Next Article in Journal
Illusion of Truth: Analysing and Classifying COVID-19 Fake News in Brazilian Portuguese Language
Next Article in Special Issue
Explaining Intrusion Detection-Based Convolutional Neural Networks Using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP)
Previous Article in Journal
Startups and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Application of Support Vector Machine Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vec2Dynamics: A Temporal Word Embedding Approach to Exploring the Dynamics of Scientific Keywords—Machine Learning as a Case Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Networks Marketing and Consumer Purchase Behavior: The Combination of SEM and Unsupervised Machine Learning Approaches

1
Doctoral School of Economic and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
2
Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran 141556311, Iran
3
Department of Management, Bandar Anzali Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandar Anzali 4313111111, Iran
4
The Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research Lab, London EC4N 7TW, UK
5
Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022, 6(2), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6020035
Submission received: 9 February 2022 / Revised: 19 March 2022 / Accepted: 23 March 2022 / Published: 25 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Machine Learning for Dependable Edge Computing Systems and Services)

Abstract

:
The purpose of this paper is to reveal how social network marketing (SNM) can affect consumers’ purchase behavior (CPB). We used the combination of structural equation modeling (SEM) and unsupervised machine learning approaches as an innovative method. The statistical population of the study concluded users who live in Hungary and use Facebook Marketplace. This research uses the convenience sampling approach to overcome bias. Out of 475 surveys distributed, a total of 466 respondents successfully filled out the entire survey with a response rate of 98.1%. The results showed that all dimensions of social network marketing, such as entertainment, customization, interaction, WoM and trend, had positively and significantly influenced consumer purchase behavior (CPB) in Facebook Marketplace. Furthermore, we used hierarchical clustering and K-means unsupervised algorithms to cluster consumers. The results show that respondents of this research can be clustered in nine different groups based on behavior regarding demographic attributes. It means that distinctive strategies can be used for different clusters. Meanwhile, marketing managers can provide different options, products and services for each group. This study is of high importance in that it has adopted and used plspm and Matrixpls packages in R to show the model predictive power. Meanwhile, we used unsupervised machine learning algorithms to cluster consumer behaviors.

1. Introduction

With the advent of social networks, a lot of changes have happened in the marketplace. Nowadays, social networks (SN) have become the preferred platform of shopping for many consumers. Social networks make interactive communication among users and create substantial opportunities for marketers to connect with consumers [1].
Facebook is the prime social network service in the world and a tool that has become an important part of consumers’ lives [2]. Facebook users, especially, tend to create commercial groups that allow them to conduct business. This kind of group that enables users to conduct consumer-to-consumer commercial activities is called a marketplace [3]. The marketplace is a kind of group which Facebook users create to sell their items. Many developed and developing countries are using social media platforms for purchasing products. COVID-19 has also significantly impacted the influence to purchase products in marketplaces. Moreover, popular social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, are used by marketers to draw attention to their products and services and reach out to the customers [1,4]. Social networks marketing (SNM) has the potential to optimize the customer experience and journey [5], provide connection with customers [6], lower the marketing cost [7], and enable marketers to send messages to millions of consumers simultaneously [8]. Therefore, social network marketing is going to be more popular in every country, and it is not surprising that social networks are one of the most important tools to encourage the consumption of products. In Hungary, Facebook was launched in 2008 and rapidly played an important role in people’s lives. As of 2020, almost 90 percent of Hungarian internet users had a Facebook account. According to recent statistics for 2021, this social network platform was almost equally popular among both men and women, with a moderately bigger share of female users. Moreover, in 2021, the biggest user group of Hungarian Facebook users comprised users between the ages of 25 to 34 years old, while the second group included the ages of people between 35 to 44 years [9]. As limited research has been conducted [4] about the Facebook Marketplace in Hungary in order to determine the factors which influence consumer purchase behavior, it has become an increasingly important issue for sellers using Facebook Marketplace. Social media is a platform that has transformed the interaction between companies and customers, allowing consumers to go through a more interactive purchasing experience [10]. In addition, the government, policymakers, and marketers of Hungary need to understand the consumer purchase behavior trend from the social media marketplace as well as what consumers think about the social media marketplace. Previously, only a few studies focused on the role of social network marketing in consumer purchasing behavior in developing and developed countries. For example, a study on SNM was carried out on consumer purchase decisions in Marketplace in the context of Pakistan [11], Italy [12]), Thailand [13], and Iran [14]. Some studies focused on location-based SNM [15], value co-creation of SNM [16], the effects of social networking sites, and marketing campaigns [17]. In spite of this, there is still a lack of studies around Europe on the effect of social networking marketing on consumer purchases. Therefore, this study aims to examine social networks marketing (SNM) and consumer purchase behavior (CPB) with evidence from Facebook Marketplace in Hungary. Moreover, this study investigates five dimensions of social network marketing such as entertainment, customization, interaction, word of mouth, and trends that can influence consumer purchase behavior (CPB). This current study tried to know the consumer choice behavior through Facebook platforms based on Glasser’s choice theory. The research concentrates on a majority of young consumers as understanding the purchasing behavior. Young people are essential because they are both present and future consumers.
However, the novel contribution of this study is to apply both SEM (structure equation modeling) and machine learning approaches to investigate social network marketing (SNM) and consumer purchase behavior from Marketplace. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the current study is the first empirical survey that investigates how social network marketing can affect consumers’ purchase behavior with evidence from Facebook Marketplace in Hungary.
The research question is ‘How can social network marketing (SNM) affect consumers’ purchase behavior through social media (Facebook) marketplaces?’ To answer this question, the SEM and unsupervised machine learning algorithms method are used to cluster consumer behaviors at different levels. The findings can help digital marketing, online marketing, affiliate marketing, online advertising agency, company, and policy planners better understand the consumer’s purchase behavior of products in light of social media and social network marketing.
This research is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the literature with theoretical background, social network marketing and consumer purchase behavior, as well as the proposed conceptual framework. Secondly, Section 3 describes the methodology, data processing, path modeling, hypothesis testing, and unsupervised machine learning approach with a model fit. Section 4 explains the results and discussion. Finally, the conclusions, recommendations, limitations with future research of consumer purchase behavior by social network marketing are presented in Section 5.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Theoretical Background: Choice Theory

Prior studies have used several theories to identify consumer purchase behavior determinants over the last few decades. Among the most widely used theories for identifying the consumer online purchase behavior are theory of planned behavior (TPB) [18], theory of reasoned action (TRA) [19], diffusion of adoption (DOI) [20], technology acceptance model (TAM) and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [21]. This research is invoked and described Glasser’s choice theory. This theory is an explanation of human behavior that helps explain our findings and consumer purchase behavior. Furthermore, the theory, in conjunction with our results, serves as a foundation for managerial implications. In generally, choice theory [22] suggests that human beings choose their behavior in an attempt to meet their basic needs, which have evolved over time and have become part of the genetic structure. The five basic needs according to Glasser are survival, belonging, freedom, fun and power. Glasser believes that all behaviors are purposeful, and people are motivated by the pleasure they experience when they satisfy these basic needs. He explains that people give their current knowledge and skills to meet one or more of their basic human needs, and these needs are the general motivation for everything they do. Our study extends choice theory by demonstrating its application in social networks marketing and consumer purchase behavior.

2.2. Social Networks Marketing

The use of social networks and artificial intelligence has increased, and it has become an essential part of the lives of most people around the world [5,23,24]. Statistics show that in 2021, 4.66 billion people were active internet users, encompassing more than half of the global population. At this time, the amount of active social media users is 4.2 billion people across the world [25]. Meanwhile, Facebook takes the leading position as a favored social network service in developed and developing countries [2] with more than 2.89 billion monthly active users [26].
The users of this platform are using the website for commercial activities, including buying or selling items from each other more and more [3,27]. These actions usually take place in a type of group which is called the marketplace. In Marketplace, Facebook works as the platform, just providing the functions; this platform is not involved in the transactions [28]. In these groups, users can see the selling posts of other group members and are able to communicate with them [3].
The possibility for communication in social networks enables retailers to understand the customers’ needs better [6]. The important issue is that different demographic, cultural, geographic and behavioral consumer segments must be taken into consideration during social networks marketing activities [29]. Nonetheless, research shows that some businesses have joined social network platforms and spent a lot of money in social networks marketing without clear marketing plans and strategies. As a result, they may not completely benefit from these platforms [1,30].
Social network marketing offers better customer experiences and journeys [7], lowers marketing costs, and engages greater numbers of consumers [19].

2.3. Consumer Purchase Behavior

Social networks play an important role in changing consumer purchase behavior [6] and the development of online shopping [5,31]. Studies show that consumers commonly use social media to search for information before making purchase decisions [8,32].
Social networks make it possible to gather groups of consumers to talk about products and services and share ideas about certain brands [33]. This is one of the most important roles that these platforms play in shopping behavior. A study about the influence of likes on Facebook on user’s purchase behavior shows that when the number of likes on Facebook is higher, purchasing and recommending a product on the linked website is more likely [34]. Other researches also mention the positive effect of the number of likes [35], expressing subjectivity within online reviews [36], online recommendations [1], other consumers ratings [37] and influencer endorsements [38] on consumers’ intention to make purchases on social networks. Previous studies indicate that there are several important aspects, such as the quality of information about products or services [14], emotional experiences, emotional engagement, [7], brand trust, brand community, and brand awareness [39], which can influence consumer purchase behavior.
Other studies have pointed out that the design of a post [28], trust of a social network community [40], message structure [41], attitude [42], cultural settings [43], AR (augmented reality) experience [44], ease of understanding [3] and pro-social consumer behaviors, such as social responsibility, empathy, moral reasoning, self-reported altruism (SRA), and past helpfulness [45] are able to influence consumer purchase behavior.

2.4. Conceptual Framework of Social Networks Marketing, Consumer Purchase Behavior and Its Five Measures

The rapid growth of social networks and gaining new followers causes many opportunities and challenges. Increasing the use of internet and social networks, consumers’ purchase behavior has completely changed. Lower costs of marketing activities, improved brand awareness and increased sales are some of the opportunities provided for users through social network platforms [5]. On Facebook, the group function is connecting people who have the same interests for operating certain businesses [28]. Facebook users create commercial groups to buy and sell products and services [3]. Although Facebook remains the leading social network platforms all around the world, the users have differences in information processing with regard to messages [46], which is able to change consumer purchase behavior. The conceptual framework of this study is adapted from different types of social media marketing activities, such as entertainment, interaction, trend, customization, and word of mouth [14]. This study aims to investigate the possible influence of entertainment, customization, interaction, word of mouth and trends on customer purchase behavior on Facebook Marketplace.
Entertainment: A form of entertainment is a way of attracting audience’s attention or pleasing them. The new era of social media entertainment refers to the emerging industry of native online cultural producers operating alongside legacy media industries and around global media cultures, including platforms, intermediaries, and fan communities [47]. The use of social media, particularly when gamification techniques are employed, provides users with a sense of fun and play, which encourages them to return and purchase. Consumer attitudes are positively influenced by entertainment, which results in increased engagement between brands and consumers [48]. A recent study by Ebrahimi et al. [14] found that entertainment has a positive impact on consumer sustainable consumption behavior. Thus, we propose the following:
H1. 
Entertainment is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace.
Customization: Customization refers to the degree to which a service is customized to satisfy an individual’s preferences. Customization means how a product or service meets customers’ preferences, needs, and demands [49]. Customization in social media refers to how messages, information, and advertising materials correspond to what customers are looking for [14,50]. Through customization, a company can increase customer engagement and enhance the value of its products. Consumers are most satisfied after receiving their expected products and services [51]. Network marketing also helps a company to understand what types of products consumers need or seek. Therefore, a company can provide customized services. Thus, customization has positively influenced consumer purchase behavior in the Facebook marketplace. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. 
Customization is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace.
Interaction: Interactions on social media platforms are dramatically changing how brands share information with their consumers [52]. Social media marketing has an impact on the purchasing behaviors of people who regularly use social networking sites for information. According to Daugherty et al. [53], social interaction facilitates marketers in evolving user-inspired themes. The interaction on social media allows customers to share their ideas while also providing a forum for discussion. Social networks allow users to express their opinions and exchange customer purchase experiences when it comes to brand-related services and goods. Interaction among users on social media platforms provides knowledge and insight [54]. Ebrahimi et al. [14] observed that interaction resulting from social network marketing has a positive influence on consumers’ sustainable purchasing behavior. Sharing opinions or conversations (two-way interaction) with buyers or sellers through the Facebook marketplace is comparatively easy [48]. Thus, interaction in social network marketing significantly influences the purchase of products. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3. 
Interaction is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace.
Word of mouth (WoM): WoM (word-of-mouth) marketing is free advertising that is triggered by customers’ experiences, which are usually more than what they were expecting [55,56]. The effectiveness of social network dimensions are electronic word-of-mouth marketing (eWoM), online advertising, and online communities in promoting brand loyalty and consumer purchase intention [57]. A social media platform is an excellent tool for eWOM since consumers generate and spread information about brands to their friends, peers, and acquaintances without restrictions [48,58]. Positive WoM influences consumers to purchase particular brands. For example, word of mouth on social media is critical in motivating consumers to purchase green cosmetics [10]. However, Ebrahimi [14] found that word of mouth of social media has a negative influence on consumer eco-friendly purchase behavior in Iran. When consumers share positive information on products or services from the Facebook Marketplace on their page, blog, or microblog with their friends, their friends are motivated to purchase the product or service [48]. As a result, WoM strongly influences consumers’ behavior to buy products on the marketplace. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. 
Word of mouth is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace.
Trend: Social media platforms provide the most recent news and hot discussion topics [59], as well as primary product search channels [60]. In general, social media are considered a more trustworthy, timely and cheaper source of information than traditional promotional activities. Consumers more frequently use various types of social media to obtain information [8,60,61]. Trendiness is a social media tool used to take advantage of grabbing customer attention by providing the latest information on the most current trends. According to Muntinga et al. [54], there are four sub-motivations for sharing trendy information on social media: surveillance, knowledge, prepurchase information, and inspiration. Surveillance refers to consumers observing and staying informed about their social environment; knowledge refers to consumers gaining access to other consumers’ knowledge and expertise in order to learn more about a product or brand; pre-purchase information refers to consumers learning more about a product or brand before purchasing it. Product reviews or threads on brand communities in order to make the right purchasing decisions are referred to as “pre-purchase information.” Finally, inspiration refers to consumers’ acquiring new ideas and how consumers are following brand-related information, which acts as a source of inspiration. Access to information through social networks plays an essential role in consumer behavior. As a result, consumer attitudes and purchase behavior regarding products and services are influenced by trendiness. Based on the literature, we propose the following hypothesis:
H5. 
Trend is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace.
Based on the previous, above-mentioned literature, we propose the following research model in Figure 1.

3. Research Method

Sample Size and Measurement of Constructs

This research uses the convenience sampling approach to gathering data. While this approach is commonly used in quantitative studies to overcome bias [62], we employed the common method bias (CMB) test as well [63]. Out of 475 surveys distributed (with an online link), a total of 466 respondents successfully filled out the entire sampling with a response rate of 98.1%. To ensure that the collected data do not have CMB, the Harman’s single-factor was carried out with six variables. The six factors were then loaded into a single factor. The analysis shows that the largest variance explained by the newly created factor is 46.37% (for ENT), which is below the threshold value of 50% [63]. Hence, there were no concerns regarding the CMB in the collected data. Furthermore, a pilot study was performed for ensuring the content validity and reliability of the sample size of 25.
The statistical population of the study involved users living in Hungary and who had at least one online purchase experience in Facebook Marketplace. We shared the questionnaire with different groups on Facebook related to online purchases. The questionnaire was translated into both the Hungarian and English languages.
The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first one addresses demographic information and the second one, which is the main part of it, consists of 21 items. All items were scored based on the Likert 5-point scale (5 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree). Five dimensions of SNM (e.g., four items for entertainment and interaction, five items for customization, three items for WoM, and two times for trend) were measured with a total of 18 items adapted from [64,65], and CPB with 3 items adapted from [66,67,68] was measured. Appendix A shows the items.
In the research sample, 57.7% and 42.3% of the respondents were males and females, in the respective order. The majority of the respondents (42.1%) were in the age group of 25–34 years. Moreover, 31.1% of the respondents had bachelor’s degrees, revealing the levels of education of the majority of the respondents. Respondents were instructed to pay attention to the real condition while answering the questions with transparency and loyalty. Based on the time on Facebook, the majority of respondents (53.3%) spent at least 1 to 2 h on Facebook every day. Table 1 shows the demographic information report.
The paper used the combination of structural equation modeling (SEM) and unsupervised machine learning (ML) approaches. SEM was used in several previous research studies related to social network marketing [41,64] and consumer purchase behavior [69,70]. However, there are few studies with a combination of SEM and ML (for example, [62]). This paper aimed to use SEM as a powerful tool to predict the research model. SEM helps us to evaluate the performance of the model in both the inner and the outer models. We used the unsupervised ML approach to cluster different consumers. We used hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and K-means algorithms based on Python libraries. In fact, these two clustering algorithms are unsupervised machine learning algorithms. For example, if your customer data include age, education, and spending time in social media, a well-configured k-means or HCA model can help divide your customers into groups, where their attributes are closer together.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Models

The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, Dillon–Goldstein’s rho and by checking the first and second eigenvalues of the indicators’ correlation matrix (Table 2). Some researchers suggest 0.7 and above as the favorable point for Cronbach’s alpha [69,71,72,73,74] and DG rho [75]. As the value of these coefficients is higher than 0.7, it means that the reliability of the research is confirmed. The first eigenvalue should be much larger than 1, whereas the second eigenvalue should be smaller than 1 [75]. The outer loading values were above the 0.7 thresholds [76]. Meanwhile, the AVE (block communality) scores were above the threshold of 0.50 (Table 2), showing the internal consistency of the measurement model [77,78]. Figure 2 shows that all items have an acceptable outer loadings level based on the graphical outer loading figure (Plspm package with R).
Discriminant validity was assessed at the construct level by the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT), as shown in Table 3. Values less than 0.9 are considered favorable for this index [79]. To assess the discriminant validity of items, cross-loadings were used by adopting the plspm package with R (see Figure 3) which show reliable results and confirmed the discriminant validity in the items level.

4.2. Structural Model

The SEM approach was used with the help of the R software (Plspm and Matrixpls packages Version 4.1.2) to evaluate the structural model and test the hypotheses. For evaluating the model’s in-sample fit, we calculated the R2. The model explained 84.1% of the variance in consumer purchase behavior.
Furthermore, “Mean_Redundancy” was used as an amount of variance in an endogenous construct explained by its independent latent variables. It reflects the ability of a set of independent latent variables to explain variation in the dependent latent variable. Positive and high redundancy means good ability to predict [75]. GoF can be used as a global criterion that helps us to evaluate the performance of the model in both the inner and the outer models [75]. In this research, the value of GoF is 0.788, which is acceptable.
Henseler et al. [80] introduced the SRMR as a goodness-of-fit measure for PLS-SEM that can be used to avoid model misspecification [14,81], and SRMR < 0.1 is acceptable. In this study, SRMR was 0.058 in the output of the estimated model as an acceptable and ideal amount (Table 4).
Entertainment significantly influenced CPB in Facebook Marketplace (β = 0.369, CI = [0.298; 0.461]). Thus, H1 is supported. Customization positively and significantly influenced CPB in Facebook Marketplace (β = 0.136, CI = 0.066; 0.212]). Thus, H2 is supported. Likewise, interaction (β = 0.353, CI = 0.306; 0.397]), word of mouth (β = 0.069, CI = 0.025; 0.114]) and trend (β = 0.095, CI = 0.042; 0.141]) positively and significantly influenced the consumer purchase behavior in Facebook Marketplace. Therefore, H3, H4 and H5 are supported (see Table 4).

4.3. Application of Unsupervised Machine Learning Approach

Machine learning is a component of artificial intelligence, although it endeavors to solve problems based on hidden patterns and data mining to classify [82] and predict [83]. Unsupervised learning algorithms are useful for making the labels in the data that are incessantly used to implement supervised learning tasks. That is, unsupervised clustering algorithms identify inherent groupings within the unlabeled data and label each data value. It means that unsupervised association mining algorithms tend to identify rules that accurately represent relationships between features [84]. We used two different unsupervised algorithms to cluster consumers based on Python libraries (Listing 1).
Listing 1. # Python Libraries.
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.cluster import KMeans
from scipy.cluster.hierarchy import linkage, dendrogram, fcluster
%matplotlib notebook
%config InlineBackend.figure_format = “svg”
Hierarchical cluster analysis or HCA (Listing 2) is an unsupervised clustering algorithm that involves creating clusters that have predominant ordering from top to bottom. HCA is an algorithm that groups similar objects into groups called clusters. The endpoint is a set of clusters, where each cluster is distinct from other cluster, and the objects within each cluster are broadly similar to each other.
Listing 2. # Hierarchical Model.
hierarchical_model = linkage (data, method = “complete”)
dendrogram (hierarchical_model)
plt.show ()
clusters = fcluster (hierarchical_model, 4, criterion = “distance”)
K-means clustering is one of the simplest and most popular unsupervised machine learning algorithms. In other words, the K-means algorithm identifies k number of centroids, and then allocates every data point to the nearest cluster, while keeping the centroids as small as possible. Based on a dendrogram in Figure 4, we found that respondents of this research can be clustered in nine different groups based on behavior (regarding demographic variables and independent features to predict consumer behavior). It means that we can follow nine different marketing strategies for these nine groups. Meanwhile, marketing companies can provide different options, products and services for each group. Furthermore, based on Listing 3 and Figure 5, we confirmed nine different groups of consumers regarding the K-means algorithm.
Listing 3. # KMeans model.
km_model = KMeans (n_clusters = 9)
km_model.fit (data)
clusters = km_model.predict (data)
array([R1,Ci = 5, 3, 8, 3, 3, 0, 5, 5, 0, 4, 3, 8, 3, 8, 0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 0, 3,
2, 6, 3, 0, 1, 1, 3, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 6, 0, 8, 3, 5, 1, 5, 1,
3, 5, 1, 8, 2, 2, 2, 7, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1,
7, 7, 7, 7, 0, 5, 2, 0, 1, 6, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 6, 1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3,
0, 6, 5, 3, 6, 5, 0, 7, 0, 6, 5, 7, 5, 1, 3, 3, 0, 5, 6, 6, 6, 5,
0, 5, 0, 6, 0, 2, 5, 6, 0, 5, 3, 8, 3, 3, 0, 5, 5, 0, 4, 3, 8, 3,
8, 0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 0, 3, 2, 6, 3, 0, 1, 1, 3, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 1,
3, 6, 0, 8, 3, 5, 3, 8, 3, 3, 0, 5, 5, 0, 4, 3, 8, 3, 8, 0, 1, 2,
4, 3, 5, 0, 3, 2, 6, 3, 0, 1, 1, 3, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 6, 0, 8,
3, 5, 1, 5, 1, 3, 5, 1, 8, 2, 2, 2, 7, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 1, 5, 4,
1, 5, 5, 5, 1, 7, 7, 7, 7, 0, 5, 2, 0, 1, 6, 0, 1, 0, 5, 3, 8, 3,
3, 0, 5, 5, 0, 4, 3, 8, 3, 8, 0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 0, 3, 2, 6, 3, 0,
1, 1, 3, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 6, 0, 8, 3, 5, 1, 5, 1, 3, 5, 1, 8,
2, 2, 2, 7, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1, 7, 7, 7, 7,
0, 5, 2, 0, 1, 6, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 6, 1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3, 0, 6, 5, 3,
6, 5, 0, 7, 0, 6, 5, 7, 5, 1, 3, 3, 0, 5, 6, 6, 6, 5, 0, 5, 0, 6,
0, 2, 5, 6, 0, 4, 3, 8, 3, 8, 0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 0, 3, 2, 6, 3, 0,
1, 1, 3, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 6, 0, 8, 3, 5, 1, 5, 1, 3, 5, 1, 8,
2, 2, 2, 7, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1, 7, 7, 7, 7,
0, 5, 2, 0, 1, 6, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 6, 1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3, 0, 6, 5, 3,
6, 5, 0, 7, 0, 6, 5, 7, 5, 1, 3, 3, 0, 5, 6, 6, 6, 5, 0, 5, 0, 6,
0, 2, 5, R466,Ci = C6])
Note: R, respondents; C, clusters
# cluster centroids
centroids = km_model.cluster_centers_
array([[1.52857143, 3.35714286, 1.74285714, 3.31428571, 4.625,
4.58285714, 4.52142857, 4.51904762, 4.67142857],
[1.42424242, 1.34848485, 1.90909091, 3.1969697, 4.41287879,
4.57878788, 4.45075758, 4.64646465, 4.5530303],
[1.2972973, 1.21621622, 3.18918919, 1.86486486, 3.42567568,
4.03243243, 3.73648649, 3.88288288, 3.86486486],
[1.59459459, 3.28378378, 1.56756757, 1.87837838, 4.51013514,
4.64594595, 4.49324324, 4.63513514, 4.39864865],
[1.26315789, 2.78947368, 2, 1.47368421, 2.06578947,
2.16842105, 1.86842105, 1.92982456, 2.15789474],
[1.39130435, 1.5326087, 1.68478261, 1.81521739, 4.29891304,
4.43478261, 4.30706522, 4.49637681, 4.4076087],
[1.40677966, 3.6440678, 3.16949153, 2.96610169, 4.52118644,
4.61016949, 4.44491525, 4.55932203, 4.50847458],
[1.15384615, 1.38461538, 3.88461538, 4.57692308, 4.83653846,
4.91538462, 4.13461538, 4.30769231, 4.75],
[1.34782609, 3.60869565, 1.17391304, 1.60869565, 3.90217391,
4.04347826, 3.45652174, 3.60869565, 3.69565217]])

5. Discussion

These days, shopping on social networks is more favored than ever before [1]. One of the most popular social networks websites is Facebook, which plays the role of the marketplace as well. Facebook users are using this website as a place for selling and buying items from each other more and more [3].
This study tested five factors (e.g., entertainment, customization, interaction, word of mouth and trend) of social networks that are capable of influencing consumer purchase behavior with evidence from Facebook Marketplace in Hungary. Our findings indicate that all five of our hypotheses are supported and confirmed. These findings are in line with the previous studies and the background theory.
For example, H1 points out that entertainment is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace. The confirmation of this hypothesis is in accordance with Glasser theory that considers fun as a basic human need that acts as a motivation of human behavior. Other studies also show that feeling pleasure [1], emotional engagement [85], and entertainment [86] can affect consumer purchase behavior.
The second hypothesis proposed that customization is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace. This proposition is in alignment with another study that proved the positive direct effect of behavioral targeting on purchase intent [87].
Similarly, many studies [39,56,86,88,89] indicate the relationship between interaction or communication and consumer purchase behavior, which is in line with the confirmation of the third hypothesis.
The fourth hypothesis refers to word of mouth as a factor which is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace. This hypothesis is justified, and the results are in line with the statements of previous research. Gonda et al. [56] examined the effects of WoM on the purchasing behavior of consumers in fashion retail and concluded that it is a very important factor for creating consumer loyalty and makes a high contribution to the competitiveness of brands or companies. Meanwhile, Wiese et al. [2] concluded that electronic word of mouth shared with other Facebook users or friends is considered invasive and has a positive influence on consumers’ purchase behavior [2].
Finally, the positive effect of influencer marketing is in line with the confirmation of H5. This hypothesis refers to trend as another factor that is capable of positively influencing CPB on Facebook Marketplace. Marketers can consider these factors in their marketing activities to influence customers’ purchase behavior.

6. Conclusions, Managerial Implications, Limitations, and Suggestions

This research tested five dimensions of social network marketing that are capable of influencing consumer purchase behavior (CPB). The noble aim of this research was to examine the possible effect of entertainment, customization, interaction, word of mouth and trends on consumer purchase behavior with evidence from the Facebook marketplace in Hungary. Undoubtedly, the most important finding of this research is the emphasis on clustering consumers. Customers with different demographic characteristics and different attitudes must have different purchase behaviors. In fact, the results of this study emphasize that all aspects of social networks marketing have a positive and significant effect on consumer purchase behavior. However, the need to cluster customers is a missing link that has received less attention. From a managerial point of view, it is very important to pay attention to this point. Online businesses need to have different strategies for different consumers. Discussing the market segment and focusing on target customers according to their tastes and interests should be given more attention by marketing managers. In fact, from a managerial point of view, by examining the demographic characteristics of the respondents, long-term planning can be created based on their interests. For example, when a marketing company tries to introduce and sell a new product. It can have a comprehensive review of previous customer data obtained in the form of customer relationship management (e-CRM or CRM). It seems that marketing managers should not overlook the value of demographic information. By examining and analyzing demographic characteristics (big data) in a wide range of consumers, “customization” for customers can be implemented. From an economic point of view, this is very important for increasing the efficiency as well as the profitability of online businesses. What consumers want and what products are in their shopping cart is a priority. The “customization” of advertisements for consumers is one of the important results of market clustering.
There are also some limitations in the present study; the results during the COVID-19 crisis is one of the most important challenges and limitations of this research. It means that under normal conditions, respondents may have had a different attitude to social networks marketing in comparison with the COVID-19 situation. The long-term impact of the pandemic requires further research in this field. Furthermore, to extrapolate the findings of this study, keep in mind that the respondents in this study answered the questionnaire based on their experiences with various online social platforms in Hungary, and that different outcomes and/or experiences may be observed in other nations and/or cultures. Future researchers are encouraged to use other clustering methods (DBSCAN or mean shift) to cluster consumers. Additionally, using supervised methods (ANN, K-NN, SVM, decision tree or Naive bayes) can provide more results and findings based on “Classification”. A qualitative study in the future can divide the available data into nine different groups and examine the characteristics of individuals in each group separately and provide appropriate planning and strategies according to the characteristics of each group, including age and interests, etc. A qualitative study based on open coding in different cluster can provide a lot of important notes for marketing managers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.E.; M.B. and A.Y.; methodology, P.E.; A.Y. and A.G. software, P.E. and A.G. validation, M.N., M.B. and M.F.-F.; formal analysis, P.E.; investigation, M.B.; A.Y.; M.N. and A.G.; resources, M.F.-F.; data curation, M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, P.E.; M.B. and M.N.; writing—review and editing, P.E.; M.B.; A.Y. and M.N.; visualization, P.E. and A.G.; supervision, M.F.-F.; project administration, M.F.-F.; funding acquisition, M.F.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Magyar Agrár- és Élettudományi Egyetem (MATE University) and Stipendium Hungaricum.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This Study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

SNM adapted from [63,68]
Entertainment
ENT 1: The contents on Facebook Marketplace are believed to be thought-provoking.
ENT 2: Using Facebook Marketplace is exciting.
ENT 3: Gathering data on services and products through Facebook Marketplace is fun.
ENT 4: Using Facebook Marketplace saves time easily.
Customization
CUS 1: Looking for tailored data on Facebook Marketplace is possible.
CUS 2: Customized services are offered by Facebook Marketplace.
CUS 3: Facebook Marketplace offers sparkling feed data that users are interested in.
CUS 4: Using Facebook Marketplace is easy.
CUS 5: Facebook Marketplace is everywhere.
Interaction
INT 1: Conveying opinions with buyers/sellers through Facebook Marketplace is easy.
INT 2: Exchange opinions or conversation with buyers/sellers through Facebook Marketplace is easy.
INT 3: Two-way interaction through Facebook Marketplace is done easily.
INT 4: Sharing data with buyers/sellers through Facebook Marketplace is done easily.
Word of mouth
WOM 1: I like to share information on products or services from Facebook Marketplace to my friends.
WOM 2: I like uploading contents from Facebook Marketplace on my page, blog or microblog.
WOM 3: I like sharing thoughts on items, or services acquired from Facebook Marketplace with my friends.
Trend
TRE 1: It is a leading branding by using Facebook Marketplace.
TRE 2: Contents on Facebook Marketplace are fresh.
CPB adapted from [67,68,69]
CPB 1: Many buyers/sellers perform online shopping following Facebook Marketplace advertisements.
CPB 2: Based on the advertisements on Facebook Marketplace, I am faithful to buy or sell in Facebook Marketplace.
CPB 3: If I want to repurchase an item, my priority is with Facebook Marketplace.

References

  1. Ryu, S.; Park, J. The effects of benefit-driven commitment on usage of social media for shopping and positive word-of-mouth. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wiese, M.; Martínez-Climent, C.; Botella-Carrubi, D. A framework for Facebook advertising effectiveness: A behavioral perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, J.V.; Su, B.-c.; Widjaja, A.E. Facebook C2C social commerce: A study of online impulse buying. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 83, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bughin, J. Getting a sharper picture of social media’s influence. McKinsey Q. 2015, 3, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Ismagilova, E.; Hughes, D.L.; Carlson, J.; Filieri, R.; Jacobson, J.; Jain, V.; Karjaluoto, H.; Kefi, H.; Krishen, A.S. Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 59, 102168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vithayathil, J.; Dadgar, M.; Osiri, J.K. Social media use and consumer shopping preferences. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ajina, A.S. The perceived value of social media marketing: An empirical study of online word-of-mouth in Saudi Arabian context. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 6, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Mangold, W.G.; Faulds, D.J. Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Bus. Horiz. 2009, 52, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Statista. Number of Facebook Users in Hungary from September 2018 to January 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1029770/facebook-users-hungary/ (accessed on 1 March 2021).
  10. Pop, R.-A.; Săplăcan, Z.; Alt, M.-A. Social media goes green—The impact of social media on green cosmetics purchase motivation and intention. Information 2020, 11, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Husnain, M.; Toor, A. The impact of social network marketing on consumer purchase intention in Pakistan: Consumer engagement as a mediator. Asian J. Bus. Account. 2017, 10, 167–199. [Google Scholar]
  12. Di Pietro, L.; Pantano, E. An empirical investigation of social network influence on consumer purchasing decision: The case of Facebook. J. Direct Data Digit. Mark. Pract. 2012, 14, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boon-Long, S.; Wongsurawat, W. Social media marketing evaluation using social network comments as an indicator for identifying consumer purchasing decision effectiveness. J. Direct Data Digit. Mark. Pract. 2015, 17, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ebrahimi, P.; Khajeheian, D.; Fekete-Farkas, M. A SEM-NCA Approach towards Social Networks Marketing: Evaluating Consumers’ Sustainable Purchase Behavior with the Moderating Role of Eco-Friendly Attitude. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tussyadiah, I.P. A concept of location-based social network marketing. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2012, 29, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fagerstrøm, A.; Ghinea, G. Co-creation of value in higher education: Using social network marketing in the recruitment of students. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2013, 35, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van Noort, G.; Antheunis, M.L.; Verlegh, P.W. Enhancing the effects of social network site marketing campaigns: If you want consumers to like you, ask them about themselves. Int. J. Advert. 2014, 33, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ajzen, I. Perceived Behavioural Control, Self-efficacy, Locus of Control and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 668–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and understanding consumer behavior: Attitude-behavior correspondence. In Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980; pp. 148–172. ISBN 0-13-936435-8. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Collier Macmillan: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  21. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Glasser, W. Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom; Harper Perennial: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  23. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Guerreiro, J.; Ali, F. 20 years of research on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism context: A text-mining approach. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 104028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mirbargkar, S.M.; Ebrahimi, P.; Soleimani, M. ANT and Mobile Network Service Adoption in Banking Industry. In Contemporary Applications of Actor Network Theory; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2020; pp. 155–172. [Google Scholar]
  25. Statista. Worldwide Digital Population as of January 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/ (accessed on 5 January 2021).
  26. Statista. Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide as of 4th Quarter 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/ (accessed on 14 February 2021).
  27. Liang, T.-P.; Turban, E. Introduction to the special issue social commerce: A research framework for social commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Chang, H.H.; Lu, Y.-Y.; Lin, S.C. An elaboration likelihood model of consumer respond action to facebook second-hand marketplace: Impulsiveness as a moderator. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abou-Elgheit, E. Understanding Egypt’s emerging social shoppers. Middle East J. Manag. 2018, 5, 207–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hanna, R.; Rohm, A.; Crittenden, V.L. We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Bus. Horiz. 2011, 54, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shukla, P.S.; Nigam, P.V. E-shopping using mobile apps and the emerging consumer in the digital age of retail hyper personalization: An insight. Pac. Bus. Rev. Int. 2018, 10, 131–139. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mikalef, P.; Pateli, A.; Giannakos, M. Why are users of Social Media inclined to Word-of-Mouth? In Proceedings of the Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society, Athens, Greece, 25–26 April 2013; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 112–123. [Google Scholar]
  33. Culnan, M.J.; McHugh, P.J.; Zubillaga, J.I. How large US companies can use Twitter and other social media to gain business value. MIS Q. Exec. 2010, 9, 243–259. [Google Scholar]
  34. Bhattacharyya, S.; Bose, I. S-commerce: Influence of Facebook likes on purchases and recommendations on a linked e-commerce site. Decis. Support Syst. 2020, 138, 113383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, K.; Lee, B.; Oh, W. Thumbs up, sales up? The contingent effect of Facebook likes on sales performance in social commerce. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 109–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, S.Q.; Ozanne, M.; Mattila, A.S. Does expressing subjectivity in online reviews enhance persuasion? J. Consum. Mark. 2018, 35, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, X.; Zeng, S.; He, Y. The impact of information disclosure on consumer purchase behavior on sharing economy platform Airbnb. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 231, 107846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Weismueller, J.; Harrigan, P.; Wang, S.; Soutar, G.N. Influencer endorsements: How advertising disclosure and source credibility affect consumer purchase intention on social media. Australas. Mark. J. 2020, 28, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hasan, M.; Sohail, M.S. The influence of social media marketing on consumers’ purchase decision: Investigating the effects of local and nonlocal brands. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2021, 33, 350–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ng, C.S.-P. Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional study. Inf. Manag. 2013, 50, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kang, M.Y.; Park, B. Sustainable corporate social media marketing based on message structural features: Firm size plays a significant role as a moderator. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Ch, T.R.; Awan, T.M.; Malik, H.A.; Fatima, T. Unboxing the green box: An empirical assessment of buying behavior of green products. World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 17, 690–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kong, H.M.; Witmaier, A.; Ko, E. Sustainability and social media communication: How consumers respond to marketing efforts of luxury and non-luxury fashion brands. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 131, 640–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Whang, J.B.; Song, J.H.; Choi, B.; Lee, J.-H. The effect of Augmented Reality on purchase intention of beauty products: The roles of consumers’ control. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rapert, M.I.; Thyroff, A.; Grace, S.C. The generous consumer: Interpersonal generosity and pro-social dispositions as antecedents to cause-related purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 838–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sung, Y.H.; Kim, D.H.; Choi, D.; Lee, S.Y. Facebook ads not working in the same way: The effect of cultural orientation and message construals on consumer response to social media ads. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 52, 101427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cunningham, S.; Craig, D. Creator governance in social media entertainment. Soc. Media+Soc. 2019, 5, 2056305119883428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Kim, A.J.; Ko, E. Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1480–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schmenner, R.W. How can service businesses survive and prosper? Sloan Manag. Rev. 1986, 27, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ding, Y.; Keh, H.T. A re-examination of service standardization versus customization from the consumer’s perspective. J. Serv. Mark. 2016, 30, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nekmahmud, M.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Why not green marketing? Determinates of consumers’ intention to green purchase decision in a new developing nation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Daugherty, T.; Eastin, M.S.; Bright, L. Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. J. Interact. Advert. 2008, 8, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Muntinga, D.G.; Moorman, M.; Smit, E.G. Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. Int. J. Advert. 2011, 30, 13–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kotler, P.; Wong, V.; Saunders, J.; Armstrong, G. Principles of Marketing; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gonda, G.; Gorgenyi-Hegyes, E.; Nathan, R.J.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Competitive factors of fashion retail sector with special focus on SMEs. Economies 2020, 8, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ghafourian Shagerdi, A.; Daneshmand, B.; Behboodi, O. The Impact of Social Networks Marketing toward Purchase Intention and Brand Loyalty. New Mark. Res. J. 2017, 7, 175–190. [Google Scholar]
  58. Vollmer, C.; Precourt, G. Always on: Advertising, Marketing, and Media in an Era of Consumer Control; McGraw Hill Professional: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  59. Naaman, M.; Becker, H.; Gravano, L. Hip and trendy: Characterizing emerging trends on Twitter. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 902–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Godey, B.; Manthiou, A.; Pederzoli, D.; Rokka, J.; Aiello, G.; Donvito, R.; Singh, R. Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5833–5841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oláh, J.; Kitukutha, N.; Haddad, H.; Pakurár, M.; Máté, D.; Popp, J. Achieving sustainable e-commerce in environmental, social and economic dimensions by taking possible trade-offs. Sustainability 2019, 11, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Alshurideh, M.; Al Kurdi, B.; Salloum, S.A.; Arpaci, I.; Al-Emran, M. Predicting the actual use of m-learning systems: A comparative approach using PLS-SEM and machine learning algorithms. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ebrahimi, P.; Salamzadeh, A.; Gholampour, A.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Social networks marketing and Hungarian online consumer purchase behavior: The microeconomics strategic view based on IPMA matrix. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kim, A.J.; Ko, E. Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on customer relationship and purchase intention. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2010, 1, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ebrahimi, P.; Hamza, K.A.; Gorgenyi-Hegyes, E.; Zarea, H.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Consumer Knowledge Sharing Behavior and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Evidence from E-Commerce and Online Retail in Hungary. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ghahtarani, A.; Sheikhmohammady, M.; Rostami, M. The impact of social capital and social interaction on customers’ purchase intention, considering knowledge sharing in social commerce context. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kumar, A.; Kim, Y.K.; Pelton, L. Indian consumers’ purchase behavior toward US versus local brands. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2009, 37, 510–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Janavi, E.; Soleimani, M.; Gholampour, A.; Friedrichsen, M.; Ebrahimi, P. Effect of Social Media Adoption and Media Needs on Online Purchase Behavior: The Moderator Roles of Media Type, Gender, Age. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 13, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  70. Yang, X. Understanding Consumers’ Purchase Intentions in Social Commerce through Social Capital: Evidence from SEM and fsQCA. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1557–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bouzari, P.; Salamzadeh, A.; Soleimani, M.; Ebrahimi, P. Online Social Networks and Women’s Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Study between Iran and Hungary. JWEE 2021, 3–4, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fekete-Farkas, M.; Gholampour, A.; Bouzari, P.; Jarghooiyan, H.; Ebrahimi, P. How gender and age can affect consumer purchase behavior? Evidence from A microeconomic perspective from Hungary. AD-Minister 2021, 39, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Khajeheian, D.; Ebrahimi, P. Media branding and value co-creation: Effect of user participation in social media of newsmedia on attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 2021, 16, 499–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Roshandel-Arbatani, T.; Kawamorita, H.; Ghanbary, S.; Ebrahimi, P. Modelling media entrepreneurship in social media: SEM and MLP-ANN Approach. AD-Minister 2019, 34, 35–57. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sanchez, G. PLS Path Modeling with R; Trowchez, Ed.; University of California Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013; Volume 383, pp. 3–221. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Soleimani, M.; Ebrahimi, P.; Fekete-Farkas, M. The impact of corporate social responsibility dimensions on brand-related consequences with the mediating role of corporate branding—A case study from the iranian insurance sector. In Forum Scientiae Oeconomia; Scientific Publishers of the WSB Academy: Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  79. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Hair, J.F.; Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M. Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 182–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Ebrahimi, P.; Ahmadi, M.; Gholampour, A.; Alipour, H. CRM performance and development of media entrepreneurship in digital, social media and mobile commerce. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2021, 16, 25–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Koren, D.; Lőrincz, L.; Kovács, S.; Kun-Farkas, G.; Vecseriné Hegyes, B.; Sipos, L. Comparison of supervised learning statistical methods for classifying commercial beers and identifying patterns. J. Chemom. 2020, 34, e3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Berry, M.W.; Mohamed, A.; Yap, B.W. Supervised and Unsupervised Learning for Data Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  84. Marshal, S. Machine Learning an Algorithm Perspective; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  85. Cheung, M.L.; Pires, G.D.; Rosenberger, P.J.; Leung, W.K.; Sharipudin, M.-N.S. The role of consumer-consumer interaction and consumer-brand interaction in driving consumer-brand engagement and behavioral intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Moslehpour, M.; Dadvari, A.; Nugroho, W.; Do, B.-R. The dynamic stimulus of social media marketing on purchase intention of Indonesian airline products and services. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2020, 33, 561–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Farman, L.; Comello, M.L.; Edwards, J.R. Are consumers put off by retargeted ads on social media? Evidence for perceptions of marketing surveillance and decreased ad effectiveness. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2020, 64, 298–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hutter, K.; Hautz, J.; Dennhardt, S.; Füller, J. The impact of user interactions in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: The case of MINI on Facebook. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2013, 22, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Zhang, K.Z.; Hu, B.; Zhao, S.J. How online social interactions affect consumers’ impulse purchase on group shopping websites? In Proceedings of the PACIS 2014, Chengdu, China, 24–28 June 2014; Volume 81. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Theoretical model (five dimensions of social network marketing on CPB).
Figure 1. Theoretical model (five dimensions of social network marketing on CPB).
Bdcc 06 00035 g001
Figure 2. Graphical outer loadings scores with R.
Figure 2. Graphical outer loadings scores with R.
Bdcc 06 00035 g002
Figure 3. Graphical cross-loadings with R.
Figure 3. Graphical cross-loadings with R.
Bdcc 06 00035 g003
Figure 4. Hierarchical cluster analysis (dendrogram).
Figure 4. Hierarchical cluster analysis (dendrogram).
Bdcc 06 00035 g004
Figure 5. K-means algorithm.
Figure 5. K-means algorithm.
Bdcc 06 00035 g005
Table 1. Demographic data.
Table 1. Demographic data.
Respondent Profile(N = 466)
AttributesDistributionFrequencyPercent
GenderMale26957.7
Female19742.3
Age16 to 2414831.7
25 to 3419642.1
35 to 448618.5
45 to 54306.4
55 and up61.3
EducationBelow diploma and diploma12426.6
Bachelor’s degree14531.1
Associate degree7315.7
Master 11023.6
PhD143.0
Time on FacebookBelow 1 h7816.7
1 to 2 h24853.3
2 to 3 h8117.4
3 to 4 h 418.7
4 h and up183.9
Table 2. Measurement models and measures.
Table 2. Measurement models and measures.
ItemsOuter LoadingsAVE (Block Communality)C.alphaDG.rhoCREig.1stEig.2nd
Social Media Marketing
adapted from [64,65]
Entertainment
(SD = 0.711, M = 4.275)
0.7070.8620.9070.9082.830.523
ENT 10.871
ENT 20.881
ENT 30.819
ENT 40.790
Customization
(SD = 0.638, M = 4.416)
0.7250.9040.9290.9313.630.835
CUS 10.884
CUS 20.857
CUS 30.853
CUS 40.747
CUS 50.908
Interaction
(SD = 0.692, M = 4.210)
0.8080.9190.9440.9443.240.448
INT 10.953
INT 20.857
INT 30.825
INT 40.952
Word of mouth
(SD = 0.667, M = 4.343)
0.7280.8130.8890.8902.180.447
WOM 10.890
WOM 20.824
WOM 30.843
Trend
(SD = 0.645, M = 4.328)
0.7710.7050.8720.8751.540.455
TRE 10.903
TRE 20.852
Consumer Purchase Behavior
adapted from [66,67,68]
(SD = 0.629, M = 4.350)
0.7010.7870.8760.8802.100.473
CPB 10.851
CPB 20.824
CPB 30.836
Note: C.alpha, Cronbach’s alpha; CR, composite reliability; DG.rho, Dillon–Goldstein’s rho; eig.1st, first eigen value; eig.2nd, second eigen value; AVE, average of variance extracted; SD, standard deviation; M, mean; ENT, entertainment; CUS, customization; INT, interaction; WOM, word of mouth; TRE, trend; CPB, consumer purchase behavior.
Table 3. Discriminant validity with HTMT.
Table 3. Discriminant validity with HTMT.
ConstructENTCUSINTWOMTRECPB
ENT
CUS0.831
INT0.8010.771
WOM0.8240.8260.849
TRE0.8240.8120.8040.848
CPB0.8450.8360.8380.8320.798
Note: ENT, entertainment; CUS, customization; INT, interaction; WOM, word of mouth; TRE, trend; CPB, consumer purchase behavior.
Table 4. Results of research hypotheses and model fit.
Table 4. Results of research hypotheses and model fit.
HypothesesDirect EffectSDLow CIHigh CIDecision
H10.3690.0390.2980.461Supported
H20.1360.0380.0660.212Supported
H30.3530.0230.3060.397Supported
H40.0690.0240.0250.114Supported
H50.0950.0260.0420.141Supported
Model fitR2Mean–RedundancyGOFSRMR (Henseler)
Consumer purchase behavior84.1%0.5890.7880.058
Note: SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence intervals; t > 1.96 at * p < 0.05; t > 2.58 at ** p < 0.01; t > 3.29 at *** p < 0.001; two-tailed test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ebrahimi, P.; Basirat, M.; Yousefi, A.; Nekmahmud, M.; Gholampour, A.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Social Networks Marketing and Consumer Purchase Behavior: The Combination of SEM and Unsupervised Machine Learning Approaches. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022, 6, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6020035

AMA Style

Ebrahimi P, Basirat M, Yousefi A, Nekmahmud M, Gholampour A, Fekete-Farkas M. Social Networks Marketing and Consumer Purchase Behavior: The Combination of SEM and Unsupervised Machine Learning Approaches. Big Data and Cognitive Computing. 2022; 6(2):35. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6020035

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ebrahimi, Pejman, Marjan Basirat, Ali Yousefi, Md. Nekmahmud, Abbas Gholampour, and Maria Fekete-Farkas. 2022. "Social Networks Marketing and Consumer Purchase Behavior: The Combination of SEM and Unsupervised Machine Learning Approaches" Big Data and Cognitive Computing 6, no. 2: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6020035

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop