7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
1/11
16
contribute highly to the existing knowledge about social media engagement by providing a
validated measurement scale for customer engagement in online social platforms. However,
the research is still in progress and no results have been published to date. Thus, even
though the new media present a number of significant opportunities and challenges for both
researchers and practitioners (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010), most of the existing research is
primarily conceptual or qualitative (Cheung et al., 2011).
2.6 Problem statement
Academic literature highlights the importance of approaching the concept of engagement
with consideration to its highly contextual nature, because engagement, separated from its
() context, is a contradiction that ignores deeply embedded understandings about the
purpose and nature of engagement itself (Vibert & Shields, 2003). Moreover, Brodie et al.
(2011a) suggest that under different circumstances the importance of the cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral customer engagement dimensions may vary. Therefore, it is
likely that customer engagement in different contexts, such as online versus offline
environments, would manifest in different expressions.
The context of online social media has become of great interest to marketing
practitioners as the new social media platforms quickly emerged as valuable tools central totheir effort of customer engagement (WARC, 2012a). Despite the vast popularity of the
concept among businesses, the push of engagement still misses the mark and fails to
explain what it ultimately means to the brand. The behavioral measures of engagement
currently available on online social media platforms such as number of fans, repeated visits
or interactions with the brand page provide little information about the returns to be
expected (Nelson-Field & Taylor, 2012). Hence, the lack of theory-guided empirical studies
in order to better understand customer engagement with brands in the context of online
social media points to a fault line between the practitioners who increasingly pursue the
quest for their Holy Grail, and the scholars who yet mostly choose to focus their
empirical research elsewhere.
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
2/11
17
Hence, the main objective of this study is to bridge this gap by conceptualizing
customer brand engagement on online social media platforms and answering two important
research questions:
1. What drives the customer to engage with brands on online social mediaplatforms?
2. What are the outcomes of such engagement?Identifying and validating the antecedents and consequences of customer brand
engagement in this particular context is crucial in order to further advance the knowledge in
the area. According to Hollebeek (2011b), the rising practitioner interest in the concept of
customer brand engagement is mostly driven by the expected benefits and its explanatory
and predictive power in customer relationship outcomes, such as loyalty in particular. Since
it is more cost-effective to retain the existing as opposed to winning new customers,
insights into customer brand engagement on online social media platforms may help
businesses to capitalize on enhancing customer relationships, retention and loyalty through
the use of social media.
2.7 A conceptual model of customer brand engagement on online social
media platforms
The five fundamental propositions underlying the general concept of customer engagement
suggested by Brodie et al. (2011a) provide suitable guidelines for framing the investigation
of the nature and role of customer brand engagement on online social media platforms.
These five themes were therefore applied in developing the working definition and building
the conceptual model. The proposed working definition in this study is the following:
The concept of customer brand engagement on online social media platforms is
characterized by interactive customer experiences with the brand. It is a process of
dynamic and iterative nature, which stems from the domains of S-D logic, relationship
marketing and social exchange theory. Customer brand engagement on online social
media platforms is the central element embedded in a broader network of other
relational constructs serving as the antecedents and the consequences. The concept of
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
3/11
18
engagement is multidimensional and comprises the expressions of emotional,
behavioral and cognitive engagement specific to this particular context.
Based on this definition and the findings from the literature review, a conceptual model
of customer brand engagement on online social media platforms was developed (see Figure
2). The framework portrays customer brand engagement on online social media platforms
as the central element embedded in the network of other constructs, which are divided into
two groups of potential antecedents and consequences. In principle, the structure of the
framework relates to van Doorns et al. (2010) conceptual model of customer engagement
behavior. However, instead of considering three types of factors that can affect
engagement, the current model is focused on customer-based antecedents and consequences
only. The customer-based perspective has been chosen, since not only it represents the
inevitable focus of the business, but the consequences of engagement to the customer are
also suggested to have an inherent effect on the ultimate business performance (Kumar et
al., 2010). Furthermore, as suggested in the working definition, the conceptual framework
does not only comprise the behavioral aspect of engagement, but addresses the concept in a
broader sense by including the cognitive and emotional aspects as well.
The group of potential antecedents portrayed in the model includes factors related to
customer brand relationship quality and online social media platforms. The customer brand
relationship quality related factors are further specified as involvement, satisfaction,
commitment and trust. Brodie et al. (2011a) suggest involvement to be a required
antecedent of customer engagement, whereas customer satisfaction, commitment and trust
in relation to the brand represent the potential attitudinal antecedents also proposed by
Bowden (2009) and Hollebeek (2011b). Because of the iterative nature of customer
engagement, all three attitudinal factors have been found to have the potential of acting as
both antecedents and consequences. The role of the factor will vary depending on whether
the customer is new or existing (L. D. Hollebeek, 2011b). The structure of the conceptual
model given in Figure 2, however, implies that it was chosen and built on the premise of
existing customers in particular.
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
4/11
19
Another sub-group of antecedents comprises online social media platform related
factors, such as involvement, participation, telepresence and ease of use. Even though
involvement has already been included to the relationship quality related factors, the latter
case addresses the concept in terms of personal interest and relevance towards online social
media platforms. Participation, according to Brodie et al. (2011a), is another prerequisite
for customer engagement, as it determines customers propensity to participate on online
social media platforms. Furthermore, the concept of telepresence is included in the model,
since Mollen and Wilson (2010) suggest it to be a direct antecedent of online engagement.
Hollebeek (2011b) and Brodie et al. (2011a) also suggested the concept of flow, which is
related to telepresence and could also be considered relevant in this specific context.
However, as no commonly accepted conceptualization or consensus regarding the
operationalization of flow exists in the academic literature (Mollen & Wilson, 2010), it has
been decided to leave the concept out of the model. Finally, ease of use has also been added
BEHAVIORAL
EMOTIONAL
COGNITIVE
CUSTOMER BRAND
RELATIONSHIP RELATED
ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM RELATED
INVOLVEMENT
SATISFACTION
COMMITMENT
TRUST
INVOLVEMENT
PARTICIPATION
TELEPRESENCE
EASE OF USE
CUSTOMER BRAND
ENGAGEMENT ON
ONLINE SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS
BRAND LOYALTY
WORD-OF-MOUTH
CONSEQUENCES
ANTECEDENTS
Figure 2. Conceptual model of customer brand engagement on online social
media latforms
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
5/11
20
to the model as a potential contextual antecedent referring to the degree to which a
customer perceives using online social media platforms to be free of effort (Davis, 1989).
As for the consequences, two customer-based items were selectedbrand loyalty and
word-of-mouth, which here refers to the intention to recommend the brand. Bowden (2009)
addresses customer engagement as the superior predictor of customer loyalty as compared
to other more traditional marketing constructs. On the other hand, Cheung et al. (2011)
suggest that a customer willing to invest physical, cognitive and emotional effort into an
online platform will also have a higher propensity to spread word-of-mouth communication
about it. A customer valuation framework introduced by Kumar et al. (2010) suggests that
the value of customer engagement is comprised of four dimensions: customer purchasing
behavior, customer referral behavior, customer influencer behavior through customers
influence on other existing or prospect customers, and finally, customer knowledge
behavior via feedback provided to the firm. Thus, both customer loyalty and word-of-
mouth have established grounds as potential engagement consequences in the literature.
3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection
In order to collect the data and test the proposed model of customer brand engagement
on online social media platforms an online survey was conducted using a convenience
sample of Facebook2
account holders. With 901 million active monthly users Facebook is
currently worlds largest online social network (Facebook, 2012) and a highly relevant
platform for this study. Among many various online services offered by Facebook, there is
also something called Facebook Pages. Facebook Pages are public profiles meant to
promote brands, products, artists, web sites or organizations. Once registered Facebook
users visit a Page, they are able to 'become fans' by clicking on the 'Like' button. The
owners of the Page can then post informational content, which consequently will appear in
the news feed of their fans. The fans can choose to react to the posts in few different ways
such as liking, commenting or sharing it with their own networks. In other words,
2 www.facebook.com
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
6/11
23
Table 1: Characteristics of the respondents (N1=112, N2=307)
Fans(N1) %
Non-fans(N2) %
Age X2(7) = 4.43, = 0.729Younger than 20
20242529
303435394044
454950 and older
7
3733
1144
23
4
3338
1542
13
Gender X2(1) = 0.70, = 0.401
Male
Female
58
42
53
47Use of other online social media platforms X
2(4) = 10.51, = 0.033
No other1-2 others3-5 others
6-9 others10 and more others
83235
232
94335
121
Time spent on online social media platforms per day X2(4) = 15.92, = 0.003Less than 30 mins
30 mins1 hour1 hour2 hours2 hours3 hours
More than 3 hours
12
223316
17
26
252614
8
Time spent on Facebook per day X2(4) = 13.97, = 0.007
Less than 30 mins30 mins1 hour
1 hour2 hours2 hours3 hours
More than 3 hours
1929
2714
11
3627
239
6
3.2 Measurement of constructs
The survey instrument comprised of 62 items measuring the constructs mentioned in the
modelthe antecedents, the consequences, and the customer brand engagement on online
social media platforms itself.
There were two groups of constructs representing the potential antecedents customer
brand relationship quality related and online social media platform related. The customer
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
7/11
24
brand relationship quality related constructs (involvement, satisfaction, commitment and
trust) have been widely discussed in academic marketing literature and the choice of scales
for these constructs has therefore been based on the findings of previously published
research. Brand involvement has been operationalized via five items measuring an
individuals level of interest, importance and personal relevance in relation to the brand
(Beatty & Talpade, 1994). Commitment has been measured with a six item scale valuing an
ongoing relationship between the customer and the brand as well as willingness to make
efforts in order to maintain it (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2008). The satisfaction scale
included three items focusing on the general performance of the brand (Gustafsson,
Johnson, & Roos, 2005). Finally, the construct of trust has been measured with four items
relating to an individuals perceptions and beliefs regarding the safety and security of
interacting with the brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
The suggested antecedents related to online social media platform were involvement,
participation, ease of use and telepresence. Involvement in online social media platform has
been measured with the same five item scale adapted from the paper by Beatty & Talpade
(1994). The construct of participation in an online social media platform has been
approached as the frequency and the intensity of participation as suggested by van Doorn et
al. (2010), and measured with three self-constructed items. The ease of use scale has been
adapted from a research paper by Davis (1989) and included six items. Even though
telepresence has been discussed in the literature and defined as the psychological state of
being there in the computed-mediated environment (Mollen & Wilson, 2010), there is no
actual measuring instrument developed for telepresence in the online social media platform
context yet. Therefore, a set of four relevant items from an originally eight item scale by
Kim & Biocca (1997) meant to measure telepresence in the context of television has been
adapted and used in this survey.
Customer brand engagement on online social media platforms has been split into three
dimensions behavioral, emotional and cognitive. The emotional and cognitive
engagement scales have been used as suggested by Cheung et al. (2011), where both
constructs are measured with six items each. The behavioral dimension, however, only
included two relevant items of those suggested by Cheung et al. (2011) and has been
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
8/11
25
supplemented with seven other self-constructed items referring to the frequency of the
different forms of behavioral engagement. Nelson-Field & Taylor (2012) suggest that in
social media, and particularly on Facebook, engagement takes the form of all kinds of
direct interaction with the fan page. The inclusion of seven additional Facebook specific
items was also based on this premise. Thus, the self-constructed items refer to the
frequency of various interactions with a particular fan page, such as visiting the page,
noticing, reading, liking, commenting and sharing its contents as well as creating and
posting contents on the fan page yourself. The response format chosen for these seven
items has been a seven point frequency scale (1=Never, 2=Almost never, 3=Rarely,
4=Sometimes, 5=Often, 6=Almost all the time, 7=All the time). The response
format used for the rest of the items in the questionnaire was a seven point Likert scale
anchored by 1=Strongly disagree, 7=Strongly agree.
The consequences of customer brand engagement on online social media platforms
have been measured in terms of behavioral brand loyalty and word-of-mouth. The scale for
behavioral brand loyalty contained two items relating to future purchase intentions
(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Word-of-mouth, which can also be defined as the intention
to recommend the brand to others, has been measured with three items suggested by
Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman (1996).
In addition to the 62 mentioned items, there were also three control variables included
in the questionnaire and measured by two self-constructed items each. These were goals,
resources, and the perceived cost/benefit of interacting with the brand pages on Facebook
specifically. These control variables have been included in the survey as the literature
suggests that they can also be expected to influence how customers engage with brands
(van Doorn et al., 2010). The two specific goals accounted for in the questionnaire were: 1)
maximizing the consumption benefits (e.g. interacting with the brand on Facebook out of
interest); 2) maximizing the relational benefits (e.g. becoming a member of a brand
community). The resource items referred to the time available for browsing on Facebook
fan pages and the effort that it takes. Finally, the perceived cost/benefit items were focusing
on the respondents perceived levels of enjoyment while browsing on Facebook fan pages
and its value in comparison to the time and effort spent on it. A summary of all the
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
9/11
26
mentioned questionnaire items including the sources of reference and the resulting
Cronbachs alpha for each scales are displayed in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Construct measurement items, sources and scale reliabilities
Measure/Source Items Reliability
Antecedents
Customer brand relationship quality related
Involvement
(Beatty & Talpade,
1994)
1.In general I have a strong interest in [BN]52.[BN] is very important to me
3.[BN] matters a lot to me4.I get bored when other people talk to me about [BN]*
6
5.[BN] is relevant to me
0.80
Satisfaction
(Gustafsson et al.,2005)
6.Overall I am satisfied with [BN]
7.[BN] exceeds my expectations8.The performance of [BN] is very close to the ideal brand
in the product category
0.75
Commitment(Aaker, Fournier,
& Brasel, 2008)
9.I am very loyal to [BN]10.I am willing to make small sacrifices in order to keepusing the products of [BN]11.I would be willing to postpone my purchase if the
products of [BN] were temporarily unavailable12.I would stick with [BN] even if it would let me downonce or twice13.I am so happy with [BN] that I no longer feel the needto watch out for other alternatives
14.I am likely to be using [BN] one year from now
0.84
Trust
(Chaudhuri &Holbrook,2001)
15.I trust [BN]
16.I rely on [BN]17.[BN] is an honest brand18.[BN] is safe to use
0.81
Online social media platform related
Involvement(Beatty & Talpade,
1994)
19.In general, I have a strong interest in Facebook20.Facebook is very important to me
21.Facebook matters a lot to me22.I get bored when other people talk to me aboutFacebook*
23.Facebook is relevant to me
0.83
Participation
(Self-constructed)
24.I consider myself an active user of Facebook
25.I log on to Facebook everyday
26.I spend long periods of time on Facebook
0.82
5 The abbreviation BN stands for brand name, as different respondents have answered the questions with
a different brand name in mind.6The items marked with * were reverse scored.
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
10/11
27
Ease of use(Davis, 1989)
27.Learning to use Facebook is/was easy for me28.It is easy to get Facebook to do what I want it to do
29.It is clear and understandable how to use Facebook30.Facebook is flexible to interact with
31.It is easy to become skillful at using Facebook32.In general, I find Facebook easy to use
0.90
Telepresence(Kim & Biocca,
1997)
While browsing on Facebook..33 I feel like my mind is in a different world created
by Facebook34 I forget about the real world around me35 I feel like my mind is more present in theFacebook world than the real world
36.After I am done browsing on Facebook, I feel like my
mind comes back to the real world
0.89
Customer brand engagement on online social media platforms
Behavioral
(Self-constructed)
(Cheung, Lee, &Jin, 2011)
How often do you...
37.visit the Facebook FP7
of [BN]?38notice the posts by [BN] in your news feed?
39read posts by [BN]?40like posts by [BN]?41comment on posts by [BN]?
42share posts by [BN] with your friends?43post on the Facebook FP of [BN] yourself?
0.89
44.I can continue browsing on the Facebook FP of [BN]for long periods at a time45.I devote a lot of energy to the Facebook FP of [BN]
Emotional
(Cheung, Lee, &Jin, 2011)
46.I am enthusiastic about the Facebook FP of [BN]
47.The Facebook FP of [BN] inspires me48.I find the Facebook FP of [BN] full of meaning and
purpose
49.I am excited when browsing on and interacting withthe Facebook FP of [BN]
50.I am interested in the Facebook FP of [BN]51.I am proud of being a fan of [BN]
0.89
Cognitive(Cheung, Lee, &
Jin, 2011)
52.Time flies when I am browsing on the Facebook FP of[BN]53.Browsing on the Facebook FP of [BN] is so absorbingthat I forget about everything else54.I am rarely distracted when browsing on the Facebook
FP of [BN]55.I am immersed in browsing on and interacting with the
Facebook FP of [BN]
56.My mind is focused when browsing on the FacebookFP of [BN]
57.I pay a lot of attention to the Facebook FP of [BN]
0.90
7 The abbreviation FP stands for fan page.
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/7/30/2019 Impmodel Proposal
11/11
28
Consequences
Behavioral brandloyalty
(Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001)
58.I will buy [BN] the next time I buy food/drinks59.I intend to keep purchasing [BN]
0.61
Word-of-mouth
(Zeithaml, Berry,& Parasuraman,
1996)
60.I say positive things about [BN] to other people
61.I often recommend [BN] to others62.I encourage friends to buy [BN]
0.89
Control variables
Goals(Self-constructed)
63.I browse on Facebook FPs because I am interested inthe brands
64.I browse on Facebook FPs because I am interested inbeing a part of a brand community
0.59
Resources(Self-constructed)
65.I have enough time to browse on Facebook FPs66.Browsing on Facebook FPs does not take too mucheffort
0.53
Perceived
cost/benefit(Self-constructed)
67.I enjoy browsing on Facebook FPs
68.I think that browsing on Facebook FPs is not worth thetime and effort*
0.56
The coefficient reliability analysis revealed that all the scales consisting of more than
two items exceeded the recommended Cronbachs alpha benchmark of 0.70 (Nunnally,
1978). However, the construct of behavioral brand loyalty measured by two items only has
performed an internal consistency of 0.61, which is considered to be questionable (George
& Mallery, 1999). In addition, the same happened to be the case with the three control
variables that were also operationalized by two items each and did not meet the 0.70
benchmark. However, the nature of the Cronbachs alpha dictates that its value is
determined not only by the mean of inter-item correlations, but also depends on the number
of the items in the scale, which implies that the scales with fewer items will generally be
expected to yield lower reliability coefficients. Therefore, the four underperforming two
item scales were not eliminated and used further in the analysis.
3.3 Statistical analysis
The approach applied in the data analysis of this study is called structural equation
modeling, which is a powerful framework for estimating causal models and systems of
simultaneous equations with measurement error. The structural model was established of
seven key constructs: customer brand relationship related antecedents (CBRR), online
http://www.pdfxviewer.com/http://www.pdfxviewer.com/Top Related