Digital Marketing Actions That Achieve a Better Attraction and Loyalty of Users: An Analytical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is part of the line of research on the potential of Digital Marketing, of which the literature is quite rich, both for the methodologies used and for the sectors concerned.

Already in the abstract the authors indicate the first limits of the research, that is the number of experts identified (really minimal for the significant application of the Delphi method) and the number of bibliographic references, really reduced compared to what the literature on the treated topic offers.

It would be advisable, where possible, to intervenue on both limits or, at the limit, on the cited literature.

The authors talk about web 2.0 but now we are at the level of interaction 3.0 among web users and the 4.0 frontier has already been reached in the interaction between companies and customers. It is therefore necessary to update the state of the art of the phenomenon studied. No mention is made about social commerce and mobile commerce, the last frontier in the use of smartphone in commercial transactions, whose development has by now been consolidated, especially for various production sectors and many countries. As already mentioned, from phase 2.0, we moved on the 3.0 and move on to 4.0, so it is advisable to update these passages by the available literature.

There is a rich literature on the use of digital marketing (otherwise called web mkt or e-mkt or internet mkt) in different sectors and present since the 90s of the 20th  century. I suggest to the authors to carry out rearch on this rich literature to enrich their paper.

Furthermore, the term New Economy is used but, as several authors report, it would be better to talk of Net economy, since the principles of the economy have not changed but only new instruments and technologies have intervened to support economic processes.

In paragraph 3 is better to specify the meaning of the points H3 and H4.

Regarding the adopted methodology (Delphi), the authors do not refer to the recent updates of the adopted method nor do they explain because they chose this approach instead of the Others already existing and to be found in the literature. It is advisable to make at least bibliographic references on the new approaches of the Delphi method.

Indicate the sources of the figure n. 1.

In the conclusions the authors are advisedto enrich the resarchwith the results already acquired in other research in europe and in the USA and with ad hoc methodologies tested ad hoc for the specific virtual economic environment of the marketspaces. The conclusions seem too obvious compared to what is already present in the literature on the subject.

Authors are advised to re-read the paper carefully because there are imprecision in the bibliographic references.

LINSTONE and not LISTONE

references nn. 12, 25, 26 and 27 are not included in the text

n. 17 is not correct in the text.

Author Response

Appreciated reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable contributions. We have done all improvements:

Answer 1: I thank the reviewer for his valuable comment. We have added more citations to the manuscript. Specifically 16 appointments have been added.

Answer 2: In relation to the sample, it has been documented (Linstone and Turoff, 1975, Torrecilla-Salinas, De Troyer, Escalona and Mejías, 2019) that most Delphi studies use a panel that varies from 15 to 20 members and in our case is within that range, so we consider the sample valid.

 

Answer 3: We have eliminated the limitations in the abstract and we have added more details.

Answer 4: Very good contribution on the different moments of marketing, we have added quotes about marketing 3.0 and marketing 4.0. We agree and we have added:The most modern trend of digital marketing arrives with Marketing 3.0 “in the mind of the consumer” (Kotler, Philip; Kartajaya, Hermawan; Setiawan, Iwan, 2013). Three years later, Marketing 4.0 “the importance of trust and fidelity” (Kotler, Philip; Kartajaya, Hermawan; Setiawan, Iwan, 2016).Answer 5: We appreciate the valuable suggestion. We have incorporated the following text regarding the mention of mobile commerce:

One of the objects of study of digital Marketing is being m-commerce. Commerce through mobile phones or tablets (m-commerce) is defined as the purchase and sale of goods and services through wireless handheld devices (Chong, 2013).

We are facing an online commerce adapted to touch screens and with sufficient usability levels to be able to complete the sales process of a product from these devices that can be connected to the Internet by mobile phone networks or by WIFI access (Palos-Sanchez, 2017).

The adaptation of e-commerce websites to these devices to increase the number of visits gave way to a new concept: the APP (in English) or mobile application (Santiago et al., 2015).

Answer 6: We appreciate the valuable suggestion. We have incorporated the following text regarding the mention of mobile commerce: One of the objects of study of digital Marketing is being m-commerce. Commerce through mobile phones or tablets (m-commerce) is defined as the purchase and sale of goods and services through wireless handheld devices (Chong, 2013).

We are facing an online commerce adapted to touch screens and with sufficient usability levels to be able to complete the sales process of a product from these devices that can be connected to the Internet by mobile phone networks or by WIFI access (Palos-Sanchez, 2017).

The adaptation of e-commerce websites to these devices to increase the number of visits gave way to a new concept: the APP (in English) or mobile application (Santiago et al., 2015).

Answer 9: We have added authors like Torrecilla.Answer 10: We have added more information in the title.Answer 11: The conclusions have been improved.Answer 12: The grammatical errors and the references are corrected.Thanks again, best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

 The paper addresses an interesting theme, while the literature review is well done. I found the abstract to be quite short, thus please place your work better in the general context and enlarge the abstract section by talking more on the results you have achieved.

Figure 1 is incomplete in my opinion: there is the main research question and after that there is the "give the questionnaire to a group of experts" - what about creating the questionnaire?

Also, I see no point for table 2: one can just summarize the characteristics in one phrase.

What is CA1 - FU4 in Table 3?

I think the sample is too small in order to consider the results as being relevant - and I think this is a major issue;

Have you validated the questionnaire? - please present some data on this extent;

How are you sure that the answers you have received from just 18 persons are consistent with the reality? What actions have you taken for validating your results?

Thank you!

Author Response

‍Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your time and your valuable contributions.

In relation to the extension of the summary, we have proceeded to expand it.

Following the valuable suggestion of the reviewer, two stages have been introduced. One has been Development of the questionnaire. The other one has been Panel Selection based on:Hsu and Sandford (2007) and Torrecilla-Salinas et al. (2019).

We have eliminated table 2 and we have summarized it in this paragraph:

Regarding the characteristics of the experts consulted, 83.33% were men and 16.67% women. Regarding age, the majority (77.7%) was in the age range of 35 to 49 years. The majority educational level was Master's Degree.

We have changed the title of table 3, now table 2, by: Development of the Questionarie of Delphi survey.

In relation to the sample, it has been documented (Linstone and Turoff, 1975, Torrecilla-Salinas, De Troyer, Escalona and Mejías, 2019) that most Delphi studies use a panel that varies from 15 to 20 members and in our case is within that range, so we consider the sample valid. It is interesting to note that the Delphi method, mainly due to the small number of participants - between 6 and 30 - does not produce statistically significant results (Listone and Turoff, 1975).

Best Regards

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciated the correctionsmade by the authors but I believe that the paper could still be improved. In particular, I propose again to the authors to replace (or add) the term New economy (lines 92 and 101) with Net/Digital economy,because the principles of the economy have not changed but only the new instruments and technologies support economic processes.

I suggest that the authors take care of the Digital Marketing definitions (tab. 1), because they don't correspond to those reported in the cited sources (AMA).

Be careful: do not confuse social commerce with collaborative consumption (or sharing economy)!!!

The social commerce is a subset of e-commerce that involves social media that supports social interaction, and user contributions to assist online buying and selling of products and services.

It is advisable to include in the bibliography the following references that report developments and researches on net/digital economy, social media and social commerce.

 Scuderi A., Sturiale L. (2015) Social commerce and marketing strategy for "made in Italy" food products. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1498, 509-519

Wang, Zhang (2012) The evolution of social commerce: an examination from the people, business, technology and information perspectives. Communication of the Association for Information System, 31, 5, 105-127

Zhou, Zhang, Zimmermann (2013) Social commerce research: an integrated view. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 12, 61-68

Sturiale l, Scuderi A (2016) The digital economy: new e-business strategies for food italian system. International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retaling, 7, 4, 287-310.

I suggest again to enrich the conclusion with the compared results acquired in other researches in Europe and USA. It is possible to recove researches from the suggested references.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks so much for your help and also for the references we have checked all and we are agree, so all are added.

We have added Net Economy as important point.

We have changed the lastest AMA definition.

In the conclusión we have added more references comparing other authors from Europe and USA.

Thanks one moretime for your extraordinary contributions.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the new version of the paper and for answering some of my remarks in the private field - please include these answers also in the paper - they were not personal remarks, thus, I believe that the paper should be improved by including a characterization of the 18 experts - not only gender and degree, but also some other characteristics that qualify them as experts. Please also address the previous comments within the body of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks so much for your help, we are agree, so all are added.

We have added all answers in the paper.

Also we have improved the characterization.

Please see attached file below.

Thanks one moretime for your extraordinary contributions.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing the reviewer's comments. I have no further observations.