Table 4: Scoot Taiwan’s Facebook Content (May 2018)
May 2018 Total posts: 32 Description Type of content: practical travel information.
The post went viral because the cute koala video was posted on the weekends, when people finished a week of hard work and just wanted to relax.
Type of content: free flight tickets + brand-related content.
The post was popular because it was calling fans to participate in a contest to win the grand prize.
Statistics Total reach: 19,279 Engagement rate: 8.09 Paid or organic? Organic
Total reach: 71,143 Engagement rate: 3.32 Paid or organic? Paid
3.5 Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was created using the Traditional Chinese language via Google Form, using close-ended questions. The mode of distribution was online. The sample size for this study was N=331. The link was created and distributed between 4-8 July 2018, among the Facebook Groups of Taiwanese students, as well as Taiwanese who are fond of traveling and backpacking. It was also published as comments on LCCs’ Facebook Pages mentioned before to target the demographics who are more likely to travel with LCCs. The Groups were:
1)! NTU Student Group (NTU ):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTU.Head/
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2)! NCCU Student Group (NCCU ):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NCCUSTUDENT/
3)! Exchange Students in Europe ( ):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/154868661566195/
4)! Taiwanese Students in Paris ( ):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/279746385504501/
5)! Okinawa Travel Information ( - 」 ):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Okinawa.trip/
6)! Kansai Japan Travel Information ( 」 ):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/kansai.travel/
7)! Traveling is Amazing! ( 」 ):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1091589394319316/
8)! Backpacking in Thailand ( 」 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1480314878945811/
The questionnaire (see Appendix 1 for Traditional Chinese and Appendix 2 for English) began with a brief introduction that explains the purpose of the survey, and that respondents’ information will be kept confidential. Participation of respondents was
voluntary, but prizes of 200 TWD for 20 random respondents were offered as lottery based.
Respondents who wished to participate in the lucky draw would leave their e-mail address at the end of the questionnaire. This incentive has proved itself to be quite effective, as there were over 300 respondents in the course of 4 days.
The questionnaire was divided into 3 sections: LCCs’ consumer behavior, impressions towards LCCs, which included the four variables, i.e., (1) impression towards the content of LCCs’ Facebook Pages; (2) engagement with LCCs’ Facebook Pages; (3) reliability and image of LCCs; and (4) purchase intention of LCCs, and lastly, respondents’ personal
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
information. In the very beginning of the questionnaire, the definition of LCCs as well as the research scope of the top 7 LCCs in Taiwan were presented to provide respondents with the context of the questionnaire.
In the first part of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked about their consumer behavior with LCCs. They were first asked if they have taken LCCs before, and if they are a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages. These two questions are nominal questions which are used to categorize the respondents in different categories (Christensen et al., 2010). They were also surveyed about the content they prefer to see on LCCs’ Facebook Pages, using the 5 content pillars mentioned before: (1) airfare promotion; (2) free flight tickets/giveaways; (3) celebrity endorsements; (4) practical travel information; and (5) LCC brand-related content. This was a multiple choice question, as respondents can find more than one type of content interesting.
Then, the respondents’ frequencies of viewing and engaging with LCCs’ Facebook Pages were surveyed. This was done in order to create knowledge regarding the respondents’ usage of LCCs.
In the second part of the questionnaire, the four variables were presented with lists of questions as measurements. The questionnaire was designed to gather data that can explain the respondents’ relationship between Facebook content, online engagement, reliability and image, and purchase intention. A Likert scale was used to answer these questions. The respondents were given to think through and answer to what extent they disagree/agree with the stated questions in a Likert scale (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The response options ranged from 1-5 on a Likert scale, where 1 stands for “strongly disagree” and 5 stands for “strongly agree.”
The questions were created based on the pilot study of the data from Facebook Business Manager. They can be found in the table below:
‧
Table 5: List of Survey Measures (N=331)
Measures Mean SD
Impressions towards the content of LCCs’ Facebook Pages 1.The pages are lively, with distinctive brand characteristics.
2. The information shared is fun and interesting.
3. The content of LCCs’ social media marketing is diversified.
4. The pages offer the travel information I need.
5. The marketing campaigns on the pages are impressive to me.
6. The notion of LCCs’ branded content matches my personal beliefs.
7. I understand better the benefits of LCCs by the content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
8. My doubts about LCCs are mitigated by the content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89
Engagement with LCCs’ Facebook Pages 1. LCCs’ Facebook Pages are attractive to me.
2. I would become a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages with the recommendation from my family and friends.
3. I would become a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages with the recommendation from celebrities and influencers.
4. I would interact with other fans on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
5. My questions can often get immediate answers from LCCs’
Facebook Pages.
6. The community managers of LCCs’ Facebook Pages have good interactions with the fans.
7. There’s a sense of unity for the people who love traveling on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
8. I often hit “like” to the content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
9. I comment to exchange ideas with the community managers and other fans on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
10. When I see interesting content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages, I would tag my friend.
11. I would share the interesting content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages with my friends.
12. My impression towards LCCs changes based on the sharing from fans on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
13. When I have experienced flying with LCCs, I would share with the community on LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
14. I would participate in online or offline events by LCCs after becoming a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92
The reliability and image of LCCs
1. The boarding procedures of LCCs are efficient.
2. The booking systems of LCCs are convenient.
3. The fare of LCCs is reasonable.
29.17 5.01
‧
4. LCCs operate with new aircrafts.
5. The in-flight seats of LCCs are cozy.
6. The add-on services of LCCs, e.g., in-flight meals, duty-free products, are fair.
7. The flight security of LCCs is good.
8. The flights of LCCs are on time.
9. The manners and etiquettes of LCCs’ flight attendants are good.
10. The customer service of LCCs’ is swift and proper.
11. The LCCs pay attention to their reputation and ethics.
12. The LCCs actively take part in social and charitable events.
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91
The purchase intention of LCCs
1. I would like to purchase flight tickets of LCCs based on the content of LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
2. Purchasing LCCs’ flight tickets is worthwhile.
3. When I purchase flight tickets, LCCs would be my priority.
4. I would recommend others to purchase LCCs’ flight tickets after becoming a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
5. I find it economical to purchase LCCs’ flight tickets after becoming a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages.
6. I would fly with LCCs again in the future.
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90
In the last part of the questionnaire, the demographics of the respondents were surveyed, which are (1) gender; (2) age; (3) education level; (4) profession; (5) monthly income; (6) monthly disposable income; (7) frequencies of traveling abroad each year; (8) frequencies of traveling abroad with LCCs each year. These served as control variables for this study, to see if these demographic features influence their impression towards content, engagement, reliability and image of LCCs, and purchase intention.
‧
Chapter Four: Research Findings 4.1 Demographic Features of Respondents
The demographic characteristics of the respondents that were made out of Taiwanese online customers are tabled as below. All of the respondents (N=331) answered the questions through online survey; therefore, we can expect a younger demographic – respondents under 40 years old take up to 77% of the total respondents. As the questionnaire was mainly
distributed among the Facebook Groups related to traveling and backpacking, 75% of the total respondents have taken LCCs, and 72% of the total respondents are fans of LCCs’
Facebook Pages.
In terms of respondents’ profession, as the questionnaire was also distributed among Facebook Groups of several Taiwanese universities, a high percentage of 26.9% out of total respondents are students, leading to monthly income of 10,000 TWD and below to 23% and monthly disposable income under 10,000 TWD to 39.2%.
Table 6: Sample Structure
Questions Groups No. of
Respondents (N=331)
Percentage ( )
Have you taken LCCs (budget airlines)? Education Level 1. High school and below
2. Associate degree
‧
Profession 1. Student
2. Government employees 3. Service industry 4. Finance industry 5. Information/technology
6. Communication/advertising/design 7. Arts and literature
8. Freelancer 9. Medical industry 10. Manufacturing
11. Agricultural, Forestry, Fishery and Husbandry
with LCCs each year?
1. Never
4.2 Analysis of Variables
The survey implemented a Likert 5-point scale as means of data collection. In a nutshell, the respondents react positively towards the four variables: impressions towards the content LCCs’ Facebook Pages (showed as “Content” in the table), Engagement with LCCs’
Facebook Pages (“Engagement”), the reliability and image of LCCs (“Image”), the purchase
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
intention of LCCs (“Purchase Intention”). The mean between 3.20 to 3.67 shows the positive sentiment of the respondents.
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics between Variables
Variables Likert Mean Likert SD Mean SD
Content 29.17 5.01 3.64 .62
Engagement 44.88 9.51 3.20 .67
Image 39.33 7.31 3.27 .60
Purchase Intention 22.03 4.42 3.67 .73
4.2.1 Gender Differences
There are no significant differences among the gender of the respondents in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention of LCCs.
Table 8: T-Test of Gender Differences
Variables Group Respondents (N=331)
Mean SD df t
Content Male 92 29.17 5.96 329 .09
Female 239 29.15 4.60
Engagement Male 92 43.65 10.08 329 -1.46
Female 239 45.36 9.26
Image Male 92 39.29 7.90 329 -.06
Female 239 39.34 7.09
Purchase Intention
Male 92 21.95 12.17 329 -.20
Female 239 22.06 12.12
4.2.2 Age Differences
Since there are fewer respondents aged over 50 years old, the two age groups of “51-60 years old” and “Over 61 years old” are combined for statistical purposes to better show the significance. There are no significant differences among the age of the respondents in relation to Content, Engagement, and Image. However, respondents aged 21-30 have higher purchase intention of LCCs than respondents under 20 and above 51 years old. This result provides answer to RQ2 (What are the differences in the demographics in terms of their purchase
‧
intention of LCCs?), showing that consumers aged 21-30 are more willing to purchase flight tickets of LCCs than other age groups.
Table 9: One-way ANOVA of Age Differences
Variables Age
Respond-ents (N=331)
Mean SD
One-way ANOVA Scheffe´
Source of
4.2.3 Differences in Education Levels
There are no significant differences among the education levels of the respondents in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention.
‧
Table 10: One-way ANOVA of Differences in Education Levels
4.2.4 Profession Differences
Since there are 14 options in this questionnaire in terms of profession, some
professions are combined for statistical purposes to better show their significance. There are 6 profession groups in total: Group 1 “Student”; Group 2 “Government Employees”; Group 3
“Service industry” and “Freelancer”; Group 4 “Information/technology,” “Finance industry,”
“Information/technology,” “Communication/advertising/design,” “Arts and literature” and
Variables Education
‧
“Medical industry”; Group 5 “Manufacturing”; Group 6 “Homemaker,” “Retired,” and
“Others.” There are no respondents for “Agricultural, Forestry, Fishery and Husbandry.”
There are no significant differences among the professions of the respondents in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention.
Table 11: One-way ANOVA of Profession Differences
Variables Profession
‧
4.2.5 Monthly Income Differences
Since there are 8 options in this questionnaire in terms of monthly income, some options are combined for statistical purposes to better show their significance. There are 4 monthly income groups in total.
There are no significant differences among the monthly income of the respondents in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention.
Table 12: One-way ANOVA of Monthly Income Differences
Variables Monthly Income (TWD) Content 1. Below 20000
94 29.25 5.70 Between
‧
4.2.6 Monthly Disposable Income Differences
Since there are 6 options in this questionnaire in terms of monthly disposable income, some options are combined for statistical purposes to better show their significance. There are 5 monthly disposable income groups in total.
There are no significant differences among the monthly disposable income of the respondents in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention.
Table 13: One-way ANOVA of Monthly Disposable Income Differences
Variables Disposable Income (TWD)
‧
4.2.7 Differences in Frequencies of Traveling Abroad
Since there are 5 options in this questionnaire in terms of frequencies of traveling abroad each year, some options are combined for statistical purposes to better show their significance. There are 3 groups in total.
There are no significant differences among the respondents’ frequencies of traveling abroad each year in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention.
Table 14: One-way ANOVA of Differences in Frequency of Traveling Abroad
Variables Travel Abroad (each year)
‧
4.2.8 Differences in Frequencies of Traveling Abroad with LCCs
Since there are 5 options in this questionnaire in terms of frequencies of traveling abroad with LCCs each year, some options are combined for statistical purposes to better show their significance. There are 3 groups in total.
There are no significant differences among the respondents’ frequencies of traveling abroad with LCCs each year in relation to Content, Engagement, and Image. However,
respondents who have traveled with LCCs 1-3 times each year, as well as 4 times above, have higher purchase intention of LCCs than respondents who have never traveled with LCCs.
Table 15: One-way ANOVA of Differences in Frequency of Traveling Abroad with LCCs
Variables Travel
One-way ANOVA Scheffe´
Source of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4.2.9 Differences in Traveling with LCCs
There are no significant differences among the respondents’ frequencies of traveling abroad with LCCs each year in relation to Content, Engagement, and Image. However, respondents who have traveled with LCCs have higher purchase intention of LCCs than respondents who have not yet traveled with LCCs. This result provides answer to RQ2 (What are the differences in the demographic features and their purchase intention?), showing that people who have traveled with LCCs have higher purchase intention to travel again with LCCs.
Table 16: T-Test of Differences in Traveling with LCCs
Variables Group Respondents (N=331)
Mean SD df t
Content Yes 248 29.32 4.66 329 .95
No 83 28.72 5.92
Engagement Yes 248 44.97 9.39 329 .28
No 83 44.62 9.91
Image Yes 248 39.49 7.04 329 .68
No 83 38.85 8.10
Purchase Intention
Yes 248 22.58 4.30 329 4.01***
No 83 20.38 4.41
***P .001
4.2.10 Differences in Being a Fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages
There are significant differences in whether one becomes a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages or not in relation to Content, Engagement, and Purchase Intention of LCCs.
Respondents who have become fans of LCCs’ Facebook Pages have more positive sentiments towards Content, Engagement, and Purchase Intention compared to the respondents who have not become fans of LCCs’ Facebook Pages. However, in terms of Image for LCCs, there are no significant differences among the two groups of respondents.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 17: T-Test of Differences in Being a Fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages
Variables Group Respondents (N=331)
Mean SD df t
Content Yes 240 29.76 4.58 329 3.54***
No 91 27.61 5.73
Engagement Yes 240 46.03 9.32 329 3.62***
No 91 41.86 9.39
Image Yes 240 39.48 7.03 329 .60
No 91 38.93 8.04
Purchase Intention
Yes 240 22.65 4.33 329 4.22***
No 91 20.40 4.29
***P .001
4.2.11 Differences in Viewing LCCs’ Facebook Pages
Respondents’ frequencies in viewing LCCs’ Facebook Pages have significant
differences in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention. Respondents who view LCCs’ Facebook Pages for once or twice or more per week, react more positively towards Content, Engagement, and Purchase Intention, compared to the respondents who visit LCCs’ Facebook Pages spontaneously. In addition, respondents who view LCCs’
Facebook Pages twice or more a week, have better Image towards LCCs than the respondents who visit LCCs’ Facebook Pages spontaneously.
‧
Table 18: One-way ANOVA of Differences in Viewing LCCs’ Facebook Pages
Variables
One-way ANOVA Scheffe´
Source of
4.2.12 Differences in Engaging with LCCs’ Facebook Pages
Respondents’ frequencies in engaging with LCCs’ Facebook Pages have significant differences in relation to Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention. Respondents who engage with LCCs’ Facebook Pages for once or twice or more per week, react more positively towards Content, Engagement, compared to the respondents who engage with LCCs’ Facebook Pages spontaneously. In addition, respondents who engage with LCCs’ Facebook Pages twice or more a week, have better Image and higher Purchase Intention towards LCCs than the
respondents who engage with LCCs’ Facebook Pages spontaneously.
‧
Table 19: One-way ANOVA of Differences in Engaging with LCCs’ Facebook Pages
Variables
One-way ANOVA Scheffe´
Source of
4.4 Analysis of Facebook Content
In the questionnaire, respondents (N=331) were asked about their reasons to become a fan of LCCs’ Facebook Pages; since this is formed as a multiple choice question, respondents were able to choose as many options as they see fit. This question could help us understand what kind of content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages online consumers are interested in. As we can see in the figure below, the most preferred content is airfare promotion (84.2% of the total
respondents); fun and practical travel information (35.4% of the total respondents) comes
second; free flight tickets or giveaways (34.2% of the total respondents) comes third; the service
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
51
of LCCs (29.8% of the total respondents) comes fourth; influencers’ sharing about traveling (9.8% of the total respondents) comes last. The result provides answers to RQ1 (What kinds of content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages appeals to online consumers the most, and lead them to engage with the brand?), showing that airfare promotion is the key feature of LCCs’ Facebook Content.
Figure 12: Preferred Content on LCCs’ Facebook Pages
4.4 Hypotheses Testing
To test the hypotheses, preliminary analysis among the variables is important in
explaining the mutual relationships between the independent variable with mediator variable and moderator variable and the dependent variable. There is a positive relationship between Content, Engagement, Image, and Purchase Intention in a statistically significant manner. The implication for this result is that as respondents feel positive about the content of LCCs’ Facebook Pages,
100 119 33
115
283
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
The service of LCCs Fun and practical travel information Influencers' sharing about traveling Free flight tickets or giveaways Airfare promotion
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
52
they feel positive as well about the engagement with LCCs’ Facebook Pages and reliability and image of LCCs; moreover, they are more willing to purchase tickets of LCCs.
The result supports the 3 hypotheses: H1 (The relationship between engagement with LCC’s Facebook content and purchase intention is positively related); H2 (The reliability and image of LCCs will moderate the relationship between LCC’s Facebook content, the
engagement, and purchase intention); and H3 (The engagement will mediate the relationship between LCC’s Facebook content and purchase intention).
Table 20: Construct Correlation Matrix (N=331)
Variables Content Engagement Image Purchase Intention
Content ---
Engagement .59*** ---
Image .63*** .55*** ---
Purchase Intention .48*** .54*** .64*** ---
***P .001
‧
Chapter Five: Conclusion and Discussion 5.1 Discussion
The research seeks to systemize the Facebook content by the LCCs, and how user engagement and reliability and image can contribute to online consumers’ purchase intention of LCCs. Through analyzing the data from Facebook Business Manager, and surveying online consumers (N=331), the results corresponding the the research questions and hypotheses are summarized as the following:
Table 21: Summary of Testing Results of Research Questions
Research Questions Testing Results
RQ1. What kinds of content on LCCs’
Facebook Pages appeal to online consumers the most, and lead them to engage with the brand?
Airfare promotion (84.2%)
Fun and practical travel information (35.4%) Free flight tickets or giveaways (34.2%) LCCs brand-related (29.8%)
Influencers’ sharing about traveling (9.8%) RQ2. What are the differences in the
demographics in terms of their purchase intention of LCCs?
•! Respondents aged 21-30 have higher purchase intention of LCCs than respondents under 20 and above 51
•! Respondents aged 21-30 have higher purchase intention of LCCs than respondents under 20 and above 51