object of
motivational relevance
C. Bad outweighs
good
Trust and online behaviour
1. Trust is the primary intermediary between perceptions and willingness to purchase online (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000)
2. Trust plays an intermediary role between a website’s physical characteristics and user’s behavioural intentions. Trust varies across different types of websites depending on the risks and costs associated with the transactions (Bart et al., 2005)
3. Three concerns compose the three threats of online shopping: financial, product and time/convenience. The top fear in the top category is ‘not trusting the online company’, and other trust concerns (Forsythe, Liu, Shannon and Chun, 2006)
Generalized trust and Internet use
Analysis by Cugelman (2007) with data from the European Social Survey (the ESS)
(r=0.232, N=45,414, P<0.01, one-tailed)
5. Enhancing e-credibility for online social marketing
Improving credibility
“What can social marketers do to raise or improve the credibility of
their campaigns and programmes?”
(Kotler and Roberto, 1989)
Lets quickly review some ways
Usability1. I think that I would like to use this website
frequently 2. I found the website unnecessarily complex3. I thought the website was easy to use4. I think that I would need the support of a technical
person to be able to use this website 5. I found the various functions in this website were
well integrated6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this
website 7. I would imagine that most people would learn to
use this website very quickly8. I found the website very cumbersome to use9. I felt very confident using the website 10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get
going with this website
System Usability Scale (SUS)•Reach consensus with the fewest reviewers and 10 questions
•Ask for specific examples if you want to pinpoint confusing and clear featuresBrooke, J. (1996) SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability
scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester & A. L. McClelland (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis.
TULLIS, T. & STETSON, J. (2004) A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability. UAP.
CredibilityTrustworthinessDependable --- UndependableHonest --- DishonestReliable --- UnreliableSincere --- InsincereTrustworthy --- Untrustworthy
ExpertiseExpert --- Not an expertExperienced --- InexperiencedKnowledgeable --- UnknowledgeableQualified --- UnqualifiedSkilled --- Unskilled
AttractivenessAttractive----UnattractiveClassy --- Not classyBeautiful --- UglyElegant --- PlainSexy --- Not sexy
Scale to measure celebrity endorsers•Designed to assess celebrity endorser credibility
•Modify attractiveness with adjectives appropriate to your target audiences: cool, hip, conservative, etc..
•Used to study the effects of image credibility on perceptions of content credibility
OHANIAN, R. (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19, 39-52.
TrustHonesty • The website provides truthful information• The information provided by the website is believable• The website content reflects expertise Reputation• The website is respected• The website has a good reputation Predictability• The website content is what I expected• There were no surprises in how the website responded to my
actions Risk• I am taking a chance interacting with this website• I feel it is unsafe to interact with this website• I feel I must be cautious when using this website• It is risky to interact with this website Trust• I believe this website is trustworthy• I trust this website
Perceived ease of use• Learning to operate this website was easy for me• I found it easy to get this website to do what I wanted it to do• I found the website easy to use
Measuring online trust of websites•From a research project designed to develop a survey of website credibility
•These questions have been scaled down to the fewest questions with the highest factor loadings
•Look up the full scale if you’re planning to use this system
CORRITORE, C., WIEDENBECK, S., MARBLE, R. & KRACHER, B. (2005) Measuring online trust of websites: credibility, perceived ease of use, and risk. Elevenths Americas conference on information systems. Omaha, USA.
Credibility guidelines Stanford University
1. Make it easy to verify the accuracy of the information on your site
2. Show that there's a real organization behind your site
3. Highlight the expertise in your organization and in the content and services you provide
4. Show that honest and trustworthy people stand behind your site.
5. Make it easy to contact you6. Design your site so it looks professional (or is
appropriate for your purpose)7. Make your site easy to use -- and useful8. Update your site's content often (at least
show it's been reviewed recently)9. Use restraint with any promotional content
(e.g., ads, offers)10.Avoid errors of all types, no matter how small
they seem
•From Stanford University’s Persuasive Technology Lab
•Based on three years of research
•Research engaged over 4,500 people
Fogg, B.J. (May 2002). A Research Summary from the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. Stanford University. www.webcredibility.org/guidelines
Pulling it all together
• In the BCSO factors, fit mistrust as a cost, and online endorsements as others
• During formative research, evaluate your e-campaign credibility with the prior scales
• Fuse IT project management with health campaign planning: Spiral Technology Action Research Model
ReferencesPublications• BART, Y., SHANKAR, V., FAREENA, S. & URBAN, G. (2005) Are the drivers and roles of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale
exploratory empirical study. journal of Marketing, 69, 133-152.• CORRITORE, C., WIEDENBECK, S., MARBLE, R. & KRACHER, B. (2005) Measuring online trust of websites: credibility, perceived ease of use, and risk.
Elevenths Americas conference on information systems. Omaha, USA.• CUGELMAN, B., THELWALL, M. & DAWES, P. (2007) Can Brotherhood be Sold Like Soap…Online? An Online Social Marketing and Advocacy Pilot Study
Synopsis. Springer.• CYBERSOURCE (2007) 8th annual online fraud report. CyberSource Corporation.• DEUTSCH, M. (1962) Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.• DIJKSTRA, A. (2006) Technology adds new principles to persuasive psychology: Evidence from health education. Persuasive Technology. Germany, Springer.• DUTTON, W. H. & HELSPER, E. (2007) Oxford Internet Survey 2007 Report: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Institute.• FOGG, B. J. & TSENG, H. (1999) The elements of computer credibility. CHI 99. Pittsburgh, USA.• FOGG, B. J. (2002) Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility. A Research Summary from the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. Stanford University.• FOGG, B. J. (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do, San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.• FORSYTHE, S., LIU, C., SHANNON, D. & CHUN, G. (2006) Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 20, 55-75.• FRANKLIN, P., ROSENBAUM, P., CAREY, M. & ROIZEN, M. (2006) Using sequential email messages to promote health behaviors: Evidence of feasibility and
reach in a worksite sample. Journal of Medical Internet Research.• GOVERNMENT., U. (2001) Fact Sheet on Shutting Down the Terrorist Financial Network White House.• GUEGUEN, N. (2002) Foot-in-the-door technique and computer mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 11-15.• JARVENPAA, S., TRACTINSKY, N. & VITALE, M. (2000) Consumer trust in an Internet store. Information and Technology Management, 1, 45-71.• KOTLER, P. & ROBERTO, E. (1989) Social Marketing, New York, The Free Press.• LONG, M. & CHIAGOURIS, L. (2006) The role of credibility in shaping attitudes towards nonprofit websites. International Journal of Nonprofit Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 11.• National White Collar Crime Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006) Internet Crime Report• NGUYEN, H. & MASTHOFF, J. (2007) Is it me or what I say? Source image and persuasion. Persuasive 07. Springer.• OHANIAN, R. (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 19, 39-52.• PUTNAM, R. (2000) Bowling alone, New York, Simon and Schuster, Inc.• SKINNER, H. & MALEY, O. N., D (2006) Developing Internet-based e-health promotion programs: the spiral technology action research (STAR) model. Health
Promotion Practice, 7, 406-417.• TULLIS, T. & STETSON, J. (2004) A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability. UAP.• UNKNOWN (2007) MySpace deletes 29,000 sex offenders. Reuters New York.• WANTLAND, D., PORTILLO, C., HOLZEMER, W. L., SLAUGHTER, R. & MCGHEE, E. (2004) The effectiveness of web-based vs. non-web-based interventions: a
meta-analysis of behavioural change outcomes. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6.Other sources• Data for computer, hosts, users and domains graphs: Computer Industry Almanac; Forrester; International Telecommunication Union; The Domain Survey• Web 2.0 graphs by Alexa using the reach measure. http://www.alexa.com/site/help/traffic_learn_more• Internet Archive (2001) CAIR web link ‘Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund’ leads to Holy Land Foundation which was outlawed for funding terrorism.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010917013636/http://cair-net.org/• Analysis by Cugelman (2007) with data from the European Social Survey (the ESS). http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org
Recommended
