Abstract
Social networking sites (SNSs) have become a vital medium for companies to place advertisements and setting an objective of advertisements on SNSs is an important issue of planning a business’s market strategy. The purpose of this work is to develop a fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method for evaluating and selecting objectives of advertisements on Facebook. In the proposed model, the fuzzy weighted ratings are defuzzified by a centroid method to generate distances of each alternative to the positive and negative ideal solutions. A fuzzy weighted normalized distances index is proposed to rank alternatives, and the centroid method is used for defuzzification. Formulas for the defuzzification of fuzzy weighted ratings and the fuzzy weighted normalized distances index are developed. A numerical example of evaluating objectives of advertisements on Facebook is used to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method. Example result reveals that the proposed fuzzy weighted normalized distances index is as effective as the crisp closeness coefficient in ranking objectives under the proposed fuzzy TOPSIS method. An experiment demonstrates that the rankings of objectives may be more likely to change as the gap between two linguistic weights that are assigned to fuzzy weighted normalized distances index increases.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Azizi, A., Aikhuele, D. O., & Souleman, F. S. (2015). A fuzzy TOPSIS model to rank automotive suppliers. Procedia Manufacturing, 2, 159–164.
Ballings, M., Poel, D. V. D., & Bogaert, M. (2016). Social media optimization: Identifying an optimal strategy for increasing network size on Facebook. Omega, 59, 15–25.
Bongo, M. F., & Ocampo, L. A. (2017). A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for mitigating airport congestion: A case in Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 1–16.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2017). Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1222–1238.
Carlsson, C., & Fullèr, R. (1996). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: Recent developments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78(2), 139–153.
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Berlin: Springer.
Chu, T. C., & Charnsethikul, P. (2013). Ordering alternatives under fuzzy multiple criteria decision making via a fuzzy number dominance based ranking approach. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 15(3), 263–273.
Chu, T. C., & Yeh, W. C. (2018). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making via an inverse function-based total utility approach. Soft Computing, 22(22), 7423–7433.
Comscore Media, M. (2009). Total number of unique visitors to selected social networking sites.
Dehghani, M., & Tumer, M. (2015). A research on effectiveness of Facebook advertising on enhancing purchase intention of consumers. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 597–600.
Das, S., & Guha, D. (2016). A centroid-based ranking method of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application to MCDM problem. Fuzzy Information and Engineering, 8(1), 41–74.
Dayan, A. (2017). Stop choosing the wrong Facebook campaign objective, Oribi Blog. http://blog.oribi.io/choose-facebook-campaign-objective/. Accessed May 2019.
Destercke, S., & Couso, I. (2015). Ranking of fuzzy intervals seen through the imprecise probabilistic lens. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 278, 20–39.
Deveci, M., Demirel, N. C., & Ahmetoğlu, E. (2017). Airline new route selection based on interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM: A case study of new route between Turkey–North American Region destinations. Journal of Air Transport Management, 59, 83–99.
Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., & Psarras, J. (2010). Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 5491–5497.
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1978). Operations on fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Systems Science, 9(6), 613–626.
Dymova, L., Sevastjanov, P., & Tikhonenko, A. (2013). An approach to generalization of fuzzy TOPSIS method. Information Sciences, 238, 149–162.
eMarketer. (2017). Worldwide social network users: eMarketer’s estimates and forecast for 2016–2021. eMarketer report.
Facebook Newsroom-Key Facts. (2014). http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts. Accessed Apr 2015.
Facebook Company Information. (2016). Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/. Accessed June 2017.
Facebook Business (Ads Help Center). (2019). https://www.facebook.com/business/help. Accessed May 2019.
Falls, J. (2009). Public relations pros must be social media ready. Social Media Explorer. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/public-relations-pros-must-be-social-media-ready/486039/. Accessed Apr 2015.
Gerber, G. (2010). Social media offers new opportunities and risks. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 81, 548–550.
Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2017). Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, 242–258.
Hatami-Marbini, A., & Kangi, F. (2017). An extension of Fuzzy TOPSIS for a group decision making with an application to Tehran stock exchange. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 1084–1097.
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. New York: Springer.
Issa, U. H., Miky, Y. H., & Abdel-Malak, F. F. (2019). A decision support model for civil engineering projects based on multi-criteria and various data. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(2), 100–113.
Johns, R., & Perrot, B. (2008). The impact of internet banking on business customer relationship: Are you being self-served? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(7), 465–482.
Kahraman, C. (2008). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: Theory and applications with recent developments. New York: Springer.
Kaufmann, A., & Gupta, M. M. (1991). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: Theory and application. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985.
Koulinas, G. K., Demesouka, O. E., Marhavilas, P. K., Vavatsikos, A. P., & Koulouriotis, D. E. (2019). Risk assessment using fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT for sustainable engineering projects. Sustainability, 11(615), 1–15.
Kuo, T. (2017). A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of Operational Research, 260, 152–160.
Lawrance, C. (2016). 14 Facebook advertising objectives you need to know. Blog. https://charlielawrance.com/how-to-choose-the-right-facebook-advertising-objective/. Accessed May 2019.
Li, C. C., Dong, Y., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Martínez, L. (2017). Personalized individual semantics in computing with words for supporting linguistic group decision making. an application on consensus reaching. Information Fusion, 33, 29–40.
Liang, T. P., & Turban, E. (2011). Introduction to the special issue social commerce: A research framework for social commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 5–14.
Liao, C. N., & Kao, H. P. (2011). An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply chain management. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 10803–10811.
Lima, F. R., Osiro, L., & Carpinetti, L. C. R. (2014). A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing, 21, 194–209.
Mahmood, A., & Sismeiro, C. (2017). Will they come and will they stay? Online social networks and news consumption on external websites. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 37, 117–132.
Mamonov, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2017). Exploring factors affecting social e-commerce service adoption: The case of Facebook gifts. International Journal of Information Management, 37, 590–600.
Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N. T., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). Usage, barriers and measurement of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and medium B2C brands. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1153–1159.
Morteza, Z., Reza, F. M., Seddiq, M. M., Sharareh, P., & Jamal, G. (2016). Selection of the optimal tourism site using the ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS in the framework of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A case of Qeshm Island. Ocean and Coastal Management, 130, 179–187.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Re search, 156(2), 445–455.
Patil, S. K., & Kant, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of knowledge management adoption in supply chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(2), 679–693.
Roszkowska, E., & Wachowicz, T. (2015). Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 242, 920–932.
Salih, M. M., Zaidan, B. B., Zaidan, A. A., & Ahmed, M. A. (2019). Survey on fuzzy TOPSIS state-of-the art between 2007 and 2017. Computers & Operations Research, 104, 207–227.
Şengül, Ü., Eren, M., Shiraz, S. E., Gezder, V., & Şengül, A. B. (2015). Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 75, 617–625.
Seyedmohammadi, J., Sarmadian, F., Jafarzadeh, A. A., Ghorbani, M. A., & Shahbazi, F. (2018). Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma, 310, 178–190.
Shiatis, C. (2019). Why choosing the right Facebook campaign objective is critical to your advertising success, Yello Veedub. https://www.yelloveedub.com/blog/why-choosing-the-right-facebook-campaign-objective-is-critical-to-your-advertising-success. Accessed May 2019.
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook As a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322–2329.
Stewart, J. B. (2016). Facebook has 50 minutes of your time each day. It wants more. The New York Times.
Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M. S., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105–116.
Torfi, F., Farahani, R. Z., & Mahdavi, I. (2016). Fuzzy MCDM for weight of object’s phrase in location routing problem. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(1), 526–541.
Torfi, F., Farahani, R. Z., & Rezapour, S. (2010). Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Applied Soft Computing, 10(2), 520–528.
Wang, Y. J., & Lee, H. S. (2008). The revised method of ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid and original points. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 55(9), 2033–2042.
Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., Xu, D. L., & Chin, K. S. (2006). On the centroids of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(7), 919–926.
Wang, X., & Kerre, E. E. (2001). Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (I) & (II). Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118(3), 375–385, 387–405.
Yager, R. R. (1978). Ranking fuzzy subsets over the unit interval. In Proceedings of 17th IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Society (pp. 921–925).
Yager, R. R. (1981). A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Information sciences, 24, 143–161.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, part 1, 2 and 3. Information Science, 8(3), 199–249; Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 301–357; Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 43–80.
Zadeh, L. A. (1999). From computing with numbers to computing with words—From manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, 45(1), 105–119.
Zadeh, L. A. (2002). Fuzzy computing with numbers to computing with words. From manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, 12(3), 307–324.
Zouggari, A., & Benyoucef, L. (2012). Simulation based fuzzy TOPSIS approach for group multi-criteria supplier selection problem. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(3), 507–519.
Zyoud, S. H., Kaufmann, L. G., Shaheen, H., Samhan, S., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2016). A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: Integration of fuzzy AHP with fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 61, 86–105.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to sincerely thank the anonymous referees and Prof. Bestak for providing very helpful comments and suggestions. Their insights and comments led to a better presentation of the ideas expressed in this work. This work was supported in part by Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China, Taiwan, under Grant MOST 108-2410-H-218-011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Equation (4.11) is derived as follows.
Let
Apply Eqs. (7.2)–(7.3) to Eq. (7.1) to obtain:
Equation (4.12) is derived as follows.
Let
Apply Eqs. (7.5)–(7.6) to Eq. (7.4) to obtain:
Equation (4.13) is derived as follows.
Let
Apply Eqs. (7.8)–(7.9) to Eq. (7.7) to obtain:
Appendix 2
Equations (23)–(25) are derived by the following procedure.
Appendix 3
See Tables 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28.
Appendix 4
Ranking values of Tables 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,I}}) \) | 0.1705 | 0.1164 | 0.1081 | 0.1451 | 0.1302 | 0.1325 | 0.1306 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,SS}}) \) | 0.3361 | 0.2493 | 0.2372 | 0.2956 | 0.2699 | 0.2753 | 0.2700 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,FS}}) \) | 0.5348 | 0.4087 | 0.3920 | 0.4762 | 0.4376 | 0.4466 | 0.4374 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,S}}) \) | 0.7336 | 0.5682 | 0.5469 | 0.6568 | 0.6053 | 0.6179 | 0.6047 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,VS}}) \) | 0.8992 | 0.7010 | 0.6760 | 0.8073 | 0.7450 | 0.7606 | 0.7441 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} (\text{SS} ,I) \) | 0.2179 | 0.1290 | 0.1141 | 0.1760 | 0.1532 | 0.1554 | 0.1544 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,SS}}) \) | 0.3836 | 0.2619 | 0.2432 | 0.3265 | 0.2929 | 0.2982 | 0.2938 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,FS}}) \) | 0.5823 | 0.4213 | 0.3981 | 0.5071 | 0.4606 | 0.4695 | 0.4612 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,S}}) \) | 0.7810 | 0.5808 | 0.5530 | 0.6877 | 0.6283 | 0.6408 | 0.6285 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,VS}}) \) | 0.9467 | 0.7137 | 0.6820 | 0.8382 | 0.7680 | 0.7836 | 0.7679 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,I}}) \) | 0.2749 | 0.1441 | 0.1214 | 0.2130 | 0.1808 | 0.1829 | 0.1829 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,SS}}) \) | 0.4405 | 0.2770 | 0.2504 | 0.3635 | 0.3205 | 0.3257 | 0.3224 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,FS}}) \) | 0.6393 | 0.4364 | 0.4053 | 0.5441 | 0.4882 | 0.4970 | 0.4897 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,S}}) \) | 0.8380 | 0.5959 | 0.5602 | 0.7247 | 0.6559 | 0.6683 | 0.6570 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,VS}}) \) | 1.0036 | 0.7288 | 0.6893 | 0.8752 | 0.7956 | 0.8110 | 0.7965 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,I}}) \) | 0.3318 | 0.1592 | 0.1286 | 0.2500 | 0.2084 | 0.2104 | 0.2115 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,SS}}) \) | 0.4975 | 0.2921 | 0.2577 | 0.4005 | 0.3481 | 0.3532 | 0.3509 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,FS}}) \) | 0.6962 | 0.4516 | 0.4126 | 0.5811 | 0.5158 | 0.5245 | 0.5182 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,S}}) \) | 0.8950 | 0.6110 | 0.5675 | 0.7617 | 0.6835 | 0.6958 | 0.6856 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,VS}}) \) | 1.0606 | 0.7439 | 0.6965 | 0.9122 | 0.8232 | 0.8385 | 0.8250 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,I}}) \) | 0.3793 | 0.1718 | 0.1346 | 0.2809 | 0.2314 | 0.2333 | 0.2353 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,SS}}) \) | 0.5449 | 0.3047 | 0.2637 | 0.4314 | 0.3711 | 0.3761 | 0.3747 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,FS}}) \) | 0.7437 | 0.4642 | 0.4186 | 0.6120 | 0.5388 | 0.5474 | 0.5420 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,S}}) \) | 0.9424 | 0.6236 | 0.5735 | 0.7926 | 0.7065 | 0.7187 | 0.7094 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,VS}}) \) | 1.1080 | 0.7565 | 0.7026 | 0.9431 | 0.8462 | 0.8614 | 0.8488 |
Ranking values of Tables 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,I}}) \) | 0.1705 | 0.1164 | 0.1081 | 0.1451 | 0.1302 | 0.1325 | 0.1306 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,I}}) \) | 0.2179 | 0.1290 | 0.1141 | 0.1760 | 0.1532 | 0.1554 | 0.1544 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,I}}) \) | 0.2749 | 0.1441 | 0.1214 | 0.2130 | 0.1808 | 0.1829 | 0.1829 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,I}}) \) | 0.3318 | 0.1592 | 0.1286 | 0.2500 | 0.2084 | 0.2104 | 0.2115 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,I}}) \) | 0.3793 | 0.1718 | 0.1346 | 0.2809 | 0.2314 | 0.2333 | 0.2353 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} (I,{\text{SS}}) \) | 0.3361 | 0.2493 | 0.2372 | 0.2956 | 0.2699 | 0.2753 | 0.2700 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,SS}}) \) | 0.3836 | 0.2619 | 0.2432 | 0.3265 | 0.2929 | 0.2982 | 0.2938 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,SS}}) \) | 0.4405 | 0.2770 | 0.2504 | 0.3635 | 0.3205 | 0.3257 | 0.3224 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,SS}}) \) | 0.4975 | 0.2921 | 0.2577 | 0.4005 | 0.3481 | 0.3532 | 0.3509 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,SS}}) \) | 0.5449 | 0.3047 | 0.2637 | 0.4314 | 0.3711 | 0.3761 | 0.3747 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,FS}}) \) | 0.5348 | 0.4087 | 0.3920 | 0.4762 | 0.4376 | 0.4466 | 0.4374 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,FS}}) \) | 0.5823 | 0.4213 | 0.3981 | 0.5071 | 0.4606 | 0.4695 | 0.4612 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,FS}}) \) | 0.6393 | 0.4364 | 0.4053 | 0.5441 | 0.4882 | 0.4970 | 0.4897 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,FS}}) \) | 0.6962 | 0.4516 | 0.4126 | 0.5811 | 0.5158 | 0.5245 | 0.5182 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,FS}}) \) | 0.7437 | 0.4642 | 0.4186 | 0.6120 | 0.5388 | 0.5474 | 0.5420 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,S}}) \) | 0.7336 | 0.5682 | 0.5469 | 0.6568 | 0.6053 | 0.6179 | 0.6047 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,S}}) \) | 0.7810 | 0.5808 | 0.5530 | 0.6877 | 0.6283 | 0.6408 | 0.6285 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,S}}) \) | 0.8380 | 0.5959 | 0.5602 | 0.7247 | 0.6559 | 0.6683 | 0.6570 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,S}}) \) | 0.8950 | 0.6110 | 0.5675 | 0.7617 | 0.6835 | 0.6958 | 0.6856 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,S}}) \) | 0.9424 | 0.6236 | 0.5735 | 0.7926 | 0.7065 | 0.7187 | 0.7094 |
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | A7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( R_{i} ({\text{I,VS}}) \) | 0.8992 | 0.7010 | 0.6760 | 0.8073 | 0.7450 | 0.7606 | 0.7441 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{SS,VS}}) \) | 0.9467 | 0.7137 | 0.6820 | 0.8382 | 0.7680 | 0.7836 | 0.7679 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{FS,VS}}) \) | 1.0036 | 0.7288 | 0.6893 | 0.8752 | 0.7956 | 0.8110 | 0.7965 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{S,VS}}) \) | 1.0606 | 0.7439 | 0.6965 | 0.9122 | 0.8232 | 0.8385 | 0.8250 |
\( R_{i} ({\text{VS,VS}}) \) | 1.1080 | 0.7565 | 0.7026 | 0.9431 | 0.8462 | 0.8614 | 0.8488 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chu, TC., Kysely, M. Ranking objectives of advertisements on Facebook by a fuzzy TOPSIS method. Electron Commer Res 21, 881–916 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-019-09394-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-019-09394-z