Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 55–69
Copyright Ó 2018 American Academy of Advertising
ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2017.1405756
Exploring Social Media Engagement Behaviors in the Context
of Luxury Brands
Iryna Pentina
University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA
Veronique Guilloux
Universit
e Paris Est Cr
eteil Val de Marne, LEMNA, France
Anca Cristina Micu
Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA
inevitably contribute to both the content of brand narrative and
the process of brand storytelling (Singh and Sonnenburg
2012), effectively cocreating brand meaning alongside firms
and other brand stakeholders (Von Wallpach, Hemetsberger,
and Espersen 2017). While the benefits of ongoing informal
conversations with consumers in SM are indisputable (and
include relationship maintenance, new product ideas, viral
spread of marketing messages, improved customer service,
and better understanding of the market), low ability to control
consumer-generated content can be perilous for brand image
(Gensler et al. 2013).
This issue is particularly salient for luxury brands, characterized by precise and specific positioning based on exclusivity, heritage, uniqueness, and association with high society (Vigneron
and Johnson 2004). Traditionally targeting the narrow, highincome consumer segment with artlike product creations in
exquisite flagship stores, luxury brands are now increasingly
embracing innovative communication and retailing technologies
and, as a result, face the challenge of maintaining their brand
integrity in the era of ubiquitous consumer-generated content
(Kwon, Ratneshwar, and Thorson 2017; Okonkwo 2009). Apparently recognizing that SM’s “democratizing” nature, which enables unlimited consumer interactivity, may diminish their elite
status, luxury brands were late adopters of SM for customer
engagement (Dauriz, Remy, and Sandri 2014). However, at present, almost all luxury brands practice social media marketing
(SMM), defined as “marketing communications via digital applications, platforms and media that facilitate interaction, collaboration and content sharing among users” (Kim and Ko 2012, p.
1480). In a recent interview, Nicolas Hieronimus, president of
L’Oreal Luxe, noted:
Content analysis of in-person interviews with luxury shoppers
in Paris identified 11 discrete social media engagement behaviors.
Findings indicate that consumer engagement behaviors (CEBs)
have different potential for luxury brand cocreation depending
on their intended audience, degree of applied effort and
creativity, complexity of motivations, and dominant content
creation style, but not on choice of social media platform. Luxury
marketers can preserve their unique positioning in social media
by offering top-quality visual content reinforcing the desired
brand associations to (a) generate active and creative behaviors
by influentials and (b) promote low-effort, high-virality behaviors
by consumers motivated by less complex needs.
Social media (SM) are increasingly becoming an indispensable resource for consumer decision making, as well as an
important tool for brand–customer relationship development
and maintenance. By enabling unprecedented consumer input
into brand-related discourse, SM are shifting the locus of
brand creation from firms to customers and other stakeholders
(Teichmann, Scholl-Grissemann, and Stokburger-Sauer 2016).
By sharing their consumption experiences and emotions in
online social networks, blogs, and communities, consumers
Address correspondence to Anca Cristina Micu, Welch College of
Business, Sacred Heart University, 5151 Park Ave., Fairfield, CT
06825. E-mail: micua@sacredheart.edu
Iryna Pentina (PhD, University of North Texas) is an associate
professor of marketing, College of Business and Innovation, University of Toledo.
Veronique Guilloux (PhD, Institut d’Administration des Entreprises Poitiers) is a lecturer of management sciences, Universite Paris
Est Creteil Val de Marne, LEMNA.
Anca Cristina Micu (PhD, University of Missouri–Columbia) is an
associate dean, Jack Welch College of Business, Sacred Heart
University.
The luxury sector is experiencing a paradigm change. We need to
reconcile the long-term aspect of luxury product, which is synonymous with heritage and craftsmanship, with the faster rhythm of
55
56
I. PENTINA ET AL.
“new” luxury [that is] more digitized and more immediate, changing the rules of the game. (L’Oreal 2017)
Existing research on the use of SMM by luxury brands reports
that despite the contradiction between the luxury appeals of exclusivity, uniqueness, and status, and the accessibility of social media
channels to broad masses around the world, SMM efforts positively impact brand outcomes. SMM enhances consumer trust
and intimacy with luxury brands (Kim and Ko 2010), improves
relationships (Kim and Ko 2012) and strengthens consumer–
brand engagement and brand evangelism (Dhaoui 2014). Given
the increasing interest in and use of SMM by luxury brands, with
the correspondingly growing marketing allocations to SM
(Deloitte 2015; Calvar 2016), it is important to understand how
and why luxury consumers interact with their favorite brands in
SM and how such interactions may affect the brands.
In the past decade, marketing and advertising scholars have
noticeably moved away from conceptualizing brands as
“controllable knowledge structures” and consumers as “passive
absorbers of brand knowledge” (Gensler et al. 2013, p. 243).
Still, research is lacking in the areas investigating specific
behaviors that represent consumers’ input into the process of
brand cocreation in SM and the drivers of consumer participation in this process (Alexander and Jaakkola 2016). Better
understanding of motivations and specific SM behaviors of luxury consumers that have a potential to introduce changes to
brand meaning will contribute to our knowledge in the emergent
field of SM engagement and its role in brand cocreation. The
analysis and categorization of luxury consumers’ engagement
behaviors with brands in SM will also assist managers who are
developing SMM content and planning customer engagement
activities. The current study addresses these issues by undertaking a qualitative exploratory investigation with the goal to
uncover specific types of luxury consumers’ SM engagement
behaviors, their respective motivations, and their potential for
brand cocreation. We analyze and report the results of a content
analysis of in-person interviews with 30 luxury consumers
inside major designer stores in Paris. The specific objectives of
the study are as follows: (1) to identify categories of specific
SM engagement behaviors with luxury brands, (2) to identify
motivations of luxury consumers to engage in these behaviors,
and (3) to evaluate the potential role of various SM engagement
behaviors in luxury brand cocreation. Next, we provide the theoretical background of the phenomena of interest and define
major concepts. Further, we describe data collection and analysis procedures, report the results, and propose suggestions for
future research and managerial implications.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Consumer–Brand Engagement Behaviors in Social Media
The majority of existing marketing studies define consumer
engagement behaviors (CEBs) with brands as a psychological
state that emerges in the process of consumer interactions with
brands and during brand experiences (Brodie et al. 2013;
Hollebeek 2011). This conceptualization stems from the brand
involvement construct (Zaichkowsky 1994), reflecting consumer
interest in and perceived self-relevance of the brand, consistently
linked to such important outcomes as brand loyalty and customer
satisfaction (Coulter, Price, and Feick 2003). Other researchers
(Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann 2005; Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009) consider CEB to be a psychological
motivational state leading toward interactions with brands and
brand communities, thus preceding actual behaviors. While both
views acknowledge CEB’s multidimensional nature, researchers
differ in operationalizing and measuring CEB due to differences
in conceptual approaches. Specifically, studies emphasizing the
motivational character of customer engagement identify utilitarian, hedonic, social, self-esteem, stimulation, community, temporal, and enjoyment components of the construct (Calder,
Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009). Alternatively, those focusing
more on the psychological state emerging during a brand-related
activity (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014) propose that constituent aspects of CEB include cognitive processing, affection,
and activation. These differences in conceptualizing and operationalizing the CEB construct can be attributed to the nascent
character of the CEB research stream and to the relative novelty
of the CEB phenomenon, which is still evolving in the domains
of online brand communities and social media marketing
(Lemon and Verhoef 2016).
While both approaches offer an insight into the psychological domain of the customer–brand engagement phenomenon by
emphasizing (a) motivational states of mind and (b) emotional
and mental processes taking place during and after the engagement actions, they fall short of describing and classifying the
actual actions undertaken by consumers as a demonstration of
their motivational, mental, and emotional engagement. Yet
another approach views CEB not as a psychological state but as
manifest behaviors exhibited by consumers as they interact
with brands (and with other consumers in relation to brands)
(Kumar et al. 2010; Van Doorn et al. 2010). This perspective is
more in line with the behavioral analytics metrics used to measure SMM performance in practice and offers more actionable
insights.
Although several attempts have been made to address
engagement behaviors in earlier research, these behaviors
have not been exhaustively identified, characterized, or classified. For example, Brodie and colleagues (2013) distinguish
between sharing, learning, codeveloping, advocating, and
socializing “engagement sub-processes” manifested by members of a brand community. However, these subprocesses are
more representative of differences in the content of text-based
consumer exchanges on the community platform, rather than
reflective of different types of manifest behaviors. Hollebeek,
Glynn, and Brodie (2014) use the term “activation” to denote
the behavioral component of engagement as opposed to its
“cognitive processing” and “affection” components. This activation dimension, measured by items such as “I spend a lot of
EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUXURY BRANDS
time using [brand] compared to other brands,” appears to represent customer brand loyalty behaviors and not actual SM
engagement. Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011) analyzed
existing literature to situate consumer engagement with brand
content along the “activeness” continuum with three levels:
(1) consuming (least active), (2) contributing and sharing, and
(3) creating (most active). However, these levels and the
examples of behaviors mentioned in their study are not empirically derived and do not represent an exhaustive typology,
being too general and combining various SM and brand contexts (e.g., brand communities, product reviews). Another
attempt at classifying and describing CEBs (Jaakkola and
Alexander 2014) identified four types of consumer behaviors:
codeveloping, augmenting, influencing, and mobilizing. These
behaviors reflect two “customer value co-creation roles”: participation in new product development (codeveloping and augmenting) and spreading word of mouth (WOM) (influencing
and mobilizing) (Alexander and Jaakkola 2016, p. 4). While
introducing an important connection between engagement
activities and customer value cocreation, these behaviors were
identified in a case study of community adoption of railway
stations and are not limited to online or SM engagement and
instead embracing all community communication contexts. A
few studies focused on one specific behavior on a single specific platform, such as retweeting brand messages to one’s followers (Kim, Sung, and Kang 2014) or revisiting a brand’s
Facebook page (Jin 2012), but did not provide a comprehensive examination of CEBs.
The current study adopts the conceptualization of CEB in
SM as an expression of consumers’ cognitive and emotional
attitudes via their brand-related engagement behaviors in SM
(Kahn 1990) and recognizes the importance of both the psychological and the behavioral components of engagement. Our
primary focus, however, is on identifying specific CEBs and
categorizing them based on the intensity and scope of customer interactions with the brand and with other customers in
relation to the brand (Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan 2012) in SM.
This conceptualization reflects the accepted SM engagement
metrics used by brands as key performance indicators in
assessing SMM (e.g., likes, shares, comments, retweets).
Expanding on prior literature that attempted to place consumer
engagement within a specific nomological network (e.g.,
Brodie et al. 2013), we also address CEBs’ antecedents (as
expressed by consumer motivations to engage) and consequences (CEBs’ potential to cocreate brands).
CEB Motivations and Potential for Brand Cocreation
Although a number of research studies have previously
addressed consumer motivations for contributing brand-related
content online, these studies are (a) usually limited by the context of a particular SM platform, (b) mostly based on the
generic uses and gratifications theoretical approach (Katz,
Gurevitch, and Haas 1973), and (c) seldom inclusive of
57
preexisting customer–brand relationships or brand-specific
engagement. For instance, the research stream investigating
drivers of electronic WOM (eWOM) identified altruism and
care for others, personal status enhancement, social interaction, and seeking material rewards (Hennig-Thurau et al.
2004) as dominant motivations leading consumers to contribute product reviews on specialized platforms. Chu and Kim
(2011) applied social network theory to investigate the role of
social network structure in eWOM in the context of social networking sites (SNS). They found that trust, as well as normative and informative influence, are positively related (while
homophily is negatively related) to consumer engagement in
eWOM in SNS. Kim, Sung, and Kang (2014) focused on the
role of consumer–brand relationships in determining the
behavior of retweeting brand messages (as a unique form of
eWOM) in Korea. The authors found that brand followers
characterized by higher brand trust, greater brand identification, stronger commitment to their Twitter community, and
greater intentions to continue Twitter participation were
more likely to retweet brand messages. Studies conducted in
the online brand community context proposed that brand
evangelism (i.e., defending and reinforcing the brand), social
recognition by other community members, as well as acknowledgment by the firm intensify consumer creativity in producing brand-related content, for example, amateur advertisement
(Jeppesen and Frederiksen 2006; Mu~niz and Schau 2007).
Research in nonspecified SM context (Muntinga, Moorman,
and Smit 2011) identified informational, social, and remuneration needs that drive less-involved brand-related interactions,
and found that motivations such as entertainment, self-expression, and self-empowerment stimulate higher levels of consumer–brand-related activity in social media. Given the
diversity of contexts and lack of consistency in these findings,
our secondary focus is to build upon existing SM motivational
research by connecting the newly identified CEBs with corresponding motivations and observing co-occurrences and
trends. We anticipate that our inductive approach could produce novel findings that can both guide future research and
inform marketing practice. For the purpose of this article, we
define motivations as the incentives that drive CEBs with luxury brands and with other users in SM in relation to luxury
brands (Rodgers et al. 2007).
The advent and rapid adoption of Web 2.0 by consumers
and brands for communication, transactions, and relationship
maintenance has changed the traditional view of branding as
the firm-controlled development of a brand’s identity, presented to consumers via one-way marketing communication.
Advertising managers and marketing scholars have shifted
their views to conceptualize branding as meaning making that
is shared with consumers and other brand stakeholders as they
adopt, modify, and generate brand associations and experiences in the process of negotiating their personal life narratives
(Belk 1988; Holt 2003). According to this consumer-culturebased view of brand cocreation, this process involves
58
I. PENTINA ET AL.
collective sharing and active negotiation of what the brand
means to its various stakeholders (Cayla and Arnould 2008).
The role of consumers in cocreating brands via SM (blogs,
social networks, forums, and photo- and video-sharing sites) is
amplified by SM’s visibility and accessibility, relative permanence, and potential exponential virality of messages (HennigThurau et al. 2010). Moreover, the storylike dramatic format
of customer SM WOM input exerts greater influence on brand
meaning than brand-originated arguments regarding the
product’s attributes and benefits (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006;
Escalas 2004) and appears to be more memorable (Woodside
2010). Surprisingly, research investigating how consumer
engagement in SM can affect the meaning of a brand is almost
nonexistent. The few notable exceptions (e.g., Michel 2017;
Von Wallpach, Hemetsberger, and Espersen 2017; Voyer,
Kastanakis, and Rhode 2017) emphasize the interactive and
dynamic character of brand development, equally informed by
discourses of various stakeholders. Specifically, Von Wallpach, Hemetsberger, and Espersen (2017) employ performativity theory (Butler 2010) to depict brand meaning as a social
object that represents an autonomous reality, resulting from its
stakeholders’ performative practices conducted through discursive formations (Bode 2010). Based on a case study of
LEGO fans, the authors reveal that the brand identity coconstruction process is intensely interwoven with personal identity
construction by the brand stakeholders in the process of their
sociomaterial brand-related performances. These creative performances range from playing and liking to innovating, community building, storytelling, missionizing, and marketplace
development. Similarly, Voyer, Kastanakis, and Rhode (2017)
adopt a reciprocal brand identity cocreation view, according to
which brands and stakeholders contribute to each other’s identity creation. The authors put forth theoretical propositions for
future research, focusing on the role of cultural environments
in the processes of brand identity and brand meaning coconstruction and highlighting the importance of social, cultural,
and situational contexts in consumer–brand discourses in
negotiating brand meaning. In an attempt to differentiate
between the concepts of brand image and brand meaning,
Michel (2017) theorizes that as the brand gets appropriated by
consumers, it ceases to be a stable collection of attributes
ascribed by its creators, traditionally called “brand personality” or “brand identity.” The process of consumers’ interpretation of what the brand means to them and how it relates to
their identities inevitably leads to the emergence of new associations, constituting the brand meaning and its cocreation process (Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons 2015).
Based on these studies, we define brand cocreation as a
dynamic process of developing and negotiating brand meaning
by a multiplicity of brand stakeholders who continually reflect
on, appraise, and contest brand-related associations (Lucarelli
and Hallin 2015; Von Wallpach, Hemetsberger, and Espersen
2017) in the process of negotiating their personal and social
life narratives. Arguably, different CEBs may have different
potential for brand cocreation that can be assessed by the
strength and novelty of these associations. Specifically, we
investigate and assess the potential of various types of CEBs
to form new brand-related associations, and, as a result, to
influence the development of brand meaning. In accordance
with Ind, Iglesias, and Schultz (2013), we consider CEBs that
manifest as more “active, creative and social” processes to
have greater potential for brand cocreation. In particular,
behaviors that are more creative, more intensely participative,
and more social may imply stronger and more novel associations attributed to the brand.
Context of the Study
Luxury brands, defined as conspicuous possessions characterized by exclusivity, prestige, and premium pricing (Berthon,
Pitt, and Campbell 2008; Miller and Mills 2012), possess distinct brand identities and meanings distinguished by specific
associations (Tynan, McKechnie, and Chhuon 2010). The associations utilized by luxury firms in developing their brand identities usually include (a) authenticity, heritage, or pedigree; (b)
stylistic consistency; (c) quality commitment; (d) unique aesthetic symbolism; and (e) hedonic and emotional promotional
appeals (Beverland 2004; Okonkwo 2009). Given their multidimensionality and complexity, luxury brands have been traditionally strictly controlled by the firm. Faced with the imperative to
interact with consumers in SM and integrate consumer input,
luxury brands are in need of unique, research-based SMM strategies. However, CEB research in the luxury domain is almost
nonexistent. Among the existing studies, Jin (2012) identified
brand attitude and satisfaction with the page as antecedents of
revisiting Louis Vuitton’s Facebook page, and Kwon, Ratneshwar, and Thorson (2017) found that self-enhancement, community identification, and utilitarian benefits enhance consumer
intentions to engage with brand content in SM, while socialevaluative anxiety reduces these intentions.
METHOD
Data Collection and Sample
Building upon and expanding earlier work, we apply an
inductive, exploratory approach to the study of consumers’
engagement with luxury brands. The data were collected by
conducting semistructured interviews with luxury consumers
in Paris designer stores and malls, such as Galleries Lafayette
and Le Bon Marche. In total, 30 interviews were conducted,
recorded, and transcribed by 11 trained French graduate students from December 2015 to January 2016. The students
were instructed to approach a customer after a luxury purchase
was made, introduce themselves, explain the purpose of the
research, guarantee confidentiality, and obtain agreements to
participate in the study. The screening question asked whether
the customer interacts or engages with his or her favorite luxury brands in social media, and everyone who answered in
EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUXURY BRANDS
affirmative was considered a qualified respondent. Some qualified participants agreed to be interviewed but asked if they
could do it by phone, via social media, or by e-mail; these
requests were granted. In the end, 23 interviews were completed face-to-face, one via Facebook, two via e-mail, and
four via phone. This process utilized convenience sampling
that is acceptable when research aims at identifying instances
of a phenomenon and delineating its boundaries (Miles,
Huberman, and Saldana 2013). The interviews (face-to-face
and phone) lasted an average of 36 minutes and were recorded.
The asynchronous e-mail and Facebook conversations were
conducted by electronic means, and the records of the correspondence (containing text, links, and pictures) were retained
for the analysis. For the face-to-face interviews, relevant SM
activities on the respondents’ mobile devices were reviewed
and noted. Some of these activities were photographed with
the permission of respondents. Data collection lasted until
we reached data saturation and no new themes emerged
(McQuarrie 1993). The interview guide started with general
questions about the respondents’ attitudes toward luxury
brands and then narrowed the conversation down to focus on
favorite brands. We did not define “luxury brands” for the
respondents because (a) no simple and precise definition that
would clearly categorize brands as luxury is available, (b) providing a complex definition could have confused the consumers, and (c) we were interested in the respondents’ personal
perceptions of what luxury means for them. This consumercentric approach to luxury is in line with Tynan, McKechnie,
and Chhuon (2010), who advocate a psychological assessment
of luxury value of a brand as a continuum with luxury and the
ordinary at its extremes. After each consumer named one to
five brands (see Table 1), we centered the following discussion on their use of SM to engage with these favorite brands.
Specifically, we covered (a) respondents’ use of social media
before, during, and after the purchase; (b) their motivations for
and benefits from utilizing SM in luxury buying and consuming; as well as (c) examples of specific engagement behaviors
in SM in relation to the brand and brand’s advertising. During
the conversations, we asked additional probing questions
prompted by the responses (Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000).
The sample is composed for the most part of females (27
out of 30), with the average age of 25.5 years old, representing
a wide spectrum of professional employment (from high
school student to corporate executive to homemaker)
(Table 1). The respondents were qualified as luxury consumers
by completing a luxury purchase in a designer store. The average age of the sample reflects the “younger luxury consumer”
trend noted in professional reports (Ben-Shabat 2015). The
sample was skewed in terms of gender and age representation,
with the majority of respondents being young women. This
was probably an artifact of the research procedure: The majority of the interviewers were young women and felt more comfortable approaching similar individuals. Also, the selected
shopping locations had significantly more stores representing
59
fashion and beauty luxury segments, which are traditionally
dominated by female consumers (Stokburger-Sauer and
Teichmann 2013). Preliminary analysis did not reveal differences between males and females in the choice of social
media, effort or creativity of engagement behaviors, modes of
engagement, or motivations; the sample was deemed adequate
for current purposes. The favorite luxury brands with which
consumers engaged in SM mainly included apparel, accessories, cosmetics, and beauty labels (e.g. Hermes, Gucci, Burberry, Chanel, Louis Vuitton; see Table 1), corresponding to
the generally accepted top world luxury brands. In one
instance, an iPhone was used as an example. Although Apple
has not been considered a luxury brand in any previous studies, we retained this record for the analysis because, in addition to premium pricing on its new products, Apple is
increasingly targeting the luxury market by introducing luxury
versions of its watches (in alliance with Hermes) and phones
(in alliance with Gresso). The most frequently mentioned SM
platforms used in relation to luxury brand engagement
included Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. As each respondent reported engaging in multiple behaviors within SM, the
research focused on discrete behaviors (and not individual
consumers) as the unit of analysis. We sought to understand
the phenomenon, not to describe the population (McCracken
1988).
Content Analysis
Interviews were transcribed verbatim and content-analyzed
first in French by two bilingual authors (one of them a native
French speaker). Their English translation was analyzed by
the third author (Douglas and Craig 2007), with research notes
compared and disagreements resolved by discussion. We
strived to arrive at an inductive framework connecting CEB
categories and motivations to their potential roles in brand
cocreation. During the analysis, we used the constant comparison method (Glaser and Strauss 1967) and completed the following analytic stages.
In the first stage, we identified emerging themes by noting
instances and patterns (LeCompte and Schensul 1999, p. 150).
Specifically, two researchers independently identified all
instances of engagement behaviors and created codes reflecting specific characteristics that were useful in differentiating
these behaviors (e.g., extent of effort and creativity employed,
mode of engagement, intended audience). After comparing
and discussing the results, the finalized augmented coding
sheet was provided to the third researcher, who used it to independently analyze the content and arrive at tentative categories
of CEBs. The resulting categories were then compared to the
respective classifications developed by the first two researchers (investigator triangulation method; Bryman and Bell
2007), facilitating consensual understanding of the data.
In the second stage, we again used investigator triangulation and expanded the coding of the transcribed texts and
Sabrina
Isabelle
Nicole
Annette
Pierre
Elizabeth
Fiona
Viola
Diane
Irene
Anna
Samantha
Carole
Nancy
Selene
Wendy
Chloe
Marie
Cynthia
Sarah
Maria
Lucie
Julie
Sheila
Jean
Carl
Charlotte
Mira
Natalie
Dina
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Pseudonym
1
2
3
#
25
26
21
48
23
14
21
21
26
26
28
19
19
23
20
16
30
35
41
27
31
21
36
24
27
22
22
22
25
26
Age
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Sex
Graduate student
Graduate student
Graduate student
Executive assistant
Private nurse
Middle school student
Law student
Graduate student
Medical intern
Executive assistant
Retail salesperson
Waitress, graduate student
Graduate student
Manager in a multinational
corporation
High school student
Security officer
Cashier
Teacher
Accountant
Accountant
Beautician
Executive
Cashier and student
Hotel assistant manager
Graduate student, blogger
Graduate student, sales
consultant
Student
Graduate student
Graduate student
Housewife
Occupation
Hermes
Michel Herbelin, Salvatore Ferragamo
Guerlain, Guess
Dior, Chanel, Lanc^ome, Lamarthe, Longchamp
Guerlain, Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton
Chanel
Chanel
Louis Vuitton
Burberry
Christian Louboutin
Apple
Sandro, Ralph Lauren, Burberry
Chanel, Guerlain
Michael Kors
Chanel, Guess, Dior, Hermes
Lanc^ome, Yves Saint Laurent, Giorgio Armani
Dior
Hermes
Louis Vuitton
Hermes
Lanc^ome
Chanel
Gucci
Dior, Lanc^ome
The Kooples
Bio-Beaute by Nuxe, Zadig & Voltaire
Balenciaga, Celine
Hermes, Chanel, Balenciaga
Dior, Yves Saint Laurent
Guerlain, Chloe, Tom Ford, Giorgio Armani
Luxury Brands Discussed
TABLE 1
Participants’ Characteristics
Snapchat, Instagram
Instagram, Snapchat
Instagram, Facebook
Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram,
Facebook
Snapchat
Instagram
Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook
Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter
Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat,
WhatsApp
Snapchat, Instagram
Facebook, Instagram
Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat
Facebook, GoogleC
Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram
Instagram, Snapchat
Facebook, Twitter
Snapchat, WhatsApp
Instagram
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook, Instagram
Instagram, Facebook
Instagram, Twitter
Instagram
Facebook
Facebook, YouTube
Social Media Used for Brand Interactions
60
I. PENTINA ET AL.
EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUXURY BRANDS
available pictures to include CEB motivations, seeking potential co-occurrences among motivations and behaviors, as we
identified new threads and discovered redundancies (Arnould
and Wallendorf 1994). While consumer testimonies served as
the primary source of characteristics and motivations for differentiating each CEB, we used the reviewed literature to compare the emerging CEB categories and their motivations to
prior research. This continuous refinement process enabled us
to move from instances to emerging patterns, which we then
used to create new themes. Additional themes also kept emerging as the analysis progressed, signaling increasing understanding of the phenomenon.
In the third stage, we sought to (a) divide CEBs into groups
based on the degree of effort and creativity, as well as the
intended audience of communication, (b) sketch the boundaries of individual CEBs and their motivations, and (c) highlight other descriptors suggesting possible generalizations. In
the final stage, we focused on interrelationships among the
emerging themes and developed a grounded, conceptual
approach to highlight major findings and generalize the
dynamics of CEBs.
FINDINGS
The analysis revealed 11 discrete behaviors exhibited by
luxury brand followers in SM. Figure 1 maps luxury consumers’ SM engagement behaviors (EBs) based on (a) effort, commitment, interactivity, and creativity employed by consumers
and (b) the intended engagement counterpart: brand and
brand’s advertising (EBs 1, 3, and 5) or other consumers and
social contacts (EBs 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). Only one identified behavior was explicitly mentioned as involving both
engagement audiences (EB11, “proposing new use, image or
interpretation for brand’s products,” was directed at both the
brand and other brand users). The latter behavior is also characterized by the greatest amount of effort and creativity. We
61
summarized motivations that guided the 11 EBs, together with
representative quotes from the interviews, connecting the identified behaviors to their motivations in Online Appendix 1,
available in the online supplement. A detailed discussion of
each EB, its dominant motivations, and its potential for brand
cocreation follows.
EB1: Following or Liking the Brand
The EB with the lowest amount of customer effort is
“following” or “liking” the brand, in effect agreeing to regularly receive information from and about the brand in various
SM. This behavior represents a certain level of commitment
and is visible to others, thus impacting the consumer’s virtual
identity. As such, “following” can be qualified as engagement
behavior, unlike a one-time visit to a brand’s SM page that is
not characterized by regularity or visibility and was not mentioned by respondents in this study. Our results identify five
broad motivational categories underlying this behavior: informational, social, hedonic, financial, and self-brand identification. Informational motivation includes the need to be among
the first to know brand news and fashion trends, to be aware of
new products, as well as to obtain specific product information
before the purchase. It reflects the advantages that luxury consumers gain by engaging with brands in SM: instant information delivery and access to multiple perspectives. Social
motivation is represented by the need to share one’s product/
brand interest with others and belong to a community of likeminded others. Utilizing unprecedented connectivity afforded
by SM allows luxury consumers to exercise selectivity by
associating with the brand-focused in-groups, thus potentially
emphasizing their unique social status. Hedonic (aesthetic)
motivation includes the needs for beauty, inspiration, and
desire. It allows consumers to indulge with the beauty and
style aspects of their favorite brands without temporal or spatial limitations of the face-to-face world. It also exposes them
FIG. 1. Luxury consumer social media (SM) engagement behaviors (EBs).
62
I. PENTINA ET AL.
to the potentially unlimited universe of creative inputs contributed by other brand followers. The financial motivation manifests as the search for price promotions and discounts. This
motivation emphasizes the impermanent aspect of short-term
price decreases, enabled by mobile apps and membership in
private sales clubs, further intensifying the exclusivity of the
brand. Finally, the feeling of emotional attachment to the
brand reflects one’s connection, loyalty, and desire to experience closeness with the brand to a fuller degree. This motivation was previously found to underlie the sports fandom
phenomenon (Stavros et al 2014). The identified motivational
categories behind EB1 support and extend existing findings in
different areas of online consumer participation. Similar to
prior research in online review contexts (Hennig-Thurau et al.
2004), obtaining brand and product information, sharing this
information, connecting to others, and achieving financial benefits prompt luxury consumers to follow (like) the brands in
SM. The additional motivational dimension of emotional
attachment to the brand is similar to the sports fans’ “passion”
and deserves fuller investigation in branding research. The
motivation of hedonism (aesthetics) revealed in our study
somewhat corresponds to the entertainment needs mentioned
in previous studies as a reason for interaction with the online
content (Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011). Given that luxury brands are frequently positioned as works of art, hedonic
(aesthetic) motivation may uniquely characterize engagement
with luxury brands’ SM content and warrants additional
research to determine its applicability in other contexts. The
diversity of motivations expressed by respondents illustrates
the important role of brand SM pages for satisfying luxury
consumers’ and admirers’ needs for online communication.
However, the low consumer engagement level denotes that
consumers perceive these pages as inanimate objects that can
be watched, followed, admired, and shared—rather than as
active parties in a communication exchange. It appears that
engaging with luxury brands in SM at the most passive level
in terms of effort, interactivity and creativity, offers minimal
potential for brand meaning negotiation and cocreation.
EB2: Commenting on Brand’s Posts and Ads
A slightly more active engagement behavior, directed
toward the brand, consists of leaving comments on the brand’s
wall in SM. Luxury consumers respond to the brand’s advertisement or new product announcement posts by providing
their feedback and asking questions. They interact with the
brand in a textual format to exchange information and/or contribute their opinions, knowing that their actions are also visible to other SM members. For our sample, this activity is
driven by the motivations to (a) signify the consumer’s relationship with the brand and (b) assist the brand with product
improvement, modification, or development. In these situations, the brand is treated as a counterpart to social exchanges
but is rarely expected to reciprocate in the same mode.
Respondents motivated by relational need emphasize expressing their opinion about the brand’s posts but not necessarily
expecting a response from the brand or a reaction from other
brand followers. Those motivated by a desire to improve the
brand’s products do not expect their suggestions to be acted
upon but express optimism that the brand will consider their
ideas. Luxury consumers who leave comments on the brand’s
wall seem to perceive the brand as capable of reciprocity but
not always exercising it. As such, their comments may well be
directed toward other SM users, albeit without explicitly mentioning them or soliciting their reactions. The need to signify a
relationship with the brand in the public space of SM is a novel
motivation for SM engagement behaviors, not reported in prior
research. It can potentially correlate with certain demographic
(e.g., age), personality (e.g., self-esteem), or cultural characteristics in driving consumers to express their unsolicited comments and opinions in public SM spaces. It may also be
specific to the luxury domain, given the status-affirming function of luxury brands. This motivation certainly deserves further investigation as an antecedent of other online consumer
behaviors. The product improvement (development) motivation was identified in prior research as part of the value cocreation framework (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). Luxury
brands’ SM pages appear to be a communication channel for
transmitting consumer ideas to the brand, facilitating a brand
value cocreation process. The potential for brand negotiation
is also present, because these public suggestions may attract
feedback from other SM participants (and could result in
benefiting or harming the brand).
EB3: Liking, Tagging, and Sharing
Liking, tagging, and sharing the brand’s posts on one’s personal newsfeed are the most frequently reported SM behaviors. Customers in our sample engage in these activities to
share excitement and emotions from encounters with luxury
brands in SM, as well as to express their desires and wishes for
the advertised products. Some respondents mention that this
opportunity to share happy feelings from purchasing a luxury
product with others intensifies their happiness and enjoyment.
This behavior, while similar to EB1, is triggered by a more
intense emotional component as a reaction to the brand news
and status updates and is sometimes targeted toward specific
individuals in one’s network. Consequently, it may stimulate
others’ reactions, increasing the overall engagement activity
and/or the number of brand followers. Mindful of the potential
for messages to go viral, companies encourage their SM followers to share their posts and consider numbers of likes and
shares to be effective metrics of SMM performance (Peters et
al. 2013). While the role of emotion in increasing online message virality has been confirmed in prior literature (Berger and
Schwartz 2011), the identified need to share one’s emotions
has not been sufficiently addressed in studies dedicated to
online content creation. Further understanding of the need for
EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUXURY BRANDS
emotional sharing and its potential for brand message sharing
by consumers in SM appears to be a fruitful avenue for future
research. In addition, given the mainly nonverbal nature of
EB3, it may be interesting to understand how consumers
choose a communication mode (tags, emoticons, or text) for
sharing emotions in SM.
EB4: Mentioning Friends in Comments
Mentioning friends in comments on the brand’s SM pages
extends EB2 (commenting on brand’s posts) by explicitly
soliciting the attention of and reactions from friends, asking
for their advice or opinions. These activities are more socially
motivated and are encouraged by the need to initiate and sustain a substantive discourse about the brand. This motivation
combines informational and social needs, previously identified
in eWOM research (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). By creating
and soliciting new content, this kind of interaction has greater
potential to influence the brand via collective discourse. Interestingly, no emotional motivational component was mentioned
in relation to commenting behaviors. This lack of emotional
motivation when commenting reflects greater informational
need satisfaction compared to the SM activities that do not
include textual exchange and are limited to clicks (e.g., EB3’s
liking, tagging, and sharing).
EB5: Tagging Brand Names and Using Fashion-Related
Hashtags in Posted Photos
Tagging brand names and using fashion-related hashtags in
posted photos of products or self on the brand’s SM wall inevitably increases one’s visibility. Because hashtags make the
pictures available to broader and more focused audiences, the
motivations of this behavior mentioned by respondents are
more ambitious and complex. In addition to combining social
and self-presentation needs (such as desire to be associated
with privileged groups), luxury consumers are interested in
developing and maintaining relationships with the brand and
other consumers, sharing their brand ownership experiences
(combining relational and social needs), and offering feedback
to the brand (combining social and informational motivations).
This pattern of motivations expands prior findings (e.g.,
Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011) that overwhelmingly
focus on singular drivers of consumer SM engagement, such
as social or self-presentation needs. By documenting more
complex motivations that combine basic needs, traditionally
identified in uses and gratifications research (Katz, Gurevitch,
and Haas 1973), our study offers interesting ideas for future
motivational studies. It also contributes to luxury brand management practice by identifying specific complex motivations
driving different types of CEBs. Because EB5 presupposes
more frequent and specific interactions with others who share
the same passion for the brand, it commands greater time and
effort commitment, and as such has greater creative potential
63
for affecting the brand’s meaning negotiation in the process of
ongoing communication exchanges.
EB6: Publish Photos of Brand’s Products and EB7: Publish
Photos of Oneself with the Brand
A similar effort is undertaken by luxury consumers who
publish photos of the brand’s products in their personal SM
accounts. Such activities are influenced by a number of motivations, from providing product information to others and promoting a favorite brand to elevating one’s social standing and
self-worth. A frequently mentioned related activity is publishing photos of oneself with the brand. This activity is more
self-involving and is influenced by a broader range of motivations. These include practical (reconfirming one’s product
choice) and altruistic (offering advice), as well as status (selfassertion and impression management) needs. More specifically, the latter include obtaining greater visibility, strengthening self-esteem, elevating one’s social status, emphasizing
one’s uniqueness, demonstrating trendiness, and obtaining and
maintaining popularity. Interestingly, those who report posting
pictures for informational and altruistic, as opposed to social,
reasons (e.g., alert friends when the new model is available)
intentionally avoid placing themselves in the photos. The
observed increasing complexity and diversity of motivations
behind behaviors involving the use of tools beyond simple text
posts, comments, or clicks may explain consumer willingness
to expend greater effort (such as taking and uploading pictures
and selfies with branded products). In the context of luxury
brands, where visual communication by the brand is usually of
very high quality, contributing consumer-generated visual
content may also imply greater social risk, which presents an
interesting subject for future research.
EB8: Explicitly Soliciting Comments to Brand Selfies
and EB9: Initiating and Maintaining Brand-Related
Conversations in Personal Social Networks
A separate behavior mentioned by luxury consumers is
explicitly soliciting comments regarding their brand-related
photo and video posts. The complex motivation behind this
engagement behavior (to initiate conversations and exchange
opinions) combines informational, social, and self-presentation needs. Consumers seek feedback from others to reassure
themselves that the important social referents share their views
about the brand and to satisfy their needs for new information,
social approval, self-validation, and belongingness. To the
authors’ knowledge, no prior research on SM engagement has
specifically addressed this complex motivation. Given that
text-based communications appear to require more mental
effort and thus have greater potential for brand meaning cocreation, future research should allocate more attention to motivations driving consumer–brand-related verbal exchanges.
Some respondents report intentionally initiating and
64
I. PENTINA ET AL.
maintaining brand-related conversations in their personal
social networks (SNs) with the goal to promote their favorite
brands among those personal contacts who are not familiar
with the brand. By creating associations between one’s personality and the brand, these CEBs arguably impact brand perceptions among both the existing brand fans and the members of
personal SNs by connecting the image of the acting consumer
to the brand. Therefore, this EB has greater potential to influence the development of brand product and meaning, confirming the ongoing shift in control for brand creation away from
the company
EB10: Publishing Multimedia Shopping Stories
Luxury consumers report creating stories using pictures
and/or video clips that describe their experiences with the
brand, frequently starting with the in-store purchase process
and including subsequent joyful use and ownership coverage.
The motivations for this behavior, which is ostensibly more
creative and involves a greater extent of sharing of one’s personal tastes and lifestyle, combine social, emotional, and selfpresentation needs. Due to their outstanding value-expressive
function, luxury brands enable consumers to communicate
specific facets of their identity to others (Schade et al. 2016).
Luxury consumers also crave compliments and admiration
from others (Kang and Park 2016) to help sustain their selfimage. While prior research identified social and status needs
as drivers of user-generated content, these studies did not consider complex motivations or combinations of needs as antecedents of engagement behaviors. For example, Muntinga,
Moorman, and Smit (2011) reported that social and self-presentation motivations independently influence the creation of
brand-related content in SM. Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell
(2008) identified self-promotion as a major driver of uploading
user-created advertising, and Bronner and De Hoog (2011)
found social need to be a major motivation for writing product
reviews. However, as our findings show, CEBs are frequently
inspired by more complex motivations that combine several
basic needs. These complex motivations of singular SM consumer EBs may offer important insights to brands, allowing
them to develop more advanced engagement stimulation strategies. Arguably, by engaging in brand-related storytelling,
customers exhibit greater effort and creativity compared to liking, sharing, commenting, or uploading brand-related visuals.
EB11: Modifying the Branded Product or Suggesting a
New Interpretation
Some respondents extend their creativity beyond generating
visual and textual content using the purchased luxury item.
These respondents want to modify or combine the product during its use and to propose a novel use or image interpretation.
These behaviors are prompted by motivations to engage in
deeper brand-related conversation with other brand
aficionados. Respondents want to compete with and gain recognition from those knowledgeable about the product and, as a
result, obtain validation of their own tastes and creative talents. Thus, this ostensibly higher-level creative activity with
the product in the process of its use is prompted by both intrinsic personal creativity and extrinsic evaluation and assessment
of consumers’ contributions (combining such basic motivations as emotional, social, hedonic, self-image, and informational). In utilizing the brand as an object of one’s creativity,
some respondents mention the motivation to support the brand
and to weigh in on a product’s design and intended use, apparently perceiving the brand not only as a reciprocal social entity
but also as a legitimate member of their personal social networks. The expansion of engagement audiences to include
both other brand users and the brand itself may testify to
increasing self–brand identification and perception of the
brand as an extension of self (Belk 1988). It is apparent that
such a view certainly affects the luxury brand’s meaning for
the consumer in question and inevitably influences the perception of the brand by others by creating meaningful visual, textual, and mental associations between the consumer and the
brand.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Engagement behaviors delineated in this research may
serve as a starting point for further development of a theory of
digital brand engagement and could be validated in various
contexts and product categories, serving as a basis for developing a scale to measure digital engagement behaviors. In particular, we noted five main aspects that can be employed to
differentiate and categorize these CEBs and assess their potential for brand meaning contribution. Specifically, these characteristics include (1) intended engagement audience (the brand;
other SM brand users, including personal SNs; or both), (2)
intensity of applied effort and creativity (from likes, shares,
and hashtags to active content creation; from merely mentioning or reproducing the luxury purchase to modifying or reinterpreting its consumption), (3) content creation medium utilized
(textual, visual, or hybrid), (4) dominant motivational drivers
(singular or combined, intrinsic or extrinsic), and (5) differences and similarities among SM platforms.
Intended Engagement Audience
We differentiate between luxury consumer SM engagement
with the brand itself from their engagement with other brand
consumers and their personal social connections. It appears
that the greatest brand meaning cocreation potential lies in
conversations and exchanges among luxury consumers as
opposed to interactions between the brand and consumers. Predominant exchanges between luxury consumers and the brand
comprise utilizing the interactive default tools provided by
SM platforms (likes, shares, comments) with the goal to stay
EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUXURY BRANDS
current on the brand’s updates. Other consumer–brand interactions involve asking and answering questions and posting textual comments and visuals on the brand’s wall. These
interactions are usually brief and numerous and do not provide
opportunities for deeper insights. It appears that the activities
that are direct interactions with the brand (EB1: follow; EB2:
comment; EB5: use hashtags) have the lowest impact on brand
meaning, possibly because they rarely anticipate feedback and
have lower potential to spread. On the contrary, behaviors
mainly directed at one’s social networks or other brand users
(EB3 through EB10), and at both the brand and its users
(EB11), are more likely to affect the brand’s meaning by creating new visual, textual, and mental associations for the brand
and by targeting a broader audience. Because user-to-user
engagement behaviors always presuppose a response (e.g.,
positive comments, answer to product and brand inquiries,
evaluations and discussions of photos and videos), they are
more likely to stimulate a discourse that would introduce new
associations related to the brand (e.g., Jean posts his Hermes
shopping stories on Snapchat, expecting to obtain comments
from his friends). Textual communication among users (as
opposed to user-to-brand) has a greater chance of being seen
and reacted to by broader audiences, because it is visible to the
networks of all involved in the conversation, including the
brand, thus increasing the virality of the discourse and encouraging greater input into the brand negotiation.
Intensity of Applied Effort and Creativity
As expected, more passive CEBs requiring the least effort
seem to have less impact on brand meaning interpretation and
negotiation than more active behaviors. While somewhat intuitive, this finding offers an interesting implication for luxury
brand management in SM: Managers who would like to retain
more control of the brand should pay more attention to stimulating such “low effort” engagement behaviors as sharing, liking, and following. Such actions can increase brand awareness
and popularity but do not appear to present a risk of augmenting brand associations to a large degree. The functionality of
the majority of SM platforms is especially conducive to these
marketing tactics, providing “like” buttons, emoticons, and
sharing mechanisms, as well as analytics dashboards for evaluating the effectiveness of these tools. Brands that encourage
more active customer engagement (comments, conversations,
and visuals) should pay greater attention to managing these
interactions that are likely to stimulate brand-related discourse,
potentially leading to renegotiating the brand’s meaning. In
addition, the behaviors that incorporate the greatest degree of
creativity appear to have greater potential for contributing to
brand meaning cocreation. This cocreation takes place via suggesting novel uses and interpretations to other active brand
users and soliciting their contribution into the creative process.
As a result of these exchanges among luxury brand consumers,
new and innovative brand meanings may arise that were not
65
initially intended by the brand, emphasizing the control-shifting role of SM.
Content Creation Medium
Interestingly, using textual comments and responses often
provokes more discussions than simply posting visuals without
commenting. While sometimes a picture is worth a thousand
words, we find that the primary medium of meaning negotiation in SM remains verbal. It seems that framing one’s experiences and emotions in words promotes discourse and assists in
forming new associations in SM, leading to a greater opportunity of brand augmentation. In addition, by explicitly soliciting
feedback from others, respondents encourage verbal discourse,
creating more opportunities for viral sharing of opinions and
formation of novel brand associations, thus contributing to
greater social input into the brand meaning negotiation. An
intuitive explanation to the dominant role of verbal engagement may be lack of skill to create provocative and compelling
visuals, and thus the necessity to combine visuals with text in
multimedia contributions by consumers. This can also be an
artifact of our convenience sample, which presents an interesting opportunity for future experimental research. If confirmed,
this finding can be used by brands for regulating the extent of
customer content contribution. By encouraging consumers to
comment on brand posts or advertising and initiate their own
conversations around the brand, managers may stimulate
greater discourse affecting their brand’s meaning compared to
simply stimulating picture sharing with the branded products.
Dominant Motivational Drivers
Motivations behind various CEBs exhibit various degrees
of complexity. For engaging with the brand on a passive level,
consumers clearly identify discrete motivations, ranging from
informational, social status, and financial to hedonic, relational, and emotional. These motivations echo the widely
accepted uses and gratifications framework (Katz, Gurevitch,
and Haas 1973) that was previously shown to explain eWOM
behaviors (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004), SM participation
(Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011), and engaging in amateur advertisement (Jeppesen and Frederiksen 2006; Mu~
niz
and Schau 2007). Our study finds that CEBs requiring greater
effort and creativity are more often motivated by combined, as
opposed to singular, needs. For example, less effortful EB1
and EB2 (e.g., clicking and posting impersonal comments) on
brand’s posts are driven by clearly expressed needs for information, socialization, status, remuneration, entertainment, and
relationship maintenance. The more socially targeted EB3 and
EB4 (e.g., hashtagging and mentioning friends in comments)
are prompted by more complex combinations of the above
needs, with the emotional sharing motivation combining social
and emotional components and discourse initiation motivation
comprising informational and social elements. EBs involving
66
I. PENTINA ET AL.
greater effort (e.g., posting photos and selfies with hashtags
and soliciting comments from others), while mainly driven by
status and impression management, also evoke combined
motivations. For instance, EB6 (e.g., sharing photos with other
SM users) helps to simultaneously assert one’s higher social
standing and to promote the brand that has become part of
one’s social status. Soliciting comments to brand selfies (EB8)
is driven by a desire to initiate brand-related conversations and
exchange opinions (combining social status and informational
needs). The high-effort EB10 (e.g., publishing multimedia
shopping stories) and EB11 (e.g., suggesting new uses or interpretations of the brand products) appear to also be motivated
by a combination of needs (such as a desire to share experiences and emotions of brand ownership, which incorporates
social, emotional, and self-presentation needs). We also
noticed that as the degree of creativity in CEBs increases, so
does the role of intrinsic (self-improvement, self-expression,
self-actualization) versus extrinsic (approval and feedback
seeking) motivations. Paradoxically, extrinsically motivated
CEBs (desire for relationship building, seeking feedback and
validation from other valued brand admirers) have greater
potential for contributing to brand cocreation by stimulating
conversations around consumer-created content. Clearly, differences in roles of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations, and
the degree of motivational complexity in brand-related outcomes, are in need of future studies.
Engagement Behaviors and SM Platform Use
While our respondents use different SM channels to engage
with luxury brands, the dominant platforms mentioned in
the interviews were Facebook (19 respondents), Instagram
(17), and Snapchat (10). YouTube, Twitter, GoogleC, and
WhatsApp were also mentioned, but only by a few luxury
shoppers (Table 1). Because we did not specifically ask the
respondents to comment on their use of each SM they mentioned, our analysis (suggested by our reviewers) was done
post hoc. While we were not able to reveal principal differences among these platforms in terms of EBs, we identified some
trends that may present an interesting object for future studies.
Specifically, as suggested earlier by Smith, Fischer, and Yongjian (2012), passive engagement (e.g., following a brand in
SM), motivated by informational needs, mainly took place on
Twitter and Facebook (e.g., Selene mentions, “I use Twitter
only to follow [brand] news, it isn’t my preferred social
network”; Sabrina shares, “Once we like the [Facebook] page,
the new brand posts appear directly on our newsfeed”). Earlier
research on Twitter as a dominant informational and news
platform supports our results, showing that the majority of
brand-focused Twitter content consists of product information
and consumer opinions (Jansen et al. 2009). It is possible that
the longer existence of Twitter and Facebook (founded in
2006 and 2004, respectively) made these SM platforms a safer
initial choice for luxury brands to connect to their customers
and allowed the brands to accumulate more content on these
platforms. The growing assortment of SMM tools and analytics available on these platforms may have also encouraged
more frequent brand news and updates, as well as provided
better control over more manageable “push” campaigns by
luxury brands. While Instagram was also mentioned in this
context (e.g., Cynthia says, “When following Chanel on . . .
Instagram, I feel like I am spying on the brand”), following
was mainly done for hedonic and emotional reasons, apparently due to the visual emphasis of the app (e.g., Selene
reveals, “I love the bag! I look a little every day for new photos
on their Instagram account @balenciaga”). Some EBs involving greater consumer creativity usually utilize photo and video
capabilities provided by Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat
(e.g., Carl says, “I prefer publishing my photos on Instagram
and not on Facebook because Instagram offers more tools for
this”). However, after the creative part is accomplished, the
results can be published across the whole spectrum of SM
channels, including personal Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and/or blogs. For example, Nicole describes recording
videos on YouTube and then linking them to her Facebook
page, and Jean prefers to make short videos and post them on
Snapchat directly from the store, but then to post better quality
videos from home on his Instagram profile. Similarly, no
major differences in the choice of platforms were noticed
regarding the intended audience of brand-related communication. While Pierre mentions WhatsApp as a useful tool to share
photos of his Dior purchases with a restricted group of Dior
fans, Annette uses the capability of Twitter groups and group
tweets to do the same (“When I really like something, I take a
picture of the product . . . and post it on Twitter because only
my closest friends can see it”). Apart from the mentioned
trends, our analysis did not identify any significant platformspecific differences in luxury consumers’ SM engagement
behaviors, motivations, or brand cocreation potential. Interestingly, the majority of respondents simply mentioned “social
media” without specifying the platforms when describing their
engagement behaviors. While this may be due to the idiosyncrasies of our sample, we believe this result reflects the socalled social media convergence phenomenon (McCahon
2016). According to this view, each SM platform offers unique
functionalities at its introductory stage and therefore may be
used by certain consumer niches to achieve specific goals.
However, to grow and appeal to more consumers, SM platforms add functionalities as they mature (e.g., allowing picture
upload on Twitter, including video streaming on Facebook,
and introducing memories on Snapchat and stories on Instagram) and become more alike. This convergence may make it
difficult for brands to identify the most beneficial SM marketing channels by homogenizing their audiences. It may also
complicate the integration of brand marketing communications by making it challenging to develop specific messages
for different SM platforms. While a feasible explanation, the
phenomenon of SM convergence certainly deserves more
EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUXURY BRANDS
scrutiny. As new SM platforms and applications develop and
introduce new functionalities, future studies could consider
the role of contextual environment and the choice of SM platforms by consumers to engage with brands.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This study sought to identify and characterize SM engagement behaviors of luxury consumers (CEBs) within the nomological network of their motivations as antecedents and brand
cocreation potential as a consequence. In doing so, the article
extends current knowledge in the domain of consumer SM
engagement. Earlier research was inconsistent in its treatment
of digital consumer engagement. Some studies considered
engagement motivations and other attitudinal variables as
manifestations of engagement (e.g., Chi 2011; Dessart,
Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015), while others recognized the content of online communications or their accompanying mental processes as engagement (see Peters et al. 2013).
Our study for the first time inductively identified and classified
discrete CEBs (manifested as concrete consumer actions) and
their distinguishing characteristics. Prior literature on consumer motivations for creating online content did not match
complex motivational combinations to specific engagement
behaviors (Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011; Chi 2011;
Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015). In our analysis, as we observed motivation–behavior co-occurrences, we
were able to identify a trend suggesting that more complex
combinations of motivations and their greater extrinsic locus
underlie more intense CEBs. In the luxury domain, previous
studies examined singular behaviors, such as retweeting brand
messages (Kim et al. 2014) and revisiting a luxury brand’s
Facebook page (Jin 2012), or investigated a combination of
SM advocacy behaviors (Kwon, Ratneshwar, and Thorson
2017). However, they did not offer a categorization of SM
engagement behaviors or analyze how variability in motivations, effort, use of media, creativity, or intended engagement
counterparts may affect their potential for brand cocreation.
Our study addressed this gap. By comparing the identified
CEBs and their intended audience, intensity of effort, complexity of motivations, digital media used, and extent of creative input, we observed associations between engagement
intensity and its potential for brand cocreation via newly
formed associations. A logical next step would be to develop a
measurement scale of CEBs and to validate it by quantitative
studies in broader contexts.
Given the use of a convenience sample and inductive-based
theorizing, the conclusions of this exploratory research should
be interpreted with caution. Despite this limitation, our pioneering investigation has offered a first step in bringing
together theoretical thought and the actual SM management
practice, in which likes, comments, and shares have long been
used as indicators of SMM campaign effectiveness. In an effort
to preserve control over brand meaning and brand narrative,
67
luxury brands were very cautious in adopting social media, and
have only recently opened up to consumers’ contributions on
their SM platforms (Scott 2015). The results of our study offer
some insights to luxury SM managers in developing optimal
SMM strategies. Specifically, luxury brands should not ignore
consumers who engage with other SM users as their main audience, because these interactions can help or hurt the brand due
to their virality and potential for introducing undesired associations. By monitoring SM for brand mentions and hashtags,
brands have an opportunity to intercept these discourses in a
timely manner. However, luxury brands should avoid engaging
in trivial conversations. To support perceptions of exclusivity
and premium quality, luxury brands should limit their SM feed
and post infrequently, with an emphasis on perfection. By
offering top-quality, best-of-class visual content (photography
and videos), fashion houses will activate hedonic (aesthetic)
motivation to evoke emotional sharing and the viral spread of
their own messages. By creating premium and aesthetically
inspiring digital content, luxury brands will encourage more
mindful appreciation on the part of their customers, reducing
the triviality of consumer-generated content and avoiding negative and brand-irrelevant associations. To emphasize uniqueness, luxury brands’ SM content should depict unique
manufacturing know-how, preserving a shade of mystery.
References to the past and glorious brand history and heritage
will underscore the desired brand meaning and will keep it
from erosion by random consumer comments. Luxury brands
should also share videos of their behind-the-scenes creative
processes that would convey the spirit of invention and show
the logic of their collections’ creation. This type of content will
channel consumers’ creative potential toward supporting the
brand’s vision. By showing final results only, brand meaning
may be negatively impacted by provoking customers to share
their idiosyncratic, diverse interpretations and mental associations. Individuals who act driven by combined motivations and
exhibit the highest engagement effort and creativity, especially
those who propose new uses, images, and interpretations of the
products, tend to be SM influencers (e.g., beauty bloggers)
with dedicated followers. Given their potential to cocreate luxury brand meanings, companies should establish personal
long-term relationships with these opinion leaders and provide
them exclusive content to facilitate the resulting interactions.
Finally, luxury brand managers should proactively channel the
need for consumer creative engagement toward experimental
brand spin-offs.
REFERENCES
Alexander, Matthew, and Elina Jaakkola (2016), “Customer Engagement
Behaviours and Value Co-Creation,” in Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and Challenges, Roderick J. Brodie, Linda D. Hollebeek,
and Jodie Conduit, eds., New York: Routledge, 3–20.
Algesheimer, Rene, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann (2005), “The
Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car
Club,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 19–34.
68
I. PENTINA ET AL.
Arnould, Eric J., and Melanie Wallendorf (1994), “Market-Oriented Ethnography: Interpretation Building and Marketing Strategy Formulation,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 31 (4), 484–504.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68.
Ben-Shabat, Hana (2015), “The New Luxury Consumer? Think: Multiple Consumers,” Robin Report, January 26, http://www.therobinreport.com/thenew-luxury-consumer-think-multiple-consumers/.
Berger, Jonah, and Eric M. Schwartz (2011), “What Drives Immediate and
Ongoing Word of Mouth?,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (5), 869–
80.
Berthon, Pierre, Leyland Pitt, and Colin Campbell (2008), “Ad Lib: When
Customers Create the Ad,” California Management Review, 50 (4), 6–30.
Beverland, Michael B. (2004), “Uncovering ‘Theories-in-Use’: Building Luxury Wine Brands,” European Journal of Marketing, 38 (3/4), 446–66.
Bode, Matthias (2010), “Showing Doing: The Art–Science Debate in a Performative Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (2), 139–55.
Brodie, Roderick J., Ana Ilic, Biljana Juric, and Linda Hollebeek (2013),
“Consumer Engagement in a Virtual Brand Community: An Exploratory
Analysis,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (1), 105–14.
Bronner, Fred, and Robert De Hoog (2011), “Vacationers and eWOM: Who
Posts, and Why, Where, and What?,” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (1),
15–26.
Bryman, Alan, and Emma Bell (2007), Business Research Methods, 2 nd ed.,
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Butler, Judith (2010), “Performative Agency,” Journal of Cultural Economy, 3
(2), 147–61.
Calder, Bobby J., Edward C. Malthouse, and Ute Schaedel (2009), “An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (4), 321–31.
Calvar, Javier (2016), “Luxury Brands Can’t Ignore Digital for Building
Meaningful Relationships,” eMarketer, May 4, https://www.emarketer.
com/Article/Luxury-Brands-Cant-Ignore-Digital-Building-MeaningfulRelationships/1013916.
Cayla, Julien, and Eric J. Arnould (2008), “A Cultural Approach to Branding
in the Global Marketplace,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4),
86–112.
Chevalier, Judith A., and Dina Mayzlin (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth
on Sales: Online Book Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3),
345–54.
Chi, Hsu-Hsien (2011), “Interactive Digital Advertising vs. Virtual Brand
Community: Exploratory Study of User Motivation and Social Media Marketing Responses in Taiwan,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12 (1),
44–61.
Chu, Shu-Chuan, and Yoojung Kim (2011), “Determinants of Consumer
Engagement in Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) in Social Networking
Sites,” International Journal of Advertising, 30 (1), 47–75.
Coulter, Robin A., Linda L. Price, and Lawrence Feick (2003), “Rethinking
the Origins of Involvement and Brand Commitment: Insights from Postsocialist Central Europe,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 151–69.
Dauriz, Linda, Nathalie Remy, and Nicola Sandri (2014), “Luxury Shopping in
the Digital Age,” McKinsey and Company, May, https://www.mckinsey.
com/industries/retail/our-insights/luxury-shopping-in-the-digital-age.
Deloitte (2015), “Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2015: Engaging the Future
Luxury Consumer,” https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/
global/Documents/Consumer-Business/gx-cb-global-power-of-luxuryweb.pdf.
Dessart, Laurence, Cleopatra Veloutsou, and Anna Morgan-Thomas (2015),
“Consumer Engagement in Online Brand Communities: A Social Media
Perspective,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 24 (1), 28–42.
Dhaoui, Chedia (2014), “An Empirical Study of Luxury Brand Marketing
Effectiveness and Its Impact on Consumer Engagement on Facebook,”
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 5 (3), 209–22.
Douglas, Susan, and Samuel Craig (2007), “Collaborative and Iterative Translation: An Alternative Approach to Back Translation,” Journal of International Marketing, 15 (1), 30–43.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building Consumer
Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1–2), 168–
80.
Gensler, Sonja, Franziska V€olckner, Yuping Liu-Thompkins, and Caroline
Wiertz (2013), “Managing Brands in the Social Media Environment,”
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27 (4), 242–56.
Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, London: Weidenfield & Nicolson.
Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh, and Dwayne
D. Gremler (2004), “Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-Opinion
Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the
Internet?,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (1), 38–52.
———, Edward C. Malthouse, Christian Friege, Sonja Gensler, Lara Lobschat, Arvind Rangaswamy, and Bernd Skiera (2010), “The Impact of
New Media on Customer Relationships,” Journal of Service Research, 13
(3), 311–30.
Hollebeek, Linda (2011), “Exploring Customer Brand Engagement: Definition
and Themes,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19 (7), 555–73.
———, Mark S. Glynn, and Roderick J. Brodie (2014), “Consumer Brand
Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and
Validation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 (2), 149–65.
Holt, Douglas B. (2003), Brands and Branding, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Ind, Nicholas, Oriol Iglesias, and Majken Schultz (2013), “Building Brands
Together,” California Management Review, 55 (3), 5–26.
Jaakkola, Elina, and Matthew Alexander (2014), “The Role of Customer
Engagement Behavior in Value Co-Creation: A Service System
Perspective,” Journal of Service Research, 17 (3), 247–61.
Jansen, Bernard J., Mimi Zhang, Kate Sobel, and Abdur Chowdury (2009),
“Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word-of-Mouth,” Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (11), 2169–
88.
Jeppesen, Lars Bo, and Lars Frederiksen (2006), “Why Do Users Contribute to
Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music
Instruments,” Organization Science, 17 (1), 45–63.
Jin, Seung-A Annie (2012), “The Potential of Social Media for Luxury Brand
Management,” Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 30 (7), 687–99.
Kahn, William A. (1990), “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement
and Disengagement at Work,” Academy of Management Journal, 33 (4),
692–724.
Kang, Yeu-Jin, and Seong-Yeon Park (2016), “The Perfection of the Narcissistic Self: A Qualitative Study on Luxury Consumption and Customer Equity,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (9), 3813–19.
Katz, Elihu, Michael Gurevitch, and Hadassah Haas (1973), “On the Use of the
Mass Media for Important Things,” American Sociological Review, 38 (2),
164–81.
Kim, Angella J., and Eunju Ko (2010), “Impacts of Luxury Fashion Brand’s
Social Media Marketing on Customer Relationship and Purchase
Intention,” Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 1 (3), 164–71.
———, and ——— (2012), “Do Social Media Marketing Activities Enhance
Customer Equity? An Empirical Study of Luxury Fashion Brand,” Journal
of Business Research, 65 (10), 1480–86.
Kim, Eunice, Yongjun Sung, and Hamsu Kang (2014), “Brand Followers’
Retweeting Behavior on Twitter: How Brand Relationships Influence
Brand Electronic Word-of-Mouth,” Computers in Human Behavior, 37,
18–25.
Kumar, V., Lerzan Aksoy, Bas Donkers, Rajkumar Venkatesan, Thorsten Wiesel, and Sebastian Tillmanns (2010), “Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: Capturing Total Customer Engagement Value,” Journal of Service
Research, 13 (3), 297–310.
EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIORS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUXURY BRANDS
Kwon, Eunseon (Penny), S. Ratneshwar, and Esther Thorson (2017),
“Consumers’ Social Media Advocacy Behaviors Regarding Luxury
Brands: An Explanatory Framework,” Journal of Interactive Advertising,
17 (1), 13–27.
LeCompte, Margaret Diane, and Jean J. Schensul (1999), Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research, vol. 1, Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Lemon, Katherine N., and Peter C. Verhoef (2016), “Understanding Customer
Experience throughout the Customer Journey,” Journal of Marketing, 80
(6), 69–96.
L’Oreal (2017), Interview with Nicolas Hieronimus, President Selective Division, YouTube, March 14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?vDciU
G4ACgHWE.
Lucarelli, Andrea, and Anette Hallin (2015), “Brand Transformation: A Performative Approach to Brand Regeneration,” Journal of Marketing Management, 31 (1–2), 84–106.
McCahon, Callum (2016), “Stories . . . and the Convergence of Social Media,”
Getting Social, August 18, https://medium.com/getting-social/stories-andthe-convergence-of-social-media-6b743fc2c03f.
McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, Sage University Paper Series
on Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 13, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McQuarrie, Edward F. (1993), Customer Visits: Building a Better Customer
Focus, New York: Routledge.
Michel, Geraldine (2017), “From Brand Identity to Polysemous Brands: Commentary on ‘Performing Identities: Process of Brand and Stakeholder Identity Co-Construction,’” Journal of Business Research, 70, 453–55.
Miles, Matthew B., Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldana (2013), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, Karen W., and Michael K. Mills (2012), “Contributing Clarity by
Examining Brand Luxury in the Fashion Market,” Journal of Business
Research, 65, 1471–79.
Mu~
niz, Albert M., Jr., and Hope Jensen Schau (2007), “Vigilante Marketing
and Consumer-Created Communications,” Journal of Advertising, 36 (3),
35–50.
Muntinga, Daniel G., Marjolein Moorman, and Edith G. Smit (2011),
“Introducing COBRAs: Exploring Motivations for Brand-Related Social
Media Use,” International Journal of Advertising, 30 (1), 13–46.
Okonkwo, Uche (2009), “Sustaining the Luxury Brand on the Internet,” Journal of Brand Management, 16 (5/6), 302–10.
Peters, Kay, Yubo Chen, Andreas M. Kaplan, Bj€orn Ognibeni, and Koen Pauwels (2013), “Social Media Metrics: A Framework and Guidelines for
Managing Social Media,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27 (4), 281–
98.
Prahalad, Coimbatore K., and Venkat Ramaswamy (2004), “Co-Creation
Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 18 (3), 5–14.
Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Carolyn Folkman Curasi (2000), “Older
Consumers’ Disposition of Special Possessions,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 27 (2), 179–201.
Rodgers, Shelly, Ye Wang, Ruth Rettie, and Frank Alpert (2007), “The
Web Motivation Inventory: Replication, Extension, and Application to
Internet Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising, 26 (4),
447–76.
69
Schade, Michael, Sabrina Hegner, Florian Horstmann, and Nora Brinkmann
(2016), “The Impact of Attitude Functions on Luxury Brand Consumption:
An Age-Based Group Comparison,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (1),
314–22.
Scott, Mark (2015), “Luxury Brands and the Social Campaign,” New York
Times, December 1, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/fashion/luxurybrands-and-the-social-campaign.html?_rD0.
Shepherd, Steven, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2015),
“When Brands Reflect Our Ideal World: The Values and Brand Preferences of Consumers Who Support versus Reject Society’s Dominant
Ideology,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 76–92.
Singh, Sangeeta, and Stephan Sonnenburg (2012), “Brand Performances in
Social Media,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26 (4), 189–97.
Smith, Andrew N., Eileen Fischer, and Chen Yongjian (2012), “How
Does Brand-Related User-Generated Content Differ Across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26
(2), 102–13.
Stavros, Constantino, Matthew D. Meng, Kate Westberg, and Francis Farrelly
(2014), “Understanding Fan Motivation for Interacting on Social Media,”
Sport Management Review, 17 (4), 455–69.
Stokburger-Sauer, Nicola E., and Karin Teichmann (2013), “Is Luxury Just a
Female Thing? The Role of Gender in Luxury Brand Consumption,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 889–96.
Teichmann, Karin, Ursula Scholl-Grissemann, and Nicola E. Stokburger-Sauer
(2016), “The Power of Codesign to Bond Customers to Products and Companies: The Role of Toolkit Support and Creativity,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 36, 15–30.
Tynan, Caroline, Sally McKechnie, and Celine Chhuon (2010), “Co-Creating
Value for Luxury Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 63 (11), 1156–
63.
Van Doorn, Jenny, Katherine N. Lemon, Vikas Mittal, Stephan Nass, Doreen
Pick, Peter Pirner, and Peter C. Verhoef (2010), “Customer Engagement
Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions,” Journal of
Service Research, 13 (3), 253–66.
Vigneron, Franck, and Lester W. Johnson (2004), “Measuring Perceptions of
Brand Luxury,” Journal of Brand Management, 11 (6), 484–506.
Vivek, Shiri D., Sharon E. Beatty, and Robert M. Morgan (2012), “Customer
Engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships beyond Purchase,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20 (2), 122–46.
Von Wallpach, Sylvia, Andrea Hemetsberger, and Peter Espersen (2017),
“"Co-Creating Stakeholder and Brand Identities: Introduction to the Special Section,” Journal of Business Research, 70, 395–98.
Voyer, Benjamin G., Minas N. Kastanakis, and Ann Kristin Rhode
(2017), “Co-Creating Stakeholder and Brand Identities: A Cross-Cultural Consumer Perspective,” Journal of Business Research, 70,
399–410.
Woodside, Arch G. (2010), “Brand–Consumer Storytelling Theory and
Research: Introduction to a Psychology and Marketing Special Issue,” Psychology and Marketing, 27 (6), 531–40.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1994), “The Personal Involvement Inventory:
Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 59–70.
Copyright of Journal of Advertising is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.