Presentation given at the 2nd International Consumer Brand Relationships Conference, www.consumer-brand-relationships.org Copyright by Daniël G. Muntinga Edith G. Smit Marjolein Moorman

1. THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOCIAL
BRANDS
On consumer-brand relationships in social media
Daniël G. Muntinga, Edith G. Smit, Marjolein Moorman
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2nd International Colloquium on Consumer-Brand Relationships
19 March 2011 | Rollins College | Winter Park

3. On social media,
Who does what why where,
with what brands, and
with what effects?

4. On social media,
Who does what why where,
with what brands, and
with what effects?
Study 1 & 2
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M. & Smit, E.G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations
for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13-45.

5. On social media,
Who does what why where,
with what brands, and
with what effects?
This study

6. ?
Study helps to assess
whether a brand is suited
for a social media strategy
Wat are the common denominators of
brands that elicit brand-related social
media use?

7.  Brand-related social media use may be a
function of brand-relationship quality
H1 BRQ is positively related to brand-
related social media use
HYPOTHESES (1)

8.  BRQ is a function of brand personality
H2 More exciting BP’s lead to more active
brand-related social media use
H3 BP moderates the relationship between
BRQ and brand-related social media use
HYPOTHESES (2)

9. BRQ
BP
Brand-related
social media use
?

10. CREATING
CONTRIBUTING
CONSUMING
Consumers’
Online
Brand-
Related
Activities
BRAND-RELATED SOCIAL MEDIA USE
Source: Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit (2011)

11.  April 2010
 Brand profiles on Facebook
 8 brands (Rossiter-Percy grid)
 Survey distributed with help of
administrators
 N = 315, Mage= 27.9, SD = 9.8, 56.7% male
METHOD

12. H1 Brand relationship quality  COBRAs
 No BRQ differences between COBRA types *
But:
 The higher BRQ, the more active someone
engages in each COBRA type
* Consuming: β = .35, p < .001; Contributing: β = .27, p < .001; Creating: β = .26, p < .001;
F(56,203) = 1.27, p = .123
RESULTS (1)

13. H2 Brand personality  COBRAs
 The more a brand is perceived as having an
“excting” personality, the more active people
engage with that brand *
 No BP differences between COBRA types **
* Exiting: β = .36, p < .001; Responsability: β = .30, p > .05; Simplicity: β = .09, p > .05,
** F(35,119) = 39.59, p = .117
RESULTS (2)

14. H3 Brand personality χ brand relationship
quality  COBRAs
 BP “exiting” moderates the relationship
between BRQ and each COBRA type*
* Consuming: Z = 3.93, p < .001; Contributing: Z = 2.80, p < .001; Creating: Z = 2.65, p < .001
RESULTS (3)

15.  No BRQ and BP differences between
consuming, contributing and creating
behaviors;
 Strong consumer-brand relationships leads to
more brand-related activity on social media…
 especially when a brand is perceived as having
an “exciting” personality.
CONCLUSIONS

16.  Brands with which consumers perceive strong
relationships
and that
 have exciting brand personalities.
? What kind of brands elicit brand-related
social media use?
IMPLICATIONS

17.  Consumer characteristics vis-à-vis COBRAs;
 Relationships between consumer
characteristics, brands characteristics,
motivations, BRQ, and COBRAs.
 Collective creation of brand meaning via social
media / brand community
 Positive feedback loops/ mutually reinforcing
spirals à la Slater (2007)
FUTURE

18. THANK YOU!
d.g.muntinga@uva.nl

19.  Brand Personality (BP)
12 items: Geuens, Weijters, and De Wulf (2009)
 Brand Relationship Quality (BRQ)
14 items: Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom (2007)
 Brand-related social media use
“consumers’ online brand-related activities”
 COBRAs
(Three questions; Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011)
MEASURES