The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm
MRR
46,6
870
Received 24 July 2021
Revised 12 November 2021
13 March 2022
Accepted 23 August 2022
Management Research Review
Vol. 46 No. 6, 2023
pp. 870-892
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-07-2021-0552
Social media marketing
and brand authenticity: the role
of value co-creation
Shermeen Hasan and Abdul Qayyum
Faculty of Management Sciences, Riphah International University,
Islamabad, Pakistan, and
Mubashar Hassan Zia
Department of Business Administration, Allama Iqbal Open University,
Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to highlight the mediating role of value co-creation between social media
marketing, its dimensions – entertainment, customization, interaction, electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and
trendiness – and brand authenticity.
Design/methodology/approach – Data from 288 consumers was collected using both online and
paper-based questionnaires. Partial least squares–structural equation modeling was used for hypothesis
testing.
Findings – When studied compositely, the results of this study indicate that social media marketing
impacts value co-creation and brand authenticity, while value co-creation mediates this relationship.
However, value co-creation only mediates the impact of customization, interactions and eWOM on brand
authenticity. Moreover, entertainment and trendiness directly affect brand authenticity without the mediating
role of value co-creation.
Originality/value – The significance of value co-creation as the underlying mechanism between social
media marketing and brand authenticity has received little scholarly attention. Likewise, the question of
whether social media marketing dimensions help build brand authenticity perceptions has not been
investigated. Thus, this study contributes to the marketing literature by empirically testing and establishing
that interaction, customization and eWOM are essential social media marketing features that significantly
affect brand authenticity with the mediating role of value co-creation.
Keywords Brand authenticity, Value co-creation, Social media marketing, eWOM,
Marketing management, Social cognitive theory, Digital marketing
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Firms can objectively understand the needs of consumers when there are fewer products
and their needs are straightforward, well-defined and bounded within a choice set
(Ranjan and Read, 2016). However, the current market is saturated with brands and
products, and customers are exposed to a wide array of options, leading to uncertainty
about the authenticity of brands (Oh et al., 2019). Because of aggressive marketing
efforts, consumers question the integrity of overall marketing pursuits (Nunes et al.,
2021). Thus, to counter that, brands strive to cultivate a sense of authenticity to
differentiate themselves in the face of fierce competition (Dwivedi and McDonald, 2018).
Existing research (Akbar and Wymer, 2017; Morhart et al., 2015) has identified the core
meanings conveyed by brand authenticity as a brand’s truthfulness, genuineness and
reliability. Brand authenticity enhances brand attachment (Kowalczyk and Pounders, Social media
2016; Morhart et al., 2015), perceived brand value (Riefler, 2020), builds trust and loyalty marketing
(Portal et al., 2019), brand equity (Vredenburg et al., 2020), consumers’ attitudinal and
behavioral responses toward brands (Chen et al., 2020; Nunes et al., 2021) and consumer
experience (Goulding and Derbaix, 2019).
Brand authenticity has been found to be influenced by brand cultural symbolism (Jian
et al., 2019), brand experience (Safeer et al., 2020) and value co-creation (Deng et al., 2021).
However, despite the fact that businesses widely use social media for marketing their 871
products and services (Fouladi et al., 2021; Kowalczyk and Pounders, 2016; Yang et al.,
2021), the impact of social media marketing activities and their dimensions on brand
authenticity has not been investigated yet. Specifically, the existing research literature does
not reveal the influence of various dimensions of social media marketing (i.e. entertainment,
customization, interaction, electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and trendiness) on brand
authenticity on social media. Therefore, the present study intends to address this research
gap by examining how social media marketing activities and their dimensions contribute
individually to brand authenticity.
Another significant research gap in the marketing literature is the lack of clarity
regarding the underlying mechanism between social media marketing activities and brand
authenticity. That is how the impact of social media marketing activities is transferred to
brand authenticity in the context of social media. According to Dwivedi and McDonald
(2018), a well-crafted message is essential for building brand authenticity through social
media marketing. The rise of social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and
YouTube, has sparked practitioners’ interest in facilitating value co-creation. This is
because consumer–business, business–consumer and consumer–consumer interaction,
which establishes the foundations of value co-creation, is the distinguishing attribute of
social media marketing (Cheung et al., 2021a, 2021b; Iankova et al., 2019; Sorensen et al.,
2017). Value co-creation manifests at the junction where numerous people interact to
exchange value (Cheung et al., 2021a; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). According to Deng et al.
(2021), value co-creation impacts brand authenticity positively and significantly. Based on
these arguments, we believe that value co-creation may be the missing link that helps
brands establish authenticity by carefully constructing their social media marketing
messages. Thus, this study endeavors to understand this mechanism by examining the
mediating role of value co-creation between social media marketing activities, their
dimensions and brand authenticity.

2. Literature review
2.1 Value co-creation and service-dominant logic
Value co-creation is defined as the collaboration between the consumer and the production
firm or service provider to create brand value (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Besides,
consumers and businesses have separate production and consumption in the traditional
value creation process, and the value of products and services is exchanged outside the
markets. However, as we come closer to co-creation, this boundary blurs. Thus, companies
are shifting their attention from product quality to the quality of the co-creation experience.
According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), the quality of value co-creation is governed
by the experience environment, in which consumers customize their experiences through
engagement, resulting in a more favorable brand perception. Furthermore, digital platforms
have transformed marketing communication, and the role of the customer has progressed
beyond that of a simple spectator. Therefore, the consumer is at the center of the co-creation
process (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2016). As marketing evolves from a transactional to a
MRR value-creation process (Sheth and Uslay, 2007), value co-creation becomes a collaborative
46,6 activity based on co-creational experiences (Ramaswamy, 2009). Thus, for a growth-oriented
firm to thrive, value co-creation must be at the center of all of its operations (Saha et al.,
2020).
Further, service-dominant logic (SDL), first proposed by Vargo and Lusch (2004),
explains a paradigm shift in marketing orientation by presenting a service-based view of
872 exchange between businesses, markets and society. Thus, SDL asserts that products do not
have an inherent value for businesses or customers and that their owners evaluate them
based on their benefits (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Vargos et al., 2008). Firms initiate
communication through various media, including social media, and introduce the benefits of
their offerings, while consumers evaluate these benefits and voluntarily participate in these
discussions to co-create brand value (Cheung et al., 2021b). According to SDL, value co-
creation occurs at the point where several individuals engage in exchanging value (Vargo
and Lusch, 2008). In doing so, they suggest improvements for brands, offer solutions to
resolve identified problems and, thus, become an essential part of new product development
(Delpechitre et al., 2018). So, it is crucial, as brands can improve their products based on
feedback (Merz et al., 2018). As a result, brands increasingly focus on launching marketing
activities to aid the value co-creation process, reflecting the importance of co-creation
(France et al., 2015; France et al., 2018; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo and Lusch,
2004).

2.2 Brand authenticity

Brand authenticity is a composite construct defined solely by the consumer’s judgment
(Dwivedi and McDonald, 2018; Nunes et al., 2021). Although the research literature does not
provide a single definition of brand authenticity, most authors have defined it in specific
dimensions. Table 1 presents the proposed dimensions and their definitions by some
authors. In addition, it is concerned with uniqueness, sincerity and genuineness in a nutshell
(Napoli et al., 2014). Two forms of brand authenticity exist in the literature (Riefler, 2020):
one is led by the indexical approach, in which consumers attach historical meanings to
brands (Fritz et al., 2017). The other form is the iconic approach, which suggests that
consumers attach personal meanings to brands for self-authentication (Grayson and
Martinec, 2004). The latter view accentuates the subjective nature of brand authenticity,
visualizing authenticity as a socially constructed perception (Leigh et al., 2006; Napoli et al.,
2014). Thus, this view posits that brand authenticity rests on consumer interpretation,
personal preferences and knowledge regarding the product (Grazian, 2005). It is also solely
dependent on the understanding of the consumer (Napoli et al., 2014), which consequently
contributes to the brand image and brand identity (Bruhn et al., 2012) and, ultimately, builds
a brand personality. Therefore, based on the subjective nature of the iconic approach, this
study extrapolates that consumers play a crucial role in establishing brand authenticity by
taking social media marketing cues, interpreting them and participating in co-creation.
Accordingly, the ability to co-create brand value allows them to transfer their authenticity to
the brand, thus making them authentic.

2.3 Social media marketing and its dimensions

Although social media began as a tool for socializing, it has evolved into various
unanticipated communication patterns, as laypeople create content online (Yang et al.,
2021). Moreover, online applications, Web tools and other interactive platforms are used
in social media marketing to assist businesses and customers in collaborating and
sharing information (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Therefore, the role of social media in
S. no. Author Dimensions Definition
Social media
marketing
1. Akbar and Wymer Originality It refers to brands that are unique and not derivative
(2017) Genuineness It refers to brands that are truthful to what they claim to be
2. Bruhn et al. (2012) Continuity It refers to a brand that shows stability, endurance and
consistency
Originality It refers to a brand that shows particularity, individuality and
innovativeness 873
Reliability It refers to a brand that shows trustfulness, credibility and
keeping promises
Naturalness It refers to a brand that shows impression of genuineness,
realness and lack of artificiality
3. Morhart et al. (2015) Credibility It refers to the brand that shows transparency and honesty
towards the consumer, as well as its willingness and ability to
fulfill the claims it makes
Integrity It refers a brand that moral purity and responsibility towards
its costumer
Symbolism It refers to the symbolic quality of a brand that consumers can
use to define who they are or who they are not
Continuity It refers to a brand’s timelessness, historicity and ability to
transcend trends
4. Napoli et al. (2014) Quality It refers to whether stringent quality standards are
commitment maintained by the brand while using finest materials and
craftsmanship
Heritage It refers to whether a brand is founded on long-standing
traditions and timeless design, as well as whether it has a
strong historical connection
Sincerity It refers to whether the brand refuses to compromise its values
and principles
5. Eggers et al. (2013) Congruency Refers to how individual values and brand values are
congruous and how employees are committed to fulfilling
value requirements
Consistency It refers to whether promises made to stakeholders are aligned
with its values and strategies to achieve consistency among
all brand elements
Customer It refers to whether brand understands and satisfies the Table 1.
orientation customers’ and stakeholders’ needs by providing Dimensions of brand
individualized benefits as promised authenticity

shaping contemporary marketing is unprecedented, and it has altered how customers

connect with firms (Zadeh et al., 2019). In addition, successful businesses have broadened
their marketing efforts to include digital channels. These primarily include social media
platforms that allow two-way communication, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and
even YouTube (Harden and Heyman, 2009; Mukherjee, 2020). Thus, social media has
brought the participants closer together, removing the time, place and medium-related
boundaries. Simultaneously, marketing efforts extended through social media are known
as social media marketing (Beig and Khan, 2018). It helps in building a brand by
enhancing brand image, brand equity (Godey et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017; Yadav and
Rahman, 2017), brand trust (Portal et al., 2019) and brand value (TRAN et al., 2020).
According to Ibrahim et al. (2020), social media marketing activities impact brand
perception, with brand authenticity also being a perception. Kim and Ko (2012) identified
five activities that are essentially a part of social media marketing: entertainment,
customization, interaction, eWOM and trendiness.
MRR 3. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
46,6 “To be an agent is to make things happen by one’s actions” (Bandura, 2001, p. 2). The social
cognitive theory is based on the triadic reciprocity of three interacting factors: behaviors,
social and cognitive factors and the surrounding environment (Schunk and DiBenedetto,
2020). As digital communication technology simulates as a mediating brain, it provides
consumers with the information they wish to know (Bandura, 2001). Consequently,
874 technology, the environment and agencies continuously construct and alter each other. In
addition, consumers co-create brand value by interacting on social media, and the social
cognitive theory successfully explains this participative behavior (Zhao et al., 2019). Thus,
as stated earlier, all actions are directed towards a goal, while brand authenticity is the
desired outcome of value co-creation behavior.

3.1 Social media marketing, its dimensions, brand authenticity and value co-creation
Social media platforms encourage customers to participate by allowing them to speak with
one another and with brands (Cheung et al., 2021a). Hence, by sharing brand-related
experiences, consumers engage in value co-creation (Luo et al., 2015).
Consumers’ intention to share their ideas and feedback about entertaining content is
strengthened when brands create entertaining content that allows for engagement and
interaction (Liu et al., 2020). Brands may also use social media posts and activities to
communicate their latest news and products with customers, allowing them to share their
positive experiences with the company, provide recommendations for improvement and
give their thoughts on new product development (Lin et al., 2018). In addition, the perception
of authenticity is strengthened by how engaging the social media content is Pringle and
Fritz (2019). As entertaining content can engage consumers and develop positive consumer
perceptions, it may impact authenticity. Moreover, consumers voluntarily become part of
the ongoing discussion and share their ideas, which furthers the conversation. Therefore, we
predict that brands’ entertaining content will attract consumers to co-create brand value:

H1a. Entertainment has a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity.

H1b. Entertainment has a significant and positive impact on value co-creation.
Businesses use social media platforms to send their marketing messages quickly, as
communication is at the heart of social media. Communication over social media can be of two
types: customized or broadcast (Zhu and Chen, 2015). Depending upon the nature of the brand
and the social media platform used (such as on Facebook), brands can choose to broadcast
product-related information or send customized messages targeting a specific person or a small
audience (Godey et al., 2016). In addition, these messages deliver customized solutions,
empower customers, give them a degree of control (Moro and Rita, 2018) and create consumer
satisfaction, trust and loyalty (Seo and Park, 2018). Thus, customization helps consumers
connect with brands, and as a result, consumers develop trust (Pringle and Fritz, 2019). As trust
and authenticity are positively associated (Yang et al., 2021), it implies that customization may
also build the perception of brand authenticity. Besides, improvements in social media
technology enable companies to customize their messages while conversing with customers,
thereby introducing new ways for brands to connect with customers and enhancing consumer–
brand connections. As a result, we propose that a brand’s customization reflects the brand’s
flexibility and may affect value co-creation:

H2a. Customization has a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity.

H2b. Customization has a significant and positive impact on value co-creation.
The term interaction refers to two-way contact between a firm and its customers (Cheung Social media
et al., 2021a). According to Zhu and Chen’s (2015) social media typology, social media is marketing
categorized into profile-based, where the focus is on people and their activities, and content-
based, where the focus is on comments and conversations posted on the content. Although
both groups are essential, content-based social media provokes more interactions, as
the brand or firm generates the content on social networking sites such as Instagram,
YouTube, Pinterest and Flickr, while the consumers lead the discussions by their comments
(Gallaugher and Ransbotham, 2010; Godey et al., 2016). Therefore, transparent
875
communication builds credibility and trust (Yang et al., 2021), which implies that interaction
may also help brands build the perception of brand authenticity. Also, unique content
posted by brands engages consumers in co-creating brand value to generate productive
interaction. It also initiates the process of value co-creation, as the information is deemed
more trustworthy than any other type of communication (Seo and Park, 2018). Therefore, it
is predicted that interaction will promote value co-creation:

H3a. Interaction has a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity.

H3b. Interaction has a significant and positive impact on value co-creation.
In its nature, eWOM is similar to the interaction dimension of social media marketing;
however, it is a consumer-to-consumer communication rather than a business-to-consumer
communication and can be either positive or negative depending on the consumers’
experience (Sijoria et al., 2018). It is consumer-generated content spread as consumers share
information with friends and family, peers and acquaintances, and they spread it to theirs,
facilitating their purchasing decisions (Godey et al., 2016). Also, eWOM is considered a
credible and trusted information source, as it is purely based on consumers’ experiences
(Cheung et al., 2021b). Moreover, brands which try to incorporate user-generated content in
their communication tend to build a better perception of brand credibility (Martín-
Consuegra, 2018) and authenticity (Shoenberger et al., 2020). It implies that eWOM can also
build the perception of brand authenticity. Moreover, researchers agree that eWOM engages
consumers to take up the marketing role and seek or disseminate information by engaging
in value co-creation. Therefore, it is expected that eWOM has a significant influence on
value co-creation:

H4a. Electronic word-of-mouth has a significant and positive impact on brand

authenticity.
H4b. Electronic word-of-mouth has a significant and positive impact on value co-creation.
According to Cheung et al. (2021b), trendiness depends on how often brands update their
information and whether it is current. Muntinga et al. (2011) describe four motivations that
constitute trendiness: knowledge, surveillance, pre-purchase information and inspiration.
Moreover, consumers’ shared information about the brand comprises knowledge, observing
the brand’s content and staying up-to-date covers surveillance, while gathering sufficient
information about the brand by reading reviews and making well-planned purchases are
included in pre-purchase information. Liu et al. (2020) believe that consumers will be more
motivated to engage in brand-related activities if their social media channel provides
inspiring information. Brands that emphasize the visual characteristics in their social media
messages tend to build better brand perceptions that lead to purchase intentions
(Shoenberger et al., 2020). Therefore, an up-to-date and attractive social media marketing
site can create positive opinions about the brand. All customer equity drivers are affected by
MRR consumer perceptions of social media marketing activities, including trendiness (Kim and
46,6 Ko, 2012). Brand authenticity leads to brand equity (Luo et al., 2015), which implies that
trendiness may result in the perception of brand authenticity and engage consumers with
the brand. This leads to consumers actively co-creating brand value. Hence, trendiness is
expected to influence value co-creation significantly:

H5a. Trendiness has a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity.

876
H5b. Trendiness has a significant and positive impact on value co-creation.
Again, the overarching goal of social media marketing is to engage customers while also
establishing a sense of superiority over competitors. In a nutshell, all aspects of social media
marketing aim to attract consumers’ attention, enhance communication and distinguish the
brand from the multitude of competing messages. As a result, superior social media
marketing activities are expected to play a critical role in building brand authenticity and
engaging customers to co-create brand value:

H6a. Social media marketing has a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity.
H6b. Social media marketing has a significant and positive impact on value co-creation.

3.2 Value co-creation and brand authenticity

Co-creation occurs at the intersection of business and consumer interaction on social
platforms (Zadeh et al., 2019). Consumers share their opinions, knowledge and experiences
with other consumers and provide firms with the opportunity to assess their brand’s success
(Islam et al., 2017; Yadav and Rahman, 2017). Additionally, consumers attach personal
meanings to the brand, thereby matching their self-concept with it, and by authenticating
the brand, they validate themselves (Baumgarth, 2018; Cheah et al., 2016; Gallaugher and
Ransbotham, 2010). It leads us to believe that co-creating brand value allows customers to
express themselves and interact with the brand personally. Consequently, if consumers
connect with a brand, then they are more likely to attach personal meanings to it. Thus,
customers are more inclined to relate with brands they identify with and which correspond
to their self-image. Also, customers who participate in the co-creation process express their
sincere, honest and valid views about the businesses (Deng et al., 2021), indicating that
they are building a brand based on their sincerity. Besides, a brand built on the foundations
of genuine customer feedback is destined to be authentic. As a result, we believe value
co-creation will positively impact brand authenticity:

H7. Value co-creation has a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity.

3.3 The mediating role of value co-creation

Marketers increasingly use social media to create a sense of authenticity in their campaigns
(Fouladi et al., 2021; Kowalczyk and Pounders, 2016; Yang et al., 2021). These platforms
allow consumers and businesses to communicate openly (Harden and Heyman, 2009),
creating the foundation for value co-creation by allowing customers to share their
knowledge and experiences while also offering positive and negative feedback (Bilgin, 2018;
Portal et al., 2019). It also gives firms the chance to educate other consumers while also
helping them improve their services. Thus, as SDL argues that product value is nothing
more than a customer’s perception of it, social media serves as a platform for both positive
and negative reinforcement of marketers’ offers and services (Cheung et al., 2021a; Laroche
et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Vargos et al., 2008). In addition, many Social media
companies encourage their consumers to share their product purchases and experiences on marketing
social media (So et al., 2018). Therefore, consumers desire a platform to interact with firms
and participate in brand-building activities, leading to the co-creation process (Moro and
Rita, 2018). Further, customers’ views of brand authenticity can be improved by value co-
creation, according to Deng et al. (2021). Besides, consumers are exposed to marketing
messages through social networking sites. These brand messages inspire people to join by
encouraging them to speak about brands, share their experiences and educate others, 877
allowing them to co-create brand value. Therefore, as value co-creation helps build the
perception of brand authenticity (Deng et al., 2021), it is predicted, based on these
arguments, that value co-creation is the missing link in explaining the process of brand
authenticity through social media marketing:

H8. Value co-creation mediates the relationship between entertainment and brand
authenticity.
H9. Value co-creation mediates the relationship between customization and brand
authenticity.
H10. Value co-creation mediates the relationship between interaction and brand
authenticity.
H11. Value co-creation mediates the relationship between electronic word-of-mouth and
brand authenticity.
H12. Value co-creation mediates the relationship between trendiness and brand
authenticity.
H13. Value co-creation mediates the relationship between social media marketing and
brand authenticity.
Based on the arguments and discussion in the above sections and the hypotheses developed,
we propose the theoretical framework presented in Figure 1.

4. Methodology
4.1 Sample and data collection procedure
To conduct the study successfully, it was necessary to identify active consumers on social
networking sites, those who use social media for online shopping and engage in activities
that could contribute to value co-creation. It was done by asking a screening question about
their use of social networking sites for online shopping. Only those respondents who had
already done internet shopping were included in the research. Data was collected using both
paper-based and online questionnaires created with Google Docs. Besides, because of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the use of both online and paper-based questionnaires was necessary
because physical access to the target audience was limited. Online questionnaires were sent
to about 500 individuals; however, 149 consumers responded. In all, 220 paper-based
questionnaires were distributed, while 181 questionnaires were received, of which 42 were
discarded because of incomplete data; hence, a total sample size of 288 respondents was
subjected to data analysis. The response rate of online data was 29.8%, while it was 82.3%
for physical forms. All respondents understood the English language; therefore, no
translation or reverse translation for the questionnaire was required. Convenience sampling
was used, but we ensured that all respondents actively engaged with shopping websites or
social media apps and communicated with other consumers and brands. The consumers
MRR Social Media Markeng

46,6
Entertainment
Reliability
Value Co-Creaon

Customizaon
878 Connuity

Brand Authencity
Interacon Originality

Naturalness
eWOM

Figure 1.
Trendiness
Theoretical
framework

were asked to mention their preferred brand with a social media presence. Once they
mentioned the brand’s name, we requested that they answer all questions concerning the
said brand. This additional first question was not a part of the analysis; however, it helped
the respondents understand the questionnaire and respond accordingly.

4.2 Measurements
All constructs were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). However, demographics were measured using nominal and ratio
scales. Five components of the independent variable, social media marketing, were assessed
using a multidimensional scale with 11 items (Kim and Ko, 2012). Value co-creation, the
mediating variable, was measured using a five-item scale used by Cheung et al. (2021a).
Brand authenticity was measured using a multidimensional scale developed by Bruhn et al.
(2012). Finally, demographics were measured using Beatty and Ferrell (1998) scale.
Questionnaire items are available in Appendix.
Table 2 summarizes the sample’s demographic characteristics. The analysis shows that
a considerable proportion of the respondents fall between the ages of 23–30 years, have a
graduate-level education and are employed in private organizations. Female respondents are
slightly higher than male respondents, probably because the online questionnaires were
posted in groups with a higher female population.

5. Results
5.1 Measurement model
The study involves two second-order Type II reflective-formative constructs: social media
marketing (Cheung et al., 2021a; Godey et al., 2016; Koay et al., 2020) and brand authenticity
(Akbar and Wymer, 2017; Nunes et al., 2021). We used a two-stage disjoint approach to
operationalize these latent variables, using SmartPLS (Sarstedt et al., 2019). Brand
authenticity was studied as a higher-order reflective-formative construct. However, to
compare and accentuate the importance of studying individual dimensions of social media
marketing, we first analyzed the theoretical framework by measuring the impact of
individual dimensions. The measurement model is shown in Figure 2.
Variable Frequency (%)
Social media
marketing
Age
18–22 years 45 15.6
23–30 years 134 46.5
31–40 years 82 28.5
41–50 years 24 8.3
Above 50 years 3 1.0 879
Gender
Male 116 40.3
Female 172 59.7
Marital status
Married 126 43.8
Single 162 56.2
Education
Matric (O Level) 1 0.3
Intermediate (A Level) 10 3.5
Undergraduate 28 9.7
Graduate 158 54.9
Post Graduate 91 31.6
Occupation
Government Sector 42 14.6
Private Sector 141 49.0
Self-Employed 19 6.6
Student 51 17.7
Homemaker 34 11.8
Other 1 0.3
Monthly income
Less than Rs 50,000 153 53.1
Rs 50,001–Rs100,000 85 29.5
Rs 100,001–Rs 150,000 37 12.8
Rs 150,001–Rs 200,000 5 1.7
Rs 200,001–Rs 250,000 3 1.0 Table 2.
Above Rs 250,000 5 1.7 Demographics

The outer loadings are presented in Table 3; all loadings are greater than 0.6, thus
significant (Hair et al., 2011). Variance inflation factor values range between 1.164 and 2.723,
which are well below the threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2016); thus, there is no issue of
multicollinearity in the data.
Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations and convergent validity of all lower-
order constructs. Composite reliability values should be > 0.7 (Aljanabi, 2018), a-values
should be > 0.6, while the average variance extracted should be greater than 0.5, and all the
values meet this criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The a-value of eWOM is less than 0.6;
however, according to Hinton et al. (2004), Cronbach’s alpha between 0.5 and 0.7 is
acceptable with moderate reliability.
Discriminant validity is shown using Fornell–Larcker criteria and the Heterotrait-
Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio. According to the Fornell–Larcker criterion, all the square roots of
average variance extracted (shown in bold) must be higher than all the correlation values
underneath (Hair et al., 2011). This condition is fulfilled as shown in Table 5, thus proving
the discriminant validity of the scale.
MRR
46,6

880

Figure 2.
Measurement model
with lower-order
social media
marketing
dimensions

To further confirm the validity of the scale, the HTMT chart was studied, which shows that
the validity of all scales used was below the more conservative criterion (< 0.9), thereby
confirming discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2016). The HTMT ratios are shown in Table 6.
Next, we measured the impact of social media marketing on value co-creation and brand
authenticity as a second-order construct. Figure 3 shows the measurement model. The
assessment of the second-order measurement model is shown in Table 7. SmartPLS was
used to analyze the second-order constructs by inserting latent variable scores into the
original data set. At this stage, social media marketing was studied as a higher-order
formative construct. Bootstrapping at 5,000 iterations was done, and the outer weights and
outer loadings were checked, which were significant at a 95% confidence interval. All outer
loadings were significant, and variance inflation factor values were less than the threshold
value of 5 (Hair et al., 2016).
Goodness-of-fit indices showed a good model fit. The standardized root mean squared
residual value was 0.06, which qualifies the model fit criterion (< 0.08) (Hu and Bentler,
1999). The predictive relevance of the structural model Q2 was also assessed based on the
Hair et al. (2016) criterion, which showed that Q2 values of value co-creation and brand
authenticity exceed zero, thus supporting the predictive relevance of the model. Also, f 2
values indicate a larger effect size when social media marketing is assessed compositely.
However, the majority of values are > 0.02 (Cohen, 1988), as shown in Table 8.

5.2 Structural model

Table 8 provides the details of the path coefficients of direct and indirect effects, with
adjusted R-squared values of value co-creation = 0.387 and brand authenticity = 0.492,
thereby evaluating the explanatory power of the conceptual model. In the first step,
the impact of social media marketing dimensions on brand authenticity was studied.
The results showed that H1a and H2a are supported [(b = 0.294, t = 4.378 and p = 0.000)
and (b = 0.133, t = 2.567 and p = 0.010)], confirming that entertainment and customization
significantly and positively impact brand authenticity. H3a and H4a are not supported
[(b = 0.109, t = 1.555 and p = 0.120) and (b =
0.032, t = 0.549 and p = 0.583)]; therefore,
Variable CON CUS ENT INT NAT ORG RLB TRN VCC eWOM
Social media
marketing
CON1 0.769
CON2 0.858
CON3 0.840
CON4 0.847
CUS1 0.900
CUS2 0.896 881
ENT1 0.910
ENT2 0.927
INT1 0.835
INT2 0.844
INT3 0.823
NAT1 0.854
NAT2 0.863
NAT3 0.808
ORG1 0.882
ORG2 0.865
ORG3 0.865
ORG4 0.884
RLB1 0.843
RLB2 0.869
RLB3 0.873
RLB4 0.866
TRN1 0.822
TRN2 0.904
VCC1 0.758
VCC2 0.822
VCC3 0.849
VCC4 0.731
VCC5 0.795
eWOM1 0.838
eWOM2 0.820

Notes: ENT = Entertainment, CUS = Customization, INT = Interaction, eWOM = Electronic word of Table 3.
mouth, TRN = Trendiness, VCC = Value co-creation, ORG = Originality, REL = Reliability, CON = Outer loadings of
Continuity and NAT = Naturalness low-order constructs

Variable Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability AVE

CON 3.943 0.832 0.849 0.898 0.688

CUS 3.531 1.127 0.76 0.893 0.807
ENT 3.928 1.022 0.814 0.915 0.843
INT 3.751 0.937 0.781 0.873 0.696
NAT 3.963 0.865 0.796 0.879 0.709
ORG 3.946 0.943 0.897 0.928 0.764
RLB 3.991 0.867 0.886 0.921 0.745
TRN 3.987 0.899 0.667 0.855 0.747
VCC 3.261 1.022 0.851 0.894 0.627
eWOM 3.593 0.994 0.545 0.814 0.687

Notes: ENT = Entertainment, CUS = Customization, INT = Interaction, eWOM = Electronic word of
mouth, TRN = Trendiness, VCC = Value Co-creation, ORG = Originality, REL = Reliability, CON = Table 4.
Continuity and NAT = Naturalness Reliability
MRR Variable CON CUS ENT INT NAT ORG RLB TRN VCC eWOM
46,6
CON 0.829
CUS 0.467 0.898
ENT 0.529 0.468 0.918
INT 0.494 0.527 0.503 0.834
NAT 0.689 0.417 0.524 0.42 0.842
882 ORG 0.734 0.454 0.488 0.504 0.668 0.874
RLB 0.728 0.474 0.515 0.478 0.739 0.738 0.863
TRN 0.481 0.448 0.615 0.585 0.45 0.495 0.493 0.864
VCC 0.454 0.495 0.305 0.539 0.394 0.524 0.452 0.391 0.792
eWOM 0.405 0.47 0.475 0.576 0.347 0.389 0.44 0.545 0.513 0.829

Notes: ENT = Entertainment, CUS = Customization, INT = Interaction, eWOM = Electronic word of
Table 5. mouth, TRN = Trendiness, VCC = Value Co-creation, ORG = Originality, REL = Reliability, CON =
Discriminant validity Continuity and NAT = Naturalness

Variable CON CUS ENT INT NAT ORG RLB TRN VCC eWOM

CON
CUS 0.574
ENT 0.633 0.593
INT 0.604 0.684 0.631
NAT 0.838 0.53 0.647 0.528
ORG 0.841 0.547 0.568 0.599 0.791
RLB 0.836 0.575 0.602 0.574 0.883 0.826
TRN 0.627 0.619 0.836 0.807 0.608 0.627 0.632
VCC 0.526 0.614 0.363 0.654 0.466 0.594 0.514 0.503
eWOM 0.587 0.726 0.704 0.867 0.520 0.546 0.628 0.902 0.756
Table 6. Notes: ENT = Entertainment, CUS = Customization, INT = Interaction, eWOM = Electronic word of
Heterotrait- mouth, TRN = Trendiness, VCC = Value Co-creation, ORG = Originality, REL = Reliability, CON =
Monotrait ratio Continuity and NAT = Naturalness

Figure 3.
Measurement model
with higher-order
constructs
HOC LOC Outer weights t-statistics p-values Outer loadings VIF
Social media
marketing
SMM ENT 0.135 1.402 0.161 0.699*** 1.793
CUS 0.361 4.384 0.000 0.801*** 1.554
INT 0.383 4.571 0.000 0.861*** 1.951
eWOM 0.224 2.500 0.012 0.763*** 1.740
TRN 0.155 1.728 0.084 0.746*** 2.034
BA CON 0.299 2.631 0.009 0.888*** 2.765 883
NAT 0.052 0.451 0.652 0.784*** 2.525
ORG 0.464 3.732 0.000 0.934*** 2.747 Table 7.
RLB 0.293 2.497 0.013 0.891*** 3.107 Outer loadings of
Notes: SMM = Social media marketing, ENT = Entertainment, CUS = Customization, INT = Interaction, low-order constructs
eWOM = Electronic word of mouth, TRN = Trendiness, ORG = Originality, REL = Reliability, CON = on higher-order
Continuity, NAT = Naturalness; BA = Brand Authenticity; p*** = 99% confidence interval construct

Effects b t-statistics f2 p-values

ENT ! BA 0.294 4.378 0.095 0.000

ENT ! VCC
0.099 1.558 0.009 0.119
CUS ! BA 0.133 2.567 0.021 0.010
CUS ! VCC 0.254 3.569 0.069 0.000
INT ! BA 0.109 1.555 0.012 0.120
INT ! VCC 0.289 4.490 0.071 0.000
eWOM ! BA
0.032 0.549 0.001 0.583
eWOM ! VCC 0.263 3.768 0.067 0.000
TRN ! BA 0.151 2.432 0.023 0.015
TRN ! VCC 0.028 0.412 0.001 0.681
SMM ! BA 0.522 7.240 0.363 0.000
SMM ! VCC 0.602 15.671 0.319 0.000
VCC ! BA 0.266 4.438 0.086 0.000

Notes: ENT = Entertainment, CUS = Customization, INT = Interaction, eWOM = Electronic word of Table 8.
mouth, TRN = Trendiness, VCC = Value Co-creation, SMM = Social media marketing and BA = Brand Direct and total
authenticity effects

interaction and eWOM do not have a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity.
Trendiness has a significant and positive impact on brand authenticity (b = 0.151, t = 2.432
and p = 0.015); therefore, H5a is supported. In the next step, the impact of each dimension of
social media marketing on value co-creation was studied independently. H1b is not
supported (b =
0.099, t = 1.558 and p = 0.119), implying that value co-creation is not
significantly impacted by the entertainment aspect of social media marketing. H2b, H3b and
H4b are supported [(b = 0.254, t = 3.569 and p = 0.000), (b = 0.289, t = 4.490 and p = 0.000)
and (b = 0.263, t = 3.768 and p = 0.000)], suggesting that customization, interaction and
eWOM impact value co-creation positively and significantly. However, H5b is not supported
(b = 0.028, t = 0.412 and p = 0.681), indicating that trendiness of the social media marketing
has no effect on the propensity of value co-creation. H6a and H6b are supported [(b = 0.522,
t = 7.240 and p = 0.000) and (b = 0.602, t = 15.671 and p = 0.000)]; therefore, social media
marketing significantly and positively impacts brand authenticity and value co-creation.
Mediation analysis is shown in Table 9. In the first step, individual dimensions are
assessed, which indicate that value co-creation mediates the relationship between
MRR customization, interaction and eWOM dimensions of social media marketing and brand
46,6 authenticity. Thus, H9, H10 and H11 are supported [(b = 0.068, t = 2.690 and p = 0.007),
(b = 0.077, t = 3.062 and p = 0.002) and (b = 0.070, t = 2.644 and p = 0.008)]. However, value
co-creation does not mediate between entertainment (b =
0.026, t = 1.383 and p = 0.167)
and trendiness (b = 0.007, t = 0.412 and p = 0.680) and brand authenticity; hence, H8 and
H12 are not accepted. Next, we analyzed the mediation of value co-creation between social
884 media marketing and brand authenticity, which was confirmed (b = 0.130, t = 3.639 and p =
0.000). Therefore, H13 is supported.

6. Discussion of results
This study identified three main gaps. First, we proposed that firms use social media
marketing to establish brand authenticity. The results reveal that when social media
marketing is studied compositely, it has a significant and positive impact on brand
authenticity. Establishing authenticity in the virtual environment is a challenge; however,
firms can distinguish their brands and position them as superior and authentic by applying
the correct social media marketing techniques. This leads to a very important question: as
social media marketing is a higher-order construct, which of its five dimensions actually
contribute to brand authenticity? The results reveal that only three dimensions affect brand
authenticity of the five dimensions.
The second gap of this study was to reveal the impact of social media marketing and its
dimensions on value co-creation. The results confirm the impact of customization and
eWOM on value co-creation, which is consistent with the previous research (Cheung et al.,
2021b). However, the results also indicate that instead of entertainment, as reported by
Cheung et al. (2021b), interaction impacts value co-creation, suggesting that value co-
creation is enhanced because of the communicative and engaging nature of customization,
interactions and eWOM (Fatma et al., 2020). Additionally, entertainment and trendiness
do not impact value co-creation. A possible explanation comes from Hamidi et al. (2020),
which state that brands and their offerings undergo a cognitive evaluation process
before consumers engage in value co-creation. Entertainment and trendiness impact the
affective component; therefore, they require very little cognitive assessment. Hence, these
two dimensions affect brand authenticity directly. The entertainment element of social
media marketing engages consumers with engaging content. Thus, the better the content
presentation, the stronger the perception of brand authenticity. However, this does not
require consumers to co-create brand value to build authenticity. Similarly, trendiness refers
to the degree to which the content is up-to-date. Updated content conveys the perception that

Effects b t-statistics p-values

ENT ! VCC ! BA
0.026 1.383 0.167

CUS ! VCC ! BA 0.068 2.690 0.007
INT ! VCC ! BA 0.077 3.062 0.002
eWOM ! VCC ! BA 0.070 2.644 0.008
TRN ! VCC ! BA 0.007 0.412 0.680
SMM ! VCC ! BA 0.130 3.639 0.000

Notes: ENT = Entertainment, CUS = Customization, INT = Interaction, eWOM = Electronic word of
Table 9. mouth, TRN = Trendiness, VCC = Value co-creation, SMM = Social media marketing, BA = Brand
Indirect effects authenticity
brands are knowledgeable and have current trends. Compared to outdated social media Social media
content, this aspect attracts consumers to trendy brand messages. Another explanation marketing
could be that a large proportion of respondents in this study responded regarding clothing
brands; the entertaining and trendiness aspect enhances the image and perceptions of these
brands (Bilgin, 2018). Therefore, the impact of these dimensions on brand authenticity is
justified. However, when studied compositely, social media marketing impacts value
co-creation, which is consistent with previous studies (Cheung et al., 2021a; Zadeh et al.,
2019). 885
The third gap of this study was to find out whether value co-creation serves as the
underlying mechanism that leads to brand authenticity through social media marketing
activities. Of the five, eWOM, interaction and customization depend heavily on two-way
communication, impact value co-creation, the mediator and lead to brand authenticity.
Hence, as hypothesized, value co-creation is the missing link between social media
marketing and brand authenticity. Also, customization showed a relationship with both
value co-creation and brand authenticity. It is understandable, as consumers make multiple
queries about products before making a purchase decision. They communicate with the
brand, receive tailored responses and build the perception of brand authenticity based on the
brand’s capability to provide customized solutions. Thus, communication between a brand
and a consumer builds brand authenticity and develops trust and transparency (Yang et al.,
2021). By empowering consumers to co-create, firms can establish brand authenticity.
Therefore, brands must promote transparent communication to create the perception of
authenticity.
The research revealed the elements of social media marketing that contribute to the
authenticity and the underlying process that links the two. Customers actively participate in
the co-creation process by two-way communication and establish a perception of brand
authenticity. Through value co-creation, consumers may express themselves and impart
their authenticity to the brand. Furthermore, customers see authenticity when businesses
connect with them to deliver tailored solutions, which aids in the development of brand trust
and the essential nature of value co-creation becomes even more evident.

7. Theoretical contributions
This study sheds light on the aspects of social media marketing and its dimensions and how
they can be used to build brand authenticity. Both the communication and content of social
media messages need to be emphasized while developing these messages. Thus, the present
study is the first to recognize the binding nature of value co-creation in establishing brand
authenticity through social media marketing. Social media marketing turns out to be a tool
for marketing communication and a means of interaction between consumers and brands. It
also sets the foundation for value co-creation, which taps into the psychological aspects of
the consumers and encourages them to compare and build their self-image with respect
to the brand. Thus, the more the consumer can identify with the brand, the better and
stronger the perception of brand authenticity is built. Therefore, the present study has
ascertained the importance of value co-creation in establishing brand authenticity through
social media marketing messages. Besides, communication works towards brand
authenticity better when consumers can co-create brand value.

8. Managerial implications
Building the perception of brand authenticity, especially when consumers are exposed to a
wide variety of competing brands constantly, is a challenge. However, managers can impart
authenticity by engaging consumers with the brands’ social media marketing sites,
MRR communicating with them and encouraging consumer-to-consumer interactions. Managers
46,6 must facilitate consumers in the co-creation of brand value by providing them with the
liberty to express themselves so that social media marketing imparts brand authenticity.
During the co-creation process, managers should not try to influence consumers but
recognize their need for individuality and tailor products to meet that need.
Setting up social media marketing platforms is not the end of the task for managers.
886 They should foster a climate in which consumers are empowered to engage through
communication, promoting both positive and negative eWOM, as negative eWOM may
provide even more insight into consumers’ needs and wants. However, the two-way
communication between consumers and firms can lead to a long-lasting perception of
authenticity. Firms need to establish a brand community to promote communication. The
foundation of brand authenticity rests on originality, reliability, naturalness and continuity
(Bruhn et al., 2012); therefore, managers should develop marketing messages that consumers
interpret as authentic. Brands must stay true to their identity and values and avoid making
promises they cannot meet. In a nutshell, the perception of brand authenticity depends
predominantly on the communication aspect of social media marketing; however, managers
cannot reap the benefits of profit maximization unless they enable consumers to co-create
brand value.

9. Limitations and directions for future research

As with any study, this one has some limitations that may help future researchers improve
and guide their research. Because of the COVID-19 situation, we had limited physical access
to consumers. It compelled us to contact consumers through social media sites. Additionally,
we posted the questionnaire on multiple Facebook and WhatsApp groups, with most
respondents being female. Future research can try to get equal responses from both males
and females.
The current study has paved the way for future studies to explore the effects of value co-
creation on brand authenticity. For example, we have only considered the iconic aspect of
brand authenticity. However, future research could include the indexical element to examine
the impact of value co-creation on the historical facet of brand authenticity. Finally, one of
the outcomes of value co-creation behavior is brand authenticity. Other constructs, such as
brand ownership, could be included in future research to further examine probable
behavioral outcomes.

References
Akbar, M.M. and Wymer, W. (2017), “Refining the conceptualization of brand authenticity”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Aljanabi, A.R.A. (2018), “The mediating role of absorptive capacity on the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation and technological innovation capabilities”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 818-841.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Baumgarth, C. (2018), “Brand management and the world SOF the arts: collaboration, cooperation, co-
creation, and inspiration”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 237-248.
Beatty, S.E. and Ferrell, M.E. (1998), “Impulse buying: modeling its precursors”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 169-191.
Beig, F.A. and Khan, M.F. (2018), “Impact of social media marketing on brand experience: a study of Social media
select apparel brands on Facebook”, Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 264-275.
marketing
Bilgin, Y. (2018), “The effect of social media marketing activities on brand awareness”, Brand Image
and Brand Loyalty, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 128-148.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D. and Heinrich, D. (2012), “Brand authenticity: towards a deeper
understanding of its conceptualization and measurement”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 40, pp. 567-676. 887
Cheah, I., Zainol, Z. and Phau, I. (2016), “Conceptualizing country-of-ingredient authenticity of luxury
brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5819-5826.
Chen, R., Zhou, Z., Zhan, G. and Zhou, N. (2020), “The impact of destination brand authenticity and
destination brand self-congruence on tourist loyalty: the mediating role of destination Brand
engagement”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 15, p. 100402.
Cheung, M.L., Pires, G., Rosenberger, P.J., III, Leung, W.K. and Chang, M.K. (2021a), “The role of social
media elements in driving co-creation and engagement”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 1994-2018.
Cheung, M.L., Pires, G.D., Rosenberger, P.J., III, Leung, W.K. and Ting, H. (2021b), “Investigating the
role of social media marketing on value co-creation and engagement: an empirical study in China
and Hong Kong”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 118-131.
Cohen, J.D. (1988), “Noncentral chi-square: some observations on recurrence”, The American
Statistician, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 120-122.
Delpechitre, D., Beeler-Connelly, L.L. and Chaker, N.N. (2018), “Customer value co-creation behavior: a
dyadic exploration of the influence of salesperson emotional intelligence on customer
participation and citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92, pp. 9-24.
Deng, W., Lu, C., Lin, Y. and Chen, W. (2021), “A study on the effect of tourists value co-creation on the
perceived value of souvenirs: mediating role of psychological ownership and authenticity”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 200-214.
Dwivedi, A. and McDonald, R. (2018), “Building brand authenticity in fast-moving consumer goods via
consumer perceptions of brand marketing communications”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 52 Nos 7/8, pp. 1387-1411.
Eggers, F., O’Dwyer, M., Kraus, S., Vallaster, C. and Güldenberg, S. (2013), “The impact of brand
authenticity on brand trust and SME growth: a CEO perspective”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 340-348.
Fatma, M., Ruiz, A.P., Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2020), “The effect of CSR engagement on eWOM on
social media”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 941-956.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Fouladi, S., Ekhlassi, A. and Sakhdari, K. (2021), “Determining the factors affecting brand authenticity
of startups in social media”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 396-419.
France, C., Grace, D., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2018), “Customer brand co-creation behavior:
conceptualization and empirical validation”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 334-348.
France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2015), “Customer brand co-creation: a conceptual model”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 848-864.
Fritz, K., Schoenmüller, V. and Bruhn, M. (2017), “Authenticity in branding–exploring
antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 324-348.
MRR Gallaugher, J. and Ransbotham, S. (2010), “Social media and customer dialog management at
Starbucks”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 197-212.
46,6
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R. and Singh, R. (2016), “Social
media marketing efforts of luxury brands: influence on brand equity and consumer behavior”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5833-5841.
Goulding, C. and Derbaix, M. (2019), “Consuming material authenticity in the age of digital
888 reproduction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 545-564.
Grayson, K. and Martinec, R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their
influence on assessments of authentic market offerings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 296-312.
Grazian, D. (2005), Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity in Urban Blues Clubs, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer in Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hamidi, F., Shams Gharneh, N. and Khajeheian, D. (2020), “A conceptual framework for value co-
creation in service enterprises (case of tourism agencies)”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Harden, L. and Heyman, B. (2009), Digital Engagement: Internet Marketing that Captures Customers
and Builds Intense Brand Loyalty, Amacom, New York, NY.
Hinton, P.R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., Cozens, B. and SPSS, E. (2004), SPSS Explained, Routledge,
East Sussexs.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Iankova, S., Davies, I., Archer-Brown, C., Marder, B. and Yau, A. (2019), “A comparison of social media
marketing between B2B, B2C and mixed business models”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 81, pp. 169-179.
Ibrahim, B., Aljarah, A. and Ababneh, B. (2020), “Do social media marketing activities enhance
consumer perception of brands? A meta-analytic examination”, Journal of Promotion
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 544-568.
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2017), “Personality factors as predictors of online consumer
engagement: an empirical investigation”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 510-528.
Jian, Y., Zhou, Z. and Zhou, N. (2019), “Brand cultural symbolism, Brand authenticity, and consumer
well-being: the moderating role of cultural involvement”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 529-539.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Kim, A.J. and Ko, E. (2012), “Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An
empirical study of luxury fashion brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10,
pp. 1480-1486.
Koay, K.Y., Ong, D.L.T., Khoo, K.L. and Yeoh, H.J. (2020), “Perceived social media marketing activities
and consumer-based brand equity: testing a moderated mediation model”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Kowalczyk, C.M. and Pounders, K.R. (2016), “Transforming celebrities through social media: the role of
authenticity and emotional attachment”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 345-356.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O. and Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012), “The effects of social media- Social media
based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust
and brand loyalty”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1755-1767.
marketing
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C. and Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of
meanings within the MG subculture of consumption”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-493.
Lin, S., Yang, S., Ma, M. and Huang, J. (2018), “Value co-creation on social media: examining the
relationship between brand engagement and display advertising effectiveness for Chinese 889
hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 2153-2174.
Liu, X., Shin, H. and Burns, A.C. (2020), “Examining the impact of luxury brand’s social media
marketing on customer engagement: using big data analytics and natural language processing”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Luo, N., Zhang, M. and Liu, W. (2015), “The effects of value co-creation practices on building
harmonious brand community and achieving brand loyalty on social media in China”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 48, pp. 492-499.
Martín-Consuegra, D., Faraoni, M., Díaz, E. and Ranfagni, S. (2018), “Exploring relationships among
brand credibility, purchase intention and social media for fashion brands: a conditional
mediation model”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 237-251.
Merz, M.A., Zarantonello, L. and Grappi, S. (2018), “How valuable are your customers in the brand
value co-creation process? The development of a customer Co-Creation value (CCCV) scale”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 82, pp. 79-89.
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F. and Grohmann, B. (2015), “Brand authenticity: an
integrative framework and measurement scale”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 200-218.
Moro, S. and Rita, P. (2018), “Brand strategies in social media in hospitality and tourism”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 343-364.
Mukherjee, K. (2020), “Social media marketing and customers’ passion for brands”, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 509-522.
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M. and Smit, E.G. (2011), “Introducing COBRAs: exploring motivations for
brand-related social media use”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 13-46.
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S.J., Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F. (2014), “Measuring consumer-based brand
authenticity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1090-1098.
Nunes, J.C., Ordanini, A. and Giambastiani, G. (2021), “The concept of authenticity: what it means to
consumers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 1-20.
Oh, H., Prado, P.H.M., Korelo, J.C. and Frizzo, F. (2019), “The effect of brand authenticity on consumer–
brand relationships”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 231-241.
Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A.M., Ognibeni, B. and Pauwels, K. (2013), “Social media metrics—a
framework and guidelines for managing social media”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 281-298.
Portal, S., Abratt, R. and Bendixen, M. (2019), “The role of brand authenticity in developing brand
trust”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 714-729.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value
creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Pringle, J. and Fritz, S. (2019), “The university brand and social media: using data analytics to assess
brand authenticity”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Ramaswamy, V. (2009), “Co-creation of value—towards an expanded paradigm of value creation”,
Marketing Review St. Gallen, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 11-17.
MRR Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2016), “Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: an integrative
framework and research implications”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33
46,6 No. 1, pp. 93-106.
Ranjan, K.R. and Read, S. (2016), “Value co-creation: concept and measurement”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 290-315.
Riefler, P. (2020), “Local versus global food consumption: the role of brand authenticity”, Journal of
890 Consumer Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 317-327.
Safeer, A.A., He, Y. and Abrar, M. (2020), “The influence of brand experience on brand authenticity and
brand love: an empirical study from Asian consumers’ perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1123-1138.
Saha, V., Mani, V. and Goyal, P. (2020), “Emerging trends in the literature of value co-creation: a
bibliometric analysis”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 981-1002.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Jr, Cheah, J.H., Becker, J.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “How to specify, estimate,
and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM”, AMJ Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 197-211.
Schunk, D.H. and DiBenedetto, M.K. (2020), “Motivation and social cognitive theory”, Contemporary
Educational Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 1-47.
Seo, E.J. and Park, J.W. (2018), “A study on the effects of social media marketing activities on brand
equity and customer response in the airline industry”, Journal of Air Transport Management,
Vol. 66, pp. 36-41.
Sheth, J.N. and Uslay, C. (2007), “Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange to
value creation”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 302-307.
Shoenberger, H., Kim, E.A. and Johnson, E.K. (2020), “# Beingreal about Instagram ad models: the
effects of perceived authenticity: how image modification of female body size alters advertising
attitude and buying intention”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 197-207.
Sijoria, C., Mukherjee, S. and Datta, B. (2018), “Impact of the antecedents of eWOM on CBBE”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 528-542.
So, K.K.F., Wu, L., Xiong, L. and King, C. (2018), “Brand management in the era of social media: social
visibility of consumption and customer brand identification”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 57
No. 6, pp. 727-742.
Sorensen, A., Andrews, L. and Drennan, J. (2017), “Using social media posts as resources for engaging
in value co-creation: the case for social media-based cause brand communities”, Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 898-922.
Tran, V.D., Vo, T.N.L. and Dinh, T.Q. (2020), “The relationship between brand authenticity, brand
equity and customer satisfaction”, The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 213-221.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “The four service marketing myths: remnants of a goods-based,
manufacturing model”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 324-335.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vargos, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), “On value and value co-creation: a service systems
and service logic perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 145-152.
Vredenburg, J., Kapitan, S., Spry, A. and Kemper, J.A. (2020), “Brands taking a stand: authentic
brand activism or woke washing?”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 444-460.
Yadav, M. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “Measuring consumer perception of social media marketing
activities in e-commerce industry: scale development and validation”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1294-1307.
Yang, J., Teran, C., Battocchio, A.F., Bertellotti, E. and Wrzesinski, S. (2021), “Building brand Social media
authenticity on social media: the impact of Instagram ad model genuineness and
trustworthiness on perceived brand authenticity and consumer responses”, Journal of Interactive marketing
Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-39.
Zadeh, A.H., Zolfagharian, M. and Hofacker, C.F. (2019), “Customer–customer value co-creation in
social media: conceptualization and antecedents”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 283-302.
Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Zhou, R. and Ci, Y. (2019), “Factors influencing customers’ willingness to participate 891
in virtual brand community’s value co-creation: the moderating effect of customer involvement”,
Online Information Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 440-461.
Zhu, Y.Q. and Chen, H.G. (2015), “Social media and human need satisfaction: implications for social
media marketing”, Business Horizons, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 335-345.

Further reading
Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (2003), “Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding and
the revival of brand meaning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33.
Handler, R. (1986), “Authenticity”, Anthropology Today, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2-4.
Schallehn, M., Burmann, C. and Riley, N. (2014), “Brand authenticity: model development and empirical
testing”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 192-199.
MRR Appendix
46,6
Social media marketing
Entertainment
1 The content found in the brand’s social media seems interesting
2 It is fun to collect information on products through the brand’s social media
Customization
892 3 It is possible to search for customized information on the brand’s social media
4 The brand’s social media provides customized services
Interaction
5 It is easy to convey my opinion through the brand’s social media
6 It is easy to convey my opinions or conversation with other users through the brand’s social
media
7 It is possible to have two-way interaction through the brand’s social media
Electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM)
8 I would like to pass information on brands, products or services from the brand’s social media to
my friends
9 I would like to upload content from the brand’s social media on my Facebook page or my blog
Trendiness
10 Using the brand’s social media is very trendy
11 The content on the brand’s social media has newest information
1 I often suggest how the brand can improve its products of services
2 I often express my personal needs to the brand
3 I often find solutions to my problems together with the brand
4 I am actively involved when the brand develops new products
5 The brand encourages consumers to create solutions together
Continuity
1 I think the brand is consistent over time
2 I think the brand stays true to itself
3 The brand offers continuity
4 The brand has a clear concept that it pursues
Originality
5 The brand is different from all other brands
6 The brand stands out from all other brands
7 I think the brand is unique
8 The brand clearly distinguishes itself from other brands
Reliability
9 My experience of the brand has shown me that it keeps its promises
10 The brand delivers what it promises
11 The brand’s promises are credible
12 The brand makes reliable promises
Naturalness
13 The brand does not seem artificial
14 The brand makes a genuine impression
15 The brand gives the impression of being natural
Table A1.
Questionnaire items Sources: Kim and Ko (2012); Cheung et al. (2021a); Bruhn et al. (2012)

Corresponding author
Shermeen Hasan can be contacted at: amirshermeen@gmail.com