JP Casaletto - Dissertation - MBA (Henley Business School)
Seyhan Incedal Dissertation FINAL
1. 1
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
&
COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
DISSERTATION TITLE:
“The impact of consumer engagement in social media on brand awareness
and loyalty; the case of Adidas Football on Facebook
STUDENT’S NAME & I.D.: Seyhan Incedal (3018440)
COURSE OF STUDY: BA (Hons) Business Management
Declaration of Originality
This project is all my own work and has not been copied in part or in whole from any
other source except where duly acknowledged. As such, all use of previously
published work (from books, journals, magazines, internet sites etc.) has been cited
within the main report and fully referenced as an item in the List of
References/Bibliography.
Copyright Acknowledgment
I acknowledge that the copyright of this Project belongs to Coventry University
Signed by the student: Miss S. Incedal Date: 27th April 2015
2. 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to say many thanks to my extremely supportive dissertation tutor Gerry Urwin.
Gerry has inspired me to look beyond my horizons and achieve the best I can with total
compassion, so there have been many lessons learnt here. Gerry has motivated me more
than he will ever know so hats off to him.
I want to especially thank my family and friends for all the love, patience and moral support
they have shown me throughout my time at Coventry University – it has been a very long
journey and thanks to them, I have come out of the right tunnel. I also want to show my
gratitude to Chelsi Smith, who has always believed in me even when I could not – our
friendship is a great blessing! Lastly, I would like to show my utmost gratitude to my
gorgeous Tom, a beautiful soul who has continuously guided me and shown me great
appreciation throughout the research project and university.
Stay hungry, Stay foolish.
3. 3
Abstract
The communication landscape has changed significantly in recent years. The face of
marketing communications has distorted from flat line brand strategies to an overwhelming,
diversified convergence of new technologies and social networking platforms that provide
an integration of social interaction within the life-cycle of a brand. This research will analyse
the different types of multimedia used by organisations to engage consumers with their
brands in social media. The paper will specifically look at behaviours that result from social
media interactions. A total of 60 Facebook posts were taken from the Adidas Football
Facebook page to help describe how Adidas engage with their consumers within their brand
community.
4. 4
The impact of consumer engagement in social media on
brand loyalty and awareness;
The case of Adidas Football on Facebook
5. 5
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................2
Abstract......................................................................................................................................3
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................7
1. Aims and Objectives ...........................................................................................................9
Literature Review.....................................................................................................................10
3. Branding ...............................................................................................................................10
3.1 Brand Equity ...................................................................................................................10
3.2 Brand Knowledge and Image .........................................................................................10
4. Marketing Communications .............................................................................................11
4.1 Web 2.0 ..........................................................................................................................12
4.2 Brand communities ........................................................................................................13
4.3 Social Media ...................................................................................................................15
5. Consumer Engagement ....................................................................................................19
6. Methodology....................................................................................................................22
6.1 The Research Onion....................................................................................................22
Figure 1.................................................................................................................................22
6.2 Philosophies................................................................................................................23
6.3 Approaches .................................................................................................................23
6.4 Choices........................................................................................................................24
6.5 Strategy.......................................................................................................................24
6.6 Time Zones..................................................................................................................25
6.7 Techniques and Procedures........................................................................................25
6.8 Justification of Method Choices .................................................................................26
Figure 2.................................................................................................................................26
7. Findings and Discussion....................................................................................................27
7. 7
1. Introduction
During the past decade, social media, specifically social networking sites, have drastically
changed the way consumers and brands interact and engagement with one another; in
addition, the internet has offered consumers and brands opportunities to express their
feelings and thoughts through social networking platforms (Tsimonis and Dimitriadis, 2013).
DiMaggio et al (2001) highlight that in a short period of time, the internet has evolved,
offering a crucially important medium which is exceptionally capable of integrating modes
of communication and forms of content - from reading online news, to selling goods and
services on websites such as eBay.
The social aspect of the internet was somewhat non-existent in the past; new technologies
and advancements in information flow, i.e. online news websites, have enhanced our
connectedness with the online environment and created great opportunities for high levels
of interaction between people and brands.
Consumer engagement has received increasing attention in recent years which has been
evident in marketing literature; the concept of engagement has been central in a number of
special issues in academic journals, such as the Journal of Product and Brand Management,
2014; Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 2014; Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 2014 and Management Decision, 2012. The relevance of consumer research to
marketing practice, has possibly never been of such significance than it is today; savvier
consumers and increased competition have forced marketers to identify consumer needs
faster, more effectively and on the right social marketing platforms.
Since traditional marketing techniques are becoming less and less effective, a vast
percentage of companies, national and global, are present within social media. Newman et
al (2013) suggests that social media is more effective than traditional marketing as
consumers are not ‘blasted’ with ads multiple times, in the attempt to remain visible.
Instead, social media is believed to engage consumers the ‘smart way’ by actively
conversing with people about topics they care about.
Adidas Football, the fastest growing football community in social media (thedrum.com
2014), reported an increase of 14.5 per cent to their social networking platforms last year;
the global brand understood how significant the World Cup 2014 would affect their social
8. 8
media presence and proceeded with a number of online brand strategies, such as real-time
communications, to engage with football enthusiasts on opinions and matters of World Cup
football games. Adidas are of great personal interest since it is a brand that many have
committed too throughout sport events and preference; being a football enthusiast, I have
always appreciated the diversity in product range when purchasing Adidas Football boots
and/or apparel.
Moreover, consumer engagement is of pragmatic relevance for a number of reasons;
consumers increasingly use social media, in particular Facebook, in which they offer
valuable insights to companies they purchase from; in addition, since Facebook facilitates
conversation between users, even to those who are not connected as ‘friends’, via brand
communities, such brand community members can converse about products to one
another, which in turn creates a consensus around the brand and its consumers.
Furthermore, having an established brand community, is becoming a key objective to many
marketing experts. The apparent positive implications associated with engagement for
consumer behaviour and brand performance (Brodie et al, 2011a) are strongly encouraging
the academic and practical interest in exploring and manipulating the concept (Vivek et al,
2014). Exploring the engagement dimensions proposed by Wirtz et al (2013) is central in this
paper; a great amount of interactivity takes place within brand communities among its
brand community members and the brand itself, which subsequently add to our
understanding of consumer engagement within social media. This study aims to reveal the
fundamentals that exist within consumer engagement research, namely exposing the
antecedents, dimensions and sub-dimensions and focus of consumer engagement within
social media, to integrate current conceptualisations with real world cases.
9. 9
1. Aims and Objectives
The aim of this paper is to analyse how consumer engagement is effected within social
media, specific to the Facebook brand page of a sportswear company. The objectives of
this paper are as follows;
Understanding the nature of brands and the key components that they consist of
Understanding new marketing communications with reference to the introduction of
Web 2.0
Understanding how consumers interact within online brand communities, with
community members and the brand itself
An analysis into consumer engagement and the key components that consumer
engagement consist of
Provide recommendations for Adidas and for Future Research
10. 10
Literature Review
3. Branding
3.1 Brand Equity
To begin with, Kotler (1991) defines a brand as “a name, term, sign, symbol, design, or
combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or
group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors (p.442). Most brands
are introduced into the marketplace without a ‘personality’; Bouchet et al (2013) argues
that the strength of a brand is often closely related to its ability to sway consumers away
from reality and connect with imaginary and symbolic contents. This is something sports
clubs and organisations do exceptionally well to engage their consumers with their brands.
For example, Adidas endorse athletes such as David Beckham, the former footballer
superstar, to generate publicity and attention to the brand (Biswas, Hussain & O’Donnell
2009); in theory, Yannopoulos (2012) suggests that any increased brand awareness that
results from ‘celebrity advertising’ is thought to overcome the challenge of advertising
clutter and creates instant credibility and brand recall to consumers.
Furthermore, Aaker (2013) defines brand equity as a set of brand assets and liabilities linked
to a brand name and symbol, which in turn, adds to or weakens the value provided by the
product or service. Brand equity has four key dimensions to it, being brand loyalty, brand
awareness, brand associations and perceived quality, where each dimension adds value in
various ways (Aaker 2000). In conjunction, Keller (2008) argues that a profitable brand
needs to be managed and requires a suitable design and implementation of a brand equity
measurement system; Keller’s (2008) brand value chain develops a holistic understanding of
how brand value is created and adds to our understanding of how consumers, affect brand
equity with regard to consumer behaviour that is reflected via marketing activities, such as
negative word of mouth and/or user generated content on social media platforms.
3.2 Brand Knowledge and Image
Consumer brand knowledge relates to the cognitive representation of the brand (Peter and
Olson 2001) and is key to the creation of brand equity, since it expands the differential
effect that drives it (Keller 2008), thus leading to manifestations of brand loyalty and
awareness (Aaker 1997). In addition, Keller (2008) argues that brand knowledge can be
11. 11
characterized by two extensive components, being brand awareness and brand image. He
then adds that a brand image consists of the consumers’ associations with the brand, which
therefore allows the consumer to create either a positive or negative opinion of the brand;
as such, creating brand salience with consumers enables brands to achieve the right brand
identity which ultimately creates familiarity and acceptance of the brand to its consumers
(Aaker 2000).
Moreover, brand image reflects on consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s characteristics and
can be determined by the associations they hold in their memory (Chernatony, 2005).
Consumers’ brand knowledge is therefore a result of their awareness and the images they
have about the brand; as a result both components are fundamental to brand attributes
(Chernatony, 2005) thus increasing brand loyalty. Branding has become a key marketing
priority for most organisations (Aaker & Joachimsthaler 2000; Kapferer 2008), yet there is
little consensus on how brands and branding can or should be developed in the modern
interactive marketplace, like on well-established social media platforms, such as Facebook
and Twitter.
4. Marketing Communications
Moving on, at a basic level, Fill (2011) proposes that marketing communications, or
promotion as it were originally known, is used to communicate elements of an organisations
offering to a target audience; marketing communications therefore carries a brand’s
promise to a customer.
With bursts in technological advances and changes to media, the scope of marketing
communications have transformed; the way we communicate with one another and how
we consume information is much more personal and effective today when compared to
previous years (Fill, 2011). As a result, Papacharissi (2011) suggests that the convergence of
media, being the combination of previously individuated mass media that are bought about
by advancements in telecommunication technology, changed some aspect of the
communication process. Consequently, these technological shifts alter relationships
between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences, which as a result,
changes the way media industries operate (Jenkins 2006). In this aspect, this transformation
12. 12
enables the consumer to effectively interact with a company and its brand since two-way
communication has changed the forefront of advertising.
Traditionally, mass communication processes have been conceptualized as one-way
message transmissions from one source to a large, undifferentiated and anonymous
audience (Papacharissi 2011 p.19), for example, the use of TV advertisements. On the
contrary, Solomon & Theiss (2013) argue that interpersonal communication is a dynamic
process, since meanings change and unfold over time; the use of symbols to represent
ideas, encourages meanings of ideas to be shared and helps create a bond between people.
Similarly, Chaffee (1986) proposes that interpersonal sources have more, given the context,
credibility than mass media sources.
From this suggestion on interpersonal communications (Chaffee 1986), it is proposed that
this form of communication occurs mainly among the masses online. Subsequently, Cathcart
and Gumpert (1986) add that the term mediated interpersonal communication, refers to
the available medium in which is the facilitator of one-to-one communication. A way in
which people can contribute in such a form of communication, can be attained through
social media.
4.1 Web 2.0
The concept of Web 2.0 has been used since 2001 and later proposed by O’Reilly in 2005
(Mehdi 2013). Tuten (2008 p.3) loosely defines Web 2.0 as developments in technology
employed online, that enable interactive capabilities in an environment characterized by
user control, freedom, and dialogue. As a result, such developments invited a new degree of
interactivity and consumer engagement, for example the formation of online brand
communities on Facebook. Similarly, Web 2.0 creates new opportunities for organisations
and allows them to collect information about their customers and markets; from this,
brands can be better accustomed and connected with their consumers since ways of
communication have become desirably personalized and direct (Constantinides and
Fountain, 2008; McKinsey, 2007), thus enabling brand loyalty and awareness.
With the advent of two-way (or multi-way) communication opportunities, the effectiveness
of traditional one-way communications has decreased; Tuten (2008 p.3) proposes that this
in turn, enables communication to become more personal, to brands and consumers. From
13. 13
this, marketers have somewhat acknowledged these opportunities and incorporated the
concept of personalised communication, as part of marketing strategy. (McKinsey, 2007).
4.2 Brand communities
Constantinides and Fountain (2008) propose that there are five main types of Web 2.0:
blogs, social networks, forums, content aggregators, and communities. Specific to branding
and consumer engagement, one type of community based on Web 2.0 are online brand
communities. A brand community is a collective of people with a shared interest in a specific
brand, creating a subculture around the brand with its own values, myths, hierarchy, rituals,
and vocabulary (Cova and Pace, 2006). Definitions of a brand community tend to suggest
some degree of homogeneity in its literature, for example Muniz and O’Guinn (2001, p. 412)
extend the concept in emphasising that a brand community is “a specialized, non-
geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among
admirers of a brand”. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) then propose that a principle characteristic
of a brand community is the general absence of barriers to memberships. In this aspect,
such communities are now predominately formed online, through two-way communication
between brand advocates and other key players. The virtual world establishes relationships
between companies and consumers in limitless connectedness, thus providing the
availability of online content, and communication through this medium (Devalck et al 2009).
Hence why the internet is a major facilitator of community cohesion.
Consequently, McKenna et al (2012) imply despite that groups of individuals can be formed
both offline and online, the online environment is more prominent; over 60 per cent of the
top 100 global brands, have an online brand community (Manchanda et al, 2012). From this,
it can be suggested that there is emphasis on organisations to gain a deeper understanding
of their customers to better accommodate their needs. In conjunction, social networking
platforms such as Facebook, which have 1.39 billion monthly active users
(newsroom.fb.com 2014), increasingly attract organisations to create brand communities
i.e. brand fan page, to increase their audience reach; it could be suggested that these new
marketing communications offer ease and compatibility to both the consumer and
organisation, since Facebook is an application that is somewhat easy to use hence assisting
consumer engagement.
14. 14
Bouchet et al (2013) argues that the most committed and involved brand community
members are active ones which are strategically targeted by brands to encourage and
maintain their support; a way of doing this is to incorporate these members into the daily
life of the brand and its product developments, similar to how Adidas Football interact on
Facebook.
It has been observed that people can join multiple, overlapping communities, even within
the same product category. For example, a consumer could own two football trainer brands
and actively participate in online communities dedicated to both brands, i.e. on Facebook,
providing assistance to fellow trainer enthusiasts and seeking information on other relating
products via the brand page. Central to this, the brand must want to build these
relationships and want to socialize with communities of consumers in order to create a
trusted brand (Tuten 2008); with this being said, it could be proposed that there are rules in
such communities, that brands must be willing to follow, in order to create a strong brand
image in the mind of the consumer (Chaffey and Smith 2008). Chaffey and Smith (2008) also
imply that orderly run online brand communities, strengthen relationships, trust and loyalty,
as well as evoking brand awareness in the mind of community members.
Furthermore, the nature of these fast-growing digital media, not only allow the exchange of
information from sellers to consumers, but empowers consumers to share and exchange
information with each other. One example of this is the Trip Adviser website used by
travellers, before and after they travel, to check and create reviews about places they have
been to and stayed. According to Tuten (2008 p.4), consumers embrace media democracy
thus why the industry has responded effectively by creating and encouraging consumers to
create and ‘co-create’ content.
In the social media environment, many potential consumers and existing consumers
participate in non-interactive behaviours such as “liking” others comments and replying to
recent online conversation, in order to heighten their understanding of the product and/or
services offered and experiences on social platforms, such as Facebook. Reviews are
becoming increasingly important; according to a 2011 study from Cone, Inc., 87 percent of
shoppers said positive reviews helped them confirm their decision to purchase, while 80
percent of respondents said that reading a negative review made them change their mind
about a potential purchase (Mahoney, 2011).
15. 15
Similarly, consumers participate in a brand community to express their involvement with
the branded product; Zaichkowsky (1985) states that high-involvement purchases are those
in which the consumer wants to feel connected beyond the moment of consumption. In this
aspect, consumers generally search extensively for high-involvement products due to the
nature of the need for expert knowledge on such products and the premium price which
they have paid (Arnould et al, 2002) and then feel a need to share consumption experience
with others via such online brand communities.
From previous research on consumer engagement, Kozinets (2002) states that such
communities provide great insights on consumer behaviour and online cultures, which is of
great strategic meaning to organisations. Central to this, Algesheimer et al (2005) later
proposed that relationships individuals have with brands, are enhanced and fostered in the
online community setting given brand community membership and brand engagement, are
two unique manifestations that adequately contribute to our understanding of the social
media phenomena.
4.3 Social Media
The social media revolution has altered the communication landscape – significantly
impacting marketing communication. Since social media is a relatively new concept, experts
in the field continue to debate a definition of the term that grasps the core purpose of social
media (Solis, 2009). According to Safko and Brake (2009), the term social media
encompasses the interactions between people by all the ways in which they participate and
share information, knowledge, and opinions, while using web-based applications to
communicate. Similarly, Sigala and Marinidis (2009) state that social media platforms for the
consumer and firm are inexpensive, user-friendly and scalable, that allow for sharing of
user-generated material.
Although word of mouth, WOM, is important to understand in relation to how consumers
perceive a brand (Merton 1968), the phenomenon is not central in this research. Though,
the role of WOM has significantly been recognized by marketers and consumers, in a way
where it is a significant communication source (Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003)
acknowledged by consumers to assist with purchase decisions. Subsequently, Katz and
Lazarsfeld (1995) suggest that WOM, as a source of information, is more effective in
influencing the decision making process for consumers, thus its insignificant use in this
16. 16
research; it is crucial to understand that the impact of positive WOM is not completely
sufficient, in order for it to be a valid source of communication as there is a need to analyse
the reaction of the recipient. (Dye 2000).
Moreover, applications like Facebook, YouTube and many more, play a crucial role in
influencing consumers’ communication habits; since more people are interacting online,
there is a tremendous amount of information being shared within these new social network
environments. In regard to marketing communications, this means that brand related
advertising and interactions are existing within social media; this is important since the
majority of current literature around new marketing communication, suggest that the
emerging communication setup – being these social networking platforms, have
transformed consumers from being passive participants to marketing into active creators
and influencers (Kozinets et al 2008, Merz et al 2009), thus simultaneously giving
consumers’ power over brands (Fountain 2008).
According to the 2014 Social Media Marketing Industry Report (Stelzner 2014), a significant
92% of marketers indicate that social media is important for their business, 85% of
marketers report that the most central benefit of social marketing is generating more
business exposure and lastly, that social platforms, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, are the
two most important social networks. Evidently, both consumers and marketers are spending
more time online in the social media environment, which creates a great number of
opportunities for brands and consumers to interact, whilst maintaining mutually beneficial
connections.
The social media environment, which has rapidly developed and evolved during the 1990’s,
is constructed by a range of platforms, tools and technologies. Newman et al. (2013)
categorises social media into three main types;
Publishing services –forums, blogs and wikis.
Media sharing services – social news, presentation and document-sharing, photo and
video-sharing, audio-sharing, social bookmarking, and live-streaming websites.
Networking services – social networking, social shopping, crowdsourcing sites,
opinion and review websites and micro-blogging on real-time platforms.
17. 17
The common characteristics of these social media platforms is that it allow individuals and
organisations to engage in social interactions, in a way and on a scale that were not possible
before (Fischer and Reuber, 2011); each category and relating service has its own unique
feature, which in turn appeals to a wide variety of people in the social media environment.
As a result, these tools contribute toward facilitating new and interactive consumer
experiences, thus consumer engagement with specific brands is developed, leading to
increased brand loyalty (Aaker 1996).
Furthermore, Naylor et al (2012) argues that approximately 83 per cent of Fortune 500
companies, use a form of social media to connect and engage with their consumers –
existing and potential. Similarly, according to a Burson-Marsteller study (2012), 87 of the
largest 100 companies are using at least one social media platform, whereby Twitter is the
most popular platform with 82 percent of companies with an account; YouTube followed
second with 79 percent of companies having a company channel; Facebook came third with
74 percent of companies with a Facebook brand page, counting ‘152,146 average users per
company page’ (Newman et al 2013). Conversely, a BrandZ survey indicates that Facebook
“likes” from users to a brand page, closely correlates to money spent on the “liked” brand;
the survey stated that people spend up to five times more than those who do not “like” the
brand page (Holis, 2011); in addition, Facebook (2010) states that consumers who “like”
brands on Facebook are imperatively more connected when compared to that of an average
Facebook user (Facebook 2010). As a result, more marketers are leaning toward using social
media in their marketing practises.
Malhotra et al (2013) implies that brands have taken to Facebook since it is a social platform
that drives engagement and brand awareness; based on this study, many academics
emphasise the importance of “likes”, shares and comments since these Facebook page-post
metrics, become variables for measuring brand engagement (Chauhan and Pillai 2013;
Hoffman and Fodor 2010; Malhotra et al 2013)
18. 18
The social media phenomenon for marketers, involve an understanding into why consumers
and organisations are willingly adopting social media; Perdue (2010) proposes that such an
understanding helps address the permanency of social media.
With rapid penetration of social media in society, Gallaugher and Ransbotham (2010)
suggest that firms are increasingly using social media as part of their marketing and brand
building activities because it has proven to assist organisations to engage present and
potential stakeholders by increasing cooperation, sharing and mobilizing joint actions in real
time (Golbeck, Grimes, & Rogers, 2010; Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009). Similarly, Thackeray
et al (2008) proposes that the connection between people with the use of richer media, not
only provides a greater reach, but creates an influx of opportunity for both the customer
and the brand. This means that organisations are able to forge relationships with both
existing and potential consumers which is significant since it promotes the use of virtual
communities to extend trustworthiness of a brand (Newman et al, 2013).
Needless to say, social media is very prominent in the sports industry; sport brands use
social media and forums of discussion to connect with their fans and identify emerging
trends (Bouchet et al, 2013) – this can be deemed an inexpensive and effective method for
testing new ideas and designs, as it provides almost immediate feedback.
Moreover, people tend to use social media for a number of reasons; communicating with
family and friends, assisting with and talking about purchase decisions, access to news and
entertainment, sharing information, accessing reviews and finally to interact with
companies and/or brands (Newman et al, 2013).
Each reason and principle that comes from the use and theory behind social media, serves a
crucial role in supporting the effectiveness of social media marketing; without conversation,
social media would not be social and since social media entails transparency, conversation
becomes contrastive. In addition, without content and/or co-created content, social media
would not be media and lastly, without communities on social media, it would not be
relevant to organisations and people.
19. 19
5. Consumer Engagement
Consumer engagement has emerged in significance in the last few years as a subject of
great interest to academics and marketers from a range of worldwide institutions and
industries; its importance is evident in how widely researched it has been in recent years
thus there have been various interpretations of its definition. Hollebeek and Chen (2014)
propose that consumer engagement is a motivational construct with varying intensity,
where it involves an object (i.e. a brand) and a subject (i.e. the consumer), and has a valence
(positive or negative). Alternate to this, consumer engagement has been defined as a
“psychological state that occurs through interactive, co-creative consumer experiences with
a focal agent/object” (Brodie et al 2011).
Nolan et al (2007) carried out a three-year longitudinal study into the progression of an
online business community; their outcomes portray that individuals are more likely to
engage with an online brand community when they recognize the utility value and interest,
outweigh the level of perceived risk; Mollen and Wilson (2010) extend this idea and propose
that engagement exists when consumers perceive the significance and authority of
interactive experience, to exceed the level of effort implied in a specific interaction.
Moreover, the consumer engagement phenomena expands the traditional role consumers’
play, in order to include them in the value-creation process as co-creators. This can be done
in a number of ways, Sashi (2012) notes that consumers create value by assisting
organisations to understand their needs through participation in product development,
sampling of products and giving feedback and through advocating the brand.
Similar to relationship marketing, consumer engagement nurtures the establishment and
significance that trust and commitment hold (Morgan and Hunt 1994) which encourages
consumers to stay committed with a brand (Sashi, 2012). With this being said, Brodie et al
(2011) highlight that there is more to consumer engagement than this, in that the
engagement itself can fundamentally be influential in contributing to higher levels of trust
and commitment between consumers and a brand; in addition, van Doorn et al (2010)
suggest that consumer engagement can help build stronger emotional bonds in interactive
exchanges.
20. 20
Results from a survey completed by 200 business decision makers suggested that measures
of consumer engagement used by the companies include sales volume, customer
satisfaction and frequency of visits to a web site (Sashi, 2012). Alternatively, Malhotra et al
(2013) importantly states that there are more to monetary value in measuring consumer
engagement, such as variables within social media like Facebook “likes”, comments and
shares.
Importantly, Gummerus et al (2012) offer a brand management perspective and propose
that Facebook is a desirable platform for organisations to use since it allows them to create
their own brand page where they can then post a variety of multimedia to engage both
existing and potential consumers. Subsequently, consumers respond to these Facebook
interactions by sharing, liking and commenting on the posts; such online interactions
strengthen the bonds consumers have with the brand (Wallace et al, 2012).
As previously mentioned, Facebook brand pages engage consumers in a number of ways,
with “liking” and “commenting” being the most prominent; Barnard and Knapp (2011)
propose that the number of Facebook “likes” a brand page, or a post on a brand page
receives, not only positively impacts brand engagement and awareness, but can contribute
toward an organisations return on investment. Specific to this study, when undertaking
initial research into any relationships between online consumer engagement and revenue
generation, it was made aware that the Adidas Group do not separate the Adidas Football
brand from the Adidas AG brand, thus a correlation could not be made to support this.
The notion of commenting on a Facebook brand post invites consumers to express their
opinions about the brand which then gives the brand an insight into whether consumers
accept or disregard specific content they experience; Wallace et al (2012) found that both
“liking” and “commenting” are behaviours that allow Facebook users to indicate any affinity
towards a brand, item or product, which if positive, can then be shared with their personal
networks within Facebook. These behaviours on Facebook help our understanding of how
consumer engagement in the social media environment, aligns brands with their consumers
and promotes brand loyalty. In conjunction, Roberts and Alpert (2010) propose that while
consumer engagement is often used to portray the highest form of loyalty, engagement
includes all types of behaviours (Libai, 2011) that are beyond those that describe high levels
of brand loyalty.
21. 21
Brodie et al (2011b) suggest that the focus of consumer engagement in a virtual community
has emerged through five sub-processes that demonstrate affective, cognitive and
behavioural abilities, which are sharing, learning, co-developing, advocating and socialising.
Based on this theoretical underpinning, Gummerus et al (2012) extends the behavioural
concept of engagement within social media, to propose that there is significance relevance
of website metrics, such as the number of comments, likes and shares on Facebook, that
measure engagement behaviours. In this aspect, Cova et al (2007) suggest that engagement
practises, such as online competitions, are a direction toward creating value and co-
creation, from which organisations gain the benefits through increased brand loyalty.
In terms of the engagement dimensions proposed by Vivek et al, (2012); Gummerus et al,
(2012), Hollebeek and Chen, (2012), Wirtz et al (2013) and Brodie et al (2011), the concept
of engagement offers a multitude of dimensions to it. Existing research captures the
multidimensionality of engagement (Wirtz et al 2013), while others take a more
unidimensional view of engagement relating primarily on behaviours within online brand
communities (Gummerus et al 2012); while there is a vast amount of published research in
suggesting a variety of engagement dimensions, it has been observed that the most
significant concepts stem from Brodie and Hollebeeks study (Brodie et al, 2011; Hollebeek,
2011). The conceptualisation of engagement which presents a multidimensional construct
of cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions, has led to the concept being widely used
and thus, this multidimensional view is the foundation of the concept in this study, whilst
analysing online consumer engagement.
22. 22
6. Methodology
6.1 The Research Onion
To begin with, Saunders et al (2012) defines research as something individuals undertake to
broaden their knowledge by finding things out in a systematic way. Ghauri and Gronhaug
(2010) suggest that the term systematic refers to research being based on logical
relationships as opposed to the basis of beliefs. Research methodology therefore refers to
the study of methods with the specific aimof gathering knowledge to construct a plan of
research (Rajasekar 2013). Relating to the research at hand, Saunders et al (2012) proposes
a research design model known as the research onion, which will be applied below to clarify
the nature of the study and provide further conciseness.
Figure 1. The ‘Research Onion’ (Saunders et al 2012)
23. 23
6.2 Philosophies
The first layer of the research onion are the philosophies that are adopted which contain
important assumptions of the way in which the world is viewed (Saunders et al 2012); the
philosophy which best suits the research question is interpretivism. Saunders et al (2012,
p.116) defines this approach as one that advocates the necessity of the researcher to
comprehend the differences between humans in our role as social actors. To an extent, this
correlates with what was discovered and discussed in the literature review with reference to
consumer engagement and brand loyalty. The way people are connected in social media
within brand communities and the way people perceive the Adidas brand is important to
comprehend; Saunders et al (2012) suggests that symbolic interactionism is the continual
process in which the interactions we conclude of the social world around us, are the
interpretations’ we deduce from the actions of others we cooperate with, thus this
interpretation leads to modifications of our own meanings and actions. From this, it
correlates to how Adidas’ brand communities, like the Adidas Football Facebook page,
influence brand loyalty and the brand image, which gives a deeper insight into consumer
engagement in social media.
6.3 Approaches
Research approach can be divided into three categories, abduction, induction and deduction
(Saunders et al 2012); since the research does not entail any scientific research with an
established hypothesis, like with the deductive approach, nor does it have an observation of
a surprising fact, like with the abduction approach (Saunders et al 2012), the inductive
approach is most appropriate in this study. In contrast to the other approaches, in inductive
reasoning, Ketokivi and Mantere (2010) state that there is a gap in the logic argument
between the conclusion and the premises observed, thus the conclusion is supported by the
observations made to come to a clear judgement. The purpose of the inductive approach
consists of gaining a better understanding of the nature of the problem thus getting a feel of
what is going on (Saunders et al 2012); this is relevant to the study since the data collection
from social media enables an analysis of the consumer engagement phenomena, outlined in
the literature review, which will contribute to the generation or build-up of theory
(Saunders et al 2012).
24. 24
6.4 Choices
In regard to the choice and research design, Saunders et al (2012) defines explanatory
research as a study which establishes casual correlations between variables, which is
relevant to the research question. Since the research question is concerned with consumer
engagement within brand communities, any correlations between the Facebook post made
and interactions with that post, i.e. comments, likes and shares, is of interest and value.
Furthermore, as the study is specific, there will be a collection of data taken from Facebook
and evidence from other researchers, which will help assess the importance of consumer
engagement in social media; this therefore supports the use of both qualitative and
quantitative methods. Beech and Chadwick (2007) suggest that the use of both methods are
advantageous in that, data is analysed based upon meanings expressed through numbers
and qualitative method being explore through words.
During the three-month period, a total of 60 posts were extracted from the Adidas Football
Facebook page (see appendices A); from this a random sampling was done in order for an
accurate analysis to be made. The random sample from Table 7.5, present not only the
Facebook post, but the page-post metrics that the post gained; since the total data
collection was not bigger than 1000, Matlab was not used for the sampling but a simple
‘number from a hat’ approach was taken. With this being said, numbers 1-60 were put in a
hat and picked out at random by peers, to further assist the applicability of the framework
to the findings.
Moreover, in regards to the method choices, Saunders et al (2012) define a mono-method
one where there is a single data collection technique and corresponding analytical
procedures, which is applicable to the research question. The nature of the research design
is one that conveys an explanatory research concept; Saunders et al (2012) refers to
explanatory research as studies that establish casual correlations between variables; this
best suits the research question since once data is collected and graphed, an insightful
explanation can be made about how consumers engagement online with reference to the
online brand community engagement framework proposed by Wirtz et al (2013).
6.5 Strategy
Saunders et al (2012) suggest that research strategies are similar to research approaches in
that the chosen strategy is neither superior nor inferior, of that of another strategy and has
25. 25
the potential, to an extent, to be combined. Conversely, Yin (2003) proposes that the
research onion is diverse for use, as all possible strategies within it can be used for
descriptive, exploratory and explanatory research. The research strategy is the link between
the research philosophy and subsequent choice of method, which acknowledges a plan of
how to collect and analyse data (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). The archival research strategy
relates to a study that makes use of administrative records and documents as the principal
source of data (Saunders et al 2012), which is most appropriate for the research outlined.
Bryman (1989) states that despite the term archival having historian connotations, it also
refers to recent documents. Consequently, Saunders et al (2012) suggests that prior to
attempting research, data should be established so that its use can be capitalised, which
reduces any potential constraints that may result from the nature of these documents and
records. In addition, this provides an insight into the reasoning of as to why the consumer
engagement model (Wirtz et al 2013) is viable to the study.
6.6 Time Zones
Since this research project will be looking at the interactions in social media, this would
suggest a longitudinal study. Analysing consumer engagement within Facebook, over a
period of three months, significantly enables the creation of relationships and patterns
relating to the framework, which is what the longitudinal study proposes (Saunders et al
2012). One of the strengths of this time horizon is its ability to study two variables, being
change and development, over a lengthy period of time (Saunders et al 2012). Given that
Adidas Football endorse a range of footballers, it was a given to examine consumer
engagement during a significant sports event like the World Cup 2014. The three-month
period offers an examination into online engagement in the months prior, during and post
the Word Cup 2014; this is an important factor to account for since Adidas Football were
greatly involved with the World Cup, whereby the brand sponsored many of the teams and
most importantly, the two teams that made the final.
6.7 Techniques and Procedures
Lastly, in terms of data collection, this will be composed from secondary sources such as
accredited journals, academic textbooks, previous academic research, social media
platforms such as Facebook and Adidas’ accessible databases, in regards to their annual
reports.
26. 26
6.8 Justification of Method Choices
Based on the context of this paper, using quantitative content analysis will offer an insight
into the comprehension of consumer engagement within social media. Given that the
complexities of consumer engagement extend to an offering of various research on the
phenomena, adopting Wirtz et al (2013) online brand community engagement framework,
figure 1, can help explain how consumers interact and engage with the Adidas Football
brand. Whilst exploring the sample (Table 7.5), the Facebook posts were categorized into
the three main engagement dimensions; affective, cognitive and behavioural. From this, the
primary purpose of how consumer engagement is affected within brand communities, will
become apparent and further implications and/or consequences from the observation can
be explored. Table 7.5 illustrates the randomly sampled Facebook posts that have been
considered in relation to Wirtz et al (2013) framework.
The dimensions and sub-dimensions of engagement are defined in Appendices B and the
drivers of engagement are briefly defined in Appendices C; the drivers of engagement are
key to our understanding of how consumer engagement proceeds within social media.
Given that the focal object in this paper is branding, the majority of the sample data in Table
7.5 are congruent with brand related drivers, though the social aspect, online brand
community identification, is also a familiar driver for online engagement.
Figure 2
27. 27
7. Findings and Discussion
Facebook facilitates an extraordinary amount of interactivity between users and brands; the
social networking platform enables many types of interactivity through the sharing of
feelings, opinions, multimedia, location and information, within a publicly accessible virtual
environment. A user can “like” a brand page and gain access to various brand content,
providing users with the ability to show further interest to the brand, by means of
“commenting” or “sharing” the content to generate brand exposure. As previously
suggested by Naylor et al (2012), these functionalities within Facebook are of great interest
to users and brands since users unintentionally lend their support to a brand; this means
that once a page-post is “liked” and/or commented on, peers within the brand community
can see the number of “likes”, which may influence them to show interest to that post.
From this, if a brand page has a large number of “likes”, such as the Adidas Football
Facebook page which has a total of 20,417,519 page likes, it connotes how well supported
and prominent the brand is; the amount of connections a brand page has also conveys a
strong brand message to its potential consumers and other brands. Moreover, there is
significant collective total average of 254 “likes”, comments and shares per day to the
average of 2 posts a day made by Adidas Football, Table 7.3, which suggest that Adidas
Football increasingly provide their consumers with information to strengthen the tie
between their brand and consumers.
Facebook is a medium that allows for a two-way dialogue through connections made
between people and brands, thus the emergence of brand communities. From the
literature, it is evident that the online environment is more plausible for community
cohesion; the Manchanda et al (2012) study concluded that approximately 60 per cent of
the top 100 global brands are using social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
Although the Adidas AG brand are not within the top 100 global brands, the brand signifies
how established it is since being the world’s 70th most valuable brand (Forbes.com 2015),
thus highlighting its brand equity (Aaker 2000).
Furthermore, the notion of reading, commenting, “Liking” and sharing Facebook posts by
users, enables brands to identify their consumers’ needs and wants, which ultimately adds
to the brands understanding of how to achieve brand loyalty. With this in mind, the type of
multimedia used by a brand, significantly impacts the total consumer engagement a page-
28. 28
post receives. Looking at Graph 1, it is clear that the use of a video, influences the amount of
consumer engagement more than when compared to that of an image used. In this aspect,
the use of a video clearly generates more engagement to the Adidas Football brand page,
which ensures the post reaches a larger community. This is crucial since it confirms that
Adidas Football can create a purposeful presence on social media which links to the creation
of a strong brand image (Chernatony 2005).
As suggested in the Sashi (2012) study, most companies analyse their consumer
engagement through means of sales volume, customer satisfaction surveys and the number
of visits to the Facebook brand page; however, as suggested in Malhotra et al (2013) study,
measuring consumer engagement in an online environment is determined by variables such
as page-post metrics previously mentioned. From Graph 1, it is clear that the Adidas
Football Facebook Page have a significant number of consumers who are engaged with the
brand; the total consumer engagement, generated over the 3-month period from page-post
metrics is 91,518, this total is equated from only 60 Facebook posts, thus showing a great
level of consumer engagement. In this aspect, the willingness to connect and engage from
users within the brand community, further heighten Adidas’ meaningful social media
presence; it connotes importance in what the brand community has to say as the
community forms a stronger interest towards the brand.
Granted that an indication has been provided on the consistent use of Facebook, of the
online technological communication tools available on the social platform, the emphasis of
this analysis will look at the fundamental ways Facebook posts impact consumer
engagement. In furtherance of conducting a quantitative analysis, 5 posts including its page-
post metrics, were randomly selected.
With reference to the literature review on brand communities, social media, consumer
engagement and other aspects considered with regard to consumer engagement, such as
brand loyalty and awareness, the analysis involves an explicit progression, as proposed by
Wirtz et al (2013) with drivers of engagement, dimensions and sub-dimensions, engagement
focuses and lastly the desired outcome – brand loyalty. With this being said, in determining
the category that each post relates to, the content must match the existing and extended
conceptualisations suggested by Wirtz et al (2013), which is affective engagement, cognitive
engagement and behavioural engagement, outlined in section 6.
29. 29
The findings and analyses of the data represented by Graph 7.1 and Tables 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5
and 7.51, adds to our understanding of how brands align their consumers with the brand,
with relation to the three main aspects of consumer engagement. Hollebeek and Chen’s
(2014) study proposed that consumer engagement is a comprehensive construct in which
the intensity of variables, being the brand and consumer, depend on one another; with this
in mind, the predicted relationship between a brand and its consumer, along with the
expected multi-dimensionality of consumer engagement, is reflected in the data.
As shown in Table 7.5, Facebook posts that represent affective engagement were sampled,
representing 3.3% recurring, of Adidas Footballs total Facebook activity. The random sample
provides an insight into how various forms of content and interactions capture a stable level
of emotion that is experienced by a brand member, with respect to his/her engagement
effort (Calder et al, 2013), which can then develop further through lasting and intermittent
feelings. When looking at Table 7.5, the affective dimension is evident in the sample data
thus strengthening our understanding of rich social media insights; user 1 is the first to
comment and asks a question on the brand post which is answered by user 2 and
additionally supported by other users who interact, by the notion of commenting; the
conversation between the users reflects a consumers sufficient level of enthusiasm and
interest regarding the brand community.
Looking closely to enthusiasm in affective engagement, the first Facebook post in Table 7.5
poses a question regarding the opinions of online brand members on the winning team of
the World Cup; users show great interest to the question - User 4 “Germany for Gold” and
User 5 “Germany”, it is clear that questions from brands to its online community members,
act as a stimulant to drive traffic to the brands Facebook page, thus encouraging
interactions from community members. As previously mentioned, Facebook has an
increasing number of monthly active users and aims to increase connectedness between
people (Newman et al, 2013), in a way that is made easy; sharing information is central to
social networking platforms, thus attracting brands to create brand pages to establish
themselves within the limitless realms in social media (Devalck et al 2009).
Another observation made from the data relates to the second element of affective
engagement, enjoyment; looking at Table 7.5, the second Facebook post represents a
‘message of action’ in which members can respond, given their engagement driver is a
30. 30
monetary incentive or any of the other drivers stated. This is of interest since in Holis (2011)
study, the ‘Brandz’ survey concluded that there is a correlation between the amount of
“likes” a Facebook brand receives and the amount of money spent on the brand itself. This
in turn corresponds with the suggestion made by Cova et al (2007) that online engagement
practises, such as competitions, lean toward value creation to the brand. As a result, the use
of social media platforms can help brands expand their online presence by generating
engagement on brand content, which will increase brand loyalty and exposure of future
content.
Secondly, it has been observed that the cognitive significance within social media impacts
engagement in two intricate ways; an element of sustained attention, and an element of
absorption (Dessart et al 2015). The data from Table 7.5.1 demonstrates the total
engagement in the month prior, during and after the specific community event mentioned
in section 6; the results represent a significant total of consumer engagement in the month
prior and during the World Cup; it could be suggested that the driver to engagement here is
relating to entertainment and information since World Cup updates from Adidas Football,
were in real-time (thedrum.com 2014), thus strengthening the interactivity of posts made.
From the sample in Table 7.5.1, consumer engagement from 12th May-11th June were most
popular representing 41.4% of the total data collection, connoting high levels of both
attention and absorption (Dessart et al 2015). This is important since it signifies the
importance that such brand communities have in social media (Hollebeek 2013), when
implementing a social media brand strategy (Kozinet 2002). The comparisons drawn from
Table 7.5.1 heightens our understanding of how crucial brand community cohesion and
interaction is for online engagement. Furthermore, total engagement during 14th July-14th
August (post World Cup) represents 15,932 page-post metrics, which is 17.4% of total
engagement of the data. When compared to the previous two months, it can be concluded
that there was a decreasing impact on the active mental state of the consumer, which also
highlights the loss of interest toward the focal object, i.e. the brand page (Hollebeek, 2013;
Mollen and Wilson, 2010). Based on these findings, it is understood that social media
effectively facilitates community cohesion that result from brand loyalty; higher levels of
interactivity captured in the month prior and during the World Cup represents how brand
loyalty and awareness can both be attained. Further benefits from the results in Table 7.5.1,
31. 31
give an insight into how brands inform and engage their community members, in a way that
benefits the brand, since consumer brand knowledge is heightened. This means that the
cognitive representation of the brand is positive (Peter and Olson, 2001), thus increasing
brand loyalty through maintaining brand awareness in the mind of the consumer (Chaffey
and Smith 2008).
Lastly, we refer to the results in the aspect of the behavioural dimension, to yield a greater
understanding into consumer engagement in social media. Behavioural engagement is the
most prominent category of engagement in the findings; Gummerus et al (2012) implies
that this concept within social media closely links to the page-post metrics in that by
measuring behaviour, brands can promote their existence effectively to increase brand
loyalty, given behavioural engagement is a strong indicator for this. In Table 7.5, behavioural
engagement is broken into three sub dimensions, namely sharing, learning and endorsing.
Looking at Table 7.5, sharing is evident in the sample data in a post that reflects the total
most consumer engagement from the data. The drivers are concluded from watching the
video; three athletes whom are endorsed by the Adidas Group are in the video, which is
both entertaining and informative to the user; the significance in the multimedia used is
expressed in both Graph 1 and Table 7.5; Vivek et al (2012) aligns content and information
as the result of online brand community engagement.
Dessart et al (2015) implies the act of sharing within social media is linked to the notion of
commenting, “liking” and sharing; this is expressed in the sample data as the largest total
engagement from the total data collected (see appendices). Content, in the form of all
multimedia or words, is highly fundamental in the social media environment and within
brand communities; interpersonal forms of communication between people and brands is a
dynamic process in which the number of comments a post received highlights it; DiMaggio
et al (2001) significantly proposed that as meanings change and develop over time, there is
a need for different forms of content in order to reach a larger audience, thus evoking
sharing behaviour, which results in the creation of bonds between people and importantly,
brands (Solomon and Theiss 2013).
Looking at the second sub-dimension of behavioural engagement, learning, is evident in the
sample data whereby there is an exchange of information between a brand community
member and brand (Henning-Thurau et al, 2004). The content in the video is comprised of
32. 32
an introduction of a new product from Adidas Football, thus it could imply that the drivers
for engagement in this context are brand identification, online brand community
identification, information and entertainment. All four drivers express how popular and
important learning is within social media; Brodie et al (2011) extends this concept and
summarizes that behaviour is also about co-developing, advocating and socializing with the
brand. This is expressed by user 1 by the comment made which focuses directly to how and
when they can acquire the new product, expressing brand trust. Commonly, the purpose for
such a post is to reinforce brand awareness and gain online traffic towards the brand page;
in this aspect, the page-post metrics indicate how well brands like Adidas Football, integrate
their consumers’ needs and wants into their marketing activities (Keller 2008). Yannopoulos
(2012) argues that the use of athletes in promoting brand loyalty is an important brand
driver in facilitating instant credibility; this is expressed in the data since the post yields the
highest number of consumer engagement when compared to the rest of the data. Other
advantages that can be gained through the use of athlete endorsements are the
conceptualisations from Wirtz et al (2013) study; the data reveals that the use of video as
multimedia, along with Adidas’ athlete endorsers, trigger a number of drivers outlined in
Table 7.5.
As a result, the last behavioural manifestation of community engagement can be observed;
looking at Graph 7.1, the notion of “liking” a page-post corresponds with Gummerus et al
(2012) study which states that group activity is sanctioned through the Facebook metrics of
“likes”. The page-post metrics that yield the most when compared to the others is “liking”;
the sample data in Table 7.5 (looking specifically at endorsing as the behavioural focus) and
Graph 7.1 show this; the sampled data from Table 7.5 has a considerably high amount of
“likes” which convey behaviours of endorsing (Dessart et al 2015); this is of interest since
the engagement driver relating to the brand is brand satisfaction, thus expressing a positive
relationship between the brand and community members (Algesheimer et al, 2005). Table
7.4 (see post from 7th June 2014) also indicates endorsing behaviours. It could be suggested
that high levels of endorsing behaviour add to our understanding of brand engagement
within social media, thus indicating how strategic online brand strategies can be managed in
order to generate a stable “liking” to the brand page, and brand page-posts.
33. 33
Focussing again on the page-post metrics that the post accrued in Table 7.4 (7th June 2014
post), it is clear that there is an increase in the desired outcome, brand loyalty, since the
total engagement represents an establishment and commitment to the brand (Morgan and
Hunt 1994); this significantly encourages brand members to develop trust and involvement
with the brand (Sashi 2012).
Another advantage that can be seen from the findings in Graph 7.1, Table 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and
7.5, express the commonality of the “liking” mechanism used within Facebook. The average
“likes” per day is 657 (Table 7.2), which represents a relatively strong online participation by
brand members. This is congruent throughout the data which suggests bonds that users
have with the Adidas Football brand, are strengthened (Wallace et al, 2012) thus resulting in
increased interactive exchanges (van Doorn et al 2010), which ultimately results in increased
brand loyalty. Similarly, the generation of proactive participants, evident in total consumer
engagement expressed in Table 7.3 in relation to total “likes”, emphasizes the “liking”
behaviours used to simplify endorsing mentioned by Wallace et al (2012). Since social media
enables endorsing by a means of “liking” (Dessart et al, 2015), such behaviours indicate
satisfaction and loyalty towards the brand, which can then be further exemplified using the
other Facebook page-post metrics, to extend the reach to personal networks within social
media (Wallace et al, 2012). Conversely, the post with the lowest consumer engagement
(see Table 7.4, 13th June 2014) indicates a cognitive behaviour in which the user is
disengaged with the brand and has little cognitive availability toward the brand (Dessart et
al (2015).
Based on the 60 Facebook posts collected as a means of assessing total consumer
engagement in regard to the multidimensionality framework proposed by Wirtz et al (2013),
this paper offers an understanding in consumer engagement in the context of online brand
communities. Previous literature, (Gummerus et al, 2012; Brodie et al 2011; Hollebeek, 2013
and Algesheimer et al 2005) suggest relationships and engagement within brand
communities that have resulted from interactions of participants within the community and
the brand; central to this, it is important to recognize that other focal agents within social
platforms, i.e. types of multimedia, also impact the level and extent of consumer
engagement that lead to brand loyalty and awareness. In order to strengthen the study and
develop more intrinsic ideas on consumer engagement, it is imperative to acknowledge that
34. 34
consumer engagement not only happens within a singular ‘consumer-brand nexus’, but also
through a complex, yet profound web of interactions.
Overall, consumer loyalty to the Adidas Football brand is present in the study in a number of
ways, mainly through the interactions consumers have with the brand and the other brand
members. Brand loyalty can be maintained through simple means such as positive WOM
from consumers and/or positive interactions from the brand to users, given there had been
a negative comment or issue identified, the brand can positively interact to reduce any
negative impacts.
Lastly, the study findings successively strengthen our understanding of the dual concept of
engagement; the multidimensionality of consumer engagement and a comprehensive
understanding of their meaning. By incorporating the importance of online community
participation, whilst analysing different social networking platforms, such as Facebook and
Twitter, this can emphasis what is needed to generate a stronger online presence to brands,
in the act of traffic toward the site, and/or a stable “liking” to the brand page.
36. 36
Table 7.2
Average number of Likes, Comments and Shares per day
Images Videos Total Average
Likes 370 905 637.5
Comments 21 35 28
Shares 11 181 96
Table 7.3
Total number of “Likes” and Comments for all Multimedia
Total number of “Likes” 76,559
Total number of Comments 3,368
Table 7.4
Lowest and Highest total of Consumer Engagement from Facebook Post
Date Facebook Post
(Lowest to Highest)
Multimedia Comments Likes Share Total
Engagement
13th June
2014
JoinCafu, YohanBlake and Warren Weirin
The Dugout live fromRio rightnow...
#allin ornothing
Video 0 5 0 5
19th June
2014
Dare to dream.It's door die for
Japan. #allin ornothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jctd_
LINIg
Video 7 2 0 9
11th July
2014
Foreverornever. #allin ornothing.Thisis
the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ Final.
Prepare forbattle: adidas.com/go/World-
Cup
Video 372 10,506 2053 12,931
37. 37
7th June
2014
Evenif you’re noton the plane to Brazil,
the game neverstops.
#allin ornothing.
Video 538 16,129 4780 21,447
Table 7.5
Driver Engagement Category Facebook Post
(With Post Comments if
applicable)
Multimedia
Type
No. of
Likes
No. of
Shares
Brand related –
Brand Trust
Social –
OBC identification
Community Value –
Information
Affective engagement
– Enthusiasm
“Find something to die for,
and live for it.
A day for leaders.
Who wants it more? #allin or
nothing” [13th July 2014]
User 1: Surely Argentina have
to win in order for Messi to
cementhis footballing legacy?!
User 2: It justshows that they
personifythe Argentinan's there
is a shirt,but for Germany, the
team logo....
User 3: Messi is taking
it #allin while germanyis gettin'
nothing
User 4: Germany 4 gold #allin#
User 5: Germany
Image 282 1
Brand related –
Brand Identification
Social –
OBC identification
Community Value –
Monetary Incentives
Affective Engagement
–
Enjoyment
“Sign up for your invite to
the #WorldCup party with
Messi, Alves, Suárez, Özil and
Oscar!
Subscribers receive the latest
in football news and a 15%
off welcome voucher:
http://a.did.as/6183isHV “
[20th May 2014]
User 6: Suarezis readyto
bite.
Image 85
Liked by
User 7
1
Shared by
User 7
38. 38
Entertainment
User7: Suarezabout to bite
someone again..
User8: Suarezis hungry
again
User9: Suarezlookslike he
justhad a crap
Brand related –
Brand Identification,
brand satisfaction,
brand trust
Social –
OBC identification
Community Value –
Information,
Entertainment
Behavioural
Engagement –
Sharing
Even if you’re not on the
plane to Brazil, the game
never stops.
#allin or nothing. [7th June
2014]
Total number of comments :
21,447
Video 16,129 4780
Brand related –
Brand Identification
Social –
OBC identification
Community Value –
Information,
Entertainment
Behavioural
Engagement –
Learning
“Predator: the boot that
changed the game and
drives the future of
football. Greatest. Boot.
Ever. #predatorinstinct”
[16th July 2014]
User 1: When are they out?
Adidas Football : Available
tomorrow from adidas.co.uk/predator
User 2: The manias where and
always will be the bestbootever!!
Video 2249 231
39. 39
Brand related –
Brand Identification,
brand satisfaction
Social –
OBC identification
Community Value –
Information,
Entertainment
Behavioural
Engagement –
Endorsing
“Now or never. Ready or not?
Make a choice. #allin or
nothing
It’s time to choose
at www.adidas.com/go/allin-
or-nothing” [24th May 2014]
Video 9635 1339
Table 7.5.1
Cognitive Engagement – Absorption
Date Total Consumer Engagement % of Total Engagement
12th May - 11th June 2014 37,812 41.4%
12th June – 13th July 2014 37,749 41.2%
14th July – 14th August 2014 15,932 17.4%
40. 40
Conclusion
This study makes contributions to existing literature whereby it extends the focal object of a
brand, in the framework proposed by Wirtz et al (2013), to account for additional objects
such as type of multimedia used and interactions between online brand community
members, in relation to consumer engagement within social media. Through analysing the
Facebook page of Adidas Football, in the months prior, during and post the World Cup 2014,
it is now apparent how consumer engagement is effected within the online environment.
Through using the multidimensionality framework proposed by Wirtz et al (2013), it enabled
an analysis of the engagement dimensions along with an examination of the drivers and
outcomes. Since the focus of this paper is primarily on consumer engagement within social
media, the findings were quantitative to represent the total consumer engagement in
conjunction with what was being posted online. The total amount of engagement is
therefore influenced by a number of brand-related drivers; brand identification, satisfaction
and trust from and toward the brand (Brodie et al, 2011), the social identification with the
virtual brand community and lastly the significance of the posts that received the most
participation, i.e. page-post metrics (Gummerus et al, 2012; Algeshimer et al, 2005). As a
result, the findings are predominantly consistent with Wirtz et al (2013) conceptual
framework.
The key contribution of this paper lies in the application of the three dimensions of
engagement i.e. cognitive, affective and behavioural and there corresponding sub-
dimensions. The findings offer a clear explanation into how social media impact consumer
engagement; social media facilitates online brand community cohesion (Mollen and Wilson
2010); acts as a replacement of traditional marketing techniques (Newman et al 2013);
presents how a quantitative “liking” to a brand page indicates the validity of a brand to its
consumers and highlights behaviours that are congruent within the online environment
(Hollebeek and Chen 2012).
In relation to the type of multimedia usage used within a brands Facebook page, the paper
aligns the strengths of video usage with consumer engagement one Facebook (Chernatony,
2005), which results to considerably higher amounts of engagement in social media.
Additionally, technological tools such as the commenting and “liking” mechanism on
41. 41
Facebook, further enhance our understanding of how consumer engagement can be
measured online.
This paper also aims to contribute to the marketing relationship concept; the analysis of the
data, using Wirtz et al (2013) framework, clarifies the distinction between aspects of
relationship marketing, such as brand loyalty, consumer engagement, brand image and
brand awareness (Chaffey and Smith 2008). With this being said, it could be suggested that
consumer engagement provides a more comprehensive dimensional scope when assessing
brand community contributions; the integration of the engagement dimensions help
exemplify the practically of the online brand community engagement framework. In terms
of the analysis, the level of significance for marketers is dependent on the rate at which a
brand can adapt to meet the immediate needs of consumers. Brand's need to be proactive
in their approach towards driving engagement and analyse social media metrics, to identify
posts that performing well and enable high levels on ROI (return of investment) and seek
out content that is under-performing
Given that social media acts as a real-time medium for communications between its users
and brand, it enables a 24-hour sharing of information and a continual stream of news and
social interactivity; specifically looking at Facebook, the use of page-post metrics indicate to
users and brands what is needed to achieve desired goals within an online environment.
Providing Facebook posts that engage learning and sharing behaviours evoke strong and
positive reactions, the emphasis of this paper is to underpin how such behaviours contribute
to consumer engagement i.e. increased brand awareness and the generation of a larger
brand page “liking”.
Furthermore, this study is undoubtedly subject to a number of limitations; the time period
chosen to analyse with regard to the framework, are based around a specific community
event which is of great appreciation from people all around the world. As the World Cup is
an event that relates to the majority of countries around the world, it is imperative to
conclude that the findings may have been different if another time period was chosen, thus
providing different results. The study could have also compared and contrasted engagement
from a selection of social media platforms in order to enhance the importance of the
consumer engagement dimensions in Wirtz et al (2013) framework. Differences in
engagement would have put the intensity and type of engagement into perspective so that
42. 42
social media brand strategies could become more effective. With this being said, it has been
observed that previous research is vague in respect to the types of brands used to assess
engagement. Lastly, as online brand communities are complex in nature, future research
could help indicate a comparative analysis in the light of the various types of brands that we
have today.
43. 43
Recommendations
Levitt (1960) proposed a crucial marketing perspective to marketing literature and practise,
in a Harvard Business Review paper; he added to our understanding of marketing and stated
that companies will accomplish more and generate growth if they concentrate on meeting
customer needs, as opposed to forcefully selling products – this is a key concept to
recognise if brands want to survive in the fast-pace, socially driven business environment of
today.
In this aspect, given the findings in this study indicate a high total of consumer engagement
to the Adidas Football Facebook page, it should be observed that the use of a video in a
post, generated the most page-post metrics (see Graph 7.1); with this being said, Adidas
should vary the video content themes to help identify a trend in which type of video content
its fans are attracted to most. By considering using videos to post on Facebook as opposed
to plain text posts and/or images, Adidas can personalise future content to meet the exact
needs of its consumers, albeit within various demographics.
Adidas could also encourage brand advocates by offering competition based posts, which in
turn encourage consumers to share posts given there is a chance of winning Adidas
products; this in turn could benefit the brand greatly since if one of the competitions were
as simple as completing a product-related survey, the survey could add to their
understanding of their consumers, thus giving them the advantage of meeting consumer
needs.
Another suggestion could be to integrate the most committed fans into the life cycle of a
product i.e. ask members to send in designs of football boots to generate a sense of
community and encourage further interactions between brand community members. This
could benefit Adidas substantially since being able to add value to a favourite brand for
example, would motivate the consumer to interact more with the brand, given there is a
change the designs will impact any new product developments.
Word count: 10,759
44. 44
Bibliography
Aaker,D. A.(1991). ManagingBrand Equity.New York:Macmillan,Free Press.
Aaker,D.A.(1996). BuildingStrongBrands.The Free Press,New York,NY,35-71.
Aaker,D. A.(2013) StrategicMarket Management,10th edn.,UK:Wiley.
Adidas(2014) For theLove of Sport,Germany:AdidasAG.
Algesheimer,R.,Dholakia,U.M.andHerrmann,A. (2005), “The social influence of brandcommunity:
evidence fromEuropeancarclubs”, Journalof Marketing,69(3),pp.19-34.
Arnould,E.J.,Price,L.L.andZinkhan,G.M. (2002), Consumers,2nded.,McGraw-Hill Irwin,
Barnard, C. andKnapp,S. (2011), “Do Facebooklikesindicate marketerROI?” DMNews,33(7), p.25.
BeechJ,C. S., 2007. Sportand consumerbuyingbehaviour.In: TheMarketing of Sport. Essex:
PearsonEducation,p.95.
Biswas,S,Hussain,Mand O’Donnell,K(2009) 'Celebrityorathlete?New Zealandadvertising
practitioners'viewsontheiruse of endorsers', Journalof GlobalMarketing, 22(2),pp. 121-137.
Borch, F.J.(1957), “The marketingphilosophyasaway of businesslife”,inMarting,E.and
Newgarden,A.(Eds), The MarketingConcept:ItsMeaningtoManagement,AmericanMarketing
Association,New York,NY,pp.2-19. Boston,MA.
Bouchet,P.,Hillairet,D.andBodet,G.(2013). SportsBrands. Abingdon:Routledge.43-105.
Brodie,J.R.,Hollebeek,L.,Juric,B.and Ilic,A.(2011a), “Consumerengagement:conceptual domain,
fundamental propositionsandimplicationsforresearch”, Journalof ServiceResearch,14(3), pp. 251-
272.
Brodie,J.R.,Ilic,A.,Juric,B.and Holleneek,L.(2011b),“Consumerengagementinavirtual brand
community:anexploratoryresearch”, Journalof BusinessResearch,66(1),pp.106-116.
Bryman,A. (1989) Research Methodsand Organisation Studies.London:UnwinHyman
Burson-Marsteller. (2012). Global Social MediaCheckUp. [Online]available from
<http://www.slideshare.net/BMGlobalNews/b-m-global-social-media-checkup-2012-deck-
13341217> [19th Jan 2015]
Cathcart, R & Gumpert,G (1986). MediatedInterpersonalCommunication:Towardanew typology.
3rd ed.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.24-42.
Chaffee,S.H(1986). Mass Mediaand Interpersonal Channels:Competitive,convergentor
complementary?.3rded.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.60-80.
Chauhan,K.and Pillai,A.(2013),“Role of contentstrategyinsocial mediabrandcommunities:acase
of highereducationinstitutesinIndia”, Journal of Product&Brand Management,22(1),pp.30-51.
Chernatony,L.&. M. M., 2005. Brand Evaluation.In: Creating PowerfulBrands. Oxford:Butterworth-
Heinemann,pp.443-450
45. 45
Constantinides,E.andFountain,S.J.(2008),“Web 2.0: conceptual foundationsandmarketing
issues”, Journal of Direct,Dataand Digital MarketingPractice,9(3),pp.231-254.
Cova,B. (1997) 'Communityandconsumption: towardsadefinitionof the linkingvalueof products
or services', European Journalof Marketing, 31(3),pp.297‐316.
Cova,B. and Pace,S. (2006), “Brand communityof convenience products:new formsof customers
empowerment–the case of my Nutellacommunity”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing,40(9),pp.
1101-1105.
Cova,B., Pace,S. andPark, D.J.(2007), “Global brandcommunitiesacrossborders:The Warhammer
case”, InternationalMarketing Review,24(3),pp. 313-331.
De ValckK,Van BruggenG, WierengaB. (2009) Virtualcommunities:a marketing perspective,
DecisionSupportSystems,47(187–202).
De Valck,K.,VanBruggen,G.,and Wierenga,B.,2009. “Virtual communities:A marketing
perspective”,DecisionSupportSystems,47(3),186-202.
Dessart,L., Veloutsou,C.andThomas,A.M, (2015),"Consumerengagementinonline brand
communities:asocial mediaperspective",Journal of Product&Brand Management,24 (1) pp. 28 –
42.
Dholakia,U.M.,Bagozzi,R.P.and Pearo,L.K.(2004), “A social influence model of consumer
participationinnetwork- andsmall-group-basedvirtual communities”, InternationalJournalof
Research in Marketing,21(1), pp.240-273.
DiMaggioP and Hargittai,E. (2001) 'Digital Divide’todigital inequality:studyingInternetuse as
penetrationincreases', CentreforArtsand CulturalPolicy Studies, 1(15), pp. 3-15.
Doorn,V. J.,Lemon,K.N.,Mittal,V.,Nass,S.,Doreen,P.,Pirner,P.andVerhoef,P.C.(2010),
“Customerengagementbehaviour:theoreticalfoundationsandresearchdirections”, Journalof
Service Research,13(3), pp. 250-256.
EconomistIntelligence Unit(EIU) (2007a), “Beyondloyalty:meetingthe challengeof customer
engagement,part1”,[Online] available from<www.adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/partI.pdf>[8th
Mar 2015].
EconomistIntelligence Unit(EIU) (2007b), “Beyondloyalty:meetingthe challengeof customer
engagement,part2”,[Online] available from www.adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/partII.pdf [8thMar
2015].
Facebook(2010), “The value of a liker”,[Online]available from
<www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id¼150630338305797> [5th
December2014].
Facebook.(2015) Newsroom. [Online] availablefrom http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ [1st
March 2014].
Fill,C.(2011) Essentialsof Marketing Communications,1stedn.Essex:PearsonEducationLimited.
Fischer,E.and Reuber,A.R.(2011), “Social interactionvianew social media:(How)caninteractions
on twitteraffecteffectual thinkingandbehaviour?” Journal of Business Venturing,26(1),pp.1-25.
46. 46
Forbes.(2015). Worlds MostValuableBrands. [Online] availablefrom
<http://www.forbes.com/companies/adidas/>[22ndApril 2015]
Fournier,S.(1998), “Consumerandtheirbrands:developingrelationshiptheoryinconsumer
research”, Journalof ConsumerResearch,24(4),pp.343-354.
Gallaugher,J.andRansbotham,S.(2010), “Social mediaandcustomerdialogmanagementat
starbucks”, MIS QuarterlyExecutive,9(4),pp.190-213.
Ghauri,P and Gronhaug,K (2010), Research Methodsin BusinessStudies:A Practical Guide. 4th
edn.
Pearson.
Golbeck,J.,Grimes,J.M. and Rogers,A.(2010) 'Twitteruse by the U.S. Congress',Journalof the
American Societyfor Information Scienceand Technology, 61(8),pp.1-7.
Greenburg,J.and MacAulay,M. (2009) ' Global MediaJournal ', Global Media Journal,2(1),pp.64-
88.
Gummerus,J.,Liljander,V.,Weman,E.andPihlström, M.(2012), “Consumerengagementina
Facebookbrandcommunity”, ManagementResearch Review,35(9),pp.857-877.
Hennig-Thurau,T.,Malthouse,E.C.,Friege,C.,Gensler,S.,Lobschat,L.,Rangaswamy,A. andSkiera,
B. (2004), “Electronicword-of-mouthviaconsumer-opinionplatforms:whatmotivatesconsumersto
articulate themselvesonthe Internet?” Journalof InteractiveMarketing,18(1),pp.38-52.
Hoffman,D.L.and Fodor,M. (2010), “Can you measure the ROIof your social mediamarketing?”
MIT SloanManagementReview,52(1),pp.40-50.
Hollebeek,L.andChen,T. (2014), “Exploringpositivelyversusnegatively-valencedbrand
engagement:aconceptual model”, Journalof Product&Brand Management,23(1),pp.60-75.
Hollis,N.(2011), “The value of a social mediafan”,MillwardBrown‘StraightTalk’.[Online] available
from<www.millwardbrown.com/global/blog/Post/2011-04-04/Thevalue- of-a-social-media-
fan.aspx>[4th
October,2014]
Jenkins,H.(2006). Fansbloggersand gamers:Media consumersin a digital age. New York,NY: New
York UniversityPress.
Kapferer,J.(2005) The NewStrategicBrandManagement:CreatingandSustainingBrandEquity
Long Term(NewStrategicBrandManagement:Creating&SustainingBrandEquity),4thedn.,USA:
KoganPage Limited.
Kapferer,J.-N.,2008. The New StrategicBrand Management:Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity
Long Term. 4th ed.London:Kogan Page.
Keller,K.L(1998) Brand KnowledgeStructures.In: StrategicBrand Management. NewJersey:
Prentice-Hall,pp.93-102.
Keller,K.L(2008) Strategic brand management:building,measuring and managing brand,3rdedn.,
Upper Saddle River,NJ:Prentice Hall.
Keller,K.L.(2001). BuildingCustomer-BasedBrandEquity. MarketingManagement,10(2),14-19.
47. 47
Keller,K.L.(2003). Understandingbrands,brandingandbrandequity.InteractiveMarketing,5(1),7-
20.
Keller,K.L.and Aaker,D.A. (1998) 'Corporate-levelmarketing:Theimpactof credibilityona
company'sbrand extensions', CorporateReputation Review, 1(4),pp.356–378.
Ketokivi,M.andMantere,S. (2010). Two StrategiesforInductive ReasoninginOrganizational
Research. Academy of ManagementReview,35(2),315–333.
Kotler,P.andArmstrong,G. (1991) Principles of Marketing,5th edn.,EnglewoodCliffs,N.J:Prentice
Hall.
Kozinets,R.V.(2002),“The fieldbehindthe screen:usingnetnographyformarketingresearchin
online communities”, Journalof Marketing Research,39(1),p.61.
Kozinets,R.V.,Hemetsberger,A.andSchau,H.J. (2008),“The wisdomof consumercrowds:collective
innovationinthe age of networkedmarketing”, Journal of Macromarketing,28(4),pp.333-355.
Kuikka,A andLaukkanen,T(2012) 'Brand loyaltyandthe role of hedonicvalue', Journalof Product&
Brand Management, 21(7),pp.529-537.
Levitt,T (1960) MARKETINGMYOPIA,USA:HarvardBusinessReview.
Libai,B. (2011), “Comment:the perilsof focusingonhighlyengagedconsumers”, Journalof Service
Research,14(3), pp. 275-277.
Malhotra,A., Malhotra,C.K.and See,A.(2013), “How to create brand engagementonFacebook”,
MIT SloanManagementReview,54(2),pp.13-20.
Manchanda, P.,Packard,G. andPattabhitamaiah,A.(2012),“Social dollars:the economicimpactof
consumerparticipationina firm-sponsoredonlinecommunity”,MarketingScience Institute,MSI
Report,pp.10-115.
Marzocchi, G. Morandin,G. and Bergami,M(2013) 'Brand communities:loyaltothe communityor
the brand?’ European Journalof Marketing, 47(1/2),pp.93 - 114.
McKenna, K.Y.,Green,A.S.and Gleason,M.E.J.(2002), “Relationshipformationonthe Internet:
what’sthe bigattraction?”, Journalof Social Issues,58(1), pp.7-41.
McKinsey(2007), “How businessare usingWeb2.0: A McKinseyglobal survey”,[Online]available
from
<www.skmf.net/fileadmin/redaktion/aktiver_content/01_Events/080514_SWISS_KM_Tool_Tag/Tra
ck_0_Other_Material/0005_How_firms_use_Web20.Pdf/>[13th
April 2015]
Mehdi,K (2013). E-CommerceforOrganizationalDevelopmentand CompetitiveAdvantage.USA:IGI
Global.204-225.
Keller,K.L.(2003). StrategicBrandManagement:Building,MeasuringandManagingBrand Equity,
2nd ed.,Prentice-Hall,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ.
Merz, M.A.,Yi, H. and Vargo,S.L.(2009), “The evolvingbrandlogic:aservice-dominantlogic
perspective”, Journal of the Academyof MarketingScience,37(3),pp.320-344.
48. 48
Mollen,A.andWilson,H.(2010), “Engagement,telepresence,andinteractivityinonline consumer
experience:reconcilingscholasticandmanagerial perspectives”, Journalof Business Research,
63(9/10), pp.920-925.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt,S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trusttheoryof relationshipmarketing”,
Journalof Marketing,58(3),pp. 10-41.
Mortimer,N (2014) Adidasscores'mosttalkedabout'brandtitle at FIFA WorldCup generating
1.59m conversations.[Online]available fromhttp://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/07/14/adidas-
scores-most-talked-about-brand-title-fifa-world-cup-generating-159m[2ndApril 2015]
Muniz,A.M. and O’Guinn,T.C.(2001), “Brand community”, Journalof ConsumerResearch,27(4),pp.
411-433.
Naylor,R.W.,Lamberton, C.P.andWest,P.M. (2012), “Beyondthe “Like”button:the impactof mere
virtual presence onbrandevaluationsandpurchase intentionsinsocial mediasettings”, Journalof
Marketing,76(6),pp. 106-113.
Nelson-Field,K.,Riebe,E.andSharp,B. (2012), “What’s notto ‘like’?Cana Facebookfanbase give
the brand the advertisingreachitneeds?”, Journal of AdvertisingResearch,52(2),pp.252-299.
Newman,T.,Peck,J.F,Harris,C. andWilhide,B.(2013). Social MediainSports Marketing.Arizona:
HolcombHathaway.5-56.
NolanT, BrizlandR,Macaulay L., (2007) “Individual trustanddevelopmentof online business
communities”,InformationTechnology&People,2(1),pp.54–61.
Olson,Jand Peter,J.P. (2001) ConsumerBehaviour,9thedn.,USA:Word Press.
O'Reilly,T.(2005). What isWeb 2.0? Designpatternsandbusinessmodelsforthe nextgenerationof
software.[Online] availablefrom<http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>[1st
Feb
2015]
Ouwersloot,HandOdekerken‐Schröder,G.(2008) '"Who's whoinbrand communities –and
why?"', European Journalof Marketing, 42(5/6),pp.571 - 585.
Papacharissi etal (2011). A NetworkedSelf - Identity,Community,andCulture onSocial Networking
Sites.NewYork:Routledge.17-50.
Roberts,C.and Albert,F.(2010), “The total customerengagement:designingandaligningkey
strategicelementstoachieve growth”, Journalof Productand Brand Management,19(3),pp.199-
201.
S. Rajasekar(2013) Research Methodology, 1stedn.,Indonesia:Febri Priyoyudanto.
Safko,L. & Brake,D.K. (2009) The social mediabible:Tactics,toolsandstrategiesforbusiness
success.NewYork:Wiley,1-24.
Sashi,C.M. (2012), “Customerengagement,buyer-sellerrelationships,andsocial media”,
ManagementDecision,50(2),pp. 253-272.
Saunders,M.,Lewis,P.& Thornhill,A.(2012) “ResearchMethodsforBusinessStudents”,6thedition,
Prentice Hall.
49. 49
Shau,H.J.,Muniz,A.M.J. andArnould,A.J.(2009), “How brandcommunitypracticescreate value”,
Journal of Marketing,73 (5),pp. 30-51.
Sigala,M. and Marinidis,D.(2009), “Exploringthe transformationof tourismfirms’operationsand
businessmodelsthroughthe use of webmapservices”,paperpresentedatthe Europeanand
MediterraneanConferenceonInformationSystems2009 (EMCIS 2009), July13-14, Izmir,[Online]
available from
<www.iseing.org/emcis/cdrom%20proceedings%20refereed%20papers/proceedings/presenting%20
papers/c72/c72.pdf/>[21st
Jan 2015].
Solis,B.(2009) Puttingthe PublicBackinPublicRelations:How Social MediaisReinventingthe Aging
Businessof PR,1st edn.,UpperSaddle River,NJ:PearsonEducationLimited.
Solomon,M.R.(2011), ConsumerBehaviour:Buying,HavingandBeing,Pearson,UpperSaddle River,
NJ.
Stelzner,M.(2014). 2014 Social MediaMarketingIndustryReport.[Online] availablefrom
<http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryReport2014.pdf>[18th
March 2015]
Sweeney,J.C.,Soutar,G.N.andMazzarol,T. (2008) 'Factors influencingwordof moutheffectiveness:
receiverperspectives', European Journalof Marketing, 42(3/4),pp.344 – 364.
Thackeray,R.,Neiger,B.I.,Hanson,C.L.and McKenzie,J.F.(2008),“Enhancingpromotional strategies
withinsocial marketingprograms:use of Web2.0 social media”, HealthPromotionPractice,9(4) pp.
328-40.
Tuten,T. L. (2008) Advertising 2.0: Social Media Marketing in a Web 2.0 World,1st edn.,USA:
GreenwoodPublishingGroup.
Wallace,E.,Buil,I.,and de Chernatony,L.(2012), “Facebook“friendship”andbrandadvocacy”,
Journalof Brand Management,20(2),pp.129-145.
Weinberg,T.(2009). The new community rules:Marketing on thesocial web.Sebastopol:O’Reilly
Media.p.149-170.
Wirtz,B.W., Schilke,O.andUllrich,S.(2010), “Strategicdevelopmentof businessmodels:
implicationsof the Web2.0 forcreatingvalue onthe internet”, LongRange Planning,43(2-3),pp.
265-91.
Wirtz,J., denAmbtman,A.,Bloemer,J.,Horváth,C.,Ramaseshan,B.,Klundert,J.V.D,Canli,Z.G. and
Kandampully,J.(2013),“Managing brandsand consumerengagement inonline brand
communities”, Journalof Service Management,24(3),pp.224-244.
Yannopoulos,P.(2012). CelebrityAdvertising:Literature Review andPropositions. World Review of
BusinessResearch.2 (4),pp.24-36.
Yin,R.K. (2003) Case Study Research:Design and Method,3rd
ed.London:Sage
Zaichkowsky,J.L.(1985),“Measuringthe involvementconstruct”, Journal of ConsumerResearch,12,
pp.341-352.
50. 50
Appendices
Appendices A
Date Facebook Post
(Green Highlights6 HighestConsumer
EngagementPosts)
(Red Highlights6 Lowest Consumer
EngagementPosts)
No. of
Comments
No. of
likes
No. of
shares
Multimedia
content
Total Consumer
Engagement
12th
May
2014
It begins now. Get ready for battle.
#allin or nothing.
23 166 32 Images 221
14th
May
2014
bring it. Battle pack. #nitrocharge #allin or
nothing.
38 185 15 Images 238
15th
May
2014
Battle pack. #PredatorInstinct
#allin or nothing
18 123 2 Images 143
16th
May
2014
The Battle Pack #f50. #allin or nothing 11 127 1 Images 139
51. 51
17th
May
2014
Bring it. Battle Pack #11pro. #allin or
nothing.
10 89 0 Images 99
18 Bring it. Battle Pack #f50 Messi. #allin or
nothing.
32 203 15 Images 250
20 Sign up for your invite to
the #WorldCup party with Messi, Alves,
Suárez, Özil and Oscar!
Subscribers receive the latest in football
news and a 15% off welcome voucher:
http://a.did.as/6183isHV
6 85 1 Image 92
21 The 2014/15 Chelsea Football Club away
kit. Pre order yours
now:adidas.com/go/CFC-away
#allincfc
35 254 40 Image 329
21 Sign up for your invite to
the #WorldCup party with Messi, Alves,
Suárez, Özil and Oscar!
Subscribers receive the latest in football
news and a 15% off welcome voucher:
http://a.did.as/6188isyO
5 113 12 Image 130
24 Now or never. Ready or not? Make a
choice. #allin or nothing
It’s time to choose
at www.adidas.com/go/allin-or-nothing
308 9635 1339 Video 11,282
27 To be the best, master every detail of your
game. Connect your iPhone or iPod Touch
to the official app and track your ball spin
and impact points.
Analyze your strike with the adidas miCoach
Smart Ball. #allin or nothing.
13 126 13 Images 152
27 2013/14.
Winners wear adidas.
#allin or nothing
10 94 0 Image 104
52. 52
28 Available now. #allin or nothing?
Make your choice
at: http://www.adidas.com/go/World-Cup
73 1077 32 Images 1182
29 The brazuca Finale. #allin or nothing 0 25 0 Image 25
29 The biggest game in world football
demands a special ball. This is the brazuca
Finale - official match ball for the World Cup
final.
#allin or nothing.
52 1849 51 Images 1952
6th June The journey to greatness goes further
than football. This is Koke, and
his#allin or nothing story.
0 11 0 Video 11
6th Part 2 of Koke's #allin or nothing story.
The next part will be written in Brazil.
0 16 0 Video 16
7th Even if you’re not on the plane to Brazil,
the game never stops.
#allin or nothing.
538 16,12
9
4780 Video 21,447
12th No more dreaming. Practice is over.
Welcome to Brazil!
#allin or nothing.
62 3001 351 Video 3414
13th Join Cafu, Yohan Blake and Warren
Weir in The Dugout live from Rio right
now...
#allin or nothing
0 5 0 Video 5
16th
Germany are ready to take on the
world. #allin or nothing.
Be ready for battle adidas.com/go/World-
Cup
14 373 33 Video 420
18th The past means nothing. Everything rides
on today.
#allin or nothing.
23 354 15 Video 392
19th Tonight his nation is calling. Steven Gerrard
knows only one way to play.#allin or nothing.
57 1169 125 Video 1351
19th
Dare to dream. It's do or die for
Japan. #allin or nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jctd_
LINIg
7 2 0 Video 9
