Consumer based brand equity in the 21st

century: an examination of the role of

social media marketing
Atefeh Yazdanparast, Mathew Joseph and Fernanda Muniz

Atefeh Yazdanparast is Abstract

Assistant Professor of Purpose – The present research investigates the influence of brand-based social media marketing
Marketing and Mead (SMM) activities on metrics of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE). Specifically, the study examines
Johnson Endowed Chair the role of consumer-brand social media experiences on attitude toward SMM activities of brands and
in Business at the its consequent impact on brand perceptions.
Schroeder Family School Design/methodology/approach – Paper-and-pencil surveys were administered to undergraduate
students in a Southwestern university in exchange for extra credit. Survey questions were adapted from
of Business
previously validated scales, and measurement adaptations were minimal and only related to the context
Administration, University
of questions to assure their relevance with the context of this study. Bi-variate correlation, bootstrapping
of Evansville, Evansville, technique, Sobel test, ANOVA and linear regression were used to test the hypotheses.
Indiana, USA. Findings – The results indicate that brand-based SMM is essential in impacting consumers’ attitudes
Mathew Joseph is Emil toward brands and consequently, CBBE reflected via perceived value for the cost, perceived
Jurica Distinguished uniqueness and the willingness to pay a price premium for a brand. Additionally, the main reason for
Professor of Marketing at individuals to use social media impacts their attitudes toward and receptiveness of SMM activities of
Department of Marketing, brands.
St Mary’s University, San Research limitations/implications – This study used a sample of college students to address the
Antonio, Texas, USA. research questions. Considering the higher adoption rate and interest in social media among younger
Fernanda Muniz is based consumer groups, the results may not be representative of the entire population. Much of the existing
at St Mary’s University, research on social media, however, has focused on undergraduate college students and is primarily
based on studies utilizing the similar research population.
San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Originality/value – The present research is one of the few studies that empirically examine the impact
of consumer-brand interactions/experiences on consumers’ attitudes toward SMM activities of brands,
as well as brand-related knowledge and perceptions as reflected by CBBE. The results indicate that the
CBBE model of the twenty-first century should incorporate the role of brand-based SMM activities as
facilitators of brand knowledge (i.e. brand awareness and brand image) by reinforcing or even shaping
important brand-based associations.
Keywords Social media marketing, Brand equity, Consumer-based brand equity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
With the introduction and widespread use of social media, the media landscape has
experienced a significant transformation over the past decade (Bruhn et al., 2012). Social
media are internet-based applications that build on Web 2.0 and facilitate interaction,
collaboration and sharing of content by providing the opportunity to create and exchange
user-generated content (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Kim and Ko, 2012). Social media take
a variety of forms and work on various platforms, including weblogs, social blogs and
networks, microblogs, wikis, podcasts, photo and video sharing, online rating and social
bookmarking (Laroche et al., 2013).
Social media are increasingly replacing traditional media, and more consumers are using
Received 31 March 2016
Revised 2 June 2016
them as a source of information about products, services and brands (Bruhn et al., 2012).
Accepted 13 June 2016 Consequently, more and more brands are incorporating social media marketing (SMM) into

DOI 10.1108/YC-03-2016-00590 VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016, pp. 243-255, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 243
 their marketing strategies to reap the benefits of the digital wave. Defined as the process
that empowers promotion of websites, products and services via online social channels
(Weinberg, 2009), SMM is related to relationship building and making connections with the
consumers – current or potential (Erdogmus and Cicek, 2012). With activities such as
blogging and sharing instructional videos and product photos on social media platforms,
the focus of SMM activities are content generation, communication, outreach and referral
to increase web traffic, awareness and popularity of brands (Kim and Ko, 2012).
Moreover, the growth in the use of social media and emergence of social search is playing
a central role in consumer-brand interactions and engagement (Kim and Ko, 2012; Laroche
et al., 2013). As Schivinski and Dabrowski (2016) argue, social media have introduced new
channels of brand communication. In fact, with a significant number of people passing
along information to others through social media, the value of one customer is worth far
more than what he/she initially spends (Bruhn et al., 2012; Schivinski and Dabrowski, 2016).
Thus, firms and brands need to factor in the influence of social media on consumers and
better understand the extent to which social media can and should play a role in
consumer-brand engagement (Parent et al., 2011; Schultz and Peltier, 2013).
With the increased opportunity for consumers to talk to other consumers around the world,
companies are no longer the sole source of brand communications (Foux, 2006; Bruhn
et al., 2014). This has made consumer-brand interactions more complex and transformed
it into a multi-party conversation rather than a brand-dictated monologue (Deighton and
Kornfeld, 2009). As a result, scholars have noted the necessity of research to fully account
for the depth of consumer interactions with brands (Bowden, 2009; Rohm et al., 2013; Hsu
and Tsou, 2011) and examine the nature of brand-consumer engagement within
interactive, online and social settings (Brodie et al., 2011; Schultz and Peltier, 2013; Hutter
et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2013; Yazdanparast et al., 2015).
The importance of branding and the increasing adoption rate of social media call for empirical
research on how social media-based marketing activities could cement relationships among
consumers, marketers and brands. (Kim and Ko, 2012). An important aspect of branding is
building brand equity (Keller, 1998). The present research investigates the influence of
brand-based SMM activities on metrics of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) and
evaluates the influence of these activities on customer attitudes and intentions (Kim and Ko,
2012). This investigation focuses on younger consumer groups, since these consumers are
generally considered to be more internet savvy, spend more time on social media, show the
highest rate of social media adoption and usage growth, and most importantly, are the main
target SMM efforts of brands (Rohm et al., 2013).

Literature review and hypothesis development

In today’s highly competitive market, customers are seen as the intangible assets a firm
should wisely acquire, maintain and maximize just like other financial assets (Blattberg et
al., 2001). Customer equity, defined as the discounted sum of customer lifetime values, has
been considered the most determinant of the long-term values of the firm (Lemon et al.,
2001). Lemon et al. (2001) referred to the three types of equity, namely value, brand and
relationship equity, as key drivers of overall customer equity. “Value equity is the
customer’s objective assessment of the utility of a brand based on perceptions of what is
given up for what is received” (Vogel et al., 2008, p. 99). The three key influences on value
equity are quality, price and convenience (Vogel et al., 2008). Relationship equity is related
to the tendency of customers to remain in a relationship with a brand. Finally, brand equity
is a customer’s subjective and intangible assessment of the brand over and beyond its
value (Lemon et al., 2001; Vogel et al., 2008). Brand equity is regarded as an essential
concept for modern organizations and a vital concept in academic research due to the role
of successful brands in gaining competitive advantage (Lassar et al., 1995; Schivinski and
Dabrowski, 2016).

PAGE 244 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016

Brand equity has been viewed from a variety of perspectives and is broadly defined as the
incremental utility or value endowed by the brand to the product (Farquhar, 1989; Yoo and
Donthu, 2001). There are two general perspectives for studying brand equity. The
firm-based view of brand equity focuses on the value of brand to the company (Schivinski
and Dabrowski, 2015). Such value is analyzed from a financial perspective to estimate the
value of a brand more precisely for accounting purposes by focusing on asset valuation for
the balance sheet, or for merger, acquisition or divestiture purposes (Keller, 1993). The
strategy-based view of brand equity, however, focuses on ways to improve marketing
productivity. Higher costs, greater competition, commoditization of products and services
and flattening demand in many markets are among forces that call for higher efficiency of
marketing expenses.
According to Keller (1993), brand knowledge created in consumers’ minds is the most
valuable asset for improving marketing productivity. This knowledge is the result of firm’s
former investments in previous marketing programs (Keller, 1993). Brand equity is,
therefore, conceptualized from the perspective of the individual consumer and is called
CBBE. CBBE stems from the greater confidence that consumers place in a brand than they
do in its competitors (Lassar et al., 1995).
Two major frameworks related to CBBE conceptualizations belong to Aaker (1996), Keller
(1993). Aaker views CBBE as a set of assets (liabilities) linked to a brand’s name and
symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a product/service to the
customer. A consumer perceives brand equity as the value added to the product by
associating it with a brand name. Although this value added is a function of several facets,
the core facets are the primary predictors of brand purchase intent and behavior. Core
CBBE facets espoused by Aaker include perceived quality (PQ), perceived value for the
cost (PVC), uniqueness and the willingness to pay a price premium of a given brand
(Aaker, 1996).
Keller (1993, p. 2) views CBBE as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer
response to the marketing of the brand”. Brand knowledge is composed of brand
awareness (related to brand recall and recognition) and brand image (related to the set of
associations linked to the brand). CBBE is viewed as a process that follows consumer
familiarity with the brand and existences of favorable, strong and unique brand
associations in consumer’s memory (Keller, 1993). These associations are termed
“primary” associations that shape brand beliefs and attitudes encompassing the perceived
benefits of a given brand (Keller, 1993). Such brand-related beliefs and attitudes can be
functional and experiential (i.e. PQ and value relative to other brands) or more symbolic (i.e.
its uniqueness).
Several CBBE measurement methods, with varying degrees of specificity and scope, have
been suggested (Aaker, 1996; Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu, 2001;
Netemeyer et al., 2004; Baalbaki and Guzman, 2016). Drawing from CBBE frameworks and
considering their common elements, Netemeyer et al. (2004) defined CBBE as a
multifaceted construct consisting of four primary or core associations, namely perceived
quality, perceived value for the cost, uniqueness and the willingness to pay a price
premium for a brand. Perceived quality is customer’s judgments of the overall excellence,
esteem or superiority of a brand. Perceived value for the cost is defined as the customer’s
overall assessment of the utility of the brand based on perceptions of what is received and
what is given relative to other brands. Uniqueness is the degree to which customers feel the
brand is different from competing brands. Willingness to pay a price premium refers to the
amount a customer is willing to pay for his/her preferred brand over brands of the same
package (Netemeyer et al., 2004), and it is a basic indicator of loyalty (Aaker, 1996).
Two important points emerge from this conceptualization. First, marketers should take a
broad view of marketing activity for a brand and recognize the various effects it has on
brand knowledge (defined in terms of brand awareness and brand image). Second, it is

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 245

 important to realize that the long-term success of marketing programs for a brand is greatly
affected by the memory-held knowledge about the brand established by the firm’s
marketing efforts (Keller, 1993). In fact, the basic premise of the CBBE model is that the
power of brands lies in the minds of customers and relies on what the customer has
learned, felt, seen and heard about it over time (Keller, 2001).
Social media provide an unprecedented opportunity for marketers to increase brand
awareness, reinforce brand image and consequently improve consumers’ knowledge of
the brand. Brands and customers are communicating with each other without any time,
place or medium restrictions. Co-creation of products, services, business models, values
and even brand image is the outcome of such two-way direct interactions between
consumers and brands (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). One implication of such close, frequent
interactions for brands is the increased consumer exposure and enhanced customer
relationships (Kim and Ko, 2012). Prior research indicates that consumers’ perceptions of
co-creation and community positively impact user-generated content involvement and
CBBE (Christodoulides et al., 2012). As Aaker (1991) has argued, frequent brand
experiences and communications positively impact brand associations and attitudes.
Consequently, social media could be a great avenue for brand building. Additionally,
brand-based social media activities present an unprecedented opportunity for marketers to
reduce misunderstanding and prejudice toward brands and strengthen brand value
through the exchange of ideas and information among people (Kim and Ko, 2012). Thus,
we argue that consumers’ attitudes toward SMM activities of brands are associated with
various aspects of CBBE. It is hypothesized:
H1. There is a positive association between consumers’ attitudes toward brand-based
SMM activities and a) perceived quality of the brand, b) perceived value for the cost
of the brand, c) uniqueness of the brand, and d) willingness to pay a price premium
for the brand.
Social media can have a dramatic impact on a brand’s reputation (Kim and Ko, 2010).
Hutter et al. (2013), for instance, found that consumers’ engagement with a Facebook fan
page has positive effects on their brand awareness, word-of-mouth (WOM) engagement
and even purchase intentions. A recent study by Schivinski and Dabrowski (2015) found
that brand communications on social media influence brand awareness/associations as
well as consumers’ perceived brand loyalty. However, only user-generated social media
communication has a positive impact on brand equity, and firm-created social media
communications do not have such an effect.
Drawing from Keller (1993) model of CBBE, we argue that brand-based SMM activities
provide vast opportunities for increasing consumers’ brand knowledge by impacting brand
awareness and reinforcing brand associations. Therefore, the CBBE model of the
twenty-first century should incorporate the role of brand-based SMM activities as facilitators
of brand knowledge (i.e. brand awareness and brand image) by reinforcing or even
shaping important brand-based associations. Such brand associations form attitudes and
future behavior. Attitudes toward SMM activities of brands are part of the overall attitudes
formed by consumers about brands and, thus, impact various aspects of CBBE proposed
by Netemeyer et al. (2004). It is thus expected that positive brand-related experiences on
social media (such as a useful information, suggestion or recommendation resulting in a
satisfying purchase decision) should impact attitudes toward SMM activities of brands.
Prior research provides supporting evidence. McAlexander et al. (2002) found that events
and activities that bring members of brand community (consumers, marketers, etc.) to a
high-context interaction result in strengthening ties between the consumers and elements
of brand community. Similarly, brand-based SMM activities provide high-context
interactions and, thus, impact consumers’ attitudes and behaviors. Kim and Ko (2010), for
instance, found that more than one-third of consumers think more positively about
companies that have blogs. Moreover, DEI Worldwide (2008) study results indicate that
almost half of the consumers who had searched for information via social media, eventually

PAGE 246 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016

made a purchase decision based on the information they found through the social media
sites; 60 per cent said they were likely to use social media sites to pass along information
to others, and 45 per cent engaged in WOM about the information they found on social
media platforms. Thus, it is expected that consumers’ experiences with social media
activities of brands will influence their attitudes toward these activities and ultimately result
in more favorable brand perceptions. It is hypothesized:
H2. Experience with social media that has influenced brand-related purchase decisions
will impact attitude toward SMM activities of the brands, which in turn, impacts a)
perceived quality of the branded product, b) perceived value for the cost of the
brand, c) perceived uniqueness of the brand, and d) willingness to pay a price
premium for the branded product.
Extant literature on social media and brand community posits that individuals have different
incentives to join these platforms (Laroche et al., 2013). Various motivating reasons have
been identified. Desire to be socially connected (Gangadharbhatla, 2008) or the need to be
identified with groups or symbols (Grayson and Martinec, 2004) and interest in shopping,
searching for information, entertainment and earning money (Zhou et al., 2011) are among
the motivating factors for engaging in social media.
We argue that the reasons why individuals use social media (i.e. the motivating factor),
impact their attitudes toward social media. As social media experiences of individuals
impact their attitudes toward SMM activities of brands, it is expected that individuals with
different reasons to use social media would have different experiences and consequently
varying attitudes toward SMM activities of brands. This argument is further supported by
media uses and gratification (U&G) theory. This theory explains how and why people use
media and argues that gratifications sought explain individual media exposure (LaRose
and Eastin, 2004). U&G theory suggests individuals generally choose one media over
another based on their desire for need fulfillment (functional or hedonic) (Katz and Foulkes,
1962). Therefore, individuals with different reasons (motivating factors) to use social media
have different experiences with this medium and, consequently, have different attitudes
toward the social media activities of brands on these platforms. It is hypothesized:
H3. Consumers’ main reasons to use social media significantly impact their attitudes
toward SMM activities of brands.

Method and analysis

Data were collected through a paper-and-pencil survey from undergraduate students in a
Southwestern university in exchange for extra credit. The survey consisted of 37 questions in
three main sections. The first section asked general questions about respondents’ social media
usage. Respondents first stated whether or not they were social media users. Those who were
social media users were then asked to select all social media platforms that they used (e.g.
Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.). Participants also reported how many hours per day they
spent on social media and for what purposes they use social media. Next, they answered a
question about whether or not an experience through a brand’s social media had influenced
their purchase decisions. They also reported whether or not they followed any product/service
brands on social media, and if so, how many brands and of which categories they followed.
Next, they shared the main reason they follow brands on social media by selecting from a list
of options (e.g. to read reviews, to feel connected to brands, etc.).
The second section provided questions related to attitude toward brand-based SMM (using
eight items adapted from Bruhn et al., 2012; ␣ ⫽ 0.88) and all facets of CBBE for one of the
brands each participant was following on social media. The CBBE scale consisting of four
measurement items for each facet [i.e. perceived quality (␣ ⫽ 0.9), perceived value for the
cost (␣ ⫽ 0.92), uniqueness (␣ ⫽ 0.9) and willingness to pay a premium ␣ ⫽ 0.83)]. Overall,
CBBE showed high reliability (␣ ⫽ 0.94, borrowed from Netemeyer et al., 2004). All items
were measured using Likert scale, where 1 ⫽ strongly disagree and 5 ⫽ strongly agree.

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 247

 List of Measures:

1. Attitude toward brad-based SMM:

 My interaction with brands through social media will increase my purchase
intentions.
 My interaction with brands through social media has increased my brand loyalty.
 I like to participate in social media activity related to brands.
 I like to follow many brands through social media.
 I only follow my favorite brands through social media.
 I believe that it is important for the success of companies to participate on social
media.
 I believe that through social media, companies can have a greater awareness
about my needs as a customer.
 I believe that through social media, I can have a closer relationship with other
people that like the same brands that I do.
2. CBBE (perceived quality):
 Compared to other brands of, I think this brand is of very high quality.
 This brand is the best brand in its product class.
 Brand consistently performs better than all other brands in its product class.
 I can always count on this brand for consistent high quality.
3. CBBE (perceived value for the cost):
 What I get from this brand is worth the cost.
 All things considered (price, time, and effort), this brand is a good buy.
 Compared to other brands of its product class, this brand is a good value for the
money.
 When I use this brand, I feel I am getting my money’s worth.
4. CBBE (brand uniqueness):
 This brand is “distinct” from other brands of its product class.
 This brand really “stands out” from other brands of its product class.
 This brand is very different from other brands of its product class.
 This brand is “unique” from other brands of its product class.
5. CBBE (willingness to pay a premium):
 The price of this brand would have to go up quite a bit before I would switch to
another brand.
 I am willing to pay a higher price for this brand than for other brands of its product
class.
 I am willing to pay more for this brand over other brands.
 I am willing to pay a lot more for this brand than other brands of its product class.
The third section gathered demographic information including age, gender, field of study
and university classification.
Upon completion of data collection, responses were controlled to identify incomplete or
inaccurate cases. Overall, 162 usable responses (out of 165 surveys administered) were

PAGE 248 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016

collected (45.1 per cent female). Participants’ age ranged between 18 to 25 years and the
average age was 20.36 years. All participants were social media users. However, the
intensity of social media usage varied among different participations and social media
platform (Table I for a detailed description of the sample).
Almost half of the participants (49.4 per cent) followed a product/service brand on social
media, out of which, 25.6 per cent followed only one brand; 54.9 per cent followed 2-5
brands; 14.6 per cent followed 6-10 brands and 4.9 per cent followed more than 10 brands
on social media. Almost 44 per cent of these participants followed apparel and accessories
brands; 17.7 per cent followed sports; 10.1 per cent followed food; 7.6 per cent followed
electronics and 6.3 per cent followed entertainment brands. Similarly, 6.3 per cent followed
department stores and 3.8 per cent followed automotive and beauty brands. This
exemplifies that consumer-brand relationships are becoming much stronger, as
consumers are so interested in a brand that they specifically elect to be updated on the
brand’s activities.
Participants also reported the main reasons to follow brands on social media. About 36
per cent mentioned finding sales and coupons, while 21 per cent reported finding new
products as the main reason to follow brands on social media. Moreover, 27.2 per cent of
participants followed brands because they liked the product/service offered by those
brands. Other reasons included interest in the content and/or information the company
posts on social media (14.8 per cent) or feeling connected to the brand (1.2 per cent). An
interesting finding related to consumer-brand social media interactions was that about
70 per cent of participants reported that an experience with a brand’s social media
presence/activity had influenced their decisions to purchase a product/service.

Table I Characteristics of respondents

Characteristic Frequency percentage

Female 45.1%
Male 54.9%
Age (years)
Average age 20.36
Minimum age 18
Maximum age 25
Standard deviation 1.65
Classification
Freshman 27.5%
Sophomore 29.4%
Junior 25.6%
Senior 17.5%
Hours per day spent on social media
0-1 9.9%
1-2 14.8%
2-3 22.8%
3-4 25.3%
4-5 12.3%
Above 5 14.8%
Social media platform used (choose all that apply)
Facebook 90.1%
LinkedIn 19.8%
Twitter 48.8%
Instagram 66.7%
YouTube 66.0%
Snapchat 1.9%
Pinterest 4.3%
Vine 1.9%
Orkut 1.2%

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 249

 We followed Podsakoff et al. (2003) recommendations to reduce common method bias.
First, we distanced measures of predictor and criterion variables in the survey by
incorporating other instrument materials. For instance, the reasons to use social media and
attitude toward SMM activities of brands were in two different sections of the questionnaire.
Second, measures were borrowed from previously validated scales and carefully adapted
and improved to fit the context of the study. Third, we assured respondent anonymity and
response confidentiality. Finally, a post-hoc evaluation of common method bias, Harman’s
one-factor (or single-factor) test, was performed by loading all metric variables in the study
into an exploratory factor analysis and conducting an unrotated factor solution. Exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) returned five factors, explaining 72.43 per cent of variance and
rejecting the presence of one single or general factor responsible for the majority of
covariance among the measures (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Test of hypotheses
The first hypothesis suggested positive associations between attitude toward brand-based
SMM activities and each facet of CBBE. To test the hypothesis, we ran bi-variate
correlations. The results supported H1, as all associations were significant and positive
(Table II). This finding indicates that social media activities of brands can positively impact
all aspects of CBBE. In addition, a linear regression was run with attitude toward
brand-based SMM activities as independent variable and CBBE as the dependent
variable. As shown in Table III, the results supported the hypothesized relationship (b ⫽
0.316, t ⫽ 3.01, p ⬍ 0.05), indicating that positive attitudes toward SMM activities of brands
impact the overall knowledge of consumers about the brand in a positive way.
H2 proposed a mediation role for attitude toward SMM activities of brands in the
relationship between prior brand-based social media experiences and different facets of
CBBE. The bootstrapping technique (Preacher et al., 2007; Cerin and MacKinnon, 2009;
Hayes, 2009) and the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) were enlisted to examine the mediation
relationship. Bootstrapping has been recommended over the causal steps approach
advocated by Baron and Kenny when mediation relationships are assessed (MacKinnon
et al., 2002; Preacher and Hayes, 2004). The 95 per cent bias-corrected confidence interval
with 5,000 bootstraps supported H2b, H2c and H2d, but not H2a as reported in Table IV,
as the confidence intervals did not contain a zero. The Sobel test was also significant (p ⬍
0.05), providing further support for these hypotheses. Overall, the results provide partial

Table II Correlation between attitudes toward brand-based SMM activities attitude and CBBE dimensions
Brand-based SMM Perceived Perceived value for Brand Willingness to pay
Variable attitude quality the cost uniqueness a premium

Brand-based r 1 0.218 0.369 0.220 0.286

SMM attitude Significance 0.043 0.000 0.04 0.008
Perceived r 1 0.687 0.669 0.460
quality Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000
Perceived value r 1 0.715 0.646
for the cost Significance 0.000 0.000
Brand r 1 0.646
uniqueness Significance 0.000
Willingness to r 1
pay a premium Significance

Table III The impact of brand-based SMM activities on CBBE

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Standard error Beta t Significance

(Constant) 2.677 0.380 7.053 0.000

ATT_SM 0.316 0.105 0.314 3.013 0.003

PAGE 250 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016

Table IV Test of mediation relationship between meaningful brand-based SMM experience, attitudes towards SMM
activities of brands and CBBE facets
CBBE Facets 95% LLCI 95% ULCI Sobel Z Sobel sig. Test of hypothesis

Perceived quality ⫺0.268 0.011 ⫺1.798 0.072 Rejected

Perceived value for the cost ⫺0.313 ⫺0.008 ⫺2.074 0.038 Accepted
Brand uniqueness ⫺0.412 ⫺0.001 ⫺1.9 0.058 Accepted
Willingness to pay a
premium ⫺0.492 ⫺0.012 ⫺2.065 0.039 Accepted

support for H2 and raise the importance of engaging with customers via SMM to create
meaningful experiences with them. More specifically, the results indicate that prior
experience with social media that has influenced a product or service purchase decision
can impact attitudes toward brand-based SMM activities and their usefulness, and that in
turn impacts perceived value and perceived uniqueness of the brand as well as willingness
to pay more for the brand.
This finding has an important implication. The fact that prior meaningful brand-based SMM
experiences (i.e. experiences that have made an impact on consumers’ purchase
decisions) indirectly impact CBBE raises the question of how can marketers create more of
such impactful experiences for customers. An initial approach may be examining the main
reasons for consumers to use social media in general, as these reasons can provide
insights about how to better connect with consumers and potentially create meaningful
experiences for them.
This is further supported by the fact that consumers’ attitude toward SMM activities of
brands are significantly different when compared according to their main reasons to use
social media (H3). To test this hypothesis, several one-way ANOVAs were run with
brand-based SMM attitude as the dependent variable and main reason to use social media
as the main factor. Those consumers who reported their main reason to use social media
is socializing, expressing their opinions, playing games and/or sharing experiences or
information about products/services showed significantly more positive attitudes toward
SMM activities of brands than those who do not share these reasons for using social media.
However, watching videos, listening to music or staying up-to-date with news are among
the main reasons for using social media that do not significantly impact attitudes toward
SMM activities of brands. Table V provides the results of the univariate analysis of variance
for these factors.

Discussion and implications

The present research examines the effects of SMM activities of brands on CBBE. This
investigation is one of the few studies that empirically examine the impact of
consumer-brand interactions/experiences on consumer’s attitude toward SMM activities of
brands, as well as brand-related knowledge and perception (i.e. CBBE). The results
indicate that SMM activities of brands are essential elements in building positive attitudes
toward brands and, consequently, achieving higher CBBE. More specifically, the results of
H1 indicate that attitude toward SMM of brands is positively associated with perceived
quality of the brand, perceived value for the cost of the brand, perceived uniqueness of the
brand and willingness to pay a price premium for the brand. Building on these findings, the
results of H2 further support the essential role of consumer-brand experiences on social
media on their attitudes toward SMM activities of brands and consequently various
elements of CBBE.
These findings have important implications for marketers. In fact, the main purpose of
marketing communications is to improve customer equity drivers by strengthening
customer relationship and creating purchase intent. The results of this study, then, indicate
how SMM activities could contribute to improving CBBE and be employed as effective

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 251

Table V ANOVA results for differences in brand-based SMM attitudes
Main reason to use
social media Brand-based SMM attitude F-value Significance

Socializing
Yes 3.43 8.515 0.004
No 2.89
Gaming
Yes 3.70 7.06 0.009
No 3.02
Expressing opinions
Yes 3.54 5.515 0.025
No 3.06
Sharing experience
Yes 3.67 3.49 0.055
No 3.32
Staying up-to-date
Yes 3.37 0.001 0.983
No 3.37
Watching videos
Yes 3.32 0.784 0.377
No 3.43
Listening to music
Yes 3.34 0.152 0.690
No 3.39

marketing communication methods. Marketers are encouraged to invest in building

awareness and increasing consumers’ knowledge of all four facets of CBBE.
Specifically, the results indicated that all but perceived quality of brands could be indirectly
(and via attitude toward brand-based SMM) impacted by meaningful consumer-brand
experiences over social media. Perceived quality may have a higher prestige aspect
associated with the brand, whereas perceived value for the cost is associated more with
the functional utility of the brand (Netemeyer et al., 2004). As such, sharing product quality
information such as detailed customer reviews, expert reviews and quality control results
could prove useful in influencing consumers’ attitudes and perceptions of product quality
and overall knowledge of the brand. In addition, SMM activities could enhance perceptions
of the uniqueness of the branded product. Sharing information about unique features of the
brand could offer diagnostic information by differentiating the brand from other brands.
Finally, willingness to pay a price premium for a branded product is related to brand
associations formed from direct experience with the product (Netemeyer et al., 2004). SMM
activities, thus, could help reinforce such brand associations by engaging consumers in
conversation about brand experience and impacting this dimension of CBBE.
Moreover, the results of the third hypothesis indicated that consumers’ differing reasons to
use social media significantly impact their attitudes toward SMM activities of brands.
Therefore, marketers are encouraged to provide content and create experiences for
consumers that are in line with their motivating reasons to use social media. This could be
done via analysis of the click-through behaviors of consumers on social media and other
websites.
Also, by building a sense of community around their brand, marketers facilitate
relationships, not just between brand and consumers but, essentially, consumers
themselves (Christodoulides et al., 2012). As the results indicate, watching videos, listening
to music and staying up-to-date with news on social media do not create a differential
impact on attitudes toward SMM activities of brands. In contrast, socializing, expressing
opinions, playing games and sharing experiences or information about products/services
significantly impact consumer attitudes toward SMM activities of brands. Thus, marketers

PAGE 252 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016

are encouraged to engage consumers in such activities or at least focus their SMM
activities around these activities to provide a pleasant experience for those consumers
whose main reasons to use social media fit such activities.

Limitations and future research

This research is subject to some limitations which may provide fruitful avenues for future
research. This study used a sample of college students to address the research questions.
Although a student sample is deemed appropriate for the present research, it is possible
that by using younger consumer groups (higher adoption rate and interest in social media),
the results may not representative of the general population. Thus, future research is
encouraged to replicate this study’s findings using larger and more representative
samples. Moreover, this research focused on SMM activities as a whole. It would be
interesting to examine the impact of specific SMM activities, such as blog posts, how-to
videos or idea-generation contests on consumer attitudes and CBBE. Also, experimental
research studies could manipulate consumer-social media marketing experiences and
examine their impact on brand attitudes and CBBE measures.
Future research should also future examine the impact of fit between consumers main
reasons to use social media and social media activities of brands on consumers attitudes
and perceptions of the brands.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-120.

Baalbaki, S. and Guzman, F. (2016), “A consumer-perceived consumer-based brand equity scale”,

Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23, pp. 229-251.

Blattberg, R., Getz, G. and Thomas, J.S. (2001), Customer Equity: Building and Managing
Relationships As Valuable Assets, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Bowden, J.L. (2009), “The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.

Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 252-271.

Bruhn, M., Schnebelen, S. and Schafer, D. (2014), “Antecedents and consequences of the quality of
e-customer-to-customer interactions in B2B brand communities”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 164-176.

Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. and Schafer, D. (2012), “Are social media replacing traditional media in
terms of brand equity creation?”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 770-790.

Cerin, E. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2009), “A commentary on current practice in mediating variable
analysis in behavioral nutrition and physical activity”, Public Health and Nutrition, Vol. 12 No. 8,
pp. 1182-1188.

Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C. and Bonhomme, J. (2012), “Memo to marketers: quantitative evidence
for change: how user-generated content really affects brands”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 53-64.

Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Beal, C. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preferences and purchase
intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.

DEI Worldwide (2008), “The impact of social media on purchasing behavior: engaging consumers
online”, available at: www.deiworldwide.com/files/DEIStudy-Engaging%%2020ConsumersOnline-
Summary.pdf

Deighton, J. and Kornfeld, L. (2009), “Interactivity’s unanticipated consequences for markets and
marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-12.

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 253

 Erdogmus, I.E. and Cicek, M. (2012), “The impact of social media marketing on brand loyalty”, Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58, pp. 1353-1360.

Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 24-33.

Foux, G. (2006), “Consumer-generated media: get your customers involved”, Brand Strategy, Vol. 202,
pp. 38-39.

Gangadharbhtla, H. (2008), “Facebook me: collective self esteem, need to belong and internet self
efficacy as predictors of the I-generations attitudes toward social networking sites”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 5-15.

Grayson, K. and Martinec, R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of inconicity and indexicality and their
influence on assessments of authentic market offerings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 296-312.

Hayes, A.F. (2009), “Beyond baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium”,
Communication Monographs, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 408-420.

Hsu, H. and Tsou, T. (2011), “Understanding customer experiences in online blog environments”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 510-523.

Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Denhardt, S. and Fuller, J. (2013), “The impact of user interactions in social media
on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 342-351.

Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.

Katz, E. and Foulkes, D. (1962), “On the use of the mass media as ‘escape’: clarification of a concept”,
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 377-388.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity: a blueprint for creating strong brands”,
Marketing Management, 10, pp. 15-19.

Kim, A.J. and Ko, E. (2010), “Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on
customer relationship and purchase intention”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 164-171.

Kim, A.J. and Ko, E. (2012), “Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An
empirical study of luxury fashion brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, pp. 1480-1486.

Laroche, M., Habibi, M. and Richard, M.O. (2013), “To be or not to be in social media: how brand
loyalty is affected by social media?”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 76-82.

LaRose, R. and Eastin, M.S. (2004), “A social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications:
toward a new model of media attendance”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 358-377.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring customer-based brand equity”, The Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.

Lemon, K.N., Rust, R.T. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2001), “What drives customer equity?” Marketing
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 20-25.

McAlexander, J.H. Schouten, W.J. and Koening, F.H. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002), “A comparison of
methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 83-104.

Netemeyer, R.G., Lrosjmam, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 54, pp. 209-224.

PAGE 254 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016

Parent, M., Plangger, K. and Bal, A. (2011), “The new WTP: willingness to participate”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 219-229.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common Method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Preacher, K.J., Derek, D.R. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227.

Preacher, K.J. and. Hayes, A.F (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 717-731.

Rohm, A., Kaltcheva, V.D. and Milne, G.R. (2013), “A mixed-method approach to examining
brand-consumer interactions driven by social media”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 295-311.

Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2015), “The impact of brand communication on brand equity through
Facebook”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1.

Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2016), “The effect of social media communication on consumer
perceptions of brands”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 189-214.

Schultz, D.E. and Peltier, J. (2013), “Social media’s slippery slope: challenges, opportunities and future
research directions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 86-99.

Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equestions
models”, in Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodoloty, Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA, pp. 290-312.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Vogel, V., Evanschitzky, H. and Ramaseshan, B. (2008), “Customer equity drivers and future sales”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 98-108.

Weinberg, T. (2009), The New Community Rules: Marketing on the Social Web, 1st ed., O’Reilly, CA.

Yazdanparast, A., Joseph, M. and Qureshi, A. (2015), “An investigation of Facebook boredom
phenomenon among college students”, Young Consumers, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 468-480.

Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 1-14.

Zhou, Z., Jin, X.L., Vogel, D.R., Fang, Y. and Chen, X. (2011), “Individual motivations and demographic
differences in social virtual worlds uses: an Exploratory investigation in second life”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 261-271.

Further reading
Kaplan, A.Y. and Tsou, H.T. (2011), “Understanding customer experiences in online blog
environments”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 510-523.

Corresponding author
Mathew Joseph can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 255