IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elcore/v21y2021i4d10.1007_s10660-019-09394-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking objectives of advertisements on Facebook by a fuzzy TOPSIS method

Author

Listed:
  • Ta-Chung Chu

    (Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology)

  • Miroslav Kysely

    (Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ta-Chung Chu & Miroslav Kysely, 2021. "Ranking objectives of advertisements on Facebook by a fuzzy TOPSIS method," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 881-916, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:elcore:v:21:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10660-019-09394-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10660-019-09394-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10660-019-09394-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10660-019-09394-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G.K. Koulinas & O.E. Demesouka & P.K. Marhavilas & A.P. Vavatsikos & D.E. Koulouriotis, 2019. "Risk Assessment Using Fuzzy TOPSIS and PRAT for Sustainable Engineering Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    3. Mahmood, Ammara & Sismeiro, Catarina, 2017. "Will They Come and Will They Stay? Online Social Networks and News Consumption on External Websites," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 117-132.
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    5. Deveci, Muhammet & Demirel, Nihan Çetin & Ahmetoğlu, Emine, 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, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 83-99.
    6. Sachin K. Patil & Ravi Kant, 2014. "Ranking the barriers of knowledge management adoption in supply chain using fuzzy AHP method," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1), pages 52-75.
    7. Ballings, Michel & Van den Poel, Dirk & Bogaert, Matthias, 2016. "Social media optimization: Identifying an optimal strategy for increasing network size on Facebook," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PA), pages 15-25.
    8. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    9. Bongo, Miriam F. & Ocampo, Lanndon A., 2017. "A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for mitigating airport congestion: A case in Ninoy Aquino International Airport," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-16.
    10. Şengül, Ümran & Eren, Miraç & Eslamian Shiraz, Seyedhadi & Gezder, Volkan & Şengül, Ahmet Bilal, 2015. "Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 617-625.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agag, Gomaa & Eid, Riyad & Chaib Lababdi, Houyem & Abdelwahab, Mohamed & Aboul-Dahab, Sameh & Abdo, Said Shabban, 2024. "Understanding the impact of national culture differences on customers’ online social shopping behaviours," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pei-Hsuan Tsai & Chih-Jou Chen & Ho-Chin Yang, 2021. "Using Porter’s Diamond Model to Assess the Competitiveness of Taiwan’s Solar Photovoltaic Industry," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    2. Dragan Pamučar & Ibrahim Badi & Korica Sanja & Radojko Obradović, 2018. "A Novel Approach for the Selection of Power-Generation Technology Using a Linguistic Neutrosophic CODAS Method: A Case Study in Libya," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-25, September.
    3. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    4. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    5. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    6. Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2020. "Using individual and common reference points to measure the performance of alternatives in multiple criteria evaluation," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(3), pages 77-96.
    7. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    8. Susmaga, Robert & Szczȩch, Izabela & Zielniewicz, Piotr & Brzezinski, Dariusz, 2023. "MSD-space: Visualizing the inner-workings of TOPSIS aggregations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(1), pages 229-242.
    9. Wu, Yunna & Zhang, Ting & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Xiaoyu & Ke, Yiming & Chu, Han & Xu, Ruhang, 2019. "Location selection of seawater pumped hydro storage station in China based on multi-attribute decision making," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 410-425.
    10. Chen, Xin & Wenjia Zhou,, 2023. "Support carbon neutrality target — Which flexible power source is the best option for China?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    11. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    12. Mateusz Piwowarski & Mariusz Borawski & Kesra Nermend, 2021. "The Problem of Non-Typical Objects in the Multidimensional Comparative Analysis of the Level of Renewable Energy Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Bączkiewicz, Aleksandra & Sałabun, Wojciech, 2022. "New multi-criteria method for evaluation of sustainable RES management," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    14. Dožić, Slavica & Lutovac, Tatjana & Kalić, Milica, 2018. "Fuzzy AHP approach to passenger aircraft type selection," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 165-175.
    15. Baležentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia, 2017. "Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P1), pages 862-871.
    16. Leandro Peçanha De Souza & Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes & Alexandre Pinheiro De Barros, 2018. "Implementation of New Hybrid AHP–TOPSIS-2N Method in Sorting and Prioritizing of an it CAPEX Project Portfolio," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 977-1005, July.
    17. Tingting Li & Dan Zhao & Guiyun Liu & Yuhong Wang, 2022. "How to Evaluate College Students’ Green Innovation Ability—A Method Combining BWM and Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    18. Yanjin He & Hosang Jung, 2018. "A Voting TOPSIS Approach for Determining the Priorities of Areas Damaged in Disasters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    19. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    20. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:elcore:v:21:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10660-019-09394-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.