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

net/publication/338689199

Perceived Social Media Marketing Activities and Consumer-Based Brand

Equity: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model

Article in Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · January 2021

DOI: 10.1108/APJML-07-2019-0453

CITATIONS READS

127 11,734

4 authors:

Koay Kian Yeik Derek Ong

Sunway University University of Hertfordshire
62 PUBLICATIONS 1,475 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 421 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kim Leng Khoo Hui Jing Yeoh

Taylor's University HELP University
4 PUBLICATIONS 194 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 127 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Koay Kian Yeik on 16 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-5855.htm

Perceived social media marketing Influence of

social media
activities and consumer-based marketing

brand equity
Testing a moderated mediation model 53
Kian Yeik Koay Received 21 July 2019
Revised 27 October 2019
Department of Marketing, Sunway University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia and 7 December 2019
School of Buisness, Monash University - Malaysia, 20 December 2019
Accepted 20 January 2020
Subang Jaya, Malaysia, and
Derek Lai Teik Ong, Kim Leng Khoo and Hui Jing Yeoh
Department of Marketing, Sunway University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of perceived social media marketing
activities on consumer-based brand equity, mainly predicated on the S-O-R model. Furthermore, brand
experience is tested as a mediator of the relationship between perceived social media marketing activities and
consumer-based brand equity, whereas co-creation behaviour is also examined as a moderator on the
relationship between perceived social media marketing activities and brand experience.
Design/methodology/approach – A structured survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to
social media users from a large private university in Malaysia. A total of 253 valid responses were obtained.
Hypotheses were tested employing partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM).
Findings – The results indicated that perceived social media marketing activities have a significant positive
influence on consumer-based brand equity. In addition, brand experience mediates the relationship between
perceived social media marketing activities and consumer-based brand equity. Surprisingly, co-creation
behaviour was found to have no moderating effect on the relationship between perceived social media
marketing activities and brand experience. Furthermore, using the PROCESS macro, we found that the indirect
effect of perceived social media marketing activities on consumer-based brand equity through brand
experience is not moderated by co-creation behaviour.
Originality/value – This research further extended the current knowledge by demonstrating that the
influence of perceived social media marketing activities on consumer-based brand equity is mediated by brand
experience. Also, this research utilised the strength of PLS–SEM in dealing with higher-order constructs,
allowing us to develop and test a parsimonious model that is useful for practitioners.
Keywords Consumer-based brand equity, Brand experience, Co-creation behaviour, Perceived social media
marketing activities
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Digital marketing has taken centre stage across the marketing landscape due to the
embedment of technology, thereby creating an environment that is highly engaging for
customers, particularly on social media (Ananda et al., 2019; Felix et al., 2017; Sembada and
Koay, in press; Zhao et al., 2019). Facebook and Instagram, for instance, have been reported
to have about 2 and 1 billion daily active users, respectively (West, 2019). Recently, it is
further reported that adults in the United States spend an average of 45 minutes daily
browsing social networking sites mainly via smartphone devices (Nielsen, 2018). Hence,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
these numbers indicate the encouraged use of social media platforms as a medium of and Logistics
marketing communication for businesses (Yadav and Rahman, 2018). Generally, businesses Vol. 33 No. 1, 2021
pp. 53-72
survive and thrive through their social media brand page engagements through the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
sharing of information and communication with new and existing customers in hopes of DOI 10.1108/APJML-07-2019-0453
APJML creating brand awareness and building brand image, thus ultimately boosting their sales
33,1 (Choi et al., 2016; De Vries et al., 2012; Kunja and GVRK, 2018; Yadav et al., 2016).
Accordingly, a report has shown that 92 per cent of the surveyed marketers perceive social
media as beneficial to their businesses (Stelzner, 2014). The elements of social media
communication provide the opportunities that enable businesses to communicate directly
with their customers. These communication activities may include handling customers
complaints, which can positively influence their decision-making process (Tuten and
54 Solomon, 2017). In fact, 93 per cent of social media users are of the opinion that all
businesses should be involved in social media as it is more cost-effective and offers better
outreach compared to other traditional advertising media, such as radio, newspaper and
magazine (Amersdorffer et al., 2012).
Past studies have found that social messages can positively affect existing customer
spending habits (Goh et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2016). When customers perceive social media
marketing activities of a brand (thus defined as consumer perception of various social media
marketing activities carried out in the e-commerce context) positively, brand loyalty will be
strengthened via brand and value consciousness (Ismail, 2017). Hence, effective social media
marketing activities are essential towards shaping positive consumer-based brand equity,
which consists of brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness. Extending this idea,
Beig and Khan (2018) have discovered that when a social media brand page shares interesting
posts and interacts with their followers on a consistent basis, the process enhances the
followers’ brand experience towards it. Moreover, Altaf et al. (2017) have found that a positive
brand experience can lead to stronger consumer-based brand equity. From this perspective,
the current research proposes that perceived social media marketing activities influence
consumer brand experience first, followed by consumer-based brand equity. Herein, the
brand experience mediates the relationship between perceived social media marketing
activities and consumer-based brand equity.
In addition, this research also proposes that co-creation behaviour moderates the influence
of perceived social media marketing activities on brand experience. Contextually, consumer
co-creation behaviour encompasses the design, creation and evaluation of services displayed
in a brand’s social media (Cheung and To, 2016). Consumers who actively engage in such
behaviours on the social media page (e.g. posting positive comments about the brand) may be
associated with higher dedication towards the brand, thereby increasing their sense of
belonging with the brand (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014). In addition, consumer participation
is very helpful for them to understand the brand better, thus allowing the development of
stronger bonds with it. Therefore, it is posited that an active engagement with the social
media page of a brand increases the positive perception of its social media marketing
activities and brand experience (Pham and Gammoh, 2015).
This research offers various contributions to the current literature. Whilst extant studies
have only examined the direct impact of perceived social media marketing activities on
consumer brand equity (e.g. Kim and Ko, 2012), this research first seeks to explore the manner
in which brand experience mediates this relationship based on the S-O-R (stimulus–
organism–response) model. The results of this research support the capacity of effective
social media marketing in influencing the inner states of social media users, subsequently
impacting the consumer-based brand equity. Next, given that past studies have found that
perceived social media marketing activities, brand experience and consumer-based brand
equity are multidimensional (reflective–formative), this research develops a parsimonious
model by modelling them as higher-order constructs and uses partial least squares structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM) following the assessment procedure suggested by Sarstedt
et al. (2019) to evaluate the research model. Therefore, this paper is useful for future scholars
as a guide towards evaluating complex research models with multiple higher-order
constructs. Finally, this research explores the possible moderating effect of co-creation
behaviour on the relationship between perceived social media marketing activities and brand Influence of
experience. social media
marketing
Theoretical foundation
The S-O-R model
The S-O-R model serves as the underpinning theory which posits that certain characteristics
of an environment or stimuli evoke the inner states of consumers and drive their engagement 55
in certain behaviours (Jacoby, 2002; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Therefore, this research
proposes that perceived social media marketing activities as stimuli that stimulate
consumers’ exposure to a brand’s social media. In this context, brand experience is
allocated as the organism and refers to the cognitive and emotional states as a result of
experiencing social media marketing activities, whereas consumer-based brand equity acts
as the response. The S-O-R model was originally developed within the retail industry,
whereby the servicescape (i.e. includes cleanliness, design factors and signs) acts as a
stimulus that influences consumer inner states, thus enforcing certain types of behaviours.
Later, the model was employed to study e-retailing where stimuli encompass the
characteristics of the e-commerce environment (Eroglu et al., 2003; Jiang et al., 2010;
Sautter et al., 2004). Herein, the response refers to the negative or positive consumer
behaviours such as positive word-of-mouth, customer loyalty, online communication in
e-commerce and commitment (Sano, 2014; Sautter et al., 2004; Seo and Park, 2018). As an
example, Zhang et al. (2014) have examined the influence of various technological features of
a social commerce website (i.e. perceived interactivity, perceived personalisation and
perceived sociability) on the virtual customer experiences and their subsequent intention to
request and share commercial information. Similarly, Animesh et al. (2011) have investigated
the manner in which the technological features of virtual worlds affect the virtual experiences
of users, as well as the resulting virtual purchase behaviour as predicated by the S-O-R model.
From this description, this research applies the S-O-R model as the theoretical underpinning
in developing the research model as shown in Figure 1.

Perceived social media marketing activities and consumer-based brand equity

Social media marketing is defined as “a process by which companies create, communicate,
and deliver online marketing offerings via social media platforms to build and maintain
stakeholder relationships that enhance stakeholders’ value by facilitating interaction,
information sharing, offering personalised purchase recommendations, and word of mouth
creation amongst stakeholders about existing and trending products and services” (Yadav
and Rahman, 2017, p. 1296). In contrast, perceived social media marketing activities refer to
the manner in which consumers perceive a company or brand engagement in various social

Figure 1.
Research model
APJML media marketing activities. In this case, social media platforms are not restricted to merely
33,1 Facebook and the likes; as they are also presented in many other forms which include social
networking site, blog, wikis, virtual social world, a combination of different websites that
integrate Web links, user reviews and ratings, recommendations and referrals, user wish lists
and forums and communities (Hajli, 2015). Social media allows marketers to interact,
collaborate and share content with their customers (Richter and Koch, 2007). Subsequently,
this has encouraged many business firms and governmental organisations to utilise social
56 media for advertising and marketing, as they now see that effective social media marketing
activities are pivotal in building value, relationship, customer population and brand equity
(Ismail, 2017; Kim and Ko, 2012; Yu and Yuan, 2019). Moreover, brands that actively engage
with customers via social media can capture the latter’s attention and affection. Hence, this
research postulates that effective social media marketing activities are more likely to drive
consumer-based brand equity.
H1. Perceived social media marketing activities have a significant positive influence on
consumer-based brand equity.

Brand experience as a mediator

In this research, it is further proposed that brand experience mediates the relationship
between perceived social media marketing activities and consumer-based brand equity based
on the S-O-R model. As previously mentioned, perceived social media marketing activities act
as stimuli in the context of e-commerce; they are expected to evoke customer’s brand
experience (a form of organism) and subsequently drive the consumer-based brand equity
(a form of responses). Meanwhile, brand experience is defined as the “subjective internal
consumer responses (sensations, feelings, and cognitions) and behavioural responses evoked
by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design, and identity, packaging,
communications, and environments” (Brakus et al., 2009, p. 53). As such, the multi-
dimensional construct of brand experience consists of four dimensions (sensory, affective,
intellectual and behavioural). Furthermore, a positive brand experience can be influenced by
the overall product, shopping and consumption experience encountered by the consumers,
thus resulting in brand satisfaction and loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009). Consumption experience
is not only limited to physical interactions with the employees and the process of using or
experiencing the products or services as it extends alongside searching and obtaining brand
information from social media. Besides, brand experience is shaped based on the presence of
direct or indirect interactions with the brand (Şahin et al., 2011) where effective and
interesting social media marketing activities are capable of strengthening the consumer’s
memory of the brand, increasing consumer knowledge and subsequently encouraging their
positive feelings. Moreover, a study by Beig and Khan (2018) has found that consumers tend
to have a positive brand experience towards brands that constantly share content and
interact with their followers via Facebook. Deriving from this, it is postulated that a positive
brand experience depends on consumers’ positive perception of a brand’s social media
marketing activities.
H2. Perceived social media marketing activities have a significant positive influence on
brand experience.
Based on the S-O-R model, a positive brand experience encourages positive consumers’
reaction to the brand. For example, Altaf et al. (2017) have found that brand experience has a
significant positive influence on brand image and brand awareness. In fact, consumers who
experience positive brand experience are more subservient to premium pricing. A study by
Dwivedi (2015) has indicated that once consumers develop emotive relationships with the
brand due to brand engagement, the likelihood of product purchase is higher. Brand
experience was also found to have a significant positive influence on satisfaction, brand trust Influence of
and brand loyalty (Şahin et al., 2011). Xie et al. (2017) state that a positive brand experience social media
improves the brand relationship quality, thereby promoting customer citizen behaviour.
Social media marketing activities can also entice continuous participation and purchasing
marketing
intention (Chen and Lin, 2019). From this we postulate that consumers who experience a
positive brand experience as a result of effective social media marketing activities from a
brand are more likely to have positive consumer-based brand equity.
57
H3. Brand experience has a significant positive influence on consumer-based brand
equity.
H4. Brand experience mediates the relationship between perceived social media
marketing activities and consumer-based brand equity.

Co-creation behaviour as a moderator

In addition, this research proposes that co-creation behaviour moderates the relationship
between perceived social media marketing activities and brand experience. Co-creation “is the
process by which mutual value is expanded together” (Ramaswamy, 2011, p. 195). A
successful company value proposition is enhanced through the customers and their co-
creation efforts (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Accordingly, such effort is fuelled by the
advancement of technology, which has allowed Internet users to generate content. As such,
consumer participation is encouraged in creating valuable content together with the
companies, yielding new mediums of social media marketing strategies (e.g. posting photos
and reviews, and sharing information on the social media page). Furthermore, this two-way
interaction is enhanced through the use of hashtags in promoting brands, which sometimes
entails sharing content as part of competitions and gamification for further enticement.
Moreover, Pham and Gammoh (2015) have proposed that the impact of a brand’s social media
marketing activities on customer-based brand equity outcomes is dependent upon the
intensity of activities (i.e. the frequency at which brand-endorsed online events and activities
are organised). Brands that frequently host events and activities through their social media
with the objective of enticing brand–consumer interactions are more likely to generate
positive customer-based brand equity. Similarly, we posit that when consumers actively
participate in a brand’s social media marketing activities, they are more likely to have a
positive brand experience due to higher emotional attachment conceived in the process.
Besides, Nysveen and Pedersen’s (2014) highlight this significant positive influence of co-
creation behaviour on all four dimensions of brand experience (i.e. sensory, affective,
cognitive, behavioural and relational). Hence, the following hypothesis is posited accordingly:
H5. Co-creation behaviour moderates the relationship between perceived social media
marketing activities and brand experience, such that the relationship is stronger
when co-creation behaviour is high.
The research model is shown in Figure 1

Methodology
Data collection and sample
The survey questionnaire method was employed in this research to collect data through the
post-positivist lens for model testing purposes. A purposive sampling method undertaken for
the data collection process required that the respondents to follow a brand’s social media page
on any social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram at the very minimum. The
data were obtained from university students of a large private university in Malaysia, where
APJML questionnaires were distributed in their respective classrooms. Neither monetary incentives
33,1 nor course credits were offered to avoid socially desirable responses. They were deemed as
appropriate target sample as Malaysian university students are, by and large, active social
media users who spend about 3.24 hours per day on social media (Ismail, 2017).
The questionnaire consisted of three major sections: 1) a cover letter; 2) brand anchor and
research instrument, and; 3) demographic information. The cover letter stated the purpose
and importance of the research along with the researcher information. The brand anchor
58 required the respondents to state a brand that they had followed on any social media
platforms (there was no restrictions for brand selection according to specific product
categories). Subsequently, they were asked to use the brand as an anchor reference in order to
answer the following questions relating to the constructs of interest included in the
questionnaire. This method was consistent with past online behaviour studies (Ismail, 2017;
Laroche et al., 2013). The last section enquired the respondent’s personal information (i.e.
demographics), such as gender and age.

Measures
All constructs were measured in a response format of a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). All scales are presented in Appendix 1. Consumer-
based brand equity was measured using a scale consisted of 10 items, adapted from Dwivedi
et al. (2018). This construct, modelled as a reflective–formative construct, contained three
lower-order reflective constructs (awareness – 5 items, perceived quality – 4 items and brand
loyalty – 2 items). Next, the scale to measure perceived social media marketing activities was
adapted from Yadav and Rahman (2017). It was modelled as a reflective–formative construct,
consisting of five lower-order reflective constructs (interactivity, informativeness,
personalisation, trendiness and word-of-mouth; each of them was made up of three items).
Brand experience was measured using a scale adapted from Brakus et al. (2009) containing 12
items . It was modelled as a reflective–formative construct with four lower-order reflective
constructs (sensory, affective, behavioural and intellectual; each consisted of three items).
Finally, co-creation behaviour was measured by a three-item scale adopted from Cheung and
To (2016). An item for this construct, for example, entailed: “I have co-created services in
social media”.
There are two major reasons to model perceived social media marketing activities, brand
experience and consumer-based brand equity as reflective–formative constructs. First, the
second-order (higher-order) constructs were measured in a formative manner as the first-
order (lower-order) items were the causes of the construct. As such, the formative items
formed the constructs and were not interchangeable (Rossiter, 2002; Jarvis et al., 2003).
Second, removing any of the items would change the essence of the construct (Hair
et al., 2017).

Data analysis
PLS-SEM using Smart PLS was undertaken to carry out data analysis due to several reasons.
First, the research model was complex and involved multiple higher-order constructs.
Second, the main objective of this research was to explore the influence of perceived social
media marketing activities on consumer-based brand equity as opposed to theory
confirmation. Finally, the justification of using PLS was due to its capacity to handle small
sample size data or non-normal data. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) have recommended a two-
stage analytical process in which the measurement model is first examined, followed by an
assessment of the structural model (Hair et al., 2014). Henceforth, the method chosen for
missing value imputation in the current research was the expectation-maximisation (EM)
method (Dong and Peng, 2013). Table I shows the breakdown of demographic identities for
the respondents involved in this research. The gender distribution of the respondents Influence of
revealed almost equivalent female (52.2 per cent) and male (47.8 per cent) participation, social media
whereby most of the respondents were of Chinese ethnicity (71.9 per cent) and aged around
20–21 years (67.7 per cent). Furthermore, 34.4 per cent of the respondents spent about 15–30
marketing
hours online in a week and cited their top four choices of brands on social media accordingly:
Nike (10.7 per cent), Adidas (8.7 per cent), Apple (4.3 per cent0), Zara (2.8 per cent) and Sephora
(2.4 per cent). Many of them generally chose to surf online using their smartphones (89.7 per
cent) for convenience, followed by laptops (25.3 per cent) and desktops (7.5 per cent), while the 59
least preferred browsing method was via tablet (4.7 per cent).

Common method variance

Common method variance (CMV) could be a problem when a respondent responds to the
items in a single questionnaire at the same point in time (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). CMV
can either inflate or deflate the observed relationships between constructs. We employed the
measured latent marker variable (MLMV) method to identify and correct CMV (Chin et al.,
2013). The social desirability scale by Fischer and Fick (1993) was used as the measured
marker variable. The measured marker variable was then pointed at the independent and
dependent variables both in which the beta and R-square values were compared before and
after the addition of the measured marker in order to ensure that they were not significantly
different. An assessment of the CMV results is shown in Table II after the latent variable
scores for the second-order model were obtained. They revealed minimal differences for
R-square and beta values both, with and without the measured marker, thereby indicating
that the data set did not suffer from CMV.

Measurement model
The research model involved three reflective–formative constructs. Hence, the measurement
model of the first-order (lower-order) constructs was first evaluated, followed by the
second-order (higher-order) constructs.

Gender Freq (%) Ethnicity Freq (%)

Male 119 (47.8) Malay 18 (7.1)

Female 134 (52.2) Chinese 182 (71.9)
Indian 20 (7.9)
Others 33 (13.1)

Age (years old) Top brands Freq (%) – out of 100a

Below 18 2 (0.8) Nike 27 (10.7)

18–19 36 (34.3) Adidas 22 (8.7)
20–21 171 (67.6) Apple 11(4.3)
22–23 37(14.6) Zara 7 (2.8)
24 and above 8(3.2) Sephora 6 (2.4)

Hours spent Online Surf on Freq (%) – out of 100b

>15 hours 39 (15.4) Desktop 19 (7.5)

15–30 hours 87 (34.4) Laptop 64(25.3)
30–50 hours 66(26.1) Smartphone 227 (89.7) Table I.
50 and above 59(23.3) Tablet 12 (4.7) Descriptive
Note(s): aFrequency and percentage shown out of 253 (100%) in total, other are not shown; bFrequency and distribution of the
percentage shown out of 253 (100%) each, numbers indicate “yes” responses sample
APJML First-order measurement model assessment
33,1 Given that all the first-order constructs are measured reflectively, the present research used
the assessment criteria for evaluating reflective measurement models to examine first-order’s
measurement model. First-order’s measurement model was assessed through the internal
consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). The results are
shown in Table III. Next, the internal consistency of constructs used composite reliability (CR)
(measured as the Dillon–Goldstein Rho, ρ) to assess the reliability of the indicators (values
60 ranging between 0 and 1). CR indicates an adequate internal consistency only if the value
exceeds 0.7 (Gefen et al., 2000). Following this, all reflective indicator loadings within the PLS
model that were more than 0.7 denoted adequate convergent validity and were thus retained.
However, items yielding values less than this were removed if the construct’s average
variance extracted (AVE) did not exceed 0.5. Consequently, three items were deleted
(i.e. BEAD2, BEBD3, BEID2). The proportion of variance as explained in factor was
suggestive of the same principle herein for the AVE. In the assessed model, all latent variables
successfully achieved an adequate convergent reliability, whereby their AVE values
exceeded 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Second-order measurement model assessment

In creating the second-order measurement model, the two-stage approach was implemented
in which the latent variable scores from the first-order model were obtained and a new model
was derived from them. Then, the latent variable scores served as the single-item weights for
the corresponding second-order constructs (as shown in Table IV). Next, the indicator items
were assessed as formative measures in their measurement model assessment, which
required the consideration of the outer weights (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001);
t-values (Peng and Lai, 2012); and variance inflation factor (VIF) (Cassel et al., 1999). As such,
the significance and relevance of the formative items were assessed according to their outer
weights, which should be significant; otherwise, the outer loadings should be greater than 0.5.
However, the items could be retained based on relevant theoretical justifications even if they
did not meet the requirements. Lastly, the multicollinearity of the formative indicators was
checked by examining the VIF values, which should not be greater than 3.3. As shown in
Table IV, some of the formative items’ outer weights are not significant. However, prior
studies have supported the theoretical relevance of these indicators, thus rendering them
retained nevertheless. Only co-creation behaviour is assessed as a reflective measurement
model, and the consequent results are displayed in Table IV.
Furthermore, the assessment of discriminant validity was undertaken by employing
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion. In the assessment, the square root of the AVE for a
latent variable should be higher than the correlations between the particular latent variable
compared to all other variables (Chin, 2010; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). If the respondents are
truly able to differentiate and discriminate between different variables, the values of the
diagonals must be higher than the off-diagonal values in that particular row or column

R2 without R2 with β without β with

Independent variable Dependent variable marker marker marker marker

Brand experience Consumer-based 0.383 0.399 0.368 0.347

Table II. brand equity
Common method Perceived social media Brand experience 0.266 0.279 0.516 0.483
variance testing using marketing activities
measured marker Perceived social media Consumer-based 0.383 0.399 0.343 0.315
(social desirability) marketing activities brand equity
Construct Items Loadingsa CRb AVEc
Influence of
social media
Perceived social media marketing Interactivity (reflective) PEIT1 0.808 0.819 0.603 marketing
activities (reflective–formative) PEIT2 0.813
PEIT3 0.702
Informativeness PEIF1 0.796 0.870 0.691
(reflective) PEIF2 0.885
PEIF3 0.811 61
Personalisation PEPS1 0.715 0.839 0.636
(reflective) PEPS2 0.839
PEPS3 0.833
Trendiness (reflective) PETR1 0.831 0.896 0.743
PETR2 0.894
PETR3 0.860
Word of mouth PEWM1 0.899 0.906 0.764
(reflective) PEWM2 0.919
PEWM3 0.798
Brand experience (reflective– Sensory dimension BESD1 0.940 0.847 0.666
formative) (reflective) BESD2 0.944
BESD3 0.473
Affective dimension BEAD1 0.901 0.839 0.723
(reflective) BEAD3 0.797
Behavioural dimension BEBD1 0.919 0.912 0.838
(reflective) BEBD2 0.912
Intellectual dimension BEID1 0.853 0.812 0.684
(reflective) BEID3 0.800
Consumer-based brand equity Brand loyalty (reflective) CBBL1 0.884 0.894 0.739
(reflective–formative) CBBL2 0.931
CBBL3 0.754
Perceived quality CBPQ1 0.934 0.930 0.869
(reflective) CBPQ2 0.931
Brand awareness CBBA1 0.830 0.885 0.619
(reflective) CBBA2 0.844
CBBA3 0.892
CBBA4 0.850
CBBA5 0.418
Co-creation behaviour (reflective) CC1 0.824 0.929 0.814
CC2 0.933
CC3 0.945 Table III.
Note(s): (a) Reflective: All item loadings >0.7 indicates convergent validity, (b) Reflective: All composite First-order
reliability (CR) >0.7 indicates internal consistency (Gefen et al., 2000), (c) Reflective: All average variance measurement model
extracted (AVE) >0.5 indicates convergent reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981) assessment

accordingly, as shown in Table V. This implied the existence of discriminant validity in terms
of the understanding for the respondents.
The Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion has been recently criticised for its lack of
reliability in detecting discriminant validity. Hence, Henseler et al. (2015) have suggested a
multi-trait-multi-method matrix, which is otherwise known as the heterotrait–monotrait
(HTMT) ratio of correlations as its alternative. Thus, all HTMT values need to be greater than
0.85 (Kline, 2011) or 0.90 (Gold et al., 2001) in order to pass the discriminant validity test. The
results as shown in Table V successfully meet the HTMT0.85 (Kline, 2011) and HTMT0.90
(Gold et al., 2001) thresholds both, ascertaining their discriminant validity. Moreover, the
standardised root mean residual (SRMR) of the model (0.065) was obtained further indicating
that the theoretical model application was appropriate, as well as the data and model for this
research deemed as a good fit (Henseler et al., 2015).
APJML Construct Item Scale Weightsa Loadingsb AVE/T-Valuesc VIFd CRe
33,1
Perceived Informativeness Formative 0.248 0.701 2.112* 1.558
Social media Interactivity 0.237 0.601 2.468* 1.280
Marketing Personalisation 0.067 0.620 0.544 1.641
activities Trendiness 0.656 0.913 6.382* 1.505
Word of mouth 0.071 0.603 0.594 1.527
62 Brand Affective Formative 0.201 0.536 1.543 1.376
experience dimension
Behavioural 0.192 0.491 1.716 1.262
dimension
Intellectual 0.046 0.364 0.372 1.352
dimension
Sensory 0.827 0.945 12.275* 1.130
dimension
Consumer- Brand awareness Formative 0.692 0.945 7.178* 1.608
based Brand loyalty 0.071 0.532 0.678 1.409
brand equity Perceived quality 0.370 0.832 3.215* 1.926
Co-creation CC1 Reflective 0.734 0.776 0.911
behaviour CC2 0.914
CC3 0.977
Note(s): (a) Formative: Standardised beta weights (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001), (b) Reflective:
All item loadings > 0.7 indicates convergent validity, (c) Reflective: All average variance extracted
Table IV. (AVE) > 0.5 as indicates convergent reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981); Formative:
Second-order T-Values > 1.96 (*) sig at 5% for a two-tailed test (Peng and Lai, 2012), (d) Formative: Variance inflation
measurement model factor < 5 (Cassel et al., 1999), (e) Reflective: All composite reliability (CR) > 0.7 indicates internal consistency
assessment (Gefen et al., 2000)

Structural model
A bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples was employed in this research.
Furthermore, the effect sizes (f2) were reported as a part of the assessment for the
structural model (Sullivan and Feinn, 2012). According to Hair et al. (2014), the effect size
assessment should follow Cohen’s (1988) guidelines and recording the values of 0.02, 0.15 and
0.35 for the small, medium and large effects, respectively. Given that the dependent variable
was measured formatively, the assessment of predictive relevance for this research model
was deemed not suitable. In reference to the results in Table VI, perceived social media
marketing activities were shown to have a significant positive influence on consumer-based
brand equity (β 5 0.345; p < 0.01; f2 5 0.139) and brand experience (β 5 0.501; p < 0.01;
f2 5 0.161), thereby supporting H1 and H2. Moreover, brand experience (β 5 0.366; p < 0.01;
f2 5 0.333) was seen to yield a significant positive influence on consumer-based brand equity,
which was in support of H3. Following this, the mediating effect of brand experience in the
relationship between perceived social media marketing activities and consumer-based brand
equity was assessed by finding the indirect effect. Consequently, the bootstrapping
procedure (i.e. resampling of 5,000 samples) produced the individual indirect effect and the
corresponding standard error (Hayes and Preacher, 2014) accordingly. Per the results shown
in Table VI, H4 was supported as the mediation effect of brand experience (β 5 0.190; p < 0.01)
was significant and the confidence intervals did not contain a value of zero (Nitzl et al., 2016).
Next, the moderating effect of co-creation behaviour was assessed using the product
indicator approach to generate the interaction term. The significance of this interaction term
towards the dependent variable (i.e. brand experience) was then assessed via the
bootstrapping method. Accordingly, the insignificant result of H5 (β 5 0.121; p > 0.05;
f2 5 0.001) showed that the moderating effect of co-creation behaviour was not significant on
the relationship between perceived social media marketing activities and brand experience.
Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion
AD BD BAA BL CCB INF ID INT PQ PER SD TD WOM

AD: Affective dimension 0.850

BD: Behavioural dimension 0.351 0.916
BAA: Brand awareness/association 0.221 0.188 0.787
BL: Brand loyalty 0.291 0.153 0.380 0.860
CCB: Co-creation behaviour 0.128 0.256 0.041 0.119 0.902
INF: Informativeness 0.183 0.198 0.334 0.235 0.112 0.831
ID: Intellectual dimension 0.450 0.384 0.181 0.238 0.170 0.155 0.827
INT: Interactivity 0.183 0.233 0.256 0.141 0.291 0.375 0.177 0.776
PQ: Perceived quality 0.258 0.239 0.612 0.534 0.046 0.283 0.180 0.190 0.932
PER: Personalisation 0.269 0.263 0.256 0.211 0.259 0.510 0.154 0.387 0.280 0.798
SD: Sensory dimension 0.298 0.255 0.501 0.276 0.057 0.365 0.187 0.344 0.437 0.295 0.816
TD: Trendiness 0.267 0.223 0.513 0.190 0.157 0.455 0.103 0.336 0.419 0.458 0.401 0.862
WOM: Word-of-mouth 0.231 0.234 0.258 0.170 0.235 0.433 0.207 0.347 0.258 0.488 0.298 0.472 0.874

Heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) criterion

AD BD BAA BL CCB INF ID INT PQ PER SD TD WOM

AD: Affective dimension

BD: Behavioural dimension 0.497
BAA: Brand awareness/association 0.302 0.221
BL: Brand loyalty 0.386 0.174 0.445
CCB: Co-creation behaviour 0.156 0.286 0.161 0.140
INF: Informativeness 0.240 0.248 0.403 0.287 0.141
ID: Intellectual dimension 0.773 0.578 0.268 0.361 0.258 0.256
INT: Interactivity 0.262 0.308 0.309 0.187 0.343 0.510 0.289
PQ: Perceived quality 0.334 0.288 0.686 0.635 0.081 0.350 0.267 0.239
PER: Personalisation 0.366 0.340 0.307 0.247 0.301 0.674 0.249 0.565 0.354
SD: Sensory dimension 0.388 0.317 0.637 0.327 0.192 0.428 0.278 0.442 0.513 0.373
TD: Trendiness 0.335 0.273 0.606 0.222 0.167 0.566 0.188 0.423 0.504 0.585 0.480
WOM: Word-of-mouth 0.297 0.284 0.304 0.194 0.265 0.532 0.302 0.455 0.303 0.623 0.354 0.558
Note: Values on the diagonal of “Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion”represent the square root of the AVE while the off-diagonals are correlations
63
social media
Influence of

Table V.
marketing

Discriminant validity
APJML Std Std 5% 95%
33,1 Hypothesis Relationship beta error t-value Decision f2 CI LL CI UL

H1 Perceived social media 0.345 0.070 4.923** Supported 0.139 0.220 0.450
marketing activities →
consumer-based brand
equity
64 H2 Perceived social media 0.501 0.049 10.153** Supported 0.161 0.409 0.574
marketing activities →
brand experience
H3 Brand experience → 0.366 0.080 4.598** Supported 0.333 0.225 0.489
consumer-based brand
equity
H5 Perceived social media 0.121 0.122 0.994 Not 0.001 0.099 0.218
marketing activities * supported
co-creation behaviour →
brand experience
(Moderation Effect)
Note(s): *p < 0.05 (one-tailed), **p < 0.01

Std Std 2.5% 97.5%

Hypothesis Relationship beta error t-value Decision f2 CI LL CI UL

H4 Perceived social media 0.190 0.048 3.979** Supported 0.113 0.281

marketing activities → brand
Table VI. experience → consumer-based
Structural model brand equity (mediation Effect)
hypothesis testing Note(s): *p < 0.05 (two-tailed), **p < 0.01

Additionally, by using the PROCESS macro, it was found that the indirect effect of perceived
social media marketing activities on consumer-based brand equity via brand experience did
not vary by co-creation behaviour as the confidence intervals (LL 5 0.0363, UL 5 0.0643) of
the moderated mediation index included the value of zero (Hayes, 2013, 2015).

Discussion and theoretical implications

The research successfully confirmed the suitability of the S-O-R model in explaining the
influence of perceived social media marketing activities on consumer-based brand equity.
Firstly, the findings of this research showed that perceived social media marketing activities
yielded a significant positive influence on consumer-based brand equity, which was
consistent with past studies (Ismail, 2017; Kim and Ko, 2012). Effective social media
marketing activities can indisputably lead to various positive outcomes (Chen and Lin, 2019;
Ismail, 2017). However, this relationship is indirect in nature, thus propagating the notion that
such activities are the stimuli that will activate the inner states of consumers and
subsequently trigger certain responses. This was evidenced by the results, which showed
positive perception of the consumers towards the social media marketing activities executed
by the brand. Thus, this results in a higher likelihood of them experiencing a positive brand
experience and creating positive subjective internal consumer responses (i.e. sensations,
feelings and cognitions) towards the brand. Consequently, a positive brand experience
promotes consumer-based brand equity. In view of this, building a strong brand with positive
equity is crucial to businesses because positive brand equity indicates that the consumers
have a high level of brand awareness, brand loyalty and perceived quality towards the brand,
thus possibly translating into actual purchase. Besides, they are more likely to buy a product
from or pay a higher price for a brand with which they have a strong positive brand equity Influence of
when presented with cheaper alternative brands (Buil et al., 2013). social media
Interestingly, this research found that co-creation behaviour did not moderate the
relationship between perceived social media marketing activities and brand experience, thus
marketing
indicating that correlation strength did not commensurate with consumer’s active
involvement with the brand’s social media marketing activities (Gafni and Golan, 2016).
A possible reason for this finding can be linked to the propagation of negative content by
dissatisfied consumers on said page, as those who encountered a bad experience may actively 65
spread negative input related to the brand. A high level of co-creation behaviour may
encompass actively posting bad reviews and negative comments. Therefore, this may be one
of the possible explanations for the weak relationship between perceived social media
marketing activities and brand experience when co-creation behaviour is high. From this
finding, it will be beneficial for companies to distinguish between the positive and negative
activities through a more rigorous monitoring of consumer engagement and online co-
creation behaviour.

Managerial implications
This research offers useful managerial implications that can potentially enhance consumer-
based brand equity. First, given that the dynamics of brand–consumer interactions have
changed drastically, it allows the consumers to discuss and exchange ideas on the
organisation’s social media platforms (Seo and Park, 2018). Therefore, these organisations
should maximise customer interactions and their experience. For example, the brand page
administrator should respond promptly to any inquiries posted by consumers to avoid
causing any displeasing experience. Next, organisations should offer accurate, informative
and synchronised information about the products or services displayed on their social media
platforms. Any inaccurate and untimely information may dissatisfy the customers and thus
be possibly detrimental to the brand image. Furthermore, organisations should invest in more
personalised predictive recommendation engines on their social networking sites.
Accordingly, these intuitive recommendations will be helpful in making the customers feel
special and lead to a more positive affective experience. Additionally, organisations should
offer trendy content encompassing the four sub-motivations, namely pre-purchase
information, knowledge, surveillance and inspiration (Muntinga et al., 2011) with the
purpose of providing company brand values that can educate and entertain customers
concurrently. A successful social media marketing strategy motivates consumers to share
content related to the brand voluntarily through various activities, such as interaction,
information and personalisation (Kim and Ko, 2012; Yadav and Rahman, 2017). Hence,
organisations should leverage unto these strategies in order to support the effectiveness of
social media marketing, leading to a more favourable brand experience for the consumers and
an improved consumer-based brand equity.

Conclusion, limitations and future recommendations

In conclusion, the findings of this research shed light on the manner in which perceived social
media marketing activities affected consumer-based brand equity through the mediating
effect of brand experience based on the S-O-R model. However, it was found that co-creation
behaviour did not moderate the influence of perceived social media marketing activities on
brand experience. The limitations from the current research were largely contextual,
geographical and temporal in nature. The data were collected from university students of a
large private university in Malaysia, which may limit the generalisability of the results to the
entire population of social media users. Furthermore, although university students were
APJML generally heavy users of social media making them suitable to be our target respondents,
33,1 respondents from other age groups were not engaged with in this research. Therefore, it
would be interesting to compare findings obtained between a more diverse and different
demographic make-up, such as between generational age groups or between developed and
developing countries.
Although we attempted to mitigate single-source data issues by implementing procedural
remedies, the findings obtained from the cross-sectional data might still suffer from CMV.
66 Hence, it is recommended to employ a more robust longitudinal data collection method in
future research (i.e. different time points for independent and dependent data). In addition,
respondents were asked to write and anchor a brand that they had followed on any social
media as a reference for answering the questions relating to the constructs of interest in the
questionnaire without any indication of the period. Hence, this could be a potential limitation
as they might tend to have favourable attitudes towards a brand that they had followed for a
longer period of time. Besides, respondents were allowed to select either a luxury or non-
luxury brand as the reference. They might have a higher expectation of social media
marketing activities from luxury brands compared to the non-luxury counterparts. This
might potentially affect the results. Thus, future scholars may want to focus only on one type
of brand (i.e. luxury or non-luxury) when measuring perceived social media marketing
activities in order to reduce the issue of heterogeneity.

References
Altaf, M., Iqbal, N., Mohd Mokhtar, S.S. and Sial, M.H. (2017), “Managing consumer-based brand
equity through brand experience in Islamic banking”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 218-242.
Amersdorffer, D., Oellrich, J., Bauhuber, F. and Gottstein, B. (2012), “Social media im MICE-segment”, in
Schreiber, M.T. (Ed.), Kongresse, Tagungen und Events. Potenziale, Strategien und Trends der
Veranstaltungswirtschaft, Oldenbourg, Munich, pp. 195-209.
Ananda, A., Hern
andez-Garc
ıa, A.,
Acquila-Natale, E. and Lamberti, L. (2019), “What makes fashion
consumers ‘click’? Generation of eWoM engagement in social media”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing & Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 398-418.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Animesh, A., Pinsonneault, A., Yang, S.B. and Oh, W. (2011), “An odyssey into virtual worlds:
exploring the impacts of technological and spatial environments on intention to purchase
virtual products”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 789-810.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Beig, F.A. and Khan, M.F. (2018), “Impact of social media marketing on brand experience: a study of
select apparel brands on Facebook”, Vision, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 264-275.
Brakus, J.J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Buil, I., Mart
ınez, E. and de Chernatony, L. (2013), “The influence of brand equity on consumer
responses”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 62-74.
Cassel, C., Hackl, P. and Westlund, A.H. (1999), “Robustness of partial least-squares method for
estimating latent variable quality structures”, Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 435-446.
Chen, S.C. and Lin, C.P. (2019), “Understanding the effect of social media marketing activities: the
mediation of social identification, perceived value, and satisfaction”, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 140, pp. 22-32.
Cheung, M.F.Y. and To, W.M. (2016), “Service co-creation in social media: an extension of the theory of Influence of
planned behavior”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 65, pp. 260-266.
social media
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
marketing
Chin, W.W., Thatcher, J.B., Wright, R.T. and Steel, D. (2013), “Controlling for common method
variance in PLS analysis: the measured latent marker variable approach”, New Perspectives
in Partial Least Squares and Related Methods, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 231-239.
67
Choi, E.C., Fowler, D., Goh, B. and Yuan, J.J. (2016), “Social media marketing: applying the uses and
gratifications theory in the hotel industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 771-796.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
De Vries, L., Gensler, S. and Leeflang, P.S. (2012), “Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: an
investigation of the effects of social media marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 83-91.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), “Index construction with formative indicators:
an alternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 269-277.
Dong, Y. and Peng, C.J. (2013), “Principled missing data methods for researchers”, SpringerPlus, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyalty
intentions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24, pp. 100-109.
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L.W., Wilkie, D.C. and De Araujo-Gil, L. (2018), “Consumer emotional brand
attachment with social media brands and social media brand equity”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 1176-1204.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2003), “Empirical testing of a model of online store
atmospherics and shopper responses”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 139-150.
Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P.A. and Hinsch, C. (2017), “Elements of strategic social media marketing: a
holistic framework”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 118-126.
Fischer, D.G. and Fick, C. (1993), “Measuring social desirability: short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne
social desirability scale”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 417-424.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 39-50.
Gafni, R. and Golan, O.T. (2016), “The influence of negative consumer reviews in social networks”,
Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 44-58.
Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000), “Structural equation modelling and regression:
guidelines for research practice”, Communication of the Association for Information Systems,
Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 2-77.
Goh, K.-Y., Heng, C.-S. and Lin, Z. (2013), “Social media brand community and consumer behavior:
quantifying the relative impact of user- and marketer-generated content”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 88-107.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214.
Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
APJML Hajli, N. (2015), “Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy”, International Journal
of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 183-191.
33,1
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis, The
Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hayes, A.F. (2015), “An index and test of linear moderated mediation”, Multivariate Behavioral
Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
68 Hayes, A.F. and Preacher, K.J. (2014), “Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical
independent variable”, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 3,
pp. 451-470.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Ismail, A.R. (2017), “The influence of perceived social media marketing activities on brand loyalty”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 129-144.
Jacoby, J. (2002), “Stimulus-organism-response reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modeling
(consumer) behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 51-57.
Jarvis, C., MacKenzie, S. and Podsakoff, P.A. (2003), “Critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B.C.-Y. and Chua, W.S. (2010), “Effects of interactivity on website involvement
and purchase intention”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 34-59.
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.
Kline, R. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York.
Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R. and Kannan, P.K. (2016), “From social to sale:
the effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer behavior”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Kunja, S.R. and GVRK, A. (2018), “Examining the effect of eWOM on the customer purchase intention
through value co-creation (VCC) in social networking sites (SNSs): a study of select Facebook
fan pages of smartphone brands in India”, Management Research Review.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R. and Richard, M. (2013), “To be or not to be in social media: how brand
loyalty is affected by social media?”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 76-82.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
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.
Nielsen (2018), Time Flies: U.S. Adults Now Spend Nearly Half a Day Interacting with Media, available at:
https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/time-flies-us-adults-now-spend-nearly-half-a-
day-interacting-with-media.print.html (accessed 5 May 2019).
Nitzl, C., Roldan, J.L. and Cepeda, G. (2016), “Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling:
helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1849-1864.
Nysveen, H. and Pedersen, P.E. (2014), “Influences of cocreation on brand experience”, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 807-832.
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in operations management research: a Influence of
practical guideline and summary of past research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30
No. 6, pp. 467-480. social media
Pham, P.H. and Gammoh, B.S. (2015), “Characteristics of social-media marketing strategy and
marketing
customer-based brand equity outcomes: a conceptual model”, International Journal of Internet
Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 321-337.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544. 69
Ramaswamy, V. (2011), “It’s about human experiences. . .and beyond, to co-creation”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 195-196.
Richter, A. and Koch, M. (2007), “Social software –status quo und Zukunft”, available at: https://
dokumente.unibw.de/pub/bscw.cgi/d1696185/2007-01.pdf (accessed 5 May 2019).
Rossiter, J.R. (2002), “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305-335.
Şahin, A., Zehir, C. and Kitapçi, H. (2011), “The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on
building brand loyalty; an empirical research on global brands”, Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 1288-1301.
Sano, K. (2014), “Do social media marketing activities enhance customer satisfaction, promote
positive WOM and affect behavior intention? An investigation into the effects of
social media on the tourism industry”, Doshisha Commerce Journal, Vol. 66 No. 3,
pp. 491-515.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “How to specify, estimate,
and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 197-211.
Sautter, P., Hyman, M.R. and Lukosius, V. (2004), “E-tail atmospherics: a critique of the literature and
model extension”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-24.
Sembada, A.Y. and Koay, K.Y. (in press), “How perceived behavioral control affects trust to purchase
in social media stores”, Journal of Business Research.
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.
Stelzner, A.M. (2014), “2014 Social Media Marketing Industry Report”, available at: www.
socialmediaexaminer.com/report2014/ (accessed 5 May 2019).
Sullivan, G. and Feinn, R. (2012), “Using effect size—or why the p value is not enough”, Journal of
Graduate Medical Education, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 279-282.
Tuten, T. and Solomon, M.R. (2017), Social Media Marketing, Sage, New Jersey.
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.
West, C. (2019), 17 Instagram Stats Marketers Need to Know for 2019, available at: https://
sproutsocial.com/insights/instagram-stats/ (accessed 5 May 2019).
Xie, L., Poon, P. and Zhang, W. (2017), “Brand experience and customer citizenship behavior: the
role of brand relationship quality”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 268-280.
Yadav, M., Kamboj, S. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “Customer co-creation through social media: the case
of “Crash the Pepsi IPL 2015”, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 259-271.
Yadav, M. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “Measuring consumer perception of social media marketing
activities in e-commerce industry: scale development & validation”, Telematics and Informatics,
Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1294-1307.
APJML Yadav, M. and Rahman, Z. (2018), “The influence of social media marketing activities on customer
loyalty”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 3882-3905.
33,1
Yu, X. and Yuan, C. (2019), “How consumers’ brand experience in social media can improve brand
perception and customer equity”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 5,
pp. 1233-1251.
Zhang, H., Lu, Y., Gupta, S. and Zhao, L. (2014), “What motivates customers to participate in social
commerce? The impact of technological environments and virtual customer experiences”,
70 Information & Management, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 1017-1030.
Zhao, L., Lee, S. and Copeland, L. (2019), “Social media and Chinese consumers’ environmentally
sustainable apparel purchase intentions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 855-874.

Appendix 1

Perceived social media marketing activities

Interactivity
(1) The [brand’s] social media allows me to share and update the existing content.
(2) The [brand’s] social media interacts regularly with its followers and fans.
(3) The [brand’s] social media facilitates two-way interaction with family and friends.

Informativeness
(1) The [brand’s] social media offers accurate information on products.
(2) The [brand’s] social media offers useful information.
(3) The information provided by the [brand’s] social media is comprehensive.

Personalisation
(1) The [brand’s] social media makes purchase recommendations as per my requirements.
(2) I feel my needs are met by using [the brand’s] social media.
(3) The [brand’s] social media facilitates personalised information search.

Trendiness
(1) Contents visible on the [brand’s] social media is the latest trend.
(2) Using the [brand’s] social media is really trendy.
(3) Anything trendy is available on the [brand’s] social media.

Word-of mouth
(1) I would recommend my friends to visit the [brand’s] social media.
(2) I would encourage my friends and acquaintances to use the [brand’s] social media.
(3) I would like to share my purchase experiences with friends and acquaintances on the [brand’s]
social media.
Brand experience Influence of
social media
Sensory dimension
marketing
(1) This [brand] makes a strong impression on my visual senses or other senses.
(2) I find this [brand] interesting in a sensory way.
(3) This [brand] does not appeal to my senses. 71
Affective dimension
(1) This [brand] induces feelings and sentiments.
(2) I do not have strong emotions for this [brand].
(3) This [brand] is an emotional brand.

Behavioural dimension
(1) I engage in physical actions and behaviours when I use this [brand].
(2) This [brand] results in bodily experiences.
(3) This [brand] is not action-oriented.

Intellectual dimension
(1) I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this [brand].
(2) This [brand] does not make me think.
(3) This [brand] stimulates my curiosity and problem solving.

Consumer-based brand equity

Brand loyalty
(1) I consider myself to be loyal to the [brand].
(2) The [brand] would be my first choice.
(3) I will not buy other brands if the [brand] is available at the store.

Perceived quality
(1) The likely quality of the [brand] is extremely high.
(2) The likelihood that the [brand] would be functional is very high.

Brand awareness/associations
(1) I can recognise the [brand] among other competing brands.
(2) I am aware of the [brand].
(3) Some characteristics of the [brand] come to my mind quickly.
(4) I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of the [brand].
(5) I have difficulty in imagining the [brand] in my mind.
APJML Co-creation behaviour
33,1 (1) I have co-designed services in the [brand’s] social media.
(2) I have co-created services in the [brand’s] social media.
(3) I have co-evaluated services in the [brand’s] social media.

72
Corresponding author
Kian Yeik Koay can be contacted at: koaydarren@hotmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats