B2B markets’ conversion into social media
Multi-strategy analysis of social media use and attitudes in industrial and IT
companies
Student: Céline Veldeman
Supervisor: Professor Dr. Ellen Van Praet
Co-supervisor: Dr. Peter Mechant
Ghent University
Master in Multilingual Business Communication
Academic Year 2011 – 2012
This research was executed in collaboration with
1

i

Acknowledgements
As a thesis is never truly an individual project I like to hold on to tradition and start this thesis by
expressing my gratitude to all those who have made this interesting research possible.
First and foremost, I would like to thank all research participants for their contribution and especially
the interviewees for their extra time commitment.
Secondly, my gratitude goes to my internship mentors Maaike Lens and Frank Van den Bossche for
offering me this research opportunity and providing me with the necessary resources and constructive
feedback, both practically and content-wise, to achieve a satisfying result.
Thirdly, I give my thanks to my supervisor Ellen Van Praet and co-supervisor Peter Mechant for their
interest in this research topic and the good cooperation.
Finally, I like to show my gratefulness to my family and friends who have supported me, not only
during the writing process, but throughout this whole year. Moreover, a special word of thanks goes to
my parents for proofreading this document.
ii

Abstract
While social media boom in B2C markets, many B2B companies have been reluctant in embracing
those media due to lack of successful role models. Some patterns of involvement by B2B enterprises
do exist, but academic research into this phenomenon remains very limited. Through quantitative and
qualitative research we investigate Belgian B2B professionals’ perception of social media and their
adoption degree. Based on UK research (Michaelidou, Siamagka, & Christodoulides, 2011), we
examine the hypothesis that IT B2B companies are more inclined to be active on social media than
industrial enterprises, creating more concrete and measurable results. We surveyed 92 Belgian B2B
companies online and interviewed 11 enterprises to complement the quantitative research and explain
(non-)differences between sectors in attitudes, knowledge and implementation strategies.
Results demonstrate B2B enterprises value social media for their large communication reach,
increasing brand awareness, traceability and companies’ understanding of market trends through
customer feedback. Contrary to IT, industrial companies perceive negative comments as a great risk
and struggle in convincing management and employees of social media’s benefits. This research
confirms IT enterprises are more motivated to use social media than industrial companies as their
target groups are already active. IT companies also approach social media more systematically,
whereas industrial enterprises often start their activities without a clear strategy until benefits are
proven. Irrespective of strategic approach or adoption rate, both sectors execute similar activities and
measurements, indicating IT companies’ results are probably not more concrete and measurable.
Word count: 11 474
Key words: B2B - social media - corporate communication - perceived usefulness - perceived ease of
use - knowledge - strategy
iii

Table of contents
List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... vi
List of tables............................................................................................................................................. vi
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Part 1: Theoretical background
1 | B2B defined ........................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 | The corporate communication concept ........................................................................................ 3
1.2 | B2B markets................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 | The industrial buying process ...................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 | Buyer behaviour .................................................................................................................... 5
2 | The social media revolution ................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 | Definition social media ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 | Penetration of social media.......................................................................................................... 7
3 | B2B and social media ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 | Technology Acceptance Model .................................................................................................... 7
3.2 | Disconnection B2B versus social media ...................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 | Obstacles to adoption.......................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 | Benefits................................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.3 | Social media goals .............................................................................................................. 11
Part 2: Method
4 | Method .............................................................................................................................................. 13
4.1 | Research questions ................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 | Methodological approach ........................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 | Research strategy and methods ......................................................................................... 13
4.2.2 | Sampling and data collection .............................................................................................. 14
4.2.3 | Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 15
Part 3: Quantitative research results
5 | Quantitative analysis ........................................................................................................................ 18
5.1 | Non-active companies ............................................................................................................... 19
5.2 | Active companies ....................................................................................................................... 19
5.2.1 | Social media approach ........................................................................................................ 20
5.2.2 | Technology Acceptance Model ........................................................................................... 22
5.2.3 | Social media metrics and measurement ............................................................................. 24
5.3 | Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 25
Part 4: Qualitative research results
6 | Qualitative analysis ........................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 | Rationale for B2B to embrace social media ............................................................................... 27
6.1.1 | Social media’s necessity for B2B ........................................................................................ 27
iv

6.1.2 | Perception of the research hypothesis ................................................................................ 28
6.1.3 | Social media relevance ....................................................................................................... 29
6.2 | Social media attitudes ................................................................................................................ 30
6.2.1 | Perceived usefulness .......................................................................................................... 30
6.2.2 | Perceived ease of use ......................................................................................................... 32
6.3 | Social media knowledge ............................................................................................................ 33
6.3.1 | Best practices ...................................................................................................................... 34
6.3.2 | Social media effectiveness .................................................................................................. 35
6.4 | Social media strategy................................................................................................................. 36
6.4.1 | Social media goals and integration in business .................................................................. 37
6.4.2 | Social media activities ......................................................................................................... 38
6.4.3 | Measurement ...................................................................................................................... 38
6.5 | Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 39
7 | Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 41
8 | Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 43
9 | Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 47
9.1 | Appendix A: contact e-mail ........................................................................................................ 47
9.2 | Appendix B: online questionnaire .............................................................................................. 48
9.3 | Appendix C: interviewees .......................................................................................................... 53
9.4 | Appendix D: interview guide ...................................................................................................... 54
9.5 | Appendix E: codebook ............................................................................................................... 56
v

List of figures
Figure 1: Information sources used at any stage of the buying process ................................................. 5
Figure 2: The Technology Acceptance Model ......................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Frequency of social media use by tech buyers ........................................................................ 9
Figure 4: Social media use in B2B companies ...................................................................................... 18
Figure 5: Time investment in social media ............................................................................................ 20
Figure 6: Strategic approach to social media according to sector ........................................................ 20
Figure 7: Social media goals according to sector.................................................................................. 21
Figure 8: Perceived advantages according to sector ............................................................................ 23
Figure 9: Perceived usefulness ............................................................................................................. 24
Figure 10: Social media metrics ............................................................................................................ 25
List of tables
Table 1: The B2B buying process ........................................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Sampling frame industrial divisions ......................................................................................... 15
Table 3: Industrial divisions present in the sample................................................................................ 18
Table 4: Social media channels in use .................................................................................................. 19
Table 5: Social media goals .................................................................................................................. 21
Table 6: Industrial social media goals ................................................................................................... 22
Table 7: IT social media goals ............................................................................................................... 22
Table 8: Social media advantages ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 9: Perceived advantages by industrial companies ...................................................................... 23
Table 10: Perceived advantages by IT companies ............................................................................... 23
Table 11: Social media presence interviewed companies .................................................................... 27
Table 12: Social media knowledge interviewees ................................................................................... 33
vi

“Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted
counts.”
(Cameron, 1963)
vii

Introduction
Talking about social media, spotlights especially shine on business-to-consumer (B2C) companies.
How do social media as promotion channels then apply to business-to-business (B2B) enterprises?
This research investigates social media use, attitudes and implementation strategies within Belgian
B2B companies. Through quantitative research we investigate if IT and industrial B2B companies
differ in social media adoption. Qualitative follow-up research explains differences and similarities
between both sectors, by analysing perceived benefits and risks, social media knowledge and
strategies.
st
Although social media have been hyped since early 21 century, research into social media is very
limited and focuses mainly on B2C enterprises. There is a systematic lack of academic research into
how social media are used by B2B companies and can support business objectives. Moreover, most
existing research is quantitative, limited to foreign countries (e.g. Kerkhofs & de Jong, 2012;
Michaelidou et al., 2011). By mapping social media use within Belgian B2B companies through
quantitative and qualitative research, existing hiatuses are filled.
This research contains academic and economic relevance. By applying the Technology Acceptance
Model on (B2B) companies, we provide new insights in its applicability on organisations rather than
people. Multi-strategy research offers a more reflexive analysis of reality, ensuring academic
extensiveness in understudied research domains.
Increasingly, companies use social media as business tools to gain potential profits, business leads
and sector relevance (Marketo, 2010). By focussing on IT and industrial B2B companies, we
encompass the market’s core since they were world’s most common B2B purchases (Base one,
2011). This research may instigate debate on how social media change business.
This thesis contains four parts: literature study, method, quantitative and qualitative analysis. The first
part encompasses a theoretical framework on B2B markets, the social media revolution and B2B’s
social media acceptance, use and attitudes. We then outline the research hypothesis and questions,
followed by our methodological approach. Finally, the main quantitative and qualitative results are
described.
1

Part 1: Theoretical background
1 | B2B defined
The corporate communication concept
B2B markets
The industrial buying process
2 | The social media revolution
Definition social media
Penetration of social media
3 | B2B and social media
Technology Acceptance Model
Disconnection B2B versus social media
2

1 | B2B defined
1.1 | The corporate communication concept
Social media have become part of many companies’ corporate communications. While some authors
define corporate communication as a mechanism to secure a company’s market position (Tench &
Yeomans, 2008), others align it with public relations and relationship management (Niemann & Steyn,
2010).
This research follows Van Riel’s widely accepted definition as an overarching framework. According to
Van Riel, corporate communication involves all activities orchestrating a company’s communication,
corporate design and employee behaviour to create a distinctive and appealing reputation among
stakeholders on which a company depends (Argenti, 1994; Gray & Balmer, 1998; Van Riel, 2001). In
other words, it is the management of communication, securing a company’s reputation, and thereby its
competitiveness, productivity and financial success (Meredith, 2012). Improving reputation is therefore
only a means to another end. Yet, corporate communication is not linked to communication channels;
any contact people have with a company creates an image (Kotler, Keller, Robben, Geuens, &
Ponfoort, 2010). Therefore, we narrow our research field by aligning business communication with
promotion, as defined by Kotler.
“Promotion is the part of communication that consists of company messages designed to
stimulate awareness of, interest in, and purchase of its various products and services.”
(Kotler, 2003)
Promotion is coordinated corporate communication addressing target groups’ characteristics and
preferences to (directly or indirectly) inform, persuade and remind them of certain products or services
(Kotler et al., 2010). To catch one’s attention companies first need to define how their target
population is spending their attention time. After creating awareness, attention must be kept and
action triggered (Kotler, 2003). After creating corporate brand awareness, promotion/communication
serves conversation and relationship build-ups. Whether it then leads to buying, is another question.
1.2 | B2B markets
B2B companies manufacture and sell products and services to organisations for their own use or to
sell on to other businesses (Wright, 2004). B2B and B2C differ especially in their end consumer: B2C
companies transfer goods and/or services to individual consumers, whereas B2B markets concern the
procurement, logistics and administrative processes between firms (Gereffi, 2001). Other important
differences are the rather small number of buyers in B2B markets, but larger purchases. B2B buying
processes are also more complex because multiple people participate in purchase decisions (i.e. the
1
decision making unit/DMU ), whereas in B2C often only one person decides (Kotler et al., 2010). The
DMU and complexity of most B2B products require multiple face-to-face negotiations and a close
collaboration between marketer and customer.
Contrary to B2C, B2B buying implicates qualified purchaser, professional offers and supplier contracts
(Hamakers, 2011; Kotler et al., 2010). Lastly, B2B purchasers are more cost-driven and led by
1
The decision making unit or DMU includes all people of an organisation playing a role in the buying decision
(Geuens, 2011).
3

objective reasons than emotionally driven B2C customers (Callebaut, 2011). However, the distinction
remains artificial since purchase decisions are always made by people, influenced by personal needs
and perceptions (Hamakers, 2011).
Although B2B purchasers can be commercial, not-for-profit or governmental companies (Kotler et al.,
2010), this research focuses on commercial markets, particularly IT and industrial B2B enterprises.
IT companies generate a substantial amount of technical knowledge in industries such as computers,
biotechnology and software. The sector contains both products and/or services providers,
characterised by continuous innovation. They provide electronics, software, hardware, computers or
services related to information technology (Investopedia, 2012; Mitchell, 2011).
The industrial or secondary sector encompasses organisations that acquire goods and services for
production into end products, to be then sold or rented to others (EconomyWatch, 2010; Wright,
2004). Due to many industry classifications, defining which companies belong to which industry is not
straightforward. According to the Europe-index, there are 23 industrial divisions, such as aeronautic,
food, automotive, textile, … (European Commission, 2012). This research equally addressed a broad
range of manufacturing industries (see part 4.2.2).
1.3 | The industrial buying process
B2B or industrial buying is the decision process by companies concerning a particular supplier when
searching and evaluating products and services, earlier identified as a need (Geuens, 2011). There
exist three kinds of B2B purchases. First, the straight re-buy, implying repeated purchases of products
and services from an existing supplier (Callebaut, 2011). Second, during a modified re-buy, purchase
elements are changed -such as price and delivery period- making the process more difficult than
straight re-buys. Third, a new purchase occurs when products or services are bought for the first time,
creating a complex purchase process, requiring more product information (Kotler et al., 2010).
Depending on purchase type, buying processes differ in difficulty and intensity. In general B2B
purchases entail eight phases, but when straight re-buys or modified re-buys occur, several phases
can be left out (Kotler et al., 2010).
The buying process starts with the comprehension of a company’s need for certain products or
services. Once known, the buyer specifies the requested product characteristics and quantity. In a
third phase, the product specifications are defined by multiple people like managers and end users
(Kotler et al., 2010). Then the buyer looks for the right supplier. Potential suppliers are asked for
4

quotations and evaluated on several criteria. When the ultimate supplier is selected, the order is
negotiated, i.e. the number and technical characteristics. After the purchase, the supplier’s
performance is continuously evaluated (Callebaut, 2011).
Although this process is typically put forward as B2B procurement, it also occurs within B2C markets
when buying investment goods like cars and real estate. Whereas buying from IT or industrial B2B
companies predominantly implies multi-stage sales funnels due to complex and expensive products
and/or services, straight re-buys seldom involve comparisons of suppliers and negotiations. They are
therefore similar to regular B2C buying (Kotler et al., 2010).
1.3.1 | Buyer behaviour
Social media have changed buyer behaviour over the last few years: buyers control their information
searches when using social media to solicit advice from friends, colleagues and communities (Base
one, 2011; Hamakers, 2011).
Information sources used at any stage of the process
Other social media
Twitter Totals
LinkedIn Any traditional online 88%
Blogs Any offline 74%
Any new online/social media 40%
Facebook
Offline events/seminars
Online events/webinars
Press advertising
Direct mail
Word-of-mouth
E-mails from suppliers
Industry press (print)
Web searches
Supplier websites
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
New online/social media Offline Traditional online
Figure 1: Information sources used at any stage of the buying process (Base one, 2011)
In all stages of the buying cycle traditional online information sources are most frequently used,
followed by offline sources and social media. 40% of industrial buyers already use social media (Base
one, 2011). Physical events remain, however, important in B2B buying. The more complex a purchase
decision, the more buyers rely on personal information sources, such as face-to-face meetings
(Alejandro, Kowalkowski, Ritter, Marchetti, & Prado, 2011).
5

Since social media are presentation means, buyers are turning to those tools for their information
searches. Purchasers also actively look for trustworthy information on social media to identify potential
partners. Social media based product and/or service information are perceived as more reliable than
company sponsored communication through traditional channels (Alejandro et al., 2011; Mangold &
Faulds, 2009).
Social media use has especially increased during three key stages in the buying cycle: need
identification, supplier identification and selection (Base one, 2011). Although supplier websites and
web searches are the single most used sources for identification of one’s needs, still 31% of B2B
purchasers apply social media (Base one, 2011). When buyers move onto identifying potential
suppliers, a similar media pattern occurs: traditional online media are used most, followed by 30% of
the buyers using social media. Buyersphere research (2011) shows Belgian social media usage in this
stage falls far below that of German and British purchasers.
Furthermore, only 25% of purchasers use social media for the collection of offers and supplier choice
because personal information sources become more important as the buying process advances
(Alejandro et al., 2011). When true dialogue between partners occurs, buyer-seller relationships are
being formed, focussing on long-term and co-operative buyer-seller relations (Pop, Mihoc, Eotea, &
Lazar, 2011; Webster & Keller, 2004). B2B buyers increasingly turn to those media to create value in
relationship building as they offer fast and personal communication.
Social media’s influence on B2B buying is also rising: blogs and Twitter, for example, both are in the
top five of most influential information sources (Base one, 2011). Facebook has the least weight in
B2B markets. These tools are not yet as decisive in B2B markets as in B2C buying (Hamakers, 2011).
Traditional online channels such as e-mail, web searches and supplier websites remain more
influential. Industrial buyers use, nevertheless, many information sources, demanding companies to
consider a mix of communication instruments (Alejandro et al., 2011; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Social
media are part of this mix and have therefore an undeniable importance in buying processes.
2 | The social media revolution
Although the term social media is widely used nowadays, perceptions of its meaning significantly
differ. Therefore our take on the concept is explicitly defined.
2.1 | Definition social media
“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” (Socrates, 5th century B.C.)
Social media Facebook, Twitter, SlideShare, … in recent years evolved to a number where one
cannot know them all. They continuously change and hugely vary in scope and functionality. Hence,
we focus on the idea behind social media rather than on different types.
Social media are often coined as internet platforms where content creation, information sharing and
interactions occur (Marketo, 2010; Postman, 2009). Most authors share the same view-point, but differ
in focus: Boyd (2009) describes it as social software, whereas Haenlein and Kaplan (2010) refer to the
technical Web 2.0 principle, characterised by user-generated-content. Social media definitions
addressing user-generated-content often imply the revolution those media caused in information
creating and sharing. Consumers now control online information exchanges (Michaelidou et al., 2011).
6

Other authors focus their definitions on collaboration and co-creation (e.g. Kietzmann, Hermkens,
McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011).
This research follows Tamar Weinberg’s definition, combining different focuses:
“Social media is the collaborative tools used for communication. It relates to the media -
that is, those storage/transmission tools that relay data- but refers to that which allows
users/members to be social and interact with one another. […] In the age of the social
internet, we refer to the tools and content that are created by people using these
interactive technologies as ‘social media’." (Weinberg in Carson, 2010)
According to Weinberg, community director of Mashable.com, social media are both tools and content,
simultaneously enabling collaboration, sharing, interaction, storage and transmission.
2.2 | Penetration of social media
B2B marketers are pressured to create a social media presence since many sources claim those
media’s necessity within B2B contexts (GlobalSpec, 2011; Kerley, 2010a; Marketo, 2010). There is a
lack of Belgian figures, but quantitative US, Dutch and UK research demonstrate social media usage
is growing within B2B sectors. 93% of US B2B marketers actively use social media (Holden-Bache,
2011), compared to 58% of Dutch B2B companies (SpotONvision, 2012) and only 27% of UK B2B
brands (Michaelidou et al., 2011). Additionally, both in the US (72%) and the Netherlands (83%)
LinkedIn is most used, followed by Twitter and Facebook (Holden-Bache, 2011; SpotONvision, 2012).
UK marketers, however, prefer Facebook (77%).
US B2B marketers are ahead of Europe. According to Accenture Global Marketing research (2011),
two-thirds of North American B2B marketers believe in social media’s benefits (Digitize, 2011;
Thomas, 2011), while 72% of Dutch companies and 61% of UK businesses find social media
unimportant (SpotONvision, 2012).
Forrester research (in Marketo, 2010) estimated in 2009 that 77% of US B2B IT companies were
active on social media, while in 2011 the number of industrial professionals was still well below 30%
(Capstone, 2011). These findings indicate differences in social media usage among sectors.
According to the literature, companies’ innovativeness and presence of technical skills determine
social media adoption: innovative enterprises are more inclined to use social media (Michaelidou et
al., 2011). This could explain IT has a higher social media presence than industrial B2B companies.
3 | B2B and social media
3.1 | Technology Acceptance Model
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1989) was developed to predict who is most
likely to accept new technologies at work. Recent inquiries show that TAM can explain intentions to
use social media technologies (Dieteren, 2011; Willis, 2008). Through TAM, we can examine reasons
behind the possible differences in the social media adoption rate between IT and industrial B2B
enterprises.
7

This TAM figure explains the usage of technology by two determinants: perceived usefulness (U) and
perceived ease of use (EOU). U is “the degree to which a person believes using a particular system
would enhance his/her job performance”, while EOU is “the degree to which a person believes using a
particular system would be free of effort" (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). Two mechanisms
determine the EOU, namely self-efficacy and instrumentality. The more a person believes the
technology is easy to use, the more he/she feels confident and in control to start using it. The more
user-friendly the technology, the higher its utility, meaning EOU also directly influences perceived
usefulness (Verdegem, 2010).
Actual behaviour is determined by behavioural intent, which is based on an individual’s attitude
towards the technology and, simultaneously, perceived user benefit (De Marez, 2006). Although
having a negative attitude towards social media, he/she might still adopt them when positive benefits
are expected.
In sum, TAM can explain both behavioural intention and actual use of a technology. These technology
acceptance indicators are conceptually different since intention is influenced by attitudes and only
qualitative measurable and actual use is a quantifiable action (Willis, 2008). However, for most
applications technology acceptance is similar to intention, i.e. one can infer technology acceptance
when respondents demonstrate intention to use it (Willis, 2008).
This model shows its robustness by its use in many researches to explain the acceptance of e-mail
(Straub, Keil, & Brenner, 1997), internet based services such as e-commerce (Koufaris, 2002; Pavlou,
2003), and social media (Willis, 2008). This thesis applies the model in an attempt to explain
companies’ acceptance of social media. We expect the same logic, since employees’ perceptions
significantly influence company behaviour. We assume enterprises are more willing to adopt social
media when these are easy to use, i.e. require little investment in time and money. In this research
setting social media usefulness is also determined by social pressure & presence, the risk of sharing
(personal) information and their effectiveness in improving companies’ communication and
relationship building (Dieteren, 2011).
8

3.2 | Disconnection B2B versus social media
Due to scarce academic research on social media in B2B, information within this section is acquired
through articles, blogs and quasi-scientific surveys by practitioners. Contrary to B2B, one easily finds
hundreds of B2C social media success stories. While 65% of US B2B companies find social media to
be very important for their business, only 8% is reaping the benefits (Thomas, 2011). Similarly, many
Dutch (28%) and UK (30%) B2B companies, active in social media, work without a strategy, missing
out on several opportunities (SpotONvision, 2011).
Even though B2B social media presence is increasing, it still falls behind on B2C because many are
not truly convinced about their effectiveness. Prejudices are also strongly present: B2B companies
believe that social media do not fit their industry, are not used by their audience and cannot serve
relationship building (SpotONvision, 2011, 2012). Not less than 32% of Dutch B2B companies do not
have a need for social media (Kerkhofs & de Jong, 2012)
According to US industry research, the main reasons for non-adoption are the idea that customers are
not using it (49%) and the lack of business value (34%) (Semplice, 2012). The same goes for IT
companies:
“We sell difficult technical products within B2B, we don’t see the usefulness of social media.”
(Anonymous in SpotONvision, 2011)
Most companies fear making the wrong investments because of unfamiliarity and lack of social media
knowledge, followed by lack of time and other priorities (Thomas, 2011). More than 80% of B2B US
companies find social media very challenging; showing the necessity of more knowledge, resources
and confidence (Paulsen, 2011).Yet, as mentioned before, their buyers already use social media as
search engines in decision making processes. US studies prove that both IT and industrial buyers use
those media (Levanto, 2011; ThomasNet, 2011).
Frequency of social media use by tech buyers
LinkedIn 8% 11% 29% 51% 1%
Twitter 12% 6% 22% 60% Daily
Weekly
Monthly
YouTube 16% 25% 46% 13% 1% Never
Bias
Facebook 29% 13% 23% 35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 3: Frequency of social media use by tech buyers (Levanto, 2011)
9

Although a large group of IT buyers never use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or YouTube, a significant
number does. 63% of industrial buyers use social media once a week: 25% of them use LinkedIn to
resource industrial products/services and 21% to research potential partners (ThomasNet, 2011). Not
less than 59% engages with peers and 48% follows sector conversations (Kerley, 2010a, 2010b).
3.2.1 | Obstacles to adoption
Besides the conviction of a non-fit between B2B and social media, B2B often lacks key factors to
successfully adopt those media (Comprehensio, s.d.).
Firstly, while a (semi-)dedicated person/team is necessary, communication employees within B2B
companies are often limited. For US B2B companies, lack of resources is the most important
implementation obstacle (Hosford, 2012).
Secondly, insights in how target audiences use social media are required for a successful
implementation. As these companies’ competitive advantage is based on expertise and not on client
knowledge, they have little information on how clients professionally apply social media
(Comprehensio, s.d.).
Thirdly, management commitment is essential, but board resistance still occurs within 22% of B2B
companies, due to lack of resources, knowledge and success metrics (Hosford, 2012). Management
often sees social media as a cost rather than an investment, blocking within 35% of the companies
social media access (GlobalSpec, 2011).
Lastly, many B2B marketers feel they -and their customers- are not ready for social media because
their company culture is not open minded towards participation and dialogue. They still doubt the
meaning of ‘engagement’ and how it can be measured quantitatively (Marketo, 2010; Nair & Sidhu,
2010). B2B companies focussing on traditional return on investment (ROI) metrics like number of
followers are deterred from finding value in social media and are therefore hesitant to implement. B2B
target markets often are smaller than B2C audiences, requiring other goals and measurement (Nair &
Sidhu, 2010).
3.2.2 | Benefits
Since prospects now rely on social media to educate themselves before contacting a company, B2B
companies miss out on potential profits, business leads and sector relevance when they are not active
on social media (Marketo, 2010). Many sources claim the necessity of B2B social media presence to
reap the benefits.
Social media provide engagement in conversations with current and prospective buyers, enhancing
corporate image and awareness which can be used to stimulate lead generation. B2B transactions
rely on strong relationships, so social media can easily leverage new touch points for interaction
(GlobalSpec, 2011; Kerley, 2010a). Twitter is one of the channels appropriate for building professional
relationships (Radian6, 2010).
B2B products are often complex and difficult, so knowledge sharing and problem solving within online
networks can be true assets. According to US research, buyers mainly use social media for
knowledge acquisition and Questions & Answers (Kerley, 2010b). Through online social information
exchange B2B companies increase their credibility and decrease confusion amongst potential buyers,
leading to higher purchasing rates (Kerley, 2010a). Knowledge and experience sharing are best
10

leveraged through blogs which drive traffic to the corporate website through social media and internet
searches (Hosford, 2012; Radian6, 2010).
Third-party feedback, often present on social media, plays a central role in B2B purchase decisions. A
good social media presence may instigate favourable word-of-mouth, influencing buyers (Kerley,
2010a). By generating and sharing ideas in user communities one can get feedback and collaboration
from prospects/clients, leading to interesting Research & Development ideas (GlobalSpec, 2011).
User communities also create customer loyalty, sales opportunities and reduce support costs
(Radian6, 2010).
Finally, through social media companies can materialise the benefits of ‘likeability’ by showing their
personality and workforce. The more people like your company, the more fans/followers are inclined to
become a client and recommend the enterprise to others (Radian6, 2010).
3.2.3 | Social media goals
Once convinced, companies determine their social media goals which must be aligned towards
business goals to retrieve value from it (Jensen, 2010). Since every company is different -has different
goals, customers, cultures and budgets- each enterprise needs to find the right formula for its specific
business (Nair & Sidhu, 2010). Because social media goals depend on companies’ industry, target
groups and resources, research results often differ from one another. While some researchers claim
staying up to date with industry news is the most important objective (GlobalSpec, 2011), others
pretend it is engagement (SpotONvision, 2012).
Regarding international research results, US, UK and Dutch companies vary in their social media
objectives. According to US research from Penton Marketing, increasing awareness and brand
building are the most essential objectives, followed by customer engagement and increasing web
traffic (Paulsen, 2011). For Dutch companies engagement is the single most important goal (71%),
while non-interactive objectives like online exposure and listening to market trends come in second
(47%) (SpotONvision, 2012). UK research, then again, finds interaction to be a less popular reason for
social media adoption: 91% of UK B2B companies use social media to attract new customers, build
customer relationships (86%) and increase brand awareness (73%) (Michaelidou et al., 2011).
11

Part 2: Method
4 | Method
Research questions
Methodological approach
12

4 | Method
4.1 | Research questions
Success stories about effective (commercial) social media usage by B2B companies are scarce: B2B
enterprises have been reluctant in fully embracing social media, and often lack a strategy to
materialise benefits (Veldwijk, 2011). This research attempts to explain this behaviour. Because of
user adoption, social media might be more interesting to certain sectors than others. For instance,
B2B IT companies have already been more inclined to adopt those channels. They might have
established a more effective presence compared to other sectors (Michaelidou et al., 2011).
This research starts from the following hypothesis:
B2B IT companies have been more inclined to use social media compared to B2B
industrial companies, making the results from their social media activities more concrete
and measurable.
By formulating three subordinate questions, this research intends not only to confirm the hypothesis,
or not, but also to bring forward the reasons behind the possible difference in adoption rate, usage and
effectiveness.
1. What are the expectations concerning the benefits and risks of being active on social media?
2. What knowledge do both industries have on social media usage and their effectiveness?
3. How do both industries integrate social media into their commercial strategy?
The research results should show similarities and differences between both sectors regarding
knowledge, attitudes and implementation strategies.
4.2 | Methodological approach
4.2.1 | Research strategy and methods
This thesis applies multi-strategy research or triangulation by integrating qualitative and quantitative
studies (Bryman, 2004). To create diversified insights, we quantitatively investigate associations
between variables, followed by qualitative research to explain those relationships. Qualitative
respondents were selected through the quantitative research (Bryman, 2006).
Due to lack of Belgian research into B2B social media use, it was necessary to first chart this usage
within B2B companies through a descriptive large scale quantitative study. Quantitative research can
test hypotheses and uncover to what extent a specific behaviour is already present (De Pelsmacker &
Van Kenhove, 2010; Van Alphen, 2009). While quantitative research provides hard and general facts,
qualitative approaches offer in-depth understanding of attitudes and ideas (Bryman, 2004). Therefore,
qualitative research provides contextual understanding of differences in social media motivations and
goals, i.e. between industrial and IT B2B companies (Nuttall, Shankar, Beverland, & Hooper, 2011).
13

We applied a quantitative self-completion online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.
Respondents first filled in a standardised questionnaire, made available online (SurveyMonkey).
Survey research identifies associations of patterns between variables at one point in time. As data are
collected at one moment, we cannot determine causal directions of possible relationships, i.e. we
cannot objectively state that the company’s sector influences social media adoption/use. This research
is therefore low in internal validity (Bryman, 2004). Our qualitative data then explain possible causes
for found relationships. Other disadvantages are: missing data, partially answered questions, and low
response rates. We are unable to prove companies that do not participate are similar to those who do.
This possibly influences our results. However, questionnaire standardisation and researcher-
respondent distance do provide objective research data (Bryman, 2004).
Through semi-structured interviews we complement the rigid quantitative output by reconstructing non-
observable aspects. Contrary to quantitative objectivity, interview research subjectively co-creates
meaning. Interviewer and interviewees uncover together B2B social media perceptions and attitudes
(De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2010).
The most important risks are non-replicability and interviewer effects: non-systematic interviewer
behaviour during the interviews may impact the outcome. Since the interviewer is the most important
research instrument, it is difficult to formalise this research. Each interview is characterised by a
different context and phrasing of questions (D'Hoest, 2010). We nevertheless increase replicability by
specifying the applied procedures and tools, and we decrease interviewer effects through pre-
determined questions (Mortelmans, 2007). A semi-structured interview implies standardised questions
and formulation, but neither answer possibilities nor a strict sequence (Boeije, 2005; D'Hoest, 2010).
The small number of interviewees makes it impossible to generalise research results. Through thick
description (rich descriptions composed of facts, commentary and interpretation) we extract meaning
structures that allow readers to judge whether results are transferable to other contexts (Geertz, 1973;
Mortelmans, 2007).
4.2.2 | Sampling and data collection
This research applied purposive sampling methods, i.e. respondents are chosen based on their
theoretical contribution (D'Hoest, 2010).
Within the survey research we first executed a judgement sampling: a number of conditions had to be
fulfilled before a respondent could participate (De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2010). Based upon the
criteria ‘Belgian industrial or IT B2B company’, 499 enterprises were selected from the BEMAS
2 th
member’s list and Data News ICT Guide. They received the 15 of May 2012 an e-mail invitation to
participate (see appendix A). We contacted 374 IT companies, specialised in informatics, software and
web services and 125 industrial enterprises from the following divisions:
2
BEMAS is the Belgian Maintenance Association vzw-asbl; www.bemas.org.
14

th
Because of low response rates, we sent a reminder the 24 of May 2012, and applied a second
screened sampling. Through LinkedIn and Twitter we further spread the request for participation,
following the same criteria (De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2010). The survey was in Dutch,
questioning social media use and perceptions, followed by a profile mapping. It especially contains
closed-ended questions with multiple answer possibilities and five-point Likert scales (see appendix
B).
Interview respondents were selected through a convenience sample. Within the questionnaire we
asked participants whether they were prepared to take part in an interview (De Pelsmacker & Van
Kenhove, 2010). Willing companies were contacted through e-mail. The sample consists of 11
respondents (see appendix C). The interviews were held face-to-face in Dutch, since they achieve the
highest quality (D'Hoest, 2010). The semi-structured interview guide deepens insights in social media
attitudes and use, adding the topic knowledge (see appendix D).
4.2.3 | Analysis
The quantitative data were analysed through SPSS. We used frequency tables to analyse nominal
and ordinal data, and means for scale data (De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2010).
Five-point Likert scales were used to measure respondents’
idea on several statements. By attributing a value to each scale
item, we can determine companies’ level of agreement. The
closer the mean-value to 5, the more respondents agree.
To identify differences in usage, strategies and attitudes between both sectors, we applied univariate
data analyses. We carried out Chi-square tests for nominal data and T-tests for scale data. Only
relevant and significant associations are taken into account. We apply a confidence interval of 95%,
i.e. discovered differences are significant when the p-value of Chi-square or sig-value of T-tests is
15

below 0,05. So, with a certainty of 95% our results are not influenced by coincidence. Relevance
refers to the strength of significant associations, calculated through statistical measurements Cramer’s
V in case of Chi-square test and Eta in case of T-tests. The closer the value to 1, the stronger the
strength of association; a value higher than 0,2 signifies relevant associations (De Pelsmacker & Van
Kenhove, 2010; Van den Bosch, 2009).
The qualitative data are analysed through NVivo: we reduce the data through thematic coding and
then define relations between codes (see appendix E).
16

Part 3: Quantitative research results
5 | Quantitative analysis
Non-active companies
Active companies
Conclusion
17

5 | Quantitative analysis
From the 140 respondents, 80,7% completed the questionnaire. 48 participants had to be removed
from analysis due to inconsistency with our definitions of industrial and IT B2B companies. This
minimises the margin of error and increases the results’ validity (De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove,
2010).
The definite sample contains 92 respondents. A distinction was made along two dimensions: company
size and operational sector. The sample consists of 56,5% IT and 43,5% industrial B2B companies.
Eight industrial divisions are represented.
Most respondents are general management (30,3%), followed by 28,1% responsible for marketing,
15,7% for communication and 11,2% for sales.
Concerning company size, the sample encompasses 50% small companies (i.e. 21,7% employing 1 to
9 employees and 28,3% employing between 10 and 49 people); 27,2% medium-sized enterprises (50
to 250 employees), and 22,8% large companies (engaging more than 250 employees).
Social media use
5,4%
Yes, we use social media, but
do not monitor competitors
8,7%
Yes, we use social media and
41,3% monitor competitors
No, we do not actively use
social media but do monitor
44,6%
No, we do not actively use
social media and do not
monitor
Figure 4: Social media use in B2B companies
18

85,9% of B2B companies use social media. As reported by the literature (Capstone, 2011; Marketo,
2010), IT companies are significantly more active in social media than industrial enterprises (p= 0,009;
Cramer’s V= 0,274).
5.1 | Non-active companies
Ten industrial and three IT companies are not active on social media. While five industrial enterprises
plan a social media presence, three companies are in doubt, four claim they will never use social
media and one did not answer the question. Because of the low number of non-users we cannot make
statistical conclusions on their motives for not being active. It equally comes down to reasons as social
media are a waste of time, are too difficult, lack added value, and increase the risk of publishing wrong
information.
5.2 | Active companies
LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook are the most appreciated and used social media.
From the media list, it is striking that
blogs hold a fifth position since they
require high investments.
Several companies also mention
Pinterest, Issuu and Yammer.
IT companies are using the top five
social media, and SlideShare,
significantly more than industrial
companies (p< 0,05; Cramer’s V> 0,2).
The majority of industrial and IT B2B companies have used social media for less than two years
(54,4%). 31,6% has been active for less than six months and only 13,9% has had a social media
presence for more than two years.
19

Time investment
less than monthly
once a month
multiple times a month
once a week
multiple times a week
once a day
multiple times a day
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Figure 5: Time investment in social media
Industrial and IT enterprises are regularly using social media: 41,8% applies them multiple times a
day. Still 30,4% only uses them a few times a week.
5.2.1 | Social media approach
Similar to previous research (e.g. SpotONvision, 2011) very few companies have a social media
strategy: 19% of B2B companies use a plan, 35,4% is implementing their strategy, 41,8% is just
experimenting, and 3,8% of the respondents have no idea (this number is not pictured in figure 6). IT
companies are most advanced in their strategic approach.
Strategic approach to social media
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
We are implementing a We operate with a
We are experimenting
strategy strategic plan
IT 32,7% 40,8% 26,5%
Industry 56,7% 26,7% 6,7%
Figure 6: Strategic approach to social media according to sector
20

Results indicate industrial companies are significantly more experimenting with social media, without a
plan (p= 0,006; Cramer’s V= 0,396). Additionally, it is generally believed that B2B companies act
without strategy. 40% of the respondents (highly) agree with the following premise: “De meeste B2B-
bedrijven die sociale media gebruiken, doen dat zonder een duidelijke strategie.” (mean= 3,47)
Concerning social
media goals, our
results confirm US
Penton Marketing
research (2011):
brand awareness
is the most
important goal.
Traffic building
and recruiting own
the second and
3
third position.
However, contrary to UK and US literature (Michaelidou et al., 2011; Paulsen, 2011), relationship
building and lead generation appear less important for Belgian B2B enterprises. Though, the smaller
the company, the more social media are used for lead generation (p= 0,023; Cramer’s V= 0,322).
Social media goals
Recruiting
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Brand awareness 30% Relationship building
20%
10%
0%
Traffic building Lead generation
Industrial companies IT companies
Figure 7: Social media goals according to sector
3
Since respondents could indicate their three most important goals, the table presents added percentages.
21

Brand awareness is for both sectors the ultimate goal. This appears to be significantly more important
for IT companies (p= 0,007; Cramer’s V= 0,279), just as recruitment (p= 0,002; Cramer’s V= 0,318).
Although, the second and third most important social media goals vary between sectors, they
represent neither significant nor relevant dissimilarities.
5.2.2 | Technology Acceptance Model
To measure perceived usefulness and ease of use, we adopted already tested scale items (Willis,
2008). Additionally, we questioned social media advantages to deepen insights in perceived
usefulness.
Perceived usefulness
B2B companies consider social
media as communication means.
Through a larger communication
reach, brand awareness can more
easily be reached. Relationship
building is the second most
important advantage. Displaying
expertise to as many people as
4
possible comes in third.
Furthermore, research results show the smaller the company, the more one sees relationship building
as an advantage (p= 0,027; Cramer’s V= 0,316).
4
Since respondents could indicate the three most important advantages, the table presents added percentages.
22

Perceived advantages according to sector
Larger communication
reach
80%
70%
Feedback from target 60% Relationship building
groups
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Customer engagement 0% Low cost
Monitoring Thought leadership
Credibility
Industrial companies IT companies
Figure 8: Perceived advantages according to sector
As can be seen from the figure, IT companies perceive thought leadership, larger communication
reach and customer engagement significantly more often as social media advantages than industrial
enterprises (p< 0,05; Cramer’s V> 0,25). 32,5% of industrial companies consider low cost as an
important advantage, which is significantly higher than the 11,5% of IT companies (p= 0,014; Cramer’s
V= 0,257).
The advantages B2B companies seek, strongly differ between sectors: low cost is only the sixth most
important advantage for IT, and thought leadership comes in fourth for industrial enterprises.
23

Through our premises we measure B2B companies’ attitude on several social media benefits and
risks. Respondents do not agree on the suggested negative side-effects, i.e. difficulties in employer
bonding, protecting internal information and controlling wrong and/or inappropriate employees’ posts
(mean< 2,4). B2B companies perceive social media as relatively useful to their businesses.
Perceived usefulness
“Sociale media kunnen mijn bedrijf helpen om snel
informatie te delen met klanten, partners en andere 4,32
externen.”
“De dialoog met klanten en prospecten zal beter
3,43
verlopen door het gebruik van sociale media.”
“Dankzij sociale media kan mijn bedrijf beter inspelen
3,37
op ontwikkelingen in de markt.”
0 1 2 3 4 5
Mean
Figure 9: Perceived usefulness (based on calculated means)
Similar to the most important advantage, i.e. larger communication reach, 69% of the respondents
(highly) agree that social media offer quick information sharing. B2B companies are also inclined to
agree with the other two statements, but respectively 26% and 31% of the respondents hold a neutral
opinion.
Perceived ease of use
Practical and strategic perceived ease of use were measured through two premises:
- “Sociale media zijn heel praktisch om mee te werken.”
According to 49% of B2B companies, social media are (very) easy applicable (mean= 3,64).
- “Men kan heel vlot met sociale media werken, men moet niet lang stilstaan bij wat men doet.”
While most B2B companies consider social media as easy to use, the strategic determining of
best practices is more difficult. Only 15% of the respondents agree with the premise (mean=
2,58).
5.2.3 | Social media metrics and measurement
B2B companies remain in doubt concerning ROI measurements. 29% of the respondents pronounce a
neutral opinion on the premise “De meeste B2B-bedrijven die sociale media gebruiken, verkrijgen
geen meetbare resultaten.” (mean= 3,30)
24

Through an open-ended question, respondents were invited to provide more information on their
measurement metrics.
- 68 respondents replied: 50 companies measure their ROI.
- 5 respondents only measure qualitatively, i.e. evaluating perceptions through content tracking
or feedback from clients.
- 45 companies measure quantitatively, applying web analytics provided by Google, Facebook
and LinkedIn.
18 respondents only mention the use of web analytics/statistics; other Key Performance Indicator
(KPI) measurements are the following:
Social media metrics
Traffic to the store
Number of reactions
Number of leads
Traffic to the website
Number of views/clicks/likes
Number of retweets
Number of followers
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of mentions
Figure 10: Social media metrics
5.3 | Conclusion
The quantitative results confirm our hypothesis that Belgian IT B2B companies are more inclined to
use social media than industrial B2B enterprises. IT also operates significantly more systematically.
Based on the literature (SpotONvision, 2011), we assume this makes their activities’ outcome more
concrete and measurable.
Applying TAM to social media shows perceived usefulness overrules perceived ease of use. However,
through quantitative research it does not explain why industrial companies are less likely to be already
on social media. Through the interviews, we try to provide more insight in possible explanations for
this conclusion: we seek to understand B2B attitudes in general and differences & similarities between
industrial and IT B2B companies.
25

Part 4: Qualitative research results
6 | Qualitative analysis
Rationale for B2B to embrace social media
Social media attitudes
Social media knowledge
Social media strategy
Conclusion
26

6 | Qualitative analysis
When questioning B2B companies on social media, everyone immediately thinks about Twitter,
Facebook and LinkedIn. Most respondents add it is not a story about tools, but one of changing
business mentality, leading to new communication practices involving direct client contact.
To rightly interpret research conclusions, the interviewed companies’ social media presence (June
2012) is marked in four groups. Exertum does not find its clients on social media and will not expand
beyond its LinkedIn profile.
This analysis presents principal findings around four themes: perceptions of the research hypothesis,
followed by social media attitudes, knowledge and application.
6.1 | Rationale for B2B to embrace social media
This part demonstrates social media are relevant and necessary for B2B companies to respond to
changing market trends and buying behaviours. Industrial enterprises are less motivated to use social
media than IT, lacking technological affinity and target groups who use social media.
6.1.1 | Social media’s necessity for B2B
According to our respondents, target groups and employees’ mentalities are changing, requiring B2B
companies to consciously use social media.
“Sociale media hebben plots een zekere dynamiek op gang gezet die er vroeger niet
was, die je niet meer kan negeren. Dus je moet er mee omgaan: we zijn verplicht, of je
het wilt of niet.” (Daniel Eycken, NRB)
“Social media have suddenly introduced a certain dynamic which was not present before, one you
can no longer ignore. You have to deal with it: we are obliged, whether you like it or not.”
B2B companies feel obliged to use social media because peer-to-peer recommendations’ influence
increases as content sharing and customer feedback soliciting on those media expand. As stated in
the literature (e.g. Kerley, 2010b) most respondents explain clients check social media for business
solutions and trusted third-party feedback (e.g. recommendations) before the purchase decision. A
website becomes insufficient to ascertain high traceability, and to keep reaching and influencing target
groups, companies must participate in those online conversations. Interviewees add that younger
generations entering the job market are used to social media and expect them in business
environments, reinforcing the necessary presence.
27

Only Exertum and Puratos question social media’s necessity because they believe, respectively, it
only works within B2C and industrial B2B professionals are not using it.
“Het is voor te veel B2B-bedrijven misschien nog een ‘nice to have’, geen ‘need to be’.”
(Annick Beeterens, Exertum)
“Many B2B companies consider it still ‘a nice to have’, rather than ‘a need to be’.”
Because of their business activities, IT companies experience more pressure to adopt social media.
Contrary to industrial enterprises, they believe their target groups actively use social media and that
their stakeholders expect them to quickly integrate those media in the communication mix. In sum, IT
must be forerunner in social media to secure its credibility and reputation.
6.1.2 | Perception of the research hypothesis
Unanimously believed, IT B2B enterprises adopt social media faster than their industrial counterparts.
Compliant with the literature (Michaelidou et al., 2011), most interviewees presume IT companies’
innovativeness and affinity with internet applications instigate earlier adoption. Industry falls behind
because those companies’ traditional mind-set hinders social media acceptance.
“Uiteindelijk is een IT bedrijf altijd innovatief, altijd op zoek naar wat er nieuw is en wat er
veranderd is. De industrie is veel trager, het is een oudere sector.” (Katrien Vanherck,
Xylos).
“Ultimately an IT company is always innovative, always looking for what’s new and what’s changed.
The industry is much slower, it is an older sector.”
“Industriële bedrijven zijn over het algemeen vrij conservatief in de dingen die ze doen,
maar ook in de manier van denken. Dat zijn het soort bedrijven die in een later stadium
sociale media gaan overnemen.” (Katrina Wright, ABB).
“Industrial companies are in general fairly conservative in what they do, but also in the way they
think. Those companies will adopt social media in a later phase.”
Fabricom, Puratos, Van Marcke and Vandeputte’s company cultures and philosophies still do not
support social media for the full 100%. Contrary to IT, industrial companies assume that their target
groups have limited interest in social media and therefore can postpone thorough activities since
promotion through social media cannot catch intended attention if one’s audience is absent. However,
Van Marcke claims a presence is already necessary to reach influencers and the press who inspire
stakeholders’ perceptions of companies.
Industrial enterprises emphasise that sector-specific activities, providing IT with a technical advantage,
determine social media adoption. However, IT companies and Van Marcke merely implicitly agree with
the research hypothesis, explaining that acceptance depends on company cultures willing to integrate
new media and on employees’ conviction of the benefits.
28

“Ik denk dat verschillen in sociale media adoptie in een B2B sector minder gerelateerd
zijn aan wat je als bedrijf doet. Ik denk dat het belangrijker is wie je bent als bedrijf: wat
zijn je waarden en hoe ga je het invullen?” (Thomas Verschueren, RealDolmen)
“I think differences in social media adoption within a B2B sector are less related to your business
activity. I think the most important is what you are: what are your values and how are you going to
flesh them out?”
“Ik denk dat de organisatie er klaar voor moet zijn, los van welke industrie dat je zit […].
Maar het is ook step by step: onze mensen zijn er nog niet helemaal klaar voor. We
komen uit een redelijke conservatieve industrie en de firma was ook redelijk
conservatief.” (Philippe Borremans, Van Marcke)
“I think the organisation must be ready for it, irrespective of the industry activity […]. However, it is
also a step by step movement: our employees aren’t ready yet. We operate in a more conservative
industry and our firm was also more conservative.”
Demonstrating IT companies’ argument; Exertum has IT affinity but no employees convinced of social
media benefits or willing to try them. Van Marcke, then again, developed extensive activities through
5
hiring social media believer Philippe Borremans who convinces his colleagues by gradually
introducing those media. However, as IT respondents also agree industrial companies are more
conservative, their vision on the research hypothesis amounts to sectorial differences in mind-set.
6.1.3 | Social media relevance
Respondents perceive social media equally useful for both sectors since their importance depends on
appropriately deciding on goals and channels accordingly. Subject to objectives, social media’s value
is not confined to commercial benefits.
“Ik denk dat we er allemaal iets kunnen uithalen, maar ik denk dat iedereen voor zich
moet kijken wat dan precies. Sociale media kunnen verschillende doelen hebben; ieder
bedrijf moet zelf zijn doel vooropstellen.” (Katrien Vanherck, Xylos)
“I believe we all can achieve some benefits from it, but I think everyone should consider them
individually. Social media can have different goals; each company has to premise their own goal.”
Generally, respondents identify social media as important to keep up with market trends and
competitors adopting those media. To compete, spreading messages parallel through traditional
communication and social media becomes ever more important to draw attention. Similar to
conclusions of Kerley (2010a), the majority of interviewees acknowledge that buyers increasingly
share experiences with companies/products on social media.
As only Internet Architects, NRB, RealDolmen and Xylos mention the importance of social media
usage towards employees through public (Facebook) and/or internal platforms (Yammer), those media
might be extra significant for IT companies, compared to industrial enterprises. IT values social media
in stimulating internal collaboration and employee involvement in the company.
5
Philippe Borremans is Chief Social Media Officer at Van Marcke with 10 years of experience at IBM. As such,
his visions often align more with those of IT respondents than those of industrial interviewees.
29

To conclude, social media are important for both sectors, but not yet perceived as essential by
industrial companies. By investigating in the following section TAM (see part 3.1), we further explain IT
companies’ lead on industrial enterprises and answer the first sub-question.
6.2 | Social media attitudes
Through analysing respectively risks, advantages and challenges, we nominate the variables
explaining why B2B companies perceive social media as more useful than challenging. We conclude
industrial companies struggle more: their management is still unconvinced and they additionally
perceive negative comments as a risk.
6.2.1 | Perceived usefulness
Risks
B2B companies recognise and experience few social media disadvantages or risks. Interviewees even
believe social media absence involves greater risks because one is ill-informed of comments
concerning their company, unable to respond appropriately, offline and/or online. Exertum is an
exception, perceiving more risks than advantages.
Although not supported by our quantitative research (see part 5.2.2), most IT and industrial
interviewees believe own employees pose the greatest threat, becoming company spokespersons
through social media. Their inappropriate and/or wrong messages could damage the corporate
reputation. ABB, for example, already received stakeholder denouncements after an employee
criticised a client on social media. Therefore, ABB, Certipost and Xylos organise employee coaching,
and NRB and Vandeputte use policies concerning dos and don’ts.
Other threats to companies’ credibility are lack of commitment or being insufficiently prepared to
provide quick and correct feedback and sufficient valuable content.
Industrial companies perceive an extra risk, compared to IT enterprises (see below):
“Het is je reputatie die op het spel staat en het gaat redelijk snel. Sociale media zijn een
vergrootglas van het negatieve. Je kunt zoveel positieve dingen hebben als je wil, maar
uiteindelijk leest iedereen daar over. En als er iets negatiefs is, dan heeft iedereen het
wel gezien.” (Christophe Hardy, Puratos)
“Your reputation is on the line and everything changes quickly. Social media magnify the negative.
You can have lots of positive aspects that no one reads. Negative aspects are seen by everyone.”
“Je hebt mensen die zeggen dat negatieve kritiek een risico is. Ik zie dat eigenlijk niet als
een risico, het is een opportuniteit om te tonen dat je volwassen genoeg bent om daar
mee om te gaan.” (Katrien Busschaert, Certipost)
“Some people state negative criticism is a risk. I don’t see it as a risk; it is an opportunity to show
you are mature enough to deal with it.”
Industrial respondents fear losing control over one’s business communication as anyone can publicly
post anything on social media. Puratos and Fabricom, having experienced criticism on their company,
explain only damage control can prevent negative comments from further damaging the corporate
30

reputation. Although industrial companies believe critics can be turned around, negative comments
remain for them a threat, contrary to IT. Van Marcke aligns with IT interviewees, claiming criticism
received through social media is an opportunity to improve one’s image, when handled appropriately.
Benefits
As expected from TAM (Davis et al., 1989), respondents acknowledge more advantages than
disadvantages and each IT respondent enumerates more benefits than industrial interviewees.
Conforming to our quantitative research (see part 5.2.2), larger communication reach is unanimously
seen as the most important advantage, positively influencing brand awareness, image creation and
recruiting through social media.
Concerning brand awareness, interviewees’ opinions are summarised as follows: by creating publicity
through social media, companies reach more and/or new target groups: e.g. the audience linked to
company followers but not the company itself.
“Door je aanwezigheid krijg je wat likes en wat comments, die weliswaar nog
voornamelijk van de eigen medewerkers komen. Maar dat vind ik juist belangrijk, de
mensen die onze boodschappen liken, sharen of er iets mee doen […] zorgen er voor dat
hun netwerk, al hun vrienden, … dat gaan zien.” (Bart Peeters, Fabricom).
“A presence yields some likes and comments, which indeed mostly come from own employees.
However, I believe that is exactly what’s important: those people that like, share or do something
with our messages […] make sure that their network, all their friends, etc. see it.”
Furthermore, respondents assume social media create positive branding, reinforced when company
messages spread virally. While Fabricom and RealDolmen presume those media provide companies a
modern image, ABB thinks active enterprises are perceived as transparent. Some interviewees also
claim sharing solid, business-related and/or technical information (e.g. white papers) among many
6
people creates credibility and thought leadership .
For IT companies thought leadership goes together with employee brand ambassadorship, and is
therefore significantly more important for IT than industrial enterprises (see part 5.2.2). Claiming brain
power is their most important asset, only IT respondents recognise social media’s usefulness in
demonstrating expertise through employees sharing company messages. For Xylos this even led to
new projects.
Larger communication reach also benefits companies like Fabricom, Internet Architects and
RealDolmen who seek to recruit through social media. They emphasise social media’s growing
importance in employer branding to attract personnel due to lack of Belgian IT employees and
engineers, as was also mentioned by Jonckheere (2012).
6
Thought leadership involves demonstrating the company’s expertise by communicating big ideas on customer
issues to prospects and clients in order to position the company as a trusted source.
31

“Ook als B2B-bedrijf heb je er belang bij om via sociale media bekend te geraken bij het
grote publiek, namelijk om er voor te zorgen dat mensen uw bedrijf kennen opdat ze er
spontaan solliciteren of reageren op de job advertenties die je post.” (Daniel Eycken,
NRB).
“A B2B company also has an interest in getting itself well-known through social media among the
general public to ensure people know the company, so they spontaneously apply or respond to
posted job ads.”
Finally, respondents acknowledge customer interaction through social media yields many benefits, but
contrary to the literature (Kerley, 2010a) and our quantitative research (see part 5.2.2), relationship
building was not mentioned. Interviewees agree social media increase market insights through
customer feedback they did not hear before, making it possible to respond/adapt accordingly.
Believing enterprises depend on understanding clients’ needs, NRB, Puratos and Vandeputte want to
take interactivity one step further. Conforming to the literature (GlobalSpec, 2011), they perceive social
media as quick and relatively cheap means for ideation, i.e. collecting ideas leading to new products or
improvements.
6.2.2 | Perceived ease of use
Complementary to US research (Paulsen, 2011) and our quantitative results (see part 5.2.2),
respondents consider social media usage as something that speaks for itself, but are challenged by
getting internally organised to handle those communications and systematically using those media in
the communication mix.
“Het is ook allemaal niet zo moeilijk te gebruiken, maar wel wat er achter zit: wat wil ik er
mee bereiken, levert het mij iets op, hoe gaan we er juist mee om en hoe zeggen we alles
op de juiste manier?” (Katrien Vanherck, Xylos)
“It is not so difficult in usage, but what about the rest: what do I want to achieve, does it pay off for
me, how do we deal with it in the right way and how do we communicate correctly?”
“De grootste uitdaging is de interne organisatie […]: kunnen we de communicatie
aanhouden en omgaan met feedback?” (Philippe Borremans, Van Marcke)
“The biggest challenge is the internal organisation […]: can we sustain this communication and deal
with feedback?”
Interviewees believe business and commercial messages must be balanced to provide followers with
added value and to keep them interested. However, they perceive this necessity of regularly delivering
relevant and qualitative content, adapted to medium and audience, as extremely challenging.
As social media require time and money investments, many respondents also struggle with shifting
other communication means and allocating resources adequately so social media are sufficiently
supported to monitor and handle customer feedback. Difficulties with ROI measurements (see part
6.4.3) even hinder ABB to get employees time committed and Certipost to determine time/money
investments.
Contrary to US research (Hosford, 2012), management resistance and difficulties in receiving enough
resources appear sector-specific: because industrial management is often unconvinced of social
media’s benefits, they allot limited capital.
32

In sum, respondents generally believe that social media create benefits when handled correctly. What
interviewees perceive as best practices, is analysed in the following section. Anyhow, it challenges
enterprises as social media imply changing the communication mix and internal procedures.
6.3 | Social media knowledge
In this part we answer the second sub-question by examining respondents’ knowledge, linked to their
ideas on best practices and social media’s business value.
Both IT and industrial respondents mostly think they have moderate understanding of social media, i.e.
being in apprenticeship.
7 8
Table 12 shows perceived knowledge is not sector-determined or linked to preliminary inquiries into
target groups’ social media usage. Contrary to the literature (Comprehensio, s.d.), one can be expert
and successful without acquiring specific knowledge of how audience groups use social media. ABB,
Fabricom and Puratos believe preliminary inquiries are useless when only limitedly using social media.
Xylos explains it has too many target groups to subdivide and study in detail. Therefore, they adopt
the most well-known channels.
IT and industrial companies have divergent social media adoption rates, but similar knowledge.
However, they interpret knowledge differently: while industrial interviewees link knowledge to practical
insights and skilfulness, IT respondents refer to strategically understanding social media processes
and opportunities.
7
The question if Exertum investigated how their target groups use social media was irrelevant as the interviewee
already pronounced she believes Exertum’s clients are absent on those media.
8
Preliminary inquiries involve desk and literature research or own company research among stakeholders to map
audiences’ social media usage.
33

“Ik denk dat we wel kunnen zeggen dat we expert zijn. Hetgene wat er achter zit, is wat
voor mij bepaalt of je expert bent of niet: het nadenken over de juiste manieren om er
mee om te gaan en doelgericht werken.” (Katrien Vanherck, Xylos)
“I think we are experts. The reasoning behind their usage determines for me whether you are an
expert or not: considering the right ways to deal with those media and adopting a goal-oriented
working attitude.”
“Ik heb te weinig kennis en ben in leerfase. Voor mij is het allemaal nieuw en we zijn er
als bedrijf nog niet lang mee bezig.” (Kathleen Wellens, Vandeputte)
“I have too little knowledge, I’m in apprenticeship. It’s all new for me, and we haven’t been using it
long enough as a company-whole.”
Industrial respondents assert that duration and extensiveness of their social media activities determine
knowledge. Due to their recent social media presence, Fabricom, Puratos and Vandeputte describe
that learning happens through practice.
6.3.1 | Best practices
“Ik denk dat de beste praktijken voor een B2B-bedrijf op sociale media voor een stuk
afhangen van je doelgroep: op welke media zitten zij en waarin zijn zij geïnteresseerd?
En dat zal afhangen van bedrijf tot bedrijf.” (Kathleen Wellens, Vandeputte)
“I think social media best practices for a B2B company depend partially on the target group: which
media do they use and what is interesting to them? This will differ from company to company.”
Various success factors are mentioned as interviewees believe best practices depend on companies’
target groups and specificities like products/services. While Exertum, for example, believes in firm
professionalism, Xylos emphasises its audience appreciates playful yet appropriate messages much
more. To rightly provide target groups the wanted content, respondents do agree one first needs to
understand their needs and ambitions.
Irrespective of knowledge and sector, experts and respondents in apprenticeship mention similar
universal success factors. Most interviewees believe best practices differ according to implementation
phase. During preparation phase, companies must determine their goals and future activities. While
scarcely present on social media, monitoring and exploring important topics for your business become
necessary to secure content delivery and quick responses to comments. Certipost and Van Marcke
emphasise monitoring remains a continuous process. When sufficiently familiar with social media,
companies must actively engage in activities and conversations.
Although an important challenge, several enterprises also perceive working content-wise as a success
factor, i.e. providing information on specific themes that seizes customers’ attention. RealDolmen and
Xylos underline companies must present their workforce as social media concern personalising
corporate brands.
Finally, unanimously agreed, companies should not outsource day-to-day social media communication
as it involves one’s client contact.
34

“Sociale media zijn iets dat je zo dicht mogelijk bij het bedrijf moet houden. Het
communiceren zelf zullen we nooit uitbesteden omdat onze authenticiteit daarvan
afhangt.” (Katrina Wright, ABB)
“Social media should be kept as close as possible to the company. Communicating in itself is
something we will never outsource as our authenticity depends on it.”
While ABB, NRB and Van Marcke do not outsource external communication to keep it authentic,
Certipost and Xylos believe they have the necessary knowledge to outperform external firms.
However, several interviewees acknowledge companies can outsource actions not related to strategic
day-to-day activities, e.g. marketing campaigns, content creation through ghost blogging and ROI
measurements.
6.3.2 | Social media effectiveness
The majority of the respondents value social media for creating an inviting and personal image,
influencing buyers and thus offline negotiations. However, similar to previous research (SpotONvision,
2012), interviewees doubt the extent of their effectiveness in sales and competitiveness. Because
respondents struggle with ROI measurements (see part 6.4.3), perceived effectiveness is based on
intuition; not determined by knowledge or business sector.
Concerning lead generation and conversion, there are weak and strong believers, irrespective of
already having gained customers through social media. ABB, Van Marcke and Xylos truly acquired
clients thanks to those media, but ABB still believes much depends on coincidence.
“Als een bedrijf zegt “wij hebben via sociale media onze omzet kunnen verhogen”, vraag
ik me toch steeds af of het puur door het sociale mediaverhaal komt of dat er nog andere
factoren hebben meegespeeld.” (Katrien Busschaert, Certipost)
“If a company claims “we have increased our turnover through social media”, I always wonder
whether it is solely due to the social media story or whether other factors had an influence.”
“Ik ben er van overtuigd dat door op bepaalde sociale media aanwezig te zijn en door ons
beter online te positioneren, we een aantal extra klanten hebben binnengehaald.” (Erik
Verdeyen, Internet Architects)
“I’m convinced we have gained new clients through a presence on several social media channels
and a better online positioning.”
Weak believers are divided: ABB, Certipost, Puratos and Vandeputte await what the future holds,
whereas Fabricom, NRB and RealDolmen believe social media’s impact will remain limited. They
stress their engagement in expensive projects/tenders implies peer-to-peer recommendations’
influence in purchase decisions will never surpass the importance of price.
Strong believers Internet Architects, Van Marcke and Xylos confirm the literature (Kerley, 2010a) by
proclaiming solid content sharing through social media instigates reliable word-of-mouth, reaching and
convincing interested prospects.
Regarding competitiveness, interviewees assume social media activities like sharing company values,
positively influence corporate image, creating a competitive advantage against those competitors
absent on social media. Market leaders Fabricom and Vandeputte differ, respectively expecting no
35