Social Ticketing
Ticketing organisations on social network sites
GRADUATION THESIS
Programme
International Music Management
Location
Haarlem
Student
Fleur Verduin
498949
[email protected]
Circle supervisor
Mischa van Perzie
[email protected]
Client
Weet Waar Je Koopt
Berend Schans (VNPF) & Marjanne Manders (Mojo)
[email protected] - [email protected]
Date of submission
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
10 June 2014
2
Foreword
For Pé and Lotte
Here it is: my graduation thesis. After four years at Inholland Haarlem, I am (finally) at the end of the
International Music Management programme. You are about to read a document that has cost me
blood, sweat and tears (quite literally, I might add) to prepare and write. Fortunately, it was worth the
effort. I am really proud of what I have written and to have contributed to the Weet Waar Je Koopt
campaign.
For years I have been fascinated by the secondary ticketing phenomenon. It has made me angry
because consumers are being deceived, it has astonished me how many people still don’t know about
this industry and, most of all, it has made me wanting to know more about all of it. With this research, I
had the opportunity to dive into the world that is ticketing. This research may only contribute to the
knowledge about ticketers on social network sites, but it has stimulated me to stay active in informing
people about the secondary industry.
I would like to thank Mischa van Perzie and Annelies de Bruine for their guidance and support, my
parents for convincing me never to quit, my friends for allowing me to alienate them for the last 18
weeks, Marjanne Manders and Berend Schans for providing me the opportunity to do this research,
and again Berend for offering me an internship I wasn’t even applying for in the process.
I hope you will enjoy reading this report, and remember… Weet Waar Je Koopt!
-
Fleur Verduin
Alkmaar, 5 June 2014
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
3
Abstract
The secondary ticketing industry is winning territory. This means that more consumers overpay for
their event tickets and fewer consumers get the chance to obtain tickets at the official price. While this
does not have to be a bad thing per se, taking into account that the promoters still sell out their events
and get their profits, it does have a negative effect on the organising parties and primary market, i.e.
the parties involved in the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign (WWJK in short), the client of this research.
In order to deal with this problem efficiently, the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign was launched,
providing consumers with a central point of information and contact information specifically for
questions about (secondary) ticket sales. From the beginning, the campaign has been promoted
through a website, print media, banners on related websites and advertisement on (e-)tickets. In
September 2011, the campaign added social network sites to its marketing strategy. However, due to
time- and resource restrictions, the online platforms went into oblivion only months after their launch.
Recently, the campaign’s initiators noticed a significant increase in the activity of secondary ticketing
organisations on social network sites and, with that, a growing popularity of these organisations.
These activities seem to attract the attention of music fans, making them follow the secondary
organisations, and in doing so making them a target for the business.
WWJK perceives the online activity of secondary organisations as a serious threat and feels that it
needs to step up its social media game. Before WWJK starts investing in an extensive strategy for its
social network platforms, it should first understand the origin of its problems. Why do users follow
these organisations? What is it that attracts their attention? If there are clear motives for users to
engage with ticketing organisations online, it is possible that this knowledge could help WWJK in
developing its own strategy. In short, this research will focus on the motives online users have to
follow ticketing organisations on social network sites.
For this research, the following central question was drawn up:
What are the motives of followers of ticketing organisations to engage with these
organisations on social network sites?
To answer this question, five sub questions were formulated, including questions about the current
activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites, type of followers, and level of engagement.
The research consisted of extensive desk research and quantitative research in the form of a
questionnaire. The research includes a total of ten ticketing organisations: five primary organisations
and five secondary organisations. The questionnaire was filled out by 168 respondents that fit the
research population. This sample is not representative of the population. The results therefore
represent the sample rather than the entire population.
The research pointed out that the primary motive for following ticketing organisations is fast and easy
access to information. Followers are most interested in announcements of events, and information
about ticket sales and events. These posts are associated with a consumer input level of
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
4
consumption. Despite the fact that many followers seem to use social network sites as an important
source of information, this does not mean that they use it as their sole source. Only on occasion
followers make the decision to buy a ticket solely because of a post on social network sites.
A second motive is entertainment. Posts that are associated with this motive are, among others,
photos, videos, and contests. Contests score particularly high on the observed level of response. The
motive of social connection is found in relation to interactive posts. Posts that specifically ask followers
to respond receive a relative high level of response. With such posts, the input level is that of
participation; followers choose to make an effort to partake in a conversation.
Another important activity in relation to the access to information motive and the input level of
participation is the possibility of asking questions to the organisations. Especially Twitter is actively
used as a channel for customer service by both users and organisations.
With regard to primary organisations and secondary organisations, followers do not seem to make a
difference. In conclusion, followers of ticketing organisations engage with these organisations on
social network sites mainly because they want to be kept up-to-date about music events, or
entertained. Whether information comes from a primary organisation or secondary organisation does
not seem to be an issue.
Prior to making recommendations to the client, the problem is being re-evaluated based on the
research results. Desk research showed that most secondary ticketing organisations, despite having
significant amounts of followers, score very low when it comes to users’ engagement. Primary
organisations with lower or similar amounts of followers score much higher when it comes to response
to posts. This observation and other results raised the questions whether the problem is really of the
expected size. Setting this aside, recommendations are made on how Weet Waar Je Koopt could
handle their own social network sites. These recommendations include utilising Facebook and Twitter
to reach social users and expand the reach of the campaign, and providing customer service. As such
a strategy may be too time-consuming and may not fit the resources available, other
recommendations are made on collaborating with the partners of the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign
and rethinking social network sites altogether. Based on the time and resources the campaign
stakeholders decide to be willing to invest, a suitable option or combination thereof can be chosen to
improve the strategy.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
5
Table of Contents
FOREWORD
3
ABSTRACT
4
1. INTRODUCTION
8
1.1. CLIENT
1.1.1. SITUATION
1.1.2. OBJECTIVE
1.1.3. TARGET GROUP
1.2. CONTEXT
1.2.1. MACRO: SOCIAL NETWORK SITES (SOCIAL MEDIA)
1.2.2. MESO: LIVE MUSIC INDUSTRY
1.2.3. MESO: SECONDARY TICKETING
1.3. THE CLIENT’S PROBLEM
1.4. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.5. OBJECTIVE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT
1.6. OBJECTIVE FOR THE RESEARCH
1.7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
13
14
14
15
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
17
2.1. SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
2.2. THE FUNCTIONAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
2.3. CONSUMERS’ MOTIVES FOR USING SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
2.4. CONSUMERS’ ACTIVITIES ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
2.5. SOCIAL TECHNOGRAPHICS LADDER
17
19
21
22
23
3. METHOD OF RESEARCH
25
3.1. METHODOLOGY
3.2. DATA COLLECTION
3.2.1. SCORECARDS
3.2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE
3.2.3. POPULATION
3.2.4. SAMPLE
3.2.5. VALIDITY & RELIABILITY
3.2.6. REPRESENTATIVENESS
3.3. DATA ANALYSIS
3.3.1. TYPE OF ANALYSIS
3.3.2. ANALYSIS PER SUB QUESTION
3.3.3. TOOLS
25
26
26
27
30
30
31
32
32
32
33
35
4. RESULTS
36
4.1. RESULTS FROM DESK RESEARCH
4.1.1. PRESENCE OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
4.1.2. ACTIVITIES OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
4.1.3. ENGAGEMENT
36
36
37
38
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
6
4.1.4. POPULARITY OF FACEBOOK ACTIVITIES
4.2. RESULTS FROM QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
4.2.1. GENERAL INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS
4.2.2. USE OF SOCIAL NETWORK SITES BY RESPONDENTS
4.2.3. ENGAGEMENT WITH TICKETING ORGANISATIONS
4.2.4. IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES
4.3. PRIMARY TICKETERS VS. SECONDARY TICKETERS
39
39
39
40
41
43
44
5. CONCLUSIONS
46
5.1. SUB QUESTIONS
5.1.1. SUB QUESTION 1
5.1.2. SUB QUESTION 2
5.1.3. SUB QUESTION 3
5.1.4. SUB QUESTION 4
5.1.5. SUB QUESTION 5
5.2. CENTRAL QUESTION
5.3. LIMITATIONS
46
46
47
48
49
50
52
53
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
54
6.1. RE-EVALUATING THE PROBLEM
6.2. EFFECTS ON THE ORGANISATION
6.3. ADOPTING A SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGY
6.4. PROMOTION THROUGH PARTNERS
6.5. RECONSIDERING SOCIAL MEDIA
6.6. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
54
55
56
59
59
60
7. REFERENCES
61
APPENDIX A: LIST OF KEY TERMS
65
APPENDIX B: SCORECARD
66
APPENDIX C: LIST OF POST CATEGORIES (FACEBOOK)
68
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE
69
APPENDIX E: REPRESENTATIVENESS
77
APPENDIX F: ANALYSIS TYPE OF USERS
79
APPENDIX G: GRAPHS AND TABLES FROM DESK RESEARCH
80
APPENDIX H: GRAPHS AND TABLES FROM QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
89
APPENDIX I: CHI-SQUARE TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
92
APPENDIX J: HEINONEN’S FRAMEWORK WITH RESULTS
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
103
7
1. Introduction
A couple of years ago I had my first encounter with a secondary ticketer when I started doubting the
concert tickets of a relative. With Google it was easy to find the organisation that she had bought the
tickets from, but no matter what I did or how hard I tried, I could not get in touch with the shady seller.
It dawned on me that these secondary organisations are out on no more than high profits. Customer
service does not seem to exist in their vocabulary. For long I figured that the secondary ticketing
industry was none of my business, but when people close to me pay over 100 Euros for terrible seats
at a Take That or Tom Jones concert… you make it my business.
Secondary ticketing is an age-old phenomenon that has event organisers worried since the times of
Dickens and even Shakespeare. It comprises the business of profit-seekers who buy up event tickets
from official sellers and resell them to eager buyers for prices way over face value. Unfortunately,
neither event organisers nor the government have found a solid solution yet to ban these secondary
ticketers from the ticket market. As long as consumers keep consuming, these businesses will have
business.
In 2009, several parties decided that they could no longer watch from the side-lines while secondary
organisations disappointed unaware consumers. These parties, including Mojo Concerts and several
venues and associations, bundled their powers and launched an awareness campaign: Weet Waar Je
Koopt (WWJK in short). The campaign would aim to inform consumers about the secondary market
and the risks involved in buying from secondary organisations. If they could not counter the secondary
market, the least they could do was educate the public.
While the campaign was initially only promoted through a website and print media, the parties involved
soon recognised the growing importance of social network sites (SNSs in short). They figured that this
could be an effective way to communicate with the target group. Unfortunately, they were not the only
ones who recognised the opportunities of these platforms. Secondary ticketing organisations also
found their ways to Facebook and Twitter and started attracting consumers to their businesses. Even
more unfortunate was the fact that secondary ticketers, being flourishing organisations, had the time
and resources to invest in a constant online strategy, while WWJK had to rely on minimum budgets
and limited time to maintain its online platforms.
It soon became apparent that a social network strategy requires more than just a few posts every now
and then. And apparently ticketing organisations know what more it needs. Weet Waar Je Koopt
requested this research in order to find out how it can up its social network game in the battle against
the secondary ticketers. But in order to find that out, there is still plenty knowledge to gain.
After the introduction of the client and the problem, the report continues with the theoretical framework
in chapter 2. It describes the consulted literature and explains which models were used to answer the
research questions. Chapter 3 describes the research method. Apart from substantiating the choice of
methodology, it also explains the methods and instruments used for data collection and -analysis. The
data retrieved with the described methods and instruments is analysed in chapter 4, in which the first
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
8
steps are made towards answering the research questions. The final conclusions are drawn up in
chapter 5. Finally, based on the research results, recommendations for the client are made in chapter
6. The document concludes with the reference list and relevant appendices.
1.1. Client
Weet Waar Je Koopt is the name of a public campaign aimed at informing consumers about
secondary ticketing and the risks involved in buying from secondary organisations. The campaign,
initiated in 2009 by Mojo Concerts, pop venues Melkweg, Effenaar and WATT, and associations
VNPF (Vereniging van Nederlandse Poppodia en -festivals), VSCD (Vereniging voor Schouwburg- en
Concertgebouw Directies) and VVEM (Vereniging van Evenementen-Makers), was officially launched
during the Noorderslag festival of 2010. Over the years, the campaign has built up a following
including support from artists, primary ticketers, venues, festivals, and suppliers.
1.1.1. Situation
Every day, thousands of people buy tickets to concerts, theatre shows,
sports events and other events on the Internet. What many of them do
not know, is that apart from the official online points of sale there are
many websites/organisations, called secondary ticketers, that buy
tickets in bulk and resell them with the sole objective of generating profit.
On these websites consumers pay prices way over face value for their
Source: weetwaarjekoopt.nl/backstage
tickets, often completely unaware of the situation. It also turned out that
some of these resold tickets do not even guarantee the buyer access to the event, as they are fake or
duplicated. The resale of tickets happens without any permission from the artist and/or promoter, and
since it is a rather popular business, it creates (unnecessary) scarcity; as many tickets fall into the
hands of resellers, only a relatively small amount makes its way to the regular public at the original
price.
Resale does not only occur at sold-out events; at some occasions, tickets are being sold by secondary
organisations for events of which the official pre-sale has not even started yet or for which there are
still plenty tickets available at the official seller. In those cases, resellers do not exploit product
scarcity, but the ignorance of many consumers.
Apart from the problems the secondary business creates for consumers, primary organisations also
see some unfortunate consequences for the entertainment industry:
-
Consumers that do not find their way to primary sellers (for instance, because they use
Google to search for tickets) will deem culture/entertainment as too expensive or unaffordable.
They will choose to stay home because they cannot afford the tickets or feel that the prices
are unfair.
-
When consumers overpay for their ticket they are likely to spend less money on food and
beverages, merchandise, or tickets to other events (within the same time-span). After all, you
can only spend your money once.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
9
The situation described above was reason for the initiators of the campaign to bundle their powers.
They all shared the same believe that it was about time to make clear to the public where they should
buy their tickets in order to prevent themselves from overpaying and/or being disappointed at the door.
(Weet Waar Je Koopt, n.d.)
1.1.2. Objective
The objective of WWJK is to inform the Dutch audience (12 years and up) about where they should
buy their tickets to events and concerts, and to point out the risks of buying tickets from secondary
ticketing organisations. This has to be done within a minimized budget.
The initiators specifically chose to focus the campaign on promoting primary sellers and not on
slandering secondary organisations. When consumers are aware of the risks and rates of resellers,
they can make educated choices when it comes to buying tickets (Weet Waar Je Koopt, n.d.).
1.1.3. Target group
The target group of the campaign was described in the initial proposal as Dutch consumers over the
age of 12 who buy tickets to concerts/events once or twice a year (Weet Waar Je Koopt, n.d.). The
most important segment of the target group is consumers who are unaware of the ticket-buying
process, usually because they do not attend events on a regular basis. They use, for example, Google
to search for tickets and will click any of the results without realising that it could be a secondary seller.
1.2. Context
This section describes the context of this research. It focuses on three developments relevant to the
problem and research, namely the (growing) popularity of social network sites, the increasing
relevance of the live music industry, and the secondary ticketing industry. Together, these three
aspects illustrate the circumstances under which the client’s problem has arisen and justify the timing
of this research.
1.2.1. Macro: Social Network Sites (Social Media)
Social Network Sites (SNSs in short, popularly used as social media) are defined by boyd & Ellison
(2008) as web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a
bounded system and articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection. Examples of
such services are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Google+. Worldwide, the most popular social
network sites are Facebook, Google+ and Twitter (Search Engine Journal, 2013). In the Netherlands,
Facebook and Twitter are the most popular (profile-centered) social network sites. Facebook currently
has 1.15 billion registered users worldwide, with 8,4 million users in the Netherlands. Twitter currently
has 554 million users worldwide, with 2,9 million users in the Netherlands (Oosterveer, 2013).
According to a recent research by Ipsos (2013), the most common reasons for people to share on
social network sites are ‘to share interesting things’ (61%), ‘to share important things’ (43%) and ‘to
share funny things’ (43%). 30% of respondents indicated that reasons for their activity on social
network sites include ‘to recommend a product or service’ and 29% also use social media ‘to support
an organisation, cause or believe’.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
10
As for organisations, research has shown that 93% of marketers worldwide use social network sites
for business. 70% of marketers have used Facebook to successfully gain new customers and 34%
have used Twitter to successfully create leads (Search Engine Journal, 2013).
In an interview, Goldberg (2011), industrial and organisational psychologist, identified the shift from
companies to digital platforms to collaborate and interact with customers. She said that some of the
positive outcomes from this shift include new marketing and public relations channels, better customer
acquisition, service, and loyalty, and new approaches for branding and communications; a statement
that is supported by the findings in the section above. She furthermore refers to a 2010 study that
showed that 73% of businesses were planning to increase their social media presence.
With the amount of active users on social network sites and the identification by organisations of
online platforms as valuable marketing tools, it is clear that social network sites offer great potential for
attracting and retaining consumers.
1.2.2. Meso: Live music industry
Over the past decades, the music industry has been confronted with many developments. One of the
most significant developments was the shift from physical to digital. MP3s started to replace physical
albums in the late nineties and gained popularity in the twenty-first century (Coldewey, 2012). By
2010, digital sales accounted for 27% of total music purchasing and for over 37% in 2012 (Nielsen,
2013). As with many developments, the digital revolution has its pros and cons. On the one hand, the
digitalisation of music makes music more accessible and affordable for consumers, but at the same
time, for artists and labels, it generates less income than physical products would and makes recorded
music an easier target for piracy. As a result of the declining profits from recorded music, artists are
finding new ways to earn revenues in this digital era (McCubbin, 2012).
The twenty-first century has shown a growing importance of live music and accompanying income
streams (Resnikoff, 2013). A recent research by DiCola (2013) showed that, on average, 28% of
artists’ income comes from live shows, while only 6% comes from sound recordings. A different
research by PwC (2013), mapping global music revenues from 2008 to 2017, shows that global live
music revenues exceeded those of recorded music revenues around 2010, and that live music
revenues will continue to increase significantly, while recorded music revenues will gradually
decrease. Taking all developments described above into consideration, it can be said that there is a
growing focus on live music. More revenue is generated through the sales of concert tickets than there
is through the sales of recorded music. A recent publication of Live Nation’s quarterly numbers
supports this statement about the growing popularity of live music; the organisation hit record
revenues of over $2,2 billion in the third quarter of 2013, up 15% from the prior-year (Peoples, 2013).
1.2.3. Meso: Secondary ticketing
Secondary ticketing describes the business of reselling tickets that have been bought on the primary
market (i.e. from the official seller) with the sole purpose of generating profit. The tickets sold on the
secondary market are offered at prices way over face value. The phenomenon is nothing new; ever
since Dickens staged his plays in the 19th century, and probably well before that, clever ‘businessmen’
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
11
have been lining up to resell their tickets (Segrave, 2007). What are new, are the channels that
secondary organisations use to market and sell their goods. Where they used to have no other choice
than to stand in line at the box office for tickets and try to sell them out on the street near venues, they
now have the world at their feet on the World Wide Web (American Antitrust Institute, 2012).
In 2009, Europe Economics (2009) undertook a research in order get a better understanding of the
structure and scale of the secondary ticketing market. Based on extensive surveys and interviews with
stakeholders, the researchers made an estimation of the size of the secondary market for music
events. They found that for high-end events (e.g. Kings of Leon), between 20% and 40% of the tickets
is being resold at a mark-up between 100% and 250%. Very high-end events, concerts from artists
such as Madonna and the late Michael Jackson, know a different demand. For such concerts,
between 60% and 70% is being resold at staggering mark-ups between 500% and 700%. Finally, 20%
to 30% of tickets for popular music festivals are being resold at a relative low mark-up of 30%. It must
be noted that these numbers include tickets resold by consumers.
While in essence secondary ticketing organisations facilitate a free market and match high demands
with similar offers, the industry is often associated with deceit and extortion. In many countries,
primary sellers or other stakeholders have taken action to try and obstruct the secondary market. The
main reason for this is that parties involved in the production of music events deem it unfair that profit
is made off of their ‘product’ by organisations that play no role whatsoever in the realisation. These
organisations simply buy and sell the tickets without making any investments. Money disappears in
their pockets, money that, in fairness, should belong to artists, promoters and venues. Another reason
is that resellers create scarcity by buying up large amounts of tickets, making it difficult for the average
consumer to obtain a ticket at face value. Lastly, secondary ticketing organisations are notorious for
providing misleading information. Claiming to be the cheapest, having the best seats available, having
tickets to ‘sold-out’ shows… phrases that have ignorant consumers think they are either purchasing
from an official seller or that they are making the best choice (Johnson, 2013).
During Europe Economics’ research (2009), music industry stakeholders expressed their concern
about the likely growth of the secondary industry due to the relative ease of setting up online platforms
(including social network sites) nowadays, making it easier to reach consumers.
In conclusion, in times of a music industry struggling with new developments, that has to rely heavily
on live music revenues, secondary ticketing organisations exploit the business by making additional
profits that do not find their way back into the industry. Money that otherwise could be used for artist
development, promotion, and investment, goes into the pockets of mere profit seekers.
1.3. The client’s problem
As described in the context section above, the secondary ticketing industry is winning territory. This
means that more consumers overpay for their event tickets and fewer consumers get the chance to
obtain tickets at the official price. While this does not have to be a bad thing per se, taking into account
that the promoters still sell out their events and get their profits, it does have a negative effect on the
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
12
organising parties and primary market, i.e. the parties involved in the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign.
A clear example of such a negative effect is the complaints that the aforementioned parties have to
deal with as a result of resold tickets. When a consumer buys a ticket from a secondary ticketer, he or
she often experiences little trouble with the organisation; the consumer overpays, surely, but may be
unaware of this or may not have any problems with paying extra. However, when any issues arise,
such as invalid tickets, unwanted seats, or no delivery of the tickets at all, and the consumer is unable
to contact the (secondary) seller, he or she will start looking for another scapegoat. Experience has
taught that this scapegoat will often be the promoter or the primary seller. Consequently, the primary
parties have to invest time and resources in dealing with problems caused by other parties.
In order to deal with this problem efficiently, the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign was launched,
providing consumers with a central point of information and contact information specifically for
questions about (secondary) ticket sales. From the beginning, the campaign has been promoted
through a website (weetwaarjekoopt.nl), print media (flyers, posters), banners on related websites and
advertisement on (e-)tickets. In September 2011, the campaign added social network sites to its
marketing strategy. With a Facebook and Twitter account, WWJK actively informed the online users of
newly announced concerts, points of sale, and published (news-) articles about secondary ticketing
and developments in the battle against the extortionate prices. Moreover, consumers were able to
post their questions and concerns on these pages. However, due to time- and resource restrictions,
the online platforms went into oblivion only months after their launch. Since the beginning of 2012,
items are posted sporadically, causing the accounts to no longer be of significant use.
Recently, the campaign’s initiators noticed a significant increase in the activity of secondary ticketing
organisations on social network sites and, with that, a growing popularity of these organisations. The
secondary organisations actively announce and promote concerts, hold competitions, and post news
articles about the music industry, all while promoting their business. These activities seem to attract
the attention of music fans, making them follow the secondary organisations, and in doing so making
them a target for the business.
WWJK perceives this activity of secondary organisations as a threat and feels that it needs to step up
its social media game. The secondary organisations actively engage in social media activities, luring
away consumers from the primary market, while WWJK watches from the side lines. In comparison,
Onlineticketshop has over 172.000 likes on Facebook, while WWJK has just over 2600 (April 2014).
(M. Manders, personal communication, December 11, 2013)
1.4. The research problem
As stated in the previous section, the parties involved in the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign are
concerned about the secondary ticketers on social network sites. While it would be easy to say that
the campaign itself should simply become more active on these platforms, there is more to an online
strategy than posting random content. An organisation should understand what attracts the target
group and how it could keep this target group actively involved in order to build an effective strategy.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
13
This is especially important for WWJK, as it has to work within a minimized budget and with a limited
amount of time available to spend on campaign related activities. While many would say that social
network sites are free tools, this is most definitely not the case. An organisation has to invest time and
resources: in the simplest case, an employee to maintain these online platforms.
Before WWJK starts investing in an extensive strategy for its social network platforms, it should first
understand the origin of its problems, i.e. the popularity of (secondary) ticketers on social network
sites. Why do users follow these organisations? What is it that attracts their attention? If there are
clear motives for users to engage with ticketing organisations online, it is possible that this knowledge
could help WWJK in developing its own strategy. There is a good chance that ticketing organisations
and WWJK (could) attract a similar online target group, as users interested in events and tickets are
likely to also be interested in where it would be best to buy these tickets.
In short, this research will focus on the motives that online users have to follow ticketing organisations
on social network sites. The research will include both secondary and primary (i.e. official) ticketing
organisations, as the target group may be unable to identify the difference between the two types of
parties or, if they are able to make this distinction, they may have different motives for engaging with
primary- and secondary organisations. Also, knowledge about the activities of and engagement with
primary organisation may give insight into collaboration possibilities for the client.
1.5. Objective for the assignment
The objective for the assignment is for the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign to make a decision on its
own online strategy, including social network sites. Could they be able to effectively reach the target
group through social network sites? Is it worth the time and resources? Or would it be wise for the
campaign to focus on different channels to communicate with the target group? A different possibility
would be to consider promoting the campaign through the channels of primary ticketers (who are after
all partners of the campaign). Either way, this report should offer the parties involved in the campaign
a tool that can be used when deciding how to counter the secondary ticketing organisations in a social
network environment. The online strategy should naturally contribute to the main objective of the
WWJK campaign, namely making consumers aware of the secondary market and the risks involved.
1.6. Objective for the research
The objective for the research is to gain insight into the motives of online users to engage with
ticketing organisations on social network sites. As a main problem, WWJK identified the issue of
secondary ticketing organisation becoming (too) popular on social network sites. Before making
decisions on how to counter these actions, it is important to understand the nature of the problem and
how this problem has arisen. What is it that ticketing organisations do that attracts online users? This
research aims to find out the initial motives for users to start following ticketing organisations and the
activities that keep them involved.
The results and recommendations will provide Weet Waar Je Koopt with knowledge about the origin of
their most recent problem and insight into ticketing organisations’ target group(s) on social network
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
14
sites. This knowledge can be used to develop a social network strategy that in turn will help expand
the reach of the campaign. This will result in more consumers being well informed about the
secondary ticket market and the risks thereof, helping them in making educated choices when it
comes to ticket purchase (the main objective of WWJK).
The relevance of the problem stipulated by the client was recently confirmed by a news item about the
increase in ticket fraud. Several national news-papers and television programmes devoted articles and
segments to informing consumers about this recent development (NOS, 2014). This research should
contribute to the battle against fraudulent and overpriced tickets. Starting with finding out why
consumers engage with ticketing organisations and whether they (can) make the distinction between
primary and secondary organisations.
1.7. Research questions
Based on the client’s question (management problem), the problem definition (knowledge problem),
and the objective of this research, the following central question has been formulated:
What are the motives of followers of ticketing organisations to engage with these
organisations on social network sites?
In this question there are three terms that need explaining. The first term is followers, in this research
defined as online users who follow at least one ticketing organisation on at least one social network
site (SNS). Following could include ‘liking’ an organisation on Facebook, ‘following’ an organisation on
Twitter, including an organisation in your Google+ ‘circles’, etcetera. In essence, it means performing
an action on a SNS that allows users to automatically receive updates from an organisation.
The second term is ticketing organisations. These are organisations whose core business is selling
tickets to events. For this research, ten organisations have been selected based on their presence on
social network sites (an account on at least two SNSs) and their popularity on these platforms (with
regard to the amount of followers). As the research focuses on primary ticketers as well as secondary
ticketers, five organisations of each type have been selected. The research only includes ticketing
organisations that sell tickets to music events. Organisations that solely sell tickets to sports-, theatreand other events have been excluded from the research with the purpose of making the research as
relevant as possible to the client (the parties involved in the WWJK campaign are primarily concerned
with popular music events). Also, white label ticketing organisations and ticketing software providers
(such as Paylogic and Ticketscript) are excluded from this research as these organisations provide
software and services to other parties rather than selling tickets themselves.
The organisations included in this research are Ticketmaster NL, Live Nation NL, See Tickets NL,
Eventim NL, Ticketpoint, Onlineticketshop NL, TicketStarter, TicketTribune, Rang1Tickets and
Budgetticket NL. While Live Nation is not a ticketing organisation in itself, it is included in the research.
This decision has been made because Live Nation, with an integrated system, does offer consumers
direct access to tickets on its website.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
15
The final term to be identified is social network sites. The definition of this term can be found in the
theoretical framework in chapter 2. The SNSs that the concerning ticketing organisations are found to
be active on are Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube and LinkedIn. Apart from these five platforms,
three others have been selected for this research based on their popularity in the Netherlands, namely
Instagram, Pinterest, and Foursquare (Newcom Research & Consultancy, 2014). All other SNSs have
been excluded from this research as they show no significant popularity in the Netherlands.
To answer this central research question, five sub questions have been formulated. The first question
focuses on the current activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites. It aims to find out
what the organisations are offering to their online following, on which platforms, and how frequently
they are doing this. In other words, what could be the aspects that attract online users to their pages?
This question will be answered for the ten aforementioned ticketing organisations.
1) To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?
The second sub question is formulated to find out what kind of users are following ticketing
organisations on social network sites. It will include demographics (age, gender), involvement in the
music industry (professional involvement, concert attendance), and use of social network sites. The
different classifications of online users that will be used in this research can be found in the theoretical
framework in chapter 2.
2) Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network sites?
Sub question 3 focuses on the level of engagement of followers. Users can have decided at one point
to start following an organisation but does this mean that they actively engage with the organisation or
did they only follow them to express an interest?
3) Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social network
sites?
The fourth sub question aims to find out which activities of ticketing organisations on social network
sites are most valued by the followers. With the models described in the theoretical framework,
activities can be translated to motives, helping answering the central question.
4) Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most valued
by the followers?
The final sub question is aimed at finding out whether users have different motives for following
primary organisations than they have for following secondary organisations. Answering it could point
out whether followers know or care about the difference between primary and secondary
organisations.
5) What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement between primary
ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?
For further clarification, a list of key terms used in this report is included in appendix A.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
16
2. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework provides an overview of the literature that has been consulted in
preparation for this research. It shows the process of identifying core connectors within a topic, and
the development of thoughts and theories on what possible outcomes of the research could be. The
framework at hand discusses the definition of social network sites (SNSs), the functional building
blocks of social network sites, the motives and activities of SNS users, and the Social Technographics
Ladder. These topics and related theories and models form the basis of this research.
2.1. Social Network Sites
In their well renowned article regarding social network sites (cited in over 5000 literary works
according to Google Scholar, May 2014), boyd & Ellison (2008) define these platforms as web-based
services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,
articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of
connections and those made by others within the system. The backbone consists of visible profiles
that display an articulated list of friends who are also users of the system. boyd & Ellison (2008)
identify the public display of such friend-lists as a crucial component of SNSs, as these enable viewers
to traverse the network graph by clicking through them (boyd & Ellison, 2008). Despite emphasizing
the importance of friends and connections, boyd & Ellison (2008) distance themselves from the term
‘social networking sites’. They feel that the word ‘networking’ puts too much emphasis on relationship
initiation. While networking is possible on social network sites, it is not the primary practice on many of
them (boyd & Ellison, 2008).
Where boyd & Ellison focus on the presence of profiles and connections, many researchers ascribe a
set of other important characteristics to social network sites. Carton (2009) defines SNSs concisely as
internet-based technologies that facilitate conversations. Parent, Plangger & Ball (2011) add that
SNSs differ from traditional web applications by offering users a platform for content creation and upload, networking, conversing, media sharing, and bookmarking. Finally, Kietzmann, Hermkens,
McCarthy, & Sylvestre (2011) describe SNSs as highly interactive platforms via which individuals and
communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify user-generated content.
The article by boyd & Ellison (2008) has been cited and discussed by many researchers (e.g. Salo,
Lankinen & Mäntymäki, 2013, Kietzmann et al., 2011), but it has also received some criticism. In his
response, Beer (2008) criticises the use of the term ‘social network sites’ as opposed to ‘social
networking sites’. He argues that the term ‘social network sites’ is too broad; it stands in for too many
things. He agrees that a number of sites are not about ‘networking’ but are ‘networks’, but feels that
this should be grounds for distinction, not for opening up a relatively stable term to include these
differences (Beer, 2008). He suggests using an umbrella term (such as Web 2.0.) that allows for a
series of categories to be fitted within it.
Fraser & Dutta (2008) were one of the first to attempt to formally categorize the different sites, using
the umbrella term ‘social media’. Table 2.1 shows the different categories. Different categorisations
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
17
can be found in the literature, based on, for example, virtual communities (Armstrong & Hagel, 1995)
and media richness/self-disclosure (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), but the categorisation by Fraser &
Dutta (2008) is found to suit this research best as it may serve as a basis for making a distinction
based on the different target groups and the potential reach. Additionally, some of these categories
have also been suggested by boyd & Ellison (2008). One critical point may be, however, that, for
example, Facebook nowadays can also be seen as having ‘community’ and ‘passion-centric’
characteristics, as it allows users to create ‘groups’ and ‘pages’ on which likeminded people gather
(though this is not the main purpose of the site).
TABLE 2.1:
CATEGORIES OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Category
Appeal
Example of site(s)
Allow users to construct profiles of themselves on
Egocentric sites
virtual platforms facilitating identity construction
Facebook, Google+, MySpace
and connections.
Community sites
Opportunistic sites
Passion-centric sites
Media sharing sites
Imitate real-world communities, allowing groups to
form around like beliefs.
Allow for different social organisation of users and
facilitate business connections.
BlackPlanet, Dogster, MomsLikeMe
LinkedIn, Academia.edu
Allow users to connect based on interest and
GermanCarForum, Chatterbirds,
hobbies.
TheSamba
Allow users to share rich media with each other.
Defined by content, not users.
YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare
Adapted from Fraser & Dutta (2008)
For this research, the term ‘social network sites’ (SNSs in short, social media may be used in certain
contexts) will be used, as it is, despite the criticism, a term widely employed in many articles and
researches. The key characteristics attributed to this term will be identity, connection, interaction,
conversation, creation, and sharing; combining the various definitions and descriptions, and in line
with the functional building blocks discussed further in this section.
In the Netherlands, there is an apparent top five of most popular social network sites. This top five
includes Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter and Google+ (Newcom Research & Consultancy,
2014). Three out of these five platforms are egocentric sites (Facebook, Twitter, Google+); they allow
users to construct a profile and facilitate identity construction and connections. LinkedIn is an
opportunistic site, facilitating business connections. Finally, YouTube is an obvious case of a mediasharing site that is defined by rich media content. Other popular social network sites in the
Netherlands are Instagram (media-sharing), Pinterest (media-sharing) and FourSquare (egocentric).
Preliminary research showed the egocentric social platforms (Facebook and Twitter) of various
ticketing organisations to be the most popular among both users and the organisations themselves.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
18
This could be because these are likely to attract the most general audience, and thus have the most
potential in terms of reach.
In order to fence off the term social network sites, the decision has been made to focus the research
on the eight most popular social network sites in the Netherlands mentioned above with regard to
users’ activity. The ticketing organisations researched in this document are found to only be active on
the top five: Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter and Google+.
2.2. The functional building blocks of social network sites
In order to understand social network sites better, Kietzmann et al. (2011) developed a framework
illustrating the seven ‘functional building blocks of social media’. They identified the growing
significance of social network sites and their potential impact on organisations and developed the
model to create a better understanding of the phenomenon. Since its publication in 2011, this model
has been cited in over 500 scientific articles (according to Google Scholar, May 2014).
The framework contains seven building blocks: identity, conversations, sharing, presence,
relationships, reputation, and groups. Each building block examines a specific facet of social media
user experience, and its implications for organisations (Kietzmann et al., 2011). The buildings blocks
are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
FIGURE 2.1:
THE FUNCTIONAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Used individually and together, these blocks
can help managers make sense of available
social media choices and improve their
understanding
of
their
audiences’
engagement needs. Individually, the building
blocks are useful for understanding the
engagement needs of social media users,
together they help explain how existing
platforms add value by focusing on a few, not
all, of the building blocks. For example,
LinkedIn focuses on identity, reputation, and
relationships,
sharing,
while
YouTube
conversations,
reputations,
and
is
about
groups
and
Facebook
is
about
relationships first, but also about presence,
identity,
reputation
and
conversations
(Kietzmann et al., 2011).
Below an overview of the seven building
blocks and the implications for organisations
Source: Kietzmann et al. (2011)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
(Kietzmann et al, 2011):
19
- Identity: The extent to which users reveal their identities in a social media setting. For example, on
Facebook, users disclose information about their location, age, sex, and personal preferences. The
major implication is privacy. The fact that users willingly share their identities on social network sites
does not mean that they do not care what happens to this information.
- Conversations: The extent to which users communicate with other users in a social media setting.
For example, on Twitter, users post short messages on which they are likely to receive a reply or
comment. Differences in the frequency and content of a conversation can have major implications for
how organisations monitor and make sense of the ‘conversation velocity’. For example, to make
collective sense of the short, speedy, and numerous conversations on Twitter, organisations need
tools and capabilities that allow them to connect the dots. A second implication is the issue of
organisations starting or manipulating a conversation. They need to know when to chime in and when
to butt out.
- Sharing: The extent to which users exchange, distribute, and receive content. For example, on
YouTube, users share videos. One of the implications is the need to evaluate what objects of sociality
users have in common. For instance, the objects of sociality are pictures for Flickr and careers for
LinkedIn. Without these objects, a sharing network will be primarily about connections between people
but without anything connecting them together. The second implication concerns the degree to which
the object can or should be shared, referring to copyright issues and inappropriate material.
- Presence: The extent to which users can know if other users are accessible. For example, on
FourSquare, users can ‘check-in’ at their real-time locations, letting other users know where they are
at that moment. The implication is that organisations need to pay attention to the relative importance
of user availability and -location. Do users prefer to engage in real-time? Is there a desire for selective
presences?
- Relationships: The extent to which users can be related to other users. ‘Relate’ meaning that two or
more users have some form of association that leads them to converse, share, meet-up, or simply just
list each other as friend or fan. For example, Facebook has the friend-list, and Twitter allows users to
follow each other. For organisations, it is important to understand how they can maintain and/or build
relationships with their users.
- Reputation: The extent to which users can identify the standing of others in a social media setting.
For example, a high amount of followers on Twitter, or various endorsements on LinkedIn, may be
indicators of trust. It is important for organisations to choose an appropriate metric to evaluate their
reputation. If time and activity in a community matter, a measure of the number of posts over time may
be a good metric. If the quality of an individual’s contributions matter, a rating system (e.g. the amount
of ‘likes’) would be more appropriate.
- Groups: The extent to which users can form communities and sub-communities. For example, on
LinkedIn, organisations can create groups to which users can subscribe if they are of feel in any way
related to that organisation or topic. In doing so, it is important to establish a set of membership ‘rules’
and protocols.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
20
The theory of the seven building blocks will be used in order to identify the current use of social
network sites by ticketing organisations. It is likely that a large organisation like Ticketmaster cares
deeply about their identity and thrives on facilitating conversations, while a secondary ticketing
organisation may be more concerned about its reputation. Also, it is expected that the motives of
online users to engage with organisations on social network sites can be linked to these building
blocks. It is therefore possible that the results of the research can help identify the building blocks that
the users prioritise, helping organisations in developing a strategy that aims for the highest reach.
2.3. Consumers’ motives for using social network sites
For their research, Salo, Lankinen, & Mäntymäki (2013), identified four consumer motives for using
social network sites: reinforcement of social identity, a sense of affinity, participation (user generated
content), and two-way interaction. In relation to music marketing, they found the additional motive of
‘access to content’. Park, Kee, & Valenzuela (2009) also found four motives: socializing,
entertainment, self-status seeking, and information. Finally, Shao (2009) identified five motives similar
to that of Park et al. (2009), namely information, entertainment, social interaction and community
development, self-actualization, and self-expression.
Linked to the consumers’ motives, Shao (2009) also proposes a set of activities that people perform
online: 1) consumption of information and entertainment, 2) participation in social interaction and
community development, and 3) production of self-expression and self-actualization. In this set of
activities, consumption is defined as reading/viewing content posted by others, participation occurs
when people comment on others’ creations, and production means posting one’s own content.
Although this theory comprises all online activities in general, it does not specify the sub-activities that
occur within the main categories. The activities of consumption, participation, and production may also
include other activities that are not described by the categorization based on contribution/engagement
levels (Heinonen, 2011). It is thus appropriate to identify other activities that can be relevant for social
media users.
Most researches about motives seem to point in the same direction. The motives may be categorized
or defined differently, but all have findings in common. Naturally, the social aspect is very important,
but also the access to content/information. In this research, the findings described above will serve as
the basis for asking the research target group about their motives for using social network sites with
regard to ticketing organisations. A set of six different motives has been drawn up based on the
different findings above. These motives have been ‘translated’ to fit better in the context of ticketing
organisations. The six motives used in this research are (social) identity, sense of affinity, access to
information, social interaction with users, interaction with organisations, and access to (media)
content/entertainment.
Since the retrieval of information is an apparent motive for consumers to use social network sites, it is
expected that there will be a need for up-to-date, relevant content that is easily accessible. The
following section will further explore the motives and activities listed by Shao (2009).
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
21
2.4. Consumers’ activities on social network sites
Based on the previous notion that the findings by Shao (2009) need further exploration, Heinonen
(2011) created a conceptual model of consumers’ activities on social network sites. Building on an
extensive review of previous research on motives and activity (similar to that described above),
Heinonen (2011) proposes that consumers’ social network activities can be conceptualised based on
two dimensions: consumer motivation and consumer input (effort/content). The consumer input
dimension, also referred to as engagement level, is separated into three main types of activities based
on the findings by Shao (2009): consumption, participation, and production. The consumer motivation
dimension is also separated into three types: entertainment, social connection, and information.
Examining these categories of motives
provides more details concerning the
FIGURE 2.2:
AN OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL NETWORK ACTIVITIES
nature of the three main activity types
identified
by
Shao
(2009).
All
elements in the proposed model are
present in existing research, but they
have not been combined into one
single
framework.
To
fill
in
the
framework (i.e. find out consumer
activity), Heinonen (2011) undertook
empirical research among a group of
marketing students who were asked to
keep a journal of their activities on
social network sites. The framework,
including the research findings, is
illustrated in Figure 2.2.
The
overview
of
social
network
activities shows that consumer input
mainly concerned consumption and
Source: Heinonen (2011)
participation; only some activities are related to production. Acquiring and consuming information are
two of the main activities. The research showed that the information is valued for several reasons
including accessibility, being real-time, variety of viewpoints covered, and exclusivity. The drawback is
the trustworthiness of the information. Especially factual information is often considered questionable
(Heinonen, 2011). This finding shows that it is important for an organisation to build-up a credible
reputation, whether or not through social network sites.
A major information processing activity is the retrieval of product information and content, such as
solving problems with product use or accessing content, such as music and software (Heinonen,
2011). Like many researches and theories, these findings again put the emphasis on content. Another
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
22
form of information processing is sharing information and experiences, and accessing shared
knowledge online. Opposed to factual information that has lower trustworthiness, opinions are
considered to be reliable and value adding (Heinonen, 2011). This finding is specifically important with
regard to secondary ticketing organisations. Having consumers share their experiences with
secondary ticketers can benefit the primary organisations while it will probably negatively impact the
business of the secondary organisations.
Focusing on activities rather than only on motivations, the described framework and research findings
increase the understanding of why consumers are interested in social network sites (Heinonen, 2011).
If organisations can identify the activities of their own target group on social network sites they are
likely to be able to tailor their online strategy to these users’ wants and needs. Rather than relying
solely on marketing communication, organisations should try to participate more in their target group’s
social network activities, in order to understand the impact of these on their image and also to facilitate
interaction (Heinonen, 2011).
The described framework will form the basis of an important part of this research’s questionnaire. By
translating the ‘general’ activities to activities linked to ticketing organisations it is possible to identify
the most valued and/or desired activities, i.e. the reasons why users are willing to engage with these
organisations. Also, for this research, the three levels of consumer input are translated into three types
of online users: consumers, participators, and creators. The different types of online users are
elaborated on in the following section, explaining the Social Technographics Ladder.
2.5. Social Technographics Ladder
In 2007, reputable research institution Forrester introduced a model that categorises online users
based on their activities and online involvement.
This model, called the Social Technographics
Ladder,
proposes
a
set
of
FIGURE 2.3:
FORRESTER’S SOCIAL TECHNOGRAPHICS LADDER
overlapping
classifications of Internet users (Li, 2007). The
initial model consisted of six classifications,
excluding the conversationalists. In 2010, the
researchers introduced this new category to
better fit the users that are active on social
network sites (Bernoff, 2010). The Social
Technographics
Ladder
with
the
seven
classifications is illustrated in Figure 2.3. The
term Technographics refers to the analysis of
consumers’ approach to technology (Li, 2007).
The model was created after an extensive
online survey (little under 5000 respondents)
among US and Canadian individuals.
Source: Li (2007) and Bernoff (2010)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
23
The different levels are described as follows (Li, 2007, Bernoff, 2010):
Creators: Online consumers who publish blogs, maintain web pages, or upload videos to sites like
YouTube at least once per month.
Conversationalists: Online users who update statuses and post messages that facilitate
conversations.
Critics: Online consumers who participate in either of two ways: commenting on blogs or posting
ratings and reviews on sites like Amazon.com.
Collectors: Users who save URLs, use RSS feeds, or perform any other act that allows them to
‘collect’ information (and possibly share it with a community).
Joiners: Users who only ‘use’ social network sites like Facebook and maintain a profile. They visit
social networking sites but are not ‘active’.
Spectators: Users who view, listen or read without taking any further action.
Inactives: Consumers who do not at all participate in social online activities.
The illustrated model will be used to classify the questionnaire respondents based on their online
FIGURE 2.4:
activity and to indicate levels of engagement. As the Social
ONLINE USER CLASSIFICATIONS
Technographics Ladder is based on consumers’ general online
activities, and this research focuses solely on social network sites, the
aforementioned attributes of each classification will be interpreted as
activities on social network sites. Furthermore the research aims to
use a maximum of four classifications. These classifications are
based on the three types of online users mentioned in the previous
sections, namely consumers, participators, and creators. The fourth
classification of inactives will be formally added, but is not expected to
be applicable to this research as all respondents are expected to
have at least one account on one social network site. The attributes
ascribed to each of the classifications will be based on the Social
Technographics Ladder, as shown in Figure 2.4. Each of the
classifications is appointed the attributes/activities of the levels drawn
up in the ladder. The classifications are made broader, as to divide
the respondents into a lower number of categories, but still entail a
specific level of activity. The inactives are not active on social network
sites at all, the consumers have accounts, read other users’ updates
and messages and may collect photos, videos or other content he or
Based on Li (2007), Bergoff (2010),
Heinonen (2011)
she is interested in, the participators post their own messages,
facilitate conversations and participate in them, and may use social
network sites to read/write (product) reviews, and the creators are the most active users on social
network sites, creating content of their own. While the Technographics Ladder shows overlapping
classifications, the new model will classify each respondent in only one classification based on his of
her main activity.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
24
3. Method of research
This section shows the design for the research. It elaborates on the chosen methodology, the
instruments used for data collection, and the methods used for data analysis.
3.1. Methodology
A quantitative approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses postpositivist claims for
developing knowledge (i.e., cause and effect thinking, reduction to specific variables and hypotheses
and questions, use of measurement and observation, and the test of theories), employs strategies of
inquiry such as experiments and surveys, and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield
statistical data. (Creswell, 2003)
The main part of this research consists of quantitative research, along with desk research.
Quantitative research has been chosen as the main methodology as the research aims to get a good
understanding of a large population, i.e. to generalise the findings. The instrument used for the
quantitative research is an online questionnaire that was designed to retrieve statistical data about the
research population. The quantitative research is for most of the (sub-) questions supported by desk
research. Further desk research was done to get good insight into the current presence and activities
of the selected ticketing organisations on social network sites. For this desk research, the researcher
had to rely on public data.
The methods used for each sub question are described in more detail below.
- Central question: What are the motives of followers of ticketing organisations to engage with these
organisations on social network sites?
The answer to the central question will be formulated with the answers from the different sub
questions. No research directly linked to the central question will be done.
- Sub question 1: To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?
This sub question will be answered through desk research. The activities of ten ticketing
organisations on social network sites will be observed and analysed. This question aims to
link the activities of each organisation to the ‘building blocks’-model by Kietzmann et al.
described in the theoretical framework. The observed activities will also be used to help
formulate the possible answers for part of the questionnaire.
- Sub question 2: Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network
sites?
This sub question will be answered through quantitative research. Questions regarding
demographics, involvement in the music industry and activity on social network sites will be
included in the questionnaire. Finding out the characteristic of followers, along with the other
research data, can help in determining whether different followers have different motives and
levels of engagement. Also, it establishes an overview of which types of users are interested
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
25
in (following) ticketing organisations which could help in tailoring a strategy to the wants and
needs of these users. The classification of the types of users (consumers, participators,
creators) was established with the models described in the theoretical framework.
- Sub question 3: Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social
network sites?
This sub question will be answered through both quantitative research and desk research.
The questionnaire will include questions on which organisations are being followed and how
actively in order to find out whether ‘following’ equals ‘engagement’. In other words, a user
can follow 6 different organisations, but does this also mean that he/she engages actively with
these organisations? Part of the questions will be based on the Social Technographics Ladder
illustrated in the theoretical framework. As for the desk research part, the different types of
followers’ response to posts will be observed on the social network sites of the different
organisations.
- Sub question 4: Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most
valued by the followers?
This sub question will be answered through both quantitative research and desk research.
The questionnaire will include questions on the importance of certain activities (i.e. posts) and
the initial motives for following the organisation(s). The questionnaire questions related to this
sub question will be based on the model by Heinonen as described in the theoretical
framework and the desk research done for sub question 1. Furthermore, further desk research
into the presence of ticketing organisations on social network sites will include measuring
followers’ response to different types of posts.
- Sub question 5: What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement
between primary ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?
This sub question will be answered through both quantitative research and desk research.
Comparisons will be made between questionnaire respondents who answered to only follow
primary organisations and those who (also) follow at least one secondary organisation. The
desk research will point out whether there are differences in followers’ engagement by
analysing the total responses to posts.
3.2. Data collection
To retrieve the research data, two instruments were used: a questionnaire for the research population
to fill in (sub questions 2 to 5) and ‘scorecards’ to keep track of current activities of the ticketing
organisations on social network sites (sub questions 1, 3, 4 and 5).
3.2.1. Scorecards
To answer the first sub question on current activities of ticketing organisations and part of sub
questions 3, 4 and 5, the social network accounts of ten organisations were observed. Information on
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
26
online presence, popularity and activities was written down in Excel ‘scorecards’. An example of the
scorecards used can be found in appendix B. This example shows observations of one month for one
organisation. The full scorecards have not been included in this document. Solely the relevant results
that were retrieved from them are included in the form of tables and graphs.
The research focused primarily on Facebook and Twitter activities, as these social network sites were
found to be the most popular among both users and organisations. The activities of six consecutive
months on Facebook were observed, from September 2013 to February 2014. The timespan was
chosen because the research started in March of 2014 and a six month period was deemed realistic
for the time available for this research. The activities, i.e. posts, were categorised based on the nature
of the post and its purpose. The different categories are partly based on the model by Heinonen
(2011) described in chapter 2. An alphabetical overview of the categories can be found in appendix C.
Some posts served more than one purpose, for example, a concert announcement also included
information about the ticket sales. In these cases, the posts were categorised based on the main
purpose. In the case of the example, the post was categorised as a concert announcement since the
main purpose of the post was to inform followers about an upcoming event for the first time.
For each post several aspects were written down including the date of the post, the amount of likes,
shares, and comments it had received and whether the post included a direct link to the website of the
organisation.
Furthermore, Twitter activities were observed. For each organisation the amount of tweets, replies,
and retweets was written down per day for the period from November 2013 to February 2014. Tweets
being posts by the organisation itself (often of a similar nature as the Facebook posts), replies being
responses to users’ posts (e.g. answers to questions), and retweets being reposts of something
another user or organisation posted. The four-month time span was chosen as Twitter only allows
pages to show up to 3200 tweets (i.e. posts). Due to the large amount of posts, this meant that for
Ticketmaster it was not possible to go back further than the end of October. Also, due to a One
Direction concert (apparently popular among young female Twitter users), Live Nation showed
abnormal activity with regard to replies at the end of September.
3.2.2. Questionnaire
For the quantitative part of the research, an online questionnaire was designed using the online tool
SurveyMonkey.com. The client provided a paid account that gave access to premium design options
and analysis methods. The questionnaire can be found in appendix D.
Questions
The questionnaire was designed with the help of the theoretical framework in chapter 2 and
preliminary desk research results. It started off with general questions about the respondents’ gender
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
27
and age and continued with a question about their professional involvement in the music industry and
concert attendance. These questions were included with the intent of finding out which types of users
(with regard to demographics) follow ticketing organisations.
In order to further specify the type of online users, the questionnaire continued with questions about
respondents’ use of social network sites. The question on which platforms are being used included the
eight most popular social network sites in the Netherlands: Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter,
Google+, Instagram, Pinterest and FourSquare (Newcom Research & Consultancy, 2014). The
question provided the option of adding any other social network sites. Besides answering which
platforms they use, respondents were asked how often they use these platforms based on a Likert
scale. The final question about respondents’ use of social network sites asked about how often certain
activities are being performed. The answers provided were based on the Social Technographics
Ladder (see chapter 2) and contained a Likert scale of frequency. With this question it is possible to
classify the respondents into four types of online users (inactive, consumer, participator, and creator).
Before continuing the questionnaire, respondents were asked to look up which ticketing organisations
they follow on which social network sites. In order to help them, a web page was created that gave
respondents an overview of the pages of ticketing organisations. If they were logged into their own
social network accounts they could immediately see whether they were following these organisations.
Respondents were then asked to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to whether they were following at least one of
the mentioned organisations. Respondents who answered ‘no’ were routed to a different part of the
questionnaire. With exit questions (why don’t you follow any organisation?) they were excluded from
the questionnaire. Respondents who answered positively to the question were routed to the next
page.
The part of the questionnaire regarding ticketing organisations on social network sites included
questions on which ticketing organisations the respondents followed and on which platforms, and what
their motives are for following these organisations. The ticketing organisations included in the
questionnaire were selected based on their popularity on social network sites (amount of followers).
Respondents were given the option to add any other ticketing organisations. The five social network
sites included in this part of the questionnaire (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ and YouTube)
were selected as these showed to be the only platforms that the ticketing organisations have accounts
on.
The questions about motives and level of engagement were based on the theoretical framework
presented in chapter 2. Question 15 about ticketing organisations’ activity on social network sites
asked respondents to express how important they deem certain activities. The mentioned activities
were based on the framework by Heinonen (2011) and preliminary desk research, and included a
Likert scale of importance.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
28
The final questions about finding ticketing organisations and familiarity with the Weet Waar Je Koopt
campaign were included to find out whether the respondents would fit into the target group of the
research client.
Distribution channels
The questionnaire was distributed via social network sites from 17 April 2014 to 11 May 2014. It was
only distributed through the channels of social networks sites as the research population consists of
users who are active on these platforms. Therefore, it did not seem logical to spread the questionnaire
through offline channels and online channels other than social network sites.
-
Personal/network accounts: To start off, the questionnaire was distributed through the
personal channels of the researcher (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Public data showed that a
relatively large group of users (approximately 110 users) in the researcher’s network followed
one or more ticketing organisations. General messages were sent out in order to reach these
users. The message got picked up by several other users and, as a result, was shared by 21
people in the researcher’s online network. While distributing the questionnaire through
personal channels could cause bias, it is expected that in this case this bias in minimal, as the
messages were aimed at a specific set of users (those who follow ticketing organisations).
-
Direct messages – Several days after the questionnaire was initially sent out, the response
rate turned out to be really low. As public data of the social network sites showed which users
followed which organisations, the decision what made to approach users directly through
direct messages, including the link to the questionnaire. This approach caused a significant
increase in respondents.
-
Weet Waar Je Koopt – With Weet Waar Je Koopt being the client of this research, it was no
problem to distribute the questionnaire through its platforms. The questionnaire was posted on
the Facebook account of the campaign with a total of 2700 followers.
-
Ticketers: After one and a half week the response rate still turned out to be rather low. In an
attempt to increase the amount of respondents, several ticketing organisations were
approached with the question if they could post the questionnaire on their platforms.
Ticketmaster was the only organisation to respond positively to this question. The link to the
questionnaire was posted twice on the Twitter account with a following of over 45.000 users.
Having the questionnaire distributed by an organisation included in the research may have
caused bias in the sense that the majority of the respondents is likely to have answered that
they follow this organisation on Twitter. However, since the initial response rate was
disappointing, this measure was deemed necessary in order to expand the reach significantly.
After two weeks, the questionnaire was also posted on the Facebook page of Eventim (998
followers) and Ticketpoint (7000+ followers) by the researcher herself. Eventim explained that
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
29
they rather not post the questionnaire themselves due to secondary ticketers being included in
the research.
3.2.3. Population
The research population is formulated as Dutch users of social network sites over the age of 15 who
follow at least one ticketing organisation on at least one social network site. Although respondents
who do use social network sites but do not follow ticketing organisations were allowed to start the
questionnaire, they were excluded at a certain point through routings including exit questions. It was
decided to not directly exclude these respondents from the questionnaire because these respondents
might have clear motives as why not to follow ticketing organisations that may benefit the outcomes
and the advice. The minimum age was set at 15 years as the Dutch law prohibits having people under
the age of 15 partake in online surveys.
According to public data, the ticketing organisations included in this research have a total online
following of over 630.000 (see appendix G, table G1). However, this number is likely to include users
who follow more than one organisation on more than one platform. Also, the number of followers is
dynamic; organisations lose and gain followers on a daily basis. Finally, since the research population
only includes users over the age of 15, a(n) (unknown) number of people has to be deducted from the
amount of followers. However, even with an amount deducted, the research population will still be
considered to be ‘large’ (over approximately 20.000). Because of this, for the calculation of the
sample, it is not important to find out the exact size of the population. The mathematics of probability
proves the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of
the total population to be examined. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in
examining the opinions of a state of 15.000.000 as it would a city of 100.000 (The Survey System,
n.d.).
3.2.4. Sample
To determine the sample size needed for this research, several factors had to be taken into
consideration. The population size has been established to be ‘large’, and thus not be of significance
to the sample size calculation. The other factors that had to be determined are the confidence level
and the confidence interval. For this research a confidence level of 95% has been chosen and a
confidence interval of 5 because these are ‘standard’ values and because they deliver a realistic
sample size for the timespan of this research. The confidence interval (also margin of error) of 5
means that the researcher can be ‘sure’ that if the questions were asked to the entire population, the
answers would deviate no more than 5% from the answer of the sample. For example, when 40% of
the sample chose a certain answer, with a confidence interval of 5, you can be sure that the answers
of the entire population would lie between 35% (40-5) and 45% (40+5). The confidence level
represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the
confidence interval (The Survey System, n.d.). The confidence level of 95% thus means that it is 95%
certain. With the ‘large’ population, the confidence interval of 5 and the confidence level of 95%, the
sample size needed for this research in order to represent the population is 384.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
30
Sampling frame
For the research population, no sampling frame was available. It was not possible to retrieve full lists
of followers of ticketing organisations on social network sites, let alone the contact information of these
users. Public data only shows statistical information on followers of certain organisations, and which
users in your (personal) network follow a certain organisation.
Non-random sample
The sample of this research is non-random. Due to the absence of a sampling frame, everyone in the
population did not have an equal chance of being selected for the research. The questionnaire was
sent out through selected channels, increasing the chances of followers of those channels of being
selected for the research.
3.2.5. Validity & reliability
Validity refers to whether the research instruments measure what they intend to measure and
reliability is defined as the extent to which the questionnaire (or any measurement procedure)
produces the same results on repeated trials (Miller, n.d.). In order to increase the validity and
reliability of the research, the following measures were taken by the researcher.
Language of the questionnaire
While the language of the report and the language of the programme for which this report was written
is English, the questionnaire was drawn up in Dutch. The reason for this is that the research
population is Dutch. Writing the questionnaire in English could cause the respondents to have trouble
understanding the questions and answers. It could not be assumed that all respondents would have
sufficient skills with regard to the English language.
Research expert
The questionnaire was reviewed twice by a research expert. After the first review the questionnaire
was adapted to better fit the theoretical framework. After the second review, key terms were translated
to terms better understandable for the target group (e.g. ticketing organisatie to kaartverkoop
organisatie) and answers were checked for mutual exclusivity.
Pilot
Before sending out the final questionnaire, a pilot was conducted. The questionnaire was reviewed by
a total of 15 people. These people were selected based on their qualifications. The pilot respondents
included music industry professionals, marketing and communication students, and fellow graduates.
After the pilot period, the questionnaire was adjusted according to the suggestions made by the pilot
respondents. The adjustments included corrections of typos and adjustments of questions that caused
confusion. The results from the pilot phase were also processed in the analysis system of
SurveyMonkey to check whether the data was suitable for the desired analysis.
Theoretical framework
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
31
The main part of the questionnaire was based on the theoretical framework described in chapter 2,
meaning that possible answers were not randomly formulated by the researcher but that they are
supported by past findings and theories.
References
This report includes a full overview of used sources, allowing anyone interested to retrieve the original
documents referenced in this research. All sources were carefully selected, paying attention to the
nature of the works (scientific articles, literature), the reputation of the authors, and the amount of
times the works have been cited.
Transparency
This report was written with the intent of giving the reader step-by-step insight into the research
process.
3.2.6. Representativeness
The desired sample size of 384 was not reached. A total of 190 respondents completed the
questionnaire, of which 168 fit the research population. 20 respondents were excluded as they did not
follow any ticketing organisations on social networks sites, and 2 respondents were under the age of
15. With a confidence level of 95%, this amount of respondents results in a confidence interval of 7,56.
Due to this rather large margin of error, the results of this research represent the sample rather than
the entire population. Any percentages retrieved from the questionnaire that are presented in chapter
4 could lay 7,56% higher or lower when calculated for the population (with a confidence level of 95%).
The sample was also checked for representativeness for the gender and age variable with a chisquare of goodness of fit. The calculations show that the sample is not representative for either
variable, meaning that the distribution of age and gender among the sample is different than the
distribution among the population. The calculations of the chi-squares can be found in appendix E.
3.3. Data analysis
This section explains which methods were used for analysing the retrieved data. The methods are
described in general and specified per sub question.
3.3.1. Type of analysis
As the goal of the analysis is to describe the findings, the chosen type of analysis for this research is
descriptive analysis, also known as univariate analysis (uni = one). The aim of the research is to
create an overview of the target groups’ use of social network sites and their motives for engaging with
ticketing organisations on these platforms. A descriptive analysis delivers clear and concise results
that are accessible to anyone interested and that can be used to construct an advice for the client.
Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were performed for a number of variables with the aim
of finding out whether there are relations between certain variables. This type of analysis falls under
bivariate analysis as two (bi = two) variables are being checked for connections (Dawson, 2009). The
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
32
chi-square test of independence is a test statistic that permits researchers to assess if relationships
between two variables are due to chance or if the relationship is systematic. It examines whether the
observed pattern is strong enough to show that two variables are dependent on each other or not
(Gingrich, 1992). Since researchers rely on samples and do not observe an entire population, an
observed relationship could simply be due to a fluke (a property of a peculiar sample) (Corder, n.d.).
While chi-square tests of independence were performed for multiple variables, there are two issues
that need to be taken into consideration when calculating and describing the outcomes.
-
Interpretation
The chi-square test of independence only indicates whether or not there is a significant
relation between two variables. It does not say anything about the nature of the relationship
other than that the relationship exists. Only assumptions can be made by examining the
observed values table and by calculating the row percentages. Also, a significant relation does
not necessarily imply ‘cause and effect’ (Gingrich, 1992). For the chi-square tests that indicate
some relation between certain variables, attempts were made to describe the nature of the
relationship by examining the observed values tables. The results hereof are not conclusive in
any way, nor do they indicate relations within the entire population because the sample size of
this research is not representative.
-
Small sample size
The use of chi-square tests is deemed inappropriate if any expected value is below 1 or if the
expected value is less than 5 in more than 20% of the cells. There are alternative tests that
deliver more accurate results when the expected numbers are small, i.e. when the sample
size is small (randomization test or Fishers’ exact test of independence) (Gingrich, 1992).
However, this report limits itself to the HBO-level of statistics, meaning that only the chisquare test is being used to test for relations between variables. Each desired test of
independence was performed as planned, but notions were made on whether or not the chisquare test is deemed appropriate.
3.3.2. Analysis per sub question
For each sub question, several variables were analysed. Below an overview of which data was
analysed for which sub question and which methods were used.
- Sub question 1: To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?
With the use of the aforementioned scorecards, calculations were made on the frequency with which
the organisations post certain updates. Through observation, the presence on social network sites of
each of the ten organisations was established. The data was retrieved by counting the number of each
type of post on the Facebook pages of each organisation and by writing down the response to each
post. For Twitter, only the amount of posts was counted and the nature of these posts was noted.
- Sub question 2: Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network
sites?
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
33
For this sub question, several questionnaire questions were analysed descriptively. These questions
included gender, age, involvement in the music industry, concert attendance, and use of SNSs.
In order to classify the respondents into the four types of online users described in the theoretical
framework (inactive, consumer, participator, creator) calculations were made on question 6 of the
questionnaire. This question asked respondents to indicate how often they perform certain activities
on social network sites based on a Likert scale of frequency. For each type of online user (inactives
excluded) two activities were included. To find out the main activity type of each respondent, the two
values corresponding with each type of online users were added up and divided by two, resulting in an
average value for each type. The type of online user with the highest value was then assigned to the
respondent. An example of this calculation can be found in appendix F.
Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were performed on the gender, age, involvement in the
music industry, and concert attendance variables in combination with the data on how many ticketing
organisations are being followed by each respondent to find out whether there is a relation between
each (demographic) variable and the level of engagement.
- Sub question 3: Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social
network sites?
The results to this sub question were acquired through descriptive analysis of two questionnaire
questions and the analysis of the scorecards (desk research). The questions from the questionnaire
that were analysed were the questions regarding which organisations are being followed on which
platforms, and how active the organisations are being followed.
To measure the level of engagement through desk research, the response to each Facebook post
from each organisation was written down. The three types of response are likes, comments, and
shares. Each type of response shows a certain level of engagement: a like is associated with
consumption, a comment with participation, and a share with creation. The reason for this is that a like
allows users to show their support in a fast and easy way, a comment facilitates a conversation, and a
share moves an update beyond the page of the organisation (users expand the reach by (re-)creating
the post on their own profile) (Mulready, 2013). By observing the retrieved amount of likes, comments,
and shares it is possible to identify the most expressed level of engagement (on Facebook). Also,
awarding each type of response with a number of points per organisation allows calculating
‘engagement scores’ and makes it is possible to find out with which organisations users engage most.
A share is more valuable than a comment, and a comment is more valuable than a like. Therefore
shares are awarded with more points than comments (3 points), and comments are awarded with
more points than likes (2 points). Likes are associated with the lowest level of engagement and are
therefore awarded with only 1 point.
Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were performed on the type of user variable (as
described in for sub question 2), the motive variable and the variable of how active organisations are
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
34
being followed. This was done to find out whether there is a relation between respondents’ (personal)
use of social network sites and their engagement with (ticketing) organisations on social network sites.
- Sub question 4: Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most
valued by the followers?
This sub question was also answered through both the questionnaire and desk research. The
questionnaire included questions on motives for following ticketing organisations and the importance
of specified activities. The results to these questions were analysed in a descriptive way.
The analysis of the desk research is similar to that of sub question 3, but takes it a step further. For
sub question 3, the response was analysed in general. For this sub question, the average response
per type of activity was calculated by adding up the total amount of likes, comments and shares per
type of post and dividing them by the amount of posts. This resulted in an overview of the most
popular posts per organisation and in general.
- Sub question 5: What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement
between primary ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?
To answer this sub question the respondents of the questionnaire were divided into two groups: those
who solely follow primary organisations, and those who (also) follow at least one secondary
organisation. For each of these groups, the answers to the questions on motives and level of
engagement were analysed descriptively. Additionally, chi-square tests of independence were
performed for multiple variables in combination with the two groups of respondents. This was done to
find out whether there are relations between following primary or secondary organisations and
motives, level of engagement, and respondents’ characteristics. After testing the variables for
relationships, attempts were made to determine the nature of possible relationships by examining the
tables.
3.3.3. Tools
The results regarding the desk research were mainly analysed by hand with the help of Microsoft
Excel 2010 for calculations.
The results from the questionnaire were analysed with the use of the analysis tools provided by
SurveyMonkey. A paid premium account was provided by the client, which offered extensive analysis
tools.
All chi-squares were calculated by hand so that every step could be checked and re-checked. Only
when the chi-square calculated by hand came close to the critical value or when in doubt, the results
were tested with easy-to-access software provided online by Preacher (2001).
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
35
4. Results
This section gives an overview of the results of the research. The data was retrieved through both
desk research, and quantitative research in the form of a questionnaire. The questionnaire had a total
of 190 respondents of which 168 fit the research population. As the required sample size of 384 was
not reached, the results represent the sample rather than the entire population.
All percentages were rounded off to one decimal. It is therefore possible that in some cases the total
of the percentages exceeds 100 percent or falls just under 100 percent.
4.1. Results from desk research
The results in the following sections were retrieved trough desk research.
4.1.1. Presence of ticketing organisations on social network sites
The ticketing organisations included in this research are primary organisations Ticketmaster
Nederland, Live Nation Nederland, See Tickets Nederland, Eventim Nederland and Ticketpoint, and
secondary organisations Onlineticketshop Nederland, TicketStarter, TicketTribune, Rang1Tickets and
Budgetticket Nederland. The organisations were selected based on their presence on social network
sites (at least an account on two platforms) and popularity on social network sites (with regard to the
amount of followers). A full overview of the organisations’ presence on social network sites can be
found in appendix G, figure G1 and tables G1 and G2. The most important findings are summarised
below.
All selected ticketing organisations are found to be active on both Facebook and Twitter.
Onlineticketshop, Ticketmaster, See Tickets and Live Nation also have an account on Google+. 4 out
of 5 primary organisations (all but Eventim) have an account on YouTube on which they post videos.
Only 2 organisations, Ticketmaster and See
FIGURE 4.1:
TOTAL AMOUNTS OF FOLLOWERS PER
ORGANISATION
Tickets, have an account on LinkedIn.
Ticketmaster and See Tickets are most
present
on
social
network
sites
with
accounts on 5 platforms.
200.000 180.768
167.927
180.000
154.538
160.000
140.000
On Facebook, Onlineticketshop (171.852),
120.000
See Tickets (146.522) and Ticketmaster
100.000
80.000
(122.036) have the highest amounts of
60.000
followers.
40.000
On
Twitter,
TicketStarter
(56.914), Ticketmaster (45.800) and Live
20.000
67.317
46.833
8.657 3.466 2.147
1.939 1.636
0
Nation (19.879) are the most popular
organisations. Adding up all followers from
all
accounts
of
each
organisation,
Onlineticketshop (180.768), Ticketmaster (167.927) and See Tickets (154.538) come out on top. The
organisations with the least amount of followers overall are Rang1Tickets (1.636), Eventim (1.939)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
36
and TicketTribune (2.147). Figure 4.1. shows the total amounts of followers per organisation from high
to low. A more detailed overview can be found in appendix G, figure G1 and table G1.
4.1.2. Activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites
For each organisation, the Facebook posts of six consecutive months were observed and analysed,
together with four months’ worth of Twitter posts. The results of this analysis can be found in appendix
G, table G3, and figures G2 and G3. The most important findings are summarised below.
The social network sites that are most used by the organisations are Facebook and Twitter. No posts
are published on LinkedIn by any organisation, the YouTube accounts only count small amounts of
videos, and the Google+ accounts are only used sporadically. The organisations that are most active
on Facebook are Ticketmaster (average of 15 posts per week), Live Nation (12 posts) and See Tickets
(8 posts). The least active organisations on this platform are Budgetticket (average of 0 posts per
week) and TicketTribune (1 post per week).
Facebook
Overall, the types of posts that are posted most
frequently on Facebook are announcements of
events (27,5% of all posts), ticket information
(15,7%), and videos (8,1%). The types of posts
that are overall posted least frequently are posts
FIGURE 4.2:
TYPES OF FACEBOOK POSTS FROM SEP 13 TO
FEB '14 OF ALL ORGANISATIONS
Interaction
5,7%
Photo(s)
6,2%
TipsWWJK
4,3%0,3%
Announcements
27,5%
regarding the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign
(0,3% of all posts), the announcement of contest
Video
8,1%
winners (2,7%) and reviews (2,9%). Both the
posts regarding WWJK and posts containing
reviews are only posted by one organisation
Contest winners
2,7%
Contest
7,1%
(WWJK by Ticketmaster, reviews by Live Nation).
Figure 4.2. shows a full overview of the types of
Facebook posts.
News
5,5%
Reviews
2,9% FB event
7,5%
Ticket info
15,7%
Event info
6,5%
To find out to what extent the social network accounts are used by the organisations to attract users to
their websites, observations were made on how often the organisations include a direct link to the
website in their posts. The organisations that do this most often are all secondary organisations:
Budgeticket (100% of all posts include a link to the organisation’s website), TicketTribune (91,3%) and
Onlineticketshop (87,6%). The organisations that do this least are TicketStarter (14,6%), Ticketmaster
(36,2%) and Ticketpoint (42,4%).
Finally, on Facebook, observations were made on whether the organisations allow users to post
messages on their pages, offer web care (customer service through the Internet), and whether they
allow users to post reviews about the organisation. Such posts and services could affect the credibility
and reputation of an organisation. All primary organisations allow for users to post messages on their
pages. These could include questions, complaints, compliments, photos, etcetera. All primary
organisations but Ticketpoint offer web care on Facebook, answering questions from users and
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
37
engaging actively in conversations. Ticketmaster and See Tickets also allow reviews on their pages.
These are short messages accompanied by ‘scores’ that allow users to express their opinion about
the organisation. From the secondary organisations, only TicketStarter and TicketTribune allow
messages from users on their pages. None of them allow reviews and none offer web care.
Twitter
The organisations that are most active on Twitter are Ticketmaster (average of 39 posts per week),
TicketStarter (13 posts) and Live Nation (8 posts). During the four months in which the organisations
were observed, Budgetticket showed no Twitter activity whatsoever. As Twitter is a social network site
that allows for quick, short conversations, observations were made on how extensive each
organisation engages in conversations with followers. Analysis was done on how many of the total
amount of posts from each organisation was actually a reply to a user’s message (see appendix G,
figure G3). All primary organisations show a high amount of replies, which means that they offer a
great amount of customer services through their Twitter channel. The percentages of replies of
primary organisations range from 35% (Eventim) to 84% (Live Nation). The secondary organisations
score rather low when it comes to customer service. Their percentages vary from 14% (TicketTribune)
to 0% (Rang1Tickets).
4.1.3. Engagement
To find out to what extent users engage with ticketing organisations on social network sites based on
desk research, the total amount of likes, comments, and shares on Facebook was calculated for each
organisation. With the exception of TicketStarter, all organisations gathered an amount of likes higher
than the amount of comments, and an amount of comments higher than the amount of shares.
TicketStarter gathered an amount of shares higher than both the amount of comments and the amount
of likes. However, the majority of these shares were
FIGURE 4.3:
AVERAGE ENGAGEMENT SCORE PER
ORGANISATION
gathered through two specific contest posts.
The top 3 of organisations with the highest overall
600
engagement score consists of solely primary ticketing
500
organisations (See Tickets, Ticketmaster, Live Nation).
501
400
366
The first secondary organisation is found on place 4
(TicketStarter). Onlineticketshop, the organisation with
300
the highest amount of followers places number 5, with
200
an engagement score that is 7,5 times lower than that of
100
See Tickets.
166
70
68
21
7
7
1
0
Since the post frequencies of the organisations differ
greatly, an average engagement score per post was
also calculated. With these results, a different top 3
becomes apparent: See Tickets (average engagement score of 501 per post), TicketStarter (366) and
Ticketmaster (166). Again, the notion has to be made that the high score of TicketStarter is due to two
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
38
0
specific posts. On the average scores, Onlineticketshop ranks 5th with an average engagement score
of 68 per post. Figure 4.3. shows the average engagement score of all organisations from high to low.
See appendix G, table G4 for a full overview of the amount of likes, comments and shares, and
cumulative engagement scores per organisation.
4.1.4. Popularity of Facebook activities
TABLE 4.1:
POPULARITY BASED ON LEVEL OF RESPONSE
Prior to the questionnaire, desk research was done to find out which types of
#
Type of post
posts are most popular among users, based on the level of engagement
1
Contest
(likes/comments/shares). For each type of post, the average amount of likes,
2
Interactive post
comments, and shares was calculated. The average amount because posts
3
Information about event
varied greatly in ‘post-frequency’ and response. The outcome of these
4
WWJK
5
Photos
6
Contest winners
7
News
are Facebook events, followed by reviews, and videos. Table 4.1. shows the
8
Announcement of event
top 13 types of posts based on the average level of response. A more
9
Information about ticket sales
detailed overview of the engagement per type of post can be found in
10
Tips
appendix G, table G5.
11
Videos
12
Reviews
13
Facebook events
calculations showed that, overall, contests get the highest response,
followed by interaction posts and event info. Overall, the least popular posts
4.2. Results from quantitative research
The following results were retrieved through quantitative research by means of the online
questionnaire.
4.2.1. General information questionnaire respondents
The questionnaire was completed by 190 respondents. Of these 190 respondents, 170 follow at least
one ticketing organisation on one social network site. The 20 respondents who do not follow any
ticketing organisation are excluded from the analysis. 2 respondents are under the age of 15 and thus
also excluded from the analysis, bringing the total to 168 respondents who fit the research population.
Age and gender
The youngest respondent of the questionnaire is 15, the oldest 57. The average age of all
respondents is 26. With 31,5%, the age category of 15 to 19 is best represented, followed by the age
category of 20 to 24 with 31,0%. The age category that is least represented among the respondents is
40 to 44 with 3,0%. A full overview of respondents’ age can be found in appendix H, figure H1.
37,1% of the 168 respondents are male, 63,1% are female. The group best represented among the
respondents is females from 15 to 19 years old with 26,2%. The groups least represented are females
from 35 to 39, 40 to 44 years of age, and those of 50 and up, with each 1,2%. A full overview of the
age and gender distribution can be found in appendix H, table H1.
Involvement in the music industry
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
39
35 of the 168 respondents (20,8%) work in the music industry or follow an education related to this
industry. 23 respondents specified their occupation. These included bookers, artist managers,
programmers, and Media & Entertainment and Kunst & Economie students.
Concert attendance
Respondents were asked about how frequent they attend a concert or music festival. 42,3% of the
respondents attend a concert and/or music festival approximately 3 or 4 times per year. 1,2% claim to
never attend a concert. 15,5% go to a concert or music festival more than once a month. A full
overview of concert attendance can be found in appendix H, figure H2.
Relations
The chi-square test of independence shows that there is no significant relation between age and
concert attendance, these variables are independent.
It did show that there is some relation between professional involvement in the music industry and
concert attendance, meaning that these variables are dependent. By examining the observed values
table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents
who are professionally involved in the music industry are likely to attend concerts more often. The
calculations of the chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I1 and I2.
WWJK
Questions were included to find out how the respondents fit the client’s target group. 79,8% of the
respondents say to know directly where to find the official organisation when looking for concert
tickets. 17,3% have to use a search engine (such as Google) to find the organisation that sell the
concert tickets. 3% indicate to go to the website of the artist or venue to find tickets (other). To the
question whether respondents know the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign, 66,7% answered to know the
campaign and what it stands for. 21,4% have heard of the campaign but do not exactly know what it
entails. The remaining 11,9% have never heard of the campaign at all.
The chi-square test of independence shows that there is a strong relation between knowledge about
the campaign and knowing where to find the official ticket sellers. By examining the observed values
table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents
who have heard of the campaign are more likely to know where they can find official sellers. Another
chi-square test shows that there is no relation between knowledge about the campaign and following
secondary organisations. The calculations can be found in appendix I, tables I3 and I4.
4.2.2. Use of social network sites by respondents
Social network sites
The most popular social network sites among the respondents are Facebook with 93,4% having an
account on this platform, Twitter with 86,9%, and YouTube with 84,5%. 54,1% of all respondents who
have an account on Facebook are active on this platform on a daily basis. 45,9% of all respondents
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
40
who use Twitter are active on this platform on a daily basis. For YouTube, the percentage of daily
users is 49,3%. The least popular social network sites among the respondents are FourSquare
(4,8%), Pinterest (29,2%) and Google+ (41,7%).
Respondents were provided the option of adding social network sites that were not included in the
questionnaire. 17 respondents (10,1%) expressed that they (also) have an account on Tumblr and 5
(3,0%) have an account on Last.fm.
76,8% of all respondents have an account on 4 or more social network sites on which they are active
on at least a monthly basis. 1,8% have an account on only 1 social network site, being Facebook.
3,0% of all respondents have an account on the highest amount of 8 social network sites.
A full overview of respondents’ use of SNSs can be found in appendix H, figures H3 and table H2.
Types of users
To classify the respondents into the types of users as presented in the theoretical framework, question
6 of the questionnaire was analysed as shown in appendix F. 63,7% of the respondents score highest
on the activities associated with consumption, 19,6% score highest on the activities associated with
participation, and 2,4% score highest on activities associated with creation. The remaining 14,3% of
the respondents score equally on 2 or more types of activities. Of this 14,3%, 70,8% score equally on
consumption and participation, 12,5% on consumption and creation, 12,5% score equally on all three
types, and 4,2% on participation and creation.
Overall, the activities associated with consumption score an average of 2,8 out of the maximum value
of 5, activities associated with participation score an average of 2,2 out of 5, and the activities
associated with creation score an average of 0,8 out of 5. A full overview of respondents’ activity
frequency can be found in appendix H, table H3.
Relations
The chi-square test of independence shows that there is some relation between age and the amount
of social network sites on which respondents are active. By examining the observed values table,
cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents
under the age of 35 are likely to be active on more social network sites than respondents over the age
of 35. The calculation can be found in appendix I, table I5.
4.2.3. Engagement with ticketing organisations
Ticketing organisations’ following
Of the 168 respondents, 47,6% follow more than one ticketing organisation on more than one social
network site. 26,2% follow multiple ticketing organisations on one social network site. 8,3% follow only
one organisation, but on more than one social network site, and 17,9% follow only one organisation on
one social network site.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
41
The most popular ticketing organisation among respondents is Ticketmaster Nederland. 90,5% of the
respondents follow this organisation on one or more social network sites. 71,4% indicate to follow
Ticketmaster on Twitter and 67,3% of the respondents follow Ticketmaster on Facebook. It must be
noted that the high results for Ticketmaster on Twitter
FIGURE 4.4:
FOLLOWERS AMONG RESPONDENTS PER
ORGANISATION
are likely to be the result of Ticketmaster promoting the
questionnaire through their Twitter account. The second
most popular ticketing organisation among respondents
is Live Nation Nederland, with 56,5% following this
organisation on one or more platform. 40,5% follow Live
Nation on Facebook and 39,9% on Twitter. Live Nation
100% 90,5%
90%
80%
70%
60%
56,5%
50%
is followed by See Tickets with 27,4% following this
40%
organisation on one or more platform (22,6% follow on
30%
20%
Facebook and 13,1% on Twitter). Figure 4.4. shows the
10%
followers among respondents per organisations from
0%
27,4%
22,0%
16,7%
12,5%
2,4% 1,2% 1,2% 0,6%
high to low. A detailed overview can be found in
appendix H, table H4.
Facebook and Twitter are by far the most popular social network sites among respondents for
following ticketing organisations. The highest percentages for respondents following these
organisations on YouTube, Google+ and LinkedIn reach no higher than 1,8%.
On Facebook, the most popular organisations among respondents are respectively Ticketmaster NL
(67,3%), Live Nation NL (40,5%), See Tickets NL (22,6%), Eventim NL (11,3%), and Onlineticketshop
NL (11,3%). On Twitter, the top five consists of Ticketmaster NL (71,4%), Live Nation NL (39,9%),
TicketStarter (19,1%), See Tickets NL (13,1%), and Eventim NL (8,3%). A full overview of which
organisations are followed by the respondents can be found in appendix H, table H4.
Level of engagement
Of the 168 respondents, 69,6% indicate to only read/view the posts that appear on their
timeline/profile. 20,8% indicate to regularly visit the pages of an organisation to see what has been
posted. The remaining 9,5% follow one or more organisations but indicate that they never look at the
posts. None of the respondents say to ever comment on a post by an organisation or to post a
message on the page of an organisation.
Ticket sales
To find out whether posts on social network sites lead to ticket sales, respondents were asked the
question how often they buy a ticket because of a message they saw on the pages of a ticketing
organisation. 45,2% answered that they only do this now and then. 19,1% never buy a ticket solely
because of a message on a social network site, 13,1% answered to do this regularly, also 13,1% say
to do this often, 4,8% very often, and the remaining 4,8% indicate that a message on a social network
site is almost always the reason they buy a ticket.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
42
Relations
Chi-square tests of independence show that there is no relation between types of users (consumers,
participators, creators) and the amount of ticketing organisations that are being followed. It also shows
that there exists no relation between types of users and their level of engagement with ticketing
organisations. Additionally, the chi-square test did not show a significant relation between professional
involvement in the music industry and the amount of ticketing organisations that is being followed.
Finally, there is no relation between concert attendance and the amount of ticketing organisations that
is being followed. Calculations for these chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I6 to I9.
The chi-square test of independence for the involvement in the music industry and level of
engagement did show a strong relationship between these variables. By examining the observed
values table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as
respondents who are professionally involved in the music industry are likely to follow ticketing
organisations less actively than respondents who are not involved in the music industry. The
calculation can be found in appendix I, table I10.
4.2.4. Importance of activities
Deemed importance
Respondents were asked to indicate how important they deem it to find certain posts on the social
network sites of ticketing organisations on a Likert scale of importance. The Likert scale counted five
items with a corresponding value: not at all important (1), not important (2), neutral (3), important (4),
and very important (5). The respondents’ answers resulted in an average value for each activity as
shown in table 4.2. The activities are ranked from high importance to low importance.
TABLE 4.2:
IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES
Activity
#
Activity
Score
#
1
Announcements of events
4,62
8
Photos and videos
2,86
2
Information about ticket sales
4,52
9
Reviews of past events
2,83
3
Information about events
4,27
10
Experiences of other users with the organisation
2,74
4
Exclusive offers
3,93
11
Event pages
2,71
5
The option to ask questions to the organisation
3,88
12
Entertainment news
2,55
6
Contests
3,59
13
2,98
14
7
Information about the organisation itself (e.g.
description, contact information, etc.)
The option to start a conversation with other
users
The option to post my own messages, photos
and videos
Score
2,16
2,13
Motives for following
Apart from indicating the importance of specific activities, respondents were asked to select the main
reason (i.e. motive) for them to be following ticketing organisations on social network site from a
provided set of motives based on the theoretical framework.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
43
The vast majority (79,8%) answered to follow ticketing organisations because it offers them fast and
easy access to information in which they are interested. 9,5% answered that they follow the
organisations because of the ‘fun’ content (photos, videos, contests, etc.). 3,6% indicate that they
were not aware of the fact that they followed the selected ticketing organisations. The 4 respondents
who selected the option ‘a different reason’ specified that they follow an organisation for information
about one specific artist or because it is part of their job. A full overview of motives can be found in
appendix H, figure H4.
Relations
The chi-square test of independence shows that there is a relation between types of users and the
initial motive for following ticketing organisations on social network sites. The nature of this relation is
unknown. The calculation of this chi-square can be found in appendix I, table I11.
4.3. Primary ticketers vs. secondary ticketers
Of the 168 respondents, 114 (67,9%) follow only primary ticketing organisations, 54 (32,1%) (also)
follow at least one secondary organisation. The relevant questionnaire results for these two groups are
shown in the table 4.3.
TABLE 4.3:
RESPONSES FOR PRIMARY FOLLOWERS AND SECONDARY FOLLOWERS
Only primary organisations
(Also) Secondary organisations
114 (67,9%)
54 (32,1%)
Amount of respondents
Most popular organisations (top 3)
1. Ticketmaster NL
1. Ticketmaster NL
2. Live Nation NL
2. TicketStarter
3. See Tickets NL
3. Live Nation NL
Main reason for following the
1. Access to information (82,5%)
1. Access to information (74,1%)
organisations (top 3)
2. ‘Fun’ content (9,6%)
2. ‘Fun’ content (9,3%)
3. Interaction with the organisation (1,8%)
3. I was not aware (9,3%)***
How active do you follow the
1. I only read posts that appear on my
1. I only read posts that appear on my
organisations?
timeline (69,3%)
timeline (74,1%)
2. I regularly visit the page(s) to see what has
2. I regularly visit the page(s) to see what has
been posted (21,9%)
been posted (14,8%)
3. I never look at it (8,8%)
3. I never look at it (11,1%)
1. Announcements of events (4,63)
1. Announcements of events (4,65)
2. Information about ticket sales (4,50)
2. Information about ticket sales (4,59)
3. Information about events (4,27)
3. Information about events (4,35)
Do you ever buy tickets because
1. Now and then (49,6%)
1. Now and then (37,0%)
of a post on SNSs?
2. Regularly (13,9%)
2. Never (31,5%)
3. Never (13,0%)
3. Often (16,7%)
Important activities/posts (top 3)
*** Respondents were given the option of indicating if they followed different organisations for different reasons. Of the group
who (also) follows secondary organisations, 11,1% said explicitly that they only follow secondary organisation TicketStarter
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
44
because they frequently post information about concerts and events. Of this 11,1%, half are aware that this is a secondary
organisation, the other half were not aware that the pages belong to a (secondary) ticketing organisation.
Relations with respondents’ characteristics
Chi-square tests of independence were used to check whether there exist significant relations
between followers' characteristics and following secondary organisations. The test was performed on
the gender, age, involvement in the music industry, and concert attendance variables. No relations
were found between any of the variables and following secondary ticketers. The calculations of the
chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I12 to I15.
Relations with motives and engagement
Chi-square tests of independence were also performed on the motives and engagement variables to
check whether there exists a relation between following secondary ticketing organisations and the
motives for doing so and the level of engagement shown. No significant relations were found for the
motives variable and the level of engagement variable.
The chi-square test performed with the variable of how many ticketing organisations are being
followed on social network sites did show a relation. By examining the observed values table, cautious
attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the relationship as respondents who (also)
follow secondary ticketing organisations on social network sites are likely to follow a higher amount of
ticketing organisations on these platforms than respondents who only follow primary organisations.
Additionally, a relation was found between following secondary ticketing organisations and buying
tickets because of a post on the social network sites of ticketing organisations. By examining the
observed values table, cautious attempts can be made towards describing the nature of the
relationship as respondents who follow secondary ticketing organisations on social network sites are
less likely to buy tickets because of a post on these platforms than respondents who only follow
primary organisations are. The calculations of the chi-squares can be found in appendix I, tables I16 to
I19.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
45
5. Conclusions
In this chapter, the results of chapter 4 are summarised and each sub question is answered prior to
answering the central research question. Also in this chapter, the results will be linked to the
theoretical framework. The chapter concludes with an overview of the limitations of this research. As
the sample size of this research is not representative, the conclusions, as the results, represent the
sample rather than the entire population.
5.1. Sub questions
5.1.1. Sub question 1
- To what extent are ticketing organisations currently active on social network sites?
Facebook and Twitter are the most popular platforms with regard to the activity of the organisations
and the amount of followers. Google+, LinkedIn and YouTube show to be of no significant value to the
ticketing organisations. Not only do these accounts have limited amounts of followers, the
organisations also show very limited activity on them. Facebook and Twitter are both egocentric
platforms, facilitating identity construction and connection. As these platforms do not focus around a
specific interest or specific type of content, they attract the most general public. Google+ is also an
egocentric platform but overall less popular in the Netherlands. This could be because Google+ is
relatively new to the market (launched in 2011). Its lack of popularity and activity at the moment may
not mean that it will not become a popular platform in the future with (new) possibilities for ticketing
organisations. Opportunistic platform LinkedIn targets business professionals and may therefore not
be suitable for ticketing organisations to promote their business; at least not their consumer products.
Media sharing site YouTube is by itself also difficult to use as a promotion tool as it only allows video
posts. It is more likely that a YouTube account is used to support activities on other SNSs.
Looking at the activities of the ten ticketing organisations included in this research, it can be concluded
that there are great differences in amount of followers and activity. The three organisations with the
greatest amount of followers (Onlineticketshop, Ticketmaster, and See Tickets) each have more
followers individually than the remaining seven organisations have combined.
Ticketmaster, Live Nation and See Tickets are the organisations that are most active on Facebook
with regard to the average amount of posts per week. On Twitter, Ticketmaster, TicketStarter and Live
Nation are the most active.
During the research, thirteen types of posts were distinguished. On Facebook, the types of posts that
are posted most frequently are announcements of events, information about tickets, and videos.
Announcements of events and information about tickets are associated with the information-retrieval
motive of users. Posts containing videos are associated with entertainment-seeking. The results differ
per organisation, but these are the types of posts that are overall posted most frequently.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
46
With regard to reputation management, 2 out of 5 primary organisations allow for users to rate their
organisations on their Facebook page, taking a risk of users posting negative experiences. None of
the secondary organisations allow reviews on their pages. Another option on Facebook is that of
allowing users to posts their own messages to your page. These messages could contain anything
from questions, complaints, and compliments, to videos and promotional messages. All primary
organisations allow such messages on their Facebook pages, against 2 out of 5 secondary
organisations. Finally, organisations can make the decision to actively engage in conversations with
users, through responding on the messages posted by them. 4 out of 5 primary organisations offer
customer service to some extent. None of the secondary organisations do this.
What stands out on Twitter is that all primary organisations use Twitter as a tool for customer service.
Great parts of their Twitter posts consist of replies to questions, complaints, compliments, and other
remarks by users. The secondary organisations seem less concerned with customer service; they
devote only a small amount of posts to answering consumers’ questions.
Linking the activity results to the model designed by Kietzmann et al., conclusions can be made about
which building blocks are utilised by which organisations on which platforms. Twitter is mainly used by
the primary organisations for conversations and reputation. By partaking actively in conversations with
their followers, they manage their reputation. The secondary organisations mainly use Twitter to
establish a presence. Many posts include direct links to their websites, and vice versa. The secondary
organisations in a way also use Twitter to create/maintain a reputation. They may not devote a lot of
posts to customer care but the replies they do post are mainly concerned with reputation
management; they attempt to take away users’ doubts about the organisations by responding to users’
negative posts.
Facebook is mainly used by all organisations for sharing information and content. They all share posts
with their followers. Some information that is directly related to their business, some content that is
posted to keep followers engaged/entertained. Like Twitter, Facebook is also used by most primary
organisations to facilitate conversations; not only between the organisation and users (customer
service) but also between users by posting interactive posts. Secondary organisations take out the
reputation building block by not allowing users to post on their pages. They do not take the risk of
users posting negative messages on their pages, but also deny them the opportunity of posting
positive messages or questions they would like answered. Finally, the organisations that create a lot of
Facebook event pages (Ticketpoint, Eventim and Rang1Tickets) utilise the groups building block. With
their event pages they encourage followers to gather around a common interest (namely a specific
event).
5.1.2. Sub question 2
- Which type of online users do ticketing organisations attract on social network sites?
Of all followers of ticketing organisations on social network sites, the largest group showed to be
consumers (62,9%). These are online users that have accounts on social network sites but spend
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
47
most of their time on viewing and reading other users’ (people and organisations) messages and
updates, rather than posting and creating their own updates and content. The second largest group
represented among the followers is participators, albeit with a significant lower percentage than the
consumers. Participators are those online users who are active in posting their own updates and
partaking in conversations. The smallest group of online users represented among the followers is
creators. Users who frequently post their own content are not active in following ticketing
organisations.
The most popular social network sites among followers are egocentric platforms Facebook (93,5%)
and Twitter (86,5%). These platforms facilitate identity construction and connections. Compared to
other categories of social network sites, egocentric platforms serve the most general public; they do
not focus on specific interests or content. The vast majority of followers have accounts on more than
one social network site on which he/she is active on at least a monthly basis. Only 1,8% has an
account on just one social network site, being Facebook.
With regard to demographics, the largest group represented among followers are females between the
ages of 15 and 24. The least represented group consists of males and females over the age of 35.
42,9% of the followers attend concerts and/or music festivals on a regular basis (3x or 4x per year).
43,5% of the followers attend concerts and/or music festivals more often than that, of which 35,7%
(15,3% of the total) even attend such events more than once a month. A small percentage (12,9%)
only attend a concert and/or music festival now and then, and 1,2% says never to attend a concert or
festival. In general, it can be concluded that followers of ticketing organisations on social network sites
are overall frequent concert-goers.
A relatively small part of the followers (20,6%) works in the music industry or follows an education
related to this industry.
A relation has been found between being involved in the music industry and attending concerts, being
that followers who work in the music industry or follow an education related to this industry attend
concerts more frequently than followers who are not involved whatsoever. Another relation was found
between age and the amount of social network sites that followers are active on, being that followers
under the age of 35 are active on more platforms than followers over 35. No other relations with
regard to followers’ characteristics have become apparent.
5.1.3. Sub question 3
- Which level of engagement do followers of ticketing organisations show on social network
sites?
As already mentioned in the previous sub question, the majority of followers classifies as a consumer.
On the Social Technographics Ladder, this is the lowest level of engagement (after inactives who do
not engage at all). They are users who consume, rather than participate or create. They read/consume
information and content posted by others, more than they participate in or facilitate conversations, or
create their own content from scratch.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
48
Most users follow more than one ticketing organisation on social network sites. Only a small part
follows just one ticketing organisation.
One questionnaire question asked specifically about how active the ticketing organisations are being
followed on social network sites. Every user can click the ‘follow’ button, but if users do not engage
further with organisations after clicking this button, what is then really the value of a follower? The
majority of the followers only read the information that appears on their timeline or profile. This level of
engagement is associated with inactive consumption; information is being consumed, but without
making an effort to retrieve this information. Just over 20% regularly visits the pages of the
organisation(s) to see what has been posted. This is associated with active consumption; information
is being consumed, after making an extra effort to retrieve this information. However, still no
participation or creation is performed. Around 10% of the followers are inactive in actually following the
organisation(s); they never look at what has been posted.
Desk research results showed that the most expressed type of response on Facebook is a like,
followed by comments and shares. Likes are associated with consumption as they are simple, fast
ways of showing an interest in or support a certain message, without taking any further action. The
amounts of comments and shares showed to be higher for posts that specifically requested these
types of responses. For example, concert tickets that users could win if they liked and shared the post.
Or an interactive post that explicitly asked a question such as ‘who is your favourite male singer?’.
A strong relation was found between being involved in the music industry and the level of engagement
with ticketing organisations on social network sites, being that followers who work in the music
industry or follow an education related to this industry follow organisations less actively than followers
who are not involved in the music industry.
5.1.4. Sub question 4
- Which types of activities of ticketing organisations on social network sites are most valued
by the followers?
After examining series of Facebook posts from the ten ticketing organisations included in the research,
and the response to these posts, it was possible to construct a top 13 of ‘popular’ posts. This top 13
has a clear number one, namely contests. Posts offering followers a chance to win a prize generate
the most response in terms of likes, comments, and shares. Other posts with a high response rate are
those that are of an interactive nature. This type of post includes posts in which the organisations ask
followers about their favourite artist, their plans for the weekend, their ideal line-up, their opinion,
etcetera. They are posts that specifically ask for followers to partake in a conversation.
In order to find out how the posts relate to followers’ motives and level of input (i.e. engagement), all
types of posts were put in Heinonen’s framework. The filled in framework can be found in appendix J,
figure J1. The filled in framework shows that the majority of the posts are associated with the
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
49
consumption of information. However, the most popular posts with regard to response (contests and
interaction) are both associated with participation; contests for motives of entertainment, interaction for
motives of social connection. None of the types of posts is associated with creation.
The quantitative research pointed out which types of posts/activities are to be found of the highest
importance to followers. In other words, which types of posts are (part of) the reason to follow ticketing
organisations on social network sites. It basically expresses a desire for certain types of posts. Results
showed that the most important posts are announcement of events, information about ticket sales, and
information about events. The results of this part of the research are also put in Heinonen’s framework
(see appendix J, figure J2). The filled in framework shows that, again, the majority of the activities is
associated with consumption of information. This time, however, the top 4 of most important activities
also fits this category. The one activity that is associated with creation is deemed to be the least
important by followers.
Posts on the social networks sites of ticketing organisations are only sometimes the sole reason for
followers to buy concert tickets. Most followers want more information, for example from the website,
prior to the actual purchase. Followers also find it important to be able to ask questions to the
organisations to retrieve more (specific) information.
To sum up, the activities that are most valued by followers are activities that ask for no more
consumer input that consumption or participation. The most important motive behind the most valued
activities is the retrieval of information, and, in the case of contests, entertainment. The statement that
the most important motive is the retrieval of information is supported by the finding that 78,8% of the
respondents indicated that their initial motive for following ticketing organisations on social network
sites is fast and easy access to information in which they are interested. The second most important
motive is that of entertainment, meaning that followers are looking for ‘fun’ content such as photos and
videos. Additionally, the motive of social connection is expressed by followers responding to
interactive posts. None of the other motives received a significant response.
5.1.5. Sub question 5
- What are the differences with regard to followers’ motives and engagement between primary
ticketing organisations and secondary ticketing organisations?
From all questionnaire respondents, the majority follow only primary organisations. 32,1% (also) follow
at least one secondary organisation.
The results showed that for both groups of respondents fast and easy access to information is the
most important motive. The second most important motive for both groups is entertainment. The third
motive, however, differs among the two groups. The group that only follows primary organisations
indicates interaction with the organisation as the third most important motive, meaning that part of the
followers find it important to be able to converse with the organisations (for example, ask questions
about a certain event). The third most important motive for the group that follows secondary
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
50
organisations is not an actual motive but more an expression of the fact that they were not aware that
they were following the organisation(s). Part of the followers who selected this answer specified that
they did so to indicate that they were not aware that the pages of TicketStarter (simply named
‘Concerten’ on social network sites) belonged to a secondary ticketing organisation. They assumed
that they were following a ‘fan-page’ for users who like concerts and music festivals. Despite the
difference in motives, no relation was found between following secondary organisations and the
motives thereof.
The expressed level of engagement has the same top 3 for both groups. No matter which
organisations are followed on social network sites, the majority only reads/views the posts that appear
on their timeline or profile. Consequently, no relation was found between following secondary
organisations and the level of engagement. A relation was found between following secondary
organisations and the total amount of organisations being followed on social network sites, being that
followers of secondary organisations are likely to follow a higher amount of ticketing organisations
than followers of solely primary organisations.
Both groups also indicated to find the same activities important (top 3), namely announcements of
events, information about ticket sales, and information about the events.
The two groups do show differences with regard to how often they buy tickets because of a post on
the pages of ticketing organisations. For both groups the main frequency is ‘now and then’ but the
group that follows secondary organisations places ‘never’ on number 2 against ‘regularly’ of the group
that only follows primary organisations. A chi-square test showed that there is a relation between
following secondary organisations and buying tickets, being that followers of secondary organisations
are less likely to buy tickets because of a post on social network sites than followers of primary
organisations.
Finally, with regard to the research client, no relation was found between knowing about the Weet
Waar Je Koopt campaign and following secondary organisations. This means that followers who know
the campaign are no less likely to following secondary organisations than followers are who do not
know about the campaign.
While the quantitative research shows mainly similar results for the two groups of followers, the desk
research did show differences between primary organisations and secondary organisations.
Calculations showed that the organisations who received the highest response to their posts are all
primary ticketing organisations (See Tickets, Ticketmaster, and Live Nation). Onlineticketshop is the
organisation with the highest amount of followers, but their engagement score is about 7,5 times lower
than that of See Tickets, the organisation with the highest engagement score.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
51
5.2. Central question
What are the motives of followers of ticketing organisations to engage with these
organisations on social network sites?
The research pointed out that the primary motive for following ticketing organisations is fast and easy
access to information. Followers are most interested in announcements of events, and information
about ticket sales and events. These posts/activities are associated with a consumer input level of
consumption. This finding corresponds with the type of user that is found most among the followers of
ticketing organisations, namely consumers. In turn, these findings are in line with the engagement
level expressed by followers (‘I read what I see on my timeline’) and the observed response to posts
published by ticketing organisations. Another supporting finding is that, in general, the organisations
that post messages most frequently to their social network pages have the highest amount of
followers. This also expresses a certain desire for continuity. Despite the fact that many followers
seem to use social network sites as an important source of information, this does not mean that they
use it as their sole source. Only on occasion followers make the decision to buy a ticket solely
because of a post on social network sites.
The second motive is entertainment. Posts that are associated with this motive are, among others,
photos, videos, and contests. Contests score particularly high on the observed level of response. The
most probable reason for this is that most contests require followers to perform a certain action (like,
share, and win) in order to have a chance of winning.
The motive of social connection is found in relation to interactive posts. Posts that specifically ask
followers to respond (such as ‘who is your favourite artist?’, ‘what would you like to win?’, and ‘what
are your plans for the weekend?’) receive a relative high level of response. With such posts, the input
level is that of participation; followers choose to make an effort to partake in a conversation. Although
these types of posts do not score high in the list of activities most valued by followers, they did receive
a level of response higher than announcements and information posts.
Another important activity in relation to the access to information motive and the input level of
participation is the possibility of asking questions to the organisations. Especially Twitter is actively
used as a channel for customer service by both users and organisations.
With regard to primary organisations and secondary organisations, followers do not seem to make a
difference. Primary or secondary, users follow these organisations to retrieve information. The fact that
a respective percentage of the followers pointed out to follow TicketStarter (a secondary organisation)
because they provide good information, despite knowing that they should never buy tickets from this
organisation, supports this statement.
In conclusion, followers of ticketing organisations engage with these organisations on social network
sites mainly because they want to be kept up-to-date about music events, or entertained. Whether
information/content comes from a primary organisation or secondary organisation does not seem to be
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
52
an issue. As long as information can be accessed without having to put in too much of an effort,
consumers find a reason to click that ‘follow’ button.
5.3. Limitations
This research was done within a limited timeframe of 18 weeks. Therefore choices had to be made on
what and what not to include in the research. Also, due to the relative short amount of time available,
there was limited time to distribute the questionnaire and retrieve the data. This resulted in an
unsatisfactory response to the questionnaire.
The final sample size does not represent the population. Therefore the results represent the sample
rather than the entire population. A larger sample size would have led to more sound results.
For the desk research, the researcher had to rely on public data. Some social network sites (including
Facebook) offer organisations extensive analysis tools to track users’ activity and engagement. Due to
limited contact with the organisations included in this research, and thus limited access to data, these
private analytics could not be retrieved. Analysis of this data could lead to more accurate and detailed
results.
Finally, the researcher has limited capabilities with regard to processing statistical data. Therefore the
analysis of relationships could not go beyond making assumptions based on observations and, in
some cases, inappropriate testing. Using more advanced analysis techniques, more appropriate
results could have been retrieved and more sound conclusions could have been drawn up.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
53
6. Recommendations
Based on the research results and the client’s question, recommendations have been drawn up in the
following section. The research sample is not representative for the entire population. Repeating the
research with a representative sample could lead to different outcomes and recommendations.
6.1. Re-evaluating the problem
The initial problem laid out by the client was the growing popularity of secondary ticketers on social
network sites. The accompanying issue being that this online popularity would increase the business
of these organisations, and would thus further negatively affect the primary market.
This research included five secondary ticketers that were selected based on their amounts of followers
and their online activity. The most popular organisation being Onlineticketshop with a following of over
180.000 and the least popular organisation being Rang1Tickets with just over 1600 followers. The fact
that Rang1Tickets belongs in the top 5 of most popular secondary organisations on SNSs, means that
all other (Dutch) secondary organisations have even less than 1600 followers.
Taking aside the amounts of followers, most secondary organisations also show a low level of activity.
For example, Budgetticket NL, with a following of approximately 3500, did not show any activity on
Twitter within the 4 months of research and posted only 2 posts on Facebook within 6 months. It can
only be assumed that the following was built-up in the beginning of this organisation’s accounts.
Finally, 3 out of the 5 secondary organisations (TicketTribune, Budgetticket NL, and Rang1Tickets)
have really low engagement scores, meaning that followers barely respond to their messages1.
The two organisations that are reason for concern are Onlineticketshop and TicketStarter.
Onlineticketshop has an (overall) online following higher than any of the primary organisations and
TicketStarter has an amount of Twitter followers that exceeds all ticketing organisations. However,
some followers righteously pointed out that they follow TicketStarter for the great concert information
(news) they provide, but know that they should never buy tickets from the organisation. Others pointed
out that they did not even know that the accounts ‘Concerten’ belong to this ticketing organisation.
They read the news and announcements, but never even noticed that the posts included links to the
TicketStarter website. TicketStarter did score a high engagement level, meaning that followers
respond well to their messages. However, most responses were gathered through contests, meaning
that followers were aiming to win tickets rather than buying them. Whether or not these contests are
legitimate is debatable. The one concern with this is that the contests required followers to share the
posts, exposing the people in each ‘sharer’s’ network to the organisation. In conclusion, TicketStarter
forms a threat because they mislead users by posing as a ‘fanpage’ for concerts and festival.
Onlineticketshop should be the main concern given the great amount of followers. However, these
followers do not seem very active in engaging with the organisation. Despite posting frequently to their
1
It needs mentioning that 2 of the primary organisations, Ticketpoint and Eventim NL, also have relatively low amounts of
followers and show little activity.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
54
accounts, response rates are very low in comparison to the primary organisations that have fewer
followers. Also, this organisation is really only active and popular on Facebook. Their amount of
Facebook followers is 20 times higher than their amount of Twitter followers. Combine this notion with
the low engagement score and this raises the question whether their Facebook followers are ‘real
followers’. If this is not the case, meaning that the followers are ‘bought’, then this lowers the concern
of the organisation attracting consumers to their business through social network sites, since ‘bought’
likes do not represent actual people. The only concern could then be that a high amount of followers
could give the organisation a credible reputation in the eyes of the consumer (‘this organisation is
popular on Facebook, so it must be a good business’).
Additionally, the research pointed out that messages on the social network sites of ticketing
organisations are more not than often the sole reason for followers to buy tickets. Most consumers will
look for further information before making the actual purchase.
Taking all information above into consideration, it could be concluded that the problem may not be as
big as initially assumed. It may be that the secondary ticketing industry is winning territory, but do
social network sites really play a big role in this? The question should then be asked whether it is wise
to spend time and resources on countering this social network problem or whether the efforts are
better spent on countering the problem in general. For example, another plausible problem could be
that many consumers (17% in this research) search for tickets through search engines, and many
secondary organisations are on the top of the search results.
6.2. Effects on the organisation
Adopting a social media strategy, or any marketing strategy for that matter, requires an organisation to
rethink their ways of doing business. Changing or introducing new ways of promoting your ‘product’
causes changes in many different aspects of the organisation. Weet Waar Je Koopt was launched in
2010 with the aim of informing consumers about the secondary market. The campaign was promoted
via print-media and a website. This website, which is still in its original state, offers visitors information
on where to buy and where not to buy tickets, and general information about secondary sellers.
Additionally, an e-mail address was called into life that consumers can use when they have questions
about their tickets or a specific seller. The decision was made by the parties involved that the activities
of WWJK would be managed by an intern. A new intern is appointed every six months by one of the
organisations in the campaign. To date, the main activity of this intern is answering e-mails from
consumers that are sent to the aforementioned e-mail address. Previous attempts were made to also
serve consumers through social network sites but, seemingly, these attempts failed.
So, now that we are on the verge of reconsidering (social media) efforts, there are some aspects that
need to be taken into consideration by the parties involved in the campaign. First of all, it needs to be
clear to everyone involved in the campaign what it is that they want to communicate to the public. Is
the initial proposal, written in 2009, still up-to-date or does it have to be adjusted (based on the
experiences of the last 4 to 5 years)? Are there new developments that change the perspective of the
campaign? There needs to be a clear mission and vision that all stakeholders can hold on to and work
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
55
from. Ideally, a (new) marketing plan would be drawn up stating (future) objectives for the campaign
and a plan of approach.
Then there is the financial aspect. At the launch of the campaign, many things were gathered for free
through the networks of stakeholders. Posters were printed, a website was set-up, and logos were
designed, all within a minimum budget. Direct costs related to personnel were kept to a minimum by
hiring interns to do the job. Adopting new strategies could affect the budget as new efforts will have to
be made and, presumably, more man-hours will have to be dedicated to campaign related activities.
What if the campaign becomes more successful than it ever was? Is there then room for growth? With
regard to time and resources available, is there a desire for growth? Increased popularity could mean
that more consumers could come with questions, more consumers might want to know more about
what secondary ticketing actually is, more parties may want to get involved in the campaign, there
may even grow a desire among primary organisations to develop new initiatives. The question needs
to be asked whether the parties currently involved in the WWJK campaign are ready to deal with
increased successes, or whether there is no desire to expand activities and invest more (time and
resources) in the campaign.
6.3. Adopting a social media strategy
Many organisations have proved over the past years that being on social network sites can be highly
beneficial for the business. But, as the research shows, consumers do not just follow your page for the
sake of it. They need to see a benefit in following your organisation. This section provides
recommendations for WWJK if they choose to become active on social network sites, based on the
results of this research.
Channels
Facebook and Twitter showed to be the most popular social network sites among both users and
organisations. For now, the use of other social networks sites will be discouraged based on the
amounts of users and possibilities. For example, LinkedIn is an opportunistic website that focuses
around professional networks. Although LinkedIn is a very popular platform, promoting the WWJK
campaign would do little for reaching the target group (infrequent concert visitors).
Activities
The research respondents showed a desire for a constant stream of up-to-date information about
music events. Information about where and how to buy tickets to specific events is highly valued as
well as the opportunity to ask questions to organisations. Offering customer service through social
network sites could decrease the amount of e-mails received on the WWJK account, which means
that time usually spent (by the intern) on managing the inbox could be spend on conversations on
social network sites. Customer service through social network sites is considered to be less time
consuming than offering customer service through e-mail because messages on SNSs are usually
quick and informal, and short in terms of length.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
56
Posting information about events and tickets may be time-consuming as WWJK is not concerned with
one specific organisation (e.g. Ticketmaster), but with many. Partners of the campaign include multiple
primary ticketing organisations and venues. It cannot possibly post information about all the events of
all the organisations. Not only will this take up too much time, but it will also cause cluttering of the
accounts. Decisions will have to be made on which types of events and information have the priority.
Are these events with a certain target group, events of a certain scale or from a certain promoter?
Posts about specific events or topics are found to be most effective with regard to the level of
response. Posts containing general information receive less response from users. General information
can be found on websites, since it is usually static information. Social network sites are specifically
suitable for dynamic information; information that is relevant on one day, but becomes irrelevant soon
after. Posting solely static information would not give social network accounts any added value.
Facebook
The desk research showed that ticketing organisations are mainly concerned with sharing information
on Facebook and facilitating conversations through interactive posts and allowing users to post
messages to the pages. As stated above, if Weet Waar Je Koopt were to adopt a similar strategy, it
would have to decide upon what type of information it would want to share with its followers. Since the
objective of the campaign is to inform the public about secondary ticketing organisations without
slandering these organisations, it would be logical that the shared information would include links to
the websites of primary organisations, general information about the secondary market, developments
with regard to the battle against secondary ticketing, and possibly ticket prices. However, most of this
information can already be found on the website of the campaign. Repeating this information again
and again on Facebook would be superfluous and unnecessarily time-consuming.
The aim of WWJK on social network sites should be to create buzz around the campaign; to get
people talking about where they buy tickets, and their experiences with (secondary) organisations.
Have them tell their friends were they should buy tickets. But before a buzz can arise, some sort of
following will have to be build-up. The research showed that announcements of and information about
events were desired most by followers of ticketing organisations, and contests and interactive posts
received the most response. To become of value to users of social network sites that are interested in
music events, the campaign could start by actively announcing large-scale events that attract big
crowds. These shows are usually promoted by one of the main stakeholders in the campaign (Mojo),
so access to information about these shows should be available. The research showed that response
levels were exceptionally high on announcements of concerts of big artists (Beyonce, Justin
Timberlake, Robbie Williams, etcetera). These posts did not only receive many likes, but were also
shared by many followers. If followers of the WWJK page were to share big announcements (of
course including links to the official ticket seller and the WWJK website), this could significantly
increase the reach of the pages, and, consequently, the reach of the campaign. Contests could do the
same thing but in that case prizes would have to be made available, and prizes cost money.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
57
Whenever the following starts to increase, followers will have to be kept engaged. Posts will appear on
the timelines of all followers (unless deactivated by the user) and it then becomes a matter of posting
frequently and posting things that the following is interested in and trigger a response. The results of
this research could be used to determine the nature of these posts.
Facebook could also be used for customer service. However, it is recommended to assign one
channel to this service (e.g. Twitter) to keep it clear for consumers where to turn to for a fast answer to
their question. Of course, Facebook could be used by consumers who do not have an account on
Twitter and e-mail should always stay an option for those consumers not active on SNSs at all.
Twitter
Twitter is recommended for offering customer service (next to posting regular messages). In the case
of Weet Waar Je Koopt, to answer consumers’ questions about their ticket purchase and related
matters. The research showed that this platform is actively utilised as a ‘webcare-tool’ by both
organisations and users. Twitter is recommended for this purpose as the service only allows users to
post messages up to 140 characters, which will force them to keep questions short and to the point.
Also, Twitter is easily monitored. Not only is it easy to interact with users, it is also possible to quickly
signal harmful messages (for example, by monitoring other organisations). For instance, if a user
retweets the message of a secondary ticketing organisation, a reply can be send to this user informing
him or her about the issues with that organisation. This kind of activity was already observed on the
Twitter account of Live Nation. Attention does have to be paid to not letting negative messages
prevail. After all, the initial plan of Weet Waar Je Koopt clearly states that part of the mission is to not
slander the secondary organisations. Clear guidelines should be developed on how to answer
questions and in which tone of voice. Such guidelines also come in useful when switching between
interns, making sure that one intern’s messages do not differ too much from those of another intern.
As all messages and replies are public, consistency and correctness are important.
Implications
Adopting social network activities as described above comes with some implications. First of all, the
stakeholders should determine what they feel the nature of the campaign and the social network
pages should be. While informing users of events could lead to an increased following, it could also
create (wrong) expectations among followers about the campaign. Once WWJK will actively start
promoting events on its pages, this could have the following believe that that is the purpose of the
campaign and may give the impression it is are also there to inform about events (time schedules,
support acts, prices, seating, etcetera). On the other hand, posting only static messages about where
to buy tickets may not be interesting enough to users. A natural balance will have to be found to
engage users on the one hand but stay true to the mission of the campaign on the other.
A second implication is that of the resources that will have to be spent on the social network strategy.
One intern may be enough in the beginning, but will this stay enough once the pages become of
higher significance? Also, working on the social network pages is not something that can be done, for
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
58
example, once a week. Conversations can only take part if both sides are actively engaged. For a
consumer that asks a question about a purchase on a Wednesday morning at 10am, an answer after
Friday 3pm will probably be useless.
Finally, a social network strategy should fit in the whole marketing plan of the campaign. It has to have
an added value to both consumers and the organisation and should not stand apart from the other
channels. The messages communicated through SNSs should be in line with the messages
distributed through other channels (such as print media). It is therefore not possible to become active
on social network sites out of the blue. A clear marketing plan will have to be drawn up that outlines
the purpose of each channel, the resources available for each channel, and the overall objectives.
6.4. Promotion through partners
There is a good chance that an individual social network strategy for Weet Waar Je Koopt is
considered to be too time-consuming and unrealistic with regard to resources and the nature of the
campaign. A less extensive approach could be considered if additional collaborations are employed.
What stood out in the research is that out of all observed posts of all primary organisations, only 4 (out
of 1012) were dedicated to the WWJK campaign. A total of 8 posts mentioned the campaign, but only
4 really pointed the campaign out to the followers, and, consequently, triggered a response. 7 of the
mentions were made by Ticketmaster, 1 by Eventim. None of the other primary organisations ever
mentioned the WWJK campaign (on Facebook). This seems like a missed opportunity. The 4
dedicated posts received good response with averages of 60 likes, 7 comments, and 24 shares per
post. The average of 24 shares means that, per post, 24 followers found the message important
enough to share it within their network. Those are, per post, 24 acts of free publicity.
The 5 primary ticketing organisations included in this research have an overall total of nearly 380.000
followers. The campaign accounts still only have just over 3.000. With most primary ticketing
organisations being partners of WWJK, it should be possible to promote the campaign through their
pages. This does not mean that each organisation has to dedicate great amounts of posts specifically
to the campaign, but a mention (and redirection) now and then could rapidly increase the reach of the
campaign’s message. This would mean that WWJK does not necessarily have to invest extensively in
an individual strategy, but it also does not put a whole lot of extra work load on the ticketing
organisations, as they already show to be quite active on SNSs.
When collaborating with the partners is a possibility, the focus of the campaign can stay on informing
consumers through static information and more efforts can be spend on answering questions through
e-mail, Twitter and, possibly, Facebook. Expanding the reach of the campaign will then be the task of
the campaign partners.
6.5. Reconsidering social media
A final option that should be taken into consideration is to leave SNSs for what it is. At least with
regard to designated pages for the campaign. Past experience has shown that it is difficult to keep
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
59
pages up to date, mainly due to a lack of time and resources. As explained above, a social network
strategy requires a plan and dedication. Also, as the research has shown, the problem may not lie in
SNSs, or, at the very least, the problem may not be as big as expected. Finally, it should be
questioned whether the target group of the campaign is sufficiently active on SNSs to be worth the
effort. The research respondents were for the majority people who attend a concert at least 3x a year.
Only a small part of the respondents attend a concert on a less frequent basis. The target group of the
campaign was initially described as people over the age of 12 who attend concerts once or twice a
year, that are unfamiliar with the ticket-buying process. Most followers of ticketing organisations attend
concerts more frequently. Respondents who were excluded from the questionnaire because they did
not follow any ticketing organisations, specified that they were infrequent concert visitors and that they
would consider following these organisations if they were to attend concerts more often. This could
mean that such users also may only be interested in information on where to safely buy tickets if they
were to attend concerts more often. In other words, users who attend concerts infrequently (i.e. the
target group) may not see the point in following WWJK on SNSs.
As also described in the initial proposal by the campaign stakeholders, a big part of the problem lies in
the fact that many consumers use search engines to find concert tickets. The research showed a
relation between knowledge about the campaign and using a search engine; meaning that consumers
who know about WWJK are more likely to know where/how to find the official ticket sellers. Wouldn’t it
then be best to spend the time and resources available on a state-of the art website that ends up high
in the search results, instead of opening up extra channels that require new efforts but may not even
reach the desired target group? If consumers are exposed to the campaign while using, for example,
Google to find their concert tickets, this may be the last time they ever use a search engine for this.
Improving the website may require additional investments but, unlike social network sites, it does not
require continuous investments and may therefore fit better within a new budget.
In conclusion, it is time to get the campaign stakeholders together and evaluate what has been
reached so far, what the objectives for the future are, and how much effort and resources one is willing
to further dedicate to the campaign. Because random effort might as well be no effort.
6.6. Suggestions for further research
Suggestions for further research include redoing the research but including analytics that are only
accessible to account-holders. These analytics could provide a more in-depth and detailed overview of
the engagement of followers. Such numbers include, for example, the reach of posts (how many users
have seen a certain post) and the amount of page views. Also, similar research could be designed that
specifically targets the followers of secondary organisations or primary organisations. In this research,
only a small amount of followers of (solely) secondary organisations was reached, challenging the
possibility of comparing the (followers of the) two types of organisations. Finally, when these research
results and recommendations have been used to improve the strategy of WWJK, a follow-up research
could be done in the future to see whether it has (had) the desired effect.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
60
7. References

Armstrong, A., & Hagel, J. III. (1995). Real profits from virtual communities. McKinsey Quarterly,
3(2), 127-141.

American Antitrust Institute (2012). Restrictive Paperless Tickets [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Tickets_paperless_Final.1.17.11.pdf.

Beer, D. (2008). Social network(ing) sites…revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd &
Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 516-529.

Bernoff, J. (2010). Social Technographics: Conversationalists get onto the ladder. Retrieved from
http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2010/01/conversationalists-get-onto-the-ladder.html
on 2 April 2014.

boyd, d.m., & Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Carton, S. (2009). Defining social media. Click Z. Retrieved from
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1703507/defining-social-media on 2 January 2014.

Coldewey, D. (2012). 30 years ago, the CD started the digital music revolution. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/30-years-ago-cd-started-digital-music-revolution
6167906 on 17 December 2013.

Corder, K. (n.d.). Measures of association (correlation and chi-square). Retrieved from
http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~corder/pls3954a.html on 27 May 2014.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a
research project (4th ed.). Oxford: How To Books Ltd.

DiCola, P (2013). Money from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons
About Copyright Incentives. Northwestern University School of Law, Law and Economics
Series, 13(1).
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
61

Europe Economics (2009). Analysis of the Secondary Sales Market for Tickets for Sporting,
Cultural and other Events. Retrieved from http://www.europe-economics.com/publications/
secondary_sales_market.pdf.

Fraser, M., & Dutta, S. (2008). Throwing sheep in the boardroom. Cornwall, UK: Wiley.

Gingrich, P. (1992). Introductory Statistics for the Social Sciences. Regina: University of Regina.

Goldberg, A. (2011). Companies are shifting to digital platforms and media to interact and
collaborate with customers and employees/Interviewer: C. Boutelle. Retrieved from
http://www.siop.org/media/news/digitalplatforms.aspx on 19 December 2013.

Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers’
social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 356-364.

Ipsos (2013). Global ”Sharers” on Social Media Sites Seek to Share Interesting (61%), Important
(43%) and Funny (43%) Things. Retrieved from http://www.ipsos-na.com/newspolls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6239 on 19 December 2013.

Johnson, R.A. (2013). An investigation into the arguments for and against greater regulation of
ticket touting and secondary ticketing at live music events in the UK. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155524674/An-investigation-into-the-arguments-for-and-against
greater-regulation-of-ticket-touting-and-secondary-ticketing-at-live-music-events-in-the-UK on
18 December 2013.

Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.

Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., & Sylvestre, B.S. (2011). Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons,
54(3), 241-251.

Li, C. (2007). Social Technographics. Retrieved from
http://miami.lgrace.com/documents/Li_Web_Demographics.pdf.

McCubbin, M. (2012). The Aftermath of Aftermath: The Impact of Digital Music Distribution on the
Recording Industry. UNH Law Review, 10(2), 323-343.

Miller, M.J. (n.d.). Reliability and Validity. Retrieved from
http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/Reliability_and_Validity.pdf.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
62

Mulready, R. (2013). 3 Simple Way to Measure Your Social Media Results. Retrieved from
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/3-strategies-to-measure-your-social-media/ on 2 May
2014.

Newcom Research & Consultancy (2014). Nationale Social Media Onderzoek 2014 [PDF file].

Nielsen (2013). The Nielsen Company & Billboard’s 2012 Music Industry Report. Retrieved from
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130104005149/en/Nielsen-Company
Billboard#.Ur2SKmTuKDA on 17 December 2013.

NOS (2014). Meer fraude met concertkaarten. Retrieved from http://nos.nl/artikel/656351-meer
fraude-met-concertkaarten.html on 5 June 2014.

Oosterveer, D. (2013). Alle cijfers over het socialmediagebruik in Nederland medio 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/social-media-cijfers-augustus-2013
overzicht on 19 December 2013.

Parent, M., & Plangger, K., Bal, A. The new WTP: Willingness to participate. Business Horizons,
54, 219-229.

Park, N., Kee, K.F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment:
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,
12(6), 729-733.

Peoples, G. (2013). Live Nation Revenue Hits a Record $2,26 Billion in Third Quarter. Retrieved
from http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/touring/5778225/live-nation-revenue-hits-a
record-226-billion-in-third-quarter on 17 December 2013.

Preacher, K.J. (2001). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi
square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. Available from
http://quantpsy.org.

PwC (2013). Music segment insights from the Entertainment & Media Outlook. Retrieved from
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/global-entertainment-media-outlook/segment-insights/music.jhtml
on 17 December 2013.

Resnikoff, P. (2013). Shifting sources of artist income: 1999-2012. Retrieved from
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/11/20/shiftingsources on 17 December
2013.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
63

Salo, J., Lankinen, M., & Mäntymäki, M. (2013). The Use of Social Media for Artist Marketing:
Music Industry Perspectives and Consumer Motivations. International Journal on Media
Management, 15(1), 23-41.

Search Engine Journal (2013). The Growth of Social Media v2.0. Retrieved from
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/growth-social-media-2-0-infographic/77055/ on 19
December 2013.

Segrave, K. (2007). Ticket Scalping: An American History 1850-2005. Jefferson: McFarland.

Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratification
perspective. Internet Research, 19(1), 7-25.

The Survey System (n.d.). Sample Size Calculator. Retrieved from
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm on 14 April 2014.

Weet Waar Je Koopt (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.weetwaarjekoopt.nl on 20 December 2013.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
64
Appendix A: List of key terms
In alphabetical order:
Followers
Online users who follow at least one ticketing organisation on
at least one social network site.
Primary ticketing organisations
Official sellers of tickets appointed by the event promoters.
Primary ticketers
The primary ticketing organisations included in this research
are Ticketmaster Nederland, See Tickets Nederland, Eventim
Nederland
and
Ticketpoint.
Nederland
has
been
Additionally,
included
in
this
Live
Nation
research
as
Ticketmaster is part of the Live Nation company and Live
Nation offers users direct access to tickets on its website.
Secondary ticketing organisations
Organisations that resell tickets bought from primary
Secondary ticketers
ticketing organisations. The secondary ticketers included in
this research are Onlineticketshop Nederland, TicketStarter,
TicketTribune, Rang1Tickets and Budgetticket Nederland.
Social network sites (SNSs)
In short, web-based services that allow individuals to
construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded
system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a
connection, and view and traverse their list of connections
and those made by others within the system (boyd & Ellison,
2008). A full definition of this term can be found in chapter 2.
The social network sites referred to in this research are
Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+, Instagram,
Pinterest and FourSquare.
Ticketing organisations
Organisations whose core business consists of selling tickets
to events.
Weet Waar Je Koopt/WWJK
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
The research client.
65
Appendix B: Scorecard
Likes/followers (on 29/04/14):
Since:
Active on:
35-54
146.522
Dec 2010
Facebook
-
-
-
7.845
June 2009
Twitter
-
-
-
153
??
LinkedIn
-
-
-
18
?? 2013
Google+
-
-
-
0
July 2011
YouTube
See Tickets Nederland
Ages of likers:
yes
-
-
-
Allows reviews?
-
C
C
+
10
1/2
-
v
2
22
12
75
2
-
S
News
-
S
Event info
-
L
-
+
yes
v
+
yes
2
C
yes
Announcement
2
S
Allows posts by users?
Type of post
L
3
24
Day
C
M
5
-
S
Month
W
6
5
205
130
Webcare?
Ticket info
L
A’dam
+
City of likers:
L
February
Th
3
v
7
14
10
10
3
F
11
101
M
v
T
v
-
14
-
2
v
-
1
17
4/5
1
2
34
2
65
v
v
5
7
-
1
v
77
40
-
25
28
15
12
17
W
Sa
18
-
181
7
0/2
13
M
19
14
v
297
5
14
T
20
59
5/5
40
81
435
44
3
Th
W
24
667
42
F
Th
25
25
M
2241
T
Total FB posts
120
26
Likes (L)
332
W
Shares (S)
13/25
27
Comments (C)
Th
Weblink incl. (+)
43
TOTALS
Total tweets
S
C
+
Contest
L
-
0/2
-
38
136
98
22
46
24
198
124
322
41
41
L
0
-
-
S
26
12
14
C
0/2
-
-
+
Contest winner
82
66
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
L
59
59
3
3
C
Video
S
-
-
+
-
0/1
Photo(s)
v
+
5
1/1
C
14
5
S
158
14
L
158
74
148
51
60
76
L
4
1
-
-
-
3
S
20
2
12
-
5
1
C
2/5
-
-
v
v
-
+
Tips
409
1
T
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
15
Rt
6
2
2
1
R
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
5
3
1
Retweets
1
Tweets
Replies
22
67
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
Tweets
Appendix C: List of post categories (Facebook)
In alphabetical order:
-
Concert announcement: The first time announcement of an upcoming event.
-
Contest: A post that announces a contest or provides information about a contest.
-
Contest winner: A post with the sole purpose of announcing the winner of a contest.
-
Event information: Information regarding a specific event. This could be a cancelation, the
announcement of a support act, travel information, time schedules, etcetera.
-
Facebook events: The organisation has created an ‘event page’ for one of their events. On
such a page the organisation can post information about the event and users can express
whether they will attend. An event page mainly facilitates interaction between users.
-
Interaction: A post that explicitly calls for interaction. For example, a post that asks about
followers’ plans for the weekend.
-
News: A post including a news item.
-
Photo(s): Photos that are posted with no further intention of providing information (image (and
possibly a description) only).
-
Review: A post including a review (or direct link to a review) of a past event.
-
Ticket information: Information on where to get tickets, the amount of tickets left, direct links to
ticket sales, prices, etcetera.
-
Tips: A post that recommends followers to watch a certain TV show, listen to a radio show at a
certain time, listen to a certain song, etcetera.
-
Video: A post with the main purpose of redirecting to- or showing a video.
-
WWJK: A post dedicated to the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign with the sole purpose of
informing followers about the campaign and where they can get more information.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
68
Appendix D: Questionnaire
The questionnaire that was sent out for this research was written in Dutch. For the sake of this report,
English translations of the questions and answers have been included below.
Social Ticketing – Ticketing organisaties op sociale media
Social Ticketing – Ticketing organisations on social media
1)
Ik ben een…
Gender
o Man/Male
o Vrouw/Female
2)
Wat is je leeftijd?
What is your age?
Leeftijd (in jaren)/Age (in years)
3)
Werk je in de muziekindustrie of volg je een studie gerelateerd aan deze industrie?
Do you work in the music industry or do you follow a study related to this industry?
o Ja/Yes
o Nee/No
Ruimte voor eventuele specificatie (bijv. student MEM, artiestenmanager, boeker, etc.)
Room for specification (optional) (e.g. student MEM, artist manager, booker, etc.)
4)
Hoe vaak ga je ongeveer naar conerten en/of muziekfestivals?
On average, how often do you attend concerts and/or music festivals?
o Nooit
Never
o Minder dan 3x per jaar
Less than 3x per year
o 3x of 4x per jaar
3x or 4x per year
o 1x per twee maanden
Once every two months
o 1x per maand
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
69
Once a month
o Vaker dan 1x per maand
More than once a month
5)
Op welke sociale media heb je een account en hoe vaak ben je hierop actief?
On which social media platforms do you have an account and how often are you active on these?
Geen (actief)
account
No (active) account
Maandelijks
Tweewekelijks
Wekelijks
Dagelijks
Elk uur
Constant
Monthly
Biweekly
Weekly
Daily
Every hour
Constantly
Facebook
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
YouTube
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LinkedIn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Twitter
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Google+
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Instagram
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Pinterest
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Foursquare
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ik heb (ook) een account op andere sociale media, namelijk:
I (also) have an account on different social media, namely:
6)
Hoe vaak onderneem je onderstaande activiteiten op sociale media?
How often do you perform the activities below on social media?
Ik bekijk de berichten en statusupdates
van anderen
Nooit
Af en toe
Regelmatig
Vaak
Heel vaak
Bijna altijd
Never
Now and then
Regularly
Often
Very often
Almost always
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I view other users’ messages and updates
Ik zoek informatie over een product of
service (bijv. prijzen, reviews,
verkoopinformatie, etc.)
I search for information about a product or service
(e.g. prices, reviews, retail info, etc.)
Ik post zelf berichten en statusupdates
I post messages and updates
Ik reageer op berichten en statusupdates
I comment on messages and updates
Ik maak en onderhoud pagina’s (bijv.
bedrijfspagina’s, interessepagina’s, etc.)
I create and maintain pages (e.g. company pages,
interest pages, etc.)
Ik creëer zelf content en post deze (bijv.
video’s, muziek, blogs, etc.)
I create and post my own content (e.g. videos,
music, blogs, etc.)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
70
Voor het vervolg van de enquete is het belangrijk om te weten welke kaartverkoop organisaties jij volgt
op sociale media.
In order to continue with the survey, it is important to know which ticketing organisations you follow on social
media.
Het gaat om de volgende organisaties:
The following organisations are included in the research:
- Ticketmaster Nederland
- Live Nation Nederland
- See Tickets Nederland
- Eventim Nederland
- Ticketpoint
- Onlineticketshop Nederland
- TicketStarter (let op: deze organisatie gaat op sociale media schuil onder de naam 'Concerten')
- TicketTribune
- Rang1Tickets
- Budgetticket Nederland
Als je niet precies weet welke organisaties je volgt, kun je onderstaande pagina gebruiken. Hierop zie
je in één oogopslag wie je waar volgt.
If you do not (exactly) know which organisations you follow, you can use the page below. On this page you can
see which organisations you follow on which platforms.
Klik hier om naar de pagina te gaan
De pagina opent in een nieuw scherm.
Click here to go to the web page.
The page will open in a new window.
Wanneer je een goed idee hebt van welke organisatie je waar volgt, kun je de enquete vervolgen.
When you have a good idea of which organisations you follow on which platforms, you can continue with the
survey.
7)
Volg je tenminste één van de genoemde organisaties op één platform?
Do you follow at least one of the mentioned organisations on one platform?
o Ja, ik volg tenminste één van de genoemde organisaties op één platform (routing naar vraag 10)
Yes, I follow at least one of the mentioned organisations on one platform (routing to question 10)
o Nee, ik volg geen één van de genoemde organisaties (routing naar vraag 8)
No, I do not follow any of the mentioned organisations(routing to question 8)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
71
8)
Je hebt aangegeven geen enkele kaartverkoop organisatie te volgen op sociale media.
Waarom volg je deze organisaties niet?
You said not to follow any ticketing organisations on social media. Why don’t you follow these
organisations?
o Ik heb er nooit aan gedacht om deze organisaties te volgen
It never occurred to me to follow these organisations
o Ik ben niet geïnteresseerd in deze organisaties
I am not interested in these organisations
o Ik zie de toegevoegde waarde niet van het volgen van deze organisaties op sociale media
I do not see the added value of following these organisations on social media
o Ik gebruik sociale media puur voor persoonlijke doeleinden
I use social media solely for personal matters
o Anders, namelijk:
Other, namely:
9)
Wanneer zou je wel overwegen om deze kaartverkoop organisaties te volgen op sociale
media? (optioneel)
When would you consider to start following these ticketing organisations on social media?(optional)
ROUTING NAAR VRAAG 16
ROUTING TO QUESTION 16
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
72
10)
Welke kaartverkoop organisaties volg je en op welke platformen?
Which ticketing organisations do you follow and on which platforms?
Ik heb mij
‘geabonneerd’
Ik volg deze
organisatie
Ik ‘like’ deze
Ik ‘volg’ deze
Ik ‘volg’ deze
helemaal
organisatie
organisatie
organisatie
niet
op Facebook
op Twitter
op LinkedIn
I don’t follow
I ‘like’ this
I ‘follow’ this
I ‘follow’ this
this
organisation
organisation
organisation
organisation
on Facebook
on Twitter
on LinkedIn
at all
op het
YouTube
kanaal van
deze
organisatie
I subscribed to
the YouTube
channel of this
Ik heb deze
organisatie
in mijn
‘kringen’ op
Google+
I have this
organisation
in my
‘circles’ on
organisation
Google+
Ticketmaster Nederland
□
□
□
□
□
□
Live Nation Nederland
□
□
□
□
□
□
See Tickets Nederland
□
□
□
□
□
□
Eventim Nederland
□
□
□
□
□
□
Ticketpoint
□
□
□
□
□
□
Onlineticketshop Nederland
□
□
□
□
□
□
TicketStarter (‘Concerten’)
□
□
□
□
□
□
TicketTribune (‘Protickets.nl’)
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rang1Tickets
□
□
□
□
□
□
Budgetticket Nederland
□
□
□
□
□
□
11)
Wat is de voornaamste reden dat je deze organisatie(s) volgt?
What is the most important reason for you to follow this/these organisation(s)?
o Zodat andere gebruikers kunnen zien dat ik geïnteresseerd ben ik dergelijke organisaties
So other users can see that I am interested in these organisations
o Om een bepaalde mate van betrokkenheid te tonen
In order to show a certain level of affinity
o Snel en makkelijk toegang tot informatie waarin ik geïnteresseerd ben (concertinformatie,
nieuws, etc.)
Fast and easy access to information in which I am interested (concert information, news, etc.)
o Interactie met andere gebruikers (discussies, zien wie er naar een evenement gaan, etc.)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
73
Interaction with other users (discussions, see who go to an event, etc.)
o Interactie met de organisatie zelf (vragen stellen, klachten uiten, etc.)
Interaction with the organisations itself (ask questions, post complaints, etc.)
o Er worden dingen gepost die ik leuk vind (foto’s, video’s, winacties, etc.)
Things are being posted that I like (photos, videos, contests, etc.)
o Ik was me er eigenlijk niet van bewust dat ik deze organisatie(s) volgde
I was not aware that I follow this/these organisation(s)
o Een andere reden, namelijk:
A different reason, namely:
12)
Wanneer je verschillende organisaties om verschillende redenen volgt kunt je dat hier
aangeven (optioneel).
(bijv. organisatie X voor de informatie, organisatie Y voor interactie met de organisatie)
If you follow different organisations for different reasons, you can indicate that in the field below.
(e.g. organisation X for the information, organisation Y for interaction with the organisation)
Kies in dat geval in de vraag hierboven het antwoord dat de belangrijkste reden voor
jou weergeeft.
If this is the case, please choose the answer that shows the most important reason for you in the
question above.
13)
Hoe actief volg je deze organisatie(s)?
How active do you follow this/these organisation(s)?
o Ik like/volg de organisatie(s) maar kijk er verder niet naar
I like/follow the organisation(s) but never look at it
o Ik lees/bekijk alleen de updates die voorbij komen op mijn tijdlijn/profiel
I only read/view the updates that appear on my timeline/profile
o Ik bezoek de pagina(‘s) regelmatig om te kijken wat er is gepost
I regularly visit the page(s) to see what has been posted
o Ik reageer regelmatig op posts van de organisatie(s)
I regularly comment on the posts from the organisation(s)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
74
o Ik plaats regelmatig zelf iets op de pagina(‘s) van de organisatie(‘s) (bijv. een vraag, foto’s,
video’s, beoordelingen, etc.)
I regularly post something on the page(s) of the organisation(s) (e.g. a question, photos, videos, reviews,
etc.)
14)
Koop je weleens kaarten voor een evenement naar aanleiding van een bericht op de
sociale media van deze kaartverkoop organisaties?
Do you ever buy tickets to an event because of a post on the social media platforms of these ticketing
organisations?
15)
Nooit
Af en toe
Regelmatig
Vaak
Heel vaak
Bijna altijd
Never
Now and then
Regularly
Often
Very often
Almost always
O
O
O
O
O
O
Hoe belangrijk vind je het om onderstaande aspecten terug te vinden op de sociale
media pagina’s van kaartverkoop organisaties?
How important is it to you to find the aspects below on the social media pages of ticketing organisations?
Helemaal
niet
Niet
belangrijk
belangrijk
Not at all
Not important
Heel erg
Neutraal
Belangrijk
Neutral
Important
belangrijk
Very
important
important
Aankondigingen van evenementen
Announcements of events
Informatie over kaartverkoop (bijv.
startdatum verkoop, prijzen, etc.)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Information about ticket sales (e.g. time tickets on
sale, prices, etc.)
Informatie over evenementen (bijv.
tijdschema’s, annuleringen, etc.)
Information about events (e.g. schedules,
cancellations, etc.)
Entertainment nieuws
Entertainment news
Exclusieve acties (bijv. exclusieve
voorverkoop voor volgers)
Exclusive offers (exclusive presale for followers)
Winacties
Contests
Foto’s en video’s
Photos and videos
De mogelijkheid om zelf berichten, foto’s
en video’s te posten
The option to post my own messages, photos and
videos
Recensies van afgelopen evenementen
Reviews of past events
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
75
Ervaringen van andere gebruikers met de
betreffende organisatie
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Experiences of other users with the organisation
Informatie over de betreffende
organisatie (bijv. omschrijving,
contactgegevens, etc.)
Information about the organisation itself (e.g.
description, contact information, etc.)
De mogelijkheid om vragen te stellen aan
de betreffende organisatie
(klantenservice/webcare)
The option to ask questions to the organisation
(customer service/webcare)
De mogelijkheid om het gesprek aan te
gaan met andere gebruikers
The option to start a conversation with other users
Evenementen pagina’s (waarop je kunt
zien wie er naar een evenement gaan)
Event pages (on which you can see who are going
to a certain event)
16)
Welke situatie is op jou van toepassing wanneer je kaarten voor een concert of
muziekfestival wilt kopen?
Which situation applies to you when you want to buy tickets to a concert or music festival?
o Ik weet direct de juiste organisatie te vinden die de officiële kaartverkoop doet
I immediately know where to find the official seller
o Ik gebruik een zoekmachine (bijv. Google) om de juiste organisatie te vinden
I use a search engine (e.g. Google) to find the right organisation
o Anders, namelijk:
Other, namely:
17)
Ben je bekend met de campagne ‘Weet Waar Je Koopt’?
Are you familiar with the Weet Waar Je Koopt campaign?
o Ja, ik ken de campagne en weet wat het inhoudt
Yes, I know the campaign and what it entails
o Ik heb er wel eens van gehoord maar weet niet precies wat het inhoudt
I have heard of it but I do not know exactly what it entails
o Nee, nog nooit van gehoord
No, I have never heard of it
18)
Heb je nog opmerkingen en/of suggesties met betrekking tot dit onderzoek?
Do you have any remarks and/or suggestions with regard to this research?
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
76
Appendix E: Representativeness
The chi-squares of goodness of fit for the gender and age variable were calculated as showed below.
Null hypothesis:
The gender/age distribution of respondents in the sample is the same
as the gender/age distribution of the research population  the
sample is representative for the tested variable
Alternative hypothesis:
The gender/age distribution of respondents in the sample differs from
the gender/age distribution of the research population  the sample
is not representative for the tested variable
The distributions of the research population were taken from the social media research by Newcom
Research & Consultancy (2014).
The data used for these chi-square tests is shown in tables E1.1. and E1.2.
TABLE E.1.1:
SAMPLE AND POPULATION GENDER DISTRIBUTION
Gender
Number in
sample
Male
TABLE E.1.2:
SAMPLE AND POPULATION AGE DISTRIBUTION
Per cent in
Newcom
Age
research
Number in
sample
Per cent in
Newcom
research
62
47%
15-19
53
8%
Female
106
53%
20-39
98
35%
Total
168
100%
40 and up
17
57%
168
100%
Total
Based on the data shown above, the expected values were calculated (sample size*percentage)/100.
The observed (number in sample) and expected values are shown in table C2.1. and C2.2. Values
have been rounded up.
TABLE E.2.1:
OBSERVED AND EXPECTED VALUES FOR GENDER
Gender
Observed
Expected
62
79
Female
106
89
Total
168
168
Male
TABLE E.2.2:
OBSERVED AND EXPECTED VALUES FOR AGE
Age
Observed
Expected
15-19
53
14
20-39
98
59
40 and up
17
95
168
168
Total
With the data shown in the tables above, the chi-squares can be calculated using the following formula
in which O = observed value, E = expected value and i = item:
∑
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
(
)
77
Now for each variable the chi-square has been calculated. In order to determine whether this chisquare is small or large, a critical value is needed. Using the significance level α and the number of
degrees of freedom (number of categories minus one), this value can be found in a standard chisquare table. A chi-square value larger than the critical value leads to rejection of the null hypothesis,
a chi-square value smaller than the critical value means that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected
and the alternative hypothesis is accepted (Gingrich, 1992).
Gender
=
7,348
α=
0,05 (because confidence level = 95%)
Degrees of freedom =
1
Critical value =
3,84
Conclusion:
> critical value, which means that the null hypothesis can be rejected. The
sample is not representative for the gender variable.
Age
=
198,464
α=
0,05 (because confidence level = 95%)
Degrees of freedom =
2
Critical value =
5,99147
Conclusion:
> critical value, which means that the null hypothesis can be rejected. The
sample is not representative for the age variable.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
78
Appendix F: Analysis type of users
Question 6 of the questionnaire was included in order to classify the respondents into different types of
online users. Each component corresponds with a certain type of online user, in accordance with the
Social Technographics Ladder illustrated in chapter 2. The types of users are indicated in red in the
table below. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they perform the activities based on a
Likert scale of frequency. Each item corresponds with a value. The values are indicated in bold in the
table below. With these values, an average score for each type of user could be calculated.
TABLE F1:
QUESTION 6 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH CLARIFICATIONS
6)
How often do you perform the activities below on social media?
Never
Now and then
Regularly
Often
Very often
Almost always
Likert scale value
0
1
2
3
4
5
CONSUMER: I view other users’ messages and
updates
O
O
O
O
O
O
CONSUMER: I search for information about a
product or service (e.g. prices, reviews, retail info,
etc.)
O
O
O
O
O
O
PARTICIPATOR: I post messages and updates
O
O
O
O
O
O
PARTICIPATOR: I comment on messages and
updates
O
O
O
O
O
O
CREATOR: I create and maintain pages (e.g.
company pages, interest pages, etc.)
O
O
O
O
O
O
CREATOR: I create and post my own content
(e.g. videos, music, blogs, etc.)
O
O
O
O
O
O
Examples of calculations
-
Respondent #23 answered the question as shown in green in the table above. This means that he
scored as follows on the several types of users:
Consumer: (4+4)/2 = 4
Participator: (0+0)/2 = 0
Creator: (0+0)/2 = 0
These scores result in this respondent being classified as a consumer.
-
Respondent #73 answered the question as shown in blue in the table above. This means that he scored
as follows on the several types of users:
Consumer: (2+3)/2 = 2,5
Participator: (3+3)/2 = 3
Creator: (1+1)/2 = 1
These scores result in this respondent being classified as a participator.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
79
Appendix G: Graphs and tables from desk research
200000
FIGURE G1:
AMOUNT OF FOLLOWERS PER ORGANISATION ON 29 APRIL 2014
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
YouTube
80000
Google+
LinkedIn
60000
Twitter
40000
Facebook
20000
0
TABLE G1:
AMOUNT OF FOLLOWERS PER ORGANISATION ON 29 APRIL 2014
Facebook
Onlineticketshop NL
Ticketmaster NL
See Tickets NL
TicketStarter
Live Nation NL
Ticketpoint
Budgetticket NL
TicketTribune
Eventim
Rang1Tickets
Total
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
Total
171.852
8.726
95,1%
4,8%
122.036
45.800
72
19
0
167.927
72,7%
27,3%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
100%
146.522
7.845
153
18
0
154.538
94,8%
5,1%
0,1%
0,0%
0,0%
100%
10.403
56.914
15,5%
84,5%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
26.869
19.879
34
51
46.833
57,4%
42,4%
0,1%
0,1%
100%
7.064
1.530
63
8.657
81,6%
17,7%
0,7%
100%
436
3.030
12,6%
87,4%
1.788
359
83,3%
16,7%
998
941
51,7%
48,3%
1.216
420
74,3%
25,7%
489.184
77,0%
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
n.a.
n.a.
190
YouTube
0,1%
n.a.
180.768
100%
67.317
100%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
145.444
225
261
114
635.228
22,9%
0,0%
0,1%
0,0%
100%
3.466
100%
2.147
100%
1.939
100%
1.636
100%
80
TABLE G2:
PRESENCE ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES PER TICKETING ORGANISATION
Facebook
Since
Followers
Most popular age-group
Twitter
Onlineticketshop
Ticketmaster
See Tickets
TicketStarter
Live Nation
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
May 2010
March 2011
December 2010
March 2012
September 2011
171.852
122.036
146.522
10.403
26.869
35-44
18-24
35-54
18-24
18-24
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
October 2010
March 2011
June 2009
April 2006
November 2008
Followers
8.726
45.800
7.845
56.914
19.879
Google+
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
Since
Since
January 2012
February 2014
?? 2013
-
?? 2011
Followers
190
19
18
-
34
LinkedIn
no
yes
yes
no
no
Since
-
??
??
-
-
Followers
-
72
153
-
-
YouTube
no
yes
yes
no
yes
Since
-
November 2011
July 2011
-
December 2008
Followers
-
0
0
-
51
Ticketpoint
Budgetticket
TicketTribune
Eventim
Rang1Tickets
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
May 2012
Facebook
Since
September 2010
February 2011
September 2011
January 2010
Followers
7.064
436
1.788
998
1.216
Most popular age-group
35-54
35-54
25-44
25-34
13-17/35-44
Twitter
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
October 2010
February 2011
June 2011
June 2009
June 2010
Followers
1.530
3.030
359
941
420
Google+
Since
no
no
no
no
no
Since
-
-
-
-
-
Followers
-
-
-
-
-
LinkedIn
no
no
no
no
no
Since
-
-
-
-
-
Followers
-
-
-
-
-
yes
no
no
no
no
November 2009
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
-
-
YouTube
Since
Followers
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
81
TABLE G3 (a):
ACTIVITY ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES PER TICKETING ORGANISATION
Onlineticketshop
Ticketmaster
See Tickets
TicketStarter
Live Nation
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
205
400
208
48
324
8
15
8
2
Facebook
Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14
Average posts per week
1. Announcements 1. Announcements 1. Announcements 1. Announcements
Most frequent posts
12
1. Videos
2. Ticket info
2. Ticket info
2. Event info
2. News
2. Announcements
3. FB events
3. Contests
3. Interaction
3. Interaction
3. Reviews
% Direct link to website included
87,6%
36,2%
43,1%
14,6%
57,1%
Allows reviews of organisation?
no
yes
yes
no
no
Allows posts by users?
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Offers web care?
no
yes
yes
no
yes
41
657
48
225
133
44
2.287
229
256
894
2
39
3
13
8
6,8%
65,1%
66,4%
12,1%
84,1%
Twitter
Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14
(excl. replies + retweets)
Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14 (incl.
replies + retweets)
Average posts per week (excl.
replies + retweets)
% Web care (replies)
Google+
Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14
1
13
0
-
0
Average posts per week
0
3 (started on Feb 1)
0
-
0
-
4
2
-
25
YouTube
Amount of videos
N.B. LinkedIn is excluded from this table as no (public) posts were published on any of the accounts
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
82
TABLE G3 (b):
ACTIVITY ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES PER TICKETING ORGANISATION
Ticketpoint
Budgetticket
TicketTribune
Eventim
Rang1Tickets
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
54
2
23
26
26
0
1
Facebook
Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14
Average posts per week
2
1. FB events
Most frequent posts
2. Ticket info
1. Announcements 1. Announcements
1
1
1. FB events
1. FB events
2. -
2. News
2. Ticket info
2. Announcements
3. Announcements
3. -
3. Ticket info
3. Announcements
3. Ticket info
42,4%
100%
91,3%
43,1%
78,6%
Allows reviews of organisation?
no
no
no
no
no
Allows posts by users?
yes
no
yes
yes
no
Offers web care?
no
no
no
yes
no
41
0
94
3
9
44
0
109
20
9
2
0
6
0
1
33,3%
-
13,8%
35,0%
0,0%
Total posts sep ’13 – feb ‘14
-
-
-
-
-
Average posts per week
-
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
-
-
% Direct link to website included
Twitter
Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14
(excl. replies + retweets)
Total posts nov ’13 – feb ’14 (incl.
replies + retweets)
Average posts per week (excl.
replies + retweets)
% Web care (replies)
Google+
YouTube
Amount of videos
N.B. LinkedIn is excluded from this table as no (public) posts were published on any of the accounts
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
83
FIGURE G2:
TYPES OF FACEBOOK POSTS FROM SEP 2013 TO FEB 2014 PER ORGANISATION
Event
info
2%
Tips
3%
WWJK
1%
Video Photo(s) Interactio
1%
2%
n
8%
News
5%
FB event
9%
Interactio
n
2%
Photo(s)
6%
Announc
ements
45%
Tips
12%
Announc
ements
22%
Video
1%
Contest
15%
FB event
10%
Event
info
4%
Interactio
n
4%
Interactio
n
11%
Photo(s)
9%
Video
24%
4%
G2.7. TicketTribune
Video
4%
Announc
ements
23%
Contest
winners
2%
Photo(s)
11%
Contest
5%
News
18%
Ticket
info
13%
News
4%
Announc
ements
65%
Interactio
n
12%
Announc
ements
19%
G2.9. Rang1Tickets
News
4%
Interactio
n
8%
Announc
ements
27%
Ticket
info
23%
FB event
23%
Event
info
15%
Event
info
2%
FB event
39%
Reviews*
12%
G2.8. Eventim NL
Video
4%
Announc
ements
15%
Ticket
info
22%
Photo(s)
4%
Tips
4%
News
11%
Event
info
9%
Contest
3% News
Ticket
info
4%
Event
info
15%
G2.6. Ticketpoint
Ticket
info
12%
Announc
ements
58%
News
15%
Tips
0%
Ticket
info
8%
Contest
10%
Contest
winners
3%
G2.5. Live Nation NL
G2.4. TicketStarter
Contest
4%
Announc
ements
19%
Video
7%
Ticket
info
17%
News
3%
Photo(s)
2%
Interactio
n
14%
Photo(s)
10%
Contest
winners
7%
Ticket
info
28%
Video
6%
G2.3. See Tickets NL
G2.2. Ticketmaster NL
G2.1. Onlineticketshop NL
Ticket
info
11%
FB event
46%
N.B. Budgetticket NL showed no significant Facebook activity during this 6-month period.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
84
FIGURE G3:
TYPES OF TWITTER POSTS FROM NOV 2013 TO FEB 2014 PER ORGANISATION
G3.1. Onlineticketshop NL
G3.2. Ticketmaster NL
Replies
7%
G3.3. See Tickets NL
Retweet
s
6%
Tweets
29%
Tweets
93%
G3.4. TicketStarter
Replies
65%
Retweet
s
13%
Tweets
21%
Replies
66%
G3.5. Live Nation NL
G3.6. Ticketpoint
Retweet
s
1%
Replies
12%
Retweet
s
5%
Tweets
15%
Tweets
30%
Tweets
88%
G3.7. TicketTribune
Replies
65%
Replies
84%
G3.8. Eventim NL
Replies
14%
G3.9. Rang1Tickets
Tweets
15%
Retweet
s
50%
Replies
35%
Tweets
86%
Tweets
100%
N.B. Budgetticket NL showed no Twitter activity whatsoever during this 4-month period.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
85
TABLE G4:
USER ENGAGEMENT ON FACEBOOK PER ORGANISATION (SEP 2013-FEB 2014)
Total
Total likes
comments
(1 point each)
(2 points
each)
Onlineticketshop NL
Total shares
(3 points
each)
Engagement
Amount of
score
FB posts
Average
score per
post
6.652
1.332
1.509
13.843
205
68
Ticketmaster NL
29.257
12.540
3.982
66.283
400
166
See Tickets NL
49.943
17.089
6.715
104.266
208
501
3.229
1.306
3.918
17.595
48
366
10.925
2.768
2.040
22.581
324
70
395
325
23
1.114
54
21
Budgetticket NL
0
0
0
0
2
0
TicketTribune
15
74
0
163
23
7
Eventim NL
12
2
0
16
26
1
Rang1Tickets
71
46
3
172
26
7
100.499
35.482
18.190
194.033
1.316
1.207
TicketStarter
Live Nation NL
Ticketpoint
Total
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
86
Onlineticketshop NL
Ticketmaster NL
See Tickets NL
TicketStarter
Live Nation NL
Ticketpoint
Budgetticket NL
TicketTribune
Eventim NL
Rang1Tickets
Total
TABLE G5:
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF LIKES, COMMENTS AND SHARES PER TYPE OF POST
46
L
26
6
C
11
16
12
S
9
66
61
9
L
9
2
7
29
1
C
2
2
0
2
6
0
S
-
0
39
-
270
42
25
L
-
-
0
15
-
34
23
20
C
0
-
-
0
48
-
5
17
30
S
0
-
-
4
-
-
-
16
13
L
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
3
0
C
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
0
S
0
1
-
-
12
8
201
39
90
L
0
5
-
-
3
6
17
16
27
C
0
0
-
-
2
2
3
4
16
S
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
C
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
S
-
-
-
7
15
905
706
180
-
L
-
-
-
2
111
365
251
72
-
C
-
-
-
0
1
1.878
267
24
-
S
*
78
12
5
17
24
-
-
0
Contest
154
11
2
11
-
0
1
Review
40
17
1
-
2
0
News
75
1
0
1
0
FB event
14
0
0
0
Event info
2
3
0
Ticket info
0
0
Announcement
0
410
1
(8)
76
0
(5)
47
0
(21)
187
(9)
80
6
(1)
12
0
(62)
377
-
(15)
92
-
(17)
100
-
(7)
33
0
(1)
3
0
(0)
0
0
(44)
351
0
(9)
75
1
(3)
27
0
(19)
19
-
(5)
5
-
(0)
0
-
(363)
1.813
-
(160)
801
-
(434)
2.170
-
13
(41)
* Calculation: total amount of likes/shares/comments per type of post divided by the amount of posts per type = average
N.B. All numbers are rounded off to whole numbers
87
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
Onlineticketshop NL
Ticketmaster NL
See Tickets NL
TicketStarter
Live Nation NL
Ticketpoint
Budgetticket NL
TicketTribune
Eventim NL
Rang1Tickets
Total
TABLE G5:
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF LIKES, COMMENTS AND SHARES PER TYPE OF POST
-
108
30
-
L
9
-
-
24
8
-
C
-
-
0
-
-
0
1
-
S
-
0
-
-
3
15
11
163
23
12
L
(2)
14
-
0
-
-
0
2
1
10
1
0
C
(1)
10
-
0
-
-
0
4
1
4
1
0
S
(61)
429
16
-
-
-
5
37
49
220
78
24
L
(6)
45
1
-
-
-
0
4
4
12
21
3
C
(2)
11
1
-
-
-
0
1
0
5
3
1
S
(70)
491
5
1
-
-
-
20
27
241
162
35
L
(96)
672
10
0
-
-
-
18
3
329
293
19
C
(3)
20
0
0
-
-
-
0
3
9
4
4
S
(33)
130
-
-
1
-
-
11
-
88
30
-
L
(2)
8
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
4
4
-
C
(2)
6
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
1
5
-
S
(60)
60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60
-
L
(7)
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
C
(24)
24
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
-
S
(468)
4.681
35
2
3
2
60
260
1.049
2.217
799
254
L
(192)
1.920
18
1
10
0
36
184
392
700
503
76
C
(249)
2.428
1
0
0
0
3
60
1.889
307
105
63
S
*
-
-
-
227
Total
16
-
-
(32)
WWJK
-
-
1
Tips
-
-
(0)
Interaction
-
41
Photo(s)
-
(14)
Video
154
Contest winners
(51)
* Calculation: total amount of likes/shares/comments per type of post divided by the amount of posts per type = average
N.B. All numbers are rounded off to whole numbers
88
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
Appendix H: Graphs and tables from quantitative research
FIGURE H1:
AGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG
RESPONDENTS
TABLE H1:
AGE/GENDER DISTRIBUTION AMONG RESPONDENTS
6; 3,6%
5; 3,0%
6; 3,6%
15-19
11; 6,5%
Male
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
Total
9
16
9
9
9
3
3
4
62
5,4%
9,5%
5,4%
5,4%
5,4%
1,8%
1,8%
2,4%
37,1%
44
36
12
5
2
2
3
2
106
7,1%
3,0%
1,2%
1,2%
1,8%
1,2%
63,1%
21
14
11
5
6
6
168
8,3%
6,5%
3,0%
3,6%
3,6%
100%
20-24
53; 31,5%
25-29
30-34
14; 8,3%
Female
26,2% 21,4%
35-39
21; 12,5%
40-44
Total
45-49
52; 31,0%
50+
53
52
31,5% 31,0% 12,5%
* All percentages were rounded off to one decimal
FIGURE H2:
CONCERT ATTENDANCE AMONG RESPONDENTS
FIGURE H3:
AMOUNT OF SNS ACCOUNTS PER PERSON
3; 1,8%
7; 4,2% 5; 3,0%
11; 6,5%
2; 1,2%
Never
26; 15,5%
25; 14,9%
33; 19,6%
22; 13,1%
2
Less than 3x a year
3
4
3x or 4x a year
20; 11,9%
5
Once every two months
27; 16,1%
71; 42,3%
6
Once a month
7
More than once a month
42; 25,0%
42; 25,0%
TABLE H2:
RESPONDENTS’ USE OF DIFFERENT SNSs
Facebook
YouTube
LinkedIn
Twitter
Google+
Instagram
Pinterest
FourSquare
No (active) account
Monthly
Biweekly
Weekly
Daily
11
6,6%
26
15,5%
78
46,4%
22
13,1%
98
58,3%
65
38,7%
119
70,8%
160
95,2%
5
3,0%
17
10,1%
33
19,6%
10
6,0%
39
23,2%
12
7,1%
26
15,5%
6
3,6%
1
0,6%
14
8,3%
11
6,6%
2
1,2%
9
5,4%
10
6,0%
4
2,4%
0
0,0%
5
3,0%
35
20,8%
33
19,6%
17
10,1%
8
4,8%
8
4,8%
10
6,0%
0
0,0%
85
50,6%
70
41,7%
13
7,7%
67
39,9%
12
7,1%
54
32,1%
8
4,8%
2
1,2%
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
1
Every hour Constantly
34
20,2%
4
2,4%
0
0,0%
34
20,2%
0
0,0%
13
7,8%
1
0,6%
0
0,0%
27
16,0%
2
1,2%
0
0,0%
16
9,5%
2
1,2%
6
3,6%
0
0,0%
0
0,0%
Total
168
100%
168
100%
168
100%
168
100%
168
100%
168
100%
168
100%
168
100%
89
8
TABLE H3:
RESPONDENTS’ ACTIVITY FREQUENCY
0. Never
1. Now
and then
2.
Regularly
3. Often
4. Very
often
5. Almost
always
Total
Average
0
0,0%
10
6,0%
25
14,9%
31
18,5%
48
28,6%
54
32,1%
168
100%
3,66
20
11,9%
47
28,0%
47
28,0%
30
17,9%
19
11,3%
5
3,0%
168
100%
1,98
I post messages and updates
5
3,0%
52
31,0%
56
33,3%
31
18,5%
13
7,7%
11
6,6%
168
100%
2,17
I comment on messages and updates
5
3,0%
45
26,8%
63
37,5%
27
16,1%
21
12,5%
7
4,2%
168
100%
2,21
I create and maintain pages
103
61,3%
30
17,9%
17
10,1%
11
6,6%
3
1,8%
4
2,4%
168
100%
0,77
I create and post my own content
89
53,0%
46
27,4%
17
10,1%
7
4,2%
6
3,6%
3
1,8%
168
100%
0,83
I view other users’ messages and
updates
I search for information about a product
or service
TABLE H4:
FOLLOWERS AMONG RESPONDENTS
None
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Google+
16
9,5%
113
67,3%
120
71,4%
1
0,6%
1**
0,6%
3
1,8%
Live Nation Nederland
73
43,5%
68
40,5%
67
39,9%
2*
1,2%
1
0,6%
2
1,2%
See Tickets Nederland
122
72,6%
38
22,6%
22
13,1%
1
0,6%
0
0,0%
0
0,0%
Eventim Nederland
140
83,3%
19
11,3%
14
8,3%
n.a.
1*
0,6%.
1*
0,6%
Ticketpoint
164
97,6%
3
1,8%
1
0,6%
n.a.
0
0,0%
n.a.
Onlineticketshop Nederland
147
87,5%
19
11,3%
4
2,4%
n.a.
n.a.
0
0,0%
TicketStarter
131
78,0%
11
6,6%
32
19,1%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
TicketTribune
166
98,8%
1
0,6%
1
0,6%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Rang1Tickets
166
98,8%
2
1,2%
0
0,0%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Budgetticket Nederland
167
99,4%
1
0,6%
0
0,0%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Ticketmaster Nederland
n.a. The organisation does not have an account on this social network site.
* The organisation does not have an account on this social network site. Nevertheless, respondents indicated that
they follow this organisation on this platform. It could be that the respondent mixed up the NL account with the
International account of the organisation or that he/she clicked the answer by mistake.
** The organisation does have an account on this social network site, but according to public data the account does
not have any followers. It could be that the respondent mixed up the NL account with the International account of the
organisation or that he/she clicked the answer by mistake.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
90
FIGURE H4:
RESPONDENTS' MOTIVES FOR FOLLOWING TICKETING ORGANISATIONS
1,2%
2,4%
0,6%
2,4%
0,6%
Fast and easy access to information in which I am interested
(access to information)
3,6%
Things are being posted that I like (entertainment)
9,5%
I was not aware that I follow these organisations
A different reason
In order to show a certain level of affinity (show affinity)
Interaction with the organisation (social connection)
Interaction with other users (social connection)
79,8%
So other users can see that I am interested in these
organisations (social identity)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
91
Appendix I: Chi-square tests of independence
A number of chi-square tests of independency have been performed to find out whether there exist
significant relations between certain variables. This part of the appendix shows how these chi-square
values were calculated and the results per test performed.
The test for independence of X and Y begins by assuming that there is no relationship between the
two variables. This is the null hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is that there is some relation
between the two variables. The null hypothesis is rejected if the chi-square value exceeds the number
of the critical value.
The critical value (cv) is found by using alpha (α) and the number of degrees of freedom (df) when
looking into the chi-square table. In this research, for all tests, the value of alpha is 0,05 because the
confidence level is 95%. The degrees of freedom value for each test is calculated by multiplying the
amount of rows minus 1 by the amount of columns minus 1.
The basis for this chi-square test is a cross table with the observed research data of two variables.
The values in this table are referred to as the observed values (O). To calculate the chi-square, a table
with expected values (E) has to be drawn up. The expected values are calculated by multiplying each
row total by each column total, and dividing this by the total number of subjects.
After drawing up the observed values table and the expected values table, the chi-square value can
be calculated using the following formula:
∑
When
(
)
is larger than the critical value, then the null hypothesis is rejected, meaning that there is
some relation between the two variables. When
does not exceed the number of the critical value
than the null hypothesis is accepted, meaning that there is no significant relation between the two
variables. The chi-square test says nothing about the nature of the relationship other than that it
exists.
For the calculations that showed relations between the variables, the row-percentages have been
added to the observed values tables so that an observation of the nature of the relationship could be
made.
N.B. During the calculations, all values were rounded off to two decimals.
N.B. The chi-square test of independence is deemed inappropriate for small sample sizes (when any
expected value is lower than 1 or more than 20% of the expected values is lower than 5). For the
reasons stated in the main texts, the chi-squares have been calculated despite these restrictions. For
each test below it is indicated whether it is appropriate.
(Gingrich, 1992)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
92
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR AGE* AND CONCERT ATTENDANCE
TABLE I1 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Never
Less than 3x
3x or 4x per
Once every 2
Once a
More than once
per year
year
months
month
a month
Total
15-24
1
12
50
20
12
10
105
25-34
1
7
11
2
3
11
35
35-44
0
0
5
4
4
3
16
45+
0
3
5
1
1
2
12
Total
2
22
71
27
20
26
168
* Age categories were grouped together with the aim of minimising the number of expected values below 1.
TABLE I1 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Never
Less than 3x
3x or 4x per
Once every 2
Once a
More than once
per year
year
months
month
a month
15-24
1,25
13,75
44,38
16,88
12,50
16,25
25-34
0,42
4,58
14,79
5,62
4,17
5,42
35-44
0,19
2,10
6,76
2,57
1,90
2,48
45+
0,14
1,57
5,07
1,93
1,43
1,86
α = 0,05
df = 15
cv = 24,9958
= 23,44
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 3 of the expected values are below 1 and 58% are below 5
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR INVOLVEMENT IN MUSIC INDUSTRY AND CONCERT ATTENDANCE
TABLE I2 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Never
Involved
Not involved
Total
Less than 3x
3x or 4x per
Once every 2
per year
year
months
Once a month
More than
once a month
Total
0
1
6
7
7
14
35
0,0%
2,9%
17,1%
20,0%
20,0%
40,0%
100%
2
21
65
20
13
12
133
1,5%
15,8%
48,9%
15,0%
9,8%
9,0%
100%
2
22
71
27
20
26
168
TABLE I2 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Never
Less than 3x
3x or 4x per
Once every 2
Once a
More than once
per year
year
months
month
a month
Involved
0,42
4,58
14,79
5,63
4,17
5,42
Not involved
1,58
17,42
56,21
21,38
15,83
20,58
α = 0,05
df = 5
cv = 11,0705
= 30,67
null hypothesis is rejected  relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 1 of the expected values is below 1 and 33% are below 5
This chi-square test was repeated with different columns (infrequent, regularly, often). This test was appropriate (no values
below 1 or 5). It delivered similar results: chi-square of 24,62 with a critical value of 5,99147.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
93
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WWJK AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TICKET SALES
TABLE I3 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
I know where to
I use a search
find official sellers
engine
101
I know the campaign
Other
Total
7
4
112
90,2%
6,3%
3,6%
100%
26
9
1
36
72,2%
25,0%
2,8%
100%
I’ve heard of it
I’ve never heard of it
Total
7
13
0
20
35,0%
65,0%
0,0%
100%
134
29
5
168
TABLE I3 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
I know where to
I use a search
find official sellers
engine
I know the campaign
89,33
19,33
3,33
I’ve heard of it
28,71
6,21
1,07
I’ve never heard of it
15,95
3,45
0,60
α = 0,05
df = 4
cv = 9,48773
Other
= 43,08
null hypothesis is rejected  relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 1 of the expected values is below 1 and 44% are below 5
This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘other’ category. This test was appropriate (only 1 value below 5). It delivered
similar results: chi-square of 41,39 with a critical value of 5,99147.
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WWJK AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS
TABLE I4 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Follows only primary
(Also) follows secondary
organisations
organisations
I know the campaign
80
32
112
I’ve heard of it
24
12
36
I’ve never heard of it
10
10
20
114
54
168
Total
Total
TABLE I4 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Follows only primary
(Also) follows secondary
organisations
organisations
I know the campaign
76,00
36,00
I’ve heard of it
24,43
11,57
I’ve never heard of it
13,57
6,43
α = 0,05
df = 2
cv = 5,99147
= 3,59
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is appropriate
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
94
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR AGE* AND AMOUNT OF SOCIAL NETWORK ACCOUNTS*
TABLE I5 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
TABLE I5 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
SNSs
SNSs
SNSs
SNSs
9
39
53
4
105
8,6%
37,1%
50,5%
3,8%
2
14
14
5
5,7%
40,0%
40,0%
14,3%
100%
1
10
5
0
16
6,3%
62,5%
31,3%
0,0%
100%
15-24
25-34
35-44
45+
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
SNSs
SNSs
SNSs
SNSs
15-24
8,75
41,88
46,88
7,50
100%
25-34
3,75
13,96
15,63
2,50
35
35-44
1,33
6,38
7,14
1,14
45+
1,00
4,79
5,36
0,90
Total
2
4
3
3
12
16,7%
33,3%
25,0%
25,0%
100%
14
67
75
12
168
Total
* Both categories were grouped together with the aim of minimising the number of expected values below 1.
α = 0,05
df = 9
cv = 16,9190
= 17,10
null hypothesis is rejected  relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 1 of the expected values is below 1 and 44% are below 5
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR TYPES OF USERS AND AMOUNT OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS BEING
FOLLOWED
TABLE I6 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
1 org.
2 org.
3 org.
4 org.
5 org.
> 5 org,
Total
Consumer
24
47
24
9
2
1
107
Participator
11
8
8
5
1
0
33
Creator
0
1
2
1
0
0
4
Undetermined
9
4
9
2
0
0
24
Total
44
60
43
17
3
1
168
TABLE I6 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
1 org.
2 org.
3 org.
4 org.
5 org.
> 5 org,
Consumer
28,02
38,21
27,39
10,83
1,91
0,64
Participator
8,64
11,79
8,45
3,34
0,59
0,20
Creator
1,05
1,43
1,02
0,40
0,07
0,02
Undetermined
6,29
8,58
6,14
2,43
0,43
0,14
α = 0,05
df = 15
cv = 24,9958
= 16,94
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 8 of the expected values are below 1 and 58% are below 5
This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘undetermined’ category and lowering the amount of columns (more than 4,
instead of more than 5). This test delivered similar results: chi-square value of 8,30 with a critical value of 15,5073.
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
95
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR TYPES OF USERS AND LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT WITH REGARD TO TICKETING
ORGANISATIONS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
TABLE I7 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
I only read what
I regularly visit the
appears on my
page to see what
timeline
has been posted
I never look at it
Total
Consumer
9
79
19
107
Participator
4
20
9
33
Creator
0
3
1
4
Undetermined
3
17
4
24
Total
44
119
33
168
TABLE I7 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
I never look at it
I only read what
I regularly visit the
appears on my
page to see what
timeline
has been posted
Consumer
10,19
75,79
21,02
Participator
3,14
23,38
6,48
Creator
0,38
2,83
0,79
Undetermined
2,29
17,00
4,71
α = 0,05
df = 6
cv = 12,5916
= 2,96
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 2 of the expected values are below 1 and 50% are below 5
This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘undetermined’ category. This test delivered similar results: chi-square value of
3,29 with a critical value of 9,48773.
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND AMOUNT OF
TICKETING ORGANISATIONS BEING FOLLOWED*
TABLE I8 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
TABLE I8 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
>3
1 org.
2 org
3 org.
Involved
12
6
12
5
35
Not involved
32
54
31
16
133
Total
44
60
43
21
168
org.
Total
>3
1 org.
2 org.
3 org.
Involved
9,17
12,50
8,96
4,38
Not involved
34,83
47,50
34,04
16,63
org.
* The amount of organisations categories were grouped together with the aim of making the test appropriate
α = 0,05
df = 3
cv = 7,81473
= 6,78
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is appropriate
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
96
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR CONCERT ATTENDANCE AND AMOUNT OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS
BEING FOLLOWED
TABLE I9 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
1 org.
2 org.
3 org.
4 org.
5 org.
> 5 org,
Total
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
Never
Less than 3x per year
9
8
4
1
0
0
22
3x or 4x per year
19
29
19
4
0
0
71
Once every two months
6
12
6
1
2
0
27
Once a month
2
5
6
6
1
0
20
More than once a month
8
5
7
5
0
1
26
Total
44
60
43
17
3
1
168
TABLE I9 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Never
1 org.
2 org.
3 org.
4 org.
5 org.
> 5 org,
0,52
0,71
0,51
0,20
0,04
0,01
Less than 3x per year
5,76
7,86
5,63
2,23
0,39
0,13
3x or 4x per year
18,60
25,36
18,17
7,18
1,27
0,42
Once every two months
7,07
9,64
6,91
2,73
0,48
0,16
Once a month
5,24
7,14
5,12
2,02
0,36
0,12
More than once a month
6,81
9,29
6,65
2,63
0,46
0,15
α = 0,05
df = 25
cv = 37,6525
= 36,98
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 10 of the expected values are below 1 and 56% are below 5
This chi-square test was repeated with a lower amount of columns (more than 3, instead of more than 5). This test delivered
similar results: chi-square value of 24,35 with a critical value of 24,9958.
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND LEVEL OF
ENGAGEMENT
TABLE I10 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Involved
Not involved
Total
TABLE I10 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
I only read
I regularly visit
I never
what
the page to
look at it
appears on
see what has
my timeline
been posted
9
24
2
35
25,7%
68,6%
5,7%
100%
7
93
33
133
5,3%
69,9%
24,8%
100%
16
117
34
168
α = 0,05
df = 2
I only read
Total
I regularly visit
I never
what
the page to
look at it
appears on
see what has
my timeline
been posted
Involved
3,33
24,38
7,08
Not involved
12,67
92,63
29,92
cv = 5,99147
= 16,29
null hypothesis is rejected  relation
chi-square test is appropriate
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
97
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR TYPES OF USERS AND INITIAL MOTIVES FOR FOLLOWING TICKETING
ORGANISATIONS
TABLE I11 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Social
Show
Access to
Interaction
Interaction with
connection
affinity
information
with users
organisation
0
0
90
1
0
11
0,0%
0,0%
84,1%
0,9%
0,0%
0
2
25
0
0,0%
6,1%
75,8%
0
0
3
0,0%
0,0%
1
Consumer
Participator
Creator
Undetermined
Total
Entertainment
Not
Other
Total
3
2
107
10,3%
2,8%
1,9%
100%
1
3
1
1
33
0,0%
3,0%
9,1%
3,0%
3,0%
100%
0
1
0
0
0
4
75,0%
0,0%
25,0%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
100%
2
16
0
0
2
2
1
24
4,2%
8,3%
66,7%
0,0%
0,0%
8,3%
8,3%
4,2%
100%
1
4
134
1
2
16
6
4
168
aware
TABLE I11 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Social
Show
Access to
Interaction
Interaction with
connection
affinity
information
with users
organisation
Consumer
0,64
2,55
85,35
0,64
1,27
10,19
3,82
2,55
Participator
0,20
0,79
26,32
0,20
0,39
3,14
1,18
0,79
Creator
0,02
0,10
3,19
0,02
0,05
0,38
0,14
0,10
Undetermined
0,14
0,57
19,14
0,14
0,29
2,39
0,86
0,57
α = 0,05
df = 21
cv = 32,6705
Entertainment
Not
aware
Other
= 39,15
null hypothesis is rejected  relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 10 of the expected values are below 1 and 91% are below 5
This chi-square test was repeated excluding the ‘undetermined’ category and lowering the amount of columns. This test
delivered similar results: chi-square value of 24,92 with a critical value of 21,0261.
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR GENDER AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS
TABLE I12 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Male
Female
Total
TABLE I12 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Follows only
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
organisations
organisations
38
24
62
76
30
107
114
54
168
α = 0,05
Follows only
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
organisations
organisations
Male
42,07
19,93
Female
72,61
34,39
Total
df = 1
cv = 3,84146
= 1,94
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is appropriate
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
98
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR AGE* AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS
TABLE I13 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
TABLE I13 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Follows only
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
organisations
organisations
15-24
72
33
105
25-34
22
13
35-44
9
45+
11
114
Total
Follows only
Total
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
organisations
organisations
15-24
71,25
33,75
35
25-34
23,75
11,25
7
16
35-44
10,86
5,14
1
12
45+
8,14
3,86
54
168
* Age categories were grouped together with the aim of minimising the number of expected values below 1.
α = 0,05
df = 3
cv = 7,81473
= 4,55
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is appropriate
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND FOLLOWING
SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS
TABLE I14 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
TABLE I14 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Follows only
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
organisations
organisations
Involved
26
9
35
Not involved
88
45
133
114
54
168
Total
α = 0,05
df = 1
Follows only
Total
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
organisations
organisations
Involved
23,75
11,25
Not involved
90,25
42,75
cv = 3,84146
= 0,84
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is appropriate
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
99
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR CONCERT ATTENDANCE AND FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS
TABLE I15 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
TABLE I15 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Follows only
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
Follows only
organisations
organisations
Never
0
2
2
Less than 3x per year
18
4
3x or 4x per year
46
Once every 2 months
Once a month
(Also) follows
primary
secondary
organisations
organisations
Never
1,36
0,64
22
Less than 3x per year
14,93
7,07
25
71
3x or 4x per year
48,18
22,82
18
9
27
Once every 2 months
18,32
8,68
11
9
20
Once a month
13,57
6,43
More than once a month
21
5
26
More than once a month
17,64
8,36
Total
114
54
168
α = 0,05
df = 5
Total
cv = 11,0705
= 10,06
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 1 of the expected values is below 1
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND INITIAL MOTIVES FOR
FOLLOWING TICKETING ORGANISATIONS
TABLE I16 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Social
Show
Access to
Interaction
Interaction with
connection
affinity
information
with users
organisation
2
2
94
1
2
11
0
2
40
0
0
1
4
134
1
2
Follows only
primary org.
(Also) follows
secondary org.
Total
Entertainment
Not
Other
Total
1
2
114
5
5
2
54
16
6
4
168
aware
TABLE I16 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Follows only
primary org.
(Also) follows
secondary org.
Social
Show
Access to
Interaction
Interaction with
connection
affinity
information
with users
organisation
0,68
2,71
90,93
0,68
1,36
10,86
4,07
2,71
0,32
1,29
43,07
0,32
0,64
5,14
1,93
1,29
α = 0,05
df = 7
cv = 14,0671
Entertainment
Not
aware
Other
= 10,57
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is inappropriate because 5 of the expected values are below 1 and 75% are below 5
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
100
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT
TABLE I17 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
I never look at it
I only read
I regularly visit the
what appears
page to see what
on my timeline
has been posted
Total
Follows only primary org.
10
79
25
114
(Also) follows secondary org.
6
40
8
54
Total
16
119
33
168
TABLE I17 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
I only read
I regularly visit the
what appears
page to see what
on my timeline
has been posted
I never look at it
Follows only primary org.
10,86
80,75
22,39
(Also) follows secondary org.
5,14
38,25
10,61
α = 0,05
df = 2
cv = 5,599147
= 1,27
null hypothesis is accepted  no significant relation
chi-square test is appropriate
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND AMOUNT OF
ORGANISATIONS BEING FOLLOWED
TABLE I18 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Follows only primary org.
(Also) follows secondary org.
Total
1 org.
2 org.
3 org.
4 org.
> 4 org.
Total
37
45
22
8
2
114
32,5%
39,5%
19,3%
7,0%
1,8%
100%
7
15
21
9
2
54
13,0%
27,8%
38,9%
16,7%
3,7%
100%
44
60
43
17
4
168
TABLE I18 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
1 org.
2 org.
3 org.
4 org.
> 4 org.
Follows only primary org.
29,86
40,71
29,18
11,54
2,71
(Also) follows secondary org.
14,14
19,29
13,82
5,46
1,29
α = 0,05
df = 4
cv = 9,48773
= 16,01
null hypothesis is rejected  relation
chi-square test is appropriate
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
101
CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR FOLLOWING SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS AND HOW OFTEN A POST ON
SOCIAL NETWORK SITES OF TICKETING ORGANISATIONS IS REASON TO BUY A CONCERT TICKET
TABLE I19 (a):
OBSERVED VALUES
Never
Follows only primary org.
Now and
then
Regularly
Often
Very often
Almost
always
Total
15
56
16
13
7
7
114
13,2%
49,1%
14,0%
11,4%
6,1%
6,1%
100%
17
20
6
9
1
1
54
31,5%
37,0%
11,1%
16,7%
1,9%
1,9%
100%
32
76
22
22
8
8
168
(Also) follows secondary org.
Total
TABLE I19 (b):
EXPECTED VALUES
Never
Now and
then
Regularly
Often
Very often
Almost
always
Follows only primary org.
21,71
51,57
14,93
14,93
5,43
5,43
(Also) follows secondary org.
10,29
24,43
7,07
7,07
2,57
2,57
α = 0,05
df = 5
cv = 11,0705
= 11,47
null hypothesis is rejected  relation
chi-square test is appropriate
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
102
Appendix J: Heinonen’s framework with results
N.B. The ranking of each post is shown in parentheses, 1 being the posts with the highest engagement/importance and 13/14
the ones with the lowest engagement/importance.
FIGURE J1:
TYPES OF POSTS BASED ON DESK RESEARCH (ACTUAL ENGAGEMENT)
FIGURE J2:
TYPES OF POSTS BASED ON QUANTATATIVE RESEARCH (DEEMED IMPORTANCE)
Social Ticketing by Fleur Verduin
103