Brand communities - functional and social benefits

701 views

Published on

Published in: Marketing
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
701
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Brand communities - functional and social benefits

  1. 1. 1 Prepared by Michael Ling Brand communities Functional and social benefits Michael Ling July 2014
  2. 2. 2 Prepared by Michael Ling WHAT ARE THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS?
  3. 3. 3 Prepared by Michael Ling Motivation • Frenzy in social media and an escalating interest in creating brand communities around websites. • We know little how customers behave in those communities. • Research in online brand communities has been scarce and under-developed (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2002).
  4. 4. 4 Prepared by Michael Ling
  5. 5. 5 Prepared by Michael Ling
  6. 6. 6 Prepared by Michael Ling Brand Communities  From a ‘customer-brand’ dyad into a ‘customer-customer- brand’ triad (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001).  From a ‘customer-customer- brand’ into a ‘customer-centric’ view (McAlexander et al, 2002). • "Brand communities are social entities that reflect the situated embeddedness of brands in the day-to-day lives of consumers and the ways in which brands connect consumer to brand, and consumer to consumer.” (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001) FirmBrand Focal Customer Customer Product • “the existence and meaningfulness of the community inhere in customer experience rather than in the brand around which that experience revolves.” (McAlexander et al, 2002). Customer-centric Model of Brand Community (McAlexander et al., 2002)
  7. 7. 7 Prepared by Michael Ling Overview • People participate in online communities because the online communities provide them with either information or social needs (Fischer, Bristor and Gainer, 1996; McLure Wasko and Faraj, 2000). • Consumers perceive online communities can offer: (i) functional value such as information and advice; (ii) social value such as self-esteem, friendship and social status; and (iii) entertainment value (Sicilia and Palazon, 2008). • Apart from entertainment value, the view that online communities provide functional and social benefits is widely supported (Burnett, 2000; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).
  8. 8. 8 Prepared by Michael Ling C2C Know-how Exchange Model (Gruen et al., 2005) Ability C-to-C Know-how ExchangeMotivation Opportunity H1a H1b H3b H4 H5 H3a H1c H2a,b H2a,b Loyalty Intentions Overall Value of the Firm’s Offering  Gruen et al.’s model is based on the MOA model developed by MacInnis and Jaworski (1989).  Explore factors that affect “the degree to which customers enter into and engage in know-how exchanges with other customers.”  The MOA variables will operate in an additive or a compensatory manner only if each variable has achieved its minimum threshold and certain conditions are met.  Motivation is the primary factor; Opportunity and Ability will influence the effect of motivation.
  9. 9. 9 Prepared by Michael Ling Motivation, Opportunity & Ability Constructs - Gruen et al. (2005) • Opportunity Either a positive view of availability, or a negative view of impediments (MacInnis et al. 1991). Readiness, willingness, interest, and desire to engage in information processing (Gruen et al., 2005). Direct individuals to engage in goal-oriented behaviors and make decisions (Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997; MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989). • Motivation May be more a function of the restrictions an individual faces (e.g. time, connection availability) participating in the community (Gruen et al. 2005) • Ability The resources of a customer that influence the outcome of an event (Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997). The skills or proficiencies in interpreting brand information in an advertisement (MacInnis et al. 1991). Competency in the process driving know-how exchanges, as opposed to competency in the content of the know-how that is being exchanged (MacInnis et al. 1991).   x
  10. 10. 10 Prepared by Michael Ling Issues in the MOA C2C model • (Ability) Customer’s competence in the subject of exchange has no effect on the level of interactions .  Level of expertise has been cited as a reason not to participate in online communities (McLure Wasko & Faraj, 2000).  High ability implies that prior knowledge necessary to interpret brand information is present and is accessed (MacInnis et al., 1991) • Has not addressed the social benefits of ‘customer-to-customer’ interactions, which is an important value perceived by the customer (Burnett, 2000; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). • Has not addressed the economic or non-economic costs incurred by customers and hence it has neglected a key variable in the derivation of perceived value (Zeithaml, 1988). • Has only addressed Loyalty Intentions in regards to repeat purchases of firm’s offerings, rather than loyalty intentions to a brand community.
  11. 11. 11 Prepared by Michael Ling Motivation
  12. 12. 12 Prepared by Michael Ling
  13. 13. 13 Prepared by Michael Ling Informational and Social Benefits • Member generated content Hagel & Armstrong, 1997. • Knowledge & information are a valuable resource Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Rheingold, 1993; Sproull & Faraj, 1997. Furlong, 1981; Wellman et al., 1996; Hagel & Armstrong, 1997. • To access information • Use of “weak ties” to information Constant, Sproull & Kiesler, 1996. • Social Support Thoits, 1982 • Sense of belonging & affiliation Watson & Johnson, 1972. • Self-identity Hogg, 1996, • Emotional Support, sense of belonging, encouragement, companionship, reciprocity Furlong, 1989; Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Korenman & Whatt, 1996; Wellman, 1996; Wellman & Gulia, 1999. Information Benefits Social Benefits • Enjoyment & entertaining Holbrook, 2006; Sicilia & Palazon, 2008
  14. 14. 14 Prepared by Michael Ling Perceived Community Benefits A flow of emotional concern, instrumental aid, information and/or appraisal between people (House, 1981). Social Support: The degree to which a person’s basic social needs are gratified through interaction with others (Thoits, 1982).  Emotional Support  Social Support  Sense of Belonging  Encouragement  Instrumental aid Community Benefits
  15. 15. 15 Prepared by Michael Ling Value Model Value is considered as a tradeoff in consumer’s decision making between the relevant ‘gives’ and ‘gets’ (Bolton and Drew, 1988; Heskett et al, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988). Sacrifice is a broader construct that includes “non-pecuniary costs such as the time, effort, and risk assumption associated with a particular purchase” (Cronin et al., 1997). Value Service Quality Sacrifices Behavior Intentions
  16. 16. 16 Prepared by Michael Ling Perceived Community Value  Emotional Support  Social Support  Sense of Belonging  Encouragement  Instrumental aid Community Benefits Sacrifices
  17. 17. 17 Prepared by Michael Ling THE END. THANK YOU

×