The Role of Brand Trust in Online Communities PDF

B
A
C
H
E
L
O
R

T
H
E
S
I
S
PROGRAMME AND ECTS
The role of brand trust in online
communities
Adrien Dubois Ahlqvist
Michael Popp
Strategic Marketing with independant project
30.0 hp
Halmstad Hgskolan 2013
B
A
C
H
E
L
O
R

T
H
E
S
I
S
Halmstad Hgskolan 2013
The role of brand trust in online
communities
Adrien Dubois Ahlqvist
Michael Popp
Strategic Marketing with independant project
30.0 hp

The iole of bianu tiust in online communities

[1]

!"#$%&'()*(+($,-
We desire to express our gratitude toward all people who have contributed to our
thesis.

We want to thank all the people who have helped us to spread the survey and
answering it.

We would also are grateful for our supervisor: Reinert Venilton who helped us all the
way to the end to product this thesis.

We also want to thank to our colleagues who offered constructive criticisms that have
enabled us to improve our thesis.

We also thank Vera and Jrgen Popp as well as Laura Pttmann for the contribution
they have made to this thesis. Without them it probably would not be what it is now.


[2]

Title: The role of brand trust in online communities
Authors: Adrien Dubois Ahlqvist & Michael Popp
Supervisor: Reinert Venilton
Level: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration
Key words: Brand trust, online communities, eBook, Internet, retailing, brand
loyalty, brand
Purpose: The purpose of this paper to understand how brand trust is built in online
communities
Method: A quantitative, descriptive study conducted on 286 people. A
questionnaire has been used.
Theoretical framework: The framework consists of theories and models
about online communities and brand trust
Conclusion: It was found that certain factors influence brand trust: Knowledge
about the eBook market, sunk cost, non-overlapping attributes, functional promises,
past experience with the brand, past experience of other community members with the
brand and information about the eBook retailer
Brand trust in online communities spreads in a similar way like information. Most
people in online communities join them to consume information and only a relatively
small amount of people provides the information about brand trust. The framework
of a community influences the way brand trust spreads with roles of members, their
evolution and social identity as most important mechanisms.


[3]

/01'( %2 3%$,($,-
!"#$%&'()*(+($,- /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 0
1$,2%)3",4%$ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5
67"#*2%3$) ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5
82%9'(+ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// :
832;%-( ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// <
=('4+4,7,4%$-> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// <
?@(%2(,4"7' A27+(&%2# //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 0B
627$) ?23-, //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 0B
Befinition of Bianu ............................................................................................................................... 1u
Befinition of tiust .................................................................................................................................. 1u
Befinition of Bianu Tiust ................................................................................................................... 11
=(C('%;+($, %A 927$) ,23-, ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 00
Why bianu tiust is neeueu ................................................................................................................ 11
D%& 927$) ,23-, 4- 934', %$ 7$ 4$)4C4)37' '(C(' ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 0E
Bianu tiust uevelops ovei time ...................................................................................................... 12
Bianu tiust uevelopment anu piomises ..................................................................................... 1S
Nain factois influencing bianu tiust uevelopment ................................................................ 1S
?@( F%'( %A 627$) ,23-, 4$ %$'4$( "%++3$4,4(- ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 0G
H@7, 4- 7 I%++3$4,J ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 0G
Biffeience between communities anu segmentation ............................................................ 16
K%"47' 4)($,4,J //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 0L
F(7-%$- &@J ;(%;'( 72( 2(7)J ,% 4$C%'C( ,@(+-('C(- 4$ "%++3$4,4(- //////////////// 0L
Shaiing knowleuge ............................................................................................................................... 17
Celebiating similaiities anu uistinction fiom the outsiue woilu ..................................... 18
Shaieu iituals .......................................................................................................................................... 18
D%& 72( "%++3$4,4(- %2*7$4M() 7$) N(+9(2-@4; '4A( "J"'( /////////////////////////////////// 0<
Types of classification ......................................................................................................................... 19
Evolution in the iole of people ........................................................................................................ 2u
N(,@%)%'%*J ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// EB
N(,@%) ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// E0
Qualitative oi quantitative ................................................................................................................ 21


[4]

?J;( %A 2(-(72"@ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// EE
Exploiatoiy - Besciiptive - Explanatoiy .................................................................................... 22
8%;3'7,4%$ 7$) -7+;'( /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// EO
Population ................................................................................................................................................ 2S
Type of sample: Ranuomly anu non-ianuomly ........................................................................ 24
Sample Size .............................................................................................................................................. 2S
1$-,23+($, ,% "%''(", ,@( )7,7> P3(-,4%$$742( /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// E5
Auvantages anu uisauvantages of online ieseaich ................................................................. 26
Reasons foi choosing a questionnaiie ......................................................................................... 28
Bata collection ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Statistical Nethous useu foi analysis ........................................................................................... SS
Q+;424"7' K,3)J /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// OR
82('4+4$72J S3(-,4%$- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// OR
P3(-,4%$- 2('7,4C( ,% (6%%#- 7$) (6%%# 2(,74'(2 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////// O5
P3(-,4%$ 2('7,() ,% 927$) ,23-, ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// G0
P3(-,4%$- 2('7,4C( ,% "%++3$4,4(- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// GR
N3',4C72479'( 7$7'J-4- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// G:
=4-"3--4%$ %A (+;424"7' )7,7 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// RB
H@J 927$) ,23-, 4- $(()() A%2 (6%%# 2(,74'(2 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// RB
Bianu tiust anu the absence of full infoimation ..................................................................... Su
Is bianu tiust ielateu to the knowleuge of the maiket. ....................................................... Su
627$) 7$) -3$# "%-,- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// RO
627$) ,23-, 7$) $%$T%C(2'7;;4$* 7,,2493,(- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// RG
D%& 927$) ,23-, 4- 934', %$ 7$ 4$)4C4)37' '(C(' ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// RR
Bianu tiust anu uiffeient types of piomises ............................................................................. SS
627$) ,23-, 7$) A7",%2- &@4"@ 4$A'3($"( ,@( 4$)4C4)37' '(C(' %A 927$) ,23-, ////// R5
Influence of the thiee main factois of bianu tiust .................................................................. S6
Finuings of questions ielateu to past expeiience .................................................................... S8
D%& ,@( -;2(7)4$* %A 4$A%2+7,4%$ 4$A'3($"(- 927$) ,23-, //////////////////////////////////////// R:
Expeiience of othei community membeis ................................................................................. S8
Relationship between membeiship of a bianu community anu bianu tiust .............. S9
uoal oiientation of communities .................................................................................................... S9
N("@7$4-+- %A %$'4$( "%++3$4,4(- &@4"@ 4$A'3($"( ,@( &7J 927$) ,23-,
-;2(7)- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5B


[5]

Biffeient ioles in an online community ....................................................................................... 6u
Evolution of People in an online community ............................................................................ 61
Nost impoitant places foi online communities to meet ...................................................... 61
I%$"'3-4%$ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5O
I%$,2493,4%$ ,% 2(-(72"@ 7$) ;27",4"( ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5G
U32,@(2 -,3)4(- ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5G
V4+4,7,4%$- ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5G
649'4%*27;@J ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 5R


[6]

4$,5%)6",7%$
80"#*5%6$)
This thesis is going to discuss the role of brand trust in online communities for eBook
retailer. In this first part of the introduction the importance of brand trust and online
communities is shown. Furthermore it is pointed out how these concepts belong
together and why the eBook retailing market has been chosen.

Apple is with more than 416 billion the most valuable company in the world (Forbes,
2013). Companies like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, IBM or Coca-Cola are also valued
billions. What do they have in common? They are respected and well-known brands.
One thing which they all have in common is that they have created brand trust.

Brand trust has many advantages like loyalty, elevated expectations and is sometimes
more important than the product itself.
Brand trust creates loyalty that makes the customers stay with the brand, even though
competitors product might be more favorable according to objective criteria
(Ruparelia, White, & Hughes, 2010).
Trust can sometimes be more important than the product itself. Positive experience
can strengthen belief to overconfidence resulting into liking and trusting brand
products irrationally (Wright & Lynch, 1994).
Additionally it is clear that brands make promises and raise customers expectations
about the product (Anker, Kappel, Eadie, & Sandoe, 2012), which then is associated
with more benefits.

Brand trust, however, is not a natural state of customers but has be established in them
somehow. Online communities play an important part in spreading brand trust
through the internet (de Valck , H. van Bruggen , & Wierenga , 2009) with for
instance having Facebook having 250 thousand members in Europe
(Internetworldstats, 2012). With Facebook just being one of many online
communities the amount of members and therefore also their great influence can be
seen well. Communities are now an essential social component that marketing has to


[7]

take into consideration: they have empowered buyers as never did before, creating
new challenges for marketing: communities are more engaged, more active and more
powerful than individuals and having them trusting in the brand is essential for its
success (MUNIZ, Albert M. and O'Guinn, Thomas, 2001). Communities are also a
great way to reach a massive amount of people that are already highly engaged with
certain products or topics (SEO , Jangwon et al., 2011). Having communities trusting
a brand and spreading this trust might be far superior traditional ways of advertising.

Brand trust in an online community spreads the same way any information will spread
and will use the same mediums to do so (V. Kozinets, de Valck, C.Wojnicki, &
J.S.Wilner, 2010). Most of the time new information is given to the community by the
most influential persons in the group, usually those considered as the "elders" (Toder-
Alon, Brunei , & Schneier Siegal , 2001): they are leader of the community who then
spread the information or brand trust to the rest of a community (Toder-Alon, Brunei ,
& Schneier Siegal , 2001). At some point information can become viral and then
reach the whole community and even spread beyond the realm of the online
community (de Valck , H. van Bruggen , & Wierenga , 2009).
Organizational structures of communities went from a society of hierarchy to a
society of networks; this has an important impact on its peoples mentality and on
organizations as they are now more flexible, more reactive, more goal driven and they
also focus much more on performance and control than ever before (Raab & Kenis ,
2009).

The Internet has increased the power of communities by allowing form groups to put
companies under pressure. Today communities are able to make a big organization
bow because they for instance didnt like the end of a computer game (EA and Mass
Effect 3 (BBC, 2012)), because they want a TV show to continue (Hero Corp
(Allocin, 2012)) or simply shutting on or off companies or countries from the
internet just because they agree or disagree to their policies such as the PSN Gate
where the company saw its services being shut down by a group of hackers from the
Anonymous movement (Eudes, 2011).


[8]

As the role of brand trust in online communities cannot be studied in the vacuum it
was decided to focus on an area with great potential which has not yet been studied
much in this regard: the eBook retailing market. This market is, new, big and
growing: the US market for instance, reached 3,371 Billion in 2012 and has a
forecasted market volume of 5,571 billion in 2015 (PricewatershouseCoopers, 2013).
Furthermore some segments are especially attractive, like the export sales of eBooks
by American retailer which grew from 4,9 million in 2010 to 21,9 million in 2011, an
increase of 333% (Greenfield, 2012)
EBook retailer have also been chosen because brand loyalty is important in highly
competitive industries where costs of entrance are low (Elena & Munuera-Alemn,
2000) as eBooks can be everyone who has the right website. Brand trust may create a
substantial entry barrier for competitors, leading to a higher revenue and market share
(Elena & Munuera-Alemn, 2000). This market fits very well to online communities
because when buying an eBook the buyer has to rely on the experience of other
community members (A. Chevalier & Mayzlin , 2003).

95%1'(+
Convincing individuals of buying a certain brand is not easy and convincing a group
of people is even harder. However a brand, who succeeds in doing so, will transform
the community into an ambassadors of the brand who will then convince more people
around them with a reduced need for the brand to actively reinforce that trust (Steve
Blank, 2012). Compared to brand trust, brand distrust spreads much faster in online
communities because bad buzz becomes viral much easier than positive information
about the brand and can quickly have highly destructive effects on a it (Arnaud De
Bruyn, 2008). Distrust would have high consequences: customers would switch more
easily to other brands, be more prices sensitive and this would result in a lower
market share and a decrease in revenue. (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001)
Distrust also leads to close-mindedness, which makes influencing the customer more
difficult (Ruparelia, White, & Hughes, 2010) and as a consequence of that values
projected by the company are not accepted and the unique symbolic benefits that they
want to convey will not be seen by the customer (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).


[9]

If brand trust, however, can be established then the great benefit is that the brand is
more likely to be chosen first in the product category (Muthukrishnan, 1995).

965:%-(
The purpose of this paper is to understand how brand trust is build and how it spreads
in communities. To accomplish these four need to be covered:
-The need of brand trust for eBook retailer
-How brand trust is built on an individual level
-How brand trust is spreading in online communities
-How the organization of communities can influence the spreading of brand trust
Therefore the research question is: How is brand trust build in online communities?

;('7+7,0,7%$-<
This thesis researches why brand trust is needed, how it is built on an individual level,
how information the information about brand trust spreads in online communities and
how the mechanisms which define the framework of an online community influence
the way brand trust spreads. It is not talked about the benefits of brand trust, if brands
are needed or the importance of online communities. It is also not talked about the
role of brand trust for magazines, scientific articles or other written information, even
though it is assumed that findings in these areas might be similar.


[10]

/=(%5(,7"0' 250+(&%5#
In this part brand trust will be defined, by defining Brand and Trust individually
and putting these definitions together. Then it is defined in detail what an online
community is, what they are after and the big picture will be painted of how
communities organize themselves in order to reach their goals. This analysis is crucial
to understand how information is transmitted in a community and consequently how
brand trust spreads in online communities. These definitions are important to
understand how online communities develop and understand implications for the
advantages which brand trust might bring.

850$) /56-,
;(27$7,7%$ %2 850$)
A brand is a set of symbolic values that differentiate products, services, persons or
places from other functionally equivalent entities (Anker, Kappel, Eadie, & Sandoe,
2012). A brand also triggers these associations in other people, letting them recall the
presented values and ideas of the brand, attaching them to the company (Valatoutsu &
Moutinho, 2008).

;(27$7,7%$ %2 ,56-,
Trust is more difficult to describe as it is a complex construct that has many
dimensions, variables and that is not easy to quantify (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & C.,
1998). The most precise definition is a psychological state comprising the intention
to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intention or behavior
of another under conditions of risk and interdependence (Ruparelia, White, &
Hughes, 2010). This definition gives a true, yet vague idea of what trust is. Trust is
also described as the belief, that someone fulfills his obligations or relying on an
exchange partner who one has confidence in (Schurr & Ozanne, 1985). Another
definition of trust is the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of
the brand to perform its stated function (Alam & Yasin, 2010). The main


[11]

commonality these definitions have is that trust is about a belief of the fulfillment of a
promise. Consequently it is important to understand what a promise is. According to
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, [] the most basic meaning of making a
promise is to assure somebody that one will do or not do something (Anker, Kappel,
Eadie, & Sandoe, 2012).

;(27$7,7%$ %2 850$) /56-,
Combining these two Ideas brand trust is the belief that the projected symbolic values
of the company will be given with the product or service. The trust in the promise is
important up to the point where the customer decides to try the product and then
makes up his own mind about it and then the trust gets approved or disapproved
(Anker, Kappel, Eadie, & Sandoe, 2012). Trust is not confidence in the performance
of the company, not the belief that the company is fair minded or truthful, not a
statement about the high quality of the companys products, not predictability of
future performance, not positive personal experience, yet these factors highly
correlate with trust (Ruparelia, White, & Hughes, 2010).

;(>('%:+($, %2 150$) ,56-,
?=@ 150$) ,56-, 7- $(()()
One of the reasons why brand trust is needed is the absence of full information (Alba
& Wesley, 1987). People have an imperfect memory and therefore cannot know
everything. They either do not know exactly all features of all retailers or do not know
everything about the products, the eBooks available.

Another problem is that brands sometimes possess non-overlapping attributes (Slovic
& MacPhilammy, 1974). Some eBook retailers might have certain features like better
customer service, better data security or very user-friendly websites. As a
consequence of that customers, even when having full information, cannot objectively
decide which retailer is better as they all have different and non-comparable
attributes. Even though this does not directly creates a need for brand trust, having
brand trust in a company would in this case make it easier for the customer to decide


[12]

where to buy, because he knows what he values and where he gets it.

Customers also decide to build brand trust if sunk costs are involved (Samuelson &
Zeckhauser, 1988). In the case of eBook retailer the sunk-costs would be representing
by the time and energy which a customer has spent in entering has data in the website,
learning to navigate fast through the website and other aspects. He sometimes would
chose to trust the brand instead of taking the effort to switch the eBook retailer.

Regret avoidance also plays a big role in showing, why trust is important
(Muthukrishnan, 1995): people have a tendency to avoid regret instead of gaining
similar amounts of pleasure (Muthukrishnan, 1995), therefore preferring to stay at a
trusted eBook retailer instead of changing and risking to be disappointed.

Now that brand trust and the need for brand trust have been explained it is to show
how brand trust is build inside of individuals and how these individuals will spread
this trust trough online communities

A%& 150$) ,56-, 7- 167', %$ 0$ 7$)7>7)60' '(>('
850$) ,56-, )(>('%:- %>(5 ,7+(
Brand trust does not occur immediately but is rather growing over time when
customers expectation of the product are met and they consequently are willing to use
it again (Ruparelia, White, & Hughes, 2010). This means that when purchases are
made at the eBook retailer and the customer is for instance satisfied with the quality
of the transaction, the eBook and the data security trust is building up. Even though it
takes time to build trust, trust can be lost very quickly when consumers are
disappointed and it is very hard or even impossible to get them trusting the brand
again (Ruparelia, White, & Hughes, 2010). This means that eBook retailer have to
work consistently because mistakes destroy trust quickly.


[13]

850$) ,56-, )(>('%:+($, 0$) :5%+7-(-
Promises of eBook retailers shape the expectation of the customer (Ruparelia, White,
& Hughes, 2010). EBook retailers make three main types of promises: functional,
symbolic and experiential. Functional promises focus on solving a clear problem or
on fulfilling a task, for instance when an eBook is bought because it contains certain
information (Anker, Kappel, Eadie, & Sandoe, 2012). Symbolic promises are those
where beyond the eBook other advantages are promised to be given like becoming fit
from reading a book about sport or being more liked by other people. These symbolic
promises usually involve the participation of the customer to keep them (Evans &
Hastings, 2008). The last type of promise is an experiencial, a promise which
addresses to the need of the customer of stimulation or variety (Chandler & Vargo,
2011), for instance the story or information contained in an eBook. Understanding the
types of promises is crucial, as their nature influences the way trust is developed.
Finding out which promises influence trust the most could be helpful for building
brand trust.

B07$ 20",%5- 7$2'6($"7$* 150$) ,56-, )(>('%:+($,
The three main factors influencing brand trust are word of mouth, information about
the brand and past experience (Ruparelia, White, & Hughes, 2010). It is important to
notice that in the case of eBook retailers companies do not have full influence on
these 3 factors. Word of mouth is created by customers for customers, information is
also found in different sources and past experience is relative. It would be important
to understand how much each of these 3 factors influence brand trust to be able to
take actions against negative sources of influence.


[14]

Figure 1: Chart which illustrates the development of brand trust based on the
information of the theoretical framework (Michael & Adrien, 2013)

Now that it is explained how brand trust is established in customers as individuals
free of any context it is to show how this trust will spread in communities. In the
following it is explained how communities are organized and why people are inside of
them. These two aspects are the most important ones to understand how brand trust
spreads in an online community.

/=( C%'( %2 850$) ,56-, 7$ %$'7$( "%++6$7,7(-
?=0, 7- 0 3%++6$7,@
!"#$%$&$'% '# )% '%*$%" +',,-%$&.
In a first part it is defined what a community is in general and then specified in which
ways online communities may differ.

A community can be defined as a body of individuals who have a sense of common
identity may be defined as a community. They may share geographic, political,
religious or social similarities (Slack, 1998). This definition clearly puts people and
identity in the center of the definition a community but it is also a common purpose,
which bounds individuals to improve their lots and that of their fellows (Slack,
Absence of full
infoimation,
Sunk cost,
iegiet
avoiuance
Neeu foi bianu
tiust

Bianu tiust
builus ovei
time thiough
kept piomises,
satisfaction,
woiu of mouth
anu
Infoimation
about bianu


[15]

1998). Since communities are created by people for people new ones appear every
day and there are as many of them as there are differing opinions (a political
community), hobbies (sports club), ways of life (the gay community), places to live
(local communities) or beliefs (Christian communities) (Hoon Kim , Hoon Yang , &
Kyung Kim , 2009). The definition of community doesnt imply any limits of size nor
age or limits to how many people can be in the community as long as they have
something that binds them together. For example any individuals can be part of a
family community, take responsibility in a private boat club where people are close to
each other, go to a science fiction book convention and from time to time join a poker
club: all these different groups are communities and one person can be part of dozens
of communities (Hoon Kim , Hoon Yang , & Kyung Kim , 2009).

Communities can be used in marketing. It is then possible do distinguish between two
types of communities: subcultural communities and brand communities (De Burgh-
Woodman & Brace-Govan , 2007). Subcultural communities are social oriented,
escapist of mainstream norms, based on non geographical interactions, they exists
outside commercials interests and draw from many different inspirations (Zaglia,
2013); a good example of a subcultural community would be the hippie or the geek
community (Hovy, 2005)) whereas a brand community is defined by being a
specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social
relations among admirers of a brand (Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). Some of the most
known brand communities are Apple users, Harley Davidson bikers or dungeons &
dragons players.

For the term online community, however, many different definitions can be found.
For our purpose the definition of Howard Rheingold (1994) is suiting very well. He
wrote that virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough
people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace. A virtual community is a
group of people who may or may not meet one another face-to-face, and who
exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and
networks (Rheingold, 1994). What Rheingold means with that definition is that an
online community is, as the name implied, a community with the distinction that
interactions are made online. This definition clearly shows that in online communities


[16]

information, ideas and beliefs are exchanged. One important theory that our thesis is
going to test is if brand trust can spread in online communities in the same way as
information does.

;722(5($"( 1(,&(($ "%++6$7,7(- 0$) -(*+($,0,7%$
It is important to point out the difference between communities and segments,
because these two concepts on the first glance might seem identical. Kotler,
Armstrong, Wong & Saunders (2008) define segmentation as being the need to
dividing a market into distinct groups of buyers who have distinct needs,
characteristics, or behavior and who might require separate products or marketing
mixes, in practice segmentation is usually done by demographic criteria such as the
age, the gender of the person, where they live but also behaviors and psychological
factors (Martin, 2011) but in the end a good segmentation is one where each person fit
in one and only one segment (Kotler, Armstrong, Wong, & Saunders, 2008). Smith
considers that market segmentation involves viewing a heterogeneous market as a
number of smaller homogeneous market in response to differing preferences
attributable to the desires of customers for more precise satisfaction of their
variations (Wedel, 2011). Based on this analysis it can be said that people never
being two times in different segments is the most important thing in an effective
segmentation.

It was seen earlier that communities can be based on many different common
elements in many different domains that can be shared by individuals and that people
are often part of several communities at the same time: family is a community, a town
or a country is another one, then people can have several passions and can choose to
be part of each community that have been built around this hobby or interest.
Researches have defined actives communities as shared cultural, socials and
intellectual values (Seraj, 2012) involving self-governed community culture, co
creation and interactions.


[17]

Through these two definitions it becomes really clear that these are two completely
different concepts that imply two differing approaches on marketing to these groups.
Segmentation takes away the freedom of choice to its future customers whereas a
community based approach lets the people say to what group(s) of people they want
to be assimilated. The difference is that in one case individuals are passive whereas in
the other one they are already active, already interact together and have clearly
defined rules and behaviors. There cant be a community if there is no conscience of
a kind (Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001), a mindset which is shared by all of them.

D%"70' 7)($,7,@

/0)1$%2 3)*-"4 )%5 %'1,4
Values are defined as principles or standards of behavior; ones judgment of what is
important in life by the oxford dictionary (Oxford University, 2013). Communities
dont only stand for a goal, an objective but sometimes for values (Belton, 2012). A
great example for this is the amazon.com community. People not only buy products
but also discuss and express their opinion (Knappenberger, 2012). In case of eBooks
that means that they discuss about the eBook and give recommendations to buy or to
avoid it.

C(0-%$- &=@ :(%:'( 05( 5(0)@ ,% 7$>%'>( ,=(+-('>(- 7$ "%++6$7,7(-
D=057$* #$%&'()*(
Knowledge is the reason why most communities are gathering: to exchange
information and receive support in receirch (Sharratt & Usoro , 2003). What people
are after in these networks is the satisfaction of helping or to know that having helped
they will be rewarded for it when they will need help themselves (Chao-Min , Meng-
Hsiang , & Wang , 2006). This exchange is crucial for a community to survive
because it gives users a purpose to meet and motivate them to continue their efforts.
Mutual exchange in a community is called the justice theory and it refers to the
fairness of the outcome that an individual gets considering what he has been giving


[18]

(Bies & Moag, 1986). This fairness paradigm in communities is essential: if the
mutuality principle is not respected then the whole organization is at risk because
individuals would not be seeing the benefits of giving sharing valuable information.
(Seo , Croft , & Smith , 2011).

Communities not only value information from other members, but also from
companies.
When customers interact with companies they might absorb the companies values and
perceive the company as trusted advisers (Fller , Matzler , & Hoppe , 2008). This,
however, only happens the customer perceives the information given by the company
as valuable (Fller , Matzler , & Hoppe , 2008).

3('(150,7$* -7+7'057,7(- 0$) )7-,7$",7%$ 25%+ ,=( %6,-7)( &%5')
As it has been said before communities are a place where people sharing a common
trait (like reading), a common passion (like eBooks) or a common objective (like
learning) can be found to unite and meet other people like them: they identify
themselves with or distinguish themselves from other people (Bagozzi, Bergami,
Marzocchi, & Morandin, 2012). Many talks in communities are based around a joyful
recognition and identification; sometimes members will talk about how they came to
the community or whatever brought the community together which results in
tightening their bonds (de Valck , H. van Bruggen , & Wierenga , 2009). According to
Bagozzi (2012) they will also create a differentiation between them as a homogeneous
group and others; This barrier will be reinforced by the mutual bonds and links they
share inside the community. The close relationship of community members inside the
group causes their values to merge and amplify the trust or distrust for a brand.

D=05() 57,60'-
People among communities also share certain rituals that have an important role in a
practical sense but also beyond it. They reinforce the feeling of being part of
something bigger than oneself and that is different from the rest of the world (Muniz
& O'Guinn, 2001). They involve the recognition of the people inside the community


[19]

and of people outside of it as well: it can be about reading the same books or
comparing ones library to another community members collection (Muniz &
O'Guinn, 2001). Some rituals just involve telling each his or her own story of how
they joined the community or discussing about the experience of products (Zaglia,
2013). This means that rituals are an important part of online communities to spread
brand trust, as experience and information are exchanged on a regular basis.

A%& 05( "%++6$7,7(- %5*0$7E() 0$) B(+1(5-=7: '72( "@"'(
/@:(- %2 "'0--727"0,7%$
Communitys actors have a specific life style, in the way they integrate themselves
and interact inside the group. These steps can be related to the importance the person
will acquire in this specific group: It is distinguished between visitors who will read
but not interact and are quite outside of the community from novices and regulars (the
main difference between these two groups is that the former spends less time in the
community and has less knowledge), leaders who will bring new ideas to the
community and elders whose role is mainly to regulate the group (Toder-Alon, Brunei
, & Schneier Siegal , 2001).

There are, however other approaches to categorize community members lie the one of
De Valk (2009). He distinguishes between core members and peripheral members.
Core members are people who intensively use the knowledge reservoir of a
community and will also supply massive amount of it. They are extremely active and
are usually less than 10% of a community. Peripheral members can be divided into
other groups: Conversationalists and informationalists. The conversationalists are
people who will come often but for short visits during which their interactions are
intense. Informationalists are people who highly use and supply information
contained in a community; their interactions are comparable to those of
conversationalists but they come less often and spend less time talking to others.
Hobbyists are people who love to come often to see what is new in the community but
who wont spent much time supplying new knowledge to the group, they come even
more often that conversationalists and spend even more time. They usually spend
their time uploading music, pictures or cartoons; they will often represent around 20%


[20]

of a community. The last groups in this approach are the opportunists: they are the
least frequent visitors whose visits are the shortest, they only use the community as a
giant knowledge reservoir from which they drain but dont supply anything useful for
others.

Understanding the composition of the community is important to understand how
brand trust spreads in it. Finding out for instance the rate of participation gives a great
insight in how many percent of people are spreading the brand trust in the community
and how many are receiving the information.

F>%'6,7%$ 7$ ,=( 5%'( %2 :(%:'(
According to Kozinet (1999) a more dynamic approach has to be used to make
distinction about the different actors of a community. He argues that people not only
have a predefined role but rather dynamic perception of their role in the community.
This distinction is important because it is possible to not only identify the way brand
trust is spread but also gives the possibility to predict how it will spread in the future,
assuming that the rate of change can be calculated.

B(,=%)%'%*@
In this part of the thesis, it is shown which methods have been used to collect the
information needed. The following tools have been chosen because they fit best to the
purpose. As the main objectives are to understand how brand trust develops and how
brand trust spreads in communities the most suitable approach to our purpose has
been chosen.


[21]

B(,=%)
G60'7,0,7>( %5 H60$,7,0,7>(
When collecting data, two different types of data can be found: qualitative and
quantitative data (Clarke, 1999).

Quantitative analysis is about variables, measured with numbers, and analyzed with
statistical procedures, in order to determine whether the predictive generalizations of
the theory hold true (Sogunro, 2002). According to this definition it can be said that
quantitative research is more about the numerical analysis of relationship, using
statistical tools and quantifying theories.

Qualitative research on the other hand is an inquiry process of understanding [] a
problem, based on building a complex picture, formed with words, reporting detailed
views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting (Sogunro, 2002). Qualitative
data consequently is used to describe the attributes of a situation or create a detailed
report of a situation.

A qualitative research has the risk of being subjective as the participants are asked to
give their opinion (Caillet & Guimbi, 2010) instead of receiving objective
descriptions of the reality. Moreover in qualitative analysis data is often taken from a
small number of subjects, as the analysis of the data of an individual takes more time
than in a qualitative analysis (Clarke, 1999): a lower survey sample size means a
lower objectivity.

In the theoretical framework the forces which are important about for role of brand
trust in online communities have been pointed out and therefore it is important to
understand the importance of different aspects instead and analyze, how strong they
are and how the correlate, for which a quantitative approach is more appropriate.

Concluding it can be said that a quantitative analysis fits better to our demands
regarding the data and also to the population, as access to many potential participants


[22]

is available and therefore data can be collected from a great number of subjects, get
more objective results and therefore have more profound findings.

/@:( %2 5(-(05"=
FI:'%50,%5@ J ;(-"57:,7>( J FI:'0$0,%5@
There are three different types of research: descriptive, exploratory and explanatory
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007).

Exploratory research is a research that is often made when no clear definition or
boundaries of a problem exist (Shields & Tajalli, 2006). This type of research is
mostly conducted when a theory or hypothesis is needed because there is not enough
information about this topic (Shields & Tajalli, 2006). The purpose of such a research
is commonly to formulate new hypothesis in order to be able to investigate more
efficient in the future (Shields & Tajalli, 2006).

The second type of research, explanatory research, and aims to understand how
certain aspects of a topic or phenomenon are relating to each other. (Saunders, Lewis,
& Thornhill, 2007).
Exploratory studies aim to analyze relationships and patterns as in of certain
phenomena, as almost everything does not exist in a vacuum but rather in an
interrelated system (Grimaldi & Engel, 2007).

Descriptive research on the other hand is used to describe attributes and
characteristics of the group or phenomenon that is analyzed (Shields & Tajalli, 2006).
This type of research does not aim to give explanation of causalities and relationships,
not answering why, how or when certain attributes occurred (Shields & Tajalli, 2006).

Quantitate descriptive research goes even further; It not only describes the situation as
it is but also uses numerical or graphical techniques to organize this data to give a
better description (Fisher, 2009).


[23]

Looking at the three different types of research, two types of research seems to be the
most suitable one to our situation. Exploratory research does fit very well to the
theoretical framework of our thesis, as there has been no clear hypothesis formulated
yet. Explanatory research does not fit because the role of brand trust for eBook
retailer has not been studied much before and it is not clear that the theories are
correct. Therefore looking for explanations for them does not make sense. Descriptive
research, however, fits very well to the purpose: describing the situation is a good
way to fill the void that exists due to the lack of data about this topic: by gaining
clarity about this topic insights can be gained which might be used for further
research in for instance explanatory research.

9%:6'0,7%$ 0$) -0+:'(
9%:6'0,7%$
The population of eBook reading community members has not yet been studied and
therefore no numbers for this exist. It, however, can be said that 21% of all Europeans
read eBooks (Rainie, Zickuhr, Purcell, Madden, & Brenner, 2012) and 518.512.109
people use the internet in Europe (Internetworldstats, 2012). It can be said that every
internet user is a community member because practically everyone who collects
and/or shares information online has a social identity and can associate himself with
other people online, which is the criteria for being a member of an online community
(Slack, 1998). It is impossible to find out exactly how many people are community
members and also read eBooks because both aspects are constantly changing but
estimations can be made. Assuming that the reading of eBooks and the Internet
connection are independent elements it can be said the population is of eBook reading
community members is of about 108000000 people by taking 21% of all European
internet users. This assumption is rather unrealistic because Internet usage and eBook
consumption are very likely related but this is the only option available for
determining the population. Even though it might not be accurate it gives a rough
estimate of the size of the population.


[24]

/@:( %2 -0+:'(< C0$)%+'@ 0$) $%$K50$)%+'@
In this part the sampling choice will be explained
Two types of sampling are possible: Random sampling and non-random sampling
(Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, 2003)
Random sampling has a clear definition: each individual in the population of interest has
an equal likelihood of selection (Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and
Learning, 2003). This means that all subject of the population have to have the same
probability to be participate in the survey.

On the other hand, in a non-random sample is used when the likelihood of occurrence of a
certain element is not known (Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning,
2003). This might happen when the population is not known (Columbia Center for New
Media Teaching and Learning, 2003)

Four main types of non-probability sampling exist: availability sampling, quota Sampling,
purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Columbia Center for New Media Teaching
and Learning, 2003).

The availability sampling is a method to choose a sample by convenience (Business
Dictionairy, 2013). The advantage of this method is that it is easy to get volunteers as
there are not so strict criteria that have to be met compared to the other sampling methods
(Business Dictionary, 2013). The biggest disadvantage of this method is that the sample
might be biased: as by choosing an easy accessible group the whole population might not
be perfectly represented by them (Business Dictionary, 2013).

The second type of non-probability sampling is the quota sampling. When using quota
sampling the elements of the sample are chosen according to certain criteria that will make
them representable for the population (Heinz, 1998). An advantage is that it is more
reliable then the availability sampling, because the way of choosing makes the sample size
more resembling to the population (Heinz, 1998). The biggest disadvantage of this
sampling method is that the subjects are chosen according to specific criteria that always
involve the risk of having a non-representative sample. (Heinz, 1998)


[25]

The third type of non-probability sampling is the purpose or judgmental sample (Tansey,
2007). In this sampling methods elements are chosen because they meet a certain criteria
(Tansey, 2007). This type of sampling is very efficient, when studying extreme or
abnormal cases, as those can be directly chosen and analyzed (Tansey, 2007). This being
said this sampling method can be rejected because the purpose is to study the development
of brand trust in an online community and there is no need to focus on special cases.

The third and last type of non-random sampling is snowball sampling. In the snowball
sampling subjects are chosen to participate in the study and the recruit further participants
(Handcock & Gile, 2011). This happens until there is enough data gathered until the
sample size is high enough for a reliable research (Handcock & Gile, 2011). This sampling
technique is often used to access populations that are difficult to find or are geographically
dispersed (Handcock & Gile, 2011) which is the case for members of online communities.
Snowball sampling, however, has two main disadvantages. The first is that there is a
community bias (Handcock & Gile, 2011). It means that certain members of the
population are more likely to be chosen than others, as they might have more contact, be
less feared or more liked (Handcock & Gile, 2011). The second disadvantage is that it
cannot be know how much the sample size is based through the snowball sampling
(Handcock & Gile, 2011). In our case this is a really big problem as role of users in an
online community are very diverse: for instance novices have a different role as leaders or
elders.

After looking at the sampling possibilities it is clear that only one method can supply a
perfect, unbiased sample: the random method. From the non-random method none will
have sufficient validity because each one of them includes a bias that will make it
impossible for us to make a reasonable quantitative analysis.

D0+:'( D7E(
205 people are needed to have a confidence level of 99% with a confidence interval of 9%
and the assumed population (Macorr, 2013). It was decided for this sample size as the data


[26]

will be relatively representative without the unreasonable effort of collecting to many
responses. If for instance the confidence interval should be decreased to 7%, 340
responses would be needed (Macorr, 2013). That is too much effort in for this slight
decrease in the confidence interval.
4$-,56+($, ,% "%''(", ,=( )0,0< G6(-,7%$$075(
The instrument to collect data is an online questionnaire. In the following it is going
to be explained why it was chosen to be done online and why a questionnaire has
been chosen.

!)>0$,0*(- 0$) )7-0)>0$,0*(- %2 %$'7$( 5(-(05"=
Internet is one of the largest data sources available for market research (Kotler,
Armstrong, Wong, & Saunders, 2008). By collecting data in the Internet it is possible
to reach a very large amount of people.

Internet research, however, not only has advantages. One problem of online surveys is
the sampling (Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003) since it is very difficult to
estimate the population that is surveyed and therefore probability samples are not
possible (Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003). This could be seen as a problem, if
the population was not estimated already. This estimate can be seen in the
Population part. Making this online has no disadvantages compared to an offline
survey in our case, as still the same community members are interviewed, but just
with less effort.

Andrews, Nonnecke and Preece (2003) (Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003) also
say that participants in online surveys are more likely to give bad data, as they might
lie about their demographic attributes. Other scientists, however, have discovered that
participants in online surveys are more honest (Couper M. P., 2000). It is true, that
participants in offline surveys cannot lie about certain aspects of their but it is also
fact that participants on offline studies might lie about sensitive attributes because of
the lack of anonymity (Couper M. P., 2000).


[27]

Another problem often stated in relation to online surveys it he availability of
participants (Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003). Even though there is a high
amount of potential survey participants, they could still ignore the surveys and
therefore no information would be gathered (Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003).
This is not a problem for this thesis because the data will be collected from Facebook
friends and in Facebook groups where we have acquaintances and the risk of not
having the surveys answered is dramatically reduced. The same is true for e-mail
respondents.

There are, on the other hand, many advantages of making the data collection online: it
is possible to access target groups, which cannot be accessed otherwise because of
their unavailability (Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003). Brand trust can spread
through online communities over the whole world and the members of online
communities can be found, as their name suggests, online. An offline survey would
not have any benefit compared to the online survey; the people who could be met
there could also be found online, as they have to have a connection to the internet to
be a member of an online community.

The second factor is time. Online research can reach a great amount of people over a
very short time (Couper M. P., 2000). This is important for the thesis as a quantitative
analysis is made and therefore a higher sample size during the same time of data
collection can be obtained, which is important to make a solid statistical analysis.

The third point is probably the most important one: People are more honest when they
communicate online (Couper M. P., 2000). This is particularly interesting, as some of
the questions in our survey ask sensible information. When people are for instance
asked how many books they read, some might over- or understate the number to
protect their identity or to keep/get a better image.

As can be seen after the analysis of online data collection the advantages of collecting
data in this way outweighing the disadvantages by far, furthermore the disadvantages
are not a problem for the thesis as they either are not relevant or can be compensated
by other means. As a conclusion of this, the online survey is chosen.


[28]

C(0-%$- 2%5 "=%%-7$* 0 H6(-,7%$$075(
A questionnaire has certain advantages and disadvantages. Probably the biggest
disadvantage is that it cannot be seen how people react to information presented
(Popper, 2004). This results in misunderstandings of questions and consequently very
subjective results. To avoid this problem two things have been done:
First an easy language has been chosen. For example it was written do the group
members have a different role in the online community? instead of can
heterogeneous roles be found in the online community?. In this way it is more simple
for people to answer and the chances that they make mistakes decreases.
The second step was to create clear scales. In one example where it is talked about
the importance of brand trust in a purchase not just 1 is low and 5 is high was
written but a more precise definition has been used : 5 is equally important to
product features and 1 does not have any influence at all on purchase. In this way
the subjectivity cannot be totally removed, but definitively reduced.
Another disadvantage of questionnaires is that it cannot be seen how much time the
participant took to complete the questionnaire (Couper, Tourangeau, & Conrad, 2004)
This might lead to wrong results, as participants might just read the questions
superficially and therefore miss important details, which would result in biased
answers. This pitfall has been avoided by making short, pregnant questions that are
very hard to misunderstand. Therefore such a bias is unlikely.

Popper (2004) also argues that it is not possible to see how truthful the respondents
answer to the questions. When too many people are untruthful in the survey this
would decrease the validity of the data. Surveys online however are more likely to be
answered truly (Couper M. P., 2000). Furthermore every respondent answers us
because of they want to help us, which reduce the risk of wrong answers.

Questionnaires also have advantages: they are easy and quick to process (Popper,
2004). Which is a very good as a high number of respondents is needed, which can
easily be obtained through the use of internet. This allows getting a higher sample size
and consequently better, more meaningful results.


[29]

Collecting data with a questionnaire is more objective than collecting data in many
other ways (Couper, Tourangeau, & Conrad, 2004). In experiments wrong
observations can be made (Popper, 2004) and people are more likely to lie in face-to-
face and telephone interviews than online (Couper M. P., 2000).

After discussing the pros and cons it can be said that the questionnaire is good way to
collect the data. It has been seen that the disadvantages are not relevant for this work
and that reliable data can be collected easily and processed for the purpose of this
thesis.

;0,0 "%''(",7%$
In order to collect data the social media platform Facebook and e-mail is used. Using
these tools it is possible reach the whole population: About 48% (48,40%) of Internet
users have Facebook (Internetworldstats, 2012). The other 52% (51,60%) have been
reached by e-mail, where it is assumed that every member of an online community
has who buys eBooks has e-mail. This is a fairly sound assumption as active
membership or online shopping (of eBooks) is not possible without an e-mail address.

This Method of data collection is chosen, because a larger amount of people who are
willing to answer can be found there, compared to just sending out an e-mail. E-mail
is still used complementary and by using both tools we get access to the whole
population. This allows using probabilistic methods.

The data collection will be done through Google Drive Survey. It is an easy way to
collect and treat data, their survey software is free and they guarantee privacy to a
certain extent. Moreover their survey forms are working on almost every computer,
thereby increasing the amount of answer can be collected.

To reach the potential respondents a Facebook-event has been made. This is a page
which where a description can be design and an expiration date can be set. There the


[30]

questionnaire can be described and the potential respondents are given a link to the
survey.
The second way to collect data is posting our survey in several online communities on
Facebook. It has been decided to post them there because these communities have
many potential respondents. Furthermore in some of these communities, like regional
communities, we have acquaintances which improves the amount of responses. The
third way is to send the survey out by e-mail This will be done from the 20.04.2013 to
the 24.04.2013. This is a relatively short time period. This, however, is not a problem
because the purpose is to describe the role of brand trust which does not have a time
component; therefore a short time period is suiting to our purpose.

We will also ask some relatives to share this survey by email to their own contact list
in order to acquire more answer.


[31]

The data will be collected in four categories:

Category Information contained
Preliminary Questions Age, How many communities
joined, Expectation of brands
Questions about e-book retailer Favorite retailer, Easy to change
retailer, Special attribute,
Knowledge about market offering
Questions about brand trust What influences brand trust the
most, how das past experience
influence brand trust, how das
information by the brand influence
your trust
Questions about communities Why do you join communities, how
much influence do you have on
communities, are there different
behaviors in communities, did your
role evolve in the community

6)*$5$&. )%5 1"*$)7$*$&. '# &0" 5)&)
6)*$5$&.
Validity answers the question whether the results obtained by an experiment or survey
meets the requirements for scientific work (Shuttleworth, 2008).

According to shuttle worth 6 types of validity can found in scientific research:
external validity, internal validity, test validity, content validity, construct validity and
face validity.


[32]

External validity is concerned with generalization. If an experiment is externally valid
the findings about the sample are true for the whole population. This criterion is
fulfilled fairly well for this thesis for two reasons. First, the random sample represents
the population very well and second our sample size is relatively high. The latter is
increasing validity because it can be said that the findings are true for the population
in 99% of the cases.

An internal validity measure is used to prove the relation of causality between
elements so that it is sure that nothing else could have caused the observations. This
element is also fulfilled since the questions have been designed to understand each of
the people who answered to the survey and no other elements are involved.

Test validity is an indicator of how much meaning can be assigned to the findings and
is composed out of content validity and of construct validity. Content validity is high
since only questions are asked which are based on previous experience of the
surveyed interviewed people regarding their eBook buying behavior or community
membership. A strong construct validity can also be found as every theory from the
framework was used to design the questionnaire: their relation with the theoretical
background is therefore high which is the main criteria for construct validity.

The face validity also seems good since a clear structure in the survey can be seen
which is aiming to understand the way the sample buys and consumes eBooks and
how they will spread the trust they acquired to other members of their community.

8"*$)7$*$&.
According to Jacobsen (2002) reliability is the fact that the information gathered can
be used to provide answers to the questions of the purpose. The data should also be
similar when the experiment is repeated The survey was designed so that everyone
would understand it by using simple words, by explaining each concept that might be
confusing and by explaining each of the questions with a small sentence. The
questionnaire has also been tested by sending it to a group of 5 people before sending
the survey everyone else to make sure that each question is understandable and it is
possible to answer them easily


[33]

D,0,7-,7"0' B(,=%)- 6-() 2%5 0$0'@-7-
This part is going to describe the statistical methods used in the discussion part. It will
only focus on the more complex methods, leaving out basic ideas like expectancy
value, median and others.
90$:;$%5"<"%5"%+.;&"4&
The chi!-independency-test is a test to find out if two variables are dependent
(Missong & Mittnik, 2005).The chi! Test consists of four steps (Missong & Mittnik,
2005):

1.) Null hypothesis: ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !! !
!

2.) Test variable: ! !
!! !" !! !" !!!
! !" !
!
!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!"#$%"&'$(!

With
-I and j being the columns
-h(ij) as the observed number of real answers
-h(ij) the numbers which would be observed in the table if i and j where independent
-m the being the degree of freedom (K
x
-1)*(K
y
-1)=1
-K
x
and K
y
being the number of columns for the x and y variable

3.) Realization of the variable Q

4.) Decision and interpretation:
If q> q
m
1-! then the Null Hypothesis can be refused to with a probability of ! percent.


[34]

With
- q being the test variable Q
- q
m
being the realized variable of the chi! distribution with m degrees of
freedom and at the point 1-!

9'0"%4 =

Cohens w is a measurement of correlation between two variables which is derived
from Cramers V(Cohen, 1988)

Cramers V is defined as with: k, l being the number of columns (Missong & Mittnik,
2005)
! !
!!
!"#! ! !! ! !! !!!!
!

with:
" !! !
!
!
!! !" !! !" !!!
! !" !
!
!!!
!
!!!
,
-k, l being the number of columns,
-V ranging from 0 to 1
-and h and h defined as previously

Knowing Cramers V, Cohens w can be derived (Cohen, 1988).
! ! ! ! !"# !! ! !!
!

Cohens w has the advantage that it is possible to interpret it better then Cramers V: A
result from 0,0-0,3 is a weak correlation, a result from 0,3-0,5 is a medium correlation
and a result from 0,5-1 is a strong correlation (Cohen, 1988)


[35]

F+:757"0' D,6)@
In this part the results from the online survey are going to be shown and explained
107 Answers from Facebook and 148 from the e-mail survey where collected initially.
As a 52% of the answers should be from e-mail respondents and 48% from Facebook
respondents for every member of the population to have the same chance for every
member of the population to be chosen, data was collected until 143 Facebook
answers where received. Then the first 138 where taken, so the sample would meet
the condition, that every individual has the same chance to be chosen was met and
therefore a probabilistic sample was obtained.
95('7+7$05@ H6(-,7%$-
This first row of question was designed to help to restrain the sample to people being
part of communities and reading eBooks so it is possible to separate them from those
not reading any eBooks and/or not being part of communities who are not the targets
of our thesis. If people did not read eBooks or where community members, they have
been ordered to leave the survey.

This graph shows that most people in our sample have in general one to two
communities in which they interact since they represent 59% of the asked population.

92
77
S9
27
S2
19
1$ @%& +7$J %$'4$( "%++3$4,4(-
72( J%3 ;72, %AW
1
2
S
4
S
Noie than S


[36]

It can clearly be seen that two big groups emerge from this graph: On the one hand
those who read eBooks occasionally (less than 10 eBooks a year) are about 67% of
the sample. On the other hand the compulsive eBook readers can be seen who
represent roughly one third of the population who read more then 10 eBooks.

About 2/3 of the sample expects more when buying branded products.
G6(-,7%$- 5('0,7>( ,% (8%%#- 0$) (8%%# 5(,07'(5
The second part of the survey was dedicated to understanding how our sample has
been consuming eBooks, what they were expecting form their eBook retailers and
how consumers related to their eBook retailer.
126
66
47
S4
1S
D%& +7$J (9%%# )4) J%3 2(7)
'7-, J(72W
Fiom 1 to S
Fiom 6 to 1u
Fiom 11 to 1S
Fiom 16 to 2u
Noie than 2u
197
89
=% J%3 (X;(", +%2( &@($ J%3
93J 7 927$)() ;2%)3",W
Yes, the piouuct oi
seivice has to be bettei
somehow bettei
No, I ueciue on a
piouuct-baseu level


[37]

60% of the sample use amazon kindle, which is the most important eBook retailer for
the sample. Some people also told that they mostly used piracy and peer to peer in
order to get their eBooks.

It can be seen that price is the most important criteria when buying eBooks before
choice, availability or the quality and price of the devices. The extra services seem to
be unimportant to the European eBook consumer since only 6% of them said it was
what made their eBook retailer their favorite.

171
71
6
S8
=% J%3 @7C( 7 A7C%24,( (9%%#
2(,74'(2W
Amazon Kinule
Apple iBook
Baine & Noble's Nook
else
49
76
46
18
49
48
u 2u 4u 6u 8u
Choice
Piice
Quality Piice of e-book ieauing
Extia seivices
Availability
else
H@J 72( ,@(J J%32 A7C%24,( (9%%#
2(,74'(2W


[38]

This graph shows that people have a relatively positive opinion about their eBook
retailer's suggestions: on 286 people 198 say they trust the suggestions (ratings from 3
to 5) their online eBook retailer offer.

Of 286 persons 203 consider that changing their eBook retailer is not an easy thing to
do (rating from 3 to 5). This indicates that people tend to stay with one eBook retailer
for some time and not change retailer each time they want to buy a book.

21
68
147
SS
17
u
Su
1uu
1Su
2uu
1: not at all 2 S 4 S: a lot
D%& +3"@ )% J%3 ,23-, J%32
(9%%# 2(,74'(2 &4,@ 2(7)4$*
-3**(-,4%$-W
92
41
69
6S
21
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
1: yes 2 S 4 S: no
1- 4, (7-J A%2 J%3 ,% "@7$*( (9%%#
2(,74'(2W


[39]

This graph clearly shows that people don't feel that much of a difference from one
eBook retailer to another and that customers choice seems to be much more driven
by their habits rather by rational choices and decisions.

This graph is shows us that the most of the promises which the eBook retailer fulfills
are of functional and experiential nature. Symbolic promises play a rather minor role.

u
Su
1uu
1Su
2uu
1: no 2 S 4 S: yes
=% J%3 @7C( 7$J 9%$3-(- 724-4$*
A2%+ J%32 +(+9(2-@4; &4,@ J%32
(9%%# 2(,74'(2W
1Su
S7
99
u Su 1uu 1Su 2uu
H@4"@ %A ,@(-(- ;2%+4-(- 72(
A3''Y4''() 9J J%32 (9%%# 2(,74'(2W
Expeiiential (uieat
expeiience, "pleasuie
obtain by ieauing the
book")
Symbolical ("Nakes
people like you moie,
gives you status, makes
you coolei")
Functional ("uive you
infoimation")


[40]

It varies how much effort it took to reach comfortability status but for most of the
sample it was easy.

This graph shows that most of the eBook retailer do not have a specific attribute
which sets them apart from others.

96
6S
88
2S
14
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
1: a few houis 2 S 4 S: moie than 2
months
=4) 4, ,7#( +3"@ (AA%2, ,% 2(7"@
,@( -,7,3- %A "%+A%2,794'4,J 7,
J%32 (6%%# 2(,74'(2W
S9
227
=%(- J%32 (9%%# 2(,74'(2 @7C(
-;("47' 7,,2493,(W
Yes
No


[41]

This graph allow us to say that people don't know much about the eBook retailer
market and it might be one of the reasons why they don't change their retailer.

G6(-,7%$ 5('0,() ,% 150$) ,56-,
This part has been dedicated to understanding each person from the sample in relation
to brand trust: what was most important to them, how their trust could be influenced
but also the importance of repeated interactions with the brand or the company for the
establishment of their trust in the brand.

1S7
76
S1
22
u
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
14u
16u
D%& &('' )% J%3 ,@4$# J%3 #$%&
,@( +72#(, %A (9%%# 2(,74'(2-W
S1
S4
77
1u6
S8
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
D%& +3"@ )%(- Z[\F ;7-,
(X;(24($"( &4,@ ,@( 927$)
4$Y'3($"( J%32 ,23-, 4$ 4,W


[42]

This graph shows the importance of own past experience. For 255 people past
experience has an influence on brand trust.

This graphs shows that communities play an important role in building brand trust for
individuals trough past experiences of other members of the same community.

This graph shows that most people, if they feel betrayed by an eBook retailer, would
consider that trust cannot be regained easily.

21
48
122
87
8
u
Su
1uu
1Su
D%& +3"@ )%(- ;7-, (X;(24($"(
[U [?DQF I[NN\]1?Z
NQN6QFK &4,@ ,@( 927$)
4$Y'3($"( J%32 ,23-, 4$ 4,W
2S
26S
1A 7$ (9%%# 2(,74'(2 @7) '%-, J%32
,23-,^ "%3') 4, 9( 2(-,%2() &4,@%3,
*2(7, (AA%2,W
Yes
No


[43]

This graph shows that the most important promises are functional and experiential for
the sample if they would believe them.

This graphs shows that brand trust is also built through the active efforts of the brand
to provide more information to their customers since 80% of our sample is telling that
it has an important influence (rating 3 to 5).

1u1
S7
128
1A J%3 &%3') 9('4C( 4$ ,@(
;2%+4-(- %A 7 927$)^ &@4"@ %$( 4-
,@( +%-, 7,,27",4C( ,% J%3W
Functional ("uive you
infoimation")
Symbolical ("Nakes
people like you moie,
gives you status, makes
you coolei")
Expeiiential (uieat
expeiience, "pleasuie of
using the piouuct")
1S
4u
112
1u4
1S
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
D%& +3"@ )%(- 4$A%2+7,4%$
;2%C4)() 9J ,@( 927$) 4$Y'3($"(
J%32 ,23-, 4$ 4,W


[44]

It can be seen that for all but 18 people brand loyalty is built through many
interactions.

This graph allow us to say that for 47% of our sample relate closely their social
identity to the communities they are in but to the 53% else they declare that it is not
one of the prior element of their identity.

18
2S
72
1u6
6S
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
!2( J%3 +%2( '%J7' ,% 927$)- 4A
J%3_C( @7) +7$J 4$,(27",4%$-
&4,@ ,@(+W
1SS
1S1
1- J%32 -%"47' 4)($,4,J "'%-('J
2('7,() ,% ,@( "%++3$4,4(- J%3
;72,4"4;7,( 4$W
Yes
No


[45]

This graph is particularly interesting since it shows the main interest people have to
join an online community: for the biggest majority it's about sharing and accessing
knowledge with people that are similar to oneself.

G6(-,7%$- 5('0,7>( ,% "%++6$7,7(-
This last part of the survey was made so it was possible to understand how people
from our population interacted in their community, why they implicated themselves in
such time consuming activities and how todays communities are organized.

1u2
1u9
16
1S
41
S
u 2u 4u 6u 8u 1uu 12u
Shaiing anu accessing knowleuge
Be with people having the same
inteiests as you
0btain an iuentity
Paiticipate in something biggei than
youiself
Biscuss with a biggei gioup of people
about inteiest
else
H@J )% J%3 `%4$ "%++3$4,4(- A%2W
64
222
!2( J%3 ;72, %A 7 927$)
"%++3$4,JW
Yes I am
No I ain't


[46]

This graph shows us that only a bit more than 1/5 of our sample considers being part
of a brand community and for close to 80% they say that they are not inside any of
them.

This graph shows us that even tough some people take advantage of the new ways to
communicate directly with companies the biggest majority of people just don't have
any use in interacting directly with brands or companies.

Most people declare having only a small impact to their community and only a small
part of our population declares that they have a major impact in their group.

87
112
64
17
6
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
D%& %A,($ )% J%3 4$,(27", &4,@
927$)- %2 "%+;7$4(-W
72
92
111
9
2
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
D%& +3"@ 4$Y'3($"( )% J%3 ,@4$#
J%3 @7C( 4$ J%32 "%++3$4,JW


[47]

It can be seen that social networks are the most often visited community.

This graphs shows that a variety of different behaviors is observed by the sample in
all but 12 cases.

194
61
18
1S
u Su 1uu 1Su 2uu 2Su
Social netwoiks
0nline foiums
Chat iooms
else
H@(2( )% J%3 *% +%-, %A,($ ,%
+((, &4,@ J%32 "%++3$4,JW
12
S2
1u7
89
26
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
!2( ,@(2( +7$J )4AA(2($,
9(@7C4%32- 4$ J%32 "%++3$4,JW


[48]

In here it can be seen that for a big part of the sample doesnt change their role
strongly in their communities but it can still clearly be seen that there are movements
inside communities since 88% of asked people said their role changed inside of the
community.

B6',7>05701'( 0$0'@-7-

In some cases it has been important to see the data in two dimensions to extract
relevant information.

Are you in a brand community
(I)/Social Identity closely related to
community
Yes no Sum
Yes 28 33 64
No 107 118 222
Sum 135 151 286

This table gives an insight in the relationship the trait Member of a brand
community and Social identity is closely related to that community.

S7
8S
1u7
S6
S
u
2u
4u
6u
8u
1uu
12u
D%& +3"@ )4) J%32 2%'( 4$ J%32
"%++3$4,J (C%'C() '7-, J(7,W


[49]

Trust suggestions of eBook
retailer (i) / Knowledge about
market offering (j)
1 till 2 3 till 5 Sum
1 39 98 137
2 till 5 50 99 149
Sum 89 197 286 (Total)

This table shows the relationship between Trust in the eBook retailer (vertical) and
Knowledge about market offering(Horizontal)

Difficulty
to change
retailer
(i)/
Amount
of
Bonuses
(j)
1 2 3 4 5 Sum
1 57 25 39 38 12 171
2 7 4 6 5 1 23
3 17 9 18 15 6 65
4 7 3 4 3 1 18
5 4 0 2 2 1 9
Sum 92 41 69 63 21 286

This table shows how the aspects Difficulty to change retailer and Amount of
bonuses arising from membershipuses arising from membership.


[50]

;7-"6--7%$ %2 (+:757"0' )0,0
Which role does brand trust play for eBook retailer?
This part is going to focus discuss the role which brand trust plays for eBook retailer
and the hypothesis related to that.

?=@ 150$) ,56-, 7- $(()() 2%5 (8%%# 5(,07'(5
850$) ,56-, 0$) ,=( 01-($"( %2 26'' 7$2%5+0,7%$
In the following part a chi-square independence tests will be made to find out if brand
trust and the absence of full information are related to each other, as Alba and Wesley
(1987) suggested.

4- 150$) ,56-, 5('0,() ,% ,=( #$%&'()*( %2 ,=( +05#(,L
This question will be answered by making a chi square analysis of the relationship of
the questions How much do you trust your eBook retailers reading suggestions? and
How well do you know the eBook market?

In order to have a reliable chi-square independence test it is important to have at least
5 answers in each column (Missong & Mittnik, 2005). Therefore the table from the
analysis part is taken which is suitable for the chi!- independency-test:


[51]

Trust suggestions of retailer (i) /
Knowledge about market
offering (j)
1 till 2 3 till 5 Sum
1 39 98 137
2 till 5 50 99 149
Sum 89 197
286 (Total)

Another table is necessary for the chi-square independency test: the values which
would occur if both variables where independent.

Trust suggestions of retailer (i) /
Knowledge about market offering (j)
1 till 2 3 till
5
Sum
1 42,6 94,4 137,0
2 till 5 46,4 102,6 149,0
Sum 89,0 197,0 286,0

With these information the chi-square test can be done in 4 steps:

1.) Null hypothesis: ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !! !
!

2.) Test variable: ! !
!! !" !! !" !!!
! !" !
!
!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!"#$%"&'$(!

With
-h(ij) as the observed number of answers in the table
-h(ij) the numbers which would be observed in the table if i and j where independent
-m the being the degree of freedom (K
x
-1)*(K
y
-1)=1
-K
x
and K
y
being the number of columns for the x and y variable


[52]

Realization of the variable Q

i, j h(x(i), y(j)) h(x(i),
y(j))
!! ! !!!!
!!

(i=1, j=1) 98 42,6 72,0460094
(i=1, j=2) 137 94,4 19,2241525
i=2, j=1 99 46,4 59,6284483
(i=2, j=2) 149 102,6 20,9840156
Sum 483 286 171,882626
Q is therefore 171,88

Decision and interpretation:
If q> q
m
1-! then the Null Hypothesis can be refused to with a probability of ! percent.
q
m
1-!=

q
1
1-0.01
= 2.71 < 171,88

Therefore it can be said that with a probability of error of less 1 percent the null
hypothesis can be refused.
This would mean that there is a relationship between the knowledge about the eBook
market and the trust in eBook retailer. There seems to be a very strong relationship
between these two aspects but it is important to be suspicious when looking at this
high number and look at this data critically:

First of all the summary of the data might have influenced the result as the columns
and therefore lost a part of the information that existed in the primary data. Then the
extreme (no trust) was measured against other degrees of the attribute trust in the
suggestions of eBook retailer. This also might have influenced the result as for
instance people who have very high standards for trust and knowledge about the
market has chosen the lowest ends of the spectrum because in their opinion it
requires much more to fulfil these criteria.

Nonetheless the result is remarkable and the relationships of these two aspects should
be analysed further. It would be interesting to find out why the relationship is so


[53]

strong and if it is possible to pinpoint certain aspects of information or brand trust
which are mostly responsible this high q-value.

850$) 0$) -6$# "%-,-
Brand trust is needed when there is a high risk involving in changing brands
(Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). To find out if this is the case for eBook it is
important to know if there is a relationship between the questions How easy is it for
you to change eBook retailer? and Do you have any bonuses arising from your
membership at a certain eBook retailer? The sunk costs, in this case, are represented
by the membership benefits as they are lost when changing the eBook retailer.

To answer of this question Cohens w (Cohen, 1988) will be locked at. For Cohens W,
however first Cramrs V is needed.
The table of the observation from the analysis part together with this table is used to
determine Cramers V. This table shows what would be observed if these aspects
where totally independent.

Difficulty to change
(i)/ Amount of
Bonuses (j)
1 2 3 4 5
1 53,196 25,74 42,9 37,752 13,728
2 7,0928 3,432 5,72 5,0336 1,8304
3 20,3918 9,867 16,445 14,4716 5,2624
4 5,3196 2,574 4,29 3,7752 1,3728
5 2,6598 1,287 2,145 1,8876 0,6864

Cramers V is defined as with: k, l being the number of columns
! !
!!
!"#! ! !! ! !! !!!!
!


[54]

with:
" !! !
!
!
!! !" !! !" !!!
! !" !
!
!!!
!
!!!
,
-k, l being the number of columns,
-V ranging from 0 to 1
-and h and h defined as previously

Consequently !! is 0,077347537 and V is 0,139057.
With this it is possible to calculate Cohens w with
! ! ! ! !"# !! ! !!
!

w=0,2781

A w of 0,2781 can be interpreted as a weak to medium correlation between the
changes of eBook retailer and membership benefits. This statement fits to what has
been said before in the theoretical framework; sunk costs might have an influence on
brand trust and loyalty of customers to eBook retailer. It also makes sense that the
correlation is weak to medium: Membership benefits are one reason to stay with a
trusted eBook retailer but there are also many others reasons that could influence this,
like the previously mentioned knowledge about the eBook market.

850$) ,56-, 0$) $%$K%>(5'0::7$* 0,,5716,(-
When brands possess many non-overlapping attributes than the customer builds brand
trust as he can only get certain benefits from his trusted company (Slovic &
MacPhilammy, 1974). Most of the people (79%) answered that their eBook retailer
does not have any non-overlapping attributes. This makes sense as eBooks are digital
goods that, independent of the retailer, bear the same benefits very often. Yet there
still are some differences of the eBook retailer in for instance service or website and
these, for 21% seem to be non-overlapping, meaning that they are only offered by
certain eBook retailers. This leads to an increase of trust because the need can only be
satisfied at one retailer.


[55]

From the question Why do you buy books from your favourite eBook retailer
overlapping attributes can be derived. The most important buying criteria for eBook
consumer is still the price (26%), followed by choice (17%), instant availability
(17%) and the reading device (16%). It can be seen that even though price is the
modal value it is only the most important buying criteria for
!
!
. This means that
consumers might be willing to pay more for attributes, which however do not relate to
this aspect of brand trust.

It can be seen that some eBook retailer possess non-overlapping attributes and that
they are very often (74%) not the main buying criteria.

A%& 150$) ,56-, 7- 167', %$ 0$ 7$)7>7)60' '(>('
This part is dealing with the analysis of different mechanism which build brand trust.

850$) ,56-, 0$) )722(5($, ,@:(- %2 :5%+7-(-
Brand trust is built by keeping promises (Ruparelia, White, & Hughes, 2010). In this
part I am going to discuss the importance of the three different types of promises for
building of brand trust.

It can be seen that the most important promise is the functional promise with 150
people; that is approximately 52%. This means that most of the people want an eBook
to serve a certain purpose, like getting educated when they buy it and only 12 percent
care for the symbolical value of an eBook. This makes sense as eBooks are digital and
not many symbolic benefits like social status or powers are gained with the purchase
of an eBook. 99 people, about 34% care for the experiential benefit of books. This
data shows that the two most important promises are of experiential or functional
nature. This might indicate that there are two groups of people: Those who read
fictional books for entertainment and those who non-fictional books to get valuable
information for themselves. Concluding this would, however, be too fast as other
alternatives are possible as well: people might enjoy an experiential benefit from


[56]

nonfictional books, like autobiographies or historical novels.
Finding out about that could help scientist to understand more about the buying
psychology of eBook consumers and facilitate marketing, therefore it might be a good
subject for future research.

850$) ,56-, 0$) 20",%5- &=7"= 7$2'6($"( ,=( 7$)7>7)60' '(>(' %2 150$)
,56-,
In this part the factors are going to be discussed which are responsible for building
brand trust on an individual level. This will be done by discussing our findings about
the three main factors for building it: Word of mouth, past experience and information
available about the retailer. Then this part will be concluded by discussing past
experience in more detail that is, according to the findings, the most important factor
for building brand trust.

Figure 2: A model which illustrates the understanding about brand trust gained from
the discussion (Adrian and Michael, 2013)
4$2'6($"( %2 ,=( ,=5(( +07$ 20",%5- %2 150$) ,56-,
The three factors word of mouth, past experience and information available about the
eBook retailer have been important for brand trust in theory (Ruparelia, White, &
Hughes, 2010). This part is going to analyse them and compare their expectancy value
Bianu tiust in an
eBook ietailei
Woiu of mouth
Past expeiience
Infoimation
about the bianu


[57]

and modular value to find out which role they play for eBook retailer. Then we will
point out some specific findings of questions related to past experience.

All three aspects matter for brand trust, as their expectancy values are about 3 on a
scale form 1 to 5 where the latter is the highest.
It can be seen that their expectancy values are relatively closely together. The
difference between the smallest (3,04) and the biggest (3,22) is 0,18, which is not a
big difference. What this data indicates is that these three have a similar influence on
the brand trust development of an individual. This is rather surprising because it does
not make sense that own experience with the brand is equally, or in this case even
lower valued than information provided by the brand. That would mean that people
trust brands more than themselves.

This paragraph is going to show how this result can be explained.
The question is clear and the answers are also very understandable (1-not at all, 5- a
lot). There might, however, be the possibility that the respondents did not read the
question carefully and might have misunderstood it in a way that for instance means
that everything below 3 is a negative influence on their brand trust and everything
above 3 is a positive influence. If it would be possible to interview participants of a
similar study after they made their decisions more clarity could be gained.

Expectancy value Modal value
How much does past experience with
the brand influence your trust in it?
3,19 4
How much does past experience OF
OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS
with the brand influence your trust in
it?
3,04 3
How much information does
provided by the brand influence your
trust in it?
3,22 3


[58]

Which insights can be drawn from the modular values?
The good thing about the modular values is that they are not biased very strongly if
some outliers happen because people misunderstood the question. The modular value
shows on which level of brand trust the highest concentration of people can be found.
The modular value for personal experience with the brand is higher (4) than the
modular value of the other two (3). This can be an indication that most people
actually think that personal experience is the most important factor for brand trust and
that the expectation value is biased people who did not understood the question. This,
however, is not a fact but just conclusion made from the data and has to be treated as
such.

M7$)7$*- %2 H6(-,7%$- 5('0,() ,% :0-, (I:(57($"(
Even though the comparative analysis does not show the importance of past
experience, other questions asked in the survey do. The expectation value of the
question Are you more loyal to some brands if you've had many interactions with
them? is 3,62 with the possible answers 1- not at all and 5 a lot. These 3.62 can
be seen as a relatively high value because in this case every answer despite 1 means
that past experience has influence on brand trust. Also about 92% of the people
answered that their brand trust cannot be restored easily after it has been lost which is
a strong indication that past experience matters.

Even though the numbers do not clearly show it, it is reasonable that past experience
is the most important of these 3 aspects for the development of brand trust on an
individual level and that the reason why it cannot be seen clearly is because of an
misunderstanding of the readers of the survey. This could be an important subject for
further investigation.

A%& ,=( -:5(0)7$* %2 7$2%5+0,7%$ 7$2'6($"(- 150$) ,56-,
FI:(57($"( %2 %,=(5 "%++6$7,@ +(+1(5-
According to Belton (2012) beliefs and values of community members are shared.
The belief about brand trust can be seen in the question: How much does past


[59]

experience of other community members influence you? It has been found that 88%
of the sample is influenced by the experience of other community members with an
level of influence of 2-5 out of 5. More than 50% of the sample is strongly influenced
by the past experience of other community members, with a level of influence of 4-5
out of 5. These findings highlight the importance of the role of communities for the
spreading of brand trust. They show that communities are an essential part the amount
of brand trust perceived by customers. This findings increase the importance of all
following findings about communities as the link between them and brand trust seems
to be very strong.

C('0,7%$-=7: 1(,&(($ +(+1(5-=7: %2 0 150$) "%++6$7,@ 0$) 150$) ,56-,
It has been found out that for about 47% of the sample has a social Identity which is
closely related to the online community they are in. As Belton (2012) says, that if a
person shares an identity with a community he also shares values with this
community. Communities, however, often have dispersed values and are not clearly
aligned with a certain eBook retailer. To analyse the relationship of membership in a
community and a social identity that increases brand trust it has been chosen to
analyse the relationship between social identity and brand communities.

It can be seen that 28 people who are in a brand community have a social identity
closely related to the brand community that are about 9% of all community members.
This shows us that brand communities are having an influence on about 10% of the
sample. This finding is interesting as it quantifies the amount of the sample whose
brand trust is positively influenced by communities and consequently companies, as
they have influence on the information given in brand communities. A statement
about the general influence of communities cannot be drawn from that as
communities, as mentioned before, are very diverse with many different opinions
about eBook retailers. It might however be possible, that when brands increase their
influence on a community that this might increase brand trust, because this
community will stronger resemble to a brand community and the values are going to
be shared.


[60]

N%0' %57($,0,7%$ %2 "%++6$7,7(-
Communities are now regrouping around goals (Raab & Kenis , 2009). The sample
joined communities to 40% because they wanted to achieve a goal. About 36%
wanted to share or gain information and 4% wanted to participate in something
bigger then oneself. The 4% of people who want to participate in something bigger
then oneself might not be so interesting but those who are in communities for
information are. It shows that a big art of community members want information and
as it has been found out previously that the brand trust 76% of the sample can be
influenced by experience of other members. These two facts together emphasise how
important online communities for brand trust are. They also show that even though
just 40% of the sample is joining communities for the purpose of gaining or sharing
information the brand trust of a much bigger percentage is influenced by them
through the information transmitted.

B("=0$7-+- %2 %$'7$( "%++6$7,7(- &=7"= 7$2'6($"( ,=( &0@ 150$)
,56-, -:5(0)-
As it could be seen before certain aspects of an online community directly influence
brand trust in eBook retailer. The following part, however, will discuss how the
organization of a community influence the way brand trust spreads.

;722(5($, 5%'(- 7$ 0$ %$'7$( "%++6$7,@
Both theories presented in the framework are complex and partly contradicting. They
yet have similar components: They both state that there are different roles of
community members and that different members have a different influence on the
community (Toder-Alon, Brunei , & Schneier Siegal , 2001), (de Valck , H. van
Bruggen , & Wierenga , 2009). Our findings are in alignment with the theory and
show that only 4% of the sample has a strong influence on the other members. This
finding is interesting for brand trust as it points out that only a small amount of people
are influencing the other people, who are yet open to influence. Furthermore 96% of
the people who were surveyed found perceived that there are different roles in the
online community they are in. In the question the participants could choose between


[61]

no different roles (1), roles with little differentiation (2), middle differentiation (3)
and roles with big differentiation (4+5). It is also important to find out that the modal
value is 3 with 107 answers. This indicates that in most communities the roles are
distinguishable.

F>%'6,7%$ %2 9(%:'( 7$ 0$ %$'7$( "%++6$7,@
The role of online community members changes (Kozinet, 1999). Our findings
support that, as 88% of the sample has perceived that their role in the community has
changed in the last year. This is a surprisingly high because at the first glance it would
seem like communities are changing constantly and everyone is involved. This,
however, is not the only possible explanation for the data. First, the community
members could for instance just leave or enter a new community as this would also
change their role from being and outsider to being passive consumers. Second, a big
part (68%) of the sample is in many online communities they could just have role
change in one. And third only a small part (20%) has a perceived high change in his
role which means that the others could just have changed from reader irregular poster
which does not a high impact on brand trust. Nonetheless it has to be underlined that
evolution in communities is happening and can in some cases have a massive impact
on brand trust. If for instance could very dissatisfied customers change their role from
passive to active members, joining the small group of influential people and therefore
have a strong impact on brand trust.

B%-, 7+:%5,0$, :'0"(- 2%5 %$'7$( "%++6$7,7(- ,% +((,
Finally the discussion will end with a question which shows the nature of the online
communities most people participate in. It has been found that out most of the sample
meets with his online community in a Social network (67%) or online forum (21%). A
minority meets the community in chat rooms (6%) or anywhere else (4%). This shows
a lot about the rituals of the community members (As discussed by Muniz & OGuinn
in 2001) which are an important influence on the way brand trust spreads. It can be
seen that most community interactions happen in a social network, which shows the
nature of interaction: People have contact with other community members who they


[62]

know, opposed to for instance online forums where the member are anonymous. This
might indicate that brand trust might spread fast because the community member
know and trust each other.


[63]

3%$"'6-7%$
The purpose of this paper has been to understand how brand trust is build and how it
is spread in communities.
In this final section of our thesis the most important findings related to the brand
purpose are going to be presented.

It has been found that certain aspects could be identified which influence brand trust:
Knowledge about the eBook market, sunk cost, non-overlapping attributes, functional
promises, past experience with the brand, past experience of other community
members with the brand and information about the eBook retailer. It could also be
seen that brand trust is very likely related to knowledge about the eBook market. The
higher the cost of switching an eBook retailer, the more likely it is that the customer
will develop brand trust. The eBook market has few companies who have non-
overlapping attributes that are an aspect of brand trust. Functional promises are the
most important promises eBook retailer can make. Past experience with the brand,
past experience of other community members and information given by the brand
influence brand trust positively.

Brand trust in online communities spreads in a similar way like information. Most
people in online communities join them to consume information and only a relatively
small amount of people provides the information about brand trust. For most people
the purpose of joining a community is to receive information. Some organizational
mechanisms have been found out which influence the way brand trust spreads:
Different role of community members, changing role of community members and
social identity. It was found out that community members took different roles that had
a different impact on the way brand trust spreads. These roles, however, are changing
over time. Social Identity is can influence brand trust positively but only evidence for
this in brand communities was found.


[64]

3%$,5716,7%$ ,% 5(-(05"= 0$) :50",7"(
This thesis is important for both the academical and the business world because the
thesis has approached and merged relatively new concepts and applied them in a new
market. Moreover not only does it provide a theoretical base but also valid and
reliable data where none where available before this work.

M65,=(5 -,6)7(-
This thesis also opens the way for new studies to be done on the role of brand trust in
communities according to different types of literature to see if the importance of
brand trust is related them as well. It would also be interesting to conduct studies on
other continents than Europe to see how the difference in culture would have an
impact on brand trust and communities. Another study which would be interesting to
see conducted about the influence of factors such as price or extra services on brand
trust and how it would change the spreading of brand trust in communities. It would
also be interesting to compare the spreading of brand trust in different type of
communities to find differences and similarities..

O7+7,0,7%$-
This thesis is aimed at the European market and consequently is not valid for markets
in other continents. We are also aware that this thesis may not be valid in a few years
from now since technologies are going to change , the way of life evolve and many
other factors will have a an influence in the eBook consumption. The thesis also does
not account for the great variety in the communities and we cannot apply the
conclusions to particular communities but rather to all communities in general.


[65]

871'7%*50:=@
A. Chevalier, J., & Mayzlin , D. (2003, December). NBER Working Papers. Retrieved
May 7, 2013, from The national bureau of economic research:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10148.pdf?new_window=1
Alam, S. S., & Yasin, N. M. (2010 "#$ 11-2). The Antecedents of online brand trust:
Mlaysian Evidence. Journal of Economics and Managment , pp. 210-226.
Alba, J. W., & Wesley, H. J. (1987 "#$ march). Dimensions of consumer expertise.
Journal of consumer research 13 , pp. 411-454.
Allocin. (2012, August 28). "Hero Corp" aura une saison 3 ! . Retrieved March 28,
2013, from Allocin:
http://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18616265.html
Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology: A
case study in reaching hard-to-involve Internet users. nternational Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, vol. 16 Issue 2 , pp. 185-210.
Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic Survey Methodology: A
Case Study in Reaching Hard-to-Involve Internet Users. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction , 16 (2), 185.
Anker, T. B., Kappel, K., Eadie, D., & Sandoe, P. (2012 "#$ 12). Fuzzy Promises:
Explicative definition of brand promise delivery. Marketing Theory , pp. 269-287.
Apple, Inc. (2011, November 1). iPad: Understanding the side switch . Retrieved
March 28, 2013, from Apple Support:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4085?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
Arnaud De Bruyn, G. L. (2008). A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence
through viral marketing. Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 , 151.
Bagozzi, R. P., Bergami, M., Marzocchi, G., & Morandin, G. (2012, December).
Customer-organization relationships: development and test of a theory of extended
identities. Journal Of Applied Psycology .
Bargh , J., & Y. A. McKenna , K. (2004). The Internet and the Social Life. Annual
Revue of Psycology , p. 573.


[66]

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Chadwick, H. C. (2001). Organizational Research:
Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal .
BBC. (2012, April 12). Mass Effect 3 to get extended ending at no cost to gamers .
Retrieved March 28, 2013, from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-
17626125
Belton, B. (2012, May). Weak power: community and identity . Ethnic and Racial
Studies, .
Bender, T. (1982). Community and Social Change in America . (J. H. Press, Ed.)
Bies, R., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of
fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations. Research on negotiation in
organizations , 1 (1).
Business Dictionairy. (2013). Business Dictionairy. Retrieved 04 17, 2013, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/convenience-sampling.html
Business Dictionary. (2013). Business Dictionary.com. Retrieved 04 03, 2013, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/exploratory-research.html
Caillet, M., & Guimbi, D. Y. (2010). The state of the digital music market in France
and its tendencies.
Castells, M. (2011). The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age:
Economy, Society, and Culture . (Wiley-Blackwell, Ed.) Wiley-Blackwell.
Chandler, J., & Vargo, S. (2011). Contextualization and Value-in-Context: How
context Frames Exchange. Marketing Theorie 11 , pp. 35-49.
Chao-Min , C., Meng-Hsiang , H., & Wang , E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge
sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive
theories. Decision Support Systems (42).
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001 "#$ 2-04). The Chain of effects from Brand
Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of
Marketing , pp. 81-93.
Clarke. (1999). Evaluation research, an Introduction to principles, Methods and
Practice.
Cohen, j. (1988). Statistical Power analysis for Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


[67]

Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning. (2003). Quantitive Methods
in Social Science. Retrieved 04 12, 2013, from
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/qmss/samples_and_sampling/types_of_sampling.
html
Couper, M. P. (2000). Web-based surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public
opinion Quarterly Vol. 64 Issue 4 , pp. 464-494.
Couper, M., Tourangeau, R., & Conrad, F. (2004). what they see is what we get:
response for web surveys. Social Science Computer Review 22, 111-127 , pp. 111-
127.
De Burgh-Woodman , H., & Brace-Govan , J. (2007). We do not live to buy Why
subcultures are different from brand communities and the meaning for marketing
discourse. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 27 (5/6), p. 193.
de Valck , K., H. van Bruggen , G., & Wierenga , B. (2009). Virtual communities: A
marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems , 47, 185-203.
Elena, D.-B., & Munuera-Alemn, J. L. (2000 "#$ 12-04). Brand trust in the context
of consumer loyalty Vol. 35 No.11/12. European Journal of Marketing , pp. 1238-
1258.
Eudes, Y. (2011, May 7). Le Monde. Retrieved March 28, 2013, from Comment Sony
s'est mis ses clients hackers dos : http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-
bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_i
d=1156300&xtmc=psn_hack&xtcr=1
Evans, W., & Hastings, G. (2008). Public Health Branding. Oxford University Press ,
pp. 3-24.
Fller , J., Matzler , K., & Hoppe , M. (2008). Brand Community Members as a
Source of Innovation. Journal of production innovation and management , p. 608.
Fisher, M. J. (2009, 05). Understanding descriptive statistics. Australian Critical Care
Volume 22, Issue 2 , pp. 93-97.
Forbes. (2013, 05). Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/companies/apple/
Franklin, L. (2005). Exploratory experiments. The University of chicago Press Vol.
72, No 5 .
Greenfield, J. (2012 "#$ 18-05). Foreign E-book sales increase 333% for U.S.
Publishers in 2011. Retrieved 2013 "#$ 22-03 from Digitalbookworld:


[68]

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2012/foreign-e-book-sales-increase-333-for-u-s-
publishers/
Grimaldi, D., & Engel, M. (2007, 09). Why Descriptive Science still matters.
BioScience , pp. 646-647.
Gusfield, J. R. (1976). Community: A Critical Response .
Handcock, M. S., & Gile, K. J. (2011). COMMENT : ON THE CONCEPT OF
SNOWBALL SAMPLING. Sociological Methodology Volume 41, Issue 1 , pp. 367-
371.
Harris, L. (1997). ALAIN LOCKE AND COMMUNITY . The Journal of Ethics , 1
(3).
Heinz, K. (1998). Quoten- und Randomstichproben in der Praxis der Sozialforschung.
Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in der sozialen Zusammensetzung und den
Antwortmustern der Befragten. ZA-Information Volume 43 , pp. 48-80.
Hoon Kim , S., Hoon Yang , K., & Kyung Kim . (2009, 2). Finding critical success
factors for virtual community marketing . Service Business , 3, p. 149.
Hovy, L. Z. (2005). Digesting Virtual Geek Culture: The Summarization of
Technical Internet Relay Chats. ACL '05 Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on
Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 298-305). Stroudsburg: Association
for Computational Linguistics .
Internetworldstats. (2012, 06 30). Internet world Stats. Retrieved from
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Jacobsen, D. I. (2002). Vad, Hur och Varfr . University Press Ltd .
King, A. D. (1997). Culture, Globalization, and the World-System . (U. o. Press, Ed.)
Knappenberger, B. (Writer), & Knappenberger, B. (Director). (2012). We Are Legion:
The Story of the Hacktivists [Motion Picture].
Kotler, Armstrong, Wong, & Saunders. (2008). Principles of Marketing, Fifth
European Edition. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
Kozinet, R. V. (1999). E-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual
Communities of Consumption. European Management Journal , 7 (3), 252.
Macorr. (2013). Macorr. Retrieved from http://www.macorr.com/sample-size-
calculator.htm
Martin, G. (2011, June). The importance of mareting segmentation. American Journal
of business education , 4 (6), p. 15.


[69]

Merriam Webster. (2013). meme. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from Merriam Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme
Missong, M., & Mittnik, S. (2005). Descriptive Statistik. Pro Business.
Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. (2001, March). Brand Communities. Journal of
Consumer Research, Inc. , 27 (4), pp. 412-432.
Muthukrishnan, A. (1995 "#$ 06). Decision Ambiguity and Incumbent Brand
Advantage. Journal of consumer Research Inc. , pp. 98-109.
Oxford University. (n.d.). Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from Oxford Dictionaries :
the world's most trusted dictionary.
Oxford University. (2013). Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from Oxford Dictionaries :
the world's most trusted dictionary.
Perrow, C. (2002). Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate
Capitalism. Princeton University Press.
Popper, K. (2004). The Logic of Scientific Discouvery. Routledge.
PricewatershouseCoopers. (2013). Statistika. Retrieved 2012 "#$ 22-03 from
http://www.statista.com/statistics/190800/ebook-sales-revenue-forecast-for-the-us-
market/
Raab , J., & Kenis , P. (2009, July 24). Heading Toward a Society of Networks :
Empirical Developments and Theoretical Challenges. Journal of Management Inquiry
, 18 (198), p. 198.
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012, 04 04). The
rise of e-reading. Retrieved from Pew Internet:
http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-e-reading/
Rheingold, H. (1994). A Slice of Life in My Virtual Community . Global Networks:
Computers and International Communication , 57-80 .
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & C., C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross
discipline view of trust. Academy of Managment Review volume 23 , pp. 393-404.
Ruparelia, N., White, L., & Hughes, K. (2010 "#$ 4-19). Drivers of brand trust in
internet retailing. Journal of Product and Brand Managment , pp. 250-260.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1 , pp. 7-59.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for business
Students (4th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.


[70]

Schurr, P., & Ozanne, J. (1985). Influences on exchange processes: Buyers perception
of a sellers trustworthyness and bargaining toughness. Journal of consumer research
Vol. 11, No. 4 , pp. 939-953.
Seo , J., Croft , W., & Smith , D. (2011, Mars). Online community search using
conversational structures. Springer , 547.
Seraj, M. (2012, April 27). We Create, We Connect, We Respect, Therefore We Are:
Intellectual, Social, and Cultural Value in Online Communities . Journal of
interactive marketing , p. 209.
Sharratt, M., & Usoro , A. (2003). Understanding Knowledge-Sharing in Online
Communities of Practice. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management , 1 (2).
Shields, P., & Tajalli, H. (2006). Intermediate Theory: The Missing Link in
Successful Student Scholarship. Journal of Public affairs education Vol. 12 No. 3 ,
pp. 331-334.
Shuttleworth, M. (2008, 10 20). Explorable. Retrieved from
http://explorable.com/validity-and-reliability
Slack, R. (1998, November). What is a community? . Public Health , 112 (6), p. 361.
Slovic, P., & MacPhilammy, D. (1974 "#$ April). Dimensional Commensurability
and Cue Utilization in Comperative Judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 11 , pp. 174-194.
Sogunro, O. A. (2002, 09 01). Selecting a Quantitive or qualitativee research method:
An Experience. Education Research Quarterly 26.1 , p. 3.
Statistiques-mondiales.com. (2013, March). Sude Statistiques. Retrieved May 2,
2013, from Statistiques-mondiales.com: http://www.statistiques-
mondiales.com/suede.htm
Steinle, F. (1997). Enterning new fields: Exploratury use of experimentation.
Philosohy of science 64 , pp. 65-74.
Steve Blank, B. D. (2012). The Startup Owner's Manual: The Step-by-Step Guide for
Building a Great Company. K&S Ranch.
Tansey, O. (2007). Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A case for non-probability
Sampling. Political Science and Politics Issue 04 , pp. 764-772.
Toder-Alon, A., Brunei , F., & Schneier Siegal , W. (2001). Ritual Behavior and
Community Change: Exploring the Social-Psychological Roles of Net Rituals in the
Developmental Processes of Online Consumption Communities. p. 1.


[71]

V. Kozinets, R., de Valck, K., C.Wojnicki, A., & J.S.Wilner, S. (2010). Networked
Narratives: UnderstandingWord-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities.
Networked Narratives .
Valatoutsu, C., & Moutinho, L. (2008). Brand Relationships through Brand
Reputation and Brand Tribalism. Journal of Business research 62 , pp. 314-322.
Wedel, M. (2011, Winter). Is segmentation history? . ABI/INFORM Global , 13 (4), p.
26.
Wischenbart, R. (2011). The Global eBook Market: Current Conditions & Future
Projections . Retrieved May 2, 2013, from publishersweekly.com:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-
data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/522-1.pdf
World Bank. (2013, April 30). Urban population growth (annual %). Retrieved May
1, 2013, from World bank:
http://search.worldbank.org/all?qterm=swedish%20population
Wright, A. A., & Lynch, J. G. (1994). Advertising vs. Direct experience
Complimented by Point-of-Purchase Information. Gainesville: College of Business,
University of Florida.
Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of
Business Research , 66, 216.

Modifier ce formulaire
How brand trust spreads in
online communities about
ebook retailers
Hello everybody and thank you for answering our survey. By doing so you help
us with our bachelor thesis which is really appreciated!
eBook: an electronic version of a printed book or a document that only exists in
numeric format (but you probably know that ;) )
Brand trust, for this survey, is the belief that the company keeps its promises.
The questions we are going to ask you will also be about online-communities.
When answering these questions please decide for one community and stick to it
when answering.
A community is in this survey is a group of people sharing or having certain
attitudes and interests in common.
Thanks for helping us with our thesis!
*Obligatoire
How many ebooks did you read last year? *
0
From 1 to 5
From 6 to 10
From 11 to 15
From 16 to 20
More than 20
Do you expect more when you buy a branded product? *
Should a pair of Nike shoes be better than others because there is a logo on it?
Yes, the product or service has to be better somehow better
No, I decide on a product-based level
In how many online communities are you in? *
0
1 or 2
3 to 5
More than 5
Do you have a favorite e-book retailer? *
Amazon Kindle
Apple iBook
Barne & Noble's Nook
Autre :
Why do you buy e-books from your favourite retailler? *
Choice
Price
Quality / Price of e-book reading device
Extra services
Instant availability
Autre :
How much do you trust your e-book retailler with reading
suggestions? *
Are you more sensitive about your book retailer's suggestions or to those from people around you?
1 2 3 4 5
I only trust people I know I believe the information given by the brands
Is it easy for you to change e-book retailer? *
1 2 3 4 5
Yes: I can switch them without
problems
No: I prefer my favorite brand even if other retailers
have better offers
Do you have any bonuses arising from your membership at a
certain e-book retailler? *
1 2 3 4 5
No Bonuses Extreme Membership benefits
Which of these promises are fulfilled by your e-book retailer?
*
Functional ("Give you information")
Symbolical ("Makes people like you more, gives you status, makes you cooler")
Experiential (Great experience, "pleasure obtain by reading the book")
Did it take much effort to reach the status of comfortability
(getting used to software, entering data etc.) and
membership-level you have at your e-book retailler? *
1 2 3 4 5
Instantly received all features (less than
30min)
Took tremendous effort (still not having all
the benefits)
Is there anything special attribute (Product feature, Service,
E-book reader, price etc) about your e-book retailler which
nonone else has? *
Yes
No
Do you buy e-books one at a time or as bundle? *
One e-book a time
Bundles
IF BUYING BUNDLES, How many percent do you buy as a
bundle? *
(0=0% , 10=100%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How well do you think you know the market offering of E-
book retaillers? *
1 2 3 4 5
I know very few e-book retaillers I know almost all e-book retaillers
How much does past experience with the brand influence your
trust in it? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all It is the single most important aspect
How much does past experience OF OTHER COMMUNITY
MEMBERS with the brand influence your trust in it? *
1 2 3 4 5
If you believe in the promises of a brand, which one is the most
attractive to you? *
Functional ("Give you information")
Symbolical ("Makes people like you more, gives you status, makes you cooler")
Experiential (Great experience, "pleasure of using the product")
If you had an ebook retailer who has lost your trust, could it
be restored without great effort? *
Your expectation have not been met, you have been scammed, could the retailer regain your trust then?
What would influence your brand loyalty most? *
Fidelity programs (Coupons, reductions, membership cards with bonus)
Additional content (Personalized Information, personal offers and surprising little gifts)
Community Members with positive experience about the brand
Autre :
How much does information provided by the brand influence
your trust in it? *
1 2 3 4 5
Are you more loyal to some brands if you've had many
interactions with them? *
No mistakes by the company have been made during that time
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Definetively Yes
Is your social identity closely related the communities you
participate in? *
Do you often define yourself in public as a geek, a sportive or a reader for example?
Yes
No
Why do you join communities for? *
What is the main element that decided you to involve yourself in a community?
Sharing and accessing knowledge
Be with people having the same interests as you
Obtain an identity
Participate in something bigger than yourself
Discuss with a bigger group of people about interest
Autre :
Are you in a brand community? *
Do you often interact within a community of people sharing your passion for some brand or product?
Yes I am
No I ain't
How often do you interact with brands or companies? *
Do you often complain, talk, discuss or give your point of vue to companies on Facebook for example?
1 2 3 4 5
Never Weekly or more than weekly
How much influence do you think you have on your
community? *
1 2 3 4 5
None at all I'm a leader in my community
Where do you go most often to meet with your community? *
Social networks
Online forums
Chat rooms
Autre :
Are there many different behaviors in your community? *
Is there a main code of conduct that is strictly followed by members of your community or is it more of a
guideline no one actually follows?
1 2 3 4 5
Codes and values are important and
followed
People are completely free to do whatever they
want!
Have your role in your community evolved in the last year? *
Do you feel people utility in a community often evolve or do people rather stay at the role they were when they
arrive?
1 2 3 4 5
People tend to keep their place People change a lot of function
Envoyer
N'envoyez jamais de mots de passe via l'outil Formulaires Google.
Fourni par

Ce contenu n'est ni rdig, ni cautionn par Google.
Signaler un cas d'utilisation abusive - Conditions d'utilisation - Clauses additionnelles

The Role of Brand Trust in Online Communities PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Brand Trust in Online Communities PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B

You might also like