Evaluating and ranking the digital content generation components for marketing the libraries and information centres’ goods and services using fuzzy TOPSIS technique
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2023
Evaluating and ranking the digital content generation components for marketing the libraries and information centres’ goods and services using fuzzy TOPSIS technique
Since content audiences, including libraries and information centres, are increasingly geared to digital environments and virtual networks, the production and delivery of high-quality digital content are becoming continuously important. So far, several components have been introduced by researchers for evaluating the quality of digital content generation. However, due to the uncertainty of the importance rate and value of each of these components, it has not yet been possible to use them effectively to evaluate the content produced. This study aimed to rank the components of content generation to allow accurate evaluation of them for users as well as content providers and distributors including libraries and marketers. The ranked content can motivate digital content producers and distributors to better evaluate the quality of digital content, better attract customers and make more effective decisions about the quality of digital content use based on their specific goals. Initially, 42 of the most important components were identified from the literature. Then, the next steps were taken to rank these components, and based on three rounds of Delphi interviews, the experts’ views on the importance rate of each of the components were obtained, analysed and ranked. Since in this ranking, the importance of a wide range of components should be highlighted towards each other, the fuzzy TOPSIS technique was emphasised for analysing the views of 16 experts in the field of content generation in Iran. This ranking indicated that components such as ‘findable and access’, ‘non-disturbing and helpful’, ‘clear’ and ‘remarkable’ are the main pillars of content generation and are of the utmost importance. The results can be used as an effective tool to improve the quality of content. Moreover, it increases audience engagement in digital environments and social networks, and encourages them to make more use of the digital content of libraries.
TaiminenKRanaweeraC. Fostering brand engagement and value-laden trusted B2B relationships through digital content marketing. Eur J Marketing2019; 53: 1759–1781.
3.
KimT-Y. A study on the effects of digital content marketing in OTT (Over The Top) service platform: focusing on indirect advertising types. J Inst Internet Broadcast Commun2020; 20(4): 155–164.
4.
Soltani-NejadNTaheri-AzadFZarei-MaramN, et al. Developing a model to identify the antecedents and consequences of user satisfaction with digital libraries. Aslib J Inform Manag2020; 72: 979–997.
5.
ChaffeyDMillD. Content is king. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012.
6.
OntronenJ-P. Evaluating performance of content marketing: YouTube marketing in Finnish food and drink industry. Lappeenranta: LUT University (Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology), 2015.
7.
HakkarainenT. Opportunities and challenges of content marketing as a way of digital marketing communications. Lappeenranta: LUT University (Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology), 2016.
8.
PulizziJ. Epic content marketing: how to tell a different story, break through the clutter, and win more customers by marketing less. New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2013.
9.
WallMA. Click-through rhetoric: genre and networks in content marketing. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 2015.
10.
AdamsAA. Digital word of mouth: motivating and engaging Millennials with shareable content. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, 2015.
11.
HollebeekLDSrivastavaRKChenT. S-D logic–informed customer engagement: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. J Acad Market Sci2019; 47(1): 161–185.
12.
RahimKClemensB. Organizational goals and performance measurement criteria for content marketing. J Commun Comput2012; 9(8): 896–904.
TrefzgerTFDünfelderD. Unleash your brand! Using social media as a marketing tool in academia. In: Proceedings of the international conference on social computing and social media, Toronto, ON, Canada, 17–22 July 2016. Cham: Springer.
15.
Van WaverenR. Content marketing on social media: evaluating the effectiveness of Facebook posts in a content marketing context. Enschede: University of Twente, 2015.
16.
Mahdizadeh MolabashiTNasrollahiAFayyazE, et al. The conceptual model of content marketing in the new media technology and identifying effective factors in Iran. Eur Online J Nat Soc Sci2016; 4(1s): 1428–1436.
17.
Mahdizadeh MolabashiTEsmaeeli KiaR. Identifying factors affecting content marketing and its conceptual model for Iran. In: Proceedings of the international conference on business development and excellence, Tehran, Iran, 17 December 2014. Tehran: Iran Seminars Symposia (in Persian).
18.
Du PlessisC. An exploratory analysis of essential elements of content marketing. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on social media, Porto, 9–10 July 2015.
19.
LinCOYYazdanifardR. How Google’s new algorithm, hummingbird, promotes content and inbound marketing. Am J Ind Bus Manag2014; 4: 51–57.
20.
NairVMahalingamS. Online content publishing and revenue sharing: strategies for success. IOSR J Bus Manag2014; 16(2): 81–88.
21.
OpreanaAVinereanS. A new development in online marketing: introducing digital inbound marketing. Expert J Market2015; 3(1): 29–34.
22.
NaseriZNoruziAFahimniaF. The comparative survey of process and procedures for content marketing models. J Acad Libr Inform Res2018; 52(1): 83–100.
23.
NaseriZNoruziAFahimniaF, et al. Content marketing: identifying the basic components and dimensions in order to provide conceptual model. Libr Inform Sci Res2017; 7(1): 280–303.
24.
RafiSYuWAkbarMA, et al. Multicriteria based decision making of DevOps data quality assessment challenges using fuzzy TOPSIS. IEEE Access2020; 8: 46958–46980.
25.
RoszkowskaE. Multi-criteria decision making models by applying the TOPSIS method to crisp and interval data. Multip Criter Decis Ma/University of Economics in Katowice2011; 6: 200–230.
26.
YuenKKF. Combining compound linguistic ordinal scale and cognitive pairwise comparison in the rectified fuzzy TOPSIS method for group decision making. Fuzzy Optim Decis Ma2014; 13(1): 105–130.
27.
MehreganMRSafariH. Combination of fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy ranking for multi attribute decision making. In: Proceedings of the international conference on artificial intelligence and soft computing, Zakopane, 25–29 June 2006. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.
28.
WalczakDRutkowskaA. Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method. Eur J Oper Res2017; 260(2): 706–714.
29.
ChuT-CKyselyM. Ranking objectives of advertisements on Facebook by a fuzzy TOPSIS method. Electron Commerce Res. Epub ahead of print 4January2020. DOI: 10.1007/s10660-019-09394-z.
30.
LeiSZhangXYanY. Research on opinion leaders recognition based on TOPSIS in open source design community. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 23rd international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design (CSCWD), Porto, 6–8 May 2019. New York: IEEE.
31.
AkhavanPPhilsoophianMKarimiMH. Selection and prioritization of knowledge management strategies as proportionate with organizations’ level of maturity using fuzzy TOPSIS approach, case study. VINE J Inform Knowl Manag Syst2019; 49: 397–419.
32.
YucesanMGulM. Hospital service quality evaluation: an integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Soft Comput2020; 24(5): 3237–3255.
33.
IkramMSroufeRZhangQ. Prioritizing and overcoming barriers to integrated management system (IMS) implementation using AHP and G-TOPSIS. J Clean Prod2020; 254: 120121.
34.
BobarZBožanićDDjurićK, et al. Ranking and assessment of the efficiency of social media using the fuzzy AHP-Z number model – fuzzy MABAC. Acta Polytech Hung2020; 17(3): 43–70.
35.
KumarMNSSelladuraiVSenthiilPV, et al. Positioning & product design drivers of Indian start-up insurances using fuzzy dematel and TOPSIS approach: the changing paradigm of advertising & service marketing standards, 2018, http://www.tagajournal.com/gallery/v14.101.pdf
36.
ZyoudSHFuchs-HanuschD. A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Syst Appl2017; 78: 158–181.
37.
ChenJ-KChenI-S. An Inno-Qual performance system for higher education. Scientometrics2012; 93(3): 1119–1149.
38.
LiM. Classifying and ranking topic terms based on a novel approach: role differentiation of author keywords. Scientometrics2018; 116(1): 77–100.
39.
HuangJ-YChenR-C. Exploring the intellectual structure of cloud patents using non-exhaustive overlaps. Scientometrics2019; 121(2): 739–769.
40.
HuangJ-YHsuH-T. Technology–function matrix based network analysis of cloud computing. Scientometrics2017; 113(1): 17–44.
41.
GuanJYanYZhangJ. How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field. Scientometrics2015; 102(1): 333–355.
42.
MančevMD. The application of the TOPSIS Method in selecting the best academic library at the University of Niš/L’application de la méthode TOPSIS en vue d’un choix de la meilleure bibliothèque académique de l’Université de Niš. Can J Inform Lib Sci2016; 40(1): 81–96.
43.
ZavaraqiRSaleki MalekiMAGhasemi KhoeiM, et al. Application of the fuzzy TOPSIS technique for the selection of the location of public libraries: a case study of Tabriz. Research on Information Science and Public Libraries 2014; 20(2): 253–275.
44.
HollimanGRowleyJ. Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’ perceptions of best practice. J Res Interact Market2014; 8: 269–293.
45.
HandleyAChapmanCC. Content rules: how to create killer blogs, podcasts, videos, eBooks, webinars (and more) that engage customers and ignite your business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012.
46.
HalvorsonKRachM. Content strategy for the Web: content strategy Web _p2. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, 2012.
47.
WuebbenJ. Content is currency: developing powerful content for web and mobile. London: Hachette UK Limited, 2011.
48.
HilligossBRiehSY. Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Inform Process Manag2008; 44(4): 1467–1484.
49.
Koiso-KanttilaN. Digital content marketing: a literature synthesis. J Market Manag2004; 20(1–2): 45–65.
KissaneEHalvorsonK. The elements of content strategy (Jeffrey Zeldman, Author of designing with Web standards). New York: A Book Apart, 2011.
52.
BailieRAUrbinaN. Content strategy: connecting the dots between business, brand, and benefits. Laguna Hills, CA: XML Press, 2013.
53.
AbelSBailieRA. The language of content strategy. Laguna Hills, CA: XML Press, 2014.
54.
KhedmatgozarHRHanafizadehPAlipour-HafeziM. A conceptual framework for operational definition of content. Iran J Inform Process Manage2018; 33(3): 1207–1230.
55.
RedishJG. Letting go of the words: writing Web content that works (Interactive technologies). 2nd ed. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2012, 368 pp.
56.
BudinG. Global content management: challenges and opportunities for creating and using. In: RodrigoEY (ed.) Topics in language resources for translation and localisation, vol. 79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2008, pp. 121–134.
57.
AmitRZottC. Value creation in E-business. Strateg Manage J2001; 22(6–7): 493–520.
BarryJM. Social content marketing for entrepreneurs. New York: Business Expert Press, 2014.
66.
NaseriZNoruziA. Content marketing process model: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Webology2018; 15(1): 8–18.
67.
SelimHM. Content evaluation criteria for general websites: analysis and comparison. Int J Online Market2012; 2(3): 21–38.
68.
Rodríguez-MartínezRCodinaLPedraza-JiménezR. Indicadores para la evaluación de la calidad en cibermedios: Análisis de la interacción y de la adopción de la Web 2.0 [Indicators to evaluate the quality of online journalism web sites: an analysis of web 2.0 interaction and adoption]. Rev Esp Doc Cient2012; 35(1): 61–93.
69.
KabassiKBotonisAKarydisC. Evaluating websites of specialized cultural content using fuzzy multi- criteria decision making theories. Informatica2020; 44(1): 45–54.
70.
DonofrioK. Content marketing enhances public relations strategies through social media to increase market shares for businesses. A Senior Project, Polytechnic State University, California, 2014.
71.
AlamdariPMNavimipourNJHosseinzadehM, et al. A systematic study on the recommender systems in the e-commerce. IEEE Access2020; 8: 115694–115716.
72.
HelbergerNLoosMBMGuibaultL, et al. Digital content contracts for consumers. J Consum Policy2013; 36(1): 37–57.
TrisselJL. Perceptions of Interscholastic Equestrian Association members regarding the Take the Reins magazine: a readership study. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University, 2014.
75.
BunpisLHaronMS. The influence of content marketing on customer brand engagement towards online herbal cosmetic store in Thailand. In: Proceedings of the international SME conference (ISMEC 2014), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 18–19 August 2014.
76.
JärvinenJTaiminenH. Harnessing marketing automation for B2B content marketing. Ind Market Manag2016; 54: 164–175.
77.
RancatiECodignolaFCapatinaA. Inbound and outbound marketing techniques: a comparison between Italian and Romanian pure players and click and mortar companies. Risk Contemp Econ2015; 2(1): 232–238.
78.
RowleyJ. Understanding digital content marketing. J Market Manag2008; 24(5–6): 517–540.
79.
Constantinescu-DobraA. Content marketing in dentist’s websites. An empirical comparative study between Romania and the UK. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advancements of medicine and health care through technology, Cluj-Napoca, 5–7 June 2014. Cham: Springer.
80.
AhmadNSMusaRHarunMHM. The impact of social media content marketing (SMCM) towards brand health. Proc Econ Financ2016; 37(16): 331–336.
81.
MansourDMKBarandasH. Adopting content marketing in IT startups given business knowledge and financial constraints: evidence from Portugal and Egypt. Padova: Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Aziendali ‘Marco Fanno’, Università degli Studi di Padova, 2016.
82.
VosoughFSoleymaniMAndalibA. Investigating the effect of content analysis on strategic customer relationship management to improve customer satisfaction with e-commerce in social networks and websites. In: Proceedings of the international conference of Web research, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran, 27–28 April 2016.
83.
JensenA. Content marketing in a hypermodern age. Aarhus: Aarhus University, 2016.
84.
StruhárBJ. Inbound marketing in the communication mix at the Faculty of Informatics. Brno: Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, 2012.
85.
BaltesLP. Content marketing – the fundamental tool of digital marketing. Bullet Transilvania Univ Brasov2015; 8(2): 111–118.
KendallL. Put a price on your content: measuring the value of content and branded content. Hove: Kendall Copywriting Ltd, 2012.
88.
JooYGSohnSY. Structural equation model for effective CRM of digital content industry. Expert Syst Appl2008; 34(1): 63–71.
89.
NosratiMKarimiRMohammadiM, et al. Internet marketing or modern advertising! How? Why. Int J Econ Manag Soc Sci2013; 2(3): 56–63.
90.
HirschfelderB. Effects of content marketing on attitude formation in the South African energy drink market (Commerce specializing in marketing). Cape Town, South Africa: School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town, 2015.
91.
SmithAL. Building bridges for Bridge & Burn: how small lifestyle brands use content to extend their reach online. Burnaby, BC, Canada: Simon Fraser University, 2016.
92.
NaseriANavimipourNJ. A new agent-based method for QoS-aware cloud service composition using particle swarm optimization algorithm. J Amb Intel Hum Comp2019; 10(5): 1851–1864.
PuroP. Content marketing and the significance of corporate branding (International marketing management). Lappeenranta: School of Management, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology, 2013, p. 76.
95.
DjoukanovaAGeorgievaA. Content marketing: new opportunities for building strong brands online. Lund: International Marketing & Brand Management, Lund University, 2014, p. 110.
96.
ForouzandehSSoltanpanahHSheikhahmadiA. Content marketing through data mining on Facebook social network. Webology2014; 11(1): 1–11.
97.
AndersenR. Rhetorical work in the age of content management: implications for the field of technical communication. J Bus Tech Commun2014; 28(2): 115–157.
98.
Von der GrachtHA. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol Forecast Soc2012; 79(8): 1525–1536.
99.
AgumbaJHauptT. Validating and identifying health and safety performance improvement indicators: experience of using Delphi technique. J Econ Behav Stud2015; 7: 14–22.
BestRJ. An experiment in Delphi estimation in marketing decision making. J Marketing Res1974; 11: 448–452.
105.
ZiglioE. The Delphi method and its contribution to decision making. In: AdlerMZiglioE (eds) Gazing into the oracle: the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1996, pp.3–33.
106.
StahlNNStahlRJ. We can agree after all! Achieving consensus for a critical thinking component of a gifted program using the Delphi technique. Roeper Rev1991; 14(2): 79–88.
107.
DelbecqAVan de VenAGustafsonD. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal groups and Delphi processes (vol. I11). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company, 1975.
108.
RajendranSGambateseJA. Development and initial validation of sustainable construction safety and health rating system. J Constr Eng M2009; 135(10): 1067–1075.
109.
OkoliCPawlowskiSD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manage2004; 42(1): 15–29.
110.
RogersMRLopezEC. Identifying critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies. J School Psychol2002; 40(2): 115–141.
111.
HsuC-CSandfordBA. Minimizing non-response in the Delphi process: how to respond to non-response. Practical Assess Res Eval2007; 12(1): 17.
112.
NicholRJ. A framework for the development of a post-graduate diploma programme in mental health. Bloemfontein, South Africa: University of the Free State, 2007.
113.
CottamHRoeMChallacombeJ. Outsourcing of trucking activities by relief organisations. J Human Assist2004; 1(1): 1–26.
114.
HabibiAJahantighFFSarafraziA. Fuzzy Delphi technique for forecasting and screening items. Asian J Res Bus Econ Manag2015; 5(2): 130–143.
115.
FanCKChengCL. A study to identify the training needs of life insurance sales representatives in Taiwan using the Delphi approach. Int J Train Dev2006; 10(3): 212–226.
116.
AdlerMZiglioE. Gazing into the oracle: the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1996.
117.
LinstoneHATuroffM. The Delphi method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
118.
CapeB. Gathering opinion and initiating debate: the success of the Delphi method in purely qualitative research. Lib Info R2004; 28(89): 35–44.
BaiCDhavaleDSarkisJ. Integrating fuzzy C-Means and TOPSIS for performance evaluation: an application and comparative analysis. Expert Syst Appl2014; 41(9): 4186–4196.
121.
DymovaLSevastjanovPTikhonenkoA. A direct interval extension of TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl2013; 40(12): 4841–4847.
122.
AloiniDDulminRMininnoV. A peer IF-TOPSIS based decision support system for packaging machine selection. Expert Syst Appl2014; 41(5): 2157–2165.
123.
RouyendeghBDSaputroTE. Supplier selection using integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: a case study. Procd Soc Behv2014; 116: 3957–3970.
124.
WangL-N. Fuzzy quantitative evaluation on tourist scenic spot service quality in the perspective of Wechat marketing. Int J Knowl Base Intell Eng Syst2017; 21(4): 227–233.
125.
MadiENGaribaldiJMWagnerC. A comparison between two types of fuzzy TOPSIS method. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Kowloon, China, 9–12 October 2015. New York: IEEE.
126.
YangTHungC-C. Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot Cim: Int Manuf2007; 23(1): 126–137.
127.
ShihH-SShyurH-JLeeES. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model2007; 45(7–8): 801–813.
128.
SunC-CLinGT. Using fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating the competitive advantages of shopping websites. Expert Syst Appl2009; 36(9): 11764–11771.
129.
AshtianiBHaghighiradFMakuiA, et al. Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput2009; 9(2): 457–461.
130.
BüyüközkanGFeyzioğluONebolE. Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. Int J Prod Econ2008; 113(1): 148–158.
131.
WangT-CChangT-H. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl2007; 33(4): 870–880.
132.
HajekPFroelichW. Integrating TOPSIS with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy cognitive maps for effective group decision making. Inform Sciences2019; 485: 394–412.
133.
NojavanMHeidariAMohammaditabarD. A fuzzy service quality based approach for performance evaluation of educational units. Socio Econ Plan Sci2021; 73: 100816.
134.
KabirGHasinMAA. Comparative analysis of TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS for the evaluation of travel website service quality. Int J Qual Res2012; 6(3): 169–185.
135.
BujadzifGBujadzifM. Fuzzy logic and its applications in management (trans. SMHosseini). Tabriz: Ishigh, 2002. (in Persian)
ChengC-H. A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method. Fuzzy Set Syst1998; 95(3): 307–317.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
