Computers in Human Behavior 49 (2015) 597–600

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

A research on effectiveness of Facebook advertising on enhancing

purchase intention of consumers
Milad Dehghani a,⇑, Mustafa Tumer b
a
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
b
Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study aimed to examine the effectiveness of advertisements in enhancing consumers’ pur-
Available online 7 April 2015 chasing intention on Facebook in 2013. It is an applied study in terms of its goals, and a descriptive survey
one in terms of methodology. The statistical population included all undergraduate students in Cypriot
Keywords: universities. An 11-item researcher-made questionnaire was used to compare and analyze the effective-
Facebook ness of advertisements. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS17, the parametric statistical method of
Social media t-test, and the non-parametric Friedman test. The results of the study showed that Facebook advertising
Advertising
significantly affected brand image and brand equity, both of which factors contributed to a significant
Brand equity
Brand image
change in purchasing intention.
Purchase intention Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Rowley (2004) suggests that companies would do well to

Social media has quickly changed the contemporary marketing
approach. It has established a connection between marketers and
other consumers, creating new possibilities and opportunities with
the aim of increasing consumer brand awareness (Comscore
Media, 2009). In order to attract consumers’ attention and address
customization of their needs, advertising specialists have started
using social networking website appeals in their ads. Their aim is
to encourage users to share the brand image and to develop free
advertising. Therefore, it is beneficial to investigate why there
might be reason to have high expectations for the use of social
media as a marketing tool, and what advantages a Facebook pres-
ence might have over more traditional marketing strategies
(Waters, Canfield, Foster, & Hardy, 2011) (see Fig. 1).
Promoting even small firms and businesses using social media
(such as Facebook) is a less expensive solution than taking the risk
of paying large sums to advertise in non-virtual media. Companies
and service providers have begun to research and investigation the
usage and efficiency of digital communications in order to improve
their brand awareness (Johns & Perrot, 2008). Kotler (1999) men-
tions that brands can speed up consumers’ information dispatch.
Additionally, brands can have negative and positive influences on
the perception of the effectiveness of the associated products and
services.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Via Ariosto, 25, 00185 Rome, Italy. Tel.: +39
3291668344.
E-mail addresses: Milad.dehghani@uniroma1.it (M. Dehghani), mustafa.tumer@
emu.edu.tr (M. Tumer).
create a recommendation mechanism that allowed customers
to connect with each other. This would result in a successful
brand image. Social media has created opportunities for con-
sumers as well as advertisers to benefit from the comments
and observations that others post in social media (Cha,
2009). Inspired by the power of some types of social media
(such as Facebook) to engage users in virtual relationships,
various companies and services have sought ways to get
involved in the ‘‘people’s internet’’ and to leverage the ‘‘likes,’’
‘‘shares and ‘‘comments’’ for their brands’ profit (Andriole,
2010).
When most consumers join a brand group on Facebook, it is
possible for the information that they receive from other users to
influence their brand perceptions and purchase intentions (Zhao
& Shanyang, 2008). Meanwhile, consumers have more opportuni-
ties to increase viral messages created by advertisers to their con-
tacts through Facebook. These types of social engagement
behaviors boost opportunities for consumers to view the aug-
mented images that social media friends post on their profiles
(Rodgers, Melioli, Laconi, Bui, & Chabrol, 2013). While consumers
steadily choose brand groups on Facebook as trusted sources of
information, new opportunities arise to build unique brand aware-
ness and viral advertising platforms (Holzner, 2008). In the con-
sumer behavior, adoption behavior links with how consumers
can be more influenced to adopt new trends (Cress,
Schwammlein, Wodzicki, & Kimmerle, 2014). This study is step for-
wards the better understanding of purchase intention of con-
sumers to adopt new brands through Facebook advertising.
Furthermore, this article focuses primarily on the aspect of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.051
0747-5632/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
598 M. Dehghani, M. Tumer / Computers in Human Behavior 49 (2015) 597–600
Brand Image
Social media Advertising
Purchase
(FACEBOOK)
Brand Equity
Fig. 1. The model of acceptance as a theoretical framework.
Facebook advertising by examining the potential link between
brand image, brand equity and purchase intention of consumers.
2. Literature review
2.1. Advertising on Facebook
Facebook advertising offers users or consumers the opportunity
to interact actively with the adverts on their page allowing them to
‘‘like’’ and ‘‘share’’ and also view who else or which friends liked or
shared the same adverts. According to some research, social media
such as Facebook act as a check on the credibility of brands. Lee
and Kim (2011) found that consumers view consumer-generated
messages on social media, unlike advertising generated by adver-
tisers, as being motivated by altruism. In today’s corporate market,
the success or failure of any company hinges on public perception.
The success of advertising should be measured taking into account
consumers’ evaluations of the interest aroused by the advertise-
ments. Facebook creates wide platforms for viral online recom-
mendation (Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011). This
encourages advertisers whose organizations are willing to spend
a reasonable portion of their budgets on analysing procedures to
determine potential customers and target them with advertise-
ments on Facebook (Falls, 2009). However, they are shifting adver-
tising from push advertising to trust-based advertising, in which
advertisers engage their consumers with their brands and stimu-
late word of mouth (WOM) promotion (Knight & Kristina, 2007).
Advertisers develop WOM through Facebook, which positions
Facebook advertising as an effective means of enhancing the brand
image of various goods and services (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
2.2. Brand image
A study by Blackwell and Miniard (2006) found that brand
image is used as an alert for recalling information of brands; there-
fore, brand image may have real and virtual associations in con-
sumers’ minds. Consumers try to access tangible and intangible
product and/or service associations through the brand image via
media channels, thereby gathering market intelligence (Story &
Loroz, 2005). Although a brand may not possess intrinsic attraction
or generate the trust required to make it sell, customers will buy
based on the image associated with it (Rappaport & Stephen,
2007). The development of brand groups on Facebook and their
potential for increasing brand awareness has been advanced by
the rise of Web.2.0 in the past few years (Chu, 2011).
2.3. Brand equity
Brand equity has been clarified as the benefit endowed by the
brand to the product (Farquhar, 1989). Aaker (1996) noted that a
strong and reputable brand image enables customers to build up
affirmative attitudes and feelings about the brand, thus enhancing
its perceived value. The power or predominance of the brand image
as a result of consumers’ attitude towards the product (Faircloth,
Capella, & Alford, 2001) indicates that consumers’ attitudes to
brands and different brand affiliations can result in a positive brand
image and greater brand equity (Dellarocas, 2003). Brand image and
brand equity are mutually interdependent and effectual.
2.4. Purchase intention
Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan (1998) defined purchasing inten-
tion as a probability that lies in the hands of the customers who
intend to purchase a particular product. Zeithaml (1988) and
Schiffman and Kanuk (2009, chap. 8, 9) discovered that customers’
decision to buy a product (purchasing intention) depended largely
on the product’s value and recommendations that other consumers
have shared, for example on social media. The application of firm-
created advertising (viral marketing) together with user-generated
word of mouth (WOM) leads to spontaneous forwarding and
recommendations by users who find the brands worthy of con-
sideration (Hoy & Milne, 2010).
3. Research methodology
The statistical society included 320 undergraduate students of
Cypriot universities from which 100 students were selected
through simple randomized sampling and were distributed among
them through online platforms. A researcher-made questionnaire
was used to examine the effectiveness of advertisements. At the
beginning of the questionnaire, some demographic questions were
asked from participants (gender, age, monthly income of family)
and in the second part, they were posed with some Yes and No
questions about their perception of advertising and brand groups
shown on Facebook. Finally, 10 five-point Likert type scale
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) were selected to
record their perceptions of variables (Facebook advertising, brand
image, brand equity, purchase intention).
In order to evaluate the content and formal validities of the
questionnaire, the opinions of course supervisors and advisors
and other academic authorities were sought in addition to the
most up-to-date published studies and existing scientific theories
in the above-mentioned field all of which confirmed the validity
of the questionnaire. The reliability coefficient of the questionnaire
is 0.97 through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Statistical methods at
both descriptive (mean, variance, SD) and inferential (t- and
Friedman tests) levels were used to analyze data.
4. Result
Table 1 shows the description of factors contributing to the
effectiveness of advertisements and the enhancement of con-
sumers’ purchasing intention on Facebook in the sample studied.
The individuals’ scores on the questionnaire were rated on a
Likert scale. The mean in each of the aspects is presented.
Table 1 shows that, among the factors, all components have
close means and SD’s among sample Samples.
H1. Consumers’ opinion on Facebook advertising will positively
affect the Firm’s brand image.
As seen in Table 2, since the significance level is lower than 0.05
(p = 0.001), the inclusion of the company’s trade name has a signifi-
cant effect on consumers’ opinions, and, since the mean equals
3.11 and t equals 1.57 (a little higher than the test value of 3), it
can be concluded that, in the opinion of the research sample, the
inclusion of consumers’ opinions in Facebook advertising affects
a firm’s brand image.
H2. Consumers’ opinion on Facebook advertising will positively
affect Firm’s brand equity.
 M. Dehghani, M. Tumer / Computers in Human Behavior 49 (2015) 597–600 599

Table 1 Table 5
Measures of central tendency and dispersion. Student’s t-distribution.

Variance Standard Means Components Test value = 3

deviation
Mean Std. t df Sig. Mean 95%
.513 .71627 3.1158 Consumers’ opinion on Facebook deviation (2-tailed) difference Confidence
advertising will positively affect the Firm’s interval of the
brand image difference
.451 .67149 3.3263 Consumers’ opinion on Facebook
Lower Upper
advertising will positively affect Firm’s
brand equity 3.2000 .64210 3.036 94 .003 .20000 .0692 .3308
.489 .69946 3.0895 Firm’s brand image on Facebook
advertising will significantly affect the
firm’s brand equity Table 6
.412 .64210 3.2000 Firm’s brand image on Facebook Student’s t-distribution.
advertising will significantly affect
purchase intention by consumers. Test value = 3
.466 .68282 3.7842 Firm’s brand equity on Facebook
Mean Std. t df Sig. Mean 95%
advertising will significantly affect
deviation (2-tailed) difference Confidence
purchase intention by consumers
interval of the
difference

Table 2 Lower Upper

Student’s t-distribution. 3.7842 .68282 11.194 94 .000 .78421 .6451 .9233
Test value = 3
Mean Std. t df Sig. Mean 95% Confidence
H4. Firm’s brand image on Facebook advertising will significantly
deviation (2-tailed) difference interval of the
difference affect purchase intention by consumers.
Lower Upper
As seen in Table 5, since the significance level is lower than 0.05
(p = 0.001), the inclusion of the company’s trade name has a signifi-
3.1158 .71627 1.576 94 .01 .11579 .0301 .2617
cant effect on consumers’ opinions, and, since the mean equals 3.2
and t equals 3.03 (a little higher than the test value of 3), it can be
As seen in Table 3, since the significance level is lower than 0.05 concluded that, in the opinion of the research sample, the inclusion
(p = 0.001), the inclusion of the company’s trade name has a signifi- of a firm’s brand image in Facebook advertising significantly affects
cant effect on consumers’ opinions, and, since the mean equals consumers’ purchasing intention.
3.32 and t equals 4.73 (a little higher than the test value of 3), it
can be concluded that, in the opinion of the research sample, the H5. Firm’s brand equity on Facebook advertising will significantly
inclusion of consumers’ opinions in Facebook advertising affects affect purchase intention by consumers.
a firm’s brand equity.
As seen in Table 6, since the significance level is lower than 0.05
H3. Firm’s brand image on Facebook advertising will significantly (p = 0.001), the inclusion of the company’s trade name has a signifi-
affect the firm’s brand equity. cant effect on consumers’ opinions, and, since the mean equals
As seen in Table 4, since the significance level is lower than 0.05 3.78 and t equals 11.19 (a little higher than the test value of 3),
(p = 0.001), the inclusion of the company’s trade name has a signifi- it can be concluded that, in the opinion of the research sample,
cant effect on consumers’ opinions, and, since the mean equals the inclusion of a firm’s brand equity in Facebook advertising sig-
3.08 and t equals 1.24 (a little higher than the test value of 3), it nificantly affects consumers’ purchasing intention.
can be concluded that, in the opinion of the research sample, the
inclusion of a firm’s brand image in Facebook advertising signifi- 4.1. Variable ranking
cantly affect the firm’s brand equity.
The Friedman test was used to determine the identity or differ-
Table 3 ence of research variables in the society studied. For this, the statis-
Student’s t-distribution. tic theory below is evaluated:
Test value = 3

H0 : The mean ranks of variables are equal:
Mean Std. t df Sig. Mean 95% H1 : At least one pair of mean factor ranks are significantly different:
deviation (2-tailed) difference Confidence
interval of the This study has two outputs. Table 7 shows the first output, indi-
difference
cating that the significance of the independent variables or factors
Lower Upper studied varied in the opinion of participants, since p < 0.05.
3.3263 .67149 4.737 94 .000 .32632 .1895 .4631 Therefore, the mean ranks of aspects are not equal. In the second
output, the mean ranks of these factors are shown.
As seen in Table 8, in descending order, those of the fifth
Table 4
Student’s t-distribution.
hypothesis (mean = 4.02), second hypothesis (mean = 3.08), fourth
hypothesis (mean = 2.73), first hypothesis (mean = 2.65) and third
Test value = 3 hypothesis (mean = 2.53).
Mean Std. t df Sig. Mean 95% Confidence
deviation (2-tailed) difference interval of the Table 7
difference The result of Friedman test.

Lower Upper Test result Error rate The significance level df Chi-square

3.0895 .69946 1.247 94 .02 .08947 .0530 .2320 Approved H1 0.05 001/0 95 64/78
600 M. Dehghani, M. Tumer / Computers in Human Behavior 49 (2015) 597–600
Table 8
Friedman test and the rank of means.
Average Dimension
rating
4/02 H5: Firm’s brand equity on Facebook advertising will
significantly affect purchase intention by consumers
3/08 H2: Consumers’ opinion on Facebook advertising will positively
affect Firm’s brand equity
2/73 H4: Firm’s brand image on Facebook advertising will
significantly affect purchase intention by consumers
2/65 H1: Consumers’ opinion on Facebook advertising will positively
affect the Firm’s brand image
2/53 H3: Firm’s brand image on Facebook advertising will
significantly affect the firm’s brand equity
5. Discussion and conclusion
Social media advertising provides a whole new dimension to
advertising, as it offers interactivity to the users, especially on
Facebook (Logan, Bright, & Gangadharbatla, 2012). In the present
study, the high percentage of correlation between variables shows
that the process of obtaining and exchanging information through
Facebook facilitates public participation. Facebook, by leveraging
WOM and viral marketing, can enhance brand image and brand
equity, thereby enhancing consumers’ intention to purchase.
It is obvious that the phenomenon of advertising has changed
from push advertising to trust based advertising. Although
Facebook advertising offers this advantage, the nature of such
advertising dictates that the successful effectiveness on consumers
should include features such as participation, realization,
personalization and feedback. This can be happen by companies
planning on boosting their budget in Facebook in order to cus-
tomization advertising for their consumers. It is now more critical
than ever that successful companies use engagement advertising
to determine for successfully engaging their customers before, dur-
ing and after their purchase cycle, and that the basis for this
engagement is enhancing either brand image and brand equity.
Moreover, many of the users agree that their willingness to buy
brands has increased as a result of seeing the most ‘‘like’’s and
‘‘share’’s, which suggested that the brand is reputable. As many
consumers have accepted Facebook as a fashionable way of adver-
tising and since most of the members of Facebook are young
adults, they tend to be interested in finding unique styles by pur-
suing the information on a brand’s pages and through the recom-
mendations and practices of friends and close acquaintances. In
order to survive in today’s intensely competitive market, firms
need to be informed of the brand awareness of their consumers
and devise up-to-date advertising strategies accordingly.
Managerially, this study indicates significant implications for
companies that use Facebook advertising as part of their overall
advertising strategy. In order to optimize their Facebook advertis-
ing, they should provide more customized messages to their cus-
tomers and offer incentives as well as promotions to encourage
them to pass on messages. It is hoped that the results of this study
will provide unique guidance’ implication to companies on
whether might be of benefit and enhance to their own brands.
This paper has some limitations that have to be acknowledged.
First, we are aware that the number of sample size could not com-
pletely apply to the whole population of Facebook’ users. Second,
in this study we only focused on the limit number of factors which
involved in purchase intention of consumers as means to improve
a company’s advertising performance. Besides addressing these
limitations, further research could be devoted to the effect of digi-
tal mobile advertising such as apps platforms on consumers’ per-
ceptions and motivation. This could be useful to estimate a
model for mobile advertising that captures the dynamic relation-
ship between consumer decision-making and mobile advertising
through apps.
References
Aaker (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Andriole, S. (2010). Business impact of Web2.0 technologies. Journal of
Communication, 53(12), 67–79.
Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (2006). Consumer behavior (10th international ed.).
Mason, OH: Thomson/South-western.
Cha, J. (2009). Shopping on social networking web sites: Attitudes toward real
versus virtual items. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10, 77–93.
Chu, S.-C. (2011). Viral advertising in social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising,
12(1), 30–43.
Comscore Media, M. (2009). Total number of unique visitors to selected social
networking sites.
Cress, U., Schwammlein, E., Wodzicki, K., & Kimmerle, J. (2014). Searching for the
perfect fit: The interaction of community type and profile design in online
communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 313–321.
Dellarocas (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of
online Feedback mechanisms. Journal of Management Science, 49(10),
1407–1424.
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and
brand image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9, 61–75.
Falls, J. (2009). Public relations pros must be social media ready. Social Media Explorer.
Farquhar, P. (1989). Managing brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(9),
24–33.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison
advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and
behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62, 46–59.
Holzner, S. (2008). Facebook marketing: Leverage social media to grow your business.
Indianapolis, IN: Que.
Hoy, M. G., & Milne, G. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for
young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45.
Johns, R., & Perrot, B. (2008). The impact of internet banking on business customer
relationship: Are you being self-served? International Journal of Bank Marketing,
26(7), 465–482.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Knight, & Kristina (2007). Forecast, WOM to exceed $1 billion in 2007. Biz report.
Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing management: Analysis, planing, implementation and
control (10th ed.). Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lee, J., & Kim, J. K. (2011). The impact of online brand community type on
consumer’s community engagement behaviors: Consumer-created vs marketer
created online brand community in SNW. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 14(1), 59–63.
Logan, K., Bright, L. F., & Gangadharbatla, H. (2012). Facebook versus television:
Advertising value perceptions among females. Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, 6(3), 164–179.
Rappaport & Stephen (2007). Lessons from online practice: New advertising models.
Journal of Advertising Research, 47(2), 135–141.
Rodgers, R. F., Melioli, T., Laconi, S., Bui, E., & Chabrol, H. (2013). Internet addiction
symptoms, disordered eating, and body image avoidance. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 56–60.
Rowley, J. (2004). Just another channel? Marketing communication in e-business.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(1), 24–41.
Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. (2009). Consumer behaviour (10th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A
uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(6), 2322–2329.
Story & Loroz (2005). Technical congruence and perceived quality of brand
extensions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(7), 438–447.
Waters, R. D., Canfield, R. R., Foster, J. M., & Hardy, E. E. (2011). Applying the dialogic
theory to social networking sites. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(3), 211–227.
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-
end model. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22.
Zhao & Shanyang (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment
in anchored relationships. Computer in Human Behavior, 22, 1816–1836.