Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper focused on social media marketing as a segmentation tool. Although the paper is interesting, some major comments need to be addressed. I provide the following comments to justify my conclusion.

The data was collected 4 years ago from 2018 and the paper was not published. Accordingly,   the topic is not new as a number of publications examined social commerce adoption using TAM model. for example:

Torki Biucky, S., Abdolvand, N., & Rajaee Harandi, S. (2017). The effects of perceived risk on social commerce adoption based on tam model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies.‏

Ying, Z., Jianqiu, Z., Akram, U., & Rasool, H. (2021). TAM model evidence for online social commerce purchase intention. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 34(1), 86-108.‏

Makmor, N., Aziz Abd, N., & Alam Shah, S. (2019). Social commerce an extended technology acceptance model: The mediating effect of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Malays. J. Consum. Fam. Econ, 22, 119-136.‏

Abed, S. S. (2016, September). An empirical examination of factors affecting continuance intention towards social networking sites. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 228-239). Springer, Cham.‏

·       In 3.2. all the questionnaire measurement items and their sources should be presented in a table.

·       Table 3, 4, and 5 should be in the results section not in the discussion section.

·       In table 4, the supported and not supported relationships should be presented in additional column.

·       The results should be presented in a graph to clearly show the significant and non-significant relationships, as well as the R2 values.   

·       More up-to-date related studies should be cited to support this submission especially in 2021 and 2022.

·       The revised version should be carefully proofread for grammar and spelling mistakes. For example:  in line 134 there is no reference [?], in line 305 [83? ,84].

Finally, I hope that my comments will be useful to the authors. I wish them all the best in their research. 

Author Response

We have updated the article considering your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study was well done and written. The subject matter is relevant to the current line of study on social media. I believe the authors may have split the study into two papers, however. 

Author Response

We have updated the article considering your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article addresses an important issue from the perspective of the growing popularity of social media in marketing activities and their effectiveness. It is reasonable and correct to juxtapose such dimensions of social media marketing activities as information quality, interactivity, personalization, trending and word-of-mouth recommendation from the perspective of shoppable advertising with measures of the Information Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). What is puzzling and questionable, however, is the formulation of as many as 16 hypotheses in one study limited to one medium and one brand. I submit for consideration the use of another term, e.g. determinant, factor, construct.  The question should be answered whether the research problem posed requires the formulation of so many hypotheses.

Undoubtedly, the proposed model is a useful tool for explaining purchase acceptance due to the impact of shoppable advertising in the context of mobile devices and fashion brands.

I share the opinion that it would be advisable to expand this kind of research in the future to include social media such as Tik-Tok or Instagram and other types of brands or products.

I also note that:

1. tables 3,4,5 should be included in chapter 4 (research results), and should be removed from the discussion of results

2. there should be precise references to tables and figures in the text

3. figure 1 should be in chapter 2.3.

4. only one sentence referred to the verification of the hypotheses by citing Table 4. in my opinion, this is too little since 16 hypotheses were made. A one-sentence statement that a large part of the proposed hypotheses were confirmed except for hypotheses 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and for the global model is too little.

Author Response

We have followed your advice to update our final paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the paper and addressed the comments. I wish them the best in their submission.