Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

ISSN: 1069-6679 (Print) 1944-7175 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmtp20

Understanding Social Media: The Effect of Belief

Type and Product Type on Consumers’ Social
Media Use

Camelia C. Micu, Michael R. Sciandra & Anca Micu

To cite this article: Camelia C. Micu, Michael R. Sciandra & Anca Micu (2019) Understanding
Social Media: The Effect of Belief Type and Product Type on Consumers’ Social Media Use,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 27:1, 55-66, DOI: 10.1080/10696679.2018.1534212

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2018.1534212

Published online: 29 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmtp20
 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL MEDIA: THE EFFECT OF BELIEF TYPE AND
PRODUCT TYPE ON CONSUMERS’ SOCIAL MEDIA USE
Camelia C. Micu, Michael R. Sciandra, and Anca Micu

This study advances the knowledge of social media by examining brand-related user-generated
content (UGC) on three social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Using content
analysis of posts from these sites, the authors show important differences between utilitarian and
hedonic products with regard to the type of brand belief (functional, experiential, and symbolic) as
well as sentiment (positive and negative) included in UGC. The results provide managers with
insights on how to identify content that is likely to make a real impact on consumers on each
platform, as well as how to allocate resources across platforms, depending on product type.

Social media websites such as Facebook, YouTube and
Twitter provide unlimited means for internet users to
interact, express, share and create content about any-
thing, including brands. For instance, consumers watch
or even post brand-related videos about Absolut Vodka on
YouTube, they talk about Monster energy drinks on
Twitter and upload pictures of their new Nike sneakers
to Facebook. This form of consumer engagement is called
user-generated content (UGC) and is important for mar-
keters because much of UGC is brand-related (Burmann &
Arnhold, 2008) and has the potential to shape consumers’
brand perceptions (Christodoulides, Jevons, &
Bonhomme, 2012).
However, a major challenge in utilizing UGC lies in the
significant amount of UGC available and the difficulty in
identifying the more valuable content that is likely to
make a real impact on businesses and other consumers.
Moreover, whereas marketing scholars have examined
UGC in relation to different social media platforms in
isolation, few have incorporated UGC across multiple
platforms in one single study for comparative purposes.
Camelia C. Micu (Ph.D., University of Connecticut),
Associate Professor of Marketing, Marketing Department,
Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University,
Fairfield, CT, cmicu@fairfield.edu
Michael R. Sciandra (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh),
Assistant Professor of Marketing, Marketing Department,
Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University,
Fairfield, CT, msciandra@fairfield.edu
Anca Micu (Ph.D., University of Missouri-Columbia),
Associate Professor of Marketing, Marketing and Sports
Management Department, Jack Welch College of Business,
Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, micua@sacredheart.
edu
Such comparisons would be valuable for marketers that
are concerned with the co-creation of their brands across
different platforms, as every platform is unique.
Indeed, Smith, Fischer, and Yongjian (2012) indicate
that significant differences exist among Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube with regard to some facets of brand-
related UGC. However, their research focuses on only two
brands, both in the apparel product category, and both
targeting mostly female consumers, thus making it diffi-
cult to extrapolate the findings beyond that sample. In
this study, the authors build upon and extend this line of
research by examining additional dimensions of UGC
with regard to two different product categories, utilitarian
products (which offer functional benefits) and hedonic
products, whose consumption produces enjoyment and
pleasure (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Research on
social media suggests that, on the one hand, it may be
difficult for utilitarian products to become successful on
social media, as consumers lack an emotional connection
with those product categories (see Firefly Millward Brown,
2010). On the other hand, research indicates that utilitar-
ian products (e.g., diapers) can achieve success in social
media (Millward Brown, 2011).
To better understand this paradox, the authors
examine (1) how various facets of UGC differ for utili-
tarian and hedonic products within each social media
platform, as well as (2) how these facets differ across
three social media sites: Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube. Thus, this study will provide valuable
insights to marketers about the type of message that
will engage consumers in discussions about functional
and hedonic products, as well as on how to allocate
resources across platforms.

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 27, no. 1 (Winter 2019), pp. 55–66.
Copyright Ó Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1069–6679 (print) / ISSN 1944–7175 (online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2018.1534212
56 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

The article proceeds as follows. The authors first
provide a review of relevant literature on the social
media sites of interest and product categories and
state the hypotheses. The article then presents the
methodology, describes the results, and concludes
with a discussion of the findings, implications for
managerial practice, and future research directions.
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
Social media sites
Previous research has indicated that brand-related
UGC differs across these three social media sites on
some dimensions, such as brand centrality, factual infor-
mation, and brand sentiment (see Smith et al., 2012).
However, more research is needed to better understand
these differences with regard to other dimensions of
UGC not studied before, as well as with regard to differ-
ent product categories. Therefore, this article seeks to
expand our understanding of brand-related UGC on mul-
tiple social media sites by considering the role of product
categories and consumer brand beliefs.

This study focuses on the most popular social media

sites: Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Each one is
discussed in turn. Product category
Twitter is one of the most popular microblogging
Research in advertising and consumer behavior has con-
services. Twitter allows users to publish (tweet), reply
templated a variety of ways to classify products. As noted,
to, and forward posts that cannot exceed 140 characters
this research is particularly interested in products that are
in length. Twitter is mainly used to ask for or share
either hedonic or utilitarian in nature (Hirschman &
information, news, opinions, complaints, or details
Holbrook, 1982). Primarily utilitarian products (e.g., hair
about daily activities. Since its launch in 2006, Twitter
dryers, washing machines, and lawn mowers) deliver
has accumulated 326 million monthly active users
more cognitively oriented benefits (Hirschman &
(Twitter.com, n.d.) and offers companies access to
Holbrook, 1982; Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998; Woods,
a very loyal group of customers. Indeed, 67 percent of
1960), whereas primarily hedonic products (e.g., jewelry,
brand followers indicate they purchase the brand they
perfumes, massages) provide more experiential consump-
follow on Twitter (Malhotra, Malhotra, & See, 2012).
tion, fun, pleasure, and excitement. The distinction
Facebook has accumulated 2.27 billion active
between utilitarian and hedonic products has clear impli-
monthly users since 2004 (Facebook Statistics, n.d.),
cations on how consumers evaluate goods (Chaudhuri &
when it was founded. Facebook allows users to create
Ligas, 2006). Specifically, for utilitarian products, tangible
profiles, upload photos, “friend” other site users, com-
product features play a more important role in attitude
ment (in the forms of links, photos, videos, etc.) and/
formation than nontangible features, which in turn are
or like postings. Facebook users demonstrate their affi-
more important for hedonic products.
nity for brands through use of the “like” button. By
Although different products can be high or low in both
“liking” a brand (also known as “becoming a fan”),
hedonic and utilitarian attributes (Crowley, Spangenberg,
followers can express their interest affirmatively in
& Hughes, 1992; Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann,
a particular brand for reasons that may include self-
2003), this research focuses on products that are primarily
expression, communicating positive associations of
more hedonic, or more utilitarian, respectively. This
that brand to others, staying in communication with
approach is consistent with previous work (Dhar &
that brand, or receiving deals and promotions
Wertenbroch, 2000; O’Curry & Strahilevitz, 2001;
(Lipsman, Mudd, Rich, & Bruick, 2012).
Okada, 2005) and it allows us to study how the aggregate
YouTube is a content community that was founded in
perception of a good as either hedonic or utilitarian
2005 and allows users to post, view, and comment on
affects behaviors on social media in ways that are theore-
videos on the site. The research on YouTube that is most
tically explainable and predictable.
relevant to this study is that regarding brand-related UGC,
which indicate that videos often feature reviews, demon-
strations, creative consumption, the “unboxing” of new HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
products, amateur advertisements, satires and spoofs,
brand community storytelling, and the coverage of brand- Based on prior literature and an inductive analysis by
related events (Blythe & Cairns, 2009; Pace, 2008). the authors, a set of dimensions that may be present in

consumers’ discussions on social media was identified.
Each of these facets is now discussed.
Brand beliefs
An important motivator of consumers’ behavior is related
to the benefits that the brands are offering. Research in
marketing has made a distinction among three basic cate-
gories of benefits according to the underlying motivation
to which they relate: functional, experiential, and sym-
bolic benefits or beliefs (see Keller, 1993). Indeed, several
researchers (Keller, 1993; Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis,
1986) have advocated a brand management strategy
based on identifying the extent to which consumers
associate different brand benefits with specific brands.
The brand benefits that underlie consumers’ brand beliefs
represent “the personal value and meanings that consu-
mers attach to the brand” (Keller, 1993) and can be func-
tional, experiential, and symbolic. Beliefs about
functional benefits are the most intrinsic beliefs about
product consumption and usually correspond to product
attributes, such as the belief that Old Spice deodorant has
a pleasant smell. Experiential beliefs are related to what it
feels like to use the product, the cognitive and sensory
stimulation of the consumer, and usually correspond to
product attributes as well. For example, an experiential
belief can be related to one feeling clean throughout
the day when using Old Spice. Finally, symbolic beliefs
are the most extrinsic advantages of product consump-
tion, usually correspond to nonproduct-related attributes
and relate to underlying needs for social approval, perso-
nal expression, or self-esteem (e.g., the belief that Old
Spice can make someone “smell like a millionaire jet
fighter pilot”).
In the consumer behavior literature, these types of
beliefs have been studied in various contexts. The distinc-
tion among functional, experiential, and symbolic beliefs
is significant because they may not be evoked or behave in
unison and may play a different role in attitude forma-
tion, depending on whether the product is hedonic or
utilitarian (see Micu & Coulter, 2012). Indeed, for func-
tionally oriented utilitarian products that involve more
cognitive processing, experiential attribute information
does not add value to the evaluation of the product, but
functional attribute information does. For hedonic pro-
ducts though, experiential (vs. functional) attribute infor-
mation results in more positive product evaluations, as it
will stimulate imagination and fantasy that are so
Winter 2019 57
important in evaluating such products (see Micu &
Coulter, 2012). A plausible conclusion that emerges from
these findings is that consumers, when engaging in dis-
cussions on social media, are expected to mention more
functional (experiential) beliefs for utilitarian (hedonic
products) than other types of beliefs. Thus, on all three
social media sites considered in this study, there will be an
interaction between product type and belief type, such
that:
H1: For utilitarian products, consumers will gen-
erate more UGC that includes functional, com-
pared to symbolic beliefs (H1a), and to
experiential beliefs (H1b), respectively.
H2: For hedonic products, consumers will gener-
ate more UGC that includes experiential, com-
pared to symbolic beliefs (H2a), and to
functional beliefs (H2b), respectively.
Further, with regard to differences among the three
social media sites, the authors expect that the amount of
UGC containing functional beliefs will not differ among
sites, as all of them allow consumers to easily share
factual, functional information about brands. However,
with regard to experiential beliefs, they should be shared
more on Facebook and YouTube than on Twitter.
Indeed, experiential consumption is more easily con-
veyed through pictures and videos on Facebook and
YouTube than via text on Twitter. Finally, the symbolic
beliefs relate to one’s underlying needs for social
approval and personal expression. Consumers can use
the symbolic beliefs about brands for the purpose of
“self-presentation” in social media, that is, to “express
a specific image and identity to others” (Zywica &
Danowski, 2008, p. 6). YouTube seems to be the best
medium for such purpose, as it is focused on broadcast-
ing the self, thus being far more oriented toward self-
presentation than Twitter, which is more focused on
promoting conversations (Kietzmann, Hermkens,
McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). Also, Facebook users self-
present themselves through personal profiles and dis-
play of friends (Papacharissi, 2009) rather than through
brands. Thus, consistent with previous research (Smith
et al., 2012), the authors expect consumers to use sym-
bolic beliefs for self-presentation purposes more fre-
quently on YouTube than on Facebook and Twitter.
These differences have to be considered, however, in
the context of product type. As discussed earlier, for
utilitarian products, tangible product features (such as
58 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
functional) play a more important role in attitude for-
mation than nontangible (experiential or symbolic) fea-
tures, which in turn are more important for hedonic
products (Chaudhuri & Ligas, 2006). These findings,
taken together, suggest that:
H3: For hedonic (but not utilitarian) products,
brand-related UGC on YouTube and Facebook is
more likely to feature experiential beliefs than
brand-related UGC on Twitter.
H4: For hedonic (but not utilitarian) products,
brand-related UGC on YouTube is more likely to
feature symbolic beliefs than brand-related UGC
on Facebook or Twitter.
Brand sentiment
Today’s successful marketers understand that social
media have reduced their control over their brands,
whose image will be the result of not only what they say
on their brand’s own behalf (Davenport & Beck, 2002;
Esch, Langner, Schmitt, & Geus, 2006), but also what
consumers say (i.e., the specific comments about the
brand) and what consumers feel (i.e., the sentiment asso-
ciated with a brand comment, that is, whether
a particular comment is positive, negative, or neutral).
Thus, to better manage their brands, many leading mar-
keters are using sentiment analysis to determine those
feeling about their brands, products and communication
campaigns (King, 2011).
A commonly used coding of sentiments in social
media differentiates among positive, negative, and neu-
tral sentiments, with the latter ones reporting objective
facts without expressing an opinion. Because of the lack
of an opinion, we do not assess neutral sentiments in
this study, but instead focus on positive and negative
sentiments. Previous research in social media indicates
that people are more likely to share practically useful and
positive content versus negative content (Berger &
Milkman, 2012), regardless of the product type. Based
on these findings, the authors propose that:
H5: Consumers should generate more positive
(than negative) UGC for both utilitarian (H5a)
and hedonic (H5b) products on all three social
media platforms.
With regard to differences on emotions among the
three social media sites, previous research has not been
able to identify a predictable difference (see Smith et al.,
2012). The lack of a difference could be due to the low
number of brands (from the same product category)
examined. From a theoretical standpoint, based on the
technical and cultural characteristics of the sites, one
shouldn’t find any differences in the amount of positive,
neutral, or negative postings among sites. Indeed, consu-
mers can share content on Twitter that is positive (opi-
nion about brands), neutral (information), or negative
(complaints). Similarly, on Facebook, they can comment
positively or negatively about a brand, or share neutral
information by posting a question, for instance, or by
commenting on the “current status,” such as “I am hav-
ing a Dos Equis now.” Finally, on YouTube, they may
include positive or negative comments in product reviews
or just mention the brand peripherally in a neutral com-
ment. However, we argue that the lack of differences in
sentiment among the social media sites may be observed
for utilitarian products, but not for hedonic products and
offer the rationale next. Hedonic products (as opposed to
utilitarian products) are related to sensory experiences
and their consumption engenders more emotions,
which are more easily conveyed via pictures and videos
on Facebook and YouTube than via text on Twitter. Thus:
H6: For hedonic (but not utilitarian) products,
there should be more UGC expressing either
a positive sentiment (H6a) or a negative sentiment
(H6b) on Facebook and YouTube than on Twitter.
A summary of the hypotheses, along with their level
of support, is shown in Table 1.
METHODOLOGY
Sampling
Two studies were conducted to examine the hypotheses.
The units of analysis were individual postings collected
from a limited time frame (January 2012 to
December 2012) using a social media monitoring tool.
In Study 1, the postings were randomly selected for two
brands in the service category: Southwest airline (utilitar-
ian) and Disney cruise (hedonic) by using the keywords
“Southwest,” and “Disney Cruise,” respectively. Study 2
 Winter 2019 59

Table 1
Summary of Hypotheses
Utilitarian product Hedonic product

Southwest Old Spice Disney Cruise Dos Equis

H1a: Functional >Symbolic H1a H1a

H1b: Functional >Experiential H1b H1b
H2a: Experiential >Symbolic H2a H2a
H2b: Experiential >Functional H2b H2b
H3: YouTube and Facebook >Twitter for experiential beliefs H3 H3
H4: YouTube >Facebook and Twitter for symbolic beliefs H4 H4
H5: Positive >Negative sentiment across all sites H5a H5a H5b H5b
H6a: Facebook and YouTube >Twitter for positive comments H6a H6a
H6b: Facebook and YouTube >Twitter for negative comments H6b H6b
Notes: Grey areas indicate that the hypothesis was supported.
Area with dots: hypothesis partially supported.
Horizontal lines: not able to test the hypothesis because of low sample size.

was a replication and an extension of Study 1 to two other percentages of postings containing functional, experien-
brands from different product categories, for which sym- tial, or symbolic beliefs were as follows: Southwest (70%),
bolic beliefs were used more heavily in brand positioning. Disney Cruise (70.3%), Old Spice (59.1%), and Dos Equis
Thus, in Study 2, Old Spice deodorant was selected as (59.6%). Additionally, about half of the coded postings
a utilitarian product and Dos Equis beer as a hedonic for each brand conveyed either a positive or a negative
product. The keywords “Old Spice,” were used to collect sentiment, with the remaining being neutral.
the data. The postings were screened to ensure that they
were produced by consumers and they did not have an
apparent commercial objective. Those with a commercial Coding
objective were considered irrelevant for this study and
were thus eliminated from the sample before coding. Functional, Experiential, and Symbolic Beliefs
The authors used a content analysis to examine the
Content was coded “yes” for functional belief if it con-
content of communications (Kolbe Richard & Burnett,
tained functional brand information (“e.g., “Southwest is
1991). The content analysis has long been used by
cheaper”) and “no” otherwise. Similarly, it was coded
researchers interested in examining communications
“yes” for experiential belief if the brand experience was
such as advertisements, media stories, and web sites
mentioned, referenced, or featured in the posting (e.g.,
(Kassarjian, 1977; Roznowski, 2003; Yun, Park, & Ha,
“So I got some new deodorant, old spice specifically, and
2008). To keep the sampling scope manageable, but still
it burns sooo bad, #ouch”) and “no” otherwise. Finally,
capture a reasonably representative set of UGC for the
UGC was coded “yes” for symbolic beliefs if the posting
chosen brands, one of the researchers coded 100 postings
mentioned symbolic brand information, related to non-
for each brand and for each social media network, for
product related attributes (“Upgraded my deodorant from
a total of 1,200 postings (4 brands × 3 social networks ×
Axe to Old Spice. I smell so attractive!”) and “no” other-
100 postings/brand). Another researcher coded a smaller
wise. A small percentage of posts (3.2%) included more
portion (between 25 and 30 per brand) of UGC for each
than one brand belief and thus were coded accordingly.
brand and for each social media site chosen randomly
from the 100 postings. For all coded variables, the inter-
rated reliability was above .90, thus falling above the
Brand Sentiment
accepted level of .8 (Perreault & Leigh, 1989). Any discre-
pancies were solved through discussions among the UGC was coded “positive,” “neutral,” and “negative”
researchers. Across all three social media sites, the based on the overriding sentiment of the post.
60 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
STUDY 1
Procedure
Two services were chosen based on a pretest with 54
undergraduate students who rated various product
categories on five 7-point semantic-differential items
measuring the utilitarian dimension (e.g., not
functional/functional) and the hedonic dimension
(e.g., not fun/fun) (Voss et al., 2003). Based on partici-
pants’ scores, cruises were perceived as hedonic, as they
were rated significantly more hedonic (M = 6.00) than
utilitarian [M = –3.99, t(53) = 10.03, p < .001]; and airlines
as utilitarian, which were rated significantly more utili-
tarian (M = –6.10) than hedonic [M = –2.98, t(52) = –
14.32, p < .001].
From each product category, one brand was chosen
for the study: Disney Cruise Line, and Southwest as the
airline. These brands were deemed appropriate in the
service category because they are popular and thus
generate enough discussions on social media to allow
for a meaningful analysis.
Statistical differences stated in the hypotheses were
assessed using Chi-square tests conducted across the
three types of beliefs and the two types of sentiment
(positive and negative), for each brand, across all three
social media networking sites. If these tests yielded
a significant Chi-square statistic, follow-up tests were
run in order to establish which specific differences
(functional versus symbolic, Twitter vs. Facebook,
etc.) were contributing significantly to that statistic.
Results
H1 and H2
H1 and H2 posit an interaction between product type
and belief type on all three social media sites. As
expected, the interaction is significant on Twitter [Chi-
square(2) = 22.42, p < .001], Facebook [Chi-square(2) = –
23.64, p < .001], and YouTube [Chi-square(2) = 16.38,
p < .001]. For the utilitarian brand (i.e., Southwest),
consumers generated significantly more functional
than experiential UGC on Twitter [42% vs. 20%,
p = –.005] and on Facebook [53% vs. 30%, p = –.01],
as well as more functional than symbolic UGC on all
three sites (p < .001). The only result different from
what was hypothesized was with regard to functional
and experiential beliefs about Southwest on YouTube,
as the amount of UGC about these two belief types did
not differ significantly (p = –.710).
For the brand in the hedonic product category, the
results support the proposed hypotheses. Specifically,
consumers generated significantly more experiential
than functional UGC on Twitter [40% vs. 14%, Chi-
square(1) = 12.52, p < .001], Facebook [56% vs. 27%,
Chi-square(1) = 15.69, p < .001], and YouTube [58% vs.
13%, Chi-square(1) = –13.23, p < –.001], as well as more
experiential UGC than symbolic UGC on all three sites
(p < –.001). Thus, both H2a and H2b are supported (see
Table 2).
H3
As hypothesized, for Disney Cruise, Twitter was less
likely to feature experiential beliefs (40%) than
Facebook [65%, Chi-square(1) = 5.95, p = .015] or
YouTube [58%, Chi-square(1) = 3.31, p = .069] (see
Table 2). Interestingly, we also found that for
Southwest (utilitarian), the amount of experiential
beliefs on YouTube exceeded that on Twitter [Chi-
square(1) = 7.23, p = .007], with no other differences
being significant.
H4
H5 hypothesized that, for both hedonic products,
brand related UGC on YouTube is more likely to fea-
ture symbolic beliefs than Facebook or Twitter.
Unfortunately, this hypothesis could not be tested, as
the amount of symbolic beliefs mentioned on either
site was very low (maximum of three mentions).
H5
The findings show that, for the utilitarian product,
consumers shared positive and negative comments
equally on Twitter, as well as on Facebook. Only on
YouTube, consumers shared more positive content
than negative content about Southwest (p < –.001).
Thus H5a is only partially supported. For the hedonic
product, the amount of positive UGC exceeded that of
negative UGC on all three social networking sites
(p < .001) (see Table 2). Thus H5b is fully supported.
 Winter 2019 61

Table 2
Means and Statistics for Tested Hypotheses (Study 1)
Twitter (a) Facebook (b) YouTube (c) Chi-square Post-hoca

Southwest (Utilitarian)
Brand Beliefs
Functional (A) 42.0% 53.0% 37.0% 3.05
Experiential (B) 20.0% 30.0% 41.0% 7.28* ac
Symbolic (C) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA
Chi-square 7.81** 6.37* .21
Post-hocb AB; AC; BC AB; AC; BC AC; BC
Brand Sentiment
Positive 21.0% 30.0% 28.0% 1.69
Negative 17.0% 28.0% 5.0% 15.99*** ac; bc
Chi-square .42 .07 16.03***
Disney Cruise (Hedonic)
Brand Beliefs
Functional (A) 14.0% 27.0% 12.0% 7.51* ab; bc
Experiential (B) 40.0% 65.0% 58.0% 6.12* ab; ac
Symbolic (C) 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% NA
Chi-square 40.43*** 61.73*** 77.27***
Post-hocb AC; BC AB; AC; BC AB; AC; BC
Brand Sentiment
Positive 33.0% 78.0% 53.0% 18.59*** ab; ac
Negative 0% 4.0% 1.0% NA
Chi-square NA 66.78*** 50.07***
Notes: apost-hoc comparisons significant at p ≤ –.05 are shown by letters: a (Twitter), b (Facebook) and c (YouTube); (e.g., ab represents
a significant difference between Twitter (a) and Facebook (b).

H6 STUDY 2

According to H6, for hedonic products, there should
be more UGC expressing a sentiment (either positive
or negative) on Facebook and YouTube than on
Twitter. Indeed, for Disney Cruise, there was more
UGC expressing a positive sentiment on Facebook vs.
Twitter [78% vs. 33%, Chi-square(1) = –18.24,
p < –.001] and on YouTube vs. Twitter [53% vs. 33%,
Chi-square(1) = 4.65, p = .03], providing support for
H6a. Because of a very low sample of negative com-
ments (maximum six), the results of the statistical tests
conducted to test H6b are not reliable. Although not
hypotheses, we expected no differences in sentiment
across sites for utilitarian products. Indeed, the
amount of positive content for Southwest was consis-
tent across sites [Chi-square(2) = –1.69, p = –.42].
However, Facebook (28%) and Twitter (17%) had sig-
nificantly more negative comments about Southwest
than YouTube [5%, Chi-square (2) = –15.99, p < –.001].
Based on the same pretest as above, two products were
chosen: beer as the hedonic product; it was rated sig-
nificantly more hedonic (M = –5.01) than utilitarian
[M = –3.95; t(53) = –3.57, p < –.001]; and deodorant as
the utilitarian product, which was rated significantly
more utilitarian (M = –6.74) than hedonic [M = –3.69, t
(53) = –16.01, p –< .001]. The purpose of Study 2 was
twofold: (1) to replicate the results from Study 1 with
two different brands from different product categories
and (2) to better examine the role of symbolic beliefs.
In Study 1, the brands chosen may not have been
highly associated with symbolic beliefs, which made
it impossible to test some of our hypotheses. Thus, in
Study 2, we chose two brands that have succeeded in
creating a symbolic image in customers’ minds
through advertising, such as Old Spice (utilitarian)
(promoting an image of attractiveness if wearing the
brand) and Dos Equis (hedonic) (whose slogan is “The
62 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

most interesting man in the world”). These brands are
also deemed appropriate for this study because of simi-
larities with regard to their success in social media,
both having about 2.5 million fans on Facebook
when the data was collected.
H1 and H2
As hypothesized in H1 and H2, the interaction between
product type and belief type is significant on Twitter
[Chi-square(2) = 18.85, p < .001], Facebook [Chi-square
(2) = 32.91, p < .001], and YouTube [Chi-square
(2) = 12.52, p = .002]. For the utilitarian brand (i.e.,
Old Spice), consumers generated significantly more
functional than experiential UGC on all sites: Twitter
[33% vs. 14%, Chi-square(1) = –7.68, p = –.002], Facebook
[53% vs. 30%, Chi-square(1) = –11.76, p = –.001], and
YouTube [26% vs. 13%, Chi-square(1) = –4.33, p = .037],
providing support for H1a. They also generated more
functional than symbolic UGC on Twitter [33% vs.
12%, Chi-square(1) = –9.80, p = –.002], on Facebook
[34% vs. 18%, Chi-square(1) = –4.92, p = –.027] and on
YouTube [26% vs. 8%, Chi-square(1) = –9.53, p = –.002],
providing support for H1b (see Table 3).
For the brand in the hedonic product category, con-
sumers generated significantly more experiential than
functional UGC on Twitter [37% vs. 14%, Chi-square
(1) = 10.37, p = .001], Facebook [45% vs. 29%, Chi-
square(1) = –3.46, p = –.06], and YouTube [23% vs. 10%,
Chi-square(1) = 5.12, p = .024]. Thus H2a is fully sup-
ported. They also generated more experiential than sym-
bolic UGC on Twitter [37% vs. 8%, Chi-square(1) = 18.69,
p < .001] and on Facebook [45% vs. 2%, Chi-square
(1) = 39.34, p < .001], but not on YouTube [23% vs.
16%, Chi-square(1) = –1.26, p = –.26]. Thus, H2b is only
partially supported (see Table 3).
H3
In H3, we hypothesized that for hedonic (but not utili-
tarian) products, YouTube and Facebook UGC is more
likely to feature experiential beliefs than Twitter. For Dos

Table 3
Means and Statistics for Tested Hypotheses (Study 2)
Twitter (a) Facebook (b) YouTube (c) Chi-square Post-hoca

Old Spice (Utilitarian)

Brand Beliefs
Functional (A) 33.0% 34.0%BC 26.0% 1.23
Experiential (B) 14.0% 11.0% 13.0% .37
Symbolic (C) 12.0% 18.0% 8% 4.00
Chi-square 13.66** 13.24** 11.02**
Post-hocb AB; AC AB; AC AC; AC
Brand Sentiment
Positive 34.0% 34% 29% .52
Negative 14.0% 6% 4% 7.00* ac
Chi-square 8.33** 19.60*** 18.93***
Dos Equis (Hedonic)
Brand Beliefs
Functional (A) 14.0% 29.0% 10.0% 11.36** ab; bc
Experiential (B) 37.0% 45.0% 23.0% 7.09* bc
Symbolic (C) 8.0% 2.0% 16.0% 11.39** bc
Chi-square 23.83*** 37.39*** 5.18
Post-hoc AB; BC AC; BC AB
Brand Sentiment
Positive 25.0% 55.0% 21.0% 20.52*** ab; bc
Negative 6.0% 12.0% 6.0% 3.00
Chi-square 11.65** 27.59*** 8.33**
Notes: apost-hoc comparisons significant at p ≤ –.05 are shown by letters: a (Twitter), b (Facebook) and c (YouTube); (e.g., ab represents
a significant difference between Twitter (a) and Facebook (b).

Equis, Facebook had more experiential belief mentions
than YouTube (45% vs. 23%, [Chi-square(1) = –7.12,
p = –.008], thus H3 is not supported. However, as
expected, no significant difference among the three
social networking sites with regard to the amount of
experiential beliefs about the utilitarian product [Chi-
square(1) = –.37, p = –.83] was found.
H4
With regard to symbolic beliefs for the hedonic pro-
duct, YouTube featured more symbolic beliefs about
Dos Equis than Facebook [Chi-square(1) = 10.89,
p = .001], but not more than Twitter [Chi-square
(1) = 2.67, p = –.10]. Thus H5 is only partially supported.
Additionally, as expected, there was no difference in
the number of symbolic beliefs about Old Spice
among the three sites [Chi-square(1) = –4.00, p = –.135].
H5
As hypothesized in H6, the amount of positive UGC
exceeded that of negative UGC on all three social net-
working sites (p < –.01) for both the utilitarian product
(H6a) and the hedonic product (H6b) (see Table 3).
H6
According to H6, for hedonic products, there should
be more UGC expressing a sentiment (either positive
or negative) on Facebook and YouTube than on
Twitter. Indeed, for Dos Equis, there was more UGC
expressing a positive sentiment on Facebook than on
Twitter [55% vs. 25%, Chi-square(1) = –11.25,
p = –.001]. However, Facebook also included more
positive sentiments than YouTube [55% vs. 21%, Chi-
square(1) = 15.21, p < .001], thus H6a is only partially
supported. Additionally, there was no difference
among sites with regard to negative comments for
the hedonic product, which may be due to the low
sample size. Thus, H6b is not supported. Further, as
expected for the utilitarian product, the amount of
positive content about Old Spice was consistent across
sites [Chi-square(2) = –52, p = .77]. However, Twitter
had significantly more negative comments about Old
Spice than YouTube [Chi-square (2) = 5.56, p = .018].
The result is similar to that from Study 1, where
YouTube had fewer negative comments than both
Twitter and Facebook.
Winter 2019 63
DISCUSSIONS, MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS,
AND DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the tremendous growth of people who use social
media (1.86 billion monthly active users on Facebook
alone as of December 2016), marketers have great oppor-
tunities to connect with their customers and engage them
in sustainable, positive word-of-mouth. However, select-
ing the right message for the social media platforms cho-
sen to communicate with the target market may be
challenging because every platform is unique. In some
cases, they may be used by the same people, but they are
used for very different purposes and very different
contexts.
The results of this study show that, for utilitarian
products, on all three social media platforms investi-
gated here, UGC includes, in general, more functional
benefits than experiential or symbolic. Thus, brand
managers should select functional benefits to be asso-
ciated with their utilitarian brand and tout them
through paid media, knowing they will be picked up
and echoed through social media. For hedonic products
though, people are more likely to talk about experien-
tial benefits than about functional or symbolic benefits.
With regard to symbolic benefits, previous research
indicates that brands should move from functional to
symbolic benefits (Meenaghan, 1995), which would
give brands a competitive advantage because of
a more distinctive, hard-to-imitate brand image. In
UGC though, the symbolic beliefs do not seem to play
a major role, as consumers rarely include them in dis-
cussions, even if the brands have a strong symbolic
image (see Old Spice and Dos Equis). Thus, overall, the
results are in line, but also contrary to the previous
findings in the literature of brand attitude, creating
new opportunities, but also new challenges to market-
ers in charge of managing a brand’s social media.
Our findings with regard to how the user-generated
content varies across the three social media networking
sites provide further insight to marketers. For utilitarian
products, all three sites seem to be equally effective in
communicating information about functional and sym-
bolic beliefs, as there was no difference among the plat-
forms with regard to the amount of such beliefs. However,
YouTube seems to provide several advantages over
Facebook and Twitter for a utilitarian product. First, it
allows users to more easily share information about
experiential beliefs. Second, in the case of utilitarian pro-
ducts, YouTube is the least likely avenue for expressing
64 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
negative comments. Perhaps this is due to the difference
in effort needed to produce a YouTube video as opposed
to writing a tweet or a Facebook posting. Indeed, because
of the amount of effort involved, consumers may be more
likely to share practically useful and positive content ver-
sus negative content (see also Berger & Milkman, 2012).
For hedonic products, Facebook is somewhat of
a haven relative to Twitter and even YouTube, as it
provides more information not only about experiential
consumption (through experiential beliefs), but also
about factual, functional brand information (though
functional beliefs). Additionally, Facebook seems to
offer more opportunities for marketers to collaborate
with customers to circulate positive sentiment about
their hedonic products, as indicated by the amount of
positive comments on Facebook, which exceeded that
on Twitter and YouTube. With the recent inclusion of
videos in Facebook’s newsfeeds, the effects related to the
amount of experiential beliefs included in UGC could
accentuate even more, turning Facebook into marketers’
preferred social media platform for hedonic products.
So should social media managers ignore Twitter
when communicating with their customers? The
findings of this study indicate that, when conveying
information about functional, experiential, or sym-
bolic brand beliefs, managers may want to choose
Facebook or YouTube over Twitter, depending on
the product type, as consumers prefer different
venues to share different types of brand beliefs.
Whereas Twitter is a quick way of sharing informa-
tion, news, opinions, and details about daily activity,
according to our study, it is not consumers’ preferred
venue for sharing brand belief information. Thus, it
may not be the best choice for marketers that want
to communicate brand belief information and
engage consumers in such discussions. Indeed, pre-
vious research (Jansen, Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdury,
2009) indicates that only 19 percent of tweets are
brand-related, and in almost half of those cases, the
brand is not the focal point of the post.
We close by acknowledging some limitations of this
study. As indicated earlier, this research focused on pro-
ducts that were primarily more hedonic and primarily
more utilitarian, respectively. What happens in
instances where consumers hold both a utilitarian and
hedonic perception of the brand? Do they discuss func-
tional, experiential, or both types of belief? From
a marketer’s perspective, the selection of the “right”
benefit information to include in social media discus-
sions becomes a critical and difficult decision, especially
because “a brand can become associated with a limited
number of brand values” (Meenaghan, 1995).
Future research could also examine whether the
benefits promoted via paid media by the brand are
the same ones that consumers then include in UGC,
sort of priming consumers. In political speech, Meyova
and Srinivasan (2012) have looked at whether
YouTube and Twitter social sentiment matched find-
ings from the Gallup poll and concluded that while
some signals from the two social media outlets paral-
leled the political world, neither matched the poll.
A similar study could be done for marketing as
opposed to political communication outcomes.
Finally, future research could also look at different
tools used to communicate via these social media plat-
forms. For example, Facebook has included videos in its
comments since the data collection for this study. While
that change can only boost Facebook’s ability to commu-
nicate information about experiential consumption, it
would be interesting to examine whether it is the video
format or the platform itself (YouTube vs. Facebook) that
explains the superiority over Twitter for conveying
experiential brand benefits. Cue-summation theory posits
that learning is more effective as the number of available
cues or stimuli (either across channels or within channels)
increases (Jiang & Benbasat, 2007). Jiang and Benbasat
(2007) compared four online presentation formats: static
pictures, videos without narration, videos with narration,
and virtual product experiences (VPEs), and found that
videos and VPEs were more effective in generating pro-
duct knowledge than static pictures, under moderate task
complexity. Future research could compare video as
a presentation format with Twitter’s 140 character posts
in terms of brand communication effectiveness.
REFERENCES
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online
content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2),
192–205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353
Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2009). Critical methods and user
generated content: The iPhone on YouTube. In
S. Greenberg, S. E. Hudson, K. Hinkley, M. R. Morris, &
D. R. Olsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual chi con-
ference on juman factors in computing systems (Vols. 1–4, pp.
1467–1476). New York, NY: Assoc Computing Machinery.

Burmann, C., & Arnhold, U. (2008). User generated branding:
State of the art of research. Münster, Germany: Lit Verlag.
Chaudhuri, A., & Ligas, M. (2006). The role of emotion and
reason in brand attitude formation. AMA Winter
Educators’ Conference Proceedings, 17, 195–201.
Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J. (2012).
Memo to marketers: Quantitative evidence for change:
How user-generated content really affects brands.
Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), 53–64.
doi:10.2501/JAR-52-1-053-064
Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Hughes, K. R. (1992).
Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
attitudes toward product categories. Marketing Letters, 3
(3), 239–249. doi:10.1007/BF00994132
Davenport, T., & Beck, J. C. (2002). Attention economy:
Understanding the new currency of business. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Review Press.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice
between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of
Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
Esch, F., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are
brands forever? How brand knowledge and relation-
ships affect current and future purchases. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 15(20), 98–105.
Facebook. (n.d.). Number of monthly active facebook users
worldwide as of 3rd quarter 2018 (in millions). In
Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved November 25,
2018, from https://www-statista-com.libdb.fairfield.
edu:8443/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-
facebook-users-worldwide/.
Firefly Millward Brown. (2010). The language of love in social
media. New rules for brand engagement. Retrieved
February 23, 2017, from http://www.fireflymb.com/
libraries/social_media_study/2010_socialmediastudy_
summaryreport.sflb.ashx
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic
consumption: Emerging concepts, methods, and
propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(Summer),
92–101. doi:10.2307/1251707
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009).
Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 60(11), 2169–2188.
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation
methods and task complexity on online consumers’
product understanding. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 475–500.
doi:10.2307/25148804
Kassarjian, H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(June), 8–18.
doi:10.1086/208674
Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57
(1), 1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., &
Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social
media. Business Horizons, 54(1), 241–251. doi:10.1016/j.
bushor.2011.01.005
Winter 2019 65
King, R. (2011), Sentiment analysis gives companies insight
into consumer opinion. Retrieved February 23, 2017,
from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-
03-01/sentiment-analysis-gives-companies-insight-into-
consumer-opinionbusinessweek-business-news-stock-
market-and-financial-advice
Kolbe Richard, H., & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-analysis
research: An examination of applications with directives
for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal
of Consumer Research, 18, 243–250. doi:10.1086/209256
Lipsman, A., Mudd, G., Rich, M., & Bruick, S. (2012). The
power of “Like”: How brands reach (and influence) fans
through social-media marketing. Journal of Advertising
Research, 52(1), 40–52. doi:10.2501/JAR-52-1-040-052
Malhotra, A., Malhotra, C. K., & See, A. (2012). How to get your
messages retweeted. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(2),
61–66.
Meenaghan, T. (1995). The role of advertising in brand
image development. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 4(4), 23–34. doi:10.1108/
10610429510097672
Meyova, Y., & Srinivasan, P. (2012, June). Political speech in
social media streams: YouTube comments and Twitter
posts. In N. Contractor, & B. Uzzi (Eds.). WebSci 2012
Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science
Conference (pp. 205–208). New York, NY: ACM.
Micu, C., & Coulter, R. A. (2012). The impact of pre-trial
advertising on post-trial product evaluations: Assessing
the effects of attribute information for hedonic and uti-
litarian products. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
20(2), 189–202. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679200205
Millward, B. (2011). How should your brand capitalize on social
media? Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://www.
armi-marketing.com/library/KnowledgePoint_
SocialMedia.pdf
O’Curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. (2001). Probability and mode
of acquisition effects on choices between hedonic and
utilitarian options. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 37–49.
doi:10.1023/A:1008115902904
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justifying the hedonic and the effects
on fun versus practical consumption. Journal of
Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.42.1.43.56889
Pace, S. (2008). YouTube: An opportunity for consumer nar-
rative analysis? Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, 11(2), 213–226. doi:10.1108/
13522750810864459
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social net-
works: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn
and ASmallWorld. New Media Society, 11, 199–220.
doi:10.1177/1461444808099577
Park, W., Jaworski, B., & MacInnis, D. (1986). Strategic brand
concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50
(October), 135–145. doi:10.2307/1251291
Perreault, W. D., Jr., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of
Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgements.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135–148.
doi:10.2307/3172601
66 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Roznowski, J. L. (2003). A content analysis of mass media
stories surrounding the consumer privacy issue
1990–2001. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(2),
52–69. doi:10.1002/dir.10054
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How does
brand-related user-generated content differ across
YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(2), 102–113. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.
01.002
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity
as purchase incentives: How well they work may
depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24(4), 434–446. doi:10.1086/
jcr.1998.24.issue-4
Twitter. (n.d.). Number of monthly active twitter users
worldwide from 1st quarter 2010 to 3rd quarter 2018
(in millions). In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved
November 25, 2018, from https://www-statista-com.
libdb.fairfield.edu:8443/statistics/282087/number-of-
monthly-active-twitter-users/.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003).
Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40
(August), 310–320. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.3.310.19238
Woods, W. (1960). Psychological dimensions of consumer
decision. Journal of Marketing, 24, 15–19. doi:10.2307/
1248701
Yun, G. W., Park, S. Y., & Ha, L. (2008). Influence of cultural
dimensions on online interactive review feature imple-
mentations: A comparison of Korean and U.S. retail web
sites. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(3), 40–50.
doi:10.1002/dir.20116
Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of
Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and
social compensation hypotheses; predicting
Facebook™ and offline popularity from sociability
and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popu-
larity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1–34. doi:10.1111/
jcmc.2008.14.issue-1