Small-Scale Chicken Farmers’ Perceptions of Use of Social Media to Access Market Information in Arusha City, Tanzania

This study examined small-scale chicken farmers’ perceptions of using social media to access market information in Arusha City, Tanzania. Data were collected between June and August 2022 from 260 respondents comprising 130 beneficiaries and 130 non-beneficiaries, who were randomly selected. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using a questionnaire and a key informant interview guide. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, the chi-square test, and the ordinal logistic regression model. On the other hand, qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis approaches. Firstly, data were transcribed from audio and translated from Kiswahili to English, and then extracts were presented as quotations. The study found that SSCFs, both Kuku Uchumi and non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries who use WhatsApp, had positive perceptions towards using social media to access market information. Conversely, SSCFs who do not use Facebook and Instagram to access market information had negative perceptions towards using these social media platforms. In addition, it was revealed that both Kuku Uchumi and non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) had a positive perception of using social media to access market information. The study concludes that SSCFs had positive perceptions towards using social media to access market information. It is recommended that extension agents should be encouraged to use social media platforms to provide information on chicken production. Further, other SSCFs, especially those whose perceptions toward using social media to access market information are negative (as they consider social media platforms as dumping places), should be capacitated to use social media to access market information.

Introduction

Increasingly, people look at social media applications as an important part of their daily lives and are more likely to move their interactions to virtual platforms (Alalwanet al., 2017). Internet adoption and the introduction of social media have changed how many individuals seek and receive information (Whiteet al., 2014). The authors further report that social media use has increased globally with the availability of the internet. This trend allows users to keep in contact with others they might not normally get in touch with because of time and distance issues. Similarly, Maleckiet al. (2021) acknowledge that social media offers opportunities for experts and the public to spread information quickly to many individuals.

From a marketing perspective, social media is an effective tool for attracting customers, building a potential customer base and reaching them (Allan & Ali, 2017; Daigle & Heiss, 2021; Laksamana, 2020). Due to its reliability, consistency and instantaneous features, social media opens wide business opportunities such as online marketing (Allan & Ali, 2017; Nadaraja & Yazdanifard, 2018). As argued by Mokhtaret al. (2017), social media is viewed by many as a marketing tool with beneficial effects on both the financial and non-financial components of business performance. Furthermore, Whiteet al. (2014) note that social media allows more transparency among market actors on products, quantities, quality, location and prices, enhancing informed interaction and decision-making.

A study by Suchiradipta and Raj (2018) indicates that social media will majorly impact communication in the agricultural sector. This is because social media can be useful in multiple ways instantly and can have a global reach as a knowledge-sharing platform with multiple media formats. As outlined by Mamgainet al. (2020), the benefits of using social media include cost-effectiveness, simultaneity nature of reaching a large number of clients, location- and client-specificity, problem-oriented and user-generated content, and its provision for community discussions. This implies that information sharing, which can contribute to the economy’s growth, is important to producers and consumers. However, for the media to have effective information sharing, users need to perceive it positively (Savolainen, 2017). According to Chocholacet al. (2020), customers’ perceptions and satisfaction with service quality are directly related to customer service utilization.

Several studies have been conducted about perceptions regarding the use of social media for varied purposes. Examples include risk perceptions on social media use in Norway (Nyblomet al., 2020) and perceptions of social media use among women farmers in the United States of America (Daigle & Heiss, 2021). Others include perceptions of social media benefits and risks by autistic young people and parents in the United Kingdom (Gillespie-Smithet al., 2021) and perceptions of social media marketing in the United States of America (Chen, 2018). These studies focused on various aspects of social media, overlooking small-scale farmers’ perceptions of using social media to access information, particularly market information. In addition, Kuku Uchumi has been in existence for more than four years now; however, it is not yet known whether SSCFs served by Kuku Uchumi have different or the same perceptions towards the use of SM as those not served by Kuku Uchumi. Thus, further research is needed to understand farmers’ perceptions of social media platforms (Daigle, 2020). Daigle’s (ibid) work focused on how US women farmers use social media to participate in formal and informal networks in the agricultural sector. In this study, the perceptions of SSCFs served and not served by Kuku Uchumi towards the use of social media are explored. Understanding small-scale chicken farmers’ perceptions of social media use will help formulate strategies for effectively using such media in accessing market information. SSCFs can access market information through these strategies to improve the chicken farming business.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with the operations of Kuku Uchumi, followed by the description of the Conceptual Framework (CF) in Section 3. Section 4 is on the study’s methodology, Section 5 is on the presentation and discussion of results, and lastly, there is a section on the paper’s conclusions.

Description of Kuku Uchumi Operations

Kuku Uchumi is an NGO located in Arusha, northern Tanzania. Kuku Uchumi was established in 2018 in response to the lack of market accessibility among SSCFs. This was because it was difficult for the SSCFs to contact customers directly; instead, they sold chickens and their products through intermediaries. As a result, they received lower prices for their products, limiting their profit from raising chicken. Following these challenges, the Kuku Uchumi initiative was established to ensure that SSCFs have access to market information through which they can sell their chicken and chicken products to the end users. Kuku Uchumi has been conducting campaigns to ensure SSCFs use social media to access market information. The NGO provides SSCFs with extension services and encourages them to obtain market knowledge through social media. It provides physical and virtual chicken farming extension services and teaches farmers how to use social media to access market information. These services are provided to SSCFs, comprised of people of different age categories. The organization’s primary service delivery mechanism is organizing SSCFs into social media groups such as WhatsApp and Facebook groups. These groups connect farmers with the available markets. SSCFs can exchange updates on any available market information and marketplaces through social media groups. In the process, SSCFs meet their economic objectives by selling their chicken and associated products directly to consumers. Moreover, the organization hosts the “TISA TISA Kuku Exhibition,” which brings together SSCFs. Farmers meet at these displays to exchange chicken farming ideas, sell their chicken and chicken products, and exchange other needed chicken farming services.

Conceptual Framework

Social media is a set of interactive Internet applications that facilitate (collaborative or individual) creation, curation, and sharing of user-generated content (Davis, 2019). In this study, social media is defined as web-based tools of electronic communication that allow users to interact, create, share, retrieve, and exchange information and ideas in the form of text, pictures or video (Suchiradipta & Raj, 2016). On the other hand, perceptions refer to understanding sensory information (Qiong, 2017). According to Daigle and Heiss (2021), individuals make choices on the use of innovations, in this case, social media, based on their access and perceived benefits of the platform. Also, individuals with positive experiences with the platform are more likely to continue using it than those who do not perceive it as beneficial (Whiting & Williams, 2013). The conceptual framework for this paper depicts the relationship between the use of social media and SSCF’s perceptions towards social media in accessing market information. The continued use of social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram imply a positive perception among the SSCFs toward social media in accessing market information. The use of WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube were considered independent variables, whereas the perception towards the use of social media among SSCFs was considered a dependent variable (see Fig. 1). The arrow indicates that using social media platforms implies that a particular small-scale chicken farmer had a positive perception of using social media in accessing market information. In addition, positive perceptions occur only if SSCFs agree or agree that using social media helps access market information; otherwise, SSCFs have a negative perception.

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for the relationship between use of social media platform and perceptions of social media use to access market information among SSCFs.

Methodology

This study was carried out in Arusha, Tanzania. The study adopted a cross-sectional research design because it is ideal for collecting data from a pre-selected sample at a single moment to gain knowledge about a specific topic (Bechhofer & Paterson, 2012). Arusha City was chosen as a study area because of the presence of Kuku Uchumi. The study included 9 randomly selected wards from 25 Wards in the city. The study’s population consisted of SSCFs, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. This study characterised SSCFs as individuals possessing between 100 and 1000 chickens. All 130 beneficiaries were included in the study’s sample. In addition, for comparison purposes, the researchers, in collaboration with Livestock and Ward Executive Officers, identified 279 SSCFs (non-beneficiaries) during a preliminary visit, from which 130 were randomly selected by proportionate formula (see Table I).

Table I. Proportionate of Small-Scale Chicken Farmers in 9 Wards (Non-Kuku Uchumi Beneficiaries)

Ward name	Small-scale chicken farmers identified	Selected
Elerai	30	14
Lemara	50	23
Moshono	60	28
Murriet	65	30
Olasit	35	16
Sombetini	7	3
Sokoni I	20	9
Unga limited	6	3
Themi	6	3
Total	279	130

(1)a=(xN)∗n

where:

a: the number of SSCFs selected from one ward,

x: the number of small-scale chicken farmers in a ward,

N: the total number of small-scale chicken farmers in 9 wards (Elerai, Lemara, Moshono, Murriet, Olasit, Sombetini, Sokoni I, Unga Limited, and Themi).

n: the number of required small-scale chicken farmers (non-beneficiaries) to be included in the sample. This made a total sample size of 260.

Data were collected between June and August 2022 through questionnaire and key informant interviews. The Kuku Uchumi Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and well-informed SSCFs in the nine wards served as key informants. The questionnaire contained (among others) five Likert-scale items (containing several statements) to rate respondents’ perceptions towards the suitability of using social media to access market information. The scale had five levels, which were, 1: Completely agree; 2: Agree; 3: No opinion; 4: Disagree; and 5: Completely disagree. Quantitative data were analysed using chi-square test and ordinal logistic regression model.

The ordinal logistic regression model is expressed as follows:

(2)Log[p1−p]=β0k+X1β1+X2β2+…+Xmβm+ε

where:

Log[p/(1−p)]: the log odds of being in a lower against higher SSCFs perceptions,

β0,β1––––βm: slopes coefficients influencing individuals’ choices of different levels equally,

β0k: intercepts or cut-offs which vary from one level to another,

X₁, X₂………X_n: predictor variables entered in the model,

e: the precision error (0.05).

The predictor variables are:

X₁ = WhatsApp (1 if used, 0 otherwise)

X₂ = Facebook (1 if used, 0 otherwise)

X₃ = Instagram (1 if used, 0 otherwise)

X₄ = YouTube (1 if used, 0 otherwise).

The predicted variable is SSCFs’ perceptions of using social media to access market information, which includes 1 = completely agree, 2 = agree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = disagree, and 5 = completely disagree.

In this study, agree entirely and agree were referred to as positive perceptions, whereas disagree and completely disagree were referred to as negative perceptions toward using social media to access market information. No opinion was referred to as neural opinion on the suitability of using social media to access market information. The five Likert scale points were used to determine the mean values, which were used as a decision rule. That is, a mean less than 3 was considered a positive perception, and a mean above three was considered a negative perception.

Furthermore, qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis approaches (Schreier, 2014). Data were transcribed from audio and translated from Kiswahili to English, creating excerpts. This strategy entailed breaking the textual data into consumable categories, patterns, themes, and links for meaningful interpretation. It also entailed scrutinising all aspects of the data collection to clarify concepts and constructs. A list of topics was created to validate themes and patterns, then compared with the literature and study objectives to establish final themes. Based on these themes, extracts were presented as quotations, where necessary, to support the quantitative findings.

Results and Discussion

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The study findings (Table II) indicate that 69% of non-beneficiaries were females, compared to 62% of male beneficiaries. Males outnumbered females among Kuku Uchumi and non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries. The statistics revealed that 38% of beneficiaries and 33% of non-beneficiaries were aged 30 to 39 years, suggesting the dominance of youth in small-scale chicken farming. This study defines the “youth” as young men and women aged 15 to 40. Regarding marital status, 91% of the beneficiaries were married, compared to 78% of non-beneficiaries.

Table II. Frequency Distribution of Respondents According to Their Demographic Characteristics (N = 130)

Variables	Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries		Non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Sex
Male	49	37.7	41	31.5
Female	81	62.3	89	68.5
Age
20–29	11	8.5	16	12.3
30–39	49	37.7	43	33.1
40–49	35	26.9	40	30.8
50–59	21	16.2	24	16.9
60–69	13	10.0	9	6.9
70 and above	1	0.8	0	0.0
Marital Status
Single	9	6.9	15	11.5
Married	118	90.8	101	77.7
Divorced	3	2.3	8	6.2
Separated	0	0.0	6	4.6
Education level
No formal education	0	0.0	4	3.1
Primary education	39	30.0	48	36.9
Secondary education	57	43.8	50	38.5
Tertiary	34	26.2	28	21.5
Chicken farming experience (years)
1–10	122	93.8	113	86.9
11–20	8	6.2	14	10.8
21–30	0	0.0	3	2.3
Ownership of ICT device
Smartphone	118	90.8	111	85.4
iPad	4	3.1	3	2.3
Laptop	1	0.8	3	2.3
Desktop	0	0.0	0	0.0
Not using any of the ICT devices	7	5.3	13	10.0

Further, the findings (Table II) show that 44% of Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries had completed secondary school, compared to 39% of non-beneficiaries with the same education level. Furthermore, most respondents, 94%% of the beneficiaries and 87% of the non-beneficiaries, had one to ten years’ experience in small-scale chicken farming. 91% of the beneficiaries own smartphones, whereas 85% of non-beneficiaries do not.

Perceptions of the use of Social Media among Respondents for Accessing Market Information

The findings in Table III indicate that most SSCFs in both categories (i.e., 95% beneficiaries and 93% non-beneficiaries) ultimately agreed and agreed that social media helps search for information about chicken farming. They agreed that social media helps them access market information in many ways. For example, they agreed that using social media to access market information saves time. “I am completely certain that using social media to access market information saves time” had a mean score of 1.51 for Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries and 1.77 for non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries. The findings corroborate other studies that reported that using social media to search for information saves time and is cost-effective (Chatzigeorgiou & Christou, 2020; Kirita & Mwantimwa, 2022). This means that many of the SSCFs, both Kuku Uchumi and non-Kuku Uchumi, had positive perceptions towards using social media to access market information. This further implies that being a beneficiary or not does matter; SSCFs had almost the same perceptions toward using social media to access market information except for a few.

Table III. Small-Scale Chicken Farmers’ Perception of the Use of Social Media to Access Market Information

Statements	Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries(N = 130)						Non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries(N = 130)
	CA (1)	A (2)	N (3)	D (4)	CD (5)	Mean	CA (1)	A (2)	N (3)	D (4)	CD (5)	Mean
I am completely certain that social media is an important platform for easy reach of customers	51 (39.2)	73 (56.2)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.65	40 (30.8)	79 (60.8)	9 (6.9)	2 (1.5)	0 (0.0)	1.79
I am completely certain that social media is an important platform for information-seeking	52 (40.0)	72 (55.4)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.65	38 (29.2)	83 (63.8)	9 (6.9)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.78
I am completely certain that social media is an important platform for information sharing	53 (40.8)	71 (54.6)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.64	42 (32.3	78 (60.0)	10 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.75
I am completely certain that social media is an important platform for emotional connection	55 (42.3)	69 (53.1)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.62	40 (30.8)	79 (60.8)	10 (7.7)	1 (0.8)	0 (0.0)	1.78
I am completely certain that social media is an important platform for relation-building	55 (42.3)	69 (53.1)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.62	41 (31.5)	78 (60.0)	10 (7.7)	1 (0.8)	0 (0.0)	1.78
I am completely certain that social media is a rubbish-dumping platform	3 (2.3)	2 (1.5)	6 (4.6)	27 (20.8)	92 (70.8)	4.56	2 (1.5)	0 (0.0)	9 (6.9)	41 (31.5)	78 (60.0)	4.48
I am completely certain that social media is more efficient in accessing market information	64 (49.2)	59 (45.4)	7 (5.4)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.56	39 (30.0)	81 (62.3)	10 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.78
I am completely certain that social media is the best innovative technique for accessing market information compared to traditional techniques	65 (50.0)	59 (45.4)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.55	39 (30.0)	81 (62.3)	10 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.78
I am completely certain that social media use in accessing market information is more advantageous compared to other means	67 (51.5)	57 (43.8)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.53	43 (33.1)	77 (59.2)	10 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.75
I consider social media a valuable tool in accessing market information	69 (53.1)	55 (42.3)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.52	45 (34.6)	76 (58.5)	9 (6.9)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.72
I am completely certain that social media use is a powerful tool for helping small-scale chicken farmers to access market information	68 (52.3)	56 (43.1)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.52	42 (32.3)	79 (60.8)	9 (6.9)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.75
I am completely certain that using social media enhances market information accessibility	70 (53.8)	54 (41.5)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.51	41 (31.5)	79 (60.8)	10 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.76
I am completely certain that using social media to access market information saves energy	75 (57.7)	54 (41.5)	1 (1.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0)	1.51	40 (30.8)	80 (61.5)	10 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.77
I am completely certain that using social media to access market information saves time	70 (53.8)	54 (41.5)	6 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.51	40 (30.8)	81 (62.3)	9 (6.9)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.76
I am completely certain that using social media to access market information is satisfactory	75 (53.8)	54 (41.5)	1 (1.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.51	42 (32.3)	78 (60.0)	10 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1.75
Total mean score						1.76						1.95

In addition, most of the SSCFs disagreed with the statement that social media platforms act as places where trash can be dumped. They disagree with the statement that “I am completely certain that social media is a rubbish dumping platform,” with a mean score of 4.56 for beneficiaries and 4.48 for non-beneficiaries (Table IV). This implies that there are possibilities for using social media to access information, which is useless. This happens when social media users dump information that could not help others in chicken farming. Furthermore, SSCFs agree that social media is an essential platform for reaching customers quickly, seeking information, sharing information, making emotional connections, and building relationships, with mean scores of 1.65, 1.65, 1.64, 1.62, and 1.62, respectively (beneficiaries). For non-beneficiaries, SSCFs agree with these statements at mean scores of 1.79, 1.78, 1.75, 1.78, and 1.78, respectively. These findings align with a study by Deel (2023), who stated that social media is a low-cost, high-impact approach for small businesses to reach new audiences, develop brand awareness, improve customer relationships, and drive sales.

Table IV. Respondents’ Perceptions of Social Media Use Cross tabulated

Respondent category	Perceptions of social media use			Total	P-value
	Completely agree	Agree	No opinion
Kuku Uchumi	50	74	6	130	0.002
Non-Kuku Uchumi	24	96	10	130
Total	74	170	16	260

Cross-Tabulation of Respondent’s Status and their Corresponding Perceptions Toward the use of Social Media

A chi-square test for independence was conducted to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference between beneficiaries’ and non-beneficiaries perceptions of using social media to access market information. Table IV shows a statistically significant difference between Kuku Uchumi and non-Kuku Uchumi (p = 0.002) in the perceptions towards the use of social media in accessing market information. This implies that 95% of beneficiaries believe that using social media to access market information is more appropriate than 92% of their non-beneficiary counterparts. This is because many of them use the media and enjoy its benefits. Additionally, this difference could be attributed to the training they received from Kuku Uchumi personnel, from which they developed a positive perception.

Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis of SSCFs Perceptions of the use of Social Media Toward Accessing Market Information

An ordinal logistic regression model was fitted to determine the relationship between independent variables (i.e., use of WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube) and dependent variables (i.e., perceptions of SSCFs on the use of social media to access market information). The model fit information and goodness of fit tests were used to assess the model’s fit. Compared to the computed values in Table V, the threshold value for model fit was less than 0.05, and the goodness of fit test was greater than 0.05. Based on these thresholds and computed values, the model was suitable for further analysis.

Table V. Ordinal Logistic Regression Results for Perceptions of SSCFs on the Use of Social Media to Access Market Information

			Estimate	OR (Exp)	Std. Error	Wald	df	Sig.	95% Confidence interval
									Lower bound	Upper bound
Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries	Threshold	[Level of perceptions= No opinion]	−1.421		0.592	5.757	1	0.016	−2.581	−0.26
		[Level of perceptions= Agree]	3.908		0.888	19.385	1	0.000	2.168	5.648
		[Level of perceptions= Completely agree]	0b
	Location	[WhatsApp = No]	2.978	19.648	0.768	15.048	1	0.000	1.473	4.483
		[WhatsApp = Yes]	0b				0
		[Facebook = No]	−0.092	0.912	0.44	0.044	1	0.834	−0.954	0.769
		[Facebook = Yes]	0b				0
		[Instagram = No]	−0.351	0.704	0.608	0.334	1	0.563	−1.543	0.84
		[Instagram = Yes]	0b				0
		[YouTube = No]	−0.128	0.880	0.518	0.061	1	0.805	−1.144	0.888
		[YouTube = Yes]	0b				0
		Note		P-value					P-value
		Model fitting information		<0.00	Pseudo R-square (McFadden)			0.145
		Goodness-of-Fit		0.892	Tests of parallel lines				0.128
Non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries	Threshold	[Level of perceptions= No opinion]	−0.087		0.514	0.028	1	0.866	−1.094	0.921
		[Level of perceptions= Agree]	3.712		0.682	29.587	1	0.000	2.375	5.05
		[Level of perceptions= Completely agree]	0
	Location	[WhatsApp = No]	1.825	6.203	0.581	9.856	1	0.002	0.686	2.964
		[WhatsApp = Yes]	0				0
		[Facebook = No]	−0.334	0.716	0.405	0.683	1	0.408	−1.128	0.459
		[Facebook = Yes]	0				0
		[Instagram = No]	−0.27	0.763	0.454	0.353	1	0.553	−1.161	0.621
		[Instagram = Yes]	0				0
		[YouTube = No]	0.651	1.917	0.436	2.229	1	0.135	−0.204	1.507
		[YouTube = Yes]	0				0
		Note		P-value						P-value
		Model fitting information		0.018	Pseudo R-square (McFadden)				0.055
		Goodness-of-fit		0.42	Tests of parallel lines					0.174

Other parameters examined were the model summary (pseudo-R-Squared -McFadden) and the test of parallel lines. Pseudo-R-Squared is used to approximate the variation existing in the criterion variables. In contrast, tests of parallel lines test whether the assumptions of the ordinal logistic regression model are met. The results (Table V) show that the prediction of the perceptions of SSCFs on the use of social media based on the predictors (use of WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube) improved by 14.5 and 5.5% for Kuku Uchumi and non-Kuku Uchumi respectively when compared to the null model. The computed values (Table V) for both Kuku Uchumi and non-Kuku Uchumi are greater than 0.05 compared to the threshold value, at least 0.05 for tests of parallel lines. This implies that the assumptions for the ordinal logistic regression analysis model are met; thus, further analysis can be done.

The findings (Table V) show that the perceptions of SSCFs (Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries) using WhatsApp to access market information increase compared to those of SSCFs who do not use WhatsApp in searching for market information. On the other hand, the perceptions of SSCFs (Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries) who do not use Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to access market information decreases compared to those of SSCFs who use Facebook and Instagram to access market information. It should be noted that the increase in perceptions in this context refers to the shift of perceptions of SSCFs from negative to positive. Additionally, the decrease in perceptions is referred to as the shift of perceptions from positive to negative among SSCFs on using social media to access market information.

In addition, the perceptions of SSCFs (non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries) using WhatsApp to access market information increase compared to those of SSCFs who do not use WhatsApp to access market information. Similarly, the perceptions of SSCFs (non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries) who do not use Facebook and Instagram to access market information decrease from positive to negative perceptions compared to those of SSCFs who use Facebook and Instagram to access market information. Furthermore, the perceptions of SSCFs (non-Kuku Uchumi beneficiaries) who use YouTube to access market information increase as compared to the perceptions of those who do not use YouTube to access market information.

On the other hand, qualitative results revealed that SSCFs have a positive perception towards the use of social media to access market information, as witnessed during KI:

“…I completely agree that using social media to access market information for chickens and eggs is useful. This is because, through social media, I sell chickens and eggs at the price of my choice compared to taking them to the market, where there is market price competition.” (KII: Themi Ward, 17/07/2022).

This quote implies that SSCFs use social media to access market information and, as a result, get benefits. In the successful use of social media to access market information, SSCFs’ perceptions increase with the benefits they acquire once they sell their chickens and eggs.

Looking at the odds ratios, the findings (Table V) show that the perceptions of beneficiaries towards using WhatsApp to access market information increased by 19.648 times compared to those who do not use WhatsApp to access the information. As for the use of Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to access market information, the findings indicate that the perceptions of beneficiaries who are not using Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube decrease by 0.912, 0.704, and 0.880 times as compared to the perceptions of those who are using these social media platforms to access market information.

In addition, the findings (Table V) show that non-beneficiaries perceptions of using WhatsApp to access market information increased by 6.203 times compared to those who are not using the platform. On the other hand, the perceptions of non-beneficiaries who are not using Facebook and Instagram decreased by 0.716 and 0.763, respectively, compared to the perceptions of SSCFs who are using these social media platforms to access market information. Similarly, the perceptions of non-beneficiaries using YouTube increased by 1.917 times over those not using this particular social media platform to access market information. In general, these findings further emphasize that the perceptions of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who are using social media (WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube) are positive as opposed to the beneficiaries of those who are not using social media. The findings are consistent with findings in a study by Daigle and Heiss (2021), Meenaet al. (2022) and Uddin and Karim (2023) but are in contrast with the findings in a study by Nadelsonet al. (2017).

Further, the findings are similar to qualitative findings as Key Informants (KI) reveal the benefits of using social media to access market information. This means SSCFs have a positive perception, so they continue using the platforms to search for market information. The key informant revealed,

“Contrary to when I physically take my products to the market, the use of social media has helped me get many customers within a short period.” (KII: Murriet Ward, 06/06/2022).

“...I find the use of social media easy in marketing because many people are using social media, and therefore, they can see your products very easily as opposed to taking chickens and eggs to the market.” (KII: Murriet Ward, 17/06/2022).

The extracts above imply that the respondents positively perceived social media as more useful than the traditional methods. Some reasons for such orientation are time invested in advertising and selling the products. In support of this, one key informant said,

“… the use of social media enables me to access the right market information at the right time since before I spent a lot of time physically looking for customers for my products.” (KII: Moshono Ward, 11/07/2022).

In addition, the use of social media had another critical advantage of being an opportunity to access information that helped in learning about chicken farming. The following extract reveals,

“…with social media, I have learned many things; for example, I have learned the challenges and diseases affecting the type of chickens I intend to raise. This information helps to choose the type of chicken resistant to diseases.” (KII: Olasit Ward, 19/07/2022).

The extracts above imply that with social media, access to market information is easier than traditional means in terms of time spent, coverage, and the number of people contacted. More importantly, using social media provides a forum to negotiate the price for the product and an agreement to be reached before the parties meet to transact business. In this case, many agreed that social media use in accessing market information plays a beneficial role. These support the findings in other studies (i.e., Farooqet al., 2021; Siddiqui & Singh, 2016).

However, not all SSCFs have positive perceptions toward using social media to access market information. Some of them argued that many people on social media have different behaviours and intentions. The following e