A Presentation to the 7th Annual Tricontinental Conference on Global Advances in Business Communications (GABC), Ypsilanti, MI, May 27th-30th 2015

1. Cultural Values and
Digital Brand Engagement:
A Transnational Exploratory Analysis
G. Russell Merz, Ph.D.,
Professor of Integrated Marketing Communications
Eastern Michigan University
A Presentation to the 7th Annual Tricontinental Conference on Global Advances in
Business Communications (GABC), Ypsilanti, MI, May 27th-30th 2015

2. Agenda
2
q Background
o Managing Brands in a Global Digital Market—Standardize or Customize?
o Digital Brand Engagement—Why is it Important?
o Cultural Values—Do Cultural Strengths Help the Brand?
o What does Academic Research Say?
o Research Gaps and Unanswered Questions
q Research Design
o Research Questions & Hypotheses
o Conceptual Framework
q Methodology
o Data Sources
o Measurement & Analysis Plan
q Findings and Discussion
q Implications, Limitations and Future Research

3. 3
Background: Standardization or Adaptation?
A critical issue in international brand management has been the question of whether
marketing programs should be standardized or adapted to different markets (Levitt 1983).
q The pros and cons have been debated for years.
q The rapid globalization of digital marketing has created a broader set of brand management issues as the
dimensionality of customer engagement with brands increases.
q A key question is how can global “transnational” brand engagement processes be developed and managed to
better meet customer needs?
Standardization Adaptation
Transactional
Analogue
Marketing
Same positioning
and marketing mix
everywhere
Same positioning
but different
marketing mixes
Interactive
Digital
Marketing
Standardized brand
engagement
processes
Adaptive brand
engagement
processes

4. What is digital brand
engagement and why
is it important?
q The ANA, 4A’s and IAB
have defined
engagement as “a
spectrum of consumer
advertising activities and
experiences that will
have a positive impact
on a brand”
q Google and Ad Age
recently studied how
consumers engage with
brands, and how media
companies engage with
consumers.
q The results provided
insights for evaluating,
modifying and managing
online engagement
strategies.
q Some of the findings
were:
4
Background: Digital Brand Engagement

5. 5
Background: Digital Brand Engagement
How are companies
managing digital
brand engagement?
q Many have an
engagement gap.
q Over 82% see it as a
priority but only 45.8%
are actively managing it.
q In addition, while most
companies agree that
measurement matters,
only 41.9% say their
company actually
quantifies brand
engagement value.
q Furthermore, there are
wide differences in
which metrics are most
important.

6. 6
As useful as the
Google/Ad Age
findings seem, nothing
is really said about
how to manage digital
brands in global
interactive
environments?
q Some clues are offered
by the MillwardBrown/
Ogilvy Brand Cross-
Cultural Index (BCCI).
q The 2013 BCCI
examined the multi-
cultural opportunities
(MCO) of brands in
three product categories
across four ethnic
groups in the US.
q Groups of brands were
identified multi-culturally
strong or weak.
Background: Do Cultural Strengths Help Brands?
High MCO
brands are more
“meaningful” with
multicultural
groups.
Low MCO brands
are more
“meaningful” with
white ethnic
groups.

7. 7
Background: Do Cultural Strengths Help Brands?
When combined with a measure of market power (a proxy for volume share), the BCCI
provides culturally based guidelines for improving overall brand performance.

8. 8
Background: Cultural Values in Academic Research
Cultural Value typologies have been widely used in comparative (i.e. transnational)
academic research to examine a variety of broad business related issues, such as:
q Socio-economic conditions across countries (Basabe and Ros 20053),
q E-commerce readiness and diffusion (Berthon et al 20083, Gong 20093),
q Information technology development (Gaspay et al 20084; Barnett and Sung 20063),
q International marketing practices (Soares et al 20074), and
q Retailing and consumer behavior applications (De Mooij and Hofstede 20024, 20114; Frost et al
20102; Luna and Gupta 20014).
Other cross-cultural studies using cultural values have most specifically examined
digital business practices such as:
q Content of websites (Singh et al 20051),
q Interactive use of corporate websites (Cho and Cheon 20051),
q Online shopping (Park and Jun 20032; Goodrich and De Mooij 20113),
q On-line MNC branding strategies (Murphy and Scharl 20073),
q User-interface design (Marcus and Gould 20001),
q Internet use (Hermeking 20064; Gong et al 20073) and
q Website navigation (Luna et al 20023,4).
1 Websites as units of analysis, with content analysis techniques
2 Individual users as unit of analysis, using surveys across countries with descriptive statistics, correlation and/or regression modeling
3 Secondary measures at country unit of analysis, with descriptive statistics, correlation and/or regression modeling
4 Reviews, conceptual frameworks or meta-analyses

9. Author(s) Experiential
Focus
Brand Object
Studied
Methods Used Comment
Alden et al 1999 Direct—advertising
messaging
Brand positioning as global vs.
local or foreign
TV Advertising units sampled across countries and coded;
categorical analysis methods
Cultural values not measured;
comparisons made across regions;
non-digital focus
Baldus et al 2014 Digital—online
communities
Brand communities; 11
dimensions identified and
measured
Qualitative (2 studies); quantitative (4 studies); scale
development CFA, SEM, Study n’s: (1=11 students; 2=24
panel 3=344 panel; 4=198 panel; 5=620 MR firm; 6=160)
Cultural values not measured
Bengtsson et al
2010
Direct—travel abroad Brand meaning Longitudinal qualitative, American consumers (n=29) Cultural values not measured; non-
digital focus
De Mooij and
Hofstede (2010)
Brand advertising Conceptual model building and review of supporting
literature
Cultural values used as basis
Dessart et al 2015 Digital—online
communities
Brand communities, identified
ten engagement dimensions
Qualitative, in-depth interviews, English and French
speakers (n=21)
Cultural values not measured
Foscht et al 2008 Direct—consumption of
Red Bull beverage
Brand personality perceptions Aaker’s brand personality rating scales on questionnaires
with Hofstede’s Cultural Value Inventory, t-tests, MDA ,
Students (n=608) across six countries
Uses cultural values; non-digital
focus
Hollebeek et al
2014
Digital—social media
(Twitter and LinkedIn)
Consumer brand engagement
(CBE); 3 dimensions cognitive,
affective and activation
Qualitative, quantitative, CBE scale development, CFA,
SEM, Study 1 convenience (n=10), study 2 students
(n=194), study 3 (n= 554), study 4 (n=556)
Cultural values not measured
Moeller and Eisend
(2010)
Digital—advertising
interaction
Attitude and intentions to use
brand banner advertising
Quantitative, online survey data from n=7775 across 34
countries, respondents, HLM analysis
Uses 4 Hofstede values as
predictors
Muk et al (2014) Digital --Follow brands on
social media
Brand liking/ following on social
media
Survey and quantitative analysis across two countries—
US and Korea (n=496)
Comparisons made across
countries; cultural values not directly
measured
Nysveen and
Pederson 2014
Direct—co-creation of
products and services
5 Types of brand engagement,
satisfaction, loyalty
Survey of panel members; CFA , SEM, Bank customers
(n=957)
Cultural values not measured; non-
digital focus
Wallace et al 2014 Digital—social media
(Facebook)
Brand attitudes, brand “likes” Online survey; CFA, SEM,
Students (n=265)
Cultural values not measured
Wirtz et al 2013 General—direct and
digital
Branded communities Conceptual model building Cultural values not measured
9
Background: Digital Brand Engagement Literature
Only two brand engagement studies are cross cultural in focus.

10. 10
Background: Research Gaps
The relationship between cultural values and digital brand engagement has
received scant research attention.
q Only two studies were found that explicitly used cultural values in the analysis of brand engagement
topics (Foscht et al 2008; Moeller and Eisend 2010); and,
q Only one of those (Moeller and Eisend 2010) focused on digital brand engagement—attitudes
toward brand banner ads and intentions to click on the banner ads.
The commercial and academic research record clearly suggests that understanding
how cultural values affect digital brand engagement is in its infancy.
Yet, several authors identify managerial needs that would benefit from a better
understanding of cross-cultural brand engagement. For example:
q The self expressive nature of brands (Wallace et al 2014),
q The management of brand communities (Wirtz et al 2013. Dessart et al 2015),
q The interactions of consumers with brands via social media (Muk et al 2014),
q The cross cultural communication of brand meaning (Bengtsson et al 2010), and
The fundamental research problem addressed in this study is do consumer values
affect the digital brand engagement?

11. 11
Given the problem, the research objective of this study is to examine how cultural
values are related to measures of digital brand engagement. The research design
relies upon:
q The use of the cultural value typology and the idea of transnational value configurations by Hofstede
(De Mooij and Hofstede 2002, 2003, 2010, 2011),
q The country unit of analysis studies of Moeller and Eisend (2010), Gong (2009), and Goodrich and De
Mooij (2011), and,
q The tri-partite conceptualization of consumer brand engagement articulated by Hollebeek (Hollebeek
2011a, 2011b; and Hollebeek et al 2014).
The Research Question is: Do countries with similar configurations of cultural values
show similar patterns of digital brand engagement?
Hypotheses: The cultural value configurations will significantly predict differences in
patterns of:
q H1: Self directed exposure to digital brand information sources (brand discovery);
q H2: Summary brand attitude measures; and,
q H3: Types of digital brand interactivity.
Research Design: Research Questions & Hypotheses

12. 12
Research Design: Conceptual Framework
Cultural Values
Cultural
Value
Measures
Brand
Discovery
Brand
Attitudes
Brand
Interactivity
Digital Brand Engagement
H1 H2 H3
PDI IDV MAS UAI PRA IDG

13. 13
Methodology: Data Sources
Data Sources:
q GlobalWebIndex (GWI) is the world’s largest multi-market
research study. Since its inception in 2009, GlobalWebIndex has
delivered 16 waves of research surveying more than 300,000
internet users across 32 countries around the world, representing
89% of the global internet population.
q GlobalWebIndex releases data in quarterly waves throughout the
calendar year. It is the only study to provide quarterly global data.
Currently, 170,000 unique individuals are interviewed annually.
q The measurement of cultural values used
Gert Hofstede’s national cultural value
indices for 31 of 32 countries measured in
the GWI. The UAE was incomplete.
q Six of the most recent indices are used.

14. 14
Measurement and Operationalization:
q The top box scores for 32 countries of three batteries of questionnaire items collected by
GWI are used to measure the cognitive processing, affective and activation dimensions
of brand engagement hypothesized by Hollebeek et al (2014). These are the:
§ Brand discovery (17 items)
§ Brand attitude (7 items), and,
§ Brand interaction (19 items)
q All six of the of the Hofstede cultural value indices for 31 countries were available and
used in the analysis. [The UAE was dropped because no PRA or IDG index was
available.]
Analysis Plan:
q A two step configurational analysis approach was used:
§ First, the cultural value configurations were operationalized by a two-way hierarchical cluster
analysis of country-level cultural values and the cluster memberships for each country were
saved;
§ Second, the clusters were used in a MANOVA routine to predict the three dimensions of digital
brand engagement—discovery, attitudes and interactions.
Methodology: Measurement & Analysis Plan

15. 15
Findings: Descriptive Statistics Brand Discovery
The table displays the 17 Brand Discovery top-box measures from the GWI database.

16. 16
Findings: Descriptive Statistics Brand Attitude
The table displays the 7 Brand Attitude top-box
measures from the GWI database.

17. 17
Findings: Descriptive Statistics Brand Interactions
The table displays the 19 Brand Discovery top-box measures from the GWI database.

18. 18
Findings: Cultural Value Cluster Solution
The 2-way hierarchical clustering of the cultural
values resulted in a 4 cluster solution.
q The heat map shows how each cultural value index is
related to each country.
q The constellation map provides a two dimensional plot
of the cultural value clusters.

19. 19
Findings: Cultural Value Cluster Profiles
The profiles of the clusters were tested using MANOVA to
assess the adequacy of the solution.
q The results showed a significant level of cluster distinctiveness with a
Wilk’s Lambda of 0.018 (p<.000).
q The canonical centroid plot illustrates the distinctiveness of each
cluster.
q The parallel plot shows the cluster separation based on mean values
for each cultural value index.
q Cluster 3 (Jp, Ger, It) show high masculine, uncertainty-avoidance
and pragmatism (or LTO), while cluster 2 (Ch, HK, In, etc) is high on
power-distance, and low on individualism.

20. 20
Findings: Brand Discovery Differences
To test H1, the profiles of the 17 brand discovery measures
across the cultural value clusters were evaluated using
MANOVA.
q The results show a significant difference across the clusters with a
Wilks’ Lambda of 0.019 (p=0.011).
q These findings support H1 by showing that the variance between the
clusters is larger than the variance within.
q This result demonstrates that the brand discovery actions taken by
respondents across the 31* countries in the 4 cultural value
configurations are different (see the appendix for a table of mean
values across clusters).
(*Note UAE dropped because no PRA or IDG index is available).

21. 21
Findings: Brand Attitude Differences
To test H2, the profiles of the 7 brand attitude measures across the cultural value
clusters were evaluated using MANOVA.
q The results show a significant difference across the clusters with a Wilks’ Lambda of 0.036 (p=0.036).
q These findings support H2 by showing that the variance between the clusters is larger than the variance
within. The one exception may be cluster 3’s overlap with cluster 4.
q This result demonstrates that the brand attitudes held by respondents across the 31* countries in the 4
cultural value configurations are different. (*Note UAE dropped because no PRA or IDG index is available).

22. 22
Findings: Brand Interactivity Differences
To test H3, the profiles of the 19 brand interactivity measures
across the cultural value clusters were evaluated using MANOVA.
q The results show a weak but significant difference across the clusters
with a Wilks’ Lambda of 0.017 (p=0.067).
q These findings support H1 by showing that the variance between the
clusters is larger than the variance within.
q This result demonstrates that the brand interactivity actions taken by
respondents across the 31* countries in the 4 cultural value
configurations are different (see the appendix for a table of mean
values across clusters).
(*Note UAE dropped because no PRA or IDG index is available).

23. 23
Key Conclusions: These study results provide evidence of an empirical relationship
between cultural values and measures of brand engagement in two ways.
q First, by showing that transnational cultural value configurations composed of Hofstede’s six core
cultural value indices can be identified, and,
q Second the cultural value configurations are predictive of significantly different brand engagement
profiles along all three dimensions of brand discovery, brand attitudes and brand interactivity.
q The findings provide support for the hypotheses.
Implications: The major implications from this study for brand communications are
in the development of brand messaging and media and promotion planning.
q For message development the findings suggest that it is possible to strike a balance between the
extremes of standardization and adaptation by using the cultural value configurations to identify
where standardization can and cannot effectively work.
q In the area of media and promotion planning the linkages between the cultural values and the
measures of brand engagement provide a roadmap of the types of information sources and
channels brand buyers use for acquiring brand knowledge and sharing it with others.
q The findings suggest a possible framework for the development of a culturally sensitive digital brand
engagement process that can be adapted to the value characteristics of global transnational
markets.
Discussion

24. 24
Limitations, Future Research
There are several Limitations to the methods and findings in this study:
q The study used only three of the brand engagement batteries collected by GWI. Other batteries,
such as brand influencers and engagement preferences, are available and should be explored.
q The study only used the top-box proportions of each measure reported by GWI. This restricts the
amount of information content available in the measure. It is possible to extract complete scale
proportions for all of the measures and calculate a mean for each measure by country.
q No information about the demographic characteristics of the national markets was included in the
study. Such characteristics are available in the GWI data may be valuable predictors of digital
brand engagement and should be explored.
Future Research Opportunities include:
q The inclusion of more brand engagement metrics,
q Exploring the role that cultural values play in brand engagement across product categories within
countries, and
q Investigating how the use of different digital devices mediate between cultural values and brand
engagement.
q Analyzing the stability of the relationships between the transnational cultural value configurations
and digital brand engagement measures.

25. 25
Thank You…Any Questions?