Journal of Internet Commerce

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/wico20

The Nexus Between Social Media Marketing Efforts

and Overall Brand Equity in the Banking Sector in
Bangladesh: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model

Md. Hafez

To cite this article: Md. Hafez (2023) The Nexus Between Social Media Marketing Efforts and
Overall Brand Equity in the Banking Sector in Bangladesh: Testing a Moderated Mediation
Model, Journal of Internet Commerce, 22:2, 293-320, DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2022.2042968

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2022.2042968

Published online: 28 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 767

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wico20
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE
2023, VOL. 22, NO. 2, 293–320
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2022.2042968

The Nexus Between Social Media Marketing Efforts and

Overall Brand Equity in the Banking Sector in
Bangladesh: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model
Md. Hafez
School of Business, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In the era of Marketing 5.0, crafting a favorable brand attitude Brand attitude; brand trust;
and engaging consumers with a banking brand has become consumer brand
the most critical and challenging task for bank marketers to engagement; overall brand
equity; social media
enhance overall brand equity. Previous research did not sug- marketing efforts
gest how effectively social media marketing efforts enhance
overall brand equity in the financial service sector. In response
to this gap, this study aims to examine how social media mar-
keting efforts (SMME) influence overall brand equity (OBE)
through consumer brand engagement (CBE) and brand atti-
tude (BAtt) in the banking sector in Bangladesh. Furthermore,
brand trust (BT) is tested as a moderator of SMME and CBE.
The data were obtained by a self-administered questionnaire
from a total of 263 banking consumers in Bangladesh using a
systematic sampling method. Structural equation modeling
(SEM) was used to investigate hypothesized relationships. The
results indicated that SMM efforts directly influence CBE and
BAtt. CBE and BAtt partially mediate the relationship between
SMME and OBE. Moreover, the results confirmed the moderat-
ing role of brand trust on the link between SMME and CBE.
The findings of this research offer significant implications for
building overall brand equity in the social media marketing
perspective, particularly for the banking sector.

Introduction
The advent of social media has transformed the marketing landscape and
the mode of brand communication by service firms (Hofacker and
Belanche 2016). The interactive nature of social media platforms offers
ample opportunities for the firms to deliver brand-related information in a
cost-effective manner which will eventually engage consumers with the
brand through posts, reviews, comments, and experience sharing (Kamboj
et al. 2018; Yang et al. 2016; Aluri, Slevitch, and Larzelere 2015). Consumer
brand engagement (CBE) can be increased by generating content, loyalty
programs, point-based rewards, a membership scheme, and developing a

CONTACT Md. Hafez [email protected] School of Business, Ahsanullah University of Science and
Technology, 141-142 Love Road, Tejgaon, Dhaka 1208, Bangladesh.
ß 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
294 M. HAFEZ

firm’s unique position in the consumer’s heart (Ramirez et al. 2018). The
number of worldwide social media users is over 3.6 billion people and the
users are expected to reach over 4.41 billion by 2025 (Statista 2021a). This
increasing trend of social media users is accompanied by brand engagement
activities, as internet users throughout the world spend an average of
145 minutes each day on social media (Statista 2021b). In Bangladesh,
social media users are 45.00 million in January 2021 which is accounted for
27.2% of the total population (Datareportal 2021). Social media platforms
such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube are the strategic
tools for social media advertising through sponsored tweets on Twitter,
online communities on Facebook or LinkedIn, and video advertisements on
YouTube that can inspire more CBE (Boerman and Kruikemeier 2016;
Anghelcev 2015). Globally, social media advertising expenditures amounted
to 378.16 billion U.S. dollars in 2020 (Statista 2021c). Acquiring a new con-
sumer is more costly than keeping an existing consumer (Casal
o, Flavi
an,
and Guinal
ıu 2007). Actively engaged consumers in the banking sector are
treated as an asset (Zhang et al. 2017) because they contribute to boosting
37% of the annual revenue of a bank (Pansari and Kumar 2017).
Consequently, many firms invest their resources to create social media
brand pages in the hope of increasing engagements with new and current
consumers which acts as a catalyst for building strong brand equity (Kunja
and GVRK 2020; Solem 2016; Yadav, Kamboj, and Rahman 2016; Choi
et al. 2016).
In the banking sector, the credence features and absence of physical
interactions make brand trust an important construct in engaging consum-
ers with the banking brands on social media brand pages (Kosiba et al.
2018; Khan, Rahman, and Fatma 2016). The higher the trust for banking
brands, the stronger will be the consumer engagement with that brand
(Brodie et al. 2011; van Doorn et al. 2010). Strong brand equity is the out-
come of a high degree of consumer engagement toward the brand (Keller
2001). Moreover, social media marketing efforts are also considered as the
key tool to build a positive attitude toward a brand that substantially influ-
ences brand preferences over others (Augusto and Torres 2018; Solomon,
White, and Dahl 2014). Therefore, it is practical to presume brand attitude
to be a critical driver of overall brand equity within the banking sector.
The banking sector is the fastest-expanding industry in Bangladesh con-
trolled by the Bangladesh Bank (BB). At present, sixty-one (61) scheduled
banks are operating in Bangladesh under the full command of BB which
includes 43 private commercial banks, six (6) state-owned commercial
banks, three (3) specialized banks, and nine (9) foreign commercial banks.
Furthermore, five (5) nonscheduled banks are effectively operating their
operation (Bangladesh Bank 2021). This sector is facing severe competition
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 295

because of service homogeneity such as personal banking, business banking,

Islami banking, mobile banking, and so on (Hafez 2018). In this situation,
banks can only sustain by engaging more consumers and building a posi-
tive attitude with banking brands through effective social media marketing
efforts (Mishra 2021; Latif and Calicioglu 2020) which will act as a banking
service differentiator in this highly competitive banking sector (Leckie,
Nyadzayo, and Johnson 2016). Hence, bank marketers have a keen interest
to investigate how and to what extent social media marketing efforts can
create overall brand equity in this competitive sector.
Although social media marketing efforts, consumer brand engagement,
brand attitude, and brand trust’s constructs have received growing inter-
est in the last decade from both marketers and scholars due to its sub-
stantial impact on consumer buying behavior (Gambetti and Graffigna,
2010), the relevant literature on social media marketing seems to over-
look the robust link of consumer brand engagement, brand attitude, and
brand trust (Demiray and Burnaz 2019; Tseng, Huang, and Setiawan
2017, France, Merrilees, and Miller 2016). Furthermore, while much of
the existing research has focused on the relationship between social
media marketing activities and brand equity in developed countries (Lee
and Park 2022; Ebrahim 2020; Yazdanparast, Joseph, and Muniz 2016),
very few studies have been conducted in developing countries such as
Bangladesh (Akter and Rimu 2020; Al Amin et al. 2020; Hasan, Haq,
and Rahman 2019; Yamin 2017). To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
no study was carried out to examine the role of SMME on OBE along
with moderated mediation analysis of consumer brand engagement,
brand attitude, and brand trust. Thus, this research is the first endeavor
to empirically examine how SMM efforts influence OBE via consumer
brand engagement and brand attitude. Also, it is tested whether brand
trust strengthens the association between SMME and CBE. This will fill
the present research gap in emerging brand equity literature from social
media marketing perspective.
This research is based on a study carried out by Cheung, Pires, and
Rosenberger (2020) on the effect of SMM on CBE and brand knowledge.
They found that SMM elements had a direct and indirect effect on CBE.
Furthermore, brand attitude is another substantial predictor to assess over-
all brand equity but a few research were examined these relationships
(Dwivedi and McDonald 2020). Also, the robust link of brand trust as a
moderator between SMME and CBE was overlooked by the prior studies
(Kim and Park 2013). Therefore, consumer brand engagement and brand
attitude are considered as a mediator between SMME and OBE as well as
brand trust as a moderator between SMME and CBE.
296 M. HAFEZ

The rest of the study is designed as follows: First, relevant literature of

the main constructs followed by the hypotheses is explained. Thereafter,
the research methodology and the data analysis with research findings are
presented. Finally, this research concludes with a discussion of theoretical
and managerial implications followed by limitations and future
research directions.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Social media marketing efforts (SMME)
Social media has transformed the mode that the brand content is gener-
ated, distributed, and consumed over digital platforms (Tsai and Men
2013). It permits brand marketers to communicate, cooperate, and
exchange brand information with consumers (Richter and Koch 2007).
Social media marketing is “a process by which companies create, communi-
cate, and deliver online marketing offerings via social media platforms to
build and maintain stakeholder relationships that enhance stakeholders’
value by facilitating interaction, information sharing, offering personalized
purchase recommendations, and word of mouth creation amongst stake-
holders about existing and trending products and services” (Yadav and
Rahman 2017). Social networking sites allow members to generate their
profiles such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn (Tuten and
Solomon 2017). Brand marketers are now very interested to interact with
brand information via social media marketing efforts to create consumer-
brand relations because of its interactive nature (Yu and Yuan 2019). Kim
and Ko (2012) offered five elements of social media marketing including
interaction, entertainment, trendiness, customization, and word of mouth
(WOM). This study measures social media marketing efforts holistically
through Kim and Ko (2012) five dimensions.

Social media marketing efforts and consumer brand engagement (CBE)

The notion of consumer brand engagement refers to cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral activities with brands (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014)
which consequently build value-driven consumers’ and companies’ relation-
ships with brands (Hollebeek, Juric, and Tang 2017). CBE is the result of
the co-creation behavior of consumers where consumers constantly interact
with service providers (Zhang et al. 2017; Brodie et al. 2011; Bijmolt et al.
2010). CBE is a hierarchical method of creation, consumption, and contri-
bution (Vale and Fernandes 2018). Bowden (2009) defined CBE as the psy-
chological process that encourages consumers to become loyal to a
particular brand. It allows consumers to exercise “voice”, where they can
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 297

strongly express their experiences with brands (van Doorn et al. 2010).
Despite the increased interest of marketing practitioners in consumer brand
engagement, there remains a dispute over the nature of the CBE construct.
Various studies have explained CBE from a psychological perspective while
others have considered it from a behavioral aspect (Lemon and
Verhoef 2016).
Notably, three distinct approaches can be used to conceptualize CBE
construct in the marketing domain. In the first approach, few researchers
(van Doorn et al. 2010; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009) treated CBE
as a unidimensional construct. In the second approach, others (Mollen and
Wilson 2010) considered CBE as a two-dimensional construct. The third
approach took a wider view to consider CBE as a multidimensional con-
struct containing cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (Dessart,
Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015; Brodie et al. 2011, Hollebeek 2011).
The cognitive dimension is “a consumer’s level of thought processing in a
particular consumer/brand interaction”, while the affective dimension is “a
consumer’s degree of positive brand-related effect in a particular consumer/
brand interaction”, and the activation/behavioral dimension is “a consum-
er’s level of effort spent on a brand in a particular consumer/brand inter-
action” (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014). Moreover, with diverse
conceptualizations, CBE is adopted in this study as a multidimensional
construct (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) because it includes a broader
view to conceptualize this construct and is more relevant with understand-
ing the behavioral enthusiasms of the consumers for engaging them on
social media (Verma 2021; Srivastava and Sivaramakrishnan 2021;
Harrigan, Roy, and Chen 2021; Algharabat et al. 2020; Cheung, Pires, and
Rosenberger 2020; Vale and Fernandes 2018).
The advent of different social media platforms has shifted consumer
interaction with brands (Morra et al. 2018). Mostly, the interactive nature
of social media has transformed from passive receivers of brand-related
content to active participants who continuously engage with brands via
online discussion and interactions with brands (Batra and Keller 2016;
Malthouse et al. 2013) as well as play the role of creators of brand content
via blogs, forums, and social networks (Okazaki and Taylor 2013; Thevenot
2007). Muchardie, Yudiana, and Gunawan (2016) asserted that social media
marketing has a substantial influence on CBE. Liu, Shin, and Burns (2021)
revealed that social media marketing efforts are positively related to con-
sumer brand engagement. Likewise, Choedon and Lee (2020) affirmed that
CBE derives from successful social media marketing activities. Cheung,
Pires, and Rosenberger (2020) investigated how social media marketing ele-
ments influence CBE and brand knowledge and confirmed that interaction,
eWOM, and trendiness strengthen CBE. Also, G
omez, Lopez, and Molina
298 M. HAFEZ

(2019) stated that social media marketing efforts encourage consumers to

engage with the brands via liking, sharing, posting, and creation of content.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H1: Social media marketing efforts have a positive effect on CBE.

Consumer brand engagement and overall brand equity (OBE)

Brand equity (BE) is now considered the intangible asset of a firm (Kim
and Ko 2012; Simon and Sullivan1993). Aaker (1996) stated that brand
equity encompasses the assets and liabilities of a brand. Keller (1993)
defined BE as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer
response to the marketing of that brand”. Yoo and Donthu (2001) devel-
oped a unidimensional scale of overall brand equity which refers to con-
sumer diverse responses on the branded and non branded products with
similar marketing efforts. This scale is widely used for measuring brand
equity in the service sector (Rizomyliotis et al. 2020). Hence, this scale is
adopted in this study to assess overall brand equity.
CBE is a critical determinant of BE (Hoeffler and Keller 2002; Weiger,
Wetzel, and Hammerschmidt 2017). The higher engagement with the brand
results in strong BE (Schivinski, Christodoulides, and Dabrowski 2016,
Bruhn, Schoenmueller, and Sch€afer 2012; Christodoulides, Jevons, and
Bonhomme 2012). Mostly, consumers are more satisfied and loyal when
they have a high degree of involvement with a brand (Weiger, Wetzel, and
Hammerschmidt 2017; Wirtz et al. 2013). Schivinski and Dabrowski (2015)
argued that firm- and user-created brand contents have a positive influence
on BE. Chahal and Rani (2017) delineated that consumer active involve-
ment with a brand via liking, posting, and sharing over social media
enhances brand equity for the service providers. Machado et al. (2019) pos-
ited that brand equity derives from consumer engagement with the brand.
Xi and Hamari (2020) affirmed that brand engagement is positively linked
to BE. Similarly, Algharabat et al. (2020) highlighted that the more the con-
sumer engagement with a brand, the higher is the BE. Thus, the following
hypotheses are posited:
H2: Consumer brand engagement has a positive effect on OBE.
H3: Consumer brand engagement has a mediating effect on SMME and OBE.

Brand trust (BT) as a moderator

Trust is the most critical component to maintain long term mutually satis-
fying relationships with the brand (Pennanen, Tiainen, and Luomala 2007).
In the virtual market space, trust is the leading factor to engage a consumer
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 299

with a brand (Pentina, Zhang, and Basmanova 2013). Consumer communi-

cation via social media platforms increases the level of consumer trust for a
particular brand (Hajli et al. 2014; Pan and Chiou 2011). The degree of
consumer engagement with a brand depends on whether consumers trust
the firm’s SMME or not. Consumers are not engaged with a brand when
there is a lack of security and privacy issues involved (Rios and Riquelme
2008; Gorriz 2003). Schmidt and Iyer (2015) stated that online brand com-
munities are perceived more trustworthy than the firm’s conventional pub-
lic relations activities. Kim and Park (2013) stated that brand trust
significantly mediates between SMM efforts and behavioral intentions.
Rather than motivating, brand trust acts as a moderator (Alsaad,
Mohamad, and Ismail 2017). Therefore, it can be anticipated that consum-
ers’ greater degree of brand trust in a firm’s social media marketing efforts
results in higher consumer brand engagement which subsequently enhances
brand equity. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Brand trust moderates the relationship between SMME and CBE such that the
relationship is stronger when the degree of trust is high.

Social media marketing efforts and brand attitude (BAtt)

Building a favorable brand attitude (BAtt) is the prime task for brand market-
ers to generate favorable brand outcomes (Lee and Kang 2013). Brand atti-
tude shows consumers’ favorable assessment of a brand (De Pelsmacker,
Geuens, and Van den Bergh 2007). Mitchell and Olson (1981) defined brand
attitude as “consumer’s overall evaluation of a brand”. It is the conviction
that leads the consumer to favorable or unfavorable responses to the brand
(Murphy and Zajonc 1993). Keller (1993) highlighted that brand attitude
derives from consumer brand knowledge on symbolic and functional features
of a brand which is developed by the consumer experience with a brand.
Social media communication is an interactive way to communicate with con-
sumers and firms which shapes consumer attitudes toward a brand
(Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011). Social media marketing spawns con-
sumer attitudes concerning a brand expressed by online reviews about that
brand (Hong and Park 2012). Positive reviews over social media indicate a
favorable attitude toward a brand (Doh and Hwang 2009). Kudeshia and
Kumar (2017) asserted that Social media has a positive influence on brand
attitude. Likewise, Schivinski and Dabrowski (2016) affirmed that Social
media marketing is positively related to BAtt. Also, Dwivedi and McDonald
(2020) demonstrated that successful social media communication generates a
positive attitude toward a brand that leads to purchase intention for that
brand. Consequently, the following hypothesis is recommended:
H5: Social media marketing efforts have a positive effect on BAtt.
300 M. HAFEZ

Brand attitude and overall brand equity

Brand attitude is the most critical factor to develop brand equity
(Zarantonello and Schmitt 2013; Kim et al. 2012). Consumers receive
information from different sources i.e., social media pages that form a
brand attitude toward a brand, consequently influencing overall brand
equity (Beales et al. 1981). When the brand attitude is formed via
social media marketing efforts, a positive attitude will mostly result
from that interactive platforms which will have lead to consumer
brand preferences (Leung, Bai, and Stahura 2015). Specifically, hedonic
attitudes (e.g., excitement, and pleasure) are treated as the most vital
components for leveraging brand equity (Liao et al. 2017). Favorable
brand attitude not only shows brand preference behavior (Wu and
Wang 2011) but also has a positive impact on consumer buying inten-
tion (Keller and Lehmann 2006; Aaker and Keller 1990). Ansary and
Hashim (2018) affirmed that brand attitude has a substantial effect on
BE creation. Augusto and Torres (2018) posited that brand attitude
has a robust link with brand equity. Also, Abzari, Ghassemi, and
Vosta (2014) emphasized that social media has a causal link to brand
attitude development which subsequently enhances brand equity.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are anticipated:

H6: Brand attitude has a positive effect on OBE.

H7: Brand attitude has a mediating effect on SMME and OBE.

Conceptual framework
Figure 1 illustrates relationships among constructs that will be confirmed
by hypothesis testing.

Research methodology
Sample and data collection
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed in this study to test
the research model because it permits to concurrently analyze proposed
observed and latent constructs in the measurement model (Hair et al.
2010; Bollen 1989). A face-to-face survey method was adopted to collect
data from consumers who follow different banks’ social media pages. A
structured questionnaire was used as the primary data collection instru-
ment. A total of 15 consumers were selected from each branch of a pri-
vate or public bank using a systematic sampling method. Three
hundred thirty banking consumers in Bangladesh were approached but
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 301

H4-Moderation

Brand Trust

H3-Mediation

Consumer Brand
Engagement
H2
H1

Social Media Overall Brand

Marketing Efforts Equity

H6
H5

Brand Attitude

H7-Mediation

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

284 participated in this survey. After removing incomplete and invalid

responses, 263 responses were analyzed. During this survey, three
screening questions were asked: “Do you have a bank account?”, “Do
you have a social media account?” and “Do you follow any bank’s social
media page online?” The respondents who answered “Yes” to all ques-
tions were requested to complete the questionnaire. The survey was
conducted from March 2021 to June 2021. Table 1 shows the demo-
graphic details of the respondents. The majority of the respondents
were male (58.56%) who were aged between 18 and 25 (55.89%). Most
participants had completed a postgraduate degree (56.27%) and a bach-
elor’s degree (28.90%). More than half of the respondents had an
account in a private bank (59.32%) using banking services for 1–2 years
(43.35%). Additionally, the majority of the participants used Facebook
(69.96%) followed by YouTube (15.97%) and Twitter (6.85%).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the selected samples were represen-
tative of this study.

Measures
Apart from demographic questions, all the measurement items under five
constructs were adopted from previous literature (Table 2) with minor
modifications and measured on a nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1
302 M. HAFEZ

Table 1. Demographic profiles of respondents.

Category Frequency (N ¼ 263) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 154 58.56
Female 109 41.44
Age (years)
18–25 147 55.89
26–35 68 25.86
36–45 28 10.65
Above 45 20 7.60
Education
High school or below qualification 22 8.37
Bachelor’s degree 76 28.90
Postgraduate degree 148 56.27
Other 17 6.46
Type of bank
Public 107 40.68
Private 156 59.32
Year of using banking services
Less than 1 year 32 12.17
1–2 Year 114 43.35
3–4 Year 73 27.76
Above 5 year 44 16.73
Social media user
Facebook 184 69.96
YouTube 42 15.97
Twitter 18 6.85
LinkedIn 14 5.32
Instagram 5 1.90

(strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Social media marketing efforts

were measured using five (5) components under 11 items adopted from
Kim and Ko (2012). Consumer brand engagement was operationalized
using three (03) components under 10 items adopted from Hollebeek,
Glynn, and Brodie (2014). Brand attitude was measured using three (3)
items adopted from (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015;
Thorbjørnsen and Dahl
en 2011). Brand trust was measured using four (4)
items adopted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and overall brand
equity was operationalized using four (4) items from Yoo and
Donthu (2001).

Data analysis and results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the nexus between SMME and
OBE along with moderated mediation influence of CBE, band attitude, and
brand trust. The proposed moderated mediation model was tested using
structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation
to attain the aforementioned purpose. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
is an appropriate technique to measure various direct, moderating, and
mediating relationships among constructs (Hair et al. 2010). AMOS 23.0
software was used to examine this model.
Table 2. Measurement model summary.
Constructs Scale items Sources
Social media marketing Entertainment E1: My bank’s social media content appears to be interesting. Kim and Ko (2012)
efforts (SMME) (SMME_1) E2: It is exciting to use the bank’s social media page.
Interaction IN1: It is easy to express my opinions or conversation with other users through the bank’s social
media page.
(SMME_2) IN2: It is possible to have two-way interaction through the bank’s social media page.
IN3: Bank’s social media page allows to share information with others.
Trendiness T1: The latest information publishes in the content of my bank’s social media page.
(SMME_3) T2: It is quite trendy to use the bank’s social media page.
Customization C1: The social media pages of the bank provide a personalized information search.
(SMME_4) C2: The social media of my bank offers customized services.
WOM W1: I would like to pass the information regarding banking services from the bank’s social media pages to
my friends
(SMME_5) W2: I would like to upload content from the bank’s social media page on my Facebook page or my blog.
Consumer brand Cognition CO1: Using my bank’s social media page gets me to think about my bank. (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014)
engagement (CBE) (CBE_1) CO2: I think about my bank a lot when I’m using my bank’s social media page.
CO3:Using my bank’s social media page stimulates my interest to learn more about my bank’s brand.
A1: I feel very positive when I use my bank’s social media page.
Affection A2: Using my bank’s social media page makes me happy.
(CBE_2) A3: I feel good when I use my bank’s social media page.
A4: I’m proud to use my bank’s social media page.
Activation A1: I spend a lot of time using my bank’s social media page compared with other brands.
(CBE_3) A2: Whenever I’m using banking services on the social media page, I usually use my bank’s social
media page.
A3: I use my bank’s social media page most.
Brand attitude (BAtt) I like my bank’s social media page. (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015;
My attitude toward my bank’s social media page is very positive. Thorbjørnsen and Dahl
en 2011)
I am favorably disposed toward my bank’s social media page.
Brand trust (BT) I trust information shared on my bank’s social media page. Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001
Bank’s social media page is an honest page.
My bank’s social media page is safe for sharing personal information.
My bank’s social media page is reliable.
Overall brand equity (OBE) I will not buy services from other banks if identical services are offered by other banks. Yoo and Donthu 2001
Even if another bank offers similar services as my bank, I would rather prefer my banking services.
I would like to purchase my banking services if there is another bank as good as my bank,
If another bank is not dissimilar from my bank’s brand in any way, it seems more prudent to use my banking services.
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE
303
304 M. HAFEZ

Table 3. Correlation matrix of key constructs.

Social media Consumer
marketing brand Overall
efforts engagement Brand attitude Brand trust brand equity
Social media marketing efforts 1
Consumer brand engagement 0.185 1
Brand attitude 0.425 0.230 1
Brand trust 0.206 0.697 0.262 1
Overall brand equity 0.298 0.274 0.357 0.267 1
Notes: N ¼ 263; Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Common method bias

Harman’s one-factor test was conducted among the studied variables to
examine common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). As per this
method, all variables were entered into one factor and tested through
principal axis factoring with unrotated factor analysis (Leonard 2012).
The result indicated that only 29.569 percent of the variance was
explained by one component, which is less than the 50% recommended
by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Therefore, this research does not suffer from
the issue of common method bias. Also, using the Pearson correlation
coefficient method, a correlation matrix was tested to identify any highly
correlated variables existing among variables. As recommended by
Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips (1991), all of the correlation coefficients were
less than 0.90 depicted in Table 3. So, it might be inferred that common
method bias is absent in this study.

Measurement model
According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was performed to test the construct reliability and validity of the
measurement models using AMOS 23 software.The measurement model
indicated acceptable model fit (v2 ¼ 265.982, df ¼ 142, v2/df ¼ 1.873, p
¼ .000 <.001, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) ¼ 0.906  0.90, normed-fit
index (NFI) ¼ 0.905  0.90, confirmatory fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.953  0.90,
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ¼ 0.943  0.90, and root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.058  0.08. Figure 2 demonstrates the
measurement model by CFA with standardized factor loadings.

Reliability and validity

Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability scores were used to measure the
reliability of all the constructs in the measurement model. When the
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 305

Figure 2. Measurement model.

Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) scores are higher above
the specified cutoff value of 0.7, the construct is considered reliable. (Hair
et al. 2010). Table 4 showed that all of the scales’ CR and Cronbach’s alpha
values were found to meet the required threshold criterion, indicating that
they are all reliable.
Additionally, convergent validity and discriminant validity were also
assessed for each construct. If the average variance extracted (AVE) estima-
tions for each construct reach the specified cutoff value of 0.50, convergent
validity is supported (Hair et al. 2010). AVE values are demonstrated in
Table 4 range from 0.526 to 0.744 which provides further evidence for con-
vergent validity among constructs. Lastly, if the square root of each con-
struct’s AVE value is larger than the correlations with the other constructs,
indicating adequate discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Table 5 demonstrates that the square root of the AVE value of each con-
struct was greater than other constructs, confirming the distinctiveness of
306 M. HAFEZ

Table 4. CFA results.

Factor loadings
Constructs Items (standardized) AVE CR Cronbach a
Social media marketing efforts SMME1 0.829 0.526 0.846 0.839
SMME2 0.805
SMME3 0.659
SMME4 0.698
SMME5 0.612
Consumer brand engagement CBE1 0.787 0.653 0.850 0.848
CBE2 0.834
CBE3 0.803
Brand attitude BAtt1 0.755 0.593 0.814 0.813
BAtt2 0.765
BAtt3 0.790
Brand trust BT1 0.820 0.744 0.921 0.918
BT2 0.877
BT3 0.918
BT4 0.832
Overall brand equity OBE1 0.844 0.534 0.819 0.817
OBE2 0.770
OBE3 0.655
OBE4 0.633

Table 5. Discriminant validity results.

Social media Consumer
marketing brand Brand Overall
Latent variables efforts engagement attitude Brand trust brand equity
Social media marketing efforts 0.725
Consumer brand engagement 0.242 0.808
Brand attitude 0.542 0.289 0.770
Brand trust 0.234 0.756 0.294 0.863
Overall brand equity 0.366 0.312 0.464 0.299 0.731
Notes: Italicized elements (bolded) are the square root of AVE for each construct

five (05) constructs. Thus, it can be said that the measurement model
showed the sufficient robustness required to examine the link between the
constructs through the structural model.

Structural model assessment and hypotheses testing

After attaining the reliability and validity of the measurement models, a
covariance-based structural equation model (SEM) using AMOS 23 was
performed and the results show all the fit indices in the satisfactory range.
The fit indices are GFI ¼ 0.924, CFI ¼ 0.954, NFI ¼ 0.908, TLI ¼ 0.944,
RMSEA ¼ 0.058 which represent appropriateness of structural model.
The results of the direct paths are presented in Table 6. The results of
path analysis illustrate that social media marketing efforts have a significant
positive effect on consumer brand engagement and brand attitude
(b ¼ 0.263, p ¼ .000 <.001; b ¼ 0.566, p ¼ .000 <.001), supporting H1 and
H5. Likewise, consumer brand engagement and brand attitude have a
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 307

Table 6. Structural model direct paths.

Paths b S.E. C.R. p
Consumer brand engagement <— Social media marketing efforts 0.263 0.073 3.588 
Brand attitude <— Social media marketing efforts 0.566 0.077 7.372 
Overall brand equity <— Consumer brand engagement 0.188 0.063 2.975 .003
Overall brand equity <— Brand attitude 0.394 0.069 5.723 
Note(s): p < .01; p < .001

Table 7. Results of mediation analysis.

Paths b Lower Upper p
H3: Social media marketing efforts —> Consumer brand 0.049 0.014 0.121 .004
engagement —> Overall brand equity
H7: Social media marketing efforts —> Brand attitude —> 0.223 0.084 0.470 .000
Overall brand equity
Note(s): p < .01; p < .001

substantial direct impact on overall brand equity (b ¼ 0.188, p ¼ .003

< .01; b ¼ 0.394, p ¼ .000 < .001), supporting H2 and H6.

Mediation analysis
Bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) were conducted
for 5000 resamples with a 95% confidence interval to test the signifi-
cance of the mediation effects. Results demonstrated in Table 7 con-
firm that consumer brand engagement partially mediates between the
relationship of social media marketing efforts and overall brand equity
(b ¼ 0.049, p ¼ .004, bias-corrected 95% CI: 0.014, 0.121), supporting
H3. Also, brand attitude partially mediates between the relationship of
social media marketing efforts and overall brand equity (b ¼ 0.223,
p ¼ .000, bias-corrected 95% CI: 0.084, 0.470), accepting H7.

Moderation analysis
The moderating impact of brand trust was evaluated using the product
indicator approach to create the interaction term (Hair, Ringle, and
Sarstedt 2011; Wilson 2010). The significance of this interaction term
toward the dependent variable (i.e., consumer brand engagement) was then
assessed. The resulted interaction term is “social media marketing
efforts  brand trust”. Table 8 illustrates that the direct influence of social
media marketing efforts and brand trust (independent and moderating
variable) on consumer brand engagement is positive and significant.
Further, the results show that the impact of interaction terms on consumer
brand engagement is statistically significant. Therefore, H4 is supported.
308 M. HAFEZ

Table 8. Results of moderated SEM interactions.

Paths b S.E. C.R. p Outcome
Social media marketing efforts —-> Consumer brand engagement 0.243 0.073 3.326  Significant
Brand trust —-> Consumer brand engagement 0.694 0.065 10.674  Significant
Social media marketing —-> Consumer brand engagement 0.774 0.070 11.095  Significant
efforts  brand trust
Note(s): ***p < .001

4.5

4
Consumer Brand Engagement

3.5

2.5

1.5

1
Low Social Media Marketing Efforts High Social Media Marketing Efforts
Low Brand Trust High Brand Trust
Figure 3. Moderating effect of brand trust.

Further, Figure 3 plots the interaction effects which illustrate the link
between SMME and CBE under high and low levels of brand trust. The
result indicates that consumers with higher brand trust strengthen the rela-
tionship between SMME and CBE (the slope is steeper) than in those with
lower brand trust. Finally, R2 is increased from 0.553 to 0.673 after the
inclusion of the interaction term, indicating the improvement of model
productivity.

Discussion
The results affirm the important role of social media marketing efforts on
overall brand equity through consumer brand engagement, brand attitude,
and brand trust in the banking sector in Bangladesh which enriches the
extant bank marketing and social media marketing literature (Arghashi,
Bozbay, and Karami2021; Cheung, Pires, and Rosenberger 2020; Yang and
Che 2020; Bianchi and Andrews 2018; Islam and Rahman 2016; Hollebeek
2011) by validating the said linkage. The results affirm that social media
marketing efforts significantly and positively affect CBE, confirming the
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 309

findings of earlier studies (Liu, Shin, and Burns 2021; Cheung, Pires, and
Rosenberger 2020; G
omez, Lopez, and Molina 2019; Pentina, Guilloux, and
Micu 2018; Kim and Johnson 2016; Merrilees 2016). Hence, social media
marketing efforts should be considered as means of nurturing consumers’
cognition, affection, and activation toward the bank’s brand.
The findings also show that overall brand equity is positively affected by
consumer brand engagement supported by previous studies (Verma 2021;
Xi and Hamari 2020; Machado et al. 2019), validating the significant role
of consumer brand engagement in constructing overall brand equity.
Moreover, the findings reveal that CBE is partially mediated by the linkage
between SMME and OBE. These results indicate that effective social media
marketing efforts engage more consumers with the bank’s brand subse-
quently impacting overall brand equity. Further, findings demonstrate that
brand trust strengthens the link between SMME and CBE. Although prior
studies have affirmed that brand trust is a significant predictor of CBE
(Nyadzayo, Leckie, and Johnson 2020; Osei-Frimpong, McLean, and
Famiyeh 2019), no study shows brand trust as a moderator between SMME
and CBE which will plug the current research gap and enhance value to
the literature. High brand trust with a consumer means more consumer
engagement with a brand through SMME. Also, a substantial relationship
has been found between SMME and brand attitude following previous
research (Dwivedi and McDonald 2020; Wang, Cao, and Park 2019;
Kudeshia and Kumar 2017; Pace, Balboni, and Gistri 2017; Abzari,
Ghassemi, and Vosta 2014, Akar and Topçu 2011). Also, the findings illus-
trate that BAtt is a substantial predictor of OBE which is consistent with
previous studies (Augusto and Torres 2018; Ansary and Hashim 2018;
Schivinski and Dabrowski 2016). These results indicate that successful
social media marketing efforts generate a positive attitude toward a brand
which subsequently strengthens overall brand equity. Notably, the findings
confirm that brand attitude serves as a conduit between SMME and overall
brand equity. This result further suggests that the bank’s active social media
marketing efforts reinforce OBE through brand attitude.

Theoretical implications
The findings offer diverse theoretical implications for academics. First, this
is the first attempt to empirically examine the uncultivated link between
SMME and OBE along with the moderated mediation analysis of CBE,
BAtt, and BT in the banking sector in Bangladesh which will enhance value
to the extant bank marketing and social media marketing literature.
Second, the research has deepened the knowledge of interactive marketing
literature on CBE and BAtt linked to OBE in the social media marketing
310 M. HAFEZ

perspective (Vohra and Bhardwaj 2019; France, Merrilees, and Miller 2016;
Hayes and Carr 2015). Third, although previous studies only showed the


direct effect of social media marketing on CBE and BAtt (Huerta-Alvarez,
Cambra-Fierro, and Fuentes-Blasco 2020; Yang, Asaad, and Dwivedi 2017;
Brand~ao, Pinho, and Rodrigues 2019), this research has empirically
affirmed that consumer brand engagement and brand attitude are the sub-
stantial mediators between the linkage of SMME and OBE which will over-
come the limitations of the earlier studies. Furthermore, from the
standpoint of SMM, these theoretical insights provide academics with a bet-
ter knowledge of how businesses may successfully engage more consumers
with a brand and build a favorable brand attitude. Finally, this research
enriches the literature by empirically investigating and affirming BT as a
significant moderator to strengthen the link between SMME and CBE. This
finding will guide academics to increase consumer brand engagement and
fill the current research gap because no study showed this pivotal linkage
earlier (Ebrahim 2020).

Managerial implications
The findings of this research offer some important managerial implications.
First, for bank marketers who are seeking the means of strengthening over-
all brand equity to endure competitive advantage in the competitive bank-
ing sector, social media marketing can be employed as a means to engage
more consumers with the bank’s brand that ultimately enhances overall
brand equity for banks. Hence, bank marketers should invest heavily in
SMME to increase consumer engagement with the bank’s brand. To
increase more consumer brand engagement, bank marketers should run
hashtag campaigns on social media by launching different contests i.e., the
development of new ideas for banking products and services. Bank market-
ers should also provide opportunities for consumer interaction via online
chat, 24/7 interactive consumer care on social media, promote reward cam-
paigns to inspire participation in online banking events, upload e-newslet-
ters with entertaining and attractive news, videos, and success stories such
as the best bank award to the bank’s social media pages to upsurge con-
sumer brand engagement which will influence a particular bank preference.
Second, consumer engagement with the bank’s brand will be higher when
he or she trusts the bank’s social media marketing campaign. Thus, bank
marketers should communicate authentic information of the brand’s func-
tional performance and experiential needs such as an easy and secured
platform of financial transactions to the consumers via social media plat-
forms to increase trust in the bank’s brand which will encourage more con-
sumer brand engagement activities. Further, a positive brand attitude is an
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 311

asset to the banks that can successfully generate from effective social media
marketing efforts. Therefore, bank marketers should promote informative,
trendy, and entertaining content over social media platforms which will
add a sense of happiness in the consumer life and develop a favorable atti-
tude toward a bank’s brand. Besides, bank marketers should upload the
bank’s contribution to social welfare on social media brand page to create a
positive attitude toward banks i.e., Eastern Bank Ltd (EBL) in Bangladesh
donated 5 crore taka to the Prime Minister’s Relief and Welfare Fund dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic (Eastern Bank Ltd 2021). Consequently, a
more favorable attitude toward the bank results in strong overall brand
equity for the banks.

Limitations and future research directions

This research is not without flaws and calls for further research. Firstly, the
findings of this study can not be generalized because responses were col-
lected only from Bangladeshi banking consumers. In the future, cross-cul-
tural studies based on this research framework need to be conducted so
that these research findings can be generalized. Secondly, only a face-to-
face survey method was used in this study. Further research may use both
online and offline platforms to collect survey data to overcome the limita-
tions of each technique. Third, this research is restricted to followers of the
bank’s social media brand page. Future studies could examine non-fol-
lowers and compare the two groups. Fourth, the majority of the partici-
pants in this study are between the ages of 18 and 25. Other age groups
should be included in future investigations to validate the findings. Lastly,
forthcoming studies could examine the existing research framework along
with some important constructs namely, perceived hedonic value, perceived
utilitarian value; brand evangelism, etc.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Aaker, D. A. 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review 38 (3):102–20. doi: 10.2307/41165845.
Aaker, D. A., and K. L. Keller. 1990. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing 54 (1):27–41. doi: 10.1177/002224299005400102.
Abzari, M., R. A. Ghassemi, and L. N. Vosta. 2014. Analysing the effect of social media on
brand attitude and purchase intention: The case of Iran Khodro Company. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences 143:822–6. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.483.
312 M. HAFEZ

Akar, E., and B. Topçu. 2011. An examination of the factors influencing consumers’ atti-
tudes toward social media marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce 10 (1):35–67. doi:
10.1080/15332861.2011.558456.
Akter, K., and F. T. Rimu. 2020. Impact of social media marketing on online impulse buy-
ing behavior: A study from Bangladesh perspectives. Journal of Society & Change 14 (2):
23–31.
Al Amin, M., N. Nowsin, I. Hossain, and T. Bala. 2020. Impact of social media on con-
sumer buying behaviour through online value proposition: A study on e-commerce busi-
ness in bangladesh. BUFT Journal of Business & Economics 1:209–28.
Algharabat, R., N. P. Rana, A. A. Alalwan, A. Baabdullah, and A. Gupta. 2020.
Investigating the antecedents of customer brand engagement and consumer-based brand
equity in social media. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 53:101767. doi: 10.
1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.016.
Alsaad, A.,. R. Mohamad, and N. A. Ismail. 2017. The moderating role of trust in business
to business electronic commerce (B2B EC) adoption. Computers in Human Behavior 68:
157–69. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.040.
Aluri, A.,. L. Slevitch, and R. Larzelere. 2015. The effectiveness of embedded social media
on hotel websites and the importance of social interactions and return on engagement.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27 (4):670–89. doi: 10.
1108/IJCHM-09-2013-0415.
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3):411–23. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Anghelcev, G. 2015. Unintended effects of incentivizing consumers to recommend a favor-
ite brand. Journal of Marketing Communications 21 (3):210–23. doi: 10.1080/13527266.
2012.747980.
Ansary, A., and N. M. H. N. Hashim. 2018. Brand image and equity: The mediating role of
brand equity drivers and moderating effects of product type and word of mouth. Review
of Managerial Science 12 (4):969–1002. doi: 10.1007/s11846-017-0235-2.
Arghashi, V., Z. Bozbay, and A. Karami. 2021. An integrated model of social media brand
love: Mediators of brand attitude and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Relationship
Marketing 20 (4):319–48. doi: 10.1080/15332667.2021.1933870.
Augusto, M., and P. Torres. 2018. Effects of brand attitude and eWOM on consumers’ will-
ingness to pay in the banking industry: Mediating role of consumer-brand identification
and brand equity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 42:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jret-
conser.2018.01.005.
Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Yi, and L. W. Phillips. 1991. Assessing construct validity in
organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (3):421–58. doi: 10.2307/
2393203.
Bangladesh Bank. 2021. Banks and financial institutions. https://www.bb.org.bd/fnansys/
bankfi.php/ (accessed June 14, 2021).
Batra, R., and K. L. Keller. 2016. Integrating marketing communications: New findings,
new lessons, and new ideas. Journal of Marketing 80 (6):122–45. doi: 10.1509/jm.15.0419.
Beales, H., M. B. Mazis, S. C. Salop, and R. Staelin. 1981. Consumer search and public pol-
icy. Journal of Consumer Research 8 (1):11–22. doi: 10.1086/208836.
Bianchi, C., and L. Andrews. 2018. Consumer engagement with retail firms through social
media: An empirical study in Chile. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 46 (4):364–85. doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-02-2017-0035.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 313

Bijmolt, T. H., P. S. Leeflang, F. Block, M. Eisenbeiss, B. G. Hardie, A. Lemmens, and P.

Saffert. 2010. Analytics for customer engagement. Journal of Service Research 13 (3):
341–56. doi: 10.1177/1094670510375603.
Boerman, S. C., and S. Kruikemeier. 2016. Consumer responses to promoted tweets sent by
brands and political parties. Computers in Human Behavior 65:285–94. doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2016.08.033.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bowden, J. L. H. 2009. The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice 17 (1):63–74. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105.
Brand~ao, A., E. Pinho, and P. Rodrigues. 2019. Antecedents and consequences of luxury
brand engagement in social media. Spanish Journal of Marketing 23 (2):163–83. doi: 10.
1108/SJME-11-2018-0052.
Brodie, R. J., L. D. Hollebeek, B. Juri
c, and A. Ili
c. 2011. Customer engagement:
Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of
Service Research 14 (3):252–71. doi: 10.1177/1094670511411703.
Bruhn, M., V. Schoenmueller, and D. B. Sch€afer. 2012. Are social media replacing trad-
itional media in terms of brand equity creation? Management Research Review 35 (9):
770–90. doi: 10.1108/01409171211255948.
Casal
o, L., C. Flavi
an, and M. Guinal
ıu. 2007. The impact of participation in virtual brand
communities on consumer trust and loyalty: The case of free software. Online
Information Review 31 (6):775–92. doi: 10.1108/14684520710841766.
Chahal, H., and A. Rani. 2017. How trust moderates social media engagement and brand
equity. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 11 (3):312–35. doi: 10.1108/JRIM-10-
2016-0104.
Chaudhuri, A., and M. B. Holbrook. 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65 (2):
81–93. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255.
Cheung, M. L., G. Pires, and P. J. Rosenberger. 2020. The influence of perceived social media
marketing elements on consumer–brand engagement and brand knowledge. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 32 (3):695–720. doi: 10.1108/APJML-04-2019-0262.
Choedon, T., and Y. C. Lee. 2020. The effect of social media marketing activities on pur-
chase intention with brand equity and social brand engagement: Empirical evidence
from Korean cosmetic firms. Knowledge Management Research 21 (3):141–60. doi: 10.
15813/kmr.2020.21.3.008.
Choi, E. K., D. Fowler, B. Goh, and J. Yuan. 2016. Social media marketing: Applying the
uses and gratifications theory in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management 25 (7):771–96. doi: 10.1080/19368623.2016.1100102.
Christodoulides, G., C. Jevons, and J. Bonhomme. 2012. Memo to marketers: Quantitative
evidence for change—how user-generated content really affects brands. Journal of
Advertising Research 52 (1):53–64. doi: 10.2501/JAR-52-1-053-064.
Datareportal. 2021. Social media statistics for Bangladesh. https://datareportal.com/reports/
digital-2021-bangladesh/ (accessed July 3, 2021).
De Pelsmacker, P., M. Geuens, and J. Van den Bergh. 2007. Marketing communications: A
European perspective. London: Pearson education.
Demiray, M., and S. Burnaz. 2019. Exploring the impact of brand community identification
on Facebook: Firm-directed and self-directed drivers. Journal of Business Research 96:
115–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.016.
314 M. HAFEZ

Dessart, L., C. Veloutsou, and A. Morgan-Thomas. 2015. Consumer engagement in online

brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 24 (1):28–42. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635.
Doh, S. J., and J. S. Hwang. 2009. How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-
mouth) messages. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 12 (2):193–7. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0109.
Dwivedi, A., and R. E. McDonald. 2020. Examining the efficacy of brand social media com-
munication: A consumer perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 28 (4):
373–86. doi: 10.1080/10696679.2020.1768870.
Eastern Bank Ltd. 2021. EBL donates Tk 5 crore to PM’s relief fund through BAB. https://
www.ebl.com.bd/news/ebl-donates-tk-5-crore-to-pm%E2%80%99s-relief-fund-through-
bab/ (accessed July 24, 2021).
Ebrahim, R. S. 2020. The role of trust in understanding the impact of social media market-
ing on brand equity and brand loyalty. Journal of Relationship Marketing 19 (4):287–308.
doi: 10.1080/15332667.2019.1705742.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50. doi:
10.1177/002224378101800104.
France, C., B. Merrilees, and D. Miller. 2016. An integrated model of customer-brand
engagement: Drivers and consequences. Journal of Brand Management 23 (2):119–36.
doi: 10.1057/bm.2016.4.
Gambetti, R. C., and G. Graffigna. 2010. The concept of engagement: A systematic analysis
of the ongoing marketing debate. International Journal of Market Research 52 (6):
801–26. doi: 10.2501/S147078531020166.
G
omez, M., C. Lopez, and A. Molina. 2019. An integrated model of social media brand
engagement. Computers in Human Behavior 96:196–206. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.026.
Gorriz, C. 2003. Electric Commerce and Trust on the Internet. SRIC-Bio: Menlo Park, CA.
Hafez, M. 2018. Measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility practices on brand
equity in the banking industry in Bangladesh: The mediating effect of corporate image
and brand awareness. International Journal of Bank Marketing 36 (5):806–22. doi: 10.
1108/IJBM-04-2017-0072.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall:
Hair, J. F., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2):139–52. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hajli, N., X. Lin, M. Featherman, and Y. Wang. 2014. Social word of mouth: How trust
develops in the market. International Journal of Market Research 56 (5):673–89. doi: 10.
2501/IJMR-2014-045.
Harrigan, P., S. K. Roy, and T. Chen. 2021. Do value cocreation and engagement drive
brand evangelism? Marketing Intelligence & Planning 39 (3):345–60. doi: 10.1108/MIP-
10-2019-0492.
Hasan, M. R., M. R. Haq, and M. Z. Rahman. 2019. Impact of social network on purchase
decision: A study on teenagers of Bangladesh. Journal of Business and Retail
Management Research 14 (1):20–31.
Hayes, R. A., and C. T. Carr. 2015. Does being social matter? Effects of enabled comment-
ing on credibility and brand attitude in social media. Journal of Promotion Management
21 (3):371–90. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2015.1039178.
Hoeffler, S., and K. L. Keller. 2002. Building brand equity through corporate societal mar-
keting. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 21 (1):78–89. doi: 10.1509/jppm.21.1.78.
17600.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 315

Hofacker, C. F., and D. Belanche. 2016. Eight social media challenges for marketing manag-
ers. Spanish Journal of Marketing 20 (2):73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.sjme.2016.07.003.
Hollebeek, L. 2011. Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal
of Strategic Marketing 19 (7):555–73. doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493.
Hollebeek, L. D., M. S. Glynn, and R. J. Brodie. 2014. Consumer brand engagement in
social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 28 (2):149–65. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.
Hollebeek, L. D., B. Juric, and W. Tang. 2017. Virtual brand community engagement prac-
tices: A refined typology and model. Journal of Services Marketing 31 (3):204–17. doi: 10.
1108/JSM-01-2016-0006.
Homburg, C., M. Schwemmle, and C. Kuehnl. 2015. New product design: Concept, meas-
urement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing 79 (3):41–56. doi: 10.1509/jm.14.0199.
Hong, S., and H. S. Park. 2012. Computer-mediated persuasion in online reviews: Statistical
versus narrative evidence. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (3):906–19. doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2011.12.011.


Huerta-Alvarez, R., J. J. Cambra-Fierro, and M. Fuentes-Blasco. 2020. The interplay
between social media communication, brand equity and brand engagement in tourist
destinations: An analysis in an emerging economy. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management 16:100413. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100413.
Islam, J. U., and Z. Rahman. 2016. Linking customer engagement to trust and word-of-
mouth on Facebook brand communities: An empirical study. Journal of Internet
Commerce 15 (1):40–58. doi: 10.1080/15332861.2015.1124008.
Kamboj, S., B. Sarmah, S. Gupta, and Y. Dwivedi. 2018. Examining branding co-creation in
brand communities on social media: Applying the paradigm of stimulus-organism-
response. International Journal of Information Management 39:169–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijin-
fomgt.2017.12.001.
Keller, K. L. 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong
brands. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1):1–22. doi: 10.1177/002224299305700101.
Keller, K. L., and D. R. Lehmann. 2006. Brands and branding: Research findings and future
priorities. Marketing Science 25 (6):740–59. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1050.0153.
Khan, I., Z. Rahman, and M. Fatma. 2016. The role of customer brand engagement and
brand experience in online banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing 34 (7):
1025–41. doi: 10.1108/IJBM-07-2015-0110.
Kim, A. J., and K. K. Johnson. 2016. Power of consumers using social media: Examining
the influences of brand-related user-generated content on Facebook. Computers in
Human Behavior 58:98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.047.
Kim, A. J., and E. Ko. 2012. Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity?
An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research 65 (10):1480–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014.
Kim, K. H., E. Ko, B. Xu, and Y. Han. 2012. Increasing customer equity of luxury fashion
brands through nurturing consumer attitude. Journal of Business Research 65 (10):
1495–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.016.
Kim, S., and H. Park. 2013. Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-com-
merce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. International Journal of Information
Management 33 (2):318–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.11.006.
Kosiba, J. P. B., H. Boateng, A. F. O. Amartey, R. O. Boakye, and R. Hinson. 2018.
Examining customer engagement and brand loyalty in retail banking: The
316 M. HAFEZ

trustworthiness influence. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 46

(8):764–79. doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-08-2017-0163.
Kudeshia, C., and A. Kumar. 2017. Social eWOM: Does it affect the brand attitude and
purchase intention of brands? Management Research Review 40 (3):310–30. doi: 10.1108/
MRR-07-2015-0161.
Kunja, S. R., and A. GVRK. 2020. Examining the effect of eWOM on the customer pur-
chase intention through value co-creation (VCC) in social networking sites (SNSs): A
study of select Facebook fan pages of smartphone brands in India. Management Research
Review 43 (3):245–69. doi: 10.1108/MRR-04-2017-0128.
Latif, S., and C. Calicioglu. 2020. Impact of social media advertisement on consumer pur-
chase intention with the intermediary effect of brand attitude. International Journal of
Innovation 11 (12):602–19.
Leckie, C., M. W. Nyadzayo, and L. W. Johnson. 2016. Antecedents of consumer brand
engagement and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management 32 (5–6):558–78. doi:
10.1080/0267257X.2015.1131735.
Lee, H. J., and M. S. Kang. 2013. The effect of brand personality on brand relationship,
attitude and purchase intention with a focus on brand community. Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal 17 (2):85–97.
Lee, J., and C. Park. 2022. Customer engagement on social media, brand equity and finan-
cial performance: A comparison of the US and Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics 34 (3):454–74. doi: 10.1108/APJML-09-2020-0689.
Lemon, K. N., and P. C. Verhoef. 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout
the customer journey. Journal of Marketing 80 (6):69–96. doi: 10.1509/jm.15.0420.
Leonard, L. N. 2012. Attitude influencers in C2C e-commerce: Buying and selling. Journal
of Computer Information Systems 52 (3):11–7. doi: 10.1080/08874417.2012.11645554.
Leung, X. Y., B. Bai, and K. A. Stahura. 2015. The marketing effectiveness of social media
in the hotel industry: A comparison of Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research 39 (2):147–69. doi: 10.1177/1096348012471381.
Liao, Y. K., W. Y. Wu, A. A. Amaya Rivas, and T. Lin Ju. 2017. Cognitive,
experiential, and marketing factors mediate the effect of brand personality on brand
equity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 45 (1):1–18. doi: 10.
2224/sbp.5621.
Liu, X., H. Shin, and A. C. Burns. 2021. Examining the impact of luxury brand’s social
media marketing on customer engagement: Using big data analytics and natural
language processing. Journal of Business Research 125:815–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.
04.042.
Machado, J. C., L. Vacas-de-Carvalho, S. L. Azar, A. R. Andr
e, and B. P. dos Santos. 2019.
Brand gender and consumer-based brand equity on Facebook: The mediating role of
consumer-brand engagement and brand love. Journal of Business Research 96:376–85.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.016.
Malthouse, E. C., M. Haenlein, B. Skiera, E. Wege, and M. Zhang. 2013. Managing cus-
tomer relationships in the social media era: Introducing the social CRM house. Journal
of Interactive Marketing 27 (4):270–80. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.008.
Merrilees, B. 2016. Interactive brand experience pathways to customer-brand engagement
and value co-creation. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25 (5):402–8. doi: 10.
1108/JPBM-04-2016-1151.
Mishra, A. S. 2021. Exploring COBRAs, its antecedents and consequences in the context of
banking brands. International Journal of Bank Marketing 39 (5):900–21. doi: 10.1108/
IJBM-11-2020-0553.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 317

Mitchell, A. A., and J. C. Olson. 1981. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3):318–32. doi:
10.1177/002224378101800306.
Mollen, A., and H. Wilson. 2010. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online con-
sumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research 63 (9–10):919–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014.
Morra, M. C., F. Ceruti, R. Chierici, and A. Di Gregorio. 2018. Social vs traditional media
communication: Brand origin associations strike a chord. Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing 12 (1):2–21. doi: 10.1108/JRIM-12-2016-0116.
Muchardie, B. G., N. H. Yudiana, and A. Gunawan. 2016. Effect of social media marketing
on customer engagement and its impact on brand loyalty in caring colours cosmetics,
Martha Tilaar. Binus Business Review 7 (1):83–7. doi: 10.21512/bbr.v7i1.1458.
Muntinga, D. G., M. Moorman, and E. G. Smit. 2011. Introducing COBRAs: Exploring
motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising 30
(1):13–46. doi: 10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046.
Murphy, S. T., and R. B. Zajonc. 1993. Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming
with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 64 (5):723–39. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.723.
Nyadzayo, M. W., C. Leckie, and L. W. Johnson. 2020. The impact of relational drivers on
customer brand engagement and brand outcomes. Journal of Brand Management 27 (5):
561–78. doi: 10.1057/s41262-020-00198-3.
Okazaki, S., and C. R. Taylor. 2013. Social media and international advertising: Theoretical
challenges and future directions. International Marketing Review 30 (1):56–71. doi: 10.
1108/02651331311298573.
Osei-Frimpong, K., G. McLean, and S. Famiyeh. 2019. Social media brand engagement
practices: Examining the role of consumer brand knowledge, social pressure, social
relatedness, and brand trust. Information Technology & People 33 (4):1235–54. doi: 10.
1108/ITP-05-2018-0220.
Pace, S., B. Balboni, and G. Gistri. 2017. The effects of social media on brand attitude and
WOM during a brand crisis: Evidences from the Barilla case. Journal of Marketing
Communications 23 (2):135–48. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2014.966478.
Pan, L. Y., and J. S. Chiou. 2011. How much can you trust online information? Cues for
perceived trustworthiness of consumer-generated online information. Journal of
Interactive Marketing 25 (2):67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2011.01.002.
Pansari, A., and V. Kumar. 2017. Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45 (3):294–311. doi: 10.1007/
s11747-016-0485-6.
Pennanen, K., T. Tiainen, and H. T. Luomala. 2007. A qualitative exploration of a consum-
er’s value-based e-trust building process: A framework development. Qualitative Market
Research 10 (1):28–47. doi: 10.1108/13522750710720387.
Pentina, I., V. Guilloux, and A. C. Micu. 2018. Exploring social media engagement behav-
iors in the context of luxury brands. Journal of Advertising 47 (1):55–69. doi: 10.1080/
00913367.2017.1405756.
Pentina, I., L. Zhang, and O. Basmanova. 2013. Antecedents and consequences of trust in a
social media brand: A cross-cultural study of Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior 29
(4):1546–55. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.045.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. The Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5):879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
318 M. HAFEZ

Ramirez, E., R. Gau, J. Hadjimarcou, and Z. Xu. 2018. User-generated content as word-of-
mouth. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 26 (1–2):90–8. doi: 10.1080/10696679.
2017.1389239.
Richter, A., and M. Koch. 2007. Social software –status quo und Zukunft. https://doku-
mente.unibw.de/pub/bscw.cgi/d1696185/2007-01.pdf (accessed July 3, 2021).
Rios, R. E., and H. E. Riquelme. 2008. Brand equity for online companies. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 26 (7):719–42. doi: 10.1108/02634500810916681.
Rizomyliotis, I., A. Poulis, G. Apostolos, K. Konstantoulaki, and I. Kostopoulos. 2020.
Applying fcm to predict the behaviour of loyal customers in the mobile telecommunica-
tions industry. Journal of Strategic Marketing 28 (1):1–15. doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2018.
1479720.
Schivinski, B., G. Christodoulides, and D. Dabrowski. 2016. Measuring consumers’ engage-
ment with brand-related social-media content: Development and validation of a scale
that identifies levels of social-media engagement with brands. Journal of Advertising
Research 56 (1):64–80. doi: 10.2501/JAR-2016-000.
Schivinski, B., and D. Dabrowski. 2015. The impact of brand communication on brand
equity through Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 9 (1):31–53. doi:
10.1108/JRIM-02-2014-0007.
Schivinski, B., and D. Dabrowski. 2016. The effect of social media communication on con-
sumer perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications 22 (2):189–214. doi:
10.1080/13527266.2013.871323.
Schmidt, K. N., and M. K. S. Iyer. 2015. Online behaviour of social media participants’ and
perception of trust, comparing social media brand community groups and associated
organized marketing strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 177:432–9. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.389.
Simon, C. J., and M. W. Sullivan. 1993. The measurement and determinants of brand
equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science 12 (1):28–52. doi: 10.1287/mksc.12.1.28.
Solem, B. A. A. 2016. Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement
on brand loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing 33 (5):332–42. doi: 10.1108/JCM-04-
2015-1390.
Solomon, M. R., K. White, and D. W. Dahl. 2014. Consumer behaviour: Buying, having,
and being. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.
Sprott, D., S. Czellar, and E. Spangenberg. 2009. The importance of a general measure of
brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal
of Marketing Research 46 (1):92–104. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92.
Srivastava, M., and S. Sivaramakrishnan. 2021. The impact of eWOM on consumer brand
engagement. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 39 (3):469–84. doi: 10.1108/MIP-06-
2020-0263.
Statista. 2021a. Number of global social network users 2017–2025. https://www.statista.com/
statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ (accessed July 3, 2021).
Statista. 2021b. Daily social media usage worldwide 2012–2020. https://www.statista.com/
statistics/433871/daily-social-media-usage-worldwide/ (accessed July 3, 2021).
Statista. 2021c. Digital advertising spending worldwide 2019–2024. https://www.statista.
com/statistics/237974/online-advertising-spending-worldwide/ (accessed July 3, 2021).
Thevenot, G. 2007. Blogging as a social media. Tourism and Hospitality Research 7 (3–4):
287–9. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.thr.6050062.
Thorbjørnsen, H., and M. Dahl
en. 2011. Customer reactions to acquirer-dominant mergers
and acquisitions. International Journal of Research in Marketing 28 (4):332–41. doi: 10.
1016/j.ijresmar.2011.05.005.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 319

Tsai, W. H. S., and L. R. Men. 2013. Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement
with brand pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising 13 (2):
76–87. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2013.826549.
Tseng, T. H., H. H. Huang, and A. Setiawan. 2017. How do motivations for commitment
in online brand communities evolve? The distinction between knowledge-and entertain-
ment-seeking motivations. Computers in Human Behavior 77:326–35. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.
2017.09.016.
Tuten, T. L., and M. Solomon. 2017. Social media marketing. London, United Kingdom:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Vale, L., and T. Fernandes. 2018. Social media and sports: Driving fan engagement with
football clubs on Facebook. Journal of Strategic Marketing 26 (1):37–55. doi: 10.1080/
0965254X.2017.1359655.
van Doorn, J., K. N. Lemon, V. Mittal, S. Nass, D. Pick, P. Pirner, and P. C. Verhoef. 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal
of Service Research 13 (3):253–66. doi: 10.1177/1094670510375599.
Verma, P. 2021. The effect of brand engagement and brand love upon overall brand equity
and purchase intention: A moderated–mediated model. Journal of Promotion
Management 27 (1):103–32. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2020.1809591.
Vohra, A., and N. Bhardwaj. 2019. Customer engagement in an e-commerce brand com-
munity: An empirical comparison of alternate models. Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing 13 (1):2–25. doi: 10.1108/JRIM-01-2018-0003.
Wang, X. W., Y. M. Cao, and C. Park. 2019. The relationships among community experi-
ence, community commitment, brand attitude, and purchase intention in social media.
International Journal of Information Management 49:475–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2019.07.018.
Weiger, W. H., H. A. Wetzel, and M. Hammerschmidt. 2017. Leveraging marketer-gener-
ated appeals in online brand communities: An individual user-level analysis. Journal of
Service Management 28 (1):133–56. doi: 10.1108/JOSM-11-2015-0378.
Wilson, B. 2010. Using PLS to investigate interaction effects between higher order branding
constructs. In Handbook of partial least squares, Springer Handbooks of Computational
Statistics, eds. V. Esposito Vinzi, W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang, 621–652. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_28.
Wirtz, J., A. Den Ambtman, J. Bloemer, C. Horv
ath, B. Ramaseshan, J. Van De Klundert,
Z. G. Canli, and J. Kandampully. 2013. Managing brands and customer engagement in
online brand communities. Journal of Service Management 24 (3):223–44. doi: 10.1108/
09564231311326978.
Wu, P. C., and Y. C. Wang. 2011. The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message
appeal and message source credibility on brand attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics 23 (4):448–72. doi: 10.1108/13555851111165020.
Xi, N., and J. Hamari. 2020. Does gamification affect brand engagement and equity? A
study in online brand communities. Journal of Business Research 109:449–60. doi: 10.
1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.058.
Yadav, M., S. Kamboj, and Z. Rahman. 2016. Customer co-creation through social media:
The case of ‘Crash the Pepsi IPL 2015’. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing
Practice 17 (4):259–71. doi: 10.1057/dddmp.2016.4.
Yadav, M., and Z. Rahman. 2017. Social media marketing: Literature review and future
research directions. International Journal of Business Information Systems 25 (2):213–40.
doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2017.083687.
320 M. HAFEZ

Yamin, A. B. 2017. Impact of digital marketing as a tool of marketing communication: A

behavioral perspective on consumers of Bangladesh. American Journal of Trade and
Policy 4 (3):117–22. doi: 10.18034/ajtp.v4i3.426.
Yang, R., and T. Che. 2020. Do social ties matter for purchase frequency? The role of
buyers’ attitude towards social media marketing. Computers in Human Behavior 110:
106376. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106376.
Yang, Y., Y. Asaad, and Y. Dwivedi. 2017. Examining the impact of gamification on inten-
tion of engagement and brand attitude in the marketing context. Computers in Human
Behavior 73:459–69. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.066.
Yang, S., S. Lin, J. R. Carlson, and W. T. Ross. T 2016. Brand engagement on social media:
Will firms’ social media efforts influence search engine advertising effectiveness? Journal
of Marketing Management 32 (5–6):526–57. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1143863.
Yazdanparast, A., M. Joseph, and F. Muniz. 2016. Consumer based brand equity in the 21st
century: An examination of the role of social media marketing. Young Consumers 17 (3):
243–55. doi: 10.1108/YC-03-2016-00590.
Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52 (1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/S0148-
2963(99)00098-3.
Yu, X., and C. Yuan. 2019. How consumers’ brand experience in social media can improve
brand perception and customer equity. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 31
(5):1233–51. doi: 10.1108/APJML-01-2018-0034.
Zarantonello, L., and B. H. Schmitt. 2013. The impact of event marketing on brand equity:
The mediating roles of brand experience and brand attitude. International Journal of
Advertising 32 (2):255–80. doi: 10.2501/IJA-32-2-255-280.
Zhang, M., L. Guo, M. Hu, and W. Liu. 2017. Influence of customer engagement with com-
pany social networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation.
International Journal of Information Management 37 (3):229–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2016.04.010.