- Email: [email protected]
Facebook brand community bonding: The direct and moderating effect of value creation behaviour
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/elerap
Facebook brand community bonding: The direct and moderating effect of value creation behaviour Silvia Sanz-Blas, Enrique Bigné, Daniela Buzova
T
⁎
Department of Marketing, Universitat de València, Spain, Facultat d’Economia, Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Brand bonding Parasocial interaction Value co-creation Brand community Brand advocacy Brand relationships
The present research deepens in the understanding of brand bonding in Facebook brand communities, drawing on value creation behaviours, the parasocial interaction paradigm and the attachment theory. Building up on these theories, our proposed conceptual model posits a direct relationship between value creation behaviour and brand community bonding, resulting from users’ interactions with other community members. The study also examines the moderating role of value co-creation behaviour on community members’ predispositions to develop emotionally based relationships with brands. The sample of the study consisted of 370 followers of brand Facebook pages and the model was assessed using PLS-SEM. The results confirm the posited direct and interaction effects, thus evidencing brand community involvement, attachment and advocacy as components of brand community bonding, and members’ value creation behaviour as its driver and moderator. Practical implications for online brand community managers are also provided.
1. Introduction Brand communities have emerged as a key construct in order to improve bonds between brands and individuals and thus create value relationships (Luo et al., 2015). According to Muniz and O’Guinn (2001, p. 412), a community can be defined as “a specialized, nongeographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand”, which allows not only strengthening consumer–brand relationship, but also developing longterm brand loyalty (Brodie et al., 2013; Luo et al., 2015). Online social networks are suitable for achieving this purpose, emerging as important platforms where brand-consumer relationships can be built (Turri et al., 2013) and new clients can be attracted and retained (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Through this kind of online platforms, the consumer's voice can be heard, interaction between individuals and companies is possible and consumption experiences can be shared (Luo et al., 2015). All this makes online social networks appropriate places for value creation practices to be implemented, sharing and exchanging information between brand managers and consumers, presenting and discussing ideas and collaboration on new products/ services or improvements (Paris et al., 2010). Accordingly, value cocreation behaviour becomes a key element in enhancing not only the relational and affective individual-brand connection, but also the quality of the relationship, thus contributing to strengthening loyalty
⁎
towards the brand (Turri et al., 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2010; Zaglia, 2013). Indeed, recent studies on eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) adoption have considered the relational influences triggered by cognitive and affective attitudes (Aghakhani et al., 2018). Brand relationships are cultivated by consumeŕs relationship with the brand and its community members (Martínez-López et al., 2017; Shao and Ross, 2015). In this regard, the parasocial interaction theory (Giles, 2002), the online value- creation framework (Amit and Zott, 2001) and the attachment theory (Hazan and Shaver, 1994) are adopted in the present study to examine brand relationships and bonding development. Parasocial interaction contributes to enhancing members’ active behaviour, given that it facilitates the development of social ties (Currás et al., 2012; Sanz et al., 2017). Individual’s active brand community participation positively affects consumer-brand-other members’ relationship (Turri et al., 2013), which, in turn, enhances value creation in the brand community. The need to belong to a group, the process of participating in that group and the emotional connexion with a brand outgrows the transactional satisfaction provided by a product/service (McAlexander et al., 2002; Hartley and Harrison, 2007). Loyal consumers are increasingly developing relationships with brands based on connectivity and social and emotional bonds (Fournier, 1998; Hartley and Harrison, 2007). Therefore, the relationships go beyond what would be traditionally considered transactional results, and include factors such as social,
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Sanz-Blas), [email protected] (E. Bigné), [email protected] (D. Buzova).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100850 Received 27 August 2018; Received in revised form 15 April 2019; Accepted 15 April 2019 Available online 22 April 2019 1567-4223/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
as affective commitment and emotional attachment) and advocacy (Hartley and Harrison, 2007). The term brand involvement captures the individual’s interest in the brand, reflecting its relevance for the consumer (Zaichkowsky, 1994). In this regard, Mitchell and Orwig (2002) found that the customer's increased knowledge of a product might contribute to stronger brand involvement, which, in turn, may result in heightened brand attachment (Chen and Lee, 2010). Moreover, Melancon et al. (2011) demonstrated that involvement with a relational programme affects the processing of related information, as well as the development of various dimensions of consumer attachment to the brand. Highly-involved consumers are more receptive to brand communications and are also likely to form brand commitment on the basis of more information than that stemming from only related economic rewards (Yi and Jeon, 2003). Facebook brand communities constitute a rich source of brand and product-related information, which may enhance brand involvement and thus positively affect attachment with the brand. Therefore, our first hypothesis posits that:
emotional and self-brand connection (e.g. Keiningham et al., 2018), brand identity or affinity (e.g. Melancon et al., 2011) and even brand personality (e.g. Aaker, 1997). This assumption is supported by attachment theory (Hazan and Shaver, 1994), which, when applied to the domain of products and services, suggests that consumers seek out brands with which they share personal attachment or affinity. Most online social network studies have dealt with interpersonal relationships between members. Less attention has been given to the brand as a member of a community that comprises interrelationships between members, and members with the brand. In spite of the importance of the issue, the mechanisms through which brand bonding can be achieved, taking into account consumers’ growing use of online brand communities, are understudied, as pointed out by Yang and Zhang (2015). Furthermore, there is lack of research on how value cocreating practices in SNS (social network sites) brand communities enable these communities to become successful (Luo et al., 2015). The contribution of the paper to the current knowledge is threefold. First, we research the development of affect-laden relationships in SNS (social network sites) brand communities drawing on value creation framework, the parasocial interaction paradigm and the attachment theory. Second, the study broadens the scope of online value creation by considering not only members’ active brand community participation but also the engagement with the value creation practices of other users (parasocial interactions). Third, the present study elucidates the moderating role of value co-creation behaviour on community members’ predispositions to develop emotionally based relationships with brands. Facebook is used as a study context, as it claims to be the most relevant channel for building brand communities (de Vries and Carlson, 2014) and enhancing customer relationships (Oszajca, 2012) used by companies nowadays. It is estimated that there are more than 65 million business Facebook fan pages (GeoMarketing, 2017), which further confirms its importance for businesses.
Hypothesis 1. (The Brand Community Involvement Hypothesis): Brand community involvement with SNS positively affects brand community attachment to SNS. According to Moorman et al. (1992) commitment refers to the individual’s motivation to maintain a relationship with an organisation and addresses the economic, psychological and emotional attachment that consumers has towards a brand (Evanschitzky et al., 2006). The affective dimension of the commitment construct involves the development of emotional attachment towards the brand on the basis of individual’s identification with it (Allen and Meyer, 1990). This affective facet refers to customers’ desire to maintain a brand relationship that is perceived as valuable (Lacy, 2007). As such, it must be considered a relevant factor that establishes the worth of continuous individual-brand community relationships (Melancon et al., 2011; Turri et al., 2013). Thus, commitment is considered a predictor of members’ actual behaviour in social media brand communities, such as helping others, taking part in SNS brand community activities, or advocating the brand to others (Luo et al., 2015). Brand advocacy is a concept related to consumer recommendation and active brand support. More specifically, advocacy represents a step further in the intention to recommend a brand because it is associated with forgiveness and giving a second chance when something goes wrong (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2013; Bilro et al., 2018). Brand advocacy is described as “a superior form of positive WOM (word-ofmouth)” (Javed et al., 2015), which is achieved when consumers feel psychologically attached to brands (Fullerton, 2005). Furthermore, advocacy is deemed a key element of the relational worth concept (Melancon et al., 2011). Relational worth, in turn, is a construct that tries to provide an aggregate measure of the consumer's social value to the brand. The concept is understood as encompassing non-financial, social behaviours towards the brand resulting from relational exchanges with consumers (Melancon et al., 2011). Advocacy addresses the interaction among consumers-brand-other consumers, thus capturing members’ active participation in the brand community (Anderson, 1998). Past research has revealed that strong affective commitment or emotional attachment can lead not only to consumer loyalty, but even make consumers act as brand evangelists, who aim to draw other consumers to the brand through brand advocacy (Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2011; Turri et al., 2013). An SNS-based study evidenced that affective commitment enhances users’ content creation (Chen et al., 2013), being positive WOM considered a type of value creation behaviour, as it involves recommending the brand, informing them about product/service features and conveying a favourable image of the brand to others (Kozinets et al., 2010; Sashi et al., 2019). Similarly, Fullerton (2003) found a positive impact of affective commitment on customer advocacy intentions. Thus, consumers who are affectively committed towards a
2. Literature review 2.1. Brand community bonding A brand community can be defined as a structure which allows brand fans to interact with each other and share the culture and values of the brand. Brand communities can trigger sense of belonging, as members not only share common interests, but also behaviours, attitudes and values (Zhang and Luo, 2016). Social media has emerged as a powerful platform for building brand communities (Habidi et al., 2014). If a brand is able to make the members within their online community interact with the content posted by both, the brand official admin and the rest of brand community members, individuals’ basic needs of social interaction and belonging will be met (Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012). This would, in turn, add value to users’ experience in the brand community, which may lead to enhanced brand loyalty (Luo et al., 2015). Users feel a closer and stronger connection to those brand communities that are open to members’ contribution and feedback. Consumer-brand relationships are associated with various psychological and social processes, which are based on both cognition and emotions (MacInnis et al., 2009). Brand relationships involving emotional bonds are the most durable and they also enhance ties between consumers and brands (Turri et al., 2013). Accordingly, a brand community can facilitate interaction and emotional bonding between consumer and brand. Individuals who develop strong emotional bonds, and have a sense of brand community belonging, may be more willing to act in its support and make sacrifices for it (Hartley and Harrison, 2007). This idea suggests that an analysis of the brand bonding concept from a more emotional and relational perspective should be undertaken (Yang and Zhang, 2015), with the following three variables being of key relevance: brand involvement, emotional connectedness (also referred to 2
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
about a brand by participating in an SNS community, which will help them in their decision-making. The comments posted by other members can trigger other users’ interest in taking part in the brand community, thus adopting an active role, instead of being passive beneficiaries of the relationships established in the brand community (Chu and Sung, 2015; Sanz et al., 2017). By adopting this role, individuals are able to engage with the community, which, in turn, facilitates value creation (Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder, 2011). Existing research recognises the important role played by parasocial interaction as an antecedent of online brand community engagement (Tsai and Men, 2013), which is defined as including several dimensions, such as interaction frequency, product involvement and referral behaviour/intention (Marti et al., 2014). This leads to put forward the third hypothesis of the present research:
brand spread positive WOM about it and try to convince others to switch to it (Chakravarty et al., 2010). Recent studies have also documented that customers who are emotionally attached to a brand and maintain an enduring relationship with it, will not only act as advocates for the brand but will also become engaged fans (Sashi et al., 2019). In a similar vein, Demiray and Burnaz (2019) identified WOM communication and purchase intention of new products as positive outcomes of brand community commitment. Accordingly, affective commitment is expected to have a positive influence on brand community advocacy. Considering the above, the following hypothesis is posited: Hypothesis 2. (The Brand Community Attachment Hypothesis): Brand community attachment to SNS positively affects brand community advocacy. 2.2. Value creation behaviours
Hypothesis 3. The Brand Community Parasocial Interaction Hypothesis): Brand community parasocial interaction within SNS positively affects brand community involvement with SNS.
Social media is a group of Internet based applications that enable users to create and exchange content. As the popularity of social media websites is growing, businesses are increasingly using social networking sites to support the creation of brand communities (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). The SNS brand communities provide useful content, as well as a communication and interaction environment where consumers and brands can share knowledge and support each other (Men and Tsai 2013a). The development of this kind of communities has positively influenced the value creation practices, which, in turn, has contributed to an improved communication within its members (Hassan et al., 2016; Laroche et al., 2012). Previous research has shown that value creation practices in a SNS brand community over the long term facilitate and enhance interaction, exchange and relationships among members, thus increasing the affective link with the brand (See-To and Ho, 2014; Zaglia, 2013). Moreover, they make consumers trust, love and be loyal to the brand (Zhou et al., 2012; Stokburger-Sauer, 2010), which, in turn, becomes a relevant factor when brand choice is concerned. Value creation goes beyond customers’ purchasing power and product functions and includes the symbolic meaning of consumption (Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder, 2011). This provides support to attachment theory, according to which individuals will be more prone to maintain a relationship with another person if they feel a strong attachment to him/her (Hazan and Shaver, 1994). Transferring this to the context of products and services, it is plausible to suggest that rather than functional and economical attributes (Melancon et al., 2011), consumers would seek out brands to which they feel personally attached (Hartley and Harrison, 2007).
2.2.2. Brand community member value creation behaviour: the moderating effect Brand community members create value when actively involved in the relationship with the brand through adopting the role of “content creators” and collaborators, posting comments or sharing information, among others (Luo et al., 2015). Brands and brand community members interact through joint collaborative activities (such as sharing knowledge and capacities), which generates synergies for both sides (Balaji and Roy, 2017; Lee and Kim, 2018). Extant literature on value cocreation recognizes the critical role played by dialogue, interaction and consumption in the consumer-brand co-creation process (Etgar, 2008; Hassan et al., 2016). Taking part in value creating activities within a SNS brand community can be associated with cognitive, social, personal and hedonic benefits (Nambisan and Baron, 2009). These practices provide community members not only with a better understanding and knowledge about the brand’s offerings, but also with opportunities to share brand experiences. Furthermore, value creating activities help users’ social and personal integration in the brand community, which, in turn, translates into an improved identification with the community (Yoshida et al., 2018) and an enhanced status and reputation within it (Lee and Kim, 2018). Evidence suggests that “content creators” show more involvement and attachment in the exchange process in the SNS communities, which, in turn, results in greater brand loyalty (Kim et al., 2012). Furthermore, Turri et al. (2013) demonstrated that the relationship between advocacy and emotional attachment is stronger for those individuals prone to content creating than for those who are more likely to define themselves as “content consumers”. Subsequently, we hypothesize that:
2.2.1. Value creation behaviour of other brand community members: the direct effect Value creation practices include not only the content produced by the members’ themselves, but also the one generated by other community users (Hassan et al., 2016). This paper analyses the value creation behaviour of other brand community members through the theoretical lens of parasocial interaction. The concept, which refers to “an illusionary experience, such that consumers interact with personas (i.e., mediated representations of presenters, celebrities, or characters) as if they are present and engaged in a reciprocal relationship” (Labrecque, 2014) has been used in explaining users–brand online relationships. In the SNS domain, parasocial interaction goes beyond the relationship between user- celebrity/brand/business representative/ public figure (Chung and Cho, 2014; Men and Tsai, 2013b), and includes the interaction with other community members (Ballantine and Martin, 2005). Hence, the parasocial relationship is formed by the other members’ activities through their comments, opinions, etc. (Men and Tsai, 2013b; Sanz et al., 2017). The user identifies with the content posted by other SNS members and feels integrated in the community. Moreover, users can obtain useful, valuable and reliable information
Hypothesis 4a. (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Attachment to SNS Hypothesis): Value co-creation within SNS moderates the impact of brand community involvement with SNS on brand community emotional attachment to SNS. Hypothesis 4b. (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Brand Community to Advocacy Hypothesis): Value co-creation within SNS moderates the impact of brand community emotional attachment to SNS on brand community advocacy. The hypotheses and model are illustrated in Fig. 1.
3
the
proposed
theoretical
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
Fig. 1. Proposed structural model.
3. Methods
3.3. Structural model assessment
3.1. Sample
Partial Least Squares Modelling (PLS-SEM) was chosen because of the predictive nature of the study (Chin, 2010), as well as the proposed interaction effects among continuous variables in the theoretical model (Hair et al., 2017a,b; Sánchez-Franco, 2010).
The target population of the research was composed of members of Facebook brand communities (followers of fan pages), 18 years or older. As for the sampling method, non-probabilistic convenience sampling was performed, while age and gender were used as quota controls (IAB, 2018). The final sample size comprised of 370 valid questionnaires, with 51% of the respondents being women and 49% men. As for the characteristics of the sample, 47.7% were employees, between 25 and 54 years (71.7%), with university degrees (48.9%) and an average income (46.7%). Most of the respondents (68.5%) reported being active on Facebook on a daily basis, logging in several times per day.
4. Results 4.1. Measurement scales validation First, the reliability and validity of the constructs were assessed. Cronbach's α (Cronbach, 1951) and composite reliability (Werts et al., 1974) values surpassed the 0.7 threshold, hence confirming the reliability of the measurement instrument (Nunnally, 1994) (see Table 1). Convergent validity was confirmed by (1) statistically significant loadings greater than 0.6 (Hair et al., 1998), and (2) AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values exceeding the 0.5 threshold (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table 1). Lastly, discriminant validity was verified using both the Fornell-Larcker (each construct loaded more highly on its own factor than on the rest of the constructs) and the HeterotraitMonotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (< 0.90) (Hair et al., 2017a,b) (see Table 2).
3.2. Measurement The survey questionnaire included scales to measure each of the model constructs. The value creating behaviour of other brand community members was captured through the measurement scale of parasocial interaction (6 items following Skumanich and Kintsfather (1993)). The brand community involvement measure was composed of 10 items, adapted from Zaichkowsky (1994). Emotional brand community attachment was assessed by the measure proposed by Ellison et al. (2007). Brand community advocacy was measured by 3 items, following Melancon et al. (2011). Lastly, value co-creation was evaluated with a single item, assessing the intensity level of users’ participation in the brand community (e.g. posting content, writing comments, etc.) (adapted from Turri et al., 2013). All constructs measures were evaluated on a 5-point Likert-scale, except for the brand community involvement variable which was assessed by a 5-point semantic difference scale.
4.2. Structural equation model Next, the structural model was evaluated and the results are displayed in Table 3. Following Hair et al. (2017a,b), a bootstrapping technique with 5000 random subsamples was used to calculate standard errors and significance. Regarding the explanatory power of the dependent variables, which is provided by the R2 values, all exceeded the 0.10 threshold (Falk and Miller, 1992). Furthermore, the Q2 values (> 0) demonstrated the predictive relevance of the model (Table 3). The results reveal that brand community involvement significantly and positively impacts brand community attachment (β value of 0.691), which validates Hypothesis 1 (The Brand Community Involvement 4
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
4.3. Moderation: interaction effects
Table 1 Reliability and validity of the measurement instrument. Construct
Loading
t
Parasocial Interaction IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6
0.74 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.80
38.91 40.40 36.00 38.01 33.91 47.62
Involvement IN1 IN2 IN3 IN4 IN5 IN6 IN7 IN8 IN9 IN10
0.80 0.77 0.75 0.62 0.82 0.65 0.71 0.75 0.73 0.81
47.84 47.04 38.94 19.42 48.03 20.73 26.95 36.48 29.40 63.06
Emotional Attachment EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6
0.77 0.72 0.72 0.77 0.71 0.75
44.26 37.43 29.32 31.74 29.69 30.30
Advocacy AD1 AD2 AD3
0.87 0.92 0.90
98.68 112.81 81.26
Cronbach’s Alpha
CR
AVE
0.85
0.89
0.57
0.91
0.92
0.55
0.84
0.88
0.55
0.88
0.93
0.81
A major aim of the present research is to examine the interaction effect (moderation) of value co-creation on the interrelationships between brand community involvement-attachment and brand community attachment-advocacy. To estimate the influence of value co-creation on the suggested relationships, PLS-SEM was employed following Chin et al. (2003) (product indicators), in which interaction terms are computed by multiplying the predictive and moderating variables. Before introducing the interaction effect, it was verified that the path coefficients representing the relationships between brand community involvement-attachment and brand community attachmentadvocacy were significant (0.691 and 0.667 respectively). As for the R2 values, these were: 0.478 for brand community attachment and 0.444 for brand community advocacy. After the inclusion into the model of the moderator variable value co-creation, the following interaction terms were obtained: 0.095 (brand community involvement*value cocreation behaviour → attachment) and 0.090 (brand community attachment* value co-creation behaviour → brand advocacy), thus increasing the R2 values to 0.497 and 0.449 respectively (see Table 4). In view of the presented results, it is established that there is evidence for the moderating role of value co-creation on the links between brand community involvement-attachment and brand community attachment-advocacy. In this regard, it is important to interpret the values of the obtained interaction terms. As for the impact of brand community involvement on attachment, an increase in value co-creation will increase it from 0.691 to 0.746 (0.651 + 0.095). Similarly, the moderator would increase the link between brand community attachment and advocacy from 0.667 to 0.736 (0.646 + 0.090). It is, thus, empirically confirmed that value co-creation positively moderates the relationships between (1) brand community involvement and attachment; (2) brand community attachment and advocacy, in that the greater the value co-creation, the more pronounced the impact of the antecedent variable on the outcome variable. Hence, the findings confirm Hypothesis 4a (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Attachment to SNS Hypothesis) and Hypothesis 4b (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Brand Community to Advocacy Hypothesis). Furthermore, the R2 values of both models (the interaction and the main effects one) were compared to estimate the ƒ2 (overall effect size of the interaction). The ƒ2 for the interaction effects were 0.039, and 0.021 respectively, which would be classified as small effects (Chin et al., 2003), as none of them is superior to 0.35 (values above 0.35 are considered as large effects).
Table 2 Discriminant validity assessment.
(PI) Parasocial interaction (I) Involvement (At) Attachment (Ad) Advocacy
(PI)
(I)
(At)
(Ad)
0.76 0.62 0.61 0.45
0.70 0.74 0.69 0.58
0.72 0.78 0.74 0.67
0.52 0.63 0.75 0.90
Note: The values in bold indicate AVE square root; the HTMT values are represented above the diagonal and below are the correlations between the latent variables. Table 3 Results, variance explained and cross-validated redundancy index.
H1: Involvement → Attachment H2: Attachment → Advocacy H3: Parasocial Interaction → Involvement Brand Community Involvement Brand Community Attachment Brand Advocacy
Suggested effect
(β)
+ + +
0.691 0.667 0.624
R2 0.398 0.478 0.444
Q2 0.197 0.243 0.327
5. Conclusions, discussion and practical implications
t-value (bootstrap)
The SNS present challenges and opportunities for relational marketing, in that they constitute important platforms for developing online brand communities (Martínez-López et al., 2017; Park and Kim, 2015). Past research revealed that building brand communities, which improves brand experiences, plays a crucial role in achieving consumer loyalty (Habibi et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017). Within the available options, social media are emerging as suitable platforms through which brands can not only be promoted and developed, but through which relationships with consumers can also be built via online brand communities (Chen et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2016), as they present multiple means for communication and collaboration among memberbrand-other members (Turri et al., 2013). The results yield a number of contributions to the literature on online brand communities. First, this research examines the development of emotional brand relationships in SNS. Also, the study broadens the underlying components of online value creation in a brand community setting by considering not only members’ active brand community participation but also the consumption of the content created by other users (parasocial interactions). Notably, the findings suggest the role of value created by other community members as a trigger
27.402 31.803 21.269
Hypothesis). The attachment to the SNS brand community was found to act, in turn, as a relevant antecedent to brand advocacy (β value of 0.667), thus supporting Hypothesis 2 (The Brand Community Attachment Hypothesis). As expected, users’ parasocial interaction with other members has a significant positive influence on brand community involvement, which confirms Hypothesis 3 (The Brand Community Parasocial Interaction Hypothesis) (β values of 0.624).
5
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
Table 4 Interaction effect. Value Co-Creation
Brand community involvement → Attachment Brand community attachment → Advocacy
β
β (interaction effect)
0.691*** 0.667***
0.651*** 0.646*** Interaction term 0.095 0.090
Brand community involvement *Value co-creation → Attachment Brand community attachment *Value co-creation → Advocacy Brand community attachment Brand advocacy
R2 0.478 0.444
t
Hypothesis confirmation
Yes Yes 2.997 2.901
Yes Yes
R2 interaction 0.497 0.449
*** Significant at 99.99%.
a direct and positive impact of involvement with a relational programme on brand attachment. Thus, the results of the study support Tsiotsou (2015) assertion that online brand communities provide new forms of social interaction, enhancing the affective bonds between members and brands. This research also contributes to elucidating the moderating role of value co-creation in enhancing community members’ predispositions to develop emotionally based relationships with brands. The enhanced positive impact of brand community attachment on advocacy, as a result of an increase in value co-creation, can be justified by the fact that, as members actively participate in the community, emotional bonding gets stronger, which, in turn, triggers members’ positive WOM and advocacy of the community. In this vein, it seems reasonable to suggest that members who actively participate and collaborate within the brand community are more likely to share brands’ communications on their own Facebook profiles or recommend friends to “like” the brand page. Hence, the results support the argument posited by Turri et al. (2013), that the relationship between emotional attachment and advocacy is stronger for those individuals prone to content creating than for those who are more likely to define themselves as “content consumers”. The findings are also in line with the study of Kim et al. (2012), indicating that those users who actively participate in a Brand community via posts, comments and likes, have a greater level of involvement and attachment to the SNS brand community and an enhanced brand loyalty, which, in turn, translates in to positive brand WOM and recommendation. As for the practical implications of the study, companies can strengthen the bond between their brands and consumers and, ultimately, improve their online brand advocacy behaviour, by providing entertaining and informational content to their online brand communities, as well as by encouraging users to actively participate in the SNS community. First, the findings suggest that companies should stimulate involvement with the brand community, as it is positively associated with feelings of emotional attachment. This relationship is enhanced by community members’ passive consumption of content shared in the community. Therefore, brand community admins should create strategies for stimulating members’ interest in the brand community’s posts. For example, brands’ fan page posts should provide useful information for members instead of commercial-related announcements only, which resemble advertising. This implication is in line with Bigné et al. (2019), who showed that posts containing non-commercial information have more impact on Twitter. Another means to improve the content shared in the brand community is to ask members what kind of brand content will be of interest to them. Furthermore, in view of the significant enhancing effect of value cocreation practices on the positive association between brand community bonding and advocating behaviour, community managers should create opportunities for members to co-create brand value online. Strategies to trigger users’ participation in the content posted within the
encouraging passive users to actively participate in the brand community. Third, our results add further evidence for the suggested impact of value creation practices on bonding between consumers and brands. While most past studies have examined the mechanisms that lead to value co–creation, the study expands the extant literature by assessing value creation behaviour as an antecedent and moderator, documenting the paper of value co-creation in: (1) enhancing emotionally-based brand relationships; (2) improving the quality of the interactions with an online brand community and (3) developing a harmonious “triangle relationship” (Luo et al., 2015) within an online brand community, i.e. , the relationships that a user maintains with the rest of its members (the brand itself and the other users). Lastly, previous research has associated users’ role as a content consumer and content creator with brand engagement (Yoshida et al., 2018), but has neglected its implications for value creation within an online brand community. The research findings contribute to an enhanced understanding of how brand bonding takes place in Facebook brand communities. Brand bonding is found to be improved by the relationship member-other members. This, in turn, strengthens the affective bonding to the brand. Hence, our findings demonstrate that the greater the parasocial interaction within the community, the stronger the involvement in it. The results match those documented by Yuksel and Labrecque (2016) in relation to the cognitive effects of parasocial interactions in online social media communities, as they reveal a positive impact on users’ cognition (in terms of attention, interests, opinions, and relationship building), which is the basis for involvement. The findings are also in line with past research establishing parasocial interaction as a key antecedent of online brand community engagement, which implies involvement (Tsai and Men, 2013). Brand community involvement, on the other hand, was found to positively contribute to brand community attachment, which, in turn, enhances brand advocacy. These results support the findings of Hutter et al. (2013) in a Facebook brand community setting, who revealed that brand page commitment (posited as the psychological attachment of members to a social media brand community) had a positive impact on brand-related WOM activities. In a similar vein, Kleine-Kalmer’s (2016) review of the brand page attachment concept established word-of mouth communication as one of its behavioural consequences. Recent studies have also documented that users who are emotionally attached to a brand, act as its advocates in a SNS context (Sashi et al., 2019). Furthermore, Demiray and Burnaz (2019) identified positive WOM communication as relevant outcome of brand community commitment. As regards to the demonstrated positive impact of brand page involvement on emotional attachment, our results seem to be in agreement with past research, establishing the positive effect of consumer involvement on consumer-brand affective engagement in an online product context (Harrigan et al., 2017) (although their study did not consider the context of SNS brand communities). The findings are also aligned with those obtained by Melancon et al. (2011), who uncovered
6
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
online brand communities could involve asking, in a creative way, for users’ ideas, opinions and advice; hosting contests and games; asking for support for brands’ causes; rewarding creativity and originality and inviting users to answer entertaining brand-related questions. Brand community admins may try to identify those community members that are less active and tag them in the brand’s posts, in a bid to initiate conversation with them, and thus improve their integration within the community. Another way to boost value co-creating behaviour might be through social media campaigns that encourage members to use a specific hashtag, representing a core brand value, in their posts or stories, which are then shared by the brand fan page. These kind of practices are expected to contribute to a greater association between brand community involvement and emotional attachment, which, in turn, relates to an increased willingness to advocate for the brand.
Aghakhani, N., Karimi, J., Salehan, M., 2018. A unified model for the adoption of electronic word of mouth on social network sites: Facebook as the Exemplar. Int. J. Electr. Commerce 22 (2), 202–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2018.1441700. Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 63 (1), 1–18. Amit, R., Zott, C., 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strat. Manage. J. 22 (6–7), 493–520. Anderson, E., 1998. Customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth. J. Serv. Res. 1 (1), 5–17. Badrinarayanan, V., Laverie, D.A., 2013. The role of manufacturers’ salespeople in inducing brand advocacy by retail sales associates. J. Market. Theory Pract. 21 (1), 57–70. Balaji, M.S., Roy, S.K., 2017. Value Co-creation with Internet of Things Technology in the Retail Industry. J. Market Manage. 33 (1–2), 7–31. Ballantine, P.W., Martin, B.A.S., 2005. Forming parasocial relationships in online communities. In: Menon, G., Rao, A.R. (Eds.), NA-Advances in Consumer Res., 32. Association for Consumer Res, Duluth, MN, pp. 197–201. Bigné, E., Oltra, E., Andreu, L., 2019. Harnessing stakeholder input on Twitter: a case study of short breaks in Spanish tourist cities. Tourism Manage. 71, 490–503. Bilro, R.G., Loureiro, S.M.C., Ali, F., 2018. The role of website stimuli of experience on engagement and brand advocacy. J. Hospit. Tourism Technol. 9 (2), 204–222. Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114. Chakravarty, A., Liu, Y., Mazumdar, T., 2010. The differential effects of online word-ofmouth and critics’ reviews on pre-release movie evaluation. J. Interact. Market. 24 (3), 185–197. Chen, Y., Fay, S., Wang, Q., 2011. The role of marketing in social media: how online consumer reviews evolve. J. Interact. Market. 25 (2), 85–94. Chen, C., Lee, Y., 2010. Effects of clothing involvement on brand attachment and brand loyalty. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 10 (5), 173–184. Chen, A., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Zhao, L., Li, M., 2013. What drives content creation behavior on SNSs? A commitment perspective. J. Bus Res. 66 (12), 2529–2535. Chin, W.W., 2010. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655–690. Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14 (2), 189–217. Chu, S.C., Sung, Y., 2015. Using a consumer socialization framework to understand electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) group membership among brand followers on Twitter. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 14 (4), 251–260. Chung, S., Cho, H., 2014. Parasocial relationship via reality TV and social media: its implications for celebrity endorsement. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video. ACM, pp. 47–54. Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3), 297–334. Currás, R., Miquel, M.J., Ruiz, C., Sanz, S., 2012. The role of parasocial interaction and teleparticipation on teleshopping behavior. In: Okazaki, S. (Ed.), Advances in Advert. Res. pp. 193–215. De Vries, N.J., Carlson, J., 2014. Examining the drivers and brand performance implications of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. J. Brand Manage. 21 (6), 495–515. Demiray, M., Burnaz, S., 2019. Exploring the impact of brand community identification on Facebook: firm-directed and self-directed drivers. J. Bus. Res. 96, 115–124. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C., 2007. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 12 (4), 1143–1168. Etgar, M., 2008. A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36 (1), 97–108. Evanschitzky, H.G., Iyer, R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., Meffert, H., 2006. The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. J. Bus. Res. 59, 1207–1213. Falk, R., Miller, N., 1992. A Primer for Soft Modelling. The University of Akron, Ohio. Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18, 39–50. Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer res. J. Consumer Res. 24 (March), 343–373. Fullerton, G., 2003. When does commitment lead to loyalty? J. Services Res. 5 (4), 333–344. Fullerton, G., 2005. The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands. Can. J. Admin. Sci. 22 (2), 97–110. GeoMarketing. 2017. Facebook Starts 2017 With 65 Million Local Business Pages. Available at: < http://www.geomarketing.com/facebook-starts-2017-with-65million-local-business-pages/ > . Giles, D., 2002. Parasocial interaction: a review of the literature and a model for future. Res. Media Psychol. 4 (3), 279–305. Grisaffe, D.B., Nguyen, H.P., 2011. Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. J. Bus. Res. 64, 1052–1059. Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M., Richard, M.O., 2014. The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 37, 152–161. Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M., Richard, M.O., 2016. Testing an extended model of consumer behavior in the context of social media-based brand communities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62, 292–302.
6. Research limitations and future directions This research has a number of limitations. Firstly, the investigation was focused on a single social media brand community platform (i.e. Facebook) and did not distinguish among different types of brands, which could affect the results. Further studies could test the established structural relationships with users of other social networks, and across various contexts (for example, the arts or culture industry), and product categories, as significant differences in the proposed behavioural model could appear. Second, the study considered only brand advocacy as an outcome of Facebook brand community bonding. It will be interesting to assess its impact on additional behavioural consequences such as purchase intention, willingness to pay more or offline behaviours (e.g. visiting a shop, product/service trial, etc.). Furthermore, the results of the study might have been distorted by failing to include additional antecedent variables. Another potential limitation of the research lies in the fact that we did not conduct a qualitative study to identify all possible value-creating behaviours in a SNS brand community, but relied on data published in past studies. There is also scope for future work to examine additional explanatory variables (e.g. honesty or acquiescence), so as to contribute to a better comprehension of the mechanisms underlying the creation of brand community relational worth. Moreover, the present study has used value co-creation in a broad sense; future researchers could examine the specific impact that particular co-creation activities could have on the proposed model. This, in turn, would allow not only the deepening of the theoretical underpinnings of the value creation mechanism, but also an enhanced comprehension of conditions under which brand community thrives (Schau et al., 2009). Still another direction for further research has to do with examining additional antecedents of affective commitment or emotional attachment (e.g. identification, affinity or trust), which may contribute to enhancing the relationship between the consumer and the brand and may elucidate the process through which consumers develop emotional attachment to brand communities. Lastly, further research may focus on influencers, in order to test the stronger bonds within an online community, as suggested by Litterio et al. (2017). 7. Conflicts of interest statement None. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy under Grant ECO2014-53837R. References Aaker, J.L., 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 34 (August), 347–356.
7
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
Men, L.R., Tsai, W.S., 2013b. Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Rev. 39 (1), 13–22. Mitchell, M., Orwig, R., 2002. Consumer experience tourism and brand bonding. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 11 (1), 30–41. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between providers and users of marketing res.: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. J. Market. Res. 29, 314–329. Muniz, A.M., O'Guinn, T.C., 2001. Brand community. J. Consumer Res. 27 (4), 412–432. Nadakarni, A., Hofmann, S.G., 2012. Why do people use Facebook? Personal. Indiv. Differen. 52, 243–249. Nambisan, S., Baron, R.A., 2009. Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. J. Product Innov. Manage. 26 (4), 388–406. Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I., 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, NY. Oszajca, J., 2012. Is Social Media Worth it for Musicians? Available at: < http://www. musicmarketingmanifesto.com/social-media-for-musicians/ > . Paris, C.M., Lee, W., Seery, P., 2010. The role of social media in promoting special events: acceptance of Facebook events. Inform. Commun. Technol. Tourism 14, 531–541. Park, H., Kim, Y.K., 2015. Can a fashion brand be social? The role of benefits of brand community within social network sites. J. Global Fashion Market. 6 (2), 75–86. Pongsakornrungsilp, S., Schroeder, J.E., 2011. Understanding value co-creation in a coconsuming brand community. Market. Theory 11 (3), 303–324. Sanchez-Franco, M.J., 2010. WebCT–The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Comput. Educ. 54 (1), 37–46. Sanz-Blas, S., Bigné, E., Buzova, D., 2017. m-WOM in a brand’s Facebook fan page. Online Inform. Rev. 41 (7), 936–953. Sashi, C.M., Brynildsen, G., Bilgihan, A., 2019. Social media, customer engagement and advocacy: an empirical investigation using Twitter data for quick service restaurants. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manage. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0108. Schau, H.J., Muñiz Jr, A.M., Arnould, E.J., 2009. How brand community practices create value. J. Market. 73 (5), 30–51. See-To, E.W., Ho, K.K., 2014. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: the role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–a theoretical analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31, 182–189. Shao, W., Ross, M., 2015. Testing a conceptual model of Facebook brand page communities. J. Res. Interact. Market. 9 (3), 239–258. Skumanich, S.A., Kintsfather, D.P., 1993. Television shopping: a mediated communications perspective. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Pennsylvania Sociological Society. Pittsburgh, PA. IAB Spain 2018. Estudio anual de redes sociales. Available at: < https://iabspain.es/wpcontent/uploads/estudio-redes-sociales-2018_vreducida.pdf/>. Stokburger-Sauer, N., 2010. Brand community: drivers and outcomes. Psychol. Market. 27 (4), 347–368. Tsai, W., Men, L., 2013. Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with brand pages on social networking sites. J. Interact. Advert. 13 (2), 76–87. Tsiotsou, R.H., 2015. The role of social and parasocial relationships on social networking sites loyalty. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 401–414. Turri, A.M., Smith, K.H., Kemp, E., 2013. Developing affective brand commitment through social media. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 14 (3), 201. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2010. It’s all B2B... and beyond: toward a systems perspective of the market. Indus. Market. Manage. 40 (2), 181–187. Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L., Jöreskog, K.G., 1974. Interclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Edu. Psychol. Measur. 34, 25–33. Yang, G., Zhang, R., 2015. Binding or bonding: the frailty of consumer-brand connections. J. Market. Vistas 5 (2), 69–75. Yi, Y., Jeon, H., 2003. Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty, and brand loyalty. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 31 (3), 229–240. Yoshida, M., Gordon, B.S., Nakazawa, M., Shibuya, S., Fujiwara, N., 2018. Bridging the gap between social media and behavioral brand loyalty. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 28, 208–218. Yuksel, M., Labrecque, L.I., 2016. Digital buddies: parasocial interactions in social media. J. Res. Interact. Market. 10 (4), 305–320. Zaglia, M.E., 2013. Brand communities embedded in social networks. J. Bus. Res. 66 (2), 216–223. Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1994. The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to advertising. J. Advert. 23 (4), 59–70. Zhang, K.Z., Benyoucef, M., Zhao, S.J., 2016. Building brand loyalty in social commerce: the case of brand microblogs. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 15, 14–25. Zhang, M., Luo, N., 2016. Understanding relationship benefits from harmonious brand community on social media. Internet Res. 26 (4), 809–826. Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C., 2012. How do brand communities generate brand relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. J. Bus. Res. 65 (7), 890–895.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2017b. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), second ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hair Jr, J.F., Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L., Sarstedt, M., 2017a. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multiv. Data Anal. 1 (2), 107–123. Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., Daly, T., 2017. Customer Engagement with Tourism Brands on Social Media: An Abstract. Marketing at the Confluence between Entertainment and Analytics. Springer, Cham, pp. 819–820. Hartley, N., Harrison, P., 2007. Bonding with cultural brands: exploring the binds that tie us. July, Spain In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management Valencia, pp. 8–11. Hassan, M., Mydock III, S., Pervan, S.J., Kortt, M., 2016. Facebook, self-disclosure, and brand-mediated intimacy: identifying value creating behaviors. J. Consum. Behav. 15 (6), 493–502. Hazan, C., Shaver, P.R., 1994. Attachment as an organizational framework for Res. on close relationships. Psychol. Inquiry 5 (1), 1–22. Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., Füller, J., 2013. The impact of user interactions in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 22 (5/6), 342–351. Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z., Hollebeek, L.D., 2017. Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a solicitation of congruity theory. Internet Res. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IntR-09-2016-0279. Javed, M., Roy, S., Mansoor, B., 2015. Consumer brand relationships. In: Fetscherin, M., Heilmann, T. (Eds.), Will You Defend Your Loved Brand? Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 31–54. Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horizons 53 (1), 59–68. Keiningham, T.L., Rust, R.T., Lariviere, B., Aksoy, L., Williams, L., 2018. A roadmap for driving customer word-of-mouth. J. Serv. Manage. 29 (1), 2–38. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JOSM-03-2017-0077. Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., Silvestre, B.S., 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social. Bus. Horizons 54 (3), 241–251. Kim, C., Jin, M.-H., Kim, J., Shin, N., 2012. User perception of the quality, value and utility of user-generated content. J. Electron. Consum. Res. 13 (4), 305–319. Kleine-Kalmer, B., 2016. Brand Page Attachment: An Empirical Study on Facebook Users’ Attachment to Brand Pages. Springer. Kozinets, R.V., Andrea, C., Wojnicki, J.S., Wilner, S., De Valck, K., 2010. Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. J. Market. 74 (2), 71–89. Labrecque, L.I., 2014. Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments: the role of parasocial interaction. J. Interact. Market. 28 (2), 134–148. Lacy, R., 2007. Relationship drivers of customer commitment. J. Market. Theory Practice 15 (4), 315–333. Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O., Sankaranarayanan, R., 2012. The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Comput. Human Behav. 28 (5), 1755–1767. Lee, A.R., Kim, K.K., 2018. Customer benefits and value co-creation activities in corporate social networking services. Behav. Inform. Technol. 37 (7), 675–692. Litterio, A.M., Nantes, E.A., Larrosa, J.M., Gómez, L.J., 2017. Marketing and social networks: a criterion for detecting opinion leaders. Eur. J. Manage. Bus. Econ. 26 (3), 347–366. Luo, N., Zhang, M., Liu, W., 2015. The effects of value co-creation practices on building harmonious brand community and achieving brand loyalty on social media in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 492–499. MacInnis, D.J., Park, C.W., Priester, J., 2009. Why brand relationships. In: MacInnis, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Brand Relationships. M. E. Sharpe, NY, pp. ix–xx. Martí, J., Bigné, E., Hyder, A., 2014. Brand engagement. In: Moutinho, L., Bigné, E., Manrai, A.K. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Future of Marketing. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 250–257. Martínez-López, F.J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Esteban-Millat, I., 2017. Consumer engagement in an online brand community. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 23, 24–37. McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W., Koenig, H.F., 2002. Building brand community. J. Market. 66 (1), 38–54. Melancon, J.P., Noble, S.M., Noble, C.H., 2011. Managing rewards to enhance relational worth. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 39 (3), 341–362. Men, L.R., Tsai, W.S., 2013a. Towards an integrated model of public engagement on corporate social network sites: antecedents, the process, and relational outcomes. Int. J. Strategic Commun. 7 (4), 257–273.
8
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/elerap
Facebook brand community bonding: The direct and moderating effect of value creation behaviour Silvia Sanz-Blas, Enrique Bigné, Daniela Buzova
T
⁎
Department of Marketing, Universitat de València, Spain, Facultat d’Economia, Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Brand bonding Parasocial interaction Value co-creation Brand community Brand advocacy Brand relationships
The present research deepens in the understanding of brand bonding in Facebook brand communities, drawing on value creation behaviours, the parasocial interaction paradigm and the attachment theory. Building up on these theories, our proposed conceptual model posits a direct relationship between value creation behaviour and brand community bonding, resulting from users’ interactions with other community members. The study also examines the moderating role of value co-creation behaviour on community members’ predispositions to develop emotionally based relationships with brands. The sample of the study consisted of 370 followers of brand Facebook pages and the model was assessed using PLS-SEM. The results confirm the posited direct and interaction effects, thus evidencing brand community involvement, attachment and advocacy as components of brand community bonding, and members’ value creation behaviour as its driver and moderator. Practical implications for online brand community managers are also provided.
1. Introduction Brand communities have emerged as a key construct in order to improve bonds between brands and individuals and thus create value relationships (Luo et al., 2015). According to Muniz and O’Guinn (2001, p. 412), a community can be defined as “a specialized, nongeographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand”, which allows not only strengthening consumer–brand relationship, but also developing longterm brand loyalty (Brodie et al., 2013; Luo et al., 2015). Online social networks are suitable for achieving this purpose, emerging as important platforms where brand-consumer relationships can be built (Turri et al., 2013) and new clients can be attracted and retained (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Through this kind of online platforms, the consumer's voice can be heard, interaction between individuals and companies is possible and consumption experiences can be shared (Luo et al., 2015). All this makes online social networks appropriate places for value creation practices to be implemented, sharing and exchanging information between brand managers and consumers, presenting and discussing ideas and collaboration on new products/ services or improvements (Paris et al., 2010). Accordingly, value cocreation behaviour becomes a key element in enhancing not only the relational and affective individual-brand connection, but also the quality of the relationship, thus contributing to strengthening loyalty
⁎
towards the brand (Turri et al., 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2010; Zaglia, 2013). Indeed, recent studies on eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) adoption have considered the relational influences triggered by cognitive and affective attitudes (Aghakhani et al., 2018). Brand relationships are cultivated by consumeŕs relationship with the brand and its community members (Martínez-López et al., 2017; Shao and Ross, 2015). In this regard, the parasocial interaction theory (Giles, 2002), the online value- creation framework (Amit and Zott, 2001) and the attachment theory (Hazan and Shaver, 1994) are adopted in the present study to examine brand relationships and bonding development. Parasocial interaction contributes to enhancing members’ active behaviour, given that it facilitates the development of social ties (Currás et al., 2012; Sanz et al., 2017). Individual’s active brand community participation positively affects consumer-brand-other members’ relationship (Turri et al., 2013), which, in turn, enhances value creation in the brand community. The need to belong to a group, the process of participating in that group and the emotional connexion with a brand outgrows the transactional satisfaction provided by a product/service (McAlexander et al., 2002; Hartley and Harrison, 2007). Loyal consumers are increasingly developing relationships with brands based on connectivity and social and emotional bonds (Fournier, 1998; Hartley and Harrison, 2007). Therefore, the relationships go beyond what would be traditionally considered transactional results, and include factors such as social,
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Sanz-Blas), [email protected] (E. Bigné), [email protected] (D. Buzova).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100850 Received 27 August 2018; Received in revised form 15 April 2019; Accepted 15 April 2019 Available online 22 April 2019 1567-4223/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
as affective commitment and emotional attachment) and advocacy (Hartley and Harrison, 2007). The term brand involvement captures the individual’s interest in the brand, reflecting its relevance for the consumer (Zaichkowsky, 1994). In this regard, Mitchell and Orwig (2002) found that the customer's increased knowledge of a product might contribute to stronger brand involvement, which, in turn, may result in heightened brand attachment (Chen and Lee, 2010). Moreover, Melancon et al. (2011) demonstrated that involvement with a relational programme affects the processing of related information, as well as the development of various dimensions of consumer attachment to the brand. Highly-involved consumers are more receptive to brand communications and are also likely to form brand commitment on the basis of more information than that stemming from only related economic rewards (Yi and Jeon, 2003). Facebook brand communities constitute a rich source of brand and product-related information, which may enhance brand involvement and thus positively affect attachment with the brand. Therefore, our first hypothesis posits that:
emotional and self-brand connection (e.g. Keiningham et al., 2018), brand identity or affinity (e.g. Melancon et al., 2011) and even brand personality (e.g. Aaker, 1997). This assumption is supported by attachment theory (Hazan and Shaver, 1994), which, when applied to the domain of products and services, suggests that consumers seek out brands with which they share personal attachment or affinity. Most online social network studies have dealt with interpersonal relationships between members. Less attention has been given to the brand as a member of a community that comprises interrelationships between members, and members with the brand. In spite of the importance of the issue, the mechanisms through which brand bonding can be achieved, taking into account consumers’ growing use of online brand communities, are understudied, as pointed out by Yang and Zhang (2015). Furthermore, there is lack of research on how value cocreating practices in SNS (social network sites) brand communities enable these communities to become successful (Luo et al., 2015). The contribution of the paper to the current knowledge is threefold. First, we research the development of affect-laden relationships in SNS (social network sites) brand communities drawing on value creation framework, the parasocial interaction paradigm and the attachment theory. Second, the study broadens the scope of online value creation by considering not only members’ active brand community participation but also the engagement with the value creation practices of other users (parasocial interactions). Third, the present study elucidates the moderating role of value co-creation behaviour on community members’ predispositions to develop emotionally based relationships with brands. Facebook is used as a study context, as it claims to be the most relevant channel for building brand communities (de Vries and Carlson, 2014) and enhancing customer relationships (Oszajca, 2012) used by companies nowadays. It is estimated that there are more than 65 million business Facebook fan pages (GeoMarketing, 2017), which further confirms its importance for businesses.
Hypothesis 1. (The Brand Community Involvement Hypothesis): Brand community involvement with SNS positively affects brand community attachment to SNS. According to Moorman et al. (1992) commitment refers to the individual’s motivation to maintain a relationship with an organisation and addresses the economic, psychological and emotional attachment that consumers has towards a brand (Evanschitzky et al., 2006). The affective dimension of the commitment construct involves the development of emotional attachment towards the brand on the basis of individual’s identification with it (Allen and Meyer, 1990). This affective facet refers to customers’ desire to maintain a brand relationship that is perceived as valuable (Lacy, 2007). As such, it must be considered a relevant factor that establishes the worth of continuous individual-brand community relationships (Melancon et al., 2011; Turri et al., 2013). Thus, commitment is considered a predictor of members’ actual behaviour in social media brand communities, such as helping others, taking part in SNS brand community activities, or advocating the brand to others (Luo et al., 2015). Brand advocacy is a concept related to consumer recommendation and active brand support. More specifically, advocacy represents a step further in the intention to recommend a brand because it is associated with forgiveness and giving a second chance when something goes wrong (Badrinarayanan and Laverie, 2013; Bilro et al., 2018). Brand advocacy is described as “a superior form of positive WOM (word-ofmouth)” (Javed et al., 2015), which is achieved when consumers feel psychologically attached to brands (Fullerton, 2005). Furthermore, advocacy is deemed a key element of the relational worth concept (Melancon et al., 2011). Relational worth, in turn, is a construct that tries to provide an aggregate measure of the consumer's social value to the brand. The concept is understood as encompassing non-financial, social behaviours towards the brand resulting from relational exchanges with consumers (Melancon et al., 2011). Advocacy addresses the interaction among consumers-brand-other consumers, thus capturing members’ active participation in the brand community (Anderson, 1998). Past research has revealed that strong affective commitment or emotional attachment can lead not only to consumer loyalty, but even make consumers act as brand evangelists, who aim to draw other consumers to the brand through brand advocacy (Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2011; Turri et al., 2013). An SNS-based study evidenced that affective commitment enhances users’ content creation (Chen et al., 2013), being positive WOM considered a type of value creation behaviour, as it involves recommending the brand, informing them about product/service features and conveying a favourable image of the brand to others (Kozinets et al., 2010; Sashi et al., 2019). Similarly, Fullerton (2003) found a positive impact of affective commitment on customer advocacy intentions. Thus, consumers who are affectively committed towards a
2. Literature review 2.1. Brand community bonding A brand community can be defined as a structure which allows brand fans to interact with each other and share the culture and values of the brand. Brand communities can trigger sense of belonging, as members not only share common interests, but also behaviours, attitudes and values (Zhang and Luo, 2016). Social media has emerged as a powerful platform for building brand communities (Habidi et al., 2014). If a brand is able to make the members within their online community interact with the content posted by both, the brand official admin and the rest of brand community members, individuals’ basic needs of social interaction and belonging will be met (Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012). This would, in turn, add value to users’ experience in the brand community, which may lead to enhanced brand loyalty (Luo et al., 2015). Users feel a closer and stronger connection to those brand communities that are open to members’ contribution and feedback. Consumer-brand relationships are associated with various psychological and social processes, which are based on both cognition and emotions (MacInnis et al., 2009). Brand relationships involving emotional bonds are the most durable and they also enhance ties between consumers and brands (Turri et al., 2013). Accordingly, a brand community can facilitate interaction and emotional bonding between consumer and brand. Individuals who develop strong emotional bonds, and have a sense of brand community belonging, may be more willing to act in its support and make sacrifices for it (Hartley and Harrison, 2007). This idea suggests that an analysis of the brand bonding concept from a more emotional and relational perspective should be undertaken (Yang and Zhang, 2015), with the following three variables being of key relevance: brand involvement, emotional connectedness (also referred to 2
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
about a brand by participating in an SNS community, which will help them in their decision-making. The comments posted by other members can trigger other users’ interest in taking part in the brand community, thus adopting an active role, instead of being passive beneficiaries of the relationships established in the brand community (Chu and Sung, 2015; Sanz et al., 2017). By adopting this role, individuals are able to engage with the community, which, in turn, facilitates value creation (Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder, 2011). Existing research recognises the important role played by parasocial interaction as an antecedent of online brand community engagement (Tsai and Men, 2013), which is defined as including several dimensions, such as interaction frequency, product involvement and referral behaviour/intention (Marti et al., 2014). This leads to put forward the third hypothesis of the present research:
brand spread positive WOM about it and try to convince others to switch to it (Chakravarty et al., 2010). Recent studies have also documented that customers who are emotionally attached to a brand and maintain an enduring relationship with it, will not only act as advocates for the brand but will also become engaged fans (Sashi et al., 2019). In a similar vein, Demiray and Burnaz (2019) identified WOM communication and purchase intention of new products as positive outcomes of brand community commitment. Accordingly, affective commitment is expected to have a positive influence on brand community advocacy. Considering the above, the following hypothesis is posited: Hypothesis 2. (The Brand Community Attachment Hypothesis): Brand community attachment to SNS positively affects brand community advocacy. 2.2. Value creation behaviours
Hypothesis 3. The Brand Community Parasocial Interaction Hypothesis): Brand community parasocial interaction within SNS positively affects brand community involvement with SNS.
Social media is a group of Internet based applications that enable users to create and exchange content. As the popularity of social media websites is growing, businesses are increasingly using social networking sites to support the creation of brand communities (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). The SNS brand communities provide useful content, as well as a communication and interaction environment where consumers and brands can share knowledge and support each other (Men and Tsai 2013a). The development of this kind of communities has positively influenced the value creation practices, which, in turn, has contributed to an improved communication within its members (Hassan et al., 2016; Laroche et al., 2012). Previous research has shown that value creation practices in a SNS brand community over the long term facilitate and enhance interaction, exchange and relationships among members, thus increasing the affective link with the brand (See-To and Ho, 2014; Zaglia, 2013). Moreover, they make consumers trust, love and be loyal to the brand (Zhou et al., 2012; Stokburger-Sauer, 2010), which, in turn, becomes a relevant factor when brand choice is concerned. Value creation goes beyond customers’ purchasing power and product functions and includes the symbolic meaning of consumption (Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder, 2011). This provides support to attachment theory, according to which individuals will be more prone to maintain a relationship with another person if they feel a strong attachment to him/her (Hazan and Shaver, 1994). Transferring this to the context of products and services, it is plausible to suggest that rather than functional and economical attributes (Melancon et al., 2011), consumers would seek out brands to which they feel personally attached (Hartley and Harrison, 2007).
2.2.2. Brand community member value creation behaviour: the moderating effect Brand community members create value when actively involved in the relationship with the brand through adopting the role of “content creators” and collaborators, posting comments or sharing information, among others (Luo et al., 2015). Brands and brand community members interact through joint collaborative activities (such as sharing knowledge and capacities), which generates synergies for both sides (Balaji and Roy, 2017; Lee and Kim, 2018). Extant literature on value cocreation recognizes the critical role played by dialogue, interaction and consumption in the consumer-brand co-creation process (Etgar, 2008; Hassan et al., 2016). Taking part in value creating activities within a SNS brand community can be associated with cognitive, social, personal and hedonic benefits (Nambisan and Baron, 2009). These practices provide community members not only with a better understanding and knowledge about the brand’s offerings, but also with opportunities to share brand experiences. Furthermore, value creating activities help users’ social and personal integration in the brand community, which, in turn, translates into an improved identification with the community (Yoshida et al., 2018) and an enhanced status and reputation within it (Lee and Kim, 2018). Evidence suggests that “content creators” show more involvement and attachment in the exchange process in the SNS communities, which, in turn, results in greater brand loyalty (Kim et al., 2012). Furthermore, Turri et al. (2013) demonstrated that the relationship between advocacy and emotional attachment is stronger for those individuals prone to content creating than for those who are more likely to define themselves as “content consumers”. Subsequently, we hypothesize that:
2.2.1. Value creation behaviour of other brand community members: the direct effect Value creation practices include not only the content produced by the members’ themselves, but also the one generated by other community users (Hassan et al., 2016). This paper analyses the value creation behaviour of other brand community members through the theoretical lens of parasocial interaction. The concept, which refers to “an illusionary experience, such that consumers interact with personas (i.e., mediated representations of presenters, celebrities, or characters) as if they are present and engaged in a reciprocal relationship” (Labrecque, 2014) has been used in explaining users–brand online relationships. In the SNS domain, parasocial interaction goes beyond the relationship between user- celebrity/brand/business representative/ public figure (Chung and Cho, 2014; Men and Tsai, 2013b), and includes the interaction with other community members (Ballantine and Martin, 2005). Hence, the parasocial relationship is formed by the other members’ activities through their comments, opinions, etc. (Men and Tsai, 2013b; Sanz et al., 2017). The user identifies with the content posted by other SNS members and feels integrated in the community. Moreover, users can obtain useful, valuable and reliable information
Hypothesis 4a. (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Attachment to SNS Hypothesis): Value co-creation within SNS moderates the impact of brand community involvement with SNS on brand community emotional attachment to SNS. Hypothesis 4b. (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Brand Community to Advocacy Hypothesis): Value co-creation within SNS moderates the impact of brand community emotional attachment to SNS on brand community advocacy. The hypotheses and model are illustrated in Fig. 1.
3
the
proposed
theoretical
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
Fig. 1. Proposed structural model.
3. Methods
3.3. Structural model assessment
3.1. Sample
Partial Least Squares Modelling (PLS-SEM) was chosen because of the predictive nature of the study (Chin, 2010), as well as the proposed interaction effects among continuous variables in the theoretical model (Hair et al., 2017a,b; Sánchez-Franco, 2010).
The target population of the research was composed of members of Facebook brand communities (followers of fan pages), 18 years or older. As for the sampling method, non-probabilistic convenience sampling was performed, while age and gender were used as quota controls (IAB, 2018). The final sample size comprised of 370 valid questionnaires, with 51% of the respondents being women and 49% men. As for the characteristics of the sample, 47.7% were employees, between 25 and 54 years (71.7%), with university degrees (48.9%) and an average income (46.7%). Most of the respondents (68.5%) reported being active on Facebook on a daily basis, logging in several times per day.
4. Results 4.1. Measurement scales validation First, the reliability and validity of the constructs were assessed. Cronbach's α (Cronbach, 1951) and composite reliability (Werts et al., 1974) values surpassed the 0.7 threshold, hence confirming the reliability of the measurement instrument (Nunnally, 1994) (see Table 1). Convergent validity was confirmed by (1) statistically significant loadings greater than 0.6 (Hair et al., 1998), and (2) AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values exceeding the 0.5 threshold (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table 1). Lastly, discriminant validity was verified using both the Fornell-Larcker (each construct loaded more highly on its own factor than on the rest of the constructs) and the HeterotraitMonotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (< 0.90) (Hair et al., 2017a,b) (see Table 2).
3.2. Measurement The survey questionnaire included scales to measure each of the model constructs. The value creating behaviour of other brand community members was captured through the measurement scale of parasocial interaction (6 items following Skumanich and Kintsfather (1993)). The brand community involvement measure was composed of 10 items, adapted from Zaichkowsky (1994). Emotional brand community attachment was assessed by the measure proposed by Ellison et al. (2007). Brand community advocacy was measured by 3 items, following Melancon et al. (2011). Lastly, value co-creation was evaluated with a single item, assessing the intensity level of users’ participation in the brand community (e.g. posting content, writing comments, etc.) (adapted from Turri et al., 2013). All constructs measures were evaluated on a 5-point Likert-scale, except for the brand community involvement variable which was assessed by a 5-point semantic difference scale.
4.2. Structural equation model Next, the structural model was evaluated and the results are displayed in Table 3. Following Hair et al. (2017a,b), a bootstrapping technique with 5000 random subsamples was used to calculate standard errors and significance. Regarding the explanatory power of the dependent variables, which is provided by the R2 values, all exceeded the 0.10 threshold (Falk and Miller, 1992). Furthermore, the Q2 values (> 0) demonstrated the predictive relevance of the model (Table 3). The results reveal that brand community involvement significantly and positively impacts brand community attachment (β value of 0.691), which validates Hypothesis 1 (The Brand Community Involvement 4
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
4.3. Moderation: interaction effects
Table 1 Reliability and validity of the measurement instrument. Construct
Loading
t
Parasocial Interaction IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6
0.74 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.80
38.91 40.40 36.00 38.01 33.91 47.62
Involvement IN1 IN2 IN3 IN4 IN5 IN6 IN7 IN8 IN9 IN10
0.80 0.77 0.75 0.62 0.82 0.65 0.71 0.75 0.73 0.81
47.84 47.04 38.94 19.42 48.03 20.73 26.95 36.48 29.40 63.06
Emotional Attachment EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6
0.77 0.72 0.72 0.77 0.71 0.75
44.26 37.43 29.32 31.74 29.69 30.30
Advocacy AD1 AD2 AD3
0.87 0.92 0.90
98.68 112.81 81.26
Cronbach’s Alpha
CR
AVE
0.85
0.89
0.57
0.91
0.92
0.55
0.84
0.88
0.55
0.88
0.93
0.81
A major aim of the present research is to examine the interaction effect (moderation) of value co-creation on the interrelationships between brand community involvement-attachment and brand community attachment-advocacy. To estimate the influence of value co-creation on the suggested relationships, PLS-SEM was employed following Chin et al. (2003) (product indicators), in which interaction terms are computed by multiplying the predictive and moderating variables. Before introducing the interaction effect, it was verified that the path coefficients representing the relationships between brand community involvement-attachment and brand community attachmentadvocacy were significant (0.691 and 0.667 respectively). As for the R2 values, these were: 0.478 for brand community attachment and 0.444 for brand community advocacy. After the inclusion into the model of the moderator variable value co-creation, the following interaction terms were obtained: 0.095 (brand community involvement*value cocreation behaviour → attachment) and 0.090 (brand community attachment* value co-creation behaviour → brand advocacy), thus increasing the R2 values to 0.497 and 0.449 respectively (see Table 4). In view of the presented results, it is established that there is evidence for the moderating role of value co-creation on the links between brand community involvement-attachment and brand community attachment-advocacy. In this regard, it is important to interpret the values of the obtained interaction terms. As for the impact of brand community involvement on attachment, an increase in value co-creation will increase it from 0.691 to 0.746 (0.651 + 0.095). Similarly, the moderator would increase the link between brand community attachment and advocacy from 0.667 to 0.736 (0.646 + 0.090). It is, thus, empirically confirmed that value co-creation positively moderates the relationships between (1) brand community involvement and attachment; (2) brand community attachment and advocacy, in that the greater the value co-creation, the more pronounced the impact of the antecedent variable on the outcome variable. Hence, the findings confirm Hypothesis 4a (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Attachment to SNS Hypothesis) and Hypothesis 4b (The Value Co-Creation Moderation of Brand Community to Advocacy Hypothesis). Furthermore, the R2 values of both models (the interaction and the main effects one) were compared to estimate the ƒ2 (overall effect size of the interaction). The ƒ2 for the interaction effects were 0.039, and 0.021 respectively, which would be classified as small effects (Chin et al., 2003), as none of them is superior to 0.35 (values above 0.35 are considered as large effects).
Table 2 Discriminant validity assessment.
(PI) Parasocial interaction (I) Involvement (At) Attachment (Ad) Advocacy
(PI)
(I)
(At)
(Ad)
0.76 0.62 0.61 0.45
0.70 0.74 0.69 0.58
0.72 0.78 0.74 0.67
0.52 0.63 0.75 0.90
Note: The values in bold indicate AVE square root; the HTMT values are represented above the diagonal and below are the correlations between the latent variables. Table 3 Results, variance explained and cross-validated redundancy index.
H1: Involvement → Attachment H2: Attachment → Advocacy H3: Parasocial Interaction → Involvement Brand Community Involvement Brand Community Attachment Brand Advocacy
Suggested effect
(β)
+ + +
0.691 0.667 0.624
R2 0.398 0.478 0.444
Q2 0.197 0.243 0.327
5. Conclusions, discussion and practical implications
t-value (bootstrap)
The SNS present challenges and opportunities for relational marketing, in that they constitute important platforms for developing online brand communities (Martínez-López et al., 2017; Park and Kim, 2015). Past research revealed that building brand communities, which improves brand experiences, plays a crucial role in achieving consumer loyalty (Habibi et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017). Within the available options, social media are emerging as suitable platforms through which brands can not only be promoted and developed, but through which relationships with consumers can also be built via online brand communities (Chen et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2016), as they present multiple means for communication and collaboration among memberbrand-other members (Turri et al., 2013). The results yield a number of contributions to the literature on online brand communities. First, this research examines the development of emotional brand relationships in SNS. Also, the study broadens the underlying components of online value creation in a brand community setting by considering not only members’ active brand community participation but also the consumption of the content created by other users (parasocial interactions). Notably, the findings suggest the role of value created by other community members as a trigger
27.402 31.803 21.269
Hypothesis). The attachment to the SNS brand community was found to act, in turn, as a relevant antecedent to brand advocacy (β value of 0.667), thus supporting Hypothesis 2 (The Brand Community Attachment Hypothesis). As expected, users’ parasocial interaction with other members has a significant positive influence on brand community involvement, which confirms Hypothesis 3 (The Brand Community Parasocial Interaction Hypothesis) (β values of 0.624).
5
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
Table 4 Interaction effect. Value Co-Creation
Brand community involvement → Attachment Brand community attachment → Advocacy
β
β (interaction effect)
0.691*** 0.667***
0.651*** 0.646*** Interaction term 0.095 0.090
Brand community involvement *Value co-creation → Attachment Brand community attachment *Value co-creation → Advocacy Brand community attachment Brand advocacy
R2 0.478 0.444
t
Hypothesis confirmation
Yes Yes 2.997 2.901
Yes Yes
R2 interaction 0.497 0.449
*** Significant at 99.99%.
a direct and positive impact of involvement with a relational programme on brand attachment. Thus, the results of the study support Tsiotsou (2015) assertion that online brand communities provide new forms of social interaction, enhancing the affective bonds between members and brands. This research also contributes to elucidating the moderating role of value co-creation in enhancing community members’ predispositions to develop emotionally based relationships with brands. The enhanced positive impact of brand community attachment on advocacy, as a result of an increase in value co-creation, can be justified by the fact that, as members actively participate in the community, emotional bonding gets stronger, which, in turn, triggers members’ positive WOM and advocacy of the community. In this vein, it seems reasonable to suggest that members who actively participate and collaborate within the brand community are more likely to share brands’ communications on their own Facebook profiles or recommend friends to “like” the brand page. Hence, the results support the argument posited by Turri et al. (2013), that the relationship between emotional attachment and advocacy is stronger for those individuals prone to content creating than for those who are more likely to define themselves as “content consumers”. The findings are also in line with the study of Kim et al. (2012), indicating that those users who actively participate in a Brand community via posts, comments and likes, have a greater level of involvement and attachment to the SNS brand community and an enhanced brand loyalty, which, in turn, translates in to positive brand WOM and recommendation. As for the practical implications of the study, companies can strengthen the bond between their brands and consumers and, ultimately, improve their online brand advocacy behaviour, by providing entertaining and informational content to their online brand communities, as well as by encouraging users to actively participate in the SNS community. First, the findings suggest that companies should stimulate involvement with the brand community, as it is positively associated with feelings of emotional attachment. This relationship is enhanced by community members’ passive consumption of content shared in the community. Therefore, brand community admins should create strategies for stimulating members’ interest in the brand community’s posts. For example, brands’ fan page posts should provide useful information for members instead of commercial-related announcements only, which resemble advertising. This implication is in line with Bigné et al. (2019), who showed that posts containing non-commercial information have more impact on Twitter. Another means to improve the content shared in the brand community is to ask members what kind of brand content will be of interest to them. Furthermore, in view of the significant enhancing effect of value cocreation practices on the positive association between brand community bonding and advocating behaviour, community managers should create opportunities for members to co-create brand value online. Strategies to trigger users’ participation in the content posted within the
encouraging passive users to actively participate in the brand community. Third, our results add further evidence for the suggested impact of value creation practices on bonding between consumers and brands. While most past studies have examined the mechanisms that lead to value co–creation, the study expands the extant literature by assessing value creation behaviour as an antecedent and moderator, documenting the paper of value co-creation in: (1) enhancing emotionally-based brand relationships; (2) improving the quality of the interactions with an online brand community and (3) developing a harmonious “triangle relationship” (Luo et al., 2015) within an online brand community, i.e. , the relationships that a user maintains with the rest of its members (the brand itself and the other users). Lastly, previous research has associated users’ role as a content consumer and content creator with brand engagement (Yoshida et al., 2018), but has neglected its implications for value creation within an online brand community. The research findings contribute to an enhanced understanding of how brand bonding takes place in Facebook brand communities. Brand bonding is found to be improved by the relationship member-other members. This, in turn, strengthens the affective bonding to the brand. Hence, our findings demonstrate that the greater the parasocial interaction within the community, the stronger the involvement in it. The results match those documented by Yuksel and Labrecque (2016) in relation to the cognitive effects of parasocial interactions in online social media communities, as they reveal a positive impact on users’ cognition (in terms of attention, interests, opinions, and relationship building), which is the basis for involvement. The findings are also in line with past research establishing parasocial interaction as a key antecedent of online brand community engagement, which implies involvement (Tsai and Men, 2013). Brand community involvement, on the other hand, was found to positively contribute to brand community attachment, which, in turn, enhances brand advocacy. These results support the findings of Hutter et al. (2013) in a Facebook brand community setting, who revealed that brand page commitment (posited as the psychological attachment of members to a social media brand community) had a positive impact on brand-related WOM activities. In a similar vein, Kleine-Kalmer’s (2016) review of the brand page attachment concept established word-of mouth communication as one of its behavioural consequences. Recent studies have also documented that users who are emotionally attached to a brand, act as its advocates in a SNS context (Sashi et al., 2019). Furthermore, Demiray and Burnaz (2019) identified positive WOM communication as relevant outcome of brand community commitment. As regards to the demonstrated positive impact of brand page involvement on emotional attachment, our results seem to be in agreement with past research, establishing the positive effect of consumer involvement on consumer-brand affective engagement in an online product context (Harrigan et al., 2017) (although their study did not consider the context of SNS brand communities). The findings are also aligned with those obtained by Melancon et al. (2011), who uncovered
6
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
online brand communities could involve asking, in a creative way, for users’ ideas, opinions and advice; hosting contests and games; asking for support for brands’ causes; rewarding creativity and originality and inviting users to answer entertaining brand-related questions. Brand community admins may try to identify those community members that are less active and tag them in the brand’s posts, in a bid to initiate conversation with them, and thus improve their integration within the community. Another way to boost value co-creating behaviour might be through social media campaigns that encourage members to use a specific hashtag, representing a core brand value, in their posts or stories, which are then shared by the brand fan page. These kind of practices are expected to contribute to a greater association between brand community involvement and emotional attachment, which, in turn, relates to an increased willingness to advocate for the brand.
Aghakhani, N., Karimi, J., Salehan, M., 2018. A unified model for the adoption of electronic word of mouth on social network sites: Facebook as the Exemplar. Int. J. Electr. Commerce 22 (2), 202–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2018.1441700. Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 63 (1), 1–18. Amit, R., Zott, C., 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strat. Manage. J. 22 (6–7), 493–520. Anderson, E., 1998. Customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth. J. Serv. Res. 1 (1), 5–17. Badrinarayanan, V., Laverie, D.A., 2013. The role of manufacturers’ salespeople in inducing brand advocacy by retail sales associates. J. Market. Theory Pract. 21 (1), 57–70. Balaji, M.S., Roy, S.K., 2017. Value Co-creation with Internet of Things Technology in the Retail Industry. J. Market Manage. 33 (1–2), 7–31. Ballantine, P.W., Martin, B.A.S., 2005. Forming parasocial relationships in online communities. In: Menon, G., Rao, A.R. (Eds.), NA-Advances in Consumer Res., 32. Association for Consumer Res, Duluth, MN, pp. 197–201. Bigné, E., Oltra, E., Andreu, L., 2019. Harnessing stakeholder input on Twitter: a case study of short breaks in Spanish tourist cities. Tourism Manage. 71, 490–503. Bilro, R.G., Loureiro, S.M.C., Ali, F., 2018. The role of website stimuli of experience on engagement and brand advocacy. J. Hospit. Tourism Technol. 9 (2), 204–222. Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114. Chakravarty, A., Liu, Y., Mazumdar, T., 2010. The differential effects of online word-ofmouth and critics’ reviews on pre-release movie evaluation. J. Interact. Market. 24 (3), 185–197. Chen, Y., Fay, S., Wang, Q., 2011. The role of marketing in social media: how online consumer reviews evolve. J. Interact. Market. 25 (2), 85–94. Chen, C., Lee, Y., 2010. Effects of clothing involvement on brand attachment and brand loyalty. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 10 (5), 173–184. Chen, A., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Zhao, L., Li, M., 2013. What drives content creation behavior on SNSs? A commitment perspective. J. Bus Res. 66 (12), 2529–2535. Chin, W.W., 2010. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655–690. Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14 (2), 189–217. Chu, S.C., Sung, Y., 2015. Using a consumer socialization framework to understand electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) group membership among brand followers on Twitter. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 14 (4), 251–260. Chung, S., Cho, H., 2014. Parasocial relationship via reality TV and social media: its implications for celebrity endorsement. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video. ACM, pp. 47–54. Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3), 297–334. Currás, R., Miquel, M.J., Ruiz, C., Sanz, S., 2012. The role of parasocial interaction and teleparticipation on teleshopping behavior. In: Okazaki, S. (Ed.), Advances in Advert. Res. pp. 193–215. De Vries, N.J., Carlson, J., 2014. Examining the drivers and brand performance implications of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. J. Brand Manage. 21 (6), 495–515. Demiray, M., Burnaz, S., 2019. Exploring the impact of brand community identification on Facebook: firm-directed and self-directed drivers. J. Bus. Res. 96, 115–124. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C., 2007. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 12 (4), 1143–1168. Etgar, M., 2008. A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36 (1), 97–108. Evanschitzky, H.G., Iyer, R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., Meffert, H., 2006. The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. J. Bus. Res. 59, 1207–1213. Falk, R., Miller, N., 1992. A Primer for Soft Modelling. The University of Akron, Ohio. Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18, 39–50. Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer res. J. Consumer Res. 24 (March), 343–373. Fullerton, G., 2003. When does commitment lead to loyalty? J. Services Res. 5 (4), 333–344. Fullerton, G., 2005. The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands. Can. J. Admin. Sci. 22 (2), 97–110. GeoMarketing. 2017. Facebook Starts 2017 With 65 Million Local Business Pages. Available at: < http://www.geomarketing.com/facebook-starts-2017-with-65million-local-business-pages/ > . Giles, D., 2002. Parasocial interaction: a review of the literature and a model for future. Res. Media Psychol. 4 (3), 279–305. Grisaffe, D.B., Nguyen, H.P., 2011. Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. J. Bus. Res. 64, 1052–1059. Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M., Richard, M.O., 2014. The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 37, 152–161. Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M., Richard, M.O., 2016. Testing an extended model of consumer behavior in the context of social media-based brand communities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62, 292–302.
6. Research limitations and future directions This research has a number of limitations. Firstly, the investigation was focused on a single social media brand community platform (i.e. Facebook) and did not distinguish among different types of brands, which could affect the results. Further studies could test the established structural relationships with users of other social networks, and across various contexts (for example, the arts or culture industry), and product categories, as significant differences in the proposed behavioural model could appear. Second, the study considered only brand advocacy as an outcome of Facebook brand community bonding. It will be interesting to assess its impact on additional behavioural consequences such as purchase intention, willingness to pay more or offline behaviours (e.g. visiting a shop, product/service trial, etc.). Furthermore, the results of the study might have been distorted by failing to include additional antecedent variables. Another potential limitation of the research lies in the fact that we did not conduct a qualitative study to identify all possible value-creating behaviours in a SNS brand community, but relied on data published in past studies. There is also scope for future work to examine additional explanatory variables (e.g. honesty or acquiescence), so as to contribute to a better comprehension of the mechanisms underlying the creation of brand community relational worth. Moreover, the present study has used value co-creation in a broad sense; future researchers could examine the specific impact that particular co-creation activities could have on the proposed model. This, in turn, would allow not only the deepening of the theoretical underpinnings of the value creation mechanism, but also an enhanced comprehension of conditions under which brand community thrives (Schau et al., 2009). Still another direction for further research has to do with examining additional antecedents of affective commitment or emotional attachment (e.g. identification, affinity or trust), which may contribute to enhancing the relationship between the consumer and the brand and may elucidate the process through which consumers develop emotional attachment to brand communities. Lastly, further research may focus on influencers, in order to test the stronger bonds within an online community, as suggested by Litterio et al. (2017). 7. Conflicts of interest statement None. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy under Grant ECO2014-53837R. References Aaker, J.L., 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 34 (August), 347–356.
7
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019) 100850
S. Sanz-Blas, et al.
Men, L.R., Tsai, W.S., 2013b. Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Rev. 39 (1), 13–22. Mitchell, M., Orwig, R., 2002. Consumer experience tourism and brand bonding. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 11 (1), 30–41. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between providers and users of marketing res.: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. J. Market. Res. 29, 314–329. Muniz, A.M., O'Guinn, T.C., 2001. Brand community. J. Consumer Res. 27 (4), 412–432. Nadakarni, A., Hofmann, S.G., 2012. Why do people use Facebook? Personal. Indiv. Differen. 52, 243–249. Nambisan, S., Baron, R.A., 2009. Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. J. Product Innov. Manage. 26 (4), 388–406. Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I., 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, NY. Oszajca, J., 2012. Is Social Media Worth it for Musicians? Available at: < http://www. musicmarketingmanifesto.com/social-media-for-musicians/ > . Paris, C.M., Lee, W., Seery, P., 2010. The role of social media in promoting special events: acceptance of Facebook events. Inform. Commun. Technol. Tourism 14, 531–541. Park, H., Kim, Y.K., 2015. Can a fashion brand be social? The role of benefits of brand community within social network sites. J. Global Fashion Market. 6 (2), 75–86. Pongsakornrungsilp, S., Schroeder, J.E., 2011. Understanding value co-creation in a coconsuming brand community. Market. Theory 11 (3), 303–324. Sanchez-Franco, M.J., 2010. WebCT–The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Comput. Educ. 54 (1), 37–46. Sanz-Blas, S., Bigné, E., Buzova, D., 2017. m-WOM in a brand’s Facebook fan page. Online Inform. Rev. 41 (7), 936–953. Sashi, C.M., Brynildsen, G., Bilgihan, A., 2019. Social media, customer engagement and advocacy: an empirical investigation using Twitter data for quick service restaurants. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manage. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0108. Schau, H.J., Muñiz Jr, A.M., Arnould, E.J., 2009. How brand community practices create value. J. Market. 73 (5), 30–51. See-To, E.W., Ho, K.K., 2014. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: the role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–a theoretical analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31, 182–189. Shao, W., Ross, M., 2015. Testing a conceptual model of Facebook brand page communities. J. Res. Interact. Market. 9 (3), 239–258. Skumanich, S.A., Kintsfather, D.P., 1993. Television shopping: a mediated communications perspective. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Pennsylvania Sociological Society. Pittsburgh, PA. IAB Spain 2018. Estudio anual de redes sociales. Available at: < https://iabspain.es/wpcontent/uploads/estudio-redes-sociales-2018_vreducida.pdf/>. Stokburger-Sauer, N., 2010. Brand community: drivers and outcomes. Psychol. Market. 27 (4), 347–368. Tsai, W., Men, L., 2013. Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with brand pages on social networking sites. J. Interact. Advert. 13 (2), 76–87. Tsiotsou, R.H., 2015. The role of social and parasocial relationships on social networking sites loyalty. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 401–414. Turri, A.M., Smith, K.H., Kemp, E., 2013. Developing affective brand commitment through social media. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 14 (3), 201. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2010. It’s all B2B... and beyond: toward a systems perspective of the market. Indus. Market. Manage. 40 (2), 181–187. Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L., Jöreskog, K.G., 1974. Interclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Edu. Psychol. Measur. 34, 25–33. Yang, G., Zhang, R., 2015. Binding or bonding: the frailty of consumer-brand connections. J. Market. Vistas 5 (2), 69–75. Yi, Y., Jeon, H., 2003. Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty, and brand loyalty. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 31 (3), 229–240. Yoshida, M., Gordon, B.S., Nakazawa, M., Shibuya, S., Fujiwara, N., 2018. Bridging the gap between social media and behavioral brand loyalty. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 28, 208–218. Yuksel, M., Labrecque, L.I., 2016. Digital buddies: parasocial interactions in social media. J. Res. Interact. Market. 10 (4), 305–320. Zaglia, M.E., 2013. Brand communities embedded in social networks. J. Bus. Res. 66 (2), 216–223. Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1994. The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to advertising. J. Advert. 23 (4), 59–70. Zhang, K.Z., Benyoucef, M., Zhao, S.J., 2016. Building brand loyalty in social commerce: the case of brand microblogs. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 15, 14–25. Zhang, M., Luo, N., 2016. Understanding relationship benefits from harmonious brand community on social media. Internet Res. 26 (4), 809–826. Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C., 2012. How do brand communities generate brand relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. J. Bus. Res. 65 (7), 890–895.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2017b. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), second ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hair Jr, J.F., Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L., Sarstedt, M., 2017a. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multiv. Data Anal. 1 (2), 107–123. Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., Daly, T., 2017. Customer Engagement with Tourism Brands on Social Media: An Abstract. Marketing at the Confluence between Entertainment and Analytics. Springer, Cham, pp. 819–820. Hartley, N., Harrison, P., 2007. Bonding with cultural brands: exploring the binds that tie us. July, Spain In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management Valencia, pp. 8–11. Hassan, M., Mydock III, S., Pervan, S.J., Kortt, M., 2016. Facebook, self-disclosure, and brand-mediated intimacy: identifying value creating behaviors. J. Consum. Behav. 15 (6), 493–502. Hazan, C., Shaver, P.R., 1994. Attachment as an organizational framework for Res. on close relationships. Psychol. Inquiry 5 (1), 1–22. Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., Füller, J., 2013. The impact of user interactions in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 22 (5/6), 342–351. Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z., Hollebeek, L.D., 2017. Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a solicitation of congruity theory. Internet Res. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IntR-09-2016-0279. Javed, M., Roy, S., Mansoor, B., 2015. Consumer brand relationships. In: Fetscherin, M., Heilmann, T. (Eds.), Will You Defend Your Loved Brand? Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 31–54. Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horizons 53 (1), 59–68. Keiningham, T.L., Rust, R.T., Lariviere, B., Aksoy, L., Williams, L., 2018. A roadmap for driving customer word-of-mouth. J. Serv. Manage. 29 (1), 2–38. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JOSM-03-2017-0077. Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., Silvestre, B.S., 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social. Bus. Horizons 54 (3), 241–251. Kim, C., Jin, M.-H., Kim, J., Shin, N., 2012. User perception of the quality, value and utility of user-generated content. J. Electron. Consum. Res. 13 (4), 305–319. Kleine-Kalmer, B., 2016. Brand Page Attachment: An Empirical Study on Facebook Users’ Attachment to Brand Pages. Springer. Kozinets, R.V., Andrea, C., Wojnicki, J.S., Wilner, S., De Valck, K., 2010. Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. J. Market. 74 (2), 71–89. Labrecque, L.I., 2014. Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments: the role of parasocial interaction. J. Interact. Market. 28 (2), 134–148. Lacy, R., 2007. Relationship drivers of customer commitment. J. Market. Theory Practice 15 (4), 315–333. Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O., Sankaranarayanan, R., 2012. The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Comput. Human Behav. 28 (5), 1755–1767. Lee, A.R., Kim, K.K., 2018. Customer benefits and value co-creation activities in corporate social networking services. Behav. Inform. Technol. 37 (7), 675–692. Litterio, A.M., Nantes, E.A., Larrosa, J.M., Gómez, L.J., 2017. Marketing and social networks: a criterion for detecting opinion leaders. Eur. J. Manage. Bus. Econ. 26 (3), 347–366. Luo, N., Zhang, M., Liu, W., 2015. The effects of value co-creation practices on building harmonious brand community and achieving brand loyalty on social media in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 492–499. MacInnis, D.J., Park, C.W., Priester, J., 2009. Why brand relationships. In: MacInnis, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Brand Relationships. M. E. Sharpe, NY, pp. ix–xx. Martí, J., Bigné, E., Hyder, A., 2014. Brand engagement. In: Moutinho, L., Bigné, E., Manrai, A.K. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Future of Marketing. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 250–257. Martínez-López, F.J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Esteban-Millat, I., 2017. Consumer engagement in an online brand community. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 23, 24–37. McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W., Koenig, H.F., 2002. Building brand community. J. Market. 66 (1), 38–54. Melancon, J.P., Noble, S.M., Noble, C.H., 2011. Managing rewards to enhance relational worth. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 39 (3), 341–362. Men, L.R., Tsai, W.S., 2013a. Towards an integrated model of public engagement on corporate social network sites: antecedents, the process, and relational outcomes. Int. J. Strategic Commun. 7 (4), 257–273.
8