<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">46</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Social Sciences Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gssr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2520-0348</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2616-793X</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">390657</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).39</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">1126</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Measuring the Dynamic Predictive Relationship of Social Media Metrics with Firm Equity Value: A Time Series Analysis</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Ahmad</surname>
      <given-names>Zeshan</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Khan</surname>
      <given-names>Imran</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="3">
    <name>
      <surname>Abbas</surname>
      <given-names>Muhammad</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Business Administration</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Assistant Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>Air University Multan Campus</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Senior Lecturer, Department of Management Sciences</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <addr-line>The Islamia University of Bahawalpur</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff3">
    <label>3</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Business Administration</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Associate Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>Air University Multan Campus</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Zeshan Ahmad, Assistant Professor, Business Administration,Air University Multan Campus, Pakistan.. Contact: 0</corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>31</day>
  <month>03</month>
  <year>2019</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>03</month>
  <year>2019</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>16</day>
  <month>02</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>4</volume>
  <issue>1</issue>
  <season>Winter</season>
  <fpage>296</fpage>
  <lpage>304</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>16</day>
      <month>02</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/article/Measuring-the-Dynamic-Predictive-Relationship-of-Social-Media-Metrics-with-Firm-Equity-Value:-A-Time-Series-Analysis"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/zG5ljQokIP.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/zG5ljQokIP.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>In the online environment, social media metrics offer a credible basis of customer feedback in anticipating the firm performance. This study verifies the association of social media metrics of Face-book and Twitter to financial market performance. Data were collected from official Facebook pages and Twitter accounts of 3 fast-food companies over the time period of 6 months. Then established multiple metrics for respective social media platforms and develop outcomes using Vector Autoregressive time series models to evaluate the instantaneous and continuing relationship between social media metrics and financial market performance of the firms in terms of unusual returns and idiosyncratic risk. Results indicated that FB metrics are significant leading indicators of firm equity value. However, Twitter metrics, have a weaker relationship with firm value as compared to FB metrics. Collectively, current research extends new visions for organizational top executives and investors concerning organizational equity valuation and the social media power transformation.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Firm Equity Value</kwd>
  <kwd>Social Media Metrics</kwd>
  <kwd>Facebook</kwd>
  <kwd>Twitter</kwd>
  <kwd>Social Media Marketing.</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>2221</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>2</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>Prior literature of finance provides evidence that in addition to firm fundamentals, investors depend on information acquired from internet (Das &amp; Chen, 2007), search attention (Da, Engelberg &amp; Gao, 2011), customer feedback (Luo, 2009), print media (Tetlock, 2007), and online chatters (Tirunillai &amp; Tellis, 2012). Social media tools are attaining fame and these are part of regular operations of a large sum of companies of all sizes: start-ups, small, medium and large corporations (Osimo, 2008). Companies using social media technologies have outperformed their competitors which are not using these technologies and have achieved benefits of low cost and higher efficiency (Harris &amp; Rae, 2009). Companies are capitalizing on their financial value through social media transformation in business because of the increasing popularity of social media among consumers (Divol, Edelman, &amp; Sarrazin, 2012). This transformation can be in the form of customer relationship management, corporate business processes and brand building. Quantitative analysis of social media’s financial value to the organization is crucial to justify the investment of scarce resources in it (Deans, 2011). Social media enables the organization to utilize rich information about consumer decisions with the help of information technology advancement which is inaccessible through traditional media. Furthermore, social media has an unprecedented speed of content spread and continuously updating contents that provide the primary information to organizations and their investors. Social media contents are the source of timely assessment of an organization’s products and brands while sales information is not available at this frequency. Thus, social media not only enables the investors to perform sentiment analysis of a firm’s contents but also to analyze the brand performance and its future value. As social media can arm the investors with unceasingly updating information regarding the future performance of their prospective firm, it may be the most important predictor of the firm equity value function.</p><p><break/></p><p>Social Media Metrics and Equity Value of The Firm</p><p>Previous researches evaluated the association among product sales and digital user metrics (e.g., Dhar &amp; Chang, 2009; Ghose &amp; Yang, 2009), while current research focuses on new insights by highlights the predictive association between firms’ equity value and social media metrics. Shareholder wealth and firms’ financial performance can be measured through firm equity value(Chen, Liu, &amp; Zhang, 2012; Dewan &amp; Ren, 2007). While sales revenue cannot represent shareholder wealth but it is a prime</p><p>indicator of top-line performance. Firm equity value is compatible with social media metrics as it can be recorded and monitored at a high frequency than sales revenue. Moreover, the stock market could respond quicker to the social media contents which are diffused virtually than actual product sales. Because of this dynamics executive concerned about shareholder wealth beyond and over the sales. By keeping in mind that shareholder wealth determined by two moments of stock prices (risk and return), we measure firm equity value with both moments. Whereas risk is associated with the capital cost, corporate bankruptcy and wealth vulnerability of shareholders and return apprehends the fluctuation in shareholders&apos; wealth (Luo, 2009; Tirunillai &amp; Tellis, 2012). Because of this simultaneous linkage between social media and two moments of stock prices (risk and return), we highlight the new mechanism in the evaluation of the predictive relationship between the firm equity and social media by focusing on multiple investigation sources of social media</p><p>Social media popularity and its convoying user-generated content can be a protuberant source of fresh information for managers and investors concerning firms’ future performance (Gu, Park, &amp; Konana, 2012). Social media is an essential information source as literature supports the belief how investors and consumers notice about the information shared by others on social media (Chen et al., 2012; Deans, 2011). Less informed customers or customers with the indecision of their product choice get influence from the wisdom of the crowd (Tirunillai &amp; Tellis, 2012). Customer’s feedback and recommendations are accurately and truthfully recorded by the internet technologies that are altruistic intentions of consumers (Dellarocas &amp; Wood, 2008). So that user-generated content on social media like satisfaction and positive word-of-mouth are perceived more reliable by the customers and investors (Hanson &amp; Kalyanam, 2007). Social media metrics of Facebook and Tweeter engagement may have a noteworthy predictive relationship with value of firm. Current research explores that among the two social media metrics (Facebook metrics and Twitter metrics), which is a strong indicator in predicting firms’ equity value.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Data and its Measures</title>
<p>In the current study, we chose,
for several reasons, the fast-food sector for our research context. First,
consumers of the fast-food industry are the participants in our research and
supposed to be affected by various digital media. Second, organizations in this
industry leverage social media for promotion and engagement online as 57% of
consumers view a restaurant&apos;s website before dining there. Third, global fast-food
industry sales increased over two trillion dollars and 13 million employees are
associated with this industry(<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_47">Statisticsbrain, 2016</ext-link>).</p><p>Within
the fast-food industry, we selected three firms that function as the consumer
markets to ensure the readiness of social media contents and reviews. The
selected companies are among the top 5 players of the industry, generating more
than 70% of the United States market share.</p><p>The
daily data were collected from the official Facebook fan pages and twitter
account of the companies from July 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. The collected
data set contains 384 observations, representing the 3 companies over 128
trading days. The descriptive statistics of the firms are available in Table 1.</p><p><bold>Table </bold><bold>1</bold><bold>.</bold> Firm
wise descriptive statistics</p><table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Table 1</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom">  </td><td> <p><bold>RTRN</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>FPST</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>FBE</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>PINT</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>PST</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>RTWT</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>RSK</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>TWT</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>TWTE</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>TWTI</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>Dominos</bold></p> </td><td> <p>0.13</p> <p>(0.012)</p> </td><td> <p>35.64
  (35.55)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0087
  (0.0057)</p> </td><td> <p>0.858
  (0.0071)</p> </td><td> <p>1.15
  (0.58)</p> </td><td> <p>235.98
  (222.33)</p> </td><td> <p>0.96
  (0.08)</p> </td><td> <p>127.65
  (40.12)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0912
  (0.0664)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0007
  (0.0005)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>KFC</bold></p> </td><td> <p>-0.06
  (0.011)</p> </td><td> <p>2538.52
  (1374.65)</p> </td><td> <p>0.016
  (0.0071)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0266
  (0.0099)</p> </td><td> <p>0.5
  (0.58)</p> </td><td> <p>564.7
  (191.26)</p> </td><td> <p>1.1324
  (0.07)</p> </td><td> <p>26.27
  (20.92)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0632
  (0.0991)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0204
  (0.0056)</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>McDonald</bold></p> </td><td> <p>-0.03
  (0.007)</p> </td><td> <p>12.48
  (7.14)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0637
  (0.0602)</p> </td><td> <p>0.2275
  (0.1010)</p> </td><td> <p>0.79
  (0.68)</p> </td><td> <p>683.59
  (363.74)</p> </td><td> <p>0.6112
  (0.02)</p> </td><td> <p>55.26
  (48.32)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0401
  (0.0608)</p> </td><td> <p>0.0032
  (0.0018)</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>where
RTRN = firm return, FPST = fan posts, FBE = Facebook engagement, PINT = post
interaction, PST = number of posts, RTWT = retweets, RSK = risk, TWT = number
of tweets, TWTE = Twitter engagement, TWTI = tweet interaction. Note: Standard
deviation in parenthesis</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Measurement of Firm Equity Value</title>
<p>Firm equity value can be measured through two different methods: stock risk and return as suggested by the literature of information system, finance, and marketing (Luo, 2009; Srinivasan &amp; Hanssens, 2009). According to finance literature return/ab-normal return is the equity value of firm yonder what’s anticipated by the typical capital market by the extended Fama-French model (Fama &amp; French, 1993, 1996). Volatility or vulnerability of organization equity value is denoted as risk or idiosyncratic risk. It can be measured as the extended Fama-French model residual’s standard deviation that can measure the 80% of the total firm risk (Goyal &amp; Santa?Clara, 2003).</p><p>Rit – Rft = ?0i +?1i (Rmt – Rft) + ?2iSMBt + ?3i HMLt+ ?4i MOMt+ eit(1)</p><p>Where returns for firm i on time t is given by Rit  , Rmt shows average market returns, Rft is the risk-free rate, SMBt is size effects, HMLt = value effects, MOMt = Carhart’s momentum effects, ?0i= the intercept, and eit = the model residual. The first model was run for a 250 trading day rolling window earlier than the day of the target.</p><p>In finance theory, abnormal returns (ARit) are measured by the difference of returns observed and the expected returns:</p><p>ARit = (Rit – Rft ) – (? ?0i +? ?1i (Rmt – Rft) + ? ?2iSMBt+ ? ?3i HMLt+ ? ?4i MOMt)(2)</p><p>At this stage, the standard deviation of the residuals represents a risk. The average range of firms’ daily return lies between -0.06 % to 0.13 %. Whereas, the average value of daily stock risk is expected to remain between 0.02 and 1.13.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Data and Measure of the Social Media Metrics</title>
<p>We gathered the data for
Face-book metrics from the brand fan page of each firm. Software agents were
developed in Python language for data crawling on the pages of firms in
Face-book and the timeline of Twitter. This program collected data by crawling
in Facebook pages exploring moderator posts, likes, fan posts, shares and
comments recording with reference to the date and time of the posts. Data
crawling from Twitter was done based on the firm’s official account names and
hashtags about tweets, retweets, mentions, replies and likes. It is generally
useful to use automated software for data crawling on public websites (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_29">Gu et al., 2012</ext-link>).</p><p><bold><italic>Facebook Metrics</italic></bold></p><p>A number of posts are the total
posts posted by a relevant firm moderator and fan post are the posts posted by
fans of the relevant company on the fan page on a given day. Post interaction
shows the brand fans&apos; reaction to the moderator post while sharing, commenting
or liking the posts.  Facebook engagement
is the overall reaction of brand fans to the moderators’ all posts and fan
posts on a given day (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_19">Facebook-Developers, 2016</ext-link>).</p><p><bold><italic>Twitter Metrics</italic></bold></p><p>Twitter engagement is the sum of
the four components including replies, mentions, retweets and likes of
moderator all tweets on a given day. Retweets are the number of times users
share tweets of firm moderators with their followers in a given day. A number of
tweets are the total number of tweets posted by a firm on a given day and tweet
interaction is the reaction of users to a specific firm’s tweet in terms of
replies, mentions, retweets and likes on a given day.</p><p><bold>Exogenous Control Variables</bold></p><p>Certain exogenous variables are
kept as control variables. These variables include revenue (sales) for firm
equity value calculation, firm size (firm’s total assets), liquidity (current
ratio) financial leverage (ratio of long-term book debt to total assets), and
ROA (ratio of the firm operating income to book value of the total asset). Data
of these variables are extracted from the financial statements of the firms in
the given period. These variable data is available on quarterly bases but
social media data is collected on daily bases, authors adopt the
VAR-bootstrapping scheme as a remedy, which uses 5000 simulated databases to
make the value of said variables for a respective observed day ( <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_48">Statman, Thorley, &amp; Vorkink, 2006</ext-link>).</p><p><bold>VAR Model Specification </bold></p><p>Vector Autoregressive, a time
series technique, is employed to evaluate the feedback and dynamic interaction
effects (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_1">Adomavicius et al., 2012</ext-link>; <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_36">Luo, 2009</ext-link>). We selected this approach for
several reasons. First, with the help of this model we can predict the direct
effect of firm equity value, by tracking, not only instant but similarly the
long-term growing influence of social media metrics. Second, it accounts for
biases, for instance, reversed causality, autocorrelation and endogeneity.
Third, with the help of this model, we can capture the complex feedback loops
like a feedback effect that is firm equity value’s reverse impact on future
social media metrics.</p><p><bold>Model
Specification </bold></p><p>In VAR model endogenous
variables are Face-book metrics (Face-book engagement, number of posts, post-interaction
and fan posts), Twitter metrics (Twitter engagement, number of tweets, tweet
interaction and retweets) and firm equity value metrics (risk and return).
Exogenous control variables include firm size, liquidity, financial leverage,
ROA and revenue. The specification of the VAR model is as under:</p><p>RTRN<sub>t</sub>              ?<sub>1</sub>+?<sub>1</sub>t                                                  RTRN<sub>t-k</sub>?<sub>1,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>1,11</sub> x<sub>1t                  </sub>?<sub>1t</sub></p><p>RSK<sub>t</sub>                 ?<sub>2</sub>+?<sub>2</sub>t                                RSK<sub>t-k</sub>           ?<sub>2,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>2,11              </sub>x<sub>2t                  </sub>?<sub>2t</sub></p><p>FBE<sub>t</sub>                 ?<sub>3</sub>+?<sub>3</sub>t                                FBE<sub>t-k</sub>           ?<sub>3,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>3,11              </sub>x<sub>3t                  </sub>?<sub>3t</sub></p><p>PSTt                ?<sub>4</sub>+?<sub>4</sub>t                                PSTt-k         ?<sub>4,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>4,11              </sub>x<sub>4t                  </sub>?<sub>4t</sub></p><p>PINT<sub>t</sub>      =  
  ?<sub>5</sub>+?<sub>5</sub>t     <bold>+</bold>  <bold>.</bold>PINT<sub>t-k       </sub><bold>+  </bold>?<sub>5,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>5,11      </sub><bold>.</bold><sub> </sub>x<sub>5t      </sub><bold>+</bold><sub> </sub>?<sub>5t                   <bold>(3)</bold></sub></p><p>FPST<sub>t</sub>                               ?<sub>6</sub>+?<sub>6</sub>t                                FPST<sub>t-k</sub>           ?<sub>6,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>6,11           </sub>x<sub>6t                  </sub>?<sub>6t</sub></p><p>TWTE<sub>t</sub>                             ?<sub>7</sub>+?<sub>7</sub>t                                TWTE<sub>t-k            
</sub>?<sub>7,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>7,11           </sub>x<sub>7t                  </sub>?<sub>7t</sub></p><p>TWT<sub>t</sub>                               ?<sub>8</sub>+?<sub>8</sub>t                                TWT<sub>t-k</sub>           ?<sub>8,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>8,11           </sub>x<sub>8t                  </sub>?<sub>8t</sub></p><p>TWTI<sub>t</sub>                              ?<sub>9</sub>+?<sub>9</sub>t                                TWTI<sub>t-k</sub>          ?<sub>9,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>9,11           </sub>x<sub>9t                  </sub>?<sub>9t</sub></p><p>RTWT<sub>t</sub>                             ?<sub>10</sub>+?<sub>10</sub>t                          RTWT<sub>t-k         </sub>?<sub>10,1</sub> . . . ?<sub>10,11         </sub>x<sub>10t                 </sub>?<sub>10t</sub></p><p>where <italic>RTRN</italic> = firm
return, <italic>RSK</italic> = risk, <italic>FBE</italic> = Facebook engagement, <italic>PST</italic> =
number of posts, <italic>PINT </italic>= post interaction, <italic>FPST</italic> = fan posts, <italic>TWTE
</italic>= Twitter engagement, <italic>TWT</italic> = number of tweets, <italic>TWTI</italic> = tweet
interaction, <italic>RTWT</italic> = retweets, <italic>t</italic> = time, <italic>?</italic><italic><sub>i</sub></italic> (<italic>i</italic> = 1,2,3…,10) = constant, <italic>?</italic><italic><sub>i</sub></italic>, <italic>?</italic><italic><sub>ij</sub></italic>, <italic>?</italic><italic><sub>i,l</sub></italic> (<italic>I and ,j</italic> are from
1,2,3,…,10) co-efficients, <italic>k</italic> = lag length, <italic>x<sub>i</sub></italic> (<italic>i</italic>
= 1,2,3,…,11) and <italic>?</italic><italic><sub>i</sub></italic> shows white  noise residual.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Social Media: Short Term and Long-term Predictive Values</title>
<p>Generalized impulse response functions (GIRFs) was generated through estimated parameters ?_ij^kof full VAR model with ?_ij(t), that can measure the total influence of one unit of un-expected variation in social media metric i  at time t and organizational value metric j  as taken by (Dekimpe &amp; Hanssens, 1999). We also used 5000 simulations of Monte Carlo to drive standard errors for statistical significance testing of parameters at 5% level (p=0.05). Note that an orthogonal transformation was applied to correct the bias of white-noise residuals that can correlate contemporaneously and produce ambiguous results (Luo 2009). Each GIRF generate multiple summary statistics: first, temporary and instant predictive value; and second, lasting, the overall aggregate value that pools all properties through “dust-settling” periods.</p><p><break/></p><p>Risk and Return Variance Explained by Social Media Metrics</p><p>We measured Generalized Forecast Error Variance Decomposition (GFEVD) estimates on VAR parameters to evaluate which social media metric explains the relative variance of equity in a systemic model (Dekimpe &amp; Hanssens, 1999). GFEVD in 20 days was used in the establishment of these relative values of endogenous variables for the reduction in sensitivity to short-term fluctuation (Tirunillai &amp; Tellis, 2012). Standard errors were obtained through Monte Carlo simulation with 5000 runs for the establishment of GFEVD estimates significance (p=0.05) (Luo 2009).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-6">
  <title>Findings</title>
<p><bold>Variable
Stationarity in Time Series </bold></p><p>VAR model estimation starts with
checking of variables stationarity with unit-root tests through Augmented Dickey-Fuller
(ADF) (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_13">Dekimpe &amp; Hanssens, 1999</ext-link>). The result of ADF test was
less than critical value -2.89 for almost all metrics across firms and could
discard the null hypothesis of a unit root (<italic>p</italic>=0.05), except for all
firms Facebook engagement and Risk series, two firm’s fan post series and one
firm’s number of tweets series. Thus, we used the first difference in these
metrics. As shown in Table 2, the ADF test outcomes suggest no cointegration as
the adjusted data series ranged from -3.78 to -16.07(<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_30">Hamilton, 1994</ext-link>).</p><table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table
2</label><caption><title>Endogenous variables stationarity test</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom"></td><td> <p><bold>FBE</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>TWTE</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>PST</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>TWT</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>TWTI</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>PINT</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>FPST</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>RTWT</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>RTRN</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>RSK</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>KFC</p> </td><td> <p>-11.67</p> </td><td> <p>-12.62</p> </td><td> <p>-5.29</p> </td><td> <p>-5.00</p> </td><td> <p>-7.78</p> </td><td> <p>-12.13</p> </td><td> <p>-3.78</p> </td><td> <p>-11.78</p> </td><td> <p>-10.80</p> </td><td> <p>-9.30</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Dominos</p> </td><td> <p>-16.07</p> </td><td> <p>-10.53</p> </td><td> <p>-9.54</p> </td><td> <p>-7.32</p> </td><td> <p>-9.83</p> </td><td> <p>-8.00</p> </td><td> <p>-16.72</p> </td><td> <p>-11.07</p> </td><td> <p>-11.97</p> </td><td> <p>-14.17</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>McDonalds</p> </td><td> <p>-8.92</p> </td><td> <p>-12.11</p> </td><td> <p>-12.13</p> </td><td> <p>-9.06</p> </td><td> <p>-6.00</p> </td><td> <p>-8.64</p> </td><td> <p>-6.88</p> </td><td> <p>-11.94</p> </td><td> <p>-11.59</p> </td><td> <p>-11.47</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><italic>Note: The critical value of ADF is – 2.89 with a 5% confidence level.</italic></p><p><bold>Granger
Causality Test</bold></p><p>Following <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_38">Luo
et al. (2013</ext-link>) and <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2019/39%20Measuring%20the%20_updated.docx#_ENREF_50">Tirunillai
&amp; Tellis&apos;s (2012</ext-link>) Grangér Causality test has been
applied and Table 3 exhibits the outcomes. Findings propose that Facebook
metrics have temporal based significant causal relationships through firms’
equity value. Nearly all Facebook metrics <italic>Grangér cause</italic> significantly to
the equity value of the firm. Facebook engagement, number of posts, fan posts
and post-interaction granger cause stock risk. Moreover, Facebook engagement
and fan posts result in stock returns. From stock return to Facebook metrics
reverse feedback is insignificant, although post-interaction is significantly
granger caused by stock risk.</p><p><bold>Table
3.</bold> Grangér
causality test results summary</p><table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Table 3</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom"></td><td> <p><bold>Return</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>?</bold><bold>Risk</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Facebook Engagement</p> </td><td> <p>0.01*</p> </td><td> <p>0.01*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Fan Posts</p> </td><td> <p>0.02*</p> </td><td> <p>0.02*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Post Interaction</p> </td><td> <p>0.19</p> </td><td> <p>0.03*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Number of Posts</p> </td><td> <p>0.28</p> </td><td> <p>0.02*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Retweets</p> </td><td> <p>0.23</p> </td><td> <p>0.46</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Number of Tweets</p> </td><td> <p>0.04*</p> </td><td> <p>0.53</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Twitter Engagement</p> </td><td> <p>0.03*</p> </td><td> <p>0.02*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Tweet Interaction</p> </td><td> <p>0.41</p> </td><td> <p>0.23</p> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" valign="bottom">  </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Twitter engagement considerably
both risk and return. A number of tweets also causes return significantly. from
a stock return to Twitter metrics reverse feedback isn’t significant, although
stock risk cause significantly with tweet interaction.</p><p><bold>Predictive
Values of Social Media Metrics in Short Run and Long Run</bold></p><p>Cumulative/immediate impulsive
response elasticities from the GIRFs outcomes are reposted in Table 4. The
elasticity outcomes magnitude identify the change in basis point of stock
return where one base point equals to one hundredth (1/100) of a percentage.
Moreover, the stock risk percentage is in reaction to a unit change in social
media metrics.</p><p><bold> Table 4.</bold> Firm equity value to social media
metrics: Impulse responses</p><table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Table 4</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom"></td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Return</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Risk</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"></td><td> <p><bold>Immediate</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Accumulative</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Immediate</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Accumulative</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>Facebook
  Metrics</bold></p> </td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Facebook
  Engagement</p> </td><td> <p>1.79**</p> </td><td> <p>3.49**</p> </td><td> <p>-0.031**</p> </td><td> <p>-0.089*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Number
  of Posts</p> </td><td> <p>0.87*</p> </td><td> <p>1.86</p> </td><td> <p>-0.014*</p> </td><td> <p>-0.054*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Post
  Interaction</p> </td><td> <p>0.69**</p> </td><td> <p>2.98**</p> </td><td> <p>-0.022**</p> </td><td> <p>-0.048*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Fan
  Posts</p> </td><td> <p>0.43</p> </td><td> <p>2.60*</p> </td><td> <p>-0.012*</p> </td><td> <p>0.052</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>Twitter
  Metrics</bold></p> </td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Twitter
  Engagement</p> </td><td> <p>1.24*</p> </td><td> <p>3.05**</p> </td><td> <p>-0.028*</p> </td><td> <p>-0.093**</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Number
  of Tweets</p> </td><td> <p>0.22</p> </td><td> <p>2.64*</p> </td><td> <p>-0.017*</p> </td><td> <p>0.042</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Tweet
  Interaction</p> </td><td> <p>0.21</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>0.011</p> </td><td> <p>-0.045*</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Retweets</p> </td><td> <p>0.16</p> </td><td> <p>2.76*</p> </td><td> <p>-0.03*</p> </td><td> <p>-0.091</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><bold><italic>Facebook metrics </italic></bold></p><p>Facebook metrics in terms of
Facebook engagement, as shown in Table 4, have a significantly positive (+ve)
predictive relationship with a firm return for both short- and long-terms and
significantly shrink the both short- and long-term risk. It shows that an
unexpected surge in Facebook engagement will predict an increase in everyday
stock return by 0.000179 and reduce intraday stock risk by 0.00031 in the short-term.
A number of posts possess a significantly encouraging predictive relationship
with a firm return for short-terms and shrink significantly the both short- and
long-term risk. Post interaction has a significantly positive predictive
relationship with a firm return for both short- and long-terms and shrinks
significantly the both short- and long-term risk. Fan posts possess a
significantly encouraging predictive relationship with a firm return for
long-terms and shrink expressively the short-term risk.</p><p><bold><italic>Twitter Metrics</italic></bold></p><p>Results in Table 4 suggest that
Twitter metrics in terms of Twitter engagement have a significant positive
predictive temporary and lasting relationship with firm return and
significantly shrink both short and long-term risk. A number of tweets have a
long-term significant relationship with firm return and reduce significantly
the short-term risk. Tweet interaction has reduced the long-term risk, though
insignificant in temporary and lasting return and short-term risk. Retweet has
a long-term significant predictive relationship with firm return and
significantly shrink the short-term risk. Facebook and Twitter metrics have a
noteworthy predictive relationship with the equity value of the firm.
Remarkably, the results propose that Facebook engagement is at the top in
predicting a boost in stock returns in long-term and Twitter engagement is at a
peak in the reduction of long-term risk.</p><p><bold>Relative
Strength of the Predictive Value of Facebook versus Twitter Metrics </bold></p><p>Table 5 provides the variance
decomposition of GFEVD result that is the relative strength of individual
metric in illustrating the firms’ equity value variance. All FB and Twitter
metrics describe nontrivial variance portions. According to findings the order
of FB engagement (1.84%), a number of posts (1.63%), post-interaction (1.31%)
and fan posts (0.62%) in predicting firm returns in the long-run. Moreover, the
results support the order of FB engagement (1.91%), post-interaction (1.80%),
number of posts (1.51%) and fan posts (1.51%) in predicting firm risk in
long-run. The results suggest the order of Twitter interaction (1.60%), a number
of tweets (0.96%), tweet engagement (0.61%) and retweets (0.49%) in predicting a
firm return in long-run. Also, the results suggest the order of Twitter
engagement (1.36%), number of tweets (1.35%), retweets (1.30%) and tweet
interaction (1.24%) in predicting firm risk in long-run. Total Facebook metrics
account for a considerably higher amount of the difference than total Twitter
metrics (5.41% versus 3.66% in return and 6.75% versus 5.25% in risk). Results
in table 5 also propose that these dissimilarities are statistically
significant (<italic>F</italic> =10.85, p &lt;0.05 for return and <italic>F</italic> = 13.45, p
&lt;0.05 for risk). So that these findings support RQ2, that FB metrics have
stronger predictive value than the Twitter metrics.</p><p><bold>Table 5.</bold>
Variance de-composition of firm equity value as described by social media
metrics</p><table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>Variance Explained by</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Return
  (%)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>?</bold><bold>Risk (%)</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Fan Posts</p> </td><td> <p>0.62</p> </td><td> <p>1.51</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Facebook Engagement</p> </td><td> <p>1.84</p> </td><td> <p>1.91</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Post Interaction</p> </td><td> <p>1.31</p> </td><td> <p>1.80</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Number of Posts</p> </td><td> <p>1.63</p> </td><td> <p>1.53</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>Total FB Metrics</bold></p> </td><td> <p>5.41</p> </td><td> <p>6.75</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Retweets</p> </td><td> <p>0.49</p> </td><td> <p>1.30</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Number of Tweets</p> </td><td> <p>0.96</p> </td><td> <p>1.35</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Twitter Engagement</p> </td><td> <p>0.61</p> </td><td> <p>1.36</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>Tweet Interaction</p> </td><td> <p>1.60</p> </td><td> <p>1.24</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p><bold>Total Twitter Metrics</bold></p> </td><td> <p>3.66</p> </td><td> <p>5.25</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> <p>F Statistics</p> </td><td> <p>10.85*</p> </td><td> <p>13.45*</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>* <italic>p </italic>&lt;
0.05</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-7">
  <title>Discussion</title>
<p>The current research was trying to evaluate the social media’s predictive power and changing aspects of relationships among social media metrics and firms’ equity value. The findings indicate that Facebook metrics are primary indicators of firms’ equity value (proved through Granger causality tests) and takes a higher predictive value than Twitter metrics. Facebook engagement has the highest predictive strength for firm risks and returns. Twitter engagement also shows significant predictive power for firm risks and returns. The findings of the current research proffer important and novel inferences for the theoretical and managerial absorbers of social media.</p><p>Our findings prove that investment in social media on increasing Facebook and Twitter engagement would be most rewarding related to organizational future risk and return. Top management should prioritize and allot marketing communication budgets properly among numerous social media platforms according to the ability to predicted financial value for the firm. The engagement of consumers in Facebook posts and Twitter tweets provide the factor of trust to the consumers and reduce negative valence on social media.</p><p>Social media metrics could furnish firms with more effective processes of online engagement of consumers, in addition to improving the organizational equity value during this social media era.  Centering on only short-term value would ignore the persistent effects of these digital user metrics. Our findings support that social media metrics can effectively predict organizational risk and return not only in the short-term but also in the long-term.</p><p>Our results suggest that managers have to prioritize these metrics for the enduring long-term returns of their social media investment. Managers have to develop strategies to enhance customer engagement in social media specifically Facebook and Twitter to increase firm value and reduce risk.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/zG5ljQokIP.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Bell">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Bell, J., &amp; Loane, S</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. â€˜New-wave&apos; global firms: web 2.0 and SME internationalisation</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Marketing Management</source>
    Bell, J., &amp; Loane, S. (2010). â€˜New-wave&apos; global firms: web 2.0 and SME internationalisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3-4), 213-229.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Chen">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Chen, X</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Blog as a communication tool</article-title>
    <source>Proceedings of the 2009 Second International Conference on Future Information Technology and Management Engineering (FITME 2009), 584-587</source>
    <page-range>roceedings</page-range>
    Chen, X. (2009). Blog as a communication tool. Proceedings of the 2009 Second International Conference on Future Information Technology and Management Engineering (FITME 2009), 584-587. DOI: 10.1109/fitme.2009.150
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1109/fitme.2009.150</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/fitme.2009.150">10.1109/fitme.2009.150</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Da">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Da, Z., Engelberg, J., &amp; Gao, P</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. In search of attention</article-title>
    <source>The Journal of Finance</source>
    <volume>66</volume>
    <issue>5</issue>
    <fpage>1461</fpage>
    <lpage>1499</lpage>
    Da, Z., Engelberg, J., &amp; Gao, P. (2011). In search of attention. The Journal of Finance, 66(5), 1461-1499.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Das">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Das, S. R., &amp; Chen, M. Y</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment extraction from small talk on the web</article-title>
    <source>Management Science</source>
    <volume>53</volume>
    <issue>9</issue>
    <fpage>1375</fpage>
    <lpage>1388</lpage>
    Das, S. R., &amp; Chen, M. Y. (2007). Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment extraction from small talk on the web. Management Science, 53(9), 1375-1388.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Deans">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Deans, P. C</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. The impact of social media on C-level roles</article-title>
    <source>MIS Quarterly Executive</source>
    <volume>10</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>187</fpage>
    <lpage>200</lpage>
    Deans, P. C. (2011). The impact of social media on C-level roles. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(4), 187-200.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Dekimpe">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Dekimpe, M. G., &amp; Hanssens, D. M</person-group>
    <year>1999</year>
    <article-title>. Sustained spending and persistent response: A new look at long-term marketing profitability</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Marketing Research, 397-412</source>
    <page-range>ersistent</page-range>
    Dekimpe, M. G., &amp; Hanssens, D. M. (1999). Sustained spending and persistent response: A new look at long-term marketing profitability. Journal of Marketing Research, 397-412.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Dellarocas">
  <label>8</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Dellarocas, C., Gao, G., &amp; Narayan, R</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <source>Are consumers more likely to contribute online reviews for hit or niche products? Journal of Management Information Systems</source>
    <volume>27</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>127</fpage>
    <lpage>158</lpage>
    Dellarocas, C., Gao, G., &amp; Narayan, R. (2010). Are consumers more likely to contribute online reviews for hit or niche products? Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 127-158
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Dewan">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Dewan, S., &amp; Ren, F</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Risk and return of information technology initiatives: Evidence from electronic commerce announcements</article-title>
    <source>Information Systems Research</source>
    <volume>18</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>370</fpage>
    <lpage>394</lpage>
    Dewan, S., &amp; Ren, F. (2007). Risk and return of information technology initiatives: Evidence from electronic commerce announcements. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 370-394
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Dhar">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Dhar, V., &amp; Chang, E. A</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Does chatter matter? The impact of user-generated content on music sales</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Interactive Marketing</source>
    <volume>23</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>300</fpage>
    <lpage>307</lpage>
    Dhar, V., &amp; Chang, E. A. (2009). Does chatter matter? The impact of user-generated content on music sales. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 300-307.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Divol">
  <label>12</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Divol, R., Edelman, D., &amp; Sarrazin, H</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Demystifying social media</article-title>
    <source>McKinsey Quarterly</source>
    <volume>2</volume>
    <issue>12</issue>
    <fpage>66</fpage>
    <lpage>77</lpage>
    Divol, R., Edelman, D., &amp; Sarrazin, H. (2012). Demystifying social media. McKinsey Quarterly, 2(12), 66-77.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="FacebookDevelopers">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Facebook-Developers</person-group>
    <year>2016</year>
    <source>from</source>
    Facebook-Developers. (2016). from
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.facebook.com/help/178043462360087">https://www.facebook.com/help/178043462360087</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Fama">
  <label>14</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Fama, E. F</person-group>
    <year>1970</year>
    <article-title>. Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work</article-title>
    <source>The Journal of Finance</source>
    <volume>25</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>383</fpage>
    <lpage>417</lpage>
    Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383-417.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Gao">
  <label>17</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Gao, G., &amp; Hitt, L. M</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Information technology and trademarks: Implications for product variety</article-title>
    <source>Management Science</source>
    <volume>58</volume>
    <issue>6</issue>
    <fpage>1211</fpage>
    <lpage>1226</lpage>
    Gao, G., &amp; Hitt, L. M. (2012). Information technology and trademarks: Implications for product variety. Management Science, 58(6), 1211-1226.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Ghose">
  <label>18</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ghose, A., &amp; Yang, S</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. An empirical analysis of search engine advertising: Sponsored search in electronic markets</article-title>
    <source>Management Science</source>
    <volume>55</volume>
    <issue>10</issue>
    <fpage>1605</fpage>
    <lpage>1622</lpage>
    Ghose, A., &amp; Yang, S. (2009). An empirical analysis of search engine advertising: Sponsored search in electronic markets. Management Science, 55(10), 1605-1622.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Goyal">
  <label>19</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Goyal, A., &amp; Santaâ€Clara, P</person-group>
    <year>2003</year>
    <source>Idiosyncratic risk matters! The Journal of Finance</source>
    <volume>58</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>975</fpage>
    <lpage>1008</lpage>
    Goyal, A., &amp; Santaâ€Clara, P. (2003). Idiosyncratic risk matters! The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 975-1008.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Granger">
  <label>20</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Granger, C. W</person-group>
    <year>1969</year>
    <article-title>. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods</article-title>
    <source>Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438</source>
    Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Gu">
  <label>21</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Gu, B., Park, J., &amp; Konana, P</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Research note-the impact of external word-of-mouth sources on retailer sales of high-involvement products</article-title>
    <source>Information Systems Research</source>
    <volume>23</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>182</fpage>
    <lpage>196</lpage>
    Gu, B., Park, J., &amp; Konana, P. (2012). Research note-the impact of external word-of-mouth sources on retailer sales of high-involvement products. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 182-196.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Hamilton">
  <label>22</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hamilton, J. D</person-group>
    <year>1994</year>
    <article-title>. Time series analysis (Vol</article-title>
    <source>2): Princeton university press Princeton</source>
    <page-range>rinceton</page-range>
    Hamilton, J. D. (1994). Time series analysis (Vol. 2): Princeton university press Princeton.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Hanson">
  <label>23</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hanson, W. A., &amp; Kalyanam, K</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <source>Internet marketing &amp; e-commerce: Thomson/South-Western</source>
    Hanson, W. A., &amp; Kalyanam, K. (2007). Internet marketing &amp; e-commerce: Thomson/South-Western.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Harris">
  <label>24</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Harris, L., &amp; Rae, A</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Social networks: the future of marketing for small business</article-title>
    <source>Journal of business strategy</source>
    <volume>30</volume>
    <issue>5</issue>
    <fpage>24</fpage>
    <lpage>31</lpage>
    Harris, L., &amp; Rae, A. (2009). Social networks: the future of marketing for small business. Journal of business strategy, 30(5), 24-31.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Luo">
  <label>25</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Luo, X</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Quantifying the long-term impact of negative word of mouth on cash flows and stock prices</article-title>
    <source>Marketing Science</source>
    <volume>28</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>148</fpage>
    <lpage>165</lpage>
    Luo, X. (2009). Quantifying the long-term impact of negative word of mouth on cash flows and stock prices. Marketing Science, 28(1), 148-165.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Osimo">
  <label>28</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Osimo, D</person-group>
    <year>2008</year>
    <article-title>. Web 2.0 in government: Why and how</article-title>
    <source>Institute for Prospectice Technological Studies (IPTS), JRC, European Commission, EUR, 23358</source>
    <page-range>rospectice</page-range>
    Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how. Institute for Prospectice Technological Studies (IPTS), JRC, European Commission, EUR, 23358.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sernovitz">
  <label>29</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sernovitz, A., &amp; Clester, S</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <source>Word of mouth marketing: How smart companies get people talking: Kaplan Pub</source>
    <page-range>eople</page-range>
    Sernovitz, A., &amp; Clester, S. (2009). Word of mouth marketing: How smart companies get people talking: Kaplan Pub.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Srinivasan">
  <label>30</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Srinivasan, S., &amp; Hanssens, D. M</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Marketing and firm value: metrics, methods, findings, and future directions</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Marketing Research</source>
    <volume>46</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>293</fpage>
    <lpage>312</lpage>
    Srinivasan, S., &amp; Hanssens, D. M. (2009). Marketing and firm value: metrics, methods, findings, and future directions. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 293-312.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Statisticsbrain">
  <label>31</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Statisticsbrain</person-group>
    <year>2016</year>
    <source>from</source>
    Statisticsbrain. (2016). from
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/restaurant-industry-statistics/">http://www.statisticbrain.com/restaurant-industry-statistics/</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Statman">
  <label>32</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Statman, M., Thorley, S., &amp; Vorkink, K</person-group>
    <year>2006</year>
    <article-title>. Investor overconfidence and trading volume</article-title>
    <source>Review of Financial Studies</source>
    <volume>19</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>1531</fpage>
    <lpage>1565</lpage>
    Statman, M., Thorley, S., &amp; Vorkink, K. (2006). Investor overconfidence and trading volume. Review of Financial Studies, 19(4), 1531-1565.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Tetlock">
  <label>33</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Tetlock, P. C</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market</article-title>
    <source>The Journal of Finance</source>
    <volume>62</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>1139</fpage>
    <lpage>1168</lpage>
    Tetlock, P. C. (2007). Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market. The Journal of Finance, 62(3), 1139-1168.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Tirunillai">
  <label>34</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Tirunillai, S., &amp; Tellis, G. J</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated content and stock performance</article-title>
    <source>Marketing Science</source>
    <volume>31</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>198</fpage>
    <lpage>215</lpage>
    Tirunillai, S., &amp; Tellis, G. J. (2012). Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated content and stock performance. Marketing Science, 31(2), 198-215
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>