«of the AM’s Brand, Corporate Identity and Reputation SIG INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SESSIONS Sessions chairs The main function of a session chair is to ...»
Kapferer, J.-N. 2012. The new strategic brand management. Advanced insights & strategic thinking. Fifth edition. UK: Kogan Page.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing 57 (January), 1–22.
Kim, K.H., Jeon, B.J., Jung, H.S., Lu, W. & Jones, J. 2011. Effective employment brand equity through sustainable competitive advantage, marketing strategy, and corporate image.
Journal of Business Research 64 (11), 1207–1211.
King, C. & Grace, D. 2010. Building and measuring employee-based brand equity. European Journal of Marketing 44 (7/8), 938–971.
McLachlan, G. & Peel, D. 2000. Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Muthén, B.O. 1989. Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika 54, 557–585.
Muthen, L.K. & Muthen, B.O. 1998-2007. Mplus user’s guide. Fifth edition. Los Angeles:
Muthen and Muthen.
Taylor, S.A., Celuch, K. & Goodwin, S. 2004. The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management 13 (4), 217–227.
Tolvanen, A. 2007. Latent growth mixture modeling: a simulation study. Jyväskylä:
Jyväskylä University Press.
Van Riel, A.C.R., de Mortanges, C.P. & Streukens, S. 2005. Marketing antecedents of industrial brand equity: An empirical investigation in specialty chemicals. Industrial Marketing Management 34 (8), 841–847.
Vogel, V., Evanschitzky, H. & Ramaseshan, B. 2008. Customer equity drivers and future sales. Journal of Marketing 72 (6), 98–108.
Appendix: Latent variables and their operational measures
Radical branding Jones, Robert Purpose of this paper I’m a strategist at the global brand consultancy Wolff Olins, based in London, and I’m a visiting professor at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Through both these perspectives, I can see massive change in the branding business, and I believe it’s important to try to understand these changes, and create a conceptual framework for them. That’s what this presentation will aim to do. I see this as a broad-ranging practitioner presentation, perhaps kicking off a panel discussion, rather than a specific research paper.
Summary In a digital world, where individual consumers and employees have huge new power and confidence, the branding game is changing. Practice is morphing rapidly, and Wolff Olins is currently redefining its offer in a radical way. This presentation will give an up-to-theminute, research-based snapshot of these latest developments, and it will offer a provocative discussion-starter for anyone involved in branding.
My hypothesis is that branding is changing in five ways, set out in my guest editorial in
Journal of Brand Management (2012) 20, 77–79. These changes are:
• from persuasion to platform
• from positioning to purpose
• from consistency to experimentation
• from control to liberation
• from ownership to boundarylessness.
They add up to a shift from ‘making people want things’ to ‘making things people want’.
Methodology I will test this hypothesis by researching in detail current Wolff Olins practice, in projects for six clients around the world, including potentially Google, Orange and Tata.
This research will drill into big shifts in how we work, such as:
a move beyond communication, even beyond ‘brand’ as normally defined, into a more general ‘applied creativity’ offer new services beyond traditional advice and design, in particular educational services a much less linear, more agile process, including rapid prototyping of our creative ideas a management style that is much less controlled, more open, and biased towards action rather than perfection branding projects that go beyond traditional organisational boundaries, to create brands for looser affiliations, alliances and movements.
The research method will be qualitative interviews with Wolff Olins practitioners and their clients.
I’ll be defining how our practice is changing, why, what’s working and what isn’t – and suggest some broad implications for brand owners, brand consultants and brand academics.
The effects of brand engagement in social media and perceived innovativeness on share of wallet Karjaluoto, Heikki Munnukka, Juha Tiensuu, Severi
Purpose of the paper:
The objectives of the study are two-fold. First, we contribute to the theory of customer brand engagement in social media by testing the effects of four motivational drivers on engagement.
Second, we examine the effects of engagement in social media on share of wallet (SOW) and the moderating effects of perceived innovativeness on this positive relationship. An understanding of these fills an important gap in the literature concerning the antecedents of brand engagement and its link to customer loyalty. We control the model for gender, age and frequency of visits to the social media forums (Facebook and Twitter) of the brand. Figure 1 shows the conceptual model and the hypotheses of the study.
Figure 1 Research model and hypotheses (dashed lines represent moderating effects) The study develops seven hypotheses derived from an extensive literature review concerning the antecedents of brand engagement and its effects on SOW. Customer brand engagement in social media is defined as “an interactive and integrative participation in the fan-page community” (Jahn & Kunz 2012, p.349). With respect to H1-H5, engagement is found to stem from several motivational drivers (Brodie et al. 2011; Calder & Malthouse 2008;
Hollebeek 2011; van Doorn et al. 2010). According to McQuail’s (1983) classification, engagement motivations encompass four main components: information motivations, entertainment motivations and integration, personal identity motivations, and social interaction motivations (Heinonen 2011; Mersey et al. 2012). Muntinga et al. (2011) declare that this classification also works in social media.
Brand communities constituent an important platform for customer engagement behavior (Brodie et al. 2011; Dholakia et al. 2004; Kane et al. 2009; McAlexander et al. 2002).
Entertainment is a relevant motivation for consuming user-generated content (Muntinga et al.
2011; Shao 2009). Entertainment and fun is an experiential value that customers receive from using online services (Gummerus et al. 2012) such as social networking pages (Men and Tsai 2013; Park et al. 2009). Need for information has been identified as the main reasons for participation in network-based communities (Brodie et al. 2013; De Valck et al. 2009) as people use media to build their identities (Mersey et al. 2012). Similarly, impression management and identity expression have been identified as important motivators of social network sites access (Boyd 2008) where users can express themselves by adjusting their profiles, linking to particular friends, displaying their “likes” and “dislikes,” and joining groups (Tufekci 2008). Economic benefits are a motivational factor, in which people join brand communities to obtain economic incentives such as discounts and time savings or participate in raffles and competitions (Gwinner et al. 1998).
Against this backdrop, we propose these five motivational drivers to have a positive effect on
customer brand engagement in social media:
H1-H5: Community (H1), information (H2), enjoyment (H3), Identity-related (H4), and economic-related (H5) experiences are positively associated with customer brand engagement.
Consumers’ share of spending is understood as a behavioral dimension of consumer loyalty (e.g. Keiningham et al. 2005). For example, Zeithaml (2000) points to the increased favor for the SOW concept. Although engagement has been linked with satisfaction, commitment ad loyalty (e.g., Bowden 2009; Brodie et al. 2011; van Doorn et al. 2010), we were able to find only one study (Vivek et al. 2012) that has investigated the specific relationship between consumer engagement and SOW. This preliminary evidence suggests that engaging consumers can lead to successful marketing outcomes, such as SOW. In accordance with
these findings, we want to confirm that:
H6: Customer brand engagement has a positive effect on SOW.
Perceived innovativeness refers to a tendency to willingly embrace change, try new things, and buy new products more often and more rapidly than others (Cotte & Wood 2004). It is strongly related to the adoption and purchase of products, especially new products.
Steenkamp et al. (1999) state that innovative consumers change consumption patterns and previous product choices rather than remain with old ones. To acquire elaborate information about the model, perceived innovativeness is examined as a moderator of the relationship between customer brand engagement and SOW. Under this model, when perceived innovativeness is high, customer brand engagement exerts a stronger effect on SOW. Thus we propose that, H7: Perceived innovativeness moderates the positive relationship between customer brand engagement and SOW.
We tested the hypotheses with data obtained from Facebook fans and Twitter followers of a global consumer electronics company. Within a two-week response time, 818 completed questionnaires were returned. The effective response rate was 57%. We used the following established scales anchored from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” to measure the
• Community (four items) and enjoyment (five items) adapted from Calder et al. (2009);
Mersey et al. (2012); and Calder and Malthouse (2008)
• Identity (three items) and information (five items) adapted from Mersey et al. (2012).
• Economic benefits (two items) adapted from Hennig-Thuray et al. (2004)
• Customer brand engagement (four items) adapted from Jahn and Kunz (2012); Gummerus et al. (2012) and Muntinga et al. (2011)
• SOW (two items) adapted from De Wulf et al. (2001)
• Perceived innovativeness (four items) adapted from Lu et al. (2005) The hypotheses were tested with partial least squares structural equation modeling software SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wende, & Will 2005). All the study constructs are reflective.
Most of the respondents were male 547 (67%). The major age group falls between 26 and 35 years (25%). Most of the respondents visit the fan page 1–3 times per week (30%) or 2–3 times per month (24%).
The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested that factors information and entertainment are combined. Thus, in the confirmatory analyses these were combined as a single factor. Analysis indicates acceptable reliability and validity as the factor loadings were high (0.60) and significant, composite reliabilities for the scales were larger than 0.840,
Figure 2. Hypotheses testing (path coefficients)
*** p 0.01 ns = Not significant Moderating effect As shown in Figure 2, all the proposed motivational factors exhibit strong positive relationships with brand engagement (when treating information and entertainment as a single construct), thus supporting H1-H5. Customer brand engagement is also positively associated with SOW, indicating that H6 is accepted. Of the control variables, only frequency of visits exhibits a positive association with SOW.
The results of the moderating effects indicate that perceived innovativeness (H7) exerts a positive effect on the relationship between customer brand engagement and SOW, such that when perceived innovativeness is high, the link between customer brand engagement and SOW is strengthened. Without the moderating effect, the relationship between customer brand engagement and SOW is 0.227; with the significant moderating effect (0.096), this relationship is 0.323. The moderator therefore significantly strengthens the relationship. That is, the more strongly a customer perceives himself/herself as innovative, the stronger the relationship between brand engagement and SOW. Thus, H7 is accepted.
In sum, the results suggest that a community benefits is the strongest motivator of customer brand engagement and SOW in the social media context. The findings also show that customers’ innovativeness moderates the positive brand engagement-SOW relationship.
This study contributes to our understanding of how social media drives consumers’ brand engagement and buying behaviour. We answer to the calls for the need for more empirical studies on the nature of customer engagement (Brodie et al. 2011) and further link engagement with SOW (Vivek et al. 2012). On this basis, the study makes three important theoretical contributions. First, we show that the four motivational drivers identified all have a positive influence on brand engagement in social media. The results indicate that the followers who feel that they receive community, information and enjoyment, identity and economics -related benefits from following the brand in social media are highly engaged with the brand. This finding is in line with theory, which identifies the aforementioned motivations as drivers of brand engagement (e.g., Jahn & Kunz 2012; Muntinga et al. 2011). Second, this is among the first studies investigating the relationship between brand engagement in social media and share of wallet. We confirm that customer engagement with a brand positively influences SOW (c.f. Vivek et al. 2012). In other words, the percentage of the expenses that engaged customers allocate to a product and that goes to the firm selling the product is larger than those allocated by customers who are unengaged with a brand. Finally, we confirm that the higher the perceived innovativeness, the stronger is the positive relationship between brand engagement and SOW (c.f. Cotte & Wood 2004).