See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232627598

Social Brand Value and the Value Enhancing Role

of Social Media Relationships for Brands (PDF)

Article · January 2012

DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2012.533

CITATIONS READS

7 234

4 authors, including:

Johann Füller Roland Schroll

University of Innsbruck University of Innsbruck
131 PUBLICATIONS 2,739 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Severin Dennhardt
McKinsey
4 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roland Schroll on 09 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Social Brand Value and the Value enhancing Role
of Social Media Relationships for Brands
Johann Fueller Roland Schroll
Hyve AG University of Innsbruck
johann.fueller@hyve.de roland.schroll@uibk.ac.at
Abstract
Due to the social media revolution and the
emergence of communities, social networks, and user
generated content portals, prevalent branding concepts
need to catch up with this reality. Given the
importance of social ties, social interactions and social
identity in the new media environment, there is a need
to account for a relationship measure in marketing and
branding. Based on the concept of social capital we
introduce the concept of social brand value, defined as
the perceived value derived by exchange and
interactions with other users of the brand within a
community. Within a qualitative study marketing
experts were interviewed and highlighted the
importance towards social media activities, but also
indicated that they do not have a clear picture on how
strategies should look like and how their success can
be measured. A second quantitative study was
conducted which demonstrates the influence the social
brand value construct has for consumers brand
evangelism and willingness to pay a price premium
and hence the value contribution of the social brand
value for consumers.
1. Introduction
Firms are facing a new communication reality that
has been created by the rise of social media
applications. The widespread penetration of web 2.0
applications, in combination with faster and greater
mobile computing power and advances in bandwidth,
has enabled this revolution. Applications like
Facebook, YouTube and many others have seen
enormous growth in the past decade and have created a
revolutionary trend, influencing communication habits.
Traditional one-way communication in marketing, for
example, has been transformed into a multi-
dimensional two-way peer-to-peer communication
reality [1]. With consumers (or users) spending more
and more time on these platforms, an increasing share
of current social interactions occurs within these new
social network environments – also influencing social
relations.
978-0-7695-4525-7/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2012.533
Severin Dennhardt Katja Hutter
University of Innsbruck University of Innsbruck
sdennhardt@gmail.com katja.hutter@uibk.ac.at
As consumers are becoming more familiar with
advanced communication and media technologies, they
now have to be recognized as active creators, instead
of passive, consuming participants [2]. Users adopt and
customize online tools available to them to transform
the digital space into a profoundly social eco-system
they can create, control and own by themselves [3].
Bernoff and Li [4] refer to this increasing influence of
the user as “the growing groundswell of customer
power” (p. 37) and a “cultural shift in a customer-
centric direction” (p. 40). The social eco-system of
users consists of various forms of online communities.
The social ties between the members of these
communities entail high levels of mutual trust through
friendships and alliances. These social ties in online
environments thereby exhibit value to users in the
same way real life relationships do [5] and demonstrate
the social function of online communities.
Although highly relevant to companies, theory on
Word-of-Mouth Marketing (WOMM) or Social Media
Marketing (SMM) has yet to account for these
developments. The power of the eco-system of users
through social media presents opportunities and
challenges for companies and their brands [6]. The
interactive nature of the Internet has empowered
individuals to directly engage with brands and other
users, and has upset the power balance between the
firm and the individual by shifting some of the control
over brands from producers directly to consumers [7].
The handling of social media marketing in the
challenging social media environment is therefore one
of the most relevant topics for executives today [8].
Companies accept the relevance of social media for
consumers and, thus, try to create and maintain a
presence in social networks – the place where the
consumer is: To this end, they create fan-pages on
Facebook, establish Twitter accounts, support blogs or
enter into virtual worlds. But the question that remains
with executives is if the investments made really pay
off and if they actually increase the value of the brand.
Although researchers have tried to show that activity in
social media does pay off financially [9], overall, little
is known about how marketing and branding can or
should be conducted in the modern interactive
3218
marketplace [10] and how the effectiveness of those
efforts can be evaluated.
Given the importance of social ties, social
interactions and social identity in the new media
environment, there is a need to account for the
relationship measure in marketing and branding. Based
on the concept of social capital [5], we introduce the
concept of social brand value, defined as the perceived
value derived by exchange and interactions with other
users of the brand within a community. Our studies
show that the social brand value influences consumers’
willingness to pay a price premium and brand
evangelism.
The paper is structured as follows: first, an
overview on social capital and value creation from
interactions is given. Second, the model for the social
brand value construct is introduced and potential value
driving effects are described. Third, based on two
studies, we demonstrate that social media is in fact
relevant for companies and their brands. Study 1,
which consists of expert interviews with 15 executives,
shows that firms pay a lot of attention to their social
media activities; however they do not have a clear
picture on what strategies should look like and how
their success can be measured. Furthermore, they see
relevance for a measure to account for social media
activities. Study 2, a survey conducted with 1301
participants on 19 brands, shows the influence the
social brand value construct has for consumers brand
evangelism and willingness to pay a price premium
and, hence, the value contribution of the social brand
value for consumers.
2. Theoretical Background
Following Bourdieu’s view of capital [11] – capital
appears in the form of social, economic and cultural
forms – relationships and ties formed in an online
environment create social value as they represent the
social form of capital. Social Capital is defined by
Bourdieu [5] as the entirety of actual and potential
resources that arise from more or less durable networks
of institutionalized relationships. These relationships
represent resources based on membership to social
groups. In other words, the cultivation of relations to
other people through any kind of social network can be
seen as a possible means that might be used to enhance
oneself through identity building mechanisms. The
value creating relationships that constitute social
capital are thereby independent of the proximity of
these relations in geographical, economic or social
space [11]. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the relevant
network ties are situated in an offline or online context.
As relationships today are significantly influenced by
3219
developments of detraditionalisation and
individualisation [12] and as social interactions are
happening more and more in online environments,
social online networks play an increasingly important
role in the creation of people’s social capital.
Analogously, the social value of a brand is the
amount of value a brand and its consumers receive
from being present in social networks. In other words,
the social value a brand exhibits stems from being
relevant in social networks and, thereby, providing
individuals the possibilities to connect and interact
with each other about the meaning and experiences that
a brand offers. Research streams on the tribalisation of
consumption and brand communities have started to
discuss the value potential of relationships around
brands. Cova [13] argued that in the postmodern era
the linking value of products and services is more
important for consumers than the products and services
themselves. Through the tribalism of consumption, the
linking value permits and supports social interactions
and relationships of the communal type and thereby
creates social value for consumers. In studying brand
communities, it has been shown that participants derive
some kind of value in use from participating in these
communities [14-17]. More specifically, social
connections enabled by these communities increase the
value of the brand for consumers and companies
through social ties based on interactions around the
brand.
The value of brands for customers in general is
derived from the functions they present to customers.
These functions are categorized in the literature as
functional and symbolic benefits [cp. 18, 19]. The first
set of benefits includes the informational and risk-
reducing function a brand possesses, whereas the
second set refers to the ability of brands to express
membership and to communicate certain values. In
other words, because of the symbolic function, people
do not buy brands just for what they do, but also for
what they mean [20]. By being a resource of
expression for consumers brands also help them to
create and build their self-identities [21].
Apart from the described benefits, brands
additionally offer a linking value by connecting like-
minded people and offering cues of tying people
together. Brands, thereby, present to consumers a way
to interact and thus to build social capital. As identity
is basically a product of communication and
interaction, social capital is essential in the forming
process of self-identities [12]. Relationships are
essentially comprised of people as individuals, and
therefore, they have a significant impact on a person’s
identity and lifestyle. Hence, one of the main purposes
a brand these days is consumed for is its social linking
value, as it significantly adds to persons’ identity.
 Prior findings on the foundations of brand loyalty
also support the importance of the social linking value
that brands provide. McAlexander et al. [14] proposed
that it is through consumer experience that the
existence and benefits of the relationships of a brand
community unfold. These relationships develop
synergistically, strengthening interpersonal ties, and
enhancing appreciation for the product and the brand,
which integrates customers into the brand community
and bears upon loyalty [14]. Therefore, merely
focusing on customer satisfaction to build loyalty is
insufficient [22-24], and measures to foster social
relationships and ties are becoming increasingly
relevant.
However, existing brand models do not account for
the social value a brand has to provide in an adequate
way. So far, they do not consider the impact of the
linking value or social value of a brand on the
economic value of a brand.
For decades the brand equity concept has been used
to evaluate brands for companies. Brand equity is thus
defined as the incremental value of a product based on
the brand’s name [25]. Although the consumer-based
brand equity perspective is broadly accepted today [26]
– if there is no value for the consumer, there is no
value for either the investor, manufacturer or retailer
[27] – the predominant brand equity concept is too
seller-focused. It puts too much emphasis on the brand
manager´s actions, and at the same time neglects
consumer´s active role in the value creation process
[28]. It also doesn’t account for the social value that
brands encompass. We therefore argue that the value of
social ties, which have become even more important in
the social media age, have to be accounted for when
evaluating a brand’s value and the success of
marketing campaigns (with particular respect to social
media marketing).
3. Conceptual Model
Based on insights from the literature on social
capital, brand communities and brand equity, we base
the social brand value concept on three distinct
constructs that present a source of value to the
consumer: a sense of community, social identity and
informational value.
A sense of community is a brands ability to allow
consumers to build a sense of affectionate community
based on shared interests, rituals and traditions related
to a specific brand [15, 16, 29]. This brings consumers
together into “brand communities,” which are
“specialized, non-geographically bound communities,
based on a structured set of social relations among
admirers of a brand.” [15]. The consumption and
preference of a certain brand helps to form and hold
3220
together communities and tribes. Collectively shared
experiences allow community members to affirm,
evoke, assign, or revise meanings of brands and induce
tribal membership [30]. Furthermore, existing literature
on brand communities shows that there is a
relationship between attachment to a brand and
attachment to a brand community focused on that
brand. Thus, individuals drawn to a community rather
than to the brand upon which that community is
centered are nonetheless likely to develop an emotional
relationship to the brand. When a person identifies with
a community and feels part of it, then the community’s
norms, traditions and values – including those related
to brands - become important to that person [15, 16].
Community members may use community branded
products to signal their belongingness to the
community, as well as to express their own identity
[31]. Thus, a sense of community is an important
aspect of the social value of brands.
Identity value refers to the identity creating
function of brands. Forming a personal identity and
relating to others are among humankind’s fundamental
needs and behaviors [32, 33]. With respect to personal
identity formation, research indicates that brands
support consumers in their creation of self-concept and
social identity [23, 34, 35]. “They (brands) serve as
powerful repositories of meaning, purposively and
differentially employed in the substantiation, creation,
and (re)production of concepts of self in the marketing
age” (Fournier 1998 p.365). The meaning of a brand
supports consumers’ in their self-concept and social
identity creation [34, 35]. Brands are conceived as
meanings shared by a group of people who use them as
symbols in social interaction [36-39]. The identity
function of brands is based upon their role in social
interactions and, thus constitutes value for consumers.
The last part of the social brand value model is the
informational value of a brand. This part of the model
refers to informational benefits that interactions with
other users about a brand can have for the consumer.
Most consumer markets are characterized by
asymmetric and imperfect information [40], which
results in certain risks for consumers. Hence, a need
arises for market mechanisms to reduce this
uncertainty, and one such mechanism is the brand [41-
43]. The brand itself represents informational value,
but interactions with other users of the brand are an
even more valuable source of information.
 social brand value, found between perceived quality
and willingness to pay as well as brand evangelism,
has not been controlled for. As social interactions
around a brand influence the perceived quality [14], we
expect social brand value to be such a moderator.

H2a: Social brand value mediates the relationship

Figure 1: Conceptual Model between perceived quality and willingness
to pay a price premium
To see how the construct of social brand value H2b: Social brand value mediates the relationship
effectively exhibits value for customers, its effects on between perceived quality and brand
value entailing concepts of the brand have to be tested evangelism
(see Figure 1). For our study the constructs of
willingness to pay a price premium and brand Study 1 - Research Design
evangelism serve to test the value-adding potential of
social brand value for consumers. Willingness to pay a
For study 1, we selected a methodology based on
price premium represents the financial value that
qualitative research to gain deeper insights into the
consumers are willing to invest to buy a brand that has
motivations for executives to be active in social media
a higher social brand value. Brand evangelism, in
and to embrace the linking value of brands and the
contrast, represents a less tangible approach to value. It
importance of a measure that captures the social value
refers to the active recommending of brands to other
of brands. This methodology is appropriate if no data is
consumers and the advocating of brands [cp. 44]. The
available regarding the research question [48-50].
value exhibiting function of brand evangelism is based
More precisely, this study included semi-structured
on the recommending and advocating behavior of
qualitative expert interviews. These interviews had an
consumers and is, thereby, better suited to show the
explorative character and enabled to gain an
social value of a brand than the constructs of brand
understanding on the way of thinking and line of
loyalty or brand love. Brand loyalty, in essence, only
argument that executives have. The sample of
reflects repeat purchase behavior or the respective
interviewees was selected by the researchers in order to
intentions [14] but doesn’t account for the consumer as
provide a broad array of companies, from startups to
an advocate. Similarly, brand love, defined as the
global players, within different industries. Over a
degree of passionate emotional attachment a consumer
period of three weeks, fifteen marketing experts from
has for a particular brand [44], does not say anything
six countries within different industries and companies
specific about the recommendation behavior of
such as BMW, L’Oreál, Levi’s or Casecable were
consumers. These two constructs are antecedents of
interviewed. Due to the internationality of the
brand evangelism but do not account for the same
interviewed experts either face-to-face or telephone
intensity of the relationship a consumer can have with
interviews have been conducted. The interviewees
the brand. For both, willingness to pay a price premium
were notified, and an appointment was made in
and brand evangelism, we expect social brand value to
advance in order to guarantee that the interviews could
have positive effects.
be conducted over the full length of 30 to 90 minutes.
An interview guideline was prepared in advance with
H1a: Social brand value has a positive effect on
the goal to learn something about marketing
consumers’ willingness to pay a price
executives’ opinions and attitudes towards the social
premium.
media activities of their brands. We began with broad
H1b: Social brand value has a positive effect on
questions on general marketing activities, and the
consumers’ brand evangelism
experts also talked about the motives behind their
engagement in social media and to what extent they
In prior studies the relationship between quality on
think their brands are influenced by social media. The
the one hand and willingness to pay or brand loyalty on
interviews were concluded with different questions
the other has been investigated. Perceived quality has
about the significance of social brand value and
been shown to have a positive influence on willingness
whether they were interested in measuring their own
to pay and purchase intentions [45-47] as well as on
social brand value. The semi-structured interviews
brand loyalty [14]. McAlexander et al. [14] have also
were conducted in accordance to suggestions on
demonstrated that brand community integration, a
empirical social research and study design [48-50].
social value measure for a brand, has a positive effect
Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and made
on brand loyalty. However, the moderating effect of
anonymous. First, the interview data was analyzed. To,

3221
this end, the research team, consisting of four people,
took over the coding of the interview data individually.
Furthermore, we inductively developed categories
from the data [51]. In order to ensure inter-rater
reliability, the meanings of the categories were
continuously negotiated. Thus, the relevant topics
regarding the research questions were identified,
compared, and cross-checked.
3.1. Results and Insights from Study 1
In today’s world, social media is continuously
gaining importance and influence on society and
companies. Companies use social media channels in
order to enhance performance and to let customers
engage with their brand interactively. This has become
indispensable, and it is nearly impossible to escape. As
one interview participant describes in the following
statement:
”Social media, I mean in general it's all over the
place. There's a huge buzz and certainly social media
is probably one of the most important touch points
these days, when it comes to the experience people
have with the brand. (Interviewee #3)
In fact, all of the interviewed companies are already
using these new media channels to a certain degree,
and as a result, companies have increased both their
efforts in digital activities and also their budgets to
cope with these changes in communication. As one
interview participant highlighted:
”First of all we're shifting more and more budget
towards digital. This year, we're going to be around
24% or 25% of the mix. So, the rest is offline. But from
the media mix 25% like for digital, this is getting to
interesting numbers. Then at the moment, we are
increasing the portion of traffic, which is paid versus
organic. That's because we are in a high growth
phase. (Interviewee #5)
Whenever people invest they want to know what
they will get in return. Companies use all kinds of
resources to push their brands and to create brand
equity. Thus, it is necessary to measure the outcome of
their invested resources. Different methods exist in
order to calculate a company’s brand equity. Not all of
the interviewed companies measure their brand equity
on their own: either they use brand consultancies or
they just use newspaper rankings as an orientation to
compare themselves with competitors in a given sector
as was mentioned during the interviews.
Even though most of the interviewed companies
could not directly relate to the concept of social brand
value they still believe that such a value is important.
In general, irrespective of company size of the level of
social media participation, all companies saw a high
3222
significance in social brand value, as the following
interview participants remarked:
”In my opinion, I think that the transformation in
the past year towards going online, the community and
social media idea have massive impact on brand
equity. (Interviewee #6)
”I think it is a tremendous value...before we were
doing marketing in the dark because we had no clue
what could be the reaction of the customers because
we were not able to go deep in his reaction. With
social it has changed everything because you are in a
permanent dialogue with your users. (Interviewee
#9)
Overall, our findings from the qualitative study
show that social media marketing is relevant for
companies but that they still do not have a clear idea
about what marketing strategies to apply in social
media environments. In particular, the lack of
measurement of success is a big issue. Furthermore the
study has shown that for brand management a new
brand equity measure is needed that accounts for the
new social media reality in marketing.
We now turn to Study 2, which investigates the
validity of the social brand value framework from a
consumer perspective.
3.2. Study 2 - Research Design and
Measures
For our second study an online questionnaire was
developed to quantitatively explore the "social brand
value" concept. We collected data from a panel
provided by a leading German market research
company. For their participation, panelists received
points, which could later be traded for vouchers or
other rewards. In total, 1,301 questionnaires were
completely filled out and returned to us. The 19 brands
selected for this study included software companies,
social network brands, online-retailer, and consumer
goods companies.
The questions and items used in our quantitative
online survey were set up and refined based on the
research literature (see Table 1). The social brand value
construct evolved from a review of literature by
Peterson et al.[52], Mathwick et al. [53] and Escalas
and Bettman [20]. We split up the construct into three
distinct dimensions namely sense of community (two
items), information value (two items) and identity
value (two items).
Three items were adapted from Pappu et al. [54] to
capture the perceived quality. Brand evangelism was
measured using two items adapted from Matzler et al.
[55]. Based on the work of Aaker [56, 57] willingness
to pay a price premium was measured with one items.
 Factor Factor
Fornell- Quantitative Analysis: All measurement items as
Construct Indicator AVE Larcker-
loading reliability
Ratio well as their psychometric properties are shown in
Brand
Evangelism
I feel the need to tell
others how good XXX
.92 .91 .84 .76 Table 1.
is.
If someone tries to .91
decry XXX, I will tell All indicators show good factor loadings and the
Price
him off unmistakably
How much more (in %) 1
respective factor reliabilities exceed the requirements
Premium would you be willing to [58]. Convergent validity determined by the average
(PP) pay for XXX compared
to an unbranded variance extracted achieved satisfactory levels.
Quality
version:
XXX offers very good .89 .89 .73 .69
Discriminant validity can be estimated by calculating
quality the Fornell-Larcker-Ratio [59], and the achieved value
The offer of xxx fits my .83
needs must not exceed 1. The three social brand value facets:
XXX constantly works .82 identity value, information value and sense of
on improvements
Social Brand Sense of Community .97 .93 .82 .78 community exhibited problems with discriminant
Value
(2nd order) Informational Value .83
validity as their Fornell-Larcker-Ratio’s were close to
1. Therefore, we conducted a model comparison in
Identity Value .92
order to decide whether to merge these three factors or
Sense of
Community
Through XXX I feel
like part of a
.90 .86 .76 to establish them with an underlying second order
community factor called ‘social brand value (SBV). As suggested
I take the opinion of .84
other xxx users by Bagozzi [60], second-order models are especially
seriously useful when first order factors are distinct but contain a
Identity Being an xxx user is .91 .93 .87
Value something special significant shared variance. In order to test whether the
XXX is an important .94
part of my identity second-order structure is also justified from an
Informational
Value
Through other xxx
users I learn something
.94 .92 .86 empirical point of view, we compared two models: one
new model, consisting of one single-merged first-order
Through other xxx .92
users I obtain valuable factor that included all indicators previously used for
information the distinct factors ‘sense of community’, ‘information
Table 1: Measurement items used in the final model value,’ and ‘identity value’ and one model consisting
of a second-order factor, the ‘social brand value’
underlying these three dimensions. Following
3.3. Analysis Burnham and Anderson [61], AIC0 and BIC0 were
used to compare the un-nested models and to evaluate
Descriptive Analysis: Based on the survey results we the second-order structure. The analysis supports the
ranked the evaluated brands according to the perceived second-order structure, as the difference measures
social value of participants. The resulting list showed AIC0, and BIC0 are all > 10 (First-order model: AIC
that there are significant differences in the perception 880, BIC 1062; Second-order model: AIC 423; BIC
of brands in light of their social value.. Brands like 616).
Apple, studiVZ and Google were strong in their overall
social brand value scores, whereas brands like Coca 3.4. Findings from the Quantitative
Cola or McDonalds are found at the end of the ranking. Analysis
Many of the traditional brands, which supposedly have
a high financial brand value, seem to be ill prepared for
Structural equation modeling was applied in order
the challenges brought to communities in the social
to test our conceptual framework and to explore the
media age. In contrast, Apple and co’s success is based
effect of social brand value (SBV) on the relationship
on their successful dealings with user communities and
between perceived quality on participants’ willingness
the skilled moderation of the communication among
to pay a price premium (PP) for the brand as well as
users. They understand how to add value for customers
their brand evangelism.
through social interaction between co-users. The rather
First, we analyzed the direct effects of quality on
low rankings for brands like Flickr or YouTube
PP and Evangelism (Figure 2). Next, we amplified our
indicate that purely distributing content online does not
model and introduced SBV in order to test its direct
guarantee community building.
and mediating effects (Figure 3).
Overall it can be stated, that although social brand
Multiple indexes of model fit served for examining
value emerges organically from community, the
and evaluating the measurement models. The
successful examples demonstrate that social benefits of
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-
brands need to be managed actively by the companies.
fit index (AGFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the

3223
normed fit index (NFI) and the root mean squared error
of approximation (RMSEA) served as global and
incremental fit indices. Satisfactory fits are obtained
when the GFI, AGFI, CFI and NFI are greater than or
equal to 0.9 and the RMSEA is less than or equal to
0.08. The results for the model fit were: ² = 40.456 df
= 7, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.995, AGFI = 0.985, CFI =
0.996, NFI = 0.996, and RMSEA = 0.043 for the first
model and ² = 357.013 df = 45, p = 0.000, GFI =
0.987, AGFI = 0.962, CFI = 0.988, NFI = 0.986, and
RMSEA = 0.052 for the second model. Overall, the
models indicated a satisfying overall fit to the data [see
for example 62, 63, 64].
The results given in Figure 2 show that quality has
a significant influence on both PP (γ=.27***), as well
as participants brand evangelism (γ=.50***). In total,
quality explains 6% of PP and 50% of participants’
brand evangelism.
Figure 2: Structural model perceived quality and its
effect on willingness to pay and brand
evangelism
Figure 3 portrays the results of the amplified
structural equation model assuming that SBV has
additional effects on participants’ PP and brand
evangelism. In total, SBV is able to raise the explained
variance of PP from R2=.06 to .20 and evangelism
from R2= .50 to .75. The path analysis further reveals
that SBV significantly impacts PP (=.43***) as well
as evangelism (=.59***).
SBV also fully mediates the impact of quality on
PP as quality has a significant impact on SBV
(γ=.51***), and is able to account for a considerable
amount in variance of SBV (R2 =.26) and changes the
previously significant quality-PP path to an
insignificant relationship. This means that brands that
offer quality do not automatically achieve a price
premium. Only by providing social value to their users,
do they attain an increased PP. The impact of quality
on evangelism further seems to be partly mediated by
SBV as the influence of quality on evangelism
decreases and the overall explained variance of
evangelism increases. However, the effect of quality on
evangelism stays significant.
3224
Figure 3: Amplified structural model including social
brand value
According to Baron and Kenny [65] a variable
functions as a mediator when (a) variations in the
independent variable significantly account for
variations in the presumed mediator, (b) variations in
the mediator significantly account for variations in the
dependent variable, and (c) when a previously
significant relation between the independent and
dependent variables is no longer significant, with the
strongest demonstration of mediation occurring when
this path is zero. In our model, all three conditions are
applicable, indicating a full mediation effect. SBV can
thus be interpreted to be a dominant predictor for both
PP and Evangelism. In addition, we conducted a
multigroup analysis to compare our encountered
effects between the 19 different brands. No significant
differences regarding the impact of SBV could be
found among the different models, indicating that the
effect of SBV is quite robust and may be applicable for
all kind of brands.
4. Discussion
This paper contributes to our theoretical
understanding of the social role that brands play in the
life of consumers by providing data that shows the
value creating role of social interactions around a
brand for consumers.
Networks of institutionalized relationships are
valuable for those who have them. Resources which
stem from these relationships build up social capital
and help people form identities and realize goals.
Brands nowadays play an important role in linking
people together [13] and thereby help build
relationships and social capital. This study shows that
consumers value the potential of brands as a linking
device and as a source of social capital. They are for
the most part only subconsciously aware of this
potential but nevertheless value it and are therefore,
among other reasons, drawn towards brands and
willing to pay a price premium. This study thereby
confirms prior studies on the value enhancing role of
brand communities [15-17], but goes beyond these
finding in explaining the source of this value and in
offering a conceptual framework to measure it.
 This study also enhances our knowledge on the
functions (or benefits) of brands. Besides the widely
described functional and symbolic benefits of brands,
this study suggests to add another dimension: a social
function. Consumers buy and use brands as well as
interact with others around brands because of the social
ties they get from it. This social function of brands is
also becoming ever more important in the social media
age where possibilities to interact become easier than
ever and pervasive. This also indicates that the
importance of social media in creating and maintaining
strong brands increases. The social role for branding
has yet to be accounted for in branding literature and
this study is a first step into this direction.
By demonstrating the mediating function of social
brand value, this study furthermore questions the
described relationship of perceived quality and
willingness to pay a price premium. Providing high
quality of products is no longer a sufficient advantage
for brands today, it has merely become a basic
requirement. To make products stand out among the
mass of offerings and to make consumers pay a price
premium for an offering asks for a more socially
inspired positioning of a brand.
In light of our findings, an update on existing brand
equity measures is due. Brand equity, as widely used as
it is today, does not account for social ties as important
components of brand value. Especially for activities in
social media, such a measure would be essential for
companies to evaluate their marketing effort in this
environment. Based on the social brand value concept
introduced in this study, future research should try to
incorporate the findings on the social value of brands
into the measurement of brand equity. Only then a
more complete picture on the potential value a brand
has for customers can be estimated.
5. Implications, Limitations and Future
Research
This study also has implications for marketing and
brand managers. Marketing managers have already
understood the importance of social media activities
for their brands. These activities are high on their
agenda and more and more investments are poured into
marketing campaigns within this communication
channel. But managers are still lacking the
understanding on why social media is so important for
their brands. This study presents an answer to this
question as it proposes that the power of social media
activities lies within their potential to establish social
ties among consumers. The results presented here may
therefore help managers understand the role social
media can play for their brands and where the value
3225
enhancing potential within these environments lies for
brands.
This study thereby also refocuses our perspective in
respect to the planning of marketing efforts. Social
brand value has to be accounted for when planning
marketing campaigns, may they be done online or
offline. Marketing managers will have to think about
how to strengthen the social aspects of their brands.
Building value creating relationships with social media
activities are one part, but efforts will have to go
beyond that. Interactions about brands happen on- as
well as offline and branding efforts have to be designed
accordingly to account for the social value in brands.
Furthermore does the framework introduced in this
study give managers a tool to measure the social value
of their brands. It thereby gives them a guideline how
to measure the success or failure of their social media
campaigns. Activities in social media environments
have to be evaluated differently than traditional
marketing efforts. Within social media the relationship
aspect moves to the forefront of consumer interest,
subconsciously or consciously. Marketing efforts have
to account for that and have to actively support and
foster the building of social ties around a brand.
However, this study also bears some limitations:
Our findings are limited in that we investigated a
certain geographical area and only included a limited
number of brands. Transferability of the findings in
this study to other geographical areas or brands might
therefore be limited.
Future research should assess a broader set of
brands in different geographical and cultural areas to
further strengthen our findings. Further research should
also focus on updating the current brand equity model
to incorporate the social brand value measure and
should test that model against the marketing reality in
social media.
6. References
[1] P. Berthon, L. F. Pitt, and C. Campell, "When
Customers Create the Ad," California Management Review,
vol. 50, pp. 6-30, 2008.
[2] E. Qualman, socialnomics - how social media
transforms the way we live and do business. New Jersey:
Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[3] K. Mooney and N. Rollins, The Open Brand: When
Push Comes to Pull in an Web-Made World. Berkeley: New
Riders, 2008.
[4] J. Bernoff and C. Li, "Harnessing the Power of the
Oh-So-Social Web," MIT Sloan Management Review, vol.
49, pp. 36-42, 2008.
[5] P. Bourdieu, Distinctions: A Social Critique of the
Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1984.
[6] K. L. Keller and K. Richey, "The importance of
corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st century
business," Journal of Brand Management, vol. 14, pp. 74-81,
2006.
[7] E. Constantinides and S. J. Fountain, "Web 2.0:
Conceptual foundations and marketing issues," Journal of
Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, vol. 9, pp. 231-
244, 2008.
[8] P. Barwise and S. Meehan, "The One Thing You
Must Get Right When Building a Brand," Harvard Business
Review, vol. 88, pp. 80-84, 2010.
[9] Engagementdb. (2009, 24. November). The world's
most valuable brands. Who's most engaged? Available:
http://www.engagementdb.com/downloads/ENGAGEMENT
db_Report_2009.pdf
[10] K. L. Keller, "Building strong brands in a modern
marketing communications environment," Journal of
Marketing Communications, vol. 15, pp. 139-155, 2009.
[11] P. Bourdieu, "The Forms of Capital," in Handbook
of Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education, J. E.
Richardson, Ed., ed New York: Greenwood, 1986.
[12] L. Vogt, "Identität und Kapital - Über den
Zusammenhang von Identitätsoptionen und sozialer
Ungleichheit," in Identitäten in der Modernen Welt, R.
Hettlage and L. Vogt, Eds., ed Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher
Verlag, 2000.
[13] B. Cova, "Community and Consumption: Towards
a Definition of the Linking Value of Products or Services,"
European Journal of Marketing, vol. 31, pp. 297-316, 1997.
[14] J. H. McAlexander, S. K. Kim, and S. D. Roberts,
"Loyalty: The Influence of Satisfaction and Brand
Community Integration," Journal of Marketing Theory &
Practice, vol. 11, pp. 1-11, Fall2003 2003.
[15] A. Muniz and T. O'Guinn, "Brand Community,"
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 27, pp. 412-432, 2001.
[16] J. McAlexander, J. Schouten, and H. Koenig,
"Building Brand Community," Journal of Marketing, vol. 66,
pp. 38-54, 2002.
[17] H. J. Schau, A. M. Muniz, and E. J. Arnould, "How
Brand Community Practices Create Value," Journal of
Marketing, vol. 73, pp. 30-51, September 2009 2009.
[18] J.-N. Kapferer, The New Strategic Brand
Management, 4th ed. London: Kogan Page, 2008.
[19] K. L. Keller, Strategic brand management:
building, measuring, and managing brand equity, 3 ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2008.
[20] J. E. Escalas and J. R. Bettman, "Self-Construal,
Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning," in Journal of
Consumer Research vol. 32, ed: Journal of Consumer
Research, Inc., 2005, pp. 378-389.
[21] G. McCracken, "Who Is the Celebrity Endorser?
Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process," Journal
of Consumer Research, vol. 16, pp. 310-321, 1989.
[22] A. Chaudhuri and M. B. Holbrook, "The Chain of
Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand
Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty," Journal of
Marketing, vol. 65, pp. 81-93, 2001.
[23] S. Fournier, "Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer research,"
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 24, pp. 343-373, 1998.
[24] R. L. Oliver, "Whence Consumer Loyalty?,"
Journal of Marketing, vol. 63, pp. 33-44, 1999.
3226
[25] R. K. Srivastava and A. D. Shocker, Brand equity:
A perspective on its meaning and measurement. Cambridge,
1991.
[26] K. L. Keller, "Conceptualizing, measuring,
managing customer-based brand equity," Journal of
Marketing, vol. 57, pp. 1-22, 1993.
[27] C. J. Cobb-Walgren, C. A. Ruble, and N. Donthu,
"Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent,"
Journal of Advertising, vol. 24, pp. 25-40, Fall95 1995.
[28] A. Bengtsson and J. Ostberg, "Co-Constructing
Brand Equity: Consumer and Brand Managers," in European
Marketing Academy Annual Conference, 2004.
[29] R. Kozinets, "Can Consumers Escape the Market?
Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man," Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 29, pp. 20-38, 2002.
[30] B. Cova and V. Cova, "Tribal marketing - The
tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of
marketing," European Journal of Marketing, vol. 36, pp. 595-
620, 2002.
[31] D. Holt, "Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A
Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,"
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 29, pp. 70-90, 2002.
[32] M. Douglas and B. C. Isherwood, The World of
Goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption. New
York: Routledge, 1996.
[33] F. Toennis, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft.
Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 1988.
[34] A. C. Ahuvia, "Beyond the Extended Self: Loved
Objects and Consumers' Identity Narratives," Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 32, pp. 171-184, 2005.
[35] R. Belk, "Possessions and the extended self,"
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 17, pp. 127-140, 1988.
[36] R. Elliott, "Exploring the Symbolic Meaning of
Brands," British Journal of Management, vol. 5, p. 13, 1994.
[37] R. Elliott and K. Wattanasuwan, "Consumption and
the Symbolic Project of the Self," European Advances in
Consumer Research, vol. 3, pp. 17-20, 1998.
[38] M. Richins, "Valuing Things: The Public and
Private Meanings of Possessions," Journal of Consumer
Research, vol. 21, pp. 504-521, 1994.
[39] M. R. Solomon, "The Role of Products as Social
Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective," Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 10, pp. 319-329, 1983.
[40] T. Erdem and J. Swait, "Brand Equity as a
Signaling Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Psychology
(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), vol. 7, p. 131, 1998.
[41] M. Spence, Market Signaling: Informational
transfer in hiring and related screening processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.
[42] B. Klein and K. B. Leffler, "The role of market
forces in assuring contractual performance," Journal of
Political Economy, vol. 89, pp. 615-639, 1981.
[43] C. Shapiro, "Premiums for high quality products as
rents to reputation," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 98,
pp. 659-679, 1983.
[44] B. C. Carroll and A. C. Ahuvia, "Some antecedents
and outcomes of brand love," Marketing Letters vol. 17, pp.
79-89., 2006.
[45] C. Homburg, N. Koschate, and W. D. Hoyer, "Do
Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of the
 Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Willingness
to Pay," Journal of Marketing, vol. 69, pp. 84-96, 2005.
[46] S. A. Taylor and T. L. Baker, "An assessment of
the relationship between service quality and customer
satisfaction," Journal of Retailing, vol. 70, p. 163, Summer94
1994.
[47] T.-Z. Chang and A. R. Wildt, "Price, Product
Information, and Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 22, pp.
16-27, Winter94 1994.
[48] N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, "Entering the
Field of Qualitative Research," in Handbook of Qualitative
Research, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds., ed Thousand
Oaks: Sage, 1994, pp. 1-17.
[49] K. M. Eisenhardt, "Building Theories from Case-
Study Research," Academy of Management Review, vol. 14,
pp. 532-550, 1989.
[50] R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and
Methods, 3. ed. Newbury Park: Sage, 2003.
[51] B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New
York: De Gruyter, 1967.
[52] N. A. Peterson, P. W. Speer, and D. W. McMillan,
"Validation of A Brief Sense of Community Scale:
Confirmation of the Principal Theory of Sense of
Community," Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 36, pp.
61-73, 2008.
[53] C. Mathwick, C. Wiertz, and K. de Ruyter, "Social
Capital Production in Virtual P3 Community," Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 34, pp. 832-849, 2007.
[54] R. Pappu, P. G. Quester, and R. W. Cooksey,
"Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement
empirical evidence," Journal of Product and Brand
Management, vol. 14, pp. 143-54, 2005.
[55] K. Matzler, E. Pichler, and A. Hemetsberger, "Who
is spreading the word? The influence of extraversion and
openness on consumer passion and evangelism," presented at
3227
View publication stats
the American marketing Association's Winter Educators'
Conference 2007, San Diego CA, 2007.
[56] D. Aaker, Building Strong Brands. New York, NY:
Free Press, 1996.
[57] D. A. Aaker, "Measuring brand equity across
products and markets," California Management Review, pp.
102-120, 1996.
[58] R. Bagozzi and Y. Yi, "On the evaluation of
structural equation models," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, vol. 16, pp. 74-94, 1988.
[59] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, "Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error," Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18,
pp. 39-50, 1981.
[60] R. Bagozzi, "The self-regulation of attitudes,
intention, and behavior," Social Psychology Quarterly, vol.
55, pp. 178-204, 1992.
[61] K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson, "Multimodel
Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection,"
Sociological Methods Research, vol. 33, pp. 261-304, 2004.
[62] L.-T. Hu and P. M. Bentler, "Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria
versus new alternatives," Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 6, pp. 1-55, 1999.
[63] R. B. Kline, Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 1998.
[64] M. W. Browne and R. Cudeck, "Alternative ways
of assessing model fit," in Testing structural equation
models, K. A. Bollen and S. J. Long, Eds., ed Newbury Park:
Sage Publications, 1993, pp. 136-162.
[65] R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, "The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182, 1986.