Examining the impact of social media usage on start-ups performance: Mediating role of brand image

Emmanuel Bruce; Zhao Shurong; John Amoah; Sulemana Bankuoru Egala; Philip Adu Sarfo; Bernard Ekow Baidoo; Dennis Akomanyi Darko; Luo Ailing; Ynag Yongxing

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320133

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 28, 2024
28 Jul 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320133.r001
18 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Bo Pu, Editor PONE-D-24-29006Examining the Impact of Social Media Usage on Start-ups Performance: Mediating Role of Brand Image.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bruce, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 02 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bo Pu, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: this manuscript should be improved. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript showed a technically sound paper of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The paper aimed to explore the impact of social media usage to startup performance with a mediating role of brand image. Data collected by sending the questionnaires to startup firms in Ghana and have 450 respondents in valid. The paper show the respondents profile, conducted the factor loading, Cronbach's Alpha, CR, VIF, AVE and Fornell-Larcker for measurement variables; hypothesis testing by PLS-SEM. The discussions, conclusions and implications were drawn appropriately based on the data collected. The statistical analysis was performed approciately and rigorously. Data collected are permitted from National Board for Small-Scale Industries (NBSSI) and the respondents agreed to participating. However, the data was not divided into the direct responses and google form responses. The paper has not showed how to choose the start-ups to sending the questionnaire. So that, the authors should be show the data more clearly in this points. The manuscript was showed in intelligible fashion and written in standard English. However, the paper should considerably the form of citation. The citation based on the number of references made the target readers to have to check "what is it", eg. line 35 "From a start-up perspective, [15] noted...." the readers don't know what is [15]; or line 40 "According to [17],..." what is [17],... there have a lot of above-mentioned citations. The paper is too long, the authors should be rewrite for shorter. Reviewer #2: I consider the article very interesting and solid . A few adjustments to the language and the text should be made. For example: 59-60 It is not clear what you wanted to say. Seems distinct from the aim stated in the title and the rest of the paper. And probably would sound better with ”the relationship between ...” 382 - Indicator 1 of construct IC is not very clear. 382 - Construct SP indicators should start from 1. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Trung Bao Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320133.r002
Revision 1
22 Jan 2025 Author Response Comments from Reviewer 1 Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at Thank you for these observations. We have rewritten the manuscript to meet the journal style requirement. 2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. Thanks for the comment. We agree with the reviewer and have added the title page in the manuscript, listing all the authors and their affiliations. Emmanuel Bruce1, Zhao Shurong 2, John Amoah3, Sulemana Bankuoru Egala 4, Philip Adu Sarfo5 Dennis Akomanyi Darko 1 1 School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China; Center for West Africa Studies, UESTC, Chengdu, China, 2 School of Public Affairs and Administration, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China; Center for West Africa Studies, UESTC, Chengdu, China, 3 John Amoah, Department of Marketing and Strategy, Takoradi Technical University, Takoradi, Ghana, 4 Department of Informatics, Faculty of ICT, SD Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies, Wa, UW/R, Bamahu, Ghana, 5 School of Management Engineering, Zhengzhou University, 45001, Zhengzhou, China kinbuki100@outlook.com 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. We thank you for the comments ones again. Respectively, we have provided additional references at the references at the last page of the manuscript, reference number 127, 128, as seen as follows; 127. Halliday, S.V. and Trott, P., Relational, interactive service innovation: building branding competence. Marketing Theory, 2010, 10(2), pp. 144-160. 128. Amoah, J., Jibril A. B., Bankuoru Egala, S., and Keelson, S. A. (2022). Online brand community and consumer brand trust: Analysis from Czech millennials. Cogent Business & Management, 2022, 9(1), 2149152. 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. We thank you for the comments. Respectively, we are unable to conduct emperiment as suggested. However, we have rewritten the conclusion based on the data analysis, presented in the manuscript at the conclusion part, as follows: The current study examined the impact of social media usage on the performance of startup in Ghana, mediated by brand image. Drawing upon the theory of resource-based view (RBV), the research formulated hypotheses designed to provide answers to the core objectives. Besides, the study gathered data from young entrepreneurs in Ghana, utilizing Smart PLS software for the analysis. All the five hypotheses developed were supported in the current study. This study establishes that social media marketing and brand image are pivotal marketing tools, that have significant and direct effect on the startup performance. The study also tested the relationship between social media usage and startup performance, mediated by the brand image. The results emerged shows that social media usage allows startups to reach potential customers, enhance brand image, create value and, ultimately, improve business performance. This implies that the positive effect can be attributed to the effective utilization of social media marketing applications, resulting in a larger customer base, enhanced relationships, and better performanc e. The present study further highlights the importance of innovation capability in improving firm performance, revealing a significant effect on start-up performance. This research adds to the ongoing conversation on startup utilization of digital technologies, especially social media, to enhance business growth and achieve sustainable performance in the context of developing countries since few empirical studies have been devoted to this context. Reviewer #1: The manuscript showed a technically sound paper of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The paper aimed to explore the impact of social media usage to startup performance with a mediating role of brand image. Data collected by sending the questionnaires to startup firms in Ghana and have 450 respondents in valid. The paper show the respondents profile, conducted the factor loading, Cronbach's Alpha, CR, VIF, AVE and Fornell-Larcker for measurement variables; hypothesis testing by PLS-SEM. The discussions, conclusions and implications were drawn appropriately based on the data collected. The statistical analysis was performed approciately and rigorously. Data collected are permitted from National Board for Small-Scale Industries (NBSSI) and the respondents agreed to participating. However, the data was not divided into the direct responses and google form responses. The paper has not showed how to choose the start-ups to sending the questionnaire. So that, the authors should be show the data more clearly in this points. The manuscript was showed in intelligible fashion and written in standard English. However, the paper should considerably the form of citation. The citation based on the number of references made the target readers to have to check "what is it", eg. line 35 "From a start-up perspective, [15] noted...." the readers don't know what is [15]; or line 40 "According to [17],..." what is [17],... there have a lot of above-mentioned citations. The paper is too long, the authors should be rewrite for shorter. Reviewer #2: I consider the article very interesting and solid. A few adjustments to the language and the text should be made. For example: 59-60 It is not clear what you wanted to say. Seems distinct from the aim stated in the title and the rest of the paper. And probably would sound better with ”the relationship between ...” Thanks for the comment. We agree with the reviewer and have explained how direct responses and google form were filled by the responses, as shown in the manuscript (methodology section) “Out of the 520 questionnaires administered, 450 of the questionnaires received were valid for data processing and analysis. The questionnaires were administered via Goggle Forms (i.e. through emails and social media platforms such as Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp) and offline methods after formal approval from the selected young entrepreneurs. Additionally, young entrepreneurs were chosen based on those who utilizes social media networks for their business activities and as a marketing communication tool”. Again, issues related to citations in the manuscript has been resolved and rewritten to sound well. For citation number 15 for instance “As summarized by [15-17] for instance, young entrepreneurs have started utilizing social media to facilitate effective communication with consumers and business visibility. As a result, social media adoption can lead to double profits, which boosts marketing effectiveness [4]. For citation number 35 “In investigating social media usage and young entrepreneur investment, Chen and Liu [35] revealed how social media has become an important marketing tool for entrepreneurship activities. For citation number 40 “Moreover, other researchers [31, 35, 40] have employed the research-based view theory to investigate the impact of social media on start-up performance and sustainability. For citation number 59 and 60 have been rewritten “Okrah et al. [57] focus on factors of startup success and growth by arguing that social media technologies are taking over the Ghanaian business landscape to drive sustenance, especially among small and medium enterprises. Several works have established that social media enables startups in Ghana to connect the entire ecosystem [59, 60], sharing knowledge [61] and networking [62]. Besides, the overall manuscript has been rewritten to make it shorter as requested. Furthermore, issues related with 382 - Indicator 1 of construct IC and Construct SP indicators, the author have tackled this issue, dwelling on innovation capabilities and brand image, presented in the manuscript (literature review), developing hypothesis for it and removed all the notes on mediating role of brand image. Besides, the authors have provided discussion for the relationship between innovation capabilities and brand image in the manuscripts “Lastly, the study also considered establishing the relationship between innovation capabilities and brand image. The findings of the proposed hypothesis were supported and therefore confirm the works of [94]. According to a study by Amoah et al. [128], innovation has a significant impact on brand image hence affirming a positive relationship between innovation capabilities and the perception of brand image. Innovation capabilities empower companies to create distinct processes and brands, ultimately aiming to achieve a competitive advantage. For instance, Halliday and Trott [127] concluded that there is a positive relationship between innovation capabilities and brand image. Thus, companies can enhance their brand image by focusing on innovation mechanisms or managing design innovation effectively. [86] reinforced that firms with innovation capabilities create distinctive processes and products that enhance their brand image. For instance, [86], and Amoah et al., [128] concluded that high levels of innovation are beneficial for brand-focused in building a powerful brand image. Additionally, companies that prioritize technological and design innovation management significantly improve their brand image, further reinforcing a positive link between innovation capabilities and brand image. As indicated by [95] fostering innovation do not only differentiate a company’s products and services but also strengthens its brand image in the competitive market landscape”. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Authors respond to PLOS ONE Reviewer COMMENT.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320133.r003
14 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Bo Pu, Editor Examining the Impact of Social Media Usage on Start-ups Performance: Mediating Role of Brand Image. PONE-D-24-29006R1 Dear Dr. Bruce, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Bo Pu, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thanks for your improvement towards this manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. Expand the Literature Review: Offer a more comprehensive discussion of the theoretical framework, delving deeper into its relevance and application to the study. Critically evaluate existing studies to identify gaps in the literature and clearly articulate how this research addresses those gaps. 2. Improve Methodological Transparency: Provide detailed information about the survey instrument, including sample items or an appendix with the full questionnaire. Justify the choice of measurement scales, explaining why they are appropriate for the constructs being measured and how they align with the study's objectives. 3. Examine Demographic Data: Analyze the demographic characteristics of respondents in greater depth. Discuss how factors such as gender, education, or industry representation might influence the results and their broader implications for start-ups operating in diverse sectors. 4. Enhance the Discussion Section: Expand on the theoretical contributions of the study, explaining how the findings advance existing frameworks or theories. Provide a more critical analysis of the results, comparing them with prior research and highlighting any unexpected outcomes or novel insights. 5. Overall Assessment: The paper addresses an important and timely topic with a robust methodology and provides valuable insights for both academics and practitioners. However, there are areas for improvement, particularly in the literature review, discussion of limitations, and theoretical contributions. With revisions, the paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of entrepreneurship and social media research. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320133.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bo Pu, Editor PONE-D-24-29006R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bruce, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Bo Pu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320133.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .