Social media capability in B2B marketing: toward a definition and a research model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore organizational social media capability in business-to-business (B2B) marketing, by focusing on what social media capability is in a B2B marketing context and how it is developed in firms engaged in B2B marketing. Design/methodology/approach This is a thematic literature review, drawing on both B2B marketing and Information Systems literature. In total, 112 academic articles from nine journals were identified and analyzed. The findings were synthesized and compiled to provide answers to the predefined research questions. Findings The results suggest that organizational social media capability is dependent on a deep understanding of a firm’s technological capability, i.e. recognizing the key features and categories of social media and dynamically upgrading the recognition in response to the environmental change. A four-level Social Media Capability Maturity Model (technological, operational, managed and strategic level) that collectively transfers social media’s technological capability to dynamic organizational capability is proposed. Originality/value This study contributes to an understanding of the use of social media in the context of B2B marketing from an organizational dynamic capability perspective. The model is particularly relevant to organizations that have adopted or plan to adopt a B2B social media strategy and is relevant for B2B researchers who are interested in social media research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".