How promoting a family firm image affects customer perception in the age of social media

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Family Business Strategy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfbs

How promoting a family firm image affects customer perception in the age of social media

T

Johanna Zanona, , Ursula Scholl-Grissemannb, Andreas Kallmuenzera, Nikolas Kleinhansla, Mike Petersa ⁎

a b

Department for Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, University of Innsbruck, Karl-Rahner-Platz 3, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria Service Marketing & Consumer Behavior, Privatuniversität Schloss Seeburg, Seeburgstraße 8, 5201, Seekirchen am Wallersee, Austria

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Family firm Consumer behavior Marketing Communication Social media engagement Social identity theory

The marketing-related behavior of family firms has recently gained scientific attention, as family firms increasingly use visual and textual cues such as the name, pictures of the owning family, or the owning family’s values to communicate their family firm image via multiple marketing channels. Despite the relevance of online marketing in a digitalized and increasingly transparent world, a deeper investigation of how the promotion of a family firm image online influences consumers’ social media engagement is absent in the current literature. This study employs a Social Identity Theory perspective and uses an online experiment to assess if family firm image promotion leads to increased social media engagement by customers. The results show that family firm image promotion specifically increases perceived brand authenticity. This in turn is associated with a higher level of customer-company-identification, which eventually translates into increased intention to engage in social media. The direct effect of family firm image promotion on perceived brand authenticity underpins the notion that family firms can leverage a strategic competitive advantage if they communicate their familial nature to external audiences through online channels.

1. Introduction A large number of family firms worldwide explicitly communicate their family status to stakeholders. Prominent examples include US-based companies such as Dell Inc. and Ford Motor Company, or German companies such as Hipp and Warsteiner. These family firms capitalize on their unique family firm identity, an inimitable asset of family firms (Craig, Dibrell, & Davis, 2008; Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008; Zellweger, Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Memili, 2012), to develop and maintain a positive corporate reputation, which often results in trust-filled, long-term stakeholder relationships (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Gallucci, Santulli, & Calabrò, 2015; Zellweger et al., 2012). Communicating the familial status and their unique identity projects an image to stakeholders outside the firm (Binz Astrachan, Botero, Astrachan, & Prügl, 2018). This family firm image, i.e., “the degree to which consumers perceive a company to be a family firm” (Beck & Kenning, 2015, p. 1128), precedes the reputation consumers form about a family firm (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018). Existing research shows that a family firm image, in most cases, positively affects the consumers’ perceptions of the company (Beck, 2016; Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Minichilli, Corbetta, & Pittino, 2014).

Research suggests that a distinct family firm image leads to an increased consumer-company identification (CCI) with family firms (Beck, 2016). A family firm’s longevity, familial values and relational qualities influence consumers’ perceptions of authenticity, trustworthiness and costumer-orientation (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Sageder, Duller, & Mitter, 2015). These perceptions are likely to overlap with the customers’ individual values, creating a sense of identification with the firm (Binz, Hair, Pieper, & Baldauf, 2013; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013), which has been shown to lead to increased attachment to the company and loyalty (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Scott & Lane, 2000), favorable buying behavior, and recommendations to others (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005). While these findings highlight the positive effect of family firm image promotion on various customer-related outcomes, it remains unclear how a distinct family firm image affects consumers’ perceptions and intentions in the digital context, namely their social media engagement. Given the importance of online channels in a company’s marketing mix today, the online presentation of the family firm has become a crucial component to project a distinct family firm image to external audiences (Botero, Thomas, Graves, & Fediuk, 2013;

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Zanon), [email protected] (U. Scholl-Grissemann), [email protected] (A. Kallmuenzer), [email protected] (N. Kleinhansl), [email protected] (M. Peters). ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.01.007

Available online 07 February 2019 1877-8585/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al.

Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Social media in particular has become an increasingly popular platform for communicating and creating relevant “touchpoints” with customers (Murdough, 2009; Verhagen, Boter, & Adelaar, 2010). However, for this interaction to have a meaningful positive outcome, family firms need to be perceived as authentic. Only if they are able to create an authentic online image of themselves will they be able to leverage additional advantages, allowing followers to connect with more than just a material brand; they allow them to connect with the owning family. The effects of communicating the family’s involvement in a firm, and how a distinct family firm image might influence the perceptions of consumers and other stakeholders have garnered increasing attention in academic research (e.g., Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015; Lude & Prügl, 2016; Sageder, Mitter, & Feldbauer‐Durstmüller, 2018). This research demonstrates that the communication of the family status to external stakeholders may serve as an additional strategic tool for family firms to outperform non-family firms (Beck, 2016; Craig et al., 2008; Presas, Guia, & Muñoz, 2014), by exploring the effects that customers’ perceptions have on their intentions to engage through a family firm’s social media channels. We use Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978) as a theoretical lens to describe the identification of consumers with family firms. Combining family firm, marketing and consumer behavior research, this study offers a novel approach towards understanding the role of brand authenticity, CCI and social identity in family firms through an analysis of family firm image promotion online. We adopt an experimental approach to assess whether and how the online family firm image promotion affects consumers’ intent to engage in social media activities. Using family firm websites that were specifically created for this purpose, we retrieved data from 121 respondents via a German online panel from February to March 2018. In the following sections, relevant literature is reviewed to explain and conceptualize the core constructs of our framework, and to develop hypotheses. This is followed by the description of our methodology and results. The discussion and conclusion sections round off our study.

competitors (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013), and may positively affect stakeholders’ perceptions of the company (Beck, 2016; Botero et al., 2013; Gallucci et al., 2015; Zellweger et al., 2010). While family firms are generally assumed to be particularly concerned with protecting the reputation of the family and the business (Dyer & Whetten, 2006), this desire is heightened when the family nature of the business is promoted - and even more so, if the business carries the name of the owning family (Binz Astrachan, 2014; Binz Astrachan et al., 2018; Orth & Green, 2009). Prior research has found that family-named companies place greater emphasis on customer and quality orientation, as well as sustainability, which may lead to increased sales and growth performance (Craig et al., 2008; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010). At the same time, there may be constraints hindering family firms from leveraging their status (Binz Astrachan & Botero, 2017). Becoming public and transparent as a family can affect the vulnerability of the family and its members. In particular, damage to the firm’s image could also impact the family itself and vice versa (Binz Astrachan & Botero, 2017; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010). As a firm’s online presence is becoming a necessary tool in the marketing communication mix, family firms are increasingly promoting their unique family status through new media (Botero et al., 2013). The internet offers a variety of opportunities to convey a family firm image to external audiences (i.e., firm website, social media, online advertising), while simultaneously enabling consumers to become more informed about firms (Botero et al., 2013; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Although family firms often focus on more traditional communication channels (Verhagen et al., 2010), social media has become a vital platform for spreading information to a large audience, managing consumer relationships and sales promotions, and even conducting target audience research (Ashley & Tuten, 2015; Murdough, 2009). Social media allows for a two-way interaction between companies and consumers by generating, sharing, liking or commenting company or user generated content (Verhagen et al., 2010). Hence, social media can play a critical role in evoking and influencing stakeholders’ perceptions about family firms (Laroche, Yang, McDougall, & Bergeron, 2005).

2. Theoretical background

2.2. Consumers’ perception of family firms’ brand authenticity

2.1. Family firm image promotion

Today's consumers like to be knowledgeable, and they tend to inform themselves largely through the internet (Eggers, O’Dwyer, Kraus, Vallaster, & Güldenberg, 2013). In a crowded marketplace, consumers are increasingly interested in a firm's background and its image (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Gallucci et al., 2015). They seek to engage with companies that are trustworthy, authentic, and sincere, as they make their way through endless streams of information from various sources (Holt, 2002; Moulard, Raggio, & Folse, 2016). In this context, brand authenticity is an important means of differentiation (Fritz, Schoenmueller, & Bruhn, 2017; Moulard et al., 2016). Brand authenticity, defined as a brand (or company) that is perceived as faithful, credible, honest, and not superficial to itself and/or consumers (Eggers et al., 2013; Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, & Grohmann, 2015), increases consumers’ engagement with a firm (Garry, Gupta, Melewar, & Bourlakis, 2010; Moulard et al., 2016). A high level of brand authenticity – which is often linked to a firm’s heritage and tradition, a characteristic common to family firms – facilitates building and maintaining an image of trustworthiness and credibility (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Gallucci et al., 2015; Krappe, Goutas, & Schlippe, 2011; Presas et al., 2014; Sageder et al., 2018). Family firms are generally perceived as trustworthy and consumeroriented (Cooper, Upton, & Seaman, 2005; Craig et al., 2008; Orth & Green, 2009; Sageder et al., 2015), social and fair (Gallucci et al., 2015; Krappe, Goutas, & von Schlippe, 2011), as well as authentic (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Presas et al., 2014) and reliable firms to purchase from (Beck, 2016; Krappe et al., 2011). They are also considered traditional and even old-fashioned (Sageder et al., 2015). This multitude of – partially even conflicting - associations allows family firms to evoke an

With the owning family being an integral part of the firm, family dynamics influence the firm’s ownership and business structures distinctively (Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012; Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). Family involvement creates an identity which is unique to family firms, differentiating them from their non-family counterparts (Berrone et al., 2012; Craig et al., 2008; Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010). This family-based identity forms the basis of the corporate family firm image (Dyer & Whetten, 2006; Zellweger et al., 2010), which represents the external manifestation of the firm’s internal beliefs and dynamics (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018; Botero et al., 2013). The sender-based corporate family firm image reflects the sum of what the family firm wants to project to external audiences or, in other words, how the firm wants to be perceived by its diverse constituencies (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018; Brown, 2006). The more distinct the image, the easier it is for consumers to experience the uniqueness, inimitability, and authenticity of family firms (Lu, Gursoy, & Lu, 2015), facilitating the differentiation of family firms in the marketplace (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018). Prior research indicates that communicating the family’s status, history and values – i.e., the family identity – to external stakeholders (e.g., consumers) might be a way to leverage the firm image into a unique competitive advantage for family firms (Craig et al., 2008; Gallucci et al., 2015; Presas et al., 2014). Using the family name as the company name and communicating the family status using different formats (e.g., textual, visual) and channels (e.g., firm website, advertisements, and PR) could be helpful in differentiating family firms from 29

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al.

authentic image (Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015). What is naturally extended to family firms is difficult to achieve for non-family firms, which might explain why family firms can benefit from promoting an authentic family firm image to stakeholders. Thus, in alignment with prior research (e.g., Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Presas et al., 2014), we hypothesize that family firms that promote their family firm image are likely to be perceived as more authentic when compared to non-family firms, and family firms that do not promote the family nature of their firm. Based on this, the following hypothesis is advanced:

H2. Perceived brand authenticity of family firms is positively related to consumer-company identification. 2.4. Consumers’ family firm identification and its effect on social media engagement Given today’s technology-laden world, it is likely that consumers will express the feeling of identification with a firm by engaging in online channels such as social media (Chu & Kim, 2015; Wind & Mahajan, 2002). Social media allows consumers to participate in user and brand-generated content across networks (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), facilitating online word-of-mouth between people (Chu & Kim, 2015). For both consumers and companies, social media has become a vital component that establishes strong relationships and is increasingly integrated into promotional efforts (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Advertising on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram allows firms to promote consumers’ social media engagement by commenting, liking or sharing company-related content (Chu & Kim, 2015). While firms heavily invest in the acquisition of new followers and fans on social media platforms, studies revealed that only a fraction of all fans or followers actually engage with a firm via social media (Lee, Hosanagar, & Nair, 2014). Almost half of social media users remain relatively passive when following a brand’s social media site; actively creating content remains rare (Zhang, Guo, Hu, & Liu, 2017). Research on social media engagement has found that posts’ credibility and interestingness (Yu & Zou, 2015), as well as the persuasiveness of the content (Lee et al., 2014) have a positive impact on users’ engagement. Through the social identity lens, social media is seen as fulfilling social needs of individuals (Wind & Mahajan, 2002). Social identity aspects affect individuals’ intention to engage (Okazaki, 2015; Song & Kim, 2006) in online channels as it allows extension and enhancement of their self-esteem (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). It has also been found that acceptance and approval (Bagozzi & Lee, 2002; Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004), as well as perceived sense of closeness to a company drives social media engagement (Chu & Kim, 2015). The closer the consumer feels to the source company, and the greater the sense of overlap is between the companies and individual values, the more likely an individual interacts and shares information provided by that source (Chu & Kim, 2015). Furthermore, consumers that engage with brands tend to trust these more and become even more committed to them, resulting in higher satisfaction and loyalty (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013). As literature suggests a positive influence of CCI on word-of-mouth (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), it can be expected that consumers who strongly identify with family firms are also more prone to spread and share their favorable impression via social media. Therefore, this study proposes that family firm image promotion translates into increased intended social media engagement via perceived brand authenticity and CCI, formulating the following hypotheses (Fig. 1):

H1. Family firm image promotion is positively related to perceived brand authenticity. 2.3. Consumers’ identification with family firms Previous studies in the marketing field have found a positive relationship between perceived brand authenticity and consumer-company-identification (CCI) (Fritz et al., 2017; Morhart et al., 2015). Research on CCI, however, is sparse in the context of family firms (Beck, 2016). However, since family firms often focus on building strong social ties and close relationships with stakeholders and consumers in particular (Dyer & Whetten, 2006), it seems likely that they can more easily achieve higher degrees of CCI. It might also be that consumers can identify with family firms more easily due the connection with a family, but also the relational qualities often associated with this type of firm (Beck, 2016; Binz et al., 2013; Gallucci et al., 2015; Presas et al., 2014). This higher level of identification likely increases customer’s intention to engage in long-term relationships, which will positively affect their loyalty, purchase frequency, and word-ofmouth (Beck, 2016; Binz et al., 2013; Lude & Prügl, 2016; Sageder et al., 2015). Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978) provides a useful lens to explain identification effects within family firms and to understand unique family firm dynamics (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Waldkirch et al., 2015; Zellweger et al., 2010), but also to explain consumer-company-relationships, and consumers’ motivation to identify with a company (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Firms are key components of a person’s social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), as individuals tend to extend beyond their social identity to express who they are (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). The connection with a social group or organization allows individuals to further define their self-concept and helps them – through feeling connected – to differentiate the firm from others (Kim, Han, & Park, 2001). If a firm’s identity is perceived as attractive, authentic, and overlapping with personal values (Ahearne et al., 2005), individuals will identify with the firm, even if they are not a formal member (Scott & Lane, 2000). Once an individual identifies with a company, purchasing from it is a form of self-expression (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) and the company and its products becomes a part of the individual’s identity (Scott & Lane, 2000). Additionally, the more distinctive and unique the firm’s identity appears to the individual, the stronger the connection is to this company (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Whetten et al., 2014). CCI, defined as the extent to which consumers perceive themselves as sharing the same values as the company (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), satisfies self-identity needs and serves as a motivator to purchase from the firm (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009). This kind of deep connection to a firm is what marketers seek to achieve with their consumers (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Taking into consideration the purpose of this study, and based on prior research, we argue that the familial values and relational qualities of family firms overlap with consumers’ individual values and create a sense of connection to the firm (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013). Because family firms are shown to evoke positive associations and a sense of authenticity, they are likely to project a meaningful image which helps to satisfy consumers’ self-definitional needs, resulting in the strong connection reported by earlier studies (e.g., Sageder et al., 2015). Here it can be assumed that the perceived authenticity of the family firm increases the feeling of CCI.

H3. Consumer-company identification is positively related to intended social media engagement. H4. Family firm image promotion is positively related to intended social media engagement. H5. Perceived brand authenticity and consumer-company identification mediate the effect between family firm image promotion and intended social media engagement. 3. Empirical study 3.1. Overview We conducted an experimental study using a scenario technique to investigate the effect of family firm image promotion (promoted vs. notpromoted) on consumers’ social media engagement. The unique strength of experiments is that they describe the consequences 30

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al.

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework.

Fig. 2. Manipulated website for FFI_promoted condition.

We recruited German respondents via the online panel Clickworker1 (n = 121, Mean age = 40, male = 62, female = 59). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. We advised participants to imagine that they observed the respective website while searching the internet for a local bakery. After processing the respective screenshot of the website, the participants rated several statements from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). In line with the recommendations of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), we randomized items within the questionnaire to avoid common method bias. Additionally, the sequence of the items was intentionally designed to be opposite to the causal direction of the hypotheses in order to minimize any possible demand effects. The survey concluded with demographic questions (i.e., age, sex, nationality).

attributable to varying a treatment (i.e., a presumed cause) and establish causation between the chosen variables (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2001). A causal effect is established when variation in the cause is related to variations in the effect (Shadish et al., 2001). The objective of the study was to investigate the process of how a distinct family firm image affects the intention of customers to engage in social media. Based on prior research, we specifically predicted that promoting (vs. not-promoting) a family firm image increases perceived brand authenticity, which leads to higher levels of consumer identification with the company, ultimately translating into increased intended to engage in social media (i.e., Family Firm Image (FFI) →Perceived Brand Authenticity (BA) →Consumer-Company Identification (CCI) → Social Media Engagement (SE)). We conducted a serial mediation analysis to test this proposed chain of relationships, and to establish causality, we manipulated family firm image (promoted vs. not-promoted) to observe whether different effects occurred for the two treatments.

3.3. Measures The measures for each construct were selected from existing scales and adapted to fit our study context. The response scale used was a seven-point Likert type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Brand authenticity was measured using five items from Morhart et al. (2015). Consumer-company identification was measured using three items derived from Bhattacharya and Sen (2003). Social media engagement was measured using six items from Schivinski, Christodoulides, and Dabrowski (2016). We further controlled for participants’ attitudes towards the website (Sundar & Kalyanaraman, 2004) and the general importance of family firms to them (Craig et al., 2008). Items can be seen in Table 1.

3.2. Stimuli, design and procedure We conducted an experimental study using a one-factorial (FFI promoted vs. not-promoted) between-subjects design. To manipulate the experimental conditions, we created fictitious screenshots of bakery websites as a representation of a traditional family-owned small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) and manipulated family firm image promotion. In the FFI_promoted condition, the website showed a quote from the bakery owners stating, “Our family-run bakery constantly cares about the well-being of our customers” (Fig. 2). In the FFI_not-promoted condition (i.e. the control group), no reference to the family was provided (Fig. 3). With the exception of the manipulation of the text, the websites were identical.

1 Clickworker is an online platform where thousands of people across Europe are registered to take part in surveys for monetary compensation.

31

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al.

Fig. 3. Manipulated website for FFI_not-promoted condition.

4. Results

Table 1 Reliability and Validity Measures.

4.1. Construct validity and reliability

Constructs and Items

CR

Manipulation Check MC- Family Firm Image For me, this business is a family firm. The business communicates to its customers that it is a family firm. This business takes great care that the family business’s reputation is very good. This business takes great care to always market the family business as such. Mediators Perceived Brand Authenticity This business would accomplish its value promise. This business reflects important values people care about. This business would be honest. This business would give back to its customers. Consumer-Company Identification I would tell others that I am a proud customer of this business. I would feel good to be a customer of this business. This business fits me well. Dependent Variable Social Media Engagement I would comment on videos from this bakery on social media sites. I would comments on posts from this bakery on social media sites. I would comment on pictures from this bakery on social media sites. I would share posts from this bakery on social media sites. I would like pictures from this bakery on social media sites. I would like posts from this bakery on social media sites. Controls Importance of Family Firm When shopping I pay attention that the business is family-run. When shopping it is important to me that the business is familyrun. In general I prefer to shop in family-run businesses. Attitude towards the Website The previously shown website is appealing. The previously shown website is attractive. The previously shown website is exciting. The previously shown website is of high quality.

.93

CFA

.993 .97 .892

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the reliability and validity of the measures. All items loaded highly and significantly on the proposed constructs, indicating high convergent validity and reliability (factor loadings ≥ 0.86, average variance extracted (AVE) ≥ .53, composite reliability (CR) ≥ .71; all clearly above the threshold values discussed in the literature) (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). CFA results show overall goodness of fit for the measurement model: the chi-square χ2(384) = 1918.32, p < 0.01, with χ2/ df = 4.01 (which is within the acceptable range of 2 and 5; (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985), comparative fit index (CFI) / Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ≥ 0.90, standardized root mean square residual SRMR ≤ .50). To examine the discriminant validity of the constructs, we compared the squared construct correlations with the AVE values. Discriminant validity exists if the AVE value is greater than a construct’s squared correlations with any other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); we affirmed this status for all of our study constructs. For further analyses, we combined the items for each construct by calculating mean scores. Table 1 reports the psychometric properties of the constructs. Table 2 reports their correlations and the AVE values. In sum, the constructs used in the study demonstrate adequate reliability and validity.

.87 .854 .993

Table 2 Average Variance Extracted and Squared Correlations.

.863 .838 .943 .912 .91

.83

.97

.91

.91

.842 .814 .861 .881 .824 .865 .83

.899 .914 .901 .701 .899 .756 .901

CR = composite reliability; CFA== standardized factor loadings of confirmatory factor analysis. All factor loadings are significant at p < .001.

Construct

AVE

1

2

(1) MC-Family Firm Image (2) Perceived Brand Authenticity (3) Consumer-Company Identification (4) Social Media Engagement (5) Importance of Family Firm (6) Attitude towards the Website

.77 .72

1 .385**

.75

**

.274

.592**

1

.88 .85

.428** .183**

.152** .158**

.79

.211**

.416**

All constructs are measured on a 1–7 scale. ** Significant at p < .01 (two-tailed). 32

3

4

5

.358** .241**

1 233**

1

.516**

.308**

.197**

6

1

1

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al.

4.2. Manipulation checks

We coded the independent variable FFI (X) as 0 = FFI_promoted and 1 = FFI_not-promoted; perceived brand authenticity (M1) and consumercompany identification (M2) served as mediators, and social media engagement served as the dependent variable (Y). The regression analysis yielded a significant effect of FFI on perceived brand authenticity (a1 = .41, [CI99%]: 0.56, .83), supporting H1. Respondents in the FFI_promoted condition perceived the bakery’s website as more authentic than respondents in the FFI_not-promoted condition, which increased their CCI (d21 = 0.83, [CI99%]: 0.61, 1.06) (supporting H2). This increased CCI ultimately resulted in a higher social media engagement (b2 = .67, [CI99%]: .01, .60) (supporting H3). The direct effect of FFI on social media engagement was not significant (c’ = -0.04, [CI99%]: -0.71, 0.62) (not supporting H4). In support of H5, however, the indirect effect of FFI on social media engagement through perceived brand authenticity and CCI in serial was significant (a1 d21b2 = .23, [CI99%]: 0.01, .66) indicating indirect-only mediation (Zhao, Lunch, & Chen, 2010). Neither of the other indirect pathways (i.e. FFI→BA→SE; FFI→CCI→SE) in this model were significant. Fig. 4 illustrates the full model, consistent with Hayes’ (2013) labelling of the coefficients. Table 3 shows the coefficients including the covariates in the regression equation.

To confirm that the manipulations were successful, we adapted the FIFS scale from Frank, Kessler, Rusch, Suess-Reyes, and WeismeierSammer (2016) and added one additional item (i.e., “For me, this business is a family firm” (Beck & Kenning, 2015)) (see Table 1). Given that we employed a scenario technique, we assessed perceived realism and scenario understanding to determine the effectiveness of the manipulations. Perceived realism was measured with two items from (Schnurr, Brunner-Sperdin, & Stokburger-Sauer, 2017): “I have seen a website like this before”, and “I can imagine that this website really exists” (M = 5.45, SD = .65). Scenario understanding was measured by two ad-hoc items (Teichmann, Scholl-Grissemann, & Stokburger-Sauer, 2016): “I was able to imagine the situation easily”, and “The website was well arranged” (M = 5.01 SD = 1.2). The items were measured on a seven-point agree-disagree Likert type scale. We found a significant effect of FFI on the manipulation check items (F(1, 121) = 18.39, p < .01). Participants perceived the business on the website more as a family firm in the FFI_promoted condition than in the FFI_not-promoted condition (MFFI _promoted = 5.86, MFFI_not-promoted = 4.05, p < .01). No significant difference in ratings occurred for realism and comprehensibility of the scenarios. We thus confirm that the manipulated factor was successful.

5. Discussion This study allowed us to demonstrate that marketing and consumer behavior constructs such as perceived brand authenticity, CCI, and social media engagement help to understand the explicit consequences of family firm image promotion. Previous research suggests that family firm image promotion can be an important driver in achieving a superior market position (Gallucci et al., 2015). Family firm image promotion allows consumers to distinguish family firms from non-family firms and elicit a stronger connection with the organization. This stronger identification, in turn, can result in customers liking and preferring the products and services from authentic family firms (Beck, 2016; Binz et al., 2013; Sageder et al., 2018). With the use of an online experiment based on screenshots of fictitious websites, we support these findings from previous studies, and demonstrate that the promotion of FFI leads to perceived brand authenticity, which in turn increases customer-company identification and intended social media engagement. Although family firms (especially older and larger ones) seem to be fairly untouched by market demands (Cucculelli & Marchionne, 2012), strong competition among SMEs still pressures these firms to increasingly engage in branding and marketing (Eggers et al., 2013). In this context, our results suggest that family firms may benefit from highlighting their often fascinating history, stable values, and long years of corporate identity. Family firms are able to respond to consumers’ desire for authentic brands, which enhances positive perception about family firms (Gallucci et al., 2015; Morhart et al., 2015). Our results also show that perceived brand authenticity of family firms positively

4.3. Serial multiple mediation analysis To test our theoretical framework, we conducted a serial multiple mediation analysis by applying a bootstrapping technique using Hayes’ (2013) regression-based model 6 implemented with the SPSS PROCESS macro. The general goal of mediation analysis is to establish the extent to which a causal variable X influences an outcome variable Y through one or more mediator variables. A serial multiple mediation model implies that one mediator affects another. The goal of serial multiple mediation testing is to investigate the direct and indirect effect of X on Y while modeling a process in which X causes M1, which in turn causes M2, concluding with Y as the final consequent (Hayes, 2013, p.144). Bootstrapping is a resampling strategy for estimation and hypotheses testing where the sample represents the broader population from which the sample was derived, and the calculation of the statistic of interest is generated in multiple resamples of the dataset. By using bootstrapping, no assumptions about the shape and distribution of the sample are necessary to conduct inferential tests (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). In a mediation analysis, bootstrapping is used to generate an empirically derived representation of the sampling distribution of the indirect effect, which is used to construct confidence intervals (Hayes, 2013). When zero is not within the 95% (99%) confidence interval, we can conclude that the effect is significantly different from zero at p < .05 (p < .01) (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). We used bias-corrected 99% confidence intervals with a bootstrap method with k = 10,000 iterations for the conditional indirect effects.

Fig. 4. Serial Multiple Mediation Model. Note: # represents the indirect (i.e. mediating) effect of FFI → Perceived Brand Authenticity →CCI →Social Media Engagement. **significant at p < .01. 33

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al.

Table 3 Regression Coefficients. Consequent Perceived Brand Authenticity Antecedent X (FFI) M1 (BA) M2 (CCI) ATW IFF Age Gender Constant

a1

Consumer-Company Identification

Coeff.

SE

.41** – – .43* .15* −.00 .02 1.88** R² = .03 F(5115) = 22,01

.16 – – .07 .06 .01 .15 .43

a2 d21

Social Media Engagement

Coeff.

SE

−.19 .83** – .19 .10* .01 .04 −1,03 R² = .06 F(6114) = 55,20

.15 .08 – .07 .05 .01 .01 .42

c‘ b1 b2

Coeff.

SE

−.04 −.12 .67** .01 .37* −.02 −.01 .31** R² = .05 F(7113) = 20,01

.25 .19 .15 .12 .1 .02 .01 .73

Note: SE = Standard Error, Control Variable ATW = Attitude towards Website, Control Variable IFF = Importance of Family Firm. * = p≤ .05. ** p≤ .01.

study helps advance our understanding of how family firm image promotion leads to positive consumer engagement in the form of intended social media engagement (Beck, 2016; Lude & Prügl, 2016; Sageder et al., 2018). Additionally, we use the theory of social identity (Bagozzi & Lee, 2002; Homburg et al., 2009; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) to describe the underlying rationale causing the serial mediation from family firm image promotion to consumer engagement. The results from this project show that the path towards intended social media engagement is not direct and needs marketing constructs such as perceived brand authenticity and CCI to explain the favorable effects of family firm image promotion. With perceived brand authenticity being discussed as a questionable construct in marketing literature, our findings demonstrate its relevance by explaining the path from firm image to consumer engagement via CCI, theoretically underlined by Social Identity Theory.

affects consumers’ identification with a firm. This is relevant given that when organizations are perceived as more authentic, consumers are able to develop a closer relationship with that company. This, in turn, increases the consumers’ identification with the organization, and generates positive consumer engagement (Morhart et al., 2015). Finally, family firm image promotion does not have a direct effect on intended social media engagement but is significantly and positively mediated by brand authenticity and CCI. Firms that are able to leverage a high CCI already maintain a vital asset many managers strive for: forming a committed and meaningful connection to their consumers (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Thus, communication activities of family firms should generate meaningful messages that explain how the firm, family, and its products are related to the identity of the firm, and how they are relevant to the consumer (Marín & Ruiz de Maya, 2013). Consistent with social identity theory, our results suggest that family firm image promotion allows consumers to recognize, value, and identify with the firm, which should positively affect purchase intentions (Ahearne et al., 2005) and recommendations to others (Kim et al., 2001).

5.2. Practical implications In terms of practical implications, this study indicates that promoting the owning family behind the firm via marketing channels such as Public Relations, social media and websites allows consumers to detect and appreciate a firm’s familial nature (Fombrun, 1996; Fritz et al., 2017). The uniqueness that family firms embody through their identity is an asset that allows them to capitalize on the external effects of consumer identification, and improves the firm’s market position (Frank, Lueger, Nosé, & Suchy, 2010). Firms that do not exploit their family status may miss opportunities to gain a sustained competitive advantage. Marketing managers of family firms, whether they are part of the family or identify with it, may thus strategically include the family identity into the marketing efforts by placing at the forefront the managers’ passion and intrinsic motivation for the firm (Moulard et al., 2016). In order to develop, maintain and promote a successful family firm image, it appears important that family firms members identify with the firm and thus transmit the firm identity to their products and services (Craig et al., 2008).

5.1. Research implications The results of this study advance family business as well as marketing research by furthering our understanding of the relationships between family firm image promotion, perceived brand authenticity, and CCI, and their effect on consumers’ intention to engage in social media. By revealing a mediated path between family firm image promotion and intended social media engagement, this study provides new evidence and insights into how family firm image promotion shapes consumer engagement. The results show that only when a distinct family firm image is promoted and consumers are made aware of the family status in the firm, are family firms able to positively influence consumers’ engagement. We then specifically demonstrate that a family firm image promotion increases perceived brand authenticity, which in turn is associated with higher identification with the family firm. This higher identification eventually translates into more engaged consumers. This study contributes to the family firm literature by addressing the influence of family firm image promotion on consumers’ engagement, and by employing experimental studies in family firms as a relatively novel approach to extend family business theory. Our results strengthen the usability of online experiments in this field of research. We deepen existing understanding by adopting a consumer behavior perspective on family firms, integrating constructs such as brand authenticity and CCI from marketing literature (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Fritz et al., 2017; Morhart et al., 2015) to assess the effects of family firm behavior. The integration of mediating variables and serial mediation into this

5.3. Limitations The findings of this study are not without limitations. A key shortcoming pertains to the relatively low explanatory power of our model. An R² of 0.05 implies that there are likely many additional variables other than FFI that cause variation in consumer’s engagement in social media. Naturally, whether someone decides to like, forward, or recommend a website is determined by a number of factors. In the future, studies could include additional factors such as the website’s design, the industry of the promoted family firm, and consumers’ general affinity towards using social media. Regarding website design, existing research 34

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al.

highlights the role of sense-making and exploratory cues (BrunnerSperdin, Scholl-Grissemann, & Stockburger-Sauer, 2014), structure and content (e.g., Harris & Goode, 2010), perceived ease of use (e.g., Porter & Donthu, 2006), informativeness (e.g., Mazaheri, Richard, & Laroche, 2011), aesthetic formality and aesthetic appeal (Porat, Liss, & Tractinsky, 2007; Wang, Hernandez, & Minor, 2010), and entertainment (Rosenbaum, 2005). All of these factors can affect how and whether consumers engage with a website. Industry considerations are also relevant because consumers may be more likely to engage in social media for hedonic products and services (e.g., jewelry or hospitality) in comparison to utilitarian products such as bread. Another aspect that can play a role in consumers’ social media engagement with the website of a family firm is their overall attitude towards social media. Future research could replicate our study by controlling for consumers’ affinity towards social media use (Hautz, Fueller, Hutter, & Thueriddl, 2014) and their social media proneness (Nga, Carson, & Moore, 2013). Nevertheless, our results are still valuable, because we show that family firm image promotion constitutes an additional, relevant factor that significantly increases consumers’ intentions to engage with the website via social media. This effect is new to family business research and to literature on the marketing of family firms. Future studies can also benefit from the use of field experiments with real life social media data to eliminate possible bias occurring from a laboratory online experiment (Gneezy, 2017). It would be interesting to more strongly consider the background of respondents by, e.g., investigating the effect of an individual’s own family firm background on his or her preferences (Zellweger, Sieger, & Halter, 2011). A mixed-method approach might also help generate deeper insights into certain consumer segments to create a more nuanced understanding of their motives and behavior when identifying with family firms. Another limitation that is important to highlight is the sample. This study is based on a sample from one country and focused on one industry. Thus, future research should consider focusing on different industries and cultures. A replication in different countries could validate and extend our findings. Future studies may also consider the heterogeneity of family firms (Nordqvist, Sharma, & Chirico, 2014) in terms of factors such as their age, size, and governance structure (Daspit, Chrisman, Sharma, Pearson, & Mahto, 2018), and assess the effect of this heterogeneity on consumer perceptions and responses. Furthermore, although our results generally call for initiatives to market the family, research may want to further investigate when an overly extensive presentation of family firm image might backfire (Botero, Binz Astrachen, & Calabrò, 2018), exhausting consumers by too forcefully promoting a family firm image, as has been observed with some companies’ CSR efforts (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). In other words, it could be interesting to investigate more deeply if there can be “too much family” in the marketing efforts of a family firm. In the case of truly authentic firms in particular, an over-commercialization could interfere with the perception of being honest and true to themselves (Holt, 2002).

scholars to investigate the online and social media context to shed more light on this potentially useful tool for family firms in promoting a distinct family firm image, and leveraging the unique capabilities that are based in the interconnection between the family and the business. It appears particularly interesting to further establish and specify the connection between social media engagement and consumers’ purchase intentions, for this allows family firms to secure their longevity and transgenerational survival. In order to capitalize on the family firm image, family firms need to amplify their family firm status in their social media strategy, for example by telling stories about the family on Instagram, or by providing insights into family life on Facebook. Given that consumer-company identification is directly related to consumer spending (Teichmann et al., 2016), including such identity-establishing actions in promotional campaigns should directly reflect on financial marketing outcomes. References Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010. 90.3.574. Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychology & Marketing, 32(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20761. Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, K.-H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence: The role of compliance, internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(3), 226. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090121. Beck, S. (2016). Brand management research in family firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 6(3), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2016-0002. Beck, S., & Kenning, P. (2015). The influence of retailers’ family firm image on new product acceptance. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(12), 1126–1143. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2014-0079. Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0894486511435355. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609. Binz, C., Hair, J. F., Pieper, T. M., & Baldauf, A. (2013). Exploring the effect of distinct family firm reputation on consumers’ preferences. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.12.004. Binz Astrachan, C. (2014). Branding the family firm (An empirical exploration of the antecedents and consequences of family firm brand promotion (Doctoral Dissertation). Witten, Germany: University of Witten. Binz Astrachan, C., & Astrachan, J. H. (2015). Family business branding: Leveraging stakeholder trust. London: Institute of Family Business. Binz Astrachan, C., & Botero, I. C. (2017). “We are a family firm”: An exploration of the motives for communicating the family business brand. Journal of Family Business Management, 7(4), 263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-01-2017-0002. Binz Astrachan, C., Botero, I. C., Astrachan, J. H., & Prügl, R. (2018). Branding the family firm: A review, integrative framework proposal, and research agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.01.002 Advance online publication. Botero, I. C., Thomas, J., Graves, C., & Fediuk, T. A. (2013). Understanding multiple family firm identities: An exploration of the communicated identity in official websites. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs. 2012.11.004. Botero, I. C., Binz Astrachen, C., & Calabrò, A. (2018). A receiver’s approach to family business brands: Exploring individual associations with the term “family firm”. Journal of Family Business Management, 8(2), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM03-2017-0010. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029. Brown, T. J. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284969. Brunner-Sperdin, A., Scholl-Grissemann, U. S., & Stockburger-Sauer, N. E. (2014). The relevance of holistic website perception. How sense-making and exploration cues guide consumers’ emotions and behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2515–2522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.004. Carrigan, M., & Buckley, J. (2008). What’s so special about family business? An exploratory study of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(6), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1470-6431.2008.00696.x.

6. Conclusion In today’s digital world, consumer recommendations often occur on social media sites (Chu & Kim, 2015; Song & Kim, 2006). The perceived authenticity of a family firm, together with the personal urge to establish and extend one’s own social identity, increases consumers’ intentions to share, comment, or like corporate online postings of family firms. The higher the identification with the brand, the more attractive and the more likely a possible engagement with the brand’s online presence will be (Kim et al., 2001). Our results indicate that the promotion of the family firm image positively affects perceptions of the firm’s authenticity, increased consumer-company identification, and intended social media engagement. It is important to highlight that it is through the mediating effects that the promotion of family firm image triggers intended social media engagement. We encourage other 35

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al. Chu, S.-C., & Kim, Y. (2015). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic wordof-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075. Cooper, M. J., Upton, N., & Seaman, S. (2005). Customer relationship management: A comparative analysis of family and nonfamily business practices. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005. 00136.x. Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity to enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2008. 00248.x. Cucculelli, M., & Marchionne, F. (2012). Market opportunities and owner identity: Are family firms different? Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(3), 476–495. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2012.02.001. Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Pearson, A. W., & Mahto, R. V. (2018). Governance as a source of family firm heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.041. Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms. 12015. Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241–263. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009. 00276.x. Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00151.x. Eggers, F., O’Dwyer, M., Kraus, S., Vallaster, C., & Güldenberg, S. (2013). The impact of brand authenticity on brand trust and SME growth: A CEO perspective. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.018. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). In C. J. Fombrun (Ed.). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312. Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J., & Weismeier-Sammer, D. (2016). Capturing the familiness of family businesses: Development of the family influence familiness scale (FIFS). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 52(3), 1–34. https://doi. org/10.1111/etap.12229. Frank, H., Lueger, M., Nosé, L., & Suchy, D. (2010). The concept of “Familiness”. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.08. 001. Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – Exploring antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2014-0633 Retrieved from. Gallucci, C., Santulli, R., & Calabrò, A. (2015). Does family involvement foster or hinder firm performance? The missing role of family-based branding strategies. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.07.003. Garry, T., Gupta, S., Melewar, T. C., & Bourlakis, M. (2010). Transfer of brand knowledge in business‐to‐business markets: A qualitative study. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 25(5), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621011058151. Gneezy, A. (2017). Field experimentation in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 140–143. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0225. Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J., London: Prentice Hall PTR. Harris, L. C., & Goode, M. M. (2010). Online servicescapes, trust and purchase intentions. Journal of Customer Service in Marketing & Management, 24(3), 230–243. https://doi. org/10.1108/08876041011040631. Hautz, J., Fueller, J., Hutter, K., & Thueriddl, C. (2014). Let users generate your video ads? The impact of video source and quality on consumers’ perception and intended behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intmar.2013.06.003. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. In A. F. Hayes (Ed.). Methodology in the social sciences. Guilford Press. Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. The Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10. 1086/339922. Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009). Social identity and the service–Profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.38. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003. Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic behavior of family firms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.04.001. Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. The Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/14685884.00177. Krappe, A., Goutas, L., & von Schlippe, A. (2011). The “family business brand”: An

enquiry into the construction of the image of family businesses. Journal of Family Business Management, 1(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/20436231111122272. Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.234. Laroche, M., Yang, Z., McDougall, G. H., & Bergeron, J. (2005). Internet versus bricksand-mortar retailers: An investigation into intangibility and its consequences. Journal of Retailing, 81(4), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.11.002. Lee, D., Hosanagar, K., & Nair, H. S. (2014). The effect of social media marketing content on consumer engagement: Evidence from facebook. Stanford Graduate School of Business. Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, C. Y. (2015). Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and brand choice intention: The case of ethnic restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.008. Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (Eds.). (2016). Effects of communicating the family firm status on brand perception: Insights from an experimental studyEuropean Academy of Management. Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor. 2009.03.002. Marín, L., & Ruiz de Maya, S. (2013). The role of affiliation, attractiveness and personal connection in consumer-company identification. European Journal of Marketing, 47(3/ 4), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311297526. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562. Martínez, P., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.009. Mazaheri, E., Richard, M. O., & Laroche, M. (2011). Online consumer behavior: Comparing Canadian and Chinese website visitors. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.018. Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or Revealing the Family? Family Business Review, 24(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511407321. Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Minichilli, A., Corbetta, G., & Pittino, D. (2014). When do non-family CEOs outperform in family firms? Agency and behavioural agency perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 547–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joms.12076. Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006. Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2016). Brand authenticity: Testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand management’s passion for its products. Psychology & Marketing, 33(6), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20888. Murdough, C. (2009). Social media measurement: It’s not impossible. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(1), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2009.10722165. Nga, N. H., Carson, S. J., & Moore, W. L. (2013). The effects of positive and negative online customer reviews: Do brand strength and category maturity matter? Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0011. Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P., & Chirico, F. (2014). Family firm heterogeneity and governance: A configuration approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12096 Retrieved from. Okazaki, S. (2015). Social influence model and electronic word of mouth. International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 439–472. https://doi.org/10.2501/ S0265048709200692. Orth, U. R., & Green, M. T. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family business: The roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(4), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2008.12.002. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. Porat, T., Liss, R., & Tractinsky, N. (2007). E-stores design: The influence of e-store design and product type on conusmers’ emotions and attitudes. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human-computer interaction, applications and services. Porter, E. C., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2006.06.003. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316. Presas, P., Guia, J., & Muñoz, D. (2014). Customer’s perception of familiness in travel experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10548408.2014.873307. Rosenbaum, M. S. (2005). Meet the cyberspace. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(7), 636–647. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500510630177. Sageder, M., Duller, C., & Mitter, C. (2015). Reputation of family firms from a customer perspective. International Journal of Business Research, 15(2), 13–24. https://doi.org/ 10.18374/IJBR-15-2.2. Sageder, M., Mitter, C., & Feldbauer‐Durstmüller, B. (2018). Image and reputation of family firms: A systematic literature review of the state of research. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0216-x. Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring consumers’ engagement with brand-related social-media content. Journal of Advertising Research,

36

Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

J. Zanon et al. 56(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2016-004. Schnurr, B., Brunner-Sperdin, A., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The effect of context attractiveness on product attractiveness and product quality: The moderating role of product familiarity. Marketing Letters, 28(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11002-016-9404-3. Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.2307/259262. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Song, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2006). Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual community service. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10796-006-8782-0. Sundar, S. S., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2004). Arousal, memory and impression-formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 1–17. Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries: The case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00234.x. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Vol. Ed.), European monographs in social psychology: 14. London: Academic Press [for] European Association of Experimental Social Psychology. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Teichmann, K., Scholl-Grissemann, U., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2016). The power of codesign to bond customers to products and companies: The role of toolkit support and creativity. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 36, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intmar.2016.03.006. Verhagen, T., Boter, J., & Adelaar, T. (2010). The effect of product type on consumer preferences for website content elements: An empirical study. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 16(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101. 2010.01536.x. Waldkirch, M. (2015). Social identity theory and the family business. In M. Nordqvist, L.

Melin, M. Waldkirch, & G. Kumeto (Eds.). Theoretical perspectives on family businesses (pp. 137–155). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479665. 00015. Wang, Y. J., Hernandez, M. D., & Minor, S. (2010). Web aesthetics effects on perceived online service quality and satisfaction in an e-tail environment: The moderating role of purchase task. Journal of Business Research, 63(9/10), 935–942. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15332861.2013.763695. Whetten, D., Foreman, P., Dyer, W., Whetten, D., Foreman, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2014). Organizational identity and the family business // organizational identity and family business. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of family business (pp. 480–497). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446247556.n24. Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (2002). Convergence marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10009. Yu, G., & Zou, D. (Eds.). (2015). Which user-generated content should be appreciated more? A study on UGC features. Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions and Social Media Engagement. Zellweger, T., Sieger, P., & Halter, F. (2011). Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001. Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2009.12.003. Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Memili, E. (2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.10.001. Zhang, M., Guo, L., Hu, M., & Liu, W. (2017). Influence of customer engagement with company social networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.04.010. Zhao, X., Lunch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

37