«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 ...»
Three managerial implications arise from the findings. First, our results show four motivational factors that drive engagement with brand in social media. Of these motives, community related motives turned out to be the most important. Thus, we recommend managers to develop social media sites that foster especially we-intentions and belongingness (c.f. De Valck et al. 2009; Saho 2009). Second, as the results confirm the positive link between brand engagement in social media and SOW, our results encourage brands to invest in fostering engagement in social media brand sites. Third, the results indicate that managers should implement strategies for social media in the light of the users’ perceived innovativeness and frequency of visits as they positively relate to SOW.
The sample can be biased towards more motivated users as participation was voluntary. Thus, in generalizing the results caution has to be made. Although we minimized common method bias in the survey design, its effect can only be ruled out with longitudinal study design.
The idea of engagement is relatively new in the marketing literature, and academic research has only minimally examined the potential for growth presented by engaging customers.
However, numerous researchers have recognized the growing academic interest in customer brand engagement (Jahn & Kunz 2012; Brodie et al. 2011), as also evidenced by the Marketing Science Institute’s (MSI) highlighting of customer engagement as one of its key research priorities. The rise of social media has strengthened the need for customer activation and engagement. Another issue of increasing importance in the marketing literature is share of wallet (SOW) and its relationship with brand engagement in social media. This relationship has been insufficiently examined, thereby preventing a thorough understanding of this relationship.
KeywordsCustomer brand engagement, Share of wallet, brand, social media, motivational driver References Bowman, D., Farley, J.U., & Schmittlein, D.C. 2000. Cross-national empirical generalization in business services buying behavior. Journal of International Business Studies 31 (4), 667– 686.
Boyd, D. 2008. Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 119–142.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D, Juric, B, & Ilic, A. 2011. Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions and implications for research. Journal of Service Research 14 (3), 252–271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A, Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L.D. 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research 66 (1), 105–114.
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C., & Schaedel, U. 2009. An experiental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23 (4), 321–331.
Calder, B.J., & Malthouse, E.C. 2008. Media engagement and advertising effectiveness.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Cotte, J., & Wood, S.L. 2004. Families and innovative consumer behavior: a triadic analysis of sibling and parental influence. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1), 78–86.
De Valck, K., van Bruggen, G.H., & Wierenga, B. 2009. Virtual communities: marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems 47 (3), 185–203.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. 2001. Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing 50 (4), 33–50.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P., & Pearo, L.K. 2004. A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (3), 241–263.
Gummerus, J., Lijander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. 2012. Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review 35 (9), 857–877.
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., & Bitner, M.J. 1998. Relational benefits in service industries:
the customer’s perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 26 (2), 101–114.
Heinonen, K. 2011. Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers’ social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior 10 (6), 356–364.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D.D. 2004. Electronic word-ofmouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (1), 38–52.
Hollebeek, L. 2011. Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19 (7), 555–573.
Jahn, B., & Kunz, W. 2012. How to transform consumers into fans of your brand. Journal of Service Management 23 (3), 322-361.
Kane, G.C., Fichman, R.G., Gallaugher, J., & Glaser, J. 2009. Community relations 2.0.
Harvard Business Review 87 (11), 45–50.
Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L., Perkins-Munn, T., &Vavra, T.G. 2005. The brand–customer connections. Marketing Management 14 (4), 33–37.
Lu, J. Yao, J.E., & Yu, C. S. 2005. Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 14 (3), 245–268.
McAlexander, J., Schouten, J., & Koenig, H. 2002. Building brand community. Journal of Marketing 66 (1), 38–54.
McQuail, D. 1983. Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W-H. S. 2013. Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review 39 (1), 13–22.
Mersey, R.D., Malthouse, E.C., & Calder, B.J. 2012. Focusing on the reader: Engagement trumps satisfaction. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89 (4), 695–709.
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. 2011. Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising 30 (1), 13–46.
Park, N., Kee, K.F., &Valenzuela, S. 2009. Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyber Psychology & Behavior 12 (6), 729–733.
Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Will, A. 2005. SmartPLS: release 2.0 (beta). Available at:
Shao, G. 2009. Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratifications perspective. Internet Research 19, 7–25.
Steenkamp, J.E.M., Hofstede, F., &Wedel, F. 1999. A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing 63 (2), 55–69.
Tufekci, Z. 2008. Grooming, gossip, Facebook and Myspace. Information, Communication & Society 11, 544–564.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P.C. 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research 13 (3), 253–266.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., & Morgan, R.M. 2012. Customer engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 20 (2), 127–145.
Zeithaml, V.A. 2000. Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers:
What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (1), 67–85.
Co-creation of brand identities: Consumer influence (work in progress) Kennedy, Eric Guzmán, Francisco Purpose of Paper In today’s informed and connected society, consumers have become the owners of, and gained tremendous power in shaping, brands. Coined by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), co-creation is the process where more than one party systematically joins forces to interact, learn, and share information to create value. The process of co-creation unites consumers and bands them together as a single unit to interact with the development of the brand (Ind et al.
2013). The purpose of this paper is to identify how consumer influence directly affects the creation of brand identities.
Recent examples of consumer-brand co-creation abound. From consumers choosing flavors of Lay’s potato chips, the makeover of Trivago’s spokesperson, user generated content for Hero Go-Pro active lifestyle cameras, the re-launching of The Gap’s blue square logo, to Dorito’s consumer-created commercials that “crash the super bowl”, brands are evermore engaging with, and utilizing feedback from, consumers to create and strengthen their identities. Furthermore, consumers are shaping brands’ identities through their daily usage and social connections. Extant literature has started examining various aspects of co-creation including value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004; Gronroos and Voima 2013), brand perceptions and behavior intentions (van Dijk et al. 2014), brand governance (Hatch and Schultz 2010), the organic view of the brand (Iglesias et al. 2013), brand love (Noel and Merunka 2013) and the emergence and outcomes of co-creation (Ind et al. 2013).
In our knowledge, little—if any—research has examined the power of the consumer in shaping the identity of a brand through co-creation. To date, no empirical studies have been tested to determine the true power a firm can harness when consulting with their loyal consumer base. This research attempts to change that fact. The implications of this research will be far reaching from both theoretical and practical perspective, as brand identity cocreation is becoming common practice.
Methodology/Approach This research undertakes several studies to ultimately develop a model to test the approach of co-creating a brand identity with consumers. Pretests of study 1 and study 2 have already been conducted with undergraduate students at a large Southwestern university in the United States to refine the research instruments.
Study 1- A nationwide sample from the United States is taken to determine brands that consumers view as able to influence and unable to influence. To secure a generalizable sample, the authors will utilize the services of a well-known market research and analytics firm. This survey, administered online, asks respondents 2 questions: (1) Name five brands you feel listen to the consumer and that you can initiate contact with and influence the brand’s identity, and (2) Name five brands you feel do not listen to the consumer and that you cannot initiate contact with or influence the brand’s identity. The respondents are given a prompt at the beginning of the survey that informs them the survey is attempting to identify how consumers and brands work together to create a brand’s identity. A national sample is used so that regional brands do not enter into the results, which would narrow the generalizability of the results. In addition, respondents are asked the question in an openended format, so as not to induce any bias into the responses. Three kinds of brands are expected to be found: (1) brands that are clearly viewed as consumers as able to influence, (2) brands that are clearly viewed as consumers as unable to influence, and (3) brands that are not clearly classified in either of the two previous categories. The most representative brands from each category (frequency count) will be used for study two.
Study 2- A separate nationwide sample from the United States is taken to rank the brands identified in study one on a 1-5 scale from ‘unable to influence’ to ‘able to influence’. To secure a generalizable sample, the authors will utilize the services of the same well-known market research and analytics firm. In contrast to study 1 where brand recall is being measured, study 2 will serve as a validation of study 1 findings through prompted recognition. The names of the brands are randomized and not presented according to any category identified in study 1. The results will be compiled and brands placed within their “consumers’ ability to influence” category.
Study 3- Study 3 expands on the results from study 2 and transitions the research to qualitative methods. In-depth interviews with managers responsible of the brands, identified in each category in surveys 1 and 2, are conducted to explore the factors that influence companies to interact or not interact with consumers for the creation of their identity.
Interviews with managers of brands within each of the classifications is necessary to compare any differentiating factors. Managers will not be notified they were identified as a brand that is viewed as able/not able to be influenced by consumers. Instead, all managers will be approached on the premise of talking about the idea of brand identity and what level of input the brand seeks from the consumer in establishing the identity. The authors seek to gain insights from the managers to identify and develop key constructs in brand identity cocreation to be incorporated in a model with testable hypotheses. The number of interviews that will be conducted will be determined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) saturation criteria.
Theoretical Implications The results of this study build on the existing foundation of co-creation. Existing research focuses on several aspects of co-creation, yet specific research on the area of brand identity has been lacking. This research fills that gap and expands the knowledge for the phenomena of co-creation. Our identification of categories of brand-consumer influence goes beyond the traditional approach to co-creation and examines how consumers perceive the creation of a brand’s identity. Therefore, the findings presented in this paper offer a deeper and more personal understanding of how brands and consumers collaborate to create a brand’s identity and what factors are considered by firms to allow a greater or lesser level of consumer brand engagement.
The methodological implications of this paper concerns the creation of a new model and, subsequently, scale to measure the process associated the co-creating brand identity. This model is developed from 2 national surveys and in-depth interviews with managers from those brands identified by consumer. The development of the model will allow for researchers to conduct quantitative studies on the topic of brand identity co-creation.