디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제18권10호
  • /
  • Pages.195-206
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

소셜미디어 이용자 특성에 대한 탐색적 연구: 소비자혁신성을 중심으로

An Exploratory Study on User Characteristics of Social Media: From the Perspective of Consumer Innovativeness

  • 신현철 (한국정보통신산업연구원) ;
  • 김용원 (한양대학교 대학원 응용경제학과) ;
  • 김용규 (한양대학교 ERICA캠퍼스 경제학부)
  • Shin, Hyunchul (Korea Information Communication Industry Institute) ;
  • Kim, Yongwon (Department of Applied Economics, Hanyang University Graduate School) ;
  • Kim, Yongkyu (Department of Economics, Hanyang University (ERICA))
  • 투고 : 2020.09.16
  • 심사 : 2020.10.20
  • 발행 : 2020.10.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 소셜미디어 이용자의 소비자 혁신성 등의 특성이 국내에서 많이 사용되는 소셜미디어 이용에 미치는 영향을 분석한다. 이를 위하여 2019년 한국미디어패널데이터의 소셜미디어 이용과 이용자 특성에 관한 자료를 활용하여 소셜미디어 이용 여부를 프로빗 모형과 다항 프로빗 모형으로 추정하였다. 분석결과 기능적, 쾌락적 혁신성을 가진 이용자는 소셜미디어를 이용하기 쉽고 이에 비하여 인지적 혁신성을 가진 이용자는 소셜미디어를 이용하지 않을 것으로 분석되었다. 개별 소셜미디어의 이용과 관련하여 기능적 혁신성은 카카오스토리의 이용 확률을 높이고 쾌락적 혁신성은 인스타그램의 이용 확률을 증가시키나 인지적 혁신성은 카카오스토리, 네이버 밴드의 이용 확률을 감소시키는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 기업이 혁신성과 관련된 제품을 홍보함에 있어 어떤 소셜미디어를 채택할 것인가에 관한 정보를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 향후 연구에서는 소셜미디어 이용자가 몇가지 소셜미디어를 동시에 사용한다는 가정하에서 분석을 시도하는 것도 필요해 보인다.

This study aims to analyze the effect of consumer characteristics such as consumer innovativeness on using popular social media in Korea. Social media usage is estimated by probit and multinomial probit model with user characteristics using Korea media panel data of 2019. According to the analysis, users with hedonoc innovativeness are likely to use social media, while users with cognitive innovativeness are not likely to use it. Regarding individual social media usage, functional innovativeness increases the probability of using Kakaostory, and hedonic innovativeness increases the likelihood of using Instagram. However, cognitive innovativeness decreases the probability of using Kakaosotry and Naver Band. This study gives insights into finding out specific social media for marketing certain products with innovativeness. In future research, it may be worthwhile to analyze under the assumption that a social media user is using several social media simultaneously.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. S. Y. Kim. (2020.7.9). In Messengers and Portals, Kakao and Naver rank No. 1 respectively according to Mobile Index Report regarding 'Major Mobile App Usage Comparison. Game Focus. http://gamefocus.co.kr/detail.php?number=106974
  2. KISDI. (2019). 2019 Korea Media Panel Data. Jincheon : KISDI.
  3. Gallup Korea. (2020.6.3). Market 70, No. 2B-Contents, and Social Network Service. Gallup Report. http://www.gallup.co.kr/gallupdb/reportContent.asp?seqNo=1113
  4. H. M. Byeon and S. W. Shim. (2020). The Relationship between Engagement with Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Differentiating Role of Platform Type (Instagram, Facebook and Youtube). Journal of Practical Research in Advertising and Public Relations, 13(2), 58-90.
  5. Y. Chang. (2012). A Study on the Marketing Performance Using Social Media: Comparison between Portal Advertisement, Blog, and SNS Channel Characteristics and Performance. Journal of Digital Convergence, 10(8), 119-133. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDPM.2012.10.8.119
  6. H. Kim (2018). The Study on Receptive Attitude of Advertising Message Forms and Information Sources According to SNS’ Type and Use Intensity. Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(11), 255-265. DOI : 10.14400/JDC.2018.16.11.255
  7. H. T. Nguyen & M. Chaudhuri. (2019) Making new products go viral and succeed. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(1), 39-62. DOI : 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.09.007
  8. K. Y. Lee & H Choi. (2019). Predictors of electronic word-of-mouth behavior on social networking sites in the United States and Korea: Cultural and social relationship variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 9-18. DOI : 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.025
  9. B. H. Lee, S. Han, S. K. Yi & S. H. Lee. (2013). Exploratory Study of Underlying Dimensions of Use Motive in Social Media and Marketing Implications. Journal of Korean Marketing Association. 28(2), 87-108.
  10. E. H. Jung, & S. Sundar. (2016). Senior citizens on Facebook: How do they interact and why? Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 27-35. DOI : 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.080.
  11. Y. S. Koo, K. Lim, K. Kim & Y. Cho. (2014). Analysis of user characteristics regarding social network services in South Korea using the multivariate probit model. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 88, 232-240. DOI : 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.07.001
  12. C. Park, J. Jun & T. Lee. (2014). Consumer characteristics and the use of social networking sites: A comparision between Korea and US. International Marketing Review, 32(3-4), 414-437. DOI : 10.1108/IMR-09-2013-0213
  13. S. W. Lee & J. Lee. (2017). A comparative study of Kakaostory and Facebook: Focusing on use patterns and use motives. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 220-229. DOI : 10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.013
  14. B. Suh. (2013). An Exploratory Study on the Characteristics of Online Social Network and the Purpose of Customers' Use : A Comparison of Cyworld, Facebook, and Twitter. Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management, 20(2), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.21219/JITAM.2013.20.2.109
  15. H. H. Shin & K. R. Kim. (2017). The Differences in Motivation and Usage according to Morphological evolution of SNS - Focusing on university students' use of Facebook and Instagram. Journal of Digital Convergence, 15(6), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2017.15.2.155
  16. J. K. Lee & Y. Choi. (2015). Why People Use Social Media? : A Comparison of Open and Closed SNSs. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 59(1), 115-148.
  17. Z. A. Bulut & O. Dogan. (2017). The ABCD typology: Profile and motivations of Turkish social network sites users. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 73-83. DOI : 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024
  18. M. L. Khan. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236-247. DOI : 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024
  19. L. A. Stockdale & S. M. Coyne. (2020). Bored and online: Reasons for using social media, problematic social networking site use, and behavioral outcomes across the transition from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 173-183. DOI : 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.010
  20. D. Lee. (2017). Analysis of Social Network Services' Users by Korea Media Panel Survey. Journal of The Korean Data Analysis Society, 19(3), 1363-1378. https://doi.org/10.37727/jkdas.2017.19.3.1363
  21. R. Grieve. (2017). Unpacking the characteristics of Snapchat users: A preliminary investigation and an agenda for future research. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 130-138. DOI : 10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.032
  22. C. Shane-Simpson, A. Manago, N. Gaggi, & K. Gillespie-Lynch. (2018). Why do college students prefer Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram? Site affordances, tensions between privacy and self-expression, and implications for social capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 276-288. DOI : 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.041
  23. E. M. Rogers. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
  24. E. M. Rogers & F. F. Shoemaker. (1971). Communications of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
  25. G. R. Foxall, R. E. Goldsmith & S. Brown. (1998). Consumer psychology for marketing. London: Int. Thomson Business Press.
  26. B. Vandecasteele & M. Geuens. (2010). Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 308-318. DOI : 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.004\
  27. E. C. Hirschman. (1984). Experience seeking: A subjectivist perspective of consumption. Journal of Business Research, 12(1), 115-136. DOI : 10.1016/0148-2963(84)90042-0
  28. M. P. Venkatraman. (1991). The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption. Journal of Retailing, 67(1), 51-67.
  29. H. Baumgartner & J. B. E. M. Steenkamp, (1996). Exploratory consumer buying behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 121-137. DOI : 10.1016/0167-8116(95)00037-2
  30. G. Roehrich. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 671-677. DOI : 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00311-9
  31. M. P. Venkatraman & L. L. Price. (1990). Differentiating Between Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness Concepts, Measurement, and Implications. Journal of Business Research, 20(4), 293-315. DOI : 10.1016/0148-2963(90)90008-2
  32. H. Kim. (2011). Dual Path Impacts of the Consumer Innovativeness in the New Products Adoption Situation. Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 11(8), 187-197. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2011.11.8.187
  33. Y. Chang. (2017). A preliminary examination of the relationship between consumer attitude towards space travel and the development of innovative space tourism technology. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(14), 1431-1453. DOI : 10.1080/13683500.2015.1005580
  34. B. Hetet, C. Ackermann & J. Mathieu. (2019). The role of brand innovativeness on attitudes towards new products marketed by the brand. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 29(5), 569-581. DOI : 10.1108/JPBM-02-2019-2243
  35. J. Hwang, H. Kim, & W. Kim. (2019). Investigating motivated consumer innovativeness in the context of drone food delivery services. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 38, 102-110. DOI : 10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.01.004
  36. J. Hwang, S. Park, & I. Kim. (2020). Understanding motivated consumer innovativeness in the context of a robotic restaurant: The moderating role of product knowledge. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 44, 272-282. DOI : 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.003
  37. S. Park & K. Chung. (2016). A Study on the Influence of Consumer Innovativeness for Smartphone Purchase Intention: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Risk and Price Sensitivity. Korean Journal of Business Administration, 29(4), 575-595. DOI : 10.18032/kaaba.2016.29.4.575
  38. H. H. Park & M. J. Noh. (2012). The Influence of Innovativeness and Price Sensitivity on Purchase Intention of Smart Wear. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 36(2), 218-230. https://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2012.36.2.218
  39. S. Yu. (2012). The Effects of Consumer Functional, Hedonic, and Social Innovativeness on Purchase Intention: Perceived Usability and Capability. Journal of Marketing Management Research, 17(3), 45-68.
  40. E. Lee, J. Lee, M. Cho, Y. Sung & S. Choi. (2018). The Effect of Innovativeness and Self-Regulatory Focus on the Use of Internet of Things. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 19(1), 67-91. https://doi.org/10.21074/kjlcap.2018.19.1.67
  41. M. Pagani, C. F. Hofacker & R. E. Goldsmith. (1991). The Influence of Personality on Active and Passive Use of Social Networking Sites. Psychology & Marketing, 28(5), 441-456. DOI : 10.1002/mar.20395
  42. J. K. Dow & J. W. Endersby. (2004). Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: A comparison of choice models for voting research. Electoral Studies, 23(1), 107-122. DOI : 10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00040-4
  43. V. V. Can. (2013). Estimation of travel mode choice for domestic tourists to Nha Trang using the multinomial probit model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 49, 149-159. DOI : 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.025