HOW DO STUDENTS SELECT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES? AN ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) MODEL

Social networking sites are popular among university students, and students today are indeed spoiled for choice. New emerging social networking sites sprout up amid popular sites, while some existing ones die out. Given the choice of so many social networking sites, how do students decide which one they will sign up for and stay on as an active user? The answer to this question is of interest to social networking site designers and marketers. The market of social networking sites is highly competitive. To maintain the current user base and continue to attract new users, how should social networking sites design their sites? Marketers spend a fairly large percent of their marketing budget on social media marketing. To formulate an effective social media strategy, how much do marketers understand the users of social networking sites? Learning from website evaluation studies, this study intends to provide some answers to these questions by examining how university students decide between two popular social networking sites, Facebook and Twitter. We first developed an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model of four main selection criteria and 12 sub-criteria, and then administered a questionnaire to a group of university students attending a course at a Malaysian university. AHP analyses of the responses from 12 respondents provided an insight into the decision-making process involved in students' selection of social networking sites. It seemed that of the four main criteria, privacy was the top concern, followed by functionality, usability, and content. The sub-criteria that were of key concern to the students were apps, revenue-generating opportunities, ease of use, and information security. Between Facebook and Twitter, the students thought that Facebook was the better choice. This information is useful for social networking site designers to design sites that are more relevant to their users' needs, and for marketers to craft more effective marketing communications strategies.

[1]  Ying-Hueih Chen,et al.  Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: A conjoint analysis , 2010 .

[2]  Nicolae-George Dragulanescu,et al.  Website Quality Evaluations: Criteria and Tools , 2002 .

[3]  Katherine M. White,et al.  The Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to Young People's Use of Social Networking Web Sites , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[4]  Dae-Ho Byun,et al.  The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model , 2001, Inf. Manag..

[5]  Thomas L. Saaty How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[6]  A. Kaplan,et al.  Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media , 2010 .

[7]  Dimitrios Buhalis,et al.  Progress in tourism management : a review of website evaluation in tourism research , 2010 .

[8]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  Chyuan Perng,et al.  A strategic framework for website evaluation based on a review of the literature from 1995-2006 , 2010, Inf. Manag..

[10]  Hsiu-Fen Lin,et al.  An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[11]  Alastair G. Smith,et al.  Applying evaluation criteria to New Zealand government websites , 2001, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[12]  Heng Li,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process , 2001 .

[13]  Malte L. Peters,et al.  Pitfalls in the application of analytic hierarchy process to performance measurement , 2008 .

[14]  E. D. Vaughn,et al.  The Writing on the (Facebook) Wall: The Use of Social Networking Sites in Hiring Decisions , 2011 .

[15]  Robert E. Miller,et al.  Students and social networking sites: the posting paradox , 2010, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[16]  Gwo-Jen Hwang,et al.  Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[17]  Chyuan Perng,et al.  A strategic website evaluation of online travel agencies , 2011 .

[18]  R. Law,et al.  Developing a performance indicator for hotel websites , 2003 .

[19]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  The Influence of Personality on Active and Passive Use of Social Networking Sites , 2011 .

[20]  Svetlana Stepchenkova,et al.  Benchmarking CVB website performance: Spatial and structural patterns , 2010 .

[21]  Astrid Dickinger,et al.  Website performance and behavioral consequences: A formative measurement approach , 2013 .

[22]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[23]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  That is not the analytic hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not , 1997 .

[24]  Katherine A. Karl,et al.  Social Networking Profiles: An Examination of Student Attitudes Regarding Use and Appropriateness of Content , 2008, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[25]  E. Carvajal-Trujillo,et al.  An evaluation of Spanish hotel websites: Informational vs. relational strategies , 2013 .

[26]  María-del-Carmen Alarcón-del-Amo,et al.  Classifying and Profiling Social Networking Site Users: A Latent Segmentation Approach , 2011, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[27]  N. Bhushan,et al.  Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[28]  Phillip W. Braddy,et al.  Online recruiting: The effects of organizational familiarity, website usability, and website attractiveness on viewers' impressions of organizations , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[30]  Ofelia Aleca,et al.  SOCIAL NETWORKING AS AN ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR EDUCATION , 2012 .

[31]  Huub van den Bergh,et al.  Measuring the quality of governmental websites in a controlled versus an online setting with the 'Website Evaluation Questionnaire' , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[32]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[33]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2012 .

[34]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[35]  Young A. Park,et al.  Success Factors for Destination Marketing Web Sites: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis , 2007 .

[36]  W. Tsai,et al.  AN EFFECTIVE EVALUATION MODEL AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS FOR NATIONAL PARK WEBSITES: A CASE STUDY OF TAIWAN , 2010 .

[37]  Younghwa Lee,et al.  Understanding of website usability: Specifying and measuring constructs and their relationships , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[38]  Jung P. Shim,et al.  Social Networking Service: Motivation, Pleasure, and Behavioral Intention to Use , 2011, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[39]  A. Hausman,et al.  The effect of web interface features on consumer online purchase intentions , 2009 .