• No results found

Social media platforms and interactions and their impact on value equity, brand equity, and retention equity

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Social media platforms and interactions and their impact on value equity, brand equity, and retention equity"

Copied!
107
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

MASTER THESIS

Social Media Platforms and Interactions and their Impact on Value Equity,

Brand Equity, and Retention Equity

University of Amsterdam

MSc. in Business Administration Master Thesis Marketing Track Deadline: Final Thesis

Supervisor: dhr.drs. ing. A.C.J. (Antoon) Meulemans

Student name: Willemine de With Student number: 11350407 Date: 26-01-2018

(2)

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This document is written by Student Willemine de With 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.

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor dhr.drs. ing. A.C.J. (Antoon) Meulemans of the University of Amsterdam for his kind guidance during this thesis research. I enjoyed our

meetings in which we brainstormed on how to approach the topics and questions raised in this

thesis. Because of his comments on previous deadlines I was able to make critical analyses of

my own work and he helped me to set up clear deadlines that made the cooperation between

us very concrete, useful, and pleasant.

Thank you,

(4)

Table of Contents

Abstract 7

Key Words 7

I. Introduction 8

II. Literature Review 11

2.1. The Power and Impact of Social Media Brand Communications 11

2.2. Consumers’ Motivations and Social Media 13

2.3. Social Media and Marketing 14

2.4. Social Media Platforms 16

2.4.1. Facebook 17

2.4.2. Instagram 18

2.4.3. Recap Facebook and Instagram 19

2.5. Customer Equity 21

2.5.1. Value Equity 23

2.5.2. Brand Equity 23

2.5.3. Retention Equity 24

2.5.4. Recap Value Equity, Brand Equity, and Retention Equity 25

2.6. Origin of Brand Communication 26

2.6.1. Firm-created Content 27

2.6.2. User-generated Content 27

2.6.3. Recap Firm-created Content and User-generated Content 28

2.7. Industry Type 29

2.8. Conceptual Model 33

III. Research Design and Method 35

3.1. Pre-Test: The Case Companies 35

3.1.1. Social Media Activities in Service-based Industries: KLM 36 3.1.2. Social Media Activities in Product-based Industries: Coca-Cola 36

3.2. Research Design 37

3.3. Data Collection 39

(5)

3.5. Measurement of the Variables 41 3.6. Statistical Procedure 43 IV. Results 45 4.1. Demographics 45 4.2. Factor Analysis 47 4.3. Reliability Analysis 48 4.4. Statistical Analysis 49

4.4.1. Results of Main Effects MANOVA Test 54

4.4.2. Results of Two-Way Interactions MANOVA Test 55

4.4.3. Results of Three-Way Interaction MANOVA Test 56

4.4.4. Control Variables 58 4.5. Limitations 58 V. Discussion 60 References 66 Appendices 73 Appendix 1 – Questionnaires 74

Appendix 2 – Survey Visuals 83

(6)

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 - Characteristics/metrics for engagement in the most known virtual social 20 media (Coelho et al., 2016)

Figure 2 - Return on Marketing (Rust, Lemon, & Zeithaml, 2004) 22

Figure 3 - Drivers of customer equity 23

Figure 4 - Relative Importance of Drivers in Industry 23

Figure 5 - Drivers of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity 25

Figure 6 - The goods-services continuum (Johnson & Gustafsson, 2003) 30

Figure 7 – Conceptual Framework 34

Figure 8 - Distribution of Instagram and/or Facebook account 45

Figure 9 - Frequency of age 45

Figure 10 - Distribution of gender 46

Figure 11 - Distribution of nationality 46

Figure 12 - Distribution of occupation 47

Figure 13 - Distribution of education 47

Figure 14 - SM Platform x Type of Industry 56

Figure 15 - Origin x Type of Industry 56

Figure 16 - SM Platform x Type of Industry 57

Figure 17 - Origin x Type of Industry 57

Table 1 - Frequency Table 2x2x2 between subjects design 39

Table 2 - Factor Analysis 48

Table 3 - Cronbach’s Alpha Value Equity, Brand Equity, and Retention Equity 49

Table 4 - Means, standard deviations and N 50

Table 5 - Estimated marginal means social media platforms: Facebook and Instagram 50

Table 6 - Means VE, BE, and RE in different conditions of the questionnaire 51

(7)

Abstract

This thesis has studied the differential effect of social media brand communications on

Facebook and Instagram in service-based industries and product-based industries on the level

of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity. Social media brand communications come

in many forms and manners, and therefore this research makes a distinction between

firm-created content and user-generated content. When the effect of social media brand

communications on the three different drivers of customer equity (value equity, brand equity,

and retention equity) can be defined, firms will have more insights on what characteristics of

social media to focus on to achieve the most lifetime value of their customers. Based on a

MANOVA-test, it can be concluded that the difference between Facebook and Instagram, and

this in combination with the difference between firm-created content and user-generated

content, do not have a direct differentiating effect on the levels of value equity, brand equity,

and retention equity. Only value equity seems to be affected by the two-way interaction of

type of industry and social media platforms, and also by the three-way interaction of social media platforms, origin of brand communication, and type of industry. This means that service-based companies and product-based companies focusing on value equity, can achieve

a higher level of value equity when using the correct social media platform, and with the right

focus on either user-generated or firm-created content.

Key Words

Social media brand communications, Facebook, Instagram, service-based industries,

product-based industries, firm-created content, user-generated content, value equity, brand equity,

(8)

I. Introduction

The introduction of social media platforms has changed the way people interact with

each other and with companies (Pütter, 2017). Social media has given the consumer a public

voice, in which it can act and react on what companies are doing, without the boundaries of

traditional media (Dijkmans, Kerkhof, & Beukeboom, 2015). Companies try to respond to

this increased consumer voice by changing their communication approach and carefully pay

attention to the way they present themselves online. Today’s consumers are busy and

companies need to be available for their consumers anytime and anywhere on social media

platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram and Pinterest (Gordhamer, 2009).

Companies struggle however to find the right performance indicators to measure the effect of

their social media strategies (Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011).

Much academic research has already been done on the effects of social media and

online brand communities on for example brand loyalty and brand engagement (Laroche,

Habibi, & Richard, 2013), research lacks however in defining its effect on customer equity

and the three drivers of customer equity; value equity, brand equity and retention equity. How

do social media brand communications affect the future revenue in the lifetime of the firm’s

customers (Kumar, 2008; Zeithaml, Lemon, & Rust, 2001)?

The traditional one-way communication on social media platforms has been replaced

by an interactive two-way direct communication (Kim & Ko, 2012). Consumers and brands

together are enhancing brand images and reputations. When studying the effect of social

media on various outcomes, it is often unclear what type of content is being investigated

(Goh, Heng, & Lin, 2013). Who is the content creator, the firm or consumer? In firm-created

content, the firm has control about the message spread on social media. Firms decide the

(9)

their control, but nevertheless has a great impact on the way people will evaluate the

company’s brand. In recent years more consumers are relying on user-generated content

online (Park, Lee, & Han, 2007). Consumers put great trust fellow peers’ opinions, but do

these opinions also have a differential effect on the drivers of customer equity; value equity,

brand equity, and retention equity (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p. 8)?

In this research the impact of these two different forms of content on value equity,

brand equity, and retention equity will be evaluated and measured with real-life examples

from Coca-Cola representing a product-based company, and KLM representing a

service-based company. The nature of service- and product-service-based industries is different and this

therefore might change the impact of social media communications on the three drivers of

customer equity (Johnson & Gustafsson, 2003).

This research will look at brand communications on Facebook and Instagram.

Facebook has already received some interest from researchers and its effect of brand

communications on value equity, brand equity, and retention equity (Coelho, Oliveira, &

Almeida, 2016). Instagram, however, is a relatively new platform with a recent rise in

popularity and research still lacks to provide the same knowledge and insights for the

Instagram platform (Hu, Manikonda, & Kambhampati, 2014). Social media tactics are a top

priority for marketers to be an expert in. A significant 91% of marketers want to know the

best social media strategy to engage their audience (Stelzner, 2017). Consequently, the

research question of this thesis is formulated as followed:

Do brand communications on Facebook and Instagram, being either firm-created brand communications or user-generated brand communications, have a different effect on the three drivers of customer equity (value equity, brand equity, and retention equity) and how does the industry of a company, play a role in this relationship?

(10)

This paper will contribute to existing academic literature by looking at different types

of content on Facebook and Instagram and their effect on value equity, brand equity, and

retention equity (Demba, 2016). The combination of Instagram and Facebook, firm-created

content and user-generated content, and service-based companies and product-based

companies, and their differentiating effect on the three drivers of customer equity will provide

more unique insights into the opportunities available for companies trying to understand the

impact of social media brand communications on the consumers’ perceptions of their brand.

This research is of quantitative nature, and a questionnaire will be used to collect all relevant

data. A MANOVA-test will be conducted to analyse the cross-sectional data and to make

conclusions on the proposed hypotheses.

Findings from this study can help companies to determine the impact of social media

brand communications on Instagram and Facebook on the three drivers of customer equity.

Value equity, brand equity, and retention equity represent different levels in the evaluation of

a consumer of a brand/firm (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p. 8). Firms for example interested in one

particular driver of customer equity, could use the results of this study to adjust their social

media strategy in order to achieve the highest level of value equity, brand equity, or retention

equity. Overall, this study will help firms to define a suitable social media strategy in which

the highest level of customer equity can be obtained.

This research will be structured as followed. First, the relevant academic literature

with regards to social media platforms, different types of content on social media, and

differences of companies in service-based industries and product-based industries will be

discussed. Based on the literature a conceptual model will be presented with several

hypotheses. Consequently, the research design and method will be discussed, followed by the

results of the conducted analyses. This research will end with a discussion of the results,

(11)

II. Literature Review

This chapter will review the most important theoretical publications in the academic

field related to the research topics of this thesis. First, an overview of the power and impact of

social media on companies and consumers, and the drivers/motivators for consumers to be

active on social media will be discussed. The importance of social media in marketing

strategies, and the different platforms that can be used, will be discussed in order to link social

media brand communications to the three drivers of customer equity, which will be evaluated

consequently. Literature about the difference between user-generated content and firm-created

content, and the difference between service-based industries and product-based industries will

be discussed in order to provide the relevant background information for the hypotheses of

this thesis. This chapter concludes with a conceptual framework in which all relevant

hypotheses and relationships have been visualized and structured.

2.1. The Power and Impact of Social Media Brand Communications

Social Media has changed the way companies perform marketing activities and

accordingly the relationship between the consumer and the brand (Hennig-Thurau et al.,

2010). Social media can be described as a ‘’group of Internet-based applications that build on

the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and

exchange of user-generated content’’ (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). This so-called social

environment of the Web 2.0 has provided consumers with new opportunities of sharing and

building content online, whereby users cooperate and interact a lot with each other (Lai &

Turban, 2008; Mueller, Hutter, Fueller, & Matzler, 2011).

In the past decades consumers used Internet for far simpler reasons than now.

Traditionally, consumers went ‘online’ to simply read, watch and/or to use content to buy

(12)

discuss Internet content’’ (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011; Boyd &

Ellison, 2008). Kietzmann et al. refer to this as the social media phenomenon, in which

companies must learn how to deal with these Internet focused consumers, otherwise social

media has the potential to damage or even crush their reputation (Kietzmann et al., 2011).

Internet consumers are exploring all the wonders and opportunities the Internet has to offer

and companies find themselves on the other side of the spectrum; they have to try to assist

these consumers in the best way possible.

When a company ‘introduces’ its brand on social media, it gives away a part of its

control over their brands. Brand communication will then change from one-directional

(whereby the brand only communicates about the brand to the consumer) to multidirectional

or conversational (Deighton & Kornfeld, 2009; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Consumers now

have the opportunity to express their feelings, thoughts and emotions about the brand and

spread this into the World Wide Web where it is available to everyone. This dynamical

change in the relationship between brands and consumers caused academic research to spend

a lot of research on the impact of social media on the brand-customer relationship. Social

media pages have become more or less customer service platforms and although firms have

long recognized the importance of maintaining a good dialogue with the customer, they are

struggling with this relationship in the form of social media, where this relationship has

become public and more consumer-empowered (Gallaugher & Ransbotham, 2010). Some

academics consider social media as the ‘future of market research’ (Cooke & Buckley, 2008),

its influence is indisputable, but companies don’t know how to effectively meet their

customer needs on social media and how and what performance indicators need to measured

(Hanna et al., 2011).

This thesis is trying to provide guidance to service- and product based companies in

(13)

(Facebook and Instagram) by measuring the effect of these contents on the three drivers of

customer equity; value equity, brand equity, and retention equity.

2.2. Consumers’ Motivations and Social Media

To understand the increased interaction between firm and consumer on social media, it

is important to know and understand the drivers that cause consumers to be active on social

media. Consumer’s motivations to be on social media can be understood as the stimuli that

drive them in the selection they make in the use of social media and its content (Muntinga,

Moorman, & Smit, 2011). Although the importance of social media has grown significantly in

the last years, firms could use more understanding of why people use social media, especially

why they would like to be connected to commercial firms on these kind of platforms (Whiting

& Williams, 2013). Firms can consequently use and implement this knowledge into their

social media strategies in order to target the right consumer with the appropriate approach and

content.

Whiting and Williams (2013) propose in their article ‘Why people use social media: a

uses and gratifications approach’, the uses and gratifications approach to explain why

consumers are active social media. The uses and gratifications theory is based on the

clarification of understanding how and why people are active on specific media to satisfy their

personal needs (Lariscy, Tinkham, & Sweetser, 2011). Whiting and Williams (2013) found

through studies ten different uses and gratifications themes: social interaction, information

seeking, pass time, entertainment, relaxation, expression of opinions, communicatory utility,

convenience utility, information sharing, and surveillance/knowledge about others.

Authors Muntinga, Moorman and Smit (2011) have questioned these consumers’

motivations as well in their article ‘Introducing COBRAs. Exploring motivations for

(14)

activities) principle and how this principle can have great consequences for firms. They divide

the COBRA typology in three dimensions of social media usage: consuming, contributing and

creating on/to social media. They explain the consumption of brand-related content by the

motivations of information, entertainment and remuneration. Contributing to brand-related

content is driven by three other motivations: personal identity, integration and social

interaction, and entertainment. The motivations for creating brand-related content (the most

active form of social media usage by consumers) are personal identity, integration and social

interaction, empowerment, and entertainment (Muntinga et al., 2011). It is evident that both

the uses and gratifications approach and the COBRAs typology explain the motivations for

social media usage by consumers by several personal aspirations from the consumers, ranging

from simple information seeking, to entertainment, and in the end identity seeking. Different

motivations ask for different marketing strategies, which will be explained in the following

subsection.

2.3. Social Media and Marketing

Where consumers go online to fulfil their needs based on for example the motivations

of the uses and gratifications approach and the COBRAs typology, firms of course also have

their reasons to be active and engaged with their consumers on the Internet. Firms consider

consumer involvement in social media a critical aspect of marketing (Park et al., 2007).

Furthermore, firms use social media to enhance brand attitude, customer commitment, and

trustworthiness (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2011). Being present on social media gives firms

among other things the following benefits. Social media can increase brand loyalty, sales, and

brand-trust, but only when the social media platforms are properly used by the firm (Laroche

et al., 2013). With the rise of social media the number of touchpoints through which a firm

(15)

guide their consumers throughout the entire customer journey. Social media has become a

new platform to provide consumers with customer care, and the best brand-related experience

as possible.

Marketing managers can use different tools and marketing objectives to meet the

motivations (as explained above) of their consumers. By following and exploring the

motivations consumers have to be active on social media, managers can adapt their content on

social media to provide a satisfying answer to these motivations (Muntinga et al., 2011). For

instance, a consumer looking for entertainment on social media will be most compelled by a

fun and entertaining marketing brand-related campaign. So, consumption, contribution and

creation of/to social media (Muntinga et al., 2011) ask for different responses of the firm.

In one way, firms try to get their consumers engaged and keep a discussion alive with

their consumers by interacting with them on social media websites like Facebook, Instagram

and Twitter (Dijkmans et al., 2015). On the other hand companies also try to monitor all other

relevant information about their products/services and what stakeholders are saying about

them online. Keeping up with the positive/negative responses about a product/service can be

of a great impact in keeping a good reputation (Dijkmans et al., 2015). These activities are

often called ‘online reputation management’, whereby the company tries to keep a transparent

and ethical dialogue with its stakeholders (Jones, Temperley, & Lima, 2009). What has been

remained relatively unstudied in this phenomenon is the impact of social media on firms’

overall customer equity and its relationship to the level of value equity, brand equity, and

retention equity.

Before the rise of social media, consumers had little control over their relationship

with a firm and they did not have many means to influence other consumers’ thoughts about

firms and their products/services, or means to make their complaints public. Nowadays,

(16)

with a firm, it can make this statement public and reach a lot of other customers (Gallaugher

& Ransbotham, 2010). When bad/good experiences are being made public on social media,

they can either harm or benefit the firm. In cases of bad ‘promotion’ it is vital that the firm

responds in the correct manner to either minimize the bad impacts these communications may

have, or to transform the complaint in a way that they really help the consumer in any other

way possible.

The following subchapters will first discuss different social media platforms in

general, and then elaborate on the impact of two platforms in more detail: Facebook and

Instagram.

2.4. Social Media Platforms

We are social. The annual Digital in 2017 Global Overview report from We Are

Social and Hootsuite reveals that to date more than half of the world’s population is online

(Kemp, 2017). 2.789 billion people are active social media users. This gives firms, active on

social media, a huge number of people they can reach in order to create a positive brand

image. In the Netherlands, the penetration of the Internet is extremely high. It finds itself

globally on the eighth position, with an Internet penetration of 95% (Kemp, 2017). There are

numerous platforms consumers can join to fulfil their social media motivations, and

consequently firms have a lot of options available to reach their (potential) consumers.

Globally, Facebook knows most daily users of all social media platforms; 1,871 billion users

(Kemp, 2017). In the Netherlands there are 9,5 million registered Facebook accounts

(Oosterveer, 02-01-2017). In social media studies, Facebook and Twitter are often used

because of their high level of consumer-firm interaction and the accessibility of researching

these platforms through the analysis of words. But Twitter is having difficulties attracting new

(17)

can also be captured in the Netherlands, where in 2016 250.000 consumers, especially

juveniles, have removed the Twitter app from their mobile phones (Oosterveer, 02-01-2017).

Instagram, however, is gaining in popularity. Instagram now has 800 million users, 200

million more than in December 2016, which shows an impressive rise in its consumer base

(Grigonis, 2017). In the Netherlands Instagram went from 2,1 million users in 2016, to 3,2

million users in 2017. It thereby outgrew Twitter (Oosterveer, 23-01-2017). Because of the

increasing popularity of Instagram and the stable popularity of Facebook, these two platforms

will of central focus in this research.

Social media makes people-to-people marketing, as well as firm-consumer marketing

possible. In the following paragraphs a deeper insight will be given to the relationship

between Facebook and Instagram and the way companies and consumers can both create

brand-related content on these platforms.

2.4.1. Facebook

Facebook started in 2004 as a ‘’social utility to allow friends and family to

communicate with one another via “wall” posts, photographs, personal messages, live chats,

“pokes,” and status updates’’, but has since then evolved into a pioneering social media

marketing platform (Cox & Park, 2014). Facebook users can show their interest for specific

topics by joining public or private groups, and through this, online interactive communities

arise. Over time Facebook became a platform not only for ‘the regular humans’, but also for

firms, celebrities, festivals etc. who have been using Facebook since then to reach and create a

loyal and interested group of consumers/fans (Niveditta & Padmavathy, 2017).

Firms create Facebook pages, in which they promote their product/service, combining

traditional techniques of offline-marketing and website imaging, and newer techniques like

(18)

2011). Facebook can contain both negative and positive information about firms, created by

both firms and consumers (Hansson, Wrangmo, & Søilen, 2013). Research shows that most

Facebook users do recognize the marketing activities of firms on Facebook, but they

themselves, use Facebook primarily for personal purposes. Consequently, this provides a

challenge for firms marketing their brands on Facebook. How do you gain positive responses

and engagement from users who are not looking for marketing campaigns (Hansson et al.,

2013)?

2.4.2. Instagram

Academic research has already paid significant attention to the appropriate marketing

tools that are needed for marketing strategies on Facebook and Twitter. The differences

between these two platforms and the consequent impact of marketing campaigns on the online

consumers have been central in many academic papers as well (Smith, Fisher, & Yongjian,

2012). Instagram was founded in 2010. Due to the recent rise in popularity of Instagram over

the last few years (Oosterveer, 23-01-2017), research still lacks to provide the same

knowledge and insights for the Instagram platform (Hu et al., 2014). Therefore, it is

interesting to research the influence of brand-related messages on Instagram on online

consumers in this research. This influence will be tested based on its effect on customer

equity (through brand equity, value equity, and retention equity), which will be further

elaborated in the following paragraphs.

But first, Instagram as a social media platform, how does it work? Whereby Facebook

users can provide ‘status updates’ through the use written content, video content, and image

content, do Instagram users only share their updates with mainly photos and short videos (Hu

et al., 2014; Coelho et al., 2016). User profiles can be private and public, and users can ‘like’

(19)

level of engagement with its users than Facebook (Hanan & Putit, 2013; Salomon, 2013).

Companies can consequently create a personal account on which they can post pictures/videos

of themselves as a brand, which sort of gives them the opportunity to provide a personal

picture of their brand. They can also ‘push’ content online for which they pay, to reach a

larger number of consumers, the content then shows up as sponsored content on the timeline

of Instagram users. In 2013, already 65% of the world’s leading brand was using Instagram to

promote their businesses, but also for small firms it can provide a cheap way to sell and

promote products (Coelho et al., 2016).

2.4.3. Recap Facebook and Instagram

On first sight, Facebook and Instagram seem to be relatively similar social media

platforms. There are, however, several noticeable differences between Facebook and

Instagram. The first difference is, like mentioned above, the type of content that is being

shared on both platforms. Instagram is mostly about sharing visually appealing images of

whatever excites the user; it is all about capturing moments (Coelho et al., 2016; Salomon,

2013). On Instagram only short videos and photos can be posted. Users on Instagram are

interested in, more than on Facebook, original content. Instagram is less about doing research,

more about just having fun. Facebook, on the other hand, is great for sharing original content,

reposting other content, promoting events and content, advertising and using different media

(video, image, links, news articles, opinions etc.). Although it seems to be that Facebook has a

lot more means available for users to share and create content, research shows Instagram is

getting better engagement for brands and celebrities (Salomon, 2013). Maybe this will

(20)

The second big difference between these platforms is the fact that Instagram is all

about mobile interaction (Salomon, 2013). Although Instagram has a mobile website, the

platform is best experienced through the use of mobile phones.

The third and last difference between Facebook and Instagram is their user base.

Instagram reaches a much more diverse and younger audience than Facebook. This also has

its effect on the type of content that is being uploaded on the platform and the way companies

should interact on Instagram, compared to Facebook (Salomon, 2013).

From the 2017 Social Media Marketing Industry Report it becomes evident that 40%

of marketers do not know if their Facebook marketing techniques are working, and 53% sees

a minimizing impact of their Facebook exposure. Additionally, the report also states that 63%

of marketers is designing on increasing their Instagram marketing activities, and 71% of

marketers want to acquire more knowledge about how they can use Instagram as a marketing

tool. (Stelzner, 2017). It would be useful for these marketers to gain more usable insights into

their (new) marketing activities, which they could perhaps extract from the findings of this

study.

(21)

2.5. Customer Equity

Most firms and brands are already active on social media nowadays. But are the

number of ‘likes’, ‘followers’ or ‘page successes’ really an equivalent of the overall

evaluation of the consumers of the company? In this research the effect of social media use by

firms on Facebook and Instagram on the level of Customer Equity will be tested. Authors

Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon have written a lot about the customer equity concept (Zeithaml et

al., 2001; Lemon, Rust, & Zeithaml, 2004; Rust, Lemon, & Zeithaml, 2004). This concept is

based on the presumption that marketing in the last decades has evolved from a short-term

transactions focus, to long-term customer relationships (Rust et al., 2004).

The value of a customer is a lot bigger than the mere profits of their transactions. Their

value lies in the total profit the customer gives during the relationship it has with the firm

(Kumar & George, 2007). ‘’Customer equity: the discounted sum of customer lifetime

values’’ is known in literature as the most important driver for the long-term values of a

company (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p. 4). Blattberg and Deighton explain customer equity by the

value of the relations that the customer has with a certain firm (Blattberg & Deighton, 1996).

The value of the customer in customer equity is not only dependent on the current value of the

consumer, but also all future interactions and profits a consumer can provide (Zeithaml et al.,

2001, p. 4). Improving the level of customer equity of a company can be very beneficial for

the firm-consumer relationship, and can provide a reliable source for future profits and

revenue (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p. 4). With the introduction of flexible social media platforms,

firms have a lot of new means to adjust their customer equity strategy on many different

levels. In this thesis the brand-related content on Instagram and Facebook will be tested by its

(22)

Figure 2: Return on Marketing (Rust, Lemon, & Zeithaml, 2004)

But how does a firm improve its customer equity? Rust et al. (2004) argue that in

order for a firm to improve their customer equity, they must accelerate in improving the three

drivers of customer equity: value equity, brand equity, and retention equity (Zeithaml et al.,

2001, p. 8; Rust et al., 2004). ‘’A strategy based on customer equity allows firms to trade-off

between customer value, brand equity, and customer relationship management’’ (Zeithaml et

al., 2001, p. 20). These three different drivers can have a different impact on the customer

equity of a company, and work independently and together. When a company realizes which

driver is most beneficial, it can focus on this driver in particular (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p. 20,

Figure 4). It may depend per industry, what driver will have most impact on the customer

equity (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p. 169). Therefore it is interesting that in this paper two different

industries, a product-based industry and a service-based industry, will be analysed. In the

(23)

Figure 3: Drivers of customer equity Figure 4: Relative Importance of Drivers in Industry

2.5.1. Value Equity

Value equity can be described as ‘’the customer's objective assessment of the utility of

a brand, based on perceptions of what is given up for what is received.’’ (Kim & Ko, 2012, p.

1481). Firms can have the best marketing campaigns in the world, but if the product or service

cannot meet with the consumer’s perceptions, then those will not be enough to create

customer equity. Value equity is empowered by three different key influences: quality, price,

and convenience. Quality consists of the objective assessment of the physical and nonphysical

aspects of the service or product, regulated by the firm. Price can be thought of ‘what is given

up by the customer’. Lastly, convenience represents the efforts a firm undertakes to make the

customer journey process of the customer as trouble-free as possible (Lemon et al., 2001).

2.5.2. Brand Equity

Brand equity is defined by the value that originates from the customer’s subjective

assessment of a brand, rather than from the product or service itself (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p.

84). This is why brand equity differs from value equity. Value equity is all about the

perception of objective features of the firm’s product/service, whereby brand equity is built

(24)

brand can serve as a reminder to the firm’s services and/or products, as appealing to attract

new consumers, and as a sentimental tie to the firm. Altogether, building good brand equity is

essential for a firms’ existence (Lemon et al., 2001). Just like with value equity, Rust, Lemon

and Zeithaml have come up with three levers that drive brand equity; brand awareness, brand

attitude, and corporate ethics (Lemon et al., 2001).

Brand awareness consists of the tools a firm possesses that could influence brand

awareness, like marketing communications (Lemon et al., 2001). Social media contains a lot

of marketing communications of brands towards consumers, and could therefore be

interesting to test its effect on brand equity. Firms can use social media to build images of

their brands that the customers wants to relate to. Brand attitude entails the success of firms to

build emotional ties with the consumers (Lemon et al., 2001). Social media can give firms the

tools to contact their customers directly and therefore build emotional ties and relationships

with the customers. The final lever, corporate ethics, specifies the way in which firms can

influence the perceptions of customers towards their organization (Lemon et al., 2001). For

example, firms like Coca-Cola who engage a lot in corporate social responsibility, are not

afraid to show this on their social media channels to enhance their corporate ethics.

2.5.3. Retention Equity

Lastly, retention equity occurs when customers want to stay in a relationship with a

brand beyond the subjective assessment of the brand. Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml (Lemon et

al., 2001) argue that value equity and brand equity might not be enough, considering the

relationship-driven economy firms are facing, to keep customers pleased. Loyalty programs,

special recognition and treatment, community-building programs, affinity programs, and

knowledge-building programs (the five levers that drive retention equity) can be tools firms

(25)

Retention strategies can enhance the percentage of repeated purchases by consumers at a

specific firm. Social media could lever the channels in which firms are in closer contact with

their consumers, and therefore can build relationships accordingly. Many firms include

loyalty programs in their social media marketing strategies by for example offering loyal

customers a tangible benefit. All the levers of retention equity are based upon the premise to

keeping your customers loyal, close and informed. The highest level of interaction can be

found in this equity level (Zeithaml et al., 2001, p. 107).

2.5.4. Recap Value-, Brand-, and Retention Equity

Overall, several factors can drive the level of which value equity, brand equity and

retention equity influence the overarching goal of customer equity. In figure 5 these factors

are summed up.

Figure 5: Drivers of value equity, brand equity and retention equity

The first hypothesis of this thesis concerns the impact of brand communications on

Facebook and Instagram on the level of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity. Both

platforms have a lot of means to affect the level of these three drivers of customer equity, and

therefore it is expected that there is a positive relationship between brand communications on

Instagram/Facebook and value equity, brand equity, and retention equity.

The first hypothesis of this thesis also concerns the differences between Facebook and

(26)

experience and evaluate brand-related content about and from firms. Facebook and Instagram

have several large differences (differences in type of content, level of engagement, mobile

interaction vs. desktop interaction, and user base), which will consequently affect the impact

of brand communications on either Facebook or Instagram on value equity, brand equity, and

retention equity. Value equity and retention equity are expected to be affected more positively

by brand communications on Facebook than brand communications on Instagram. Facebook

has more means and options to build relationships with its consumers and to show objective

features about quality, price and convenience (through customer service on Facebook for

example and the creation of events). Instagram, however, due to its high level of engagement

of its users, is expected to have a higher positive effect on brand equity. Therefore, the first

hypothesis is as followed:

H1. There is a positive relationship between brand communications on Instagram/Facebook and value equity and brand equity, and retention equity, so that:

a. Facebook has a significantly stronger relationship with value equity and retention equity than Instagram.

b. Instagram has a significantly stronger relationship with brand equity than Facebook.

2.6. Origin of Brand Communication

Next to the difference between brand communications on Facebook and Instagram and

their (differential) effect on the level of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity, this

thesis will also take a deeper look at the influence and the distinction between service- and

product industries, and the difference between firm-created content and user-generated

(27)

thoroughly and the hypothesis that links firm-created content and user-generated content to

value equity, brand equity, and retention equity will be formed and proposed.

2.6.1. Firm-Created Content

Firm-created content, in the context of this thesis, are brand communications on

Facebook and Instagram, created and spread by the firm. Firms align their brand

communications on social media platforms with their overall social media strategy in which

they focus on a particular group of consumers with specific desires and needs. The

exponential rise in popularity of social media platforms in the last decade has caused a lot of

user-generated content and word of mouth brand communications on social media platforms.

Consequently, marketers were attracted to these platforms because of the marketing

opportunities that arose (Goh et al., 2013). Many businesses set up brand pages on Facebook

for example to share branded content with the objective to actively engage consumers (Goh et

al., 2013).

Firms not engaging consumers on social media are said to have a large gap in their

strategy to reach consumers. Social media platform users pass on information about brands on

social media, therefore the value of one consumer is significantly bigger than what he or she

spends at the beginning (Kim & Ko, 2012). Firms should therefore really consider the impact

of user-generated content on the way consumers perceive their company’s brand.

2.6.2. User-Generated Content

The importance of many offline-marketing activities has shifted to online marketing

activities in the last decade. When consumers look for information or feedback about a

product or service, they rely less on offline sources. They often go online and increasingly

(28)

or service (Park et al., 2007; Ramos et al., 2017). A research of Nielsen (2012) shows that in a

global survey among 28.000 internet respondents 92% of the respondents trusted

word-of-mouth from friends and family and that online consumer reviews are the second most trusted

source of messaging and brand information. From this information it becomes evident that

consumers look online for information about products. Not only do consumers trust the

information of their fellow peers more than the information created by firms, user-generated

content is considered to have a higher impact than firm-created content on consumer purchase

behavior as well (Goh et al., 2013). User-generated content on social media platforms can

influence a lot of consumers, and is less expensive than traditional advertising (De Bruyn &

Lilien, 2004; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004; Kozinets, De Valck,

Wojnicki, & Wilner, 2010). Therefore firms must look for ways to influences the

user-generated content that is created about their brand/firm.

2.6.3. Recap Firm-Created Content and User-Generated Content

Research has already paid a lot of attention to the effect of firm-created content and

user-generated content on for example the purchase behavior of consumers, a brand’s

reputation, brand associations, and consumer loyalty (Fournier & Avery, 2011; Kim & Ko,

2012; Muñiz & Schau 2011). Research lacks, however in defining the precise differentiating

effect of firm-created content and user-generated content on value equity, brand equity, and

retention equity. Do these two types of content creation have a different effect on the three

drivers of customer equity? Based on the literature discussed in the previous paragraphs,

user-generated content on Facebook and Instagram is considered to have a higher positive effect on

consumers’ perceptions of a brand. Consumers are said to rely more on their peers’ opinions

(29)

H2. The positive relationship between brand communications on Instagram/Facebook and value equity and brand equity, and retention equity is moderated by the origin of

brand communication, so that this relationship is stronger for user-generated social

media brand communications on Facebook and Instagram than for firm-created social media brand communications on Facebook and Instagram.

When user-generated content would provide companies with a higher level of value

equity, brand equity, and retention equity, it appears to be something that is outside of the

company’s control to influence. Recently, however, several papers have been published on

how firm-created content can influence user-generated content. Among others Ceballos et al.

describe how on Twitter firm-created content could influence the quantity and quality of

user-generated content: ‘’We found empirical evidence of the impact of FCC on UGC. The volume

of tweets generated by the firm referring to different topics as product attributes, product

launches, communications campaigns, sponsorships etc. creates engagement and enhances the

volume of UGC.’’ (Ceballos, Crespo, & Cousté, 2016). Although this research focuses on

Twitter, one could imagine that brand communications on Facebook and Instagram could

have similar effects on the rise of generated content. Firms could also share

user-generated content on their social media pages, or respond user-user-generated messages, in order

to make positive user-generated brand communications more visible to other users (Van

Dijck, 2009).

2.7. Industry Type

This thesis will also study whether the difference between the nature of service-based

companies and product-based companies has an effect on the level of value equity, brand

equity, and retention equity through brand communications on Facebook and Instagram. The

(30)

with these different kinds of offerings, might put a different focus on value equity, brand

equity, or retention equity.

Differences between the nature of services and products have become more and more

blurred. Over the last decades a shift among scholars and firms has emerged concerning the

refocus of the firm orientations of producing primarily manufactured goods, to also pay

attention to services they deliver that accompanies the product (Vargo & Lusch, 2008).

There are, however, still some noticeable differences between the nature of the

offering of product-based companies and service-based companies. The first difference

between products and services is that services are intangible, and therefore cannot be weighed

or measured, whereas products have physical dimensions that can be measured. The second

difference between services and products concerns the degree of interaction with the

consumer. Services always contain some sort of interaction with the consumer for it to be

named a service, whereby products can be produced without the consumer present. Thirdly,

services as a process are time dependent and they cannot be stored like goods. Lastly, most

services are dissimilar from each other (Johnson & Gustafsson, 2003). One KLM flight is not

the same as the other KLM flight, but a can of Coca-Cola Zero is always the same. Johnson

and Gustafsson (2003) explain how products and services can vary along the goods-services

continuum, from pure goods to pure services.

(31)

How could service-based companies and product-based companies affect the level of

value equity, brand equity, and retention equity through the use of Facebook and Instagram?

Value equity concerns the price, quality and convenience of the service offered. Through

Facebook and Instagram, companies can offer their consumers consumer care and provide

information on prices/promotions. They can keep their consumers informed and maintain a

personal relationship through the use of these social media channels and consequently

positively influence the level of value equity. Service-based companies and product-based

companies can affect brand equity (subjective assessment of the brand) by creating brand

awareness through compelling advertisements and a positive brand attitude online by offering

customer services. Finally, service-based companies and product-based companies could

increase retention equity by maintaining personal emotional bonds with their consumers,

through which they can create loyalty. The Facebook and Instagram pages can provide

consumers with advertisements to influence their repeated purchase behaviour.

Because to the fact that service-based companies have to put more emphasis in

building unique relationships with their consumers, and therefore use their social media

channels for purposes to offer the complete customer experience, from product information to

customer service, it is expected that the level of value equity, brand equity, and retention

equity is stronger for brand communications of service-based companies on Facebook than

for brand communications of product-based companies on Facebook. Facebook offers more

means and possibilities for firms and consumers to interact with each other and to offer

customer care (see figure 1, p. 20), and therefore service-based companies could achieve more

value equity here than product-based industries, due to the ambiguity and personal nature of

their offering.

Controversially, product-based companies offer more standardized goods, in which the

(32)

are less expected to rely on the customer care options Facebook offers. Since Instagram is

said to get consumers more engaged, this might also have an additional positive effect of

product-based companies on Instagram vs. Facebook (Hanan & Putit, 2013). Therefore it is

expected that the level of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity is stronger for brand

communications of product-based companies on Instagram than for brand communications of

service-based companies on Instagram.

The difference between service-based companies and product-based companies can be

described as a moderator for the two-way interaction of social media platforms and their

effect on the level of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity. Therefore, the following

hypothesis has been developed:

H3: The positive relationship between brand communications on Instagram/Facebook, and value equity, brand equity and retention equity is moderated by the type of industry, so that:

a. This relationship is stronger for social media brand communications of product-based companies on Instagram than for social media brand communications of service-based companies on Instagram.

b. This relationship is stronger for social media brand communications of service-based companies on Facebook than for social media brand communications of product-based companies on Facebook.

Type of industry can also be described as a moderating moderator for the three-way interaction between social media platforms, origin of brand communication, and value equity,

(33)

H4: The positive moderating effect of user-generated content is stronger for brand communications of product-based companies on Instagram and for brand communications of service-based companies on Facebook.

2.8. Conceptual Model

This research tries to answer the following research question:

Do brand communications on Facebook and Instagram, being either firm-created brand communications or user-generated brand communications, have a different effect on the three drivers of customer equity (value equity, brand equity, and retention equity) and how does the industry of a company, play a role in this relationship?

This research does not focus on whether brand communications on Facebook and Instagram

can create a higher level of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity, compared to

brands/firms with no brand communications on social media platforms. This research focuses

on the difference in effect between Facebook and Instagram, between firm-created content

and user-generated content, and between service-based companies and product-based

companies on the level of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity. The interactions

among the independent variable social media platforms, the moderator origin of brand

communication, the moderator and the moderating moderator industry type, and the dependent variables value equity, brand equity, and retention equity have been visualized in

(34)

Figure 7: Conceptual framework

In the following chapter the research design and method will be discussed and

explained. Based on the description of the data, the variables, the measurements, the data

(35)

III. Research Design and Method

This chapter will review all relevant information regarding the pre-test, the research

design in which the set-up of the questionnaire is being discussed, the procedure of data

collection, a description of the sample of the questionnaire, the measurement of the relevant

variables and its items, and the statistical procedure that was conducted in order to obtain all

the necessary data to make it possible to draw conclusions about the proposed hypotheses.

3.1. Pre-Test: The Case Companies

To make the difference between service-based companies and product-based

companies, and user-generated content and firm-created content analysable, the

questionnaires conducted for research showed social media examples of real-life companies.

In a little pre-test a small group of respondents was presented with a definition of a

service-based company and a definition of a product-service-based company (definitions were derived from

Business Dictionary, 2017; See Appendix) and consequently asked to list eight companies

from 1 being the best example of a service-based company/product-based company to 8 being

the worst example of a service-based company/product-based company. With service-based

companies, respondents could choose from the following companies: KLM, ABN AMRO,

Zilveren Kruis, RyanAir, Achmea, ING, Nationale Spoorwegen (NS), and the University of

Amsterdam. With product-based companies, companies could choose from the following

companies: Coca-Cola, Lay’s, Volkswagen, Gazelle, Samsung, Zara, Ola, and LG. All

answers were randomized before shown to the respondent.

Based on the pre-test, KLM was chosen as the best representative for a service-based

company and Coca-Cola as the best representative for a product-based company. From 20

(36)

company, followed by ING and RyanAir. Coca-Cola was considered to be the best

representative of a product-based company, followed by Lay’s and Samsung.

3.1.1. Social Media Activities in Service-Based Industries: KLM

Both service-based and product-based industries experience the impact of social media

on their brand awareness and customer interaction. Service-based industries are traditionally

more relationship engaged through the nature of their service. They offer a service to the

consumer and the consumer expects the company to be engaged and guide them through the

acquisition process. Airlines are an interesting focus point because they are a highly ‘socially

devoted’ industry and are often very active on social media (Dijkmans et al., 2015). KLM is a

high-class airline company and has been present and a frontrunner on social media from an

early stage. KLM is present on a diverse range of social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter,

blogs, Pinterest, YouTube, Pinterest, Google, and Instagram. KLM tries to be ‘online’

constantly and communicates with its consumers in nine different languages. Within social

media, KLM has its focus on three social media goals: bring service, build brand and

engagement and commerce your product (Henkes, 2013).

3.1.2. Social Media Activities in Product-Based Industries: Coca-Cola

Next to the service-based industries, it is also interesting to discover the impact of

social media activities of a company in a product-based industry. Products are produced to

meet very tight expectations of the consumer and have little variability in outcome (Johnson

& Gustafsson, 2003). Coca-Cola has been chosen as a representative for a product-based

company. In contrast to KLM, Coca-Cola does not have to attract consumers to specific stores

or websites to buy their products. Their Facebook and Instagram account focus mainly around

(37)

KLM really uses their social media accounts to communicate on a personal level with its

consumers, Coca-Cola puts less emphasis on this.

3.2. Research Design

This research is characterized by a quantitative nature and uses an experimental design

to attain all the data necessary for the analysis. A questionnaire was spread among

respondents to collect the relevant input for the cross-sectional data. The questionnaire was

developed using the Qualtrics Insight Platform. Eleven piloting respondents have answered

the questions in a pilot test, to make sure there were no difficulties in answering the questions

of the questionnaires. Some small changes were made with regards to the lay-out of the

survey, especially the display and size of the social media examples, and the formulation of a

few questions at the end of the questionnaire.

In the end, eight different conditions of questionnaires have been conducted among the

respondents to create a 2 (Facebook/Instagram) x 2 (service-based industries/product-based

industries) x 2 (user-generated content/firm-created content) between-subjects research

design. Respondents were placed in one of these eight conditions through random assignment.

Each questionnaire consisted of 31 questions. First, all respondents were asked whether they

had a Facebook and/or an Instagram account, since this research focuses on the difference

between these two social media platforms, it was necessary for the respondents to be familiar

with one or both of the platforms. Consequently, respondents were asked whether they were

familiar with KLM and/or Coca-Cola for the same reasons. Once these questions were

answered, respondents were randomly put in a condition of which they were familiar with the

social media platform and the company on which the questions were based.

All respondents were shown examples of brand communications of Facebook or

(38)

company (KLM) or a product-based company (Coca-Cola) (table1). After the respondents

were shown these examples of brand communications on social media, respondents had to

answer several questions about the effect of these social media expressions on the level of

value equity, brand equity, and retention equity.

Social media examples were used to measure the impact of social media platform

(Instagram vs. Facebook), origin of brand communication (user-generated content vs.

firm-created content), and industry type (service vs. product). Respondents were presented with

four social media examples per condition, and had to stay on this page for a period of twelve

seconds, before they could continue to the questions. This time frame provided respondents

enough time to really take a look at the given social media examples, but it was not too long

which would have made it unrealistic with regards to real life Facebook and Instagram page

scrolling.

The difference between the social media examples of Instagram and Facebook was

based on the difference in lay-out of the social media platforms, the pictures used for the

social media examples for both platforms were the same, to make sure the only difference

between these conditions was whether it was a post on Facebook or Instagram. The difference

between user-generated content and firm-created content was based on the person/firm

distributing the post; a peer or KLM/Coca-Cola. The content of the examples differed for user

posts and firm posts, but user posts for Instagram had the same content for Facebook, and also

firm posts on Instagram presented the same content on Facebook to make sure this distinction

only focused on the content creator. The difference between service-based companies and

product-based companies has been made analysable by presenting social media examples

from a service-based company (KLM), and a product-based company (Coca-Cola). All social

(39)

Finally, after answering the questions about value equity, brand equity, and retention

equity, respondents were asked some control questions about their age, level of education,

employment, gender, reading level of English, nationality, and how they felt about the

image/reputation of the company central in the questionnaire compared to other similar

companies. All questions and social media examples can be found in the Appendix section of

this research.

SMplatform

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 0 Instagram 168 48.6 48.6 48.6

1 FB 178 51.4 51.4 100

Total 346 100.0 100.0

Origin

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 0 User 176 50.9 50.9 50.9

1 Firm 170 49.1 49.1 100

Total 346 100.0 100.0

Type

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 0 Product 171 49.4 49.4 49.4

1 Service 175 50.6 50.6 100

Total 346 100.0 100.0

Table 1: Frequency Table 2x2x2 between subjects design

3.3. Data Collection

The survey was administrated online via Qualtrics Research and Experience Software.

Qualtrics makes it possible to share a reusable link with respondents, through which the

distribution of the questionnaire is enhanced. There are of course many possibilities and

options available to conduct a quantitative research. This research uses an online survey

(40)

easily imported and analyzed in a program like SPSS Statistics 24. The survey was spread on

Facebook, WhatsApp and through personal emails. Because of the relatively large amount of

respondents necessary in this research (due to the eight different conditions), an extra 150

respondents were collected through Amazon Mechanical Turk, on which ‘workers’ are paid a

small participation fee ($0,15) for completing the survey. Participants can be checked on their

participation (time used to fill in the questionnaire, diversity of answers given) before paying

them the participation fee. Since Amazon is an American based company, many of these

participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk had an American nationality, which might form a

limitation in this research. To check for any bias or unexpected effects, respondents were

asked for their nationality at the end of the questionnaire, to measure the possible effects of

this control variable.

Participants were informed about the purpose the confidentiality of their data, as well

as their anonymity. The introduction of the survey informed participants about the amount of

time needed to complete the questionnaire. No further information about the content of the

survey was given in the introduction, to keep respondents unbiased. After completing the

questionnaire, respondents could read what the study was about and were told about how they

could reach the researcher through email if they had any further questions.

3.4. Description of the Sample

The non-probability convenience sample consisted of respondents that had a Facebook

and/or Instagram account and knew KLM and/or Coca-Cola. More respondents to fill in the

questionnaire would improve the reliability of the measurements. Zeithaml et al. (2001, p.

121) set a quantum of 100-1000 respondents for a good measurement of customer equity.

Since the questionnaire of this research is based on eight different conditions, with the every

(41)

50% of the total of answered questions, the response goal of the questionnaire was set at 320

respondents in total, an average of 40 respondents per condition, 160 respondents per

variable.

Finally, a group of 435 respondents finished the survey, of which the input of 346

respondents was used for the analysis of the data. The responses of 89 respondents were

excluded from the analysis, due to the following facts: respondents that had no account on

both Instagram and Facebook could not be used for this study due to a lack of knowledge;

respondents scoring ‘far below average’ or ‘moderately below average’ on a question

regarding their reading level of English were probably problematic with regards to their

interpretation of the questionnaire; and lastly, respondents that finished the questionnaire in

less than two minutes were excluded to diminish the negative effect of hasty responses.

Altogether, all eight conditions had a quantity of respondents varying from N=42 to N=46

which lead to a sufficient amount of respondents to analyse the data.

The sample group of 346 respondents consisted of the following characteristics. Of the

sample group 177 respondents were male (51,2%) and 169 respondents were female (48,8%).

26,9% of the respondents is a student, 62,7% an employee, 3,8% an employer, and 6,6%

described themselves as being something other than the previous. The Mage was 30.97 and

SDage 9.334. Most respondents were American or Dutch (together 70,2%). Furthermore, it is

noticeable that from the sample group 77,7% had both an Instagram account and a Facebook

account, 2,3% only had an Instagram account, and 19.9% only had a Facebook account.

Finally, of the sample group 22,8% finished high school, 43,6% obtained a bachelor’s degree,

and 31,2% obtained a master’s degree.

3.5. Measurement of the Variables

All questions about the level of value equity, brand equity, and retention equity were

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

H2D: Consumer attitude (consumer evaluation, purchase intention and willingness to pay a price premium) towards the brand extension will be more positive for low

Then taking the USA and India as the relatively favorable and unfavorable COOs and personal computer as the product category, it measures CBBE of a virtual brand in

Based on the research results of relevant scholars, this thesis divides corporate social responsibility into three specific pillars: environmental, social and governance, and

Conclusions and the significance of this study are as follows: Firstly, the findings are that social media marketing expenditure has a positive impact on brand awareness,

The analyses used for assessing the hypotheses on the dimensions of SMBBE (brand awareness, brand associations, brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand relevance), the

After modeling the direct effects of Google display advertising, spontaneous brand awareness and the number of branded search, and including the moderation effect of spontaneous brand

› Spontaneous brand awareness positively moderates the direct effect of Google display advertising on sales in case of low. involvement, but not for

Subsequently, we analysed whether the effect of eWOM (positive or negative) on brand equity of Apple will be reduced by attitudinal brand loyalty towards Apple by splitting the