Response to article 2 of 2

Utilization of Relationship-Oriented Social Media in the Selling Process: A Comparison of Consumer (B2C) and Industrial (B2B) Salespeople JESSE N. MOORE, CHRISTOPHER D. HOPKINS, and MARY ANNE RAYMOND Department of Marketing, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA The rapid pace of technological advancement and adoption of social media among consumers=organizations has been unpre- cedented in recent years. This study provides insights into under- standing social media utilization among professional salespeople.

Specifically, social media applications are separated into 15 cate- gories, with multiple applications falling within each category.

From a sample of 395 salespeople in B2B and B2C markets, utili- zation of relationship-oriented social media applications are pre- sented and examined. Overall, findings show that B2B practitioners tend to use media targeted at professionals whereas their B2C counterparts tend to utilize more sites targeted to the general public for engaging in one-on-one dialogue with their customers. Moreover, B2B professionals tend to use relationship- oriented social media technologies more than B2C professionals for the purpose of prospecting, handling objections, and after sale follow-up.

KEYWORDS business-to-business, business-to-consumer, profes- sional sales, professional selling process, social media INTRODUCTION ‘‘Social networks’’ have become digitized during the past decade and the term itself is now more commonly associated with technologies, software Address correspondence to Christopher D. Hopkins, PhD, Department of Marketing, Box 1325, CBBS, Sirrine 245, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1325, USA. E-mail:

[email protected] Journal of Internet Commerce, 12:48–75, 2013 Copyright#Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1533-2861 print=1533-287X online DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2013.763694 48 applications, and=or websites used to connect people with friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, and others via the Internet or World Wide Web. These networking tools fall under the domain of ‘‘social media.’’ Other examples of social media include blogs, micro-blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, web-based e-mail services that are free of charge, mashups, folksonomies, virtual communities, and other web services (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010).

Wikis are collaborative websites usually organized around a specific subject matter that are created and edited by any number of users. The term folkson- omy is a blend of ‘‘folks’’ and ‘‘taxonomy’’ and refers to classification systems created and edited collaboratively online by multiple users. Mashups, on the other hand, are data and services provided by third-parties through open application programming interfaces, such as Google Maps, or internal data sources provided by users. In essence, mashups are unique applications cre- ated by combining the data and=or services of two or more existing data or service providers (Weiss and Gangadharan 2010).

Along these lines, guest editors Crittenden, Peterson, and Albaum (2010) presented a brief portrait of the ‘‘connected consumer,’’ users of social media, in the introduction to the seminal special issue of theJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Managementregarding technology and business-to-con- sumer (B2C) selling. Since that publication, the rapid pace of technological advancement and adoption of social media by consumers has continued.

For example, Americans spent nearly a quarter of their time online visiting social networking sites and blogs in 2009. Two-thirds of the world’s Internet population visited social networking or blog sites that same year. Activity in virtual communities, including social networking sites, accounted for one in every 11 minutes online globally. The number of Americans frequenting online video sharing sites increased 339%between 2003 and 2009. In Febru- ary 2009, social network site usage exceeded web-based e-mail usage for the first time. Growth in social network usage is increasing most rapidly among people in age groups 35–49 and 50–64 although younger audiences were the innovators and early adopters (The Nielsen Company 2009a, 2009b, 2010).

Adoption of social media is increasing among organizations as well. The mean number of social media accounts maintained by Fortune 100 compa- nies was 20 in year 2010. IBM, the leader among those firms in terms of sheer quantity, had 76 micro-blog accounts, 21 online video sharing channels, and 80 employee blogs, all utilized to communicate with customers and various other external and internal stakeholders of the firm (Mishra 2011).

It is important to note that the ubiquity of social media is increasing rap- idly worldwide as the penetration of mobile ‘‘smart phones’’ and tablet com- puters continue a sharp rise. With functionality similar to that of some personal computers, these relatively newer and more portable devices offer added convenience and make social media applications more readily avail- able. Mobile users are 50%more active on social networking sites and smart phone sales outpaced those of personal computers globally for the first time Social Media and Selling49 in the fourth quarter of 2010. The increasing mobile device market penetration and explosive social media adoption trends are expected to con- tinue for some time to come (Bodnar 2010; Goldman 2011; Crittenden et al.

2010; Mishra 2011; Sharma and Sheth 2010; The Nielsen Company 2009a, 2009b, 2010).

Although often enjoyed purely for bonding and entertainment pur- poses, individuals and organizations are using social media to achieve other very specific goals. Consumers are increasingly turning to information tech- nology=systems including social media to gain knowledge about products and companies (Ahearne and Rapp 2010; Crittenden et al. 2010; Ferrell, Gonzalez-Padron, and Ferrell 2010; Fleming and Artis 2010; Sharma and Sheth 2010). The reliance on social media as an information source illustrates the importance of appropriate and effective social media strategies in today’s marketplace and some researchers have gone so far as to refer to social media as the ‘‘new’’ element of the marketing promotional mix (Mangold and Faulds 2009). One of the primary benefits of social media is its ability to make possible meaningful interpersonal disclosure and conversation-like dialogues among users that can be initiated by anyone using an application or within a network. Such dialogues initiated by existing and potential custo- mers can be among the most valuable to salespeople and selling organiza- tions (Bhardwaj, Chen, and Godes 2008; Huang et al. 2007). Other goals pursued via social media include establishing personal, corporate, and pro- duct brand positioning; enhancing brand equity; product and process devel- opment; internal and external marketing; conducting consumer research; general intra-organizational work collaboration; classroom instructional delivery; and employee recruitment and retention (Chakravorti 2010; Cox, Martinez, and Quinlan 2008; Dutta 2010; Edelman 2010; Ellonen and Kosonen 2010; Ferrell et al. 2010; Gaines-Ross 2010; Harris, Rae, and Grewal 2008; Hunt 2010; Mangold and Faulds 2009; O’Connell 2010; Rossman 2011).

Thus, the distinguishing characteristic of many social media applications is the facilitation of rapid and direct interaction among individuals in virtual communities resulting in collaborative production of user-generated content (UGC; Crittenden et al. 2010). Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), more specifically, define social media as a group of Internet-based applications that build upon Web 2.0 and allow the creation and exchange of UGC. Ellonen and Kosonen (2010) identify two modes of social media mediated interaction among buyers and sellers. First, a relationship-oriented mode emphasizes reciprocal and bilateral communication with regard to buyer-seller collaboration and reflects relationship marketing and selling. The relationship-oriented mode is congruent with and similar to the interactive ‘‘Salesperson-Customer Shared Technologies’’ ensconced within Ahearne and Rapp’s (2010) Salesperson-Customer Interface Technology Continuum and the ‘‘Dual Acceptance Innovations’’ contained within Sharma and Sheth’s (2010) Classification of Technologies. The second of Ellonen and Kosonen’s 50J. N. Moore et al. (2010) modes is ‘‘instrumental’’ whereby transaction marketing and selling are emphasized via one-way company controlled communication via social media. This instrumental mode would be classified as more Salesperson- Centric on the Salesperson-Customer Interface Technology Continuum and Customer Resistance Innovation in the Classification of Technologies. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH Relatively little research has appeared in the selling and sales management literature that focuses specifically on social media while these technologies are becoming more omnipresent. This literature gap exists despite the fact that precursor technologies, such as sales force automation (SFA) and cus- tomer relationship management (CRM), have received considerable attention (cf. Ahearne and Rapp 2010; Crittenden et al. 2010). The gap is even more salient given some authors’ suggestion that a variety of high quality and uniquely structured social networks is essential toward the achievement of sales organization goals and the specific objectives of various stages of the selling process (U¨ stu¨ ner and Godes 2006). Thus, the purpose of this article is to report an exploratory study that examines the extent to which salespeo- ple operating in consumer (B2C) and industrial (B2B) environments utilize social media tools. As such, this research responds to previous calls (cf.

Ahearne and Rapp 2010; Crittenden et al. 2010; Sharma and Sheth 2010) and contributes to filling the gap while providing additional foundation for future studies regarding social media in the selling and sales management arena.

The current research specifically examines B2C and B2B sales represen- tatives’ use of relationship-oriented social media with four primary purposes in mind. First, it is determined what specific categories (e.g., blogs, micro-blogs, video sharing, etc.) of relationship-oriented social media appli- cations are being utilized by salespeople. Note the focus here is on relationship-oriented applications that facilitate interaction or the reciprocal exchange of data or of some kind and information in a conversational fash- ion. Data exchanged among users are in the form of text, audio, or visual material. Thus, the authors adopt Ellonen and Kosonen’s (2010) delineation of relationship-oriented social media that is encompassed within Kaplan and Haenlein’s (2010) overarching definition and congruent with recently intro- duced schemas (Ahearne and Rapp 2010; Sharma and Sheth 2010). Second, research participants were asked to identify the specific and more popular social media applications used (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Open-ended response items were included to allow respondents to indicate their usage of less popular, proprietary, and=or intra-organizational applications within each category. Third, the specific stages of the selling process (e.g., prospecting, information gathering, obtaining commitment, relationship Social Media and Selling51 maintenance, etc.), where salespeople utilize relationship-oriented social media technology, need to be determined. Finally, the authors assess differ- ences between B2C and B2B salespeople with regard to their usage of relationship-oriented social media application categories, specific tools within categories, and the various stages of the selling processes wherein the tools are employed.

The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. First, the theoretical underpinning for this study is described including a description of social networking theory. Second, the authors delineate the domain of social media generally and relationship-oriented social media more specifically.

Extant definitions of social media are discussed, and features of social media are delineated that are more relationship-oriented, salesperson- customer shared, or dual acceptance innovations while presenting attri- butes that may ultimately assist in the development of a more widely accepted taxonomy. Third, the authors articulate the specific research ques- tions examined in this study that were more broadly described in the description of the purposes of this study. Fourth, the methodology employed in this research is described. The research methods, participant sample, and analysis procedures are provided. Finally, the results, conclu- sions, and implications of this study are discussed and the article ends with suggestions for future research. SOCIAL NETWORKING THEORY Social networking theory, originating from the study of graphical mathemat- ics, has been utilized across a wide variety of academic and practitioner dis- ciplines to explain an increasingly large number of phenomena. The theory describes networks in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors (i.e., persons and organizations) while ties are the relationships among them. There can be a variety of kinds of ties or relationships among the actors (e.g., social, peer-to-peer, supervisor-to-subordinate, technological, philan- thropic, advocating, adversarial, buyer-seller, special interest, etc.). It is important to note that a focus on the ties and the importance given to them, rather than the attributes of the nodes or actors, empowers the theory and differentiates it from other sociological approaches to human interaction (Barnes 1954; Granovetter 1982).

Network analysis is a fundamental technique often employed in research founded on social networking theory and provides a visual map of nodes and ties within the specific social networks under examination.

Such analyses have been used to explain and map neural patterns within the brain, buyer-seller and supply chain linkages, connectedness within the Internet, and relationships among co-authors publishing works in promi- nent sales and marketing journals (Baraba´ si 2003; Goldenberg et al. 2010; 52J. N. Moore et al. Yang, Jaramillo, and Chonko 2010). Network analyses have demonstrated that the variance in the diffusion of technological, product, and brand inno- vations through different markets has been substantially influenced by respective social network structures. Somewhat similar to network analysis approaches, Onyemah, Swain, and Hanna (2010) employed a social learning perspective that focused on the influences of superiors, peers, and compet- itors in their study of sales technology usage within the nation of Nigeria, an emerging economy.

Congruent with social networking theory, however, the authors focus on the nature of the technological ties or linkages in this study. That is, there is more interest in determining whether relationship-oriented social media technology of various kinds is being utilized by salespeople to connect with external customers. Social networking theory provides the underpinning for this research although network analyses were not used as a methodological tool in the current exploratory study. THE DOMAIN OF SOCIAL MEDIA Defining Social Media While Kaplan and Haenlein’s (2010) overarching definition and Ellonen and Kosonen’s (2010) delineation of relationship-oriented social media is adopted for this study, interestingly, many other definitions are available pri- marily from online sources. These definitions are consistent with the specific definition of social media and the delineation of the relationship-oriented mode adopted for this study. For example, Darlington (2010) defines social media as people having a conversation online. Solis (2010) defines it as the democratization of information, transforming people from content read- ers into publishers. It is a shift from a broadcast mechanism, one-to-many, to a many-to-many model, rooted in conversations between authors, people, and peers. Thornley (2008) states that it is online communications in which individuals shift fluidly and flexibly between the role of audience and author via the use of software that enables people to post, comment on, share or mashup content, and to form communities around shared interests. Nations (2011) notes that social media allows users to provide their input on certain subjects and to interact with those around them in the way that pleases the individual. Hartshorn (2011) explains that social media is akin to a communi- cation channel, a format that delivers a message, and simply a system that disseminates information to others.

The Origin and Scope of Social Media The social networking site, Facebook, is the preeminent example of the explosive growth in the number of social media software applications and Social Media and Selling53 adoption of this class of technology as a whole. Over 600 million users have opened Facebook accounts since creation of the site in 2004. The diffusion and usage of Facebook has been credited as the impetus for the development of numerous applications designed to interface with it and other unique stand-alone social media programs and there are, perhaps, millions of pro- prietary and publicly accessible software applications that fall within the domain of social media. Untold numbers of new products emerge in the mar- ketplace every day (Grossman 2010; Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). Some observers characterize Facebook as the third largest nation with a projected population of one billion users by mid-year 2012, resulting in its creator’s, Mark Zuckerberg, being recognized asTimemagazine’s 2010 Person of the Year (Grossman 2010). Political pundits attribute the recent popular upheaval in Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations to protest and rebel organizers’ use of social media as a means of communication. The Egyptian government’s decision to censor Facebook content and block access to other social sites ultimately led to President Hosni Mubarak’s relatively peaceful resignation (McHugh 2011).

While the power of social media is illustrated daily in traditional news media reports, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) and Sharma and Sheth (2010) provide excellent discussions of the historical roots of the technology. They trace the origins of social media from the beginning of the Internet, or Web 1.0, when bulletin boards allowed users to exchange data, messages, and news. These early forms of social media led to personal and company home- pages that ultimately became weblogs for many individual users. The term weblog is now commonly truncated to ‘‘blog’’ and such sites comprise a sub- stantial portion of modern social media. Blogs and other forms of social media are further facilitated via increased high-speed broadband trans- mission capacity, modern high-capacity (e.g., random access memory and storage) web interface devices (e.g., laptop computers, tablet computers, net- books, and mobile smart phones), and Web 2.0, a term coined in 1999 that some argue reflects changes in the way that software developers and end-users interact with the World Wide Web.

Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) describe Web 2.0 as the platform or ideo- logical and technological foundation of modern social media rather than any specific update to the World Wide Web as a whole. The term alludes to func- tionality created by a specific set of enabling software applications. These enablers include Adobe Flash, which facilitates animation and streaming audio and video; Really Simple Syndication (RSS) used to publish frequently updated content; Asynchronous Java Script (AJAX), a web server application that permits data exchange without interfering with the behavior and display of a web page; and other software and operating systems.

Acknowledging the existence of UGC prior to Web 2.0, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) list formalized attributes that delineate it from other kinds of content found on the Internet. According to the Organisation for 54J. N. Moore et al. Economic Cooperation and Development, which was established in 1961 to help nations handle the challenges presented by a globalized economy, UGC must meet three criteria. First, the content must be published on a publicly accessible website or social networking site available to a select group of people. The authors interpreted the first condition as exclusion of e-mail and instant messaging. Second, UGC must display some creative effort. This condition excludes replications or copies of existing content in Kaplan and Haenlein’s (2010) view. Third, UGC must be created outside of professional routines and practices. The third criterion was interpreted by the authors to exclude content created for commercial purposes.

Other sources and a substantial amount of evidence, however, suggest the three exclusions, as interpreted by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), aren’t widely regarded or accepted in current practice. For example, Alexa Internet, Inc. is a subsidiary of Amazon.com that monitors website traffic on a nearly real-time basis while providing ratings or rankings much like The Nielsen Company does for television programming and Arbitron, Inc. does for broad- cast radio. Alexa Internet, Inc. (2011) consistently lists Google, Yahoo, and MSN (Microsoft Network) cloud or web-based portals among the top-ten traf- ficked sites worldwide. The most frequently used features of these portals include e-mail, instant messaging, and real-time chat. With regard to the crea- tivity exclusion, innumerable blogs aggregate material from a variety of sources and=or include copies or replications of content that is offered in conjunction with that authored by the blog owner(s) (cf. Bodnar 2010). As for Kaplan and Haenlein’s (2010) interpretation of the third exclusion, social networking tools have a solid foothold in the commercial arena and work- place. Commerce-oriented social media applications, such as Foursquare, Poynt, and Urban Spoon, for example, allow users to rate and exchange information regarding food and drink available at various restaurants, theatri- cal productions, and other entertainment events, and even provide gasoline prices offered at a multitude of locations. Mashups that include Global Posi- tioning System (GPS) mapping features integrated with commerce-oriented social media, such as the three applications mentioned previously, provide graphical and=or voice enabled navigation to dining and entertainment establishments and other business locations. Facebook and other social net- working sites are rife with company-owned and product brand pages while most users can cite examples of online ‘‘friends’’ or ‘‘followers’’ that actively promote their own or other commercial enterprises. It is becoming more common to see messages in retail locations, on or offline, encouraging patrons to ‘‘like’’ the company’s sponsored Facebook page. Retailers view the practice as a means of influencing customers’ online friends. Indeed, there are untold numbers of examples of blogs and e-portfolios maintained by individuals as a means of promoting their professional careers while other sites are sponsored by companies to communicate with customers and other external and internal constituents (Barwise and Meehan 2010; Cox et al. 2008; Social Media and Selling55 Dunn 2010; Dutta 2010; Edelman 2010; Gaines-Ross 2010; Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009). Many organizations permit instant messaging or provide proprietary applications solely intended to facilitate collaboration among coworkers (Dennis, Rennecker, and Hansen 2010; Kennedy, Vozdolska, McComb 2010; Salesforce.com, Inc. 2011). Some commercial entities and other institutions have developed formalized policies permitting employees to use social media during business hours for personal and work-related rea- sons within defined guidelines (Breitfelder 2010; Chakravorti 2010; Meister and Willyerd 2010; Quish 2010).

Again, it is important to consider that some observers report there may be millions of social media applications of all types in existence with hun- dreds more developed each day. No one knows exactly how many actually exist at any given point in time (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). For example, top selling personal computer, mobile smart phone, and tablet PC manufac- turers aggressively promote the availability and quantity of unique software applications that can be utilized on their systems as a promotional strategy.

The Apple Corporation claimed there were over 350,000 applications, many of which fall under the domain of social media, available for use with its iPhone mobile smart phone and iPad tablet computer. Manufacturers of mobile smart phones and tablets employing the Android operating system claimed nearly as many were available for their platform. Research In Motion Limited, manufacturer of the BlackBerry trademarked mobile smart phone and operating systems, claimed over 100,000 unique applications were avail- able for its devices (cf. Apple, Inc. 2011; Google, Inc. 2011; Research in Motion, Inc. 2011).

Features and Operational Characteristics of Relationship-Oriented Social Media Similar to the lists of individual applications provided by producers of vari- ous operating systems that one might discover (cf. Apple, Inc 2011; Google 2011; Research In Motion Limited 2011), there are a plethora of aggregate lists of social media sites and applications available at any given time (cf. Alexa Internet, Inc. 2011; Humphrey 2011; InsideCRM.com 2011; Sharma 2007; TechMediaNetwork.com 2011;Time2010; Traffikd.com 2011;Website Maga- zine2011). Authors and editors of some of these aggregate lists place social media sites and applications into categories based upon the intended uses of the various technologies. Many aggregate lists also provide ratings or rank- ings of sites and applications, in terms of frequency of usage, user satisfaction with sites and applications, and=or assessments of quality, ease of use, and= or functionality as determined or reported by ranking site authors and editors.

Examination of the aggregate lists referenced above and others like them yielded a number of categories of social media that are relationship-oriented, 56J. N. Moore et al. facilitate conversation-like exchanges, and are adaptable for use by sales practitioners and organizations. These categories are shown in table 1 along with a definition of each and associated references. It is important to note that the categories and specific applications within each are considered relationship-oriented because these technologies facilitate data and information exchange and collaboration among users rather than one-way TABLE 1Relationship-Oriented Social Media Categories and Definitions Category Definition Reference(s) Blog Journals on a variety of subjects with entries arranged in reverse chronological order.Cox et al. (2008); Huang et al. (2007); Singh, Veron-Jackson, and Cullinane (2008) Micro-blog Allows users to exchange small elements of information, such as short sentences, individual images, or video links.Barnes (2010); Kaplan and Haenlein (2011) Instant Messaging Enables conversation-like data exchange on a variety of devices.Dennis et al. (2010) Photo Sharing=Storage Publishing and=or transfer of digital photographs.Nov, Naaman, and Ye (2010) Video Hosting=Sharing= StoragePermits distribution of video clips to web pages and a variety of devices.Huang, Fu, and Chen (2010) Really Simple Syndication (RSS)Allows users to automatically download frequently updated content to a user-determined page or device.Harris et al. (2008) RSS Feed Readers Aggregates RSS feeds to a target web page or device.Harris et al. (2008) Social and Professional NetworkingPermits users to exchange data with others for bonding or career related networking purposes.Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) Live Interactive BroadcastingPermits users to stream live real-time video publicly or to select users over a dedicated channel.Broida (2007) Web-Based E-mail E-mail service provided via a ‘‘cloud’’ web site or portal.

Online Conferencing= WebinarReal-time meetings, training, or presentations via the Internet.Fillicaro (2002) Social Bookmarking Allows users to store and share web site bookmarks.Darby and Gilmour (2009) Moderated Web CommunityVirtual community organized around specific subject matter or interests.

Require membership approval and prescreening of contributions by a moderator.Moran and Gossieaux (2010) Unmoderated Web CommunitySame as above requiring no membership approval or prescreening of contributions.Moran and Gossieaux (2010) Presentation Sharing= StorageArchived meetings, training, or presentations available via the Internet.Fillicaro (2002) Social Media and Selling57 communication from the site or channel owner to message recipients or site subscribers. They are adaptable, as opposed to other categories of social media not shown in table 1, because individual users and organizations can alter the appearance of an account on a social media platform and present information in a manner that best suits their unique purposes. In con- trast, the Foursquare, Poynt, and Urban Spoon applications mentioned pre- viously in this article and similar proprietary software would not be included among the categories shown in table 1 because these platforms present a standard set of information about retail locations in a predefined format that cannot be altered by account owners, referenced establishments, or other users.

Table 2 provides the most popular applications within each relationship-oriented category and includes a description of the data exchange features of each social media site and application category. Note that the applications share features across the categories and all can be used to share information in the form of text, audio, and video material. For example, blog and social and professional networking sites share the same features but authors and editors of aggregate lists place the applications into different categories because of the intended uses of the applications as defined in table 1.

Along these lines, examination of the data presented in table 2 suggests that placing social media tools into mutually exclusive categories is an extremely difficult and perhaps impossible task because of similarity of fea- tures. Such a task becomes even more difficult when one understands, for example, that a user might author a blog for social bonding or career net- working purposes while another might use his or her social or professional networking account simply as a personal journal. It has been noted, how- ever, that each of the categories shown in table 1 and table 2 provide a unique sort of conversational ambiance with regard to information presen- tation and consumption (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). Fleming and Artis (2010) reported development of a measurement instrument that assesses cus- tomer and corporate affinity for information technology. Examination of the instrument items suggest that it may be useful with regard to capturing users’ perceptions of the unique ambiance of various social media tools. Extant aggregate lists, in any case, provide the most often referenced, by practi- tioners and users in particular, taxonomy of relationship-oriented social media until a more mutually exclusive and widely accepted model is developed.

Table 2 also shows whether data is exchanged in a synchronous or asynchronous fashion or either in some cases via the categories of relationship-oriented social media tools presented to participants for this study. Synchronous exchange indicates users are able to interact in real-time and communicate similar to the way parties would during face-to-face or telephone conversations. That is, users can send and receive information 58J. N. Moore et al. simultaneously. Asynchronous exchange is less conversational in nature but is two-way and can be near real-time. The proximity to real-time for asyn- chronous exchange is dependent upon the response lag of users. For example, blog authors and subscribers have the option of responding to comments and posts immediately after information appears on the site or they may choose to respond at some later time period, which may be several months or years in extreme cases. In contrast, communication tends to be primarily one-way and far less conversational in nature via Foursquare, Poynt, Urban Spoon, and similar types of social media applications although users share ratings of retail offerings. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The specific research questions (RQ) addressed in this exploratory study are characterized as such, rather than hypotheses, due to the paucity of extant TABLE 2Relationship-Oriented Social Media Categories and Software Application Examples CategoryData exchange features Software application examples Text AudioStreaming videoStill photo Blogging A A A A Blogger, Wordpress, TypePad Micro-blogging A=S A A A Twitter, Tumblr Instant Messaging A=SA=SA=S A Google Instant Messenger, ooVoo, MicroSoft Network (MSN), Skype, Yahoo Photo Sharing=Storage A A A A Flickr. Twitpic Video Hosting=Sharing= StorageA A A A Twitvid, UStream, YouTube Really Simple Syndication (RSS)A A A A RSS RSS Feed Readers A A A A Bloglines, Google Reader Social and Professional NetworkingA=S A A A Classmates, Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Ning Live Interactive Broadcasting S S S S UStream.tv Web-Based E-mail A A A A Gmail (Google), Microsoft Network (MSN) Live, Hotmail (MSN),Yahoo Online Conferencing=Webinar A=SA=SA=SA=S Adobe Connect, Go-to- Meeting, ooVoo, Yugma Social Bookmarking A A A A Delicious, Digg, Diigo, Furl, StumbleUpon Moderated Web Community A=SA=SA=S A Google, MSN, Yahoo Unmoderated Web Community A=SA=SA=S A Google, MSN, Yahoo Presentation Sharing=Storage A=SA=SA=S A SlideShare Note.A¼asynchronous data transmission; S¼synchronous data transmission. Social Media and Selling59 conceptualizations and empirical studies available in the sales and marketing literature. The research questions follow a rather logical pattern. That is, the authors first seek to determine whether salespeople in general use relationship-oriented social media tools that fall into each of the categories shown in table 1 (see RQ1). RQ1: What categories of relationship-oriented social media tools listed in table 1 are salespeople currently utilizing? Second, the degree to which salespeople in general are using the most highly ranked or rated applications within each category is examined (see RQ2).

Here, it is important to note that salespeople in general might be using tools within categories that were not included on the list of most highly ranked or rated relationship-oriented social media applications that the authors pro- vided. An open-ended response item (i.e., ‘‘other’’) was included for each category and space was provided to permit respondents to enter the name of the application if it was not included on the list provided. RQ2: What specific relationship-oriented social media software applica- tions within each category listed in table 2 are salespeople cur- rently utilizing? Third, the authors seek to determine whether there are significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople with regard to their utilization of the vari- ous categories of relationship-oriented social media (see RQ3). RQ3: Are there significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople with regard to their utilization of each of the relationship-oriented social media categories listed in table 1? Fourth, it is examined whether there were significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople in their utilization of the most highly ranked or rated relationship-oriented social media applications within each category (see RQ4). An open-ended item was included to address applications not on the list provided here as well. RQ4: Are there significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople with regard to their utilization of specific relationship-oriented social media software applications within each category listed in table 2? Fifth, the authors want to determine where in the selling process salespeople in general are using relationship-oriented social media tools (see RQ5). RQ5: For which stages of the selling process are salespeople utilizing social media? 60J. N. Moore et al. Finally, the differences between B2C and B2B salespeople are assessed with regard to their utilization of relationship-oriented social media tools during various stages of the selling process (see RQ6). RQ6: Are there significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople in their employment of social media for each stage of the selling process? METHODOLOGY Instrument and Sample An online survey instrument via Qualtrics was created, which incorporated multiple questions assessing social media usage. Specifically, participants were asked to provide responses to questions assessing their use of a given social media category (see table 1) and then the specific software applica- tions (see table 2) within said categoryon their jobs. These questions asked individuals to ‘‘check all that apply’’ relative to their usage of a given software application. In order to tap usage during a specific task within the pro- fessional selling process, respondents were asked to indicate ‘‘how often do you use social media for each of the following tasks?’’ Six, seven-point semantic differential items for each of the specific tasks (prospecting, initial contact, sales presentation, handling objectives, closing the sale, and follow-up=after sale service) with bi-polar adjectives consisting of never= often were listed. Additional descriptive questions included primary cus- tomer market served (B2B or B2C), company size and characteristics, distri- bution region, current position held, gender, age, income, time with company, time in industry, education, and ethnicity.

A sample of sales professionals was gathered via a stratified sample of respondents who were part of an online consumer panel (Qualtrics). Two stra- tum consisting of potential respondents that were either industrial (B2B) or consumer (B2C) sales professionals were utilized. This probability sampling procedure was designed to randomly assign an equal number of respondents to each stratum. The process resulted in 395 responses, with 198 for the B2C group and 197 for the B2B group. Specific sample characteristics are presented in table 3. Based on the results shown in table 3, the sample was deemed adequately representative of the national sales force within the United States.

Method of Analysis First, in order to analyze participant sample characteristics, frequency distri- butions were created. Then, to address Research Questions 1–4, multiple chi-square tests were incorporated. While simplistic in nature, these analytic Social Media and Selling61 TABLE 3Participant Sample Characteristics Demographic variableConsumer salesperson (B2C)Industrial salesperson (B2B) Company size (%) <50 people 45.0 35.4 50–200 people 14.5 28.8 >200 people 40.5 35.8 Company characterization (%) Regional 35.5 34.4 National 36.5 35.5 International 34.4 30.1 Company distribution by region (%) Southeast 20.2 20.4 Northeast 21.9 24.4 Midwest 18.6 17.1 Northwest 16.8 16.2 Southwest 22.5 21.9 Current position (%) Sales manager 29.6 31.4 Sales representative 70.4 68.6 Gender (%male) 41.7 58.4 Mean age 36 39 Income (%) <$25,000 27.3 13.0 $25,000–$50,000 38.2 26.4 $50,001–$75,000 18.3 22.7 $75,001–$100,000 9.6 20.1 >$100,000 6.6 17.8 Time with current company (%) <1 year 22.1 18.2 1–5 years 42.3 44.2 >5years 35.6 37.6 Time in industry (%) <1 year 15.7 8.0 1–5 years 35.6 28.0 6–10 years 23.1 18.4 >10 years 26.6 45.6 Education (%) Some high school 1.3— High school graduate 16.8 8.9 Some college 34.1 25.7 College graduate 33.1 40.4 Some graduate hours 6.6 11.5 Graduate=masters degree 8.6 13.5 Ethnicity (%) Caucasian 58.5 76.9 African American 14.7 6.5 Hispanic=Latino 10.1 9.6 Asian American 5.5 7.0 Multi-racial 5.6— Native American 5.6— 62J. N. Moore et al. techniques are appropriate given the psychometric properties of the data.

The questionnaire primarily tapped an individual’s use of a particular tech- nology within a given category thus question formats were largely nominal=qualitative in nature, therefore requiring the use of frequency and chi-square test analysis. Tests were first undertaken for category usage and then separate tests were undertaken within each category to assess specific software usage, the primary differentiating variables within each model being usage frequency and consumer-base served (B2B=B2C). Research Questions 5 and 6 were assessed via a series of sixt-tests with the usage of social media for a specific task within the selling process serving as the continuous level dependent variable and the consumer-base served (B2B=B2C) serving as the dichotomous independent variable. Results of these tests follow. RESULTS RQ1: What categories of relationship-oriented social media tools listed in table 1 are salespeople currently utilizing?

Table 4 provides frequency test results. In assessing ‘‘category’’ social media usage, the ‘‘Total Category=Application usage’’ column provides meaningful insights. First, it is important to note that all categories are being used by salespeople, albeit in varying degrees. The most widely utilized cate- gory, as would be expected, is Web-based e-mail (85.5%). Category usage frequency is highest next for Social and Professional Networking Sites (65.9%), then for Unmoderated Web Communities (49.9%), Instant Messa- ging (48.3%), and then for Online Conferencing=Webinars (46.8%). Usage frequencies for the remaining areas range from 34.4%for Video Hosting= Sharing=Storage to 17.6%for Live Interactive Broadcasting.

RQ2: What specific relationship-oriented social media software applica- tions within each category listed in table 2 are salespeople cur- rently utilizing?

Relative to specific software utilization, table 4 provides frequencies depicting the most popular applications within each category. The most com- monly used category is web-based e-mail, with the most widely used appli- cation being Gmail (24.3%), followed closely by Yahoo (22.5%). This series of software applications was one of only two whereby the ‘‘other’’ option received a response (12.9%). Those who selected this option stated that they currently used some form of firm-specific, LAN server for e-mail. For social and professional networking, as one may expect, Facebook (45.4%) is the most popular, followed by LinkedIn (16.4%). Yahoo is the most popular Unmoderated Web Community (21.4%) followed by Instant Messaging Plat- form (17.0%). YouTube (27.8%) is far and away the most popular tool for Social Media and Selling63 TABLE 4Relationship-Oriented Social Media Category=Application Usage Percentages Category= applicationTotal category= application usage%Consumer sales- person (B2C) usage%Industrial sales- person (B2B) usage%Pearson v 2 Sig. a Blogging 26.2 39.8 60.2 5.66.017 Blogger 14.2 42.9 57.1 Wordpress 8.8 28.1 71.9 9.31 .054 Typepad 3.1 58.3 41.7 Micro-blog 26.2 45.6 54.4 1.01 .316 Twitter 21.9 43.0 57.0 Tumblr 4.3 45.5 54.5 4.65 .199 Instant messaging 48.3 45.8 54.2 2.45 .117 Google IM 11.2 36.4 63.6 ooVoo 0.3 0.0 100.0 Microsoft Network (MSN)12.2 37.5 62.5 10.32 .112 Skype 7.7 46.7 53.5 Yahoo 17.0 58.2 41.8 Photo sharing= storage28.2 43.2 56.8 3.72 .049 Flickr 19.1 45.0 55.5 Twitpic 9.1 33.3 66.7 3.76 .289 Video hosting= sharing=storage34.4 45.2 54.8 1.81 .179 Twitvid 1.0 50.0 50.0 Ustream.tv 5.6 12.5 87.5 7.33 .120 YouTube 27.8 50.0 50.0 Really Simple Syndication (RSS)23.4 38.0 62.0 6.73.010 RSS feed readers 24.4 39.9 60.4 5.38.020 Bloglines 4.6 45.5 54.5 Google Reader 19.8 40.3 59.7 5.23 .156 Social and professional networking sites65.9 46.3 53.7 3.09.050 Classmates 1.0 25.0 75.0 Facebook 45.4 58.2 41.8 LinkedIn 16.4 14.1 85.9 48.26.000 MySpace 2.3 66.7 33.3 Ning 0.5 0.0 100.0 Live interactive broadcasting17.6 30.4 69.6 12.65.000 Ustream.tv 17.6 27.6 72.4 13.74.001 Web-based e-mail 85.5 50.9 49.1 0.964 .326 Gmail (Google) 24.3 38.3 61.7 Microsoft Network (MSN)6.5 40.0 60.0 Hotmail 9.3 61.1 38.9 13.01.023 Yahoo 2.25 58.6 41.4 Other 22.9 35.0 65.0 Online conferencing= webinar46.8 37.0 63.0 23.09.000 (Continued) 64J. N. Moore et al. video hosting and storage. Other stand-outs include Twitter (21.9%) for micro-blogging and SlideShare (21.6%) for presentation sharing and storage. RQ3: Are there significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople with regard to their utilization of each of the relationship-oriented social media categories listed in table 1?

With regard to the specific underlying differences in consumer versus industrial salespeople relative to category usage, table 4 provides the results of chi-square differences tests across the two groups. In interpreting the table, one may note the results attributable to the blogging category. First, under ‘‘Total Category=Application Usage%,’’ 26.2%of those sampled engage in blogging. Of the 26.2%, 39.8%are B2C sales professionals and 60.2%are B2B sales professionals. The difference between the two groups is significant (pvalue¼.017). Significant differences (p .05) were also found for Photo Sharing=Storage, Really Simple Syndication, RSS Feed Readers, Social and Professional Networking, Live Interactive Broadcasting, Online Con- ferencing=Webinar, Social Bookmarking, and Presentation Sharing=Storage. TABLE 4Continued Category= applicationTotal category= application usage%Consumer sales- person (B2C) usage%Industrial sales- person (B2B) usage%Pearson v 2 Sig. a Adobe Connect 9.1 48.6 51.4 Go-to-Meeting 26.7 36.9 63.1 ooVoo 6.4 16.7 83.3 27.75.000 Yugma 4.6 40.0 60.0 Social bookmarking20.1 36.7 63.3 6.854.009 Delicious 2.6 40.00 60.00 Digg 5.7 36.4 63.6 Furl 1.3 40.0 60.0 11.01.048 StumbleUpon 10.5 29.2 70.8 Moderated web community31.3 47.7 55.3 1.91 .168 Google 3.71 37.5 62.5 MSN 10.69 40.5 59.5 2.55 .466 Yahoo 16.9 50.8 42.2 Unmoderated web community49.9 45.9 54.1 1.68 .195 Google 14.2 39.5 60.5 MSN 14.3 36.8 63.2 5.99 .200 Yahoo 21.4 56.1 43.9 Presentation sharing=storage28.0 39.1 60.9 7.10.008 SlideShare 21.6 41.0 59.0 Other 6.4 36.8 63.2 5.87.043 ap .05 in bold. Social Media and Selling65 It is interesting to note that for every statistically significant category, the B2B group utilization percentage is greater than that for the B2C group. This find- ing would imply that the adoption rate of social media technologies is far greater for the industrial as opposed to the consumer sector. RQ4: Are there significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople with regard to their utilization of specific relationship-oriented social media software applications within each category listed in table 2?

In assessing the differences in software application utilization, table 4 presents the results of multiple chi-square tests whereby the difference in usage frequency is assessed between industrial versus consumer salespeople.

Social and Professional Networking is the first area where significant differ- ences exist. The chi-square results can be interpreted in the same manner as the category chi-square tests. Taking Facebook as an example, of 45.5% of the sample who use Facebook, 58.2%are B2C professionals whereas 41.8%of the B2B group utilizes Facebook. With ap .000, it appears that Facebook is used more by the B2C group, as is MySpace (66.7%). Con- versely, the overwhelming number (85.9%) of LinkedIn users is B2B sales- people.

Significant differences (p .001) were also found for Live Interactive Broadcasting with 72.4%of the usage of ustream.tv being by B2B salespeo- ple. Online conferencing is also more widely used by B2B salespeople across all software applications. It appears that 26.7%of all salespeople within this category use Go-to-meeting with 63.1%of them being industrial salespeople.

Differences exist between the two groups relative to social bookmark- ing (p .048) with 10.5%of the total using StumbleUpon and 70.8%of those individuals being B2B salespeople. Presentation Sharing=Storage was also significant (p .043). Of the 21.6%of salespeople who use Slideshare, 59% are B2B salespeople. Within this area, 6.4%of those surveyed gave ‘‘other’’ as a response, while most did not provide the name of the specific software they use. Respondents who stated their specific software said YouTube for Presentation Sharing=Storage with the majority (63.2%) being B2B salespeo- ple. This finding lends further support to the proposition that B2B salespeo- ple have become more widely accepted and begun to utilize social media in their professional endeavors.

RQ5: For which stages of the selling process are salespeople utilizing social media?

Table 5 provides information that addresses the issue of social media uti- lization across the professional selling process. An examination of the mean usage scores demonstrates that scores are largely within one point the scale median of 5. It appears that social media tools are used most often a priori and 66J. N. Moore et al. post hoc of making a sale. Salespeople appear to use these technologies most for prospecting and making the initial contact and then for post-sale follow-up.

It appears that utilization of the technology is just below the scale median for making the sales presentation, handling objections, and closing the sale. RQ6: Are there significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople in their employment of social media for each stage of the selling process?

As to the differences that exist between B2C and B2B salespeople in their respective utilization of social media technologies during the sales pro- cess, table 5 shows that significant differences exist between the two groups for prospecting, handling objections, and after sale follow-up. Consistent with many of the findings in table 4, the mean scores are greater for the B2B groups, thus adding additional support to the finding that social media, as a tool for professional selling, has enjoyed greater diffusion and adoption by the industrial sales group. DISCUSSION The number of social media tools has increased at a rapid pace over the past decade and individuals and organizations alike are adopting them for social and other purposes. There is no definitive number for the quantity of social media tools in existence but the evidence suggests there may be hundreds of thousands or even millions with more released every day. In the meantime, Americans and others across the globe are spending increasing amounts of their time online using social media applications and sites. Most recently, the greatest increases in social media usage have been among baby boomers and other older generations although younger people that have grown up during the digital age were the innovators and early adopters. The increasing penetration of modern Internet interface devices have made social media tools more convenient to utilize as evidenced by 50%greater usage by mobile users.

TABLE 5Mean Usage during Stages of the Selling Process Elements of the selling processMean tValuepValue a Total B2C B2B Prospecting 4.93 4.13 5.72 2.484.014 Initial contact 4.14 3.83 4.41 0.933 .355 Sales presentation 3.98 3.92 4.03 0.187 .853 Handling objections 3.65 3.01 4.26 2.402.017 Closing the sale 3.81 3.42 4.13 1.17 .245 Follow-up and after sale service 4.76 4.04 5.44 2.173.030 ap .05 in bold. Social Media and Selling67 Many social media tools facilitate the development of long-term relationships via conversation-like exchanges of data and information. These types of tools are referred to as relationship-oriented social media within this study. Consumers are adopting relationship-oriented social media tools to exchange information about products, brands, and companies. Likewise, organizations are adopting social media tools to communicate with a variety of internal and external constituents.

Despite the fact that sales force technology (e.g., SFA and CRM) has received considerable attention in the sales and marketing literature, little published research focuses specifically on social media. The purpose of this article was to report an exploratory study that examined the extent to which salespeople are utilizing relationship-oriented social media tools. In addition, consumer (B2C) and industrial (B2B) salespeople were compared with regard to their utilization of relationship-oriented social media tools to accomplish the objectives of various stages of the selling process. As such, this exploratory study responds to previous calls for research regarding social media and contributes to filling the literature gap while providing additional foundation for future studies regarding social media in the selling and sales management arena. This research contributes to filling this gap in the literature as it is one of the first studies focusing on the utilization of several categories of social media in a sales context.

In this study, the authors adopted Kaplan and Haenlein’s (2010) overarching definition and Ellonen and Kosonen’s (2010) delineation of relationship-oriented social media. However, given the number of definitions and applications of social media, an accepted sales-focused taxonomy would be beneficial for students and professionals in the sales arena. Thus, another contribution of the authors’ research is a proposed definition of relationship-oriented social media, which can serve as a starting point.

‘‘We define relationship-oriented social media as software applications or web sites that facilitate two-way conversation-like exchanges, either synchro- nously or asynchronously, among users.’’ Examination of the data collected from 395 salespeople for this study indi- cates that a substantial percentage are employing applications or sites that are included within the 15 categories of relationship-oriented social media tools assessed in this study. As one might expect, some of the highest percentages of usage among sales professionals were for web-based e-mail services (85.5%) and Instant Messaging services (48.3%), such as those provided via the Google, MSN, and Yahoo web portals. Social and Professional Networking sites (65.9%), Unmoderated Web Communities (49.9%), Online Conferencing= Webinars ($46.8%), and Video Hosting=Sharing=Storage sites (34.4%) are also used by a substantial proportion of salespeople. Live Interactive Broadcasting was used by the smallest proportion (17.6%) of salespeople.

It is clear that salespeople are using relationship-oriented social media to accomplish the objectives of various stages of the selling process as well. 68J. N. Moore et al. When asked to rate their usage of relationship-oriented social media within stages of the selling process (i.e., prospecting, initial contact, sales presen- tation, handling objections, closing, and follow-up and after sales services) on a seven-point scale that ranged from never to often, all means fell above the midpoint indicating at least a moderate or greater frequency of utilization.

The greatest mean scores for salespeople as a whole are for prospecting (4.93) and follow-up and after sales service (4.76) followed by establishing initial contact (4.14).

However, there are some significant differences between B2C and B2B salespeople with regard to their utilization of the 15 categories of relationship-oriented social media. A greater proportion of B2B salespeople utilize professional networking sites (i.e., LinkedIn) as opposed to B2C sales- people who tended to use social networking sites (i.e., Facebook and Myspace). Likewise, a significantly greater proportion of B2B salespeople uti- lize blogs, photo sharing=storage sites, RSS and RSS feed live interactive broadcasting, online conferencing=webinars, social bookmarking, and pres- entation sharing=storage sites. At the same time, B2B salespeople utilized relationship-oriented social media significantly more often for prospecting, handling objections, and follow-up and after sales service.

The nature of social media applications assessed in this study is likely the most plausible explanation for the observed significant differences between B2B and B2C salespeople. That is, the 15 categories of social media tools assessed in this study were relationship-oriented. Prior research in the sales arena consistently documents the fact that B2B salespeople are more likely to engage in relationship-oriented selling practices. Moreover, connec- tions with professionals in prospect and other organizations tend to be viewed as more valuable by B2B salespeople explaining their significantly higher proportion of usage of professional networking sites. B2C salespeo- ple, on the other hand, place a higher value on connections with individual consumers explaining their reliance on social networking sites where hun- dreds of millions of individual consumers maintain accounts. The higher fre- quency of usage of social media technology for prospecting and follow-up and after sales activities by B2B salespeople is also likely due to the greater level of importance of these stages to relationship-oriented selling. This relationship-orientation of B2B salespeople, their generally higher levels of education, and the nature of the customer base might also explain why B2B salespeople utilize social media tools more frequently while handling objections. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The results of this study demonstrate that a substantial proportion of sales- people, both B2C and B2B, find utility in using relationship-oriented social Social Media and Selling69 media applications to achieve the objectives of various stages of the selling process. This fact carries substantial implications for sales management prac- titioners, trainers, and university educators. First, sales practitioners should make an assessment of the most appropriate social media tools that should be employed to accomplish specific objectives and goals of the selling pro- cess. An assessment of the potential return on investment (ROI) from the wide variety of tools that might be employed should be included. It is highly likely that the market, whether consumer or industrial, product=service industry, and industry structure would have a substantial impact on that determination and the potential ROI given the results of this study. Second, corporate sales trainers and university educators should incorporate modules regarding social media in their programs and classes. These modules, obvi- ously, should also include assessing the most appropriate tools for various markets and industries and potential ROI as well as instructions on how to use the various tools. The actual use of social media tools might also be incorporated into training programs and university sales course structures given that some of the research reviewed for this study indicates that it is already taking place in many disciplines. STUDY LIMITATIONS There are several limitations to the generalizability of the results of this exploratory study. First, the utilization of a fairly limited set of social media tools was investigated given the plethora of applications and sites currently available and released every day; the mere speed of dissemination of social media technology adoption serves as a limitation to any study exploring the phenomena.

Another limiting area deals with the cross-sectional nature of the partici- pant sample garnered for this study. The utilization of relationship-oriented social media across a wide variety of industries with participants from com- panies of different sizes was examined. As with any study, to some extent the findings are largely generalizable to the sample at hand. While a large and presumably representative sample of sales professionals nationwide was uti- lized, the practice of incorporating a consumer panel does limit the research- ers control over data collection. It is possible that narrowing the sampling frame to a single or limited number of industries would result in greater con- trol and perhaps differing results; however, this study should serve as some foundation for future work in the area.

Next, it is important to note that this study focused exclusively on two-way relationship-oriented social media that is customer-salesperson shared or dual acceptance innovations whereby salespeople and consumers are relatively equal with regard to their ability to initiate discussion and exchange information. Other forms of social media can be classified as more 70J. N. Moore et al. salesperson-centric or customer resistance innovation whereby transmission of data and information is one-way from the salesperson to the prospect or customer. Finally, this study primarily examined the utilization of social media as a tool to accomplish the objectives of various stages of the sales process. There exist many other tasks that sales people engage in that may influence their choice to adopt a given technology that were not addressed within the confines of this study. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Given the numerous social media applications that exist, the rapidly chan- ging nature of the technology, and the increasingly fast pace of acceptance, much more work must be done in the area before widely acceptable and strongly generalizable conclusions can be offered.

Future research should focus on how social media is utilized by sales forces within specific industries and for companies of various sizes. Previous research shows that a variety of organizations utilize social media to accomplish the goals and objectives of many other processes. For example, extant research from outside the sales discipline has examined how social media has been used for personal, product, and organizational branding; product and process development; internal and external marketing; conduct- ing consumer research; general intra-organizational work collaboration; classroom instructional delivery; and employee recruitment and retention.

This extant research bares important insights for the use of social media to accomplish these other tasks within and for selling organizations and university-based sales education programs. It also bares important implica- tions for sales researchers as none of the extant research examining social media usage for these other tasks has been conducted with population sam- ples of sales organizations or university-based educational programs. Finally, implications for sales researchers are generally the same as those for sales practitioners and trainers. That is, the delineation of tools most appropriate for particular sales situations and assessments of potential ROI deserve atten- tion. Examination of the unique online ambiance created by various tools might substantially further the development of a more mutually exclusive taxonomy.

Similarly, determining why certain categories=software programs have been so widely embraced whereas others are still underutilized would pro- vide insights into additional tools that may be needed by salespeople and sales trainers. Examining factors that have driven B2B salespeople to adopt these technologies more so than their B2C counterparts would provide inter- esting input for sales strategies. Research exploring whether B2B=B2C sales- people can be profiled based on their level of utilization of social media and the specific media they use would also provide insightful information for Social Media and Selling71 organizations to use when developing strategies. Profile variables beyond B2B=B2C classifications also warrant additional inquiry; these classifications may include factors, such as company size, industry, age, and experience.

Based on the results of this exploratory study, it has been shown that salespeople are using the technology and software. As such, future research should focus on insights and recommendations that will aid sales- people in utilizing the technology effectively and efficiently to achieve their objectives. REFERENCES Ahearne, M., and A. Rapp. 2010. The role of technology at the interface between salespeople and consumers.Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 30 (2): 111–120.

Alexa Internet, Inc. 2011. Top sites: The top 500 sites on the web. http://www.alexa.

com/topsites (accessed February 21, 2011).

Apple, Inc. 2011. From the App Store. http://www.apple.com/iphone/from-the-app- store/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Baraba´ si, A. L. 2003.Linked. New York: Plume Books.

Barnes, J. 1954. Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish.Human Relations7 (1): 39–58.

Barnes, N. G. 2010. Tweeting and blogging to the top.Marketing Research Magazine 22 (1): 8–13.

Barwise, P., and S. Meehan. 2010. The one thing you must get right when branding.

Harvard Business Review88 (12): 80–84.

Bhardwaj, P., Y. Chen, and D. Godes. 2008. Buyer-initiated versus seller-initiated information revelation.Management Science54 (6): 1104–1114.

Bodnar, K. 2010. The ultimate list: 300þsocial media statistics. http://blog.hubspot.

com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/5965/The-Ultimate-List-300-Social-Media-Statistics.

aspx (accessed February 21, 2011).

Breitfelder, M. 2010. Myth#6: Social media is a technology issue.People & Strategy 33 (4): 9.

Broida, R. 2007. Ustream.tv. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2167967,00.

asp?kc=PCRSS02129TX1K0000530 (accessed March 8, 2009).

Chakravorti, B. 2010. Stakeholder marketing 2.0.Journal of Public Policy & Market- ing29 (1): 97–102.

Cox, J. L., E. R. Martinez, and K. B. Quinlan. 2008. Blogs and the corporation:

Managing the risks, reaping the benefits.Journal of Business Strategy29 (3):

4–12.

Crittenden, V. L., R. A. Peterson, and G. Albaum. 2010. Technology and business-to- consumer selling: Contemplating research and practice.Journal of Personal Sell- ing and Sales Management30 (2): 103–109.

Darby, A., and R. Gilmour. 2009. Adding delicious data to your library website.Infor- mation Technology and Libraries28 (2): 100–103.

Darlington, H. 2010. Social media marketing: Is it for you?Supply House Times53 (4):

38–39.

72J. N. Moore et al. Dennis, A. R., J. A. Rennecker, and S. Hansen. 2010. Invisible whispering: Restructur- ing collaborative decision making with instant messaging.Decision Sciences41 (4): 845–886.

Dunn, B. J. 2010. Best Buy’s CEO on learning to love social media.Harvard Business Review88 (12): 43–46.

Dutta, S. 2010. What’s your personal social media strategy?Harvard Business Review 88 (11): 127–130.

Edelman, D. C. 2010. Branding in the digital age: You’re spending your money in all the wrong places.Harvard Business Review88 (12): 63–69.

Ellonen, H. K., and M. Kosonen. 2010. Treat your customers as equals! Fostering cus- tomer collaboration through social media.International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing3 (3): 221–240.

Ferrell, L., T. L. Gonzalez-Padron, and O. C. Ferrell. 2010. An assessment of the use of technology in the direct selling industry.Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management30 (2): 157–165.

Fillicaro, B. 2002. Webinar answers, who’s on first.Training Media Review10 (4): 7–9.

Fleming, D. E., and A. B. Artis. 2010. Measuring corporate affinity for technology: A scale for customers and employees.Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Man- agement30 (2): 167–179.

Gaines-Ross, L. 2010. Reputation warfare.Harvard Business Review88 (12): 70–76.

Goldenberg, J., B. Libai, E. Muller, and S. Stremersch. 2010. The evolving social net- work of marketing scholars.Marketing Science29 (3): 561–567.

Goldman, D. 2011. Smartphones Have Conquered PCs. http://money.cnn.com/2011/ 02/09/technology/smartphones_eclipse_pcs/index.htm (accessed February 21, 2011).

Google, Inc. 2011. Google Play. http://play.google.com/store/apps (accessed February 21, 2011).

Granovetter, M. S. 1982. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In Social structure and network analysis. ed. P. V. Marsden and N. Lin, 105–130.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Grossman, L. 2010. Person of the year 2010: Mark Zuckerberg. http://www.time.

com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183,00.html (acces- sed February 1, 2011).

Harris, L., A. Rae, and S. Grewal. 2008. Out on the pull: How small firms are making themselves sexy with new online promotion techniques.International Journal of Technology Marketing3 (2): 153–168.

Hartshorn, S. 2011. Five differences between social media and social networking. http:// socialmediatoday.com/index.php?q=SMC/194754 (accessed February 21, 2011).

Huang, C., T. Fu, and H. Chen. 2010. Text-based content classification for online video-sharing sites.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61 (5): 891–906.

Huang, C., Y. Shen, H. Lin, and S. Chang. 2007. Bloggers motivations and behaviors:

A model.Journal of Advertising Research47 (4): 472–484.

Humphrey, J. 2011. Top 100 social media sites ranked. http://www.fridaytrafficre- port.com/top-100-social-media-sites-ranked/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Hunt, K. 2010. Finders keepers: Social media strategies help find top talent.Journal of Property Management75 (6): 36–40. Social Media and Selling73 InsideCRM.com. 2011. 50 social sites that every business needs a presence on. http:// www.insidecrm.com/features/50-social-sites-012808/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Kaplan, A. M., and M. Haenlein. 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media.Business Horizons53 (1): 59–68.

Kaplan, A. M., and M. Haenlein. 2011. The early bird catches the news: Nine things you should know about micro-blogging.Business Horizons54 (2): 105–113.

Kennedy, D. M., R. R. Vozdolska, and S. A. McComb. 2010. Team decision making in computer-supported cooperative work: How initial computer-mediated or face-to-face meetings set the stage for later outcomes.Decision Sciences41 (4): 933–954.

Mangold, W. G., and D. J. Faulds. 2009. Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix.Business Horizons52 (4): 357–365.

McHugh, M. 2011. As Egyptian protests escalate, government restricts Facebook, blocks Twitter [UPDATE: Anon targeting Egypt’s government]. http://www.

digitaltrends.com/computing/as-egyptian-protests-escalate-government-restricts- Facebook-blocks-twitter/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Meister, J. C., and K. Willyerd. 2010. Five myths and realities about using social media in your company.People & Strategy33 (3): 4–5.

Mishra, G. 2011. Research: Fortune 100 companies have 20 social media accounts on average. http://socialmediatoday.com/gauravmishra/272011/research-fortune- 100-companies-have-20-social-media-accounts-average (accepted February 21, 2011).

Moran, E., and F. Gossieaux. 2010. Marketing in a hyper-social world: The tribaliza- tion of business study and characteristics of successful online communities.

Journal of Advertising Research50 (3): 232–239.

Nations, D. 2011. What is social media? What are social media sites? http://webtrend- s.about.com/od/web20/a/social-media.htm (accepted February 21, 2011).

The Nielsen Company. 2009a. Report: Social media and video site engagement reshapes the web. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/nielsen-news/online- global-landscape-0409/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

The Nielsen Company. 2009b. Social networking’s new global footprint. http://blog.

nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/social-networking-new-global-footprint/ (acc- essed February 21, 2011).

The Nielsen Company. 2010. What Americans do online: Social media and games dominate activity. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/what- americans-do-online-social-media-and-games-dominate-activity/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Nov, O., M. Naaman, and C. Ye. 2010. Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing community: A multidimensional perspective.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61 (3): 555–566.

O’Connell, A. 2010. Reading the public mind.Harvard Business Review88 (10):

27–34.

Onyemah, V., S. D. Swain, and R. Hanna. 2010. A social learning theory perspective on sales technology usage: Preliminary evidence from an emerging economy.

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management30 (2): 131–142.

74J. N. Moore et al. Quish, R. 2010. Social media: Creating richer relationships in the workplace.People & Strategy33 (3): 7–8.

Research in Motion, Inc. 2011. BlackBerry World. http://appworld.blackberry.com/ webstore/??lid=us:bb:apps&lpos=us:bb:apps (accessed February 21, 2011).

Rossman, K. 2011. Here, tweeting is a class requirement.Wall Street Journal.http:// online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158643370380186.html?

mod=djem_jiewr_MK_domainid (accessed March 13, 2011).

Salesforce.com, Inc. 2011. Chatter features: Everything you need to collaborate at work. http://www.salesforce.com/chatter/features/ (accessed March 9, 2011).

Sharma, A., and J. Sheth. 2010. A framework of technology mediation in consumer selling: Implications for firms and sales management.Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management30 (2): 121–129.

Sharma, D. 2007. Social networking god: 350þsocial networking sites.Mashable.

http://mashable.com/2007/10/23/social-networking-god/ (accessed March 9, 2011).

Singh, T., L. Veron-Jackson, and J. Cullinane. 2008. Blogging: A new play in your marketing game plan.Business Horizons51 (4): 281–291.

Solis, B. 2010. Defining social media: 2006–2010. http://www.briansolis.com/2010/ 01/defining-social-media-the-saga-continues/ (accessed February 22, 2011).

TechMediaNetwork.com. 2011. Social networking websites review. http://social- networking-websites-review.toptenreviews.com/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Thornley, J. 2008. What is ‘‘social media’’? http://propr.ca/2008/what-is-social- media/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Time. 2010. 50 best websites 2010. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/ completelist/0,29569,2012721,00.html (accessed February 21, 2011).

Traffikd.com. 2011. List of social media and social networking sites. http://traffikd.

com/social-media-websites/ (accessed February 21, 2011).

Trusov, M., R. E. Bucklin, and K. Pauwels. 2009. Effects of word-of-mouth versus tra- ditional marketing: Findings from an Internet social networking site.Journal of Marketing73 (5): 90–102.

U¨ stu¨ ner, T., and D. Godes. 2006. Better sales networks.Harvard Business Review84 (7=8): 102–112.

Website Magazine. 2011. Top 50 social media resources. http://www.websitemagazine.

com/content/blogs/posts/pages/top-50-social-media-resources.aspx (accessed February 21, 2011).

Weiss, M., and G. R. Gangadharan. 2010. Modeling the mashup ecosystem: Structure and growth.R & D Management40 (1): 40–49.

Yang, Z., F. Jaramillo, and L. B. Chonko. 2010. Productivity and coauthorship in JPSSM: A social network analysis.Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage- ment30 (1): 47–75. Social Media and Selling75 Copyright of Journal of Internet Commerce is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.