Brand Management on Social Media – Consumer Motivations,
Behaviors, Brand Loyalty and Brand Type Impact.
Zana Akpinar
10993088
Master Thesis
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Administration – Marketing track
First Supervisor: Frank Slisser
Handed in on 27
thJanuary 2016
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Frank Slisser. His critical insight, understanding and patience helped me tremendously throughout the entire thesis process. He would always provide a qualified response to questions I had about this project. Thanks to his clear way of working, I would consistently be on the right track with the thesis. Not only did he offer great advice, but was able to let me see the light at the end of the tunnel, when I couldn’t.
Secondly, my gratitude goes to my family who always stood by my side, especially during the difficult stages of the last months. Their ongoing support motivated me during this
challenging time and kept helping me see things in the grand scheme. Thank you for always being there for me.
Abstract
With the rising importance of Social Media in research and practice in a branding context, many gaps need to be addressed. Based on brand community theory, research so far has showed that consumers utilizing Social Media brand pages have certain motivations, show distinct behaviors which lead to brand loyalty created through the brand page. However, it has not been analyzed thus far how brand fans of different brands vary in their motivations and behavior on Facebook in the context of brand loyalty and whether the motivation-behavior relationship is moderated by the kind of brand. One way of categorizing brands is to distinguish between hedonic and utilitarian brands. The former are rather experiential and fun whereas the latter are functional (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Since the usage of these brands and their products is different, it is assumed in this research that brand fans of hedonic and utilitarian brands on Facebook show differences too. A non-probability quota sample of five hedonic and five utilitarian Facebook brand pages (N= 160) proves that differences exist. In general, this research emphasizes the importance of browsing for all brands to create loyalty. This research shows that if hedonic brand page members can symbolize an improved and idealized personality through the page, they browse and participate these pages leading to brand loyalty. The brand type does not moderate the relationship between motivations to use the page and the actual behavior resulting from the motivations. Furthermore, whereas hedonic brand page users similarly appreciate both experiential and informational content, utilitarian brand users prefer utilitarian content to hedonic ones.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Zana Akpinar who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents Acknowledgments ... 1 Abstract ... 2 Statement of Originality ... 2 Table of Contents ... 3 1. Introduction ... 4 1.1 Problem Statement ... 6 1.2 Theoretical Contribution ... 8 1.3 Managerial Contribution ... 8 2. Literature Review ... 9
2.1 Social Media – Uses and Gratifications Theory... 9
2.2 Brand Communities on Social Media ... 10
2.2.1 Motivations for using Social Media brand pages ... 12
2.2.2 Behavior in Social Media Brand Communities ... 15
2.3 Brand loyalty ... 16
2.4 Social Media Brand Pages and Brand loyalty ... 17
2.5 Utilitarian and Hedonic Products ... 18
2.6. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses ... 20
3. Methodology ... 29
3.1 Pre-tests ... 32
4. Results and Analysis ... 34
4.1 Preliminary steps ... 34 4.2 Strategy ... 37 4.3 Linear Regression ... 38 4.3 Mediation effects ... 40 4.4 Moderation Effects ... 48 4.5 Mean differences ... 50
5. Discussion and implications ... 53
6. Conclusion ... 57
7. Limitations and future research directions ... 58
8. References ... 61
Appendix A - Item adaptations ... 69
Appendix B - Pre-test 1 example ... 73
Appendix C - Pre-test 2 example ... 76
Appendix D - Main questionnaire example ... 77
Appendix E - Multicollinearity ... 80
Appendix F - Exploratory Factor Analysis ... 81
Appendix G - Visualized Interactions for entire dataset ... 82
Appendix H - Visualized Interactions for utilitarian brand set ... 83
Appendix I - Visualized Interactions for hedonic brand set ... 84
Appendix J - Hedonic Brand Set Frequencies and Correlations ... 85
1. Introduction
The Social Media impact is undeniable. Networks like Facebook reach an incredible potential of users: According to Facebook’s most recent statistics from March 2015, 936 million people use Facebook daily and even 798 million use it on their mobile devices (“Facebook Statistics” 2015).
Brands have recognized its potential as a branding platform which can be proven by the statistics: 401 from the Fortune 500 companies are present on Facebook in 2014 which is a 10% increase from the year before (Barnes & Lescault, 2015).
Brand Managers and research recognized the relevancy of this medium and realize that Social Media is a new opportunity to reach the customers and get in contact with them (Fournier & Avery, 2011). To explain Social Media, research had to adapt older theories e.g. from communication and psychology to explain this new medium (Ngai, Tao, & Moon, 2015). On the one hand, from the consumers’ perspective, the use of Social Media can be explained with the Uses and Gratifications theory originally developed by Katz and Blumler (1974). This mass communication theory states that consumers choose the media they want to follow instead of passively receiving it from all ends (Katz & Blumler, 1974).
On the other hand, research has considered Social Media from a branding perspective: Social Media brand pages are similar to brand communities which are defined as a place where people with shared interests get together in order to engage about the brand (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Recent studies indeed found out that the brand community concept can be applied into a Facebook brand page context: Among others, people do interact with each other and the brand, they get information and entertainment (Jahn & Kunz, 2012; Zaglia, 2013). However, compared to an actual brand community, Facebook brand pages show all the community characteristics in a weaker degree (Zaglia, 2013). Whether or not the degree is weaker, research has dedicated itself to brand pages on Social Media for example in the
following way: Motivations of using such brand pages, the resulting behavior and its impact on brand loyalty (e.g. Pöyry, Parvinen, & Malmivaara, 2013). It was established that brand pages help create customer loyalty or enhance the relationship to the customer (e.g. Habibi, Laroche, & Richard, 2014).
One particularly interesting gap is the fact that research left out that different kinds of brands could impact different motivations to use Social Media brand pages and thus evoke different behaviors on these pages creating brand loyalty (e.g. Jahn & Kunz,2012).
This research addresses this gap by dividing brands into the following categories: Hedonic (experience based) and utilitarian (feature based). Utilitarian goods have primarily a functional use and the utility can be judged by the features of the product (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Hedonic goods on the other hand go beyond its functional meaning and focus on experiencing the product with all senses, i.e. reading the features to judge the product is not enough, but it needs to be subjectively used (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982).
It can be concluded that these categories of goods are consumed in a different way – This research assumes that the differing consumption behavior of a brand type is also influencing the usage of the corresponding Facebook brand pages, i.e. motivations of using a Social Media brand page and the behavior on it are depending on the type of brand (utilitarian or hedonic). Depending on the brand type, certain motivations to lead to behavior and consequently brand loyalty. Moreover, the brand type could act as a moderator between the motivation-behavior relationship. This work will show there is reason to think that people are motivated and thus behave differently when using brand pages of a certain category (utilitarian or hedonic) which in turn creates brand loyalty. But since brands with hedonic and utilitarian goods in a Social Media brand page context have not been distinguished and analyzed before in the context of a motivations-behavior-brand loyalty model, this paper will
do so to contribute to research. With the help of a survey, a non probability quota sample, evidence will be gathered empirically.
This thesis will first start with a literature review leading to a conceptual model and hypotheses. Followed by the the research method, the data will be analyzed statistically to answer the hypotheses. This analysis will be discussed in light of theory. Managerial implications, a conclusion and limitations will round off this thesis.
1.1 Problem Statement
As one can see from the literature review, it is known why people use Social Media brand pages, how they use them and what the effect of the brand pages is on brand loyalty. It is also known that there are brands that offer utilitarian or hedonic goods.
It is not known however, what the difference is when consumers use Social Media pages of the two brand types (hedonic or utilitarian). The distinction of Social Media research between brand types is an interesting gap in literature that has been identified, but not been addressed so far (Laroche, Habibi, & Richard, 2013).
There is reason to think that brands with utilitarian and hedonic goods influence both the motivations of using Social Media brand pages and the actual usage behavior of these pages: Regarding motivations, it was shown above that depending on the brand types, consumers have different motivations to use the internet, e.g. the need for information (Yang & Mai, 2010). Concerning behavior, as already explained above consumers use hedonic and utilitarian goods differently (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Consequently, in a Social Media context, the simple assumption here is: Consumers have different motivations and usage behavior regarding hedonic and utilitarian goods (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Yang & Mai, 2010). Thus, these differences in motivation and behavior should apply to the corresponding Social Media brand pages (of utilitarian or hedonic brands) as well. The brand type might influence certain motivations, act as a moderating variable towards motivations
and usage behavior on the Social Media Brand page and different brand types have differing relevance for certain motivations leading to behavior and then brand loyalty. Content-wise it can be assumed that hedonic brands deliver hedonic posts and utilitarian brands deliver utilitarian posts mainly (Bernardo, Marimon, & del Mar Alonso-Almeida, 2012).
Even though literature has not compared the brand types on Social Media in one research in a motivation-behavior-brand loyalty model, research analyzed them separately from another and there’s evidence that the motivations and behavior of using Social Media brand pages of either hedonic or utilitarian brands do differ: For instance, for hedonic brands like luxury fashion brands, it can be assumed that rather hedonic Social Media usage motivations and a browsing approach can be expected judging by Kim and Ko’s work who find out that consumers use luxury brand pages for the entertainment value (2012). For utilitarian services like travel services, the degree of participation seems high in order to obtain information (Pöyry et al., 2013). However, since the methodologies of the past research literature were not uniform and no explicit comparison towards other brand types were made, this research will try to do so. Thus, the goal of this work is to find out to what extent the brand type (utilitarian or hedonic) impacts the motivations and behavior of using the brand page. Additionally, it will be researched what effect the Social Media brand pages have on brand loyalty for the different brands. As already mentioned, Social Media researchers like Laroche et al. support this notion and actually identified this as a gap in literature (2013). However, they have not researched it. Taking all factors into account, the research question will thus be:
What is the impact of Social Media brand page usage motivations and behavior on brand loyalty and how does the brand type, utilitarian or hedonic, influence the Social Media usage motivations and behavior of a consumer?
Sub questions to help answer the research questions will be:
- What motivations and behaviors are important to create brand loyalty for each brand type? - To what extent does the brand type impact the relationship of motivations and behavior?
1.2 Theoretical Contribution
This research is relevant for consumer behavior and brand management research. The reason for this is because it will provide new insights into which motives and participation behaviors play an important role for different brand types (hedonic and utilitarian). In support of that, the view adapted in this paper is a newly integrated one. The research on Social Media research will have a new way of managing brands on the corresponding platforms and could continue their research building on this work. Since there’s a lack in Social Media research, this paper will contribute further to research by providing a systematic overview on consumer motivations, behavior and brand loyalty depending on the brand type, just like Laroche et al. (2013) or Jahn and Kunz (2012) desired.
1.3 Managerial Contribution
Managers of both brand types will be able to deduce what aspects they should focus when they use Social Media as a communication or relationship tool. With the help of this paper, they will find out, what motivations and behaviors are important to create brand loyalty depending on each brand type. For instance, is it important to engage in the communication between customers on the brand page like Fournier and Avery (2011) stated in a user-generated context? Another question answered will be whether the contents of hedonic brands should be only hedonic or rather just informative in a utilitarian sense? The division by brand type will help answer such questions and gives aid for brands in practice to perform the necessary measure in order to service their customers the best way.
2. Literature Review
The literature review will provide relevant Social Media theory for this research, explain brand communities, consumer motivations and behavior on Social Media brand pages followed by a discussion on brand loyalty created through Social Media brand pages. This literature review structure, with variations, is common in Social Media research (Jahn & Kunz, 2012, Pöyry et al., 2013; van Krogt, 2013; Velaviciute, 2013;). This thesis will review these aspects with current new literature included and with additional researched variables thus leading to an updated review in regards with of this work’s specific research question. Next, the research on product types (utilitarian and feature-based vs. hedonic and experience based) will be elaborated, followed by a conceptual model with hypotheses.
2.1 Social Media – Uses and Gratifications Theory
With the extremely impactful rise of Social Media, research needed to catch up on it by capturing it theoretically (Ngai et al., 2015). Literature (e.g. Laroche et al., 2013) often uses Kaplan and Haenlein’s definition of Social Media definition who describe it as “a group of
Internet-based applications that […] allow the creation and exchange of user generated content” (2010, p. 61).
The focus is on the consumer and older theories, e.g. from communications and psychology, were applied to explain consumers on Social Media (Ngai et al. 2015). Ngai et al. categorized the theories in personal, social and mass communication theories (2015). In a brand context, the mass communication theories seem fitting because they capture brands on Social Media in relation to the customer (Ngai et al. 2015). One of them is the Uses and Gratification theory that was originally developed by Blumler & Katz in 1974. It assumes that people do not passively absorb media, but choose them and their consumption to cater to their needs (ibid.). According to this theory, people feel the need to choose the media they want to because it helps them finding their desired information, strengthen their personal values by following
media they can identify with, interact and connect with others or simply to get entertainment (McQuail, 1987). The specific motivations to join a brand page on Facebook will be discussed again in the “motivation” segment. However, at first, it needs to be clear how research defines these brand pages in Social Media which will be explained in the following.
2.2 Brand Communities on Social Media
Generally, the definitions for brand communities are derived from offline and virtual brand communities. In the following, it will be explained how research adapted brand communities to an online and Social Media context. One of the most used definitions in literature about brand communities is the one by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001): They describe brand communities as people getting together in order to share their interest towards the brand. This includes interacting with other members of the brand, experiencing the brand through the medium of a community and consequently engage in possibly shared rituals (ibid.). Group members feel the usage of a brand community is like an extended brand consumption of the products together with other brand lovers (ibid.). With the emergence of the web, online communities developed communities are free of locational or temporal limits, i.e. they can interact with each other where and when they want (e.g. Casálo, Flavián, & Guinalíu, 2010; Pöyry et al., 2013; Muniz & O’Guinn). Meeting in person is not the priority anymore, but rather the shared interest towards the brand (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). The aspect of interacting with each other and sharing commonalities like the brand adoration is integral to brand communities as research shows (e.g. Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; Pöyry et al., 2013). Research showed that brand communities exist on Social Media (e.g. Pöyry et al., 2013; Jahn & Kunz, 2012). One often cited work by Zaglia analyzes how well brand communities can be integrated in Social Media (2013). To begin with, comparing these two concepts, Zaglia finds out that there are commonalities and differences (2013). Boyd & Ellison (2007) find that regarding differences, traditional brand communities usually are not as easy to enter as Social Media (as cited in Zaglia, 2013). Furthermore, de Valck, Van Bruggen and Wierenga (2009)
find out that the brand community impact is so strong, that it alters the consumer behavior towards the brand noticeably (as cited in Zaglia, 2013). They find that the interaction and connection with members is higher in traditional brand communities than in brand communities on Social Media (ibid.).
Despite these differences, Jang, Olfman, Ko, Koh, & Kim (2008) find that both Social Media and brand communities emphasize the fact that the platforms enable communication (as cited in Zaglia, 2013). It can generally be said that brand communities embedded in Social Media go well together (Zaglia, 2013). However, she clarifies that typical brand community behavior has a lower magnitude on company hosted brand pages in terms of social interaction and being invested into the brand compared to traditional virtual communities. One explanation for the weaker behavior could be that consumers are exposed to several brands on Social Media and don’t focus entirely on one brand only, unlike a visit in a traditional brand community that is not on Social Media (Pöyry et al., 2013). Regardless of how intense the usage of Social Media brand pages is, this doesn’t change the fact that consumers do use Social Media in a brand community context and that brands establish themselves successfully on Social Media (e.g. Park & Kim, 2014; Pöyry et al., 2013).
Even though research focuses on both consumer and company founded brand communities (e.g. Pöyry et al., 2013; Zaglia, 2013), this paper will focus on the company founded brand pages on Social Media to limit its scope and, as will be seen towards the end of the review, some gaps need to be addressed. Research so far concludes that companies realized the potential of Social Media and are actively looking for using Social Media as a way of connecting with their fans and customers (Colliander & Dahlén, 2011) whereas vice versa, people want to connect with brands (Fournier & Avery, 2011). It is clear why people use media of their choice (discussed in part 2.1). But what makes people use Social Media brand pages in particular? This will be explained in the following.
2.2.1 Motivations for using Social Media brand pages
Motivations to use media were already mentioned above in relation to the Uses and Gratifications paradigm. Literature about Social Media brand page usage is often based on these motivations. Whereas many ways to classify these motivations exist, in general, three major motivations can be named: To access information (content-based), interact with others (relationship based) or enhance one’s self (self-oriented), grouped by Jahn and Kunz (2012). Kunz chose to group the motivations like this because they allow to be applied to online brand community motivations – Social Media brand pages are a form of online communities, thus their motivations are usually derived from these traditional online brand community motivations (e.g. Chen, 2011; Jahn & Kunz, 2012; Pöyry et al., 2013). Research shows that indeed traditional brand community motivations can be classified like suggested above (e.g.; Porter and Donthu 2008; Teichmann, Stokburger-Sauer, Plank, & Strobl, 2015).
Content based motivations stem originally from shopping consumption behavior that were
developed by Babin, Darden and Griffin (1994). This concept was applied to web-consumption behavior in general (Hartman, Shim, Barber, & O’Brien, 2006), then to online shopping (e.g. Cotte, Chowdhury, & Ratneshwar, 2006; Park, Kim, Funches, & Foxx, 2012; To, Liao, & Lin, 2007) and finally to Social Media usage motives (e.g. Pöyry et al., 2013). The motives derived from Babin et al. (1994) are hedonic and utilitarian:
Utilitarian motives include the advantage of saving time through finding what one is looking
for on Social Media (Anderson, Knight, Pookulangara, & Josiam, 2014; Pöyry et al., 2013). Furthermore, access is enabled through Facebook facilitating the reception of such information for one’s own needs.
Hedonic motives consist of trying to find a bargain in a shopping context on Social Media, a
process which gives the individual pleasure, also referred to as “social commerce” (Anderson et al., 2014; Babin et al., 1994). Most importantly for this research, experiential motives where consumers check Social Media for the fun, entertainment and when they want to
discover new trends (Anderson et al., 2014; Kim, & Ko, 2012; Pöyry et al., 2013). These content-based motivations are rather focused on the individual. The next motivations revolve around the interaction between at least two individuals:
Another motive is to have a relationship with the brand. In the Social Media brand page usage setting, research generally differentiates between interaction among users and with the brand and consumer (e.g. Jahn & Kunz, 2012). Feeling like being part of a group is important in communities which means having a social identity (Zaglia, 2013) (Jahn & Kunz, 2012). For example Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo (2004), van Krogt (2013) and especially Zaglia (2013) base this on the Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1974, Tajfel 1982): Tajfel (1974; 1982) explains that group members consider themselves member of a group depending on how much the group benefits the member and how much the member is connected to it emotionally (as cited in Zaglia, 2013). She overall concludes, based on this theory and Ellemers, Kortekaas and Ouwerkerk’s work (1999), that identification with the group is crucial. Apart from that, literature cites altruistic motives in brand communities, i.e. helping others (e.g. Ho & Dempsey, 2010; Teichmann et al., 2015), as a motivation which can be classified as a relationship oriented motive. Teichmann et al. identified altruism in the fundamental work of Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh and Gremmler (2004). Another work by Kim, Chan and Kankanhalli (2012) also finds evidence of altruism to join brand communities (as cited in Teichmann et al., 2015).
Additionally, there is the motivation to communicate with the company on Facebook brand pages, to e.g. about one’s needs or the products (e.g. Fournier & Avery, 2011; Jahn & Kunz, 2012; Laroche et al., 2013), which is common in online brand communities (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig 2002). Regardless of whether the consumer wants to complain or contact the brand for other reasons, this thesis will include the customer-brand interaction as a motive to use Social Media brand pages.
Lastly, self-oriented motives could be an antecedent of Social Media brand page usage. Mostly, brand community research revolves around the way consumers like to present themselves (e.g. Jahn & Kunz, 2012; Teichmann et al., 2015). As Teichmann et al. discuss, self-presentation can be explained by the thoughts of Leary who states that people aspire to have certain attributes and self-presentation helps to show these attributes to the outside (1996). On the one hand, consumers are viewed in high regard by other community members by showing themselves and their personality and engage in community activities like design contests (e.g. Teichmann et al., 2015). On the other hand, other researches show that by associating with a brand on Facebook, users try to present themselves towards their friends (not the brand community) (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012), a concept used e.g. by Velaviciute too (2013). However, since the latter focuses on the actual self and doesn’t use it in a motivation context, the focus will be on Hollenbeck and Kaikati’s work (2012). Hollenbeck and Kaikati establish that consumers use and “liked” Facebook brand pages in order to enhance their personality (ideal self) or simply to reflect their personality the way it is (actual self) which is based on Sirgy’s personality theories from 1982 and 1985. In a brand context, Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price (2011) find that people can alter their self-concepts it by associating themselves with brands (as cited in Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012). E.g. one participant of that study associated with brands that movie stars liked so that people have a better impression of her which is clearly a way of presenting an ideal self (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012). In contrast, the actual self is shown by another brand who is a fan of a certain pizza delivery service and wants to show on Facebook that he orders through this brand because he likes it (ibid.). This stream of thought is also the focus on Pagani, Hofacker and Goldsmith’s work who find out that people use Social Media in order to express themselves and their personalities (2011).
2.2.2 Behavior in Social Media Brand Communities
The best way to understand behavior in Social Media brand communities is by getting to know the features of a Social Media brand page. This thesis will focus on Facebook, which has certain characteristics that shape the usage of the platform in general and logically the brand communities. Facebook features are described by Xu, Ryan, Prybutok and Wen (2012): Firstly, posting content is possible which will be visible in Facebook and can be generated by everyone, i.e. companies and consumers. Secondly, content can simply be viewed, which is also called browsing. Thirdly, content can be shared, i.e. everyone who subscribed to a user or brand can see the shared content. Lastly, there’s a comment possibility to reply to posts. Pöyry et al. (2013) are one of the few that address Social Media usage behavior in brand pages and fittingly enlisted Facebook’s characteristics in this context: Facebook is a way of getting in touch with people or brands. To be able to do this, one gets subscribed and access to a brand page by “liking” the brand page whose posts will then appear whenever the consumer logs into Facebook (ibid). Just like Zaglia (2013) found out, the authors conclude that the usage of brand pages on Facebook will be weaker for several reasons: To begin with, Facebook is not used only to connect with one single brand unlike in traditional communities where the sole purpose of visiting a separate website was to dedicate one’s time to the brand (Bagozzi, Bergami, & Mazocchi, 2012; Pöyry et al., 2013; Zaglia, 2013). Thus, Facebook can be used to subscribe to multiple brands and see the posts of other users (Pöyry et al., 2013). This implies that usage behavior can vary and so can attention towards one subscribed brand or another (Pöyry et al., 2013). In comparison to traditional brand communities, Zaglia (2013) and Pöyry et al. (2013) correctly pointed out that the usage behavior is not exactly the same and can differ, as will be explained in the following.
Participation goes back to the nature of online communities. Muniz and O’Guinn already observed interactive behavior of members with each other and the brand (2001). In a Social Media context, the definition of Pöyry et al. of participation fits (2013): “Users of Facebook
community pages participate in the community by generating content, such as posting comments on other users’ posts, posting questions related to the host company’s services or the community topic in general, as well as posting product reviews and experiences” (p. 227).
Hammond (2000) showed that the behavior in online communities does not limit itself to interacting with each other, but simply browsing the page is included too (as cited in Pöyry et al., 2013). Pöyry et al. define browsing as (2013) “… scanning and monitoring, either directly
on the actual page or, more often, through the user’s ‘newsfeed’ view” (p. 227).
Oddly enough, the authors left out the Facebook feature of “liking” posts and comments. Since this work goes by Pöyry et al.’s definition, liking a post is not user generated content, because no actual content is being produced, and thus liking a post is categorized as browsing. Literature links motivations with behavior on the brand page: It can in general be said that all three motivation dimensions lead to participation behavior because that is the overall purpose of brand communities (e.g. Bagozzi et al., 2012; Teichman et al., 2015) In a Social Media context, only few have considered the motivations for browsing behavior, however. Pöyry et al. (2013) and Anderson et al. (2014) find out that browsing behavior can be caused by hedonic and utilitarian motivations. Researches like Jahn & Kunz’s proved that browsing leads to participation (2012). The role of motivations in browsing and participation will be explored further in the course of this thesis.
2.3 Brand loyalty
In general, brand loyalty can be defined as “… a deeply held commitment to rebuy or
re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchase, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior” (Oliver 1999, p. 34). The brand loyalty
concept that is used the most refers to two dimensions: attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty (Oliver 1999; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). This means that brand loyalty is not measured only by repurchase behavior itself, but rather also by intentions towards the
service and product (1996). These favorable attitudinal dimensions include behavioral intentions to purchase, refer the brand to others and to stay with the brand (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
2.4 Social Media Brand Pages and Brand loyalty
The general consensus is that brand communities create brand loyalty in offline and non-Social Media brand communities (e.g. Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). This effect still exists on Social Media. Research shows brands on Social Media in general do create brand loyalty (Anderson et al., 2014; Laroche et al., 2013; Park & Kim, 2014; Pöyry et al., 2013).
Furthermore, literature finds out that participation in the brand community on Social Media leads to higher brand loyalty (e.g. Laroche et al., 2013; Jahn & Kunz, 2012).
Additionally, it must be said that seemingly an experiential relationship with the customer on Social Media strengthens the brand loyalty and relationship quality with the brand (Park & Kim, 2014). Park and Kim find out that no purchase intention can be derived from Social Media brand page usage (2014). However, it must be said that a lot of the questions were asked in a way to stress the experiential value. This thesis will consider the assumption of some research that participation is positively influencing brand loyalty. Regarding browsing and brand loyalty, particularly, Pöyry et al.’s studies will be paid attention to (2013): Pöyry et al. found out that browsing lead to purchase, referral intention and intention staying with the brand (ibid.), participation did not. Thus, the effect of browsing, contrary to participation, is relatively strong towards loyalty (ibid.). They found out that loyalty to stay with the brand was created by both hedonic and utilitarian motivations (ibid.). This confirms Zaglia’s research that assumed that community behaviors like participation might not be as strong on Facebook (2013). Part of the reasoning could be that the user does not use Facebook to only look up the brand, but rather browse what’s appearing on the consumer’s newsfeed (Pöyry et al., 2013).
As it is evident, the general understanding is that brand loyalty is created. However, it must be considered that literature has, thus far, not analyzed this loyalty and consumption behavior across different brand categories. A lot of research only uses one particular brand or no category (Habibi et al., 2014; Pöyry et al., 2013). Clearly, a gap is to manifest whether the motivations leading to consumption behavior in relation with loyalty could differ by product categories. To elaborate on this this gap, the following will illustrate different brand types.
2.5 Utilitarian and Hedonic Products
The literature review so far looked at brands, but has not explicitly differentiated the kinds of brands. For over 30 years, research has differentiated between utilitarian and hedonic goods (Alba & Williams, 2013). Brands thus offer utilitarian or hedonic goods. It was already mentioned above in the motivations what utilitarian and hedonic means in the sense of using Social Media (Anderson et al., 2014; Babin et al., 1994). However, that was not referring to the context of a product or good of a brand.
According to Hirschman and Holbrook, utilitarian goods are seen from the traditional economic point of view: Products are “...objects for which the consumer desires to maximize
utility, where utility typically is measured as some function of the product's tangible attributes” (1982, p. 94). Dhar and Wertenbroch elaborate further that utilitarian goods are
used cognitively and have a functional or practical purpose (2000). Similarly, literature refers to such goods as feature based goods or non-sensory, which means that the good’s value can be derived by reading about the information and features of the product (Degeratu, Rangaswamy, & Wu, 2000). This can be argued, but utilitarian or feature-based products are e.g. computer hardware (Cheema & Papatla, 2010). Thus for utilitarian, non-sensory or feature-based goods, the use is primary and these can be derived from getting feature information.
Hedonic goods go beyond the functional use and are defined as “those facets of consumer behavior that relate to the multisensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of one's experience with
products” (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982 p. 92). The authors explain that, in contrast to
utilitarian goods, the product usage is joyful for each individual. Thus, the attributes of the product are not front and center anymore, but the subjective value and experience of a person enjoying the product, e.g. goods of luxury brands (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2009).
In line with this train of thought, hedonic goods are often described as experience based
goods, or simply experiential goods (Batra & Ahtola, 1991). This means that these goods are
used in a multisensory way, i.e. an evaluation of a good by all senses takes place, particularly by touching and smelling (Degeratu et al., 2000). An example for such good is e.g. luxury fashion or luxury in general (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). For facilitation, this work will refer to the mentioned product categories as utilitarian and hedonic, which means that the feature-based and experience-based views are included in the corresponding terminology. Naturally, a product can be both utilitarian and hedonic (e.g. Alba & Williams, 2013). However, for this research, only products with primarily hedonic or utilitarian value are going to be analyzed to filter clearer results.
Research has already started to combine the product categories with how they relate to web usage. For instance, Cheema and Papatla try to find out how online searches are used for hedonic or utilitarian goods and the effect on purchase of these goods (2010). They researched that information is looked up online for utilitarian goods rather than hedonic ones. The result is reasoned with the aforementioned theory that hedonic goods should rather be experienced subjectively and sensorily before they are bought (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). However, this study is limited in the sense that it only focuses on search engines which implies that looking up information is the main purpose and not an actual experience is sought after like e.g. on Social Media. This research is supported by Yang and Mai (2010) who find out that for experiential/hedonic goods like video games, people look up information online in order to get factual information on the game. When it comes to the reviews of customers regarding their experience, which is the category that video games belong to, the reviews are
not trusted as much because the customers would rather experience the product on their own to judge about it properly (2010). Continuing this train of thought, Pauwels, Leeflang, Teerling and Huizingh go beyond the search engine function and analyze the impact the usage of brand websites with information for the products on hedonic or utilitarian goods (2011). In their research, websites filled with plenty of information lead to good evaluations for sensory/hedonic goods rather than non-sensory ones. This is reasoned by the fact that the websites not only contain important information, but also is designed in a way that appeals to sensory goods. Pauwels et al. find that users compare the website atmosphere to their needs and are able to decide whether the sensory good is fitting for them or not (2011).
2.6. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
The visualization of the aforementioned streams of thought can be seen in figure 1. Additional visualizations of the model will be illustrated when the hypotheses are tested in section 4.
Motivations Behavior Brand loyalty
Fig. 1: Concept of Social Media usage motivations and behavior with connection to brand loyalty and Brand type as a moderating variable of motivations and behavior on the basis of Teichmann et al. (2015), Jahn and Kunz (2012), Hirschman and Holbrook (1982).
Content-Based
Hedonic Utilitarian
Brand Type
Hedonic (experience- based) Utilitarian (feature-based)
Browsing
Participation
Brand Loyalty Relationship-Based
With Other Members With Brand
Altruism
Self-Based
Actual self Ideal self
Literature has tested these relationships, motivation-behavior-brand loyalty, before, but not in the context of different brand types with brand e.g. as a moderator of the motivation-behavior relationship. There is a work (Toledo, 2012) that distinguished Facebook brand communities by brand type, however since it focuses only on motivations and thus answers a different research question than this study aims for, said work will not be included.
In the following, hypotheses will be developed to give an idea of what the impact of the brand type on the stated relationships is. Hedonic and utilitarian goods do not exclude each other (Anderson et al., 2014). The same applies to the brand page content, it’s neither exclusively hedonic nor utilitarian (Bernardo et al., 2012). However, for the sake of clarity, brands and brand pages will be considered that are primarily hedonic or utilitarian. Just like literature assumes, hedonic brands create their pages hedonically, the same applies to utilitarian brands (Bernardo et al., 2012). In the following, hypotheses will be elaborated.
To begin with, recent research like from Zaglia (2013) and Pöyry et al. (2013) point out the importance of browsing on Social Media. The researches of these authors showed that browsing behavior is relatively strong. In general, the final goal is to enhance brand loyalty, be it attitudinal or behavioral (Zeithaml et al., 1996). Regarding Social Media, research established the relationship between participation in brand communities and brand loyalty (e.g. Jahn & Kunz, 2012). The role of browsing is conflicting in research (e.g. Casaló et al., 2010; Pöyry et al., 2013). Yet, since browsing seems like a common occurrence on Social Media (e.g. Pöyry et al., 2013; Zaglia, 2013), the effect of this behavior might very likely have an impact on brand loyalty as well. Logically, not everyone who uses Social Media, automatically interacts with others with comments (i.e. participation). For example it could be the case that the posts on brand pages and comments are simply browsed through without an intent to get in contact with the brand or its fans verbally. For this thesis, browsing will be considered as much as participation to analyze its actual effect on brand loyalty. Since
browsing seems to be so prevalent (e.g. Zaglia, 2013), this thesis hypothesizes that all motivations lead to browsing which thus creates brand loyalty:
H1: All motivations create brand loyalty mediated by browsing behavior.
The hypotheses are based on motivations leading to behaviors and the consequence of brand loyalty. The first set of motivations is utilitarian and hedonic. To gain a better understanding of these, they will be considered without their impact on behavior (H2a and H2b). After the elaboration on these motivations, the link to behavior (participation and browsing) and brand loyalty will be illustrated (H3a and H3b).
For hedonic (experience based goods) brand types, it seems like both hedonic and utilitarian motivations play a role in using the brand’s Social Media (Anderson et al., 2014). A research very close to this topic is the one by Anderson et al. (2014). However, it must be said that their work was focusing on Facebook as a shopping platform, i.e. Facebook was made an online shop for clothing, the so-called Facebook Retail Pages (ibid.). With this concept, it seems clear that people searching clothes online look for both informational and experiential benefits. Direct retailing through Facebook is not the main focus of this thesis, so it can be assumed that people who are fans of hedonic goods on Facebook do not necessarily look for
purchase relevant information like price, but could also want to experience the posts and the
brand instead. Particularly for hedonic goods, literature reinforces this assumption, e.g. fashion advertising is often not solely focusing on utilitarian factors like price, but instead, a narrative approach is taken that tries to persuade the customer in the form of telling a story instead of presenting cold facts (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2010). Obviously, this marketing strategy is continued – and embraced – on Social Media: The hedonic content on pages of hedonic goods is appreciated more than utilitarian content (Anderson et al., 2014).
H2a: Hedonic motivations are stronger than utilitarian motivations on hedonic brand pages.
As already elaborated above, utilitarian goods lack the hedonic component and are information-focused (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). In fact, Bateman, Gray, & Butler found
out that if somebody is concentrating on looking up product information and news online, a need and dependence develops that makes users read about info regularly (2011). Since utilitarian goods are valued by factual information, the mentioned dependence by Bateman et al. (2011) can be applied to Social Media brand pages as well: utilitarian brands provide consumers with factual information in their pages because that’s what they’re looking for (ibid.). According to Bateman et al., in this case, consumers are likely to check the page regularly to obtain new information. Consequently, the way the pages of utilitarian brands are used differs from hedonic pages. In accordance to that is the research by Bernardo et al. (2012) who say that when someone uses brand pages of utilitarian brands such as travel services, the main criteria for customers is the fact that the functional value is given. Despite the importance of hedonic values, it’s still important to clarify that hedonic value is secondary in this case (ibid.). All in all, the following conclusion can be drawn:
H2b: Utilitarian motivations are stronger than hedonic motivations on utilitarian brand pages.
Based on hypotheses 2a and 2b, the analysis of hedonic and utilitarian motivations continues by including behavior, i.e. participation and browsing, and brand loyalty. In general, on the one hand, the assumption in some researches is that utilitarian motivated users are participating less and only tend to browse the Web/Social Media for information (Cotte et al., 2006; Pöyry et al., 2013). This view is reinforced in literature by the fact that browsing on Social Media is more prevalent than in traditional brand communities, independently from brand type (Zaglia, 2013). Zaglia found out that communities on Social Media could show less intense participation compared to traditional online community platforms like forums (ibid.). The reduced participation could occur because people browse instead.
On the other hand, a lot of the literature on online behavior on Social Media mentioned does not explicitly refer to goods of hedonic brands as a category, they either use all kinds of brands (Jahn & Kunz, 2012) in their samples, focus on web usage in general (Cotte et al., 2006) or utilitarian goods only like travel service brand pages on Social Media (Pöyry et al.,
2013). This is why the impact of hedonic brands on motivations and behavior on Social Media is quite unclear. As already mentioned, Anderson et al. looked at hedonic goods, i.e. apparel, on Social Media, however they did not consider participation because they focused on purchase intention and brand loyalty (2014).
What is clear, though, is the fact that hedonic brands advertise and represent themselves in an experiential and emotional way instead of simply focusing on features (e.g. Phillips & McQuarrie, 2010). Judging by Anderson et al.’s work, this hedonic approach is appreciated by the brand page fans of hedonic goods as well because it obviously creates brand loyalty (2014). Their research showed that brand loyalty is created, but not necessarily purchase intention, implying that customers may just enjoy the page to experience the posts without interaction with other members or the brand, e.g. they simply want to be entertained by the posts (ibid.) which by definition is browsing. At least the factor loading of the questionnaire statements speaks rather for browsing instead of participation on the brand page: Respondents agree with the statements, e.g. that they go on the Facebook page to check out new trends – The loading for such, rather non-interaction related questions is stronger than to socialize with others when shopping, i.e. in a brand page context, browsing is more relevant for hedonic motivations than interacting (ibid.). Moreover, Yang and Mai deliver evidence that to consumers, participation on the internet for hedonic brands might not be too useful: As already mentioned above, they find out that people look up information online, but read reviews of hedonic goods with a bit of skepticism because they want to experience the good on their own first before completely judging its value (2010). Consequently, not interaction in form of asking further questions about the good is happening, but only reading the reviews to form an initial opinion about a product which is browsing behavior. Furthermore, Sen and Lerman similarly find out that consumers perceive reviews for utilitarian products to be more useful than hedonic ones because the latter are more biased by the reviewer’s emotions (2007). Going further, earlier research, e.g. To et al.’s work regarding online shopping (2007),
establishes a link between browsing and brand loyalty. In short, it can be concluded that the browsing behavior applies to hedonic goods, particularly for hedonically motivated users. The browsing behavior on Social Media might even be stronger than for utilitarian goods because hedonic products are more experiential and subjective than utilitarian products (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982) and thus users might just enjoy the process of experiencing the posts instead of gaining an utilitarian advantage of it by actively asking about information. The former can logically create brand loyalty, too. In consequence, one could assume hedonic products pages attract users with hedonic motivations which, shown above, include strong browsing behavior.
H3a: The hedonic brand type positively influences the relationship of hedonic motivations and browsing, so that browsing behavior is increased.
H3b: The relationship of hedonic motivations and participation is weakened by the hedonic brand type as a moderator.
Logically, when consumers use Social Media pages for relationship-oriented motivations, the participation will be higher than browsing. E.g. Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner and Gremler. found a relationship between relationship motives and word of mouth which equals participation and loyalty in a brand community (2004). The question for this thesis is rather how the brand types (utilitarian or hedonic) affects the intensity of relationship-motives and the resulting participation and loyalty in the community.
Zaglia hints that the community behavior is decided by the Social Identity Theory mentioned above (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel, 1982). Tajfel (1974; 1982) explains being a brand fan page community member depends on how much one can relate to that group (as cited in Zaglia, 2013). As Muniz established, one reason for a community to exist is the mutual adoration of a brand (2001). Regarding hedonic products, Hirschman and Holbrook say that hedonic products require more than just the function of a product: the senses are involved in evaluating the product as well (1982). This implies that the attachment to a product is higher than with utilitarian products because with utilitarian products one could simply change to
another brand if their product has a better functional use which is how such products are valued (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). In fact, for this reason, past researches on traditional communities were about hedonic brands, not utilitarian ones (Cova & Pace, 2006).
It can thus be assumed here that adoration in a brand community is more intense for hedonic brands than utilitarian brands because their use has an emotional and sensory connection that goes beyond functional purposes unlike utilitarian goods. This might also mean that community members of hedonic brand pages are connected more strongly and if they visit those sites for relationship motives, they consequently interact more with each other and the brand. In comparison to utilitarian goods, it is possible that because of the emotional connection towards the brand (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), the interaction is higher because it goes beyond the un-emotional connection that utilitarian brand fans have. For this work it is assumed that the emotional component in hedonic brands makes people interact with each other more than the functionally oriented brands of utilitarian brands. The former group’s belongingness is stronger and consequentially should lead to higher interaction and looking for information through browsing which finally increases brand loyalty. In a relationship-context, the hypothesis accordingly says:
H4a: The relationship of relationship-motivations and browsing is positively influenced by the hedonic brand type. The influence of the hedonic brand type moderator on this relationship is stronger than the utilitarian brand type moderator.
H4b: The relationship of relationship motivations and participation is positively influenced by the hedonic brand type. The influence of the utilitarian brand type as a moderator is weaker on this relationship than the hedonic brand type moderator.
Another relationship-motivation that was mentioned is the altruistic one (Teichmann et al., 2015). As mentioned above, hedonic products are rather subjective and need to be experienced on one’s own first before evaluating the product and brand (Yang & Mai, 2010). In contrast, utilitarian products apparently can be relied on by just learning about information (ibid.; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Since altruism is helping someone without reciprocal
expectations in return (Teichmann et al., 2015), it is more likely that this behavior occurs in utilitarian brand pages than hedonic ones: Asking either the brand or fellow community members for information on products or look for such information is more useful for utilitarian than hedonic products, based on Yang and Mai (2010), because for utilitarian products information is sufficient to evaluate the product, for hedonic blatant facts are not enough (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Thus, with this assumption it can be said that users of utilitarian brand pages on Facebook do have a use in reading information from the company or other members. This inference regarding utilitarian brands is confirmed by Sen and Lermann (2007) as already mentioned above. The altruistic motive could consequently be applied to utilitarian brands: People who would connect with such brand pages could e.g. ask about information that other users or the company would provide. When this need is satisfied, brand loyalty is created. So it can at least be concluded:
H4c: The altruistic motivations, mediated by behavior, create brand loyalty on utilitarian brand pages.
Regarding the self-directed motivations of using brand pages on Social Media, literature allows the following assumptions. As already mentioned above Hollenbeck and Kaikati find out that the ideal self and actual self is presented on Social Media (2012). For some hedonic products, like luxury products, status is an important aspect of why such products are being consumed (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). In the case of hedonic luxury products, it can be said that users try to project a personality via Social Media that they aspire to be or want people to think they have: This notion supported by research on Social Media luxury brand pages and shows that it leads to participation on the Social Media brand page (Dhaoui, 2014; Jahn, Kunz, & Meyer, 2013) – However, this research is not limited to luxury brands only, but to hedonic brands as a whole. As hedonic products in general, not only luxury, are connected with pleasure and desirability (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), it can be said that hedonic brand page fans try to associate their personality with these desirable hedonic product/brands via Social Media to present themselves in an enhanced way (ideal self).
Contrasting this, the mentioned actual self concept in Hollenbeck and Kaikati’s work (2012), it can be assumed here that utilitarian products, not necessarily involving idealized imagery and prestige, could be about presenting the actual self.
Coinciding with the role of personality on Facebook, Pagani et al. focus on the concept of self-expression through Social Media. (2011). Just like Hollenbeck and Kaikati, they assume that people use Facebook for reasons that include personality: One of them is called
self-expressive which means people post on Facebook to showcase their identities and values
(2011). Pagani et al. found out that users with that motivation are posting actively on Social Media instead of just browsing (2011). As already mentioned above, luxury goods pages are said to be attractive because extrinsically motivated people can show prestige and thus an idealized, desirable personality on corresponding pages (Dhaoui, 2014; Jahn, Kunz & Meyer, 2013; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). In line with that, Teichmann et al. (2015) gather literature that finds out that people who are extrinsically motivated, i.e. getting rewards in form of e.g. recognition, show high levels of participation in brand communities confirming previous research (e.g. Kim, Chan & Kankanhalli, 2012). The same could is said to apply to Social Media of not only luxury, but hedonic pages in general: people use Social Media to express their idealized personalities and participate in corresponding pages to get recognition by other members, the company or their Facebook friends (ibid.). It is assumed that as long as users are given the opportunity to express themselves via brand pages, the brand loyalty will be strengthened. Consequently, the hypotheses proclaim:
H5a: Ideal self motives are more common for hedonic than utilitarian brands.
H5b: The relationship of the ideal self motive and participation is positively moderated by the hedonic brand type.
H5c: The actual self motivations, mediated by behavior, create brand loyalty on utilitarian brand pages. H5d: The ideal self motivations, mediated by behavior, create brand loyalty on hedonic brand pages.
3. Methodology
This work will get results from a sample of respondents in form of a questionnaire.
In order to research the differences in motivations, behavior and loyalty depending on brand type, the survey will be distributed on the Facebook pages of utilitarian and hedonic brands. Popular Facebook brand pages will be considered to reach enough respondents. Logically, people who “liked” these pages, i.e. they are fans of the brand, will be questioned via the survey. Random visitors will not be considered since the focus of this paper is on brand loyalty and not on customer acquisition.
This research will be conducted with a non-probability quota sample: 5 Brands of each category (hedonic or utilitarian) will be considered. The same questionnaire will be handed out to every respondent. The survey is divided into three categories: motivations of Social Media brand page usage, the behavior on the brand page and questions regarding brand loyalty. The questionnaire will be put together from validated and previously used questions in order to guarantee feasible results. Since Social Media research is relatively new, questions will have to get adapted.
The classification of a brand being hedonic or utilitarian is based on literature: It is possible that a brand can be both utilitarian and hedonic (e.g. Pöyry et al., 2013) which is why for this research brands will be picked that are primarily utilitarian or hedonic. Literature has compared many products (e.g. Crowley, Spangenberg, & Hughes,1992), however there is not one universally applied scale. Moreover, since the analysis of hedonic and utilitarian product is used in different contexts, it can be concluded that relying on one certain scale is not enough. What literature often does instead, when differentiating the two brand types, is picking characteristic products of that category (hedonic or utilitarian) that have been cited as such throughout literature (e.g. Cheema & Papatla, 2010).
On the hedonic end, one extreme example is undoubtedly luxury products (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). Several authors also describe candy like
chocolate or ice cream as hedonic because the senses like taste are involved (Alba & Williams, 2013; Crowley et al., 1992; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2004). Jeans, i.e. clothing, scored high on a hedonic and sensory basis like in Crowley et al.’s evaluations (1992).
Regarding utilitarian goods, literature emphasized several times that the utilitarian value of travel services should not be underrated (Casaló et al., 2010; Pöyry et al., 2013). For the sake of this research, the utilitarian value is heightened by selecting only airline service pages or service pages from other categories which focus more on the service (flights) instead of the potential hedonic vacationing contents that a travel page, like by the aforementioned authors analyzed, could create. Computer hardware and software was classified as utilitarian in literature, too (Cheema & Papatla, 2010; Crowley et al., 1992). Furthermore, Electronic consumption goods are counted as utilitarian (Crowley et al., 1992; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000).
The scales are based on validated questionnaires, needed to be modified and adapted to a brand page context on Facebook. In the following the original scales are elaborated. The original Cronbach alphas and all modifications can be found in the appendix A and the final questionnaire in appendix D. Regarding the motivations, for content-based motivations, the questions will rely on the way Pöyry et al. (2013) used: They adapted utilitarian and hedonic motivations from Hartman et al. (2006) and Babin et al. (1994) who initially apply these motivations in an online shopping context and now use it for Social Media (e.g. hedonic motivation statements like: “I enjoy passing time in the community” [Pöyry et al., 2013, p. 230]). One utilitarian item needed to be removed because it didn’t fit the context of a non-travel brand community and adaptations were rather not helpful: “The community helps me with travel planning” (p. 230).
Regarding relationship motivations, the need of a consumer to get in contact with the brand is analyzed with the original scale of McAlexander et al. (2002), which was adapted by Laroche et al. (2013). Unlike the former who fitted the scale to “Jeep” only, Laroche et al. made the
scale more general for all kinds of brands. (e.g. company-consumer relationship: “the company understands my needs” p. 81). Altruism will be analyzed by the construct of Price, Feick, and Guskey (1995) that Teichmann et al. adapted (2015) (e.g. “Helping others is important to me”, p. 355).
Questions on self-centered motivations will be based on Wallace, Buil and Chernatony (2014) who used the construct of Carrol and Ahuvia which was focused on the actual and ideal self and referred to it as the inner and social self, but are content wise defined the same (2006) (e.g. the inner self “This brand symbolises the kind of person I really am inside” or the social self “This brand contributes to my image”, p. 84-85).
Behavior will be measured by the two dimensions browsing and participation, a concept that Pöyry et al. relied on (2013). Browsing will revolve around checking out the page and posts for news and get ideas (“I like to browse the community to see what’s new…” ibid., p. 230, adapted from Novak, Hoffman, & Yung, 2000). Moreover, “liking” content is measured by how often it is done, namely: regularly, often, sometimes or very seldom (Gummerus, Liljander, Weman, & Pihlström, 2012).
Participation activities questioned in Pöyry et al.’s work (2013) are based on Casálo et al.’s research (2010) which included statements like “I participate actively in the community activities” (p. 230). Due to the length of the questionnaire 2 of the 4 scales will be used.
The last dimension asked will be about brand loyalty which is based on Zeithaml et al.’s scale (1996) and was adapted by Pöyry et al. (2013) in a brand community context with good validity (e.g. “I intend to buy services offered in this community in the near future”, p. 230). A first pretest will be taken to test the questionnaire on comprehension. The pre-test will be tested in a way. Another pre-test will be done to make sure the brands selected are primarily hedonic or utilitarian.
3.1 Pre-tests
The first pre-test was distributed to a total of n = 23 respondents who liked brands on Facebook and was tested on whether the construct is comprehensible. To test on understanding is common in Social Media research (e.g., Pöyry et al., 2013) because the items need to be adapted so that they’re more fitting to Social Media and by pre-testing these, it’s made sure that during the actual data collection no comprehension issues emerge. Feedback showed that only minor modifications needed to be done like highlighting the headings. Since this survey is a non-probability quota sample, 5 brands that are primarily hedonic or utilitarian need to be picked. To make sure a brand belongs to clearly one end of the hedonic-utilitarian continuum, a second-pretest will be launched by letting consumers decide on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (1 = very utilitarian, 7 = very hedonic) from brands of the categories reviewed above. The method of letting consumers decide the hedonic and utilitarian value of brands based on a Likert scale is used by Cheema & Papatla (2010) as well. Utilitarian brands were defined as instrumental, fulfilling basic needs and having a rather functional task, whereas hedonic brands are experienced with fun, pleasure and excitement which go beyond the functional task – these descriptions are based on Cheema & Papatla as well (2010). A brand is considered utilitarian when it scores below 4 whereas hedonic are above 4. Judging by the the means tested on n= 35 brand fans, the highest scoring hedonic brands from the categories clothing and food were: Chanel (m=6.44), Burberry (m = 5.97), Dolce & Gabbana (6.25), Zara (m=4.38), Ben & Jerry’s (m = 4.84) (see table 1).
1 Chanel 6,44
2 Burberry 5,97 3 Dolce & Gabbana 6,25
4 Zara 4,38
5 H&M 3,91
6 Milka 3,91
7 M&M's 4,41 8 Snickers/Twix/Mars 4,03 9 Ben & Jerry's 4,84
