Voting at 16 Consequences on youth participation at local ...
Woisetschlager Et Al 2010 How to Make Brand Communities Work_Antecedents and Consequences of...
-
Upload
devanto-reiga -
Category
Documents
-
view
89 -
download
0
Transcript of Woisetschlager Et Al 2010 How to Make Brand Communities Work_Antecedents and Consequences of...
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [2008-2009 Thammasat University]On: 5 June 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789376256]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Relationship MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306914
How to Make Brand Communities Work: Antecedents and Consequencesof Consumer ParticipationDavid M. Woisetschlägera; Vivian Hartlebb; Markus Bluta
a University of Dortmund, b University of Muenster,
To cite this Article Woisetschläger, David M. , Hartleb, Vivian and Blut, Markus(2008) 'How to Make Brand CommunitiesWork: Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Participation', Journal of Relationship Marketing, 7: 3, 237 — 256To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15332660802409605URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332660802409605
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
How to Make Brand Communities Work:Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer
Participation
David M. WoisetschlagerUniversity of Dortmund
Vivian HartlebUniversity of Muenster
Markus BlutUniversity of Dortmund
ABSTRACT. The majority of brand community literature deals with theexploration of the nature of brand communities and the measurement ofcommunity effects. However, existing literature on how to implement andto manage company-run brand communities is rare. In the present article,we conceptualize drivers and consequences of consumer brand communityparticipation and empirically test our model with a data set of 1,025 mem-bers of a virtual brand community. Results indicate that identification withcommunity, satisfaction with community, and degree of influence explainmost of the variance in consumer participation. Moreover, positive influ-ences of participation on recommendation behavior, brand image of the
David M. Woisetschlager is Assistant Professor of Services Management, Uni-versity of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Vivian Hartleb is Research Assistant, Marketing Center Muenster, Universityof Muenster, Germany.
Markus Blut is Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Dortmund,Germany.
Address correspondence to: David M. Woisetschlager, University of Dortmund,Otto-Hahn-Str. 6, Dortmund, Germany. (E-mail: [email protected].)
Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 7(3), 2008Available online at http://www.haworthpress.comC© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1080/15332660802409605 237
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
238 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
community sponsor, and intention to continue community membership canbe confirmed.
KEYWORDS. Brand community, consumer participation, brand image,word–of–mouth, community loyalty
INTRODUCTION
Within the past decade the Internet has become one of the most importantand most commonly used communication media (Lagrosen, 2005). It of-fers boundless possibilities for information and communication exchangewithout any geographical restrictions. Especially over the past few years,groups with common interests or problems have increasingly been orga-nizing themselves into blogs or virtual communities (e.g., Apple, HarleyDavidson, Saab, Tom Petty, Xena)—a phenomenon that is of interest toboth academic research and marketing practice (Carlson, Suter, & Brown,2008). According to Boorstin (1973), consumers with similar norms, val-ues, and habits (e.g., the consumption of the same brand or product) formgroups called communities of consumption. A special kind of communityof consumption is a brand community, which is defined as “a specialized,non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of so-cial relationships among admirers of a brand” (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001,p. 412). Unlike the much broader concept of communities of consumption,the center of a brand community is the brand itself; therefore, consumersjoin these communities to exchange experiences with other like-mindedpeople fascinated by a specific brand.
Two main streams of research can be identified from the existing brandcommunity literature: first, studies in which the nature of brand communi-ties is explored and, second, studies that deal with measurement of the out-comes of customers’ brand community engagement. Muniz and O’Guinn(2002) as well as Schau and Muniz (2002)are among the earliest proponentscontributing to the first stream of research. Whereas Muniz and O’Guinnassessed the three core components of brand communities as (a) “con-sciousness of kind,” (b) “shared rituals and traditions,” and (c) “a senseof moral responsibility” and identified brands as a social phenomenon,Schau and Muniz (2002) analyzed several brand communities and re-vealed four types of relationships between individual identity and commu-nity membership: (a) subsumed identity, (b) super member, (c) community
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 239
membership as identity component, and (d) multiple memberships. Fol-lowing the customer-centric model of brand community of McAlexander,Schouten, and Koenig (2002), Ouwersloot and Odekerken-Schroder (2008)segmented brand community members into four categories based on con-sumption motivation: (a) enthusiasts, (b) users, (c) behind-the-scenes, and(d) not-me. Other starting points to explore the nature of brand commu-nities have been personal self-exhibition in front of other consumers inthe context of a convenience product brand community (Cova & Pace,2006), anti-brand communities (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2006), the con-sumer quest for authenticity (Leigh, Peters, & Shelton, 2006), the roleof social environments (Luedicke, 2006), rumor in brand communities(Muniz, O’Guinn, & Fine, 2006), and social versus psychological brandcommunities (Carlson et al., 2008).
In contrast to these studies, the second stream of research examinesthe outcomes of customers’ engagement within a brand community. Forinstance, analyses of brandfests (McAlexander et al., 2002; Schouten,McAlexander, & Koenig, 2007) have revealed that greater integration ina brand community increases customer loyalty and that transcendent cus-tomer experiences lead to stronger relationships with the brand, the prod-uct, the hosting company, and other customers. In the automobile context,Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann (2005) showed that among otherfacets, brand relationship quality leads to greater brand loyalty intentionsand community engagement to greater membership continuance inten-tions. Furthermore, McAlexander, Kim, and Roberts (2003) analyzed theimpact of satisfaction, brand community integration, and consumer experi-ences on customer loyalty in a casino. McAlexander, Koenig, and Schouten(2004) examined how the nature of relationships among students affectsstudents’ long-term loyalty to their university. In a study about antecedentsand purchase consequences of customer participation in small-group brandcommunities, Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006) suggested that social identityand group behavior are key explanatory variables of brand behavior, andin another study 1 year later Hickman and Ward (2007) analyzed the in-fluence of social identification on group behavior in the context of internaland external trash talk. Casalo, Flavian, and Guinalıu (2007) detected, forexample, that participation has a positive influence on consumer commit-ment to the brand, and satisfaction with previous interactions increases thelevel of trust.
Although consequences for marketing management can be derivedfrom the findings of most of the studies described above, little is writtenabout how to successfully implement and manage a company-run brand
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
240 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
community (Carlson et al., 2008). From a managerial point of view, com-panies are confronted with the increasing popularity of (virtual) brandcommunities so that both management of a brand community implementedby the consumers and the implementation of a brand community by thecompany itself are now more important. It seems surprising that a lot ofcompanies are not aware of the phenomenon of brand communities, asonly a few of them have integrated these into their marketing mix (Cova& Pace, 2006; McAlexander et al., 2002). If community platforms are setup, they are mostly driven by the ideas of advertising agencies and aregenerally seen as part of a short-term campaign, not as strategic long-terminvestment. It seems, up to now, that the potential of brand communitieshas been underestimated in marketing practice.
In this article, we focus on a company that is aware of the potentialof brand communities. The company bought the naming rights to one ofthe biggest football stadiums in Germany and implemented its own virtualbrand community on the Internet as “virtual football stadium,” especiallyfor fans of the local football team. In this article, we (a) conceptualizefactors that contribute to successful consumer participation in the brandcommunity; (b) investigate the impacts of consumer participation on com-munity loyalty, word of mouth, and brand image perception; and (c) ex-amine moderator variables influencing the relationship between consumerparticipation and the associated consequences.
The theoretical framework of our study is based primarily on socialidentity theory (SIT) and the concept of psychological sense of commu-nity (PSOC). Both are frequently employed in the existing literature on(virtual) communities in general as well as on brand communities in par-ticular (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Carlson et al., 2008; Obst,Zinkiewicz, & Smith, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). In the following sections, weintroduce the theoretical basis of our study and then derive our hypothesesbased on theory and existing (brand) community literature. Finally, wetest our empirical model using a data set of 1,025 members of this vir-tual brand community and discuss our findings and directions for furtherresearch.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESISDEVELOPMENT
Within the discipline of community psychology, the concept of PSOChas become one of the major bases for analyzing interpersonal relationships
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 241
(Carlson et al., 2008; Chavis & Pretty, 1999). Obst et al. (2002a, 2002b,2002c) extended this concept with aspects of social identity based on SIT.Besides social identity, PSOC comprises other elements such as the build-ing of a corporate feeling, friendship, trust, support, and the satisfactionof needs. In this context, a brand can thus be seen as linking consumerswith similar passions. Communities distinguish themselves from othercommunities by their passion for a particular brand. Following Sarason(1977), sense of community is the
perception of similarity with others, an acknowledged interdepen-dence with others, a willingness to maintain this interdependence bygiving to or doing for others what one expects from them, the feelingthat one is part of a larger dependable and stable structure. (p. 157 )
McMillan and Chavis (1986) conducted the most influential study of PSOC(Obst et al., 2002a). They argued that PSOC consists of four elements:membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and sharedemotional connections (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Building on this studyand on a revised version of PSOC by McMillan (1996), Obst et al. (2002a,2002b, 2002c) combined this concept with SIT. They pointed out thatidentification with the community is an essential element of PSOC andreferred to SIT as a suitable theoretical background (Obst et al., 2002a). SITargues that the self-concept of a person is made up of two different aspectsof identity: personal identity and social identity (Lantz & Loeb, 1998;Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner & Oaks, 1989). Personal identity consists ofspecific characteristics, such as talents and interests. Social identity “is theperception of belonging to a group with the result that a person identifieswith that group (i.e., I am a member)” (Bhattacharya et al., 1995, p. 47).More relevant to this study, consumers who identify themselves with abrand and a brand community, respectively, classify themselves and otherconsumers as being a group member (in-group) or as not being a groupmember (out-group; Hickman & Ward, 2007). The phenomenon describedby SIT has been observed in brand communities, for example in terms of“oppositional brand loyalty” as described by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001)and “internal and external trash talk and Schadenfreude” as analyzed byHickman and Ward.
In line with PSOC and SIT, we assume that establishing a success-ful brand community depends on participation of community members(Casalo et al., 2007). Especially in virtual communities, there are manyways of participating and interacting with other community members,
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
242 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model.
CONSEQUENCES
BrandImage
Word ofMouth
CommunityLoyalty
ConsumerParticipation
ANTECEDENTS
CommunitySatisfaction
CommunityIdentification
Degree ofInfluence
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
ConsumerParticipation
XInteractionPreference
H7
H9
H8
such as through chats, boards, or news groups. These forms of interactionenable consumers to share information about the brand and the product.Furthermore, consumers also lend support to one another when faced withproblems and thereby develop social bonds. Hence, if companies intendto establish a brand community, they have to ensure participation of com-munity members. Against this background, our conceptual model capturesantecedents of consumer participation, consequences of consumer par-ticipation, and moderator variables influencing the relationship betweenconsumer participation and the associated consequences (see Figure 1).
Antecedents of Consumer Participation
We posit that a community member’s participation is affected by identi-fication with the brand community, satisfaction with the brand community,and the perceived degree of influence opportunities. There are three majorreasons why we study these potential antecedents. First, these variables arerecognized as being powerful drivers for ensuring a brand community’s
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 243
customer participation (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Nambisan & Baron,2007; von Loewenfeld, 2006). Second, management can influence thesethree variables, and, therefore, the variables could be used to establish asuccessful brand community. Finally, although these variables are con-sidered to be crucial for brand community success, the consequences forbrand community management have not been studied extensively before.
Influence of community identification on consumer participation. Thefirst important antecedent of brand community participation is social iden-tity. It is defined as “the perception of belonging to a group with the resultthat a person identifies with that group” (Bhattacharya et al., 1995, p. 47).Social identity primarily comprises the feeling of belonging to a group(Bhattacharya et al., 1995) and is closely connected to one of the mostimportant elements of communities: consciousness of kind. “Conscious-ness of kind is the intrinsic connection that members feel towards oneanother and collective sense of difference from others not in the commu-nity” (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001, p. 413). Carlson et al. (2008) argued thatidentification is important for developing a psychological sense of brandcommunity. The consequence of self-categorization to a particular vir-tual brand community is a positive distinction of the community’s values,norms, and behaviors toward other communities, which thereby results inan increase in group members’ self-esteem (Turner, 1987). Therefore, weassume that community identification is inextricably linked with consumerparticipation.
Further studies support this assumption: Algesheimer et al. (2005)showed that brand community identification has a positive impact oncommunity engagement. In their study about antecedents and purchaseconsequences of customer participation in small-group brand communi-ties, Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006) found that social identity has a positiveimpact on desire to participate in both Harley riding groups and non-Harleyriding groups. Hence, we propose that identification with a group resultsin active community interaction and hypothesize the following:
H1: Community identification has a positive influence on consumerparticipation.
Influence of community satisfaction on consumer participation. Thesecond important antecedent of brand community participation is satisfac-tion with the community. Satisfaction is an overall evaluation of perfor-mance, and it is based on prior experiences (Anderson & Fornell, 1994).Two conceptualizations of customer satisfaction exist in the literature:
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
244 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
(a) transaction-specific and (b) overall satisfaction (Cronin & Taylor, 1994).In our research, we focus on overall satisfaction, because it is a better pre-dictor of a community’s past, current, and future performance. Based onPSOC, community members strive for fulfillment of their needs. As a pre-requisite of being actively participating members, community membershave to evaluate their membership positively (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
Existing findings in the virtual community literature confirm the im-pact of satisfaction with the community on community participation. Forexample, Casalo et al. (2007) showed that in virtual brand communities,satisfaction with the community has an indirect effect on community par-ticipation. Furthermore, de Valck, Langerak, Verhoef, and Verlegh (2007)distinguished between four dimensions of community members’ satisfac-tion: satisfaction with (a) member-to-member interaction, (b) organizer-to-member interaction, (c) organizer-to-community interaction, and (d) thecommunity site. These dimensions have been found to influence members’visit frequency. Nambisan and Baron (2007) and Lin (2006) found a posi-tive effect between satisfaction and customer participation in a communitycontext. Hence, we propose that identification with a group results in activecommunity interaction and hypothesize the following:
H2: Community satisfaction has a positive influence on consumerparticipation.
Influence of consumers’ perceived degree of influence on consumerparticipation. The third important factor that contributes to communityparticipation is the perceived degree of influence on the community. Thisis defined as an individual’s need to have some control and influence(Obst et al., 2002a). As noted before, degree of influence is one of thefour dimensions of PSOC (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). It is closely re-lated to the concept of self-efficacy; therefore, people perceiving a highdegree of influence should be more willing to engage in the community(Bandura, 1986). Yet this linkage was investigated empirically only by vonLoewenfeld (2006), who supported our assumption. Hence, we proposethat the degree of influence with a group results in active communityparticipation and hypothesize the following:
H3: The degree of influence in the community has a positive influenceon consumer participation.
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 245
Consequences of Consumer Participation
We posit that community member participation affects community loy-alty, word of mouth, and the image of the community presenter’s brand.Again, we have three reasons for studying these consequences. First,these consequences are outcomes of community member engagement(Algesheimer et al., 2005; Kim & Jung, 2007; Muniz & Schau, 2007).Second, they are important outcomes for companies intending to establishnew brand communities. Finally, although these variables are consideredto be crucial for brand community success, empirical studies testing theimpact of consumer participation on these consequences and, in particular,on the sponsor’s brand image are largely lacking.
Influence of consumer participation on brand image. One importantoutcome of community participation represents the community presenter’sbrand image, which is defined as the perceptions about a brand as reflectedby the brand associations held in consumer memory (Keller, 1993). Instudies analyzing brand communities, it has been argued that customerempowerment and consumer-generated content may be of high relevancefor increasing brand image (Cova & Pace, 2006; Muniz & Schau, 2007).These community activities may be community member integration, whendeveloping innovations together with the company (Fuller, Jawecki, &Muhlbacher, 2007), or cooperative development of advertising campaigns(Muniz & Schau, 2006, 2007). Muniz and Schau (2006) argued that mem-bers of the community act as marketing consultants, brand managers,salespeople, copywriters, product engineers, service technicians, and pric-ing specialists. Most of this research assuming a positive effect of customerinteraction on brand image is qualitative in nature, and quantitative studiesanalyzing the effect are still lacking (Muniz & Schau, 2007). Accordingto PSOC, customer engagement within the community results in positiveemotions toward the brand. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
H4: Consumer participation has a positive influence on brand image.
Influence of consumer participation on community loyalty and word ofmouth. Further potential outcomes of community participation are com-munity loyalty and word of mouth (Kim & Jung, 2007). Loyalty is anoverall attachment or deep commitment to a product, service, brand, ororganization (Oliver, 1999). The more common manifestations of loyaltyare recommendation behavior and patronage intention (Dwyer, Schurr,& Oh, 1987; Fornell, 1992; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). In a
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
246 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
brand community context, Algesheimer et al. (2005) showed that a strongercommunity engagement leads to stronger membership continuance andcommunity recommendation intentions. Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006) as-sessed a significant indirect effect of desire to participate on brand loyalty.Jang, Ko, and Koh (2007) as well as Casalo et al. (2007) found that partic-ipation contributes positively to the community commitment of members.In the context of brandfests, Schouten et al. (2007) showed that transcen-dent customer experiences can strengthen a person’s ties to a communityand therefore lead to greater loyalty. According to SIT, interaction withother members leads to a strengthening of in-group consciousness. Hence,we propose that community participation has a positive effect on commu-nity members’ loyalty intentions and on their word-of-mouth behavior andhypothesize the following:
H5–6: Consumer participation has a positive influence on communityloyalty (H5) and word-of-mouth behavior (H6).
Moderating Effect of Interaction Preference
In the existing brand community literature, little attention is paid to fac-tors determining the effectiveness (i.e., consequences) of customer partici-pation. It is likely that the strength of the relationships between communityparticipation and consequences of community participation is moderatedby other variables. In marketing research, existence of moderators has beendiscussed as the rule and not the exception (Ping, 1995). A customer’s in-teraction preference might be one of these factors influencing the strengthand/or the direction of customer participation effectiveness. Interactionpreference is defined as the prevailing tendency of an individual to inter-act with relative strangers (i.e., people they have never met offline) in anonline environment (Wiertz & de Ruyter, 2007). When customers have ahigh preference for interacting within the community, we assume customerparticipation to have a stronger effect on word-of-mouth behavior, brandimage, and community loyalty. If one compares two participating com-munity members, one having a high preference for interaction with otherpeople in general and the other having no such preference, the first personis much more likely to recommend the brand community (perceive a fa-vorable brand image/stay loyal) because he or she receives more benefitsfrom participating in the community. Hence,
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 247
H7–9: The higher the interaction preference, the greater the positiveeffect of consumer participation on word-of-mouth behavior (H7),brand image (H8), and community loyalty (H9).
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire Development and Pretesting
We tested our hypotheses in an online study using a Web survey de-sign. The online questionnaire was pretested by 20 German undergraduatemarketing students. The pretest was intended to refine the questionnaire,especially with regard to question content, wording, format, and layout.
Measures
We measured attitude-related variables, except for community loyalty,with multi-item scales. Community loyalty was measured by using onesingle item adapted from Algesheimer et al. (2005). Although multi-itemscales are generally preferred, the latest studies support the use of single-item scales for loyalty-related research (LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983;Lemon, White, & Winer, 2002; Mittal, Ross, & Baldasare, 1998; Rossiter,2002). Furthermore, we took five items that are regularly used in theliterature (Woisetschlager, 2007; Woisetschlager, Michaelis, & Backhaus,in press) to measure brand image. Word of mouth was measured by using ascale from Zeithaml et al. (1996). Interaction preference was measured byusing an established scale from Wiertz and de Ruyter (2007). Participation,degree of influence, as well as identification and satisfaction with the virtualcommunity were adapted from von Loewenfeld (2006). Table 1 providesa description of the items used to measure the constructs.
All items were measured by using 7-point Likert-type scales with an-chors of 1 = strongly agree and 7 = strongly disagree. Measurementreliability of the reflective constructs was examined through a confirma-tory factor analysis. It can be noted that composite reliabilities for allconstructs exceeded. 6, the generally recommended threshold (Bagozzi &Yi, 1988). Moreover, discriminant validity between the constructs is given,because none of the squared correlation coefficients between any of theconstructs exceeded the average variance extracted for a construct (Fornell& Larcker, 1981). Results of correlation analysis are depicted in Table 2.
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
TAB
LE1.
Con
stru
cts
and
Mea
sure
s
Sca
le/It
emC
A1
CR
2A
VE
3
Par
ticip
atio
n(v
onLo
ewen
feld
,200
6)a
.912
.914
.680
1.M
embe
rsof
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
help
each
othe
r.2.
Whe
nIs
eek
for
advi
ce,I
amlik
ely
tofin
dso
meo
nesu
ppor
tive
inth
e[N
ame]
com
mun
ity.
3.If
ound
new
frie
nds
asa
resu
ltof
join
ing
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
.4.
Frie
ndsh
ips
inth
e[N
ame]
com
mun
ityar
eim
port
antt
om
e.5.
Soc
ialc
onta
cts
and
frie
ndsh
ips
are
supp
orte
dby
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
’sof
fers
for
inte
ract
ion.
Iden
tifica
tion
With
Vir
tual
Com
mun
ity(v
onLo
ewen
feld
,200
6)a
.995
.995
.753
1.Is
eem
ysel
fas
belo
ngin
gto
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
.2.
The
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
play
sa
part
inm
yev
eryd
aylif
e.3.
Isee
mys
elfa
sa
typi
cala
ndre
pres
enta
tive
mem
ber
ofth
e[N
ame]
com
mun
ity.
4.T
hevi
rtua
l[N
ame]
com
mun
ityco
nfirm
sin
man
yas
pect
sm
yvi
ewof
who
Iam
.5.
Ican
iden
tify
with
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
.6.
Ihav
est
rong
feel
ings
for
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
.7.
Ifee
llik
eIb
elon
gin
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
.S
atis
fact
ion
With
Vir
tual
Com
mun
ity(v
onLo
ewen
feld
,200
6)a
.912
.916
.784
1.O
vera
ll,th
e[N
ame]
com
mun
itym
eets
my
expe
ctat
ions
.2.
The
cont
ento
fthe
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
mat
ches
exac
tlyw
ithm
yin
tere
sts.
3.T
he[N
ame]
com
mun
ityfu
lfills
my
need
s.D
egre
eof
Influ
ence
(von
Loew
enfe
ld,2
006)
a.8
33.8
37.6
321.
As
am
embe
rof
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
,Ica
nin
fluen
ceth
eco
mm
unity
asa
who
le.
2.Ia
msa
tisfie
dw
ithth
ede
gree
ofin
fluen
ceto
shap
eth
e[N
ame]
com
mun
ity.
3.A
sing
lem
embe
rha
sth
ech
ance
tobe
anac
tive
part
inth
e[N
ame]
com
mun
ity.
Wor
dof
Mou
th(Z
eith
amle
tal.,
1996
)a.8
87.8
92.7
351.
Ihav
esa
idpo
sitiv
eth
ings
abou
t[N
ame]
com
mun
ityto
othe
rpe
ople
.2.
Ihav
ere
com
men
ded
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
tope
ople
who
seek
my
advi
ce.
3.Ih
ave
enco
urag
edot
her
peop
leto
join
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
.
248
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
TAB
LE1.
Con
stru
cts
and
Mea
sure
s(C
ontin
ued)
Sca
le/It
emC
A1
CR
2A
VE
3
Bra
ndIm
age
(Woi
sets
chla
ger,
2006
;Woi
sets
chla
ger
etal
.,20
07)a
.951
.952
.800
1.[B
rand
]is
trus
twor
thy.
2.[B
rand
]is
relia
ble.
3.[B
rand
]is
likea
ble.
4.[B
rand
]is
ave
rygo
odbr
and.
5.[B
rand
]is
ave
ryat
trac
tive
bran
d.C
omm
unity
Loya
lty(A
lges
heim
eret
al.,
2005
)a—
——
1.It
wou
ldbe
very
diffi
cult
for
me
tole
ave
the
[Nam
e]co
mm
unity
.In
tera
ctio
nP
refe
renc
e(W
iert
z&
Ruy
ter,
2007
)a.9
17.9
19.7
401.
Iam
som
eone
who
enjo
ysin
tera
ctin
gw
ithot
her
com
mun
itym
embe
rs.
2.Ia
mso
meo
new
holik
esac
tivel
ypa
rtic
ipat
ing
indi
scus
sion
sw
ithot
her
com
mun
itym
embe
rs.
3.In
gene
ral,
Iam
som
eone
who
,giv
enth
ech
ance
,see
ksco
ntac
twith
othe
rco
mm
unity
mem
bers
.4.
Inge
nera
l,It
horo
ughl
yen
joy
exch
angi
ngid
eas
with
othe
rco
mm
unity
mem
bers
.
a Mea
sure
dus
ing
7-po
intL
iker
t-ty
pesc
ales
anch
ored
by1
=st
rong
lyag
ree,
7=
stro
ngly
disa
gree
.1 C
ronb
ach’
sA
lpha
;2 Com
posi
teR
elia
bilit
y;3 A
vera
geV
aria
nce
Ext
ract
ed.
249
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
250 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
TABLE 2. Correlations Between Constructs
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Participation —2. Identification with
Virtual Community .784 —3. Satisfaction with
Virtual Community .635 .730 —4. Degree of Influence .698 .751 .694 —5. Word of Mouth .678 .736 .719 .657 —6. Brand Image .435 .493 .577 .497 .551 —7. Interaction Preference .747 .644 .503 .540 .550 .360 —
AVE .680 .753 .784 .632 .735 .800 .740
Sample and Data Collection
Data were collected via the Internet. The questionnaire was e-mailed toall registered members of the virtual brand community. At the time whenthe survey started, a total of 8,361 users were registered. Of the users, 21.7%were female and 78.3% were male. Registered members were on average26.32 years old (SD = 11.42) and had been members for 4.66 months(SD = 2.94). A total of 1,025 members participated in the survey, equal-ing a response rate of 12.26%. Of the participants, 24.1% were femaleand 75.9% were male. The respondents were on average 26.03 years old(SD = 11.84) and had been members for 4.72 months (SD = 3.24). Ac-cording to these descriptive statistics, the sample was comparable to thepopulation of all registered members.
RESULTS
We used structural equation modeling to test the hypothesized direct andmoderating effects. The model fits the data well. The comparative fit indexwas .925, the Tucker–Lewis index was .917, the root mean square errorof approximation was .073, and the standardized root-mean-square resid-ual was .083. Table 3 shows the parameter estimates of our model. Pathcoefficients between participation and the three independent constructsidentification with virtual community, satisfaction with virtual commu-nity, and degree of influence were positive and statistically significant atthe .01 level. Regarding the consequences, the path coefficients between
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 251
TABLE 3. Results of the Basic Model With Direct Effects
Direct EffectModel
Hypothesis Construct λ t
Participation (r2) .726H1 Identification with virtual community .567∗∗∗ 11.901H2 Satisfaction with virtual community .095∗∗∗ 2.432H3 Degree of influence .254∗∗∗ 5.507
Word of Mouth (r2) .531H4 Participation .729∗∗∗ 20.650
Brand Image (r2) .230H5 Participation .480∗∗∗ 12.996
Community Loyalty (r2) .471H6 Participation .687∗∗∗ 21.079
Goodness-of-fit statisticsComparative fit index .925Tucker–Lewis index .917Root mean square error of approximation .073Standardized root-mean-square residual .080
∗∗∗p < .01.
participation and word of mouth, brand image, and community loyaltywere positive and significant at the .01 level.
Identification with virtual community had the strongest effect on par-ticipation (λ = .567, p < .01), followed by perceived degree of influ-ence (λ = .254, p < .01) and satisfaction with virtual community (λ =.095, p < .01). Hence, hypotheses H1 through H3 were supported by ourfindings. Our model explained 72.6% of the variance in the participationconstruct. Investigating the consequences, we have to sum up that partici-pation had the strongest effect on word-of-mouth behavior (λ = .729, p <
.01), followed by community loyalty (λ = .687, p < .01) and brand image(λ = .480, p < .01). Thus, hypotheses H4 through H6 were supported byour findings. The derived model explained about 53.1% of the variance inword of mouth (brand loyalty = 47.1%; brand image = 23.0%).
In order to test the moderating influences proposed in hypotheses H7
through H9, we used multigroup structural equation modeling. Mediansplits based on the values of the moderator variables were used to createthe groups. A chi-square difference test was conducted for the possiblemoderator effects by comparing a restricted and a nonrestricted model.Chi-square differences with three degrees of freedom (critical chi-square
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
252 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
TABLE 4. Results of Multigroup Analysis
Hypothesis Interaction Preference High Low �χ2 (df = 1)
H7 Participation → Word of mouth .662 .624 8.177∗∗∗H8 Participation → Brand image .499 .273 5.502∗∗H9 Participation → Community loyalty .615 .570 1.291
� χ2 (df = 3) 16.138∗∗∗
∗∗p < .05 ∗∗∗p < .01.
value [df = 3, p = .05] = 7.81) were assessed. After confirming a gen-eral moderating effect, we compared two models that differed only inone effect as suggested by our hypotheses. A moderating effect would bepresent when the improvement in chi-square moving from the restricted tothe nonrestricted model is significant, meaning the chi-square differencebetween the two models (and one degree of freedom) is larger than 3.84(p = .05). Results in Table 4 show that interaction preference had a signif-icant impact on the participation–word-of-mouth linkage (at the .01 level).For respondents with high interaction preference the link was stronger, giv-ing support for H7. Regarding the link between participation and brand im-age, a significant positive moderating effect of interaction preference wasfound (at the .01 level), supporting H8. Contrary to our expectations, inter-action preference was not found to moderate the participation–communityloyalty linkage; hence, H9 had to be rejected.
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FURTHER RESEARCH
Results of our empirical analysis reveal that most of the variance inparticipation can be explained by three factors: identification, satisfaction,and degree of influence. Marketing management has to keep these factorsin mind when new features for the community are developed. First, whena company sets up a company-driven community, homogeneous membersshould be grouped into subcommunities to increase the identification ofcommunity members with the community. This could be accomplished bysending automated introductions of members to other members, dependingon their profile match. Second, when implementing a virtual brand com-munity, companies should focus on providing interaction elements to theusers. In fact, successful online communities (e.g., business communitiessuch as XING.com and LinkedIn.com, or communities for social ex-changes such as friendster.com and facebook.com) provide many valuable
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 253
and adaptable examples of how to stimulate interaction between membersof the community. The more satisfied the community members are, themore willing they will be to keep the community alive through interactingwith other members. Third, the more open the platform is to user-generatedcontent, the more community members will contribute to the community.
From a management perspective, online communities are implementedfor several reasons. A company’s brand image is enhanced by havingcustomers exchange with like-minded people in a setting in which thebrand is embedded. Our results demonstrate that active members of thecommunity tend to evaluate the community presenter’s brand image morefavorably. This fact should be an incentive to marketing managers to investin a virtual community. Furthermore, when marketing managers intend toincrease brand community size, they can acquire new members throughrecommendations of existing members. To ensure the long-term success ofthe community, companies can increase community members’ willingnessto stay loyal to the community by engaging members.
Regarding the moderating effect of interaction preference, communitymanagement can use this personal characteristic to cluster communitymembers and design specific actions to increase word-of-mouth behaviorof groups, being sensitive for interacting with others. Similarly, positiveeffects of community participation on brand image should be realized.
Besides these managerial implications, future research should consideranalyzing the effects of implementing features on the change in evaluationof the drivers of community interaction over time. Longitudinal researchdesigns would allow for the monitoring of attitudes and behavior of users.As a result, membership exits could be forecasted and member clustersbased on attitudes and usage could be built. Further personal character-istics such as age, income, and gender should be tested on the consumerparticipation–outcome linkage. How to generate business with a contentand loyal virtual community provides another fruitful avenue for research.Finally, future research should focus on the question of how business of-fers could be communicated to the community without leading to adversereactions from users.
REFERENCES
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brandcommunity: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(7), 19–34.
Anderson, E. W., & Fornell, C. (1994). A customer satisfaction research prospectus. InR. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice(pp. 241–268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
254 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of cus-tomer participation in small group brand communities. Journal of Research in Marketing,23(1), 45–61.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of iden-tification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal ofMarketing, 59(4), 46–57.
Boorstin, D. J. (1973). The Americans: The democratic experience. New York: RandomHouse.
Carlson, B. D., Suter, T. A., & Brown, T. J. (2008). Social versus psychological brandcommunity: The role of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of BusinessResearch, 61(4), 284–291.
Casalo, L. V., Flavian, C., & Guinalıu, M. (2007). Promoting consumer’s participation invirtual brand communities: A new paradigm in branding strategy. Journal of MarketingCommunications, 14, 19–36.
Chavis, D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Sense of community: Advances and measurementand application. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 635–642.
Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: New formsof customer empowerment—The case “my Nutella community.” European Journal ofMarketing, 40, 1097–1105.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconcilingperformance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service qual-ity. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125–131.
de Valck, K., Langerak, F., Verhoef, P. C., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2007). Satisfaction withvirtual communities of interest: Effect on members’ visit frequency. British Journal ofManagement, 18(3), 241–256.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journalof Marketing, 51(2), 11–27.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience.Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 6–21.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fuller, J., Jawecki, G., & Muhlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketballcommunities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60–71.
Hickman, T. M., & Ward, J. (2007). The dark side of brand community: Inter-groupstereotyping, trash talk, and Schadenfreude. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 314–319.
Hollenbeck, C. R., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Consumer activism on the Internet: The roleof anti-brand communities. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 479–485.
Jang, H. Y., Ko, I. S., & Koh, J. (2007). The influences of online brand communitycharacteristics on community commitment and brand loyalty. Proceedings of the 40thAnnual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
Woisetschlager, Hartleb, and Blut 255
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity.Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Kim, K. H., & Jung, Y. M. (2007). Website evaluation factors and virtual community loyaltyin Korea. Advances in International Marketing, 18, 231–252.
LaBarbera, P. A., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfac-tion/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of MarketingResearch, 20, 393–404.
Lagrosen, S. (2005). Effects of the Internet on the marketing communication of servicecompanies. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(2), 63–69.
Lantz, G., & Loeb, S. (1998). An examination of the community identity and purchasepreferences using the social identity approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 25,486–491.
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: Themultiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 34, 481–493.
Lemon, K. N., White, T. B., & Winer, R. S. (2002). Dynamic customer relationship man-agement: Incorporating future considerations into the service retention decision. Journalof Marketing, 66(1), 1–14.
Lin, H.-F. (2006). Understanding behavioral intention to participate in virtual communities.CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 540–547.
Luedicke, M. K. (2006). Brand community under fire: The role of social environments forthe HUMMER brand community. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 486–493.
McAlexander, J. H., Kim, S., & Roberts, S. D. (2003). Loyalty: The influence of satisfactionand brand community integration. Journal of Marketing, 11(4), 1–11.
McAlexander, J. H., Koenig, H. F., & Schouten, J. W. (2004). Building a university brandcommunity: The long-term impact of shared experience. Journal of Marketing for HigherEducation, 14(2), 61–77.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community.Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.
McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24,315–325.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A theory and definition.Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.
Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative andpositive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions.Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 33–47.
Muniz, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research,27(4), 412–431.
Muniz, A. M., O’Guinn, T., & Fine, G. A. (2006). Rumor in brand communities. In D. A.Hantula (Ed.), Advances in social & organizational psychology (pp. 227–247). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
Muniz, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2007). Vigilante marketing and consumer-created commu-nications. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 35–50.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments:Implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal ofInteractive Marketing, 21(2), 42–62.
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010
256 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002a). An exploration of sense of community,Part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographicalcommunities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 119–133.
Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002b). Sense of community in science fictionfandom, Part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community ofinterest. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 87–103.
Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002c). Sense of community in science fictionfandom, Part 2: Comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community. Journalof Community Psychology, 30, 105–117.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue),33–44.
Ouwersloot, H., & Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2008). Who’s who in brand communities—And why? European Journal of Marketing, 42, 571–585.
Ping, R. A., Jr. (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadraticlatent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 336–347.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335.
Sarason, S. B. (1977). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a communitypsychology. London, UK: Proquest Info & Learning.
Schau, H. J., & Muniz, A. M. (2002). Brand communities and social identities: Negotiationsin cyberspace. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 344–349.
Schau, H. J., & Muniz, A. M. (2002b). A tale of tales: The Apple Newton narratives.Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(1), 19–33.
Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2007). Transcendent customerexperience and brand community. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35,357–368.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago,IL: Blackwell Publishers.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. InP. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 233–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
von Loewenfeld, F. (2006). Brand communities. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.Wiertz, C., & de Ruyter, K. (2007). Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to
firm-hosted commercial online communities. Organization Studies, 28(3), 347–376.Woisetschlager, D. M. (2007). Team-sponsorship in the formula one—Does it affect brand
perception? An empirical assessment in the German car market. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 34, 616–623.
Woisetschlager, D. M., Michaelis, M., & Backhaus, C. (in press). The “dark side” of brandalliances: How the exit of alliance members affects consumer perceptions. Advances inConsumer Research.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences ofservice quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 Thammasat University] At: 13:18 5 June 2010